England v Wales - Team Announcement

[Oakboy]

I reckon Slade and Marchant outside Smith or Ford can work at International level, but it needs genuine pace / power wingers outside it to stretch the defence and create gaps.

If the opposition know they can be narrow to choke up space as they will be able to get across to touchline a Norwell type, then you pretty much have to have a Manu type. If their scared they won't be able to cover across due to the pace of a May or Watson, or the size and power of a Cokanasinga, then your more balanced runner passers have a chance.

That relates to my thinking in suggesting that it should be Nowell OR Malins, not both. In terms of attacking threats, there is probably more to come from Steward. He's doing most of the defensive stuff well but seems to lack the will/skill to affect the game in attack. Maybe, he's just doing what he's told??

[Banquo]

Sounds like you’re all rooting for George Furbank to finalise his (inevitable) ascent to the England 10 shirt and to World Cup glory.

Its not a bad shout for him to switch to 10, though he was pretty good at 15 on Sunday. And a nice guy.

[Banquo]

It's easy to forget that, in bringing Smith in, Jones elected to choose between Ford and Farrell and picked the latter. We still constantly debate the merits of the two but I can't see Jones changing his mind.

Not quite as simple as that tbh- Farrell can cover 10 and 12, and that does make quite a difference. Not that I'd ever pick him in either position as a starter- bench, mebbe, but only if there was no other option.

[FKAS]

I reckon Slade and Marchant outside Smith or Ford can work at International level, but it needs genuine pace / power wingers outside it to stretch the defence and create gaps.

If the opposition know they can be narrow to choke up space as they will be able to get across to touchline a Norwell type, then you pretty much have to have a Manu type. If their scared they won't be able to cover across due to the pace of a May or Watson, or the size and power of a Cokanasinga, then your more balanced runner passers have a chance.

That relates to my thinking in suggesting that it should be Nowell OR Malins, not both. In terms of attacking threats, there is probably more to come from Steward. He's doing most of the defensive stuff well but seems to lack the will/skill to affect the game in attack. Maybe, he's just doing what he's told??

I think lack of experience and lack of familiarity with the rest of the backline. Eddie wants an unstructured attack which is great in principle but if you're a 20 year old fullback who doesn't have twinkling feet and super acceleration it's a bit awkward. He's got to time his runs into the line around centres and wingers he's barely played with and a flyhalf who likes to step and dummy before making a last minute decision.

It's a far cry from the Ford scripted multi phase attack that Tigers operate. Apart from an offload here or there there's nothing unstructured about the attack he's played at club level.

[Banquo]

I know virtually nobody agrees with me on this but I also think Farrell is a really good option coming off the bench in terms of the voice and physicality he brings.

He will follow Jones’s plan to the letter, but sometimes that doesn’t play out from the start, coming on at 55 when something in the game needs addressing I think he’d actually be perfect for that. Smiths challenge should be to see if he can really run a game at this level the way Ford can, in the meantime.

Moot point though as (was said above) if Farrell is fit (even half fit) he starts as captain.

His real benefit on the bench is injury cover, rather than tactical impact. But there is no doubt that coaches like having him around because of workrate and attitude (even if that can manifest in bad outcomes).

[p/d]

Is there really a place at the top table for an unstructured attack? I mean I love it when watching the likes of Fiji and Japan etc. but they are generally trying to stay in the game by creating chaos.

[Oakboy]

Is there really a place at the top table for an unstructured attack? I mean I love it when watching the likes of Fiji and Japan etc. but they are generally trying to stay in the game by creating chaos.

Is there not a difference between 'unstructured' and the freedom to go off-track when a chance shows itself? In our case a 10% shift might do. It could be as simple as passing with an overlap on rather than kicking as normal. In the past rugby intelligence has been suppressed. That's too far down the prescription-play route. Letting the players think for themselves must be good - within structured foundations.

[fivepointer]

Has Jones actually defined what an unstructured attack actually is?

He cant mean we are going to wang it around from minute one and see how it plays out, can he?

I'm wary of some of this chat. Do we want to be a bit less predictable and be a bit more heads up in our play. Well, yes. But you still have to adhere to good basics and have a framework to play within and to go back to if things arent panning out.

Ultimately you want good, skilful, committed players who are on the same wavelength and have the latitude to play whats in front of them. You want some pace, some power, creativity in the right areas and tons of dog.

Do we over complicate and over think the game sometimes?

[Mikey Brown]

It's just Jones being the same old shithead isn't it? Just making a massive deal of something like 'we want to actually start paying attention to what the opposition are doing' and framing it like he's revolutionising the game.

We've been heavily prescriptive in how we play for a long time and I'm not totally sure whether this is just a distraction to give Smith a bit of room to find his feet. We've seen some of the same recurring issues though - neatly working the ball wide to kick it, but accidentally creating an overlap or opportunity for a line-break and just ignoring it. Who knows whether that's baked in to the plan or the players just aren't ready/willing to notice those things.

I'm sure he has a very cunning plan.

[FKAS]

Has Jones actually defined what an unstructured attack actually is?

He cant mean we are going to wang it around from minute one and see how it plays out, can he?

I'm wary of some of this chat. Do we want to be a bit less predictable and be a bit more heads up in our play. Well, yes. But you still have to adhere to good basics and have a framework to play within and to go back to if things arent panning out.

Ultimately you want good, skilful, committed players who are on the same wavelength and have the latitude to play whats in front of them. You want some pace, some power, creativity in the right areas and tons of dog.

Do we over complicate and over think the game sometimes?

From what I read/saw it looks like we play a couple of phases from a set pattern, mainly using the forwards to generate momentum and then look to use heads up rugby so that there's unpredictability and we are reacting to what the defence is doing and so the opposition defence can't target a specific attack, as I assume that most defence coaches now help players to spot 1-3-1-3 set ups or whatever and have a tactic for targeting each method of attack.

With any level of playing what you see you are always going to be reliant on players working off each other and knowing the instincts of the playmakers. This backline has barely featured together it's going to be a tough ask whilst it beds in.

[p/d]

A gnarly powerful pack, an absolutely horrible annoying 9, an ice cool 10, a mix of power and skill in the midfield and a rapid back 3. With the 15 possessing a b*stard of a boot but, alas, early onset baldness

[Raggs]

I suspect it's basically instead of 1-3-3-1, or 1322 etc, the backline general is expected to call the size of the next forward pod. The problem is always going to be sufficient support at the breakdown, it's easy to send less forwards in, but it's risky. Wasps currently often play with just 1 forward runner with no really close support, it works OK if it's a positive carry, as that gives the others a chance to get to them, but if they're stopped quick, it can be turned easily. Whilst playing fast, you can often get on the front foot, but you've got to be aware the whole time.

[Mellsblue]

In the press conference on (I think) Monday, whilst getting a grilling about the poor attack, Jones has said he’s done away with pods, and that they script the first two phases to get them on the front foot before freelancing from there on in. He says this will obviously take time to settle in and results, ie in attack not on the scoreboard, will be hit and miss for a while.

[Which Tyler]

I reckon Slade and Marchant outside Smith or Ford can work at International level, but it needs genuine pace / power wingers outside it to stretch the defence and create gaps.

If the opposition know they can be narrow to choke up space as they will be able to get across to touchline a Norwell type, then you pretty much have to have a Manu type. If their scared they won't be able to cover across due to the pace of a May or Watson, or the size and power of a Cokanasinga, then your more balanced runner passers have a chance.

Yep.

My starting premise is that every back needs to be able to at least keep whoever's defending them honest in defence. Which is Farrell's biggest drawback, defenders know they can just slide off him and press his man, because he's not going to run at them unless they make it too obvious that they're not interested.
Defending 12 can turn his shoulder to Farrell, and Faz won't notice. He can steal a couple of steps towards our 13, and Farrell won't notice. If he does both, it might be noticed, then it's 50:50 whether he tries to exploit it.
It makes for some great breaks once in a while where they forgot to play at being interested in him, but mostly, it just means that the OC gets 2 defenders on him at the same time as the ball (whilst the FH just drops back for the inevitable kick rather than taking a part in the defensive line).

Having a threat out wide, means the defence can't try to choke in too much in the narrow channels. Having a line breaking threat in the midfield means that the backrow have to cover it.

[Mellsblue]

Sounds like you’re all rooting for George Furbank to finalise his (inevitable) ascent to the England 10 shirt and to World Cup glory.

Its not a bad shout for him to switch to 10, though he was pretty good at 15 on Sunday. And a nice guy.

Fairly certain he played 12 at school so, he’s had an almost perfect education in the art of scanning the field. I think he’s of an age that needs to settle on a position….. I love watching him at 15.

[Mellsblue]

Has the Farrell versatility argument been undermined slightly by Slade showing he’s capable of playing 12 at test level? I’d rather pick Ford as, IMO, the superior player and worry about injuries if they happen.

[Puja]

Has the Farrell versatility argument been undermined slightly by Slade showing he’s capable of playing 12 at test level? I’d rather pick Ford as, IMO, the superior player and worry about injuries if they happen.

Has he though?

Puja

[Mellsblue]

[
In terms of attacking threats, there is probably more to come from Steward.

There needs to be….. but nobody has looked great in this system.

[Mellsblue]

Has the Farrell versatility argument been undermined slightly by Slade showing he’s capable of playing 12 at test level? I’d rather pick Ford as, IMO, the superior player and worry about injuries if they happen.

Has he though?

Puja

Capable, IMO, yes, especially in comparison to Farrell. Is it his best position and would he ever become a world class player there? I don’t think so.

[Raggs]

I reckon Slade and Marchant outside Smith or Ford can work at International level, but it needs genuine pace / power wingers outside it to stretch the defence and create gaps.

If the opposition know they can be narrow to choke up space as they will be able to get across to touchline a Norwell type, then you pretty much have to have a Manu type. If their scared they won't be able to cover across due to the pace of a May or Watson, or the size and power of a Cokanasinga, then your more balanced runner passers have a chance.

Yep.

My starting premise is that every back needs to be able to at least keep whoever's defending them honest in defence. Which is Farrell's biggest drawback, defenders know they can just slide off him and press his man, because he's not going to run at them unless they make it too obvious that they're not interested.
Defending 12 can turn his shoulder to Farrell, and Faz won't notice. He can steal a couple of steps towards our 13, and Farrell won't notice. If he does both, it might be noticed, then it's 50:50 whether he tries to exploit it.
It makes for some great breaks once in a while where they forgot to play at being interested in him, but mostly, it just means that the OC gets 2 defenders on him at the same time as the ball (whilst the FH just drops back for the inevitable kick rather than taking a part in the defensive line).

Having a threat out wide, means the defence can't try to choke in too much in the narrow channels. Having a line breaking threat in the midfield means that the backrow have to cover it.

Farrell has started carrying a bit more often now, so he's not quite as bad as he was. I still remember one of his best breaks was against France, and the defenders literally ran past him expecting him to simply pass the ball.

[Banquo]

Has the Farrell versatility argument been undermined slightly by Slade showing he’s capable of playing 12 at test level? I’d rather pick Ford as, IMO, the superior player and worry about injuries if they happen.

Has he though?

Puja

Capable, IMO, yes, especially in comparison to Farrell. Is it his best position and would he ever become a world class player there? I don’t think so.

My problem with him at 12, as it was oft at 13, is defence. Our midfield has looked very soft since the Smith/Slade axis has been in place.

[Banquo]

Is there really a place at the top table for an unstructured attack? I mean I love it when watching the likes of Fiji and Japan etc. but they are generally trying to stay in the game by creating chaos.

Japan are far from unstructured in attack. They go wide a lot, but its structured at least 5 plays ahead- and that was instigated by Jones, ironically.

[Banquo]

I reckon Slade and Marchant outside Smith or Ford can work at International level, but it needs genuine pace / power wingers outside it to stretch the defence and create gaps.

If the opposition know they can be narrow to choke up space as they will be able to get across to touchline a Norwell type, then you pretty much have to have a Manu type. If their scared they won't be able to cover across due to the pace of a May or Watson, or the size and power of a Cokanasinga, then your more balanced runner passers have a chance.

Yep.

My starting premise is that every back needs to be able to at least keep whoever's defending them honest in defence. Which is Farrell's biggest drawback, defenders know they can just slide off him and press his man, because he's not going to run at them unless they make it too obvious that they're not interested.
Defending 12 can turn his shoulder to Farrell, and Faz won't notice. He can steal a couple of steps towards our 13, and Farrell won't notice. If he does both, it might be noticed, then it's 50:50 whether he tries to exploit it.
It makes for some great breaks once in a while where they forgot to play at being interested in him, but mostly, it just means that the OC gets 2 defenders on him at the same time as the ball (whilst the FH just drops back for the inevitable kick rather than taking a part in the defensive line).

Having a threat out wide, means the defence can't try to choke in too much in the narrow channels. Having a line breaking threat in the midfield means that the backrow have to cover it.

Farrell has started carrying a bit more often now, so he's not quite as bad as he was. I still remember one of his best breaks was against France, and the defenders literally ran past him expecting him to simply pass the ball.

Its the lowest of bars. He is not a talented runner by intl standards. Which is a hindrance as an intl back.

[Puja]

Has the Farrell versatility argument been undermined slightly by Slade showing he’s capable of playing 12 at test level? I’d rather pick Ford as, IMO, the superior player and worry about injuries if they happen.

Has he though?

Puja

Capable, IMO, yes, especially in comparison to Farrell. Is it his best position and would he ever become a world class player there? I don’t think so.

I still say Farrell at 12 is undersold by a lot of people here - not to say he's great, but he is competent. I haven't seen anything from Slade this 6N that makes me think he's better than Farrell there.

Puja

[Banquo]

Has he though?

Puja

Capable, IMO, yes, especially in comparison to Farrell. Is it his best position and would he ever become a world class player there? I don’t think so.

but he is competent. I haven't seen anything from Slade this 6N that makes me think he's better than Farrell there.

Puja

He really isn't, a lot of the time. Slade's passing is light years ahead....his defence is flawed, but in a different way.