Oakboy wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 12:35 pm
Maybe SB will surprise us. Could he bring Freeman across to 13 and move Slade to 12? I'd prefer it to Tuilagi and Slade and it could be time to blood IFW. Furbank would then make sense on the bench.
He won't do this but if I'd been Steve I might have looked at that gamble from game one. Lawrence is probably our 13 going forward, or Freeman. When Lawrence is out Freeman coming in from the wing to play 13 is a good thought... but we're short at 12 - I think going a bit SCW and throwing Slade in there even though he doesn't play there may have been a risk worth taking, Dingwall hasn't been terrible at all - I'm not sure Slade would've been worse. Olly Hartley is surely the man at some point...
Freeman looked good at 13 for Saints, but is currently back out on the wing for them. I'd like a bit more experience there before chucking him into another new backline at intl level. Slade has plenty of experience at 12 both as a starter in the shirt and (especially) popping up i/c for Exeter; but to me he very anodyne at intl level.
He has with the right kind of 12 inside him for his game, which we’re not playing currently. In terms of game plan not personnel.
And Slade has but again different to how he’s used at Exeter.
Square pegs round holes innit. Which I know you know and are saying as well. It’s a potentially bad fit moving Freeman as it currently stands.
Oakboy wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 10:17 am
It's weird. I think SB has to make changes on the one hand. On the other if the main one is bringing Tuilagi back in at 12, it feels like such a backward step. The likes of him and Billy V in the short-term scenario of the RWC were understandable but in a quest for progress Dingwall should get another game - especially as Lawrence is not ready.
Where I get more contrary thoughts is in the case of the 10 shirt. I really want Fin Smith to start, again because Marcus is not ready, but SB has not prepared for that with his time off the bench so far.
I suppose SB has to be cut some slack to treat the Scotland game as a one-off - looking for a 3rd 6N win.
I wouldn’t lump Billy and Manu in the same bracket. Billy has gone backwards at a rate of knots whereas Manu can still be effective and will bring gainline advantage which we are lacking. He’s not a long term option by any stretch but I can see it.
Yes - the concession implied in my last sentence. The snag is that he is so injury prone. Will it cost IFW his place on the bench perhaps? In the past it cost Ford the starting 10 shirt but now there is no OF to move to 12. Either Dingwall gets the 23 shirt or Slade moves to 12 if Tuilagi fails the 80 minutes in which case why not start him there?
He won't do this but if I'd been Steve I might have looked at that gamble from game one. Lawrence is probably our 13 going forward, or Freeman. When Lawrence is out Freeman coming in from the wing to play 13 is a good thought... but we're short at 12 - I think going a bit SCW and throwing Slade in there even though he doesn't play there may have been a risk worth taking, Dingwall hasn't been terrible at all - I'm not sure Slade would've been worse. Olly Hartley is surely the man at some point...
Freeman looked good at 13 for Saints, but is currently back out on the wing for them. I'd like a bit more experience there before chucking him into another new backline at intl level. Slade has plenty of experience at 12 both as a starter in the shirt and (especially) popping up i/c for Exeter; but to me he very anodyne at intl level.
He has with the right kind of 12 inside him for his game, which we’re not playing currently. In terms of game plan not personnel.
And Slade has but again different to how he’s used at Exeter.
Square pegs round holes innit. Which I know you know and are saying as well. It’s a potentially bad fit moving Freeman as it currently stands.
Oakboy wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 10:17 am
It's weird. I think SB has to make changes on the one hand. On the other if the main one is bringing Tuilagi back in at 12, it feels like such a backward step. The likes of him and Billy V in the short-term scenario of the RWC were understandable but in a quest for progress Dingwall should get another game - especially as Lawrence is not ready.
Where I get more contrary thoughts is in the case of the 10 shirt. I really want Fin Smith to start, again because Marcus is not ready, but SB has not prepared for that with his time off the bench so far.
I suppose SB has to be cut some slack to treat the Scotland game as a one-off - looking for a 3rd 6N win.
I wouldn’t lump Billy and Manu in the same bracket. Billy has gone backwards at a rate of knots whereas Manu can still be effective and will bring gainline advantage which we are lacking. He’s not a long term option by any stretch but I can see it.
Yes - the concession implied in my last sentence. The snag is that he is so injury prone. Will it cost IFW his place on the bench perhaps? In the past it cost Ford the starting 10 shirt but now there is no OF to move to 12. Either Dingwall gets the 23 shirt or Slade moves to 12 if Tuilagi fails the 80 minutes in which case why not start him there?
Any injuries in the squad? I doubt there will be changes to the starting XV otherwise. Continuity makes such a difference and in both games so far England were closed to clicking. Of course if they fail to make that last improvement it'll all be wasted. But surely the coaches must believe in what they are trying to achieve. Changing personnel would smack of panic.
I wouldn’t lump Billy and Manu in the same bracket. Billy has gone backwards at a rate of knots whereas Manu can still be effective and will bring gainline advantage which we are lacking. He’s not a long term option by any stretch but I can see it.
Yes - the concession implied in my last sentence. The snag is that he is so injury prone. Will it cost IFW his place on the bench perhaps? In the past it cost Ford the starting 10 shirt but now there is no OF to move to 12. Either Dingwall gets the 23 shirt or Slade moves to 12 if Tuilagi fails the 80 minutes in which case why not start him there?
Start Slade at 12? Then who plays 13?
Freeman. I like deft handling and physicality that way round anyway.
Mr Mwenda wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 10:05 pm
Any injuries in the squad? I doubt there will be changes to the starting XV otherwise. Continuity makes such a difference and in both games so far England were closed to clicking. Of course if they fail to make that last improvement it'll all be wasted. But surely the coaches must believe in what they are trying to achieve. Changing personnel would smack of panic.
You are not the only one to suggest we were close to clicking. I saw the first half lost in both games with the chaos corrected later. What I can't make my mind up about is how much that was by re-design and how much was the bloody-minded will of some decent players. My question is, "If the coaching is on the right track why do we start so badly?"
For the Scottish game (win or lose), presumably, we should see the benefit of a full two weeks to get the coaching message across. How we start the game will be the crunch. If we start badly again something must be fundamentally wrong.
Mr Mwenda wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 10:05 pm
Any injuries in the squad? I doubt there will be changes to the starting XV otherwise. Continuity makes such a difference and in both games so far England were closed to clicking. Of course if they fail to make that last improvement it'll all be wasted. But surely the coaches must believe in what they are trying to achieve. Changing personnel would smack of panic.
Only returnees rather than injuries. And I don't think changing personnel smacks of panic. A fit George Martin, for example, is always going to change the 23. A new cap like Dingwall would always be under threat from a returning Tuilagi, especially if we need more carrying presence.
Mr Mwenda wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 10:05 pm
Any injuries in the squad? I doubt there will be changes to the starting XV otherwise. Continuity makes such a difference and in both games so far England were closed to clicking. Of course if they fail to make that last improvement it'll all be wasted. But surely the coaches must believe in what they are trying to achieve. Changing personnel would smack of panic.
You are not the only one to suggest we were close to clicking. I saw the first half lost in both games with the chaos corrected later. What I can't make my mind up about is how much that was by re-design and how much was the bloody-minded will of some decent players. My question is, "If the coaching is on the right track why do we start so badly?"
For the Scottish game (win or lose), presumably, we should see the benefit of a full two weeks to get the coaching message across. How we start the game will be the crunch. If we start badly again something must be fundamentally wrong.
We didn't start badly against Wales. We just didn't capitalise on what was a good start. We had all the pressure, but made some iffy decisions and lacked execution, individual errors etc. Chessum was yellowed on 12 mins or so. Up until then we were quite easily in the ascendency.
Mr Mwenda wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 10:05 pm
Any injuries in the squad? I doubt there will be changes to the starting XV otherwise. Continuity makes such a difference and in both games so far England were closed to clicking. Of course if they fail to make that last improvement it'll all be wasted. But surely the coaches must believe in what they are trying to achieve. Changing personnel would smack of panic.
What I can't make my mind up about is how much that was by re-design and how much was the bloody-minded will of some decent players.
I think you're right. The spirit of Faz lives on in this group.
Even if he isn't on the pitch, has he officially ruled himself out as captain? It probably wouldn't be that hard to link him up to the ref's earpiece.
Mr Mwenda wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 10:05 pm
Any injuries in the squad? I doubt there will be changes to the starting XV otherwise. Continuity makes such a difference and in both games so far England were closed to clicking. Of course if they fail to make that last improvement it'll all be wasted. But surely the coaches must believe in what they are trying to achieve. Changing personnel would smack of panic.
Only returnees rather than injuries. And I don't think changing personnel smacks of panic. A fit George Martin, for example, is always going to change the 23. A new cap like Dingwall would always be under threat from a returning Tuilagi, especially if we need more carrying presence.
Exactly. Not that I want Manu back but I have no doubt he would be in SB’s preferred starting XV.
Yes - the concession implied in my last sentence. The snag is that he is so injury prone. Will it cost IFW his place on the bench perhaps? In the past it cost Ford the starting 10 shirt but now there is no OF to move to 12. Either Dingwall gets the 23 shirt or Slade moves to 12 if Tuilagi fails the 80 minutes in which case why not start him there?
Start Slade at 12? Then who plays 13?
Freeman. I like deft handling and physicality that way round anyway.
Schoolboy error Besides, Freeman is way more than physicality. I do tho think that Slade would always have been a more effective intl inside centre than at 13, but he's hardly started there. A complete rookie pairing like this, with players who don't regularly play in those positions for their clubs is pretty high risk. Nice partnership as a sum of their skills tho.
(as an aside, look around at the top intl sides, and generally what sort of player is at 12. There's a reason )
Last edited by Banquo on Fri Feb 16, 2024 9:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mr Mwenda wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 10:05 pm
Any injuries in the squad? I doubt there will be changes to the starting XV otherwise. Continuity makes such a difference and in both games so far England were closed to clicking. Of course if they fail to make that last improvement it'll all be wasted. But surely the coaches must believe in what they are trying to achieve. Changing personnel would smack of panic.
You are not the only one to suggest we were close to clicking. I saw the first half lost in both games with the chaos corrected later. What I can't make my mind up about is how much that was by re-design and how much was the bloody-minded will of some decent players. My question is, "If the coaching is on the right track why do we start so badly?"
For the Scottish game (win or lose), presumably, we should see the benefit of a full two weeks to get the coaching message across. How we start the game will be the crunch. If we start badly again something must be fundamentally wrong.
We didn't start badly against Wales.......but made some iffy decisions and lacked execution, individual errors etc. Chessum was yellowed on 12 mins or so.
You are not the only one to suggest we were close to clicking. I saw the first half lost in both games with the chaos corrected later. What I can't make my mind up about is how much that was by re-design and how much was the bloody-minded will of some decent players. My question is, "If the coaching is on the right track why do we start so badly?"
For the Scottish game (win or lose), presumably, we should see the benefit of a full two weeks to get the coaching message across. How we start the game will be the crunch. If we start badly again something must be fundamentally wrong.
We didn't start badly against Wales.......but made some iffy decisions and lacked execution, individual errors etc. Chessum was yellowed on 12 mins or so.
Looks like quite a bad start to me ...
True, though easier to fix when you're exerting pressure than receiving pressure.
We didn't start badly against Wales.......but made some iffy decisions and lacked execution, individual errors etc. Chessum was yellowed on 12 mins or so.
Looks like quite a bad start to me ...
True, though easier to fix when you're exerting pressure than receiving pressure.
I was only pulling your leg- we did a lot of good things, sadly bunged away with daftness.
True, though easier to fix when you're exerting pressure than receiving pressure.
I was only pulling your leg- we did a lot of good things, sadly bunged away with daftness.
I know, but also absolutely right. Pressure is nice, but if you fuck up and come away with nowt then it's pretty pointless. Decision making and skills being sub-standard shocker!
True, though easier to fix when you're exerting pressure than receiving pressure.
I was only pulling your leg- we did a lot of good things, sadly bunged away with daftness.
Decision making and skills being sub-standard shocker!
its a killer and so effin frustrating. Interestingly, even the RFU top brass have picked up on the latter bit, bemoaning the post Fletcher years at a meeting I was in.
I was only pulling your leg- we did a lot of good things, sadly bunged away with daftness.
Decision making and skills being sub-standard shocker!
its a killer and so effin frustrating. Interestingly, even the RFU top brass have picked up on the latter bit, bemoaning the post Fletcher years at a meeting I was in.
Like an alcoholic, the first step is recognising you're an alcoholic. That's is good news. Recognising the malaise. Hopefully they've also figured out what the catalyst was and who enabled it.
Freeman. I like deft handling and physicality that way round anyway.
Schoolboy error Besides, Freeman is way more than physicality. I do tho think that Slade would always have been a more effective intl inside centre than at 13, but he's hardly started there. A complete rookie pairing like this, with players who don't regularly play in those positions for their clubs is pretty high risk. Nice partnership as a sum of their skills tho.
(as an aside, look around at the top intl sides, and generally what sort of player is at 12. There's a reason .)
I thought you'd bite. I have not forgotten your first lecture on the subject - can it really be 18 years ago? I was Dorset06 so that was the year I first posted to get acquainted with my erroneous thinking!
Last edited by Oakboy on Fri Feb 16, 2024 10:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
Freeman. I like deft handling and physicality that way round anyway.
Schoolboy error Besides, Freeman is way more than physicality. I do tho think that Slade would always have been a more effective intl inside centre than at 13, but he's hardly started there. A complete rookie pairing like this, with players who don't regularly play in those positions for their clubs is pretty high risk. Nice partnership as a sum of their skills tho.
(as an aside, look around at the top intl sides, and generally what sort of player is at 12. There's a reason .)
I thought you'd bite. I have not forgotten your first lecture on the subject - can it really be 18 years ago? I was Dorest06 so that was the year I first posted to get acquainted with my erroneous thinking!
as you know, I always enter discussions with good faith . My mantra in midfield has always been about skills both sides of the ball and decision making - centres whether starting at 12 or 13 should all be able to pass well, kick well, defend well, make great decisions and present a running threat (obvious I know); in the absence of nirvana its then about who is best suited to what role both sides of the ball.
Freeman. I like deft handling and physicality that way round anyway.
Schoolboy error Besides, Freeman is way more than physicality. I do tho think that Slade would always have been a more effective intl inside centre than at 13, but he's hardly started there. A complete rookie pairing like this, with players who don't regularly play in those positions for their clubs is pretty high risk. Nice partnership as a sum of their skills tho.
(as an aside, look around at the top intl sides, and generally what sort of player is at 12. There's a reason .)
I thought you'd bite. I have not forgotten your first lecture on the subject - can it really be 18 years ago? I was Dorset06 so that was the year I first posted to get acquainted with my erroneous thinking!
Now you're making me realise that I've been posting on this forum for 17 or 18 years!!! Damn.
Still think George Lowe should have played for England
Schoolboy error Besides, Freeman is way more than physicality. I do tho think that Slade would always have been a more effective intl inside centre than at 13, but he's hardly started there. A complete rookie pairing like this, with players who don't regularly play in those positions for their clubs is pretty high risk. Nice partnership as a sum of their skills tho.
(as an aside, look around at the top intl sides, and generally what sort of player is at 12. There's a reason .)
I thought you'd bite. I have not forgotten your first lecture on the subject - can it really be 18 years ago? I was Dorest06 so that was the year I first posted to get acquainted with my erroneous thinking!
as you know, I always enter discussions with good faith . My mantra in midfield has always been about skills both sides of the ball and decision making - centres whether starting at 12 or 13 should all be able to pass well, kick well, defend well, make great decisions and present a running threat (obvious I know); in the absence of nirvana its then about who is best suited to what role both sides of the ball.
I will never under-value your opinion. The 9, 10, 12, 13 debate has been tainted for years by Youngs and Farrell being omni-present together with Tuilagi's on/off presence. I would not argue against Slade's removal too though I maintain that he's suffered through having to cope with the malign influence of those three, just as Ford has. Long-term, the team has to find a new core with all five removed - hopefully with all the basic skills embedded as you describe.
In terms of rebuilding, I suppose I could argue that SB has been unlucky to have Marcus and Sid injured but Manu now (allegedly) fit!
Schoolboy error Besides, Freeman is way more than physicality. I do tho think that Slade would always have been a more effective intl inside centre than at 13, but he's hardly started there. A complete rookie pairing like this, with players who don't regularly play in those positions for their clubs is pretty high risk. Nice partnership as a sum of their skills tho.
(as an aside, look around at the top intl sides, and generally what sort of player is at 12. There's a reason .)
I thought you'd bite. I have not forgotten your first lecture on the subject - can it really be 18 years ago? I was Dorset06 so that was the year I first posted to get acquainted with my erroneous thinking!
Now you're making me realise that I've been posting on this forum for 17 or 18 years!!! Damn.
Still think George Lowe should have played for England
Schoolboy error Besides, Freeman is way more than physicality. I do tho think that Slade would always have been a more effective intl inside centre than at 13, but he's hardly started there. A complete rookie pairing like this, with players who don't regularly play in those positions for their clubs is pretty high risk. Nice partnership as a sum of their skills tho.
(as an aside, look around at the top intl sides, and generally what sort of player is at 12. There's a reason .)
I thought you'd bite. I have not forgotten your first lecture on the subject - can it really be 18 years ago? I was Dorset06 so that was the year I first posted to get acquainted with my erroneous thinking!
Now you're making me realise that I've been posting on this forum for 17 or 18 years!!! Damn.
Still think George Lowe should have played for England
Convex didn't like him
...and Anthony Allen should have got more caps. Robinson ruined JSD's career by playing him at 13. Etc. Forrester was the best 8 never to win 30 caps, and Croft was never a luxury giraffe. If Tom Rees had stayed fit we'd have won 2 more world cups
Besides, Freeman is way more than physicality. I do tho think that Slade would always have been a more effective intl inside centre than at 13, but he's hardly started there. A complete rookie pairing like this, with players who don't regularly play in those positions for their clubs is pretty high risk. Nice partnership as a sum of their skills tho.
