England V Wales

[FKAS]

Very underwhelming to see Ewels in the squad again, but Isiekwe is a good player.

Saw a stat that Launchbury has only taken one lineout since his comeback. I know he’s not always a gun lineout option, but only 1 take in 180 odd minutes suggests he might have some confidence issues around his knee still.

Has always been the main weakness in his game, the lineout jumping though the injuries don't help. Early in his career having Parling and Croft negated the weakness. Now I think it hampers his selection though Lawes at 6 could be his saving there.

[Spiffy]

He was a bit rubbish against Italy. Suffered from being screwed around with positionally, but he's not offered a compelling argument for his retention this 6N.

Puja

One of the major issues about England being so reliant on Tuilagi is that every other centre option we have would also ideally be playing alongside Tuilagi.

Not unfair!

Only assume Launch is still off the pace. Real shame when we are left with Ewels and Isiekwe.

Gutted Barbeary isn’t retained but no problem with Marchant being left out. Got to be a 5:3 bench.

I'm actually quite pleased Barbeary's left out. He's got so much potential while also being so good in some areas, that I think the worst thing that could happen to him would be early success. He could be a competent international player right now, but it would be very easy for him to think he's made it and be like 2014/15 era BillyV - someone with amazing strengths and no incentive to develop the weak points in his game.

Puja

Perhaps that's a bit unfair to Barbeary. I don't think any of us knows anything about Alfie's ambition, incentive, dedication, willingness to work on his game etc. If Jones were to leave out all other players who need to work their weaknesses, he might be left with rather a small squad.
I know you regard Barbeary as a lazy sod who does not do enough grunt work and needs a work horse beside him to hold his hand. But others (e.g.me) may disagree with that assessment.
The selection of any player at international level reflects the overall balance of his good and bad points. Don't think I've ever seen a first cap who's the finished article.
I'd love to see Alfie get a run (if only to prove you right )

[Puja]

One of the major issues about England being so reliant on Tuilagi is that every other centre option we have would also ideally be playing alongside Tuilagi.

Not unfair!

Only assume Launch is still off the pace. Real shame when we are left with Ewels and Isiekwe.

Gutted Barbeary isn’t retained but no problem with Marchant being left out. Got to be a 5:3 bench.

I'm actually quite pleased Barbeary's left out. He's got so much potential while also being so good in some areas, that I think the worst thing that could happen to him would be early success. He could be a competent international player right now, but it would be very easy for him to think he's made it and be like 2014/15 era BillyV - someone with amazing strengths and no incentive to develop the weak points in his game.

Puja

Perhaps that's a bit unfair to Barbeary. I don't think any of us knows anything about Alfie's ambition, incentive, dedication, willingness to work on his game etc. If Jones were to leave out all other players who need to work their weaknesses, he might be left with rather a small squad.
I know you regard Barbeary as a lazy sod who does not do enough grunt work and needs a work horse beside him to hold his hand. But others (e.g.me) may disagree with that assessment.
The selection of any player at international level reflects the overall balance of his good and bad points. Don't think I've ever seen a first cap who's the finished article.
I'd love to see Alfie get a run (if only to prove you right )

Fair point - I am perhaps slandering his character with the presumption that he's the same as a lot of 21 year olds and needs outside influence and motivation to become the best player he can possibly be. I am harsh on him because I think he could be something truly special and I would rather do without his services as a promising international in 2022 if it improves the chances that he could be a superstar in 2023. I do see where you're coming from though - his plus points are so impressive that there is a definite argument to chuck him in and work on the basis that an extra year's experience at international level will do more to improve him than mine (and probably Eddie's, given his Vauxhall Viva comments on Itoje) idea of keeping him hungry will.

Time will tell. Or, probably more likely given our luck as England supporters, a freak injury will probably knock him out of action for 6 months.

Puja

[Oakboy]

I just hope there is some proper long-term planning. Is Randall the solution at 9 - or Quirke, or still Youngs?

Is Tuilagi the solution at 12, or is Farrell still the only alternative?

Is Ewels international standard or not?

With Ireland and France approaching, I just don't see this match being important enough to risk short-termism. The 'winning habit' argument disintegrated in haggis land. Victory against Italy was irrelevant.

[Gloskarlos]

Every cap Youngs gets from now on is a wasted cap. Whether its Randall or Quirke or A.N Other i'm not massively bothered but they should be getting all the chances they need now. Youngs has nothing more to give at 114 caps and if we are reliant on him going onto the world cup next year then that quite frankly is ridiculous. Tuilagi is the 12 on the proviso he lasts.... stands a chance I suppose and we could still build midfield around him for next year, shame Marchant not retained though I like him at 13. Ewels is not for my money.

[Mellsblue]

If Youngs is considered to be one of the best EQ 9s then a cap isn’t necessarily a waste but we need to be getting experience into and looking at his potential successors. He may still turn out to be our best 9 come the World Cup, as much as I hope we can find a superior player.

[32nd Man]

Very underwhelming to see Ewels in the squad again, but Isiekwe is a good player.

Saw a stat that Launchbury has only taken one lineout since his comeback. I know he’s not always a gun lineout option, but only 1 take in 180 odd minutes suggests he might have some confidence issues around his knee still.

Are Wasps actually throwing to him though?
I remember this being one of Simon Shaw`s issues with the England set up, where he was told he didn't take enough line out ball, despite it never actually being called to him.

[Mellsblue]

Very underwhelming to see Ewels in the squad again, but Isiekwe is a good player.

Saw a stat that Launchbury has only taken one lineout since his comeback. I know he’s not always a gun lineout option, but only 1 take in 180 odd minutes suggests he might have some confidence issues around his knee still.

Are Wasps actually throwing to him though?
I remember this being one of Simon Shaw`s issues with the England set up, where he was told he didn't take enough line out ball, despite it never actually being called to him.

Chicken or egg?

[Gloskarlos]

If Youngs is considered to be one of the best EQ 9s then a cap isn’t necessarily a waste but we need to be getting experience into and looking at his potential successors. He may still turn out to be our best 9 come the World Cup, as much as I hope we can find a superior player.

In what way do you consider Randall for example inferior? I admit I have a low positivity threshold for BY, have had for years now, but in all respects bar game management (and I think that is marginal given how often BY kicks the ball away) Randall has the better skill set. Not seen enough of Quirke yet to say the same. So for me if the differences are slight, two 9's have potential to improve before the WC and need game time to realise that, Youngs will give us what he always gives us, it's a no brainer to me.

[Mellsblue]

If Youngs is considered to be one of the best EQ 9s then a cap isn’t necessarily a waste but we need to be getting experience into and looking at his potential successors. He may still turn out to be our best 9 come the World Cup, as much as I hope we can find a superior player.

In what way do you consider Randall for example inferior? I admit I have a low positivity threshold for BY, have had for years now, but in all respects bar game management (and I think that is marginal given how often BY kicks the ball away) Randall has the better skill set. Not seen enough of Quirke yet to say the same. So for me if the differences are slight, two 9's have potential to improve before the WC and need game time to realise that, Youngs will give us what he always gives us, it's a no brainer to me.

I’m not saying I do think Randall is inferior, I’d stick with him for the rest of the 6N, but ditching Youngs, who I think is flawed in multiple areas, based on a handful of caps worth of evidence on Randall and Quirke is ott, IMO. IMO, again, we can’t just ditch Youngs and then bring him back in to the team in 18 months if Randall and/or Quirke don’t prove to be up to it.

[Mikey Brown]

If Youngs is considered to be one of the best EQ 9s then a cap isn’t necessarily a waste but we need to be getting experience into and looking at his potential successors. He may still turn out to be our best 9 come the World Cup, as much as I hope we can find a superior player.

In what way do you consider Randall for example inferior? I admit I have a low positivity threshold for BY, have had for years now, but in all respects bar game management (and I think that is marginal given how often BY kicks the ball away) Randall has the better skill set. Not seen enough of Quirke yet to say the same. So for me if the differences are slight, two 9's have potential to improve before the WC and need game time to realise that, Youngs will give us what he always gives us, it's a no brainer to me.

Yep, even if Youngs is the starter come RWC time (and I think he will be, fitness/family permitting) we need to get some minutes in to one of the other options. As above- Quire/Randall have huge amounts of room to grow, and Youngs is as complete a player as he's seemingly ever going to be. I would use the next year to have him on the bench as an emergency if Quirke/Randall shit the bed. As with several other positions I would have started this process a long time ago, but this is where we are and at least Jones seems to finally be taking a proper look.

He's become a "steady hand" and a "game manager" by virtue of being very experienced, but he still does probably a dozen things quite poorly every single game.

[32nd Man]

Very underwhelming to see Ewels in the squad again, but Isiekwe is a good player.

Saw a stat that Launchbury has only taken one lineout since his comeback. I know he’s not always a gun lineout option, but only 1 take in 180 odd minutes suggests he might have some confidence issues around his knee still.

Are Wasps actually throwing to him though?
I remember this being one of Simon Shaw`s issues with the England set up, where he was told he didn't take enough line out ball, despite it never actually being called to him.

Chicken or egg?

To a degree, but it's only really a useful stat and criticism if Wasps can't throw to him as he always drops it, rather than don't throw to him as him lifting one of the Willis boys is a 99% option.

Could well be that him not jumping but being able to lift a backrower means you haven't lost an option but improved one and introduced another.

[Mellsblue]

Are Wasps actually throwing to him though?
I remember this being one of Simon Shaw`s issues with the England set up, where he was told he didn't take enough line out ball, despite it never actually being called to him.

Chicken or egg?

To a degree, but it's only really a useful stat and criticism if Wasps can't throw to him as he always drops it, rather than don't throw to him as him lifting one of the Willis boys is a 99% option.

Could well be that him not jumping but being able to lift a backrower means you haven't lost an option but improved one and introduced another.

I think his ability jumping at the lineout is moot - it’s been known about for years plus Lawes is a quality operator and Curry and, I believe, Dombrandt are more than capable of getting up in the air. For me, it’s a match fitness issue as I fail to believe Jones wouldn’t select Launchbury over the other options available, ie Ewels and Isiekwe.

[Gloskarlos]

If Youngs is considered to be one of the best EQ 9s then a cap isn’t necessarily a waste but we need to be getting experience into and looking at his potential successors. He may still turn out to be our best 9 come the World Cup, as much as I hope we can find a superior player.

In what way do you consider Randall for example inferior? I admit I have a low positivity threshold for BY, have had for years now, but in all respects bar game management (and I think that is marginal given how often BY kicks the ball away) Randall has the better skill set. Not seen enough of Quirke yet to say the same. So for me if the differences are slight, two 9's have potential to improve before the WC and need game time to realise that, Youngs will give us what he always gives us, it's a no brainer to me.

I’m not saying I do think Randall is inferior, I’d stick with him for the rest of the 6N, but ditching Youngs, who I think is flawed in multiple areas, based on a handful of caps worth of evidence on Randall and Quirke is ott, IMO. IMO, again, we can’t just ditch Youngs and then bring him back in to the team in 18 months if Randall and/or Quirke don’t prove to be up to it.

See, I think i'd quite happily ditch him. But I refer you back to my low positivity threshold. I can see the sense in keeping him around for the next 18 months 'just in case' but he is hardly a 'game changer' coming on from the bench, and as we seem to agree the other 9's have the right skills, they just need the exposure, there is little point sticking to the tried, tired and tested. To compromise i'd relinquish a bit and say - any starting caps for BY is a wasted cap - any better?

Agree completely Mikey. And perhaps there is something to be said for the 'steady but errant hand' the rest of the squad are unsurprised by what they get.

[Gloskarlos]

As an aside - rumours LRZ has been released back to Glos for this weekend and won't feature for Wales. No more detail than that just yet.

[32nd Man]

Jones has a weird dichotomy between being heavily better the devil you know in some positions, but being more than happy to just chick stuff at the wall to see what sticks when it comes to picking people out of position.

[32nd Man]

As an aside - rumours LRZ has been released back to Glos for this weekend and won't feature for Wales. No more detail than that just yet.

Weird.

If true it must be a knock, as they're turning down a distinct speed advantage over any of our probable wing picks there, and the chance to use that to stretch our defence.

[Gloskarlos]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/60491503

Seems to be more tactical. He does need to work on his defence certainly, but he is such a potent threat it does seem odd to send him away. Will be interesting to see if he features against Tigers this weekend.

[SDHoneymonster]

As an aside - rumours LRZ has been released back to Glos for this weekend and won't feature for Wales. No more detail than that just yet.

Weird.

If true it must be a knock, as they're turning down a distinct speed advantage over any of our probable wing picks there, and the chance to use that to stretch our defence.

In fairness if they play anything like they did against both Ireland and Scotland, where the ball rarely made it past Dan Biggar through incompetence in the former and design in the latter, then it doesn't really matter how fast you are as you're not getting the ball to make use of it! Might as well pick someone who can tackle in that case, which after LRZ's waving through of Darcy Graham last time out is something I'm not sure you can accuse him of.

[Mellsblue]

In what way do you consider Randall for example inferior? I admit I have a low positivity threshold for BY, have had for years now, but in all respects bar game management (and I think that is marginal given how often BY kicks the ball away) Randall has the better skill set. Not seen enough of Quirke yet to say the same. So for me if the differences are slight, two 9's have potential to improve before the WC and need game time to realise that, Youngs will give us what he always gives us, it's a no brainer to me.

I’m not saying I do think Randall is inferior, I’d stick with him for the rest of the 6N, but ditching Youngs, who I think is flawed in multiple areas, based on a handful of caps worth of evidence on Randall and Quirke is ott, IMO. IMO, again, we can’t just ditch Youngs and then bring him back in to the team in 18 months if Randall and/or Quirke don’t prove to be up to it.

See, I think i'd quite happily ditch him. But I refer you back to my low positivity threshold. I can see the sense in keeping him around for the next 18 months 'just in case' but he is hardly a 'game changer' coming on from the bench, and as we seem to agree the other 9's have the right skills, they just need the exposure, there is little point sticking to the tried, tired and tested. To compromise i'd relinquish a bit and say - any starting caps for BY is a wasted cap - any better?

Agree completely Mikey. And perhaps there is something to be said for the 'steady but errant hand' the rest of the squad are unsurprised by what they get.

That is better! I think we’re singing from the same hymn sheet, only you are a little sharp and I am a little flat.

[Mellsblue]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/60491503

Seems to be more tactical. He does need to work on his defence certainly, but he is such a potent threat it does seem odd to send him away. Will be interesting to see if he features against Tigers this weekend.

I didn’t watch the match but I read he made a number of defensive errors, with one being particularly poor and/or costly?

[Mellsblue]

[LRZ's waving through of Darcy Graham last time out.

This would be the costly error then!

[twitchy]

Some aspects of strategy in sport are unashamedly obvious. Others take hold stealthily and become more influential as a contest wears on so that, by full-time, one subtle ploy has shaped everything. Over recent years, the way Wales kick when they face England has fallen into that second category.

Here is a statistic to frame how you watch Saturday’s action at Twickenham. It should help to track a pivotal subplot. In each of their first two matches of the current Six Nations, against Scotland and then Italy, England threw into 17 line-outs. Over their past three Six Nations meetings with Wales, they have accumulated 15 line-outs in total. This is no accident.

Few would argue that Eddie Jones’ team produced a supreme performance to beat New Zealand at the last World Cup. To Wales, who would be edged out by South Africa in the second semi-final a day later, it was clear where the All Blacks had gone wrong.

That evening in Yokohama against New Zealand, England’s line-out was imperious. From the very first one, within seconds of the start, they mounted an attack leading to Manu Tuilagi’s try. Maro Itoje marshalled a set-piece operation masterminded by Steve Borthwick that yielded a blend of mauls, dummy-mauls and off-the-top strike-moves.



But all this was possible because the All Blacks had not sufficiently respected the risk of clearing to touch. England ended up having 20 line-outs that evening. Only once in the 71 Test matches of the Jones era, in November 2020 when they drove Georgia into submission on the back of 22 line-outs, have England been granted more opportunities from this platform.

Eight months before the World Cup semi-final, Wales had painted a tactical Mona Lisa at the Principality Stadium. On the way to a 21-13 victory, paving the way for their Grand Slam in the 2019 Six Nations, they restricted England to just four line-outs. Wales kicked 34 times, one more than their opponents.

However, only twice – once from a Liam Williams clearance two metres from his own try-line and again when Dan Biggar smashed a spiral out of the hosts’ 22 – did those kicks surrender line-outs. England’s other two line-outs arrived after Jonny May tackled Hadleigh Parkes out of bounds and when Gareth Anscombe blocked an Owen Farrell grubber, which saw a ricochet cross the touchline.



The game plan seems to have survived the transition between Warren Gatland and Wayne Pivac, with long-time kicking coach Neil Jenkins as its conduit. Tailored to England, it has different strands. Wales know that penalties bring about line-outs and have been immensely disciplined in Six Nations matches against England. They conceded a miserly three penalties in 2019, six in 2020 and nine in 2021.

Wales also know the stock that England place on line-outs. The selections of Courtney Lawes and Maro Itoje at blindside flanker attest to this. Choreographed, multi-phase plays must take up a good portion of training time. While the England maul has lost a degree of potency since Borthwick’s departure, line-outs are versatile and represent the best way to launch Tuilagi.



Theoretically, keeping kicks in-field will bring about longer passages of unbroken play to sap the energy of a big England pack that would prefer to work in shorter bursts between set pieces. Wales have long used their fitness levels – and, more specifically, their confidence in their own fitness – as a psychological weapon.

The strategy, underpinned by the positioning and aerial solidity of back-three players like Liam Williams and Josh Adams, challenges England to find new ways of breaking down the red wall. It gives Wales’ phase-play defence more chances to fill the front line and harry half-backs with other disruptive nuances. For instance, they have historically given Gareth Davies a remit to sprint up on one-man missions to rush England’s first-receiver.

According to Opta records, Wales have struck 104 kicks from hand against England in three Six Nations fixtures since 2019. Of those, just three have looked like intentional clearances into touch. Last season, England fed a meagre five line-outs in Cardiff. Four were from penalties, with the other needing Kieran Hardy’s box-kick to bounce from the five-metre line into touch.



For a contrast, England have not applied the same approach. They have kicked 94 times across the same three Anglo-Welsh Six Nations matches. Wales have had 45 line-outs – exactly three times as many as their opponents. The strategy is plain. By tracking Opta data, we can see when it was implemented, too.



In the 2016 Six Nations game against Wales, England had 14 line-outs. That number fell to nine in 2017, the year Elliot Daly’s 76th-minute try snatched victory, and to seven in 2018. The most recent tallies of four (2019), six (2020) and five (2021) represent the fewest line-outs that England have registered over six years of Eddie Jones.

Rewinding to 2017 for a moment, Daly’s defining finish capped a counter-attack punctuated by crisp passes from George Ford and Owen Farrell. Jonathan Davies’ clearance had not found touch. Perhaps it was not meant to. More terminal for Wales was Alex Cuthbert creeping too narrow on the chase (watch the video below):

The 2020 clash at Twickenham reinforced why Wales hold England’s line-out in such esteem. Three first-half throws fashioned 17 points, via converted tries from Anthony Watson and Daly before a Farrell penalty that punished Wales for collapsing a maul (watch the video below):



Pivac’s side stormed back and ended up going down 33-30. England had one line-out in a second half that Wales won 21-13.

In a manifesto ahead of the autumn, Eddie Jones pinpointed two priority areas for his side’s attacking expansion. As well as polishing line-out moves, he wanted England to be “more aggressive” on the first three phases of kick-returns. Precise line-out patterns, with Henry Slade prominent, helped oust South Africa in November. More effective kick-returns would be helpful against Wales.

Freddie Steward’s reliability under contestable high balls is an important component, and Max Malins shifting to the wing gives England an intuitive playmaker to identify space and organise counters. Watch out for Tuilagi dropping to the back-field as well. This is where another cat-and-mouse situation arises.

England asked Tuilagi to stay deep from restarts in 2020, to capitalise on Wales’ in-field kicking. The ruse was identified. Instead of returning the second-half restart, Wales kept the ball in hand and Justin Tipuric scored one of best tries ever seen at Twickenham (watch the video below):



Saturday promises another engrossing instalment in this rivalry. England once again appear to have piled more eggs into the set-piece basket. In Itoje, Lawes, Charlie Ewels, Nick Isiekwe and Ollie Chessum, they have retained five hybrid lock-flankers in their 25-man squad. Eddie Jones could bluff and pick a back row of Sam Simmonds, Tom Curry and Alex Dombrandt.

Either way, Wales’ quest to kick smartly and starve their hosts of line-outs will be among the critical battles – even if it may appear to be going on in the background.

[Oakboy]

Either way, Wales’ quest to kick smartly and starve their hosts of line-outs will be among the critical battles – even if it may appear to be going on in the background.

So, are you saying that dumping Launchbury might not make sense?

[p/d]

I’m always humoured by these type of articles that repeatedly say ‘big English pack’.