The Official English Rugby Thread

[ASMO]

It was fucking Georgia and we were insipid, stilted, and very negative. No one deserved "immense".

I don’t disagree it was disappointing on numerous levels, but this was a just a whingefest in my opinion. You know your Rugby ; you must know there were positives and achievements?

Not really? You have to take the opposition into account. I'd be clutching at straws.

The only achievement was the win, and lets be clear, this was against a team who Scotland put 47 points on. England only won the second half 14-0, that is by any standards an abyssmal performance.

The pack (with the exception of Billy V who looked fat and uninterested) and Joseph are pretty much the only part of the team that came out with any credit. The backs were just unbelievably bad, Youngs with his glacial inaccurate passing, Farrell with all the creativity and threat of a cabbage, Ollie Lawrence largly unseen because of the twat playing inside him, Slade who's passing rivalled Youngs for its inaccuracy and who was once again shown up defensively, May who was largly anon except for chasing kicks, Elliot who is a very poor man's Watson. You might make a case for the outside backs if you got rid of Youngs and Farrell at 10, but otherwise it is sterile, kick and chase, and kick even when there is an overlap type rugby.

[Margin__Walker]

Billy has been off the pace for a while now (compared to his old self anyway)

I'd happily go with a Underhill, Willis, Curry back row. It's a bit hybrid, but would off a lot for me. I think Simmonds would actually deserve a shot in front of Billy at the moment, but he doesn't seem to do it for Eddie.

[Hal Jordan]

Jones back row preference from day one has been a big 8 (Billy V or his nearest non-union Mexican equivalent) and two huge engine grafters at 6 and 7, preferably with one being a smash tackler (Robshaw, Haskell, Underhill, Curry). Can't see him changing now.

What was so frustrating was the constant kicking from everyone everywhere. Fucking Johnny May was at it. Johnny May, shit off a shovel fast, with a man outside him and a chance to test the Georgian defence early on, what does he do? Kick to the corner. Farrell on turnover ball, men outside and a chance to go? Territory kick. When we're four scores ahead against a team who were valiant but offered little threat barring a few rumbles. It was pathetic.

[sockwithaticket]

Billy has been off the pace for a while now (compared to his old self anyway)

I'd happily go with a Underhill, Willis, Curry back row. It's a bit hybrid, but would off a lot for me. I think Simmonds would actually deserve a shot in front of Billy at the moment, but he doesn't seem to do it for Eddie.

They all have a lot more to their game than Billy and he just doesn't seem to be effective enough while carrying to justify inclusion ahead of other, more well rounded players. Also chuck Earl into the mix.

[Niegs]

[Paddington Bear]

For me, Billy seems to be playing much more like he was pre-Eddie. In 2015 Ben Morgan was the better player, Billy's big positive was size. We're in a similar position now for me.

[sockwithaticket]

For me, Billy seems to be playing much more like he was pre-Eddie. In 2015 Ben Morgan was the better player, Billy's big positive was size. We're in a similar position now for me.

Pre-world cup Ben Morgan. The one who just about made it over his injury and went to the tournament was a shadow of himself. Billy was proper good for a couple of years of Lancaster's tenure too, able to go the 80 with all action performances rather than just plodding carrying as we seem to get now, it wasn't just under Eddie.

Downfall started with the arm breaks. He's had peaks and troughs since coming back from them, but his ceiling seems to have permanently lowered.

[Margin__Walker]

I mention it as a big fan. For three or four years he was one of the first names on the teamsheet, able to put in huge 80 minute performances consistently.

I've just not seen it for a while now and he's just not putting in those dominant performances.

[Paddington Bear]

It actually struck me in the Final when we were camped on their line and he got smashed backwards - not what he was for sure.

[tc27]

My impression is he gets smashed backward a lot these days too - often because (in fairness) he often seems to take the first easily anticipated carry right into the gut of the oppositions forwards but also i think its fair to say he lacks the dynamism he used to have in contact situations.

I think he was so good that coaches are willing to give him endless chances to play himself back into form.

This is a totally subjective observation but to me it looks like he's stopped enjoying himself on the pitch .

[Kawazaki]

It's lazy coaching from Jones.

He picks huge lumps, gets his half backs to kick the leather off everything, chase the kicks hard to make the opposition forwards run further to get onside, get the penalties for holding on/side entry. Kick to touch then throw for catch-and-drive. Use the big lumps to carry the ball-up on slow ball, reset then kick. Repeat.

That is literally the Jones template for England at the moment - he's been here for 5 fucking years. It's dross. I reckon he is on a performance-related salary and there's a big lump back-ended. He' playing the most low-risk way not to lose. It's abysmal rugby.

He's just passing time, earning the big bucks with zero fucks given for the show.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

One of the things it is from Jones is incredibly detailed and not in the slightest bit lazy. For sure it's a way of playing lots of people will not enjoy, I'd prefer they looked to play the ball more and to keep it alive more, yet for all that this is probably the most hard working coach we've had

[Ovals]

It's lazy coaching from Jones.

He picks huge lumps, gets his half backs to kick the leather off everything, chase the kicks hard to make the opposition forwards run further to get onside, get the penalties for holding on/side entry. Kick to touch then throw for catch-and-drive. Use the big lumps to carry the ball-up on slow ball, reset then kick. Repeat.

That is literally the Jones template for England at the moment - he's been here for 5 fucking years. It's dross. I reckon he is on a performance-related salary and there's a big lump back-ended. He' playing the most low-risk way not to lose. It's abysmal rugby.

He's just passing time, earning the big bucks with zero fucks given for the show.

Can't see that changing much while Youngs and Farrell occupy 9 and 10. Bosh, kick, chase and tackle is the gameplan - not seen much evidence of a plan B.

[Kawazaki]

One of the things it is from Jones is incredibly detailed and not in the slightest bit lazy. For sure it's a way of playing lots of people will not enjoy, I'd prefer they looked to play the ball more and to keep it alive more, yet for all that this is probably the most hard working coach we've had

Hardest working means fuck all. A junior doctor works hard but I wouldn't want him doing brain surgery.

[Glaston]

One of the things it is from Jones is incredibly detailed and not in the slightest bit lazy. For sure it's a way of playing lots of people will not enjoy, I'd prefer they looked to play the ball more and to keep it alive more, yet for all that this is probably the most hard working coach we've had

Read somewhere that Jones had said "statistically the team that kicks the most, wins ".

[Rhubarb & Custard]

One of the things it is from Jones is incredibly detailed and not in the slightest bit lazy. For sure it's a way of playing lots of people will not enjoy, I'd prefer they looked to play the ball more and to keep it alive more, yet for all that this is probably the most hard working coach we've had

Hardest working means fuck all. A junior doctor works hard but I wouldn't want him doing brain surgery.

Your objection, as stated anyway, was that it's lazy coaching from Jones, and patently that's not the case. I don't know if laziness remains your objection now you're saying hardest working means not a lot.

I suspect your objection is you don't think it's the most entertaining coaching from Jones, which is still a bit odd if I've understood correctly you enjoy seeing Saracens play, they have a lot of similar strengths. England don't look quite as good as often as they tend to play sides that are better in relative terms than Sarries do

[Ovals]

One of the things it is from Jones is incredibly detailed and not in the slightest bit lazy. For sure it's a way of playing lots of people will not enjoy, I'd prefer they looked to play the ball more and to keep it alive more, yet for all that this is probably the most hard working coach we've had

Hardest working means fuck all. A junior doctor works hard but I wouldn't want him doing brain surgery.

Your objection, as stated anyway, was that it's lazy coaching from Jones, and patently that's not the case. I don't know if laziness remains your objection now you're saying hardest working means not a lot.

I suspect your objection is you don't think it's the most entertaining coaching from Jones, which is still a bit odd if I've understood correctly you enjoy seeing Saracens play, they have a lot of similar strengths. England don't look quite as good as often as they tend to play sides that are better in relative terms than Sarries do

You don't reckon that Sarries would have beaten Georgia just as, or more, comfortably than England did ?

[Rhubarb & Custard]

One of the things it is from Jones is incredibly detailed and not in the slightest bit lazy. For sure it's a way of playing lots of people will not enjoy, I'd prefer they looked to play the ball more and to keep it alive more, yet for all that this is probably the most hard working coach we've had

Read somewhere that Jones had said "statistically the team that kicks the most, wins ".

When all the top teams kick it's sort of self fulfilling. But it's also pretty accurate, especially when defences are so quick to recover

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Hardest working means fuck all. A junior doctor works hard but I wouldn't want him doing brain surgery.

Your objection, as stated anyway, was that it's lazy coaching from Jones, and patently that's not the case. I don't know if laziness remains your objection now you're saying hardest working means not a lot.

I suspect your objection is you don't think it's the most entertaining coaching from Jones, which is still a bit odd if I've understood correctly you enjoy seeing Saracens play, they have a lot of similar strengths. England don't look quite as good as often as they tend to play sides that are better in relative terms than Sarries do

You don't reckon that Sarries would have beaten Georgia just as, or more, comfortably than England did ?

Nope. Okay they might be more cohesive but the players aren't as good, and more than anything it's about having better players.

[Kawazaki]

One of the things it is from Jones is incredibly detailed and not in the slightest bit lazy. For sure it's a way of playing lots of people will not enjoy, I'd prefer they looked to play the ball more and to keep it alive more, yet for all that this is probably the most hard working coach we've had

Hardest working means fuck all. A junior doctor works hard but I wouldn't want him doing brain surgery.

Your objection, as stated anyway, was that it's lazy coaching from Jones, and patently that's not the case. I don't know if laziness remains your objection now you're saying hardest working means not a lot.

I suspect your objection is you don't think it's the most entertaining coaching from Jones, which is still a bit odd if I've understood correctly you enjoy seeing Saracens play, they have a lot of similar strengths. England don't look quite as good as often as they tend to play sides that are better in relative terms than Sarries do

I see where your confused. I meant lazy in terms of the tactics employed. It's low-hanging fruit stuff, very low risk, uncomplicated and removes decision-making from the players. That's lazy coaching.

p.s your Saracens reference is naive and simplistic. If Jones's England played Saracens using these tactics then Saracens would win with quite a lot to spare.

[Paddington Bear]

Let's take as read that England aren't exactly playing basketball rugby.
Does it matter?
I'd rather have a fairly methodical gameplan and consistently beat the other Home Nations (appreciate I've called down the mockers for the next fortnight).
Losing to just about anyone as England is shit and we get our faces rubbed in it. I don't care how we win so long as we do it.

[JM2K6]

Let's take as read that England aren't exactly playing basketball rugby.
Does it matter?
I'd rather have a fairly methodical gameplan and consistently beat the other Home Nations (appreciate I've called down the mockers for the next fortnight).
Losing to just about anyone as England is shit and we get our faces rubbed in it. I don't care how we win so long as we do it.

My problem with it is this: our losses come from a) matches where we rock up and kick the ball away loads, concede a lead, continue to kick the ball away, lose or b) just get out-muscled and then can't rely on Plan A

We need to work on being a more rounded team, not a more one-dimensional one.

[Paddington Bear]

Let's take as read that England aren't exactly playing basketball rugby.
Does it matter?
I'd rather have a fairly methodical gameplan and consistently beat the other Home Nations (appreciate I've called down the mockers for the next fortnight).
Losing to just about anyone as England is shit and we get our faces rubbed in it. I don't care how we win so long as we do it.

My problem with it is this: our losses come from a) matches where we rock up and kick the ball away loads, concede a lead, continue to kick the ball away, lose or b) just get out-muscled and then can't rely on Plan A

We need to work on being a more rounded team, not a more one-dimensional one.

I agree we need a better Plan B, I don't think that is mutually exclusive with retaining our Plan A.

England being outmuscled and losing is a feature, not a bug. This is a genuine question, can anyone remember a game we have won, Eddie or no Eddie, where we've been definitely beaten up front?

[sockwithaticket]

Playing attractive rugby and being successful aren't mutually exclusive, deciding that they are becomes somewhat self-fulfilling.

Eddie's "the team the kicks the most wins" was a horrible glimpse into what the next few years could be like. England doubling down on what's already a fucking dull strategy will seriously test my dedication to watching matches. Good job the Prem kicks off again soon and we can see some teams who actually want to use the ball.

[Raggs]

The loss to SA was a tough one, we had some players putting in truly dire performances, and not even upto the standard that we'd disappointedly expect of them. We also loss Sinkler early.

Whilst I'm happy to blame Eddie for the 6N losses when he's played Lawes at 6, I don't believe that down to our gameplan, in fact I think if we'd tried to play more ball in hand, we'd have done even more poorly. That was down to poor player selection. Whilst still on Eddie's shoulders, I don't think it's showing a weakness in the plan he has for us. I don't think Itoje at 6 is anywhere near as bad as Lawes at 6 btw.

[Paddington Bear]

I would like us to give up on the idea of Itoje as a ball carrier, always too high into contact.

[JM2K6]

Let's take as read that England aren't exactly playing basketball rugby.
Does it matter?
I'd rather have a fairly methodical gameplan and consistently beat the other Home Nations (appreciate I've called down the mockers for the next fortnight).
Losing to just about anyone as England is shit and we get our faces rubbed in it. I don't care how we win so long as we do it.

My problem with it is this: our losses come from a) matches where we rock up and kick the ball away loads, concede a lead, continue to kick the ball away, lose or b) just get out-muscled and then can't rely on Plan A

We need to work on being a more rounded team, not a more one-dimensional one.

I agree we need a better Plan B, I don't think that is mutually exclusive with retaining our Plan A.

England being outmuscled and losing is a feature, not a bug. This is a genuine question, can anyone remember a game we have won, Eddie or no Eddie, where we've been definitely beaten up front?

Yes, there's been a couple, though I can't remember which. I can only state it confidently because "you can never win a match where you're being outmuscled" is an old Jeff the Bear canard and I used to delight in pointing out English victories in those situations.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Let's take as read that England aren't exactly playing basketball rugby.
Does it matter?
I'd rather have a fairly methodical gameplan and consistently beat the other Home Nations (appreciate I've called down the mockers for the next fortnight).
Losing to just about anyone as England is shit and we get our faces rubbed in it. I don't care how we win so long as we do it.

My problem with it is this: our losses come from a) matches where we rock up and kick the ball away loads, concede a lead, continue to kick the ball away, lose or b) just get out-muscled and then can't rely on Plan A

We need to work on being a more rounded team, not a more one-dimensional one.

I agree we need a better Plan B, I don't think that is mutually exclusive with retaining our Plan A.

England being outmuscled and losing is a feature, not a bug. This is a genuine question, can anyone remember a game we have won, Eddie or no Eddie, where we've been definitely beaten up front?

The away games in Oz that we won. For sure the Aussie pack dominated those games and we spent a lot of time tackling and being grateful to some bad decision making by the Aussie 9 and 10, I don't know what those halfbacks said to their pack after those games by way of apology because they could have been at the standard of crapping the bed and they should still have won.

So our defence can keep us in the hunt, and we overlook perhaps how much pressure England apply to other sides even if it doesn't look pretty.

[Paddington Bear]

My problem with it is this: our losses come from a) matches where we rock up and kick the ball away loads, concede a lead, continue to kick the ball away, lose or b) just get out-muscled and then can't rely on Plan A

We need to work on being a more rounded team, not a more one-dimensional one.

I agree we need a better Plan B, I don't think that is mutually exclusive with retaining our Plan A.

England being outmuscled and losing is a feature, not a bug. This is a genuine question, can anyone remember a game we have won, Eddie or no Eddie, where we've been definitely beaten up front?

The away games in Oz that we won. For sure the Aussie pack dominated those games and we spent a lot of time tackling and being grateful to some bad decision making by the Aussie 9 and 10, I don't know what those halfbacks said to their pack after those games by way of apology because they could have been at the standard of crapping the bed and they should still have won.

So our defence can keep us in the hunt, and we overlook perhaps how much pressure England apply to other sides even if it doesn't look pretty.

Interesting, have to say that isn't my recollection - I remember us bringing a significantly improved level of physicality, particularly after the manshaming we got to be knocked out the RWC.
However, it gives me another excuse to watch those games again so I'm not complaining.

[geordie_6]

I would like us to give up on the idea of Itoje as a ball carrier, always too high into contact.

And, ideally, give up on the idea of using him at 6. We have great flank depth, we don't need to move our best lock into the backrow.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Hardest working means fuck all. A junior doctor works hard but I wouldn't want him doing brain surgery.

Your objection, as stated anyway, was that it's lazy coaching from Jones, and patently that's not the case. I don't know if laziness remains your objection now you're saying hardest working means not a lot.

I suspect your objection is you don't think it's the most entertaining coaching from Jones, which is still a bit odd if I've understood correctly you enjoy seeing Saracens play, they have a lot of similar strengths. England don't look quite as good as often as they tend to play sides that are better in relative terms than Sarries do

I see where your confused. I meant lazy in terms of the tactics employed. It's low-hanging fruit stuff, very low risk, uncomplicated and removes decision-making from the players. That's lazy coaching.

p.s your Saracens reference is naive and simplistic. If Jones's England played Saracens using these tactics then Saracens would win with quite a lot to spare.

Having the coach as the main decision maker rather than the players strikes me as not being lazy. If anything I'd suggest that's the coach taking on too much. So again you might not like it, but it's not lazy.

A more useful question would be what would it take for Eddie to trust the players, if the goal is to be more heads up, and what has changed with Eddie? We could say the game has changed because going back a ways he certainly allowed Gregan, Larkham and Smith to run the show, so is it the changing nature of the game that makes him think you can't do that now or just not having such good decision makers available to him? You could argue against that Japan played lots, but actually Japan were as with England a massively structured team, it was a different structure around what Eddie saw as their strengths Vs England's, but they were anything but off the cuff in how they approached moving the ball and supporting play.

I don't think England need add an awful lot to their game as it happens. There's a lot to like about England, and in particular our options playing off 1st receiver now see us happy to play off Mako, Sinckler, Itoje, Billy, Youngs, Ford, Farrell, Slade and Daly, and that does give us options to create that goes well beyond many England sides, probably any other England side. We're actually very similar to France now and people like them, what's missing for us Vs a France is maybe 10-15 offloads in a game, we're happier moving the ball prior to contact and not so much out of the tackle, and we can tend to move the ball a little too early to engage defenders. And the other thing is our support game if we do keep ball in hand, that is likely hindered by us getting ready to support a kick, nothing about Eddie says he reacts well to players not working off the ball, so it's probably in part working not with an expectation to support ball being kept in hand.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

I agree we need a better Plan B, I don't think that is mutually exclusive with retaining our Plan A.

England being outmuscled and losing is a feature, not a bug. This is a genuine question, can anyone remember a game we have won, Eddie or no Eddie, where we've been definitely beaten up front?

The away games in Oz that we won. For sure the Aussie pack dominated those games and we spent a lot of time tackling and being grateful to some bad decision making by the Aussie 9 and 10, I don't know what those halfbacks said to their pack after those games by way of apology because they could have been at the standard of crapping the bed and they should still have won.

So our defence can keep us in the hunt, and we overlook perhaps how much pressure England apply to other sides even if it doesn't look pretty.

Interesting, have to say that isn't my recollection - I remember us bringing a significantly improved level of physicality, particularly after the manshaming we got to be knocked out the RWC.
However, it gives me another excuse to watch those games again so I'm not complaining.

If Scott Fardy had killed several backs after those games it would have been hard to blame him, how much more advantage did they need.

I was very happy with our wins, Robshaw and Haskell worked their socks off in defence, but it was something of a snatched series win.

[Hal Jordan]

Squad for Ireland

Backs

Elliot Daly (Saracens, 44 caps)
Owen Farrell (Saracens, 85 caps)
George Ford (Leicester Tigers, 69 caps) Jonathan Joseph (Bath Rugby, 52 caps)
Ollie Lawrence (Worcester Warriors, 2 caps)
Max Malins (Bristol Bears, 1 cap)
Jonny May (Gloucester Rugby, 58 caps)
Dan Robson (Wasps, 4 caps)
Henry Slade (Exeter Chiefs, 31 caps)
Ollie Thorley (Gloucester Rugby, 1 cap)
Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers, 101 caps)

Forwards

Tom Curry (Sale Sharks, 25 caps)
Tom Dunn (Bath Rugby, 2 caps)
Ben Earl (Bristol Bears, 5 caps)
Ellis Genge (Leicester Tigers, 20 caps)
Jamie George (Saracens, 51 caps)
Jonny Hill (Exeter Chiefs, 1 cap)
Maro Itoje (Saracens, 40 caps)
Joe Launchbury (Wasps, 66 caps)
Lewis Ludlam (Northampton Saints, 8 caps)
Kyle Sinckler (Bristol Bears, 37 caps)
Will Stuart (Bath Rugby, 5 caps)
Sam Underhill (Bath Rugby, 19 caps)
Billy Vunipola (Saracens, 53 caps)
Mako Vunipola (Saracens, 61 caps)

Draw your own conclusions, but there is one name in there that shouldn't be and one that should.

[JM2K6]

That's yer lot, Jack

[Hal Jordan]

Also, only two locks and one no 8 but five flankers.

Edit: Three locks, I confused Jonny with Ted.

[SaintK]

That's yer lot, Jack

WTF..................Ludlam!!!!

[SaintK]

That's yer lot, Jack

Three locks, Hill, Itoje and Launchbury

[sockwithaticket]

Fucking hell, Eddie.

Glad Ford's back. Hope he comes in to start.

[Oxbow]

For fuck's sake, even as a Saints fan I wouldn't have Ludlam anywhere near the England squad.

[Margin__Walker]

That Ludlum call is genuinely batshit.

Eddie's just in it for the lols these days.