The Official English Rugby Thread

[inactionman]

Ash the Splash has signed a short-term deal with Leicester.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/60324209

[JM2K6]

Can we talk about how mad this squad is? https://www.englandrugby.com/news/artic ... -test-talk

27 players. 16 forwards. 11 backs.

Forwards: 6 props. 3 hookers. 4 locks, all of them also covering blindside. No blindside. 1 openside. 2 number 8s.

Backs: 2 fly halves. 2 scrum halves. One specialist fullback. One 13 who can play back 3, one 13 who can play wing. One winger who plays a decent amount of 15 or sometimes 10. One 13 who can play 12. No specialist 12s. Two specialist wings, one of whom is slower than half our pack.

Pick the bones out of that one.

[Ovals]

Can we talk about how mad this squad is? https://www.englandrugby.com/news/artic ... -test-talk

27 players. 16 forwards. 11 backs.

Forwards: 6 props. 3 hookers. 4 locks, all of them also covering blindside. No blindside. 1 openside. 2 number 8s.

Backs: 2 fly halves. 2 scrum halves. One specialist fullback. One 13 who can play back 3, one 13 who can play wing. One winger who plays a decent amount of 15 or sometimes 10. One 13 who can play 12. No specialist 12s. Two specialist wings, one of whom is slower than half our pack.

Pick the bones out of that one.

And, your point is..............

[Kawazaki]

Can we talk about how mad this squad is? https://www.englandrugby.com/news/artic ... -test-talk

27 players. 16 forwards. 11 backs.

Forwards: 6 props. 3 hookers. 4 locks, all of them also covering blindside. No blindside. 1 openside. 2 number 8s.

Backs: 2 fly halves. 2 scrum halves. One specialist fullback. One 13 who can play back 3, one 13 who can play wing. One winger who plays a decent amount of 15 or sometimes 10. One 13 who can play 12. No specialist 12s. Two specialist wings, one of whom is slower than half our pack.

Pick the bones out of that one.

Andy Robinson - all is forgiven.

[Choc]

Can we talk about how mad this squad is? https://www.englandrugby.com/news/artic ... -test-talk

27 players. 16 forwards. 11 backs.

Forwards: 6 props. 3 hookers. 4 locks, all of them also covering blindside. No blindside. 1 openside. 2 number 8s.

Backs: 2 fly halves. 2 scrum halves. One specialist fullback. One 13 who can play back 3, one 13 who can play wing. One winger who plays a decent amount of 15 or sometimes 10. One 13 who can play 12. No specialist 12s. Two specialist wings, one of whom is slower than half our pack.

Pick the bones out of that one.

Add to that, there’s 3 backs out of the 11 who weren’t in the initial 45 man squad who have leapfrogged the players chosen ahead of them a matter of a couple of weeks ago.

It’s a shit show.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Bigger thing (imo) which stands out is just how few of the squad are proven quality test players. Maybe 9 of them, and not all of them will likely start and/or would be judged as playing well.

It's pretty much what we get from England, and why Eddie isn't wrong with his views on English rugby even if they're expressed at times in a manner lacking diplomacy. We've really good depth at a standard just that little bit off top level test talent, how much that's on club Vs country or just the players (and their development pathways) would be an ongoing debate. And you only need to be a little bit off to be inconsistent and even lose games you should win.

[Hal Jordan]

But the problem is also that a lot of them haven't really had a chance to prove if they're Test class or not.

For all that Jones has brought through new players, he has also shown real reluctance to move on from certain favourites or just stubbornly playing others out of position.

Simmonds should have double the caps he has by now, if not more, but Jones decided to pick a past it Billy V and then select Curry instead, talking total bullshit about his world class credentials at 8. The only tested alternative to Youngs, Care, was cast aside for a shit performance, OK, fine, happens to lots of players. But Youngs has farted out garbage of an equal or lesser value many times more, but no one has been given a chance to get anything more than a couple of minutes to shake the splinters out of their arse. The continued selection of Daly at full back. Not wingers on the wings. No viable inside centre alternative to Farrell as a revolving door of replacements when he was injured or on Lions duty got a couple of caps.

I admit there have been some injuries and absences that haven't helped, I doubt anyone banked on Kruis and Launchbury both being unavailable so we have to rely on Louis Deacon tribute act Ewels. Underhill's form fell off a cliff and he appears to be turning into an injury magnet, but where's the genuine blindside to step in (for the record, I do not consider Lawes a genuine blindside and selecting him there adds to the problems at lock).

Bah!

[JM2K6]

Yeah, exactly. It's absurd to say Eddie's right when the problem is he has refused to give these guys a proper chance.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Whatever the build up this isn't a proven group of players. They might of course push even on and never look back, just there's a lot of history for many sides saying that will not be the case.

Still that seems the bigger problem, that the car isn't very good, not that it's the wrong colour

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Eddie is right that English rugby isn't very good, and for him how that impacts the path into test rugby.

He's often wrong with many of his selections and style of play for me, something that goes back to game 1 for mine right through the opening GS win, the winning tour to OZ et al. He's questionable at best on his coaching team, and he's got some distinct personality traits for better or worse. There's still a lot about Eddie I like, but you could put anyone in charge this 6N and they don't have a strong 30-35 players to be picking from, and the current squad looks particularly exposed even if accepting it's the start of the build up to the WC when Eddie want a refresh

[sockwithaticket]

I don't agree that we have insufficient players of test quality.

Precious few players of any nationality both tear it up domestically and take to international rugby like a duck to water. What we often get badly wrong is giving players enough of a run to bed themselves in. An awful lot of players have had 1 or 2 caps only to never be seen again while others have had their 5 - 10 really spaced out.

Eddie's environment over the last few years, partly influenced by covid, is hardly what I'd call high performance either. Lots of back room turmoil and the staff are often not particularly noteworthy names. Some of them have been very green to be taking on a tier 1 national team like England. I don't think that kind of coaching disruption helps anyone progress or maximise their potential.

[Kawazaki]

Bigger thing (imo) which stands out is just how few of the squad are proven quality test players. Maybe 9 of them, and not all of them will likely start and/or would be judged as playing well.

It's pretty much what we get from England, and why Eddie isn't wrong with his views on English rugby even if they're expressed at times in a manner lacking diplomacy. We've really good depth at a standard just that little bit off top level test talent, how much that's on club Vs country or just the players (and their development pathways) would be an ongoing debate. And you only need to be a little bit off to be inconsistent and even lose games you should win.

You might have a point of it weren't for players who were developed in the same system, same pathways, who then play for Wales or Scotland instead and look like worldies.

[Slick]

From an outsiders view the absolute refusal to give any other 9’s any decent game time is just utterly baffling. Even if Eddie decides Youngs is his no1 there has been loads of opportunities to give others a go that he hasn’t taken.

I’m actually a fan of Farrell but he has acted like a comfort blanket in that he can cover 10 and 12 so no need to develop anything below him.

The one that still amazes me is Tuilagi and everyone takes the blame for this, Eddie, media, supporters. The team should have moved on from him at least 5 years ago and accepted he wasn’t going to be part of the future. But instead the whole development of the backs has been curtailed waiting for Manu to come back and take the world by storm and fix all the issues. He’s not coming back and hasn’t been for a long time.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Bigger thing (imo) which stands out is just how few of the squad are proven quality test players. Maybe 9 of them, and not all of them will likely start and/or would be judged as playing well.

It's pretty much what we get from England, and why Eddie isn't wrong with his views on English rugby even if they're expressed at times in a manner lacking diplomacy. We've really good depth at a standard just that little bit off top level test talent, how much that's on club Vs country or just the players (and their development pathways) would be an ongoing debate. And you only need to be a little bit off to be inconsistent and even lose games you should win.

You might have a point of it weren't for players who were developed in the same system, same pathways, who then play for Wales or Scotland instead and look like worldies.

Someone should send Michael Winner around to suggest you calm down, because no, no they don't.

There are 2 sides going well in the 6N, Ireland who've developed a nice speed on play the ball, and France (and actually France run some very similar plays to England, just with more players who win contact). England would likely be up with them if we focussed more on our test side, but we don't, and that isn't altogether a bad thing, I'm accepting the clubs are their own priority and don't exist just to serve the national side, clearly we've enough depth we sometimes challenge, but we're inconsistent in results and often somewhat pish to watch.

And we've lacked quality in the test arena for pretty much 20 years, so this isn't a new thing or an Eddie thing. It's seemingly the intent, or we're just doing the same stuff over and over hoping this time things will be different, and unless our big ball carrier are fit and playing well things tend not to be different because we're not great at rugby, just alright

[JM2K6]

From an outsiders view the absolute refusal to give any other 9’s any decent game time is just utterly baffling. Even if Eddie decides Youngs is his no1 there has been loads of opportunities to give others a go that he hasn’t taken.

I’m actually a fan of Farrell but he has acted like a comfort blanket in that he can cover 10 and 12 so no need to develop anything below him.

The one that still amazes me is Tuilagi and everyone takes the blame for this, Eddie, media, supporters. The team should have moved on from him at least 5 years ago and accepted he wasn’t going to be part of the future. But instead the whole development of the backs has been curtailed waiting for Manu to come back and take the world by storm and fix all the issues. He’s not coming back and hasn’t been for a long time.

Hey I said a while back we should move on from Manu!! :-(

TBF he was a decent part of why we made it to the world cup final in 2019, so it's not like he's James Simpson-Daniel - but the larger point is there's no-one else quite like Manu so we absolutely should've developed proper alternatives not just in personnel but in approach.

[JM2K6]

Bigger thing (imo) which stands out is just how few of the squad are proven quality test players. Maybe 9 of them, and not all of them will likely start and/or would be judged as playing well.

It's pretty much what we get from England, and why Eddie isn't wrong with his views on English rugby even if they're expressed at times in a manner lacking diplomacy. We've really good depth at a standard just that little bit off top level test talent, how much that's on club Vs country or just the players (and their development pathways) would be an ongoing debate. And you only need to be a little bit off to be inconsistent and even lose games you should win.

You might have a point of it weren't for players who were developed in the same system, same pathways, who then play for Wales or Scotland instead and look like worldies.

Someone should send Michael Winner around to suggest you calm down, because no, no they don't.

There are 2 sides going well in the 6N, Ireland who've developed a nice speed on play the ball, and France (and actually France run some very similar plays to England, just with more players who win contact). England would likely be up with them if we focussed more on our test side, but we don't, and that isn't altogether a bad thing, I'm accepting the clubs are their own priority and don't exist just to serve the national side, clearly we've enough depth we sometimes challenge, but we're inconsistent in results and often somewhat pish to watch.

And we've lacked quality in the test arena for pretty much 20 years, so this isn't a new thing or an Eddie thing. It's seemingly the intent, or we're just doing the same stuff over and over hoping this time things will be different, and unless our big ball carrier are fit and playing well things tend not to be different because we're not great at rugby, just alright

I wondered when we'd get to this point. From memory you don't rate anyone ever. It kinda makes this whole argument pointless. A world cup win and two finals with a couple of grand slams and that away massacring of Australia in those 20 years we've lacked quality, fwiw

[Paddington Bear]

I think it's also worth adding in that we beat France last year, won 4/5? in a row against Ireland until the loss last year, won the 6N in 2020 and reached a world cup final in 2019, including probably the greatest performance by an England team in at least 15 years along the way. We were also looking decent value for our lead Saturday for most of the game, not that it matters now.
There are things going wrong no doubt but we do need some perspective.

[Kawazaki]

I think it's also worth adding in that we beat France last year, won 4/5? in a row against Ireland until the loss last year, won the 6N in 2020 and reached a world cup final in 2019, including probably the greatest performance by an England team in at least 15 years along the way. We were also looking decent value for our lead Saturday for most of the game, not that it matters now.
There are things going wrong no doubt but we do need some perspective.

Yeah. It's the hope that will kill you with Eddie Jones.

He's not right. All the signs are there. Red flags all over the place. We all know it, even those who like Jones.

[Prembore]

There are enough players in the prem who could become test standard, I believe, but very few players come ready made for tests and start performing at that level from the off. English rugby's perennial problem is that if you want to tinker you can, because there's always another player around the corner.

I would have no problem with Eddie if a) he identified a group of players he wants to become the test squad long term and settled on them, and b) he selected players in their positions.

I don't know if the stats back it up but my impression is that Eddie has gone through a hell of a lot more players during his time in charge than Wales or Ireland in the same time frame.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

You might have a point of it weren't for players who were developed in the same system, same pathways, who then play for Wales or Scotland instead and look like worldies.

Someone should send Michael Winner around to suggest you calm down, because no, no they don't.

There are 2 sides going well in the 6N, Ireland who've developed a nice speed on play the ball, and France (and actually France run some very similar plays to England, just with more players who win contact). England would likely be up with them if we focussed more on our test side, but we don't, and that isn't altogether a bad thing, I'm accepting the clubs are their own priority and don't exist just to serve the national side, clearly we've enough depth we sometimes challenge, but we're inconsistent in results and often somewhat pish to watch.

And we've lacked quality in the test arena for pretty much 20 years, so this isn't a new thing or an Eddie thing. It's seemingly the intent, or we're just doing the same stuff over and over hoping this time things will be different, and unless our big ball carrier are fit and playing well things tend not to be different because we're not great at rugby, just alright

I wondered when we'd get to this point. From memory you don't rate anyone ever. It kinda makes this whole argument pointless. A world cup win and two finals with a couple of grand slams and that away massacring of Australia in those 20 years we've lacked quality, fwiw

Pretty much 20 years. The side which won the WC was excellent, apart from oddly in 2003 when the pressure understandably got to them, and too Clive took over coaching the backs from Ashton, and even then they won crunch game after crunch game

And we have some excellent players now, and a few not available who've shown they can be World Class either injured or we've seemingly moved on from. But that still leaves most of the squad as being unproven as quality test players, whether because like Ewels they're unlikely to ever show that or like Smith they simply haven't had the time to, and in that I am merely noting looking at a squad so lacking in proven talent that seems a bigger issue then whether they've got 4 locks who can cover blindside or 2 locks and 2 blindsides.

Put another way, if this was the cricket side arguing over the order of the batting lineup isn't going change a number of them just lack ability at the very highest level. If wanting to try and be positive about it one could say we're 12-18 months behind France bringing through a new generation and style of play, okay I'm not sure we've quite the same talent pool to draw on, I'm not sure why we hung on to the Vunipolas so long to do this now, and I'm not sure the style of play we used at the weekend suits the selection we had

And I'd accept I'm not leaping at the chance to praise people, but I can see positives, I've noted on a number of instances the attack patterns we had in the last 6N were actually very interesting. And that doesn't seem overly negative, I was being positive about their attack play even with the poor results staring one in the face. Though much like ditching the Vunipolas it does seem now like we were rather wasting our time and Eddie should have move the whole show along earlier given what's happening now.

So really two issues for England, does Eddie understand what he's trying to do in coaching and selection, and wider than Eddie can we improve the delivery of players through our top domestic comp to be better prepared for test rugby, such that at some point the new Eddie doesn't take flak for trying to up their fitness levels to the point they can play test rugby, and with a better skill base to draw on. We are improving in this, perhaps not a surprise for a newly emerging pro sport, but so are others.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

There are enough players in the prem who could become test standard, I believe,

I agree. But as is they are not.

If test rugby is about producing results you'd get graded on at 90% and above we're really well setup to produce players who score above 80%, bloody amazing players, just not so much quite at the elite level, then they're more okay/average

And the structure looks better set to perpetuate giving us a raft of such players, granted with some stars in say an Itoje or Curry

[Slick]

From an outsiders view the absolute refusal to give any other 9’s any decent game time is just utterly baffling. Even if Eddie decides Youngs is his no1 there has been loads of opportunities to give others a go that he hasn’t taken.

I’m actually a fan of Farrell but he has acted like a comfort blanket in that he can cover 10 and 12 so no need to develop anything below him.

The one that still amazes me is Tuilagi and everyone takes the blame for this, Eddie, media, supporters. The team should have moved on from him at least 5 years ago and accepted he wasn’t going to be part of the future. But instead the whole development of the backs has been curtailed waiting for Manu to come back and take the world by storm and fix all the issues. He’s not coming back and hasn’t been for a long time.

Hey I said a while back we should move on from Manu!! :-(

TBF he was a decent part of why we made it to the world cup final in 2019, so it's not like he's James Simpson-Daniel - but the larger point is there's no-one else quite like Manu so we absolutely should've developed proper alternatives not just in personnel but in approach.

Yes, that's the big issue, when he is there he genuinely makes an impact. I was just astonished reading, I think Owen Slot, and A N Other, at the weekend that they were still banging on about him nearly being ready to come back. Move on.

[sockwithaticket]

From an outsiders view the absolute refusal to give any other 9’s any decent game time is just utterly baffling. Even if Eddie decides Youngs is his no1 there has been loads of opportunities to give others a go that he hasn’t taken.

I’m actually a fan of Farrell but he has acted like a comfort blanket in that he can cover 10 and 12 so no need to develop anything below him.

The one that still amazes me is Tuilagi and everyone takes the blame for this, Eddie, media, supporters. The team should have moved on from him at least 5 years ago and accepted he wasn’t going to be part of the future. But instead the whole development of the backs has been curtailed waiting for Manu to come back and take the world by storm and fix all the issues. He’s not coming back and hasn’t been for a long time.

Hey I said a while back we should move on from Manu!! :-(

TBF he was a decent part of why we made it to the world cup final in 2019, so it's not like he's James Simpson-Daniel - but the larger point is there's no-one else quite like Manu so we absolutely should've developed proper alternatives not just in personnel but in approach.

Yes, that's the big issue, when he is there he genuinely makes an impact. I was just astonished reading, I think Owen Slot, and A N Other, at the weekend that they were still banging on about him nearly being ready to come back. Move on.

Plenty of journos are a lot more interested in narrative and stories than demonstrating any actual rugby knowledge. The rollercoaster of Manu's availability makes for a readily craftable story that helps hit the word count.

I'm another in the camp that years ago we should've developed a play style that works with the centres we have. A lot of seasons and caps have been wasted trying to find Manu-lite (Te'o and Lawrence for example).

[Kawazaki]

The English centre conundrum deserves a thread of its own really.

Carling/Guscott
Greenwood/Tindall

Beyond those two pairs, it's difficult to really think of another pair that were both enduring and effective.

[Oxbow]

How many times did Manu and Joseph play together?

[JM2K6]

Someone should send Michael Winner around to suggest you calm down, because no, no they don't.

There are 2 sides going well in the 6N, Ireland who've developed a nice speed on play the ball, and France (and actually France run some very similar plays to England, just with more players who win contact). England would likely be up with them if we focussed more on our test side, but we don't, and that isn't altogether a bad thing, I'm accepting the clubs are their own priority and don't exist just to serve the national side, clearly we've enough depth we sometimes challenge, but we're inconsistent in results and often somewhat pish to watch.

And we've lacked quality in the test arena for pretty much 20 years, so this isn't a new thing or an Eddie thing. It's seemingly the intent, or we're just doing the same stuff over and over hoping this time things will be different, and unless our big ball carrier are fit and playing well things tend not to be different because we're not great at rugby, just alright

I wondered when we'd get to this point. From memory you don't rate anyone ever. It kinda makes this whole argument pointless. A world cup win and two finals with a couple of grand slams and that away massacring of Australia in those 20 years we've lacked quality, fwiw

Pretty much 20 years. The side which won the WC was excellent, apart from oddly in 2003 when the pressure understandably got to them, and too Clive took over coaching the backs from Ashton, and even then they won crunch game after crunch game

And we have some excellent players now, and a few not available who've shown they can be World Class either injured or we've seemingly moved on from. But that still leaves most of the squad as being unproven as quality test players, whether because like Ewels they're unlikely to ever show that or like Smith they simply haven't had the time to, and in that I am merely noting looking at a squad so lacking in proven talent that seems a bigger issue then whether they've got 4 locks who can cover blindside or 2 locks and 2 blindsides.

Put another way, if this was the cricket side arguing over the order of the batting lineup isn't going change a number of them just lack ability at the very highest level. If wanting to try and be positive about it one could say we're 12-18 months behind France bringing through a new generation and style of play, okay I'm not sure we've quite the same talent pool to draw on, I'm not sure why we hung on to the Vunipolas so long to do this now, and I'm not sure the style of play we used at the weekend suits the selection we had

And I'd accept I'm not leaping at the chance to praise people, but I can see positives, I've noted on a number of instances the attack patterns we had in the last 6N were actually very interesting. And that doesn't seem overly negative, I was being positive about their attack play even with the poor results staring one in the face. Though much like ditching the Vunipolas it does seem now like we were rather wasting our time and Eddie should have move the whole show along earlier given what's happening now.

So really two issues for England, does Eddie understand what he's trying to do in coaching and selection, and wider than Eddie can we improve the delivery of players through our top domestic comp to be better prepared for test rugby, such that at some point the new Eddie doesn't take flak for trying to up their fitness levels to the point they can play test rugby, and with a better skill base to draw on. We are improving in this, perhaps not a surprise for a newly emerging pro sport, but so are others.

You can actually be annoyed about two different things at the same time.

1) "that still leaves most of the squad as being unproven as quality test players, whether because like Ewels they're unlikely to ever show that or like Smith they simply haven't had the time to"

This is the criticism that people are making of Eddie. Everyone is critical of him for discarding players so quickly, and having limpet-like attachment to several players who repeatedly fail but repeatedly get given excuses, and refusing to develop players in key roles where there's serious talent waiting to be given a proper go. Your comment is a direct criticism of Eddie's approach, not "we just don't have the players". Eddie wants a specific type of player that can put up with all of his bullshit and the ridiculous grind of his 'preparation', so what we're really lacking is enough good players who fit that particular bill.

2) "I am merely noting looking at a squad so lacking in proven talent that seems a bigger issue then whether they've got 4 locks who can cover blindside or 2 locks and 2 blindsides"

Forgive me for daring to point out that the 27 man squad we've got in the lead up to this match is a fucking mess, but it turns out you can actually hold opinions on all of these things. We're not going to fix Eddie's long-term fuckups with regards to player development in a week. The selection of a training squad before the final squad is announced is a more immediate thing, and hand-waving away the fact that we don't have a specialist 6 or a specialist 12 in that squad because of Eddie's wider problems is just irritating. It doesn't counter the point I'm making and all it does is just all you to do your eeyore impression wrt to English rugby as a whole.

Not having a 6 and not having a 12 because Eddie's a toxic shitbag who's burned bridges with seriously talented operators (e.g. Lozowski) or because he'd rather pick players out of position than actually give a specialist a fair shake (Ted Hill) or even pick someone with loads of experience there who offers proven cover for another player in the back row (Ben Curry) is not a healthy position to be in.

We all know there's a shortage of EQP 12s and 6s. That's not the same as literally not having anyone. Atkinson and Lozowski are good 12s with very different skillsets. Devoto would do a job. Ben Curry is a fine player. Tom Willis has decent experience at 6 and is a quality player, although it's his brother we really miss. Ted Hill is a beast who's been given almost no chance to show what he can offer against decent opposition.

[geordie_6]

1. Ellis Genge (VC)

2. Jamie George

3. Will Stuart

4. Charlie Ewels

5. Nick Isiekwe

6. Maro Itoje

7. Tom Curry (C)

8. Alex Dombrandt

9. Harry Randall

10. Marcus Smith

11. Jack Nowell

12. Henry Slade (VC)

13. Joe Marchant

14. Max Malins

15. Freddie Steward

Finishers

16. Luke Cowan-Dickie (VC)

17. Joe Marler

18. Kyle Sinckler

19. Ollie Chessum

20. Sam Simmonds

21. Ben Youngs

22. George Ford

23. Elliot Daly

https://www.englandrugby.com/news/artic ... names-team

[Crash669]

The English centre conundrum deserves a thread of its own really.

Carling/Guscott
Greenwood/Tindall

Beyond those two pairs, it's difficult to really think of another pair that were both enduring and effective.

Noon/Tindall

[JM2K6]

Good luck Harry, this is one of the 3 starts you'll get before the next WC.

[Ovals]

There are enough players in the prem who could become test standard, I believe,

I agree. But as is they are not.

If test rugby is about producing results you'd get graded on at 90% and above we're really well setup to produce players who score above 80%, bloody amazing players, just not so much quite at the elite level, then they're more okay/average

And the structure looks better set to perpetuate giving us a raft of such players, granted with some stars in say an Itoje or Curry

It's, sometimes, very hard to know if our players are capable (and ready) to play at the +90% level when they are so often played out of position.

We see someone like Steward come in, and excel, in the position he plays week in, week out, for his club. We see Slade develop into an extremely good international 13 - again, wher ehe plays for his club. Daly's form fell off a cliff when he was moved to a position he had no experience of. Curry is a world class 7 - but just a passable 8, where he keeps getting played by Eddie. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the drift.

Personally I think have plenty of excellent talent available, were we to play players where they are experienced - with just one or two positions lacking - and, even in those positions, such as SH, we'd be fine if Eddie took the opportunities to bring through another option, rather than stubbornly sticking with a SH who simply isn't good enough.

[JM2K6]

Players are also supposed to develop and improve in an international environment. No-one expects a player to peak in their first handful of starts.

[Ovals]

Good luck Harry, this is one of the 3 starts you'll get before the next WC.

Well, that's a positive, at least. But, to counter that, he's put Itoge at 6 and playing the empty shirt, Ewels at Lock. He probably wants a more line out jumpers but Backrow isn't an area where we don't have plenty of very good resources that would enable us to have players in their best positions.

[Crash669]

There are enough players in the prem who could become test standard, I believe,

I agree. But as is they are not.

If test rugby is about producing results you'd get graded on at 90% and above we're really well setup to produce players who score above 80%, bloody amazing players, just not so much quite at the elite level, then they're more okay/average

And the structure looks better set to perpetuate giving us a raft of such players, granted with some stars in say an Itoje or Curry

You've created a self fulfilling prophecy by deciding players aren't good enough to be internationals, justifying not giving them a chance, and pointing to their lack of international experience as a reason to not pick them. To win a world cup you need a handful of players who are either the best in the world or very close to it, and for the rest of the team to be very good at their job even if they're not at that level. We won a world cup with Iain Balshaw on the field.

I still think the 2017 tour to Argentina was one of England's best results under Eddie because a callow side was allowed to play with some freedom because Eddie's favourites weren't there, but those players only got blooded because Eddie had no option. There are players from that tour who should have been built into planning for 2023, but instead they were binned or, even more annoyingly, are only now getting another chance. There's no way Lozowski is a worse player now than in 2017, but Eddie has decided he's in your category of not good enough for international rugby and he's using his own refusal to select him to prove it.

[ASMO]

1. Ellis Genge (VC)

2. Jamie George

3. Will Stuart

4. Charlie Ewels

5. Nick Isiekwe

6. Maro Itoje

7. Tom Curry (C)

8. Alex Dombrandt

9. Harry Randall

10. Marcus Smith

11. Jack Nowell

12. Henry Slade (VC)

13. Joe Marchant

14. Max Malins

15. Freddie Steward

Finishers

16. Luke Cowan-Dickie (VC)

17. Joe Marler

18. Kyle Sinckler

19. Ollie Chessum

20. Sam Simmonds

21. Ben Youngs

22. George Ford

23. Elliot Daly

https://www.englandrugby.com/news/artic ... names-team

I could live with that backline if you swapped Nowell with Radwan, we are really light on pace otherwise. Second row just shows how empty the shelves are. I still remain to be convinced by Will Stuart.

[sockwithaticket]

Can a Sarries supporter tell us the last time Itoje played 6? I thought if anyone shifted there these days it was Isiekwe.

Don't see the point of bringing Nowell in against Italy. I'm also of the opinion he's a player we should have moved beyond by now. I don't think Malins and Steward are quick enough to compensate for a back three player that slow.

Slade as VC is a little surprising.

Pleasantly surprised that Randall gets a start.

Otherwise, meh. It's a good enough team to give Italy a right royal fucking, but our capacity to get in our own way can't be discarded.

[JM2K6]

Marchant and Malins make for a rapid duo at 13/14, Smith's pacey for a 10, Dombrandt's pretty quick. But yes, very little pace overall and I honestly think Nowell has been selected on faith because he's not looked international class for a while.

Good luck Harry, this is one of the 3 starts you'll get before the next WC.

Well, that's a positive, at least. But, to counter that, he's put Itoge at 6 and playing the empty shirt, Ewels at Lock. He probably wants a more line out jumpers but Backrow isn't an area where we don't have plenty of very good resources that would enable us to have players in their best positions.

Oh it's very much a "give some squad players a runout in some positions" kind of half-arsed approach - there's absolutely no way this is what he'd pick if we were playing anyone but Italy. I'm glad Randall starts of course.

[ASMO]

Can a Sarries supporter tell us the last time Itoje played 6? I thought if anyone shifted there these days it was Isiekwe.

Don't see the point of bringing Nowell in against Italy. I'm also of the opinion he's a player we should have moved beyond by now. I don't think Malins and Steward are quick enough to compensate for a back three player that slow.

Slade as VC is a little surprising.

Pleasantly surprised that Randall gets a start.

Otherwise, meh. It's a good enough team to give Italy a right royal fucking, but our capacity to get in our own way can't be discarded.

Expect Randall to be subbed 20 mins in when he hasnt kicked all the good ball away.

[Lobby]

Good luck Harry, this is one of the 3 starts you'll get before the next WC.

Well, that's a positive, at least. But, to counter that, he's put Itoge at 6 and playing the empty shirt, Ewels at Lock. He probably wants a more line out jumpers but Backrow isn't an area where we don't have plenty of very good resources that would enable us to have players in their best positions.

With Ludlam out injured and Lawes unavailable, and with no other 6's retained in the squad, it was always likely that he was going to pick one of the remaining locks at 6. It was either that or one of Simmonds or Dombrandt there.

With that one exception (Itoje/Ewels), this looks a better balanced side than the one he played against Scotland.

[Ovals]

Can a Sarries supporter tell us the last time Itoje played 6? I thought if anyone shifted there these days it was Isiekwe.

Don't see the point of bringing Nowell in against Italy. I'm also of the opinion he's a player we should have moved beyond by now. I don't think Malins and Steward are quick enough to compensate for a back three player that slow.

Slade as VC is a little surprising.

Pleasantly surprised that Randall gets a start.

Otherwise, meh. It's a good enough team to give Italy a right royal fucking, but our capacity to get in our own way can't be discarded.

Expect Randall to be subbed 20 mins in when he hasnt kicked all the good ball away.

The problem here is that there's nothing Randall can do, no matter how brilliantly he plays, that will prevent Youngs starting the next 3 games. A mistake, or two, however, will probably condemn him to Eddie's ever growing llist of discards.

[ASMO]

Oh how i yearn for the day when the name Ben Youngs does not appear anywhere in the squad