Who Next?

[Dave Elliott]

 

[Phil E]

Please not Steve Borthwick, I want him to stay at Tigers.

 

[Volun-selected]

With Gatman back with the WRU I see Borthwick as the top of the list.

Time to turn England back into the great white Orcs of old?

 

[Phil E]

It's Cockers.

 

[didds]

It's Cockers.

aye.

FFS. he's a loony.

 

[didds]

meanwhile
Wayne Pivac must be feeling awful.
sacked by wales and overlooked by England...

 

[crossref]

It's Cockers.

for now...

but there must be a chance he'll last to the WC I guess

 

[didds]

I suppose England don't actually have a game for ... oh... nine weeks !

 

[crossref]

I wonder which players will be winners and losers

 

[Volun-selected]

I wonder which players will be winners and losers

Might see George Ford back in the mix, Borthwick backed him a few times as fly-half for England.

 

[Dave Elliott]

Might see George Ford back in the mix, Borthwick backed him a few times as fly-half for England.

he is better than the last one we had, or youngs, they may be old but they are class. main thing is to see players in corect position. Farrell is not a 12, Tuilangi is not a winger

 

[SimonSmith]

Cockerill?

That's the first genuine belly laugh I've had in quite a while. No matter how many shitty decisions I make today, it's good to know none will be as bad as the RFU's.

 

[crossref]

he is better than the last one we had, or youngs, they may be old but they are class. main thing is to see players in corect position. Farrell is not a 12, Tuilangi is not a winger

Sinckler is not a fly half

 

[crossref]

For me Borthwicks first decision is 10
Pick ONE out of Smith, Farrell, Ford and build the game plan around that player style of play

Don't have two of those three on the field at the same time

 

[DocP]

Have to agree with you crossref. No matter how much EJ said it was improving and coming together etc, the Smith Farrell combo did not work. I compare it to the round ball sport when there was the Gerrard Lampard situation.

Choose 1, and that involves a certain style of play, and stick with it. I think Healy makes a point in some of his commentary, start one and have the other on the bench. I'll come clean and say I am an avid Quins supporter and the way MS plays is exciting but at times risky, when it works the rewards are worth it. You could start with him and then bring on OF as a finisher to close out the game with a more calming style of play when the points have been racked up.

 

[crossref]

Have to agree with you crossref. No matter how much EJ said it was improving and coming together etc, the Smith Farrell combo did not work. I compare it to the round ball sport when there was the Gerrard Lampard situation.

Choose 1, and that involves a certain style of play, and stick with it. I think Healy makes a point in some of his commentary, start one and have the other on the bench. I'll come clean and say I am an avid Quins supporter and the way MS plays is exciting but at times risky, when it works the rewards are worth it. You could start with him and then bring on OF as a finisher to close out the game with a more calming style of play when the points have been racked up.

Of course Quins play the MS way even when MS is absent !

Maybe at international level it's more feasible to have two styles of play in your armoury, and be able to switch mid game

It may be that the Quins style is too risky at international level. But if so, why pick him ?

It's a conundrum for Borthwick

 

[DocP]

Agree, but how can you watch someone like MS in the Prem do some of the sensational stuff and then just overlook him.

I want him to do that on the international stage but, as you said, can be too risky. Where you may get away with something against a Bath or Gloucester but would get seriously punished against, say, France.

But then before MS came on the scene I found England, 90% of the time, very boring. The question is what do we want. To win or to be entertained. To do both is very hard and not good for the blood pressure as I can attain to everytime I watch Quins. Great that we win in such a fashion but sometimes I do yearn for the easy life of a Sarries fan where most of the time you blow teams out of the water from the start and cruise to the finish.

 

[didds]

the Smith Farrell combo did not work.

Generally, id agree.
but for ten minutes against NZ it did. So what was the difference for those ten minutes?

 

[crossref]

Generally, id agree.
but for ten minutes against NZ it did. So what was the difference for those ten minutes?

Farrell was carrying an injury and wasn't involved in calling the shots, so for a short time we had just one person in charge

This is the whole problem, with Smith and Farrell together they both make decisions and the game plan becomes confused

 

[didds]

Fair point CR.
So if it worked cos MS was calling the shots at 10, why not continue with the combo with that basis?