England Six Nations Thread

[Cumbrian]

First topic message reminder :

Squad (From RFU Website):

Backs

Full backs
Mike Brown (Harlequins)
Nathan Earle (Saracens) *
Harry Mallinder (Northampton Saints) *
Jonny May (Leicester Tigers)
Denny Solomona (Sale Sharks)
Anthony Watson (Bath Rugby)

Inside backs
Danny Care (Harlequins)
Owen Farrell (Saracens)
George Ford (Leicester Tigers)
Jonathan Joseph (Bath Rugby)
Alex Lozowski (Saracens)
Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs)
Henry Slade (Exeter Chiefs)
Ben Te’o (Worcester Warriors)
Marcus Smith (Harlequins) * **
Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers)

Forwards

Back five
Gary Graham (Newcastle Falcons) *
Nick Isiekwe (Saracens)
Maro Itoje (Saracens)
George Kruis (Saracens)
Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints)
Joe Launchbury (Wasps)
Zach Mercer (Bath Rugby) *
Chris Robshaw (Harlequins)
Sam Simmonds (Exeter Chiefs)
Sam Underhill (Bath Rugby)

Front row
Lewis Boyce (Harlequins) *
Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers)
Tom Dunn (Bath Rugby) *
Jamie George (Saracens)
Dylan Hartley (Northampton Saints)
Alec Hepburn (Exeter Chiefs) *
Kyle Sinckler (Harlequins)
Mako Vunipola (Saracens)
Harry Williams (Exeter Chiefs)

Players unavailable
Tom Curry (Sale Sharks)
Elliot Daly (Wasps)
Charlie Ewels (Bath Rugby)
Piers Francis (Northampton Saints)
Ellis Genge (Leicester Tigers)
James Haskell (Wasps)
Nathan Hughes (Wasps)
Joe Marler (Harlequins)
Matt Mullan (Wasps)
Beno Obano (Bath Rugby)
Semesa Rokoduguni (Bath Rugby)
Will Spencer (Worcester Warriors)
Billy Vunipola (Saracens)

Uncapped *
Apprentice player **

Fixtures:

*All kick-off times in GMT.


Italy v England
Stadio Olimpico, Rome
Sunday 4th February 2018
Kick Off: 3:00pm

England v Wales
Twickenham Stadium, London
Saturday 10th February 2018
Kick Off: 4:45pm

Scotland v England
BT Murrayfield Stadium, Edinburgh
Saturday 24th February 2018
Kick Off: 4:45pm

France v England
Stade de France, Paris
Saturday 10th March 2018
Kick Off: 4:45pm

England v Ireland
Twickenham Stadium, London
Saturday 17th March 2018
Kick Off: 2:45pm

Officialdom:

Italy v England

Referee: Mathieu Raynal (France)
Assistant 1: Jérôme Garcès (France)
Assistant 2: Nic Berry (Australia)
TMO: Glenn Newman (New Zealand)

England v Wales

Referee: Jérôme Garcès (France)
Assistant 1: Mathieu Reynal (France)
Assistant 2: Nic Berry (Australia)
TMO: Glenn Newman (New Zealand)

Scotland v England

Referee: Nigel Owens (Wales)
Assistant 1: Jérôme Garcès (France)
Assistant 2: Andrew Brace (Ireland)
TMO: Simon McDowell (Ireland)

France v England

Referee: Jaco Peyper (South Africa)
Assistant 1: Angus Gardner (Australia)
Assistant 2: Marius van der Westhuizen (South Africa)
TMO: Ben Skeen (New Zealand)

England v Ireland

Referee: Angus Gardner (Australia)
Assistant 1: Jaco Peyper (South Africa)
Assistant 2: Marius van der Westhuizen (South Africa)
TMO: Ben Skeen (New Zealand)

[Geordie]

Do you think Jones sees the change in laws meaning we're back to bigger is better rather than technical on the flanks. Especially when we have locks who are exceptionally athletic and mobile

Ie
Rodber
Clarke
Richards

[No 7&1/2]

I go back to asking what the main difference is I'm the laws which means that bigger is better? None which I can see but there is the england tactic of getting people on their feet back in the defensive line rather than place a huge emphasis on challenging for the ball. This may change as players like simmonds underhill curry come through. I do see the lock at 6 as a holding position but not a hugely successful one from my pov.

[beshocked]

Where did I say 22/23 was down to 2 men?

I said that Eddie likes something about what Hartley does (and Brown, and Robshaw, and Ford), that his is the only opinion that counts in selection and that that opinion (about all the players he's selected) has worked pretty well so far.

None of those could be remotely construed as saying that only 2 people were responsible. Your habit of reducing anything you don't agree with to a strawman is really annoying and a huge waste of everyone's time. It shows a really unpleasant lack of respect for your fellow posters and it's hacking me off.

You talk how vital they are. Well we don't know if no one else gets a proper run.

It's about a fresh approach. Making changes before the loss.

[Geordie]

I go back to asking what the main difference is I'm the laws which means that bigger is better? None which I can see but there is the england tactic of getting people on their feet back in the defensive line rather than place a huge emphasis on challenging for the ball. This may change as players like simmonds underhill curry come through. I do see the lock at 6 as a holding position but not a hugely successful one from my pov.

More like Rugby League you mean.

I don't know how the changes are affecting it...if they even are. I just think (up till now) the emphasis from Jones has been power.

Haskell at 7 playing that specific role.
Underhill seemingly his heir if he can stay fit...

Locks at 6...

[No 7&1/2]

What if you change the team beshocked and then lose? This is the point where you should be talking about tactics skills performance. A result doesn't mean much in this contest. I'd say there are a large proportion of games for tier 1 nations could go either way on a bounce of the ball.

[No 7&1/2]

Agree gf. And I do see why he'd do it. I've thought similar in the past but due to the players available.now I think there's better.more suitable options which allow.us to play in a slightly different way. Completely get the experience factor though.

[Geordie]

I agree...

I just want a nice balance of power, pace and skill / technique. All with a few braincells!

[Geordie]

Ps Against Italy id be game to give the lighter, speedsters a go to see how they look.

We know what Itoje / laws can do out there.

If Simmonds for example isn't doing the business...sub him at half time. But on the other hand we might just get a surprise as he's an explosive 8 / flanker that is playing for the top side in the country and not looking out of place.

[Poorfour]

Another strawman. I do think Eddie has been excellent for England, but that's hardly controversial.

In terms of player selection, all I have ever done is point out that Eddie knows more about rugby and has more information about individual players than us, and that in selecting them consistently he must be seeing something that he likes game in, game out. The fact that you or I can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

I think the "fresh approach" argument isn't a particularly good one in modern rugby. The way rugby is currently set up there are enough enforced changes that making changes for the sake of change is effectively introducing unnecessary disruption (unless you're the All Blacks and have the luxury of a settled system at club and international level). As a coach you will be forced to try out fringe players in time anyway. Lancaster made a few form-based changes and the result was headlines that he didn't know his preferred team.

Sometimes those forced changes enhance a team - as when Itoje was introduced - and sometimes they don't - as when England played last 6 Nations with a makeshift back row. When they work they tend to be kept, when they don't they don't.

"Giving other players a proper run" is fanspeak that almost invariably means "I don't like the player who's been picked and I want someone else to play." The argument holds even less water coming from you, since your definition of "a fresh approach" usually boils down to starting George ahead of Hartley.

One thing I think Eddie's got spot on is breaking down the distinction between the starting XV and the bench. It's very clear that his "finishers" are exactly that, and that their selection in that role is driven by their potential impact in the closing stages of the game. Given that England's playing strategy is very much about being able to win the game in the last quarter, we should view the finishers as having a different role from the starters, but not a less important or less prestigious one.

Danny Care is a case in point. Regardless of his form relative to Youngs, I expect Eddie's preference will always be to use him as a finisher, because as we saw against Australia his particular style of play has a much bigger impact when the game is a little looser in the last 20 minutes. However much I might feel he's "earned a start", I'm pretty sure he'll remain a finisher.

It may be the same for George, and I suspect possibly Mako (if Marler can stay out of jail) and Smith (when he is ready). It's even possible that in George's case he will stay on the bench after Hartley retires, depending on who comes into the squad and whether they have the kind of game-breaking power that George has.

[No 7&1/2]

The fresh approach bit is a good point you have. I suppose my calls for the back row are somewhat of a new one. These lads are all new and a risk. If successful for me could work better and I do so in the knowledge vunipola and Hughes are out with Robshaw looking touch and go. Jones will have a better feel for how much of a risk it is. There's always the tait example which can set a player back a great distance.

[propdavid_london]

I agree...

I just want a nice balance of power, pace and skill / technique. All with a few braincells!

Rules out Isekwe then....

[Scottrf]

Because he can't pass his driving test?

[propdavid_london]

Yup

[cascough]

Looking at the number of times players have been named in matchday squads under Eddie Jones...

LH
Mako 17
Marler 16
Mullan 8
Genge 5

HK
Hartley 23
George 17
Cowan-Dickie 3
Singleton 2
Taylor 1

TH
Cole 21
Sinckler 9
Hill 7
Williams 5
Collier 2
Brookes 2

LK
Launchbury 20
Lawes 19
Itoje 14
Kruis 11
Ewels 6
Isiekwe 3
Attwood 2

FL
Robshaw 16
Haskell 13
Clifford 10
Wood 8
Harrison 6
Underhill 3
Wilson 2
Curry 1
Armand 1
Kvesic 1

8
Billy 13
Hughes 12
Simmonds 3

SH
Care 23
Youngs 21
Maunder 2

FH
Ford 23

MF
Joseph 19
Farrell 18
Slade 9
Te'o 9
Lozowski 4
Francis 3
Devoto 2
Tuilagi 2
Burrell 2

WG
Daly 17
Nowell 13
Watson 13
May 10
Yarde 6
Roko 4
Solomona 2

FB
Brown 21
Goode 4

Looking purely at the leaders in each position, you've currently got 12 names there for a first team. So we are missing 3. If Robshaw and Brown do drop out, we'd be down to 10. That's still 2/3 of Eddie Jones most selected team that will line up against Italy, the worst team in the 6N. If Robshaw and Brown do make it, then we are back up to 4/5 or 80% of his most selected team available. The other curveball is that arguably Underhill is now first choice 7, and he is available, so it's even less of a problem. If Robshaw drops out, we go with Itoje on the flank, which was good enough to be part of a winning 6N team last time around. You could even make a case for saying that Watson and Nowell (the pair Jones' started with) would be above Daly we're it not for both of them missing England games through Injury. Then we'd be up to a staggering 13/15 of the first team available. Then don't forget that as well as our easiest game being first, Marler, Slade, Te'o, and Haskell are all due back in the 6N.

There's speculation in there of course, but the point is if you look at the numbers, we are miles from scraping the barrel.

Robshaw looks like he will make it so we are back up to 75% of eddie Jones' most selected team available to start. If you consider Underhill first choice then Eddie Jones will have a dizzying 80% of his first choice players. We're fine. It's Italy. They're crap.

[Geordie]

That's why we shouldn't risk players.

Play fully fit players...and trust in them.

[cascough]

That's why we shouldn't risk players.

Play fully fit players...and trust in them.

Brian O'Driscoll has remarked many times that players are never fully fit and it's a constant battle to manage injuries.

[Geordie]

I can understand that cascough...but pick the ones who aren't touch and go to play at all then.

Ie if its between a 94% Itoje or Lawes at 6 or Robshaw who is 50/50 of even making the game...then pick from the first two.

[cascough]

I can understand that cascough...but pick the ones who aren't touch and go to play at all then.

Ie if its between a 94% Itoje or Lawes at 6 or Robshaw who is 50/50 of even making the game...then pick from the first two.

It's not really that simple though. The discussion isn't really around the severity or debilitating nature of the injury, but more the chances of a recurrence.

Therefore Robshaw may have a worse injury that even though he hasn't trained as much, if recovered by a week Sunday is very unlikely to reoccur. Lawes may be carrying a niggle that allows him to train, but actually has a higher chance of reoccurring and therefore not finishing the game.

Point being, it's hard to quantify just how likely to get through the game players are based on whether or not they're in training. Injuries come in all sorts of shapes and sizes. In any case, there's ages to go yet and if he is training now, he's plenty of time to get up to speed with patterns/calls etc.

[lostinwales]

... we should view the finishers as having a different role from the starters, but not a less important or less prestigious one.....

This. This is also what comes across as our friend's no.1 issue.

[beshocked]

Another strawman. I do think Eddie has been excellent for England, but that's hardly controversial.

In terms of player selection, all I have ever done is point out that Eddie knows more about rugby and has more information about individual players than us, and that in selecting them consistently he must be seeing something that he likes game in, game out. The fact that you or I can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

I think the "fresh approach" argument isn't a particularly good one in modern rugby. The way rugby is currently set up there are enough enforced changes that making changes for the sake of change is effectively introducing unnecessary disruption (unless you're the All Blacks and have the luxury of a settled system at club and international level). As a coach you will be forced to try out fringe players in time anyway. Lancaster made a few form-based changes and the result was headlines that he didn't know his preferred team.

Sometimes those forced changes enhance a team - as when Itoje was introduced - and sometimes they don't - as when England played last 6 Nations with a makeshift back row. When they work they tend to be kept, when they don't they don't.

"Giving other players a proper run" is fanspeak that almost invariably means "I don't like the player who's been picked and I want someone else to play." The argument holds even less water coming from you, since your definition of "a fresh approach" usually boils down to starting George ahead of Hartley.

One thing I think Eddie's got spot on is breaking down the distinction between the starting XV and the bench. It's very clear that his "finishers" are exactly that, and that their selection in that role is driven by their potential impact in the closing stages of the game. Given that England's playing strategy is very much about being able to win the game in the last quarter, we should view the finishers as having a different role from the starters, but not a less important or less prestigious one.

Danny Care is a case in point. Regardless of his form relative to Youngs, I expect Eddie's preference will always be to use him as a finisher, because as we saw against Australia his particular style of play has a much bigger impact when the game is a little looser in the last 20 minutes. However much I might feel he's "earned a start", I'm pretty sure he'll remain a finisher.

It may be the same for George, and I suspect possibly Mako (if Marler can stay out of jail) and Smith (when he is ready). It's even possible that in George's case he will stay on the bench after Hartley retires, depending on who comes into the squad and whether they have the kind of game-breaking power that George has.

I agree, it does generally boil to not like the starting player. There are valid reasons though.

I wouldn't have a case if player X was so good or there weren't alternate options playing better.

Your argument is - Eddie Jones knows what he's doing, leave him to it, if it ain't broke, no need to fix.

That's where I disagree though - I want England to always strive to improve. England aren't no 1 in the world. England are still vulnerable and have their limitations.

Jones is doing well and most things but he has a mental block - inability to see things another way.

You might say I say the same but I've changed my tune on certain players like Ford,May and Nowell - if they play well keep them.

On the other hand if players aren't the sufficient standard they shouldn't be playing for England let alone captaining England.

And Yes I still think it's nonsensical to retain England's worst performer as captain and no it's not simply down to Eddie Jones knows best - he just accepts the faults as do England fans.

B.Youngs isn't England captain or even playing so badly to warrant being dropped.


lostinwales didn't realise playing only 20 minutes was as prestigious as 60..... I am sure every player strives to be on the bench instead of starting.....

I am sure the lock who is benched is saying yay - I get to be a finisher.


Oh and every role is less prestigious compared to the captain.

In terms of prestige -

Captain
Vice Captain
Starter
Bench

Trying to re-brand bench as finishers doesn't change that they are 2nd fiddle. Not even as England rotates most of the positions. If England shared the starts and bench then equality could be reached but as it is it's imbalanced in favour of the starters.

With the captain being the most favoured out of everyone.


Earle left Saracens despite having the supposedly honoured role of "finisher". It's what every player aspires to "finisher". Starts? Who wants them?

[No 7&1/2]

Delete

[No 7&1/2]

What's your ideal team to start italy then wales ? Do we throw off ring rust vs italy and carry the same team forward or cap a few in the 1st and rest some for wales?

[Sgt_Pooly]

Oh no....here we go again...I'm getting a beer.

[Mad for Chelsea]

here you go pooly

In all seriousness, can we not do this again?

[Geordie]

I know..its boring...please change the record.

Right on to something new!!

Why the feck is Mark Wilson not in the flippin squad!

[lostinwales]

Surely all that matters is that we win games. Time on pitch does not directly equate with impact on the game anyway. It is all about making the most of the opportunities that come up.

Edit - best example is Solomona. Does sod all while he's on the pitch gets one chance to run with the ball then dances through half the opposition and score a wonderful try.

Rightly or wrongly we consider that there are more opportunities in the last 20 minutes than there are in the previous 60, and one way of winning games is to have the players on the pitch during that 20 who can take most advantage of the situation. It is not that complicated an idea, although it has taken Eddie to grab this idea and run with it.

[beshocked]

That was before Hartley played poor again. I actually gave Hartley the benefit out of the doubt because I realise how beloved he is but another capitulation, come on..... it's getting ludicrous. A captain has a responsibility.


It's a bit like Simmonds cemented in my mind that he has to start. You can play well in a losing team - Simmonds did.


lostinwales the wins will eventually become losses if changes aren't made. Disagree - sometimes opportunities aren't always in the last 20.

Team X might you put on the cosh. I think Argentina did that in the AIs.

Staleness for 60 minutes isn't good enough IMO. I mean England-France was truly appalling last year. Yes, we won but only just.

[No 7&1/2]

Losses will.come.no matter what. What's your thoughts on this 6Ns then . More important to dvelop the team a bit. Show.some.support no matter what or wins.all important?

[beshocked]

Depends how you define develop? Is trying new options in the backrow exclusively enough to sate the appetite?

Losses don't necessarily need to come if you play well enough - not sure England will be underdogs in any game.

Perhaps if they start badly they might but hopefully they won't.

[No 7&1/2]

Losses come to everyone no matter what. What do you want to see vs italy team and bench wise. What are you looking at from them. Do they get another start vs wales no matter or do you bring people in if they don't do what you want? I'd particularly be interested if the newer guys you want to bring in have to achieve specifics.

[beshocked]

I've said bring in Simmonds. Drop Hartley and Brown. Those are 3 of the main decisions I'd make.

If the performance is really bad then yes, for Wales changes would have to be made.

[No 7&1/2]

So george in for Hartley dunn on bench? Locks? 6? 7? Watson at 15 who are your wings? What's your bench. What defines a bad performance? Does george need to be running through the opposition as good set piece doesn't cover it for Hartley? Oes Watson need to show fireworks as brown just does everything well? Simmonds struggles for years you bring on mercer? Put some meat on the Bones.

[beshocked]

Well if Robshaw is out we'll have to play Itoje or Lawes at 6, put Launchbury on the bench, Kruis in the 2nd row.

Watson at 15, not sure who the other fit wingers are? I guess May and Solomona or Earle?

Brown does everything well? That's a bit of over hyping but okay.

Bad performance is England being made to look poor.

George simply needs to do more than Hartley which isn't raising the bar high.

If Simmonds struggles, yes bring on Mercer.

Watson needs to show some fireworks yes.

[No 7&1/2]

Lawes Itoje as your first 2 locks is interesting as is Kruis as your 3rd. Launchbury has been in rat form this year picked up the most motm last year and has possession of the shirt which I thought you favoured?

So george needs to nail all throws and be solid at scrum time with good defence as a bare minimum. And I suppose he needs to carry well to then justify his place. I was more talking about a bad performance for the players you would bring in but fair enough. If england start slowly major changes across the board for wales.

[thomh]

Well if Robshaw is out we'll have to play Itoje or Lawes at 6, put Launchbury on the bench, Kruis in the 2nd row.

Is Launchbury really your fourth choice lock? Or is there some clever lineout or other reason why you'd have them arranged like that with Robshaw missing?

[Poorfour]

I agree, it does generally boil to not like the starting player. There are valid reasons though.

I wouldn't have a case if player X was so good or there weren't alternate options playing better.

Valid in your mind. You have an opinion based on having watched players for a maximum of 80 minutes per week playing club games. That doesn't actually count for much in terms of validity.

Your argument is - Eddie Jones knows what he's doing, leave him to it, if it ain't broke, no need to fix.

No, that isn't my argument. My argument is that Eddie Jones has access to significantly more data on players than we have. He had video analysts who can track individual players through every game. He can go and watch them in training or playing whenever he wants. He has GPS, workout and physio data. He gets to watch them in his training sessions - which he has said several times are designed to mirror the intensity of international games much more than club games do. That is hundreds of times more data than we have. Probably the largest part of his job is to study the players available to him and make decisions about who is suitable for international rugby and who is not, and he will spend many hours each week considering this data.

He is a professional coach who has spent nearly 20 years coaching international teams, with considerable success.

My argument is that his judgement is better than yours. He has every advantage over you. I expect him to know when it's broke, and when it is broke I expect him to know how to fix it, or at least what he wants to try to fix it.

That's where I disagree though - I want England to always strive to improve. England aren't no 1 in the world. England are still vulnerable and have their limitations.

I don't doubt your sincerity in wanting England to improve. I also don't doubt Eddie's sincerity in wanting to win the RWC. England aren't #1 in the world rankings because at the top of the rankings you can only acquire points slowly. England could be #1 in the rankings if they beat the All Blacks in the Autumn. They can't do it without beating them, unless the All Blacks go into a massive slump, and that's how it should be.

As to whether England are actually the best team in the world, well we don't know, do we? They haven't beaten the All Blacks and the All Blacks haven't beaten England. They've both lost to Ireland, and the All Blacks have also lost to Australia and the Lions. England have looked vulnerable, but so have every other team, including the All Blacks.

And I have no doubts that Eddie is absolutely aware of England's vulnerabilities and has a plan to fix them. Unfortunately for you, that plan does not appear to include starting Jamie George. Sorry. But as I have said repeatedly, whatever flaws you see in Hartley and whatever benefits you see in starting George, the man who actually gets to make the decision doesn't see it that way. I think I can see some of the reason why, but we'll get onto that in a bit.

Jones is doing well and most things but he has a mental block - inability to see things another way.

No. You can say "I think he has a mental block" but you've got no evidence to support that assertion. What you've got is a man who knows far more about the situation than you and he hasn't done what you want him to do, and you're upset about it. That's not evidence, that's opinion.

You might say I say the same but I've changed my tune on certain players like Ford,May and Nowell - if they play well keep them.

[Obi Wan voice]You've just taken your first step into a wider world[/Obi Wan voice].

And maybe if you had the data that Eddie has on George and Hartley you'd change your tune on that one too.

On the other hand if players aren't the sufficient standard they shouldn't be playing for England let alone captaining England.

And Yes I still think it's nonsensical to retain England's worst performer as captain and no it's not simply down to Eddie Jones knows best - he just accepts the faults as do England fans.

B.Youngs isn't England captain or even playing so badly to warrant being dropped.

Right now, nobody is playing international rugby so we as fans have no idea how any of the players are performing, except that Chris Robshaw is kick-ass at aquarobics. International rugby is different to club rugby. Good performances in club rugby earn you a ticket to the training camp; better performances in training than the guy in the shirt earns you a shot at a cap; performances in international rugby let you keep it.

YOU think Hartley is the worst performer. Evidence?

YOU think Eddie accepts Hartley's faults. I don't. I would put money on it that Hartley - like every other player - has been told exactly what he has to work on, and also that if you listed your perception of Hartley's no doubt manifold faults and showed it to Eddie he would dismiss most of them as irrelevant, some of them as downright wrong and add a bunch of his own that you hadn't thought of.

And even then, he would still put George on the bench, because he values what George does off the bench more than what he could do as a starter.

lostinwales didn't realise playing only 20 minutes was as prestigious as 60..... I am sure every player strives to be on the bench instead of starting.....

I am sure the lock who is benched is saying yay - I get to be a finisher.

That's how fans tend to see it. That is not how the players have been told to see it. I bloody well do want the lock on the bench to be excited about being a finisher, because being a finisher requires a different mindset. If there's a player on the bench who is not motivated to go out and use their fresh legs to dominate the game, then they shouldn't be there at all.

We have a hangover of the amateur days when subs were only for injuries. Then being a sub was less prestigious. Things have moved on and we should ditch that mindset because it's not helpful for the way we're trying to play the game.

Oh and every role is less prestigious compared to the captain.

In terms of prestige -

Captain
Vice Captain
Starter
Bench

Try reading Martin Johnson's autobiography. He didn't want to be captain. It's the same story in most other sporting autobiographies: once you're actually playing professionally, what you want is to play at the highest level you can. Being captain isn't something most players seek, not least because it's a lot of extra work. And in the really great sides the leadership work is shared among a group of players. Captaincy matters to fans. It matters much, much less to players.

Trying to re-brand bench as finishers doesn't change that they are 2nd fiddle. Not even as England rotates most of the positions. If England shared the starts and bench then equality could be reached but as it is it's imbalanced in favour of the starters.

With the captain being the most favoured out of everyone.

Earle left Saracens despite having the supposedly honoured role of "finisher". It's what every player aspires to "finisher". Starts? Who wants them?

You're completely missing the point. It's not about rebranding and equality. It's not about first and second fiddle. It's about different jobs, and it's about better performances. And it's about the difference between club and international rugby.

For a club, rotation makes sense if you can afford the squad to do it, and there is a difference between being a starter and being benched. The English club season has up to 41 games in it. You can't play your best players in every game, and some games matter less than others. As a player, you want to start a decent number of the important matches, enough to get noticed by the international coaches but not so many that you burn out. As a coach, you want to put out as strong a team as you can while trying to keep your best players fit for the big games.

Earle is leaving Saracens because he feels he'll get more game time (and probably more money) at Quins. No-one is disputing that. But club rugby is not international rugby.

Internationals are different. There are around 12 games a year, of which maybe two are slightly less competitive. The difference in quality between the starting XV and the bench is significantly smaller... but most coaches still work on a basis of "best players (or best combinations) start, second best is on the bench."

What's becoming clearer and clearer as Eddie's tenure goes on is that he seems to be thinking about the XXIII in a different way from most, possibly all, other coaches. Partly this is because he can: he's got the biggest player base and the best potential depth of any team apart from the All Blacks. But he's also got something that the All Blacks don't, at least not to the same degree: he has a much wider range of playing styles available to him.

I think - and the evidence of his selections supports this - that some of the first questions in Eddie's selection process are: "Which players do I want fresh at the end of the game? Which players have qualities that will let them exploit heavy legs in the opposition? Which players can change our style of play enough to exploit tired minds?"

The players he puts on the bench are the players that fit that bill. Because at International level, where the choice between two players is relatively small, it makes sense to think about where their qualities are best used.

Think about it this way: positional specialisation has developed over time.Rugby had been around for decades before Adrian Stoop invented separate roles of scrum half and fly half. If you read Jason Leonard's autobiography, he makes the point that when he first played for England they didn't have designated loose or tight head props. First prop there, or most senior prop, called it. The specialist winger is giving way to wing/fullbacks at international level.

Starter and finisher feels to me like the next step in positional specialisation: specialisation by when they are most effective in a match. If you look at England's results and the number of points they score in the last 20-30 minutes, it looks like a very promising evolution.


Please also note the considerate and readable formatting of this post, and the attempt to address your points at face value and not turn them into strawmen.

[WELL-PAST-IT]

Loved this quote from Eddie:

"I was watching the back-rowers train yesterday. We had four back-rowers train: Gary Graham, Sam Simmonds, Zach Mercer and Nick Isiekwe," Jones explained.

The most capped players out of those guys is Nick Isiekwe - he's 19. He's failed his driving test five times. So he can't even drive anywhere, and he's our most experienced player."

Since when has Isiekwe been a back rower, I thought he was a lock, similar build to Lawes mind you, so could be just as versatile

[No 7&1/2]

Great read poorfour

[SecretFly]

Loved this quote from Eddie:

"I was watching the back-rowers train yesterday. We had four back-rowers train: Gary Graham, Sam Simmonds, Zach Mercer and Nick Isiekwe," Jones explained.

The most capped players out of those guys is Nick Isiekwe - he's 19. He's failed his driving test five times. So he can't even drive anywhere, and he's our most experienced player."

Since when has Isiekwe been a back rower, I thought he was a lock, similar build to Lawes mind you, so could be just as versatile

That one has been done a few hours ago...

[Poorfour]

Great read poorfour

Thanks. I was worried it had gotten too long, but I thought the observation was worth making.

[No 7&1/2]

Comprehensive. Well argued. I hope it gets the time put into a reply that you took writing it.

[yappysnap]

I agree, it does generally boil to not like the starting player. There are valid reasons though.

I wouldn't have a case if player X was so good or there weren't alternate options playing better.

Valid in your mind. You have an opinion based on having watched players for a maximum of 80 minutes per week playing club games. That doesn't actually count for much in terms of validity.

Your argument is - Eddie Jones knows what he's doing, leave him to it, if it ain't broke, no need to fix.

No, that isn't my argument. My argument is that Eddie Jones has access to significantly more data on players than we have. He had video analysts who can track individual players through every game. He can go and watch them in training or playing whenever he wants. He has GPS, workout and physio data. He gets to watch them in his training sessions - which he has said several times are designed to mirror the intensity of international games much more than club games do. That is hundreds of times more data than we have. Probably the largest part of his job is to study the players available to him and make decisions about who is suitable for international rugby and who is not, and he will spend many hours each week considering this data.

He is a professional coach who has spent nearly 20 years coaching international teams, with considerable success.

My argument is that his judgement is better than yours. He has every advantage over you. I expect him to know when it's broke, and when it is broke I expect him to know how to fix it, or at least what he wants to try to fix it.

That's where I disagree though - I want England to always strive to improve. England aren't no 1 in the world. England are still vulnerable and have their limitations.

I don't doubt your sincerity in wanting England to improve. I also don't doubt Eddie's sincerity in wanting to win the RWC. England aren't #1 in the world rankings because at the top of the rankings you can only acquire points slowly. England could be #1 in the rankings if they beat the All Blacks in the Autumn. They can't do it without beating them, unless the All Blacks go into a massive slump, and that's how it should be.

As to whether England are actually the best team in the world, well we don't know, do we? They haven't beaten the All Blacks and the All Blacks haven't beaten England. They've both lost to Ireland, and the All Blacks have also lost to Australia and the Lions. England have looked vulnerable, but so have every other team, including the All Blacks.

And I have no doubts that Eddie is absolutely aware of England's vulnerabilities and has a plan to fix them. Unfortunately for you, that plan does not appear to include starting Jamie George. Sorry. But as I have said repeatedly, whatever flaws you see in Hartley and whatever benefits you see in starting George, the man who actually gets to make the decision doesn't see it that way. I think I can see some of the reason why, but we'll get onto that in a bit.

Jones is doing well and most things but he has a mental block - inability to see things another way.

No. You can say "I think he has a mental block" but you've got no evidence to support that assertion. What you've got is a man who knows far more about the situation than you and he hasn't done what you want him to do, and you're upset about it. That's not evidence, that's opinion.

You might say I say the same but I've changed my tune on certain players like Ford,May and Nowell - if they play well keep them.

[Obi Wan voice]You've just taken your first step into a wider world[/Obi Wan voice].

And maybe if you had the data that Eddie has on George and Hartley you'd change your tune on that one too.

On the other hand if players aren't the sufficient standard they shouldn't be playing for England let alone captaining England.

And Yes I still think it's nonsensical to retain England's worst performer as captain and no it's not simply down to Eddie Jones knows best - he just accepts the faults as do England fans.

B.Youngs isn't England captain or even playing so badly to warrant being dropped.

Right now, nobody is playing international rugby so we as fans have no idea how any of the players are performing, except that Chris Robshaw is kick-ass at aquarobics. International rugby is different to club rugby. Good performances in club rugby earn you a ticket to the training camp; better performances in training than the guy in the shirt earns you a shot at a cap; performances in international rugby let you keep it.

YOU think Hartley is the worst performer. Evidence?

YOU think Eddie accepts Hartley's faults. I don't. I would put money on it that Hartley - like every other player - has been told exactly what he has to work on, and also that if you listed your perception of Hartley's no doubt manifold faults and showed it to Eddie he would dismiss most of them as irrelevant, some of them as downright wrong and add a bunch of his own that you hadn't thought of.

And even then, he would still put George on the bench, because he values what George does off the bench more than what he could do as a starter.

lostinwales didn't realise playing only 20 minutes was as prestigious as 60..... I am sure every player strives to be on the bench instead of starting.....

I am sure the lock who is benched is saying yay - I get to be a finisher.

That's how fans tend to see it. That is not how the players have been told to see it. I bloody well do want the lock on the bench to be excited about being a finisher, because being a finisher requires a different mindset. If there's a player on the bench who is not motivated to go out and use their fresh legs to dominate the game, then they shouldn't be there at all.

We have a hangover of the amateur days when subs were only for injuries. Then being a sub was less prestigious. Things have moved on and we should ditch that mindset because it's not helpful for the way we're trying to play the game.

Oh and every role is less prestigious compared to the captain.

In terms of prestige -

Captain
Vice Captain
Starter
Bench

Try reading Martin Johnson's autobiography. He didn't want to be captain. It's the same story in most other sporting autobiographies: once you're actually playing professionally, what you want is to play at the highest level you can. Being captain isn't something most players seek, not least because it's a lot of extra work. And in the really great sides the leadership work is shared among a group of players. Captaincy matters to fans. It matters much, much less to players.

Trying to re-brand bench as finishers doesn't change that they are 2nd fiddle. Not even as England rotates most of the positions. If England shared the starts and bench then equality could be reached but as it is it's imbalanced in favour of the starters.

With the captain being the most favoured out of everyone.

Earle left Saracens despite having the supposedly honoured role of "finisher". It's what every player aspires to "finisher". Starts? Who wants them?

You're completely missing the point. It's not about rebranding and equality. It's not about first and second fiddle. It's about different jobs, and it's about better performances. And it's about the difference between club and international rugby.

For a club, rotation makes sense if you can afford the squad to do it, and there is a difference between being a starter and being benched. The English club season has up to 41 games in it. You can't play your best players in every game, and some games matter less than others. As a player, you want to start a decent number of the important matches, enough to get noticed by the international coaches but not so many that you burn out. As a coach, you want to put out as strong a team as you can while trying to keep your best players fit for the big games.

Earle is leaving Saracens because he feels he'll get more game time (and probably more money) at Quins. No-one is disputing that. But club rugby is not international rugby.

Internationals are different. There are around 12 games a year, of which maybe two are slightly less competitive. The difference in quality between the starting XV and the bench is significantly smaller... but most coaches still work on a basis of "best players (or best combinations) start, second best is on the bench."

What's becoming clearer and clearer as Eddie's tenure goes on is that he seems to be thinking about the XXIII in a different way from most, possibly all, other coaches. Partly this is because he can: he's got the biggest player base and the best potential depth of any team apart from the All Blacks. But he's also got something that the All Blacks don't, at least not to the same degree: he has a much wider range of playing styles available to him.

I think - and the evidence of his selections supports this - that some of the first questions in Eddie's selection process are: "Which players do I want fresh at the end of the game? Which players have qualities that will let them exploit heavy legs in the opposition? Which players can change our style of play enough to exploit tired minds?"

The players he puts on the bench are the players that fit that bill. Because at International level, where the choice between two players is relatively small, it makes sense to think about where their qualities are best used.

Think about it this way: positional specialisation has developed over time.Rugby had been around for decades before Adrian Stoop invented separate roles of scrum half and fly half. If you read Jason Leonard's autobiography, he makes the point that when he first played for England they didn't have designated loose or tight head props. First prop there, or most senior prop, called it. The specialist winger is giving way to wing/fullbacks at international level.

Starter and finisher feels to me like the next step in positional specialisation: specialisation by when they are most effective in a match. If you look at England's results and the number of points they score in the last 20-30 minutes, it looks like a very promising evolution.


Please also note the considerate and readable formatting of this post, and the attempt to address your points at face value and not turn them into strawmen.

Great write up PF

[kingelderfield]

As to whether England are actually the best team in the world, well we don't know, do we? They haven't beaten the All Blacks and the All Blacks haven't beaten England. They've both lost to Ireland, and the All Blacks have also lost to Australia and the Lions. England have looked vulnerable, but so have every other team, including the All Blacks.

in reality with the players available to us we're probably ranked 4th or 5th.

Eddie can have all the player stats and data in the world. The fact is if the players are broke whats the point?

Rugby union has real player welfare issues and to be honest you like the majority of fans and those in the game are in denial as to the scale of the issue.

How many players are now unavailable for selection?

[Scottrf]

4th or 5th? So should put us 3rd or 4th in the 6 Nations. Let's see.

[Sgt_Pooly]

Great read poorfour

Thanks. I was worried it had gotten too long, but I thought the observation was worth making.

Agree....but a complete waste of time and effort.

[Poorfour]

As a Quins fan, I am not remotely in denial about the issue. But I can't do anything about it until the rugby world comes to its senses and appoints me chairman of World Rugby. I assume it will happen any day soon.

Flippancy aside, I'm very concerned. Too many players are spending too much time injured, and too many careers are being cut short. One of my favourite players was forced into retirement far too young last year as a result of injury, and I've spent half of this season watching my club field sides consisting of "who can we patch up and put in a shirt this week."

It's a problem that's personal. A friend's son is in the age grade system and has had two major knee injuries before his 21st birthday. All my children play rugby and as they get more serious I look very carefully at the injury risks. But it's not a problem I'm going to solve or even influence by venting my anger on other posters on a messageboard.

And I have every intention of enjoying the 6 Nations and seeing how England adapt to their injury issues, and whether they can do so better than Wales, Scotland and Ireland, all of whom have injury issues of their own.

[Geordie]

Arent the other nations having injury problems as well though?

Scotland I know have a front row problems, and I'm sure midfield issues. Hence why the falcons Chris Harris has been called up.
Wales I'm sure have a host of players out particularly in the back row etc.
France have selected a random squad that no one knows what will produce
Only Ireland I don't really know if they have problems or not.

So yes we have problems but so do the other teams.

[Poorfour]

Great read poorfour

Thanks. I was worried it had gotten too long, but I thought the observation was worth making.

Agree....but a complete waste of time and effort.

That depends. I suspect it will be water off a duck's back to its most direct audience, but I learned quite a bit from writing it and at least a couple of other posters seem to have enjoyed it. So, not a *complete* waste...

[Geordie]

Blank

[Poorfour]

Arent the other nations having injury problems as well though?

Scotland I know have a front row problems, and I'm sure midfield issues. Hence why the falcons Chris Harris has been called up.  
Wales I'm sure have a host of players out particularly in the back row etc.
France have selected a random squad that no one knows what will produce
Only Ireland I don't really know if they have problems or not.

So yes we have problems but so do the other teams.

Quite.
Scotland are down by a number of props that makes our shortage look laughable
Wales are missing Webb, Biggar, Priestland, Jonathan Davies and several others. And Warburton, naturally
Ireland the only one I know of is Murray, but that's quite a big loss

[Sponsored content]