Have we already blown the next world cup?

[Lizard]

Still, Eddie is an experienced and successful operator at World Cups.

In 2003 his Aussie side pasted the All Blacks, going undefeated into the final, which was lost narrowly to one of the most dominant sides ever.

In 2007 he was a key member of Nick Mallet's coaching staff whose Springboks swept the tournament.

In 2011, he took an unfancied Japanese side out of a poor Pacific Nations Cup, and achieved easily their best ever results including possibly the biggest upset ever in world rugby over the Springboks, a record three pool wins and finishing 3rd in the pool on points difference only.

You can't deny that he knows his away around the big dance-floor.

[Lizard]

And just as a reminder, here is England's record from the end of each RWC to the same date the year before the next RWC:*

RWC2015 to 12.03.2018: Played 27, won 24, lost 3 (89%)
RWC2011 to 12.03.2014: Played 26, won 17, lost 8, drew 1 (67%)
RWC2007 to 12.03.2010: Played 24, won 11, lost 13 (46%)
RWC2003 to 12.03.2006: Played 23, won 11, lost 12 (48%)
RWC1999 to 12.03.2002: Played 24, won 20, lost 4 (83%)
RWC1995 to 12.03.1998: Played 21, won 11, lost 8. drew 2 (57%)
RWC1991 to 12.03.1994: Played 14, won 11, lost 3 (79%)
RWC1987 to 12.03.1990: Played 18, won 12, lost 5, drew 1 (69%)

Eddie is arguably doing better than Sir Clive at the same point in the cycle.

*This doesn't account for the fact that some years the 6N was done by now, or that in 1987 and 1995 the RWC final was in late June rather than Oct/Nov.

[Digby]

If being world class means a player who'd be selected in a World XV there aren't many obvious picks, after Aaron Smith there mayn't be any

Not sure that Aaron Smith would be an obvious pick either. On the form of the past two seasons (and their personal head-to-heads), Ireland's Conor Murray looks at least as good a SH.
I'd say that Retallick (lock) and B.Barrett (FH) would be obvious picks (and so would Ben Smith if he were not having a sabbatical.) Maybe Australia's Hooper at 7 too.

This shows how hard it is, my one likely obvious pick is straight away contested, albeit by someone who clearly has some issues of taking Murray over Smith, and someone who objected even more than I did to the jamboree and saw none of the proceedings.

Retallick is a probable for me and the same for Whitelock, but the locks might come down to how you expected to play, and others might easily pick Launchbury, Etzebeth, Gray, Itoje...

Barrett looks good in certain games, but when the pressure came on as with the (massively offside) Lions he didn't really add anything like as much as say Smith did at halfback, so he's not clear of the likes of Sexton. And Smith is very classy at 15, but one could very easily prefer the more unique individual freakery of Folau. Hooper, well he'd get in the England side, but would he get in over O'Brien or Cane, again it's maybe a question of style more than anything else.

[Raggs]

Cane is a beast of a 7 in my mind. Exceptionally physical in defence and in the breakdown.

[Mellsblue]

For me, it all depends on how the coaches react. Double down and bring back Hartley and Brown etc for their attitude and continue to believe we just need a bunch of big, honest yeoman, ie Cole, in the pack then we’re fecked. Realise we need dynamism, carriers and mobility, whilst may be losing a bit at the set piece, and bring in a backs coach and we should be ok.

From Eddies talk so far, its all about leadership, the poor Premiership and not being big enough. Feck.

[Raggs]

But if we run the legs off of those dynamic, mobile ball carriers in training, they won't be any better than the group currently playing...

[fivepointer]

Come the WC we'll be there or thereabouts. We werent world beaters before the Scotland game and we're not no hopers after the French one.
Sure, we have issues over selection, style, organisation and form but nothing is unfixable. We can, and i think will, improve.
Enough to win the WC? maybe. We'll need a bit of luck but outside NZ there is much of a muchness around the top 6 sides.

[Bloggs]

I think this has been a good wake up call. Not enough emphasis has been placed on the breakdown in English rugby, exasperated by the tweaks in the laws and the premiership refereeing this season. RFU referees need to adapt to give England a better chance internationally, allowing more turnovers

I also think the players are knackered post lions! And being beasted in training by Eddie has been dumb in the extreme.

Some selections do concern me (hartley, Cole, lawes at 6, brown, and I’ll add teo to that) but autumn 2018 will be key as England should have had a proper pre season.

[Digby]

I have some sympathy with the AP and the breakdown given I think they're closer to the guidelines we've seen put out than a good number of comps. I am though biased against the way the breakdown is reffed in the AP so I'd like to see it changed even if we weren't seeing an impact on the England side.

I also think there's a chance maybe to mix up the refs in the Pro14 and the AP, and maybe even the T14, providing costs are controllable, which they should be

[Stom]

If being world class means a player who'd be selected in a World XV there aren't many obvious picks, after Aaron Smith there mayn't be any

Not sure that Aaron Smith would be an obvious pick either. On the form of the past two seasons (and their personal head-to-heads), Ireland's Conor Murray looks at least as good a SH.
I'd say that Retallick (lock) and B.Barrett (FH) would be obvious picks (and so would Ben Smith if he were not having a sabbatical.) Maybe Australia's Hooper at 7 too.

This shows how hard it is, my one likely obvious pick is straight away contested, albeit by someone who clearly has some issues of taking Murray over Smith, and someone who objected even more than I did to the jamboree and saw none of the proceedings.

Retallick is a probable for me and the same for Whitelock, but the locks might come down to how you expected to play, and others might easily pick Launchbury, Etzebeth, Gray, Itoje...

Barrett looks good in certain games, but when the pressure came on as with the (massively offside) Lions he didn't really add anything like as much as say Smith did at halfback, so he's not clear of the likes of Sexton. And Smith is very classy at 15, but one could very easily prefer the more unique individual freakery of Folau. Hooper, well he'd get in the England side, but would he get in over O'Brien or Cane, again it's maybe a question of style more than anything else.

Which just shows how pointless it is saying you need to be in a World XV to be world class...

There are multiple choices for many positions, and most of the time they come down to style of play. So I think there are better ways to judge.

[Digby]

I've no problem with the idea what being world class means is entirely subjective. For me you'd have to be a contender for a World XV

[Mellsblue]

But if we run the legs off of those dynamic, mobile ball carriers in training, they won't be any better than the group currently playing...

True but I assume we won’t go into a World Cup having run the legs off the players.

[Banquo]

Not sure that Aaron Smith would be an obvious pick either. On the form of the past two seasons (and their personal head-to-heads), Ireland's Conor Murray looks at least as good a SH.
I'd say that Retallick (lock) and B.Barrett (FH) would be obvious picks (and so would Ben Smith if he were not having a sabbatical.) Maybe Australia's Hooper at 7 too.

This shows how hard it is, my one likely obvious pick is straight away contested, albeit by someone who clearly has some issues of taking Murray over Smith, and someone who objected even more than I did to the jamboree and saw none of the proceedings.

Retallick is a probable for me and the same for Whitelock, but the locks might come down to how you expected to play, and others might easily pick Launchbury, Etzebeth, Gray, Itoje...

Barrett looks good in certain games, but when the pressure came on as with the (massively offside) Lions he didn't really add anything like as much as say Smith did at halfback, so he's not clear of the likes of Sexton. And Smith is very classy at 15, but one could very easily prefer the more unique individual freakery of Folau. Hooper, well he'd get in the England side, but would he get in over O'Brien or Cane, again it's maybe a question of style more than anything else.

Which just shows how pointless it is saying you need to be in a World XV to be world class...

There are multiple choices for many positions, and most of the time they come down to style of play. So I think there are better ways to judge.

go on then

[Stom]

As for the thread's question.

No, I don't believe we've blown the WC. Whether or not we do depends on how the coaching team react. Do they double down on the mistakes, or do they develop the team? Do they realise that picking the same players over and over again isn't necessarily the best idea? And that considering the experience we have across the park, we can afford a few less experienced players in the XXIII and wider squad.

Having thought about it, I don't think we're too far from being good. We have some crazy quirks, and I've never been a fan of putting the set piece so far above open play. We're not going to be a team who turns teams over regularly, so we need to cut out the penalties, especially on attack.

It's all well and good fanning out, but we need to protect out ball first and foremost.

I would like to see some changes to the team to bring in a few more mobile players. If we want to have a smothering defense, we need to drop Farrell or move him to 10. His racing out of the line causes far more problems than it solves. We're constantly exploited in the gap between 10 and 12, and that's usually due to Farrell being out of position, not Ford's size.

As I said, we need a little bit of new blood and a bit more mobility in a couple of positions. But we also need to stop some of our really crappy kicking. We're not turning teams over, so I don't get the point of kicking the ball away. Much better to keep hold of it and use our forward power to try and break the gainline and force a defensive error.

I don't think we're going to see changes at 9. And I don't think we're going to see a Farrell-less team. Which means we have to put up with a slightly stunted attack. But that's better than what we currently have, especially if we play 10 man rugby for the main part. It's not pretty, but it's going to get us better results that we currently get.

So here's a team that I think would do that, would give us the experience coaches want and would install a bit more pace and inventiveness to our forward game.

Mako (essential to our game, tbh) 48 caps
George 24 caps
Sinckler 9 caps
Launchbury 51 caps
Itoje 18 caps (c)
Robshaw 63 caps
Simmonds 6 caps / Clifford 7 caps
BillyV 38 caps
Youngs 74 caps
Farrell 57 caps
Daly 17 caps
Te'o 12 caps
Joseph 39 caps
May 33 caps
Watson 32 caps

LCD 7
Marler 55
Williams 8
Kruis 24
Simmonds 6 / Clifford 7
Care 80
Ford 44
Nowell 26

Captaincy is always such a big thing in England, and I think that's wrong. I would give it to Itoje, simply because long term he should be captain. VCs are Robshaw and Youngs - experience.

Clifford is an interesting pick, when fit. I wanted someone at 7 who would have the power and pace to play a hard carrying game in attack, but still have a positive breakdown presence in defense. Round the corner, one out, two out carries would be the main thing. When a gap opens up, though, I want those forwards (and I include the front row here) to have the wit to recognise it. Which is my main worry about our 9s. But we have no other choice, really.

We're not going to play a game that plays to Robson's strengths, Velacott is a kid with no experience, Maunder ditto...and Spencer still cannot get past Wiggy, suggesting he never will.

The rest of the squad kind of picks itself. Interestingly, the "backup" centres are the other way round, Slade is more of a 12 and Tuilagi more of a 13. But they need to be flexible and fill in where needed.

[Stom]

This shows how hard it is, my one likely obvious pick is straight away contested, albeit by someone who clearly has some issues of taking Murray over Smith, and someone who objected even more than I did to the jamboree and saw none of the proceedings.

Retallick is a probable for me and the same for Whitelock, but the locks might come down to how you expected to play, and others might easily pick Launchbury, Etzebeth, Gray, Itoje...

Barrett looks good in certain games, but when the pressure came on as with the (massively offside) Lions he didn't really add anything like as much as say Smith did at halfback, so he's not clear of the likes of Sexton. And Smith is very classy at 15, but one could very easily prefer the more unique individual freakery of Folau. Hooper, well he'd get in the England side, but would he get in over O'Brien or Cane, again it's maybe a question of style more than anything else.

Which just shows how pointless it is saying you need to be in a World XV to be world class...

There are multiple choices for many positions, and most of the time they come down to style of play. So I think there are better ways to judge.

go on then

Most of the time it's subjective. But remember Which's stats on the EPS and AP players? Now that was interesting. You could immediately see how many yards Genge constantly made, and you could immediately see how incredibly the Wasps tight 5 worked in defense, especially Taylor. George's stats were also standout, as were BillyV, Itoje, Robshaw, etc., etc.

Do that at international level and it'd reveal some gems, I reckon.

[Banquo]

Which just shows how pointless it is saying you need to be in a World XV to be world class...

There are multiple choices for many positions, and most of the time they come down to style of play. So I think there are better ways to judge.

go on then

Most of the time it's subjective. But remember Which's stats on the EPS and AP players? Now that was interesting. You could immediately see how many yards Genge constantly made, and you could immediately see how incredibly the Wasps tight 5 worked in defense, especially Taylor. George's stats were also standout, as were BillyV, Itoje, Robshaw, etc., etc.

Do that at international level and it'd reveal some gems, I reckon.

Fair I suppose, though again stats don't tell you about quality of decision making, actual impact, skill and so on. If anything, I think we over analyse, and forget to play.

[Banquo]

As for the thread's question.

No, I don't believe we've blown the WC. Whether or not we do depends on how the coaching team react. Do they double down on the mistakes, or do they develop the team? Do they realise that picking the same players over and over again isn't necessarily the best idea? And that considering the experience we have across the park, we can afford a few less experienced players in the XXIII and wider squad.

Having thought about it, I don't think we're too far from being good. We have some crazy quirks, and I've never been a fan of putting the set piece so far above open play. We're not going to be a team who turns teams over regularly, so we need to cut out the penalties, especially on attack.

It's all well and good fanning out, but we need to protect out ball first and foremost.

I would like to see some changes to the team to bring in a few more mobile players. If we want to have a smothering defense, we need to drop Farrell or move him to 10. His racing out of the line causes far more problems than it solves. We're constantly exploited in the gap between 10 and 12, and that's usually due to Farrell being out of position, not Ford's size.

As I said, we need a little bit of new blood and a bit more mobility in a couple of positions. But we also need to stop some of our really crappy kicking. We're not turning teams over, so I don't get the point of kicking the ball away. Much better to keep hold of it and use our forward power to try and break the gainline and force a defensive error.

I don't think we're going to see changes at 9. And I don't think we're going to see a Farrell-less team. Which means we have to put up with a slightly stunted attack. But that's better than what we currently have, especially if we play 10 man rugby for the main part. It's not pretty, but it's going to get us better results that we currently get.

So here's a team that I think would do that, would give us the experience coaches want and would install a bit more pace and inventiveness to our forward game.

Mako (essential to our game, tbh) 48 caps
George 24 caps
Sinckler 9 caps
Launchbury 51 caps
Itoje 18 caps (c)
Robshaw 63 caps
Simmonds 6 caps / Clifford 7 caps
BillyV 38 caps
Youngs 74 caps
Farrell 57 caps
Daly 17 caps
Te'o 12 caps
Joseph 39 caps
May 33 caps
Watson 32 caps

LCD 7
Marler 55
Williams 8
Kruis 24
Simmonds 6 / Clifford 7
Care 80
Ford 44
Nowell 26

Captaincy is always such a big thing in England, and I think that's wrong. I would give it to Itoje, simply because long term he should be captain. VCs are Robshaw and Youngs - experience.

Clifford is an interesting pick, when fit. I wanted someone at 7 who would have the power and pace to play a hard carrying game in attack, but still have a positive breakdown presence in defense. Round the corner, one out, two out carries would be the main thing. When a gap opens up, though, I want those forwards (and I include the front row here) to have the wit to recognise it. Which is my main worry about our 9s. But we have no other choice, really.

We're not going to play a game that plays to Robson's strengths, Velacott is a kid with no experience, Maunder ditto...and Spencer still cannot get past Wiggy, suggesting he never will.

The rest of the squad kind of picks itself. Interestingly, the "backup" centres are the other way round, Slade is more of a 12 and Tuilagi more of a 13. But they need to be flexible and fill in where needed.

Poor Courtney doesnt even get a name check

[Stom]

As for the thread's question.

No, I don't believe we've blown the WC. Whether or not we do depends on how the coaching team react. Do they double down on the mistakes, or do they develop the team? Do they realise that picking the same players over and over again isn't necessarily the best idea? And that considering the experience we have across the park, we can afford a few less experienced players in the XXIII and wider squad.

Having thought about it, I don't think we're too far from being good. We have some crazy quirks, and I've never been a fan of putting the set piece so far above open play. We're not going to be a team who turns teams over regularly, so we need to cut out the penalties, especially on attack.

It's all well and good fanning out, but we need to protect out ball first and foremost.

I would like to see some changes to the team to bring in a few more mobile players. If we want to have a smothering defense, we need to drop Farrell or move him to 10. His racing out of the line causes far more problems than it solves. We're constantly exploited in the gap between 10 and 12, and that's usually due to Farrell being out of position, not Ford's size.

As I said, we need a little bit of new blood and a bit more mobility in a couple of positions. But we also need to stop some of our really crappy kicking. We're not turning teams over, so I don't get the point of kicking the ball away. Much better to keep hold of it and use our forward power to try and break the gainline and force a defensive error.

I don't think we're going to see changes at 9. And I don't think we're going to see a Farrell-less team. Which means we have to put up with a slightly stunted attack. But that's better than what we currently have, especially if we play 10 man rugby for the main part. It's not pretty, but it's going to get us better results that we currently get.

So here's a team that I think would do that, would give us the experience coaches want and would install a bit more pace and inventiveness to our forward game.

Mako (essential to our game, tbh) 48 caps
George 24 caps
Sinckler 9 caps
Launchbury 51 caps
Itoje 18 caps (c)
Robshaw 63 caps
Simmonds 6 caps / Clifford 7 caps
BillyV 38 caps
Youngs 74 caps
Farrell 57 caps
Daly 17 caps
Te'o 12 caps
Joseph 39 caps
May 33 caps
Watson 32 caps

LCD 7
Marler 55
Williams 8
Kruis 24
Simmonds 6 / Clifford 7
Care 80
Ford 44
Nowell 26

Captaincy is always such a big thing in England, and I think that's wrong. I would give it to Itoje, simply because long term he should be captain. VCs are Robshaw and Youngs - experience.

Clifford is an interesting pick, when fit. I wanted someone at 7 who would have the power and pace to play a hard carrying game in attack, but still have a positive breakdown presence in defense. Round the corner, one out, two out carries would be the main thing. When a gap opens up, though, I want those forwards (and I include the front row here) to have the wit to recognise it. Which is my main worry about our 9s. But we have no other choice, really.

We're not going to play a game that plays to Robson's strengths, Velacott is a kid with no experience, Maunder ditto...and Spencer still cannot get past Wiggy, suggesting he never will.

The rest of the squad kind of picks itself. Interestingly, the "backup" centres are the other way round, Slade is more of a 12 and Tuilagi more of a 13. But they need to be flexible and fill in where needed.

Poor Courtney doesnt even get a name check

Look, I like Courtney. But, if we're being honest, his ruck work is pretty shoddy...And while his carrying has come on a lot, he's neither explosive enough, fast enough or quick witted enough for what we need. I'd have him in the engine room in a flash if Launch or Itoje were absent, but that's where he is: at best he's our 3rd best lock. But in all likelihood, he's only our 4th best and will soon be our 5th best. So sorry CGS. I like your defense, but I don't like your attack. And for that reason, I'm out.

[Banquo]

As for the thread's question.

No, I don't believe we've blown the WC. Whether or not we do depends on how the coaching team react. Do they double down on the mistakes, or do they develop the team? Do they realise that picking the same players over and over again isn't necessarily the best idea? And that considering the experience we have across the park, we can afford a few less experienced players in the XXIII and wider squad.

Having thought about it, I don't think we're too far from being good. We have some crazy quirks, and I've never been a fan of putting the set piece so far above open play. We're not going to be a team who turns teams over regularly, so we need to cut out the penalties, especially on attack.

It's all well and good fanning out, but we need to protect out ball first and foremost.

I would like to see some changes to the team to bring in a few more mobile players. If we want to have a smothering defense, we need to drop Farrell or move him to 10. His racing out of the line causes far more problems than it solves. We're constantly exploited in the gap between 10 and 12, and that's usually due to Farrell being out of position, not Ford's size.

As I said, we need a little bit of new blood and a bit more mobility in a couple of positions. But we also need to stop some of our really crappy kicking. We're not turning teams over, so I don't get the point of kicking the ball away. Much better to keep hold of it and use our forward power to try and break the gainline and force a defensive error.

I don't think we're going to see changes at 9. And I don't think we're going to see a Farrell-less team. Which means we have to put up with a slightly stunted attack. But that's better than what we currently have, especially if we play 10 man rugby for the main part. It's not pretty, but it's going to get us better results that we currently get.

So here's a team that I think would do that, would give us the experience coaches want and would install a bit more pace and inventiveness to our forward game.

Mako (essential to our game, tbh) 48 caps
George 24 caps
Sinckler 9 caps
Launchbury 51 caps
Itoje 18 caps (c)
Robshaw 63 caps
Simmonds 6 caps / Clifford 7 caps
BillyV 38 caps
Youngs 74 caps
Farrell 57 caps
Daly 17 caps
Te'o 12 caps
Joseph 39 caps
May 33 caps
Watson 32 caps

LCD 7
Marler 55
Williams 8
Kruis 24
Simmonds 6 / Clifford 7
Care 80
Ford 44
Nowell 26

Captaincy is always such a big thing in England, and I think that's wrong. I would give it to Itoje, simply because long term he should be captain. VCs are Robshaw and Youngs - experience.

Clifford is an interesting pick, when fit. I wanted someone at 7 who would have the power and pace to play a hard carrying game in attack, but still have a positive breakdown presence in defense. Round the corner, one out, two out carries would be the main thing. When a gap opens up, though, I want those forwards (and I include the front row here) to have the wit to recognise it. Which is my main worry about our 9s. But we have no other choice, really.

We're not going to play a game that plays to Robson's strengths, Velacott is a kid with no experience, Maunder ditto...and Spencer still cannot get past Wiggy, suggesting he never will.

The rest of the squad kind of picks itself. Interestingly, the "backup" centres are the other way round, Slade is more of a 12 and Tuilagi more of a 13. But they need to be flexible and fill in where needed.

Poor Courtney doesnt even get a name check

Look, I like Courtney. But, if we're being honest, his ruck work is pretty shoddy...And while his carrying has come on a lot, he's neither explosive enough, fast enough or quick witted enough for what we need. I'd have him in the engine room in a flash if Launch or Itoje were absent, but that's where he is: at best he's our 3rd best lock. But in all likelihood, he's only our 4th best and will soon be our 5th best. So sorry CGS. I like your defense, but I don't like your attack. And for that reason, I'm out.

So Kruis is ahead of him- what's your rationale, not that I disagree...

[Which Tyler]

There aren’t many positives to take away from this 6 Nations. However, in a weird way, the biggest positive is that this has happened now while we still have time to start fixing some of the problems.

There aren’t many (if any) valid excuses for the standard of performances we’ve seen in the past few weeks, but I do think it’s clear that our players (particularly the Lions players) are massively overworked in relation to the other home nations. They look visibly tired and off the pace and while that could be Eddie beasting them in training, I think the ‘minutes played’ stats speak for themselves.

It’s a harder problem to solve than tweaking tactics and selection, but it would be ludicrous to ignore it.

I happen to think that fatigue IS playing a pretty big part.
Not only in performance on the pitch, but also affecting selection (fatigue increase risk of injury); but I think that Eddie is beasting the squad, not just before the tournie started, but also during it. And I think he's doing so deliberately.
I think Eddie is treating this 6N as a mock-RWC. He's piling the pressure on the players; he's using fallow weekends to beast them in training so that they're constantly fatigued for 8 weeks; he's refusing to bring in any players from outside of his core squad unless he absolutely has to. He's seeing how far he can push them before performances drop off. Hopefully, he'll use that information when developing his pre-RWC training camps.

I think he sees this tournie as comparatively disposable. He needed his first 2 years (all tournies) to get to know the players, for them to know him, to cut the dead wood, and to develop systems for these players [I think he's underestimating our players, but hey]. He needed wins to establish himself.
He needs 12 months leading up to the RWC to build up to it; when wins are again, all important to build confidence. This 6N, and possibly this summer in South Africa are his best opportunities (as in, the least consequences) to risk losing matches. I happen to think he's found the point at which performances drop off, and that he also underestimated the opposition - pretty much all of the opposition. I think he expected to be able to beast them hard enough for performances to drop; but that we'd still win all our matches except Ireland. Now it may be that he hadn't accounted for injuries, or that he hadn't accounted for resurgence from Italy, Scotland and France; or that he had and the gamble just hasn't paid off.

Of course, in spite of the above, I still think he's got his tactics wrong. Specifically I think the Prem has been reffing the breakdown differently to the Pro14 and Top14 competitions - which is down to the ref.s (it can hardly be a surprise that Barnes, Owens and Garces might lead their officials in slightly different directions at the breakdown); and coaches, have come up with different ways to handle the breakdown accordingly. However, it's also Eddie's fault for not spotting, and adapting to this. Fair enough in November; but after that, and most of the EPRC has been played out; he should have noted it, and changed his plan accordingly.

[Banquo]

There aren’t many positives to take away from this 6 Nations. However, in a weird way, the biggest positive is that this has happened now while we still have time to start fixing some of the problems.

There aren’t many (if any) valid excuses for the standard of performances we’ve seen in the past few weeks, but I do think it’s clear that our players (particularly the Lions players) are massively overworked in relation to the other home nations. They look visibly tired and off the pace and while that could be Eddie beasting them in training, I think the ‘minutes played’ stats speak for themselves.

It’s a harder problem to solve than tweaking tactics and selection, but it would be ludicrous to ignore it.

I happen to think that fatigue IS playing a pretty big part.
Not only in performance on the pitch, but also affecting selection (fatigue increase risk of injury); but I think that Eddie is beasting the squad, not just before the tournie started, but also during it. And I think he's doing so deliberately.
I think Eddie is treating this 6N as a mock-RWC. He's piling the pressure on the players; he's using fallow weekends to beast them in training so that they're constantly fatigued for 8 weeks; he's refusing to bring in any players from outside of his core squad unless he absolutely has to. He's seeing how far he can push them before performances drop off. Hopefully, he'll use that information when developing his pre-RWC training camps.

I think he sees this tournie as comparatively disposable. He needed his first 2 years (all tournies) to get to know the players, for them to know him, to cut the dead wood, and to develop systems for these players [I think he's underestimating our players, but hey]. He needed wins to establish himself.
He needs 12 months leading up to the RWC to build up to it; when wins are again, all important to build confidence. This 6N, and possibly this summer in South Africa are his best opportunities (as in, the least consequences) to risk losing matches. I happen to think he's found the point at which performances drop off, and that he also underestimated the opposition - pretty much all of the opposition. I think he expected to be able to beast them hard enough for performances to drop; but that we'd still win all our matches except Ireland. Now it may be that he hadn't accounted for injuries, or that he hadn't accounted for resurgence from Italy, Scotland and France; or that he had and the gamble just hasn't paid off.

Of course, in spite of the above, I still think he's got his tactics wrong. Specifically I think the Prem has been reffing the breakdown differently to the Pro14 and Top14 competitions - which is down to the ref.s (it can hardly be a surprise that Barnes, Owens and Garces might lead their officials in slightly different directions at the breakdown); and coaches, have come up with different ways to handle the breakdown accordingly. However, it's also Eddie's fault for not spotting, and adapting to this. Fair enough in November; but after that, and most of the EPRC has been played out; he should have noted it, and changed his plan accordingly.

Hope you are right.

[Stom]

Poor Courtney doesnt even get a name check

Look, I like Courtney. But, if we're being honest, his ruck work is pretty shoddy...And while his carrying has come on a lot, he's neither explosive enough, fast enough or quick witted enough for what we need. I'd have him in the engine room in a flash if Launch or Itoje were absent, but that's where he is: at best he's our 3rd best lock. But in all likelihood, he's only our 4th best and will soon be our 5th best. So sorry CGS. I like your defense, but I don't like your attack. And for that reason, I'm out.

So Kruis is ahead of him- what's your rationale, not that I disagree...

Breakdown, mainly. One reason we've been beasted this 6N has been Lawes' inability to hit a breakdown well, consistently. He gets pushed off, he's late, he's coming at an odd angle, his body position is all wrong. I just don't think he's up to it.

And considering the way we play, and the way I would set the team out as noted before, we cannot afford that. I just think that he's a very good lock who is not quite good enough to be a top class international lock. And when you've got Launch, Itoje and Kruis, you don't really need him.

Oh, and Kruis...I'm not a huge fan if I'm honest. But he does hit breakdowns well, his tight tackling is good, and he's alert (generally).

[Banquo]

Look, I like Courtney. But, if we're being honest, his ruck work is pretty shoddy...And while his carrying has come on a lot, he's neither explosive enough, fast enough or quick witted enough for what we need. I'd have him in the engine room in a flash if Launch or Itoje were absent, but that's where he is: at best he's our 3rd best lock. But in all likelihood, he's only our 4th best and will soon be our 5th best. So sorry CGS. I like your defense, but I don't like your attack. And for that reason, I'm out.

So Kruis is ahead of him- what's your rationale, not that I disagree...

Breakdown, mainly. One reason we've been beasted this 6N has been Lawes' inability to hit a breakdown well, consistently. He gets pushed off, he's late, he's coming at an odd angle, his body position is all wrong. I just don't think he's up to it.

And considering the way we play, and the way I would set the team out as noted before, we cannot afford that. I just think that he's a very good lock who is not quite good enough to be a top class international lock. And when you've got Launch, Itoje and Kruis, you don't really need him.

Oh, and Kruis...I'm not a huge fan if I'm honest. But he does hit breakdowns well, his tight tackling is good, and he's alert (generally).

Interesting how good he was in NZ for the Lions, when playing lock, and not being exposed as not being a 6, and how Kruis's stock fell.

He's not alone at being crap at the breakdown. But I don't disagree, Kruis is more orthodox and quietly effective.

[Stom]

So Kruis is ahead of him- what's your rationale, not that I disagree...

Breakdown, mainly. One reason we've been beasted this 6N has been Lawes' inability to hit a breakdown well, consistently. He gets pushed off, he's late, he's coming at an odd angle, his body position is all wrong. I just don't think he's up to it.

And considering the way we play, and the way I would set the team out as noted before, we cannot afford that. I just think that he's a very good lock who is not quite good enough to be a top class international lock. And when you've got Launch, Itoje and Kruis, you don't really need him.

Oh, and Kruis...I'm not a huge fan if I'm honest. But he does hit breakdowns well, his tight tackling is good, and he's alert (generally).

Interesting how good he was in NZ for the Lions, when playing lock, and not being exposed as not being a 6, and how Kruis's stock fell.

He's not alone at being crap at the breakdown. But I don't disagree, Kruis is more orthodox and quietly effective.

It is interesting. And he was looking a lot better over the past 2 years. This 6N, though, he's been poor. Perhaps it's the role... And if I was picking a team to play a different way, he may well have a place. As it is, though, he doesn't.

[Raggs]

But if we run the legs off of those dynamic, mobile ball carriers in training, they won't be any better than the group currently playing...

True but I assume we won’t go into a World Cup having run the legs off the players.

Agreed, but we could say the same for the players we have...