EPS Watch / Player Form Thread

[Scrumhead]

I think I've spotted a flaw in your plan - who would be the SH in this scenario?

Its flawed before that, truth be told.

It's bound to be flawed because it's a compromise. Youngs, Care or Robson? None are good enough to demand selection. Ford or Farrell? Neither are top quality. (Not fit to lace JW or CH's boots). JJ is up there in, say, the top five OCs in the world. IC? Nobody worth much springs to mind. Eddie's compromise will probably be Youngs, Ford, Farrell and JJ. It may be the best he can do which means that game-winning contributions will have to come from elsewhere.

Not top quality? That's ridiculously harsh. You're comparing Ford and Farrell to two players who are no longer playing.

Wilkinson is one of the greatest 10s the game has ever seen. How many test 10s currently playing are 'fit to lace his boots'? Not many. Arguably one - Carter. As for Hodgson, sure he was a great player in his prime, but he had as many, if not more flaws than either Ford or Farrell and definitely achieved a lot less in his entire career than either of them has in a much shorter space of time.

I'm not blind to Ford or Farrell's limitations, but both are up there with the top 10s in world rugby. I'd take Barrett or Cruden over either but I'm not sure anyone else is markedly better. Sexton at his peak, yes, but those days are mostly gone. I'd take ours ahead of Russell, Lopez, Foley, Hernandez, Jantjies or Biggar.

[Digby]

I don't think I'd take Barrett or Cruden over Ford. Barrett especially often looks better playing for himself (as did Ford once upon a time) rather than running a team, and some of Barret's passing at the line Vs kicking, I'd say it's not great, but he is following Carter who's perhaps set standards there that'd make anyone else look poor.

[Timbo]

"Eddie's compromise will probably be Youngs, Ford, Farrell and JJ. It may be the best he can do which means that game-winning contributions will have to come from elsewhere."

All 4 of those players have provided a good number of game winning contributions in recent times.

[Mikey Brown]

True. But it's not been without glaring points where it could be improved. There's been some real dud performances among it that I think we've done very well to get away with.

[Banquo]

True. But it's not been without glaring points where it could be improved. There's been some real dud performances among it that I think we've done very well to get away with.

agreed, performance in the last 6N was not all that- the upside is that we figured out ways to win in games where we were outplayed, until the end. But I think the point is that all of them have produced key contributions.

[Mikey Brown]

Yeah, I completely get the argument that while we keep winning we shouldn't change it. But I don't see this current team as being quite good enough to go all the way. If we have to wait until we lose more games to actually make these improvements it might be a bit too late.

Maybe this group will naturally develop those last few pieces of the puzzle, but there are serious limitations in players in some key positions that I don't feel Eddie is really serious about changing.

[Puja]

Yeah, I completely get the argument that while we keep winning we shouldn't change it. But I don't see this current team as being quite good enough to go all the way. If we have to wait until we lose more games to actually make these improvements it might be a bit too late.

Maybe this group will naturally develop those last few pieces of the puzzle, but there are serious limitations in players in some key positions that I don't feel Eddie is really serious about changing.

See, I don't get this. If we can trust in anything, it's in Eddie's self-involvement. He wants fame and fortune and that comes from success. He isn't going to settle for "Eh, good enough, I guess."

However what is becoming obvious that he also won't do is chuck caps at other equally flawed options in the hope that they'll come good. He appears to be challenging players to improve before getting to England and demanding that they show that they can before he'll use them.

Kinda unfair on the newbies when the likes of Farrell, Lawes, and Haskell were given loads of caps to improve under previous regimes, but them's the breaks.

Puja

[Banquo]

Yeah, I completely get the argument that while we keep winning we shouldn't change it. But I don't see this current team as being quite good enough to go all the way. If we have to wait until we lose more games to actually make these improvements it might be a bit too late.

Maybe this group will naturally develop those last few pieces of the puzzle, but there are serious limitations in players in some key positions that I don't feel Eddie is really serious about changing.

I am absolutely NOT saying that to be clear; I still think we need a (big) improvement in every unit of the side, some of which is new faces/promoted faces. The best time to change IS when you are winning, if change is needed,

I also think Eddie will change if he sees what he likes to replace something he doesn't like. He's a pragmatist if nothing else.

[Banquo]

Yeah, I completely get the argument that while we keep winning we shouldn't change it. But I don't see this current team as being quite good enough to go all the way. If we have to wait until we lose more games to actually make these improvements it might be a bit too late.

Maybe this group will naturally develop those last few pieces of the puzzle, but there are serious limitations in players in some key positions that I don't feel Eddie is really serious about changing.

See, I don't get this. If we can trust in anything, it's in Eddie's self-involvement. He wants fame and fortune and that comes from success. He isn't going to settle for "Eh, good enough, I guess."

However what is becoming obvious that he also won't do is chuck caps at other equally flawed options in the hope that they'll come good. He appears to be challenging players to improve before getting to England and demanding that they show that they can before he'll use them.

Kinda unfair on the newbies when the likes of Farrell, Lawes, and Haskell were given loads of caps to improve under previous regimes, but them's the breaks.

Puja

Agreed on Eddie.....just look at the churn in the backroom staff as an example

[Mikey Brown]

Aye. Wasn't aiming it at you particularly, just pre-empting the usual response. "Yeah our 12 can't consistently/reliably do anything well except kick goals, yeah our 9 can't pass, but we won so let's leave it" etc.

[ilovelamp]

Those well known English gents Ruan Ackermann and Jason Woodward have nailed their colours firmly to the England mast. Ackermann will have to wait three years but Woodward has already been involved with some of EJ's get togethers.

[Puja]

Not a huge problem with Woodward, given his English heritage and the fact that he did study in England. I can see him feeling something for this country.

Ackermann on the other hand is just annoying, even more so because he'll be one of the last to qualify under the 3 years because of the completely pointless decision to extend the deadline to December 2020, rather than putting it in place from May when it was agreed.

Puja

[Digby]

It's not completely pointless when some people had already started to plan for the 3 year residency qualification, both at a union and individual level. And too one might consider had the vote been for an immediate cessation then he vote mayn't have passed given some involved would've seen their planning curtailed. I was all for making a changed to the 3 year rule, but giving people some lead time having made the changed seems entirely reasonable to me, and indeed preferable to making an immediate change in what's allowed.

[Stom]

It's not completely pointless when some people had already started to plan for the 3 year residency qualification, both at a union and individual level. And too one might consider had the vote been for an immediate cessation then he vote mayn't have passed given some involved would've seen their planning curtailed. I was all for making a changed to the 3 year rule, but giving people some lead time having made the changed seems entirely reasonable to me, and indeed preferable to making an immediate change in what's allowed.

I don't think you should be able to START the 3 year program now, though. I think if you had already started, fine. And if you had already signed a contract, fine. But for someone to parachute in here after signing a contract 6 weeks ago, and now declare themselves English, just because their dad got a job here? No, sorry.

[Digby]

It's not completely pointless when some people had already started to plan for the 3 year residency qualification, both at a union and individual level. And too one might consider had the vote been for an immediate cessation then he vote mayn't have passed given some involved would've seen their planning curtailed. I was all for making a changed to the 3 year rule, but giving people some lead time having made the changed seems entirely reasonable to me, and indeed preferable to making an immediate change in what's allowed.

I don't think you should be able to START the 3 year program now, though. I think if you had already started, fine. And if you had already signed a contract, fine. But for someone to parachute in here after signing a contract 6 weeks ago, and now declare themselves English, just because their dad got a job here? No, sorry.

It's not an unfair point. But might just have seen people signing a good number of contracts

[Puja]

It's not completely pointless when some people had already started to plan for the 3 year residency qualification, both at a union and individual level. And too one might consider had the vote been for an immediate cessation then he vote mayn't have passed given some involved would've seen their planning curtailed. I was all for making a changed to the 3 year rule, but giving people some lead time having made the changed seems entirely reasonable to me, and indeed preferable to making an immediate change in what's allowed.

Ugh. I am okay with residency as I acknowledge that people feel a connection to a country after living there for a time. I'm not thrilled on it being used for people to plan that they're going to feel a connection for a country in three years' time.

I agree that a deal for an immediate cessation would've left the vote tighter than we'd've liked, so I accept the three year lead-in so that nations can keep going with their current 'projects'. I don't see why it needed to be three and a half years so that nations and individuals can start a whole new tranche of 'projects'

Puja

[Mellsblue]

There is an interesting article by B Rolipola in The Times today on this subject, amongst others. Let's just say Puja may not be too happy.

[Puja]

There is an interesting article by B Rolipola in The Times today on this subject, amongst others. Let's just say Puja may not be too happy.

Fancy sharing with those who don't pay for the Times?

Puja

[Puja]

There is an interesting article by B Rolipola in The Times today on this subject, amongst others. Let's just say Puja may not be too happy.

Just found it syndicated on Wales Online, who were of course thrilled to carry the story that Billy hated England and Wilkinson and cheered on Australia in 2003. Not really gonna blame an 11 year old kid in a Welsh school for that one! He's been the correct side if the border since he was 15, so I've no issues with him playing for England.

Puja

[Digby]

It's not completely pointless when some people had already started to plan for the 3 year residency qualification, both at a union and individual level. And too one might consider had the vote been for an immediate cessation then he vote mayn't have passed given some involved would've seen their planning curtailed. I was all for making a changed to the 3 year rule, but giving people some lead time having made the changed seems entirely reasonable to me, and indeed preferable to making an immediate change in what's allowed.

Ugh. I am okay with residency as I acknowledge that people feel a connection to a country after living there for a time. I'm not thrilled on it being used for people to plan that they're going to feel a connection for a country in three years' time.

I agree that a deal for an immediate cessation would've left the vote tighter than we'd've liked, so I accept the three year lead-in so that nations can keep going with their current 'projects'. I don't see why it needed to be three and a half years so that nations and individuals can start a whole new tranche of 'projects'

Puja

'cause contracts were likely already presigned.

[Puja]

It's not completely pointless when some people had already started to plan for the 3 year residency qualification, both at a union and individual level. And too one might consider had the vote been for an immediate cessation then he vote mayn't have passed given some involved would've seen their planning curtailed. I was all for making a changed to the 3 year rule, but giving people some lead time having made the changed seems entirely reasonable to me, and indeed preferable to making an immediate change in what's allowed.

Ugh. I am okay with residency as I acknowledge that people feel a connection to a country after living there for a time. I'm not thrilled on it being used for people to plan that they're going to feel a connection for a country in three years' time.

I agree that a deal for an immediate cessation would've left the vote tighter than we'd've liked, so I accept the three year lead-in so that nations can keep going with their current 'projects'. I don't see why it needed to be three and a half years so that nations and individuals can start a whole new tranche of 'projects'

Puja

'cause contracts were likely already presigned.

Then have it set to include those who've already signed a contract.

Puja

[Digby]

Ugh. I am okay with residency as I acknowledge that people feel a connection to a country after living there for a time. I'm not thrilled on it being used for people to plan that they're going to feel a connection for a country in three years' time.

I agree that a deal for an immediate cessation would've left the vote tighter than we'd've liked, so I accept the three year lead-in so that nations can keep going with their current 'projects'. I don't see why it needed to be three and a half years so that nations and individuals can start a whole new tranche of 'projects'

Puja

'cause contracts were likely already presigned.

Then have it set to include those who've already signed a contract.

Puja

And pre contracts, and heads of agreement, and those who've agreed a deal but technically aren't allowed to speak to anyone?

This way lets in a few more, but gives better lead time to those moving continents and funding union led player acquisition programs

[Mellsblue]

There is an interesting article by B Rolipola in The Times today on this subject, amongst others. Let's just say Puja may not be too happy.

Just found it syndicated on Wales Online, who were of course thrilled to carry the story that Billy hated England and Wilkinson and cheered on Australia in 2003. Not really gonna blame an 11 year old kid in a Welsh school for that one! He's been the correct side if the border since he was 15, so I've no issues with him playing for England.

Puja

It was the fact he sympathises/empathises with Hughes and hints very strongly that he'd rather play for Tonga if it weren't for the money.

[Timbo]

Sam Simmonds scored another try tonight and apparently having an absolute stormer. Underhill is a beast on the defensive side of the ball.

Potentially 2 really exciting additions to Englands backrow stocks.

[Spiffy]

Sam Simmonds scored another try tonight and apparently having an absolute stormer. Underhill is a beast on the defensive side of the ball.

Potentially 2 really exciting additions to Englands backrow stocks.

Simmonds is an interesting player. He seemed to come out of nowhere at the end of last season and has played a series of stormers for Exeter. He looks really powerful for a man who is relatively small by today's standards (6'0"; 16 st 2 lb if the stats are accurate) and is an explosive carrier who can play across the back row. If he holds current form Jones will be taking a serious look at him, at least as a dynamic bencher if not a starter.