England EPS 2016/17 season.

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

I thought Harrison has looked under powered in every England cap so far. Wood just had a terrible game and will improve this week.

I want to see more of Clifford though, I thought he'd done really well in his caps and I'd look at a 6/7 Clifford and Haskell with Hughes at 8.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

I question whether Clifford does enough of the nitty gritty work. Undoubtedly a fine ball carrier with pace that could make some wingers jealous, but offers very little at the breakdown and is questionable in defence. Bit like Pierre Spies. See him much more as someone to bring on at 60 against tired and slowing legs rather than a starting flanker.

 

[BPM]

I question whether Clifford does enough of the nitty gritty work. Undoubtedly a fine ball carrier with pace that could make some wingers jealous, but offers very little at the breakdown and is questionable in defence. Bit like Pierre Spies. See him much more as someone to bring on at 60 against tired and slowing legs rather than a starting flanker.

It wouod have been fair to question Clifford's appetite for the 'nitty gritty' last season, but he's really upped his game in that regard this season.

As much as I like Clifford and definitely rate him over Harrison, I am concerned about our back row options for this game. With the exception of Haskell, none of the others offers the same level of intensity and aggression and I'm worried we'll be out-fought at the breakdown. Hopefully Clifford and Hughes can seize their opportunities to take their game to another level and show that they are test players.

 

[Every Time Ref]

Shame to see Wood still in, but in the sense if I wish we didn't have to rather than it being the wrong option. Both Harrison and Wood are extremely suboptimal options but that's just the choice EJ has at the moment. I guess Clifford at 8 is an outside chance but I doubt it. Think it will be Haskell for Wood and no other changes.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Going on what Eddie and the papers have said, Haskell will stay on the bench, and Clifford will replace Wood if he's ruled out.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

That's a shame, but it's easy to forget just how little rugby Haskell has played so far this season.
I wouldn't be too upset to see Clifford start, however I'd rather he was in for Lawes (with Itoje going back to the donkey row) if that were the case.

 

[Which Tyler]

That's a shame, but it's easy to forget just how little rugby Haskell has played so far this season.
I wouldn't be too upset to see Clifford start, however I'd rather he was in for Lawes (with Itoje going back to the donkey row) if that were the case.

Absolutely this. Any solution that sees Itoje at BSF is no solution.

 

[Every Time Ref]

Absolutely this. Any solution that sees Itoje at BSF is no solution.

You're really anti-Itoje-at-flanker!

Maybe you're right but I don't know. The whole backrow was outplayed, I wonder whether if he'd been picked alongside Billy and Hask we'd still be saying he looked poor

 

[Which Tyler]

I'm really not, I've said many times that I think he'd make a better flanker than lock. I'm against him playing this weekend, at flanker at international level, now that his most recent experience there is 18 months ago, and he's spent that 18 months adding power and bulk in order to specialise at lock. And that's not mentioning that he'd be in a scratch backrow against the likes of Faletau and Tipuric
Last year I wanted him at lock as he was still built like a flanker, and had been playing there half a season previously.

 

[Raggs]

I think Hughes just had his 2nd international start, and to compare him to any of the others is a bit harsh at this point. He was England's best heavy carrier against France, and pretty much the only one to make a few yards when being the first man to hit up slow ball, even though he was targeted like hell. As soon as we got some extra carriers on the pitch, he was no longer getting marked so heavily, and started making more serious yards.

Picamoles also carries a huge amount on the wings, which tends to be a bit easier to make ground in than the dark places we were sending Hughes into. But there again, France had enough heavy carriers near the breakdown that they could afford to do it.

I think we are also a bit too ready to look at BV now, rather than BV of a few seasons ago. Even now, Billy's quieter games inevitably come when he's the only good carrier in the pack, generally when his brother is missing basically, and this has been true for seasons.

I think Clifford is a bit more dynamic than Wood, but I'm not sure about his heavy carrying, even then, he's at least another Launchbury/Itoje carrier, which is an upgrade. Launchbury was actually making some good damaging runs when he went for it, typically the phase after Hughes had just wrapped up 3 defenders (he was often quick at presenting the ball too, which helped offset Youngs a bit).

Right now Hughes is inexperienced at this level, but even so, I'd consider him over Strauss and Heaslip (please note consider, not definitely take).

His general workrate in the France game seemed better too, he was covering ground a bit more freely (think he had a thigh injury in the AI's no?).

Is he as good as BV, of course not, but it's unfair to compare him to the BV of today, especially to the BV that had Mako (another very good carrier), Haskell (a half decent carrier) and Robshaw (an acceptable carrier) starting with him, rather than Wood, Lawes and Marler (fresh back from a broken leg). Lawes in particular was embarrassing, getting stopped by one tackle, and sort of folded in half, whilst going backwards by the second tackler.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

I've just had a thought which I can't figure out myself. If Ford or Farrell is injured, do we keep the same game plan by bring in Lozowski (Ford/Slade (Farrell) or do we go with the more experienced and apparently better option of Te'o, even though it means changing the game plan?

 

[Peat]

There's already a game plan that involves Te'o/Tuilagi/Burrell/Yer Mum at 12 if you think about it, just obviously its used less often. My guess is Eddie would go with whichever game plan put out the player he felt more confident in at the time, and I reckon I'd go with that too. Which is probably Te'o right now.

 

[Which Tyler]

There's already a game plan that involves Te'o/Tuilagi/Burrell/Yer Mum at 12 if you think about it, just obviously its used less often. My guess is Eddie would go with whichever game plan put out the player he felt more confident in at the time, and I reckon I'd go with that too. Which is probably Te'o right now.

Is it wrong that I made this meme (?) about a year ago now; and it still makes me smirk?
I'm the same with my text-message alert!
<iframe width="200" height="113" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3SwNXQMoNps" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Every Time Ref]

Is it wrong that I made this meme (?) about a year ago now; and it still makes me smirk?
I'm the same with my text-message alert!
<iframe width="200" height="113" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3SwNXQMoNps" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

You made that yourself? I had no idea you clever thing

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I'm hoping Itoje has a stormer so I can use this again:

 

[The Jones Boy]

England by 20

 

[j'nuh]

I'm hoping Itoje has a stormer so I can use this again:

There comes a time
When a boy must become a meme
- Super Maro

 

[ratsapprentice]

 

[BPM]

I think Hughes just had his 2nd international start, and to compare him to any of the others is a bit harsh at this point. He was England's best heavy carrier against France, and pretty much the only one to make a few yards when being the first man to hit up slow ball, even though he was targeted like hell. As soon as we got some extra carriers on the pitch, he was no longer getting marked so heavily, and started making more serious yards.

Picamoles also carries a huge amount on the wings, which tends to be a bit easier to make ground in than the dark places we were sending Hughes into. But there again, France had enough heavy carriers near the breakdown that they could afford to do it.

I think we are also a bit too ready to look at BV now, rather than BV of a few seasons ago. Even now, Billy's quieter games inevitably come when he's the only good carrier in the pack, generally when his brother is missing basically, and this has been true for seasons.

I think Clifford is a bit more dynamic than Wood, but I'm not sure about his heavy carrying, even then, he's at least another Launchbury/Itoje carrier, which is an upgrade. Launchbury was actually making some good damaging runs when he went for it, typically the phase after Hughes had just wrapped up 3 defenders (he was often quick at presenting the ball too, which helped offset Youngs a bit).

Right now Hughes is inexperienced at this level, but even so, I'd consider him over Strauss and Heaslip (please note consider, not definitely take).

His general workrate in the France game seemed better too, he was covering ground a bit more freely (think he had a thigh injury in the AI's no?).

Is he as good as BV, of course not, but it's unfair to compare him to the BV of today, especially to the BV that had Mako (another very good carrier), Haskell (a half decent carrier) and Robshaw (an acceptable carrier) starting with him, rather than Wood, Lawes and Marler (fresh back from a broken leg). Lawes in particular was embarrassing, getting stopped by one tackle, and sort of folded in half, whilst going backwards by the second tackler.

On the whole, I agree. I'm over my displeasure at his qualification and now he's playing for us, I will get behind him and try to put aside any lingering anti-Hughes sentiment I have.

I think the biggest issue with Hughes is that we're trying to use him as a direct replacement for Billy, when they're actually quite different players. Yes, Wasps use Hughes as a heavy carrier, but from what I've seen this normally tends to be a bit wider from the ruck than where he is being used for England. He has the power to smash it up in traffic, but he's probably a bit faster and has better footwork than Billy and looks better for Wasps when he's taking the ball in a bit more space. At the moment, the lack of carriers elsewhere in the pack pretty much necessitates us using him as the main heavy-carrier and I agree that he'd look better if he could share the load and play his more natural game.

Personally, I think we need to look at two slightly different game different game plans for our Number 8 and if Billy's not available, we vary it depending on who is fit and in form.

If we need a heavy-carrier, Billy is the obvious choice but after him, Morgan or Fearns are better suited than Hughes IMO. If we want our 8 playing wider channels a la Read, then Hughes, Clifford, Beaumont and, in time, Mercer are the better bet. I also like the idea of Billy playing for 60 with one of the wide-running 8s coming on for the last 20. In a couple of years time, we could have an insanely good carrying bench - the thought of Genge, LCD, Sinckler, Beaumont (maybe as a lock) and Clifford coming on to run all over a tired defence is very appealing!

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

Anyone else think Daly's looking a bit tubby?