So....

[Captainhaircut]

CCS doesn’t have the nous to play 6 currently. The CCS, earl, Dombrant abomination against the Aussies still gives me nightmares. Some folks have to do the dirty work.

Chessum should be at 6 and then he’s out we should be going close to like for like with Ted Hill. Kenningham could also be a very good option there whilst Carnduff has huge potential.

CCS as an 8 backing up Willis and coming off he bench is the way to go for me.

7 a bit more a challenge. Curry and Underhill are good players- tackling machines and efficient at clearing rucks which seems to be the role they are given. As distinct lack of turnover threat exists currently though- we really need to be getting that from one of the front row and a 7 in addition to Itoje. Pepper, Pollock and dare I say Will Evans would be interesting to look at there in the summer.

[jngf]

It would be mad if we weren’t building our attack around Marcus. If we haven’t been doing that then it might explain a number of things.

I suppose it is the old Andrew/Barnes, Wilko/Charlie and Farrell/Ford and Cips debate.

Don’t forget we were happy to change the 9.
I’m far from convinced Marcus for 20mins off the bench is the way forward.

Regards CCS to me he is a brilliant option starting at 6. Link him with Willis at 8 and a real poacher at 7 and we have a cracking back row that would make the case for Marcus even stronger.

Someone like Hill off the bench would give impact, especially if the game is breaking up.

Anyhoo, defence is the major concern

I’m a real fan of what Underhill brings to the party, in terms of a real poacher would Will Evans fit this role? ( he would seem to be the nearest player we’ve got in terms of the Andy Robinson, Back, Steffens Armitage style of out and out openside)

[Puja]

I just feel that they were 2 of the players being given an opportunity to stake their claim. Had the players around them been moved around, and their performances suffered, would that have been seen as mitigation. Instead (potentially, obviously I don't know for sure) he's tried to give them the stability to play their game.

In Marcus's case I think he proved he's our best player. However I also think he demonstrated his inability to bring the outside backs in within the structure we're trying to play (I'm assuming how we played in the back end of the 6 nations and in NZ is the goal)- in my view we either change our attack to accommodate his style or move him to the bench where he can come on later in the game when there's more space.

In CCS's case, again I think he was good but he doesn't seem to be able to sustain it. In a team that's crying out for genuine impact on the bench I think he's more valuable to us there while he matures.

It would be mad if we weren’t building our attack around Marcus. If we haven’t been doing that then it might explain a number of things.

I suppose it is the old Andrew/Barnes, Wilko/Charlie and Farrell/Ford and Cips debate.

Don’t forget we were happy to change the 9.
I’m far from convinced Marcus for 20mins off the bench is the way forward.

Regards CCS to me he is a brilliant option starting at 6. Link him with Willis at 8 and a real poacher at 7 and we have a cracking back row that would make the case for Marcus even stronger.

Someone like Hill off the bench would give impact, especially if the game is breaking up.

Anyhoo, defence is the major concern

The problem with building the attack entirely around Marcus as an individual is the same as building the attack around Cipriani - if he's injured or loses form, do you then have to restructure everything again because you haven't got anyone else who fits the same mould?

Marcus is better than Cips, because he doesn't *have* to have everything built around him in order to look good, but the problem with him is those individual breaks of his. I think it was Dawson who compared him to Wilkinson in 2000 - not in terms of style, but in terms that Woodward had to sit him down and ban him from getting involved in clearing rucks, latching onto players, from running little darts and driving through. He was good at those things and often his intervention in a ruck or his dart through a half-gap would provide quick, clean ball... but then the 10 wasn't there to direct the backline and be the general for using that quick ball. It took half a season for him to suppress his instincts to get involved in everything (because he was a good enough player that he could make a difference there and his competitive nature *wanted* that), but he was a better player for it when he was there every phase to run the backline. MSmith has got the same problem at the moment - he sees a gap and makes a little dart that looks excellent, but it's then two phases before he's back on his feet again.

The theory is that you have Slade/Furbank that can step in to play 10 in that scenario, but it feels ass-backwards to be using your 10 as a strike runner and your 13 as your 10, especially when he's in such wobbly form.

I think I said at the start of the year that I liked the idea of a Smith/Smith combo, just to get them both on the pitch because it felt silly to leave either out with the form that they were in, but I'm now starting to think that MSmith at 15 might be the best use of him at international level. I'm not sure that you can have an international 10 that goes off on magical mystery tours every time he thinks he sees a gap, because then you're playing without a 10 for 2-3 phases (or 1 slow phase, if Spencer's your scrum-half), but on the other hand, I don't especially want that instinct trained out of him, because he is *so* good at it. Could be the best of both worlds to have double-Smith - Finn is a better organiser anyway, you've got a double-playmaker which is useful for prosaic play and for splitting the field, but you also get to use Marcus's attacking threat and creativity at 10, without the risk of losing your general if Marcus lunges for a gap like an Alsation that's spotted a rabbit.

Also I can't get that Quins game against Northampton out of my head, where he played 15 and was able to use the additional space to be a dangerous and vicious runner.

Plus it means there's no need for Slade - we can pick two running centres because we don't need an ersatz 10 in the midfield. Bring on the Steward/Earl combo.

Puja


ETA. And, immediately after I post, I come across the article I was talking about comparing Wilkinson and MSmith. It wasn't Dawson, it was Paul Grayson: https://www.planetrugby.com/news/paul-g ... year-award

[Mikey Brown]

I’m unsure about lining Chessum up as our first choice 6, even though I was keen to see him there vs Ireland. We still need 3 top quality locks in the 23 and it doesn’t seem like Coles is demanding inclusion yet. I’d be happy for CCS to be used as bench impact, but I’d love that to be because we’re giving Hill a chance in the 6 shirt.

Is the lack of poaching threat a part of how we’re choosing to defend at the moment? I think Itoje has gone for a couple. Underhill, Earl, LCD, Dombrandt get quite a few at club level but I don’t know if they’re being instructed to just focus on line speed and numbers on their feet.

[Mikey Brown]

Is there some way we can have Steward at 12 with Smith at 15 and still make use of Stewards aerial skills?

[Puja]

I’m unsure about lining Chessum up as our first choice 6, even though I was keen to see him there vs Ireland. We still need 3 top quality locks in the 23 and it doesn’t seem like Coles is demanding inclusion yet. I’d be happy for CCS to be used as bench impact, but I’d love that to be because we’re giving Hill a chance in the 6 shirt.

Is the lack of poaching threat a part of how we’re choosing to defend at the moment? I think Itoje has gone for a couple. Underhill, Earl, LCD, Dombrandt get quite a few at club level but I don’t know if they’re being instructed to just focus on line speed and numbers on their feet.

I think it *must* be a tactical decision not to poach, as loads of the players we picked love a jackal and they were ostentatiously not trying their luck in the AIs, except for Earl occasionally giving away a stupid penalty. I do see the logic - if we are committing numbers to pressure in defence, then we can't be committing numbers to rucks as well, but that logic would require the defence to be working before it makes sense. We'll have to see what changes going forwards.

I too am concerned about how Chessum has become fan-favourite at 6. I've always been vocal that you need three back rowers, not two and a lock who fancies himself, and I'm still leaning that way. Chessum did make me eat those words at the end of the 6N, but I would still rather us have three great locks competing with each other and explore some of the incredible back row talent that we have - I'm not 100% sure about whether Hill's play would translate to the top level, but we've also got Pollock, Pearson, Pepper to add to the TCurry/Underhill/CCS options on the flank, so surely we must be able to fashion a back row out of all of that?!

Puja

[p/d]

As has been said by not playing a player’s stock has risen. Mitchell, Ribbans, Chessum, Dingwall and (i blame Mikey) bloody Farrell.

[FKAS]

we've also got Pollock, Pearson, Pepper to add to the TCurry/Underhill/CCS options on the flank, so surely we must be able to fashion a back row out of all of that?!

Puja

Not a lot of size and lineout options in those guys. It would be a small backrow compared to most other international backrows.

[Mikey Brown]

Yeah I keep seeing Pearson touted as a 6 but does he even play there? I know he was for England A the other week. Maybe Pollock's arrival at 7 for Saints will force that? Is he much of a lineout option? He seems to have rediscovered his destructive carrying at least.

[Banquo]

Yeah I keep seeing Pearson touted as a 6 but does he even play there? I know he was for England A the other week. Maybe Pollock's arrival at 7 for Saints will force that? Is he much of a lineout option? He seems to have rediscovered his destructive carrying at least.

Pearson is handy in the lineout iirc. He's not played much, if at all, at 6 for Saints, though he does do a lot of carrying.

[Puja]

As has been said by not playing a player’s stock has risen. Mitchell, Ribbans, Chessum, Dingwall and (i blame Mikey) bloody Farrell.

THill as well, who appears to've become the clear and screamingly obvious answer to the 6 jersey over the last month.

Puja

[p/d]

As has been said by not playing a player’s stock has risen. Mitchell, Ribbans, Chessum, Dingwall and (i blame Mikey) bloody Farrell.

THill as well, who appears to've become the clear and screamingly obvious answer to the 6 jersey over the last month.

Puja

I think more off the bench than a nailed on starting 6. Though I would have hoped we got to see him in one capacity or the other over AI.

That said I clearly overlooked the fact that short arsed back rowers aren't for this England side.

[Puja]

we've also got Pollock, Pearson, Pepper to add to the TCurry/Underhill/CCS options on the flank, so surely we must be able to fashion a back row out of all of that?!

Puja

Not a lot of size and lineout options in those guys. It would be a small backrow compared to most other international backrows.

If we put TWillis at 8, then it solves a lot of our problems, as we'd have a hard carrier there and a 6ft3 lineout option. In fact, none of them are particularly short - Pearson's 6ft3 and jumps, Pepper's 6ft3, Pollock's 6ft2, TCurry and Underhill have both jumped for England at 6ft1.

Yeah I keep seeing Pearson touted as a 6 but does he even play there? I know he was for England A the other week. Maybe Pollock's arrival at 7 for Saints will force that? Is he much of a lineout option? He seems to have rediscovered his destructive carrying at least.

I think Pearson could do 6, although I was thinking about most of that list with the idea that TCurry is more than capable of playing 6 with one of the others on the openside and TWillis providing grunt from 8.

Interesting how easily Pollock's slipped in at 8 for Saints though (which I'd say is a position closer to a 6 than it is to a 7) - even before Graham's injury, that was where he was coming on to play when he came off the bench. Maybe this new Samoan arrival will change that, but Pollock has looked decent at the base and doing the hard carrying. If Pearson has a significant preference, then it may be Pollock that moves for him?

Puja

[Oakboy]

I'm surprised by this debate over the 6 shirt. If J Willis is out of consideration, I think CCS is close to nailing it. IMO, he did his job better than any combination of Curry, Underhill, Earl and Dombrandt did theirs. Why blame him for the others' failings? Yes, at 20, he needs extra in his stamina tank for 80 minute stints but to pick him out as vulnerable from four poor back row performances is plain wrong. I'd certainly look to change the other two before I relegated him to the bench. His scope for improvement is greater than anyone else who played in the back row in the AIs. He is already our hardest tackler and our best or second best line-out operator. How good might he be in a good unit?

[jngf]

I'm surprised by this debate over the 6 shirt. If J Willis is out of consideration, I think CCS is close to nailing it. IMO, he did his job better than any combination of Curry, Underhill, Earl and Dombrandt did theirs. Why blame him for the others' failings? Yes, at 20, he needs extra in his stamina tank for 80 minute stints but to pick him out as vulnerable from four poor back row performances is plain wrong. I'd certainly look to change the other two before I relegated him to the bench. His scope for improvement is greater than anyone else who played in the back row in the AIs. He is already our hardest tackler and our best or second best line-out operator. How good might he be in a good unit?

I like CCS and think he will develop into a tremendous test 6/8 but I’m not sure he’s any harder a tackler than Underhill

[Banquo]

Hallelujah… centres, that run… whatever next. Will we ask them to do other stuff like passing and other centrey things

[fivepointer]

As has been said by not playing a player’s stock has risen. Mitchell, Ribbans, Chessum, Dingwall and (i blame Mikey) bloody Farrell.

THill as well, who appears to've become the clear and screamingly obvious answer to the 6 jersey over the last month.

Puja

It is obvious. I'm surprised that he wasnt given a run by England this autumn.

[Banquo]

I'm surprised by this debate over the 6 shirt. If J Willis is out of consideration, I think CCS is close to nailing it. IMO, he did his job better than any combination of Curry, Underhill, Earl and Dombrandt did theirs. Why blame him for the others' failings? Yes, at 20, he needs extra in his stamina tank for 80 minute stints but to pick him out as vulnerable from four poor back row performances is plain wrong. I'd certainly look to change the other two before I relegated him to the bench. His scope for improvement is greater than anyone else who played in the back row in the AIs. He is already our hardest tackler and our best or second best line-out operator. How good might he be in a good unit?

J Willis … an openside shewerly? Where’s he playing for Toulouse?

[Banquo]

As has been said by not playing a player’s stock has risen. Mitchell, Ribbans, Chessum, Dingwall and (i blame Mikey) bloody Farrell.

THill as well, who appears to've become the clear and screamingly obvious answer to the 6 jersey over the last month.

Puja

It is obvious. I'm surprised that he wasnt given a run by England this autumn.

V odd

[FKAS]

we've also got Pollock, Pearson, Pepper to add to the TCurry/Underhill/CCS options on the flank, so surely we must be able to fashion a back row out of all of that?!

Puja

Not a lot of size and lineout options in those guys. It would be a small backrow compared to most other international backrows.

If we put TWillis at 8, then it solves a lot of our problems, as we'd have a hard carrier there and a 6ft3 lineout option. In fact, none of them are particularly short - Pearson's 6ft3 and jumps, Pepper's 6ft3, Pollock's 6ft2, TCurry and Underhill have both jumped for England at 6ft1.

Yeah I keep seeing Pearson touted as a 6 but does he even play there? I know he was for England A the other week. Maybe Pollock's arrival at 7 for Saints will force that? Is he much of a lineout option? He seems to have rediscovered his destructive carrying at least.

I think Pearson could do 6, although I was thinking about most of that list with the idea that TCurry is more than capable of playing 6 with one of the others on the openside and TWillis providing grunt from 8.

Interesting how easily Pollock's slipped in at 8 for Saints though (which I'd say is a position closer to a 6 than it is to a 7) - even before Graham's injury, that was where he was coming on to play when he came off the bench. Maybe this new Samoan arrival will change that, but Pollock has looked decent at the base and doing the hard carrying. If Pearson has a significant preference, then it may be Pollock that moves for him?

Puja

A TWillis at 8 would definitely add some more physicality. That would make a more viable backrow.

Would be nice to have an all action backrow where all of them are threats both sides of the ball. Pollock on the flank could be a real benefit there, just need to manage him carefully.

[Mikey Brown]

I still like Curry as a 6, but I think the frustration is more not looking at Hill (or Willis at 8) at all. Particularly when it looked like Curry could have done with a bit of rest or more carefully managed gametime at Sale.

Hill does seem particularly strong as a lineout jumper too and I think that comes down to more than just height.

[Stom]

Yeah, the poaching is tactical.

CCS has been far from the problem. I think he offers a lot, but I also would have liked to see Hill there.

Earl… that hobby horse again… is not the answer to any question I’m asking.

As for Smith: he’s either 10 or 15 imo. He’s far enough ahead of the others he should be there. The only question then is what balance you want.

As much as I dislike the timing and decision mistakes that are present in Furbank’s game, I think I’d rather him at 15 with smith at 10. We have freeman who can cover 15

[Oakboy]

I'm surprised by this debate over the 6 shirt. If J Willis is out of consideration, I think CCS is close to nailing it. IMO, he did his job better than any combination of Curry, Underhill, Earl and Dombrandt did theirs. Why blame him for the others' failings? Yes, at 20, he needs extra in his stamina tank for 80 minute stints but to pick him out as vulnerable from four poor back row performances is plain wrong. I'd certainly look to change the other two before I relegated him to the bench. His scope for improvement is greater than anyone else who played in the back row in the AIs. He is already our hardest tackler and our best or second best line-out operator. How good might he be in a good unit?

J Willis … an openside shewerly? Where’s he playing for Toulouse?

I think I'd pick CCS, Willis, Willis and Pollock for the 6,7,8 and 20 shirts ideally but there's versatility with them.

[Oakboy]

Yeah, the poaching is tactical.

CCS has been far from the problem. I think he offers a lot, but I also would have liked to see Hill there.

Earl… that hobby horse again… is not the answer to any question I’m asking.

As for Smith: he’s either 10 or 15 imo. He’s far enough ahead of the others he should be there. The only question then is what balance you want.

As much as I dislike the timing and decision mistakes that are present in Furbank’s game, I think I’d rather him at 15 with smith at 10. We have freeman who can cover 15

If Mitchell had been fit, if SB had dumped the blitz defence and if he'd never had the daft 'Ford to close out at 60th minute' idea it would have been Marcus at 10, Furbank at 15, Fin at 22. Continuity, no confusion and full concentration on the centre options depending on results.

[Banquo]

I'm surprised by this debate over the 6 shirt. If J Willis is out of consideration, I think CCS is close to nailing it. IMO, he did his job better than any combination of Curry, Underhill, Earl and Dombrandt did theirs. Why blame him for the others' failings? Yes, at 20, he needs extra in his stamina tank for 80 minute stints but to pick him out as vulnerable from four poor back row performances is plain wrong. I'd certainly look to change the other two before I relegated him to the bench. His scope for improvement is greater than anyone else who played in the back row in the AIs. He is already our hardest tackler and our best or second best line-out operator. How good might he be in a good unit?

J Willis … an openside shewerly? Where’s he playing for Toulouse?

I think I'd pick CCS, Willis, Willis and Pollock for the 6,7,8 and 20 shirts ideally but there's versatility with them.

Not averse to that at all. Though you have become a Pollock convert on precious little real exposure; he will be fantastic if allowed to develop naturally and stay injury free- got a touch of the Hooper about him (no, not that one).