606 Selects Englands EPS for 2016 6Ns

First topic message reminder :

Typically the EPS consists around 34 players, broken down into 5 props, 3 hookers, 4 second row, 6 back row, 3 SHs, 3 FHs, 4 centres and 6 back 3 players.

So can we do a better job than the 3 monkeys who will be doing it this season?

The Process:

We all select 3 full 23 man match day squads, ranking them 1st, 2nd, 3rd choice.
Players will be assigned points 3 for being in a 1st choice squad down to 1 for being in a 3rd choice squad.
Points will be added up and players divided between EPS and Saxons based on the values and obtaining an "ideal" mix of positions.

yappysnap wrote:On Tom Youngs, here are the stats for the set piece of each club in the Prem so far. Leicester not doing well.

http://www.ukrugbystats.co.uk/

Obviously it's more then just Youngs but it is a worry.

I'm actually quite surprised Tigers are running that high as Youngs has been dreadful in the line out. I've watched a few games and Tigers have changed tactics at half time and he's only thrown to the front, just to secure a bit of ball. I know I'm like a broken record but what an awful hooker Tom Youngs is.

Well I remember at least two throws that were to Kitcherner in the middle. Then there was the one where opposition jumped early and Tigers got a free kick was towards the back of the lineout. Funny thing memory is.

Oh and

Haha.

I can't recall those Hammer but I missed the last 10mins or so. Straight after halftime at the weekend Youngs resorted to front jumpers (after a rather shambolic first half), perhaps his confidence went up as the half progressed.

It was a pretty average Bath set of jumpers to be fair and Tigers must have had Williams, Croft, Kitchener + 1 other maybe to aim for. He really should do better but he usually disappoints.

Turns out Eddie Jones is still in Japan, he can't get a visa!

yappysnap wrote:Turns out Eddie Jones is still in Japan, he can't get a visa!

The embassy in Japan doesn't do much of the work itself these days. A lot of it gets processed in the UK or Hong Kong instead.

Great stuff by immigration

yappysnap wrote:On Tom Youngs, here are the stats for the set piece of each club in the Prem so far. Leicester not doing well.

http://www.ukrugbystats.co.uk/

Obviously it's more then just Youngs but it is a worry.

What is maybe a little surprising (apart from the maths) is that the best performing pack, (and its a pack that is working with a very good fly half) belongs to a team (Sale) performing so far down the table

In the four AP matches Tom Youngs has started Leicester have an 83% LO success rate (39/47). I do not have a breakdown as to how many were his and how many Thacker/Bateman. All I can say is Youngs has been more accurate than those other two.

By comparison the aggregate across the four opponents has been 81% (47/58)

Stats don't show the quality of the delivery which has been pretty poor from Youngs from what I've seen.

It would be interested to see a breakdown of that 81% to see how many were thrown to the front, middle and back, and how many were deemed clean ball. And then see a direct comparison between his rivals, such as George.

Only when you have this sort of detail can a proper statistical comparison be made.

jamesandimac wrote:It would be interested to see a breakdown of that 81% to see how many were thrown to the front, middle and back, and how many were deemed clean ball. And then see a direct comparison between his rivals, such as George.

Only when you have this sort of detail can a proper statistical comparison be made.

You are right but there is a touch of 'how far can you go into the stats until you find results which match your world view'.

If, for instance, Leicester were getting a consistent 'good' result from throwing to the front of the line (e.g. territory gain, scoring opportunities etc) then they might feel that that is the best option for them to take.

jamesandimac wrote:It would be interested to see a breakdown of that 81% to see how many were thrown to the front, middle and back, and how many were deemed clean ball. And then see a direct comparison between his rivals, such as George.

Only when you have this sort of detail can a proper statistical comparison be made.

I agree. Just taht people are willing to use incomplete stats to slam a player, so thought I would offer a rebuttal.

My gut feel is that lineouts for all sides have been messy at WR this season, but Leicester have won cleaner ball than the opposition.

You are right about stats providing different interpretations based on the opinion of whoever reads them.

Leicester may well get purchase from front ball, but I believe you need a more in your arsenal at lineout time on the international stage. Having a number of options you can hit creates doubt in the opposition, making it harder to challenge thus giving you cleaner ball.

England really suffered here in the warm ups and world cup, firstly due to a lack of options in the form of jumpers, and secondly in the lack of options in the form of Youngs' throwing. This makes it easier for opposition to challenge your throws again hindering the quality of the ball we received, compounding the issue further.

I rate Youngs as rugby player however I do not rate him as a hooker. As such I would view these stats in a negative way.

I also repeat that in the Englan training session I saw, Youngs was the only hooker hitting back jumpers.

George could hit middle but Webber only front.

But Youngs is yesterday's man, so no point worrying or discussing him on Int forums.

He will continue to do an excellent job for Leicester and we can discuss him on the club forum.

He'd still be my 3rd choice hooker, for what thats worth

While the more Hartley doesn't play for England the better he gets.

He's looked far from excellent from what I've seen of him, but if Tigers fans are happy it's a pointless discussion.

George & Hartley are obviously our best options. I'd maybe get a youngster with good basics involved like Haywood or Taylor after that.

Has Taylor got good basics? I'd put them in at Saxons level, if either Hartley/George got an injury I'd far rather have Youngs than Haywood or Taylor!

I don't see the point in continuing with Youngs personally, he's not going to improve.

Taylor has very sound basics, I've liked the look of him this season, similar with Haywood.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:George & Hartley are obviously our best options. I'd maybe get a youngster with good basics involved like Haywood or Taylor after that.

Yet neither can hook the ball. I would have George, Haywood and Taylor in the squad. Even at his best Hartley was never much better than we have seen from Youngs, especially throwing. However the perceived wisdom is he is good at throwing so when he messes up it is excused.

The way scrums are going we really need our prospective hookers to work on their flexibility. At least having the option of quick scrum ball would be pleasant.

I can't agree with that at all LT. Hartley nailed every throw in the AI(I think it was the AI). His throwing is clean and gives the jumpers a chance, Youngs is nowhere Hartley in either the scrum or the line out. If Youngs does get the ball somewhere near a jumper, it;s usually on his hip or has the jumper reaching for it.

I honestly can't believe you think Hartley throws as badly as Youngs, I'd be interested to see if any non-Tigers fans agree.

For me Hartley is a lot better in the lineout bar the 6Ns where he had a few wobbles but there isn't too much between them in the scrum.

Like it or not the worth of a player, even a hooker comes down to more than the set piece as well.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Like it or not the worth of a player, even a hooker comes down to more than the set piece as well.

Has anybody suggested otherwise?

Primarily, a hooker needs to do his basics. I really hope Jones values our set piece more than some of the posters on here.

I'm sure he will. Just adding the point it's not just about that. I'm obviously of the opinion Youngs isn't a disaster there and there is the argument that if your set piece is decent and the pack adds loads to open play it could work, and has in the recent past; that's all.

So there can be 11 changes to EPS. How many changes is our squad, LT?

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I can't agree with that at all LT. Hartley nailed every throw in the AI(I think it was the AI). His throwing is clean and gives the jumpers a chance, Youngs is nowhere Hartley in either the scrum or the line out. If Youngs does get the ball somewhere near a jumper, it;s usually on his hip or has the jumper reaching for it.

I honestly can't believe you think Hartley throws as badly as Youngs, I'd be interested to see if any non-Tigers fans agree.

Hartley has never, ever nailed every throw in a series. I watched one game where Hartley missed 2 for England with everyone calling him flawless. Hartley tends to underthrow and is intercepted, Youngs overthrow. The overthrow looks worse, but both are as bad.

As to the scrummage, well we all have our opinions. Many non-english fans will tell you Hartley cannot take scrum pressure and always stands up.

Just my opinion but if either feature for England it should only be as a stopgap. We shoudl be looking elsewhere.

ChequeredJersey wrote:So there can be 11 changes to EPS. How many changes is our squad, LT?

There is no EPS named yet for 15/16 season, so Jones has a free hand I thought.

Hartley is completely superior to Youngs in the set piece, it's men against boys.

Saying Hartley throws as badly as Youngs is honestly one of the most bizarre things I've seen on here, I'm a bit gobsmacked. It's something I'd expect from that Englishglory fella not you LT.

Opinions are opinions I guess.....

Given that the RWC squad isn't an EPS do those rules stand going into a new 'cycle' as it's often referred to?

Even if changes are rung then 11 changes is still a lot! If I were to choose a 33 man squad with more changes than we are likely to see immediately then it still only comes to 11 'new' faces that weren't in the RWC squad.

1.Marler, Mullan, Mako
2.George, Hartley, Youngs
3.Cole, Thomas, Brookes
4.Launchbury, Slater
5.Attwood, Kitchener
6.Robshaw, Haskell
7.Kvesic, Fraser
8.Vunipola, Morgan

9.Youngs, Care, Simpson
10.Ford, Farrell

11.May, Nowell
12.Slade, Burrell
13.Joseph, Daly
14.Watson
15.Brown, Pennell

That looks pretty good to me, although I'd fit Lawes in. I'd have a Saxons squad looking like

1. Waller, Auterac
2. Haywood, Taylor, LCD
3. Sinckler, Wilson
4. Itoje, Barrow
5. Kruis, Symons
6. Ewers, Wood
7. Clifford, Wallace
8. Beaumont
9. Robson, Dickson
10. Cipriani, Burns
11. Yarde, Lewington
12. Hill, Devoto
13. James, Stephenson
14. Wade, Ashton
15. Foden, ?

Its been confirmed LT he can only make 10 changes to the EPS.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Its been confirmed LT he can only make 10 changes to the EPS.

To what though? The RWC squad?

BamBam wrote:That looks pretty good to me, although I'd fit Lawes in. I'd have a  Saxons squad looking like

1. Waller, Auterac
2. Haywood, Taylor, LCD
3. Sinckler, Wilson
4. Itoje, Barrow
5. Kruis, Symons
6. Ewers, Wood
7. Clifford, Wallace
8. Beaumont
9. Robson, Dickson
10. Cipriani, Burns
11. Yarde, Lewington
12. Hill, Devoto
13. James, Stephenson
14. Wade, Ashton
15. Foden, ?

TBH BamBam I'd probably take Lawes over Slater or Kitch until they can prove form and fitness. I was more proving a point with how many changes could be rung even if 'limited' to 11. The core of the squad is strong.

Personally I'd take Roko on the wing over all those but Wade (is he not injured?). I'd also consider Cook at scrum half and Lowe at centre. As a Tigers fan I could be accused of bias here but Croft is also back playing well and Mike Williams is a brute at blindside if we want some more grunt developing for the back row.

As always we have lots of talented youngsters for the Saxons - we now need to see it being used as more of a platform to see them kick on.

Im not sure...ill try to find out.

But defo only 10 changes...either from WC or from EPS.

king_carlos wrote:
15.Brown, Pennell

I know that 606 may self combust but I reckon there is a snowball in hell chance of Alex Goode not being in Eddie Jones first squad.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Im not sure...ill try to find out.

But defo only 10 changes...either from WC or from EPS.

As there was no EPS, it can only be the RWC squad.

king_carlos wrote:

BamBam wrote:That looks pretty good to me, although I'd fit Lawes in. I'd have a  Saxons squad looking like

1. Waller, Auterac
2. Haywood, Taylor, LCD
3. Sinckler, Wilson
4. Itoje, Barrow
5. Kruis, Symons
6. Ewers, Wood
7. Clifford, Wallace
8. Beaumont
9. Robson, Dickson
10. Cipriani, Burns
11. Yarde, Lewington
12. Hill, Devoto
13. James, Stephenson
14. Wade, Ashton
15. Foden, ?

TBH BamBam I'd probably take Lawes over Slater or Kitch until they can prove form and fitness. I was more proving a point with how many changes could be rung even if 'limited' to 11. The core of the squad is strong.

Personally I'd take Roko on the wing over all those but Wade (is he not injured?). I'd also consider Cook at scrum half and Lowe at centre. As a Tigers fan I could be accused of bias here but Croft is also back playing well and Mike Williams is a brute at blindside if we want some more grunt developing for the back row.

As always we have lots of talented youngsters for the Saxons - we now need to see it being used as more of a platform to see them kick on.

Completely forgot about Roko, yep I'd have him there ahead of Ashton and Lewington for sure! Lawes hasn't played much this season either to be fair, think he's definitely competing with Slater/Kitch/Attwood to partner Launchbury.

Is Williams EQ then? Not a bad option at all

LondonTiger wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Im not sure...ill try to find out.

But defo only 10 changes...either from WC or from EPS.

As there was no EPS, it can only be the RWC squad.

Yeah I guess it must be from that then. But 10 changes it is.

Well just read up on it, and it does appear that the 6Ns training squad that Jones can pick may contain 11 changes (including replacing Burgess) from the 31 man RWC squad plus Burrell and Calum Clark.

Ah right.

Im not sure he'll need to make 11 changes mind.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Ah right.

Im not sure he'll need to make 11 changes mind.

Well we can have a new thread and see what the consensus comes up with.

Reckon we'll end up with 35 changes to a 33 man squad

It's 11 changes because Burgess has removed himself and left a free slot