Italy vs England - Sunday 3pm

[Stom]

I hope someone does a rewatch. I thought Slade was quiet and very much like Farrell at 12 but I could be wrong. Marchant also seemed to only be involved sporadically.

If you mean he was like Farrell in that he ran the same moves, often stepping into first receiver and running wrap around, then yes. But he executed it a lot better. The midfield was far less clunky than with Farrell, it just lacked go forward.

I thought Genge made a number of mistakes, timing, handling and discipline, that caused some issues, while Stuart was just rubbish. Those two were often popping up as our midfield ballast, though, so if we couldn’t go around, we gave it to them.

Curry was very good at generating go forward, I was impressed with his carrying, didn’t look very “English”, in that he hit the ball at pace, hit the line even harder, and didn’t stop driving.

I thought most of the combinations were worth persisting with. Just swap out Ewels for Lawes and Chessum for launch. And youngs for Quirke for that matter.

[Oakboy]

Randall was a breath of fresh air. Keen, alert, defensively sharp and fully committed. He was far from flawless, but I’d take that.

Thought Itoje fell off quite a few tackles when operating as a 6, but every bit one of our key players when back at lock.

Was impressed with Chessum, looked at home.

Smith is just a joy (and yes he made mistakes), with and without the ball. Not comfortable that Marchant is the right man for the job and would like to see Slade back at 13 with Steward tried at 12 (ducks for cover), Malins at 15 and Nowell plus Daly/flier on wing.

If match fit Launch or Lawes back in with Itoje

The trouble is that Slade and Marchant had three quarters of a game together v SA and then Jones did the wacky bit with Daly against Scotland to confuse things. I much prefer Slade at 12 to Farrell. I'd stick with Slade and Marchant and back the pairing to come good. With all the centre pairings tried and discarded it must be worth sticking with them for the 6N if for no other reason than to give Smith a consistent duo to get used to.

I ought to back Randall for the same period, I suppose, but I think Quirke is a better bet.

Blimey O’Reilly! I agreed with jngf and now I’m agreeing with Oakboy. Something strange is going on …

In all seriousness, I was going to post more or less the same thing so Oakboy saved me the effort.

I think Quirke and Randall as a 9/21 combination could be very effective. Quirke seems to be more tactically astute with a better core game, whilst Randall has the skill set to be a very effective impact sub.

Just have a few pints to calm yourself down. I'll probably upset you again before long to set things straight.

[p/d]

Could be a lovely Feb 14th for you both

[Banquo]

I think as Steward and the other players get used to the running lines of each other then it'll come. I don't mind the safety first approach, winging over optimistic offloads doesn't tend to end well at international level.

Ford and Smith would be targeted defensively but as I said if you're chasing the game then the risk/reward dynamic changes. The back line was considerably more dangerous with them working off each other than Slade working off Smith. If we're behind Vs Wales with between 10-15 to go we might roll the dice with that combination again.

Maybe on Steward, but he didnt need to be outrageous to link today...
Big leap to put either smith or ford at 12 regularly based on a couple of nice bits in attack v a tired Italy; I'd think the risk would outweigh any reward unless way behind. Did you not spot Slade acting as 1st receiver with Smith running off him- worked well I thought tbh., some nice run arounds. Still looked a bit unthreatening n midfield overall.

Was no one else getting frustrated at most of Smith’s wraparound running being too far back? It was slick but he kept getting the ball back 5 yards further back than he should’ve, allowing the defence to slide and not have to make a decision. I’m no back expert but it seemed like it should’ve been asking questions much more than it did.

Yes, I mentioned it earlier- it was ok, and gave the backs some time, but on the other hand the Italians didn't bite in much; we did make a lot of yards but without breaking the defence as such- hence unthreatening in midfield.

[Banquo]

I hope someone does a rewatch. I thought Slade was quiet and very much like Farrell at 12 but I could be wrong. Marchant also seemed to only be involved sporadically.

If you mean he was like Farrell in that he ran the same moves, often stepping into first receiver and running wrap around, then yes. But he executed it a lot better. The midfield was far less clunky than with Farrell, it just lacked go forward.

I thought Genge made a number of mistakes, timing, handling and discipline, that caused some issues, while Stuart was just rubbish. Those two were often popping up as our midfield ballast, though, so if we couldn’t go around, we gave it to them.

Curry was very good at generating go forward, I was impressed with his carrying, didn’t look very “English”, in that he hit the ball at pace, hit the line even harder, and didn’t stop driving.

I thought most of the combinations were worth persisting with. Just swap out Ewels for Lawes and Chessum for launch. And youngs for Quirke for that matter.

We made a lot of yards out wide on the back of those much slicker moves, but then were unable to recycle well to take real advantage- and said moves didn't result in definitive line breaks that were eye catching. There was one really nice incursion from Daly, because he hit the tackle line at pace from a flat pass. The moves showed the need to do the moves a bit closer to the tackle line (ironically, Ford is the master of this), and for a hard runner somewhere in the backline- could use Steward in a different channels, say. But need to acknowledge this was a pretty new backline, and you can't build Rome in a day; I thought they went ok, but as I say, we were struggling to recycle the ball- the pack imo weren't that sharp, and only Curry was really getting out wide to help in attack. 20 turnovers didn't help either.
Yes to the rest- but I'd also the backs are a tad samey bar Steward- skilled, decent and quick runners, and need to think how to get the best out of all that.

TBH, the yards made stats are huge in the backs, and we'd normally settle for that ...and we kicked less than usual, and the territory stats also show that

[Stom]

I hope someone does a rewatch. I thought Slade was quiet and very much like Farrell at 12 but I could be wrong. Marchant also seemed to only be involved sporadically.

If you mean he was like Farrell in that he ran the same moves, often stepping into first receiver and running wrap around, then yes. But he executed it a lot better. The midfield was far less clunky than with Farrell, it just lacked go forward.

I thought Genge made a number of mistakes, timing, handling and discipline, that caused some issues, while Stuart was just rubbish. Those two were often popping up as our midfield ballast, though, so if we couldn’t go around, we gave it to them.

Curry was very good at generating go forward, I was impressed with his carrying, didn’t look very “English”, in that he hit the ball at pace, hit the line even harder, and didn’t stop driving.

I thought most of the combinations were worth persisting with. Just swap out Ewels for Lawes and Chessum for launch. And youngs for Quirke for that matter.

We made a lot of yards out wide on the back of those much slicker moves, but then were unable to recycle well to take real advantage- and said moves didn't result in definitive line breaks that were eye catching. There was one really nice incursion from Daly, because he hit the tackle line at pace from a flat pass. The moves showed the need to do the moves a bit closer to the tackle line, and for a hard runner somewhere in the backline- could use Steward in a different channels, say. But need to acknowledge this was a pretty new backline, and you can't build Rome in a day; I thought they went ok, but as I say, we were struggling to recycle the ball- the pack imo weren't that sharp, and only Curry was really getting out wide to help in attack. 20 turnovers didn't help either.
Yes to the rest- but I'd also the backs are a tad samey bar Steward- skilled, decent and quick runners, and need to think how to get the best out of all that.

TBH, the yards made stats are huge in the backs, and we'd normally settle for that ...and we kicked less than usual, and the territory stats also show that

I feel like the pack weren’t getting to the breakdown well enough partly because the backs kept running away from support. And partly because it did seem a little scratch at times, so they were struggling to get across quick enough. Swap the ponderous Ewels for an actual flanker and you’d see a big difference there, imo, ditto if you swap Stuart for Sinckler from the start, and while I completely agree on bringing it a little closer in, I think it was a good start.

I also think Marler is just better than Genge. And remember, Marler gets about the park really well, so I don’t think you’d lose out there.

All in all, that game saw, for me, tweaks that needed making rather than wholesale changes, which is a much better place to be in.

[Banquo]

If you mean he was like Farrell in that he ran the same moves, often stepping into first receiver and running wrap around, then yes. But he executed it a lot better. The midfield was far less clunky than with Farrell, it just lacked go forward.

I thought Genge made a number of mistakes, timing, handling and discipline, that caused some issues, while Stuart was just rubbish. Those two were often popping up as our midfield ballast, though, so if we couldn’t go around, we gave it to them.

Curry was very good at generating go forward, I was impressed with his carrying, didn’t look very “English”, in that he hit the ball at pace, hit the line even harder, and didn’t stop driving.

I thought most of the combinations were worth persisting with. Just swap out Ewels for Lawes and Chessum for launch. And youngs for Quirke for that matter.

We made a lot of yards out wide on the back of those much slicker moves, but then were unable to recycle well to take real advantage- and said moves didn't result in definitive line breaks that were eye catching. There was one really nice incursion from Daly, because he hit the tackle line at pace from a flat pass. The moves showed the need to do the moves a bit closer to the tackle line, and for a hard runner somewhere in the backline- could use Steward in a different channels, say. But need to acknowledge this was a pretty new backline, and you can't build Rome in a day; I thought they went ok, but as I say, we were struggling to recycle the ball- the pack imo weren't that sharp, and only Curry was really getting out wide to help in attack. 20 turnovers didn't help either.
Yes to the rest- but I'd also the backs are a tad samey bar Steward- skilled, decent and quick runners, and need to think how to get the best out of all that.

TBH, the yards made stats are huge in the backs, and we'd normally settle for that ...and we kicked less than usual, and the territory stats also show that

I feel like the pack weren’t getting to the breakdown well enough partly because the backs kept running away from support. And partly because it did seem a little scratch at times, so they were struggling to get across quick enough. Swap the ponderous Ewels for an actual flanker and you’d see a big difference there, imo, ditto if you swap Stuart for Sinckler from the start, and while I completely agree on bringing it a little closer in, I think it was a good start.

I also think Marler is just better than Genge. And remember, Marler gets about the park really well, so I don’t think you’d lose out there.

All in all, that game saw, for me, tweaks that needed making rather than wholesale changes, which is a much better place to be in.

I think I said in the thread, it didn't look like the pack knew the backs moves upcoming; plus, the back row was hardly the quickest, and maybe another actual backrow would have made all the difference . And when I say moves closer to the tackle line, I also include some more directness in the 10/12/13 channel to mix it up- maybe with Steward as an option, or like they did with Daly.
For effectively a scratch team, they did some nice things...BUT the attention to detail was poor, and too many unforced errors. Need to work out how to fix that.

[fivepointer]

Tuilagi an option now he's back playing?
Hard to see how he wont be picked for the Wales game if fit.

[Banquo]

Tuilagi an option now he's back playing?
Hard to see how he wont be picked for the Wales game if fit.

If he stayed fit...massive if...him and Slade (say) mixing up on the back of the stuff we hinted at yesterday would be interesting.

[SDHoneymonster]

A bit of a mixed bag overall, but in general agree with the thrust that there was more positive than negative and what negatives there were are mainly teething issues rather than glaring flaws. Actually thought Italy played some nice stuff once they were in the 22 yesterday and so to keep them to zero points was a really good shift from the defence. Singling out players, even if he hasn't quite had the impact in attack that we'd be hoping for yet I think Dombrandt's general feel for the game shone through in his defensive interventions yesterday with a couple of huge turnovers, Chessum looked to the manor born in his short appearance and Randall/Smith looked a really sparky partnership worth persevering with. That was also Daly's best game on the international stage for a while.

Negatives: still an imbalanced side without Manu IMO, which should hasten the promotion of Barbeary. Where to play him though is the issue, as I think Dombrandt and Simmonds have both showed they could be a long term solution at 8 so far. Given you wouldn't really want Barbeary to be sacrificing explosive carries for the donkey work of a more traditional blindside I don't think you could play him in the same back row as Dombrandt as ideally both are allowed to pick and choose their involvements rather than being all-action style back rows. Also feel England are lacking threat from the back three: if Steward and Malins are currently being treated as first choice then the case for one of Daly, Radwan or Hassell-Collins is pretty strong just to add some pace and more of a running threat. Much like Tuilagi, we could really do with Watson and Cokanasiga deciding to stop getting injured every third game they play really.

[Banquo]

A bit of a mixed bag overall, but in general agree with the thrust that there was more positive than negative and what negatives there were are mainly teething issues rather than glaring flaws. Actually thought Italy played some nice stuff once they were in the 22 yesterday and so to keep them to zero points was a really good shift from the defence. Singling out players, even if he hasn't quite had the impact in attack that we'd be hoping for yet I think Dombrandt's general feel for the game shone through in his defensive interventions yesterday with a couple of huge turnovers, Chessum looked to the manor born in his short appearance and Randall/Smith looked a really sparky partnership worth persevering with. That was also Daly's best game on the international stage for a while.

Negatives: still an imbalanced side without Manu IMO, which should hasten the promotion of Barbeary. Where to play him though is the issue, as I think Dombrandt and Simmonds have both showed they could be a long term solution at 8 so far. Given you wouldn't really want Barbeary to be sacrificing explosive carries for the donkey work of a more traditional blindside I don't think you could play him in the same back row as Dombrandt as ideally both are allowed to pick and choose their involvements rather than being all-action style back rows. Also feel England are lacking threat from the back three: if Steward and Malins are currently being treated as first choice then the case for one of Daly, Radwan or Hassell-Collins is pretty strong just to add some pace and more of a running threat. Much like Tuilagi, we could really do with Watson and Cokanasiga deciding to stop getting injured every third game they play really.

Daly has not had a bad game as a wing (apart from his sending off in his first game there!) - he's much more able to show his positive skills there imo. We have still some problems to solve in the backs, and you've pointed most of them out- yesterdays backline was skilled, but lacked cutting edge...I wouldn't say Malins is first choice given his error count (and personally think he's not really a winger, but that might just be bias in what I want a winger to do ), and we need to figure out how best to use Steward in attack. We have plenty of skill available, and it looked better for Faz not clogging up midfield, but not obvious how to get the sharpness, both from midfield and back three.

The pack still seem to make too many mistakes, and discipline slipped in the second half; the conundrum is how to get more carrying and a third lineout option, as well as resourcing the breakdown- which was a numbers and a technical struggle yesterday. Itoje has to play second row, Sinckler has to start, George/LCD are hookers, Marler/Genge looseheads, Curry needs to play back row- the rest of the starters/squad are up for grabs still, I'd say.

Whoever is coaching attack/forwards needs to get the details at breakdown and communication sorted as well- if there were glaring flaws it was here; and - albeit self inflicted- we had new units everywhere, and esp in the back 5 of the pack.

[SDHoneymonster]

A bit of a mixed bag overall, but in general agree with the thrust that there was more positive than negative and what negatives there were are mainly teething issues rather than glaring flaws. Actually thought Italy played some nice stuff once they were in the 22 yesterday and so to keep them to zero points was a really good shift from the defence. Singling out players, even if he hasn't quite had the impact in attack that we'd be hoping for yet I think Dombrandt's general feel for the game shone through in his defensive interventions yesterday with a couple of huge turnovers, Chessum looked to the manor born in his short appearance and Randall/Smith looked a really sparky partnership worth persevering with. That was also Daly's best game on the international stage for a while.

Negatives: still an imbalanced side without Manu IMO, which should hasten the promotion of Barbeary. Where to play him though is the issue, as I think Dombrandt and Simmonds have both showed they could be a long term solution at 8 so far. Given you wouldn't really want Barbeary to be sacrificing explosive carries for the donkey work of a more traditional blindside I don't think you could play him in the same back row as Dombrandt as ideally both are allowed to pick and choose their involvements rather than being all-action style back rows. Also feel England are lacking threat from the back three: if Steward and Malins are currently being treated as first choice then the case for one of Daly, Radwan or Hassell-Collins is pretty strong just to add some pace and more of a running threat. Much like Tuilagi, we could really do with Watson and Cokanasiga deciding to stop getting injured every third game they play really.

Daly has not had a bad game as a wing (apart from his sending off in his first game there!) - he's much more able to show his positive skills there imo. We have still some problems to solve in the backs, and you've pointed most of them out- yesterdays backline was skilled, but lacked cutting edge...I wouldn't say Malins is first choice given his error count (and personally think he's not really a winger, but that might just be bias in what I want a winger to do ), and we need to figure out how best to use Steward in attack. We have plenty of skill available, and it looked better for Faz not clogging up midfield, but not obvious how to get the sharpness, both from midfield and back three.

The pack still seem to make too many mistakes, and discipline slipped in the second half; the conundrum is how to get more carrying and a third lineout option, as well as resourcing the breakdown- which was a numbers and a technical struggle yesterday. Itoje has to play second row, Sinckler has to start, George/LCD are hookers, Marler/Genge looseheads, Curry needs to play back row- the rest of the starters/squad are up for grabs still, I'd say.

Whoever is coaching attack/forwards needs to get the details at breakdown and communication sorted as well- if there were glaring flaws it was here; and - albeit self inflicted- we had new units everywhere, and esp in the back 5 of the pack.

The thing is I think Steward is still working out how best to use himself in attack too! Understandable, given he's still so young. He's got all the ingredients - he's powerful, his long stride eats up the ground quicker than you'd think and his two tries in the autumn also showed positives to his game in being able to carry hard and elude tackles with good footwork. He's also starting to insert himself into the line nicely and he runs decent support lines too, I just think he needs to back himself a bit more. Not sure I disagree with the people saying his long term position could well actually be 12: Jamie Roberts was similar in build when he broke on to the scene and ended up making the same transition, and with his pipe cleaner arms he has the physique to get some SBW style offloads away. I like Malins as an enabler of attacking chaos alongside Smith but the backline v Italy lacked finishing nous.

[Banquo]

A bit of a mixed bag overall, but in general agree with the thrust that there was more positive than negative and what negatives there were are mainly teething issues rather than glaring flaws. Actually thought Italy played some nice stuff once they were in the 22 yesterday and so to keep them to zero points was a really good shift from the defence. Singling out players, even if he hasn't quite had the impact in attack that we'd be hoping for yet I think Dombrandt's general feel for the game shone through in his defensive interventions yesterday with a couple of huge turnovers, Chessum looked to the manor born in his short appearance and Randall/Smith looked a really sparky partnership worth persevering with. That was also Daly's best game on the international stage for a while.

Negatives: still an imbalanced side without Manu IMO, which should hasten the promotion of Barbeary. Where to play him though is the issue, as I think Dombrandt and Simmonds have both showed they could be a long term solution at 8 so far. Given you wouldn't really want Barbeary to be sacrificing explosive carries for the donkey work of a more traditional blindside I don't think you could play him in the same back row as Dombrandt as ideally both are allowed to pick and choose their involvements rather than being all-action style back rows. Also feel England are lacking threat from the back three: if Steward and Malins are currently being treated as first choice then the case for one of Daly, Radwan or Hassell-Collins is pretty strong just to add some pace and more of a running threat. Much like Tuilagi, we could really do with Watson and Cokanasiga deciding to stop getting injured every third game they play really.

Daly has not had a bad game as a wing (apart from his sending off in his first game there!) - he's much more able to show his positive skills there imo. We have still some problems to solve in the backs, and you've pointed most of them out- yesterdays backline was skilled, but lacked cutting edge...I wouldn't say Malins is first choice given his error count (and personally think he's not really a winger, but that might just be bias in what I want a winger to do ), and we need to figure out how best to use Steward in attack. We have plenty of skill available, and it looked better for Faz not clogging up midfield, but not obvious how to get the sharpness, both from midfield and back three.

The pack still seem to make too many mistakes, and discipline slipped in the second half; the conundrum is how to get more carrying and a third lineout option, as well as resourcing the breakdown- which was a numbers and a technical struggle yesterday. Itoje has to play second row, Sinckler has to start, George/LCD are hookers, Marler/Genge looseheads, Curry needs to play back row- the rest of the starters/squad are up for grabs still, I'd say.

Whoever is coaching attack/forwards needs to get the details at breakdown and communication sorted as well- if there were glaring flaws it was here; and - albeit self inflicted- we had new units everywhere, and esp in the back 5 of the pack.

The thing is I think Steward is still working out how best to use himself in attack too! Understandable, given he's still so young. He's got all the ingredients - he's powerful, his long stride eats up the ground quicker than you'd think and his two tries in the autumn also showed positives to his game in being able to carry hard and elude tackles with good footwork. He's also starting to insert himself into the line nicely and he runs decent support lines too, I just think he needs to back himself a bit more. Not sure I disagree with the people saying his long term position could well actually be 12: Jamie Roberts was similar in build when he broke on to the scene and ended up making the same transition, and with his pipe cleaner arms he has the physique to get some SBW style offloads away. I like Malins as an enabler of attacking chaos alongside Smith but the backline v Italy lacked finishing nous.

Steward may possibly be able to play 12, but he needs to make that move asap and Tigers would need to let him. He needs to back himself more and also not die with it, but he's a good player. The coaches are there to help him develop his interventions- and yesterday's moves were actually quite hard to time a move from, from 15; ideally a 15 comes late with a bit of a change of angle, but that's hard to time with those run around moves, as the line tends to be going at a fair old pace, and its very hard to try and make a late run unless you have super acceleration....timing is difficult, and only comes with practice (and is very different in a game).

'an enabler of attacking chaos' ..ok

[Mikey Brown]

Didn’t Jones make some statement* about not wanting to rely on Tuilagi or a big centre? Might he try and get through the 6 nations without rushing Manu back?

*Obviously this means literally nothing in terms of what he’ll actually do, but I thought I read something to that effect.

I’ve still not watched the game but Steward seems to be spoken about quite often on here as if he’s some sort of wrecking ball carrier. He’s a big lad and seems to have good technique in contact but I’m not sure if I’ve missed that element of his game or people are just getting a bit carried away?

Also curious about Smith playing so deep. A lot of teams seem to be doing that at the moment, I’m not sure if it’s a conscious decision to try and ease him in at this level by taking some of the pressure off. Obviously he doesn’t have Farrell to hold his hand so it must be pretty scary.

Without any serious tackle/line-breaking threats alongside it must be very reliant on us getting around or over a defence to not get caught behind the gainline.

[Banquo]

Didn’t Jones make some statement* about not wanting to rely on Tuilagi or a big centre? Might he try and get through the 6 nations without rushing Manu back?

*Obviously this means literally nothing in terms of what he’ll actually do, but I thought I read something to that effect.

I’ve still not watched the game but Steward seems to be spoken about quite often on here as if he’s some sort of wrecking ball carrier. He’s a big lad and seems to have good technique in contact but I’m not sure if I’ve missed that element of his game or people are just getting a bit carried away?

Also curious about Smith playing so deep. A lot of teams seem to be doing that at the moment, I’m not sure if it’s a conscious decision to try and ease him in at this level by taking some of the pressure off. Obviously he doesn’t have Farrell to hold his hand so it must be pretty scary.

Without any serious tackle/line-breaking threats alongside it must be very reliant on us getting around or over a defence to not get caught behind the gainline.

? not sure where that comes from. I just think you could use his strengths in a few different ways- he can hit good short lines and is a big lad...

Smith was moderately deep when Slade was acting as first receiver, and it bought us time to get around the defence.....and we were successfully in making ground in this way- the problem came off the next phase tbh. But then again, Italy, weren't that good. But as I said, we need a closer threat too, and Steward may be able to provide that option, and indeed Daly did do so once off his wing.

[Oakboy]

What is the proper way to make progress after two matches? Had Jones picked Daly and Marchant in their proper positions against Scotland would the back line have been slicker yesterday? Had Nowell not got injured, might Daly never have got back on to the wing? Now, though, where do we go next?

Obviously, Jones should pick his best team for Wales but I hope he puts continuity into the mix with the backs. Maybe, the front row starting/finishing choices don't matter that much but have the 2nd and back row changes taken him any further forward?

[twitchy]

Didn’t Jones make some statement* about not wanting to rely on Tuilagi or a big centre?

He said that england don't produce big ball carrying centres (which is true/also weird?) so he has to work around it.

[Banquo]

What is the proper way to make progress after two matches? Had Jones picked Daly and Marchant in their proper positions against Scotland would the back line have been slicker yesterday? Had Nowell not got injured, might Daly never have got back on to the wing? Now, though, where do we go next?

Obviously, Jones should pick his best team for Wales but I hope he puts continuity into the mix with the backs. Maybe, the front row starting/finishing choices don't matter that much but have the 2nd and back row changes taken him any further forward?

In fairness the changes at second/back row were forced by injury.

The backline is more problematic for me- its a plain muddle....probably because a lot of our better backs are similar in terms of skill sets/physical abilities, and there are no real stars, other than Smith and Ford .....and Eddie is still wary of using these 'strengths' to play a faster all court game (and his version is the number on your back doesn't matter - which imo isn't a great plan) because he doesn't think the forwards especially can sustain this, skills and decision making. (Is my guess).

[Banquo]

Didn’t Jones make some statement* about not wanting to rely on Tuilagi or a big centre?

He said that england don't produce big ball carrying centres (which is true/also weird?) so he has to work around it.

It is weird, and I've commented before on it-- albeit couched as running centres.

[32nd Man]

Didn’t Jones make some statement* about not wanting to rely on Tuilagi or a big centre?

He said that england don't produce big ball carrying centres (which is true/also weird?) so he has to work around it.

Because big lads get shoved in the pack at school?

[WaspInWales]

All this talk about Steward as a potential 12 is pointless until Eddie gives the lad a run at 9 when Youngs is injured and Randall and Quirke are available. Joking aside, I reckon Eddie would put Steward on the wing without a thought if Malins, Marchant and Daly were unavailable as he sees the back 3 as interchangeable. He thinks the same about 10, 12 and 13, plus probably thinks every centre is a winger in disguise. If that wasn't enough, he's happy to put a lock in the backrow and isn't too fussed about mixing up 6, 7 and 8.

Shit happens during a match, so playing players out of position is hardly a new phenomena, but his entire selection process depends on shoe-horning players in regardless of whether there's a better option in the position that needs to be filled.

Then there's Eddie's 'trusted' favourites like Youngs, Faz etc. You just know both will feature in the RWC regardless of options.

Face it guys, England are proper fucked with Eddie.

[32nd Man]

All this talk about Steward as a potential 12 is pointless until Eddie gives the lad a run at 9 when Youngs is injured and Randall and Quirke are available. Joking aside, I reckon Eddie would put Steward on the wing without a thought if Malins, Marchant and Daly were unavailable as he sees the back 3 as interchangeable. He thinks the same about 10, 12 and 13, plus probably thinks every centre is a winger in disguise. If that wasn't enough, he's happy to put a lock in the backrow and isn't too fussed about mixing up 6, 7 and 8.

Shit happens during a match, so playing players out of position is hardly a new phenomena, but his entire selection process depends on shoe-horning players in regardless of whether there's a better option in the position that needs to be filled.

Then there's Eddie's 'trusted' favourites like Youngs, Faz etc. You just know both will feature in the RWC regardless of options.

Face it guys, England are proper fucked with Eddie.

We do seem to have hit the 2nd to last phase of the eternal wheel of England sports team managers / head coaches.

1) previous guy gets fired for clinging too hard to favourites / theories regardless of form, fitness or performances.
2) immediate improvement from new hire as they replace said unfit / out of form favourites with fresh blood.
3) varied levels of success with new picks sees a core group of trusted players established.
4) loyalty to "the group" tickks over from a positive to a negative as favourites emerge he will get picked regardless / theory on how to use your players regardless of results sets in.
5) results and performances drop off, to be met with a bloody minded commitment to issues emerging in 4.
6) get fired, see new guy come in and have immediate improvements through moving away from favourites / theories

Rinse and repeat.

[fivepointer]

What is the proper way to make progress after two matches? Had Jones picked Daly and Marchant in their proper positions against Scotland would the back line have been slicker yesterday? Had Nowell not got injured, might Daly never have got back on to the wing? Now, though, where do we go next?

Obviously, Jones should pick his best team for Wales but I hope he puts continuity into the mix with the backs. Maybe, the front row starting/finishing choices don't matter that much but have the 2nd and back row changes taken him any further forward?

Problem when you beat Italy is that everyone beats Italy, mostly very comfortably. How much store can we put in performances against the weakest of the 6N sides?
Last year we won against them after losing to Scotland, then went to Wales with a degree of confidence restored and got stuffed.
I really dont know if thats going to happen again.
I think we look OK at times, I can some nice moments, some good linking and teamwork and then the next we cannot put 2 passes together, or we give away possession needlessly. Some of the players look fine, but even the better performing ones make errors. Our scrum is so-so, our maul unthreatening, but our defence is mostly sound.
I'm not sure where this team is going, who is likely to start the next game, where they will play or how they will play.

[Mr Mwenda]

What is the proper way to make progress after two matches? Had Jones picked Daly and Marchant in their proper positions against Scotland would the back line have been slicker yesterday? Had Nowell not got injured, might Daly never have got back on to the wing? Now, though, where do we go next?

Obviously, Jones should pick his best team for Wales but I hope he puts continuity into the mix with the backs. Maybe, the front row starting/finishing choices don't matter that much but have the 2nd and back row changes taken him any further forward?

Problem when you beat Italy is that everyone beats Italy, mostly very comfortably. How much store can we put in performances against the weakest of the 6N sides?
Last year we won against them after losing to Scotland, then went to Wales with a degree of confidence restored and got stuffed.
I really dont know if thats going to happen again.
I think we look OK at times, I can some nice moments, some good linking and teamwork and then the next we cannot put 2 passes together, or we give away possession needlessly. Some of the players look fine, but even the better performing ones make errors. Our scrum is so-so, our maul unthreatening, but our defence is mostly sound.
I'm not sure where this team is going, who is likely to start the next game, where they will play or how they will play.

You echo many of my concerns, I remember in the opening 10-20 minutes the ball being coughed up on several occasions under no pressure and then the farce that was the presentation of ruck ball. Someone mentioned earlier that Jones does not feel England players have high enough skill levels. I'd be inclined to agree. I also think that that some of these basic things should not be the sort of things that have to be worked on at the international level. If anything, ambitious game plans are surely exactly what one needs at the top.

[Banquo]

What is the proper way to make progress after two matches? Had Jones picked Daly and Marchant in their proper positions against Scotland would the back line have been slicker yesterday? Had Nowell not got injured, might Daly never have got back on to the wing? Now, though, where do we go next?

Obviously, Jones should pick his best team for Wales but I hope he puts continuity into the mix with the backs. Maybe, the front row starting/finishing choices don't matter that much but have the 2nd and back row changes taken him any further forward?

Problem when you beat Italy is that everyone beats Italy, mostly very comfortably. How much store can we put in performances against the weakest of the 6N sides?
Last year we won against them after losing to Scotland, then went to Wales with a degree of confidence restored and got stuffed.
I really dont know if thats going to happen again.
I think we look OK at times, I can some nice moments, some good linking and teamwork and then the next we cannot put 2 passes together, or we give away possession needlessly. Some of the players look fine, but even the better performing ones make errors. Our scrum is so-so, our maul unthreatening, but our defence is mostly sound.
I'm not sure where this team is going, who is likely to start the next game, where they will play or how they will play.

You echo many of my concerns, I remember in the opening 10-20 minutes the ball being coughed up on several occasions under no pressure and then the farce that was the presentation of ruck ball. Someone mentioned earlier that Jones does not feel England players have high enough skill levels. I'd be inclined to agree. I also think that that some of these basic things should not be the sort of things that have to be worked on at the international level. If anything, ambitious game plans are surely exactly what one needs at the top.

twas I, and yes, it was one of Jones's earliest statements...when he said he'd use our 'national characteristics'...big physical pack and kicking, basically...

aside from the backs muddle, the basic errors up front and detail needs to be fixed; we'd given a stupid penalty away within a minute of ko yesterday.