Eddie Jones - England's New Coach

First topic message reminder :

So the worst kept secret is out...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/12005671/Eddie-Jones-to-be-confirmed-as-England-head-coach-in-next-24-hours.html

Jury's out on this one, will have to see how the 6Ns goes then ponder his selection.

It's a fantastic experience for players like Itoje being round the England set-up, what's he going to learn going back to Saracens? The coaches can work on him and he can learn things from better players.

beshocked wrote:No 7 & 1/2 well perhaps he feels that two of them are very lucky to be in the 23 like I do.

I'd rather see Itoje and Daly both back for their clubs than wasting their weekend as tackle bag holders in Scotland.

Refreshing that we see the same old man sausage ups? Fair enough if you feel that way. You were always a staunch Lancaster supporter so it's not a surprise.

Personally I was hoping for some refreshing change. Not the same mistakes we've seen before.


Londontiger my reasoning for that is simple - it's as if Lancaster is still in charge.

I was hoping that Eddie Jones would do things differently. Perhaps naive of me to expect a different coach to be more sensible then his predecessor. Silly me.

In the England-Scotland thread, they said you can tell good selection when there's almost completely agreement. With England yet again there isn't.

Perhaps Eddie Jones will prove me wrong but his poor selection does not bode well.

There is mostly agreement. Just because you are not doesn't mean the rest of us are not. I'd go as far as saying that there is pretty good agreement for 90% of the squad and we are spending a lot of time debating only a couple of positions. There are a couple of question marks, but there are going to be 3 new caps. I'd much rather have Daly than Goode because he's more versatile and because he offers a genuine threat, but that is about it.

beshocked wrote:No 7 & 1/2 well perhaps he feels that two of them are very lucky to be in the 23 like I do.

I'd rather see Itoje and Daly both back for their clubs than wasting their weekend as tackle bag holders in Scotland.

Refreshing that we see the same old man sausage ups? Fair enough if you feel that way. You were always a staunch Lancaster supporter so it's not a surprise.

Personally I was hoping for some refreshing change. Not the same mistakes we've seen before.


Londontiger my reasoning for that is simple - it's as if Lancaster is still in charge.

I was hoping that Eddie Jones would do things differently. Perhaps naive of me to expect a different coach to be more sensible then his predecessor. Silly me.

In the England-Scotland thread, they said you can tell good selection when there's almost completely agreement. With England yet again there isn't.

Perhaps Eddie Jones will prove me wrong but his poor selection does not bode well.

A bit of context though mate, we (Scots posters) are in agreement because with the greatest respect in the world we probably only have 60 or so truly international class players. In fact the number 60 is probably being very generous. In truth its probably closer to 40.

England by contrast has a huge playing pool. With players in the division below the Aviva playing high intensity, high stahdard rugby.

Jones' toughest job was always going to be getting the best XXIII to the stadium. IMO he made an error choosing Hartley as captain when George has been the form Hooker in the NH.

Sure Hartley gives you a bit of edge and a bit of attitude but if you can't even get the crtitical position of hooker selected right it doesn't fill me with confidence in Jones.

The players he has picked though are more than capable of winning at the weekend. However England probably should and no doubt will keep it tight. Kicking to the corners and setting up mauls. In the RWC whenever Japan, USA, SA and Oz got a rolling maul set up it smashed us to pieces. The looser the game gets the more it plays into the hands of our mobile forwards and the tackle area will become a right mess with Barclay and Hardie on the pitch.

Good luck tho guys, should be a cracker

but not too much good luck tho

beshocked wrote:No 7 & 1/2 well perhaps he feels that two of them are very lucky to be in the 23 like I do.

I'd rather see Itoje and Daly both back for their clubs than wasting their weekend as tackle bag holders in Scotland.

Refreshing that we see the same old man sausage ups? Fair enough if you feel that way. You were always a staunch Lancaster supporter so it's not a surprise.

Personally I was hoping for some refreshing change. Not the same mistakes we've seen before.


Londontiger my reasoning for that is simple - it's as if Lancaster is still in charge.

I was hoping that Eddie Jones would do things differently. Perhaps naive of me to expect a different coach to be more sensible then his predecessor. Silly me.

In the England-Scotland thread, they said you can tell good selection when there's almost completely agreement. With England yet again there isn't.

Perhaps Eddie Jones will prove me wrong but his poor selection does not bode well.

Not really a staunch supporter of a coach but I do like to consider why certain decisions were made not just insist that if my preferred team isn't picked just assume they are incorrect decisions. Surely making the 'same mistakes' would be giving debuts away in the 6 nations but alas again you mean not picking the team you would have done.

Bambam it's not just players I like. It's ones that others like too. I am not alone in wanting certain players in or out.

It's looking at problems and fixing them whether that's the centre issue, the breakdown, bringing in form players instead of sticking with basically the entire team that failed in the RWC.

I am not completely negative, I liked Eddie Jones initial squad. Unfortunately that gave me unrealistic hopes that he would make the choices that I believe we need.

I understand getting off to a winning start but there needs to be a breath of fresh air. To be honest the only new cap I think deserves to be on the bench is Clifford, so no I don't think it's that good.

Shock horror I wouldn't have Goode there either.

Now maybe just maybe Eddie Jones just wants to get the Scotland game out of the way then the refreshing changes will be made against Italy.

That's my hope at the moment.

Why does there need to be a breath of fresh air though? This is still a relatively young and inxeperienced team. No one has looked consistantly out of their depth. Haskell by the sounds of it is going to get a set of instructions from Jones as he's been identified as a guy who can implement them on the pitch; let's see if he can. The 2 hookers are both quality you could argue they should be the other way around but in reality Hartley will probably get about 20 mints longer on the pitch with front row subs the way they are. There's no one jumping out at 12 hence Farrell gets a shot with the same guy as he played with through the ranks. Looking at the backline they are all young new caps anyway.

beshocked wrote:No 7 & 1/2 I think you'll find it's primarily the starting line up which is conservative. Looks eerily familiar to Lancaster. Also his lack of faith in certain players' ability to step up to the occasion.

He's gone for the safe approach with experienced players, something you would expect of any coach in his first game. He has also said that certain players will play a part in this 6 nations so really not sure where this lack of faith is coming from.

beshocked wrote:No 7 & 1/2 I think you'll find it's primarily the starting line up which is conservative. Looks eerily familiar to Lancaster. Also his lack of faith in certain players' ability to step up to the occasion.

One response :

Hoonercat wrote:He's gone for the safe approach with experienced players, something you would expect of any coach in his first game. He has also said that certain players will play a part in this 6 nations so really not sure where this lack of faith is coming from.

Another response:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why does there need to be a breath of fresh air though? This is still a relatively young and inxeperienced team. Looking at the backline they are all young new caps anyway.

Who's right? Are you experienced or not? Or are you something in between? I appreciate these are just opinions but I would find myself agreeing with Hoonercat. The side Lancaster brought up to Murrayfield 4 years ago was inexperienced, this one most certainly is not.

I don't think many of us are overwhelmed with Farrell at 12 but it is the pragmatic choice.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

beshocked wrote:No 7 & 1/2 I think you'll find it's primarily the starting line up which is conservative. Looks eerily familiar to Lancaster. Also his lack of faith in certain players' ability to step up to the occasion.

One response :

Hoonercat wrote:He's gone for the safe approach with experienced players, something you would expect of any coach in his first game. He has also said that certain players will play a part in this 6 nations so really not sure where this lack of faith is coming from.

Another response:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why does there need to be a breath of fresh air though? This is still a relatively young and inxeperienced team. Looking at the backline they are all young new caps anyway.

Who's right? Are you experienced or not? Or are you something in between? I appreciate these are just opinions but I would find myself agreeing with Hoonercat. The side Lancaster brought up to Murrayfield 4 years ago was inexperienced, this one most certainly is not.

Relative to other top international teams it's certainly inexperienced. If we're throwing players out with 30 odd caps or less in favour for the next best thing I don't think we'll get the best out of anyone. It's also true that those players with 30 odd caps are more experienced than someone with 0 or 2.

Sgt Pooly he's learning how to hold a tackle bag properly.... great experience...

He was in the England set up in June last year. It's not new anymore. He's ready for international rugby. That's clear from his form this season and last season. He has shown an ability to step up to every challenge thrown his way.

lostinwales well you'll have to ask others if that's the team you would pick.

no 7 & 1/2 they have been proven to be poor decisions. You can say you understand the thought process of Lancaster, doesn't change that he got it wrong on key decisions.

Is it really that young and inexperienced?

Are you seriously asking me why there needs to be a breath of fresh air? Did you not watch the RWC? England failed to get out of their pool and have deservedly fallen to 8th in the world which is pretty shocking.

I know some England fans revel in mediocrity but personally I want England to rise above it.

Ruggerradge2611 we do indeed have a big player pool which hasn't been used to it's potential so far.

Hoonercat that has not yet come into fruition yet has it? We'll see if he does indeed pick certain players.

I can only talk about Eddie Jones' selections for the Scotland game and as of now I am unimpressed.

Of course it can change.

It is a lot more experienced than Lancaster's first squad.

Even so there are three players in line to make their debuts and another three players with a maximum of 10 caps. The age of this team is probably a fair bit younger than the one that lined up in 2012.

So it is a blend of experience and inexperience.

beshocked wrote:Sgt Pooly he's learning how to hold a tackle bag properly.... great experience...

He was in the England set up in June last year. It's not new anymore. He's ready for international rugby. That's clear from his form this season and last season. He has shown an ability to step up to every challenge thrown his way.

lostinwales well you'll have to ask others if that's the team you would pick.

no 7 & 1/2 they have been proven to be poor decisions. You can say you understand the thought process of Lancaster, doesn't change that he got it wrong on key decisions.

Is it really that young and inexperienced?

Are you seriously asking me why there needs to be a breath of fresh air? Did you not watch the RWC? England failed to get out of their pool and have deservedly fallen to 8th in the world which is pretty shocking.

I know England fans revel in mediocrity but personally I want England to rise above it.

Ruggerradge2611 we do indeed have a big player pool which hasn't been used to it's potential so far.

Hoonercat that has not yet come into fruition yet has it? We'll see if he does indeed pick certain players.

I can only talk about Eddie Jones' selections for the Scotland game and as of now I am unimpressed.

Of course it can change.

That's such a hard job to do. Lancaster was hovering around the setup for nearly 5 years and he arguably couldn't get the best players on the pitch. Surely Jones cannot be criticized for that with only 6 weeks in the job? I think he can be forgiven for reverting to the bones of Lancaster's team. However I would have Kvesic in there instead of Brand Haskell.

Beshocked if this England selection go through the first 3 games and absolutely hammer every other team (as unlikely as that is), will you still be calling for changes?

60s caps - 2 players
50s caps - 3 players
40s caps - 3 players
30s caps - 2 players
20s caps - 3 players
10-19 caps 6 players
<10 caps - 4 players

Not proven mistakes though are they. I can understand that if people do want to focus purely on the world they'll want wholesale changes, or on the Ireland game last year or on the 2013 Wales game but overall this group of players on the whole have shown they can live and excel at this level. Is there a requirement that some of these players are moved on immediately? Past overall performance suggests not (you can quibble here as I wouldn't have Haskell but you've got to acknowledge a lot of people would have him involved). None of them are too old.

The problem with wholesale changes with every poor performance or 2 means you'll always be looking to the bright young thing, they'll never have the chance to reach a optimum level and stay there.

No one (English) wants a mediocre team, personally I think we have a good one, but even if George, Itoje etc were to start I don't think they would transform us immediately to best in the world. When they do get their chance will you call for them all to be axed when they have a poor game or 2 (because they will have them at some point)?

Hoonercat wrote:Beshocked if this England selection go through the first 3 games and absolutely hammer every other team (as unlikely as that is), will you still be calling for changes?

Probably, as it means we won't have been "building a squad"

Conversely, if young players were thrown in and subsequently lost, it would be "what happened to being about winning"

No 7&1/2 wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

beshocked wrote:No 7 & 1/2 I think you'll find it's primarily the starting line up which is conservative. Looks eerily familiar to Lancaster. Also his lack of faith in certain players' ability to step up to the occasion.

One response :

Hoonercat wrote:He's gone for the safe approach with experienced players, something you would expect of any coach in his first game. He has also said that certain players will play a part in this 6 nations so really not sure where this lack of faith is coming from.

Another response:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why does there need to be a breath of fresh air though? This is still a relatively young and inxeperienced team. Looking at the backline they are all young new caps anyway.

Who's right? Are you experienced or not? Or are you something in between? I appreciate these are just opinions but I would find myself agreeing with Hoonercat. The side Lancaster brought up to Murrayfield 4 years ago was inexperienced, this one most certainly is not.

Relative to other top international teams it's certainly inexperienced. If we're throwing players out with 30 odd caps or less in favour for the next best thing I don't think we'll get the best out of anyone. It's also true that those players with 30 odd caps are more experienced than someone with 0 or 2.

Fixed that for you, best to compare like for like  But yes, when I said he's gone for experience I meant within the England set up rather than compared to other teams. I really don't understand this clamour* to throw in a load of new caps in the first game of the 6 Nations as well as the first game under a new coach.

*Clamour might be a bit strong a word to use, and is based on the number of posts calling for new caps rather than the number of people calling for new caps

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not proven mistakes though are they. I can understand that if people do want to focus purely on the world they'll want wholesale changes, or on the Ireland game last year or on the 2013 Wales game but overall this group of players on the whole have shown they can live and excel at this level. Is there a requirement that some of these players are moved on immediately? Past overall performance suggests not (you can quibble here as I wouldn't have Haskell but you've got to acknowledge a lot of people would have him involved). None of them are too old.

The problem with wholesale changes with every poor performance or 2 means you'll always be looking to the bright young thing, they'll never have the chance to reach a optimum level and stay there.

No one (English) wants a mediocre team, personally I think we have a good one, but even if George, Itoje etc were to start I don't think they would transform us immediately to best in the world. When they do get their chance will you call for them all to be axed when they have a poor game or 2 (because they will have them at some point)?

Agree completely. Having Itoje come on as a sub instead of Lawes isn't realistically going to make any difference.

Hoonercat wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

beshocked wrote:No 7 & 1/2 I think you'll find it's primarily the starting line up which is conservative. Looks eerily familiar to Lancaster. Also his lack of faith in certain players' ability to step up to the occasion.

One response :

Hoonercat wrote:He's gone for the safe approach with experienced players, something you would expect of any coach in his first game. He has also said that certain players will play a part in this 6 nations so really not sure where this lack of faith is coming from.

Another response:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why does there need to be a breath of fresh air though? This is still a relatively young and inxeperienced team. Looking at the backline they are all young new caps anyway.

Who's right? Are you experienced or not? Or are you something in between? I appreciate these are just opinions but I would find myself agreeing with Hoonercat. The side Lancaster brought up to Murrayfield 4 years ago was inexperienced, this one most certainly is not.

Relative to other top international teams it's certainly inexperienced. If we're throwing players out with 30 odd caps or less in favour for the next best thing I don't think we'll get the best out of anyone. It's also true that those players with 30 odd caps are more experienced than someone with 0 or 2.

Fixed that for you, best to compare like for like  But yes, when I said he's gone for experience I meant within the England set up rather than compared to other teams. I really don't understand this clamour* to throw in a load of new caps in the first game of the 6 Nations as well as the first game under a new coach.

*Clamour might be a bit strong a word to use, and is based on the number of posts calling for new caps rather than the number of people calling for new caps

To be fair I'd consider top teams to be all of the 6Ns big 4 down south but ok.

Hoonercat I think tweaking to the 23 yes. A good squad isn't just about the 23.

The relief is that Eddie Jones did pick a good squad. Just needs to properly utilise it.

no 7 & 1/2

You are right I don't think George,Itoje,Daly,Clifford whoever would immediately transform us to the best in the world but there needs to be some trust if England want to aspire to be the best.

Now perhaps those players aren't the answer but we won't know unless they are given a chance.

Holding back a player can damage a players' development too. Players need gametime.

It's bold to drop experienced players but sometimes it's needed to reignite that hunger. That desire to win back the shirt.

I haven't been asking for an entire shuffle I just want to see some change.

England places are very competitive with lots of potential players.

I will concede that it was probably right for Lancaster to get rid of Ashton but I just think he did it at the wrong time.

I agree completely with all of that beshocked. It now comes down to the fact that Lancaster before and Jones (at least initially) are giving trust to different players than you would like trust to be given to. To me with the amount of players we have that's always going to happen.

lostinwales wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not proven mistakes though are they. I can understand that if people do want to focus purely on the world they'll want wholesale changes, or on the Ireland game last year or on the 2013 Wales game but overall this group of players on the whole have shown they can live and excel at this level. Is there a requirement that some of these players are moved on immediately? Past overall performance suggests not (you can quibble here as I wouldn't have Haskell but you've got to acknowledge a lot of people would have him involved). None of them are too old.

The problem with wholesale changes with every poor performance or 2 means you'll always be looking to the bright young thing, they'll never have the chance to reach a optimum level and stay there.

No one (English) wants a mediocre team, personally I think we have a good one, but even if George, Itoje etc were to start I don't think they would transform us immediately to best in the world. When they do get their chance will you call for them all to be axed when they have a poor game or 2 (because they will have them at some point)?

Agree completely. Having Itoje come on as a sub instead of Lawes isn't realistically going to make any difference.

Realistically you're right yes but Itoje did make a difference vs Bath so though would have been unlikely would have been possible.

Average age of Squad:

Backs 24.5
Forwards 26.6
Bench 24

that is a young team. Last thing it needs is even more inexperience for the first match.

Also ironic that a poster who slated Lancaster for selecting young inexperienced players, now slates Jones for not selecting more than he has.

How about we give the guy a chance and review at the end of the season.

Londontiger I slated Lancaster for when he decided to pick young inexperienced players.

Starting not one but two new players on the wing vs France away for example.

Time and place to start players.

He has his chance - I am not asking for him to be sacked as of yet. I am well within my rights to not be impressed though so far.

What's the difference between France and Scotland then?

beshocked wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not proven mistakes though are they. I can understand that if people do want to focus purely on the world they'll want wholesale changes, or on the Ireland game last year or on the 2013 Wales game but overall this group of players on the whole have shown they can live and excel at this level. Is there a requirement that some of these players are moved on immediately? Past overall performance suggests not (you can quibble here as I wouldn't have Haskell but you've got to acknowledge a lot of people would have him involved). None of them are too old.

The problem with wholesale changes with every poor performance or 2 means you'll always be looking to the bright young thing, they'll never have the chance to reach a optimum level and stay there.

No one (English) wants a mediocre team, personally I think we have a good one, but even if George, Itoje etc were to start I don't think they would transform us immediately to best in the world. When they do get their chance will you call for them all to be axed when they have a poor game or 2 (because they will have them at some point)?

Agree completely. Having Itoje come on as a sub instead of Lawes isn't realistically going to make any difference.

Realistically you're right yes but Itoje did make a difference vs Bath so though would have been unlikely would have been possible.

I just think that they are both good players who can make a difference when they come on, but I don't think we could say with absolute certainty that picking one as a sub over the other is the right thing, so its down to Eddie's judgement.

No 7&1/2 wrote:What's the difference between France and Scotland then?

Do I honestly need to explain that to you?

Just one small reason.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rugby_union_matches_between_England_and_France

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rugby_union_matches_between_England_and_Scotland

So you rate that France team as better than this Scotland team? Despite the fact that a more experienced version of the England team currently up against Scotland you consider a very tight 50 50 kind of game? France are ( or at least under PSA) were on the way down, Scotland are getting better.

France finished 4th in that 6N...

OK, so starting not one but two new players on the wing because of injury to the more established wings is bad, but starting 3 players in the pack with under 5 caps between them (assuming you would prefer at least 3 of George, Itoje, Kvesic and Clifford to start, which seems to be the gist of it) is good?

Eddie's had two weeks with his players. In that time, he's got to shore up the set piece, instil a defensive system and give them some sort of attacking structure. Throwing a new front row, lock, and back row combination into that would just increase the complexity of what he has to do. It's bad enough that we have yet another makeshift centre combination.

It's stupid to judge a famously pragmatic coach on his selections for his first game, especially when he's flagged that he's going to introduce Itoje and others in the near future.

It's not just about when the players are ready, it's also about when the team and system are ready that new players can be slotted in. The All Blacks have cracked it and know how to bring players in without disrupting the overall pattern. It looks to me that that is what Eddie is working towards, which is no bad thing.

Must admit I do find the selective use of 'can't pick X because they haven't done anything' vs ' How do you know how X will play without playing them' a bit confusing

I lie in the glass both half empty and half full area. Eddie has a winning mentality and absolutely does not want his 1st game to be a loss. So he’s picked a pragmatic experienced (more or less) side to go away first off. Can’t really blame him for that. Winning helps breed winning and he wants to start with the best chance of that. He has at least gone for a pack that should do the basics ok. The other extreme is to address straight off the other 2 most obvious problem areas. Unfortunately with the injuries concentrated in 1 of these at centre (with Hill, Slade, Manu…) & Devoto struggling for 1st team selection (and Burgess having done a runner) his hands were tied. That only leave OS and I personally feel he could have taken more of a risk here, and started developing a BR immediately. Robshaw, Haskell, Billy are not the future combination. Still – not so bad. And the bench looks better. So that’s a 8/10 for selection from me. Perhaps attitude on the field will be more important post SL.

no 7 & 1/2 it's only a close game because of poor selections. I said good selections would have seen it be 70-30.

France are still France, always been stronger than Scotland. Better head to head vs England. Have a much better win record in the 6 nations

Bambam above Scotland though....

Poorfour would have two new starters - new backrower, George with Itoje on the bench.

I've got a strong suspicion that Scotland will beat and finish above France this year

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

beshocked wrote:No 7 & 1/2 I think you'll find it's primarily the starting line up which is conservative. Looks eerily familiar to Lancaster. Also his lack of faith in certain players' ability to step up to the occasion.

One response :

Hoonercat wrote:He's gone for the safe approach with experienced players, something you would expect of any coach in his first game. He has also said that certain players will play a part in this 6 nations so really not sure where this lack of faith is coming from.

Another response:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why does there need to be a breath of fresh air though? This is still a relatively young and inxeperienced team. Looking at the backline they are all young new caps anyway.

Who's right? Are you experienced or not? Or are you something in between? I appreciate these are just opinions but I would find myself agreeing with Hoonercat. The side Lancaster brought up to Murrayfield 4 years ago was inexperienced, this one most certainly is not.

The sides experienced at playing international rugby and a lot of the players have played together.

It's inexperienced at winning rugby. Between them those players have about 5 trophies for club or country. There's also some new partnerships again, and guys from teams who've probably never played together two weeks ago.

Still surprised by the omission of Daly.

I know if he was there then that'd make two uncapped players on the bench. But ignore his attacking skills and pace.

Just for his 60m boot and surprising accuracy, I'd have thought they'd want him there.

yappysnap wrote:Still surprised by the omission of Daly.

I agree. I would rather see him on the bench than Goode, but it is a minor quibble. He may well feature next week against Italy.


As to Itoje while I can see an argument for selecting him, I do feel it would be a major risk. I struggle to see a Launchbury/Itoje partnership offering much to combat a very good Scottish lineout - and if itoje is on the bench that is what you get should Kruis be injured. Lawes has performed well for england and at 26 has plenty of years left on the clock.

For me really itoje is competing with Launchbury, while Lawes is competing against Kruis with the Saint's man offering more options from the bench when it comes to the technical skills of a second row forward.

yappysnap wrote:Still surprised by the omission of Daly.

I know if he was there then that'd make two uncapped players on the bench. But ignore his attacking skills and pace.

Just for his 60m boot and surprising accuracy, I'd have thought they'd want him there.

Frankly, I would feel more confident with Daly taking the kicks at goal instead of Ford.

beshocked wrote:no 7 & 1/2 it's only a close game because of poor selections. I said good selections would have seen it be 70-30.

France are still France, always been stronger than Scotland. Better head to head vs England. Have a much better win record in the 6 nations

Bambam above Scotland though....

Poorfour would have two new starters - new backrower, George with Itoje on the bench.

But this isn't about head to heads is it? Earlier you were basing a lot on the WC weren't you? I'd say that Scotland were starting to look pretty good, especially against Aus, that's to be ignored now? I'd also favour Scotland to be better than France over the course of this 6Ns. Who would you have had at 12 Barritt? Personally I think if you think a player is good enough and a better fit than a more experienced player generally go with it. I don't think it would be especially smart to go with shed loads of new caps even from the bench as they could all be needed to come on after 1 minute.

doctor_grey wrote:

yappysnap wrote:Still surprised by the omission of Daly.

I know if he was there then that'd make two uncapped players on the bench. But ignore his attacking skills and pace.

Just for his 60m boot and surprising accuracy, I'd have thought they'd want him there.

Frankly, I would feel more confident with Daly taking the kicks at goal instead of Ford.  

Is that perception getting in the way of reality though?

Daly's kicking seems to deteriorate the closer he gets oddly. He's certainly not a primary kicking option although he can knock them over anywhere around the halfway line.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Daly's kicking seems to deteriorate the closer he gets oddly. He's certainly not a primary kicking option although he can knock them over anywhere around the halfway line.

Pressure.

no-one expects him to knock over the long rage ones, so there are no nerves and he just swings through the ball. Once it is a kick you expect to be made the pressure builds, nerves increase and tension enters the swing.

It is like a golfer. stand a half decent golfer on the driving range and they can scream drives away with gay abandon. Put them on a first tee, with an audience and water down the left and suddenly things get very different.

Jones has made some positive tweaks to Lancasters team esp with Hartley the 2nd row Care and Nowell. All strengthen the side IMO and strangely it looks a settled team. 7 and the breakdown is the only concern I'd have but in the 6 Nations you might get away with that, not always but sometimes

Barney McGrew did it wrote:I lie in the glass both half empty and half full area. Eddie has a winning mentality and absolutely does not want his 1st game to be a loss. So he’s picked a pragmatic experienced (more or less) side to go away first off. Can’t really blame him for that. Winning helps breed winning and he wants to start with the best chance of that. He has at least gone for a pack that should do the basics ok. The other extreme is to address straight off the other 2 most obvious problem areas. Unfortunately with the injuries concentrated in 1 of these at centre (with Hill, Slade, Manu…) & Devoto struggling for 1st team selection (and Burgess having done a runner) his hands were tied. That only leave OS and I personally feel he could have taken more of a risk here, and started developing a BR immediately. Robshaw, Haskell, Billy are not the future combination. Still – not so bad. And the bench looks better. So that’s a 8/10 for selection from me. Perhaps attitude on the field will be more important post SL.

I think Eddie's laid out his stall at Openside: he doesn't want Robshaw there, doesn't particularly rate Kvesic (or Fraser for that matter), and his long term aim is to get Sam Underhill. In the meantime, he has identified two players he thinks can do the most important bits of the job well in Haskell and Clifford and is going with them. What's notable is that they are both fast and powerful: job #1 is "get there and get the opposition out of the way."

In the medium term, I expect Clifford to start at 7 until Underhill has been repatriated and integrated, 'cos that's what Eddie has said will happen. I'm still struggling a bit to imagine what kind of back row he's planning to forge, though, given the number of candidates at 8.

Nathan Hughes is the future 8

By the way - interesting observation from the teamsheet. Well, I found it interesting.

We normally look at which clubs have supplied the most players, but it struck me that there's an interesting pattern in terms of cap count too - Quins have supplied 38% of the starting caps, and 28% of the total caps in the squad (even allowing for having a debutant). Sarries are next with around 18% of the squad caps, Leicester, Wasps and Saints aren't far behind.

I thought it was interesting because it's a very high proportion and begs the question of why?

One thought is that the Quins lads have stayed fit - Care missed the 11 RWC through injury, Robshaw and Brown have missed one or two games, and as far as I know Marler has never been unavailable through injury (which has allowed him to cement his place when Corbs and Mako would have been the more obvious choices).

I wonder what the mix will look like as this squad evolves.

RubyGuby wrote:Nathan Hughes is the future 8

Not according to Eddie. Unless he plans to play two number 8s.

Poorfour wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:Nathan Hughes is the future 8

Not according to Eddie. Unless he plans to play two number 8s.

That's not allowed

Poorfour wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:Nathan Hughes is the future 8

Not according to Eddie. Unless he plans to play two number 8s.

You cant take anything Jones says as a firm guide to what he'll actually do. Sometimes words and actions will match but he has a long history of saying one thing and doing another.