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?

I think there's a bit of a case for don't throw the baby out with the bathwater as well. Haskell Robshaw wood have beaten ireland in Ireland but it isn't a back row which would be dreamed about as ideal. We've got a really very good team/squad. I go back to the term evolution as it will be gradual improvements now as players come of age get more experience both in terms of the youngsters in the england team and those about to find their feet. Taylor LCD eels underhill Chisholm the curry s etc.

Poorfour, I think Robshaw can continue his performances. Haskell is the one im not sure about.

So it's
6 Robshaw
7 - Who puts their hand up for this position
8 Billy

Underhill, well ive still never seen him play so cant comment.
Clifford is a totally different player to Haskell - so a change in tactics
Harrison - Jury is out, but nowhere near Haskells physicality so a tactic change again

beshocked wrote:

The benchmark - Back,Hill,Dallaglio of course.

What that backrow did that current England could not is beat Ireland in Ireland to win the GS.

Brown is no longer making breaks and beating defenders like he used to - he's also not passing the ball enough.

Yes, the benchmark is Back, Hill, Dallaglio. But that was a combination that played to that trio's specific strengths. Back was a specialist 7 and a very unusual combination of pace and brutality. Dallaglio and Hill, IIRC, were both capped at 6, 7 and 8, which gave them a huge amount of versatility. We won't ever find a direct replacement for that group, because we won't find the same mix of skills again.

And you're being selective again. While that 2003 back row did eventually beat Ireland in Ireland, a back row of Corry - Back - Hill lost there in 2001 more comprehensively than the 2017 vintage. And the back row that actually played in 2017 was Itoje - Haskell - Vunipola (with the latter two not fully fit).

We don't know how a fully fit Robshaw - Haskell - Vunipola would have gone against that Ireland side, though that combination didn't lose the breakdown battle as badly as England did in Ireland against any of the opposition they did face.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Poorfour, I think Robshaw can continue his performances. Haskell is the one im not sure about.

So it's
6 Robshaw
7 - Who puts their hand up for this position
8 Billy

Underhill, well ive still never seen him play so cant comment.
Clifford is a totally different player to Haskell - so a change in tactics
Harrison - Jury is out, but nowhere near Haskells physicality so a tactic change again

No-one is quite as physical as Haskell, so you won't get a direct replacement.

Both Underhill and Chisholm give away 10kgs to Haskell but are very powerful for their sizes, and Underhill's technique is exceptional for someone his age. I've made a point of watching both closely when I get the chance. Underhill has not looked outclassed mixing it with the likes of Tipuric and Warburton in the Pro 12 - though for some reason I have only seen him playing other Welsh sides. I'd like to see him play against Munster...

Sorry no 7 & 1/2 didn't realise England won the GS in that year.... Harder to hold your composure when there is more pressure.

Poorfour Corry wasn't as good as Dallaglio was he? I am talking about Hill-Back-Dallaglio being the benchmark.

My point is that's what England must strive towards.  England are a good side now but work to be done.

Yes the backrow in 2017 wasn't good enough just as it wasn't in 2015. 2 years on.

As you said Haskell and Vunipola weren't fully fit so would Robshaw really make much of a difference? Not convinced.

It's not about direct replacement - it's about finding a balance that works.

Not as if England are in a bad position but we are talking about how they can improve.

They didn't win a grand slam that year beshocked. Does that mean that Robshaw Haskell and Vunipola are the benchmark as the grand slam was won with them last year and the majority of a record winning run for a tier 1 side was with them?

Poorfour wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Poorfour, I think Robshaw can continue his performances. Haskell is the one im not sure about.

So it's
6 Robshaw
7 - Who puts their hand up for this position
8 Billy

Underhill, well ive still never seen him play so cant comment.
Clifford is a totally different player to Haskell - so a change in tactics
Harrison - Jury is out, but nowhere near Haskells physicality so a tactic change again

No-one is quite as physical as Haskell, so you won't get a direct replacement.

Both Underhill and Chisholm give away 10kgs to Haskell but are very powerful for their sizes, and Underhill's technique is exceptional for someone his age. I've made a point of watching both closely when I get the chance. Underhill has not looked outclassed mixing it with the likes of Tipuric and Warburton in the Pro 12 - though for some reason I have only seen him playing other Welsh sides. I'd like to see him play against Munster...

I'm pretty sure Underhill got motm against one of the Irish provinces when he first burst onto the scene, followed by a great game against ASM?? It's when everybody started talking about him as a future England int.

Regarding using Hill, Back, Dallaglio as a benchmark, I'm not convinced it's relevant. Firstly they played in a different era. Secondly, as others have said, that backrow was put together because of who they were, rather than trying to fulfill specific roles. Hill was always a 7 and still spent a lot of time playing for Saracens at 7 before, during and after his England career. Back was also a 7 and Dallaglio had spent most of his career playing 6 prior to England shunting him to 8.

SCW picked his best 3 players and worked from there. That he ended up with a back row consisting of two 7s and a 6 didn't matter. If you use those individuals as a benchmark then IMO you will fall short. It's unlikely you will find 3 individuals that are test level that have the same skills as those 3. So really, it's a level to aspire to as a unit, but nothing more. You could however use the same approach. That is to say, just pick your 3 best backrowers and adapt your game plan accordingly. Australia have done this and they have had some excellent results.

beshocked wrote:Gooseberry I think the way England evolve which has been the issue for some time.

This bit doesnt even make sense.

beshocked wrote:
Sort out the backrow issue once for all - Robshaw,Haskell,Vunipola has worked fine but I still think it's missing balance, especially if players aren't doing their jobs properly.

Well yes theyve been trying that for a long time. They keep goign back to HAskeel and Robshaw as the more effective players.
What additional " balance" does Underhill offer?


Wood-Robshaw-Morgan actually but do you think it's a complete backrow?

Haskell finished on the pitch but OK yeah you're right. The general point still stands! And we have a better 8 now.
Also Englands most effective back row performances came when they stopped tryiong to be balanced and started playing to their strengths. They learnt the lessons of the trying to compete as poachers with Australia and went with physical assault instead.
Personaly I think England have made mistakes in the past by selecting players to do a job with the aim of getting the team to play to standard or style that they arent best suited to. Jones has tended toward asking his best players to do what they do best and focus on making the best of what he has. He has talked about having to work with what he has in the past, which sounds maybe critical of Englands resources, but also shows hes a bit more pragamatic and will accept that England dont have an 18 stone Neil Back with the pace of Croft.

beshocked wrote:
The benchmark - Back,Hill,Dallaglio of course.

For rugby 14+ years previously yes. The games moved on (Some would say evolved). It would also be nice if Phil Vickery wasnt on the verge of retirement.
And lets face it Neil Backs game was based on breaking the laws as much as possible .

beshocked wrote:
What that backrow did that current England could not is beat Ireland in Ireland to win the GS.

Yeah but Englands first choice backrow, including one of the guys youre intent needs evolving out of the side, didnt play. Instead its one of the players who woudl potentialy replace them who did....which if anything shows its not quite time to chuck out all your best and most experienced back row players in the hope that people who havent perfomred to date suddenly do.
Im pretty sure they played a different Ireland side with different players around them in a different context too.


[quote="beshocked"]
Have a more all round hooker at 2 with an all rounder on the bench. Forwards these days should be able to attack.

beshocked wrote:
Finding a more complete full back- whether that means converting Nowell or Watson to 15 or finding someone else.

No it doesn't mean I want a recall for Goode. Goode has the brain but lacks the athleticism.

Brown is no longer making breaks and beating defenders like he used to - he's also not passing the ball enough.

Again    its been covered endlesly on this thread but how much thats down to him following coaching instructions based on the detailed abnalysis of what happens in various situations is the question. Fans and pundits often lazily blame players for doing what they are told and get quite baffled when coaches praise them for it.
That said full back is an area where at least a second choice needs to be established and is an area that Jones has targetted. Given the likely suspects (Id say Daly and Watson rather than Nowell) are probably going to be with the Lions youre looking at Mike Haley having a strong chance in Argentina. He or another specialist should tour.

Then the question do you go with best players or the players who could potentially be top class but probably not as good as some others now?

cascough wrote:Regarding using Hill, Back, Dallaglio as a benchmark, I'm not convinced it's relevant. Firstly they played in a different era. Secondly, as others have said, that backrow was put together because of who they were, rather than trying to fulfill specific roles. Hill was always a 7 and still spent a lot of time playing for Saracens at 7 before, during and after his England career. Back was also a 7 and Dallaglio had spent most of his career playing 6 prior to England shunting him to 8.

SCW picked his best 3 players and worked from there. That he ended up with a back row consisting of two 7s and a 6 didn't matter. If you use those individuals as a benchmark then IMO you will fall short. It's unlikely you will find 3 individuals that are test level that have the same skills as those 3. So really, it's a level to aspire to as a unit, but nothing more. You could however use the same approach. That is to say, just pick your 3 best backrowers and adapt your game plan accordingly. Australia have done this and they have had some excellent results.

100% agree with this. Its a notable that Australia dont have a balanced backrow when Hooper and Pocock play....just in the opposite way to Englands.
Nor do Wales when Warburton and Tipuric play.

It would be nice if England found an arch poacher but its not like they havent been looking for one for years now. Kvesic has been kept around teh EPS and worked on hard with specilist coaching but not ever been good enough to force his way in.

If someone emerges great, if not continue to play to your strengths ...big mobile physical backrows with huge workrates. That they didnt show up against Ireland is a worry but the exception rather than the norm...and has to be viewed in context of having a second row at 6 and the 8 returning from injury.

And yes personell could change even and the unit could improve even without the mythical proper 7, but it really needs someone to put their hand up for that.

I do want to see someone given a go in Argentina even if both Haskell and Robshaw are available.

Poorfour wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Poorfour, I think Robshaw can continue his performances. Haskell is the one im not sure about.

So it's
6 Robshaw
7 - Who puts their hand up for this position
8 Billy

Underhill, well ive still never seen him play so cant comment.
Clifford is a totally different player to Haskell - so a change in tactics
Harrison - Jury is out, but nowhere near Haskells physicality so a tactic change again

No-one is quite as physical as Haskell, so you won't get a direct replacement.

Both Underhill and Chisholm give away 10kgs to Haskell but are very powerful for their sizes, and Underhill's technique is exceptional for someone his age. I've made a point of watching both closely when I get the chance. Underhill has not looked outclassed mixing it with the likes of Tipuric and Warburton in the Pro 12 - though for some reason I have only seen him playing other Welsh sides. I'd like to see him play against Munster...

Actually I do forget about Chisholm. He looks a useful one to watch.

Dont forget Mike Williams whos previously been named in a test squad. I dont see what he radically changes about England though.

beshocked, you're making circular arguments again.

You compare Robshaw-Haskell-Vunipola to Hill-Back-Dallaglio and say they're not as good because they haven't won in Ireland - but they haven't played in Ireland, so that's an irrelevant comparison.

Then you dismiss the point that the 2001 backrow (with a substitute) - which lost - is a better comparison to the 2017 backrow (with a substitute). Because the 2001 back row had a substitute and the 2017 one .... didn't?

Would Robshaw have made 5+ points worth of difference to England? It's impossible to say. England actually scored faster than Ireland per minute of possession but weren't getting front foot ball and so were kicking it away. Robshaw doesn't play for turnovers, but he's effective at both securing possession and slowing down opposition ball, so it might have made a difference. Maybe not 5 points, but how much additional possession would England have needed?

But the broader point is that comparing the 2017 side to the 2003 side isn't a meaningful comparison. One featured the first choice back row and the other didn't. Neither did the 2015 side, which had positions switched and was working under Lancaster's far less aggressive breakdown policy. (And to my mind, the key difference in that game was Goode's inability to cope with Ireland's kick chase).

no 7 & 1/2 no, the benchmark is the 2003 backrow unless you now believe England have the best backrow in the world?

With that logic surely Robshaw,Haskell and Vunipola will all walk into the Lions starting XV?


Poorfour

So the 2015 game did not exist? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Six_Nations_Championship

What has the 2001 backrow got to do with anything? It didn't have Dallaglio in it. It's irrelevant.

Robshaw struggled in 2015, there's no guarantee he'd be much better 2 years on.

I am talking about England still need work to get the backrow up to the standards of 2003, I agree that 2017 wasn't 2003 level, neither was 2015.

Not as if Robshaw switched to scrum half, Haskell and Robshaw just swapped numbers, it's still the same backrow despite the number change.

Gooseberry England are not no 1 in the world, NZ are, improvements can be made.

The 2003 team was no 1 in the world.

beshocked wrote:no Not as if Robshaw switched to scrum half, Haskell and Robshaw just swapped numbers, it's still the same backrow despite the number change.

.

Disagree, I think theres been a definite change of instructions...specifically towards Haskell.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

beshocked wrote:no Not as if Robshaw switched to scrum half, Haskell and Robshaw just swapped numbers, it's still the same backrow despite the number change.

.

Disagree, I think theres been a definite change of instructions...specifically towards Haskell.

Changing instructions doesn't stop Haskell being a flanker - it's still the same backrow.

I thought we were talking about achievements. That back row which isn't the best had just equalled a record. They're pretty good. Actually better than pretty good same as the entire side. One loss vs ireland doesn't alter that.

Sometimes, beshocked, trying to have a reasoned debate is like trying to interact with an early model chatbot.

The 2001 game didn't have Dallaglio so isn't relevant. But the 2015 game is relevant despite having a completely different coaching staff and breakdown approach? And the 2017 game is relevant despite not having Robshaw, because he wouldn't have made a difference? Strewth.

beshocked wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

beshocked wrote:no Not as if Robshaw switched to scrum half, Haskell and Robshaw just swapped numbers, it's still the same backrow despite the number change.

.

Disagree, I think theres been a definite change of instructions...specifically towards Haskell.

Changing instructions doesn't stop Haskell being a flanker - it's still the same backrow.

But changing their specific in game roles and instructions changes the whole effectiveness. And it was this in particular that was one of the reasons we beat Australia 3-0. Haskell caused carnage at times. Since then has that back row actually played together again? Certainly not when all are in full match fitness and form. (All had big injuries)

Reminds me of the back row that went to NZ in 2008 I think it was...
Haskell
Rees
Naraway

Was HUGELY impressive then never played again...

I'm no great fan of Haskell's but under Jones I think a fit Haskell is supremely effective.

Okay we may not have changed the personnel in swapping Robshaw and Haskell but we have got a very different backrow.

Why? Because in the previous regime Haskell and Robshaw were picked to fulfill a role for the team. Whereas this time they are picked to do what they are good at. The team then adapts around that.

So if you are being prescriptive, then I agree. It's the same backrow. However I'd say to be prescriptive is a bit silly, since the chances that 3 people will come along who are good enough to do exactly as you ask in your utopian back row are very slim.

But England aren't being prescriptive, so the way the back row is utilised is totally different than before.

Didn't realise this backrow has won the RWC....

I know you like to disagree with me just for the sake of it but come on no 7 & 1/2.

One loss vs Ireland did prevent them from breaking the most wins and winning back to back GSs so whilst perhaps not important to you, it was a pretty significant loss.

The question is how can England evolve and improve, improvements can be made in my opinion.

Poorfour yes because it obviously has the same players. Corry is not Dallaglio.

My point was England lost in 2015 and 2017, still have some way to go to surpassing the 2003 backrow.

Still work to be done.

Dear me. So really we need to be looking at a whole new team beshocked as none of them won the world cup or a grands lam in Ireland. The benchmark is the 03 team.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Dear me. So really we need to be looking at a whole new team beshocked as none of them won the world cup or a grands lam in Ireland.  The benchmark is the 03 team.

So you believe that the 2003 team is superior in every position? I am talking about the backrow specifically being the benchmark, not other positions.

You don't need to be world class in every position but England must improve if they want to be the best team in the world.

Luckily for this bunch, the backrow don't need to be better than the 03 lot, they just need to be better than their own opponents.

In fact, even that doesn't matter, so long as the team as a whole is better than their opponents.

beshocked wrote:Didn't realise this backrow has won the RWC....

I know you like to disagree with me just for the sake of it but come on no 7 & 1/2.

One loss vs Ireland did prevent them from breaking the most wins and winning back to back GSs so whilst perhaps not important to you, it was a pretty significant loss.

The question is how can England evolve and improve, improvements can be made in my opinion.

Poorfour yes because it obviously has the same players. Corry is not Dallaglio.

My point was England lost in 2015 and 2017, still have some way to go to surpassing the 2003 backrow.

Still work to be done.

But Beshocked....improvements HAVE been made. You constantly doubted the Lancaster era as a team that failed to "get over the line".
Jones team has made instructional changes and now they have got over the line.

They are improving. The biggest issues have been injuries to large numbers of key players....and the replacements not being of the same level.

Blah blah blah blah blaaaaaah and wot was wrong with Rodber, Richards and Clarke? Yer, plenty as I recall.

But seriously, for we are. I think the tipping point was reached last saturday with regards Brown and Watson and the England 15 shirt.

So I say with fulsome respect, well played Mr Nasty you have deserved your plaudits and worn the rose with grace. Now bugger off and let the kid show you how its done!

p.s lots of media buff about Wadey boy doing his thing as usual (with Jones in attendance). Wade to tour with the Lions again?

No I don't but I think comparing any part of it particularly just saying they haven't won a gs in Ireland they haven't won a WC a bit silly. Theyre bloody good as I said above currently.as a 3 I don't think there's many better. They've been almost always there in a great run. Because Billy. Isn't as good as lol do you drop him? Does the comparison really stand as it's not a team from 14 years ago we should talk about but the options available now and how good they are while thinking about the pack as a whole and how good others are or could be. Let's drop Billy. Yeah good idea...

So the question is do you weaken the team in the short term for longer term views. Lancaster got a bit of a kicking for this but it's paying dividend now with Farrell Nowell Watson et al. Jones has been much slower but has more results.

beshocked wrote:Didn't realise this backrow has won the RWC....

I know you like to disagree with me just for the sake of it but come on no 7 & 1/2.

One loss vs Ireland did prevent them from breaking the most wins and winning back to back GSs so whilst perhaps not important to you, it was a pretty significant loss.

The question is how can England evolve and improve, improvements can be made in my opinion.

Poorfour yes because it obviously has the same players. Corry is not Dallaglio.

My point was England lost in 2015 and 2017, still have some way to go to surpassing the 2003 backrow.

Still work to be done.

How so? They have a grand slam, they have a double 6n winner medal in a row....They have won more games on the bounce than the holy trio did? THe only thing they are missing is a world cup? And that is in 2 years time...

kingelderfield wrote:Blah blah blah blah blaaaaaah and wot was wrong with Rodber, Richards and Clarke? Yer, plenty as I recall.

But seriously, for we are. I think the tipping point was reached last saturday with regards Brown and Watson and the England 15 shirt.

So I say with fulsome respect, well played Mr Nasty you have deserved your plaudits and worn the rose with grace. Now bugger off and let the kid show you how its done!

p.s lots of media buff about Wadey boy doing his thing as usual (with Jones in attendance). Wade to tour with the Lions again?

Which kid? Watson, Nowell, Daly or Haley?

GeordieFalcon wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:Blah blah blah blah blaaaaaah and wot was wrong with Rodber, Richards and Clarke? Yer, plenty as I recall.

But seriously, for we are. I think the tipping point was reached last saturday with regards Brown and Watson and the England 15 shirt.

So I say with fulsome respect, well played Mr Nasty you have deserved your plaudits and worn the rose with grace. Now bugger off and let the kid show you how its done!

p.s lots of media buff about Wadey boy doing his thing as usual (with Jones in attendance). Wade to tour with the Lions again?

Which kid? Watson, Nowell, Daly or Haley?

Point taken, but this week it is definitely maybe Watson.

I just cant help thinking Jones has his eye on Daly for that spot.

GeordieFalcon wrote:I just cant help thinking Jones has his eye on Daly for that spot.

He does. In a post match interview Dai Young said England want him to play 15.

Ah right, I didn't hear that Cascough, but it makes sense. He's playing him on the wing, despite others like Nowell, Watson and May all being around.

And his skill set looks perfect for a counter attacking FB...and he has a huge kick...

beshocked wrote:

Gooseberry England are not no 1 in the world, NZ are, improvements can be made.

Yes I thin k we all agree that. And New Zealand could imprve too.

I think what people are struggling with is your insistence that picking a backrow which retired over a decade ago, players that dont exist, or any kid whos looked good on the sky highlights package is a viable solution with garaunted results.

Its also difficult to swallow the notion that a backrow which didnt play in the Ireland game was solely responsible for the loss.

An issue with Haskell and Vunipola in the back row is that neither jump, so as we saw in the 6 Nations Jones had to pick Lawes at 6 to give us some lineout balance.  For all Launchbury's qualities he is at best an adequate jumper, so it isn't just a Kruis, Itoje or Lawes you need to pick in the second row, you also need a 6/7 who is a lineout option.  Robshaw is a decent jumper at 2 where you can get him up early, but you wouldn't put him in the Peter O'Mahoney category.

So when looking at who to pick in the backrow it isn't just the breakdown and tackling balance you need to look at, but also the lineout option they provide.  trying to get by with just a couple of lineout options leaves you vulnerable.

When you look at Watson, Daly and Nowell they are all pretty versatile and can move between fullback and wing.  Again in the 6 Nations we saw Daly move infield and Joseph act as winger chasing box kicks a lot of times, so Jones seems to be happy to interchange backs to use their strengths for a particular part of the game.  When looking at the 3 above, Daly clearly has the best boot of them and will presumably look to be the main receiver when we are looking at a kicking battle and Watson has the dancing feet ala Hogg when looking to come into the line/track the shoulder of an inside player.  Nowell whilst very solid doesn't really offer anything over the other 2.  If Daly isn't being looked at as a centre, fullback looks to be the best position for him, but don't expect someone with 15 on their back to play the traditional fullback roll under Jones.

Haskell does jump. And Itoje played 6. You keep saying Lawes did purely.for the scrum but didnt.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

beshocked wrote:Didn't realise this backrow has won the RWC....

I know you like to disagree with me just for the sake of it but come on no 7 & 1/2.

One loss vs Ireland did prevent them from breaking the most wins and winning back to back GSs so whilst perhaps not important to you, it was a pretty significant loss.

The question is how can England evolve and improve, improvements can be made in my opinion.

Poorfour yes because it obviously has the same players. Corry is not Dallaglio.

My point was England lost in 2015 and 2017, still have some way to go to surpassing the 2003 backrow.

Still work to be done.

But Beshocked....improvements HAVE been made. You constantly doubted the Lancaster era as a team that failed to "get over the line".
Jones team has made instructional changes and now they have got over the line.

They are improving. The biggest issues have been injuries to large numbers of key players....and the replacements not being of the same level.

Didn't get over the line vs Ireland. Still work to be done.

Still a work in progress. Injuries aren't the only reason to not performing.

Daly isn't playing 15 for England though. It's still Brown.

Geordiefalcon yes they are missing the RWC which is the biggest trophy in the game.

Till changes are made and I don't think England will reach their potential. Not dozens needed but some are.

How much rope has jones to hang himself with then? How many games can he risk not playing his best team in search of development?

Problem is when he doesn't play the best team and loses.

Jones is doing fine at the moment but needs to make the necessary changes.

Well yes. So how much room does he have to play with. Losses against argentina don't matter. AI s so what? 6 nations a no no? Does he pick 2 or 3 players as Lancaster did and let them build experience in the thought they will be better than what we have now?

And are the changes necessary? We're clearly a very good team any changes could weaken us in the short and long term.

Quite a bit I'd say. Jones doesn't need to go completely experimental either. Making sensible obvious selections will help - mostly he's done that. Even the selections I question I can see why he did it. More so than some of Lancaster's.

Yes, replacing Brown and Hartley in particular are necessary. Neither are performing well enough and there are players who should improve the performance. Should strengthen England in the short and long term.

Changing the backrow is more debatable and will only be possible if someone is tearing up trees.

Looking at improving depth at LH,TH and indeed hooker are important.

So its more starting george who made no difference vs ireland and starting Watson at full back, bringing in wade? If someone s form suffers in the AI s do you also look t replace them? Is there any youngsters who you would.look to bring in like Lancaster did where jones is.now.profiting? Too much of a risk?

Personally for me give underhill some time in the summer along with a start. Look at mercer at 6. Give Taylor a start at prop and another look at haley. More time for slade and te'o as it would be forced anyway.

beshocked wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

beshocked wrote:Didn't realise this backrow has won the RWC....

I know you like to disagree with me just for the sake of it but come on no 7 & 1/2.

One loss vs Ireland did prevent them from breaking the most wins and winning back to back GSs so whilst perhaps not important to you, it was a pretty significant loss.

The question is how can England evolve and improve, improvements can be made in my opinion.

Poorfour yes because it obviously has the same players. Corry is not Dallaglio.

My point was England lost in 2015 and 2017, still have some way to go to surpassing the 2003 backrow.

Still work to be done.

But Beshocked....improvements HAVE been made. You constantly doubted the Lancaster era as a team that failed to "get over the line".
Jones team has made instructional changes and now they have got over the line.

They are improving. The biggest issues have been injuries to large numbers of key players....and the replacements not being of the same level.

Didn't get over the line vs Ireland. Still work to be done.

Still a work in progress. Injuries aren't the only reason to not performing.

Daly isn't playing 15 for England though. It's still Brown.

Geordiefalcon yes they are missing the RWC which is the biggest trophy in the game.

Till changes are made and I don't think England will reach their potential. Not dozens needed but some are.

They won the 6n...so effectively they DID get over the line v Ireland. The lack of any aggression or passion would suggest they had already gone off on their party celebrations...ANd for all the garbage going about...only lost by 4 points!

Injuries aren't the only reason...but when you lose Billy v, Haskell, Kruis, Robshaw to start with long term...its a big issue.
As for the WC...jones hasn't taken us to a WC yet, that was under the previous regime you hated....

And for gods sake we're all saying there needs to be changes...evolution, not revolution.

Are you a politician??? You debate like one...infuriating!!!

No 7&1/2 wrote:Personally for me give underhill some time in the summer along with a start. Look at mercer at 6. Give Taylor a start at prop and another look at haley. More time for slade and te'o as it would be forced anyway.

Is he switching...?

Hooker! God damn

No 7&1/2 wrote:Haskell does jump. And Itoje played 6. You keep saying Lawes did purely.for the scrum but didnt.

Not under Jones, or at leats not recently anyway.

For the 6 nations he didnt take a single line out, the last one i can find for him was Italy 2016.

But ... Itoje was only the number 3 option in all but the France game (the one where the limeout when to poo). Launchberry and Lawes took roughly equal numbers.
Anyway regardless of whether or not Haskell can / does act as a lineout reciver (he has in the past for England) its not correct to say that Itoje was being picked primarily as a linbeout option, although its a handy thing to have. Alll 4 of Englands second rows are capable lineout takers, so whoever is playing the backrow supplied the third option....and the best of those is Wood who everyones writing off.

So yeah I do think theres a valid point in the assetion that its handy to have lineout takers in your back row ... but England dont need a back row of Wood Croft Itoje.
Go back Robshaw has long term been a third lineout option, and theres games where he took more than Itoje did. When Clifford played he was the go to guy. Theres also a game where everything went to Kruis and they essentially made do with one jumper.

TLDR .. Id prefer backrow players to be selected for their primary roles. Tackling, competing for ball, heavy carrying, injuring Sexton, asking referees how to form a ruck, running into goalposts, and getting into trouble for having a shower. England dont have old school lumps who cant jump as second rows so I dont buy that they need a Clifford in the back row, although its always good to have. Robshaw has long been a good third option for them so they do have that.
If the best players at backrow stuff also happen to be great jumpers then thats a real bonus, but till Clifford matches Vunipolas general play I know which one I want at 8. Id also take Haskell over Wood.

You ask for changes when we lose whilst I look for changes before we lose. Important difference.

Geordiefalcon perhaps you felt elated when we lost to Ireland, I felt disappointed. An opportunity to break records gone. I didn't feel England got over the line. A GS is what was needed.

England got over the line vs Wales but the toughest game was always going to be the last one.

So no 7 & 1/2 George was still superior to Hartley throughout the 6 nations. Not given a start though.

Depends who is performing best - still think Brown should be replaced.