England Training Squad - Now Featuring Both New and Old Messiahs

[Scrumhead]

I know you think it’s 100% Eddie Jones’ fault, but I don’t really see how it changes unless there’s a test-ready 12 who magically appears though …

Kelly might well be at that level by then (he’s definitely on a good trajectory), but even if wasn’t injured, he wouldn’t been the obvious answer this summer.

Ojomoh isn’t even playing for Bath (I assume he’s injured?) and while I rate him, he’s not currently good enough or consistent enough for test rugby.

I’d probably have been inclined to stick with Slade and Marchant rather than bringing Farrell back in, but it’s by no means a perfect solution.

[Oakboy]

I hear you but Jones has improved nothing since 2019. All I want is maximising resources and steady, intelligent development. If we aren't good enough, fair enough, but, IMO, we'll never know how good we are with Jones.

[Banquo]

I know you think it’s 100% Eddie Jones’ fault, but I don’t really see how it changes unless there’s a test-ready 12 who magically appears though …

Kelly might well be at that level by then (he’s definitely on a good trajectory), but even if wasn’t injured, he wouldn’t been the obvious answer this summer.

Ojomoh isn’t even playing for Bath (I assume he’s injured?) and while I rate him, he’s not currently good enough or consistent enough for test rugby.

I’d probably have been inclined to stick with Slade and Marchant rather than bringing Farrell back in, but it’s by no means a perfect solution.

Frankly, its all wind and pi55 unless we can put together a pack that can consistently deliver fast ball through getting over the gainline and good breakdown decision making and technique, and whose discipline and set piece consistency improves markedly.

[Oakboy]

I know you think it’s 100% Eddie Jones’ fault, but I don’t really see how it changes unless there’s a test-ready 12 who magically appears though …

Kelly might well be at that level by then (he’s definitely on a good trajectory), but even if wasn’t injured, he wouldn’t been the obvious answer this summer.

Ojomoh isn’t even playing for Bath (I assume he’s injured?) and while I rate him, he’s not currently good enough or consistent enough for test rugby.

I’d probably have been inclined to stick with Slade and Marchant rather than bringing Farrell back in, but it’s by no means a perfect solution.

Frankly, its all wind and pi55 unless we can put together a pack that can consistently deliver fast ball through getting over the gainline and good breakdown decision making and technique, and whose discipline and set piece consistency improves markedly.

The question then, Banquo, is whether, say, Genge, LCD, Sinckler, Itoje, Hill, Lawes, Curry, Dombrandt are capable of doing that. If not, why not? Are they not good enough as individuals or are they not coached well enough as a unit?

[Scrumhead]

FWIW, I agree.

Initially I was specifically referring to the debate around Farrell.

IMO, our pack really should be better than the sum of its parts, but it really isn’t. I don’t know if I’d hold Eddie completely accountable for that, but we’re definitely not getting the best out of our players.

There is a definite disadvantage stemming from our club set-up. The pack you’ve listed might be our best on paper or the best 8 players, but currently those players come from 6 different clubs (5 after Genge and Hill move). That’s never going to be as cohesive as Ireland’s pack where the full 8 often come from Leinster or even as ours was with 5 Saracens in it. I know it’s Eddie’s job to make the best of it, but I think we have to at least take note of the hand we have to deal with. The cuts to the salary cap are only likely to mean that our test players are spread more thinly too.

[Banquo]

I know you think it’s 100% Eddie Jones’ fault, but I don’t really see how it changes unless there’s a test-ready 12 who magically appears though …

Kelly might well be at that level by then (he’s definitely on a good trajectory), but even if wasn’t injured, he wouldn’t been the obvious answer this summer.

Ojomoh isn’t even playing for Bath (I assume he’s injured?) and while I rate him, he’s not currently good enough or consistent enough for test rugby.

I’d probably have been inclined to stick with Slade and Marchant rather than bringing Farrell back in, but it’s by no means a perfect solution.

Frankly, its all wind and pi55 unless we can put together a pack that can consistently deliver fast ball through getting over the gainline and good breakdown decision making and technique, and whose discipline and set piece consistency improves markedly.

The question then, Banquo, is whether, say, Genge, LCD, Sinckler, Itoje, Hill, Lawes, Curry, Dombrandt are capable of doing that. If not, why not? Are they not good enough as individuals or are they not coached well enough as a unit?

Not consistently, no. A couple of that pack are brain dead, some aren't technically very good. Maybe harsh, but at the top level there's a lack of nous and quality decision making collectively. I do think we should be able to get better out of them (and others), especially being smarter at the carry and better at the breakdown. Eddie can improve units with rested players and extended access as he showed at the 2019 world cup....but players turn up with a lot of work ons, generally. I also don't think he has an especially vintage crop..so I'm not sure we can produce a pack capable of destroying tier 1 sides, which is what we need with the backs we have imo (see below). I was wrong going into the last world cup tho- I thought we'd struggle to get to the semis given the 'raw material'- but I reckon we are a bit weaker in the round this time.

Scrumhead- yes, understood on Faz etc. But was trying to move the debate on a bit, as we've both gone circular on it and in danger of concentrating too much on a red herring. Faz playing/12 is about third or fourth on the annoyance/problem list for me. Totally agree with your take on the structural/system issues.

As a side example- Leinster have a controlled feeder system from schools into their 'pyramid'; its a hard school, but when you get through it...well, look at how they play- all on message/task/positional need/ethos. This then feeds into the national side. Really well done by the provinces and IRFU. We have a very different set up and set of problems to solve.

[Oakboy]

That's a solid review of where we are at, Banquo. Then, the question remains, 'What the hell has Jones been doing about it since 2019?' After that, 'Starting from here, in the dozen or so games remaining before the RWC, can he put it right?'

His choice of hookers currently, his awarding of caps to Ewels and his failure to establish back-row succession/effectiveness have to make one wonder.

[Mikey Brown]

You wonder if there is a role for Burt with England that could lure him away, and allow him to effectively use what he’s experienced/developed in the Leinster system. I don’t know how transferable any of it is with such a different structure, but he seems like someone we should be wanting to involve again somewhere.

[Spiffy]

FWIW, I agree.

Initially I was specifically referring to the debate around Farrell.

IMO, our pack really should be better than the sum of its parts, but it really isn’t. I don’t know if I’d hold Eddie completely accountable for that, but we’re definitely not getting the best out of our players.

There is a definite disadvantage stemming from our club set-up. The pack you’ve listed might be our best on paper or the best 8 players, but currently those players come from 6 different clubs (5 after Genge and Hill move). That’s never going to be as cohesive as Ireland’s pack where the full 8 often come from Leinster or even as ours was with 5 Saracens in it. I know it’s Eddie’s job to make the best of it, but I think we have to at least take note of the hand we have to deal with. The cuts to the salary cap are only likely to mean that our test players are spread more thinly too.

A valid point, but don't totally buy that argument. I think the starting point is to pick the best players from whatever club they happen to play for. It's then the job of the coach, in training camp, to get them playing as a cohesive unit and bring out their collective best. I think that's what top level international coaching is all about, rather than having to develop players' basic skills like passing, tackling, positioning, running lines, ruck responsibilities etc - all basic stuff that international players should have more or less down pat in order to get selected in the first place.
The emphasis in national training squads should be all about game plans/tactics/decision making, not about the low level stuff of teaching players the basics or flogging them to death by endless humping of weights in the gym. There have been several reports in recent years of England players coming out of training camps totally knackered or actually injured. That's not what it should be about.

[Mikey Brown]

Deciding players play in new positions and flip-flopping between them can’t help either. The thing Nathan Hughes was saying in an interview recently that Jones wanted him to be 115kg and Young/Lam wanted him at 130kg seems like a good example of excess time spent with conditioning and trying to repurpose a player from their club role.

[Scrumhead]

FWIW, I agree.

Initially I was specifically referring to the debate around Farrell.

IMO, our pack really should be better than the sum of its parts, but it really isn’t. I don’t know if I’d hold Eddie completely accountable for that, but we’re definitely not getting the best out of our players.

There is a definite disadvantage stemming from our club set-up. The pack you’ve listed might be our best on paper or the best 8 players, but currently those players come from 6 different clubs (5 after Genge and Hill move). That’s never going to be as cohesive as Ireland’s pack where the full 8 often come from Leinster or even as ours was with 5 Saracens in it. I know it’s Eddie’s job to make the best of it, but I think we have to at least take note of the hand we have to deal with. The cuts to the salary cap are only likely to mean that our test players are spread more thinly too.

A valid point, but don't totally buy that argument. I think the starting point is to pick the best players from whatever club they happen to play for. It's then the job of the coach, in training camp, to get them playing as a cohesive unit and bring out their collective best. I think that's what top level international coaching is all about, rather than having to develop players' basic skills like passing, tackling, positioning, running lines, ruck responsibilities etc - all basic stuff that international players should have more or less down pat in order to get selected in the first place.
The emphasis in national training squads should be all about game plans/tactics/decision making, not about the low level stuff of teaching players the basics or flogging them to death by endless humping of weights in the gym. There have been several reports in recent years of England players coming out of training camps totally knackered or actually injured. That's not what it should be about.

I agree in principle. I’d always pick the best players and expect the coach to bring them together as a ‘cohesive unit’. However, I don’t think we can dismiss the fact that well-established ‘units’ who play together week-in, week-out are always going to be more in tune with each other than guys who might only train/play together circa 10 times per year. That’s particularly important in the pack and the half backs.

I think we could make our life easier in certain respects though. George, Itoje and Isiekwe playing together has definite merits for example. There’s a genuine debate on LCD or George vs. George and Isiekwe vs. Hill but IMO, it’s pretty much a 50:50 in both cases and I’d argue the club combination offers more benefits just tips the scales towards the Saracens trio.

I totally agree re. the training. That bit doesn’t make sense to me either …

[FKAS]

Deciding players play in new positions and flip-flopping between them can’t help either. The thing Nathan Hughes was saying in an interview recently that Jones wanted him to be 115kg and Young/Lam wanted him at 130kg seems like a good example of excess time spent with conditioning and trying to repurpose a player from their club role.

Eddie likes a high intensity work rate from his side, 1 to 15. Lam and Young wanted Hughes to get over the gain line and generate quick ball so they can play their attacking game. The lack of work rate ended up counting against Hughes at Bristol so perhaps Eddie's ideas might have helped him longer term.

There's quite a few stories around where Eddie has demanded players drop unnecessary bulk and up their work rate. The players that did won more caps and became the back bone of the side that nearly won a world cup.

I suppose this is the possible issue with no RFU control over clubs the international coach's word isn't final. Not that I think it should be but it'll be a two way conversation.

[FKAS]

FWIW, I agree.

Initially I was specifically referring to the debate around Farrell.

IMO, our pack really should be better than the sum of its parts, but it really isn’t. I don’t know if I’d hold Eddie completely accountable for that, but we’re definitely not getting the best out of our players.

There is a definite disadvantage stemming from our club set-up. The pack you’ve listed might be our best on paper or the best 8 players, but currently those players come from 6 different clubs (5 after Genge and Hill move). That’s never going to be as cohesive as Ireland’s pack where the full 8 often come from Leinster or even as ours was with 5 Saracens in it. I know it’s Eddie’s job to make the best of it, but I think we have to at least take note of the hand we have to deal with. The cuts to the salary cap are only likely to mean that our test players are spread more thinly too.

A valid point, but don't totally buy that argument. I think the starting point is to pick the best players from whatever club they happen to play for. It's then the job of the coach, in training camp, to get them playing as a cohesive unit and bring out their collective best. I think that's what top level international coaching is all about, rather than having to develop players' basic skills like passing, tackling, positioning, running lines, ruck responsibilities etc - all basic stuff that international players should have more or less down pat in order to get selected in the first place.
The emphasis in national training squads should be all about game plans/tactics/decision making, not about the low level stuff of teaching players the basics or flogging them to death by endless humping of weights in the gym. There have been several reports in recent years of England players coming out of training camps totally knackered or actually injured. That's not what it should be about.

I disagree it's the job of the coaches to pick the best team they can from the resources available. If that means a stand out player is left for the greater good then so be it. For instance there's little point picking your "best" tighthead if he's a scrummaging machine that can't keep up with the all court game you are trying to play.

[Banquo]

FWIW, I agree.

Initially I was specifically referring to the debate around Farrell.

IMO, our pack really should be better than the sum of its parts, but it really isn’t. I don’t know if I’d hold Eddie completely accountable for that, but we’re definitely not getting the best out of our players.

There is a definite disadvantage stemming from our club set-up. The pack you’ve listed might be our best on paper or the best 8 players, but currently those players come from 6 different clubs (5 after Genge and Hill move). That’s never going to be as cohesive as Ireland’s pack where the full 8 often come from Leinster or even as ours was with 5 Saracens in it. I know it’s Eddie’s job to make the best of it, but I think we have to at least take note of the hand we have to deal with. The cuts to the salary cap are only likely to mean that our test players are spread more thinly too.

to get them playing as a cohesive unit and bring out their collective best. I think that's what top level international coaching is all about, rather than having to develop players' basic skills like passing, tackling, positioning, running lines, ruck responsibilities etc -

That's what intl coaching should be about, and doubtless that's what Jones would like to do.....but the players do not have all that down pat (and some of those basics are specific to what they are being asked to do at club level tbh), nor is their conditioning ideal. Gatland had similar issues when he took the Wales gig- remember all the conditioning stuff he introduced, and he worked really hard on skills and detail....and it paid off. My point is as above- our club game doesn't demand enough of our players imo from an intensity, skills, decision making, basics point of view; I know its not a popular view tho.
As above, when Eddie got them for a long period pre and during RWC, they looked better for it, at least until the final.

[Banquo]

FWIW, I agree.

Initially I was specifically referring to the debate around Farrell.

IMO, our pack really should be better than the sum of its parts, but it really isn’t. I don’t know if I’d hold Eddie completely accountable for that, but we’re definitely not getting the best out of our players.

There is a definite disadvantage stemming from our club set-up. The pack you’ve listed might be our best on paper or the best 8 players, but currently those players come from 6 different clubs (5 after Genge and Hill move). That’s never going to be as cohesive as Ireland’s pack where the full 8 often come from Leinster or even as ours was with 5 Saracens in it. I know it’s Eddie’s job to make the best of it, but I think we have to at least take note of the hand we have to deal with. The cuts to the salary cap are only likely to mean that our test players are spread more thinly too.

A valid point, but don't totally buy that argument. I think the starting point is to pick the best players from whatever club they happen to play for. It's then the job of the coach, in training camp, to get them playing as a cohesive unit and bring out their collective best. I think that's what top level international coaching is all about, rather than having to develop players' basic skills like passing, tackling, positioning, running lines, ruck responsibilities etc - all basic stuff that international players should have more or less down pat in order to get selected in the first place.
The emphasis in national training squads should be all about game plans/tactics/decision making, not about the low level stuff of teaching players the basics or flogging them to death by endless humping of weights in the gym. There have been several reports in recent years of England players coming out of training camps totally knackered or actually injured. That's not what it should be about.

I disagree it's the job of the coaches to pick the best team they can from the resources available. If that means a stand out player is left for the greater good then so be it. For instance there's little point picking your "best" tighthead if he's a scrummaging machine that can't keep up with the all court game you are trying to play.

It is their job to pick the best team, but (obviously to me) not necessarily the ostensive 'best' individuals, both from a game planning and sometimes a team ethos pov. So agreed

[Oakboy]

As regards conditioning, how much is perception/fashion or single-function statistics? The two Vs will never look like athletes but are arguably two of the most effective performers of the Jones era. Why were they dropped? Neither are my favourites but I don't understand the logic of the timing.

[Which Tyler]

Why were they dropped? Neither are my favourites but I don't understand the logic of the timing.

Well that bit's easy - Billy had been out of form for about 2 years, so had used up his bank of goodwill, and needed to prove himself again at club level (which he has)
Mako had dipped in form, and been overtaken by Genge to be 2nd choice, and probably could also have used a bit of motivation.

[Oakboy]

Why were they dropped? Neither are my favourites but I don't understand the logic of the timing.

Well that bit's easy - Billy had been out of form for about 2 years, so had used up his bank of goodwill, and needed to prove himself again at club level (which he has)
Mako had dipped in form, and been overtaken by Genge to be 2nd choice, and probably could also have used a bit of motivation.

Fair comment but within the context of comments above about selecting players from one club, might keeping them in camp have made more sense? If not, what does it say about relative management/coaching standards of England v Saracens?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying leaving the Vs, George and Ford out was a mistake necessarily. I'm just struggling to understand the consistency/logic of it when, arguably, the replacements did not improve team cohesion or results.

I suppose one could argue that LCD and Genge were on the scene as natural successors but significant improvements? Dombrandt/Simmonds v Billy V? Smith v Ford? Add in that three of the rejects were from one club pack and what is the state of the overall management decision?

Should we be that surprised if the clock goes back and a XV along the lines of Mako, George, Sinckler, Itoje, Lawes, Underhill, Curry, Billy V, Youngs, Ford, May, Farrell, Tuilagi, Watson, Daly is selected?

[Mr Mwenda]

I posted this on the SH board but I think it is relevant to the debate re: the importance of drawing on established combinations and how the English system works against it:

It confirms my feeling that the issues that have emerged are due to the disintegration of the Sarries core because of their wrong-doing and the failure of a move towards an Exeter-based spine of the side.

England rugby needs to axe a bunch of clubs, sadly.

[Scrumhead]

Can’t see what it was?

[Oakboy]

Interesting video, that. I'm not sure the issues are as black and white as painted but it is thought-provoking in overall concept.

[Which Tyler]

England rugby needs to axe a bunch of clubs, sadly.

I think we've run out of T-shirts saying this

[32nd Man]

Why were they dropped? Neither are my favourites but I don't understand the logic of the timing.

Well that bit's easy - Billy had been out of form for about 2 years, so had used up his bank of goodwill, and needed to prove himself again at club level (which he has)
Mako had dipped in form, and been overtaken by Genge to be 2nd choice, and probably could also have used a bit of motivation.

They had both also suffered from a year of Sarries being in the championship, even if long term that year may be better for their bodies.

There appears to be a bit of damned if you do, damned if you don't here too. We either want players to be blooded for future continuity or we don't. At some point that will require the previous first choices to be left out. Mako and Billy being left out has given Genge more caps and allowed other options to be looked at for no. 8. Yes EJ hasn't insured confidence with how he's handled the 8 spot, but if this year wasn't the time to leave the Vunipolae out to spread experience, then it was never going to happen.

[Mikey Brown]

Why were they dropped? Neither are my favourites but I don't understand the logic of the timing.

Well that bit's easy - Billy had been out of form for about 2 years, so had used up his bank of goodwill, and needed to prove himself again at club level (which he has)
Mako had dipped in form, and been overtaken by Genge to be 2nd choice, and probably could also have used a bit of motivation.

They had both also suffered from a year of Sarries being in the championship, even if long term that year may be better for their bodies.

There appears to be a bit of damned if you do, damned if you don't here too. We either want players to be blooded for future continuity or we don't. At some point that will require the previous first choices to be left out. Mako and Billy being left out has given Genge more caps and allowed other options to be looked at for no. 8. Yes EJ hasn't insured confidence with how he's handled the 8 spot, but if this year wasn't the time to leave the Vunipolae out to spread experience, then it was never going to happen.

It's leaving it so late and then suddenly looking at alternatives in bulk that seemed like an issue for both performance and cohesion. Both Vunipolas had been running through treacle long before Sarries went down, for instance.

Obviously we don't have the information that he does, maybe there are stats that suggest otherwise, but it has looked several times like players were in need of a rest and not performing very well, but continued to play. They didn't necessarily need to be ditched entirely, but getting some minutes in to alternatives at 8, 9, 12, 15 a bit sooner could surely have eased some of the pressure at this stage? Though I acknowledge Quirke and Steward have just arrived on the scene and look considerably better as prospects than the alternatives.

I'm sure it's difficult to balance experience/continuity with blooding new players, but it feels like we've now had to do a whole load of it at the exact same time as a tactical/coaching reshuffle.

[Spiffy]

FWIW, I agree.

Initially I was specifically referring to the debate around Farrell.

IMO, our pack really should be better than the sum of its parts, but it really isn’t. I don’t know if I’d hold Eddie completely accountable for that, but we’re definitely not getting the best out of our players.

There is a definite disadvantage stemming from our club set-up. The pack you’ve listed might be our best on paper or the best 8 players, but currently those players come from 6 different clubs (5 after Genge and Hill move). That’s never going to be as cohesive as Ireland’s pack where the full 8 often come from Leinster or even as ours was with 5 Saracens in it. I know it’s Eddie’s job to make the best of it, but I think we have to at least take note of the hand we have to deal with. The cuts to the salary cap are only likely to mean that our test players are spread more thinly too.

A valid point, but don't totally buy that argument. I think the starting point is to pick the best players from whatever club they happen to play for. It's then the job of the coach, in training camp, to get them playing as a cohesive unit and bring out their collective best. I think that's what top level international coaching is all about, rather than having to develop players' basic skills like passing, tackling, positioning, running lines, ruck responsibilities etc - all basic stuff that international players should have more or less down pat in order to get selected in the first place.
The emphasis in national training squads should be all about game plans/tactics/decision making, not about the low level stuff of teaching players the basics or flogging them to death by endless humping of weights in the gym. There have been several reports in recent years of England players coming out of training camps totally knackered or actually injured. That's not what it should be about.

I disagree it's the job of the coaches to pick the best team they can from the resources available. If that means a stand out player is left for the greater good then so be it. For instance there's little point picking your "best" tighthead if he's a scrummaging machine that can't keep up with the all court game you are trying to play.

That does not really disagree with my argument. A tight head who is a stand out scrummager but can do little else, would by definition, not be the best all round tight head. In the same way that the fastest wing in the land is not necessarily the best because it's not all about just speed. I am not advocating that players be picked for one specific skill if they can do nothing else. That would be daft.