How will England evolve before they next play New Zealand?

First topic message reminder :

England next play NZ in the autumn of 2018. We can be confident that they will be ranked 2 and 1 in the world, but England will have home advantage. I expect this will be one of the most hyped games in the history of rugby. But how will England change between now and then? Obviously there will be injuries, loss of form, players coming from nowhere, etc, but here are some things I expect:

- England will get a lot better. We are still a young and inexperienced side, and I would have thought we would naturally get about 20% better over this timescale.
- Elliot Daly will be fullback. Mike Brown has been a great servant but is in decline, and Daly is a wonderful footballer. I think this might be Daly's long-term position for England.
- Jamie George will be hooker, Luke Cowan-Dickie will be the 'finisher' on the bench, and Itoje will be Captain. Hartley has been lucky in terms of not missing internationals, when he eventually does I think the case for change will be clear.
- Underhill will be in the matchday squad, and will quite possibly be the starting 7. England have some fantastic backrows at age-group level, but Underhill will come into contention before them and he may be able to push past Haskell. I think Robshaw will still be the starting 6 at this point.

What does everyone else think?

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Graham Henry accused Barnes of cheating that day. At the very least he was very incompetent to the extent that NZ some how managed to convince world rugby not to let Barnes ref any NZ games for a few years after.

 And thats the way it should be, you cant have some young Rooster come along and get stunned by the headlights and drag what is a good competition into a shambles. Within four years, by 2011 Barnes was a completely different referee.

Dont try and have that conversation with an Ireland fan!

 Barnes was a project referee.

No by 2011 he was as sh1t as ever.

kingelderfield wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:England evolution thread.

 Barnes is English.

Yeah but are you evolved?

 we can stand up now and walk as good as anyone.

two legs good four legs better said the kiwi to the madam........

this is about us not you and the ab's have evolved quite enough for now thank you.

 OK I get the hint.

miaow wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:However you want to draw the curve it is obvious that the upward trajectory has plateaued and its fair to say that last saturday's performance probably represents a dip

England were always favourites to retain this 6Ns. I'm not sure they will be next year.

In broad terms I would simply disagree due to the player base = potential bias that we enjoy. For example by comparison to other 6n teams we were able to absorb a number of injuries to key players and still win 4/5 games.

However in very specific terms with home advantage, fewer injuries and greater experience/maturity. I cannot see any of the other home nations narrowing the gap to us and so we will remain favourites. I hope that doesn't appear arrogant but just as I honestly see it.....hey wot do i know

England over every other rugby playing nation have more money and more players and we need to exploit that in every way possible. Unfair? Maybe, but we need to be ruthless in the same way that New Zealand have always ruthlessly exploited any opportunity – being professional when the game was still amateur; using ‘lazy runners’ to get in the way of the scrumhalf distributing quick ball from rucks; recruiting players from other poorer countries; pushing the laws in every way possible. Any sport science or technology that can be bought which gives us an advantage should be invested in. We should be able to produce a squad which is bigger, stronger, fitter and faster than any other – whilst size isn’t everything a good big one will always beat a good little one.

We need to look at positions which have proved to be a weakness in this 6 nations.

Can Hartley really be expected to improve at his age from where he is now – when your captain is constantly being subbed in the 45 – 55 minute, your coach has to have reservations.

Clearly our backrow has not worked and playing Lawes most of the time at blindside in the absence of Robshaw shows that there is a lack of quality there. If there are no good 6s out there do we need to look at moving an 8 to 6? Could Hughes/Beaumont/etc be effective at 6, rather than sit on the bench behind Billy? Itoje clearly is not the answer as after 50 minutes against Wales he was returned to the secondrow and remained there for the rest of the 6 nations.

Haskell is what he is and is not getting younger. Sam Underhill may be the future, but we need to develop further competition at 7.

Scrumhalf has been an issue for some years. On their day Youngs and Care can be great, but this is usually followed by a period of mediocrity. We need to try and find someone who can consistently shine.

Ford has become an issue. When the opposition evolve a game plan around a player’s weakness and use that to beat them, then the player either needs to change or you change the player. I can’t see Ford being able to change his defensive skillset sufficiently.

Farrell isn’t a 12 although he can do a job. I just think he could do a better job in his natural position at 10.

Brown isn’t getting any younger, or better at passing or beating opponents. He seems to being picked on attitude at the moment.

Losing senior players to the Lions this summer is an opportunity for EJ to pick some young relatively untried players, with the ‘excuse’ that we are missing our senior players. The 1998 ‘Tour of Hell’ is viewed by many as of great significance on the road to the world cup win in 2003. The likes of Tom Wood may go to Argentina to add some experience to an otherwise inexperienced squad, but when he isn’t being picked ahead of Lawes at 6, you would have to say he isn’t the future. I expect a number of young players to go on tour – some may turn out to be the next Teimana Harrison, but we may also find the next Jonny Wilkinson.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Graham Henry accused Barnes of cheating that day. At the very least he was very incompetent to the extent that NZ some how managed to convince world rugby not to let Barnes ref any NZ games for a few years after.

 And thats the way it should be, you cant have some young Rooster come along and get stunned by the headlights and drag what is a good competition into a shambles. Within four years, by 2011 Barnes was a completely different referee.

Dont try and have that conversation with an Ireland fan!

 Barnes was a project referee.

No by 2011 he was as sh1t as ever.

True, missed that blantant knee to the head by Mccaw who pre-game had described him as a "Top bloke"

Itoje played 6.

kingelderfield wrote:

miaow wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:However you want to draw the curve it is obvious that the upward trajectory has plateaued and its fair to say that last saturday's performance probably represents a dip

England were always favourites to retain this 6Ns. I'm not sure they will be next year.

In broad terms I would simply disagree due to the player base = potential bias that we enjoy. For example by comparison to other 6n teams we were able to absorb a number of injuries to key players and still win 4/5 games.

However in very specific terms with home advantage, fewer injuries and greater experience/maturity. I cannot see any of the other home nations narrowing the gap to us and so we will remain favourites. I hope that doesn't appear arrogant but just as I honestly see it.....hey wot do i know

England best side in Europe.  As you say kingelderfield, the player base to absorb issues of injury and even certain top players going off-form; less noticeably affected by foreign player numbers in their domestic league than France.

But this narrowing of the gap?  Didn't this 6N already narrow that gap?
Very competitive games against France and Wales, not much in either game.  A loss this year, a GS last year.  Even Italy tried it on and got leverage enough for probably over 40 minutes.

The idea of England's continued dominance and prowess moving along as before doesn't exactly match up with the reality that not everything went as smoothly for Eddie and the boys this time.

In terms of a gap between NH and sh that's been well and truely narrowed. Whilst nz remain clear bestsideintheworld even the 2nd to 5th best euro sides are as good as the other sanzars and better than Argentina.

I do agree though that England are the only eiro team that NZ will really be worried about improving enough between now and 2019 to seriously challenge them at a world cup in anything other than a "on our day" / :if wayne barnes is reffing" kind of way.

In theory France could get their stuff together but their players and system remain focused on the big money club game.

Gooseberry wrote:In terms of a gap between NH and sh that's been well and truely narrowed.  Whilst nz remain clear bestsideintheworld even the 2nd to 5th best euro sides are as good as the other sanzars and better than Argentina.  

I do agree though that England are the only eiro team that NZ will really be worried about improving enough between now and 2019 to seriously challenge them at a world cup in anything other than a "on our day" / :if wayne barnes is reffing" kind of way.

In theory France could get their stuff together but their players and system remain focused on the big money club game.

Until England beat them I think there is a case for saying that Ireland are the team they will be most worried about.

nlpnlp wrote:England over every other rugby playing nation have more money and more players and we need to exploit that in every way possible.  Unfair?  Maybe, but we need to be ruthless in the same way that New Zealand have always ruthlessly exploited any opportunity – being professional when the game was still amateur; using ‘lazy runners’ to get in the way of the scrumhalf distributing quick ball from rucks; recruiting players from other poorer countries; pushing the laws in every way possible.  Any sport science or technology that can be bought which gives us an advantage should be invested in.  We should be able to produce a squad which is bigger, stronger, fitter and faster than any other – whilst size isn’t everything a good big one will always beat a good little one.

We need to look at positions which have proved to be a weakness in this 6 nations.  

Can Hartley really be expected to improve at his age from where he is now – when your captain is constantly being subbed in the 45 – 55 minute, your coach has to have reservations.

Clearly our backrow has not worked and playing Lawes most of the time at blindside in the absence of Robshaw shows that there is a lack of quality there.  If there are no good 6s out there do we need to look at moving an 8 to 6?  Could Hughes/Beaumont/etc be effective at 6, rather than sit on the bench behind Billy?  Itoje clearly is not the answer as after 50 minutes against Wales he was returned to the secondrow and remained there for the rest of the 6 nations.

Haskell is what he is and is not getting younger.  Sam Underhill may be the future, but we need to develop further competition at 7.

Scrumhalf has been an issue for some years.  On their day Youngs and Care can be great, but this is usually followed by a period of mediocrity.  We need to try and find someone who can consistently shine.

Ford has become an issue.  When the opposition evolve a game plan around a player’s weakness and use that to beat them, then the player either needs to change or you change the player.  I can’t see Ford being able to change his defensive skillset sufficiently.

Farrell isn’t a 12 although he can do a job.  I just think he could do a better job in his natural position at 10.

Brown isn’t getting any younger, or better at passing or beating opponents.  He seems to being picked on attitude at the moment.

Losing senior players to the Lions this summer is an opportunity for EJ to pick some young relatively untried players, with the ‘excuse’ that we are missing our senior players.  The 1998 ‘Tour of Hell’ is viewed by many as of great significance on the road to the world cup win in 2003.  The likes of Tom Wood may go to Argentina to add some experience to an otherwise inexperienced squad, but when he isn’t being picked ahead of Lawes at 6, you would have to say he isn’t the future.  I expect a number of young players to go on tour – some may turn out to be the next Teimana Harrison, but we may also find the next Jonny Wilkinson.

It's a good post, but I don't subscribe to the fact that teams have used Ford's weakness to beat us. We've lost one of the last 19 and it wasn't Ford's fault. I really like Farrell at 12, think he's looking the real deal there and was my player of the tournament.

One thing I would do is consider a scrum-half with better tempo-management. Youngs has good control to get you in the right areas, Care is a livewire round the base, but we really need someone who can get quick ball out the ruck and too the backs, and both provide that inconsistently. Someone like Robson may be the answer, although I'm not sure who else is on the scene.

I do like the plan of two 8s in the back row, and would love to see it trialled in either the summer or the autumn (the autumn more likely as we'll probably have Billy around). Otherwise, a big carrier like Fearns (who has been mooted) could come into contention as a more genuine 6. I think we lacked carrying options, and would want one more carrier in the front row as well, so always ensure one of Mako, Genge, George or Sinckler is on the pitch at all times.

Who is England's third choice scrum half?

Gooseberry wrote:In terms of a gap between NH and sh that's been well and truely narrowed.  Whilst nz remain clear bestsideintheworld even the 2nd to 5th best euro sides are as good as the other sanzars and better than Argentina.  

I do agree though that England are the only eiro team that NZ will really be worried about improving enough between now and 2019 to seriously challenge them at a world cup in anything other than a "on our day" / :if wayne barnes is reffing" kind of way.

In theory France could get their stuff together but their players and system remain focused on the big money club game.

All sides are developing though - yet again.   (I know, I know - it seems we all can always claim to be on the road to getting better)  
But all sides will hope not to remain static in their development into 2019.  We all have players that are there now that might be distant memories by then.  All it took for Ireland to do a bit of a balancing act in terms of effectiveness in the 6N was to add POM, Marmion, Payne and Henderson and put Stander to 8.  I mean it wasn't fantastic, it was a patch up job - Payne isn't the future, Marmion isn't our first choice 9;- but it was enough to change the whole dynamic of the team that had to that date been struggling for rhythm.

I'm sure Wales, Australia and SA will think the same and, as you say, France - well they like WCs don't they - nobody in New Zealand has any cause to ignore France.

Any team that gets through the pool stages has a shot at it.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Who is England's third choice scrum half?

Last scrum-half other than Youngs or Care to put on an England shirt was Wigglesworth.

Robson and Young went with the Saxons to SA last summer. Probably Robson.

robbo277 wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Who is England's third choice scrum half?

Last scrum-half other than Youngs or Care to put on an England shirt was Wigglesworth.

Robson and Young went with the Saxons to SA last summer. Probably Robson.

Jeez never heard of him. Is that an area of weakness for England?

In fairness you have probably never heard of Luke McGrath either.

Wasps scrum half, he's good! Plenty of people think he should have had a shot by now

robbo277 wrote:
I do like the plan of two 8s in the back row, and would love to see it trialled in either the summer or the autumn (the autumn more likely as we'll probably have Billy around). Otherwise, a big carrier like Fearns (who has been mooted) could come into contention as a more genuine 6. I think we lacked carrying options, and would want one more carrier in the front row as well, so always ensure one of Mako, Genge, George or Sinckler is on the pitch at all times.

I hate that plan. Against Ireland the problem was not being able to control the breakdown, not the lack of carriers. England need to find a back row that is somehow balanced. Haskell / Billy V / Robshaw worked. Haskell / not quite fit Billy V / Itoje wasn't good enough against Ireland and lost the breakdown pretty comprehensively. Sticking another No 8 into the mix won't fix things unless England have a top notch 7 to take some of the breakdown work away.

There are a few more versatile flankers coming through the ranks - Underhill looks comfortable at 6 or 7, Chisholm at 6 or 8, Jones I think can play 6 or 7 - which may give Eddie a chance to find a better balance. But a team with Mako, George, Hughes and Te'o on the pitch doesn't lack for carrying power but was still unable to get ahead of Ireland - more power is not enough on its own.

BamBam wrote:Wasps scrum half, he's good! Plenty of people think he should have had a shot by now

I'm not sure that Jones rates either Robson or Simpson as I think we would have seen at least one involved somewhere along the line by now, even if just involved more with the main squad for training more than they have been already. He acknowledged this week that he needs to develop a third scrum half. I wonder if he is waiting for one of the younger 9's to fully come through, maybe Spencer at Saracens or the young guy down at Chiefs whose name escapes me for now. Both very promising.

Be interesting to see which 9's he selects for Argentina if Youngs or even Care are not available or rested.

Poorfour wrote:I hate that plan. Against Ireland the problem was not being able to control the breakdown, not the lack of carriers. England need to find a back row that is somehow balanced. Haskell / Billy V / Robshaw worked. Haskell / not quite fit Billy V / Itoje wasn't good enough against Ireland and lost the breakdown pretty comprehensively. Sticking another No 8 into the mix won't fix things unless England have a top notch 7 to take some of the breakdown work away.

Totally agree. Doesn't matter how many ball carriers you have if you lose the breakdown and can't get the ball. Look how much better Ireland looked with POM whose not renowned for his carrying prowess, over Heaslip. Felt this was the game we missed Robshaw the most.

I see some people like to suggest Vunipola at 8 and Hughes at 6. Think if we did that then all would happen is Billy would end up less effective as he end up to going into more breakdowns to try and secure ball.

If your first carrier storms 10m over the tackle line, it's much easier to dominate the breakdown.

Nothing in rugby happens in isolation and winning a battle for the gainline makes the rest of the game so much easier.

The Chiefs have 2 young scrum halves Mauder 19yrs and Townsend 21yr both playing for the 1st team

robbo277 wrote:If your first carrier storms 10m over the tackle line, it's much easier to dominate the breakdown.

Nothing in rugby happens in isolation and winning a battle for the gainline makes the rest of the game so much easier.

As someone who repeatedly watched a young James Haskell burst through the line, make 10m, get isolated and lose the ball to a turnover or penalty, I respectfully beg to differ.

If we need more ball carriers in the pack, we should a) start with a fully fit No 8 or b) start with Mako or Sinckler in the front row. I assume that (a) will be true by the AIs, and both variants of (b) are already feasible except against the very best packs.

kingelderfield wrote:

miaow wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:However you want to draw the curve it is obvious that the upward trajectory has plateaued and its fair to say that last saturday's performance probably represents a dip

England were always favourites to retain this 6Ns. I'm not sure they will be next year.

In broad terms I would simply disagree due to the player base = potential bias that we enjoy. For example by comparison to other 6n teams we were able to absorb a number of injuries to key players and still win 4/5 games.

However in very specific terms with home advantage, fewer injuries and greater experience/maturity. I cannot see any of the other home nations narrowing the gap to us and so we will remain favourites. I hope that doesn't appear arrogant but just as I honestly see it.....hey wot do i know

I think the sentence you removed from my quote just after was actually quite important in the context, i.e. England will be 'up there' again, but...perhaps less so. Even then, it's worth looking back to prior to this tournament as well, and the 'favourites' tag.

England were certainly favourites going into this tournament. As Grand Slam holders, and a 14 (?) game winning streak behind them, most people- media, fans- expected the wagon to continue rolling. This was fair enough. I pointed out that Eddie Jones's tactics weren't going to become a busted flush overnight, but- now that players and, more importantly, the coaches knew what was coming- they could prepare accordingly. We saw this: every team dealt far better with England's forward bulk and power this 6Ns compared to last, bar Scotland. Where Wales were caught massively off guard at Twickenham, and having to throw caution to the wind to get back in the game in the last quarter, they fronted up from the first minute this time, and really ought to have won the game had they played with as much ferocity and accuracy in their attacks as they did in that final quarter at Twickenham 12 months ago. France could easily have beaten England, and Ireland were never in the contest last year, narrowly beating this where Wales and France failed.

Now, let's consider the other teams. Wales were out of the equation, they were coming from too weak a point to compete. Ireland, however, had just beaten the All Blacks, and were very much being thought of as England's equal going into the 6Ns by many, albeit not garnering the same column inches as England. However, losing their game first up completely blew them out of the water. Suddenly, that Dublin game went from being Grand Slame decider to Grand Slam denier. All eyes turned to England, and that "they were the favourites, really, after all".

The only other real competition to England- Wales- then narrowly lost their second game. The tournament, therefore, becomes England's to lose. However, had Wales held on, the notion of how good England are, and what they could expect to become, becomes very different, as it has in the aftermath of the Ireland defeat; rather than looking at a showpiece unification fight against the All Blacks, they've had a bit of a humbling, and in the long run, it is definitely better for their development. Better to have a look at yourselves now and work out where you're weak whilst still winning titles, than cleaning up the competition and not addressing the cracks due to this success.

You might say this is harsh on France and Scotland. In a way, yes. Both looked good in the Autumn, and have been building steadily, Scotland for a few seasons, France since Noves came in. However, neither team has come very close to a 6Ns victory, or won one. Most of the players still playing for Ireland, Wales, and England have. Frankly, this lack of experience of being title contenders showed: for Scotland quite emphatically at Twickenham, and for France with the needless mistakes they made against Wales and England in particular.

The point is, however, after France and Scotlands' performances this year, they very much become 'greater' contenders than this season. In short, where going into this tournament it was England favourites, Ireland very close behind, and Wales potentially right on their heels, too, in 2018 you'll be faced with- again- a tournament where every team can feasibly beat any other, particularly at home. You'd also expect Italy to be a lot better.

Now, it depends what England do in the Autumn, I suppose, and how they deal with the Lions. But this is the case for Ireland, Wales, and Scotland, too. However, they will not be going into the 2018 Six Nations having won every game under Eddie Jones. They will not be going in to a tournament where they blew pretty much every team out of the water at times, enough to compensate for wobbles against France and Wales (2016). They will be going in having lost against Ireland, and very nearly losing against Wales and France. They will be going in having been frustrated by Italy. It's a very different set of circumstances, and right now is a crucial period for England. As someone mentioned above, if they 'own' the defeat- collectively and individually- against Ireland, as well as confronting the deficiencies they showed in 3 other games, the loss could be good in the long run.

Player depth is important. So too is a competitive domestic league. It can drive the standards within the squad. We've seen with Wales what happens to talented players who are assured their places: complacency. However, you can't pick them all at once, as Lancaster found out, and you ultimately need to use that player depth to let the cream rise to the top, rather than having like for like in several positions.

I think England will improve. In many ways, they have to, and in many ways, they did this 6Ns, too. But not only did the other teams improve, but they also had a whole season of 'Eddie Jones's England' to tactically prepare for. The element of surprise in the 2016 year is now gone, and I don't see England reclaiming that gulf between the rest of the NH again.

Let's see how it goes. With Wales and Ireland at home, England have an 'easier' draw, but those two new additions to the competitive mix- Scotland and France- will be tricky encounters away from home. That Paris game ought to be like the games we used to see between these two teams, an absolutely brutal battle up front. I imagine some of the Scottish players are already stewing in advance of the game at Murrayfield. All pretty exciting, and despite a dreadful final weekend in terms of standard of Rugby, this was the most enjoyable Six Nations for many years (subjective preference for Welsh victories aside...) because of its competitiveness, and I don't see that being reversed.

I don't think there was a gulf last year either. We've just been able to come out on the right side of things as the team continue to improve. With players coming back in and getting fitness and a few on the fringes hopefully pushing on I'm quite looking forward to the next few years.

No 7&1/2 wrote: We've just been able to come out on the right side of things as the team continue to improve

You mean improvements were made between Wales-France-Italy-Ireland?

Im all for positive thinking but I saw a regression

The Eddie Jones effect is kicking in

There have been improvements going from a few years ago yes. Still loads more improvement to go and a stream of quality youngsters. Looks good.

Loads and loads of improvements and potential

Not heard that one before

Haven't you? Ok.

Yeah you're the first person to ever say it

Well done you

Right ok. Thanks.

ebop wrote:Loads and loads of improvements and potential

Not heard that one before

Where you been living ...Mars?

He's doing his rattue impression again.

Can you outline how your team improved over the 6Ns? You can use platitudes to describe your team but where's the evidence?

Maybe you need 4 captains?

The combo between Ford and Farrell is actually looking really good now. Hughes improved with each game. Launchbury confirmed himself as our top lock again. Bench looked excellent coming on.

ebop wrote:Maybe you need 4 captains?

Do you have an 'Eddie Jones Channel' on NZ television? It's the only explanation for this obsession with the man!

I think you love him and fear him in equal measure

Nah I laugh at him, because he says funny things and he gives so much. He's the gift that keeps on giving, at your guys expense. He's like Pdivvy, but not as eloquent.

ebop wrote:Can you outline how your team improved over the 6Ns? You can use platitudes to describe your team but where's the evidence?

1.
We had key injuries yet brought in players that won games we probably shouldn't have. In the past under Lancaster we'd have lost those games.
Mental strength to win games they shouldnt...is a key ingredient that the AB's have!

2.
We identified a few more players and also identified who wont be in the side in the AI's
And also identified how the style of game we are playing needs to be progressed. Ie We need more technical savy/balance in the back row.
Having a lock at 6 doesn't work!

3.
We defended the 6n crown.

Not great on the pitch...but still valuable lessons for the coaching staff, hence improvement.

Having the Lions contingent away means we can go to Argentina and have a look at a few other players who will help improve the style of the team.

Cyril wrote:

ebop wrote:Maybe you need 4 captains?

Do you have an 'Eddie Jones Channel' on NZ television? It's the only explanation for this obsession with the man!

I think you love him and fear him in equal measure

Jones talks an enormous amount of crap. The English public seem to be lapping it up which is probably fair enough because they have been on a good run. He is definitely entertaining but also a bit of a buffoon in equal measure.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Cyril wrote:

ebop wrote:Maybe you need 4 captains?

Do you have an 'Eddie Jones Channel' on NZ television? It's the only explanation for this obsession with the man!

I think you love him and fear him in equal measure

Jones talks an enormous amount of crap. The English public seem to be lapping it up which is probably fair enough because they have been on a good run. He is definitely entertaining but also a bit of a buffoon in equal measure.

I think we have a laugh with it the same as everyone else. The amusing thing is seeing how some people take it so seriously. He's an Aussie gobshoite, but he's our Aussie gobshoite

He's certainly a bit different from Lancaster, and I think that as well as the coaching improvements (all round) we needed a change in personality. England were a bit too earnest under Stu and probably too well-liked for a while (which means we're doing something wrong)

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Cyril wrote:

ebop wrote:Maybe you need 4 captains?

Do you have an 'Eddie Jones Channel' on NZ television? It's the only explanation for this obsession with the man!

I think you love him and fear him in equal measure

Jones talks an enormous amount of crap. The English public seem to be lapping it up which is probably fair enough because they have been on a good run. He is definitely entertaining but also a bit of a buffoon in equal measure.

On the contrary, most English fans are enjoying the banter from Jones, as opposed to the squeaky clean boring Lancaster.

No English fan is taking what he says seriously and indeed we are laughing at how many non England fans are getting their knickers in a twist over what Eddie is saying!

Jones says whatever he feels like...hes a master of talking cr@p ...and it all takes the focus away from the players.

Ha, Geordie, we pretty much wrote the same reply there

See me and Cyril agree

Cyril, who is taking Jones seriously?

Just because people are taking the mickey out of him (and by default England), doesn't mean we take him seriously. If he wants to be a joker then he (and by default England fans) must accept a bit of ribbing is due, right?

An Aussie coaching England!!

Even that is farcical

I think you'll find Gunsngerms said all England fans were "lapping it up"

Like a kitten

Slurp slurp slurp

Mind what I do find amusing is how this current England team / squad and coaching team is rattling all the other fans.

They're all getting their knickers in a twist....means they must be doing something right....

Lol

Not after recent performances

They're there for the taking

nlpnlp wrote:England over every other rugby playing nation have more money and more players and we need to exploit that in every way possible.  Unfair?  Maybe, but we need to be ruthless in the same way that New Zealand have always ruthlessly exploited any opportunity – being professional when the game was still amateur; using ‘lazy runners’ to get in the way of the scrumhalf distributing quick ball from rucks; recruiting players from other poorer countries; pushing the laws in every way possible.  Any sport science or technology that can be bought which gives us an advantage should be invested in.  We should be able to produce a squad which is bigger, stronger, fitter and faster than any other – whilst size isn’t everything a good big one will always beat a good little one.

We need to look at positions which have proved to be a weakness in this 6 nations.  

Can Hartley really be expected to improve at his age from where he is now – when your captain is constantly being subbed in the 45 – 55 minute, your coach has to have reservations.

Clearly our backrow has not worked and playing Lawes most of the time at blindside in the absence of Robshaw shows that there is a lack of quality there.  If there are no good 6s out there do we need to look at moving an 8 to 6?  Could Hughes/Beaumont/etc be effective at 6, rather than sit on the bench behind Billy?  Itoje clearly is not the answer as after 50 minutes against Wales he was returned to the secondrow and remained there for the rest of the 6 nations.

Haskell is what he is and is not getting younger.  Sam Underhill may be the future, but we need to develop further competition at 7.

Scrumhalf has been an issue for some years.  On their day Youngs and Care can be great, but this is usually followed by a period of mediocrity.  We need to try and find someone who can consistently shine.

Ford has become an issue.  When the opposition evolve a game plan around a player’s weakness and use that to beat them, then the player either needs to change or you change the player.  I can’t see Ford being able to change his defensive skillset sufficiently.

Farrell isn’t a 12 although he can do a job.  I just think he could do a better job in his natural position at 10.

Brown isn’t getting any younger, or better at passing or beating opponents.  He seems to being picked on attitude at the moment.

Losing senior players to the Lions this summer is an opportunity for EJ to pick some young relatively untried players, with the ‘excuse’ that we are missing our senior players.  The 1998 ‘Tour of Hell’ is viewed by many as of great significance on the road to the world cup win in 2003.  The likes of Tom Wood may go to Argentina to add some experience to an otherwise inexperienced squad, but when he isn’t being picked ahead of Lawes at 6, you would have to say he isn’t the future.  I expect a number of young players to go on tour – some may turn out to be the next Teimana Harrison, but we may also find the next Jonny Wilkinson.

Good post nlplp.

In a way I don't think that big win over Scotland was good as it flattered England.

Not good enough against predictable Irish tactics yet again.

Sure Andy Farrell was perfectly placed to stop England but still...

England knew what was coming but had no answers.

ebop wrote:Lol

Not after recent performances

They're there for the taking

Are we talking about NZ or England here?