• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

2014 QBE Internationals [EOYT] England

Are there any other teams that have players swapping roles for attack and defence?
I know that a lot of teams have their 10 defend at full back. Don't know about having centres swapping around, but why not ?
 
I don't think it would be too much of an issue with Farrell there. Not because he is a defensive organiser but because not many teams will run stuff down his channel. I still want Ford-Barritt-Eastmond with Barritt and Eastmond moving from 12-13 in defence and attack. Added with Rokoduguni and Nowell/May on the wings to add carrying strength outwide
or move Manu there.

They don't have to run it down Farrell's channel if there's an open door between Eastmond and Tuilagi again!
 
They don't have to run it down Farrell's channel if there's an open door between Eastmond and Tuilagi again!

We can't continue to dwell on that we need to give it another chance . Worked great in the first test and crap in the third . Players learn from their mistakes hopefully eastmond has . His defence seems better this year to me
 
I'll all for giving it another chance if they've learned from the mistakes but Farrell's presence in the 10 channel is probably neither here nor there to whether that's happened, and neither here nor there to shoring things up if they haven't.

I also think that's a really big 'if'.
 
I'll all for giving it another chance if they've learned from the mistakes but Farrell's presence in the 10 channel is probably neither here nor there to whether that's happened, and neither here nor there to shoring things up if they haven't.

I also think that's a really big 'if'.

Think Farrell is a big element there.

Eastmond was getting pulled due to not having confidence in Burns's tackling. Of he is confident enough in Farrell to hold his channel then it will make a big difference.

I personally would go for Burrell.
 
I never got our obsession with our wingers and converting others to take their roles.

If we go on the basis of their Premiership form, we have plenty of wingers with a good strike rate and a decent defensive game. There's something about playing for England that seems to grind wingers down into primarily defensive players. Switching a centre or fullback to the wing solves nothing, it is Lancaster that must change the way he uses his wingers. We might then see the best of these players, and not get so obsessive about it.

I'd still go with two from May/Nowell/Rokoduguni/Yarde in the next year, unless someone bursts on the scene.
 
Think Farrell is a big element there.

Eastmond was getting pulled due to not having confidence in Burns's tackling. Of he is confident enough in Farrell to hold his channel then it will make a big difference.

I personally would go for Burrell.

Regardless of why Eastmond was getting pulled, he didn't bring Tuilagi in with him. Tuilagi is very prone to getting in the wrong place without a strong defensive player to instruct him. Eastmond was very definitely not that player and I've seen nothing to suggest he is. Either Eastmond becomes that player and is constantly talking to him, or we risk another variation on that foul-up, regardless of who's at 10.

Given Farrell's tendency to go for big aggressive all-or-nothing tackles I'm not so sure that Eastmond wouldn't be watching his channel, but that is a coda. The point is regardless of who's at 10, someone needs to take defensive control in the centres, and on the current evidence both of Eastmond and Tuilagi need work before it could be them. I don't see why the work can't be done but I totally disagree with anyone who feels that sticking in a big tackler at 10 resolves the issue or that there is no real issue to resolve.
 
After ditching it for being too limited, I feel that we are slowly drifting back to Barritt-Tuilagi.
 
If Andy Farrell can't coach a decent defence into all the various centres there who attack better, he shouldn't be there.
 
If Andy Farrell can't coach a decent defence into all the various centres there who attack better, he shouldn't be there.

He's the backs coach. Don't think he's solely there for defence.

I agree with what your saying about KE & MT. I'm just saying with OF at 10 eastmond week not drift in.
 
He's the de-facto defense coach. In charge of both attack and defense, because in his system they are the same thing.
 
Your auto-correct has foxed me there - week not drift in? :lol:

Not saying he's solely there for defence, but it is a pretty massive part of his remit, and if he can't fulfill it he's not fit for purpose.

For the record, I think he can, my comment was meant to be more 'He will find a defence that works and we won't need to go back to Barritt' (doesn't read that way, I'll admit) than 'Get rid of the kaaaaaahnt'. It's just a matter of him finding guys amongst the undoubted attacking talents who can deliver the goods.
 
Your auto-correct has foxed me there - week not drift in? :lol:

Not saying he's solely there for defence, but it is a pretty massive part of his remit, and if he can't fulfill it he's not fit for purpose.

For the record, I think he can, my comment was meant to be more 'He will find a defence that works and we won't need to go back to Barritt' (doesn't read that way, I'll admit) than 'Get rid of the kaaaaaahnt'. It's just a matter of him finding guys amongst the undoubted attacking talents who can deliver the goods.

Week was will :)
 
Here's a question:

Anyone reckon Pennell will be in the Saxons? I can't remember whether his spot in the touring squad was as an injury callup for one of the outside backs that were out, or whether he had his own spot.
 
I don't think he was in the EPS or Saxons, but suspect he will be now.
 
good stuff!

I'd like to see Burgess just go straight to 6/8, i don't think there is much point in him playing 12, just teach him the rules in training.
 

Latest posts

Top