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]

Plus, saying in Public is utterly meaningless.

There is only 1 (or 3) people you have to impress and show how hard you are learning / hitting targets.

That's Eddie, Steve and Paul. No one else...certainly not the media and general public.

[beshocked]

Brown hasn't shown any indication he is looking to improve. Neither has Hartley. If there is an article saying so - I'll change my mind. As I said there are now multiple articles of other England players highlighting areas but these two are silent....

Well no 7 & 1/2 you jumped the gun and the article proves that George is trying to work hard.

The coaches can try and help the players but the players themselves have to be motivated to improve.

Not directly from their mouths...but that is not necessary.
there have been clear indications from many other sources that all the players have their targets and must be driven to achieve them.

Perhaps strictly it's not necessary but it would be good to hear it from the players themselves - numerous other players have.

The fans don't matter now? Sigh... well it just helps cement my opinion on them.

[cascough]

Brown hasn't shown any indication he is looking to improve. Neither has Hartley. If there is an article saying so - I'll change my mind. As I said there are now multiple articles of other England players highlighting areas but these two are silent....

Well no 7 & 1/2 you jumped the gun and the article proves that George is trying to work hard.

The coaches can try and help the players but the players themselves have to be motivated to improve.

Not directly from their mouths...but that is not necessary.
there have been clear indications from many other sources that all the players have their targets and must be driven to achieve them.

Perhaps strictly it's not necessary but it would be good to hear it from the players themselves - numerous other players have.

Let's be really, really clear here. YOU want to hear it, that doesn't mean it's a good thing, nor that anyone else wants to hear it.

[beshocked]

Brown hasn't shown any indication he is looking to improve. Neither has Hartley. If there is an article saying so - I'll change my mind. As I said there are now multiple articles of other England players highlighting areas but these two are silent....

Well no 7 & 1/2 you jumped the gun and the article proves that George is trying to work hard.

The coaches can try and help the players but the players themselves have to be motivated to improve.

Not directly from their mouths...but that is not necessary.
there have been clear indications from many other sources that all the players have their targets and must be driven to achieve them.

Perhaps strictly it's not necessary but it would be good to hear it from the players themselves - numerous other players have.

Let's be really, really clear here. YOU want to hear it, that doesn't mean it's a good thing, nor that anyone else wants to hear it.

So when a player publically says they want to improve it's not a good thing? You'd rather players shut themselves away?

Yes I am more inclined to be supportive of players who are publically making an effort to connect with fans and show a positive outlook.

Might even help soften my perception.

[mid_gen]

Is it OK for the players to say they are working hard, or do they have to say they are working REALLY REALLY HARD?

Concerned rugby fan here needs to know....

[Geordie]

Brown hasn't shown any indication he is looking to improve. Neither has Hartley. If there is an article saying so - I'll change my mind. As I said there are now multiple articles of other England players highlighting areas but these two are silent....

Well no 7 & 1/2 you jumped the gun and the article proves that George is trying to work hard.

The coaches can try and help the players but the players themselves have to be motivated to improve.

Not directly from their mouths...but that is not necessary.
there have been clear indications from many other sources that all the players have their targets and must be driven to achieve them.

Perhaps strictly it's not necessary but it would be good to hear it from the players themselves - numerous other players have.

The fans don't matter now? Sigh...  well it just helps cement my opinion on them.

No,i don't need to hear such and such tell me he's working on his scrummaging, or on his speed or his tackling etc.

I WANT to SEE the evidence on the pitch....and if the improvements aren't made I want to see Eddie removing them from the team.

[cascough]

Brown hasn't shown any indication he is looking to improve. Neither has Hartley. If there is an article saying so - I'll change my mind. As I said there are now multiple articles of other England players highlighting areas but these two are silent....

Well no 7 & 1/2 you jumped the gun and the article proves that George is trying to work hard.

The coaches can try and help the players but the players themselves have to be motivated to improve.

Not directly from their mouths...but that is not necessary.
there have been clear indications from many other sources that all the players have their targets and must be driven to achieve them.

Perhaps strictly it's not necessary but it would be good to hear it from the players themselves - numerous other players have.

Let's be really, really clear here. YOU want to hear it, that doesn't mean it's a good thing, nor that anyone else wants to hear it.

So when a player publically says they want to improve it's not a good thing? You'd rather players shut themselves away?

Yes I am more inclined to be supportive of players who are publically making an effort to connect with fans and show a positive outlook.

Might even help soften my perception.

I'm supportive of players who go out and perform. As long as they do that, I'm happy. I tend to try and avoid looking for other reasons to dislike a player to push whatever agenda I may have, and I can certainly live without 95% of the cliched media guff we get in the run up to games.

Players coming out and saying "It's a great camp, everyone is working really hard, Jones demands the best". What else are they gonna say? "It's carp here, there's a few lads not pulling their weight and Eddie says we can go easy this year".

[Poorfour]

Beshocked, you do understand how the press junket around a rugby tournament works, right? Because your answers suggest that you don't.

The general pattern is that the press are given access to watch a few training sessions and then get to chat with some - but by no means all - of the players and coaches. The journos can and do ask to talk to specific players, but ultimately the team management decide who they make available.

The players who have been quoted as saying that they need to improve - and who have also said that everyone has been told the things they need to approve - are the ones who were made available for interview. We have only heard from certain players, because only certain players were involved in the interviews. It seems like it was quite a broad range of players this time, but still not everyone.

How do those players get chosen? Often it's the ones who have the most free time. The ones who aren't doing rehab. The ones who aren't supporting other players in their development. The ones who aren't doing extra training to work on something.

Just because a player has spoken to the press, it doesn't particularly mean anything. It's possible to read far too much into it. Lancaster took Tom Wood to the first 6N kick off, and everyone assumed he would be the captain. Actually, he took Wood because he was crocked and had nothing else to do, and Wood was never in line to be captain.

It's also not as if everyone in the squad recorded a personal statement of how he needed to improve except Brown and Hartley.

I can't speak for Hartley, but as someone who has followed Mike Brown's career for over a decade, to accuse him of not wanting to improve betrays a complete lack of understanding of the man. A player who hires additional coaching out of his own pocket to work on aspects of his game is someone who wants to improve. That goes double when the coach in question is the notoriously hardcore Margot Wells.

I'll say it again: you have a perception that Brown and Hartley have weaknesses that they are not addressing. But your information is incomplete, and the England coaching staff do not appear as bothered by what you see as weaknesses. We don't know why, though we can speculate. We also don't know if they are right, but I would put the balance of probability very much in their favour.

[Geordie]

http://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/42866825

Pretty much sums it up...hardly the description of a man (and coaching team) that's not watching everything and EVERY player.

[beshocked]

Beshocked, you do understand how the press junket around a rugby tournament works, right? Because your answers suggest that you don't.

The general pattern is that the press are given access to watch a few training sessions and then get to chat with some - but by no means all - of the players and coaches. The journos can and do ask to talk to specific players, but ultimately the team management decide who they make available.

The players who have been quoted as saying that they need to improve - and who have also said that everyone has been told the things they need to approve - are the ones who were made available for interview. We have only heard from certain players, because only certain players were involved in the interviews. It seems like it was quite a broad range of players this time, but still not everyone.

How do those players get chosen? Often it's the ones who have the most free time. The ones who aren't doing rehab. The ones who aren't supporting other players in their development. The ones who aren't doing extra training to work on something.

Just because a player has spoken to the press, it doesn't particularly mean anything. It's possible to read far too much into it. Lancaster took Tom Wood to the first 6N kick off, and everyone assumed he would be the captain. Actually, he took Wood because he was crocked and had nothing else to do, and Wood was never in line to be captain.

It's also not as if everyone in the squad recorded a personal statement of how he needed to improve except Brown and Hartley.

I can't speak for Hartley, but as someone who has followed Mike Brown's career for over a decade, to accuse him of not wanting to improve betrays a complete lack of understanding of the man. A player who hires additional coaching out of his own pocket to work on aspects of his game is someone who wants to improve. That goes double when the coach in question is the notoriously hardcore Margot Wells.

I'll say it again: you have a perception that Brown and Hartley have weaknesses that they are not addressing. But your information is incomplete, and the England coaching staff do not appear as bothered by what you see as weaknesses. We don't know why, though we can speculate. We also don't know if they are right, but I would put the balance of probability very much in their favour.

Well it seems that every player that was asked to make an interview has talked about things they want to prove on and Hartley is the captain, he has ample opportunities to talk about needing to improve.

No it hasn't just been players with a bit of free time on their hands as you put it - it's a mix of backs and forwards.

You expect me to believe the England captain doesn't get interviewed before the 6 nations?

Well Brown didn't say it in his article that he has things he's looking to work on. I am talking about now - not in the past - clearly we know Brown hired Margot Wells, it is very much documented publically how much he wanted to improve at that point in time.

His latest article again - no mention of what he needs to improve but only what he believes he does well.

[Scottrf]

64 and 89 England caps. Do we need sound bites to indicate that they always try to improve? They are highly successful in professional sport.

[No 7&1/2]

Nah they've stopped trying under these lackadaisical coaches.

[beshocked]

64 and 89 England caps. Do we need sound bites to indicate that they always try to improve? They are highly successful in professional sport.

Yes when their current form is poor and positions are under pressure.

[No 7&1/2]

Poor coaches clearly.

[Scottrf]

64 and 89 England caps. Do we need sound bites to indicate that they always try to improve? They are highly successful in professional sport.

Yes when their current form is poor and positions are under pressure.

Only if you are given the England job. But Eddie just signed a new contract so that's unlikely.

[Poorfour]

Well it seems that every player that was asked to make an interview has talked about things they want to prove on and Hartley is the captain, he has ample opportunities to talk about needing to improve.

No it hasn't just been players with a bit of free time on their hands as you put it - it's a mix of backs and forwards.

You expect me to believe the England captain doesn't get interviewed before the 6 nations?

Well Brown didn't say it in his article that he has things he's looking to work on. I am talking about now - not in the past - clearly we know Brown hired Margot Wells, it is very much documented publically how much he wanted to improve at that point in time.

His latest article again - no mention of what he needs to improve but only what he believes he does well.

It seems that way, but that's not necessarily how it was. The press report what they find interesting. It may be that they didn't ask Brown and Hartley about what they wanted to improve. It may be they did ask but didn't find their answers the most interesting thing to report. It may be that what they are working on is closely related to tactical switches that Eddie has planned and they were banned from talking about it.

We don't know. But because you would rather see other players start, you treat a lack of evidence as evidence of lack.

[lostinwales]

Robshaw, Brown and Nowell all passed fit for Italy
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/42878238

[ChequeredJersey]

Brilliant

[No 7&1/2]

May well see Nowell at 13 during th match at some point.

[ChequeredJersey]

So;

Brown
Watson
Joseph
Farrell
May
Ford
Youngs
Simmonds
Underhill/Graham (if Frodo isn’t fit)
Robshaw
Itoje
Launchbury
Cole I guess
Hartley
Mako

Hepburn, George, Williams, Lawes, Mercer, Care, Loz, Nowell looks likely and pretty good if unadventurous. Go out, get a win, maybe experiment a tad off the bench, get the BP then worry about anything else

[ChequeredJersey]

Happy to see Earle off the bench as another option, happy to See Nowell come on at 13 or FB

[mid_gen]

Good to see Nowell back, hope he can stay fit I still think he's our most exciting attacking threat.

Much more confident now Robshaw and Brown are back, they are currently the best EQ players in their respective positions and experienced leaders on the pitch.

Robshaw in particular will bring the best out of the young guns in the back row.

[lostinwales]

It is good news but part of me wants to see the understudies against Italy.

Re: Nowell. I like him a lot, and I love how hard he works and how combative he is, but he isn't going to score tries like the other options.

[Rugby Fan]

We all pose a lot of questions about selections and strategy. Martin Johnson raised some of the same issues in his recent interview.

It's highly unlikley that Jones has nevr considered these matters before. All accounts of his coaching stress his obsessive streak. Joe Scmidt has a similar reputation for detail. Even if they couldn't think of everything themselves, then there are coaches and video analysts to point things out.

Consequently, when I moan that I can't understand why Jones hasn't brought a third scrum half into the set-up, I don't think Jones is oblivious to the risk. Instead, he has decided the risk is insignificant (because he reckons he can get a third up to speed quickly) or else there is some trade-off he has elected to make.

A guy called Dougie Andrews is on the Maul Over Rugby podcast, and this week he complained that Jones doesn't have a plan B (he admits he's not certain what Plan A is), and is furious that Jones doesn't look to be using this Six Nations to turn the heat up on some World Cup squad possibles. For instance, he would start Marcus Smith against Italy to see what he's got.

I can't always see the subtleties of a team's gameplan but I don't doubt that Eddie Jones has one for England. It may well be the one described in a series of articles by Conor Wilson for the 1014 Rugby site (he's also looking at Ireland's plan). You can find his thoughts through this link:

http://the1014.com/author/conor-wilson/

I've no idea if Wilson is right but he sounds plausible. We might not like the decisions Jones is making, but it makes no sense to think Jones has no conceptual framework to work off.

Take the case of Don Armand. I think he'd fit right in with England but Jones hasn't looked at him again since the Argentina tour. Meanwhile, he's got Gary Graham in the squad, and may well have said encourgaing things to Brad Shields.

Perhaps Jones doesn't think it's urgent to look at another six. He's got Robshaw, and, much as many of us don't like seeing locks there, Jones is prepared to play Lawes or Itoje on the side of the scrum. He hasn't done so yet, but he could also consider playing Hughes and Vunipola together, with one at six. Armand might well be able to play seven but Jones is going with Underhill, and has even spoken of Simmons as a seven. If Haskell gets back to form, then he'll have a role to play, and Jones also knows what Tom Wood can do. In short, there are quite a few scenarios where it wouldn't make a lot of sense for Jones to select Armand. He might be wrong in his assumptions, but he's making a judgemengt call.

What is frustrating for supporters is that we rarely know what trade-offs are being made. However, we can make some educated guesses.

[Scottrf]

If he doesn't know what our plan A is, how is he qualified to comment on whether we have a plan B?

Haven't read that article but it's clear it's based around having players available in defence to shut down plays quickly , so not overly committing to rucks. Kicking over possession and scoring off broken play and early phase from set pieces. Then a focus on fitness and bench to dominate the latter stages of the game.

[Poorfour]

Eddie's already said why he only has two scrum halves: if he takes three, he can't give them enough time running the show in training. So he's made an explicit trade off that he can get his reserve scrum halves up to speed quickly if need be; I imagine that several of them will have been briefed on the game plan they need to learn.

I just don't buy the "England don't have a plan B" argument. It's demonstrably nonsense. This England side has used more styles of play than any I can remember. They played a power game in the first Australia test, a tight defensive game in the second and an open attacking game in the third. They consistently play a very different style of game when the bench comes on. In the Italy game, they actually cycled pretty rapidly through 3 or 4 different ways to create a ruck before settling on pick and go.

The transition between different game plans isn't totally fluid yet, and it often takes change off the bench - Care in particular - to make it happen, but claiming they only have one gameplan is a lazy stereotype.

However, one thing that England do have consistently is physicality and stamina. The gameplan is based - like the All Blacks' - on being able to stay in contention until the last 20 and then overwhelm opponents with a change of tactics, superior fitness and superior mental stamina.


The 1014's analysis, by the way, looks really detailed and solid to me - and makes the point that England's Plan A is different from what everyone else is doing. It commits fewer forwards in the attacking pods, and means that England can more reliably fix the drift defence while leaving space for their light and fast outside backs - but it relies on two things: having playmakers at 10 and 12 (and actually 9 as well, though the article underplays that a little), and having very fit and mentally alert non-carrying forwards who can adapt to the situation and be where they need to be.

I think that is probably why there are certain positions where Eddie just doesn't seem interested in trying out other players. I strongly suspect that a lot of players - especially in the back row - fall short of his demands for work rate and accuracy. A lot of the debate on here is about who the ball carriers in the forwards are - but actually the system relies more on quickly securing the ball at the breakdown than making big dents in the line. The carrying has to be robust enough to fix defenders, but big linebreaks are a nice to have.

As for Marcus Smith, if Eddie hadn't noticed him and Quins hadn't had injuries to their other three fly half options, I suspect that only a small hardcore of Quins fans would even know who he is. He's got all the talent, but he's still got a fair few work ons - his tackling is improving, his kicking from hand is a little behind Ford's, his tactical awareness is exceptional in some ways but not yet mature in others, and we need to be sure that physically he can handle the rigours of international rugby.

That doesn't stop him being one of the most exciting rugby prospects in years, and I fully expect to see him challenging Ford for the 10 shirt in years to come. Or maybe he'll wear 22. Off the bench, as Quins have learned, he is a one-man Plan B because of the way he reads and controls the opposition defence. Smith gives an additional level of variation to the attack because he can get defences moving one way and then change direction mid-play, like a spin bowler throwing down a doosra.

[cascough]

Eddie's already said why he only has two scrum halves: if he takes three, he can't give them enough time running the show in training. So he's made an explicit trade off that he can get his reserve scrum halves up to speed quickly if need be; I imagine that several of them will have been briefed on the game plan they need to learn.

I just don't buy the "England don't have a plan B" argument. It's demonstrably nonsense. This England side has used more styles of play than any I can remember. They played a power game in the first Australia test, a tight defensive game in the second and an open attacking game in the third. They consistently play a very different style of game when the bench comes on. In the Italy game, they actually cycled pretty rapidly through 3 or 4 different ways to create a ruck before settling on pick and go.

The transition between different game plans isn't totally fluid yet, and it often takes change off the bench - Care in particular - to make it happen, but claiming they only have one gameplan is a lazy stereotype.

However, one thing that England do have consistently is physicality and stamina. The gameplan is based - like the All Blacks' - on being able to stay in contention until the last 20 and then overwhelm opponents with a change of tactics, superior fitness and superior mental stamina.


The 1014's analysis, by the way, looks really detailed and solid to me - and makes the point that England's Plan A is different from what everyone else is doing. It commits fewer forwards in the attacking pods, and means that England can more reliably fix the drift defence while leaving space for their light and fast outside backs - but it relies on two things: having playmakers at 10 and 12 (and actually 9 as well, though the article underplays that a little), and having very fit and mentally alert non-carrying forwards who can adapt to the situation and be where they need to be.

I think that is probably why there are certain positions where Eddie just doesn't seem interested in trying out other players. I strongly suspect that a lot of players - especially in the back row - fall short of his demands for work rate and accuracy. A lot of the debate on here is about who the ball carriers in the forwards are - but actually the system relies more on quickly securing the ball at the breakdown than making big dents in the line. The carrying has to be robust enough to fix defenders, but big linebreaks are a nice to have.

As for Marcus Smith, if Eddie hadn't noticed him and Quins hadn't had injuries to their other three fly half options, I suspect that only a small hardcore of Quins fans would even know who he is. He's got all the talent, but he's still got a fair few work ons - his tackling is improving, his kicking from hand is a little behind Ford's, his tactical awareness is exceptional in some ways but not yet mature in others, and we need to be sure that physically he can handle the rigours of international rugby.

That doesn't stop him being one of the most exciting rugby prospects in years, and I fully expect to see him challenging Ford for the 10 shirt in years to come. Or maybe he'll wear 22. Off the bench, as Quins have learned, he is a one-man Plan B because of the way he reads and controls the opposition defence. Smith gives an additional level of variation to the attack because he can get defences moving one way and then change direction mid-play, like a spin bowler throwing down a doosra.

Agree with all of this. Also if you read the articles it's clear that England's plan A is hardly just one plan anyway. It's a structure designed to present a multitude of options allowing you to vary the attack at will. In that sense, it's more like we have a plan A, B, C and D and should the opposition manage to stymie all of those then arguably we are lacking a plan E.

[Rugby Fan]

If he doesn't know what our plan A is, how is he qualified to comment on whether we have a plan B?

Dougie is a Northampton supporter. He can perhaps be forgiven letting his exasperation get the better of him from time to time.

[cascough]

Mercer out. That'll be Isiekwe or Graham on the bench.

[No 7&1/2]

Real shame that.

[Poorfour]

It's a shame for Mercer. His time will come. It's a shame he couldn't have a crack in this game, but if he's good enough it doesn't matter.

And let's be honest; compared to the good news (Robshaw, Brown and Nowell back), losing Mercer for a week is getting off lightly.

[Exiledinborders]

Eddie's already said why he only has two scrum halves: if he takes three, he can't give them enough time running the show in training. So he's made an explicit trade off that he can get his reserve scrum halves up to speed quickly if need be; I imagine that several of them will have been briefed on the game plan they need to learn.

I just don't buy the "England don't have a plan B" argument. It's demonstrably nonsense. This England side has used more styles of play than any I can remember. They played a power game in the first Australia test, a tight defensive game in the second and an open attacking game in the third. They consistently play a very different style of game when the bench comes on. In the Italy game, they actually cycled pretty rapidly through 3 or 4 different ways to create a ruck before settling on pick and go.

The transition between different game plans isn't totally fluid yet, and it often takes change off the bench - Care in particular - to make it happen, but claiming they only have one gameplan is a lazy stereotype.

However, one thing that England do have consistently is physicality and stamina. The gameplan is based - like the All Blacks' - on being able to stay in contention until the last 20 and then overwhelm opponents with a change of tactics, superior fitness and superior mental stamina.


The 1014's analysis, by the way, looks really detailed and solid to me - and makes the point that England's Plan A is different from what everyone else is doing. It commits fewer forwards in the attacking pods, and means that England can more reliably fix the drift defence while leaving space for their light and fast outside backs - but it relies on two things: having playmakers at 10 and 12 (and actually 9 as well, though the article underplays that a little), and having very fit and mentally alert non-carrying forwards who can adapt to the situation and be where they need to be.

I think that is probably why there are certain positions where Eddie just doesn't seem interested in trying out other players. I strongly suspect that a lot of players - especially in the back row - fall short of his demands for work rate and accuracy. A lot of the debate on here is about who the ball carriers in the forwards are - but actually the system relies more on quickly securing the ball at the breakdown than making big dents in the line. The carrying has to be robust enough to fix defenders, but big linebreaks are a nice to have.

As for Marcus Smith, if Eddie hadn't noticed him and Quins hadn't had injuries to their other three fly half options, I suspect that only a small hardcore of Quins fans would even know who he is. He's got all the talent, but he's still got a fair few work ons - his tackling is improving, his kicking from hand is a little behind Ford's, his tactical awareness is exceptional in some ways but not yet mature in others, and we need to be sure that physically he can handle the rigours of international rugby.

That doesn't stop him being one of the most exciting rugby prospects in years, and I fully expect to see him challenging Ford for the 10 shirt in years to come. Or maybe he'll wear 22. Off the bench, as Quins have learned, he is a one-man Plan B because of the way he reads and controls the opposition defence. Smith gives an additional level of variation to the attack because he can get defences moving one way and then change direction mid-play, like a spin bowler throwing down a doosra.

Agree with all of this. Also if you read the articles it's clear that England's plan A is hardly just one plan anyway. It's a structure designed to present a multitude of options allowing you to vary the attack at will. In that sense, it's more like we have a plan A, B, C and D and should the opposition manage to stymie all of those then arguably we are lacking a plan E.

My criticism of England would be that no one on the pitch is capable of switching tactics. It seems it can only be done by Jones in a half time team talk or by sending on new players with new tactics.

The experienced players seem to be either a bit thick or lacking in leadership ability.

[Collapse2005]

ala the Italy game last year? "I'm the referee not your coach"

World class Farrell had a howler that day but he is immune to criticism.

[No 7&1/2]

You didn't notice the changes in tactics during he first half then. Interesting.

[Poorfour]

You didn't notice the changes in tactics during he first half then. Interesting.

To be fair, if you were watching in the stadium without reflink it was pretty frustrating. It wasn't particularly clear what they were doing - which was trying various things to create the ruck, but Poite (who's very precise on technicalities) wasn't having any of it. It was only when they abandoned Plan A completely and switched to pick and go that it started working.

To my mind, there are two stages to having a team that can adapt on the fly. It takes most teams several years under the same coach to reach even the first of these, and it took England under Woodward from 1997 to June 2003 to reach the second:
1) Can the team play in different styles?
2) Can the team select the right style for the circumstances?

I don't think you can argue against England having achieved (1). There are enough games played in enough different ways for it to be pretty clear they have.

They are a little way off (2), but that's not surprising. I think it will come over the next year or so. The U20s have been using a system called CARDS (Creativity, Awareness, Resilience, Decision Making and Support) that the RFU is now rolling out more widely. I think that may be one reason that Eddie has a marked preference for blooding youngsters instead of over 25s.

More widely, how many teams actually can change their approach on the fly? Most teams have another team that they struggle with, which is an indication of the limitations of their gameplan. Wales can't cope with Australia, for instance, but Australia repeatedly struggle with Scotland and England. Wales struggle with anyone who can maintain structure in the face of their power game and counter-attacking game.

I don't think New Zealand change their Plan A so much as keep playing it with the confidence that it will eventually work; look how much they struggled against Ireland when they didn't have their regular locks.

France can change tactics at will, though, often from "Plan A: be completely Poopie" to "Plan B: be sublime". And back.

[No 7&1/2]

Hmm. I'd agree it was frustrating. There were changes and questions to the ref though. As above speaking to the ref to understand why he wasn't interpreting this the same as other refs. Instead of answering he of course gave the a answer that both parties needed to be looking to form a ruck not just one side then the I'm not a coach message. To say that the team lacked leadership when they were going through options with hartley haskell and Launchbury to the fore is disingenuous for me though.

[ChequeredJersey]

https://www.premiershiprugby.com/2017-2018/england-squad-update-italy-test-week-2/

Backs

Full backs
Mike Brown (Harlequins)
Nathan Earle (Saracens)
Jonny May (Leicester Tigers)
Anthony Watson (Bath Rugby)

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

Forwards

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

Front row
Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers)
Jamie George (Saracens)
Dylan Hartley (Northampton Saints)
Alec Hepburn (Exeter Chiefs) *
Mako Vunipola (Saracens)
Harry Williams (Exeter Chiefs)

*Uncapped


Read more at https://www.premiershiprugby.com/2017-2018/england-squad-update-italy-test-week-2/#PvdzLAvVMIgdVbey.99

[lostinwales]

That makes Mallinder, Solomona, Lozowski, Isiekwa, Boyce and Dunn left out (others ill/ injured or apprentices)

[LondonTiger]

So,

Earle in as cover and Graham competing with locks to be on bench?

[Rugby Fan]

ala the Italy game last year? "I'm the referee not your coach"

Not taking a potshot at Collapse, as I don't know what he thinks, but I'm amazed by the number of people who still don't seem to know what went on with that exchange.

Paul from Driving Maul blog was on the Rugby Hub Gaming YouTube channel recently, and he was adamant that all the England players had to do was grab an Italian player to form a ruck. For good measure he added that England would have known this if any of them had sevens experience, where it's a common tactic. It's a year since that match, with tons of analysis, and yet he can make an elementary mistake like that.

The reason there was so much confusion is that the way teams had countered the tactic in the past - pretty much as Paul described it - was no longer accepted by referees. There was no change in the law, it was just a matter of interpretation which received next to no publicity. Even Conor O'Shea didn't realize the officiating had changed.

Haskell and Hartley weren't asking Poite what to do, they wanted to know why he wasn't calling ruck when they grabbed an Italian player. Poite could have told them that the interpretation had changed, but chose not to, so England had no idea why he was officiating as he did.

[TightHEAD]

I think Eddie is still hurting from the Italian game last year, I fully expect England to show no mercy and go out there to take the smile off of Conors face.

Saying that I think Italy will try anything not to get into too much of a rugby game with England, I fully expect them to try something else to show England up.

[cascough]

ala the Italy game last year? "I'm the referee not your coach"

Not taking a potshot at Collapse, as I don't know what he thinks, but I'm amazed by the number of people who still don't seem to know what went on with that exchange.

Paul from Driving Maul blog was on the Rugby Hub Gaming YouTube channel recently, and he was adamant that all the England players had to do was grab an Italian player to form a ruck. For good measure he added that England would have known this if any of them had sevens experience, where it's a common tactic. It's a year since that match, with tons of analysis, and yet he can make an elementary mistake like that.

The reason there was so much confusion is that the way teams had countered the tactic in the past - pretty much as Paul described it - was no longer accepted by referees. There was no change in the law, it was just a matter of interpretation which received next to no publicity. Even Conor O'Shea didn't realize the officiating had changed.

Haskell and Hartley weren't asking Poite what to do, they wanted to know why he wasn't calling ruck when they grabbed an Italian player. Poite could have told them that the interpretation had changed, but chose not to, so England had no idea why he was officiating as he did.

There seems to be a school of thought that England didn't adapt and that there was a lack of leadership that just will not be swayed. Last year I posted a breakdown of when the tactic started and what England did about it. Poorfour has mentioned similar on here. Despite people providing examples of when England adapted (and it took 6 minutes, NOT halftime) it is still being dismissed out of hand by those that are trumpeting the lack of adaptation/leadership notions. Similarly, as you outline here, Haskell even explained in his post match interview what the exchange was about, but that is ignored in favour of the juicier, "haha Haskell didn't know the rules".

In a way, the media are fueling this as they played up the significance of Italy's tactic and Poite's quip, whilst ignoring England's errors, Italy's good play (as Conor O'Shea mentioned this week), Poite's interpretation differing to previous refs and Poite's inconsistent application of his own interpretation during the game. It's also worth mentioning that Eddie Jones heavily fanned the flames. Post game he point blank refused to talk about England and made it all about Italy and their tactic "that's not rugby". Given that Jones likes to deflect all the time, it should have been fairly obvious that he was talking about that as he didn't wan't to talk about how poorly England had played.

Because the press are banging that drum, it does make a bit of sense as to why a lot of people have bought into that narrative. That being said, I still find it frustrating that when someone challenges that conception and provides reasoning, it's just dismissed without reasoning.

[lostinwales]

I think Eddie is still hurting from the Italian game last year, I fully expect England to show no mercy and go out there to take the smile off of Conors face.

Saying that I think Italy will try anything not to get into too much of a rugby game with England, I fully expect them to try something else to show England up.

Oh when it comes to us Italy are past masters as dragging the opposition down to their level and turning the game into an ugly brawl. If they don't it will just be a slaughter, the scale of which will only be limited by our usual ability to mess up passes and knock the ball on. Either way it will be a win, just its most likely to be either low scoring and far too close on the scoreboard or a 30 point win.

To be honest it might be nice to see a NZ style win for once. Shut the game down for 70 minutes with a 10 minute period somewhere where we run in 2 or 3 tries.

[lostinwales]

ala the Italy game last year? "I'm the referee not your coach"

Not taking a potshot at Collapse, as I don't know what he thinks, but I'm amazed by the number of people who still don't seem to know what went on with that exchange.

Paul from Driving Maul blog was on the Rugby Hub Gaming YouTube channel recently, and he was adamant that all the England players had to do was grab an Italian player to form a ruck. For good measure he added that England would have known this if any of them had sevens experience, where it's a common tactic. It's a year since that match, with tons of analysis, and yet he can make an elementary mistake like that.

The reason there was so much confusion is that the way teams had countered the tactic in the past - pretty much as Paul described it - was no longer accepted by referees. There was no change in the law, it was just a matter of interpretation which received next to no publicity. Even Conor O'Shea didn't realize the officiating had changed.

Haskell and Hartley weren't asking Poite what to do, they wanted to know why he wasn't calling ruck when they grabbed an Italian player. Poite could have told them that the interpretation had changed, but chose not to, so England had no idea why he was officiating as he did.

There seems to be a school of thought that England didn't adapt and that there was a lack of leadership that just will not be swayed. Last year I posted a breakdown of when the tactic started and what England did about it. Poorfour has mentioned similar on here. Despite people providing examples of when England adapted (and it took 6 minutes, NOT halftime) it is still being dismissed out of hand by those that are trumpeting the lack of adaptation/leadership notions. Similarly, as you outline here, Haskell even explained in his post match interview what the exchange was about, but that is ignored in favour of the juicier, "haha Haskell didn't know the rules".

In a way, the media are fueling this as they played up the significance of Italy's tactic and Poite's quip, whilst ignoring England's errors, Italy's good play (as Conor O'Shea mentioned this week), Poite's interpretation differing to previous refs and Poite's inconsistent application of his own interpretation during the game. It's also worth mentioning that Eddie Jones heavily fanned the flames. Post game he point blank refused to talk about England and made it all about Italy and their tactic "that's not rugby". Given that Jones likes to deflect all the time, it should have been fairly obvious that he was talking about that as he didn't wan't to talk about how poorly England had played.

Because the press are banging that drum, it does make a bit of sense as to why a lot of people have bought into that narrative. That being said, I still find it frustrating that when someone challenges that conception and provides reasoning, it's just dismissed without reasoning.

In hindsight it is worth saying that, barring the Scotland match, we did play badly last 6N. We were still very hard to beat and even in the Irish game the scores were close. There would be cause for concern had we still looked as poor in the Autumn, but we looked fine.

Whatever we do it is going to look different this 6N as we don't have the heavyweight carriers we have used so much in recent seasons, and that back line is more rapid than physical too.

[cascough]

Maybe I'm bucking a trend, but I thought we played alright last 6N.

Italy the only bad performance for me.

We defended resolutely throughout the France game and executed when it mattered. Ireland game was never going to look good for either team given the conditions. A missed lineout at the end just an example of the fine margins that could have swung it. And then I thought we played fairly well against Wales and Scotland.

I'm not seeing a big difference to 2016 performances. We were pretty patchy throughout really. Sco, only okay. Wales, Nearly threw it away. Italy, poor first half. Ireland and France pretty decent. I think once you stop looking at matches in isolation, you realise that we've been good enough to win 9/10 games and two tournaments. If we're not playing well, does anyone else fancy trying to play better than us to win the games instead?

This time round I reckon the Wales game will decide the course of the championship. I'm making two assumptions here.

1) Wales will beat Scotland
2) We will not lose to BOTH Scotland and France

If those two things happen, then we can ensure that we are alive going into the last game by beating Wales. There's a good chance that we could have the tournament sewn up by then, as with the last 2 years. Wales game is the one.

Of course such is the nature of the tournament, should Scotland beat Wales then it get's slightly more complicated than that and it puts a greater emphasis on the Scotland game, but I'll be cheering on a horrible 6-3 win to Wales this weekend.

[Scottrf]

We were rubbish against Samoa though, couldn't even protect the ball at the breakdown there.

[lostinwales]

We were rubbish against Samoa though, couldn't even protect the ball at the breakdown there.

It is all relative. Rubbish is saying we could or should have lost, and we were never in danger of that. I'd say more frustrating than rubbish.

To be clearer we do seem to produce less than convincing displays, but we don't lose games (except for the one, of course)

Looking on the bright side we are starting to do the NZ thing of switching on and scoring points when we have to. If you take the Autumn Australia game, for all the talk of luck it actually panned out very much the way we seem to look to play.

[Scottrf]

It's Samoa. We can be rubbish and win. New Zealand were good and won 78-0.

[propdavid_london]

When is Eddie naming the side?

[Scottrf]

When is Eddie naming the side?

Tomorrow morning.

[Sponsored content]