England Squad Named

by nlpnlp Wed 13 Jan - 14:11

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

by Mad for Chelsea Thu 28 Jan - 16:56

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.

eh

? Haskell hasn't played 8 in a long time. He played 7 when he went to Aus for a bit, and plays 6 or 7 for Wasps, though more at 6 this season because George Smith is there. He's not a fetcher 7 but he could be effective there.

Having said that, I think we're all a bit puzzled that after lots of talk from Eddie about England's back row not being good enough, not balanced, etc. he's basically just swapped his two flankers around...

by Hoonercat Thu 28 Jan - 17:00

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.

Haskell isn't being shoehorned out of position, 7 is where he's played most of his club rugby over the past 4 years and would probably still be playing 7 at Wasps if not for George Smith being there.

by Poorfour Thu 28 Jan - 18:28

Yeah, but we should never let facts get in the way of a full uneducated reckon.

by ChequeredJersey Thu 28 Jan - 18:42

But the backrow is the same as the one Lancaster used, just number swapping. Haskell is about as much of a 7 as Robshaw, which I think is "enough of a 7" but not everyone agrees.

by BigTrevsbigmac Thu 28 Jan - 19:57

Switching to the front row....

I see Kieran Brooke's is back for the Saints tomorrow against Wasps so should be available for the next game against Italy.
I think a lot of people would have him as first choice, certainly on form, but when as that been a factor in selecting a side?

I hope it spurs Cole on to put in a performance. Saints are certainly spoilt in the TH position with the outstanding Hill waiting in the wings.

by doctor_grey Thu 28 Jan - 20:24

A Saints Front Row is logical and a good way to go forwards............

by Sgt_Pooly Thu 28 Jan - 20:39

Hill is going to be England's TH for a long time, I can't believe he's only 20.

by **Rugby Fan** Thu 28 Jan - 21:52

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

Yes. I continue to be amazed by people who are amazed by Eddie Jones' decisions. We've got nearly eight years of evidence of how he operates from his time with Australia and Japan. In the Telegraph today, a disappointed Austin Healey asks "Where is the Eddie Jones who is not afraid to take a risk?". Where on earth did he get the idea Jones is like that?

by Dubbelyew L Overate Thu 28 Jan - 22:56

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.

by ChequeredJersey Thu 28 Jan - 23:07

Ewers is a promising player. I'm not sure that he is "RobshawMax"

It is impressive how Ex have done with players like Ewers, Hill, Slade missing though

by doctor_grey Thu 28 Jan - 23:42

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.

Better for Ewers, or any player really, to come back, get into form, then worry about playing Internationals. It doesn't benefit anyone to rush back, especially at this juncture. Not sure how good he could be playing for England, but I hope he gets a fair shot some time in the not too distant future.

by DaveM Thu 28 Jan - 23:50

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.

Jones has very publically tied his colours to Robshaw. Barring injury we won't see Ewers before the summer tour at the earliest.

I'm slightly disappointed with the matchday squad, with too many out of form or out of position players (plus I hate having a dedicated FB on the bench). It is actually incredibly similar to a squad SL might have picked a couple of months back, although he obviously sees something in Devoto. Still, let's see how we go.

by doctor_grey Fri 29 Jan - 1:39

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.

by Gwlad Fri 29 Jan - 5:26

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. Rolling Eyes

And bless him, he certainly succeeded.

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

by lostinwales Fri 29 Jan - 9:14

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.

Polite as ever. Maybe you don't understand what I wrote, and if it is so hard then maybe you should just put me on your foe list so as not to tax yourself too much.

England might play in a different way but the personnel won't be significantly different except for the fact that the new guys on the horizon are getting closer to being ready and the old guys are closer to being retired. A lot of the team developed under Lancaster, therefore Lancaster has helped to lay the foundations for Eddie's team

by RubyGuby Fri 29 Jan - 10:23

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

thumbsup

by Rory_Gallagher Fri 29 Jan - 10:29

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

by RubyGuby Fri 29 Jan - 10:41

Who's suggesting that Rory? thumbsup

by Rory_Gallagher Fri 29 Jan - 10:47

RubyGuby wrote:Who's suggesting that Rory?

Not by your good self but it has been (at the very least) hinted at numerous times on this thread.

by englandglory4ever Fri 29 Jan - 11:24

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

Well its all water under the bridge now but I disagree. Yes Lancaster 'wanted' to win but he clearly lost focus if indeed he ever did have a clear idea of what actually was necessary to win. His approach/mindset seemed to be - "get all the pieces aligned and the win will come". Instead of - "what must we do to win".

by Geordie Fri 29 Jan - 11:35

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

Voice of reason again...

I think in general, Lancaster wasn't as bad as everyone is making out. He got quite a lot right, blooded a lot of players and tried bring in a style that used the backs aswell.

Consecutive 2nd's in the 6n is not horrifically bad in all honesty.

But I think tactically he was not good enough to bridge the gap between winning that 6n and being 2nd and his use of Substitutions stands out as poor.

I personally think he had a brain melt in the WC and particularly the build up where the players conditioning was appalling wrong. The performances their however don't accurately reflect Lancasters performance over his 4 year reign.

In all honesty Jones just needs to reaffirm the set piece which Lancaster initially worked on then lost track of a little (remember back to the Ireland Man-shaming game / The NZ victory..that pack was ferocious) and tweak the tactics slightly.

The bigger changes to the squad will come in the Summer in time for the Australian tour.

by TightHEAD Fri 29 Jan - 11:39

SL simple couldn't coup with the pressure of a home RWC, he had a massive brain fart.

by DaveM Fri 29 Jan - 11:50

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).

by RubyGuby Fri 29 Jan - 11:54

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) thumbsup

by lostinwales Fri 29 Jan - 12:25

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)

by lostinwales Fri 29 Jan - 12:26

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)

I think you forgot to say 'spiffing'

by RubyGuby Fri 29 Jan - 12:32

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. thumbsup

by lostinwales Fri 29 Jan - 12:52

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.

thumbsup

by RubyGuby Fri 29 Jan - 12:56

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.

by lostinwales Fri 29 Jan - 12:57

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.

Yes its good to see you here again RG

by Rory_Gallagher Fri 29 Jan - 13:51

Have people forgotten how talented Jonathan Joseph is? He was the star player for England last season. I know that Elliot Daly is also an incredibly talented footballer but I think EJ has made the right call sticking with JJ. Admittedly I have seen little of him since his return from injury but could his lack of form also be attributed to George Ford and the rest of the team? It is very difficult to have much of an impact out wide if there are problems further in-field.

Perhaps those who know more about both players believe Daly has more potential?

by beshocked Fri 29 Jan - 15:13

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.

by RubyGuby Fri 29 Jan - 15:17

There's a lot of talk about defences working JJ's movement out. thumbsup

by lostinwales Fri 29 Jan - 15:29

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

Interesting. Generally I thought there was just more concern over his recovery from the pec injury he had at the RWC and how well he's playing in a poorly performing Bath team.

by BamBam Fri 29 Jan - 15:31

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? thumbsup

by Rory_Gallagher Fri 29 Jan - 16:37

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.

by RubyGuby Fri 29 Jan - 16:42

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 thumbsup

by lostinwales Fri 29 Jan - 16:52

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

Can you give us a reference? Need some evidence.

by DaveM Fri 29 Jan - 16:55

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.

Nobody is talking about throwing him in the skip. I'd have him on the bench as he can cover 13 and wing. Speaking for myself all I'm saying is that Daly is having much the better season, and brings an excellent kicking game, where-as JJ has been struggling for form. If you aren't going to give Daly a go now, then when?

by DaveM Fri 29 Jan - 16:58

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.

by beshocked Fri 29 Jan - 17:05

rory gallagher disagree. Burrell had a strong 6 nations in 2014. 3 tries. He was strong,direct and ran great support lines. Okay he didn't excite people in the same way that Joseph did but I felt he was just as effective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Uc29hRARgE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsBM4qyzcEc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsBM4qyzcEc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dB5DaW_uZ3o

Shock horror biased Bath commentator praises Bath player. Like taking Dallaglio's praise of Wasps players too seriously.

Sometimes it's hard to know if it's a temporary slump or not.

by ChequeredJersey Fri 29 Jan - 17:28

Goode, on international evidence, just isn't as good an international fullback as Brown, club form or not.

As for Ruby's bit about Bath's backline, I think if watch them you'll see they are faltering, though Eastmond has impressive stats for someone in that line. Matalawu has been dross, Ford shaky and making poor decisions then the back 3 getting little to work with, Priestland has been Priestland (which is like shaky). And a lot of that is due to the pack.

I'd probably have started Daly but I'm not sure coaches have "figured Joseph out". If that's what people are putting the difference in Bath's current and last season down to, they probably need to rethink where most of the winning in rugby happens, and it ain't 13

by lostinwales Fri 29 Jan - 17:51

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.

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).

by jamesandimac Fri 29 Jan - 18:36

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.

by maestegmafia Fri 29 Jan - 18:59

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.

As predicted then?

by **Rugby Fan** Fri 29 Jan - 23:51

After spending most of the last few months guessing, The Telegraph finally gets around to asking people what kind of coach Eddie Jones is.

http://s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/projects/Making-Eddie-Jones/index.html

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.”

by ChequeredJersey Fri 29 Jan - 23:58

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.

Only surprise for me is Care starting

by DaveM Sat 30 Jan - 1:18

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).

I think Goode is playing the best rugby of his career, and that this should be sufficient to give him another chance at international level given Brown isn't playing particularly well. His attacking play from deep against Toulouse was wonderful.

I'm wondering what these international performances were which were so bad you feel he should never get another chance, no matter how well he plays for Sarries (who might just be the best side in Europe)?

In any case that wasn't my main point. We shouldn't have a specialist FB on the bench as it limits our options.

by ChequeredJersey Sat 30 Jan - 1:29

OK, agree to disagree. Goode hasn't been awful in any one game (though the loss to France was particularly good at highlighting his weaknesses, none of which I have seen him improve visibly) but has been consistently poor->mediocre in my opinion in all bar 3 england games, one where our pack dominated NZ and one against Fiji and the RWC warm up vs France. All of this time his Club form has been excellent - I don't think it's dropped very often at all really. THe disparity between what he can do at Int and at Club level is vast and always has been, the implication being that it always will be, unless rather than improving what he already does well at club level but doesn't work for England (his playmaking, his kicking which I think is overrated, and his counter-attacking which has generally led to a loss of momentum at Int level) he does what other plays like Cips and Brown have done and worked on the things that left him so exposed. Namely his tackling, his high ball work and his pace, but losing the shuffle step would probably help too. He has positive characteristics that if they existed in an otherwise international player would be a huge boon to England, but he has negatives that IMO mean he can't really be first choice until he fixes them, and which have been tested out at Int level consistently for 4 years now, meaning it's not a case og him not being given a chance.

Of course, he may play for England at 15 and be a revelation and I will take it all back and eat my words

by ChequeredJersey Sat 30 Jan - 1:30

What would seem best would be training with Margot Wells for pace, Lewsey for solid defence

by Sponsored content