Argentina tour

[Banquo]

I don't get why versatility has become a negative thing. It's frigging useful and helps tactically and gets you selected.

Marcus Smith doesn't get deployed at 15 by Borthwick, he doesn't go on this year's Lions Tour. His versatility, though mocked by pundits and bemoaned by journos, has helped him.

No one is complaining when half the ABs backline can play multiple positions are they. Barritt and DMac play 10/15. Jordie B plays 12/15. Reiko plays 13/wing.

Donoghue being able to play 10/15 offers options tactically. If he starts at 15 with Ford at 10 we don't need a flyhalf on the bench. We can go 6-2, which might be useful against the Puma pack when we are missing several of our own. We could pick a player that changes the game plan that we'd not normally risk picking, like Steward.

Speaking of Stewart I don't want him to change position full time and play as a specialist 12 but developing some versatility so he can drop into centre and do a job when required would be blood useful. Have a 17 stone, aerial thread with a howitzer of a boot is a useful asset but playing one position makes him a very limited sub.

I really like that Borthwick has used CCS as lock cover. Can he do the Martin Corry thing and be a lock/6/8 cover option off the bench to free up the bench for other tactical options? Corry covering so much of the pack meant England could have Moody come off the bench like the nutter he was and create havoc.

Rassie has his wingers playing scrum half in games to get the ball moving quicker. A 10/15 is nothing compared to what Rassie and Brown are coming up with in SA.

I didn't say it (versatility) was a bad thing

That said, after almost a generation of EJ messing about with players out of position, way too much Fazzlet, excessive chat about Freeman and others shifting around in the backline lately and messing Marcus about, my tolerance is pretty low for any more dicking players about

I'm not a fan of the Iceman but we had success despite him at 12 and it's not like there was a raft of outstanding candidates pushing for inclusion at 12. Using Manu at 12 with Slade at 13 being the alternative. Also keeping him at 12 allowed Ford to play which helped enormously.

Fixed that for you. Though I agree it was key having Ford at 10.

[Banquo]

Furbank is not ruled out is he?

Rumours he might be pressed into service against Bordeaux this weekend, although whether that's because he's genuinely ready or because Saints are so injury-stricken is up for debate.

If he survives that, it'd solve a lot of problems.

IMO - it's too early for Donoghue or Benson.
But...
They'd learn a shit-tonne from the experience, especially experiencing a tour - even if "all" they're doing is holding tackle bags, being exposed to a different training environment and different coaches.
We're also without 2 of our 3 first choice FHs (whilst a 4th is overseas, 5th is injured and 6th is called "Slade"), have an A-match and a match against USA - given that situation.... Ford > Atkinson/Bailey > Donoghue/Benson makes sense. Atkinson probably misses out due to versatility (and not really looking like he's got another gear to find - though that's a judgement call that the coaches are paid to make, not me).
Donoghue v Benson is, again, a judgement call for the coaches; and as above, Donoghue's versatility would likely count in his favour.

Given that I'm hoping Bath will be involved in the Prem final, I think that rules them out for the A-match... for that one 10. Atkinson, 23 Benson.
For Argentina 10. Ford, 23 Bailey
For USA 10. Bailey*, 23. Donoghue


*Unless he shits the bed against Argentina

Can we really call Bailey an international option right now, considering Bath haven't picked him to start at 10 in a Prem or Euro game for well over a calendar year? (ETA - apologies, he did start the game against Benetton, but considering how weakened that side was, that's not a great thing in his favour). I absolutely get what you're saying on it being too early for Donoghue, but it's odd to champion the player that's now apparently behind him for Bath being picked ahead of him for England, isn't it?

Puja



ETA. Just spotted that I missed CaptainHaircut dropping the news on Furbank earlier:

Coles and Langdon doubts for the weekend. Still not trained.

Furbank has a slight chance. Sleightholme even slighter.

Sounds like all would be fit for the tour.

Furbank has severe pain issues from the plate in his forearm. Might be good for a game, but needs a long term fix.

[Puja]

Furbank is not ruled out is he?

Rumours he might be pressed into service against Bordeaux this weekend, although whether that's because he's genuinely ready or because Saints are so injury-stricken is up for debate.

If he survives that, it'd solve a lot of problems.

Furbank has severe pain issues from the plate in his forearm. Might be good for a game, but needs a long term fix.

Yeahhhhh, that doesn't sound great. If that's the case, I'd far rather he have the summer off to make sure that doesn't become a chronic issue.

Puja

[Danno]

You get in to weird territory when versatility trumps form/ability though.

This. As an extreme hypothetical, I'd rather have a strike running specialist 15 than a failed 10.

This is the point I was failing to make

[Which Tyler]

Can we really call Bailey an international option right now, considering Bath haven't picked him to start at 10 in a Prem or Euro game for well over a calendar year? (ETA - apologies, he did start the game against Benetton, but considering how weakened that side was, that's not a great thing in his favour). I absolutely get what you're saying on it being too early for Donoghue, but it's odd to champion the player that's now apparently behind him for Bath being picked ahead of him for England, isn't it?

No.
But I also wouldn't consider Atkinson an international option right now; or Donoghue, or Benson; but we are where we are.

Take out FSmith, MSmith, Ford, Farrell, Furbank & Slade - and who's left at FH? Especially if we're discounting those 4?
I could go check who's technically left, but Pt is due

[Mikey Brown]

I think you’re right that those are the options, but I’d put Bailey in the same camp as the others to be honest. Let 2 of them fight it out in the USA game for the bench spot vs Arg.

Or just have Slade cover 10/12/13/15 from the bench - and that’s where we get back to the versatility conundrum. Do we give ourselves another reason to hang on to Slade or take a punt?

[Danno]

I think you’re right that those are the options, but I’d put Bailey in the same camp as the others to be honest. Let 2 of them fight it out in the USA game for the bench spot vs Arg.

The USA game is last unfortunately, and they'll be unavailable for the A game.

[FKAS]

You get in to weird territory when versatility trumps form/ability though.

This. As an extreme hypothetical, I'd rather have a strike running specialist 15 than a failed 10.

This is the point I was failing to make

That becomes a failure of the selectors if they are selecting not on form and ability though coverage from the bench is important.

[Danno]

Is there an argument for capping Donohue before the Irish find a pot of gold for him?

[Mikey Brown]

I think you’re right that those are the options, but I’d put Bailey in the same camp as the others to be honest. Let 2 of them fight it out in the USA game for the bench spot vs Arg.

The USA game is last unfortunately, and they'll be unavailable for the A game.

Ah, thought it was the other way round. Still, we get a look at Atkinson and Benson in the first game at least.

[Puja]

Is there an argument for capping Donohue before the Irish find a pot of gold for him?

I'd say there's definitely an argument for that. Not that there's any kind of guarantee that his development will continue and he'll ever be someone that the Irish would have an interest in, but I think giving him a cap in the USA game is a good plan on general principles to give us the next 3 years.

Puja

[FKAS]

Is there an argument for capping Donohue before the Irish find a pot of gold for him?

I'd say there's definitely an argument for that. Not that there's any kind of guarantee that his development will continue and he'll ever be someone that the Irish would have an interest in, but I think giving him a cap in the USA game is a good plan on general principles to give us the next 3 years.

Puja

Ulster and Connacht fans are complaining over their succession plans at 10 and looking for Leinster to share some of the wealth, which there seems to be little appetite for.

[Which Tyler]

I think you’re right that those are the options, but I’d put Bailey in the same camp as the others to be honest.

Erm... I did?

I put him equal to Atkinson; but significantly more experienced (but less potential) then Donoghue & Benson.
That's not me putting him above them, or saying that he's international class.

Or am I confused, and you'd put him in the same bracket as Smith, Smith, Ford & Farrell - in which case, we certainly disagree (agreeably, I hope)
Or am I confused in thinking that Bailey covering 10, 12 & 15 is a more useful bench option (esp with a 6:2 bench) than Atkinson covering 10, 10 and 10 (and not wanting to take 5 FHs on tour)

[Puja]

I think you’re right that those are the options, but I’d put Bailey in the same camp as the others to be honest.

Erm... I did?

I put him equal to Atkinson; but significantly more experienced (but less potential) then Donoghue & Benson.
That's not me putting him above them, or saying that he's international class.

Or am I confused, and you'd put him in the same bracket as Smith, Smith, Ford & Farrell - in which case, we certainly disagree (agreeably, I hope)
Or am I confused in thinking that Bailey covering 10, 12 & 15 is a more useful bench option (esp with a 6:2 bench) than Atkinson covering 10, 10 and 10 (and not wanting to take 5 FHs on tour)

Irrelevant pedantic sidenote - CAtkinson does play 15 as well, and has covered at 12 for Glaws, although only due to injury.

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

I think you’re right that those are the options, but I’d put Bailey in the same camp as the others to be honest.

Erm... I did?

I put him equal to Atkinson; but significantly more experienced (but less potential) then Donoghue & Benson.
That's not me putting him above them, or saying that he's international class.

Or am I confused, and you'd put him in the same bracket as Smith, Smith, Ford & Farrell - in which case, we certainly disagree (agreeably, I hope)
Or am I confused in thinking that Bailey covering 10, 12 & 15 is a more useful bench option (esp with a 6:2 bench) than Atkinson covering 10, 10 and 10 (and not wanting to take 5 FHs on tour)

No I think we do agree. It was only your conclusion of Bailey getting the bench spot for Argentina I was reading as him being the front runner / tallest dwarf.

I thought Atkinson played those same positions to be honest, but while both look more solid and experienced than Benson/Donoghue in general I haven’t seen that kind of spark either. So yeah, we’re saying the same thing.

[Which Tyler]

Irrelevant pedantic sidenote - CAtkinson does play 15 as well, and has covered at 12 for Glaws, although only due to injury.

Pedantic sidenote very much appreciated - I knew he'd stepped in at FB a couple of times but thought it was in extremis rather than by intent - hadn't realised he'd played 12 at all.
Which does change the balance, and removes my thought that Bailey's versatility makes him a better option for the 23 shirt.

I still think that Bailey has a marginally higher ceiling that CAtkinson - but that's a purely subjective thing, and may well be affected by club bias - TBH I don't think either could ever reach "good international" level, though both could probably reach "serviceable if there's no-one else".


ETA1:

No I think we do agree. It was only your conclusion of Bailey getting the bench spot for Argentina I was reading as him being the front runner / tallest dwarf.

No problem - I was probably reading too much into the "but" in "but I’d put Bailey in the same camp as the others to be honest"



ETA2: Now I've had time to check on All.rugby - OB and CA have almost exactly the same split of (starting) positional experience 50:7:1 vs 51:6:1. OB has played a total of 1 extra match in his career.
I had forgotten that OB's also sat on a full-international bench (where he stayed sitting), whereas CA's "only" had a couple of A-matches

[Oakboy]

Hasn't Dingwall played at 10?

[Which Tyler]

Hasn't Dingwall played at 10?

Not starting; you may be thinking of Ojomoh

[Banquo]

Hasn't Dingwall played at 10?

Not starting; you may be thinking of Ojomoh

Brad Barritt I reckon.

[Puja]

I had forgotten that OB's also sat on a full-international bench (where he stayed sitting), whereas CA's "only" had a couple of A-matches

It's gonna feel like I'm picking on you with the pedantry, but Bailey's bench-sitting was against the Barbarians, so it was an England XV, rather than a full-international.

Come to think of it, how incredibly shitty a human being must you be to pick a 21 year old for his first international experience, against the Barbarians, and then leave him on the bench for 80 minutes? It's not even as though it was a close game - that was the one we lost 21-52 with George Kruis backheeling the last conversion - would've cost nothing to bring him on for 10 minutes and instead Eddie Jones decided it was vitally important to keep MSmith on for the 80. What a dickhead!

Puja

[Oakboy]

I had forgotten that OB's also sat on a full-international bench (where he stayed sitting), whereas CA's "only" had a couple of A-matches

It's gonna feel like I'm picking on you with the pedantry, but Bailey's bench-sitting was against the Barbarians, so it was an England XV, rather than a full-international.

Come to think of it, how incredibly shitty a human being must you be to pick a 21 year old for his first international experience, against the Barbarians, and then leave him on the bench for 80 minutes? It's not even as though it was a close game - that was the one we lost 21-52 with George Kruis backheeling the last conversion - would've cost nothing to bring him on for 10 minutes and instead Eddie Jones decided it was vitally important to keep MSmith on for the 80. What a dickhead!

Puja

Are you just realising the sort of person that obnoxious Australian was?

[Puja]

I had forgotten that OB's also sat on a full-international bench (where he stayed sitting), whereas CA's "only" had a couple of A-matches

It's gonna feel like I'm picking on you with the pedantry, but Bailey's bench-sitting was against the Barbarians, so it was an England XV, rather than a full-international.

Come to think of it, how incredibly shitty a human being must you be to pick a 21 year old for his first international experience, against the Barbarians, and then leave him on the bench for 80 minutes? It's not even as though it was a close game - that was the one we lost 21-52 with George Kruis backheeling the last conversion - would've cost nothing to bring him on for 10 minutes and instead Eddie Jones decided it was vitally important to keep MSmith on for the 80. What a dickhead!

Puja

Are you just realising the sort of person that obnoxious Australian was?

I mean, I knew, but I'm always still astounded by it, every time.

Puja

[Oakboy]

It's gonna feel like I'm picking on you with the pedantry, but Bailey's bench-sitting was against the Barbarians, so it was an England XV, rather than a full-international.

Come to think of it, how incredibly shitty a human being must you be to pick a 21 year old for his first international experience, against the Barbarians, and then leave him on the bench for 80 minutes? It's not even as though it was a close game - that was the one we lost 21-52 with George Kruis backheeling the last conversion - would've cost nothing to bring him on for 10 minutes and instead Eddie Jones decided it was vitally important to keep MSmith on for the 80. What a dickhead!

Puja

Are you just realising the sort of person that obnoxious Australian was?

I mean, I knew, but I'm always still astounded by it, every time.

Puja

Understandable. He's best forgotten.