RugbyRebels

Spiffy wrote:

FKAS wrote:

Spiffy wrote: A valid point, but don't totally buy that argument. I think the starting point is to pick the best players from whatever club they happen to play for. It's then the job of the coach, in training camp, to get them playing as a cohesive unit and bring out their collective best. I think that's what top level international coaching is all about, rather than having to develop players' basic skills like passing, tackling, positioning, running lines, ruck responsibilities etc - all basic stuff that international players should have more or less down pat in order to get selected in the first place.
The emphasis in national training squads should be all about game plans/tactics/decision making, not about the low level stuff of teaching players the basics or flogging them to death by endless humping of weights in the gym. There have been several reports in recent years of England players coming out of training camps totally knackered or actually injured. That's not what it should be about.

I disagree it's the job of the coaches to pick the best team they can from the resources available. If that means a stand out player is left for the greater good then so be it. For instance there's little point picking your "best" tighthead if he's a scrummaging machine that can't keep up with the all court game you are trying to play.

That does not really disagree with my argument. A tight head who is a stand out scrummager but can do little else, would by definition, not be the best all round tight head. In the same way that the fastest wing in the land is not necessarily the best because it's not all about just speed. I am not advocating that players be picked for one specific skill if they can do nothing else. That would be daft.

FKAS wrote: for instance ask 10 people who the best hooker in the league is and you will get at least three different answers.

Mellsblue wrote:

FKAS wrote: for instance ask 10 people who the best hooker in the league is and you will get at least three different answers.

I doubt it. Everyone knows it’s Will Arnett.

FKAS wrote:

Spiffy wrote:

FKAS wrote:
I disagree it's the job of the coaches to pick the best team they can from the resources available. If that means a stand out player is left for the greater good then so be it. For instance there's little point picking your "best" tighthead if he's a scrummaging machine that can't keep up with the all court game you are trying to play.

That does not really disagree with my argument. A tight head who is a stand out scrummager but can do little else, would by definition, not be the best all round tight head. In the same way that the fastest wing in the land is not necessarily the best because it's not all about just speed. I am not advocating that players be picked for one specific skill if they can do nothing else. That would be daft.

I was exaggerating for the point. In the right team the tighthead that dominates the tight elements of game would be the ideal choice. If you want to play an all court game they might not be.

The job of the top man is to create an identity for the team and find those who exemplify the core values and the systems that derives from that. The "best" players is a hugely judgemental thing, for instance ask 10 people who the best hooker in the league is and you will get at least three different answers.

Banquo wrote:

FKAS wrote:

Spiffy wrote:
That does not really disagree with my argument. A tight head who is a stand out scrummager but can do little else, would by definition, not be the best all round tight head. In the same way that the fastest wing in the land is not necessarily the best because it's not all about just speed. I am not advocating that players be picked for one specific skill if they can do nothing else. That would be daft.

I was exaggerating for the point. In the right team the tighthead that dominates the tight elements of game would be the ideal choice. If you want to play an all court game they might not be.

The job of the top man is to create an identity for the team and find those who exemplify the core values and the systems that derives from that. The "best" players is a hugely judgemental thing, for instance ask 10 people who the best hooker in the league is and you will get at least three different answers.

I think you mis-spoke in your original reply tbh- the best team doesn't necessarily have the (perceived) best players per position in it. But it is the coaches job to pick and coach the best team.

twitchy wrote:Squidge thinks we are going to win the WC.

fivepointer wrote:I've just finished watching this.
England for the WC then? I dunno. Squidge does some interesting stuff but it seems a stretch that we're suddenly going to go up a few gears in a comparatively short time and with the personnel available.

FKAS wrote:

fivepointer wrote:I've just finished watching this.
England for the WC then? I dunno. Squidge does some interesting stuff but it seems a stretch that we're suddenly going to go up a few gears in a comparatively short time and with the personnel available.

I think that was his overarching point, that's what Eddie's teams tend to do. Whether it happens this time, who knows, it'll be a lot to bring together.

Articles this morning suggesting that Freeman will be trialled at 13 as Eddie wants alternatives to Manu and Freeman isn't small. Added versatility pre world cup and a school career spent playing 10 being pointed to in the article as reasons why it might be a goer. As noted in the Squidge article our centres weren't great at organising the attacking structure during the 6N when Smith was out the game, perhaps Freeman is seen as more vocal and having better vision for that.

Beasties wrote:Outside of Manu could be a goer. Outside of Farrell? Not so much.

Scrumhead wrote:I think Freeman is a cracking player but I don’t see the point in asking him to play out of position when Marchant has proven he is a very decent test level 13 who has very good decision-making skills and the ability to be a playmaker.

I see Freeman as more of a strike runner who can hit good lines from deep (his recent tries being a case in point). He might have the ability to act as a playmaker, but I’ve never seen him in that kind of role at club level so I don’t know why we would think he can do that at test level?

FKAS wrote:

Banquo wrote:

FKAS wrote:
I was exaggerating for the point. In the right team the tighthead that dominates the tight elements of game would be the ideal choice. If you want to play an all court game they might not be.

The job of the top man is to create an identity for the team and find those who exemplify the core values and the systems that derives from that. The "best" players is a hugely judgemental thing, for instance ask 10 people who the best hooker in the league is and you will get at least three different answers.

I think you mis-spoke in your original reply tbh- the best team doesn't necessarily have the (perceived) best players per position in it. But it is the coaches job to pick and coach the best team.

That was literally my point.

fivepointer wrote:I've just finished watching this.
England for the WC then? I dunno. Squidge does some interesting stuff but it seems a stretch that we're suddenly going to go up a few gears in a comparatively short time and with the personnel available.

Mellsblue wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:I think Freeman is a cracking player but I don’t see the point in asking him to play out of position when Marchant has proven he is a very decent test level 13 who has very good decision-making skills and the ability to be a playmaker.

I see Freeman as more of a strike runner who can hit good lines from deep (his recent tries being a case in point). He might have the ability to act as a playmaker, but I’ve never seen him in that kind of role at club level so I don’t know why we would think he can do that at test level?

This.

TheNomad wrote:Freeman has loads of potential, and should be around the squad for sure.

I wouldn't be against him at 13, but as others have said, Marchant plays there (to excellent affect) on a regular basis and should get the nod for my money.

I like the idea of sticking with Steward for a bit, so for me, having a long term plan to assess the merits of (I'm sure I'll miss people, but...) Freeman, Arundell, Cokanasiga, Radwan (who's gone a bit quiet), Lynagh (who I have my doubts about), Murley (who doesn't seem to be rated, not sure why) etc. would seem to make sense. - I'd pay particular attention to the first three

Which Tyler wrote:

Beasties wrote:Outside of Manu could be a goer. Outside of Farrell? Not so much.

Same goes for any outside centre

FKAS wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Beasties wrote:Outside of Manu could be a goer. Outside of Farrell? Not so much.

Same goes for any outside centre

If we're going with this no structure attack we really need Farrell in there to help organise things. Didn't work well in the 6N and completely fell apart if Smith was tackled. Attack actually looked best in the cameos where Smith and Ford were on at the same time but that's not going to happen from the start of a game.

I think a Manu and A N Other midfield won't help with any of the problems with the current attacking strategy. We either need a secondary playmaker/organiser in there or we need to scrap the philosophy and move on.

Mellsblue wrote:

FKAS wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: Same goes for any outside centre

If we're going with this no structure attack we really need Farrell in there to help organise things. Didn't work well in the 6N and completely fell apart if Smith was tackled. Attack actually looked best in the cameos where Smith and Ford were on at the same time but that's not going to happen from the start of a game.

I think a Manu and A N Other midfield won't help with any of the problems with the current attacking strategy. We either need a secondary playmaker/organiser in there or we need to scrap the philosophy and move on.

Why?

FKAS wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

FKAS wrote:
If we're going with this no structure attack we really need Farrell in there to help organise things. Didn't work well in the 6N and completely fell apart if Smith was tackled. Attack actually looked best in the cameos where Smith and Ford were on at the same time but that's not going to happen from the start of a game.

I think a Manu and A N Other midfield won't help with any of the problems with the current attacking strategy. We either need a secondary playmaker/organiser in there or we need to scrap the philosophy and move on.

Why?

It's an defined structure until the playmaker makes the call based on what's in front of them. Smith struggled but got better as the 6N went on, when he's on the ground we had no one stepping into his role. In the AIs when we ran the same attack but Smith combined with Farrell Vs Australia the attack actually worked. Farrell would call a lot of the organisation and Smith was freed up to run his game. Ford and Smith combined similarly in their brief cameos together and we tended to make a lot of ground in attack then. As an attacking system it seems to require a lot of upkeep and onfield management.