6 Nations: England v Ireland - Our Favourite Bestest Neighbours - 17 March 2018

First topic message reminder :

I’ve always thought that England are a very good team and their fans are lovely and the most popular.

Feel free to add your own thoughts as we approach next weekend’s match as we travel over to visit them and celebrate with them.  And I’m sure that they’ll be as welcoming and fun-filled as they always are whenever we play them.  

As we all know, it’s only a game and sure it doesn’t matter who wins.....


Lovely England Team

Watson, May, Joseph, Te'o, Daly, Farrell, Wigglesworth, Simmonds, Haskell, Robshaw, Kruis, Itoje, Sinckler, Hartley, Mako

George, MArler, Cole, Launchbury, Armand, Care, Ford, Brown

Super Controlling Unbelievable Mauling Monster Yeti Irish Team

Kearney, Earls, Ringrose, Aki, Stockdale, Sexton Murray, Stander, Leavy, O'Mahony, Ryan, Henderson, Furlong, Best, Healy.

Reps: Cronin, McGrath, Porter, Toner, Murphy, Marmion, Carbery, Larmour.

hugehandoff wrote:Do England need to look at central contracts? Ireland in particular have been able to manage their Lions players far more effectively due to their central contracts. Some of England's stars like Itoje and Lawes have played 3 times the amount of their Irish equivalents. That is clearly having an impact.

Ideally, in an international-centric world, then yes.

Realistically though, it will never happen. The clubs won't allow it.

The EPS is meant to manage player welfare, but both the clubs and the national team are suffering from poorly-managed players. Our top players are below their best.

I think there would have to be concessions on each side. Maybe the clubs could give the Lions players an extra month off at the start of the season and England could not use them in the Autumn? That way the clubs would lose their players for 4 league weekends at the start of the year, but get them back for 3 weekends in the autumn (although this would be 2 anglo-welsh weeks and 1 league weekend). They would therefore lose their players for a net 3 league games. England would lose the players for 3 internationals. The players would get an additional 6 weeks off (4 at the start of the season, 2 in the autumn).

robbo277 wrote:

hugehandoff wrote:Do England need to look at central contracts? Ireland in particular have been able to manage their Lions players far more effectively due to their central contracts. Some of England's stars like Itoje and Lawes have played 3 times the amount of their Irish equivalents. That is clearly having an impact.

Ideally, in an international-centric world, then yes.

Realistically though, it will never happen. The clubs won't allow it.

The EPS is meant to manage player welfare, but both the clubs and the national team are suffering from poorly-managed players. Our top players are below their best.

I think there would have to be concessions on each side. Maybe the clubs could give the Lions players an extra month off at the start of the season and England could not use them in the Autumn? That way the clubs would lose their players for 4 league weekends at the start of the year, but get them back for 3 weekends in the autumn (although this would be 2 anglo-welsh weeks and 1 league weekend). They would therefore lose their players for a net 3 league games. England would lose the players for 3 internationals. The players would get an additional 6 weeks off (4 at the start of the season, 2 in the autumn).

Whilst I think that is a good idea I think the problem is the players themselves want to play every game even if they are tired/ not fully fit.

beshocked wrote:
Whilst I think that is a good idea I think the problem is the players themselves want to play every game even if they are tired/ not fully fit.

Central contracts incentivise players to not play all the time by offering them more pay. Its good for your career to be fresher when you play at international level too as that is when the world is watching. What England player wouldn't want to be on a central contract anyway, they all want to play for their country.

beshocked wrote:

robbo277 wrote:

hugehandoff wrote:Do England need to look at central contracts? Ireland in particular have been able to manage their Lions players far more effectively due to their central contracts. Some of England's stars like Itoje and Lawes have played 3 times the amount of their Irish equivalents. That is clearly having an impact.

Ideally, in an international-centric world, then yes.

Realistically though, it will never happen. The clubs won't allow it.

The EPS is meant to manage player welfare, but both the clubs and the national team are suffering from poorly-managed players. Our top players are below their best.

I think there would have to be concessions on each side. Maybe the clubs could give the Lions players an extra month off at the start of the season and England could not use them in the Autumn? That way the clubs would lose their players for 4 league weekends at the start of the year, but get them back for 3 weekends in the autumn (although this would be 2 anglo-welsh weeks and 1 league weekend). They would therefore lose their players for a net 3 league games. England would lose the players for 3 internationals. The players would get an additional 6 weeks off (4 at the start of the season, 2 in the autumn).

Whilst I think that is a good idea I think the problem is the players themselves want to play every game even if they are tired/ not fully fit.

Do they though?

I don't think players want to be stood down from games. But if the RFU and the clubs signed an agreement today that players who went on Lions tours (and played more than say 2 games) would get an extra month off at the start of the season and miss the autumn series, I don't think you'd have many of them kicking up a fuss.

I agree, if there was no such policy, players probably wouldn't ask for extra time off or to miss games for their club or country, because they don't want to be seen as weak or unable to cope, especially if they were the only one getting this treatment. However, if you put the policy in place, I don't think at the point of signing there would be too many complaints and I don't think come the end of the next Lions tour there'd be too many players turning down the extra time off.

hugehandoff wrote:Do England need to look at central contracts? Ireland in particular have been able to manage their Lions players far more effectively due to their central contracts. Some of England's stars like Itoje and Lawes have played 3 times the amount of their Irish equivalents. That is clearly having an impact.

That is true to a point but if you look at the players Ireland had contributed to the Lions quite a few of them have suffered injury or loss of form themselves - Payne, Henshaw, O'Brien and to a lesser extent Henderson, Furlong and McGrath.

The difference is Ireland have had the depth to cope with this with players who didn't tour with Lions stepping up and leading the charge for example Aki, Ringrose, Ryan, Healy, Farrell, Stockdale, Leavy, Porter etc.

There has been a big evolution in personnel since last season,which means the Lions hangover has had little impact.

That's true Rodders.

England have gambled on their Lions coming back and playing themselves into form and in hindsight it hasnt worked.

Also where we would have had options there be been a few unfortunate injuries. Eg across the backrow, scrum half, centres.

Can't help but think the trainings been got wrong too. The players look over worked and stuck in a rut. We've had what 4 players injured in training this tournament? Generally those kinds of injuries occur when guys are fatigued and already damaged.

Some of these players need the summer off, best thing for the RWC is a large pool of fit, keen and fresh players. Not zombies.

I've said forever that the England squad, 23 players, should be limited to 20 ish games a season and that the RFU should remunerate the clubs big time for their selected players.
If England ever achieved their potential then the financial wisdom and up front out lay would some reap reward in sponsorship and merchandise etc.
Basically the RFU are not interested in serious on field success.

Hmmm - the IRFU have issued a statement saying that the full squad of 36 players are available for next week.

Since O'Brien isn't in the squad then he won't be making an appearance. Sounds like Healy will be ok, and Ringrose.

Is O'Brien as key as he used to be?

No.  I don't think he is.

Now, having said that, you'd maybe like him to be available rather than not available.... when he's good he's still very good but when he's off he can be a card magnet for refs (that quick temper of his) or he can get too hot on the workload and injure himself.

He just doesn't seem to know how to do 'modest' effort anymore or maybe ever - it's often too dramatic from him at needless moments.

Anyway, better that Joe, for this championship anyway, is just allowed think of his other options from the very beginning of the week rather than working a game around O'Brien only for O'Brien to charge in and injure himself prematurely in a game again.

yappysnap wrote:Is O'Brien as key as he used to be?

Not when you have VDF and Leavy to step in, and that’s just from Leinster.

yappysnap wrote:Is O'Brien as key as he used to be?

No.

Not in the sense he is not as good, when fit, I thought he was one of the Lions best players in the summer but the depth of quality means he is not missed in the same way.

A lot of talk rightfully going on about James Ryan and Stockdale but arguably as important has been Dan Leavy, he's one of the players of the season and really adds balance to the back row.

O'Brien was probably penciled in for the bench but I've been really impressed with Jordi Murphy when he's came on. I think Joe will be very happy with the options he has in the back row for this game.

Why is it that Ireland seem to be able to produce so many high quality back row players?  I appreciate that there are a number of imports in Irish shirts, but there is plenty of home grown talent.  Is it the biology of the Irish that they suit the back row athleticism - in the same way that Georgia seemingly produces no end of props, Fiji/Samoa big physical wingers, etc?  Is it the style of rugby played in the Pro 14, as Wales and even Scotland seem to have options in the back row.  For all the number of professional players available to England (and our fair share of imports) Billy Vunipola seems to be the one quality back row player we have.  We have had quality there - the 2003 world cup winning team - but seem to have struggled for some time now to get 3 players of any quality in the team.

nlpnlp wrote:Why is it that Ireland seem to be able to produce so many high quality back row players?  I appreciate that there are a number of imports in Irish shirts, but there is plenty of home grown talent.  Is it the biology of the Irish that they suit the back row athleticism - in the same way that Georgia seemingly produces no end of props, Fiji/Samoa big physical wingers, etc?  Is it the style of rugby played in the Pro 14, as Wales and even Scotland seem to have options in the back row.  For all the number of professional players available to England (and our fair share of imports) Billy Vunipola seems to be the one quality back row player we have.  We have had quality there - the 2003 world cup winning team - but seem to have struggled for some time now to get 3 players of any quality in the team.

Imports hahahahahahahahahahaha, hahaha hahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahaha

Why so defensive baboon?

LondonTiger wrote:Why so defensive baboon?

Well a "number of " equates to cj stander in the back row. So that number is 1.
It's not defensive it's just amusing me how one or two people seem to be looking for "reasons" Ireland are playing well, won the tournament, going for the slam and up to second in the world rankings in a somewhat backhanded praise way.

Exactly 1 backrower and 1 back (who would not make the starting XV if everybody was fit) does not a number make.

Actually it does just a very small one - smaller than just about everyone else.
14 of the first choice starters are Irish born

nlpnlp wrote:Why is it that Ireland seem to be able to produce so many high quality back row players?  I appreciate that there are a number of imports in Irish shirts, but there is plenty of home grown talent.  Is it the biology of the Irish that they suit the back row athleticism

I'm going to suggest that it is.

Once you eliminate the soccer and GAA types I think the most abundant type of athlete left then is suited best to the demands of the back row, especially the flanks, as opposed to the tight 5 and outside backs.

hugehandoff wrote:Do England need to look at central contracts? Ireland in particular have been able to manage their Lions players far more effectively due to their central contracts. Some of England's stars like Itoje and Lawes have played 3 times the amount of their Irish equivalents. That is clearly having an impact.

... or simply scrap the Lions.

This has the potential to be a strange game.  Virtually all teams of note (bar Italy) are in search of bonus points to try to get or keep 2nd place or 3rd.
So England too will of course just want to beat us because we're there, we have GS pretensions, we did it to them last year etc etc.  But really they want to more than just beat us, they want four tries don't they?

Wales, France, Scotland and England are still fighting for bonuses and Ireland technically don't even have to win.  Of course we'll want to win - GSs are a tasty temptation and pride is even tastier - but even then, all we really need to do is win.  We don't need bonus points.  We don't need to chase tries. Winning a game 6-3 would be enough for the Slam.

So unusual and perhaps a dangerous set of circumstances if the Irish players are thinking of just winning and no more.  Ireland in the past have proved good at winning and no more.  Two points ahead and we 'rest up' in 20 to 30 minutes of defend, defend, defend.  It'll be dangerous if we go back to that old world this weekend.

The newish version of Ireland on display this season is a more ruthless, attack orientated beast that just doesn't want to win but wants to have try targets.  Now obviously this new mood has been induced by necessity (bonus points) but it has also taken us out of our more conservative ways and forced us to play on the front foot more.  The Irish fans see and they likes this new more cocky attacking side.  
And I think this is the safest blueprint to continue with.  No time for overdone pragmatism now - not in England against England.  If we invite waves of them onto us, waves of them will come.  So I hope Joe is a smart coach now and that the more mature players are smart too.  Keep giving themselves try targets.  Keep the try target at four.  Do not let their minds think winning is enough but chase a target.  If they do this then at least they'll have the mindset to be less traditionally passive and instead carry on this more relentless brand of rugby.
So Ireland should have their bonus target in their head too.  Join the party - hunt for four.

SecretFly wrote:T...But really they want to more than just beat us, they want four tries don't they?...

Not so sure. Wouldn't matter much to me where we finish in the table if we got a win, because Ireland are number 2 in the world now. That's a scalp I'd happily take however we could get it. Position in the table only becomes of interest if we lose, and other results rub salt in the wound by pushing us further down.

I'd have to agree. Win. Then who cares. Lose I'll be too busy drowning my sorrows to care!

If England weren't pushing for a bonus point against France when it was mathematically necessary to keep in the Championship hunt, I don't think we'll be pushing for a bonus point against Ireland to increase our chance of finishing second.

Jones will want to win and want to win handsomely, make no mistake, but we won't be targeting 4 tries.

Interesting the noise coming out of the England camp that they want to keep their Twickenham record intact more than they want to derail Ireland's Grand Slam. It amounts to the same thing really though, but it possibly confirms that they're now not too fussed about where they finish in the Championship and just want to win the game.

For example, if England beat Ireland (without a bonus point), we are no better or worse a team for France beating with no bonus point Wales (giving us 2nd) or Wales beating France (giving us 3rd). Similarly were we to lose, we're no better or worse for finishing 4th or 5th depending on how the result in Wales/France pans out.

carpet baboon wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Why so defensive baboon?

Well a "number of " equates to cj stander in the back row. So that number is 1.
It's not defensive it's just amusing me how one or two people seem to be looking for "reasons" Ireland are playing well, won the tournament, going for the slam and up to second in the world rankings in a somewhat backhanded praise way.

Yeah but in a post that was praising Ireland's deep resources at back row it was a pretty throwaway comment. He also pointed out that England have their share of imports too. There will be lots of digs from jealous types, but I honestly believe that was not the intention there. Enjoy the wins, accept any praise coming your way and, just maybe, prepare for that awful feeling of disappointment if England can raise themselves and poop all over the party.

George should drop out of the 23 for me, he was really bad. For somebody with a major point to prove, he ended up proving he's not a starting International hooker.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:George should drop out of the 23 for me, he was really bad. For somebody with a major point to prove, he ended up proving he's not a starting International hooker.

Well when the coach is too stupid to pick George when he's in form? What do you expect? George has had a dip in form in this year's 6 nations. I am not arguing that.

I would not write off George though. He did start for the Lions and you know what? That fatigue is going to affect him.

It is completely idiotic to leave out a player when he's in good form and start him when he's out of form.

Yet this is what Jones has done.

You can rub your hands in glee at the return of Hartley whose been plodding along for England but I am not convinced it will solve the issues.

England's current problems are because Jones didn't sort out the problems which have been identified many times.


Jones has also been steadfastly refusing to drop Itoje or change his imbalanced backrow - both have been foolish.

You've been advocating starting George over Hartley all 6N's.....now that he gets a start and is awful, it's Jones fault as George isn't in form???? What a load of tosh.

When do England announce their team usually?

rapidsnowman wrote:When do England announce their team usually?

Varies, but apparently at 9:15 tomorrow morning

England's current problems are because Jones didn't sort out the problems which have been identified many times.

Don't often agree with BS but this is basically the bottom line. It's like reliving the last RWC all over again.

A good international class lock forward (which Lawsey is) cannot compete at the breakdown with good international class flankers.

It might work in domestic matches but not in internationals.

I just hope that Eddy has got this wrinkle out of his system and plays back row forwards (in the correct positions) in the back row for the rest of his tenure.

What makes me gently weep is that there ARE the flankers out their in the Premiership who could step up to the mark and cure most of our current ills.

The booze loading list for this weekends games is going to have to be carefully planned. If all goes wrong I'll need to go to some seriously strong IPA's or Stouts to re-acquire my equilibrium (gone but not forgotten).

Mind you, if it all goes to ratsh1t I'll happily toast the irish (not with that Guiness pap - but with an good Imperial Stout ) - they have been the best team in the tournament and deserve their position as top-dog.

Lawes and Hughes out for the rest of the season.

In my opinion one of Irelands biggest advantages over England is the statistical analysis that is being done on the background. Former Ireland and Leinster player Kevin McLaughlin runs a sports science company called Kitman Labs backed financially by Jamie Heaslip which tracks data including accelerations, collisions, running distances and body weight, 'wellness' and muscle soreness on all players and tells them things like when they need to rest and when they can expect to peak.

The statistical analysis forms part of the Ireland player welfare programme. Ireland like England had a lot of Lions but I think the statistical analysis going on behind the scenes and the control the IRFU have over players at both club and international level is most certainly reaping rewards and may explain why Ireland look a lot fresher. It also explains why Schmidt will often leave big name players out when fitter options are available.

Kitman labs has also signed contracts with NBA, Super 15, premier league and Aussie rules teams. The Sharks reported a significant drop in injuries in their first year using it. The lab was founded by a former Leinster exec. The Lions also signed Kitman labs for the recent tour to NZ.

There is some real money ball stuff going on behind the scenes.

Happy Birthday 'BIG Phil Vickery'

SecretFly wrote:This has the potential to be a strange game.  Virtually all teams of note (bar Italy) are in search of bonus points to try to get or keep 2nd place or 3rd.
So England too will of course just want to beat us because we're there, we have GS pretensions, we did it to them last year etc etc.  But really they want to more than just beat us, they want four tries don't they?

Wales, France, Scotland and England are still fighting for bonuses and Ireland technically don't even have to win.  Of course we'll want to win - GSs are a tasty temptation and pride is even tastier - but even then, all we really need to do is win.  We don't need bonus points.  We don't need to chase tries.  Winning a game 6-3 would be enough for the Slam.

So unusual and perhaps a dangerous set of circumstances if the Irish players are thinking of just winning and no more.  Ireland in the past have proved good at winning and no more.  Two points ahead and we 'rest up' in 20 to 30 minutes of defend, defend, defend.  It'll be dangerous if we go back to that old world this weekend.

The newish version of Ireland on display this season is a more ruthless, attack orientated beast that just doesn't want to win but wants to have try targets.  Now obviously this new mood has been induced by necessity (bonus points) but it has also taken us out of our more conservative ways and forced us to play on the front foot more.  The Irish fans see and they likes this new more cocky attacking side.  
And I think this is the safest blueprint to continue with.  No time for overdone pragmatism now - not in England against England.  If we invite waves of them onto us, waves of them will come.  So I hope Joe is a smart coach now and that the more mature players are smart too.  Keep giving themselves try targets.  Keep the try target at four.  Do not let their minds think winning is enough but chase a target.  If they do this then at least they'll have the mindset to be less traditionally passive and instead carry on this more relentless brand of rugby.
So Ireland should have their bonus target in their head too.  Join the party - hunt for four.

Hi SecretFly, interesting point and I have a question.
Could it be that in Schmidt's 5 year he has Ireland playing like the way Leinster did when they were winning their HC's? During that time they were pretty impressive and the way he had set up the team varied.
They played differently home and away and he reflected this in the set-up of the team especially when they were away from home and even more so when they were away in France/England. I remember him using Boss instead of Reddan and using bigger, heavier packs. Then they would have purple patches before and after 1/2 time so by the 60th minutes most of the time the game was won and just needed to be finished.
The reason I say this is looking at the way they played in France is different to how they played their home games.

Do you think he'll tighten it up and strangle England dominating possession? As you say Ireland could win 6-3 in a borefest and no-one would really care. A GS is a GS.
Of course we want tries but scoring 4 tries and losing is not what we want. Their backs could punish us if its an open game.

Anyway just a thought

Hi Ninja.  Yes, I worry that he (Schmidt) actually might just tighten it all up and try to resist England's attack for great periods of the game.  In the past (at International level) Schmidt has coached us a way to do this.  It has been effective in the past but it's very attritional, requires tons of tackling and alertness, and it's a very nervy way to play a game of rugby, especially in England against the English.

Joe might revert to such a truly smothering kind of game for the weekend, and in a sense, it might be a master stroke as I'm sure England will expect a more attacking Ireland and have ideas of counter-attacking the spaces if given the opportunity.

But really, I don't think a containment game is the right kind of game anymore.  We have to keep going now with one intent and improve on the intent over the months - to attack more than defend, to be the aggressor side more than the passive side.

We'll see but I think if we sit back, England looked ready and able to play a pretty hot end-game over in Paris.  If we sit back too much, they'll take their opportunities.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:You've been advocating starting George over Hartley all 6N's.....now that he gets a start and is awful, it's Jones fault as George isn't in form???? What a load of tosh.

It's Jones' fault for starting George when he's out of form and steadfastly refusing to start him when was in good form. Yes.

Well no actually I've been saying George hasn't played particularly well this 6 nations. I can admit when a player isn't playing well. I don't believe players are blameless/faultless.

It is also Jones' fault for having no back up plan in certain positions.

I don't think George should be scapegoated though - he was one of many England players who have been sub par.

Just as I don't single out Hartley for the defeat to Scotland.

Hartley has been declared fit, so will probably start. Personally I would be happy enough to stay with George and LCD for this game, despite both being fallible with their darts. The big thing for George was to show his set piece could hold up to the scrutiny of starting - sadly his throwing did at times let him down, losing us good attacking ball or delivering ropey ball and he still struggles to get his foot up and forwards properly to strike for the ball. The scrummaging he needs to work on, it has been a weakness for too long, while the throwing is perhaps a mental thing?

Both offer much more dynamism around the field, even if LCD did mess up our last chance to sneak a win, but we must be able to trust the basics of their position. I really do not want Hartley to come back - but fully understand why Jones may choose that option.

England won the set piece battle though and our lineout ball in general was better than the French.

It wasn't perfect but England's biggest fault was not the set piece.

George lost 1 lineout but I don't think he was as bad at the lineout as being made out to be.

French lineout was worse.

It was the general lethargy and the lack of firepower at the breakdown and in attack - this is a collective thing.

I am not sure there's a quick fix.

Armand might help in the backrow but it's one of many.

Something like this is what I'd do.

1.Marler
2.George
3.Sinckler
4.Launchbury
5.Itoje
6.Robshaw (c)
7.Armand
8.Simmonds


9.Wigglesworth
10.Farrell
11.May
12.Teo
13.Joseph
14.Daly
15.Watson

16.Mako
17.LCD
18.Cole
19.Ewels
20.Haskell
21.Care
22.Ford
23.Solomona

Reinstate Robshaw as captain.


Care and Ford off the bench with 25 minutes to go - should be able to up some much needed tempo from the bench.

Throwing better than Guirado is no compliment though. Guirado is excellent around the park, but boy he is poor at the lineout. Our jumpers should be congratulated for the work they did in stealing as much ball as we did.

I am not saying George (or LCD) had shockers wwhen throwing, but it is worrying that both had poor throws when we had attacking lineouts 5m out. Both are excellent for their clubs so they can do it, but sadly they fluffed the biggest throw that each had in the game.

Of course that is not to say that it would have been any different with Hartley on, more to point out that when you are trying to take a spot in the team it is important to make a good early impression as too often the coaches are looking for reasons to drop you. Alex Goode had just one chance to impress back in 2016 and dropped the first high ball when under no pressure - that sealed his fate with Jones.

On a separate note, with 3 tries and 2 assists, Jonny May has been our most potent attacker. Is he starting to win you round?

Hartley is good at those throws though.

It was such an annoying match. We had so much ball for so long and did sod all with it.

I agree it wasn't great to fluff throws and like every aspect of the game - England should be aspiring to improve but let's be honest - the set piece was not the area which needs the most improvement.

Yes but as I said it's difficult to make a positive impression when a coach decides to pick George not when he was in better form but pick him after a Lions season.

Not as if George is the only player whose form has dipped after the tour. Is it an excuse? Yes but then we know that Lions tour does impact players form and makes them more susceptible to injury.


What England need to do to beat Ireland is to raise the intensity, raise the dynamism and be competitive at the breakdown.

The penalty count and turnovers lost are what have hurt England the most.

Ireland will be licking their lips when they see the stats and sadly Ireland are strong in this area.

The aspect I was most disappointed by George was not the throwing but not being dynamic enough at the breakdown. I know he can play better than that.

England as a whole can be more dynamic than they've shown.

Also England need to improve their gain line success.

The overall decision making has been poor.


Yes May has been fine in this 6 nations. The problem isn't the wingers.

Saying George is out of form isn't an argument for me. Not so long ago you were saying how he outplayed Hartley etc.

Club form isn't necessarily relevant when entering the Int arena. This was George's big chance to shine...he had a point to prove, yet he threw badly and was completely anonymous around the park.

At least we can put the Hartley v George discussion once and for all.

Hartley hasn't exactly had a sparkling tournament himself.

If Hartley had been as good as you think we wouldn't be discussing this.

George has outplayed Hartley many times but it hasn't mattered to Jones.

Anyway I don't think the hooker situation is integral vs whether we lose or win to Ireland.

George lost 1 throw and you call it throwing badly.... okay. I doubt you even watched the game to be honest.

Well no - the discussion isn't over unless Hartley ups his own game.


I want Hartley to play well vs Ireland - we'll see if he can.

It's important to remember that George started three tests for the Lions and played well in all of them.

He's started two tests for England and was poor in one of them when the selection and tactics were set to fail.

Declaring the discussion over after a single performance seems pretty premature Sarge!

Not sure jones decided to pick george but forced into it. I can imagine that if he'd gone with LCD we wouldnt have been hearing fair enough he's in better form.

George certainly hadn't captured his impact from the bench when he's started and that includes the lions when he looked a little off the pace.

Call it a hunch (or maybe I'm just bored of hookers!) but I think Eddie Jones might put Marcus Smith on the bench for this one.

With Slade cut, his options are to use Ford, Farrell, Te'o and Joseph in some configuration or bring in Lozowski or Smith. I think he might look to mix it up with the tournament gone, and I think he'll rate Smith as a higher prospect come Japan.

With Daly in the squad, he can use Smith in the 22 shirt as a like-for-like with Ford with Daly's versatility allowing for one outside back to cover centre and wing.

E.g. if he started as he did against France (GF, OF, BT in the midfield, ED, JM, AW in the back 3, MS and MB on the bench) and Farrell got injured, he could move Daly into the centres with Te'o and put Brown on into the back 3. That way, he wouldn't be risking a disastrous Ford and Smith at 10/12 if Farrell went off.

The other option would be to bring Smith into the squad for Ford and play Farrell + 2 (possibly) or parachute Smith straight into the starting line-up (less likely).

http://rugbylad.ie/watch-eddie-jones-labels-the-irish-as-scummy-in-unseen-video/