Team for Japan

[Banquo]

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.

Like Brad Barritt .

Puja

played 10 for the Sharks dontcha know

[pjm1]

It's interesting reading all of the comments and thoughts. I've reflected on this over the course of this week and it's fair to say being an international (Tier 1) coach is a bloody tough job! But on the flip side, there are also some things you definitely can't get away with... so if you remove the non-starters, what you're left with on the table represent the only viable options. I would have thought:

• Tactical coherence is key - design the way(s) you want your team to play and make sure you have the cattle selected to deliver
• Selection is about trades: consistency vs form vs tactical approach (for that one game) vs experience (historical and incremental gained in this match) - there is rarely a perfect answer
• International tactics do need to be different or at least tailored vs club - speed of game, ferocity of defence and accuracy are all higher. Exploiting deficiencies is a less reliable approach at the top level
• Rock, paper, scissors - no one approach is best, but you can deploy tactics to better your opponent's if you predict correctly how they'll play. Assuming you have the cattle, again
• Adaptability is an asset! Being able to deviate from the plan (and know when to), without breaking things is a big bonus and players/captains who can muster this are worth their weight in gold, rather than waiting for water carriers, half time talks etc.
• Culture is crucial, especially long-term. That extra 1-2% that can separate W vs L is discretionary effort: belief in what you're working towards, why and overall cohesion as a group.
• Media will always blow things out of proportion (as will we). You're not as good as they say and not as bad either. However, they'll be more understanding if you explain your plan (without giving opposition coaches too much)
• Platitudes are worse than meaningless. They erode goodwill and can even be disingenuous. Brutal honesty (and owning it) will get far more from everyone

Simply Blundering is failing, IMO, on many of the above. And in particular, doesn't seem to have a plan to help our players deal with the increased intensity of international level, versus club. Our ruck performance, centres effectiveness and over reliance on Magic Marcus just feels like we're not respecting the step up at this level.

The lack of apparent internal consistency with what he actually wants us to achieve in a game is inexplicable. Why does he insist on contrasting styles of player that interact in their roles (SH, FH for example)? If he could explain why he's doing this shit, might get him more latitude!

Stuttering Blowhard cannot convey (to me) the grand strategy and why we should believe the next games after this one will be better. For me, that's why I'm becoming less interested in watching as each game goes by.

[Oakboy]

The game is not a sell-out, I read, on the same day that the RFU announce big losses.

[Mellsblue]

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.

Well, as he moaned only after a slight change in the laws denuded his entire attack I’ll cut him some slack. Fark me, it’s test rugby not primary school.
Quite possibly but then so have Northampton as a whole. Again, if the coaches can’t think their way around a tweak in the laws then I struggle to blame the player. I might buy this excuse if the rest of the backline were functioning but…

[FKAS]

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.

Well, as he moaned only after a slight change in the laws denuded his entire attack I’ll cut him some slack. Fark me, it’s test rugby not primary school.
Quite possibly but then so have Northampton as a whole. Again, if the coaches can’t think their way around a tweak in the laws then I struggle to blame the player. I might buy this excuse if the rest of the backline were functioning but…

It's been a fairly chunky change in the laws. Changes the whole kicking battle and much for the better, actually makes it a contest. They should have made the change earlier.

Wigglesworth's attack has been largely missing since the summer though.

[Banquo]

It's interesting reading all of the comments and thoughts. I've reflected on this over the course of this week and it's fair to say being an international (Tier 1) coach is a bloody tough job! But on the flip side, there are also some things you definitely can't get away with... so if you remove the non-starters, what you're left with on the table represent the only viable options. I would have thought:

• Tactical coherence is key - design the way(s) you want your team to play and make sure you have the cattle selected to deliver
• Selection is about trades: consistency vs form vs tactical approach (for that one game) vs experience (historical and incremental gained in this match) - there is rarely a perfect answer
• International tactics do need to be different or at least tailored vs club - speed of game, ferocity of defence and accuracy are all higher. Exploiting deficiencies is a less reliable approach at the top level
• Rock, paper, scissors - no one approach is best, but you can deploy tactics to better your opponent's if you predict correctly how they'll play. Assuming you have the cattle, again
• Adaptability is an asset! Being able to deviate from the plan (and know when to), without breaking things is a big bonus and players/captains who can muster this are worth their weight in gold, rather than waiting for water carriers, half time talks etc.
• Culture is crucial, especially long-term. That extra 1-2% that can separate W vs L is discretionary effort: belief in what you're working towards, why and overall cohesion as a group.
• Media will always blow things out of proportion (as will we). You're not as good as they say and not as bad either. However, they'll be more understanding if you explain your plan (without giving opposition coaches too much)
• Platitudes are worse than meaningless. They erode goodwill and can even be disingenuous. Brutal honesty (and owning it) will get far more from everyone

Simply Blundering is failing, IMO, on many of the above. And in particular, doesn't seem to have a plan to help our players deal with the increased intensity of international level, versus club. Our ruck performance, centres effectiveness and over reliance on Magic Marcus just feels like we're not respecting the step up at this level.

The lack of apparent internal consistency with what he actually wants us to achieve in a game is inexplicable. Why does he insist on contrasting styles of player that interact in their roles (SH, FH for example)? If he could explain why he's doing this shit, might get him more latitude!

Stuttering Blowhard cannot convey (to me) the grand strategy and why we should believe the next games after this one will be better. For me, that's why I'm becoming less interested in watching as each game goes by.

[Mellsblue]

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.

Well, as he moaned only after a slight change in the laws denuded his entire attack I’ll cut him some slack. Fark me, it’s test rugby not primary school.
Quite possibly but then so have Northampton as a whole. Again, if the coaches can’t think their way around a tweak in the laws then I struggle to blame the player. I might buy this excuse if the rest of the backline were functioning but…

It's been a fairly chunky change in the laws. Changes the whole kicking battle and much for the better, actually makes it a contest. They should have made the change earlier.

Wigglesworth's attack has been largely missing since the summer though.

I suppose it’s a matter of opinion on whether it’s ‘chunky’ and definitely whether it’s chunky enough to abandon such a key player (in that system and style wise, not lauding him as the next Christian Cullen).

I wouldn’t say missing. More as never arrived.

[Oakboy]

Well, as he moaned only after a slight change in the laws denuded his entire attack I’ll cut him some slack. Fark me, it’s test rugby not primary school.
Quite possibly but then so have Northampton as a whole. Again, if the coaches can’t think their way around a tweak in the laws then I struggle to blame the player. I might buy this excuse if the rest of the backline were functioning but…

It's been a fairly chunky change in the laws. Changes the whole kicking battle and much for the better, actually makes it a contest. They should have made the change earlier.

Wigglesworth's attack has been largely missing since the summer though.

I suppose it’s a matter of opinion on whether it’s ‘chunky’ and definitely whether it’s chunky enough to abandon such a key player (in that system and style wise, not lauding him as the next Christian Cullen).

I wouldn’t say missing. More as never arrived.

Careful, Puja will be after you. How dare you imply that Superlatively Bright has promoted a lemon to be his No 2? Isn't he where all the best ideas come from . . .

[jngf]

The game is not a sell-out, I read, on the same day that the RFU announce big losses.

Due to Eddy’s golden handshake?

[Banquo]

The game is not a sell-out, I read, on the same day that the RFU announce big losses.

They always lose money in world cup years, which this will cover. -£32m was last I heard, v budgeted loss of £38m.

[Mikey Brown]

Stupid RFU giving Eddie Jones a £40 million payout. Naive stuff.

[Spiffy]

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....

England should do the bleedin obvious and convert IFW to 12. A very powerful runner for a man of his size and difficult to bring down. His speed and footwork would be a bonus. You know it makes sense. Think hard about it before you scoff.

[Banquo]

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....

England should do the bleedin obvious and convert IFW to 12. A very powerful runner for a man of his size and difficult to bring down. His speed and footwork would be a bonus. You know it makes sense. Think hard about it before you scoff.

thought hard.

[Captainhaircut]

Been thinking about this- with the new kicking rules, surely we just need to pick the best kick chasers we have in our backline?

Mitchell
Ford
Steward
IFW
muir
Roebuck
Freeman

Fairly certain IFW played 13 in his youth and we all know Steward is a 12. Fancy we should probably pick Englefield on the bench covering 9 and 10 and then use Earl to cover centre. Then we can go 7-1 on the bench and just go big pack, kick the shit out of the ball strategy.

[Puja]

Been thinking about this- with the new kicking rules, surely we just need to pick the best kick chasers we have in our backline?

Mitchell
Ford
Steward
IFW
muir
Roebuck
Freeman

Fairly certain IFW played 13 in his youth and we all know Steward is a 12. Fancy we should probably pick Englefield on the bench covering 9 and 10 and then use Earl to cover centre. Then we can go 7-1 on the bench and just go big pack, kick the shit out of the ball strategy.

Cool. Whose pack are we gonna borrow for that?

Puja

[Captainhaircut]

Been thinking about this- with the new kicking rules, surely we just need to pick the best kick chasers we have in our backline?

Mitchell
Ford
Steward
IFW
muir
Roebuck
Freeman

Fairly certain IFW played 13 in his youth and we all know Steward is a 12. Fancy we should probably pick Englefield on the bench covering 9 and 10 and then use Earl to cover centre. Then we can go 7-1 on the bench and just go big pack, kick the shit out of the ball strategy.

Cool. Whose pack are we gonna borrow for that?

Puja

I just sorted the backline. Someone else can sort the pack.

[Danno]

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....

England should do the bleedin obvious and convert IFW to 12. A very powerful runner for a man of his size and difficult to bring down. His speed and footwork would be a bonus. You know it makes sense. Think hard about it before you scoff.

Had to check who was posting this more than once

[FKAS]

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....

England should do the bleedin obvious and convert IFW to 12. A very powerful runner for a man of his size and difficult to bring down. His speed and footwork would be a bonus. You know it makes sense. Think hard about it before you scoff.

Had to check who was posting this more than once

We can almost field an entire backline of players we should convert to 12.

[p/d]

It’s all coming together. Lawrence and Slade pushed out wide, whilst IFW links with Freeman in midfield (tough on Steward, but them’s the breaks) and Smith sent back to his club so he can learn how to be a team player.

3 games too late, but we will learn from the experience.

[Danno]

It’s all coming together. Lawrence and Slade pushed out wide, whilst IFW links with Freeman in midfield (tough on Steward, but them’s the breaks) and Smith sent back to his club so he can learn how to be a team player.

3 games too late, but we will learn from the experience.

#Iceman's coming home

[p/d]

It’s all coming together. Lawrence and Slade pushed out wide, whilst IFW links with Freeman in midfield (tough on Steward, but them’s the breaks) and Smith sent back to his club so he can learn how to be a team player.

3 games too late, but we will learn from the experience.

#Iceman's coming home

Fingers crossed. The springboard for Wigglesworth to hone his craft at unlocking defences

[Skalyba]

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.

But Furbank hasn't been an integral part of out attack this series that's the point. With Marcus at 10 he's largely been a passenger and with the new laws Steward makes more sense if you're not going to play a second playmaker (and Steward wasn't 'ditched', he's been in every squad just no longer first choice) - in that circumstance I'd prefer a compromise of Carpenter as I do have issues with Stewards 1:1 defence but you can see the logic v a kicking SA team, he was very solid in the air and provided a bit of go forward most times he gathered. Your argument seems to be 'why dont we have the same player and coach as SA' - they are a generational team, we're just not that

[Oakboy]

DT reporting that O-F will be on bench as LH replacement.

[Mellsblue]

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.

But Furbank hasn't been an integral part of out attack this series that's the point. With Marcus at 10 he's largely been a passenger and with the new laws Steward makes more sense if you're not going to play a second playmaker (and Steward wasn't 'ditched', he's been in every squad just no longer first choice) - in that circumstance I'd prefer a compromise of Carpenter as I do have issues with Stewards 1:1 defence but you can see the logic v a kicking SA team, he was very solid in the air and provided a bit of go forward most times he gathered. Your argument seems to be 'why dont we have the same player and coach as SA' - they are a generational team, we're just not that

We’re obviously agreeing on the point but coming to a different diagnosis. Marcus was at 10 when Furbank came into the 6N to such good effect…
Steward was ditched from the XV and matchday squad which is what we are discussing. He also wasn’t given a central contract whereas Furbank was. Yet another Stunning Blunder.
I picked Carpenter for the XV earlier in this thread and I did opine that Steward may have to come back in given the new laws in the NZ thread during the match so at least we can agree on those
My entire point is that the senior coaching couple aren’t up to it. I’ve been very vocal that we don’t have the players - I don’t expect us to be SA but I do expect us to be better than we are.

[Puja]

DT reporting that O-F will be on bench as LH replacement.

On first glance, I read that as "Owen Farrell will be on the bench, replacing a player with initials LH".

I don't think there were words for my emotional reaction.

Puja