RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:I don't think the SA perspective would have changed had we played more conservatively early doors in the final, SA would still have remained uber conservative playing basically no rugby whatsoever unless they had a penalty advantage. That SA team for all it's one of the most boring I've seen, and not just among SA variants, was also super disciplined when sticking to their plans, and in its own way that is impressive.

I don't however know when Eddie has ever really had a focus on attack. He's presented a number of styles but we're much more a defensive and somewhat boring side ourselves. But like SA we've picked up a number of impressive wins, so...

We had a long period where we aimed to score tries early in each half, keeping the ball in hand and putting pace in the game, and pulled it off in several games. Almost, get a try and then sit back on territory. That showed what was possible. We seem to have ditched even the first part for now.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:I don't think the SA perspective would have changed had we played more conservatively early doors in the final, SA would still have remained uber conservative playing basically no rugby whatsoever unless they had a penalty advantage. That SA team for all it's one of the most boring I've seen, and not just among SA variants, was also super disciplined when sticking to their plans, and in its own way that is impressive.

I don't however know when Eddie has ever really had a focus on attack. He's presented a number of styles but we're much more a defensive and somewhat boring side ourselves. But like SA we've picked up a number of impressive wins, so...

We had a long period where we aimed to score tries early in each half, keeping the ball in hand and putting pace in the game, and pulled it off in several games. Almost, get a try and then sit back on territory. That showed what was possible. We seem to have ditched even the first part for now.

Part of that was a very simple plan execution that almost every side in the world fell for consistently. We kick off, kick deep and chase hard, they clear to short of half way. We send big runners off clean lineout ball, get over gainline, then spread wide and then change direction of attack with quick ruck ball. The only side that figured this out against us was Wales who purposely cleared the ball from kick off and kept ball in play forcing us off a multi-phase plan into ad hoc..

I see Slade is still the answer at 12 despite almost never playing there and being wholly unconvincing when he does. Excellent.

We do have some very good strike moves, if the opposition would be so kind as to give us the platform to strike off

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:I don't think the SA perspective would have changed had we played more conservatively early doors in the final, SA would still have remained uber conservative playing basically no rugby whatsoever unless they had a penalty advantage. That SA team for all it's one of the most boring I've seen, and not just among SA variants, was also super disciplined when sticking to their plans, and in its own way that is impressive.

I don't however know when Eddie has ever really had a focus on attack. He's presented a number of styles but we're much more a defensive and somewhat boring side ourselves. But like SA we've picked up a number of impressive wins, so...

We had a long period where we aimed to score tries early in each half, keeping the ball in hand and putting pace in the game, and pulled it off in several games. Almost, get a try and then sit back on territory. That showed what was possible. We seem to have ditched even the first part for now.

Part of that was a very simple plan execution that almost every side in the world fell for consistently. We kick off, kick deep and chase hard, they clear to short of half way. We send big runners off clean lineout ball, get over gainline, then spread wide and then change direction of attack with quick ruck ball. The only side that figured this out against us was Wales who purposely cleared the ball from kick off and kept ball in play forcing us off a multi-phase plan into ad hoc..

Even if ‘simple’ it showed intent, needed good skill and intensity to execute, and showed width and oace; my point was more about effectively pacing outselves there after, plus not showing the same intent in the autumn. It was also very good to watch.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:I see Slade is still the answer at 12 despite almost never playing there and being wholly unconvincing when he does. Excellent.

Take out the never plays there and change wholly to largely and you've got Slade at 13, and actually Farrell at 12 and Daly at 15, and Youngs at 9, and far too often Ford at 10

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote: We had a long period where we aimed to score tries early in each half, keeping the ball in hand and putting pace in the game, and pulled it off in several games. Almost, get a try and then sit back on territory. That showed what was possible. We seem to have ditched even the first part for now.

Part of that was a very simple plan execution that almost every side in the world fell for consistently. We kick off, kick deep and chase hard, they clear to short of half way. We send big runners off clean lineout ball, get over gainline, then spread wide and then change direction of attack with quick ruck ball. The only side that figured this out against us was Wales who purposely cleared the ball from kick off and kept ball in play forcing us off a multi-phase plan into ad hoc..

Even if ‘simple’ it showed intent, needed good skill and intensity to execute, and showed width and oace; my point was more about effectively pacing outselves there after, plus not showing the same intent in the autumn. It was also very good to watch.

Agreed. And yeah, simple in one sense, but complex in another and requires execution at pace.

I do get the impression that we're putting in foundations having altered our defensive strategies that we can then build further upon. You can see Mitchell's influence more and more in this phase. And so far it is a winning strategy.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:I see Slade is still the answer at 12 despite almost never playing there and being wholly unconvincing when he does. Excellent.

Is this aimed at one person? It certainly doesn't seem to be anywhere near the consensus.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:I see Slade is still the answer at 12 despite almost never playing there and being wholly unconvincing when he does. Excellent.

Is this aimed at one person? It certainly doesn't seem to be anywhere near the consensus.

A couple who seem to think Slade at 12 is a natural fit

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:I see Slade is still the answer at 12 despite almost never playing there and being wholly unconvincing when he does. Excellent.

Is this aimed at one person? It certainly doesn't seem to be anywhere near the consensus.

A couple who seem to think Slade at 12 is a natural fit

In theory, looks to have the right skill set to play a second 5/8th type role; in practice barely plays there from first phase, and like he was also theoretically a very good 10, seems uncomfortable there.

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:
Is this aimed at one person? It certainly doesn't seem to be anywhere near the consensus.

A couple who seem to think Slade at 12 is a natural fit

In theory, looks to have the right skill set to play a second 5/8th type role; in practice barely plays there from first phase, and like he was also theoretically a very good 10, seems uncomfortable there.

Yep. Just because someone can pass and kick doesn't mean they're a 10/12. I'm more inclined to say that he's looked more of an option at 15 and has looked largely comfortable when he's come on there.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
A couple who seem to think Slade at 12 is a natural fit

In theory, looks to have the right skill set to play a second 5/8th type role; in practice barely plays there from first phase, and like he was also theoretically a very good 10, seems uncomfortable there.

Yep. Just because someone can pass and kick doesn't mean they're a 10/12. I'm more inclined to say that he's looked more of an option at 15 and has looked largely comfortable when he's come on there.

He was originally Steensons protege /successor at 10 iirc, and played there for the Saxons possibly, but just seem to fit

I just didn’t see why EP was so exasperated with the masses clamouring for Slade at 12. I think Oakboy said he’d like to give it another go, but not much passion for it outside of that?

Many of us would have liked to see something similar to the investment in Farrell at 12 with Slade, but that was about 4 or 5 years ago. At this stage it seems kind of pointless. I’m still not sure why we didn’t try slotting Lawrence in at 12 to the Faz/Tuilagi/Slade setup, as he’s played there much more recently and effectively, though still a 13 I guess.

Mikey Brown wrote:I just didn’t see why EP was so exasperated with the masses clamouring for Slade at 12. I think Oakboy said he’d like to give it another go, but not much passion for it outside of that?

Many of us would have liked to see something similar to the investment in Farrell at 12 with Slade, but that was about 4 or 5 years ago. At this stage it seems kind of pointless. I’m still not sure why we didn’t try slotting Lawrence in at 12 to the Faz/Tuilagi/Slade setup, as he’s played there much more recently and effectively, though still a 13 I guess.

Lawrence did stand at 12 sometimes. But then was crocked.

Mikey Brown wrote:I just didn’t see why EP was so exasperated with the masses clamouring for Slade at 12. I think Oakboy said he’d like to give it another go, but not much passion for it outside of that?

Many of us would have liked to see something similar to the investment in Farrell at 12 with Slade, but that was about 4 or 5 years ago. At this stage it seems kind of pointless. I’m still not sure why we didn’t try slotting Lawrence in at 12 to the Faz/Tuilagi/Slade setup, as he’s played there much more recently and effectively, though still a 13 I guess.

I'm not particularly exasperated, and I never mentioned masses clamouring for it, but hey ho. I think it was jnfgf (sp) this time, but it has been said a few times that Slade could fit well into the 12 shirt.

When did Lawrence play last play 12 out of interest? I think it was about a year or so ago in the challenge cup against Ensei (sp), but could well be wrong.

Fair enough, maybe a touch of hyperbole on my part. I was a massively in to the idea of looking at Slade at 12 but thought that ship sailed a long time ago. I suppose it's useful-ish knowing he can cover but not sure much was learned from his time there. Agreed he's actually looked most comfortable at 15 though.

No idea on Lawrence to be honest. I just know I've seen him on teamsheets at 12 in the recent past. I figured slotting at 12 with two players comfortable in their role at 10 and 13 would have been better, but the way we're playing it probably doesn't matter much. I think maybe he was defending at 12 anyway.

I think the point of this thread is discussing how to dump Farrell. If Slade had played even half the games at 12 that Farrell has, I think he would have developed into the position and been more effective in attack than Farrell has ever been/can ever be. As for whether he could be come a quality international 12 now, there is far less of a case and I agree that it is a pointless exercise IF there is any combination of Youngs/Ford/Farrell inside him. However, if we were to try something different than Jones's 'same old' my first experiment would definitely involve Simmonds at 10. In that case, I'd want to also try Slade/Joseph at 12/13 before looking elsewhere. And, before anybody says we've tried that and it didn't work, we have not tried it before except with f**king Farrell clogging the works. In any case, it was for one match and it included the kick strategy which automatically negated the combo. Slade's hands are probably the best available. He gets to use them so rarely that he has been caught out trying to force it. I can understand that frustration.

I think the issue is...there just isn't anyone to play 12. So a proven international who has all the skills he'd need to play 12 becomes a potential choice. Even if he rarely plays there.

If there were any good choices at 12, we wouldn't be having this discussion, but 12 really does seem like either hoping for a fit Tuilagi or shoehorning Farrell there. Take the latter away, as we have done in this thread, and the cupboard is insanely bare.

Devoto - another perma-crock. Err... Hill? Not really international class. James? Been bang average (at best) this season. Mallinder? Been injured and at 15.

Maybe we should just pick Barbeary there.

Just devil's advocate, as I'm a big fan of Simmonds and would have him in the squad, but if Simmonds plays who plays with. I ask as Ford and Farrell are two key leaders. It is all just spit balling. It is one of those odd things that playing Simmonds makes sense of having Farrell at 12, which would help (leadership, organisation etc.) and potentially hinder (options, threats) in other regards.

10. Ford
12. Simmonds
???????

Stom wrote:I think the issue is...there just isn't anyone to play 12. So a proven international who has all the skills he'd need to play 12 becomes a potential choice. Even if he rarely plays there.

If there were any good choices at 12, we wouldn't be having this discussion, but 12 really does seem like either hoping for a fit Tuilagi or shoehorning Farrell there. Take the latter away, as we have done in this thread, and the cupboard is insanely bare.

Devoto - another perma-crock. Err... Hill? Not really international class. James? Been bang average (at best) this season. Mallinder? Been injured and at 15.

Maybe we should just pick Barbeary there.

I'd agree. Or, similarly(ish) to Youngs, nobody banging the door down, and still leaving the question of who in the backline then steps up into other aspects that Farrell fulfils which might dictate more who gets picked at 13, or Jones tries to brings more out of Daly as a defensive leader (harder from 15), who is in the leadership group but from an attacking perspective.

I think what I'm trying to say is that it is hard. It is easy if we just think anything but Farrell, but I genuinely don't think it is that simple with the paucity of genuine options in both inside centre and wider leadership.

And that's not to say I wouldn't look to replace him in a heartbeat if there were genuine options. I'm just struggling to work one out in terms of 12, though I do have hopes for Redpath and really hope Devoto can stay fit, and in terms of leadership (not captain).

If Farrell gets injured it sounds like we’re truly f**ked.

Mellsblue wrote:If Farrell gets injured it sounds like we’re truly f**ked.

It would be bloody interesting to see what happens. I'd guess, just from the last few games that Slade comes in 12, purely cause that is what Jones did in the absence of Manu and Ford. If Manu is fit then it is an obvious answer in one regard. But how that works in practice..........

There's definitely a massive argument to say why haven't we looked at contingency for 12, captain and wider 'leadership' stuff. Maybe individually for each and maybe they are for some, like defensive organisation etc.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:If Farrell gets injured it sounds like we’re truly f**ked.

It would be bloody interesting to see what happens. I'd guess, just from the last few games that Slade comes in 12, purely cause that is what Jones did in the absence of Manu and Ford. If Manu is fit then it is an obvious answer in one regard. But how that works in practice..........

There's definitely a massive argument to say why haven't we looked at contingency for 12, captain and wider 'leadership' stuff. Maybe individually for each and maybe they are for some, like defensive organisation etc.

I agree that we haven’t looked at a contingency and that we should, but that’s not just the case for Farrell. It was/is the same with Billy and Youngs, too. Jones is getting lucky injury wise with all of them. My point was that it sounds like there is literally nobody in the squad to run the d on field if Farrell isn’t there so, how could Jones look at a contingency in that case? Sounds like there is no contingency to look at.

Mellsblue wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:If Farrell gets injured it sounds like we’re truly f**ked.

It would be bloody interesting to see what happens. I'd guess, just from the last few games that Slade comes in 12, purely cause that is what Jones did in the absence of Manu and Ford. If Manu is fit then it is an obvious answer in one regard. But how that works in practice..........

There's definitely a massive argument to say why haven't we looked at contingency for 12, captain and wider 'leadership' stuff. Maybe individually for each and maybe they are for some, like defensive organisation etc.

I agree that we haven’t looked at a contingency and that we should, but that’s not just the case for Farrell. It was/is the same with Billy and Youngs, too. Jones is getting lucky injury wise with all of them. My point was that it sounds like there is literally nobody in the squad to run the d on field if Farrell isn’t there so, how could Jones look at a contingency in that case? Sounds like there is no contingency to look at.

You have to manufacture it, but ideally under your own control, hence why not looking at alternatives is a tad odd, though I can see how you'd get yourself into a hole in being too reliant on one person. That's speculation, but might explain some of it. I'm not seeing a D contingency in the squad as it stands, but then I'm not seeing too much out in the prem that might be a squad candidate.

That is an interesting one as to whether we see defensive leaders in the backs in our own clubs and are they, or should they be on the radar of the squad. I'm a Tigers fan so obviously there's nothing doing at Welford Road on that front. It isn't the be all and end all of course, but does factor.