England vs Canada - Sat 10th July

[Banquo]

No love for Itoje at 8 it seems

Good reminder. Someone also suggested Simon Shaw at 8 a while ago.

Here’s the killer- Sam Burgess at 12. Or Monye as a British Lion at 15.

[fivepointer]

I'm still hopeful the Ben Earl at 12 experiment is just around the corner.

[FKAS]

I just said that . But to give Slade a hard time somewhat misses the point- the problem is faz at 12 if you want Slade to do his stuff. He does a job for England, but to expect him to suddenly get quicker and more elusive or become bigger is nuts. And as before, I'm not a Slade fan especially, but it seems utterly pointless giving him a hard time, other than when he's making individual errors (which he seems to have reduced). If you have Faz at 12, FFS, then there has to be a runner at 13....JJ or Marchant or Lawrence or Daly or POC or Dingwall or.....

Just move Anthony Watson into 13. Fast, strong, good feet, good footballer, intelligent etc. Give him a few weeks to learn the defence. It's not really as daft as it first sounds. Plenty of top players in the past have alternated wing and midfield - George North being probably the latest example. He would have been on the Lions tour if he hadn't been crocked.

Hmm. Watson has never remotely struck me as a 13 tbh; North is a more physical player and does a decent job of running it up, but you wouldn't say either of the them would be setting other players free. Takes more than 'a few weeks to learn defence'- North has been bobbing in and out of 13 for a couple of years, and only this season looked remotely the part.
A few have made a successful transition from wing to 13, Umaga would be a notable, but I wouldn't say as many as do it the other way round (Duckham Davies, Daly...)....could be wrong of course.

Watson Vs any powerful outside centre would be a car crash. 13 is a very difficult channel to defend as we saw with North getting caught out in the 6N but using his pace and power to cover across. Watson with significantly less power and experience would have a miserable time. Watson is at home on the wing for England best to leave him there and pick one of Manu, Joseph, Marchant or Lawrence at 13. Of course it's Eddie so get ready for Marcus Smith at 13 this Autumn.

[Digby]

No love for Itoje at 8 it seems

Good reminder. Someone also suggested Simon Shaw at 8 a while ago.

Here’s the killer- Sam Burgess at 12. Or Monye as a British Lion at 15.

The Sam Burgess at 12 continues to annoy me so much because the thinking is still so prevalent, that some of the forwards technical work is a mystery which can only be slowly unravelled with years of secret training with witches and wizards, but if you can stand in the right channel at 12 and 13 before the ball comes into play you're good to go. And of course because he had talent, it was just never applied in useful fashion. Of course with some of the more recent reports on the lad I can't say I'm too saddened he's not an ambassador for rugby

[Digby]

And of course seeing as it happened to George Ford it'd be a shame to have no attention on Marcus Smith to 9

[Puja]

No love for Itoje at 8 it seems

Good reminder. Someone also suggested Simon Shaw at 8 a while ago.

Here’s the killer- Sam Burgess at 12. Or Monye as a British Lion at 15.

The Sam Burgess at 12 continues to annoy me so much because the thinking is still so prevalent, that some of the forwards technical work is a mystery which can only be slowly unravelled with years of secret training with witches and wizards, but if you can stand in the right channel at 12 and 13 before the ball comes into play you're good to go. And of course because he had talent, it was just never applied in useful fashion. Of course with some of the more recent reports on the lad I can't say I'm too saddened he's not an ambassador for rugby

Indeed. And the flip side of that was equally annoying, which is the idea that there's glory and style to be had in the backs and the forwards are just unglamorous graft and toil (and even more infuriating that [redacted] thought, and was proven right, that he could swan in and pick what he wanted). He could've been an incredible 6/8 if he'd had a smaller ego/hadn't been enabled by Burt and Farrell and concentrated on being good at that.

Mind, like you say, we probably got off lightly not having him part of our game for longer than a sabbatical.

Puja

[morepork]

If he stayed it would have been fingers up anuses willy nilly.

[Banquo]

Just move Anthony Watson into 13. Fast, strong, good feet, good footballer, intelligent etc. Give him a few weeks to learn the defence. It's not really as daft as it first sounds. Plenty of top players in the past have alternated wing and midfield - George North being probably the latest example. He would have been on the Lions tour if he hadn't been crocked.

Hmm. Watson has never remotely struck me as a 13 tbh; North is a more physical player and does a decent job of running it up, but you wouldn't say either of the them would be setting other players free. Takes more than 'a few weeks to learn defence'- North has been bobbing in and out of 13 for a couple of years, and only this season looked remotely the part.
A few have made a successful transition from wing to 13, Umaga would be a notable, but I wouldn't say as many as do it the other way round (Duckham Davies, Daly...)....could be wrong of course.

Watson Vs any powerful outside centre would be a car crash. 13 is a very difficult channel to defend as we saw with North getting caught out in the 6N but using his pace and power to cover across. Watson with significantly less power and experience would have a miserable time. Watson is at home on the wing for England best to leave him there and pick one of Manu, Joseph, Marchant or Lawrence at 13. Of course it's Eddie so get ready for Marcus Smith at 13 this Autumn.

Well yes as per my original response, though it’d be less about being opposite a big lad at 13, more about reading the attack and making the right decision.

[FKAS]

Hmm. Watson has never remotely struck me as a 13 tbh; North is a more physical player and does a decent job of running it up, but you wouldn't say either of the them would be setting other players free. Takes more than 'a few weeks to learn defence'- North has been bobbing in and out of 13 for a couple of years, and only this season looked remotely the part.
A few have made a successful transition from wing to 13, Umaga would be a notable, but I wouldn't say as many as do it the other way round (Duckham Davies, Daly...)....could be wrong of course.

Watson Vs any powerful outside centre would be a car crash. 13 is a very difficult channel to defend as we saw with North getting caught out in the 6N but using his pace and power to cover across. Watson with significantly less power and experience would have a miserable time. Watson is at home on the wing for England best to leave him there and pick one of Manu, Joseph, Marchant or Lawrence at 13. Of course it's Eddie so get ready for Marcus Smith at 13 this Autumn.

Well yes as per my original response, though it’d be less about being opposite a big lad at 13, more about reading the attack and making the right decision.

Less about big and more about power. You can use speed to cover for positional errors, as seen with North, but not good powerful international 13 is going to b dragged down by an out of position Watson using his pace to cover. Nor any other sub 15 stone winger either. Too much opportunity to burst past an unset tackle and be away.

[Scrumhead]

Why are we even talking about positional changes?

It might be a fanciful idea, but I’d just like to see 15 players in their best positions and a sensible 5:3 bench.

13 is the worst place to play under England’s recent gameplan. Hard to tell whether that will change as the attack evolves, but for the most part, any 13 playing alongside the Ford/Farrell axis who isn’t called Manu Tuilagi, has seen very little of the ball and has mostly been used to chase kicks and defend.

I really don’t understand why would we even vaguely contemplate wasting one of our most dangerous wingers there?

In the event that the attack significantly improves, I still wouldn’t be looking at someone to play out of position when we have several, very good options who are actually 13s by trade.

I’m a massive fan of Marchant and I’d like to see him given a proper chance. Not sure how realistic that is though, given his lack of meaningful action over the past couple of weeks.

It’ll be interesting to see where Daly lines up for Saracens. Looking at their squad, I’m assuming it’ll be at 13. He’s always said it’s his preferred position and we all know Eddie is a fan. That could turn up the heat on Slade a bit who mostly flatters to deceive at test level IMO.

[Digby]

I’m a massive fan of Marchant and I’d like to see him given a proper chance. .

If proper chance means being part of an attack actually giving them a chance to do something rather more ball in hand I just wonder why we wouldn't look at Slade first. Actually I'm not entirely sure why we ever stopped looking at JJ, but his inclusion seems a distant thing now

And any which way Manu remains the elephant in the room

[Puja]

I’m a massive fan of Marchant and I’d like to see him given a proper chance. .

If proper chance means being part of an attack actually giving them a chance to do something rather more ball in hand I just wonder why we wouldn't look at Slade first. Actually I'm not entirely sure why we ever stopped looking at JJ, but his inclusion seems a distant thing now

And any which way Manu remains the elephant in the room

1) Marchant has been in coruscating form domestically, compared to Slade who's been okay-to-meh of late.
2) Slade just played two games at 13 outside an attacking fly-half, against crap opposition, with a licence to play. That's an awfully good chance that no-one else has yet received.
3) Slade has also now had 38 games, in quite a few of which we've been very good. Given enough opportunities, you stop being able to use the inside backs as an excuse.

To flip it around, why *would* we look at Slade first?

Puja

[jngf]

Simply put, Marchant runs with the ball. He might not work outside Ford and Farrell, but he picks good lines, has a decent step, and acquits himself well in physical contact. England don't need the vision or passing range of Slade at 13 right now - they need a weapon, not another wielder.

Puja

Such things apply to JJ, and he wasn't a roaring success outside of F&F.

Wasn't he? I seem to remember him doing a very good job during the initial period of success in 2016-17.

Puja

I could see sense in bringing back JJ in place of Slade rather than giving him an occasional cameo outing on the wing where he’s wasted tbh Slade is just not enough of an attack runner at 13 for my liking. However, his playmaking skills for me make him better at 15 or 12 - regardless of how he works in Exeter system which as for Sam Simmonds plays in very different way to England under Jones

[jngf]

No love for Itoje at 8 it seems

What a bloody good idea!

[Scrumhead]

I’m a massive fan of Marchant and I’d like to see him given a proper chance. .

If proper chance means being part of an attack actually giving them a chance to do something rather more ball in hand I just wonder why we wouldn't look at Slade first. Actually I'm not entirely sure why we ever stopped looking at JJ, but his inclusion seems a distant thing now

And any which way Manu remains the elephant in the room

1) Marchant has been in coruscating form domestically, compared to Slade who's been okay-to-meh of late.
2) Slade just played two games at 13 outside an attacking fly-half, against crap opposition, with a licence to play. That's an awfully good chance that no-one else has yet received.
3) Slade has also now had 38 games, in quite a few of which we've been very good. Given enough opportunities, you stop being able to use the inside backs as an excuse.

To flip it around, why *would* we look at Slade first?

Puja

Pretty much my thinking.

Also worth mentioning that Marchant comprehensively outplayed Slade in their most recent head to head.

Marchant also has an excellent aerial game which isn’t insignificant if kicking continues to be a big part of our ‘attack’.

[jngf]

I’d nutshell it by saying Slade looks a bit too stodgy an option at 13 at test level - shades of late stage Tindall?

[Scrumhead]

It really depends on your definition of ‘stodgy’.

I think a more accurate description would be ‘inconsistent’. He’s had some good games for England, but not as many as he should have given his ability.

At this point in his career, he is experienced at the highest level, but that doesn’t really show itself in the way he plays for England - at least not often enough to justify the regularity of his starts.

[Digby]

1) Domestic form is a consideration but not a major one. Much more a thing for those swayed by the last game shown on TV than actually a thing.
2) Slade is already on 40 odd caps, which is a much, much bigger thing

I'm not overly perturbed by the notion of starting Marchant. I just wouldn't start with that given a choice. I remember going back a few years wanting Cips rather than Ford, but once Ford had picked up a decent number of caps that's much harder to just ignore, you make your bed with who you cap to no small degree. Of course new players will still come in, but form doesn't look much of a reason to drop a starter unless we're looking at an utter implosion of a game, demonstrably having more ability is a reason, demonstrably having more potential is a potential reason depending on what else is going on in a team's development

[Puja]

1) Domestic form is a consideration but not a major one. Much more a thing for those swayed by the last game shown on TV than actually a thing.
2) Slade is already on 40 odd caps, which is a much, much bigger thing

I'm not overly perturbed by the notion of starting Marchant. I just wouldn't start with that given a choice. I remember going back a few years wanting Cips rather than Ford, but once Ford had picked up a decent number of caps that's much harder to just ignore, you make your bed with who you cap to no small degree. Of course new players will still come in, but form doesn't look much of a reason to drop a starter unless we're looking at an utter implosion of a game, demonstrably having more ability is a reason, demonstrably having more potential is a potential reason depending on what else is going on in a team's development

I did enjoy the subtle implication that people disagreeing with you are shallow fools "swayed by the last game shown on TV". Nice neg.

For Marchant, he's been consistently excellent for a while now, including his sojourn in New Zealand. Domestic form might not be the be-all and end-all, but if you have two players playing in the same league and one is vastly outperforming the other, it seems illogical to expect the one being outperformed to be superior at international level. Some players do manage it - Ma'a Nonu being the classic example, but Slade hasn't got a history of form at international level to fall back on either.

I take your point about the experience that Slade has, but to me that damns him even more. He should have been a leader against US and Canada with that kind of experience, not anonymous. We're two years out from the RWC - now is the time to twist if an option isn't performing, not stick with the aim of getting a 60 cap average player.

Puja

[Scrumhead]

Yep. The justification for picking Slade seems to have been that would offer experience to an otherwise callow back line (two debutants and three players picking up their second caps). I don’t recall him doing anything of note or looking like he was taking a leadership role.

We were unlikely to learn anything new about Slade and if anything, we learned that he continues to be a bit of an empty shirt and didn’t make any obvious step-up to guide the inexperienced players around him. Ultimately, it was a waste of two caps that could have been far more valuable to Marchant’s development IMO.

[Scrumhead]

In other news, I see Ludlow has been cited. No real surprise there - Muay Thai moves aren’t generally allowed in rugby …

The players’ reaction when he scored (before it was disallowed), was a good indication of his popularity, but I don’t really see what he’s bringing to the England set-up. Against Canada, the only moments of any real note were the weak tackle on their scrum half for their first try and a yellow that should have been a red and ultimately led to their second try.

A couple of games as captain is a nice reward for an honest trier but I’d be quite happy not to see him in England shirt again.

[fivepointer]

Maybe Slade was doing that invaluable unseen work?

Or maybe it was a waste of time giving him a couple of games when Lawrence or Marchant should have been given starts at 13.

He's a talent but I dont think his play for England make him a guaranteed starter and looking at alternatives wouldnt have been the worst thing to do.

[Digby]

1) Domestic form is a consideration but not a major one. Much more a thing for those swayed by the last game shown on TV than actually a thing.
2) Slade is already on 40 odd caps, which is a much, much bigger thing

I'm not overly perturbed by the notion of starting Marchant. I just wouldn't start with that given a choice. I remember going back a few years wanting Cips rather than Ford, but once Ford had picked up a decent number of caps that's much harder to just ignore, you make your bed with who you cap to no small degree. Of course new players will still come in, but form doesn't look much of a reason to drop a starter unless we're looking at an utter implosion of a game, demonstrably having more ability is a reason, demonstrably having more potential is a potential reason depending on what else is going on in a team's development

I did enjoy the subtle implication that people disagreeing with you are shallow fools "swayed by the last game shown on TV". Nice neg.

For Marchant, he's been consistently excellent for a while now, including his sojourn in New Zealand. Domestic form might not be the be-all and end-all, but if you have two players playing in the same league and one is vastly outperforming the other, it seems illogical to expect the one being outperformed to be superior at international level. Some players do manage it - Ma'a Nonu being the classic example, but Slade hasn't got a history of form at international level to fall back on either.

I take your point about the experience that Slade has, but to me that damns him even more. He should have been a leader against US and Canada with that kind of experience, not anonymous. We're two years out from the RWC - now is the time to twist if an option isn't performing, not stick with the aim of getting a 60 cap average player.

Puja

But why isn't he performing? And at what?

His defence is much improved, and mostly we haven't supplied attacking ball to the 13 period, so nobody but Manu or a comparable power/pace option is going to have a chance to look good. Maybe Marchant's feet are so blisteringly good he'd control games off little attacking ball not just as Slade hasn't but as JJ couldn't either. For me Marchant looks good, but not that good he's obviously a much better player to Slade and to JJ and would thus add significant value even whilst stripping out a chunk of experience.

And as to your implication people disagreeing with me makes them shallow fools I would take some issue. Yes I lean on the side of thinking everyone is a fecking retard, but that includes me and I don't hold to the idea that disagreeing with me makes someone wrong, I was more specific that considering domestic form is something of a fool's errand, which leaves all manner of ways in which people could disagree and be correct. But for sure people do covet that which they see, still more so when it's from a team they support, and they're far too quick to overlook things like experience.

[Digby]

Yep. The justification for picking Slade seems to have been that would offer experience to an otherwise callow back line (two debutants and three players picking up their second caps). I don’t recall him doing anything of note or looking like he was taking a leadership role.

We were unlikely to learn anything new about Slade and if anything, we learned that he continues to be a bit of an empty shirt and didn’t make any obvious step-up to guide the inexperienced players around him. Ultimately, it was a waste of two caps that could have been far more valuable to Marchant’s development IMO.

If Marchant had developed by playing the USA or Canada he's coming off a very low standard. Whether selected or not those games are essentially an irrelevance

[Mikey Brown]

But where does the buck stop? Obviously Eddie is perfect, so why aren't we able to get more out of whoever is at 13? I understand your point that disrupting a fairly settled team, to bring in someone who only might be an improvement, isn't always wise, but how many players can a team continue to keep on board because of experience/cohesion if they aren't regularly putting in good performances?

I'm genuinely curious if EJ simply thinks nothing at all of the relative domestic form of guys like Mako, Billy, Farrell, Slade vs Marchant etc. How many players can a side carry at once, retaining their spots due to fitting in the particular setup, before questioning the setup itself?

The logic of that last bit about Marchant playing against Canada seems very strange to me. It can't be entirely about integrating in to the system, yet also pointless for him to actually get a bit of time playing within it, even against poor opposition.