England EPS 2016/17 season.

[Every Time Ref]

I'm not especially convinced by Teo, his cameo was pretty good yesterday, but does it justify fundamentally changing a gameplan which has worked for EJ's whole tenure? Because changing from Ford-Farrell to Ford-Teo or Farrell-Teo would fundamentally alter England's way of playing, and in my opinion no that is not justified. Let's not get kneejerk here, we had a concentration of missing players in one area (the backrow) and we didn't play well enough in other areas to make up for that.

We do clearly need more carriers and more physicality - which is why Teo looked good when he came on - but we need them in the pack. Hopefully Haskell is back to full fitness, although not a big carrier he does enough to hold a couple of defenders and he does unquestionably offer physicality, Harrison is a thought but hasn't exactly excelled for England, Clifford seems worth a shot. Itoje also didn't pull his weight in that regard, whether because of his position or more likely because in the hype we've forgotten that he's still a young rugby player and expecting him to excel every game, especially when the team plays poorly, is not realistic.

We do want Nowell into the back three I think, no complaints about Daly but a proper winger on the wing, and an in form one. I'd drop Brown (in fact I'd have done it before France) for all the reasons others have stated, but I don't see it happening

If changes are needed, they are small ones - the main thing as far as I'm concerned is that we will play better next week, I'm sure of it.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

You're probably right, dropping Ford for Te'o would be a bit hasty, but I would like to see it tried vs Italy. Thinking of Italy, I'd love to see a team of:
1. Genge
2. George
3. Sinckler
4. Itoje (c)
5. Ewels
6. Williams
7. Harrison
8. Hughes
9. Care
10. Farrell
11. May
12. Te'o
13. Joseph
14. Nowell
15. Daly

16. Taylor
17. Marler
18. Cole
19. Launchbury
20. Haskell
21. Care
22. Lozowski
23. Slade

No chance it'll happen though.

 

[ratsapprentice]

People calling for Te'o to start and Ford to drop out are mental.

Ford/Farrell has been integral to England since Jones took over - our problem isn't a lack of midfield carriers, it's relying on one forward to carry.

Edit: What ETR said...

You have no one to run the line out. You either need to have lawes or kruis starting. However good Itoje or lauchberry are they can't learn to call the England line out in one week.

Frankly I'd prefer to have Launch calling than Lawes scrummaging. Jones said post-match that Itoje was calling the lineout anyway.

Yes - Lawes might already be fourth choice, but we don't know whether Jones prefers him to Launch, since Kruis, Lawes, Itoje and Launch haven't been available for selection at the same time.

Wood started over Haskell, Clifford and Harrison. I'm saying he shouldn't do that next week, not sure what issue you're taking with what I've said.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

The changes I would make v Wales would only be.
Starting Haskell over Wood
Bench Genge over Mullan

Against Italy though I would like to see
1) Marler
2) George
3) Cole
4) Itoje
5) Launchbury
6) Williams
7) Haskell
8) Hughes (I guess)
9) Youngs
10) Ford
11) Roko
12) Farrell
13) Joesph
14) Nowell
15) Daly

16) Taylor/Hartley
17) Genge
18) Sink
19) Ewels
20) Clifford
21) Robson
22) T'eo
23) May

 

[ratsapprentice]

I think Wood might be injured anyway.

 

[McTallshort]

Shall we wait to see how Italy get on against Wales before we start picking development type teams to play them?

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Shall we wait to see how Italy get on against Wales before we start picking development type teams to play them?

I would say my team isn't a development team IMO.

TBH this isn't a 6N's to field a completely changed squad, use the Argentina tour to develop players IMO.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Nah.

You develop players all the time - there isn't enough time to put it off for later, that's what Lancaster did.

 

[Every Time Ref]

Nah.

You develop players all the time - there isn't enough time to put it off for later, that's what Lancaster did.

Agree, but some games are obviously better for it than others - and Italy at home should be one of those games

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Nah.

You develop players all the time - there isn't enough time to put it off for later, that's what Lancaster did.

You rotate not change an entire team.

 

[ratsapprentice]

No.

You drop people who aren't good enough as soon as possible, and try people who might be good enough as soon as possible.

I'm not calling for dropping an entire team.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

People calling for Te'o to start and Ford to drop out are mental.

Ford/Farrell has been integral to England since Jones took over - our problem isn't a lack of midfield carriers, it's relying on one forward to carry.

Edit: What ETR said...



Frankly I'd prefer to have Launch calling than Lawes scrummaging. Jones said post-match that Itoje was calling the lineout anyway.

Yes - Lawes might already be fourth choice, but we don't know whether Jones prefers him to Launch, since Kruis, Lawes, Itoje and Launch haven't been available for selection at the same time.

Wood started over Haskell, Clifford and Harrison. I'm saying he shouldn't do that next week, not sure what issue you're taking with what I've said.

No issue with anything you've said just clarifying why those players seemed to be playing. Haskell and Clifford haven't been at full fitness so I guess his hand was slightly forced as we were already carrying the captain.

On the locks I forgot not all of them have been available together. I see the locks split between a 4 Itoje & lauchberry and a 5 lawes and kruis. I don't think a combo of two 4s or two 5s would work. It may do but I don't know.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Kruis and Launchbury are the TH locks, Lawes and Itoje the LH to my mind.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Think some of the criticism of Hughes Is a bit harsh. He's a player who I always knew had talent to go places before he developed far quicker than I could have expected. His overall level now is where I would have expected him to be two years from now.

Yesterday he grew into the game I thought but was certainly overshadowed by Picamoles. But remember the rest of the pack got shown up despite having much more experience at this level.I thought Wood in particular was terrible.

Thing about Hughes is we can't just expect him to be a like for like replacement for Binny. Stats will tell you that he makes as many yards as Binny, offloads less but tackles his heart out and probably turns over more. The difference is he will not make those metres taking the ball at a standstill right at the line. Hughes runs some lovely lines and taking the ball at speed into a gap he is almost unstoppable. He needs to play his normal game as much as possible and he's not yet doing that, for whatever reason.

I get that he wasn't on top of his game yesterday but I don't get the "meh, no other option".

 

[Which Tyler]

For me the biggest problem that we can do anything about was Itoje playing out of position.
I'd bring Haskell back in to start, dropping Lawes to the bench (I'm sure Launch can also call lines out).
I'd like us to have better options than Hughes, Wood and Harrison; but we don't - we have alternatives to bring different risks and less experience, but not really any better options.
Like it or not, Hartley is skipper, and without Billy, needs to stay.

Behind the pack, I've obviously never been a fan of either SH, but I wouldn't be bringing either of the wasps straight in to start, and the coaches obviously rate what they do bring as more important than they're weaknesses (many coaches and many SHs with dodgy passing).
Ford my have had a quiet day, but I don't think it's the sort that a kick up the arse cures; he's just the sort of player who will turn it all around with no obvious input. Besides, dropping him for Te'o means completely changing our game plans and blaming the half-backs for the poor performance of the forwards.
Further out Daly still isn't a winger, and I'm not convinced he'll ever become one, so Nowell comes in and Daly either gets a shot at FB, or he waits for Joseph to break or fall out of form.

The bench I'm happier to change, expect to bring George on earlier; less scared of the Welsh bench props, so let the young impactful props sit there; finally bring Robson into the fold...

1. Marler
2. Hartley
3. Cole
4. Itoje
5. Launchbury
6. Wood
7. Haskell
8. Hughes

9. Youngs
10. Ford
11. May
12. Farrell
13. Joseph
14. May
15. Daly

16. George; 17. Genge; 18. Sinkler; 19. Lawes; 20. Harrison
21. Robson; 22. Te'o; 23. Brown


If the likes of Underhill, Evans, Ewers, Kvesic, Garvey or Wilson were fit, playing and had trained with the squad, then I could get rid of Harrison, and look to get rid of Wood for the following match - but they're not.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Hughes is probably the third or fourth best eight in this tournament. It's just that compared to billy he looks pedestrian.

 

[McTallshort]

Hughes is probably the third or fourth best eight in this tournament. It's just that compared to billy he looks pedestrian.

He doesn't have Billy's ability to make ground from a standing start but then again most don't. Hughes was OK but only OK. Until Haskell came on the back row was weak in attack and defense. England really missed Robshaw yesterday. With his work rate the 8 has more freedom to play his game.

 

[Which Tyler]

Hughes is probably the third or fourth best eight in this tournament. It's just that compared to billy he looks pedestrian.

Who are you thinking he's better than? Picamoles? Parisse? Faletau? Heaslip? Strauss?

Of those, I'd have Hughes fairly firmly in 6th place of 6, but capable of overtaking Strauss if he grows into international rugby.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

For me the biggest problem that we can do anything about was Itoje playing out of position.
I'd bring Haskell back in to start, dropping Lawes to the bench (I'm sure Launch can also call lines out).
I'd like us to have better options than Hughes, Wood and Harrison; but we don't - we have alternatives to bring different risks and less experience, but not really any better options.
Like it or not, Hartley is skipper, and without Billy, needs to stay.

Behind the pack, I've obviously never been a fan of either SH, but I wouldn't be bringing either of the wasps straight in to start, and the coaches obviously rate what they do bring as more important than they're weaknesses (many coaches and many SHs with dodgy passing).
Ford my have had a quiet day, but I don't think it's the sort that a kick up the arse cures; he's just the sort of player who will turn it all around with no obvious input. Besides, dropping him for Te'o means completely changing our game plans and blaming the half-backs for the poor performance of the forwards.
Further out Daly still isn't a winger, and I'm not convinced he'll ever become one, so Nowell comes in and Daly either gets a shot at FB, or he waits for Joseph to break or fall out of form.

The bench I'm happier to change, expect to bring George on earlier; less scared of the Welsh bench props, so let the young impactful props sit there; finally bring Robson into the fold...

1. Marler
2. Hartley
3. Cole
4. Itoje
5. Launchbury
6. Wood
7. Haskell
8. Hughes

9. Youngs
10. Ford
11. May
12. Farrell
13. Joseph
14. May
15. Daly

16. George; 17. Genge; 18. Sinkler; 19. Lawes; 20. Harrison
21. Robson; 22. Te'o; 23. Brown


If the likes of Underhill, Evans, Ewers, Kvesic, Garvey or Wilson were fit, playing and had trained with the squad, then I could get rid of Harrison, and look to get rid of Wood for the following match - but they're not.

I'm a fan of May too....

While the lack of go forward was mainly a pack issue, the simple fact is that we're missing 4 of our best forwards, so the backs won't be getting the kind of armchair ride they're used to. Our backs are pretty lightweight and Teo needs to be given some serious consideration. Might mean changing the game plan a bit, but the plan needs changing if the pack's underpowered.

Wouldn't mind seeing a scrummaging, grappling lock either. Have we got any other than Attwood?

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Who are you thinking he's better than? Picamoles? Parisse? Faletau? Heaslip? Strauss?

Of those, I'd have Hughes fairly firmly in 6th place of 6, but capable of overtaking Strauss if he grows into international rugby.

I think he has the potential to be better than Picamoles, genuinely. Such a different player to Faletau, Heaslip etc..

Hughes would fit in better with the All-Blacks because of how he plays the game. He's not a typical England number 8, but has a lot to offer if we can get it out of him. But as I Said, don't expect him to be a direct replacement for Binny, because nobody is.