RugbyRebels

twitchy wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Lewington really is a good finisher isn't he.

We currently have loads of good wings who can't tackle.

quite, he's a poor defender.

This was meant to be in the Leicester/Irish thread, to be fair.

Just watched the highlights of the Gloucester vs. Northampton game.

Trinder looked genuinely excellent going forward. If he can stay fit, who knows, he could even get back on the England radar.

Gibson's try for Saints was very nice too. It looks as though Francis could add an extra bit of guile to their back line.

I was going to ask whether we were allowed to mention Trinder in connection with England again. He does actually look to have improved as a player since the last time he was fully fit and can't be too far off Eddie's radar.

Puja

Flatman was going nuts about simmonds last night on the highlights. There are so many back row combinations we could test in the AI's (or at least the non aus games).

6. Robshaw/ Itoje/Lawes
7. Simmonds/ Underhill/ Curry
8. Hughes

or for the aus game

6. Itoje/ Lawes (with the other in the second row)
7. Robshaw
8. Hughes

Some thing like that at least.

twitchy wrote:Flatman was going nuts about simmonds last night on the highlights. There are so many back row combinations we could test in the AI's (or at least the non aus games).

6. Robshaw/ Itoje/Lawes
7. Simmonds/ Underhill/ Curry
8. Hughes

or for the aus game

6. Itoje/ Lawes (with the other in the second row)
7. Robshaw
8. Hughes

Some thing like that at least.

Agreed. We may need to test an alternative to Hughes at 8, though, because Billy is unavailable quite often.

Haven't seen that much of Saints, other than highlights, this season. Has H Mallinder started tackling properly yet?

bitts wrote:Haven't seen that much of Saints, other than highlights, this season. Has H Mallinder started tackling properly yet?

All I'd say is that it still does not look like his favourite part of the game. Maybe, he's not naturally aggressive. I suspect he can improve to the point where he's just about adequate.

Its just great to see Trinder playing again, scoring tries and looking so sharp. If he stays fit and maintains form, then i dont see why he wouldnt be a genuine England option.

Puja wrote:I was going to ask whether we were allowed to mention Trinder in connection with England again. He does actually look to have improved as a player since the last time he was fully fit and can't be too far off Eddie's radar.

Puja

At 28 and uncapped won't happen.

Too many more promising centre options who are younger and have international caps.

Would like to see a starting team v Samoa
1) Genge, 2) George, 3) Cole
4) Kruis, 5) Lawes
6) Itoje, 7) Underhill, 8) Simmonds
9) Youngs, 10) Ford
12) Francis, 13) Slade
11) May, 14) Nowell, 15) Watson

Take away the barnstorming runs from Simmonds, essentially the bits that look good on a highlights show, and what do people actually like/notice about Simmonds going phase to phase?

If he carries on playing out of his skin, I don’t see why being 28 rules Trinder out of contention?

Te’o was 28 by the time he made his first test appearance and while you could argue that he is a different proposition, I wouldn’t suggest that age alone is a barrier to Eddie.

As it stands, Trinder is probably the form out-and-out 13 in the Premiership. Joseph and Marchant are playing well, but I’d say Daly’s been fairly anonymous in a poor Wasps side. Slade is playing well but isn’t a regular 13, same for Te’o.

In any case, Slade has something like 3 starts for England, Te’o has 1 and Daly has mainly featured as a winger. With the exception of JJ, who was left out of the last training squad, I wouldn’t say our options at 13 are particularly well-established.

Don’t get me wrong, Trinder is a left field option, but in this form, I wouldn’t say test recognition is impossible. He’s always had the talent, his career has just been blighted by injury.

Digby wrote:Take away the barnstorming runs from Simmonds, essentially the bits that look good on a highlights show, and what do people actually like/notice about Simmonds going phase to phase?

He carries hard and tends to make metres through traffic. While not being Billy-shaped, he's probably got the most Billy-like ability to hit up of our available options.

Puja

Slade isn't a regular 13? Without checking I'll confidently state Slade has more time at 13 this season than Trinder, and indeed last season and the season before.

I do think Trinder's an option mind, though I don't think he looks improved, he's just always been a very good player.

Digby wrote:Slade isn't a regular 13? Without checking I'll confidently state Slade has more time at 13 this season than Trinder, and indeed last season and the season before.

I do think Trinder's an option mind, though I don't think he looks improved, he's just always been a very good player.

By not ‘regular’, I meant that they’re not ‘classic’ 13s, not that they’re not playing there regularly.

Scrumhead wrote:

Digby wrote:Slade isn't a regular 13? Without checking I'll confidently state Slade has more time at 13 this season than Trinder, and indeed last season and the season before.

I do think Trinder's an option mind, though I don't think he looks improved, he's just always been a very good player.

By not ‘regular’, I meant that they’re not ‘classic’ 13s, not that they’re not playing there regularly.

Ah, understood

Slade IMO has been the in form 13 this season so far has started his last 7 pro rugby games at 13 (1 in Argentina where he looked good) and 6 with Exeter chiefs and has played some of his best rugby in a long time in that position.

Didn't he start off playing abit at 13 before being moved about between 12 and 10?

Trinder is playing well but he has only played more than 45 mins in 1 of the 3 games he has played in and was pretty anonymous in the first game v Tigers (Understandable as it was his comeback).

We have this problem in English sport to label each position with very specific needs. So a 13 must make outside breaks, a 7 must jackal, a 4 must be an enforcer, etc...

While each position does have responsibilities, we need to ditch this. So long as Slade has the ability to defend effectively at 13, the rest of his skills depend on the overall makeup of the backline, not on the number on his back.

Ditto 7. So long as the loose forwards are balanced, his role can be anything, so long as he's quick off the scrum to make those 1st out tackles and/or hit those 1 out rucks, depending on the situation.

Digby wrote:Take away the barnstorming runs from Simmonds, essentially the bits that look good on a highlights show, and what do people actually like/notice about Simmonds going phase to phase?

I don't really know where to look for stats but he just carries a lot and makes metres all over the pitch.That is why he pops up for tries.

For england I would play him at 7 with two other big guys like robshaw and hughes. Let's not pretend he is some thing he isn't, he is 15 stone 7. He can't defy the laws of physics in close contact vs bigger guys but he will make ground and has serious pace.

Stom wrote:We have this problem in English sport to label each position with very specific needs. So a 13 must make outside breaks, a 7 must jackal, a 4 must be an enforcer, etc...

While each position does have responsibilities, we need to ditch this. So long as Slade has the ability to defend effectively at 13, the rest of his skills depend on the overall makeup of the backline, not on the number on his back.

Ditto 7. So long as the loose forwards are balanced, his role can be anything, so long as he's quick off the scrum to make those 1st out tackles and/or hit those 1 out rucks, depending on the situation.

I don’t entirely disagree with your principle and I think we can be too quick to put players in boxes rather than focusing on the skills they have.

However, my point was that Trinder’s skill set puts him in more direct competition with JJ, Daly and Marchant than with Slade or Te’o.

Ultimately, our midfield is still a bit undefined. What we want from our 12 and 13 really depends on who’s playing at 10 and also who is playing the pack. I’m not saying ‘Slade can’t/shouldn’t play 13 for England’, but I would question whether he would be the right choice if Ford and Farrell are at 10 and 12. Personally, I still think we need a strike runner, so I’d be selecting my 13 based upon that criteria. That could be a quick, elusive type like a JJ or Daly or a hard running more direct option like Te’o.

Stom wrote:We have this problem in English sport to label each position with very specific needs. So a 13 must make outside breaks, a 7 must jackal, a 4 must be an enforcer, etc...

While each position does have responsibilities, we need to ditch this. So long as Slade has the ability to defend effectively at 13, the rest of his skills depend on the overall makeup of the backline, not on the number on his back.

Ditto 7. So long as the loose forwards are balanced, his role can be anything, so long as he's quick off the scrum to make those 1st out tackles and/or hit those 1 out rucks, depending on the situation.

The problen with that is that, with a more bespoke distribution of skills, it becomes harder to swap players like-for-like. Say you pick Harry Thacker at hooker and he does a lot of turnovers, support play and jackalling, so you can then have two 6s in the back row. However, if Thacker is injured or out of form and his replacement is someone like Hibbard, then you can't just make one change as you're going to need to bring in someone to cover the jackalling. And you can't get rid of one of your back row, because he's the lineout option covering the fact that your 4 is a behemoth who doesn't really jump because you needed a big carrier to cover the fact that your hooker isn't a big carrier... although now you've picked Hibbard who can carry, so do you need the big lock and the lineout back row?

It just creates unnecessary links between players in selection if you're covering a lack in one position elsewhere and you can have the fun situation where someone is dropped despite playing well because of needs elsewhere in the team. Or worse, that someone is kept despite not being in form, because they're needed to cover someone else's flaws.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote:We have this problem in English sport to label each position with very specific needs. So a 13 must make outside breaks, a 7 must jackal, a 4 must be an enforcer, etc...

While each position does have responsibilities, we need to ditch this. So long as Slade has the ability to defend effectively at 13, the rest of his skills depend on the overall makeup of the backline, not on the number on his back.

Ditto 7. So long as the loose forwards are balanced, his role can be anything, so long as he's quick off the scrum to make those 1st out tackles and/or hit those 1 out rucks, depending on the situation.

The problen with that is that, with a more bespoke distribution of skills, it becomes harder to swap players like-for-like. Say you pick Harry Thacker at hooker and he does a lot of turnovers, support play and jackalling, so you can then have two 6s in the back row. However, if Thacker is injured or out of form and his replacement is someone like Hibbard, then you can't just make one change as you're going to need to bring in someone to cover the jackalling. And you can't get rid of one of your back row, because he's the lineout option covering the fact that your 4 is a behemoth who doesn't really jump because you needed a big carrier to cover the fact that your hooker isn't a big carrier... although now you've picked Hibbard who can carry, so do you need the big lock and the lineout back row?

It just creates unnecessary links between players in selection if you're covering a lack in one position elsewhere and you can have the fun situation where someone is dropped despite playing well because of needs elsewhere in the team. Or worse, that someone is kept despite not being in form, because they're needed to cover someone else's flaws.

Puja

Ah. You mean like negating the best back you've got by playing a guy that just drifts sideways but has been selected to kick goals because your fly-half has the temperament of a 14 year-old girl?

The choice of whether or not to experiment at OC may have been taken out of Eddie's hands, as JJ went off with an elbow injury against Wuss.

Scrumhead wrote:If he carries on playing out of his skin, I don’t see why being 28 rules Trinder out of contention?

Te’o was 28 by the time he made his first test appearance and while you could argue that he is a different proposition, I wouldn’t suggest that age alone is a barrier to Eddie.

As it stands, Trinder is probably the form out-and-out 13 in the Premiership. Joseph and Marchant are playing well, but I’d say Daly’s been fairly anonymous in a poor Wasps side. Slade is playing well but isn’t a regular 13, same for Te’o.

In any case, Slade has something like 3 starts for England, Te’o has 1 and Daly has mainly featured as a winger. With the exception of JJ, who was left out of the last training squad, I wouldn’t say our options at 13 are particularly well-established.

Don’t get me wrong, Trinder is a left field option, but in this form, I wouldn’t say test recognition is impossible. He’s always had the talent, his career has just been blighted by injury.

But Teo had that golden combination of being a league player and an Aussie/Kiwi/Samoan, which trumps all else. Grinder is playing well but honestly until he plays a dozen games who would trust him not to break again? Marchant is also bang in form, younger, offers a similar attacking threat and is more familiar with the squad.

I agree with whoever was saying about Slade that he's in great form but just isn't a typical 13, or at least not the one to correct all the issues that Ford/Farrell create as a combo. I have no doubt he could do a job there, and his defence is pretty impressive these days, but we'd need a different approach to make the most of it.

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote:We have this problem in English sport to label each position with very specific needs. So a 13 must make outside breaks, a 7 must jackal, a 4 must be an enforcer, etc...

While each position does have responsibilities, we need to ditch this. So long as Slade has the ability to defend effectively at 13, the rest of his skills depend on the overall makeup of the backline, not on the number on his back.

Ditto 7. So long as the loose forwards are balanced, his role can be anything, so long as he's quick off the scrum to make those 1st out tackles and/or hit those 1 out rucks, depending on the situation.

The problen with that is that, with a more bespoke distribution of skills, it becomes harder to swap players like-for-like. Say you pick Harry Thacker at hooker and he does a lot of turnovers, support play and jackalling, so you can then have two 6s in the back row. However, if Thacker is injured or out of form and his replacement is someone like Hibbard, then you can't just make one change as you're going to need to bring in someone to cover the jackalling. And you can't get rid of one of your back row, because he's the lineout option covering the fact that your 4 is a behemoth who doesn't really jump because you needed a big carrier to cover the fact that your hooker isn't a big carrier... although now you've picked Hibbard who can carry, so do you need the big lock and the lineout back row?

It just creates unnecessary links between players in selection if you're covering a lack in one position elsewhere and you can have the fun situation where someone is dropped despite playing well because of needs elsewhere in the team. Or worse, that someone is kept despite not being in form, because they're needed to cover someone else's flaws.

Puja

I agree?

I don't think our points are opposites at all.

Your example isn't likely to happen because those two opposite players are unlikely to be in the same squad because they're both completely different strategically. You're far more likely to see England picking Singleton and Walker at hooker. If one is injured, the other has the same core skills to replace him.

I'm not suggesting we cover problems elsewhere, I'm just saying that us fans have a habit of shoehorning players into positions (or not) based upon a strict definition.