Wasps vs Saints

[Digby]

Faz outside Cips fills me with horror. No way would that work. Not sure anyone's calling for it though.

I think Cipriani is our best FH, without question. However, I find it hard to disagree with the gist of Jones's statement that he's a No 1 or not in. I'd interpret that as meaning that if Cipriani is in the squad Ford and Farrell are not. I think Cipriani would fit with Lozowski or Slade at 12 but he would be totally stymied by Farrell at 12.

Where I get a bit of an issue with Jones (in view of his stance on Cipriani) is that he is so strongly in favour of Ford and Farrell in the same starting XV (apparently). I still think that Farrell at 12 reduces Ford's effectiveness as a 10 and therefore the overall performance of the team.

I'd have picked Cipriani going back a few years rather than Ford or Farrell, but I don't see why he's now our #1 option ahead of Ford. I do like the chances Cips creates, and I think there's an argument it'd suit our style of break the line or kick it away. But Ford is highly accomplished, plays wellm and is closing on 50 caps, so these days Ford is for me a clear #1 even if I might prefer things had been different

[Banquo]

Cips at 15 would require the whole team to be built round him. He's nowhere under the high ball and his tackling, whilst vastly imrpoved from a few years ago, is simply not up to FB standard or even close when it comes to last ditch head on tackling. Even Goode would fill me with more confidence. Wanting him to be Eng's WLR is to simply ignore WLR's ability in the tackle or under the high ball.

Aye

Why would he need the whole team built around him? (Not that it's even going to be looked at now he's older, slower and with little experience at 15 just as a point of interest)

His actual games at 15 back in the day didn't have Wasps built around him. Goode mostly didn't have England built around him bar 2-3 games where he was the first receiver on the blind side splitting the field with Faz, and even that's a stretch to claim the team was built around Goode.

Highlighted what I was aye-ing to.

Whole team built around him is maybe stretching it, but certainly adjustment is required to make a 15 as playmaker work, as you yourself said at the time of Goode doing that specific job.

but another odd debate about something that won't happen.

[Digby]

Aye

Why would he need the whole team built around him? (Not that it's even going to be looked at now he's older, slower and with little experience at 15 just as a point of interest)

His actual games at 15 back in the day didn't have Wasps built around him. Goode mostly didn't have England built around him bar 2-3 games where he was the first receiver on the blind side splitting the field with Faz, and even that's a stretch to claim the team was built around Goode.

Highlighted what I was aye-ing to.

Whole team built around him is maybe stretching it, but certainly adjustment is required to make a 15 as playmaker work, as you yourself said at the time of Goode doing that specific job.

but another odd debate about something that won't happen.

I'd overlooked the highlighted passage, apologies. Though I don't think one would have to change a setup much just 'cause a 15 could pass, and I'd say that being one who wants a 15 to keep their depth far more than come up into the line as a norm.

[Peej]

Get woodward in at 15 I reckon.

There'd be no complaints here if that came to pass

[Digby]

Get woodward in at 15 I reckon.

There'd be no complaints here if that came to pass

Not English, not good enough to even have NZ ponder if they should look at him. I realise I complain a lot, but I'd complain

[Banquo]

Why would he need the whole team built around him? (Not that it's even going to be looked at now he's older, slower and with little experience at 15 just as a point of interest)

His actual games at 15 back in the day didn't have Wasps built around him. Goode mostly didn't have England built around him bar 2-3 games where he was the first receiver on the blind side splitting the field with Faz, and even that's a stretch to claim the team was built around Goode.

Highlighted what I was aye-ing to.

Whole team built around him is maybe stretching it, but certainly adjustment is required to make a 15 as playmaker work, as you yourself said at the time of Goode doing that specific job.

but another odd debate about something that won't happen.

I'd overlooked the highlighted passage, apologies. Though I don't think one would have to change a setup much just 'cause a 15 could pass, and I'd say that being one who wants a 15 to keep their depth far more than come up into the line as a norm.

That's an odd strawman

[Raggs]

Get woodward in at 15 I reckon.

There'd be no complaints here if that came to pass

Not English, not good enough to even have NZ ponder if they should look at him. I realise I complain a lot, but I'd complain

English parent(s?) and spent time at Hartpury as a boy... not completely not English.

[Digby]

Highlighted what I was aye-ing to.

Whole team built around him is maybe stretching it, but certainly adjustment is required to make a 15 as playmaker work, as you yourself said at the time of Goode doing that specific job.

but another odd debate about something that won't happen.

I'd overlooked the highlighted passage, apologies. Though I don't think one would have to change a setup much just 'cause a 15 could pass, and I'd say that being one who wants a 15 to keep their depth far more than come up into the line as a norm.

That's an odd strawman

I wasn't remotely aiming for a strawman argument. Simply you could have a player like a (young) Cipriani play 15 and have them keep their depth. You might have some strike moves that used their passing up in the line, and sometimes they would more naturally be up in the line and be able to pass, but you wouldn't have to see them used as an auxiliary playmaker

[Banquo]

I'd overlooked the highlighted passage, apologies. Though I don't think one would have to change a setup much just 'cause a 15 could pass, and I'd say that being one who wants a 15 to keep their depth far more than come up into the line as a norm.

That's an odd strawman

I wasn't remotely aiming for a strawman argument. Simply you could have a player like a (young) Cipriani play 15 and have them keep their depth. You might have some strike moves that used their passing up in the line, and sometimes they would more naturally be up in the line and be able to pass, but you wouldn't have to see them used as an auxiliary playmaker

That was the point that started this discussion in the first place. But I agree you wouldn't have to use Cips like this. And he won't be, because it won't happen.

[Digby]

There'd be no complaints here if that came to pass

Not English, not good enough to even have NZ ponder if they should look at him. I realise I complain a lot, but I'd complain

English parent(s?) and spent time at Hartpury as a boy... not completely not English.

Or as English as Brad Shields.

It doesn't feel like we're much trying to achieve anything if we're starting out using that which NZ don't even want

[Digby]

That's an odd strawman

I wasn't remotely aiming for a strawman argument. Simply you could have a player like a (young) Cipriani play 15 and have them keep their depth. You might have some strike moves that used their passing up in the line, and sometimes they would more naturally be up in the line and be able to pass, but you wouldn't have to see them used as an auxiliary playmaker

That was the point that started this discussion in the first place. But I agree you wouldn't have to use Cips like this. And he won't be, because it won't happen.

That's what started my point, or at least my querying why a player such as Cirpriani at 15 would require a team to be built around them. You could, but equally they could simply slot in.

I'd have some concerns as players with a skillset such as Cipriani or Beale are going to want to get on the ball more, and I tend to prefer 15s stay deep. But even Lewsey ran up too much for my preference and he barely had a skill set

[Beasties]

I think you've missed what I was meaning Diggers re building the team, not that it's terribly important. It's his unreliable defence that I was referring to. Wasps did make allowances for him in the early days, they had a system that could cope easily. He often defended at 13 to keep him away from the heavy traffic, allowing him to tackle fliers from the side rather than dump trucks from the front. And I didn't remember both him at 15 and Van Gisbergen in the same team. Wasps were well used to a FB that wasn't the most defensively solid when they had MVG. And latterly Wasps had the odd occasion when Cips turned out at 10, MVG at 15 and Varndell at 11. That really was a weak backline defensively, I still have the mental scars.

His attacking ability from FB isn't really in doubt as far as I'm concerned. Then again, this is a dead end debate so hey ho.

[Oakboy]

Get woodward in at 15 I reckon.

There'd be no complaints here if that came to pass

Not English, not good enough to even have NZ ponder if they should look at him. I realise I complain a lot, but I'd complain

Sometimes, he doesn't appear to be the brightest. There are occasional lapses in decision-making that might build up reservations. Such issues will only be worse up a level. He's worth trying, I suppose, but I'd not put money on him being a great success.

[Digby]

I think you've missed what I was meaning Diggers re building the team, not that it's terribly important. It's his unreliable defence that I was referring to. Wasps did make allowances for him in the early days, they had a system that could cope easily. He often defended at 13 to keep him away from the heavy traffic, allowing him to tackle fliers from the side rather than dump trucks from the front. And I didn't remember both him at 15 and Van Gisbergen in the same team. Wasps were well used to a FB that wasn't the most defensively solid when they had MVG. And latterly Wasps had the odd occasion when Cips turned out at 10, MVG at 15 and Varndell at 11. That really was a weak backline defensively, I still have the mental scars.

His attacking ability from FB isn't really in doubt as far as I'm concerned. Then again, this is a dead end debate so hey ho.

I'm even more lost now, or at the very least we see the game in very different ways. Defending at 13 I'd consider more difficult based on decision making than 15, and considerably more physical than at 15. Indeed imo 13 has the toughest job on the team when it comes to defending, so no way I'd be hiding a supposed weak defender in that role, and I'd rather have a weak(er) defender at 15 than 11 or 14 too

[Mellsblue]

I think you've missed what I was meaning Diggers re building the team, not that it's terribly important. It's his unreliable defence that I was referring to. Wasps did make allowances for him in the early days, they had a system that could cope easily. He often defended at 13 to keep him away from the heavy traffic, allowing him to tackle fliers from the side rather than dump trucks from the front. And I didn't remember both him at 15 and Van Gisbergen in the same team. Wasps were well used to a FB that wasn't the most defensively solid when they had MVG. And latterly Wasps had the odd occasion when Cips turned out at 10, MVG at 15 and Varndell at 11. That really was a weak backline defensively, I still have the mental scars.

His attacking ability from FB isn't really in doubt as far as I'm concerned. Then again, this is a dead end debate so hey ho.

I'm even more lost now, or at the very least we see the game in very different ways. Defending at 13 I'd consider more difficult based on decision making than 15, and considerably more physical than at 15. Indeed imo 13 has the toughest job on the team when it comes to defending, so no way I'd be hiding a supposed weak defender in that role, and I'd rather have a weak(er) defender at 15 than 11 or 14 too

This was clearly a cunning ruse from Banquo to get you to admit to 13 being the most difficult position in which to defend and you walked straight in to it.

[Digby]

I think you've missed what I was meaning Diggers re building the team, not that it's terribly important. It's his unreliable defence that I was referring to. Wasps did make allowances for him in the early days, they had a system that could cope easily. He often defended at 13 to keep him away from the heavy traffic, allowing him to tackle fliers from the side rather than dump trucks from the front. And I didn't remember both him at 15 and Van Gisbergen in the same team. Wasps were well used to a FB that wasn't the most defensively solid when they had MVG. And latterly Wasps had the odd occasion when Cips turned out at 10, MVG at 15 and Varndell at 11. That really was a weak backline defensively, I still have the mental scars.

His attacking ability from FB isn't really in doubt as far as I'm concerned. Then again, this is a dead end debate so hey ho.

I'm even more lost now, or at the very least we see the game in very different ways. Defending at 13 I'd consider more difficult based on decision making than 15, and considerably more physical than at 15. Indeed imo 13 has the toughest job on the team when it comes to defending, so no way I'd be hiding a supposed weak defender in that role, and I'd rather have a weak(er) defender at 15 than 11 or 14 too

This was clearly a cunning ruse from Banquo to get you to admit to 13 being the most difficult position in which to defend and you walked straight in to it.

There are many, many posts where I concede just this point. And even if I wanted to argue with my own posting posting history, and I suspect some of it isn't brilliance epitomised, it's a position I'd still hold too that 13 is the hardest role going in defence.

Or at least it would be the hardest job going Vs a competent attack, many teams have less width in their attack than a postage stamp or just keep kicking the ball away which does rather allow the 13 to light a cigar and put their feet up.

[Banquo]

My work here is done! Adieu!

[Digby]

Adieu! Blimey, sounds serious

[TheDasher]

Not English, not good enough to even have NZ ponder if they should look at him. I realise I complain a lot, but I'd complain

English parent(s?) and spent time at Hartpury as a boy... not completely not English.

Or as English as Brad Shields.

It doesn't feel like we're much trying to achieve anything if we're starting out using that which NZ don't even want

Shields I have no problem with to be honest, both his parents were born in England and live in Berkshire. If both parents are English, he's as much English as he is NZ just from being born there. This isn't a Walrdom situation.

Woodward from what I've read, did an exchange at Hartpury for a couple of years... I think that's it no? He's not English at all is he?

[Raggs]

He was definitely EQP on arrival, fairly sure a parent or two.

[Digby]

Some, perhaps the majority, will see them as English, given the circumstances I see them as NZ rejects and that they're simply using a flag of convenience to play at test level and earn some more money if it's on offer. I don't in this situation blame the players, I don't with Hughes either as a for instance, and I don't have a good idea how to stop this happening, but it does cheapen test rugby for me.

[TheDasher]

Some, perhaps the majority, will see them as English, given the circumstances I see them as NZ rejects and that they're simply using a flag of convenience to play at test level and earn some more money if it's on offer. I don't in this situation blame the players, I don't with Hughes either as a for instance, and I don't have a good idea how to stop this happening, but it does cheapen test rugby for me.

I totally agree with this usually, but I think having two English parents is a little different. Shields gets the green light from me, many others don't.

[Mellsblue]

As Raggs said, Woodward has at least one English parent. Though, as he has married an English lady he has literally come over here stealing our jobs and our women. For that reason alone he should be deported never mind allowed to play for Ingerland.
Whether, he’s good enough is a different matter. I haven’t seen too much of him but from what I’ve seen he doesn’t immediately shout international quality. That said, if it’s him or Brown then I’d choose Woodward. I don’t necessarily think he’s better player, I just think Brown is going down hill and Woodward is more rounded with higher potential.

[Mellsblue]

Some, perhaps the majority, will see them as English, given the circumstances I see them as NZ rejects and that they're simply using a flag of convenience to play at test level and earn some more money if it's on offer. I don't in this situation blame the players, I don't with Hughes either as a for instance, and I don't have a good idea how to stop this happening, but it does cheapen test rugby for me.

I totally agree with this usually, but I think having two English parents is a little different. Shields gets the green light from me, many others don't.

My issue is the feeling that Shields sees England as a second choice once the NZ door was closed. That said, it’s difficult/impossible to legislate against that and I definitely agree with the two parent rule, even if one parent is a grey area and a grandparent is almost certainly a ‘no’, for me.

[Digby]

Some, perhaps the majority, will see them as English, given the circumstances I see them as NZ rejects and that they're simply using a flag of convenience to play at test level and earn some more money if it's on offer. I don't in this situation blame the players, I don't with Hughes either as a for instance, and I don't have a good idea how to stop this happening, but it does cheapen test rugby for me.

I totally agree with this usually, but I think having two English parents is a little different. Shields gets the green light from me, many others don't.

I start which nation would they play for all else being equal. Though I'd fall foul of my own rule looking back a Mike Catt's career for England, and there's a decent chance Manu would play for Samoa and I've no issue with him playing for England whatsoever, so it's not easy to solve my problems even before the IRB aren't there to resolve my specific issues with the game