England post 2022 6Ns, Aus tour and beyond

Hate to say it and I don't wish him injured but I'm glad Ewels not available!
If you're disappointed with Malins and Daly being selected, imagine how most of us feel about Youngs being there.
In fairness, Malins and Daly been superb this season but please give Radwan and Arundell a run.

Well the rfu are supposed to have got their shortlist for a Jones replacement to 3. And 1 of them has just picked up a 10 week ban for challenging officials. The 4th suspension in a year. Passed me by as I don't follow French rugby and don't speak the language but surely would make the rfu think twice on O'Gara? Anyone know the details as surely it can't be worse than Erasmus?

Edit: sounds like it was private messages to the ref chief.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/rugby/arid-41013647.html

Recently, Squidge Rugby sounds more positive about England's development than most English fans.



There's a lot been said about the decision to take the draw. I'd forgotten that Wales had been tied up 29-29 during the first summer test against the Boks, only to lose it by gifting South Africa possession during the closing seconds. Squidge says he would have felt a lot better with the draw. It's an interesting counterpoint to England's position, as South Africa were able to make easy yards straight back into the Welsh half, so it was a much easier decision for them to play on.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well the rfu are supposed to have got their shortlist for a Jones replacement to 3. And 1 of them has just picked up a 10 week ban for challenging officials. The 4th suspension in a year. Passed me by as I don't follow French rugby and don't speak the language but surely would make the rfu think twice on O'Gara? Anyone know the details as surely it can't be worse than Erasmus?

Edit: sounds like it was private messages to the ref chief.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/rugby/arid-41013647.html

ROG is a bit silly. What he has said, in the past, was not bad. It is just that the French are very delicate with how you approach them. What ROG has said/done would not even raise and eyebrow anywhere else but he is silly for not adapting his approach. Now that he is seen to have 'previous' anything he says now will receive longer bans.

Not a great look though billy; can't exactly help with a job application!

Imagine if Jones had been banned even once but 4 times in a year? Never hear the end of it and he'd be crucified in media.
Jones says stupid things which annoy me and don't help the team but if he'd been banned purely fact he was England coach would magnify outrage by 100.

Rightly so, you do expect a certain level of discipline here. God knows what ROG said in email/text but I'd have very happily seen Erasmus pick up a 10 games ban (which is what weeks means to ROG, I think....probably....without checking!).

I thought the job was pretty much Robertsons

Geordie wrote:I thought the job was pretty much Robertsons

I hope this isn't the case. I know Robertson has his plaudits, but he's hardly put himself out of his comfort zone. He coaches the best squad in Super rugby (which is an odd league anyway) to success year on year.

I would like to think if he was in the running for a top Int job (possibly the biggest in budget and numbers), he would have first tried his hand up North.

Untested Robertson vs untested Borthwick vs untested ROG though?

To be honest I don't really care who it is now, as long as he picks right player in right position and don't pick on past reputation and ignore players who should definitely be in squad.
Basically a change from Jones be fine with me. As long as it's not Pivac but somehow think that's unlikely....

No 7&1/2 wrote:Untested Robertson vs untested Borthwick vs untested ROG though?

Not really.

ROG has tried his hand in varied environments and taken an unfancied club with a mid-level T14 budget to success......in NH rugby.

Borthwick has tried his hand at club and Int rugby and re-moulded a struggling side into champions.

Robertson took over the most successful ever side in Super rugby (with the best squad) and to be fair, has carried on that success. He would defiantly be the biggest gamble in my eyes.

I'd personally like to see McCall given the job....the one outstanding candidate....with Edwards as defence coach.

Edwards not going to coach with England, think that's pretty obvious.

mountain man wrote:Edwards not going to coach with England, think that's pretty obvious.

From what I gather, he would love to....but his face doesn't fit. Maybe with a new regime, we might be able to get him, he's clearly very good at what he does.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Untested Robertson vs untested Borthwick vs untested ROG though?

Not really.

ROG has tried his hand in varied environments and taken an unfancied club with a mid-level T14 budget to success......in NH rugby.

Borthwick has tried his hand at club and Int rugby and re-moulded a struggling side into champions.

Robertson took over the most successful ever side in Super rugby (with the best squad) and to be fair, has carried on that success. He would defiantly be the biggest gamble in my eyes.

I'd personally like to see McCall given the job....the one outstanding candidate....with Edwards as defence coach.

Don't think that NH vs SH makes much difference here surely. Borthwick has certainly strengthed Leicester in terms of some of their signings and it's great to see so much youth come through at the same time. There are questions though on how level that playing field was (they did cheat the cap), and were missing the major player who were recovering from their own cheating. Agree though that McCall would be on my shortlist (though with Robertson).

You may have missed it but Edwards will definitely not be involved, he's just spoken to England after they didn't offer him anything he's signed an extension with France.

McCall is a very good shout but i doubt hes even on the RFUs extended list

Well the rumour is as above that the shortlist is Robertson, Borthwick and ROG.

Rumoured is my only hope there I guess.

McCall must have been in the conversation, perhaps he's ruled himself out?

Baxter is another that I'd have above Robertson if I'm honest. I don't really see the clamour for Robertson tbh. 33

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

mountain man wrote:Edwards not going to coach with England, think that's pretty obvious.

From what I gather, he would love to....but his face doesn't fit. Maybe with a new regime, we might be able to get him, he's clearly very good at what he does.

Oh I agree he's obviously brilliant at what he does, only need to see what's happened to Wales since he left(other issues there as well of course) and how France defence especially has improved since he arrived.

However, there have been numerous times he could have gone or RFU could have at least approached him about it but something been done or said which appears to make it extremely unlikely. Him signing ext to France contract seems to rule it out any time soon as well.

Well.

At least we have a winger on the bench this time.

15. Freddie Steward

14. Tommy Freeman

13. Manu Tuilagi

12. Owen Farrell (C)

11. Jonny May

10. Marcus Smith

9. Jack van Poortvliet

1. Mako Vunipola

2. Jamie George

3. Kyle Sinckler

4. Maro Itoje

5. Jonny Hill

6. Alex Coles

7. Tom Curry

8. Billy Vunipola

Finishers

16. Luke Cowan-Dickie

17. Ellis Genge

18. Will Stuart

19. David Ribbans

20. Sam Simmonds

21. Ben Youngs

22. Henry Slade

23. Jack Nowell

The back row is the best we've had this AIs imo, not enthused by the bench there like.

I'd have Ribbans in to start alongside Itoje but Coles is a better pick at 6 than Itoje or Simmonds. Vunipola starting, well if he struggles you can bring Genge on early but you'd have to fake an injury to get him from being a sub.

Don't like seeing Nowell involved at all. Suspect Genge coming on later is an anti bomb squad move. Otherwise OK

Pfffttt.....I think Hill, Coles, Tuilagi and JVP can count themselves very lucky.

JVP really needs a solid showing.

Can't say I share your enthusiasm for a winger on the bench 7 1/2, I'd have preferred Porter. I'm not keen on either winger being replaced by Nowell at any point. Porter came off the bench last weekend when we sort of moved to the three centres with three playmaker option in the second half and it worked. Bit of an odd set up but being able to throw that out there as something different if we need it to is helpful.

I sort of like the Eddie bomb squad approach. Get the tight five subs on early in the second half as fresh legs to counter the Book threat is a good idea especially when the Bok bench isn't quite as tooled up as it normally is.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Pfffttt.....I think Hill, Coles, Tuilagi and JVP can count themselves very lucky.

JVP really needs a solid showing.

What's Coles done wrong?

We'll learn a lot about JVP this week, no doubt the Boks will be after him and he'll want to bounce back.

formerly known as Sam wrote:Can't say I share your enthusiasm for a winger on the bench 7 1/2, I'd have preferred Porter. I'm not keen on either winger being replaced by Nowell at any point. Porter came off the bench last weekend when we sort of moved to the three centres with three playmaker option in the second half and it worked. Bit of an odd set up but being able to throw that out there as something different if we need it to is helpful.

I sort of like the Eddie bomb squad approach. Get the tight five subs on early in the second half as fresh legs to counter the Book threat is a good idea especially when the Bok bench isn't quite as tooled up as it normally is.

I would have preferred a different winger tbf, but like that balance better. I don't think Porter is good enough.

Glad to see JvP starting, right call.
Mako? I know 7.5 said SA starting front row not as strong as Bomb squad but I worry he will struggle in scrum.
Nowell though, really?

Coles fine for me at 6. I'd have Ribbans Itoje 2nd row with Tizzrd bench. Drop Hill.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Pfffttt.....I think Hill, Coles, Tuilagi and JVP can count themselves very lucky.

JVP really needs a solid showing.

What's Coles done wrong?

We'll learn a lot about JVP this week, no doubt the Boks will be after him and he'll want to bounce back.

Better served if he doesn't get pinged incorrectly for a knock on and the ref doesn't let offside players charge him down too I reckon!

Right call to retain JvP for the match. One of Eddies better decisions for me.

Still surprised that he is still tinkering with Smith 10 and Farrell 12. It simply just does not work for me. Right now i would start with Farrell and bring Smith on as replacement.

Tuilagi for me is sadly so far past his best, i am amazed he gets into the squad myself.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:Can't say I share your enthusiasm for a winger on the bench 7 1/2, I'd have preferred Porter. I'm not keen on either winger being replaced by Nowell at any point. Porter came off the bench last weekend when we sort of moved to the three centres with three playmaker option in the second half and it worked. Bit of an odd set up but being able to throw that out there as something different if we need it to is helpful.

I sort of like the Eddie bomb squad approach. Get the tight five subs on early in the second half as fresh legs to counter the Book threat is a good idea especially when the Bok bench isn't quite as tooled up as it normally is.

I would have preferred a different winger tbf, but like that balance better. I don't think Porter is good enough.

I think Porter is good enough though given the choice I think most of us would prefer Marchant to be wearing 23.

eirebilly_01 wrote:Right call to retain JvP for the match. One of Eddies better decisions for me.

Still surprised that he is still tinkering with Smith 10 and Farrell 12. It simply just does not work for me. Right now i would start with Farrell and bring Smith on as replacement.

Tuilagi for me is sadly so far past his best, i am amazed he gets into the squad myself.

Worked well last weekend. Wasn't them knocking the ball on or getting turned over in the Kiwi 22 over and over again. Twas the big lads up front.

eirebilly_01 wrote:Right call to retain JvP for the match. One of Eddies better decisions for me.

Still surprised that he is still tinkering with Smith 10 and Farrell 12. It simply just does not work for me. Right now i would start with Farrell and bring Smith on as replacement.

Tuilagi for me is sadly so far past his best, i am amazed he gets into the squad myself.

I think exactly same on all points.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

eirebilly_01 wrote:Right call to retain JvP for the match. One of Eddies better decisions for me.

Still surprised that he is still tinkering with Smith 10 and Farrell 12. It simply just does not work for me. Right now i would start with Farrell and bring Smith on as replacement.

Tuilagi for me is sadly so far past his best, i am amazed he gets into the squad myself.

Worked well last weekend. Wasn't them knocking the ball on or getting turned over in the Kiwi 22 over and over again. Twas the big lads up front.

Just the way I see things. I think that they do not compliment each other and that whilst Farrell is on, Smith goes into his shell.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

eirebilly_01 wrote:Right call to retain JvP for the match. One of Eddies better decisions for me.

Still surprised that he is still tinkering with Smith 10 and Farrell 12. It simply just does not work for me. Right now i would start with Farrell and bring Smith on as replacement.

Tuilagi for me is sadly so far past his best, i am amazed he gets into the squad myself.

Worked well last weekend. Wasn't them knocking the ball on or getting turned over in the Kiwi 22 over and over again. Twas the big lads up front.

How many passes got to the wings? Not many

Mixed bag for me.  
I worry about Mako in the scrum.  
I worry about Hill in the 2nd row - I would have started Ribbans
Coles can play 6, but is still a lock playing 6.  Oddly last night I watched a replay of Saints-LI from earlier this season and Coles was the 6.  
Regarding JvP, Eddie Jones must have taken the temperature of the locker room and thought this was right.  We will find out.  
Freeman on the wing is good.  Should open up the field a lot more than Nowell could.

So there is potential, but a lot of 'what-ifs'.

Malherbe is likely to turn Mako inside out. I genuinely don't understand that choice. Is Genge not fully fit???

Mr Bounce wrote:Malherbe is likely to turn Mako inside out. I genuinely don't understand that choice. Is Genge not fully fit???

If he gets turned into a pretzel you can sub him off. If he gets turned into a pretzel after coming on you can do nothing. I hope we don't knock on to many times in the first half.

This has to be a final opportunity for Mako to show that he can handle the attention at the scrums he is bound to get. If he doesn't and gives away penalties then Eddie will have to give him his P45 and see if he can get Joe Marler out of his frock and back into the England squad. If England are looking for a prop who is good in the loose but can't scrummage there is Bevan Rodd who is 10 years younger.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Pfffttt.....I think Hill, Coles, Tuilagi and JVP can count themselves very lucky.

JVP really needs a solid showing.

What's Coles done wrong?

We'll learn a lot about JVP this week, no doubt the Boks will be after him and he'll want to bounce back.

Better served if he doesn't get pinged incorrectly for a knock on and the ref doesn't let offside players charge him down too I reckon!

I don't see what Coles brings at 6 tbh.

It will be nice if JVP passes to his own players and not the opposition off 1st phase ball also. The aimless box kicks could perhaps stop too.

Big game for the lad, genuinely hope he's up to it.

Why oh why arent we just playing Jack f$£king Willis for one full f$%king game this AI!!!?????

If SA, NZ, AUS, etc etc had a player of his ability fit and raring to go...do you think they'd be giving him 6mins here and there then dropping him.

I'm starting think Hill's head is too small for Int rugby...he looks very odd on team sheets.

Geordie wrote:Why oh why arent we just playing Jack f$£king Willis for one full f$%king game this AI!!!?????

If SA, NZ, AUS, etc etc had a player of his ability fit and raring to go...do you think they'd be giving him 6mins here and there then dropping him.

Not quite Shakespearian, eh mate? But couldn't agree more.

Mako was very good off the bench last week I thought. He gets a lot of flack but he's played 9 Lions tests in a row for a reason. After Genge and Marler he's still our next best option by a distance IMO. Certainly a better player than Rodd who I do rate.

It's an unpopular argument I often make but the majority of the time scrums get criticised the glaring problem is actually error count leading to those scrums. It's really rare for scrums to dominate against the head now. Even the Boks do their damage on their own put in. My concern is very much on the dire error count leading to opposition scrums not the scrummaging.

France beat the Boks with a debutant LH playing most the game after Baille got injured. The Boks were missing Lood and Snyman but had the full bomb squad front row with Etzebeth and Mostert at lock so still an incredible tight five. The France tight five is pretty light as well these days in contrast to many England fans obsession with big locks. Woki is an incredible player and one of the best lineout jumpers ever but not big for a flanker let alone lock. Flament is a very talented player but hardly a monster in terms of bulk. Whilst Marchand is not a big hooker at all. Error count is the key not scrummaging.

Looking at that forwards bench I'd guess Jones is trying to counter the bomb squad in the second half. I've been wanting LCD and one of Genge/Sinckler on the bench for a wee while for impact in the second half. I feel it could be a better balance for the team.

Overall I love that Freeman is playing and think Coles could do well at 6. Happy that Maro is in the second row. Happy that George is starting for above reasons. Pleased that Ribbans has been retained.

As said previously I've lost faith that we have the players for the loose attacking structure to click though. Had our best wingers stayed fit and at their peaks for the last 18 months of this transition maybe it could have been different but I don't see it suddenly working.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I'm starting think Hill's head is too small for Int rugby...he looks very odd on team sheets.

Looks like it's further away from the camera than the rest of his body doesn't it?

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Pfffttt.....I think Hill, Coles, Tuilagi and JVP can count themselves very lucky.

JVP really needs a solid showing.

What's Coles done wrong?

We'll learn a lot about JVP this week, no doubt the Boks will be after him and he'll want to bounce back.

Better served if he doesn't get pinged incorrectly for a knock on and the ref doesn't let offside players charge him down too I reckon!

I don't see what Coles brings at 6 tbh.

It will be nice if JVP passes to his own players and not the opposition off 1st phase ball also. The aimless box kicks could perhaps stop too.

Big game for the lad, genuinely hope he's up to it.

This does mystify me tbh. I've seen players throw plenty of intercepts though. As for the kicking, depends if Jones changes the tactics. Freeman is far better in the air than Nowell and much quicker, so expect to see the same amount of kicking I'd say.

king_carlos wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I'm starting think Hill's head is too small for Int rugby...he looks very odd on team sheets.

Looks like it's further away from the camera than the rest of his body doesn't it?

I just think of beetlejuice everytime I see him.

This is off-topic from the curent conversation on selection for the weekend.

There's a lot of press again about how daft the RFU have been in not signing up Shaun Edwards to England. That completely misrepresents the negotiations between the two sides, Edwards had been offered a role with England at least two times, possible three, but the stars have never aligned. While most of the blame is down to the RFU, Edwards is also guilty of shifting the goal posts.

England wanted Edwards when he was at Wasps, but Edwards was insistent that he be allowed to take an England post alongside his Wasps job. That was never possible given the relationship between the Premiership and RFU at the time, notwithstanding the potential conflict of interest.

Still, the RFU did want him on board, and offered him the job of running the England Saxons, which he could do while staying with Wasps. Edwards apparently felt fobbed off with that offer, and elected to sign up with Gatland at Wales.

However, even Wales couldn't let Edwards keep coaching at Wasps, so it's hard to fault the RFU for recognizing that originally. Also, while Edwards might have seen the Saxons as a dead end, the RFU were actively looking to develop coaching talent through their age grade and sevens programmes. That's how Joe Lydon and, eventually, Stuart Lancaster found their way to the senior squad. The RFU wanted Edwards in the same system as that pair.

Edwards next offer from England was when Martin Johnson took over from Brian Ashton. Edwards turned England down, because he said he had just re-signed with Wales, and was a man of his word. That seemed like a very honourable stance. However, if Edwards really wanted to join the England set-up, then that was his best opportunity, because England offered him a blank cheque.

Edwards isn't a dishonourable man but it is nevertheless true that he later reneged on a contract with Wigan Rugby League to join France. Perhaps his view of employment loyalty changed over time.

The RFU might have approached Edwards when Lancaster took over but they could be forgiven for taking his previous rejection at face value. Instead, Lancaster pursued Andy Farrell, and it's hard to argue that was the wrong decision. Not only did Gatland prefer Farrell to Edwards fo his next two Lions tours, Farrell progressed much faster to national head coach.

So, should England have offered Edward a deal? For what? Edwards was contracted until the end of the 2023 World Cup. He wanted a long term deal for after that, and France have given him another four years.

England could have matched that four year deal but they could not have told him who he would be working with. Sure, they could have offered him the head coach job, but not many fans or pundits have argued that's his best role. Ultimately, England's ambitions and Edwards ambitions have just never been in synch. It's almost as if, to work with England, he has wanted England to value him more than any other employer, and not just in financial terms.

Rugby Fan wrote:This is off-topic from the curent conversation on selection for the weekend.

There's a lot of press again about how daft the RFU have been in not signing up Shaun Edwards to England. That completely misrepresents the negotiations between the two sides, Edwards had been offered a role with England at least two times, possible three, but the stars have never aligned. While most of the blame is down to the RFU, Edwards is also guilty of shifting the goal posts.

England wanted Edwards when he was at Wasps, but Edwards was insistent that he be allowed to take an England post alongside his Wasps job. That was never possible given the relationship between the Premiership and RFU at the time, notwithstanding the potential conflict of interest.

Still, the RFU did want him on board, and offered him the job of running the England Saxons, which he could do while staying with Wasps. Edwards apparently felt fobbed off with that offer, and elected to sign up with Gatland at Wales.

However, even Wales couldn't let Edwards keep coaching at Wasps, so it's hard to fault the RFU for recognizing that originally. Also, while Edwards might have seen the Saxons as a dead end, the RFU were actively looking to develop coaching talent through their age grade and sevens programmes. That's how Joe Lydon and, eventually, Stuart Lancaster found their way to the senior squad. The RFU wanted Edwards in the same system as that pair.

Edwards next offer from England was when Martin Johnson took over from Brian Ashton. Edwards turned England down, because he said he had just re-signed with Wales, and was a man of his word. That seemed like a very honourable stance. However, if Edwards really wanted to join the England set-up, then that was his best opportunity, because England offered him a blank cheque.

Edwards isn't a dishonourable man but it is nevertheless true that he later reneged on a contract with Wigan Rugby League to join France. Perhaps his view of employment loyalty changed over time.

The RFU might have approached Edwards when Lancaster took over but they could be forgiven for taking his previous rejection at face value. Instead, Lancaster pursued Andy Farrell, and it's hard to argue that was the wrong decision. Not only did Gatland prefer Farrell to Edwards fo his next two Lions tours, Farrell progressed much faster to national head coach.

So, should England have offered Edward a deal? For what? Edwards was contracted until the end of the 2023 World Cup. He wanted a long term deal for after that, and France have given him another four years.

England could have matched that four year deal but they could not have told him who he would be working with. Sure, they could have offered him the head coach job, but not many fans or pundits have argued that's his best role. Ultimately, England's ambitions and Edwards ambitions have just never been in synch. It's almost as if, to work with England, he has wanted England to value him more than any other employer, and not just in financial terms.

True for the past. But they've met in the past month by the sounds of it with timeframes of ending contracts on current England head coach and Edwards own contract, it could have been now. RFU chose to shortlist others, and seemingly not offer Edwards anything. Perhaps understandably they wouldn't want to offer a defence coach role without knowing who the main guy was.

Rugby Fan wrote:This is off-topic from the curent conversation on selection for the weekend.

There's a lot of press again about how daft the RFU have been in not signing up Shaun Edwards to England. That completely misrepresents the negotiations between the two sides, Edwards had been offered a role with England at least two times, possible three, but the stars have never aligned. While most of the blame is down to the RFU, Edwards is also guilty of shifting the goal posts.

England wanted Edwards when he was at Wasps, but Edwards was insistent that he be allowed to take an England post alongside his Wasps job. That was never possible given the relationship between the Premiership and RFU at the time, notwithstanding the potential conflict of interest.

Still, the RFU did want him on board, and offered him the job of running the England Saxons, which he could do while staying with Wasps. Edwards apparently felt fobbed off with that offer, and elected to sign up with Gatland at Wales.

However, even Wales couldn't let Edwards keep coaching at Wasps, so it's hard to fault the RFU for recognizing that originally. Also, while Edwards might have seen the Saxons as a dead end, the RFU were actively looking to develop coaching talent through their age grade and sevens programmes. That's how Joe Lydon and, eventually, Stuart Lancaster found their way to the senior squad. The RFU wanted Edwards in the same system as that pair.

Edwards next offer from England was when Martin Johnson took over from Brian Ashton. Edwards turned England down, because he said he had just re-signed with Wales, and was a man of his word. That seemed like a very honourable stance. However, if Edwards really wanted to join the England set-up, then that was his best opportunity, because England offered him a blank cheque.

Edwards isn't a dishonourable man but it is nevertheless true that he later reneged on a contract with Wigan Rugby League to join France. Perhaps his view of employment loyalty changed over time.

The RFU might have approached Edwards when Lancaster took over but they could be forgiven for taking his previous rejection at face value. Instead, Lancaster pursued Andy Farrell, and it's hard to argue that was the wrong decision. Not only did Gatland prefer Farrell to Edwards fo his next two Lions tours, Farrell progressed much faster to national head coach.

So, should England have offered Edward a deal? For what? Edwards was contracted until the end of the 2023 World Cup. He wanted a long term deal for after that, and France have given him another four years.

England could have matched that four year deal but they could not have told him who he would be working with. Sure, they could have offered him the head coach job, but not many fans or pundits have argued that's his best role. Ultimately, England's ambitions and Edwards ambitions have just never been in synch. It's almost as if, to work with England, he has wanted England to value him more than any other employer, and not just in financial terms.

Grass is always greener etc