The Official English Rugby Thread

[Margin__Walker]

Press reports today that RFU conducting a review of the campaign.

Apparently there are performance based break clauses in place, so it wouldn't actually cost the earth to fire Eddie.

[Brazil]

Press reports today that RFU conducting a review of the campaign.

Apparently there are performance based break clauses in place, so it wouldn't actually cost the earth to fire Eddie.

They could do it by text it's so simple. The tricky bit is finding a replacement.

[Margin__Walker]

Press reports today that RFU conducting a review of the campaign.

Apparently there are performance based break clauses in place, so it wouldn't actually cost the earth to fire Eddie.

They could do it by text it's so simple. The tricky bit is finding a replacement.

I'm sure Dean Ryan will be free

[Ovals]

Press reports today that RFU conducting a review of the campaign.

Apparently there are performance based break clauses in place, so it wouldn't actually cost the earth to fire Eddie.

They could do it by text it's so simple. The tricky bit is finding a replacement.

Shouldn't be too hard to find someone who could improve on 5th place !!

[SaintK]

Press reports today that RFU conducting a review of the campaign.

Apparently there are performance based break clauses in place, so it wouldn't actually cost the earth to fire Eddie.

Wouldn't be just Jones to be paid off. It will be all the coaching team and analysts as well
Plus there would likely be a compensation pay off to whichever club/union his replacement comes from and the cost of bringing in his own crew
Who is conducting the review? Sweeney doesn't appear to have much of a clue so hopefully it is someone well qualified

[duke]

Press reports today that RFU conducting a review of the campaign.

Apparently there are performance based break clauses in place, so it wouldn't actually cost the earth to fire Eddie.

Wouldn't be just Jones to be paid off. It will be all the coaching team and analysts as well
Plus there would likely be a compensation pay off to whichever club/union his replacement comes from and the cost of bringing in his own crew
Who is conducting the review? Sweeney doesn't appear to have much of a clue so hopefully it is someone well qualified

I'm sure Sussex would lend us Squeaky for a couple of days

[dpedin]

Sorry dpedin but have you seen Furlong since the last Lions tour? He's been done at international level more often than Sinks. Even by England.

You're just looking for a reason to criticise a player you don't like.

Nothing about whether I like him or not - an observation from someone who watched the game and wasn't supporting either side. My assessment of their performances seems to be supported by all the player ratings in every newspaper and rugby site.

You honestly think Sinkler is as good a TH scrummager than Furlong, or even better? He does bring something to open play but at scrummage time there is a huge gulf between them, about as wide as the Irish Sea! Furlong isn't that long back from a long term injury yet destroyed Makko in the first half and didn't do much worse against Genge in the second. I don't disagree that Sinkler is the English first choice TH but he is nowhere near the level of Furlong who, if fit, will be first choice starting TH for Lions all day long.

[JM2K6]

Sorry dpedin but have you seen Furlong since the last Lions tour? He's been done at international level more often than Sinks. Even by England.

You're just looking for a reason to criticise a player you don't like.

Nothing about whether I like him or not - an observation from someone who watched the game and wasn't supporting either side. My assessment of their performances seems to be supported by all the player ratings in every newspaper and rugby site.

You honestly think Sinkler is as good a TH scrummager than Furlong, or even better? He does bring something to open play but at scrummage time there is a huge gulf between them, about as wide as the Irish Sea! Furlong isn't that long back from a long term injury yet destroyed Makko in the first half and didn't do much worse against Genge in the second. I don't disagree that Sinkler is the English first choice TH but he is nowhere near the level of Furlong who, if fit, will be first choice starting TH for Lions all day long.

Mate, everyone's been destroying Mako and Genge. Mako's never been a particularly good scrummager and hadn't played for ages prior to being parachuted straight in in the 2nd/3rd week of the tournament after recovering from injury. Genge's international career so far has seen him getting fucked in half his scrums.

Furlong and Sinckler have been around quite some time now. It's not that difficult to compare them. Furlong had a great start then dropped off, and has taken a few hidings in his time. Sinckler's scrummaging has come on a long way and he's now England's premier scrummaging tighthead. Neither of them will beast everyone they face. Both of them will sometimes come off second best. Both of them are excellent players, though only one of them has really stood out in the last few years (yes, even before Furlong's injury). Certainly the previous time we played against Furlong, we had the Irish scrum on skates during an absolute hammering. Having said that, I would not be unhappy with Furlong as the Lions tighthead, though it'll be a good battle between him and Sinckler as they have similar levels of impact.

Criticising Sinckler who personally was doing fine because he wanted another scrum and apparently that shows he's "not as good as he thinks he is" is just you projecting your personal dislike of the guy.

[dpedin]

Sorry dpedin but have you seen Furlong since the last Lions tour? He's been done at international level more often than Sinks. Even by England.

You're just looking for a reason to criticise a player you don't like.

Nothing about whether I like him or not - an observation from someone who watched the game and wasn't supporting either side. My assessment of their performances seems to be supported by all the player ratings in every newspaper and rugby site.

You honestly think Sinkler is as good a TH scrummager than Furlong, or even better? He does bring something to open play but at scrummage time there is a huge gulf between them, about as wide as the Irish Sea! Furlong isn't that long back from a long term injury yet destroyed Makko in the first half and didn't do much worse against Genge in the second. I don't disagree that Sinkler is the English first choice TH but he is nowhere near the level of Furlong who, if fit, will be first choice starting TH for Lions all day long.

Mate, everyone's been destroying Mako and Genge. Mako's never been a particularly good scrummager and hadn't played for ages prior to being parachuted straight in in the 2nd/3rd week of the tournament after recovering from injury. Genge's international career so far has seen him getting fucked in half his scrums.

Furlong and Sinckler have been around quite some time now. It's not that difficult to compare them. Furlong had a great start then dropped off, and has taken a few hidings in his time. Sinckler's scrummaging has come on a long way and he's now England's premier scrummaging tighthead. Neither of them will beast everyone they face. Both of them will sometimes come off second best. Both of them are excellent players, though only one of them has really stood out in the last few years (yes, even before Furlong's injury). Certainly the previous time we played against Furlong, we had the Irish scrum on skates during an absolute hammering. Having said that, I would not be unhappy with Furlong as the Lions tighthead, though it'll be a good battle between him and Sinckler as they have similar levels of impact.

Criticising Sinckler who personally was doing fine because he wanted another scrum and apparently that shows he's "not as good as he thinks he is" is just you projecting your personal dislike of the guy.

Thanks for letting me know who I dislike - would have been lost without this help!

[JM2K6]

No-one says "he's not as good as he thinks he is" without having a negative opinion of the person - if nothing else, you're literally saying you think he's arrogant.

[shaggy]

No-one says "he's not as good as he thinks he is" without having a negative opinion of the person - if nothing else, you're literally saying you think he's arrogant.

There is an official England thread for a reason. These conversations should be outside.

[JM2K6]

No-one says "he's not as good as he thinks he is" without having a negative opinion of the person - if nothing else, you're literally saying you think he's arrogant.

There is an official England thread for a reason. These conversations should be outside.

True enough, but there's barely any conversation on here as it is.

Mind you, something about this argument rung a bell, so here's some stuff dpedin's said before about Kyle Sinckler:

He might be a good player if he wasn’t an arse! Attitude stinks

Glad to see Quins are continue to develop twatty props, Sinkler is another of the Marler genetic pool, a complete twat

<Mako and Sinckler> might be ok running in a straight line but they struggle to turn and get to the breakdowns, perhaps ponderous is better description than slow? They just struggle to get anywhere near the breakdown in time to be effective.

Aww yeah, gimme more of that neutral view of a man who definitely doesn't dislike Kyle Sinckler.

[shaggy]

No-one says "he's not as good as he thinks he is" without having a negative opinion of the person - if nothing else, you're literally saying you think he's arrogant.

There is an official England thread for a reason. These conversations should be outside.

True enough, but there's barely any conversation on here as it is.

Mind you, something about this argument rung a bell, so here's some stuff dpedin's said before about Kyle Sinckler:

He might be a good player if he wasn’t an arse! Attitude stinks

Glad to see Quins are continue to develop twatty props, Sinkler is another of the Marler genetic pool, a complete twat

<Mako and Sinckler> might be ok running in a straight line but they struggle to turn and get to the breakdowns, perhaps ponderous is better description than slow? They just struggle to get anywhere near the breakdown in time to be effective.

Aww yeah, gimme more of that neutral view of a man who definitely doesn't dislike Kyle Sinckler.

I wouldn’t be surprised if he posted more on here than he does in the Scottish one.

[SaintK]

No-one says "he's not as good as he thinks he is" without having a negative opinion of the person - if nothing else, you're literally saying you think he's arrogant.

There is an official England thread for a reason. These conversations should be outside.

True enough, but there's barely any conversation on here as it is.

Mind you, something about this argument rung a bell, so here's some stuff dpedin's said before about Kyle Sinckler:

He might be a good player if he wasn’t an arse! Attitude stinks

Glad to see Quins are continue to develop twatty props, Sinkler is another of the Marler genetic pool, a complete twat

<Mako and Sinckler> might be ok running in a straight line but they struggle to turn and get to the breakdowns, perhaps ponderous is better description than slow? They just struggle to get anywhere near the breakdown in time to be effective.

Aww yeah, gimme more of that neutral view of a man who definitely doesn't dislike Kyle Sinckler.

It's quite ok to have an irrational dislike of any player
I have a similar dislike to Zander Fagerson as dpedin does to Sinkler. Haven't got round to sharing it on the Scottish rugby thread yet

[JM2K6]

Oh absolutely. I would definitely not enjoy being told I wasn't allowed to thoroughly dislike certain players*. But you have to at least admit that you dislike them.

(*the entire Irish rugby professional setup)

[dpedin]

No-one says "he's not as good as he thinks he is" without having a negative opinion of the person - if nothing else, you're literally saying you think he's arrogant.

There is an official England thread for a reason. These conversations should be outside.

True enough, but there's barely any conversation on here as it is.

Mind you, something about this argument rung a bell, so here's some stuff dpedin's said before about Kyle Sinckler:

He might be a good player if he wasn’t an arse! Attitude stinks

Glad to see Quins are continue to develop twatty props, Sinkler is another of the Marler genetic pool, a complete twat

<Mako and Sinckler> might be ok running in a straight line but they struggle to turn and get to the breakdowns, perhaps ponderous is better description than slow? They just struggle to get anywhere near the breakdown in time to be effective.

Aww yeah, gimme more of that neutral view of a man who definitely doesn't dislike Kyle Sinckler.

FFS - calm your jets!

I didn't claim to be neutral about Sinkler, I said 'Nothing about whether I like him or not - an observation from someone who watched the game and wasn't supporting either side.'. As others said on this thread recently Sinkler previously had an attitude problem, he had a few yellow cards etc but that wasn't the point I was making about him after Sundays game. I honestly don't think he is as good a scrummager as he is made out to be and probably gets into the side more for what he brings around the pitch than in the scrum. All the match reviews and players ratings for Saturdays game I've read seem to concur he had a bad game and lost the scrum battle?

Actually my original post about the English display on Saturday was a genuine one about why are they not picking the excellent on form young players they have in the premiership like Smith, Simmons brothers and Dombrandt to name but a few, why did Jones persist with a selecting guys who were clearly not match fit, the Vunipola brothers or out of form like Daly and why do they persist with a kicking game, poorly executed. Didn't seem to be a lot of disagreement?

Oh and by the way Nel is a better TH scrummager than Fagerson!

[Kawazaki]

I'd like to see Dean Richards given a chance to coach England. He's served his punishment and not written any books trashing the RFU. He also, surprisingly, tends to produce ball-playing teams.

[JM2K6]

Must have been some other guy who complained that I was telling them who they disliked, then. Look, it's pretty clear what I'm saying: you're letting your personal dislike of the guy cloud your judgement. He personally played fine, despite Mako being a sack of shit we still munched them a few times. Match reviews and player ratings aren't worth the paper they're written on - you know that. Anyone not pinning the blame on Mako (who was the one getting pinged off the park) is a moron.

Eddie's selection process kinda boils down to this:

1) He's a cunt. Some players can handle this. More can't. He's a real "my way or the highway" kind of guy who cannot abide any player sticking up for themselves or questioning anything. So we end up with a much smaller pool of players who he'll actually want to pick from, and certain types of players don't get a look-in.

2) He's an "intensity uber alles" kind of coach. Yes, international rugby is played at a higher intensity than club rugby (most of the time). But he absolutely beasts players day-in day-out, and most of his gameplan involves "do that, only more intense".

3) He's a deeply conservative coach when it comes to tactics. England's successes have been built off the back of a bastard defence and a great tactical kicking game, so you can see why he's loathe to change that, but England's failures and aggravating losses have also been as a result of being defensive and kicking ball away regardless of the match situation. And this also extends to positional stuff. He wants a Farrell at 12, and we only have one Farrell. He wants a Billy at 8, so he's told Sam Simmonds there's simply no place for him in Eddie's thoughts. Etc.

4) He's incredibly loyal to certain players because they're all happy with points 1-3, and refuses to drop them or consider them anything other than nailed-on starters regardless of extended form (Billy, Youngs, sometimes Farrell, etc).

5) He doesn't rate English rugby at all. Success at club level doesn't mean anything to him and his default position is that our players are all shit unless they've managed to convince him otherwise in his training camps or England matches. So when we start producing dazzling attacking talent, it does not fucking matter because as far as he's concerned their results so far are worth fuck-all.


Eddie would have to change his entire approach for a team to have guys like Simmonds or Dombrandt or Smith or whoever and actually play to their strengths and create an environment they would flourish in.

I've been thinking about the gold standard for player development, New Zealand. I can't think of many if any players who play Super Rugby and are stand-out talents who don't get given a fair shake of things in the national setup, except in cases of extreme personality issues (e.g. Akira Ioane, who still got a shot in the end anyway). They look at what players are really good at, what makes them special, and bring them into an environment where their rough edges get filed off and they're encouraged to do what they do best. Damien MacKenzie didn't get canned for being too small or asked to just kick the ball away all day. Richie Mo'unga isn't expected to sit deep all day. Ngani Laumape isn't told to play like Ryan Crotty.

I hate the phrase, but it's one I've been hearing a lot from Quins recently: you have to allow players to express themselves.

[Kawazaki]

Must have been some other guy who complained that I was telling them who they disliked, then. Look, it's pretty clear what I'm saying: you're letting your personal dislike of the guy cloud your judgement. He personally played fine, despite Mako being a sack of shit we still munched them a few times. Match reviews and player ratings aren't worth the paper they're written on - you know that. Anyone not pinning the blame on Mako (who was the one getting pinged off the park) is a moron.

Eddie's selection process kinda boils down to this:

1) He's a cunt. Some players can handle this. More can't. He's a real "my way or the highway" kind of guy who cannot abide any player sticking up for themselves or questioning anything. So we end up with a much smaller pool of players who he'll actually want to pick from, and certain types of players don't get a look-in.

2) He's an "intensity uber alles" kind of coach. Yes, international rugby is played at a higher intensity than club rugby (most of the time). But he absolutely beasts players day-in day-out, and most of his gameplan involves "do that, only more intense".

3) He's a deeply conservative coach when it comes to tactics. England's successes have been built off the back of a bastard defence and a great tactical kicking game, so you can see why he's loathe to change that, but England's failures and aggravating losses have also been as a result of being defensive and kicking ball away regardless of the match situation. And this also extends to positional stuff. He wants a Farrell at 12, and we only have one Farrell. He wants a Billy at 8, so he's told Sam Simmonds there's simply no place for him in Eddie's thoughts. Etc.

4) He's incredibly loyal to certain players because they're all happy with points 1-3, and refuses to drop them or consider them anything other than nailed-on starters regardless of extended form (Billy, Youngs, sometimes Farrell, etc).

5) He doesn't rate English rugby at all. Success at club level doesn't mean anything to him and his default position is that our players are all shit unless they've managed to convince him otherwise in his training camps or England matches. So when we start producing dazzling attacking talent, it does not fucking matter because as far as he's concerned their results so far are worth fuck-all.


Eddie would have to change his entire approach for a team to have guys like Simmonds or Dombrandt or Smith or whoever and actually play to their strengths and create an environment they would flourish in.

I've been thinking about the gold standard for player development, New Zealand. I can't think of many if any players who play Super Rugby and are stand-out talents who don't get given a fair shake of things in the national setup, except in cases of extreme personality issues (e.g. Akira Ioane, who still got a shot in the end anyway). They look at what players are really good at, what makes them special, and bring them into an environment where their rough edges get filed off and they're encouraged to do what they do best. Damien MacKenzie didn't get canned for being too small or asked to just kick the ball away all day. Richie Mo'unga isn't expected to sit deep all day. Ngani Laumape isn't told to play like Ryan Crotty.

I hate the phrase, but it's one I've been hearing a lot from Quins recently: you have to allow players to express themselves.

Great post.

The whole England rugby model is screwed at the moment. Jones is accountable to nobody. Literally. There's nobody managing him. It's why he is so abusive to the media as they are the only group who ask him difficult questions. And boy does he hate anyone who questions him. You can see how quick and easy he is to turn in press conferences (when he bothers to turn up) and that's with him biting his lip and pinching himself not to react. Imagine what he's like in the realm he's created for himself with no cameras about.

[Paddington Bear]

The challenge is that ‘expressing yourself’ is bloody difficult in the white heat of being England in the 6N.

I think there’s a lot to the analysis there, my concern is that I think certain elements, particularly around playing attacking rugby and selection issues (not the exact players but there will always be favourites) are features, not bugs of English rugby.

[JM2K6]

Expressing yourself is a lot easier if your coaching team fully backs you and encourages you, and the game plan takes into account the players' strengths and rewards them for doing what they're best at, mind.

Fear of failure ends up being a self-fulfulling prophecy.

[Kawazaki]

The challenge is that ‘expressing yourself’ is bloody difficult in the white heat of being England in the 6N.

I think there’s a lot to the analysis there, my concern is that I think certain elements, particularly around playing attacking rugby and selection issues (not the exact players but there will always be favourites) are features, not bugs of English rugby.

What is the England team for is an interesting question when you think about it. Who does it represent, who are the stakeholders? They are the highest paid test players in the world so they must be important to somebody.

[Paddington Bear]

The challenge is that ‘expressing yourself’ is bloody difficult in the white heat of being England in the 6N.

I think there’s a lot to the analysis there, my concern is that I think certain elements, particularly around playing attacking rugby and selection issues (not the exact players but there will always be favourites) are features, not bugs of English rugby.

What is the England team for is an interesting question when you think about it. Who does it represent, who are the stakeholders? They are the highest paid test players in the world so they must be important to somebody.

I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at but as someone for whom the team is important my priority is winning above all else. Not overly fussed how we do it, as it happens at the moment it’s fairly clear playing more rugby would win more games.

I guess my point with ‘expressing yourself’ is that it’s a great principle and whoever coaches next is very likely to mention it at an initial press conference. IIRC Ashton and Lancaster both talked about it. Does it survive contact with a speculative pass in Cardiff and criticism in the papers? Less convinced

[Raggs]

Eddie has got us attacking at speed. Serious speed. I'd like to see more of it but don't think the centre pairing works well, we need a carrier who canclear out too.

The pack is more or less as good as it could be for me, discipline is a mental issue not an ability one.

[JM2K6]

The challenge is that ‘expressing yourself’ is bloody difficult in the white heat of being England in the 6N.

I think there’s a lot to the analysis there, my concern is that I think certain elements, particularly around playing attacking rugby and selection issues (not the exact players but there will always be favourites) are features, not bugs of English rugby.

What is the England team for is an interesting question when you think about it. Who does it represent, who are the stakeholders? They are the highest paid test players in the world so they must be important to somebody.

I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at but as someone for whom the team is important my priority is winning above all else. Not overly fussed how we do it, as it happens at the moment it’s fairly clear playing more rugby would win more games.

I guess my point with ‘expressing yourself’ is that it’s a great principle and whoever coaches next is very likely to mention it at an initial press conference. IIRC Ashton and Lancaster both talked about it. Does it survive contact with a speculative pass in Cardiff and criticism in the papers? Less convinced

And yet hugely successful teams talk about it and put it into practice.

But hey, maybe you want endless cowardly coaching that is so terrified of losing we refuse to keep the ball and then blame the loss on not having any possession. That song's gotten old for me. Die trying, don't die wondering.

[JM2K6]

Eddie has got us attacking at speed. Serious speed. I'd like to see more of it but don't think the centre pairing works well, we need a carrier who canclear out too.

The pack is more or less as good as it could be for me, discipline is a mental issue not an ability one.

The France game is an outlier. We have not attacked at speed for the majority of the tournament.

No issues with Billy at 8? He hasn't created a thing and has basically taken several games off.

[sockwithaticket]

What is the England team for is an interesting question when you think about it. Who does it represent, who are the stakeholders? They are the highest paid test players in the world so they must be important to somebody.

I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at but as someone for whom the team is important my priority is winning above all else. Not overly fussed how we do it, as it happens at the moment it’s fairly clear playing more rugby would win more games.

I guess my point with ‘expressing yourself’ is that it’s a great principle and whoever coaches next is very likely to mention it at an initial press conference. IIRC Ashton and Lancaster both talked about it. Does it survive contact with a speculative pass in Cardiff and criticism in the papers? Less convinced

And yet hugely successful teams talk about it and put it into practice.

But hey, maybe you want endless cowardly coaching that is so terrified of losing we refuse to keep the ball and then blame the loss on not having any possession. That song's gotten old for me. Die trying, don't die wondering.

To quote Rob Baxter and paraphrase a whole bunch of other successful coaches - get the performance right and the results will look after themselves. Win at all costs is a crippling mentality that has blighted the English national team across multiple regimes, far too often it results in dismal rugby that often doesn't win anyway.

[Raggs]

Eddie has got us attacking at speed. Serious speed. I'd like to see more of it but don't think the centre pairing works well, we need a carrier who canclear out too.

The pack is more or less as good as it could be for me, discipline is a mental issue not an ability one.

The France game is an outlier. We have not attacked at speed for the majority of the tournament.

No issues with Billy at 8? He hasn't created a thing and has basically taken several games off.

Once we started using him to run back kicks it made a lot more sense keeping him.

We did play at high pace against Ireland and Wales ( can't remember Scotland), we just didn't keep hold of the ball well enough, be it knock ons or discipline.

For a team that focused on the kicking game for so long, we've been generally good at kicking to the opposition but poor ( i put much of that on Daly) at receiving it.

I'd kick Daly from fullback, and look to bring a bulkier option at centre to help with carrying duties and also clearout duties, which should help relieve pressure on the pack.

[Sandstorm]

England can “express themselves” by passing the ball to a player alongside them. I dunno what Eddie says to them at training, but surely a quick pass (Ben Youngs you’re excluded) isn’t going to get you dropped?

[Paddington Bear]

What is the England team for is an interesting question when you think about it. Who does it represent, who are the stakeholders? They are the highest paid test players in the world so they must be important to somebody.

I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at but as someone for whom the team is important my priority is winning above all else. Not overly fussed how we do it, as it happens at the moment it’s fairly clear playing more rugby would win more games.

I guess my point with ‘expressing yourself’ is that it’s a great principle and whoever coaches next is very likely to mention it at an initial press conference. IIRC Ashton and Lancaster both talked about it. Does it survive contact with a speculative pass in Cardiff and criticism in the papers? Less convinced

And yet hugely successful teams talk about it and put it into practice.

But hey, maybe you want endless cowardly coaching that is so terrified of losing we refuse to keep the ball and then blame the loss on not having any possession. That song's gotten old for me. Die trying, don't die wondering.

My preferred approach would be our 2019 gameplan. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[JM2K6]

Eddie has got us attacking at speed. Serious speed. I'd like to see more of it but don't think the centre pairing works well, we need a carrier who canclear out too.

The pack is more or less as good as it could be for me, discipline is a mental issue not an ability one.

The France game is an outlier. We have not attacked at speed for the majority of the tournament.

No issues with Billy at 8? He hasn't created a thing and has basically taken several games off.

Once we started using him to run back kicks it made a lot more sense keeping him.

We did play at high pace against Ireland and Wales ( can't remember Scotland), we just didn't keep hold of the ball well enough, be it knock ons or discipline.

For a team that focused on the kicking game for so long, we've been generally good at kicking to the opposition but poor ( i put much of that on Daly) at receiving it.

I'd kick Daly from fullback, and look to bring a bulkier option at centre to help with carrying duties and also clearout duties, which should help relieve pressure on the pack.

At half time against Ireland we'd run 33 metres in total, most of which was Sinckler, but had kicked the ball 14 times. There's no evidence we were doing anything at pace except kicking the ball. In the second half, we got hockeyed. I think it's likely we're talking about different things because I cannot comprehend pointing to the Ireland game as any kind of positive for our attacking play, honestly. Watson got the ball once!

Billy running the ball back into tacklers marks a personal improvement in his involvement but what did it actually get us? Did he tear off big breaks? Did he create anything? No, he just added more metres to his stats for one game and then went back to offering absolutely nothing. He's a creative vacuum. Against Wales, running the ball back meant he had loads of touches, made lots of metres before the gain line, beat 5 defenders (from 16 carries), zero breaks, zero offloads... and passed once. Once! He's redefining one-dimensional. Against Ireland he was a genuine waste of space. He was dogshit against Scotland - missed lots of tackles, and made 3m from 3 whole carries. He's had a shocking tournament.

I assume you expect Launchbury back in the pack, which is fine, but Ewels does nothing, Wilson (who I rate) hasn't been able to impose himself on a game since he was playing 8 (and doing a fine job of it) for England, Mako has struggled yet again, Billy is deeply flawed... I can't imagine looking at the pack and thinking everything's OK, because it doesn't seem that way to me.

Agreed on the centre, who would you choose? A Devoto type, or Lawrence? Luke James? Sam James (I know people like him, I don't particularly rate him but he's probably earned a look)? We don't really have a Laumape or Tuilagi (or Esterhuizen :)), and our better centres tend towards the silky skills rather than the size.

[JM2K6]

My preferred approach would be our 2019 gameplan. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

IMO it asks too much of the players to back that sort of rugby up consistently, and it falls apart if we don't comprehensively win the forward battle.

[Raggs]

At half time against Ireland we'd run 33 metres in total, most of which was Sinckler, but had kicked the ball 14 times. There's no evidence we were doing anything at pace except kicking the ball. In the second half, we got hockeyed. I think it's likely we're talking about different things because I cannot comprehend pointing to the Ireland game as any kind of positive for our attacking play, honestly. Watson got the ball once!

Billy running the ball back into tacklers marks a personal improvement in his involvement but what did it actually get us? Did he tear off big breaks? Did he create anything? No, he just added more metres to his stats for one game and then went back to offering absolutely nothing. He's a creative vacuum. Against Wales, running the ball back meant he had loads of touches, made lots of metres before the gain line, beat 5 defenders (from 16 carries), zero breaks, zero offloads... and passed once. Once! He's redefining one-dimensional. Against Ireland he was a genuine waste of space. He was dogshit against Scotland - missed lots of tackles, and made 3m from 3 whole carries. He's had a shocking tournament.

I assume you expect Launchbury back in the pack, which is fine, but Ewels does nothing, Wilson (who I rate) hasn't been able to impose himself on a game since he was playing 8 (and doing a fine job of it) for England, Mako has struggled yet again, Billy is deeply flawed... I can't imagine looking at the pack and thinking everything's OK, because it doesn't seem that way to me.

Agreed on the centre, who would you choose? A Devoto type, or Lawrence? Luke James? Sam James (I know people like him, I don't particularly rate him but he's probably earned a look)? We don't really have a Laumape or Tuilagi (or Esterhuizen :)), and our better centres tend towards the silky skills rather than the size.

Meters run tells you nothing about what pace you are playing at. Even meters after the gainline may be a poor stat, meters after contact is useful in many instances. We may not have broken the gainline, but if we've gone past the defensive line, then we start to put them on their heels. We then made the errors I already talked about.

As to what Billy brought us, he brought us back up to halfway, with the ability to attack again, and not getting turned over because a Billy carry at pace from the backfield sucks in 2-4 tacklers, who then cannot jackal, meaning we get the ball back. That was a vast improvement over Scotland, where in the kicking game, we ended up generally back in our half, or worse, Scotland ended up in our half. Billy wasn't there to make passes, or to offload, he was there to reset play safely, and in a potentially attacking position, which he did very well. It was a big upgrade on our previous strategy. He doesn't need to be creative.

Launch or Lawes in the 2nd row with Itoje. Would have been nice to be able to say Willis in backrow, but Wilson has been OK, Underhill back would be nice. But out of the fit players available, I don't think Eddie was a million miles off in selection, just discipline.

I'd like to give Lawrence another go, absolutely over the summer, just keep starting him. I'd be interested in Odogwu too. The James's could be worth a look too. If we're playing with pace, we need centres who can help straighten well, and clear out well, Slade/Farrell don't fill that role for me. I'd put Malins at 15, and be looking at phasing May out over the summer, perhaps a Thorley/Fiji Joe type, could allow for a less direct centre pairing.

[Kawazaki]

It's pointless naming alternative players who England should pick now. Jones clearly doesn't trust any player he doesn't know and new players will pick up on that very quickly when they're in training. That will strip away the form, confidence and most importantly the style that got the player in the squad in the first place. Jones is toxic, he's really breaking down the enthusiasm of England fans, the rugby press and he's making very good rugby players terrified to play rugby.

In short, if Jones remains, nothing changes. You'll get outlier performances that offer hope but nothing approaching a trend or epiphany of style.

[Slick]

I watched the Premiership highlights for the first time in a long time last night. I know it's only highlights, but there is a lot of very talented players on show - Sam Simmonds not getting a look in with England

But also, and this is for JMK, what a game Brown had! I was completely sincere in my constant knocking of him when he was playing for England but he looked like a completely different player.

[Kawazaki]

I watched the Premiership highlights for the first time in a long time last night. I know it's only highlights, but there is a lot of very talented players on show - Sam Simmonds not getting a look in with England

But also, and this is for JMK, what a game Brown had! I was completely sincere in my constant knocking of him when he was playing for England but he looked like a completely different player.

Yep, Brown is in stellar form.

I wonder what Gustard must be thinking watching this?

It just goes to show how culture and ambition work from the top down. Let's hope the RFU are watching Quin's.

[Margin__Walker]

Sounds like the Cips to Bath talk was on the money.

Twitter talk this morning that he's signed.

[JM2K6]

I watched the Premiership highlights for the first time in a long time last night. I know it's only highlights, but there is a lot of very talented players on show - Sam Simmonds not getting a look in with England

But also, and this is for JMK, what a game Brown had! I was completely sincere in my constant knocking of him when he was playing for England but he looked like a completely different player.

He's been pretty poor/inconsistent for a fair few seasons but is reborn post-Gustard. He's slowed down a bit and isn't quite the force he used to be for tackle-breaking but he's having a great time. Still wins plenty of turnovers too which is such a bonus from a fullback.

There's been persistent rumours about him joining Newcastle. When I first heard about it I thought it was great timing and we'd be free of a lot of wages paid for someone who hadn't backed up often enough over the last few years. Now I'll be gutted if he does go. If he does, then at least he'll be going out on a bit of a personal high.

[sockwithaticket]

Care's another who's looked reborn, been outstanding from what I've seen, though his form never dipped too far imo. The Dombrandt - Care - Smith axis has to be one of the best in the league.

[Brazil]

I watched the Premiership highlights for the first time in a long time last night. I know it's only highlights, but there is a lot of very talented players on show - Sam Simmonds not getting a look in with England

But also, and this is for JMK, what a game Brown had! I was completely sincere in my constant knocking of him when he was playing for England but he looked like a completely different player.

We're not far off the good old days under Robinson when you could select a team better than his from the players he'd rejected. It's not true for every position, but a good chunk of the spine of the team could be replaced with better players (Dombrandt/Simmonds for BV, Spencer/Randall for Youngs, Smith/Simmonds for Ford, a frozen tampon popsicle for Farrell and Daly). Then again, the problems aren't the personnel per se, rather than the Coach, as JMK has so eloquently pointed out.

It's interesting seeing Sam James getting mentions. He's blown hot and cold this season, but looked really promising when he was called up for the Argentina tour. Eddie apparently promised him game time. He instead spent the tour holding tackle bags.

According to the Grauniad the players will be asked their views as part of the review, it'd be interesting to see whether theres a division in the camp between those who are nailed on no matter what, and those who've been dicked over by Eddie's "Management" style.