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)

yappysnap wrote:Yea Youngs was terrible, Care a lot better but then against little pressure, against Sarries the week before he was poor too.

I'd still probably start Youngs and have Care on the bench but we must try another 9 on the tour to give those two some competition.

Joe Simpson is the name you're looking for. I'm predicting a big end of year for him especially now with Robson's injury.

kingelderfield wrote:

yappysnap wrote:Yea Youngs was terrible, Care a lot better but then against little pressure, against Sarries the week before he was poor too.

I'd still probably start Youngs and have Care on the bench but we must try another 9 on the tour to give those two some competition.

Joe Simpson is the name you're looking for. I'm predicting a big end of year for him especially now with Robson's injury.

You going to get your Pom poms out soon for Simpson? Lol

On a serious note, Simpson is a great running threat. He needs to work on his kicking though.

Simpson's passing is even worse than Youngs. I don't think we could carry him at Int level tbh, he might work coming on in the last 5mins when we can just tell him to run, but heaven forbid he has to pass the damn ball!

Robson has looked the most complete competitor to the Care/Youngs axis imo.

Despite being the youngest of the four Robson has the best basic SH skills. His issue up till now has really been a serious lack of gametime at Gloucester. Simpsons injury, who despite being appreciably older than Robson and Youngs has the worst basic skills, came at the right time for Robson and Wasps. Wasps have looked a much better, much slicker side with Robson at 9 - heck even Gopperth has been made to look good.

Londontiger and Sgt Pooly completely agree, been impressed by Robson this season.

Care and Youngs are frustating, we know both can put good performances at international level but in my opinion sometimes the basics seem to elude them.

And consistency.

Does anyone have an injury update on Robson? I imagine he will go through the concussion return to play. Real shame if he is not available for the Oz tour as he is definitely in form.

I would imagine that wouldn't affect his chances of touring.

He MUST tour.

I'd still say Care is the form 9, his box-kicking is a little wayward at times but other his speed of delivery, vision, quick thinking and most improved this year with the Quins captaincy, leadership on the pitch puts him in the #1 spot for me.

Care and Robson for the summer. I don't know what the problem is with Youngs, he has the occasional good spell then reverts to absolute dross wafting floaty passes out a foot above people's heads so they get man and balled.

From his form pre injury Simpson is just an upgrade on Care, albeit with no interntional experience.

Ive never been a huge fan of Youngs.

I just think Care is a better SH. But then I don't watch Youngs or Care week in week out like Quins and Tigers fans.

Personally Care would be my starter....

But I think there is a place now for someone to come along and make that spot their own.

Could it be Robson?

Care had a woeful game vs Sarries at Wembley in my opinion.

Of course one game doesn't make someone a bad player but it was a little alarming.

As was Farrell's performance against Wasps. Haskell actually had some success getting under Farrell's skin.

Care and Youngs have both consistently looked better coming off the bench, hence the continual flip flapping between the 2. Robson could be that all round good SH to finally say the starting spot is mine.

No 7 & 1/2 I agree and hope so.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Care and Youngs have both consistently looked better coming off the bench, hence the continual flip flapping between the 2. Robson could be that all round good SH to finally say the starting spot is mine.

I certainly rate Robson more than Simpson. It seems that for the last decade we've had a string of scrum halves who are great in one area but weak in others., but Robson looks far more rounded.

mid_gen wrote:I'd still say Care is the form 9, his box-kicking is a little wayward at times but other his speed of delivery, vision, quick thinking and most improved this year with the Quins captaincy, leadership on the pitch puts him in the #1 spot for me.

As a Tigers fan, I do not see as much of Care as many, and like all of us I have certain prejudices. One of this is that Care is slow to get the ball away, a prejudice that was re-inforced against Grenoble where several times his opposite number was able to interfere with his pass, and indeed at times the back row scragged him before he could pass.

Now to be fair some of the blame for this can actually be laid at the 10s door. For us Burns is a much better communcator compared to Williams, so Youngs knows exactly what Freddie wants and can then deliver it. With Williams the lack of communication means we see Youngs start to move the ball one way, then realise Williams is elsewhere. Youngs passing has always been sharper to Burns as it was actually to Flood.

I suspect Botica is not a good communicator, certainly not compared to Evans.

Scrum half is a maddening position for England.

When Youngs turned up in 2010, it looked like we'd found our main man for some years. Just as quickly, he lost form. At the World Cup, all our scrum halves looked better coming off the bench, and it's peculiar how that pattern persists five years later, no matter who is in the line-up.

Unless Robson can make an impact, probably our best bet is to play Care & Youngs, with the proviso that either should immediately be dropped after two consecutive good games, because a third will inevitably be beyond them.

I do sometimes wonder what might have happened if Ben Foden had stuck with scrum half, or Kyle Eastmond had been assigned the role when he came to Union.

Rugby Fan wrote:Scrum half is a maddening position for England.

When Youngs turned up in 2010, it looked like we'd found our main man for some years. Just as quickly, he lost form. At the World Cup, all our scrum halves looked better coming off the bench, and it's peculiar how that pattern persists five years later, no matter who is in the line-up.

Unless Robson can make an impact, probably our best bet is to play Care & Youngs, with the proviso that either should immediately be dropped after two consecutive good games, because a third will inevitably be beyond them.

I do sometimes wonder what might have happened if Ben Foden had stuck with scrum half, or Kyle Eastmond had been assigned the role when he came to Union.

Ive said that all along.

He should have been earmarked for 9. Perfect and he could have developed his kicking and actual game management.

Good point on comms LT, and it can also work the other way round.

Andy Gomarsall - who went into the 2007 RWC camp as a distant third choice - secured the starting berth by asking Jonny Wilkinson lots of questions. He just focused on understanding what Jonny wanted and then delivering it. It was very simple, made sure the whole thing worked better and I don't know why other scrum halves don't do it (or at least don't do it as well).

The closest I think we've seen to that was the relationship that Care and Farrell seemed to have in 2014 - which was promptly abandoned by Lancaster never to be seen again.

Rugby Fan wrote:Scrum half is a maddening position for England.

When Youngs turned up in 2010, it looked like we'd found our main man for some years. Just as quickly, he lost form. At the World Cup, all our scrum halves looked better coming off the bench, and it's peculiar how that pattern persists five years later, no matter who is in the line-up.

Unless Robson can make an impact, probably our best bet is to play Care & Youngs, with the proviso that either should immediately be dropped after two consecutive good games, because a third will inevitably be beyond them.

I do sometimes wonder what might have happened if Ben Foden had stuck with scrum half, or Kyle Eastmond had been assigned the role when he came to Union.

Robson looks the best bet. He has looked the best balanced nine in the last few months.

Care, Simpson then Youngs/Robson is the order of best 9s. Care is much quicker and has a pass that finds his target. Box kicks a little too far sometimes but that's his only fault.

Simpson is just very quick at everything he does and his cover tackling reminds me of Wilkinson. He kept Robson firmly in second spot at Wasps.

Youngs can't actually pass very well. He throws loopy passes, passes behind his target and always takes 3 steps across the field to allow the defence to come up. His box kicking however, is very good.

Robson looks good and is worth dropping Youngs to give him game time if we were down to 3rd/4th choice.

Simpson was the incumbent, and was playing very well before his injury, but Robson just looks to be the far better rounded scrum half.

Simpson is pretty much ideal as an impact scrum half, but to me its no coincidence that Gopperth suddenly looks a much better player with Robson than he did earlier this season

I'd take Care, Youngs and Robson on tour, with a view to Robson getting off the bench in at least one of the tests, shame there's not a midweek game too

Coaches apparently met up yesterday to discuss the squad for Aus, with the Times suggesting it may just be 33 people.

If 33 is the magic number then my bets are on...

1.Marler, Mako, Mullan
2.Hartley, George (Taylor if JG doesn't make it), LCD
3.Cole, Brookes, Hill
4.Itoje, Launchbury
5.Kruis, Lawes
6.Robshaw, Ewers
7.Haskell, Clifford
8.Billy V

9.Youngs, Care, Robson
10.Farrell, Ford

11.Nowell, Yarde
12.Manu, Slade
13.Joseph, Daly
14.Watson, Ashton
15.Brown, Goode

Injury stand by: Waller, Taylor (Haywood), Thomas, Slater, Kvesic, Morgan, Simpson, Cips, Devoto, Hill, Roko/Wade, Pennell?

Apparently Hartley is being considered by Saints for this weekend - given how bad his concussion sounded I wasn't expecting to see him again this season. Hopefully he finds form otherwise hooker is a real issue.

Judging by the 6 Nations squad and injury replacements chosen that seems a decent bet.

“Te’o is a possible. Potentially we are going to have three world-class options at 12: Manu Tuilagi, Te’o and Owen Farrell,” Jones told The Mirror.
“The boy can play. He was an absolutely outstanding rugby league player. You don’t want to run down his channel when he is defending at 12.”

This kind of comment worries me.

Neither Manu or Owen Farrell looked close on the weekend. I know Farrell was at 10 but that's his better position!

Please can we not pick a NZ journeyman in the centres. England have already done that twice with minimal success.

Te'o would still require permission to play for England on tour as well as he hasn't yet played in England. Why he would be considered for this but players like Armitage haven't in the past is beyond me. Maybe this is Jones line in the sand to say he'll pick anyone, leading to a mass exodus to France.

The best news is the Aussie mind games have started already - a sure sign they are concerned. M Lynagh is talking up England's chances of a 3-0 win, with the almost obligatory reference to Eddie Jones recognising and restoring England's natural arrogance. Y-A-W-N.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Te'o would still require permission to play for England on tour as well as he hasn't yet played in England. Why he would be considered for this but players like Armitage haven't in the past is beyond me. Maybe this is Jones line in the sand to say he'll pick anyone, leading to a mass exodus to France.

I read that if his new contract with Wuss starts on June 1st (rather than July 1st as currently planned) that will be ok.

Oh joy.

beshocked wrote:“Te’o is a possible. Potentially we are going to have three world-class options at 12: Manu Tuilagi, Te’o and Owen Farrell,” Jones told The Mirror.
“The boy can play. He was an absolutely outstanding rugby league player. You don’t want to run down his channel when he is defending at 12.”

This kind of comment worries me.

Neither Manu or Owen Farrell looked close on the weekend. I know Farrell was at 10 but that's his better position!

Please can we not pick a NZ journeyman in the centres. England have already done that twice with minimal success.

If you ignore the RL bit we have Hape Flutey Paul in the centers that I can think of (Jamie Salmon too at a stretch) and Vainikolo on the wing. Flutey was pretty good for the 5 minutes we got out of him. Hape was sort of adequate and the least said about Paul and Vainikolo the better.

If we were looking at RL players who got a fast route to playing for England then the list is a lot longer and with a couple of exceptions really awful.

beshocked wrote:“Te’o is a possible. Potentially we are going to have three world-class options at 12: Manu Tuilagi, Te’o and Owen Farrell,” Jones told The Mirror.
“The boy can play. He was an absolutely outstanding rugby league player. You don’t want to run down his channel when he is defending at 12.”

This kind of comment worries me.

Neither Manu or Owen Farrell looked close on the weekend. I know Farrell was at 10 but that's his better position!

Please can we not pick a NZ journeyman in the centres. England have already done that twice with minimal success.

If that's the criteria then just put Haskell at 12??!!

Hape & Flutey were good options at the time. If Teo is better than we have, I can't see the issue.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

beshocked wrote:“Te’o is a possible. Potentially we are going to have three world-class options at 12: Manu Tuilagi, Te’o and Owen Farrell,” Jones told The Mirror.
“The boy can play. He was an absolutely outstanding rugby league player. You don’t want to run down his channel when he is defending at 12.”

This kind of comment worries me.

Neither Manu or Owen Farrell looked close on the weekend. I know Farrell was at 10 but that's his better position!

Please can we not pick a NZ journeyman in the centres. England have already done that twice with minimal success.

If that's the criteria then just put Haskell at 12??!!

Or Barritt.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Hape & Flutey were good options at the time. If Teo is better than we have, I can't see the issue.

From what I have seen of him in RU, he is not. He barely featured against Wasps admittedly - a brief introduction from the bench in the 50 point thrashing, while against Bath he was a bit meh at the Rec whilst much bbetter in dublin - though with 63% possession for Leinster it is hard to say he was anything other than the 3rd best centre on display. He had starts at 12 and 13.


My real issue is that if we take Teo it is a punt as there is minimal evidence. If we are going to take such a punt I would rather we do it on someone who isn't in their 30th year.

Suspect it might be IF it is 33
1) Vunipola, Mullan, Marler
2) Hartley, Gorge/Taylor, Cowan Dickie
3) Cole, Brookes, Hill
4) Itoje, Slater (Although this IS personal preferance)
5) kruis, Launchbury
6) Robshaw, Ewers
7) Haskell, Clifford
8) Vunipola
9) Youngs, Care, Robson
10) Faz, Ford,
11) Nowell, Ashton (ewww)
12) Manu, Te'o
13) JJ, Daly
14) Watson, Yarde
15) Brown, Goode

Saxons which is apparently purely development
1) Waller, Auterac
2) Taylor, Heywood, Thacker
3) Thomas, Sinkler, Cooper-Wooley
4) Barrow, Ermm Robinson (To please the falcons lot)
5) Kitchener, Gaskell
6) Gibson, Wallace
7) Kvesic,
8) Harrison, Morgan
9) Harrison, Cook
10) Cips, Slade (although if happened will prob play 12/13 really)
11) Wade, Roko/Walker
12) Hill, Devoto
13) James, Thompkins
14) Lewington, Addison
15) Haley, Hammersley

assuming rumours of the 2 U20 players (Mallinder and Williams) and the sevens player (Simpson) are true as well.

I reckon they could be the sides touring TBH.

Slade and Te'o could be swapped with Devoto covering 10.

LondonTiger wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Hape & Flutey were good options at the time. If Teo is better than we have, I can't see the issue.

From what I have seen of him in RU, he is not. He barely featured against Wasps admittedly - a brief introduction from the bench in the 50 point thrashing, while against Bath he was a bit meh at the Rec whilst much bbetter in dublin - though with 63% possession for Leinster it is hard to say he was anything other than the 3rd best centre on display. He had starts at 12 and 13.


My real issue is that if we take Teo it is a punt as there is minimal evidence. If we are going to take such a punt I would rather we do it on someone who isn't in their 30th year.

Isn't he 30 next year?

here is an interesting Article on Te'o
http://www.rugbyworld.com/news/analysis-eddie-jones-see-ben-teo-55681

GeordieFalcon wrote:

beshocked wrote:“Te’o is a possible. Potentially we are going to have three world-class options at 12: Manu Tuilagi, Te’o and Owen Farrell,” Jones told The Mirror.
“The boy can play. He was an absolutely outstanding rugby league player. You don’t want to run down his channel when he is defending at 12.”

This kind of comment worries me.

Neither Manu or Owen Farrell looked close on the weekend. I know Farrell was at 10 but that's his better position!

Please can we not pick a NZ journeyman in the centres. England have already done that twice with minimal success.

If that's the criteria then just put Haskell at 12??!!

Pretty sure Jones would have liked to have had Sam Burgess still around.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Te'o would still require permission to play for England on tour as well as he hasn't yet played in England. Why he would be considered for this but players like Armitage haven't in the past is beyond me. Maybe this is Jones line in the sand to say he'll pick anyone, leading to a mass exodus to France.

Has he (Te'o) ever been a registered player in England?

Welly wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Hape & Flutey were good options at the time. If Teo is better than we have, I can't see the issue.

From what I have seen of him in RU, he is not. He barely featured against Wasps admittedly - a brief introduction from the bench in the 50 point thrashing, while against Bath he was a bit meh at the Rec whilst much bbetter in dublin - though with 63% possession for Leinster it is hard to say he was anything other than the 3rd best centre on display. He had starts at 12 and 13.


My real issue is that if we take Teo it is a punt as there is minimal evidence. If we are going to take such a punt I would rather we do it on someone who isn't in their 30th year.

Isn't he 30 next year?

Indeed, and the day after his 30th birthday he will be in his 31st year

True he is "only" 29, but used the 30th year tag (which is correct) to highlight he is no spring chicken. Add in that he has yet to complete a full season as he only arrived at Leinster last year after the Grand Final.

Eddie will do whatever he wants - just for me taking a risk on a guy who has played so little Union and has minimal affiliation to English rugby and who will be almost 33 come the next WC is not worth taking.

"If we are going to take such a punt I would rather we do it on someone who isn't in their 30th year."

Some people still don't get it. Eddie wants to win and if a 50 year old was the best player we had for the next game he would pick him. The old adage "one game at a time" really is true.

Picking the best players available at the time for your next match is quite a good philosophy. If you want to actually win that is. If you just want to plss around choosing tom, dick and harry because they look nice in a new rugby cap then you are unlikely to win.

Some level of forward planning must surely come into it. Given he's not even sure Te'o qualifies for the tour and hasn't played in England it would be better to leave it til next season.

englandglory4ever wrote:"If we are going to take such a punt I would rather we do it on someone who isn't in their 30th year."

Some people still don't get it. Eddie wants to win and if a 50 year old was the best player we had for the next game he would pick him. The old adage "one game at a time" really is true.

Picking the best players available at the time for your next match is quite a good philosophy. If you want to actually win that is. If you just want to plss around choosing tom, dick and harry because they look nice in a new rugby cap then you are unlikely to win.

And you still do not get it.

Te'o has done nothing in RU to show he is worthy of a spot. Te'o has done nothing in Union to suggest he is the best player available. Therefore it is a gamble. It is not a case of selecting the best player, it is a gamble with exceedingly limited information. Certainly matches against English clubs have not gone so well for Te'o so far this season.

Has anybody who watches him week in week out have an opinion?

It's hard to gauge a player on 2/3 games.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Has anybody who watches him week in week out have an opinion?

It's hard to gauge a player on 2/3 games.

The only positives I have seen are the article linked above somewhere, some (maybe just one) quotes about being highly rated at Leinster and of course references to his stellar career in RL.

I tend to find the Leinster stuff confusing and looked around this website to see if I could get any pointers. I thought it was interesting that when someone posted that he was likely to be leaving there were no replies at all.

I am with LT on this - and also go with the old line about extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. He might be very special and to be honest I don't have a problem with how he qualifies - but he hasn't yet done anything of note in RU.

Just a quick dig I found this from the Irish Times

Undoubtedly Leinster will miss Te’o’s physical presence in the centre and with Ringrose outside him, the two cut very dissimilar figures in terms of their style, Te’o a strong ball carrier, Ringrose a stepping elusive runner.
But with Henshaw arriving Leinster will be filling the hole with a better player than the Australian. That, at least is what the refreshingly candid Te’o believes.

Same source - interview with Les Kiss

Kiss spoke at length of Leinster’s defensive strengths, or as he put it their “guts”, and their ability to fill the line and pick their moments to poach. Interestingly, the player he first singled out was the departing Ben Te’o.
“You have to take your hat off to what Ben Te’o gives them. He certainly leads the line for them. He gives them a bit of thrust and momentum. He’s certainly a player that’s also blossomed again this year and generated interest overseas obviously and is heading away, but he’s been delivering for them and that’s been a good plus for them.”

I hope Eddie Jones has watched more than 2/3 ECC games with Te'o, and if he has and thinks he's the best option available to him, then that's that for me. He might be wrong in his appraisal, but if that's his honest opinion then he should pick him regardless of age, qualification status or time in the country. After all, the All Blacks just won the World Cup with a 33 year old inside centre, so 33 definitely won't be too old in 2019.

He's got 36 Union appearances to date which is more than the handful Sam Burgess had (and his were split between two positions). In his first season, he played knock-out European rugby with Leinster (full games in the QF and SF), so they obviously think he's at least "not too bad". I have no problem with him being picked, it's not like we are leaving out a proven and/or outstanding performer for him.

Is Te'o the best option? I don't know. Would picking him be an unforgivable travesty? Definitely not.

If Te'o is selected and plays well, then I will admit he was good enough. Still will not agree with his selection though. For me, if the International game is to mean anything, then I want to feel that the players selected represent the English game. I will always believe it is wrong that players can be parachuted into an international side in this way. I thought the John Hardie case was a farce, and feel the same here.

Not persoanlly bothered if he's the next coming of Christ. He should really be playing in the prem before he's involved with England.

You can't compare him and Brugeess at all TBH.

Burgess was a League forward who didn't have a clue where he was playing.

Te'o wasn't rushed in his first season playing 13 games (947 Minutes) and this season has started in 21 games and played 1577 minutes.

I can see Eddie's logic TBH.

LondonTiger wrote:If Te'o is selected and plays well, then I will admit he was good enough. Still will not agree with his selection though. For me, if the International game is to mean anything, then I want to feel that the players selected represent the English game. I will always believe it is wrong that players can be parachuted into an international side in this way. I thought the John Hardie case was a farce, and feel the same here.

TBF to Te'o his mum was born in England with an English family so i wouldn't class it as the same as say Hardie.