England Training Squad - Now Featuring Both New and Old Messiahs

[Oakboy]

We are back to square one. Farrell WILL be in the XV. IMO, given that, he should be at 10. It used to be shoe-horning Farrell and Ford in to the team. Now it looks like being Farrell and Smith. Only one of the three should start, so, if Farrell HAS to play, Smith and Ford should not.

[Mikey Brown]

We are back to square one. Farrell WILL be in the XV. IMO, given that, he should be at 10. It used to be shoe-horning Farrell and Ford in to the team. Now it looks like being Farrell and Smith. Only one of the three should start, so, if Farrell HAS to play, Smith and Ford should not.

Well we’re back to square one because you’ve decided we are? It doesn’t do anything in regards to an optimal centre pairing. Can Tuilagi stay fit, can Slade consistently step up as a secondary playmaker/decision-maker, can Merchant nail down a spot given those two points? I’m so bored of this I’m not sure why I responded.

[Scrumhead]

We are back to square one. Farrell WILL be in the XV. IMO, given that, he should be at 10. It used to be shoe-horning Farrell and Ford in to the team. Now it looks like being Farrell and Smith. Only one of the three should start, so, if Farrell HAS to play, Smith and Ford should not.

Well we’re back to square one because you’ve decided we are? It doesn’t do anything in regards to an optimal centre pairing. Can Tuilagi stay fit, can Slade consistently step up as a secondary playmaker/decision-maker, can Merchant nail down a spot given those two points? I’m so bored of this I’m not sure why I responded.

in that case, thanks for doing it for me.

In terms of organisation/cohesion, especially after its absence in the 6N, I just can't see how experimenting with new players has time to work. Debutants often do well initially but then get found out. They need time to fail and recover if they can but at this stage that time is not there. Steward and Malins should be the last on that production line with the former possibly up to nailing a slot and the latter probably not.

Not sure why you’d think Steward posing isn’t up to ‘nailing a slot’. I’d argue he’s already done so.

[32nd Man]

I've just finished watching this.
England for the WC then? I dunno. Squidge does some interesting stuff but it seems a stretch that we're suddenly going to go up a few gears in a comparatively short time and with the personnel available.

Watched it yesterday evening. Whilst he makes a compelling overall case, hidden away inhis rationale for us being able to build on and beat France is a little throw away line about just needing to tighten up discipline.

Yes. Quite.

As if Eddie any day now is going to say to the players that it's time to go to plan a and they can stop giving away braindead penalties.

[32nd Man]

Not sure why you’d think Steward posing isn’t up to ‘nailing a slot’. I’d argue he’s already done so.

Can't help but feel someone is going to be quoted as having a "higher ceiling" here.

[Spiffy]

Outside of Manu could be a goer. Outside of Farrell? Not so much.

Same goes for any outside centre

If we're going with this no structure attack we really need Farrell in there to help organise things. Didn't work well in the 6N and completely fell apart if Smith was tackled. Attack actually looked best in the cameos where Smith and Ford were on at the same time but that's not going to happen from the start of a game.

I think a Manu and A N Other midfield won't help with any of the problems with the current attacking strategy. We either need a secondary playmaker/organiser in there or we need to scrap the philosophy and move on.

Would not hold my breath on Farrell, playing at 12, bringing organization to a "no structure" attack. He has never been a great 12 in his international career to date. And he's playing club rugby regularly at 10, hardly the best preparation. I see his installation as a nailed on inside centre as a step backwards for the England team, especially when it comes to showing some enterprise in attack.

[Mellsblue]

Not sure why you’d think Steward posing isn’t up to ‘nailing a slot’. I’d argue he’s already done so.

Can't help but feel someone is going to be quoted as having a "higher ceiling" here.

Do you think he’s unassailable?

[Banquo]

We are back to square one. Farrell WILL be in the XV. IMO, given that, he should be at 10. It used to be shoe-horning Farrell and Ford in to the team. Now it looks like being Farrell and Smith. Only one of the three should start, so, if Farrell HAS to play, Smith and Ford should not.

Well we’re back to square one because you’ve decided we are? It doesn’t do anything in regards to an optimal centre pairing. Can Tuilagi stay fit, can Slade consistently step up as a secondary playmaker/decision-maker, can Merchant nail down a spot given those two points? I’m so bored of this I’m not sure why I responded.

the reason we are going round in circles is a lack of quality options imo. Making a silk purse from a couple of bits of ply wood is never easy.

[Banquo]

I've just finished watching this.
England for the WC then? I dunno. Squidge does some interesting stuff but it seems a stretch that we're suddenly going to go up a few gears in a comparatively short time and with the personnel available.

they can stop giving away braindead penalties.

Probably the biggest failing of his reign tbh.

[Banquo]

We are back to square one. Farrell WILL be in the XV. IMO, given that, he should be at 10. It used to be shoe-horning Farrell and Ford in to the team. Now it looks like being Farrell and Smith. Only one of the three should start, so, if Farrell HAS to play, Smith and Ford should not.

Well we’re back to square one because you’ve decided we are? It doesn’t do anything in regards to an optimal centre pairing. Can Tuilagi stay fit, can Slade consistently step up as a secondary playmaker/decision-maker, can Merchant nail down a spot given those two points? I’m so bored of this I’m not sure why I responded.

in that case, thanks for doing it for me.

In terms of organisation/cohesion, especially after its absence in the 6N, I just can't see how experimenting with new players has time to work. Debutants often do well initially but then get found out. They need time to fail and recover if they can but at this stage that time is not there. Steward and Malins should be the last on that production line with the former possibly up to nailing a slot and the latter probably not.

Not sure why you’d think Steward posing isn’t up to ‘nailing a slot’. I’d argue he’s already done so.

I like Steward, he's a good old fashioned 15. But for a side lacking x-factor in the backs, he's vulnerable to someone like Arundell (if he is any good under the high ball). But at the mo, Steward is the nailed on 15.

[fivepointer]

We are back to square one. Farrell WILL be in the XV. IMO, given that, he should be at 10. It used to be shoe-horning Farrell and Ford in to the team. Now it looks like being Farrell and Smith. Only one of the three should start, so, if Farrell HAS to play, Smith and Ford should not.

Well we’re back to square one because you’ve decided we are? It doesn’t do anything in regards to an optimal centre pairing. Can Tuilagi stay fit, can Slade consistently step up as a secondary playmaker/decision-maker, can Merchant nail down a spot given those two points? I’m so bored of this I’m not sure why I responded.

the reason we are going round in circles is a lack of quality options imo. Making a silk purse from a couple of bits of ply wood is never easy.

So all roads lead back to Farrell. Which i sort of get if having a second playmaker/organiser is what you want in your backs. If not Farrell, then who? The cupboard isnt exactly groaning with quality 12's and those with an obvious playmaking capacity are....well, somewhat limited.
Jones feels that the play it as you see it attack is the way to go, so he's really got to have someone in the backs who he can trust to get people in the right positions if Smith is out of the play. Farrell isnt there to burst through tackles or produce the magic pass, but to feed players who can make dents or have the pace to get around defences. He has his limitations but you can see where Jones is coming from.

[Banquo]

Same goes for any outside centre

If we're going with this no structure attack we really need Farrell in there to help organise things. Didn't work well in the 6N and completely fell apart if Smith was tackled. Attack actually looked best in the cameos where Smith and Ford were on at the same time but that's not going to happen from the start of a game.

I think a Manu and A N Other midfield won't help with any of the problems with the current attacking strategy. We either need a secondary playmaker/organiser in there or we need to scrap the philosophy and move on.

Would not hold my breath on Farrell, playing at 12, bringing organization to a "no structure" attack. He has never been a great 12 in his international career to date. And he's playing club rugby regularly at 10, hardly the best preparation. I see his installation as a nailed on inside centre as a step backwards for the England team, especially when it comes to showing some enterprise in attack.

Well yes- Faz lacks the sort of vision or instinctive passing to run that sort of attack even as auxiliary. If we want to give up that approach and go structured territory, then he's a more likely choice- could actually use his boot from 12, which is hardly ever used when he plays there.

[Banquo]

Well we’re back to square one because you’ve decided we are? It doesn’t do anything in regards to an optimal centre pairing. Can Tuilagi stay fit, can Slade consistently step up as a secondary playmaker/decision-maker, can Merchant nail down a spot given those two points? I’m so bored of this I’m not sure why I responded.

the reason we are going round in circles is a lack of quality options imo. Making a silk purse from a couple of bits of ply wood is never easy.

So all roads lead back to Farrell. Which i sort of get if having a second playmaker/organiser is what you want in your backs. If not Farrell, then who? The cupboard isnt exactly groaning with quality 12's and those with an obvious playmaking capacity are....well, somewhat limited.
Jones feels that the play it as you see it attack is the way to go, so he's really got to have someone in the backs who he can trust to get people in the right positions if Smith is out of the play. Farrell isnt there to burst through tackles or produce the magic pass, but to feed players who can make dents or have the pace to get around defences. He has his limitations but you can see where Jones is coming from.

Trouble is, Faz is a decent first phase 10, but when play gets looser, his limited natural skills and scanning ability are exposed. So I don't really agree that he is well suited to that sort of game.....Slade, much more so, as its the kind of role he plays for Exeter. If you aren't picking a runner at 12 (who) which manifestly is the best option if Smith plays (see Quins), then why not pick a more instinctive passer and enabler in Slade.

[32nd Man]

Not sure why you’d think Steward posing isn’t up to ‘nailing a slot’. I’d argue he’s already done so.

Can't help but feel someone is going to be quoted as having a "higher ceiling" here.

Do you think he’s unassailable?

I think he's come in and played extremely well for a player without loads of experience.

Would I say he's perfect? No. But I reckon it's a lot easier to take his skillet and develop it, than it is to take players who are maybe better play makers and get them to be able to offer what he does.

Plus, he takes away weapons from a couple of the sides we're going to need to beat at the pointy end of the world Cup, just through his ability to win the ball in the air.

[Mellsblue]

Can't help but feel someone is going to be quoted as having a "higher ceiling" here.

Do you think he’s unassailable?

I think he's come in and played extremely well for a player without loads of experience.

Would I say he's perfect? No. But I reckon it's a lot easier to take his skillet and develop it, than it is to take players who are maybe better play makers and get them to be able to offer what he does.

Plus, he takes away weapons from a couple of the sides we're going to need to beat at the pointy end of the world Cup, just through his ability to win the ball in the air.

Is that a yes or a no?!?
He strikes me as a bigger Mike Brown and he failed to develop beyond the basics. If he can add a step, better hands, better quality on entering the line and a yard of pace he’ll be the complete fullback.

[Scrumhead]

TBH I’m surprised there’s even a debate here. Steward is 21 and immediately looked comfortable at test level. I’m not proclaiming him as a world beater, but he’s got all the attributes to become a mainstay of the side and plenty of time to keep getting better.

To question his place in the side seems odd.

I get that there’s a lot of excitement about Arundell (including from me), but I would 100% be sticking with Steward at 15. If and when Arundell can demonstrate he’s got the defensive capabilities to back up his x-factor in attack, there might be more of a challenge, but right now, I’d be looking for a gentler introduction on the wing.

[Mellsblue]

Apart from Itoje and Curry I’d say there’s a debate over everyone, or there there should.

[Banquo]

TBH I’m surprised there’s even a debate here. Steward is 21 and immediately looked comfortable at test level. I’m not proclaiming him as a world beater, but he’s got all the attributes to become a mainstay of the side and plenty of time to keep getting better.

To question his place in the side seems odd.

I get that there’s a lot of excitement about Arundell (including from me), but I would 100% be sticking with Steward at 15. If and when Arundell can demonstrate he’s got the defensive capabilities to back up his x-factor in attack, there might be more of a challenge, but right now, I’d be looking for a gentler introduction on the wing.

He's looked comfortable-in fact a bit better in fairness. But why wouldn't you debate anyone's position- especially in a team who clearly lacks cutting edge and is in need of improvement? As before, I like him as a player- but like most, he has some limitations. Not sure how you think playing wing is a gentler introduction, if you aren't familiar with the position. I- as an example- am not proposing Arundell as a replacement at all (subject to above provisos), but I do think that a pacy attacking threat from 15 is worth a look, given our midfield (or anyones)...as per above.

I'd also like to think that a mainstay of the side would ideally be a world beater

[Oakboy]

If you were to ask me who I think should be FB, I 'd say Steward but we are talking about what Jones might do. He's the one that ruined a world class winger and wasted a competent international FB by swapping Daly with Brown, thereby nullifying both. Now, he's looking at Arundel.

So far, this thread has not concentrated on SH. Where will Jones go with that? Banquo has rightly emphasised the quality ball from forwards requirement but having got that right it can still go wrong without a quality SH.

[Banquo]

If you were to ask me who I think should be FB, I 'd say Steward but we are talking about what Jones might do. He's the one that ruined a world class winger and wasted a competent international FB by swapping Daly with Brown, thereby nullifying both. Now, he's looking at Arundel.

So far, this thread has not concentrated on SH. Where will Jones go with that? Banquo has rightly emphasised the quality ball from forwards requirement but having got that right it can still go wrong without a quality SH.

He's called Arundel in for a training session. As he has done for countless other talented players. Steward is rightly in pole position. No suggestion othewise, they are both in.
SH is another issue. As are most positions. As they always are or should be internationally. For all that Itoje is a shoo-in (probs), what happens if he gets crocked?

[Tigersman]

Steward's allround game has really been stepping up since the 6N's imo.
Was the biggest bright spark in Tigers game v Leinster

[FKAS]

Same goes for any outside centre

If we're going with this no structure attack we really need Farrell in there to help organise things. Didn't work well in the 6N and completely fell apart if Smith was tackled. Attack actually looked best in the cameos where Smith and Ford were on at the same time but that's not going to happen from the start of a game.

I think a Manu and A N Other midfield won't help with any of the problems with the current attacking strategy. We either need a secondary playmaker/organiser in there or we need to scrap the philosophy and move on.

Would not hold my breath on Farrell, playing at 12, bringing organization to a "no structure" attack. He has never been a great 12 in his international career to date. And he's playing club rugby regularly at 10, hardly the best preparation. I see his installation as a nailed on inside centre as a step backwards for the England team, especially when it comes to showing some enterprise in attack.

I've always felt he was a bit of a square peg in a round hole but there's no denying we've done well whilst he's been in the position and he was a central figure in our long unbeaten run. Youngs/Ford/Farrell/Joseph was a combination that worked even though it looked like it maybe shouldn't. I'm not really a fan of Farrell and think he's massively overrated by the press but there's no obvious answer to what we need at 12 and Slade really didn't show up well there in the 6N.

[Banquo]

If we're going with this no structure attack we really need Farrell in there to help organise things. Didn't work well in the 6N and completely fell apart if Smith was tackled. Attack actually looked best in the cameos where Smith and Ford were on at the same time but that's not going to happen from the start of a game.

I think a Manu and A N Other midfield won't help with any of the problems with the current attacking strategy. We either need a secondary playmaker/organiser in there or we need to scrap the philosophy and move on.

Would not hold my breath on Farrell, playing at 12, bringing organization to a "no structure" attack. He has never been a great 12 in his international career to date. And he's playing club rugby regularly at 10, hardly the best preparation. I see his installation as a nailed on inside centre as a step backwards for the England team, especially when it comes to showing some enterprise in attack.

I've always felt he was a bit of a square peg in a round hole but there's no denying we've done well whilst he's been in the position and he was a central figure in our long unbeaten run. Youngs/Ford/Farrell/Joseph was a combination that worked even though it looked like it maybe shouldn't. I'm not really a fan of Farrell and think he's massively overrated by the press but there's no obvious answer to what we need at 12 and Slade really didn't show up well there in the 6N.

Slade not showing up well in a relatively new position in a poor team developing a new attacking style. Shocking.
Not a huge fan of Slade, but really?

[FKAS]

If you were to ask me who I think should be FB, I 'd say Steward but we are talking about what Jones might do. He's the one that ruined a world class winger and wasted a competent international FB by swapping Daly with Brown, thereby nullifying both. Now, he's looking at Arundel.

So far, this thread has not concentrated on SH. Where will Jones go with that? Banquo has rightly emphasised the quality ball from forwards requirement but having got that right it can still go wrong without a quality SH.

He's called Arundel in for a training session. As he has done for countless other talented players. Steward is rightly in pole position. No suggestion othewise, they are both in.
SH is another issue. As are most positions. As they always are or should be internationally. For all that Itoje is a shoo-in (probs), what happens if he gets crocked?

Jones did move Steward to wing and put the inferior Furbank in for the French game.

Arundell is in currently but as he qualifies for at least one other nation getting him capped early makes a lot of sense. I can see him occupying the 23 shirt for at least one of the games. Could be a great option off the bench like he is for LI though maybe as a wing option as opposed to at 15.

Got to say I agree with I think it was Puja who talked about an A team game. We could have sent the Saxons or whatever they're called these days to play a game in Fiji. Would have been a popular move and got us some players tied in and allowed for experimentation.

[FKAS]

Would not hold my breath on Farrell, playing at 12, bringing organization to a "no structure" attack. He has never been a great 12 in his international career to date. And he's playing club rugby regularly at 10, hardly the best preparation. I see his installation as a nailed on inside centre as a step backwards for the England team, especially when it comes to showing some enterprise in attack.

I've always felt he was a bit of a square peg in a round hole but there's no denying we've done well whilst he's been in the position and he was a central figure in our long unbeaten run. Youngs/Ford/Farrell/Joseph was a combination that worked even though it looked like it maybe shouldn't. I'm not really a fan of Farrell and think he's massively overrated by the press but there's no obvious answer to what we need at 12 and Slade really didn't show up well there in the 6N.

Slade not showing up well in a relatively new position in a poor team developing a new attacking style. Shocking.
Not a huge fan of Slade, but really?

So should we keep out the experienced international captain in order to give Slade more game time there?