Premiership Final

[Oakboy]

I think they’re both better players than when they took us to a World Cup final…
Tbh, I think 10 is probably our strongest position in the backs. Scrumhalf is a spluttering JVP, flawed Mitchell or the hope of Quirke, centres are a mess, wing is perma-crock Watson (world class when fit, imo) and a bunch of young untested hopes and an out of position 10/15, whilst 15 is Steward but no depth behind.

But, which of the top international teams would they get into? In the world list of FHs are they in the top five, say?

[Oakboy]

!

Message from:

there is an argument that neither has what it takes to be a constituent part of England moving up a level - should the overall playing strength improve. what is that argument? Without a pack producing good consistent ball, no fly half can miraculously produce good performances and results. I think the argument is simply that we have seen the best of them and that 'best' was not good enough, along with most of the rest of the team.

[Mellsblue]

I think they’re both better players than when they took us to a World Cup final…
Tbh, I think 10 is probably our strongest position in the backs. Scrumhalf is a spluttering JVP, flawed Mitchell or the hope of Quirke, centres are a mess, wing is perma-crock Watson (world class when fit, imo) and a bunch of young untested hopes and an out of position 10/15, whilst 15 is Steward but no depth behind.

Freeman, Lawrence, Arundell imo have the talent to be starting.

Agreed but F and F (and Smith) are the least of our worries.
I also did forget to add Daly at 11 as a plus.

[Mellsblue]

!

Message from:

there is an argument that neither has what it takes to be a constituent part of England moving up a level - should the overall playing strength improve. what is that argument? Without a pack producing good consistent ball, no fly half can miraculously produce good performances and results. I think the argument is simply that we have seen the best of them and that 'best' was not good enough, along with most of the rest of the team.

Why have we seen the best of them? Farrrll is 31 and Ford barely 30. Neither rely on athletic ability so aging shouldn’t really be a worry for another couple of years.

[Oakboy]

!	Message from:
	what is that argument? Without a pack producing good consistent ball, no fly half can miraculously produce good performances and results. I think the argument is simply that we have seen the best of them and that 'best' was not good enough, along with most of the rest of the team.

Why have we seen the best of them? Farrrll is 31 and Ford barely 30. Neither rely on athletic ability so aging shouldn’t really be a worry for another couple of years.

Do you really see either in the shirt for the 2027 RWC? I think we are in a situation where we need a major re-build starting with the next 6N. Smith needs a long run in the shirt, though I still have reservations about him.

[Mellsblue]

!	Message from:
	I think the argument is simply that we have seen the best of them and that 'best' was not good enough, along with most of the rest of the team.

Why have we seen the best of them? Farrrll is 31 and Ford barely 30. Neither rely on athletic ability so aging shouldn’t really be a worry for another couple of years.

Do you really see either in the shirt for the 2027 RWC? I think we are in a situation where we need a major re-build starting with the next 6N. Smith needs a long run in the shirt, though I still have reservations about him.

Possibly. Look at Sexton.
Whether we’ve seen the best of them and whether they’ll make 2027 are wholly separate discussions.
I agree that we need a major rebuild and that Smith should be central to that… but evolution not revolution. If you dump F & F after France then your 9, 10, 21 & 22 will have 50ish caps between them with Smith accounting for approx 50% of those. Add in your no8 and your 12 and you’re still around the 60/70 mark, assuming no Billy V. It would be bold and a statement of intent, I guess.

[Oakboy]

Why have we seen the best of them? Farrrll is 31 and Ford barely 30. Neither rely on athletic ability so aging shouldn’t really be a worry for another couple of years.

Do you really see either in the shirt for the 2027 RWC? I think we are in a situation where we need a major re-build starting with the next 6N. Smith needs a long run in the shirt, though I still have reservations about him.

Possibly. Look at Sexton.
Whether we’ve seen the best of them and whether they’ll make 2027 are wholly separate discussions.
I agree that we need a major rebuild and that Smith should be central to that… but evolution not revolution. If you dump F & F after France then your 9, 10, 21 & 22 will have 50ish caps between them with Smith accounting for approx 50% of those. Add in your no8 and your 12 and you’re still around the 60/70 mark, assuming no Billy V. It would be bold and a statement of intent, I guess.

I think there needs to be a whole new group of players given time to grow into the top level together. Apart from Curry and Itoje, I just don't see many needing to be retained from the majority who have been so far below the required level for three successive 6Ns. For the last 20 years, various head coaches have tried the gentle evolution route. I don't see what there is to lose with trying revolution.

[Banquo]

!

Message from:

there is an argument that neither has what it takes to be a constituent part of England moving up a level - should the overall playing strength improve. what is that argument? Without a pack producing good consistent ball, no fly half can miraculously produce good performances and results. I think the argument is simply that we have seen the best of them and that 'best' was not good enough, along with most of the rest of the team.

You don't see the logical flaw in that?

[Banquo]

I think they’re both better players than when they took us to a World Cup final…
Tbh, I think 10 is probably our strongest position in the backs. Scrumhalf is a spluttering JVP, flawed Mitchell or the hope of Quirke, centres are a mess, wing is perma-crock Watson (world class when fit, imo) and a bunch of young untested hopes and an out of position 10/15, whilst 15 is Steward but no depth behind.

Freeman, Lawrence, Arundell imo have the talent to be starting.

Agreed but F and F (and Smith) are the least of our worries.
I also did forget to add Daly at 11 as a plus.

...as long as he stops the brain farting/actually plays 11. He let me down yesterday

[Banquo]

!	Message from:
	I think the argument is simply that we have seen the best of them and that 'best' was not good enough, along with most of the rest of the team.

Why have we seen the best of them? Farrrll is 31 and Ford barely 30. Neither rely on athletic ability so aging shouldn’t really be a worry for another couple of years.

Do you really see either in the shirt for the 2027 RWC? I think we are in a situation where we need a major re-build starting with the next 6N. Smith needs a long run in the shirt, though I still have reservations about him.

re-building for 4 years hence is a bit of a fake errand in rugby imo (or any team sport).

Its not like there is a huge queue of top players waiting either.

[Mellsblue]

Do you really see either in the shirt for the 2027 RWC? I think we are in a situation where we need a major re-build starting with the next 6N. Smith needs a long run in the shirt, though I still have reservations about him.

Possibly. Look at Sexton.
Whether we’ve seen the best of them and whether they’ll make 2027 are wholly separate discussions.
I agree that we need a major rebuild and that Smith should be central to that… but evolution not revolution. If you dump F & F after France then your 9, 10, 21 & 22 will have 50ish caps between them with Smith accounting for approx 50% of those. Add in your no8 and your 12 and you’re still around the 60/70 mark, assuming no Billy V. It would be bold and a statement of intent, I guess.

I think there needs to be a whole new group of players given time to grow into the top level together. Apart from Curry and Itoje, I just don't see many needing to be retained from the majority who have been so far below the required level for three successive 6Ns. For the last 20 years, various head coaches have tried the gentle evolution route. I don't see what there is to lose with trying revolution.

Who are these 30 players?

[FKAS]

Why have we seen the best of them? Farrrll is 31 and Ford barely 30. Neither rely on athletic ability so aging shouldn’t really be a worry for another couple of years.

Do you really see either in the shirt for the 2027 RWC? I think we are in a situation where we need a major re-build starting with the next 6N. Smith needs a long run in the shirt, though I still have reservations about him.

Possibly. Look at Sexton.
Whether we’ve seen the best of them and whether they’ll make 2027 are wholly separate discussions.
I agree that we need a major rebuild and that Smith should be central to that… but evolution not revolution. If you dump F & F after France then your 9, 10, 21 & 22 will have 50ish caps between them with Smith accounting for approx 50% of those. Add in your no8 and your 12 and you’re still around the 60/70 mark, assuming no Billy V. It would be bold and a statement of intent, I guess.

Why? He's 24 and has 23 caps so far but how many good games? Maybe 3 or 4? He's a talent but he's not showed anything like enough form to rebuild the team around him. I'm not sure he'll be the Smith wearing the 10 shirt in a couple of years as young Fin is coming on very well. We'd be better off building up a style that suits English rugby in general and then telling the players to produce in that structure or not get picked, which is what Eddie did early doors before going off the rails.

I agree on the need for a clearout post world cup and to be honest we need to start some of the rebuild pre world cup, notably the midfield. It's easier to introduce new players into a winning side so is not throw the baby out with the bath water when there's still some good options available to England. Jamie George for instance, I'd not retire him just because he'll be 33 by the next 6N, I'd definitely limit his number of minutes though.

[Mellsblue]

Do you really see either in the shirt for the 2027 RWC? I think we are in a situation where we need a major re-build starting with the next 6N. Smith needs a long run in the shirt, though I still have reservations about him.

Possibly. Look at Sexton.
Whether we’ve seen the best of them and whether they’ll make 2027 are wholly separate discussions.
I agree that we need a major rebuild and that Smith should be central to that… but evolution not revolution. If you dump F & F after France then your 9, 10, 21 & 22 will have 50ish caps between them with Smith accounting for approx 50% of those. Add in your no8 and your 12 and you’re still around the 60/70 mark, assuming no Billy V. It would be bold and a statement of intent, I guess.

Why?

I’m not having this discussion again.

[FKAS]

Possibly. Look at Sexton.
Whether we’ve seen the best of them and whether they’ll make 2027 are wholly separate discussions.
I agree that we need a major rebuild and that Smith should be central to that… but evolution not revolution. If you dump F & F after France then your 9, 10, 21 & 22 will have 50ish caps between them with Smith accounting for approx 50% of those. Add in your no8 and your 12 and you’re still around the 60/70 mark, assuming no Billy V. It would be bold and a statement of intent, I guess.

Why?

I’m not having this discussion again.

I generally disagree with building it around a single player but why the flyhalf and not one of the promising forwards?

[Banquo]

Why?

I’m not having this discussion again.

I generally disagree with building it around a single player but why the flyhalf and not one of the promising forwards?

He didn't say build around a single player, he just said at the centre of the rebuild....ie a core of players as I see it. I agree its not sound to build around one player. For example, Jack Willis has a different set of skills to a lot of backrows, but his injury record (caused in part by using that skill set) would indicate a high level of risk in assuming he'll be around all the time; see Manu.
You had it right earlier, and in fact I think we have pretty much all been saying the same for donkeys years- evolve sides, even when at start of cycles. Don't ditch players on age grounds unnecessarily until you've developed the right replacement etc etc- especially don't ditch a whole load of good players simultaneously. Winning is the best development tool imo.

[Mellsblue]

I’m not having this discussion again.

I generally disagree with building it around a single player but why the flyhalf and not one of the promising forwards?

He didn't say build around a single player, he just said at the centre of the rebuild....ie a core of players as I see it.

Yep

[Oakboy]

I suggest there is a difference when we have experienced a sustained period of mediocrity i.e. 4 years +. How many players aged 28 or more are irreplaceable currently? We have seen what happens when crucial positions like 9 and 12 are not part of a longer-term development plan. Sometimes, the only way to do that is to say player X is not good enough and should be left out. Picking the best young candidate and accepting that performance level might go backwards before it goes forwards may work. Long-term it might raise the whole team's ceiling. Maybe, we have reached the point where there is nothing to lose. Try a new way. If it means incentivising clubs to play more EQ youngsters, so be it.

[Banquo]

I suggest there is a difference when we have experienced a sustained period of mediocrity i.e. 4 years +. How many players aged 28 or more are irreplaceable currently? We have seen what happens when crucial positions like 9 and 12 are not part of a longer-term development plan. Sometimes, the only way to do that is to say player X is not good enough and should be left out. Picking the best young candidate and accepting that performance level might go backwards before it goes forwards may work. Long-term it might raise the whole team's ceiling. Maybe, we have reached the point where there is nothing to lose. Try a new way. If it means incentivising clubs to play more EQ youngsters, so be it.

where is this magical queue of players you want to pick? Clubs get a massive incentive to play EQPs, and its not numbers, its quality that's the issue. The game that started this thread is a case in point. I get your frustration, and I'm getting more and more angsty about the quality of player being produced.

[FKAS]

I’m not having this discussion again.

I generally disagree with building it around a single player but why the flyhalf and not one of the promising forwards?

He didn't say build around a single player, he just said at the centre of the rebuild....ie a core of players as I see it. I agree its not sound to build around one player. For example, Jack Willis has a different set of skills to a lot of backrows, but his injury record (caused in part by using that skill set) would indicate a high level of risk in assuming he'll be around all the time; see Manu.
You had it right earlier, and in fact I think we have pretty much all been saying the same for donkeys years- evolve sides, even when at start of cycles. Don't ditch players on age grounds unnecessarily until you've developed the right replacement etc etc- especially don't ditch a whole load of good players simultaneously. Winning is the best development tool imo.

Smith being the only element he named in the central to the rebuild though.

I very much agree that winning is the best development tool.

[Mellsblue]

I generally disagree with building it around a single player but why the flyhalf and not one of the promising forwards?

He didn't say build around a single player, he just said at the centre of the rebuild....ie a core of players as I see it. I agree its not sound to build around one player. For example, Jack Willis has a different set of skills to a lot of backrows, but his injury record (caused in part by using that skill set) would indicate a high level of risk in assuming he'll be around all the time; see Manu.
You had it right earlier, and in fact I think we have pretty much all been saying the same for donkeys years- evolve sides, even when at start of cycles. Don't ditch players on age grounds unnecessarily until you've developed the right replacement etc etc- especially don't ditch a whole load of good players simultaneously. Winning is the best development tool imo.

Smith being the only element he named in the central to the rebuild though.

Have a look at the preceding three posts in the discussion and then don’t come back to me.

[FKAS]

He didn't say build around a single player, he just said at the centre of the rebuild....ie a core of players as I see it. I agree its not sound to build around one player. For example, Jack Willis has a different set of skills to a lot of backrows, but his injury record (caused in part by using that skill set) would indicate a high level of risk in assuming he'll be around all the time; see Manu.
You had it right earlier, and in fact I think we have pretty much all been saying the same for donkeys years- evolve sides, even when at start of cycles. Don't ditch players on age grounds unnecessarily until you've developed the right replacement etc etc- especially don't ditch a whole load of good players simultaneously. Winning is the best development tool imo.

Smith being the only element he named in the central to the rebuild though.

Have a look at the preceding three posts in the discussion and then don’t come back to me.

So no basis for your argument. Jolly good we can move on.

[Banquo]

I generally disagree with building it around a single player but why the flyhalf and not one of the promising forwards?

He didn't say build around a single player, he just said at the centre of the rebuild....ie a core of players as I see it. I agree its not sound to build around one player. For example, Jack Willis has a different set of skills to a lot of backrows, but his injury record (caused in part by using that skill set) would indicate a high level of risk in assuming he'll be around all the time; see Manu.
You had it right earlier, and in fact I think we have pretty much all been saying the same for donkeys years- evolve sides, even when at start of cycles. Don't ditch players on age grounds unnecessarily until you've developed the right replacement etc etc- especially don't ditch a whole load of good players simultaneously. Winning is the best development tool imo.

Smith being the only element he named in the central to the rebuild though.
l.

...and...?

[Mikey Brown]

I don't know why it is I put myself through watching these clips with Andy Goode, but I figured why not shovel some more peat on the fire.



The unsurprising takeaway is that Ford goes missing in big games, Farrell "steps up and takes the lead". "He even belted one of his own lads in the warm-up" is probably my favourite, unexpected bit of praise in there.

I do think the pendulum has swung a bit too far the other way (against Farrell) on here, and he generally played pretty well on Saturday, but there's still something weird about the fawning over him. I don't remember any big mistakes from him at the weekend except that kick straight in to touch, which obviously didn't get a mention.

Ford just didn't seem to get a whole of the ball. Maybe Warr would have succumbed the Farrell's aura and passed him the ball a bit more.

[fivepointer]

The fawning has been the media's default position for years. I blame SCW. His description of Farrell as being 4 players in 1 really sticks in my mind. Seldom have i heard anyone offer a sensible, balanced critique of Farrell, identifying both his strengths and weaknesses.
But i do think he's been very good for Saracens all season and had a strong game on Saturday.

[Scrumhead]

I suggest there is a difference when we have experienced a sustained period of mediocrity i.e. 4 years +. How many players aged 28 or more are irreplaceable currently? We have seen what happens when crucial positions like 9 and 12 are not part of a longer-term development plan. Sometimes, the only way to do that is to say player X is not good enough and should be left out. Picking the best young candidate and accepting that performance level might go backwards before it goes forwards may work. Long-term it might raise the whole team's ceiling. Maybe, we have reached the point where there is nothing to lose. Try a new way. If it means incentivising clubs to play more EQ youngsters, so be it.

where is this magical queue of players you want to pick? Clubs get a massive incentive to play EQPs, and its not numbers, its quality that's the issue. The game that started this thread is a case in point. I get your frustration, and I'm getting more and more angsty about the quality of player being produced.

Exactly. If we had a talented crop of uncapped players ready to take over from the current incumbents, fair enough, but we really don’t.

If we did do something crazy like that, I find it hard to believe you wouldn’t be baying for blood after a couple of defeats.