Looking towards Samoa and QFs

[TheDasher]

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

It's about injury cover in your mind, but how often is the third back required for injury cover, not very often I'd suggest.

And talk about Steward being a sitting duck in defence on the wing is nonsense, it's not like May and the like are using every inch of their pace to cling on desperately to defenders almost skinning them every game is it. Steward has long limbs, is fairly quick, has the touchline and is pretty physical. It's not Dan Cole on the wing.

Anyway - again, Steward is a full back primarily, and I think he's excellent there. However, I think getting Marcus Smith on the field might make some sense as I cannot see the turgid rubbish we've been playing for 18 months getting us through a semi final, we have to go for it and I'd suggest Arundell and Smith should be on the field, that is all. SB will pick Ford, Farrell hence some are thinking of how to get Smith in. I'd also suggest he'd cause defences a lot of concern most of the time he gets the ball from FB - defences haven't been too concerned about us of late.

Let's talk about the forwards again.

[Mellsblue]

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.

Be careful. This train of thought can get you in to trouble on here. He’s a bloody limited player who wouldn’t get into any other tier 1 1stXV team, imo, and hasn’t improved on any of his many weaknesses. Ultimately, he’s world class at catching a ball, which lots of people get overexcited about when he broke through, whilst everything else is Prem level and the oppo have learnt how to exploit that. He’s the Owen Farrell of fullbacks, in that he’s limited but with one outstanding attribute, albeit with a far better attitude on the pitch.
All that said, I’d have him over Smith at 15, particularly if we make it through to the sf.

[16th man]

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.

Be careful. This train of thought can get you in to trouble on here. He’s a bloody limited player who wouldn’t get into any other tier 1 1stXV team, imo, and hasn’t improved on any of his many weaknesses. Ultimately, he’s world class at catching a ball, which lots of people get overexcited about when he broke through, whilst everything else is Prem level and the oppo have learnt how to exploit that. He’s the Owen Farrell of fullbacks, in that he’s limited but with one outstanding attribute, albeit with a far better attitude on the pitch.
All that said, I’d have him over Smith at 15, particularly if we make it through to the sf.

Tbf to Steward, when he first broke into the team we used him much more than as just a one trick pony under the high ball. See his try vs South Africa.

He's not the only player who has suffered over the last year or so from the adoption of a ridiculously reductive approach to attacking play.

I have no desire to see him picked at 12 or on the wing, to try to crowbar him in, just for that reductive approach, but i do think he has aspects to his game which have bee woefully underused .

[Mellsblue]

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.

Be careful. This train of thought can get you in to trouble on here. He’s a bloody limited player who wouldn’t get into any other tier 1 1stXV team, imo, and hasn’t improved on any of his many weaknesses. Ultimately, he’s world class at catching a ball, which lots of people get overexcited about when he broke through, whilst everything else is Prem level and the oppo have learnt how to exploit that. He’s the Owen Farrell of fullbacks, in that he’s limited but with one outstanding attribute, albeit with a far better attitude on the pitch.
All that said, I’d have him over Smith at 15, particularly if we make it through to the sf.

Tbf to Steward, when he first broke into the team we used him much more than as just a one trick pony under the high ball. See his try vs South Africa.

He's not the only player who has suffered over the last year or so from the adoption of a ridiculously reductive approach to attacking play.

I have no desire to see him picked at 12 or on the wing, to try to crowbar him in, just for that reductive approach, but i do think he has aspects to his game which have bee woefully underused .

If the try vs SA is the one I’m thinking of then he ran a good line but, to use another Farrell comparison, the line break was someone doing something good inside him and a decent hole opening up. Neither will make an incisive line break through speed of foot.

[p/d]

Bring back Alex Goode!!

[Oakboy]

Is there any real evidence that Steward is slow? I'm not sure that some of the anecdotal stuff on tries conceded supports it. If defensive holes leave a FB trying to defend one-on-one or worse how often can he do much? He's no more a winger with gas than Malins but I see his attacking potential from FB as seriously curbed by our game plan rather than his lack of pace etc. Putting him on the wing as part of a shuffle to crowbar Smith in at FB is desperation brought about by poor selection with the other backs and bad coaching, I'd suggest.

[FKAS]

Be careful. This train of thought can get you in to trouble on here. He’s a bloody limited player who wouldn’t get into any other tier 1 1stXV team, imo, and hasn’t improved on any of his many weaknesses. Ultimately, he’s world class at catching a ball, which lots of people get overexcited about when he broke through, whilst everything else is Prem level and the oppo have learnt how to exploit that. He’s the Owen Farrell of fullbacks, in that he’s limited but with one outstanding attribute, albeit with a far better attitude on the pitch.
All that said, I’d have him over Smith at 15, particularly if we make it through to the sf.

Tbf to Steward, when he first broke into the team we used him much more than as just a one trick pony under the high ball. See his try vs South Africa.

He's not the only player who has suffered over the last year or so from the adoption of a ridiculously reductive approach to attacking play.

I have no desire to see him picked at 12 or on the wing, to try to crowbar him in, just for that reductive approach, but i do think he has aspects to his game which have bee woefully underused .

If the try vs SA is the one I’m thinking of then he ran a good line but, to use another Farrell comparison, the line break was someone doing something good inside him and a decent hole opening up. Neither will make an incisive line break through speed of foot.

There was two Vs SA wasn't there? One where he runs an angle off of Smith and then rounds the fullback. Second is where he powers over from close range on a pop from Youngs.

Steward runs good angles, he comes from deep to do it though so he's got to be on the same wavelength as the flyhalf. Hasn't quite got the acceleration to make something out of nothing. Against Japan he ran some really nice lines off of Ford and Mitchell. Issue was that Steward dropped the ball repeatedly in the first half. In the second half he started to remember how to catch the ball and then got subbed for Smith.

[Puja]

Tbf to Steward, when he first broke into the team we used him much more than as just a one trick pony under the high ball. See his try vs South Africa.

He's not the only player who has suffered over the last year or so from the adoption of a ridiculously reductive approach to attacking play.

I have no desire to see him picked at 12 or on the wing, to try to crowbar him in, just for that reductive approach, but i do think he has aspects to his game which have bee woefully underused .

If the try vs SA is the one I’m thinking of then he ran a good line but, to use another Farrell comparison, the line break was someone doing something good inside him and a decent hole opening up. Neither will make an incisive line break through speed of foot.

There was two Vs SA wasn't there? One where he runs an angle off of Smith and then rounds the fullback. Second is where he powers over from close range on a pop from Youngs.

You're thinking of the try against Australia where he rounded the full-back, I believe.

Is there any real evidence that Steward is slow? I'm not sure that some of the anecdotal stuff on tries conceded supports it. If defensive holes leave a FB trying to defend one-on-one or worse how often can he do much? He's no more a winger with gas than Malins but I see his attacking potential from FB as seriously curbed by our game plan rather than his lack of pace etc. Putting him on the wing as part of a shuffle to crowbar Smith in at FB is desperation brought about by poor selection with the other backs and bad coaching, I'd suggest.

He's not slow at all, but he definitely doesn't have a full-time winger's pace. On his one-on-one defence, the problem is that he sells himself too early and doesn't have the agility to recover if a good step is put in. Partly it's inexperience and youth, and partly it's being 6'5 and having a more difficult frame to manouevre. One of those can be fixed, with time and good coaching - he'll never be as nimble as a smaller, lighter player, but he can certainly learn to do better with what he has.

...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).

I think this has hit the nail on the head. It's exactly how he built with Leicester - first half season was a bit of a mess as he worked out what resources he had, second season was a focus on the basics and building the foundations and culture, with occasional forays into something more expansive. I'm hoping the third season would've been building upon those foundations into a truly dominant team, but we never got to see that. With luck, that's what we'll see from his England in 2024. The addition of [Felix] Jones as an outside voice will definitely not hurt the process.

It's all hope right now though - we'll see if it comes to fruition.

Puja

[Oakboy]

The addition of Jones as an outside voice will definitely not hurt the process.



Puja

????? Explain, please!

[Banquo]

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

It's about injury cover in your mind, but how often is the third back required for injury cover, not very often I'd suggest.

And talk about Steward being a sitting duck in defence on the wing is nonsense, it's not like May and the like are using every inch of their pace to cling on desperately to defenders almost skinning them every game is it. Steward has long limbs, is fairly quick, has the touchline and is pretty physical. It's not Dan Cole on the wing.

Anyway - again, Steward is a full back primarily, and I think he's excellent there. However, I think getting Marcus Smith on the field might make some sense as I cannot see the turgid rubbish we've been playing for 18 months getting us through a semi final, we have to go for it and I'd suggest Arundell and Smith should be on the field, that is all. SB will pick Ford, Farrell hence some are thinking of how to get Smith in. I'd also suggest he'd cause defences a lot of concern most of the time he gets the ball from FB - defences haven't been too concerned about us of late.

Let's talk about the forwards again.

You may suggest it, but it'd more often than you think. Its Primarily about injury cover and not being exposed, especially against very good sides.
(as an aside, I think rugby would be hugely improved by the bench ONLY being for injury cover. Though would probably cause more injuries).
Steward would be targeted and heavily exposed in defence as a wing imo- its not just about pace, but positional sense (esp as a left wing from right sided scrums) and agility. He doesn't have much of any of those.
Crowbarring in a player who has looked good out of position against weak tired teams just doesn't feel sensible against the big guys- esp when our pack is showing signs of life- especially as the knock on is to either displace or misplace our only good player under the rain of high balls that will come our way. The fact defences haven't had to worry has had less to do with the outside backs, more to do with what's happening inside and game plan.

[Mellsblue]

Tbf to Steward, when he first broke into the team we used him much more than as just a one trick pony under the high ball. See his try vs South Africa.

He's not the only player who has suffered over the last year or so from the adoption of a ridiculously reductive approach to attacking play.

I have no desire to see him picked at 12 or on the wing, to try to crowbar him in, just for that reductive approach, but i do think he has aspects to his game which have bee woefully underused .

If the try vs SA is the one I’m thinking of then he ran a good line but, to use another Farrell comparison, the line break was someone doing something good inside him and a decent hole opening up. Neither will make an incisive line break through speed of foot.

There was two Vs SA wasn't there? One where he runs an angle off of Smith and then rounds the fullback. Second is where he powers over from close range on a pop from Youngs.

Steward runs good angles, he comes from deep to do it though so he's got to be on the same wavelength as the flyhalf. Hasn't quite got the acceleration to make something out of nothing. Against Japan he ran some really nice lines off of Ford and Mitchell. Issue was that Steward dropped the ball repeatedly in the first half. In the second half he started to remember how to catch the ball and then got subbed for Smith.

I was thinking of the first.

[Mellsblue]

The addition of Jones as an outside voice will definitely not hurt the process.



Puja

????? Explain, please!

Felix Jones, the attack coach after the World Cup.

[Puja]

The addition of Jones as an outside voice will definitely not hurt the process.



Puja

????? Explain, please!

Felix, not Eddie! Sorry to scare you.

Puja

[Puja]

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

It's about injury cover in your mind, but how often is the third back required for injury cover, not very often I'd suggest.

And talk about Steward being a sitting duck in defence on the wing is nonsense, it's not like May and the like are using every inch of their pace to cling on desperately to defenders almost skinning them every game is it. Steward has long limbs, is fairly quick, has the touchline and is pretty physical. It's not Dan Cole on the wing.

Anyway - again, Steward is a full back primarily, and I think he's excellent there. However, I think getting Marcus Smith on the field might make some sense as I cannot see the turgid rubbish we've been playing for 18 months getting us through a semi final, we have to go for it and I'd suggest Arundell and Smith should be on the field, that is all. SB will pick Ford, Farrell hence some are thinking of how to get Smith in. I'd also suggest he'd cause defences a lot of concern most of the time he gets the ball from FB - defences haven't been too concerned about us of late.

Let's talk about the forwards again.

You may suggest it, but it'd more often than you think. Its Primarily about injury cover and not being exposed, especially against very good sides.
(as an aside, I think rugby would be hugely improved by the bench ONLY being for injury cover. Though would probably cause more injuries).
Steward would be targeted and heavily exposed in defence as a wing imo- its not just about pace, but positional sense (esp as a left wing from right sided scrums) and agility. He doesn't have much of any of those.
Crowbarring in a player who has looked good out of position against weak tired teams just doesn't feel sensible against the big guys- esp when our pack is showing signs of life- especially as the knock on is to either displace or misplace our only good player under the rain of high balls that will come our way. The fact defences haven't had to worry has had less to do with the outside backs, more to do with what's happening inside and game plan.

I'd be in favour of bench use being heavily limited as well.

Steward can play wing, you know. He's played a chunk of time there for Leicester and has been on the wing for England a few times before. It's not like he's unfamiliar with the positioning.

Puja

[Oakboy]

The addition of Jones as an outside voice will definitely not hurt the process.



Puja

????? Explain, please!

Felix, not Eddie! Sorry to scare you.

Puja

Wow, I better go and check my BP, once the diarrhoea eases off a bit.

[Which Tyler]

He's not slow at all, but he definitely doesn't have a full-time winger's pace.

Jack Nowell begs to differ.

I think rugby would be hugely improved by the bench ONLY being for injury cover. Though would probably cause more injuries).

It's one of my occasional crusades - bench only for injury cover - and enforce that by any replaced player HAS to take the next match off. We know full well that we can't trust rugby players (or coaches) to be honest about these things.

Unforseen consequence, of course, is that genuinely injured players stay on and make things worse if they don't think it's too bad.

[Oakboy]

He's not slow at all, but he definitely doesn't have a full-time winger's pace.

Jack Nowell begs to differ.

I think rugby would be hugely improved by the bench ONLY being for injury cover. Though would probably cause more injuries).

It's one of my occasional crusades - bench only for injury cover - and enforce that by any replaced player HAS to take the next match off. We know full well that we can't trust rugby players (or coaches) to be honest about these things.

Unforseen consequence, of course, is that genuinely injured players stay on and make things worse if they don't think it's too bad.

It's not so long ago that we had uncontested scrums frequently. The reasonable solution to avoid that was a bench including all three front row positions. That evolved into bigger gym bunnies and most front rowers doing 60 minutes maximum. I'm not sure how we can swing the pendulum back though.

[Mikey Brown]

Oof. That is swinging way too far in the other direction.

I like maybe limiting it to 4* and making it more of a tactical choice. The issue though will always be safety in the front row and legitimacy (or hiding) of injuries once the allotted number of subs have been made.

*Of course we’d have to deal with South Africa claiming the rules are being changed specifically for them, but I feel like it could improve the game significantly.

[FKAS]

He's not slow at all, but he definitely doesn't have a full-time winger's pace.

Jack Nowell begs to differ.

I think rugby would be hugely improved by the bench ONLY being for injury cover. Though would probably cause more injuries).

It's one of my occasional crusades - bench only for injury cover - and enforce that by any replaced player HAS to take the next match off. We know full well that we can't trust rugby players (or coaches) to be honest about these things.

Unforseen consequence, of course, is that genuinely injured players stay on and make things worse if they don't think it's too bad.

It's not so long ago that we had uncontested scrums frequently. The reasonable solution to avoid that was a bench including all three front row positions. That evolved into bigger gym bunnies and most front rowers doing 60 minutes maximum. I'm not sure how we can swing the pendulum back though.

And Wasps losing two props whenever they were under the pump at scrum time...

Obviously wasn't just Wasps, was always a bit of a giveaway when the second prop would come off injured before the replacement backrow had been used.

[Puja]

Oof. That is swinging way too far in the other direction.

I like maybe limiting it to 4 and making it more of a tactical choice. The issue though will always be safety in the front row and legitimacy (or hiding) of injuries once the allotted number of subs have been made.

I would agree with that - 4 or 5 substitutions and say that includes injuries (excluding temporary head/blood/yellow card front row). If you want to bring on a bomb squad of replacing 4 forwards, be our guest, but if you get any injuries, you go down to 14 because you were stupid and used all your subs.

Puja

[Banquo]

It's about injury cover in your mind, but how often is the third back required for injury cover, not very often I'd suggest.

And talk about Steward being a sitting duck in defence on the wing is nonsense, it's not like May and the like are using every inch of their pace to cling on desperately to defenders almost skinning them every game is it. Steward has long limbs, is fairly quick, has the touchline and is pretty physical. It's not Dan Cole on the wing.

Anyway - again, Steward is a full back primarily, and I think he's excellent there. However, I think getting Marcus Smith on the field might make some sense as I cannot see the turgid rubbish we've been playing for 18 months getting us through a semi final, we have to go for it and I'd suggest Arundell and Smith should be on the field, that is all. SB will pick Ford, Farrell hence some are thinking of how to get Smith in. I'd also suggest he'd cause defences a lot of concern most of the time he gets the ball from FB - defences haven't been too concerned about us of late.

Let's talk about the forwards again.

You may suggest it, but it'd more often than you think. Its Primarily about injury cover and not being exposed, especially against very good sides.
(as an aside, I think rugby would be hugely improved by the bench ONLY being for injury cover. Though would probably cause more injuries).
Steward would be targeted and heavily exposed in defence as a wing imo- its not just about pace, but positional sense (esp as a left wing from right sided scrums) and agility. He doesn't have much of any of those.
Crowbarring in a player who has looked good out of position against weak tired teams just doesn't feel sensible against the big guys- esp when our pack is showing signs of life- especially as the knock on is to either displace or misplace our only good player under the rain of high balls that will come our way. The fact defences haven't had to worry has had less to do with the outside backs, more to do with what's happening inside and game plan.

I'd be in favour of bench use being heavily limited as well.

Steward can play wing, you know. He's played a chunk of time there for Leicester and has been on the wing for England a few times before. It's not like he's unfamiliar with the positioning.

Puja

I can play wing. I’d just be very slow and exposed at intl level.

I have seen him stuck on the wing for England, didn’t look pretty or remotely his best position.

[p/d]

Jack Nowell begs to differ.


It's one of my occasional crusades - bench only for injury cover - and enforce that by any replaced player HAS to take the next match off. We know full well that we can't trust rugby players (or coaches) to be honest about these things.

Unforseen consequence, of course, is that genuinely injured players stay on and make things worse if they don't think it's too bad.

It's not so long ago that we had uncontested scrums frequently. The reasonable solution to avoid that was a bench including all three front row positions. That evolved into bigger gym bunnies and most front rowers doing 60 minutes maximum. I'm not sure how we can swing the pendulum back though.

And Wasps losing two props whenever they were under the pump at scrum time...

Obviously wasn't just Wasps, was always a bit of a giveaway when the second prop would come off injured before the replacement backrow had been used.

You dissing Tim Payne!!!

[Peej]

Samoa are shite, so we should be looking to play units and build some familiarity ahead of a much tougher Fiji test

[Lizard]

Samoa are shite, so we should be looking to play units and build some familiarity ahead of a much tougher Fiji test

Judging by the current match, any reasonbably accurate and disciplined performance should be enough to see Samoa off.

[Scrumhead]

From what I saw, they were physical but not much else. Mostly just trying to power through the middle with brute force.