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.

Eddie Jones is a coaching guru! This is the man who broke the Kiwi stranglehold on Super Rugby by leading the Brumbies to victory in 2001. That was no mean feat, especially when you consider ACT is one of the smallest regions (population-wise) in the entire championship. He then coached the Wallabies to the grand final of the 2003 RWC, upsetting the All Blacks before succumbing to England in extra time of the final itself. He was on the Springboks coaching staff when they won the tournament 4 years later, then guided Japan to that astonishing victory over South Africa at last year's event. Talk about the Midas touch! But can he lead England to a successful World Cup campaign? That's the million pound-a-year question . . .

I think Jones is an outstanding coach, but there's no doubt that he's inherited a pretty healthy legacy from Lancaster in terms of young players coming through.

Cole, Marler, Mako Vunipola, Launchbury, Kruis, Robshaw, Billy Vunipola, Youngs, Ford, Farrell, Tuilagi, Joseph, Nowell, Watson and Brown were all players favoured by Lancaster, some given their debuts by him, and given lots of experience. When you compare what Lancaster himself inherited, or the mess left behind by Woodward, Robinson, Johnson and Ashton, this wasn't a poisoned chalice by any means.

Jones has been shrewd in terms of what he's kept and what he's changed, particularly the appointment of Hartley as captain (which I thought was bonkers but has so far worked well), the introduction of Itoje (who I thought should focus on 6 rather than lock but has turned out rather well) and the selection of Farrell at 12 (which I still think is for the shorter term but has worked better than I envisaged). He has also fostered a better team spirit which is clearly visible in the way that England are playing and celebrating their wins. The team just looks more cohesive, and the appointment of Gustard as one of his coaches looks already to be paying dividends.

Happy days for England. I can't see France causing too many issues.

Rugby Fan -

I agree it feels a bit odd to be looking at a possible Grand Slam from a squad that is largely the same as the one that struggled at the RWC and where we know that some of the combinations - centre in particular - are makeshift. Eddie himself has said that he's still a year or more from having the team the way he wants it.

But I think your comparison of players puts a bit of a skewed perspective on things. All coaches try players and most of the ones on your first list got a decent run of games while most of the ones on the second list have yet to establish themselves as real international contenders. There are a lot of question marks about Ford at the moment - though I personally think he'll get through it, George has an injury that could keep him out for some time (like Foden - who's now getting back to the sort of form that could see him challenge Brown and Goode), and even Itoje could fall prey to a bad injury or "second season" syndrome.

To put it in context, look at this team from the 2002 AIs:

obinson; Simpson-Daniel (Healey 77), Greenwood (Johnston 40), Tindall, Cohen; Wilkinson, Dawson; Woodman, Thompson, Vickery; Johnson, Grewcock (Kay 60); Moody, Hill, Dallaglio (Back 70).
Subs not used: Regan, Leonard, Stimpson.
Robinson; Simpson-Daniel (Healey 77), Greenwood (Johnston 40), Tindall, Cohen; Wilkinson, Dawson; Woodman, Thompson, Vickery; Johnson, Grewcock (Kay 60); Moody, Hill, Dallaglio (Back 70). Subs not used: Regan, Leonard, Stimpson.

No Lewsey, no Catt, no Bracken, Kay and Back on the bench - it's quite different from the one that won the RWC less than 12 months later. Go back to summer 2002 and it would be more different still.

That said, I think there is a far better chance that today's 22 and 23 year olds will become fixtures at international level. The academy system has improved immeasurably - I know people with kids in the system who say that kids now coming out of the academies look at the previous generation with a mixture of scorn and pity because they already know how much more rounded and game aware they are compared to the older graduates.

I guess the point is this: we can see this team's flaws, and we can see how it could be improved. But it's still winning. And that's a very good thing, because it suggests that it won't be reliant on having everyone fit at the right time to be a successful team.

No thread yet but I see that Taylor was called up to cover for Hartley. Bit of pressure on the 2 young hookers if they do get the call.

Telegraph said Hartley is definitely fit for the weekend and it was just to give him time off after heavy minutes in the games

Bit of a relief, do want that gs now we're so close.

I'd like to see Taylor on the bench over LCD on Saturday, but can't see it happening!

Any one else nervous about this grandslam game? We've been here before and it's not ended well so far.

yappysnap wrote:Any one else nervous about this grandslam game? We've been here before and it's not ended well so far.

I think Jones will do a better job of keeping the team grounded than the previous regime. We could end up facing a very fired up France though

I have no doubt that we will lose. But then I expect us to lose every game.

<"James Haskell never used to talk to me, but now we've started talking about stuff other than rugby," said Vunipola.>

EJ has apparently improved team morale, but surely that can't be right?!

Do you think Haskell didn't realize Billy was in the same team?

yappysnap wrote:Any one else nervous about this grandslam game? We've been here before and it's not ended well so far.

Nervous.....of course I am nervous. We lost the last time we played France away in the 6Ns....thanks SL for subbing Hartley when you did. We lost to France away in the pre-RWC warm up game. France are playing poorly, but they do have some quality players and would like nothing more than to prevent England getting a GS. They have good set piece and defence and of course can win this match. If Hartley cannot play or goes off injured early then I can see our scrums struggling.

But based on the performances of the two teams so far I do expect England to win, but I am certainly not counting any chickens at this stage. England have a great opportunity and especially if they get off to a good start as hopefully the crowd will turn on their own team.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:<"James Haskell never used to talk to me, but now we've started talking about stuff other than rugby," said Vunipola.>

EJ has apparently improved team morale, but surely that can't be right?!

Do you think Haskell didn't realize Billy was in the same team?

I think it's more likely that the extra training Haskell's been getting from George Smith was speech therapy.

hugehandoff wrote:

yappysnap wrote:Any one else nervous about this grandslam game? We've been here before and it's not ended well so far.

Nervous.....of course I am nervous. We lost the last time we played France away in the 6Ns....thanks SL for subbing Hartley when you did. We lost to France away in the pre-RWC warm up game. France are playing poorly, but they do have some quality players and would like nothing more than to prevent England getting a GS. They have good set piece and defence and of course can win this match. If Hartley cannot play or goes off injured early then I can see our scrums struggling.

But based on the performances of the two teams so far I do expect England to win, but I am certainly not counting any chickens at this stage. England have a great opportunity and especially if they get off to a good start as hopefully the crowd will turn on their own team.

I agree about Hartley. With George we had an equivalent level substitute but Cowan-Dickie had a nightmare first game and looked all at sea in defence against Wales. I see Tommy Taylor has been brought in. Maybe Cowan-Dickie will be dumped and Taylor will be on the bench.

Bringing in a new scrum coach as Peel leaves for Saracens and a temporary attack coach. No mention of names as of yet.

I said I would judge Eddie after every game. So far he has been solid and true to his word. Not to mention winning the Grand Slam. He gets to keep his job.

For me the inclusion of excellent Union coaches in Borthwick and Gustard has been pivotal. Again a big tick for Eddie. He's now told the players that he is looking for new players to come in and freshen up the squad. If that doesn't get them all working their socks off nothing will. The pressure is rising and the whip is starting to crack. Will any of the players crack too?

It seems to me England under Eddie Jones is much more focused on performance than under Lancaster. More focused on results and still enabling the team to bond and maintain high standards. At least this is how it is being portrayed to the public.

Obviously foreign head coaches seem to be in vogue.

Only France has a native head coach but what I find interesting is that English defence coaches seem to be popular too.

Soon there will be 3 countries in the 6 nations with an English defence coach, even France had one when Bernard Laporte was in charge of France, Dave Ellis.

Admittedly not as popular as bringing in a SH coach but still it shows that some countries have benefitted from some English defence coaching.


Eddie Jones brings much needed experience that Lancaster lacked. Having Gustard and Borthwick has his no 2s made sense as he knows them. One being the best defence coaches in the AP, England had him earmarked as a prospective English coach by giving him experience alongside Baxter even before Jones picked him.

Borthwick of course has worked with Jones before, helping mastermind wins over Wales (admittedly understrength) and South Africa whilst Jones was in charge of Japan.

Professor of the lineout showed his prowess in this area in the RWC for Japan. Now this year in the 6 nations.

Lancaster deserves more credit than the slating he's getting.

He just lacked that 1% extra. Im not sure he was going to actually achieve that, BUT he brought through lots of players and at times played some nice rugby.

Maybe with more club experience he will improve those areas he lacked...and come back a stronger head coach for it.

Maybe he also needed to ditch his nicey nicey approach a little. Its rugby and you need a bit of nasty.

More conservative under Jones this year, which is to be expected initially. A touch of luck in the Wales game. The core group of players as Jones says himself should continue to get better.

Geordiefalcon Eddie Jones has done in 1 season what Lancaster could not in 4 with a similar squad.

You say he brought through players, surely that's been primarily the job of the academies, the clubs and the U20s?

How many players would you say that Lancaster developed into world class ones?

The England job is a nice one, significant amount of resources, largest pool of players, a U20s team that till this year was going strong.

Some coaches are fortunate to have a better crop of players at their disposal. England are in better shape depth wise than under Ashton and Johnson.

Eddie Jones has done what is expected of an England coach - getting a GS.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Lancaster deserves more credit than the slating he's getting.

I agree, but everyone will focus on the RWC. In an ideal world we would have beaten Wales, then maybe squeezed past SA before losing in the semi to NZ. Then Lancaster could have been moved to the role of Elite Performance Director that was earmarked for him with responsibility for player development through the age grades right up to the Saxons - and an experienced HC, Eddie Jones maybe, appointed to be in charge of England still with the chance to appoint his own coaches.

Even with the defeat to Wales that effectively scuppered Lancaster's career, I would still like to have seen him onvolved as described above.

All successful coaches are also lucky coaches. No way would Jones have won a GS in 2012 if he had taken over then. What he has done is build on some very good foundations.

In the modern climate Woodward would probably have never been appointed England HC - no experience, and if he had would have been sacked before 2003, maybe after the 99 WC where we limped out in the Quarters to Jannie de Beer, maybe in 2001 when we butchered a 3rd GS in a row, but surely gone before 2003.

Londontiger losing in your own world cup when the RFU's primary goal is to make money is embarrassing.

RFU is the richest union in the world yet can't bring together an England team that can make it past the pool stages. Yes it was a difficult group but Wales are not an unbeatable juggernaut. Not even Australia are.

Perhaps NZ fit the unbeatable juggernaut tag but England weren't close to getting to them.

Lancaster did well in his first year but sadly things started to get a bit bumpy after that.

Perhaps Jones wouldn't have won the GS in 2012 but the difference is that Jones has made the most of the resources at his disposal whilst Lancaster didn't.

Now perhaps you can point to Jones' superior assistants, well that does help indeed.

In regards to Woodward you are probably right, I actually question how good a coach he really was, quite fortunate to have such a golden generation of England players, his legacy after the 2003 was poor.

In the end England just about scraped past Australia in the 2003 RWC final.

You could argue Woodward was indeed lucky.

Yea SCW was indeed lucky to have the most talented squad of English players at his disposal. He also talks a loads of b8ll**ks on the telly, which is amusing to listen to. If you believed what he says it was basically all down to his input that forged that squad of players into world beaters.
its noteworthy that he never, ever mentions the debacle of the lions tour 2 years later. A tour on which he took the biggest ever squad of players, including the majority of the WC winning squad, many who were past their best and/ or recovering from significant injury lay-offs. His judgments with regards to selection and tactics for that tour were so bad that the team had no chance of competing against a very powerful and clever kiwi outfit.

Jones resources are better than those under Lancaster though I'd say.I'd say next years resources will be better than this years. That comes from more experience to that core group and some exceptional players coming through who should improve.

sensiball agree with that.

Tough being England coach after Clive, the only way was down.

With Jones, he's taken an England side at a low point, going out of the pool stages. He doesn't have a bad squad at his disposable either.

The England U20s has been a nice development ground. Not everyone comes of age at the same time too - Kruis was part of the 2010 U20s for example.

no 7 & 1/2 not too many new players though are there? Eddie Jones hasn't tweaked the squad much but he's had better results.

I never expected Lancaster to win the GS in his first season - I was actually pleasantly surprised by what he did in 2012, it was the lack of progress in subsequent seasons that disappointed me despite having more experienced players and more resources.

Beshocked...he was 2nd in each of his seasons. Not bad really, despite the fact he shouldn't really have been in that position.

The academies bring the players through but Lancaster played them and gave them debuts when others may well not have.

Jones is going to benefit from all of that.

I accept Jones has changed captain, and the nicey nicey culture...but not a huge amount has really changed on the pitch.

And if we had lost v wales...everyone would be saying same old!!! Including yourself!

What's the deal with Wayne Smith at the moment, could he be up for that temp attack role?

Geordiefalcon

Bridesmaid never the bride.

2nd isn't bad agreed but we are talking about England a side that dwarves the other 6 nations bar France in wealth,resources,player pool etc. With these advantages more is expected.

If you have a shoes string budget then it's a little harder to expect a team to perform as well as one who has many more resources.

Being Italian coach is much harder than the England job for example!

Also when you have a desirable high paying job like the England one it makes it easier to recruit someone like Eddie Jones.

We didn't lose to Wales though. We won the GS.

Can talk about ifs and buts but it wasn't same old - England got over the line!

I suppose the point is that there is a very thin (touch) line between success and failure.

Lancaster did do a great job in building the foundations of a good team but didn't have the coaching team around him or the experience/ vision/ nerve to take England that little bit further. Jones does and has (so far) brought in the right people into the coaching team. It has been a lot easier starting from where he did than from where Lancaster started. Given the talent coming through into the professional game from the JWC wining U20 teams its happy days.

For all the talk of the RWC result that was more damning of the coaching regime than the quality of the players.

Not too many changes beshocked but a young team who's now getting good experience and some more talented ones to get established and I haven't as yet seen much difference between Jones' and Lancaster's teams. I wouldn't expect to to be honest given this is his first tournament. Attack has gone backwards a bit, new systems etc and Ford finding his form with a new inside centre. Defence has been a touch better but there have still be times where I'm watching through my fingers; again you can only expect an improvement as the team gets used to different systems. If we look purely on results Jones has done better, but I expected this to be a strong tournament for England whoever was in charge purely as I think the players are getting better. You've also got to count in the relative fall of Ireland, losing key players for them is hard to counter.

And I do agree with that sentiment lost, still struggle to see why he brought through a change to the system come the world cup moving to that awful midfield, bringing Farrell back in etc. Just smacked a bit of panic and defence first. I don't mind the defence first thought, strong setpiece over everything but it was against the grain of what we seemed to be moving to.

Beshocked

We won the Grand Slam, but were the actual performances any better than under Lancaster.
I accept hes only been in the job 4 months or something.

Jones will take England further, but I just think the ridicule of Lancaster is unwarranted of a guy who did a lot right but just wasn't really experienced enough to be in that position and know how to take it to the next level.

Also how would the new guys like Itoje, kruis's improvement etc have helped Lancaster? Would it have been in the same way they performed under Jones?

I'll say again he will learn more when he takes on coaching roles with his next club.

No 7&1/2 wrote:And I do agree with that sentiment lost, still struggle to see why he brought through a change to the system come the world cup moving to that awful midfield, bringing Farrell back in etc. Just smacked a bit of panic and defence first. I don't mind the defence first thought, strong setpiece over everything but it was against the grain of what we seemed to be moving to.

Yes. I liked Lancaster and he was unlucky with injuries on the run up to the RWC (including losing Manu for such a long time) but he had a complete selection and style of play brainfart.

I also thought the handling of the Manu assault case vs the real reason he didn't go (injury) was very badly handled. Something like that isn't going to encourage the players to do their best for you.

no 7 & 1/2 surely that's the whole point - similar teams but Jones has had success already despite only be in the job a short time.

Making excuses as usual for Ford I see. Ford has been in poor form this entire season, nothing to do with Farrell.

Every side get injuries, need to be able to deal without absent players.

You are also focussing on the wrong issues - it was the forwards and bench who primarily let down England in the RWC.

Scrum,lineout and breakdown work not good enough.

Eddie Jones has rebuilt England's credibility at lineout time and breakdown if not scrum. Hasn't even taken him long to do that.

Jones usage of the bench has generally been different to Lancaster.


Geordiefalcon you can play well and lose. England won 5/5 with Eddie Jones and co in charge.

Lancaster could have picked Itoje in the RWC warm ups but decided against giving him an opportunity. Might not have helped Lancaster but Jones' faith in Itoje vs Wales was rewarded with a man of the match performance.

I still think Jones could have played Itoje earlier but at least Itoje got his opportunity in the end.

lostinwales Manu hasn't been a key man for England for a while now, been injured too often.

Similar players beshocked but I feel a group who have improved and will continue to do so; surely you don't disagree with that? Ford has been in poor form and with a new inside centre nothing too controversial there.

Every team has injuries etc but I was simply making a comparison to the previous Irish teams of the last couple of years, as you've said youself they lack the resources of England.

Thought the forwards were good against Wales in the WC personally kept us on top for much of the game. Pretty similar to what happened this 6Ns for me. Lineout has been great this last tournament, returning to how good it was a couple of seasons ago through the AIs. Stealing has been great and surely Borthwick must be at the heart of that.

They've improved but this is Jones' team now so any improvement is to his benefit.

Farrell isn't a new centre. Ford played with him in the 2014 AIs, played with him at U20s. Can't use a lack of familiarity as an excuse for Ford not playing well.

Ireland lack the resources of England but they need to be able to develop new players. That's an Irish problem.

Forwards didn't last the full 80. Have to play for the full 80, we know the Welsh do! Need to show composure. Should have comfortably secured the lineout when England kicked for the corner. Robshaw got a lot of stick for this decision but it was the packs overall responsibility.

Eddie Jones' England did not buckle under the pressure whilst Lancaster's England did.

beshocked wrote:

Every side get injuries, need to be able to deal without absent players.

Sorry but that is a key difference for Jones, he really hasnt had to deal with any significant injuries, except perhaps Slade.
certainly nothing like his predecessors did when they were regulalry seeing 4th/5th choices in positions like full back scenter and prop. No international side has that level of depth of quality.
Even if we imagined that Johnson and Lancaster had an inifinate number of equally skilled and able players to slot in and cover for injuries (and to be fair some quality like Armitage got their chances because of those injuries) then there is still the big issue of consistency of selection and team building. Lancaster tinkered aand chopped and changed, and a good part of that was driven by injuries.
Jones has started with the most settled core side England have gone into a six nations with for some time. The starting looseheads and scrum halves might have changed during the tournament but they are guys who have been swapping places for several years already.

I cant remeber the last time an England coach went into a six nations without anything like that close to their likely first choice squad being available, and even less so to suffer so few injuries during the tournament.

You cant dismiss that that has played a role in the sides success.

It certainly holds molre water as a theory than the mantra we had for Lancaster that his miracle turn around to a scrappy second place (and amazing improvement from the pervious years first place) being down to a couple of motivational speakers and making them walk a bit further from the team bus.

Yup Jones gets the benefit.

I was actually saying that I felt the attack wasn't as good this year as Ford wasn't in form, the was more shuffling in midfield with a new combo and new ideas around attack from Jones. Just think every time you have changes like these it takes a little while for it to all click. Not that farrell was the reason Ford hasn't been at the same level as last year.

Yes it's Irelands problem they lack strength but it's also true that they aren't as good a team as last year in my opinion. I would say that Jones team did buckle in those last ten myself but we came away with the win all the same.

beshocked wrote:They've improved but this is Jones' team now so any improvement is to his benefit.

Farrell isn't a new centre. Ford played with him in the 2014 AIs, played with him at U20s. Can't use a lack of familiarity as an excuse for Ford not playing well.

Ireland lack the resources of England but they need to be able to develop new players. That's an Irish problem.

Forwards didn't last the full 80. Have to play for the full 80, we know the Welsh do! Need to show composure. Should have comfortably secured the lineout when England kicked for the corner. Robshaw got a lot of stick for this decision but it was the packs overall responsibility.

Eddie Jones' England did not buckle under the pressure whilst Lancaster's England did.

Yes he has already benefitted from having Kruis playing superb and Itoje coming through - Lancaster didn't have that...but he was working with kruis.

Don't just pass off Lancasters input.

But I do appreciate that Jones has the experience and backing coaching team to improve considerably.

Gooseberry well losing George for Wales and France wasn't great.

LCD had to help close out the French game as hooker.

Launchbury unfit, Lawes injured. Losing players like Attwood and Slater who were hyped up before the tournament, the mighty Manu being missing (to some that has been a huge blow).



Still find it odd when people talk about the significance of Slade. You would think that he's a proven world class performer with 50+ caps with the hype surrounding him. Don't get me wrong I think Slade will be good but like anyone he's got to put in the performances.

no 7 & 1/2 this year we didn't play against a French side who said $%^& the defence.

They didn't buckle, they won, they held their composure just. Yes they made it harder than it should have been but they did the job.

The difference was small but still enough.

Geordiefalcon you don't think Kruis and Itoje working with Gustard and Borthwick, two coaches who know those two players particularly well might not have helped?

Lancaster didn't have the benefit of having either Gustard or Borthwick which comes to another point of it not just being about Eddie Jones vs Lancaster, it's Jones,Borthwick and Gustard compared to Lancaster,Catt and Rowntree.

Lancaster did a lot that was right - particularly in regard to player development, clearing out the previous culture and putting in place a tactical framework that for the most part worked well.

His downsides weren't entirely of his own making - a combination of injuries at the wrong times and starting with a very inexperienced squad meant that he wasn't able to deploy Eddie's "biggest cane" of being able to drop players easily.

He is guilty of having stumbled with selection, tactics and use of the bench at the RWC - though he is hardly alone in that. Johnson made the same mistake, as did Brian Ashton (though in his case it was less visible once the senior players took charge). Crashing out of the RWC was not great, but to my mind it was much less of a low point than after 2011 or even 2006. Anyone remember the 2006 AIs?

Eddie himself has said that the England that just won the Grand Slam is 80% Lancaster's, and I think he was referring to playing style as much as players.

What he's done in terms of the squad is not so different from what Lancaster would probably have done. The only really big surprises were Hill, the use of Farrell at 12 (and that it worked) and how fast Itoje has come through (which I think surprised Eddie and everyone else except beshocked). He has the luxury that he can afford to drop players who don't perform because there's a core of experience that Lancaster built. Tactically he's more astute.

The jury is out on him as a man-manager because we haven't seen if he can motivate in the long term. He's done a great job of getting the squad through a tough tournament, but it remains to be seen if he can keep the group motivated once he starts dropping people to bring new ones through.

They won beshocked but I was sitting too comfortably when they were walking through our defence at will! We'll have to disagree if you think the attack has been as good this year as last. As I said I expect it to get better. Looking forward to seeing the additions to the coaching team as well.

beshocked wrote:Gooseberry well losing George for Wales and France wasn't great.

LCD had to help close out the French game as hooker.

Launchbury unfit, Lawes injured. Losing players like Attwood and Slater who were hyped up before the tournament, the mighty Manu being missing (to some that has been a huge blow).



Still find it odd when people talk about the significance of Slade. You would think that he's a proven world class performer with 50+ caps with the hype surrounding him. Don't get me wrong I think Slade will be good but like anyone he's got to put in the performances.

no 7 & 1/2 this year we didn't play against a French side who said $%^& the defence.

They didn't buckle, they won, they held their composure just. Yes they made it harder than it should have been but they did the job.

The difference was small but still enough.

Seem to remember someone hyping up a young second row in the same circumstances???

I think the attack has suffered partially because of Ford's lack of form (although I thought he was pretty good vs France) and because Farrell, for all of the positives (and there are many), doesn't offer enough threat to keep defenses interested, and as a consequence JJ just has not been getting the opportunities he had last year.

Last year was a bit of a high point though, and we have looked good at times this time around

At the age Itoje is at hes still developing fast. No guarantee he would have been playing at the same level at the RWC

beshocked wrote:Still find it odd when people talk about the significance of Slade. You would think that he's a proven world class performer with 50+ caps with the hype surrounding him. Don't get me wrong I think Slade will be good but like anyone he's got to put in the performances.

You shouldn't find it odd. You talk about Itoje in exactly the same way, with only a fraction more in terms of performances to back that up.

Itoje has made the step up - and sooner than anyone bar you really thought he would. What little I have seen of Slade and Clifford at international level already makes me think that they are both ready to do the same.

It's also pretty reasonable - given his track record with Australia, South Africa, Japan and now England - to conclude that Eddie Jones knows what to look for in international players. The closest he's made to a duff call in 400 minutes of England rugby was making too many changes immediately before Cole got binned. But all his bets on who should play and where they should play have come off nicely so far. So if he's excited about Slade, which he seems to be, I'll take it on trust.

no 7 & 1/2 the attack hasn't been outstanding but it's done the job so far.

Geordiefalcon not hype when the bloke delivers,delivers and delivers. I've talked him up and he's done what I thought he would.

Slade needs to prove himself. For what's it worth I think he will but let's see him do it.


lostinwales true there is no guarantee he would have but it's not like he's struggled at international level so far to find his feet. I still believe if he was given opportunities in the RWC warm ups, he could have been a success story for Lancaster. Instead Lancaster was transfixed with Burgess being his match winner.

Poorfour it's about backing up the talk.

I like Clifford and Slade but they still need their breakthroughs.

Fraction more in terms of performance? - haven't heard anyone talking about Clifford as someone who should be in the team of the tournament.

Want Clifford to overhaul Haskell or Robshaw, Slade to overhaul Farrell but hasn't happened yet.

Yeah, I'd agree it's been ok but not quite as good as last year that's all. As I said a Ford out of form, changes in midfield and different overall ideas on attack will have an affect.