Mikey Brown wrote:Banquo wrote:Mikey Brown wrote:Well sure, we want quick ball from the forwards. That doesn't ever really change. I was just talking about the best centre combo from the options we have. The right setup in the backs will make that job a hell of a lot easier for the forwards too.
and I agree that that is probably right earlier. Its just also clear that the combos available and exhaustively debated arent worrying anyone at individual or unit level....and that is magnified by lack of effectiveness up front. Just commenting on the backs being toothless in isolation is missing part of the point imo.
I am intrigued by your last sentence- how, and who?
I'm not sure why that would be intriguing. I just meant the backs play (and how they gel with the forwards) makes a huge difference to the existence of that front-foot ball. We don't have Tuilagi but it doesn't mean they just have to sit on their heels until the pack starts rampaging forwards. Obviously everything is easier for the backs when the forwards are getting over the gainline, presenting the ball well etc. but it works both ways.
I think to Puja's point about what the backline are actually set up to do, we're just debating whether there's a way (or a likelihood) of getting more out of a fairly unbalanced backline. You can call that 'missing the point' I guess, but I don't think anyone would argue it's an issue exclusive from the performance of the pack.
The debate always seems to be about the who in the backs though- and its going round and round- and 'as if' their lack of threat can be solved through selection. I made the point way way earlier - per puja's point- that I'm not convinced Gleeson/Jones has looked at the relative strengths of the backline personnel and then looked at a way from 1st phase especially that they can either strike, or to your point get the ball in front of the forwards for a good focal point to make more inroads from- in the way they were launching Tuilagi over the tackle line from line outs say. I think the unstructured approach- namely, play what you see from post 1st phase is something many on here have been demanding (and that Eddie had always shied away from previously)...but it absolutely demands that (especially) forwards are making ground with carries and generates quick ball. With the best will in the world, its very hard for any backline outside first phase to make much of static ball on the backfoot- I'm not asking for rampaging, just a nudge over the tackle or even gainline
...and then quick ball, which again isn't rampaging, just efficiency and good decision making,
My intrigue was a genuine question as to what you thought the backs should/could be bringing to the party, no need to be suspicious
...and then as a follow up, who (and how) would they bring it. My take on the current mob is that their best bet is to try and hold defences like they did v Italy with wrap arounds, but with Slade taking and offloading much closer to the tackle line, with Smith then having options but closer to the defence,and bringing Daly (say) off the wing, and varying where steward is hitting the line...ie trying to manufacture a close in break/half break, or look to get outside and behind the defence (by holding some of the midfield defence). But the latter would give our pack issues in supporting frankly- it was even an issue v Italy.
