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.
But can he be trusted to defend in that channel/system?
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.
He’s had two playmakers for a while and one all the time. They just aren’t being used. We actually need quick ball and good runners who can handle in midfield as a start point. Andre the giant is the perfect foil sadly
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.
But can he be trusted to defend in that channel/system?
And round and round we go.
No idea until you try, and let’s face it, Slade can’t.
Doggedly sticking to systems with players who can’t execute would appear to be the definition of madness.
Banquo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 11:03 am
Agreed, or actually give him a run in his best position.
But can he be trusted to defend in that channel/system?
And round and round we go.
No idea until you try, and let’s face it, Slade can’t.
Doggedly sticking to systems with players who can’t execute would appear to be the definition of madness.
Like having a fullback that can’t catch a high ball…
Seriously though I wasn’t meaning to say we shouldn’t try him there, more that it feels Slade has somehow become our indispensable defensive fulcrum. Everything seems to hinge on how you balance a midfield around him, even though we’re seemingly not seeing either his distribution or defensive skills.
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
Exactly. The question then comes...what do we actually do at 12? As Severely Blindsided doesn't seem to have any plan except for forcing a crash ball 12. Actually, we haven't had any clue except that in years.
IMO, you either play Slade there, and screw the consequences, or play Dingwall. Not much other choice. Then who is the 13? Marchant would be ideal...but I guess we therefore go for, who? One of the Quins? Freeman at 13?
That could be an option...
JvP
Smith
Sleightholme
Slade
Freeman
Murley
Furbank
….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.
He’s had two playmakers for a while and one all the time. They just aren’t being used. We actually need quick ball and good runners who can handle in midfield as a start point. Andre the giant is the perfect foil sadly
When Quins won the league Smith had Big Andre as you say but he's not a great playmaker just better than your normal big focal point. Paired with Marchant at 13 and Tyrone Green at 15 that's three guys in the backline that could be used to release the outside backs. With Marchant going, Green being injured and now Andre out the door Quins haven't been quite as effective. Still good mind.
Feels like we should have something similar for England with Slade and Furbank but either Smith doesn't trust them, the system doesn't give them enough responsibility or they aren't performing. I'd guess it's a bit of all three.
Captainhaircut wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 10:41 am
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.
It was me who criticised him and I did because it’s just so negative and defeatist, plus it shows a lack of thinking outside the spreadsheet. How about you adapt to the rules with your first choice team rather than just regressing to a player you ditched 8 months ago. Going back to SA, their wingers are relative midgets yet they’re still playing despite being targeted. Im not suggesting Furbank is on the same level as a player but he is as integral to our attack as SA’s wingers are to theirs. As I hinted at, would Erasmus concede like that or think his way round it? I’d guess at the former. As Banquo said, SA rotate as they want to, because they have the players to do it, not because of external factors.
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.
He’s had two playmakers for a while and one all the time. They just aren’t being used. We actually need quick ball and good runners who can handle in midfield as a start point. Andre the giant is the perfect foil sadly
When Quins won the league Smith had Big Andre as you say but he's not a great playmaker just better than your normal big focal point. Paired with Marchant at 13 and Tyrone Green at 15 that's three guys in the backline that could be used to release the outside backs. With Marchant going, Green being injured and now Andre out the door Quins haven't been quite as effective. Still good mind.
Feels like we should have something similar for England with Slade and Furbank but either Smith doesn't trust them, the system doesn't give them enough responsibility or they aren't performing. I'd guess it's a bit of all three.
I like Furbank, I do. But at the pace of international rugby, he just seems to mistime things too often. Either hitting the line too early and taking a ball to the face multiple times...not hitting his man, taking the wrong option in defense...The problem is: what's the solution?
We've got ourselves into a situation where the options are limited. We could go after Green for England...we could convert Smith to FB, and forget about the fact his defensive positioning there is pretty poor...or we could play one of the kids who aren't playing week in week out. So we're stuck with 2 FBs who both seem just below the standard for international rugby.
It's really odd, because we do produce players in other positions, but then we always end up with 2-3 positions on the pitch where there are no good options available.
But can he be trusted to defend in that channel/system?
And round and round we go.
No idea until you try, and let’s face it, Slade can’t.
Doggedly sticking to systems with players who can’t execute would appear to be the definition of madness.
Like having a fullback that can’t catch a high ball…
Well yes, I'm just saying you need you likely need to either make your mind up, or train for two systems or whatever.
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.
It was me who criticised him and I did because it’s just so negative and defeatist, plus it shows a lack of thinking outside the spreadsheet. How about you adapt to the rules with your first choice team rather than just regressing to a player you ditched 8 months ago. Going back to SA, their wingers are relative midgets yet they’re still playing despite being targeted. Im not suggesting Furbank is on the same level as a player but he is as integral to our attack as SA’s wingers are to theirs. As I hinted at, would Erasmus concede like that or think his way round it? I’d guess at the former. As Banquo said, SA rotate as they want to, because they have the players to do it, not because of external factors.
Rassie switched to a more passing game Vs England because he suspected Borthwick would use Freeman and Steward to dominate the aerial contest (didn't he predict the Steward selection in an interview?). The Boks played phases and went with Libbok at 10 to get the backline moving and try to get past the edge of the England blitz (we've looked dodgy when teams have got outside the 13 this Autumn) and then Fassi at 15 who's a better and more solid option defensively.
Didn't go for Pollard at 10 and le Roux at 15 which would have given him game management and a playmaker at fullback because that selection suits the Boks best when they are dominating the kicking battle. Like they did Vs Scotland.
Horses for courses.
Furbank looked integral to England in the 6Ns and the summer. He's looked barely present so far this Autumn and has struggled under the new rules.
Banquo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 11:12 am
He’s had two playmakers for a while and one all the time. They just aren’t being used. We actually need quick ball and good runners who can handle in midfield as a start point. Andre the giant is the perfect foil sadly
When Quins won the league Smith had Big Andre as you say but he's not a great playmaker just better than your normal big focal point. Paired with Marchant at 13 and Tyrone Green at 15 that's three guys in the backline that could be used to release the outside backs. With Marchant going, Green being injured and now Andre out the door Quins haven't been quite as effective. Still good mind.
Feels like we should have something similar for England with Slade and Furbank but either Smith doesn't trust them, the system doesn't give them enough responsibility or they aren't performing. I'd guess it's a bit of all three.
I like Furbank, I do. But at the pace of international rugby, he just seems to mistime things too often. Either hitting the line too early and taking a ball to the face multiple times...not hitting his man, taking the wrong option in defense...The problem is: what's the solution?
We've got ourselves into a situation where the options are limited. We could go after Green for England...we could convert Smith to FB, and forget about the fact his defensive positioning there is pretty poor...or we could play one of the kids who aren't playing week in week out. So we're stuck with 2 FBs who both seem just below the standard for international rugby.
It's really odd, because we do produce players in other positions, but then we always end up with 2-3 positions on the pitch where there are no good options available.
I think Furbank and Steward are both young enough to kick on again. Furbank took a bit step forward last summer before breaking into the England team again and Steward has started this season in much better form than last season. Steward is still only 23.
Wigglesworth has a lot of questions to answer, there's options for him and good enough options as we've seen the England attack look better than this, this calendar year. Lozowski could come in for Slade and play the blitz role as well as be an alternate playmaker (he played 10 on loan in France for Montpellier). There's options.
Mellsblue wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 11:37 am
It was me who criticised him and I did because it’s just so negative and defeatist, plus it shows a lack of thinking outside the spreadsheet. How about you adapt to the rules with your first choice team rather than just regressing to a player you ditched 8 months ago. Going back to SA, their wingers are relative midgets yet they’re still playing despite being targeted. Im not suggesting Furbank is on the same level as a player but he is as integral to our attack as SA’s wingers are to theirs. As I hinted at, would Erasmus concede like that or think his way round it? I’d guess at the former. As Banquo said, SA rotate as they want to, because they have the players to do it, not because of external factors.
Sticking with Furbank is the sensible route for the future, IMO. Horses for courses has its place. Steward at 15 maybe should have been accompanied by Spencer at 9 and Ford at 10 with a rigid, tight game plan based on kicking. JvP and Marcus were almost a contradiction in terms with choosing Steward.
Are the players just confused now?
Assuming that Japan are not a major threat (not that I think that), there must be a case for SB simply picking what he thinks is the best XV with it playing his favourite way in attack and defence. Is it really the time for HIM to experiment?
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.
He’s had two playmakers for a while and one all the time. They just aren’t being used. We actually need quick ball and good runners who can handle in midfield as a start point. Andre the giant is the perfect foil sadly
When Quins won the league Smith had Big Andre as you say but he's not a great playmaker just better than your normal big focal point. Paired with Marchant at 13 and Tyrone Green at 15 that's three guys in the backline that could be used to release the outside backs. With Marchant going, Green being injured and now Andre out the door Quins haven't been quite as effective. Still good mind.
Feels like we should have something similar for England with Slade and Furbank but either Smith doesn't trust them, the system doesn't give them enough responsibility or they aren't performing. I'd guess it's a bit of all three.
big Andre can actually threaten and hold as well as distribute- he'd be ideal for us ; Marchant is a threatening pacy runner and a good enough handler I guess (standard for a centre you'd think). Must admit I saw Green as more runner than distributor but hey. In order to release the outside backs, you have to be able to hold the defence, and suspect that's at least one of our issues- playmakers are no use unless someone is doing or threatening to do that; but even before that, you can have as many playmakers as you want, but if the ball is sh*t and slow...
Personally, as above, Marcus needs a 12 in his ear to keep him honest and offer a running threat/straighten it all up; else marcus forces the play, often laterally. Sometimes it works for him as an individual....
Banquo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 10:55 am
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.
It was me who criticised him and I did because it’s just so negative and defeatist, plus it shows a lack of thinking outside the spreadsheet. How about you adapt to the rules with your first choice team rather than just regressing to a player you ditched 8 months ago. Going back to SA, their wingers are relative midgets yet they’re still playing despite being targeted. Im not suggesting Furbank is on the same level as a player but he is as integral to our attack as SA’s wingers are to theirs. As I hinted at, would Erasmus concede like that or think his way round it? I’d guess at the former. As Banquo said, SA rotate as they want to, because they have the players to do it, not because of external factors.
Horses for courses.
which -again- you can do, with their pack (s), )and to some extent with two midfields); that said, I thought Libbok and Fassi were a bit ropy tbh, and SA were average most of the match; maybe because of so much change game to game. But they are developing on the back of being serial winners, with a default to smash up front when it gets tight.
Mellsblue wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 11:37 am
It was me who criticised him and I did because it’s just so negative and defeatist, plus it shows a lack of thinking outside the spreadsheet. How about you adapt to the rules with your first choice team rather than just regressing to a player you ditched 8 months ago. Going back to SA, their wingers are relative midgets yet they’re still playing despite being targeted. Im not suggesting Furbank is on the same level as a player but he is as integral to our attack as SA’s wingers are to theirs. As I hinted at, would Erasmus concede like that or think his way round it? I’d guess at the former. As Banquo said, SA rotate as they want to, because they have the players to do it, not because of external factors.
Banquo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 10:55 am
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.
It was me who criticised him and I did because it’s just so negative and defeatist, plus it shows a lack of thinking outside the spreadsheet. How about you adapt to the rules with your first choice team rather than just regressing to a player you ditched 8 months ago. Going back to SA, their wingers are relative midgets yet they’re still playing despite being targeted. Im not suggesting Furbank is on the same level as a player but he is as integral to our attack as SA’s wingers are to theirs. As I hinted at, would Erasmus concede like that or think his way round it? I’d guess at the former. As Banquo said, SA rotate as they want to, because they have the players to do it, not because of external factors.
Rassie switched to a more passing game Vs England because he suspected Borthwick would use Freeman and Steward to dominate the aerial contest (didn't he predict the Steward selection in an interview?). The Boks played phases and went with Libbok at 10 to get the backline moving and try to get past the edge of the England blitz (we've looked dodgy when teams have got outside the 13 this Autumn) and then Fassi at 15 who's a better and more solid option defensively.
Didn't go for Pollard at 10 and le Roux at 15 which would have given him game management and a playmaker at fullback because that selection suits the Boks best when they are dominating the kicking battle. Like they did Vs Scotland.
Horses for courses.
Furbank looked integral to England in the 6Ns and the summer. He's looked barely present so far this Autumn and has struggled under the new rules.
Horses for courses, sure, (albeit I think it’s more giving all the horses a gallop knowing they’d still win) but not a big structural change due to external reasons forcing your hand.
Furbank has looked barely present but he’s not suddenly regressed as a player it’s just the coaches haven’t thought of a way round the new laws. Has any other coaching setup moaned about the law change or had their attack so completely neutered*.
It was me who criticised him and I did because it’s just so negative and defeatist, plus it shows a lack of thinking outside the spreadsheet. How about you adapt to the rules with your first choice team rather than just regressing to a player you ditched 8 months ago. Going back to SA, their wingers are relative midgets yet they’re still playing despite being targeted. Im not suggesting Furbank is on the same level as a player but he is as integral to our attack as SA’s wingers are to theirs. As I hinted at, would Erasmus concede like that or think his way round it? I’d guess at the former. As Banquo said, SA rotate as they want to, because they have the players to do it, not because of external factors.
Horses for courses.
which -again- you can do, with their pack (s), )and to some extent with two midfields); that said, I thought Libbok and Fassi were a bit ropy tbh, and SA were average most of the match; maybe because of so much change game to game. But they are developing on the back of being serial winners, with a default to smash up front when it gets tight.
Mellsblue wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 11:37 am
It was me who criticised him and I did because it’s just so negative and defeatist, plus it shows a lack of thinking outside the spreadsheet. How about you adapt to the rules with your first choice team rather than just regressing to a player you ditched 8 months ago. Going back to SA, their wingers are relative midgets yet they’re still playing despite being targeted. Im not suggesting Furbank is on the same level as a player but he is as integral to our attack as SA’s wingers are to theirs. As I hinted at, would Erasmus concede like that or think his way round it? I’d guess at the former. As Banquo said, SA rotate as they want to, because they have the players to do it, not because of external factors.
It was me who criticised him and I did because it’s just so negative and defeatist, plus it shows a lack of thinking outside the spreadsheet. How about you adapt to the rules with your first choice team rather than just regressing to a player you ditched 8 months ago. Going back to SA, their wingers are relative midgets yet they’re still playing despite being targeted. Im not suggesting Furbank is on the same level as a player but he is as integral to our attack as SA’s wingers are to theirs. As I hinted at, would Erasmus concede like that or think his way round it? I’d guess at the former. As Banquo said, SA rotate as they want to, because they have the players to do it, not because of external factors.
Rassie switched to a more passing game Vs England because he suspected Borthwick would use Freeman and Steward to dominate the aerial contest (didn't he predict the Steward selection in an interview?). The Boks played phases and went with Libbok at 10 to get the backline moving and try to get past the edge of the England blitz (we've looked dodgy when teams have got outside the 13 this Autumn) and then Fassi at 15 who's a better and more solid option defensively.
Didn't go for Pollard at 10 and le Roux at 15 which would have given him game management and a playmaker at fullback because that selection suits the Boks best when they are dominating the kicking battle. Like they did Vs Scotland.
Horses for courses.
Furbank looked integral to England in the 6Ns and the summer. He's looked barely present so far this Autumn and has struggled under the new rules.
Horses for courses, sure, (albeit I think it’s more giving all the horses a gallop knowing they’d still win) but not a big structural change due to external reasons forcing your hand.
Furbank has looked barely present but he’s not suddenly regressed as a player it’s just the coaches haven’t thought of a way round the new laws. Has any other coaching setup moaned about the law change or had their attack so completely neutered*.
*Rhetorical question.
Wigglesworth only moaned about after he saw his preferred counter attacking option fail to cope well with it. Furbank hasn't regressed as a player but his form this season hasn't been as good as it was last year.
Banquo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 11:12 am
He’s had two playmakers for a while and one all the time. They just aren’t being used. We actually need quick ball and good runners who can handle in midfield as a start point. Andre the giant is the perfect foil sadly
When Quins won the league Smith had Big Andre as you say but he's not a great playmaker just better than your normal big focal point. Paired with Marchant at 13 and Tyrone Green at 15 that's three guys in the backline that could be used to release the outside backs. With Marchant going, Green being injured and now Andre out the door Quins haven't been quite as effective. Still good mind.
Feels like we should have something similar for England with Slade and Furbank but either Smith doesn't trust them, the system doesn't give them enough responsibility or they aren't performing. I'd guess it's a bit of all three.
big Andre can actually threaten and hold as well as distribute- he'd be ideal for us ; Marchant is a threatening pacy runner and a good enough handler I guess (standard for a centre you'd think). Must admit I saw Green as more runner than distributor but hey. In order to release the outside backs, you have to be able to hold the defence, and suspect that's at least one of our issues- playmakers are no use unless someone is doing or threatening to do that; but even before that, you can have as many playmakers as you want, but if the ball is sh*t and slow...
Personally, as above, Marcus needs a 12 in his ear to keep him honest and offer a running threat/straighten it all up; else marcus forces the play, often laterally. Sometimes it works for him as an individual....
Green played a lot at 10 in youth rugby. He has the distribution skills, it's just that he's such a strong runner, it'd be crazy not to use that.
When Quins won the league Smith had Big Andre as you say but he's not a great playmaker just better than your normal big focal point. Paired with Marchant at 13 and Tyrone Green at 15 that's three guys in the backline that could be used to release the outside backs. With Marchant going, Green being injured and now Andre out the door Quins haven't been quite as effective. Still good mind.
Feels like we should have something similar for England with Slade and Furbank but either Smith doesn't trust them, the system doesn't give them enough responsibility or they aren't performing. I'd guess it's a bit of all three.
big Andre can actually threaten and hold as well as distribute- he'd be ideal for us ; Marchant is a threatening pacy runner and a good enough handler I guess (standard for a centre you'd think). Must admit I saw Green as more runner than distributor but hey. In order to release the outside backs, you have to be able to hold the defence, and suspect that's at least one of our issues- playmakers are no use unless someone is doing or threatening to do that; but even before that, you can have as many playmakers as you want, but if the ball is sh*t and slow...
Personally, as above, Marcus needs a 12 in his ear to keep him honest and offer a running threat/straighten it all up; else marcus forces the play, often laterally. Sometimes it works for him as an individual....
Green played a lot at 10 in youth rugby. He has the distribution skills, it's just that he's such a strong runner, it'd be crazy not to use that.
That was in SA I assume?
Mind, its a bit of an odd one to debate, I'd think all pro backs should be able to do all pro back things, like running, passing, catching, kicking and tackling
Banquo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 11:53 am
big Andre can actually threaten and hold as well as distribute- he'd be ideal for us ; Marchant is a threatening pacy runner and a good enough handler I guess (standard for a centre you'd think). Must admit I saw Green as more runner than distributor but hey. In order to release the outside backs, you have to be able to hold the defence, and suspect that's at least one of our issues- playmakers are no use unless someone is doing or threatening to do that; but even before that, you can have as many playmakers as you want, but if the ball is sh*t and slow...
Personally, as above, Marcus needs a 12 in his ear to keep him honest and offer a running threat/straighten it all up; else marcus forces the play, often laterally. Sometimes it works for him as an individual....
Green played a lot at 10 in youth rugby. He has the distribution skills, it's just that he's such a strong runner, it'd be crazy not to use that.
That was in SA I assume?
Mind, its a bit of an odd one to debate, I'd think all pro backs should be able to do all pro back things, like running, passing, catching, kicking and tackling
The next thing you'll be saying is that international coaches should know what they are doing!
Banquo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 11:53 am
big Andre can actually threaten and hold as well as distribute- he'd be ideal for us ; Marchant is a threatening pacy runner and a good enough handler I guess (standard for a centre you'd think). Must admit I saw Green as more runner than distributor but hey. In order to release the outside backs, you have to be able to hold the defence, and suspect that's at least one of our issues- playmakers are no use unless someone is doing or threatening to do that; but even before that, you can have as many playmakers as you want, but if the ball is sh*t and slow...
Personally, as above, Marcus needs a 12 in his ear to keep him honest and offer a running threat/straighten it all up; else marcus forces the play, often laterally. Sometimes it works for him as an individual....
Green played a lot at 10 in youth rugby. He has the distribution skills, it's just that he's such a strong runner, it'd be crazy not to use that.
That was in SA I assume?
Mind, its a bit of an odd one to debate, I'd think all pro backs should be able to do all pro back things, like running, passing, catching, kicking and tackling
When Quins won the league Smith had Big Andre as you say but he's not a great playmaker just better than your normal big focal point. Paired with Marchant at 13 and Tyrone Green at 15 that's three guys in the backline that could be used to release the outside backs. With Marchant going, Green being injured and now Andre out the door Quins haven't been quite as effective. Still good mind.
Feels like we should have something similar for England with Slade and Furbank but either Smith doesn't trust them, the system doesn't give them enough responsibility or they aren't performing. I'd guess it's a bit of all three.
big Andre can actually threaten and hold as well as distribute- he'd be ideal for us ; Marchant is a threatening pacy runner and a good enough handler I guess (standard for a centre you'd think). Must admit I saw Green as more runner than distributor but hey. In order to release the outside backs, you have to be able to hold the defence, and suspect that's at least one of our issues- playmakers are no use unless someone is doing or threatening to do that; but even before that, you can have as many playmakers as you want, but if the ball is sh*t and slow...
Personally, as above, Marcus needs a 12 in his ear to keep him honest and offer a running threat/straighten it all up; else marcus forces the play, often laterally. Sometimes it works for him as an individual....
Green played a lot at 10 in youth rugby. He has the distribution skills, it's just that he's such a strong runner, it'd be crazy not to use that.
.