New and Improved EPS Watch/Player Form Thread

[Danno]

I’m fine with most of it, but Slade? I really hoped we might have turned the page there. Particularly given how positive Borthwick has been about Atkinson.

Probably just too early for Seb or A N Other

That IC slot is absolutely bleak

[Captainhaircut]

Good news: no Farrell, some props, no Dan.
Bad news: Slade- fuck me, how has he kept his contract?

Surprised no AOF- would have thought they’d want to control his games.

[Puja]

I’m fine with most of it, but Slade? I really hoped we might have turned the page there. Particularly given how positive Borthwick has been about Atkinson.

Right there with you.

Interesting that Stoic Becontracting has gone for the full 25 this time - weren't we at 21 or something last time cause he wanted to see how people went and keep his options open? Feels like Slade's a waste of a contract and we might be better off having 24 and keeping one back to see if SAtkinson keeps on kicking on.

Actually, I'm now wondering if Slade was promised a 2 year England contract to stay in the Prem back when the rest of Exeter left and he was rumoured to be going to France.

Good news: no Farrell, some props, no Dan.
Bad news: Slade- fuck me, how has he kept his contract?

Surprised no AOF- would have thought they’d want to control his games.

Excellent point on AOF - it really does feel like he's massively overplayed at present and exactly the kind of thing these contracts are supposed to be helping with. Mind, they don't seem to be making a blind bit of difference to Itoje being ground up into a fine powder with playing far too many minutes, so maybe they don't do anything at all?

No Fazlet makes me feel slightly reassured that he's not going to just saunter back into the team and oust one of the 10s. Although I am slightly worried about him sauntering into the 12 shirt now...

Puja

[fivepointer]

Slade's inclusion is a bit of a downer. Is Daly really a key player for England now?

[Scrumhead]

I’m hoping Puja is correct and Slade is there purely by virtue of still being on a central contract that’s in it’s second (and hopefully final) year.

[FKAS]

Slade being offered a two year central contract does make sense and Borthwick does still rate him for some reason.

Re FP's point. I'm not really a Daly fan but he has played well for England and the Lions this year. Having a big (and accurate) boot in the backline does help as does his versatility.

[Oakboy]

I know it will sound like my hobby horse, but I remain convinced that SB is keeping Slade till he is fully convinced by Freeman at 13. The one game v Wales was an indicator. It's up to Lawrence to dispute that and he's on board. Two other wingers and Daly covering FB and wing back the theory.

As for 12, four candidates - Dingwall, Atkinson, Woodward and Ojomoh - are hopefully vying for the shirt (ahead of wasting game time on Farrell). It is easy to forget how well Dingwall was settling in with Atkinson looking useful on the summer tour. Maybe, neither is sufficiently ahead of the other in SB's mind for a central contract.

[Puja]

There's another on the lineout with George Kruis, probably our best LO operator since Geoff Parling



I'm hoping for a maul video at some point because I cannot tell what the hell happens in there even in slow motion

That took me a while to get around to watching all of it, but it was **fascinating**.

Thoughts:
Geez Kruis has dropped a lot of weight since he stopped playing. Must've been a heroic effort for him to stay at 19st+ during his career, as he's gone from being a hulk to a slender gangly bloke in the space of 2 years between retiring and that video. Hadn't realised that he was now involved with England - good appointment that.

Interesting that the fly-half is the initial decider of what the call is (does that mean we can now blame lost lineouts on Fazlet?). Makes sense I guess, but it'd never occurred to me, cause at my (very low) level, the forwards sort the lineout and the backs then work out what they're doing based on what we've decided (assuming anyone outside of the 9 even gets told, which isn't a given). Frankly, they should be grateful if they get the ball back at all.

It's all a lot more integrated than I thought - I had assumed the choice of lineout numbers and choice of throws was entirely about the best way of getting the ball back, but Kruis talked about picking a short or full lineout solely depending on what the move was once we'd got the ball, whether that's having players out to chase an imminent kick, or tying players in to give more room to the backs.

I had also been under the impression that a lot of lineouts at the top level were reactive and moving until you'd suckered the defence and then going up where there was space. Interesting to hear that it's so much planned moves and pre-prepared ploys - "Matching up your strength to their weakness". Also talked about pre-thought-through patterns of "drive, drive, fake drive" to try and sucker defences, or even driving all the time one week so that the opposition do their prep on that and then doing something different.

Interesting also to learn about the two types of defence (15.00) - mirroring where they attempt to follow the movement and match the jump of the attackers, and "sitting back" where you camp two jumpers over middle and back spaces and invite teams to try and beat you there if they want back ball. Kruis's opinion - "Mirror gives you a high chance of going up to compete against someone, but as a coach, you then have to pick 5 decent jumpers/lifters to mirror because if you have one bad jumper, then there's a target there."

Quality content there and well worth a look if anyone hasn't already.

Puja

[Danno]

Yeah I loved that video as well as the scrum one. More of that sort of thing Squidge, there's enough meme masters around.

Kruis' physique surprised me to the point that I was initially wondering if they'd found a looky likey!

[Oakboy]

Quality content there and well worth a look if anyone hasn't already.

Puja

I wonder how much of the in-depth, pre-planned play business is universal throughout international rugby. Kruis has been around a bit (Japan anyway??) so should be authoritative. Somehow, it seems restrictive and English. Might the latest coaching (highlighted by our more open approach in Argentina) be moving away from it? Or, might the Lions approach have been this based on so many older players and be a bit old-fashioned etc.?

I think the AI v NZ (and the A match v NZ XV) could offer hints. Am I wrong to think the ABs (and France) might do things differently?

[FKAS]

Quality content there and well worth a look if anyone hasn't already.

Puja

I wonder how much of the in-depth, pre-planned play business is universal throughout international rugby. Kruis has been around a bit (Japan anyway??) so should be authoritative. Somehow, it seems restrictive and English. Might the latest coaching (highlighted by our more open approach in Argentina) be moving away from it? Or, might the Lions approach have been this based on so many older players and be a bit old-fashioned etc.?

I think the AI v NZ (and the A match v NZ XV) could offer hints. Am I wrong to think the ABs (and France) might do things differently?

You need players on the same level which is difficult with the turnover of players in pro squads so the somewhat romantic notion of no set structure and play what you see doesn't really work against structured modern defences. Giving your playmakers options and having as many players as possible able to slot into a playmaker role seems to be the direction of travel, I'm thinking Mike Catt's Irish attack for instance where players were encouraged to call opportunities and empowered to run the plays they thought were on irrespective of position. Lawes has talked about the Saints flowing attack having a strict structure previously, you need the moving parts working harmoniously. Borthwick seems keen to have more players in the backline capable of moving the ball and spotting/utilising opportunities that arise as well as forwards comfortable handling the ball to link play.

Happy to corrected by someone with more in-depth knowledge mind.

[Oakboy]

Quality content there and well worth a look if anyone hasn't already.

Puja

I wonder how much of the in-depth, pre-planned play business is universal throughout international rugby. Kruis has been around a bit (Japan anyway??) so should be authoritative. Somehow, it seems restrictive and English. Might the latest coaching (highlighted by our more open approach in Argentina) be moving away from it? Or, might the Lions approach have been this based on so many older players and be a bit old-fashioned etc.?

I think the AI v NZ (and the A match v NZ XV) could offer hints. Am I wrong to think the ABs (and France) might do things differently?

You need players on the same level which is difficult with the turnover of players in pro squads so the somewhat romantic notion of no set structure and play what you see doesn't really work against structured modern defences. Giving your playmakers options and having as many players as possible able to slot into a playmaker role seems to be the direction of travel, I'm thinking Mike Catt's Irish attack for instance where players were encouraged to call opportunities and empowered to run the plays they thought were on irrespective of position. Lawes has talked about the Saints flowing attack having a strict structure previously, you need the moving parts working harmoniously. Borthwick seems keen to have more players in the backline capable of moving the ball and spotting/utilising opportunities that arise as well as forwards comfortable handling the ball to link play.

Happy to corrected by someone with more in-depth knowledge mind.

I remember a talk by Mike Davis, the then England head-coach, in which he stated that much of their time was spent practising recovery from cock-ups. The relevance of that, Kruis's words and your post is that practice to the point of knowing what your team-mate WILL do in any scenario is pretty important. It's the length of pre-planned moves that seems strange to me - when it's line-out, four passes, then grubber (or whatever) despite a non-planned overlap materialising.

[FKAS]

I wonder how much of the in-depth, pre-planned play business is universal throughout international rugby. Kruis has been around a bit (Japan anyway??) so should be authoritative. Somehow, it seems restrictive and English. Might the latest coaching (highlighted by our more open approach in Argentina) be moving away from it? Or, might the Lions approach have been this based on so many older players and be a bit old-fashioned etc.?

I think the AI v NZ (and the A match v NZ XV) could offer hints. Am I wrong to think the ABs (and France) might do things differently?

You need players on the same level which is difficult with the turnover of players in pro squads so the somewhat romantic notion of no set structure and play what you see doesn't really work against structured modern defences. Giving your playmakers options and having as many players as possible able to slot into a playmaker role seems to be the direction of travel, I'm thinking Mike Catt's Irish attack for instance where players were encouraged to call opportunities and empowered to run the plays they thought were on irrespective of position. Lawes has talked about the Saints flowing attack having a strict structure previously, you need the moving parts working harmoniously. Borthwick seems keen to have more players in the backline capable of moving the ball and spotting/utilising opportunities that arise as well as forwards comfortable handling the ball to link play.

Happy to corrected by someone with more in-depth knowledge mind.

I remember a talk by Mike Davis, the then England head-coach, in which he stated that much of their time was spent practising recovery from cock-ups. The relevance of that, Kruis's words and your post is that practice to the point of knowing what your team-mate WILL do in any scenario is pretty important. It's the length of pre-planned moves that seems strange to me - when it's line-out, four passes, then grubber (or whatever) despite a non-planned overlap materialising.

Having three or four phases worth of options planned in advance should allow a team to move from set piece to their normal phase play structure. Where a side is just playing down a dead end because that's what the structure dictates it's either a poor system that didn't provide worthwhile options, a great defensive set or players executing badly (possibly a mix of the three).

Though with Borthwick adverse to overplaying unless we're in the opposition 22 it's probably the set piece three or four phase play then a kick to reset territory and go again.

[FKAS]

Can't remember if it's been mentioned already or not but Joe Heyes won the fans player of the summer tour.

https://fan-engagement.englandrugby.com ... ent=Mens#/

[Danno]

Can't remember if it's been mentioned already or not but Joe Heyes won the fans player of the summer tour.

https://fan-engagement.englandrugby.com ... ent=Mens#/

Good stuff, it's rare for props to get recognition

[FKAS]

Can't remember if it's been mentioned already or not but Joe Heyes won the fans player of the summer tour.

https://fan-engagement.englandrugby.com ... ent=Mens#/

Good stuff, it's rare for props to get recognition

It is. A timely breakout for him as well. There was a lot of talk about the brilliant prospects coming through at tighthead so Heyes going out and playing some of his best rugby was crucial for him staying in the reckoning. Makes it no guarantee of AOF, Fasogbon etc being rushed through.

[jngf]

Centrally contracted 25

LHP: Baxter, Genge
HK: Cowan-Dickie, George
THP: Heyes, Stuart
LK: Chessum, Itoje, Martin
FL: BCurry, TCurry, Earl, Pollock
N8: Willis

SH: Mitchell
FH: Ford, FSmith, MSmith
IC:
OC: Lawrence, Slade
WG: Feyi-Waboso, Freeman, Roebuck
FB: Daly, Furbank

Still no Underhill
Still has Slade

Just looking at this no Ted Hill, CCS or Sam Underhill is major omission. Would swap Hill and Underhill for Curry twins ( especially given Tom is undergoing injury rehab I thought? and whilst he’s a competent test player imo Ben Curry simply doesn’t have the ceiling of Hill in the context of playing 6 nor Underhill in the context of playing 7) - similarly if you want a power lock cum back row CCS is streets ahead of Martin. covers 8, and balances far better with Itoje by at least offering a genuine carrying threat.

[Danno]

Hill ha...

I can't be bothered.

[FKAS]

Yeah Ted Hill is going to be lucky to make the AI squad at this rate let alone get game time. No chance he gets a central contract.

I suspect as previously mentioned some of these players are on two year central contracts.

As an aside what do you do with the likes of TCurry and Martin who when fit are guys you want in the 23 but who have injury issues. Do you keep them on central contracts at the expense of more regularly available players or do you look elsewhere probably fairly safe in the knowledge they aren't going to make a big move abroad due to their injury issues.

[Epaminondas Pules]

Yeah Ted Hill is going to be lucky to make the AI squad at this rate let alone get game time. No chance he gets a central contract.

I suspect as previously mentioned some of these players are on two year central contracts.

As an aside what do you do with the likes of TCurry and Martin who when fit are guys you want in the 23 but who have injury issues. Do you keep them on central contracts at the expense of more regularly available players or do you look elsewhere probably fairly safe in the knowledge they aren't going to make a big move abroad due to their injury issues.

I guess the idea would be to keep them centrally contracted and manage their workload, but that would come at the expense of their club.

[Epaminondas Pules]

Centrally contracted 25

LHP: Baxter, Genge
HK: Cowan-Dickie, George
THP: Heyes, Stuart
LK: Chessum, Itoje, Martin
FL: BCurry, TCurry, Earl, Pollock
N8: Willis

SH: Mitchell
FH: Ford, FSmith, MSmith
IC:
OC: Lawrence, Slade
WG: Feyi-Waboso, Freeman, Roebuck
FB: Daly, Furbank

Still no Underhill
Still has Slade

Just looking at this no Ted Hill, CCS or Sam Underhill is major omission. Would swap Hill and Underhill for Curry twins ( especially given Tom is undergoing injury rehab I thought? and whilst he’s a competent test player imo Ben Curry simply doesn’t have the ceiling of Hill in the context of playing 6 nor Underhill in the context of playing 7) - similarly if you want a power lock cum back row CCS is streets ahead of Martin. covers 8, and balances far better with Itoje by at least offering a genuine carrying threat.

I have read some bollocks in my time, but this is Buster Gonad levels! There's literally about an inch of evidence of CCS in the second row, let alone being a 'power lock'. Martin equally rarely plays backrow now. And talking about balance with Itoje it utter nonsense. How many minutes have they actually played together in the row?

[FKAS]

Centrally contracted 25

LHP: Baxter, Genge
HK: Cowan-Dickie, George
THP: Heyes, Stuart
LK: Chessum, Itoje, Martin
FL: BCurry, TCurry, Earl, Pollock
N8: Willis

SH: Mitchell
FH: Ford, FSmith, MSmith
IC:
OC: Lawrence, Slade
WG: Feyi-Waboso, Freeman, Roebuck
FB: Daly, Furbank

Still no Underhill
Still has Slade

Just looking at this no Ted Hill, CCS or Sam Underhill is major omission. Would swap Hill and Underhill for Curry twins ( especially given Tom is undergoing injury rehab I thought? and whilst he’s a competent test player imo Ben Curry simply doesn’t have the ceiling of Hill in the context of playing 6 nor Underhill in the context of playing 7) - similarly if you want a power lock cum back row CCS is streets ahead of Martin. covers 8, and balances far better with Itoje by at least offering a genuine carrying threat.

I have read some bollocks in my time, but this is Buster Gonad levels! There's literally about an inch of evidence of CCS in the second row, let alone being a 'power lock'. Martin equally rarely plays backrow now. And talking about balance with Itoje it utter nonsense. How many minutes have they actually played together in the row?

Come on who needs known quantity at international level George Martin who's physical to mix it with the Boks (per Pollard) when you can have the potential of utility forward CCS who's not even a certain starter at club level.

[jngf]

Just looking at this no Ted Hill, CCS or Sam Underhill is major omission. Would swap Hill and Underhill for Curry twins ( especially given Tom is undergoing injury rehab I thought? and whilst he’s a competent test player imo Ben Curry simply doesn’t have the ceiling of Hill in the context of playing 6 nor Underhill in the context of playing 7) - similarly if you want a power lock cum back row CCS is streets ahead of Martin. covers 8, and balances far better with Itoje by at least offering a genuine carrying threat.

I have read some bollocks in my time, but this is Buster Gonad levels! There's literally about an inch of evidence of CCS in the second row, let alone being a 'power lock'. Martin equally rarely plays backrow now. And talking about balance with Itoje it utter nonsense. How many minutes have they actually played together in the row?

Come on who needs known quantity at international level George Martin who's physical to mix it with the Boks (per Pollard) when you can have the potential of utility forward CCS who's not even a certain starter at club level.

I really think you might be seriously overrating Martin, who’s far from proven and test level imo

[FKAS]

I have read some bollocks in my time, but this is Buster Gonad levels! There's literally about an inch of evidence of CCS in the second row, let alone being a 'power lock'. Martin equally rarely plays backrow now. And talking about balance with Itoje it utter nonsense. How many minutes have they actually played together in the row?

Come on who needs known quantity at international level George Martin who's physical to mix it with the Boks (per Pollard) when you can have the potential of utility forward CCS who's not even a certain starter at club level.

I really think you might be seriously overrating Martin, who’s far from proven and test level imo

Well he's got more caps and minutes than CCS. 22 caps into his test rugby career and he's generally been solid as a minimum. Needs to to stay fit and work on a few areas but as he's often used as the grunt option for carrying and tackles close in he's not used for the highlights reel stuff. He'd have been on the Lions tour if not for injury.

[jngf]

Going back to Ted Hill v B Curry at 6 - what I’m finding baffling is why Swash Buckle gave priority to the latter over the former in Argentina tests ( and has continued to do so in EPS)? Given Underhill was playing 7 , all things being equal, Hill would have dovetailed really nicely providing that complementary balance of a prominent 3rd lineout target and devasting flat out pace ( both Earl and Pollock are explosively quick but I’m not sure either of them have the top speed of Ted Hill whose truly Croft like in terms of sheer gas). I’m not meaning to have a dig at Ben Curry as he can only play where he’s picked but he looks an out and out openside to me and I feel the selectors have got into the ( imo mistaken ) mindset that he’s a like for like replacement for this twin but other than an outright wish to play two opensides I don’t see the logic of picking B Curry at 6 when there are more suitable options ( aforementioned Hill, CCS, Pearson etc etc) - please can somebody explain Sweet Banana’s rationale for this (with a big dose of Devil’s advocate as necessary)?