6 Nations Squad 2022

[Mikey Brown]

Whoever programmed this guy knew what they were doing. It never fails to both confuse me and wind me up.

[Scrumhead]

I would argue generating quick ruck ball is more about ball winning than attacking in space with ball in hand which is what I think a test 7 should offer and why I’m so keen for advocating Sam Simmonds for this job

I genuinely want to understand where your viewpoint comes from. Can you give an example of a test 7 who is playing like this? When I look across the Tier 1 nations you might argue Tipuric and Hooper probably do this a bit more regularly, but we’re talking about sometimes, not as a primary attacking role.

I also think there’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what a 7 is actually there to do.

When Raggs is referring to ‘generating quick ruck ball’, he’s not talking about ‘winning’ the ball. He’s talking about keeping it. As someone who has played most of their rugby at 7, I’d say the job description of an openside is primarily focused on continuity. Often that means being first to the ruck before the opposition and making sure there is a next phase of the attack. In test rugby, where competition for the ball is as tough as you’re going to see, it’s no surprise that a big priority is getting to that first ruck and securing the ball so the move doesn’t die on the first phase.

Simmonds has the pace and power to do that job quite well, but I’ve never seen him do it so I’m not sure? Pick Curry at 7 and we know he can, pick Simmonds and it’s a bit more of a lottery.

A 7 should definitely run good support lines and be an option in attack, but that’s only if their main job has been done.

I’m suggesting that the 6 can take more responsibility for the continuity work you describe above and free up the 7 to be more prominent ball in hand - aspiring to play like Tipuric and Hooper seems something to be lauded imo. Continuing with the stodge 7 approach rather less so (imo).

Part of the point is that Tipuric and Hooper are ‘prominent ball in hand’ every now and again. They’re very good at it, but it’s a relatively small part of what they do and usually that’s only in games where their team is dominant.

Hooper’s definitely got a lot busier at the defensive aspects of game recently. Partly because Australia are at a lower ebb and partly due to Pocock retiring. If I’m being completely honest, I don’t really remember Tipuric having a notable game from a ‘ball in hand’ perspective in quite while?

My feeling is that your limited viewing means you base so many of your opinions on what you see in highlight reels. Either that you only remember the parts that fit your narrative and edit out the fact that for 90%+ of the time, a Hooper or Tipuric is doing the same job Curry or Underhill would be.

[francoisfou]

With the injury concerns over Dupont and Jalibert for France I'm not inking them in as champions just yet.

Me neither.
A few weeks ago, I'd have said the 6N is France's for the taking, but their key player Dupont is just back from injury and probably isn't 100% match fit and he and Ntamack didn't exactly shine in Toulouse's home defeat against Racing on Saturday evening, and I'm not sure if Jalibert is ready for action.
However, if they gel (a big IF), they could be irresistible!
On the plus side is they've got three matches in the SdF, Italy, Ireland and England, but Murrayfield on 26th February and Cardiff on Friday evening 11th March are potential banana skins if they fall behind early and heads drop. As ever, confidence is the key to French success and if that goes......!
But, they're a side that's building nicely for next year's World Cup.

[Mellsblue]

18 months from the World Cup and we should be aiming for a grand slam and winning it should be the minimum. It was Jones himself who, after the last World Cup, said something along the lines of building the best test rugby team ever seen…… though, his syntax was obvs not as beautifully staccato as that.
At the very least we should be favourites to win it. I’d have us as third favourites with a very real worry we’ll lose to Scotland. That’s not a good place to be.
Considering Jones is lauded for being able to see where the game is headed, he’s started his rebuild too late (again), shunned the opportunity to blood players in autumn 2020 and was late on the bandwagon of more expansive rugby dominating the test scene.

[Spiffy]

I’m with Which on this. A grand slam would be great, but isn’t an accurate assessment of where we are and TBH is disrespectful to other very good teams to regard anything less as a ‘failure’. Oakboy’s outright hatred of Eddie Jones is skewing his logic I think.

It is a bit of a cliche, but with the exception of Italy, every one of our opponents wants to beat us more than anyone else and raises their game in a way we don’t really see for other rivalries. That has to come in to the equation.

Our preparations haven’t been ideal for this weekend and these days, Scotland at Murrayfield is a very tough opener. If we come out it with a win of any sort, I’ll be happy.

With Ireland and Wales at home, our chances of winning those increase but they’re still very tough games.

Finishing with Le Crunch in Paris is a hard ending - even more so if it’s a slam decider.

If anyone looks at those fixtures and thinks ‘only a slam is good enough’ they need their head (and arrogance) checked IMO.

I'm not sure about wanting to beat us more than anyone else- Ireland, for example set their sights much higher these days

Yes - but you'll do to be going on with, until we have another crack at the ABs

[Banquo]

I’m with Which on this. A grand slam would be great, but isn’t an accurate assessment of where we are and TBH is disrespectful to other very good teams to regard anything less as a ‘failure’. Oakboy’s outright hatred of Eddie Jones is skewing his logic I think.

It is a bit of a cliche, but with the exception of Italy, every one of our opponents wants to beat us more than anyone else and raises their game in a way we don’t really see for other rivalries. That has to come in to the equation.

Our preparations haven’t been ideal for this weekend and these days, Scotland at Murrayfield is a very tough opener. If we come out it with a win of any sort, I’ll be happy.

With Ireland and Wales at home, our chances of winning those increase but they’re still very tough games.

Finishing with Le Crunch in Paris is a hard ending - even more so if it’s a slam decider.

If anyone looks at those fixtures and thinks ‘only a slam is good enough’ they need their head (and arrogance) checked IMO.

I'm not sure about wanting to beat us more than anyone else- Ireland, for example set their sights much higher these days

Yes - but you'll do to be going on with, until we have another crack at the ABs

and ditto . Though tbh, I care more about the 6N than other fixtures outside the RWC.

[morepork]

I really hope France keep it up.Too much natural talent to just fizzle out.

[Mikey Brown]

Why should we be such clear favourites? Beating SA? Other teams have done that. France and Ireland beat NZ.

I think we have a very good team and absolutely should have the belief a slam/title is within our reach, but why should several other teams not also feel that way?

[Oakboy]

18 months from the World Cup and we should be aiming for a grand slam and winning it should be the minimum. It was Jones himself who, after the last World Cup, said something along the lines of building the best test rugby team ever seen…… though, his syntax was obvs not as beautifully staccato as that.
At the very least we should be favourites to win it. I’d have us as third favourites with a very real worry we’ll lose to Scotland. That’s not a good place to be.
Considering Jones is lauded for being able to see where the game is headed, he’s started his rebuild too late (again), shunned the opportunity to blood players in autumn 2020 and was late on the bandwagon of more expansive rugby dominating the test scene.

Winning a GS requires us to win 5 games of rugby against good teams (4 if I want to be arrogant!!). Winning a RWC requires something similar. I simply don't understand why a GS is not an acceptable ambition at this stage. By definition, losing any of those 5 games is not success (so it must be failure??).

[Banquo]

18 months from the World Cup and we should be aiming for a grand slam and winning it should be the minimum. It was Jones himself who, after the last World Cup, said something along the lines of building the best test rugby team ever seen…… though, his syntax was obvs not as beautifully staccato as that.
At the very least we should be favourites to win it. I’d have us as third favourites with a very real worry we’ll lose to Scotland. That’s not a good place to be.
Considering Jones is lauded for being able to see where the game is headed, he’s started his rebuild too late (again), shunned the opportunity to blood players in autumn 2020 and was late on the bandwagon of more expansive rugby dominating the test scene.

Winning a GS requires us to win 5 games of rugby against good teams (4 if I want to be arrogant!!). Winning a RWC requires something similar. I simply don't understand why a GS is not an acceptable ambition at this stage. By definition, losing any of those 5 games is not success (so it must be failure??).

I think you are conflating ambition with expectation.

[Banquo]

Why should we be such clear favourites? Beating SA? Other teams have done that. France and Ireland beat NZ.

I think we have a very good team and absolutely should have the belief a slam/title is within our reach, but why should several other teams not also feel that way?

We clearly are not clear favourites. We have a lot of good players, but imo lack enough very good ones to state favouritism.
https://www.oddschecker.com/rugby-union/six-nations

[Spiffy]

All this grand slam talk is fairly meaningless. Every 6N team will go out to try and win every match they play. If they win five, the slam is there, a bonus. It's like hearing about teams "targeting" certain games and not others. A competitive and ambitious team will target every single game and keep on trying to play at their highest possible level.

[Timbo]

If we are to win a championship, much less a grand slam, our tight 5 needs to step up significantly. We got dusted up front for most of last years 6 nations and the Autumn was only a slight improvement. Raw materials are there, but the likes of Genge, LCD, Hill, Stuart, Sinckler need to (re)establish themselves as top internationals.

That’s where 6 Nations titles are won and lost. We were the best Northern Hemisphere team between 2016-2020 based off that consistency and dominance up front. Last 18 months we’ve slipped back to the pack.

[Oakboy]

18 months from the World Cup and we should be aiming for a grand slam and winning it should be the minimum. It was Jones himself who, after the last World Cup, said something along the lines of building the best test rugby team ever seen…… though, his syntax was obvs not as beautifully staccato as that.
At the very least we should be favourites to win it. I’d have us as third favourites with a very real worry we’ll lose to Scotland. That’s not a good place to be.
Considering Jones is lauded for being able to see where the game is headed, he’s started his rebuild too late (again), shunned the opportunity to blood players in autumn 2020 and was late on the bandwagon of more expansive rugby dominating the test scene.

Winning a GS requires us to win 5 games of rugby against good teams (4 if I want to be arrogant!!). Winning a RWC requires something similar. I simply don't understand why a GS is not an acceptable ambition at this stage. By definition, losing any of those 5 games is not success (so it must be failure??).

I think you are conflating ambition with expectation.

So, I have ambition for Jones to succeed but I should have an expectation of failure??

[Mellsblue]

Why should we be such clear favourites? Beating SA? Other teams have done that. France and Ireland beat NZ.

I think we have a very good team and absolutely should have the belief a slam/title is within our reach, but why should several other teams not also feel that way?

We should be favourites because of all the advantages we have off the field. I’m clearly not saying our current form should make us favourites. Hence the dispondent post.

[Banquo]

If we are to win a championship, much less a grand slam, our tight 5 needs to step up significantly. We got dusted up front for most of last years 6 nations and the Autumn was only a slight improvement. Raw materials are there, but the likes of Genge, LCD, Hill, Stuart, Sinckler need to (re)establish themselves as top internationals.

That’s where 6 Nations titles are won and lost. We were the best Northern Hemisphere team between 2016-2020 based off that consistency and dominance up front. Last 18 months we’ve slipped back to the pack.

Frankly...again...every unit of the team needs at least an injection of quality- as you say, some is about regaining form, but I'm struggling to see where to get it in some areas.

[Banquo]

Winning a GS requires us to win 5 games of rugby against good teams (4 if I want to be arrogant!!). Winning a RWC requires something similar. I simply don't understand why a GS is not an acceptable ambition at this stage. By definition, losing any of those 5 games is not success (so it must be failure??).

I think you are conflating ambition with expectation.

So, I have ambition for Jones to succeed but I should have an expectation of failure??

I thought we were debating the team's ambitions?- with respect yours' don't matter. I'd think Eddie's ambition would be to win every game, as would the teams- would he expect to win every game...maybe. Do I 'expect' that- not looking at the squad; would I like that, is that my ambition, yes.

( I could have just said yes )

[jngf]

I’m suggesting that the 6 can take more responsibility for the continuity work you describe above and free up the 7 to be more prominent ball in hand - aspiring to play like Tipuric and Hooper seems something to be lauded imo. Continuing with the stodge 7 approach rather less so (imo).

OK, which brings me full circle to my usual question. Seeing as the only thing that a 7 does that a 6 cannot, is being on the openside of the scrum, how the hell do you expect the 6 to be responsible for continuity in the vast majority of moves off a scrum, seeing as he's got to run all the way around the scrum to get to the breakdown?

I would argue J Willis , T Curry and L Ludlum have all done this continuity role well from the 6 berth. ....and further Courtney Lawes (though getting better at 6 ) isn’t so well equipped to do this

[Raggs]

I’m suggesting that the 6 can take more responsibility for the continuity work you describe above and free up the 7 to be more prominent ball in hand - aspiring to play like Tipuric and Hooper seems something to be lauded imo. Continuing with the stodge 7 approach rather less so (imo).

OK, which brings me full circle to my usual question. Seeing as the only thing that a 7 does that a 6 cannot, is being on the openside of the scrum, how the hell do you expect the 6 to be responsible for continuity in the vast majority of moves off a scrum, seeing as he's got to run all the way around the scrum to get to the breakdown?

I would argue J Willis , T Curry and L Ludlum have all done this continuity role well from the 6 berth. ....and further Courtney Lawes (though getting better at 6 ) isn’t so well equipped to do this

Which bits of the game, can you only do, when you have the number 6 on your back, vs the number 7? The only part of the game where there's anything close to enforced, is the scrum, where you want your openside flanker getting to the breakdown first to secure quick ball.

Outside of that, the number on their back makes no difference whatsoever.

[Timbo]

If we are to win a championship, much less a grand slam, our tight 5 needs to step up significantly. We got dusted up front for most of last years 6 nations and the Autumn was only a slight improvement. Raw materials are there, but the likes of Genge, LCD, Hill, Stuart, Sinckler need to (re)establish themselves as top internationals.

That’s where 6 Nations titles are won and lost. We were the best Northern Hemisphere team between 2016-2020 based off that consistency and dominance up front. Last 18 months we’ve slipped back to the pack.

Frankly...again...every unit of the team needs at least an injection of quality- as you say, some is about regaining form, but I'm struggling to see where to get it in some areas.

Between now and the World Cup, yes I agree. Some of that unit improvement will come in the actual lead in to the tournament I expect, when players and the team get a lengthy spell to prepare and we get our best squad all together for a prolonged period.

For right now and to have a shot at winning this 6 nations, I think we need to prioritise improving our setpiece and discipline. Get that right and I think we’ve show enough development in other areas to have confidence.

[Banquo]

I’m suggesting that the 6 can take more responsibility for the continuity work you describe above and free up the 7 to be more prominent ball in hand - aspiring to play like Tipuric and Hooper seems something to be lauded imo. Continuing with the stodge 7 approach rather less so (imo).

OK, which brings me full circle to my usual question. Seeing as the only thing that a 7 does that a 6 cannot, is being on the openside of the scrum, how the hell do you expect the 6 to be responsible for continuity in the vast majority of moves off a scrum, seeing as he's got to run all the way around the scrum to get to the breakdown?

I would argue J Willis , T Curry and L Ludlum have all done this continuity well from the 6 berth

For England? J Willis has only started at 7 as far as I know.

That's Ludlam, I assume?

Oh, and dear god.As stated a million times, Curry packs down at 6 IN THE SCRUM, but thereafter does what he always did/does as a flanker.

[jngf]

OK, which brings me full circle to my usual question. Seeing as the only thing that a 7 does that a 6 cannot, is being on the openside of the scrum, how the hell do you expect the 6 to be responsible for continuity in the vast majority of moves off a scrum, seeing as he's got to run all the way around the scrum to get to the breakdown?

I would argue J Willis , T Curry and L Ludlum have all done this continuity role well from the 6 berth. ....and further Courtney Lawes (though getting better at 6 ) isn’t so well equipped to do this

Which bits of the game, can you only do, when you have the number 6 on your back, vs the number 7? The only part of the game where there's anything close to enforced, is the scrum, where you want your openside flanker getting to the breakdown first to secure quick ball.

Outside of that, the number on their back makes no difference whatsoever.

Think you’re just going back on your earlier point about 6 not being as well placed as 7 to do certain things

[Danno]

I’m suggesting that the 6 can take more responsibility for the continuity work you describe above and free up the 7 to be more prominent ball in hand - aspiring to play like Tipuric and Hooper seems something to be lauded imo. Continuing with the stodge 7 approach rather less so (imo).

OK, which brings me full circle to my usual question. Seeing as the only thing that a 7 does that a 6 cannot, is being on the openside of the scrum, how the hell do you expect the 6 to be responsible for continuity in the vast majority of moves off a scrum, seeing as he's got to run all the way around the scrum to get to the breakdown?

I would argue J Willis , T Curry and L Ludlum have all done this continuity role well from the 6 berth. ....and further Courtney Lawes (though getting better at 6 ) isn’t so well equipped to do this

Is this also your reasoning behind dropping Itoje & moving Hill to 4 with Lawes at 5?

[Mikey Brown]

Are we really doing this again?

[Danno]

Are we really doing this again?

Sozz, I know I shouldn't