Italy vs England - Sunday 3pm

[Banquo]

Fair point about Simmonds, but his form since then was worth looking at again. Arguably Dombrandt could have seen a bit more action before now too, even if it was as a 'finisher' replacing a long out of form Billy.

Also fair regarding Curry, my point was could Curry have been capped more by now? It was a genuine question. I'm too lazy to research how many potential caps he could have by now, allowing for any periods when he has been injured. I'm thankful Eddie gave him the chance as he is one of our genuine world class players.

Robson has not been found wanting at all imo.

I still think Eddie doesn't give a fair chance to many. Daly is pretty much there as a long range kicking option and ability to cover a few positions (some not very well), but we have better options for centre and fb, wing too so why not give Radwan or OHC a crack against Scotland or Italy. Same with Malins. Both great players at their best, but Eddie either loves the utility tag or doesn't see the benefit of having players playing in the positions they do for their clubs. Centres on the wing again stops a winger have a chance.

Then Itoje in the backrow. Another world class player, but this time not playing in his best position and preventing someone having a shot at 6. Either start Itoje or use him as a finisher whilst developing another lock.

I just think Eddie has dropped quite a few balls regarding selection. His pigheadedness was responsible for us finishing 5th last year. Apparently, he learned his lessons and then still selected an out of form and injured Farrell as captain this year.

I'll give Eddie credit for an impressive start and some more than decent scalps here and there, but his selection policy has also resulted in some dreadful results and performances. Overall, it has been a bang average return considering the resources and time he has had.

Bit confused- the start point for this chat was

---Jones has continually ignored far better alternatives that he has had available.

Woodentop had to leave out some good players at times, but under Jones, they wouldn't even get a chance as he'd much rather play a few players out of position rather than give someone else a chance to claim the shirt.---

I asked for some specifics in players and positions......and it turns out to be a tiny list of players who in fact have featured/been in several camps under Eddie, plus a few you have lumped in above (Malins spent a lot of his time at Brizzle on the wing btw; Daly is imo a world class wing, having starred there on the Lions tour of 2017). I will agree that he has made some distinctly odd calls about where players play (though we all decried Lawes at 6 in fairness- turns out he has developed into that role quite well), but I don't think many if any have been disadvantaged by that, and I'd especially dispute the 'far better alternatives' piece and the assertion you make about the talent and depth at his disposal v SCW.

I think there is a fair bit to fault Eddie on, but casting his net wide is not one of them; it may be frustrating, but it does seem that its in training camps where players are evaluated fully. I think you and I probably disagree most on the talent pool he has- I don't think we produce many 'oven ready' top players, but a lot of good club players; he gets most of them into camp/on tours (eg Armand), and for whatever reason doesn't think they can make the jump. I'll concede though, that he moves on quickly - and as someone else has pointed out, that's the upside (and imo downside) of having so many pro teams.

I'm much more troubled by the team's continual high error count, poor discipline and poor breakdown performances-- and where we are going to get some cutting edge in midfield from. Like you, I'm a bit grumpy on the way the backs are being set up, but I could well be a bit stuck with my own ideal model for setting backs up. We have some quite big problems tbh- some of it is lack of quality players, some of it is something 'cultural' in the camp, some is the inevitable return of Faz, and some is what direction are we heading in- but I don't think its ignoring top players, nor has that been the issue before to any degree worth worrying.

Hi all, long time no post but Banquo, hear hear. I totally agree.

I don't think that this 'massive player pool' that we keep hearing about has enough talent in it. I find it unbelievable that we don't have any physically imposing/dominant centres at all, I'm not sure I see any truly special NEW wingers knocking about at this moment and we've talked about how few leaders there are many times. We need some better scrummaging props and another imposing 2nd row or two.

I'd agree that the back row is a little different.

As an aside, it's why I'd like to see Barbeary rushed onto the bench asap. When we do come across special players with a point of difference, get them in and try them out please Eddie.

Nice to have you back, and yes!

[fivepointer]

During this debate the comment about X just being club standard (or similar) has featured. How do we know if the head coach has not given him a decent chance resulting in visible failure?

There are several factors that should also be considered:

Some players adjust quickly, others don't. A few minutes off the bench rarely proves anything.
It is unreasonable (Jones especially guilty, IMO) to watch a player in top club form for a season, then pick him when he is not.
Some players play better in internationals so relying on club form can work both ways.
First caps should always be in the player's proper position.
Maybe (not sure about this?), some clubs' playing style flatters their players if significant change is not required to adjust to the international style. 'Tried him, he didn't fit' - was that the player's fault or the head coach's?

This is my major gripe.

Earlier I highlighted Robson's record as having 14 caps, yet not getting a start. There are plenty of others who fall into that category, Ben Earl has 13 caps, no starts either.

I think if a player is good enough for the bench, he's good enough to start, and to properly evaluate whether a player has it in them I dont think the odd start is unreasonable. Seems to me its very unfair to judge someone's value from a fleeting bench appearance.

Jones does see lots of players but many just disappear, or get the token bench appearance, or stay in camp and twiddle their thumbs (Odogwu in last years 6N's springs to mind)

Selection is hard. Jones has a wide pool of talent to draw upon with many good players of roughly equal ability, but i do think that if you invest time in a player, think they're good enough to get into the matchday 23, then go the next step and give them a start - in their proper position, naturally!

[Puja]

On a slightly different tack was struck that Chessum looks to have a similar build/bodyshape to Tom Croft (albeit a couple of inches taller and a couple of stones heavier) - does he have some of Croft’s exceptional pace? (Asked in hopeful expectation)

He's quite nippy, but he's definitely not got Croft's pace.

Puja

[Stom]

During this debate the comment about X just being club standard (or similar) has featured. How do we know if the head coach has not given him a decent chance resulting in visible failure?

There are several factors that should also be considered:

Some players adjust quickly, others don't. A few minutes off the bench rarely proves anything.
It is unreasonable (Jones especially guilty, IMO) to watch a player in top club form for a season, then pick him when he is not.
Some players play better in internationals so relying on club form can work both ways.
First caps should always be in the player's proper position.
Maybe (not sure about this?), some clubs' playing style flatters their players if significant change is not required to adjust to the international style. 'Tried him, he didn't fit' - was that the player's fault or the head coach's?

This is my major gripe.

Earlier I highlighted Robson's record as having 14 caps, yet not getting a start. There are plenty of others who fall into that category, Ben Earl has 13 caps, no starts either.

I think if a player is good enough for the bench, he's good enough to start, and to properly evaluate whether a player has it in them I dont think the odd start is unreasonable. Seems to me its very unfair to judge someone's value from a fleeting bench appearance.

Jones does see lots of players but many just disappear, or get the token bench appearance, or stay in camp and twiddle their thumbs (Odogwu in last years 6N's springs to mind)

Selection is hard. Jones has a wide pool of talent to draw upon with many good players of roughly equal ability, but i do think that if you invest time in a player, think they're good enough to get into the matchday 23, then go the next step and give them a start - in their proper position, naturally!

So this is both a positive and a gripe…

Jones tells players where they need to work and sends them back to their clubs. Then doesn’t pick them until they show the improvement he’s asked for.

Except that there are a fair few players who have not received feedback. Why weren’t they given a fair crack of the whip? Shields, for instance, is a player who was lacking when he played for England, has gone away and become a better player, and now can’t get a look in.

And there are also players who are discarded, then bought back with no clear improvement in their game.

Which is fine, if they’re the best option in an injury crisis, but then Simmonds and dombrandt were ignored when Billy was injured…

So there is a little bit of inconsistency there, and I feel it would be better one way or the other

[Banquo]

During this debate the comment about X just being club standard (or similar) has featured. How do we know if the head coach has not given him a decent chance resulting in visible failure?

There are several factors that should also be considered:

Some players adjust quickly, others don't. A few minutes off the bench rarely proves anything.
It is unreasonable (Jones especially guilty, IMO) to watch a player in top club form for a season, then pick him when he is not.
Some players play better in internationals so relying on club form can work both ways.
First caps should always be in the player's proper position.
Maybe (not sure about this?), some clubs' playing style flatters their players if significant change is not required to adjust to the international style. 'Tried him, he didn't fit' - was that the player's fault or the head coach's?

This is my major gripe.

Earlier I highlighted Robson's record as having 14 caps, yet not getting a start. There are plenty of others who fall into that category, Ben Earl has 13 caps, no starts either.

I think if a player is good enough for the bench, he's good enough to start, and to properly evaluate whether a player has it in them I dont think the odd start is unreasonable. Seems to me its very unfair to judge someone's value from a fleeting bench appearance.

Jones does see lots of players but many just disappear, or get the token bench appearance, or stay in camp and twiddle their thumbs (Odogwu in last years 6N's springs to mind)

Selection is hard. Jones has a wide pool of talent to draw upon with many good players of roughly equal ability, but i do think that if you invest time in a player, think they're good enough to get into the matchday 23, then go the next step and give them a start - in their proper position, naturally!

So this is both a positive and a gripe…

Jones tells players where they need to work and sends them back to their clubs. Then doesn’t pick them until they show the improvement he’s asked for.

Except that there are a fair few players who have not received feedback. Why weren’t they given a fair crack of the whip? Shields, for instance, is a player who was lacking when he played for England, has gone away and become a better player, and now can’t get a look in.

And there are also players who are discarded, then bought back with no clear improvement in their game.

Which is fine, if they’re the best option in an injury crisis, but then Simmonds and dombrandt were ignored when Billy was injured…

So there is a little bit of inconsistency there, and I feel it would be better one way or the other

How do you know they haven't received feedback- genuine q. And who are these discarded and returning players with no improvement?

Also- I'm not sure Shields has gone away and worked on anything, I think he's just playing better and has got used to teammates tbh. Unlike many, I thought he was a fair shout to bring into the squad, having seen what he could do in NZ- he got here, and found that the wavelength and frankly competence of his teammates and therefore his role was very different to back home.

Again though, the debate started from Eddie apparently ignoring much better alternatives- I just don't think they exist; there are alternatives, but much better or better? I don't think so, apart from some edge cases. I take the point on fleeting appearances and subs, but I'd think he only had those guys in the squad again as edge cases and squad filler, whilst he found someone better/through injury circumstances. He also has some previous in not really wanting uncapped 27-30 year olds in the squad, though that has slipped from time to time; I seem to remember that when he started, he missed out that sort of player from squads to begin with, preferring much younger uncapped folks. And yes, that's inconsistent, which is difficult, but again, its a function of having so much choice.

[Oakboy]

I suppose the crunch is WHICH new/recalled players Jones is going to run with from here. Is it too late to be still experimenting?

I've made no secret of disliking Jones and I don't think he has been up to scratch since 2019 even if he was, arguably, before that.

Maybe, the acid test will be the Wales game with Tuilagi. At this point, does picking him for that game make sense? We've been there before many times. I think he has to have a realistic 12 alternative other than Farrell. Continuity demands a start for Slade/Marchant at 12/13 against decent opposition. Give players/combinations a proper test.

[Oakboy]

This is my major gripe.

Earlier I highlighted Robson's record as having 14 caps, yet not getting a start. There are plenty of others who fall into that category, Ben Earl has 13 caps, no starts either.

I think if a player is good enough for the bench, he's good enough to start, and to properly evaluate whether a player has it in them I dont think the odd start is unreasonable. Seems to me its very unfair to judge someone's value from a fleeting bench appearance.

Jones does see lots of players but many just disappear, or get the token bench appearance, or stay in camp and twiddle their thumbs (Odogwu in last years 6N's springs to mind)

Selection is hard. Jones has a wide pool of talent to draw upon with many good players of roughly equal ability, but i do think that if you invest time in a player, think they're good enough to get into the matchday 23, then go the next step and give them a start - in their proper position, naturally!

So this is both a positive and a gripe…

Jones tells players where they need to work and sends them back to their clubs. Then doesn’t pick them until they show the improvement he’s asked for.

Except that there are a fair few players who have not received feedback. Why weren’t they given a fair crack of the whip? Shields, for instance, is a player who was lacking when he played for England, has gone away and become a better player, and now can’t get a look in.

And there are also players who are discarded, then bought back with no clear improvement in their game.

Which is fine, if they’re the best option in an injury crisis, but then Simmonds and dombrandt were ignored when Billy was injured…

So there is a little bit of inconsistency there, and I feel it would be better one way or the other

How do you know they haven't received feedback- genuine q. And who are these discarded and returning players with no improvement?

Also- I'm not sure Shields has gone away and worked on anything, I think he's just playing better and has got used to teammates tbh. Unlike many, I thought he was a fair shout to bring into the squad, having seen what he could do in NZ- he got here, and found that the wavelength and frankly competence of his teammates and therefore his role was very different to back home.

Again though, the debate started from Eddie apparently ignoring much better alternatives- I just don't think they exist; there are alternatives, but much better or better? I don't think so, apart from some edge cases.

You could use Shields as an example of being played out of position. He started in the 2nd row at least once, I seem to remember.

[twitchy]

Someone start a wales thread.

[Banquo]

So this is both a positive and a gripe…

Jones tells players where they need to work and sends them back to their clubs. Then doesn’t pick them until they show the improvement he’s asked for.

Except that there are a fair few players who have not received feedback. Why weren’t they given a fair crack of the whip? Shields, for instance, is a player who was lacking when he played for England, has gone away and become a better player, and now can’t get a look in.

And there are also players who are discarded, then bought back with no clear improvement in their game.

Which is fine, if they’re the best option in an injury crisis, but then Simmonds and dombrandt were ignored when Billy was injured…

So there is a little bit of inconsistency there, and I feel it would be better one way or the other

How do you know they haven't received feedback- genuine q. And who are these discarded and returning players with no improvement?

Also- I'm not sure Shields has gone away and worked on anything, I think he's just playing better and has got used to teammates tbh. Unlike many, I thought he was a fair shout to bring into the squad, having seen what he could do in NZ- he got here, and found that the wavelength and frankly competence of his teammates and therefore his role was very different to back home.

Again though, the debate started from Eddie apparently ignoring much better alternatives- I just don't think they exist; there are alternatives, but much better or better? I don't think so, apart from some edge cases.

You could use Shields as an example of being played out of position. He started in the 2nd row at least once, I seem to remember.

He came on as a lock in extremis once iirc.
Mike Brown on the wing. Shiiiit.

[p/d]

Someone start a wales thread.

Or anything!!!! Should the trilby return as mandatory headwear for rugger matches at Twickers?

[Banquo]

Someone start a wales thread.

Or anything!!!! Should the trilby return as mandatory headwear for rugger matches at Twickers?

bowler hat, or rees-moggs topper?

[p/d]

Someone start a wales thread.

Or anything!!!! Should the trilby return as mandatory headwear for rugger matches at Twickers?

bowler hat, or rees-moggs topper?

Both more than acceptable

[Stom]

This is my major gripe.

Earlier I highlighted Robson's record as having 14 caps, yet not getting a start. There are plenty of others who fall into that category, Ben Earl has 13 caps, no starts either.

I think if a player is good enough for the bench, he's good enough to start, and to properly evaluate whether a player has it in them I dont think the odd start is unreasonable. Seems to me its very unfair to judge someone's value from a fleeting bench appearance.

Jones does see lots of players but many just disappear, or get the token bench appearance, or stay in camp and twiddle their thumbs (Odogwu in last years 6N's springs to mind)

Selection is hard. Jones has a wide pool of talent to draw upon with many good players of roughly equal ability, but i do think that if you invest time in a player, think they're good enough to get into the matchday 23, then go the next step and give them a start - in their proper position, naturally!

So this is both a positive and a gripe…

Jones tells players where they need to work and sends them back to their clubs. Then doesn’t pick them until they show the improvement he’s asked for.

Except that there are a fair few players who have not received feedback. Why weren’t they given a fair crack of the whip? Shields, for instance, is a player who was lacking when he played for England, has gone away and become a better player, and now can’t get a look in.

And there are also players who are discarded, then bought back with no clear improvement in their game.

Which is fine, if they’re the best option in an injury crisis, but then Simmonds and dombrandt were ignored when Billy was injured…

So there is a little bit of inconsistency there, and I feel it would be better one way or the other

How do you know they haven't received feedback- genuine q. And who are these discarded and returning players with no improvement?

Also- I'm not sure Shields has gone away and worked on anything, I think he's just playing better and has got used to teammates tbh. Unlike many, I thought he was a fair shout to bring into the squad, having seen what he could do in NZ- he got here, and found that the wavelength and frankly competence of his teammates and therefore his role was very different to back home.

Again though, the debate started from Eddie apparently ignoring much better alternatives- I just don't think they exist; there are alternatives, but much better or better? I don't think so, apart from some edge cases. I take the point on fleeting appearances and subs, but I'd think he only had those guys in the squad again as edge cases and squad filler, whilst he found someone better/through injury circumstances. He also has some previous in not really wanting uncapped 27-30 year olds in the squad, though that has slipped from time to time; I seem to remember that when he started, he missed out that sort of player from squads to begin with, preferring much younger uncapped folks. And yes, that's inconsistent, which is difficult, but again, its a function of having so much choice.

I seem to remember more than one player saying they’d heard nothing from Eddie at all, not a word. Which, considering how much other players say he helped, is inconsistency.

Discussions move. I think his selections have generally been right, except for a few.

My comment on experience is more about the fact I would have simply ditched youngs and got more experience into other 9s. They couldn’t have been much worse. Farrell, too. Ewels over any young player. I just don’t see the point of wasting caps in players who aren’t up to it.

And I do feel a little inconsistency. But in general I’m ok with Eddie’s England. Just frustrated that the same mistakes plague us.

[Banquo]

So this is both a positive and a gripe…

Jones tells players where they need to work and sends them back to their clubs. Then doesn’t pick them until they show the improvement he’s asked for.

Except that there are a fair few players who have not received feedback. Why weren’t they given a fair crack of the whip? Shields, for instance, is a player who was lacking when he played for England, has gone away and become a better player, and now can’t get a look in.

And there are also players who are discarded, then bought back with no clear improvement in their game.

Which is fine, if they’re the best option in an injury crisis, but then Simmonds and dombrandt were ignored when Billy was injured…

So there is a little bit of inconsistency there, and I feel it would be better one way or the other

How do you know they haven't received feedback- genuine q. And who are these discarded and returning players with no improvement?

Also- I'm not sure Shields has gone away and worked on anything, I think he's just playing better and has got used to teammates tbh. Unlike many, I thought he was a fair shout to bring into the squad, having seen what he could do in NZ- he got here, and found that the wavelength and frankly competence of his teammates and therefore his role was very different to back home.

Again though, the debate started from Eddie apparently ignoring much better alternatives- I just don't think they exist; there are alternatives, but much better or better? I don't think so, apart from some edge cases. I take the point on fleeting appearances and subs, but I'd think he only had those guys in the squad again as edge cases and squad filler, whilst he found someone better/through injury circumstances. He also has some previous in not really wanting uncapped 27-30 year olds in the squad, though that has slipped from time to time; I seem to remember that when he started, he missed out that sort of player from squads to begin with, preferring much younger uncapped folks. And yes, that's inconsistent, which is difficult, but again, its a function of having so much choice.

I seem to remember more than one player saying they’d heard nothing from Eddie at all, not a word. Which, considering how much other players say he helped, is inconsistency.

Discussions move. I think his selections have generally been right, except for a few.

My comment on experience is more about the fact I would have simply ditched youngs and got more experience into other 9s. They couldn’t have been much worse. Farrell, too. Ewels over any young player. I just don’t see the point of wasting caps in players who aren’t up to it.

And I do feel a little inconsistency. But in general I’m ok with Eddie’s England. Just frustrated that the same mistakes plague us.

Wafer thin evidence on comms tbh (and not the anecdotal evidence I have heard from a former squad member who I know) but obviously possible given how many he has looked at- but totally agree on the mistakes, accuracy, breakdown detail, and actually inability to react quickly.