England EPS 2016/17 season.

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Marines train in Lympstone - a stone's throw from Exeter, and a 42Cdo are based in Taunton - lots of supporters in the RM.

Yep I know there is a long tradition of the army being based down in the south west, prob why Redruth where known as the Chiefs.

Exeter where nicknamed the Chiefs back in the 1930's apparently.

 

[BPM]

Piers Francis is having another very good game as a ball-playing, goal-kicking 12 for Auckland Blues. He's a protege of Tana Umaga and plays 10 or 12. He was in the Sarries academy as a kid, but he's played most of his rugby in NZ.

Obviously he can't be picked in the EPS, but is definitely worth having on the radar.

As a Quins fan, he might be worth a look as a replacement for Evans. Would also be a great signing for Bath as a 12.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Piers Francis is having another very good game as a ball-playing, goal-kicking 12 for Auckland Blues. He's a protege of Tana Umaga and plays 10 or 12. He was in the Sarries academy as a kid, but he's played most of his rugby in NZ.

Obviously he can't be picked in the EPS, but is definitely worth having on the radar.

As a Quins fan, he might be worth a look as a replacement for Evans. Would also be a great signing for Bath as a 12.

Unless he moves to the London Irish academy I can't see Bath signing him

 

[BPM]

TBH, unless he has a burning desire to push for test selection, he may decide he's better off staying at the Blues. Still, he'd be silly not to be keeping an eye on how things develop at 12 for England.

Even the Kiwis are rating him though, so it would be a shame if we couldn't take advantage of having a good player in a position where we don't currently have an ideal solution.

 

[Raggs]

TBH, unless he has a burning desire to push for test selection, he may decide he's better off staying at the Blues. Still, he'd be silly not to be keeping an eye on how things develop at 12 for England.

Even the Kiwis are rating him though, so it would be a shame if we couldn't take advantage of having a good player in a position where we don't currently have an ideal solution.

A burning desire for test selection, or receiving a half decent pay-check.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Piers Francis is having another very good game as a ball-playing, goal-kicking 12 for Auckland Blues. He's a protege of Tana Umaga and plays 10 or 12. He was in the Sarries academy as a kid, but he's played most of his rugby in NZ.

Obviously he can't be picked in the EPS, but is definitely worth having on the radar.

As a Quins fan, he might be worth a look as a replacement for Evans. Would also be a great signing for Bath as a 12.

Pretty sure he has played it evenly split 7 years in the UK and 6 years in NZ playing rugby.

 

[Peat]

Yep I know there is a long tradition of the army being based down in the south west, prob why Redruth where known as the Chiefs.

Exeter where nicknamed the Chiefs back in the 1930's apparently.

The Marines aren't the Army though.

 

[Duck a l'Orange]

The Marines aren't the Army though.

You pedant! They both wear a lot of green...

Not sure how "Chief" would be related to army or navy ranks. Only one I can think of would be "Commander-in-chief" which isn't exactly common.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

You pedant! They both wear a lot of green...

Not sure how "Chief" would be related to army or navy ranks. Only one I can think of would be "Commander-in-chief" which isn't exactly common.

In the navy "chief" is how you address the chief petty officer, the 2nd highest NCO rank I believe.

 

[Duck a l'Orange]

In the navy "chief" is how you address the chief petty officer, the 2nd highest NCO rank I believe.

That makes perfect sense.

Still seems a pretty tenuous connection in my opinion- don't the Royal Marines use the army system anyway?

 

[RedruthRFC]

Marines train in Lympstone - a stone's throw from Exeter, and a 42Cdo are based in Taunton - lots of supporters in the RM.

Having a few naval personnel training there hardly makes it Aldershot! Taunton is a county away from Exeter and at the time the moniker originated, would have had a team of similar standing to Exeter.

My guess would be that there is no strong military connection and that it derives from the fact that the term is more commonly used in the local vernacular than in other parts of the country.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Well Tony Rowe believes Chiefs first got its nickname due to the Navy.

- - - Updated - - -

That makes perfect sense.

Still seems a pretty tenuous connection in my opinion- don't the Royal Marines use the army system anyway?

Marines are Navy As Peat says.

Anyway back to topic:
**** on you I working for Mel Brooks

 

[RedruthRFC]

Well Tony Rowe believes Chiefs first got its nickname due to the Navy.

Linky?

I found the article that I was referring to here:

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co....s-sandy-park/story-22923118-detail/story.html

He says that it may have origins as a naval term for bosses and that it has been used to refer to Exeter's first team since at least 1904. Even if this is how the term entered the vernacular, it hardly constitutes a strong military connection, plenty of words and phrases in everyday use have transcended their naval origins.

 

[Every Time Ref]

Well Tony Rowe believes Chiefs first got its nickname due to the Navy.

- - - Updated - - -




Marines are Navy As Peat says.

Anyway back to topic:
**** on you I working for Mel Brooks

Not in the face!

In the interests of being a tiny bit on topic - Peat, I think I'm coming round to your point of view on England's defence, ie less wolfpack, more drift. However, not discounting it entirely - I wonder if problems in the wide channels might actually be sorted in the tight, perhaps more pace and athleticism in the back row could cover the 10/12 channels more effectively, freeing up backs to defend wider and hence get stretched less easily?

 

[Peat]

I wouldn't discount the wolf pack entirely either - the results speak for themselves. But the weakness of the system is that if they do escape, you're proper fooked. The trick is knowing when to use it and when to not - more pace and athleticism in the back row doesn't sort that with the wolf pack imo, as it forces you to be very tight or elsewise there's too much space to step into. More athletic forwards to guard the outside of the line would be good though.

 

[Every Time Ref]

I wouldn't discount the wolf pack entirely either - the results speak for themselves. But the weakness of the system is that if they do escape, you're proper fooked. The trick is knowing when to use it and when to not - more pace and athleticism in the back row doesn't sort that with the wolf pack imo, as it forces you to be very tight or elsewise there's too much space to step into. More athletic forwards to guard the outside of the line would be good though.

That's down to accuracy as well - done right, the line is always organised and any shooter a) doesn't make wrong decisions; b) is covered by the rest of the defence reading him and dropping in to cover in behind. I just wonder whether that level of accuracy is achievable for England, who have much less time together than a club side?

 

[Peat]

Assume it can't always be done right. A system that does not account for failures is a poor system. That goes for everyone out there.

I think if you put Sarries up against the best international sides they'd get their heads kicked in because the best force mistakes.

 

[Every Time Ref]

Assume it can't always be done right. A system that does account for failures is a poor system. That goes for everyone out there.

I think if you put Sarries up against the best international sides they'd get their heads kicked in because the best force mistakes.

Of course, no one will ever be 100% accurate. But accuracy isn't binary, the difference between 80% and 90% is substantial. I talked earlier about other defenders filling in behind the guy who shoots up in case he misses - that's an example of the system accounting for failures.

There's another side to this as well - Sarries' gameplan is very heavily dominated by their defensive system. Other aspects tend to compliment the defence, attacking structures are chosen to fit with defence (for example, they kick a lot because they're happy playing without the ball) and selection decisions often lean towards defence. Do England want this? I'm not sure they do.

 

[Peat]

I think we might be talking at cross purposes here. I'm not concerned about whether they wriggle through the blitz. I'm worried about them getting around the blitz before it can get there. I don't think its possible to create a blitz so perfect that it is always the right answer.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

England have been exposed out wide repeatedly for years. The Aussies weren't clinical enough to finish it but Wales in the 6N and NZ when we toured there tore us to shreds by exploiting out very poor wide defence. Nowell gets a lot of flak but he's often left defending a 2 or 3 on 1 with masses of space and the support still a long way away. The fact we haven't conceded even more is really a credit to him. We don't do the wolf pack properly as we have nobody going up wide to successfully shut down any chance of a wide ball, so they can just go around our rather slow blitz by playing deep.