RugbyRebels

Mellsblue wrote:Even a random member of the security team is a better tackler than Ewels.

I don't know - didn't bend at the waist, not much of a wrap there. Think the TMO will probably look the other way for that one though.

Puja

With Tom Curry out I keep wondering would it really not have been a good idea to have another look at Ben Curry at some point in the last few years? When was he last involved in a squad?

I know it's not been a huge amount of time given to Ludlow, Ludlam, Hill etc. a(nd the more recent, knackered version of Mark Wilson) but surely Eddie could have given Ben some more homework to be doing (beyond just getting unbelievably hench like his brother) or does he really see nothing work investing in?

Mikey Brown wrote:With Tom Curry out I keep wondering would it really not have been a good idea to have another look at Ben Curry at some point in the last few years? When was he last involved in a squad?

I know it's not been a huge amount of time given to Ludlow, Ludlam, Hill etc. a(nd the more recent, knackered version of Mark Wilson) but surely Eddie could have given Ben some more homework to be doing (beyond just getting unbelievably hench like his brother) or does he really see nothing work investing in?

Ben doesn't automatically start for Sale either. He was in the summer squad v Canada and USA and came on as sub v USA.

Right now, I’d argue Ben Curry is not selected because Ludlam deserves to be there ahead of him and Underhill is better than he is.

Ben Curry is a very good player, but to some extent, I wonder if his reputation is enhanced simply by being Tom’s twin? Even if we discount any lock/flankers from the conversation, I’d say he’s behind his brother, Underhill, Ludlam and Willis (assuming he gets back to pre-injury form) at the very least. I suspect this will be an unpopular opinion, but Ludlow is more influential at Premiership level too.

That doesn’t mean I want to see Ludlow picked but if I’m looking at a direct comparison for Ben Curry, I think it’s entirely fair to say (statistically and objectively) that he is a better performer.

Is Barbeary not worth a go at 7?

Ben's missed a lot of rugby due to injury. He's seldom had a run of games. Good on the weekend apparently up against Ludlow.

Scrumhead wrote:Right now, I’d argue Ben Curry is not selected because Ludlam deserves to be there ahead of him and Underhill is better than he is.

Ben Curry is a very good player, but to some extent, I wonder if his reputation is enhanced simply by being Tom’s twin? Even if we discount any lock/flankers from the conversation, I’d say he’s behind his brother, Underhill, Ludlam and Willis (assuming he gets back to pre-injury form) at the very least. I suspect this will be an unpopular opinion, but Ludlow is more influential at Premiership level too.

That doesn’t mean I want to see Ludlow picked but if I’m looking at a direct comparison for Ben Curry, I think it’s entirely fair to say (statistically and objectively) that he is a better performer.

Ironic that Ben was Eddie's choice over Tom initially.

Oakboy wrote:Is Barbeary not worth a go at 7?

I'd say almost definitely not.

Oakboy wrote:Is Barbeary not worth a go at 7?

Are you attempting to summon Andypropruck or something?!

Puja

Fair enough. Clearly my memory is not serving me well. I could barely remember whether any of the summer games even went ahead or not.

It's fair to argue he doesn't automatically start, I do wonder if he'd be better off moving at some point to carve his own path a little more. I wouldn't have thought he's living off his brother's reputation though, if anything they were neck-and-neck at the time they came through. My feeling was Tom improved hugely in large part due to his role with England, and that Ben would be worth a shot if we could get anywhere near that same gain from him, but I suppose I can't argue he's ahead of Underhill, Willis, Ludlaowm.

Ben Curry gets plenty of game time. He just doesn’t seem to have had a particularly good season (he was a lot better last season). For absolute clarity, I don’t think he’s living off his brother’s reputation at all, but I do feel that there’s an assumption that he should be equally as good because they are twins when it doesn’t really work like that in reality.

The other issue is the amount of high quality back row players available to England. Ben Curry is only really competing for the 7 shirt and still has to contend with his brother, Underhill, Ludlam, Jack Willis, Ludlow and Kenningham - all of whom are on Eddie’s radar. Subject to fitness, there’s only so many of those that will make the squad at any given point in time. Ben Curry would have to stand out a lot more than he has in recent times.

Absolute no to Barbeary as a 7 BTW.

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Is Barbeary not worth a go at 7?

I'd say almost definitely not.

Fair enough. I thought he might at least be better than Dombrandt/Launchbury there.

I’m not sure. For all his positive points, Barbeary misses quite a lot of tackles.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Love this! Probably too soon, but still great to see.

It's kind of crazy thinking that JW is 25. He is sort of still in the "prospects" category in my head.

To be fair, he’s missed two full seasons to injury

Underhill, Simmonds & Dombrandt. Barbeary, Willis and Plodbury on 6:2 split bench

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Is Barbeary not worth a go at 7?

I'd say almost definitely not.

Fair enough. I thought he might at least be better than Dombrandt/Launchbury there.

So far Simmonds, Nowell and Earl haven’t been mentioned in dispatches and all 3 could add something at fresh and exciting at 7 if one is prepared to look at a different approach from UnderCurry template. To some extent Ben Curry might be closer in playing style to aspects of these 3 than to that of his twin? (I think an interesting parallel from days gone past is the Calder twins in which Jim played his test career first (80’-85’?) at 6 then Finlay succeed at 7 (86’-91’))

Would have thought Barbeary would do more damage at 6/8 tbh

Mikey Brown wrote:

I mean that's absolutely great and all but really I’d rather Eddie had left Jack tf alone at this stage.

Beasties wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

I mean that's absolutely great and all but really I’d rather Eddie had left Jack tf alone at this stage.

You can just picture Blackett anxiously waiting for a phone call from Eddie to hear that Willis has broken both his legs in training camp.

Jesus wept what rancid bait.

Just got to say, for all the "England did really well, could have won it etc" nonsense, the amount of moaning about the ref by other nations in a game that the irish won is crazy too. Just watched some "analysis" of the scrum penalties, trying to point out that the English tighthead was on an angle (a really slight one), whilst ignoring the massively more angled Irish loosehead... seeing suggestions that the Irish scrum were just not well enough coached to know how to handle the English wheeling/cheating (because Furlong and Healy are obvious novice props who'd never seen such things before... and simply too well behaved to try such things themselves).

Both sides are trying to get away with as much as possible in the scrum , and the fact we were the ones going forward in the end, suggest we did have the upper hand for the most part.

England’s muddled thinking is costing them - and time is running out before the 2023 World Cup

Replacement strategy and a deficiency in line breaks are a sign that 'new England' are finding it hard to break from old habits



France exude steadfast conviction. To complete a Grand Slam on Saturday in Paris, they must beat a side beset by contradictions. Because England’s identity remains unclear.

At the start of this week, after around 48 hours to reflect on a 32-15 loss to Ireland, Eddie Jones was asked if he had garnered any new information from that defeat. The answer, in effect, was no. “A growing knowledge that this team has great spirit” was his offering. The togetherness of this fresh squad has been trumpeted for months.

Prior to last weekend, there was a sense that we might finally learn something about England from their bid to topple Ireland. Just 82 seconds in, Charlie Ewels put paid to that. As the lock traipsed off, a text came through from a friend in the stands: “That red card could actually be a good thing for Jones”. Judgment blurred, judgment deferred.
Chance for change reaches a cul-de-sac

There are mere days left of this Six Nations. To use context Jones has leant upon, its end signals three campaigns until the 2023 World Cup.

Until they ran out of steam at Twickenham, the hosts held on to Ireland’s coat-tails thanks to four components: scrummaging, line-out accuracy, kicking and disruptive defence. Historically, those fundamentals have been non-negotiable for England. Struggles in possession, when Jones has publicly prioritised attack as an area for expansion, are in danger of defining their Six Nations.

There is one more chance to gauge England’s progress, and it comes in the harshest environment possible. As Jones has said himself, France do not become “seduced” into veering away from a definitive tactical template. They kick long and trust their defence, drilled by Shaun Edwards. They snuff out space, boss the contact area and flood the breakdown with their many exceptional jackallers from Julien Marchand at hooker to Gabin Villière on the wing via No 8 Grégory Alldritt and centre Jonathan Danty.



If and when opponents grow impatient or imprecise, France have more than enough firepower and dexterity to capitalise. To stand any chance, England must de-clutter the areas in which they have looked muddled.
A bodyguard for Marcus Smith

The statistics are stark. On the way to a meagre total of seven tries, England have mustered 16 line-breaks so far this tournament. That figure, compiled by Opta, is the lowest after four rounds across the seven Six Nations that Jones has overseen. We keep hearing that Marcus Smith is still developing, as are other key backline figures in Harry Randall and Freddie Steward. But, surely, an attacking impasse stems – at least in part – from how the young fly-half has not been given adequate infrastructure in the absence of Manu Tuilagi.

Speaking to Telegraph Sport earlier this year, Paul Gustard explained his rationale for recruiting André Esterhuizen. “We had a nine and 10 that were lateral in Danny Care and Marcus Smith, so we needed someone to protect Marcus and also be able to distribute,” he said. “We needed someone to run straight and to be a foil to players that run ‘overs’ [out-to-in] lines like Joe Marchant.”

Esterhuizen has proved to be a phenomenal signing. That said, Harlequins won critical fixtures without the bruising Springbok midfielder on the way to last season’s Premiership title. During an untimely suspension for Esterhuizen, which covered the remarkable semi-final victory over Bristol, the flinty Ben Tapuai started at inside centre and ran hard.

Jones has settled on Marchant as the man to add the thrust that will complement Smith and Henry Slade. A centre partnership of Slade and Elliot Daly has had two starts, though. Even with back-rowers and Ellis Genge punching holes from line-outs, England have been overly lateral. Max Malins is the fall-guy for this weekend, but a lack of punch has been more of a handicap than any dearth of pace out wide.


'Free formation'

The structure of Ireland’s attack provided them with a reference point amid the chaos of Saturday and eventually allowed them to pick off an exhausted England. Jack Conan’s try was fashioned from patient, cohesive phase-play. In the build-up to last weekend, Jones explained that England’s attacking evolution would be “different” to that of Ireland because of its freedom. Frankly, in a re-build with many moving parts, greater clarity might help players attain cohesion more easily. With James Lowe roaming off his wing and forwards throwing deft passes, Ireland did not look constrained by their formation, either.
Uncertain bench strategy

A penny for the unfiltered thoughts of George Ford. Having been thrown on after what was a largely assured hour for England at Murrayfield prior to a violent swing of narrative, he has had six minutes in Rome – in harness with Smith – before gathering splinters on the bench for the entirety of the Wales game and all but a few seconds of the Ireland loss.

This jars with how bold Jones has been with his replacements in previous years. If Ford is not required to give England a late lift, why not load six forwards onto the bench? Perhaps the inexperience of Smith, as well as backline injuries against USA last summer and Ireland in 2021, have discouraged Jones from this strategy. Owen Farrell’s ability to slip between fly-half and inside centre has been missed in this regard. And this is the crux. New England are finding it hard to move on from old habits.

'Muddled thinking' seems to sum up Jones.

Brown on the wing, Daly at FB was one example. Not satisfied with that, he then had Marchant on the wing with Daly OC. That is on the back of converting Daly to wing previously.

I see the team/squad as confused. The Ireland game was an improvement of application when Jones's influence was removed by the red card and simple on-field necessity.