RugbyRebels

Posted: **Sun Nov 03, 2024 6:39 pm**

England react to Joe Marler retiring by calling up Tighthead AOF, just to get some good old club vs country shitmixing in play!

Oh and Charlie Ewels is also in.

Otherwise it is as you were.

FFS!

Posted: **Sun Nov 03, 2024 6:59 pm**

AOF being called up is a good thing.

Obano must be feeling a bit hard done by though.

Posted: **Sun Nov 03, 2024 7:02 pm**

Ah bollox...Ted Hill dropped

Posted: **Sun Nov 03, 2024 8:04 pm**

fivepointer wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 7:02 pm Ah bollox...Ted Hill dropped

Yep. Dropped for Ewels!! Which is a perfect metaphor for the whole thing!

Posted: **Sun Nov 03, 2024 8:04 pm**

fivepointer wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 7:02 pm Ah bollox...Ted Hill dropped

Oh FFS.

Posted: **Mon Nov 04, 2024 11:51 am**

I would retain the starting team but bring in LCD (for Dan), Underhill (for Dombrandt) and JvP (for Randall).

Posted: **Mon Nov 04, 2024 12:02 pm**

SixAndAHalf wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 11:51 am I would retain the starting team but bring in LCD (for Dan), Underhill (for Dombrandt) and JvP (for Randall).

Curry and Underhill on the bench?

Posted: **Mon Nov 04, 2024 12:04 pm**

SixAndAHalf wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 11:51 am I would retain the starting team but bring in LCD (for Dan), Underhill (for Dombrandt) and JvP (for Randall).

I thought Dan was a major bright spot. He wasn't at fault for our lineout and his carrying was a massive part of getting us into the position to throw it away at the end.

Puja

Posted: **Mon Nov 04, 2024 12:21 pm**

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 12:02 pm
SixAndAHalf wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 11:51 am I would retain the starting team but bring in LCD (for Dan), Underhill (for Dombrandt) and JvP (for Randall).
Curry and Underhill on the bench?

Due to the limitations of the squad primarily... given the intensity of the style I think we need a 6-2 split and I see Dombrandt as a negative impact overall (just doesn't look comfortable in his role at test level). Curry and CCS can both cover number 8 if needed.

Posted: **Mon Nov 04, 2024 12:22 pm**

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 12:04 pm
SixAndAHalf wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 11:51 am I would retain the starting team but bring in LCD (for Dan), Underhill (for Dombrandt) and JvP (for Randall).
I thought Dan was a major bright spot. He wasn't at fault for our lineout and his carrying was a massive part of getting us into the position to throw it away at the end.

Puja

I agree on both points and am broadly a fan of Dan but don't think the front row balance off the bench worked and don't see any obvious alternative to Baxter and Cole.

Posted: **Mon Nov 04, 2024 12:25 pm**

Well, there is a potential alternative to Cole, but we've picked him as a loosehead. And I'm not advocating AOF against South Africa, but why not against Japan and maybe Aus?

Posted: **Mon Nov 04, 2024 12:43 pm**

SixAndAHalf wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 12:22 pm
Puja wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 12:04 pm
SixAndAHalf wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 11:51 am I would retain the starting team but bring in LCD (for Dan), Underhill (for Dombrandt) and JvP (for Randall).
I thought Dan was a major bright spot. He wasn't at fault for our lineout and his carrying was a massive part of getting us into the position to throw it away at the end.

Puja
I agree on both points and am broadly a fan of Dan but don't think the front row balance off the bench worked and don't see any obvious alternative to Baxter and Cole.

I'd start Baxter personally but be open about the fact he's going to be subbed shortly after half time so Genge can go on the rampage. Tell both looseheads they are going to pay roughly half a game each and to empty the tank.

Posted: **Mon Nov 04, 2024 1:07 pm**

Is it now essential to have all replacements pre-planned? Injuries/cards demand that the whole 23 be capable of effective 80 minute stints. Why can't the coaches make reasoned changes based on the game situation? For example why take off a tighthead who is not struggling physically if his replacement is a worse player? After all, 7 players have to do the full 80 anyway. Why not 10, 12 or 15? The only aim is to win the match.

Posted: **Mon Nov 04, 2024 1:26 pm**

Epaminondas Pules wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 12:25 pm Well, there is a potential alternative to Cole, but we've picked him as a loosehead.

This situation completely baffles me. If Fasogbon is correct then the only party of club, country and the player himself who thinks he’s a loosehead is the RFU.

Posted: **Mon Nov 04, 2024 1:40 pm**

SixAndAHalf wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 12:22 pm
Puja wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 12:04 pm I thought Dan was a major bright spot. He wasn't at fault for our lineout and his carrying was a massive part of getting us into the position to throw it away at the end.

Puja
I agree on both points and am broadly a fan of Dan but don't think the front row balance off the bench worked and don't see any obvious alternative to Baxter and Cole.

I would say the change in the scrum was Tu'ungafasi coming on (and probably more pertinently Tuipulotu in the second row, who I really do rate), rather than anything our front row replacements did wrong - again we're back to NZ being allowed to play the game as well. Certainly seems harsh to have Dan be the fall guy.

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 1:26 pm
Epaminondas Pules wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 12:25 pm Well, there is a potential alternative to Cole, but we've picked him as a loosehead.
This situation completely baffles me. If Fasogbon is correct then the only party of club, country and the player himself who thinks he’s a loosehead is the RFU.

I'm hoping that we've called him up on the basis that we'd like to have him in camp for the future development and we're gambling that there will not exist a situation where he's needed in the XXIII, not because we actually think he's a viable loosehead option. Surely if we actually wanted a third loosehead with the intent of playing them, then we'd pick Obano, Iyogun, or Rodd?!

Also AOF should not be playing for England on either side of the scrum yet. Too young, too inexperienced, too easy to injure, too valuable to our future to risk breaking for a small immediate boost. If we did want an alternative to Cole right now, then we should be looking at Heyes who is outperforming him for Leicester and appears to have finally kicked on.

(ETA. I had forgotten entirely the existence of Trevor Davison, which makes my theory moot - had been thinking we were swapping from a squad of 3 looseheads/2 tightheads to 2LH/3TH, but Davison means it'd be 2LH/4TH if I was right, which would be madness. In which case I've got no fucking clue what's happening)

Puja

Posted: **Mon Nov 04, 2024 1:49 pm**

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 1:40 pm
SixAndAHalf wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 12:22 pm
Puja wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 12:04 pm I thought Dan was a major bright spot. He wasn't at fault for our lineout and his carrying was a massive part of getting us into the position to throw it away at the end.

Puja
I agree on both points and am broadly a fan of Dan but don't think the front row balance off the bench worked and don't see any obvious alternative to Baxter and Cole.
I would say the change in the scrum was Tu'ungafasi coming on (and probably more pertinently Tuipulotu in the second row, who I really do rate), rather than anything our front row replacements did wrong - again we're back to NZ being allowed to play the game as well. Certainly seems harsh to have Dan be the fall guy.

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 1:26 pm
Epaminondas Pules wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 12:25 pm Well, there is a potential alternative to Cole, but we've picked him as a loosehead.
This situation completely baffles me. If Fasogbon is correct then the only party of club, country and the player himself who thinks he’s a loosehead is the RFU.
I'm hoping that we've called him up on the basis that we'd like to have him in camp for the future development and we're gambling that there will not exist a situation where he's needed in the XXIII, not because we actually think he's a viable loosehead option. Surely if we actually wanted a third loosehead with the intent of playing them, then we'd pick Obano, Iyogun, or Rodd?!

Also AOF should not be playing for England on either side of the scrum yet. Too young, too inexperienced, too easy to injure, too valuable to our future to risk breaking for a small immediate boost. If we did want an alternative to Cole right now, then we should be looking at Heyes who is outperforming him for Leicester and appears to have finally kicked on.

(ETA. I had forgotten entirely the existence of Trevor Davison, which makes my theory moot - had been thinking we were swapping from a squad of 3 looseheads/2 tightheads to 2LH/3TH, but Davison means it'd be 2LH/4TH if I was right, which would be madness. In which case I've got no fucking clue what's happening)

Puja

Davison was the third loosehead last week so must be capable of playing there but either plan seems a bit silly; albeit, so have a few of Silly Bollock’s plans this autumn.

Posted: **Mon Nov 04, 2024 5:02 pm**

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 1:49 pm
Puja wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 1:40 pm
SixAndAHalf wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 12:22 pm

I agree on both points and am broadly a fan of Dan but don't think the front row balance off the bench worked and don't see any obvious alternative to Baxter and Cole.
I would say the change in the scrum was Tu'ungafasi coming on (and probably more pertinently Tuipulotu in the second row, who I really do rate), rather than anything our front row replacements did wrong - again we're back to NZ being allowed to play the game as well. Certainly seems harsh to have Dan be the fall guy.

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 1:26 pm
This situation completely baffles me. If Fasogbon is correct then the only party of club, country and the player himself who thinks he’s a loosehead is the RFU.
I'm hoping that we've called him up on the basis that we'd like to have him in camp for the future development and we're gambling that there will not exist a situation where he's needed in the XXIII, not because we actually think he's a viable loosehead option. Surely if we actually wanted a third loosehead with the intent of playing them, then we'd pick Obano, Iyogun, or Rodd?!

Also AOF should not be playing for England on either side of the scrum yet. Too young, too inexperienced, too easy to injure, too valuable to our future to risk breaking for a small immediate boost. If we did want an alternative to Cole right now, then we should be looking at Heyes who is outperforming him for Leicester and appears to have finally kicked on.

(ETA. I had forgotten entirely the existence of Trevor Davison, which makes my theory moot - had been thinking we were swapping from a squad of 3 looseheads/2 tightheads to 2LH/3TH, but Davison means it'd be 2LH/4TH if I was right, which would be madness. In which case I've got no fucking clue what's happening)

Puja
Davison was the third loosehead last week so must be capable of playing there but either plan seems a bit silly; albeit, so have a few of Silly Bollock’s plans this autumn.

Eddie liked Davison originally because he could play both sides and that opened up the option of only selecting 5 props in a squad. His one cap was off the bench as a loosehead I think. Not sure he's played there since he's moved to Saints though.

Posted: **Mon Nov 04, 2024 5:27 pm**

Davison is equally ordinary on both sides of the scrum but i dont think he's actually played LH for Saints.

I cannot understand why Heyes isnt in this squad. Cole is in decline and Davison hardly exudes confidence at TH. If we want someone who could play LH tomorrow then surely Obano has to be that player.

AOF is going to play for England but i wouldnt pitch him in against Australia and certainly not SA.

Posted: **Mon Nov 04, 2024 9:08 pm**

FKAS wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 5:02 pm
Eddie liked Davison originally because he could play both sides .

He will like him even more if he runs out on the 24th

Posted: **Mon Nov 04, 2024 10:26 pm**

Has Ben Curry overtaken his brother now? ( Reminds me a lot of the Calder twins succession 40 years ago )

Posted: **Mon Nov 04, 2024 11:10 pm**

jngf wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 10:26 pm Has Ben Curry overtaken his brother now? ( Reminds me a lot of the Calder twins succession 40 years ago )

No. Why would you think that?

Puja

Posted: **Tue Nov 05, 2024 8:16 am**

jngf wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 10:26 pm Has Ben Curry overtaken his brother now? ( Reminds me a lot of the Calder twins succession 40 years ago )

As I said before, I'm not an Underhill fan, but I'd rank him above both Curry twins currently. Neither convinced against NZ. In fact, the only back-rower to do that was CCS, who would not have started had Chessum been fit, reportedly. An area of strength declined to an area of weakness, arguably.

Posted: **Tue Nov 05, 2024 9:31 am**

Oakboy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 8:16 am
jngf wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 10:26 pm Has Ben Curry overtaken his brother now? ( Reminds me a lot of the Calder twins succession 40 years ago )
As I said before, I'm not an Underhill fan, but I'd rank him above both Curry twins currently. Neither convinced against NZ. In fact, the only back-rower to do that was CCS, who would not have started had Chessum been fit, reportedly. An area of strength declined to an area of weakness, arguably.

A fresh CCS running on at the 50th minute mark against a tired opposition would have been brilliant for us and given some much needed impact.

Posted: **Tue Nov 05, 2024 10:40 am**

FKAS wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 9:31 am
Oakboy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 8:16 am
jngf wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 10:26 pm Has Ben Curry overtaken his brother now? ( Reminds me a lot of the Calder twins succession 40 years ago )
As I said before, I'm not an Underhill fan, but I'd rank him above both Curry twins currently. Neither convinced against NZ. In fact, the only back-rower to do that was CCS, who would not have started had Chessum been fit, reportedly. An area of strength declined to an area of weakness, arguably.
A fresh CCS running on at the 50th minute mark against a tired opposition would have been brilliant for us and given some much needed impact.

Willis, Fisilau, Pearson or Pollock could supply similar energy. Even Roots would have added grunt. Or Hill. It's not far off time for a re-think, IMO.

Posted: **Tue Nov 05, 2024 10:48 am**

FKAS wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 9:31 am
Oakboy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 8:16 am
jngf wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 10:26 pm Has Ben Curry overtaken his brother now? ( Reminds me a lot of the Calder twins succession 40 years ago )
As I said before, I'm not an Underhill fan, but I'd rank him above both Curry twins currently. Neither convinced against NZ. In fact, the only back-rower to do that was CCS, who would not have started had Chessum been fit, reportedly. An area of strength declined to an area of weakness, arguably.
A fresh CCS running on at the 50th minute mark against a tired opposition would have been brilliant for us and given some much needed impact.

I think I agree with this - CCS looks like an off the bench player to me at the moment I think, not sure about his stamina... Also eye catching hit aside I'm not yet 100000% convinced as some seem to be, great potential, exciting to see how he develops but I wouldn't say I'm in love yet. I think I'd still start Chessum or Ted Hill over him if I was picking, but certainly he a great option in the 23.

RugbyRebels

England vs Australia

England vs Australia

Re: England vs Australia

Re: England vs Australia

Re: England vs Australia

Re: England vs Australia

Re: England vs Australia

Re: England vs Australia

Re: England vs Australia

Re: England vs Australia

Re: England vs Australia

Re: England vs Australia

Re: England vs Australia

Re: England vs Australia

Re: England vs Australia

Re: England vs Australia

Re: England vs Australia

Re: England vs Australia

Re: England vs Australia

Re: England vs Australia

Re: England vs Australia

Re: England vs Australia

Re: England vs Australia

Re: England vs Australia

Re: England vs Australia

Re: England vs Australia