6N Back Row

[Banquo]

Worked well enough to beat every team it played in 2016. Not entirely tripping over world class sevens either.

Not exactly selecting 7's who might get there, either.

I'm talking about beating the best sides consistently, not the post world cup sides excluding NZ. Are you happy sticking with Ford and Farrell, to gain another perspective.

Broadly, in the absence of an outstanding candidate at 12, yes.

Ok, well that's a level of ambition set. I personally think we need to do better to be thinking about the RWC, and would also question whether you have to be outstanding to unseat Faz from 12.

I'll grant you that having two authentic flankers in the back row is better than Lawtoje though.

[Timbo]

I really don’t believe that Shields or Rhodes are ‘too limited for test rugby’. Nearly all the current top test 6’s have games based around work rate, athleticism and technical/decision making skills at breakdown and lineout. Not very many of the best 6’s have hugely broad skill sets.

Even a talent like Fifita isn’t particularly trusted by the AB’s because he’s flakey around the ruck and tackle.

[Banquo]

I really don’t believe that Shields or Rhodes are ‘too limited for test rugby’. Nearly all the current top test 6’s have games based around work rate, athleticism and technical/decision making skills at breakdown and lineout. Not very many of the best 6’s have hugely broad skill sets.

Even a talent like Fifita isn’t particularly trusted by the AB’s because he’s flakey around the ruck and tackle.

Digby said Rhodes was, but didn't know re Shields; I've seen a bit of Shields and he's a bit limited as a handler. But you make a fair point- they'd just have to be excellent at what they do....but at test level, and we won't know until we see it.

[Timbo]

Mind, Rhodes is apparently now out for the season with a bad hamstring tear. Had to have surgery to repair it. That’s after 4 shoulder operations over the last 6 months. Could be bad luck, could be that his body is starting to give up on him.

[Banquo]

Mind, Rhodes is apparently now out for the season with a bad hamstring tear. Had to have surgery to repair it. That’s after 4 shoulder operations over the last 6 months. Could be bad luck, could be that his body is starting to give up on him.

That is bad luck/wear and tear, but bad luck anyway. Sarries struggling a bit with conditioning maybe

[Tom Moore]

Not exactly selecting 7's who might get there, either.

I'm talking about beating the best sides consistently, not the post world cup sides excluding NZ. Are you happy sticking with Ford and Farrell, to gain another perspective.

Broadly, in the absence of an outstanding candidate at 12, yes.

Ok, well that's a level of ambition set. I personally think we need to do better to be thinking about the RWC, and would also question whether you have to be outstanding to unseat Faz from 12.

I'll grant you that having two authentic flankers in the back row is better than Lawtoje though.

I think ambition is the critical word in there. My approach to most things tends to be dull (I'd usually argue pragmatic but it tends to be based on fear, partly of the unknown, but mainly on the Keith Wood phrase "s**t-scared of being beaten s**tless"), and whilstever Farrell is defending well and kicking his goals; and whilstever the potential replacements (in my view) take more off the table than they bring to it (don't kick as well, don't defend as well, prone to hideous brain explosions, frightened of contact, not playing there for their club) I'd rather stick with what brought us to the dance in the first place.

That's part of my reasoning on Shields and Rhodes- battled tested in Super Rugby (also Europe in Rhodes' case), bring power and grunt, good defenders. They suit the way we set up, bringing physicality to the breakdown rather than ball thievery, and they are reliable.

It's a fairly uninspiring approach, I'll hold my hands up to that, but given what we have, I think it's overall the best one.

[Stom]

I'm a big believer in the idea of time and space. These define most team sports for me.

Now I'm a football coach not a rugby coach, and it's a bit different, but the principles are the same. You want players who create time and space in attack, and restrict time and space in defence.

Which is why I don't like Farrell at 12. He offers no running threat so reduces time and space for teammates in attack, while his rushing out of the line in defence gives big spaces for the opposition to exploit.

We can do the same with flankers. I want to see players who create space. They can link or carry or run effective support lines and so on. With Robshaw as a defensive leader do we really want a defensively minded player alongside? I'd say no.

[TheDasher]

I'm a big believer in the idea of time and space. These define most team sports for me.

Now I'm a football coach not a rugby coach, and it's a bit different, but the principles are the same. You want players who create time and space in attack, and restrict time and space in defence.

Which is why I don't like Farrell at 12. He offers no running threat so reduces time and space for teammates in attack, while his rushing out of the line in defence gives big spaces for the opposition to exploit.

We can do the same with flankers. I want to see players who create space. They can link or carry or run effective support lines and so on. With Robshaw as a defensive leader do we really want a defensively minded player alongside? I'd say no.

I agree with all of this totally, in principle. What's complicated about rugby as we all know is that if a certain player doesn't offer something, like pace or dynamism, whilst that's a negative, the requirement can be made up by players around him in the same unit, hence we're always talking about balance.

This is why in the back-row, Simmonds throws in a bit of a curve ball when playing 8. He offers that pace off the mark, the broken field running, some of the link play with the backs when the game opens up. When you have Robshaw 6, and Billy or Hughes at 8, I feel we're crying out for dynamism at 7, hence historical calls for the likes of Kvesic. With Robshaw at 6 and Simmonds at 8, it gets a little more confusing.

My problem is that I'm not in love with any of the current options at 7, which makes it hard for me to pick the back row and feel happy. I ideally like mobility at 7 when playing a hulking 8, but now we're not, I'm a little lost. I also quite like a lineout option at 6 but don't like the idea of playing a second row there; I'm hoping to god that Ed doesn't pick Lawes there. Part of me at this moment just thinks sod it, let's pick an all Exeter back row of Armand, Kvesic and Simmonds to be honest.

[Mikey Brown]

Ah yes. Farrell the defender.

[Stom]

I'm a big believer in the idea of time and space. These define most team sports for me.

Now I'm a football coach not a rugby coach, and it's a bit different, but the principles are the same. You want players who create time and space in attack, and restrict time and space in defence.

Which is why I don't like Farrell at 12. He offers no running threat so reduces time and space for teammates in attack, while his rushing out of the line in defence gives big spaces for the opposition to exploit.

We can do the same with flankers. I want to see players who create space. They can link or carry or run effective support lines and so on. With Robshaw as a defensive leader do we really want a defensively minded player alongside? I'd say no.

I agree with all of this totally, in principle. What's complicated about rugby as we all know is that if a certain player doesn't offer something, like pace or dynamism, whilst that's a negative, the requirement can be made up by players around him in the same unit, hence we're always talking about balance.

This is why in the back-row, Simmonds throws in a bit of a curve ball when playing 8. He offers that pace off the mark, the broken field running, some of the link play with the backs when the game opens up. When you have Robshaw 6, and Billy or Hughes at 8, I feel we're crying out for dynamism at 7, hence historical calls for the likes of Kvesic. With Robshaw at 6 and Simmonds at 8, it gets a little more confusing.

My problem is that I'm not in love with any of the current options at 7, which makes it hard for me to pick the back row and feel happy. I ideally like mobility at 7 when playing a hulking 8, but now we're not, I'm a little lost. I also quite like a lineout option at 6 but don't like the idea of playing a second row there; I'm hoping to god that Ed doesn't pick Lawes there. Part of me at this moment just thinks sod it, let's pick an all Exeter back row of Armand, Kvesic and Simmonds to be honest.

Both Billy and Simmonds create space, but they do it differently. Billy sucks defenders to him like a magnet. Simmonds almost always gets past the gainline with his footwork.

I said it a little while ago, but I really like the concept of Underhill, Simmonds and Mercer together in a backrow. I do think their skills would work well together, while it would increase our carrying options considerably. It would put a lot of stress on Underhill, but with mobile second rows like we have, I'm not sure that's a massive issue.

[Digby]

I really don’t believe that Shields or Rhodes are ‘too limited for test rugby’. Nearly all the current top test 6’s have games based around work rate, athleticism and technical/decision making skills at breakdown and lineout. Not very many of the best 6’s have hugely broad skill sets.

Even a talent like Fifita isn’t particularly trusted by the AB’s because he’s flakey around the ruck and tackle.

I'm not overly fussed what other sides are doing when looking to what our side could/should do, and I don't agree all sides have 6s who are picked based on technical and decision making skills at the breakdown, I think they're often picked on physicality and work rate. Though even then it does look a bit of a mix at 6, there are plenty of grunt only players, but there are those who play there often enough who do have a bit more about them at the breakdown, Warburton has played there are few times, Fardy of recent times I've been a fan of, the Scots have Barclay, the Irish have POM (though there's a fair argument POM isn't a great decision maker and simply cheats like hell and either gets whistled off the park or gets away with it depending on the ref)

I don't know what NZ think about Fifita, it might be they don't trust him, or it might be they want to develop a more talented player than merely settling for a grunt.

[Stom]

I'm gonna be honest and say I've only really heard Shield's name, not seen him play. Does he offer any carrying threat in the sense of footwork and agility, or is he all grunt in attack?

[Banquo]

Broadly, in the absence of an outstanding candidate at 12, yes.

Ok, well that's a level of ambition set. I personally think we need to do better to be thinking about the RWC, and would also question whether you have to be outstanding to unseat Faz from 12.

I'll grant you that having two authentic flankers in the back row is better than Lawtoje though.

I think ambition is the critical word in there. My approach to most things tends to be dull (I'd usually argue pragmatic but it tends to be based on fear, partly of the unknown, but mainly on the Keith Wood phrase "s**t-scared of being beaten s**tless"), and whilstever Farrell is defending well and kicking his goals; and whilstever the potential replacements (in my view) take more off the table than they bring to it (don't kick as well, don't defend as well, prone to hideous brain explosions, frightened of contact, not playing there for their club) I'd rather stick with what brought us to the dance in the first place.

That's part of my reasoning on Shields and Rhodes- battled tested in Super Rugby (also Europe in Rhodes' case), bring power and grunt, good defenders. They suit the way we set up, bringing physicality to the breakdown rather than ball thievery, and they are reliable.

It's a fairly uninspiring approach, I'll hold my hands up to that, but given what we have, I think it's overall the best one.

We all have our own approaches, but my view is 'what we have, we hold' isn't going to get us to being the best we can be. My take is that we can and should look to improve every unit in the team, through coaching and selection, and there is most scope for this in the back row, half back (s), and midfield; from an execution point of view, we have to improve carrying, breakdown and midfield threat substantially, whilst our kicking game is very much work in progress, and more consistency is needed in the set piece. That's not even touching on tactics and game planning. We are in a good place mentally I believe, having shown resilience and a will to win despite some very ropy performances recently, and showed we can fall behind and win ugly.

To win a world cup, I reckon you need more than half the team to be world class, the rest to be very good, and including a top quality bench. We are some way away from that imo.

On the specifics, I'd dispute that Faz is a good defender and is not prone to brain farts; his passing is nearing adequate, even including his left to right shovelling, but he is no running threat, and that's a problem. I accept that no-one is definitively stating a case, but he remains a compromise- Eddie likes his kicking and his attitude/toughness and I assume influence. To me, he's a starting 10 or bench. I'd want to see Lozowski and/or Teo tried there..or Eastmond.....just someone else, whilst recognising that might disrupt a combination that has been part of a lot of success.

Rhodes is out for a while so the point is a bit moot, but Shields is clearly moving to England having found himself down the pecking order in NZ, which is a worry when you think about it; however it may be that he is still a trade up to our current stock. Whilst I get your point on physicality and consistency having served us well ostensibly on results to date, I just think a degree more intelligence and footballing ability would be desirable in our back row, especially if Billy V continues to struggle; our decision making at the breakdown is not great, nor do we have players who are brilliant over the ball, nor especially good support runners. I'm hoping Simmonds will solve a lot of problems, but just going down the Haskell style route at 7 doesn't really work for me.

I'd also look to get Robson in and playing, and see if that helps the backline as well.

For sure, there is plenty of opportunity to improve, and lots of names being bandied about to help that; whether Eddie sticks or twists will be fascinating.

[Oakboy]

In terms of the backrow, how much potential is there? What I mean is what chance is there of the players mentioned establishing a top class unit?

If Billy can stay fit for 5 minutes he is a quality player based on past performance but can he improve and take a unit to higher levels? Robshaw is a cracking 80 minute trier. Can he improve?

Hughes has something but can coaching harness his skills to improve the unit?

After that, and assuming that Haskell is past it, what do we have?

What we have is an absolute test of the Head Coach. None of the young pretenders are anywhere near top international standard yet obviously. Judging which of them might be and getting a top level of performance out of them in a minimal time span is one hell of a task, IMO.

[Tom Moore]

Ok, well that's a level of ambition set. I personally think we need to do better to be thinking about the RWC, and would also question whether you have to be outstanding to unseat Faz from 12.

I'll grant you that having two authentic flankers in the back row is better than Lawtoje though.

I think ambition is the critical word in there. My approach to most things tends to be dull (I'd usually argue pragmatic but it tends to be based on fear, partly of the unknown, but mainly on the Keith Wood phrase "s**t-scared of being beaten s**tless"), and whilstever Farrell is defending well and kicking his goals; and whilstever the potential replacements (in my view) take more off the table than they bring to it (don't kick as well, don't defend as well, prone to hideous brain explosions, frightened of contact, not playing there for their club) I'd rather stick with what brought us to the dance in the first place.

That's part of my reasoning on Shields and Rhodes- battled tested in Super Rugby (also Europe in Rhodes' case), bring power and grunt, good defenders. They suit the way we set up, bringing physicality to the breakdown rather than ball thievery, and they are reliable.

It's a fairly uninspiring approach, I'll hold my hands up to that, but given what we have, I think it's overall the best one.

We all have our own approaches, but my view is 'what we have, we hold' isn't going to get us to being the best we can be. My take is that we can and should look to improve every unit in the team, through coaching and selection, and there is most scope for this in the back row, half back (s), and midfield; from an execution point of view, we have to improve carrying, breakdown and midfield threat substantially, whilst our kicking game is very much work in progress, and more consistency is needed in the set piece. That's not even touching on tactics and game planning. We are in a good place mentally I believe, having shown resilience and a will to win despite some very ropy performances recently, and showed we can fall behind and win ugly.

To win a world cup, I reckon you need more than half the team to be world class, the rest to be very good, and including a top quality bench. We are some way away from that imo.

On the specifics, I'd dispute that Faz is a good defender and is not prone to brain farts; his passing is nearing adequate, even including his left to right shovelling, but he is no running threat, and that's a problem. I accept that no-one is definitively stating a case, but he remains a compromise- Eddie likes his kicking and his attitude/toughness and I assume influence. To me, he's a starting 10 or bench. I'd want to see Lozowski and/or Teo tried there..or Eastmond.....just someone else, whilst recognising that might disrupt a combination that has been part of a lot of success.

Rhodes is out for a while so the point is a bit moot, but Shields is clearly moving to England having found himself down the pecking order in NZ, which is a worry when you think about it; however it may be that he is still a trade up to our current stock. Whilst I get your point on physicality and consistency having served us well ostensibly on results to date, I just think a degree more intelligence and footballing ability would be desirable in our back row, especially if Billy V continues to struggle; our decision making at the breakdown is not great, nor do we have players who are brilliant over the ball, nor especially good support runners. I'm hoping Simmonds will solve a lot of problems, but just going down the Haskell style route at 7 doesn't really work for me.

I'd also look to get Robson in and playing, and see if that helps the backline as well.

For sure, there is plenty of opportunity to improve, and lots of names being bandied about to help that; whether Eddie sticks or twists will be fascinating.

Te'o I'm definitely against at 12, think the ball would get stuck. Eastmond I've always been a massive fan of and would be happy to see him there but don't think its realistic.

Lozowski, having done a load of reading up on and as much video research as YouTube will allow today, looks very interesting, and I'd have to concede you've got a point.

In terms of the back row, I don't in principle disagree with what you say, but I don't think we have players with the skill sets to do what you want.

Scrum half, you're pushing at an open door, though I'm not sure Robson would be much better. I always had high hopes for Spencer, but he seems to have stagnated at Saracens.

[Scrumhead]

In terms of the backrow, how much potential is there? What I mean is what chance is there of the players mentioned establishing a top class unit?

If Billy can stay fit for 5 minutes he is a quality player based on past performance but can he improve and take a unit to higher levels? Robshaw is a cracking 80 minute trier. Can he improve?

Hughes has something but can coaching harness his skills to improve the unit?

After that, and assuming that Haskell is past it, what do we have?

What we have is an absolute test of the Head Coach. None of the young pretenders are anywhere near top international standard yet obviously. Judging which of them might be and getting a top level of performance out of them in a minimal time span is one hell of a task, IMO.

Admittedly it was for a short window of time, but I'd argue that Robshaw, Haskell and Billy was a very effective back row unit. There were other factors involved, but I definitely don't think it's a coincidence that our single loss under Eddie was on an occasion where Robshaw was unavailable and Billy was just back from injury.

As you've said, Haskell may well be past it, but Robshaw, Billy and an upgrade on the 2018 version of the Hask could still be a very good unit. If we had Billy, I'd be very tempted to try Simmonds at 7. Billy's presence would give him a lot more license to roam and support the backs. If not Simmonds, one of the Currys or Willis would work for me. I'm less sold on Underhill as he offers little in attack.

Obviously that's not going to happen from a 6 Nations perspective, but personally, I'm choosing to look on the bright side and consider that Simmonds and Mercer will have a proper chance to prove they can step-up and Underhill has a chance to prove me (and many others) wrong.

If any one of those can properly establish themselves, we will definitely be a step closer and hopefully we'll get a chance to start working on the best combination with a fit Billy in the summer and AIs.

[Banquo]

I think ambition is the critical word in there. My approach to most things tends to be dull (I'd usually argue pragmatic but it tends to be based on fear, partly of the unknown, but mainly on the Keith Wood phrase "s**t-scared of being beaten s**tless"), and whilstever Farrell is defending well and kicking his goals; and whilstever the potential replacements (in my view) take more off the table than they bring to it (don't kick as well, don't defend as well, prone to hideous brain explosions, frightened of contact, not playing there for their club) I'd rather stick with what brought us to the dance in the first place.

That's part of my reasoning on Shields and Rhodes- battled tested in Super Rugby (also Europe in Rhodes' case), bring power and grunt, good defenders. They suit the way we set up, bringing physicality to the breakdown rather than ball thievery, and they are reliable.

It's a fairly uninspiring approach, I'll hold my hands up to that, but given what we have, I think it's overall the best one.

We all have our own approaches, but my view is 'what we have, we hold' isn't going to get us to being the best we can be. My take is that we can and should look to improve every unit in the team, through coaching and selection, and there is most scope for this in the back row, half back (s), and midfield; from an execution point of view, we have to improve carrying, breakdown and midfield threat substantially, whilst our kicking game is very much work in progress, and more consistency is needed in the set piece. That's not even touching on tactics and game planning. We are in a good place mentally I believe, having shown resilience and a will to win despite some very ropy performances recently, and showed we can fall behind and win ugly.

To win a world cup, I reckon you need more than half the team to be world class, the rest to be very good, and including a top quality bench. We are some way away from that imo.

On the specifics, I'd dispute that Faz is a good defender and is not prone to brain farts; his passing is nearing adequate, even including his left to right shovelling, but he is no running threat, and that's a problem. I accept that no-one is definitively stating a case, but he remains a compromise- Eddie likes his kicking and his attitude/toughness and I assume influence. To me, he's a starting 10 or bench. I'd want to see Lozowski and/or Teo tried there..or Eastmond.....just someone else, whilst recognising that might disrupt a combination that has been part of a lot of success.

Rhodes is out for a while so the point is a bit moot, but Shields is clearly moving to England having found himself down the pecking order in NZ, which is a worry when you think about it; however it may be that he is still a trade up to our current stock. Whilst I get your point on physicality and consistency having served us well ostensibly on results to date, I just think a degree more intelligence and footballing ability would be desirable in our back row, especially if Billy V continues to struggle; our decision making at the breakdown is not great, nor do we have players who are brilliant over the ball, nor especially good support runners. I'm hoping Simmonds will solve a lot of problems, but just going down the Haskell style route at 7 doesn't really work for me.

I'd also look to get Robson in and playing, and see if that helps the backline as well.

For sure, there is plenty of opportunity to improve, and lots of names being bandied about to help that; whether Eddie sticks or twists will be fascinating.

Te'o I'm definitely against at 12, think the ball would get stuck. Eastmond I've always been a massive fan of and would be happy to see him there but don't think its realistic.

Lozowski, having done a load of reading up on and as much video research as YouTube will allow today, looks very interesting, and I'd have to concede you've got a point.

In terms of the back row, I don't in principle disagree with what you say, but I don't think we have players with the skill sets to do what you want.

Scrum half, you're pushing at an open door, though I'm not sure Robson would be much better. I always had high hopes for Spencer, but he seems to have stagnated at Saracens.

I don't see why the ball would have to get 'stuck' with Teo, frankly, it's not like he can't pass, or that you can't miss him out and use as a decoy- not a big deal for a decent coach, and his running threat would create space for the outside backs and be a great asset for Ford; it would mean quite a change to our current attacking patterns, I will concede. But it's more of a plan B than we currently have. Given your stated conservatism, however, I can see why you won't consider it.

I do like the wrap around plays Wasps use, and Eastmond looks very comfortable, not sure if he is on Eddie's radar. Lozowski is a big talent imo, but simply- like Spencer- isn't playing enough.

On back row- there are lots of young lads about, and some older ones. The Curry's, Kvesic, Underhill, Clifford, Simmonds all offer something different to an experienced, intelligent, but somewhat sluggish 6 and a clearout 7 with not much thought going into the play . Frankly, its a bit of a wing and a prayer that Robshaw will still be going strong in 18 months, given the way and how much he plays....and the only option there seems to be the distinctly iffy Lawtoje compromise. You are right that trying new combos brings a degree of risk- but my worry is the cracks that have been apparent in our mostly winning edifice will get exposed during the 6N, and then we are left with a bit of a mess to resolve and 5 less games to do it in!

[Oakboy]

In terms of the backrow, how much potential is there? What I mean is what chance is there of the players mentioned establishing a top class unit?

If Billy can stay fit for 5 minutes he is a quality player based on past performance but can he improve and take a unit to higher levels? Robshaw is a cracking 80 minute trier. Can he improve?

Hughes has something but can coaching harness his skills to improve the unit?

After that, and assuming that Haskell is past it, what do we have?

What we have is an absolute test of the Head Coach. None of the young pretenders are anywhere near top international standard yet obviously. Judging which of them might be and getting a top level of performance out of them in a minimal time span is one hell of a task, IMO.

Admittedly it was for a short window of time, but I'd argue that Robshaw, Haskell and Billy was a very effective back row unit. There were other factors involved, but I definitely don't think it's a coincidence that our single loss under Eddie was on an occasion where Robshaw was unavailable and Billy was just back from injury.

As you've said, Haskell may well be past it, but Robshaw, Billy and an upgrade on the 2018 version of the Hask could still be a very good unit. If we had Billy, I'd be very tempted to try Simmonds at 7. Billy's presence would give him a lot more license to roam and support the backs. If not Simmonds, one of the Currys or Willis would work for me. I'm less sold on Underhill as he offers little in attack.

Obviously that's not going to happen from a 6 Nations perspective, but personally, I'm choosing to look on the bright side and consider that Simmonds and Mercer will have a proper chance to prove they can step-up and Underhill has a chance to prove me (and many others) wrong.

If any one of those can properly establish themselves, we will definitely be a step closer and hopefully we'll get a chance to start working on the best combination with a fit Billy in the summer and AIs.

I agree that Robshaw, Haskell and Billy formed an effective unit. It competed with all opposition units faced. In order to get the whole team up a level, a clear necessity to win the RWC, the back-row unit has to improve to the point where it is outplaying the opposition and creating scoring chances with ball presentation. Assuming that that trio was fully fit and on form, could it improve? I'd suggest not.

Therefore, in order to get an improved unit, Eddie has to change something, even if it is only, say, the No7. Frankly, I would not blame Eddie if he were to conclude that it is not possible. Yes, try a youngster or two in the hope that someone, perhaps Simmonds, can step up to become one of those gifted individuals who is better for country than club.

At some point, Eddie might just have to revert to 'effective' unfortunately, IMO. We'll know - if he picks Armand or moves a lock to the 6 shirt. I would dearly love one of the current youngsters to prove me wrong. Willis is the only one who I think may have something different/extra and he probably will have insufficient club game time in the near future to make his case.

[TheDasher]

We all have our own approaches, but my view is 'what we have, we hold' isn't going to get us to being the best we can be. My take is that we can and should look to improve every unit in the team, through coaching and selection, and there is most scope for this in the back row, half back (s), and midfield; from an execution point of view, we have to improve carrying, breakdown and midfield threat substantially, whilst our kicking game is very much work in progress, and more consistency is needed in the set piece. That's not even touching on tactics and game planning. We are in a good place mentally I believe, having shown resilience and a will to win despite some very ropy performances recently, and showed we can fall behind and win ugly.

To win a world cup, I reckon you need more than half the team to be world class, the rest to be very good, and including a top quality bench. We are some way away from that imo.

On the specifics, I'd dispute that Faz is a good defender and is not prone to brain farts; his passing is nearing adequate, even including his left to right shovelling, but he is no running threat, and that's a problem. I accept that no-one is definitively stating a case, but he remains a compromise- Eddie likes his kicking and his attitude/toughness and I assume influence. To me, he's a starting 10 or bench. I'd want to see Lozowski and/or Teo tried there..or Eastmond.....just someone else, whilst recognising that might disrupt a combination that has been part of a lot of success.

Rhodes is out for a while so the point is a bit moot, but Shields is clearly moving to England having found himself down the pecking order in NZ, which is a worry when you think about it; however it may be that he is still a trade up to our current stock. Whilst I get your point on physicality and consistency having served us well ostensibly on results to date, I just think a degree more intelligence and footballing ability would be desirable in our back row, especially if Billy V continues to struggle; our decision making at the breakdown is not great, nor do we have players who are brilliant over the ball, nor especially good support runners. I'm hoping Simmonds will solve a lot of problems, but just going down the Haskell style route at 7 doesn't really work for me.

I'd also look to get Robson in and playing, and see if that helps the backline as well.

For sure, there is plenty of opportunity to improve, and lots of names being bandied about to help that; whether Eddie sticks or twists will be fascinating.

Te'o I'm definitely against at 12, think the ball would get stuck. Eastmond I've always been a massive fan of and would be happy to see him there but don't think its realistic.

Lozowski, having done a load of reading up on and as much video research as YouTube will allow today, looks very interesting, and I'd have to concede you've got a point.

In terms of the back row, I don't in principle disagree with what you say, but I don't think we have players with the skill sets to do what you want.

Scrum half, you're pushing at an open door, though I'm not sure Robson would be much better. I always had high hopes for Spencer, but he seems to have stagnated at Saracens.

I don't see why the ball would have to get 'stuck' with Teo, frankly, it's not like he can't pass, or that you can't miss him out and use as a decoy- not a big deal for a decent coach, and his running threat would create space for the outside backs and be a great asset for Ford; it would mean quite a change to our current attacking patterns, I will concede. But it's more of a plan B than we currently have. Given your stated conservatism, however, I can see why you won't consider it.

I do like the wrap around plays Wasps use, and Eastmond looks very comfortable, not sure if he is on Eddie's radar. Lozowski is a big talent imo, but simply- like Spencer- isn't playing enough.

On back row- there are lots of young lads about, and some older ones. The Curry's, Kvesic, Underhill, Clifford, Simmonds all offer something different to an experienced, intelligent, but somewhat sluggish 6 and a clearout 7 with not much thought going into the play . Frankly, its a bit of a wing and a prayer that Robshaw will still be going strong in 18 months, given the way and how much he plays....and the only option there seems to be the distinctly iffy Lawtoje compromise. You are right that trying new combos brings a degree of risk- but my worry is the cracks that have been apparent in our mostly winning edifice will get exposed during the 6N, and then we are left with a bit of a mess to resolve and 5 less games to do it in!

Agree on Teo. I can't see why the ball would get stuck either. Honestly I've only ever seen him play well and by all accounts he was ripping it up at Leinster. He's quality.

Great off-loader of the ball, I haven't seen him pass 'badly' either. He's also an even better ball carrier than his considerable size and pace suggest, he really takes some stopping, hits hard in defence as we know etc. He also runs extremely clever angles/lines.

I suspect if he was fit, we'd be struggling to leave him out as each time he's played, he's put his hand up.

[Banquo]

Te'o I'm definitely against at 12, think the ball would get stuck. Eastmond I've always been a massive fan of and would be happy to see him there but don't think its realistic.

Lozowski, having done a load of reading up on and as much video research as YouTube will allow today, looks very interesting, and I'd have to concede you've got a point.

In terms of the back row, I don't in principle disagree with what you say, but I don't think we have players with the skill sets to do what you want.

Scrum half, you're pushing at an open door, though I'm not sure Robson would be much better. I always had high hopes for Spencer, but he seems to have stagnated at Saracens.

I don't see why the ball would have to get 'stuck' with Teo, frankly, it's not like he can't pass, or that you can't miss him out and use as a decoy- not a big deal for a decent coach, and his running threat would create space for the outside backs and be a great asset for Ford; it would mean quite a change to our current attacking patterns, I will concede. But it's more of a plan B than we currently have. Given your stated conservatism, however, I can see why you won't consider it.

I do like the wrap around plays Wasps use, and Eastmond looks very comfortable, not sure if he is on Eddie's radar. Lozowski is a big talent imo, but simply- like Spencer- isn't playing enough.

On back row- there are lots of young lads about, and some older ones. The Curry's, Kvesic, Underhill, Clifford, Simmonds all offer something different to an experienced, intelligent, but somewhat sluggish 6 and a clearout 7 with not much thought going into the play . Frankly, its a bit of a wing and a prayer that Robshaw will still be going strong in 18 months, given the way and how much he plays....and the only option there seems to be the distinctly iffy Lawtoje compromise. You are right that trying new combos brings a degree of risk- but my worry is the cracks that have been apparent in our mostly winning edifice will get exposed during the 6N, and then we are left with a bit of a mess to resolve and 5 less games to do it in!

Agree on Teo. I can't see why the ball would get stuck either. Honestly I've only ever seen him play well and by all accounts he was ripping it up at Leinster. He's quality.

Great off-loader of the ball, I haven't seen him pass 'badly' either. He's also an even better ball carrier than his considerable size and pace suggest, he really takes some stopping, hits hard in defence as we know etc. He also runs extremely clever angles/lines.

I suspect if he was fit, we'd be struggling to leave him out as each time he's played, he's put his hand up.

Aye, and Eddie is a fan, but suspect we'd see JJ canned. Looks to me like Eddie will stick with Ford and Faz, sadly, and that means going down a route of back play that won't involve Teo/Manu (say) at 12.

[Dasheragain]

I don't see why the ball would have to get 'stuck' with Teo, frankly, it's not like he can't pass, or that you can't miss him out and use as a decoy- not a big deal for a decent coach, and his running threat would create space for the outside backs and be a great asset for Ford; it would mean quite a change to our current attacking patterns, I will concede. But it's more of a plan B than we currently have. Given your stated conservatism, however, I can see why you won't consider it.

I do like the wrap around plays Wasps use, and Eastmond looks very comfortable, not sure if he is on Eddie's radar. Lozowski is a big talent imo, but simply- like Spencer- isn't playing enough.

On back row- there are lots of young lads about, and some older ones. The Curry's, Kvesic, Underhill, Clifford, Simmonds all offer something different to an experienced, intelligent, but somewhat sluggish 6 and a clearout 7 with not much thought going into the play . Frankly, its a bit of a wing and a prayer that Robshaw will still be going strong in 18 months, given the way and how much he plays....and the only option there seems to be the distinctly iffy Lawtoje compromise. You are right that trying new combos brings a degree of risk- but my worry is the cracks that have been apparent in our mostly winning edifice will get exposed during the 6N, and then we are left with a bit of a mess to resolve and 5 less games to do it in!

Agree on Teo. I can't see why the ball would get stuck either. Honestly I've only ever seen him play well and by all accounts he was ripping it up at Leinster. He's quality.

Great off-loader of the ball, I haven't seen him pass 'badly' either. He's also an even better ball carrier than his considerable size and pace suggest, he really takes some stopping, hits hard in defence as we know etc. He also runs extremely clever angles/lines.

I suspect if he was fit, we'd be struggling to leave him out as each time he's played, he's put his hand up.

Aye, and Eddie is a fan, but suspect we'd see JJ canned. Looks to me like Eddie will stick with Ford and Faz, sadly, and that means going down a route of back play that won't involve Teo/Manu (say) at 12.

We come back to the age old discussion about what you want from your 12 vs what you want from your 13 don't we? I bow to your great knowledge on Centre play to be honest.

I loved Manu Mk1 at 13, but then he had great acceleration and could just about run round someone on the arc as well as through them. I suspect now being used at 12 may suit him more.

[Banquo]

Agree on Teo. I can't see why the ball would get stuck either. Honestly I've only ever seen him play well and by all accounts he was ripping it up at Leinster. He's quality.

Great off-loader of the ball, I haven't seen him pass 'badly' either. He's also an even better ball carrier than his considerable size and pace suggest, he really takes some stopping, hits hard in defence as we know etc. He also runs extremely clever angles/lines.

I suspect if he was fit, we'd be struggling to leave him out as each time he's played, he's put his hand up.

Aye, and Eddie is a fan, but suspect we'd see JJ canned. Looks to me like Eddie will stick with Ford and Faz, sadly, and that means going down a route of back play that won't involve Teo/Manu (say) at 12.

We come back to the age old discussion about what you want from your 12 vs what you want from your 13 don't we? I bow to your great knowledge on Centre play to be honest.

I loved Manu Mk1 at 13, but then he had great acceleration and could just about run round someone on the arc as well as through them. I suspect now being used at 12 may suit him more.

My only real die in the ditches for centres are great defence and both being running threats with good hands. Its not much to expect

[Dasheragain]

Aye, and Eddie is a fan, but suspect we'd see JJ canned. Looks to me like Eddie will stick with Ford and Faz, sadly, and that means going down a route of back play that won't involve Teo/Manu (say) at 12.

We come back to the age old discussion about what you want from your 12 vs what you want from your 13 don't we? I bow to your great knowledge on Centre play to be honest.

I loved Manu Mk1 at 13, but then he had great acceleration and could just about run round someone on the arc as well as through them. I suspect now being used at 12 may suit him more.

My only real die in the ditches for centres are great defence and both being running threats with good hands. Its not much to expect

At 12, isn't Slade basically Farrell with MORE of a running threat?

[Banquo]

We come back to the age old discussion about what you want from your 12 vs what you want from your 13 don't we? I bow to your great knowledge on Centre play to be honest.

I loved Manu Mk1 at 13, but then he had great acceleration and could just about run round someone on the arc as well as through them. I suspect now being used at 12 may suit him more.

My only real die in the ditches for centres are great defence and both being running threats with good hands. Its not much to expect

At 12, isn't Slade basically Farrell with MORE of a running threat?

slightly more I'd guess, but he doesnt play there much so hard to tell. I'd quite like to see him there; still maintain 10 would be his best position, but getting zero time there.Faz is more overtly physical, plus made of ice!

[Which Tyler]

At 12, isn't Slade basically Farrell with MORE of a running threat?

In theory, yes; with a more disciplined defence. I still see IC as his most 'natural' position.

Unfortunately, reality suggests that he doesn't play there much, and when he does he plays poorly.
Some utility backs can slot into different positions like a natural, Slade isn't one of those, and looks like he needs time in each position he covers. He's too good elsewhere and too poor when he does play 12 to be worth the risk to the team to devote the time to him learning the role.