Daly at fullback
Youngs at scrum half
Billy at No.8
Farrell as a captain able to think on his feet strategically when it’s not going to plan
Any takers for any more? - happy to be strongly disagreed with here

Moderator: Puja
So if he says he doesn’t know why we lost he’s in the wrong and if he says he got selection wrong he’s in the wrong. Hmmm...anyone would think that Jones will always be in the wrong with some people.Oakboy wrote:Jones now saying he should have started Marler and reverted to Farrell/Tuilagi/Slade for the final. He's right but why say it? I'm not a fan of Ford but that is an unacceptable kick in the nuts from the head coach.
I don't want to design a system. It's already there. The games we've seen against the Irish and NZ were a level of performance I've not seen from England ever - and we're all old buggers on here I believe.Digby wrote:You want to design a system based on relentless physical confrontation after we just lost a final following two physical games to a team that hadn't just had two physical games? Wouldn't it make more sense to look at options to remove such contest?
I do agree on Farrell not doing enough as a 12. The space to attack in that channel that SA left was just enormous, for some reason they didn't care about a running threat there, which is partly why I wasn't joking in saying Cokanasiga at 12 would have been an interesting if flawed selection at 12 for the final, and even then only in hindsight.
Maybe we lack the collective nous to recognise when we just have to keep the ball for a period and/or the physical ability to do it. We seem to kick more and less well when we are under pressure instead. The odd part about that is that Saracens and Exeter have the keep-ball bit in their genes. With a large Saracens presence and a Saracens captain why don't the national team do it naturally? It has to be to do with coaching/training presumably.richy678 wrote:I don't want to design a system. It's already there. The games we've seen against the Irish and NZ were a level of performance I've not seen from England ever - and we're all old buggers on here I believe.Digby wrote:You want to design a system based on relentless physical confrontation after we just lost a final following two physical games to a team that hadn't just had two physical games? Wouldn't it make more sense to look at options to remove such contest?
I do agree on Farrell not doing enough as a 12. The space to attack in that channel that SA left was just enormous, for some reason they didn't care about a running threat there, which is partly why I wasn't joking in saying Cokanasiga at 12 would have been an interesting if flawed selection at 12 for the final, and even then only in hindsight.
I am not going to rise to the bait of accusing you of wanting us to play a devil may care, throw the ball about, backs moves and all double dummy scissors on first phase, out in the open, behind the gain line, so you can nod sagely and explain it to people. You know more about rugby than that. In the same way I am not suggesting the grind fest, set piece domination and kick penalties game which was relatively successful in the 80s and 90's.
In these handfuls of games we've seen we have blown excellent teams off the pitch and not let them play. We need to find out how we can bring that more consistently.
No, Jones could simply have said that the coaching crew had identified mistakes in selection that won't be repeated. He has refused to be drawn on specifics often enough in the past. Blaming (effectively) Mako and Ford does nobody any good.Epaminondas Pules wrote:So if he says he doesn’t know why we lost he’s in the wrong and if he says he got selection wrong he’s in the wrong. Hmmm...anyone would think that Jones will always be in the wrong with some people.Oakboy wrote:Jones now saying he should have started Marler and reverted to Farrell/Tuilagi/Slade for the final. He's right but why say it? I'm not a fan of Ford but that is an unacceptable kick in the nuts from the head coach.
richy678 wrote:Digby wrote:You want to design a system based on relentless physical confrontation after we just lost a final following two physical games to a team that hadn't just had two physical games? Wouldn't it make more sense to look at options to remove such contest?
I do agree on Farrell not doing enough as a 12. The space to attack in that channel that SA left was just enormous, for some reason they didn't care about a running threat there, which is partly why I wasn't joking in saying Cokanasiga at 12 would have been an interesting if flawed selection at 12 for the final, and even then only in hindsight.
I don't want to design a system. It's already there. The games we've seen against the Irish and NZ were a level of performance I've not seen from England ever - and we're all old buggers on here I believe.
I am not going to rise to the bait of accusing you of wanting us to play a devil may care, throw the ball about, backs moves and all double dummy scissors on first phase, out in the open, behind the gain line, so you can nod sagely and explain it to people. You know more about rugby than that. In the same way I am not suggesting the grind fest, set piece domination and kick penalties game which was relatively successful in the 80s and 90's.
In these handfuls of games we've seen we have blown excellent teams off the pitch and not let them play. We need to find out how we can bring that more consistently.
twitchy wrote:In other rugby related news the GB league side got done 4-0 in their tests vs papua new guinea.
Things could be worse for us couldn't they.
Did you watch them? Is there any explanation for such a series of results beyond all the home teams playing better? Great for the kumals.morepork wrote:twitchy wrote:In other rugby related news the GB league side got done 4-0 in their tests vs papua new guinea.
Things could be worse for us couldn't they.
It was two Vs. the Kiwis, one Vs. Tonga, and one Vs. PNG.
Ah I see.morepork wrote:twitchy wrote:In other rugby related news the GB league side got done 4-0 in their tests vs papua new guinea.
Things could be worse for us couldn't they.
It was two Vs. the Kiwis, one Vs. Tonga, and one Vs. PNG.
Digby wrote:Who the feck is Wayne Bennett?
I don't even know if the Lions would the men's or women's team. Given we normally show true diversity and name the female team after a flower I'd guess men'smorepork wrote:Digby wrote:Who the feck is Wayne Bennett?
Australian RL coach in charge of the RL Lions and is current England coach. He is their Eddie Jones, but taller and less Ewok-like.
And you’d buy that without moaning? Yeah right!!!!Oakboy wrote:No, Jones could simply have said that the coaching crew had identified mistakes in selection that won't be repeated. He has refused to be drawn on specifics often enough in the past. Blaming (effectively) Mako and Ford does nobody any good.Epaminondas Pules wrote:So if he says he doesn’t know why we lost he’s in the wrong and if he says he got selection wrong he’s in the wrong. Hmmm...anyone would think that Jones will always be in the wrong with some people.Oakboy wrote:Jones now saying he should have started Marler and reverted to Farrell/Tuilagi/Slade for the final. He's right but why say it? I'm not a fan of Ford but that is an unacceptable kick in the nuts from the head coach.