England vs USA on Patriotism Day!

[Puja]

Worth keeping in mind it wouldn't take much to vastly change that game outcome. I don't know what was going on in the scrum, seemingly we infringed a lot with a hugely dominant outfit which is possible and would fit into the pattern of us annoying refs for no reason, but you don't see that too often

So take the scrum and reduce the infringements given against us by 3 instances, drop just 2 of our penalties in open play from our count, reduce 3 handling errors not really made under pressure, and you could hugely swing the emotion and points outcome. And all that before we didn't play as a team, in attack or defence, and it's very hard to play rugby as individuals unless the gulf is such you can just run in a try as and when you want.

The scrum penalties were largely nonsense. Heyes and Genge spent half their time trying to keep the USA props up long enough to drive them back and when the ref pinged them for "driving across" it was generally because their opposite number had entirely disappeared and they were left with nothing to push against.

If we're talking counterfactuals to massively change the game, imagine Malins doesn't get injured from an innocuous push and awkward landing. The backs return to having a unit that have trained together and played together before in the centres, Smith has a hard runner outside him, our kick chase and receipt is vastly improved by having a winger on the wing - there's no doubt that that one injury instantly beggared our cohesion.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

The biggest question for me is how many times and ways can Jones mess Lawrence about?!?!

[fivepointer]

Worth keeping in mind it wouldn't take much to vastly change that game outcome. I don't know what was going on in the scrum, seemingly we infringed a lot with a hugely dominant outfit which is possible and would fit into the pattern of us annoying refs for no reason, but you don't see that too often

So take the scrum and reduce the infringements given against us by 3 instances, drop just 2 of our penalties in open play from our count, reduce 3 handling errors not really made under pressure, and you could hugely swing the emotion and points outcome. And all that before we didn't play as a team, in attack or defence, and it's very hard to play rugby as individuals unless the gulf is such you can just run in a try as and when you want.

The scrum penalties were largely nonsense. Heyes and Genge spent half their time trying to keep the USA props up long enough to drive them back and when the ref pinged them for "driving across" it was generally because their opposite number had entirely disappeared and they were left with nothing to push against.

If we're talking counterfactuals to massively change the game, imagine Malins doesn't get injured from an innocuous push and awkward landing. The backs return to having a unit that have trained together and played together before in the centres, Smith has a hard runner outside him, our kick chase and receipt is vastly improved by having a winger on the wing - there's no doubt that that one injury instantly beggared our cohesion.

Puja

If only the coach had guarded against something like this happening......

[FKAS]

The biggest question for me is how many times and ways can Jones mess Lawrence about?!?!

To be fair it wasn't Eddie's plan for Malins not to last 10 minutes. Hopefully Eddie has learnt his lesson about filling the bench with forwards.

[Gloskarlos]

The biggest question for me is how many times and ways can Jones mess Lawrence about?!?!

To be fair it wasn't Eddie's plan for Malins not to last 10 minutes. Hopefully Eddie has learnt his lesson about filling the bench with forwards.

I'm pretty sure there's no teaching Eddie. Watch him double down and go 7:1 for the bench against Canada

[FKAS]

I don’t rate Ewels, but in normal circumstances is at best 5th choice behind Itoje, Launchbury, Lawes and Hill. 6th if you include Kruis. By definition, 5th choice locks aren’t usually stellar.

We’d all like to have seen whether Ribbans can make a step up to test level and there was every suggestion he would have played, but suspension put paid to that.

If we were to jettison Ewels completely. Who do you bring in? I can’t say there’s anyone obvious that was missed.

Isiekwe is one option but I think that really depends whether he’s playing at 6 or lock. I’m all for trying Ted Hill at lock too, but I’d want him to be playing there regularly for Worcester.

The concern is that Launchbury, Lawes and Kruis are all over thirty and so realistically not going to be involved post the world cup. You also don't want to be putting your hope into three of your four locks when they are coming to the end of their peak. Ewels and Hill should be peaking but neither looks likely to be a long term partner for Itoje.

Hill finished the season at lock for Wuss so could be an option there long term but did nothing off the bench.

Jones needs to find one younger option to push through and challenge. So far no luck.

While he's a couple of years away yet, Chunya Munga is in the squad as an apprentice.

Puja

Yeah but in two years you don't want to find a bare cupboard and starting think oh crap I hope Itoje isn't injured. Best to get an option or two pushing through particularly since Launchbury is made of glass and Lawes isn't bulletproof either.

Apprentice options are all well and good but you've got to get some caps and experience in there at some point. Munga, Martin, Groves there's some good un's coming through and we could still annoy Scotland and try to bring Henderson over.

[FKAS]

The biggest question for me is how many times and ways can Jones mess Lawrence about?!?!

To be fair it wasn't Eddie's plan for Malins not to last 10 minutes. Hopefully Eddie has learnt his lesson about filling the bench with forwards.

I'm pretty sure there's no teaching Eddie. Watch him double down and go 7:1 for the bench against Canada

Well Eddie is gonna Eddie right.

Be interesting to see which backrow gets to play centre Vs Canada then.

[Banquo]

The biggest question for me is how many times and ways can Jones mess Lawrence about?!?!

To be fair it wasn't Eddie's plan for Malins not to last 10 minutes. Hopefully Eddie has learnt his lesson about filling the bench with forwards.

It was obviously a stupid bench as predicted beforehand. And that’s nothing to do with ‘learning’- it was an accident waiting to happen.- as 6:2 often is, esp when having both backs on the bench as specialists.

[Mikey Brown]

Well I'm giving the full watch a go.

The Steward incident is weird. US player knocks the ball back in the process of grabbing Steward in the air and pulling him down to ground face first. Yet the fact he knocked the ball back makes this totally fine? Some strange logic there.

[Mellsblue]

The biggest question for me is how many times and ways can Jones mess Lawrence about?!?!

To be fair it wasn't Eddie's plan for Malins not to last 10 minutes. Hopefully Eddie has learnt his lesson about filling the bench with forwards.

It was obviously a stupid bench as predicted beforehand. And that’s nothing to do with ‘learning’- it was an accident waiting to happen.- as 6:2 often is, esp when having both backs on the bench as specialists.

I can’t see how a head coach of an international team needs to learn that a 6:2 split could put you in trouble. Not to mention he then doubles down on that by picking a 23 who only plays one position. Further, he could also come to the conclusion that he knows what Slade can bring (less than the sum of his parts IMO) and just shift him and Lawrence out one. All we’ve learnt about Lawrence in his handful of caps is what his arse cheeks look like.

[Raggs]

Well I'm giving the full watch a go.

The Steward incident is weird. US player knocks the ball back in the process of grabbing Steward in the air and pulling him down to ground face first. Yet the fact he knocked the ball back makes this totally fine? Some strange logic there.

The test is, are both players competitive. The USA player won the ball, you don't get much more competitive than actually winning the contest. The way I see the second arm wrapping is that he went up with both arms, one gets the ball, the other ends up the other side of Steward in the mess. He's clearly not gone up to tackle Steward etc, he was targeting the ball and got the ball.

[Which Tyler]

All we’ve learnt about Lawrence in his handful of caps is what his arse cheeks look like.

I'm reliably informed that this is very useful information. Ali was disappointed that they only showed that angle once, and avoided it in all subsequent replays

[Raggs]

All we’ve learnt about Lawrence in his handful of caps is what his arse cheeks look like.

I'm reliably informed that this is very useful information. Ali was disappointed that they only showed that angle once, and avoided it in all subsequent replays

Channel 4 replayed it 2-3 times with cheeks included I believe.

[Gloskarlos]

they barely mentioned it

[Puja]

All we’ve learnt about Lawrence in his handful of caps is what his arse cheeks look like.

I'm reliably informed that this is very useful information. Ali was disappointed that they only showed that angle once, and avoided it in all subsequent replays

Can confirm. Although "Young athlete has nice buttocks," isn't exactly a hold-the-front-page sort of discovery.

Puja

[jngf]

If underhill hadn't been doing an underhill all match it could have been quite different.

Bingo.

I actually thought Underhill was one of our biggest running threats (in the first half he made several powerful and explosive looking breaks - worthy of a no.8 - and which weren’t forthcoming from the starting no.8 picked )

He did more than just make the his usual big hits and turnovers (no mean feat in themselves) that first half and looks to have really worked on his attacking game! Thought he might have moved to 6 when Ludlow came off but Ben Curry filled that berth well.

[Mikey Brown]

Well I'm giving the full watch a go.

The Steward incident is weird. US player knocks the ball back in the process of grabbing Steward in the air and pulling him down to ground face first. Yet the fact he knocked the ball back makes this totally fine? Some strange logic there.

The test is, are both players competitive. The USA player won the ball, you don't get much more competitive than actually winning the contest. The way I see the second arm wrapping is that he went up with both arms, one gets the ball, the other ends up the other side of Steward in the mess. He's clearly not gone up to tackle Steward etc, he was targeting the ball and got the ball.

Yeah I get that he won the ball back, it just felt like the action immediately after was quite dangerous. Even then, if he was jumping and intending to simply knock it back it was a weird way to do it. Looked like a bit of a fluke to me that he did manage to knock it back.

[Scrumhead]

The concern is that Launchbury, Lawes and Kruis are all over thirty and so realistically not going to be involved post the world cup. You also don't want to be putting your hope into three of your four locks when they are coming to the end of their peak. Ewels and Hill should be peaking but neither looks likely to be a long term partner for Itoje.

Hill finished the season at lock for Wuss so could be an option there long term but did nothing off the bench.

Jones needs to find one younger option to push through and challenge. So far no luck.

While he's a couple of years away yet, Chunya Munga is in the squad as an apprentice.

Puja

Yeah but in two years you don't want to find a bare cupboard and starting think oh crap I hope Itoje isn't injured. Best to get an option or two pushing through particularly since Launchbury is made of glass and Lawes isn't bulletproof either.

Apprentice options are all well and good but you've got to get some caps and experience in there at some point. Munga, Martin, Groves there's some good un's coming through and we could still annoy Scotland and try to bring Henderson over.

But this is exactly my point … players who aren’t really up to it aren’t suddenly going to ‘push through’.

Ewels is very average but then so are the other options.

Ribbans is the obvious option to look at and would almost certainly have been picked but for his suspension.

Isiekwe, Martin and Hill all have the same issue of swapping between 6 and lock (although that could change fairly soon for Martin).

Munga has been OK, but not obviously impressive and I’m not even sure Groves has played a Premiership game?

Alex Moon isn’t a guaranteed starter for Saints so shouldn’t be a realistic contender, Coles look fairly promising but possibly a bit lightweight and Kpoku looks like he’s continuing to be distinctly average (despite the hype). Tizard has some promise, but definitely too soon for him ATM.

In short, there’s a caveat for almost every option. We really just need a couple of out and out locks to emerge. No idea who they are though …

[Digby]

Well I'm giving the full watch a go.

The Steward incident is weird. US player knocks the ball back in the process of grabbing Steward in the air and pulling him down to ground face first. Yet the fact he knocked the ball back makes this totally fine? Some strange logic there.

The test is, are both players competitive. The USA player won the ball, you don't get much more competitive than actually winning the contest. The way I see the second arm wrapping is that he went up with both arms, one gets the ball, the other ends up the other side of Steward in the mess. He's clearly not gone up to tackle Steward etc, he was targeting the ball and got the ball.

Yeah I get that he won the ball back, it just felt like the action immediately after was quite dangerous. Even then, if he was jumping and intending to simply knock it back it was a weird way to do it. Looked like a bit of a fluke to me that he did manage to knock it back.

As ever there's the question of who really introduces the risk, and one might point the finger at Steward because if he doesn't jump high into the air and into a contest he can't get tipped. Not sure how the game will see this going forwards, it was getting quite bad but such instances have calmed down for a while now. It's a skill and a dramatic one to leap for the ball, but the quickest way to make it safer is to ban the jump, and certainly to ban a jump that sees you cover ground as well as go up

[16th man]

Genge - third choice
Langdon - fifth choice maybe? I know Dunn and McGuigan have been ignored, but that's more for developmental reasons. If we were playing a RWC final tomorrow, Langdon would not be third.
Heyes - third/fourth choice, depending on how you rank Harry Williams. Argument to be made for 5th considering he's behind Cole at Leicester.
Ewels - 6th choice lock
McNally - 8th choice lock as Ribbans would've been in
Ludlow - We'll be very generous and say that he's 4th choice based on Eddie obviously liking something about him.
Underhill - first choice
Chick - Again, being generous, we'll say 5th choice
Randall - I'd say he should be second choice, but based on previous Eddie, probably third.
Smith - Third choice
Malins - Probably first choice, but not at wing and barely on the pitch for this game
Lawrence - Third choice
Slade - Second choice
Cokanasiga - Fifth choice wing (argument for him being lower given recent form)
Steward - Fourth choice

....

I just don't see why people are tearing their hair out over what was ultimately a very comfortable victory for a scratch 3rd XV against a decent T2 side?

Puja

Very much this

The guys who have played in the first team against tier 1 sides will / should be judged on those performances.

The promising youngsters are more likely to be being judged on what they do in camp over several weeks, rather than on the pitch in a grab bag selection. Though it will be a good learning experience to have been involved in the chaos of the subs and position farago

The older players who are there because the lions and suspensions means they're pretty much literally filling a shirt will get a 1 or a 2 next to England in their official stats and on their Wikipedia page, which no one other than themselves and their families will care about.

People who are so minded can use the impact of the early subs and positional chaos to support their side of the argument around modern players being too pre programmed to cope with changes or that systems and understanding of how the team work is vital.

Just not worth getting worked up over, in the same way no one would be taken seriously for saying we were going to win the World Cup on the evidence of the game had we won 80 odd nil.

[Raggs]

It didn't strike me as very comfortable. USA were also missing a few players, whilst introducing a ton of new caps, and had even less time together than most of ours I believe?

I thought Genge, Heyes, Underhill, Randall, Smith, Lawrence, Malins and Steward all showed up well according to the expectations of them.

Given this isn't a series, and Smith isn't becoming first choice, I'd like to see Umaga at 10, still with Randall at 9, for the next game.

[Puja]

It didn't strike me as very comfortable. USA were also missing a few players, whilst introducing a ton of new caps, and had even less time together than most of ours I believe?

USA had a couple of new caps, but they were more of the "we're excited to see this player who's been performing domestically" variety rather than Josh McNally. Their only real absentees were Lasike and McGinty at 12 and 10 - both of whom are significant players for them, but the rest of the XV was their chosen first team. Time together was a major problem though, as can be seen by the complete lack of cohesion in defence.

In what way wasn't the game comfortable though? We never looked like losing and spent the vast majority of the match over 20 points up.

Puja

[Raggs]

It didn't strike me as very comfortable. USA were also missing a few players, whilst introducing a ton of new caps, and had even less time together than most of ours I believe?

USA had a couple of new caps, but they were more of the "we're excited to see this player who's been performing domestically" variety rather than Josh McNally. Their only real absentees were Lasike and McGinty at 12 and 10 - both of whom are significant players for them, but the rest of the XV was their chosen first team. Time together was a major problem though, as can be seen by the complete lack of cohesion in defence.

In what way wasn't the game comfortable though? We never looked like losing and spent the vast majority of the match over 20 points up.

Puja

They had another late pull out just before starting too didn't they? Hooley?

As for comfortableness, it just never felt very controlled to me. Sure we had a comfortable lead, but I'd not have been shocked to ship 14 points at any time. There's other games I've seen where there's only been an 8 point lead, but it never felt like it was going to be lost etc.

[Mellsblue]

Hooley did pull out late on but his replacement put in a better performance than I’ve ever seen Hooley provide in the US 15 shirt.
If Umaga is rewarded for that performance with a promotion then..... well, I don’t know, I’ll have a tantrum and stomp my feet.

[FKAS]

It didn't strike me as very comfortable. USA were also missing a few players, whilst introducing a ton of new caps, and had even less time together than most of ours I believe?

USA had a couple of new caps, but they were more of the "we're excited to see this player who's been performing domestically" variety rather than Josh McNally. Their only real absentees were Lasike and McGinty at 12 and 10 - both of whom are significant players for them, but the rest of the XV was their chosen first team. Time together was a major problem though, as can be seen by the complete lack of cohesion in defence.

In what way wasn't the game comfortable though? We never looked like losing and spent the vast majority of the match over 20 points up.

Puja

Losing Lamisitole at tighthead probably didn't help.

Actually I think coming straight from an MLS season meant that they were all match fit and firing but maybe lacking a little cohesion.