Italy vs England and 6N permutations

[FKAS]

The plot thickens..... Jones thinks Furbank could be a 10 and Farrell might play OC. I think he might have been in one of his more mischievous moods yesterday.

Furbank is not a bad 10 in the little I’ve seen of him there.

The lad obviously has some skills. Moving him away from the back three also means he's not a liability to the team every time an up and under comes his way.

[Banquo]

The plot thickens..... Jones thinks Furbank could be a 10 and Farrell might play OC. I think he might have been in one of his more mischievous moods yesterday.

Furbank is not a bad 10 in the little I’ve seen of him there.

Are you thinking that Umaga might not make the bench?

No. Just remarking in Furbank

[Banquo]

Justice 4 Malins to 10!

That’s what I thought that selection implied- but would then mean Watson moves to 15 with Joe C replacing him. That’s a lot of changes for one injury.

It isn't a huge amount of change. Replace the fly half, in this case from fullback. Then move a fullback/wing from wing to fullback and bring on a wing on the wing.

That said, the backs bench change would be to have a fly half on the bench, as it helps to have experience there.

With the backs bench there is always likely to be positions that are not covered directly and thus require a rejig

It’s three changes (so nearly half the backs ) for one, and unnecessary tbh. We are actually agreeing that a 10 should be on the bench for that 15.
Of course you can’t cover every angle, but that proposed 23 sets you up for more changes than desirable in the event of one injury to Faz.

[Banquo]

The plot thickens..... Jones thinks Furbank could be a 10 and Farrell might play OC. I think he might have been in one of his more mischievous moods yesterday.

Furbank is not a bad 10 in the little I’ve seen of him there.

The lad obviously has some skills. Moving him away from the back three also means he's not a liability to the team every time an up and under comes his way.

Yep.

[Which Tyler]

OK - my selection for Italy, from the current squad...

1. MVunipola
2. George
3. Sinckler
4. Itoje
5. Launchbury
6. Curry
7. Underhill
8. BVunipola

9. Youngs
10. Farrell
11. Watson
12. Slade
13. Joseph
14. May
15. Malins

16. Dunn, 17. Obano, 18, Stuart, 19. JHIll, 20. Willis
21. Robson, 22. Lawrence, 23. Thorley

It's still a 6N fixture, and we need a big win if we're to win the Championship, so I want as close to first choice starters as possible, but newbies on the bench. Consequently, my starting pack picks itself. Willis is the highest priority forward to get capped, but I always prefer debuts to come off the bench with less pressure.
In the backs, Youngs, Farrell and Slade pick themselves , even though I'm loathe to start Exeter players after their last couple of weeks; so it's just a matter of who gets which shirt. Slade's the most natural IC in the squad and really ought to be even better there than he is at OC; this is also the only way we can start 2 experienced centres.
Yes, I'm a fan of Watson at FB, but Eddie likes (and I can see why) a 3rd playmaker in his backs, preferably at FB - which means Malins at FB (I'm discounting Furbank as he's not international quality).



My bench is where I'm looking at new caps - which is harsh on Genge, who's ahead of Obano in the pecking order, but 3rd choices need some game time, and I'm hoping that having a club combination together helps both he and Dunn on debut.
Hill must be knackered, but going from the bench should be enough protection, and whilst I'm not really a fan of his, he's still been the best lock since lockdown and absolutely deserves a shot. Willis simply has to be selected; but I can't justify breaking the starting flankers until he has better form at international level. Besides, debuts should be made from the bench wherever possible. I'd intend to bring him on for Billy.
There's no point having Heinz in the 23. No FH on the bench is ballsy, but Farrell goes off for cards more than he does for fitness/form issues, and with Slade and Malins both starting, I feel we have emergency cover (let's face it, Farrell's replacement is for emergencies only). If Faz goes down hurt, Slade goes to 10 and Lawrence to 12. Thorley's rationale is the much the same as Willis - I can't justify breaking up the starters until he shows that he's better than them at this level, and should make his debut from the bench. Intention is to bring Lawrence on for JJ.

[Epaminondas Pules]

That’s what I thought that selection implied- but would then mean Watson moves to 15 with Joe C replacing him. That’s a lot of changes for one injury.

It isn't a huge amount of change. Replace the fly half, in this case from fullback. Then move a fullback/wing from wing to fullback and bring on a wing on the wing.

That said, the backs bench change would be to have a fly half on the bench, as it helps to have experience there.

With the backs bench there is always likely to be positions that are not covered directly and thus require a rejig

It’s three changes (so nearly half the backs ) for one, and unnecessary tbh. We are actually agreeing that a 10 should be on the bench for that 15.
Of course you can’t cover every angle, but that proposed 23 sets you up for more changes than desirable in the event of one injury to Faz.

We are I think you'd always want a second front line 10 available.

I'd be more concerned over who would play ten than other players slotting into positions they are perfectly experienced in.

[Oakboy]

I simply can't understand why Umaga is in the squad ahead of Simmonds if there is the slightest doubt that he is not up to bench duty. Has Jones ever done without regular FH cover (accepting that sometimes it is with Farrell starting at 12)? I think Jones will start Lawrence at 12 with Umaga on the bench.

[Epaminondas Pules]

OK - my selection for Italy, from the current squad...

1. MVunipola
2. George
3. Sinckler
4. Itoje
5. Launchbury
6. Curry
7. Underhill
8. BVunipola

9. Youngs
10. Farrell
11. Watson
12. Slade
13. Joseph
14. May
15. Malins

16. Dunn, 17. Obano, 18, Stuart, 19. JHIll, 20. Willis
21. Robson, 22. Lawrence, 23. Thorley

It's still a 6N fixture, and we need a big win if we're to win the Championship, so I want as close to first choice starters as possible, but newbies on the bench. Consequently, my starting pack picks itself. Willis is the highest priority forward to get capped, but I always prefer debuts to come off the bench with less pressure.
In the backs, Youngs, Farrell and Slade pick themselves , even though I'm loathe to start Exeter players after their last couple of weeks; so it's just a matter of who gets which shirt. Slade's the most natural IC in the squad and really ought to be even better there than he is at OC; this is also the only way we can start 2 experienced centres.
Yes, I'm a fan of Watson at FB, but Eddie likes (and I can see why) a 3rd playmaker in his backs, preferably at FB - which means Malins at FB (I'm discounting Furbank as he's not international quality).



My bench is where I'm looking at new caps - which is harsh on Genge, who's ahead of Obano in the pecking order, but 3rd choices need some game time, and I'm hoping that having a club combination together helps both he and Dunn on debut.
Hill must be knackered, but going from the bench should be enough protection, and whilst I'm not really a fan of his, he's still been the best lock since lockdown and absolutely deserves a shot. Willis simply has to be selected; but I can't justify breaking the starting flankers until he has better form at international level. Besides, debuts should be made from the bench wherever possible. I'd intend to bring him on for Billy.
There's no point having Heinz in the 23. No FH on the bench is ballsy, but Farrell goes off for cards more than he does for fitness/form issues, and with Slade and Malins both starting, I feel we have emergency cover (let's face it, Farrell's replacement is for emergencies only). If Faz goes down hurt, Slade goes to 10 and Lawrence to 12. Thorley's rationale is the much the same as Willis - I can't justify breaking up the starters until he shows that he's better than them at this level, and should make his debut from the bench. Intention is to bring Lawrence on for JJ.

Only real concern is the lack of front line 10 cover, but there is an element that says it is Italy and frankly Malins or Slade should be sufficient. That's not trying to be disrespectful, more an honest appraisal of where Italy are.

I'm not sure I get why Slade is a more natural 12 and ought to be better there than 13. Farrell has lots of experience there (albeit I wouldn't pick him ideally) and Lawrence has plenty of prior experience and arguably a game more suited to being able to interchange, depending on the style of 12 you want to play.

[Epaminondas Pules]

I simply can't understand why Umaga is in the squad ahead of Simmonds if there is the slightest doubt that he is not up to bench duty. Has Jones ever done without regular FH cover (accepting that sometimes it is with Farrell starting at 12)? I think Jones will start Lawrence at 12 with Umaga on the bench.

Who says he's not up to bench duty?


A handful of times they've gone with only 1 front line 10 in the match day squad, for example the Argentina tour, when the backup to Ford was between Slade, Francis and Lozowski, but Ford played 80 anyway.

I'm inclined, from a personal preference, to agree. I'd start Lawrence at 12.

Of course they could well start Slade at Fullback, and JJ at 13, with Watson and May on the wings.

[Which Tyler]

Only real concern is the lack of front line 10 cover, but there is an element that says it is Italy and frankly Malins or Slade should be sufficient. That's not trying to be disrespectful, more an honest appraisal of where Italy are.

Exactly - and next up is Georgia, whilst Ford looks likely to be back in time for Ireland

I'm not sure I get why Slade is a more natural 12 and ought to be better there than 13. Farrell has lots of experience there (albeit I wouldn't pick him ideally) and Lawrence has plenty of prior experience and arguably a game more suited to being able to interchange, depending on the style of 12 you want to play.

A long standing opinion that everything about the way Slade plays rugby is better suited to IC than OC - apart from experience in the position (and again, it's Italy at a low ebb)
I pretty sure I'm right in saying that Slade has more (senior) experience at 12 than Farrell did before being capped there.

[Epaminondas Pules]

Only real concern is the lack of front line 10 cover, but there is an element that says it is Italy and frankly Malins or Slade should be sufficient. That's not trying to be disrespectful, more an honest appraisal of where Italy are.

Exactly - and next up is Georgia, whilst Ford looks likely to be back in time for Ireland

I'm not sure I get why Slade is a more natural 12 and ought to be better there than 13. Farrell has lots of experience there (albeit I wouldn't pick him ideally) and Lawrence has plenty of prior experience and arguably a game more suited to being able to interchange, depending on the style of 12 you want to play.

A long standing opinion that everything about the way Slade plays rugby is better suited to IC than OC - apart from experience in the position (and again, it's Italy at a low ebb)
I pretty sure I'm right in saying that Slade has more (senior) experience at 12 than Farrell did before being capped there.

I can't think of him playing 12, though memory is somewhat hazy. Mostly because Sam Hill broke through earlier in terms of being a regular first team starter, whilst Slade tended to play 10 and 13. That said I can't remember Farrell doing it at all

A lot depends on what style of 12 you want to play. He's a bloody good player regardless. I'd just like to see him now start really dominating international games. Going up another level.

[Which Tyler]

I can't think of him playing 12, though memory is somewhat hazy. Mostly because Sam Hill broke through earlier in terms of being a regular first team starter, whilst Slade tended to play 10 and 13. That said I can't remember Farrell doing it at all

A lot depends on what style of 12 you want to play. He's a bloody good player regardless. I'd just like to see him now start really dominating international games. Going up another level.

IIRC he's had about a dozen matches at IC for Exeter whilst breaking into the team - though often when Hill / Whitten were injured.
I don't remember ever noticing Farrell at IC for Saracens - but as you know, he played a fair bit of age-grade at IC to allow Ford at FH.

At IC - Henry Slade is what I want - or a 36 without the brainfarts, or a powerful Mike Catt / Olly Barkley, maybe an uninjured/consistent Ollie Devoto. I've been calling for Slade to switch to IC since age-grade.
As you say, Slade is extremely talented, but IMO has only shown flashes at international level.


I like to set my backs up with a passing SH, a heads-up FH, distributing (but still threatening) IC, with strike runners at 11, 13 and 14 (at least one of whom must bring a significant power game, but not compromising pace on the wing); and a 3rd playmaker at FB.
My dream backline would be something like
9. Bracken, 10. Ford, 11. May, 12. Slade, 13. Guscott/Tuilagi, 14. Cokanasiga, 15. Foden

[Banquo]

It isn't a huge amount of change. Replace the fly half, in this case from fullback. Then move a fullback/wing from wing to fullback and bring on a wing on the wing.

That said, the backs bench change would be to have a fly half on the bench, as it helps to have experience there.

With the backs bench there is always likely to be positions that are not covered directly and thus require a rejig

It’s three changes (so nearly half the backs ) for one, and unnecessary tbh. We are actually agreeing that a 10 should be on the bench for that 15.
Of course you can’t cover every angle, but that proposed 23 sets you up for more changes than desirable in the event of one injury to Faz.

We are I think you'd always want a second front line 10 available.

I'd be more concerned over who would play ten than other players slotting into positions they are perfectly experienced in.

Yeah but it doesn’t have to be one or the other really. Units count as well as individual positional comfort.

[Oakboy]

You never know with Jones but if he was going to consider Slade at 12 he'd surely have tried it before now. I would have played him there years ago.

I'd not be surprised if Jones leaves Slade out of the 23 and picks no Exeter players at all. Unless he considers Slade out of sight in the comparison with Joseph, he has a very credible alternative. He does not need to pick Hill or Williams either.

Presumably, as so often in the past, it will simply be down to how they all look in training.

[Mikey Brown]

I can't think of him playing 12, though memory is somewhat hazy. Mostly because Sam Hill broke through earlier in terms of being a regular first team starter, whilst Slade tended to play 10 and 13. That said I can't remember Farrell doing it at all

A lot depends on what style of 12 you want to play. He's a bloody good player regardless. I'd just like to see him now start really dominating international games. Going up another level.

IIRC he's had about a dozen matches at IC for Exeter whilst breaking into the team - though often when Hill / Whitten were injured.
I don't remember ever noticing Farrell at IC for Saracens - but as you know, he played a fair bit of age-grade at IC to allow Ford at FH.

At IC - Henry Slade is what I want - or a 36 without the brainfarts, or a powerful Mike Catt / Olly Barkley, maybe an uninjured/consistent Ollie Devoto. I've been calling for Slade to switch to IC since age-grade.
As you say, Slade is extremely talented, but IMO has only shown flashes at international level.


I like to set my backs up with a passing SH, a heads-up FH, distributing (but still threatening) IC, with strike runners at 11, 13 and 14 (at least one of whom must bring a significant power game, but not compromising pace on the wing); and a 3rd playmaker at FB.
My dream backline would be something like
9. Bracken, 10. Ford, 11. May, 12. Slade, 13. Guscott/Tuilagi, 14. Cokanasiga, 15. Foden

I'd be surprised if Slade has ever worn the 12 shirt that many times to be honest. Had a Barbarians game there and a couple of random appearances for Exeter but that's all I remember. I think the conversation between Exeter and Jones did happen, because they flirted with shifting him there a few years back but Exeter's particular setup (as with Sam Simmonds) kind of limits how effective it would be to see him shift positions.

I totally get the desire for him to develop as a 12 but he's not had any recent, meaningful time there.

Farrell came through playing all midfield positions didn't he? With Hodgson and Barritt generally being the experienced heads at 10/12. Seems irrelevant really as he's probably got 40 England caps at 12 now.

I like the balance of what you propose in a backline (though a passing 9 is a bit out there) but you can very easily adjust which centre you want to act as a strike-runner/play-maker. EJ has chosen to shift Tuilagi infield ahead of Slade before, so I can't imagine him switching it up at this point, as much as I'd love to fit both Slade and Joseph's skills in to one backline.

[Mellsblue]

Jones also saying the days of playing a 2nd5/8th are gone. Which, if we can believe this nugget, means there’s no chance of Slade at 12, Lawrence will play there and Ford, on his return, will be back to the bench.

[Scrumhead]

12 and 13 aren’t interchangeable - particularly from a defensive POV, but of the available options, Slade and Lawrence are probably best equipped to swap from 13 to 12.

I’d go with Lawrence at 12 and Slade at 13, but swapping regularly in play.

Slade doesn’t play 12 for Exeter, but their centres often switch positions for different moves. I’d imagine it would be similar for England.

As a more powerful player, Lawrence is better equipped to play at 12 (and probably has a better kicking game) than either Joseph or Marchant, so I’d expect to see him tried there.

Not perfect, but as I said a few posts back, it’ll be a good discovery if it ends up working well.

[Which Tyler]

Jones also saying the days of playing a 2nd5/8th are gone. Which, if we can believe this nugget, means there’s no chance of Slade at 12, Lawrence will play there and Ford, on his return, will be back to the bench.

It''s a big "if" there - given that his first choice IC is Farrell

[Digby]

Genge
George
Stuart
Itoje
Launch
Willis
Curry
Billy
Robson
Umaga
May
Slade
Joseph
Cockanasiga
Watson

Obano
Dunn
Sinckler
Hill
Hill
Youngs
Farrell
Lawrence

[Scrumhead]

I’m always loathe to read to much in to DM articles, but they were pretty much spot on with the squad announcement.

This article suggests my gut feel on Lawrence at 12 is correct: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby ... eason.html

Some interesting sound bites on the 12’s role as a playmaker and gives some insight in to Eddie’s thinking. FWIW, I tend to agree. The way defences set-up now, it’s very rare that you see old school passing moves from 10-12-13 etc.

[Mikey Brown]

Jones also saying the days of playing a 2nd5/8th are gone. Which, if we can believe this nugget, means there’s no chance of Slade at 12, Lawrence will play there and Ford, on his return, will be back to the bench.

Where are these things coming from? It's hard to know if you're paraphrasing or not.

[twitchy]

Some tweets/links from charlie on a similar subject.

[Epaminondas Pules]

I can't think of him playing 12, though memory is somewhat hazy. Mostly because Sam Hill broke through earlier in terms of being a regular first team starter, whilst Slade tended to play 10 and 13. That said I can't remember Farrell doing it at all

A lot depends on what style of 12 you want to play. He's a bloody good player regardless. I'd just like to see him now start really dominating international games. Going up another level.

IIRC he's had about a dozen matches at IC for Exeter whilst breaking into the team - though often when Hill / Whitten were injured.
I don't remember ever noticing Farrell at IC for Saracens - but as you know, he played a fair bit of age-grade at IC to allow Ford at FH.

At IC - Henry Slade is what I want - or a 36 without the brainfarts, or a powerful Mike Catt / Olly Barkley, maybe an uninjured/consistent Ollie Devoto. I've been calling for Slade to switch to IC since age-grade.
As you say, Slade is extremely talented, but IMO has only shown flashes at international level.


I like to set my backs up with a passing SH, a heads-up FH, distributing (but still threatening) IC, with strike runners at 11, 13 and 14 (at least one of whom must bring a significant power game, but not compromising pace on the wing); and a 3rd playmaker at FB.
My dream backline would be something like
9. Bracken, 10. Ford, 11. May, 12. Slade, 13. Guscott/Tuilagi, 14. Cokanasiga, 15. Foden

Think he was predominantly used to replace Steenson, but could well of played 12. Whitten tended to play 13 more with Hill and Shoemark fighting over 12. Though, to be fair, Exeter mixed and matched their backline a lot, with Dolman and Arscott coming into the mix too. It was only really the wingers that didn't play multi position.

He never quite looked the package for 10, but I must say I raised an eyebrow or two when Baxter moved him out to 13. Fullback would've made sense, or you'd expect 12, but 13 seems to have really suited him and Exeter's style.

If nothing else there is potential opportunity to look at another 12, even if it is just for one week.

[Digby]

Some interesting sound bites on the 12’s role as a playmaker and gives some insight in to Eddie’s thinking. FWIW, I tend to agree. The way defences set-up now, it’s very rare that you see old school passing moves from 10-12-13 etc.

For sure it's hard to unlock a defence, but I do think sides are getting it wrong once attack is moving either at pace or better still has broken the line. Then there are chances to simply pass taking out defenders one pass at a time, and it's a really simple attack shape to get into which enables much quicker support to be in place than some of the more complex setups we see so often.

That's not to say once attack is on top you must pass down the line, but it has more of a place than we often tend to see. An awful lot of rugby is trying to reinvent the wheel when there's no need, just score a try instead

[Mr Mwenda]

I can't think of him playing 12, though memory is somewhat hazy. Mostly because Sam Hill broke through earlier in terms of being a regular first team starter, whilst Slade tended to play 10 and 13. That said I can't remember Farrell doing it at all

A lot depends on what style of 12 you want to play. He's a bloody good player regardless. I'd just like to see him now start really dominating international games. Going up another level.

IIRC he's had about a dozen matches at IC for Exeter whilst breaking into the team - though often when Hill / Whitten were injured.
I don't remember ever noticing Farrell at IC for Saracens - but as you know, he played a fair bit of age-grade at IC to allow Ford at FH.

At IC - Henry Slade is what I want - or a 36 without the brainfarts, or a powerful Mike Catt / Olly Barkley, maybe an uninjured/consistent Ollie Devoto. I've been calling for Slade to switch to IC since age-grade.
As you say, Slade is extremely talented, but IMO has only shown flashes at international level.


I like to set my backs up with a passing SH, a heads-up FH, distributing (but still threatening) IC, with strike runners at 11, 13 and 14 (at least one of whom must bring a significant power game, but not compromising pace on the wing); and a 3rd playmaker at FB.
My dream backline would be something like
9. Bracken, 10. Ford, 11. May, 12. Slade, 13. Guscott/Tuilagi, 14. Cokanasiga, 15. Foden

Slade over Greenwood!!!!!!!?