RugbyRebels

Denny's punishment for drinking is probably just the expulsion from this training camp.

His punishment for being a bad influence on Manu is probably never playing for England again.

bitts wrote:Denny's punishment for drinking is probably just the expulsion from this training camp.

His punishment for being a bad influence on Manu is probably never playing for England again.

Does Manu need any help to do something stupid?

The Times are reporting that Jones made the decision to send them home. They also report that yesterday was the only day the squad were undertaking a rugby session. The timing couldn't have been any worse.

Tigersman wrote:

Mush wrote:What sanction(s) would you impose?

They are both individually talented, perhaps, but for the greater good of the squad I would publically state that they will not play for England until at least after the World Cup.

What for drinking till 3? Talk about excessive.
the most would be leaving them out of the AI's.

I mean your talking about a 2 year ban from England rugby right? For Drinking.
Calum Clark was back in the England squad not 1 year after breaking another players arm.

Why use an unrelated and totally out of context incident as a benchmark?

My suggested ban aligns with Eddie's current tenure as Head Coach. They both might be capable of playing their way into the squad, but Eddie doesn't need either of them. If he were to remain with England after the World Cup he could easily reinstate their invite to join the squad based solely on form.

For the greater good of the current and future members of the squad up until the World Cup I think they have demonstrated - again in Manu's case - that they are a distraction.

Mush wrote:

Tigersman wrote:

Mush wrote:What sanction(s) would you impose?

They are both individually talented, perhaps, but for the greater good of the squad I would publically state that they will not play for England until at least after the World Cup.

What for drinking till 3? Talk about excessive.
the most would be leaving them out of the AI's.

I mean your talking about a 2 year ban from England rugby right? For Drinking.
Calum Clark was back in the England squad not 1 year after breaking another players arm.

Why use an unrelated and totally out of context incident as a benchmark?

My suggested ban aligns with Eddie's current tenure as Head Coach. They both might be capable of playing their way into the squad, but Eddie doesn't need either of them. If he were to remain with England after the World Cup he could easily reinstate their invite to join the squad based solely on form.

For the greater good of the current and future members of the squad up until the World Cup I think they have demonstrated - again in Manu's case - that they are a distraction.

I get your point, but a hard and fast ban would also be a distraction, especially if one of them comes into form. Look at the amount of whining that went on over SArmitage for an example. Better to leave it at "You're dropped, I'm massively disappointed in you, and this will be remembered when selection is next made."

Puja

Mush wrote:

Tigersman wrote:

Mush wrote:What sanction(s) would you impose?

They are both individually talented, perhaps, but for the greater good of the squad I would publically state that they will not play for England until at least after the World Cup.

What for drinking till 3? Talk about excessive.
the most would be leaving them out of the AI's.

I mean your talking about a 2 year ban from England rugby right? For Drinking.
Calum Clark was back in the England squad not 1 year after breaking another players arm.

Why use an unrelated and totally out of context incident as a benchmark?

My suggested ban aligns with Eddie's current tenure as Head Coach. They both might be capable of playing their way into the squad, but Eddie doesn't need either of them. If he were to remain with England after the World Cup he could easily reinstate their invite to join the squad based solely on form.

For the greater good of the current and future members of the squad up until the World Cup I think they have demonstrated - again in Manu's case - that they are a distraction.

Your suggesting a 2 year ban for manu (With England) for going out drinking with a team mate when he shouldn't?
Show me a related bench mark that supports your punishment then?

Eddie jones shouldn't need any player in England as we should have the depth to deal with it.

Greater Good BS is a load of nonsense.

What about Sinckler getting arrested after the Lions? Should that have an affect on him cause that would surely be a distraction would it not?

Puja wrote:

Mush wrote:

Tigersman wrote:
What for drinking till 3? Talk about excessive.
the most would be leaving them out of the AI's.

I mean your talking about a 2 year ban from England rugby right? For Drinking.
Calum Clark was back in the England squad not 1 year after breaking another players arm.

Why use an unrelated and totally out of context incident as a benchmark?

My suggested ban aligns with Eddie's current tenure as Head Coach. They both might be capable of playing their way into the squad, but Eddie doesn't need either of them. If he were to remain with England after the World Cup he could easily reinstate their invite to join the squad based solely on form.

For the greater good of the current and future members of the squad up until the World Cup I think they have demonstrated - again in Manu's case - that they are a distraction.

I get your point, but a hard and fast ban would also be a distraction, especially if one of them comes into form. Look at the amount of whining that went on over SArmitage for an example. Better to leave it at "You're dropped, I'm massively disappointed in you, and this will be remembered when selection is next made."

Puja

Arguably, Cipriani suffered the sort of outcome you mention. He's still the most skilful FH, IMO, but he does not have a snowball-in-hell's chance of being picked again because of his attitude/perceived lack of discipline/influence on others or whatever. Armitage's decision to move to France in the certain knowledge that he was giving the finger to England's coaching/selection was always going to receive a 'goodbye, we won't miss you' reaction.

I see Tuilagi's and Solomona's behaviour in the context of the contrasting approach of rivals for their shirts - arguably, Farrell, JJ, Slade, T'eo, Nowell, May, for example. Low profile, permanent exclusion of two players who demonstrably can't be bothered to apply themselves to the same standard suits me fine. England's future team performances are likely to be better without them, regardless of their apparent individual skill-sets.

A 2 year ban? Jesus.

Eddie should just have a quiet word which I'm guessing he already has.

Puja wrote:

Mush wrote:

Tigersman wrote:
What for drinking till 3? Talk about excessive.
the most would be leaving them out of the AI's.

I mean your talking about a 2 year ban from England rugby right? For Drinking.
Calum Clark was back in the England squad not 1 year after breaking another players arm.

Why use an unrelated and totally out of context incident as a benchmark?

My suggested ban aligns with Eddie's current tenure as Head Coach. They both might be capable of playing their way into the squad, but Eddie doesn't need either of them. If he were to remain with England after the World Cup he could easily reinstate their invite to join the squad based solely on form.

For the greater good of the current and future members of the squad up until the World Cup I think they have demonstrated - again in Manu's case - that they are a distraction.

I get your point, but a hard and fast ban would also be a distraction, especially if one of them comes into form. Look at the amount of whining that went on over SArmitage for an example. Better to leave it at "You're dropped, I'm massively disappointed in you, and this will be remembered when selection is next made."

Puja

It wasn't so much a complaint about Armitage, more a complaint about not picking Armitage when Robshaw and Wood were serving up such pedestrian fare on the flanks which over and over saw us playing off slow ball. (we've still not really addressed this either)

And it will be the same with Manu given how often the England attack can be made to look impotent.

twitchy wrote: A 2 year ban? Jesus.

Eddie should just have a quiet word which I'm guessing he already has.

Might be a bit more than that. Sending them home was quite a statement and he may want to make a further point by imposing some sort of ban. 2 years is certainly excessive, but missing out on the autumn games is a possibility.

twitchy wrote:http://www.englandrugby.com/news/jones- ... 04885512=1

"We've got a pretty good idea of when we¹ll arrive and we're just finalising our pre-World Cup camps and where they will be. We'll look to come here around 3-6 September and there is a possibility of playing a warm-up game shortly after that. We are looking to play similar teams to the ones we face in the pool stages."

Sounds eminently sensible. Who's close to the French or the Argies in terms of style of play though? The South Africans and the Welsh maybe?

Puja

Hmm ... possibly? We'd probably gain more by playing SA.

Last time we had 3 warm ups IIRC (France x2 and Ireland) so I suspect we'll also play Fiji or Samoa in preparation for Tonga.

I think we should give the Kiwis a going over.

Puja wrote:

twitchy wrote:http://www.englandrugby.com/news/jones- ... 04885512=1

"We've got a pretty good idea of when we¹ll arrive and we're just finalising our pre-World Cup camps and where they will be. We'll look to come here around 3-6 September and there is a possibility of playing a warm-up game shortly after that. We are looking to play similar teams to the ones we face in the pool stages."

Sounds eminently sensible.

Puja

Or it could be simply "Let's get a free trip to see the family out of the RFU." :p

Some interesting Eddie Jones quotes from the other week:

The Edmeister wrote:"We potentially found six players on the Argentina tour who could get into the World Cup squad and I could not have been more pleased with the trip because we unfurled new talent and won the Tests, playing a good style of rugby,” he said. “The older guys were outstanding and I regret the column I wrote during the last World Cup about Chris Robshaw. He is world-class, just the most unselfish guy and a great role model for the team. He is such a good player for England if we had 15 of him we'd win the world cup with that sort of attitude and that sort of commitment.”

On the Lions: “It was about looking at the English players,” he said. “The result was not material to me. Some of the players did really well and loved the big stage. I’ll name one, Anthony Watson, who went as a borderline selection and ended as one of the best wingers in the series.

“I want us to develop our defence this season so that we become more adaptable when the ball is fizzing around and we need to develop our unstructured attack, from kick returns and turnovers, finding space and scoring points. The number of offloads is increasing enormously and the game is breaking up.

“In Test rugby, one of the most significant statistics is line breaks and New Zealand make by far the most. They are tactically clear in what they do and they have got athletic players. They have worked out that the game is played in the first three phases and if they have not got anywhere then they tend to kick and chase, hoping to force a mistake to attack from. We are not where we want to be but we are going in the right direction.”

Liked the bolded bit - thoroughly deserved praise for Robshaw.

Puja

Puja wrote:Some interesting Eddie Jones quotes from the other week:

The Edmeister wrote:"We potentially found six players on the Argentina tour who could get into the World Cup squad and I could not have been more pleased with the trip because we unfurled new talent and won the Tests, playing a good style of rugby,” he said. “The older guys were outstanding and I regret the column I wrote during the last World Cup about Chris Robshaw. He is world-class, just the most unselfish guy and a great role model for the team. He is such a good player for England if we had 15 of him we'd win the world cup with that sort of attitude and that sort of commitment.”

On the Lions: “It was about looking at the English players,” he said. “The result was not material to me. Some of the players did really well and loved the big stage. I’ll name one, Anthony Watson, who went as a borderline selection and ended as one of the best wingers in the series.

“I want us to develop our defence this season so that we become more adaptable when the ball is fizzing around and we need to develop our unstructured attack, from kick returns and turnovers, finding space and scoring points. The number of offloads is increasing enormously and the game is breaking up.

“In Test rugby, one of the most significant statistics is line breaks and New Zealand make by far the most. They are tactically clear in what they do and they have got athletic players. They have worked out that the game is played in the first three phases and if they have not got anywhere then they tend to kick and chase, hoping to force a mistake to attack from. We are not where we want to be but we are going in the right direction.”

Liked the bolded bit - thoroughly deserved praise for Robshaw.

Puja

Agreed and it's big of Eddie to do it. Not sure about the 15 Robshaws winning the World Cup. I think we'd be short of pace in the backs, other than at 12 and 15 if using the team that lost to Ireland

Puja wrote:Some interesting Eddie Jones quotes from the other week:

The Edmeister wrote:"We potentially found six players on the Argentina tour who could get into the World Cup squad and I could not have been more pleased with the trip because we unfurled new talent and won the Tests, playing a good style of rugby,” he said. “The older guys were outstanding and I regret the column I wrote during the last World Cup about Chris Robshaw. He is world-class, just the most unselfish guy and a great role model for the team. He is such a good player for England if we had 15 of him we'd win the world cup with that sort of attitude and that sort of commitment.”

On the Lions: “It was about looking at the English players,” he said. “The result was not material to me. Some of the players did really well and loved the big stage. I’ll name one, Anthony Watson, who went as a borderline selection and ended as one of the best wingers in the series.

“I want us to develop our defence this season so that we become more adaptable when the ball is fizzing around and we need to develop our unstructured attack, from kick returns and turnovers, finding space and scoring points. The number of offloads is increasing enormously and the game is breaking up.

“In Test rugby, one of the most significant statistics is line breaks and New Zealand make by far the most. They are tactically clear in what they do and they have got athletic players. They have worked out that the game is played in the first three phases and if they have not got anywhere then they tend to kick and chase, hoping to force a mistake to attack from. We are not where we want to be but we are going in the right direction.”

Liked the bolded bit - thoroughly deserved praise for Robshaw.

Puja

As some of us have been saying for years...

Who are the 6?

Stom wrote:As some of us have been saying for years...

Who are the 6?

I'd say TCurry and Underhill in the forwards for definite. Maybe Wilson as well. Backs would probably be Francis and Lozowski. Hopefully not Solomona.

Puja

Yeah - I would agree on those 5. Possibly Williams too? I didn't think he was particularly impressive on tour but Eddie seems to like him.

Scrumhead wrote:Yeah - I would agree on those 5. Possibly Williams too? I didn't think he was particularly impressive on tour but Eddie seems to like him.

Good shout. Not sure anyone else who was a newbie stood out. Certainly not Singleton. I am sad to say it, but I think Drunkie Dennie may have been the sixth, as these comments were made before the "team culture issue" occurred.

ETA. Just rewatched the highlights to see if I was allowing my bias to colour my remembrances of Solomona, but I really wasn't. Very good try, but he owed us that for the two he gifted to Argentina, including one where he had two opportunities to stop the attack and failed at both! I had forgotten just how poor Yarde was though - he was shocking. No wonder he didn't make the August training squad.

Puja

The Edmeister wrote:They have worked out that the game is played in the first three phases and if they have not got anywhere then they tend to kick and chase, hoping to force a mistake to attack from. We are not where we want to be but we are going in the right direction.”

I thought that bit was much more interesting than the wankfest for the slow bloke at 6. Interesting as there are actually a lot of tries scored from 3+ phases, and a lot of tries scored from combined plays that sum 10+ passes, no prizes for guessing NZ massively lead the world in both areas, so to say it's 3 phases and out seems a little unusual, maybe that's a comment on the back of a Lions series were the Lions by standing so far offside were able to shut down the NZ attack more than one tends to see. Also of note in this area is NZ lead the world in ruck retention, even allowing for playing at pace and with multiphase and with a lot of passing, helps not to have a plodder at 6 mind.

It's very possibly the case Robshaw at 6 for all he's limited (and this really is judging on a world basis where we're down to 0.0000001% of the populations of the world to pick from) is the best England can do, and that by virtue of having that sort of athletic talent (and having Haskell at 7) England are better off with a 3 phases and out approach. I don't know I'd be claiming that's what NZ do however, sometimes it is, sometimes it's about how the attack phases are going, sometimes it's very much about territory, but it's clearly not always the case, the actual tries being scored by this group of NZ players looking back say 2-3 seasons rather than just a Lions tour simply doesn't bear that out.

I know your dislike is well documented, but plodder? He's no Tom Croft, but he's hardly glacial. And any deficit in pace is made up for by his workrate, his engine, and his ability to get to the right place at the right time.

I think with the 3+ phases thing he's talking about in your own half or around half-way. I think he's right on that.

Puja

Puja wrote:I know your dislike is well documented, but plodder? He's no Tom Croft, but he's hardly glacial. And any deficit in pace is made up for by his workrate, his engine, and his ability to get to the right place at the right time.

I think with the 3+ phases thing he's talking about in your own half or around half-way. I think he's right on that.

Puja

I didn't notice any mention of own half, but could easily have missed.

And I don't dislike Robshaw, I like him. But he does come with issues, and those issues aren't addressed much by selecting Vunipola and Haskell. I'm also not sold he's always right place right time, there are phases in games when he's on it, but that seems to take extra effort and he will then fade for a period, or he manages his output more and then he's hardly bad, indeed he's bloody good, but if you want to be the best side in the world it's maybe just not that good. It also slightly depends just how low the game goes, the more the ball stays up in contact or is slower going to the floor the better Robshaw will be in a given game, if it keeps ending up on the floor and doing so quickly that doesn't suit him as much (though that's just players are different, one might argue the opposite for someone like Kvesic, and a given game might still happen to go against Kvesic)

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:I know your dislike is well documented, but plodder? He's no Tom Croft, but he's hardly glacial. And any deficit in pace is made up for by his workrate, his engine, and his ability to get to the right place at the right time.

I think with the 3+ phases thing he's talking about in your own half or around half-way. I think he's right on that.

Puja

I didn't notice any mention of own half, but could easily have missed.

I am assuming that it was elided from the quotes used in the newspaper articles, otherwise the comment makes little to no sense - he's unlikely to coach kicking the ball away inside the opposition 22 if we don't score in 3 phases!

Puja