England V Australia Saturday 9th November

After the disappointment of the NZ defeat what team should we play against the Wallabies? A defeat in this match would be an undoubted disaster and of course the boys need some confidence before taking on the mighty SA so a decent performance and a victory are the must have requirements.

We cannot afford another scrummaging disaster so surely Marler has to return at the expense of Baxter? He needs a hit out to get ready for the bomb squad. I would also love to replace Dombrandt with Willis. Anything else?

England team to face Australia: G Furbank; I Feyi-Waboso, O Lawrence, H Slade, T Freeman; M Smith, B Spencer; E Genge, J George, W Stuart, M Itoje, G Martin, C Cunningham-South, T Curry, B Earl.

Replacements: L Cowan-Dickie, F Baxter, D Cole, N Isiekwe, A Dombrandt, H Randall, G Ford, O Sleightholme.

There goes that plan then

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/articles/clyg1w067gyo

Anyway. Starting pack was good and so should stay and really be fine against Aus. So issue is subs. Marler gone so Baxter stays as he should. He's young but will improve. Dan Cole? Has to go surely.
Dombrandt, B Curry and Isiekwe all not good enough. Ted Hill, Underhill and Pearson in although he's not in wider squad even.
Slade, Ford out. F Smith and Lozowski in. I'd consider Steward back in on bench. Randall no impact although I think deserves another chance if not JvP on bench.
For Aus I'd go 5-3 bench. Need to see who is fit and available to finalise 23.

Bugger

mountain man wrote:There goes that plan then

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/articles/clyg1w067gyo

I think the main issue was that we didn't allow for sufficient carrying impact from the bench. I'd expect the side to be largely unchanged and let's face it, Australia aren't the same threat NZ are. The bench is where we need to make some serious adjustments.

Baxter, George, Stuart
Itoje, Martin
Hill, Earl, TCurry
Spencer, Smith
Lawrence, Slade
IFW, Furbank, Freeman

Dan, Genge, Cole, CCS, Underhill, JvP, Ford, Sleightholme

Genge showed yesterday that Baxter has still got a way to come before displacing him in terms of quality but right now we need impetus from the bench and Baxter isn't going to offer that (might do in the future). CCS was very good yesterday, one of our best players but again we need impetus. Being able to use that bench from 50 mins onwards will help give us fresh impact players later into the game.

Furbank wasn't great yesterday, he's got enough credit in the bank to have another shot but I'd bring Steward in for the Japan game to increase competition. Lozowski as well.

You really want to start Slade again and have Ford on bench? I'd go Lowozski 13 and F Smith bench 10. Actually I'd go Freeman 13 and Sleightholme wing but can't see Borthwick going with that.

mountain man wrote:You really want to start Slade again and have Ford on bench? I'd go Lowozski 13 and F Smith bench 10. Actually I'd go Freeman 13 and Sleightholme wing but can't see Borthwick going with that.

I can't see Borthwick going with those selections outside of the Japan game. I was trying to keep things realistic, though sadly I think the Ted Hill selection might be a step to far unfortunately.

We cannot deploy Baxter against SA as his cherubic young face will be constantly shoved up his ar*e. Therefore, we need the next cab off the rank, probably Obano, to have a run out against Aus from the bench. How about changing the back row a bit? Ted Hill at 6, CCS at 8 with Earl at 7. I would retain Slade as with match practice he will improve and it at least allows his partnership with Lawrence the opportunity to develop.

hugehandoff wrote:We cannot deploy Baxter against SA as his cherubic young face will be constantly shoved up his ar*e. Therefore, we need the next cab off the rank, probably Obano, to have a run out against Aus from the bench. How about changing the back row a bit? Ted Hill at 6, CCS at 8 with Earl at 7. I would retain Slade as with match practice he will improve and it at least allows his partnership with Lawrence the opportunity to develop.

Baxter has been up against some of Europe's best and biggest front rows abd come out on top. No reason he'll get demolished.

Slade ...ah where are the top 13s bar Marchant....who's unavailable anyway.

Having wagched rhe game now, SB made some selection errors for this squad and match day squad and substitution errors which was a reason for the loss in my opinion.
However he is hindered by a lack of top class quality in certain positions and he can't be held responsible for that!

He has to win all the next games or his head is on the chopping board...and the 6n will be his last dance.

I have not had the chance to rewatch the game but if Baxter really did struggle then surely he is on a hiding to nothing against SA? I feel maybe that he has received too much praise for 1 away performance to Bordeaux. We should not over hype players or overly criticise them based on single matches. I am an ex-back so will happily bow to my more knowledgeable front row pundits on this subject, but I think he struggled in the summer as well?

It's not one performance though. He's played very well f9r a long time now. Superbly managed by Adam Jones.

Players will have an off day and let's be honest..it was NZ...not much higher to play against.

Unfortunately we're in a position at the moment that at LH and TH the incredible young talent coming through is one or two years away from being really ready. Baxter will be a seasoned international by them...I hope

Re: the scrummaging, from what I saw in the stadium, it looked to me that the issues when the replacements came on were as much a function of the back five tiring as the props.

The replacement front rows went backwards rather than down (and in at least one scrum, managed to force the NZ front rows to pop up - which they didn’t get credit for). When I see that in the scrums I coach, it means the scrum as a whole isn’t generating enough force to resist their opponents.

Which is hardly surprising - the NZ replacement props were apparently 22 and 23 stone, so brought a significant weight advantage.

Conversely, the starting NZ loosehead had technical issues that Stuart did well to exploit.

And re: the supposed lack of creativity in attack - I’m rewatching the game now and it’s interesting to contrast England’s first penalty with NZ’s first try.

Sititi’s offload was wonderful… but Itoje was in a position to give a similar offload to CCS moments earlier - if CCS hadn’t been tackled off the ball by Jordie Barrett.

In the next passage of play in the 22, there’s another tackle off the ball and another penalty. And so it went on…

NZ were happy to give away penalties rather than risk England breaking their line. I suspect they’d done their homework on Gardner and knew that he would tolerate repeated infringements of that kind.

That’s good preparation by NZ, but poor game management. Job 1 for a ref is to protect player safety, job 2 is to ensure a fair contest. Allowing one side to repeatedly infringe in their own 22 with only penalties as the sanction is not doing the job properly.

Asher Fordjour called up for Marler?

Great .....but he's surely a tighthead...this could be a big club v Country one.

Geordie wrote:Asher Fordjour called up for Marler?

Great .....but he's surely a tighthead...this could be a big club v Country one.

He’s played both sides at junior levels - and I think there was some club v country debate about which position he should play. They also said before the NZ game that Trevor Davison was covering loosehead in Marler’s absence.

Poorfour wrote:And re: the supposed lack of creativity in attack - I’m rewatching the game now and it’s interesting to contrast England’s first penalty with NZ’s first try.

Sititi’s offload was wonderful… but Itoje was in a position to give a similar offload to CCS moments earlier - if CCS hadn’t been tackled off the ball by Jordie Barrett.

In the next passage of play in the 22, there’s another tackle off the ball and another penalty. And so it went on…

NZ were happy to give away penalties rather than risk England breaking their line. I suspect they’d done their homework on Gardner and knew that he would tolerate repeated infringements of that kind.

That’s good preparation by NZ, but poor game management. Job 1 for a ref is to protect player safety, job 2 is to ensure a fair contest. Allowing one side to repeatedly infringe in their own 22 with only penalties as the sanction is not doing the job properly.

It didn't help when after warning them following the 2nd time they did it, he then warned them again after the 3rd time they did it. He was a very weak ref and I couldn't believe it when Mr J had to bring him in line a couple of times ... the deliberate knock-on which he said was in the tackle was laughable, and then I'm sure I heard him say initially "no foul play" for the eventual yellow card for the head on head.

Heaf wrote:
It didn't help when after warning them following the 2nd time they did it, he then warned them again after the 3rd time they did it.  He was a very weak ref and I couldn't believe it when Mr J had to bring him in line a couple of times ... the deliberate knock-on which he said was in the tackle was laughable, and then I'm sure I heard him say initially "no foul play" for the eventual yellow card for the head on head.

Well, quite. And in a 2 point game, that makes a big difference.

For a lot of that match, England had NZ rattled. They had a clinical attacking pattern if they could get the ball wide in the red zone, but they were struggling to execute well in midfield, coughed up a lot more ball than usual and it took some smart kicking (and the odd lucky bounce) to keep them in the territory game.

But because they knew they could offend in their own 22 and trade 3 points against 5, England couldn’t press their advantage. It was smart to offend early - one or two phases in - rather than closer to the try line, but once the pattern emerged Gardner should have been much harder on it.

Why is EWELS back for Hill? *sighs loudly*

Can only be as 2nd row cover, although Hill has played 2nd row he is a 6 first and foremost.
Also why is Dombrandt still there is another question.

This should be a comfortable win for England. Australia has a lot of individual talent but are in a race against time to try and make it a top class international team (and may not actually get there).

Big piece of interest from the Wallabies camp is whether Joseph Sua'ali'ili will play, and what position.

For those who have not been following in detail, his move from NRL to rugby was a big shock to everyone. He was touted as the next NRL superstar before signing a mega deal to move to rugby.
He's an absolute freak of an athlete and incredibly skillful....in League (so far)

Very similar player to Folau but probably more of a ball player. IMO he'd make a great 13, but ideally should have played a whole season of Super Rugby before making his test debut, not playing his first game of Union (since school days) at Test level...

How did Dombrandt actually play in the end?

StabiloBoss wrote:How did Dombrandt actually play in the end?

Anonymously...

Poorfour wrote:

Geordie wrote:Asher Fordjour called up for Marler?

Great .....but he's surely a tighthead...this could be a big club v Country one.

He’s played both sides at junior levels - and I think there was some club v country debate about which position he should play. They also said before the NZ game that Trevor Davison was covering loosehead in Marler’s absence.

Yeah he has...infact played mostly LH for the U20s. There was notable visit to sale last year I believe when an England rep went to talk about England wanting him to be a LH and Sale making it clear they want him to be a TH.

This is when the central contracts become very interesting. Imagine England give him a contract and insist that Sale only ever play him at LH ...there could be fireworks.

Mr Bounce wrote:

StabiloBoss wrote:How did Dombrandt actually play in the end?

Anonymously...

Solid but nothing of note. Unlike Isiekwe and Randall who didn't fare as well.

There's a lot of questions over the bench after the weekend. Be interesting to see how Borthwick approaches selections there.

I wouldn't be surprised if ewels came back on the bench, got a red card and Australia win a crap game of rugby. I think I would be done caring if that happened.

Yoda wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if ewels came back on the bench, got a red card and Australia win a crap game of rugby. I think I would be done caring if that happened.

Ewels should be nowhere near the bench. Good club player, but should not be in an International Squad. And with his past record on Red Cards, there is always that risk of him being a nightmare scenario waiting to happen. It's almost like expecting Owen Farrell not to disagree with the ref, or Peter O'Mahoney not to swear.

Just no to Ewels. He's not brilliant, but Isiekwe is far more dynamic and is less likely to try to shoulder someone's head off. Alex Coles is far better too.

Might we see Asher Opoku-Fordjour in the Japan game? I think we might.

Disappointing re Dombrandt, particularly given the number of backrow in England (Underhill, Hill, Willis, Barbeary maybe, Pearson, Pollock even) who - whilst not necessarily offering much more than Dombrandt - at least might be gaining valuable experience for the future. Someone to come on at 60 minutes or whenever and do an okay job feels like a bit of a waste.

Ewels good club player not Int quality has always been my thinking. The reds he has had though were careless not malicious, he's not one who is liable to get red mist. Still same outcome although if he gets on maybe we'll see first 20min red.
Most astounded Hill dropped for him but I can only think it's for 2nd row cover. Can't say Isiekwe fills me with much confidence though.
Dombrandt another who just doesn't deserve to be there, had enough opportunities to show if he's up to highest level and he isn't.

I said this on other thread but shame have to play Aus not NZ again as England "should" beat Aus although nothing guaranteed whereas another match against NZ would show whether Eng are making progress and after last week was down to rustiness through not playing since summer or frankly not good enough. Anyway, moot point.

Imagine Pearson for 20 minutes vs Dombrandt

The bench was once again an issue against NZ. Their bench is very good at the moment to be fair. They had Beaudy on the bench in the summer for instance - he's a genuine great and insanely good in attack. On Saturday, they had a brilliantly dynamic front row bench and big Pat was outstanding. That's three games against the ABs in a row where it's been the case though. It's certainly a concern.

Ben Curry had a couple of important interventions - namely a big tackle and a turnover shortly after when NZ were making rapid headway towards the England 22m line. That aside, it was anonymous or poor.

The Chessum injury really hurts bench impact. With him fit, you could have Martin or CCS on the bench whilst still having a lot of physicality in the starting pack and improving the lineout. I'd be tempted to bring Underhill into the back row and put CCS on the bench for more physicality later in the second half in this game. That feels harsh when CCS was once again good starting. I'd certainly bring Coles in for Isiekwe if he is fully fit after that rib injury. We have more carrying in the pack than we have for a while with Earl, Martin and CCS all emerging. It's still lagging behind where the top 4 sides are in that regard though. This is of course exacerbated by the lack of a standout physical presence in the back line.

How good the NZ bench is does sum up part of my issue at the moment with rating exactly where England are. I think we are in a brilliant period for international teams. Which is great for rugby but does make it hard to gauge how this team are progressing in comparison. The Boks, Ireland and France are all in the midst of the best sides I've ever seen from those nations. NZ aren't where they were when nearing unbeatable but they are still very good indeed. Especially in attack, where an entire 10-15 of players who have played a lot at either wing or fullback means they are ludicrous at times going forward. Scotland are arguably just coming into the twilight of a golden period but are still close to as good as I've seen a Scotland side be. Whilst Argentina have some fantastic players, beat both NZ and SA in the recent Rugby Championship. Fiji were also excellent at times in the '23 RWC but how rugby works might make it difficult to reproduce that outside a RWC. Basically, there's a lot of really good teams about in rugby currently.

SA, Ireland, France and NZ are the best teams around. England are 5th in the rankings behind them. Having 4 teams at the top that are this good does beg the question, is it bad to be leading the chasing pack at this stage in Borthwick's tenure? Ireland, SA and France have taken time to build to where they are. Whilst NZ have consistently been thereabouts throughout the whole pro era.

The record against those 4 teams since the RWC is a win against Ireland, narrow losses to France and NZ x 3 in games where they had plenty of chances. 3 of those 4 losses have been away from home too. Add in the SF loss to the Boks at the RWC, that's another tight loss where they had chances, but, I feel this side has changed a lot since then in reality. It's a record of being competitive but mostly failing to get over the line against those 4 leading teams. I can't quite decide at the moment whether I'm more encouraged by competing against those sides at this stage of the Borthwick tenure or whether I'm more frustrated by the repeated narrow losses.

king_carlos wrote:The bench was once again an issue against NZ. Their bench is very good at the moment to be fair. They had Beaudy on the bench in the summer for instance - he's a genuine great and insanely good in attack. On Saturday, they had a brilliantly dynamic front row bench and big Pat was outstanding. That's three games against the ABs in a row where it's been the case though. It's certainly a concern.

Ben Curry had a couple of important interventions - namely a big tackle and a turnover shortly after when NZ were making rapid headway towards the England 22m line. That aside, it was anonymous or poor.

The Chessum injury really hurts bench impact. With him fit, you could have Martin or CCS on the bench whilst still having a lot of physicality in the starting pack and improving the lineout. I'd be tempted to bring Underhill into the back row and put CCS on the bench for more physicality later in the second half in this game. That feels harsh when CCS was once again good starting. I'd certainly bring Coles in for Isiekwe if he is fully fit after that rib injury. We have more carrying in the pack than we have for a while with Earl, Martin and CCS all emerging. It's still lagging behind where the top 4 sides are in that regard though. This is of course exacerbated by the lack of a standout physical presence in the back line.

How good the NZ bench is does sum up part of my issue at the moment with rating exactly where England are. I think we are in a brilliant period for international teams. Which is great for rugby but does make it hard to gauge how this team are progressing in comparison. The Boks, Ireland and France are all in the midst of the best sides I've ever seen from those nations. NZ aren't where they were when nearing unbeatable but they are still very good indeed. Especially in attack, where an entire 10-15 of players who have played a lot at either wing or fullback means they are ludicrous at times going forward. Scotland are arguably just coming into the twilight of a golden period but are still close to as good as I've seen a Scotland side be. Whilst Argentina have some fantastic players, beat both NZ and SA in the recent Rugby Championship. Fiji were also excellent at times in the '23 RWC but how rugby works might make it difficult to reproduce that outside a RWC. Basically, there's a lot of really good teams about in rugby currently.

SA, Ireland, France and NZ are the best teams around. England are 5th in the rankings behind them. Having 4 teams at the top that are this good does beg the question, is it bad to be leading the chasing pack at this stage in Borthwick's tenure? Ireland, SA and France have taken time to build to where they are. Whilst NZ have consistently been thereabouts throughout the whole pro era.

The record against those 4 teams since the RWC is a win against Ireland, narrow losses to France and NZ x 3 in games where they had plenty of chances. 3 of those 4 losses have been away from home too. Add in the SF loss to the Boks at the RWC, that's another tight loss where they had chances, but, I feel this side has changed a lot since then in reality. It's a record of being competitive but mostly failing to get over the line against those 4 leading teams. I can't quite decide at the moment whether I'm more encouraged by competing against those sides at this stage of the Borthwick tenure or whether I'm more frustrated by the repeated narrow losses.

That's exactly where I am. I'm pleased that Borthwick is able to set up England in such a way that they remain more than competitive in games v top nations, even arguably punching above their weight at times like the RWC SF, but continually coming up just short - the last four losses all within a score - is looking more and more like a sign of mental fragility and bench weakness, whether that's material weakness or utilising it incorrectly.

England lost primarily due to bench, and so seeing as Borthwick picked bench and timing of when they came on I think he has to take responsibility for loss. Probably a bit more nuanced than that but basically it's the gist of it. NZ were better team and deserved win for how they played but England could maybe should have snatched win.

Going back nearly 25 years, there was an extended period where Woodward's teams were nearly there but struggled to win under pressure - usually with a bad loss in the final game of the 6N (a group of us even went to Italy half expecting them to somehow manage to lose there... ).

I think the difference is that that team was solving different problems each time. They'd lose because someone had worked out how to stop their gameplan, find a solution for that, and then come up against another problem to work through.

What's worrying is that Borthwick's teams (Scotland in 2023 aside) have generally had a gameplan that works well for 60 minutes but have repeatedly failed to do the right thing under pressure at the death.

The discipline on Saturday was exceptional by international standards, but Ben Earl's penalty at a crucial point changed the momentum of the game, and the subs just didn't work - I think in part because they were picked with the intent of playing an open game but that wasn't the situation they came on for.

regarding the bench it looked like Borthers selected more mobile forwards who could secure turnovers as the game opened up in the last 20 minutes. But the downside is that also depowered our scrum which then coughed up a number of penalties. We needed a strong 2nd rower to add some fresh grunt. As ever this really is a difficult balance to achieve, but before the match I did write that it was the weakest bench I have ever seen.

If we were at full strength I would start Chessum at 6, CCS at 8 and Earl at 7 behind the usual Martin/itoje 2nd row. The bench would then have T.Curry and T.Hill with either Chessum or Hill going into the 2nd row as required. And if Hill shines at international level then Chessum to come off the bench, which would be awesome.

mountain man wrote:England lost primarily due to bench, and so seeing as Borthwick picked bench and timing of when they came on I think he has to take responsibility for loss.

We scored one try and it was an intercept. We had more issues than just the bench.

Indeed but England were ahead by 8 points going into last 20mins. Bench made a huge difference. NZ if they'd taken their chances should have been out of sight by half time, the fact England were within shout of a win is something.

Also I did say this as well

Probably a bit more nuanced than that

I'll expand to help you out : starting front row more than held their own, subs came on and scrum struggled. Spencer had really good game at 9, Randall looked a bit lost and too frantic when control was needed. Smith had a really good game, Ford obviously short on game time. Dombrandt on, and was pretty anonymous. So, yeah I think bench had a big bearing on outcome.

Same starting XV, a couple changes on bench. Cowan-Dickie in Dan out. Sleightholme in.
Dombrandt still there!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/articles/cp8xyg506jgo

5-3 split which is good and I think right call for Aus.

England line-up
England: Furbank; Feyi-Waboso, Lawrence, Slade, Freeman; M Smith, Spencer; Genge, George (capt), Stuart, Itoje, Martin, Cunningham-South, T Curry, Earl.

Replacements: Cowan-Dickie, Baxter, Cole, Isiekwe, Dombrandt, Randall, Ford, Sleightholme.

Why is Dombrandt there over ANY OTHER back row?? I'm a fan of his as a club player, but he's proved time and again that International seems to be beyond him. Feel bad for Ben Curry, who's done nothing wrong.

Look forward to seeing Sleightholme potentially getting some last quarter ball and ripping it up.

The man doesn't learn from his mistakes, not much can be done about the front row replacements, but Isiekwe and Dombrandt do not deserve a place on the bench, they have had so many chances and have taken none of them. Coles ahead of Isiekwe and Burry (who had a decent bit of time last week). Coles is pretty good cover for 6 and a better lock than Isiewke, especially in the lineout. Randall again fails to look the part and with Ford, gives the opposition a whole channel to aim large players at knowing that they will make ground.

Lawrence and Slade swap shirts. Is this to give Lawrence the opportunity to run the rush defence with a Slade safety blanket?

Borthwick out

lostinwales wrote:Borthwick out

You are 7.5 and I claim my £10

mountain man wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Borthwick out

You are 7.5 and I claim my £10

7.5 used to be a decent poster who seems to have gone off the rails. But I think he might have a point.

Glad Sleighthome gets a chance, but there is little else to learn from with this selection. First 15 is OK, bench is getting worse

Hang on, England picking a 13 at 13 and not shoehorning him in at 12. This is a new tactic

But now we have a 13 at 12. I suspect though numbers irrelevant as they will mix and match.

I thought Slade plays a lot at 12 for Exeter? At least a lot more than Lawrence does at Bath.
And I agree with you on the numbers thing. They swap around now anyway. Which makes the decision to actually pick them the other way round a bit odd

The only times I can find Slade playing 12 for Chiefs is in the 2016/17 season and 2 times in his first pro season in 2013/14. In '16/17, when Chiefs won the Prem title, he didn't play 13 at all for them. He was effectively first reserve at 10 and 12 it seems. So he got a lot of game time at 12 that season. From '17/18 onwards, he becomes first choice 13 for Chiefs and almost exclusively plays his club rugby there since. Since that '16/17, when still establishing himself to an extent, he has never started at 12 for Exeter. He's actually started 1 game at 15 and 1 game at 10 in the same period. So realistically, he's as much a fullback or fly-half at club level more recently as he is a 12.

He was benched for the playoffs in that '16/17 behind Steenson and Devoto, hence I say 'still establishing himself to an extent' even though he played a lot over the season. Ian Whitten was first choice 13 with Campagnaro and Devoto also getting minutes there through the season. Their bench in the final had Sam Simmonds, Slade and Campagnara on it. Fun to look back on things like that sometimes!

Lawrence has started 5 games at 12 over his club career. Spread out sporadically all the way through, rather than in a cluster like Slade. So both Slade and Lawrence have mostly been 13s at club level.

I'm not as obsessed with shirt numbers as others though. More getting players in roles that fit. I think he probably suits 12 better at international level with how the position is played currently.

Players move around all the time though. It's something I love about rugby. Certain positions share obvious skills, so you see players who can cover multiple areas well and their best positions often shift over the course of a career. Just looking at standout 12s currently:

Robbie Henshaw was initially a 15, who shifted to 13 at Connacht, he was still a 13 there whilst starting 12 for Ireland. His first pro game at 12 was for Ireland. He only became a 12 at club level after being shifted to Leinster. Nearly 40% of his pro starts are at 13.

Jordie Barrett of course moved all over the shop but is now excellent at 12.

Josua Tuisova was a world class winger. Then the game changed and he no longer suited wing as well due to the increased emphasis on kicking ability, taking high balls and spot on positioning as kicking strategies developed at breakneck speeds. So, he moved to 12 and was absolutely brilliant there at the RWC. Both at getting over the gain line in attack and acting as a vital jackal threat in defence.

Going further back in the same position. Ma'a Nonu started out as a barnstorming winger. Then he was a crash ball 13. Then he moved into 12, rounded out his passing and kicking game, became maybe the best 12 of the pro era.

It's a modern thing that versatility became a bit of a dirty word among some rugby fans. It's always been a massive part of the game. The Boks just won another RWC whilst embracing it more than any other team at the tournament. The NZ back line being bats**t good in broken play attack comes from basically their entire back line playing in the back three at some point. Most the best 15s in the world have also played a decent amount at 10. The outstanding France back line is full of versatile players. Dupont plays 9, 10 and apparently wants to try centre. Ramos at 10 and 15. Ntamack has played a decent bit at 12. Fickou is brilliant at 12 and 13, can cover wing very well. Penaud's played at centre a ton for Clermont.

The England team that won the RWC in '03 was jam packed with versatile players. Robinson, Lewsey and Catt played all over the back line across their careers. I know Hill and Worsley started all 3 back row positions at international level. I believe Dallagio did too. Corry played 6, 8 and lock at the top level. Greenwood was excellent at 12 and 13, though obviously he had the superstition with the 12 jersey, he played both positions in his career!

Generally speaking, I think players improve when they gain experience in multiple positions.

On a less serious note, the WhatsApp group I'm in with a few of us that did analysis work back in the days have been discussing the changing of the centre shirts. We think that switching the same two centres around should be referred to as 'castling'. We will also accept 'centrefuging'. 'Ninety Sixing' otherwise known as 'the reverse 69' elicited many giggles but rugby is apparently a gentleman's game and we shall conduct ourselves thus.

carpet baboon wrote:I thought Slade plays a lot at 12 for Exeter? At least a lot more than Lawrence does at Bath.
And I agree with you on the numbers thing. They swap around now anyway. Which makes the decision to actually pick them the other way round a bit odd

Good old AllRugby has Slade playing 12 for Exeter as recently as the 2016/17 season and not since. Well not since for Exeter he has donned 12 for England periodically.

Lawrence player 12 for Bath Vs Toulouse in January. Then once per season in the two seasons before that.

king_carlos wrote:The only times I can find Slade playing 12 for Chiefs is in the 2016/17 season and 2 times in his first pro season in 2013/14. In '16/17, when Chiefs won the Prem title, he didn't play 13 at all for them. He was effectively first reserve at 10 and 12 it seems. So he got a lot of game time at 12 that season. From '17/18 onwards, he becomes first choice 13 for Chiefs and almost exclusively plays his club rugby there since. Since that '16/17, when still establishing himself to an extent, he has never started at 12 for Exeter. He's actually started 1 game at 15 and 1 game at 10 in the same period. So realistically, he's as much a fullback or fly-half at club level more recently as he is a 12.

He was benched for the playoffs in that '16/17 behind Steenson and Devoto, hence I say 'still establishing himself to an extent' even though he played a lot over the season. Ian Whitten was first choice 13 with Campagnaro and Devoto also getting minutes there through the season. Their bench in the final had Sam Simmonds, Slade and Campagnara on it. Fun to look back on things like that sometimes!

Lawrence has started 5 games at 12 over his club career. Spread out sporadically all the way through, rather than in a cluster like Slade. So both Slade and Lawrence have mostly been 13s at club level.

I'm not as obsessed with shirt numbers as others though. More getting players in roles that fit. I think he probably suits 12 better at international level with how the position is played currently.

Players move around all the time though. It's something I love about rugby. Certain positions share obvious skills, so you see players who can cover multiple areas well and their best positions often shift over the course of a career. Just looking at standout 12s currently:

Robbie Henshaw was initially a 15, who shifted to 13 at Connacht, he was still a 13 there whilst starting 12 for Ireland. His first pro game at 12 was for Ireland. He only became a 12 at club level after being shifted to Leinster. Nearly 40% of his pro starts are at 13.

Jordie Barrett of course moved all over the shop but is now excellent at 12.

Josua Tuisova was a world class winger. Then the game changed and he no longer suited wing as well due to the increased emphasis on kicking ability, taking high balls and spot on positioning as kicking strategies developed at breakneck speeds. So, he moved to 12 and was absolutely brilliant there at the RWC. Both at getting over the gain line in attack and acting as a vital jackal threat in defence.

Going further back in the same position. Ma'a Nonu started out as a barnstorming winger. Then he was a crash ball 13. Then he moved into 12, rounded out his passing and kicking game, became maybe the best 12 of the pro era.

It's a modern thing that versatility became a bit of a dirty word among some rugby fans. It's always been a massive part of the game. The Boks just won another RWC whilst embracing it more than any other team at the tournament. The NZ back line being bats**t good in broken play attack comes from basically their entire back line playing in the back three at some point. Most the best 15s in the world have also played a decent amount at 10. The outstanding France back line is full of versatile players. Dupont plays 9, 10 and apparently wants to try centre. Ramos at 10 and 15. Ntamack has played a decent bit at 12. Fickou is brilliant at 12 and 13, can cover wing very well. Penaud's played at centre a ton for Clermont.

The England team that won the RWC in '03 was jam packed with versatile players. Robinson, Lewsey and Catt played all over the back line across their careers. I know Hill and Worsley started all 3 back row positions at international level. I believe Dallagio did too. Corry played 6, 8 and lock at the top level. Greenwood was excellent at 12 and 13, though obviously he had the superstition with the 12 jersey, he played both positions in his career!

Generally speaking, I think players improve when they gain experience in multiple positions.

Agree. So we should see Stewart in the 12 shirt soon