England's Elite Performance Squad - 2017/18

First topic message reminder :

I missed the Chiefs game on the weekend - did Slade have a good one?
Seems like he is starting to focus on 13 - I do wonder if that is a directive from RFU.
12 is quite well stocked with Teo and hybrid 12's in Farrell, Lozowski.
After Saints demolition - Is Piers Francis still in the mix for some people?
Joseph I am sure will come back into the mix.

Think he should get off as he's been charged with striking and I can't see that sticking. Touch more surprised that slimani didn't get cited for the worse offense in the same match. Funny old game.

Poorfour wrote:Last year we had Lawes and/or Itoje at 6 and it resulted in one decent win, several ropey wins, and a loss. I just don't get the obsession with trying to play locks at 6. It's feasible at club level, and you can get away with it against most opposition but I have yet to see anything that makes me think it will work against the very best teams.

To my mind, it's due to the speed of the game at international level. Players need to get into position much faster, which either means they have to be very agile, or they have to have a really strong positional instinct. Some locks can get up a decent speed in a straight line, but their height and physique gives them a disadvantage in positional mobility, and the positional instincts they have are for what a lock needs to do and not what a flanker needs to do.

If a lock-type player specialised at playing 6 internationally for an extended period, that could change. The question is, is Eddie prepared to commit to that in the games he has available? I am not at all convinced.

I agree, with all of that. The curious thing is that it doesn't seem particularly necessary either. We've plenty of young flanker chomping at the bit to come in and play. It is no.8 where the problem is at the moment. If Hughes cops a ban (not sure how likely, I haven't seen the incident) I've read suggestions on other rugby sites that Eddie might go with:

06. Lawes
07. Haskell
08, Robshaw

which seems insane to me. Why play two players out of position? I mean Haskell at least has played at number 8 before (albeit he hasn't done it for a while and seems out of form).

06. Robshaw
07. Underhill, Curry,
08. Mercer, Morgan, Waldrom, Chisholm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Think he should get off as he's been charged with striking and I can't see that sticking. Touch more surprised that slimani didn't get cited for the worse offense in the same match. Funny old game.

I was about to say, I watched the game and was amazed that they cited Hartley but didn't cite Slimani's shoulder charge to the head (sorry, to the base of the neck ). Seems terribly inconsistent.

Cumbrian wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Think he should get off as he's been charged with striking and I can't see that sticking. Touch more surprised that slimani didn't get cited for the worse offense in the same match. Funny old game.

I was about to say, I watched the game and was amazed that they cited Hartley but didn't cite Slimani's shoulder charge to the head (sorry, to the base of the neck ).  Seems terribly inconsistent.

Swings and roundabouts. Rokko got away with a try saving headshot last week.

Kind of confirms what I said about inconsistency doesn't it?

Following the Frenchman's comments post match, Hartley should call Benjamin Kayser as a witness.

Poorfour wrote:...To my mind, it's due to the speed of the game at international level. Players need to get into position much faster, which either means they have to be very agile, or they have to have a really strong positional instinct.

That was definitely the case last year. This season, no Test has been refereed under the new laws yet, so we don't know whether that will still be true. If coaches think there's greater advantage to having a taller body type on the flank, then we could see a trend that way.

Cumbrian wrote:

Poorfour wrote:Last year we had Lawes and/or Itoje at 6 and it resulted in one decent win, several ropey wins, and a loss. I just don't get the obsession with trying to play locks at 6. It's feasible at club level, and you can get away with it against most opposition but I have yet to see anything that makes me think it will work against the very best teams.

To my mind, it's due to the speed of the game at international level. Players need to get into position much faster, which either means they have to be very agile, or they have to have a really strong positional instinct. Some locks can get up a decent speed in a straight line, but their height and physique gives them a disadvantage in positional mobility, and the positional instincts they have are for what a lock needs to do and not what a flanker needs to do.

If a lock-type player specialised at playing 6 internationally for an extended period, that could change. The question is, is Eddie prepared to commit to that in the games he has available? I am not at all convinced.

I agree, with all of that.  The curious thing is that it doesn't seem particularly necessary either.  We've plenty of young flanker chomping at the bit to come in and play.  It is no.8 where the problem is at the moment.  If Hughes cops a ban (not sure how likely, I haven't seen the incident) I've read suggestions on other rugby sites that Eddie might go with:

06. Lawes
07. Haskell
08, Robshaw

which seems insane to me.  Why play two players out of position?  I mean Haskell at least has played at number 8 before (albeit he hasn't done it for a while and seems out of form).  

06. Robshaw
07. Underhill, Curry,
08. Mercer, Morgan, Waldrom, Chisholm

Of those its a no brainer which I would go for.

6 Robshaw
7 Underhill / Curry
8 Mercer (Chisholm if he's fit)

Pundit John Taylor (former Wales & Lions flanker) said he'd be fascinated to see Lawes at 6 and Itoje at 7 (he assumed Hughes at 8) as an experiment. He doesn't expect Jones to try it though. Funy he fancies that, because he also said he has never felt comfortable with Haskell as a seven.

If lock is our best position why not play 4 of them. World Rugby is basically getting rid of competing for the ball in open play anyway.

There is this sense that competition is being eliminated by the new rules. I can't see it where do people feel it's being stopped. Maybe the obvious one is no kicking the ball.

No 7&1/2 wrote:There is this sense that competition is being eliminated by the new rules. I can't see it where do people feel it's being stopped. Maybe the obvious one is no kicking the ball.

It's the law about the tackling player needing to go back through the gate.

But more than that just how laws are applied. Off the feet clearouts by the attacking team are allowed so you can't get in a position to compete.

You just don't see turnovers by 'jackling' now.

I thought the law was the tackler just had to facing towards the opposition rather than having to come through the gate?

From watching games this season I haven't seen much change. Sides are still getting turnovers.

I would not like to see 4 locks on the pitch from the off.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I thought the law was the tackler just had to facing towards the opposition rather than having to come through the gate?

New law is to come back through the gate.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Cumbrian wrote:

Poorfour wrote:Last year we had Lawes and/or Itoje at 6 and it resulted in one decent win, several ropey wins, and a loss. I just don't get the obsession with trying to play locks at 6. It's feasible at club level, and you can get away with it against most opposition but I have yet to see anything that makes me think it will work against the very best teams.

To my mind, it's due to the speed of the game at international level. Players need to get into position much faster, which either means they have to be very agile, or they have to have a really strong positional instinct. Some locks can get up a decent speed in a straight line, but their height and physique gives them a disadvantage in positional mobility, and the positional instincts they have are for what a lock needs to do and not what a flanker needs to do.

If a lock-type player specialised at playing 6 internationally for an extended period, that could change. The question is, is Eddie prepared to commit to that in the games he has available? I am not at all convinced.

I agree, with all of that.  The curious thing is that it doesn't seem particularly necessary either.  We've plenty of young flanker chomping at the bit to come in and play.  It is no.8 where the problem is at the moment.  If Hughes cops a ban (not sure how likely, I haven't seen the incident) I've read suggestions on other rugby sites that Eddie might go with:

06. Lawes
07. Haskell
08, Robshaw

which seems insane to me.  Why play two players out of position?  I mean Haskell at least has played at number 8 before (albeit he hasn't done it for a while and seems out of form).  

06. Robshaw
07. Underhill, Curry,
08. Mercer, Morgan, Waldrom, Chisholm

Of those its a no brainer which I would go for.

6 Robshaw
7 Underhill / Curry
8 Mercer (Chisholm if he's fit)

Quite surprised to see Don Armand omitted from this list. There's only one back rower I would pick before him for England at the moment and that would be Robshaw. If I were to pick using Eddie's assumed remit of a "fetcher" at 7, then Ironically it'd be Robshaw keeping out Armand as I'd go for Robshaw, Underhill, Simmonds.

Actually if Eddie sticks with his hit everything that moves at openside approach I'd quite like to see Robshaw, Armand, Simmonds.

I can see why people would go for Mercer over Simmonds as he has more prem rugby under his belt, but for me Simmonds form and dynamism is hard to ignore. Height and weight has been brought up as a weakness but Simmonds only gives away 2 inches and 2kg to Mercer (according to google).

We are still only a matter of weeks into it though so possibly hard to tell. We are still seeing people jackal but I'm seeing lots of people still unsure when they can and can't go for it. Hoping by the AI s we can use that uncertainty to our advantage.

No 7&1/2 wrote:We are still only a matter of weeks into it though so possibly hard to tell. We are still seeing people jackal but I'm seeing lots of people still unsure when they can and can't go for it. Hoping by the AI s we can use that uncertainty to our advantage.

For me the illegal but allowed clearouts are just as important.

Which is still against the laws as we saw with hartley. Though side stepping a player coming to the ruck in a grey area for me.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Which is still against the laws as we saw with hartley. Though side stepping a player coming to the ruck in a grey area for me.

Only because he collided with the head. Otherwise that would be allowed.

No he was pinged initially for going off his feet. The hand to head was.noticed after the initial offence.

Fair enough. That's the 1 in 100 they pick up then.

Ha. True enough.

Scottrf wrote:Fair enough. That's the 1 in 100 they pick up then.

In Tiger's 8 matches I believe there have been a grand total of 2 penalties for attacking teams going off their feet at a breakdown, though the vast majority of breakdowns have seen this happen unpunished.

Mercer is lean and athletic, but so was a certain Lol Dalaglio when he came on the scene...and we know he ended up like a brick sh*thouse....

GeordieFalcon wrote:Mercer is lean and athletic, but so was a certain Lol Dalaglio when he came on the scene...and we know he ended up like a brick sh*thouse....

Dalaglio was rapid when he first played (world cup winning 7's etc) but decided to rebuild himself as the brick 'outhouse' after a bad knee injury did for his speed. A really exceptional player.

lostinwales wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Mercer is lean and athletic, but so was a certain Lol Dalaglio when he came on the scene...and we know he ended up like a brick sh*thouse....

Dalaglio was rapid when he first played (world cup winning 7's etc) but decided to rebuild himself as the brick 'outhouse' after a bad knee injury did for his speed. A really exceptional player.

That's revisionist isn't it?

He got steadily bigger as professionalism took hold. Being a tall man with a broad frame it's reasonable that he ended up being very well built. I'm not saying the knee injury didn't increase his need to change his game, but I think it was happening/would have happened anyway. I've read his book and don't remember him saying it was a conscious decision. It was ages ago mind. I could be wrong.

No, it's not revisionist. Dallaglio played all three back row positions and was also a Sevens player early in his career, but then had (IIRC) two bad knee injuries and deliberately focused on being a Number 8.

This was remarked upon at the time - I remember first reading about it in the late 1990s.

Poorfour wrote:No, it's not revisionist. Dallaglio played all three back row positions and was also a Sevens player early in his career, but then had (IIRC) two bad knee injuries and deliberately focused on being a Number 8.

This was remarked upon at the time - I remember first reading about it in the late 1990s.

Sure, but did he get bigger and switch to number 8 due to injuries?

Or did he get bigger and switch to 8 because of professionalism, and the fact Clive Woodward wanted to pick two 7's in his back row which meant Dallaglio shifting to 8? Or was it the perfect storm. In Dallaglio's book he mentions how during his early career coaches would highlight to him that his game in the loose was good, but his tight game was lacking and he needed to change that if he was going to be a top player.

Even without the injuries, he would have got bigger (all players did during those early years of professionalism) and therefore would have lost some pace anyway.

When were his injuries, do you know? I know he had one that ended his Lions tour in 2001. Had he had 2 before that? He was unlucky with injury on the Lions tour in 05 too (breaking his ankle). It's a testament to him that he played at the top so long having had so many serious injuries.

From memory, Dayglo was playing at 8 before Hill and Back were established in the team, but that's going a long way back.

Everyone did get bigger because of professionalism, but I think I still have a programme from when Lawrence still had hair talking about him at No 8, which was definitely before full professionalism!

Dalglio certainly did play in the World Cup 7's win with the likes of Tim Rober , Andy Harriman etc, but he wasn't the beast he became.

I was merely saying that Mercer who at 6'4 / 6'3 and lean, fast and skilled is a similar build and could very well bulk up and become an influential 8 in a different style to Billy v or Hughes.

Dayglo's first 14 caps for England were at flanker (during this time he got two caps for the Lions on the flank and one at No8).

At the start he was wearing 7 - first start in the 95 AIs was alongside Rodber and Clarke, first 6Ns with Ojomoh and Clarke. By that 14th cap. At the start of the 97 AIs he was skipper and at 6 (with hill and Diprose), but at the end of those AIs Diprose was dropped and the holy trinity of Hill, Back and Dayglo was formed.

After that point he had 3 further starts at flanker - two in 98 6Ns when Hill was injured, and one in 99 6Ns when Hill was at 8 and Dayglo 6.

Dayglo does not seem to have had any long breaks from playing since his international debut and before his 2001 injury, not sure what happened to him between 93 7s WC and 97 full England debut. I always thought his bulking up was just a natural progression rather than being done deliberately to compensate for loss of pace, ie the loss of pace followed the bulking up rather than vice versa.

According to RFU site, Mercer is as tall as Dayglo (which surprises me) and certainly looks bigger now than Lol did in 93. Mercer is not built like Billy V, but could mature into a really good option at 8.

Be interesting to see how Zach Mercer goes, Alex Shaw on twitter rates him really highly.

cascough wrote:Be interesting to see how Zach Mercer goes, Alex Shaw on twitter rates him really highly.

Just go look at some recent England U20 games. Mercer does everything. He also talks all the time, (but in a good way!). He's always organising the players around him and takes on a lot of responsibility- very like Paressi if I was going to make a comparison. Scores a lot of tries too. At U20 level he was making a big impact just being on the pitch.

LondonTiger wrote:Dayglo's first 14 caps for England were at flanker (during this time he got two caps for the Lions on the flank and one at No8).

At the start he was wearing 7 - first start in the 95 AIs was alongside Rodber and Clarke, first 6Ns with Ojomoh and Clarke. By that 14th cap. At the start of the 97 AIs he was skipper and at 6 (with hill and Diprose), but at the end of those AIs Diprose was dropped and the holy trinity of Hill, Back and Dayglo was formed.

After that point he had 3 further starts at flanker - two in 98 6Ns when Hill was injured, and one in 99 6Ns when Hill was at 8 and Dayglo 6.

Dayglo does not seem to have had any long breaks from playing since his international debut and before his 2001 injury, not sure what happened to him between 93 7s WC and 97 full England debut. I always thought his bulking up was just a natural progression rather than being done deliberately to compensate for loss of pace, ie the loss of pace followed the bulking up rather than vice versa.

According to RFU site, Mercer is as tall as Dayglo (which surprises me) and certainly looks bigger now than Lol did in 93. Mercer is not built like Billy V, but could mature into a really good option at 8.

Dayglo isn't that big by current standards.

LIW
Dalaglio was 6'4/5 and about 17.5/18st....thats bigger than Read etc etc...only Billy is probably bigger weight wise. I'd say he was bigger than most 8's now, on a par with big Parisse

LondonTiger wrote:...After that point he had 3 further starts at flanker - two in 98 6Ns when Hill was injured, and one in 99 6Ns when Hill was at 8 and Dayglo 6

I remember that. It was to give Hill a game at No8, in case he needed to fill the role at the World Cup later that year.

Dallaglio's move to eight was more about Woodward's desire to bring Back into the team, while keeping his best players on the field.

Everyone thought Jack Rowell might like Neil Back since he had worked so well with Andy Robinson at Bath. He did take Back to the 1995 World Cup but his starting line-up featured Rodber, Clarke and Richards, After that, Back was overlooked until McGeechan chose him for the 1997 Lions squad.

Maybe Woodward would always have gone with Back even without the Lions tour but his early selection of Diprose suggests he hadn't made up his mind. What sealed the deal for SCW is that Back fitted in well, and none of the other flankers or eights (Clarke, Sheasby, Diprose, Ryan, Corry, Worsley) were good enough to warrant dropping Dallaglio or Hill.

Gwlad wrote:Hartley cited again, this has to be the end of him now surely, what a donut.

Citing dismissed

Had to be. The right decision. Didn't see the quins game what were the other incidents like?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Had to be. The right decision. Didn't see the quins game what were the other incidents like?

Not seen them but more serious I think. Marler with an elbow in a fight and Hughes a dangerous tackle on Smith.

Scottrf wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Hartley cited again, this has to be the end of him now surely, what a donut.

Citing dismissed

Too easy to associate trouble with his name, given the history. Glad he's OK.

You don't want too many spurious citings but it is good to see them being used to, effectively, show innocence as well as guilt. The fact that events need investigation should not lead to automatic presumptions of guilt, even if Hartley is involved.

lostinwales wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Hartley cited again, this has to be the end of him now surely, what a donut.

Citing dismissed

Too easy to associate trouble with his name, given the history. Glad he's OK.

You don't want too many spurious citings but it is good to see them being used to, effectively, show innocence as well as guilt. The fact that events need investigation should not lead to automatic presumptions of guilt, even if Hartley is involved.

But Slimani is the one who should have been cited, and didn't. Then there's a statement put out by the EPRC that says it was correct for Parra to come back on, in direct conflict with World Rugby player welfare guidelines. They seem more interested in protecting the referee than player safety.

Whens the squad announced...is it tomorrow? Or are they waiting to find out about Hughes etc?

Jim Mallinder: “The decision to cite Dylan from Saturday’s game against Clermont was unjustified. This was a run-of-the-mill rugby incident during a high intensity game of European rugby.

"Anyone who watched the game could see that this was completely accidental – a misjudgement at a clear–out, plain and simple. When we should be preparing for a crucial league game against Wasps this Saturday, we have instead been distracted by what we believe was an unwarranted judicial hearing.

"Citings like this do beg the question of whether Dylan is being singled out for what has happened in the past rather than being judged solely on Saturday’s game.”

I think that it is scheduled for tomorrow - will make for some interesting reading.
Some very interesting selections from other home nations over the last few days. Many coaches are having their hands forced due to injuries and/or discipline issues.
The flip to that is that the door is open for plenty of players to stake a claim.

The citing was wrong when compared to Slimani. Hadn't seen that parra comment but they're bang out of order and the ref is the guy who should be looking at time on the sidelines.

Scottrf wrote:Jim Mallinder: “The decision to cite Dylan from Saturday’s game against Clermont was unjustified. This was a run-of-the-mill rugby incident during a high intensity game of European rugby.

"Anyone who watched the game could see that this was completely accidental – a misjudgement at a clear–out, plain and simple. When we should be preparing for a crucial league game against Wasps this Saturday, we have instead been distracted by what we believe was an unwarranted judicial hearing.

"Citings like this do beg the question of whether Dylan is being singled out for what has happened in the past rather than being judged solely on Saturday’s game.”

Dems the breaks when you are perpetual offender. There's no cure for being a canute.

munkian wrote:Dems the breaks when you are perpetual offender. There's no cure for being a canute.

Sorry to hear that. Hope you can at least manage the issue.

Devalued Wasps win

Marler copped 3 weeks. Out of Argentina and Australia.

Well, good chance for Genge with Mako V starting (Mako was probably earmarked for a rest).