Team for Scotland

[Oakboy]

I haven’t been tracking him for the full 80, I’ve not even seen these infamous tackle completion stats, but it does seem funny how almost every back row with any sort of ‘highlights’ contribution eventually gets accused of “going missing” in the intervening minutes.

I’m never quite sure if that’s just in relation to their big moments, or it really is a zero-sum game in terms of effort and output.

It would make sense if Borthwick isn’t pleased with something in Hill’s stats/GPS, as he seems to have basically all the component parts we want in a 6.

Your last sentence sums it up. If CCS had carried on improving and shown he had 80 minutes worth of stamina, I think he would have kept the 6 shirt with Hill lined up to deputise as necessary, albeit with a full-game question mark. Sacrificing the line-out presence led to T Curry getting the shirt and, when fully fit, there is no doubt about his 80 minute capacity.

If TC stays fit, I can see him moving to 7 and forcing Earl to the bench for some games so that height can start at 6.

Maybe, SB is going to be more and more 'horses for courses' with his back row as the team develops. Might the counter-argument be that it needs the 6:2 split to work?

[p/d]

Risk of over complicating this game. TC is currently our best destructive 6, Willis best ball carrying 8 and Earl is a 7 all day long.

Lock is as it should be and cover from bench is where you select to, well, cover. Martin covers one position whilst CCS and Hill offer wider cover and BC is a terrier of a back up to Earl.

I like this pack.

[Mikey Brown]

Yeah, as long as Earl is getting the job done at 7 (need to see more, but a decent enough start) then CCS/Hill should have to fight their way in. As it should be really.

If we're committed to the 6:2 thing and able to give T Curry a rest at some point, I'd be quite happy to see Hill/CCS fight it out (as we did with Vunipola/Morgan previously) until one of them shows some consistency.

In other news Anthony Watson has added a bit of criticial insight on the Youngs podcast ahead of the Scotland game - "I think if you could choose, you'd rather go in to a game with more confidence rather than less" which I think is a really good point. We armchair fans often miss the finer details that the pros can spot.

[fivepointer]

Risk of over complicating this game. TC is currently our best destructive 6, Willis best ball carrying 8 and Earl is a 7 all day long.

Lock is as it should be and cover from bench is where you select to, well, cover. Martin covers one position whilst CCS and Hill offer wider cover and BC is a terrier of a back up to Earl.

I like this pack.

Concur.

I'm a little more concerned about the 6:2 split than Hill covering lock but it worked out last time and generally does despite reservation.

[FKAS]

Risk of over complicating this game. TC is currently our best destructive 6, Willis best ball carrying 8 and Earl is a 7 all day long.

Lock is as it should be and cover from bench is where you select to, well, cover. Martin covers one position whilst CCS and Hill offer wider cover and BC is a terrier of a back up to Earl.

I like this pack.

I'd prefer Martin or Chessum dropping to 6 in an emergency than Hill coming in at lock after an early injury and us playing a game underpowered. Really does indicate the weakness England has at the lock position and the futility of a 6:2 bench if we don't have a good lock replacement.

[p/d]

Risk of over complicating this game. TC is currently our best destructive 6, Willis best ball carrying 8 and Earl is a 7 all day long.

Lock is as it should be and cover from bench is where you select to, well, cover. Martin covers one position whilst CCS and Hill offer wider cover and BC is a terrier of a back up to Earl.

I like this pack.

Concur.

I'm a little more concerned about the 6:2 split than Hill covering lock but it worked out last time and generally does despite reservation.

6:2 does concern me as well. If we could invest time into developing a player who can play 10 and cover 9 (M Smith) then I fully support it.

[Oakboy]

Risk of over complicating this game. TC is currently our best destructive 6, Willis best ball carrying 8 and Earl is a 7 all day long.

Lock is as it should be and cover from bench is where you select to, well, cover. Martin covers one position whilst CCS and Hill offer wider cover and BC is a terrier of a back up to Earl.

I like this pack.

Concur.

I'm a little more concerned about the 6:2 split than Hill covering lock but it worked out last time and generally does despite reservation.

6:2 does concern me as well. If we could invest time into developing a player who can play 10 and cover 9 (M Smith) then I fully support it.

I can see that but is there not always a compromise which prevents a real fleet-footed winger being there? In a perfect world with a 5:3 there can be a specialist 9, a versatile 10 and a speed-merchant threat. With 6:2, by definition, there will be two versatile all-rounders. There is injury cover but a much-reduced attacking threat. It's almost arrogant (per SA) in that it assumes we never have to chase the game.

[FKAS]

Concur.

I'm a little more concerned about the 6:2 split than Hill covering lock but it worked out last time and generally does despite reservation.

6:2 does concern me as well. If we could invest time into developing a player who can play 10 and cover 9 (M Smith) then I fully support it.

I can see that but is there not always a compromise which prevents a real fleet-footed winger being there? In a perfect world with a 5:3 there can be a specialist 9, a versatile 10 and a speed-merchant threat. With 6:2, by definition, there will be two versatile all-rounders. There is injury cover but a much-reduced attacking threat. It's almost arrogant (per SA) in that it assumes we never have to chase the game.

Depends whether you think a refreshed forward pack will make more impact and generate more momentum that adding the impact of a pacey back. I'd go horses for courses to be honest. Against Scotland I do think another back might be a better shout, ideally one that offers a tactical change for the attack if those pesky Scottish forwards are effective at being a menace at the breakdown.

[p/d]

Concur.

I'm a little more concerned about the 6:2 split than Hill covering lock but it worked out last time and generally does despite reservation.

6:2 does concern me as well. If we could invest time into developing a player who can play 10 and cover 9 (M Smith) then I fully support it.

I can see that but is there not always a compromise which prevents a real fleet-footed winger being there? In a perfect world with a 5:3 there can be a specialist 9, a versatile 10 and a speed-merchant threat. With 6:2, by definition, there will be two versatile all-rounders. There is injury cover but a much-reduced attacking threat. It's almost arrogant (per SA) in that it assumes we never have to chase the game.

Taking the front row out of the equation a 6:2 split gives us 8 players covering 5 positions up front and 9 covering 7 in the backs. However 2 of those are only covering one position, 9. So we are better off going 5:3 if we can get a hooker to cover 7 or 6:2 if we can get a non 9 to cover 9

Trying to think of a side that do that

[Mikey Brown]

Taking the front row out of the equation a 6:2 split gives us 8 players covering 5 positions up front and 9 covering 7 in the backs. However 2 of those are only covering one position, 9. So we are better off going 5:3 if we can get a hooker to cover 7 or 6:2 if we can get a non 9 to cover 9

I can just picture Borthwick scribbling nonsense like this on a window like Russell Crowe in A Beautiful Mind.

[p/d]

Taking the front row out of the equation a 6:2 split gives us 8 players covering 5 positions up front and 9 covering 7 in the backs. However 2 of those are only covering one position, 9. So we are better off going 5:3 if we can get a hooker to cover 7 or 6:2 if we can get a non 9 to cover 9

I can just picture Borthwick scribbling nonsense like this on a window like Russell Crowe in A Beautiful Mind.

I felt my reason for living draining as I typed each word

[Banquo]

Taking the front row out of the equation a 6:2 split gives us 8 players covering 5 positions up front and 9 covering 7 in the backs. However 2 of those are only covering one position, 9. So we are better off going 5:3 if we can get a hooker to cover 7 or 6:2 if we can get a non 9 to cover 9

I can just picture Borthwick scribbling nonsense like this on a window like Russell Crowe in A Beautiful Mind.

[Which Tyler]

In other news Anthony Watson has added a bit of criticial insight on the Youngs podcast ahead of the Scotland game - "I think if you could choose, you'd rather go in to a game with more confidence rather than less" which I think is a really good point. We armchair fans often miss the finer details that the pros can spot.

Oh gods
Never meet your heroes, I guess - some players have absolutely encyclopaedic knowledge, some are ridiculously insightful and informative, some... show that it was based on instinct.

I'm a little more concerned about the 6:2 split than Hill covering lock but it worked out last time and generally does despite reservation.

I'm actually less concerned about the 6:2 this week than I have been previously - because Hill has probably done more training on the wing for Bath than he has at lock. He's reported to be the fastest player in the Bath squad (which does lack for out and out pace)
TBH, I'm only concerned about Hill covering lock if we get an injury in the first half - given who the Scots have got at lock, I'm not sure he'll be shown up too badly for power - it'll be how often he can repeat it, and how that affects his game away from the scrum and maul. If he's not expected to go long, I don't see it as being too much of an issue.
My main fear for him is that he's being set up to fail, and press and fans seem ready to pounce on him if he isn't the natural successor to the luxury giraffe straight away.

Best case scenario is that we have a complete, fresh backrow for the last 15 minutes or so, wreaking havoc (see Bath this year for effectiveness at a lower level)

[Puja]

Concur.

I'm a little more concerned about the 6:2 split than Hill covering lock but it worked out last time and generally does despite reservation.

6:2 does concern me as well. If we could invest time into developing a player who can play 10 and cover 9 (M Smith) then I fully support it.

I can see that but is there not always a compromise which prevents a real fleet-footed winger being there? In a perfect world with a 5:3 there can be a specialist 9, a versatile 10 and a speed-merchant threat. With 6:2, by definition, there will be two versatile all-rounders. There is injury cover but a much-reduced attacking threat. It's almost arrogant (per SA) in that it assumes we never have to chase the game.

I'd say it's more saying that we think our game-changing bench impact is more likely to come from our forwards. We were chasing the game against France and it was Baxter, George, and Chessum that swung it our way. We were chasing the game against Ireland and we sought change through CCS - granted, it didn't work, but that was where we were looking when we needed to step things up.

I think it also acknowledges the availability of game-changing backs for us. Obviously the bench this time has been compromised by our locking injuries, but previous to Martin's withdrawal, who would we pick as an extra back on the bench that would provide more of an impact if we're chasing than bringing on one of Martin for additional bosh and energy, CCS for bosh and lineout, BCurry to be a workhorse and jackal threat? Roebuck's a great player, but he's not changing anything especially or adding much additional energy - he's a good winger who would be replacing a good winger.

Puja

[Oakboy]

6:2 does concern me as well. If we could invest time into developing a player who can play 10 and cover 9 (M Smith) then I fully support it.

I can see that but is there not always a compromise which prevents a real fleet-footed winger being there? In a perfect world with a 5:3 there can be a specialist 9, a versatile 10 and a speed-merchant threat. With 6:2, by definition, there will be two versatile all-rounders. There is injury cover but a much-reduced attacking threat. It's almost arrogant (per SA) in that it assumes we never have to chase the game.

I'd say it's more saying that we think our game-changing bench impact is more likely to come from our forwards. We were chasing the game against France and it was Baxter, George, and Chessum that swung it our way. We were chasing the game against Ireland and we sought change through CCS - granted, it didn't work, but that was where we were looking when we needed to step things up.

I think it also acknowledges the availability of game-changing backs for us. Obviously the bench this time has been compromised by our locking injuries, but previous to Martin's withdrawal, who would we pick as an extra back on the bench that would provide more of an impact if we're chasing than bringing on one of Martin for additional bosh and energy, CCS for bosh and lineout, BCurry to be a workhorse and jackal threat? Roebuck's a great player, but he's not changing anything especially or adding much additional energy - he's a good winger who would be replacing a good winger.

Puja

Good point. Ibitoye? I suppose it highlights how important IFW is to our long-term effectiveness. A back three without him looks relatively impotent anyway. It depends whether you rate Sleightholme, I suppose. IMO, we definitely need to find a better back-up to IFW than him. Murley, Roebuck, OHC, whatshisname in France (back next season)??

[FKAS]

6:2 does concern me as well. If we could invest time into developing a player who can play 10 and cover 9 (M Smith) then I fully support it.

I can see that but is there not always a compromise which prevents a real fleet-footed winger being there? In a perfect world with a 5:3 there can be a specialist 9, a versatile 10 and a speed-merchant threat. With 6:2, by definition, there will be two versatile all-rounders. There is injury cover but a much-reduced attacking threat. It's almost arrogant (per SA) in that it assumes we never have to chase the game.

I'd say it's more saying that we think our game-changing bench impact is more likely to come from our forwards. We were chasing the game against France and it was Baxter, George, and Chessum that swung it our way. We were chasing the game against Ireland and we sought change through CCS - granted, it didn't work, but that was where we were looking when we needed to step things up.

I think it also acknowledges the availability of game-changing backs for us. Obviously the bench this time has been compromised by our locking injuries, but previous to Martin's withdrawal, who would we pick as an extra back on the bench that would provide more of an impact if we're chasing than bringing on one of Martin for additional bosh and energy, CCS for bosh and lineout, BCurry to be a workhorse and jackal threat? Roebuck's a great player, but he's not changing anything especially or adding much additional energy - he's a good winger who would be replacing a good winger.

Puja

This is the problem for England. You could add Ford and have a player/coach off the bench or Steward as a bosh option from the back or someone to play the kick chase game. Neither are really going to be big on impact though. Beard maybe has a case but too much crossover with Daly.

[Puja]

I can see that but is there not always a compromise which prevents a real fleet-footed winger being there? In a perfect world with a 5:3 there can be a specialist 9, a versatile 10 and a speed-merchant threat. With 6:2, by definition, there will be two versatile all-rounders. There is injury cover but a much-reduced attacking threat. It's almost arrogant (per SA) in that it assumes we never have to chase the game.

I'd say it's more saying that we think our game-changing bench impact is more likely to come from our forwards. We were chasing the game against France and it was Baxter, George, and Chessum that swung it our way. We were chasing the game against Ireland and we sought change through CCS - granted, it didn't work, but that was where we were looking when we needed to step things up.

I think it also acknowledges the availability of game-changing backs for us. Obviously the bench this time has been compromised by our locking injuries, but previous to Martin's withdrawal, who would we pick as an extra back on the bench that would provide more of an impact if we're chasing than bringing on one of Martin for additional bosh and energy, CCS for bosh and lineout, BCurry to be a workhorse and jackal threat? Roebuck's a great player, but he's not changing anything especially or adding much additional energy - he's a good winger who would be replacing a good winger.

Puja

Good point. Ibitoye? I suppose it highlights how important IFW is to our long-term effectiveness. A back three without him looks relatively impotent anyway. It depends whether you rate Sleightholme, I suppose. IMO, we definitely need to find a better back-up to IFW than him. Murley, Roebuck, OHC, whatshisname in France (back next season)??

Ibitoye is very much an all-or-nothing sort of option though - he might produce a moment of magic, but he might also show the areas where he's not international class and mess something up. Good option to be able to bring on if you're 6 points down with 5 to go, but is having that really better than being able to inject extra energy into the back 5 of the pack?

I'd say the only type of player to be worth undoing the 6:2 right now (for us specifically) would be if we had a variation in types of inside centre available to us - so we start with a creative and can bring on a bosh, or vice versa. Or if MSmith fails miserably at 15 under pressure and we're then left with trying to fit a 10 onto the bench instead of having two of them on the pitch.

Puja

[p/d]

I'd say it's more saying that we think our game-changing bench impact is more likely to come from our forwards. We were chasing the game against France and it was Baxter, George, and Chessum that swung it our way. We were chasing the game against Ireland and we sought change through CCS - granted, it didn't work, but that was where we were looking when we needed to step things up.

I think it also acknowledges the availability of game-changing backs for us. Obviously the bench this time has been compromised by our locking injuries, but previous to Martin's withdrawal, who would we pick as an extra back on the bench that would provide more of an impact if we're chasing than bringing on one of Martin for additional bosh and energy, CCS for bosh and lineout, BCurry to be a workhorse and jackal threat? Roebuck's a great player, but he's not changing anything especially or adding much additional energy - he's a good winger who would be replacing a good winger.

Puja

Good point. Ibitoye? I suppose it highlights how important IFW is to our long-term effectiveness. A back three without him looks relatively impotent anyway. It depends whether you rate Sleightholme, I suppose. IMO, we definitely need to find a better back-up to IFW than him. Murley, Roebuck, OHC, whatshisname in France (back next season)??

Ibitoye is very much an all-or-nothing sort of option though - he might produce a moment of magic, but he might also show the areas where he's not international class and mess something up. Good option to be able to bring on if you're 6 points down with 5 to go, but is having that really better than being able to inject extra energy into the back 5 of the pack?

I'd say the only type of player to be worth undoing the 6:2 right now (for us specifically) would be if we had a variation in types of inside centre available to us - so we start with a creative and can bring on a bosh, or vice versa. Or if MSmith fails miserably at 15 under pressure and we're then left with trying to fit a 10 onto the bench instead of having two of them on the pitch.

Puja

Agree. We don’t have available a player that makes 5;3 a clear strength. And in light of this upfront dominance needs to be the focus.

[Mellsblue]

I haven’t been tracking him for the full 80, I’ve not even seen these infamous tackle completion stats, but it does seem funny how almost every back row with any sort of ‘highlights’ contribution eventually gets accused of “going missing” in the intervening minutes.

I’m never quite sure if that’s just in relation to their big moments, or it really is a zero-sum game in terms of effort and output.

It would make sense if Borthwick isn’t pleased with something in Hill’s stats/GPS, as he seems to have basically all the component parts we want in a 6.

The difference between ‘going missing’ and unseen work is 80% subjective.

[astralweeks]

Got tickets for tomorrow, direct from rfu so didn't have to deal with viagogo and their team of rip off scrotes. Behind the posts, middle tier and my Scottish wife says she will pay for them.
We better win

[jngf]

I haven’t been tracking him for the full 80, I’ve not even seen these infamous tackle completion stats, but it does seem funny how almost every back row with any sort of ‘highlights’ contribution eventually gets accused of “going missing” in the intervening minutes.

I’m never quite sure if that’s just in relation to their big moments, or it really is a zero-sum game in terms of effort and output.

It would make sense if Borthwick isn’t pleased with something in Hill’s stats/GPS, as he seems to have basically all the component parts we want in a 6.

Your last sentence sums it up. If CCS had carried on improving and shown he had 80 minutes worth of stamina, I think he would have kept the 6 shirt with Hill lined up to deputise as necessary, albeit with a full-game question mark. Sacrificing the line-out presence led to T Curry getting the shirt and, when fully fit, there is no doubt about his 80 minute capacity.

If TC stays fit, I can see him moving to 7 and forcing Earl to the bench for some games so that height can start at 6.

Maybe, SB is going to be more and more 'horses for courses' with his back row as the team develops. Might the counter-argument be that it needs the 6:2 split to work?

Oakboy, did you add that to wind me up? T Curry is very stodgy as an openside these days imo ( the last Lions tour conclusively proved this for me). I think there’s a good reason that his best test performances ( certainly post 2019) have come when he’s been selected at 6 with a more attack focussed player ( including his twin) at 7

[FKAS]

I haven’t been tracking him for the full 80, I’ve not even seen these infamous tackle completion stats, but it does seem funny how almost every back row with any sort of ‘highlights’ contribution eventually gets accused of “going missing” in the intervening minutes.

I’m never quite sure if that’s just in relation to their big moments, or it really is a zero-sum game in terms of effort and output.

It would make sense if Borthwick isn’t pleased with something in Hill’s stats/GPS, as he seems to have basically all the component parts we want in a 6.

The difference between ‘going missing’ and unseen work is 80% subjective.

Yep. It's the defensive stats that tend to be meh for Ted Hill, so key might be to use him in a game where we have momentum and want to use him to press home that advantage. In a game where we're battling it out, leave the starting locks on as long as possible.

Stats for the Prem are here if anyone is sad like me.

https://theanalyst.com/eu/club-rugby-stats

[Mikey Brown]

This is great. Thanks.

[twitchy]

I don't know anything about stats but I clicked the 'dominant carries' tab and ben youngs was top.

[Mikey Brown]

Yeah it would be great if there was an option to sort all values by minutes players or their partnering stat.

I thought I could simply throw together the backrow stats in 2 images but the results are truly hideous. Sorry. I'm sure there's a cleaner way of doing it, but whatever.

The last figures are attacking/defensive rucks attended and effectiveness. Maybe there's info somewhere on how that's worked out.

Defence


Attack


The tackle completion stats for Hill do look pretty stark here. He and CCS clearly don't contest many rucks either.

Willis obviouasly has the benefit of playing 8 full time but his stats on the ball are pretty crazy.

Attacking ruck numbers are all over the place and it's hard to draw anything too conclusive. Interesting to see Earl and CCS the most effective there though.