6Ns team of the week

From the last round of fixtures, who would you have in your 6Ns team of the week?

This is NOT a lions thread by the way so feel free to pick any French or Italian players you like.

For this week I'd be going with

Baille
Brown
Furlong

Launchbury
Jonny Gray

Barclay
Picamoles
Watson

Murray
Sexton

Visser
Henshaw?
Campangaro
Seymour
Hogg

McGrath
Guirado
Fagarson
Ritchie Gray
Warburton
Webb
Russell
Nowell

We could eventually have a Grand Slam team with only a couple of reps on the team of the tournament the way it's going!

No 7&1/2 wrote:We could eventually have a Grand Slam team with only a couple of reps on the team of the tournament the way it's going!

To me that's the sign of a good team!

Not relying on one or two star men with the x factor, just a whole bunch of guys playing consistently for each other!

The other sign of being a good team is being able to win games despite playing poorly!

tigertattie surprised you wouldn't have Russell in at 10. Odd to think the MOTM wouldn't feature....

Should be a lot of Scots in there, they had the result of the weekend.

Just scrolling through your team, Russell and Sexton were both strong at 10, so I think that's a very difficult pick. Russell in particular coped well without Laidlaw and stepped up well.

Picamoles was good, it's not been a great tournament for 8s, which is surprising considering the quality on offer, but Picamoles has stood out each week.

Campagnaro made a mockery of the decision to leave him on the bench at the start of the tournament.

For England, Itoje was back to something like his best and would be a contender at lock, regardless of the number on his back. No-one else for England really shone out. Haskell was decent but not as good as Watson on Saturday. Launchbury and Lawes were good as well, but probably not team of the week good for me.

Russell is on the bench as I think Sexton had a more influential role in Ireland winning.

Launchbury was excellent for England despite the confusion.

Campagnaro on the bench for the first two games was just silly. Him running at Williams and Davies in week one could have made a difference for Italy!

Didn't think there was much of a showing from any of the 12s this week!

tigertattie wrote:For this week I'd be going with

Baille
Brown
Furlong

Launchbury
Jonny Gray

Barclay
Picamoles
Watson

Murray
Sexton

Visser
Henshaw?
Campangaro
Seymour
Hogg

McGrath
Guirado
Fagarson
Ritchie Gray
Warburton
Webb
Russell
Nowell

I'd go with Best and Parisse but otherwise think that is bang on.

Haskell could be in for the comedy factor for not understanding what a ruck is.

beshocked wrote:tigertattie surprised you wouldn't have Russell in at 10. Odd to think the MOTM wouldn't feature....

Russell was exceptional but I think Sexton should have been MOTM for Ireland. He was outstanding for Ireland too and shaded Russell IMO. I think Russell followed by Sexton have been the best 10s of the tournament so far followed by Biggar.

You know England are a quality team when they make players like Youngs and Brown look good.

I thought Russell was poor again tbh. Usual mix of forcing rubbish ball on, putting his team in trouble, forcing offloads and not kicking enough. Then into the bargain we also got shocking passing (which is usually good). Lots of people taking them by their heads and killing momentum. He was kicking this week though, so I suppose that gave him some notoriety.

Similarly Campagnaro did bugger all except for one moment of brilliance, is that how you select a team? I was in and out of the Ireland game, how was Ringrose? Surely he was a much more solid bet?

tigertattie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:We could eventually have a Grand Slam team with only a couple of reps on the team of the tournament the way it's going!

To me that's the sign of a good team!

Not relying on one or two star men with the x factor, just a whole bunch of guys playing consistently for each other!

The other sign of being a good team is being able to win games despite playing poorly!

The odd thing about this is we also get comments (from ENG fans and other fans alike) about various passengers that we are carrying. Which implies we must have some standout performers to balance it out.

Both of these things can't be true!!!

mikey_dragon wrote:You know England are a quality team when they make players like Youngs and Brown look good.

Haha, good point.

cascough wrote:I thought Russell was poor again tbh. Usual mix of forcing rubbish ball on, putting his team in trouble, forcing offloads and not kicking enough. Then into the bargain we also got shocking passing (which is usually good). Lots of people taking them by their heads and killing momentum. He was kicking this week though, so I suppose that gave him some notoriety.

Similarly Campagnaro did bugger all except for one moment of brilliance, is that how you select a team? I was in and out of the Ireland game, how was Ringrose? Surely he was a much more solid bet?

Are you new to the game and still learning the basics?

Russell played like he was on Saturday. Scotland absolutely won in spite of him, as they did against Ireland. Not that he was particularly poor against Ireland, it's just he was executing the wrong type of game plan for that particular game. It needn't have been as close as that.

cascough wrote:Russell played like he was on Saturday. Scotland absolutely won in spite of him, as they did against Ireland. Not that he was particularly poor against Ireland, it's just he was executing the wrong type of game plan for that particular game. It needn't have been as close as that.

I'll take that as a yes then.

cascough Russell had a very strong first half vs Ireland IMO. It's the 2nd half he'll want to forget....

Completely disagree he executed the wrong gameplan. Hogg in particular fed off his good work.

He seemed to suffer a bit when he had the concussion.

Having seen a few of your posts today, they are littered with logical fallacies. None more so than the assertion that I might be new to the game somehow demerits what I said (which is also why a lot of sports fans think rugby union fans are condescending pr1cks, no matter that RU fans always try claim the moral high ground).

You could try being constructive. Lets start with passing. I'll credit you that you're not saying Russell threw passes to peoples heads. I mean, that's irrefutable. From there, you may think that that actually constitutes a good pass? Or you may think that actually it did nothing to stop the runners momentum, or perhaps that the passing was poor but he did well to get it away given how much pressure he was under. So which is it?

beshocked wrote:cascough Russell had a very strong first half vs Ireland IMO. It's the 2nd half he'll want to forget....

Completely disagree he executed the wrong gameplan. Hogg in particular fed off his good work.

He seemed to suffer a bit when he had the concussion.

We're getting sidetracked into a different discussion. He was okay in the Ireland game, but Weir came on and kicked to the corner and pinned Ireland right back. That was what Scotland needed to do to relieve the massive amount of pressure he was under. Scotland owe much to a fantastic rearguard effort. Not Finn Russell.

cascough Russell's efforts meant Scotland had a large lead.

You are right, Russell's performance in the 2nd half wasn't good. I am not arguing with that - it's just on balance I felt his pros outweighed his cons.

I just think Russell's efforts so far in the tournament have been underappreciated.

Not by me, I reckon he has been the best OH in the tournament so far. Sexton has had the best performance for any OH though.

I'm one of Russell's harshest critics but even I have to say he had a good game on Sat! He didn't do anything to put the team at risk!

usually he'll force a kick or two that bounces off the oppositions legs, or he'll have a kick charged down or put one out on the full. He did none of that this weekend!

His long, quick, flat pass to hogg that he in turn quickly shipped to Visser for his try was utterly sublime!

I will grant you this, Russell and Hogg are two players I've been paying a keen eye on due to some of what I believe to be outrageous hyperbole (and I dislike hyperbole). A cynical way to put it might even be to say I've been waiting for them to make mistakes.

Now in the case of Russell, make them he has. Without question I feel he makes more mistakes than he does good things. Note, I am not saying he doesn't do good things (nor have I ever) so you can say things like he did x or he did y and I'm not disagreeing. But I will disagree that he didn't put the team at risk on Sat. I saw him force offloads, ship on crappy ball and line his team mates up to get smashed. And he just doesn't kick enough. In the first half especially when you were being put under pressure you needed a relieving kick he kept running or passing ball on.

In fact both he and Price were really poor at this and at points Scotlands exit strategy seemed downright non existent. Multiple times you would set up ruck after ruck in your own 22 before one of AP or FR eventually decided to take responsibility and clear your lines. Laidlaw helps massively with this and he was missed I feel.

Scotlands tries came from bits of individual brilliance rather than a general running a cohesive backline. Which leads me onto Hogg. He is certainly winning me over. He's always been capable of good things but I certainly didn't give him credit for the amount of good things in a game he does. Also the mistakes which I felt were many and more than balanced out all the good things he did are being reduced in number (to be fair, this started last year). I still favour low error rate players and I don't think Hogg is quite there yet for me but he's going pretty well. I especially enjoyed his dink through for Seymour (I think?)

tigertattie wrote:I'm one of Russell's harshest critics but even I have to say he had a good game on Sat! He didn't do anything to put the team at risk!

usually he'll force a kick or two that bounces off the oppositions legs, or he'll have a kick charged down or put one out on the full. He did none of that this weekend!

His long, quick, flat pass to hogg that he in turn quickly shipped to Visser for his try was utterly sublime!

Everone makes mistakes. Beauden Barrett is the worst goal kicker in international rugby. Russell is a key player in Scotland's renaissance. You aren't giving him enough credit.

cascough wrote:I will grant you this, Russell and Hogg are two players I've been paying a keen eye on due to some of what I believe to be outrageous hyperbole (and I dislike hyperbole). A cynical way to put it might even be to say I've been waiting for them to make mistakes.

Now in the case of Russell, make them he has. Without question I feel he makes more mistakes than he does good things. Note, I am not saying he doesn't do good things (nor have I ever) so you can say things like he did x or he did y and I'm not disagreeing. But I will disagree that he didn't put the team at risk on Sat. I saw him force offloads, ship on crappy ball and line his team mates up to get smashed. And he just doesn't kick enough. In the first half especially when you were being put under pressure you needed a relieving kick he kept running or passing ball on.

In fact both he and Price were really poor at this and at points Scotlands exit strategy seemed downright non existent. Multiple times you would set up ruck after ruck in your own 22 before one of AP or FR eventually decided to take responsibility and clear your lines. Laidlaw helps massively with this and he was missed I feel.

Scotlands tries came from bits of individual brilliance rather than a general running a cohesive backline. Which leads me onto Hogg. He is certainly winning me over. He's always been capable of good things but I certainly didn't give him credit for the amount of good things in a game he does. Also the mistakes which I felt were many and more than balanced out all the good things he did are being reduced in number (to be fair, this started last year). I still favour low error rate players and I don't think Hogg is quite there yet for me but he's going pretty well. I especially enjoyed his dink through for Seymour (I think?)

Really Yoda? I'm pretty sure all players make mistakes but none more so that Qwen Farrell on Saturday.

cascough wrote:I will grant you this, Russell and Hogg are two players I've been paying a keen eye on due to some of what I believe to be outrageous hyperbole (and I dislike hyperbole). A cynical way to put it might even be to say I've been waiting for them to make mistakes.

Now in the case of Russell, make them he has. Without question I feel he makes more mistakes than he does good things. Note, I am not saying he doesn't do good things (nor have I ever) so you can say things like he did x or he did y and I'm not disagreeing. But I will disagree that he didn't put the team at risk on Sat. I saw him force offloads, ship on crappy ball and line his team mates up to get smashed. And he just doesn't kick enough. In the first half especially when you were being put under pressure you needed a relieving kick he kept running or passing ball on.

In fact both he and Price were really poor at this and at points Scotlands exit strategy seemed downright non existent. Multiple times you would set up ruck after ruck in your own 22 before one of AP or FR eventually decided to take responsibility and clear your lines. Laidlaw helps massively with this and he was missed I feel.

Scotlands tries came from bits of individual brilliance rather than a general running a cohesive backline. Which leads me onto Hogg. He is certainly winning me over. He's always been capable of good things but I certainly didn't give him credit for the amount of good things in a game he does. Also the mistakes which I felt were many and more than balanced out all the good things he did are being reduced in number (to be fair, this started last year). I still favour low error rate players and I don't think Hogg is quite there yet for me but he's going pretty well. I especially enjoyed his dink through for Seymour (I think?)

Did you actually watch the game on Saturday? Both tries Scotland scored were passing moves through the back line... I'm. Confused as to that comment

There is no try! only do!

When 900 years old you reach, look as good, you will not.

cascough wrote:I will grant you this, Russell and Hogg are two players I've been paying a keen eye on due to some of what I believe to be outrageous hyperbole (and I dislike hyperbole). A cynical way to put it might even be to say I've been waiting for them to make mistakes.

Now in the case of Russell, make them he has. Without question I feel he makes more mistakes than he does good things. Note, I am not saying he doesn't do good things (nor have I ever) so you can say things like he did x or he did y and I'm not disagreeing. But I will disagree that he didn't put the team at risk on Sat. I saw him force offloads, ship on crappy ball and line his team mates up to get smashed. And he just doesn't kick enough. In the first half especially when you were being put under pressure you needed a relieving kick he kept running or passing ball on.

In fact both he and Price were really poor at this and at points Scotlands exit strategy seemed downright non existent. Multiple times you would set up ruck after ruck in your own 22 before one of AP or FR eventually decided to take responsibility and clear your lines. Laidlaw helps massively with this and he was missed I feel.

Scotlands tries came from bits of individual brilliance rather than a general running a cohesive backline. Which leads me onto Hogg. He is certainly winning me over. He's always been capable of good things but I certainly didn't give him credit for the amount of good things in a game he does. Also the mistakes which I felt were many and more than balanced out all the good things he did are being reduced in number (to be fair, this started last year). I still favour low error rate players and I don't think Hogg is quite there yet for me but he's going pretty well. I especially enjoyed his dink through for Seymour (I think?)

Thank goodness, I'm sure Hogg will rest easy now knowing he's winning you over, but that he's not quite there yet. Another pompous poster liking the sound of his own voice, presenting opinion as fact.

cascough wrote:I will grant you this, Russell and Hogg are two players I've been paying a keen eye on due to some of what I believe to be outrageous hyperbole (and I dislike hyperbole). A cynical way to put it might even be to say I've been waiting for them to make mistakes.

Now in the case of Russell, make them he has. Without question I feel he makes more mistakes than he does good things. Note, I am not saying he doesn't do good things (nor have I ever) so you can say things like he did x or he did y and I'm not disagreeing. But I will disagree that he didn't put the team at risk on Sat. I saw him force offloads, ship on crappy ball and line his team mates up to get smashed. And he just doesn't kick enough. In the first half especially when you were being put under pressure you needed a relieving kick he kept running or passing ball on.

In fact both he and Price were really poor at this and at points Scotlands exit strategy seemed downright non existent. Multiple times you would set up ruck after ruck in your own 22 before one of AP or FR eventually decided to take responsibility and clear your lines. Laidlaw helps massively with this and he was missed I feel.

Scotlands tries came from bits of individual brilliance rather than a general running a cohesive backline. Which leads me onto Hogg. He is certainly winning me over. He's always been capable of good things but I certainly didn't give him credit for the amount of good things in a game he does. Also the mistakes which I felt were many and more than balanced out all the good things he did are being reduced in number (to be fair, this started last year). I still favour low error rate players and I don't think Hogg is quite there yet for me but he's going pretty well. I especially enjoyed his dink through for Seymour (I think?)

Well, if he makes 5 mistakes in a match where he forces offloads, ship the odd stray pass etc. but then does 3 good things where each one results in a try then he can carry on f**king up in my book.

cascough

You simply do not understand how Russell, Scotland and Glasgow play.

Russell makes mistakes indeed but he also does things no other 10 in the NH can do. thats what you get with him. Not his best game on Saturday but fewer mistakes than usual as well. He is not a 10 in the mould of the others in the he is a high risk high reward type of player

tigertattie wrote:There is no try! only do!

That was the Scotland motto from 2000 to 2015

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

cascough wrote:I will grant you this, Russell and Hogg are two players I've been paying a keen eye on due to some of what I believe to be outrageous hyperbole (and I dislike hyperbole). A cynical way to put it might even be to say I've been waiting for them to make mistakes.

Now in the case of Russell, make them he has. Without question I feel he makes more mistakes than he does good things. Note, I am not saying he doesn't do good things (nor have I ever) so you can say things like he did x or he did y and I'm not disagreeing. But I will disagree that he didn't put the team at risk on Sat. I saw him force offloads, ship on crappy ball and line his team mates up to get smashed. And he just doesn't kick enough. In the first half especially when you were being put under pressure you needed a relieving kick he kept running or passing ball on.

In fact both he and Price were really poor at this and at points Scotlands exit strategy seemed downright non existent. Multiple times you would set up ruck after ruck in your own 22 before one of AP or FR eventually decided to take responsibility and clear your lines. Laidlaw helps massively with this and he was missed I feel.

Scotlands tries came from bits of individual brilliance rather than a general running a cohesive backline. Which leads me onto Hogg. He is certainly winning me over. He's always been capable of good things but I certainly didn't give him credit for the amount of good things in a game he does. Also the mistakes which I felt were many and more than balanced out all the good things he did are being reduced in number (to be fair, this started last year). I still favour low error rate players and I don't think Hogg is quite there yet for me but he's going pretty well. I especially enjoyed his dink through for Seymour (I think?)

Did you actually watch the game on Saturday? Both tries Scotland scored were passing moves through the back line... I'm. Confused as to that comment

Indeed. The second one in particular was a result of two excellent pieces of skill from those players cascough seems not to like so much. First Russell firing that missed pass out to Hogg (the speed of Russell's passing off both hands is IMO a large part of what makes the Glasgow/Scotland backlines so dangerous), then the soft hands from Hogg to take the pass and flip it on to Visser for an easy run in. Both very fine pieces of skill, and both equally needed to make the try happen.

offload wrote:

cascough wrote:I will grant you this, Russell and Hogg are two players I've been paying a keen eye on due to some of what I believe to be outrageous hyperbole (and I dislike hyperbole). A cynical way to put it might even be to say I've been waiting for them to make mistakes.

Now in the case of Russell, make them he has. Without question I feel he makes more mistakes than he does good things. Note, I am not saying he doesn't do good things (nor have I ever) so you can say things like he did x or he did y and I'm not disagreeing. But I will disagree that he didn't put the team at risk on Sat. I saw him force offloads, ship on crappy ball and line his team mates up to get smashed. And he just doesn't kick enough. In the first half especially when you were being put under pressure you needed a relieving kick he kept running or passing ball on.

In fact both he and Price were really poor at this and at points Scotlands exit strategy seemed downright non existent. Multiple times you would set up ruck after ruck in your own 22 before one of AP or FR eventually decided to take responsibility and clear your lines. Laidlaw helps massively with this and he was missed I feel.

Scotlands tries came from bits of individual brilliance rather than a general running a cohesive backline. Which leads me onto Hogg. He is certainly winning me over. He's always been capable of good things but I certainly didn't give him credit for the amount of good things in a game he does. Also the mistakes which I felt were many and more than balanced out all the good things he did are being reduced in number (to be fair, this started last year). I still favour low error rate players and I don't think Hogg is quite there yet for me but he's going pretty well. I especially enjoyed his dink through for Seymour (I think?)

Thank goodness, I'm sure Hogg will rest easy now knowing he's winning you over, but that he's not quite there yet.  Another pompous poster liking the sound of his own voice, presenting opinion as fact.  

You really should read my posts if you want to judge them. In this one I've used such language as "I feel", "I favour", "seemed", "I felt", "for me". I'm also quite a fan of the abbreviation "IMO". You'll see that in a lot of my posts. God almighty I don't expect everyone to agree or even care about what I have to say, but I'd be pretty dissapointed in myself if I was presenting my opinion as a fact.

TJ wrote:cascough

You simply do not understand how Russell, Scotland and Glasgow play.

Russell makes mistakes indeed but he also does things no other 10 in the NH can do.  thats what you get with him.  Not his best game on Saturday but fewer mistakes than usual as well.  He is not a 10 in the mould of the others in the he is a high risk high reward type of player

And that's fair. I get that. At international level I'm not seeing the reward balancing out the risks yet. To me it looks like other players are having to mop up after him. It's also true that I prefer more conservative low error rate players. I think international rugby is built around rock solid basics.

I also think its the way to beat NZ, so from a Lions perspective I don't/didn't think these guys were worth the hype they were receiving pre tournament. As I said, I'm feeling better about Hogg as the weeks go by.

In concentrating onhis mistakes you miss the good stuff he does.

Compare him to Farrell. Russell will make more breaks, will open more space and will put more players in the clear. He will however take more wrong options.

When Scotland get the ball in their half / 22 they will all ways firstly look to counterattack. ONly when they can't do that will they kick for territory. They do not do the "two static rucks then kick" thing. they will try to find a gap an overlap or a mismatch first

Is that good stuff? You understand why teams sometimes take a couple of phases before clearing?

Ask the Welsh why it's sometimes a good idea.

TJ does have a very fixed idea about how England play.

As annoying as he can be (but then again being annoying is in a SH's job description), I would have Rhys Webb in the team of the week. He reminds me of Mike Phillips but one who doesn't delay his pass solong

Webb is a pain in the ass. Really. He's a classic 9 - infuriatingly cocky and alert and full of braggadocio and always turned on to an opportunist's chance. A tightly packed bundle of basterde!

So he's a great little 9 obviously and Wales are lucky to have him.

I think that Murray had such a central game though that you couldn't say he didn't.

If the IRB are sitting down to redraft the rules after the Italian nonsense at the weekend, they need to introduce a new rule whereby anyone (including the ref and his own team-mates!) can banjo a SH when he starts gobbing off for no reason. There will be no on-pitch sanction or citing for said action

InjuredYetAgain wrote:If the IRB are sitting down to redraft the rules after the Italian nonsense at the weekend, they need to introduce a new rule whereby anyone (including the ref and his own team-mates!) can banjo a SH when he starts gobbing off for no reason. There will be no on-pitch sanction or citing for said action

They are just reviewing the rules not necessarily redrafting them. Its just an extreme case of England being outwitted and not adapting.

InjuredYetAgain wrote:If the IRB are sitting down to redraft the rules after the Italian nonsense at the weekend, they need to introduce a new rule whereby anyone (including the ref and his own team-mates!) can banjo a SH when he starts gobbing off for no reason. There will be no on-pitch sanction or citing for said action

What would a redraft mean for the game?

If there is an offside line as soon as the tackle is made, retreating players could find themselves pinged more frequently, e.g. if a player gets tackled after a half-break and offloads the ball from the ground, a retreating player would have to move out the way of the ball whereas now they're allowed to play it.

Personally I'd rather see them clarify the formation of a ruck than change the offside laws at the tackle. Based on this tactic, I'd say they should make it easier to call that a ruck has formed. This is the similar but slightly opposite to how they often give leeway to the attacking team before calling a maul when a team is trying to use the choke tackle.

You want to give the benefit of the doubt to the attacking team to promote attacking play. Italy played within the rules and that's fine, but if you want to limit the usage to help teams attack in the future, then I'd start by telling referees to call a ruck if there is any contact over the ball, per the current laws.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

InjuredYetAgain wrote:If the IRB are sitting down to redraft the rules after the Italian nonsense at the weekend, they need to introduce a new rule whereby anyone (including the ref and his own team-mates!) can banjo a SH when he starts gobbing off for no reason. There will be no on-pitch sanction or citing for said action

They are just reviewing the rules not necessarily redrafting them. Its just an extreme case of England being outwitted and not adapting.

How do you manage to win by 21 points if you've not adapted?

because you should have won by a lot more points according to Eddie Jones before the game. 21 points is a small margin against a team that Ireland blew away after 20 minutes and beat by 50 points in Italy.

England are just fooling themselves and in denial. Hartley mentioned in his post match interview that no team has managed to beat this Italy side until the last 20 minutes and they are a good side. Thats clearly not true.

Eddie Jones' Walter Mittyesque refusal to face reality was hilarious. It is even funnier that he has the English media in the palm of his hands and they buy into whatever cobblers he tells them each time.

Eddy Jones next media/propaganda tactic will be to claim that the world is against England and now they have to prove a point and go on a win the slam. It will probably light a fire under a fairly misfiring England side.

You care far too much what Eddie Jones says, is it a fun life getting riled so much by something so insignificant?

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Eddie Jones' Walter Mittyesque refusal to face reality was hilarious. It is even funnier that he has the English media in the palm of his hands and they buy into whatever cobblers he tells them each time

It's even funnier that you fall for his wind up comments every single time.

Before the game he was asked if England would get a BP. He said if we play well we will get a bonus point, but have to play well.

The funniest will be when the English media inevitably turn on him. He is setting himself and England up for a hilarious collapse.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:because you should have won by a lot more points according to Eddie Jones before the game. 21 points is a small margin against a team that Ireland blew away after 20 minutes and beat by 50 points in Italy.

England are just fooling themselves and in denial. Hartley mentioned in his post match interview that no team has managed to beat this Italy side until the last 20 minutes and they are a good side. Thats clearly not true.

Eddie Jones' Walter Mittyesque refusal to face reality was hilarious. It is even funnier that he has the English media in the palm of his hands and they buy into whatever cobblers he tells them each time.

I think that's the point though. I'd be very surprised if Eddie Jones got the players back into training today and said "Don't worry boys, that wasn't real rugby, you were all brilliant and more of the same against Scotland please." He will probably be tearing them a new one.

But, in small part because of Jones' comments, everyone's talking about Italy and fewer people are talking about how dog awful England were in the first 20 especially, before Italy had even first used the tactic.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:The funniest will be when the English media inevitably turn on him. He is setting himself and England up for a hilarious collapse.

Focus on hilarious collapses in Murrayfield not hypothetical ones