Refreshed side

First topic message reminder :

So a few comments I've lifted from the guardian from Eddie Jones. Pretty much as you'd expect in terms of looking ahead to the next challenge.
“I tell you what happens to teams – they evolve,” Jones said. “Some guys will lose desire, some guys will lose fitness, some guys will get injuries and there’ll be young guys come through. So this team is finished now. There will be a new team made. We’ll make a new team for the Six Nations and that new team for the Six Nations will be the basis of going to the next World Cup.'

Apparently the team at the weekend is the youngest to appear in a WC final so there won't be 15 new guys coming in but clearly a few are coming to the end. Are there particular areas or players jones will be looking at?

For me this bunch stand a decent chance in and around the squad to get more caps soon. Genge, Painter, Willis, Dombrandt, Smith, spencer, Robson and a outside chance of Mullins at full back.

Guys that are all young enough to be around for years to come but all with great potential. Perhaps not as good/proven as some who will step back but hugely talented.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Hypothetically:

1 Genge (Obano)
2 LCD
3 Sinkler
4 Lawes
5 Launchbury
6 Curry
7 Underhill
8 Mercer / Dombrandt / SImmonds (Or would he start with Wilson)

9 Youngs
10 Ford
11 May
12 Slade
13 Tuilagi
14 Nowell / Cockasaniga
15 Watson

Pretty decent team to be fair. The problem would come with the wider squad, back up hooker is looking thin even were Singleton not a Sarries player I would worry about him being involved. Sarries line out against Racing was appalling, I think they lost the first five. I know it was some what of a scratch team, but it made my blood run cold. It is a worrying trend that we seem to be developing hookers who have iffy basics (LCD & Singleton) or are who too small (Thacker and Tommy Taylor). Is it too much to ask for a physical beast who can throw lazer straight darts, carry like Shalk Brits and jackal like Malcolm Marx?

The hooker position is a weird one. I think it's a bit like the #10 issue that's occurred over the last 10 years. The demands of a number 10 have changed drastically from around 2007ish to about 2012ish. Again, it's pushed on in to 2019, obviously, but the change in attacking patterns between 2007 RWC and 2011 RWC was massive. Much more complex attacking back lines. Blitz defence as the norm. Not just about the 10 deciding on the hoof whether to run/pass/kick. Can't just go hands along the line and hope to score in the corner. Now you had pod systems, lines of attack, it's about distribution and reading and consistency, while still offering a running creative threat against more potent defences. James Hook is the prime example of a good 10 in the old system and a really poor one in the 'new' rugby. That issue filters down the age grade system, as players are then half prepared for rugby as it was - just stick the best player at 10 and let them use their skills to dictate the game - and as it is, which is much more formulaic. But even then, many outside halves don't seem to be really 'good' at all the skills they need to be good at. I think we've had a pretty lean decade for 10s coming through. Carter and the old guard aside, Sexton has been deemed the best, but really, he wouldn't compare to the 10s of old in terms of skills - Larkham, Wilkinson etc. Owen Farrell likewise, despite what English fans might have thought for the last few years. Beauden Barrett is flawed as a 10, clearly; Biggar has no running game; Russell and Cipriani and the Oz 10s can't hack the fact you have to be consistent and can't get away with off the cuff brilliance followed by ambivalence. It's a tough, tough position, and we haven't really had a generation of kids growing up with the 'idea' of a modern 10, and how hard it is, and what it takes to be a good one.

How does that relate to hookers? Pretty simple, in that it also covers the backrow. There seem to be many openside flankers making the switch to hooker. Am I right in saying both Scottish hookers are former 7s? You can't be small in rugby anymore, you can't really get away with being a small 7. So they take good but not brilliant 7s and make them hookers. They're lively, mobile, skillful, at a breakdown threat...but they can't throw. If you're not getting kids around 10/11 years old to start really focusing on a basic like linout throwing, they're not going to be good at it at pro level. It's literally all about hours put in, and quality of practice. If you take an openside flanker at 18 and ask him to play hooker, he's got at least 4 years of a skill gap to mitigate.

Add to the fact that lineouts themselves have gone the way of scrums - the idea of straight and a 'gap' is being abandoned by refs for the sake of spectacle - and it makes it very hard to be a good lineout operator. Hartley was rare in that regard. Even Marx struggles with his throwing.

It all starts at the academy or age grade level, getting general shapes and types of players learning well rounded skills. Teach short strong boys to hook and prop and throw as well as possibly play in the back row as well. Everyone wants to play 7 but it's not about what you want - I remember far too much b1tching and moaning at club level with boys' mothers complaining their sons weren't being played in the 'right' position. Stop treating u14s rugby as if it's vastly important to imitate the professional game, get the skills up, get young boys used to having a rounded skillset (not trying to be the next Wilko/McCaw and being devastated if theyre not the star player) while also then allowing and making them specialise in positions that will suit themwhen they properly mature. I would say that is vital for hooker, outside half, and full back. It's easier to turn someone who trained at hooker in to an openside flanker than it is to do the inverse, but we see the latter far too often. That's a failure of systems and coaching/management at lower levels.

Which young english bookers were open sides then? Which young english hookers would you be molding to the senior national side.

As I understand it, no one is talking about Sarries saying they are not available, but the players who might ask to be released for the 6N or Jones wondering if their minds would be in the right place if Sarries are in danger of relegation.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/50461381

No 7&1/2 wrote:Which young english bookers were open sides then? Which young english hookers would you be molding to the senior national side.

I'll start with the first question - none. It's not my job to mould hookers...

As for the first question, who knows. You tell me. I'd start with the obvious ones - the likes of Tommy Taylor etc. - and work down.

I'm not sure myself. And when a switch would count in your opinion. Like sinckler being a full back. He played there but not sure it really counts. Thought you knew as you talk about the failures of systems and management. No problem, back to england.

Jamie George for instance is a better rugby player than Hartley ever was but when it comes to position specific skills like the set piece he's clear second best, the same is true of Mako and Marler too. Hartley was a big loss during the final, the line out was under threat, the scrum was retreating and the breakdown was a mess because of the lack of aggressive clear out, three areas he excelled.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm not sure myself. And when a switch would count in your opinion. Like sinckler being a full back. He played there but not sure it really counts. Thought you knew as you talk about the failures of systems and management. No problem, back to england.

I'm honestly not sure what you're even trying to say here, and you can't blame your thumbs or the mobile app version this time.

It's very simple really. Standards of hookers have declined as the qualities needed to play hooker (and other positions) has increased. Simples, as the meerkats say.

Soul Requiem wrote:Jamie George for instance is a better rugby player than Hartley ever was but when it comes to position specific skills like the set piece he's clear second best, the same is true of Mako and Marler too. Hartley was a big loss during the final, the line out was under threat, the scrum was retreating and the breakdown was a mess because of the lack of aggressive clear out, three areas he excelled.

Is he? I don't see it. George is a classic Sarry (Sarrie?) - a flat track bully. Seen him nulified too often when the pack gets a push back to consider him better than Hartley. More mobile and better hands? Clearly. Better grubber ability? Yes, obviously. Better rugby player? Hmmm...not sure about that. Not sure he's a better hooker. Hartley had the complete skillset. Hands and feet aren't too high up on the hooker's requirements.

You've also conveniently contradicted yourself. Hartley was needed to do the bread and butter of a hooker in a final where George was playing...

That's exactly what I said, Hartley was the better hooker.

Right, so what makes him a better rugby player?

So my point remains then miaow. You say standards of english hookers have declined as they're moved from positions such as openside. Whoch hookers arent up to the standard of previous hookers and when is the latest it is appropriate or perhaps optimal to switch. Which hookers do you think should be involved in the england squad for the upcoming 6ns and perhaps to japan?

His mobility and handling, take out the position specific skills and I'd say George has the edge in almost every area, there seems to have been a move towards all rounders rather than specialists.

Think george is a better scrummager and that's from a hartley fan.
Again think LCD is a very good scrummager too.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So my point remains then miaow. You say standards of english hookers have declined as they're moved from positions such as openside. Whoch hookers arent up to the standard of previous hookers and when is the latest it is appropriate or perhaps optimal to switch. Which hookers do you think should be involved in the england squad for the upcoming 6ns and perhaps to japan?

Pay close attention to what I'm saying. If you do that, you won't feel the need to paraphrase and try and 'translate' it.

The physical demands of rugby have grown very quickly in a short space of time. That means players who were training for a certain position found they were too small/slow/weak/lacking in skill to play their position at pro level, but that they might still have a career in a different position. For hookers - a very specialist position, where lineout throwing requires hours and hours and years and years of practice to master - switching late in the development of a player is less than ideal. Even if a very talented backrower switches to hooker and is exceptional in the loose, they can be let down by their basic skills. Which was the point made about England, and the point I'm replying to in general. In a discussion. A conversation, if you will. Of adults. Where ideas can be discussed and shared. Like adults. Like grown ups.

As for examples of players, off the top of my head, England's last but one hooker - Tom Youngs - used to play in the back row. And his throwing was very average to reliably poor, despite his mobility around the field resulting in him being the starting Lions hooker in 2013. There's a pretty excellent example right there.

Satisfied, or are you just upset I'm commeting on "your" thread - that sense of misguided propriety giving you all the righteous anger of an Australian preacher...?

Unless tom youngs is your choice for a refreshed side for this 6n s or the tour of japan I'm not sure that's a relevant example of the current failure of systems. You did quote your support of cipriani for this 6 nations though so not too sure! As for commenting on the thread it's about refreshing the england side in the upcoming games. Simple really. So given you dont rate George whoch hookers would you want to see?

Soul Requiem wrote:His mobility and handling, take out the position specific skills and I'd say George has the edge in almost every area, there seems to have been a move towards all rounders rather than specialists.

In games where England struggle George is blowing out of his rather rotund face around the hour mark. While he may be more mobile in one sense, I'd question his ability to maintain that mobility and/or enforce it as consistently as Hartley did.

If you'd call George a better 'footballer' in that he has better passing and gameplaying skills, then yes, I'd agree. But rugby player is all the skills, and position specific skills. I don't think George is as good as Hartley in my opinion.

Your point about all rounders is interesting though. The baseline is having eeryone good at all rounder skills - but then you still need specialist skills in the positions I mentioned - hooker, fly half, and 15 in particular. But also for the others, just less demanding. The 'all rounder' approach is partly because the game is changing so, so fast, it's more a case of fitting the likes of Daly and Barrett in to the team, in spite of their positional issues.

The baseline for rugby now is that every back has pace, power, and size - and maybe one winger like Kolbe with rare talent and speed/stepping can get away with being small. In the forwards, you also need decent pace, power, size, and strength. And that includes hookers - can't be 5'10" anymore, really, and get away with being the 'nippy, crafty forward'. It's basically another prop - like Hibbard - who can also throw well and hook.

You can guarantee the next gen of rugby players will have that baseline, but specialist skills will be better, as they'll have trained in them, and had more awareness of who is going to be what position at an earlier age. Unless, of course, rugby keeps changing at the rate is has done in the last decade...

No 7&1/2 wrote:Unless tom youngs is your choice for...

Sorry to disappoint you. Thought I might, somehow...

So you're choice of starting hooker is youngs. Fly half is Cipriani. I've got to question why. Personally dont rate either as good enough now let alone to be moving forward with.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you're choice of starting hooker....

*Your

Just calm down. Proof read before you hit send. And, more importantly, think before you type...

You guessed the word I was going for. So why do you want to see those 2 in the 6 nations for England. Seem very odd picks.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You guessed the word I was going for. So why do you want to see those 2 in the 6 nations for England. Seem very odd picks.

I'll tell you what's odd - your perpetual need to paraphrase me...incorrectly, of course.

I always got the sense you worshipped me in some sort of weird, warped way, but there's honestly no need for the incessant exegesis of my posts. You don't need to 'interpret' them; they don't require a translation. There's certainly no need for you to deliver them back to me in 'so what you're saying' isms - my contributions to this forum aren't in need of a KJV. They're really quite easy to understand and while everyone needs higher meaning and a sense of spirituality in life, I suggest you seek it in more conventional ways than trying to turn my words in to scripute.

It's probably best if you spend less time telling me what I'm not saying, and more time on topic. You're doing a great job of derailing this thread at present and it was going really well until you decided to   all over it. Thanks.

Steve Thompson was a flanker turned hooker...so its not just a new thing.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Steve Thompson was a flanker turned hooker...so its not just a new thing.

Not a new thing, but a much more common thing. Don't think that's arguable.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. You bring up tom youngs and cipriani as choices for the upcoming 6ns. Simply asking why as I see them as yesterdays men and not in great form.

No I haven't 7.5. Show me where I've suggested Tom Youngs should play for England in 2020.

If you can't, you're derailing and the biggest, ugliest WUM ever wever in the whole wide world...

See, it's fun being an idiot, isn't it!

More personal insults. I've asked you the guys at hooker youd pick and the only.name you're coming up with is tom youngs. Given your suggestion of cirpiaini it certainly seems you favour the experience. Please drop the insults though miaow.
Can the next mod clean up this thread again or just delete it.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Steve Thompson was a flanker turned hooker...so its not just a new thing.

Hartley was also a back rower when he arrived in UK, while LCD was a prop only converting in his second year at U20s.

I suspect most top hookers did not start there, just a question of when they started to convert.

No 7&1/2 wrote:More personal insults. I've asked you the guys at hooker youd pick and the only.name you're coming up with is tom youngs. Given your suggestion of cirpiaini it certainly seems you favour the experience. Please drop the insults though miaow.
Can the next mod clean up this thread again or just delete it.

It's only an insult because you were lying. Play stupid games etc...

London, any chance you could treat my comment as a complaint about miaow s insults please. Cant report it and there seems little point in this thread when hes in this mood. Ta.

LondonTiger wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Steve Thompson was a flanker turned hooker...so its not just a new thing.

Hartley was also a back rower when he arrived in UK, while LCD was a prop only converting in his second year at U20s.

I suspect most top hookers did not start there, just a question of when they started to convert.

Interesting stuff. Does seem to absolutely confirm what I'm saying, even if Hartley was impressive in the position. Wasn't Jamie George a 10 at some point as well, which accounts for his kicking and running and passing game?

Eiher way, there's a really good discussion here, clearly, that relates to the position - and could easily be extended to discuss the specialist skills required at 15 - and how and why England appear to be a bit short of a consumate player for them. Could even say the other specialist position, 10, has problems as well.

Does it *have* to be the hooker throwing in?

I seem to recall, back in the mists of time that wingers used to fulfill that role.

A good point. By and large it makes sense as the props are usually stronger and sturdier lifters, and being fatter/wider makes you generally more stable and therefore better at throwing - why fat darts players are so good. Not sure there were many other sports Andy Fordham could have been a household name in, for instance...

That basically leaves the hooker as the other forwards are more valuable at either lifting or jumping. But I suppose exceptional throwing ability isn't as readily obvious as, say, kicking ability like someone in Eales, or that goalkeeper who used to take free kicks and penalties. It's not like teams train/play in a manner than discovers a number 8 is actually the best lineout thrower in the world. Perhaps the kind of 1% stuff that teams will be looking at in 20 years time, though...

If you move Watson to 15 do we lose some of his attacking ability ....or does that enhance it?

Nowell or Watson for 15 at the moment for me i would say.

Not sure Nowell's a reliable test 15. Not sure you actually get the ability that Daly brought in the position, either - the whole point with Daly at 15 was a playmaker who could do it all, had a great left boot for in play and goal kicking, and who would create and finish in equal measure. Nowell and Watson are less 'creative' in that sense. Can see the logic in putting Watson there if he's better than Daly at the basics, but not Nowell.

Strange that England does appear to have some issues with specialists. Hmmm. Hooker, scrum half, full back, and maybe quetion marks over outside half as well.

Im not sure Daly actually fulfilled the role he was expected to play though Miaow

Nowell has played at 15 many a time for exeter and has looked exceptional. His injuries are the concern for me. But if he can stay fit...i would genuinely look at him there.

GeordieFalcon wrote:If you move Watson to 15 do we lose some of his attacking ability ....or does that enhance it?

Nowell or Watson for 15 at the moment for me i would say.

I'd liken Watson to Robinson and he was able to show more of himself on the wing than at full back, he of course had the benefit of Lewsey who was rock solid at 15.

Nowell sometimes seems like an improved version of Mike Brown anyway. I'd be happy seeing him at 15 for England

I understand the logic behind having Daly at 15 as a second playmaker but don't think that works if you've got Farrell at 12.

You really think Nowell's as good under the high ball? As good a kicker? As solid a last man? I've seen Nowell get done in the air much more frequently for starters, and would be amazed if he comes close on the other two.

As for Daly, though he did his job well in flashes against NZ. Ultimately not needed for long range kicking, but the option was there. As for Farrell - 3 playmakers are better than 2! You can play effectively 2-2-2 in the backline, with playmaker-strike runner set ups that then allow you to dummy as well, and use the playmaker as your runner. England seemed to use Slade really well in this manner at 13.

From memory nowell picked up motm vs saracens at full back though he went off injured and looked completely flawless which obviously sticks in people s memories. He doesnt really tick the boxes in terms of out and our speed that jones is looking for though and wont get a game there for Exeter with Hogg. Watson is the guy in the current squad who could tick that box.

Digs out the Ashton quote about wings fielding more high balls than fullbacks do.

Time was May was talked up as a potential future England fullback as well, but I do fancy Watson would be next in line IF Jones decides that Daley isnt the answer.

Id also expect a young off the radar specialist fullback to be picked in the training squad for the six nations too. Jones has always been good at giving opportunities to players who might go on to be big things, even if many of them have fallen by the wayside. Come the summer tour that player would have a good chance of making the 23 if they show well in the camps this winter. Then we have a longer term succession option.

Who are the Full backs who are EQ in the prem...and ready to challenge for the spot.

And ill slap anyone who says Hammersley.

What about youngsters coming through?

Gooseberry wrote:Digs out the Ashton quote about wings fielding more high balls than fullbacks do.

Time was May was talked up as a potential future England fullback as well, but I do fancy Watson would be next in line IF Jones decides that Daley isnt the answer.

Id also expect a young off the radar specialist fullback to be picked in the training squad for the six nations too. Jones has always been good at giving opportunities to players who might go on to be big things, even if many of them have fallen by the wayside. Come the summer tour that player would have a good chance of making the 23 if they show well in the camps this winter. Then we have a longer term succession option.

Josh Hodge is an obvious one. 19 year old England u20 FB with us. He has the lot. He just needs to move onto a bigger better club..

I am sure its been said above - But Jason Woodward (Glouc) has been in the squads. Looks pretty decent in the last few games that I've seen.

Harry Mallinder - Saints (been so long since I have seen him play)
Gallagher - Sarries
Mailins - Sarries
Olowofella - Tigers (got a lot of gametime - perhaps not quite there yet)

Even as a quins supporter I feel that Browns time has passed for England.
We all know about the guys in the current squad - Daly/Watson and possibly Nowell.

My preference will be for Watson to start at 15 and Nowell covering wing and 15.
Daly to move back to wing or Bench to cover multiple positions.

Daly will definitely be at 15 in the 6 Nations if the options are what you had in the RWC.

Sadly the best English Full Back 25 or under is perhaps Mike Haley.

miaow wrote:Daly will definitely be at 15 in the 6 Nations if the options are what you had in the RWC.

Why not Watson?

I like the look of Matt Gallagher and with the injuries to Williams and Goode he should continue to get plenty of game time.

Comparing him with his dad gives a good indication of the increase in bulk of rugby players. John was a couple of inches taller but 11kg lighter.

Gooseberry wrote:

miaow wrote:Daly will definitely be at 15 in the 6 Nations if the options are what you had in the RWC.

Why not Watson?

Eddie did give Watson the first go at FB back in 2018 6Ns. It was not a great success but the injury meant he had no time to bed in. Could happen but based on those few run-outs at 15 Watson showed he was less secure under the kind of balls FBs have to take and his attacking play was much diminished.