NPR

I imagine those still involved fucking love Eddie. Be it because they're fellow arseholes who enjoy the siege mentality he cultivates or Stockholme Syndrome.

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 11:00 am 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.

Yup but then he's always been good at club level. Last season he had a few dips but somehow he's begun to really nail all aspects of his kicking game, and only Randall is a better running 9. He's too old for international rugby, defensively he's a bit of a 'mare, and I'm sure he'll struggle again against higher quality oppo, but at the current level he's ridiculously good given the players he can feed off / bring into the game.

Raggs, I think we just have different expectations from a senior player in the spine of the team. Billy running back kicks into defenders and occasionally getting past one, and doing basically nothing else, is a dead end tactic IMO. When he's carrying like that he barely tackles. He offers little threat at the breakdown. Bizarrely, given his size, he's scored a total of 3 tries in his last 30 matches. We should expect more.

Besides, I still think that one game was a one-off. He offered nothing against Ireland.

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 11:12 am I imagine those still involved fucking love Eddie. Be it because they're fellow arseholes who enjoy the siege mentality he cultivates or Stockholme Syndrome.

Alternatively they see a coach who's been with them through a Grand Slam, 2 more 6N Championships and a RWC final. There's a good chance we'd all be loyal to a coach who does that, and probably rationalise this season as due to covid (wrongly IMO).

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 11:26 am Billy running back kicks into defenders and occasionally getting past one, and doing basically nothing else, is a dead end tactic IMO.

He's in great form now, and I know you won't agree, but insert the word Brown in exchange for Billy in your sentence and that pretty much sums up what Mike Brown was doing in an England shirt.

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 11:12 am I imagine those still involved fucking love Eddie. Be it because they're fellow arseholes who enjoy the siege mentality he cultivates or Stockholme Syndrome.

For £20k+ a match and £200k+ a year I'm certain that Eddie's favourites will tell the RFU anything that Eddie wants them to say. And the media as well.

Oh, I WISH Billy was giving us what Brown did. Brown's last series, after which he was dropped:

3 matches, 216m, seven clean breaks, and two tries

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 1:55 pm Oh, I WISH Billy was giving us what Brown did. Brown's last series, after which he was dropped:

3 matches, 216m, seven clean breaks, and two tries

That's looking back with rose tinted glasses as I believe we threw away 2 big leads and a lot of complaints were directed at the defence, with Brown specifically called out for lacking pace as he was being picked on the wing to allow Daly to start at fullback - my mistake if this was not the South Africa tour

Just been listening to some of the rugby podcasts post the weekend and whilst some just simply say it's all shit and sack Eddie others raise the fair point that we had an even worse run in 2018. However 2018 basically saw the end of the line for Hask, Robshaw, Hartley, Care & Brown and I don't see a similar group of players in the current squad we're unlikely to see again. Different age range but Eddie will pick a selection and make them the culprits. The injured players have done well to miss this Six Nations.

Madness wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 8:53 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 1:55 pm Oh, I WISH Billy was giving us what Brown did. Brown's last series, after which he was dropped:

3 matches, 216m, seven clean breaks, and two tries

That's looking back with rose tinted glasses as I believe we threw away 2 big leads and a lot of complaints were directed at the defence, with Brown specifically called out for lacking pace as he was being picked on the wing to allow Daly to start at fullback - my mistake if this was not the South Africa tour

Not at all - I'm saying he provided plenty of good stuff even though he was dropped after that tour. I'd rather someone with actual impact than an empty shirt. I'm not relitigating the circumstances of him being dropped. If you read what I was responding to, the criticism was he was just running into contact and doing nothing else.

Eddie with some VERY CONVINCING comments about finding new 9s and 10s:

“I am going to be up and down the freeways the next few weeks,” he said. “We have a list of 10-12 players we are going to look at. There are some good young guys, particularly in the 9s and 10s and that is the hardest area to adapt to Test rugby.

“There are some young 10s like Atkinson, Marcus Smith, Fin Smith, Simmonds at Exeter. They are all possibly going to have the opportunity to step up to the plate. It is the toughest position in world rugby. You have so much pressure, so little time and space, a lot of decisions to make so it’s a fantastic opportunity for one of the young guys to step up.”

"I'll just mention every young English 10 I can think of, and nobody will think it's weird I'm talking about Fin Smith and Charlie Atkinson in the same breath as Joe Simmonds and Marcus Smith. Also apparently we've never actually watched any of the alternative 9s and 10s before."

Number 8 is fine, of course

I find it very strange that Atkinson's on his radar, the kid looks promising, but I don't think he's even up to 5 senior starts yet

While you wouldn't necessarily expect him to give an exhaustive list of the positions he's looking at, just mentioning those two suggests a particular focus. I'll believe the scoping out 9s when I see it, he's been harping about depth in that position since he took over and manifestly failed to do anything about it. Him taking a look at young 9s could always just be a repeat of the Jack Maunder situation - 3 minutes and a cap at 19, never called upon again - before deciding to stick with Youngs forever. Not saying Maunder deserves to be in the squad at the moment or under consideration, but finding a rugby foetus, flinging them a cap and then discarding them is a shit way to go about one's business.

Never done anything about depth at 9? In 6 seasons or so as well as Youngs he's spent a fair bit of time looking at Heinz, Spencer, Care, Wigglesworth and now Robson. I'd much rather he hadn't looked at Heinz and Wigglesworth, but manifestly he has looked at other players, it's just none of them have played well enough for him to usurp Youngs

That's 6 players he's looked at for the shirt, how many would you like to look at per season?

Fin Smith made his Warriors debut at the end of February. Definitely should be included alongside Marcus "101 Quins caps, current leading Premiership scorer by about 50% more points than #2" Smith and Joe "captained Exeter to League and European success" Simmonds.

(yes yes, I know he had a look at Marcus Smith before he'd even played for Quins, but still)

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 11:12 am Never done anything about depth at 9? In 6 seasons or so as well as Youngs he's spent a fair bit of time looking at Heinz, Spencer, Care, Wigglesworth and now Robson. I'd much rather he hadn't looked at Heinz and Wigglesworth, but manifestly he has looked at other players, it's just none of them have played well enough for him to usurp Youngs

That's 6 players he's looked at for the shirt, how many would you like to look at per season?

He spent time looking at... guys who'd had loads of gametime under Lancaster? Care and Wigglesworth had heaps of caps and were coming to the end of their careers. Heinz was a bizarre arse-pull of a mediocre old Kiwi because he didn't trust any younger players. Spencer, despite being consistently one of the top 9s in the league, had 3 subs appearances against South Africa and a subs appearance against Scotland (not a single one of those games England won, which tells you how 'fair' that was). Robson, again one of the top 9s in the league, has 12 caps, all from the bench. He's not even allowed to start against fucking Georgia or Italy.

The point being made is that he knew he was going to have to move on Care and Wigglesworth, and Youngs is no spring chicken who has massive flaws to his game. So who did he go with? A short-term bang-average player who got picked because he's from Super Rugby. And the guys actually tearing it up in club rugby get the slightest of chances, a few minutes here and there at the end of matches.

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 11:12 am Never done anything about depth at 9? In 6 seasons or so as well as Youngs he's spent a fair bit of time looking at Heinz, Spencer, Care, Wigglesworth and now Robson. I'd much rather he hadn't looked at Heinz and Wigglesworth, but manifestly he has looked at other players, it's just none of them have played well enough for him to usurp Youngs

That's 6 players he's looked at for the shirt, how many would you like to look at per season?

It is his responsibility to prepare adequately for Ben Youngs being unavailable. Youngs has proven astonishingly durable during Eddie's tenure, but he could be forced into retirement with a bad injury tomorrow and Eddie has not come close to lining up a successor despite looking at several players.

Robson may not even have 80 minutes under his belt from all 12 of his caps combined and it looks like Youngs would have to die for him to get a start. Care is the only other scrum half who had a fair shake under Eddie. Spencer and Robson have both shown more than enough domestically vs. Youngs to warrant a start or two yet one of them can no longer even make the squad despite obviously being one of the best 9's in the country Whether Eddie rates them or not, they're the options. We're not going to magic up a Dupont or Aaron Smith out of nowhere.

Carreras only gets 9 weeks for a blatant attempt on Josh Bassett's sight.

The independent disciplinary panel said: "The player accepted that he had committed an act of foul play in that he intentionally made contact with the eye of an opponent. His evidence was that he had intended to ‘irritate’ the Wasps player but that he had not intended to cause any harm in his action. He accepted on reflection that by making contact with the eye of Josh Bassett he risked causing serious injury though this was a momentary action without thought for the consequences. Thankfully, there was no injury caused other than a temporary discomfort.

"The panel considered that the action warranted a mid-range starting point due to the fact Josh Bassett was vulnerable at the time of the incident, there had been fleeting pressure to the eye and it was a grave, intentional act. The entry point for mid-range is 18 weeks.

"The player had admitted the offence which the panel accepted took some courage given the stigma attached to offences of this nature. He has a clean disciplinary record over a number of years as a professional player, expressed remorse for his actions and engaged with the process positively despite requiring the assistance of a translator. In line with the regulatory framework, the panel applied 50% mitigation.

This is bullshit. He did something grave enough to have developed a stigma in the game and is given credit for admitting to it even though video footage was indisputable? The extent of and reasons for mitigation often look silly, but this is just pathetic.

That's absolutely shameful from the disciplinary

How does he prepare adequately for Youngs not being there if the players he's looked at simply aren't good enough? I do as it happens think he could have done more in this area, and I certainly didn't like using some of the limited time there was to look at Heinz and Wigglesworth, but clearly he has looked at other players.

There is an ongoing problem that just because someone looks good at club level doesn't mean they'll look good at test level, and that frequently just seems to be skipped over because players have done something that looks good on TV to us fans. Jones cannot magic players into being good enough, okay he could have looked at maybe Spencer the bench player from Sarries a bit more but it's not like he's ignoring a van der Westhuizen because of Youngs, it's just Youngs probably is the best of the lot, and the best players tend to get picked, that's really sort of the point.

9 is a problem position, experience is very important, arguably the role it maters most, and so we do get more foreign players in the league than is ideal for England and then that's made worse when suddenly Saints or Exeter as we've seen recently have a little queue of potentials not getting game time. So it's nice to see Borthwick doing well with JVP, hope that continues once Youngs is back at the club.

Jones has had Randall in camp recently that's good and it's a shame he picked up a knock and it's a shame Robson has really struggled, maybe JVP gets onto the tour this summer if it goes ahead, that would be good too.

For sure this is an area that is concerning, and sure Eddie hasn't done everything he could, I just think it's manifestly unfair to say he's manifestly refused to do anything about the situation. Yes some of the players he looked at played under other coaches, but is that a thing, that as a new coach you have to only look at new players to avoid criticism? Be reasonable.

It's time for more disingenuous piquant bingo!

How does he prepare adequately for Youngs not being there if the players he's looked at simply aren't good enough?

How the fuck does he know if he refuses to start any of them? It's not like Youngs hasn't repeatedly shit the bed.

There is an ongoing problem that just because someone looks good at club level doesn't mean they'll look good at test level, and that frequently just seems to be skipped over because players have done something that looks good on TV to us fans.

We're talking about players who've performed at a high level of a period of years. And Ben Youngs when thrust into the same situations performs worse.

Jones cannot magic players into being good enough, okay he could have looked at maybe Spencer the bench player from Sarries a bit more

Get fucked with this bullshit. Ben Spencer ended up first choice for the big games at Saracens - they won the double with him starting - and he's been first choice at Bath too. And it's not like he wasn't happy to give plenty of starts to Saracens players when they were benching a lot of the time (George, Isiekwe to name a couple)

Jones has had Randall in camp recently that's good and it's a shame he picked up a knock and it's a shame Robson has really struggled

Bringing players into camp is utterly meaningless if they don't get any real game time. Robson has "struggled" when asked to rescue matches off the bench; whenever he's been given more than a few minutes he's actually looked good (even when asked to play 10(?!?!?!) at the weekend).

Jones has done the bare minimum. The guys who have performed consistently over a period of time get a few minutes here and there. Ben Youngs, no matter how badly he plays, gets nailed on even for the games that scream out to have someone else show what they can do when given a start.

Care and Wigglesworth are 34 & 37, Youngs is 31. So looking at Care or Wigglesworth is not succession planning for Youngs.

You argue that premiership performance is no guide to international performance. Perhaps you are right. But you then use that to argue that there are no other options for Jones to explore. It's entirely circular - it would apply just as much if a young JvdW were playing for Wasps. If the only guide to international performance is how a player performs in internationals then the only way for a coach to gain that information is to try them in internationals; but you simultaneously argue that the coach is right not do that because there is no evidence they will be better than the incumbent, because... they haven't played in internationals. Your argument is one that necessarily cements the incumbent in place until they are injured or retire.

Yeah, pretty much everything JMK just said.

To re-iterate my point from earlier, these players may not be better than Youngs*, but if he goes down injured one of them would have to be used, so a start here and there to see how they'd fare is completely warranted. It's all very well holding onto Youngs and using these guys as break glass in case of emergency options, but there's no guarantee a good enough (whatever that looks like to Eddie) youngster is going to come through to rescue the situation.

Players building their way into test rugby is also a fairly well documented phenomenon and it comes through game time. 5 minutes off the bench when England are chasing the game and need to do something special isn't really that useful in said regard.




* Which I don't accept given their respective domestic performances. Yes, club rugby doesn't immediately translate further up, but if the incumbent international scrum half regularly looks poorer at domestic level than his rivals, then there might be some merit to the idea they're better than him or at least in better form and should perhaps be given the opportunity to start a test.

Spencer made a huge mistake sitting on the bench for Sarries for as long as he did. He should have 50 caps and there should be no discussion about our starting 9

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 11:59 am How does he prepare adequately for Youngs not being there if the players he's looked at simply aren't good enough? I do as it happens think he could have done more in this area, and I certainly didn't like using some of the limited time there was to look at Heinz and Wigglesworth, but clearly he has looked at other players.

There is an ongoing problem that just because someone looks good at club level doesn't mean they'll look good at test level, and that frequently just seems to be skipped over because players have done something that looks good on TV to us fans. Jones cannot magic players into being good enough, okay he could have looked at maybe Spencer the bench player from Sarries a bit more but it's not like he's ignoring a van der Westhuizen because of Youngs, it's just Youngs probably is the best of the lot, and the best players tend to get picked, that's really sort of the point.

9 is a problem position, experience is very important, arguably the role it maters most, and so we do get more foreign players in the league than is ideal for England and then that's made worse when suddenly Saints or Exeter as we've seen recently have a little queue of potentials not getting game time. So it's nice to see Borthwick doing well with JVP, hope that continues once Youngs is back at the club.

Jones has had Randall in camp recently that's good and it's a shame he picked up a knock and it's a shame Robson has really struggled, maybe JVP gets onto the tour this summer if it goes ahead, that would be good too.

For sure this is an area that is concerning, and sure Eddie hasn't done everything he could, I just think it's manifestly unfair to say he's manifestly refused to do anything about the situation. Yes some of the players he looked at played under other coaches, but is that a thing, that as a new coach you have to only look at new players to avoid criticism? Be reasonable.

If Youngs was a good scumhalf then virtually everyone who watches him play wouldn't be calling for him to be replaced. There is a cause and effect relationship going on here. He is a player with over 100 test caps for England - a fact like that really should inspire some awe and true world-class respect but it simply doesn't. And the problems with selecting Youngs for such a long period don't just begin with the damage it does to the morale and development of other English scrumhalves who are playing very well and perhaps even winning the league and/or European cups whilst still being ignored, the damage it does is far more immediate and existential to the performance of the England team. Any England flyhalf receiving a Youngs pass is always second-guessing where it will go - high, low, behind etc, and it is not a long pass either. The Youngs pass then sets in motion a form of rugby chaos theory as small (or large) adjustments made by the 10 get slightly magnified as the ball moves further along to the 12 and then to the 13-channel and so on. It is no surprise to me that England find it so difficult to get the ball to the edge of the defence never mind beyond it without having to kick the ball.

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 12:26 pm Spencer made a huge mistake sitting on the bench for Sarries for as long as he did. He should have 50 caps and there should be no discussion about our starting 9

Sorry, that's bullshit.

Look at the stats, Spencer still played at least 20-games a season during the peak Saracens double-seasons as a starter.

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 11:51 am That's absolutely shameful from the disciplinary

Outrageously lenient

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 12:15 pm It's time for more disingenuous piquant bingo!

How does he prepare adequately for Youngs not being there if the players he's looked at simply aren't good enough?

How the fuck does he know if he refuses to start any of them? It's not like Youngs hasn't repeatedly shit the bed.

There is an ongoing problem that just because someone looks good at club level doesn't mean they'll look good at test level, and that frequently just seems to be skipped over because players have done something that looks good on TV to us fans.

We're talking about players who've performed at a high level of a period of years. And Ben Youngs when thrust into the same situations performs worse.

Jones cannot magic players into being good enough, okay he could have looked at maybe Spencer the bench player from Sarries a bit more

Get fucked with this bullshit. Ben Spencer ended up first choice for the big games at Saracens - they won the double with him starting - and he's been first choice at Bath too. And it's not like he wasn't happy to give plenty of starts to Saracens players when they were benching a lot of the time (George, Isiekwe to name a couple)

Jones has had Randall in camp recently that's good and it's a shame he picked up a knock and it's a shame Robson has really struggled

Bringing players into camp is utterly meaningless if they don't get any real game time. Robson has "struggled" when asked to rescue matches off the bench; whenever he's been given more than a few minutes he's actually looked good (even when asked to play 10(?!?!?!) at the weekend).

Jones has done the bare minimum. The guys who have performed consistently over a period of time get a few minutes here and there. Ben Youngs, no matter how badly he plays, gets nailed on even for the games that scream out to have someone else show what they can do when given a start.

I'm not fussed if you want Jones to have done more, why wouldn't we want more even if the side had just stormed all 5 games picking up a slam with ease, but it's just weird revisionism to suggest Robson has only struggled because he's been trying to rescue games, he's struggled because he's simply not played well when given a chance. Which is a shame because there's a lot to like about Robson. Having to play 10 because of injury, well that happens, it does look an odd choice but he's not going to be the only player that's happened to and its not why he's not looked good.

And Spencer mostly was a bench player at Sarries, perhaps partly because he doesn't do the talking Wigglesworth and de Kock did which as per Spencer is Eddie's issue with him. And Spencer does just looking quite a similar player to Youngs but not quite as good, and specifically the passing issue people understandably have with Youngs looks to be something that would very much replicate with Spencer. George was not always 1st choice when picked for England this is true, but when presented with chances he took them, applied pressure to Hartley and eventually put himself forwards to start, Isiekwe was clearly deemed not to have taken his chance, quite harshly I thought in what was a really poor piece of management from Eddie.

Bringing players into camp isn't meaningless it's not as much an opportunity as also getting to play 80, it's teen drama angst to veer into saying it's terrible or of no value.

And Ben Youngs often doesn't play that badly even when people, myself included at times, rather rag on him. Mostly he does what he's told to do, so the issue is Eddie's tactics, or was because they've changed in 2021.

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 12:28 pm

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 11:59 am How does he prepare adequately for Youngs not being there if the players he's looked at simply aren't good enough? I do as it happens think he could have done more in this area, and I certainly didn't like using some of the limited time there was to look at Heinz and Wigglesworth, but clearly he has looked at other players.

There is an ongoing problem that just because someone looks good at club level doesn't mean they'll look good at test level, and that frequently just seems to be skipped over because players have done something that looks good on TV to us fans. Jones cannot magic players into being good enough, okay he could have looked at maybe Spencer the bench player from Sarries a bit more but it's not like he's ignoring a van der Westhuizen because of Youngs, it's just Youngs probably is the best of the lot, and the best players tend to get picked, that's really sort of the point.

9 is a problem position, experience is very important, arguably the role it maters most, and so we do get more foreign players in the league than is ideal for England and then that's made worse when suddenly Saints or Exeter as we've seen recently have a little queue of potentials not getting game time. So it's nice to see Borthwick doing well with JVP, hope that continues once Youngs is back at the club.

Jones has had Randall in camp recently that's good and it's a shame he picked up a knock and it's a shame Robson has really struggled, maybe JVP gets onto the tour this summer if it goes ahead, that would be good too.

For sure this is an area that is concerning, and sure Eddie hasn't done everything he could, I just think it's manifestly unfair to say he's manifestly refused to do anything about the situation. Yes some of the players he looked at played under other coaches, but is that a thing, that as a new coach you have to only look at new players to avoid criticism? Be reasonable.

If Youngs was a good scumhalf then virtually everyone who watches him play wouldn't be calling for him to be replaced. There is a cause and effect relationship going on here. He is a player with over 100 test caps for England - a fact like that really should inspire some awe and true world-class respect but it simply doesn't. And the problems with selecting Youngs for such a long period don't just begin with the damage it does to the morale and development of other English scrumhalves who are playing very well and perhaps even winning the league and/or European cups whilst still being ignored, the damage it does is far more immediate and existential to the performance of the England team. Any England flyhalf receiving a Youngs pass is always second-guessing where it will go - high, low, behind etc, and it is not a long pass either. The Youngs pass then sets in motion a form of rugby chaos theory as small (or large) adjustments made by the 10 get slightly magnified as the ball moves further along to the 12 and then to the 13-channel and so on. It is no surprise to me that England find it so difficult to get the ball to the edge of the defence never mind beyond it without having to kick the ball.

Ben Youngs is a good 9, a very good one. He's not right at the top granted but he's gone out and performed pretty much as he's been asked. And if he was being picked instead of Smith that would be weird, but that just isn't the case.

If virtually everyone things he's bad that suggests virtually everyone doesn't quite get what they're watching more than Youngs isn't very good. Yes there are problems with having 100 cap players because others get less exposure, but there are benefits to picking good players, its hardly all bad.

I also can't think of a 9 who hasn't even been allowed to present a case, they're just not making a good enough case, arguably no player hasn't been allowed to present any case, maybe Cipriani, maybe.

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 2:23 pm

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 12:28 pm

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 11:59 am How does he prepare adequately for Youngs not being there if the players he's looked at simply aren't good enough? I do as it happens think he could have done more in this area, and I certainly didn't like using some of the limited time there was to look at Heinz and Wigglesworth, but clearly he has looked at other players.

There is an ongoing problem that just because someone looks good at club level doesn't mean they'll look good at test level, and that frequently just seems to be skipped over because players have done something that looks good on TV to us fans. Jones cannot magic players into being good enough, okay he could have looked at maybe Spencer the bench player from Sarries a bit more but it's not like he's ignoring a van der Westhuizen because of Youngs, it's just Youngs probably is the best of the lot, and the best players tend to get picked, that's really sort of the point.

9 is a problem position, experience is very important, arguably the role it maters most, and so we do get more foreign players in the league than is ideal for England and then that's made worse when suddenly Saints or Exeter as we've seen recently have a little queue of potentials not getting game time. So it's nice to see Borthwick doing well with JVP, hope that continues once Youngs is back at the club.

Jones has had Randall in camp recently that's good and it's a shame he picked up a knock and it's a shame Robson has really struggled, maybe JVP gets onto the tour this summer if it goes ahead, that would be good too.

For sure this is an area that is concerning, and sure Eddie hasn't done everything he could, I just think it's manifestly unfair to say he's manifestly refused to do anything about the situation. Yes some of the players he looked at played under other coaches, but is that a thing, that as a new coach you have to only look at new players to avoid criticism? Be reasonable.

If Youngs was a good scumhalf then virtually everyone who watches him play wouldn't be calling for him to be replaced. There is a cause and effect relationship going on here. He is a player with over 100 test caps for England - a fact like that really should inspire some awe and true world-class respect but it simply doesn't. And the problems with selecting Youngs for such a long period don't just begin with the damage it does to the morale and development of other English scrumhalves who are playing very well and perhaps even winning the league and/or European cups whilst still being ignored, the damage it does is far more immediate and existential to the performance of the England team. Any England flyhalf receiving a Youngs pass is always second-guessing where it will go - high, low, behind etc, and it is not a long pass either. The Youngs pass then sets in motion a form of rugby chaos theory as small (or large) adjustments made by the 10 get slightly magnified as the ball moves further along to the 12 and then to the 13-channel and so on. It is no surprise to me that England find it so difficult to get the ball to the edge of the defence never mind beyond it without having to kick the ball.

Ben Youngs is a good 9, a very good one. He's not right at the top granted but he's gone out and performed pretty much as he's been asked. And if he was being picked instead of Smith that would be weird, but that just isn't the case.

If virtually everyone things he's bad that suggests virtually everyone doesn't quite get what they're watching more than Youngs isn't very good. Yes there are problems with having 100 cap players because others get less exposure, but there are benefits to picking good players, its hardly all bad.

I also can't think of a 9 who hasn't even been allowed to present a case, they're just not making a good enough case, arguably no player hasn't been allowed to present any case, maybe Cipriani, maybe.

Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to introduce Nick Youngs to NPR.

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 2:18 pm I'm not fussed if you want Jones to have done more, why wouldn't we want more even if the side had just stormed all 5 games picking up a slam with ease, but it's just weird revisionism to suggest Robson has only struggled because he's been trying to rescue games, he's struggled because he's simply not played well when given a chance. Which is a shame because there's a lot to like about Robson. Having to play 10 because of injury, well that happens, it does look an odd choice but he's not going to be the only player that's happened to and its not why he's not looked good.

And Spencer mostly was a bench player at Sarries, perhaps partly because he doesn't do the talking Wigglesworth and de Kock did which as per Spencer is Eddie's issue with him. And Spencer does just looking quite a similar player to Youngs but not quite as good, and specifically the passing issue people understandably have with Youngs looks to be something that would very much replicate with Spencer. George was not always 1st choice when picked for England this is true, but when presented with chances he took them, applied pressure to Hartley and eventually put himself forwards to start, Isiekwe was clearly deemed not to have taken his chance, quite harshly I thought in what was a really poor piece of management from Eddie.

Bringing players into camp isn't meaningless it's not as much an opportunity as also getting to play 80, it's teen drama angst to veer into saying it's terrible or of no value.

And Ben Youngs often doesn't play that badly even when people, myself included at times, rather rag on him. Mostly he does what he's told to do, so the issue is Eddie's tactics, or was because they've changed in 2021.

This is just more tortuous bullshit.

Robson hasn't been given a chance. Being given a chance does not mean "a handful of minutes at the end of a game". Starting a game or two - like against Italy or Georgia, say - is what anyone sane would recognise as being given a chance when you have someone who is the bench option who also happens to outperform the main option at club level. He also didn't play 10 because of injury. It was a tactical choice. Ford could've come back on. Eddie confirmed this. Stop bullshitting.

Spencer wasn't a bench player in the latter part of his Saracens career. He's not a bench player at Bath, either, where he's had a huge impact. It's also absolutely mad to say he's a lesser version of Ben Youngs. Ben Youngs hasn't had Spencer's attacking ability since he was about 22, can't kick goals like Spencer (another string to his bow) and has a worse tactical kicking game than Spencer. Which leaves defence - the one area I think Youngs has been good at over the years, organisation - which is very hard to judge but being a Saracens final-winning starter suggests he's just fine there, and passing - Ben Youngs being the worst passing 9 we have. Woohoo.

Isiekwe was at least given the chance to start a match. And then binned off incredibly rapidly.

Teen drama angst? What? Not being given the opportunity to start a match = not being given a chance. Being brought into the camp is meaningless in the context of developing alternatives.

Finally, as for your defence of Ben Youngs, you should probably at least try to understand the criticism of him to begin with. Tactics probably don't include "fuck up your kicks and pass to no-one / throw horrible attack-sifling passes with depressing regularity".

WRT Robson, if nothing else it's absolutely dismal by Eddie to have his seemingly nailed-on second choice scrum half have virtually no game time for England despite being selected over a period of years.

I love the circular logic of "no player hasn't been allowed to present a case, they just haven't made a good enough case" when we're talking about players whose total gametime under Eddie ranges from zero to handfuls of minutes, even when they're players who are (for example) European player of the year, or absolutely tearing it up for an extended period of time against virtually all-comers - and when the incumbents are in an extended run of playing like fucking twats.

We haven't even mentioned Jones capping players like Ted Hill and George Who? extolling them as the next big thing that nobody else was smart enough to notice and then quietly ignoring them at a later date.

Ted Hill is a really good player, though, and coming up on 60 caps for Worcs. Just not deserving of a place ahead of some of the others in line at the time. George Martin is a jokeshop decision, obviously his 5 professional matches or whatever it was really impressed Eddie

I don't disagree about Ted Hill, it's the way they are brought in, managed and dumped that I'm highlighting. I suspect Hill did something to really piss Jones off like ask him to repeat an instruction or forgot to bow.

Ah, I see. Yeah, that's fair. Eddie's stuck in this bizarre pattern of giving players a quick look - in Hill's case, a 6-minute sub appearance at lock (I think?!) in a largely reserve team - and then deciding they're just not good enough.

Perhaps he thinks he's incapable of improving good young players? Who knows. Anyway, it's sad that he doesn't rate English rugby at all.

TBF he's not alone in that. English coaches seem to have this weird inferiority complex about English rugby that means they're always looking for someone magic to come in from outside who'll be the Great Redeemer and turn the team into world beaters. Either Rugby League or Super Rugby. Henry Paul, Andy Farrell, Lesley Vainikolo, Shontayne Hape, Sam Burgess, Brad Shields - it's a complex that has spanned a lot of coaches.

I suppose you'd have to put Jason Robinson in there too, though in that case it worked!

Cipriani signs for Bath. No real surprise as it had been flagged a few weeks back
Perhaps it took a little longer to negotiate all the "add ons" that he travels with

Danny Cipriani will begin his Bath career in May after signing an extended one-year contract that includes the end of the current season. The former England fly-half left Gloucester in December having played just one match of the 2020-21 campaign and joins his fourth Premiership club, having also spent spells at Wasps and Sale.
“Bath have a clear ambition and drive that aligns with my own. They want to achieve something special as a team, they want to win. That was a very appealing vision for me,” Cipriani said.

Ben Spencer has had 4 caps for England - all as a sub. Three of them against South Africa, all played away including of course a RWC final. His other cap was the draw against Scotland at Twickenham.

To be honest, I actually thought he'd been given more of a go that that. It's risible.

SaintK wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 3:31 pm Cipriani signs for Bath. No real surprise as it had been flagged a few weeks back
Perhaps it took a little longer to negotiate all the "add ons" that he travels with

Danny Cipriani will begin his Bath career in May after signing an extended one-year contract that includes the end of the current season. The former England fly-half left Gloucester in December having played just one match of the 2020-21 campaign and joins his fourth Premiership club, having also spent spells at Wasps and Sale.
“Bath have a clear ambition and drive that aligns with my own. They want to achieve something special as a team, they want to win. That was a very appealing vision for me,” Cipriani said.

More likely he's not anything close to match fit at the moment. Contract likely has fitness benchmarks he needs to hit.

I don't think it bizarre Eddie is giving players a quick look. He might be making mistakes, but it's also a mistake to award players 20 caps before deciding they're not good enough. No system is perfect, but his quick decisions on players like many situations is positive and negative, again it's not a teen angst moment to veer into saying it's bizarre or wholly wrong.

There are some players I'd have liked him to look more at, but there isn't anyone in the squad or team that's an outrageous call. Except maybe Martin because he's got such a small body of work behind him, and even then you could just conclude Eddie is keen to let players get an idea of what's expected and then waits to see if anyone adds to their game on the back of that.

The complaint Eddie doesn't rate English rugby, well that sadly seems to be true, some of which is on us, some of that's on Eddie, and some he's just setting a very high bar if he wants a playing leadership group as astute as Smith, Gregan and Larkham before he's happy to trust.