England Summer Tour - Part 2

First topic message reminder :

LondonTiger wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:I just don't get the point in the Cipriani experiment...and I don't get why Robson was taken.

Eddie Jones just baffles me. What is actually going on in his head. Whats his plans with people like this..and Mark Wilson?? etc. Why does he manage people like this.

Pick them for tours then not even look at them again until another meaningless tour needs some bodies to fill the squad.

At least Cipriani is getting a start. I was wondering if Eddie only took him on tour to stop him signing a big money contract overseas. It does seem strange that Robson has not had even a sniff, especially with Danny-boy starting this test. Supposedly the weather is meant to be wet and windy tomorrow so maybe Jones thinks the Wasp's game is not tight enough?

Wilson has at least added marginally to his tally of caps - but Jones does seem to view him as an inferior alternative to Robshaw.

I agree that's how he probably does see him, and probably a large majority of England fans aswell. However in that case why bother taking him. Why not take the young potential in both Curry's to see if they can eclipse Robshaw. Why has Simmonds not even had a minute on the pitch.
Why is Mercer not getting games.
Why take Ben Earl??


His whole management just confuses me a lot.

mikey_dragon wrote:Hmm that's strange, some of my factual comments seemed to have disappeared yet the WUM comments from BamBam and Yoda remain. Mods still scratching their heads I bet over why people continue to leave the site . We'll see what uncle Eddie has to say when we face you in Cardiff with what is hopefully a neutral ref this time .

So overall some progress made, but not as good as it could or should have been. EJs has made a few poor decisions of late. Prime amongst them was taking Maro and Mako who both clearly needed a rest, but as he was feeling the pressure to get a series win in the short term he decided to take and flog them.

Very glad to see that some others given a go who did well and benefited from the experience like Curry. Missed opportunities for Robson and of course Cips should have started the 1st test. Not much room to experiment before the RWC so hard to fathom some of the selections.

Hopefully a few returning players like Manu, JJ, Billy will add considerably come the Autumn.

There could be of course some bolters that Eddie likes coming through who might put their hands up for selection. If injuries go our way there could be some tight calls for the world cup squad, as there should be.

Daly experiment has worked to a degree and must continue. Johnny Showed he's a top class winger, and Curry got some hugely valuable experience and showed he can handle this level.

Aside from that...id say this tour was failure.

I agree the tour was a waste of time, the players would have benefitted more by having a long break rather than a flogging by EJ and the Media.

Why are the RFU so public about these incremental assessments of Eddie Jones.  If you were an England fan you'd definitely be frustrated by Eddie and his team but it's kinda humiliating for an International coach to have his authority constantly undermined by the boys upstairs doing the quarterly fatherly frowns and suggesting he could be confined to his room if he's bold again.
Could they not just give the 'we have full confidence' bit to the media when asked?  After all, nobody with any common sense ever believes the crap and wouldn't be ever too surprised that a week after a 'full confidence' declaration a coach might get the sack.  It's happened all too often in the past and in other areas of life.  It's just shorthand for 'mind your own business, we'll keep our thoughts on Jones between ourselves and Jones right now'.

You might say that it is being open and 'transparent' with paying fans...but if that's the argument then you might as well also publish a detailed game strategy for the English team before each game that they play.  The paying fans have a right to know what is being asked of players in fine detail...no?

So maybe Jones should call the RFU's bluff and ask them not to keep giving their teacherly public warnings and rather just sack him now if they want to.  What other high end coach will have the nerve to take on the England job right now so close to a WC?  Most of the considered good ones are all tied down to their own Pre-WC preps and post WC length contracts.  So who would England look for in the Autumn if England had a bad series and they sack Jones?  
And what coach would feel he has the absolute class to turn England around in a few short months and make them contenders for winning another WC?  No coach wants to be another Lancaster.  Most of the coaches that might want the England job (and I'm sure there are a good few) would still I assume prefer taking the reins post this WC to give themselves their few years of grace before the next one.

Since when have the RFU handled things well?

Oh yeah.................. sorry TightHead

What you don't see in the papers is the question the press asked. I imagine they were along the lines of "Is Eddie's job under threat?" "Are you definitely sticking with him until the RWC?"

How should the RFU respond?
"No comment"
"Not under threat, and yes we're sticking with him."
"We're writing his P45 as we speak."
"His position, like everyone's, is under continuous review and we're going to sit down after the tour, like we do after all tours, and review what happened and what we do next."

..em..............

"We have full confidence in the Head Coach.  Thank you."


Media:  "But that's just guff and you know it!"

Yes, that is just guff.  We know it, you know it - but we will not be commenting on our relationship with the Head Coach at this time.  That is a behind-the-scenes part of the overall operation that will remain behind-the-scenes.

The rfu are not the most professional of institutions as they are run for profit. As soon as you have the greasy pole climbers in charge then sense and morels go out of the window. I said earlier this south Africa tour was too ambitious and driven by money without the slightest regard for player welfare or progress. Hey ho at least the boys had some pride left and won a game in sa. They've even cut grass roots spending by sacking lots of lowly minions, who probably do the most work and good, can't have the directors losing out on pension payments etc.

Does anyone actually think Cipriani will wear the white shirt again?

I honestly don't. I think he should have just taken the big pay day and gone to France.

Ford is Jones number one fly half...Farrell is his general who is also better at 10 and the prodigious talent is Marcus Smith.
So where is there space for Cipriani?

GeordieFalcon wrote:Does anyone actually think Cipriani will wear the white shirt again?

I honestly don't. I think he should have just taken the big pay day and gone to France.

Ford is Jones number one fly half...Farrell is his general who is also better at 10 and the prodigious talent is Marcus Smith.
So where is there space for Cipriani?

Probably off the bench as he offers the versatility the others don't, he can competently cover 15 as well as 10 and at a push wing, he is quick enough.

Yoda wrote:...I said earlier this south Africa tour was too ambitious and driven by money without the slightest regard for player welfare or progress....

We were there as part of a global agreement, agreed years ago, running from 2012 to 2019. The same one which sent France to NZ and Ireland to Australia this year. It wasn't some one-off madcap idea by the RFU.

I know what! That just gave me a brilliant idea. Why don't we have a competition next year where we all turn up in the one country and play each other???? Wouldn't that be better than us all going to different parts of the world and to different time zones?


What d'ya all say???? Ya gotta admit the idea has potential.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Yoda wrote:...I said earlier this south Africa tour was too ambitious and driven by money without the slightest regard for player welfare or progress....

We were there as part of a global agreement, agreed years ago, running from 2012 to 2019. The same one which sent France to NZ and Ireland to Australia this year. It wasn't some one-off madcap idea by the RFU.

Yes I appreciate that but other unions had sense to arrange tours vs smaller unions as they probably saw it was the year after a lions tour, which was known about years and years in advance. Could have and should have done the same.

So of the main contenders that arranged tours.... only Wales and Scotland arranged to play 'smaller' unions?

The rest - England, France, NZ, AUS, Ireland and SA chose to play each other?

SecretFly wrote:I know what!  That just gave me a brilliant idea.  Why don't we have a competition next year where we all turn up in the one country and play each other????  Wouldn't that be better than us all going to different parts of the world and to different time zones?


What d'ya all say????  Ya gotta admit the idea has potential.  

And would the winner get some form of drinking vessel? Like a cup?

And it's only be a goer if we invited teams from all over the world

yappysnap wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I know what!  That just gave me a brilliant idea.  Why don't we have a competition next year where we all turn up in the one country and play each other????  Wouldn't that be better than us all going to different parts of the world and to different time zones?


What d'ya all say????  Ya gotta admit the idea has potential.  

And would the winner get some form of drinking vessel? Like a cup?

And it's only be a goer if we invited teams from all over the world

………….and if we invite some chick with a bad bacteria for food poisoning the kiwis...…..

On current form we may have to arrange for the Guinness to be a bit off as well.

As an aside, it would be interesting to see how many internationals SA have won/lost at sea level against the other 7 main sides against how many they have won/lost at altitude. It is often used as an excuse or even to pre-empt a result. Just how much of an advantage is it?

The key questions coming in were back row and midfield.

Backrow:
Curry showed up very well. Shields and Wilson were good in their limited appearances. Robshaw showed he can still put in stellar peformances. Basically we should never see a second row on the flank again.
Depth at 8 is an issue. Simmonds was unfancied by Jones and Hughes was poor. Rushed back, parachuted into the squad ahead of Simmonds and didn't show up well. How many more chances does he get? Is it worth risking Simmonds or Mercer in the autumn?

Midfield:
Cipriani is a genuine option at 10. I'd hope both Cipriani and Ford would be in the squad going forward to put genuine pressure on each other and keep performance levels high. Slade didn't light the world on fire at 13 and we should possibly reunite Farrell and Joseph in the autumn if JJ is fit for the tests against South Africa and New Zealand. There are still questions in this area though, and I'd put Tuilagi and Lozowksi in the Autumn squad to play Japan and possibly Australia as well.

Other questions are leadership (lacking again) and defence (new coach incoming?)

Without seeing who is fit and early season premiership form, I'd be closely monitoring a potential autumn squad like:

Mako, Marler, Genge
Hartley, George, Cowan-Dickie
Cole, Williams, Sinckler
Itoje, Lawes, Launchbury, Kruis
Robshaw, Shields, T Curry, Underhill
Vunipola, Simmonds
Youngs, Care, Spencer
Ford, Cipriani,
Farrell, Joseph, Tuilagi, Lozowski
Daly, Watson, May, Nowell, Brown

Gives 33 names and should be used for the first two games. I'd then take Mako, George, Itoje, Robshaw, Youngs, Farrell, Joseph and Brown out the squad and bring in some other options for what would potentially be their last shop window before settling on a squad for the Six Nations and looking to take that forward to the World Cup.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:On current form we may have to arrange for the Guinness to be a bit off as well.

As an aside, it would be interesting to see how many internationals SA have won/lost at sea level against the other 7 main sides against how many they have won/lost at altitude. It is often used as an excuse or even to pre-empt a result. Just how much of an advantage is it?

Looking at grounds with at least 10 matches since 1st January 2000 (all opposition):

Jo'burg (Altitude 1,700m) - 78% Win record
Pretoria (Altitude 1,330m) - 88% win record
Cape Town (Sea Level) - 67% win record
Durban (Sea Level) - 58% win record

It's science.  How can it ever be an excuse?  Sherpa guides, rescuers and mountaineers exist for a reason around the fringes of the Everest Disney Club Climbing Fraternity.
If you're struggling to get oxygen into your red blood cells due to your body's lack of familiarity and acclimatisation to serious elevations then you'll perform less adequately than someone who lives longer at such heights or is even more familiar at such heights and can manage better the expectations on his or her body when they go up.

robbo277 wrote:The key questions coming in were back row and midfield.

Midfield:
Cipriani is a genuine option at 10. I'd hope both Cipriani and Ford would be in the squad going forward to put genuine pressure on each other and keep performance levels high. Slade didn't light the world on fire at 13 and we should possibly reunite Farrell and Joseph in the autumn if JJ is fit for the tests against South Africa and New Zealand. There are still questions in this area though, and I'd put Tuilagi and Lozowksi in the Autumn squad to play Japan and possibly Australia as well.

Id keep working on Slade. The lads a talent and didn't really get much chance to shine on this tour due to the underperforming pack. Maybe 13 isn't his best spot at this level..maybe 12 where his passing is more pivotal?

I also would like to see Sam James looked at more. If he starts the season well again with Sale. Hes a big lad, runs great lines, and has good handling / offloading skills.

JJ will be back...and on form is a good player...but for me is very inconsistent and has just as many "off days" as he does good ones.

Whats happening with Marchant?
Theres also the much hyped Ollie Lawrence coming through at Worcester.
Ben T'eo might be back fit and firing.

But in all honesty, there wont be much change between now and the world cup unless some young kid comes powering out of the blocks like Ma' Nonu.

Lawrence isn't even ready for the U20s yet, I think he's barely 18 years old

BamBam wrote:Lawrence isn't even ready for the U20s yet, I think he's barely 18 years old

Thanks for confirming...so the hype train is starting with the kids now.

As much as I didn't want T'eo in the squad or team, he might be the answer if he is back fit and strong. Slade and Ford could play off him. Or Joseph etc.

We need some power in that midfield. In my opinion

BamBam wrote:Lawrence isn't even ready for the U20s yet, I think he's barely 18 years old

That's no excuse. If he can play Call of Duty for 20 hours straight without any food, drink or sleep, then he's dumb enough to play man's rugby.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

robbo277 wrote:The key questions coming in were back row and midfield.

Midfield:
Cipriani is a genuine option at 10. I'd hope both Cipriani and Ford would be in the squad going forward to put genuine pressure on each other and keep performance levels high. Slade didn't light the world on fire at 13 and we should possibly reunite Farrell and Joseph in the autumn if JJ is fit for the tests against South Africa and New Zealand. There are still questions in this area though, and I'd put Tuilagi and Lozowksi in the Autumn squad to play Japan and possibly Australia as well.

Id keep working on Slade. The lads a talent and didn't really get much chance to shine on this tour due to the underperforming pack. Maybe 13 isn't his best spot at this level..maybe 12 where his passing is more pivotal?

I also would like to see Sam James looked at more. If he starts the season well again with Sale. Hes a big lad, runs great lines, and has good handling / offloading skills.

JJ will be back...and on form is a good player...but for me is very inconsistent and has just as many "off days" as he does good ones.

Whats happening with Marchant?
Theres also the much hyped Ollie Lawrence coming through at Worcester.
Ben T'eo might be back fit and firing.  

But in all honesty, there wont be much change between now and the world cup unless some young kid comes powering out of the blocks like Ma' Nonu.

You're not going to get much out of Slade at 13 unless you play a gainline centre inside him like they do at Exeter.  I definitely think his attributes are better suited to 12, but when he's not playing that for club, he's going to struggle to make enough headway in that position internationally in the next year.

The clear answer for me at 13 is Daly.  It's his favourite position, where he has and usually plays most, where his best club performances have been, where we can get the ball to him more and make the best of probably our most skilful, dangerous back.

He did a job at FB, but nothing particularly noteworthy, we didn't get the best out of him.  He's been far more dangerous in good and poor England performances on the wing.  Brown is still a better bread & butter FB, and most importantly, he plays there week in, week out.  On the once in a blue moon that Brown is injured, we know we can confidently give Daly the shirt, but at least until after the WC, his talents are much better deployed and practised elsewhere.

If JJ comes back from injury and shows rich form (not a given), sure we could look at moving Daly, but in that case I think it would suit us better and we'd get more from him as a roaming wing than FB.  All dependent on how comparatively well the back three options are playing.

Pick players in their best positions that they start regularly for their clubs if you want the best out of them in high pressure international situations.

There are plenty of potential OCs - Slade, JJ, Te'o, Daly, Manu (if he can stay fit), Joe Marchant, Lozowski (though perhaps not with Farrell).

I probably lean towards JJ or Marchant, with Te'o or Manu on the bench. I think the way England play at the moment works best with backs who have an eye for a gap, and subs who can change it up when they come on.

SecretFly wrote:It's science.  How can it ever be an excuse?  Sherpa guides, rescuers and mountaineers exist for a reason around the fringes of the Everest Disney Club Climbing Fraternity.
If you're struggling to get oxygen into your red blood cells due to your body's lack of familiarity and acclimatisation to serious elevations then you'll perform less adequately than someone who lives longer at such heights or is even more familiar at such heights and can manage better the expectations on his or her body when they go up.

So....it's better to date a woman from altitude for improved performance?

Depends on who is doing all the he work Doc.

For the autumn I'd like a backline of:

Young's
Ford
May
Farrell
Daly
Watson/Nowell
Brown

21. Robson
22. Cipriani
23. Te'o

Late in the game we then get either Faz or Cips at 10 depending upon the situation. At 12 or 13 we can bring on the power with Te'o. Daly can drop back to FB or wing depending on how they're going and if we want Brown on for 80.

LondonTiger wrote:Depends on who is doing all the he work Doc.

Well, at this stage of the game, it ain't gonna be me! She gotta be a grinder...……...

yappysnap wrote:For the autumn I'd like a backline of:

Young's
Ford
May
Farrell
Daly
Watson/Nowell
Brown

21. Robson
22. Cipriani
23. Te'o

Late in the game we then get either Faz or Cips at 10 depending upon the situation. At 12 or 13 we can bring on the power with Te'o. Daly can drop back to FB or wing depending on how they're going and if we want Brown on for 80.

I look at what you have here and I wonder who is really the next 9 after Youngs and Care.  It would have been interesting to see Robson feeding Cipriani in that last test, which would have made more sense to me than bringing Spencer, but of course Robson wasn't there.  

Also, do we have a quality traditional 12 anywhere in England who is a possibility for England?  What happens if Farrell gets injured?  

At least at 13 we see options which bring different attributes:  JJ is a shifty runner with a good eye for the gap, Daly is more of a distributor, but also quick, Te'o, obviously more of a power runner, Slade, unfortunately, may have played himself out of serious contention.  

And can we finally decide our best back three from Watson, Nowell, May, Brown, Daly?  Watson, May, and Nowell are different players, of course, but not enough to be a horses for courses, I think.  I suppose the best approach is to forget the past and play Prince Harry Mallinder at 15.  You know I had to say that...…………..

doctor_grey wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Depends on who is doing all the he work Doc.

Well, at this stage of the game, it ain't gonna be me!  She gotta be a grinder...……...

and I thought you were a gentleman

Does the mandatory selection of Farrell cause a problem. Is he that essential that he has to be picked?

GeordieFalcon wrote:Does the mandatory selection of Farrell cause a problem. Is he that essential that he has to be picked?

I have seen that debated in a number of papers. I guess while we have been struggling to find a midfield it has not mattered so much.

doctor_grey wrote:And can we finally decide our best back three from Watson, Nowell, May, Brown, Daly?  Watson, May, and Nowell are different players, of course, but not enough to be a horses for courses, I think.  I suppose the best approach is to forget the past and play Prince Harry Mallinder at 15.  You know I had to say that...…………..

Chris Ashton may be at Sale next season. Presumably, to challenge for team mate Solomona's position on the fringe of the national squad. Or Yarde's

Rugby Fan wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:And can we finally decide our best back three from Watson, Nowell, May, Brown, Daly?  Watson, May, and Nowell are different players, of course, but not enough to be a horses for courses, I think.  I suppose the best approach is to forget the past and play Prince Harry Mallinder at 15.  You know I had to say that...…………..

Chris Ashton may be at Sale next season. Presumably, to challenge for team mate Solomona's position on the fringe of the national squad. Or Yarde's

If Ibitoye and Cockasaniga develop appropriately this season they might add another selection poser as they offer a far more physical edge that the backline as a whole is missing.

I had heard mention of Ashton to Bristol

LondonTiger wrote:I had heard mention of Ashton to Bristol

Just heard this one too.

LondonTiger wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Does the mandatory selection of Farrell cause a problem. Is he that essential that he has to be picked?

I have seen that debated in a number of papers. I guess while we have been struggling to find a midfield it has not mattered so much.

Very true LT. And we cant fault him as he is doing his best in a position that's not his best.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:And can we finally decide our best back three from Watson, Nowell, May, Brown, Daly?  Watson, May, and Nowell are different players, of course, but not enough to be a horses for courses, I think.  I suppose the best approach is to forget the past and play Prince Harry Mallinder at 15.  You know I had to say that...…………..

Chris Ashton may be at Sale next season. Presumably, to challenge for team mate Solomona's position on the fringe of the national squad. Or Yarde's

If Ibitoye and Cockasaniga develop appropriately this season they might add another selection poser as they offer a far more physical edge that the backline as a whole is missing.

Ibitoye looked short of basics skills at under 20 level can't see him being close to international selection anytime soon. When he stops dropping the ball and sorts his defensive positioning then he'll start flying. Cockasaninga has got to acclimatise to a new team and structure (plenty of familiar faces to help). Post RWC they should be pushing for selection but this world cup is too soon.

We seem to be back to pinning our hopes on Manu which is far from ideal.

Consensus of tour post mortems is that we haven't really learned a lot more than we knew before this three match series. That's a general principle everyone seems to agree on, although, when you get down the nitty gritty, there's a wide range of conflicting opinions about which options haven't been given a proper showcase.

I get the impression Jones will need to have a fair share of luck in his selections from now. He doesn't have a lot of games left to try new combinations, and most of the matches are ones he won't want to risk losing through fielding too much inexperience.

Consequently, he's going to have to choose a first-choice squad for South Africa in the Autumn, and hope he's lucked into most of the core selections for the World Cup. For instance, if he goes with Curry at openside, then he'll have to hope that the Sale man actually is better than his brother, Underhill, Haskell, possibly Simmons, and even Willis making a a late charge if he recovers in time.

Flanker options would suggest Jones no longer needs to field a lock at blindside, and yet I'm not convinced he has entirely ditched this approach. After all, Isiekwe started the first Test. If Jones has Kruis, Lawes, Itoje and Launcbury all available, then it's entirely possible he'll try it again, and hope that Curry can add something to the back row mix which Robshaw couldn't at seven.

Rugby Fan wrote:Flanker options would suggest Jones no longer needs to field a lock at blindside, and yet I'm not convinced he has entirely ditched this approach. After all, Isiekwe started the first Test. If Jones has Kruis, Lawes, Itoje and Launcbury all available, then it's entirely possible he'll try it again, and hope that Curry can add something to the back row mix which Robshaw couldn't at seven.

As a second row though.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:And can we finally decide our best back three from Watson, Nowell, May, Brown, Daly?  Watson, May, and Nowell are different players, of course, but not enough to be a horses for courses, I think.  I suppose the best approach is to forget the past and play Prince Harry Mallinder at 15.  You know I had to say that...…………..

Chris Ashton may be at Sale next season. Presumably, to challenge for team mate Solomona's position on the fringe of the national squad. Or Yarde's

If Ibitoye and Cockasaniga develop appropriately this season they might add another selection poser as they offer a far more physical edge that the backline as a whole is missing.

Ibitoye looked short of basics skills at under 20 level can't see him being close to international selection anytime soon. When he stops dropping the ball and sorts his defensive positioning then he'll start flying. Cockasaninga has got to acclimatise to a new team and structure (plenty of familiar faces to help). Post RWC they should be pushing for selection but this world cup is too soon.

We seem to be back to pinning our hopes on Manu which is far from ideal.

I wouldn't worry too much about the dropped balls. Ibitoye had a bad first game - but still ended up as one of the top tryscorers and a nominee for U20 world player of the year. More concerning is that his defence is still shaky - he runs the risk of growing up to be a more muscular version of Wade, which would be a shame since he's definitely got something distinctive. On the other hand, I'd expect Gustard to be able to sort that.

Cockanasiga probably will need a year or so to settle in - it takes players about 18 months to fire on all cylinders when they move clubs, but it can be faster for wingers.

Overall, though, fitness is the biggest problem for England on the wing. We've got plenty of established internationals - May, Daly, Brown, Watson, Nowell, Solomona, possibly Yarde, but we are struggling to keep them all fit at the same time.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Does the mandatory selection of Farrell cause a problem. Is he that essential that he has to be picked?

He's easily England's best player.

munkian wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Does the mandatory selection of Farrell cause a problem. Is he that essential that he has to be picked?

He's easily England's best player.

I agree with Munkian, Farrell makes the strongest team every week.

If we had Ma'a Nonu available, we'd most probably shift Farrell to 10 and play Farrell and Nonu in the midfield. The issue is our 12 options are so poor, we're better with Farrell sliding across and playing twin playmakers to use our outside backs more, rather than having a hard running threat at 12.

Rugby Fan wrote:Consensus of tour post mortems is that we haven't really learned a lot more than we knew before this three match series. That's a general principle everyone seems to agree on, although, when you get down the nitty gritty, there's a wide range of conflicting opinions about which options haven't been given a proper showcase.

I get the impression Jones will need to have a fair share of luck in his selections from now. He doesn't have a lot of games left to try new combinations, and most of the matches are ones he won't want to risk losing through fielding too much inexperience.

Consequently, he's going to have to choose a first-choice squad for South Africa in the Autumn, and hope he's lucked into most of the core selections for the World Cup. For instance, if he goes with Curry at openside, then he'll have to hope that the Sale man actually is better than his brother, Underhill, Haskell, possibly Simmons, and even Willis making a a late charge if he recovers in time.

Flanker options would suggest Jones no longer needs to field a lock at blindside, and yet I'm not convinced he has entirely ditched this approach. After all, Isiekwe started the first Test. If Jones has Kruis, Lawes, Itoje and Launcbury all available, then it's entirely possible he'll try it again, and hope that Curry can add something to the back row mix which Robshaw couldn't at seven.

The issue he has though is that you've mentioned 6 names for openside alone. You can put Robshaw, Shields, Wilson, Armand and Ewers as options at 6 and Vunipola, Hughes, Simmonds again and Mercer at 8.

If he has 5 games, is he better off trying his 15 different options and giving them one game each? That's no way to build a team. What he needs to do is identify the player who combines raw talent and fitting the system and culture of the team.

At 7 this tour, he picked Tom Curry and backed him for 3 tests - and he was one positive of the tour.

Similarly, he could have given Slade, Daly and Lozowski a game each at 13, but he picked Slade and backed him for 3 tests - and he was one disappointment of the tour (he wasn't that bad, but he doesn't look like a regular first team starter I was hoping he could be).

If Tom Curry makes it, Ben Curry might never get a shot, even if there's not all that much between them. If Tom gets 70 caps and Ben never gets capped, when they finish up Tom will probably look a 70 cap player while Ben will look a club level player. This will be primarily because Tom will have had the experience playing that level and will have developed at that level. But for the sake of one man's opinion, they could have been the other way round.

robbo277 wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:Consensus of tour post mortems is that we haven't really learned a lot more than we knew before this three match series. That's a general principle everyone seems to agree on, although, when you get down the nitty gritty, there's a wide range of conflicting opinions about which options haven't been given a proper showcase.

I get the impression Jones will need to have a fair share of luck in his selections from now. He doesn't have a lot of games left to try new combinations, and most of the matches are ones he won't want to risk losing through fielding too much inexperience.

Consequently, he's going to have to choose a first-choice squad for South Africa in the Autumn, and hope he's lucked into most of the core selections for the World Cup. For instance, if he goes with Curry at openside, then he'll have to hope that the Sale man actually is better than his brother, Underhill, Haskell, possibly Simmons, and even Willis making a a late charge if he recovers in time.

Flanker options would suggest Jones no longer needs to field a lock at blindside, and yet I'm not convinced he has entirely ditched this approach. After all, Isiekwe started the first Test. If Jones has Kruis, Lawes, Itoje and Launcbury all available, then it's entirely possible he'll try it again, and hope that Curry can add something to the back row mix which Robshaw couldn't at seven.

The issue he has though is that you've mentioned 6 names for openside alone. You can put Robshaw, Shields, Wilson, Armand and Ewers as options at 6 and Vunipola, Hughes, Simmonds again and Mercer at 8.

If he has 5 games, is he better off trying his 15 different options and giving them one game each? That's no way to build a team. What he needs to do is identify the player who combines raw talent and fitting the system and culture of the team.

At 7 this tour, he picked Tom Curry and backed him for 3 tests - and he was one positive of the tour.

Similarly, he could have given Slade, Daly and Lozowski a game each at 13, but he picked Slade and backed him for 3 tests - and he was one disappointment of the tour (he wasn't that bad, but he doesn't look like a regular first team starter I was hoping he could be).

If Tom Curry makes it, Ben Curry might never get a shot, even if there's not all that much between them. If Tom gets 70 caps and Ben never gets capped, when they finish up Tom will probably look a 70 cap player while Ben will look a club level player. This will be primarily because Tom will have had the experience playing that level and will have developed at that level. But for the sake of one man's opinion, they could have been the other way round.

It's a shame, I really like Slade as a player but if you play him with Farrell and Ford you've got 3 10s in the midfield - there's no ball carrier! Slade or Lozowski at 12, Farrell at 10 and a Teo/Manu type who just picks a good line and accelerates and keeps going till they are brought down - You can't use a 10 to crash ball! I get agitated when Scotland play Horne at 12 and field somebody who isn't Dunbar/Scott/Taylor outside him, it's too lightweight otherwise!