RugbyRebels

Epaminondas Pules wrote:Freddie Steward is tiny

Of course, I completely forgot we had steward and Tuilagi and Coka. They just didn’t cross my mind

Oakboy wrote:I still think it is reasonable to criticise Jones for not playing Smith/Slade/Marchant at 10/12/13 and Daly on one wing with either Malins or Nowell on the other for all three matches. He's stuck with Steward at FB and his Youngs/Randall manoevres are OK.

Smith is new at 10. Slade and Marchant need time to gel. Changes at 9 and on one wing give the back line enough to cope with. Pick the best combination available, stick with it and put the training work in.

Now, though, everyone is slagging off performances that have been impotent and inconsistent. Whose fault is that?

The pack? Only semi serious, but we are hardly busting holes or generating rapid ball- need these things to disrupt defences.

As is being pointed out, you can configure the blokes we’d all been choosing any way you want, but it will still be a slightly one paced lacking power or scintillating running skills. You should be able to get more out of them, but no sides will look at the backs in the squad, bar maybe Manu, and worry much.

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: 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

I think you’re conflating the performance of the attack with an individuals performance.

This England attack is so obviously a work in progress it needs scaffolding.

I’d persist with Slade, and get Marchant outside him. If big Joe is back fit and firing, and Watson comes back, too, then we’ve got our wings sorted, too, and we start to look a lot more balanced.

Strange how we’re just not producing big backs anymore. Was a time that’s all we had.

Not sure we’ve ever produced that many ‘ big’ backs tbh.

Stom wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:Freddie Steward is tiny

Of course, I completely forgot we had steward and Tuilagi and Coka. They just didn’t cross my mind

Henry Slade's not exactly a little un either; even if he doesn't really use that size

I assume that’s what people actually mean when they say big though. Power and tackle breaking ability.

I have no idea why pundits are so obsessed with how tall Steward is. It’s great that he’s good in the air and a solid enough carrier, but a backline full of Stewards, Slades or even Mallinders wouldn’t really solve the problem.

It all depends on what problem you're trying to solve and finding appropriate ways to solve it effectively. Manu and Coka are big in a 'cause mayhem' kind of way, and rarely fit, which makes them less of a problem for opponents. Freddie Steward is big, but a different type of player.

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:I still think it is reasonable to criticise Jones for not playing Smith/Slade/Marchant at 10/12/13 and Daly on one wing with either Malins or Nowell on the other for all three matches. He's stuck with Steward at FB and his Youngs/Randall manoevres are OK.

Smith is new at 10. Slade and Marchant need time to gel. Changes at 9 and on one wing give the back line enough to cope with. Pick the best combination available, stick with it and put the training work in.

Now, though, everyone is slagging off performances that have been impotent and inconsistent. Whose fault is that?

The pack? Only semi serious, but we are hardly busting holes or generating rapid ball- need these things to disrupt defences.

As is being pointed out, you can configure the blokes we’d all been choosing any way you want, but it will still be a slightly one paced lacking power or scintillating running skills. You should be able to get more out of them, but no sides will look at the backs in the squad, bar maybe Manu, and worry much.

I don't dispute any of that but we should be making the most of what we have and we are not.

On your first point, if Hill is back to partner Itoje and Launchbury is on the bench, things definitely look up. Much as I rate Simmonds highly, he is not the right bench option unless he comes on in place of Dombrandt. I'd go for Barbeary on the bench.

On paper, our front row is strong but Ireland could do it damage even without Porter. It might do Genge and Sinckler good to be benched. Cockerill can't be impressed.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:It all depends on what problem you're trying to solve and finding appropriate ways to solve it effectively. Manu and Coka are big in a 'cause mayhem' kind of way, and rarely fit, which makes them less of a problem for opponents. Freddie Steward is big, but a different type of player.

I think we lack penetration and finishing ability at the mo. Part of it is the pack not generating enough front foot quick ball, part of it is a lot of changem and part of it is lacking a bit of top class all round and in the backs.

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:I still think it is reasonable to criticise Jones for not playing Smith/Slade/Marchant at 10/12/13 and Daly on one wing with either Malins or Nowell on the other for all three matches. He's stuck with Steward at FB and his Youngs/Randall manoevres are OK.

Smith is new at 10. Slade and Marchant need time to gel. Changes at 9 and on one wing give the back line enough to cope with. Pick the best combination available, stick with it and put the training work in.

Now, though, everyone is slagging off performances that have been impotent and inconsistent. Whose fault is that?

The pack? Only semi serious, but we are hardly busting holes or generating rapid ball- need these things to disrupt defences.

As is being pointed out, you can configure the blokes we’d all been choosing any way you want, but it will still be a slightly one paced lacking power or scintillating running skills. You should be able to get more out of them, but no sides will look at the backs in the squad, bar maybe Manu, and worry much.

I don't dispute any of that but we should be making the most of what we have and we are not.

On your first point, if Hill is back to partner Itoje and Launchbury is on the bench, things definitely look up. Much as I rate Simmonds highly, he is not the right bench option unless he comes on in place of Dombrandt. I'd go for Barbeary on the bench.

On paper, our front row is strong but Ireland could do it damage even without Porter. It might do Genge and Sinckler good to be benched. Cockerill can't be impressed.

One issue is that there is an awful lot of changing- some self inflicted with personnel, but especially playing around with playing styles; the way the backs played was totally different from Scotland to Italy to Wales, for example.

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:I still think it is reasonable to criticise Jones for not playing Smith/Slade/Marchant at 10/12/13 and Daly on one wing with either Malins or Nowell on the other for all three matches. He's stuck with Steward at FB and his Youngs/Randall manoevres are OK.

Smith is new at 10. Slade and Marchant need time to gel. Changes at 9 and on one wing give the back line enough to cope with. Pick the best combination available, stick with it and put the training work in.

Now, though, everyone is slagging off performances that have been impotent and inconsistent. Whose fault is that?

The pack? Only semi serious, but we are hardly busting holes or generating rapid ball- need these things to disrupt defences.

As is being pointed out, you can configure the blokes we’d all been choosing any way you want, but it will still be a slightly one paced lacking power or scintillating running skills. You should be able to get more out of them, but no sides will look at the backs in the squad, bar maybe Manu, and worry much.

I don't dispute any of that but we should be making the most of what we have and we are not.

On your first point, if Hill is back to partner Itoje and Launchbury is on the bench, things definitely look up. Much as I rate Simmonds highly, he is not the right bench option unless he comes on in place of Dombrandt. I'd go for Barbeary on the bench.

On paper, our front row is strong but Ireland could do it damage even without Porter. It might do Genge and Sinckler good to be benched. Cockerill can't be impressed.

I presume your issue with Genge and Sinckler is pretty much exclusively in the scrum? Because their numbers around the park-carries, metres made, tackles, rucks- are off the charts this 6 Nations.

Which is all very impressive, until you look at the return it brings on crossing the white line. By no means blaming them for the lack of success but it could be argued it is also part of the problem

Timbo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote: The pack? Only semi serious, but we are hardly busting holes or generating rapid ball- need these things to disrupt defences.

As is being pointed out, you can configure the blokes we’d all been choosing any way you want, but it will still be a slightly one paced lacking power or scintillating running skills. You should be able to get more out of them, but no sides will look at the backs in the squad, bar maybe Manu, and worry much.

I don't dispute any of that but we should be making the most of what we have and we are not.

On your first point, if Hill is back to partner Itoje and Launchbury is on the bench, things definitely look up. Much as I rate Simmonds highly, he is not the right bench option unless he comes on in place of Dombrandt. I'd go for Barbeary on the bench.

On paper, our front row is strong but Ireland could do it damage even without Porter. It might do Genge and Sinckler good to be benched. Cockerill can't be impressed.

I presume your issue with Genge and Sinckler is pretty much exclusively in the scrum? Because their numbers around the park-carries, metres made, tackles, rucks- are off the charts this 6 Nations.

They've been steady in the scrum so far as well. Benching Sinckler means the significantly inferior Stuart starts as well. There's also no way Marler will get close to the carrying stats of Genge which would force probably Dombrandt into playing a very different role at 8 to what he's used to.

p/d wrote:Which is all very impressive, until you look at the return it brings on crossing the white line. By no means blaming them for the lack of success but it could be argued it is also part of the problem

How could you argue that two players working hard is part of the problem out of interest?

Raggs wrote:

p/d wrote:Which is all very impressive, until you look at the return it brings on crossing the white line. By no means blaming them for the lack of success but it could be argued it is also part of the problem

How could you argue that two players working hard is part of the problem out of interest?

I did say it not them. It was more a reflection on the game plan than their individual endeavours. Could be more plays behind them or less carries more passes could have been more effective on the scoreboard.
I blame Smith

Timbo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote: The pack? Only semi serious, but we are hardly busting holes or generating rapid ball- need these things to disrupt defences.

As is being pointed out, you can configure the blokes we’d all been choosing any way you want, but it will still be a slightly one paced lacking power or scintillating running skills. You should be able to get more out of them, but no sides will look at the backs in the squad, bar maybe Manu, and worry much.

I don't dispute any of that but we should be making the most of what we have and we are not.

On your first point, if Hill is back to partner Itoje and Launchbury is on the bench, things definitely look up. Much as I rate Simmonds highly, he is not the right bench option unless he comes on in place of Dombrandt. I'd go for Barbeary on the bench.

On paper, our front row is strong but Ireland could do it damage even without Porter. It might do Genge and Sinckler good to be benched. Cockerill can't be impressed.

I presume your issue with Genge and Sinckler is pretty much exclusively in the scrum? Because their numbers around the park-carries, metres made, tackles, rucks- are off the charts this 6 Nations.

I certainly am talking about the scrum because that has to be the priority for props, IMO. Solidity comes first, followed by an absence of penalties conceded. I just don't see our front row as being at their peak. Wales rattled them. Next up are Ireland and France. That could be painful unless things improve.

On scrummaging, is Ewels supposed to be something special? I still struggle to understand his selection, though I thought he was less of a liability against Wales in general play than usual.

As for the other stats, the figures may indicate positivity but I am not so sure about game-affecting contribution. Obviously, I can only be subjective based on what the TV director allows me to watch.

Oakboy wrote:

Timbo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

I don't dispute any of that but we should be making the most of what we have and we are not.

On your first point, if Hill is back to partner Itoje and Launchbury is on the bench, things definitely look up. Much as I rate Simmonds highly, he is not the right bench option unless he comes on in place of Dombrandt. I'd go for Barbeary on the bench.

On paper, our front row is strong but Ireland could do it damage even without Porter. It might do Genge and Sinckler good to be benched. Cockerill can't be impressed.

I presume your issue with Genge and Sinckler is pretty much exclusively in the scrum? Because their numbers around the park-carries, metres made, tackles, rucks- are off the charts this 6 Nations.

I certainly am talking about the scrum because that has to be the priority for props, IMO. Solidity comes first, followed by an absence of penalties conceded. I just don't see our front row as being at their peak. Wales rattled them. Next up are Ireland and France. That could be painful unless things improve.

On scrummaging, is Ewels supposed to be something special? I still struggle to understand his selection, though I thought he was less of a liability against Wales in general play than usual.

As for the other stats, the figures may indicate positivity but I am not so sure about game-affecting contribution. Obviously, I can only be subjective based on what the TV director allows me to watch.

I will note that we got the shitty end of the referreeing stick in the scrums against Wales - not just 50:50 decisions, but 70:30s and 100:0s as well. It's harsh to blame Genge for being "poor in the scrums" when he literally got penalised for hinging against a prop who losr his balance and was on his knees at the engage.

Puja

p/d wrote:

Raggs wrote:

p/d wrote:Which is all very impressive, until you look at the return it brings on crossing the white line. By no means blaming them for the lack of success but it could be argued it is also part of the problem

How could you argue that two players working hard is part of the problem out of interest?

I did say it not them. It was more a reflection on the game plan than their individual endeavours. Could be more plays behind them or less carries more passes could have been more effective on the scoreboard.
I blame Smith

Eh?

You’re criticising the game plan but then blaming the person who is basically responsible for executing it? I don’t think it really works like that …

When I look at our impotent performances so far, I can’t see any way you would ‘blame Smith’ for them. I’m almost certain that with Farrell we would have looked even worse. Ford might have been able to manage the games better than Smith, but If Smith is he future (which I think he is), we need to give him the time to acclimatise to test rugby. I’d argue he already has - he just needs more time in the shirt.

Which Tyler wrote:

Stom wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:Freddie Steward is tiny

Of course, I completely forgot we had steward and Tuilagi and Coka. They just didn’t cross my mind

Henry Slade's not exactly a little un either; even if he doesn't really use that size

France have Jonathan Danty and Ireland have Henshaw and Aki. Beyond that, I don’t think any of the midfield pairings in the 6 Nations are notably big. The likes of Fickou, Tompkins and Ringrose aren’t much bigger (if at all) than Slade but seem to be able to use their size/physical attributes much more effectively.

Scrumhead wrote:

p/d wrote:

Raggs wrote:
How could you argue that two players working hard is part of the problem out of interest?

I did say it not them. It was more a reflection on the game plan than their individual endeavours. Could be more plays behind them or less carries more passes could have been more effective on the scoreboard.
I blame Smith

Eh?

You’re criticising the game plan but then blaming the person who is basically responsible for executing it? I don’t think it really works like that …

When I look at our impotent performances so far, I can’t see any way you would ‘blame Smith’ for them. I’m almost certain that with Farrell we would have looked even worse. Ford might have been able to manage the games better than Smith, but If Smith is he future (which I think he is), we need to give him the time to acclimatise to test rugby. I’d argue he already has - he just needs more time in the shirt.
.

sorry Scrumhead, the ‘I blame Smith’ was a throw away line. Some way back in the thread Smith came into criticism for butchering our attack. I very much defended him

Raggs wrote:

p/d wrote:Which is all very impressive, until you look at the return it brings on crossing the white line. By no means blaming them for the lack of success but it could be argued it is also part of the problem

How could you argue that two players working hard is part of the problem out of interest?

Working hard should be a given for any pro player tbh, but not sure that's what p/d is driving at. A cursory look at the stats for the wales game shows how much carrying the tight 5 did individually and collectively- outside the half backs and dombrandt, Genge, Sinckler, Ewels and Itoje as individuals had the ball in their hands more than any other player...so collectively, that's a lot of carrying; it says much about the game plan, and needs looking at, because bar one dent by Genge of about 10 metres, most of it was ending at or before the tackle line and didn't lead to busts or quick ball. We need to do better than that imo.

I blame Smith.

#justice4smith

Banquo wrote:I blame Smith.

I'm glad you've come around.

Puja

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:

p/d wrote:Which is all very impressive, until you look at the return it brings on crossing the white line. By no means blaming them for the lack of success but it could be argued it is also part of the problem

How could you argue that two players working hard is part of the problem out of interest?

Working hard should be a given for any pro player tbh, but not sure that's what p/d is driving at. A cursory look at the stats for the wales game shows how much carrying the tight 5 did individually and collectively- outside the half backs and dombrandt, Genge, Sinckler, Ewels and Itoje as individuals had the ball in their hands more than any other player...so collectively, that's a lot of carrying; it says much about the game plan, and needs looking at, because bar one dent by Genge of about 10 metres, most of it was ending at or before the tackle line and didn't lead to busts or quick ball. We need to do better than that imo.

I blame Smith.

Aye. You just put it better.

I blame Stuart

p/d wrote: I blame Stuart

Lancaster?

Mellsblue wrote:

p/d wrote: I blame Stuart

Lancaster?

Hooper

He’s that shoite a coach it’s not beyond the realms of possibility.