Bath v Bristol, Friday 7.45

[Mellsblue]

I'm on the play an actual IC at IC bandwagon

Amen to that

Who wouldn’t but that assumes there is an EQP up to test standard. We’re putting a lot of faith in blokes who haven’t played a test match yet.

[Mellsblue]

Props, hooker, 9, 12 and 15 are all big issues, imo. Someone hide the sharp knives.

Thought Smith nailed on lions 15…..


Hooker? I see Dan, Langdon and Frost the nuts moving on.

As with 12, lots of potential but little proof of test quality. Albeit, I think Theodore is going to be quality.

[TheNomad]

Props, hooker, 9, 12 and 15 are all big issues, imo. Someone hide the sharp knives.

Thought Smith nailed on lions 15…..


Hooker? I see Dan, Langdon and Frost the nuts moving on.

As with 12, lots of potential but little proof of test quality. Albeit, I think Theodore is going to be quality.

who’s Theodore?

[p/d]

Thought Smith nailed on lions 15…..


Hooker? I see Dan, Langdon and Frost the nuts moving on.

As with 12, lots of potential but little proof of test quality. Albeit, I think Theodore is going to be quality.

who’s Theodore?

Desperate

[Mellsblue]

Thought Smith nailed on lions 15…..


Hooker? I see Dan, Langdon and Frost the nuts moving on.

As with 12, lots of potential but little proof of test quality. Albeit, I think Theodore is going to be quality.

who’s Theodore?

Alvin and Simon’s brother who is second choice hooker at Saracens.

[p/d]

I'm on the play an actual IC at IC bandwagon

Amen to that

Who wouldn’t but that assumes there is an EQP up to test standard. We’re putting a lot of faith in blokes who haven’t played a test match yet.

Agree. But we have to. As the late Mr Michael once said ‘I know not everybody has got a body like you, oh’

[Oakboy]

Redpath is far better at reading the game. He is a better passer, kicker, off-loader, jackaller (I guess that isn’t a word but whatever), decision-maker, is a good runner in his own right and seems to be quite a vocal organiser for a fairly young guy.

Lawrence is obviously capable of far more explosive carries (when he can keep hold of the ball) and the occasional big physical impact, but Redpath is weirdly effective at making hard yards (for someone his shape and size) purely through footwork and technique. Crucially he just seems to know when a certain skill is needed, which I don’t see all that much of in Lawrence.

It’s a meaningless comparison though really. I like both. They play different positions (though I quite enjoyed what Lawrence offered England as a 12), have a lot of developing left to do and have both had various runs of injuries.

Saying all that I didn’t even see this game, so I have no idea if Redpath was any good or not at the weekend.

I think Lawrence playing outside an all-rounder like Redpath (with a 10 who actually attacks) can focus on being a devastating carrier. Hopefully the sort of balance England could replicate with an Atkinson of some description or maybe Kelly if they keep developing.

It's quite amusing to think back some years - maybe 6 or 7 - when I had a similar debate with Banquo about Tuilagi. Then, I saw him as an out-and-out 13 and could not make any sense of him being out of position at 12 for England. Banquo thought otherwise, making a case for Tuilagi at 12. He would be better at explaining why than me but it was all about gaining ground at the right time and in the right place at international level, I think. Whatever the technicalities, since that time Tuilagi has played mostly at 12 - successfully (until this year anyway).

I see Lawrence as quicker and more skilful yet able, via bursts, to achieve what Tuilagi did without doing the 'run through brick walls' bit. If we can find a 12 elsewhere I remain happy for Lawrence to be picked at OC. What I can't accept, though, is pigeon-holing him as 'just an OC'. He is better than that.

[Puja]

Redpath is far better at reading the game. He is a better passer, kicker, off-loader, jackaller (I guess that isn’t a word but whatever), decision-maker, is a good runner in his own right and seems to be quite a vocal organiser for a fairly young guy.

Lawrence is obviously capable of far more explosive carries (when he can keep hold of the ball) and the occasional big physical impact, but Redpath is weirdly effective at making hard yards (for someone his shape and size) purely through footwork and technique. Crucially he just seems to know when a certain skill is needed, which I don’t see all that much of in Lawrence.

It’s a meaningless comparison though really. I like both. They play different positions (though I quite enjoyed what Lawrence offered England as a 12), have a lot of developing left to do and have both had various runs of injuries.

Saying all that I didn’t even see this game, so I have no idea if Redpath was any good or not at the weekend.

I think Lawrence playing outside an all-rounder like Redpath (with a 10 who actually attacks) can focus on being a devastating carrier. Hopefully the sort of balance England could replicate with an Atkinson of some description or maybe Kelly if they keep developing.

It's quite amusing to think back some years - maybe 6 or 7 - when I had a similar debate with Banquo about Tuilagi. Then, I saw him as an out-and-out 13 and could not make any sense of him being out of position at 12 for England. Banquo thought otherwise, making a case for Tuilagi at 12. He would be better at explaining why than me but it was all about gaining ground at the right time and in the right place at international level, I think. Whatever the technicalities, since that time Tuilagi has played mostly at 12 - successfully (until this year anyway).

I see Lawrence as quicker and more skilful yet able, via bursts, to achieve what Tuilagi did without doing the 'run through brick walls' bit. If we can find a 12 elsewhere I remain happy for Lawrence to be picked at OC. What I can't accept, though, is pigeon-holing him as 'just an OC'. He is better than that.

I was on your side with Tuilagi (when he was young and fast) and am against you on Lawrence. Yes, he is capable of playing 12, of doing the bosh work and carrying into traffic and doing hard yards, but it's an arrant waste of his abilities to do so. Just because he *can* bosh, doen't mean that he's not a significantly better player using his pace and footwork against weak shoulders in the outside channels.

Plus, Lawrence's ball retention in heavy traffic is still a major concern for me. Much better to be a weapon at 13 rather than a general purpose bulldozer at 12.

Puja

[Tom Moore]

Redpath is far better at reading the game. He is a better passer, kicker, off-loader, jackaller (I guess that isn’t a word but whatever), decision-maker, is a good runner in his own right and seems to be quite a vocal organiser for a fairly young guy.

Lawrence is obviously capable of far more explosive carries (when he can keep hold of the ball) and the occasional big physical impact, but Redpath is weirdly effective at making hard yards (for someone his shape and size) purely through footwork and technique. Crucially he just seems to know when a certain skill is needed, which I don’t see all that much of in Lawrence.

It’s a meaningless comparison though really. I like both. They play different positions (though I quite enjoyed what Lawrence offered England as a 12), have a lot of developing left to do and have both had various runs of injuries.

Saying all that I didn’t even see this game, so I have no idea if Redpath was any good or not at the weekend.

I think Lawrence playing outside an all-rounder like Redpath (with a 10 who actually attacks) can focus on being a devastating carrier. Hopefully the sort of balance England could replicate with an Atkinson of some description or maybe Kelly if they keep developing.

It's quite amusing to think back some years - maybe 6 or 7 - when I had a similar debate with Banquo about Tuilagi. Then, I saw him as an out-and-out 13 and could not make any sense of him being out of position at 12 for England. Banquo thought otherwise, making a case for Tuilagi at 12. He would be better at explaining why than me but it was all about gaining ground at the right time and in the right place at international level, I think. Whatever the technicalities, since that time Tuilagi has played mostly at 12 - successfully (until this year anyway).

I see Lawrence as quicker and more skilful yet able, via bursts, to achieve what Tuilagi did without doing the 'run through brick walls' bit. If we can find a 12 elsewhere I remain happy for Lawrence to be picked at OC. What I can't accept, though, is pigeon-holing him as 'just an OC'. He is better than that.

I was on your side with Tuilagi (when he was young and fast) and am against you on Lawrence. Yes, he is capable of playing 12, of doing the bosh work and carrying into traffic and doing hard yards, but it's an arrant waste of his abilities to do so. Just because he *can* bosh, doen't mean that he's not a significantly better player using his pace and footwork against weak shoulders in the outside channels.

Plus, Lawrence's ball retention in heavy traffic is still a major concern for me. Much better to be a weapon at 13 rather than a general purpose bulldozer at 12.

Puja

We've generally been using the weapon at 10.

[Which Tyler]

We've generally been using the tool at 10.

FTFY

[Which Tyler]

as an aside - credit to the groundsmen - that looked brilliant, after being cut like a bitch in the PRC and first rounds

Further to this - it looks like what's been done is "sewing" plastic threads into (and beyond) the root system of the grass to stabilise it - about 5-6%, so Desso-light

[FKAS]

as an aside - credit to the groundsmen - that looked brilliant, after being cut like a bitch in the PRC and first rounds

Further to this - it looks like what's been done is "sewing" plastic threads into (and beyond) the root system of the grass to stabilise it - about 5-6%, do Desso-light

I believe that's similar to what Tigers are using at Welford Road.

[FKAS]

I'm on the play an actual IC at IC bandwagon

Amen to that

Who wouldn’t but that assumes there is an EQP up to test standard. We’re putting a lot of faith in blokes who haven’t played a test match yet.

We don't know if they are good enough unless we have a look at them. We could in theory rely on Lawrence, Slade and Manu for another 6N but it's spectacularly short termism. It makes a lot of sense to bring in an additional centre or two into the squad. Atkinson and Freeman are both in form. Atkinson the type of 12 that would potentially work very well for us, particularly if Lawrence and Steward are to thrive at 13 and 15. Freeman has the utility factor alongside all skills to be a potential success.

If once they are in the squad they don't look up to it we can always use the older guys but at least user the younger ones in the A team and then Vs Italy. They'll learn from the players around them.

[Mellsblue]

Amen to that

Who wouldn’t but that assumes there is an EQP up to test standard. We’re putting a lot of faith in blokes who haven’t played a test match yet.

We don't know if they are good enough unless we have a look at them. We could in theory rely on Lawrence, Slade and Manu for another 6N but it's spectacularly short termism. It makes a lot of sense to bring in an additional centre or two into the squad. Atkinson and Freeman are both in form. Atkinson the type of 12 that would potentially work very well for us, particularly if Lawrence and Steward are to thrive at 13 and 15. Freeman has the utility factor alongside all skills to be a potential success.

If once they are in the squad they don't look up to it we can always use the older guys but at least user the younger ones in the A team and then Vs Italy. They'll learn from the players around them.

It’s about when you introduce them. Better a little too late than too early, imo.
If we can find a 12 good enough to play 12 for England then great but we don’t know that for certain and if Lawrence needs to play there for 6/12/18 months whilst Atkinson, Kelly etc improve at their clubs then I think that’s the better option than chucking someone unprepared in because of the need to play a 12 at 12 bandwagon.

[FKAS]

Who wouldn’t but that assumes there is an EQP up to test standard. We’re putting a lot of faith in blokes who haven’t played a test match yet.

We don't know if they are good enough unless we have a look at them. We could in theory rely on Lawrence, Slade and Manu for another 6N but it's spectacularly short termism. It makes a lot of sense to bring in an additional centre or two into the squad. Atkinson and Freeman are both in form. Atkinson the type of 12 that would potentially work very well for us, particularly if Lawrence and Steward are to thrive at 13 and 15. Freeman has the utility factor alongside all skills to be a potential success.

If once they are in the squad they don't look up to it we can always use the older guys but at least user the younger ones in the A team and then Vs Italy. They'll learn from the players around them.

It’s about when you introduce them. Better a little too late than too early, imo.
If we can find a 12 good enough to play 12 for England then great but we don’t know that for certain and if Lawrence needs to play there for 6/12/18 months whilst Atkinson, Kelly etc improve at their clubs then I think that’s the better option than chucking someone unprepared in because of the need to play a 12 at 12 bandwagon.

I refer to the second paragraph in my post.

[Mellsblue]

We don't know if they are good enough unless we have a look at them. We could in theory rely on Lawrence, Slade and Manu for another 6N but it's spectacularly short termism. It makes a lot of sense to bring in an additional centre or two into the squad. Atkinson and Freeman are both in form. Atkinson the type of 12 that would potentially work very well for us, particularly if Lawrence and Steward are to thrive at 13 and 15. Freeman has the utility factor alongside all skills to be a potential success.

If once they are in the squad they don't look up to it we can always use the older guys but at least user the younger ones in the A team and then Vs Italy. They'll learn from the players around them.

It’s about when you introduce them. Better a little too late than too early, imo.
If we can find a 12 good enough to play 12 for England then great but we don’t know that for certain and if Lawrence needs to play there for 6/12/18 months whilst Atkinson, Kelly etc improve at their clubs then I think that’s the better option than chucking someone unprepared in because of the need to play a 12 at 12 bandwagon.

I refer to the second paragraph in my post.

I refer you to my second sentence.

It seems the, frankly revolutionary, ‘12 at 12 bandwagon’ is a ‘12 at 12 bandwagon if we have a 12 good enough’ which is quite a big caveat and means your arguing with me whilst agreeing with my point.