Slade

[Scrumhead]

Physicality isn’t really the issue. I’m not looking for our 13 to be a massive guy capable of smashing the opposition number 8 in to next week.

The problem is that Slade is missing tackles he should make and probably would make in an Exeter shirt and is doing very little in attack. I can accept that he hasn’t seen much of the ball, but when you can’t guarantee that he’ll hold on to it anyway ...

By my reckoning, he’s started 6 out of our last 7 tests and made next to no positive impression. Joseph and Tuilagi’s lack of availability gave him the opportunity to have a run in the side and make a real statement for keeping the shirt, but he simply hasn’t done so.

Given Joseph and Tuilagi’s injury records, Cokanasiga’s emergence as a genuine option on the wing and Daly’s unconvincing performances at 15, I’d prefer the latter was switched back to 13. It probably won’t happen, but it makes sense to me as it puts Daly back in his best position and limits the need to turn to Slade.

[Mellsblue]

Goode was announced as somebody special who could provide the 2nd receiver role coming into the line from deep. What we got was the soft-shoe-shuffle and the spectacle of him being thrown back where he had come from.

Slade has stood up physically.

Apart from the missed tackles. Also sounds like a defence some would put forward for Farrell.

Fair comment but Slade is not the lightweight fairy that some claim. That was all I was suggesting.

Don't you get fed up with physicality being all that matters? JJ, Slade, Cipriani, Ford etc. can't cut it cause all they have is skill. Big Joe is wonderful and Tuilagi transformed the English season in 5 minutes against a crap, knackered Australian bunch of misfits. Now Jones thinks it's Christmas already because he can pick a back line of mammoths.

A midfield of Farrell, T'eo and Tuilagi, with JC on the wing might make some orgasmic but it just makes me yearn for flair and creativity.

Rant over.

Yep. I do hate the love of bosh but nobody on here is down on Slade for that. It’s because he just hasn’t performed and is prone to making basic errors.

[Mellsblue]

Physicality isn’t really the issue. I’m not looking for our 13 to be a massive guy capable of smashing the opposition number 8 in to next week.

The problem is that Slade is missing tackles he should make and probably would make in an Exeter shirt and is doing very little in attack. I can accept that he hasn’t seen much of the ball, but when you can’t guarantee that he’ll hold on to it anyway ...

By my reckoning, he’s started 6 out of our last 7 tests and made next to no positive impression. Joseph and Tuilagi’s lack of availability gave him the opportunity to have a run in the side and make a real statement for keeping the shirt, but he simply hasn’t done so.

Given Joseph and Tuilagi’s injury records, Cokanasiga’s emergence as a genuine option on the wing and Daly’s unconvincing performances at 15, I’d prefer the latter was switched back to 13. It probably won’t happen, but it makes sense to me as it puts Daly back in his best position and limits the need to turn to Slade.

Agree with nearly all of that, but I’d argue Daly’s best position at test level is on the wing. Certainly all of his best performances, for the Lions and England, have come from there.

[Scrumhead]

Possibly, but unlike Slade, I don’t recall Daly having a run of as many consecutive starts at 13 as Slade has?

It may be a moot point as if Joseph or Tuilagi are fit, I’d say they’re our best options at 13, but recent history suggests we can’t rely on that being the case, so I’d prefer to see Daly there than Slade.

If either or both are fit I’m comfortable if that means moving Daly back to the wing. I definitely don’t want to see any more of him at 15 though.

[Mikey Brown]

I think Daly is best on the wing, it’s absurd the difference in quality between his defensive positioning there and at fullback. I don’t particularly fancy him as a centre for England but it’s hard not to think 11. JC 13. Daly 14. May 15. Watson might be fun to watch.

[Rich]

Quality.

Should playing at 12 for both Exeter and England.

He does look a 12, to the extent one allows there's a distinction in the centre roles of course

I used to got for the SH 2nd 5/8 concept but it's bollocks


I think you need a playmaker at 10, a bosher at 12, a playmaker at 13 and a bosher on the openside wing.

[Digby]

Quality.

Should playing at 12 for both Exeter and England.

He does look a 12, to the extent one allows there's a distinction in the centre roles of course

I used to got for the SH 2nd 5/8 concept but it's bollocks


I think you need a playmaker at 10, a bosher at 12, a playmaker at 13 and a bosher on the openside wing.

You think the boshing wing should keep swapping to the openside? It's one way I suppose to ensure they collapse on receipt of the ball rather than bosh. If you want to be certain of boshing availability then you need two power wing selections

I'd go along with you need a playmaker at 10, but the rest depends on both what you actually have available and how you want to play, there simply aren't any absolute necessities determined in advance

[Danno]

He does look a 12, to the extent one allows there's a distinction in the centre roles of course

I used to got for the SH 2nd 5/8 concept but it's bollocks


I think you need a playmaker at 10, a bosher at 12, a playmaker at 13 and a bosher on the openside wing.

You think the boshing wing should keep swapping to the openside? It's one way I suppose to ensure they collapse on receipt of the ball rather than bosh. If you want to be certain of boshing availability then you need two power wing selections

I'd go along with you need a playmaker at 10, but the rest depends on both what you actually have available and how you want to play, there simply aren't any absolute necessities determined in advance

Pssshh, bosher at 10 as well.

[Mellsblue]

[Redacted] is nearly 30, just saying

Moderated for foul language - Puja

Ok. Who was it? It’s worth clicking on the link and reading all three tweets in the thread.

[Bloggs]

[Redacted] is nearly 30, just saying

Moderated for foul language - Puja

Ok. Who was it? It’s worth clicking on the link and reading all three tweets in the thread.

Why does Tom Wood's name come to my head now...

[Which Tyler]

He seems to be both demonstrating his ego, and denying it at the same time.
He also seems to be telling people off for not uniting behind the great leader (Andy Farrell) when said great leader didn't follow the actual leader (Stuart Lancaster).

That squad suffered from cliques, [Redacted] was firmly in one of those cliques; and he's bemoaning cliques.
I still don't recall all that much criticism of his playing performances, such criticism was so severe it forced him to leave the sport, but he was part of the problem off-pitch; who knew so much better than anyone else.

[Mikey Brown]

I couldn’t really decipher that. I don’t think I know who the cliques were. I was struggling to even remember who was captaing for a minute there.

[Peat]

Any criticism of Slade I'd have for physicality is solely about bouncing off a few too many tackles.

But really the criticism comes down down to not making a positive impact on a regular basis and the main reason for that is a failure to regularly pick the right option and execute it. Well, that and a lack of freak factor talent.

[Mikey Brown]

The more I think about it I think he thrives on being one of the guys making decisions and shaping the attack, and that's just not going to happen (whether or not his skills would hold up at international level anyway) in a backline with Ford & Farrell, letalone when we're demanding we play so heavily through Youngs.

[Digby]

[Redacted] is nearly 30, just saying

Moderated for foul language - Puja

Ok. Who was it? It’s worth clicking on the link and reading all three tweets in the thread.

I might have shot the Sheriff, I might even have no issue saying Burgess, but my sum total of tweets to date is zero.

[Rich]

He does look a 12, to the extent one allows there's a distinction in the centre roles of course

I used to got for the SH 2nd 5/8 concept but it's bollocks


I think you need a playmaker at 10, a bosher at 12, a playmaker at 13 and a bosher on the openside wing.

You think the boshing wing should keep swapping to the openside? It's one way I suppose to ensure they collapse on receipt of the ball rather than bosh. If you want to be certain of boshing availability then you need two power wing selections

I'd go along with you need a playmaker at 10, but the rest depends on both what you actually have available and how you want to play, there simply aren't any absolute necessities determined in advance

I'd like the OH to have the option of a player able to take the ball into contact and (hopefully) off load AND the option of going wide.

If you have a midfield of something like: Ford - Slade - Joseph , your options are more limited.

The best available i/c England has is Te'o

[Stom]

I used to got for the SH 2nd 5/8 concept but it's bollocks


I think you need a playmaker at 10, a bosher at 12, a playmaker at 13 and a bosher on the openside wing.

You think the boshing wing should keep swapping to the openside? It's one way I suppose to ensure they collapse on receipt of the ball rather than bosh. If you want to be certain of boshing availability then you need two power wing selections

I'd go along with you need a playmaker at 10, but the rest depends on both what you actually have available and how you want to play, there simply aren't any absolute necessities determined in advance

I'd like the OH to have the option of a player able to take the ball into contact and (hopefully) off load AND the option of going wide.

If you have a midfield of something like: Ford - Slade - Joseph , your options are more limited.

The best available i/c England has is Te'o

Firstly, why do you necessarily have to take the ball into contact? And secondly, isn't that what forwards are for?

[Spiffy]

You think the boshing wing should keep swapping to the openside? It's one way I suppose to ensure they collapse on receipt of the ball rather than bosh. If you want to be certain of boshing availability then you need two power wing selections

I'd go along with you need a playmaker at 10, but the rest depends on both what you actually have available and how you want to play, there simply aren't any absolute necessities determined in advance

I'd like the OH to have the option of a player able to take the ball into contact and (hopefully) off load AND the option of going wide.

If you have a midfield of something like: Ford - Slade - Joseph , your options are more limited.

The best available i/c England has is Te'o

Firstly, why do you necessarily have to take the ball into contact? And secondly, isn't that what forwards are for?

Yes. The evolution of the boshing 12 is fairly recent in the overall evolution of rugby tactics. Most of the great inside centres in the history of the game were fast, clever footballers with footwork and passing skills. Te'o is a bit boring and one dimensional, as are most large midfield lumps who just look for contact. He's not even all that good a bosher. Hard to believe that England can't come up with a better 12. Sam Simmonds would likely do a better job if you are just looking for a strong runner to gain a metre or two, and probably has better ball skills.

[Scrumhead]

It’s a shame Ryan Mills’ injury-free run has come too late to really push for a place. He’s looked genuinely excellent at 12 this season and was very good last season too.

He has an excellent all round game (including a very solid defensive skill set) and the size to bosh if needed. He’s more likely to make a clever-offload mind.

Johnny Williams is the coming man post World Cup so long as the Welsh don’t nab him.

[Peat]

You think the boshing wing should keep swapping to the openside? It's one way I suppose to ensure they collapse on receipt of the ball rather than bosh. If you want to be certain of boshing availability then you need two power wing selections

I'd go along with you need a playmaker at 10, but the rest depends on both what you actually have available and how you want to play, there simply aren't any absolute necessities determined in advance

I'd like the OH to have the option of a player able to take the ball into contact and (hopefully) off load AND the option of going wide.

If you have a midfield of something like: Ford - Slade - Joseph , your options are more limited.

The best available i/c England has is Te'o

Firstly, why do you necessarily have to take the ball into contact? And secondly, isn't that what forwards are for?

I may be misreading him but I think he's not saying you necessarily have to take the ball into contact, but that its best to have the option. Which is true.

As for forwards... well, they're not available from scrums. Or from a lot of lineouts. Not always available from turnovers if spreading the ball quickly, or if there's been two phases of forward play before. A fair few of them are guys you'd rather have ruck over a 12 than carry the ball too, both in the sense that they're not great loose runners and in the sense that they don't have the hands to offload or ship the ball on.

Sure you can do without a credible bosh threat in the centres - but pretty much nobody who doesn't have to does.

[Digby]

Which is fine but doesn't come close to explaining why the bosh must be at inside rather than outside centre

[Scrumhead]

Taking contact is good for attracting defenders, but that’s only useful if you can offload or you are confident that you can recycle the ball quickly. If you have someone like SBW and a quick back row, you’re laughing because he attracts defenders, but is also excellent at getting accurate offloads away and even if he gets tackled, the back row will quickly recycle it with 2+ defenders out of the game.

Warrenball was basically a less skilled version of that.

Te’o isn’t really that good and can’t be relied upon to be fit in any case.

What did give me some hope in the second half was the build up to Daly and Farrell’s tries. For Daly’s Farrell actually made a decent offload out of contact which shows he has it in his locker and for Farrell’s try, Manu’s line attracted the defenders to create the space for Farrell to run in to. One was a good example of taking contact in the right way and one was a good example of avoiding contact through having a credible decoy runner.

That’s a long-winded way of making the point is that there’s not one ‘right’ way to do it. If anything variety is the most dangerous element. Had we run the same play again, the Aussie’s still couldn’t ignore Manu because they wouldn’t have been sure whether he was a decoy or not.

[Renniks]

I'm still unconvinced for the need to take things into contact off any kind of fast ball or set piece (the only times when you might not have an extra forward or two)…

Sure, you want to be able to get over the gain line, and you absolutely want to do that in a manner than is supportable
But to suggest the only way to do that is to run into a players weak shoulder is baffling (or even worse, just run into a player)

The huge benefit of a bosher in the backs is that you can have someone run dangerous lines at pace that draw multiple players to defence but that doesn't have to be a centre, it can be wing, or fullback… as shown by Folau and Big Joe last weekend

[Peat]

Which is fine but doesn't come close to explaining why the bosh must be at inside rather than outside centre

True and I wonder why it often is that way.

Te’o isn’t really that and can’t be relied upon to be fit in any case.

Not particularly arguing with this.

If anything variety is the most dangerous element. Had we run the same play again, the Aussie’s still couldn’t ignore Manu because they wouldn’t have been sure whether he was a decoy or not.

I agree that variety is the most dangerous element and believe that's what I'm arguing for. Not having to bosh, but making the opposition have to believe that we might.

[Oakboy]

I just think that slow-ball bosh is OK for forwards embarking on a multi-phase forward march. For centres, though, bosh is only effective if it produces quick ball which usually means an instant off-load. In the past, the crowd may have roared when Tuilagi smashed into an opponent but the claim that he took out multiple defenders had little significance if the ball was so slow that the defence had time to reorganise. In his earlier days, before he became obsessed with bruising flesh (often at the expense of injuring himself), he used to hit the gap at pace and get at least his arms beyond the tackler(s). I yearn for his old technique and would expect Jones to advocate it but I won't hold my breath.