England 2021/22

[Teddington Logic]

agree with that, thought Quirke was superb

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

The problem Eddie has created, is that new now need a new 8,9, 10 and 12 and playing inexperience in all those positions would be crazy.

In reality any sensible coach would have planned ahead better.

An interim position would be

Uni rig
Care
Smith
Manu

Experience and the Quins combo at 8-10.

 

[Which Tyler]

We've needed a new 9 and 12 for years - this is not a "problem eddie has created" as there simply haven't been viable options being produced (assuming that Redpath and Williams were always going to pick Scotland & Wales). The best promise in these positions at the moment are all incredibly inexperienced. Still a pity that Devoto was never actually given a shot though.
We don't need a new 10; we just have the option of introducing one now
.
Yes, we do need a new 8, and this problem has already seen one viable option bugger off to France

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

We've needed a new 9 and 12 for years - this is not a "problem eddie has created" as there simply haven't been viable options being produced (assuming that Redpath and Williams were always going to pick Scotland & Wales). The best promise in these positions at the moment are all incredibly inexperienced. Still a pity that Devoto was never actually given a shot though.
We don't need a new 10; we just have the option of introducing one now
.
Yes, we do need a new 8, and this problem has already seen one viable option bugger off to France

Ummm yes Eddie is the only one that's created this problem. He could have introduced a new 8,9,10 or 12 last year and therefore we wouldn't be in a situation where we need t chop and change all at once. He could have easily have got in a new 8 last year and settled in Robson or another at 9. Then we wouldn't be having these problems.

I'm baffled how you think it's not 100% his fault. He picks the team, he doesn't forward plan and he doesn't look at options early enough.

 

[Which Tyler]

Yes he could.
But there wasn't anyone better to do so.

Which would be change for change's sake, and would have been a far worthier criticism.

Please note - just because I think something, doesn't automatically make anyone who disagrees 100% wrong.
I've been calling for "change for change's sake" at 8&9 for a little over 2 years now (and wishing that someone would at least get an opportunity at 12).
That doesn't mean that there aren't valid reasons not to do so.

Mercer is/was not clearly better than Billy, nor is Dombrandt (who I'm still not convinced is actually ready for international rugby yet - he may rise to the challenge, but he may equally sink without trace by being brought in too early).
All the options at 9 are much of a muchness, and all with glaring weaknesses.
10 still doesn't need to be changed, and I don't think Smith was truly ready last year - like Dombrandt now, he may have accelerated his progress, or he may have stimied it (IMO it's different now).
Given that Devoto's face doesn't fit, the alternatives at IC are Celts, or OCs who have been given a chance.

Yes, Eddie picks the team, but he can only select from the available player pool - none of whom were better options a year ago (though I'm still sick and tired of Youngs, Farrell and an unmotivated BillyV)

 

[BPM]

Ummm yes Eddie is the only one that's created this problem. He could have introduced a new 8,9,10 or 12 last year and therefore we wouldn't be in a situation where we need t chop and change all at once. He could have easily have got in a new 8 last year and settled in Robson or another at 9. Then we wouldn't be having these problems.

I'm baffled how you think it's not 100% his fault. He picks the team, he doesn't forward plan and he doesn't look at options early enough.

I'm continually baffled that you always think Eddie is 100% to blame for anything less than perfect.

Could/should he have picked a new/different 8, probably yes, although even now there are legitimate question marks over even the best of the players challenging for that spot. Dombrandt has great games but isn't as consistent as he could be and doesn't totally convince when it's a tighter, more physical game. The debate around Simmonds has been done to death, but many of the points are valid.

As for 9, 10 and 12, I'm not sure anyone in those positions other than Smith (who wasn't ready a year ago IMO) has really put their hands up? I'd rather have Robson than Youngs, but it's not as though he's ever been brilliant when he has had chances. Randall is a good impact player, not sure I'd want him starting though. 12 is a perennial problem - for whatever reason we're just not producing good inside centres.

Eddie is not averse to picking young players if they're ready. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Quirke get a shot based upon his recent form for example.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I think the issue at 9 lies soles at Eddie's feet. He got rid of Care and then brought in Wigglesworth / Heinz whilst Spencer, Robson and Simpson all got barely any minutes on field between them. In 6 years we have definitely had alternatives / support for Youngs and he has actively hindered any progress there. The only choices he made for replacements were old players who were not part of the development process at the cost of players who could have been. Other positions arguments can be made for how it is less his fault but his man management at 9 has been absolutely ridiculous. We went into the last world cup only knowing who one of our scrumhalves was and no backup. We are now here and still in the same situation. If by the end of this year the only 9 we know will play is Youngs, that is entirely his fault and an abject failure, there is just no excuse for it.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Lol I mean you both saying there were no better

I'm continually baffled that you always think Eddie is 100% to blame for anything less than perfect.

Could/should he have picked a new/different 8, probably yes, although even now there are legitimate question marks over even the best of the players challenging for that spot. Dombrandt has great games but isn't as consistent as he could be and doesn't totally convince when it's a tighter, more physical game. The debate around Simmonds has been done to death, but many of the points are valid.

As for 9, 10 and 12, I'm not sure anyone in those positions other than Smith (who wasn't ready a year ago IMO) has really put their hands up? I'd rather have Robson than Youngs, but it's not as though he's ever been brilliant when he has had chances. Randall is a good impact player, not sure I'd want him starting though. 12 is a perennial problem - for whatever reason we're just not producing good inside centres.

Eddie is not averse to picking young players if they're ready. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Quirke get a shot based upon his recent form for example.

there's a difference between less than perfect and selecting a terribly out of form 8 when other options are available.

I mean to really appease Eddie we could have played Wilson or even Curry there who both would have done a way better job than billy and then we could have got someone younger in on the flanks then at least.

9 is just too easy, I mean literally any other 9 in the premiership would have done, I'd have rolled out wigglesworth rather than youngs but in reality Robson or another should have been given the chance to see if they could make it. We played really poorly and didn't learn anything about other players. It was a wasted chance. Jones would probably admit it too if he was being honest. Just because he did something it doesn't make it the best option.

 

[Geordie]

Interesting to hear Dallaglio pushing Tom Willis for the near future as the most natural 8 of all the contenders....

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Interesting to hear Dallaglio pushing Tom Willis for the near future as the most natural 8 of all the contenders....

I really rate T Willis but Dallaglio does have a massive wasp bias. I'm not sure he's 100% ready for international rugby but there is only one way to find out.

 

[Geordie]

Yes he does but he also knows what makes a good Number 8.....

He's did say not quite ready yet...but for rhe near future...

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

I rate Tom Willis a lot. I'd say significantly more physical than Dombrandt and Simmonds and also still very handy with ball in hand.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Rate Willis a lot too - only 22 though so plenty of time to grow and get his chance
I reckon he's worth a look now, but then so is Dombrandt, who is further along his development and more experienced, so I'd rather him first

Looks like LCD is crocked - hopefully Oghre isn't the next cab off the rank
Walking off, though, so hopefully not tooooooo bad

 

[Geordie]

If LCD is out, Blamire isn't nearly ready but I'd rather have him over Oghre...at least he has real physicality.

 

[Geordie]

Lol and now Dallaglio names Simmonds to start the Ais....

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Lol and now Dallaglio names Simmonds to start the Ais....

Loz is the rugby version of

 

[Nudger]

Yes he could.
But there wasn't anyone better to do so.

Which would be change for change's sake, and would have been a far worthier criticism.

Please note - just because I think something, doesn't automatically make anyone who disagrees 100% wrong.
I've been calling for "change for change's sake" at 8&9 for a little over 2 years now (and wishing that someone would at least get an opportunity at 12).
That doesn't mean that there aren't valid reasons not to do so.

Mercer is/was not clearly better than Billy, nor is Dombrandt (who I'm still not convinced is actually ready for international rugby yet - he may rise to the challenge, but he may equally sink without trace by being brought in too early).
All the options at 9 are much of a muchness, and all with glaring weaknesses.
10 still doesn't need to be changed, and I don't think Smith was truly ready last year - like Dombrandt now, he may have accelerated his progress, or he may have stimied it (IMO it's different now).
Given that Devoto's face doesn't fit, the alternatives at IC are Celts, or OCs who have been given a chance.

Yes, Eddie picks the team, but he can only select from the available player pool - none of whom were better options a year ago (though I'm still sick and tired of Youngs, Farrell and an unmotivated BillyV)

Tbf eddie has picked lots of 9's but they keep getting injured look at robson thrombosis is hardly anyones fought

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Tbf eddie has picked lots of 9's but they keep getting injured look at robson thrombosis is hardly anyones fought

He may pick them in a squad but he doesn't actually play them, two very different things. I mean he picked Dunn, but he didn't really play Dunn for example.

 

[Mr Burns]

From Chris Foy on Twitter: England news on @MailSport - team for autumn… 10 Smith, 12 Farrell + Curry in line to start at 8 + Randall, Radwan and Steward/Malins all in the mix for revamped back line.

After all the talk of No.8s and Eddie sticks Curry there presume Lawes/Underhill to fill out the rest of the back row.