Team's up

[Puja]

Brown
Watson
Joseph
Farrell
Nowell
Ford
Youngs

Vunipola
Hartley
Cole
Lawes
Kruis
Robshaw
Haskell
Vunipola

George, Marler, Hill, Itoje, Launchbury, Clifford, Care, Goode


What?! That makes no sense whatsoever!

Puja

[Oakboy]

I can't believe Devoto has been canned without appearing whereas Goode gets another go. Is Launchbury there just as insurance, will he bring him and Itoje on together or will Itoje come on at 6? I suppose it's interesting!

[Puja]

Beaumont and Devoto to travel as reserves. I'd imagine Devoto would probably prefer to stay home and play some rugby rather than another week of doing nothing.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

If you're only going to have 1 back on the bench, then surely Devoto makes more sense than Goode (though still less than Daly)?
At least with Devoto if a FH gets injured, he comes on at 12; if JJ is hurt, he comes on at 13; if a wing is injured he comes on at 13 with JJ moving out, and if Brown is injured then either he comes on at 15, or at 13 with JJ to wing and Watson to FB.
With Goode, if a FH gets injured, we're screwed with Goode at 10 or 12; if JJ is hurt we're screwed with Goode at 13; is a wing is injured we're screwed with Goode at 13; and if Brown is injured we're... still better off having JJ on the wing and Watson at FB.

[JellyHead]

It's very odd.

[fivepointer]

Bizarre.

Didn't see the 6-2 split and I thought we'd see a change in the back row. I hoped we'd see one at 12 too.

The Care-Youngs swapover is just ridiculous.

Its a little disappointing.

[Banquo]

Its trial the forwards time. I'm struggling with it though.

[Oakboy]

If you're only going to have 1 back on the bench, then surely Devoto makes more sense than Goode (though still less than Daly)?
At least with Devoto if a FH gets injured, he comes on at 12; if JJ is hurt, he comes on at 13; if a wing is injured he comes on at 13 with JJ moving out, and if Brown is injured then either he comes on at 15, or at 13 with JJ to wing and Watson to FB.
With Goode, if a FH gets injured, we're screwed with Goode at 10 or 12; if JJ is hurt we're screwed with Goode at 13; is a wing is injured we're screwed with Goode at 13; and if Brown is injured we're... still better off having JJ on the wing and Watson at FB.

Presumably, Goode comes on at FB if anyone from 13-15 is injured. If it's a winger, Brown shifts. If it's Joseph, Brown shifts and Nowell moves in. If 10 or 12 are injured, Goode either shows he's up to it or he's binned for good. I'm starting to like that idea!!!!

[Banquo]

If you're only going to have 1 back on the bench, then surely Devoto makes more sense than Goode (though still less than Daly)?
At least with Devoto if a FH gets injured, he comes on at 12; if JJ is hurt, he comes on at 13; if a wing is injured he comes on at 13 with JJ moving out, and if Brown is injured then either he comes on at 15, or at 13 with JJ to wing and Watson to FB.
With Goode, if a FH gets injured, we're screwed with Goode at 10 or 12; if JJ is hurt we're screwed with Goode at 13; is a wing is injured we're screwed with Goode at 13; and if Brown is injured we're... still better off having JJ on the wing and Watson at FB.

flippin nuts innit

[Which Tyler]

Good point - I was forgetting Nowell for a moment there.

[Banquo]

Bizarre.

Didn't see the 6-2 split and I thought we'd see a change in the back row. I hoped we'd see one at 12 too.

The Care-Youngs swapover is just ridiculous.

Its a little disappointing.

....mildly put. I guess he has a plan, and it is about testing players up front.

[Puja]

I'm not wrong am I - there's literally no sense to it whatsoever? I'm normally the guy trying to find the logic in things and defend the management, but I just can't work out what that XXIII is geared to achieve.

Puja

[Oakboy]

Its trial the forwards time. I'm struggling with it though.

Will it be a full trial of the backrow or 2nd row? Surely, he's not going to leave Launchbury, Itoje and Clifford unused.

[Banquo]

Good point - I was forgetting Nowell for a moment there.

even so, it still requires some unnecessary shuffling to accommodate an extra forward to trial.

He's clearly aiming to stick with Ford, Faz and JJ for the foreseeable.

[Banquo]

I'm not wrong am I - there's literally no sense to it whatsoever? I'm normally the guy trying to find the logic in things and defend the management, but I just can't work out what that XXIII is geared to achieve.

Puja

the logic is giving most of the forwards a run over the two games by the look of it...which implies he can't make a call on them yet as his 'top three' in some positions. I'm not sure this 'trial' is a valid way of doing it though- we all know about trials tbh.

[Oakboy]

Good point - I was forgetting Nowell for a moment there.

even so, it still requires some unnecessary shuffling to accommodate an extra forward to trial.

He's clearly aiming to stick with Ford, Faz and JJ for the foreseeable.

As always, when such happens, one can applaud consistency/loyalty or criticise lack of ambition. If EJ is convinced that Ford has got it and has just been off-form, there is some encouragement for the view that Farrell is not undroppable. In fact, there is a measure of sympathy for him having to play at 12 when it can be argued that he is playing at 10 better than Ford.

[Banquo]

Good point - I was forgetting Nowell for a moment there.

even so, it still requires some unnecessary shuffling to accommodate an extra forward to trial.

He's clearly aiming to stick with Ford, Faz and JJ for the foreseeable.

As always, when such happens, one can applaud consistency/loyalty or criticise lack of ambition. If EJ is convinced that Ford has got it and has just been off-form, there is some encouragement for the view that Farrell is not undroppable. In fact, there is a measure of sympathy for him having to play at 12 when it can be argued that he is playing at 10 better than Ford.

I just don't think its a 'progressive selection', but whilst he is fannying around with the pack, he probably doesn't want too many other moving parts-literally in Faz's case . I see why, but I don't agree. The one are where he definitely needs to make a change imo back row, and he should be making the midfield more of a threat. Scrum half ...god knows.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

I wouldn't draw too many conclusions yet. My suspicion is that he's deciding which of Haskell and Robshaw he wants to keep as the person who's going to tackle all day but is unlikely to achieve much else. I suspect he's trying to see whether Farrell can actually contribute to a positive game plan. Feck knows what he's doing with the 2nd row or Clifford. Maybe he just didn't want to mix things up too much by way of subs last week whilst he's trying to find what people can do in different circumstances.

[Banquo]

I wouldn't draw too many conclusions yet. My suspicion is that he's deciding which of Haskell and Robshaw he wants to keep as the person who's going to tackle all day but is unlikely to achieve much else. I suspect he's trying to see whether Farrell can actually contribute to a positive game plan. Feck knows what he's doing with the 2nd row or Clifford. Maybe he just didn't want to mix things up too much by way of subs last week whilst he's trying to find what people can do in different circumstances.

well yes.

[skidger]

Burt used to name some pointless and dour benches but i think this is the first 6.2 split since Johnson? Great to see a pacy back,a game changer,someone that can go past people and a player that scares the opposition like Goode.

[Jammat]

Jones claims he needs a proper seven, then picks 5 players who can play in the back row, none of which are out and out seven, while sending Kvesic back to Gloucester.

It's clearly an anti-Gloucester conspiracy.

(This is nice, my first post on the board is moaning about how the England management are conspiring not to pick the out-and-out seven that plays at Gloucester, it's like being back on the BBC boards complaining about Hazell not being picked, a warm glow of nostalgia. Morning all.)

[Which Tyler]

Ahhh, that brings back memories.
Good to see you again Jammy.
There is not, and never has been an anti-Glaws conspiracy.
Except at Bath, but that's a battle-plan, not a conspiracy.

[Oakboy]

Jones claims he needs a proper seven, then picks 5 players who can play in the back row, none of which are out and out seven, while sending Kvesic back to Gloucester.

It's clearly an anti-Gloucester conspiracy.

(This is nice, my first post on the board is moaning about how the England management are conspiring not to pick the out-and-out seven that plays at Gloucester, it's like being back on the BBC boards complaining about Hazell not being picked, a warm glow of nostalgia. Morning all.)

Yes, welcome back. It is an inescapable conclusion that EJ rates Kvesic as not up to it (yet?). Maybe he'll get a chance in due course but it might take injuries to bring it about. My view, for what it's worth, is that Kvesic should get an early chance to rule him in or out but it's hard to see that happening before EJ has drawn similar conclusions about Clifford.

[APR]

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.

I think he's making a good fist of it so far. His biggest success has already been made -recognising that Youngs was a total liability and dropping him from the squad, meaning that lineouts and scrums against decent tight opposition are now working. So obvious, yet most on here couldn't see it. "oh no, can't have that nasty SA-born hooker representing England - he's got form" etc etc. Of all the howlers Lancaster made, dropping him from the RWC squad because he was unavailable for the first match was the biggest.

My wish-list for the next year or so includes the sacred cow that is Brown to disappear - doesn't anyone else notice that he can't pass the ball or take up effective running lines in support of the action? Sure, he's normally good under the high ball, and normally beats the first defender, but where is the guile, the ability to bring others into the action? What's the point of having two fast wingers if the FB ignores them? Where's the incisiveness of a FB running lines off the ball-carrier? Good to see that Jones is paying attention to Foden's activities though, although wouldn't be surprised to see Watson getting the odd shift at FB in the near future.

[Banquo]

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.

I think he's making a good fist of it so far. His biggest success has already been made -recognising that Youngs was a total liability and dropping him from the squad, meaning that lineouts and scrums against decent tight opposition are now working. So obvious, yet most on here couldn't see it. "oh no, can't have that nasty SA-born hooker representing England - he's got form" etc etc. Of all the howlers Lancaster made, dropping him from the RWC squad because he was unavailable for the first match was the biggest.

My wish-list for the next year or so includes the sacred cow that is Brown to disappear - doesn't anyone else notice that he can't pass the ball or take up effective running lines in support of the action? Sure, he's normally good under the high ball, and normally beats the first defender, but where is the guile, the ability to bring others into the action? What's the point of having two fast wingers if the FB ignores them? Where's the incisiveness of a FB running lines off the ball-carrier? Good to see that Jones is paying attention to Foden's activities though, although wouldn't be surprised to see Watson getting the odd shift at FB in the near future.

Yes its obvious what his strategy is, and all has been said before, though Hartley was born in NZ.

What you may have not picked up on were the statement around why the two Tom's were dropped- in Youngs case, it was his loose play, and in Wood's case, work rate. Slightly odd.

I do agree strongly on what is desired from a 15- trouble is absence of candidates...as you say, hopefully on his wish list.