England vs Italy

First topic message reminder :

28 players that have been kept.

Forwards (16): Jack Clifford (Harlequins), Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers), Charlie Ewels (Bath), Jamie George (Saracens), Teimana Harrison (Northampton Saints), Dylan Hartley (Northampton Saints), James Haskell (Wasps), Nathan Hughes (Wasps), Maro Itoje (Saracens), Joe Launchbury (Wasps), Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints), Joe Marler (Harlequins), Kyle Sinckler (Harlequins), Mako Vunipola (Saracens), Mike Williams (Leicester Tigers), Tom Wood (Northampton Saints)

Backs (12): Mike Brown (Harlequins), Danny Care (Harlequins), Elliot Daly (Wasps), Owen Farrell (Saracens), George Ford (Bath), Jonathan Joseph (Bath), Jonny May (Gloucester), Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs), Henry Slade (Exeter Chiefs), Ben Te’o (Worcester Warriors), Anthony Watson (Bath), Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers)

I think this game will prove there is no more room for the 6 Nations. If Italy lose by 30 points or more against England it should go back to 5 Nations.

SecretFly wrote:England's toughest game is upon them.  Nerves must be growing.

Not throwing in the towel already Fly, are you?

Poorfour wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Do you think that if our much vaunted bench had to play 55-60 minutes rather than 20-25 they may not look so dynamic. Fresh players coming on, knowing they only have 20 minutes to play and can go flat out from the start are bound to look more dynamic than players that have had to pace themselves / have already played 60 minutes.

Being professionals, the pacing may only be a 10% drop off, but very few players, forwards in particular can go flat out from the start, especially as they may have to go all eighty if someone else gets injured.

It's a bigger difference than you might think. One of the Aussie sites - I think it was theroar - did an analysis of starter and bench involvements before the RWC and found that most of the England bench players made about 30-35% more interventions per minute played than the equivalent starters. (The exception was Robshaw, who was putting in a similar workload to a bench player for the whole 80 minutes - and Pocock does about 20% more than that, though that was a different article).

Given those stats, it's hardly surprising that bench players look impressive - but the skill is in picking players who can make those interventions count. I'm comfortable with Youngs starting ahead of Care, for instance, because later in the game Care's quick taps and breaks are more likely to come off than against a fresh defence. Likewise, I think Hartley-George has more impact overall than George-Hartley.

As you say, bigger difference than I thought. I like the idea of having a bench that can make an impact and for the last 20, improve the side beyond the side that started. To do that you have to pick players that suit the tactic, Care is an obvious example; England bring on the likes of Haskell or Teo, they are going to inroads into the opposition defence more so than Wood or probably Ford, against a tiring defence, Care's pace over 15m can be game changing.

Haskell can play very well over 80 minutes when fully fit, he is very aggressive in attack and makes big hits in defence, but he doesn't cover the ground like Wood or Robshaw or clean up the dross we always seem to generate. As an impact player he is superb and I would be tempted to keep him that way, especially with the likes of Zach Mercer and Underhill coming through.

beshocked wrote:When he's off the pitch, the players are stronger

Not necessarily. When he's off the pitch the players look stronger because the other team is weaker.

beshocked wrote:Also it's only tired bodies that make the players off the bench look good - well we don't know that... if you decide not to start players.

George is building up a very good case to start, but then again, so is Hartley. It would be disingenuous to play down the captain's contribution to the winning streak.

I personally wouldn't have made Hartley captain, I would have started George last 6 Nations, and I would have considered swapping Hartley for George at the start of every series since. I think George is going to be our number one hooker in the next World Cup, and I think when his time comes he'll be a great International hooker. But currently Jones and Hartley are doing something right, and pointing to George making more carries/minute or tackles/minute or saying England scored more points in the last 20 aren't good enough arguments to displace him.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Do you think that if our much vaunted bench had to play 55-60 minutes rather than 20-25 they may not look so dynamic. Fresh players coming on, knowing they only have 20 minutes to play and can go flat out from the start are bound to look more dynamic than players that have had to pace themselves / have already played 60 minutes.

Being professionals, the pacing may only be a 10% drop off, but very few players, forwards in particular can go flat out from the start, especially as they may have to go all eighty if someone else gets injured.

It's a bigger difference than you might think. One of the Aussie sites - I think it was theroar - did an analysis of starter and bench involvements before the RWC and found that most of the England bench players made about 30-35% more interventions per minute played than the equivalent starters. (The exception was Robshaw, who was putting in a similar workload to a bench player for the whole 80 minutes - and Pocock does about 20% more than that, though that was a different article).

Given those stats, it's hardly surprising that bench players look impressive - but the skill is in picking players who can make those interventions count. I'm comfortable with Youngs starting ahead of Care, for instance, because later in the game Care's quick taps and breaks are more likely to come off than against a fresh defence. Likewise, I think Hartley-George has more impact overall than George-Hartley.

As you say, bigger difference than I thought. I like the idea of having a bench that can make an impact and for the last 20, improve the side beyond the side that started. To do that you have to pick players that suit the tactic, Care is an obvious example; England bring on the likes of Haskell or Teo, they are going to inroads into the opposition defence more so than Wood or probably Ford, against a tiring defence, Care's pace over 15m  can be game changing.

Haskell can play very well over 80 minutes when fully fit, he is very aggressive in attack and makes big hits in defence, but he doesn't cover the ground like Wood or Robshaw or clean up the dross we always seem to generate. As an impact player he is superb and I would be tempted to keep him that way, especially with the likes of Zach Mercer and Underhill coming through.

I think part of it if you're starting pack is:

Marler, Hartley, Cole, Launchbury, Itoje, Lawes, Clifford, Hughes.

Itoje and Hughes are probably your main carriers in the tight, Launchbury and Lawes will get through tons of tackles while Clifford is your breakdown threat, link man and the guy you want in wider channels.

You're asking Marler, Hartley and Cole to dominate the set piece, be the second guys there, the guy clearing the ruck, the guy assisting the tackle or slowing the ball down, the guys standing at post to stop the breaks round the ruck. The donkey work, but not the thing that wins many plaudits.

You then make 4 subs and have the following team finish:

Mullan, George, Sinckler, Launchbury, Itoje, Lawes, Haskell,, Hughes.

Launchbury, Itoje, Lawes and Hughes are going to be tired, you aren't going to get as many carriers or as many tackles out of them. You're relying on your fresh legs to pick up some of the slack, to make some extra carries and tackles, while your other guys might do more of the support work.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Also worth having a think about how NZs  bench often comes on and looks a shade above their starters pretty consistently. It doesn't always follow that if those players started they would have the same impact. Looking forward to Sunday anyway.

This. NZ don't have better players on the bench. They just have equally good players on the bench and when they come on for tired players, when the other team are bringing on second choice players they make the difference. England's player base is finally really making an impact on 80 minute performances.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Also worth having a think about how NZs  bench often comes on and looks a shade above their starters pretty consistently. It doesn't always follow that if those players started they would have the same impact. Looking forward to Sunday anyway.

And this is the point. Like it or not NZ, not Wales, not France, NZ is the benchmark.

Are we close to them? Not by a long chalk, however there is still definitely room for improvement, especially in the backs. However the current squad is far from unbeatable and a loss against either Scotland or Ireland is a very real possibility.

Another step up will be required to challenge NZ, especially with our understanding and execution with ball in hand. Far to often we still take the ball into contact one out and fail to understand how to create or see space and how to execute the opportunities. As I say this will require another step up and this is why we have to challenge the players and why we should be hyper critical of their failings.

Why aren't we near them by a long chalk? I'd say we're 2nd and closing. What is apparent is constant changes to a team isn't the best way to improve.

I don't think we're that far off NZ, I think it's pretty sad we're not playing them for a while as it would be brilliant to see where we are.

Personally I have a feeling that if we end up in a tight game against Scotland our narrow game luck will run out and theirs will come in and we'll lose.

robbo277 wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Do you think that if our much vaunted bench had to play 55-60 minutes rather than 20-25 they may not look so dynamic. Fresh players coming on, knowing they only have 20 minutes to play and can go flat out from the start are bound to look more dynamic than players that have had to pace themselves / have already played 60 minutes.

Being professionals, the pacing may only be a 10% drop off, but very few players, forwards in particular can go flat out from the start, especially as they may have to go all eighty if someone else gets injured.

It's a bigger difference than you might think. One of the Aussie sites - I think it was theroar - did an analysis of starter and bench involvements before the RWC and found that most of the England bench players made about 30-35% more interventions per minute played than the equivalent starters. (The exception was Robshaw, who was putting in a similar workload to a bench player for the whole 80 minutes - and Pocock does about 20% more than that, though that was a different article).

Given those stats, it's hardly surprising that bench players look impressive - but the skill is in picking players who can make those interventions count. I'm comfortable with Youngs starting ahead of Care, for instance, because later in the game Care's quick taps and breaks are more likely to come off than against a fresh defence. Likewise, I think Hartley-George has more impact overall than George-Hartley.

As you say, bigger difference than I thought. I like the idea of having a bench that can make an impact and for the last 20, improve the side beyond the side that started. To do that you have to pick players that suit the tactic, Care is an obvious example; England bring on the likes of Haskell or Teo, they are going to inroads into the opposition defence more so than Wood or probably Ford, against a tiring defence, Care's pace over 15m  can be game changing.

Haskell can play very well over 80 minutes when fully fit, he is very aggressive in attack and makes big hits in defence, but he doesn't cover the ground like Wood or Robshaw or clean up the dross we always seem to generate. As an impact player he is superb and I would be tempted to keep him that way, especially with the likes of Zach Mercer and Underhill coming through.

I think part of it if you're starting pack is:

Marler, Hartley, Cole, Launchbury, Itoje, Lawes, Clifford, Hughes.

Itoje and Hughes are probably your main carriers in the tight, Launchbury and Lawes will get through tons of tackles while Clifford is your breakdown threat, link man and the guy you want in wider channels.

You're asking Marler, Hartley and Cole to dominate the set piece, be the second guys there, the guy clearing the ruck, the guy assisting the tackle or slowing the ball down, the guys standing at post to stop the breaks round the ruck. The donkey work, but not the thing that wins many plaudits.

You then make 4 subs and have the following team finish:

Mullan, George, Sinckler, Launchbury, Itoje, Lawes, Haskell,, Hughes.

Launchbury, Itoje, Lawes and Hughes are going to be tired, you aren't going to get as many carriers or as many tackles out of them. You're relying on your fresh legs to pick up some of the slack, to make some extra carries and tackles, while your other guys might do more of the support work.

This is a great discussion. Also clearly showing how statistics can be interpreted (or misinterpreted). It is very logical the subs, playing for 20 minutes, can go balls-to-the-wall and look better than players going the full 80. I suppose the problem is when the subs don't make more interventions than the starters. Especially amongst the forwards.

Looking at the line-up for Italy, I was rather hoping to see Te'o at 12 outside Farrell and Daly or JJ at 13 with Ford on the bench. Te'o at 12 and Farrell at 10 would be a very different attacking and defensive dynamic. And give us the opportunity to see if Farrell can really be an attacking 10 at this level.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why aren't we near them by a long chalk? I'd say we're  2nd and closing. What is apparent is constant changes to a team isn't the best way to improve.

Why aren't we near them by a long chalk?

Because apart from the 2nd row they're better players than us in all other departments and collectively execute at a level above.

What is apparent is constant changes to a team isn't the best way to improve.

It is obvious that elements of our team are operating at their optimum and others are plainly not. I am suggesting that our back 3 is far below the required standard.

Now with respect, what do you think?

kingelderfield wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Also worth having a think about how NZs  bench often comes on and looks a shade above their starters pretty consistently. It doesn't always follow that if those players started they would have the same impact. Looking forward to Sunday anyway.

And this is the point. Like it or not NZ, not Wales, not France, NZ is the benchmark.

Are we close to them? Not by a long chalk, however there is still definitely room for improvement, especially in the backs. However the current squad is far from unbeatable and a loss against either Scotland or Ireland is a very real possibility.

Another step up will be required to challenge NZ, especially with our understanding and execution with ball in hand. Far to often we still take the ball into contact one out and fail to understand how to create or see space and how to execute the opportunities. As I say this will require another step up and this is why we have to challenge the players and why we should be hyper critical of their failings.  

Hold on a sec. England have played the same teams that NZ have, over the same time period, and England have won more matches in the last year than New Zealand have.

I'm not for a moment claiming that England are better than New Zealand because of that, but "not by a long chalk" is overstating the difference. New Zealand play prettier rugby than England, but England are playing winning rugby all the same. For me, the material difference between the sides is error count. England make more mistakes and New Zealand, more than any other side, would punish them for that.

But that's largely a function of familiarity between players and with the system. That should improve fairly rapidly for England, whereas for NZ it can't get much better. And to be quite honest, I am not sure the players are even aware of your challenging hypercriticality. This isn't democracy. It is a one man, one vote system. Eddie is the man, he's got the only vote that matters to them.

The material difference...material differences; its not simply the comparative error counts or the opposing abilities to capitalize on them.

Our excellent sarries inspired suffocation will only take us so far. Yes we pressure and convert the resultant errant opportunities but we have to be able to create and execute at a far higher level. Collective defense and forward prowess may be enough when allied to total discipline but we will need more if we are going to compete with NZ on more than their off days.

I do think we're the best of the rest, not by a lot but by enough, and we do have a tremendous group of players (when not injured - and there-in lies a tale), plus we have Jones who is the real deal as far as coaches go, but we must learn to expect higher standards of execution if we are to for fill our potential.

The weak critique;

Our front row is ordinary;

Mako was playing to the standard before his injury.
I don't think Marler can make that standard though he is the best of the rest.
Mullan is receding fast and is probably not as good as others; McIntyre amongst others

Hartley is on the outer (for all his mental fortitude) and will not make 2019
George is good but not best in the world (Thompson was best in the world)
Taylor is good/ordinary and probably over pumped hence injury prone
LCD good/ordinary may progress if can maintain form fitness?

Cole has performed at the required standard but is over played and will need to be nursed to make 2019
Sinckler still shows potential though maybe be busted at some point regards technique and ability
Genge is Cole's real challenger and looks to be capable of for filling his potential, should make required standard



2nd row is our strenght

Flank is a real weakness at present, especially considering we're planning towards 2019, that said if Billy returns to something like his pre injury level then that will provide compensation elsewhere
Robshaw, Wood and Haskell will all really struggle to make 2019, leaving us callow and vunerable in this crucial area.
Youngs and Care are both ageing and have not been seriously challenged which is another concern for 2019
Fingers crossed for the current Ford and Farrell combination, they play well together.
Joseph won't regain his 2015 form nor Tuilagi his 2013, Teo is too old.....is Daly the answer? Jones doesn't think so.
Wings have all failed to cement their positions and Brown is only getting older. Wade needs to step up as does Nowell with Daly, Slade and Watson competing for fullback and bench positions. May does not have the required rugby brain to consistently make the standard.

All harsh but fair.

I wouldn't say much of that is fair at all, it's being critical for the sake of being critical.

Marler, though much less of a carrying force, has had a great 6N: I think he adds to different areas than Mako but he is not a lower standard

And Sinckler's scrummaging has only gotten better and fast - I don't think he'll be found out re technique

Genge plays loosehead to Cole's tighthead and thus is hardly his competition

The idea that Haskell and Robshaw will struggle to make 2019 is unfounded -they'll both be fairly reasonable flanker ages

Seems deeply and unjustifiably pessimistic to decide Joseph will never refind his 2015 form. Tuilagi is an injury issue, so I agree that he is likely out of it

The wings stuff is all just sheer rubbish


All harsh, maybe half if that fair

Ha. I'd personally say that the NZ 2nd row is better than ours and at its peak. The problem with picking out individuals as you have and saying see we're miles away is that it's very much a team sport. I've looked at composite teams of England vs anyone for the last 6 years and we rarely have more than 6 players as the opposition always have the 'best' individuals...but we continue to improve as a team.

Familiarity and building partnerships is what it's about. Of course new players will come in pretty gradually and it won't be enough for you king as anyone reading hour posts knows you constantly change who you'd select based on flavour if the month.

Its a team game and at a certain point you have to just focus on what we do and what we can do to improve rather than worry about what the other guy is doing.

I did answer a question on here about how do we get to have players rated the best in the world by saying we just need to keep winning matches. Right now we don't seem to be getting the plaudits but I think if we look back at this team in a few years time we will rate the players more highly.

Worrying about NZ is irrelevant until we actually play them. It is still 15 vs 15 (or 23 vs 23 these days) and they are human and can actually lose matches.

Every dominatnt team in recent years managed to win back to back championships, none managed two GS.

That will be the mark of this England team and a measure of whether the Robinson/Lancaster/Johnson era is truly behind you.

maestegmafia wrote:That will be the mark of this England team and a measure of whether the Robinson/Lancaster/Johnson era is truly behind you.

Brian Ashton read that and blinked back a tear.

Rugby Fan wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:That will be the mark of this England team and a measure of whether the Robinson/Lancaster/Johnson era is truly behind you.

Brian Ashton read that and blinked back a tear.

Maybe. He managed to get a lot of success out of England when he was in charge.

BS will hate this:

"England captain Dylan Hartley was the "first name on the teamsheet" for Sunday's Six Nations match against Italy, says head coach Eddie Jones"

"There was never any doubt Dylan was going to be captain and never any doubt he was going to start," said Jones"

BS might not understand it, even I as a Saints supporter might not fully understand it, but EJ is in no doubt as to Hartley's worth to the side as a whole.

He does give George a few crumbs of comfort:

"Obviously Jamie is disappointed, because he wants the spot," said Jones. "And at some stage he will get it. Dylan can't play until he's 50."

It has been noticeable with Saints that when DH was captain, the team as a whole performed better and had a never say die attitude. Since Tom Wood took over, it isn't there, some heads seem to drop when facing adversity and he doesn't have the skills/mind set to pick them back up again.

To your point, the problem with real leadership is it can't be quantified and can't be measured objectively. Almost by definition it is a personal characteristic and people react to it in uniquely personal ways. Which makes it a gut call which person to select, looking at the individual on-on-one interactions within the larger group. Some people can be trained with some aspects of leadership, but it is a fundamentally innate characteristic.

If Eddie Jones is most comfortable with Hartley as captain, and if he believes his performance as a player will not hurt the team, then we will probably see Hartley playing regularly as captain for the foreseeable future. .

Sack Howley

If we click then I can see a very large score accruing, in fact a very very large score. 100 points maybe seem ridiculous but is a possibility.

Nah, will be nervy until the last 20.

kingelderfield wrote:If we click then I can see a very large score accruing, in fact a very very large score. 100 points maybe seem ridiculous but is a possibility.

IF if.

But if history is anything to go by we could just as easily end up with a grindingly boring and painful arm wrestle. One that we are never at any point in any danger of losing but one where we mess up most of the few scoring opportunities we make with the result that the scores will be low and close.

100 a ridiculous prediction, Bristol just beat bath when Bath were favourites.

BP win is good enough IMO.

Gwlad wrote:Sack Howley

Do what you want mate, we don't care.

It'll be a good score indeed is probably enough of a prediction.

Like I said in another thread, O'Shea should use this game to get his team ready to engage with discipline and keeping control and shape on their patterns after each and every English score.  He should try to just use the game to program in a continuous desire to reset the clock after going down by another score and not letting emotions assist in strategy, tactics and discipline crumbling under pressure.

Why don't the officials ever seem to watch for offside at box kicks any more - the whole Italian team was offside from the first one ...

Hughes needs to get a grip - 2 KOs and a penalty already ...

Heaf wrote:Hughes needs to get a grip - 2 KOs and a penalty already ...

I don't rate him at all, in Ben Morgan injured?

Waldrom is better than Hughes

Stay on the line, stay on the line --- so they don't and the ref insists we throw in anyway ???

England haven't turned up so far. Poor

And then we get penalised in the scrum ... daft

England are asleep

Believing the predictions of a massive score is going to hurt England unless they start playing.

Italy are growing in confidence

tackled and got up again ... and in the side of a ruck a while back - ref needs to wake up as well as England

Dear me....England are still in the changing rooms.

England by a 100












Lira

If Italy keep trying that no ruck thing just pick up and run it as they will be short of defenders ...

jeez - that was poor

Awful!