England Six Nations Thread

[ChequeredJersey]

First topic message reminder :

In that case LIW, Ill put my money on it being the following.

6 Lawes
7 Robshaw
8 Hughes

Hughes off knackered after about 50/55 mins.
Robshaw to 8 then Underhill on at 7.

I cant see Jones bringing Mercer up just yet.

Haskell is back in to so may come into the reckoning as starter or bench cover although might be harsh on Underhill.

Could be tried & tested.

6. Robshaw
7. Haskell
8. Hughes

Lawes covering bench

I think we need to Focus on Underhill now. Unless we're REALLY struggling for an 8, then possibly pop Haskell in.

6 Robshaw
7 Underhill
8 Haskell

Robshaw, Frodo, Hughes. Hask on bench

[TJ]

No - but one was a large part of losing you the game. ;-) Farrell could well still be in trouble for starting the fight in the tunnel and no matter what was said to who nothing excuses trying to lamp someone off the feild

[No 7&1/2]

Think I said it on the other thread but I haven't seen or heard enough to make my mind up. Footage I've seen from a camera cuts off just before anything is going to happen and given the hartley spit footage from the wales game I'm not jumping in. From what I've seen nothing will happen but like I said I expect more will come out.

[quinsforever]

two things

wilson did get cited as i thought he might. even though there was nothing to it. which makes him even sillier. i think for hands to the face, rugby union should adopt a rugby league rule - if you put your hands there first, the other guy has a free shot. that will stop all of it.

secondly, even jiffy agrees the care interception based on launchbury having a knee on the ground was bs, because it wasnt signalled or indicated before the interception happened.

[quinsforever]

two things

wilson did get cited as i thought he might. even though there was nothing to it. which makes him even sillier. i think for hands to the face, rugby union should adopt a rugby league rule - if you put your hands there first, the other guy has a free shot. that will stop all of it.

secondly, even jiffy agrees the care interception based on launchbury having a knee on the ground was bs, because it wasnt signalled or indicated before the interception happened.

specifically because, the scots werent in the english half, launchbury left the ball alone when owens said"lost". Even owens was massively sheepish about calling the interception back. there needs to be a limit on when ARs can intervene. if launchbury has a knee on the ground for a fraction of a second, but then lets the ball go when owens says lost, 100% the ball is clear and free to play.

[robbo277]

two things

wilson did get cited as i thought he might. even though there was nothing to it. which makes him even sillier. i think for hands to the face, rugby union should adopt a rugby league rule - if you put your hands there first, the other guy has a free shot. that will stop all of it.

secondly, even jiffy agrees the care interception based on launchbury having a knee on the ground was bs, because it wasnt signalled or indicated before the interception happened.

specifically because, the scots werent in the english half, launchbury left the ball alone when owens said"lost". Even owens was massively sheepish about calling the interception back. there needs to be a limit on when ARs can intervene. if launchbury has a knee on the ground for a fraction of a second, but then lets the ball go when owens says lost, 100% the ball is clear and free to play.

Referees exercise a "Do I have to?" policy. Whenever there is an infringement, they should ask themselves "Do I have to give this?" and normally it will be whether an advantage was gained by the infringing team (or a disadvantage suffered by the other team).

In Launchbury's case, there was no advantage to him putting his hands on the ball because it was available to play when Scotland wanted it.

The issue was what came immediately after blurred the lines as to whether Launchbury had in fact slowed the ball down enough to allow the interception. However, it was an error to go back to the ruck and penalise Launchbury if you initially deemed the ball available to Scotland.

Similar to the Anscombe one though, it was an error with plenty of time left on the clock. We can debate whether the decision was correct, but there was plenty of time for England to win the game afterwards, and that we didn't is out failure.

[No 7&1/2]

Just poor by owens with comminication for that pen. It's either a pen from Launchbury action and everyone would say fair enough. He should have called advantage. Once he didn't idont think he.should call it back. Similar to when peple call.advantage over and he team mess.up and they come.back to the pen. Sorry. Tough.

[robbo277]

Just poor by owens with comminication for that pen. It's either a pen from Launchbury action and everyone would say fair enough.  He should have called advantage. Once he didn't idont think he.should call it back. Similar to when peple call.advantage over and he team mess.up and they come.back to the pen. Sorry. Tough.

Agreed.

[quinsforever]

two things

wilson did get cited as i thought he might. even though there was nothing to it. which makes him even sillier. i think for hands to the face, rugby union should adopt a rugby league rule - if you put your hands there first, the other guy has a free shot. that will stop all of it.

secondly, even jiffy agrees the care interception based on launchbury having a knee on the ground was bs, because it wasnt signalled or indicated before the interception happened.

specifically because, the scots werent in the english half, launchbury left the ball alone when owens said"lost". Even owens was massively sheepish about calling the interception back. there needs to be a limit on when ARs can intervene. if launchbury has a knee on the ground for a fraction of a second, but then lets the ball go when owens says lost, 100% the ball is clear and free to play.

Referees exercise a "Do I have to?" policy. Whenever there is an infringement, they should ask themselves "Do I have to give this?" and normally it will be whether an advantage was gained by the infringing team (or a disadvantage suffered by the other team).

In Launchbury's case, there was no advantage to him putting his hands on the ball because it was available to play when Scotland wanted it.

The issue was what came immediately after blurred the lines as to whether Launchbury had in fact slowed the ball down enough to allow the interception. However, it was an error to go back to the ruck and penalise Launchbury if you initially deemed the ball available to Scotland.

Similar to the Anscombe one though, it was an error with plenty of time left on the clock. We can debate whether the decision was correct, but there was plenty of time for England to win the game afterwards, and that we didn't is out failure.

yes of course. no one decision can compensate for how outplayed we were in the first half.

had just watched scrum v and saw how sheepish jiffy was about that interception decision, and he says he thinks england would probably have won had it been not disallowed.

min 47 onward

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b09tmjwz/scrum-v-six-nations-2018-25022018

anyway, scotland were great, and thoroughly deserved their win. let's just hope they can reproduce that against ireland, although i doublt ireland at home will be so passive at the breakdown as england were.

[TightHEAD]

How long a ban will Wilson get then?

[Geordie]

Ah the ban is irrelevant now...

On to France.

So what side do you pick.

Do you give them a chance to re-deem themselves...or tweak the side slightly...?
Most prominently the back row.

[No 7&1/2]

I think he'll. Go with underhill and insert a rocket up the packs ....

[aucklandlaurie]

two things

wilson did get cited as i thought he might. even though there was nothing to it. which makes him even sillier. i think for hands to the face, rugby union should adopt a rugby league rule - if you put your hands there first, the other guy has a free shot. that will stop all of it.

secondly, even jiffy agrees the care interception based on launchbury having a knee on the ground was bs, because it wasnt signalled or indicated before the interception happened.

specifically because, the scots werent in the english half, launchbury left the ball alone when owens said"lost". Even owens was massively sheepish about calling the interception back. there needs to be a limit on when ARs can intervene. if launchbury has a knee on the ground for a fraction of a second, but then lets the ball go when owens says lost, 100% the ball is clear and free to play.

Referees exercise a "Do I have to?" policy. Whenever there is an infringement, they should ask themselves "Do I have to give this?" and normally it will be whether an advantage was gained by the infringing team (or a disadvantage suffered by the other team).

In Launchbury's case, there was no advantage to him putting his hands on the ball because it was available to play when Scotland wanted it.

The issue was what came immediately after blurred the lines as to whether Launchbury had in fact slowed the ball down enough to allow the interception. However, it was an error to go back to the ruck and penalise Launchbury if you initially deemed the ball available to Scotland.

Similar to the Anscombe one though, it was an error with plenty of time left on the clock. We can debate whether the decision was correct, but there was plenty of time for England to win the game afterwards, and that we didn't is out failure.

yes of course. no one decision can compensate for how outplayed we were in the first half.

had just watched scrum v and saw how sheepish jiffy was about that interception decision, and he says he thinks england would probably have won had it been not disallowed.

min 47 onward

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b09tmjwz/scrum-v-six-nations-2018-25022018

anyway, scotland were great, and thoroughly deserved their win. let's just hope they can reproduce that against ireland, although i doublt ireland at home will be so passive at the breakdown as england were.

Does it not come down to Ireland playing a specialist No.7, even if only to slow down Scottish ball and deprive their backs of options. From a neutrals perspective I find the difference in some of the 6 nations side on this issue utterly fascinating. If Scotland again get that quick ball to their kickers again they will run the Irish forwards allover the park, Schmidt will have seen this and either has to speed up the breakdown or use his bigger men to dominate the Scottish loosies (Watson).

[Geordie]

yeah I agree 7.5

I think he may go with 2 locks and 3 actual loose forwards.
I think had Simmonds been fit...it may have been interesting who he went with at 8...however as he's not..Hughes will get another chance.

[lostinwales]

Is it safe to come back on this site? It's not the losing to the scots that is the problem, it's all the plastic celts coming on to crow about it.

Only thing I really wanted to say about Saturday was that it was one of those days where everything goes wrong including the rub of the green, and the Scots obviously played out of their skins. The 2nd interception try obviously wasn't, but Lawes' tackle was near perfect and on any other day his arm doesn't make contact with the ball but it still goes flying in the same direction. Disallowing the first interception try felt odd. Otherwise glad I missed the first half and happy to have switched off after the Underhill YC.

[BamBam]

Leavy is definitely a specialist 7 for Ireland, he's been very impressive too

[Scottrf]

Is it safe to come back on this site? It's not the losing to the scots that is the problem, it's all the plastic celts coming on to crow about it.

Only thing I really wanted to say about Saturday was that it was one of those days where everything goes wrong including the rub of the green, and the Scots obviously played out of their skins. The 2nd interception try obviously wasn't, but Lawes' tackle was near perfect and on any other day his arm doesn't make contact with the ball but it still goes flying in the same direction. Disallowing the first interception try felt odd. Otherwise glad I missed the first half and happy to have switched off after the Underhill YC.

That's a bad law anyway. Why is it a knock on from a tackle but not a charge down?

[TightHEAD]

Is it safe to come back on this site? It's not the losing to the scots that is the problem, it's all the plastic celts coming on to crow about it.

Only thing I really wanted to say about Saturday was that it was one of those days where everything goes wrong including the rub of the green, and the Scots obviously played out of their skins. The 2nd interception try obviously wasn't, but Lawes' tackle was near perfect and on any other day his arm doesn't make contact with the ball but it still goes flying in the same direction. Disallowing the first interception try felt odd. Otherwise glad I missed the first half and happy to have switched off after the Underhill YC.

That's a bad law anyway. Why is it a knock on from a tackle but not a charge down?

Because........

[lostinwales]

Is it safe to come back on this site? It's not the losing to the scots that is the problem, it's all the plastic celts coming on to crow about it.

Only thing I really wanted to say about Saturday was that it was one of those days where everything goes wrong including the rub of the green, and the Scots obviously played out of their skins. The 2nd interception try obviously wasn't, but Lawes' tackle was near perfect and on any other day his arm doesn't make contact with the ball but it still goes flying in the same direction. Disallowing the first interception try felt odd. Otherwise glad I missed the first half and happy to have switched off after the Underhill YC.

That's a bad law anyway. Why is it a knock on from a tackle but not a charge down?

True enough. And Lawes' head was on the other side. There may have been some rough 'targetting' but he wasn't going for the ball. It really does fall under the 'shoulda - coulda' category though. I did think we had a good chance of getting the win after Farrell's try looked so easy, but our impact players currently don't have much.

[Geordie]

That's because most of the impact players are actually starting, and the likes of George aren't in form

[robbo277]

Ah the ban is irrelevant now...

On to France.

So what side do you pick.

Do you give them a chance to re-deem themselves...or tweak the side slightly...?
Most prominently the back row.

I wouldn't go with the same side and would definitely be looking at tweaks. Not a complete reinvention though.

My changes would be Williams, Underhill, Wigglesworth and Nowell coming in for Cole, Itoje, Care and Brown, with Lawes into the second row and Watson into fullback. I'd have all 4 of the players I've dropped on the bench. I'd then take Kruis off the bench and bring in Haskell.

I've been impressed with Williams impact and think if he's starting he can share some of the workload that Mako is getting through, and hopefully we can then get more from both of them.

The back 5 of the scrum needs addressing, and with Simmonds out there aren't many other options from the squad (short of putting a fourth second row into the starting line-up!)

I want to see Wigglesworth do what Laidlaw has done for Scotland and just feed the ball to playmakers outside him who can use their strike runners. And then I want Care to come on and run round some tired French forwards in the late stages.

Then Watson to fullback just to increase our try-scoring threat. We need a bonus point win with a big plus in the points difference column, so I would be looking at this option. Nothing against Brown, I just think we need to take a gamble. If it pays off, we know we have another option of how to set up, especially if we end up needing a bonus point win to progress in the World Cup or to clinch the pool. If it doesn't, you bring Brown on early and change things up.

[Geordie]

You certainly make a good case Robbo.

[eirebilly]

two things

wilson did get cited as i thought he might. even though there was nothing to it. which makes him even sillier. i think for hands to the face, rugby union should adopt a rugby league rule - if you put your hands there first, the other guy has a free shot. that will stop all of it.

secondly, even jiffy agrees the care interception based on launchbury having a knee on the ground was bs, because it wasnt signalled or indicated before the interception happened

I said, at the time that it was very odd.

In the end, the correct decision was achieved but how it was achieved was very poor. At no stage did Owens signal that there was an infringement until Care had taken the intercept and was away.

[Geordie]

What difference will Underhill having in the pack be as opposed to Lawes?

is it simply speed, or the fact he is a natural flanker, a breakdown guy?

Do we lose lineout strength?

[No 7&1/2]

All of the above gf. Better decision making for me as well. Kruis and sinckler sent home yesterday. Seems a bit of a misnomer mash in what they're doing, mainly reconditioning so not sure if that's just because they're fresher or I'd it means they re not high on the pecking order for France.

[BamBam]

Undoubtedly lose the lineout strength that having Launchbury, Itoje and Lawes brings

The question is whether Itoje or Lawes is the one dropped. If Itoje, we lose some carrying, scrummaging power and strong tackling around the fringes. if Lawes, we lose wider tackling and carrying ability

What we gain with Underhill is speed to the breakdown - he may not be the greatest breakdown player in the world, but simply having a body there before the opposition or giving the opposition less time to set themselves can be worth a lot.

We also gain his very strong tackling ability both around the fringes and if you station him wider out

Overall, I think we gain everywhere other than the lineout

[carpet baboon]

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but robshaw jumps for quin's doesn't he? Can't he be your third jumper?

[Scottrf]

And maul defence, experience, defensive line speed.

[Scottrf]

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but robshaw jumps for quin's doesn't he? Can't he be your third jumper?

And England.

[BamBam]

Underhill brings line speed. Agree on experience

Robshaw would be the 3rd jumper, just isn't close to being as good as Lawes or Itoje

[Scottrf]

Underhill brings line speed. Agree on experience

To get to first reciever? Never seen it.

[No 7&1/2]

Well at least we have improved carrying.

[BamBam]

I would favour keeping Lawes over Itoje, so he can just do that from lock instead

[lostinwales]

I would favour keeping Lawes over Itoje, so he can just do that from lock instead

Can't argue with that. Lawes is in form. Itoje not so much. I think he could also do the impact thing pretty well.

[carpet baboon]

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but robshaw jumps for quin's doesn't he? Can't he be your third jumper?

And England.

So you don't need the 3 locks starting.

[21st Century Schizoid Man]

How long a ban will Wilson get then?

None. Cleared to play. Outrageous outbreak of common sense by disc. panel !

[kingelderfield]

Jones is his own man. Whatever he decides, we need to convincingly win our next game.
Historically EJ is not one for change.

[Geordie]

So bringing Underhill in benching Itoje and moving Lawes to lock is the sensible option..

Thus Jones will continue with the 3 locks.

[No 7&1/2]

Leadership. And underhill and Daly in the frame.

Six Nations: England have leadership issue, says head coach Eddie Jones - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/43234255

[Geordie]

Well Daly wont change much of the problem areas from Saturday. Underhill certainly could.

As for the leadership, I think everyman and their dog can see that...

[carpet baboon]

Well Daly wont change much of the problem areas from Saturday. Underhill certainly could.

As for the leadership, I think everyman and their dog can see that...

Well who are the leaders supposed to be? Hartley, Farrell, robshaw, itoje all have captained successful teams so why can't they don't for England

[Geordie]

Yeah I would say Launchbury as well. He's been Wasps captain.

Not just captains though...Dan Cole is a hugely experienced international player. What influence does he have on the side?

I guess the other thing we need to judge on is the next two games.

How they react to the defeat with the game in Paris, and are they ready for Ireland. 2 strong wins and suddenly they're one of the favorites for the WC again and the Scotland loss was a blip...

A stodgy win in Paris and a defeat to Ireland in similar manner as last year and Saturdays defeat to Scotland ...and the knives will be out.

[formerly known as Sam]

How long a ban will Wilson get then?

None.  Cleared to play.   Outrageous outbreak of common sense by disc. panel !

In keeping with no previous ruling and so the citing commissions continue you to show they are consistently inconsistent.

[mid_gen]

2nd defeat and the knives will be out? Maybe in the gutter press and people that have nothing better to do with their lives than gossip.

I can't be bothered to dredge up the post, but I said before the tournament started that Murrayfield would be the toughest game for us. Scotland are a very good side, it wasn't some huge upset. it was always going to be a competitive match, and Scotland came out on top. Disappointing? Yes. Big deal? No.

[Geordie]

2nd defeat and the knives will be out? Maybe in the gutter press and people that have nothing better to do with their lives than gossip.

I can't be bothered to dredge up the post, but I said before the tournament started that Murrayfield would be the toughest game for us. Scotland are a very good side, it wasn't some huge upset. it was always going to be a competitive match, and Scotland came out on top. Disappointing? Yes. Big deal? No.

If England struggle to a win v France and fall to a battering from Ireland again, then yes you can bet the knives will be out.

[yappysnap]

Interesting reading that article but I question his reasoning on leaders.

Yes the team has been together under EJ for two years. But those players mentioned have all been around far longer.

Hartley - England's most capped hooker, long term Saints captain and an older player
Robshaw - ex England captain of 3 seasons, ex Quin's captain for longer and been around since 2011
Farrell - been around since '13? Now a Sarries and England sub captain
Brown - been around since '12 and hugely experienced
Care, Lawes and Cole - all have been around for ever, since Johnson's time

How the hell are they struggling to lead? Frak if they can't do it now then I seriously doubt they're going to suddenly change and learn.

What Jones then says about Underhill is interesting though, maybe he should have brought him on a lot earlier, but he seems to have a real thing for playing big units in the backrow and maybe didn't want to take off Hughes.

[yappysnap]

Also Kiwis sticking the knife in they don't like Eddie!!

OPINION: Eddie Jones has a habit of running out of steam and it looks like England rugby might be facing the reality of that.

England's upset loss to Scotland on the back of a shoddy performance against Wales and last season's defeat by Ireland are signs that cracks are starting to appear in the facade of Jones' smiling appearance.

Whether the wheels are falling off England's treasured chariot remain to be seen but these should be alarming signs for the world's most wealthy union who are pouring everything into their bid to overhaul world No 1 New Zealand and wrestle the World Cup away from the All Blacks next year.

Behind the cheeky grin and clever public utterances, often designed to undermine opponents, Jones is a hard taskmaster who doesn't suffer fools.

He's had huge success along the course of a long coaching path that has taken him around the world. But there's an argument to be mounted that Jones' methods grow stale and can turn foul before their expiry date.

He left the Brumbies on top, using a 2001 Super Rugby title to end a four year deal and move on to the Wallabies.

Similarly his four-year deal to coach Japan up to the last World Cup ended on his own terms when a Cinderella win over the Springboks made him a folk hero in the Asian game and beyond, eventually earning him his mega-deal to coach England.

But between these there are deals that have soured.

He started with a hiss and a roar with the Wallabies, winning the 2001 Tri Nations. His magic spell over the All Blacks continued in the 2003 World Cup where his side eventually lost the final to England.

But seven straight losses in 2005 and a year-ending loss to Wales saw his contract terminated.

When he picked up the Queensland Reds on a three-year deal in 2007 he lasted just a season with a 92-3 loss to the Bulls seeing him quit early.

His magic worked on a short-term deal to help Jake White get the Springboks the 2007 World Cup but his subsequent move to Saracens was another short-lived experience as personal matters and suggestions of internal club struggles contributed to him leaving early.

There's a lot of commonsense with Jones and there's also a lot of bravado too, which can often make him a darling with the media given his liking for stirring a bit of controversy.

But the All Blacks continue to set the standards despite the jibes that come from Twickenham now and then.

And none more so than All Blacks coach Steve Hansen who has been part of the coaching setup since 2004 and in charge since 2012.

That's a long time by anyone's measure in the rough and tumble of professional rugby and the ruthless environment that is the international game.

But Hansen's voice hasn't grown rusty; it still resonates strongly with his players.

He has managed to keep reinventing his methods to not only maintain but improve the incredible standards the All Blacks demand.

That the All Blacks and England – the current top two teams - haven't met since 2014 exposes the nonsense of test scheduling in a sport which constantly criticised for lacking depth.

It also allowed Jones to enjoy a comfy settling-in period, devoid of the pressures of taking on rugby's top team and arch enemy.

Perhaps the pampered England outfit have grown too comfortable under Jones.

The pressure of trying to achieve a Grand Slam last year became too much with the Dublin debacle against the Irish.

And Jones was unable to generate the intensity required from his side against a Scottish outfit who have clearly been improving and were happy to spout their hatred for England before kickoff.

That Scotland were able to achieve their miracle at Murrayfield without England offering much in response despite all the noise and history, should have Jones' bosses more than a little alarmed.

Is a pattern re-emerging here? Has the radical move to appoint an Australian to the coveted job suddenly taken on a rocky look just when it should be reassuring?

Time is ticking away and just over a year out from the next World Cup in Japan, it looks like doubts may be gathering like storm clouds over Twickenham.

Jones has already done plenty in his celebrated career. But this is now clearly his greatest challenge.

Can he keep motivating these players? Can he keep the chariot on track when it matters most?

There were doubts raised in the British media on the eve of the current Six Nations and it seems those concerns are now being justified.

You can be sure they won't let matters rest is this form dip isn't arrested and that just adds to the pressure on Jones.

It's a big call given that England have only lost two games in 26 under Jones.

But, looking at things from half a world away, there now appears to be justification to those pre-tournament concerns where the coach was accused of having a "tunnel vision" selection policy and some critics publicly wondered if the intense flame would start to flicker in this, his third year in charge.

Suddenly 2018 is looking like a fascinating curtainraiser to the 2019 World Cup

[Geordie]

Spot on Yappy

I guess we'll see how they lead over the next two games. Huge challenge for them all now.

[Geordie]

Reading that report, I wouldnt call the AB's Englands arch Enemies by any means.

[SecretFly]

Wales?

[TJ]

JOnes is just saying what is obvious about leadership. ~England were obviously lacking in this in the Calcutta cup match as they were against Italy last year

You need on feild leaders to be able to change things up when its not working. england were unable to do this until half time presumably when Jones tod them to change things like stop kicking the ball away, put enough players into rucks to secure the ball. Disrupt scotlands ruck etc etc.

[Sponsored content]