Team for Scotland

[loudnconfident]

Eddie's let Ted Hill go too. Shame cos he deserves at least place on the bench.
So who's going to play 8? Surely not Curry again? Then again, I may put a tenner on him retaining his place!

Jones has already said Curry will stay at no8. I think he’s even gone as far as saying that’s his best position in the long term. Steve Diamond has stated his disagreement at the last bit.

One of the problems with Eddies "strategy" on good players out of position: if England are on top, such players look great and we smash the oppo. If the front 5 dominate Scotland we'll have a Curry as a super-quick No8 in full flow (bit like Daly at FB). If, however, things are more equal/iffy and we are under pressure, Curry's lack of experience shows. (bit like Daly at FB?)

[Banquo]

again, from a devil's advocate point of view- or indeed Eddie's- name the names that will improve what we've got.

Eddie goes from total hero to zero in two games.

I'm as cross as anyone, to be clear. But running around with your hair on fire isn't entirely helpful. I'd also say that the names you will likely mention have been reviewed by Eddie.....

Is Jones managing differently because he is only contracted till 2021? Might giving Robson/Spencer a go for 5/6 games, for example, answer questions that are just not being asked? Is his constantly changing coaching staff leading to Jones himself being the only one with selection experience (of the available alternatives anyway)?

...again, its not like he hasn't seen Spencer and Robson close up and personal.
His 'constant changing of coaching staff' looks like he doing the job he was asked to do of developing English coaches; all have moved onto better jobs iirc, and not been sacked?

[p/d]

Jones has hit a wall. He is the Mourinho of rugby. Glib remarks and irritation at press conferences are all part of his self obsessed ego.

[p/d]

It’s not about player selection it is about what he is doing with those he selects.

[Banquo]

It's rampant speculation at best on my part. I wondered about it when he said on the back of the RWC he wasn't physically flogging the players would he then mentally ratchet it up? Then again it's Eddie, just 'cause he said he's taking it easier on the physical approach doesn't mean he's doing that

he's a curate's egg of a coach

I confess to rather liking him bar his take on England being crap at rugby

Me too, and he has a point about us being a little light on skills and decision making- though I think he could have addressed some of this himself.

[Banquo]

It’s not about player selection it is about what he is doing with those he selects.

its both imo.

[Mikey Brown]

Eddie's let Ted Hill go too. Shame cos he deserves at least place on the bench.
So who's going to play 8? Surely not Curry again? Then again, I may put a tenner on him retaining his place!

Jones has already said Curry will stay at no8. I think he’s even gone as far as saying that’s his best position in the long term. Steve Diamond has stated his disagreement at the last bit.

One of the problems with Eddies "strategy" on good players out of position: if England are on top, such players look great and we smash the oppo. If the front 5 dominate Scotland we'll have a Curry as a super-quick No8 in full flow (bit like Daly at FB). If, however, things are more equal/iffy and we are under pressure, Curry's lack of experience shows. (bit like Daly at FB?)

Everything about Jones's plan seems to be that if it doesn't come off completely, it all just crumbles. The Curry/Daly thing is a good example. Hughes exemplified that perfectly.

[Mellsblue]

No - you’re the one with the strange perspective.

There’s no getting around the fact that we’ve had two very poor performances on the trot and I’m not a fan of a number of things such as Youngs being in the squad, Lawes being at 6 or Curry at 8, but I refuse to believe we’ve become a sh*t team overnight.

Between you and Oakboy the level of pessimism and drama is so over the top, it’s incredibly irritating.

Blimey. That escalated quickly. There were a few of us on here that took some heat for predicting that the Lancaster regime was a disaster waiting to happen......
I think Jones has earned the right to carry on but:
He persists with a lock at 6
He thinks Curry is a no8
The no9 situation
We’re heavily reliant on big baller carriers who are notoriously brittle.
The team can’t think for themselves on the field
There’s seemingly no plan B from off the field
He’s chosen the wrong capt (even Dallaglio now agrees with this)
The Daly at 15 experiment

That’s a long list of things he’s getting wrong and he’s had enough to time to rectify them. I can understand those who think he should get the boot.

Devil's advocate- excellent world cup, including beating New Zealand convincingly, with said captain, scrum half and full back . Bit of a bump against a good SA team who out thought us on the pitch. Players made so many individual mistakes v France, no coach can mitigate that- after half time, his intervention, big improvement
Game plan- he's working with the skill sets he sees from the AP day in day out. He has actually improved some players I'd say.
Most teams would struggle when losing two or three world class players, esp carriers.
On the 8, 9, 12, 15 issues.....who else?
Faz is rated by every coach he has ever worked with, including one's who are actually very good.

(not that I agree with a lot of this tbh)

I agree that he’s in credit. You’re playing devils advocate to my devils advocate
However, I agree that the loss of world class players would be an issue to any team but the need for a Billy understudy has been a requirement for a few years now.
My issue with Farrell is with him as capt not as a player (not that I think he’s the world class operate most seek to think he is!). When even Dallaglio is claiming it’s not working then it’s safe to assume it’s not working!

[Banquo]

Blimey. That escalated quickly. There were a few of us on here that took some heat for predicting that the Lancaster regime was a disaster waiting to happen......
I think Jones has earned the right to carry on but:
He persists with a lock at 6
He thinks Curry is a no8
The no9 situation
We’re heavily reliant on big baller carriers who are notoriously brittle.
The team can’t think for themselves on the field
There’s seemingly no plan B from off the field
He’s chosen the wrong capt (even Dallaglio now agrees with this)
The Daly at 15 experiment

That’s a long list of things he’s getting wrong and he’s had enough to time to rectify them. I can understand those who think he should get the boot.

Devil's advocate- excellent world cup, including beating New Zealand convincingly, with said captain, scrum half and full back . Bit of a bump against a good SA team who out thought us on the pitch. Players made so many individual mistakes v France, no coach can mitigate that- after half time, his intervention, big improvement
Game plan- he's working with the skill sets he sees from the AP day in day out. He has actually improved some players I'd say.
Most teams would struggle when losing two or three world class players, esp carriers.
On the 8, 9, 12, 15 issues.....who else?
Faz is rated by every coach he has ever worked with, including one's who are actually very good.

(not that I agree with a lot of this tbh)

I agree that he’s in credit. You’re playing devils advocate to my devils advocate
However, I agree that the loss of world class players would be an issue to any team but the need for a Billy understudy has been a requirement for a few years now.
My issue with Farrell is with him as capt not as a player (not that I think he’s the world class operate most seek to think he is!). When even Dallaglio is claiming it’s not working then it’s safe to assume it’s not working!

The clue to my devils advocacy was advocating Faz.

[Scrumhead]

Devil's advocate- excellent world cup, including beating New Zealand convincingly, with said captain, scrum half and full back . Bit of a bump against a good SA team who out thought us on the pitch. Players made so many individual mistakes v France, no coach can mitigate that- after half time, his intervention, big improvement
Game plan- he's working with the skill sets he sees from the AP day in day out. He has actually improved some players I'd say.
Most teams would struggle when losing two or three world class players, esp carriers.
On the 8, 9, 12, 15 issues.....who else?
Faz is rated by every coach he has ever worked with, including one's who are actually very good.

(not that I agree with a lot of this tbh)

Answers, in order:

Any actual 8
Anyone but Ben Youngs
An actual 12
An actual 15 (I have no problem with Furbank at 15, tbh, if Watson is injured, but then it should be Watson at 15. But perhaps Daly should have been there for continuity as Thorley is a better international bet, in my mind, than Furbank. Hope he gets his chance.

That's the thing, the mistakes he's made this time round are just so inexplicable.

We have an absolute abundance of flankers, so he picks Lawes at 6.
Of these flankers, some of them have played 8 before (Earl, Willis) yet Curry is selected there for ???
Youngs has been almost entirely shit for a long time yet still gets picked
We struggle to create with Fazlet on the pitch, yet he's still picked and is even made captain and becomes undroppable. Despite fouling up nearly every play.

It's just a terrible performance. We have such an incredible group of players yet Jones is stuck on defensive, reactionary nonsense. A world class selector would be picking the incredible young talents we have at 6, 8, 9, screw the consequences.

again, from a devil's advocate point of view- or indeed Eddie's- name the names that will improve what we've got.

Eddie goes from total hero to zero in two games.

I'm as cross as anyone, to be clear. But running around with your hair on fire isn't entirely helpful. I'd also say that the names you will likely mention have been reviewed by Eddie.....

This is exactly what I am talking about.

We ALL have our frustrations with selection but some posters literally post the same points in slightly different way ad nauseum without offering any plausible solutions.

I created the ‘Who’s hard done by?’ thread to highlight that there aren’t actually that many players who can really grumble at being overlooked.

When the team for the France game was selected, I said I quite liked the selection calls (specifically on Ewels and Furbank starting and Stuart and Devoto on the bench). Clearly none of that went as well as I hoped it might, Youngs was predictably sh*t and Lawes at 6 obviously didn’t work. Some of that I find forgivable, some of it I don’t. I feel like Ewels has been made a bit of a scapegoat, but Kruis was clearly an upgrade and Furbank had a subdued, error strewn debut. Neither was directly to blame for a poor team performance though and I feel like we can’t call for ‘evolution’ and then immediately throw the baby out with the bath water when selection gambles don’t pay off.

[Scrumhead]

I just want Jones and the players to stop the chest beating sound bites that journalists can glamourise

Do hope that view is not irritating

totally agree. Writing other team talks isn't useful- even in this modern era, a spot of righteous angst certainly makes teams harder to play against.

Though it makes me smile when you get the Scots saying 'we hate England'; England then get excoriated for retorting in kind

I also absolutely agree with all of the above.

I’d far rather we did our talking on the pitch.

[Mikey Brown]

Just on that note; it made me laugh listening to John Barclay on the latest rugby pod when quizzed about the fracas in the tunnel last time out. Referring to Farrell and Wilson "I genuinely didn't see it, but Ryan is always doing that stuff. Every single game. It just doesn't usually get such a great reaction" or something to that effect.

Someone also makes a good point how Wigglesworth and Barritt are Sarries two biggest leaders.

[Stom]

again, from a devil's advocate point of view- or indeed Eddie's- name the names that will improve what we've got.

Eddie goes from total hero to zero in two games.

I'm as cross as anyone, to be clear. But running around with your hair on fire isn't entirely helpful. I'd also say that the names you will likely mention have been reviewed by Eddie.....

If your other option is something provably crap, you need to take a chance, ffs. He’s played Lawes at 6 enough to know it’s not a long term option, yet he’d rather do that than pick an unknown.

That, for me, says he is unfit. If he is unwilling to take risks, he’s not suitable for the job.

The options haven’t played international rugby, so how do we know they’ll be crap. We don’t.

The point being that Eddie has reviewed them- he doesn't have to trial them for our benefit . People talked a lot about Sam Simmonds- who was played and discarded, albeit with an emergency subsequent summons.

I'm becoming more WUM (i see yoiur FFS) than DA here though, as I don't agree with some of what he has done. But there is a reality check, as shown by your reluctance to name alternatives

Well, I thought it was obvious...ANYONE! Seriously, he has Hill, Earl, and Ludlam in the squad. Then there's Willis, then Dombrandt, and then Sam Simmonds.

There are options. People who actually play backrow.

If Jones believes Lawes is better there than any of them, he's insane and should be removed from his role.

Screw the rest, I can understand most of it, though I would chuck a kid in at 9 just to get rid of Youngs.

But selecting Lawes at 6 is the definition of insanity.

[Stom]

Answers, in order:

Any actual 8
Anyone but Ben Youngs
An actual 12
An actual 15 (I have no problem with Furbank at 15, tbh, if Watson is injured, but then it should be Watson at 15. But perhaps Daly should have been there for continuity as Thorley is a better international bet, in my mind, than Furbank. Hope he gets his chance.

That's the thing, the mistakes he's made this time round are just so inexplicable.

We have an absolute abundance of flankers, so he picks Lawes at 6.
Of these flankers, some of them have played 8 before (Earl, Willis) yet Curry is selected there for ???
Youngs has been almost entirely shit for a long time yet still gets picked
We struggle to create with Fazlet on the pitch, yet he's still picked and is even made captain and becomes undroppable. Despite fouling up nearly every play.

It's just a terrible performance. We have such an incredible group of players yet Jones is stuck on defensive, reactionary nonsense. A world class selector would be picking the incredible young talents we have at 6, 8, 9, screw the consequences.

again, from a devil's advocate point of view- or indeed Eddie's- name the names that will improve what we've got.

Eddie goes from total hero to zero in two games.

I'm as cross as anyone, to be clear. But running around with your hair on fire isn't entirely helpful. I'd also say that the names you will likely mention have been reviewed by Eddie.....

This is exactly what I am talking about.

We ALL have our frustrations with selection but some posters literally post the same points in slightly different way ad nauseum without offering any plausible solutions.

I created the ‘Who’s hard done by?’ thread to highlight that there aren’t actually that many players who can really grumble at being overlooked.

When the team for the France game was selected, I said I quite liked the selection calls (specifically on Ewels and Furbank starting and Stuart and Devoto on the bench). Clearly none of that went as well as I hoped it might, Youngs was predictably sh*t and Lawes at 6 obviously didn’t work. Some of that I find forgivable, some of it I don’t. I feel like Ewels has been made a bit of a scapegoat, but Kruis was clearly an upgrade and Furbank had a subdued, error strewn debut. Neither was directly to blame for a poor team performance though and I feel like we can’t call for ‘evolution’ and then immediately throw the baby out with the bath water when selection gambles don’t pay off.

But that's the thing, it's not that 1 player is hard done by, it's that we've got Lawes at 6, ffs! You can't say there's 1 player who's missed out, it's 1 of about 8 players! Any of them would be an upgrade because they're all backrow forwards.

[Scrumhead]

Squad’s out ... interesting again, but at least Lawes isn’t at 6 and Youngs isn’t starting:

1. M. Vunipola
2. J. George
3. K. Sinckler
4. M. Itoje
5. G. Kruis
6. L. Ludlam
7. S. Underhill
8. T. Curry
9. W. Heinz
10. G. Ford
11. E. Daly
12. O. Farrell (c)
13. J. Joseph
14. J. May
15. G. Furbank

16. T. Dunn 17. E. Genge 18. W. Stuart 19. J. Launchbury 20. C. Lawes 21. B. Earl 22. B. Youngs 23. O. Devoto

[Puja]

Oh thank fuck we've got 3 back row this week. Everything else is secondary.

Puja

[Banquo]

If your other option is something provably crap, you need to take a chance, ffs. He’s played Lawes at 6 enough to know it’s not a long term option, yet he’d rather do that than pick an unknown.

That, for me, says he is unfit. If he is unwilling to take risks, he’s not suitable for the job.

The options haven’t played international rugby, so how do we know they’ll be crap. We don’t.

The point being that Eddie has reviewed them- he doesn't have to trial them for our benefit . People talked a lot about Sam Simmonds- who was played and discarded, albeit with an emergency subsequent summons.

I'm becoming more WUM (i see yoiur FFS) than DA here though, as I don't agree with some of what he has done. But there is a reality check, as shown by your reluctance to name alternatives

Well, I thought it was obvious...ANYONE! Seriously, he has Hill, Earl, and Ludlam in the squad. Then there's Willis, then Dombrandt, and then Sam Simmonds.

There are options. People who actually play backrow.

If Jones believes Lawes is better there than any of them, he's insane and should be removed from his role.

Screw the rest, I can understand most of it, though I would chuck a kid in at 9 just to get rid of Youngs.

But selecting Lawes at 6 is the definition of insanity.

Totally agree on Lawes as I said beforehand, though can see the logic if it hadn't failed before.

On the other player front, the only one he hasn't looked at is Dombrandt iirc- and from what I hear, he has not been first choice all the time at Quins.

You mentioned chucking in the youngsters...who?

[Puja]

Anyone else wondering if Eddie's suffering a little bit of trauma from the RWC final loss by trying to become South Africa? First we had an attempt at a PSdT impersonation by putting a hard-tackling lock on the blindside and now we're going for a 6:2 split.

Puja

[Beasties]

It’s not about player selection it is about what he is doing with those he selects.

its both imo.

Has jngf or Dors hacked your profile?

[Banquo]

Squad’s out ... interesting again, but at least Lawes isn’t at 6 and Youngs isn’t starting:

1. M. Vunipola
2. J. George
3. K. Sinckler
4. M. Itoje
5. G. Kruis
6. L. Ludlam
7. S. Underhill
8. T. Curry
9. W. Heinz
10. G. Ford
11. E. Daly
12. O. Farrell (c)
13. J. Joseph
14. J. May
15. G. Furbank

16. T. Dunn 17. E. Genge 18. W. Stuart 19. J. Launchbury 20. C. Lawes 21. B. Earl 22. B. Youngs 23. O. Devoto

Christ. Assume LCD crocked. But 4 locks and no back three cover is loony tunes.. Gives with one hand (a back row that might work, Youngs), takes away with another (bench, Faz at 12)

[Banquo]

It’s not about player selection it is about what he is doing with those he selects.

its both imo.

Has jngf or Dors hacked your profile?

eh? I consistently call out iffy selections, and how some players are asked to play. I'm not blind to the fact that Eddie might know more than me though.

[Banquo]

Anyone else wondering if Eddie's suffering a little bit of trauma from the RWC final loss by trying to become South Africa? First we had an attempt at a PSdT impersonation by putting a hard-tackling lock on the blindside and now we're going for a 6:2 split.

Puja

Not even sure its a point of contention (though had that argument on Lawes before the france game), or even illogical. Wouldn't you expect him to react to the SA defeat?

[Stom]

The point being that Eddie has reviewed them- he doesn't have to trial them for our benefit . People talked a lot about Sam Simmonds- who was played and discarded, albeit with an emergency subsequent summons.

I'm becoming more WUM (i see yoiur FFS) than DA here though, as I don't agree with some of what he has done. But there is a reality check, as shown by your reluctance to name alternatives

Well, I thought it was obvious...ANYONE! Seriously, he has Hill, Earl, and Ludlam in the squad. Then there's Willis, then Dombrandt, and then Sam Simmonds.

There are options. People who actually play backrow.

If Jones believes Lawes is better there than any of them, he's insane and should be removed from his role.

Screw the rest, I can understand most of it, though I would chuck a kid in at 9 just to get rid of Youngs.

But selecting Lawes at 6 is the definition of insanity.

Totally agree on Lawes as I said beforehand, though can see the logic if it hadn't failed before.

On the other player front, the only one he hasn't looked at is Dombrandt iirc- and from what I hear, he has not been first choice all the time at Quins.

You mentioned chucking in the youngsters...who?

I don't know how much that has been form and how much has been management/specific training.

He's rough around the edges, but so was Billy. Just because we've got a risk averse coach, too, doesn't mean he's not ready...

On the kids... Mitchell, Maunder, Taylor, anyone, really. Uren would be an upgrade.

[Stom]

That team is much more balanced, though, thank fuck. Would have liked to have seen Earl start, but can't quibble. Curry needs to step up.

[Banquo]

Well, I thought it was obvious...ANYONE! Seriously, he has Hill, Earl, and Ludlam in the squad. Then there's Willis, then Dombrandt, and then Sam Simmonds.

There are options. People who actually play backrow.

If Jones believes Lawes is better there than any of them, he's insane and should be removed from his role.

Screw the rest, I can understand most of it, though I would chuck a kid in at 9 just to get rid of Youngs.

But selecting Lawes at 6 is the definition of insanity.

Totally agree on Lawes as I said beforehand, though can see the logic if it hadn't failed before.

On the other player front, the only one he hasn't looked at is Dombrandt iirc- and from what I hear, he has not been first choice all the time at Quins.

You mentioned chucking in the youngsters...who?

I don't know how much that has been form and how much has been management/specific training.

He's rough around the edges, but so was Billy. Just because we've got a risk averse coach, too, doesn't mean he's not ready...

On the kids... Mitchell, Maunder, Taylor, anyone, really. Uren would be an upgrade.

How many are starting for their clubs?