England v Argentina - 11th November

Details

Date: Saturday 11th November
Time: 15:00 GMT
Location: Twickenham Stadium, Twickenham, Surrey
TV: Sky Sports
Radio: R5L


Officials

Referee: Marius van der Westhuizen (South Africa)
Assistant 1: Nigel Owens (Wales)
Assistant 2: Dan Jones (Wales)
TMO: Olly Hodges (Ireland)


Head to Head

10 Played 10
15 Won 4
1 Drawn 1
533 Total Points 298
27 Average Score 15



Recent Form

17th June 2017
Santa Fe
England 35-25

10th Juan 2017
San Juan
England 34-38

26th November 2016
Twickenham
England 27-14

9th November 2013
Twickenham
England 31-12

15th June 2013
Buenos Aires
England 51-26

8th June 2013
Salta
England 32-3


Teams

ENGLAND


Brown
Watson
Joseph
Slade
Daly
Ford
Youngs
Mako
Hartley
Cole
Kruis
Lawes
Robshaw
Underhill
Hughes

George, Genge, Williams, Launchbury, Curry, Care, Lozowski, Rokoduguni



Argentina

With Daly declared fit and rejoining the group, it would appear we have the following squad:

Backs

Mike Brown (Harlequins), Elliot Daly (Wasps), Jonny May (Leicester Tigers), Semesa Rokoduguni (Bath), Denny Solomona (Sale Sharks), Anthony Watson (Bath), Danny Care (Harlequins), Owen Farrell (Saracens), George Ford (Leicester Tigers), Piers Francis (Northampton Saints), Jonathan Joseph (Bath), Alex Lozowski (Saracens), Henry Slade (Exeter Chiefs), Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers)

Forwards

Tom Curry (Sale Sharks), Charlie Ewels (Bath), Nathan Hughes (Wasps), Nick Isiekwe (Saracens), Maro Itoje (Saracens), George Kruis (Saracens), Joe Launchbury (Wasps), Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints), Zach Mercer (Bath), Chris Robshaw (Harlequins), Sam Simmonds (Exeter Chiefs), Sam Underhill (Bath), Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers), Tom Dunn (Bath), Ellis Genge (Leicester Tigers), Jamie George (Saracens), Dylan Hartley (Northampton Saints), Mako Vunipola (Saracens), Harry Williams (Exeter Chiefs)

Hopefully no key forwards get injured during the training session in Bristol today.

Based on what I read yesterday I think isiekwe dunn mercer and simmonds have beeneft out of the joint training. Whether that's protection or the fact they're on the fringes and not going to be considered this weekend I don't know.

Argentina Squad:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Based on what I read yesterday I think isiekwe dunn mercer and simmonds have beeneft out of the joint training. Whether that's protection or the fact they're on the fringes and not going to be considered this weekend I don't know.

I remember reading a list of names, but was unable to find it so omitted it from my post. Thanks for jogging my memory.

The plan is to do 12 scrums and 15 lineouts with Hartley and George inter-changing. This will explain why Dunn is left behind at Pennyhill. I assume that they will also be switching in other positions and the other 3 were deemed surplus to requirements. We are therefore unlikely to see any of this quartet feature v Argentina.

Looks certain it will be Robshaw underhill Hughes with curry on the bench then. Unless the experiment of Itoje or maybe Lawes now goes on at 6. Hope it doesn't.

Lawes sees himself more of a 6 now and that he can make more impact there. With the quality of our locks it might be worthwhile.

It offers more at the lineout certainly. Mobility is a concern when he's there for me. Certainly more of a lock in my eyes. When we have the quality of flankers coming through as we have its not really needed.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It offers more at the lineout certainly. Mobility is a concern when he's there for me. Certainly more of a lock in my eyes. When we have the quality of flankers coming through as we have its not really needed.

What 6s though? All the options play 7.

You don't think mercer simmonds underhill either curry s could play 6?

Scottrf - Has Lawes said that he prefers playing 6?
There is no doubt that we have amazing strength in depth at 2nd row - But I would say that Lawes is up there pushing for a starting spot in the engine room too - would be a shame to make a positional change when he is clearly one of the better options IMO.
Its down to Kruis, Isekwe, Launchbury and Ewells to push Lawes and Itoje out.

Scottrf wrote:Lawes sees himself more of a 6 now and that he can make more impact there. With the quality of our locks it might be worthwhile.

I saw that interview Scott, found it really interesting.

I'm sure you will have seen/heard more of Lawes over the years than me, do you think that is genuine?

Maybe genuine is the wrong way of putting it, I'm not calling him a liar, but do you think that is being driven by coaches, or perhaps a recognition that that might be his best shot at a regular start (if he sees more competition in 2nd row vs 6) or Lawes himself? It wouldn't be the first time a coach has said "I see x as an OC" only for a player x to come out shortly afterwards and say "OC is definitely my best position".

propdavid_london wrote:Scottrf - Has Lawes said that he prefers playing 6?
There is no doubt that we have amazing strength in depth at 2nd row - But I would say that Lawes is up there pushing for a starting spot in the engine room too - would be a shame to make a positional change when he is clearly one of the better options IMO.
Its down to Kruis, Isekwe, Launchbury and Ewells to push Lawes and Itoje out.

Yes. http://www.skysports.com/rugby-union/news/12504/11113713/courtney-lawes-says-he-is-enjoying-life-under-eddie-jones-ahead-of-the-november-tests

"I feel I am best at six [blindside flanker] because I can have more impact on the game but I will play wherever I am needed," said Lawes, who feels he has come of age as a player."

I am intrigued to see what Jones wants at lock. He has all the guys available for the first time in s good while. Lions may impact his thinking though.

propdavid_london wrote:Scottrf - Has Lawes said that he prefers playing 6?
There is no doubt that we have amazing strength in depth at 2nd row - But I would say that Lawes is up there pushing for a starting spot in the engine room too - would be a shame to make a positional change when he is clearly one of the better options IMO.
Its down to Kruis, Isekwe, Launchbury and Ewells to push Lawes and Itoje out.

Not that I disagree with the sentiment, but I think there has been enough to suggest it's Kruis is the first name on the teamsheet.

Repeatedly Eddie Jones has stated Kruis is his best set piece lock. Whenever Kruis has returned from injury, he's been dropped right back into the starting XV regardless of anything else. Also He is Steve Borthwick's protoge and for the first test it was Kruis who got the nod in the first test over Itoje. You have to think Steve Borthwick had a lot to do with that. It wouldn't surprise me if Lawes thinks Kruis and Itoje are the favourites, Launchbury is a quality player and Jones raves about Isekwe. Meanwhile if he looks at 6 he might think Haskell is finished, Wood is distinctly on the fringes, Robshaw is the only competition and he is 3 years older than me.

cascough wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Lawes sees himself more of a 6 now and that he can make more impact there. With the quality of our locks it might be worthwhile.

I saw that interview Scott, found it really interesting.

I'm sure you will have seen/heard more of Lawes over the years than me, do you think that is genuine?

Maybe genuine is the wrong way of putting it, I'm not calling him a liar, but do you think that is being driven by coaches, or perhaps a recognition that that might be his best shot at a regular start (if he sees more competition in 2nd row vs 6)  or Lawes himself? It wouldn't be the first time a coach has said "I see x as an OC" only for a player x to come out shortly afterwards and say "OC is definitely my best position".

Well, what do you want from a blindside flanker? Want them to be able to contribute defensively as well as offer the carrying. Former has always been a strength and carrying has improved. Has the athleticism to defend the blindside of the scrum. His build is probably more of a 6 than a lock, maybe he lacks the pace? He's not a great scrummager, so perhaps that suits him at 6 rather than being at lock.  There's no change in his strength in lineouts based on the number on his back. It's going to depend on balance but he's currently playing some of his best rugby at 6. I honestly don't know enough of the intricacies of the difference between the positions to give a great analysis.

Thanks, Scott.

I was really asking if you know what his feelings on this have been in the past. Has this always been a desire? Or is it a more recent thing?

cascough wrote:Thanks, Scott.

I was really asking if you know what his feelings on this have been in the past. Has this always been a desire? Or is it a more recent thing?

I don't recall him taking a position. But did find this quote earlier this year "It did not change my role, apart from the scrum, because six, five and four are the same thing these days." I think he's right in that all our locks are well rounded players rather than specialists in one area.

So excited!

https://twitter.com/BrisVADAR/status/927493460717920257

Lol. Love the bushes in the foreground.

Robshaw covering 8 with Curry on the flank. Makes sense there isn't another 8 there. Can't make out if it's Genge or Mako who trots through their tighthead.

Not that we can read anything into that, the other 11 scrums might have all gone Wales' way. Still...exciting!

Scottrf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:It offers more at the lineout certainly. Mobility is a concern when he's there for me. Certainly more of a lock in my eyes. When we have the quality of flankers coming through as we have its not really needed.

What 6s though? All the options play 7.

is there a difference now? 6 and 7 may as well be left and right these days.
Underhill is a 7...but is just a young version of Haskell. A bosher.
Curry should start for me...hes class. But again his skill set can play 6 or 7!

Pocock was the ultimate 7...yet was playing 8 for Australia!

Must be tough being the other brother. Selected first and replace through injury.

I'm not sure I agree with that.

Haskell was never particularly suited to playing 7 in the conventional sense, but was able to carry out Eddie's "if it moves, hit it; if it doesn't move, hit it til it moves" tactics until his foot went wrong. The last time we had a 7 in that mould it was when Joe Worsley was picked for the very specific role of shutting down the Welsh back row - but Worsley was more naturally a 6 (and very similar in size to Lawes or Itoje).

Underhill is much more naturally a 7 - he has a smaller frame and a lower centre of gravity while still being hard as nails and having a very well-developed sense of what to go for and what to leave at the breakdown. Underhill is potentially closer to Neil Back in style than any player in the last 15 years.

The Currys are a little different in that from what I have seen they have the size and skill set to be able to play 6 or 7 (certainly, you can't play them both at 7 at the same time); not sure about 8. Clifford - if he can stay fit - is potentially capable of playing all three positions, as is James Chisholm.

Back row is about balance. A good back row has a balance of carrying, tackling, support play and breakdown work. Lineout skill is a bonus (and there is a difference jumping at 6 to jumping at 4 or 5, even for a good lineout operator: you won't typically get two lifters).

You also ideally want a player with a really good sense of "what's the most important thing for me to be doing right now?" That's what Hill brought to the team, and it's what generally gets lost when people rhapsodise about having a monster tackler or huge carrier at 6.

There's more flexibility about having traditional 6, 7, 8 roles these days - the Pocock and Hooper combination worked because their huge individual workrates coupled with Fardy's size and power made for a balanced combination. But a top class international back row still have to cover all the skills between the three.

Isnt Underhill bigger than the Currys?

Edit:
Underhill is 6'1
Ben Curry 6'2

Not a lot of difference. in my opinion they can play either side.

Underhill is a lump and much more of a 7 than Haskell.

I don't see Lawes as an Int 6 in a similar way Itoje isn't, although the latter can fill the role better imo. Lawes lacks mobility at the top level for 6. Hes a fantastic lock for England, I hope he stays there.

Kruis is the first lock on the team sheet imo, his lineout work is world class.

I think Lawes and Kruis are pretty similar in lineout work. Lawes has more athleticism and height for gathering errant throws and competing, maybe Kruis is a better reader.

Agree to a point there Scott. Kruis is a great reader, his defensive work alongside Itoje is immense. Lawes is a great option and a fine leader.

Scottrf wrote:I think Lawes and Kruis are pretty similar in lineout work. Lawes has more athleticism and height for gathering errant throws and competing, maybe Kruis is a better reader.

Lawes has tended to work better with Hartley as his thrower - I think he only started calling the lineout at international level under Lancaster (because Launchbury couldn't either). Kruis is more comfortable with different hookers and is a better scrummaging lock (I think Lawes is probably the weakest of the four in this area).

To my mind, if Kruis is fit and in form, he plays and then it's a question of which other lock is best suited to the game. Don't really like seeing any of them playing at 6.

Poorfour wrote:...

There's more flexibility about having traditional 6, 7, 8 roles these days - the Pocock and Hooper combination worked because their huge individual workrates coupled with Fardy's size and power made for a balanced combination. But a top class international back row still have to cover all the skills between the three.

I am not sure about Hooper's work rate to be honest. Fardy seemed to be the most important component, in that he did all the grunt and grind of the back row work to let Pocock do everything else and Hooper to hang around in the backs and score tries. Against England I think Fardy ended up with too much work to do and got too much grief for not managing to do it.

Anyway with Curry x2 and Underhill (plus Evans and others) it's just great to have that potential coming through.

lostinwales wrote:

Poorfour wrote:...

There's more flexibility about having traditional 6, 7, 8 roles these days - the Pocock and Hooper combination worked because their huge individual workrates coupled with Fardy's size and power made for a balanced combination. But a top class international back row still have to cover all the skills between the three.

I am not sure about Hooper's work rate to be honest. Fardy seemed to be the most important component, in that he did all the grunt and grind of the back row work to let Pocock do everything else and Hooper to hang around in the backs and score tries. Against England I think Fardy ended up with too much work to do and got too much grief for not managing to do it.

Anyway with Curry x2 and Underhill (plus Evans and others) it's just great to have that potential coming through.

Agree with this, and Michael Lynagh has made a similar observation.

I'd go as far as to say Hooper is pretty overrated actually. There's no doubt he works for Australia, but as people have alluded to, that's due to the combination. If you're comparing him man for man, I don't think he's rounded enough. What he does do well is very eye catching, but I'm not sold on him overall. Oddly enough he'd probably be a good fit for England if the other two slots are Robshaw at 6 and Hughes/Billy at 8. I'd still rather have Pocock at 7 though.

I wouldn't swap Hooper for the Currys or Underhill. I think they're very good now and have potential to completely eclipse Hooper who im not a huge fan of.

Pocock is a country mile ahead of Hooper.

GeordieFalcon wrote:I wouldn't swap Hooper for the Currys or Underhill. I think they're very good now and have potential to completely eclipse Hooper who im not a huge fan of.

Pocock is a country mile ahead of Hooper.

I think Pocock (when he's not broken) is probably a country mile ahead of everyone. Doesn't mean he can't be stopped- lets face it Haskell did a real number on him in that summer tour- but he is the real thing.

lostinwales wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:I wouldn't swap Hooper for the Currys or Underhill. I think they're very good now and have potential to completely eclipse Hooper who im not a huge fan of.

Pocock is a country mile ahead of Hooper.

I think Pocock (when he's not broken) is probably a country mile ahead of everyone. Doesn't mean he can't be stopped- lets face it Haskell did a real number on him in that summer tour- but he is the real thing.

And I would completely agree.

lostinwales wrote:... Haskell did a real number on him in that summer tour...

Pocock only played in the Brisbane Test. He did play in the Twickenham feature later that year but Haskell wasn't in the England line-up

Rugby Fan wrote:

lostinwales wrote:... Haskell did a real number on him in that summer tour...

Pocock only played in the Brisbane Test. He did play in the Twickenham feature later that year but Haskell wasn't in the England line-up

And I can still remember Haskell's first tackle on Pocock in that first test. I suspect so does Pocock.

But yes he was conspicuous by his absence in the remaining two tests, which I should have remembered

Dunn, Ewells, Isiekwe, Simmonds, Mercer, Francis and Solomona all release from squad.

These next few tests could well be defining for this English squad. However at this pivotal juncture they might not be the only side to face an unsuspected challenge. The AB's might also come under considerable pressure as the leading teams close together.

I don't know how critical this autumn is. Woodward experimented all the way up to the WC in 2003.

He played this team in 2002 against Argentina

15. Michael Horak, 14. Tim Stimpson, 13. Geoff Appleford, 12. Ben Johnston, 11. Phil Christophers, 10. Charlie Hodgson, 9. Andy Gomarsall, 8. Joe Worsley, 7. Lewis Moody, 6. Alex Sanderson, 5. Ben Kay, 4. Alex Codling, 3. Phil Vickery (capt.), 2. Steve Thompson, 1. David Flatman, – replacements: 16. Mark Regan, 17. Trevor Woodman, 18. Hugh Vyvyan, 19. Adam Balding, 20. Nick Walshe, 21. Dave Walder, 22. Kevin Sorrell

Even some of the big names there did not have many caps at this time. Gomarsall, Hodgson etc in single figures.

Nick Duncombe and Henry Paul made the squad for the 2002 six nations. Nick Walshe, Robbie Morris, James Simpson-Daniel, Ollie Smith were all involved in the 2003 six nations. As was Josh Lewsey who I think had 3 caps at the time.

Warming up for the World cup we had Dan Scarborough, J Noon, S Abbott, D Walder, Will Green, S Borthwick, Andy Hazell all in single figures.

I think, this far out, this is pretty much a free roll for Jones. Autumn 2018 and Six Nations 2019 are key for me.

Argentina in 2002 was a completely different animal to what they are now....it allowed Sir Clive to experiment a bit more while also giving the established guys a rest.

Not sure...we took a very inexperienced side to Argentina in the summer and beat them in both tests.

Im not buying all the hype about them.

Argentina have won 1 in their last 12 in the past year, beating Georgia. I don't know why people fear them so much.

Argentina are in bits. We should beat them comfortably. But this isn't about quality of opposition, Woodward experimented in the 6N and in the world cup warm ups. There is plenty of time yet.

C Flynn 15
B Franks 14
V Vito 12
A Cruden 7
R Kahui 15
SB Williams 12
H Gear 8
Z Guldford 8
I Dagg 10

NZ RWC 2011 Squad.

C Taylor 3
TJ Perenara 15
T Kerr-Barlow 15
M Fekitoa 11
W Naholo 1
N Milner-Skudder 2

NZ RWC 2015 Squad. Loads of time for experimenting yet.

propdavid_london wrote:Argentina in 2002 was a completely different animal to what they are now....it allowed Sir Clive to experiment a bit more while also giving the established guys a rest.

They area poor side now - England really should win comfortably

cascough wrote:...Woodward experimented in the 6N and in the world cup warm ups. There is plenty of time yet.

Josh Lewsey only came into the picture during the 2003 Autumn Internationals.

One key difference about 2003, however, is that Woodward toured New Zealand and Australia before having 2 World Cup warm-up matches against France, (who were in good form). That was a real proving ground for the squad, and there hasn't really been scope for any side to do any similar World Cup preparation since.

I think it's mainly just tweaks needed now. Experimenting with s couple of positions and the natural integration of players coming of age rather than broad brush strokes across the team. The age of this squad is really good.

We did the cap count analysis off the back of the 1014 podcast, and essentially there's room for one 50 cap player to be replaced completely by a newbie while retaining the right experience level in the squad, and scope for a fair number of current fringe players to add to their experience.

I can't see Eddie dropping any of his established players for anything less than major indiscipline, injury or loss of form, especially now Haskell is effectively out, but he will mix and match within the squad he's got.

It's not been talked about much but who becomes 10 if Ford is injured?

Now the obvious replacement is Farrell but then who wears in the 12 shirt in that scenario?

England need to look at different scenarios which could happen.

At Full back, obviously England cannot simply look to rely on Brown whether you like him or not.

England must be well prepared for 2019. No excuse for not.

Jones could regret not rotating certain players - Eddie please prove that certain players positions aren't set in stone.

Can't always rely on injuries to give players game time.

Even our stellar locks haven't got their positions set in stone and they are better for it. Helps competition and strength in depth at lock = very healthy.

Brown
Watson
Joseph
Slade
Daly
Ford
Youngs
Mako
Hartley
Cole
Kruis
Lawes
Robshaw
Underhill
Hughes

George, Genge, Williams, Launchbury, Curry, Care, Lozowski, Rokoduguni