RugbyRebels

It's Eddie, so we know there won't be a revolution. It's England, so we know we'll have to pick from the 35-man squad.

1. MVunipola
2. George (c)
3. Sinckler
4. Itoje
5. Kruis
6. Curry
7. Underhill
8. Earl

9. Heinz
10. Ford
11. May
12. Devoto
13. Tuilagi / Joseph
14. Daly / Watson
15. Watson / Furbank

16. LCD, 17. Genge, 18. Stuart, 19. Ewels, 20. Ludlam
21. Youngs, 22.Farrell, 23. Furbank/Daly

2 Injury returnees
4 players dropped, 3 to the bench


It won't happen, but I'd admit the mistake and have one of Simmonds/Kvesic/Dombrandt/Harrison/Morgan/Mercer/Hughes brought into the wider squad to get into speed for match 3 - Mercer would be the best face-saver, assuming he's close enough to returning from injury, Kvesic has the most recent experience with the squad (is he fit?). Otherwise, he's made his bed with the squad, and now has to lie in it IMO.


Front Row: IMO Mako and Marler get selected on a horses for courses, Genge gets to bench throughout this 6N to get more experience. George is a better leader than Farrell, and is in the best position to lead from, captaincy aside, I'd give LCD his chance. Sinckler has a poor game, but he's stil our best THP, Stuart needs more than 3 minutes.
Locks: We o it need 2 of them, preferably our best pairing. Ewels wouldn't be my choice initially, but played better than Lawes, and if he was bad enough individually to deserve dropping then we have to replace a full dozen - definitely doesn't deserve scape-goat status.
Back Row: Earl is the closest thing to a #8 in the wider squad. The closest England have ever come to making 3 locks work was when one of them was Croft. Have either of Lawes/Itoje had even 1 good game wearing 6?

SH: Young is terrible, and has been for a while now. There's no-one putting their hands up and demanding selection, and we've only got 2 SHs in the wider squad (and Irish or Welsh juniors we can target?), so he either benches, or we play without a bench SH. Ford is simply a better rugby player and a better FH than Farrell. It also means that the 3 worst performing players today (all of them seniors who are supposed to be calm heads) are dropped from the starting XV.
Midfield: Imagine that, an inside centre and an outside centre, playing together in the centres. You know what? It might just work!
Back 3: May and Watson have to start (if fit) so it's really a selection between Furbank and Daly, Daly can be good on the wing (but hasn't yet at FB), no shame for Furbank in sitting on the bench.

I'd take that, given the squad, but we know the half-backs will be the other way round. What do you mean RE: Mercer? Jones could pretend he only went without an 8 because he was waiting on Mercer's fitness?

Scottish scrum was surprisingly strong v Ireland, but I'm not sure what that would mean for selection. Was it Genge who made the difference on Sunday or was it just coincidence?

Which Tyler wrote:It's Eddie, so we know there won't be a revolution. It's England, so we know we'll have to pick from the 35-man squad.

1. MVunipola
2. George (c)
3. Sinckler
4. Itoje
5. Kruis
6. Curry
7. Underhill
8. Earl

9. Heinz
10. Ford
11. May
12. Devoto
13. Tuilagi / Joseph
14. Daly / Watson
15. Watson / Furbank

16. LCD, 17. Genge, 18. Stuart, 19. Ewels, 20. Ludlam
21. Youngs, 22.Farrell, 23. Furbank/Daly

2 Injury returnees
4 players dropped, 3 to the bench


It won't happen, but I'd admit the mistake and have one of Simmonds/Kvesic/Dombrandt/Harrison/Morgan/Mercer/Hughes brought into the wider squad to get into speed for match 3 - Mercer would be the best face-saver, assuming he's close enough to returning from injury, Kvesic has the most recent experience with the squad (is he fit?). Otherwise, he's made his bed with the squad, and now has to lie in it IMO.


Front Row: IMO Mako and Marler get selected on a horses for courses, Genge gets to bench throughout this 6N to get more experience. George is a better leader than Farrell, and is in the best position to lead from, captaincy aside, I'd give LCD his chance. Sinckler has a poor game, but he's stil our best THP, Stuart needs more than 3 minutes.
Locks: We o it need 2 of them, preferably our best pairing. Ewels wouldn't be my choice initially, but played better than Lawes, and if he was bad enough individually to deserve dropping then we have to replace a full dozen - definitely doesn't deserve scape-goat status.
Back Row: Earl is the closest thing to a #8 in the wider squad. The closest England have ever come to making 3 locks work was when one of them was Croft. Have either of Lawes/Itoje had even 1 good game wearing 6?

SH: Young is terrible, and has been for a while now. There's no-one putting their hands up and demanding selection, and we've only got 2 SHs in the wider squad (and Irish or Welsh juniors we can target?), so he either benches, or we play without a bench SH. Ford is simply a better rugby player and a better FH than Farrell. It also means that the 3 worst performing players today (all of them seniors who are supposed to be calm heads) are dropped from the starting XV.
Midfield: Imagine that, an inside centre and an outside centre, playing together in the centres. You know what? It might just work!
Back 3: May and Watson have to start (if fit) so it's really a selection between Furbank and Daly, Daly can be good on the wing (but hasn't yet at FB), no shame for Furbank in sitting on the bench.

He’s done something else to his bed imo and stunk the house out

Mikey Brown wrote:I'd take that, given the squad, but we know the half-backs will be the other way round. What do you mean RE: Mercer? Jones could pretend he only went without an 8 because he was waiting on Mercer's fitness?

Scottish scrum was surprisingly strong v Ireland, but I'm not sure what that would mean for selection. Was it Genge who made the difference on Sunday or was it just coincidence?

Genge always was a very strong scrummager and has improved a lot recently as well. Mind, he was helped by Bamba coming on at the same time as him.

Puja

Ideally, with as many changes to the squad as I like (assuming Tuilagi not fit):

1. Marler
2. LCD
3. Sinckler
4. Itoje (capt)
5. Launchbury
6. Willis
7. Curry
8. Hughes

9. Spencer
10. Ford
11. May
12. Devoto
13. Joseph
14. Daly
15. Watson

16. George, 17. M Vunipola, 18. Stuart, 19. Lawes, 20. Simmonds,
21. Robson, 22. Smith, 23. Thorley.

If I have to stick to the squad:

1. Marler
2. LCD
3. Sinckler
4. Itoje (capt)
5. Launchbury
6. Curry
7. Underhill
8. Earl

9. Youngs
10. Ford
11. May
12. Devoto
13.Joseph
14. Daly
15. Watson

16. George, 17. M Vunipola, 18. Stuart, 19. Lawes, 20. Ludlam
21. Heinz, 22. Farrell, 23. Thorley.

Hughes? Really?

We don't think you should change a single thing.

Scrumhead wrote:Hughes? Really?

Yes, at this stage. Why not? The way Jones sets up his teams there needs to be a bulk carrier in the centre and control at the base of the scrum. I'd also have Simmonds on the bench as an alternative. I'd cheerfully prefer Dombrandt if I was prepared to write off this year's 6N. Overall, I'd prefer that route but only with a new head coach. I just cannot get my head around our guy having a contract to midstream. I wonder if any other major rugby power is currently doing the same? (You may get fed up with me trotting out the same complaint but we can only debate within the constraints set i.e. Jones in the job for 2 years.)

Same squad for Scotland. No additions, like a No 8 or a different SH. Expect one or two tweaks in the 23 but anything more serious is going to have to wait. Given the 6 day turnaround perhaps not a great surprise....
Forwards
Luke Cowan-Dickie (Exeter Chiefs)
Tom Curry (Sale Sharks)
Tom Dunn (Bath Rugby)
Ben Earl (Saracens)
Charlie Ewels (Bath Rugby)
Ellis Genge (Leicester Tigers)
Jamie George (Saracens)
Ted Hill (Worcester Warriors)
Maro Itoje (Saracens)
George Kruis (Saracens)
Joe Launchbury (Wasps)
Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints)
Lewis Ludlam (Northampton Saints)
Joe Marler (Harlequins)
Alex Moon (Northampton Saints)
Kyle Sinckler (Harlequins)
Will Stuart (Bath Rugby)
Sam Underhill (Bath Rugby)
Mako Vunipola (Saracens)
Harry Williams (Exeter Chiefs)
Backs
Elliot Daly (Saracens)
Ollie Devoto (Exeter Chiefs)
Fraser Dingwall (Northampton Saints)
Owen Farrell (Saracens
George Ford (Leicester Tigers)
George Furbank (Northampton Saints)
Willi Heinz (Gloucester Rugby)
Jonathan Joseph (Bath Rugby)
Jonny May (Leicester Tigers)
Ollie Thorley (Gloucester Rugby)
Manu Tuilagi (Leicester Tigers)
Jacob Umaga (Wasps)
Anthony Watson (Bath Rugby)
Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers)

Apprentice player
Alex Mitchell (Northampton Saints, uncapped)

Gawd

It would be good if EJ showed Curridge and put Ben in the mix this 6N.Even if he was 85% as good as Tom in a white shirt he'd be worth a shout - certainly at Sale they are considered interchangeable,
..with possible added value:
"But Jones is understood to have previously indicated to the club that the uncapped Curry should be converted into a scrum-half.." (daily m).
That should keep 'em guessing.

Galfon wrote:It would be good if EJ showed Curridge and put Ben in the mix this 6N.Even if he was 85% as good as Tom in a white shirt he'd be worth a shout - certainly at Sale they are considered interchangeable,
..with possible added value:
"But Jones is understood to have previously indicated to the club that the uncapped Curry should be converted into a scrum-half.." (daily m).
That should keep 'em guessing.

On the business of converting to scrum half - I always had the feeling George Ford would make a good one. Natural footballer, good gas, nice passer, rugby brain. Give him a few weeks to get up to speed and he'd probably be better than Youngs.

Spiffy wrote:

Galfon wrote:It would be good if EJ showed Curridge and put Ben in the mix this 6N.Even if he was 85% as good as Tom in a white shirt he'd be worth a shout - certainly at Sale they are considered interchangeable,
..with possible added value:
"But Jones is understood to have previously indicated to the club that the uncapped Curry should be converted into a scrum-half.." (daily m).
That should keep 'em guessing.

On the business of converting to scrum half - I always had the feeling George Ford would make a good one. Natural footballer, good gas, nice passer, rugby brain. Give him a few weeks to get up to speed and he'd probably be better than Youngs.

Surely that’s a typo. Did you mean to say ‘give him the 9 shirt’?

Spiffy wrote:

Galfon wrote:It would be good if EJ showed Curridge and put Ben in the mix this 6N.Even if he was 85% as good as Tom in a white shirt he'd be worth a shout - certainly at Sale they are considered interchangeable,
..with possible added value:
"But Jones is understood to have previously indicated to the club that the uncapped Curry should be converted into a scrum-half.." (daily m).
That should keep 'em guessing.

On the business of converting to scrum half - I always had the feeling George Ford would make a good one. Natural footballer, good gas, nice passer, rugby brain. Give him a few weeks to get up to speed and he'd probably be better than Youngs.

I remember being shouted down for suggesting it was tried at U18s.
I've always had a fondness for the French style halfbacks who can play both positions, and though GF would be perfect for the role

Ben Curry as a scrum half - was Eddie thinking how well that went for Mauro and thought Geez sport I want some of that ?

Which Tyler wrote:

Spiffy wrote:

Galfon wrote:It would be good if EJ showed Curridge and put Ben in the mix this 6N.Even if he was 85% as good as Tom in a white shirt he'd be worth a shout - certainly at Sale they are considered interchangeable,
..with possible added value:
"But Jones is understood to have previously indicated to the club that the uncapped Curry should be converted into a scrum-half.." (daily m).
That should keep 'em guessing.

On the business of converting to scrum half - I always had the feeling George Ford would make a good one. Natural footballer, good gas, nice passer, rugby brain. Give him a few weeks to get up to speed and he'd probably be better than Youngs.

I remember being shouted down for suggesting it was tried at U18s.
I've always had a fondness for the French style halfbacks who can play both positions, and though GF would be perfect for the role

One wonders why when he's such a good 10 though? I am surprised he and Marcus Smith don't get more such comments 'cause they're both short

jngf wrote:Ben Curry as a scrum half - was Eddie thinking how well that went for Mauro and thought Geez sport I want some of that ?

He fancies being able to pick an ersatz Mike Phillips

16th man wrote:

jngf wrote:Ben Curry as a scrum half - was Eddie thinking how well that went for Mauro and thought Geez sport I want some of that ?

He fancies being able to pick an ersatz Mike Phillips

Do you purposefully post the 16th reply on every post or is it just pure luck? :p

You will have to start a new thread to get your answer

With England's paucity of class scrum halves, I'm amazed why Wiggelsworth hasn't had more caps. Eddie must've lost his phone number.

Digby wrote:One wonders why when he's such a good 10 though?

Because he's short.
Because I'm a huge fan of the French style halfbacks who can play both positions and want one of them for us.
Because GF seemed the best bet (AKA best hands, good commincation, range of passing) to take that roll since Lamb had failed to.
Because I think SH is a particularly important position, and want one of our best players there - rather than the least important of the backs, who gets the "not quite good enough to play anywhere else" rejects that English rugby likes to put in the 9 shirt.
Because we had nad no particularly promising age-grade SHs for a while when GF was in the U18s.
Because we had several strong options available at FH, and I was expecting Cipriani to be the established starter (with probably Burns as the understudy) by the time Ford&Faz were challenging.
Because we'd had to move Fazlet into the centres to accomodate GF at FH, despite GF being the younger.


Abstract: We were weak at SH, and had been for a while. We were strong at FH and had been for a while. I love players who can play both positions. Ford looked the perfect player to try to play both positions.


Of course, a pointless discussion now, and I was shouted down for wanting to waste a talented FH by trying to teach him SH play 9-10 years ago, so I have no expectation of winning the argument now either.

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:One wonders why when he's such a good 10 though?

Because he's short.
Because I'm a huge fan of the French style halfbacks who can play both positions and want one of them for us.
Because GF seemed the best bet (AKA best hands, good commincation, range of passing) to take that roll since Lamb had failed to.
Because I think SH is a particularly important position, and want one of our best players there - rather than the least important of the backs, who gets the "not quite good enough to play anywhere else" rejects that English rugby likes to put in the 9 shirt.
Because we had nad no particularly promising age-grade SHs for a while when GF was in the U18s.
Because we had several strong options available at FH, and I was expecting Cipriani to be the established starter (with probably Burns as the understudy) by the time Ford&Faz were challenging.
Because we'd had to move Fazlet into the centres to accomodate GF at FH, despite GF being the younger.


Abstract: We were weak at SH, and had been for a while. We were strong at FH and had been for a while. I love players who can play both positions. Ford looked the perfect player to try to play both positions.


Of course, a pointless discussion now, and I was shouted down for wanting to waste a talented FH by trying to teach him SH play 9-10 years ago, so I have no expectation of winning the argument now either.

Hmm. Let the undroppable captain Farrell do his bashing and his shouting and face-smashing and his goal-kicking and controlled multi-phase bla bla bla from 10. Get an actual centre in the side. Allow Ford to take it to the line and distribute when we need to actually attack. All that AND get rid of Ben Youngs? Yes please.

I would genuinely take that option (from this squad) if offered it.

Do you think marcus smith could be converted to a good sh?

Mikey Brown wrote:Hmm. Let the undroppable captain Farrell do his bashing and his shouting and face-smashing and his goal-kicking and controlled multi-phase bla bla bla from 10. Get an actual centre in the side. Allow Ford to take it to the line and distribute when we need to actually attack. All that AND get rid of Ben Youngs? Yes please.

I would genuinely take that option (from this squad) if offered it.

Of course, we didn't know that about Farrell at U18s level

twitchy wrote:Do you think marcus smith could be converted to a good sh?

Too late.
Any such conversion needs to be done outside the public eye at age-grade / academy level. Which was one of the problems with the idea of Ford converting - he was too obvioulsy being fast-tracked, and he'd have needed a year or two being slow-tracked and playing SH 40 times at a lower level.
SH play is just too instinctive to learn it at a high level. If you have to stop and think, you've already taken too long; the decision needs to be made before you arrive at the ball; whilst the FH gets an extra second or two (or 10 if the SH is Youngs). But those instincts need to be honed with game time (Ford and Smith have the instincts, and the agility [which is where the size comes in - to a degree], but no time to hone them closer to the action).
Beyond that - he's probably got the physical skills, but I'm not yet convinced of his bossiness (cockiness yes, but not bossiness) - a good SH (FH needs the same with his backs) needs to be a loudmouthed pain in the arse for his forwards. I've not really seen that from Smith - though I will also admit to not having watched him with the thought in my head.

Whilst we're on the subject Kyle Eastmond is another I'd have tried converting to SH - IF he'd arried in Union without an eye on an England shirt, with both he and Bath being willing to send him out on loan for a couple of years to learn the position. We'd have needed to grab him before he'd made a name for himself in League.

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:One wonders why when he's such a good 10 though?

Because he's short.
Because I'm a huge fan of the French style halfbacks who can play both positions and want one of them for us.
Because GF seemed the best bet (AKA best hands, good commincation, range of passing) to take that roll since Lamb had failed to.
Because I think SH is a particularly important position, and want one of our best players there - rather than the least important of the backs, who gets the "not quite good enough to play anywhere else" rejects that English rugby likes to put in the 9 shirt.
Because we had nad no particularly promising age-grade SHs for a while when GF was in the U18s.
Because we had several strong options available at FH, and I was expecting Cipriani to be the established starter (with probably Burns as the understudy) by the time Ford&Faz were challenging.
Because we'd had to move Fazlet into the centres to accomodate GF at FH, despite GF being the younger.


Abstract: We were weak at SH, and had been for a while. We were strong at FH and had been for a while. I love players who can play both positions. Ford looked the perfect player to try to play both positions.


Of course, a pointless discussion now, and I was shouted down for wanting to waste a talented FH by trying to teach him SH play 9-10 years ago, so I have no expectation of winning the argument now either.

I'm up for the idea of having the players take on both roles at and u18s and u20s level to gain some sense of what the other part of their pair is after. Beyond that I'd try and not pick roles for players, especially if they have a clear idea what they want to do, and I say that accepting Ben Foden was very clear he wanted to be a 9