RugbyRebels

Stom wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:
There’s a point where you have to wonder why we’re unable to consistently get much out of any of the backs we have available. Trying to bed in new combinations with our revolving door approach to the coaching staff and tactics is obviously going to have a big impact.

I know we’re lacking some clear world-class midfield (yes, 10, 12, 13) talents, but we do have 5 or 6 players who are definitely capable of delivering at this level. Trouble is we’ve now been in this limbo state for such a long time there is no real trustworthy combination of players/tactics to fall back on. Ford/Farrell/Slade is the last combo that got any decent sort of run, and I think we all hoped to have moved forward from that by now.

MB, your last sentence sums it up. Ford and Slade somehow produced despite being hampered by Farrell at 12!!!

Of course, punditry and some on this board see it the other way round with comments like 'Slade has never produced'.

Ideally, pick Ford, Slade, Marchant. With Jones still there, it will have to be Farrell at 10. Basically, anything but Farrell at 12 (even if Ford and Slade have contrived to make him look adequate there occasionally, in the past)!

Strangely, I feel like Slade has been better with Farrell than without. It feels like whenever he's asked to step up as a senior player, he just doesn't. Despite the fact he's no longer the young tyro, he still plays like it. Some players seem wise beyond their age (Ford), while others seem like they're always 21 (Slade, 36, Danny Care until he hit his mid 30s).

Right now, I would probably pick Smith-Farrell-Marchant in my midfield. But I'm not wedded to that midfield, and despite being a Smith fan, I'd have Ford back the instant he was fit.

At which point, I'd be sorely tempted to bring in ANYONE for Farrell. It is strange how we fail to produce players in certain positions, though. I feel like Australia would just go "feck it", and play Ford/Smith at 10/12, and screw the absolute mess it would make of defence.

Our defence was an absolute mess with Farrell in it to be fair.

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
MB, your last sentence sums it up. Ford and Slade somehow produced despite being hampered by Farrell at 12!!!

Of course, punditry and some on this board see it the other way round with comments like 'Slade has never produced'.

Ideally, pick Ford, Slade, Marchant. With Jones still there, it will have to be Farrell at 10. Basically, anything but Farrell at 12 (even if Ford and Slade have contrived to make him look adequate there occasionally, in the past)!

Strangely, I feel like Slade has been better with Farrell than without. It feels like whenever he's asked to step up as a senior player, he just doesn't. Despite the fact he's no longer the young tyro, he still plays like it. Some players seem wise beyond their age (Ford), while others seem like they're always 21 (Slade, 36, Danny Care until he hit his mid 30s).

Right now, I would probably pick Smith-Farrell-Marchant in my midfield. But I'm not wedded to that midfield, and despite being a Smith fan, I'd have Ford back the instant he was fit.

At which point, I'd be sorely tempted to bring in ANYONE for Farrell. It is strange how we fail to produce players in certain positions, though. I feel like Australia would just go "feck it", and play Ford/Smith at 10/12, and screw the absolute mess it would make of defence.

Our defence was an absolute mess with Farrell in it to be fair.

Can't get any worse, then

Honestly, this is the one decision in the England team where I feel there is no good option. Everywhere else, you and I can see improvements to units, but the midfield...it's an issue.

How do we counter that? Do we just bypass it? Go for the Tindall/Noon look and just use Smith's "kick-pass" to go around them? But then who do we have who could be a Tindall/Noon?

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:
Strangely, I feel like Slade has been better with Farrell than without. It feels like whenever he's asked to step up as a senior player, he just doesn't. Despite the fact he's no longer the young tyro, he still plays like it. Some players seem wise beyond their age (Ford), while others seem like they're always 21 (Slade, 36, Danny Care until he hit his mid 30s).

Right now, I would probably pick Smith-Farrell-Marchant in my midfield. But I'm not wedded to that midfield, and despite being a Smith fan, I'd have Ford back the instant he was fit.

At which point, I'd be sorely tempted to bring in ANYONE for Farrell. It is strange how we fail to produce players in certain positions, though. I feel like Australia would just go "feck it", and play Ford/Smith at 10/12, and screw the absolute mess it would make of defence.

Our defence was an absolute mess with Farrell in it to be fair.

Can't get any worse, then

Honestly, this is the one decision in the England team where I feel there is no good option. Everywhere else, you and I can see improvements to units, but the midfield...it's an issue.

How do we counter that? Do we just bypass it? Go for the Tindall/Noon look and just use Smith's "kick-pass" to go around them? But then who do we have who could be a Tindall/Noon?

Pray for Manu. Lol.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:
Strangely, I feel like Slade has been better with Farrell than without. It feels like whenever he's asked to step up as a senior player, he just doesn't. Despite the fact he's no longer the young tyro, he still plays like it. Some players seem wise beyond their age (Ford), while others seem like they're always 21 (Slade, 36, Danny Care until he hit his mid 30s).

Right now, I would probably pick Smith-Farrell-Marchant in my midfield. But I'm not wedded to that midfield, and despite being a Smith fan, I'd have Ford back the instant he was fit.

At which point, I'd be sorely tempted to bring in ANYONE for Farrell. It is strange how we fail to produce players in certain positions, though. I feel like Australia would just go "feck it", and play Ford/Smith at 10/12, and screw the absolute mess it would make of defence.

Our defence was an absolute mess with Farrell in it to be fair.

Can't get any worse, then

Honestly, this is the one decision in the England team where I feel there is no good option. Everywhere else, you and I can see improvements to units, but the midfield...it's an issue.

How do we counter that? Do we just bypass it? Go for the Tindall/Noon look and just use Smith's "kick-pass" to go around them? But then who do we have who could be a Tindall/Noon?

That was my start point- I can't see a midfield (I like). You (just) have to have good all round skills AND running threats at 12 and 13 imo- a great runner with less than optimal skill is ok in one of those positions at a push.

Timbo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote: Our defence was an absolute mess with Farrell in it to be fair.

Can't get any worse, then

Honestly, this is the one decision in the England team where I feel there is no good option. Everywhere else, you and I can see improvements to units, but the midfield...it's an issue.

How do we counter that? Do we just bypass it? Go for the Tindall/Noon look and just use Smith's "kick-pass" to go around them? But then who do we have who could be a Tindall/Noon?

Pray for Manu. Lol.

Pretty much.

Timbo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote: Our defence was an absolute mess with Farrell in it to be fair.

Can't get any worse, then

Honestly, this is the one decision in the England team where I feel there is no good option. Everywhere else, you and I can see improvements to units, but the midfield...it's an issue.

How do we counter that? Do we just bypass it? Go for the Tindall/Noon look and just use Smith's "kick-pass" to go around them? But then who do we have who could be a Tindall/Noon?

Pray for Manu. Lol.

That has been Jones's failed policy for 6 years!!!.

Oakboy wrote:

Timbo wrote:

Stom wrote:
Can't get any worse, then

Honestly, this is the one decision in the England team where I feel there is no good option. Everywhere else, you and I can see improvements to units, but the midfield...it's an issue.

How do we counter that? Do we just bypass it? Go for the Tindall/Noon look and just use Smith's "kick-pass" to go around them? But then who do we have who could be a Tindall/Noon?

Pray for Manu. Lol.

That has been Jones's failed policy for 6 years!!!.

I am as big a critic of the midfield's lack of coherence as anyone, but despite persevering with Faz (like every other coach ) I have some sympathy for Jones. I can't make a convincing case for other selections. We just don't have a lot of talented EQP centres for some reason- there are no glaring overlooks. Marchant hasn't been treated that well, but there again he has been deployed at both wing and centre by club; Jones has had a look at anyone who has been mentioned on here as well (or tried to).

Has ollie lawrence had a long term injury?

twitchy wrote:Has ollie lawrence had a long term injury?

He's been plagued with a calf problem but think he's supposed to be for again now though.

If he's not about to walk from his contract

Zach Mercer named in the Baabaas squad for the Nov match v NZ.

Mellsblue wrote:Zach Mercer named in the Baabaas squad for the Nov match v NZ.

Cue season and world cup ending injury from an innocuous looking incident five minutes into the second half.

SDHoneymonster wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Zach Mercer named in the Baabaas squad for the Nov match v NZ.

Cue season and world cup ending injury from an innocuous looking incident five minutes into the second half.

It’s the only logical course of events.

Which Tyler wrote:https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/rug ... am-7551098

Potentially short sighted decision all round. Only caveat is that as Bristol are in the second tier European comp hopefully he’ll get those weeks off to put his feet up.

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/spor ... er-7559644

A bit of a non-story as the paper's trying to spin something out of what little Steve Taciturn Borthwick said to the press, but another sign that the 10 weeks rest rule for England players is more of a suggestion than a rule.

Puja

Puja wrote:https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/spor ... er-7559644

A bit of a non-story as the paper's trying to spin something out of what little Steve Taciturn Borthwick said to the press, but another sign that the 10 weeks rest rule for England players is more of a suggestion than a rule.

Puja

Irony being he's one of the few not to have admitting trying to get players back into action early. He is in a better position than most in that he has good cover for all the missing players for the first two weeks as long as there's no injuries that haven't being announced (quite possible).

Cole will start over Heyes and then Leatigaga or Hurd are more than capable of covering the bench. Chessum is covered by Wells, Snyman (who's looked a different player in pre season) and Henderson. JVP well we've got Youngs, Wigglesworth and Edwards. Steward there's Watson (out of position but hey he should be ok) and Hegarty. Reffell might be the only one we need back sooner as he's our only natural openside but Martin, Cracknell and Liebenburg looked decent in pre season.

Puja wrote:https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/spor ... er-7559644

A bit of a non-story as the paper's trying to spin something out of what little Steve Taciturn Borthwick said to the press, but another sign that the 10 weeks rest rule for England players is more of a suggestion than a rule.

Puja

The PRA are telling players they can insist on the 10 weeks. But players can choose to play, and indeed are.

Banquo wrote:The PRA are telling players they can insist on the 10 weeks. But players can choose to play, and indeed are.

As Ali Hepher points out, Nowell played very little last season (or any!) and therefore wants to be and is available for selection. Imo, different players will require handling differently, and a blanket rest period isn’t the correct answer.

Blanket rest period should be the minimum, not a negotiable maximum.

And of course any coach is going to look for any justification to play their best players. That doesn't make their post-hoc justifications accurate.

Which Tyler wrote:

Banquo wrote:The PRA are telling players they can insist on the 10 weeks. But players can choose to play, and indeed are.

There is a point in the agreement in that players should be able to take ten weeks if they want.

Which Tyler wrote:Blanket rest period should be the minimum, not a negotiable maximum.

And of course any coach is going to look for any justification to play their best players. That doesn't make their post-hoc justifications accurate.

I think the point is that the players want to play. Certainly the two I know about want to stake claims early in the season. As above, a blanket rest period doesn’t suit some players.

Which Tyler wrote:Blanket rest period should be the minimum, not a negotiable maximum.

And of course any coach is going to look for any justification to play their best players. That doesn't make their post-hoc justifications accurate.

Nowell wants to play, Genge wants to play, many others want to play. It’s not just the coaches.
Take the example of England’s three fullbacks on England’s summer tour. Furbank played no matches, Freeman played two and Steward played three. All had totally different loadings throughout the tour, not to mention the entire season. With all the GPS and smart gumshield data a blanket rest period is years out of date.

Banquo wrote:I think the point is that the players want to play. Certainly the two I know about want to stake claims early in the season. As above, a blanket rest period doesn’t suit some players.

I'd argue, strongly, that the point is that players want to play - and need to be protected from themselves.
Coaches also want their players to play - and players need to be protected from their coaches too.

Players also want to play after a head knock - that doesn't make it okay to do so.

As for my Fry clip - this sort of thing is literally the job of the RPA.

Mellsblue wrote: Take the example of England’s three fullbacks on England’s summer tour. Furbank played no matches, Freeman played two and Steward played three. All had totally different loadings throughout the tour, not to mention the entire season. With all the GPS and smart gumshield data a blanket rest period is years out of date.

There's more to it than just physically playing. I've allowed elsewhere that I don't mind eating into the 10 weeks for those not playing in the last test - but they're still training, they're still in the gym, they're still in analysis meetings... they're still psychologically knackered.

As above, players need to be protected from themselves, and from their coaches. A blanker break may be out of date, but it's a hell of a lot better than any other option.
If you've got an alternative, with any sort of science behind it, then I'm all ears. As it is, a continuous break is by far the best thing for these players.


On the one hand, we've got Genge banging the drum for player welfare, and being better looked after (and better paid) by the club. On the other hand, we've got Ellis Genge refusing to look after himself because welfare be damned, he wants to play.