Looking towards Samoa and QFs

[TheDasher]

why six forwards on the bench......ever. Though you could have 7 I spose.

I wouldn't pick Farrell. SB will, and potentially Ford too. So I'm assuming they might be at 10-12. Well regardless, I'd pick Smith at 15 again. So when listing the forwards above I was thinking there's a possibility we'll have three fly halves on the field. I'd also pick Steward at 14, which means if Smith went down injured, Steward go go back to 15. If you had Marchant on the bench, he could cover centre or wing. Obviously you need a reserve 9.

So - if Ford, Farrell and Smith all start, I don't think it's that risky to have 2 backs on the bench.

Why six forwards? Because I think against the top sides over the past couple of years our pack of forwards has been overpowered. So as much fresh firepower as possible on the bench might make more sense than just bringing on a third random back for the sake of it even though those on the field can play 80.

As I said...a forwards view. Lets pick two players out of position, a terrible option at 12, and then rejig a fair bit if there's an injury.

I don't think we should automatically assume picking players out of position is a bad thing. After all, sometimes it works.

Re the terrible option at 12 - agreed, I wouldn't pick Farrell at 12. But SB will. I think he will go 10. Ford, 12. Farrell. And I don't think we should move Smith, I think he deserves another go at 15 personally.

I think Steward would help Smith in the backfield (not that Smith needs it for the uncontested high balls) and I think Steward would become formidable attacking weapon with cross-field kicks potentially - he wasn't getting into the line from an attacking sense at 15 of late, Smith I think will.

If the 9 is injured you have a spare, if anyone outside of 9 is injured you have Marchant to come on and all bases our covered basically. 3 injuries in the backs well, that's a problem - but I'd take the risk, also hoping it'd be late in the game.

[TheDasher]

On only having two backs, its more about injury than impact for me. And then multi shuffles if the wrong player goes down. I know this matters not a jot to forwards

Eh, all backs positions are pretty much interchangeable, right?

England are actually in a pretty good position when it comes to doing 6:2 - if it's Farrell on the bench, then any injury that's not 10 just means he moves to 12 and Tuilagi and Marchant take one step further out, which is likely to be a rehearsed substitution even if there's no injury. If Farrell is playing 12, then Daly on the bench covers 11-15. The only way there's a problem is if Farrell is not playing (never thought I'd say that) - if the 23 is Smith, then there is the issue with a centre going down injured - no problem if Daly is on the wing, but otherwise it'd probably mean pushing May in, which is... not ideal, to say the least.

Puja

why would Smith be 23 if Faz is in squad with a 5:3?

Because I'm assuming SB won't pick Smith at FB vs Samoa, he'll pick Steward. He'll pick Farrell at 10 or 12. If he picks Farrell at 10, Ford will be fly half cover, if he picks Farrell at 12, Ford will be at 10 and I suspect he'd then pick Smith on the bench as FB cover.

Don't make me go through that again please.

[TheDasher]

I must add, I really like Steward at FB, I am purely talking about our options for wining the next few games and making the most of the squad we have.

I don't rate May at this point, Daly hasn't looked good, Malins is not playing well on the wing - it's not like we're that well stocked with wingers in this squad.

[Puja]

On only having two backs, its more about injury than impact for me. And then multi shuffles if the wrong player goes down. I know this matters not a jot to forwards

Eh, all backs positions are pretty much interchangeable, right?

England are actually in a pretty good position when it comes to doing 6:2 - if it's Farrell on the bench, then any injury that's not 10 just means he moves to 12 and Tuilagi and Marchant take one step further out, which is likely to be a rehearsed substitution even if there's no injury. If Farrell is playing 12, then Daly on the bench covers 11-15. The only way there's a problem is if Farrell is not playing (never thought I'd say that) - if the 23 is Smith, then there is the issue with a centre going down injured - no problem if Daly is on the wing, but otherwise it'd probably mean pushing May in, which is... not ideal, to say the least.

Puja

why would Smith be 23 if Faz is in squad with a 5:3?

I was talking about a 6:2 if Farrell wasn't playing.

...The only way there's a problem is if Farrell is not playing (never thought I'd say that) - if the 23 is Smith, then there is the issue with a centre going down injured - no problem if Daly is on the wing, but otherwise it'd probably mean pushing May in, which is... not ideal, to say the least.

Puja

Steward!! How many times do I have to say it

The theory is fun, but I think we might summon the ghost of Clive Woodward if we speak about it seriously. Plus picking someone whose USP is taking high balls in the back three and then not playing them in the back three seems a bit perverse to me.

Puja

[Danno]

Yes, please stop Candymanning some of the err.. "less sane" ideas into reality. We know they're reading the board now.

[Banquo]

I wouldn't pick Farrell. SB will, and potentially Ford too. So I'm assuming they might be at 10-12. Well regardless, I'd pick Smith at 15 again. So when listing the forwards above I was thinking there's a possibility we'll have three fly halves on the field. I'd also pick Steward at 14, which means if Smith went down injured, Steward go go back to 15. If you had Marchant on the bench, he could cover centre or wing. Obviously you need a reserve 9.

So - if Ford, Farrell and Smith all start, I don't think it's that risky to have 2 backs on the bench.

Why six forwards? Because I think against the top sides over the past couple of years our pack of forwards has been overpowered. So as much fresh firepower as possible on the bench might make more sense than just bringing on a third random back for the sake of it even though those on the field can play 80.

As I said...a forwards view. Lets pick two players out of position, a terrible option at 12, and then rejig a fair bit if there's an injury.

I don't think we should automatically assume picking players out of position is a bad thing. After all, sometimes it works.

Re the terrible option at 12 - agreed, I wouldn't pick Farrell at 12. But SB will. I think he will go 10. Ford, 12. Farrell. And I don't think we should move Smith, I think he deserves another go at 15 personally.

I think Steward would help Smith in the backfield (not that Smith needs it for the uncontested high balls) and I think Steward would become formidable attacking weapon with cross-field kicks potentially - he wasn't getting into the line from an attacking sense at 15 of late, Smith I think will.

If the 9 is injured you have a spare, if anyone outside of 9 is injured you have Marchant to come on and all bases our covered basically. 3 injuries in the backs well, that's a problem - but I'd take the risk, also hoping it'd be late in the game.

Saturday was the first time Smith has ever started at 15- how is he positionally, defensively, under a contested high ball?. Steward is too slow for intl wing.
Even with one injury to the outside backs you are likely shuffling more than necessary.

[Banquo]

Eh, all backs positions are pretty much interchangeable, right?

England are actually in a pretty good position when it comes to doing 6:2 - if it's Farrell on the bench, then any injury that's not 10 just means he moves to 12 and Tuilagi and Marchant take one step further out, which is likely to be a rehearsed substitution even if there's no injury. If Farrell is playing 12, then Daly on the bench covers 11-15. The only way there's a problem is if Farrell is not playing (never thought I'd say that) - if the 23 is Smith, then there is the issue with a centre going down injured - no problem if Daly is on the wing, but otherwise it'd probably mean pushing May in, which is... not ideal, to say the least.

Puja

why would Smith be 23 if Faz is in squad with a 5:3?

Because I'm assuming SB won't pick Smith at FB vs Samoa, he'll pick Steward. He'll pick Farrell at 10 or 12. If he picks Farrell at 10, Ford will be fly half cover, if he picks Farrell at 12, Ford will be at 10 and I suspect he'd then pick Smith on the bench as FB cover.

Don't make me go through that again please.

I asked puja tbf. But why wouldnt you have proper outside back cover on 6:2 split with 2 10s in the squad already?

[Banquo]

I must add, I really like Steward at FB, I am purely talking about our options for wining the next few games and making the most of the squad we have.

I don't rate May at this point, Daly hasn't looked good, Malins is not playing well on the wing - it's not like we're that well stocked with wingers in this squad.

no, self inflicted, but Steward is never an intl wing. See Mike Brown for details.

[TheDasher]

As I said...a forwards view. Lets pick two players out of position, a terrible option at 12, and then rejig a fair bit if there's an injury.

I don't think we should automatically assume picking players out of position is a bad thing. After all, sometimes it works.

Re the terrible option at 12 - agreed, I wouldn't pick Farrell at 12. But SB will. I think he will go 10. Ford, 12. Farrell. And I don't think we should move Smith, I think he deserves another go at 15 personally.

I think Steward would help Smith in the backfield (not that Smith needs it for the uncontested high balls) and I think Steward would become formidable attacking weapon with cross-field kicks potentially - he wasn't getting into the line from an attacking sense at 15 of late, Smith I think will.

If the 9 is injured you have a spare, if anyone outside of 9 is injured you have Marchant to come on and all bases our covered basically. 3 injuries in the backs well, that's a problem - but I'd take the risk, also hoping it'd be late in the game.

Saturday was the first time Smith has ever started at 15- how is he positionally, defensively, under a contested high ball?. Steward is too slow for intl wing.
Even with one injury to the outside backs you are likely shuffling more than necessary.

I'd imagine probably as good as Jason Robinson was under a contested high ball. He's brave is Smith and has good hand-eye. Look - we both know there's risk. But we also both know that England have been absolute dog shite in attack and Smith is wonderful going forward, and Borthwick won't pick him at 10 or 12. So I'm suggest having another look at him there despite the risks and you're saying it's too risky. That's it really.

On Steward - I think Daly has lost a yard of pace - over 40 metres I wouldn't say he's hugely ahead of Steward, once that long stride starts motoring. Anyway, again, I know he's not quick. But we have a number 10 and potentially a 15, and sadly a 12 who could all use him as an attacking threat on the wing, and he can assist in the back three too.

His long term future is obviously not there. Let's see what happens.

[TheDasher]

I must add, I really like Steward at FB, I am purely talking about our options for wining the next few games and making the most of the squad we have.

I don't rate May at this point, Daly hasn't looked good, Malins is not playing well on the wing - it's not like we're that well stocked with wingers in this squad.

no, self inflicted, but Steward is never an intl wing. See Mike Brown for details.

Different proposition - Brown didn't have the ability in tight world cup games to be a match winner with attacking kicks. Anyway, again, I know what you mean.

[p/d]

Yes, please stop Candymanning some of the err.. "less sane" ideas into reality. We know they're reading the board now.

You can’t see it now, but give it time.

Think Greenwood, think Devoto and now Steward.

[TheDasher]

why would Smith be 23 if Faz is in squad with a 5:3?

Because I'm assuming SB won't pick Smith at FB vs Samoa, he'll pick Steward. He'll pick Farrell at 10 or 12. If he picks Farrell at 10, Ford will be fly half cover, if he picks Farrell at 12, Ford will be at 10 and I suspect he'd then pick Smith on the bench as FB cover.

Don't make me go through that again please.

I asked puja tbf. But why wouldnt you have proper outside back cover on 6:2 split with 2 10s in the squad already?

Apols, I see that now. My answer would be - if you start Arundell, which outside back is going to give you any impact? Nobody, so I'd risk the lack of cover. That's all.

[Puja]

I must add, I really like Steward at FB, I am purely talking about our options for wining the next few games and making the most of the squad we have.

I don't rate May at this point, Daly hasn't looked good, Malins is not playing well on the wing - it's not like we're that well stocked with wingers in this squad.

no, self inflicted, but Steward is never an intl wing. See Mike Brown for details.

For the way we are approaching this RWC, he really could be. If we're not passing down the line to use speedy people to round defenders, then there's a fair bit of value in someone who's good at chasing kicks, a weapon for a cross-field kick, and a useful bosh option to bring into midfield. More than a bit of a worry if the other team runs at him, but on the wing he can at least use the touchline as a friend (rather than being confused in both directions as he sometimes is at full-back). It's not an expansive selection, but it is one that might suit us.

Puja

[TheDasher]

I must add, I really like Steward at FB, I am purely talking about our options for wining the next few games and making the most of the squad we have.

I don't rate May at this point, Daly hasn't looked good, Malins is not playing well on the wing - it's not like we're that well stocked with wingers in this squad.

no, self inflicted, but Steward is never an intl wing. See Mike Brown for details.

For the way we are approaching this RWC, he really could be. If we're not passing down the line to use speedy people to round defenders, then there's a fair bit of value in someone who's good at chasing kicks, a weapon for a cross-field kick, and a useful bosh option to bring into midfield. More than a bit of a worry if the other team runs at him, but on the wing he can at least use the touchline as a friend (rather than being confused in both directions as he sometimes is at full-back). It's not an expansive selection, but it is one that might suit us.

Puja

Put better than I could.

[Danno]

I must add, I really like Steward at FB, I am purely talking about our options for wining the next few games and making the most of the squad we have.

I don't rate May at this point, Daly hasn't looked good, Malins is not playing well on the wing - it's not like we're that well stocked with wingers in this squad.

no, self inflicted, but Steward is never an intl wing. See Mike Brown for details.

Also Tuilagi, Malins

[FKAS]

I must add, I really like Steward at FB, I am purely talking about our options for wining the next few games and making the most of the squad we have.

I don't rate May at this point, Daly hasn't looked good, Malins is not playing well on the wing - it's not like we're that well stocked with wingers in this squad.

no, self inflicted, but Steward is never an intl wing. See Mike Brown for details.

Also Tuilagi, Malins

The main issue with Steward would be defending on the wing and being done for pace but surely we'd adapt how we defend and have him in the backfield with Smith. Under the Sinfield defence we normally have the flyhalf and fullback in the backfield but you'd adjust that.

[p/d]

I really like Steward. But talk of moving him to wing are ridiculous. He is a good fb who can catch a ball. Building a team around him has seen us drop from 3 to 6 in the world rankings - I know that is not his fault - and now we are discussing Smith at fb. Who would have thought that once our forwards started to play a bit we are keen on an fb who can do something with ball in hand rather than just catch it.

[Banquo]

I must add, I really like Steward at FB, I am purely talking about our options for wining the next few games and making the most of the squad we have.

I don't rate May at this point, Daly hasn't looked good, Malins is not playing well on the wing - it's not like we're that well stocked with wingers in this squad.

no, self inflicted, but Steward is never an intl wing. See Mike Brown for details.

More than a bit of a worry if the other team runs at him,
Puja

that's ok, it'll never happen. We will use Jedi mind tricks.

[Banquo]

The contortions being gone through in this thread to accommodate players is pretty illuminating/illustrative.

[Banquo]

I really like Steward. But talk of moving him to wing are ridiculous. He is a good fb who can catch a ball. Building a team around him has seen us drop from 3 to 6 in the world rankings - I know that is not his fault - and now we are discussing Smith at fb. Who would have thought that once our forwards started to play a bit we are keen on an fb who can do something with ball in hand rather than just catch it.

perzackly.

[Banquo]

I must add, I really like Steward at FB, I am purely talking about our options for wining the next few games and making the most of the squad we have.

I don't rate May at this point, Daly hasn't looked good, Malins is not playing well on the wing - it's not like we're that well stocked with wingers in this squad.

no, self inflicted, but Steward is never an intl wing. See Mike Brown for details.

For the way we are approaching this RWC, he really could be. If we're not passing down the line to use speedy people to round defenders, then there's a fair bit of value in someone who's good at chasing kicks, a weapon for a cross-field kick, and a useful bosh option to bring into midfield. More than a bit of a worry if the other team runs at him, but on the wing he can at least use the touchline as a friend (rather than being confused in both directions as he sometimes is at full-back). It's not an expansive selection, but it is one that might suit us.

Puja

see MIke Brown for details, plus yet again fiddling around with a backline that's already pretty unsettled and uncoordinated against good sides.

[Banquo]

Because I'm assuming SB won't pick Smith at FB vs Samoa, he'll pick Steward. He'll pick Farrell at 10 or 12. If he picks Farrell at 10, Ford will be fly half cover, if he picks Farrell at 12, Ford will be at 10 and I suspect he'd then pick Smith on the bench as FB cover.

Don't make me go through that again please.

I asked puja tbf. But why wouldnt you have proper outside back cover on 6:2 split with 2 10s in the squad already?

Apols, I see that now. My answer would be - if you start Arundell, which outside back is going to give you any impact? Nobody, so I'd risk the lack of cover. That's all.

The backs bench isn't generally picked for impact frankly. Its about injury cover...again

[Oakboy]

We go round and round on the subject of back selection. As every match goes by my fairly long-held conviction is reinforced that we will make no real progress until Youngs, Care, Tuilagi, Ford and Farrell have retired. Obviously, I'd now add May and Daly to the list. I hope that all seven are permanently discarded immediately after the RWC and I care not a jot if we have to go backwards before going forwards thereafter.

For now, I guess SB will regard Youngs, Ford, Daly, Farrell, Tuilagi, May, Steward as his starting line-up. Bravery of selection might see Arundel in for May because he always needs cover for a Tuilagi injury from Lawrence or Marchant on the bench meaning he has no 'gas' impact otherwise.

I'd pick Mitchell, Smith, Daly, Lawrence, Marchant, Arundel, Steward in the cause of progress. We won't win the thing so there's nothing much to lose.

[Banquo]

We go round and round on the subject of back selection. As every match goes by my fairly long-held conviction is reinforced that we will make no real progress until Youngs, Care, Tuilagi, Ford and Farrell have retired. Obviously, I'd now add May and Daly to the list. I hope that all seven are permanently discarded immediately after the RWC and I care not a jot if we have to go backwards before going forwards thereafter.

For now, I guess SB will regard Youngs, Ford, Daly, Farrell, Tuilagi, May, Steward as his starting line-up. Bravery of selection might see Arundel in for May because he always needs cover for a Tuilagi injury from Lawrence or Marchant on the bench meaning he has no 'gas' impact otherwise.

I'd pick Mitchell, Smith, Daly, Lawrence, Marchant, Arundel, Steward in the cause of progress. We won't win the thing so there's nothing much to lose.

...plus, its up front where it really matters tbh.

[Oakboy]

We go round and round on the subject of back selection. As every match goes by my fairly long-held conviction is reinforced that we will make no real progress until Youngs, Care, Tuilagi, Ford and Farrell have retired. Obviously, I'd now add May and Daly to the list. I hope that all seven are permanently discarded immediately after the RWC and I care not a jot if we have to go backwards before going forwards thereafter.

For now, I guess SB will regard Youngs, Ford, Daly, Farrell, Tuilagi, May, Steward as his starting line-up. Bravery of selection might see Arundel in for May because he always needs cover for a Tuilagi injury from Lawrence or Marchant on the bench meaning he has no 'gas' impact otherwise.

I'd pick Mitchell, Smith, Daly, Lawrence, Marchant, Arundel, Steward in the cause of progress. We won't win the thing so there's nothing much to lose.

...plus, its up front where it really matters tbh.

Yes. Maybe, SB's just being stubbornly phlegmatic in terms of building from the front. From his original assessment that 'we are not good at anything', by settling on a front five and picking Lawes at 6, he has brought solidity of set-piece. Curry's red card was one set-back and Billy V's poor form is another. On the credit side, Earl has excelled though, oddly, that highlights the selection mistake of omitting T Willis (as it was probably either/or with those two rather than TW or BV as it should have been).