Eddie's England squad for summer

First topic message reminder :

Hello you lovely lot.

I've very much enjoyed your posts over this six nations. Great stuff.

I don't post much as I'm a bit of a novice (well a lot of really) but I'm always intrigued by your far more experienced wisdom. So:

The summer will bring a chance for Eddie to put more of his stamp on the team; who do you think stays the same and who changes? And who, if any, so you think might be bolters? (I know it's an oxymoron asking about bolters this early, but I'm going to do it anyway)

GeordieFalcon wrote:Surely Sam Hill is a better option than Teo if we want a stronger style of player?

At least he's young and English with the potential to improve further.

But who's better now? Honest question, I don't watch nearly as much rugby as I'd like to, and therefore can't answer this. Hill obviously wasn't trusted during the Six Nations, with Farrell picked as starting 12 with Devoto and then Daly and Tuilagi being used as the bench options. In which case, it's no real surprise that Eddie Jones is at least appraising other options.

And then what's better for Hill? Going to Australia and not making the bench, or going to South Africa and playing some rugby? If he has a storming tour to SA, he can go into the 16/17 EPS and look to pick up some caps in the 2017 tour if some England centres get Lions call-ups.

little_badger wrote:

propdavid_london wrote:I wonder who the guys are that EJ mentioned 'as playing themselves out of the tour'.
Gut feeling is possibly the Bath contingent -
Ford, Joseph, Watson
Maybe Brown - solid but unspectacular
LCD hasn't been amazing for Chiefs
Cole hasn't had a great season, neither has Marler.

Is there anyone else that could be in the firing line?

Agree on Ford, Brown and Cole, they were the first that sprang to mind. Maybe Haskell?

My thoughts are those above, with the addition of Haskell, Brown, and possibly Launchbury.

Time constraints in the amount of games and time in those games available beshocked. For instance look now at the areas of weakness in depth (at least unproven players). Not really to prove yourself I personally don't think we're talking 1 or 2 games here, more like 10-15. So we're now looking at giving serious time to players at 1, 2, 3, Itoje at lock, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15. Remember this isn't just giving time to one player in some of these postions but 2, albeit wings are interchangable to an extent. How do you seriously go about giving that experience while maintaining standards and building your starting team to such an extent that they will become number 1 in the world?

In relation to organising and hosting a wc Ireland are a newby. The WC was very disappointing but yeah, I don't find it hard to believe we lost to Aus and Wales given the team plan and picks leading in the WC. Those are different threads really though. Just to confirm though I've never said Launchbury was world class like you insinuated.

I am sticking to the rugby, I'm telling you to broaden your rugby knowledge.

Of course I know who they are or I wouldn't be chastising you

Sgt Pooly you have no proof. I know a lack of evidence is what you and no 7 & 1/2 thrive upon but come on......

You don't need to act like that beshocked.

no 7 & 1/2 I do because it's what you do. Lancaster underachieved. Ireland have been co-hosts for two RWCs. They are not a new host.

Now there's plenty of evidence to show this. You ignore the evidence, that's annoying. It's not of course the only time you've ignored evidence either.

Anyway back to Eddie Jones' squad. I hope someone like Hill,Slade,Manu can sort out the 12 issue. Hope Clifford continues to develop as a backrower. Want someone to emerge as strong competitor for Cole. Maybe Hill or Brookes.

I've not ignored evidence but if you want to talk about Ireland hosting we have a thread on it. We're only talking about it here as you wanted to divert attention from you incorrectly saying I thought Launchbury was world class.

You've side stepped that strength in depth thing. How does Jones go about developing it to a sufficient standard which Lancaster never did? The thing 99% of what is discussed here isn't fact or fiction, it's opinion despite you being the Oracle.

I honestly can't be bothered anymore. If you want to stay an ignoramus then that's your call. Too boring to argue anymore.

If you want to believe the earth is flat, be my guest.

Surprise, an actual talking point of a weakness, but not a straight forward solution and it quickly follows with an insult and inability to explain your point of view.

In my mind there is a lack of experience across the board but there is no way to solve it quickly or easily with a click of your fingers.

http://www.rugbyworld.com/news/analysis-eddie-jones-see-ben-teo-55681

Interesting article on Teo

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

James - I'll be honest I don't know who he is.

Williams - don't know him.

Wow...you're rugby knowledge outside the confines of Allianz Park is really quite outstandingly poor.

I'm starting to see why think all Sarries players are so good, it's because you don't watch anybody else!

Sums it all up pretty much.

Sam James is a Sale player can play 12/13 and 10 been a standout this season esp early on.

Williams prob the biggest bright spark in the Irish backline this season, also Welsh EQP

Disappointed in you Welly. I admit I haven't seen much of Sale this season, should have remembered Williams.

None of you have said who these two players are. Okay you have now, thank you.

Good of you to educate Sgt Pooly too.

Added No 7 & 1/2 to my foe list, sick of his ignorance.

At least I acknowledge when I don't know something - like those two players.

Actually I do remember Williams now, my bad I forgot about him.

Woe is me, the guy who never listens or can't understand will no longer listen.

You now know who they are....we're half way there. You now just need to see them play. Teaching rugby to BS is like teaching the wife the offside rule....hard work!

You know who they are now too Sgt Poo. Thank you again Welly for telling Sgt Poo and myself.

I've seen Williams play. Just forgot about him. James I haven't seen but now I remember his name has been mentioned on these boards before.

Teaching you and No 7 & 1/2 is hard work, given up on no 7 & 1/2, he's a lost cause. You on the other hand. Maybe you'll learn....

Can someone tell beshocked for me if he wants to ignore me as he finds he struggles with the discussion that's absolutely fine but to leave me out of his rants please? Thanks in advance!

I'm loving your complete denial BS, don't tarnish us all with your lack of rugby knowledge, some of us actually watch games rather than reading articles.

Hammersley must surely go on the Saxons tour. The lad is class...and has power and strength that belies his slight frame.

And Sean Robinson is just polishing his Lions 2017 captaincy Armband...

Mark Wilson - sorry for being repetitive but he must get some recognition....

And if we are struggling for wingers...Marcus Watson has improved beyond recognition this season despite playing in a team with no attacking structure.

Will Beaumont be back for summer tour or will Clifford or even Morgan get a go at 8?

I think Clifford will get a start at 6 or 7 in one of the games.

Sgt Poo you could have proven you knew them but instead Welly did.

Denial of what? I admit I forgot who those two players were. You criticised me heavily for that but didn't show you knew those players either.

I don't claim to know everything.

Geordiefalcon I bow to your superior knowledge of the best Newcastle prospects. I hope one or two of them can make a positive impact.

Beshocked, we have some gash...but those three have impressed this season.

Hammersley is the best prospect of the lot really. His a gliding attacking runner, who runs great angles. He's good under the high ball and is a very strong defender. Definitely needs a trip to SA in my opinion. Not the finished article by any stretch, but coming on nicely.

Thats the 'problem' with Clifford Geordie, has the ability to be successful across the board.

Well that's good, the problem that you'll face as usual is holding onto your players.

If London Irish held onto the likes of the Armitage bros,Watson,Joseph,Homer and Garvey for example you would think they would be in a slightly healthier position too.

I would imagine if Saracens lost their academy players like George, Kruis,Itoje,Goode,Farrell,Wray,Fraser then things wouldn't look too rosy either.

I think it's a real shame two of the best producers of players - Newcastle and LI have struggled in the league.

That inability to retain players is very tough on both.

Contribution of both LI and Newcastle to England cannot be underestimated.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Will Beaumont be back for summer tour or will Clifford or even Morgan get a go at 8?

Harrison anybody. play the Aussies at their own game.

That's what happens when teams are able to ignore the salary cap. 

They can pick off other teams best players and pay their own sufficiently to keep them

Yeah, Jones earmarked him at 8, with his Rodney So'ailo comparison...but I think he'll be developed on the flank initially.

Especially with Billy at 8. And Ewers, Hughes, Morgan, Beaumont, Kvesic, Fraser, Wallace, Underhill, Robshaw, Haskell, Temeina Harrison, Mark Wilson etc etc all showing up to greater or lesser degrees.

Surely we can build a powerful, fast skilled back row from that lot...

Sgt Poo.....brilliant.

Again Beshocked, just because you don't know who players are, don't assume everybody doesn't. I don't need to prove anything to you, I watch rugby and don't just read reports like yourself.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Yeah, Jones earmarked him at 8, with his Rodney So'ailo comparison...but I think he'll be developed on the flank initially.

Especially with Billy at 8. And Ewers, Hughes, Morgan, Beaumont, Kvesic, Fraser, Wallace, Underhill, Robshaw, Haskell, Temeina Harrison, Mark Wilson etc etc all showing up to greater or lesser degrees.

Surely we can build a powerful, fast skilled back row from that lot...

I agree GF, but I was thinking of the tour if Billy doesn't go or needs a rest, don't see any of the others doing what Billy does except possibly Hughes.

beshocked wrote:That inability to retain players is very tough on both.

Contribution of both LI and Newcastle to England cannot be underestimated.

That's one reason why I am starting to lean towards the idea that the next EPS agreement needs to give the RFU much more control over the EPS players in return for a bigger financial return for the clubs, potentially with some increased financial reward for players who have come through a club's academy - it should make it easier to hang on to them.

Bambam if you are referring to Saracens, Saracens have plundered neither Newcastle or LI.

Saracens haven't really looked to one source for players.

Sgt Pooly Well you call me BS, just returning the favour.

I assuming you don't because you didn't prove you did.

Just read reports? If you want to believe that's your opinion. No proof of course.

What's your problem with me anyway?

Poorfour that's actually a pretty good idea. Clubs should not be penalised for having strong academies.

Hammersley is waiting for the right time to move to Tigers then he will focus on England

What does everyone think of Freddie Burns' form? He definitely deserves to go to SA at least. Arguably you could take him to Oz with Faz as first choice and Burns/Slade back up.

Ford is not a bad player overnight but the whole Bath team are really struggling.

For me Freddie should go to SA and then if he starts next season in the same form I think he will get called up to EPS for the AI's

Welly wrote:Hammersley is waiting for the right time to move to Tigers then he will focus on England

I agree - if he maintains form. Burns should get the nod for tour.
Cipriani has dropped off a bit as with Ford.

Not sure who is in the EPS at the moment but guys I would like to see included (that haven't had much exposure).
Burns, LCD, Kvesic, Robson, Yarde, Ewers, Kitchener, Hughes (will he be available?)
For Saxons -
Dom Barrow, Underhill (if elligble), Woodburn, Simpson, Cipriani, Miller, Welch, Ben Teo (would rather see him for Saxons then senior squad), Hammersly,

BamBam wrote:That's what happens when teams are able to ignore the salary cap. 

They can pick off other teams best players and pay their own sufficiently to keep them

I always thought they should substantially reduce the salary cap but exempt academy players. Or possibly change the model entirely so that any money spent on non-academy players subject to a "luxury tax". The tax could then be paid to the player's "home club" (if in England) or to the RFU to help fund the amateur game (if the home club is outside of England).

So no salary cap, but if you sign a player that wasn't graduated through your academy, you have to pay (say) 10% of his salary to his home club (all the while you continue to pay him as a player). If he was signed from an overseas club, then you still pay 10%, but the money stays in the English game. Obviously if a player moved abroad, his home club wouldn't get any money as this wouldn't be enforceable overseas, but hopefully the lure of playing for England would be enough to keep most players in England.

So if Newcastle produce 10 great players that Leicester poach on £100k-a-year deals, Leicester would pay Newcastle £100k-a-year while they benefited from those players.

I'm desperate to see what Kvesic can do in an England shirt against good opposition and behind a decent pack. Needs to get his penalty count down, but he surely deserves a shot now.

robbo277 wrote:

BamBam wrote:That's what happens when teams are able to ignore the salary cap. 

They can pick off other teams best players and pay their own sufficiently to keep them

I always thought they should substantially reduce the salary cap but exempt academy players. Or possibly change the model entirely so that any money spent on non-academy players subject to a "luxury tax". The tax could then be paid to the player's "home club" (if in England) or to the RFU to help fund the amateur game (if the home club is outside of England).

So no salary cap, but if you sign a player that wasn't graduated through your academy, you have to pay (say) 10% of his salary to his home club (all the while you continue to pay him as a player). If he was signed from an overseas club, then you still pay 10%, but the money stays in the English game. Obviously if a player moved abroad, his home club wouldn't get any money as this wouldn't be enforceable overseas, but hopefully the lure of playing for England would be enough to keep most players in England.

So if Newcastle produce 10 great players that Leicester poach on £100k-a-year deals, Leicester would pay Newcastle £100k-a-year while they benefited from those players.

Wat?

I can't see the legality of this standing up I am afraid - as good and fair an idea as it is.  Post Bosman, any action seems to be restraint of trade, etc.  And I don't think it is just about money.  In football Man Utd and City have as much money as anyone, but players still seem to favour the bright lights of London.

If you reduce the salary cap, all you will do is push players overseas to France where no cap applies.

And no I don't have the answer and as a Sale fan I am sick and tired of losing players to Wasps, Bath, etc.

robbo277 wrote:

BamBam wrote:That's what happens when teams are able to ignore the salary cap. 

They can pick off other teams best players and pay their own sufficiently to keep them

I always thought they should substantially reduce the salary cap but exempt academy players. Or possibly change the model entirely so that any money spent on non-academy players subject to a "luxury tax". The tax could then be paid to the player's "home club" (if in England) or to the RFU to help fund the amateur game (if the home club is outside of England).

So no salary cap, but if you sign a player that wasn't graduated through your academy, you have to pay (say) 10% of his salary to his home club (all the while you continue to pay him as a player). If he was signed from an overseas club, then you still pay 10%, but the money stays in the English game. Obviously if a player moved abroad, his home club wouldn't get any money as this wouldn't be enforceable overseas, but hopefully the lure of playing for England would be enough to keep most players in England.

So if Newcastle produce 10 great players that Leicester poach on £100k-a-year deals, Leicester would pay Newcastle £100k-a-year while they benefited from those players.

Sort of gives you an incentive to sign foreigners then. Not great with the already in place incentive of being available for the full season rather than potentially losing such a player for interenational season and any subsequent injuries occurred.

propdavid_london wrote:I agree - if he maintains form.  Burns should get the nod for tour.  
Cipriani has dropped off a bit as with Ford.

From what I have seen Cipriani is still playing pretty well. What effect the court case will have remains to be seen.

No point in reducing the salary cap when it isn't enforced in a transparent way.

I think genuine transfer fees are necessary from big clubs simply offering contracts and walking away with things. Has to be some level of ownership similar to football but perhaps not as expensive. Their are fees but from what I gather they are not big. The Stormers got a few hundred grand GBP for Eddie Jones for instance, chicken feed for the RFU.

The bulls got nothing for CJ Stander for example when Munster offered him a big contract.

nlpnlp wrote:I can't see the legality of this standing up I am afraid - as good and fair an idea as it is.  Post Bosman, any action seems to be restraint of trade, etc.  And I don't think it is just about money.  In football Man Utd and City have as much money as anyone, but players still seem to favour the bright lights of London.

If you reduce the salary cap, all you will do is push players overseas to France where no cap applies.

And no I don't have the answer and as a Sale fan I am sick and tired of losing players to Wasps, Bath, etc.

I did a course on the economics of sport and soft caps and luxury taxes came up as legitimate ways to manage leagues. That was in 2009, so long after Bosman, although I have no formal legal training and therefore cannot give an opinion on the legality. However, it is in essence a variation of the salary cap, and therefore is probably as legally enforceable as a salary cap (and given the issues with PRL in the last couple of years, I'd whack a big question mark on that!)

I've just done a bit of reading and the NBA had a form of soft-cap and luxury tax for players already on a team's roster. From my understanding, if you were spending right at the cap and you had a player on (say) £100k-a-year who had a stellar season and was now valued at (say) £300k-a-year, you could increase his salary and pay a luxury tax on the £200k (the "Larry Bird rule", if you want to read more on it). This allows you to go over the cap with a fixed financial penalty (which would be payable in this instance to other teams in the league, I assume). This would benefit teams who develop their own players (or take a chance on "damaged" players like Cipriani), as more players would be eligible for this - although it would cost them even more to keep hold of them.

The reduction of the salary cap I proposed though would be in conjunction with the other measures, so either exempting academy players from the cap or turning it into a soft cap with a fixed financial penalty for going over (payable to other league teams on the basis of who is developing the players), rather than sanctions (which don't get enforced anyway). So hopefully would mitigate using players to France.

fa0019 wrote:

robbo277 wrote:

BamBam wrote:That's what happens when teams are able to ignore the salary cap. 

They can pick off other teams best players and pay their own sufficiently to keep them

I always thought they should substantially reduce the salary cap but exempt academy players. Or possibly change the model entirely so that any money spent on non-academy players subject to a "luxury tax". The tax could then be paid to the player's "home club" (if in England) or to the RFU to help fund the amateur game (if the home club is outside of England).

So no salary cap, but if you sign a player that wasn't graduated through your academy, you have to pay (say) 10% of his salary to his home club (all the while you continue to pay him as a player). If he was signed from an overseas club, then you still pay 10%, but the money stays in the English game. Obviously if a player moved abroad, his home club wouldn't get any money as this wouldn't be enforceable overseas, but hopefully the lure of playing for England would be enough to keep most players in England.

So if Newcastle produce 10 great players that Leicester poach on £100k-a-year deals, Leicester would pay Newcastle £100k-a-year while they benefited from those players.

Sort of gives you an incentive to sign foreigners then. Not great with the already in place incentive of being available for the full season rather than potentially losing such a player for interenational season and any subsequent injuries occurred.

True. So what if it was a 10% tax on EQ players and a 20% tax on NEQ players? Although the same questions on legal enforceability come into play, possibly more so if you are contravening EU freedom-of-movement laws (ignoring for now the possibility of EU exit).

I'd also like to see clubs keeping the players they have produced.

So keep the massive incentives for having England qualified players, I would even back a financial penalty for not meeting the quota. However, if you sign someone from another club who has been in their youth system for the requisite number of years then you have to pay them a one-off fee.

robbo277 wrote:

nlpnlp wrote:I can't see the legality of this standing up I am afraid - as good and fair an idea as it is.  Post Bosman, any action seems to be restraint of trade, etc.  And I don't think it is just about money.  In football Man Utd and City have as much money as anyone, but players still seem to favour the bright lights of London.

If you reduce the salary cap, all you will do is push players overseas to France where no cap applies.

And no I don't have the answer and as a Sale fan I am sick and tired of losing players to Wasps, Bath, etc.

I did a course on the economics of sport and soft caps and luxury taxes came up as legitimate ways to manage leagues. That was in 2009, so long after Bosman, although I have no formal legal training and therefore cannot give an opinion on the legality. However, it is in essence a variation of the salary cap, and therefore is probably as legally enforceable as a salary cap (and given the issues with PRL in the last couple of years, I'd whack a big question mark on that!)

I've just done a bit of reading and the NBA had a form of soft-cap and luxury tax for players already on a team's roster. From my understanding, if you were spending right at the cap and you had a player on (say) £100k-a-year who had a stellar season and was now valued at (say) £300k-a-year, you could increase his salary and pay a luxury tax on the £200k (the "Larry Bird rule", if you want to read more on it). This allows you to go over the cap with a fixed financial penalty (which would be payable in this instance to other teams in the league, I assume). This would benefit teams who develop their own players (or take a chance on "damaged" players like Cipriani), as more players would be eligible for this - although it would cost them even more to keep hold of them.

The reduction of the salary cap I proposed though would be in conjunction with the other measures, so either exempting academy players from the cap or turning it into a soft cap with a fixed financial penalty for going over (payable to other league teams on the basis of who is developing the players), rather than sanctions (which don't get enforced anyway). So hopefully would mitigate using players to France.

fa0019 wrote:

robbo277 wrote:

BamBam wrote:That's what happens when teams are able to ignore the salary cap. 

They can pick off other teams best players and pay their own sufficiently to keep them

I always thought they should substantially reduce the salary cap but exempt academy players. Or possibly change the model entirely so that any money spent on non-academy players subject to a "luxury tax". The tax could then be paid to the player's "home club" (if in England) or to the RFU to help fund the amateur game (if the home club is outside of England).

So no salary cap, but if you sign a player that wasn't graduated through your academy, you have to pay (say) 10% of his salary to his home club (all the while you continue to pay him as a player). If he was signed from an overseas club, then you still pay 10%, but the money stays in the English game. Obviously if a player moved abroad, his home club wouldn't get any money as this wouldn't be enforceable overseas, but hopefully the lure of playing for England would be enough to keep most players in England.

So if Newcastle produce 10 great players that Leicester poach on £100k-a-year deals, Leicester would pay Newcastle £100k-a-year while they benefited from those players.

Sort of gives you an incentive to sign foreigners then. Not great with the already in place incentive of being available for the full season rather than potentially losing such a player for interenational season and any subsequent injuries occurred.

True. So what if it was a 10% tax on EQ players and a 20% tax on NEQ players? Although the same questions on legal enforceability come into play, possibly more so if you are contravening EU freedom-of-movement laws (ignoring for now the possibility of EU exit).

for NEQ where would the money go?

I think transfer fees are a better option to rewarding owner of an asset (i.e. the contract of a player) given they are cross border etc.

fa0019 wrote:I think genuine transfer fees are necessary from big clubs simply offering contracts and walking away with things. Has to be some level of ownership similar to football but perhaps not as expensive. Their are fees but from what I gather they are not big. The Stormers got a few hundred grand GBP for Eddie Jones for instance, chicken feed for the RFU.

The bulls got nothing for CJ Stander for example when Munster offered him a big contract.

There are exactly the same transfer fees in Rugby as there are in Football - only the value differs. If Messi is in contract then the transfer fee would be huge, but if he becomes out of contract he can move with no transfer fee, just like CJ Stander. Thing is players in rugby tend to have much shorter contracts and are usually out of contract when they move.

LondonTiger wrote:

fa0019 wrote:I think genuine transfer fees are necessary from big clubs simply offering contracts and walking away with things. Has to be some level of ownership similar to football but perhaps not as expensive. Their are fees but from what I gather they are not big. The Stormers got a few hundred grand GBP for Eddie Jones for instance, chicken feed for the RFU.

The bulls got nothing for CJ Stander for example when Munster offered him a big contract.

There are exactly the same transfer fees in Rugby as there are in Football - only the value differs. If Messi is in contract then the transfer fee would be huge, but if he becomes out of contract he can move with no transfer fee, just like CJ Stander. Thing is players in rugby tend to have much smaller contracts and are usually out of contract when they move.

The value seems a little small though from memory. Whereas transfer fees in football seem to be far greater in magnitude to player salary, in rugby its the opposite and why simply offering contracts out is the preferred method of developing a squad in Europe.