Squad for Ireland

[fivepointer]

Just got to say, for all the "England did really well, could have won it etc" nonsense, the amount of moaning about the ref by other nations in a game that the irish won is crazy too. Just watched some "analysis" of the scrum penalties, trying to point out that the English tighthead was on an angle (a really slight one), whilst ignoring the massively more angled Irish loosehead... seeing suggestions that the Irish scrum were just not well enough coached to know how to handle the English wheeling/cheating (because Furlong and Healy are obvious novice props who'd never seen such things before... and simply too well behaved to try such things themselves).

Both sides are trying to get away with as much as possible in the scrum , and the fact we were the ones going forward in the end, suggest we did have the upper hand for the most part.

yep. Props do what they can to get an edge and the England ones did it better than the Irish ones. On the day our scrum was better with all our props doing a very good job.

[p/d]

Gnarly pack, annoying 9, playmaking 10 and a solid 12 and 15. Then, for all I care, we can field Luger and Sharples out wide.

Or, move Marchant to 12 and Slade back to 13

[Puja]

Or, move Marchant to 12 and Slade back to 13

I still don't get what the benefit of that would be.

Puja

[32nd Man]

Just got to say, for all the "England did really well, could have won it etc" nonsense, the amount of moaning about the ref by other nations in a game that the irish won is crazy too. Just watched some "analysis" of the scrum penalties, trying to point out that the English tighthead was on an angle (a really slight one), whilst ignoring the massively more angled Irish loosehead...

I saw this too I think. The one where they spotlight Simmonds going at a slight angle and claim its a classic whip wheel?

My first thought was, how long have you been watching rugby for? It wasn't exactly New Zealand post 2003 when they came on tour and their back row were pretty much scrummaging towards the touch line, to wheel it.

[Which Tyler]

Or, move Marchant to 12 and Slade back to 13

I still don't get what the benefit of that would be.

Puja

Avoids playing a natural 12 at 12, insists on a a 13.5 playing there instead.
Isn't it obvious?

It's a trap for Eddie, so that we can insist he A] Doesn't know who he wants at IC B] Can't stop tinkering, and thinking he's cleverer than he is C] Insists on playing anyone other than an IC at IC (whilst only later acknowledging that we do t have anyone good enough who actually plays IC regularly)

[Raggs]

Just got to say, for all the "England did really well, could have won it etc" nonsense, the amount of moaning about the ref by other nations in a game that the irish won is crazy too. Just watched some "analysis" of the scrum penalties, trying to point out that the English tighthead was on an angle (a really slight one), whilst ignoring the massively more angled Irish loosehead...

I saw this too I think. The one where they spotlight Simmonds going at a slight angle and claim its a classic whip wheel?

My first thought was, how long have you been watching rugby for? It wasn't exactly New Zealand post 2003 when they came on tour and their back row were pretty much scrummaging towards the touch line, to wheel it.

Yeah, that was hilarious. He takes tiny steps across, nothing close to what proper wheeling looks, it was literally just because Genge was going forwards whilst Sink was holding his ground. It's just the very first still, showing Sinkler at a tiny angle, with Healy near 45 degrees that had me laughing.

[p/d]

Or, move Marchant to 12 and Slade back to 13

I still don't get what the benefit of that would be.

Puja

That it might actually create something? Why is everyone so content with Slade at 12 when he cuts his teeth for club and country at 13.

Marchant one in linking with the forwards holds more appeal than twinkle toes attempting a ball carrying role.

Hell I would welcome Farrell back than have Slade at 12.

[Raggs]

Or, move Marchant to 12 and Slade back to 13

I still don't get what the benefit of that would be.

Puja

That it might actually create something? Why is everyone so content with Slade at 12 when he cuts his teeth for club and country at 13.

Marchant one in linking with the forwards holds more appeal than twinkle toes attempting a ball carrying role.

Hell I would welcome Farrell back than have Slade at 12.

Why would Wing/13 Marchant, be better at 12, than Slade, who at least has significant international experience at 12?

[Puja]

Or, move Marchant to 12 and Slade back to 13

I still don't get what the benefit of that would be.

Puja

That it might actually create something? Why is everyone so content with Slade at 12 when he cuts his teeth for club and country at 13.

Marchant one in linking with the forwards holds more appeal than twinkle toes attempting a ball carrying role.

Hell I would welcome Farrell back than have Slade at 12.

It's not the Slade at 13 part that confuses me. It's the Marchant at 12 bit, when he's never played there before and doesn't appear to have any of the characteristics which would make one think he would succeed there. What makes you think Marchant at 12 would work?

Puja

[Which Tyler]

"I don't like Slade at IC" seems fine as an opinion.
Justified by "because he plays OC for club, and usually for country" is also non-contraversial.

It's the "Therefore we should play someone who's never (to my knowledge) played IC, but is a much purer OC, (and 40% winger) there instead" that raises questions.


Our options at IC seem to be:
Farrell, who's not an IC, but has 50-odd caps there.
Tuilagi, who's not an IC, but has what? 60-70ish appearances there for club and country.
Slade, who's a natural IC on paper, but usually plays OC, still had 20-30 appearances at IC for club and country.
A bunch of "not up to its" like Devoto, Burrell, O'Connor etc
A couple of "not ready yet"s like Kelly and Ojomo

But the solution is Marchant, who's not an IC, has never played IC, and who's game appears to need wider channels to be effective.

ETA - beaten to it, I see.

[Oakboy]

I think Slade is doing a good job with Smith. If Jones had stuck with them, together with Marchant at 13, maybe more progress would have been made. Not retaining them after the Ireland game would just be a disruptive kick in the teeth.

[Puja]

ETA - beaten to it, I see.

I like the fact that the order goes Raggs, me, you, in order of how strongly we could contain our verbosity to get out a pithy response.

I think Slade is doing a good job with Smith. If Jones had stuck with them, together with Marchant at 13, maybe more progress would have been made. Not retaining them after the Ireland game would just be a disruptive kick in the teeth.

Have to disagree on that - still haven't seen any hint of a connection or synchrony between the two (which is backed up by our spectacular lack of linebreaks). Say what you will about Farrell at 12, but Ford/Farrell played together like a unit, even from the very early days. Smith/Slade look like they happen to be on the same team.

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

If only we'd had more time to consider depth in the inside back positions.

[p/d]

"I don't like Slade at IC" seems fine as an opinion.
Justified by "because he plays OC for club, and usually for country" is also non-contraversial.

It's the "Therefore we should play someone who's never (to my knowledge) played IC, but is a much purer OC, (and 40% winger) there instead" that raises questions.


Our options at IC seem to be:
Farrell, who's not an IC, but has 50-odd caps there.
Tuilagi, who's not an IC, but has what? 60-70ish appearances there for club and country.
Slade, who's a natural IC on paper, but usually plays OC, still had 20-30 appearances at IC for club and country.
A bunch of "not up to its" like Devoto, Burrell, O'Connor etc
A couple of "not ready yet"s like Kelly and Ojomo

But the solution is Marchant, who's not an IC, has never played IC, and who's game appears to need wider channels to be effective.

ETA - beaten to it, I see.

Yes that's it.

The solution isn't Marchant at 12. The 'opinion' (gawd help us for having one) is because what we currently have available - and I have been banging on about the likes of Kelly (but apparently without being in camp he is not ready yet) - looks crap/ineffective, in my opinion. We are talking one game, one game to try and spark something into this motley campaign, one game where we might be better defensively set in the 10/12 channel, a game where Smith just might be able to trigger our back line. Or we could just repeat and hope we can add to our try tally.

[Oakboy]

Remember, Smith was only going to be able to cope with international rugby if Owen held his hand. Long--term, I think he will be a better FH at top level for having Slade there - despite Randall not being quite up to it, Jones buggering about with the 13 shirt and, most of all, the forwards rarely offering decent ball.

If all were fit, should we go back to Youngs, Ford, Farrell? Let's face it, expecting Tuilagi to be fit, the only other alternative, is not going to happen.

[p/d]

Have to disagree on that - still haven't seen any hint of a connection or synchrony between the two (which is backed up by our spectacular lack of linebreaks). Say what you will about Farrell at 12, but Ford/Farrell played together like a unit, even from the very early days. Smith/Slade look like they happen to be on the same team.

Puja

this.
This is why I am straw clutching.

[Which Tyler]

I like the fact that the order goes Raggs, me, you, in order of how strongly we could contain our verbosity to get out a pithy response.

I don't do pithy.


ETA: or when I do, I then edit it into oblivion

[Puja]

Remember, Smith was only going to be able to cope with international rugby if Owen held his hand. Long--term, I think he will be a better FH at top level for having Slade there - despite Randall not being quite up to it, Jones buggering about with the 13 shirt and, most of all, the forwards rarely offering decent ball.

If all were fit, should we go back to Youngs, Ford, Farrell? Let's face it, expecting Tuilagi to be fit, the only other alternative, is not going to happen.

That's a decent point and worth bearing in mind. If all were fit and the World Cup were tomorrow, I absolutely would go back to Youngs, Ford, Farrell (not Slade at 13 outside those though), but as it is not tomorrow, it is worthwhile trying to cram trying experiences into Smith to push on his development.

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

For what it's worth I think having Marchant running more off Smith (while not being best suited to the Tuilagi/Esterhuizen role) would be a good thing, but that doesn't really mean he needs to be at either 12 or 13. He's stronger in contact and has far better footwork in tight spaces than Slade.

Slade was doing a more similar role to what he is now while technically at 13 when paired with Tuilagi, no? With so much focus on the secondary playmaker standing in at first receiver I'm not really sure it makes much difference if they are 12 or 13. Either way, one of them needs to defend at 12 and I'd opt for the man more experienced at 12 (Slade) to stay there and the better defender at 13 (Marchant) to be at 13.

[Mr Mwenda]

Yes, why can't Marchant just run moves at 12 with a 13 on his back when it suits?

[Oakboy]

Nobody thinks Slade and Marchant are going to be absolute world-beaters, do they?

In current circumstances, injuries etc., it simply makes sense to pick them and persevere. Other changes now have to happen so go with a settled centre partnership and fiddle elsewhere.

[Mikey Brown]

Nobody thinks Slade and Marchant are going to be absolute world-beaters, do they?

In current circumstances, injuries etc., it simply makes sense to pick them and persevere. Other changes now have to happen so go with a settled centre partnership and fiddle elsewhere.

I mean we did beat the world champions with that pairing. There’s no reason it couldn’t be quite effective, but as with everything in this side the balance with the rest of the backline is just off.

You wonder though if that being an unplanned response to an injury actually simplified things a bit, much as you mentioned with the red card vs Ireland. Many players have looked caught in two minds in attack in many of our recent games.

Surely even Eddie would have set some time aside in training to consider the possibility Tuilagi wouldn’t be doing 80 though.

[Banquo]

Nobody thinks Slade and Marchant are going to be absolute world-beaters, do they?

In current circumstances, injuries etc., it simply makes sense to pick them and persevere. Other changes now have to happen so go with a settled centre partnership and fiddle elsewhere.

No, but they are probably the best available if Manu isn't fit. And perhaps that gives a clue partly as to why we aren't doing much in the backs. Alongside a newish 10 who is learning and is used to having a hard running midfield partner, and is trying to force the issue personally. And a sluggish by intl standards back 3. And forwards who aren't producing quick ball often enough, nor breaking the tackle line enough.

Apart from that....

[Banquo]

Nobody thinks Slade and Marchant are going to be absolute world-beaters, do they?

In current circumstances, injuries etc., it simply makes sense to pick them and persevere. Other changes now have to happen so go with a settled centre partnership and fiddle elsewhere.

I mean we did beat the world champions with that pairing. There’s no reason it couldn’t be quite effective, but as with everything in this side the balance with the rest of the backline is just off.

You wonder though if that being an unplanned response to an injury actually simplified things a bit, much as you mentioned with the red card vs Ireland. Many players have looked caught in two minds in attack in many of our recent games.

Surely even Eddie would have set some time aside in training to consider the possibility Tuilagi wouldn’t be doing 80 though.

Whilst I get the backs look a bit off- and frankly, no-one is coming up with significantly better combos- as I've just said, the pack need to be generating rapid ball (Smith would love that) and/or ball beyond the tackle line. The defence needs disrupting by progress up front too.

[Mikey Brown]

Well sure, we want quick ball from the forwards. That doesn't ever really change. I was just talking about the best centre combo from the options we have. The right setup in the backs will make that job a hell of a lot easier for the forwards too.