The Official English Rugby Thread

[Oxbow]

I forgot Underhill was even on the tour, his stock has fallen pretty far.

[Margin__Walker]

Yeah, Underhill's the kind of bloke who could pull a rabbit out of the hat in terms of a big performance on the day. But realistically he's on this tour purely as a result of having credit in the bank rather than any sort of real form.

[Margin__Walker]

What are we thinking re the second test then? I'd go something like:

1.Genge 2.George 3.Stuart 4.Itoje 5.Chessum 6.Lawes 7.Willis 8.Vunipola
9.Care 10.Smith 11.May 12.Farrell 13.Marchant 14.Arundell 15.Steward

16.LCD 17.Vunipola 18.Heyes 19.Hill 20.Ludlum 21.JvP 22.Porter 23.Nowell

[JM2K6]

Hmm. The one question mark over Willis is pace - I think he deserves a start to show what he can do and he has a lot of strings to his bow but Lawes/Willis/Billy is not a quick back row.

I suspect Eddie will go again as he was but I'd be sorely tempted to put Hill on the bench, put Lawes to 2nd row (yes I know he's a 6 now but I'm sure can do a good job still) and have Chessum play 6. Big ask but I didn't see anything from the Aussie pack that would make me fear for him and I think he could inject some real energy into that back row. Ludlum is all energy but I can't shake the impression that he's all enthusiasm and not that much ability - think he makes for a good impact option though.

As for everyone else... there's talk of LCD replacing George (who was quiet) which is fine I guess, I'd also be fine with them staying as they started. Care did alright, could have been a bit snappier with his passes but largely made good decisions and his kicking (always a concern at international level previously) was a real strength. Happy to see the Smith/Farrell combo given more time but I'm not happy with Eddie's vision for how this should work. I don't want Farrell static at 10 and I don't want Smith getting the ball behind most of his forwards with the defence easily covering him. A more classic 10/12 combo - let Farrell run some lines for Smith to use, and let him offload - would be nice to see at times. The way they played at the weekend diminished both of them, made Marchant (our most dangerous runner in the 6N) a spectator most of the time, and also seemed to mostly happen left to right so Cokanasiga was even more of a passenger than I feared.

Nowell and Steward did their primary jobs just fine but JC has still yet to show he's deserving of international rugby. May is likely to come back and that's fine. Would love to see Arundell start but having him on the bench and not being afraid to bring him on earlier is also fine.

[Margin__Walker]

Hmm. The one question mark over Willis is pace - I think he deserves a start to show what he can do and he has a lot of strings to his bow but Lawes/Willis/Billy is not a quick back row.

I suspect Eddie will go again as he was but I'd be sorely tempted to put Hill on the bench, put Lawes to 2nd row (yes I know he's a 6 now but I'm sure can do a good job still) and have Chessum play 6. Big ask but I didn't see anything from the Aussie pack that would make me fear for him and I think he could inject some real energy into that back row. Ludlum is all energy but I can't shake the impression that he's all enthusiasm and not that much ability - think he makes for a good impact option though.

As for everyone else... there's talk of LCD replacing George (who was quiet) which is fine I guess, I'd also be fine with them staying as they started. Care did alright, could have been a bit snappier with his passes but largely made good decisions and his kicking (always a concern at international level previously) was a real strength. Happy to see the Smith/Farrell combo given more time but I'm not happy with Eddie's vision for how this should work. I don't want Farrell static at 10 and I don't want Smith getting the ball behind most of his forwards with the defence easily covering him. A more classic 10/12 combo - let Farrell run some lines for Smith to use, and let him offload - would be nice to see at times. The way they played at the weekend diminished both of them, made Marchant (our most dangerous runner in the 6N) a spectator most of the time, and also seemed to mostly happen left to right so Cokanasiga was even more of a passenger than I feared.

Nowell and Steward did their primary jobs just fine but JC has still yet to show he's deserving of international rugby. May is likely to come back and that's fine. Would love to see Arundell start but having him on the bench and not being afraid to bring him on earlier is also fine.

Yeah, I just can't see Lawes at lock. Eddie's the sort of bloke who might roll back the years and stick him there, but I'd be very surprised.

Agree it's a slow back row, but Chessum for Hill does at least offset that slightly on the mobility side for the pack. Think you have to carry on with the Smith/Farrell axis in the absence of another top class 12. It's the sort of combination that could come good, so needs a proper run in this series to find out either way.

[sockwithaticket]

Hmm. The one question mark over Willis is pace - I think he deserves a start to show what he can do and he has a lot of strings to his bow but Lawes/Willis/Billy is not a quick back row.

With Underhill or Ludlam the other options it's a bit moot, I wouldn't say either is noticeably quicker than Willis.

[JM2K6]

Hmm. The one question mark over Willis is pace - I think he deserves a start to show what he can do and he has a lot of strings to his bow but Lawes/Willis/Billy is not a quick back row.

With Underhill or Ludlam the other options it's a bit moot, I wouldn't say either is noticeably quicker than Willis.

I do think Ludlum's quicker (but a worse player). It's more about how it impacts our back row in general. If it was Dombrandt/Simmonds playing and not Billy then it'd be less of a problem. Our pack was on top for much of that first half even before the red card so it's not the end of the world.

I'd like to see more attacking intent from the pack, though. I don't just mean the occasionally impactful Genge/Billy carry; I mean an attempt to attack space, offload, etc. It's not there yet.

[Kawazaki]

I think the only players who have played 12 in the squad are Dingwall and Porter? This tour is already looking like another wasted opportunity so I'd be tempted to strip England back and just keep it simple. Have a 12 at 12 and a 13 at 13 with either Smith or Farrell at 10 dependant on what kind of simple they want to play (territory game pick Farrell, possession game pick Smith). I don't suppose they'll do it due to stubborn sunk cost fallacy and Jones hubris but England might at least learn something about more centres.

England must get more pace into the side though, in every area of the team. Instead of non-existent massive centres, pick fast centres with good footwork. Same with wingers and flankers.

[sockwithaticket]

I think the only players who have played 12 in the squad are Dingwall and Porter? This tour is already looking like another wasted opportunity so I'd be tempted to strip England back and just keep it simple. Have a 12 at 12 and a 13 at 13 with either Smith or Farrell at 10 dependant on what kind of simple they want to play (territory game pick Farrell, possession game pick Smith). I don't suppose they'll do it due to stubborn sunk cost fallacy and Jones hubris but England might at least learn something about more centres.

England must get more pace into the side though, in every area of the team. Instead of non-existent massive centres, pick fast centres with good footwork. Same with wingers and flankers.

Yeah, we spent much of Jones early reign without a presence in the midfield, but outside backs of 11. May, 13. Joseph, 14. Watson, 15. Brown. A lot of pace and footwork with a slower, more solid member at the back.

That can be replicated again with the currently available personnel; Marchant at 13 and then take your pick of Freeman, Radwan or Arundell for wing spots with Steward at 15.

[JM2K6]

I think the only players who have played 12 in the squad are Dingwall and Porter? This tour is already looking like another wasted opportunity so I'd be tempted to strip England back and just keep it simple. Have a 12 at 12 and a 13 at 13 with either Smith or Farrell at 10 dependant on what kind of simple they want to play (territory game pick Farrell, possession game pick Smith). I don't suppose they'll do it due to stubborn sunk cost fallacy and Jones hubris but England might at least learn something about more centres.

I think my view on how Smith and Farrell play as 10s means that Smith benefits from a single player willing to be the "out" ball and run hard lines - be that Porter or Farrell actually playing like a centre - with a strike runner at 13 (i.e. Marchant), and Farrell's best performances at 10 for club and country come with 2 nuggety centres as much for the oppressive defensive presence as it is for the constant in-your-face carrying. And I don't think we have 2 nuggety centres excluding Farrell.

Would you agree with that? My argument falls down a little bit considering Farrell's best performance for England at 10 in quite some time was that Australia game at the RWC, where he had Manu at 12 and Slade at 13, but we don't have anything like a Manu and those times when Manu hasn't been available he's looked most comfortable with 2 similar centres available.

England must get more pace into the side though, in every area of the team. Instead of non-existent massive centres, pick fast centres with good footwork. Same with wingers and flankers.

The back 3 was a bit of a mess though Nowell showed up well enough I guess and there's no doubt Steward can complement faster wingers. May or Arundell would help there. But we started with Care (still v fast), Smith (fast with geat footwork), Marchant (v fast with great footwork) so the balance there wasn't awful. I can't see having Dingwall alongside Marchant being an improvement; yeah you'd add pace but you'd lose a lot of defensive solidity and hard running assuming Farrell or Porter played more a more classic 12 role. I'm not sold on Dingwall even though I can see the talent.

The back row is slow and will only get slower with Curry out. We didn't see that much of Billy, certainly nothing like his end of season Saracens form; there was a lot of carrying but we rarely saw the footwork and it would be good to get a few more forwards stepping up here (George, Itoje, Hill, Lawes can all do better) to enable him to be the second carrier where he can do so much damange.

I do worry about making even more changes, though. It really can't help. We've made so many changes, particularly in the backs, on a regular basis. These are the backlines we've picked going back to that
Australia game last year:

Care, Smith; Farrell, Marchant; Cokanasiga, Nowell, Steward
Youngs, Smith; Slade, Marchant; Nowell, Steward, Furbank
Randall, Smith; Slade, Marchant; Nowell, Malins, Steward
Randall, Smith; Slade, Daly; Nowell, Malins, Steward
Randall, Smith; Slade, Marchant; Nowell, Malins, Steward
Youngs, Smith; Slade, Daly; Marchant, Malins, Furbank
Youngs, Smith; Tuilagi, Slade; May, Marchant, Steward
Youngs, Smith; Farrell, Slade; May, Tuilagi, Steward

So the most common combo is Randall-Smith-Slade-Marchant which had its problems and we've still only seen that 3 times in the last 8 matches. In his short international career so far, Smith (the only ever-present) has played alongside 3 different 9s, 3 different 12s, 3 different 13s, 7 different wings, and 2 different fullbacks.

[Kawazaki]

I think the only players who have played 12 in the squad are Dingwall and Porter? This tour is already looking like another wasted opportunity so I'd be tempted to strip England back and just keep it simple. Have a 12 at 12 and a 13 at 13 with either Smith or Farrell at 10 dependant on what kind of simple they want to play (territory game pick Farrell, possession game pick Smith). I don't suppose they'll do it due to stubborn sunk cost fallacy and Jones hubris but England might at least learn something about more centres.

I think my view on how Smith and Farrell play as 10s means that Smith benefits from a single player willing to be the "out" ball and run hard lines - be that Porter or Farrell actually playing like a centre - with a strike runner at 13 (i.e. Marchant), and Farrell's best performances at 10 for club and country come with 2 nuggety centres as much for the oppressive defensive presence as it is for the constant in-your-face carrying. And I don't think we have 2 nuggety centres excluding Farrell.

Would you agree with that? My argument falls down a little bit considering Farrell's best performance for England at 10 in quite some time was that Australia game at the RWC, where he had Manu at 12 and Slade at 13, but we don't have anything like a Manu and those times when Manu hasn't been available he's looked most comfortable with 2 similar centres available.

England must get more pace into the side though, in every area of the team. Instead of non-existent massive centres, pick fast centres with good footwork. Same with wingers and flankers.

The back 3 was a bit of a mess though Nowell showed up well enough I guess and there's no doubt Steward can complement faster wingers. May or Arundell would help there. But we started with Care (still v fast), Smith (fast with geat footwork), Marchant (v fast with great footwork) so the balance there wasn't awful. I can't see having Dingwall alongside Marchant being an improvement; yeah you'd add pace but you'd lose a lot of defensive solidity and hard running assuming Farrell or Porter played more a more classic 12 role. I'm not sold on Dingwall even though I can see the talent.

The back row is slow and will only get slower with Curry out. We didn't see that much of Billy, certainly nothing like his end of season Saracens form; there was a lot of carrying but we rarely saw the footwork and it would be good to get a few more forwards stepping up here (George, Itoje, Hill, Lawes can all do better) to enable him to be the second carrier where he can do so much damange.

I do worry about making even more changes, though. It really can't help. We've made so many changes, particularly in the backs, on a regular basis. These are the backlines we've picked going back to that
Australia game last year:

Care, Smith; Farrell, Marchant; Cokanasiga, Nowell, Steward
Youngs, Smith; Slade, Marchant; Nowell, Steward, Furbank
Randall, Smith; Slade, Marchant; Nowell, Malins, Steward
Randall, Smith; Slade, Daly; Nowell, Malins, Steward
Randall, Smith; Slade, Marchant; Nowell, Malins, Steward
Youngs, Smith; Slade, Daly; Marchant, Malins, Furbank
Youngs, Smith; Tuilagi, Slade; May, Marchant, Steward
Youngs, Smith; Farrell, Slade; May, Tuilagi, Steward

So the most common combo is Randall-Smith-Slade-Marchant which had its problems and we've still only seen that 3 times in the last 8 matches. In his short international career so far, Smith (the only ever-present) has played alongside 3 different 9s, 3 different 12s, 3 different 13s, 7 different wings, and 2 different fullbacks.

As you point to, Farrell has played his whole club career without a huge crashball centre at 12. I'd have no real worries if England picked a solid 12 who can carry the ball up if required or better still pick a line and let Farrell hit him. Same with the 13.

Your other point about Vunipola being in great form for Saracens (he was the real MoM in a losing final) and yet put him back in with Eddie Jones and within days his form drops off a cliff points at the real problem. I'm well beyond my wits end. The England rugby environment is substandard, unenjoyable and confusing. Jones makes good players, in form, play like shit.

[JM2K6]

Farrell had the most success with Barritt outside him - not huge, but definitely a crash ball player who ran hard and straight all day.

[Raggs]

Farrell had the most success with Barritt outside him - not huge, but definitely a crash ball player who ran hard and straight all day.

Surely Farrell had the most success with whoever we had outside him for the long 2016 run, and whoever was outside him during the time we actually made it to the world cup final? I think Manu was the world cup run.

[JM2K6]

Farrell had the most success with Barritt outside him - not huge, but definitely a crash ball player who ran hard and straight all day.

Surely Farrell had the most success with whoever we had outside him for the long 2016 run, and whoever was outside him during the time we actually made it to the world cup final? I think Manu was the world cup run.

Club rugby, I was replying to this: "Farrell has played his whole club career without a huge crashball centre at 12"

[Raggs]

Farrell had the most success with Barritt outside him - not huge, but definitely a crash ball player who ran hard and straight all day.

Surely Farrell had the most success with whoever we had outside him for the long 2016 run, and whoever was outside him during the time we actually made it to the world cup final? I think Manu was the world cup run.

Club rugby, I was replying to this: "Farrell has played his whole club career without a huge crashball centre at 12"

Sorry, I have Toga blocked.

[Kawazaki]

Farrell had the most success with Barritt outside him - not huge, but definitely a crash ball player who ran hard and straight all day.

Farrell being successful with a lightweight crashball centre is all the more impressive to be honest.

The point is, Jones, this so-called rugby svengali, can't get a tune out of England unless he has an enormous PI lump carrying the ball up. It's pathetic. Farrell plays with Tompkins and Daly/Lozowski/Morris outside him whilst being thrown pies by the fifth best scrumhalf in Wales. And he wins doing that. Now, before I get accused of Saracens bias, I think Smith would be just as effective - if not more so - playing rugby with two ball players in midfield neither of whom is 17st.

[Kawazaki]

Surely Farrell had the most success with whoever we had outside him for the long 2016 run, and whoever was outside him during the time we actually made it to the world cup final? I think Manu was the world cup run.

Club rugby, I was replying to this: "Farrell has played his whole club career without a huge crashball centre at 12"

Sorry, I have Toga blocked.

Hey, fuck you loser

[SaintK]

William Hill's odds on who will replace Jones. I'd take any of them right now!!!!
Steve Borthwick - 3/1
Rob Baxter - 4/1
Scott Robertson - 6/1
Warren Gatland - 8/1
Andy Farrell - 8/1
Shaun Edwards - 10/1
Joe Schmit - 12/1
BAR - 16/1

[notfatcat]

16/1 Bloody Andy Robinson?

[Dinsdale Piranha]

16/1 Bloody Andy Robinson?

He can get England playing badly much more cheaply than Eddie Jones.

[Kawazaki]

William Hill's odds on who will replace Jones. I'd take any of them right now!!!!
Steve Borthwick - 3/1
Rob Baxter - 4/1
Scott Robertson - 6/1
Warren Gatland - 8/1
Andy Farrell - 8/1
Shaun Edwards - 10/1
Joe Schmit - 12/1
BAR - 16/1

I hate myself for saying it but I reckon Gatland would be ok as an interim through to the RWC. He won't win but he'll make England bloody hard to beat.

[mos_eisely_]

Gatland working with Scott Robertson?

[JM2K6]

Do we have any recent examples of what happens when Gatland gets hold of a talented group of players who aren't yet familiar with playing together shortly before a tournament? Particularly ones he's barely worked with?

[Kawazaki]

Do we have any recent examples of what happens when Gatland gets hold of a talented group of players who aren't yet familiar with playing together shortly before a tournament? Particularly ones he's barely worked with?

He was terrible on the Lions tour but the whole thing was a pointless mess really.

[fishfoodie]

Do we have any recent examples of what happens when Gatland gets hold of a talented group of players who aren't yet familiar with playing together shortly before a tournament? Particularly ones he's barely worked with?

That's the point, with a lot of the candidates listed there; they were coaches in systems where they had considerably more control over who got selected in the club sides, & what systems they played, so that when they came into camp, they were already partially prepared.

[ASMO]

Leaked team sheet shows Underhill in for Curry, Hill keeps his place (fuck knows why) and Arundell in for big Joe. Rest as was.

[Raggs]

If Hill is in, it wouldn't surprise me if the ref penalises him harshly for every little indiscretion.

[Oxbow]

Underhill must have been tearing it up in training maaaate because he's in no kind of form at all.

[JM2K6]

Hill acted like a twat but other than that played well and his physicality made a difference. Plus his twattishness actually worked, which Eddie will happily reward

Underhill joins Joe C on the very lucky boy list. Is Willis injured?

[sockwithaticket]

Hill acted like a twat but other than that played well and his physicality made a difference. Plus his twattishness actually worked, which Eddie will happily reward

Underhill joins Joe C on the very lucky boy list. Is Willis injured?

Haven't heard anything. Just not training as well as our orciest orc I guess.

[Raggs]

Hill acted like a twat but other than that played well and his physicality made a difference. Plus his twattishness actually worked, which Eddie will happily reward

Underhill joins Joe C on the very lucky boy list. Is Willis injured?

For me Hill's twattishness didn't work. He was the one that lost it on 2 occasions before Swain finally lost it himself. Swain had the better of him, and all the Aussies will be targeting Hill now. Hill could have easily been red carded for the strike to the face, certainly yellowed etc. Hill lost it first, he just got lucky.

[Kawazaki]

So, the England line up should be;

Steward
Nowell
Marchant
Farrell,
Arundell
Smith
Care
Genge
George
Stuart
Itoje
Hill
Lawes (capt)
Underhill
B Vunipola.

Replacements:
Cowan-Dickie
M Vunipola
Heyes
Chessum
Ludlam
Van Poortvliet
Porter
Freeman?

I wouldn't be surprised to see Eddiot pick a 6/2 bench and put Willis on the bench as well.

[ASMO]

So, the England line up should be;

Steward
Nowell
Marchant
Farrell,
Arundell
Smith
Care
Genge
George
Stuart
Itoje
Hill
Lawes (capt)
Underhill
B Vunipola.

Replacements:
Cowan-Dickie
M Vunipola
Heyes
Chessum
Ludlam
Van Poortvliet
Porter
Freeman?

I wouldn't be surprised to see Eddiot pick a 6/2 bench and put Willis on the bench as well.

i think Cowan Dickie is in for George

[JM2K6]

Hill acted like a twat but other than that played well and his physicality made a difference. Plus his twattishness actually worked, which Eddie will happily reward

Underhill joins Joe C on the very lucky boy list. Is Willis injured?

For me Hill's twattishness didn't work. He was the one that lost it on 2 occasions before Swain finally lost it himself. Swain had the better of him, and all the Aussies will be targeting Hill now. Hill could have easily been red carded for the strike to the face, certainly yellowed etc. Hill lost it first, he just got lucky.

I get what you're saying and had Swain not reacted that would be inarguably true... But he did and got himself a red card, so whether by luck or not it did actually benefit England. I'm sure Eddie would rather see shit like this than players who always play within the lines, more's the pity

[Dinsdale Piranha]

How is Arundell for pace? It's a little hard to tell from his highlights videos.

He's clearly a strong runner in the George North mould but are we talking peak Jonny May quick or just peak Jack Nowell quick?

I do worry about the lack of a proper speedster in the England back line (as well as the other 100 things to worry about obviously)

[Margin__Walker]

How is Arundell for pace? It's a little hard to tell from his highlights videos.

He's clearly a strong runner in the George North mould but are we talking peak Jonny May quick or just peak Jack Nowell quick?

I do worry about the lack of a proper speedster in the England back line (as well as the other 100 things to worry about obviously)

He's slower than Adam Radwan. That's about it though in the in terms of current EQP options I can think of.

He's pretty quick.

Jack Nowell isn't scoring this try for example

[ASMO]

How is Arundell for pace? It's a little hard to tell from his highlights videos.

He's clearly a strong runner in the George North mould but are we talking peak Jonny May quick or just peak Jack Nowell quick?

I do worry about the lack of a proper speedster in the England back line (as well as the other 100 things to worry about obviously)

He's slower than Adam Radwan. That's about it though in the in terms of current EQP options I can think of.

He's pretty quick.

He scores length of the field tries for fun

[petej]

How is Arundell for pace? It's a little hard to tell from his highlights videos.

He's clearly a strong runner in the George North mould but are we talking peak Jonny May quick or just peak Jack Nowell quick?

I do worry about the lack of a proper speedster in the England back line (as well as the other 100 things to worry about obviously)

He's slower than Adam Radwan. That's about it though in the in terms of current EQP options I can think of.

He's pretty quick.

Jack Nowell isn't scoring this try for example

Where is Ollie Hassell-Collins on this scale?

[Margin__Walker]

Where is Ollie Hassell-Collins on this scale?

Pretty quick, but nothing really special as far as wings go pace wise.

Think SOB mentioned on his podcast a few months ago that Arundell and Will Joseph were the fastest players in the LI squad (up in the 10.5s m/s), so he'd be a rung down from that.

[Kawazaki]

England players speed list (guess);

1. Radwan
2. Arundell
3. May
4. Watson
5. Ashton
6. Wade
7. Lynagh
8. Earl
9. OHC
10. Thorley