Team for Italy

[Puja]

According to Charlie Morgan, he "played some part in preparations for" Saturday's match towards the end of last week. Not sure what to read into that, if anything.

I'm hopeful that he's just in for training and will go back at the weekend to get some more gametime with Irish's cup game.

Puja

Doesn't sound like that from what Morgan is saying - he "understands" that there won't be concerns about his match fitness. (Interestingly, according to Will Kelleher, it was a metatarsal imjury.)

He did look awfully rusty in his cameo at the weekend. Might be that 20 minutes was what he needed to knock the rust off, but he's awfully young and inexperienced to have gained the ability to just drop back in like he's never been away.

Puja

[Banquo]

Sadly I think that’s just not true anymore. As much I’d love to just watch people run it endlessly, there’s many good reasons a lot of teams don’t want to.

in the80's Dwyer was saying any fool can coach a team to win through kicking- then proved it the following week with his normally free running Randwick side. Still true, if a bit dispiriting if you dwell on it.

Not arguing that kicking isnt very important- all the top teams kick a lot- nor that it often helped England last saturday......just that overdoing it, doing it badly/kick chase fail (cheers says Duhan) and kicking at the wrong time (in attack and poorly at that) needs looking at and working on. Pretty signifcant issue imo.

[Danno]

Haven't had a rewatch, but at least 3 kicks were pointless dinks over the line by the SH with no realistic chaser (I don't think they even looked for or signalled for one) , when a reset via the forwards to play some phases was the way to go at the time. I screamed everytime.

[Oakboy]

Cockerill to leave after 6N, I read. That's all the previous regime's coaching staff dumped.

[Oakboy]

Sadly I think that’s just not true anymore. As much I’d love to just watch people run it endlessly, there’s many good reasons a lot of teams don’t want to.

in the80's Dwyer was saying any fool can coach a team to win through kicking- then proved it the following week with his normally free running Randwick side. Still true, if a bit dispiriting if you dwell on it.

Not arguing that kicking isnt very important- all the top teams kick a lot- nor that it often helped England last saturday......just that overdoing it, doing it badly/kick chase fail (cheers says Duhan) and kicking at the wrong time (in attack and poorly at that) needs looking at and working on. Pretty signifcant issue imo.

Tell me, in your continuing quest to educate me, why do teams so rarely kick to touch from within their 22 and then attack the opposition's lineout? It still seems such a worthwhile tactic, especially from kick-offs, in terms of getting the opposition rattled.

[Banquo]

Sadly I think that’s just not true anymore. As much I’d love to just watch people run it endlessly, there’s many good reasons a lot of teams don’t want to.

in the80's Dwyer was saying any fool can coach a team to win through kicking- then proved it the following week with his normally free running Randwick side. Still true, if a bit dispiriting if you dwell on it.

Not arguing that kicking isnt very important- all the top teams kick a lot- nor that it often helped England last saturday......just that overdoing it, doing it badly/kick chase fail (cheers says Duhan) and kicking at the wrong time (in attack and poorly at that) needs looking at and working on. Pretty signifcant issue imo.

Tell me, in your continuing quest to educate me, why do teams so rarely kick to touch from within their 22 and then attack the opposition's lineout? It still seems such a worthwhile tactic, especially from kick-offs, in terms of getting the opposition rattled.

Because tthe chances of stealing a lineout are much lower than regaining a contested box kick (say). And although Italy really could have easily beaten France on Sunday, if you watched their efforts to get out of the 22, they were laughable- Varney (who actually has a very good box kick) was passing 15 yards back to Tommy Allan, who was put under pressure and was only clearing maybe twenty five yards up the pitch to touch, so ending up 5 metres or so outside their 22 with a lineout to France (whose lineout is very good)...contest that lineout and you really weaken your maul defence and that's trouble so close to your own line (in turn sucks in defenders etc etc). They belatedly started to box kick from 9 (and in fairness he'd been charged down for a try early doors), and it was much more successful- even a poor box kick is starting from 10/15 yards further up the pitch when the 9 does it; if the 9 tries to make touch themselves, its quite difficult to make a lot of ground unless there isn't much pressure and a good angle- its easier to get height v distance because of pressure and angle.

[Oakboy]

in the80's Dwyer was saying any fool can coach a team to win through kicking- then proved it the following week with his normally free running Randwick side. Still true, if a bit dispiriting if you dwell on it.

Not arguing that kicking isnt very important- all the top teams kick a lot- nor that it often helped England last saturday......just that overdoing it, doing it badly/kick chase fail (cheers says Duhan) and kicking at the wrong time (in attack and poorly at that) needs looking at and working on. Pretty signifcant issue imo.

Tell me, in your continuing quest to educate me, why do teams so rarely kick to touch from within their 22 and then attack the opposition's lineout? It still seems such a worthwhile tactic, especially from kick-offs, in terms of getting the opposition rattled.

Because tthe chances of stealing a lineout are much lower than regaining a contested box kick (say). And although Italy really could have easily beaten France on Sunday, if you watched their efforts to get out of the 22, they were laughable- Varney (who actually has a very good box kick) was passing 15 yards back to Tommy Allan, who was put under pressure and was only clearing maybe twenty five yards up the pitch to touch, so ending up 5 metres or so outside their 22 with a lineout to France (whose lineout is very good)...contest that lineout and you really weaken your maul defence and that's trouble so close to your own line (in turn sucks in defenders etc etc). They belatedly started to box kick from 9 (and in fairness he'd been charged down for a try early doors), and it was much more successful- even a poor box kick is starting from 10/15 yards further up the pitch when the 9 does it; if the 9 tries to make touch themselves, its quite difficult to make a lot of ground unless there isn't much pressure and a good angle- its easier to get height v distance because of pressure and angle.

So, is that not an admission that a team is using the wrong players to kick and selecting the wrong lineout jumpers? For example, back a few years, restarts would be fielded and regularly kicked to touch over the halfway line. So often, we have had left foot alternatives in Slade and Daly and FBs with lengthy punts. We may not have Croft any more but picking Lawes at 6 and then not bothering to attack the opposition's throw-in makes little sense to me. I accept that Italy showed how not to do it but there must be some alternative to so much blind kicking.

[Banquo]

Tell me, in your continuing quest to educate me, why do teams so rarely kick to touch from within their 22 and then attack the opposition's lineout? It still seems such a worthwhile tactic, especially from kick-offs, in terms of getting the opposition rattled.

Because tthe chances of stealing a lineout are much lower than regaining a contested box kick (say). And although Italy really could have easily beaten France on Sunday, if you watched their efforts to get out of the 22, they were laughable- Varney (who actually has a very good box kick) was passing 15 yards back to Tommy Allan, who was put under pressure and was only clearing maybe twenty five yards up the pitch to touch, so ending up 5 metres or so outside their 22 with a lineout to France (whose lineout is very good)...contest that lineout and you really weaken your maul defence and that's trouble so close to your own line (in turn sucks in defenders etc etc). They belatedly started to box kick from 9 (and in fairness he'd been charged down for a try early doors), and it was much more successful- even a poor box kick is starting from 10/15 yards further up the pitch when the 9 does it; if the 9 tries to make touch themselves, its quite difficult to make a lot of ground unless there isn't much pressure and a good angle- its easier to get height v distance because of pressure and angle.

So, is that not an admission that a team is using the wrong players to kick and selecting the wrong lineout jumpers? For example, back a few years, restarts would be fielded and regularly kicked to touch over the halfway line. So often, we have had left foot alternatives in Slade and Daly and FBs with lengthy punts. We may not have Croft any more but picking Lawes at 6 and then not bothering to attack the opposition's throw-in makes little sense to me. I accept that Italy showed how not to do it but there must be some alternative to so much blind kicking.

Not really- I was just using Italy as an extreme example- even if you clear to halfway, at intl level you are still very unlikely to win the lineout, unless you have a jumping advantage. Why do you think every side in the world does pretty much the same thing?- well, I've just written it down. The chances of recovering a good box kick remain much higher than nicking a lineout. Like all things rugby, a good box kick is just as much a part of the game as a brilliant side step, a rolling maul, or a good cover tackle- its overdone, I do agree, esp further up the pitch, and the attacking demi box chip tried by our 9's...ffs.

[Mikey Brown]

Scotland's tactic of just having Richie Gray jump unassisted and allow the other forward to set a maul defence was interesting, not sure how effective or easily replicated it is but did seem to throw off the England jumpers at times.

[Banquo]

Scotland's tactic of just having Richie Gray jump unassisted and allow the other forward to set a maul defence was interesting, not sure how effective or easily replicated it is but did seem to throw off the England jumpers at times.

yep, smart. But its also possible to overcomplicate line out hokey cokey.

[Mellsblue]

Is it also because a) we’ll ‘out fitness’ you and b) stats show attacking off lineout ball is easier than any other platform.

[Banquo]

Is it also because a) we’ll ‘out fitness’ you and b) stats show attacking off lineout ball is easier than any other platform.

That's more the kick tennis I'd suggest- I was assuming it was just clearance from the 22 (from restarts say), but may have assumed too much.

[jngf]

If I remember correctly, in the original Lawtoje experiment, Itoje scrummaged in the second row but at all other times played the back row role. That was the start of Lawes deciding his true position was 6, I'd guess. It is a smidge ironical that Ludlam took his chance so well in the shirt, including a few lineout takes

As for the long-term second row selection, I think SB needs to challenge Itoje to get back to game-affecting performances or face being dropped. If Launchbury was fit and playing regular club stuff he would be the best short-term answer. His presence would transform our maul, for example, and his leadership is exactly what the pack needs at present without Lawes being there.

Launch is fit (barring a minor niggle here and there) and is playing in Japan. He’s eligible for selection a) as part of the special conditions for Wasps and Worcester players and b) because he’s signed for Quins for next season.

I’m not sure he’s the player he was, but I’m not against him being in the mix.

Weakens the lineout and don’t talk about restarts! He’s a good partner for Itoje, but take Itoje out and you lose a lot, even if I bought into the sub par stuff.

The irony is Itoje’s carrying is the one aspect that’s improved significantly though his openside fetching style contributions seems to have diminished somewhat.

[Banquo]

Launch is fit (barring a minor niggle here and there) and is playing in Japan. He’s eligible for selection a) as part of the special conditions for Wasps and Worcester players and b) because he’s signed for Quins for next season.

I’m not sure he’s the player he was, but I’m not against him being in the mix.

Weakens the lineout and don’t talk about restarts! He’s a good partner for Itoje, but take Itoje out and you lose a lot, even if I bought into the sub par stuff.

The irony is Itoje’s carrying is the one aspect that’s improved significantly though his openside fetching style seems to have diminished somewhat.

yep. less upright. I think the jackalling fall off is either tasking, or he's been told/worked out the risk and reward isn't good enough as you can't go hands beyond the ball (which hampers a big lad if he can't support the weight),

[ad_tigger]

Cockerill to leave after 6N, I read. That's all the previous regime's coaching staff dumped.

Pretty happy with this on balance

[Mikey Brown]

Well I've got 5 minutes to waste. Seems pretty pointless though once I got to midfield and realised it's a 50/50 in every position. I really don't care I just want two centres.

1. Genge
2. George - tempted to say Walker or whoever is next in line, does George need minutes or does he need a proper rest?
3. Sinkler
4. Ribbans
5. Chessum
6. Ludlam
7. Earl/Curry
8. Dombrant

9. JVP
10. Farrell/Smith
11. OHC
12. Tuilagi/Lawrence
13. Marchant/Slade
14. Watson
15. Malins - I'm sure I'll think this is a terrible idea in a few minutes, but as much as he had a good game on Saturday I'm still not convinced he's a wing. Might as well see what he can do in his preferred position.

16. Whoever 17. Rodd (no VRR) 18. Cole 19. Isiekwe (though I'd consider starting him to have a proper look at what he's offering, and allow Ribbans/Chessum to fight over the 5 shirt) 20. Willis 21. Mitchell 22. Smith/Farrell 23. Freeman

[Banquo]

Well I've got 5 minutes to waste. Seems pretty pointless though once I got to midfield and realised it's a 50/50 in every position. I really don't care I just want two centres.

1. Genge
2. George - tempted to say Walker or whoever is next in line, does George need minutes or does he need a proper rest?
3. Sinkler
4. Ribbans
5. Chessum
6. Ludlam
7. Earl/Curry
8. Dombrant

9. JVP
10. Farrell/Smith
11. OHC
12. Tuilagi/Lawrence
13. Marchant/Slade
14. Watson
15. Malins - I'm sure I'll think this is a terrible idea in a few minutes, but as much as he had a good game on Saturday I'm still not convinced he's a wing. Might as well see what he can do in his preferred position.

16. Whoever 17. Rodd (no VRR) 18. Cole 19. Isiekwe (though I'd consider starting him to have a proper look at what he's offering, and allow Ribbans/Chessum to fight over the 5 shirt) 20. Willis 21. Mitchell 22. Smith/Farrell 23. Freeman

Is steward out for some reason? Not sure I'd totally ditch Itoje either

(on the wind up perchance?)

[Mikey Brown]

No just a poorly thought out combination of wanting to give Italy a fighting chance, rest sleepy Maro and flimsy Freddie, but also wanting to try out a whole bunch of others.

[Banquo]

No just a poorly thought out combination of wanting to give Italy a fighting chance, rest sleepy Maro and flimsy Freddie, but also wanting to try out a whole bunch of others.

did you see Italy v France....they gave France loads of headaches.

[Danno]

No just a poorly thought out combination of wanting to give Italy a fighting chance, rest sleepy Maro and flimsy Freddie, but also wanting to try out a whole bunch of others.

did you see Italy v France....they gave France loads of headaches.

Most entertaining match of the weekend by far, unless you're Green

[Oakboy]

IF Slade and Willis are fit and available, I'd start both. I think I read that Kelly is now out for the whole 6N. Can anyone confirm that?

It could be that SB's biggest selection issues will be which players to pick (from those among the relatively inexperienced) who were not outstanding. For example, does he pick Curry, Dombrandt, OHC?

I'd be very surprised if there is any element of experimentation 'just' because it's Italy. At the pre-match press conference, I'd expect SB to talk Italy up for all he is worth and he should make it clear that he is picking his strongest available side. It's arguably the most vital game to win between now and the RWC after the defeat v Scotland.

[Danno]

IF Slade and Willis are fit and available, I'd start both. I think I read that Kelly is now out for the whole 6N. Can anyone confirm that.

10 weeks with a torn thigh muscle according to wherever I read it

[fivepointer]

Kelly not available so SB is left with Hobsons choice at 12.
Farrell again, an over the hill Tuilagi or out of position Slade or Lawrence.
Its not a choice to relish.

[Banquo]

Kelly not available so SB is left with Hobsons choice at 12.
Farrell again, an over the hill Tuilagi or out of position Slade or Lawrence.
Its not a choice to relish.

Shame Dingwall's form hasn't been that good tbh.

[fivepointer]

Kelly not available so SB is left with Hobsons choice at 12.
Farrell again, an over the hill Tuilagi or out of position Slade or Lawrence.
Its not a choice to relish.

Shame Dingwall's form hasn't been that good tbh.

He looked good for a bit but hasnt followed through. What does SB do? His options are so limited in this position that he has to make a compromise selection.
Yes, Farrell is an awful 12 but anyone else (including Kelly) might be a poor option too.
Fast forward a year and we might have Kelly, Atkinson and Ojomoh as options. Right now we are f*****d!