The Ideal Bench

[Oakboy]

We have had all sorts from Jones, including the delightful term 'finishers'. Lately, he has opted for a 6:2 split. Interestingly, that has coincided with Ford being dropped and Farrell being absent. How many of us would have relied on Furbank/Malins/Slade as FH back-up?

Then, oddly, with 6:2, two number 8s? I'd have thought an extra forward needs to cover second row and back row. I also thought Ewels and Dombrandt coming on for Hill and Lawes was suicidal potentially for the lineout. Maybe, having only Ewels as second row cover influenced the 6:2 choice in the first place.

So accepting the obvious replacement front rowers and assuming everyone is fit, where should the bench balance go? Who is a special 'finisher'?

Might all of Youngs, Farrell and Tuilagi become the experienced game-finishing ideal? Or, should the bench have youthful/quick options for SH/FH?

One minor thought. If, say, certain players like Itoje, Curry, Steward, May can be earmarked for doing the whole 80 minutes why can't the others (apart from the front row)? Why not drift towards safety-first back-up such as the trio above and plan to win the match with the starting unit if it is the best choice initially? Mentally/physically, do players perform better knowing that they won't be replaced?

[Peej]

Backs-wise, a 6:2 only really works if the team already has a second playmaker in it that is very comfortable at 10. An Ntamack/ Giteau/Beale/McAllister/O'Connor/Barnes (that's a lot of Australians isn't it?) or even Farrell type player, and a back three that has at least two players comfortable at full back. That means you can then have a back up 9 and a generalist outside back. If not, you are a complete hostage to fortune

[Mikey Brown]

6:2 doesn't generally make much sense to me unless you have both a specialist backrow and lock/backrow hybrid really demanding to be selected, in addition to your starting 4/5/19 and enough versatility in the backs. If, for instance, you had all these players on absolute top form 4. Itoje 5. Kruis 19. Launchbury 20. Lawes 21. Specialist 7/8 I'd get the appeal against a certain opposition. but that's a lot of 'ifs' and still carries a certain risk in the backs.

SA could get away with it knowing they could use it to absolutely dominate up front and generally have little interest in taking Pollard off.

In terms of the general balance on the bench it's one thing I've often not liked so much about Eddie's selections. A balance of experienced players and those that can really bring some pace/aggression to shake things up is needed. Obviously it's nice when players can fill both roles, but often I think having some to steady the ship and some to shake it up is the way to go.

I've been saying for a while I think Farrell would be really good as a bench option, particularly if the game-plan needs adjusting it would be the closest thing EJ could have to getting on the pitch himself. But I'd want another back alongside who can bring some pace or line-breaking ability if that's what the game is calling for.

[Peej]

See I don't think Farrell is a good bench option. if you're chasing the game, and need to inject some energy and start challenging tired defences, he isn't going to do it. England also aren't that good at sitting on a lead, they are better at continuing to push. So either you play a game with a 6:2 bench where Farrell starts and you keep it tight and grind away, or he doesn't play at all.

[Puja]

One minor thought. If, say, certain players like Itoje, Curry, Steward, May can be earmarked for doing the whole 80 minutes why can't the others (apart from the front row)? Why not drift towards safety-first back-up such as the trio above and plan to win the match with the starting unit if it is the best choice initially? Mentally/physically, do players perform better knowing that they won't be replaced?

This is a really interesting question and I would say that there are a lot of positions where it's better to earmark players to stay on for the 80. I'm actually not hugely against a 6:2 bench, as I'd say the majority of times you don't want to change your backline players. They don't work hard enough to be exhausted - that does sound like a Kay/Healey forwards vs back joke, but it's true. You very rarely get better results by telling a back to "empty the tank for 60m" like you do with a flanker, cause the ball comes to them when it comes to them. Backline subs should be just injury cover to my mind, so if you can do that with 2 versatile players and give an extra space to replace your entire front 5 with quality, then it's worth doing. Of course, that assumes you have enough good locks to make it worthwhile and aren't just going to fill the space with a second number 8.

It's why I can understand the dropping of Ford if we're investing in Smith. There's not a great deal of value in having Ford on the bench (well, unless it's to bring him on to replace Farrell at 10, but that's just about a quality upgrade) - he's a specialist 10 only, so you either leave him on the bench for 80 and waste his time and a valuable "Finisher" slot, or you bring him on and massively disrupt the team, as well as signalling to your main 10 that he's not played well enough to stay on.

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

See I don't think Farrell is a good bench option. if you're chasing the game, and need to inject some energy and start challenging tired defences, he isn't going to do it. England also aren't that good at sitting on a lead, they are better at continuing to push. So either you play a game with a 6:2 bench where Farrell starts and you keep it tight and grind away, or he doesn't play at all.

I feel like there's some crossed wires somewhere there. I don't know how to explain that better without just retyping what I wrote.

I think having a big voice available on the bench can be just as valuable as a Radwan type player. Either way, getting the balance right is the key, and that's much more difficult with a 6:2.

I'd also say 'injecting energy' (assuming that's what the game is calling for) isn't as simple as just adding an energetic player. Like him or not as a player, Farrell appears to have an enormous motivating effect on those around him. The list of top players and coaches who attest to this is endless at this point. I don't want to shape a backline around him, but an experienced player who can play 10 and 12 (changing things up if runners are being shut down at 12 for instance) is a vocal leader, kicking option and makes huge defensive hits coming off the bench sounds like a great option to me. Like I said though, ideally pair that with someone who offers real pace or a carrying threat.

[Banquo]

6:2 is just a hostage to injury fortune in the backs at the very simplest level.

[Digby]

The starting query to the ideal bench is where does one stand on the bomb squad? There's an increasing school of thought you start your 2nd choice front row for the opening 30-35, and then run your first choice for the remainder against tired opposition taking a big advantage of the HT rest period.

[Raggs]

Assuming something like: Young, Smith, May, Tuilagi, Slade, Malins, Steward.

Then really you need 9 cover on the bench, and centre cover (Farrell is a very good fit here). Would be better still if you weren't relying on Tuilagi to be wing cover as well, and the bench 9 could do it (like a Robson/that bok 9 that did it a bit?). And if it means having an Earl/Simmonds in the 21 shirt, you still have another emergency midfield option remaining.

I'm not against 6/2, but it needs to be the right players, and your backline needs to have the ability to play a couple of positions to start with. I don't think Tuilagi is the right starter/bench option for it, due to his high injury rate. I'd also not be looking to use whoever is in the 23 shirt for any part of the 80.

[Oakboy]

So, is SH the only backs position that simply must be covered on the bench? It makes some of the older French 9/10s sound valuable. Is Healy the only English example?

To me, if Quirke makes progress and deserves the starting 9 shirt, I'd see a period where Youngs is the bench cover as a bigger vote of confidence than having a young alternative there. The temptation to give a young guy on the bench the last 20 minutes is what bothers me. I'd prefer Youngs there with an initial plan of NOT using him unless necessary.

[Mr Mwenda]

A bit of upholstery never goes amiss to ease tired buttocks.

[Which Tyler]

So, is SH the only backs position that simply must be covered on the bench? It makes some of the older French 9/10s sound valuable. Is Healy the only English example?

To me, if Quirke makes progress and deserves the starting 9 shirt, I'd see a period where Youngs is the bench cover as a bigger vote of confidence than having a young alternative there. The temptation to give a young guy on the bench the last 20 minutes is what bothers me. I'd prefer Youngs there with an initial plan of NOT using him unless necessary.

It's a process.
Initially, Youngs starts with Quirke on the bench
Then Quirke starts with Youngs on the bench
Then Quirke starts with Van Portvliet (presumably) on the bench
Then those 2 fight it out for the starting shirt

[Stom]

Assuming something like: Young, Smith, May, Tuilagi, Slade, Malins, Steward.

Then really you need 9 cover on the bench, and centre cover (Farrell is a very good fit here). Would be better still if you weren't relying on Tuilagi to be wing cover as well, and the bench 9 could do it (like a Robson/that bok 9 that did it a bit?). And if it means having an Earl/Simmonds in the 21 shirt, you still have another emergency midfield option remaining.

I'm not against 6/2, but it needs to be the right players, and your backline needs to have the ability to play a couple of positions to start with. I don't think Tuilagi is the right starter/bench option for it, due to his high injury rate. I'd also not be looking to use whoever is in the 23 shirt for any part of the 80.

Surely Marchant is the man here, then. He's a good wing and a great 13, and can slot in at 12 in a pinch.

Though I'd have them the other way round, with Marchant in the 13 shirt and Slade the 23.

[Raggs]

I was picking Farrell because I prefer him at 10 to Slade, and think he's an acceptable 12. I think we need either Slade or Farrell starting, they help make those pretty 1st phase moves work well, and I think Slade does it better.

Malins can help out in live play, but I want him on the wings during set moves.

[Oakboy]

If you are listing centres - Farrell, Tuilagi, Slade, Marchant or whomever - my opinion, for what it's worth, is that Farrell just is not one and that's the conclusion from the results of the AIs compared with similar historical fixtures. That's not to write off what punditry insists are his leadership merits etc. In fact, even starting this thread is based on Farrell's overall value.

If I was choosing, I'd have Tuilagi at 12 IF he was ever again going to be a consistent, injury-free contender. Unfortunately, IMO, that will never be the case.

That means NEITHER Farrell nor Tuilagi as the default starting 12.

The SA game, from the 8th minute onwards, gave us Slade at 12 and Marchant at 13 and it worked. Bollix to all other considerations. Sod, defensive issues. Stuff other claims. Just pick that duo and work on it for the whole 6N.

That leaves, arguably, both Farrell and Tuilagi as bench options or out of the frame. Either works, for me.

[Banquo]

Assuming something like: Young, Smith, May, Tuilagi, Slade, Malins, Steward.

Then really you need 9 cover on the bench, and centre cover (Farrell is a very good fit here). Would be better still if you weren't relying on Tuilagi to be wing cover as well, and the bench 9 could do it (like a Robson/that bok 9 that did it a bit?). And if it means having an Earl/Simmonds in the 21 shirt, you still have another emergency midfield option remaining.

I'm not against 6/2, but it needs to be the right players, and your backline needs to have the ability to play a couple of positions to start with. I don't think Tuilagi is the right starter/bench option for it, due to his high injury rate. I'd also not be looking to use whoever is in the 23 shirt for any part of the 80.

Surely Marchant is the man here, then. He's a good wing and a great 13, and can slot in at 12 in a pinch.

Though I'd have them the other way round, with Marchant in the 13 shirt and Slade the 23.

Daly is perfect for bench tbh. He's a classy player for all the stick he got as a 15. He is a quality wing, a decent centre as long as not defending too much, and prob fine as a 15 in the last 20. Better utility option than Faz or Marchant for me. Then have a 9 and a 10 you actually want

[Raggs]

You can say that you don't think Farrell is a centre, but lots of coaches, including those with little invested with England, keep putting him there, he does a good enough job at 12, to be a very solid sub option, which is what I'm playing him as. I would rather Farrell at 10, than Slade or Malins. So, with the lineup I put there, Farrell makes a lot of sense. If you lose a centre, Farrell steps in, if you lose a 10, Farrell steps in. If you lose a back 3, Tuilagi moves to wing with Slade dropping into the backfield for kick return, Farrell in at centre.

9 is essential to have cover for on the bench, but 10 is pretty important too.

[p/d]

Quirke/Youngs and Lozowski bench

[francoisfou]

Then Quirke starts with Van Portvliet (presumably) on the bench
Then those 2 fight it out for the starting shirt

From what little I've seen of JVP, it's only time before Eddie gives him the nod - or has his form been iffy of late?

[Puja]

Then Quirke starts with Van Portvliet (presumably) on the bench
Then those 2 fight it out for the starting shirt

From what little I've seen of JVP, it's only time before Eddie gives him the nod - or has his form been iffy of late?

He's a long way from the finished article. His decision-making needs work, especially in defence, and his box-kick is a charge-down waiting to happen. He's very young and still learning, so it's all understandable, but he's not ready to be Leicester first choice yet, let alone in with England.

Puja

[Spiffy]

Assuming something like: Young, Smith, May, Tuilagi, Slade, Malins, Steward.

Then really you need 9 cover on the bench, and centre cover (Farrell is a very good fit here). Would be better still if you weren't relying on Tuilagi to be wing cover as well, and the bench 9 could do it (like a Robson/that bok 9 that did it a bit?). And if it means having an Earl/Simmonds in the 21 shirt, you still have another emergency midfield option remaining.

I'm not against 6/2, but it needs to be the right players, and your backline needs to have the ability to play a couple of positions to start with. I don't think Tuilagi is the right starter/bench option for it, due to his high injury rate. I'd also not be looking to use whoever is in the 23 shirt for any part of the 80.

Surely Marchant is the man here, then. He's a good wing and a great 13, and can slot in at 12 in a pinch.

Though I'd have them the other way round, with Marchant in the 13 shirt and Slade the 23.

Daly is perfect for bench tbh. He's a classy player for all the stick he got as a 15. He is a quality wing, a decent centre as long as not defending too much, and prob fine as a 15 in the last 20. Better utility option than Faz or Marchant for me. Then have a 9 and a 10 you actually want

Agree.There seems to be a lot of discussion on this, but I think it's fairly simple. You want three backs on the bench ; a proper 9, a proper 10 and a utility back to cover the rest. Your example of Daly is a good one.

Not fond of 6:2 split at all. It might just work if an adventurous coach were willing to give a fast, powerful forward like Sam Simmonds a gallop at the opposition in midfield towards the end of the game, but don't see that as a deliberate tactic in the game plan.

[Danno]

It might just work if an adventurous coach were willing to give a fast, powerful forward like Sam Simmonds a gallop at the opposition in midfield towards the end of the game, but don't see that as a deliberate tactic in the game plan.

If he or someone similar like Earl ever got the odd cameo there at their club I might be ok with the idea that they could do 10mins of a test in the centre, but on its own it's what happened with [redacted].

[Raggs]

It might just work if an adventurous coach were willing to give a fast, powerful forward like Sam Simmonds a gallop at the opposition in midfield towards the end of the game, but don't see that as a deliberate tactic in the game plan.

If he or someone similar like Earl ever got the odd cameo there at their club I might be ok with the idea that they could do 10mins of a test in the centre, but on its own it's what happened with [redacted].

He didn't know how to play union whether in the forwards or backs. A quick backrow spending time in the midfield isn't going to be the end of the world if required in an emergency. It's also why for me, whoever is in the 23 shirt, doesn't get on the pitch outside of injury, or 5 minutes left in the game.

[Timbo]

Then Quirke starts with Van Portvliet (presumably) on the bench
Then those 2 fight it out for the starting shirt

From what little I've seen of JVP, it's only time before Eddie gives him the nod - or has his form been iffy of late?

He’s got a lovely pass and a decent running game, but his box kicking under pressure is crap.

[Banquo]

From what little I've seen of JVP, it's only time before Eddie gives him the nod - or has his form been iffy of late?

He’s got a lovely pass and a decent running game, but his box kicking under pressure is crap.

he is pretty tall, so likely technical help needed