I am not especially comfortable with the notion of playing the best 8 players in the pack without regard to the physical aspects of each position's requirements, nor to the synergistic aspects of combinations.
While the players you've nominated might reasonably be regarded as the best back 5, I wouldn't personally like to see a locking pair of Alcock and Fardy, backed up by a back row of Dempsey, Miller and Wells. If all of those were available, I'd see a choice between Dempsey and Fardy at 6, and maybe between Alcock and Wells at 8. Otherwise I'd be looking for specialist locks for the second row.
By and large agree.
Case in point, Lloyd's second try against you blokes this week.
3 on 3 on the outside. Openside v Openside, Wing v Wing, Inside back v Inside Back.
Key difference here is the mobility of Tupai v Butler. Obviously relative size of English and Johansson v Coleman and Robinson plays the part, but after English makes the initial break, both Tupai and Johansson outgassed Butler, meaning that Tupai can get the offload away to the support who can crash over the top of the cover defence.
Story repeated itself all over the ground. Big back of 5 of Carter, Enever, Staniforth, Butler and Noa beat up Jeffries, Cummins, Reid, Tupai and Fox at the set piece and making metres in tight.
But over the course of the game, the mobility of the backrow to support the backs created the early lead, and won it back when the game opened up in the second half.
In the absence of equally good players in all positions at high levels, there is a balance to be found between playing your best players "out of position" or playing lesser players.
4 locks and a number 8 can only work with exceptional players, the same way 3 opensides, a lock and a 4/5/6 hybrid would, absent those 5 exceptional players, compromising some absolute talent for adequate role cover is necessary.
Comprises like two opensides or a 4/5/6 at lock are much easier to justify on talent alone.
