England Squad Named

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

beshocked wrote: Even in that game vs Wales, Haskell wasn't perfect, he ran into a post and should had perhaps helped Ford and May more for Faletau's try. Though saying that yes he was still decent.

He had a cracking game against Wales, yet you feel the need to point out a couple of negatives while relegating the positives to an after-comment.

beshocked wrote: You are right utilising a players' strengths is important and I agree that Lancaster probably didn't get the best out of his players but there is no guarantee that EJ can.

This is sport, there are no guarantees and it would be pretty boring if there were. Are you suggesting that EJ is wrong to try Haskell as a 7 because there are no guarantees it will work? Maybe he shouldn't bother giving Itoje game time, unless EJ can guarantee it will be a success?

You wouldn't shoehorn him in out of position though would you? Haskell is best deployed at number 8 and at a push a 6. Why someone like Kvesic hasn't been picked at 7 is a mystery. Haskell for me is a big oaf of a man but does he have the pace to be a link man for the backs and an effective breakdown operator for the forwards?

6. Robshaw
7. Kvesic
8. Vunipola

That's a devastating backrow.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

beshocked wrote: Even in that game vs Wales, Haskell wasn't perfect, he ran into a post and should had perhaps helped Ford and May more for Faletau's try. Though saying that yes he was still decent.

He had a cracking game against Wales, yet you feel the need to point out a couple of negatives while relegating the positives to an after-comment.

beshocked wrote: You are right utilising a players' strengths is important and I agree that Lancaster probably didn't get the best out of his players but there is no guarantee that EJ can.

This is sport, there are no guarantees and it would be pretty boring if there were. Are you suggesting that EJ is wrong to try Haskell as a 7 because there are no guarantees it will work? Maybe he shouldn't bother giving Itoje game time, unless EJ can guarantee it will be a success?

You wouldn't shoehorn him in out of position though would you? Haskell is best deployed at number 8 and at a push a 6.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Its the type of back row he employed in Japan.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:News from Exeter is that Ewers will be available in about 3 weels - perhaps too late for 6N, but he is RobshawMax. Bigger, stronger, faster, offloads and links. Half man, half wildebeeste.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:News from Exeter is that Ewers will be available in about 3 weels - perhaps too late for 6N, but he is RobshawMax. Bigger, stronger, faster, offloads and links. Half man, half wildebeeste.

lostinwales wrote:Whatever happens, assuming Eddie is going to be a success, (and that is, at this stage, still a big assumption) a lot of that success will be down to the foundations laid by Lancaster. The squad was never going to be significantly different (EPS change limits or otherwise) and the new faces were mostly the faces who were going to get a look in anyways.

Lancaster did not manage to squeeze the best out of his team and lost his nerve when it mattered most. Eddie might well get to the next level with team with the odd change of tactics and a few tweaks.

Gwlad wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Whatever happens, assuming Eddie is going to be a success, (and that is, at this stage, still a big assumption) a lot of that success will be down to the foundations laid by Lancaster. The squad was never going to be significantly different (EPS change limits or otherwise) and the new faces were mostly the faces who were going to get a look in anyways.

Lancaster did not manage to squeeze the best out of his team and lost his nerve when it mattered most. Eddie might well get to the next level with team with the odd change of tactics and a few tweaks.

What a load of rubbish. Even now you just don't understand it at all do you?

Eddie will go back to what England used to do successfully; a nasty, forward dominant set piece game.

A total departure from what Stewie was trying to achieve which was squeezing perfect table manners out of his pupils and whispering its 'okay to try your best' when he tucked them in at night. Better to be nice than a winner.    And bless him, he certainly succeeded.

Eddie wants to WIN. Nothing else. And he doesn't give a fig about how he gets there.

RubyGuby wrote:Who's suggesting that Rory?

Rory_Gallagher wrote:It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that Stuart Lancaster was not primarily interested in winning.

RubyGuby wrote:Lancaster's main legacy to Eddie was to show him how not to do it when it matters. When the heat is on Lancaster went back into his shell with his team. Eddie at the very least will want them to go down fighting

doctor_grey wrote:I can see the logic to not overhaul the players and minimise the changes:  Why not see how the existing players get on in Eddie's new coaching set up to establish a baseline?  Then bring in other players in a controlled and pragmatic manner?  

On the other hand I am not getting the backs.  Ford is having a middling season at Bath, isn't getting the attack moving and is becoming more O'Gara-like defending.  Farrell won't put fear into anyone at 12:  He can defend but can't run with the ball.  JJ is simply not back to his best yet.  Scotland, if they are smart, will send runners at 10-12-13 all day.  I would actually prefer Farrell at 10 with DeVoto at 12.  

DaveM wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:I can see the logic to not overhaul the players and minimise the changes:  Why not see how the existing players get on in Eddie's new coaching set up to establish a baseline?  Then bring in other players in a controlled and pragmatic manner?  

On the other hand I am not getting the backs.  Ford is having a middling season at Bath, isn't getting the attack moving and is becoming more O'Gara-like defending.  Farrell won't put fear into anyone at 12:  He can defend but can't run with the ball.  JJ is simply not back to his best yet.  Scotland, if they are smart, will send runners at 10-12-13 all day.  I would actually prefer Farrell at 10 with DeVoto at 12.  

Yeah the forwards are fine, with the possible exception of Haskell at 7 (let's see if he actually starts and if so how he does). I agree with the backs. If he starts Farrell, Devoto and Joseph then that's ok, particularly as long as Ford comes on for Farrell and not for Devoto. Of course having Daly instead of Joseph would make sense given how they've both been playing. I don't want to see Ford and Farrell on the pitch at the same time (and I don't get having Goode on the bench - better to have Joseph on the bench with Ford and Daly at 13).

RubyGuby wrote:Thanks Rory - IMO Lancaster had a clear philosophy and he was an honest bloke and did his absolute best. It wasn't good enough however and we've all experienced that in different contexts. He was and will remain a likeable chap and I hope he doesn't beat himself up too much (which he probably will) - Being a top bloke is better than being a winner and he is certainly a top bloke, As a Welshman I found him very difficult to dislike and that just illustrates the quality of the man. (and of course the fact that I'm a nasty little in-bred Welshman)

RubyGuby wrote:LostinManc is a spiffing rugby fan - Maybe the fans equivalent of Bomber. He means well and can provide the occasional insight. However, more often than not he comes up short and attracts a lot of criticism even from his own fans. With that said, this is a democratic forum and there's plenty of room for fellas like the spiffing LostinManc who again awaits with great anticipation and some trepidation for the 6 Nations.

lostinwales wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:LostinManc is a spiffing rugby fan - Maybe the fans equivalent of Bomber. He means well and can provide the occasional insight. However, more often than not he comes up short and attracts a lot of criticism even from his own fans. With that said, this is a democratic forum and there's plenty of room for fellas like the spiffing LostinManc who again awaits with great anticipation and some trepidation for the 6 Nations.

Ah and there I was not going to say anything about the similarity of certain posters to mayflies. Spending most of the year hiding at the bottom of some muddy pond only to burst forth and fill the forums with huge numbers of posts at certain times of the year before disappearing again.

RubyGuby wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:LostinManc is a spiffing rugby fan - Maybe the fans equivalent of Bomber. He means well and can provide the occasional insight. However, more often than not he comes up short and attracts a lot of criticism even from his own fans. With that said, this is a democratic forum and there's plenty of room for fellas like the spiffing LostinManc who again awaits with great anticipation and some trepidation for the 6 Nations.

Ah and there I was not going to say anything about the similarity of certain posters to mayflies. Spending most of the year hiding at the bottom of some muddy pond only to burst forth and fill the forums with huge numbers of posts at certain times of the year before disappearing again.

RubyGuby wrote:There's a lot of talk about defences working JJ's movement out.

RubyGuby wrote:There's a lot of talk about defences working JJ's movement out.

beshocked wrote:Rory gallagher

Burrell played as well in 2014 as Joseph did in 2015.

2nd season syndrome - not easy to get over.

Daly could be the next 13 to have a breakthrough season in the 6 nations like those two did.

Of course you have Manu lurking in the shadows, hopefully he can stay fit for a sustained period of time.

BamBam wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:There's a lot of talk about defences working JJ's movement out.

Is that talk that you've made up, in your head?

RubyGuby wrote:

BamBam wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:There's a lot of talk about defences working JJ's movement out.

Is that talk that you've made up, in your head?

No but I appreciate your jest - It's a very serious observation that a number of coaches have made. Remains to be seen, we all know what the best players are going to do but sometimes that's not enough. The defensive analysis these days is very acute so it's something worth considering. Interesting that people assume the backline at Bath apart from JJ is faltering

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

beshocked wrote:Rory gallagher

Burrell played as well in 2014 as Joseph did in 2015.

2nd season syndrome - not easy to get over.

Daly could be the next 13 to have a breakthrough season in the 6 nations like those two did.

Of course you have Manu lurking in the shadows, hopefully he can stay fit for a sustained period of time.

Burrell may have had a good year in 2014 but come on, he was not nearly as good JJ last season. Jeremy Guscott even made a comment that he was a quicker and more dangerous version of himself. The thing that makes JJ such a good player is his awareness of players outside him. Add that to his pace and ability to slice open the defensive line and you have an almost perfect 13.

It would be a total blunder of the highest degree to throw him in the skip so soon. I would imagine such a player will regain his form fairly quick. Eddie Jones seems to agree.

Edit: Also, second season syndrome is exactly why sometimes you have to stick with some players and combinations through bad spells. You can't recycle the team every year.

lostinwales wrote:

DaveM wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:I can see the logic to not overhaul the players and minimise the changes:  Why not see how the existing players get on in Eddie's new coaching set up to establish a baseline?  Then bring in other players in a controlled and pragmatic manner?  

On the other hand I am not getting the backs.  Ford is having a middling season at Bath, isn't getting the attack moving and is becoming more O'Gara-like defending.  Farrell won't put fear into anyone at 12:  He can defend but can't run with the ball.  JJ is simply not back to his best yet.  Scotland, if they are smart, will send runners at 10-12-13 all day.  I would actually prefer Farrell at 10 with DeVoto at 12.  

Yeah the forwards are fine, with the possible exception of Haskell at 7 (let's see if he actually starts and if so how he does). I agree with the backs. If he starts Farrell, Devoto and Joseph then that's ok, particularly as long as Ford comes on for Farrell and not for Devoto. Of course having Daly instead of Joseph would make sense given how they've both been playing. I don't want to see Ford and Farrell on the pitch at the same time (and I don't get having Goode on the bench - better to have Joseph on the bench with Ford and Daly at 13).

I'd rather have Daly on the bench than Goode. I'd be happier with him playing at FB (or pretty much anywhere) than Goode. Maybe its a lesson that Eddie has to learn the hard way, I just hope it doesn't cost us in the process.

(And yes Goode is exceptional at club level and might of made a more than decent international FH - but otherwise please no)

DaveM wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

DaveM wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:I can see the logic to not overhaul the players and minimise the changes:  Why not see how the existing players get on in Eddie's new coaching set up to establish a baseline?  Then bring in other players in a controlled and pragmatic manner?  

On the other hand I am not getting the backs.  Ford is having a middling season at Bath, isn't getting the attack moving and is becoming more O'Gara-like defending.  Farrell won't put fear into anyone at 12:  He can defend but can't run with the ball.  JJ is simply not back to his best yet.  Scotland, if they are smart, will send runners at 10-12-13 all day.  I would actually prefer Farrell at 10 with DeVoto at 12.  

Yeah the forwards are fine, with the possible exception of Haskell at 7 (let's see if he actually starts and if so how he does). I agree with the backs. If he starts Farrell, Devoto and Joseph then that's ok, particularly as long as Ford comes on for Farrell and not for Devoto. Of course having Daly instead of Joseph would make sense given how they've both been playing. I don't want to see Ford and Farrell on the pitch at the same time (and I don't get having Goode on the bench - better to have Joseph on the bench with Ford and Daly at 13).

I'd rather have Daly on the bench than Goode. I'd be happier with him playing at FB (or pretty much anywhere) than Goode. Maybe its a lesson that Eddie has to learn the hard way, I just hope it doesn't cost us in the process.

(And yes Goode is exceptional at club level and might of made a more than decent international FH - but otherwise please no)

I think Goode is the form FB and should be starting in Edinburgh, but if not then I don't see the point of having him on the bench when there are two other FHs, plus Devoto, in the matchday squad. We now know that there's a good chance Brown will end the game on the wing, which doesn't make sense to me.

jamesandimac wrote:Sky are showing footage from Twickenham of a team run through, defense. If that's anything to go by it looks like a starting lineup of:

Marler, Hartley, Cole, Launchbury, Kruis, Robshaw, Haskell, Vunipola, Care, Ford, Nowell, Farrell, Joseph, Watson, Brown

Care, Ford and Farrell is certainly an interesting dynamic.

Even though Australia advanced to the final, having vanquished New Zealand, the reckoning for Jones was harsh. Criticisms multiplied that he was too prescriptive, intellectualising the game to the point where the Wallabies lost their natural spontaneity...

Over a decade on, Mark Ella, as instinctive a No 10 as ever there was, wonders if Jones lost sight of the carefree attitudes that they embraced growing up. Australia’s sequence of seven straight defeats in 2005 would give credence to that theory. So, too, would Jones’s subsequent ill-starred spell with the Queensland Reds, who in 2007 were eviscerated 92-3 by the Bulls in Pretoria. “A lot of people would claim that in Eddie’s time here, Australian rugby went backwards,” Ella says.

“We grew up as knock-around guys. But when he coached Australia, he was far too serious. He didn’t sleep, he was over-analysing. Sometimes, when you try too hard, it can backfire on you. As a kid, he was a ratbag, a joker. He liked to have a good time, to have a drink. When the authority came, though, he was driving everybody crazy.”

Poidevin is not shy of echoing this sentiment. “Eddie favours an open and expansive game, but there are a lot of modules built around that. It is like a jigsaw puzzle. In 1984, Allan Jones’ philosophy was to play what was in front of you. Rob McQueen, by contrast, was far more structured, and won a World Cup that way in ’99. Eddie takes this to a whole different level, where players are told whether they should be on the blindside or the openside during a particular phase. There will be five phases of movement before one of Eddie’s teams even starts to cut loose.”

This didactic style could, Poidevin feels, be a rude awakening for England. So exceptional are the standards demanded at a Jones training camp, many players might struggle to adjust. “Eddie sets benchmarks that some people just can’t get to grips with,” he says. “Look at what Japan achieved at the World Cup: that arose from pure hard graft, from bringing the squad together five months early and encouraging them to overcome the other teams’ size. Whether the English will put up with a guy driving them like that, I’m not sure. It will be vastly different to anything they have experienced before.”

...Dwyer is convinced that Jones can flourish in his England robes. “Eddie is smart enough to stay close to the players and not let a pile of assistants and supernumeraries insert themselves between him and them,” he says. “It’s very important that his message and personality are at the forefront of the players’ minds.”

The only certainty in Jones’ native Australia, as he embarks on the latest phase of a dizzyingly itinerant career, is that it will be one wild ride. “It will either be an amazing success or a huge blow-up,” Poidevin predicts, with a knowing grin. “There will be nothing in between.”

jamesandimac wrote:Sky are showing footage from Twickenham of a team run through, defense. If that's anything to go by it looks like a starting lineup of:

Marler, Hartley, Cole, Launchbury, Kruis, Robshaw, Haskell, Vunipola, Care, Ford, Nowell, Farrell, Joseph, Watson, Brown

Care, Ford and Farrell is certainly an interesting dynamic.

lostinwales wrote:

Other than the long discussions on why I and others don't want Goode at 15 is also the huge question of what you want that 15 to do. Jones might change things but for a few years we have mostly looked at our 15 as being our main counter attacking threat, and with Foden then Brown we have had a real threat at the back. For all the qualities Goode does have he's feckin useless at doing this at international level. I honestly believe this ends up putting a lot more pressure on the rest of the backs and will force us into the lottery of a kicking game (and that when our best kick chase guy is out for the season).