England post 2022 6Ns, Aus tour and beyond

First topic message reminder :

A few things whirling around my head and most start with the fact that Eddie is likely to remain in charge. There are probably a lack of available alternatives and the RFU won't want to fork out more money. Therefore, he is likely to remain in charge until the RWC 2023 is done. Bearing that in mind what are the positives and negatives?

Positives
We have some decent forwards for sure and the set piece should be fine. Underhill was terrific yesterday and I think a return to Curry and Underhill playing around a big 8 would be very handy. Dombrandt should be that man.
Our defence is excellent and the team spirit is clearly there.
We have loads of quality players who can hopefully return to fitness and form and add to the mix. All countries lose players and of course we have more resources than anyone bar France, but we will no doubt look completely different if Launchbury, Hill, Curry, Cowan-Dickie, Manu, May, Watson, Cockanasiga, Farrell are all fit and firing.
We have some foundations to build on and it is not Eddie's fault that we have not had Manu, or a decent replacement, available to add some power to our midfield.
There is enough time to fix many of these issues.

Negatives
Inconsistent selection
Inconsistent tactics and coaching team (too many coaching changes). Taking over from Lancaster Eddie was very clear on what to do. Restore England's traditional strengths in the set piece, defence and back it up with good kicking. Now we are totally confused as what we are trying to do.
The whole thing about playing players not in their best positions
Everyone is bored with Eddie's comments - we need less of him

Aus Tour
What a statement he made by winning 3-0 last time post a grand slam. Ruthless in taking off Burrell after 25 minutes. And they were missing Manu then as well and ended up with Ford, Farrell and Joseph so if we assume that Manu is unavailable then there is still hope. But we need players in their correct position and we need some consistency. Considering we don't have too many options at 12 and Slade is not really working out should we revert to Farrell? Not exactly a running beast, but at least he will be fresh and might just add some toughness. I would love to see Youngs left behind and to back 2 of our younger 9s. Genge, Dombrandt, Smith, Steward etc all need exposure to a tough away series.

Autumn
Based purely on form this is now the time to select the 23 Eddie sees as our strongest RWC team. All bets are off now and if a Mako or Bill V are playing well and showing the form and hunger to return then why not consider them. We might need then in the RWC group even if they are back ups to the regular starters. So maybe give them a game to see where they are? And then hopefully we can enjoy some consistent selection allied with a revamped game plan.

Anyone else hopeful that Eddie can resurrect the team and our RWC ambitions?

I'm not a person who will be craving Slade in either the 12 or 13 role. Had huge hopes for him when he was coming through but for he's a decent international midfielder and nothing more. Re Marchant, I've said I'd have liked him to get a few games run but unless it's Jones having a look at a few options before a rejigged squad post prem final (which it well could be) then it looks as if he is looking at the next few options, be that Joseph or the rumours that Freeman or Cokanasiga could be seen as real options.

Just as an aside there may be a few nervous people looking towards France following the absolute farce of the Champs League organisation at the Stade de France and the horrible policing.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Barbeary has a lot of competition in the back row...at both 6 or 8.

However where he might lose out to Jack Willis in some areas, he still has areas where he beats the others.

I guess it comes down to how Jones sets up the back 5. And we know 6 is already taken with a lock style player.

It cant hurt to have a player that covers back row and hooker in the way Ashley Johnson could....Or even Brits when he was at Sarries.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm not a person who will be craving Slade in either the 12 or 13 role. Had huge hopes for him when he was coming through but for he's a decent international midfielder and nothing more. Re Marchant, I've said I'd have liked him to get a few games run but unless it's Jones having a look at a few options before a rejigged squad post prem final (which it well could be) then it looks as if he is looking at the next few options, be that Joseph or the rumours that Freeman or Cokanasiga could be seen as real options.

Just as an aside there may be a few nervous people looking towards France following the absolute farce of the Champs League organisation at the Stade de France and the horrible policing.

Agree on Slade, he's good and at times very good but he's not been good enough this 6N. He's never a 12 so that leaves only option for him at 13 and Marchant is better so that's that. Maybe Slade as bench cover. Whether Joe C make it in centre, dunno. I'm not convinced on his defence although with ball in hand he'd be hard to stop. As all 6N, it's centres and wings which needs resolving. Out of all backline think only Smith at 10 and Steward at 15 have everyone nodding in approval. All other positions with ? mark.

I think we have to wait and see who Jones picks for his summer squad to Aus and go from there. He can be bloody contrary at times so I'd put my house on some selections that have everyone scratching their heads.

mountain man wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm not a person who will be craving Slade in either the 12 or 13 role. Had huge hopes for him when he was coming through but for he's a decent international midfielder and nothing more. Re Marchant, I've said I'd have liked him to get a few games run but unless it's Jones having a look at a few options before a rejigged squad post prem final (which it well could be) then it looks as if he is looking at the next few options, be that Joseph or the rumours that Freeman or Cokanasiga could be seen as real options.

Just as an aside there may be a few nervous people looking towards France following the absolute farce of the Champs League organisation at the Stade de France and the horrible policing.

Agree on Slade, he's good and at times very good but he's not been good enough this 6N. He's never a 12 so that leaves only option for him at 13 and Marchant is better so that's that. Maybe Slade as bench cover. Whether Joe C make it in centre, dunno. I'm not convinced on his defence although with ball in hand he'd be hard to stop. As all 6N, it's centres and wings which needs resolving. Out of all backline think only Smith at 10 and Steward at 15 have everyone nodding in approval. All other positions with ? mark.

I think we have to wait and see who Jones picks for his summer squad to Aus and go from there. He can be bloody contrary at times so I'd put my house on some selections that have everyone scratching their heads.

The irony being, with his current form...most of us (even the haters) will approve Farrell back at 12.

Squidge's analysis rings true for me. Eddie definitely has form for making radical changes - and taking a hit in performance because of them - in mid RWC cycle, he definitely wants to win the RWC and he has form for being ahead of the game tactically.

I've never had the problem with Smith and Farrell playing together that others seem to, and now the latter is fit and back in form I really want to see them playing together. Quins have said several times that they separate the business of managing the space (Smith manipulating the defence to create and take opportunities) and managing the game (Care ensuring that Quins are playing in the right part of the field). The intent with having Farrell on the field is clearly to do something similar, with Farrell able to direct the pods and make the choices about where to put the ball when Smith (or the wider team) isn't in place to go into attack mode.

Eddie also did this with the Ford/Farrell combination (and I would not be at all surprised to see Ford go to the RWC as part of the squad), but while Ford builds attacks over multiple phases, something defences are getting wise to, Smith adds the extra dimension of being able to choose late between multiple options, making it much harder for defenders IF the attack are on his wavelength and presenting genuine options.

I think that will drive a wider change in personnel. Eddie is very focused on people who can play multiple positions. I think this is partially because he's prepping for a tournament where COVID might lead to players being unavailable for a week (rather than out for the tournament as is more common with injuries) so he needs people who can cover a position while they recover, and mostly because he's trying to create his fluid attack where people can play multiple roles.

That may be the death knell for a few careers. Slade looks like the most vulnerable: he's a very good outside centre, but I think showed in the 6N that he's not able to do the job at 12 that Eddie needs, and I'd expect Marchant and Tuilagi to be ahead of him. Marchant plays well in a fluid attack and his ability to cover 11, 13, 14 and potentially even 15 makes him really valuable. Tuilagi is really only a 13, but if he's fit (big if) his value is obvious.

Youngs might be being eased out; I think in the 6N he was there partly to cover for Farrell's absence and help manage the game, but it's clear that Smith plays better off the service he gets from the likes of Randall.

Steward looked unassailable in the autumn but I think was exposed a couple of times for acceleration and experience in the 6N. He was very good under the high ball but under pressure his lack of acceleration left him out of position a couple of times and allowed teams to close him down a little. I imagine Eddie is looking very seriously at Arundell at least as a challenger.

There'll also be a premium on forwards who can do more than truck the ball up. Sinckler and Dombrandt are obvious candidates and England's draw might also offer a way back into the fold for Mako. At the same time, I think they also need to find a really good setpiece lock to replace Kruis's role in the 2019 squad. I'm not sure who that is likely to be - Chessum looks to be in pole position, but I wonder if Tizard or George Hammond might make a late break for it. Tizard's very reminiscent of a young Kruis; Hammond has more variety in attack but it might be a year too early for him.

Poorfour wrote:
I've never had the problem with Smith and Farrell playing together that others seem to, and now the latter is fit and back in form I really want to see them playing together. Quins have said several times that they separate the business of managing the space (Smith manipulating the defence to create and take opportunities) and managing the game

Eddie also did this with the Ford/Farrell combination (and I would not be at all surprised to see Ford go to the RWC as part of the squad), but while Ford builds attacks over multiple phases, something defences are getting wise to, Smith adds the extra dimension of being able to choose late between multiple options, making it much harder for defenders IF the attack are on his wavelength and presenting genuine options.

Steward looked unassailable in the autumn but I think was exposed a couple of times for acceleration and experience in the 6N. He was very good under the high ball but under pressure his lack of acceleration left him out of position a couple of times and allowed teams to close him down a little. I imagine Eddie is looking very seriously at Arundell at least as a challenger.

I think Smith suffered in the 6N because as you say he doesn't organise the attack it's not where he strives. We saw Eddie bring on Ford at times he thought the fluency wasn't where he wanted it because he does. Smith seemed to do best when England had someone else there to organise the attack so he could pick the options he wanted. He played far to deep in the 6N, possibly trying to give himself more vision of what was there when calling the attack, the attack generally went to bits when he took the ball on himself (unless Ford was there as well). Combining Ford and Smith isn't practical so I think Farrell will take that job and allow Smith to play closer to the breakdown and concentrate on attacking the space he sees.

I don't see Arundell as close to being a threat to Steward currently. He's not even first choice at his club because his positioning and defence, sometimes his decision making as well, are very suspect. He's a live wire and they are always good to have but probably on the wing or as an impact sub. Steward was sensational against France and generally found out at times when the England defence was too narrow and he was picked off in the wide channels. Some high quality international fullbacks might cover that defensively but England don't have one currently.

propdavid_london wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Barbeary has a lot of competition in the back row...at both 6 or 8.

However where he might lose out to Jack Willis in some areas, he still has areas where he beats the others.

I guess it comes down to how Jones sets up the back 5. And we know 6 is already taken with a lock style player.

It cant hurt to have a player that covers back row and hooker in the way Ashley Johnson could....Or even Brits when he was at Sarries.

I suspect that's why Dolly was used at times, he's played openside when Tigers have been short previously. Eddie might have liked the idea of being able to deploy him like Singleton was at the last World Cup.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Poorfour wrote:
I've never had the problem with Smith and Farrell playing together that others seem to, and now the latter is fit and back in form I really want to see them playing together. Quins have said several times that they separate the business of managing the space (Smith manipulating the defence to create and take opportunities) and managing the game

Eddie also did this with the Ford/Farrell combination (and I would not be at all surprised to see Ford go to the RWC as part of the squad), but while Ford builds attacks over multiple phases, something defences are getting wise to, Smith adds the extra dimension of being able to choose late between multiple options, making it much harder for defenders IF the attack are on his wavelength and presenting genuine options.

Steward looked unassailable in the autumn but I think was exposed a couple of times for acceleration and experience in the 6N. He was very good under the high ball but under pressure his lack of acceleration left him out of position a couple of times and allowed teams to close him down a little. I imagine Eddie is looking very seriously at Arundell at least as a challenger.

I think Smith suffered in the 6N because as you say he doesn't organise the attack it's not where he strives. We saw Eddie bring on Ford at times he thought the fluency wasn't where he wanted it because he does. Smith seemed to do best when England had someone else there to organise the attack so he could pick the options he wanted. He played far to deep in the 6N, possibly trying to give himself more vision of what was there when calling the attack, the attack generally went to bits when he took the ball on himself (unless Ford was there as well). Combining Ford and Smith isn't practical so I think Farrell will take that job and allow Smith to play closer to the breakdown and concentrate on attacking the space he sees.

I don't see Arundell as close to being a threat to Steward currently. He's not even first choice at his club because his positioning and defence, sometimes his decision making as well, are very suspect. He's a live wire and they are always good to have but probably on the wing or as an impact sub. Steward was sensational against France and generally found out at times when the England defence was too narrow and he was picked off in the wide channels. Some high quality international fullbacks might cover that defensively but England don't have one currently.

I think if anybody is going to threaten Steward, it will be a Saints player and not Furbank. Tommy Freeman, defensively sound, pretty good in the air (not with Steward's dominance though) but has bags of pace and at 16 stone already he is a lump. As he showed against Sarries, he picks very good lines coming into the line very late, perfect for someone like Smith to play with.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Poorfour wrote:
I've never had the problem with Smith and Farrell playing together that others seem to, and now the latter is fit and back in form I really want to see them playing together. Quins have said several times that they separate the business of managing the space (Smith manipulating the defence to create and take opportunities) and managing the game

Eddie also did this with the Ford/Farrell combination (and I would not be at all surprised to see Ford go to the RWC as part of the squad), but while Ford builds attacks over multiple phases, something defences are getting wise to, Smith adds the extra dimension of being able to choose late between multiple options, making it much harder for defenders IF the attack are on his wavelength and presenting genuine options.

Steward looked unassailable in the autumn but I think was exposed a couple of times for acceleration and experience in the 6N. He was very good under the high ball but under pressure his lack of acceleration left him out of position a couple of times and allowed teams to close him down a little. I imagine Eddie is looking very seriously at Arundell at least as a challenger.

I think Smith suffered in the 6N because as you say he doesn't organise the attack it's not where he strives. We saw Eddie bring on Ford at times he thought the fluency wasn't where he wanted it because he does. Smith seemed to do best when England had someone else there to organise the attack so he could pick the options he wanted. He played far to deep in the 6N, possibly trying to give himself more vision of what was there when calling the attack, the attack generally went to bits when he took the ball on himself (unless Ford was there as well). Combining Ford and Smith isn't practical so I think Farrell will take that job and allow Smith to play closer to the breakdown and concentrate on attacking the space he sees.

I don't see Arundell as close to being a threat to Steward currently. He's not even first choice at his club because his positioning and defence, sometimes his decision making as well, are very suspect. He's a live wire and they are always good to have but probably on the wing or as an impact sub. Steward was sensational against France and generally found out at times when the England defence was too narrow and he was picked off in the wide channels. Some high quality international fullbacks might cover that defensively but England don't have one currently.

I think if anybody is going to threaten Steward, it will be a Saints player and not Furbank. Tommy Freeman, defensively sound, pretty good in the air (not with Steward's dominance though) but has bags of pace and at 16 stone already he is a lump. As he showed against Sarries, he picks very good lines coming into the line very late, perfect for someone like Smith to play with.

Needs to start playing fullback though. Only four starts at 15 this season but considerably more game time on the wing. I'm hoping he gets a go on the wing this summer. Like the idea of him and Steward cutting lines from fullback or off the blindside at pace, both are good at it and they are the kind of options that will suit Smith's attacking play.

Would give us a lot of security at the back as well.

Depends if we're talking threatening a place in the team now or by the WC. You'd think Freeman is currently ahead but Arundell will be capped this summer and could well be threatening to take a place in the side be that full back or wing by next year easily.

I still think Malins is high up there is Eddies thinking - he offers that back 3 versatility. We've seen how good he was for Bristol and how much he was missed when he returned to Sarries.

Its nice to see so much competition - but I see Arundell and Freeman competing more with Malins for those spots.

I think it's very much up in the air with almost all the young'uns. Arundell looks the goods, but so did (does?) Radwan and he seems to be more on the outside looking in. Perhaps just a bit early for both.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Depends if we're talking threatening a place in the team now or by the WC. You'd think Freeman is currently ahead but Arundell will be capped this summer and could well be threatening to take a place in the side be that full back or wing by next year easily.

I think Arundell could very much mature into an international winger in the next year. Those positions are up in the air for the national team so he could take 11 or 14. He'd have to develop considerably to be taking 15 or Steward would have to fall away. He's look both assured at the back and competent in attack and he himself is improving. Injury seems to be the only way out of the 15 shirt currently, he's into his second season and there's been no second season syndrome so far *touches wood knowing playoffs are coming up*.

I think Freeman is an excellent player, just because he hasn't got the the Twitter highlights treatment Arundell has doesn't mean he hasn't scored some cracking tries.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Depends if we're talking threatening a place in the team now or by the WC. You'd think Freeman is currently ahead but Arundell will be capped this summer and could well be threatening to take a place in the side be that full back or wing by next year easily.

I think Arundell could very much mature into an international winger in the next year. Those positions are up in the air for the national team so he could take 11 or 14. He'd have to develop considerably to be taking 15 or Steward would have to fall away. He's look both assured at the back and competent in attack and he himself is improving. Injury seems to be the only way out of the 15 shirt currently, he's into his second season and there's been no second season syndrome so far *touches wood knowing playoffs are coming up*.

I think Freeman is an excellent player, just because he hasn't got the the Twitter highlights treatment Arundell has doesn't mean he hasn't scored some cracking tries.

Freemans high numbers of games on the wing have been largely due to injuries to wingers in the Saints squad, for a large part of the season both Naiyaravoro and Sleightholme have been injured and until a couple of weeks ago Skosan as well. Whether he would have usurped Furbank, I don't know, it is a very good choice to have. I personally prefer Freeman due to his ability to hit the line hard and at pace, he rarely fails to make ground in contact. Furbank is a better distributor, but Saints have a backline full of them with Dingwall, Hutchinson and Proctor. There is going to be a battle royal in a couple of years time when Hendy gets a bit more experience.

Freeman is still learning, he didn't join the Saints academy until 2019/20 season aged 18, so he missed out on a lot of the formal training and learning that comes through going through the academy from an early age.

Arundell seems to be on the right trajectory so far.

This story popped up last week:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/plan-to-rein-in-eddie-jones-s-england-successor-bzvmxz3rz

Senior RFU officials are discussing a proposal to overhaul the England management structure that would result in their next head coach being unable to wield as much power as Eddie Jones.

Under the plan, Jones’s successor would be held accountable by a director of rugby and not the chief executive.

Jones will stand down as England head coach after next year’s World Cup and the RFU is working on a plan, code-named “Project Everest”, to identify the best candidate and most effective chain of command. At present, Jones reports to Bill Sweeney, the RFU chief executive. Conor O’Shea, the former Ireland full back, is the director of performance rugby but responsible for the England pathway system developing talent below the national team.

Jeff Blackett, the RFU president, recommended in 2018 that Sweeney should delegate the management of Jones and future England head coaches to someone with rugby experience. The proposal, rejected at the time, was contained in a report that Blackett wrote on the future of English rugby before standing down as chairman of the Professional Game Board.

The Times understands the idea has been revived and discussed by influential figures at Twickenham as they prepare for life after Jones.

The Eggchasers team were dismissive of the idea, on slightly surprising grounds. They are confident that any future England coach will already be an experienced coach, so this appointment would be an unnecessary duplication.

It's a surprising take, as two of the last three England coaches - Johnson and Lancaster - had no Director of Rugby experience. One of the favourites to take over from Eddie Jones - Steve Borthwick - is not a Director of Rugby, and has only been a head coach for a couple of seasons. Stuart Lancaster and Ronan O'Gara have both been touted recently by media pundits as candidates for the England role, and neither has been a Director of Rugby.

The England coaching role is a big job, bringing pressures which have no real parallel on club rugby. Eddie Jones runs the whole show, because he has been coaching for the best part of 25 years, in four different countries, and hardly ever sleeps. Even with his work rate, the job has sometimes got beyond him, as you can see with the high turnover of assistant coaches. That is not a model we should try and replicate.

The point of a Director of Rugby, is to have someone actively managing the interests of the national team set-up, which might not always coincide with the personal interests of the head coach.

For instance, if there's no DoR figure then the head coach is left to hire and fire his own assistants, which is a situation that usually translates to a lack of continuity. A DoR could be tasked with keeping tabs on promising coaches, and their contract availability (including looking at Head Coach replacements).

No 7&1/2 wrote:Arundell seems to be on the right trajectory so far.

He's certainly got some outrageous attacking ability. Guess we'll find out more during the summer.

Rugby Fan wrote:This story popped up last week:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/plan-to-rein-in-eddie-jones-s-england-successor-bzvmxz3rz

Senior RFU officials are discussing a proposal to overhaul the England management structure that would result in their next head coach being unable to wield as much power as Eddie Jones.

Under the plan, Jones’s successor would be held accountable by a director of rugby and not the chief executive.

Jones will stand down as England head coach after next year’s World Cup and the RFU is working on a plan, code-named “Project Everest”, to identify the best candidate and most effective chain of command. At present, Jones reports to Bill Sweeney, the RFU chief executive. Conor O’Shea, the former Ireland full back, is the director of performance rugby but responsible for the England pathway system developing talent below the national team.

Jeff Blackett, the RFU president, recommended in 2018 that Sweeney should delegate the management of Jones and future England head coaches to someone with rugby experience. The proposal, rejected at the time, was contained in a report that Blackett wrote on the future of English rugby before standing down as chairman of the Professional Game Board.

The Times understands the idea has been revived and discussed by influential figures at Twickenham as they prepare for life after Jones.

The Eggchasers team were dismissive of the idea, on slightly surprising grounds. They are confident that any future England coach will already be an experienced coach, so this appointment would be an unnecessary duplication.

It's a surprising take, as two of the last three England coaches - Johnson and Lancaster - had no Director of Rugby experience. One of the favourites to take over from Eddie Jones - Steve Borthwick - is not a Director of Rugby, and has only been a head coach for a couple of seasons. Stuart Lancaster and Ronan O'Gara have both been touted recently by media pundits as candidates for the England role, and neither has been a Director of Rugby.

The England coaching role is a big job, bringing pressures which have no real parallel on club rugby. Eddie Jones runs the whole show, because he has been coaching for the best part of 25 years, in four different countries, and hardly ever sleeps. Even with his work rate, the job has sometimes got beyond him, as you can see with the high turnover of assistant coaches. That is not a model we should try and replicate.

The point of a Director of Rugby, is to have someone actively managing the interests of the national team set-up, which might not always coincide with the personal interests of the head coach.

For instance, if there's no DoR figure then the head coach is left to hire and fire his own assistants, which is a situation that usually translates to a lack of continuity. A DoR could be tasked with keeping tabs on promising coaches, and their contract availability (including looking at Head Coach replacements).

That's the drum that Woodward has been banging for a while. He clearly wants that job role for himself as let's face it he thinks he's better than Jones and anyone else that takes the head coach role. Think his view was that it needed someone with a deep knowledge of rugby who was their own person and wouldn't get hoodwinker (paraphrasing). For me some of the things that Woodward comes out with demonstrate a guy walking in off the street may know more about rugby than him these days so if they do go down that route I hope they don't just go for a name.

Re Jones and his coaches turnover; it's never overly bothered me. Alex Ferguson had a huge turnover of assistants in comparison to other managers in the premier league and it never did him any harm. New ideas and freshness can be a great thing. A lot of the coaches have also done well and gone onto head coaches themselves.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Arundell seems to be on the right trajectory so far.

He's certainly got some outrageous attacking ability. Guess we'll find out more during the summer.

He has. And doesn't look a liability in defence either. Just hope we tie him up and we don't get pipped by Scotland or Wales.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Depends if we're talking threatening a place in the team now or by the WC. You'd think Freeman is currently ahead but Arundell will be capped this summer and could well be threatening to take a place in the side be that full back or wing by next year easily.

I think Arundell could very much mature into an international winger in the next year. Those positions are up in the air for the national team so he could take 11 or 14. He'd have to develop considerably to be taking 15 or Steward would have to fall away. He's look both assured at the back and competent in attack and he himself is improving. Injury seems to be the only way out of the 15 shirt currently, he's into his second season and there's been no second season syndrome so far *touches wood knowing playoffs are coming up*.

I think Freeman is an excellent player, just because he hasn't got the the Twitter highlights treatment Arundell has doesn't mean he hasn't scored some cracking tries.

You can't not be a fan of Arundell and the things he does, which are just outrageous. However it is always worth remembering that the highlights real covers a couple of minutes out of the hundred he spends on the pitch, and we have always to be aware of the nuts and bolts of his role, and that he won't do the impossible every time he gets the ball, let alone every game he plays. Nobody seems to be saying that his basics are not good enough, but it is easy to see how a more prosaic player with better basics may well get more actual game time.

Let's not forget that we were saying the same about Christian Wade for ages and he ended up with one cap before becoming disillusioned with the game and going of for a failed attempt at Gridiron.

I would like to see Arundell capped because I do think he's exciting and could do enough to turn a game on its head, but we HAVE to remember that he could also miss a tackle for a similar vice-versa outcome.

Still, Chris Ashton was a revolving door at times in defence, yet still has over 40 caps simply because of what he can do in attack.

Arundell is not first choice at LI, so there must be a number of issues that the highlights do not show up. At international level any weakness gets exploited, give him a 10 minute cameo to get him captured for England by all means, but then let him work on the things he doesn't do very well before destroying his confidence by playing against a side that will show up every weakness that he has.

Keep him in and around the squad as an apprentice so he can learn the difference between club and international rugby.

Hes got ALOT to do before he overtakes young Steward....sorry but that lad is just a class act for me.

So he lacks a bit of pace, he can improve it like Brown did...and we can cover that...but his positives WAY outlay that.

On Wade, he had glaring deficiencies in defensive positioning which his speed enabled him to offset at club level but which an international side would expect to be able to exploit, and he never showed much willingness to work on addressing them.

On Arundell, unless there's something obvious from his general play, it's not necessarily a question of problems; it could just as well be a question of the club managing his introduction to senior rugby.

For instance, Quins' original plan was to phase Marcus Smith into playing over a couple of seasons, starting with the odd bench appearance. Then Demetri Catrakilis suffered a long term injury (a broken hyoid bone) less than 20 minutes into the first game of the season. Without that freak event, Smith would have had a much gentler introduction to top flight rugby.

LI have several players who can play fullback to a decent level, so it's very possible that they are just building up his game time rather than worried about a deficiency.

Steward's class. The change in being certain that if the opposition kick Daly was going to knock it on or get no where near the ball to thinking, well that's silly you're just giving the ball to England, is stark. Genuinely great to see that there are growing options while for a couple of years it looked dodgy. With May and Watson coming back the first choice wings give us options just a shame that no one has really been given a chance while they're been unavailable for a run of games. That's what could mean we end up seeing both full backs in the back 3 at times. Will be a great ding dong battle over the next few years though, simplifying slightly as attack vs defence.

Yeah Pourfour, he's in his first year out of school and only played his first Premiership game 3 months ago. It's more a case of Kidney managing his introduction into the team in his first season.

That said, whilst he doesn't have any glaring weaknesses, his lack of experience could absolutely be exposed on the international stage. That's always a consideration when throwing a youngster in this early.

At international level I'd expect Arundell to be either on the wing as that kind of wing/FB hybrid that seem so popular. Nobody is shifting Steward unless he gets injured or his form falls off a cliff.

No 7&1/2 wrote:..That's the drum that Woodward has been banging for a while....

...Re Jones and his coaches turnover; it's never overly bothered me. Alex Ferguson had a huge turnover of assistants in comparison to other managers in the premier league and it never did him any harm. New ideas and freshness can be a great thing. A lot of the coaches have also done well and gone onto head coaches themselves.

Woodward isn't going to get a job like that, so his ambitions are largely irrelevant.

Coaching turnover by itself isn't necessarily a problem. However, Jones was specifically tasked with developing English coaching talent, and that hasn't happened. I've gone on at length before, about how musical chairs at the top of the RFU meant Jones was left largely unaccountable. At some point, there needs to be someone monitoring the interests of the English national side. The head coach is primarily interested in the current England team, and that is not the same thing.

We can argue the toss about whether Shaun Edwards should be part of the England set up, and whether the RFU blundered by not signing him up. As it currently stands, though, the RFU couldn't have hired him if Jones didn't want to work with him. Without a Director of Rugby figure, it isn't even clear who in the RFU would be keeping tabs on Edwards' availability anyway.

In the IRFU set-up, David Nucifora upset a lot of people when he didn't let Ulster retain Ruan Pienaar. He wanted more Irish-qualified scrum-halves coming through the system, and Pienaar was taking up a slot. Nucifora saw his job as maintaining the development of players for the benefit of the Irish national team.

While the RFU set-up is different, there is no-one currently doing that for England. Regardless of who the England coach is at anytime, there should be a DoR figure watching the development of England age-group talent, and making sure national coaching resources are made available, if, for instance, it looks like a player is getting left in the cold at a club. A national coach is incentivised to develop talent for his immediate needs - usually the next World Cup - and not all players fit neatly into that cycle. A DoR with England's long-term interests at heart would not have allowed Jones to waste a Saxons tour to South Africa.

New Zealand aren't necessarily the gold standard in everything but they don't give a free hand to the national coach. Ian Foster sits on a three-man panel of selectors, alongside John Plumtree and Joe Schmidt (who has just replaced Grant Fox).

To be fair he's helped along Borthwick who is likely to be the next England coach.

Interesting point of someone with a complete overview of English rugby. Not sure how much that would cost the RFU if for instance they wanted to encourage someone to move on. And I can imagine some clubs bristling at that even with a mountain of money as compensation!

Has Jones ever coached the Saxons?

No 7&1/2 wrote:To be fair he's helped along Borthwick who is likely to be the next England coach.

Interesting point of someone with a complete overview of English rugby. Not sure how much that would cost the RFU if for instance they wanted to encourage someone to move on. And I can imagine some clubs bristling at that even with a mountain of money as compensation!

Has Jones ever coached the Saxons?

Jones was tasked with developing coaches within the RFU structure, not losing them to other employers, which would oblige the RFU to buy them back.  It's a separate argument about whether England might ultimately be better off that Borthwick went to Leicester. On any measure, Jones failed to meet one of his employment targets, and no-one has been in a position to hold him to account.

On the player side, it's not a question of asking players to leave their clubs. Earlier in this thread, you might see how a current Wallaby hooker prospect, Dave Porecki, explained how he was helped by the then England lineout coach, during his time at Saracens. Although he was England-qualified, Porecki was never called into an England camp and yet someone in the RFU thought it was worth spending RFU coaching time teaching him how to throw into a lineout.

When was the last time you heard of any England coaching resources co-ordinating with clubs, and going to help players who might not be in the immediate squad, but could be a prospect worth cultivating?

Whenever anyone is on the far fringes of England selection, the only question the media can think to ask is "Have you heard anything from Eddie?" Why shouldn't there be another point of contact, other than the England head coach? From what Dave Porecki said, it sounds like that used to happen before.

Eddie Jones didn't take the Saxons to South Africa, because he was with the senior squad in Australia. He was, however solely responsible for selection. The whole point of a Saxons team is to cast your net wider for players who can step up to the senior squad. In the end, none of the players selected on that Saxons tour, with the possible exception of Charlie Ewels, featured to any significant degree in the senior squad afterwards. What a waste. Either Jones blundered, and managed to choose not a single player capable of making the step-up, or else he didn't have any concept of using the tour for development.

That was the same tour which failed to capture Nick Tompkins for England. You don't have to think Nick Tompkins would be the answer to England's centre conundrum to neverthless concede it probably would have been handier to have him as an option than not. A DoR conscious of cultivating England talent would have been aware of that.

While we might think of Eddie Jones' tenure as a single unbroken stretch, it is clear the man himself has seen it as two distinct phases. The reason Jones went with Willi Heinz as his only back-up scrum half at the World Cup, is because he was hoping to win, and then call quits on the job. He had no desire, or need, to think about developing England scrum half resources beyond the World Cup. That's no fault of Jones: it's what he was hired to do. The RFU wanted him to win a World Cup and that's what he wanted too. Currently, Jones is focused only on the next eighteen months. It would be handy if there was someone in the RFU thinking about England's prospects beyone the next World Cup.

Bit harsh I feel. It's not down to Jones to ensure that coaches like Borthwick like Gustard are offered head roles. Why should he be held to account that clubs wanted the guys that proved really successful under him?
My memory is fading from 2016 tbh which players weren't picked for Saxons that went onto be capped afterwards? Personally I'm annoyed he didn't have Tompkins in the squad but he went with others. I do support England capturing as many people as possible though.

No 7&1/2 wrote:My memory is fading from 2016 tbh which players weren't picked for Saxons that went onto be capped afterwards?

The Saxons wasn't just about fielding uncapped players. There was usually also a more experienced core, who could be considered the next cabs off the rank if there were injuries, or loss of form, in the senior squad. We saw neither, from that Saxons 2016 squad, which is utterly bizarre.

During the rest of 2016, and all of 2017. Jones handed out debut England caps to 16 players. Of those, only Charlie Ewels and Don Armand had been on the Saxons tour. Nathan Hughes, Tom Curry and Mark Wilson got debut caps before Armand. Why weren't any of those three on the Saxons tour instead of, say, Ewers and Chisholm, who never got capped?

Jones eventually capped Dan Robson three years later, but not before he had capped Ben Spencer and Jack Maunder, which raises the question of why Robson and Michael Young were selected for the Saxons rather than them. It would be understandable if that happened in some parts of the squad but not for it to have been the case across the whole squad.

Obviously, the national team isn't a science, with rigid pathways. Players drop in and out of favour; law changes make different players more effective, and sometimes there's just a bolter. A head coach should have a lot of freedom but the national set-up shouldn't be entirely shapeless. A DoR can bring a coherency which will survive the turnover of any particular coaches.

I do agree with the sentiment that ideally you have a clear progression through for players, playing a similar way etc but just don't think that's realistic for England. For 1 thing we produce too many players to be able to have a clearly identified group to say that's definitely the next cabs off the rank especially when we're talking about a central figures helping to future proof for new managers who will have their own ideas of who to pick.

For that tour not sure Hughes was available. He became eligible for England in June of that year according to articles of that time and the first test was 10th June, he then went onto to be named in the elite squad for the autumn. Suppose Curry could have been picked, though he was 17 at the time and hadn't made his prem debut at that point. Had a look back at that saxons thread to see whether Wilson was in the discussion, not even Geordie was banging that drum, it was about Kvesic , CLifford, Fraser, Underhill Harrison at that time.
Maunder hadn't made his prem debut. Not sure on Spencer.

Given that there are sod all 2nd team tours anymore would a DoR be forcing the hand of a new coach to say pick x y and z or the chat about i recommend him and him? With the amount of rugby asked of players these days I just think it would be too difficult and not worth it for someone to have that influence over selection.

Why was Kvesic not fancied...he was a class act at 7.

No 7&1/2 wrote:...For 1 thing we produce too many players to be able to have a clearly identified group to say that's definitely the next cabs off the rank especially when we're talking about a central figures helping to future proof for new managers who will have their own ideas of who to pick....

We already have clearly identified groups. The player release agreement the RFU has with the Premiership clubs requires an England coach to identify a core group of players, in order to guarantee access. There's a 32 man U20 Elite Player Squad, and a 45 man Senior Elite Player Squad (used to be 33). During core international periods, the England coach can gather 36 players (it used to be 33). Then there's a 20 man Next EPS Squad, with players who can feature in training camps, or possible Saxons fixtures.

That's just the senior mens set-up. The remit of a DoR could also extend to other men's national age group sides, including England Students. It could even include the Women's and/or Sevens set-up.

That's just the players. Just as important is managing the composition, and contracting, of coaching teams.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Why was Kvesic not fancied...he was a class act at 7

The Saxons tour was a success, and Ali Hepher gave plaudits to a lot of squad members, including Kvesic.

I think Jones already had his eye on Sam Underhill, who he knew was joining Bath, and would be available for the Argentina tour.

Who do you reckon a DoR would direct a coach to pick in a Saxons squad this year?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Who do you reckon a DoR would direct a coach to pick in a Saxons squad this year?

That's not the way I'd envisage it working. The DoR would act like guardrails on a head coach.

The RFU wouldn't need pointless reviews of disappointing campaigns, because the DoR would already have a hands-on view of why decisions were made.

Take the scrum-half issue during the last World Cup cycle. When Jones was using Youngs and Care exclusively, a DoR could have been in Jones' ear asking him who his third choice was, and why he wasn't seeing game time. This would have become more urgent, after Jones fell out with Care. Jones not only failed to play back-up scrum halves in matches, he would often choose only two for a training camp. Jones was free to take only two nines to the World cup, but he should not have been free to leave the national side so exposed in a key position.

Jones' coaching team might be having those conversations with him but they all owe their jobs to him. A DoR would not.

Similarly, there's been a lot of discussion about the dearth of England-qualified twelves. This could have been a topic for the DoR and head coach, with the DoR keeping tabs on talent coming through the age groups, even with a view to steering players towards that position. Again, while the coach makes the final choice, the DoR is there, trying to give the system a tweak when there's a need.

So if the DoR feels for instance that Smith has been tried now and that Farrell is better placed to take us to the WC he'd be in the ear of Jones and future coaches saying I suggest you consider Owen else your review may not be very good!

I guess for me challenge is fine but when you start to have the DoR trying to steer coaches I'm not so sure it works. Wouldn't be adverse to handing that roles the go between job to PRL but surely not trying to dictate to that extent.

Any DoR (and any future Head Coach) should have clearly defined responsibilities and limits to those responsibilities, and if England want to attract top talent to the Head Coach role it is unlikely that the DoR would be allowed to interfere so directly in selection.

It's much more likely that the Head Coach would have a pre-series and post-series review with the DoR, where the HC would set out what they are aiming to do and agree goals for the series, and then review whether that was achieved. That's the point at which a DoR would be in a position to say "You underperformed against what we agreed, so what are you going to change?" and "Player X didn't hit the metrics you set out. How are you going to improve that? Have you considered Player Y?".

The DoR is likely to be looking at longer term performance rather than the minutiae of selection

GeordieFalcon wrote:Hes got ALOT to do before he overtakes young Steward....sorry but that lad is just a class act for me.

So he lacks a bit of pace, he can improve it like Brown did...and we can cover that...but his positives WAY outlay that.

Steward was voted RPA England Player of Year, RPA Young Player of the Year, Tigers Players Young Player of the Year and Tigers Fans Young Player of the Year. He will be hard to oust as he's a bit of an anomaly in that his strengths are all the things that tend to come to fullbacks with time and experience, his areas of development are the things young fullbacks tend to get noticed doing.

Re the DOR role with the RFU this sounds like a further mess. A faction inside the RFU don't like how the president/chairman whatever has handled Eddie so want to parcel off some of those requirements onto somebody else. Wasn't that long the over arcing role that oversaw all rugby including senior men's coach was ditched as it was seen to be detrimental to the coach running the squad directly.

Depends what Jones wants. He's previously ousted a very dependable full back for more attacking thrust. And stuck with the replacement despite him not being able to catch a cold!

Somewhat predictably, we are going to have to head down under without Manu. He is having a 'pre-planned procedure'.


https://www.salesharks.com/2022/06/02/tuilagi-to-miss-england-tour/

Cumbrian wrote:Somewhat predictably, we are going to have to head down under without Manu. He is having a 'pre-planned procedure'.


https://www.salesharks.com/2022/06/02/tuilagi-to-miss-england-tour/

Not necessarily a bad thing. No Slade either. We need to start looking at competition for places in the midfield, Farrell will no doubt comeback in and Marchant certainly deserves to be there. After that it'll be good to hopefully see some young guys put their hands up. There's rumours Dan Kelly might be back for Tigers before the end of the season and if he's fully fit then there's not been a better English 12 on form this season. Lawrence from Wuss, Dingwall from Saints, Ojomoh from Bath or maybe a left field selection of Joseph Jnr from LI.

Is Kelly someone who could come off the bench or is he a starter or not in the match day squad?

I see Lawrence is not going to play on Saturday as injured again. Nowell is supposed to be back though, with Hill and LCD also back for the England tour according to Baxter.

A back line for Australia of 10. Smith 11. Nowell 12. Farrell 13. Marchant 14. Watson 15. Steward with 22. Dingwall and 23. Arundell on the bench? Unless Jones puts Lynagh in there somewhere for the fun of it.

3 experienced and 3 players with about 10 caps each looks pretty good. If we lost Smith and Farrell we'd be knacked at fly-half, but that could happen to anyone and I dont think there's any point in having Smith, Farrell and Ford in a 23.

Kelly only really plays 12 so I'd be surprised if he benched in a test.

I'd presume Farrell and Marchant will be the starting centre partnership which I'd really like to see.

Daly may well tour as a centre too. I thought he looked good there defensively in the Six Nations. He showed nothing in attack but that was the same with basically the entire midfield all tournament!

I'd guess we'll see Farrell, Marchant and Daly plus one of Atkinson, Dingwall, Kelly, Ojomoh or Lawrence. If Ford doesn't travel with Farrell covering 10 as well then maybe we'll see two of the latter players.

Great news if LCD and Hill are available. LCD is world class now and England really need Hill to step up as a lineout lock.

1.Genge
2.LCD
3.Sinckler
4.Itoje
5.Hill
6.Lawes
7.Curry
8.Dombrandt

9.Randall
10.Smith

11.Nowell
12.Farrell
13.Marchant
14.Watson
15.Steward

16.George
17.Marler/Mako
18.Stuart/Heyes
19.Launchbury
20.Willis
21.Mitchell
22.Daly
23.Arundell

There's the makeup of a team I'd be really excited to see play from the potential squad.

You've got Lawes in there twice King Carlos.

Underhill starting for me. Lawes on the bench. Hill or Launchbury starting is fair enough. Might be too soon for Hill though.

Barbeary deserves a shot too, maybe swap with Willis for the bench spot for one of the tests.

Will Sinckler be fit to tour? He hasn't played for a month and a half.

Kelly played 13 for Ireland under 20s and Loughborough University before joining Tigers and converting to 12. I think his first appearances for Tigers off the bench he played wing and 13. Given the most likely adjustment in the centres will be ye olde move of Farrell to 10 and a direct runner to 12 he could do a job on the bench.

I think Ford might get the summer off with Bailey as a versatile option going though Eddie could look to include Fin Smith and keep him away from Scotland.

Meant to be Launchbury on the bench, sorry.

I know many disagree but I like Lawes at 6. He adds a carrier in the back row, is fantastic defensively, adds a lineout option. With variations in how the ruck is reffed it's very difficult to rely on jackals as a core part of the defence. I really like having Lawes all round game at 6 to start with the option of another breakdown threat on the bench to respond to reffing interpretations.

I think moving to 6 has prolonged this peak in his career as well. Lawes has had a lot of injuries, playing lock I just don't see him still being a standout international now.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Cumbrian wrote:Somewhat predictably, we are going to have to head down under without Manu. He is having a 'pre-planned procedure'.


https://www.salesharks.com/2022/06/02/tuilagi-to-miss-england-tour/

Not necessarily a bad thing. No Slade either. We need to start looking at competition for places in the midfield, Farrell will no doubt comeback in and Marchant certainly deserves to be there. After that it'll be good to hopefully see some young guys put their hands up. There's rumours Dan Kelly might be back for Tigers before the end of the season and if he's fully fit then there's not been a better English 12 on form this season. Lawrence from Wuss, Dingwall from Saints, Ojomoh from Bath or maybe a left field selection of Joseph Jnr from LI.

I'd go a bit farther and say this is a good thing. Firstly, Manu needs his summer to get into the best shape and condition he possibly can. And then still no guarantee he makes it to the RWC. Secondly, we can continue the hunt for the second best centre combo since he came on the scene (since the best centre combo would always include a healthy and firing Tuilagi).