England 6N's Postmortem & Look Ahead

Pinched this idea from the Scotland thread as it's so nicely done.

6 Nations results

Ire 20-32 Eng  
Eng 44-8 Fra  
Wales 21-13 Eng  
Eng 57-14 Italy  
Eng 38-38 Sco    

World Cup Warmups

England v Wales
Twickenham Stadium, London
Sunday 11th August 2019
Kick Off: 2:00pm


Wales v England
Principality Stadium, Cardiff
Saturday 17th August 2019
Kick Off: TBC


England v Ireland
Twickenham Stadium, London
Saturday 24th August 2019
Kick Off: 3:00pm


England v Italy
St James' Park, Newcastle
Friday 6th September 2019
Kick Off: 7:45pm

World Cup Fixtures

England v Tonga
Sapporo Dome, Sapporo
Sunday 22nd September 2019
Kick Off: 11:15am

England v USA
Kobe Misaki Stadium, Kobe
Thursday 26th September 2019
Kick Off: 11:45am

England v Argentina
Tokyo Stadium, Tokyo
Saturday 5th October 2019
Kick Off: 9:00am

England v France
International Stadium Yokohama, Yokohama
Saturday 12th October 2019
Kick Off: 9:15am

All in all a pretty good 6N's.

The team showed that when switched on and in gear we can beat any one, playing good rugby and scoring points.

Problems appear when we seem to switch off in games, we start strong and then mentally seem to lose focus. Could also be a fitness issue but EJ swears blind they are as fit as any other team out there, so we can only assume it's a mindset thing.

Either way we threw away two leads to end up losing to Wales and just managing to draw with Scotland.

Negatives from the comp seem to be:
Use of the bench, or lack of use
Second scrum half, is it Robson? Will he ever get a start?
On field leadership, cool heads under pressure and can they change a gameplan in the middle of the action?
Will Billy get back to his best?
Is Daly really the right choice at 15?
We leak so many tries

Positives:
The team has quality in every position and new players bed in well
Our gameplan works very well when it works
Guys like Wilson, Sinkler and Curry keep getting better
We score so many tries

Kruis had a good Six Nations. We wondered if he'd get back to 2016 form, and it looks like he's done it.

If everyone is fit, you'd imagine one of Lawes or Launchbury would miss out on the match 23. It's actually been quite a while since those four top locks were all fit and in form at the same time, though.

Itoje seems pretty key to the balance of the pack, along with Mako. We need those two fit for the RCW along with guys like Kruis and Sinkler.

I'd probably take Lawes as the other lock, when we began to concede and the games went away from us we missed someone who could stop attacks dead in their tracks like he can. It was notable against Ireland and France just how brutal some of his hits were and how they killed momentum for the opposition.

As an outsider ( scotland fan) to me there is something of a disconnect in the England rugby team.  In the opposite way to the way Wales as a team are greater than the sum of their parts the England team is less than the sum of its parts.  Simply put with the quality and depth of players England should be doing better.

There seems to be an inability to play " heads up rugby" and to change what is happening on the pitch.  There is a lack of leadership.  Is this down to being to tightly coached?

Is too much choice in players part of the issue?  The scotland team pretty much picks itself.  Engand maybe too many choices?  ie big bosh centres or skillful ball players?

I do think Farrell is a large part of the issue.  I think England would be a much better team without him.

There's some tweaks to the last squad we put out and the majority are merely returns from injury. Watson Vunipola Itoje Hartley. Throw in Cokanasiga and Willis as bolters.
I've read pieces to say that England suffered from pressure at the weekend which to me is the opposite of what happened. The Wales Ireland game meant that it was a nothing match and after 30 mins is was a case of right a bit top easy allowing distraction and lack of concentration. There was pressure to not lose though in the end so aid spin it as a positive. The solutions for this current team aren't too taxing.

yappysnap wrote:All in all a pretty good 6N's.

The team showed that when switched on and in gear we can beat any one, playing good rugby and scoring points.

Problems appear when we seem to switch off in games, we start strong and then mentally seem to lose focus. Could also be a fitness issue but EJ swears blind they are as fit as any other team out there, so we can only assume it's a mindset thing.

Either way we threw away two leads to end up losing to Wales and just managing to draw with Scotland.

Negatives from the comp seem to be:
Use of the bench, or lack of use
Second scrum half, is it Robson? Will he ever get a start?
On field leadership, cool heads under pressure and can they change a gameplan in the middle of the action?
Will Billy get back to his best?
Is Daly really the right choice at 15?
We leak so many tries

Positives:
The team has quality in every position and new players bed in well
Our gameplan works very well when it works
Guys like Wilson, Sinkler and Curry keep getting better
We score so many tries

Shocker

I think after that second half it's easy to forget how good we were in the first half against Scotland. 31 points in as many minutes and it was only a charge down and 60m break by a hooker that slowed us down before half time.

We also have a Barbarians fixture in May. I assume this will be the same weekend as the Premiership final again and I assume a lot of new faces will be put out.

The warm-ups are interesting. You think there would be two near first choice line-ups and two change line-ups. Italy will obviously be a change line-up, but which games do we put our strong teams out for and which game do we try a few more things?

I'm still not overly worried about the pool stage. I think there are two teams that could beat us but no teams that should beat us. We'll be able to try people out in those first two games.

We've pondered Eddie's training methods before, but the players will essentially be Eddie's from June. Yes they'll all go and rest first up, but then they'll probably be a July training camp, August Internationals and a September tournament. That's three months of Eddie by the time we hit the knockouts.

There is no excuse in a World Cup for the coach to not be able to prepare the playing group in terms of being fit and mentally prepared. It's a delicate balance between leaving your players undercooked and burning them out, and Eddie's England often seem to slide towards the latter.

Can England win 5 big games in a row? You'd say it's unlikely at the moment. Even if you give England a 67% chance of qualifying (as 2 from 3 possibles) and a 50% chance of beating any teams that make the knockout, England have an 8% chance of winning the World Cup. I'd say our chance of qualifying is probably slightly higher, but our chances in the knockouts might be a bit lower than 50% per game, especially if you consider we'll probably have to play at least 2 of the teams ranked above us.

Biggest concern is the lack of leadership and ability to keep up the intensity they start the first 40 mins.

They seems to have an inability to get hold of the ball and simply pick and go drive. Just basic rugby to get back in control of the game.

Where is the leadership telling them to reign it in on the pitch when we're out of control.

Positives though, we are almost unplayable at times, and can score tries for fun.

Need to just get the balance right and that mental / leadership aspect.

For me, as well as we can play, the tournament put a lot of doubt in my mind over our World Cup chances. Tactically we just don't seem to set ourselves up well enough for the opponents.

In the Wales game, it was obvious to me we needed to cut down the kicking and play it a lot more through the hands with our big carriers. Instead we kick it to Liam Williams all day. The Farrell kick at the end of the first half was just a braindead waste of possession. Eddie didn't even seem to notice Biggar has come onto the pitch from his post match comments, not sure he was even watching the game.

Same against Scotland, how we can't cruise in a 31-0 lead and just tighten up is shocking and no international side should be giving away that lead.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Biggest concern is the lack of leadership and ability to keep up the intensity they start the first 40 mins.

They seems to have an inability to get hold of the ball and simply pick and go drive. Just basic rugby to get back in control of the game.

Where is the leadership telling them to reign it in on the pitch when we're out of control.

Positives though, we are almost unplayable at times, and can score tries for fun.

Need to just get the balance right and that mental / leadership aspect.

On balance it's probably easier to coach a team how to control the ball for 5 minutes than how to be "unplayable" for 5 minutes. I guess part of that coaching is when to switch from playing everything to that controlled game plan. But still, it's better than being able to hold onto the ball for long periods but unable to ever do anything with it.

"Hold onto the ball for long periods but unable to do anything with it. "
Yes, can be boring but I don't know of such a team. If you're a very bad side you don't get so much possession and if you're a good side you do eventually do something with it.

But yes, England's main weakness ( and I don't like pointing it out) is the inability or unwillingness to be normal for a 10 minute period. Some will say that happened through some 40 minute periods this year but that's not my point.
They expend a lot of energy and adrenaline in games. I don't care how much anyone says it's all controlled...no it isn't. Whenever you get so alert, so accurate, so silky, so fast... adrenaline kicks in..the euphoria chemicals bubble. Then after the break, like any drug, and adrenaline is - the drop comes and to a degree the dip in emotions.
It's natural and that's when Gatland planned to hit England. I'm not so certain Townsend had the same idea but he caught them in that moment when the dip inevitably happens.
England don't need psychologists. All they need is better planning of their energy usage through 80.

The Wales game was tactic s. The Scotland game was just the fact it had become a meaningless going around before the first whistle had blown thanks to the result in Wales.

The scotland game meant a lot to the players.  See the relief on the english players faces at the final whistle!

Yup. They'd dug themselves out of a hole. You don't want to be a team that lost to Scotland at Twickenham.

Poor auld Scots. I don't know what God they pray to but they don't get many lucky breaks. So near that time and I was praying they'd hold out when they had brought such colour and excitement to the second half.
Next time I'll try invoking Odin for them......but not at the WC .......

Itoje for Captain?

Really confusing 6Ns for England - Generally great in the first half of matches and ranging from good (Ireland, Italy) to abject (Scotland) in the second half. If we could play for 80 minutes, we should have had the slam...

Not fitness - we dropped off the intensity straight at the start of the 2nd half against both Wales and Scotland, and paid for it well before fitness should have become an issue. It was a head thing rather than a physical one.

Farrell has probably played himself out of a captain's role in the RWC - we need someone who can get hold of the team and get them playing properly for a few minutes just to take the steam out of a game when the opposition are starting to make a come back, something which OF has completely failed to do twice this tournament.

TJ wrote:Itoje for Captain?

Would be better than Farrell, plus the press would love him.

Listening to Farrell pre & post game is painful.

I think Itoje is a good shout for captain. Guaranteed starter when fit, eloquent, physical, and seems to be a natural leader.

I used to think big Joe would make a good England captain but he shirked it on Saturday. Given a few more caps I'd suggest Mark Wilson would be decent, but how secure is his place? Billy is too quiet for my liking, and Curry is too inexperienced.

Do we have a Carling available? Unlikeable and a Snobby little so and so. Although he was a much better centre than often given credit for he seemed to have been brought in as a leader first, and at a very young age. What about Mercer as a 6/8/captain?

To me England's problem isn't a lack of great players, you have more than enough of them, it's simply a lack of leaders on the pitch.
On front foot they have shown how deadly they are, but show them something different (Italy not contesting rucks) or match them physically (Ireland at Twickenham) or just unrelenting attacking ( Scotland on sat) and none of the current team seem to be able to grab hold of the team and just say " right hold onto the ball, pick and go. Then kick for the corners. Nothing fancy, just keep hold of the ball for a bit,"

Maybe its an argument for Robshaw and Hartley being brought back in - we need a stable of leaders we can rely on, not just the captain. Perhaps the new players who have integrated into the side can offset some of the weaknesses of those two enough that their leadership ability is enough to get them into the side

Eg, is a front row of Mako / Hartley / Sinckler dynamic enough around the pitch to have Hartley in, when the previous front row of Mako (Marler) / Hartley / Cole wasn't?

Similarly, a back row with Robshaw at 6 may not look as one paced with Curry/Underhill at 7 as the one with a Robshaw/Wood/Haskell combination

If we had Robshaw/Hartley/Farrell all on the field with Itoje and Youngs also being "senior" players, I'd feel quite good about leadership, and being able to put in a full 80 min performance

I'd be a fan of Itoje as skipper. He's been earmarked for leadership by very successful age group and Sarries sides. Many would agree that he's future England captain so I'd be happy with him coming in now and building a leadership group around him.

1.Vunipola 2.George 3.Sincker 4.Itoje (c) 5.Lawes 6.Wilson 7.Curry 8.Vunipola

16.Hartley 17.Genge 18.Cole 19.Kruis 20.Underhill

Moon, LCD, Williams, Launchbury, Hughes - making up the squad.

I'd be happy with that as a group of forwards heading to the RWC.

The back line I'm more concerned about with the defence being less composed without JJ and full back up for debate.

I don't think we can count on Hartley. He's been out a long time.

I don't know what form Robshaw is in at the moment. If he is on good form I would rather have him than Shields, but it is a tough call to replace Wilson.

Yeah I'm not convinced its the best approach either, just not sure how else to fix this leadership question. As someone mentioned Carling, maybe Itoje is just thrust into that role

If nothing else, he'd get up the nose of opposition fans almost as well as Carling did. Any princesses he could flutter his eyelashes at? That would help too

To be honest I think we need to stick with George and Wilson, I don't think it'd help much having Hartley and Robshaw coming back in. I think Robshaw is great, but he's been around the team loads in the past and when things changed in the game neither him or Hartley were able to change the plan up then, what makes people think they could do it now?

Stick with the younger forwards and coach into them the mindset of heads up rugby and adapting to the situation.

Only player i'd bring back is Brown, the Daly experiment is just too flaky for RWC matches, especially knock out rugby, he's a great runner and attacker, but he just isn't a 15.

Very strange 6N for us. I almost feel happier with how we played than previous Champ winning years, yet the 2nd half meltdowns are a massive problem. I think Ireland is the only game we really played the full 80.

I think recent games have shown what a great captain Robshaw was. I’m not sure I’d have him in the team now but at least we would generally get over the line with him in, or be able to turn a game around. I think Itoje is a good shout, tbf.

Robshaw would help change a game with how he played, he cleaned up other players messes all game long and seemed to always be in the right place at the right time, Scotland probably wouldn't have scored so many with him in the team.

I just don't think he's a leader to change a gameplan around for us if it's not working.

Also Farrell as a captain doesn't fill me with confidence.

Every one has heard in the past that Jonno was a very good balancing act for Woodward, to basically turn around and tell him he's being crazy and no the players won't be doing that. And then on the field Jonno could see what needed doing, and even if it went against Woodwards decisions he'd do it.

Farrell imo is just too young and polite, I don't think he'd question Eddie, which I think is what's needed at times. It creates this culture of "this is EJ's gameplan, we are going to follow it no matter what. Unless Eddie tells us different."

Johnson also had a lot of leaders around him.

1.Woodman 2.Thompson 3.Vickery 4.Johnson 5.Kay 6.Hill 7.Back 8.Dallagio
9.Dawson 10.Wilkinson 11.Cohen 12.Tindall 13.Greenwood 14.Robinson 15.Lewsey

How many of that lot had captained England and/or their club teams a significant amount?

I often think the most impressive part of Johnson's captaincy was that he successfully skippered a side with several big egos who thought they should be captain without being undermined.

Matt Dawson was a fantastic player but Richard Hill once joked that he liked Kyran Bracken starting simply so he didn't have to listen to Dawson talk for a change.

When England click, we're fantastic. You only have to look at the France and Ireland matches to realise this team has some serious potential. However, it's flaky when the going gets tough. Players are not stepping up and making decisions on the pitch.

We need a captain to do that. Wales have that in spades with AWJ. I don't like the guy but you cannot deny he's a fantastic captain. We could learn a lot from him too. Farrell is all wrong for Captain. He's petulant, plays on the edge and simply doesn't have enough "dog" in him to take proper charge on the pitch. I remember when I played rugby at school; Our house team did not have the best players on paper, but because there were a core of six or seven players that we looked up to and followed, the team gelled and played at a greater level than the sum of its parts. It seems that England only have one or two "leaders" - the rest seem to simply do as they're told. Johnno was a great captain in that he could pretty much delegate to various teammates to get things done, and things were done. At the moment nobody is stepping up. Farrell's got enough on his plate at 10. To load him with the captaincy as well is hurting his game.

My suggestion: Captain should be Itoje. He's a guaranteed starter, is respected and has a good rugby brain. The leadership back-up should comprise of Billy & Mako, Hartley (if fit), Youngs, Farrell, Daly/Nowell and Lawes. There's enough experience and rugby nous there to make the team a force to be reckoned with.

All those players are in the team already and a fair few were playing in the losses/draws. So why would they suddenly change and start leading now if they couldn't earlier?

Obviously I know players mature and get more experience, and it's generally easier to tell people what to do when you've been around the block a bit.

But why suddenly think Billy, Youngs or Nowell are going to grab the team by the collars and make a change when they've never shown any potential of doing that so far?

The only guy who I think we have seen getting into the team and telling players what to do is Brown, but he isn't flavor of the month and can't run really quick *shrugs*.

Itoje is the obvious one . Is he a guaranteed starter. Probably

Mark Wilson. Playing great but I suspect he'll be overtaken by a host of huge and talented young 6's coming through.

Hartley. No let's not go back there

Farrell. No shouldnt be captain

Robshaw. No way..hes gone now the kids at 6 are massively hopeful.

Curry. No let him become a feared international 7.

Kruis. Hes the one I was looking to , to take a grip of the team on Saturday but failed. Hes been one of englands best this series but that aspect dissapointed me.

The biggest question is who not in the squad is ready to come in and is a leadern

Mercer . Must make the squad first.
Underhill. What his leadership like?

Cant think of any more imposing guys like a Johnson or Dallaglio etc.

There's no going back now, but I wish Ed Slater had seen more playing time under Lancaster, who was also looking for potential leaders. He didn't get capped, so it was easy for Jones to ignore him, as there were plenty of other locking prospects around. It would be very hard to argue that he deserves a place in the squad over Kruis, Launchbury, Itoje or Lawes but he's always struck me as someone who can inspire his team mates.

I heard the Sunday Times Ruck podcast, where the journalists sounded apoplectic that Jones had mentioned the World Cup loss to Wales. They took this as an attempt by him to blame Bomber for whats happening now, which seemed a very odd interpretation on their part.

I was no fan of the appointment of Jones, and still have reservations now, but I can give him credit for some achievements.

His first season with England looks a lot like the way Wales have just won their Grand Slam. We were alos tight-knit team, and stingy in defence. Jones didn't ignore our our attack but it sounded like he wanted to get our defence right first. I don't know whether he saw eye-to-eye with Gustard but out worst defensive performances were also Gustard's last games.

For all that Jones appeared to solve one problem in his first season, it hasn't rermained solved. Developing our attack has meant losing some solidity, for instance by sacrificing a good defensive player like Brown to.

Jones might conclude that he should revert to the more disciplined approach which won a Grand Slam but I don't think he really believes that will win a World Cup. He's seen enough from this squad to know we've got better attacking weapons options now, so he'll stay the course.

So the Red roses win the grand slam and release their winning t-shirt, only available in womens sizes. How blooming sexist is that!

https://www.englandrugbystore.com/stores/ers/en/product/england-red-roses-2019-grand-slam-champions-t-shirt---white---womens/263099?categories=grand-slam-2019

BamBam wrote:Maybe its an argument for Robshaw and Hartley being brought back in - we need a stable of leaders we can rely on, not just the captain. Perhaps the new players who have integrated into the side can offset some of the weaknesses of those two enough that their leadership ability is enough to get them into the side

Eg, is a front row of Mako / Hartley / Sinckler dynamic enough around the pitch to have Hartley in, when the previous front row of Mako (Marler) / Hartley / Cole wasn't?

Similarly, a back row with Robshaw at 6 may not look as one paced with Curry/Underhill at 7 as the one with a Robshaw/Wood/Haskell combination

If we had Robshaw/Hartley/Farrell all on the field with Itoje and Youngs also being "senior" players, I'd feel quite good about leadership, and being able to put in a full 80 min performance

We trailed one game

The starting team isn't the problem so much as the finishing team.

In the last 12 months we've trailed 3 games at half time and never by more than one kick. The second test in South Africa (13-12), the home test against South Africa (6-8) and the home test against Japan (13-15). We've led the other 9.

Would we need Robshaw and Hartley from the start, or could we use them as finishers?

EnglishReign wrote:Very strange 6N for us. I almost feel happier with how we played than previous Champ winning years, yet the 2nd half meltdowns are a massive problem. I think Ireland is the only game we really played the full 80.

I think recent games have shown what a great captain Robshaw was. I’m not sure I’d have him in the team now but at least we would generally get over the line with him in, or be able to turn a game around. I think Itoje is a good shout, tbf.

If we'd finished off that game with Scotland, then it would have been a very good Six Nations. Even tapering off so that 31-7 at half time had become 34-21 at full time, that would have been enough. 4 try bonus point wins and an away loss is as good as you can do without winning a Championship - and most years would have won us one.

As it was, it was still a good Six Nations, but some of the shine is taken off it. Especially as we won't play another test for 5 months - no chance for these players to answer some of their critics and the doubts will live on.

Why is no-one talking about Mako Vunipola for captain? I'm not saying he's the definite choice, but he never even gets a mention.

He ticks the box of a guaranteed starter
He's part of a successful domestic set-up (someone argued this for Itoje)
He stepped up to vice-captain when Farrell stepped up to captain
He has 56 England caps and 6 Lions caps across 2 tours
McCall after the Premiership final last year: "Mako is one of the smartest rugby brains I’ve ever come across. He sees things that fly-halves don’t see. I’m sure Eddie [Jones] will use him from a leadership point of view on tour."
Borthwick after his injury: "The leadership he gives, the presence he has, and the effect he has on those around him - that's incredibly significant."

Sometimes gets a namecheck as one of the leadership group, but never as captain. Just curious as to why?

No 7&1/2 wrote:The Wales game was tactic s. The Scotland game was just the fact it had become a meaningless going around before the first whistle had blown thanks to the result in Wales.

How very disrespectful can you be to Scotlands second half performance ? Scotland did the same to Wales, they upped the anti, the difference is, we didn't capitulate under the pressure.

Scotland were fantastic in the second half against England, and you could see what it meant to England when they scored their try at the end, you could have sworn they had just won the world cup.

The games between Scotland and England are never meaningless, there is always a trophy/cup on offer.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:The Wales game was tactic s. The Scotland game was just the fact it had become a meaningless going around before the first whistle had blown thanks to the result in Wales.

How very disrespectful can you be to Scotlands second half performance ? Scotland did the same to Wales, they upped the anti, the difference is, we didn't capitulate under the pressure.

Scotland were fantastic in the second half against England, and you could see what it meant to England when they scored their try at the end, you could have sworn they had just won the world cup.

The games between Scotland and England are never meaningless, there is always a trophy/cup on offer.

I've seen this phrase get dropped a lot on here, and it's disingenuous at best. No-one in England is celebrating a home draw against Scotland. It was relief. There were players who had watched a lot of rugby over the previous 7 weeks on the pitch (Ford and Te'o prevalent amongst them), and when Sam Johnson scored his try under the posts the game was gone - a draw was the best possible result. The players on the pitch obviously set themselves the small target of scoring the try to level the game - which they executed by patiently going through the phases - something England hadn't done all game really. So what you saw was a celebration of a moment, of a plan working. Not the result.

As for "celebrated like they won the World Cup", that's obvious hyperbole.

Not disrespectful. Merely what I see as the truth. The English team took them too lightly yes but it was concentration from a match which had lost a true goal. I don't think if Ireland had won in Wales we would have seen that sort of game or result.

So no credit to Scotland at all ?

robbo277 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:The Wales game was tactic s. The Scotland game was just the fact it had become a meaningless going around before the first whistle had blown thanks to the result in Wales.

How very disrespectful can you be to Scotlands second half performance ? Scotland did the same to Wales, they upped the anti, the difference is, we didn't capitulate under the pressure.

Scotland were fantastic in the second half against England, and you could see what it meant to England when they scored their try at the end, you could have sworn they had just won the world cup.

The games between Scotland and England are never meaningless, there is always a trophy/cup on offer.

I've seen this phrase get dropped a lot on here, and it's disingenuous at best. No-one in England is celebrating a home draw against Scotland. It was relief. There were players who had watched a lot of rugby over the previous 7 weeks on the pitch (Ford and Te'o prevalent amongst them), and when Sam Johnson scored his try under the posts the game was gone - a draw was the best possible result. The players on the pitch obviously set themselves the small target of scoring the try to level the game - which they executed by patiently going through the phases - something England hadn't done all game really. So what you saw was a celebration of a moment, of a plan working. Not the result.

As for "celebrated like they won the World Cup", that's obvious hyperbole.

I meant the players, not the fans.

LordDowlais wrote:

robbo277 wrote:As for "celebrated like they won the World Cup", that's obvious hyperbole.

I meant the players, not the fans.

Robbo's observation stands for players and fans.

LordDowlais wrote:So no credit to Scotland at all ?

LD, please consider how you'd react to an England supporter coming onto a Welsh post mortem thread and posting the equivalent of some of the stuff you do and how you'd react. Then tell me you are not trolling.

robbo277 wrote:Why is no-one talking about Mako Vunipola for captain? I'm not saying he's the definite choice, but he never even gets a mention.

He ticks the box of a guaranteed starter
He's part of a successful domestic set-up (someone argued this for Itoje)
He stepped up to vice-captain when Farrell stepped up to captain
He has 56 England caps and 6 Lions caps across 2 tours
McCall after the Premiership final last year: "Mako is one of the smartest rugby brains I’ve ever come across. He sees things that fly-halves don’t see. I’m sure Eddie [Jones] will use him from a leadership point of view on tour."
Borthwick after his injury: "The leadership he gives, the presence he has, and the effect he has on those around him - that's incredibly significant."

Sometimes gets a namecheck as one of the leadership group, but never as captain. Just curious as to why?

I think that's a bloody good shout, and a really good question.

Is he perhaps perceived as "quiet"? I don't recall seeing him exhorting the troops, or gathering them in to lay down the law - even if we're just considering the forwards. I have this impression of Mako as a fairly humble guy (as ever, happy to be corrected), who wouldn't necessarily step up unless pressed to do so.

Nailed on starter, bags of experience, and - a bit like Johnson - a big, tough fella (just discovered the swearing filter - brilliant).

Nah it's a fair question. You beat or draw what is in front of you. Scotland still needed to play on the right areas make the right decisions.

lostinwales wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:So no credit to Scotland at all ?

LD, please consider how you'd react to an England supporter coming onto a Welsh post mortem thread and posting the equivalent of some of the stuff you do and how you'd react. Then tell me you are not trolling.

I think this is a bit of an overreaction? I think his posts have been fine, just a bit hyperbolic.

Scottrf wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:So no credit to Scotland at all ?

LD, please consider how you'd react to an England supporter coming onto a Welsh post mortem thread and posting the equivalent of some of the stuff you do and how you'd react. Then tell me you are not trolling.

I think this is a bit of an overreaction? I think his posts have been fine, just a bit hyperbolic.

Possibly, but then he tends to overreact to any criticism of Wales, and I'd suggest he would react very strongly if the situation was reversed. I don't like the way that a few comments tend to overtake a reasonable discussion.