2018 6Nations - Game 1: Italy

[Stom]

I'm not surprised by any of the selections. It's not the XV I would have picked but it was the one I expected from Eddie.

For some reason he has gone off JJ and while some disagreed with me I said a while back that I thought Eddie had Slade ahead. With him injured, T'eo is no surprise.

As for the back-row, this trio was always going to happen, IMO, with Billy and Hughes out. Robshaw is actually a far better 7 (even at the breakdown) than many give him credit for. Lawes is improving all the time at 6 and should not be condemned for last season's performances. I like the 2nd row and Lawes's presence in the line-out.

The weakest area of the team remains the 9/10/12 axis but Eddie is set on it. He had the chance to start Care/Farrell/T'eo, for example. I would have done.

But Robshaw isn't like Hill or Pocock, etc., he's not able to take on all the responsibility alone. And when he does, he runs himself into the ground and late game we have issues. At least he's not captain with that combination. But if he is at 7, he needs support from 6. And he's not going to get that from Lawtoje.

[Oakboy]

I'm not surprised by any of the selections. It's not the XV I would have picked but it was the one I expected from Eddie.

For some reason he has gone off JJ and while some disagreed with me I said a while back that I thought Eddie had Slade ahead. With him injured, T'eo is no surprise.

As for the back-row, this trio was always going to happen, IMO, with Billy and Hughes out. Robshaw is actually a far better 7 (even at the breakdown) than many give him credit for. Lawes is improving all the time at 6 and should not be condemned for last season's performances. I like the 2nd row and Lawes's presence in the line-out.

The weakest area of the team remains the 9/10/12 axis but Eddie is set on it. He had the chance to start Care/Farrell/T'eo, for example. I would have done.

But Robshaw isn't like Hill or Pocock, etc., he's not able to take on all the responsibility alone. And when he does, he runs himself into the ground and late game we have issues. At least he's not captain with that combination. But if he is at 7, he needs support from 6. And he's not going to get that from Lawtoje.

I doubt the Lawtoje business is relevant this time. It's Lawes at 6 in every respect. It's simply the best back-row unit available and the best second row, in Eddie's opinion. I agree but I understand the reservations.

[twitchy]

It's going to be a long six nations.

[fivepointer]

I'm not surprised by any of the selections. It's not the XV I would have picked but it was the one I expected from Eddie.

For some reason he has gone off JJ and while some disagreed with me I said a while back that I thought Eddie had Slade ahead. With him injured, T'eo is no surprise.

As for the back-row, this trio was always going to happen, IMO, with Billy and Hughes out. Robshaw is actually a far better 7 (even at the breakdown) than many give him credit for. Lawes is improving all the time at 6 and should not be condemned for last season's performances. I like the 2nd row and Lawes's presence in the line-out.

The weakest area of the team remains the 9/10/12 axis but Eddie is set on it. He had the chance to start Care/Farrell/T'eo, for example. I would have done.

But Robshaw isn't like Hill or Pocock, etc., he's not able to take on all the responsibility alone. And when he does, he runs himself into the ground and late game we have issues. At least he's not captain with that combination. But if he is at 7, he needs support from 6. And he's not going to get that from Lawtoje.

I doubt the Lawtoje business is relevant this time. It's Lawes at 6 in every respect. It's simply the best back-row unit available and the best second row, in Eddie's opinion. I agree but I understand the reservations.

It is and its off the back of him largely playing there - with some success - this season. He's not a rookie at 6 and will bring to the role certain qualities.
We will gain in the line out and his close quarter carrying, but lose something around the breakdown.
Eddie reckons we'll be in profit.
We'll see.

[Scrumhead]

I'm not surprised by any of the selections. It's not the XV I would have picked but it was the one I expected from Eddie.

For some reason he has gone off JJ and while some disagreed with me I said a while back that I thought Eddie had Slade ahead. With him injured, T'eo is no surprise.

As for the back-row, this trio was always going to happen, IMO, with Billy and Hughes out. Robshaw is actually a far better 7 (even at the breakdown) than many give him credit for. Lawes is improving all the time at 6 and should not be condemned for last season's performances. I like the 2nd row and Lawes's presence in the line-out.

The weakest area of the team remains the 9/10/12 axis but Eddie is set on it. He had the chance to start Care/Farrell/T'eo, for example. I would have done.

But Robshaw isn't like Hill or Pocock, etc., he's not able to take on all the responsibility alone. And when he does, he runs himself into the ground and late game we have issues. At least he's not captain with that combination. But if he is at 7, he needs support from 6. And he's not going to get that from Lawtoje.

I doubt the Lawtoje business is relevant this time. It's Lawes at 6 in every respect. It's simply the best back-row unit available and the best second row, in Eddie's opinion. I agree but I understand the reservations.

I really don’t agree. I would far rather have seen Robshaw at 6 and Underhill at 7. While I can accept that the combination Eddie has gone for has more experience, I’d prefer round pegs in round holes.

Let’s not forget that Samoa gave this specific back row a hard time. It’s not a balanced unit and while I’m sure they can play better and may have learned from that experience, I don’t think we can play that combination against anyone other than Italy.

[Stom]

I'm not surprised by any of the selections. It's not the XV I would have picked but it was the one I expected from Eddie.

For some reason he has gone off JJ and while some disagreed with me I said a while back that I thought Eddie had Slade ahead. With him injured, T'eo is no surprise.

As for the back-row, this trio was always going to happen, IMO, with Billy and Hughes out. Robshaw is actually a far better 7 (even at the breakdown) than many give him credit for. Lawes is improving all the time at 6 and should not be condemned for last season's performances. I like the 2nd row and Lawes's presence in the line-out.

The weakest area of the team remains the 9/10/12 axis but Eddie is set on it. He had the chance to start Care/Farrell/T'eo, for example. I would have done.

But Robshaw isn't like Hill or Pocock, etc., he's not able to take on all the responsibility alone. And when he does, he runs himself into the ground and late game we have issues. At least he's not captain with that combination. But if he is at 7, he needs support from 6. And he's not going to get that from Lawtoje.

I doubt the Lawtoje business is relevant this time. It's Lawes at 6 in every respect. It's simply the best back-row unit available and the best second row, in Eddie's opinion. I agree but I understand the reservations.

Whether it is or not, both of them are locks who can fill in at 6. Robshaw will take on nearly all the breakdown work and defensive alignment. He will run himself, mentally, into the ground. And when that happens, he WILL make mistakes late game.

It's "only Italy", so we'll be ok. But against top class opposition, especially those good at the breakdown - looking at you Ireland and NZ - we will be ruthlessly exposed. And considering we put so few men into the breakdown as it is, we're seriously going to struggle.

It's not the best backrow unit available, not by a country mile.

[Oakboy]

It's not the best backrow unit available, not by a country mile.

You say that but most would definitely pick Robshaw and Simmonds. Would you? If so, we are debating one selection only. I would have played Armand for this game but he's not in Eddie's thinking. That means who? Underhill is iffy, IMO. He's not as good a 7 as Robshaw anyway. Graham? Another option was Simmonds at 7 but illness to Mercer vetoed that.

I just don't understand your 'not by a country mile' term. Other options might just be marginal improvements in some opinions, if not in Eddie's.

[Raggs]

There may be some arguable improvements, but whilst it may not be the best possible backrow combo, it is a realistic possibility of a backrow available to us in a world cup.

[TheDasher]

It's not the best backrow unit available, not by a country mile.

You say that but most would definitely pick Robshaw and Simmonds. Would you? If so, we are debating one selection only. I would have played Armand for this game but he's not in Eddie's thinking. That means who? Underhill is iffy, IMO. He's not as good a 7 as Robshaw anyway. Graham? Another option was Simmonds at 7 but illness to Mercer vetoed that.

I just don't understand your 'not by a country mile' term. Other options might just be marginal improvements in some opinions, if not in Eddie's.

Mercer being ill really didn't help, you're right.

How quick/mobile is this Gary Graham fellow? Only seen him play once I think.

[jngf]

I'm not a fan of that backrow, but it's a compromise. Eddie obviously sees playing Underwood and Simmonds in the same backrow as just too inexperienced.

That's no compromise. It basically shows that we're ignoring the breakdown again. So Eddie is going for wins rather than building a team that can challenge NZ. Which is wrong.

Against Italy, it will win. Against Ireland, it will struggle. Against NZ, it will be dry humped. No matter what is going on in the AP, we cannot ignore the breakdown.

QFT.

My only hope is that Simmonds's presence at the breakdown will make that work better than it did against Samoa (or against France or Wales or any of the other times that Lawshaw has been selected on the flanks). But you are absolutely right - that back row will grunt through Italy, look pained against Ireland and be laughed at by NZ.

I appreciate that BCurry is still very light and is a growing lad, but surely it's better to take a punt on a future talent and have a proper back row, rather than this abortion of an effort that will be a success only by Robshaw and Simmonds frantically scrambling to cover the flank work while Itoje, Launchbury and Lawes all attempt to make up a third back row between them.

I haven't even got the energy to be annoyed at Te'o at 13; it's not like we'll be getting good ball anyway, so it's somewhat irrelevant who the backs are.

Puja

Eddie's thinking on the back row is beginning to strain into Andy Robinson Territory

Looking at each component:

6. Well at least Lawes is being given the correct shirt number for the position he's been asked to play in - the question is that whilst he's a better 6 than Itoje's managed to be at this level - that's still a terribly low bar. The problem for me is that locks like Lawes (let alone Itoje) simply don't have the workrate, mobility and speed endurance about the park to the extent a genuine flanker has. I also think playing 6, perhaps paradoxically limits the opportunities Lawes gets to demonstrate his vastly improved carrying skills. If Robshaw is fit to play, play him here which leads me to...

7. wtf? Why has Jones, gone back on his gut feeling that Robshaw isn't simply quick enough (by any stretch of the imagination) and doesn't have innate fetching instincts. When Robshaw was picked here against Samoa I thought he looked a ghost of his self when picked at 6. The stodgy and unglamorous work that Robshaw does better than any other 6 in England, doesn't imo transfer effectively to the openside berth. You need athleticism and pace to play here (regardless of size and height) - Robshaw is a great player but one with very limited natural athleticism (other than speed endurance). Either Underhill or Simmonds would have been my preferred picks.


8. I'm willing to see if Simmonds can dispel the size arguments for No.8, in the way Neil Back did for No.7 and he may well do that, it's a big ask and he's the only one of our back row with any pace or explosiveness. Perhaps, I'm blinkered, but at this point I still see his longterm value to England may be better at openside.


Looking at the whole, there is a degree of balance, but it still looks far too much like a lock at 6, a 6 at 7, and a 7 at 8 for my liking!

[TheDasher]

Very much looking forward to watching Simmonds play, other than that, the back-row is painful, truly dreadful.

I just don't understand how Ed thinks that we don't have better flanking options when we so clearly do, would love to grill him on the subject.

Armand, Ewers, Kvesic, Wilson, Curry, even Willis ffs. Just painful.

[Gloskarlos]

And the opposition:-

Italy team to face England:

Minozzi, Benvenuti, Boni, Castello, Bellini, Allan, Violi; Lovotti, Ghiraldini, Ferrari, Zanni, Budd, Negri, Giammarioli, Parisse.

Replacements: Bigi, Quaglio, Pasquali, Biagi, Mbanda, Gori, Canna, Hayward,

[Gloskarlos]

I like to see a loosehead with pace.

[TheDasher]

And love a sub with a squeaky voice and a sense of humour.

[Oakboy]

Very much looking forward to watching Simmonds play, other than that, the back-row is painful, truly dreadful.

I just don't understand how Ed thinks that we don't have better flanking options when we so clearly do, would love to grill him on the subject.

Armand, Ewers, Kvesic, Wilson, Curry, even Willis ffs. Just painful.

Dash, that list sums things up. Armand and Wilson appear, in Eddie's eyes to be limited to club rugby. Ewers is just a lump, unlikely to be able to step up. Kvesic has yet to nail a club place and show consistency. Curry seems not to impress (rarely see anything of him). Graham, who I've only glimpsed, gets in ahead of them all. Willis, the only true groundhog 7 that I have seen recently, is just not ready.

Even if some of those not chosen may make it one day, none are demanding a shirt today. I'd guess that Eddie will make do until he gets Billy or Hughes back. Then, he might play Simmonds or Underhill at 7. It's a holding exercise basically. The question of who plays against Wales depends on whether Parisse and co. damage us but I'd not be surprised by the same trio.

Also, daft as it may sound, there's the Ventner factor. If he comes up with another radical tactic, experience could count. The bench indicates that the only realistic alternative is Underhill at 7 with Robshaw moving to 6. Even if you rate Underhill (I don't) would you want Robshaw trying to shepherd two inexperienced colleagues around with Venter-inspired spoiling?

[Timbo]

Personally I don’t really get the consternation over the backline, but then I also can’t understand why some on this forum struggle to see how good a player Owen Farrell is. That Ford-Farrell axis has been a significant point of difference for us under Jones imo. Only the Anzac teams that can match it.

Backrow is not great, but I think it’s easy to follow Eddies logic given who is unavailable. By the end of the Championship I reckon we’ll be playing Robshaw, Hughes and Haskell with Simmonds on the bench.

[Digby]

Ford-Farrell is a significant point of difference, though so far simply significant rather than especially advantageous. Yes they've done well as a pairing at times, but it's an oddly convoluted system we use, and so far it's not exactly smooth. It might be all we're seeing so far is a work in progress and Eddie can see where he wants the team in another 12-18 months and they'll get there

[jngf]

Backrow is not great, but I think it’s easy to follow Eddies logic given who is unavailable. By the end of the Championship I reckon we’ll be playing Robshaw, Hughes and Haskell with Simmonds on the bench.

I'm scared you might be right

[TheDasher]

Very much looking forward to watching Simmonds play, other than that, the back-row is painful, truly dreadful.

I just don't understand how Ed thinks that we don't have better flanking options when we so clearly do, would love to grill him on the subject.

Armand, Ewers, Kvesic, Wilson, Curry, even Willis ffs. Just painful.

Dash, that list sums things up. Armand and Wilson appear, in Eddie's eyes to be limited to club rugby. Ewers is just a lump, unlikely to be able to step up. Kvesic has yet to nail a club place and show consistency. Curry seems not to impress (rarely see anything of him). Graham, who I've only glimpsed, gets in ahead of them all. Willis, the only true groundhog 7 that I have seen recently, is just not ready.

Even if some of those not chosen may make it one day, none are demanding a shirt today. I'd guess that Eddie will make do until he gets Billy or Hughes back. Then, he might play Simmonds or Underhill at 7. It's a holding exercise basically. The question of who plays against Wales depends on whether Parisse and co. damage us but I'd not be surprised by the same trio.

Also, daft as it may sound, there's the Ventner factor. If he comes up with another radical tactic, experience could count. The bench indicates that the only realistic alternative is Underhill at 7 with Robshaw moving to 6. Even if you rate Underhill (I don't) would you want Robshaw trying to shepherd two inexperienced colleagues around with Venter-inspired spoiling?

Re Willis, most would say he's not ready but I like him, he's got similar experience and is older than this Larmour chap for Ireland. Still though, I get it he's obviously a rookie.

Re Wilson and Armand, you're right, Ed obviously thinks that but he also thinks apparently that Robshaw isn't a 7, or so we thought. The Kvesic thing I've never got - people say he isn't physical enough - he is when I've watch him... he's a unit with pace and hits with impact I think. The Curry's are skinny lads but they're good, natural well-rounded rugby players imv, I've been impressed at least.

Still I really do get your points and also take on board that injuries have hampered Ed's options massively, certainly true. For the sake of argument though I reckon an all Exeter back row of say Armand, Kvesic and Simmons would win the day over Lawes, Robshaw and Simmonds and I think something like Robshaw, Morgan Kvesic/Willis would to.

[Mikey Brown]

And the opposition:-

Italy team to face England:

Minozzi, Benvenuti, Boni, Castello, Bellini, Allan, Violi; Lovotti, Ghiraldini, Ferrari, Zanni, Budd, Negri, Giammarioli, Parisse.

Replacements: Bigi, Quaglio, Pasquali, Biagi, Mbanda, Gori, Canna, Hayward,

That’s just about the most Italian sounding Italian team I can remember. Even with Dean Budd in there.

That’s only 7 players in the squad who’s names don’t end with ‘i’. And you’ll still have Jonathon Davies calling him Paressi too.

[Banquo]

Very much looking forward to watching Simmonds play, other than that, the back-row is painful, truly dreadful.

I just don't understand how Ed thinks that we don't have better flanking options when we so clearly do, would love to grill him on the subject.

Armand, Ewers, Kvesic, Wilson, Curry, even Willis ffs. Just painful.

Dash, that list sums things up. Armand and Wilson appear, in Eddie's eyes to be limited to club rugby. Ewers is just a lump, unlikely to be able to step up. Kvesic has yet to nail a club place and show consistency. Curry seems not to impress (rarely see anything of him). Graham, who I've only glimpsed, gets in ahead of them all. Willis, the only true groundhog 7 that I have seen recently, is just not ready.

Even if some of those not chosen may make it one day, none are demanding a shirt today. I'd guess that Eddie will make do until he gets Billy or Hughes back. Then, he might play Simmonds or Underhill at 7. It's a holding exercise basically. The question of who plays against Wales depends on whether Parisse and co. damage us but I'd not be surprised by the same trio.

Also, daft as it may sound, there's the Ventner factor. If he comes up with another radical tactic, experience could count. The bench indicates that the only realistic alternative is Underhill at 7 with Robshaw moving to 6. Even if you rate Underhill (I don't) would you want Robshaw trying to shepherd two inexperienced colleagues around with Venter-inspired spoiling?

Re Willis, most would say he's not ready but I like him, he's got similar experience and is older than this Larmour chap for Ireland. Still though, I get it he's obviously a rookie.

Re Wilson and Armand, you're right, Ed obviously thinks that but he also thinks apparently that Robshaw isn't a 7, or so we thought. The Kvesic thing I've never got - people say he isn't physical enough - he is when I've watch him... he's a unit with pace and hits with impact I think. The Curry's are skinny lads but they're good, natural well-rounded rugby players imv, I've been impressed at least.

Still I really do get your points and also take on board that injuries have hampered Ed's options massively, certainly true. For the sake of argument though I reckon an all Exeter back row of say Armand, Kvesic and Simmons would win the day over Lawes, Robshaw and Simmonds and I think something like Robshaw, Morgan Kvesic/Willis would to.

Agreed Dash on almost everything, especially Willis and Kvesic. I just hate Lawes at 6, ditto Itoje, and Robshaw at 7, esp with Lawes at 6.

[Oakboy]

Still I really do get your points and also take on board that injuries have hampered Ed's options massively, certainly true. For the sake of argument though I reckon an all Exeter back row of say Armand, Kvesic and Simmons would win the day over Lawes, Robshaw and Simmonds and I think something like Robshaw, Morgan Kvesic/Willis would to.

The trouble is Dash, that even if you are right about potential/effectiveness, you'd have to field 2 inexperienced players and that is what I suspect Eddie is not prepared to do yet. Had Underhill not got injured and played all the AIs maybe he would have started.

[Renniks]

To me it just seems obvious that Eddie has decided the breakdown is a lower priority than other aspects of the game…

Personally, I'm not a fan - I think winning the breakdown is the best way for England's gameplans to work, and the best way to stop other teams gameplans working…

Lawes adds to the lineout, (lately) adds good carrying, is a decent all-round tackler (with the propensity to smash a 9 or 10 back to next week), adds some ballast and heft where needed, and is an experienced player who has improved vastly in recent times… He's not a great flanker, and, I think we all would prefer that - but I imagine many other aspects of our game will go well on Sunday - just the breakdown may not

Oh, and I don't think we have too many players putting their hands up as decent link players in the backrow, sadly - as that would also be preferable for me than a lock at 6

[Banquo]

To me it just seems obvious that Eddie has decided the breakdown is a lower priority than other aspects of the game…

Personally, I'm not a fan - I think winning the breakdown is the best way for England's gameplans to work, and the best way to stop other teams gameplans working…

Lawes adds to the lineout, (lately) adds good carrying, is a decent all-round tackler (with the propensity to smash a 9 or 10 back to next week), adds some ballast and heft where needed, and is an experienced player who has improved vastly in recent times… He's not a great flanker, and, I think we all would prefer that - but I imagine many other aspects of our game will go well on Sunday - just the breakdown may not

Oh, and I don't think we have too many players putting their hands up as decent link players in the backrow, sadly - as that would also be preferable for me than a lock at 6

If you can't get parity at the breakdowns, let alone win them, you are screwed unless the other parts of your game are vastly superior.

agree with the rest.

[Digby]

With Hartley retained at 2 and Lawes at 6 then England should have a very strong lineout again, and as many know, and certainly those who watched the 1014 preview this England team score a lot of tries from the lineout (partly we're good off first phase, partly we suck at multiphase so other sources can dry up, though granted we in part suck at multiphase 'cause of our shape and breakdown work)