Team for Italy

[Digby]

Wasn’t a posted as proof that he should start. It just struck me as very impressive and I thought this was the most relevant place to put it.

I didn't take it as such. I was just amused at how much he's added to himself if not his game since his illegal team was banned from playing

Their punishment is worse than a ban from playing. They get to play but not at Goldington Rd.

That's Ampthill's ground isn't it?

[JellyHead]

I think the biggest decisions left for the weekend is when do I start drinking before the game. Is now early enough or have I left it too late?

[Oakboy]

I think the biggest decisions left for the weekend is when do I start drinking before the game. Is now early enough or have I left it too late?

You might need to save some capacity for after the game, I suspect.

[Digby]

I think the biggest decisions left for the weekend is when do I start drinking before the game. Is now early enough or have I left it too late?

You might need to save some capacity for after the game, I suspect.

We might have reached a point society wouldn't judge someone for being passed out unconscious by 4pm, even if people were allowed to mingle and society knew

[Scrumhead]

There was no way he was going to give guys like Randall and Odogwu a go after Scotland!

Interesting observation, that. Why, is the obvious question? It smacks a bit of Cipriani turning things round and never being seen again. Just supposing Randall were to run the game, speed up ball all over the park and produce tries, where does that leave Jones? Frankly, I think he is scared of that. What would he do for the next match? Pick Youngs again and defend the decision to drop Randall with 'it was only Italy'? He really does not have the balls to stick with Randall in that scenario, IMO. He has backed himself into a corner. 'Tried and tested' must rule.

I agree with most of the sentiment here. Certainly with regards to Randall. However, there’s a couple of bits I’m not sure about.

I assume the bit about ‘Cipriani turning things round’ being the kick pass to May. IIRC, it was pretty much the only thing worthy of note he did in that game. Yes, it helped to get us a win following a couple of defeats, but did he really ‘turn things around’? He definitely didn’t play well enough to real prove he would be better than Ford.

As for ‘tried and tested’ must rule, I think Eddie has ‘tried’ a far higher number of players than average. He tends to make his mind up pretty quickly - generally players get 3/4 caps or 20+. Nathan Hughes is the only one I can really think of to get in to double figures before being discarded. Most of his decisions are pretty much justified and often the players who get fast tracked in like Solomona or Shields get fast tracked back out again if they don’t live up to expectations.

[Puja]

There was no way he was going to give guys like Randall and Odogwu a go after Scotland!

Interesting observation, that. Why, is the obvious question? It smacks a bit of Cipriani turning things round and never being seen again. Just supposing Randall were to run the game, speed up ball all over the park and produce tries, where does that leave Jones? Frankly, I think he is scared of that. What would he do for the next match? Pick Youngs again and defend the decision to drop Randall with 'it was only Italy'? He really does not have the balls to stick with Randall in that scenario, IMO. He has backed himself into a corner. 'Tried and tested' must rule.

I agree with most of the sentiment here. Certainly with regards to Randall. However, there’s a couple of bits I’m not sure about.

I assume the bit about ‘Cipriani turning things round’ being the kick pass to May. IIRC, it was pretty much the only thing worthy of note he did in that game. Yes, it helped to get us a win following a couple of defeats, but did he really ‘turn things around’? He definitely didn’t play well enough to real prove he would be better than Ford.

Also, as I will keep repeating ad nauseam, that kick pass was evidence of May's excellence in having the pace to reach and finish a massively overhit kick before it went dead (and even then required a lucky bounce), not any sign of quality from Cipriani.

Puja

[Oakboy]

There was no way he was going to give guys like Randall and Odogwu a go after Scotland!

Interesting observation, that. Why, is the obvious question? It smacks a bit of Cipriani turning things round and never being seen again. Just supposing Randall were to run the game, speed up ball all over the park and produce tries, where does that leave Jones? Frankly, I think he is scared of that. What would he do for the next match? Pick Youngs again and defend the decision to drop Randall with 'it was only Italy'? He really does not have the balls to stick with Randall in that scenario, IMO. He has backed himself into a corner. 'Tried and tested' must rule.

I agree with most of the sentiment here. Certainly with regards to Randall. However, there’s a couple of bits I’m not sure about.

I assume the bit about ‘Cipriani turning things round’ being the kick pass to May. IIRC, it was pretty much the only thing worthy of note he did in that game. Yes, it helped to get us a win following a couple of defeats, but did he really ‘turn things around’? He definitely didn’t play well enough to real prove he would be better than Ford.

As for ‘tried and tested’ must rule, I think Eddie has ‘tried’ a far higher number of players than average. He tends to make his mind up pretty quickly - generally players get 3/4 caps or 20+. Nathan Hughes is the only one I can really think of to get in to double figures before being discarded. Most of his decisions are pretty much justified and often the players who get fast tracked in like Solomona or Shields get fast tracked back out again if they don’t live up to expectations.

As ever, I like reading your posts. You put up the best possible case for Jones.

I think we are at cross-purposes over 'tried and tested', though. I was referring more to method than selection; more general than individual. In particular, I meant that if Randall came in and we won well with him operating 'off-piste' he would not endear himself to Jones. In that scenario, 'it was only Italy' and 'we need Youngs for the next match' would rule, I guarantee.

As for Cipriani, whatever he did, his face was never going to fit. One magic moment is a fecking sight more than we got from the entire 23 last Saturday. He is history. The sad part of that is not his disposal. It is what he represents. Smith or Simmonds at 10 should at least be a realistic selection possibility judged on their raw ('developable') rugby-playing ability. Without serious injury to Farrell and Ford, they have zero chance of an international career under Jones. They (or their like) may have drifted into squad fringes or been buggered about as 'apprentices' but real chances - never. I doubt a fresh young Dan Carter would get a sniff unless he proved he could 'read, understand and apply'.

I've said it many times. Management is about maximising resources. Jones has, IMO, the best current/potential resources of any head coach in my 50+ years of watching England. SCW had 5 or 6 truly world class players (i.e. certain world XV picks). Jones may not have that many currently but allowing for the age-profile of the current squad and the exceptional potential of the younger fringe, he has a better overall group, especially allowing for the 23-man game which pertains now.

I thought he was wrong for England the day he was appointed. Like so many others, I ate my words and looked on in admiration/disbelief during that initial winning streak. Now, though, looking back on his time as a whole, I think I was right in the first place.

Offer me Pat Lam as his replacement tomorrow and I'll start celebrating.

[Scrumhead]

We’re not at cross purposes on Randall. I knew what you meant and I agree with you completely.

Pat Lam would be a fantastic option. At Bristol he’s had the backing of an ambitious owner who has been happy to spend money, but his achievements at Connacht were genuinely outstanding. I would equate that to Worcester winning the Premiership and it’s also important to point out that Connacht won without stars and playing a good brand of rugby. He seems to be brilliant at building a culture that his players totally buy in to. I don’t know how well that would translate to test rugby due to the lack of continuous contact with the players, but if we were to move on from Eddie, Lam would be my preferred choice.

I guess it boils down to what the England coach’s mandate is. From the RFU’s POV, I think it is simply to win. I’m not sure style is considered to be all that important which is probably why that is not Eddie’s priority. He’s shown with other sides (notably Japan) that he has coached teams to play attractive, attacking rugby. I think he simply looks for the most efficient way to win and unfortunately for us, he believes that winning with England is based almost solely on a power game.

Lam is one of the few that could potentially find the magic combination of winning with style.

[loudnconfident]

Hope you all managed to sleep last night. I found it hard - I confess I was so excited - it was like Christmas as a child, waking early in anticipation of the thrills to come.

[jimKRFC]

Can we please stop with the "Lam for England" chat, he's had one flukely win at Connacht and done ok with loads of money at Bris.

The obvious choice is Baxter.

[16th man]

Hope you all managed to sleep last night. I found it hard - I confess I was so excited - it was like Christmas as a child, waking early in anticipation of the thrills to come.

Full on dark days of Andy Robinson vibes about the whole day.

[Oakboy]

Can we please stop with the "Lam for England" chat, he's had one flukely win at Connacht and done ok with loads of money at Bris.

The obvious choice is Baxter.

My memory is crap but did Lam not beat England with the Barbarians?

[Digby]

Can we please stop with the "Lam for England" chat, he's had one flukely win at Connacht and done ok with loads of money at Bris.

Whilst true he does, and even omits his woes at the Auckland Blues, he does seem to have something about him that suggests he could push on to a big job

[Oakboy]

Does anybody know much about the Italian props? In particular, their tight head is pretty raw and I was wondering how much trouble he'll give to a rusty Mako.

[Which Tyler]

Can we please stop with the "Lam for England" chat, he's had one flukely win at Connacht and done ok with loads of money at Bris.

The obvious choice is Baxter.

A] No
B] Not really

[Dan. Dan. Dan.]

Lam is definitely the most interesting of the prem (or indeed champ!) coaches to me. I really don't think Baxter is a broad enough thinker for international rugby.
Exeter play in such a way that if they were playing one off games like internationally, opponents could certainly game plan for them. Not to mention the refs!
All assumption of course and I'd be more than happy if I was wrong. Although the recent covid bs has certainly made my view of him tainted.
Hopefully Sanderson, Blackett, Skivington and some other young English coaches can start putting their hands up. Not that I am particularly fussed by the coach having to be English.

[paddy no 11]

His exploits at Exeter were anything but flukey

Brought in a couple of excellent but not headline players and brought everyone else's standards up, went from a team of grafters to a team playing winning expansive rugby in 3 years

[Oakboy]

I don't often agree with Greenwood's opinions but this has some merit (from DT today):

"England Rugby tweeted a clip a couple of weeks ago from the 2002 Six Nations match against Ireland at Twickenham; Benny Cohen finishing off a length-of-the-field counter attack involving half the team. I don’t want to be one of those ex-players who says how great everything was in our day and how useless everyone is now. Nothing is more tedious. But the reason I recall this try is because I specifically remember Austin Healey standing behind the ruck on our own 22m-line at the start of that move screaming: ‘It’s on! It’s on! It’s on!’

Oz had spotted the space wide on Ireland’s flank and it didn’t matter that we were in our own 22m, he felt we could exploit it and we trusted him.

You can’t shout ‘It’s on!’ all the time. It’s like crying wolf (and Oz did sometimes go overboard with it). But if your team mates trust you, and if you hear those words, then no matter what the call is, you pull the rip chord and play.

What I want to know - and here’s the rub - who is screaming 'It’s on!' in the England backline today? Who is questioning the fly-half? Who is questioning the coach for that matter? Listen, they may well be. And if they are that raises all sorts of other thorny questions such as, 'Why is no one listening to them?’ But I get the impression they aren’t. Players challenging authority, and speaking up, should be a good thing. It’s not about being subversive or being an energy-sapper or ignoring the coach’s tactics. It’s about questioning those tactics and making sure you get the opportunity to be the best version of yourself.

England last week were a shadow of the best version of themselves. I’m honestly struggling to think of a time Henry Slade touched the ball. The lad’s just won the domestic and European double. His confidence to take anyone on must be sky high. But for whatever reason, he wasn’t able to get the ball into his hands.

Ollie Lawrence is young. It is difficult for him to say, ‘Give me the ball!’ He has only been there five minutes and it would be going against the gameplan. But Slade, Elliot Daly, Anthony Watson, Jonny May; these guys have been to a World Cup final.

Eddie is a powerful coach with an incredible track record. Who is telling him, ‘We do not have to kick this! We can play from here’? Out on the field, who is telling Farrell, ‘There’s space here. Give me the ball. Stand flatter. Do not kick it’?

If England can come out and tell us that there are those discussions taking place. And people are not sitting on hands and that they’re really challenging each other, then fine, let’s go again. But I have to confess, after seeing the England team named to play Italy on Saturday, I was a mix of emotions.

On the one hand, I’ve got Sir Alex Ferguson’s old line in my head about not throwing out a team off the back of one bad performance. You look at that backline’s record as a seven when they have gone out together and they’ve lost roughly a game a year for four years which bears comparison with Martin Johnson’s team. They’ve made a World Cup final. Plus, we don’t get to see what they’re doing in training."

[Mikey Brown]

Does anybody know much about the Italian props? In particular, their tight head is pretty raw and I was wondering how much trouble he'll give to a rusty Mako.

I’m not even sure if they’re doing it this week, but there was a thing about Italy starting their bench for half an hour to let them run themselves ragged, then bring on his first choice props after half an hour. They get that 10 minute burst and then half time to recharge before going again.

Curious to see if that’s something they continue with. It’s like if Jones actually meant all that shit he says about the finishing XV being more important, rather than that he’s just pre-planned all the subs (regardless of how the game goes).

[FKAS]

Can we please stop with the "Lam for England" chat, he's had one flukely win at Connacht and done ok with loads of money at Bris.

The obvious choice is Baxter.

Baxter is the obvious choice. The one also most likely to turn it down though, he ruled himself out the running last time. I get the feeling that Devon is his home and he's likes the straight talking environment and would like to stay there. Can you blame him for wanting to avoid the RFU and it's London headquarters with the associated politics.

Jamie Joseph the Japan head coach (former Highlanders when they won Super Rugby) would also be on the shortlist for me.

[stevedog1980]

I've made Jonny May my captain for today in the fantasy rugby, I'm expecting a big game in response to last weeks no-show from him. Am I kidding myself!??

[jngf]

Interesting observation, that. Why, is the obvious question? It smacks a bit of Cipriani turning things round and never being seen again. Just supposing Randall were to run the game, speed up ball all over the park and produce tries, where does that leave Jones? Frankly, I think he is scared of that. What would he do for the next match? Pick Youngs again and defend the decision to drop Randall with 'it was only Italy'? He really does not have the balls to stick with Randall in that scenario, IMO. He has backed himself into a corner. 'Tried and tested' must rule.

I agree with most of the sentiment here. Certainly with regards to Randall. However, there’s a couple of bits I’m not sure about.

I assume the bit about ‘Cipriani turning things round’ being the kick pass to May. IIRC, it was pretty much the only thing worthy of note he did in that game. Yes, it helped to get us a win following a couple of defeats, but did he really ‘turn things around’? He definitely didn’t play well enough to real prove he would be better than Ford.

As for ‘tried and tested’ must rule, I think Eddie has ‘tried’ a far higher number of players than average. He tends to make his mind up pretty quickly - generally players get 3/4 caps or 20+. Nathan Hughes is the only one I can really think of to get in to double figures before being discarded. Most of his decisions are pretty much justified and often the players who get fast tracked in like Solomona or Shields get fast tracked back out again if they don’t live up to expectations.

As ever, I like reading your posts. You put up the best possible case for Jones.

I think we are at cross-purposes over 'tried and tested', though. I was referring more to method than selection; more general than individual. In particular, I meant that if Randall came in and we won well with him operating 'off-piste' he would not endear himself to Jones. In that scenario, 'it was only Italy' and 'we need Youngs for the next match' would rule, I guarantee.

As for Cipriani, whatever he did, his face was never going to fit. One magic moment is a fecking sight more than we got from the entire 23 last Saturday. He is history. The sad part of that is not his disposal. It is what he represents. Smith or Simmonds at 10 should at least be a realistic selection possibility judged on their raw ('developable') rugby-playing ability. Without serious injury to Farrell and Ford, they have zero chance of an international career under Jones. They (or their like) may have drifted into squad fringes or been buggered about as 'apprentices' but real chances - never. I doubt a fresh young Dan Carter would get a sniff unless he proved he could 'read, understand and apply'.

I've said it many times. Management is about maximising resources. Jones has, IMO, the best current/potential resources of any head coach in my 50+ years of watching England. SCW had 5 or 6 truly world class players (i.e. certain world XV picks). Jones may not have that many currently but allowing for the age-profile of the current squad and the exceptional potential of the younger fringe, he has a better overall group, especially allowing for the 23-man game which pertains now.

I thought he was wrong for England the day he was appointed. Like so many others, I ate my words and looked on in admiration/disbelief during that initial winning streak. Now, though, looking back on his time as a whole, I think I was right in the first place.

Offer me Pat Lam as his replacement tomorrow and I'll start celebrating.

I think I’d settle for Pat Sharp or even Pat Butcher at this point......

[fivepointer]

Baxter has played and coached for one club. One. He's been immensely successful but i think you need someone who has a bit more experience in the wider game to coach at the top level.
But talk of a new coach is really a touch premature.
Jones isnt going anywhere, unless he wants out, or our results are awful for the rest of the year.

[Puja]

Can we please stop with the "Lam for England" chat, he's had one flukely win at Connacht and done ok with loads of money at Bris.

The obvious choice is Baxter.

I was about to bite hard, before realising who the poster was and realising that you were making a joke about not wanting to lose Lam.

I would love to see Lam - his Auckland woes notwithstanding he's redeemed himself in the NH (despite talk of him succeeding because of money, it's the work that he's done with unheralded talents like Morahan, Randall, Thomas, Joyce, O'Conor, etc that's propelled them up the table, rather than just bought in stars) and I'd be fascinated to see what he'd do with the England players currently available.

However, not gonna happen for several reasons, so let's hope Eddie turns it around.

Puja

[p/d]

Puja, when you say ‘turns it around’ what is it you expect/hope him to actually turn?
Play the same but with better execution? Take greater risks and sacrifice an ugly win for development?