England Squad Named

First topic message reminder :

SQUAD IN FULL

Here it is: Eddie Jones first squad as England head coach.

Forwards

Josh Beaumont (Sale Sharks), Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers), Luke Cowan-Dickie (Exeter Chiefs), Jack Clifford (Harlequins), Jamie George (Saracens), Dylan Hartley (Northampton Saints), James Haskell (Wasps), Paul Hill (Northampton Saints), Maro Itoje (Saracens), George Kruis (Saracens), Matt Kvesic (Gloucester Rugby) *injury replacement for Dave Ewers (Exeter Chiefs), Joe Launchbury (Wasps), Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints), Joe Marler (Harlequins), Matt Mullan (Wasps), Chris Robshaw (Harlequins), Henry Thomas (Bath Rugby) *injury replacement for Kieran Brookes (Northampton Saints), Billy Vunipola (Saracens), Mako Vunipola (Saracens)

Backs

Chris Ashton (Saracens), Mike Brown (Harlequins), Danny Care (Harlequins), Elliot Daly (Wasps), Ollie Devoto (Bath Rugby) *injury replacement for Manu Tuilagi (Leicester Tigers), Owen Farrell (Saracens), George Ford (Bath Rugby), Alex Goode (Saracens), Sam Hill (Exeter Chiefs) *injury replacement for Henry Slade (Exeter Chiefs), Jonathan Joseph (Bath Rugby), Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs), Anthony Watson (Bath Rugby), Marland Yarde (Harlequins), Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers)

Per Sky

If Farrell starts 12 vs Scotland I'll be using this a lot of emotes like


Ford doesn't deserve to start at 10. That's clear.

Who would you have at 12 beshocked? Hill?

He's obviously having a think on his 12s but I'm with Geordie, I wouldn't be surprised to see Ford, Farrell at 10 and 12.

I'd still be having Mullan at loosehead but I don't know how Jones and Borthwick will see it. 11 will be Watson or Nowell fitness depending with Ashton in at 14 if he's not fit. I'd be going for Daly at 13.

No 7&1/2 wrote:He's obviously having a think on his 12s but I'm with Geordie, I wouldn't be surprised to see Ford, Farrell at 10 and 12.

I'd still be having Mullan at loosehead but I don't know how Jones and Borthwick will see it. 11 will be Watson or Nowell fitness depending with Ashton in at 14 if he's not fit. I'd be going for Daly at 13.

I think that sums the whole thing up 7.5 (are you still a half by the way...out of fashion now )

We just don't know what Jones and his team actually want.

I was going to have a fresh start with Jones but it turns out I have no idea how to change my username anyway!

Geordiefalcon

Hill,Tuilagi even Devoto ahead of Farrell.

Farrell should be the starting 10.

England have to pick the best performing 10 and the best centres.

Ford is not the best performing 10, Farrell is not the best centre. It's not even up to debate.

If Ford was in form I think he would be a good choice as a starter at 10 but he's not.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I was going to have a fresh start with Jones but it turns out I have no idea how to change my username anyway!

Talk nicely to a mod. Thats what I was told when I moved out of Wales (Just been too lazy to think of a new name)

He may suit what Jones' is looking for more than Farrell though. If the pack gets the sort of dominance which we're all hoping they do Ford on front foot ball is very dangerous. If Ford played for Saracens and Farrell for Bath we'd see opposite form.

Ha, ta lost.

no 7 & 1/2 Ford is still a little 10 who can be bullied easier than Farrell.

Ford cannot deal as well with opposition forwards trying to smash him as Farrell. Farrell has his flaws but abrasiveness isn't one.

No 10 finds it easy playing on the backfoot I agree but a physically tough 10 finds it easier to ride the tackle and take the physicality of the opposition. Wilkinson was good at this for example.

A team is a team. You cannot say for sure that the form would be reversed. Farrell might well galvanise the Bath forwards if he played for them in a way Ford cannot.

Look I know you believe that Ford can do no wrong, if he plays badly, not my fault guv, my forwards were poor etc... Ford is not a deity though.

You can't just write off his poor form as the fault of his forwards.

I confess I would prefer to see Hill at 12.

However him with Farrell at 10 probably isn't the attacking threat that Eddie will want.

And Farrells form means you cant not have him in. It also follows what he keeps saying...the best players can play in multi positions.

Before we do this again can we confirm what you mean by bullied please as I've never understood what your view on that is? Farrell has played on the back foot more for england than saracens but like all tens looks a much poorer player for it.

Maybe Jones will go for Ford as the more reliable kicker?

no 7 & 1/2 not sure there is any more point discussing with you Ford vs Farrell as you believe Ford is a deity who can do no wrong.

I in contrast know that Farrell is a very flawed player and person but he's playing well.

If Ford was playing well I would probably advocate his selection but he's not.

I want the best for England and currently Farrell is playing better. Yes it helps to have a pack performing well but Ford isn't exactly playing with a powderpuff pack.

I advocate Ksevic being in the squad ahead of Fraser for example because Ksevic is in better form.

Geordiefalcon it is at 10 that Farrell is playing well, not 12.

Might as well pick one of the Vunipola bros at 12 if it's only good form that matters.

You're right there is no point when you bring up the deity thing, it's your way of side stepping discussions.

[quote="beshocked"]no 7 & 1/2 not sure there is any more point discussing with you Ford vs Farrell as you believe Ford is a deity who can do no wrong.
[quote]

To be fair Beshocked, im not sure he has mentioned Ford being a god.

The only one sidestepping is you when it comes to criticism of Ford - in your eyes he is a deity. I can't have a serious discussion with you most of the time because some of your comments are far too deluded. Especially when it comes to Ford.

You'd convince yourself that he played well even when he got outclassed by his opposite number.

The whole bullying is not something that you will evidently ever understand so there is no point trying to explain it to you is there?

Geordiefalcon Ford can do no wrong in no 7 & 1/2's eyes. Didn't explicitly call him a deity but might as well have.

beshocked wrote:

Geordiefalcon it is at 10 that Farrell is playing well, not 12.

Might as well pick one of the Vunipola bros at 12 if it's only good form that matters.

Yes I appreciate that, but many see certain players at 10 and 12 as quite interchangeable.

Im not saying I want it...I don't like Farrell at 12, but for whatever reason...two head coaches (Lancaster) and Now Eddie Jones (still to select his team mind) are looking at it.

Geordiefalcon do you think that Farrell played well in the centres in the RWC? Do you think his YC against Australia and his contribution to Wales' try were works of genius? Personally I thought they were heavy evidence of a player out of his depth in a relatively unfamiliar position at international level. Too slow for a centre IMO.

How many successful 10/12 players do you know of? Don't get me wrong there are some rare players like Catt or Giteau but they aren't many.

Catt was also generally not a starter either in the biggest games.

I'm just asking what you mean by bullying. I know you struggle explaining it. basically it sounds as if you're saying Farrell is bigger. Woop de do. Drop the deity thing.

beshocked wrote:Geordiefalcon do you think that Farrell played well in the centres in the RWC? Do you think his YC against Australia and his contribution to Wales' try were works of genius? Personally I thought they were heavy evidence of a player out of his depth in a relatively unfamiliar position at international level. Too slow for a centre IMO.

How many successful 10/12 players do you know of? Don't get me wrong there are some rare players like Catt or Giteau but they aren't many.

Catt was also generally not a starter either in the biggest games.

No I don't like him at 12. Ive already said that? Do you actually read?

Im saying OTHERS ie supposedly world class managers who've been there and done it seem to think different to what you and me think!

Did you lose £20 and find a £5 this weekend?

Farrell should be at 10

Ford on the bench

Devoto or Hill at 12

no 7 & 1/2 I don't struggle to explain it. You just don't absorb the information.

I will drop the deity thing when you stop giving the impression you believe that Ford is a player who can do no wrong.

Geordiefalcon it's a rhetorical question. Yes I can read but it doesn't change that it would be an idiotic decision.

Supposedly world class managers can still make poor decisions. They are human as we all are. None of us are perfect.

Explain it then, because it just sounds as if you mean you prefer a 10 who makes big tackles on the gain line. If that's not what you meant what is it. The deity thing is again just something you throw out when others rate a player you don't particularly.

But your trying to enforce your rhetorical question on me even though ive said I agree with you.. BUT I still believe you'll see him at 12 v Scotland.

I would go with Yappy.  First select your 10.  Farrell has been playing better than Ford and even though I like Ford, I would select Farrell.  Then 12 should be between Devoto and Hill with a choice again at 13 between Joseph and Daly.

Would prefer Nowell and Watson as wingers.

Geordiefalcon I know you agree with me, I agree you are probably right, sadly Farrell will probably start at 12 vs Scotland. It's just something I hope doesn't happen.

no 7 & 1/2 I have to admit I do prefer a 10 who doesn't get as physically dominated as Ford does. Don't need to be a giant 10 - the likes of Sexton,Biggar and Carter aren't huge yet they are physically able to deal mostly with what the opposition throws at them more often than not. Not all the time of course but more so than Ford.

Sexton even literally manhandled Ford in the 6 nations - he bossed that game and completely outclassed Ford. He bullied Ford - that's an example. Ford could have done things better in that game - it wasn't just - my forwards weren't good enough guv. His restarts were awful (not the only 10 guilty of this), kick chase from England was poor. Backs can help forwards too.

No the deity thing is because you genuinely believe Ford can do no wrong.

Don't get me wrong I think Ford does have his strengths - his creativity and overall attacking ability is better than Farrell's but I think that's skills best suited to the bench as an impact player. Also means that Ford will have a point to prove and some hunger.

Bringing let's say Care and Ford off the bench on the 60th minute mark with some exciting forward prospects like Clifford and Itoje vs a tiring Scotland could really pay dividends.

I think it's fairly certain that Farrell will be starting given his current form. Hopefully that will be at 10 rather than 12! If it is a shootout between Ford/Farrell for the 10 shirt with a new 12 and possibly Daly coming in fresh at 13 then Farrell will be the 10. Jones has frequently spoken about wanting a pragmatic side. With a new centre partnership Faz is the pragmatic choice.

If Launchbury, Kruis and Nowell pull through then the make-up of the side is coming together nicely. Most question marks are over two good players in form (9 and 13). It seems Hartley will be in the 23 with whether or not he starts dependent on how much game time he gets between now and then - George should start IMO.

7 remains the real question but Clifford and Kvesic are two good options I rate highly so I'm quietly optimistic there myself.

1.Mako
2.George/Hartley
3.Cole
4.Launchbury
5.Kruis
6.Robshaw
7.Clifford
8.Vunipola

9.Care/Youngs
10.Farrell

11.Nowell
12.Hil/Devoto
13.Joseph/Daly
14.Watson
15.Brown

16.Hatley/George
17.Marler/Mullan
18.Hill
19.Itoje
20.Haskell
21.Youngs/Care
22.Ford
23.Daly/Joseph

king carlos to be honest if that team was announced I would be happy bar perhaps Haskell.

12 still looks a bit dodgy but can't get round that.

beshocked wrote:Geordiefalcon I know you agree with me, I agree you are probably right, sadly Farrell will probably start at 12 vs Scotland. It's just something I hope doesn't happen.

no 7 & 1/2 I have to admit I do prefer a 10 who doesn't get as physically dominated as Ford does. Don't need to be a giant 10 - the likes of Sexton,Biggar and Carter aren't huge yet they are physically able to deal mostly with what the opposition throws at them more often than not. Not all the time of course but more so than Ford.

Sexton even literally manhandled Ford in the 6 nations - he bossed that game and completely outclassed Ford. He bullied Ford - that's an example. Ford could have done things better in that game - it wasn't just - my forwards weren't good enough guv. His restarts were awful (not the only 10 guilty of this), kick chase from England was poor. Backs can help forwards too.

No the deity thing is because you genuinely believe Ford can do no wrong.

Don't get me wrong I think Ford does have his strengths - his creativity and overall attacking ability is better than Farrell's but I think that's skills best suited to the bench as an impact player. Also means that Ford will have a point to prove and some hunger.

Bringing let's say Care and Ford off the bench on the 60th minute mark with some exciting forward prospects like Clifford and Itoje vs a tiring Scotland could really pay dividends.

Sexton did boss the game, Ireland were well on top. Was that down to Fords size? No. Similarly when Farrell was poor against Wales away, sometimes the other teams just too good. What do you mean by physically dominated? Ford doesn't make big hits but he does make his tackles, he gets hit as everyone does and he gets up and gets on with it. Out of the 2 I think it's honestly more Farrell who gets rattled soemtimes. When his teams not on top he tends to get a bit petulant. That's where we differ, I look at the outcomes not just at their respective sizes.

Outcomes? Outcomes mean nothing to you. Every single time that Ford has been outclassed by his opposite number you see it as a victory for Ford.

Farrell was not good vs Wales but again his team mates could have done more. I am not going to claim he played well as you would with Ford.

A 10 needs to enforce their team's gameplan on the opposition. Farrell has been doing that more than Ford.

Farrell isn't perfect though.

Example of Farrell being outclassed by the opposition - Wilkinson vs Farrell - HC final.

beshocked wrote:king carlos to be honest if that team was announced I would be happy bar perhaps Haskell.

12 still looks a bit dodgy but can't get round that.

I'd take Kvesic starting and Clifford on the bench. Given Kvesic is an injury replacement I can only assume that Jones must view Clifford as his starter though, from there I can only Haskell on the bench as he covers the back row.

I'd get Kvesic and Clifford in the 23 and have a good look at both. I just can't see Kvesic on the bench ahead of the more versatile options though.

Beaumont could be very interesting from the bench given his pace and ball skills as the game breaks up. I can't see it as an injury to the starting 7 would force Eddie to move Robshaw to openside as cover. Given his criticism during the world cup I can't see him risking it!

I guess it's just your choice of words I disagree with. I've very rarely seen Ford outclassed, but maybe it's just my defintiion of the word. To me it means the oppisiton have been far better. When I'm thinking of that and applying it to rugby as we are here I'm looking at what was asked of the fly half and what he did. Positioning, touches, choices. In a lot of the games you've pulled out when Ford has been 'outclassed' I haven't felt that Ford has made the wrong decisions or necessarily exceuted those decisions to a high enough standard but I have acknowledged when players have played better than him, to say otherwise is false. I agree completely about Farrell vs Wales, a lot depends on your team mates. The point that overall I'm trying to make, Ford with good go forward ball as we're all hoping for/expecting is a step up on Farrell (who I maintain is a very good player). Ford England I would be looking for what I most want to see in a fly half and that's creating and controlling the game. I think Ford's the better player here.

I think more is generally asked and expected of Ford than Farrell by his coaches. Both remain very good players but Ford is ahead on everything bar explosive defense and long range kicking, if Daly starts you'd expect he would take over the long range stuff from both anyway.

Oh, I maintain it's Farrell who demonstrates that he's rattled far more than Ford with the physical stuff. Ford gets up and gets on with the game farrell sometimes flares up and whines to the ref.

beshocked wrote:Geordiefalcon

Hill,Tuilagi even Devoto ahead of Farrell.

Farrell should be the starting 10.

England have to pick the best performing 10 and the best centres.

Ford is not the best performing 10, Farrell is not the best centre. It's not even up to debate.

If Ford was in form I think he would be a good choice as a starter at 10 but he's not.

Currently this mirrors my thoughts too

There's only a certain amount of form chasing you can do. Eventually you just need to pick the players you think suit the system best. If it is Farrell at 10 i'd hope he would be given that role for the 6Ns and beyond.

Yeah but surely there has to be form taken into some kind of account. Farrell's form is MUCH better than Ford's

Yeah, chopping and changing because of a drop in form is why England struggle.

We have so many options when some form drops, we go to the next one.

Other teams don't have that...and have to stick with players regardless of form. But that gives extra caps, familiarity etc.

I still think there's a question of team form in their affecting 10s, I have no issues if he picks Farrell, though I wouldn't, but you've then got to nail it to the mast and say you're my number 1. Switching between the 2 ain't going to help either of them.

no 7 & 1/2

Do you not think that Sexton was far better than Ford? I do. Of course players cannot play well all the time but England needed more from their 10 on the day.

See that's where we differ - I don't think Ford controls a game better than Farrell. Yes perhaps with front foot ball Ford might be better but it's not guaranteed. Sometimes a better goal kicker and stronger defender is needed. I believe both can offer something to England but one is in form and the other isn't.

See that's where I differ. I believe in a squad mentality. I don't see player X as number 1, I want both to be valued. Utilise players' strengths to their maximum.

As for attack, Farrell has been creating opportunities this season and in 2014 6 nations he was good. I think with the right structure Farrell will be fine.

Yeah to be fair Sexton was excellent that day. Only when he went off did England look half decent. I haven't really seen Farrell with a 2nd best pack that often to be fair, though he's normally on the losing team when it happens. The goal kicker thing is true between the 2 though Ford is very good now, really worked hard on that; doesn't have the distance but Daly/Slade takes that issue away anyway.

Agree Farrell will be fine, more than that damn good player. I strongly think we need to identify a first choice, or at least Jones does and publically back him.

On the bullied thing, do you agree that Farrell is the one who looks more rattled and petulant when roughed up or his pack is getting roughed up?

GeordieFalcon wrote:Yeah, chopping and changing because of a drop in form is why England struggle.

We have so many options when some form drops, we go to the next one.

Other teams don't have that...and have to stick with players regardless of form. But that gives extra caps, familiarity etc.

To be honest its a very 'damned if you do damned if you don't' thing as well. Playing out of form players can be worse than playing the new guys. The only real benefits in playing guys temporarily out of form seems to come in the (very) long term

no 7 & 1/2

Daly and Slade with all their international goal kicking experience?

Don't get me wrong Farrell is the more petulant player when things don't go his way but more often than not they do go his way.

I disagree. I think England need to be comfortable with more than one player in each position because injuries happen. Cannot rely on one or more players to stay fit.

It's a trap a side like Ireland have fallen into - relying on the likes of O Connell and Sexton too much.

England won the 2003 RWC because they had a strong squad, not just 15 good players.

Yes they had some players who were designated as first choice but it was a squad victory because injuries happen.

Yeah Daly and Slade offer a very good long range option which neither Ford nor farrell do.

More often than not things have gone Fords way as well. They both play for very good teams albeit something looks seriously off with Bath. Think it was Geordie who pointed out it's gone pear shaped since the whole burgess back to league kicked off. Just thinking to your point about being bullied there. The physical stuff and Ford gets knocked down then gets on with it. It's almost the opposite to being bullied for Farrell, he wants to show he's the man and front up. Looks rattled, riled and pushes things a little too much occasionally.

I agree that it's good to have a player that can slot in, rotation for an international team at 10 isn't something i want to see, at least for England. It won't benefit the team nor players.

Daly and Slade offer very good long range options based on what exactly? Their long range kicking at international level is non existent.


Not sure I agree. Ford has struggled quite a bit this season. Though he did show some good fight in the last minute win vs Bath in the ERCC. Are Bath a good side at the moment? I thought they were struggling.

Ford might well get up but he needs to have a bit more bite. Needed show more fight against Ireland.

Depends on who is in form and who isn't. I believe in picking players in form.

IS this one still going....

Your both putting in a good effort gents

Ah. So club form doesn't have merit at international level then?

Bath remain a good team yeah, don't think that deserts them as they have a hard season.

I've never personally noticed Ford get a big tackle or run over and then lose his game altogether, I have seen Farrell get too worked up though. For Ford's Ireland read Farrells Wales.

I think form takes us only so far.

Was imagining it or did OF make a good break and give a scoring pass this weekend. The last couple of weeks he seems to have opened up his attacking game a notch or two. Looks better for it, find a bit of pace from somewhere and he could become an almost complete 10.

Still got the hardest bit to sort out though........................attitude.

Beshocked, we both seen games where OF has played poorly, you keep going back to the Ireland game that was last year. If you judge on one poor game you have to judge on a very good game as well and when he is truly on song, he is better than OF. There are too many factors that influence the way player plays each game to use just one as a comparison, England's pack played poorly. the ball he was receiving was slow and he often got man and ball, not all his fault. OF was lucky to miss that one.

My Irish mates, who for a long time haven't been fans of Farrell, were watching the game on Saturday and said how he is getting his backline moving so much better now. This is obviously coming from completely impartial people so I found it interesting.

For whatever reason England's backs have looked a lot more dangerous with Ford playing than with Farrell, but surely Farrell on top form is a better pick than Ford in poor form.

Slade and Daly both do have reputations of having good boots. They have not kicked penalties in internationals because they have not had the chance, but the required skills for kicking penalties are the same in any level of rugby, although the pressure is often greater at test level. The argument 'Their long range kicking at international level is non existent' is of course true but also doesn't make any sense.

no 7 & 1/2 it's you who believes that club form means nothing.

It's why you advocated a hooker like Webber in the RWC. It's why you still support Twelvetrees as England 12. It's why you want Ford to be starting 10 for England.

Form takes you only so far? Funny.... look I know that training is one of your main factors for picking players but personally I believe in different factors.

An England team picked by you would horrify me - May on the wing,36 at 12, Ford at 10, Webber at 2.... not sure I would want to know the rest of your dream team... probably the out of form Morgan at 8 and so on.....

lostinwales England's backs didn't look dangerous vs Ireland till Sexton went off and even then they didn't score a try. Some people say that England were better in 2015 than 2014 6 nations - I disagree. I think they were actually better in 2014 because they improved throughout the tournament. A slow start isn't what you want - England got away with it in 2015 but not 2014, the difference afterwards is that after the first game England buckled against Ireland but in 2014 defeated Ireland.

England were flattered in the 6 nations with the French just going ^&*( it we are going to chuck the ball around and throwing caution to the wind. England also scraped past a poor Scottish side.

Daly and Slade still haven't proved themselves though have they? Doesn't make sense? How so? You can't say they are good goal kickers at international level when there is no evidence!

It's like saying player X is world class at international level with no evidence.

Well-past it Ford hasn't outplayed Carter and help destroy the ABs. You talk about best performance..... Ford has nothing compared to that.

I still believe if OF was in form he would have done better vs Sexton, don't think he's lost to Ireland at 10.