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

BBC now have that down as the match squad for Scotland. By no means unlikely they've got it wrong again though.

Can't wait to see what the opposition does to combat the impact made by Goode's jinking runs

No 7&1/2 wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Just personally think we're a better team than the rankings show, fair enough if you agree with them.

Some people don't get it. Winning counts, losing doesn't.

All teams lose games, but personally on the basis of judging England now I think they're better than their ranking, you don't. Lancaster clearly wanted to win every game but was also focusing on developing the team in the mid to long term as well.

Simple question for you, would you want Jones to fall on his sword if England don't win the Grand Slam?

It all depends upon the manner of the failure. Winning is all that matters. Don't forget we are not some backwater in world rugby. We are the team with the most of everything including money. We have punched under our weight for years and have nothing to show for it. Having said that I think Eddie is great and if anyone can do it he can but he knows more than most that Ws are all that matters.

englandglory4ever wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Just personally think we're a better team than the rankings show, fair enough if you agree with them.

Some people don't get it. Winning counts, losing doesn't.

All teams lose games, but personally on the basis of judging England now I think they're better than their ranking, you don't. Lancaster clearly wanted to win every game but was also focusing on developing the team in the mid to long term as well.

Simple question for you, would you want Jones to fall on his sword if England don't win the Grand Slam?

It all depends upon the manner of the failure. Winning is all that matters. Don't forget we are not some backwater in world rugby. We are the team with the most of everything including money. We have punched under our weight for years and have nothing to show for it.  Having said that I think Eddie is great and if anyone can do it he can but he knows more than most that Ws are all that matters.

Your first 2 sentences seem to contradict each other. I've said that 12 months is a fair time to judge, you've said winning is the only thing that matters a few times but seem to suggest manner of defeat is important also; how long do you give him. Should he resign if he doesn't deliver a grand slam?

I still think though that some of those sent away will still be in the squad.

Ie Itoje on the bench. Daly...

No 7&1/2 wrote:BBC now have that down as the match squad for Scotland. By no means unlikely they've got it wrong again though.

Ah yes so I see.

So we should expect

1 Mako
2 Hartley
3 Cole
4 Launchbury
5 Kruis
6 Robshaw
7 Haskell
8 Billy

9 Youngs
10 Ford
11 Nowell
12 Farrell
13 Joseph
14 Watson
15 Brown

But probably with different tactics, especially upfront.

Scottrf wrote:Basically the 23 is the same under Lancaster or Jones? Except a different captain.

Yes a different captain, different tactics and mind set along with completely new coaching staff, along with no t.youngs, no barritt, no May, no Attwood nor wood or Morgan. I think bombers team could be quite different both in personnel and the game plan. I'm really looking forward to seeing if all these changes make a difference to the scoreboard.

BamBam wrote:Can't wait to see what the opposition does to combat the impact made by Goode's jinking runs

Well Scotland have countered Haskell's jinking runs by painting the posts green.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Just personally think we're a better team than the rankings show, fair enough if you agree with them.

Some people don't get it. Winning counts, losing doesn't.

All teams lose games, but personally on the basis of judging England now I think they're better than their ranking, you don't. Lancaster clearly wanted to win every game but was also focusing on developing the team in the mid to long term as well.

Simple question for you, would you want Jones to fall on his sword if England don't win the Grand Slam?

It all depends upon the manner of the failure. Winning is all that matters. Don't forget we are not some backwater in world rugby. We are the team with the most of everything including money. We have punched under our weight for years and have nothing to show for it.  Having said that I think Eddie is great and if anyone can do it he can but he knows more than most that Ws are all that matters.

Your first 2 sentences seem to contradict each other. I've said that 12 months is a fair time to judge, you've said winning is the only thing that matters a few times but seem to suggest manner of defeat is important also; how long do you give him. Should he resign if he doesn't deliver a grand slam?

I thought I had been clear. It depends upon the manner of the failure. Miss winning the GS by an unlucky bounce in one game or by a dodgy referee decision then definitely not. Come a humiliating last and pick up the wooden spoon then yes he has failed.

Cool cheers, so pretty much how we judged Lancaster then. Ws aren't all that matters afterall.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Cool cheers, so pretty much how we judged Lancaster then. Ws aren't all that matters afterall.

Oh yes they are. Nothing else matters. You still don't get it. Coming a noble second doesn't matter. Only winning matters. Coming second doesn't necessarily mean the sack. We all live in a grown up world except a smart arris like you.

Nothing else matters other than a win. Nothing. Except performance. So how long would you let jones have before judging? A terrible performance against Scotland resulting ina loss? 2 losses? Coming 4th or 5th?

Do you really think Jones will go with Farrell at 12? I think that would be a huge mistake. He is a decent 10 but he is not a 12. Scotland will attack him all day defence and attack. I think Farrell at 12 rather than a specialist is worth a 10 pt swing to Scotland - I think it would be that foolish. Mind you I am only an armchair specialist

No 7&1/2 wrote:Nothing else matters other than a win. Nothing. Except performance. So how long would you let jones have before judging? A terrible performance against Scotland resulting ina  loss? 2 losses? Coming 4th or 5th?

I will judge Eddie after every single game. If he gets a W I won't necessarily be too harsh. If he loses then I rule nothing out. Don't forget only Ws matter every time.

Jones needs to be judged after the next 6N - not before. He has not had enough time to fully get his mark on this 6n. By next there will be no excuse

englandglory4ever wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Nothing else matters other than a win. Nothing. Except performance. So how long would you let jones have before judging? A terrible performance against Scotland resulting ina  loss? 2 losses? Coming 4th or 5th?

I will judge Eddie after every single game. If he gets a W I won't necessarily be too harsh. If he loses then I rule nothing out. Don't forget only Ws matter every time.

So potentially you would want him out after the Scotland game? Awful performance and a big loss and his time is up? You've just said it's not just the win several times now. That you wouldn't want him out if it was an unlucky close loss. You seem a bit confused.

TJ wrote:Jones needs to be judged after the next 6N - not before.  He has not had enough time to fully get his mark on this 6n.  By next there will be no excuse

Yup, agree completely.

I think Jones' England will be hugely different from Lancasters' England. The appointment of Hartley as captain suggests exactly how different it will be.

Bringing Hartley in might be a stroke of absolute genius, getting a bit of niggle back into an English pack that seemed very soft in the RWC.

However he seems to be making different mistakes from Lancaster. Based on the squad it seems that Haskell will be playing at 7, Owen Faz at 12 and Jamie George will be warming the bench. That's 2 players out of position and arguably England's best hooker not even playing. I remember clearly saying that Jones' toughest job is picking his best 23 from England's vast player pool. I remain to be convinced he has done that. Sure he has attended plenty of games. Just about every match he has attended has resulted in SKY or BT sport zooming in on his face in the crowd.

I think England will win the game against us (Scotland), however Scotland will have a very tough front row, an athletic hard working 2nd row and 3 very strong and mobile breakdown operators in the backrow.

England's backs are a significant threat, however IMO that threat is scuppered a bit if Farrell plays 12. The squad listed has it's weaknesses that I hope Vern Cotter is clever enough to target. However despite his mind games Jones must be confident that this side can do the business in a couple of weeks.

Are you guys pretty confident in this one?

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Are you guys pretty confident in this one?

The warm up match against Scotland? Yeah.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Nothing else matters other than a win. Nothing. Except performance. So how long would you let jones have before judging? A terrible performance against Scotland resulting ina  loss? 2 losses? Coming 4th or 5th?

I will judge Eddie after every single game. If he gets a W I won't necessarily be too harsh. If he loses then I rule nothing out. Don't forget only Ws matter every time.

So potentially you would want him out after the Scotland game? Awful performance and a big loss and his time is up? You've just said it's not just the win several times now. That you wouldn't want him out if it was an unlucky close loss. You seem a bit confused.

I assume you aren't a teenager and therefore understand English. Since when does judge mean sack? You seem to like twisting what people say. I repeat I will judge Eddie after every single game. That doesn't mean I will want him sacked but I might if the game was particularly bad. That's what making a judgement means. Do you get it now? Winning is all that matters because I will judge him after every game and that may or may not mean I'd like him sacked. You certainly won't find me saying something stupid like I will wait 12 months before making a judgement. That's a bit silly if you really think about it.

Scottrf wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Are you guys pretty confident in this one?

The warm up match against Scotland? Yeah.

Then why does Eddie Jones think we are favourites?

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Are you guys pretty confident in this one?

The warm up match against Scotland? Yeah.

Then why does Eddie Jones think we are favourites?

How would you know? Coaches say that all the time to shift the pressure.

Mind games

I think Scotland can be pretty confident of not being overwhelmed by England. The pack with Hartley will be better but the lineout without a premier backline jumper will limit their effectiveness. The scrum won't worry Scotland too much, Nel tore AUS a new one and lets be honest AUS were quite dominant over England. Youngs is out yes but I don't see Mako steamrolling anyone and Cole... well Cole hasn't played well for England come scrumtime for 2 years.
Haskell carries well as does Billy but ENG won't have anyone to worry about crashing in from the backs. I think the ENG backrow balance is still off regardless of Clifford or Haskell playing. Too heavy, too immobile.

Scotland really should be looking at this side and thinking ... "We're at home, we should be able to put these guys away".

The 10-12 balance looks all wrong, the backrow balance looks all wrong. I also think the message going to Ford that he can't be trusted to take the kicks is a bad one. I don't think he's test match standard (said this many times as some may attest to) but hinting that to a player is going to impact his confidence, no way it can't. Personally I reckon he should say to Ford, you're my Carlos Spencer, you run a great backline and kick out of hand intelligently... but until you can go toe to toe with the likes of Sexton, Biggar, Halfpenny etc... I will go with Farrell.

It's funny and slightly contradictory of EJ that he banged on about having a true 6 and 7 and now is looking at playing Haskell, while also trying to shoe-horn in the best performing AP fly half into the 12 jersey.

Well Eddie seems to be picking a side he believes will beat Scotland, rather than a more developmental side that would address some of England's weaknesses. Seems he's paying the Scots some respect here since he must feel that debutants at 7 &/or 12 are too risky. Personally I think he's got this wrong as we need to move on sooner rather than later. As for what he says to the media - he's well known for his banter - he is from the SH after all. I think we'll win by 5. And Haskell will either pick up a YC for persistent dimness or concussion after taking on the post again. At least his behaviour might take the limelight off Dylan.

I agree. Farrell should be the 10. Ford looks flaky. One of his big failings is attempting long range kicks which he is incapable of making. Far better to go for touch. He's good at that.

Mako vs. Nel should worry the English a lot.

I wonder whether one reason Jones is comfortable with Haskell at 7 is because he played there in Super Rugby, and got good reports. I wouldn't rule that out as a factor, because Jones places a good deal of value in how you go in that competition. I'm sure George Smith's opinion matters too.

On the Super Rugby theme, if Jones doesn't think much of Cipriani's time with the Rebels, then that might be counting as a strike against the Sale man for the time being.

TightHEAD wrote:Mind games

Exactly, we now have our own workie ticket manager.

fa0019 wrote:Mako vs. Nel should worry the English a lot.

Why?

fa0019 wrote:I think Scotland can be pretty confident of not being overwhelmed by England. The pack with Hartley will be better but the lineout without a premier backline jumper will limit their effectiveness. .

Robshaw is a very good lineout jumper.

beshocked wrote:lostinwales

It's not the squad of 33 that's disappointing. It's the usage of the squad so far....

On what evidence exactly? Astonishing statement based purely on what you think of the likely selections.

This is England. We do have choices and there are not that many positions over which none of us will argue. But until they get out on the pitch we cannot judge EJ's selection and tactics. Won't be long until we find out though.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:I think Scotland can be pretty confident of not being overwhelmed by England. The pack with Hartley will be better but the lineout without a premier backline jumper will limit their effectiveness. .

Robshaw is a very good lineout jumper.

Like the final minute lineout vs. Wales in the RWC?

Robshaw is a little short, a little heavy to act as a strike jumper. Can't disguise him like you can disguise chaps like Wood, Croft etc. Unopposed lineout... anyone can look good.

lostinwales wrote:

beshocked wrote:lostinwales

It's not the squad of 33 that's disappointing. It's the usage of the squad so far....

On what evidence exactly? Astonishing statement based purely on what you think of the likely selections.

This is England. We do have choices and there are not that many positions over which none of us will argue. But until they get out on the pitch we cannot judge EJ's selection and tactics. Won't be long until we find out though.

Yeah theres no evidence of the squads "usage" at all yet.

Lets see how they go in the Scotland game and the rest of the tournament.

It might be the same durge....or we might see a rampaging Haskell leading the pack playing like.... a wolf pack

fa0019 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:I think Scotland can be pretty confident of not being overwhelmed by England. The pack with Hartley will be better but the lineout without a premier backline jumper will limit their effectiveness. .

Robshaw is a very good lineout jumper.

Like the final minute lineout vs. Wales in the RWC?

Robshaw is a little short, a little heavy to act as a strike jumper. Can't disguise him like you can disguise chaps like Wood, Croft etc. Unopposed lineout... anyone can look good.

Oh come on....poor example to put him down on.

Watch most games and he happily takes lineouts. And Robshaw is a FAR FAR better player elsewhere than Wood and Croft!

question... is Mako really a suitable player to go up against Nel?

Nel is probably one of the form tightheads in the game. Mako... well Mako carries well. Is he really the best scrummaging loosehead at the moment... and please note, form with Sarries pack is one thing... hell Victor Ubogu never got pushed back in his days with the bath 90s legion.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:I think Scotland can be pretty confident of not being overwhelmed by England. The pack with Hartley will be better but the lineout without a premier backline jumper will limit their effectiveness. .

Robshaw is a very good lineout jumper.

Like the final minute lineout vs. Wales in the RWC?

Robshaw is a little short, a little heavy to act as a strike jumper. Can't disguise him like you can disguise chaps like Wood, Croft etc. Unopposed lineout... anyone can look good.

Oh come on....poor example to put him down on.

Watch most games and he happily takes lineouts. And Robshaw is a FAR FAR better player elsewhere than Wood and Croft!

I agree Robshaw has his merits. I like him as a player, a workhorse, a committed tackler. But lineouts he isn't well disguised, can't lift him quickly nor with one person. His reach is going to be a lot less than other backline jumpers. Well disguised am sure he can be an asset but don't imagine he'll be taking any ball outside of that.

englandglory4ever wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Nothing else matters other than a win. Nothing. Except performance. So how long would you let jones have before judging? A terrible performance against Scotland resulting ina  loss? 2 losses? Coming 4th or 5th?

I will judge Eddie after every single game. If he gets a W I won't necessarily be too harsh. If he loses then I rule nothing out. Don't forget only Ws matter every time.

So potentially you would want him out after the Scotland game? Awful performance and a big loss and his time is up? You've just said it's not just the win several times now. That you wouldn't want him out if it was an unlucky close loss. You seem a bit confused.

I assume you aren't a teenager and therefore understand English. Since when does judge mean sack?  You seem to like twisting what people say.  I repeat I will judge Eddie after every single game. That doesn't mean I will want him sacked but I might if the game was particularly bad. That's what making a judgement means. Do you get it now? Winning is all that matters because I will judge him after every game and that may or may not mean I'd like him sacked. You certainly won't find me saying something stupid like I will wait 12 months before making a judgement. That's a bit silly if you really think about it.

Misunderstanding. I was saying that I wouldn't make a judgement of if he was good enough until 12 months in. You mean just judging whether in individual games the tactics were correct etc. If winning is all that matters though, I still assume you would want him to resign or be sacked if he doesn't win the 6ns.

You seem a pretty confident Scottish fan Fa. More judgements which seem based on international matches a fair while ago though.

fa0019 wrote:question... is Mako really a suitable player to go up against Nel?

Nel is probably one of the form tightheads in the game. Mako... well Mako carries well. Is he really the best scrummaging loosehead at the moment... and please note, form with Sarries pack is one thing... hell Victor Ubogu never got pushed back in his days with the bath 90s legion.

Mako might not be a destructive LH...but he's improved and is solid now. "Form with a sarries pack"...yes but training with them is going to improve you.

A good solid prop with huge carrying is a big plus.

Nel might not have such a one sided game that you think.

fa0019 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:I think Scotland can be pretty confident of not being overwhelmed by England. The pack with Hartley will be better but the lineout without a premier backline jumper will limit their effectiveness. .

Robshaw is a very good lineout jumper.

Like the final minute lineout vs. Wales in the RWC?

Robshaw is a little short, a little heavy to act as a strike jumper. Can't disguise him like you can disguise chaps like Wood, Croft etc. Unopposed lineout... anyone can look good.

Oh come on....poor example to put him down on.

Watch most games and he happily takes lineouts. And Robshaw is a FAR FAR better player elsewhere than Wood and Croft!

I agree Robshaw has his merits. I like him as a player, a workhorse, a committed tackler. But lineouts he isn't well disguised, can't lift him quickly nor with one person. His reach is going to be a lot less than other backline jumpers. Well disguised am sure he can be an asset but don't imagine he'll be taking any ball outside of that.

Well Australia had the giants Pocock and Hooper in their back row...and it didn't seem to be an issue.

Kruis or Lawes, Launchbury and Robshaw isn't the best lineout in the world...but again it'll be a good solid means of getting possession.

And Borthwick will have some ideas for it aswell.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You seem a pretty confident Scottish fan Fa. More judgements which seem based on international matches a fair while ago though.

Winning or being close to winning those matches is still better than catastrophic losses.

For the record I think England will win this one but not by much.

Radge, these fellas on here and the media were convinced that England would beat Australia after losing to Wales in the RWC so I wouldn't hold out much hope for any credibility here. Scotland by 10 + for me. You will boss them up front and they lack confidence right across the backline - when you get into them they will panic again. Its yours for the taking.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You seem a pretty confident Scottish fan Fa. More judgements which seem based on international matches a fair while ago though.

I think Scotland should win yes.

a few reasons...

Scotland have a decent set piece and things like scrum prowess doesn't drop away automatically. England have Hartley back which is a good thing but Mako starting should be a worry to anyone.  Nel is one of the premier tightheads in the game so should fancy his chances against Mako.
Lineout both decent, a fair contest.

Backrow it looks like England have better carriers in Billy and Haskell but may be outworked on the floor.

Placekickers. Laidlaw is world class within the 40m line. Probably better than Farrell but Farrell has superior range. 10s. Ford is probably better running a backline but  England's backline doesn't look threatening with Farrell at 12. Everytime he has played there England don't seem to function as England don't have someone capable of attacking from 12.

It doesn't seem to me how England are outright favourites and given Scotland are at home they really should have the upper hand in a closely matched game. England do well when they have superior forwards. I don't see much difference in the backline. Without their forwards dominance, with this probably backline I think Scotland should fancy their chances. Should but that's on paper only.

RubyGuby wrote:Radge, these fellas on here and the media were convinced that England would beat Australia after losing to Wales in the RWC so I wouldn't hold out much hope for any credibility here. Scotland by 10 + for me. You will boss them up front and they lack confidence right across the backline - when you get into them they will panic again. Its yours for the taking.

I'd have said the scrum will be an area of strength, not sure if Marler will start, but Vunipola has been good this year.

I think there's a bit too much confidence for the Scottish backrow coming from the Aus game myself, suspect it'll be fairly even but with England having more ball you'll be working harder. Keeping an open mind on Farrell, it's worked with him at 12 before.

Like I said on the other thread I'll go England by 15 if we both play to potential. Could go either way but England favourites for me.

RubyGuby wrote:Radge, these fellas on here and the media were convinced that England would beat Australia after losing to Wales in the RWC so I wouldn't hold out much hope for any credibility here. Scotland by 10 + for me. You will boss them up front and they lack confidence right across the backline - when you get into them they will panic again. Its yours for the taking.

Ruby's back

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd have said the scrum will be an area of strength, not sure if Marler will start, but Vunipola has been good this year.

Including the 15 or so scrum penalties he gave away at the Gardens?

I'll have to admit I didn't see Vunipola give away 15 scrum pens at the Gardens.