RugbyRebels

Puja wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:That’s part of what is so frustrating. The lack of direction and cohesion was so widespread across the team that it feels difficult to actually assess how good a lot of players were.

Simmonds did a lot of very good things, Slade did some great stuff, Smith had good moments, were they a success in their roles? I haven’t got a clue.

Itoje is fantastic, Genge is good at bashing in to people, Steward is good at jumping in the air. I think these are the only concrete take-aways I have.

Wait, Slade did some great stuff? When? The highest point I saw him reach this 6N was "competence" and he wasn't there often enough.

Puja

Did you not rate Slade's dummy runs in two of our (rare) attacks? I said before the France game that criticising the centres for a lack of attacking success would be pointless and nothing that happened changed my mind. Slade, IMO, is a classic example of where we are at. He is far better than his performances indicate. I don't see him under-performing because of effort, skill or rugby brain. I see him not setting the game on fire because of the way the team is set up. He is no more able to do it in his role than Ford or Farrell in theirs have been in the past. The common factors are poor ball from forwards and SH plus coaching style.

I can certainly agree with part of this. The forwards seemed to be better individually - Itoje, Genge especially, Lawes, George, Sinckler, Dombrandt, Simmonds partially. But as a team our main issue (I think) was securing our own ball when in possession, which hints that maybe the pack, especially the back row, just didn't balance at all.
The unstructured attack looked a complete mess, but maybe the backs could have done something with quick ball?
I thought Simmonds actually looked pretty good, and was one of the standout performers against Ireland. The Slade Smith axis genuinely had me a bit excited against Italy (I know its Italy, but they showed real promise switching first receiver and both taking the ball to the line and causing real confusion for the defence) then went completely to shit. And I'd be pretty happy to just let Slade go, he's always promised more than he'd delivered and outside of (literally) 1 or 2 standout performances he's never been much cop.

Mikey Brown wrote:I guess what I mean is that there were individual moments that were good/terrible, but hard to judge because of everything else going on around them. I'm not saying Slade was great or even had great games, but that I found it difficult to say any particular player (particularly in the backs) was especially good or bad because it was all so disjointed.

Slade for instance threw some great passes, made some nice tackles, did a lot of "okay, well at least he didn't lose the ball" carrying. Maybe it was all his fault it didn't click, maybe it was the fault of the guy next to him, I don't know. It's annoying because seeing him given the Farrell/playmaker role at 12 was a great opportunity.Eddie gave him the keys to his [insert fancy car brand] and told him he was driving now, but he'd switched the pedals around, changed the numbers on the gearbox and put apple juice in the fuel tank.

He gave him the keys to a Model T Ford.

Dan. Dan. Dan. wrote:I can certainly agree with part of this. The forwards seemed to be better individually - Itoje, Genge especially, Lawes, George, Sinckler, Dombrandt, Simmonds partially. But as a team our main issue (I think) was securing our own ball when in possession, which hints that maybe the pack, especially the back row, just didn't balance at all.
The unstructured attack looked a complete mess, but maybe the backs could have done something with quick ball?
I thought Simmonds actually looked pretty good, and was one of the standout performers against Ireland. The Slade Smith axis genuinely had me a bit excited against Italy (I know its Italy, but they showed real promise switching first receiver and both taking the ball to the line and causing real confusion for the defence) then went completely to shit. And I'd be pretty happy to just let Slade go, he's always promised more than he'd delivered and outside of (literally) 1 or 2 standout performances he's never been much cop.

On Simmonds, I must confess to barely seeing the Ireland game, so I should probably be reserving comment; it just seems to me he rarely gets involved in rucks as a clearer, but could be wrong, and he hasn't made much impression at defensive rucks either-- which was a huge issue v France...or rather the speed of recycling was.
I thought the Smith Slade axis had its moments against the best defence in the 6N too- with limited ammo outside them its pretty hard to criticise what they managed off set piece ball, which was ok to good. I'm unsure as to why we didn't do this v Wales tbh.

It does make me laugh to see the forwards get some stick, our breakdown rarely producing the kind of ruck speed the french/irish generate.... the half backs get criticised.....and yet Slade (who I don't especially rate in all honesty) gets quite a lot of stick for 'not delivering'. Not delivering what? I suppose that having played centre behind an iffy pack and with a 9 whose passing definitely had 'room for improvement' I can tell you its pretty hard to create that much and/or make breaks (frankly, Phillipe Sella and BOD combined might have struggled with some of the ball I've had, but that's another story ). Slade suffers both for not being Manu nor having Manu alongside. Anyway, ignore a back's pathetic pleas

Oakboy wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:That’s part of what is so frustrating. The lack of direction and cohesion was so widespread across the team that it feels difficult to actually assess how good a lot of players were.

Simmonds did a lot of very good things, Slade did some great stuff, Smith had good moments, were they a success in their roles? I haven’t got a clue.

Itoje is fantastic, Genge is good at bashing in to people, Steward is good at jumping in the air. I think these are the only concrete take-aways I have.

Wait, Slade did some great stuff? When? The highest point I saw him reach this 6N was "competence" and he wasn't there often enough.

Puja

Did you not rate Slade's dummy runs in two of our (rare) attacks? I said before the France game that criticising the centres for a lack of attacking success would be pointless and nothing that happened changed my mind. Slade, IMO, is a classic example of where we are at. He is far better than his performances indicate. I don't see him under-performing because of effort, skill or rugby brain. I see him not setting the game on fire because of the way the team is set up. He is no more able to do it in his role than Ford or Farrell in theirs have been in the past. The common factors are poor ball from forwards and SH plus coaching style.

Yes, as above, I don't actually rate Slade that highly- he has all the skills you'd want, but is a little short of running pzazz, and his defence whilst better at 13 is well iffy at 12- but expecting him to produce (what, exactly) fireworks in the setting he is in is a tad optimistic--- he's an enabling sort of player, rather than an individual genius (cf JJ).

Mikey Brown wrote:I guess what I mean is that there were individual moments that were good/terrible, but hard to judge because of everything else going on around them. I'm not saying Slade was great or even had great games, but that I found it difficult to say any particular player (particularly in the backs) was especially good or bad because it was all so disjointed.

Slade for instance threw some great passes, made some nice tackles, did a lot of "okay, well at least he didn't lose the ball" carrying. Maybe it was all his fault it didn't click, maybe it was the fault of the guy next to him, I don't know. It's annoying because seeing him given the Farrell/playmaker role at 12 was a great opportunity. Eddie gave him the keys to his [insert fancy car brand] and told him he was driving now, but he'd switched the pedals around, changed the numbers on the gearbox and put apple juice in the fuel tank.

I felt that Slade's play was quite reminiscent of Farrell's and should be equally harshly criticised or praised.

But Slade has never really delivered. Has he? And I know we've had him playing alongside the Ford/Farrell axis, and our midfield has never really been balanced. But the guy is closing in on 50 caps!

Dan. Dan. Dan. wrote:But Slade has never really delivered. Has he? And I know we've had him playing alongside the Ford/Farrell axis, and our midfield has never really been balanced. But the guy is closing in on 50 caps!

delivered what? As I said, I don't think he's that great, but what do folks expect from him?

Mr Mwenda wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:I guess what I mean is that there were individual moments that were good/terrible, but hard to judge because of everything else going on around them. I'm not saying Slade was great or even had great games, but that I found it difficult to say any particular player (particularly in the backs) was especially good or bad because it was all so disjointed.

Slade for instance threw some great passes, made some nice tackles, did a lot of "okay, well at least he didn't lose the ball" carrying. Maybe it was all his fault it didn't click, maybe it was the fault of the guy next to him, I don't know. It's annoying because seeing him given the Farrell/playmaker role at 12 was a great opportunity. Eddie gave him the keys to his [insert fancy car brand] and told him he was driving now, but he'd switched the pedals around, changed the numbers on the gearbox and put apple juice in the fuel tank.

I felt that Slade's play was quite reminiscent of Farrell's and should be equally harshly criticised or praised.

He's a way better passer for a start and more instinctive player and playmaker. And not a northern oik, but a weird southern anti vaxxer. Ah....

Christ, I'm defending Slade...why. Goddam you Eddie.

Banquo wrote:

Dan. Dan. Dan. wrote:But Slade has never really delivered. Has he? And I know we've had him playing alongside the Ford/Farrell axis, and our midfield has never really been balanced. But the guy is closing in on 50 caps!

delivered what? As I said, I don't think he's that great, but what do folks expect from him?

Just a bit....more. I feel he just doesnt do enough. He has the skills but rarely do we see anything like what he produces at Exeter. Different set up obviously but i always think he plays a bit within himself for England.
I rate him and think he's a talent but we rarely see him at his best for England.

fivepointer wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Dan. Dan. Dan. wrote:But Slade has never really delivered. Has he? And I know we've had him playing alongside the Ford/Farrell axis, and our midfield has never really been balanced. But the guy is closing in on 50 caps!

delivered what? As I said, I don't think he's that great, but what do folks expect from him?

Just a bit....more. I feel he just doesnt do enough. He has the skills but rarely do we see anything like what he produces at Exeter. Different set up obviously but i always think he plays a bit within himself for England.
I rate him and think he's a talent but we rarely see him at his best for England.

But he does a lot of bits and pieces work at Exeter too- rarely that flash; his highlights reel usually involves a nice flat pass off his left hand, some good grubbers through, a good read in defence and usually a flash penalty to touch from the half way line to within 5m of the oppo try line. As I said, he's an enabler....but there is no-one to enable really .

Funnily enough you rate him higher than me, but no clue what people expect him to do outside this pack and half backs (or even Ford). I actually think he's been better at 12 than given credit for, and the wrap arounds with Smith showed promise off first phase ball _ he picked good passes to Marchant and wider- but with slow phase ball against good defences, trying to do anything once smith had done a couple of hitch kicks.....

Ah yes. Now we’re getting somewhere.

Mikey Brown wrote:Ah yes. Now we’re getting somewhere.

I'm not blaming Smith btw, that's what he has been picked to do.

Agree, and have said numerous times on here, that Slade has always been less than the sum of his promised parts but…. given the context of the omni-shambles around him, a new position, an internationally green 10, an international green/sloth at 9, a revolving selection door at 13 and a pack who couldn’t provide quick ball I think he flashed more than at OC and did some high quality things with Marchant. I hope they continue with Smith-Slade-Marchant with three strike runners in the back 3.
Backrow needs a make over: Curry, J Willis and Dombrandt for me. I thought the latter also flashed and will only improve once he settles in and believes he belongs at test level.
We’re screwed in the second row with regards to depth and, IMO, Genge and Sinckler receive better press than the deserve.

As for the article…. I reckon he’d raided Banquo’s drinks cabinet before writing it. Like a game of pool after 4 pints, there were some inspired moments in between quite a lot of dross. He’d fit in well on here!

It really hurts to say it but I’d take Gatland now….. especially if that would guarantee Edwards after RWC 2023.

I read it as ‘feature writer James Whale’

Still not sure it wasn’t

Fascinating piece albeit a bit rambly. But did he say there that Joseph was known to be difficult to get along with? Anyone else heard that?

Yeah I had the same thought, but wasn’t sure if I interpreted that right.

Mikey Brown wrote:Yeah I had the same thought, but wasn’t sure if I interpreted that right.

That is the implication.

Mellsblue wrote:

Interesting. Thanks
Not sure that PR is going to calm the fans down
But on the other hand you have to make a judgmental call as to whether the problem is Eddie, the players, or the developmental stage. They’ve obviously decided it’s the developmental stage. I suppose their first press release was trying to say that. It just didn’t say it very well.

That being whose responsibility?

Mikey Brown wrote:That being whose responsibility?

Smith’s.

Ah. Well now you say it that seems obvious. I do get blinded by my Quins bias sometimes.