RugbyRebels

Scrumhead wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:TBH I’m surprised there’s even a debate here. Steward is 21 and immediately looked comfortable at test level. I’m not proclaiming him as a world beater, but he’s got all the attributes to become a mainstay of the side and plenty of time to keep getting better.

To question his place in the side seems odd.

I get that there’s a lot of excitement about Arundell (including from me), but I would 100% be sticking with Steward at 15. If and when Arundell can demonstrate he’s got the defensive capabilities to back up his x-factor in attack, there might be more of a challenge, but right now, I’d be looking for a gentler introduction on the wing.

He's looked comfortable-in fact a bit better in fairness. But why wouldn't you debate anyone's position- especially in a team who clearly lacks cutting edge and is in need of improvement? As before, I like him as a player- but like most, he has some limitations. Not sure how you think playing wing is a gentler introduction, if you aren't familiar with the position. I- as an example- am not proposing Arundell as a replacement at all (subject to above provisos), but I do think that a pacy attacking threat from 15 is worth a look, given our midfield (or anyones)...as per above.

I'd also like to think that a mainstay of the side would ideally be a world beater

Pretty sure I’m not alone in that. I’m not suggesting playing on the wing at test level is easy by any means, but I do think it’s less exposed than 15. Our upcoming fixture list is not forgiving either.

I’m open to positions being debated, but who are we suggesting should be at 15? I’d wager it’s not Furbank, so that leaves either Malins, Freeman or Arundell. I’d argue Steward’s case to keep his shirt is stronger than anyone’s case to take it off him.

Arundell has massive potential and is clearly a talent, but his performance in the Premiership Cup final definitely showed a lack of maturity IMO. He wasn’t awful, but it was very evident that he was trying too hard. If he does play against Australia, I’d back them to expose his flaws a lot more ruthlessly than Worcester were able to.

....the point being if you haven't played much if at all on the wing at club level, then being played out of position on your intl debut won't be much fun.
As I've said, Steward is in pole, but one should always be looking for better options...and that's it. I would like to have a look at Freeman and Arundell, that said.

fivepointer wrote:Tbf Steward has done most things well. He's handled the step up and looks an accomplished player. My reservation with him is his lack of pace, which does limit what he can offer in attack.
Right now he's first choice but its right to consider alternatives.

this. Which seems to be the common view.

Scrumhead wrote:No. I don’t think Banquo is right. Some players are rightly ‘nailed on’ whereas others are because the alternatives clearly aren’t as good.

For example, Genge has pushed himself to the front of queue for the 1 jersey and is now nailed on IMO. Barring injury, Sinckler is more or less a certainty at tighthead. Not necessarily because he deserves it, but because Stuart and Heyes aren’t genuinely challenging him for it. I don’t think either of those are ‘Eddie choices’. I think we’d probably all start them too.

As far as ‘Eddie choices’, I think Curry, Itoje, Lawes, Youngs, Farrell and Tuilagi (if fit), are all nailed on. If Farrell is picked at 10, you could quite easily add Slade to that list. Ho starts out of LCD vs. George is an ongoing debate, but they’re nailed on as far as the 2 and 16 shirts are concerned.

They might not be quite as ‘nailed on’ , but I also think that May and Watson come straight back in if they are fit and in any kind of form. Their replacements haven’t really made a sufficient challenge to take their starting spots.

I'm not sure I even said that, tbh. I may have said that only Itoje and Curry are top notch international players we have, and I'd agree that Genge and Sinckler are there by default.

Mikey Brown wrote:I think it’s great we have a rock of a fullback available for the next 10 years or so and know he already looks comfortable at this level. Doesn’t mean nobody could displace him though and I’m not sure I’ve see anyone go further than that.

Yup perzackly.

Oakboy wrote:So, is Banquo right - the only two nailed-on starters are Itoje and Curry? If so, cohesion (if the XV involves younger players) is years away. Shame we only have months.

Don't think I actually said that. I criticised the pack you proposed for having a number of brain dead players, but its a pretty likely starting pack. Itoje and Curry should definitely start, and I'd think Genge and Sinckler as well, despite doubts over both (the latter has been in poor form for a while). George will almost certainly be in the 22 as well.

Oakboy wrote:

FKAS wrote:

Banquo wrote: Slade not showing up well in a relatively new position in a poor team developing a new attacking style. Shocking.
Not a huge fan of Slade, but really?

So should we keep out the experienced international captain in order to give Slade more game time there?

On the assumption that Tuilagi will not be fit regularly, yes.

? Not sure I follow that logic. We could just drop Slade and go with Farrell and Marchant in the centres which would be a good comparison to the Farrell and Joseph combination that was at the heart of our unbeaten run. For me it's Slade or Farrell and Manu or Marchant. I really hope the days of the Farrell and Slade combination are gone.

Mellsblue wrote:

FKAS wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: If you’re keeping him because he’s ‘the experienced international captain’ when do you drop him?

When a better 12 for the game plan becomes available. I'd actually take the captaincy off of him if it was my choice.

Now I’m confused why you mentioned him being capt as a reason to keep him in the team.
As I said earlier, I don’t see him as good for the game plan. Not sure why anyone does as it’s completely alien to both his skill set and any system he’s played in before.

Whether we like him or not he's been a leader ok the field for England and the backs looked short of leadership in the 6N. He wouldn't need to be captain to be a leader in the backline.

The game plan isn't particularly alien to him, he's used to arranging the attack at Sarries and working with a more creative 10 at England. Smith struggled in the 6N with Slade alongside him trying to both organise the free form attack and run it. Farrell can organise and Smith can run it, that worked in the AIs. I can't think of another centre we could parachute in with the playmaking skills to help Smith organise the attack on the fly. Ojomoh might be one to try but that might be asking to much from a 21 year old on his international debut.

Banquo wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Tbf Steward has done most things well. He's handled the step up and looks an accomplished player. My reservation with him is his lack of pace, which does limit what he can offer in attack.
Right now he's first choice but its right to consider alternatives.

this. Which seems to be the common view.

I don't think his pace is hinder our attack. It certainly didn't when he carved through Vs Australia and rounded the fullback. None of our other back three options would have finished the tries he did Vs France and South Africa.

As an aside since the 6N it's four tries in six games for Tigers. He's never going to be electric but that doesn't mean he isn't developing into a potent attacking force.

FKAS wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

FKAS wrote:
When a better 12 for the game plan becomes available. I'd actually take the captaincy off of him if it was my choice.

Now I’m confused why you mentioned him being capt as a reason to keep him in the team.
As I said earlier, I don’t see him as good for the game plan. Not sure why anyone does as it’s completely alien to both his skill set and any system he’s played in before.

Whether we like him or not he's been a leader ok the field for England and the backs looked short of leadership in the 6N. He wouldn't need to be captain to be a leader in the backline.

The game plan isn't particularly alien to him, he's used to arranging the attack at Sarries and working with a more creative 10 at England. Smith struggled in the 6N with Slade alongside him trying to both organise the free form attack and run it. Farrell can organise and Smith can run it, that worked in the AIs. I can't think of another centre we could parachute in with the playmaking skills to help Smith organise the attack on the fly. Ojomoh might be one to try but that might be asking to much from a 21 year old on his international debut.

Disagree with 90% of this. Such is the internet.

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:So, is Banquo right - the only two nailed-on starters are Itoje and Curry? If so, cohesion (if the XV involves younger players) is years away. Shame we only have months.

Don't think I actually said that.

I did.

FKAS wrote:

Banquo wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Tbf Steward has done most things well. He's handled the step up and looks an accomplished player. My reservation with him is his lack of pace, which does limit what he can offer in attack.
Right now he's first choice but its right to consider alternatives.

this. Which seems to be the common view.

I don't think his pace is hinder our attack. It certainly didn't when he carved through Vs Australia and rounded the fullback. None of our other back three options would have finished the tries he did Vs France and South Africa.

As an aside since the 6N it's four tries in six games for Tigers. He's never going to be electric but that doesn't mean he isn't developing into a potent attacking force.

quite. And it would be handy to have some electricity in our backline . To be clear, for the 15th time, he's in the position as it stands. But so was Matt Perry until he wasn't

Seems to be a significant overreaction whilst agreeing he isn't very quick

FKAS wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

FKAS wrote:
So should we keep out the experienced international captain in order to give Slade more game time there?

On the assumption that Tuilagi will not be fit regularly, yes.

? Not sure I follow that logic. We could just drop Slade and go with Farrell and Marchant in the centres which would be a good comparison to the Farrell and Joseph combination that was at the heart of our unbeaten run. For me it's Slade or Farrell and Manu or Marchant. I really hope the days of the Farrell and Slade combination are gone.

Mellsblue wrote:

FKAS wrote:
When a better 12 for the game plan becomes available. I'd actually take the captaincy off of him if it was my choice.

Now I’m confused why you mentioned him being capt as a reason to keep him in the team.
As I said earlier, I don’t see him as good for the game plan. Not sure why anyone does as it’s completely alien to both his skill set and any system he’s played in before.

Whether we like him or not he's been a leader ok the field for England and the backs looked short of leadership in the 6N. He wouldn't need to be captain to be a leader in the backline.

The game plan isn't particularly alien to him, he's used to arranging the attack at Sarries and working with a more creative 10 at England. Smith struggled in the 6N with Slade alongside him trying to both organise the free form attack and run it. Farrell can organise and Smith can run it, that worked in the AIs. I can't think of another centre we could parachute in with the playmaking skills to help Smith organise the attack on the fly. Ojomoh might be one to try but that might be asking to much from a 21 year old on his international debut.

At the heart of our unbeaten run was a dominant pack.
And Henry Slade, as above (which also worked in the AI's v SA )- not sure why Faz would be any better outside Smith trying to use shyte ball. Its all a waste of hot air tho, as Faz will be playing 10 or 12 no matter what we think- at least you'll be happy.

Banquo wrote:

FKAS wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
On the assumption that Tuilagi will not be fit regularly, yes.

? Not sure I follow that logic. We could just drop Slade and go with Farrell and Marchant in the centres which would be a good comparison to the Farrell and Joseph combination that was at the heart of our unbeaten run. For me it's Slade or Farrell and Manu or Marchant. I really hope the days of the Farrell and Slade combination are gone.

Mellsblue wrote: Now I’m confused why you mentioned him being capt as a reason to keep him in the team.
As I said earlier, I don’t see him as good for the game plan. Not sure why anyone does as it’s completely alien to both his skill set and any system he’s played in before.

Whether we like him or not he's been a leader ok the field for England and the backs looked short of leadership in the 6N. He wouldn't need to be captain to be a leader in the backline.

The game plan isn't particularly alien to him, he's used to arranging the attack at Sarries and working with a more creative 10 at England. Smith struggled in the 6N with Slade alongside him trying to both organise the free form attack and run it. Farrell can organise and Smith can run it, that worked in the AIs. I can't think of another centre we could parachute in with the playmaking skills to help Smith organise the attack on the fly. Ojomoh might be one to try but that might be asking to much from a 21 year old on his international debut.

At the heart of our unbeaten run was a dominant pack.
And Henry Slade, as above (which also worked in the AI's v SA :))- not sure why Faz would be any better outside Smith trying to use shyte ball. Its all a waste of hot air tho, as Faz will be playing 10 or 12 no matter what we think- at least you'll be happy.

Wasn't that the one where he shifted to fullback at times to facilitate Manu and Marchant coming into midfield? That certainly worked in patches. I wouldn't be adverse to seeing us try the three centre combination again.

FKAS wrote:

Banquo wrote:

FKAS wrote:
? Not sure I follow that logic. We could just drop Slade and go with Farrell and Marchant in the centres which would be a good comparison to the Farrell and Joseph combination that was at the heart of our unbeaten run. For me it's Slade or Farrell and Manu or Marchant. I really hope the days of the Farrell and Slade combination are gone.



Whether we like him or not he's been a leader ok the field for England and the backs looked short of leadership in the 6N. He wouldn't need to be captain to be a leader in the backline.

The game plan isn't particularly alien to him, he's used to arranging the attack at Sarries and working with a more creative 10 at England. Smith struggled in the 6N with Slade alongside him trying to both organise the free form attack and run it. Farrell can organise and Smith can run it, that worked in the AIs. I can't think of another centre we could parachute in with the playmaking skills to help Smith organise the attack on the fly. Ojomoh might be one to try but that might be asking to much from a 21 year old on his international debut.

At the heart of our unbeaten run was a dominant pack.
And Henry Slade, as above (which also worked in the AI's v SA :))- not sure why Faz would be any better outside Smith trying to use shyte ball. Its all a waste of hot air tho, as Faz will be playing 10 or 12 no matter what we think- at least you'll be happy.

Wasn't that the one where he shifted to fullback at times to facilitate Manu and Marchant coming into midfield? That certainly worked in patches. I wouldn't be adverse to seeing us try the three centre combination again.

No, iirc it was when he shifted to 12 after Manu pulled his hammy scoring a try in the 7th minute (marchant moved into 13 and Malins came onto the wing). Created Steward's try with a brilliant pass from 12.

Mellsblue wrote:

badback wrote:

Spiffy wrote:Steward is only 21 and at the start of his career. He has had 10 England caps, scored three tries and has, on the whole, played very well. I would expect him to improve with experience and add some attacking skills and self confidence as he goes. Also he may well be playing strictly to Jones orders in what he is attempting to do in a game. It's not long since the board was raving about him. If he is a tad limited in attack (and I don't think he's that bad) then those touted to replace him are probably limited in defence. He is not nailed on but will take some shifting from the 15 shirt.

And I’d add sure it’s nice to have 15 who can do everything brilliantly but to finally have one who looks composed, is rock solid especially under high ball, and has scored some tries too - well that’s not bad, not bad at all.

He can do everything brilliantly?!?!?

Conditional - it would be nice to have someone who could but of course no one can

badback wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

badback wrote: And I’d add sure it’s nice to have 15 who can do everything brilliantly but to finally have one who looks composed, is rock solid especially under high ball, and has scored some tries too - well that’s not bad, not bad at all.

He can do everything brilliantly?!?!?

Conditional - it would be nice to have someone who could but of course no one can

Apols on this. I read it as ‘and I’d add it’s sure nice to have a 15 who can do everything brilliantly and to have…..’! I blame the dyslexia.

Mellsblue wrote:

badback wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: He can do everything brilliantly?!?!?

Conditional - it would be nice to have someone who could but of course no one can

Apols on this. I read it as ‘and I’d add it’s sure nice to have a 15 who can do everything brilliantly and to have…..’! I blame the dyslexia.

Haha no worries

Banquo wrote:

FKAS wrote:

Banquo wrote: At the heart of our unbeaten run was a dominant pack.
And Henry Slade, as above (which also worked in the AI's v SA :))- not sure why Faz would be any better outside Smith trying to use shyte ball. Its all a waste of hot air tho, as Faz will be playing 10 or 12 no matter what we think- at least you'll be happy.

Wasn't that the one where he shifted to fullback at times to facilitate Manu and Marchant coming into midfield? That certainly worked in patches. I wouldn't be adverse to seeing us try the three centre combination again.

No, iirc it was when he shifted to 12 after Manu pulled his hammy scoring a try in the 7th minute (marchant moved into 13 and Malins came onto the wing). Created Steward's try with a brilliant pass from 12.

Quirke's try came from a nice delayed Slade pass to Marchant. Steward scored from the little pop from Youngs and then forced his way over.

That Slade pass from Marchant was off a strike play and not the multi phase free form attack that Eddie is striving for. Our attack dried up over the course of that game though that was more than partly down to the SA forwards doing a job up front.

FKAS wrote:

Banquo wrote:

FKAS wrote:
Wasn't that the one where he shifted to fullback at times to facilitate Manu and Marchant coming into midfield? That certainly worked in patches. I wouldn't be adverse to seeing us try the three centre combination again.

No, iirc it was when he shifted to 12 after Manu pulled his hammy scoring a try in the 7th minute (marchant moved into 13 and Malins came onto the wing). Created Steward's try with a brilliant pass from 12.

Quirke's try came from a nice delayed Slade pass to Marchant. Steward scored from the little pop from Youngs and then forced his way over.

That Slade pass from Marchant was off a strike play and not the multi phase free form attack that Eddie is striving for. Our attack dried up over the course of that game though that was more than partly down to the SA forwards doing a job up front.

Didn’t Steward’s try originally came from an excellent long pass from Slade out to Steward who then popped the ball onto Malins who made a big line break up the right?

On Steward, would echo what Tigersman said on the previous page: Steward looks to me to have made good strides in his attacking game recently, especially in how he’s hitting the line and executing technical skills under pressure.

Timbo wrote:

FKAS wrote:

Banquo wrote: No, iirc it was when he shifted to 12 after Manu pulled his hammy scoring a try in the 7th minute (marchant moved into 13 and Malins came onto the wing). Created Steward's try with a brilliant pass from 12.

Quirke's try came from a nice delayed Slade pass to Marchant. Steward scored from the little pop from Youngs and then forced his way over.

That Slade pass from Marchant was off a strike play and not the multi phase free form attack that Eddie is striving for. Our attack dried up over the course of that game though that was more than partly down to the SA forwards doing a job up front.

Didn’t Steward’s try originally came from an excellent long pass from Slade out to Steward who then popped the ball onto Malins who made a big line break up the right?

On Steward, would echo what Tigersman said on the previous page: Steward looks to me to have made good strides in his attacking game recently, especially in how he’s hitting the line and executing technical skills under pressure.

Yes on the Steward try, which was my point. Slade can play 12 to good effect. But..only as good as the ball that can be generated.

I think Steward hits decent lines, has ok handling skills under pressure. But I think he lacks a bit of gas. He still is the best we have.

Timbo wrote:

FKAS wrote:

Banquo wrote: No, iirc it was when he shifted to 12 after Manu pulled his hammy scoring a try in the 7th minute (marchant moved into 13 and Malins came onto the wing). Created Steward's try with a brilliant pass from 12.

Quirke's try came from a nice delayed Slade pass to Marchant. Steward scored from the little pop from Youngs and then forced his way over.

That Slade pass from Marchant was off a strike play and not the multi phase free form attack that Eddie is striving for. Our attack dried up over the course of that game though that was more than partly down to the SA forwards doing a job up front.

Didn’t Steward’s try originally came from an excellent long pass from Slade out to Steward who then popped the ball onto Malins who made a big line break up the right?

On Steward, would echo what Tigersman said on the previous page: Steward looks to me to have made good strides in his attacking game recently, especially in how he’s hitting the line and executing technical skills under pressure.

I think "strides" is the operative word here in both its meanings. Yes- he is gradually developing his all round game. In terms of his actual physical stride, as with many very tall blokes, he has has a long stride that eats up a lot of ground while possibly giving the impression that he is not moving quickly. Like the lanky Bok wing Pieter Rossouw, of about 20 years ago, who did not look all that fast in the way he moved until it was evident that he was running away from opponents. ( Before I get nailed - I am not saying Steward is as fast as Rossouw, just comparing movement/running style.) Steward is certainly no flier, but I don't think that he's particularly slow, and he's doing a good all-round job in the 15 shirt. (Then again - I quite liked Mike Brown at his abrasive peak.)

Jonny Hill, LCD and Jack Nowell all fit for the tour, Slade out with a shoulder injury.

Yeah Slade’s been carrying the shoulder problem for a while. Had the op today I think.

To my amazement Manu Tuilagi wont be in Australia either - "Sale Sharks can confirm that Manu Tuilagi has undergone a routine procedure on his knee which will rule the 31-year-old out of this summer’s England tour to Australia.

The club, in close consultation with England Rugby, have decided that a summer of rest and a full pre-season is the best course of action to ensure Manu is fit and available for Sale Sharks and England during a crucial year for both club and country"

fivepointer wrote:To my amazement Manu Tuilagi wont be in Australia either - "Sale Sharks can confirm that Manu Tuilagi has undergone a routine procedure on his knee which will rule the 31-year-old out of this summer’s England tour to Australia.

The club, in close consultation with England Rugby, have decided that a summer of rest and a full pre-season is the best course of action to ensure Manu is fit and available for Sale Sharks and England during a crucial year for both club and country"

Good decision IMO. Get him right, without pressure for an anticipated return and we should see the best of him again, just when it's needed.

Good news for Freeman if Eddie's still thinking of converting him, although it still seems bananas to eschew the in-form natural centre Marchant (or worse, push the centre onto the wing to make room for the winger to play centre).

Puja

Yep. A 12/13 combo of Farrell and Marchant looks like the obvious combination. Which is why Eddie probably won’t go for it …

Surely Marchant has built up some credit? He’s been good or very good whenever he’s had a chance and is quite obviously the form 13 as well. It would be a massive injustice not to pick him.