RugbyRebels

We did just beat Australia 2 out of 3 in their home turf. I'd put us as slight favourites against a fair few of them.

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
Yep. Dare we be hopeful for the RWC? On the day, properly prepared, I'd suggest there is no team that we could not beat.

why?
we still lack quality/depth in enough positions to be dubious about that.

I don't think we are that special but performing to our absolute best individually and collectively (which we have not done for two or three years) in a knock-out competition we should match any other team over 80 minutes.

Why? Because results indicate that none of the other teams are that good. I agree that France and Ireland look the best rounded units but both teams traditionally either peak at the wrong time or have a flakey performance in them.

Puja is right. We would not reliably beat any of the other top teams consistently. The point is that we COULD beat any in a one-off.

Of course, it is up to Jones to deliver. As ever, I don't mind us losing in the knock-out stages IF we have performed to our maximum and given our all. Not turning up on the day is what is unforgiveable.

It's also fairly obvious that England, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and Wales can, and should, all improve massively in the next 12 months. Given their current form it's much more difficult to see where improvements come from for both France and Ireland, and Ireland's current competitive advantage is built upon the fact that more so than ever the team is basically built from one province and the cohesion that brings. That advantage gets eroded once all the teams enter their pre-tournament camps. Suspect one of those two isn't making the semi finals, although that's not that bold a prediction given they're both on the vicious-knife-fight side of the draw.

Raggs wrote:We did just beat Australia 2 out of 3 in their home turf. I'd put us as slight favourites against a fair few of them.

which is not the same as 'no team we could not beat'. We didn't look very likely to beat Ireland and France last time out, and we didn't even beat Scotland. Of course we can improve, but there really isn't much to suggest we go from 4th in the 6N to being optimistic about the RWC and saying there is no team we could not beat (but I suppose literally taken, of course we 'could' beat any team).

I actually think France are still on an upwards curve, and Ireland could also improve--- and they are doing so from a solid position; NZ have to get better. SA and Oz are a bit of an enigma at the moment. Argentina already looking threatening and again loads of room to get better. We have to somehow find a midfield and get our back 5 of the scrum settled and balanced; the former is a biggie.

Mr Mwenda wrote:Not sure it has the be that significant an uptick. Van portvliet kicking on would make a big difference. Likewise Manu sustaining fitness for a world cup, which has happened before.

we don't currently have a midfield imo .

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
Yep. Dare we be hopeful for the RWC? On the day, properly prepared, I'd suggest there is no team that we could not beat.

why?
we still lack quality/depth in enough positions to be dubious about that.

I don't think we are that special but performing to our absolute best individually and collectively (which we have not done for two or three years) in a knock-out competition we should match any other team over 80 minutes.

Why? Because results indicate that none of the other teams are that good. I agree that France and Ireland look the best rounded units but both teams traditionally either peak at the wrong time or have a flakey performance in them.

Puja is right. We would not reliably beat any of the other top teams consistently. The point is that we COULD beat any in a one-off.

Of course, it is up to Jones to deliver. As ever, I don't mind us losing in the knock-out stages IF we have performed to our maximum and given our all. Not turning up on the day is what is unforgiveable.

Of course we 'could' but not the same as 'likely to' or being especially hopeful about the RWC (given that 5 months ago we were looking at the wreckage of the 6N; the Oz tour produced some good moments for newbies and some oldies, and that's great...). No matter how well we prepare, we still are short of quality, especially in midfield; to be optimistic about it we need an upgrade in almost every unit of the team, find the backrow balance, and sort the backs out. So atm I just don't think individually we are on a par with the best. I agree on performing to the maximum.

SDHoneymonster wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote: why?
we still lack quality/depth in enough positions to be dubious about that.

I don't think we are that special but performing to our absolute best individually and collectively (which we have not done for two or three years) in a knock-out competition we should match any other team over 80 minutes.

Why? Because results indicate that none of the other teams are that good. I agree that France and Ireland look the best rounded units but both teams traditionally either peak at the wrong time or have a flakey performance in them.

Puja is right. We would not reliably beat any of the other top teams consistently. The point is that we COULD beat any in a one-off.

Of course, it is up to Jones to deliver. As ever, I don't mind us losing in the knock-out stages IF we have performed to our maximum and given our all. Not turning up on the day is what is unforgiveable.

It's also fairly obvious that England, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and Wales can, and should, all improve massively in the next 12 months. Given their current form it's much more difficult to see where improvements come from for both France and Ireland, and Ireland's current competitive advantage is built upon the fact that more so than ever the team is basically built from one province and the cohesion that brings. That advantage gets eroded once all the teams enter their pre-tournament camps. Suspect one of those two isn't making the semi finals, although that's not that bold a prediction given they're both on the vicious-knife-fight side of the draw.

I think France especially have a lot more ceiling, given the talent they have; Ireland too have room for manoeuvre, though the likes of POM and Sexton are approaching end of days. NZ have to improve, and SA are just puzzling- they are experimenting tho.

Banquo wrote:

Mr Mwenda wrote:Not sure it has the be that significant an uptick. Van portvliet kicking on would make a big difference. Likewise Manu sustaining fitness for a world cup, which has happened before.

we don't currently have a midfield imo .

It's the same one we've had got about a decade. Farrell and Manu but just like most of the last decade there's a number of question marks over one and the other is nearly always injured. Due to Manu's injury proneness we have several other 13 options. 12 is a bit more dicey.

FKAS wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mr Mwenda wrote:Not sure it has the be that significant an uptick. Van portvliet kicking on would make a big difference. Likewise Manu sustaining fitness for a world cup, which has happened before.

we don't currently have a midfield imo .

It's the same one we've had got about a decade. Farrell and Manu but just like most of the last decade there's a number of question marks over one and the other is nearly always injured. Due to Manu's injury proneness we have several other 13 options. 12 is a bit more dicey.

In my mind it usually involves a fly half as well . Manu has to be a long shot, Faz remains distinctly average at 12 and no other 13 is worrying anyone. Having options isn't the issue, its quality that is.

Banquo wrote:

FKAS wrote:

Banquo wrote: we don't currently have a midfield imo .

It's the same one we've had got about a decade. Farrell and Manu but just like most of the last decade there's a number of question marks over one and the other is nearly always injured. Due to Manu's injury proneness we have several other 13 options. 12 is a bit more dicey.

In my mind it usually involves a fly half as well . Manu has to be a long shot, Faz remains distinctly average at 12 and no other 13 is worrying anyone. Having options isn't the issue, its quality that is.

If Eddie wants to build his midfield around Farrell and Tuilagi, then he's surely on a loser, cos with them the odds on doing well in France 2023 would be rather long. Time is running out for him to find a solution. I hope he does, but I won't be putting any money on England even getting to the semis.
France, however, are an impressive work in progress and have strength in depth in most positions.

francoisfou wrote:

Banquo wrote:

FKAS wrote:
It's the same one we've had got about a decade. Farrell and Manu but just like most of the last decade there's a number of question marks over one and the other is nearly always injured. Due to Manu's injury proneness we have several other 13 options. 12 is a bit more dicey.

In my mind it usually involves a fly half as well . Manu has to be a long shot, Faz remains distinctly average at 12 and no other 13 is worrying anyone. Having options isn't the issue, its quality that is.

If Eddie wants to build his midfield around Farrell and Tuilagi, then he's surely on a loser, cos with them the odds on doing well in France 2023 would be rather long. Time is running out for him to find a solution. I hope he does, but I won't be putting any money on England even getting to the semis.
France, however, are an impressive work in progress and have strength in depth in most positions.

totally agree on France, they have more in them for sure....unless they implode under the pressure

I'd be looking at Ford, and er..someone and someone else.

Banquo wrote:

francoisfou wrote:

Banquo wrote: In my mind it usually involves a fly half as well . Manu has to be a long shot, Faz remains distinctly average at 12 and no other 13 is worrying anyone. Having options isn't the issue, its quality that is.

If Eddie wants to build his midfield around Farrell and Tuilagi, then he's surely on a loser, cos with them the odds on doing well in France 2023 would be rather long. Time is running out for him to find a solution. I hope he does, but I won't be putting any money on England even getting to the semis.
France, however, are an impressive work in progress and have strength in depth in most positions.

totally agree on France, they have more in them for sure....unless they implode under the pressure

I'd be looking at Ford, and er..someone and someone else.

Yes, Ford and JvP would be my first choice, with Quirke and Smith there too, but Eddie will surely find a place for Youngs, and his talisman too.

francoisfou wrote:

Banquo wrote:

francoisfou wrote:

If Eddie wants to build his midfield around Farrell and Tuilagi, then he's surely on a loser, cos with them the odds on doing well in France 2023 would be rather long. Time is running out for him to find a solution. I hope he does, but I won't be putting any money on England even getting to the semis.
France, however, are an impressive work in progress and have strength in depth in most positions.

totally agree on France, they have more in them for sure....unless they implode under the pressure

I'd be looking at Ford, and er..someone and someone else.

Yes, Ford and JvP would be my first choice, with Quirke and Smith there too, but Eddie will surely find a place for Youngs, and his talisman too.

JVP, Ford.....

Banquo wrote:

FKAS wrote:

Banquo wrote: we don't currently have a midfield imo .

It's the same one we've had got about a decade. Farrell and Manu but just like most of the last decade there's a number of question marks over one and the other is nearly always injured. Due to Manu's injury proneness we have several other 13 options. 12 is a bit more dicey.

In my mind it usually involves a fly half as well . Manu has to be a long shot, Faz remains distinctly average at 12 and no other 13 is worrying anyone. Having options isn't the issue, its quality that is.

Doesn't matter a great deal who plays at 13 whilst Smith is at 10 because they never seem to get the ball. For England anyway, even when it's Marchant who works really well with Smith AR club level. I think Marchant is easily international class and in a different side would be far more noticeable.

Smith will continue at 10 that much is obvious. A) because Ford is injured and might be back up and running by 6N earliest and B) the attack is built around Smith being able to pass or run as he chooses. Now Smith made a real hash of it in Australia but England lack another 10 with a running game so it's either tweak the attack or retain Smith. There's also no real option on the Ford/Smith level available to England outside those two. Finn Smith might get there or maybe Haydon-Wood but not soon.

FKAS wrote:

Banquo wrote:

FKAS wrote:
It's the same one we've had got about a decade. Farrell and Manu but just like most of the last decade there's a number of question marks over one and the other is nearly always injured. Due to Manu's injury proneness we have several other 13 options. 12 is a bit more dicey.

In my mind it usually involves a fly half as well . Manu has to be a long shot, Faz remains distinctly average at 12 and no other 13 is worrying anyone. Having options isn't the issue, its quality that is.

Doesn't matter a great deal who plays at 13 whilst Smith is at 10 because they never seem to get the ball. For England anyway, even when it's Marchant who works really well with Smith AR club level. I think Marchant is easily international class and in a different side would be far more noticeable.

Smith will continue at 10 that much is obvious. A) because Ford is injured and might be back up and running by 6N earliest and B) the attack is built around Smith being able to pass or run as he chooses. Now Smith made a real hash of it in Australia but England lack another 10 with a running game so it's either tweak the attack or retain Smith. There's also no real option on the Ford/Smith level available to England outside those two. Finn Smith might get there or maybe Haydon-Wood but not soon.

as I said......... no midfield.

Banquo wrote:

FKAS wrote:

Banquo wrote: In my mind it usually involves a fly half as well . Manu has to be a long shot, Faz remains distinctly average at 12 and no other 13 is worrying anyone. Having options isn't the issue, its quality that is.

Doesn't matter a great deal who plays at 13 whilst Smith is at 10 because they never seem to get the ball. For England anyway, even when it's Marchant who works really well with Smith AR club level. I think Marchant is easily international class and in a different side would be far more noticeable.

Smith will continue at 10 that much is obvious. A) because Ford is injured and might be back up and running by 6N earliest and B) the attack is built around Smith being able to pass or run as he chooses. Now Smith made a real hash of it in Australia but England lack another 10 with a running game so it's either tweak the attack or retain Smith. There's also no real option on the Ford/Smith level available to England outside those two. Finn Smith might get there or maybe Haydon-Wood but not soon.

as I said......... no midfield.

Or just one you don't like. Not that I like it much either but it is an improvement on what we have immediately post Covid.

As long as Eddie's looking for double 10 we'll be average or worse in the midfield except the odd game it clicks. Farrell is consistently the best 10 in the league. It's been the same for as long as I can remember. Fans want the Barnes, Hodgson, Ford, Smith type who'll throw it around but shit the bed. The steadier type are supposedly boring and limited but history shows win far more.

England have the forwards and plenty of outside backs who can convert, just pick the best available 12 and get on with it. Eddie's ego will never allow it though.

Ford is a better 10 than Farrell.

Name a better EQP 12 than Farrell.

Raggs wrote:Ford is a better 10 than Farrell.

Name a better EQP 12 than Farrell.

No he's not though he was better last year.

I'd have given Loz another shot.

I'm impressed that you've managed to slip Ford into the list of Barnes, Hodgson, Smith "who'll throw it around and shit the bed" like Ford isn't one of the most impressive game controllers in the world who won the league last year by mostly playing aggressively regimented rugby.

Puja

Imagine Ford behind the Saracens pack. Farrell’s “consistency” still completely baffles me as a concept. I get what people feel he offers to a team, but that part of it simply isn’t real.

Mikey Brown wrote:Imagine Ford behind the Saracens pack. Farrell’s “consistency” still completely baffles me as a concept. I get what people feel he offers to a team, but that part of it simply isn’t real.

Hodgson looked very handy behind Sarries pack. Kept Farrell out the 10 shirt for a fair while didn't he?

Raggs wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Imagine Ford behind the Saracens pack. Farrell’s “consistency” still completely baffles me as a concept. I get what people feel he offers to a team, but that part of it simply isn’t real.

Hodgson looked very handy behind Sarries pack. Kept Farrell out the 10 shirt for a fair while didn't he?

Did for a bit when Faz was young and had a good end to his career he deserved. Do you think that makes him a better player overall?

Puja wrote:I'm impressed that you've managed to slip Ford into the list of Barnes, Hodgson, Smith "who'll throw it around and shit the bed" like Ford isn't one of the most impressive game controllers in the world who won the league last year by mostly playing aggressively regimented rugby.

Puja

No he's not and never has been. He's a defensive liability and has struggled to lead good teams, unless he has front foot all the time. He's always been over hyped by English fans in the same way Faz is unjustly slagged off.

Ford was however really good last year and should have been ahead of Smith for England. On the bench though no double 10 and certainly not in front of Faz.

Mikey Brown wrote:Imagine Ford behind the Saracens pack. Farrell’s “consistency” still completely baffles me as a concept. I get what people feel he offers to a team, but that part of it simply isn’t real.

You think you could remove Farrell and Saracens have the same success? You think Ford and Faz interchangeable with only Ford's attacking game the difference?

No, not really. I don't think I suggested that. I'm not saying Farrell doesn't offer a lot, I just find all this stuff about his consistency/reliability doesn't match up with reality.