RugbyRebels

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote: You'd still find the next coach along would be picking Farrell. No coach hasn't...as it were..

J
2 or 3 years back I would have agreed. Now, I am not so sure. Farrell has not convinced of late. Taking both Saracens' relegation and the 6N 5th place into account, I'm not sure a new head coach would have him on the pedestal that Jones still favours. Even Gatland dumped him. Punditry no longer sees him as bedrock.

Eh? Not sure of the relevence of Sarries relegation? Gatland took him on the last Lions tour, and I don't see McCall dumping him either. I do agree he's no longer the press's golden child tho.

Took the rugby establishment (selectors,pundits and press) long enough to smell the coffee Re Farrell - Eddy may do to Farrell what MJ did to Borthwick once the penny finally dropped ? (i.e. pension him off from test captaincy and future selection)

jngf wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Seems a winner to me. (yes i know he doesnt play there for his club and the one time it was tried with England it failed miserably but you gotta stick with these things sometimes)

The Nowell at 13 bandwagon starts here.

Given Slade is imo a bit slow and stodgy for the test 13 berth but a rather more exciting fit at 12 this band waggon might have some wheels

Slade is annoyingly inconsistent but is neither slow or stodgy.

Perhaps I have a different interpretation of the word ‘stodgy’. To me, that implies that he lacks skill and invention. I’d argue that he’s very skilful and creative but is often guilty of overplaying.

Scrumhead wrote:

jngf wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Seems a winner to me. (yes i know he doesnt play there for his club and the one time it was tried with England it failed miserably but you gotta stick with these things sometimes)

The Nowell at 13 bandwagon starts here.

Given Slade is imo a bit slow and stodgy for the test 13 berth but a rather more exciting fit at 12 this band waggon might have some wheels

Slade is annoyingly inconsistent but is neither slow or stodgy.

Perhaps I have a different interpretation of the word ‘stodgy’. To me, that implies that he lacks skill and invention. I’d argue that he’s very skilful and creative but is often guilty of overplaying.

Just beat me to it. I think Slade is the real deal apart from one or two defensive wobbles. Having said that, I thought he and Marchant at 12/13 just gelled and although it took yet another Tuilagi injury to bring it about, it looked the most comfortably balanced combination to compliment Smith at 10. As spectators we can only guess what is happening on the pitch in terms of communication but as an untried unit if they can gel that well I'd suggest there must me something natural about the fit. Would they have played together much in training?

Did it JUST gel? The try that came from Marchant's break was a variation on a move played earlier, which laid the bait that the saffa d took.

How is it possible for anyone to think that Slade is slow and stodgy?

Timbo wrote:How is it possible for anyone to think that Slade is slow and stodgy?

Welcome to the forum, new user Timbo!

Danno wrote:

Timbo wrote:How is it possible for anyone to think that Slade is slow and stodgy?

Welcome to the forum, new user Timbo!

Reports that Ford has got the call.

thought Jones would have gone for a test match animal

p/d wrote:thought Jones would have gone for a test match animal

an ex-Lion?

Whilst I’m at I’d go for a pack something along lines of:

1.Genge
2.? Is Cowan-Dicke fit or Blamire
3.Sinckler
4.Hill
5.Lawes
6.Curry
7.Simmonds
8.Dombrandt

Uh-huh, uh-huh. That's whatever you were talking about for you

jngf wrote:Whilst I’m at I’d go for a pack something along lines of:

1.Genge
2.? Is Cowan-Dicke fit or Blamire
3.Sinckler
4.Hill
5.Lawes
6.Curry
7.Simmonds
8.Dombrandt

Itoje?

He's still only 6'5" and locks should be 6'6"+.

Mikey Brown wrote:He's still only 6'5" and locks should be 6'6"+.

It’s rather that Itoje’s been a bit off the boil in AIs - and needs to start carrying more

Papers suggesting Ford is coming in as Farrell's replacement.

I mean obviously Ford should be in the squad, but I’m still very curious what balance of 10/12 Farrell runs in training. I would have assumed he was mostly at 12 as that’s where he pretty much always plays for England, but were Furbank/Malins the opposition 10s? I wonder how this changes any potential bench makeup.

I suppose we’d always have wanted centre cover on the bench, but if Ford is at 22 (instead of using Marchant/Malins to cover centre/wing/fullback) that kind of rules out a 6:2 option?

Mikey Brown wrote:I mean obviously Ford should be in the squad, but I’m still very curious what balance of 10/12 Farrell runs in training. I would have assumed he was mostly at 12 as that’s where he pretty much always plays for England, but were Furbank/Malins the opposition 10s? I wonder how this changes any potential bench makeup.

I suppose we’d always have wanted centre cover on the bench, but if Ford is at 22 (instead of using Marchant/Malins to cover centre/wing/fullback) that kind of rules out a 6:2 option?

I training? Surely Bailey was there to have an "opposition" FH

Which Tyler wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:I mean obviously Ford should be in the squad, but I’m still very curious what balance of 10/12 Farrell runs in training. I would have assumed he was mostly at 12 as that’s where he pretty much always plays for England, but were Furbank/Malins the opposition 10s? I wonder how this changes any potential bench makeup.

I suppose we’d always have wanted centre cover on the bench, but if Ford is at 22 (instead of using Marchant/Malins to cover centre/wing/fullback) that kind of rules out a 6:2 option?

I training? Surely Bailey was there to have an "opposition" FH

Ah yes, sorry forgot about him. Not sure it makes anything clearer for me though.

Does Ford now jump ahead in to the 23? I still just don’t understand Jones’s thinking having fly-half cover at 12, an “apprentice” 10 and a couple of utility guys who can cover, then losing a centre and calling up another specialist fly-half.

I understand at the very least wanting another strong voice in the backs now Farrell is gone, and on the face of it it’s great to have a squad with Smith, Ford and Bailey as options, but it feels like he’s still going about everything in a rather bizarre way.

I think you have to call up Ford. If Smith goes down injured early doors Vs Scotland do you want a part time flyhalf up against Russell. Furbank looked passable against Tonga but that won't fly Vs Scotland's defence. Farrell was a safety blanket in case the worst happens. Now Ford is. Ford is, on current form at least, a much superior flyhalf to Farrell but we do lose Farrell's ability to be solid in two positions as opposed to Ford's ability to be good in one.

Youngs, Smith, May, Atkinson, Slade, Marchant, Steward

Quirke, Ford, Malins.

Or

Youngs, Smith, May, Slade, Marchant, Malins, Steward

Quirke, Ford, Atkinson

Would be my guess though if the old 6/2 option comes out Furbank could be at 23 with option 1 backline.

I think Farrell "allowed" Jones to try a 6:2 bench.
Without him we need someone else at 12, and a specialist FH on the bench - which was never going to be Bailey. And we revert (thank gods) to a 5:3 split

Barnes arguing in The Times Ford shouldn't make the 23, losing out to Furbank's versatility at 10/15 (assuming Atkinson at 12 and Slade at 13) and a 6-2 split.

Bit of a silly non sequitur from Barnes. A better solution is Ford in the 22 shirt, with Malins/Marchant competing for 23 (if Atkinson is in line for 12).

FKAS wrote:I think you have to call up Ford. If Smith goes down injured early doors Vs Scotland do you want a part time flyhalf up against Russell. Furbank looked passable against Tonga but that won't fly Vs Scotland's defence. Farrell was a safety blanket in case the worst happens. Now Ford is. Ford is, on current form at least, a much superior flyhalf to Farrell but we do lose Farrell's ability to be solid in two positions as opposed to Ford's ability to be good in one.

Youngs, Smith, May, Atkinson, Slade, Marchant, Steward

Quirke, Ford, Malins.

Or

Youngs, Smith, May, Slade, Marchant, Malins, Steward

Quirke, Ford, Atkinson

Would be my guess though if the old 6/2 option comes out Furbank could be at 23 with option 1 backline.

Your second option is what I'd go for except that I'd have Nowell on the bench instead of Atkinson. I'd not be surprised if Jones picks Nowell to start, mind.

Neh, Ford covering 9/10 so 6:2 back on the table.

Oakboy wrote:

FKAS wrote:I think you have to call up Ford. If Smith goes down injured early doors Vs Scotland do you want a part time flyhalf up against Russell. Furbank looked passable against Tonga but that won't fly Vs Scotland's defence. Farrell was a safety blanket in case the worst happens. Now Ford is. Ford is, on current form at least, a much superior flyhalf to Farrell but we do lose Farrell's ability to be solid in two positions as opposed to Ford's ability to be good in one.

Youngs, Smith, May, Atkinson, Slade, Marchant, Steward

Quirke, Ford, Malins.

Or

Youngs, Smith, May, Slade, Marchant, Malins, Steward

Quirke, Ford, Atkinson

Would be my guess though if the old 6/2 option comes out Furbank could be at 23 with option 1 backline.

Your second option is what I'd go for except that I'd have Nowell on the bench instead of Atkinson. I'd not be surprised if Jones picks Nowell to start, mind.

To be honest I'd forgotten Nowell was in the squad. He'll probably be injured before the games start, he has absolutely no luck with injuries.

May out. Lawes on return to play protocols

Isiekwe and Daly called up.

https://www.englandrugby.com/news/artic ... ions-squad