RugbyRebels

I'd just press on with Slade at 12 for the 6N, concentrating on sorting out the 9 shirt and back row. He's comfortable there and so is Smith playing with him. Randall needs quick-handed alternatives near him and the Smith/Slade combo works. Marchant was wrongly discarded early. Leave him at 13 and work with it. He is better than his performances to date indicate.

I'm not bothered about the 6N at this stage but bringing Kelly or Ojomoh in adds to the confusion and leaves too many positions/units in flux. I totally agree with trying them after the 6N. We have to keep Farrell out of the 12 shirt somehow.

Puja wrote:

SDHoneymonster wrote:Saints providing the captains for both sides too. One club providing opposing international captains can't happen too often.

BBC says it's the first time it's ever happened for England vs Wales.

Puja

Sixth time in the history of the championship according to the times.

So Sale have carefully managed Manu back to fitness and its taken less than a week for England to break him again.

FKAS wrote:

chris1850 wrote:Manu broken again

Fucksake.

From a Sale perspective this is really disappointing as Sanderson has tried to manage Manu back to fitness by watching his 'loading'. Manu in his own words has kept off the weights to manage his 'bulk' and actually trimmed down a bit to try and manage the stress his body goes through.....he's had 2 games for Sale and come through both unscathed....goes to England and Eddie breaks him.

‘England’s analysis of Tier 1 nations over the past two years shows that the team ahead at the 20 minute mark win 75per cent of their games.’

“Harry is lighter, faster and will get to the ball quicker in the early part of the game and when the game is more even paced”, said Jones “We feel like there will be opportunities against Wales early in the game and Harry each week has been on increasingly better form. He’s sharp around the ruck, gives us that instinctiveness with his ability to take quick taps and run quickly. And then we have Ben to finish the game.”

I share this graphic with trepidation…..

32nd Man wrote:So Sale have carefully managed Manu back to fitness and its taken less than a week for England to break him again.

The same thought occurred to me.

badback wrote:

Puja wrote:

badback wrote: Thanks. Don’t know much about Kelly. Worth trying now?

He's a decent hard runner, but has a good step and some nice hands on him. He's been improving week-on-week this season - feels like he's taken his England experience in the summer, seen what he needed to do to get back there, and has just kicked on.

Hard to tell whether he's ready now, as his rate of improvement is quite sharp and it's hard to tell what's a run of form and what's a new consistent level of performance. Back when the 6N squad was announced, I wasn't a fan of Atkinson's selection, but wasn't distraught that Kelly wasn't there. If it was selected this week, he'd be in the squad.

I'd say he's solidly 4th choice - behind Manu, Farrell, and Slade. If we lose Slade as well, then he's the next cab off the rank IMO, but probably not quite at the level where he's competing with any of those three yet.

Puja

Thanks. Interesting - doesn’t sound like the next messiah but worth investing in.

Pretty much. Kelly strikes me as likely to be one of those inside centres that facilitates quality around him. His tackle count and physicality in defence is pretty much flanker esque. He loves the physical stuff. The attacking elements have been developing nicely, he was always good at running straight and hard but he's not showing more footwork, hands and hints of a kicking game. We're he to add those consistently then you'd have an all action 12 cornerstone of the backline type player.

Different to Ojomoh who seems to be a silky runner with an outrageous skillset. Anyone else think hints of Guscott? Outside Smith he'd open up the backline for some outrageous attack but you'd need a stabilising force at 13 I feel.

Possibly a good centre combination there between the two of them. Kelly played 13 at age grade level and isn't a slouch pace wise. Could perhaps see them paired and rotating between position based on the move or where they are defending.

Mellsblue wrote:‘England’s analysis of Tier 1 nations over the past two years shows that the team ahead at the 20 minute mark win 75per cent of their games.’

“Harry is lighter, faster and will get to the ball quicker in the early part of the game and when the game is more even paced”, said Jones “We feel like there will be opportunities against Wales early in the game and Harry each week has been on increasingly better form. He’s sharp around the ruck, gives us that instinctiveness with his ability to take quick taps and run quickly. And then we have Ben to finish the game.”

I share this graphic with trepidation…..

If we assume that for most of those years the probability that everyone scored first against Italy and everyone beat Italy = as near to 1 as makes no difference, I suspect it starts to look a bit less telling as a stat.

Oakboy wrote:I'd just press on with Slade at 12 for the 6N, concentrating on sorting out the 9 shirt and back row. He's comfortable there and so is Smith playing with him. Randall needs quick-handed alternatives near him and the Smith/Slade combo works. Marchant was wrongly discarded early. Leave him at 13 and work with it. He is better than his performances to date indicate.

I'm not bothered about the 6N at this stage but bringing Kelly or Ojomoh in adds to the confusion and leaves too many positions/units in flux. I totally agree with trying them after the 6N. We have to keep Farrell out of the 12 shirt somehow.

32nd Man wrote:If we assume that for most of those years the probability that everyone scored first against Italy and everyone beat Italy = as near to 1 as makes no difference, I suspect it starts to look a bit less telling as a stat.

And even without Italy, if one team is simply better than the other, you'd expect them to both score first, and win.

32nd Man wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:‘England’s analysis of Tier 1 nations over the past two years shows that the team ahead at the 20 minute mark win 75per cent of their games.’

“Harry is lighter, faster and will get to the ball quicker in the early part of the game and when the game is more even paced”, said Jones “We feel like there will be opportunities against Wales early in the game and Harry each week has been on increasingly better form. He’s sharp around the ruck, gives us that instinctiveness with his ability to take quick taps and run quickly. And then we have Ben to finish the game.”

I share this graphic with trepidation…..

If we assume that for most of those years the probability that everyone scored first against Italy and everyone beat Italy = as near to 1 as makes no difference, I suspect it starts to look a bit less telling as a stat.

This is true. So your gut feeling is scoring first isn’t important?

Oakboy wrote:I'd just press on with Slade at 12 for the 6N, concentrating on sorting out the 9 shirt and back row. He's comfortable there and so is Smith playing with him. Randall needs quick-handed alternatives near him and the Smith/Slade combo works. Marchant was wrongly discarded early. Leave him at 13 and work with it. He is better than his performances to date indicate.

I'm not bothered about the 6N at this stage but bringing Kelly or Ojomoh in adds to the confusion and leaves too many positions/units in flux. I totally agree with trying them after the 6N. We have to keep Farrell out of the 12 shirt somehow.

Yep. I’d agree with all of the above.

We need to use Tuilagi being out (again) as an opportunity to bed in an alternative centre partnership and Slade/Marchant looks like it has the most promise.

Mellsblue wrote:

SDHoneymonster wrote:Hear me out: convert Barbeary into a blockbusting 12.

With S Simmonds at 13.

It's already better than some of the centre partnerships England fielded in the mid to late 2000s and neither of them have even played centre yet.

Scrumhead wrote:

Oakboy wrote:I'd just press on with Slade at 12 for the 6N, concentrating on sorting out the 9 shirt and back row. He's comfortable there and so is Smith playing with him. Randall needs quick-handed alternatives near him and the Smith/Slade combo works. Marchant was wrongly discarded early. Leave him at 13 and work with it. He is better than his performances to date indicate.

I'm not bothered about the 6N at this stage but bringing Kelly or Ojomoh in adds to the confusion and leaves too many positions/units in flux. I totally agree with trying them after the 6N. We have to keep Farrell out of the 12 shirt somehow.

Yep. I’d agree with all of the above.

We need to use Tuilagi being out (again) as an opportunity to bed in an alternative centre partnership and Slade/Marchant looks like it has the most promise.

Slade/Marchant might not be the medium-term solution all the way to the RWC but it is certainly the best short-term one available. It probably means Jones will play Daly at 13!

Which Tyler wrote: And even without Italy, if one team is simply better than the other, you'd expect them to both score first, and win.

It would be fascinating* to know the % for the team with the higher world ranking scoring first and then going on to win, if anyone has a spare month. Might also be worth taking in to account whether the match was home or away.

*not sarcasm

Which Tyler wrote:

Oakboy wrote:I'd just press on with Slade at 12 for the 6N, concentrating on sorting out the 9 shirt and back row. He's comfortable there and so is Smith playing with him. Randall needs quick-handed alternatives near him and the Smith/Slade combo works. Marchant was wrongly discarded early. Leave him at 13 and work with it. He is better than his performances to date indicate.

I'm not bothered about the 6N at this stage but bringing Kelly or Ojomoh in adds to the confusion and leaves too many positions/units in flux. I totally agree with trying them after the 6N. We have to keep Farrell out of the 12 shirt somehow.

32nd Man wrote:If we assume that for most of those years the probability that everyone scored first against Italy and everyone beat Italy = as near to 1 as makes no difference, I suspect it starts to look a bit less telling as a stat.

And even without Italy, if one team is simply better than the other, you'd expect them to both score first, and win.

The most amazing thing about that is Mells thought it worth posting

p/d wrote: The most amazing thing about that is Mells thought it worth posting

A) England felt it important enough to look into.
B) I’m guessing you see the irony in your post.
C) Jones seems to think it’s important enough to influence selection.

Mellsblue wrote:

SDHoneymonster wrote:Hear me out: convert Barbeary into a blockbusting 12.

With S Simmonds at 13.

Obvs the other way round. Look at their physiques. Jeez.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

SDHoneymonster wrote:Hear me out: convert Barbeary into a blockbusting 12.

With S Simmonds at 13.

Obvs the other way round. Look at their physiques. Jeez.

I have a graphic of some stats that says otherwise.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: With S Simmonds at 13.

Obvs the other way round. Look at their physiques. Jeez.

I have a graphic of some stats that says otherwise.

Mellsblue wrote:

32nd Man wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:‘England’s analysis of Tier 1 nations over the past two years shows that the team ahead at the 20 minute mark win 75per cent of their games.’

“Harry is lighter, faster and will get to the ball quicker in the early part of the game and when the game is more even paced”, said Jones “We feel like there will be opportunities against Wales early in the game and Harry each week has been on increasingly better form. He’s sharp around the ruck, gives us that instinctiveness with his ability to take quick taps and run quickly. And then we have Ben to finish the game.”

I share this graphic with trepidation…..

If we assume that for most of those years the probability that everyone scored first against Italy and everyone beat Italy = as near to 1 as makes no difference, I suspect it starts to look a bit less telling as a stat.

This is true. So your gut feeling is scoring first isn’t important?

Scoring first is better than not scoring first, and it's the same sort of principle as first innings runs being more important than getting a century in the second innings when the game is gone.

My gut feeling is that scoring stats arent important enough to be skewing an entire game plan around, given you can be 3 nil down inside a minute from some pretty innocuous things happening at kick off reception.

There was a period it felt like we were scoring inside the first 10 almost every game. We then seemed to start losing quite a lot. Who knows if that actually lines up with the facts though. Maybe scoring is... bad?

Mikey Brown wrote:There was a period it felt like we were scoring inside the first 10 almost every game. We then seemed to start losing quite a lot. Who knows if that actually lines up with the facts though. Maybe scoring is... bad?

There was that summer tour in SA where we scored a lot early on in the first two games and still lost both. I have horrible memories of Wales in particular overturning decent leads against us in the last 5/10 years and also the Scotland 33-33 game.

Squidge (of youtube fame) always put forward the idea that during Eddie's reign our tactic is to strike first and early with a preconceived play from a lineout then pressure the opposition territory wise with points on the board. A basic idea I guess, but the game against NZ in the world cup is a good example. They clear the ball off field straight away, lineout, we play so fast they can't handle us, we disable their defence, make ground & score.

What's interesting is Wales know we want them to clear the ball out of play on kick off, so usually keep the ball infield whether kicking back or scoring from first phase (was that last year??). It'll be worth how they handle that tomorrow.

Sounds like Ojomoh’s a chip off the old block - his dad was a fantastically good no.8 (for me he overtook Deano by ‘94) - shame Cooke and Rowell kept trying to shoe horn him into the 7 shirt when there were at least 3 top notch specialists trying to get a look in at time...

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

SDHoneymonster wrote:Hear me out: convert Barbeary into a blockbusting 12.

With S Simmonds at 13.

Obvs the other way round. Look at their physiques. Jeez.

I did just hear 'Simmonds for 12' being discussed on a youtube video. Apparently he had considered 12 when he was a bit younger. The conclusion was still no. In fact the conclusion was.. Kelly is probably the one for the future.

My memories of Andy Farrell at 12, having also played back row in Union I think, around 2006/07 era are not positive.

Insouciant wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: With S Simmonds at 13.

Obvs the other way round. Look at their physiques. Jeez.

I did just hear 'Simmonds for 12' being discussed on a youtube video. Apparently he had considered 12 when he was a bit younger. The conclusion was still no. In fact the conclusion was.. Kelly is probably the one for the future.

My memories of Andy Farrell at 12, having also played back row in Union I think, around 2006/07 era are not positive.

Iirc, he played centre up until his first full season with the Exeter 1st team. He was DR with, I think Plymouth, as a centre the season prior.