RugbyRebels

I like the look of him, but wonder too if he's a good pairing for Ford and JJ. It does lack a little power, and I don't know picking Farrell over Ford does enough to correct the balance

Has JJ ever played at 12? I'd still like to see him paired with Slade even if it was just to establish that it won't work. I think it could and would work. They are both intelligent enough to think on their feet, to interchange as the game demands and could be a solid defensive pairing. Both have pace and rounded skill-sets, including carrying ability. I think Joseph is not at his best with Farrell. I also think T'eo would be too predictable against top opposition to the point of putting JJ in trouble. Restricting JJ is daft, IMO, because we need to get the best out of him. I'd try him with Slade in a fluid system outside of Robson and Ford (I'd still prefer Cipriani but it won't happen now).

twitchy wrote:

The only acceptable case of running into contact: when you see they have their position all wrong and you can barrel them out of the way like a ragdoll.

Especially good if it's Hartley

Digby wrote: They've some star players, but generally there's the pace and decision making they bring to the game and that tends to be most marked in the pack and the tight five especially when compared to us. In the front row Vunipola could play for NZ, but I don't see Cole or Hartley as the sort of player they seek, and I can't see why they'd pick any of our locks over Brodie and Whitelock (given how they want to play the game). Billy V I'm sure would interest them 'cause he's a freak, and freaks get away with not having skills like Read

Given our options we need a runner at 12, the number of times we get the ball wide Vs just drifting looks a little daft to me

Yeah. Agree with all of that.
Slade can play anywhere. Like Mikey, I hope that once he's got himself a test shirt, it'll be bloody difficult to get it off him.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
They've some star players, but generally there's the pace and decision making they bring to the game and that tends to be most marked in the pack and the tight five especially when compared to us. In the front row Vunipola could play for NZ, but I don't see Cole or Hartley as the sort of player they seek, and I can't see why they'd pick any of our locks over Brodie and Whitelock (given how they want to play the game). Billy V I'm sure would interest them 'cause he's a freak, and freaks get away with not having skills like Read

Given our options we need a runner at 12, the number of times we get the ball wide Vs just drifting looks a little daft to me

Yes, but I think its advisable for all sides....and one who can pass and defend too

Is Loz a running option at 12?

if he was playing there for club, yes. His pace is a genuine threat.

Mikey Brown wrote:Aye. Certainly would be dropping JJ. I think he'd fit perfectly alongside Teo.

But I think Slade could everything Farrel does at 12 far better. I don't see how anyone can have missed his classy offloading game as well as his fantastic long-passing.

well I have , or perhaps I've not seen it deliver anything so not remembered

I do think Slade could do something like Farrell, except fly up madly in defence and (more usefully) compete at the breakdown, but still wouldn't be much of a running threat. Though, as is now obvious, I haven't actually seen him play much.


edit- just looked on a highlights reel, and saw some deft handling (esp against quins, maybe why it registered with you); we may be slightly at odds over what we define as 'offloading'.

Oakboy wrote:Has JJ ever played at 12? I'd still like to see him paired with Slade even if it was just to establish that it won't work. I think it could and would work. They are both intelligent enough to think on their feet, to interchange as the game demands and could be a solid defensive pairing. Both have pace and rounded skill-sets, including carrying ability. I think Joseph is not at his best with Farrell. I also think T'eo would be too predictable against top opposition to the point of putting JJ in trouble. Restricting JJ is daft, IMO, because we need to get the best out of him. I'd try him with Slade in a fluid system outside of Robson and Ford (I'd still prefer Cipriani but it won't happen now).

Playing JJ at 12 would somewhat negate his strengths tbh. I don't get why if you put them together why you wouldn't just have slade at 12.

I don't understand your Teo comment; he is there to hold defences and get over the gainline...that almost predictablity is what would create space for JJ.

This sort of stuff, Banquo.


(trawling through that I really had forgotten just how atrocious Farrell was)




Maybe I've just found the only offloads he's done in his whole career, but I feel like it's quite a common thing. I also hate that habit (John Inverdale) of labelling everything as an offload, when it is clearly just a pass. I'm taking that as an excuse to post the borderline one that (I assume) you were referring to against Quins.



Apologies. It's been a very, very dull day at work.

Mikey Brown wrote:This sort of stuff, Banquo.



Maybe I've just found the only offloads he's done in his whole career, but I feel like it's quite a common thing. I also hate that habit (John Inverdale) of labelling everything as an offload, when it is clearly just a pass. I'm taking that as an excuse to post the borderline one that (I assume) you were referring to against Quins.



Apologies. It's been a very, very dull day at work.

I'll take your word for it (and those were the self same ones I saw on the highlights reel), but when I think of Henry Slade I don't think....awesome offloader, unlike say SBW and Brits. I think someone with a good skill set, who hasn't yet settled on a position where he can use them tellingly at international level. That's not to say he isn't the best 'offloader/handler' we could select; however, as per Digby. this skill isn't the (only) major differentiator the AB's have over us.

Banquo wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:This sort of stuff, Banquo.



Maybe I've just found the only offloads he's done in his whole career, but I feel like it's quite a common thing. I also hate that habit (John Inverdale) of labelling everything as an offload, when it is clearly just a pass. I'm taking that as an excuse to post the borderline one that (I assume) you were referring to against Quins.



Apologies. It's been a very, very dull day at work.

I'll take your word for it (and those were the self same ones I saw on the highlights reel), but when I think of Henry Slade I don't think....awesome offloader, unlike say SBW and Brits. I think someone with a good skill set, who hasn't yet settled on a position where he can use them tellingly at international level. That's not to say he isn't the best we could select; however, as per Digby. this skill isn't the (only) major differentiator the AB's have over us.

FWIW, I'm with Banquo on this ...

I'm not sure I'd ever disputed any of that.

No he's not SBW, or settled on a position, and obviously NZ have many more strings to their bow. I wasn't arguing any of those things, I just desperately want to see something more in the midfield. Be it Te'o bashing people in the face, Lozowski zooming about, or someone like Slade/Devoto/Francis who can move the ball a bit.

I just can't fathom how it wouldn't be an improvement, but maybe it's too late. In fairness, this issue is still behind 2/7/9/15 in my priorities.

Brits, Sonny Bill and Slade.
I'd be happy to be named in that group. Even if it was a disparaging context.

Mikey Brown wrote:I'm not sure I'd ever disputed any of that.

No he's not SBW, or settled on a position, and obviously NZ have many more strings to their bow. I wasn't arguing any of those things, I just desperately want to see something more in the midfield. Be it Te'o bashing people in the face, Lozowski zooming about, or someone like Slade/Devoto/Francis who can move the ball a bit.

I just can't fathom how it wouldn't be an improvement, but maybe it's too late. In fairness, this issue is still behind 2/7/9/15 in my priorities.

Not saying you did, just giving own opinion. I agree the midfield needs spicing up, as stated before a zillion times, no sure Slade does it, that's all.

(and I must not have read your OP properly 1st time round re NZ so apols)

kk67 wrote:Brits, Sonny Bill and Slade.
I'd be happy to be named in that group. Even if it was a disparaging context.

ha, well that's one way to create a strawman

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Has JJ ever played at 12? I'd still like to see him paired with Slade even if it was just to establish that it won't work. I think it could and would work. They are both intelligent enough to think on their feet, to interchange as the game demands and could be a solid defensive pairing. Both have pace and rounded skill-sets, including carrying ability. I think Joseph is not at his best with Farrell. I also think T'eo would be too predictable against top opposition to the point of putting JJ in trouble. Restricting JJ is daft, IMO, because we need to get the best out of him. I'd try him with Slade in a fluid system outside of Robson and Ford (I'd still prefer Cipriani but it won't happen now).

Playing JJ at 12 would somewhat negate his strengths tbh. I don't get why if you put them together why you wouldn't just have slade at 12.

I don't understand your Teo comment; he is there to hold defences and get over the gainline...that almost predictablity is what would create space for JJ.

I still don't think it works that close in-field but I can imagine you tutting at my failure to grasp the concept. My view is that against the top international sides, T'eo type players get gobbled up too easily through the IC channel. IMO, there has to be variety and surprise with the ball moved quickly. I like the idea of centres who are comfortable in both positions.

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Has JJ ever played at 12? I'd still like to see him paired with Slade even if it was just to establish that it won't work. I think it could and would work. They are both intelligent enough to think on their feet, to interchange as the game demands and could be a solid defensive pairing. Both have pace and rounded skill-sets, including carrying ability. I think Joseph is not at his best with Farrell. I also think T'eo would be too predictable against top opposition to the point of putting JJ in trouble. Restricting JJ is daft, IMO, because we need to get the best out of him. I'd try him with Slade in a fluid system outside of Robson and Ford (I'd still prefer Cipriani but it won't happen now).

Playing JJ at 12 would somewhat negate his strengths tbh. I don't get why if you put them together why you wouldn't just have slade at 12.

I don't understand your Teo comment; he is there to hold defences and get over the gainline...that almost predictablity is what would create space for JJ.

I still don't think it works that close in-field but I can imagine you tutting at my failure to grasp the concept. My view is that against the top international sides, T'eo type players get gobbled up too easily through the IC channel. IMO, there has to be variety and surprise with the ball moved quickly. I like the idea of centres who are comfortable in both positions.

Well Teo actually has played more at 13 than 12, and I think he has proven line breaking ability at intl level with both England and the Lions- and being gobbled up by a couple of defenders if over the tackle/advantage line is a means to an end (quick ball, defence turning and disrupted), and your quick movement of the ball can then have effect; don't have to play this way, but it can be very effective-- the key is that any midfield must be able to 'manipulate' defences, and generally holding, fixing, committing are the best ways. Getting outside a defence for example could be predicated on a threat, and giving the defence no time to react (eg playing very flat)- and you may not always want to do it off first phase.

I'm sure JJ could play 12 too, but its not playing to his strengths.

Oh and I utterly agree that in theory, both centres would be comfortable in attack and defence wherever they find themselves; they certainly should be able to run, kick, tackle, defend and have excellent handling. In general though, there will be a stronger suit, and a game plan preference.

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote: Playing JJ at 12 would somewhat negate his strengths tbh. I don't get why if you put them together why you wouldn't just have slade at 12.

I don't understand your Teo comment; he is there to hold defences and get over the gainline...that almost predictablity is what would create space for JJ.

I still don't think it works that close in-field but I can imagine you tutting at my failure to grasp the concept. My view is that against the top international sides, T'eo type players get gobbled up too easily through the IC channel. IMO, there has to be variety and surprise with the ball moved quickly. I like the idea of centres who are comfortable in both positions.

Well Teo actually has played more at 13 than 12, and I think he has proven line breaking ability at intl level with both England and the Lions- and being gobbled up by a couple of defenders if over the tackle/advantage line is a means to an end (quick ball, defence turning and disrupted), and your quick movement of the ball can then have effect; don't have to play this way, but it can be very effective-- the key is that any midfield must be able to 'manipulate' defences, and generally holding, fixing, committing are the best ways. Getting outside a defence for example could be predicated on a threat, and giving the defence no time to react (eg playing very flat)- and you may not always want to do it off first phase.

I'm sure JJ could play 12 too, but its not playing to his strengths.

Oh and I utterly agree that in theory, both centres would be comfortable in attack and defence wherever they find themselves; they certainly should be able to run, kick, tackle, defend and have excellent handling. In general though, there will be a stronger suit, and a game plan preference.

That is a thoroughly interesting reply, thanks. I particularly like your reference to 'not always want to do it off first phase'. It may be there that our minds meet, albeit that your knowledge is practical and in-depth whereas my comments are more idealistic. With the NZ fixture in 2018, one that Eddie will be balls-out to win, I can see experimentation being very limited after this year's AIs. I'd not be surprised if Eddie has already fixed on Farrell or Ford for 10, Farrell or T'eo for 12 and, possibly, JJ or Tuilagi/Slade for 13? Is any combination of those good enough? Not on paper, I'd suggest.

Banquo wrote:Well Teo actually has played more at 13 than 12, and I think he has proven line breaking ability at intl level with both England and the Lions- and being gobbled up by a couple of defenders if over the tackle/advantage line is a means to an end (quick ball, defence turning and disrupted), and your quick movement of the ball can then have effect; don't have to play this way, but it can be very effective-- the key is that any midfield must be able to 'manipulate' defences, and generally holding, fixing, committing are the best ways. Getting outside a defence for example could be predicated on a threat, and giving the defence no time to react (eg playing very flat)- and you may not always want to do it off first phase.

I think I've spotted a flaw in your plan - who would be the SH in this scenario?

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
I still don't think it works that close in-field but I can imagine you tutting at my failure to grasp the concept. My view is that against the top international sides, T'eo type players get gobbled up too easily through the IC channel. IMO, there has to be variety and surprise with the ball moved quickly. I like the idea of centres who are comfortable in both positions.

Well Teo actually has played more at 13 than 12, and I think he has proven line breaking ability at intl level with both England and the Lions- and being gobbled up by a couple of defenders if over the tackle/advantage line is a means to an end (quick ball, defence turning and disrupted), and your quick movement of the ball can then have effect; don't have to play this way, but it can be very effective-- the key is that any midfield must be able to 'manipulate' defences, and generally holding, fixing, committing are the best ways. Getting outside a defence for example could be predicated on a threat, and giving the defence no time to react (eg playing very flat)- and you may not always want to do it off first phase.

I'm sure JJ could play 12 too, but its not playing to his strengths.

Oh and I utterly agree that in theory, both centres would be comfortable in attack and defence wherever they find themselves; they certainly should be able to run, kick, tackle, defend and have excellent handling. In general though, there will be a stronger suit, and a game plan preference.

That is a thoroughly interesting reply, thanks. I particularly like your reference to 'not always want to do it off first phase'. It may be there that our minds meet, albeit that your knowledge is practical and in-depth whereas my comments are more idealistic. With the NZ fixture in 2018, one that Eddie will be balls-out to win, I can see experimentation being very limited after this year's AIs. I'd not be surprised if Eddie has already fixed on Farrell or Ford for 10, Farrell or T'eo for 12 and, possibly, JJ or Tuilagi/Slade for 13? Is any combination of those good enough? Not on paper, I'd suggest.

Ford, Teo, JJ could be very tasty imo. Oh, and I do believe strongly in backs strike moves off first phase- its the best start point for manipulating defences and setting up in a way to deceive and pentrate/outflank defences; ideally you have a couple of running threats of different sorts, and believe me, defences will watch all of Ford, Teo (say) and JJ very closely; their effectiveness will then be magnified by what you have in the back 3 that will similarly worry defences, and why. As What points out though, its not a discussion that you can play out unless you take cognisence of what is happening from 1-9!

Which Tyler wrote:

Banquo wrote:Well Teo actually has played more at 13 than 12, and I think he has proven line breaking ability at intl level with both England and the Lions- and being gobbled up by a couple of defenders if over the tackle/advantage line is a means to an end (quick ball, defence turning and disrupted), and your quick movement of the ball can then have effect; don't have to play this way, but it can be very effective-- the key is that any midfield must be able to 'manipulate' defences, and generally holding, fixing, committing are the best ways. Getting outside a defence for example could be predicated on a threat, and giving the defence no time to react (eg playing very flat)- and you may not always want to do it off first phase.

I think I've spotted a flaw in your plan - who would be the SH in this scenario?

Its flawed before that, truth be told.

Oakboy wrote:I'd not be surprised if Eddie has already fixed on Farrell or Ford for 10, Farrell or T'eo for 12 and, possibly, JJ or Tuilagi/Slade for 13? Is any combination of those good enough? Not on paper, I'd suggest.

Are we sure that Eddie even thinks of Te'o as a 12? IIRC, he has never started him there and seems to bring him on for Joseph a reasonable amount of the time. There's only been two games in Eddie's reign where there hasn't been a 2nd fly-half in at 12 and those were the hastily abandoned Burrell experiment. With Tuilagi out for the foreseeable, I'd be surprised to see Te'o at 12. I'd more expect Lozowski or Francis, given the Argentina tour.

Puja

Banquo wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Banquo wrote:Well Teo actually has played more at 13 than 12, and I think he has proven line breaking ability at intl level with both England and the Lions- and being gobbled up by a couple of defenders if over the tackle/advantage line is a means to an end (quick ball, defence turning and disrupted), and your quick movement of the ball can then have effect; don't have to play this way, but it can be very effective-- the key is that any midfield must be able to 'manipulate' defences, and generally holding, fixing, committing are the best ways. Getting outside a defence for example could be predicated on a threat, and giving the defence no time to react (eg playing very flat)- and you may not always want to do it off first phase.

I think I've spotted a flaw in your plan - who would be the SH in this scenario?

Its flawed before that, truth be told.

It's bound to be flawed because it's a compromise. Youngs, Care or Robson? None are good enough to demand selection. Ford or Farrell? Neither are top quality. (Not fit to lace JW or CH's boots). JJ is up there in, say, the top five OCs in the world. IC? Nobody worth much springs to mind. Eddie's compromise will probably be Youngs, Ford, Farrell and JJ. It may be the best he can do which means that game-winning contributions will have to come from elsewhere.

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: I think I've spotted a flaw in your plan - who would be the SH in this scenario?

Its flawed before that, truth be told.

It's bound to be flawed because it's a compromise. Youngs, Care or Robson? None are good enough to demand selection. Ford or Farrell? Neither are top quality. (Not fit to lace JW or CH's boots). JJ is up there in, say, the top five OCs in the world. IC? Nobody worth much springs to mind. Eddie's compromise will probably be Youngs, Ford, Farrell and JJ. It may be the best he can do which means that game-winning contributions will have to come from elsewhere.

I meant before 9 (and including).....quick ball, good forwards decision making is still missing. We do need a quality 9, for sure. I rate Ford's skills, and he can produce world class performances. But, as I've said constantly, we need an upgrade in quality in every unit of the team, possibly bar lock (and even our best combo is current behind Whitelock and Retallick)- either through development or new faces, to be confident against any side in the world.

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:I'd not be surprised if Eddie has already fixed on Farrell or Ford for 10, Farrell or T'eo for 12 and, possibly, JJ or Tuilagi/Slade for 13? Is any combination of those good enough? Not on paper, I'd suggest.

Are we sure that Eddie even thinks of Te'o as a 12? IIRC, he has never started him there and seems to bring him on for Joseph a reasonable amount of the time. There's only been two games in Eddie's reign where there hasn't been a 2nd fly-half in at 12 and those were the hastily abandoned Burrell experiment. With Tuilagi out for the foreseeable, I'd be surprised to see Te'o at 12. I'd more expect Lozowski or Francis, given the Argentina tour.

Puja

Missing a trick, then. Should also remember too that Eddie wanted Manu as a 12. But failing a physical 12 of quality, imo he's compromised, and maybe that's to accomodate Ford n Faz, and then in order to avoid a dramatic shift in starting tactics, has now invested in 2nd 5/8th-ness. I'd sooner see Loz and new messiah Francis at 12 than Faz, but Teo there first of all. Suspect Eddie isn't really a convinced fan of JJ either, truth be told.