m

First topic message reminder :

GeordieFalcon wrote:Sam Simmonds should be a 12.

With limited distribution and no kicking game... I hate to be a killjoy but he sounds a bit like Manu without the same power!

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd rarely if ever say that 1 player costs a rugby team the game. Too much of a team sport. He was abysmal in that final though. SA targeted him well and tbh he looked shell shocked. I'm pleased he's out however that came about and looking forward to the next guy nailing down the position for the near future.

Many things went wrong for England in that game - the wrong tactics (trying to pace the game at the start and let SA blow themselves out as they had against NZ in the pool game), the wrong selection (not having Marler and Kruis on from the start against the only side that could match England for setpiece power), not having an answer to the targeting of Daly... but the biggest one was sheer bad luck: Maro's elbow on Sinckler's bonce. Firstly it meant that Dan Cole had to do 78 minutes against two monster front rows, and secondly I am convinced that Eddie had a lot of attacking moves planned using Sinck as first receiver (he tried a couple successfully the previous autumn and then hid them away), so a big chunk of the gameplan went out of the window.

I doubt that Daly is going to be fully out of contention unless the new back 3 players seize their shirts decisively (a big ask given how inexperienced they are), but I do hope that Steward or Malins can provide a better blend of skills at the back and keep him out of the 15 shirt.

nlpnlp wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Wheres Groves gone to? The Championship?

Same as Kpoku to Coventry...might add a bit of steel to their game...the championship seems to toughen them up a bit.

Second row is an area that I worry about for England.  Itoje is outstanding, but Lawes seems to have moved to 6 and in fairness was always better in the loose than the tight.  Launchbury seems to be permanently broken and Hill has much to prove at International level yet.  Ewels is mehhhh.  There was a time when every England club side had a couple of big, robust second rows and England could choose 2 from the likes of Johnson, Kay, Grewcock, Shaw, etc.

When I look at premiership teams now, I don't see many second rows pushing for England selection, just a collection of journeymen.  In fact I don't see many strong forward packs.  We seem to have moved towards more mobile footballers and lost the big, bad gnarly forwards who could beat up opponents (hence the influx of South Africans particularly at my club Sale).

I think we're OK for the moment but we do have to hope a few good ones come through.

I think Lawes and Itoje are top class. But not a good combination. One or the other.

Launchbury hopefully will be back and he's your bruiser. He's not been in the picture alot but I would have no issues with him back in the squad.

Isiekwe is playing quality at the moment. He's finally showing his talent off. Dominating line outs and he's a superb athlete. I'd have put him in the squad.

Johnny Hill...seems to divide opinions. My biggest issue with him is his handling. He knocks the ball on so much.

I dont get Ewells constant inclusion....

Theres a few youngsters...George Martin will move to Lock but playing exceptionally well at 6 at the moment.

I definitely think Lawes and Itoje can partner each other with the right tactics.

Lawes and Itoje started in the semi-final win against NZ where they outplayed Retallick and Whitelock as a partnership. Also the QF hammering of Australia. With the right game plan they can definitely work.

Interestingly Lawes started at lock in the convincing win against SA in 2016 against 4.Etzebeth 5.Lood 6.Alberts 7.du Toit. That was one of the biggest packs I've ever seen! Daly also played centre that day when England were using very different tactics.

I do sometimes think that the RWC final and building a side to beat that SA pack at their own game has become a bit of a fixation for some. Almost as if revenge should be the aim rather than building the best side we can with the players we've got.

Even if playing the Boks is a concern then getting in an arm wrestle with them certainly shouldn't be the plan. As a pretty flawed Australia side showed in successive games recently they can be beaten if you don't get sucked into that forward battle for 80 minutes.

Poorfour wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd rarely if ever say that 1 player costs a rugby team the game. Too much of a team sport. He was abysmal in that final though. SA targeted him well and tbh he looked shell shocked. I'm pleased he's out however that came about and looking forward to the next guy nailing down the position for the near future.

Many things went wrong for England in that game - the wrong tactics (trying to pace the game at the start and let SA blow themselves out as they had against NZ in the pool game), the wrong selection (not having Marler and Kruis on from the start against the only side that could match England for setpiece power), not having an answer to the targeting of Daly... but the biggest one was sheer bad luck: Maro's elbow on Sinckler's bonce. Firstly it meant that Dan Cole had to do 78 minutes against two monster front rows, and secondly I am convinced that Eddie had a lot of attacking moves planned using Sinck as first receiver (he tried a couple successfully the previous autumn and then hid them away), so a big chunk of the gameplan went out of the window.

I doubt that Daly is going to be fully out of contention unless the new back 3 players seize their shirts decisively (a big ask given how inexperienced they are), but I do hope that Steward or Malins can provide a better blend of skills at the back and keep him out of the 15 shirt.

All I can recall is SA throwing up bombs....Daly knocking on continually and then Dan Cole getting mullered in the scrum. Not a good day....

king_carlos wrote:I definitely think Lawes and Itoje can partner each other with the right tactics.

Lawes and Itoje started in the semi-final win against NZ where they outplayed Retallick and Whitelock as a partnership. Also the QF hammering of Australia. With the right game plan they can definitely work.

Interestingly Lawes started at lock in the convincing win against SA in 2016 against 4.Etzebeth 5.Lood 6.Alberts 7.du Toit. That was one of the biggest packs I've ever seen! Daly also played centre that day when England were using very different tactics.

I do sometimes think that the RWC final and building a side to beat that SA pack at their own game has become a bit of a fixation for some. Almost as if revenge should be the aim rather than building the best side we can with the players we've got.

Even if playing the Boks is a concern then getting in an arm wrestle with them certainly shouldn't be the plan. As a pretty flawed Australia side showed in successive games recently they can be beaten if you don't get sucked into that forward battle for 80 minutes.

I'm a little unsure of Itoje/Lawes as a permanent pair, I just think they lack a bit of bulk between them. I could see Hill starting, especially if we come up against SA.

1. Marler
2. George
3. Sinkler
4. Hill
5. Itoje
6. Lawes
7. Curry
8. Dombrandt

I think we could see something like this.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

king_carlos wrote:I definitely think Lawes and Itoje can partner each other with the right tactics.

Lawes and Itoje started in the semi-final win against NZ where they outplayed Retallick and Whitelock as a partnership. Also the QF hammering of Australia. With the right game plan they can definitely work.

Interestingly Lawes started at lock in the convincing win against SA in 2016 against 4.Etzebeth 5.Lood 6.Alberts 7.du Toit. That was one of the biggest packs I've ever seen! Daly also played centre that day when England were using very different tactics.

I do sometimes think that the RWC final and building a side to beat that SA pack at their own game has become a bit of a fixation for some. Almost as if revenge should be the aim rather than building the best side we can with the players we've got.

Even if playing the Boks is a concern then getting in an arm wrestle with them certainly shouldn't be the plan. As a pretty flawed Australia side showed in successive games recently they can be beaten if you don't get sucked into that forward battle for 80 minutes.

I'm a little unsure of Itoje/Lawes as a permanent pair, I just think they lack a bit of bulk between them. I could see Hill starting, especially if we come up against SA.

1. Marler
2. George
3. Sinkler
4. Hill
5. Itoje
6. Lawes
7. Curry
8. Dombrandt

I think we could see something like this.

I'm more in the get your best players on the park camp as usual, just struggle to see Hill as one of our best 8 forwards at the moment. Hopefully he proves me wrong. If we had another test Lion in Kruis available it's an easier discussion of course.

If we're trying to beat up massive packs they lack bulk. If we're using a quicker game plan, high ball in play time and using our kicking game to play in the right areas but prevent regular set-piece opportunities for the opposition then I think they can definitely work together. In simple I'd rather we move towards trying to keep playing as we did against NZ and Australia in SF and QF when we come up against massive packs. In recent times it has felt that we've been playing into other teams tactics a bit much rather than just trying to impose the style best suited to the players we have.

With Jones, Cockers and Proudfoot working together I think that sort of lineup is fairly likely though as all 3 like an extra lineout option in the back row. It's not something I'm dead set against. Just with Kruis and Launchbury unavailable I'm not sure it's the best use of the players we've got available.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd rarely if ever say that 1 player costs a rugby team the game. Too much of a team sport. He was abysmal in that final though. SA targeted him well and tbh he looked shell shocked. I'm pleased he's out however that came about and looking forward to the next guy nailing down the position for the near future.

Many things went wrong for England in that game - the wrong tactics (trying to pace the game at the start and let SA blow themselves out as they had against NZ in the pool game), the wrong selection (not having Marler and Kruis on from the start against the only side that could match England for setpiece power), not having an answer to the targeting of Daly... but the biggest one was sheer bad luck: Maro's elbow on Sinckler's bonce. Firstly it meant that Dan Cole had to do 78 minutes against two monster front rows, and secondly I am convinced that Eddie had a lot of attacking moves planned using Sinck as first receiver (he tried a couple successfully the previous autumn and then hid them away), so a big chunk of the gameplan went out of the window.

I doubt that Daly is going to be fully out of contention unless the new back 3 players seize their shirts decisively (a big ask given how inexperienced they are), but I do hope that Steward or Malins can provide a better blend of skills at the back and keep him out of the 15 shirt.

All I can recall is SA throwing up bombs....Daly knocking on continually and then Dan Cole getting mullered in the scrum. Not a good day....

A touch harsh on Cole. The second Marler came on to join him England won a scrum penalty prompting SA to change the front row. England then held parity for the second half. More a LH than TH issue that would indicate to me.

king_carlos wrote:
A touch harsh on Cole. The second Marler came on to join him England won a scrum penalty prompting SA to change the front row. England then held parity for the second half. More a LH than TH issue that would indicate to me.

IIRC, Kruis came on at almost the same time as Marler and I think it was the combination of them together that shored up the scrum - but by that point the cracks were starting to show in open play.

With the selection debate for SA I think it obviously has to factor in your tactics on the day. If you go with a plan to move the Boks around and play with pace then you can have Curry and Underhill in your backrow and partner Lawes with Itoje if you want. But if you want to slug it out then Hill/Launchbury with Itoje and Lawes at 6 looks better. We just need to play to the strengths of our players whilst trying to exploit the weaknesses of the opposition (stating the bleeding obvious here I appreciate). I think it is patently obvious that England need to play with more pace than we have recently, whilst not doing this in the wrong parts of the pitch. We have no idea how England will play, but there is no point picking players and then not using their strengths i.e. Daly in the 1st Lions test.

hugehandoff wrote:With the selection debate for SA I think it obviously has to factor in your tactics on the day. If you go with a plan to move the Boks around and play with pace then you can have Curry and Underhill in your backrow and partner Lawes with Itoje if you want. But if you want to slug it out then Hill/Launchbury with Itoje and Lawes at 6 looks better. We just need to play to the strengths of our players whilst trying to exploit the weaknesses of the opposition (stating the bleeding obvious here I appreciate). I think it is patently obvious that England need to play with more pace than we have recently, whilst not doing this in the wrong parts of the pitch. We have no idea how England will play, but there is no point picking players and then not using their strengths i.e. Daly in the 1st Lions test.

To be fair to Daly, the Lions tactics in the first test were trying to play to his strengths by moving the ball quickly to him to get it outside the Bok defence. It didn't work, but that's because the Lions weren't getting quick enough ball and Am was able to get up and into Daly's face before he could do anything.

If Russell had been fit (or - dare I say it - Smith had been on the bench) then things might have been different. If the defence rushes, it's an opportunity for a change of direction or a kick pass, and that potentially introduces hesitancy in later phases. We saw that work for 20 glorious minutes in the 3rd Test, but by then it was too little too late.

m?

mmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

king_carlos wrote:I definitely think Lawes and Itoje can partner each other with the right tactics.

Lawes and Itoje started in the semi-final win against NZ where they outplayed Retallick and Whitelock as a partnership. Also the QF hammering of Australia. With the right game plan they can definitely work.

Interestingly Lawes started at lock in the convincing win against SA in 2016 against 4.Etzebeth 5.Lood 6.Alberts 7.du Toit. That was one of the biggest packs I've ever seen! Daly also played centre that day when England were using very different tactics.

I do sometimes think that the RWC final and building a side to beat that SA pack at their own game has become a bit of a fixation for some. Almost as if revenge should be the aim rather than building the best side we can with the players we've got.

Even if playing the Boks is a concern then getting in an arm wrestle with them certainly shouldn't be the plan. As a pretty flawed Australia side showed in successive games recently they can be beaten if you don't get sucked into that forward battle for 80 minutes.

I'm a little unsure of Itoje/Lawes as a permanent pair, I just think they lack a bit of bulk between them. I could see Hill starting, especially if we come up against SA.

1. Marler
2. George
3. Sinkler
4. Hill
5. Itoje
6. Lawes
7. Curry
8. Dombrandt

I think we could see something like this.

Drop Hill, move Lawes into the row and put Martin at 6. Gain more in the loose but still have stopping power in defence and the third jumper at the lineout. Might lose a bit of weight at scrum and in the tight but we tried the arm wrestle approach with SA previously and it didn't work. Mobile physicality.

Blamire, Genge, Stuart, Hill, Underhill off the bench should add some impact. Well maybe not Hill but it's him or Ewers...

Remember that Dombrandt is also a useful jumping option. Think the blindside at the lineout comes more into it if you're picking simmonds.

Not long left now anyway till we get some training drop outs!

No 7&1/2 wrote:Remember that Dombrandt is also a useful jumping option. Think the blindside at the lineout comes more into it if you're picking simmonds

That's true, the jumping option at blindside was because Billy was too heavy to lift. 

Dombrandt isn't really the biggest tackler but he does attack the breakdown well so the Lawes and Martin combo at lock and six could help facilitate that. Having Lawes and Martin carrying hard it would also free up Dombrandt to romp around the wider channels like he does for Quins or run off Smith.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:mmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

You said it so much better than I.

It's not necessarily the side I would pick, but I could see Eddie going with it. I'm not a big fan of Hill, but he seems to be rated. Martin is still a bit raw for a starter imo, no issues from the bench.

Jones had an interview a couple of weeks ago where he cam out and said he does not view Martin as a lock, and the doesn't think he will for a couple of years.

So come on then....team for Tonga? Not experimental, more a tune up for the next two....

1 Marler / Genge
2 George
3 Sinkler
4 Lawes
5 Itoje
6 Martin
7 Curry
8 Dombrandt

9 Quirke
10 Smith
11 Malins
12 Farrell
13 Marchant / Manu
14 Radwan
15 Steward

GeordieFalcon wrote:So come on then....team for Tonga? Not experimental, more a tune up for the next two....

1 Marler / Genge
2 George
3 Sinkler
4 Lawes
5 Itoje
6 Martin
7 Curry
8 Dombrandt

9 Quirke
10 Smith
11 Malins
12 Farrell
13 Marchant / Manu
14 Radwan
15 Steward

Very similar but with the bench added:

1 Marler
2 George
3 Sinkler
4 Lawes
5 Itoje
6 Underhill
7 Curry
8 Dombrandt

9 Quirke
10 Smith
11 May
12 Farrell
13 Manu
14 Radwan
15 Steward


16 Genge
17 Blamire
18 Davison
19 Ewels
20 Martin
21 Youngs
22 Marchant
23 Malins

I think Genge to start. I suspect that now Mako has been sidelined and with Genge showing greater authority that they are going to commit to giving him more of a run. Marler is a fantastic back up option.

I also think May will start as they won't want an all rookie back 3 (although Malins has a reasonable number of caps)

lostinwales wrote:I think Genge to start. I suspect that now Mako has been sidelined and with Genge showing greater authority that they are going to commit to giving him more of a run. Marler is a fantastic back up option.

I also think May will start as they won't want an all rookie back 3 (although Malins has a reasonable number of caps)

I'd be happy for Genge to start against Tonga, but I'd definitely want Marler to start against the Boks. I think Genge still has a bit of work to do to become an international class scrummager.

Guys,

Just for awareness, we have to lock threads once they go past 20 pages. So either I can use a few posts from this thread as a starting point if it happens, or somebody can create a better, more jazzier thread.

Ill start an AI one Risca

Poorfour wrote:

lostinwales wrote:I think Genge to start. I suspect that now Mako has been sidelined and with Genge showing greater authority that they are going to commit to giving him more of a run. Marler is a fantastic back up option.

I also think May will start as they won't want an all rookie back 3 (although Malins has a reasonable number of caps)

I'd be happy for Genge to start against Tonga, but I'd definitely want Marler to start against the Boks. I think Genge still has a bit of work to do to become an international class scrummager.

Genge has been pretty reliable at the set piece at international level. His main issue for me has been that he has struggled to get his carrying game going. He's not a defensive beast like Marler so he needs that carrying element to his play if he's going to take the starting 1 shirt.

His leadership qualities are coming through though, that'll help him.

Genge has struggled in the set piece, that's my major concern with him. Strange as he's impressive in the Prem.

Disagree he's struggled. For me the combo of him and Marler worked excellently in the world cup. Would like to see him start vs aus.

I can't point to the stats, but I remember being hugely frustrated at how the scrum went when he was on in the 6N. To be fair, nearly everyone on the pitch was underperforming, but I've not yet got to a point where I'm confident he can do a decent job against all comers.

Agree Poorfour, he gets pinged a lot. He's been less than steady and has struggled against the better scrummaging sides. For such a quality LH in the prem....arguably the best, he's been extremely underwhelming.

On the flip though, he's still quite a young lad at 26 and scrummaging power can come later into a career. He's certainly worth sticking with.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Agree Poorfour, he gets pinged a lot. He's been less than steady and has struggled against the better scrummaging sides. For such a quality LH in the prem....arguably the best, he's been extremely underwhelming.

On the flip though, he's still quite a young lad at 26 and scrummaging power can come later into a career. He's certainly worth sticking with.  

He reminds me a lot of where Marler was in his first few international seasons. Great in the loose but unreliable in the scrum. Marler made his choice and sacrificed some of his carrying ability to become a very solid scrummager - and then added a brutal ability in the tackle.

Genge has time to make his choice, but not a huge amount of time. He needs to decide whether he's happy to continue being one of the best all round props in the Prem, or whether he wants to achieve all he can on the international stage.

Hmm I don't remember him struggling at the set piece, though our scrum was not close to being on top which was disappointing. He came off the bench Vs Ireland and steadied the ship with Furlong turning Mako inside out. To be honest I think he has more to give in every department at international level but does need to show it soon before someone comes through and takes the chance he hasn't.

Genge seems to have matured a lot from last spring to now. So I'm hoping he takes that on to international level. He's been very good this season but the Tigers scrum has only been solid it hasn't really been demolishing teams, Worcester aside though it did go well against Sale.

Genges performances will be certainly one to watch this AI. If i was honest, id probably prefer him to follow Marlers route and become a real tough scrummager and physical defender. But everyone does love to see him on the charge in the prem.

Theres a few EQ LH's ...but im not sure the likes of Obano etc are a threat. West at Wasps could be...im a big fan of his.  

Then you go back to some of the next batch of kids, who are a bit down the line and probably come to fruit post WC 23.

So Genge (with Marler and Mako supporting) has time to really develop.