Eddie Jones - England's New Coach

First topic message reminder :

Kruis and Joseph were both poor in the first half. Kruis's tactics when calling the lineouts were shockingly bad. Hartley got away with two squint throws at the start, but was then pinged for a crooked one and saw one pinched. All four Kruis called to himself. After that the calls got more and more complicated, involving a lit of movement and switching of positions - yet every time he kept calling to himself, thus easy to defend and predict.

I am torn on Joseph. Until he made the interception he had been really poor, but that was fantastic play - as was his finish for the 3rd try. so strangely I woul dnot say he was the best player - but with 3 key moments he was MotM i guess.

Youngs did ok, for me 6/10 - average - though having checked about a Dozen reviews now he got one 6, two 8s (crazy) and the rest 7s. One journo even stated he was clearly Englands best player in the first half. Cannot agree - but a sign that we all see things differently.

beshocked wrote:
4/5 wins is not an achievement when England have done it 4 years in a row. Winning a GS in Eddie Jones first year - now that would be a hell of an chievement! Still a lot to do I agree but getting closer.

Do you really think the difference between 4 wins and 5 wins is such that it necessarily goes from "not an achievement at all" to "a hell of an achievement"? The bounce of the ball could be the difference between those two things.

the thing with 4 from 5 is that we have done it for five years in a row. So coming in, inheriting a decent squad, and then doing exactly what your predecessors managed is not a huge achievement. It is not bad - but certainly not a step forward.

I'd take a win. It's not a big step between that and 2nd if level on points, but it is a small step forward. Fact is we probably have 2 must win matches to actually take 1st spot and that gives us a GS anyway. It's either a gs or 2nd place finish.

Yes but 4/5 is good IF we have tweaked the tactics, the players get it and there is a clear vision of where we are going.

Ie The use of the Subs bench has improved immeasurably!

I would say generally yes that is the case we are seeing that, But it must be continued in the Australia trip, target wins in the AI's and WIN the 6n 2017.

EDIT - However I don't see any reason we cant target both the Wales and French games as wins...and do the GS this year.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Yes but 4/5 is good IF we have tweaked the tactics, the players get it and there is a clear vision of where we are going.

Ie The use of the Subs bench has improved immeasurably!

I would say generally yes that is the case we are seeing that, But it must be continued in the Australia trip, target wins in the AI's and WIN the 6n 2017.

EDIT - However I don't see any reason we cant target both the Wales and French games as wins...and do the GS this year.

Wales is definitely the decider, right now it's probably 50/50 for that game, Wales are a very good team. Crucially if we can break down their defence I think we'll win because our attack has looked a lot better than theirs.

On the tour to Aus/AIs we should be looking to integrate the final few players who will be in the team long term. Slade, a 3rd scrum half, 3rd hooker and sort out the backrow. If we manage all that then I think we can be a really good team.

Geordiefalcon I didn't believe that Lancaster made any proper progress.

2nd in 2012, 2nd in 2015. I know there are those who think England were much improved, well there should be some as players get older and more experienced but wasn't enough to sufficiently make England a big enough threat.

Despite players getting older and more experienced, England still couldn't manage to get a GS.

The reality is that in 3 years - Lancaster still didn't think fix the overall backrow balance, still didn't solve the 12 issue, still played players out of position, still had discipline issues, still struggled to utilise the bench properly and give players game time at the right time.

In 3 games so far Eddie Jones in my opinion has fixed none of them but only 3 games in he should be given more time I guess. Can't expect him to solve all our issues in such a short period.

You say there has been improvement of usage of the subs. To a degree yes but still a lack of gametime for some players. Perhaps in the future Eddie will be less conservative with his usage of the squad as he becomes more familiar with it.

Given that the big issues that faced Lancaster haven't been easily solved in the short term it may just be that there aren't the players available in the short term to give that boost in performance though?

beshocked wrote:Geordiefalcon I didn't believe that Lancaster made any proper progress.

2nd in 2012, 2nd in 2015. I know there are those who think England were much improved, well there should be some as players get older and more experienced but wasn't enough to sufficiently make England a big enough threat.

Despite players getting older and more experienced, England still couldn't manage to get a GS.

The reality is that in 3 years - Lancaster still didn't think fix the overall backrow balance, still didn't solve the 12 issue, still played players out of position, still had discipline issues, still struggled to utilise the bench properly and give players game time at the right time.

In 3 games so far Eddie Jones in my opinion has fixed none of them but only 3 games in he should be given more time I guess. Can't expect him to solve all our issues in such a short period.

You say there has been improvement of usage of the subs. To a degree yes but still a lack of gametime for some players. Perhaps in the future Eddie will be less conservative with his usage of the squad as he becomes more familiar with it.

Beshocked, there has been a massive improvement in that area!

Lancasters subs were predetermined and nearly always had a negative effect on the result and performance.

Joens takes players off if they are tiring or not imposing themselves on the games and brings on players that really have a positive impact. Also the best one is....if a player is actually playing well...he leaves him on for the whole game. Now theres a novelty!

Yes, GF, but it means Jamie George hasn't had enough gametime, because Hartley's been doing pretty well. And that is clearly wrong.

no 7 & 1/2 disagree. I think England have the players to fix most problems bar perhaps centre in the short term.

Need to fix discipline? Don't pick the worst offenders...

Poorfour I thought Hartley's defence vs Ireland was very poor and yes I saw that clearly. I know defence isn't the most important thing for a hooker. Set piece is, in that area Hartley was solid vs Scotland and Ireland. Poor throwing vs Italy though.

So far I would give Hartley's 6 nations so far 6/10. I think England can do better han 6/10.

do you think George has enough gametime? I don't. I am sure someone will come up with an inane comment like he's not done enough to start. We don't really know what he can do because he's not been given sufficient opportunities. Scraps of gametime off the bench aren't really a sufficient indicator.

Of course you'll say I champion him because George is a Saracens player. To some extent yes but I happen to think he's been the form hooker in England for the last year.

I am disappointed with the lack of gametime for Daly and Clifford too but of course that doesn't fit with your opinion of me as just a pro Saracens supporter.

It comes back to not being able to prove one's self without gametime.

I want to see England grow as a team.

It's why I am pleased Itoje was given an opportunity due to the injury to Launchbury.

Of course there have been some posters doubting him, the doubters have seemed to have stopped for now.

Still not the finished article but his debut I thought was good.

Really? Under Lancaster's reign who was the amazing performer that was crying out for a run at 12 who didn't get a chance? Who is it now? Who were the amazing performers in the back row who would have been a step up, yes yes the guy over in France but then we basically go to the younger guys who are really just starting to push. Jones is just getting the opportunity for a lot of these guys now, he's perhaps a bit slower than Lancaster to trust them but Lancaster had a more in depth knowledge of a lot of these guys having worked with them. I suspect that in a year to 18 months (injuries permitting) you will see young(er) guys in a few problem positions, not because they've been ignored but because he feels they are ready.

As for Itoje I don't think (m)any people doubted his quality just felt there are better locks currently. I'm still one of them. Will be interesting to see if he earned a start vs Wales or whether he goes back to the bench to cover lock now.

no 7 & 1/2

I said other than centre. Lancaster couldn't do much with the centre but he could have tried to fix different issues. Ewers and Ksevic didn't get a look in. Should have looked to strengthen hooker, not a pick a joker like Webber who couldn't even get past a journeyman like Batty at Bath. Not pick Clark who I think will just be a decent club man.

You are doubting his quality by saying there are better locks.

Better locks? How are your better locks doing? Lawes has been outperformed by Itoje all season. Launchbury hasn't been fully fit for two of the 6 nations games and I wasn't impressed by his performance vs Scotland, good vs Italy but so was Itoje.

Depends if Eddie Jones makes a good decision or a poor one. The good decision would be to retain Itoje. Why drop someone who has played well?

I would have given Itoje's performance vs Ireland 7.5/10. Still work to do but good debut.

Through his reign though beshocked or are you just talking about a semi competitive warm up game? I like Kvesic but bringing him in would switch the make up of the preferred back row of Wood Robshaw and the big ball carrier or Morgan or Vunipola much more than what he went for in Clarke (who was one of the stand out back rows last year, lets not skirt over that). I like Ewers alot and he does go through these purple patches of fantastic form but it did drop away from the turn of the year, though people have said I'm wrong on that and that he did maintain it. Again though would have altered that make up alot. I'm still not convinced he demands selection at present and it's going to get more difficult for him when Hughes becomes available as I think him and Vunipola look an exciting propect together. When you look at the backrow Lancaster selected we can argue about balance but there were very few times they looked distinctly 2nd best. I wouldn't have had Webber but he was known and part of the extended squad.

Itoje is quality, has got better in the last year, wil better in the next. Launchbury and Lawes are still better, but Lawes not by much, would certainyl be looking to get him on the bench at present. For me Kitchener would have been a better bet to get in and there's Slater there who has been unlucky with injuries. I don't currently think if we're judging purely on quality right now that Itoje is top 2 in the country; having said that he's close and Jones will have a a slight glance if not a whole eye on the future. Is there a point of picking a Kitchener if Itoje will far surpass him in the next year given time with England, does Jones just want really mobile locks?

Rather than just say it's poor or good to drop Itoje to the bench why not consider the reasoning? If the next game has Launchbury Kruis and Itoje on the bench why do you think that choice would have been made? When you accuse others of blindly supporting coaches thats all we're really doing.

It is possible to disagree with what a coach does, yet still see the logic in what they do. Ranting at coaches merely because they disagree with your own thoughts, or even worse attacking people who try to explain the logic does get rather tiresome.

beshocked wrote:Not pick Clark who I think will just be a decent club man.

So we should give the players that you favour more game time, because we don't really know what they can do until they are tested, but it was a mistake to give Clarke game time to see what he could do when tested, even though he was on top form at the time.

no 7 & 1/2

England needed to mix something up in the backrow battle, whether it was a 5.5 like Itoje, a 7 like Ksevic or a 6/8 like Ewers.

England were convincingly beaten by Ireland with a backrow of Haskell,Robshaw and Billy. A backrow I still think is a stop gap. Personally I would want to see Clifford instead of Haskell.

Webber wasn't good enough then and still isn't. It was a mistake, no more debate needed.


Lawes is better based on what? Form wise I would say Itoje has been winning for quite some time.

Kitchener and Slater? Neither deemed good enough at the moment albeit Slater is injured again.

You say Itoje is quality yet think he's worse than numerous players....

Consider the reasoning? I do look at both sides but then look at the more logical decision.

Let's look at Launchbury vs Itoje to start vs Wales. Launchbury is the more experienced player but he's struggled for fitness in the 6 nations so far, Itoje though less experienced has played well, the Kruis-Itoje partnership worked well vs Ireland as they have all season as a combo. I wouldn't drop Itoje on that basis.

I am not claiming that Itoje is the finished article, he isn't but I believe he should only get better and the way to do that is more gametime.

I think it's more of a risk to pick someone more experienced who has struggled for fitness than an in form lock though inexperienced is gaining it all the time.

It was the choice of Lancaster and his team to have that make up though, I think the choice of Clark reflected they didn't want to be making changes that affected that balance during a world cup. It's a simlar/same make up who have beaten teams like Aus, Ireland, Wales et al as well remember. Sometimes it's about how well you play on the day as well as the individuals and overall balance.

Webber did ok so there we go.

Lawes is a quality player for me, Itoje will be a stand out lock, injuries permitting etc could go on to be talked about like Johnson but at the moment I don't think there's a great deal between the 2. I'm aware Jones doesn't want Kitchener, I would though. I've thought about why and made peace!

Itoje is quality and yes he's not in my top 2 locks in England at present. Push that thought on Launchbury a little further then, if he's deemed fit and starts will that be such a hard thing to comprehend that he's considered a top quality lock. It really isn't for me. He too has the chance to go to the very top.

You don't think Itoje is the finished article, same as me, but you think he's the best lock in the country, I disagree.

Londontiger

I will never see it as logical to pick Webber. Webber's form for Bath was so woeful that he couldn't get past Batty. I could see that his selection was a poor one and I am not a professional coach. For a professional coach to think it was logical just showed that Lancaster needed his head examining.

Hoonercat Clark wasn't in top form going into the RWC. Like the rest of Saints his form tailed off in the latter stages of last season. They were excellent for a lot of the season but not at the business end. Haven't been in top form this season either.

Clark got picked on the basis of early and mid season form, not latter stages.

It was another selection I criticised at the time.

no 7 & 1/2

I thought Webber was poor vs Wales and added nothing of value to England in the RWC. You can believe Webber was good if you want. I should add I thought Wigglesworth and Barritt didn't have good RWCs either.

Launchbury has struggled for fitness. An in form fully fit Launchbury is an asset but I am not convinced he is fully fit and firing going on what I have seen so far in the 6 nations.

I think that Kruis-Itoje should start vs Wales yes. I think that's the best 2nd row combo at the moment. Doesn't mean I think Itoje is necessarily better than Launchbury just don't think he deserves to be dropped. It's not just about Itoje vs Launchbury, it's combinations. Kruis working in tandem with his club mate I don't think is a bad thing at all.

Sometimes it's not necessarily about who is the best player, it's how they work in a team. It's why a team of lesser players can beat a less organised team of individuals.

Told you before that you don't have to twist wording, Webber did ok isn't I believed Webber was good is it? If Launchbury's fit I'd start him without hesitation, best lock for me by a distance.

So you think Itoje is the best English lock then?

You say okay, seems like a wishy washy answer - world cup failure is okay these days?

I don't think Webber was good enough just as I don't think other England players were good enough.

Best lock by a distance? Would have liked to have seen that kind of performance vs Scotland... against Italy he was good but best lock by a distance? I don't think so.

Best is very subjective. I think the two locks in the best form are Kruis and Itoje and those are the two I would start vs Wales.

I think Kruis-Itoje is the best lock combo we can start vs Wales at the moment.

If Kruis gets injured in training then maybe Lawes-Launchbury might be preferable.

I would say Itoje is competing more with Launchbury and Lawes more with Kruis hence why when Launchbury was injured it was Itoje who slotted in next to Kruis not Lawes.

Well for me there are stages in judging someone ie not just good and bad! Ok, decent, alright performance by the replacement hooker. World cup failure was obviously massively disappointing considering we were one of a number of teams who could have won it for my money. The style of play and the route we went down more so still. I'm not particularly shocked we went out, just as I wouldn't have been to see Aus or Wales go out. Toughest group I've ever seen personally.

We go back to that old saying of you're only as good as your last game eh?! Yes I'm happy to type it out that I think Launchbury is the best lock England have at present. Presumably seeing as you think Itoje is better than Slater, Kitchener, Lawes, you've already said he's better than Kruis. You've just challenged my view on Launchbury, so unless you're in the Mitch Lees camp would seem to show you think Itoje should be the 1st named lock?

Fair enough if you want to interpret it as an alright performance - I thought Webber wasn't good enough then and still isn't. A different style of play wouldn't have improved our mentally fragile state of mind. England used to be known as a team who performed well in the RWC, now we've become laughing stocks. Tough group but we had home advantage.

You think Launchbury has had a better 6 nations than Kruis so far?

Kruis has had more gametime for England than Itoje and at the moment he has the edge over his younger team mate.

As a 2nd row combo vs Ireland I thought they worked well together.

I think the first named lock is Kruis at the moment. As for the other slot it's a straight fight between Itoje and Launchbury at the moment. I would give the shirt to Itoje against Wales.

I think that our players aren't as good as 03. 07 was a bit of a fluke as the players somehow got there but for me weren't very good tbh! Now with the players coming through and the core team I'm expecting a bit of a better time in the next few years.

No I think Kruis has been the stand out lock in the 6Ns across the entire tournament, but Launchbury's a better player for me.

I'm asking a straight question but don't seem to be getting a straight answer. Do you think that Itoje is the best player/lock (who's English)? You've said before several times that itoje is better than Kruis and I don't think Kruis has improved that much, certainly compared to Itoje. Just asking your opinion, who is a better lock than Itoje for you?

You say 07 was a fluke, England's players showed a mental fortitude and spirit that wasn't seen in Lancaster's tenure. England weren't particularly good yet we got to a RWC final.

I hope we can do better in the next few years, can't exactly do much worse than failing to make it out of our group.

What does being a better lock even mean? The whole point is for a player to help his team win and hopefully play well in the process.

So far in the 6 nations Kruis has been the best performing English lock, that's all that matters at the moment.

I think Itoje is the most suitable to partner Kruis vs Wales yes. You can interpret it as you want. I think Itoje had played better than Kruis during the club season but due to Kruis having more opportunities than Itoje at international level I would say he's moved ahead.

Kruis at the moment is the top English lock with Itoje close behind.

This can change of course but at the moment I would say the pecking order is

1)Kruis
2)Itoje
3)Launchbury
4) Lawes

Though saying that if Eddie Jones picks Launchbury instead of Itoje it will say where he thinks the pecking order is.

Doesn't necessarily make Kruis or Itoje better players, they are just in better form currently.

It's like comparing Billy to Faletau, whose better? It's subjective. Both are very valuable.

As for locks being better, Kruis is a different lock to Itoje for example, he has strengths that Itoje has but then again Itoje has strengths Kruis does not.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think that our players aren't as good as 03. 07 was a bit of a fluke as the players somehow got there but for me weren't very good tbh! Now with the players coming through and the core team I'm expecting a bit of a better time in the next few years.

No I think Kruis has been the stand out lock in the 6Ns across the entire tournament, but Launchbury's a better player for me.

I'm asking a straight question but don't seem to be getting a straight answer. Do you think that Itoje is the best player/lock (who's English)? You've said before several times that itoje is better than Kruis and I don't think Kruis has improved that much, certainly compared to Itoje. Just asking your opinion, who is a better lock than Itoje for you?

Right now, in this 6 Nations, I think Kruis is the best performing lock in the England squad. And certainly terrific across the tournament. Not sure who is next best, to be fair. The others have been generally about the same, pretty good, except Launchburty in that first game after he spent a few days venting some bad food. For the players who come on as subs, a short 5-10 minute run is hardley enough data to form a judgement, except if the player fails miserably or does something fantastic. I don't see any of our subs in any position having failed miserably or done anything head and shoulders fantastic.

It comes back to the same old thing..... a player cannot prove themself is given scraps of gametime.

I would say that Itoje in his first start added a lot of value, highest tackler with 16 albeit missing 3, no penalties given away, 1 turnover, causing a lot of problems for Ireland at lineout time even when Ireland won ball it wasn't always good ball. 7 carries 15 metres which made him the 2nd best forward in terms of metres, 2 defenders beaten.

That sounds good to me.

doctor_grey wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think that our players aren't as good as 03. 07 was a bit of a fluke as the players somehow got there but for me weren't very good tbh! Now with the players coming through and the core team I'm expecting a bit of a better time in the next few years.

No I think Kruis has been the stand out lock in the 6Ns across the entire tournament, but Launchbury's a better player for me.

I'm asking a straight question but don't seem to be getting a straight answer. Do you think that Itoje is the best player/lock (who's English)? You've said before several times that itoje is better than Kruis and I don't think Kruis has improved that much, certainly compared to Itoje. Just asking your opinion, who is a better lock than Itoje for you?

Right now, in this 6 Nations, I think Kruis is the best performing lock in the England squad.  And certainly terrific across the tournament.  Not sure who is next best, to be fair.  The others have been generally about the same, pretty good, except Launchburty in that first game after he spent a few days venting some bad food.  For the players who come on as subs, a short 5-10 minute run is hardley enough data to form a judgement, except if the player fails miserably or does something fantastic.  I don't see any of our subs in any position having failed miserably or done anything head and shoulders fantastic.  

Kruis is probably the best performing lock in the 6 nations to date, not just for England.

wrfc1980 wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think that our players aren't as good as 03. 07 was a bit of a fluke as the players somehow got there but for me weren't very good tbh! Now with the players coming through and the core team I'm expecting a bit of a better time in the next few years.

No I think Kruis has been the stand out lock in the 6Ns across the entire tournament, but Launchbury's a better player for me.

I'm asking a straight question but don't seem to be getting a straight answer. Do you think that Itoje is the best player/lock (who's English)? You've said before several times that itoje is better than Kruis and I don't think Kruis has improved that much, certainly compared to Itoje. Just asking your opinion, who is a better lock than Itoje for you?

Right now, in this 6 Nations, I think Kruis is the best performing lock in the England squad.  And certainly terrific across the tournament.  Not sure who is next best, to be fair.  The others have been generally about the same, pretty good, except Launchburty in that first game after he spent a few days venting some bad food.  For the players who come on as subs, a short 5-10 minute run is hardley enough data to form a judgement, except if the player fails miserably or does something fantastic.  I don't see any of our subs in any position having failed miserably or done anything head and shoulders fantastic.  

Kruis is probably the best performing lock in the 6 nations to date, not just for England.

but AWJ is world class

In all seriousness Launchbury looked much better against Ireland when he came on, so hopefully has put his fitness/illness problems behind him. He's still a very fine lock, and would have no problems with him coming into the side vs Wales. On the other hand, I do like the familiarity and complementarity of the Kruis/Itoje pairing. I've said on multiple occasions that they're very good at disrupting opposition line-out ball for instance, and Itoje is key there. They did a fine job at doing so against what was on paper a strong Irish line-out, including at least two crucial steals from five metre attacking line-outs IIRC.

beshocked wrote:You say 07 was a fluke, England's players showed a mental fortitude and spirit that wasn't seen in Lancaster's tenure. England weren't particularly good yet we got to a RWC final.

I hope we can do better in the next few years, can't exactly do much worse than failing to make it out of our group.

What does being a better lock even mean? The whole point is for a player to help his team win and hopefully play well in the process.

So far in the 6 nations Kruis has been the best performing English lock, that's all that matters at the moment.

I think Itoje is the most suitable to partner Kruis vs Wales yes. You can interpret it as you want. I think Itoje had played better than Kruis during the club season but due to Kruis having more opportunities than Itoje at international level I would say he's moved ahead.

Kruis at the moment is the top English lock with Itoje close behind.

This can change of course but at the moment I would say the pecking order is

1)Kruis
2)Itoje
3)Launchbury
4) Lawes

Though saying that if Eddie Jones picks Launchbury instead of Itoje it will say where he thinks the pecking order is.

Doesn't necessarily make Kruis or Itoje better players, they are just in better form currently.

It's like comparing Billy to Faletau, whose better? It's subjective. Both are very valuable.

As for locks being better, Kruis is a different lock to Itoje for example, he has strengths that Itoje has but then again Itoje has strengths Kruis does not.

Ok fair enough, you only go by form and don't judge the quality of the player understood.

beshocked wrote:It comes back to the same old thing..... a player cannot prove themself is given scraps of gametime.

I would say that Itoje in his first start added a lot of value, highest tackler with 16 albeit missing 3, no penalties given away, 1 turnover, causing a lot of problems for Ireland at lineout time even when Ireland won ball it wasn't always good ball. 7 carries 15 metres which made him the 2nd best forward in terms of metres, 2 defenders beaten.

That sounds good to me.

Stats look good and he was good in the game. That turnover should have been a penalty against him though so it's important to look a little wider as well.

Poorfour wrote:Yes, GF, but it means Jamie George hasn't had enough gametime, because Hartley's been doing pretty well. And that is clearly wrong.

Why? Jones made it clear he wants wins this 6n, its not a development tournament. Hartley hasn't been playing badly. He's actually surprising a few other team fans with his leadership.
At the sametime...George, Clifford, Itoje and Daly have all had gametime, so he HAS given them exposure.

That will continue in the remaining two games.

The focus of development will be more in tune with the Summer trip to Oz. The kids will get starts...but he will still want to win!

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

wrfc1980 wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think that our players aren't as good as 03. 07 was a bit of a fluke as the players somehow got there but for me weren't very good tbh! Now with the players coming through and the core team I'm expecting a bit of a better time in the next few years.

No I think Kruis has been the stand out lock in the 6Ns across the entire tournament, but Launchbury's a better player for me.

I'm asking a straight question but don't seem to be getting a straight answer. Do you think that Itoje is the best player/lock (who's English)? You've said before several times that itoje is better than Kruis and I don't think Kruis has improved that much, certainly compared to Itoje. Just asking your opinion, who is a better lock than Itoje for you?

Right now, in this 6 Nations, I think Kruis is the best performing lock in the England squad.  And certainly terrific across the tournament.  Not sure who is next best, to be fair.  The others have been generally about the same, pretty good, except Launchburty in that first game after he spent a few days venting some bad food.  For the players who come on as subs, a short 5-10 minute run is hardley enough data to form a judgement, except if the player fails miserably or does something fantastic.  I don't see any of our subs in any position having failed miserably or done anything head and shoulders fantastic.  

Kruis is probably the best performing lock in the 6 nations to date, not just for England.

but AWJ is world class

In all seriousness Launchbury looked much better against Ireland when he came on, so hopefully has put his fitness/illness problems behind him. He's still a very fine lock, and would have no problems with him coming into the side vs Wales. On the other hand, I do like the familiarity and complementarity of the Kruis/Itoje pairing. I've said on multiple occasions that they're very good at disrupting opposition line-out ball for instance, and Itoje is key there. They did a fine job at doing so against what was on paper a strong Irish line-out, including at least two crucial steals from five metre attacking line-outs IIRC.

Launchbury didn't play at all vs Ireland.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Poorfour wrote:Yes, GF, but it means Jamie George hasn't had enough gametime, because Hartley's been doing pretty well. And that is clearly wrong.

Why? Jones made it clear he wants wins this 6n, its not a development tournament. Hartley hasn't been playing badly. He's actually surprising a few other team fans with his leadership.
At the sametime...George, Clifford, Itoje and Daly have all had gametime, so he HAS given them exposure.

That will continue in the remaining two games.

The focus of development will be more in tune with the Summer trip to Oz. The kids will get starts...but he will still want to win!

And it is important that he puts up the best fight he and we can. Lancaster was criticised for having too much of an eye on the future if the RFU were looking to sort this it's not surprising Jones will go for who he considers the best for the next game and look no further. That said I think when he feels Clifford, Itoje etc are the best option he'll have no hesitation on picking them.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

wrfc1980 wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think that our players aren't as good as 03. 07 was a bit of a fluke as the players somehow got there but for me weren't very good tbh! Now with the players coming through and the core team I'm expecting a bit of a better time in the next few years.

No I think Kruis has been the stand out lock in the 6Ns across the entire tournament, but Launchbury's a better player for me.

I'm asking a straight question but don't seem to be getting a straight answer. Do you think that Itoje is the best player/lock (who's English)? You've said before several times that itoje is better than Kruis and I don't think Kruis has improved that much, certainly compared to Itoje. Just asking your opinion, who is a better lock than Itoje for you?

Right now, in this 6 Nations, I think Kruis is the best performing lock in the England squad.  And certainly terrific across the tournament.  Not sure who is next best, to be fair.  The others have been generally about the same, pretty good, except Launchburty in that first game after he spent a few days venting some bad food.  For the players who come on as subs, a short 5-10 minute run is hardley enough data to form a judgement, except if the player fails miserably or does something fantastic.  I don't see any of our subs in any position having failed miserably or done anything head and shoulders fantastic.  

Kruis is probably the best performing lock in the 6 nations to date, not just for England.

but AWJ is world class

In all seriousness Launchbury looked much better against Ireland when he came on, so hopefully has put his fitness/illness problems behind him. He's still a very fine lock, and would have no problems with him coming into the side vs Wales. On the other hand, I do like the familiarity and complementarity of the Kruis/Itoje pairing. I've said on multiple occasions that they're very good at disrupting opposition line-out ball for instance, and Itoje is key there. They did a fine job at doing so against what was on paper a strong Irish line-out, including at least two crucial steals from five metre attacking line-outs IIRC.

Launchbury didn't play at all vs Ireland.

was I thinking of Italy?

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Poorfour wrote:Yes, GF, but it means Jamie George hasn't had enough gametime, because Hartley's been doing pretty well. And that is clearly wrong.

Why? Jones made it clear he wants wins this 6n, its not a development tournament. Hartley hasn't been playing badly. He's actually surprising a few other team fans with his leadership.
At the sametime...George, Clifford, Itoje and Daly have all had gametime, so he HAS given them exposure.

That will continue in the remaining two games.

The focus of development will be more in tune with the Summer trip to Oz. The kids will get starts...but he will still want to win!

Absolutely agree, the youngsters are getting opportunity and are being eased. At the same time the England squad is building momentum and confidence. I think Jones is doing a fantastic job to date.

Probably MfC! I'd generally say there's been no one playing for England who's really let us down so far. Vary consistent ok to good. The pack has been impressive but the big questions come next week and the week after. Lock and the 2 flanker positions will be interesting.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Poorfour wrote:Yes, GF, but it means Jamie George hasn't had enough gametime, because Hartley's been doing pretty well. And that is clearly wrong.

Why? Jones made it clear he wants wins this 6n, its not a development tournament. Hartley hasn't been playing badly. He's actually surprising a few other team fans with his leadership.
At the sametime...George, Clifford, Itoje and Daly have all had gametime, so he HAS given them exposure.

That will continue in the remaining two games.

The focus of development will be more in tune with the Summer trip to Oz. The kids will get starts...but he will still want to win!

And it is important that he puts up the best fight he and we can. Lancaster was criticised for having too much of an eye on the future if the RFU were looking to sort this it's not surprising Jones will go for who he considers the best for the next game and look no further. That said I think when he feels Clifford, Itoje etc are the best option he'll have no hesitation on picking them.

Guys. I was, to my shame, beshocked-baiting with that comment. My refusal to use emojis, especially that awful blue thumbs up one, clearly lays me open to misinterpretation.

Naughty Poorfour

I actually didn't realise it was your comment...I thought it was Beschocked...

Yeah got that Poorfour, but I do find it interesting the difference in how Jones is approaching this 6Ns in comparison to how I think Lancaster would. Jones is a little more cautious with his new players in comparison, which is only good when he's being cautious with the right players. Some should start no matter.

no 7 & 1/2

What does that even mean "quality of the player"? What do you base it on if not form?

If you only factor in experience then you'll never pick any new players.

It was a turnover though. You can say it should have been a penalty it wasn't.

Important to ignore the turnover because it doesn't suit your argument....

He was good and yet you wish to drop him.

You believe Launchbury is the best lock in England currently. Based on what exactly?

He's not performing better than his fellow locks, makes it hard to call him the best when he's currently not.

Poorfour wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Poorfour wrote:Yes, GF, but it means Jamie George hasn't had enough gametime, because Hartley's been doing pretty well. And that is clearly wrong.

Why? Jones made it clear he wants wins this 6n, its not a development tournament. Hartley hasn't been playing badly. He's actually surprising a few other team fans with his leadership.
At the sametime...George, Clifford, Itoje and Daly have all had gametime, so he HAS given them exposure.

That will continue in the remaining two games.

The focus of development will be more in tune with the Summer trip to Oz. The kids will get starts...but he will still want to win!

And it is important that he puts up the best fight he and we can. Lancaster was criticised for having too much of an eye on the future if the RFU were looking to sort this it's not surprising Jones will go for who he considers the best for the next game and look no further. That said I think when he feels Clifford, Itoje etc are the best option he'll have no hesitation on picking them.

Guys. I was, to my shame, beshocked-baiting with that comment. My refusal to use emojis, especially that awful blue thumbs up one, clearly lays me open to misinterpretation.

I love you.

He's just a better player, weigh up all their attributes and for me Launchbury is top of the pile. If he's fit thats the reason I'd play him. Experience is a consideration but not the top of my list if I was picking the team.

Yes I'm aware of what the ref judged it as but it was the wrong decision and a reason I find stats useful but not the be all and end all. Itoje was good well done and he's a great bench option. Remember that Wales are one of the teams you picked out as unsuitable to play debutants and new guys. the step up. You surely wouldn't want us to risk an unproven player like Itoje against them?

No 7&1/2 wrote:He's just a better player, weigh up all their attributes and for me Launchbury is top of the pile. If he's fit thats the reason I'd play him.

So he's the better player even if Kruis plays better in every game until the end of their careers? That's a pretty strange point of view in my opinion.

No, I think I'd judge it differently if that was the case, and a strange point to try and shoehorn me to. As it stands thought Launchbury's qualities are better than Kruis'. Form vs class.

It's not that strange at all.

If someone has played better over the course of this whole season so far, it's a good better they will player better in the next game you pick them for, regardless of who has the better 'attributes' or 'class'.

Well the point you made wasn't that but that whatever happens from now on my opinion wouldn't change where quite clearly that's impossible to say and not what I have stated here. In this specific case Launchbury is better than Kruis he'd play alongside him as as far as I know Kruis is the guy calling the lineout, which he will get better at. All the locks available and I wouldn't have had Kruis starting. I'd have wanted Kitchener and Launchbury. that ship has seemingly sailed so Kruis and Launchbury for me. I've said before but a team of form players every week would be suicidal as there'd be so many changes.

And just to build on that form thing Kruis has been very good this season, but Launchbury has been very good and performing better over a longer period for me, maybe barring this season though remains important to Wasps. I'd expect Launchbury to back on song sooner rather than later. Does that make Launchbury better, to poorer, to better to poorer etc or do you make a judgement based on what you see to overall who is better?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah got that Poorfour, but I do find it interesting the difference in how Jones is approaching this 6Ns in comparison to how I think Lancaster would. Jones is a little more cautious with his new players in comparison, which is only good when he's being cautious with the right players. Some should start no matter.

I'm not sure it would be that different to be honest - where Lancaster used new players it was generally a matter of necessity; initially he was clearing out the superannuated players and then most other introductions were because of injuries to the incumbent. In the last RWC cycle, he was trying very hard to build a squad with a critical mass of experience, but I think had he been around for this one his approach to introducing players would not have been dissimilar - in terms of which players or how they get phased in - to Eddie's.

For instance, Lancaster had already identified George, Slade, Itoje and Clifford as players to bring in and involved them over the summer and in the RWC. Itoje and Clifford were in the training squad but didn't make the final cut; George and Slade did but were used as conservatively as Eddie has been using his newbies.

Of course, most of them would have had three times more 6N game time by now, because they'd have been coming on at 50 minutes rather than 70.

beshocked wrote:It comes back to the same old thing..... a player cannot prove themself is given scraps of gametime.

I would say that Itoje in his first start added a lot of value, highest tackler with 16 albeit missing 3, no penalties given away, 1 turnover, causing a lot of problems for Ireland at lineout time even when Ireland won ball it wasn't always good ball. 7 carries 15 metres which made him the 2nd best forward in terms of metres, 2 defenders beaten.

That sounds good to me.

The most impressive thing in that list for me was the lack of penalties given away, as a first start that's very impressive. Would I start him against Wales over Launchbury? Very close call, if Launchbury were on form then he would get the nod as this Welsh pack are a canny bunch, but my concerns over whether Itoje would give away penalties have been pretty much addressed against Ireland. Think I'd probably start Launchbury if he has shown improvement in training with Itoje on the bench, as much as I'd like to see what Itoje is capable of against Wales.