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?

What ever happend to Radwan?
one minute he was the fastest player out there then he was dropped.

majesticimperialman wrote:What ever happend to Radwan?
one minute he was the fastest player out there then he was dropped.

www.google.com

I feel that might cut out the middle man for most your posts on England threads, Madge.

Collapse2005 wrote:If England hadnt won v NZ in the semis Jones surely would have been sacked already.

Also I think the English press are afraid of him. They never give him a proper grilling over the poor results. There is a lot riding on the hope that its all part of the RWC master plan. Maybe Squidge is right and its all part of the plan.

Having by a distance the best win percentage of any England coach even after the recent poor results will buy you some credit too to be fair.

We've only toured Japan since the RWC so this tour will be important as the last two Six Nations have been dire but since that semi win they hav won the 2020 Six Nations, won the ANC and the 2021 Autumn was strong.

I'm skeptical as I think the side is very reliant on certain players being fit and I think the younger players replacing them either simply aren't as talented (the older locks replacing Kruis for instance) or aren't yet ready (wingers potentially replacing May and Watson are nowhere near those two at their best yet for instance).

When talking about replacing coaches the most important question isn't "should the incumbent go" but rather "who's next" in my opinion. When Cockers left Tigers I thought it was time for Cockers to move on. I also think Cockers would have still been far better than the three coaches and years of dross that followed. Who next is the key question if getting rid of a coach early.

king_carlos wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:If England hadnt won v NZ in the semis Jones surely would have been sacked already.

Also I think the English press are afraid of him. They never give him a proper grilling over the poor results. There is a lot riding on the hope that its all part of the RWC master plan. Maybe Squidge is right and its all part of the plan.

Having by a distance the best win percentage of any England coach even after the recent poor results will buy you some credit too to be fair.

We've only toured Japan since the RWC so this tour will be important as the last two Six Nations have been dire but since that semi win they hav won the 2020 Six Nations, won the ANC and the 2021 Autumn was strong.

I'm skeptical as I think the side is very reliant on certain players being fit and I think the younger players replacing them either simply aren't as talented (the older locks replacing Kruis for instance) or aren't yet ready (wingers potentially replacing May and Watson are nowhere near those two at their best yet for instance).

When talking about replacing coaches the most important question isn't "should the incumbent go" but rather "who's next" in my opinion. When Cockers left Tigers I thought it was time for Cockers to move on. I also think Cockers would have still been far better than the three coaches and years of dross that followed. Who next is the key question if getting rid of a coach early.

Agreed, succession planning should never be overlooked. If Eddie were to go we should know exactly who will replace him and what staff that person wants in order to assist him. If we can't acquire the staff they want then that should also be a red flag.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I am slightly worried about the prospect of lining up with Lawes and Vunipola again. Very slow.

It's a good shout on a fast track we could struggle, aus will have fast pitches. I like what Lawes brings to the team and is a great lineout jumper but have a feeling the games will be won or lost at the breakdown. At times on sat we did generate fast ball but just dropped it or passed to a baabaa. Billy did look good in the prem final even getting in good hackling positions and offloading out of contact. Some interesting selection dilemmas, which I am starting to doubt Jones will get right, but would be very happy to proved very wrong.

I just have a couple of questions that a saints fan or a tigers fan might be able to answer.

I like the look at chessum in the row but is he strong enough in the tight to compliment itoje?

Dingwall and porter are they genuinely good and can they play 12? I'm assuming porter is more of a defensive centre and dingwall an attacking threat?

formerly known as Sam wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:If England hadnt won v NZ in the semis Jones surely would have been sacked already.

Also I think the English press are afraid of him. They never give him a proper grilling over the poor results. There is a lot riding on the hope that its all part of the RWC master plan. Maybe Squidge is right and its all part of the plan.

Having by a distance the best win percentage of any England coach even after the recent poor results will buy you some credit too to be fair.

We've only toured Japan since the RWC so this tour will be important as the last two Six Nations have been dire but since that semi win they hav won the 2020 Six Nations, won the ANC and the 2021 Autumn was strong.

I'm skeptical as I think the side is very reliant on certain players being fit and I think the younger players replacing them either simply aren't as talented (the older locks replacing Kruis for instance) or aren't yet ready (wingers potentially replacing May and Watson are nowhere near those two at their best yet for instance).

When talking about replacing coaches the most important question isn't "should the incumbent go" but rather "who's next" in my opinion. When Cockers left Tigers I thought it was time for Cockers to move on. I also think Cockers would have still been far better than the three coaches and years of dross that followed. Who next is the key question if getting rid of a coach early.

Agreed, succession planning should never be overlooked. If Eddie were to go we should know exactly who will replace him and what staff that person wants in order to assist him. If we can't acquire the staff they want then that should also be a red flag.

Agree...for the most part. To me, if those with the power to hire and fire believe that England have gone as far with Eddie Jones as they ever will and the current coaching staff will not move the needle from the now, then EJ must be let go immediately. I would expect the RFU would always know a lot of background abut the next grouping of candidates. Hopefully.

Yoda wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I am slightly worried about the prospect of lining up with Lawes and Vunipola again. Very slow.

It's a good shout on a fast track we could struggle, aus will have fast pitches. I like what Lawes brings to the team and is a great lineout jumper but have a feeling the games will be won or lost at the breakdown. At times on sat we did generate fast ball but just dropped it or passed to a baabaa. Billy did look good in the prem final even getting in good hackling positions and offloading out of contact. Some interesting selection dilemmas, which I am starting to doubt Jones will get right, but would be very happy to proved very wrong.

I just have a couple of questions that a saints fan or a tigers fan might be able to answer.

I like the look at chessum in the row but is he strong enough in the tight to compliment itoje?

Dingwall and porter are they genuinely good and can they play 12? I'm assuming porter is more of a defensive centre and dingwall an attacking threat?

I don't think Chessum is lacking in power compared to Isiekwe for instance. Maybe a touch less powerful than Hill currently if the latter can bring his best Chiefs form as he did in the Autumn.

Porter is a bit of an all rounder but very strong defensively as a 13. He's a work in progress at 12 as he only players there to cover Kelly. Porter is strong in the carry, regularly breaking tackles or getting over the gain line. He doesn't have much kicking game and his passing is solid but nothing special though. I love that Porter is at Tigers and he must be one of the best value players in the Premiership given he signed from Sydney Uni but I honestly struggle to see him as a long term international centre. Fantastic club player but don't know if there is anything standout to make the step-up.

Small bit of trivia.

From 2010, England have played Australia 15 times, winning twelve matches, including all eight since Jones took over in 2016.

All fifteen of those matches have featured one, or both, of Ben Youngs and Dan Cole. Those two players have the most wins over the Wallabies of all Northerm hemisphere players, and the totals rise for both, if you include Lions Test match victories too (13 for Youngs and 11 for Cole. Owen Farrell has 10).

The game in Perth on the 2nd of July, will be England's first match against Australia in 12 years, with neither player involved.

England's longest winning streak against any major opposition is probably the 11 match run against France, from 1906 to 1921. Arguably, though, France weren't a top team in those early years.

In the postwar era, England had a 7 match run against South Africa, between 2000 and 2006, while Carling's England notched up 8 straight wins over France, between 1989 and 1995.

If England manage to beat Australia in Perth, it will be the team's longest streak against a major side, in the postwar period. Only New Zealand have a longer winning streak against the Wallabies (Ten matches from 2008 to 2010, when the sides faced off against each other four times, for three years running).

It’s a really bad record for Australia, they really struggle v England. Some good enough form from their super rugby sides this year though might hint at a competitive series. The Brumbies missed out at a super rugby final by a whisker and the Waratahs beat the Crusaders as far as I remember.

Another record England fans won’t want to remember is that their greatest losing margin a 76-0 loss came against Australia.

https://youtu.be/h-XJ8TbXaFU

king_carlos wrote:

Yoda wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I am slightly worried about the prospect of lining up with Lawes and Vunipola again. Very slow.

It's a good shout on a fast track we could struggle, aus will have fast pitches. I like what Lawes brings to the team and is a great lineout jumper but have a feeling the games will be won or lost at the breakdown. At times on sat we did generate fast ball but just dropped it or passed to a baabaa. Billy did look good in the prem final even getting in good hackling positions and offloading out of contact. Some interesting selection dilemmas, which I am starting to doubt Jones will get right, but would be very happy to proved very wrong.

I just have a couple of questions that a saints fan or a tigers fan might be able to answer.

I like the look at chessum in the row but is he strong enough in the tight to compliment itoje?

Dingwall and porter are they genuinely good and can they play 12? I'm assuming porter is more of a defensive centre and dingwall an attacking threat?

I don't think Chessum is lacking in power compared to Isiekwe for instance. Maybe a touch less powerful than Hill currently if the latter can bring his best Chiefs form as he did in the Autumn.

Porter is a bit of an all rounder but very strong defensively as a 13. He's a work in progress at 12 as he only players there to cover Kelly. Porter is strong in the carry, regularly breaking tackles or getting over the gain line. He doesn't have much kicking game and his passing is solid but nothing special though. I love that Porter is at Tigers and he must be one of the best value players in the Premiership given he signed from Sydney Uni but I honestly struggle to see him as a long term international centre. Fantastic club player but don't know if there is anything standout to make the step-up.

For someone who's 21 Chessum has a pretty good all round lock game. He's a big lad and he likes to get stuck in. Had an excellent game in the Prem Final. As KC says not as big and physical as Hill but Chessum played in both games where Tigers dismantled the Clermont pack. Tigers best lock currently.

Porter is a handy utility player. He's quick enough to cover wing though I suspect international wingers will be quicker than him though Porter does have a surprising step. Physical enough to mix it in defence and generally has a Moody esque view to personal safety. He'll do a job wherever he gets put in which I think is probably Eddie's plan, drop him in the 22 or 23 shirt and have him cover most the backline.

The one saving grace with EJ these days is that his teams do seem to play much better against SH teams than against our regular 6N opponents

Yoda wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I am slightly worried about the prospect of lining up with Lawes and Vunipola again. Very slow.

It's a good shout on a fast track we could struggle, aus will have fast pitches. I like what Lawes brings to the team and is a great lineout jumper but have a feeling the games will be won or lost at the breakdown. At times on sat we did generate fast ball but just dropped it or passed to a baabaa. Billy did look good in the prem final even getting in good hackling positions and offloading out of contact. Some interesting selection dilemmas, which I am starting to doubt Jones will get right, but would be very happy to proved very wrong.

I just have a couple of questions that a saints fan or a tigers fan might be able to answer.

I like the look at chessum in the row but is he strong enough in the tight to compliment itoje?

Dingwall and porter are they genuinely good and can they play 12? I'm assuming porter is more of a defensive centre and dingwall an attacking threat?

Dingwall is the complete allrounder, he was even chosen to captain Saints on his 50th appearance and did so well that he retained the captaincy for a while afterwards. Not a monster by any stretch of the imagination, but still manages to hit the ball flat and hard and make ground. He has the whole skill set, very sound defensively, crunching tackler, good under the high ball, good passer and ofloader. He was keeping Hutchinson on the bench for a lot of the season which says a lot.

He seems to have modelled himself on Mike Proctor, which is not a bad role model. The only deficiency he has, if you can call it a deficiency is he is not the fastest. He is not slow by any means, but not going to be a winger anytime soon.

I know we have the argument about how reliable the statistics are, but Chessum is showing as being only a few pounds lighter than Isiekwe with both being 6' 7" and around the 18st 7lbs.  Chessum certainly seems to have a bit more 'dog' in him than Isiekwe has and will presumably continue to bulk up over the next couple of years.  Isiekwe is clearly a very talented player and shows very good hands in the lineout, but he doesn't seem to do the grunt work you want from a lock - hitting rucks and generally being nasty (not over the top like Skelton though!).  One thing that did surprise me about Isiekwe is that he is still only 24 - he seems to have been around a very long time.  If he could just toughen up a bit, he could be a good International second row in the Victor Matfield mould.

I am not sure if it is something to do with the way the game is played here, but we seem to be producing a lot more of the 5 1/2 hybrid second row/no 6 type player, rather than the big lump second rows that South Africa specialise in.  We could do with a Martin Johnson, Simon Shaw, Danny Grewcock type player to add some power to our pack.  I can't remember the last time we dominated an opposition pack barring the Ireland game this year, which in part was down to the referee not understanding scrums.

It would be interesting to see what the point of difference was with a Chessum no 5 and Lawes no 6 line up versus a Lawes no 5 and Chessum no 6 selection. With Billy seemingly being back in the no 8 shirt, Lawes or Chessum look certain to be at 6.

Sharkey06 wrote:I know we have the argument about how reliable the statistics are, but Chessum is showing as being only a few pounds lighter than Isiekwe with both being 6' 7" and around the 18st 7lbs.  Chessum certainly seems to have a bit more 'dog' in him than Isiekwe has and will presumably continue to bulk up over the next couple of years.  Isiekwe is clearly a very talented player and shows very good hands in the lineout, but he doesn't seem to do the grunt work you want from a lock - hitting rucks and generally being nasty (not over the top like Skelton though!).  One thing that did surprise me about Isiekwe is that he is still only 24 - he seems to have been around a very long time.  If he could just toughen up a bit, he could be a good International second row in the Victor Matfield mould.

I am not sure if it is something to do with the way the game is played here, but we seem to be producing a lot more of the 5 1/2 hybrid second row/no 6 type player, rather than the big lump second rows that South Africa specialise in.  We could do with a Martin Johnson, Simon Shaw, Danny Grewcock type player to add some power to our pack.  I can't remember the last time we dominated an opposition pack barring the Ireland game this year, which in part was down to the referee not understanding scrums.

It would be interesting to see what the point of difference was with a Chessum no 5 and Lawes no 6 line up versus a Lawes no 5 and Chessum no 6 selection.  With Billy seemingly being back in the no 8 shirt, Lawes or Chessum look certain to be at 6.

Underselling Genge vs Furlong a fair bit on the scrums I feel.

If you think Chessums big...check out Chessum junior...

Itoje is only 6'5 but doesn't have any issues sizewise.

formerly known as Sam wrote:...


For someone who's 21 Chessum has a pretty good all round lock game. He's a big lad and he likes to get stuck in. Had an excellent game in the Prem Final. As KC says not as big and physical as Hill but Chessum played in both games where Tigers dismantled the Clermont pack. Tigers best lock currently.

Porter is a handy utility player. He's quick enough to cover wing though I suspect international wingers will be quicker than him though Porter does have a surprising step. Physical enough to mix it in defence and generally has a Moody esque view to personal safety. He'll do a job wherever he gets put in which I think is probably Eddie's plan, drop him in the 22 or 23 shirt and have him cover most the backline.

Which in these days of concussion protocols will surely lead to a Bryan Robson-esque one week in and three weeks out of the side

Sharkey06 wrote:I know we have the argument about how reliable the statistics are, but Chessum is showing as being only a few pounds lighter than Isiekwe with both being 6' 7" and around the 18st 7lbs.  Chessum certainly seems to have a bit more 'dog' in him than Isiekwe has and will presumably continue to bulk up over the next couple of years.  Isiekwe is clearly a very talented player and shows very good hands in the lineout, but he doesn't seem to do the grunt work you want from a lock - hitting rucks and generally being nasty (not over the top like Skelton though!).  One thing that did surprise me about Isiekwe is that he is still only 24 - he seems to have been around a very long time.  If he could just toughen up a bit, he could be a good International second row in the Victor Matfield mould.

I am not sure if it is something to do with the way the game is played here, but we seem to be producing a lot more of the 5 1/2 hybrid second row/no 6 type player, rather than the big lump second rows that South Africa specialise in.  We could do with a Martin Johnson, Simon Shaw, Danny Grewcock type player to add some power to our pack.  I can't remember the last time we dominated an opposition pack barring the Ireland game this year, which in part was down to the referee not understanding scrums.

It would be interesting to see what the point of difference was with a Chessum no 5 and Lawes no 6 line up versus a Lawes no 5 and Chessum no 6 selection.  With Billy seemingly being back in the no 8 shirt, Lawes or Chessum look certain to be at 6.

Lawes has dropped a lot of weight to better his play at 6, he is sub 18stone these days, probably too light for a lock unless it is emergency cover.

dummy_half wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:...


For someone who's 21 Chessum has a pretty good all round lock game. He's a big lad and he likes to get stuck in. Had an excellent game in the Prem Final. As KC says not as big and physical as Hill but Chessum played in both games where Tigers dismantled the Clermont pack. Tigers best lock currently.

Porter is a handy utility player. He's quick enough to cover wing though I suspect international wingers will be quicker than him though Porter does have a surprising step. Physical enough to mix it in defence and generally has a Moody esque view to personal safety. He'll do a job wherever he gets put in which I think is probably Eddie's plan, drop him in the 22 or 23 shirt and have him cover most the backline.

Which in these days of concussion protocols will surely lead to a Bryan Robson-esque one week in and three weeks out of the side

He's tough and seems to have had more luck than Moody so far. He certainly doesn't shirk the physical side of the game, neither does Potter it's one of the reasons they've become very popular with Tigers fans. Working hard and putting your body on the line every game goes a long way.

https://m.facebook.com/watch/?v=420230936278218&_rdr

Re his step.

GeordieFalcon wrote:If you think Chessums big...check out Chessum junior...

Itoje is only 6'5 but doesn't have any issues sizewise.  

I think the only stays I've seen suggest Chessum Jnr is the same 18 and a half stone Ollie is but Lewis is at least 6ft9. Hopefully he bulks up the same way Ollie did last summer. Last season Ollie was sub 18 stone and played mainly backrow because if his lack of ballast. Had a good pre season and bulked out then moved into his preferred lock and hasn't looked back.

Well apart from when Tigers were short on backrow.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

dummy_half wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:...


For someone who's 21 Chessum has a pretty good all round lock game. He's a big lad and he likes to get stuck in. Had an excellent game in the Prem Final. As KC says not as big and physical as Hill but Chessum played in both games where Tigers dismantled the Clermont pack. Tigers best lock currently.

Porter is a handy utility player. He's quick enough to cover wing though I suspect international wingers will be quicker than him though Porter does have a surprising step. Physical enough to mix it in defence and generally has a Moody esque view to personal safety. He'll do a job wherever he gets put in which I think is probably Eddie's plan, drop him in the 22 or 23 shirt and have him cover most the backline.

Which in these days of concussion protocols will surely lead to a Bryan Robson-esque one week in and three weeks out of the side

He's tough and seems to have had more luck than Moody so far. He certainly doesn't shirk the physical side of the game, neither does Potter it's one of the reasons they've become very popular with Tigers fans. Working hard and putting your body on the line every game goes a long way.

https://m.facebook.com/watch/?v=420230936278218&_rdr

Re his step.

So far.....

https://twitter.com/samlstandsup/status/1539204064600330240?s=12

Thought this was an interesting bit of analysis re playing style and selection

BamBam wrote:https://twitter.com/samlstandsup/status/1539204064600330240?s=12

Thought this was an interesting bit of analysis re playing style and selection

That's very interesting actually BamBam, and further complicates the age old arguments when we compare players from different nations in the same position (I won't mention any player names!). As the Twitter thread states, where English locks are hitting so many own rucks (highest locks to do so in the 6N) they are then not tackling as much (lowest of the 6N teams). But they are carrying more. Different roles for different teams. Which is not surprising, but does mean the comparisons between players are pretty meaningless without taking into account their role within the team

Woah, this is progress Oracle, a step to you agreeing that context is needed to view stats!

Even that rather good thread is the first layer of the onion as you really then need to get to granular detail, is it really the best to lump flankers together, and props etc. You may have 1 flanker staying out of tackles deliberately looking for steals, the carrying of Englands props; well that can be coloured by a game playing Genge as a number 8 style rampage for 1 game. Or indeed a prop like Sinckler acting as a first receiver every few phases (got to admit I'm not sure on the definition of a carry here, presumably 1 step forward or to the side counts?).

Wish that these stats and more were a lot more readily available though.

"I have given myself 48 hours to reflect on the Barbarians game to ensure I was not over-reacting, but England really should have taken the law into their own hands when the visitors turned the match into a farce.

"I was disappointed with George Kruis for allowing it to happen, especially his antics around his backheel conversion. I cannot imagine Phil Bennett laughing at that."

Quotes from Woodward in the Mail, not read the whole set got these from Walesonline. Is Geordie, Woodward in disguise? Glad this was done through a paper like the Mail rather than on TV though.

Ha ha...no just me. ..I was a bit harsh with my comments as I'm abroad on holiday and had a few. I was disappointed with the manner of the defwst..no fight or backbone at all.

But I don't retract, if the England players had any respect they would not let someone take the pee out of them. But they were so inept and weak they let Kruis and the rest of the team laugh at them.

I dont think it would have happened if Genge, Farrell etc had been playing.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Ha ha...no just me. ..I was a bit harsh with my comments as I'm abroad on holiday and had a few. I was disappointed with the manner of the defwst..no fight or backbone at all.

But I don't retract, if the England players had any respect they would not let someone take the pee out of them. But they were so inept and weak they let Kruis and the rest of the team laugh at them.

I dont think it would have happened if Genge, Farrell etc had been playing.

I would never have guessed!

I seen your posts when you did them and thought best just to let you wind yourself back down lol.

Covid rears it's head again. May has tested positive so will be in isolation for 7 days. Got to imagine it'll hinder training a bit for the others too and possibly opens the door for someone else starting on the wing.


In addition to that a few members of the Barbarians have also been affected: Laurent Labit, Shaun Edwards, Max Spring and Aymeric Luc tested positive for Covid-19 (Walesonline).

Are they still testing?

i thought Covid had never happened its dissapeared that quick, as Boris tries to cover all his antics.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Are they still testing?

i thought Covid had never happened its dissapeared that quick, as Boris tries to cover all his antics.

To be into Australia or rather be free to roam when you get to Australia I think you still need a negative test.

Could give Freeman his chance.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Are they still testing?

i thought Covid had never happened its dissapeared that quick, as Boris tries to cover all his antics.

Apparently so. The world should just give thanks Boris was able to solve the Covid riddle and personally develop the Covid vaccines. All whilst knocking a few back in number 10.

You guys should just leave poor Boris alone, after all he is 'doing his best'.

Cumbrian wrote:You guys should just leave poor Boris alone, after all he is 'doing his best'.

...friend's wife?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Cumbrian wrote:You guys should just leave poor Boris alone, after all he is 'doing his best'.

...friend's wife?

I guess it depends if his current one is having treatment for cancer?

But seriously, he's a great guy...

No other PM has had so many major problems to deal with at the same time, particularly when he's also caused half of them.

I am surprised we haven't had more players properly ill with covid instead of just testing positive. 2 weeks after my positive test and things are mostly OK but I still get very tired too easily.

Careful, you’re all going to really upset one particular English Rugby/Boris fan

lostinwales wrote:No other PM has had so many major problems to deal with at the same time, particularly when he's also caused half of them.

I am surprised we haven't had more players properly ill with covid instead of just testing positive. 2 weeks after my positive test and things are mostly OK but I still get very tired too easily.

I was the same, it took me months to be able to run to a decent standard again. It is exhausting, but give yourself time to recover and you will eventually start to feel normal again.

Ive never had it...

Alot of my pals have tested positive, but fortunately none have had serious symptoms...

Got is reasonably early before the vaccs and left me bed ridden for a week and then out of breath if doing any sort of light exercise for 3 months, so quite lucky. We had a grad student working with us whose boyfriend was left wheelchair bound. So even as pro sportsmen it's something to be avoided if only to reduce the risk of fatigue during games, which is why I would assume there's a risk May may not make the match day or starting team. As Sam says could be what Freeman needs to put a foot in the door. Apparently Jones has made noises about how long Aus kick keeping the ball in play as much as possible so a couple of full backs could be very useful (though May is excellent anyway). The awful prospect of Furbank is there as well.

Could be a back back 3...

11 Freeman
14 Coka
15 Steward

GeordieFalcon wrote:Ive never had it...

Alot of my pals have tested positive, but fortunately none have had serious symptoms...

The death of the computer prof with 4 kids who was doing a PhD the same time as me back in the day was the one that really hit home, but outside of him its pretty much the same. We got this far without it but me and the wife are Ok but getting tired easily, one son has it but not badly affected, the other tested negative.

Anyway this is getting away from the Rugby.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Could be a back back 3...

11 Freeman
14 Coka
15 Steward

So

15 Furbank
14 Steward
11 Marchant then for Jones.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Could be a back back 3...

11 Freeman
14 Coka
15 Steward

It is pretty inexperienced back three. I guess you could put Nowell in there for one of the wings, but you could missing some high end gas? I suppose all of the available combinations are pretty new, so somewhat of a free roll.

Well Freeman can fairly motor, not rapid rapid but can shift.

As 7.5 says it'll be something very different anyway...

Cumbrian wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Could be a back back 3...

11 Freeman
14 Coka
15 Steward

It is pretty inexperienced back three. I guess you could put Nowell in there for one of the wings, but you could missing some high end gas?  I suppose all of the available combinations are pretty new, so somewhat of a free roll.

It is a very big and powerful back three, circa 16 stone being the lightest.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Well Freeman can fairly motor, not rapid rapid but can shift.

As 7.5 says it'll be something very different anyway...

Not one of the three is rapid but both of the wingers are pretty quick and Steward seems to be making more breaks the more experience he gets. He did go round the outside of Daly in the Prem final for instance.

The physicality, work rate and finishing ability of that back three would cause different problems to the Australian defence than they were probably expecting.

If we are kicking the skin off the ball then that back three will be ideal. I doubt we are going to get the ball through the hands much for to warrant an out and out paceman. Could be 10 man rugby with frequent kick chase, we might get a win by boring them to death.

I think if the back three comprises Freeman, Big Joe, and Steward, England will be fine and not have to worry about that position group. They each bring something different to the table, which I think is good. On both sides of the ball.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Could be a back back 3...

11 Freeman
14 Coka
15 Steward

So

15 Furbank
14 Steward
11 Marchant then for Jones.

Furbank on the wing would send me over the edge I think.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Could be a back back 3...

11 Freeman
14 Coka
15 Steward

So

15 Furbank
14 Steward
11 Marchant then for Jones.

Furbank on the wing would send me over the edge I think.

Could well be Furbank on the bench to cover most of the back line positions. Unless the attack still struggles in the first game or two and Furbank is put in at 15. Would that put you close to the edge?

GeordieFalcon wrote:Are they still testing?

i thought Covid had never happened its dissapeared that quick, as Boris tries to cover all his antics.

The England cricket teams ingenious solution for the current Test series was to just not test for covid. The NZ team are testing as it would affect them flying home and have had a few positives. People naturally started asking what the England team were doing differently to avoid contracting covid. The answer was not testing.