RugbyRebels

Our 10/12 axis does work at times as the shape of the team is specifically set up around having Ford and Farrell. But the question is whether it makes sense to even start to apply the shape we do in attack which lends itself to two passers

If your Eddie and you take it as given that we must have width but consider we don't have the skills or fitness to otherwise put width on our game then at minimum you need the two passers and by far the most experienced are Ford and Farrell

I haven't at any point liked what Eddie has done in attack, not even when it's worked, and it has worked at times

Mind I don’t normally like England's attack, there were some interesting ideas under Johnson but they never stuck with anything and there was plenty of dross also, beyond that we're having to go back to 2001/2002 for our last coherent attack game before Clive started undermining the work Ashton had done

I'm fed up with being fed up about our attack, the only time I'm not fed up is if I manage not to care at all, which actually increasingly I don't, whilst also often wishing I could once again look forward to watching us play

So the only time our attack didn't work was when we won? If I was cips I would be on the first plane to the south of france.

twitchy wrote:So the only time our attack didn't work was when we won? If I was cips I would be on the first plane to the south of france.

After SA rotated their team and we managed to scrape a victory by the luck of an overhit kick slowing up just enough for a lightning winger to catch up with it before going dead (or "a sublime moment of magic from Cipriani" as the pundits would have it). I wouldn't lay too much weight to that win myself.

I don't blame Cipriani himself for the fact that our attack didn't work - he was dropped into a system that had been designed solely for Ford and Farrell, with limited training time, and told that he had to pretend to be Ford. If we were going to pick him, better that we do it without putting shackles on him first.

Puja

twitchy wrote:So the only time our attack didn't work was when we won? If I was cips I would be on the first plane to the south of france.

Serious question - did you watch the games?

To Puja’s point, our win was more to do with SA rotating their team and the conditions as it did with our attacking prowess.

The reason we lost the first two tests were our defence and inability to close out a game after opening up big leads with some very good attacking play.

That was my recollection of events.
Just checked. 1st test we scored 5 tries and conceded 5. 2nd test we scored 2 and conceded 2 (we didnt score after the 12th minute!). 3rd test there was one try apiece in very different conditions.

In the first part of the first test we actually looked very good in attack and scored tries partly as a result. The other part was appalling defending from SA. They pulled themselves together of course after that. I do remember the early giddy feeling though and thinking this won't last.

Does all that lead to the conclusion that Ford/Farrell has more to offer in attack but less in defence than we give them credit for? I can't see it myself but it may be why Jones is rumoured to be planning to start Farrell at 10. After all, was our attacking threat in the 1st two SA matches not largely a case of early width with a dangerous back three able to finish?

Oakboy wrote:Does all that lead to the conclusion that Ford/Farrell has more to offer in attack but less in defence than we give them credit for? I can't see it myself but it may be why Jones is rumoured to be planning to start Farrell at 10. After all, was our attacking threat in the 1st two SA matches not largely a case of early width with a dangerous back three able to finish?

Of course it's dangerous, it has one of the best passers in world rugby, not just England. Dropping him now, when he's in the best club form he's shown for ages, is insanity...but everyone of us is predicting it.

Quite frankly, I've given up on ever seeing Ford given the 10 jersey and kept in it. He's by far our best 10. We're not talking "he may be slightly better than Farrell or Cipriani", we're talking he's a damn good rugby player who would be at 10 for most other international teams.

Oakboy wrote:Does all that lead to the conclusion that Ford/Farrell has more to offer in attack but less in defence than we give them credit for? I can't see it myself but it may be why Jones is rumoured to be planning to start Farrell at 10. After all, was our attacking threat in the 1st two SA matches not largely a case of early width with a dangerous back three able to finish?

It was largely due to having the two lines of attack and using the second pivot to get to the outside. That strategy could be preserved if we went Fazlet, Bosh, Slade, but if we go with the rumoured Farrell, Te'o, Manu, then there'll be no chance of getting to the edge and our back three may as well take the day off.

Puja

I'm pretty sure we all agree that Youngs Farrell Teo Tuilagi is a really poor idea

But, my concerns with Ford / Farrell is they both have (different) defensive issues, and that just means we seem to struggle in many aspects because of them both being picked

I'm perfectly willing to give the Farrell-Te'o-Manu midfield a go. Farrell is a far better 10 than 12, the centres, though of similar style, do have a physical running threat and will get over the gainline. Having centres who attract defenders interests may just free up room for the back 3. Defensively we wont be any worse off.
I'm pretty sure its going to happen in any event and it may not be the very worst option.

Two centres who can't or won't pass is a problem, it has been for us, for Australia, for Wales, and oddly under Schmidt even Ireland seem tempted to confirm the blindingly obvious

fivepointer wrote:I'm perfectly willing to give the Farrell-Te'o-Manu midfield a go. Farrell is a far better 10 than 12, the centres, though of similar style, do have a physical running threat and will get over the gainline. Having centres who attract defenders interests may just free up room for the back 3. Defensively we wont be any worse off.
I'm pretty sure its going to happen in any event and it may not be the very worst option.

How is the ball supposed to get to the back three in that scenario? England's attacking threat has been solely about engaging defences with the forward runners and slipping it out the back to the second playmaker, who reaches the edge and feeds the speed. If we have Bosh 1 and Bosh 2 in the centres, then it will certainly interest the defenders more than our three-passer-no-runner midfield that we put out in SA, but there'll be no way of getting it wide beyond Farrell trying a long pass, which isn't something guaranteed.

Frankly, if we're doing this, we may as well have Ashton, Nowell and Brown as our back three, as they're the best at coming inside and working off the shoulder.

It's changing our entire attacking shape and basing the new one around the idea of both Manu and Te'o being fit at the same time, which is courageous to say the least.

Puja

Puja wrote:

fivepointer wrote:I'm perfectly willing to give the Farrell-Te'o-Manu midfield a go. Farrell is a far better 10 than 12, the centres, though of similar style, do have a physical running threat and will get over the gainline. Having centres who attract defenders interests may just free up room for the back 3. Defensively we wont be any worse off.
I'm pretty sure its going to happen in any event and it may not be the very worst option.

How is the ball supposed to get to the back three in that scenario? England's attacking threat has been solely about engaging defences with the forward runners and slipping it out the back to the second playmaker, who reaches the edge and feeds the speed. If we have Bosh 1 and Bosh 2 in the centres, then it will certainly interest the defenders more than our three-passer-no-runner midfield that we put out in SA, but there'll be no way of getting it wide beyond Farrell trying a long pass, which isn't something guaranteed.

Frankly, if we're doing this, we may as well have Ashton, Nowell and Brown as our back three, as they're the best at coming inside and working off the shoulder.

It's changing our entire attacking shape and basing the new one around the idea of both Manu and Te'o being fit at the same time, which is courageous to say the least.

Puja

May has become very good at coming inside, too. And Daly is excellent, as well. Which is handy as they're our best wings.

On the 2 bosh options...we're going to be leaving all the attacking up to them. They will get the ball in compromised situations - Youngs' speed of thought allied to Farrell's speed of hand - and will inevitably end up in traffic. So we will need to quickly secure our ball, overcompensating in the ruck with our quickest forwards (who exactly, when we may play Shields, Rhodes and Morgan in the backrow). Then we do the same the other way to the other bosh option, who again gets caught in traffic. And again we have to secure the ball.

Meanwhile, just one of those "quicker" forwards is on the floor and we're royally screwed.

If we pick Shields, Rhodes, Morgan, Youngs, Farrell, Teo, Tuilagi I’m buying a Japan jersey.

Mellsblue wrote:If we pick Shields, Rhodes, Morgan, Youngs, Farrell, Teo, Tuilagi I’m buying a Japan jersey.

Why would anyone think it's a good idea to tempt the gods by writing that?

Which Tyler wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:If we pick Shields, Rhodes, Morgan, Youngs, Farrell, Teo, Tuilagi I’m buying a Japan jersey.

Why would anyone think it's a good idea to tempt the gods by writing that?

I was about to write that it could be worse I could’ve written Wigglesworth instead of Youngs but, given current form and that lineup, Wigglesworth might be the better bet.

Is T'eo match-fit enough to come under genuine consideration? He's never been an outstanding IC, IMO, and, if below par to any extent, I think throwing him in against SA could be a disaster. Tuilagi, if fit, on the other hand, is a genuine international OC.

Farrell/T'eo/Tuilagi may theoretically be a hard-tackling trio and they may all threaten in attack physically. However, is there any reason to believe they will form an effective defensive unit?

Puja wrote:

fivepointer wrote:I'm perfectly willing to give the Farrell-Te'o-Manu midfield a go. Farrell is a far better 10 than 12, the centres, though of similar style, do have a physical running threat and will get over the gainline. Having centres who attract defenders interests may just free up room for the back 3. Defensively we wont be any worse off.
I'm pretty sure its going to happen in any event and it may not be the very worst option.

How is the ball supposed to get to the back three in that scenario? England's attacking threat has been solely about engaging defences with the forward runners and slipping it out the back to the second playmaker, who reaches the edge and feeds the speed. If we have Bosh 1 and Bosh 2 in the centres, then it will certainly interest the defenders more than our three-passer-no-runner midfield that we put out in SA, but there'll be no way of getting it wide beyond Farrell trying a long pass, which isn't something guaranteed.

Frankly, if we're doing this, we may as well have Ashton, Nowell and Brown as our back three, as they're the best at coming inside and working off the shoulder.

It's changing our entire attacking shape and basing the new one around the idea of both Manu and Te'o being fit at the same time, which is courageous to say the least.

Puja

Ashton and Nowell fair enough, but add in Daly and you've got the dream team.

Well, maybe not (though i do think Ashton is going to play). But no one seriously wants Farrell at 12 and no one is seriously going to suggest he wont start, so he's going to play 10, which is the position he has been selected to play.

Tuilagi and Te'o arent there to make up the numbers. Tuilagi was always going to be in the mix as soon as he proved his fitness, and Jones has steadfastly persevered with Te'o despite his fitness record. Its not as if Slade has made a cast iron case for retention, while the other option of Lozowski doesnt appear to be on the cards for SA at least.

Which Tyler wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:If we pick Shields, Rhodes, Morgan, Youngs, Farrell, Teo, Tuilagi I’m buying a Japan jersey.

Why would anyone think it's a good idea to tempt the gods by writing that?

What a boon for the game and the world cup were we to lose to Japan, and luckily I already have a Japanese jersey

We always used to advocate the team that we wanted. Jones has killed off our aspirations to a large extent - such that we now just debate what he will do (or the degree of turgidity). It's like having all the flair kicked out of us. It reminds me of 'We Will Rock you' and the suppression of all live music. Or, as the song goes, 'The best thing to look forward to is the past.'


Thank goodness it is nearly 5 o'clock and the drinks cabinet will be open.

No brown or morgan.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/46037489

No Rhodes!!!

Puja

Forwards
Tom Curry (Sale Sharks), Charlie Ewels (Bath Rugby), Jamie George (Saracens), Dylan Hartley (Northampton Saints) co-captain, Alec Hepburn (Exeter Chiefs), Maro Itoje (Saracens), George Kruis (Saracens), Zach Mercer (Bath Rugby), Ben Moon (Exeter Chiefs) , Brad Shields (Wasps), Kyle Sinckler (Harlequins), Elliott Stooke (Bath Rugby), Harry Williams (Exeter Chiefs), Mark Wilson (Newcastle Falcons)

Backs
Chris Ashton (Sale Sharks), Danny Care (Harlequins), Elliot Daly (Wasps), Owen Farrell (Saracens) co-captain, George Ford (Leicester Tigers), Jonny May (Leicester Tigers), Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs), Henry Slade (Exeter Chiefs), Ben Te’o (Worcester Warriors), Manu Tuilagi (Leicester Tigers), Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers).

Mercer, shields and curry I would think. Maro at lock.