RugbyRebels

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:I have only read that Ewels is out with a knee injury - no details. Does that mean that both he and Dombrandt have been broken in training with similar issues?

long season

Yeah let’s hope the Lions can hold up through 3 tests.

Mikey Brown wrote:No reason that midfield couldn’t be very effective to be honest.

Somehow completely missed that Farrell isn’t captain anymore. Now leaves us wedded to Lawes at 6 somewhat but definitely a positive move I think.

I hope with this backrow we can see a bit more of what Curry used to do than just him slamming in to brick walls.

Really interested to see how Cokanisiga goes and how (well) we use him. He’s had an odd reintroduction to the game after such a long time out. Not actually seen him do a lot with the ball but is obviously a different kind of physical threat and keeps scoring tries, even if they do mostly look like walk-ins.

What would worry you, as a defender about that midfield? Quins midfield works because of the huge unit that is Esterhuizen enabling Smith to do his stuff and creating space for Marchant. This is a very different set up, and a set up that didn't really work with a better passer at 12. The whole back line just looks pedestrian, pace wise.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Peej wrote:
Even the as expected is a bit depressing. We look weak at tighthead, the backrow is meh, and the backs replacements are just odd.

Not to mention the midfield isn't worrying anyone, except me . Bit harsh on the backrow- Lawes has become a pretty decent 6, Curry is a proven operator and Billy on form is a very good 8.

Maybe the backs selection is because that backrow is not getting around to support any fliers…

A real interesting team. No pace, plenty of “flair” and a lot more threats than we’ve become used to.

I like it, in general.

Or pick a quicker back 3 and a more mobile backrow?

Banquo wrote:Bit lacking in pace all round in the backs- in fact a lot lacking.

Didn’t want to say it myself - as I would be a case of being a stuck record - but yeah.

Banquo wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:No reason that midfield couldn’t be very effective to be honest.

Somehow completely missed that Farrell isn’t captain anymore. Now leaves us wedded to Lawes at 6 somewhat but definitely a positive move I think.

I hope with this backrow we can see a bit more of what Curry used to do than just him slamming in to brick walls.

Really interested to see how Cokanisiga goes and how (well) we use him. He’s had an odd reintroduction to the game after such a long time out. Not actually seen him do a lot with the ball but is obviously a different kind of physical threat and keeps scoring tries, even if they do mostly look like walk-ins.

What would worry you, as a defender about that midfield? Quins midfield works because of the huge unit that is Esterhuizen enabling Smith to do his stuff and creating space for Marchant. This is a very different set up, and a set up that didn't really work with a better passer at 12. The whole back line just looks pedestrian, pace wise.

That it's very similar in style to the Ford/Faz/Joseph midfield that was taking sides apart back in 2016-17? That it's got two passers and a runner (who isn't pedestrian in the slightest), with two powerful and fast presences able to come into the line in Coka and Steward? While Slade may be a better passer, he's never looked convincing at 12 and has rarely backed up his potential and skill at international level. Given the choice, I'd far rather have Farrell there than Slade.

I appreciate you don't like it, but that backline and that midfield could work very well. Nothing wrong with the selection, but everything depends on if Eddie's prepared the team well enough or if we're going to once again collapse into a disorganised morass that looks like they just met in the carpark.

Puja

The only players who might actually scare Aus are Smith and Arundell I would suggest. Marchant a possibility. The rest have too much of an air of predictability. I like Steward and would stick with him at 15, but Arundell will make defenders second guess, so he needs to get on the park somehow if we are to have any real hope of excitement. I suspect with the back row selected the play will be one dimensional for the most part.

Banquo wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:No reason that midfield couldn’t be very effective to be honest.

Somehow completely missed that Farrell isn’t captain anymore. Now leaves us wedded to Lawes at 6 somewhat but definitely a positive move I think.

I hope with this backrow we can see a bit more of what Curry used to do than just him slamming in to brick walls.

Really interested to see how Cokanisiga goes and how (well) we use him. He’s had an odd reintroduction to the game after such a long time out. Not actually seen him do a lot with the ball but is obviously a different kind of physical threat and keeps scoring tries, even if they do mostly look like walk-ins.

What would worry you, as a defender about that midfield? Quins midfield works because of the huge unit that is Esterhuizen enabling Smith to do his stuff and creating space for Marchant. This is a very different set up, and a set up that didn't really work with a better passer at 12. The whole back line just looks pedestrian, pace wise.

I agree about the pace overall and that Farrell is not Esterhuizen, but I don't see that meaning this midfield couldn't function. Smith and Marchant are probably the fastest players in that backline, oddly. Two distributors with a back three that can all carry pretty directly up the middle (+ Vunipola & Genge presumably being used here) and allow Marchant to do his thing seems like a pretty reasonable foundation for an attack.

I mean who knows what the attacking structure is going to look like though. Looked promising in the Autumn. Looked absolutely aimless in the 6 nations. It's maybe not got the pace or tackle-busting threat that we'd probably all like in the backline, but I'd really hope Gleason is able to get more out of these players than in the 6 nations.

Banquo wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:No reason that midfield couldn’t be very effective to be honest.

Somehow completely missed that Farrell isn’t captain anymore. Now leaves us wedded to Lawes at 6 somewhat but definitely a positive move I think.

I hope with this backrow we can see a bit more of what Curry used to do than just him slamming in to brick walls.

Really interested to see how Cokanisiga goes and how (well) we use him. He’s had an odd reintroduction to the game after such a long time out. Not actually seen him do a lot with the ball but is obviously a different kind of physical threat and keeps scoring tries, even if they do mostly look like walk-ins.

What would worry you, as a defender about that midfield? Quins midfield works because of the huge unit that is Esterhuizen enabling Smith to do his stuff and creating space for Marchant. This is a very different set up, and a set up that didn't really work with a better passer at 12. The whole back line just looks pedestrian, pace wise.

England don't have a Big Andre type 12. No point pretending we do and if that's the crutch Smith needs to perform we need to move him on as he's unlikely to get that with England either.

There's plenty of impact in that backline and the England back three all have the ability to get over the gain line in contact. If anything Smith looked like he was desperate for help leading the backs in the 6N and Farrell should help that. I don't think Ford needed Farrell but Smith might do, or at least in the short term (he's still only 23). England had great success with the Ford/Farrell/Joseph midfield combination so I don't see a problem with the one we have if it works together cohesively.

Have we said goodbye to our all-court/headless chicken game plan then? That selection would suggest so.
Looks built for the ball to not go wider than the 13 channel and the back 3 to pick lines off 9, 10 & 12.

We can't be going any wider and still expect quick breakdown ball from our back row. So I guess you're right Mells. I am concerned Hooper will be a thorn in our side.

FKAS wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:No reason that midfield couldn’t be very effective to be honest.

Somehow completely missed that Farrell isn’t captain anymore. Now leaves us wedded to Lawes at 6 somewhat but definitely a positive move I think.

I hope with this backrow we can see a bit more of what Curry used to do than just him slamming in to brick walls.

Really interested to see how Cokanisiga goes and how (well) we use him. He’s had an odd reintroduction to the game after such a long time out. Not actually seen him do a lot with the ball but is obviously a different kind of physical threat and keeps scoring tries, even if they do mostly look like walk-ins.

What would worry you, as a defender about that midfield? Quins midfield works because of the huge unit that is Esterhuizen enabling Smith to do his stuff and creating space for Marchant. This is a very different set up, and a set up that didn't really work with a better passer at 12. The whole back line just looks pedestrian, pace wise.

England don't have a Big Andre type 12. No point pretending we do and if that's the crutch Smith needs to perform we need to move him on as he's unlikely to get that with England either.

There's plenty of impact in that backline and the England back three all have the ability to get over the gain line in contact. If anything Smith looked like he was desperate for help leading the backs in the 6N and Farrell should help that. I don't think Ford needed Farrell but Smith might do, or at least in the short term (he's still only 23). England had great success with the Ford/Farrell/Joseph midfield combination so I don't see a problem with the one we have if it works together cohesively.

Smith also plays off the disruption caused by a high quality counter attacking back 3… which we also don’t have. We really are setting him up to fail.

Gloskarlos wrote:We can't be going any wider and still expect quick breakdown ball from our back row. So I guess you're right Mells. I am concerned Hooper will be a thorn in our side.

The wingers also both do their best work closer, particularly Nowell, and we know Steward won’t gas anyone as the last man. At least it’s a consistent, logical thought process, I suppose, even if I don’t agree with the outcome.

As ever, the strategy aligning with the players selected is more what I'm worried about.

We were never going to play like Quins, and Smith shouldn't need that to succeed, so while an Esterhuizen at 12 and some counter-attacking flair would be nice it I don't see that we're simply doomed without it.

Mellsblue wrote:Have we said goodbye to our all-court/headless chicken game plan then? That selection would suggest so.
Looks built for the ball to not go wider than the 13 channel and the back 3 to pick lines off 9, 10 & 12.

I'd actually say that selection suggests that we are going to carry on with our free-form/flexible attacking structure. It was never about being all-court, but about adapting the attack to the situation rather than running set patterns, which fell apart in the 6N the minute that Smith got tackled and someone else had to step up and take control. This game, we've got Farrell directing, with Smith allowed to insert himself into the attack when he sees a vulnerability, plus the very experienced Care to step up and direct if needed as well. I still don't know if such a free-form system is possible, but that selection is giving it its very best chance to succeed.

The outside backs support that - Nowell is part centre/part wing/part flanker which allows him to provide support in a lot of different situations and he's also a bit of a get-out-of-jail-free card with his ability to make ground after contact. I suspect Cokanasiga is seen in very much the same way, although I'm not sure if he's as efficient at that as Nowell is. Marchant is also adept at playing wing and centre, so is comfortable rotating if Cokanasiga is being used up the centre, and Steward has developed a very good skill this season in following the fly-half and joining the line late and at pace to make the extra man.

It's a very flexible and adaptable backline that seems to be picked specifically for this new theory of attacking play. Will it actually work? Who the hell knows, but I'll be interested to see.

Puja

Mikey Brown wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:No reason that midfield couldn’t be very effective to be honest.

Somehow completely missed that Farrell isn’t captain anymore. Now leaves us wedded to Lawes at 6 somewhat but definitely a positive move I think.

I hope with this backrow we can see a bit more of what Curry used to do than just him slamming in to brick walls.

Really interested to see how Cokanisiga goes and how (well) we use him. He’s had an odd reintroduction to the game after such a long time out. Not actually seen him do a lot with the ball but is obviously a different kind of physical threat and keeps scoring tries, even if they do mostly look like walk-ins.

What would worry you, as a defender about that midfield? Quins midfield works because of the huge unit that is Esterhuizen enabling Smith to do his stuff and creating space for Marchant. This is a very different set up, and a set up that didn't really work with a better passer at 12. The whole back line just looks pedestrian, pace wise.

I agree about the pace overall and that Farrell is not Esterhuizen, but I don't see that meaning this midfield couldn't function. Smith and Marchant are probably the fastest players in that backline, oddly. Two distributors with a back three that can all carry pretty directly up the middle (+ Vunipola & Genge presumably being used here) and allow Marchant to do his thing seems like a pretty reasonable foundation for an attack.

I mean who knows what the attacking structure is going to look like though. Looked promising in the Autumn. Looked absolutely aimless in the 6 nations. It's maybe not got the pace or tackle-busting threat that we'd probably all like in the backline, but I'd really hope Gleason is able to get more out of these players than in the 6 nations.

We've gone from effective to function- and that's kind of my point....my start point was about worrying defences, rather than just filling in the spots competently (and I'm a bit dubious about that tbh). And we talk about two distributors like Faz is actually good at it and associated decision making . Its the midfield I'd have predicted, and frankly can't offer a more convincing alternative. I guess I need to get over Farrell at 12! But it all looks pedestrian, and requires ace decision making and precise fast passing to fool anyone.

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:No reason that midfield couldn’t be very effective to be honest.

Somehow completely missed that Farrell isn’t captain anymore. Now leaves us wedded to Lawes at 6 somewhat but definitely a positive move I think.

I hope with this backrow we can see a bit more of what Curry used to do than just him slamming in to brick walls.

Really interested to see how Cokanisiga goes and how (well) we use him. He’s had an odd reintroduction to the game after such a long time out. Not actually seen him do a lot with the ball but is obviously a different kind of physical threat and keeps scoring tries, even if they do mostly look like walk-ins.

What would worry you, as a defender about that midfield? Quins midfield works because of the huge unit that is Esterhuizen enabling Smith to do his stuff and creating space for Marchant. This is a very different set up, and a set up that didn't really work with a better passer at 12. The whole back line just looks pedestrian, pace wise.

That it's very similar in style to the Ford/Faz/Joseph midfield that was taking sides apart back in 2016-17? That it's got two passers and a runner (who isn't pedestrian in the slightest), with two powerful and fast presences able to come into the line in Coka and Steward? While Slade may be a better passer, he's never looked convincing at 12 and has rarely backed up his potential and skill at international level. Given the choice, I'd far rather have Farrell there than Slade.

I appreciate you don't like it, but that backline and that midfield could work very well. Nothing wrong with the selection, but everything depends on if Eddie's prepared the team well enough or if we're going to once again collapse into a disorganised morass that looks like they just met in the carpark.

Puja

I'm thinking that this golden era of 16/17 is becoming a bit of an urban myth tbh (a brief period in time where the pack were dominating, and the back three was a lot more rapid from memory), and in any case Ford is the key to all of that imo (plus JJ on fire a bit) as he can pick a pass flat to the gainline in a way that neither Faz nor Smith (as yet) can.
I don't like it, but as above I can't think of anything much more compelling, but I'd want a faster back three with that midfield.

To your last point, it depends how the pack goes as always; without front foot ball that midfield is toast in terms of running with the ball and even countering.

edit- I will climb down from my more rapid back three position having looked it up

FKAS wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:No reason that midfield couldn’t be very effective to be honest.

Somehow completely missed that Farrell isn’t captain anymore. Now leaves us wedded to Lawes at 6 somewhat but definitely a positive move I think.

I hope with this backrow we can see a bit more of what Curry used to do than just him slamming in to brick walls.

Really interested to see how Cokanisiga goes and how (well) we use him. He’s had an odd reintroduction to the game after such a long time out. Not actually seen him do a lot with the ball but is obviously a different kind of physical threat and keeps scoring tries, even if they do mostly look like walk-ins.

What would worry you, as a defender about that midfield? Quins midfield works because of the huge unit that is Esterhuizen enabling Smith to do his stuff and creating space for Marchant. This is a very different set up, and a set up that didn't really work with a better passer at 12. The whole back line just looks pedestrian, pace wise.

England don't have a Big Andre type 12. No point pretending we do and if that's the crutch Smith needs to perform we need to move him on as he's unlikely to get that with England either.

There's plenty of impact in that backline and the England back three all have the ability to get over the gain line in contact. If anything Smith looked like he was desperate for help leading the backs in the 6N and Farrell should help that. I don't think Ford needed Farrell but Smith might do, or at least in the short term (he's still only 23). England had great success with the Ford/Farrell/Joseph midfield combination so I don't see a problem with the one we have if it works together cohesively.

Well that's partly what I'm aiming at- imo he needs a different set up to thrive at this point. and to your last point, and my previous one, the team was thriving when that combo was 'tearing sides apart' with a quicker back three and a pack making big dents up front.

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Have we said goodbye to our all-court/headless chicken game plan then? That selection would suggest so.
Looks built for the ball to not go wider than the 13 channel and the back 3 to pick lines off 9, 10 & 12.

I'd actually say that selection suggests that we are going to carry on with our free-form/flexible attacking structure. It was never about being all-court, but about adapting the attack to the situation rather than running set patterns, which fell apart in the 6N the minute that Smith got tackled and someone else had to step up and take control. This game, we've got Farrell directing, with Smith allowed to insert himself into the attack when he sees a vulnerability, plus the very experienced Care to step up and direct if needed as well. I still don't know if such a free-form system is possible, but that selection is giving it its very best chance to succeed.

The outside backs support that - Nowell is part centre/part wing/part flanker which allows him to provide support in a lot of different situations and he's also a bit of a get-out-of-jail-free card with his ability to make ground after contact. I suspect Cokanasiga is seen in very much the same way, although I'm not sure if he's as efficient at that as Nowell is. Marchant is also adept at playing wing and centre, so is comfortable rotating if Cokanasiga is being used up the centre, and Steward has developed a very good skill this season in following the fly-half and joining the line late and at pace to make the extra man.

It's a very flexible and adaptable backline that seems to be picked specifically for this new theory of attacking play. Will it actually work? Who the hell knows, but I'll be interested to see.

Puja

All-court means being able to play anywhere on the pitch to whichever tactics are required. It’s just a different way to say ‘free-form/flexible attacking structure’ with less words.
We’ll have to disagree, even if I hope you’re correct. It strikes me as a one paced backline that thrives in the 13 channel at the widest, with a backrow to back that up.

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Have we said goodbye to our all-court/headless chicken game plan then? That selection would suggest so.
Looks built for the ball to not go wider than the 13 channel and the back 3 to pick lines off 9, 10 & 12.

I'd actually say that selection suggests that we are going to carry on with our free-form/flexible attacking structure. It was never about being all-court, but about adapting the attack to the situation rather than running set patterns, which fell apart in the 6N the minute that Smith got tackled and someone else had to step up and take control. This game, we've got Farrell directing, with Smith allowed to insert himself into the attack when he sees a vulnerability, plus the very experienced Care to step up and direct if needed as well. I still don't know if such a free-form system is possible, but that selection is giving it its very best chance to succeed.

The outside backs support that - Nowell is part centre/part wing/part flanker which allows him to provide support in a lot of different situations and he's also a bit of a get-out-of-jail-free card with his ability to make ground after contact. I suspect Cokanasiga is seen in very much the same way, although I'm not sure if he's as efficient at that as Nowell is. Marchant is also adept at playing wing and centre, so is comfortable rotating if Cokanasiga is being used up the centre, and Steward has developed a very good skill this season in following the fly-half and joining the line late and at pace to make the extra man.

It's a very flexible and adaptable backline that seems to be picked specifically for this new theory of attacking play. Will it actually work? Who the hell knows, but I'll be interested to see.

Puja

This new theory of attacking play (which sounds like u11 mini rugby) - if that is what we see- needs players with full skill sets- esp passing- and excellent decision making. I'll leave it there.

Mellsblue wrote:All-court means being able to play anywhere on the pitch to whichever tactics are required. It’s just a different way to say ‘free-form/flexible attacking structure’ with less words.
We’ll have to disagree, even if I hope you’re correct. It strikes me as a one paced backline that thrives in the 13 channel at the widest, with a backrow to back that up.

Ah okay - I've only ever heard it used in the context of heavy emphasis on adventurous play, so I've learned something new today.

I hope I'm right too. There's a lot of supposition and hope in there and I'm still not thrilled at the fact that we're trying to reinvent the wheel 1 year out from a RWC. Still, got to travel hopefully, haven't we?

Puja

I like that squad. From what is actually available that's pretty decent. As good an all round pack as he can probably pick. Minor arguments over who plays hooker (one of which hasn't really played in a while) and Hill. The backrow is hardly pedestrian, and Billy is the form 8.....and frankly just about all that's available. Club combo at halfback. Probably the best midfield he can pick and a solid back three albeit lacking in pace, both options for which have never played international rugby, let alone away in Australia. Pack bench looks decent, albeit I'd prefer an alternative to Ludlam, as I think the other options are better. The backs are raw, but also quite exciting, and cover multiple positions.

I'm surprised no Randall, but beyond that it's a relatively low argument of Porter or Dingwall or Freeman or Arundell.

as ever, and I will take it on the chin as guilty, we are focusing on the wrong bit of the selection- I blame Faz. Will the pack produce is the 1st question?

Epaminondas Pules wrote:I like that squad. From what is actually available that's pretty decent. As good an all round pack as he can probably pick. Minor arguments over who plays hooker (one of which hasn't really played in a while) and Hill. The backrow is hardly pedestrian, and Billy is the form 8.....and frankly just about all that's available. Club combo at halfback. Probably the best midfield he can pick and a solid back three albeit lacking in pace, both options for which have never played international rugby, let alone away in Australia. Pack bench looks decent, albeit I'd prefer an alternative to Ludlam, as I think the other options are better. The backs are raw, but also quite exciting, and cover multiple positions.

I'm surprised no Randall, but beyond that it's a relatively low argument of Porter or Dingwall or Freeman or Arundell.

I agree, but its so underwhelming in the backs.

Out of interest - why is Smith as typecast as he seems to be in here?

Just because he plays one way, with one type of IC for Quins, really doesn't mean that he can't play any other way, or with any other type of IC.

If we apply that same logic, then no FH in history has ever been able to play without their club-mate, or a carbon copy, at IC. Hell, for Smith we're also told that he can't play with Care or Care-like at SH and Dombrandt or Dambrandt-like at 8.

Has any FH ever had his club mates at 8, 9 and 12 (except Sexton, and no-one would ever claim that not providing them is setting him up to fail).
Has any FH every not looked better with a get-out-of-jail-free IC like Esterhuizen or Tuilagi? were they all incapable of playing without one?

Banquo wrote:Well that's partly what I'm aiming at- imo he needs a different set up to thrive at this point. and to your last point, and my previous one, the team was thriving when that combo was 'tearing sides apart' with a quicker back three and a pack making big dents up front.

Quicker back 3? wasn't it Nowell and Brown on the wings?
I'd be surprised if Nowell was hugely quicker than Nowell, and Coka is definitely quicker than Brown.

Which Tyler wrote:Out of interest - why is Smith as typecast as he seems to be in here?

Just because he plays one way, with one type of IC for Quins, really doesn't mean that he can't play any other way, or with any other type of IC.

If we apply that same logic, then no FH in history has ever been able to play without their club-mate, or a carbon copy, at IC. Hell, for Smith we're also told that he can't play with Care or Care-like at SH and Dombrandt or Dambrandt-like at 8.

Has any FH ever had his club mates at 8, 9 and 12 (except Sexton, and no-one would ever claim that not providing them is setting him up to fail).
Has any FH every not looked better with a get-out-of-jail-free IC like Esterhuizen or Tuilagi? were they all incapable of playing without one?

Well yes. Same with Curry who apparently only ever runs into contact, completely negating his often late offloads and his ability to step. You shag one sheep and all that.