SixAndAHalf wrote:
I have heard a few people say that but haven't seen the quote myself (not questioning it's true but just hadn't seen it!) My comments above were on the assumption that EJ sees him as a 7. If not, then go with the next in line who at the moment appears to be Kvesic (I prefer Fraser personally and think Underhill could overtake both). I agree there is no point in proceeding with two from Hask/Robshaw/Wood.
It was Gustard who said it I believe. I'll try and find it
'Slowing down opposition ball is already one of Jones’s more urgent priorities: “There are a couple of blokes in the squad who we think can do it on a short-term basis. Haskell might be one of them. Clifford’s best position is definitely going to be No8 but he might have to start off as a seven"'
Thanks for that - interesting as it's hard to see where Clifford fits in with BVunipola, Beaumont, Morgan and Hughes. I think Clifford is an excellent player but saw his international future as a 6 or a 7 where we are desperate for quality!
I guess the quote above could just be "one of those things EJ says" - he seems to like a contradictory statement!
Peat wrote:I have to say Convex raises a very possible and ghastly outcome. The standard of the 6N does not look great this year and the fixtures are stacked our way. A Grand Slam could happen, even with a team like this, even without them being any good; would Jones decide he's got his men then
I think that's the major advantage of having an overseas coach, especially one as arrogant as Jones. An English coach would look at a Grand Slam and pat themselves on the back for a job well done. Jones is here as a vanity project, for his own self-aggrandisement, and to do that, he needs to beat Australia and New Zealand. As such, I'm not sure he cares about the 6N, because it won't bring him the glory he wants.
Puja
Truth. But if he's won with a team, is he going to look at it and think he needs a new one to face Australia and New Zealand?
I mean, obviously the first few losses should tell him something, but...
Oakboy wrote:
I thought the new board might have been excused your wooden spoon!!
I suppose you miss Worsley and Borthwick too??
Just peeved the imposter has gone again with Ford and Farrell, jettisoned Devoto and kept old tapper on the bench as back cover. Not to mention four locks and Haskell.....
APR wrote:I see nothing's changed on here!
Listen to what jones has been saying, folks. His overall philosophy that England shouldn't try to be NZ/Oz/SA-lite, but England. Establish a dominant, powerful pack, then build from that. Clearly that's exactly what he's concentrating on, particularly as what are generally considered potential key back players (Tuilagi, Slade, Simpson, Foden, yes and Ashton too, plus the Daly/Wades etc) are currently unfit or unavailable, a bit too raw yet or off-form. So he's concentrating on the pack, looking at the options in terms of the future, whilst keeping a relatively settled back line that'll do the job for the time being. Make sure that the pack can deliver plenty of go-forward ball from the tight and loose first.
That makes sense*, and fits in with the gen that I got from a friend that Eddie isn't looking to do anything with the backs until he knows if Tuilagi can be his 12. However, if he's focussing just on the forwards, I don't understand why he wouldn't a) use Clifford from the start to get his "faster pack", b) have Beaumont on the bench to see how he goes and c) have Itoje over Lawes.
Puja
*The unquoted bit of your post is still bananacakes though, for the usual reasons. Good to have you back Andy.
Thanks for the "welcome back"!
Re your last bit, see my opening sentence - nothing's changed. Clearly you are still in denial about Youngs' inability to hook , scrum or throw-in despite all the evidence to the contrary, and are still in awe of Brown's ability to run in a straight line into a wall of defenders without looking for running lines off the ball, or receivers when in possession. I fear there is no hope for you:)
I honestly don't think Clifford has a England future at no.8, not with Vunipola, Hughes and Beaumont all in front of him. Jack Clifford is actually smaller and lighter than all three of those guys.
His future is at flanker rotating with Underhill, Itoje and Ewers
Chilli wrote:I honestly don't think Clifford has a England future at no.8, not with Vunipola, Hughes and Beaumont all in front of him. Jack Clifford is actually smaller and lighter than all three of those guys.
His future is at flanker rotating with Underhill, Itoje and Ewers
Well if he's smaller and lighter he couldn't possibly be better
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
Well if he's smaller and lighter he couldn't possibly be better
Indeed. He's almost exactly the same size and weight as Dallaglio. Is he a similar sort of player?
And on the subject of speedy back rows, does Tom Croft still have an England future or have injuries seen to that?
welcome.
Croft looks in decent nick tonight, and should be in the frame if he stays fit....but I wish Tigers would let him follow the ball rather than station him wide.
I have read recently that Jones is unwilling to play a ‘left and right’ style centre combination. What the heck does that mean?
If its something to do with kicking feet then that makes no sense to me. Jones would've likely been willing to play Josephs and Slade together anyway and they are a left/right combination.
If we played Daly with Tuilagi it would be a left/right combination.
So i'm calling BS on the idea that Daly and Josephs can't play together because Jones is unwilling to play a left and right style centre combination.
Chilli wrote:I have read recently that Jones is unwilling to play a ‘left and right’ style centre combination. What does that mean?
If its something to do with kicking feet then that makes no sense to me. Jones would've likely been willing to play Josephs and Slade together anyway and they are a left/right combination.
If we played Daly with Tuilagi it would be a left/right combination.
So i'm calling BS on the idea that Daly and Josephs can't play together because Jones is unwilling to play a left and right style centre combination.
No it literally means one centre is always on the left of the pair and the other on the right, instead of inside and out, French used to do it quite often.
(so if Daly is 12 and playing left centre, and JJ is 13 and playing right centre....for a line out on the left, attacking, Daly would be at inside (left), JJ at outside (right); for a lineout on the right, JJ would lineup at inside (right), and Daly at outside (left). )
Last edited by Banquo on Fri Feb 12, 2016 9:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Chilli wrote:I have read recently that Jones is unwilling to play a ‘left and right’ style centre combination. What does that mean?
If its something to do with kicking feet then that makes no sense to me. Jones would've likely been willing to play Josephs and Slade together anyway and they are a left/right combination.
If we played Daly with Tuilagi it would be a left/right combination.
So i'm calling BS on the idea that Daly and Josephs can't play together because Jones is unwilling to play a left and right style centre combination.
I didn't know what it meant either. I thought it might be like flankers playing left and right rather than openside and blindside - so centres palying left and right rather than inside and outside centres - but that seems a very strange idea!
Chilli wrote:I have read recently that Jones is unwilling to play a ‘left and right’ style centre combination. What does that mean?
If its something to do with kicking feet then that makes no sense to me. Jones would've likely been willing to play Josephs and Slade together anyway and they are a left/right combination.
If we played Daly with Tuilagi it would be a left/right combination.
So i'm calling BS on the idea that Daly and Josephs can't play together because Jones is unwilling to play a left and right style centre combination.
No it literally means one centre is always on the left of the pair and the other on the right, instead of inside and out, French used to do it quite often.
(so if Daly is 12 and playing left centre, and JJ is 13 and playing right centre....for a line out on the left, attacking, Daly would be at inside (left), JJ at outside (right); for a lineout on the right, JJ would lineup at inside (right), and Daly at outside (left). It means you have adapt a lot in game, and its not easy to do, but its perfectly possible )
Last edited by Banquo on Fri Feb 12, 2016 9:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Chilli wrote:I have read recently that Jones is unwilling to play a ‘left and right’ style centre combination. What does that mean?
If its something to do with kicking feet then that makes no sense to me. Jones would've likely been willing to play Josephs and Slade together anyway and they are a left/right combination.
If we played Daly with Tuilagi it would be a left/right combination.
So i'm calling BS on the idea that Daly and Josephs can't play together because Jones is unwilling to play a left and right style centre combination.
It means one plays left centre and one plays right centre, not inside and outside. Nothing to do with feet. So, both players need to be comfortable at OC and IC. As both rely heavily on their outside arc, neither have a tactical kicking game and neither can 'truck it up' I can't see it working.
Chilli wrote:I have read recently that Jones is unwilling to play a ‘left and right’ style centre combination. What does that mean?
If its something to do with kicking feet then that makes no sense to me. Jones would've likely been willing to play Josephs and Slade together anyway and they are a left/right combination.
If we played Daly with Tuilagi it would be a left/right combination.
So i'm calling BS on the idea that Daly and Josephs can't play together because Jones is unwilling to play a left and right style centre combination.
It means one plays left centre and one plays right centre, not inside and outside. Nothing to do with feet. So, both players need to be comfortable at OC and IC. As both rely heavily on their outside arc, neither have a tactical kicking game and neither can 'truck it up' I can't see it working.
beat you to it. It is doable (see Darcy and BOD), but it does take a fair amount of adapting.
Mellsblue wrote:
It means one plays left centre and one plays right centre, not inside and outside. Nothing to do with feet. So, both players need to be comfortable at OC and IC. As both rely heavily on their outside arc, neither have a tactical kicking game and neither can 'truck it up' I can't see it working.
What are the advantages? Is it used when one player is better at passing off a particular hand?
Chilli wrote:I have read recently that Jones is unwilling to play a ‘left and right’ style centre combination. What does that mean?
If its something to do with kicking feet then that makes no sense to me. Jones would've likely been willing to play Josephs and Slade together anyway and they are a left/right combination.
If we played Daly with Tuilagi it would be a left/right combination.
So i'm calling BS on the idea that Daly and Josephs can't play together because Jones is unwilling to play a left and right style centre combination.
No it literally means one centre is always on the left of the pair and the other on the right, instead of inside and out, French used to do it quite often.
(so if Daly is 12 and playing left centre, and JJ is 13 and playing right centre....for a line out on the left, attacking, Daly would be at inside (left), JJ at outside (right); for a lineout on the right, JJ would lineup at inside (right), and Daly at outside (left). It means you have adapt a lot in game, and its not easy to do, but its perfectly possible )
