Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="brokenoses" data-source="post: 839498" data-attributes="member: 72824">To be fair to Slade, he only gets handed the tee for the awkward or long range kicks that Steenson doesn&#039;t fancy, and this will skew his stats. If he was first choice 10 and/or kicker then we would see what his kicking ability really is.There seems to be a general opinion here that England are using a 10/12 axis due to lack of viable options at 12. But would it not make sense to really nail down this way of playing and find the combinations that can adapt to playing against different types of team? In an ideal world we would have a 12 who has the power to break the gainline, has the playmaking skills to draw defenders and release the outside backs, has an accurate boot to support the 10, and most importantly a keen rugby brain that can decide between these options with less time than a 9 or 10 is likely to have. Bit much isn&#039;t it? I think having two playmakers in the backline is a really positive way of playing, provided the balance is right across the backs and the rest of the team. Preferences aside, it&#039;s undeniable that Ford, Farrel and Slade all have the potential to be top quality international players. They all have different strengths, weaknesses and ways of playing, but why waste the talent of one of these players with a positional roadblock when all 3 can be utilised well?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="brokenoses, post: 839498, member: 72824"] To be fair to Slade, he only gets handed the tee for the awkward or long range kicks that Steenson doesn't fancy, and this will skew his stats. If he was first choice 10 and/or kicker then we would see what his kicking ability really is. There seems to be a general opinion here that England are using a 10/12 axis due to lack of viable options at 12. But would it not make sense to really nail down this way of playing and find the combinations that can adapt to playing against different types of team? In an ideal world we would have a 12 who has the power to break the gainline, has the playmaking skills to draw defenders and release the outside backs, has an accurate boot to support the 10, and most importantly a keen rugby brain that can decide between these options with less time than a 9 or 10 is likely to have. Bit much isn't it? I think having two playmakers in the backline is a really positive way of playing, provided the balance is right across the backs and the rest of the team. Preferences aside, it's undeniable that Ford, Farrel and Slade all have the potential to be top quality international players. They all have different strengths, weaknesses and ways of playing, but why waste the talent of one of these players with a positional roadblock when all 3 can be utilised well? [/QUOTE]

Verification