RugbyRebels

I blame the rugby mafia

Danno wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 12:06 pm I blame the rugby mafia

That would be cool!!!
And yet the sad truth is that some of us, Oakboy, can't navigate off this forum

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 11:47 am

Banquo wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 11:33 am

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 11:30 am

I know. All the reasons Lawes shouldn't be (or is unlikely to be) at lock again are mentioned every 5 minutes on here, that's sort of what I was getting at.

I can't say I'd noticed him being better than Willis or Earl recently either. Again I'm of the opinion that if 99% of them are playing badly it's not really about form or individual performance anymore.

Just reinforcing it tbh

(Then again, if we wanted to change our game plan and move the ball quickly and use width in attack, he might be worth a thought there. We could field a pretty mobile pack if we wanted to. We'd probably get stuffed tho)

What else do you change though? Lawes to lock and Ludlam to 6 (to get more of your beloved Saints in the team) might up the mobility a bit, but then what? Fling Rodd in at 1? We'll probably still pick the slowest back line in history, either way.

Genge is plenty mobile, Sinckler too, teach Dan to throw (Theo not Cole). Back row loads of choice. But you are right, I was getting carried away. Chessum is mobile enough anyway as well.

p/d wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 12:04 pm Both. Have you learnt nothing Danno

Yes and preferably here too.

I might even put every change of possession in the transfers thread.

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 10:58 am Is Lawes deserving of a second row spot? Does he help with grunt work that Kruis (and briefly Hill) offered?

Farrell and Earl on the poms is a good shout. Can you imagine the ferocity? The intensity? The galvanising effect?

I'm not looking at Lawes at lock anymore - I still think he's a lock playing ersatz flanker, but I also recognise he hasn't played lock in ages and has dropped the weight so that he'll now be an ersatz lock as well. It's the Itoje at 8 argument - we've taken an excellent lock and made a mediocre back row out of him, in an excellent use of our available resources.

Puja

Banquo wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 11:33 am

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 11:30 am

Banquo wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 11:22 am

He hasn't played second row out of choice in about 3 years, having shed a stone or so at Eddie's behest to play 6.

I know. All the reasons Lawes shouldn't be (or is unlikely to be) at lock again are mentioned every 5 minutes on here, that's sort of what I was getting at.

I can't say I'd noticed him being better than Willis or Earl recently either. Again I'm of the opinion that if 99% of them are playing badly it's not really about form or individual performance anymore.

Just reinforcing it tbh

(Then again, if we wanted to change our game plan and move the ball quickly and use width in attack, he might be worth a thought there. We could field a pretty mobile pack if we wanted to. We'd probably get stuffed tho)

The players we have are more suited to an expansive game plan but both the incumbent and the previous HC refused to go down that route. EJ because England always have a big nasty pack, or similar rubbish, and Stunningly Backwardsgameplan because he knows no other way and/or because he knows the Wiggler isn’t up to it.

IBWT…

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 12:36 pm

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 10:58 am Is Lawes deserving of a second row spot? Does he help with grunt work that Kruis (and briefly Hill) offered?

Farrell and Earl on the poms is a good shout. Can you imagine the ferocity? The intensity? The galvanising effect?

I'm not looking at Lawes at lock anymore - I still think he's a lock playing ersatz flanker, but I also recognise he hasn't played lock in ages and has dropped the weight so that he'll now be an ersatz lock as well. It's the Itoje at 8 argument - we've taken an excellent lock and made a mediocre back row out of him, in an excellent use of our available resources.

Puja

Has he though? I think he is back to the weight he was in 2019.

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 12:49 pmIBWT…

In before Which Tyler?


Lawes - he's not good enough to demand a place on the flank. He's also not good enough to demand a place in the row.

However, versatility never goes out of fashion for the bench selections; so put him there. Whilst I'm happy to acknowledge him as a specialist 6 who can cover 4, he's not our best option at 6, either individually or in terms of creating a coherent unit.

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 12:49 pmIBWT…

In Borthwick we trust?

p/d wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 12:57 pm

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 12:49 pmIBWT…

In Borthwick we trust?

NURSE!

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 12:53 pm

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 12:49 pmIBWT…

In before Which Tyler?


Lawes - he's not good enough to demand a place on the flank. He's also not good enough to demand a place in the row.

However, versatility never goes out of fashion for the bench selections; so put him there. Whilst I'm happy to acknowledge him as a specialist 6 who can cover 4, he's not our best option at 6, either individually or in terms of creating a coherent unit.

I think Lawes WAS well worth his place at 6 when at the top of his form a year or so back. Now, I'm not so sure, though how much is the result of his gorm I don't know. It goes back to what I said earliier in the thread - not one single player in the warm-ups has played to the best of his ability.

The back row as a unit has been poor. Willis has been criticised by some but I think he's the litmus test. If he is reduced to doing the tackling for others and is unable to play his normal game, something is fundamentally wrong with the set-up. Lawes's part in that must be questioned obviously but remembering that Billy V is the only 8 when playing so badly puts everything into context. SB needs to be very lucky to happen on a competitive back row for Saturday.

I miss Ewels

Stom wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 11:52 am

Banquo wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 11:33 am

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 11:30 am

I know. All the reasons Lawes shouldn't be (or is unlikely to be) at lock again are mentioned every 5 minutes on here, that's sort of what I was getting at.

I can't say I'd noticed him being better than Willis or Earl recently either. Again I'm of the opinion that if 99% of them are playing badly it's not really about form or individual performance anymore.

Just reinforcing it tbh

(Then again, if we wanted to change our game plan and move the ball quickly and use width in attack, he might be worth a thought there. We could field a pretty mobile pack if we wanted to. We'd probably get stuffed tho)

I think I'd rather get stuffed playing expansive than get stuffed playing Stupendously Boringball.

It doesn’t even have to be expansive per se, I just want to see us play in a way that better suits the players we have.

It’s all well and good saying that a simple, forward-based, power and kicking game is easier to implement but we don’t seem to have a powerful pack, a reliable kicker at 9 or a particularly good kick chase right now. I can’t really tell if Borthwick sees that or not?

“Heads up rugby” has become a bit of a joke phrase, but I’d love to see the players given a bit of freedom to attack.

The Ruck have gone early with their "inside knowledge" (best guess) for the lineup;

Genge, George, Sinckler
Chessum, Itoje
Lawes, Earl, Willis
Youngs, Ford
Lawrence, Marchant
Daly, Steward, May

Well that's the side that anybody would say is the default/safe option (with Farrell and Vunipola out) at this point. It's hard to picture him mixing it up too much.

FKAS wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 2:05 pm The Ruck have gone early with their "inside knowledge" (best guess) for the lineup;

Genge, George, Sinckler
Chessum, Itoje
Lawes, Earl, Willis
Youngs, Ford
Lawrence, Marchant
Daly, Steward, May

It could be worse.

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 2:52 pm Well that's the side that anybody would say is the default/safe option (with Farrell and Vunipola out) at this point. It's hard to picture him mixing it up too much.

I'm expecting Manu will start and Lawrence will wearing 23.

Wiggy has said Curry is fit so if he's not starting hopefully he's on the bench.

I think we'd prefer for it not to be Benny in at 9 as well but there you go.

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 2:52 pm Well that's the side that anybody would say is the default/safe option (with Farrell and Vunipola out) at this point. It's hard to picture him mixing it up too much.

Hardly a daring prediction from Ruck, is it?

Puja

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 3:37 pm

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 2:52 pm Well that's the side that anybody would say is the default/safe option (with Farrell and Vunipola out) at this point. It's hard to picture him mixing it up too much.

Hardly a daring prediction from Ruck, is it?

Puja

exactly. Mitchell at 9 and Steward moved to wing to accommodate Smith at fb would give us something to talk about.

p/d wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 1:51 pmI miss Ewels

Where's the mod??

p/d wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 3:42 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 3:37 pm

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 2:52 pm Well that's the side that anybody would say is the default/safe option (with Farrell and Vunipola out) at this point. It's hard to picture him mixing it up too much.

Hardly a daring prediction from Ruck, is it?

Puja

exactly. Mitchell at 9 and Steward moved to wing to accommodate Smith at fb would give us something to talk about.

We might have to wait to the second half to see those guys in those positions. Steward would get gassed for pace by Carreras on the wing for Argentina but it would open up a lot of crossfield opportunity as he's bigger and a lot better in the air. One on one you'd hope he'd have the power to get past him as well.

FKAS wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 2:05 pm The Ruck have gone early with their "inside knowledge" (best guess) for the lineup;

Genge, George, Sinckler
Chessum, Itoje
Lawes, Earl, Willis
Youngs, Ford
Lawrence, Marchant
Daly, Steward, May

The thing is, that isn't a terrible team at all. But we all know it will play terribly.

I mean, that backline has pretty much everything you need. Yet all it'll do is chase bloody kicks, badly.

The RGs are fast in the backs boys. You'd better hope they don't dominate the rucks.

morepork wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 4:40 pm The RGs are fast in the backs boys. You'd better hope they don't dominate the rucks.

It's a shame that you say we should have that specific hope...

Puja