RugbyRebels

WaspInWales wrote:

Puja wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:
If everyone improves by 1%, we're sorted.

That's not really how percentages work. That would just make the team 1% better.

Puja

Guess I was being too subtle

How about if Farrell isn't selected, how much would that improve the team by? Expressed in a percentage, fraction and a decimal please.

I've never been noted for my perspicacity. Sorry.

Puja

Oakboy wrote:

Scrumhead wrote: Having Mako, Launchbury, Robshaw and Billy back would make a big difference to the pack and a fit Tuilagi and Watson would certainly help. However, I don’t think we have the consistency, quality or decision-making/on-field leadership to be world beaters.

Agreed. Also, if we discount Tuilagi (as a long-term sick-note) that leaves 5 significant injury absences. Can any international head-coach reasonably rely on less? It seems about par.


Being even more pedantic, I could argue that Robshaw ought to be fairly easily replaceable if only Jones would make the right selection!!!

With Wilson steadily proving himself, he really should be in the box seat for the 6 shirt. However, given that he’s filling in at 8, there’s a chance that he’s only playing himself in to the 20 shirt as a sub who can cover across the back row. Unfortunately that probably means Shields and if that’s the case, I’d definitely prefer Robshaw.

5 absences is about normal, but it’s very unlucky (and not ‘normal’) when the 5+ injured are among your best players who are virtually guaranteed to start. Even if you discount Tuilagi, I forgot to mention JJ who I’d have ahead of Slade in a heartbeat.

Scrumhead wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Scrumhead wrote: Having Mako, Launchbury, Robshaw and Billy back would make a big difference to the pack and a fit Tuilagi and Watson would certainly help. However, I don’t think we have the consistency, quality or decision-making/on-field leadership to be world beaters.

Agreed. Also, if we discount Tuilagi (as a long-term sick-note) that leaves 5 significant injury absences. Can any international head-coach reasonably rely on less? It seems about par.


Being even more pedantic, I could argue that Robshaw ought to be fairly easily replaceable if only Jones would make the right selection!!!

With Wilson steadily proving himself, he really should be in the box seat for the 6 shirt. However, given that he’s filling in at 8, there’s a chance that he’s only playing himself in to the 20 shirt as a sub who can cover across the back row. Unfortunately that probably means Shields and if that’s the case, I’d definitely prefer Robshaw.

5 absences is about normal, but it’s very unlucky (and not ‘normal’) when the 5+ injured are among your best players who are virtually guaranteed to start. Even if you discount Tuilagi, I forgot to mention JJ who I’d have ahead of Slade in a heartbeat.

Yes, I agree. Slightly playing devil's advocate, I might opine that Billy is so injury-prone, like Tuilagi, as to be discounted. Launchbury and Mako (with Marler's departure) are significant absentees but Jones, in the past, has not treated Launchbury as the 1st choice lock that I would advocate.

As for the JJ/Slade debate, I want to agree but there are a couple of factors. JJ disintegrated as an attacking threat within Jones's playing style outside of Farrell/Ford and I got the impression that Jones had settled on Slade from preference. Fully fit and in form, I'd pick both but, of course, I'd play them outside Cipriani who, IMO, would get the best out of both, assuming that a SH was picked to give Cipriani quick ball with which to be creative.

As ever, it's a case of debating from where we are at with the squad that Jones selects. I'd have Armand, Cipriani and Taylor in the squad but Jones will not. I'd pick Lawes and Launchbury ahead of Itoje but Jones won't. I'd have made finding a SH with quicker delivery my number one priority but Jones perseveres with Youngs. Etc. Etc.

Oakboy wrote: As for the JJ/Slade debate, I want to agree but there are a couple of factors. JJ disintegrated as an attacking threat within Jones's playing style outside of Farrell/Ford and I got the impression that Jones had settled on Slade from preference. Fully fit and in form, I'd pick both but, of course, I'd play them outside Cipriani who, IMO, would get the best out of both, assuming that a SH was picked to give Cipriani quick ball with which to be creative.

You say that Eddie had settled onnSlade ahead of JJ from preference... Just remind me exactly how many times, and which matches, Eddie has actually selected Slade ahead of JJ? Isn't it, Italy, the Barbarians and... that's it?

Besides which, of course (baring in mind my bias), JJs worst performance for England is still better than Slade's best.

No one has really profited from Eddie’s system at 13, but JJ has been by far the best.

Even if his attacking opportunities have been more limited, his defence is still among the best in the world in his position and I’d expect him to be straight back in to the side when fit. The only player who can really challenge him IMO is Tuilagi, but that relies on him being fit which is a rarity.

Which Tyler wrote:

Oakboy wrote: As for the JJ/Slade debate, I want to agree but there are a couple of factors. JJ disintegrated as an attacking threat within Jones's playing style outside of Farrell/Ford and I got the impression that Jones had settled on Slade from preference. Fully fit and in form, I'd pick both but, of course, I'd play them outside Cipriani who, IMO, would get the best out of both, assuming that a SH was picked to give Cipriani quick ball with which to be creative.

You say that Eddie had settled onnSlade ahead of JJ from preference... Just remind me exactly how many times, and which matches, Eddie has actually selected Slade ahead of JJ? Isn't it, Italy, the Barbarians and... that's it?

Besides which, of course (baring in mind my bias), JJs worst performance for England is still better than Slade's best.

I'd not go that far but JJ is certainly a better 13 than Slade, IMO. However, Jones's system (and Farrell at 12 in particular) had reduced JJ to concentrating almost entirely on being the superb defender that he was/is. I guess that Jones couldn't give a toss about that as long as his system survives. Slade is not as good a defender as JJ, nor is he as good an attacking threat at OC within a system that supplies early ball (or regular offloads) rather than missing out the OC. What Slade offers is a better kicking game and a smooth enough integration with either Farrell or T'eo at 12. I'd not choose Slade ahead of JJ at OC but I suspect Jones might.

I hope I am wrong and you are right. Of course, should Tuilagi ever get properly fit, Jones will select neither.

For my sins, I still think Slade's proper position is 12 where his hands can do the most damage and that's where I'd pick him - ahead of Farrell or T'eo. I don't fool myself that it's likely to happen in this regime, if at all, but that's the game's loss.

Oakboy wrote:For my sins, I still think Slade's proper position is 12 where his hands can do the most damage and that's where I'd pick him - ahead of Farrell or T'eo. I don't fool myself that it's likely to happen in this regime, if at all, but that's the game's loss.

It's all very well saying that, but he doesn't play there, not does he appear to want to play there. Yeah, he's probably got the skills, but it's like saying Ford would've made a decent scrum-half - he's not doing it, so it's a bit fantasy rugby to say he should be starting there for England.

Puja

Puja wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:

Puja wrote:
That's not really how percentages work. That would just make the team 1% better.

Puja

Guess I was being too subtle

How about if Farrell isn't selected, how much would that improve the team by? Expressed in a percentage, fraction and a decimal please.

I've never been noted for my perspicacity. Sorry.

Puja

It's ok, I've never been noted for my maths

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:For my sins, I still think Slade's proper position is 12 where his hands can do the most damage and that's where I'd pick him - ahead of Farrell or T'eo. I don't fool myself that it's likely to happen in this regime, if at all, but that's the game's loss.

It's all very well saying that, but he doesn't play there, not does he appear to want to play there. Yeah, he's probably got the skills, but it's like saying Ford would've made a decent scrum-half - he's not doing it, so it's a bit fantasy rugby to say he should be starting there for England.

Puja

Quite, but that's debate, surely. Daly does not regularly play at FB for Wasps but now does so at international level. Idealistic as it may be, I'd choose a team that can exhibit real creativity simply because I want the double-goal of an attractive spectacle and the ability to score tries.

The current England set-up may win matches (on and off) but it is never pretty.

WaspInWales wrote:We're gonna get royally fucked.

oops!

ckeyn wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:We're gonna get royally fucked.

oops!

He meant by the TMO!

ckeyn wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:We're gonna get royally fucked.

oops!

Egg, meet my face indeed.

Not only do I feel silly, the entire nation of New Zealand is feeling humbled this morning.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

......

Jesus. How did we even win that?

Oh, hang on.

My favourite take away from that is when I first scanned it and saw a white column towering over its cowering black counterpart. Let’s start with some good news I thought....ah, pens conceded on offence.

That last one is telling and shows, to me, how much Eddie has lost the plot.

We've got two SHs who have both been pretty damn poor for England. There are a few differences between them. One is fat, one is losing his hair. One plays week in week out as the creative fulcrum of his team, the other plays week in week out next to a 10 who's the creative fulcrum of his team.

So, if we're going to have 65% of moves going through the 9, would it not make sense to pick the 9 who's better at playing through 9?

Considering those stats a 1 point loss is quite an achievement.

A few more to add -
Passes E 83 NZ 145
Runs E 87 NZ 150
Meters run with ball E 240 NZ 451

I know I just spam these threads with twitter shit now but this is interesting. You know, before we fully commit to crucifying Jamie George.

Oakboy wrote:I'd not go that far but JJ is certainly a better 13 than Slade, IMO. However, Jones's system (and Farrell at 12 in particular) had reduced JJ to concentrating almost entirely on being the superb defender that he was/is. I guess that Jones couldn't give a toss about that as long as his system survives. Slade is not as good a defender as JJ, nor is he as good an attacking threat at OC within a system that supplies early ball (or regular offloads) rather than missing out the OC. What Slade offers is a better kicking game and a smooth enough integration with either Farrell or T'eo at 12. I'd not choose Slade ahead of JJ at OC but I suspect Jones might.

Meh, I just can't see Eddie's pecking order for OC being anything other than Tuilagi > Joseph > Slade > Daly > Te'o
I do'nt think Slade is a better foil for either Farrell or Te'o than JJ is - Faz needs JJ's defence to make amends for him, and I'm pretty confident, that Te'o would absolutely love to have JJ on his shoulder for the offload out of the tackle.

Oakboy wrote:I hope I am wrong and you are right. Of course, should Tuilagi ever get properly fit, Jones will select neither.

For my sins, I still think Slade's proper position is 12 where his hands can do the most damage and that's where I'd pick him - ahead of Farrell or T'eo. I don't fool myself that it's likely to happen in this regime, if at all, but that's the game's loss.

I agree with every single word in here though.

As to Puja's point about Slade not playing IC... that's about as relevant as Daly being a specialist OC or Farrell being a specialist FH.
That Slade doesn't like playing IC is as relevant as Foden not enjoying FB before he got used to it; or Slade not liking OC before he got used to it. No player likes having to learn a new position, they LIKE their comfort zone; but that preference makes no difference whatsoever as to whether they'd be better off there.
Quite honestly, Slade should have been playing either IC or FB for Exeter since they gave up on him as a FH (or even earlier, whilst introducing him to the game outside Steenson).

Mikey Brown wrote:I know I just spam these threads with twitter shit now but this is interesting. You know, before we fully commit to crucifying Jamie George.

I always knew Farrell pretty much set up Ashton's try.

Mikey Brown wrote:I know I just spam these threads with twitter shit now but this is interesting. You know, before we fully commit to crucifying Jamie George.

Kay has written a piece saying that of the five throws England lost in the second half, George was pinged incorrectly on one, NZ should’ve been pinged on three and one was a poor call from Ewels just after he’d come on.

Which Tyler wrote:

Oakboy wrote:I'd not go that far but JJ is certainly a better 13 than Slade, IMO. However, Jones's system (and Farrell at 12 in particular) had reduced JJ to concentrating almost entirely on being the superb defender that he was/is. I guess that Jones couldn't give a toss about that as long as his system survives. Slade is not as good a defender as JJ, nor is he as good an attacking threat at OC within a system that supplies early ball (or regular offloads) rather than missing out the OC. What Slade offers is a better kicking game and a smooth enough integration with either Farrell or T'eo at 12. I'd not choose Slade ahead of JJ at OC but I suspect Jones might.

Meh, I just can't see Eddie's pecking order for OC being anything other than Tuilagi > Joseph > Slade > Daly > Te'o
I do'nt think Slade is a better foil for either Farrell or Te'o than JJ is - Faz needs JJ's defence to make amends for him, and I'm pretty confident, that Te'o would absolutely love to have JJ on his shoulder for the offload out of the tackle.

Oakboy wrote:I hope I am wrong and you are right. Of course, should Tuilagi ever get properly fit, Jones will select neither.

For my sins, I still think Slade's proper position is 12 where his hands can do the most damage and that's where I'd pick him - ahead of Farrell or T'eo. I don't fool myself that it's likely to happen in this regime, if at all, but that's the game's loss.

I agree with every single word in here though.

As to Puja's point about Slade not playing IC... that's about as relevant as Daly being a specialist OC or Farrell being a specialist FH.
That Slade doesn't like playing IC is as relevant as Foden not enjoying FB before he got used to it; or Slade not liking OC before he got used to it. No player likes having to learn a new position, they LIKE their comfort zone; but that preference makes no difference whatsoever as to whether they'd be better off there.
Quite honestly, Slade should have been playing either IC or FB for Exeter since they gave up on him as a FH (or even earlier, whilst introducing him to the game outside Steenson).

Don’t you think it’s telling that nobody who has coached him thinks Slade’s best position is IC?

Owen Slot ratings in the times:
Daly - 6
Ashton - 7
Slade - 7
Te’o- 6
May - 7
Farrell - 7
Youngs - 8

Moon - 7
Hartley - 8
Sinckler - 8
Itoje - 8
Kruis - 6
Shields - 6
Underhill - 9
Wilson - 7

I'd argue that the forwards coming round as a pod had more effect to draw the blindside defence in, leaving space out wide.

Mellsblue wrote:Don’t you think it’s telling that nobody who has coached him thinks Slade’s best position is IC?

No
I think St Baxter has it wrong about the best positions of several of his players, and is selecting the best team for his game plan, rather than maximising the development of any individual player.
Eddie is playing about at different things, and has a currently better distributing IC in Fazlet. Besides, if Slade can't look international class in either position he's most comfortable at, it'd be bloody stupid to ask him to play a position he's unaccustomed to.