The Official English Rugby Thread

[sockwithaticket]

It's not clearly bollocks, because there aren't proven contenders for lots of positions. There are some players who've looked good at club level, from which we can speculate they might have it in them to go on to perform at test level.

The likes of Dombrandt, Simmonds (either one), a Piers O'Conor, whoever your likely contenders are (and whether based on a long held view or the most recent game you saw on TV) are at best only maybes.

Anyone's a maybe until you try them and since Eddie's capped the likes of Francis a fair bit and Shields even after he was demonstrating only incredibly mediocre form for Wasps, I think it's fair to say Eddie's bar for being cap worthy isn't actually all that high (provided you've Super Rugby experience...). Those who are clearly stand outs at domestic level or are one of only a handful of possible candidates due to foreign players clogging up the position and thus might be required out of necessity anyway, warrant the chance. Especially when

Over several years we should have been looking at other 9s (relying on Heinz and Wigglesworth wasn't something I liked at the time) and 12s. This specific 6N with the Covid restrictions, the reduced training, the reduced squad size, and in a 6N that's already seen game time for Genge, Stuart, Hill, Robson, Lawrence, Willis and so on is a tricky one, we can't just say other players who haven't played (sometimes ever at test level) are inherently better just because some people equate change with improvements, and really how many more inexperienced players would you want in a side. Not least because what if you do make further changes (ignoring the Covid situation) and the side lose again, which is to say if throwing the baby out with the bathwater doesn't work do you then rinse and repeat, because at that point you've not only lost control of the side you've also trounced the EPS. Now perhaps the EPS should be trounced, but it is the construct we have, and it's proved better than just picking ad-hoc from the club scene

Losing while making changes is a possibility and often an actuality for pretty much any team named the the All Blacks. Good coaches suck it up and do it anyway and you don't need to randomly select ad hoc from the club scene to do so. Even the reduced EPS offers enough flexibility to significantly alter the starting 15 and, to a lesser extent, the matchday 23. Part of that would have been making better shaodow squad choices - a lot of them have been called up now.

Certainly with hindsight allowing the Sarries players to stay in the EPS has proved a mistake, but at the point that decision was taken (a decision that like most had good and bad parts to it) Covid wasn't something that wasn't looming, and that with the now reduced squad size has worked out badly for us. And I'm loathe to be too critical of a decision that was at least in part taken for good reasons that's been skewered by some really unforeseen events.

Eh? Covid was very much a live issue when Sarries were relegated and those players not playing between the conclusion of the autumn series and 6 Nations was also a very strong possibility if not a dead certainty. Absolutely it could have been planned around or anticipated and certain players, like Billy, have been flagging form-wise for a lot longer than just the most recent pair of test windows.

France did bring a lot of new talent into their side, but (a) France were struggling so made sweeping changes from being in a weak position not from being 6N champions and WC finalists and (b) the raft of changes France brought in really upped their power and pace, and we don't have the same options to up power and pace across the board, indeed we'd probably lose some

[Dinsdale Piranha]

It's not clearly bollocks, because there aren't proven contenders for lots of positions. There are some players who've looked good at club level, from which we can speculate they might have it in them to go on to perform at test level.

The likes of Dombrandt, Simmonds (either one), a Piers O'Conor, whoever your likely contenders are (and whether based on a long held view or the most recent game you saw on TV) are at best only maybes.

Over several years we should have been looking at other 9s (relying on Heinz and Wigglesworth wasn't something I liked at the time) and 12s. This specific 6N with the Covid restrictions, the reduced training, the reduced squad size, and in a 6N that's already seen game time for Genge, Stuart, Hill, Robson, Lawrence, Willis and so on is a tricky one, we can't just say other players who haven't played (sometimes ever at test level) are inherently better just because some people equate change with improvements, and really how many more inexperienced players would you want in a side. Not least because what if you do make further changes (ignoring the Covid situation) and the side lose again, which is to say if throwing the baby out with the bathwater doesn't work do you then rinse and repeat, because at that point you've not only lost control of the side you've also trounced the EPS. Now perhaps the EPS should be trounced, but it is the construct we have, and it's proved better than just picking ad-hoc from the club scene

Certainly with hindsight allowing the Sarries players to stay in the EPS has proved a mistake, but at the point that decision was taken (a decision that like most had good and bad parts to it) Covid wasn't something that wasn't looming, and that with the now reduced squad size has worked out badly for us. And I'm loathe to be too critical of a decision that was at least in part taken for good reasons that's been skewered by some really unforeseen events.

France did bring a lot of new talent into their side, but (a) France were struggling so made sweeping changes from being in a weak position not from being 6N champions and WC finalists and (b) the raft of changes France brought in really upped their power and pace, and we don't have the same options to up power and pace across the board, indeed we'd probably lose some

Well that's wonderfully convenient for Eddie, isn't it. Ensure there are no proven contenders by ----- not allowing them to contend.

If ever there was a time to be trying out new players, it's now. I can't even begin to fathom why Eddie has chosen not to.

Personally I'm delighted by him not picking form players from my team as a) they'd likely come back worse, or broken and b) we get more games out of them.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Covid wasn't an issue when the Sarries players were told they could stay with Sarries and stay in the EPS

[sockwithaticket]

Covid wasn't an issue when the Sarries players were told they could stay with Sarries and stay in the EPS

In theory, when Sarries' initial relegation was confirmed back in early 2020(?) perhaps. Since they actually were relegated and since new EPS squads were agreed it absolutely was and there was ample reason to leave t least a couple out. At the same time, like I said, the existing EPS can mitigate the most problematic ones if the desire is there. LCD starts ahead of George, Lawrence starts ahead of Farrell (I know, I know...), Malins starts ahead and any of Earl, Curry or Wilson start ahead of Billy. If their form is off, but Eddie really doesn't think we can do without them, they can sit on the bench and gradually increase their minutes from there.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Eddie does allow young players to play, or inexperienced players to play. This 6N has featured a fair chunk of game time for lots of players with 0-15 caps. It'd frankly be easier to argue that's been a problem rather than he should have done more of it

It's not exactly going out on a limb to speculate had he not drawn from the EPS that would have earned censure, both because of how the EPS is supposed to be used and Covid, although quite what's going on with players being released back to their clubs I don't know because that undermines the Covid sort of safe but not really safe test environment anyway, and had he simply picked another handful again of inexperienced players and still lost which is the likely outcome that would have been criticised too.

There are some live issues. Obviously the discipline is a problem, and that's a fair bat to whack Eddie over the head with, why was LCD dropped when he'd played well (even if George wasn't exactly the problem against Wales), why have we yet again had to find Farrell doesn't do well at 10 unless Manu is there having one of those games where he's a man amongst boys, and those are hardly the only live issues. I'm just not sure because players at clubs we favour, or even players we've just seen do well in club rugby proves they'd be even just useful at test rugby, and useful in the game Eddie wants

[sockwithaticket]

Eddie does allow young players to play, or inexperienced players to play. This 6N has featured a fair chunk of game time for lots of players with 0-15 caps. It'd frankly be easier to argue that's been a problem rather than he should have done more of it

It's not exactly going out on a limb to speculate had he not drawn from the EPS that would have earned censure, both because of how the EPS is supposed to be used and Covid, although quite what's going on with players being released back to their clubs I don't know because that undermines the Covid sort of safe but not really safe test environment anyway, and had he simply picked another handful again of inexperienced players and still lost which is the likely outcome that would have been criticised too.

There are some live issues. Obviously the discipline is a problem, and that's a fair bat to whack Eddie over the head with, why was LCD dropped when he'd played well (even if George wasn't exactly the problem against Wales), why have we yet again had to find Farrell doesn't do well at 10 unless Manu is there having one of those games where he's a man amongst boys, and those are hardly the only live issues. I'm just not sure because players at clubs we favour, or even players we've just seen do well in club rugby proves they'd be even just useful at test rugby, and useful in the game Eddie wants

I'm not saying draw from outside the EPS, though? I'm saying draw up the EPS differently in the first place, or use the form guys who are present in the EPS he did create. As mentioned earlier, the shadow squad is important here too. There was every chance those players would be needed and 19 year old George Martin ended up being called up from there to sit on the bench for 80 minutes against Wales. Surely, Dombrandt would have been a better name to include in that squad and then call up.

LCD playing well against Italy shouldn't have been the reason to keep him for Wales, he should have started the Scotland game due to his league form vs. George's not playing for 2 months and then carried on because he's currently better. It's a perfect example of Eddie currently mismanaging things.

Playing a few inexperienced guys is exactly how teams evolve, I didn't suggest, nor would I countenance, wholesale changes, but some are necessary. Eddie's version of allowing them to play is... sub-optimal, shall we say. I'm not sure what the point of picking Ollie Lawrence is if the game plan only permits him to receive the ball once. To then cast him into oblivion is terrible. Equally I'm not sure Robson even has a cumulative total of 80 minutes over the course of his 80 caps. Malins is another who gets scraps of time at the end of games despite his league form. Given how few minutes the inexperienced players get or the complete lack of utilisation (Lawrence), you'd be hard pressed to suggest they've been any part, let alone a significant one, of England's issues this tournament. It's out of form senior players who've been problematic - Daly, Farrell, Vunipola, George, Slade. Itoje's whirlwind of penalties in an indisciplined side also hasn't helped...

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Why should Dombrandt obviously be there over Martin? This is at the heart of it.

Both look reasonable young players who've done some decent things in club rugby, neither looks an obvious 50 cap test player in the making. And that's not a criticism, the huge overwhelming number of test players are only maybes until they've come in and actually established themselves over 10-20 caps.

It's odd in that Dombrandt seems to do a lot of things Eddie would like and has got himself in better condition than once was the case. To which I'm assuming there are some technical things Eddie doesn't like and that Vunipola is a big player for England at 8, and he is. If Dombrandt is good enough he'll continue to push his case, but I'm not worried that Earl and Willis have had game time ahead of him

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Also how does one draw up the EPS differently, and which players should have been dropped from a side that had been winning games to include players with many if any caps going into the 6N?

Or are we simply allowed to judge the EPS in hindsight when necessarily it's picked well ahead of time, including in this instance the retention of those Sarries player who could have been told they'd have to move but weren't. I perhaps would have told them to move or they'd be dropped but going the other way had some benefits too

[JM2K6]

Why should Dombrandt obviously be there over Martin? This is at the heart of it.

Both look reasonable young players who've done some decent things in club rugby, neither looks an obvious 50 cap test player in the making. And that's not a criticism, the huge overwhelming number of test players are only maybes until they've come in and actually established themselves over 10-20 caps.

Because Dombrandt is a hugely skilled player who's been "dominating" matches for some time now. Is he the finished article? No. But he's a guy with 65 club appearances who scores tries, creates tries for fun, and wins a lot of turnovers. He makes things happen.

Lumping him in with Martin, who has had what, 7 pro appearances in his career, and who could be good but no-one really knows because he's barely played any rugby at all, is absolutely bizarre and ridiculously reductive.

Also how does one draw up the EPS differently, and which players should have been dropped from a side that had been winning games to include players with many if any caps going into the 6N?

Or are we simply allowed to judge the EPS in hindsight when necessarily it's picked well ahead of time, including in this instance the retention of those Sarries player who could have been told they'd have to move but weren't. I perhaps would have told them to move or they'd be dropped but going the other way had some benefits too

There's a huge difference to "you'll still be available for selection if you're in the Championship" and "we'll pick you even if you've not played any rugby and your form has been bollocks for quite a period of time before that.

[sockwithaticket]

Also how does one draw up the EPS differently, and which players should have been dropped from a side that had been winning games to include players with many if any caps going into the 6N?

Or are we simply allowed to judge the EPS in hindsight when necessarily it's picked well ahead of time, including in this instance the retention of those Sarries player who could have been told they'd have to move but weren't. I perhaps would have told them to move or they'd be dropped but going the other way had some benefits too

Eddie himself has said looking back on 2017 and 2018 that we were playing badly and winning in the former, which contributed to the latter and he should've done more to prevent it. We spent a lot of 2020 playing badly and winning, particularly in the autumn. It feels very much like we're repeating the cycle. In general, picking established players in bad form because they have experience is a trap we've seen all too many coaches fall into, they very rarely get played back into form during internationals. Usually it takes time away in the league to get back up there. If cap total was all that mattered we'd still be picking Robshaw.

The EPS is selected twice a year and one of those is January. The autumn performances were more than enough to justify some changes, this isn't 6 Nations hindsight. Some players have dodgy performances going back much further than that... Jan was the perfect opportunity to give players like Daly and B. Vunipola a dropping to kick them up the arse. Malins and Watson are already in the squad covering fullback, so someone else could be brought in and given their opportunity. I was trying to think of some sensible names, but Eddie's apparently got no issue picking 19 year old rugby foetuses to sit around holding tackle bags present in the shadow squad and apparently so fuck it, why not chuck in a flavour of the month (potential future England star) like Steward. Curry and Wilson have played 8 internationally for Jones, so that gives you the experienced option and one of Dombrandt or Simmonds could've been brought in instead. I'd say Farrell's another who could've been dropped on the basis of his Autumn showings, but that's only marginally more fantastical than Youngs being dropped for a consistent inability to deliver the ball in a way that facilitates rather than debilitates attack. Charlie Atkinson being selected for the shadow squad ahead of Marcus Smith and Martin ahead of a long list of back rowers including, but not limited to, Dombrandt, Simmonds and Ted Hill is mad. Since such players have remained available to their clubs, it's not like naming them would cost them valuable Prem time, yet these teenagers who've done basically nothing in the league yet are included. Baffling.

As I understand it telling Sarries players they could stay put and be in contention was premised at least slightly on the basis that they'd still be playing regularly, however, it did not consitute a cast iron promise and it most certainly did not mean continue to be picked regardless of form.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

The form thing is a problem to throw at the EPS, when (a) form doesn't translate well into the test scene for unproven players and (b) the EPS is assembled so sporadically you're picking with form only very loosely in mind anyway. And for all there are some performances from Vunipola where he's been some distance away from his rampaging best he's still done lots of good things and he seems to be getting better. Daly, well his error count against Wales was high, way too high, but he's done lots of good things as our 15, even if he's not exactly the stereotype 15, and miles from the stereotype England 15

[JM2K6]

Good Lord, your bar is so low for these guys it's essentially a speed bump.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

And that Eddie is willing to pick some very young players, whether Marcus Smith once upon a time, Umaga, Martin and he might have done similar with Barbeary this time it seems to come into the squad almost just to let them have a look is one thing, they'll be excited just to be there even if literally just to hold tackle bags, that's not quite the same thing with players more established such as a Dombrandt or the present version of Marcus Smith.

The player I'm most saddened by this 6N to have missed out on is Redpath, whether that was ever going to be possible for us I don't know, but he does look a talent that fits something of a hole for us. Slightly error prone which would be exposed in test rugby, but does also seem to have a touch of class. That said Slade looks to have a touch of class and he's not exactly delivering on it as one might hope, he's not awful, he's just not helping to control games as it would seem he could, partly him, partly the tactics, partly the players around him kicking or passing badly

And yes I suppose you could have dropped all the Sarries players, but once you've led them to believe they'd be in the EPS that would be a massive thing with all sort of ripple effects. I would be more critical of the conditioning support that saw Billy Vunipola and George turn up in camp not exactly looking ready to go, that was something that could have been more controlled. But as is having made the call they did, pretty much back in 2019, that this would be a way to manage the number of games for players coming out of a WC season into a Lions season, well I didn't draw the same conclusion but I just don't think it was other than a very reasonable shout to make the call they did.

[JM2K6]

Calling players up to the squad to experience the environment is not picking them. Picking them is what he did when George Martin made the matchday squad.

And again, COVID is not some sort of little-known thing that would take players by surprise. Saracens players might be "unhappy" about not getting picked because they hadn't played a match for a very long time, but who the fuck cares? Guaranteeing selection is by no means the same thing as saying that they'll still be available for selection if they play in the Championship.

Waving your arms about going "well, there's nothing else they could have done" while ignoring everyone else's explanations and observations is just aggravating.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Good Lord, your bar is so low for these guys it's essentially a speed bump.

My bar? My bar is stupidly high. So when people get excited about a Steward or a Simmonds or a Dombrandt or whatever I really only see potential failures with maybe the variant of their being potentially pathetic failures. The number of players I've been impressed by in advance of their playing for England is two, which would be Anthony Watson and Maro Itoje. And that going back to the early 90s

Yes we could be picking more inexperienced players, it might work it might not. I'm just not concluding it's an obvious path to go in isolation and certainly not after we're already picking Malins, Martin, Lawrence, Genge, Stuart, Hill, LCD, Obano, Williams, Robson, Willis, Ewels. And then if we look at the players who've drawn the most derision Youngs, Farrell, Daly at 15 and Billly Vunipola then Youngs has played well, Vunipola has been much improved and even Farrell had a pretty solid game against Wales. Daly has been what he's normally been, a frustrating mix, and with an error count that means he could be shunted to wing or dropped without much recourse for complaint

Yes maybe even more kids and we'd have been playing wonder rugby, or maybe we'd have come under even more pressure and just given away even more penalties. If we had picked more kids I'd have thought it an odd risk given the success the team had been having in results at least, but it'd have been a way to go, I'm only really saying it's not such an obvious way to go it makes an utter mockery of the decisions which have been taken

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Calling players up to the squad to experience the environment is not picking them. Picking them is what he did when George Martin made the matchday squad.

And again, COVID is not some sort of little-known thing that would take players by surprise. Saracens players might be "unhappy" about not getting picked because they hadn't played a match for a very long time, but who the fuck cares? Guaranteeing selection is by no means the same thing as saying that they'll still be available for selection if they play in the Championship.

Waving your arms about going "well, there's nothing else they could have done" while ignoring everyone else's explanations and observations is just aggravating.

Whereas for me peoples aggravation that things would be better if we'd only picked the players they like is just weird. I'm conceding they might be right, I just don't see it as much than a bit of a punt, and a punt which runs contrary to the team England approach which has been the norm for a while, and especially team England with the way the EPS bolted onto our club game.

To me much of this comes from a weakness in the human psyche that if we as individuals perceive a change that change is inherently good because we've perceived it, thus fans like shiny new players and things which look good on TV and push for their inclusion. That's fine and indeed exciting from a fans perspective, and it helps the game in many ways, it just doesn't follow it's always right.

[JM2K6]

So, for example, under 20 world player of the year George Ford didn't impress you prior to playing for England? Fucking amazing.

[Ovals]

It's not clearly bollocks, because there aren't proven contenders for lots of positions. There are some players who've looked good at club level, from which we can speculate they might have it in them to go on to perform at test level.

The likes of Dombrandt, Simmonds (either one), a Piers O'Conor, whoever your likely contenders are (and whether based on a long held view or the most recent game you saw on TV) are at best only maybes.

Over several years we should have been looking at other 9s (relying on Heinz and Wigglesworth wasn't something I liked at the time) and 12s. This specific 6N with the Covid restrictions, the reduced training, the reduced squad size, and in a 6N that's already seen game time for Genge, Stuart, Hill, Robson, Lawrence, Willis and so on is a tricky one, we can't just say other players who haven't played (sometimes ever at test level) are inherently better just because some people equate change with improvements, and really how many more inexperienced players would you want in a side. Not least because what if you do make further changes (ignoring the Covid situation) and the side lose again, which is to say if throwing the baby out with the bathwater doesn't work do you then rinse and repeat, because at that point you've not only lost control of the side you've also trounced the EPS. Now perhaps the EPS should be trounced, but it is the construct we have, and it's proved better than just picking ad-hoc from the club scene

Certainly with hindsight allowing the Sarries players to stay in the EPS has proved a mistake, but at the point that decision was taken (a decision that like most had good and bad parts to it) Covid wasn't something that wasn't looming, and that with the now reduced squad size has worked out badly for us. And I'm loathe to be too critical of a decision that was at least in part taken for good reasons that's been skewered by some really unforeseen events.

France did bring a lot of new talent into their side, but (a) France were struggling so made sweeping changes from being in a weak position not from being 6N champions and WC finalists and (b) the raft of changes France brought in really upped their power and pace, and we don't have the same options to up power and pace across the board, indeed we'd probably lose some

Seems a tad disingenous to state that, at 8, we don't have talentthat can be developed at international leve, when the Eurpoean player if the year is English and plays at 8. And that's before you even get to Dombrandt.

He seems to hold alternatives to much higher standards than he does incumbents

[Rhubarb & Custard]

It's not clearly bollocks, because there aren't proven contenders for lots of positions. There are some players who've looked good at club level, from which we can speculate they might have it in them to go on to perform at test level.

The likes of Dombrandt, Simmonds (either one), a Piers O'Conor, whoever your likely contenders are (and whether based on a long held view or the most recent game you saw on TV) are at best only maybes.

Over several years we should have been looking at other 9s (relying on Heinz and Wigglesworth wasn't something I liked at the time) and 12s. This specific 6N with the Covid restrictions, the reduced training, the reduced squad size, and in a 6N that's already seen game time for Genge, Stuart, Hill, Robson, Lawrence, Willis and so on is a tricky one, we can't just say other players who haven't played (sometimes ever at test level) are inherently better just because some people equate change with improvements, and really how many more inexperienced players would you want in a side. Not least because what if you do make further changes (ignoring the Covid situation) and the side lose again, which is to say if throwing the baby out with the bathwater doesn't work do you then rinse and repeat, because at that point you've not only lost control of the side you've also trounced the EPS. Now perhaps the EPS should be trounced, but it is the construct we have, and it's proved better than just picking ad-hoc from the club scene

Certainly with hindsight allowing the Sarries players to stay in the EPS has proved a mistake, but at the point that decision was taken (a decision that like most had good and bad parts to it) Covid wasn't something that wasn't looming, and that with the now reduced squad size has worked out badly for us. And I'm loathe to be too critical of a decision that was at least in part taken for good reasons that's been skewered by some really unforeseen events.

France did bring a lot of new talent into their side, but (a) France were struggling so made sweeping changes from being in a weak position not from being 6N champions and WC finalists and (b) the raft of changes France brought in really upped their power and pace, and we don't have the same options to up power and pace across the board, indeed we'd probably lose some

Seems a tad disingenous to state that, at 8, we don't have talentthat can be developed at international leve, when the Eurpoean player if the year is English and plays at 8. And that's before you even get to Dombrandt.

He seems to hold alternatives to much higher standards than he does incumbents

But I didn't say we don't have other players who could be selected, I said we don't have proven contenders Eddie can just pick from (and yes in part because Eddie hasn't picked them)

I'm not objecting to the idea that Eddie try some different players, I'm merely a little bemused (and amused) by the idea if only he'd make 3-4 more changes for players who've done well in a junior version of he game things would be going much better for the senior England side. And I don't say this as someone who's especially a fan of Eddie's England, I wasn't even especially thrilled as a for instance even when they won 3-0 away in Oz, those were selections and performances I had serious issue with because my ambition isn't to survive a defensive rearguard action

Not quite sure what you mean by holding to higher standards, the players in the test team are naturally playing at a higher standard, and if you want to evict a player from that team you need to be making a really strong case because you cannot just replace the 50 odd caps (or a lot more in the case of Youngs and Farrell) experience.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

So, for example, under 20 world player of the year George Ford didn't impress you prior to playing for England? Fucking amazing.

Impressed at junior level sure, but that only gets you to a point of being worth looked at and I can't say I was convinced he'd be a success at test level. And given the context is England playing well I want to see a player consistently deliver at test level before placing trust in them. That normally takes some time, but I've got no problem giving players 10 if not 15 caps to see if they can find their feet because the norm isn't that players immediately settle from game 1 and show what they're capable off.

But then odd things bother me it seems, for instance in the above I'd merely wonder why amazing was placed in italics but not the fucking, what is the additional emphasis sought betwixt the two?

[JM2K6]

So, for example, under 20 world player of the year George Ford didn't impress you prior to playing for England? Fucking amazing.

Impressed at junior level sure, but that only gets you to a point of being worth looked at and I can't say I was convinced he'd be a success at test level. And given the context is England playing well I want to see a player consistently deliver at test level before placing trust in them. That normally takes some time, but I've got no problem giving players 10 if not 15 caps to see if they can find their feet because the norm isn't that players immediately settle from game 1 and show what they're capable off.

Look, being honest: if only 2 players (starting from the 90s) have impressed you prior to playing international rugby - during a period in which we had some of the best club sides in Europe, produced a world cup winning team, a few Grand Slams, and a couple more World Cup final appearances - then the problem is you're just not a very good judge of a player at all, and it's pretty meaningless for you to keep clinging to that in order to defend Eddie's stubbornness. It's such an absurd line to take; surely you must have understood by now that you not being impressed by a player prior to their Test career means absolutely nothing?

But then odd things bother me it seems, for instance in the above I'd merely wonder why amazing was placed in italics but not the fucking, what is the additional emphasis sought betwixt the two?

Because when said out loud, the emphasis would be strongly on the second word.

[sockwithaticket]

The next European fixtures are out, they'll take place over the 2nd - 4th of April and the 5 that affect Prem clubs are:

Gloucester - La Rochelle
Wasps - Clermont Auvergne
Exeter - Lyon
Bristol - Bordeaux-Begles
Sale - Scarlets

I'm not well versed enough in Top14 form to judge likely outcomes, but I'd be fully expecting Clermont to absolutely batter Wasps unless we show some astonishing improvement over the next few weeks. Imagine Gloucester would struggle against La Rochelle too, although they at least have started winning games recently.

[geordie_6]

Good Lord, your bar is so low for these guys it's essentially a speed bump.

My bar? My bar is stupidly high. So when people get excited about a Steward or a Simmonds or a Dombrandt or whatever I really only see potential failures with maybe the variant of their being potentially pathetic failures. The number of players I've been impressed by in advance of their playing for England is two, which would be Anthony Watson and Maro Itoje. And that going back to the early 90s

Which genuinely raises the question, can you remember that far back? Even just to pick on one player, are you honestly saying that you weren't impressed by Jason Robinson prior to his playing for England?

Even when he was learning the basics of Union, he was still outstanding...

[Glaston]

The next European fixtures are out, they'll take place over the 2nd - 4th of April and the 5 that affect Prem clubs are:

Gloucester - La Rochelle
Wasps - Clermont Auvergne
Exeter - Lyon
Bristol - Bordeaux-Begles
Sale - Scarlets

I'm not well versed enough in Top14 form to judge likely outcomes, but I'd be fully expecting Clermont to absolutely batter Wasps unless we show some astonishing improvement over the next few weeks. Imagine Gloucester would struggle against La Rochelle too, although they at least have started winning games recently.

Wasps need a container load of Lube.


bottom half of the draw looks easy compared to.
Exeter/Lyon v Leinster/Toulon
Wasps/Clermont v Munster/Toulouse

[sockwithaticket]

The next European fixtures are out, they'll take place over the 2nd - 4th of April and the 5 that affect Prem clubs are:

Gloucester - La Rochelle
Wasps - Clermont Auvergne
Exeter - Lyon
Bristol - Bordeaux-Begles
Sale - Scarlets

I'm not well versed enough in Top14 form to judge likely outcomes, but I'd be fully expecting Clermont to absolutely batter Wasps unless we show some astonishing improvement over the next few weeks. Imagine Gloucester would struggle against La Rochelle too, although they at least have started winning games recently.

Wasps need a container load of Lube.


bottom half of the draw looks easy compared to.
Exeter/Lyon v Leinster/Toulon
Wasps/Clermont v Munster/Toulouse

Not sure that'll be enough...

Clermont - Toulouse could be a really fun next round for neutrals.

[sockwithaticket]

Challenge cup fixtures for Prem sides:

Northampton - Dragons
Newcastle - Ospreys
Harlequins - Ulster
London Irish - Cardiff
Bath - Zebre
Leicester - Connacht


Quins look to have the toughest opposition. Will be interesting to see what kind of teams get put out given how tight the league is and Top 6 or even Top 4 still being a viable target for all.

[fishfoodie]

Challenge cup fixtures for Prem sides:

Northampton - Dragons
Newcastle - Ospreys
Harlequins - Ulster
London Irish - Cardiff
Bath - Zebre
Leicester - Connacht


Quins look to have the toughest opposition. Will be interesting to see what kind of teams get put out given how tight the league is and Top 6 or even Top 4 still being a viable target for all.

I think Connacht will fancy their chances against tigers too; especially with an empty stadium, & some decent recent form.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Good Lord, your bar is so low for these guys it's essentially a speed bump.

My bar? My bar is stupidly high. So when people get excited about a Steward or a Simmonds or a Dombrandt or whatever I really only see potential failures with maybe the variant of their being potentially pathetic failures. The number of players I've been impressed by in advance of their playing for England is two, which would be Anthony Watson and Maro Itoje. And that going back to the early 90s

Which genuinely raises the question, can you remember that far back? Even just to pick on one player, are you honestly saying that you weren't impressed by Jason Robinson prior to his playing for England?

Even when he was learning the basics of Union, he was still outstanding...

Hugely impressed by his one on one ability sure, but I didn't know where he'd be positionally, on choosing when and how to carry into contact, how to present/protect the ball, whether he'd learn to kick, what his tackling would be like 'cause sure he'd have tackled in league but the decision making in union can flip on you much faster, even with the drift as was. He didn't exactly nail everything but he was at worst competent in some areas, and in the areas he was good....

So was an outstanding athlete and wing is an easier move, but there's still plenty that could have fallen over regarding the move for all he's the best I've seen one on one. I was excited to see him develop, as I was for George Ford, as I would be for say Randall, because potential is exciting. I'm just not sold that having potential is the same as it's an obvious failure by the coaches not to select someone, especially when the incumbents have positives too and the team has such a strong history of wins.

Robinson is also part of what might be my favourite moment of a post match England interview when Andy Nicol was interviewed after losing 43-3 I think, and Nicol was relieved England were taking off Mike Catt on the hour mark who'd pulled them apart for 60 minutes until he realised Jason Robinson was coming on in his place and they could now try to chase him when they had tired legs. And it was pretty pointless chasing him with fresh legs, that try against France where we put just Robinson on the blindside off a scrum, they marked him with 3, we still went blind anyway and he scored without being touched was just ridiculous (and I'll ignore the French defence should have done more, because I like that score)

[Rhubarb & Custard]

So, for example, under 20 world player of the year George Ford didn't impress you prior to playing for England? Fucking amazing.

Impressed at junior level sure, but that only gets you to a point of being worth looked at and I can't say I was convinced he'd be a success at test level. And given the context is England playing well I want to see a player consistently deliver at test level before placing trust in them. That normally takes some time, but I've got no problem giving players 10 if not 15 caps to see if they can find their feet because the norm isn't that players immediately settle from game 1 and show what they're capable off.

Look, being honest: if only 2 players (starting from the 90s) have impressed you prior to playing international rugby - during a period in which we had some of the best club sides in Europe, produced a world cup winning team, a few Grand Slams, and a couple more World Cup final appearances - then the problem is you're just not a very good judge of a player at all, and it's pretty meaningless for you to keep clinging to that in order to defend Eddie's stubbornness. It's such an absurd line to take; surely you must have understood by now that you not being impressed by a player prior to their Test career means absolutely nothing?

But then odd things bother me it seems, for instance in the above I'd merely wonder why amazing was placed in italics but not the fucking, what is the additional emphasis sought betwixt the two?

Because when said out loud, the emphasis would be strongly on the second word.

Take the WC winning team if you want, and say the captain, when he came into the England team he was a useful lineout forward but hardly dominant in other areas. But as time went on he developed into one of the outstanding locks, and interestingly later on in his career you'd probably have to concede the lineout wasn't such a strong area, he'd adapted well to lifting going forwards and back when not everyone did go both ways back in the day but was rather overtaken by the next generation.

Or Jonny when he came into the team he had huge potential, but initially was having a lot of the decision making done by Catt, which was fine because he was about 6. But I didn't watch him early doors and know he was other than a fantastic young talent, I wasn't absolutely certain he'd go on and earn over say 60 caps and be recognised in the fashion he came to be. Or Will Greenwood, who had excellent movement and passing, but lacked power and had no pace, I remember being very keen for England to pick him, but I had no certainty he'd be able to transfer his skillset to test rugby and, crucially, be able to live with the power game that at the time was more a NZ, SA and Oz thing than we found in our rugby.

Watson and Itoje unless they totally fell apart mentally are the only ones I couldn't see not being able to transfer. Even Manu was all over the shop at times for all he is in a very nice way (for us) a freak, and whilst it was obvious you'd quite like someone else to try and tackle him it wasn't obvious to me his defence could survive his at times individualistic take on positioning.

If you want the worst shout in hindsight I was even cautious about Dan Carter in his initial forays at 12, I didn't know he'd be able to take over from Mehrts, and I certainly didn't watch those first 5 games and think he's going to be just about the best player I've ever seen.

I'm not sure what's horribly wrong with seeing why a player is admired, seeing what they could bring to the party, being interested in seeing if they can deliver and merely wanting to see them actually deliver over a number of games before thinking yep, they've got it. It's just a different way of looking at things, just given all that I was a little amused to be told I set a low bar because my default is a long way from being impressed. Indeed I'm far from impressed with the performances of the current side, that's a longstanding concern, I'm just not concluding a few bad results and even a number of bad performances means some alternative selections are obvious solutions and Eddie's a cretin for not picking them. I would happily agree more should have been done, especially at 9 and 12, though I'd accept Youngs and Farrell had pretty good games against Wales.

[sockwithaticket]

Challenge cup fixtures for Prem sides:

Northampton - Dragons
Newcastle - Ospreys
Harlequins - Ulster
London Irish - Cardiff
Bath - Zebre
Leicester - Connacht


Quins look to have the toughest opposition. Will be interesting to see what kind of teams get put out given how tight the league is and Top 6 or even Top 4 still being a viable target for all.

I think Connacht will fancy their chances against tigers too; especially with an empty stadium, & some decent recent form.

Given the way Tigers hockeyed Wasps a few weeks back I've been choosing to believe that they're a resurgent force capable of beating all before them. Please take your delusion shattering insight and facts elsewhere! (Thank you, though. I'll confess I have no idea how most Pro14 teams are going at the moment)

[JM2K6]

R&C, you seem to think being impressed by players is the same thing as thinking they're perfectly well-rounded players with no flaws and no room for growth. No-one is expecting new caps to be the best player in the world straight off. No-one thinks there's nothing they can learn from international rugby. No-one is saying that these guys are the finished article. But guess what, very few of the experienced internationals in any team are either.

But for whatever reason, you think anyone not playing international rugby is unimpressive, and the incumbents - despite literally tens of matches showing how fucking useless they can be - are the ones you have a low bar for. For example, Daly repeatedly fucks up, repeatedly has a hard time under the high ball, repeatedly misses tackles, and goes for literally years with most of his performances being a net negative for England - so much so that even Eddie pressed the panic button with the Furbank call - and you just go "well he's done lots of good things as our 15" as if the good:bad ratio isn't massively skewed towards the shite.

[Kawazaki]

R&C, you seem to think being impressed by players is the same thing as thinking they're perfectly well-rounded players with no flaws and no room for growth. No-one is expecting new caps to be the best player in the world straight off. No-one thinks there's nothing they can learn from international rugby. No-one is saying that these guys are the finished article. But guess what, very few of the experienced internationals in any team are either.

But for whatever reason, you think anyone not playing international rugby is unimpressive, and the incumbents - despite literally tens of matches showing how fucking useless they can be - are the ones you have a low bar for. For example, Daly repeatedly fucks up, repeatedly has a hard time under the high ball, repeatedly misses tackles, and goes for literally years with most of his performances being a net negative for England - so much so that even Eddie pressed the panic button with the Furbank call - and you just go "well he's done lots of good things as our 15" as if the good:bad ratio isn't massively skewed towards the shite.

I'm convinced that Furbank only got capped as a warning to the Daly detractors that things could actually get worse.

[sockwithaticket]

Im fairness, debuting against the French in Paris is going to be a tough ask for anyone. He was better against Scotland in the next game and then got injured. Recalling and capping him further when in a massive form slump was a bizarre move even by Eddie's standards. Seems to be going well again for Saints at the moment even if the collective are self-sabotaging.

[fishfoodie]

Challenge cup fixtures for Prem sides:

Northampton - Dragons
Newcastle - Ospreys
Harlequins - Ulster
London Irish - Cardiff
Bath - Zebre
Leicester - Connacht


Quins look to have the toughest opposition. Will be interesting to see what kind of teams get put out given how tight the league is and Top 6 or even Top 4 still being a viable target for all.

I think Connacht will fancy their chances against tigers too; especially with an empty stadium, & some decent recent form.

Given the way Tigers hockeyed Wasps a few weeks back I've been choosing to believe that they're a resurgent force capable of beating all before them. Please take your delusion shattering insight and facts elsewhere! (Thank you, though. I'll confess I have no idea how most Pro14 teams are going at the moment)

They've certainly looked better this year, than last; & they're scoring points, which makes any team look better; & boosts morale.

The Pro14 has been a mixed bag, with the disruption screwing up everyone, & teams playing important games, with the Internationals off on 6N duty. The positive for the Irish Provinces is they're top of both conferences, & they're just coming out of the Inter-Pros; which are always hard games, & a couple of hard games before the Europeans games, is always good for building confidence.

[Un Pilier]

Challenge cup fixtures for Prem sides:

Northampton - Dragons
Newcastle - Ospreys
Harlequins - Ulster
London Irish - Cardiff
Bath - Zebre
Leicester - Connacht


Quins look to have the toughest opposition. Will be interesting to see what kind of teams get put out given how tight the league is and Top 6 or even Top 4 still being a viable target for all.

I think Connacht will fancy their chances against tigers too; especially with an empty stadium, & some decent recent form.

There are some tasty looking fixtures there ; tasty as in hard to call.

[fishfoodie]

Challenge cup fixtures for Prem sides:

Northampton - Dragons
Newcastle - Ospreys
Harlequins - Ulster
London Irish - Cardiff
Bath - Zebre
Leicester - Connacht


Quins look to have the toughest opposition. Will be interesting to see what kind of teams get put out given how tight the league is and Top 6 or even Top 4 still being a viable target for all.

I think Connacht will fancy their chances against tigers too; especially with an empty stadium, & some decent recent form.

There are some tasty looking fixtures there ; tasty as in hard to call.

The Welsh lads will be hoping their Internationals come back with the confidence of winning a Triple Crown; & the English lads will be hoping their Internationals come back, & remember what a rugby ball looks like ....

Northampton - Dragons (Saints +10)
Newcastle - Ospreys (Newcastle to shade it)
Harlequins - Ulster (Sorry Quins, spanking possible +15)
London Irish - Cardiff (LI, +5)
Bath - Zebre (X-Rated Horror show +25)
Leicester - Connacht (Squeeky bum, Connacht +5)

[Ali Cadoo]

Glos playing a French side in Europe... brings back memories of Andy Hazell going bezerker on that fat prop that kept falling on him... he was running out of things to hit him with! Unlikely to mention that little tet a tet in the comms, I imagine...

[Kawazaki]

Glos playing a French side in Europe... brings back memories of Andy Hazell going bezerker on that fat prop that kept falling on him... he was running out of things to hit him with! Unlikely to mention that be little tet a tet in the comms, I imagine...

That must be one of the dumbest red cards ever earned. What an idiot.

[Paddington Bear]

Glos playing a French side in Europe... brings back memories of Andy Hazell going bezerker on that fat prop that kept falling on him... he was running out of things to hit him with! Unlikely to mention that be little tet a tet in the comms, I imagine...

That must be one of the dumbest red cards ever earned. What an idiot.

IIRC Gloucester had spent the whole game being gouged, bitten and kicked and he decided enough was enough. Remember it seeming a not unreasonable reaction at the time.

[Margin__Walker]

I think that was the feeling at the time, but iirc I don't think any gouging allegations actually surfaced after and more likely that it was a niggly game and that he just lost it.

Edit - Scrap that. Just googles it and there were gouging allegations at the time.