Team for Japan

[Stom]

Really rate Roebuck, so hope to see him start.
Don’t know too much about Murley apart from he sports a comedy ‘tache

Iike the look of Roebuck too. Gets over the line a bit and is great in the air. He’s a big lad but I don’t know how well/frequently he uses it? Seems to have a decent step.

Would compare him more to Freeman in style, whereas Murley is more like IFW. Scores a lot of tries and is generally just far more physical and abrasive than defenders seem to expect, with a great work rate and awareness of space/support.

That’s very much the role I thought Murley could take for England a couple of seasons back, then he got a bunch of injuries and IFW came from nowhere.

He's a bit like Jack Nowell, if Jack Nowell had pace, handling, and vision...and could tackle...

So nothing like Nowell

[Danno]

Lmao

[Danno]

That's brutal (if fair) Stom

[Oakboy]

The original set-up seemed to be Freeman being required to concentrate on chasing kicks with IFW given a licence to roam. Maybe, there's a case for Freeman being switched to the roaming role to see if it suits. If so, Roebuck for the aerial stuff would make sense.

SB has not made best use of Freeman in the AIs so far. Is it a Saints aversion with Mitchell missing? He has undermined Fin Smith and Furbank too. I suppose Sleightholme and Dingwall may be happier.

[FKAS]

The original set-up seemed to be Freeman being required to concentrate on chasing kicks with IFW given a licence to roam. Maybe, there's a case for Freeman being switched to the roaming role to see if it suits. If so, Roebuck for the aerial stuff would make sense.

SB has not made best use of Freeman in the AIs so far. Is it a Saints aversion with Mitchell missing? He has undermined Fin Smith and Furbank too. I suppose Sleightholme and Dingwall may be happier.

Furbank has been at best mediocre and was dropped before the aerial barrage the Boks were bringing which would have highlighted a weakness demonstrated in the first two games. Fin Smith is third choice and has been selected as thus.

The wings haven't seen much of the ball full stop. Seems down to Smith preferring to play in the first receiver role (where he's looked most dangerous to be fair) but with neither Slade nor Furbank playing particularly well or Smith looking for that link option the wings aren't getting much in the way of passes. Unless they are on the blindside. One for Wigglesworth to sort out, our centres are limited but we've got good wingers, got to get them the ball.

[Danno]

Midfield and the forwards are hardly providing a platform for the back three to see any ball. Kick chase is their best shot

[FKAS]

Midfield and the forwards are hardly providing a platform for the back three to see any ball. Kick chase is their best shot

They don't just have to stand on the touchline getting cold. Hence why I said it's a Wigglesworth problem. Sleightholme and Freeman are both physical enough to carry through the middle and it Steward retains his place then he's bigger than 2/3s of the backrow (Freeman probably is as well).

[Stom]

The original set-up seemed to be Freeman being required to concentrate on chasing kicks with IFW given a licence to roam. Maybe, there's a case for Freeman being switched to the roaming role to see if it suits. If so, Roebuck for the aerial stuff would make sense.

SB has not made best use of Freeman in the AIs so far. Is it a Saints aversion with Mitchell missing? He has undermined Fin Smith and Furbank too. I suppose Sleightholme and Dingwall may be happier.

Furbank has been at best mediocre and was dropped before the aerial barrage the Boks were bringing which would have highlighted a weakness demonstrated in the first two games. Fin Smith is third choice and has been selected as thus.

The wings haven't seen much of the ball full stop. Seems down to Smith preferring to play in the first receiver role (where he's looked most dangerous to be fair) but with neither Slade nor Furbank playing particularly well or Smith looking for that link option the wings aren't getting much in the way of passes. Unless they are on the blindside. One for Wigglesworth to sort out, our centres are limited but we've got good wingers, got to get them the ball.

Sure, because the 10 actually gets to decide the gameplan under Borthwick and Quins' wingers never score tries, do they...

[Oakboy]

Looking at the backs' development in the AIs so far, who has made progress? Which individuals? Which units?

At best, Marcus and IFW as individuals (some might add Sleightholme). None of the three units have prospered. Arguably, the back three has regressed. The centres have not performed. The half backs looked to be moving forward slightly till Spencer fell out of favour.

Why? Lack of decent ball from the back row was a factor in all three games. Style of play was a hindrance for most of the time. Was it all down to the players themselves? Not for me. We missed Mitchell obviously.

I'd argue that getting the backs to look like a coach-believing unit against Japan is more important than giving fringe players game time.

[FKAS]

The original set-up seemed to be Freeman being required to concentrate on chasing kicks with IFW given a licence to roam. Maybe, there's a case for Freeman being switched to the roaming role to see if it suits. If so, Roebuck for the aerial stuff would make sense.

SB has not made best use of Freeman in the AIs so far. Is it a Saints aversion with Mitchell missing? He has undermined Fin Smith and Furbank too. I suppose Sleightholme and Dingwall may be happier.

Furbank has been at best mediocre and was dropped before the aerial barrage the Boks were bringing which would have highlighted a weakness demonstrated in the first two games. Fin Smith is third choice and has been selected as thus.

The wings haven't seen much of the ball full stop. Seems down to Smith preferring to play in the first receiver role (where he's looked most dangerous to be fair) but with neither Slade nor Furbank playing particularly well or Smith looking for that link option the wings aren't getting much in the way of passes. Unless they are on the blindside. One for Wigglesworth to sort out, our centres are limited but we've got good wingers, got to get them the ball.

Sure, because the 10 actually gets to decide the gameplan under Borthwick and Quins' wingers never score tries, do they...

Wasn't a criticism just an observation. Most teams use a secondary playermaker as the first receiver and the flyhalf plays out the back. That doesn't suit Marcus so he's in the front line attacking the gainline (and doing a good job in that role). What Wigglesworth needs to sort is a secondary playermaker that organises the backline and provides an option to go wide that Smith can use when he wants. Slade and/or Furbank should have been offering this.

Quins play a high risk attack which struggles in the big games and would get mullered by international defences so that point is somewhat moot.

[Banquo]

Looking at the backs' development in the AIs so far, who has made progress? Which individuals? Which units?

At best, Marcus and IFW as individuals (some might add Sleightholme). None of the three units have prospered. Arguably, the back three has regressed. The centres have not performed. The half backs looked to be moving forward slightly till Spencer fell out of favour.

Why? Lack of decent ball from the back row was a factor in all three games. Style of play was a hindrance for most of the time. Was it all down to the players themselves? Not for me. We missed Mitchell obviously.

I'd argue that getting the backs to look like a coach-believing unit against Japan is more important than giving fringe players game time.

Just a pedantic note, but lack of quick/good ball isn't just about the back row, esp the more phases you go through; its a host of things....carrying beyond the tackle line (not often), ball presentation (very patchy; watch eg the All Blacks and how skilled they are at this, place in differeny ways depending on situation), whole team awareness at the tackle.
On your other points, Marcus prospers, yet midfield struggles.....reconcile that . Midfield struggles, so expecting back three to progress (even though IFW apparently has) seems a bit at odds with what's happening in front of them; there is the argument about looking for work, esp after a few phases, but are we connected enough to do that.

Where you are correct in inferring (I think) - I don't think Singing Badlyfromnohymsheet has a 'vision' for how we want to play, and I certainly don't think his assistants know how to get the execution of whatever it is we want to do sorted. As always, you are constrained by what you have, players and assistants

[Skalyba]

Looking at the backs' development in the AIs so far, who has made progress? Which individuals? Which units?

At best, Marcus and IFW as individuals (some might add Sleightholme). None of the three units have prospered. Arguably, the back three has regressed. The centres have not performed. The half backs looked to be moving forward slightly till Spencer fell out of favour.

Why? Lack of decent ball from the back row was a factor in all three games. Style of play was a hindrance for most of the time. Was it all down to the players themselves? Not for me. We missed Mitchell obviously.

I'd argue that getting the backs to look like a coach-believing unit against Japan is more important than giving fringe players game time.

Just a pedantic note, but lack of quick/good ball isn't just about the back row, esp the more phases you go through; its a host of things....carrying beyond the tackle line (not often), ball presentation (very patchy; watch eg the All Blacks and how skilled they are at this, place in differeny ways depending on situation), whole team awareness at the tackle.
On your other points, Marcus prospers, yet midfield struggles.....reconcile that . Midfield struggles, so expecting back three to progress (even though IFW apparently has) seems a bit at odds with what's happening in front of them; there is the argument about looking for work, esp after a few phases, but are we connected enough to do that.

Where you are correct in inferring (I think) - I don't think Singing Badlyfromnohymsheet has a 'vision' for how we want to play, and I certainly don't think his assistants know how to get the execution of whatever it is we want to do sorted. As always, you are constrained by what you have, players and assistants

I actually think he does and we've seen that sporadically over the last 12 months. The problem is that it relies on having a Ford type 10 and a playmaking 15. He's given Marcus the opportunity to prove he can fit into that role but all it's done is cause a headache - Marcus has shown he's the best player in the team while simultaneously proving that he can't be the architect of the style we (SB) want to play. We need to make a decision on whether we move Marcus to the bench and bring in a 10 who will move the ball to the outside backs (with the benefit of using Marcus's magic later in the match) or stick with Marcus and go for a less creative/straighter running backline. Either way the centres should be toast.

I'd prefer the former and think that in Ford and Finn we have 2 players that can play that role and then design an impact bench around Marcus

[Oakboy]

I think Marcus is capable of playing in various styles. What we have seen is him trying to be inventive in situations where team-mates have failed to give him the options he needed. The debate about why those options don't occur (i.e. game plan or individual failings) should not be tainted by claiming that Ford or Fin could do better. They could do things differently, it's true, especially Ford.

None of the three can produce dangerous attacking moves without players to pass to at the right time, on the right lines etc.

Certainly, Ford would weaken defence and he would not have the pace to get to places where Marcus is found. He could control patterns better if players responded. Fin might be needed if more credit is given to Saints' methods but probably not without Mitchell at 9.

I think Ford might be the one to turn to if he has the full support and belief of all the players but only if he is made captain and he is adjudged fit enough for 80 minutes. That is unlikely of course.

I'd stick with Marcus.

[Banquo]

Looking at the backs' development in the AIs so far, who has made progress? Which individuals? Which units?

At best, Marcus and IFW as individuals (some might add Sleightholme). None of the three units have prospered. Arguably, the back three has regressed. The centres have not performed. The half backs looked to be moving forward slightly till Spencer fell out of favour.

Why? Lack of decent ball from the back row was a factor in all three games. Style of play was a hindrance for most of the time. Was it all down to the players themselves? Not for me. We missed Mitchell obviously.

I'd argue that getting the backs to look like a coach-believing unit against Japan is more important than giving fringe players game time.

Just a pedantic note, but lack of quick/good ball isn't just about the back row, esp the more phases you go through; its a host of things....carrying beyond the tackle line (not often), ball presentation (very patchy; watch eg the All Blacks and how skilled they are at this, place in differeny ways depending on situation), whole team awareness at the tackle.
On your other points, Marcus prospers, yet midfield struggles.....reconcile that . Midfield struggles, so expecting back three to progress (even though IFW apparently has) seems a bit at odds with what's happening in front of them; there is the argument about looking for work, esp after a few phases, but are we connected enough to do that.

Where you are correct in inferring (I think) - I don't think Singing Badlyfromnohymsheet has a 'vision' for how we want to play, and I certainly don't think his assistants know how to get the execution of whatever it is we want to do sorted. As always, you are constrained by what you have, players and assistants

I actually think he does and we've seen that sporadically over the last 12 months. The problem is that it relies on having a Ford type 10 and a playmaking 15. He's given Marcus the opportunity to prove he can fit into that role but all it's done is cause a headache - Marcus has shown he's the best player in the team while simultaneously proving that he can't be the architect of the style we (SB) want to play. We need to make a decision on whether we move Marcus to the bench and bring in a 10 who will move the ball to the outside backs (with the benefit of using Marcus's magic later in the match) or stick with Marcus and go for a less creative/straighter running backline. Either way the centres should be toast.

I'd prefer the former and think that in Ford and Finn we have 2 players that can play that role and then design an impact bench around Marcus

….even if he has the ‘vision’ it’s a bit blurry ( and switching tween Steward and Furbank twice reflects a lack of conviction.,, which will confuse players) and it’s certainly not being executed. I did mention before on Marcus being simultaneously opportunity and problem. Agreed on centres, tho Marcus forcing every play personally doesn’t help them in timing and space.

[Stom]

Looking at the backs' development in the AIs so far, who has made progress? Which individuals? Which units?

At best, Marcus and IFW as individuals (some might add Sleightholme). None of the three units have prospered. Arguably, the back three has regressed. The centres have not performed. The half backs looked to be moving forward slightly till Spencer fell out of favour.

Why? Lack of decent ball from the back row was a factor in all three games. Style of play was a hindrance for most of the time. Was it all down to the players themselves? Not for me. We missed Mitchell obviously.

I'd argue that getting the backs to look like a coach-believing unit against Japan is more important than giving fringe players game time.

Just a pedantic note, but lack of quick/good ball isn't just about the back row, esp the more phases you go through; its a host of things....carrying beyond the tackle line (not often), ball presentation (very patchy; watch eg the All Blacks and how skilled they are at this, place in differeny ways depending on situation), whole team awareness at the tackle.
On your other points, Marcus prospers, yet midfield struggles.....reconcile that . Midfield struggles, so expecting back three to progress (even though IFW apparently has) seems a bit at odds with what's happening in front of them; there is the argument about looking for work, esp after a few phases, but are we connected enough to do that.

Where you are correct in inferring (I think) - I don't think Singing Badlyfromnohymsheet has a 'vision' for how we want to play, and I certainly don't think his assistants know how to get the execution of whatever it is we want to do sorted. As always, you are constrained by what you have, players and assistants

I'm going to go through this is in order as there are (of course) some great points.

Look at the difference in ball presentation between Lawrence and Murley. I love the way that you can actively see Murley thinking about body position as he's dropping to the deck, and he rarely fails to provide good ball. Compared to Lawrence, who has a terrible habit of getting stuck. Which is a problem, because...

We've previously shown a desire to get through the gainline with a hard carry, then quickly recycle and get the ball wide/to a danger man. The problem at the moment seems to be that we're just not getting quick enough ball after the initial punch up. And that is both Lawrence, and the backrows, especially Earl, who we ask to punch up in that channel a lot and he rarely makes ground. Every time he gets stopped dead, our "backs move" is killed at source, and that is when suddenly Marcus starts going off script...because there is now zero option of the initial plan working.

To me, that means two things:

1) Slow Backsmove DOES have a plan, but it relies on players we do not have available/do not pick. Which makes it a pretty terrible plan.
2) The focus is so much on numbers that we get stuck with players who hit all the right "numbers" but fail to actually produce what we need. Like Earl, who gets through a lot of work, some of it very good, but fails to give us what we need from our 8.

And then we have a collective problem of belief and desire, which is missing.

I'm still going to stick to my original idea, and say that if you replace Earl, Lawrence, and Slade, we would be a better team. I honestly feel like Lawrence is absolutely awful in a white shirt right now.

[Oakboy]

I'm still going to stick to my original idea, and say that if you replace Earl, Lawrence, and Slade, we would be a better team. I honestly feel like Lawrence is absolutely awful in a white shirt right now.

I can't argue with that. From the squad, I'm not sure how we replace Earl unless we move CCS to 8 and play Hill at 6. I'd try Lozowski and Freeman at 12/13.

[Oakboy]

Anybody know why the game is on Sunday, KO 1610? 3rd different start time.

[FKAS]

Just a pedantic note, but lack of quick/good ball isn't just about the back row, esp the more phases you go through; its a host of things....carrying beyond the tackle line (not often), ball presentation (very patchy; watch eg the All Blacks and how skilled they are at this, place in differeny ways depending on situation), whole team awareness at the tackle.
On your other points, Marcus prospers, yet midfield struggles.....reconcile that . Midfield struggles, so expecting back three to progress (even though IFW apparently has) seems a bit at odds with what's happening in front of them; there is the argument about looking for work, esp after a few phases, but are we connected enough to do that.

Where you are correct in inferring (I think) - I don't think Singing Badlyfromnohymsheet has a 'vision' for how we want to play, and I certainly don't think his assistants know how to get the execution of whatever it is we want to do sorted. As always, you are constrained by what you have, players and assistants

I actually think he does and we've seen that sporadically over the last 12 months. The problem is that it relies on having a Ford type 10 and a playmaking 15. He's given Marcus the opportunity to prove he can fit into that role but all it's done is cause a headache - Marcus has shown he's the best player in the team while simultaneously proving that he can't be the architect of the style we (SB) want to play. We need to make a decision on whether we move Marcus to the bench and bring in a 10 who will move the ball to the outside backs (with the benefit of using Marcus's magic later in the match) or stick with Marcus and go for a less creative/straighter running backline. Either way the centres should be toast.

I'd prefer the former and think that in Ford and Finn we have 2 players that can play that role and then design an impact bench around Marcus

….even if he has the ‘vision’ it’s a bit blurry ( and switching tween Steward and Furbank twice reflects a lack of conviction.,, which will confuse players) and it’s certainly not being executed. I did mention before on Marcus being simultaneously opportunity and problem. Agreed on centres, tho Marcus forcing every play personally doesn’t help them in timing and space.

Plenty of coaches select horses for courses. Considering we diffused the Boks kick to compete game it was somewhat of a vindicated selection.

Agree with Marcus, he's got the ability to carve up defences at international level but at 10 unsupported he's going to find that difficult. We need a secondary playmaker somewhere in the backline. There's still the possibility that Marcus at 15 and a Fin/Ford at 10 might work best.

[Captainhaircut]

There’s no world where Borthwick should be criticised for going back to Steward. They can’t the rules of the game ffs. To suggest that won’t change game plans and selection is bizarre.

[Mikey Brown]

There’s no world where Borthwick should be criticised for going back to Steward. They can’t the rules of the game ffs. To suggest that won’t change game plans and selection is bizarre.

Yeah, don’t get this either. SA (who change their team with confidence all the time) have a kicking game that we needed to deal with, and we hadn’t been getting the best out of Furbank in attack. They both need to push eachother to improve on their weak points.

[Banquo]

I actually think he does and we've seen that sporadically over the last 12 months. The problem is that it relies on having a Ford type 10 and a playmaking 15. He's given Marcus the opportunity to prove he can fit into that role but all it's done is cause a headache - Marcus has shown he's the best player in the team while simultaneously proving that he can't be the architect of the style we (SB) want to play. We need to make a decision on whether we move Marcus to the bench and bring in a 10 who will move the ball to the outside backs (with the benefit of using Marcus's magic later in the match) or stick with Marcus and go for a less creative/straighter running backline. Either way the centres should be toast.

I'd prefer the former and think that in Ford and Finn we have 2 players that can play that role and then design an impact bench around Marcus

….even if he has the ‘vision’ it’s a bit blurry ( and switching tween Steward and Furbank twice reflects a lack of conviction.,, which will confuse players) and it’s certainly not being executed. I did mention before on Marcus being simultaneously opportunity and problem. Agreed on centres, tho Marcus forcing every play personally doesn’t help them in timing and space.

Plenty of coaches select horses for courses. Considering we diffused the Boks kick to compete game it was somewhat of a vindicated selection.

Agree with Marcus, he's got the ability to carve up defences at international level but at 10 unsupported he's going to find that difficult. We need a secondary playmaker somewhere in the backline. There's still the possibility that Marcus at 15 and a Fin/Ford at 10 might work best.

I was going to mention horses for courses- not cart horses though . It still needs to ideally be in a similar framework unless you have such depth and access to players to radically change your attacking plan game to game as we did v SA; and whilst it diffused bombs, our attack suffered even more.

[Banquo]

There’s no world where Borthwick should be criticised for going back to Steward. They can’t the rules of the game ffs. To suggest that won’t change game plans and selection is bizarre.

… see earlier note, but if you do that, you have to actually have that game plan rather than whack a mole. And if it’s about law change, change earlier.


Plus wasn’t criticising for going back to Steward per se. It’s the overall context of what’s the plan Steve? Up front it’s not that clear either.

[Banquo]

There’s no world where Borthwick should be criticised for going back to Steward. They can’t the rules of the game ffs. To suggest that won’t change game plans and selection is bizarre.

Yeah, don’t get this either. SA (who change their team with confidence all the time) have a kicking game that we needed to deal with, and we hadn’t been getting the best out of Furbank in attack. They both need to push eachother to improve on their weak points.

Saffers have the luxury of depth to radically change, and are changing in a confident winning team, with a trademark strategy up front. Frankly, the backs can do what they want with the two packs they can field- as evidence by winning games despite starting the pretty poor Hendrickse at 9 a few times.

I can’t see Steward being a playmaker or Furbank dominating the air so it’s a pretty radical departure in attack to change; not saying it’s wrong (horses for courses) but then you need to be able to execute.

[Puja]

I'm still going to stick to my original idea, and say that if you replace Earl, Lawrence, and Slade, we would be a better team. I honestly feel like Lawrence is absolutely awful in a white shirt right now.

I can't argue with that. From the squad, I'm not sure how we replace Earl unless we move CCS to 8 and play Hill at 6. I'd try Lozowski and Freeman at 12/13.

I think we have absolutely screwed Lawrence by asking him to play a role that he's not suited for. He might look big and mean, but he's not a crash ball 12 - his handling at the line isn't good enough, his timing of a short running line isn't good enough, his ball retention in heavy contact isn't good enough, and his ball presentation and riding of contact isn't good enough. We keep being seduced by the fact that, if you send him running into a wall at pace, he'll generally go forward (as long as he catches the bloody thing) - that is a virtue, but it doesn't make him a crash ball centre.

He excels for Bath as a very traditional 13, making outside breaks and using his strength and pace to aim at outside shoulders and gaps between defenders. He's closer to a winger in style than he is to being a crash ball 12.

Send him away from the international level for a year, and maybe bring him back to compete with Marchant/Beard/Freeman as a strike-running 13 when we've got our 12 channel locked down with someone else.

Puja

[Banquo]

I'm still going to stick to my original idea, and say that if you replace Earl, Lawrence, and Slade, we would be a better team. I honestly feel like Lawrence is absolutely awful in a white shirt right now.

I can't argue with that. From the squad, I'm not sure how we replace Earl unless we move CCS to 8 and play Hill at 6. I'd try Lozowski and Freeman at 12/13.

I think we have absolutely screwed Lawrence by asking him to play a role that he's not suited for. He might look big and mean, but he's not a crash ball 12 - his handling at the line isn't good enough, his timing of a short running line isn't good enough, his ball retention in heavy contact isn't good enough, and his ball presentation and riding of contact isn't good enough. We keep being seduced by the fact that, if you send him running into a wall at pace, he'll generally go forward (as long as he catches the bloody thing) - that is a virtue, but it doesn't make him a crash ball centre.

He excels for Bath as a very traditional 13, making outside breaks and using his strength and pace to aim at outside shoulders and gaps between defenders. He's closer to a winger in style than he is to being a crash ball 12.

Send him away from the international level for a year, and maybe bring him back to compete with Marchant/Beard/Freeman as a strike-running 13 when we've got our 12 channel locked down with someone else.

Puja

Agreed, or actually give him a run in his best position.