Post AI Review

[Oakboy]

Having seen our stuttering performances for the three AIs I'm a bit disappointed - unreasonably. Before the series started I expected what we got.

The two problem areas remain as was likely. Maybe progress was made in both but nothing is resolved.

T'eo possibly improved his reputation without playing. Nobody would be surprised if he was at 12 or 13 for the 1st 6N game. Most of us would be mildly surprised if Slade was, for all that he might still be a better long-term prospect. I'd pick Farrell, T'eo and JJ.

Back-row? It's very much still open. Puja and others have written off the lock at 6 option but I'm not so sure. Both Underhill and Simmonds are candidates for the 7 shirt but I still think that Robshaw gives a better 80 minute stint which in its own way affects the game more. Billy, if fully fit, comes back in but his influence above Hughes's might not be the cure-all that some imagine. Play one of them at 6? Presumably, it would be Hughes. Robshaw would have to be at 7 then, surely, to get some on-the-hoof brain/experience. 'Robshaw is a good 3rd choice option at 7 now,' says Eddie. That could mean he'll never play him there again or make him 1st choice.

[Oakboy]

I think that the major thing to come out of the AIs is that Robshaw + lock does not work in the back row.

what a total surprise. I'm bemused why anyone thinks a lock at 6 is a good plan, in a team that has struggled at the breakdown since christ was a carpenter.

Oh Jesus. Not this again.

Well, yes, simply because we haven't found anybody good enough at the breakdown to change anything.

[Banquo]

I think that the major thing to come out of the AIs is that Robshaw + lock does not work in the back row.

what a total surprise. I'm bemused why anyone thinks a lock at 6 is a good plan, in a team that has struggled at the breakdown since christ was a carpenter.

Oh Jesus. Not this again.

Its virgin on the ridiculous

[Banquo]

I'd pick Farrell, T'eo and JJ.

I'm slowly making progress with you, grasshopper . Now change Ford for Faz and we are as one

[Oakboy]

I'd pick Farrell, T'eo and JJ.

I'm slowly making progress with you, grasshopper . Now change Ford for Faz and we are as one

I wish I could go the whole hog, master, but, much as I prefer Ford's natural ability, I think Farrell is simply stronger mentally. He is also better at coping with crap - good, intellectual rugby terminology. Ford started two AIs so he's had a chance to impose himself with good ball and bad. I think he's superior with the former and inferior with the latter. The overall compromise means Farrell, reluctantly!

[Stom]

I'd pick Farrell, T'eo and JJ.

I'm slowly making progress with you, grasshopper . Now change Ford for Faz and we are as one

I wish I could go the whole hog, master, but, much as I prefer Ford's natural ability, I think Farrell is simply stronger mentally. He is also better at coping with crap - good, intellectual rugby terminology. Ford started two AIs so he's had a chance to impose himself with good ball and bad. I think he's superior with the former and inferior with the latter. The overall compromise means Farrell, reluctantly!

I completely disagree. Ford is better with good ball. And better with crap ball. Farrell is just better at...shouting a lot...

Honestly, considering Fazlets runs out of the defensive line, I'm not sure I can pick one single area Farell is light years ahead of Ford at. He's a bit better kicking from the tee, but he's no 90%+ kicker. What else is he demonstrably better at? OK, he's stronger in contact, too, but your 10 shouldn't be taking contact if he can avoid it. He's a better rucker, but again, your 10 shouldn't be involved if he can avoid it.

What this AI has taught me about our backs is that we need Te'o/Tuilagi at 12, for Ford to have that straightening option. Ford - Te'o - Joseph would be superb, especially with those 3 speedsters outside.

[Digby]

what a total surprise. I'm bemused why anyone thinks a lock at 6 is a good plan, in a team that has struggled at the breakdown since christ was a carpenter.

Oh Jesus. Not this again.

Its virgin on the ridiculous

The belief system around this is messianic, and the cult will always sing of Edie

[Digby]

Is our best future centre partnership best served with one of Te'o or Manu at 12 or 13, or maybe with both at 12 and 13?

[Banquo]

I'm slowly making progress with you, grasshopper . Now change Ford for Faz and we are as one

I wish I could go the whole hog, master, but, much as I prefer Ford's natural ability, I think Farrell is simply stronger mentally. He is also better at coping with crap - good, intellectual rugby terminology. Ford started two AIs so he's had a chance to impose himself with good ball and bad. I think he's superior with the former and inferior with the latter. The overall compromise means Farrell, reluctantly!

I completely disagree. Ford is better with good ball. And better with crap ball. Farrell is just better at...shouting a lot...

Honestly, considering Fazlets runs out of the defensive line, I'm not sure I can pick one single area Farell is light years ahead of Ford at. He's a bit better kicking from the tee, but he's no 90%+ kicker. What else is he demonstrably better at? OK, he's stronger in contact, too, but your 10 shouldn't be taking contact if he can avoid it. He's a better rucker, but again, your 10 shouldn't be involved if he can avoid it.

What this AI has taught me about our backs is that we need Te'o/Tuilagi at 12, for Ford to have that straightening option. Ford - Te'o - Joseph would be superb, especially with those 3 speedsters outside.

finally we are getting there!!

[Banquo]

Is our best future centre partnership best served with one of Te'o or Manu at 12 or 13, or maybe with both at 12 and 13?

one of em at 12 for me; suits the pack Eddie is likely to continue to field, suits the 9's we keep fielding, suits our OC options, will help release our back three off anything other than 1st phase ball.

[Stom]

I wish I could go the whole hog, master, but, much as I prefer Ford's natural ability, I think Farrell is simply stronger mentally. He is also better at coping with crap - good, intellectual rugby terminology. Ford started two AIs so he's had a chance to impose himself with good ball and bad. I think he's superior with the former and inferior with the latter. The overall compromise means Farrell, reluctantly!

I completely disagree. Ford is better with good ball. And better with crap ball. Farrell is just better at...shouting a lot...

Honestly, considering Fazlets runs out of the defensive line, I'm not sure I can pick one single area Farell is light years ahead of Ford at. He's a bit better kicking from the tee, but he's no 90%+ kicker. What else is he demonstrably better at? OK, he's stronger in contact, too, but your 10 shouldn't be taking contact if he can avoid it. He's a better rucker, but again, your 10 shouldn't be involved if he can avoid it.

What this AI has taught me about our backs is that we need Te'o/Tuilagi at 12, for Ford to have that straightening option. Ford - Te'o - Joseph would be superb, especially with those 3 speedsters outside.

finally we are getting there!!

I've been there for a while, this just confirmed it.

[Banquo]

I completely disagree. Ford is better with good ball. And better with crap ball. Farrell is just better at...shouting a lot...

Honestly, considering Fazlets runs out of the defensive line, I'm not sure I can pick one single area Farell is light years ahead of Ford at. He's a bit better kicking from the tee, but he's no 90%+ kicker. What else is he demonstrably better at? OK, he's stronger in contact, too, but your 10 shouldn't be taking contact if he can avoid it. He's a better rucker, but again, your 10 shouldn't be involved if he can avoid it.

What this AI has taught me about our backs is that we need Te'o/Tuilagi at 12, for Ford to have that straightening option. Ford - Te'o - Joseph would be superb, especially with those 3 speedsters outside.

finally we are getting there!!

I've been there for a while, this just confirmed it.

just i've even bored myself banging on about it, it seems so obvious. Mind before Eddie even started, he was talking up Manu as a 12. Imo he genuinely think that Ford/Faz is the best he can currently do at 10/12, and accepts the compromise.

[Stom]

finally we are getting there!!

I've been there for a while, this just confirmed it.

just i've even bored myself banging on about it, it seems so obvious. Mind before Eddie even started, he was talking up Manu as a 12. Imo he genuinely think that Ford/Faz is the best he can currently do at 10/12, and accepts the compromise.

Which means that, at best, we've been trialing a contingency plan for 2 years...

I know the other options are pretty poor outside Te'o/Tuilagi, but you'd have think he'd have at least given it a try, just once...

[Epaminondas Pules]

The main things for me off the back of the AIs are those that have been consistent issues.

Hooker - Hartley is lesser than the other options. His work rate is great, setbpiece good, the rest less so. George is better and hopefully LCD stays fit and can challenge properly.

Fullback - Brown just isn’t the player to take us forward. We’ve have dynamic back three options and then a steady alternative. To push in I think we have to go bold. Watson, Daly, May, Nowell and Roko for three places. Brown lacks the ability to execute, let alone under pressure. We can’t bury opportunities.

Back row. Anyone below Billy is a step down. That’s a given, but the balance is wrong, albeit changes to experiment were somewhat hampered by Underhill and Curry’s injuries. Simmonds did well, as did Hughes, but as combinations it lacked. We need some pace in the backrow to actually get to rucks, but also effective technique. The rest of the pack compensates somewhat, but not enough.

Three key areas to address in the immediacy. The six nations, for me, is when we have to do it and stick to it.

Otherwise options are looking good.

Oh and Isiekwe just looks a diamond in the making!!

[Digby]

Is our best future centre partnership best served with one of Te'o or Manu at 12 or 13, or maybe with both at 12 and 13?

one of em at 12 for me; suits the pack Eddie is likely to continue to field, suits the 9's we keep fielding, suits our OC options, will help release our back three off anything other than 1st phase ball.

We'd get around not having so many carriers in the pack with both Te'o and Manu. Though we would need Daly to work off his wing to link play, and Watson to develop his link play hugely from 15. It'd also simplify the game for our back row which is easier too when we're a bit limited there

[Banquo]

Is our best future centre partnership best served with one of Te'o or Manu at 12 or 13, or maybe with both at 12 and 13?

one of em at 12 for me; suits the pack Eddie is likely to continue to field, suits the 9's we keep fielding, suits our OC options, will help release our back three off anything other than 1st phase ball.

We'd get around not having so many carriers in the pack with both Te'o and Manu. Though we would need Daly to work off his wing to link play, and Watson to develop his link play hugely from 15. It'd also simplify the game for our back row which is easier too when we're a bit limited there

The back three might as well retire off first phase with that midfield. I know where you are headed to, but its too limited for me- I dont think Watson or May are espcially great strategic thinkers or linkers, and I'd say the same of Roko and Nowell as well. I agree it fits with where Eddie might be headed to backrow wise. It would be a much simpler game plan, but imo we aren't muscling our way over NZ or even Ireland as examples.

[Oakboy]

Oh and Isiekwe just looks a diamond in the making!!

It will be very interesting to see how Saracens proceed with their 2nd row development and, as a result, how England make best use of this guy.

[Stom]

Oh and Isiekwe just looks a diamond in the making!!

It will be very interesting to see how Saracens proceed with their 2nd row development and, as a result, how England make best use of this guy.

He's got time on his side, don't fret. 4th choice for Sarries works well at 19. But I imagine he'll be level with Itoje in their pecking order in 2 seasons time.

[Mikey Brown]

Tuilagi to me is a dream alternative to Teo, but I do not ever expect to see him for England again. Discussing him seems pointless right now, and I wouldn’t like the balance anyway when we have some good ball handlers available.

I didn’t see the game on Saturday, but I’m really fascinated how bad my fuckups must have been. I’m actually all for looking at Watson at 15, but nobody seemed to mind when on two occasions he threw wild passes to nobody.

I’m genuinely trying to figure what I could have done that was worse.

[Mellsblue]

Tuilagi to me is a dream alternative to Teo, but I do not ever expect to see him for England again. Discussing him seems pointless right now, and I wouldn’t like the balance anyway when we have some good ball handlers available.

I didn’t see the game on Saturday, but I’m really fascinated how bad my fuckups must have been. I’m actually all for looking at Watson at 15, but nobody seemed to mind when on two occasions he threw wild passes to nobody.

I’m genuinely trying to figure what I could have done that was worse.

We did mind but he’s so much more of an attacking threat that in the short term you accept it and in the longer term you hope he’ll improve on it. He’s still only 23 and will get better. Brown will only get worse.

[Bloggs]

Tuilagi to me is a dream alternative to Teo, but I do not ever expect to see him for England again. Discussing him seems pointless right now, and I wouldn’t like the balance anyway when we have some good ball handlers available.

I didn’t see the game on Saturday, but I’m really fascinated how bad my fuckups must have been. I’m actually all for looking at Watson at 15, but nobody seemed to mind when on two occasions he threw wild passes to nobody.

I’m genuinely trying to figure what I could have done that was worse.

I think some on here will be angry at the likes of you, Hartley and Farrell no matter what they do. If Slade, Watson etc make mistakes, that's completely glossed over, but if we don't look as good with, for example, no Farrell, then it's not because Farrell is good...

[Oakboy]

Tuilagi to me is a dream alternative to Teo, but I do not ever expect to see him for England again. Discussing him seems pointless right now, and I wouldn’t like the balance anyway when we have some good ball handlers available.

I didn’t see the game on Saturday, but I’m really fascinated how bad my fuckups must have been. I’m actually all for looking at Watson at 15, but nobody seemed to mind when on two occasions he threw wild passes to nobody.

I’m genuinely trying to figure what I could have done that was worse.

Brown has been a great servant. His all-round contribution negates his flaws. Watson is by no means perfect either but he needs international game time at FB in the hope that he continues to improve - probably beyond Brown's best (though he may not be better initially).

[Mellsblue]

Tuilagi to me is a dream alternative to Teo, but I do not ever expect to see him for England again. Discussing him seems pointless right now, and I wouldn’t like the balance anyway when we have some good ball handlers available.

I didn’t see the game on Saturday, but I’m really fascinated how bad my fuckups must have been. I’m actually all for looking at Watson at 15, but nobody seemed to mind when on two occasions he threw wild passes to nobody.

I’m genuinely trying to figure what I could have done that was worse.

I think some on here will be angry at the likes of you, Hartley and Farrell no matter what they do. If Slade, Watson etc make mistakes, that's completely glossed over, but if we don't look as good with, for example, no Farrell, then it's not because Farrell is good...

You obviously didn’t pop in to discuss Slade after the Argentina match.

[Banquo]

Tuilagi to me is a dream alternative to Teo, but I do not ever expect to see him for England again. Discussing him seems pointless right now, and I wouldn’t like the balance anyway when we have some good ball handlers available.

I didn’t see the game on Saturday, but I’m really fascinated how bad my fuckups must have been. I’m actually all for looking at Watson at 15, but nobody seemed to mind when on two occasions he threw wild passes to nobody.

I’m genuinely trying to figure what I could have done that was worse.

I think some on here will be angry at the likes of you, Hartley and Farrell no matter what they do. If Slade, Watson etc make mistakes, that's completely glossed over, but if we don't look as good with, for example, no Farrell, then it's not because Farrell is good...

...and why do you think that is?

...and I don't think that is true of Slade, either, or even Watson. They certainly aren't 'completely glossed over'- Slade for example, got a hammering after the Argentina game iirc

[Digby]

Tuilagi to me is a dream alternative to Teo, but I do not ever expect to see him for England again. Discussing him seems pointless right now, and I wouldn’t like the balance anyway when we have some good ball handlers available.

I didn’t see the game on Saturday, but I’m really fascinated how bad my fuckups must have been. I’m actually all for looking at Watson at 15, but nobody seemed to mind when on two occasions he threw wild passes to nobody.

I’m genuinely trying to figure what I could have done that was worse.

I think some on here will be angry at the likes of you, Hartley and Farrell no matter what they do. If Slade, Watson etc make mistakes, that's completely glossed over, but if we don't look as good with, for example, no Farrell, then it's not because Farrell is good...

Not sure about Farrell, I think a lot of people think he's quality, and a lot think he's quality but wearing the wrong shirt number. Hartley, well for myself I lost trust in him a few years back, stamping on the Saffer lad's knee was the last straw and since then he's not improved as a player and there are other better younger players available, but if he played well he would have played well