RugbyRebels

Raggs wrote:But again, that was all 4 years ago or longer, and he's done the square root of snot all since then.

Such approach supports the ongoing selection of Hartley and Cole, and in recent past was enough to see Te'o selected. I tend to agree with not going back to Morgan, though I'd also agree he's the sort of player who seems to perform better at test level than club form has suggested would be the case.

Raggs wrote:But again, that was all 4 years ago or longer, and he's done the square root of snot all since then.

Well, generally when fit he's been the starting number 8 for Gloucester and I've seen him play well a number of times. Again, my point is that great coaches do things with talent to make it work and I'm just surprised that EJ, who knows what Morgan is capable of, hasn't had a look at him. If someone gets the best out of Morgan, it's good for England; I say this when Vunipola and Hughes are both out which makes my point more valid, if they weren't, I wouldn't have mentioned his name...

TheDasher wrote:

Raggs wrote:But again, that was all 4 years ago or longer, and he's done the square root of snot all since then.

Well, generally when fit he's been the starting number 8 for Gloucester and I've seen him play well a number of times. Again, my point is that great coaches do things with talent to make it work and I'm just surprised that EJ, who knows what Morgan is capable of, hasn't had a look at him. If someone gets the best out of Morgan, it's good for England; I say this when Vunipola and Hughes are both out which makes my point more valid, if they weren't, I wouldn't have mentioned his name...

You think Morgan deserves a start over Simmonds?

Digby wrote:At least you have Te'o starting Banquo

In the wrong position, but as we've said, we are too far down the farrell path now. Its undoubtedly because of lack of carrying elsewhere.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:At least you have Te'o starting Banquo

In the wrong position, but as we've said, we are too far down the farrell path now. Its undoubtedly because of lack of carrying elsewhere.

As noted somewhere above what's the plan if we lose our 10 or other 10?

Mellsblue wrote:

TheDasher wrote:

Raggs wrote:But again, that was all 4 years ago or longer, and he's done the square root of snot all since then.

Well, generally when fit he's been the starting number 8 for Gloucester and I've seen him play well a number of times. Again, my point is that great coaches do things with talent to make it work and I'm just surprised that EJ, who knows what Morgan is capable of, hasn't had a look at him. If someone gets the best out of Morgan, it's good for England; I say this when Vunipola and Hughes are both out which makes my point more valid, if they weren't, I wouldn't have mentioned his name...

You think Morgan deserves a start over Simmonds?

Not necessarily but I would have had him in this squad I think, bearing in mind the absentees. I've just said in the other thread that 6 Lawes 7 Robshaw is revolting and that I am hugely underwhelmed by Underhill so I may have considered Simmonds as either a starting flanker or an impact sub covering the back row; I say this as I doubt his medium term future for England will be at 8 anyway. Again, not saying I wouldn't start Simmonds at 8 against Italy but I am saying bearing in mind the shocking flanker picks, lack of number 8s etc, I'd have had Morgan in my mind certainly.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:At least you have Te'o starting Banquo

In the wrong position, but as we've said, we are too far down the farrell path now. Its undoubtedly because of lack of carrying elsewhere.

As noted somewhere above what's the plan if we lose our 10 or other 10?

stodge ++

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:At least you have Te'o starting Banquo

In the wrong position, but as we've said, we are too far down the farrell path now. Its undoubtedly because of lack of carrying elsewhere.

As noted somewhere above what's the plan if we lose our 10 or other 10?

We won't lose both 10s. If we lose one, JJ to 13, Te'o to 12.

TheDasher wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: In the wrong position, but as we've said, we are too far down the farrell path now. Its undoubtedly because of lack of carrying elsewhere.

As noted somewhere above what's the plan if we lose our 10 or other 10?

We won't lose both 10s. If we lose one, JJ to 13, Te'o to 12.

Okay, and which player out of JJ or Te'o would you position behind the 2nd pod? The whole system probably has to change, or we're relying on JJ standing in 'cause there's no way Te'o has the passing game for it.

I wonder what the stats say on kicking away turnover ball, I know I get very cross watching turnover ball being kicked away, and even crosser when we're not exactly spoiled as regards the number of turnovers we secure and that Youngs is a much more dangerous player on turnover ball. But, if taking a Moneyball approach am I right to be cross about kicking the ball away?

Digby wrote:

TheDasher wrote:

Digby wrote:
As noted somewhere above what's the plan if we lose our 10 or other 10?

We won't lose both 10s. If we lose one, JJ to 13, Te'o to 12.

Okay, and which player out of JJ or Te'o would you position behind the 2nd pod? The whole system probably has to change, or we're relying on JJ standing in 'cause there's no way Te'o has the passing game for it.

The last time I saw Bath Joseph was at first receiver on numerous occasions. Not that I'm saying it's the best use of him.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

TheDasher wrote:
We won't lose both 10s. If we lose one, JJ to 13, Te'o to 12.

Okay, and which player out of JJ or Te'o would you position behind the 2nd pod? The whole system probably has to change, or we're relying on JJ standing in 'cause there's no way Te'o has the passing game for it.

The last time I saw Bath Joseph was at first receiver on numerous occasions. Not that I'm saying it's the best use of him.

His passing isn't bad, not as strong as Farrell's but okay, the question would have to be around his decision making in the system, and what the knock on likely drop in communication does to Ford. Frankly in advance it looks easier to change the system

Digby wrote:

TheDasher wrote:

Digby wrote:
As noted somewhere above what's the plan if we lose our 10 or other 10?

We won't lose both 10s. If we lose one, JJ to 13, Te'o to 12.

Okay, and which player out of JJ or Te'o would you position behind the 2nd pod? The whole system probably has to change, or we're relying on JJ standing in 'cause there's no way Te'o has the passing game for it.

I think in an emergency, Ford/Farrell at 10, Te'o at 12 and JJ at 13 isn't horrendous to be honest, I think we've got bigger problems.

Remember that many people on here like the idea of Manu at 12, Teo passes the ball better than him in my view.

TheDasher wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: In the wrong position, but as we've said, we are too far down the farrell path now. Its undoubtedly because of lack of carrying elsewhere.

As noted somewhere above what's the plan if we lose our 10 or other 10?

We won't lose both 10s. If we lose one, JJ to 13, Te'o to 12.

You've missed the point. Our attack is based on having two (well specifially Ford and Farrell) distributors/playmakers/players telling the forwards where to go.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

TheDasher wrote:
We won't lose both 10s. If we lose one, JJ to 13, Te'o to 12.

Okay, and which player out of JJ or Te'o would you position behind the 2nd pod? The whole system probably has to change, or we're relying on JJ standing in 'cause there's no way Te'o has the passing game for it.

The last time I saw Bath Joseph was at first receiver on numerous occasions. Not that I'm saying it's the best use of him.

That's quite different though to how England use Farrell (say).

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
Okay, and which player out of JJ or Te'o would you position behind the 2nd pod? The whole system probably has to change, or we're relying on JJ standing in 'cause there's no way Te'o has the passing game for it.

The last time I saw Bath Joseph was at first receiver on numerous occasions. Not that I'm saying it's the best use of him.

His passing isn't bad, not as strong as Farrell's but okay, the question would have to be around his decision making in the system, and what the knock on likely drop in communication does to Ford. Frankly in advance it looks easier to change the system

That's damning with no praise

TheDasher wrote:

Digby wrote:

TheDasher wrote:
We won't lose both 10s. If we lose one, JJ to 13, Te'o to 12.

Okay, and which player out of JJ or Te'o would you position behind the 2nd pod? The whole system probably has to change, or we're relying on JJ standing in 'cause there's no way Te'o has the passing game for it.

I think in an emergency, Ford/Farrell at 10, Te'o at 12 and JJ at 13 isn't horrendous to be honest, I think we've got bigger problems.

Remember that many people on here like the idea of Manu at 12, Teo passes the ball better than him in my view.

What shape does that emergency take? The England attack and how they resource forwards across the pitch has a specific reliance on having 2 10s, so in the event of losing one to injury, and okay it's not the most common thing to lose one of them, what does that to to our entire attack plan? Do we try and muddle through with unsuitable skills, or does the entire attack plan change?

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: The last time I saw Bath Joseph was at first receiver on numerous occasions. Not that I'm saying it's the best use of him.

His passing isn't bad, not as strong as Farrell's but okay, the question would have to be around his decision making in the system, and what the knock on likely drop in communication does to Ford. Frankly in advance it looks easier to change the system

That's damning with no praise

Farrell is pretty decent now, the odd shocker still, but normally at worst he's functional and he's often much better.

TheDasher wrote:

Digby wrote:

TheDasher wrote:
We won't lose both 10s. If we lose one, JJ to 13, Te'o to 12.

Okay, and which player out of JJ or Te'o would you position behind the 2nd pod? The whole system probably has to change, or we're relying on JJ standing in 'cause there's no way Te'o has the passing game for it.

I think in an emergency, Ford/Farrell at 10, Te'o at 12 and JJ at 13 isn't horrendous to be honest, I think we've got bigger problems.

Remember that many people on here like the idea of Manu at 12, Teo passes the ball better than him in my view.

I'm a fan of either of those options, namely a carrier at 12; BUT our whole game plan in attack is geared utterly differently. So unless they've extensively practiced a different system with forward pods changed, this looks an irreversible direction. Though its then curious why Lozowski (say) isnt in the squad.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
Okay, and which player out of JJ or Te'o would you position behind the 2nd pod? The whole system probably has to change, or we're relying on JJ standing in 'cause there's no way Te'o has the passing game for it.

The last time I saw Bath Joseph was at first receiver on numerous occasions. Not that I'm saying it's the best use of him.

That's quite different though to how England use Farrell (say).

Mine was a direct answer to Digby’s question, ie Jj v Teo. Rather than a comment of Joseph’s suitability to the role or experience within the role.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
His passing isn't bad, not as strong as Farrell's but okay, the question would have to be around his decision making in the system, and what the knock on likely drop in communication does to Ford. Frankly in advance it looks easier to change the system

That's damning with no praise

Farrell is pretty decent now, the odd shocker still, but normally at worst he's functional and he's often much better.

He's still crap l-r by the highest standards, and saying he is functional at worst, its hardly a complement to say JJ is worse than that!

I'm taking it that no-one is considering a Ford/Smith combination in order to maintain our attacking shape?
No?
Surely someone will suggest it?
Please! It'll be fun!

Banquo wrote:

TheDasher wrote:

Digby wrote:
Okay, and which player out of JJ or Te'o would you position behind the 2nd pod? The whole system probably has to change, or we're relying on JJ standing in 'cause there's no way Te'o has the passing game for it.

I think in an emergency, Ford/Farrell at 10, Te'o at 12 and JJ at 13 isn't horrendous to be honest, I think we've got bigger problems.

Remember that many people on here like the idea of Manu at 12, Teo passes the ball better than him in my view.

I'm a fan of either of those options, namely a carrier at 12; BUT our whole game plan in attack is geared utterly differently. So unless they've extensively practiced a different system with forward pods changed, this looks an irreversible direction. Though its then curious why Lozowski (say) isnt in the squad.

That's the thing. With Lozowski we don't even need to have this problem, even supposing we need quite such a specific model of playing to begin with

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: The last time I saw Bath Joseph was at first receiver on numerous occasions. Not that I'm saying it's the best use of him.

That's quite different though to how England use Farrell (say).

Mine was a direct answer to Digby’s question, ie Jj v Teo. Rather than a comment of Joseph’s suitability to the role or experience within the role.

Fair enough, I was referring the first receiver being a lot more than a link in England's system- JJ just links play for Bath (and actually quite well)