RugbyRebels

morepork wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Owen Farrell will re-join the England squad at Pennyhill Park later today.
Farrell returned a positive test result from a COVID PCR test (taken on Thursday morning) and immediately went into self-isolation.
The sample was reviewed by the lab and determined as a false positive test on Saturday morning and subsequently accepted by NHS Test and Trace today. This process is fully in line with advice given by UK Health Security Agency.
His subsequent PCRs have also been negative and therefore he has been released from self-isolation.

The England squad are preparing for their next Test match against Australia [Saturday 13 November, 5.30pm

What about the rest of the squad?

They did all get tested against since Farrell started isolating.

fivepointer wrote:Owen Farrell will re-join the England squad at Pennyhill Park later today.
Farrell returned a positive test result from a COVID PCR test (taken on Thursday morning) and immediately went into self-isolation.
The sample was reviewed by the lab and determined as a false positive test on Saturday morning and subsequently accepted by NHS Test and Trace today. This process is fully in line with advice given by UK Health Security Agency.
His subsequent PCRs have also been negative and therefore he has been released from self-isolation.

The England squad are preparing for their next Test match against Australia [Saturday 13 November, 5.30pm

Thursday morning they say….

On Thursday a member of England support staff tested positive but the RFU says "England are continuing preparations" for Saturday's match at Twickenham.

A statement added that all other players and staff had received negative results after a further round of testing on Thursday.

p/d wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Owen Farrell will re-join the England squad at Pennyhill Park later today.
Farrell returned a positive test result from a COVID PCR test (taken on Thursday morning) and immediately went into self-isolation.
The sample was reviewed by the lab and determined as a false positive test on Saturday morning and subsequently accepted by NHS Test and Trace today. This process is fully in line with advice given by UK Health Security Agency.
His subsequent PCRs have also been negative and therefore he has been released from self-isolation.

The England squad are preparing for their next Test match against Australia [Saturday 13 November, 5.30pm

Thursday morning they say….

On Thursday a member of England support staff tested positive but the RFU says "England are continuing preparations" for Saturday's match at Twickenham.

A statement added that all other players and staff had received negative results after a further round of testing on Thursday.

They were alo confirmed as having been tested again on Friday, which was when Fazlet turned up his result.

Puja

Pretty obvious that the delay in confirming the team yesterday was in the hope they got the all clear for Farrell to play.

fivepointer wrote:Pretty obvious that the delay in confirming the team yesterday was in the hope they got the all clear for Farrell to play.

The whole team is fulcrumed around giving him two years to find form. It's just madness. England would have some serious depth in key backline positions if it weren't like this.

morepork wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Pretty obvious that the delay in confirming the team yesterday was in the hope they got the all clear for Farrell to play.

The whole team is fulcrumed around giving him two years to find form. It's just madness. England would have some serious depth in key backline positions if it weren't like this.

Form that he doesn't necessarily possess, at that.

I still don't think we'd have found a decent 12 though, it's our eternal curse

Danno wrote:

morepork wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Pretty obvious that the delay in confirming the team yesterday was in the hope they got the all clear for Farrell to play.

The whole team is fulcrumed around giving him two years to find form. It's just madness. England would have some serious depth in key backline positions if it weren't like this.

Form that he doesn't necessarily possess, at that.

I still don't think we'd have found a decent 12 though, it's our eternal curse[/quote]

Enter Sam Simmonds stage right?

jngf wrote:

Danno wrote:

morepork wrote:

The whole team is fulcrumed around giving him two years to find form. It's just madness. England would have some serious depth in key backline positions if it weren't like this.

Form that he doesn't necessarily possess, at that.

I still don't think we'd have found a decent 12 though, it's our eternal curse[/quote]

Enter Sam Simmonds stage right?

Would be nice, but Exeter have moulded him into what he is already. I don't see many other clubs wanting him as an 8, or letting him spend a season working out how to play 12, and parachuting him in there at International level just risks another [redacted] situation. I fear he's stuck with Exeter forever.

I think Tuilagi and Slade are our best centre pairing by a distance. I would not disrupt it. If Farrell has to play it should be at 10 although his proper place is 22.

One question; should Slade, as someone unvaccinated, not also have gone into isolation after Farrell's test positive test results?

Peej wrote:One question; should Slade, as someone unvaccinated, not also have gone into isolation after Farrell's test positive test results?

And if so would Jamie George have nailed a few more conversions, and got the motm award he richly deserved

p/d wrote:

Peej wrote:One question; should Slade, as someone unvaccinated, not also have gone into isolation after Farrell's test positive test results?

And if so would Jamie George have nailed a few more conversions, and got the motm award he richly deserved

Oakboy wrote:I think Tuilagi and Slade are our best centre pairing by a distance. I would not disrupt it. If Farrell has to play it should be at 10 although his proper place is 22.

Slade flatters to deceive, I'd be happy if he was dropped for a bit to try out other options - Marchant, Joseph or Daly could all have shown a bit there I think

Danno wrote:

Oakboy wrote:I think Tuilagi and Slade are our best centre pairing by a distance. I would not disrupt it. If Farrell has to play it should be at 10 although his proper place is 22.

Slade flatters to deceive, I'd be happy if he was dropped for a bit to try out other options - Marchant, Joseph or Daly could all have shown a bit there I think

To be fair Slade had much more impact on play than usual - not including the intercepted pass - and Youngs looked very much the senior player, playing with a real spring in his step. Just can’t put my finger on what the trigger was.

p/d wrote:

Danno wrote:

Oakboy wrote:I think Tuilagi and Slade are our best centre pairing by a distance. I would not disrupt it. If Farrell has to play it should be at 10 although his proper place is 22.

Slade flatters to deceive, I'd be happy if he was dropped for a bit to try out other options - Marchant, Joseph or Daly could all have shown a bit there I think

To be fair Slade had much more impact on play than usual - not including the intercepted pass - and Youngs looked very much the senior player, playing with a real spring in his step. Just can’t put my finger on what the trigger was.

Trying to outrun Covid. No clue about Youngs tho.

p/d wrote:

Danno wrote:

Oakboy wrote:I think Tuilagi and Slade are our best centre pairing by a distance. I would not disrupt it. If Farrell has to play it should be at 10 although his proper place is 22.

Slade flatters to deceive, I'd be happy if he was dropped for a bit to try out other options - Marchant, Joseph or Daly could all have shown a bit there I think

To be fair Slade had much more impact on play than usual - not including the intercepted pass - and Youngs looked very much the senior player, playing with a real spring in his step. Just can’t put my finger on what the trigger was.

Yes agreed. To me they all looked much better without Farrell. To be fair, it was only Tonga but we’ve seen some shockers against B opposition before.

badback wrote:

p/d wrote:

Danno wrote:Slade flatters to deceive, I'd be happy if he was dropped for a bit to try out other options - Marchant, Joseph or Daly could all have shown a bit there I think

To be fair Slade had much more impact on play than usual - not including the intercepted pass - and Youngs looked very much the senior player, playing with a real spring in his step. Just can’t put my finger on what the trigger was.

Yes agreed. To me they all looked much better without Farrell. To be fair, it was only Tonga but we’ve seen some shockers against B opposition before.

Both Ford and Smith are well ahead of Farrell when it comes to natural talent, attacking mindset, speed, footwork and distribution. If Jones really wants to establish a new approach built on fast, running rugby, he should be basing it around these two players at 10. He may well come to that conclusion, but then he may feel it necessary still to include Farrell at 12, which could undo the whole process. Youngs, despite a good game against a weak Tonga, probably has to go too, for someone who can clear the ball faster. Don't hold your breath - Youngs and Farrell might still be the Jones halfback partnership for the next couple of 6Ns and the Rugby World Cup. In which case England will be going nowhere.

The debate about Ford - in particular, his performance WITH Farrell at 12 - always over-rode the debate about Slade WITH Farrell at 12. Both Ford and Slade are naturals. They do the right thing at the right time IF coaching and other on-field influences encourage them to play it as they see it.

Now, the debate has moved on to whether Smith is better at what Ford does than Ford. Added to that, some advocate the likes of Marchant ahead of Slade. I'd suggest that Marchant might be better than Slade IF Farrell is at 12, otherwise he's not.

Above all, though, the debate should be on raising the team unit's ceiling. I don't see how that can be done with Youngs, Ford and Farrell in the XV. Runners-up was the team's ceiling with that trio, IMO.

I just hope that Jones moves us forward, starting with the next AI.

I also want to move on from Youngs, Ford, Faz, but your argument seems to ignore the tactics they were playing with and the fact they were involved in the best England performance for 20 years just a week before playing SA. If Sinkler doesn't go down, if momentum doesn't swing this way or that etc. etc. then suddenly the 'ceiling' of these players is defined totally differently?

I agree we didn't seem to play a game that played to their strengths (or seemed to focus on avoiding Farrell's) but are you suggesting none of them should be in the side or saying we shouldn't pick that unit again? For all of Farrell's limitations as a 12, he worked very well with Ford in attack at times, but it was hugely dependant on the balance being right elsewhere.

Not totally sure what you're getting at on Slade/Marchant either. Marchant is obviously untested but is a hugely skilful and natural rugby player, with a far lower error rate than Slade. Who knows if that would translate though.

I'm happy to see Smith getting some time for England but Ford is still our best player IMO. It's just strange that this shift in approach comes with ditching Ford, as if he were the one hell bent on just kicking everything and is incapable of playing attacking rugby.

Mikey Brown wrote:I'm happy to see Smith getting some time for England but Ford is still our best player IMO. It's just strange that this shift in approach comes with ditching Ford, as if he were the one hell bent on just kicking everything and is incapable of playing attacking rugby.

Disregarding my opinion, it appears that Jones cannot/will not trust Ford to run the side lined up for attacking rugby by playing what is in front of him. Where that seems odd is to try a change in tactics with, arguably, our best (potentially) attacking FH, Smith, alongside Farrell at 12. Having said that, we have yet to see Smith/Farrell. Maybe, Jones wanted to change one position at a time only. Injuries disrupted. It will be interesting to see the selection for the Australia match.

Youngs and Farrell aren’t going anywhere so the argument is moot. I’d happily argue they’re the least talented players of all our first choice backline and, along with Daly, have been the worst performers over the last couple of years. Yet, Jones thinks they are beyond reproach and they are undroppable. Farrell is captain until after the next World Cup and, until then, the midfield will be a compromise to allow this. All that said, it’s not even the most important point as without Tuilagi, or Lawrence or someone else stepping up, we cannot field a well balanced backline regardless of who is at 9 & 10/12.

Oakboy wrote:I think Tuilagi and Slade are our best centre pairing by a distance. I would not disrupt it. If Farrell has to play it should be at 10 although his proper place is 22.

For me Slade’s always been a bit on the stodgy side for a test 13 - I look back at Joseph and Guscott and feel they were so much more exciting to watch.

Slade at 12 or even 15 does seem a better fit imo

jngf wrote:

Oakboy wrote:I think Tuilagi and Slade are our best centre pairing by a distance. I would not disrupt it. If Farrell has to play it should be at 10 although his proper place is 22.

For me Slade’s always been a bit on the stodgy side for a test 13 - I look back at Joseph and Guscott and feel they were so much more exciting to watch.

Slade at 12 or even 15 does seem a better fit imo

For me, Slade has never truly impressed at test level but he’s never really been given a settled and balanced midfield in which to impress. I’m not convinced by him but would far rather a Smith - Tuilagi - Slade combo over Smith - Farrell - Tuilagi.
He is not a test 12 or 15 until he proves so at club level over a prolonged period, which won’t happen.

Mellsblue wrote:

jngf wrote:

Oakboy wrote:I think Tuilagi and Slade are our best centre pairing by a distance. I would not disrupt it. If Farrell has to play it should be at 10 although his proper place is 22.

For me Slade’s always been a bit on the stodgy side for a test 13 - I look back at Joseph and Guscott and feel they were so much more exciting to watch.

Slade at 12 or even 15 does seem a better fit imo

For me, Slade has never truly impressed at test level but he’s never really been given a settled and balanced midfield in which to impress. I’m not convinced by him but would far rather a Smith - Tuilagi - Slade combo over Smith - Farrell - Tuilagi.
He is not a test 12 or 15 until he proves so at club level over a prolonged period, which won’t happen.

Exactly!

Not sure if anyone's posted it somewhere but the squad for the Aus game was announced last night, exactly the same as last week's except for no Louis Lynagh through injury. Alas, the dream of him debuting against Australia to maximum Australian annoyance is dashed. Hopefully Jones will compensate by throwing Dolly in.