Italy vs England and 6N permutations

[Banquo]

If we're playing to a system that has a distributor at 15, then Watson just doesn't fit.

Is that the conclusion from Eddies team lists?
Personally I’m not a fan of the distributor at 15 idea, much prefer having a strike runner there in attack, esp when you have the likes of Slade in the centre.

[Which Tyler]

If we're playing to a system that has a distributor at 15, then Watson just doesn't fit.

But I'd counter that with Watson simply being a much better player (IMO)

Is that the conclusion from Eddies team lists?.

I think so, and it's an idea I've very much come around to as well.

Personally I’m not a fan of the distributor at 15 idea, much prefer having a strike runner there in attack, esp when you have the likes of Slade in the centre.

IMO, not depends on balance. If you've gotta strike runner at 13, then you can afford a playmaker at 15 (but obviously, don't want to lose so much as a runner that you end up with Alex Goode there).
If you out a playmaker at 13, or a workhorse in the wing, then you do need a strike runner at FB. Again though, it's a matter of finding the right compromise, as no-ones completely incapable at all of the above, and other factors also come into play

[Banquo]

If we're playing to a system that has a distributor at 15, then Watson just doesn't fit.

But I'd counter that with Watson simply being a much better player (IMO)

Is that the conclusion from Eddies team lists?.

I think so, and it's an idea I've very much come around to as well.

Personally I’m not a fan of the distributor at 15 idea, much prefer having a strike runner there in attack, esp when you have the likes of Slade in the centre.

IMO, not depends on balance. If you've gotta strike runner at 13, then you can afford a playmaker at 15 (but obviously, don't want to lose so much as a runner that you end up with Alex Goode there).
If you out a playmaker at 13, or a workhorse in the wing, then you do need a strike runner at FB. Again though, it's a matter of finding the right compromise, as no-ones completely incapable at all of the above, and other factors also come into play

I don’t like the compromises you need to make having a distributor at 15, and I wouldn’t ever start with that as a proposed strategy. Needs must sometimes, but using Watson as a strike runner from 15 must appeal. The more runners the better, assuming just basic passing skills- see JJ as an example, his passing is just fine, and perfectly fine for putting a 15 away and we know how good his running can be.

[Puja]

So have a few others, but I agree with the second part

Mind, the only other player who has just arrived, without recent experience of England, and has gone into the XXIII is Jonny Hill and he's in a much less competitive area. The gap between Hill and Ewels on current form is significantly larger than the gap between Underhill, Curry, BillyV, or Earl. Where there's finer margins, I'm okay with the decision to not dump him in after four days' training.

I mean, I'd've picked him myself, but I do understand it.

Puja

Assuming you don’t rate Launchbury or Ewels then?

Fair point on Launchbury, although I think he's too similar to Itoje to play both together. Ewels is a solid international, but nothing outstanding - if injuries mean he ends up playing, he's a useful backup to have who won't let us down, but if he's our first choice 5 then that's a weak position for us.

Puja

[Epaminondas Pules]

If we're playing to a system that has a distributor at 15, then Watson just doesn't fit.

But I'd counter that with Watson simply being a much better player (IMO)

Is that the conclusion from Eddies team lists?.

I think so, and it's an idea I've very much come around to as well.

Personally I’m not a fan of the distributor at 15 idea, much prefer having a strike runner there in attack, esp when you have the likes of Slade in the centre.

IMO, not depends on balance. If you've gotta strike runner at 13, then you can afford a playmaker at 15 (but obviously, don't want to lose so much as a runner that you end up with Alex Goode there).
If you out a playmaker at 13, or a workhorse in the wing, then you do need a strike runner at FB. Again though, it's a matter of finding the right compromise, as no-ones completely incapable at all of the above, and other factors also come into play

I don’t like the compromises you need to make having a distributor at 15, and I wouldn’t ever start with that as a proposed strategy. Needs must sometimes, but using Watson as a strike runner from 15 must appeal. The more runners the better, assuming just basic passing skills- see JJ as an example, his passing is just fine, and perfectly fine for putting a 15 away and we know how good his running can be.

Totally agree with this. I'd much rather focus on striking ability from fullback than being a more dedicated distributor. You fullback in less likely to be chucking long passes about off either hand and more likely to be joining the line and looking at short distribution / offloads. Maybe off first phase, but that is easily covered by a better distributing 12 or 13. Watson's distribution is perfectly fine, whilst his striking ability is ideal. Daly gives you more of both and a better boot (though Watson is a good kicker), but less in defence and safety under the high ball.

[Banquo]

Mind, the only other player who has just arrived, without recent experience of England, and has gone into the XXIII is Jonny Hill and he's in a much less competitive area. The gap between Hill and Ewels on current form is significantly larger than the gap between Underhill, Curry, BillyV, or Earl. Where there's finer margins, I'm okay with the decision to not dump him in after four days' training.

I mean, I'd've picked him myself, but I do understand it.

Puja

Assuming you don’t rate Launchbury or Ewels then?

Fair point on Launchbury, although I think he's too similar to Itoje to play both together. Ewels is a solid international, but nothing outstanding - if injuries mean he ends up playing, he's a useful backup to have who won't let us down, but if he's our first choice 5 then that's a weak position for us.

Puja

In what way are Itoje and Launchbury similar? Genuine q. I think they are quite different tbh and complementary- my problem with pairing them would be more to do with then having a less than stellar lineout with our backrow - and that’s because lineout is a weak point relatively for Launch.

[padprop]

What is the in-form pecking order at 13 do we all think? If we are going with Slade, Farrell and possibly Devoto/Redpath as 12 options in the future, for me it would be:

1) Marchant
2) Lawrence
3) Joseph

Still can't get the image of Joseph getting shrugged off my Joe Simmonds out of my head in the prem semi

[Epaminondas Pules]

Mind, the only other player who has just arrived, without recent experience of England, and has gone into the XXIII is Jonny Hill and he's in a much less competitive area. The gap between Hill and Ewels on current form is significantly larger than the gap between Underhill, Curry, BillyV, or Earl. Where there's finer margins, I'm okay with the decision to not dump him in after four days' training.

I mean, I'd've picked him myself, but I do understand it.

Puja

Assuming you don’t rate Launchbury or Ewels then?

Fair point on Launchbury, although I think he's too similar to Itoje to play both together. Ewels is a solid international, but nothing outstanding - if injuries mean he ends up playing, he's a useful backup to have who won't let us down, but if he's our first choice 5 then that's a weak position for us.

Puja

I disagree somewhat. Ewels is a bloody good player, but we have the advantage of being blessed with a couple who are (Lawes) / were (Kruis) / potentially (Hill) better and then Itoje.

But then we are talking about a 4th / 5th choice lock.

[Banquo]

But I'd counter that with Watson simply being a much better player (IMO)

I think so, and it's an idea I've very much come around to as well.

IMO, not depends on balance. If you've gotta strike runner at 13, then you can afford a playmaker at 15 (but obviously, don't want to lose so much as a runner that you end up with Alex Goode there).
If you out a playmaker at 13, or a workhorse in the wing, then you do need a strike runner at FB. Again though, it's a matter of finding the right compromise, as no-ones completely incapable at all of the above, and other factors also come into play

I don’t like the compromises you need to make having a distributor at 15, and I wouldn’t ever start with that as a proposed strategy. Needs must sometimes, but using Watson as a strike runner from 15 must appeal. The more runners the better, assuming just basic passing skills- see JJ as an example, his passing is just fine, and perfectly fine for putting a 15 away and we know how good his running can be.

Totally agree with this. I'd much rather focus on striking ability from fullback than being a more dedicated distributor. You fullback in less likely to be chucking long passes about off either hand and more likely to be joining the line and looking at short distribution / offloads. Maybe off first phase, but that is easily covered by a better distributing 12 or 13. Watson's distribution is perfectly fine, whilst his striking ability is ideal. Daly gives you more of both and a better boot (though Watson is a good kicker), but less in defence and safety under the high ball.

As you imply, with Slade in the team no need for this at all.

[Epaminondas Pules]

What is the in-form pecking order at 13 do we all think? If we are going with Slade, Farrell and possibly Devoto as 12 options in the future, for me it would be:

1) Marchant
2) Lawrence
3) Joseph

Still can't get the image of Joseph getting shrugged off my Joe Simmonds out of my head in the prem semi

I'd probably reverse that order. Marchant has had, by his standards, a quieter resumption, which is partly a symptom of how Quins have played.

That said, it is three rather tidy options to have, especially when you add in Slade and a fit Tuilagi.

[padprop]

Launchbury's lifelong weakness has been his kick off receives, which no other england second row seems to have as a weakness, so even if he's pulling up trees around the park, his hands in that area and his catching in general can be Kruis-esque at times. I'd still pick him alongside Itoje with Hill on the bench, but I can understand Eddie's thinking

[Banquo]

What is the in-form pecking order at 13 do we all think? If we are going with Slade, Farrell and possibly Devoto as 12 options in the future, for me it would be:

1) Marchant
2) Lawrence
3) Joseph

Still can't get the image of Joseph getting shrugged off my Joe Simmonds out of my head in the prem semi

Probably because it’s so hugely unlike JJ who is the best defender we have at 13, proven international after international.

[Banquo]

Launchbury's lifelong weakness has been his kick off receives, which no other england second row seems to have as a weakness, so even if he's pulling up trees around the park, his hands in that area and his catching in general can be Kruis-esque at times. I'd still pick him alongside Itoje with Hill on the bench, but I can understand Eddie's thinking

That too, but Itoje covers that area so well it’s less of a problem to me than the lineout.

[Epaminondas Pules]

I don’t like the compromises you need to make having a distributor at 15, and I wouldn’t ever start with that as a proposed strategy. Needs must sometimes, but using Watson as a strike runner from 15 must appeal. The more runners the better, assuming just basic passing skills- see JJ as an example, his passing is just fine, and perfectly fine for putting a 15 away and we know how good his running can be.

Totally agree with this. I'd much rather focus on striking ability from fullback than being a more dedicated distributor. You fullback in less likely to be chucking long passes about off either hand and more likely to be joining the line and looking at short distribution / offloads. Maybe off first phase, but that is easily covered by a better distributing 12 or 13. Watson's distribution is perfectly fine, whilst his striking ability is ideal. Daly gives you more of both and a better boot (though Watson is a good kicker), but less in defence and safety under the high ball.

As you imply, with Slade in the team no need for this at all.

Yep. And the larger positive of serious striking from the whole back three if you move Watson to 15 and put Thorley on the wing. Then again we might well see that later on in the game, with the added bonus of Lawrence, who I am genuinely excited to see get his chance.

[Puja]

Assuming you don’t rate Launchbury or Ewels then?

Fair point on Launchbury, although I think he's too similar to Itoje to play both together. Ewels is a solid international, but nothing outstanding - if injuries mean he ends up playing, he's a useful backup to have who won't let us down, but if he's our first choice 5 then that's a weak position for us.

Puja

In what way are Itoje and Launchbury similar? Genuine q. I think they are quite different tbh and complementary- my problem with pairing them would be more to do with then having a less than stellar lineout with our backrow - and that’s because lineout is a weak point relatively for Launch.

They both prefer playing 4 and locking behind the tight-head, they both prefer to front jump, they both prefer to have front pod on restarts and, while lineout is very far from a weakness for Itoje, I'd still want to pair him with a decent jumper at 5, especially with the back row we're fielding.

To my mind, Launchbury is the Itoje backup, not someone who can play alongside him.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

I don’t like the compromises you need to make having a distributor at 15, and I wouldn’t ever start with that as a proposed strategy. Needs must sometimes, but using Watson as a strike runner from 15 must appeal. The more runners the better, assuming just basic passing skills- see JJ as an example, his passing is just fine, and perfectly fine for putting a 15 away and we know how good his running can be.

Ultimately, it depends on the tools you have at your disposal.
If your strike running options are Balshaw and Watson, whilst your playmakers are Goode and Furbank, you'd be an idiot to go with the playmaker.
If your strike runners are Cueto and Brown, whilst you playmakers are Barrett and Hogg, you'd be an idiot to go with the strike runner.

If you're picking between Balshaw and Barrett... I prefer the playmaker, IF you've still got 3 strike runners in the back 4.
Mind, if you're picking between Balshaw and Barrett, then you'd be hard pressed to find a bad answer.

[Banquo]

Totally agree with this. I'd much rather focus on striking ability from fullback than being a more dedicated distributor. You fullback in less likely to be chucking long passes about off either hand and more likely to be joining the line and looking at short distribution / offloads. Maybe off first phase, but that is easily covered by a better distributing 12 or 13. Watson's distribution is perfectly fine, whilst his striking ability is ideal. Daly gives you more of both and a better boot (though Watson is a good kicker), but less in defence and safety under the high ball.

As you imply, with Slade in the team no need for this at all.

Yep. And the larger positive of serious striking from the whole back three if you move Watson to 15 and put Thorley on the wing. Then again we might well see that later on in the game, with the added bonus of Lawrence, who I am genuinely excited to see get his chance.

Yep, no substitute for attacking from the back three.

[Puja]

Assuming you don’t rate Launchbury or Ewels then?

Fair point on Launchbury, although I think he's too similar to Itoje to play both together. Ewels is a solid international, but nothing outstanding - if injuries mean he ends up playing, he's a useful backup to have who won't let us down, but if he's our first choice 5 then that's a weak position for us.

Puja

I disagree somewhat. Ewels is a bloody good player, but we have the advantage of being blessed with a couple who are (Lawes) / were (Kruis) / potentially (Hill) better and then Itoje.

But then we are talking about a 4th / 5th choice lock.

You're not wrong there - I have been spoiled by having Itoje/Kruis/Launch/Lawes for a few years. Talk to me in 2009 and I'd've taken your hand off at the wrist for Ewels.

Puja

[Banquo]

Fair point on Launchbury, although I think he's too similar to Itoje to play both together. Ewels is a solid international, but nothing outstanding - if injuries mean he ends up playing, he's a useful backup to have who won't let us down, but if he's our first choice 5 then that's a weak position for us.

Puja

In what way are Itoje and Launchbury similar? Genuine q. I think they are quite different tbh and complementary- my problem with pairing them would be more to do with then having a less than stellar lineout with our backrow - and that’s because lineout is a weak point relatively for Launch.

They both prefer playing 4 and locking behind the tight-head, they both prefer to front jump, they both prefer to have front pod on restarts and, while lineout is very far from a weakness for Itoje, I'd still want to pair him with a decent jumper at 5, especially with the back row we're fielding.

To my mind, Launchbury is the Itoje backup, not someone who can play alongside him.

Puja

They play utterly differently though- I take your point on what they are asked to do on set plays, but in the loose an excellent and complementary pair. Itoje is certainly better in the lineout and receiving, but Launchbury is terrific in the maul, Itoje on the floor and the tackle.

[Epaminondas Pules]

As you imply, with Slade in the team no need for this at all.

Yep. And the larger positive of serious striking from the whole back three if you move Watson to 15 and put Thorley on the wing. Then again we might well see that later on in the game, with the added bonus of Lawrence, who I am genuinely excited to see get his chance.

Yep, no substitute for attacking from the back three.

May, Thorley and Watson gets me a little moist I must say. Not only does it scream pace and stroking ability, but its bloody solid in every other aspect, defence, workrate, positioning, kicking, and even scrummaging in May's case.

[Banquo]

I don’t like the compromises you need to make having a distributor at 15, and I wouldn’t ever start with that as a proposed strategy. Needs must sometimes, but using Watson as a strike runner from 15 must appeal. The more runners the better, assuming just basic passing skills- see JJ as an example, his passing is just fine, and perfectly fine for putting a 15 away and we know how good his running can be.

Ultimately, it depends on the tools you have at your disposal.
If your strike running options are Balshaw and Watson, whilst your playmakers are Goode and Furbank, you'd be an idiot to go with the playmaker.
If your strike runners are Cueto and Brown, whilst you playmakers are Barrett and Hogg, you'd be an idiot to go with the strike runner.

If you're picking between Balshaw and Barrett... I prefer the playmaker, IF you've still got 3 strike runners in the back 4.
Mind, if you're picking between Balshaw and Barrett, then you'd be hard pressed to find a bad answer.

As I said, needs must sometimes. But I think Barrett is wasted at 15 tbh- that looks like a shoehorn even if he has a lot of previous at 15. My point is that for me a 15 as distributor would almost be last on the list.

Not sure I get your point on Hogg as a playmaker, he’s a strike runner in my book. I may have misunderstood.

[Epaminondas Pules]

I don’t like the compromises you need to make having a distributor at 15, and I wouldn’t ever start with that as a proposed strategy. Needs must sometimes, but using Watson as a strike runner from 15 must appeal. The more runners the better, assuming just basic passing skills- see JJ as an example, his passing is just fine, and perfectly fine for putting a 15 away and we know how good his running can be.

Ultimately, it depends on the tools you have at your disposal.
If your strike running options are Balshaw and Watson, whilst your playmakers are Goode and Furbank, you'd be an idiot to go with the playmaker.
If your strike runners are Cueto and Brown, whilst you playmakers are Barrett and Hogg, you'd be an idiot to go with the strike runner.

If you're picking between Balshaw and Barrett... I prefer the playmaker, IF you've still got 3 strike runners in the back 4.
Mind, if you're picking between Balshaw and Barrett, then you'd be hard pressed to find a bad answer.

As I said, needs must sometimes. But I think Barrett is wasted at 15 tbh- that looks like a shoehorn even if he has a lot of previous at 15. My point is that for me a 15 as distributor would almost be last on the list.

Not sure I get your point on Hogg as a playmaker, he’s a strike runner in my book. I may have misunderstood.

As an opposition coach I'd be delighted with him at 15. I get that they want to fit both Mo'unga and him on the pitch, but you want them both at 10.

[Mellsblue]

Yep. And the larger positive of serious striking from the whole back three if you move Watson to 15 and put Thorley on the wing. Then again we might well see that later on in the game, with the added bonus of Lawrence, who I am genuinely excited to see get his chance.

Yep, no substitute for attacking from the back three.

May, Thorley and Watson gets me a little moist I must say. Not only does it scream pace and stroking ability, but its bloody solid in every other aspect, defence, workrate, positioning, kicking, and even scrummaging in May's case.

Their stroking ability gets you moist?!?!?!?

[Banquo]

Ultimately, it depends on the tools you have at your disposal.
If your strike running options are Balshaw and Watson, whilst your playmakers are Goode and Furbank, you'd be an idiot to go with the playmaker.
If your strike runners are Cueto and Brown, whilst you playmakers are Barrett and Hogg, you'd be an idiot to go with the strike runner.

If you're picking between Balshaw and Barrett... I prefer the playmaker, IF you've still got 3 strike runners in the back 4.
Mind, if you're picking between Balshaw and Barrett, then you'd be hard pressed to find a bad answer.

As I said, needs must sometimes. But I think Barrett is wasted at 15 tbh- that looks like a shoehorn even if he has a lot of previous at 15. My point is that for me a 15 as distributor would almost be last on the list.

Not sure I get your point on Hogg as a playmaker, he’s a strike runner in my book. I may have misunderstood.

As an opposition coach I'd be delighted with him at 15. I get that they want to fit both Mo'unga and him on the pitch, but you want them both at 10.

Absolutely.

[Epaminondas Pules]

Yep, no substitute for attacking from the back three.

May, Thorley and Watson gets me a little moist I must say. Not only does it scream pace and stroking ability, but its bloody solid in every other aspect, defence, workrate, positioning, kicking, and even scrummaging in May's case.

Their stroking ability gets you moist?!?!?!?

Yep. They're good runners too, which helps when the wife gets home early.