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)

My opinion is if a player has represented a national side at any sport, he should not be able to play for another country under any circumstances, regardless of where his parents/grandparents were born

Te'o represented Samoa in RL, that should be his only option in RU

Welly wrote: 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.

One thing they do have in common is that they both played for South Sydney.

BamBam wrote:My opinion is if a player has represented a national side at any sport, he should not be able to play for another country under any circumstances, regardless of where his parents/grandparents were born

Te'o represented Samoa in RL, that should be his only option in RU

It's a perfectly valid opinion - one I happen to agree with (particularly RL vs RU). Sadly not currently catered for in the rules.

Well, Neal Hatley is going on tour - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/36160873

BamBam wrote:My opinion is if a player has represented a national side at any sport, he should not be able to play for another country under any circumstances, regardless of where his parents/grandparents were born

Te'o represented Samoa in RL, that should be his only option in RU

Why? and What if he switches code and his "original" country didnt have a National team in that sport?

AUkland Laurie

Then that can be addressed in that situation.

As it happens I to agree with the above statement.

Players like Henry Paul, Hape etc all represented NZ in rugby league and they should not be able to switch to England because they switch codes. Its farcical.

Teo should have to play for Samoa in Union.

Those rules are a mockery.

And I stressed this many a time before speaking about Brad Thorn just chopping and changing when he felt like it.

There's a lot of areas of grey in qualification. Someone like Hughes pushes poeples acceptance, Te'o a bit more. In general it does need reviewing by WR.

Hughes is a real bug bear for me. Even though its England who will benefit from it...I hate the idea.

He should be playing for Fiji!

Hughes is worse than Te'o in terms of criteria

Gets to play on a technicality.

Welly wrote: Hughes is worse than Te'o in terms of criteria

Gets to play on a technicality.

technicality as in residency?

It's not a technicality, it's the how the residency rules are set out. It's the same for everyone, we're not getting any preferential treatment.

unless he was on the bench for Fiji/NZ etc and never got on the field?

I think you should declare your allegiance when you sign your first pro-deal, you can only declare for a team you are currently qualified for, but you can move down a tier if you don't get capped by the country you declared for.

Example 1: Anyone who gets brought over to England on a pro-contract would immediately be ineligible unless they already qualify for England, as they won't be able to declare for England.

Example 2: Someone who came to England as a kid or on an amateur deal could qualify through residency and then declare for England, and therefore "naturalised" foreign-born players who came over at a young age could play (Tuilagi, Vunipolas, Hartley), as well as those cases like Fourie who came over and played amateur rugby before developing late, but others like Flutey or Hughes would have had to declare their allegiance before they qualified for England.

Example 3: A player such as Tom Johnson, who qualifies for England and Germany, would be able to declare for England from a young age and strive to get into the England team. Had it not worked out for Johnson, he would then have been free to change his declaration and declare for Germany as they are a tier below. This ruling is a bit of a double-edged sword in that it may encourage the young players to declare for the tier 1 nation and give it a go, as they will always have the safety net, but I would say more are likely to do this anyway, and therefore allowing them to go back on their decision would be beneficial to the smaller nations.

Just make residency 5 years instead of 3. It would make pros think twice and 5 years is usually beyond a single contract. Oh and you must declare you want residency for country x meaning your home country can't tempt you back... i.e. you must immediately burn your bridges.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:It's not a technicality, it's the how the residency rules are set out. It's the same for everyone, we're not getting any preferential treatment.

In the fact he was vice cpatain of the Fiji warriors team already and played for them.

Just becuase it wasn't against another teams 2nd nominated team.

"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.."

I didn't say he was. I've never seen the bloke so wouldn't recognise him in a lift. My point is about his age. Because he is 29 it is not a reason not to pick him IF he was considered to be the best available.

fa0019 wrote:Just make residency 5 years instead of 3. It would make pros think twice and 5 years is usually beyond a single contract. Oh and you must declare you want residency for country x meaning your home country can't tempt you back... i.e. you must immediately burn your bridges.

I agree FA, I think that simple action would fix quite a bit of what we complain about.

1) Increase residency to 5 years
2)No cross code nation changing
3)No grandparent rule

You would still have some issues, but changing those would fix quite a lot of the issues.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Just make residency 5 years instead of 3. It would make pros think twice and 5 years is usually beyond a single contract. Oh and you must declare you want residency for country x meaning your home country can't tempt you back... i.e. you must immediately burn your bridges.

I agree FA, I think that simple action would fix quite a bit of what we complain about.

1) Increase residency to 5 years
2)No cross code nation changing
3)No grandparent rule

You would still have some issues, but changing those would fix quite a lot of the issues.  

I think the cross code thing is fine. In the end its a different sport. So few make it to test rugby in both and only a handful have done so. I also think its far less likely today and in the future then yesteryear, the game is moving on so much that ex. league chaps find it tough to adapt.

I'm sort of on the fence over the grandparent rule. It probably should be scrapped. ... but how else would Scotland remain competitive over Tonga, Japan, Fiji, Georgia etc???

Manu's tweaked something or other again, along with his broken heart and bruised ego that's probably him done for a few months

Well in that case Teo's on the plane!

GeordieFalcon wrote:Well in that case Teo's on the plane!

I hope not. The U20s do not look like doing a lot this year even with their best players, squad overall is very young.

Bring in Prince Harry, he has all the skills of Teo and more, plus he can provide the alternative kicker.

With him and Daly competing for who can place kick the longest we will soon be looking at kicking from the 22, both have monster boots.

Mallinder is a long way off being ready for Int rugby.

But the experience would do him a lot more good than the U20s, if he was a kiwi or an Aussie, they would have had him training with the squad already and tested him in practise to see if he could step up. North was a revelation at a younger age with a similar number of games, warts and all.

It is all about faith in ability and seeing if they can make that jump

Well it all depends on Eddie.

I actually trust him. Theres a few people I would have in the squad that he probably wont ....but hey he won the grand slam. Hes got them playing physical upfront.

He Haskell playing brutal etc - something we all wanted to see.

So I cant complain too much. I look forward to seeing how he develops the side.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Mallinder is a long way off being ready for Int rugby.

I agree Prince Harry (future England and Lions captain) is not quite ready. But soon. Oh so soon.

So Kvesic put a big marker down yesterday with another huge game....and today Temeena Harrison has put yet another marker down.

That back row selection dilemma is going to be huge for Eddie Jones.

Harrison definitely putting himself in the mix on today's performance. Maybe the Haskell with a brain we've been looking for?

6.Robshaw, Ewers
7.Haskell, Clifford
8.Vunipola

That's pretty much nailed on for the back row it feels. If so it leaves room for 1 more. Jones has stated that he views Clifford as a possible 8 long term so there's every chance that he will use Ewers/Clifford to cover Billy and take another 7 instead.

Kvesic was injury cover for the 6 Nations so he has a foot in the door. Harrison on the other hand offers much more ball in hand which is what Jones cited as the reason for Kvesic not getting a look in.

Underhill is the other outside bet for a squad place but I'd prefer him with the Saxons.

Is Ewers nailed on? I don't think he is.

Underhill and Harrison are really exciting option, rate both really highly. Harrison seems to offer that physicality and speed that Jones seems to like.

Jones selected Ewers for the 6 Nations EPS despite knowing he wouldn't be back from injury until half way through and probably being aware he wouldn't have the fitness to feature before the end of the tournament. He's also spoken pretty openly about thinking that Ewers can add something to the back row we don't currently have - personally I'm yet to be convinced this season.

I'd say that it's very likely he'll be on the plane by virtue of having been around the squad already and Jones clearly being interested in getting a closer look at him.

Yea, possibly.

I'm very unconvinced with Ewers, especially for Aus. He's very ponderous and doesn't carry for his size.

Harrison may well be putting himself in a must pick situation. Hes similar to Clifford in that he's flexible (covers all the back row spots) is a carrier, jackals well... the Robshaw enhanced mk 2

king_carlos wrote:6.Robshaw, Ewers
7.Haskell, Clifford
8.Vunipola

That's pretty much nailed on for the back row it feels. If so it leaves room for 1 more. Jones has stated that he views Clifford as a possible 8 long term so there's every chance that he will use Ewers/Clifford to cover Billy and take another 7 instead.

Kvesic was injury cover for the 6 Nations so he has a foot in the door. Harrison on the other hand offers much more ball in hand which is what Jones cited as the reason for Kvesic not getting a look in.

Underhill is the other outside bet for a squad place but I'd prefer him with the Saxons.

From what I've seen of Harrison he's the best English qualified backrow in the country (with the possible exception of Vunipola). I like Clifford but Harrison is miles ahead of him now.

With Harrison, Underhill, and Hughes having become real options over the course of the season, and with Kvesic improving, Clifford with massive potential and Ewers fit, the backrow is becoming a real area of strength for England.

I'd like to see Underhill, Harrison, Vunipola, given a go. Massive physicality and excellent breakdown skills. Clifford would probably be my bench option because of his versatility.

I was really impressed with what I saw of Harrison yesterday.

Harrison seems to have it all which is rare. He's arguably been the form backrow in the PL this season, Jones must be having a close look.

I reckon it might be

6) Haskell (Jones likes him for some reason), Ewers
7) Harrison, Clifford
8) Vunipola

I've never quite seen what Ewers offers? Been very ordinary compared to standouts like Harrison and Vunipola and not as good as the reliable but unspectacular Robshaw and Haskell.

Sadly since the 6Ns Clifford's been pretty off form, just seems to drop out of games and give away a lot of silly pens. Does some good things too and there's hints of the player he could be, but for me it's at least a season too soon for him to be a regular international.

My backrow order of preference would be:

6. Haskell
7. Robshaw
8. Vunipola

20. Harrison

Harrison's been a stand out all season, covers the back row and is a beast but with good jackal technique, knows his way to the try line too.

After him I'd have Kvesic or Wallace over Clifford. Clifford needs a full pre season, to gain some weight, work on his power game and begin to think if he's an 8 or 7.

Hughes, Billy, Harrison. That's the best England could field once Hughes is qualified. Haskell on the bench.

sod it lets go with

1) Vunipola
2) Hartley
3) Who cares
4) Williams
5) Lees
6) Hughes
7) Harrison
8) Vunipola

That pack sums up the issue with some of the ridiculous qualification criteria (granny rule and mere 3 year residency) also clouding fans views of players who I'd think most won't have an issue with representing England.

Vunipolas - Been in the UK since they were small children

Hartley - Moved to England with his family at 16 and represented England school boys

Harrison - Lived in the UK since he was 18/19 I believe and father is English

Compared to:

Williams - Only moved here in 2013 on a pro contract, played all his age grade stuff in South Africa and held contracts with the Sharks and Bulls. Qualifies through granny rule.

Hughes - Has only lived in England since 2013 and was vice-captain of the Fiji Warriors in the Pacific Rugby Cup in 2013. Will qualify through 3 year residency.

Lees - Only lived in the UK since 2013. Qualifies through granny rule.

PS: That's a general point rather than any assumption or analysis of your views on the issue Welly!

TBH I was just making a pack of player not born in England.

Wasn't really reflecting my views TBH although they are 100% same as yours.

Although I feel for players like Williams abit as Zimbabwae wouldn't of been the best of places to want to play rugby in esp for a white person, I guess it depends if he has more of a link with SA or England, I don't think he has any relatives from SA and he didn't play for SA age grade rugby teams I think, although captained sharks age grade team and he only spent 3/4 years there I think playing youth/pro rugby.

Bleh let's not go over this merry-go-round again. Qualification is what it is.

Let's take our best squad to beat Aus, no resting players or any of that nonsense. Fast, skillful players that can beat defenders, good breakdown technicians across the pack.

Vunipola, Hartley, Cole
Itoje, Kruis
Harrison, Vunipola, Clifford
Care
Walker, Farrell, Slade, JJ, Nowell
Watson

Only half-joking with Walker, he's a class act, one of the few EQP wingers that looks for space and *makes* tries. Realistically Wade deserves a proper shot.

Would have Lewington ahead of Walker aswell.

Welly wrote: TBH I was just making a pack of player not born in England.

Wasn't really reflecting my views TBH although they are 100% same as yours.

Although I feel for players like Williams abit as Zimbabwae wouldn't of been the best of places to want to play rugby in esp for a white person, I guess it depends if he has more of a link with SA or England, I don't think he has any relatives from SA and he didn't play for SA age grade rugby teams I think, although captained sharks age grade team and he only spent 3/4 years there I think playing youth/pro rugby.

The constraint of rugby development to a very few countries does produce a difficult problem for certain players. I can't comment on the circumstances under which Williams left Zimbabwae, or if he has family in SA.

David Pococks story brings an interesting case to light with his family moving from Zim due to threats from the government after the announcement they were seizing white owned farms. Pocock was 12 when he moved so no-one, rightly, takes issue with him representing Aus. Had he moved at a later age though it would have presented an interesting case and an example of where the rules may on occasion need some flexibility.

As mid_gen says though this issue has been done to death now.

yappysnap wrote:Sadly since the 6Ns Clifford's been pretty off form, just seems to drop out of games and give away a lot of silly pens. Does some good things too and there's hints of the player he could be, but for me it's at least a season too soon for him to be a regular international.

My backrow order of preference would be:

6. Haskell
7. Robshaw
8. Vunipola

20. Harrison

Harrison's been a stand out all season, covers the back row and is a beast but with good jackal technique, knows his way to the try line too.

After him I'd have Kvesic or Wallace over Clifford. Clifford needs a full pre season, to gain some weight, work on his power game and begin to think if he's an 8 or 7.

BT put up some backrow stats, and Clifford really doesn't get many turnovers. It is certainly difficult to imagine him currently starting at 7

Ewers was excellent against Wasps, where-as the much vaunted (correctly) Wasps backrow all struggled.

I just hope that Jones gives whoever he takes (Clifford, Ewers, Kvesic, Harrison, etc) a chance in more than just the mid week game to see what they can do. Robshaw, Haskell and Billy have played a lot of rugby and ideally will need a break. With Billy this is very difficult as he's a long way ahead of the other options. On the flank we can realistically experiment away from Robshaw and Haskell though. Especially on quicker pitches in Aus.

6.Robshaw 7.Clifford/Kvesic/Harrison 8.Billy

6.Ewers/Clifford 7.Haskell 8.Billy

I'd be happy to see combinations like that tried with as many back row as possible who travel getting a chance. If the 33 man squad is correct then there will only be 5 or at max 6 back row players taken, giving 5 guys a chance across 3 tests is not a ridiculous proposition.

king_carlos wrote:

Welly wrote: TBH I was just making a pack of player not born in England.

Wasn't really reflecting my views TBH although they are 100% same as yours.

Although I feel for players like Williams abit as Zimbabwae wouldn't of been the best of places to want to play rugby in esp for a white person, I guess it depends if he has more of a link with SA or England, I don't think he has any relatives from SA and he didn't play for SA age grade rugby teams I think, although captained sharks age grade team and he only spent 3/4 years there I think playing youth/pro rugby.

The constraint of rugby development to a very few countries does produce a difficult problem for certain players. I can't comment on the circumstances under which Williams left Zimbabwae, or if he has family in SA.

David Pococks story brings an interesting case to light with his family moving from Zim due to threats from the government after the announcement they were seizing white owned farms. Pocock was 12 when he moved so no-one, rightly, takes issue with him representing Aus. Had he moved at a later age though it would have presented an interesting case and an example of where the rules may on occasion need some flexibility.

As mid_gen says though this issue has been done to death now.

It has....but its still not fixed so will still keep coming up..

king_carlos wrote:I just hope that Jones gives whoever he takes (Clifford, Ewers, Kvesic, Harrison, etc) a chance in more than just the mid week game to see what they can do. Robshaw, Haskell and Billy have played a lot of rugby and ideally will need a break. With Billy this is very difficult as he's a long way ahead of the other options. On the flank we can realistically experiment away from Robshaw and Haskell though. Especially on quicker pitches in Aus.

6.Robshaw 7.Clifford/Kvesic/Harrison 8.Billy

6.Ewers/Clifford 7.Haskell 8.Billy

I'd be happy to see combinations like that tried with as many back row as possible who travel getting a chance. If the 33 man squad is correct then there will only be 5 or at max 6 back row players taken, giving 5 guys a chance across 3 tests is not a ridiculous proposition.

Harrison and Clifford can play 8. We'll probably see one of them there for one of the games. Ewers (if he tours) is an 8, but im not convinced he will now. Harrison has probably taken his place.

And i increasingly don't think Kvesic will tour either.

DaveM wrote:

yappysnap wrote:Sadly since the 6Ns Clifford's been pretty off form, just seems to drop out of games and give away a lot of silly pens. Does some good things too and there's hints of the player he could be, but for me it's at least a season too soon for him to be a regular international.

My backrow order of preference would be:

6. Haskell
7. Robshaw
8. Vunipola

20. Harrison

Harrison's been a stand out all season, covers the back row and is a beast but with good jackal technique, knows his way to the try line too.

After him I'd have Kvesic or Wallace over Clifford. Clifford needs a full pre season, to gain some weight, work on his power game and begin to think if he's an 8 or 7.

BT put up some backrow stats, and Clifford really doesn't get many turnovers. It is certainly difficult to imagine him currently starting at 7

Ewers was excellent against Wasps, where-as the much vaunted (correctly) Wasps backrow all struggled.

Exactly. Taken me a long time to determine why EJ sees him as a successor in the England backrow to be honest. I really don't think he's a 7 at all. To me, he's a 6 that can play 8, and a 7 in emergencies. Happy to be corrected if a Quins fan disagrees, but there must be something I'm not seeing. Kvesic, if he can concede fewer penalties, and Harrison, are the better openside options at the minute.