QF v Fiji

[Oakboy]

I cannot work out why anyone would have Smith on the bench bearing in mind the obvious ability he has to make things happen. Things that basically don't happen otherwise. We will simply not win our semi final or a final playing it safe - we get battered doing that. We may as well go down swinging.

I'd start him at 10, with Ford on bench. OF can FO

I'd be delighted with that too, I just don't ever advocate that or put him there in line-ups because I know slippery balls won't do it/it's not happening. 100% with you though, it'd be great.

Regardless, of the abilities as a 10, he's got a wicked step and is a phenomenal runner - he can beat his man better than anyone else in the squad bar Arundell I'd say - and we need some of that in the side.

Agreed, really, but I thought it was a progressive step too far in the fact/fiction scheme of things. As ever, it is 'starting from here' which most of us would not be doing.

[Banquo]

It still seems fundamental to me that if you have three FHs in the squad, one starts at 10, one is on the bench and one does not make the 23. Anything else is the sort of crowbar nonsense that has held us back for years.

IMO, Smith's place is at 22 where he can come on at FH or FB depending on the state of the game. He is not a competent starting FB.

SB should pick Lawrence/Marchant at 12/13, select Ford at 10 and find the judgement/courage to direct Farrell to a seat in the stand.

thankfully he knows the way..........

I'm with you regards the 10's. It's as if it has suddenly dawned on them that they have no playmakers outside of the 10 shirt. Trying to crowbar all 3 into the 23 is, as Mellsblue would oft say, like a bald head man wearing a wig.

just for the sake of argument... how many playmakers do France have outside 10? Or Ireland?

[p/d]

I cannot work out why anyone would have Smith on the bench bearing in mind the obvious ability he has to make things happen. Things that basically don't happen otherwise. We will simply not win our semi final or a final playing it safe - we get battered doing that. We may as well go down swinging.

I'd start him at 10, with Ford on bench. OF can FO

I'd be delighted with that too, I just don't ever advocate that or put him there in line-ups because I know slippery balls won't do it/it's not happening. 100% with you though, it'd be great.

Regardless, of the abilities as a 10, he's got a wicked step and is a phenomenal runner - he can beat his man better than anyone else in the squad bar Arundell I'd say - and we need some of that in the side.

It's just staggering that he has gone from our 'exciting' new 10 to a part time FB. Rather than build on his strengths we focus on his weaknesses and relentless flicking of his fringe. Yes he can be a selfish little so and so but that is all part of the learning curve. All that said if the pack is getting mowed at the breakdown then the pragmatic Ford would be a safer option..................... though safe is not getting us any further that a squeaky bum QF

[Banquo]

I cannot work out why anyone would have Smith on the bench bearing in mind the obvious ability he has to make things happen. Things that basically don't happen otherwise. We will simply not win our semi final or a final playing it safe - we get battered doing that. We may as well go down swinging.

I'd start him at 10, with Ford on bench. OF can FO

I'd be delighted with that too, I just don't ever advocate that or put him there in line-ups because I know slippery balls won't do it/it's not happening. 100% with you though, it'd be great.

Regardless, of the abilities as a 10, he's got a wicked step and is a phenomenal runner - he can beat his man better than anyone else in the squad bar Arundell I'd say - and we need some of that in the side.

He needs a big centre alongside him to bail him out, and one who is used to timing off his last minute decisions and jinks. Not saying its a bad thing, but its a different set up.

[Oakboy]

Sadly, Faz is the obvious bench option if Ford starts.

Obvious to SB, perhaps. I suppose it would be a way to cover 12 should Tuilagi start. It is fundamentally negative though, isn't it?

No- it covers 10 adequately and 12 sort of, and an experienced goal kicker. It safely allows back 3 cover as the other option.

We may need to debate the definition of 'negative'. He does not offer an attacking alternative from the bench but does provide reasonable injury cover.

[fivepointer]

News that will delight all of Fiji....

[Banquo]

Obvious to SB, perhaps. I suppose it would be a way to cover 12 should Tuilagi start. It is fundamentally negative though, isn't it?

No- it covers 10 adequately and 12 sort of, and an experienced goal kicker. It safely allows back 3 cover as the other option.

We may need to debate the definition of 'negative'. He does not offer an attacking alternative from the bench but does provide reasonable injury cover.

its what the bench should be for. come the revolution. Its pretty important to think injury cover first imo.

[Banquo]

News that will delight all of Fiji....

mad

[Mellsblue]

I’ve just seen our average ruck time for the group stages. Who plays flyhalf is the least of our worries and probably moot.

[p/d]

It still seems fundamental to me that if you have three FHs in the squad, one starts at 10, one is on the bench and one does not make the 23. Anything else is the sort of crowbar nonsense that has held us back for years.

IMO, Smith's place is at 22 where he can come on at FH or FB depending on the state of the game. He is not a competent starting FB.

SB should pick Lawrence/Marchant at 12/13, select Ford at 10 and find the judgement/courage to direct Farrell to a seat in the stand.

thankfully he knows the way..........

I'm with you regards the 10's. It's as if it has suddenly dawned on them that they have no playmakers outside of the 10 shirt. Trying to crowbar all 3 into the 23 is, as Mellsblue would oft say, like a bald head man wearing a wig.

just for the sake of argument... how many playmakers do France have outside 10? Or Ireland?

Firstly, let me apologies for listing Farrell as a playmaker. Ok, for the sake of an argument I am not talking about a side that has world class halfback pairings, outstanding back 3's and an established midfield. Though I do believe both teams possess players outside 10 that can lead an offensive. More a side that has limited options available to make plays that lead to scoring opportunities.

[p/d]

I’ve just seen our average ruck time for the group stages. Who plays flyhalf is the least of our worries and probably moot.

Shambolic isn't it. Itoje just not pulling his weight.

[Banquo]

I’ve just seen our average ruck time for the group stages. Who plays flyhalf is the least of our worries and probably moot.

was just about to say that....and its true both sides of the ball. We can't generate quick ball nor slow down the oppos.

[Banquo]

thankfully he knows the way..........

I'm with you regards the 10's. It's as if it has suddenly dawned on them that they have no playmakers outside of the 10 shirt. Trying to crowbar all 3 into the 23 is, as Mellsblue would oft say, like a bald head man wearing a wig.

just for the sake of argument... how many playmakers do France have outside 10? Or Ireland?

Firstly, let me apologies for listing Farrell as a playmaker. Ok, for the sake of an argument I am not talking about a side that has world class halfback pairings, outstanding back 3's and an established midfield. Though I do believe both teams possess players outside 10 that can lead an offensive. More a side that has limited options available to make plays that lead to scoring opportunities.

I just think that the 'two playmaker' thing is a bit oversold. We've been obsessed with it on this board for eons.

[Oakboy]

I’ve just seen our average ruck time for the group stages. Who plays flyhalf is the least of our worries and probably moot.

was just about to say that....and its true both sides of the ball. We can't generate quick ball nor slow down the oppos.

So, is that a coaching thing? Before the warm-ups would we have condemned the players available for the back five of the scrum as uncompetitive/ineffective?

[p/d]

just for the sake of argument... how many playmakers do France have outside 10? Or Ireland?

Firstly, let me apologies for listing Farrell as a playmaker. Ok, for the sake of an argument I am not talking about a side that has world class halfback pairings, outstanding back 3's and an established midfield. Though I do believe both teams possess players outside 10 that can lead an offensive. More a side that has limited options available to make plays that lead to scoring opportunities.

I just think that the 'two playmaker' thing is a bit oversold. We've been obsessed with it on this board for eons.

Oh, I fully agree with that. I just can't help thinking that our mob don't know which way to turn, resulting in - what now looks like Smith starting at FB - trying to force an attacking back line without consideration for selecting a good back line.

[Beasties]

News that will delight all of Fiji....

My internet was off earlier this afternoon.

I’m now sad that it’s back working again. I’d rather listen to the kids wailing cos their ipads don’t work than see that news.

[Banquo]

I’ve just seen our average ruck time for the group stages. Who plays flyhalf is the least of our worries and probably moot.

was just about to say that....and its true both sides of the ball. We can't generate quick ball nor slow down the oppos.

So, is that a coaching thing? Before the warm-ups would we have condemned the players available for the back five of the scrum as uncompetitive/ineffective?

partly, but was also true under Eddie. Decision making and technique at the breakdown is an essential set of skills individual and unit, but being good at it takes a time. And you then have to have the right people and tasking in place. And yes, our breakdown has been sub par generally for a long period. Its why all the angst over 9/10/12 occasionally makes me laugh.

[Banquo]

Firstly, let me apologies for listing Farrell as a playmaker. Ok, for the sake of an argument I am not talking about a side that has world class halfback pairings, outstanding back 3's and an established midfield. Though I do believe both teams possess players outside 10 that can lead an offensive. More a side that has limited options available to make plays that lead to scoring opportunities.

I just think that the 'two playmaker' thing is a bit oversold. We've been obsessed with it on this board for eons.

Oh, I fully agree with that. I just can't help thinking that our mob don't know which way to turn, resulting in - what now looks like Smith starting at FB - trying to force an attacking back line without consideration for selecting a good back line.

Not sure we've had anyone who understands back play in our coaching set up for ages, or if they do, they are being over ruled.

[morepork]

News that will delight all of Fiji....

My internet was off earlier this afternoon.

I’m now sad that it’s back working again. I’d rather listen to the kids wailing cos their ipads don’t work than see that news.

FFS. I'm happy at this news because I'm all for Fiji, but FFS. It's just perverse.

[TheDasher]

The thing that hurt me most in that Daily Mail article is the fact that he's going to pick May again. Farrell at 10 is so, so much better than Farrell at 12. Farrell at 10 is still arguably our worst FH, although Ford frankly can't always be trusted either. But not going for Ford, Farrell is wonderful news.

May on the wing again however - give me fcking strength. Just painful. Pick Arundell man for the love of god.

[p/d]

The thing that hurt me most in that Daily Mail article is the fact that he's going to pick May again. Farrell at 10 is so, so much better than Farrell at 12. Farrell at 10 is still arguably our worst FH, although Ford frankly can't always be trusted either. But not going for Ford, Farrell is wonderful news.

May on the wing again however - give me fcking strength. Just painful. Pick Arundell man for the love of god.

Also a lot of 'could' and 'might' in that article.

[Banquo]

The thing that hurt me most in that Daily Mail article is the fact that he's going to pick May again. Farrell at 10 is so, so much better than Farrell at 12. Farrell at 10 is still arguably our worst FH, although Ford frankly can't always be trusted either. But not going for Ford, Farrell is wonderful news.

May on the wing again however - give me fcking strength. Just painful. Pick Arundell man for the love of god.

....and who, on the other wing? Daly looks so low in confidence, he needs Colgate (old persons reference)...Malins (please god, no)...

I'd go maybe Arundell, someone, and someone else

TBH I'd be amazed if he didnt go May, Daly, Steward,....Car, Faz, Dal, Manu, March, May, Stew

[Puja]

Telegraph reporting similar lineup to the Heil. Fucking appalling; there appears to be literally nothing that can happen for Farrell to not be the first name on the team sheet because of his "intangibles".

“He’s a winner,” said attack coach Richard Wigglesworth, who played alongside Farrell in several finals for Saracens. “That term gets thrown around quite a bit. That is Owen. He, under the harshest of pressures and biggest of moments, tends to get better. That is a sign of a winner.

“He doesn’t just get better but has more of an impact on the people around him as well. We know what gets said about Owen. He’s the highest ever points-scorer for England, delivers time and time again, and those players tend to catch the most flak for some reason. We’ve got one of the best to do it. We’re lucky to have him. He will no doubt have a massive impact on this week and this game.”

I actually quite like the idea of Smith at 15, but putting Farrell in at 10 is just risible.

Puja

[TheDasher]

The thing that hurt me most in that Daily Mail article is the fact that he's going to pick May again. Farrell at 10 is so, so much better than Farrell at 12. Farrell at 10 is still arguably our worst FH, although Ford frankly can't always be trusted either. But not going for Ford, Farrell is wonderful news.

May on the wing again however - give me fcking strength. Just painful. Pick Arundell man for the love of god.

....and who, on the other wing? Daly looks so low in confidence, he needs Colgate (old persons reference)...Malins (please god, no)...

I'd go maybe Arundell, someone, and someone else

I'm with you, it's not easy - hence why I was advocating Steward. Honestly, I'd pick Arundell on one wing, Daly on the other if I was picking the side right now, if Daly has a mare, I'd look at bringing Steward on there. Daly CAN do it, and I still think he's better than May who really offers nothing at this point. Daly is at least reasonably creative, can kick goals, get's involved etc.

But god we've screwed up the management of wingers generally. OHC had been absolutely tearing up the premiership - he get's picked for England, get's literally no ball whatsoever and is then apparently 'shit' and is dropped. Murley - didn't get a look. Arundell - looks a phenomenon but seemingly is not trustworthy, even though the aim of the game is to pick players your opposition don't want you to pick - I imagine the Fijians would rather May than Arundell at this point. Cokanasiga had a nightmare in the warm ups but then who didn't to be honest, only Ben Earl came out with any credit.

Painful that Anthony Watson was injured because frankly, he was probably first name on the teamsheet in my view.

[Banquo]

The thing that hurt me most in that Daily Mail article is the fact that he's going to pick May again. Farrell at 10 is so, so much better than Farrell at 12. Farrell at 10 is still arguably our worst FH, although Ford frankly can't always be trusted either. But not going for Ford, Farrell is wonderful news.

May on the wing again however - give me fcking strength. Just painful. Pick Arundell man for the love of god.

....and who, on the other wing? Daly looks so low in confidence, he needs Colgate (old persons reference)...Malins (please god, no)...

I'd go maybe Arundell, someone, and someone else

I'm with you, it's not easy - hence why I was advocating Steward. Honestly, I'd pick Arundell on one wing, Daly on the other if I was picking the side right now, if Daly has a mare, I'd look at bringing Steward on there. Daly CAN do it, and I still think he's better than May who really offers nothing at this point. Daly is at least reasonably creative, can kick goals, get's involved etc.

But god we've screwed up the management of wingers generally. OHC had been absolutely tearing up the premiership - he get's picked for England, get's literally no ball whatsoever and is then apparently 'shit' and is dropped. Murley - didn't get a look. Arundell - looks a phenomenon but seemingly is not trustworthy, even though the aim of the game is to pick players your opposition don't want you to pick - I imagine the Fijians would rather May than Arundell at this point. Cokanasiga had a nightmare in the warm ups but then who didn't to be honest, only Ben Earl came out with any credit.

Painful that Anthony Watson was injured because frankly, he was probably first name on the teamsheet in my view.

justice4freeman

the mismanagement of our backs talent pales versus our backrow muddles tbh.