England EPS 2016/17 season.

[Vieux Talonneur]

We've come a long way very quickly. We need to consolidate that but also be ambitious. What do we need to beat the ABs?

Priorities in order:

9. We need someone who can provide a faster more decisive and consistent service. That could make the whole team look very different.

15. Brown's shot. Watson, preferably, or Nowell. Might mean rejigging the whole back 3.

Some physicality in the back line. We're light there especially without Manu. Maybe on a wing - not sure who, but we need someone, preferably 2 with some line breaking power.

Flanks. Haskshaw was excellent down under but they're aging and you really can't see them challenging the ABs on a consistent basis in any event. We need more athleticism from our flanks. To me that's Itoje to 6 asap, let him bed in and then see what options are available for 7. I have very high hopes for Underhill.

12. Ford / Farrell works OK so takes the immediate heat off, but it's not a world beating combo. Fingers crossed that Mallinder continues his progress.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

We've come a long way very quickly. We need to consolidate that but also be ambitious. What do we need to beat the ABs?

Priorities in order:

9. We need someone who can provide a faster more decisive and consistent service. That could make the whole team look very different.

15. Brown's shot. Watson, preferably, or Nowell. Might mean rejigging the whole back 3.

Some physicality in the back line. We're light there especially without Manu. Maybe on a wing - not sure who, but we need someone, preferably 2 with some line breaking power.

Flanks. Haskshaw was excellent down under but they're aging and you really can't see them challenging the ABs on a consistent basis in any event. We need more athleticism from our flanks. To me that's Itoje to 6 asap, let him bed in and then see what options are available for 7. I have very high hopes for Underhill.

12. Ford / Farrell works OK so takes the immediate heat off, but it's not a world beating combo. Fingers crossed that Mallinder continues his progress.

By moving Nowell or Watson to 15 it means we can put in a more physical, line-breaking winger (Yarde, Roko, maybe even Manu on the wing?). At centre though, I don't want to see a big, powerful centre come in. So far having 2 play makers has gotten us a Grand Slam and a series white wash in Oz, why change it? If the current game plan is working (And it is) then why change it? IMO there's simply no point.

For the flanks, I desperately don't want to see Itoje move to 6. He works so well with Kruis in the 2nd row, and effectively acts a back row when playing there. So I don't see the point in moving him to 6. Leave him at 4, play Robshaw at 6 for now, and by the time he's aged and needs replacing, Ewers or Harrison should be ready to fill his boots.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Manu for wing? Been there tried that. Never again.

There's plenty of point adding some power into the centre, although not necessarily at 12. Yes, Ford, Faz and JJ have done well, but don't be seduced by winning an average 6N and beating a poor Aussie side. At times in Aus it looked like men against boys in the backs and that combo certainly wouldn't cause the ABs many sleepless nights. We should be aiming high, although as I indicated this isn't a top priority.

As for Itoje at 6, that debate will run and run. Even if I thought he was better suited to lock (I don't), until we get an alternative with his all round skill set he's the best option there. That distills down to our second row options of Kruis / Launch / Lawes being much better players than Ewers, Harrison or anyone else who might be competing for the 6 shirt.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

I wasn't suggesting Manu as a genuine optionon the wing, but a stretched possibility.
Maybe Ford-Faz-Manu? Now that Toomua's on his way to Tigers, I'd have thought Manu will be getting almost all of his game time at 13 again, so he may be worth slotting in over JJ. He offers more in attack, but his 13 channel defence is questionable. It's an appealing idea though.
Itoje at 6, I think it needs to be decided whether he's a 4 or a 6. Whichever 1 it's decided his future should be in, he needs to consistently play there for both Sarries and England, as the 2 positions do recquire some different elements (For example, if he remains at 4 he'll probably need to bulk up a bit, if at 6, then maybe a little in the other direction). They also recquire different skill sets, which Itoje will want to develop depending on which position he plays. Judging by the fact that Sarries have signed Schalk Burger for the coming season, Itoje is definietly being seen as a 4 for them, which in my mind, means he has to be a 4 for England. He can't reach his full potential in a given position if he's having to switch between 2 every time he plays internationally.

 

[Peat]

And despite hammering a side with supposedly one of the best "out and out 7s" 3 tests to nil many still obsess for that perfect jackal. It's all a big red herring, what players you play in the back row depends entirely on your game plan.

He only played one of them and they lost for a multitude of other reasons.

Of course your back row depends on your game plan. But if we want to evolve, then there's a case for asking for more from our openside.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Itoje at 6, I think it needs to be decided whether he's a 4 or a 6. Whichever 1 it's decided his future should be in, he needs to consistently play there for both Sarries and England.

On that we agree. Same definitely applies to Slade, whatever he might be internationally it won't be 13. And this is also one of the reasons why Farrell deserves huge plaudits for his efforts at 12 when he never plays there for Sarries.

 

[msf]

We've come a long way very quickly. We need to consolidate that but also be ambitious. What do we need to beat the ABs?

Priorities in order:

9. We need someone who can provide a faster more decisive and consistent service. That could make the whole team look very different.

15. Brown's shot. Watson, preferably, or Nowell. Might mean rejigging the whole back 3.

Some physicality in the back line. We're light there especially without Manu. Maybe on a wing - not sure who, but we need someone, preferably 2 with some line breaking power.

Flanks. Haskshaw was excellent down under but they're aging and you really can't see them challenging the ABs on a consistent basis in any event. We need more athleticism from our flanks. To me that's Itoje to 6 asap, let him bed in and then see what options are available for 7. I have very high hopes for Underhill.

12. Ford / Farrell works OK so takes the immediate heat off, but it's not a world beating combo. Fingers crossed that Mallinder continues his progress.

I agree with all that, but I think 12 is going to be the hardest one, just as it has been since Greenwood retired. Jones seems to think that one or both of Tuilagi and Te´o can turn into a Nonu, but at the moment they only compare in terms of physicality (and perhaps offloading in the case of Te´o). Both of them need to vastly improve their kicking and passing games if they are going to become the complete 12. Since Jones has said that Greenwood was the best back in the 2003 team, it´s surprising that he isn´t keener on a Greenwood-esque centre such as Devoto, Atkinson or Mallinder, although I guess it would help if the first two could get into their club teams. Hopefully this will change in at least Devoto´s case now he has moved to Exeter, where I think he will eclipse Hill.

In all the other positions you mentioned, we have players who look like they are going to be the real deal: Watson/Haley at 15, Robson at 9, and Underhill at 7. It would be nice if we had such an obvious candidate at 12.

 

[Every Time Ref]

We've come a long way very quickly. We need to consolidate that but also be ambitious. What do we need to beat the ABs?

Priorities in order:

9. We need someone who can provide a faster more decisive and consistent service. That could make the whole team look very different.

15. Brown's shot. Watson, preferably, or Nowell. Might mean rejigging the whole back 3.

Some physicality in the back line. We're light there especially without Manu. Maybe on a wing - not sure who, but we need someone, preferably 2 with some line breaking power.

Flanks. Haskshaw was excellent down under but they're aging and you really can't see them challenging the ABs on a consistent basis in any event. We need more athleticism from our flanks. To me that's Itoje to 6 asap, let him bed in and then see what options are available for 7. I have very high hopes for Underhill.

12. Ford / Farrell works OK so takes the immediate heat off, but it's not a world beating combo. Fingers crossed that Mallinder continues his progress.

I agree with pretty much all of this post, especially the highlighted parts. Farrell is the best stopgap we could realistically have found but still a stopgap. Itoje is good enough and young enough to learn to be world class in either position, let's put him in the problem position not the one where we're spoilt for choice.

Manu's a great player but we can't build our plan around crossing our fingers for his fitness. If we are looking for physicality in the centres (which we 100% should be), we have to look elsewhere - and hopefully in the future when Manu is fit, he'll be another option.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I think we need to ultimately look for someone who can fulfill a distribution role first and foremost and a bosher later. Modern defences know how to deal with a large runner charging straight into the line, this is why Roberts has never worked vs SH teams and now rarely works against anyone that isn't Italy.

 

[msf]

Roberts has worked rather well on two Lions tours. Wales´ centre combination is still superior to ours in my estimation, and I expect it to be the Lions´ combination in NZ. The crucial thing is balance - Davies provides the footballing talent and Roberts the physicality. They will have to up their game in defence though, Barritt in particular caused them lots of problems this summer.

 

[Every Time Ref]

I think we need to ultimately look for someone who can fulfill a distribution role first and foremost and a bosher later. Modern defences know how to deal with a large runner charging straight into the line, this is why Roberts has never worked vs SH teams and now rarely works against anyone that isn't Italy.

I disagree. Modern rugby is a power game, brute force goes a long way. Modern defences do know how to deal with it to some degree, but a good game plan uses it in a way that defences can't simply neutralise. Ultimately, the only way to deal with raw power is to commit more defenders, and that opens space elsewhere, whether that's the same phase (using him as a dummy runner) or the next one (quick ruck ball). In England's case specifically, we already have a distributor in Ford, we don't have a power runner - so we need the latter more.

I would say that a 12 needs to interest defenders one way or another by threatening a line break, whether that's through power or footwork (that's my major issue with Farrell as a long term solution). Overall though, I think you need power somewhere in your backline and given we have a pretty good collection of wingers who don't include that option (I'm assuming Roko is out the equation) and 12 is our problem position, that's the place to go for power.

Jamie Roberts is very good at his role. It is the overall Wales gameplan which is the problem, and the lack of players who make use of the space created (for example, I think JJ outside Roberts would fill his boots)

 

[msf]

I think Wales´ real problem is the same as England´s - they have one very dependable 10 who isn´t much of an attacking threat, and one who is a real attacking threat who isn´t very dependable.

 

[NickBD]

Any update on Underhill moving to an English club? I assume if he stays with the Ospreys he won't be in the EPS squad.

 

[Peat]

I disagree. Modern rugby is a power game, brute force goes a long way. Modern defences do know how to deal with it to some degree, but a good game plan uses it in a way that defences can't simply neutralise. Ultimately, the only way to deal with raw power is to commit more defenders, and that opens space elsewhere, whether that's the same phase (using him as a dummy runner) or the next one (quick ruck ball). In England's case specifically, we already have a distributor in Ford, we don't have a power runner - so we need the latter more.

I would say that a 12 needs to interest defenders one way or another by threatening a line break, whether that's through power or footwork (that's my major issue with Farrell as a long term solution). Overall though, I think you need power somewhere in your backline and given we have a pretty good collection of wingers who don't include that option (I'm assuming Roko is out the equation) and 12 is our problem position, that's the place to go for power.

Jamie Roberts is very good at his role. It is the overall Wales gameplan which is the problem, and the lack of players who make use of the space created (for example, I think JJ outside Roberts would fill his boots)

Not that long ago I'd have made a very similar argument but the reality is it doesn't seem to be stopping us yet. Maybe its because we only use our backs when the pack has created space and our pack is running hot, but until it stops working, I'm going to be okay with what we have. Would I like more power in the back line? Yeah. Does it seem to be needed? Nah. Twin distributors and tons of pace out wide is working.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

Not that long ago I'd have made a very similar argument but the reality is it doesn't seem to be stopping us yet. Maybe its because we only use our backs when the pack has created space and our pack is running hot, but until it stops working, I'm going to be okay with what we have. Would I like more power in the back line? Yeah. Does it seem to be needed? Nah. Twin distributors and tons of pace out wide is working.

I agree with the point you're making, but tons of pace out wide? With Nowell and Brown as outside backs, it's probably among the slowest back three unit in world rugby. Watson and JJ, Watson in particular are both rapid, but we don't have "tons" of pace out wide. To suit our current game plan it would make more sense to run a: 11. May 14. Watson 15. Nowell back three, as then there's real pace on the wings, and not bad pace at FB (Faster than Brown I'd have thought).

9. Robson
10. Ford
11. May
12. Farrell
13. Tuilagi
14. Watson
15. Nowell

I'd like to see that happen.

 

[RedruthRFC]

On that we agree. Same definitely applies to Slade, whatever he might be internationally it won't be 13. And this is also one of the reasons why Farrell deserves huge plaudits for his efforts at 12 when he never plays there for Sarries.

+1. I've said a few times before that this conflict of interests is a problem for English rugby. Nowhere is this more apparent than at Exeter. I would like to see the England camp being more dictatorial and telling players that they are damaging chances of international chances by not regularly playing the position for their club that the England camp see them in. In fact, I would like them to go further and get players working on specific areas of their game at their clubs that would benefit the England team, jumping at the back of the lineout is the first thing that comes to mind.

Saying that, I remember an interview with Jones shortly after his appointment in which he said he isn't too hung up on players playing their club position for England. Obviously he has been true to this, maybe through necessity, maybe he's not as hung up on it as we are.

 

[Every Time Ref]

Not that long ago I'd have made a very similar argument but the reality is it doesn't seem to be stopping us yet. Maybe its because we only use our backs when the pack has created space and our pack is running hot, but until it stops working, I'm going to be okay with what we have. Would I like more power in the back line? Yeah. Does it seem to be needed? Nah. Twin distributors and tons of pace out wide is working.

It's working now, I'm not suggesting dropping Farrell tomorrow, but the context of the discussion is the development of the side - most here seem to be in agreement Farrell isn't the long term solution.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

It's working now, I'm not suggesting dropping Farrell tomorrow, but the context of the discussion is the development of the side - most here seem to be in agreement Farrell isn't the long term solution.

If Faz is getting dropped from 12 then IMO he's got to be in at 10. His kicking off the tee can't be overlooked and defensively he's far better than Ford. He's also come on a lot in attack. If the idea of getting rid of Ford-Faz to get a powerful centre at 12, then surely having a game controlling 10 who is superb at kicking is more important than having a slightly better play-maker. Especially if that 12 can act as a bit of a play-maker too (Mallinder).

 

[RedruthRFC]

It's working now, I'm not suggesting dropping Farrell tomorrow, but the context of the discussion is the development of the side - most here seem to be in agreement Farrell isn't the long term solution.

This is my attitude. Not meaning to single out anyone in particular, but here and elsewhere quite a few people are expressing an "it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude, particularly when it comes to the back row and 12 spot. I'm not a fan of this attitude personally. If the goal is to be the second best of what is currently a bad bunch, then staying as we are is probably sufficient. If, as I would hope, the goal is to become the best side in the world, then I believe that no stone should be left unturned in pursuit of long term improvement.

 

[Every Time Ref]

Well you already know I'm Team Ford...

I disagree that Ford is only a slightly better playmaker, and that Farrell is a superb kicker TBH

Edit - Unless you're just referring to goalkicking?