New captain

[Raggs]

I think the Curry one was quite clear. As I saw it, he came through the maul, saw the ball carrier near him, and changed his bind from the guy he had been on to the ball carrier.

But if he came through the middle why does he have to be bound? Thus he wouldn't be changing a bind. Well not if that's what had happened, I recall him getting pinged but was at that point talking about brewing beer with the rugby having faded to the equivalent of a screen saver

I may be wrong as it has been a while since I looked. But the maul doesn't stop being a maul because a defender leaves it. There is a bit about intentionally leaving it (which he must have done if he let him bind go) and any defender joining a maul can't join ahead of the furthest forward attacking player in the maul.

If you're held in by others, you haven't left the maul, and he had a scottish player on his back, so in his mind, he was bound in by others (not even English).

[Digby]

I think the Curry one was quite clear. As I saw it, he came through the maul, saw the ball carrier near him, and changed his bind from the guy he had been on to the ball carrier.

But if he came through the middle why does he have to be bound? Thus he wouldn't be changing a bind. Well not if that's what had happened, I recall him getting pinged but was at that point talking about brewing beer with the rugby having faded to the equivalent of a screen saver

I may be wrong as it has been a while since I looked. But the maul doesn't stop being a maul because a defender leaves it. There is a bit about intentionally leaving it (which he must have done if he let him bind go) and any defender joining a maul can't join ahead of the furthest forward attacking player in the maul.

Did he leave the maul though, not being bound doesn't have to mean he's left does it, or it used to be you had to be bound or caught. As per the reply to Raggs I think you're overly chancing it if you think you're not going to look like you've left unless you've got the ref's attention and you're telling them what you're doing

[Mikey Brown]

I thought that was exactly it? Changing your bind is seen as rejoining the maul, no? Not that it's right or wrong but I thought that had been the case for a while?

In my mind Itoje's penalties came more as Scotland put the pressure on and someone needed to turn the tide, but watching it back they do seem quite key to Scotland gaining momentum early on. I'm sympathetic with the rolling away ones. Yes refs need to be hot on it, but equally hot on tacklers not being allowed to escape.

In the name of balance - George deciding to throw straight down the England side after 1 or 2 dodgy/stolen England lineouts was a crafty (if not subtle) move that didn't seem to get picked up at all.

[Raggs]

You can come through the middle without holding onto anyone. You're part of the maul. Curry would argue that with a scot on his back and one in front with i think maro on his side that he was bound in and free to move his arms where he wanted.

[Stom]

You can come through the middle without holding onto anyone. You're part of the maul. Curry would argue that with a scot on his back and one in front with i think maro on his side that he was bound in and free to move his arms where he wanted.

Just more proof that the laws at maul time are in need of a bit of a change...

[twitchy]

I agree that itoje is the clear choice.

[Raggs]

You can come through the middle without holding onto anyone. You're part of the maul. Curry would argue that with a scot on his back and one in front with i think maro on his side that he was bound in and free to move his arms where he wanted.

Just more proof that the laws at maul time are in need of a bit of a change...

Why? Rugby is a complex game, that requires interpretation by the ref. It's a quirk, but you cannot have a complex fast moving game that won't require some degree of interpretation. Unless we simplify everything so much that we insist that once a tackle is made the defence all just have to retreat and let the attack have another go, upto a certain limit of goes.

[Big D]

But if he came through the middle why does he have to be bound? Thus he wouldn't be changing a bind. Well not if that's what had happened, I recall him getting pinged but was at that point talking about brewing beer with the rugby having faded to the equivalent of a screen saver

I may be wrong as it has been a while since I looked. But the maul doesn't stop being a maul because a defender leaves it. There is a bit about intentionally leaving it (which he must have done if he let him bind go) and any defender joining a maul can't join ahead of the furthest forward attacking player in the maul.

Did he leave the maul though, not being bound doesn't have to mean he's left does it, or it used to be you had to be bound or caught. As per the reply to Raggs I think you're overly chancing it if you think you're not going to look like you've left unless you've got the ref's attention and you're telling them what you're doing

As I say it has been a while since I looked at it I am sure the laws mention binding when you enter a maul and it doesn't mention "unbinding". I am not sure "swimming through" the middle of the maul is even technically legal.

[Stom]

You can come through the middle without holding onto anyone. You're part of the maul. Curry would argue that with a scot on his back and one in front with i think maro on his side that he was bound in and free to move his arms where he wanted.

Just more proof that the laws at maul time are in need of a bit of a change...

Why? Rugby is a complex game, that requires interpretation by the ref. It's a quirk, but you cannot have a complex fast moving game that won't require some degree of interpretation. Unless we simplify everything so much that we insist that once a tackle is made the defence all just have to retreat and let the attack have another go, upto a certain limit of goes.

I did say a "bit" of a change. If there is so much confusion over what it means, then we kinda need to fix that, I feel. Just simple clarifications and also slightly deweaponising it because if a team has a superior maul, there's nothing you can do to stop it legally right now... And that's a bit like the flying wedge or truck and trailer and so on, which were outlawed to even the game up.

[Puja]

I may be wrong as it has been a while since I looked. But the maul doesn't stop being a maul because a defender leaves it. There is a bit about intentionally leaving it (which he must have done if he let him bind go) and any defender joining a maul can't join ahead of the furthest forward attacking player in the maul.

Did he leave the maul though, not being bound doesn't have to mean he's left does it, or it used to be you had to be bound or caught. As per the reply to Raggs I think you're overly chancing it if you think you're not going to look like you've left unless you've got the ref's attention and you're telling them what you're doing

As I say it has been a while since I looked at it I am sure the laws mention binding when you enter a maul and it doesn't mention "unbinding". I am not sure "swimming through" the middle of the maul is even technically legal.

I think everyone is getting confused by the edge case. You are allowed to be anywhere in a maul as long as you have entered from the back and are bound in or on. Swimming through is absolutely fine, as you are bound in by the people around you. There is nothing about "changing your bind".

The edge case is where people enter from the back and end up swinging around because of a movement of the maul. The IRB have taken the (stupid, IMO) position that they are legal to keep clinging on there as they are sticking to the same bind they had when they entered from the back. That is the only bit where "changing your bind" matters, because your position on the wrong side is only legal if you haven't moved from your original entry point.

Puja

[Big D]

Did he leave the maul though, not being bound doesn't have to mean he's left does it, or it used to be you had to be bound or caught. As per the reply to Raggs I think you're overly chancing it if you think you're not going to look like you've left unless you've got the ref's attention and you're telling them what you're doing

As I say it has been a while since I looked at it I am sure the laws mention binding when you enter a maul and it doesn't mention "unbinding". I am not sure "swimming through" the middle of the maul is even technically legal.

I think everyone is getting confused by the edge case. You are allowed to be anywhere in a maul as long as you have entered from the back and are bound in or on. Swimming through is absolutely fine, as you are bound in by the people around you. There is nothing about "changing your bind".

The edge case is where people enter from the back and end up swinging around because of a movement of the maul. The IRB have taken the (stupid, IMO) position that they are legal to keep clinging on there as they are sticking to the same bind they had when they entered from the back. That is the only bit where "changing your bind" matters, because your position on the wrong side is only legal if you haven't moved from your original entry point.

Puja

I have just had a quick watch of the penalty (and read the law - I am in a boring teleconference). It was a tough call but I can see why the ref gave it. He sneaks past Sutherland so is probably considered "caught in" the maul, but he isn't bound onto anyone and no one is bound onto him for that last part, unless brushing Sutherland is considered a bind now.

I think given the angle he ends up at, most refs give that as a penalty and at least that offers some consistency.

[Insouciant]

As ever, IMO, the captain has to be a definite starting player. I think it is reasonable to suggest that Itoje is the first name on the team-sheet.

Both Farrell and Ford, as captains, have done good jobs at sticking exactly to the script. For Jones to switch from one of that pair, he would be admitting that his whole head-coach strategy (England players need telling what to do etc.) is flawed. I think it is but I can't see him admitting it.

Itoje as captain takes control away from the YFF axis and that makes it a fundamental change where another brain has the main say. It makes any or all of the three droppable and is such a change of direction that Jones won't consider it. That probably makes it the right decision.

Definitely. The captain needs to be a nailed on selection. This issue raised its head when Hartley was captain when George came to the fore. Itoje seems the most nailed on at the moment, except maybe Jonny May (??).. but who picks wingers first?

Itoje does have give off the I'll run through a brick wall for this team' vibe about him, which is something Scott Quinell said of Johnson (re the lions '97). Of who is currently being selected - if Farrell was to be de-selected/benched - Itoje is the top choice.


The way Eddie has previously selected teams... my bet is that Farrell will start at 12 anyway... or that he is benched but Youngs is given the captaincy, Itoje or Lawes plays 6 (hell why not use them both in the back row) and Daly stays @ 15 despite looking like a way better winger than full back.

There were some stats in the paper pointing out that the team was more successful under Hartley's captaincy - maybe a hint towards a forward as captain? Perhaps a forward-captain can get the grunt-men to up their game at crucial moments in a way that no back could. That could have made all the difference against Scotland.

Eventually Harley ended up the place I'd argue Farrell is very close to, if not already there. There's a better player vying for your shirt. The difference with Farrell is he can be pushed out to 12 where we do have limited experience in the current squad or maybe at all. That he's still getting picked in part highlights paucity of experienced options at 12. I would have stuck with Lawrence but he obviously hogged the ball last weekend(!)

Not sure why Eddie won't experiment against Italy but one thing that struck me from the Squidge Japan V SA videos (part 1) was that Eddie got a group of players together and barely changed them. I think France picked more players in one year than Eddie did in 3. A couple dropped out and a couple of stars were added. My interpretation is that he finds his base, builds on it then drills the plans into it in stages over the 4 years. Farrell seems to be an important part of that in either 10 or 12 so I don't see him being deselected without an injury or for disciplinary reasons.

Some flaws to Eddie's thinking (re keeping the squad small) might be that besides our larger selection options and Japan also lacked the desire to win. They were happy to turn up. He had to instill the desire to win into them along with the ability to communicate on the pitch to take advantage of situations (again see the video.. ironically the players followed the boss's orders so much that they missed overlaps... England would never.. oh). What I'm driving at is that was more to do with the players before they could perform to the levels they did when beating SA etc in 2015.

A further issue of Japan's was a huge lack of test match experience (Squidge highlights the cap count in the video). England on the other hand have a squad of players with a good amount of experience including a WC final & lions caps - if one or two player are swapped for newbies it's unlikely to have the same devastating impact.

Either way, imo we are likely going to be using Farrell for the time being. He's not a terrible player at all but the players outside him should all bring a book.

[Epaminondas Pules]

Definitely. The captain needs to be a nailed on selection. This issue raised its head when Hartley was captain when George came to the fore. Itoje seems the most nailed on at the moment, except maybe Jonny May (??).. but who picks wingers first?

Itoje does have give off the I'll run through a brick wall for this team' vibe about him, which is something Scott Quinell said of Johnson (re the lions '97). Of who is currently being selected - if Farrell was to be de-selected/benched - Itoje is the top choice.


The way Eddie has previously selected teams... my bet is that Farrell will start at 12 anyway... or that he is benched but Youngs is given the captaincy, Itoje or Lawes plays 6 (hell why not use them both in the back row) and Daly stays @ 15 despite looking like a way better winger than full back.

There were some stats in the paper pointing out that the team was more successful under Hartley's captaincy - maybe a hint towards a forward as captain? Perhaps a forward-captain can get the grunt-men to up their game at crucial moments in a way that no back could. That could have made all the difference against Scotland.

Eventually Harley ended up the place I'd argue Farrell is very close to, if not already there. There's a better player vying for your shirt. The difference with Farrell is he can be pushed out to 12 where we do have limited experience in the current squad or maybe at all. That he's still getting picked in part highlights paucity of experienced options at 12. I would have stuck with Lawrence but he obviously hogged the ball last weekend(!)

Not sure why Eddie won't experiment against Italy but one thing that struck me from the Squidge Japan V SA videos (part 1) was that Eddie got a group of players together and barely changed them. I think France picked more players in one year than Eddie did in 3. A couple dropped out and a couple of stars were added. My interpretation is that he finds his base, builds on it then drills the plans into it in stages over the 4 years. Farrell seems to be an important part of that in either 10 or 12 so I don't see him being deselected without an injury or for disciplinary reasons.

Some flaws to Eddie's thinking (re keeping the squad small) might be that besides our larger selection options and Japan also lacked the desire to win. They were happy to turn up. He had to instill the desire to win into them along with the ability to communicate on the pitch to take advantage of situations (again see the video.. ironically the players followed the boss's orders so much that they missed overlaps... England would never.. oh). What I'm driving at is that was more to do with the players before they could perform to the levels they did when beating SA etc in 2015.

A further issue of Japan's was a huge lack of test match experience (Squidge highlights the cap count in the video). England on the other hand have a squad of players with a good amount of experience including a WC final & lions caps - if one or two player are swapped for newbies it's unlikely to have the same devastating impact.

Either way, imo we are likely going to be using Farrell for the time being. He's not a terrible player at all but the players outside him should all bring a book.

This. There is argument about who else is there and what to do about lack of leadership in other areas, but EJ has backed himself into somewhat of a corner. I think he seems himself in Farrell, if I were to speculate why he’s undroppable. One thing with other sides is they will change their players around depending on who they’re playing and that will also include the captain. I don’t think we’ve ever done that.

There are more problems in the whole. We lack leadership as a whole. Missing Underhill’s leadership and organisation was an issue, and likely why Wilson was the preferred candidate to replace him.

Launchbury is another leader, which was a large part of my joy in seeing him return to form and then dashed with injury.

I think I’m right in saying that there’s only two players in the whole squad who captain their clubs and both of them are occasional captains.

[Epaminondas Pules]

The one thing that really concerns me is out of all the leadership contenders, and incumbent group, who is there that you think would challenge the plan? Challenge it on field and say we're not doing that cause its not working. Nobody appears to be doing it today. I don't think it is a singular issue. As in I think our problems of leadership especially go much deeper than just the captain, who I do think is a problem. Also, is there an alternative plan? I've not seen one. I have seen us play different styles in games depending on circumstance, but it looks very much pre-planned / scenario planned. Again, less of this of late.

We have a plan that largely works. It is not pretty, though at times it can be (caveat, less of late), but largely works. When it doesn't we fail to adapt. Forwards and backs and as a whole team.

[Stom]

The one thing that really concerns me is out of all the leadership contenders, and incumbent group, who is there that you think would challenge the plan? Challenge it on field and say we're not doing that cause its not working. Nobody appears to be doing it today. I don't think it is a singular issue. As in I think our problems of leadership especially go much deeper than just the captain, who I do think is a problem. Also, is there an alternative plan? I've not seen one. I have seen us play different styles in games depending on circumstance, but it looks very much pre-planned / scenario planned. Again, less of this of late.

We have a plan that largely works. It is not pretty, though at times it can be (caveat, less of late), but largely works. When it doesn't we fail to adapt. Forwards and backs and as a whole team.

I kinda agree. But my problem with Farrell as captain is that he doesn't add anything in terms of speaking to the ref and getting him on our side. I think we need someone who's going to be talking to the ref constantly and is going to be nice to him and refined in how he speaks.

Which is why I'd pick Itoje every time. He's the best speaker out of the entire squad. Give him the added responsibility and I think it'll be very good for him.

On the rest of it, it's also why Ford is so important. He sticks to the plan but also has the awareness to adapt within the plan's framework, something Farrell obviously lacks.

If you look at our results and the scoreboards, Ford is England's most important player.

[Epaminondas Pules]

I don't think the problems go away with one player, albeit he's also the captain. I do think he should be dropped, totally, but I think the problems run deeper.

Itoje is the best speaker in interviews sure. He'd probably be my choice out of the options available mind, but his communicative style in game is an unknown. He's very vocal, but that's a completely different purpose. I'd still probably choose him.

And I've not seen Ford adapt particularly recently. His skillset and vision is better, by quite a way, but he's rigidly stuck to the plan.

And I'm still agreeing that Farrell should be dropped, I just have concerns that go beyond him and his role.

[Mikey Brown]

It’s a fair point. Eddie is very unlikely to appoint a captain he thinks may alter the plan in the slightest.

I mean we know Care was ditched completely for voicing his opinion a bit too much.

[Oakboy]

Has Jones been known to listen to anyone? It strikes me that the current group of players performs as if is totally under the thumb.

[Digby]

Care was ditched for being an airhead who kept forgetting to do what'd he'd been explicitly told to look for

[Mr Mwenda]

It’s a fair point. Eddie is very unlikely to appoint a captain he thinks may alter the plan in the slightest.

I mean we know Care was ditched completely for voicing his opinion a bit too much.

That second bit is news to me. I can think of other reasons to ditch Care. Less to not replace him, mind.

[Epaminondas Pules]

Care was ditched for being an airhead who kept forgetting to do what'd he'd been explicitly told to look for

In a nutshell. The final straw was a piece where we planned on working the breakdown to create opportunity for the SH. Creating angles off the breakdown I think it was using Lawes as an entry points to then create a close in gap. Having trained and rehearsed several times they took into into game scenario and he got it wrong time and again and apparently Eddie absolutely lost his shit.

But that is also a symptom of taking a player like Care and trying to make everything he does formulaic.

[Mikey Brown]

Care was ditched for being an airhead who kept forgetting to do what'd he'd been explicitly told to look for

In a nutshell. The final straw was a piece where we planned on working the breakdown to create opportunity for the SH. Creating angles off the breakdown I think it was using Lawes as an entry points to then create a close in gap. Having trained and rehearsed several times they took into into game scenario and he got it wrong time and again and apparently Eddie absolutely lost his shit.

But that is also a symptom of taking a player like Care and trying to make everything he does formulaic.

Well fair enough on both counts. I’m certainly biased, but it doesn’t sound like Jones had any interest in input from (some) players, from some of what I’ve heard about Care’s dismissal anyway.

I’m sure the truth is somewhere in the middle as usual.

[Epaminondas Pules]

Have heard similar about receiving input.

[Digby]

I'd still have kept Care for what he offered off the bench, but Eddie didn't keep him all that time on the bench because he's worried about people who disagree with him

[Mikey Brown]

Lucky nobody suggested that then.