6N Rugby - Italy v England

First topic message reminder :

England team to face Italy - Sunday

1 Mako Vunipola (Saracens, 28 caps)
2 Dylan Hartley (captain, Northampton Saints, 67 caps)
3 Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers, 57 caps)
4 Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints, 43 caps)
5 George Kruis (Saracens, 11 caps)
6 Chris Robshaw (Harlequins, 44 caps)
7 James Haskell (Wasps, 63 caps)
8 Billy Vunipola (vice captain, Saracens, 22 caps)
9 Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers, 53 caps)
10 George Ford (Bath Rugby, 18 caps)
11 Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs, 11 caps)
12 Owen Farrell (vice captain, Saracens, 36 caps)
13 Jonathan Joseph (Bath Rugby, 17 caps)
14 Anthony Watson (Bath Rugby, 16 caps)
15 Mike Brown (vice captain, Harlequins, 44 caps)

Replacements
16 Jamie George (Saracens, 4 caps)
17 Joe Marler (Harlequins, 38 caps)
18 Paul Hill (Northampton Saints, uncapped)
19 Joe Launchbury (Wasps, 29 caps)
20 Maro Itoje (Saracens, uncapped)
21 Jack Clifford (Harlequins, 1 cap)
22 Danny Care (Harlequins, 54 caps)
23 Alex Goode (Saracens, 19 caps)

lostinwales wrote:

And I know that Nowell had a fairly quiet game in comparison but he made some cracking tackles. A nice reminder of what you can do when you go for a guys legs.

I agree, he might not have had the chance to show what he can do in attack, but he more than showed his defensive capabilities. Hes a cracking young player who is only going to get better.

mikey_dragon wrote:

dummy_half wrote:Cowshot

I think very few of us have any issue with the likes of the Vunipolas playing for England or Faletau for Wales - they have spent a substantial proportion of their lives in the UK, including much of their childhood and most of their rugby development. Similarly, there would be no issues with them playing for Tonga.

The interesting one with the Vunipolas is that (iirc) Billy could play for New Zealand and Mako for Australia on account of their places of birth, even though neither have any particular affinity with those countries, having only been born there because their father was playing in each country for a year or two.

Now of course Nathan Hughes (for example) is a different matter...

I forgot to add, should people even be asking Mako and Toby these sort of questions? It's kind of bitter. We know how they feel about playing for their nations, we see how much it means to them each time they pull on the jersey.

I don't know much about Hughes but for now he does come across as a bit of mercenary.

Ah don't get me started. He should never play for England! I know he will purely on his ability and the "rules" make it possible but its just a mockery. He should have played for Fiji in the WC.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

And I know that Nowell had a fairly quiet game in comparison but he made some cracking tackles. A nice reminder of what you can do when you go for a guys legs.

I agree, he might not have had the chance to show what he can do in attack, but he more than showed his defensive capabilities. Hes a cracking young player who is only going to get better.

He doesn't have express pace but he's very well built for a winger which helps him in defence in my opinion, not too small like Watson and not too big like some of the others, he seems to enjoy tackling as well which is refreshing.

And he goes for the legs Hammer....he doesn't try to smash them. Just get them down.

lostinwales wrote:

Its only the most recent history that is truly horrendous...

Wales will be interesting and there is always the question of how the patched up midfield will deal with what appears to be a rejuvinated Roberts, but we have played against these guys just a few time over the last few years, and barring the last 20 minutes of the last game (Unfortunately the most important ones) this is a team that we have dealt with pretty well over the previous 220 minutes.

Big hurdle with Ireland 1st. They may be in a state but they are going to be very hard to break down.

If Roberts and North are scoring you always have to add 7 to the score  when considering the state of the game, imo. Ireland - I don't have a favourite if I'm honest. I see it as very even and depending on which side improves most over the 2 weeks.

Dummy half: yeah, agree it's silly about the Aus/NZ thing. I don't have a problem with people moving to other countries and playing for them as long as the move is genuine: Young player goes abroad, meets local girl, settles down plays for new country - fine by me. It's the pure mercenary I'm not keen on. I think most people feel the same in that respect. I'm not sure how I feel about Hughes at present...suspicious?

mikey_dragon: I've no problem with them either. I think it was Sonia McLaughlin asking the questions. She thinks tact is what a yacht does going upwind...

GeordieFalcon wrote:And he goes for the legs Hammer....he doesn't try to smash them. Just get them down.

He's got a brain inside his head which I really like, every thing he does is for a reason.

Mercenaries can still be good players.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

And I know that Nowell had a fairly quiet game in comparison but he made some cracking tackles. A nice reminder of what you can do when you go for a guys legs.

I agree, he might not have had the chance to show what he can do in attack, but he more than showed his defensive capabilities. Hes a cracking young player who is only going to get better.

He doesn't have express pace but he's very well built for a winger which helps him in defence in my opinion, not too small like Watson and not too big like some of the others, he seems to enjoy tackling as well which is refreshing.

Watson isn't small. He's much taller than Nowell, but has seemed lightweight in the past

lostinwales wrote:Mercenaries can still be good players.

I know they can be...Hughes most certainly is..i just don't like it.

I have no problems with people like Hartley etc..they have parents who are English and been here a long time since they were young.

I just don't like the 3 year residency rule...and it hurts teams like Fiji etc aswell.

lostinwales wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

And I know that Nowell had a fairly quiet game in comparison but he made some cracking tackles. A nice reminder of what you can do when you go for a guys legs.

I agree, he might not have had the chance to show what he can do in attack, but he more than showed his defensive capabilities. Hes a cracking young player who is only going to get better.

He doesn't have express pace but he's very well built for a winger which helps him in defence in my opinion, not too small like Watson and not too big like some of the others, he seems to enjoy tackling as well which is refreshing.

Watson isn't small. He's much taller than Nowell, but has seemed lightweight in the past

I meant more that Watson is very slight in comparison, doesn't have the same leg drive or upper body strength, he's built for speed first and foremost.

lostinwales wrote:Mercenaries can still be good players.

Yeah, sure. In fact they pretty much have to be good or they won't get work. But I just don't like the idea of them in national teams. It feels like starting out by admitting failure. Or perhaps it's that I'm a sucker for the romantic in sport: Leicester City have me paying some attention to club football for the first time ever, lol, and mercenaries are the antithesis of the romantic.

England gave away 13 penalties and as ever, several were of the 'stupid' variety. They must cut out the silly ones or Ireland will beat us. They have had world class goal kickers for years and they will be licking their lips. The game will be much tighter as Ireland will not tire so easily as Italy.

One thing I've heard suggested for the residency rule: you put nations in "tiers", and you can't qualify for residency "up" or "within" your tier.

So if you assume a "big 10" (who play in the two premier competitions), then players such as WP Nel, CJ Stander and Nathan Hughes won't be able to play for their adopted countries.

It does also mean that players like Faletau, the Vunipolas and Tuilagi wouldn't be able to play for their adopted countries either, which could see a significant strengthening of Tonga and Somoa's national teams.

Players from NZ who never make the All Blacks and end up in Japan could, however, play for Japan. Until Japan are bumped up to Tier 1, and then the door gets shut.

Robbo

That's a bit of a silly idea - qualification by residency should be permissible at the very least for players who arrive in a country as children and develop their game within that country's system. Should Marland Yarde be limited to play for St Lucia or Faletau for Tonga when they have spent more than half their lives living in the country they represent?

I do have serious issues with the 3 year residency, and particularly the 'project player' notion, that we will sign an uncapped overseas player with the express intention of them becoming internationals at the earliest opportunity when their 3 years is done.

My feeling is that 7 years would be about right, with years spent in a country before perhaps age 18 counting for double. 3 years is one club contract, 7 years is more than half of most top level professional careers...

Robbo,
I don't like that idea...

Just make the residency 5- 7 years etc. All solved.

robbo277 wrote:One thing I've heard suggested for the residency rule: you put nations in "tiers", and you can't qualify for residency "up" or "within" your tier.

So if you assume a "big 10" (who play in the two premier competitions), then players such as WP Nel, CJ Stander and Nathan Hughes won't be able to play for their adopted countries.

It does also mean that players like Faletau, the Vunipolas and Tuilagi wouldn't be able to play for their adopted countries either, which could see a significant strengthening of Tonga and Somoa's national teams.

Players from NZ who never make the All Blacks and end up in Japan could, however, play for Japan. Until Japan are bumped up to Tier 1, and then the door gets shut.

The problem is how do you determine what the original country for some of these people are? Where would you actually say Billy Vunipola is from? You can say its not England but he has spent more time here (and crucially more time playing rugby here) than anywhere else.

Kruis has a 'funny sounding name' and his Dad is a Canadian, but born in Guildford. Kvesic similar and born in Germany, but that was because of his dad being stationed out there, so he could have done a Heathcote and played for them,

Any potential rules which says the Vunipolas and Faletau couldn't play for England and Wales respectiveyl shouldn't get off the ground. As Geordie says, 7 years should do the trick.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

And I know that Nowell had a fairly quiet game in comparison but he made some cracking tackles. A nice reminder of what you can do when you go for a guys legs.

I agree, he might not have had the chance to show what he can do in attack, but he more than showed his defensive capabilities. Hes a cracking young player who is only going to get better.

I have to say the tackle stats for Nowell surprised me. At the end of the first half I was discussing with people how his usual strong defence was misfiring, with him out of position at times and dropping off tackles. Then lo and behold the stats say he managed a 14/0 record. Confuzzled i am.

Nowell made tackles that Ashton could only dream about.

I liked the tackle on Parisse.

Nothing fancy...just chased him, lined him up and wrapped up his ankles...down he goes.

GeordieFalcon wrote:I liked the tackle on Parisse.

Nothing fancy...just chased him, lined him up and wrapped up his ankles...down he goes.

Textbook. Lovely.

EPSNscrum now say Nowell 12 -0. Robshaw 13-0 Kruis 13 but 4 missed.

Not saying you shouldn't but if you do replace Robshaw then you need to rely on either the replacement making a lot of tackles, or more work for everyone else.

Worth pointing out Billy was 10-0 vs Parisse 3-0 Also more carries for more yards.

Parisse (and the attendant sycophancy) is really starting to bug me. I feel he is becoming more and more of a show pony, and the way he ripped the ball from hi steammate just as the maul crossed the line against France seemed to show just how selfish he has become.

I thought a few exp bench players really showed their quality, Marler, Launch and Care were excellent.

George, Itoje and Clifford had a great impact.

Kruis was very good, just needs to sort out a few lineout wobbles.

I would 100% start Care for the next game and Launchbury.

LondonTiger wrote:Parisse (and the attendant sycophancy) is really starting to bug me. I feel he is becoming more and more of a show pony, and the way he ripped the ball from hi steammate just as the maul crossed the line against France seemed to show just how selfish he has become.

Completely agree with this. He exudes arrogance now. Mouthing off to the ref, gesturing yellow cards. I used to love him, but I'm glad I'm not the only one who seems to dislike him now.

Along the way he seems to have overlooked the fact that Italy as a team have got better, and that they no longer rely on individual skills to win games. It's a team sport and he appears to have forgotten that.

little_badger wrote:I thought a few exp bench players really showed their quality, Marler, Launch and Care were excellent.

George, Itoje and Clifford had a great impact.

Kruis was very good, just needs to sort out a few lineout wobbles.

I would 100% start Care for the next game and Launchbury.

Well hes got a pretty good coach there to sort them out with...

Who's that?

bluestonevedder wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Parisse (and the attendant sycophancy) is really starting to bug me. I feel he is becoming more and more of a show pony, and the way he ripped the ball from hi steammate just as the maul crossed the line against France seemed to show just how selfish he has become.

Completely agree with this. He exudes arrogance now. Mouthing off to the ref, gesturing yellow cards. I used to love him, but I'm glad I'm not the only one who seems to dislike him now.

Along the way he seems to have overlooked the fact that Italy as a team have got better, and that they no longer rely on individual skills to win games. It's a team sport and he appears to have forgotten that.

And there's this...

https://youtu.be/bT5_tOBGweI

Strange how little it gets mentioned, actually.

Mr Borthwick....could do naf all on a rugby pitch...but his lineout was world class

GeordieFalcon wrote:

little_badger wrote:I thought a few exp bench players really showed their quality, Marler, Launch and Care were excellent.

George, Itoje and Clifford had a great impact.

Kruis was very good, just needs to sort out a few lineout wobbles.

I would 100% start Care for the next game and Launchbury.

Well hes got a pretty good coach there to sort them out with...

Exactly, I think it's very fixable, maybe he missed Launch a bit. Either way I was pretty happy with the set piece. I'd love Brookes to come back into the squad for Ireland. Cole still gives away at least 2 penalties a game and usually so does Haskell.

The subs did well but England were difficult to appraise.  Poor in the first half and goodish in the second, but if the starters and subs had been swooped around, the result might have been the same.  Italy obviously tired and England came more into it, but hard to say if this was the result of 'better' players coming on or just fresher players.

Care, Marler and Itoje did well but not easy to judge them.  Though I did like that Itoje was combative at the break-down and added a line-out option.  Having said that Haskell apart from that tackle had a good game and got struck in when England were under pressure.

Still cannot see why Kvesic, Otoje and Vunipola would not work as a backrow.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Mr Borthwick....could do naf all on a rugby pitch...but his lineout was world class

And we know he's a good coach already because...? His excellent work with England?

Epitaph on an Army of Mercenaries

These, in the day when heaven was falling,
The hour when earth's foundations fled,
Followed their mercenary calling,
And took their wages, and are dead.

Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood, and earth's foundations stay;
What God abandoned, these defended,
And saved the sum of things for pay.

A.E. Housman

HammerofThunor wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Mr Borthwick....could do naf all on a rugby pitch...but his lineout was world class

And we know he's a good coach already because...? His excellent work with England?

Because he just is, ok....

cb wrote:The subs did well but England were difficult to appraise.  Poor in the first half and goodish in the second, but if the starters and subs had been swooped around, the result might have been the same.  Italy obviously tired and England came more into it, but hard to say if this was the result of 'better' players coming on or just fresher players.

Care, Marler and Itoje did well but not easy to judge them.  Though I did like that Itoje was combative at the break-down and added a line-out option.  Having said that Haskell apart from that tackle had a good game and got struck in when England were under pressure.

Still cannot see why Kvesic, Otoje and Vunipola would not work as a backrow.

Well if the stories are true, hes been told he needs to offer much more in the carrying dept. Hence why Clifford is ahead of him...at the moment.

I thought Kvesic was a good carrier. And its not like Pocock is a great carrier....

GeordieFalcon wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Mr Borthwick....could do naf all on a rugby pitch...but his lineout was world class

And we know he's a good coach already because...? His excellent work with England?

Because he just is,  ok....

As long as we've got a good reason

GeordieFalcon wrote:

cb wrote:The subs did well but England were difficult to appraise.  Poor in the first half and goodish in the second, but if the starters and subs had been swooped around, the result might have been the same.  Italy obviously tired and England came more into it, but hard to say if this was the result of 'better' players coming on or just fresher players.

Care, Marler and Itoje did well but not easy to judge them.  Though I did like that Itoje was combative at the break-down and added a line-out option.  Having said that Haskell apart from that tackle had a good game and got struck in when England were under pressure.

Still cannot see why Kvesic, Otoje and Vunipola would not work as a backrow.

Well if the stories are true, hes been told he needs to offer much more in the carrying dept. Hence why Clifford is ahead of him...at the moment.

I thought Kvesic was a good carrier. And its not like Pocock is a great carrier....

I think Pocock has a few other skills that are pretty good GF.

little_badger wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

little_badger wrote:I thought a few exp bench players really showed their quality, Marler, Launch and Care were excellent.

George, Itoje and Clifford had a great impact.

Kruis was very good, just needs to sort out a few lineout wobbles.

I would 100% start Care for the next game and Launchbury.

Well hes got a pretty good coach there to sort them out with...

Exactly, I think it's very fixable, maybe he missed Launch a bit. Either way I was pretty happy with the set piece. I'd love Brookes to come back into the squad for Ireland. Cole still gives away at least 2 penalties a game and usually so does Haskell.

You don't think Hartley should take some responsibility for the mess at lineout time?

How could he miss Launchbury when Launchbury isn't a notable jumper?

Agree Cole and Haskell do rack up the penalties. Cole is difficult to replace though.

I just feel that Haskell is a temporary stop gap. Not sure that Ireland game is the time to replace Haskell but Haskell needs to be phased out at some time.

For the second row for the next game I'd go: 4. Launchbury 5. Kruis 19. Itoje

Backrow........ARRGGGHH I'd like to start Clifford but who with, it really has to be Hask or Robshaw otherwise it's too inexperienced.

beshocked wrote:

little_badger wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

little_badger wrote:I thought a few exp bench players really showed their quality, Marler, Launch and Care were excellent.

George, Itoje and Clifford had a great impact.

Kruis was very good, just needs to sort out a few lineout wobbles.

I would 100% start Care for the next game and Launchbury.

Well hes got a pretty good coach there to sort them out with...

Exactly, I think it's very fixable, maybe he missed Launch a bit. Either way I was pretty happy with the set piece. I'd love Brookes to come back into the squad for Ireland. Cole still gives away at least 2 penalties a game and usually so does Haskell.

You don't think Hartley should take some responsibility for the mess at lineout time?

How could he miss Launchbury when Launchbury isn't a notable jumper?

Agree Cole and Haskell do rack up the penalties. Cole is difficult to replace though.

I just feel that Haskell is a temporary stop gap. Not sure that Ireland game is the time to replace Haskell but Haskell needs to be phased out at some time.

Yes the lineout is everyone's fault I am not getting at Kruis, I said I thought he was very good. Ben Kay mentioned he did call the same starting sequence of lineouts as the Scotland game, maybe it was pre-arranged with the coaches, who knows.

The lineout is not just about one jumper they all play a part so saying Launchbury is not a good jumper is too simplistic. Perhaps he is an excellent decoy, perhaps he does just offer that foil to Kruis, perhaps he actually is quite a good jumper as well. In my opinion he's a better second row at the moment than Lawes and that's why he should come in.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

cb wrote:The subs did well but England were difficult to appraise.  Poor in the first half and goodish in the second, but if the starters and subs had been swooped around, the result might have been the same.  Italy obviously tired and England came more into it, but hard to say if this was the result of 'better' players coming on or just fresher players.

Care, Marler and Itoje did well but not easy to judge them.  Though I did like that Itoje was combative at the break-down and added a line-out option.  Having said that Haskell apart from that tackle had a good game and got struck in when England were under pressure.

Still cannot see why Kvesic, Otoje and Vunipola would not work as a backrow.

Well if the stories are true, hes been told he needs to offer much more in the carrying dept. Hence why Clifford is ahead of him...at the moment.

I thought Kvesic was a good carrier. And its not like Pocock is a great carrier....

I think Pocock has a few other skills that are pretty good GF.

I agree...just showing that all 7's don't have to be great carriers. I don't think George Smith or Brussow were great runners either.

Maybe that shows that Jones values carrying more...and collective work at the breakdown.

If Kvesic was at the level of Pocock/Brussow at the breakdown, I imagine he'd have 20+ caps.

True

little_badger wrote:

beshocked wrote:

little_badger wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

little_badger wrote:I thought a few exp bench players really showed their quality, Marler, Launch and Care were excellent.

George, Itoje and Clifford had a great impact.

Kruis was very good, just needs to sort out a few lineout wobbles.

I would 100% start Care for the next game and Launchbury.

Well hes got a pretty good coach there to sort them out with...

Exactly, I think it's very fixable, maybe he missed Launch a bit. Either way I was pretty happy with the set piece. I'd love Brookes to come back into the squad for Ireland. Cole still gives away at least 2 penalties a game and usually so does Haskell.

You don't think Hartley should take some responsibility for the mess at lineout time?

How could he miss Launchbury when Launchbury isn't a notable jumper?

Agree Cole and Haskell do rack up the penalties. Cole is difficult to replace though.

I just feel that Haskell is a temporary stop gap. Not sure that Ireland game is the time to replace Haskell but Haskell needs to be phased out at some time.

Yes the lineout is everyone's fault I am not getting at Kruis, I said I thought he was very good. Ben Kay mentioned he did call the same starting sequence of lineouts as the Scotland game, maybe it was pre-arranged with the coaches, who knows.

The lineout is not just about one jumper they all play a part so saying Launchbury is not a good jumper is too simplistic. Perhaps he is an excellent decoy, perhaps he does just offer that foil to Kruis, perhaps he actually is quite a good jumper as well. In my opinion he's a better second row at the moment than Lawes and that's why he should come in.

Agree with all that and don't get me wrong. Kruis was at fault too but at least other aspects of his game were good.

What would you do vs Ireland about the bench - would you keep the 6/2? Would you drop any of the 23?

Launchbury looked good from the bench but then all of them seemed to make an impact.

It's difficult to know England should do vs Ireland.

Expect Eddie Jones to keep the changes to a minimum.

The problem with the way Kruis ran the lineout in the first half is:

a) He kept calling only to himself. Lawes is an excellent jumper but Kruis chose to barely use him. Calling to himself exclusively made Italy's job easier and Hartley's harder.
b) With a hooker whose throwing was off, and lifters who were getting their timing wrong - he started calling more complicated moves. Pretty much the opposite of what his coach would have done.

Kruis seems to be a bright lad, and otherwise he had an excellent match, but in this particular role he sucked major league. He will learn though and improve.

It may well have cost Lawes as the lineout is an area of strength for him and he didn't show as much as Kruis in the loose. Given their spells on the pitch I imagine Jones will want Clifford and Itoje on the bench but he surely won't want to risk having only 2 backs...

Londontiger personally I think it would have made more sense to have Lawes calling the lineout with Hartley as the hooker just as I would want Kruis doing the job with George on the pitch. Club relationships are important.

Neither Kruis or Hartley did well at lineout time.

no 7 & 1/2 I agree Kruis will probably keep his spot because of his performances vs Scotland and Italy aside from the shaky lineout against Italy.

Youngs got motm?!?! I thought Gori comprehensively outplayed him, never mind Kruis, Cole, Campenagro, JJ......

Would have given MOTM to Joseph - hattrick and his intercept try was the turning point.

Broke Italian hearts and morale.

Then he ruthlessly twisted the knife in deeper.

Look at the stats, in the time he was on the pitch, Lawes did as well if not better than Kruis, tackles, yards etc.

I am not suggesting Kruis be dropped but he was selfish in the lineout, an area where Lawes is probably better than him. You have to wonder why he called all the lineouts to him. Hartley got one askew and two went over the top, the throw ins looked fine to me, just miss timed jumps.

Lawes did do well with stealing and disrupting the Italian lineout. If you are going to play Launchbury, you need two other specialist jumpers, Kruis and A.N. Other are not good enough, BV is a no no, Robshaw and Haskell are part timers, one of the reasons Wood was always in the team under SL.

Bearing in mind you have far more lineouts than you have scrums, playing two specialist jumpers has to take priority, having two others that can jump is the surprise package. You would not think about playing two looseheads, why would you want to play only one specialist lineout jumper.

WPI - a mistime can be the hooker throwingearly, but I agree that in this game it was the jumping pods to blame - mainly the lifters who seemed confused.

However Hartley was tugging most of his throws to his left. His first two were crooked, especially second, but ref was not looking.