Mellsblue wrote:
Capable, IMO, yes, especially in comparison to Farrell. Is it his best position and would he ever become a world class player there? I don’t think so.
but he is competent. I haven't seen anything from Slade this 6N that makes me think he's better than Farrell there.
Puja
He really isn't, a lot of the time. Slade's passing is light years ahead....his defence is flawed, but in a different way.
Slade's capability of passing is light years ahead; he's not showed a choice of passing this 6N that's better than Farrell's shown. What's he done in attack this 6N?
I agree that I've not seen much from Slade to suggest he's much better. However Farrell was working within a far more settled backline (and team) for the most part, which comes with it's own advantages.
The cynic in me is tempted to suggest that Jones is trying not to let Slade look too good at 12 so that he can cheerfully reinstate Farrell. Let's face it, he could have picked Smith/Slade/Marchant for three successive matches instead of chopping and changing. Also, had he done that and kept Daly on the wing might he be buzzing again instead of stuttering like he has ever since he was swapped with Brown.
32nd Man wrote:I reckon Slade and Marchant outside Smith or Ford can work at International level, but it needs genuine pace / power wingers outside it to stretch the defence and create gaps.
If the opposition know they can be narrow to choke up space as they will be able to get across to touchline a Norwell type, then you pretty much have to have a Manu type. If their scared they won't be able to cover across due to the pace of a May or Watson, or the size and power of a Cokanasinga, then your more balanced runner passers have a chance.
If you can get a blend of it across the back line, you can threaten everywhere. I think probably the perfect archetype for England under Eddie was probably the back line for the 57-15 game against Ireland in the World Cup warmup. Slight over-simplification possible, but from 9 outwards we broadly speaking had 2 playmakers, 2 power carriers and 2 flyers. It's easier to get round a line if you compress it, it's easier to breach a line if you stretch, and if you can do both the game is much easier. Currently, we've no real pace in the back three, and no direct threat in midfield, which to me explains a lot as to why we're struggling so badly to score tries.
32nd Man wrote:I reckon Slade and Marchant outside Smith or Ford can work at International level, but it needs genuine pace / power wingers outside it to stretch the defence and create gaps.
If the opposition know they can be narrow to choke up space as they will be able to get across to touchline a Norwell type, then you pretty much have to have a Manu type. If their scared they won't be able to cover across due to the pace of a May or Watson, or the size and power of a Cokanasinga, then your more balanced runner passers have a chance.
If you can get a blend of it across the back line, you can threaten everywhere. I think probably the perfect archetype for England under Eddie was probably the back line for the 57-15 game against Ireland in the World Cup warmup. Slight over-simplification possible, but from 9 outwards we broadly speaking had 2 playmakers, 2 power carriers and 2 flyers. It's easier to get round a line if you compress it, it's easier to breach a line if you stretch, and if you can do both the game is much easier. Currently, we've no real pace in the back three, and no direct threat in midfield, which to me explains a lot as to why we're struggling so badly to score tries.
For anyone who was wondering:
9 Ben Youngs
10 George Ford
11 Jonny May
12 Owen Farrell (Captain)
13 Manu Tuilagi
14 Joe Cokanasiga
15 Elliot Daly
And yes it has a nice balance to it.
With LCD being out is Blamire trusted/good enough at this level? Is he still an apprentice or is he actually there on merit?
As well as he is playing I can't see Eddie calling up McGuigan (who I think is completely uncapped?) but I can't really think of who else is available and in good form? I guess old unwanted George is doing (near) 80.
As ever with front row bench cover, you have to prepare for the worst. Blamire for 79 minutes might please Ireland somewhat. What happpened to young thingy at Sale - sometimes not even on the bench?
Puja wrote:
but he is competent. I haven't seen anything from Slade this 6N that makes me think he's better than Farrell there.
Puja
He really isn't, a lot of the time. Slade's passing is light years ahead....his defence is flawed, but in a different way.
Slade's capability of passing is light years ahead; he's not showed a choice of passing this 6N that's better than Farrell's shown. What's he done in attack this 6N?
Puja
To start with, you have criticised Smith's approach to doing it himself....and in a misfiring team.....and now criticise Slade for not producing magic moments ....seems a tad harsh--- and tbh, I think we've looked more fluid in midfield if creating little (and as said before, there's a balance issue in our 3/4's, compounded by Smiths desire to do too much), and against Italy there were some very nice moves going left to right lead by Slade which Faz couldn't do as well, being as he can't pass far to the right. So I'd say Slade can do all Faz can do as a distributor, but better (and when did Faz do anything in attack that makes you go wow, specifically when moving to the right). We saw in the AI's what Slade could do off his left hand given an opportunity and a decent running line from a back coming from depth.
Its a little bald men fighting over a comb, as I would want a runner at 12 by preference; but imo I'd rather Slade in the midfield than Faz. Slade is no great shakes yet at 12, but he doesn't look like a malfunctioning automaton. And their defences are both questionable at the moment at 12, for differing reasons.
Last edited by Banquo on Thu Mar 03, 2022 4:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Raggs wrote:I agree that I've not seen much from Slade to suggest he's much better. However Farrell was working within a far more settled backline (and team) for the most part, which comes with it's own advantages.
There is that, plus as both you and Puja have highlighted, Smith's own efforts have led to the midfield being a bit askew. I'd also say that for all the backs have looked unthreatening- apart from Italy, where there was a lot of ground made through using slade as first receiver with Smith on the wrap around (and we didn't see v wales, probs cos we'd trained with Manu at 12!), albeit a little deep.
Banquo wrote:
He really isn't, a lot of the time. Slade's passing is light years ahead....his defence is flawed, but in a different way.
Slade's capability of passing is light years ahead; he's not showed a choice of passing this 6N that's better than Farrell's shown. What's he done in attack this 6N?
Puja
To start with, you have criticised Smith's approach to doing it himself....and in a misfiring team.....and now criticise Slade for not producing magic moments ....seems a tad harsh--- and tbh, I think we've looked more fluid in midfield if creating little (and as said before, there's a balance issue in our 3/4's, compounded by Smiths desire to do too much), and against Italy there were some very nice moves going left to right lead by Slade which Faz couldn't do as well, being as he can't pass far to the right. So I'd say Slade can do all Faz can do as a distributor, but better (and when did Faz do anything in attack that makes you go wow, specifically when moving to the right). We saw in the AI's what Slade could do off his left hand given an opportunity and a decent running line from a back coming from depth.
Its a little bald men fighting over a comb, as I would want a runner at 12 by preference; but imo I'd rather Slade in the midfield than Faz. Slade is no great shakes yet at 12, but he doesn't look like a malfunctioning automaton. And their defences are both questionable at the moment at 12, for differing reasons.
Not unfair, although I reserve the right to criticise anyone and everyone in a backline that is producing as little as England's is at the moment. No-one involved in such toothless performances deserves to be marked up ahead of anyone else.
Mikey Brown wrote:With LCD being out is Blamire trusted/good enough at this level? Is he still an apprentice or is he actually there on merit?
I'd've thought this question answered in the autumn - Blamire was trusted to come off the bench all three games. Probably a good chance for him to get some game-time, as he's certainly not getting it at Newcastle.
Puja wrote:
Slade's capability of passing is light years ahead; he's not showed a choice of passing this 6N that's better than Farrell's shown. What's he done in attack this 6N?
Puja
To start with, you have criticised Smith's approach to doing it himself....and in a misfiring team.....and now criticise Slade for not producing magic moments ....seems a tad harsh--- and tbh, I think we've looked more fluid in midfield if creating little (and as said before, there's a balance issue in our 3/4's, compounded by Smiths desire to do too much), and against Italy there were some very nice moves going left to right lead by Slade which Faz couldn't do as well, being as he can't pass far to the right. So I'd say Slade can do all Faz can do as a distributor, but better (and when did Faz do anything in attack that makes you go wow, specifically when moving to the right). We saw in the AI's what Slade could do off his left hand given an opportunity and a decent running line from a back coming from depth.
Its a little bald men fighting over a comb, as I would want a runner at 12 by preference; but imo I'd rather Slade in the midfield than Faz. Slade is no great shakes yet at 12, but he doesn't look like a malfunctioning automaton. And their defences are both questionable at the moment at 12, for differing reasons.
Not unfair, although I reserve the right to criticise anyone and everyone in a backline that is producing as little as England's is at the moment. No-one involved in such toothless performances deserves to be marked up ahead of anyone else.
Puja
I certainly agree no-one is above criticism, hence ripping into Slade's defence, our overall toothlessness and poor play generally. But you were making a comparison and I replied- and I don't agree you that you can't mark players up, as one person cannot change all that.
Oakboy wrote:As ever with front row bench cover, you have to prepare for the worst. Blamire for 79 minutes might please Ireland somewhat. What happpened to young thingy at Sale - sometimes not even on the bench?
Langdon? There was Ashman as well but he opted for Scotland.
Blamire looks like he has the potential to be an exceptional hooker very much in the Jamie George style. Feel a bit for McGuigan who is regularly excellent but not given a look in.
32nd Man wrote:I reckon Slade and Marchant outside Smith or Ford can work at International level, but it needs genuine pace / power wingers outside it to stretch the defence and create gaps.
If the opposition know they can be narrow to choke up space as they will be able to get across to touchline a Norwell type, then you pretty much have to have a Manu type. If their scared they won't be able to cover across due to the pace of a May or Watson, or the size and power of a Cokanasinga, then your more balanced runner passers have a chance.
If you can get a blend of it across the back line, you can threaten everywhere. I think probably the perfect archetype for England under Eddie was probably the back line for the 57-15 game against Ireland in the World Cup warmup. Slight over-simplification possible, but from 9 outwards we broadly speaking had 2 playmakers, 2 power carriers and 2 flyers. It's easier to get round a line if you compress it, it's easier to breach a line if you stretch, and if you can do both the game is much easier. Currently, we've no real pace in the back three, and no direct threat in midfield, which to me explains a lot as to why we're struggling so badly to score tries.
Oakboy wrote:As ever with front row bench cover, you have to prepare for the worst. Blamire for 79 minutes might please Ireland somewhat. What happpened to young thingy at Sale - sometimes not even on the bench?
Langdon? There was Ashman as well but he opted for Scotland.
Blamire looks like he has the potential to be an exceptional hooker very much in the Jamie George style. Feel a bit for McGuigan who is regularly excellent but not given a look in.
Langdon, that's the guy. He looked pretty useful a while back.
I commented on McGuigan recently when the commentary team from BT was praising him. I've not seen him much but what I have seen impressed me. I wonder how such selections work in terms of club/country communication. Over-ruling somebody as experienced as Richards (in terms of which is the better of two hookers) seems strange. Agreeing on an apprenticeship taste in camp for a few years' time is not the same as giving the 'club reserve' international game time ahead of the first choice man.
32nd Man wrote:I reckon Slade and Marchant outside Smith or Ford can work at International level, but it needs genuine pace / power wingers outside it to stretch the defence and create gaps.
If the opposition know they can be narrow to choke up space as they will be able to get across to touchline a Norwell type, then you pretty much have to have a Manu type. If their scared they won't be able to cover across due to the pace of a May or Watson, or the size and power of a Cokanasinga, then your more balanced runner passers have a chance.
If you can get a blend of it across the back line, you can threaten everywhere. I think probably the perfect archetype for England under Eddie was probably the back line for the 57-15 game against Ireland in the World Cup warmup. Slight over-simplification possible, but from 9 outwards we broadly speaking had 2 playmakers, 2 power carriers and 2 flyers. It's easier to get round a line if you compress it, it's easier to breach a line if you stretch, and if you can do both the game is much easier. Currently, we've no real pace in the back three, and no direct threat in midfield, which to me explains a lot as to why we're struggling so badly to score tries.
Completely agree
...well yes. But you need the players to do that. Our real problem is runners who worry defences are in short supply and/or injured. I also think two 'playmakers' is great, but not if you sacrifice something else (as we have for years; I'd take a runner who can pass- ridiculous, I know- over a playmaker who can't run, any day). Its runners who hold defences.
(that backline was Youngs, Ford, May, Faz, Manu, Coka, Daly)
Tom Moore wrote:
If you can get a blend of it across the back line, you can threaten everywhere. I think probably the perfect archetype for England under Eddie was probably the back line for the 57-15 game against Ireland in the World Cup warmup. Slight over-simplification possible, but from 9 outwards we broadly speaking had 2 playmakers, 2 power carriers and 2 flyers. It's easier to get round a line if you compress it, it's easier to breach a line if you stretch, and if you can do both the game is much easier. Currently, we've no real pace in the back three, and no direct threat in midfield, which to me explains a lot as to why we're struggling so badly to score tries.
Completely agree
...well yes. But you need the players to do that. Our real problem is runners who worry defences are in short supply and/or injured. I also think two 'playmakers' is great, but not if you sacrifice something else (as we have for years; I'd take a runner who can pass- ridiculous, I know- over a playmaker who can't run, any day). Its runners who hold defences.
(that backline was Youngs, Ford, May, Faz, Manu, Coka, Daly)
Yeah definitely runners are in short supply or injured. But … why not put Daly on wing (where he has track record of worrying defenses) and what about that crazy quick kid that played once, looked amazing, made one daft pass, and then got dropped?
Tom Moore wrote:
If you can get a blend of it across the back line, you can threaten everywhere. I think probably the perfect archetype for England under Eddie was probably the back line for the 57-15 game against Ireland in the World Cup warmup. Slight over-simplification possible, but from 9 outwards we broadly speaking had 2 playmakers, 2 power carriers and 2 flyers. It's easier to get round a line if you compress it, it's easier to breach a line if you stretch, and if you can do both the game is much easier. Currently, we've no real pace in the back three, and no direct threat in midfield, which to me explains a lot as to why we're struggling so badly to score tries.
Completely agree
...well yes. But you need the players to do that. Our real problem is runners who worry defences are in short supply and/or injured. I also think two 'playmakers' is great, but not if you sacrifice something else (as we have for years; I'd take a runner who can pass- ridiculous, I know- over a playmaker who can't run, any day). Its runners who hold defences.
(that backline was Youngs, Ford, May, Faz, Manu, Coka, Daly)
Yeah, agree on the playmaker point, definitely don't want to be sacrificing a runner. Somebody like Umaga strikes me as a potential half-way house at 12, decent enough ball in hand (although I wouldn't want him solely running the attack) but more dangerous running than passing. Kyle Eastmond similarly.
...well yes. But you need the players to do that. Our real problem is runners who worry defences are in short supply and/or injured. I also think two 'playmakers' is great, but not if you sacrifice something else (as we have for years; I'd take a runner who can pass- ridiculous, I know- over a playmaker who can't run, any day). Its runners who hold defences.
(that backline was Youngs, Ford, May, Faz, Manu, Coka, Daly)
Yeah definitely runners are in short supply or injured. But … why not put Daly on wing (where he has track record of worrying defenses) and what about that crazy quick kid that played once, looked amazing, made one daft pass, and then got dropped?
On Daly yes- tired of saying it. Radwan? defence.....
...well yes. But you need the players to do that. Our real problem is runners who worry defences are in short supply and/or injured. I also think two 'playmakers' is great, but not if you sacrifice something else (as we have for years; I'd take a runner who can pass- ridiculous, I know- over a playmaker who can't run, any day). Its runners who hold defences.
(that backline was Youngs, Ford, May, Faz, Manu, Coka, Daly)
Yeah, agree on the playmaker point, definitely don't want to be sacrificing a runner. Somebody like Umaga strikes me as a potential half-way house at 12, decent enough ball in hand (although I wouldn't want him solely running the attack) but more dangerous running than passing. Kyle Eastmond similarly.
...well yes. But you need the players to do that. Our real problem is runners who worry defences are in short supply and/or injured. I also think two 'playmakers' is great, but not if you sacrifice something else (as we have for years; I'd take a runner who can pass- ridiculous, I know- over a playmaker who can't run, any day). Its runners who hold defences.
(that backline was Youngs, Ford, May, Faz, Manu, Coka, Daly)
Yeah, agree on the playmaker point, definitely don't want to be sacrificing a runner. Somebody like Umaga strikes me as a potential half-way house at 12, decent enough ball in hand (although I wouldn't want him solely running the attack) but more dangerous running than passing. Kyle Eastmond similarly.
Sorry - are you really suggesting Umaga or the retired Kyle Eastmond at 12?
Banquo wrote:
...well yes. But you need the players to do that. Our real problem is runners who worry defences are in short supply and/or injured. I also think two 'playmakers' is great, but not if you sacrifice something else (as we have for years; I'd take a runner who can pass- ridiculous, I know- over a playmaker who can't run, any day). Its runners who hold defences.
(that backline was Youngs, Ford, May, Faz, Manu, Coka, Daly)
Yeah definitely runners are in short supply or injured. But … why not put Daly on wing (where he has track record of worrying defenses) and what about that crazy quick kid that played once, looked amazing, made one daft pass, and then got dropped?
On Daly yes- tired of saying it. Radwan? defence.....
Is his defense that bad? Haven’t seen enough of him to judge. But it was good to see someone who in attack looked scary. Seems like that’s where our lack is atm
Banquo wrote:
...well yes. But you need the players to do that. Our real problem is runners who worry defences are in short supply and/or injured. I also think two 'playmakers' is great, but not if you sacrifice something else (as we have for years; I'd take a runner who can pass- ridiculous, I know- over a playmaker who can't run, any day). Its runners who hold defences.
(that backline was Youngs, Ford, May, Faz, Manu, Coka, Daly)
Yeah, agree on the playmaker point, definitely don't want to be sacrificing a runner. Somebody like Umaga strikes me as a potential half-way house at 12, decent enough ball in hand (although I wouldn't want him solely running the attack) but more dangerous running than passing. Kyle Eastmond similarly.
Sorry - are you really suggesting Umaga or the retired Kyle Eastmond at 12?
Given the choice, I’ll take the retired Kyle Eastmond.
badback wrote:
Yeah definitely runners are in short supply or injured. But … why not put Daly on wing (where he has track record of worrying defenses) and what about that crazy quick kid that played once, looked amazing, made one daft pass, and then got dropped?
On Daly yes- tired of saying it. Radwan? defence.....
Is his defense that bad? Haven’t seen enough of him to judge. But it was good to see someone who in attack looked scary. Seems like that’s where our lack is atm
Scary against USA, Tonga, and Canada. I'm not convinced he's actually international quality at the top level.
