England - Summer Tour

First topic message reminder :

After an "interesting" 6n...and with the Lions tour possibly going ahead, England have a chance to send a young Saxons side full of talent on the Summer tour to USA and Canada (if Covid permits)

They have 4 games pencilled in...

12th June; England v Barbarians (Suggestions it wont go ahead)

10th July; Scotland v England
17th July; USA v England
24th July; Canada v England

So looking to the future and the AI's who would you take on the tour? Assuming its 32/33 squad size.

And as above it doesn't reflect our culture so why keep it? It's not been around for that long. Why are you guys so against England A?

Soul Requiem wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:The world has gone PC mad....simple as that.

It is really pathetic.

England itself derives from Englaland which is the land of the Angles. Saxon as a word is not offensive so the change is just more PC pandering.

Maybe the 'A' of England A is short for 'Angles'. In a few years we could have England Jutes too.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not capped. Haven't checked on the dates but are there likely people missing from the Prem final?

Just to correct that it is a capped game so will tie players to England according to the Guardian. And Jones will manage https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/may/10/england-hope-twickenham-will-be-50-full-for-july-tests-with-usa-and-canada

No 7&1/2 wrote:Hmm. Seems fair enough, saxon comes from a population described as white (technically - member of a people that inhabited parts of central and northern Germany from Roman times, many of whom conquered and settled in much of southern England in the 5th–6th centuries). RFU says its ''inappropriate' and doesn't 'reflect diversity in society'.  Calling it England A doesnt seem that much of a big deal considering the make up, and likely future make up of the team?

Or is this a Daily Mail march against the changing of history (established 2006)!

I agree 100%, it certainly doesn't reflect England or even the UK now

7.5 do you know if you are already capped at senior level, can you play in the A team?

Yes you play in the A team if capped, why wouldn't you be able to?

It used to be that the A team was a combination of up and comers, fringe players and sometimes even first team starters who were rehabbing or playing back into form - but that was when they had a regular schedule of matches.

World Rugby rules are that you play for a country's second team or higher against an opponent of equivalent stature, then it ties you to that country. So...

- England A vs Scotland A - you're tied to England
- Wales U20 vs Italy U20 - you're tied to Wales (the U20s are officially designated the second team for Wales and a lot of other countries)
- England XV vs South American XV - doesn't count
- England XV vs Barbarians - doesn't count
- England XV vs NZ Maori - I am 90% sure this counts, but I think there may be some optionality about it.

I kind of understand why it irritates people, but dropping the word 'Saxons', (like the discussions around Exeter Chiefs) is not a hillside I am going to die on. In my opinion they are essentially marketing devices that don't really matter. Personally I was in favour of the moniker 'Morris Men', when the Saxon stuff first started, we could have intimidated the opposition with our hankies.

On that note...how does it work with the Pacifc Islands teams.

If they've played for NZ or AUS for example...and only had one cap...cant they then change after 3/4 years or something to represent Samoa or Fiji (tier 2 sides) ? Or is that not the case anymore?

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Yes you play in the A team if capped, why wouldn't you be able to?

There is no reason, I didn't ask that

There used to be regular A team competitions (usually for players who hadn't been capped yet, younger fringe players or players coming back from injury) but as they were disbanded I wondered if rules and regulations had changed for 2021 e.g. tying to a nation as per the U20s etc.

Cumbrian wrote:I kind of understand why it irritates people, but dropping the word 'Saxons', (like the discussions around Exeter Chiefs) is not a hillside I am going to die on.  In my opinion they are essentially marketing devices that don't really matter.  Personally I was in favour of the moniker 'Morris Men', when the Saxon stuff first started, we could have intimidated the opposition with our hankies.

Ah i dont think its the dropping of the name that bothers people marra. I couldnt really care less if its Saxons or "A"

Im more bothered about the fact so many people are offended by nothing these days.

People are committing suicdes after Covid, countless businesses gone bust and homes lost etc etc yet theres people out there worried about how an inoffensive historical name offends a certain group of society.

i mean come on...now theyre saying the kiss in the fairy tale Sleeping Beauty should be taken out because it was not a consented kiss....i genuinely give up.
Anyhoo, this is not the forum to have my rant...

Back to rugby.

Lol. That is a weird fairy tale. Oh a dead lass, well.i always kiss them. At best its about consent!

As ever with these things, there will have been the grand total of 0 complaints. However, there are departments set up within every major organisation with little else to justify their existence other than making up schemes like this.

This way everyone is happy. The RFU can claim they have a high performing diversity team, the diversity team can claim they did something other than cartwheels around the office for the last year, and the usual sort can shout loudly about "PC Gorn Mad". It's all a lovely distraction from the real issues

No 7&1/2 wrote:Lol. That is a weird fairy tale. Oh a dead lass, well.i always kiss them. At best its about consent!

She wasnt dead...

Jesus. Just looked up the actual story, which has the Prince raping her and she gives birth to twins.

I agree back to rugby.

I don't know marra, I don't think people really do get offended by these things in the real world, it all seems so cyclical, people getting angry at people getting angry, generally online. I try to remain Zen about it all (not so easy at the moment!).

I know you hear all the time about young people being avocado hugging safe space junkies, but I work in a school and I don't see any evidence of it. After working in education for the best part of 15 years, I can honestly say people are as precious about things now, as they have always been!

But as you back to the rugby!

Prem finalists are missing from the A game then. For me that's likely to be Bristol and Exeter. Rules out O'Connor, Malins, Randall, Maunder, Hughes, Sinckler Attwood, Earl, Nowell, Slade, O'Flaherty, Devoto, Simmonds, Williams. Hodge probably unlikely to make the match day squad but potentially he could be missing. That opens things up a bit for someone to impress in training that week and pop up with a performance ahead of the tests.

Cumbrian wrote:I kind of understand why it irritates people, but dropping the word 'Saxons', (like the discussions around Exeter Chiefs) is not a hillside I am going to die on.  In my opinion they are essentially marketing devices that don't really matter.  Personally I was in favour of the moniker 'Morris Men', when the Saxon stuff first started, we could have intimidated the opposition with our hankies.

Given our melting point history and culture, I think we should go for England Mongrels. I could get behind that.

Cumbrian wrote:I kind of understand why it irritates people, but dropping the word 'Saxons', (like the discussions around Exeter Chiefs) is not a hillside I am going to die on.  In my opinion they are essentially marketing devices that don't really matter.  Personally I was in favour of the moniker 'Morris Men', when the Saxon stuff first started, we could have intimidated the opposition with our hankies.

I once ended up on a tour bus with some Morris Men for a day. Myself and a couple of pals were on a 'pub hike' around the Yorkshire Dales. Basically a really long pub crawl where you walk between villages, sampling local pubs and beers. Needless to say we got completely lost at one point and ended up in village miles from our intended destination. There were no buses running as it was a Sunday and we needed to get back on track for the next day. We were moping around consigned to our fate then out of nowhere ran into a tour bus of Morris Men going village to village putting on a displays of their glorious dancing. Without hesitation they offered to give us a lift to one of their final stops which happened to be our intended destination.

Some of the best off hand chat I've ever heard came from those strange but wonderful people. At one stage the bus needed to turn around and did so next to a house that was being renovated, an elder chap looked at the rubble and just said, "lots of rocks in there, we could throw all those at someone". To this day I'm not sure if it was an observation, suggestion or threat. It was like something straight out of a Bob Mortimer sketch.

8 hours and 4 or 5 villages later they dropped us off at our intended destination. A wonderful experience. They even took us with them on a tour of the Wensleydale Creamery.

Who is going to be broadcaster for these matches - has Skys agreement with England finished/ where does CVC fit in?

king_carlos wrote:

Cumbrian wrote:I kind of understand why it irritates people, but dropping the word 'Saxons', (like the discussions around Exeter Chiefs) is not a hillside I am going to die on.  In my opinion they are essentially marketing devices that don't really matter.  Personally I was in favour of the moniker 'Morris Men', when the Saxon stuff first started, we could have intimidated the opposition with our hankies.

I once ended up on a tour bus with some Morris Men for a day. Myself and a couple of pals were on a 'pub hike' around the Yorkshire Dales. Basically a really long pub crawl where you walk between villages, sampling local pubs and beers. Needless to say we got completely lost at one point and ended up in village miles from our intended destination. There were no buses running as it was a Sunday and we needed to get back on track for the next day. We were moping around consigned to our fate then out of nowhere ran into a tour bus of Morris Men going village to village putting on a displays of their glorious dancing. Without hesitation they offered to give us a lift to one of their final stops which happened to be our intended destination.

Some of the best off hand chat I've ever heard came from those strange but wonderful people. At one stage the bus needed to turn around and did so next to a house that was being renovated, an elder chap looked at the rubble and just said, "lots of rocks in there, we could throw all those at someone". To this day I'm not sure if it was an observation, suggestion or threat. It was like something straight out of a Bob Mortimer sketch.

8 hours and 4 or 5 villages later they dropped us off at our intended destination. A wonderful experience. They even took us with them on a tour of the Wensleydale Creamery.

Brilliant story, loved reading it!

No 7&1/2 wrote:Prem finalists are missing from the A game then. For me that's likely to be Bristol and Exeter. Rules out O'Connor, Malins, Randall, Maunder, Hughes, Sinckler Attwood, Earl, Nowell, Slade, O'Flaherty, Devoto, Simmonds, Williams. Hodge probably unlikely to make the match day squad but potentially he could be missing. That opens things up a bit for someone to impress in training that week and pop up with a performance ahead of the tests.

Not a massive issue...would many of those actually be playing in the A game anyway? O'Connor? J SImmonds? Randall?

I just had a quick gander at the more obvious English qualified guys.

Yeah...i think its gonig to be very interesting to see who makes the squad.

We're saying the likes of Smith and Simmonds at 10...but im pretty sure Jones name dropped Atkinson from Wasps didnt he?

He has. Tonnes of potential, not ready yet. Umaga is ahead and the most likely to push as he's probably the best running 10 we have.

Am I right in saying that for a 'England XV' vs Baabaas game on the same weekend as the Prem final a couple of years back they actually ruled out the semi-finalists as well due to limited time getting them together for training with the semis the weekend before?

I might be wrong but Ben White getting selected by Jim Mallinder with a lot of other 9s unavailable and a hence bit over egged by Tigers fans stuck in my mind. I rate White and he has some strengths to his game that could see him develop into a very solid Premiership 9 such as Sam Harrison at Tigers or Will Chudley when with Chiefs but a few fans didn't realise it was Mallinder rather than Jones in charge and bought into the youngster being a genuine England contender which I felt perhaps but unfair expectations on him.

If they went down a similar route again it would take a real sausage up from Sale or Quins for the playoff places to not already be decided given they have a 9 point lead on Saints in 5th place.

Think they did King (omit them). That was seen as the step down though as you say didn't have Jones coaching it, this one does. Not seen a definitive point on that though.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Lol. That is a weird fairy tale. Oh a dead lass, well.i always kiss them. At best its about consent!

I think it was the tongue which got them in trouble......

Is the Scotland A game going to be a capture game for any uncapped players?

Rumours it will.

Yup according to the Guardian as both teams are the selected second team.

Rumours again that Smith is on the back up list for the Lions. Betting on a potm performance in the A game, called up by Lions, doesn't get a chance and is back of the queue for England again come the Autumn?

Hope we're going to cap as many potentially dual qualified players as possible in that one then. Heyes springs to mind, are there any others of a similar vein?

Smith may want to turn out for Manila.

Odogwu, Dan Kelly, Randall, Ribbands (before those sneaky SA come calling), O'Connor are the ones which spring to mind.

I suppose it depends how far the list you want to go, Raffi Quirke, Fraser Dingwall, Will Capon, Jacob Umaga and Corey Baldwin.

I'm surprised by at least one player turning up in every Scotland squad , it was Josh Bayliss last time, I'm sure there will be others.

My view is that we should be capping anyone we might want in the future. Capon, Dingwall and Umaga would be in that category for me, I'm not too familiar with the other two.

I'd also be sounding out LRZ types - probably going to be playing for their "home" country, but if there's any chance they'd play for England then get them in. The young hooker at Sale is an example of that.

Redpath is going to be one we regret, so minimising those situations should be the priority for a nothing game like this in my view, but I know that will upset others

Does anyone think this might not be such a young team as some expect.

I think there'll be quite a few first teamers and fringe.

Genge, Dunn, Stuart (Heyes as bench)
Ewells...
I can see Slade being involved...maybe even at 12...

From the noises I've heard, I think it is certain to be more experienced than the ones that most of us have postulated upon. I have a concern that it will have a positively stodgy feel to it. I'm as certain (as I can be) that Ewels will be involved (might even captain). I reckon Sinkler and Genge will both be involved too. For those who want to see Smith play, I'm worried you might be disappointed to see Ford start again.

Thats my concern marra.

Are all games going to be covered by one squad...of say 34/35?

That makes more sense for the full "England" team rather than the A side

I'll be honest, I think the Scotland A game with be a tougher test. I'd rather play a stronger squad against them and try the kids out against the USA and Canada.

Depends on how both teams view the A status I guess. Scotland have full Tests against Romania and Georgia to follow

How about something like this for all 3 games
34 Man Squad

LH - Genge, Obano, West / Rudd
Hooker - Dunn, Capon, Ashman (If he chooses us) if not McGuigan
TH - Stuart, Hayes, Street

Locks - Ewells (Captain), Ribbans, Isiekwe, Moon(George Martin Covers Lock aswell)

Back Row
Martin, Barbaery, Earl, Hill, Dombrandt, B.Curry if fit..
(Calum Chick on standby)

SH - Mitchell, Randall
FH - Smith, Simmonds (If Ford is essential..then 35 man squad)
Centres - O'Connor, Kelly, Slade, Lawrence

Wing - Odogwu, Hassle Collins, Cockasaniga, Radwan, Sligtholme

FB - Steward, Mallins,

The Scotland A game tying players to both sides raises the interesting question of whether Ashman might get sounded out by both teams.

With it being on the same day as the Premiership final a few talents might be missing. In particular if Bristol make it with Earl, Malins, Randall, O'Connor and Capon then out.

1.Genge 2.Dunn 3.Stuart 4.Martin 5.Ewels 6.T Hill 7.Underhill 8.Barbeary
9.Mitchell 10.Ford 11.Radwan 12.Lawrence 13.Odogwu 14.Hassell-Collins 15.Steward

That's a potential side without any players from Bristol, Exeter, Sale or Quins.

As said before I think that some of Underhill, Billy, Ford, Slade and May will definitely be in the squad. If they all start games together I'd be very frustrated but if they are used sparingly around the youngsters then great.

There's been lots of comments about 'treating these fixtures as Saxons games' but the prevailing feeling always seemed to be that the Saxons was fun but pointless for learning more about players as the teams were thrown together so quickly and haphazardly. The 2017 Argentina tour was full of experience but that clearly allowed them to learn a lot more about players such as LCD, Curry, Underhill and Wilson.

Taking Smith for example (who I desperately want to see for England) I'm not sure how much we'd learn from a Smith-Lawrence-Odogwu midfield. We'd likely see that all 3 have huge individual attacking potential but that they've barely passed a ball to one another. All of which we already know! Whereas a Smith-Slade-Marchant midfield has Smith partnered with a Quins teammate in Marchant and a fairly experienced international in Slade who's familiar with how England want to play. If Slade were picked I expect much gnashing of teeth but I actually think we'd learn far more from that midfield than throwing three inexperienced strangers in together.

Makes sense to me.

Could apply the same to the back row - I'd be wary of overplaying Underhill for example, but would very much want to see how any of the new faces in the back row combine around him. Maybe starting Underhill in one game, Billy in the next then rotating in Dombrandt / B Curry / Hill / Barbeary around them would be a logical approach

Ideally I'd want to limit Barbeary's minutes if he's involved by either starting just one game or being involved off the bench a couple of times. He's a massive talent but has played a fair bit of senior rugby, he's already had calf and hammy injuries. Players that physical need a bit of managing early on to make sure that injuries don't build up early in their career that can hamper them later on.

Underhill is a good example there I think. Incredible player but his very physical style combined with how early he broke into senior rugby as a genuine first XV option at Ospreys means he has a lot of miles on the clock and injuries to manage for a 24-year old. It's easy to forget that he's just under a year older than Dombrandt for instance.

I've swung from having that real core of seasoned players as it's not going to be Argentina we're facing. I'd still like guys like Ewels, stuart and Genge in the pack to try and ensure a solid set piece to play off but I see no reason why Ford or Slade would be there now. This is a set of 3 games which realistically is the easiest you can get in international rugby in a normal circuit.

king_carlos wrote:The Scotland A game tying players to both sides raises the interesting question of whether Ashman might get sounded out by both teams.
...

Maybe he could play one half for each team

king_carlos wrote: If Slade were picked I expect much gnashing of teeth but I actually think we'd learn far more from that midfield than throwing three inexperienced strangers in together.

I think many would be quite happy to Slade in there, in a 12 slot...being the 2nd playmaker. He looks made for that position. if we trial him there with say Lawrence outside him...then great...thats a positive use of these games.

GF, a few additional names to your squad.

What about O'Flaherty & Nowell as wing options, and Hill at TH (rather than Street)  and Spencer at SH, and Ludham on the Flanks.  Not necessarily arguing these are better, just that they are contenders.

O'Flaherty never seems to get much coverage even though he seems a genuine line-breaker for Exeter.

Spencer may not be a young SH but he does seem to operate effectively.

I agree that Slade could be useful to pull the mid-field together but if Ford were chosen it seriously limits any opportunity for Smith or anyone else.

Same a bit with BVP stiffling Dombrandt.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

king_carlos wrote: If Slade were picked I expect much gnashing of teeth but I actually think we'd learn far more from that midfield than throwing three inexperienced strangers in together.

I think many would be quite happy to Slade in there, in a 12 slot...being the 2nd playmaker. He looks made for that position. if we trial him there with say Lawrence outside him...then great...thats a positive use of these games.

I'm more in the camp of not being bothered what numbers are on the shirt if it's a balanced side. Manu at 12 and Slade at 13 looks the wrong way round but worked fantastically at times. Centres play in a very interchangeable way these days. France have been very good at that when Vakatawa has been at 13 with Fickou or Penaud on the wing. The backline changes alignment at will depending on the situation.

There's certainly an argument that 13 is the most important position in the backs defensively now. The 13 tends to lead the defensive line, it is often referred to as 'the hinge' between the rush defence and wide channels. As such it's the area teams try to attack most often so getting a good defender there is much more important than the old school 'second playmaker at 12' idea.

I thought Jones talking a bit back about modern defenses being so strong that second playmakers are less useful really interesting. Basically he was saying that by the time the ball gets that wide during phase play that any space has usually be shut down by a decent defence. So there's little chance to run plays from that second distributor.

England frequently run screen plays with the ball going to a first receiver then passed behind a forward runner to Ford or Farrell to orchestrate the attack. The skills of forwards have improved so much that most can very capably slot into that first receiver role and throw the screen pass to a playmaker, which has also reduced the need for two playmakers in order to shift the point of attack. Going back to 2003 if England wanted to run screen plays the ball basically had to go through Wilkinson and one of Catt or Greenwood. For all his strengths Martin Johnson wasn't going to throw a pass behind a dummy runner to release Wilko. Tindall was a centre and barely could! Ball skills improving across the board but especially with forwards has changed how modern sides shape to attack a lot.

When 10.Ford 12.Farrell works well, and it's been brilliant at times, I think it's less to do with multiple playmakers but more the organisation they can bring. When England attack well under Jones they do it by first controlling territory so that they can manufacture set-pieces (usually line-outs) exactly where they want them to launch phase play from.