EPS Watch / Player Form Thread

[Banquo]

The Times are reporting that Joseph and Sinkler's non-selection are based solely on player performance. The piece goes further to say that Sinkler wouldn't have made the Arg tour were he not picked for the lions and Jones has worries about Joseph ability to impose himself physically on a game.

That's him screwed then, Jones wants a bosher in midfield, and has settled on 12 as playmaker. Teo to 13, awaiting Manu's fitness. I could cry.

[Banquo]

Banquo, just read your comments on the GvW thread. I only saw the first 30 minutes so missed Teo's performance. Based on Eddie's squad, with no JJ, we can probably expect Farrell/T'eo at 12/13 with an outside chance of T'eo/Slade at some point. Whilst I would prefer the 2nd pairing, I'd fear that it would be outside Farrell. T'eo at 12 demands Ford's speed and accuracy of pass, IMO.

This is pure speculation. This is a training squad. We're not actually playing a game, so trying to second-guess a side is pointless.

The main quote of Eddie's I'd take away from the Times article is: "I wouldn't jump at shadows". Right now, half of this forum is doing exactly that!

Eddie's intimated that some of his exclusions are intended to be a kick up the ar$e for some players and I very much doubt he will actually leave JJ out of the actual EPS given that it lasts the full season.

To Banquo's earlier point, people have VERY short memories. JJ must be one of our highest scoring players under Eddie (if not the highest). Leaving him out would make 0 sense.

Eddie's own words make it clear that this is a training camp for the Argentina game. Of course he could be mis-speaking deliberately

On JJ, a poster stated he hasn't done anything much in an England shirt recently, or something like that; IIRC he was quite handy v Scotland, in his last but one game. Perhaps looking at what he did in that game would be a good refresh.

[Mellsblue]

Leaving him out would make 0 sense.

Except against Italy. It's clearly been something Eddie has been mulling over.

[Banquo]

Leaving him out would make 0 sense.

Except against Italy. It's clearly been something Eddie has been mulling over.

I said when he did that, that it indicated he wasn't happy. To your point, he's now stated why. If he has settled on Ford and Faz as his 10/12, he wants a physical presence at 13. Logic, but starting from a fallacy. Teo keeping shirt warm for Manu, Slade on bench for when Faz moves into 10, Francis on standby in case Faz/Ford are crocked.


Scrumhead will LOVE this speculation.

[Puja]

The Times are reporting that Joseph and Sinkler's non-selection are based solely on player performance. The piece goes further to say that Sinkler wouldn't have made the Arg tour were he not picked for the lions and Jones has worries about Joseph ability to impose himself physically on a game.

That's him screwed then, Jones wants a bosher in midfield, and has settled on 12 as playmaker. Teo to 13, awaiting Manu's fitness. I could cry.

You're basing your panic on what Eddie's said. More than that, on what the Times alleges that Eddie's said. D'you see where you've gone wrong there? I don't think Eddie is dogmatic about anything and I'm not sure why you've suddenly leaped to "Joseph is banished forever because Eddie won't play a non-bosher" given Jones has clearly been okay without starting a bosher for the past 2 years (apart from an unfortunate 2 game flirtation with Burrell and one experimental start for Te'o). Especially since Eddie's said that he sees Slade as a 13 and he's hardly Mr Universe.

On JJ, a poster stated he hasn't done anything much in an England shirt recently, or something like that; IIRC he was quite handy v Scotland, in his last but one game. Perhaps looking at what he did in that game would be a good refresh.

This next question is not me being flippant or rhetorical - I literally have a medical problem with my memory, so I don't know the answer. Has Joseph really performed in attack for England in the last 12 months apart from that game? I mean, Farrell was pretty handy in the Scotland game as well, and we all feel pretty happy ragging on him still.

Puja

[Banquo]

The Times are reporting that Joseph and Sinkler's non-selection are based solely on player performance. The piece goes further to say that Sinkler wouldn't have made the Arg tour were he not picked for the lions and Jones has worries about Joseph ability to impose himself physically on a game.

That's him screwed then, Jones wants a bosher in midfield, and has settled on 12 as playmaker. Teo to 13, awaiting Manu's fitness. I could cry.

You're basing your panic on what Eddie's said. More than that, on what the Times alleges that Eddie's said. D'you see where you've gone wrong there? I don't think Eddie is dogmatic about anything and I'm not sure why you've suddenly leaped to "Joseph is banished forever because Eddie won't play a non-bosher" given Jones has picked him for most of his tenure. Especially since Eddie's said that he sees Slade as a 13 and he's hardly Mr Universe.

On JJ, a poster stated he hasn't done anything much in an England shirt recently, or something like that; IIRC he was quite handy v Scotland, in his last but one game. Perhaps looking at what he did in that game would be a good refresh.

This next question is not me being flippant or rhetorical - I literally have a medical problem with my memory, so I don't know the answer. Has Joseph really performed in attack for England in the last 12 months apart from that game? I mean, Farrell was pretty handy in the Scotland game as well, and we all feel pretty happy ragging on him still.

Puja

I'm not panicking (and was being a little flippant myself), I'm just figuring out what Eddie is thinking, and it chimes in with what he did for the Italy game, how he is building up his stock of 12's and their style, and his pattern of substitutions with the likes of Teo. On the Slade point, he is a different type of player to JJ, so him as a 13 would be with a different midfield combo (eg Teo at 12). My key point is that you don't leave someone who is core to your plans out of a training camp that Eddie himself said was very important. I hope I'm wrong, but the writing seems to be at least getting close to the wall- as you say though, he isn't dogmatic.

On the last 12 months piece, he has been fine in attack mainly, and outstanding occasionally; I will however go back to my previous argument, its unrealistic to expect a 13 to be making breaks all the time, and more especially in the England side he has been playing in, with no running threat from his partner, and a full back who doesn't have pace or orthodox running lines....and with a pack producing dubious quality ball, and youngs at 9- the team as a whole were very average in the 6N. Think you forward types need to have a run out there

As a whole I'm just bemused that a player who was being talked about as being our one world class back not that long ago, has now become someone the board thinks its ok to drop, based on recent performances in an England shirt; Eddie- in my opinion- has formed a particular view on what he wants from his 13, based on what he will be going with at 10/12.....but will be fascinated to see what happens.

[Scrumhead]

The Times are reporting that Joseph and Sinkler's non-selection are based solely on player performance. The piece goes further to say that Sinkler wouldn't have made the Arg tour were he not picked for the lions and Jones has worries about Joseph ability to impose himself physically on a game.

That's him screwed then, Jones wants a bosher in midfield, and has settled on 12 as playmaker. Teo to 13, awaiting Manu's fitness. I could cry.

You're basing your panic on what Eddie's said. More than that, on what the Times alleges that Eddie's said. D'you see where you've gone wrong there? I don't think Eddie is dogmatic about anything and I'm not sure why you've suddenly leaped to "Joseph is banished forever because Eddie won't play a non-bosher" given Jones has clearly been okay without starting a bosher for the past 2 years (apart from an unfortunate 2 game flirtation with Burrell and one experimental start for Te'o). Especially since Eddie's said that he sees Slade as a 13 and he's hardly Mr Universe.

On JJ, a poster stated he hasn't done anything much in an England shirt recently, or something like that; IIRC he was quite handy v Scotland, in his last but one game. Perhaps looking at what he did in that game would be a good refresh.

This next question is not me being flippant or rhetorical - I literally have a medical problem with my memory, so I don't know the answer. Has Joseph really performed in attack for England in the last 12 months apart from that game? I mean, Farrell was pretty handy in the Scotland game as well, and we all feel pretty happy ragging on him still.

Puja

Puja's first paragraph is exactly what I'm talking about. The exact quote from The Times is: "Jones is believed to have concerns about Joseph's ability to impose himself physically on a game in the way Ben Te'o can". It's not a quote from Eddie and it seems to be based upon a journalist's perception of what he thinks. It's also a ridiculous statement. Te'o's game is all about physicality, so that statement could be applied to a significant chunk of the England squad including some of our forwards. The fact that JJ is not as physical as Te'o is hardly breaking news.

Factually, JJ has scored 10 tries in the Eddie Jones era - most of that outside a midfield that hasn't been consistently good. 8 of those were in the last 12 months. I'm almost certain that is the most of anyone in the squad under Eddie.

Leaving him out would make 0 sense.

Except against Italy. It's clearly been something Eddie has been mulling over.

I said when he did that, that it indicated he wasn't happy. To your point, he's now stated why. If he has settled on Ford and Faz as his 10/12, he wants a physical presence at 13. Logic, but starting from a fallacy. Teo keeping shirt warm for Manu, Slade on bench for when Faz moves into 10, Francis on standby in case Faz/Ford are crocked.


Scrumhead will LOVE this speculation.

Eddie obviously wanted to see what Te'o could do and Italy was the obvious game to try it. That basically meant a straight choice between breaking up the Ford/Farrell combo or dropping JJ, so I'm not really surprised he was fall guy in that scenario,

[Puja]

I'm not panicking (and was being a little flippant myself), I'm just figuring out what Eddie is thinking, and it chimes in with what he did for the Italy game, how he is building up his stock of 12's and their style, and his pattern of substitutions with the likes of Teo. On the Slade point, he is a different type of player to JJ, so him as a 13 would be with a different midfield combo (eg Teo at 12). My key point is that you don't leave someone who is core to your plans out of a training camp that Eddie himself said was very important. I hope I'm wrong, but the writing seems to be at least getting close to the wall- as you say though, he isn't dogmatic.

On the last 12 months piece, he has been fine in attack mainly, and outstanding occasionally; I will however go back to my previous argument, its unrealistic to expect a 13 to be making breaks all the time, and more especially in the England side he has been playing in, with no running threat from his partner, and a full back who doesn't have pace or orthodox running lines....and with a pack producing dubious quality ball, and youngs at 9- the team as a whole were very average in the 6N. Think you forward types need to have a run out there

As a whole I'm just bemused that a player who was being talked about as being our one world class back not that long ago, has now become someone the board thinks its ok to drop, based on recent performances in an England shirt; Eddie- in my opinion- has formed a particular view on what he wants from his 13, based on what he will be going with at 10/12.....but will be fascinated to see what happens.

I don't know the board (as a gestalt) believes it's okay to drop him, or that he's no longer our best 13, but that he's not producing his very best and that this is an attempt from Eddie to put the wind up him. I'll be interested to see how he goes against Newcastle. In fact, I might look at him for my FR team, as I suspect that this will inspire a run of form; I don't think he likes being dropped.

Puja

[Banquo]

blah blah

You are no fun, what's wrong with some speculation! And to be clear JJ should be in the training squad, and would be one of the first names on the team sheet for me, simply as a defender.

But on a more serious point, why would you exclude someone with his experience and indeed try scoring experience from a training camp, unnecessarily based on numbers, who you (and I!) would think would be a key member of the leadership and playing group?

I've replied to Puja on the train of logic that Eddie looks to be pursuing; its not 'panic', hysteria, but a reaction to how Eddie is picking his squads lately, linked to direct quotes. I may be wrong, but it'd a be a dull place if opinions aren't allowed.

[Banquo]

I'm not panicking (and was being a little flippant myself), I'm just figuring out what Eddie is thinking, and it chimes in with what he did for the Italy game, how he is building up his stock of 12's and their style, and his pattern of substitutions with the likes of Teo. On the Slade point, he is a different type of player to JJ, so him as a 13 would be with a different midfield combo (eg Teo at 12). My key point is that you don't leave someone who is core to your plans out of a training camp that Eddie himself said was very important. I hope I'm wrong, but the writing seems to be at least getting close to the wall- as you say though, he isn't dogmatic.

On the last 12 months piece, he has been fine in attack mainly, and outstanding occasionally; I will however go back to my previous argument, its unrealistic to expect a 13 to be making breaks all the time, and more especially in the England side he has been playing in, with no running threat from his partner, and a full back who doesn't have pace or orthodox running lines....and with a pack producing dubious quality ball, and youngs at 9- the team as a whole were very average in the 6N. Think you forward types need to have a run out there

As a whole I'm just bemused that a player who was being talked about as being our one world class back not that long ago, has now become someone the board thinks its ok to drop, based on recent performances in an England shirt; Eddie- in my opinion- has formed a particular view on what he wants from his 13, based on what he will be going with at 10/12.....but will be fascinated to see what happens.

I don't know the board (as a gestalt) believes it's okay to drop him, or that he's no longer our best 13, but that he's not producing his very best and that this is an attempt from Eddie to put the wind up him. I'll be interested to see how he goes against Newcastle. In fact, I might look at him for my FR team, as I suspect that this will inspire a run of form; I don't think he likes being dropped.

Puja

Many seem to accept the wisdom that he's not at his best- same is true of others, and so what anyway if his run of the mill is still worth having- and ergo its ok; my key point is that why wouldn't you have him along to train, given his experience, class IF he is a core member of team and leadership group; there was no numerical constraint. If I were giving him a boot, I'd do it in the training camp.

Course we don't know what is being said behind closed doors. As I said, its a bit dull just to accept it and not speculate why.

Meanwhile, its just a distraction technique from Eddie...we aren't talking about 9 or Mike Brown being in the squad still.

[Puja]

Many seem to accept the wisdom that he's not at his best- same is true of others, and so what anyway if his run of the mill is still worth having- and ergo its ok; my key point is that why wouldn't you have him along to train, given his experience, class IF he is a core member of team and leadership group; there was no numerical constraint. If I were giving him a boot, I'd do it in the training camp.

It's a two day training camp though. His presence of absence will make no long-term difference to the team, but it might make a difference to him. His good enough is good enough, but I approve of making him work harder, because there is more to come.

Meanwhile, its just a distraction technique from Eddie...we aren't talking about 9 or Mike Brown being in the squad still.

This sounds eminently plausible and is now my new pet theory.

Puja

[Banquo]

Many seem to accept the wisdom that he's not at his best- same is true of others, and so what anyway if his run of the mill is still worth having- and ergo its ok; my key point is that why wouldn't you have him along to train, given his experience, class IF he is a core member of team and leadership group; there was no numerical constraint. If I were giving him a boot, I'd do it in the training camp.

It's a two day training camp though. His presence of absence will make no long-term difference to the team, but it might make a difference to him. His good enough is good enough, but I approve of making him work harder, because there is more to come.

Meanwhile, its just a distraction technique from Eddie...we aren't talking about 9 or Mike Brown being in the squad still.

This sounds eminently plausible and is now my new pet theory.

Puja

Well we just disagree then- you don't leave your core players out of anything like that, for me.

[Mikey Brown]

I'm also curious what differentiates Teo and Manu, regarding Jones saying that 'Tuilagi is not a 13 in a million years' (or something to that effect) or maybe that was just more hot air as well. Similarly I wonder how far he would have to be pushed to stick Robshaw at 7 again.

[Oakboy]

Talk me through JJ's last but one game for England. Talk about short memories.
Think about how England played in the last 6N, and your repeated attacks on Youngs, Ford and Farrell as an axis. Think about the quality of ball produced outside 1st phase.

One game either way can't disguise his apparent reduced effect on the game. To an extent, we are at cross purposes here because it is Eddie's conclusion on his contributions that matter. If I was picking a XV in an experimental game tomorrow, I'd play Slade at 12 with JJ at 13 and I'd have them interchanging. I'd probably go with your suggestion of T'eo at 12 for part of the game too.

I still do not like Youngs at 9 and I still think that Farrell at 12 stifles Ford. However, Eddie disagrees. I think Youngs and Farrell are rooted in Eddie's starting XV. Farrell at 10 or 12 seems to be the only issue.

[Tom Moore]

Both centres imo have to offer a running threat; to me, the as yet untried combo of Teo and JJ is worth a look.

I'd prefer both, in the same way I'd prefer both to be able to pass and kick.

This seems unlikely though, so at the moment I'd settle for one and a playmaker.

My worry with Te'o and JJ is how much decent ball would get outside the 13 channel. Also, I think the two playmaker option has gone well. I think we could leverage Farrell's lack of run threat with more motion running off him.

agreed with the first statement; I'm not dogmatic over having a playmaker, unless they are also a running threat.

Ford and Faz have shown to good effect off first phase against weaker defences with that use of runners in motion as it were; but I can't get past Faz's lack of threat and iffy defence as a 12. I'd much prefer he and Ford (and whoever) to duke it out for 10.

I'm not worried over the Teo, JJ and width piece really; I think if JJ had the likes of Watson zooming up outside him, it'd all work; both Teo and JJ have decent handling ability, though I'd agree they are runners by instinct. The key is having the threat in midfield, with the ability to get over the gainline; with the back row/pack we may well be selecting, going wide willy nilly isn't likely a great idea.

Agree totally on the willy nilly.

I'm a bit more dogmatic than you, and would take playmaker over running threat at 12. I was rather hoping Piers Francis would be the guy to come in and offer both to an extent. Mallinder, if he learns to use his physique and stops being a defensive soft-cock, might well be similar.

[Banquo]

I'd prefer both, in the same way I'd prefer both to be able to pass and kick.

This seems unlikely though, so at the moment I'd settle for one and a playmaker.

My worry with Te'o and JJ is how much decent ball would get outside the 13 channel. Also, I think the two playmaker option has gone well. I think we could leverage Farrell's lack of run threat with more motion running off him.

agreed with the first statement; I'm not dogmatic over having a playmaker, unless they are also a running threat.

Ford and Faz have shown to good effect off first phase against weaker defences with that use of runners in motion as it were; but I can't get past Faz's lack of threat and iffy defence as a 12. I'd much prefer he and Ford (and whoever) to duke it out for 10.

I'm not worried over the Teo, JJ and width piece really; I think if JJ had the likes of Watson zooming up outside him, it'd all work; both Teo and JJ have decent handling ability, though I'd agree they are runners by instinct. The key is having the threat in midfield, with the ability to get over the gainline; with the back row/pack we may well be selecting, going wide willy nilly isn't likely a great idea.

Agree totally on the willy nilly.

I'm a bit more dogmatic than you, and would take playmaker over running threat at 12. I was rather hoping Piers Francis would be the guy to come in and offer both to an extent. Mallinder, if he learns to use his physique and stops being a defensive soft-cock, might well be similar.

I just think a playmaker has to threaten, else its dead easy for defences. So I want both too.

[Banquo]

elsewhere, suspect JJ not enjoying saturday too much at the mo.

[Banquo]

Talk me through JJ's last but one game for England. Talk about short memories.
Think about how England played in the last 6N, and your repeated attacks on Youngs, Ford and Farrell as an axis. Think about the quality of ball produced outside 1st phase.

One game either way can't disguise his apparent reduced effect on the game. To an extent, we are at cross purposes here because it is Eddie's conclusion on his contributions that matter. If I was picking a XV in an experimental game tomorrow, I'd play Slade at 12 with JJ at 13 and I'd have them interchanging. I'd probably go with your suggestion of T'eo at 12 for part of the game too.

I still do not like Youngs at 9 and I still think that Farrell at 12 stifles Ford. However, Eddie disagrees. I think Youngs and Farrell are rooted in Eddie's starting XV. Farrell at 10 or 12 seems to be the only issue.

you were specifically saying his recent games when decrying his attacking. In fact, he attacked pretty well during the 6N given the rubbish around him, and outstandingly v Scotland.

You are right re Eddie, and I'm sure its being driven from Ford and Farrell being his 10/12 of choice, and the rest follows.

[Banquo]

Billy off injured for Sarries, looks like knee. Doh!

[Scrumhead]

blah blah

You are no fun, what's wrong with some speculation! And to be clear JJ should be in the training squad, and would be one of the first names on the team sheet for me, simply as a defender.

But on a more serious point, why would you exclude someone with his experience and indeed try scoring experience from a training camp, unnecessarily based on numbers, who you (and I!) would think would be a key member of the leadership and playing group?

I've replied to Puja on the train of logic that Eddie looks to be pursuing; its not 'panic', hysteria, but a reaction to how Eddie is picking his squads lately, linked to direct quotes. I may be wrong, but it'd a be a dull place if opinions aren't allowed.

Why are you attacking me when I'm agreeing with you?

Almost every thread I post on here is speculative - I just disagreed with the way people were treating a training squad as the real deal ...

Anyway JJ scored today so maybe it had the desired effect?

[Banquo]

blah blah

You are no fun, what's wrong with some speculation! And to be clear JJ should be in the training squad, and would be one of the first names on the team sheet for me, simply as a defender.

But on a more serious point, why would you exclude someone with his experience and indeed try scoring experience from a training camp, unnecessarily based on numbers, who you (and I!) would think would be a key member of the leadership and playing group?

I've replied to Puja on the train of logic that Eddie looks to be pursuing; its not 'panic', hysteria, but a reaction to how Eddie is picking his squads lately, linked to direct quotes. I may be wrong, but it'd a be a dull place if opinions aren't allowed.

Why are you attacking me when I'm agreeing with you?

Almost every thread I post on here is speculative - I just disagreed with the way people were treating a training squad as the real deal ...

Anyway JJ scored today so maybe it had the desired effect?

sorry if you thought that was ''attacking' you....that was light hearted in the opening line, hence the follow up, 'on a serious note'. And I have to say, Eddie has said its the real deal, but as you pointed out, and I've said before, he does speak with forked tongue.

Yes, I'm sure that's what happened with JJ , though suspect he will be disappointed with the loss!

[Scrumhead]

I must have been feeling emotional after Quins lost.

[Mellsblue]

I must have been feeling emotional after Quins lost.

This sounds like speculation to me.

[Scrumhead]

Did anyone see Ben Curry's kick through for Sale's last try? Lovely piece of skill that would have put some 10s to shame!

[Mellsblue]

I did. Was perfectly executed.