RugbyRebels

I think the Lions tour will have a huge positive effect on England this time. No injuries or massive set-backs. Players like Sinckler, George, Itoje, Te'o and Daly have played the ABs for the first time and will know that they can live on that level. Players like Mako, Watson and Lawes have also stepped up and will know that they can match the Kiwis, despite previous losses. None of them will have fear around facing New Zealand in the future.

Kruis, Cole, Nowell, and Joseph know how much harder they have to work and I wouldn't put it past any of them to get there. And Farrell... yes, he's got issues and yes, he had a stinker in the 3rd. However, his major merit as a player is that he does keep working, doesn't believe his own hype, and does keep trying to improve. I think it's fair to say that he's discovered his skills need honing at the very top level of pressure - hopefully he'll continue his rise.

Frankly, the only player that I don't expect us to get back better for the experience is Haskell, and even his call-up had the positive effect that he wasn't blocking a shirt in Argentina!

Puja

Puja wrote:I think the Lions tour will have a huge positive effect on England this time. No injuries or massive set-backs. Players like Sinckler, George, Itoje, Te'o and Daly have played the ABs for the first time and will know that they can live on that level. Players like Mako, Watson and Lawes have also stepped up and will know that they can match the Kiwis, despite previous losses. None of them will have fear around facing New Zealand in the future.

Kruis, Cole, Nowell, and Joseph know how much harder they have to work and I wouldn't put it past any of them to get there. And Farrell... yes, he's got issues and yes, he had a stinker in the 3rd. However, his major merit as a player is that he does keep working, doesn't believe his own hype, and does keep trying to improve. I think it's fair to say that he's discovered his skills need honing at the very top level of pressure - hopefully he'll continue his rise.

Frankly, the only player that I don't expect us to get back better for the experience is Haskell, and even his call-up had the positive effect that he wasn't blocking a shirt in Argentina!

Puja

All that may be true, Puja, and I won't bore you with arguments that you have heard before. What you ought to think about, though, is how much further ahead, as a team, England would be had they made a 3 match tour of NZ, a fair possibility without the Lions hangover.

For your argument to follow through, we should logically see an increase in rugby standards in the 6N because the players from the other home countries were there too. I doubt if we will, though, because any alleged individual improvement does not automatically transfer to team performance. In fact, there is a danger that post-Lions big-headedness can be disruptive, especially with the absentees trying to prove points too.

All fair enough puja but as an exeter fan I'm slightly worried about jack. He got a proper kicking from the lions "supporters" on social media I hope he doesn't read that stuff.

I'm with Puja on this

Not only have (most of) our best players gained the experience of playing the Kiwis, we've essentially had a second opinion on the merits of some of those players and seen them in a slightly different context.

It's also given exposure to the more fringe English players on what was a very handy Arg tour.

Coming out of both tours, I think we're smarter in all sorts of ways, not least about the stating 15 for England. We've got some bloody good players.

My one gripe is that if I hear Farrell is a 'test match animal' one more time I will definitely kill myself

Time will tell, but i suspect the last few weeks will prove to be a very positive experience for most of the players involved in the Lions and the Argentinian tests.

Playing in NZ is always a challenge, while a very callow squad did well in Argentina. One or two players under performed but that is always the way on tours. Some players come to the fore, some slip back. I doubt if JJ and Kruis are going to be scarred for life by their Lions trip. Likewise I'm sure Earle, Mallinder and James will take encouragement from their involvement in Argentina.

No injuries which is a real bonus too.

Puja wrote:I think the Lions tour will have a huge positive effect on England this time. No injuries or massive set-backs. Players like Sinckler, George, Itoje, Te'o and Daly have played the ABs for the first time and will know that they can live on that level. Players like Mako, Watson and Lawes have also stepped up and will know that they can match the Kiwis, despite previous losses. None of them will have fear around facing New Zealand in the future.

Kruis, Cole, Nowell, and Joseph know how much harder they have to work and I wouldn't put it past any of them to get there. And Farrell... yes, he's got issues and yes, he had a stinker in the 3rd. However, his major merit as a player is that he does keep working, doesn't believe his own hype, and does keep trying to improve. I think it's fair to say that he's discovered his skills need honing at the very top level of pressure - hopefully he'll continue his rise.

Frankly, the only player that I don't expect us to get back better for the experience is Haskell, and even his call-up had the positive effect that he wasn't blocking a shirt in Argentina!

Puja

Not sure grouping them together represents the NZ experience tbh, which was different for each of them; Kruis maybe the one with most to reflect on. Cole couldn't have worked harder and showed a distinct revival I thought; JJ simply didn't fit the plan in attack or defence (somehow, it seems the takeaway is that he didn't play well....), and Nowell had a stinker in the first game, so will probably view as an opportunity lost, given he still made it to the bench and is now a test Lion.

Faz will no doubt continue with the marginal gains, but I'm a bit dismayed that someone whose major consistency is inconsistency of passing and defence still seems to be auto-starter for England.

twitchy wrote:All fair enough puja but as an exeter fan I'm slightly worried about jack. He got a proper kicking from the lions "supporters" on social media I hope he doesn't read that stuff.

In what way?

The major lessons will likely all be for NZ on the back of that tour. Which isn't overtly all that useful to us, still, at least we've raised a lot of money for NZ rugby

TheNomad wrote:I'm with Puja on this

Not only have (most of) our best players gained the experience of playing the Kiwis, we've essentially had a second opinion on the merits of some of those players and seen them in a slightly different context.

It's also given exposure to the more fringe English players on what was a very handy Arg tour.

Coming out of both tours, I think we're smarter in all sorts of ways, not least about the stating 15 for England. We've got some bloody good players.

My one gripe is that if I hear Farrell is a 'test match animal' one more time I will definitely kill myself

I respect that viewpoint but I don't understand how you conclude the highlighted bit. Do you mean that WE can be more informed or that Eddie can? If the latter, I'm baffled. I think Eddie won't have a clue what the players have gained from the jamboree until he sees how they perform back in HIS team. The main conclusion I'd draw from second-guessing Eddie (not a clever idea necessarily ) is that Robshaw and Launchbury have advanced their case for starting places. Where does that leave Kruis? If anything, there seem to be less definite ideas on the XV, an argument for England's cause having gone backwards, IMO.

I'm interested in how Eddie views George's involvement. He's been first choice hooker for all three tests and acquitted himself pretty well against the world's best team. If nothing esle, it's given Eddie the chance to see what he does in high level test match pressure, that's gotta be a great thing for him even thought he may still be behind Hartley. Anither aspect is that we may well see a fair bit of LCD or TT in the AIs assuming they're both back playing uninjured of course. Hmmm.

By Eddie's own reasoning we'll not see George much for England until the 6N

Players we do lose for the AIs are

Mako
George
Itoje
Farrell
Daly
Watson

Players we might lose are

Kruis
Sinckler
Lawes

I can't see however Eddie thinking he shouldn't pick any of

Cole
Marler
Nowell
JJ
Te'o
Haskell

Digby wrote:By Eddie's own reasoning we'll not see George much for England until the 6N

Hence the LCD and TT comment.

Oakboy wrote: I respect that viewpoint but I don't understand how you conclude the highlighted bit. Do you mean that WE can be more informed or that Eddie can? If the latter, I'm baffled. I think Eddie won't have a clue what the players have gained from the jamboree until he sees how they perform back in HIS team.

- I'd say that a few players have proved themselves as starters (George and Daly) at the very highest level and that's a good thing
- I think Watson showed a return to form and also that he can operate at 15
- Lawes continued his great form and for me, has put his hat in the ring to start alongside Itoje
- Itoje came of age and will surely only now start at lock for England (you can debate whether he actually was anyway)
- Sinckler was ace and could be pushing for a start
- Te'o showed that he could be a starter

All those things (and probably more) were either learned (or more likely re-enforced from previous views) on the tour

Oakboy wrote: The main conclusion I'd draw from second-guessing Eddie (not a clever idea necessarily ) is that Robshaw and Launchbury have advanced their case for starting places. Where does that leave Kruis? If anything, there seem to be less definite ideas on the XV, an argument for England's cause having gone backwards, IMO.

- Robshaw I'd agree with, but that's as it was prior to his injury
- the lock debate carries on, and you could argue (stress, could) that Kruis has gone from 1st to 4th choice. Not saying I agree, but you could say that. In fairness, this does support your case for muddying the waters though!

So basically I think we know more, or know the same but with more conviction (not to be underestimated) than we did before the tour, and I think many of the players will be better and more confident for it.

TheNomad wrote:

Oakboy wrote: I respect that viewpoint but I don't understand how you conclude the highlighted bit. Do you mean that WE can be more informed or that Eddie can? If the latter, I'm baffled. I think Eddie won't have a clue what the players have gained from the jamboree until he sees how they perform back in HIS team.

- I'd say that a few players have proved themselves as starters (George and Daly) at the very highest level and that's a good thing
- I think Watson showed a return to form and also that he can operate at 15
- Lawes continued his great form and for me, has put his hat in the ring to start alongside Itoje
- Itoje came of age and will surely only now start at lock for England (you can debate whether he actually was anyway)
- Sinckler was ace and could be pushing for a start
- Te'o showed that he could be a starter

All those things (and probably more) were either learned (or more likely re-enforced from previous views) on the tour

Oakboy wrote: The main conclusion I'd draw from second-guessing Eddie (not a clever idea necessarily ) is that Robshaw and Launchbury have advanced their case for starting places. Where does that leave Kruis? If anything, there seem to be less definite ideas on the XV, an argument for England's cause having gone backwards, IMO.

- Robshaw I'd agree with, but that's as it was prior to his injury
- the lock debate carries on, and you could argue (stress, could) that Kruis has gone from 1st to 4th choice. Not saying I agree, but you could say that. In fairness, this does support your case for muddying the waters though!

So basically I think we know more, or know the same but with more conviction (not to be underestimated) than we did before the tour, and I think many of the players will be better and more confident for it.

Under a good coach 'muddying the waters', or increasing competition for places as one might put it, can only be a good thing.

Wont Eddie assess players on an individual basis for the AI's?

I'd hate to see Sinckler excluded for instance as i feel he has to start at least one of the games. Also, Te'o is overdue a start. It would be galling if George is ruled out as surely he has to be a starter sooner rather than later.

I wonder if the principle of resting players might be somewhat flexible.

fivepointer wrote:Wont Eddie assess players on an individual basis for the AI's?

I'd hate to see Sinckler excluded for instance as i feel he has to start at least one of the games. Also, Te'o is overdue a start. It would be galling if George is ruled out as surely he has to be a starter sooner rather than later.

I wonder if the principle of resting players might be somewhat flexible.

just needs to see who has the most extra mileage and how they react to that/start the new season. Itoje I think would be one guy I'd definitely rest, and likely Mako as he seems held together by bandages. And Faz, just because.

Banquo wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Wont Eddie assess players on an individual basis for the AI's?

I'd hate to see Sinckler excluded for instance as i feel he has to start at least one of the games. Also, Te'o is overdue a start. It would be galling if George is ruled out as surely he has to be a starter sooner rather than later.

I wonder if the principle of resting players might be somewhat flexible.

just needs to see who has the most extra mileage and how they react to that/start the new season. Itoje I think would be one guy I'd definitely rest, and likely Mako as he seems held together by bandages. And Faz, just because.

Sinckler's workload has been well managed over the past seasons, anyway, and will continue to be thanks to Collier's presence. So there's no reason for him not to be involved.

I think only the main starters are going to get a rest. So Mako, George, Itoje, Farrell, Daly, Watson.

Which could be ok. We'll likely see Marler and Hartley up top, with Launch in the pack, Ford at 10, Te'o or someone else at 12, and May and Nowell/Yarde on the wings. Which isn't so bad.

Banquo wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Wont Eddie assess players on an individual basis for the AI's?

I'd hate to see Sinckler excluded for instance as i feel he has to start at least one of the games. Also, Te'o is overdue a start. It would be galling if George is ruled out as surely he has to be a starter sooner rather than later.

I wonder if the principle of resting players might be somewhat flexible.

just needs to see who has the most extra mileage and how they react to that/start the new season. Itoje I think would be one guy I'd definitely rest, and likely Mako as he seems held together by bandages. And Faz, just because.

What do you think the clubs will do with those players? Is an AI rest that beneficial if players are regular club starters? I don't get Eddie's point unless he is trying to earn brownie points with the clubs, in which case I'd be somewhat concerned if I was a Lions fan.

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Wont Eddie assess players on an individual basis for the AI's?

I'd hate to see Sinckler excluded for instance as i feel he has to start at least one of the games. Also, Te'o is overdue a start. It would be galling if George is ruled out as surely he has to be a starter sooner rather than later.

I wonder if the principle of resting players might be somewhat flexible.

just needs to see who has the most extra mileage and how they react to that/start the new season. Itoje I think would be one guy I'd definitely rest, and likely Mako as he seems held together by bandages. And Faz, just because.

What do you think the clubs will do with those players? Is an AI rest that beneficial if players are regular club starters? I don't get Eddie's point unless he is trying to earn brownie points with the clubs, in which case I'd be somewhat concerned if I was a Lions fan.

I think the clubs will play them.

I can't see Eddie resting anyone unless it's part of an agreement with their clubs that they'll actually be resting and not playing. Literally no point otherwise.

Timbo wrote:I can't see Eddie resting anyone unless it's part of an agreement with their clubs that they'll actually be resting and not playing. Literally no point otherwise.

well there is- club rugby is somewhat less intense; I'd also be interested on what that agreement might look like. Bear in mind that clubs would not only be resting Lions, but also giving up their 'replacements'.

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote: just needs to see who has the most extra mileage and how they react to that/start the new season. Itoje I think would be one guy I'd definitely rest, and likely Mako as he seems held together by bandages. And Faz, just because.

What do you think the clubs will do with those players? Is an AI rest that beneficial if players are regular club starters? I don't get Eddie's point unless he is trying to earn brownie points with the clubs, in which case I'd be somewhat concerned if I was a Lions fan.

I think the clubs will play them.

I think this is where Eddie's leeway comes in.

Either he manages to include them all in the squad and get them rested by clubs without playing them for England, or he simply plays them for England and says: we couldn't agree with the clubs to rest them, so I thought it's better that I pick them.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
What do you think the clubs will do with those players? Is an AI rest that beneficial if players are regular club starters? I don't get Eddie's point unless he is trying to earn brownie points with the clubs, in which case I'd be somewhat concerned if I was a Lions fan.

I think the clubs will play them.

I think this is where Eddie's leeway comes in.

Either he manages to include them all in the squad and get them rested by clubs without playing them for England, or he simply plays them for England and says: we couldn't agree with the clubs to rest them, so I thought it's better that I pick them.

yep good point, but he will then surely have to fiddle with the EPS 'rules' to make it work.

It could be said that allowing the clubs access to these players during the AIs means that the clubs are more likely to give those players their break at the beginning of the season, and ease them in more gradually. Always a sore point after a Lions or RWC.

IIRC though, the EPS rules means that Eddie can select his EPS, and just not release those players he considers to be in need of a rest. That, of course, does nothing to help the relationship between club and union.