Eng v. Ire - Match thread

[Banquo]

Generally that would be a terrific game for the winning coach, as there are so many ostensibly easy things to point out in the debrief to improve. Unfortunately in this case, they are recurring themes- brainless penalties (Launch and Faz had 3 daft ones apiece, the latter especially so), overdoing the kicking, and kicking poorly at that, and quality of some of the passing. But also, I think, a lack of confidence ball in hand beyond a couple of phases- one lovely interchange between Youngs and the back row showed what can be done by playing a bit more heads up, and Mays try was terrific in ambition and good hands to get him the ball early.

There were big positives- Mako and Sinckler were excellent, along with the locks and esp the backrow unit in defence. Lineout wasn’t great, but it was heavily targeted, and didn’t fall apart; the errors were all George’s and that’s unusual (probably a combination of mental pressure and being knackered from shit loads of tackles, thanks to us not wanting the ball ). I do think we need to use Curry more as a jumper, it’s too much to rely on the locks exclusively. The jackaling against a side as good at the breakdown was a massive plus.

In the backs, Youngs and esp Faz are a creative vacuum (Fazs defence was as ropey as ever, stupid penalties, and v average kicking) The centres saw little ball, and made 4 yards between them- their defence was ok, especially Lawrence who defended well at 12.

The May at openside and JJ at blindside wing was interesting, but we didn’t use the ball enough to see if JJ as a third centre off the blindside wing would work, and it caused a lot disruption; we did work some space on a couple of occasions, only to find the man out wide in space was George, twice, and Ollie Lawrence....and I think it was similar on the two or three kicks we shouldn’t have done in good attacking positions.

We have enough good back three players to not have to fanny about like this, as interesting as it is.

We had 30% (32 overall) possession and 23% (28 overall) territory second half. Fair play in defence but you can’t have those stats regularly and keep winning. These were driven by a high penalty count and kicking the ball 34 times, which is a huge percentage of that possession.

Because of that terrific platform- subject to slight lineout tweaks- it should be possibly to graft some much more orthodox ways of attacking ball in hand, but probably not with the half back pairing and Faz in poor nick.

The positives are big, the downsides fixable mostly. That’s the challenge.

Where is this Curry lineout jumper business come from? ( presumably the same place that Curry is a big carrier) I get that he’s enthusiastic and will try his hand to whatever Eddie and Mitchell throw his way - but Curry’s versatility is massively over stated imo - I’ve become a stuck record on the point and appreciate most on board disagree with me so I’ll try and avoid repeating it anymore but just for the record I think he’s a great test openside, a mediocre 6 and an absolutely dire no.8 - over and out

Can you tell me what the differences are between an international 6 and 7, specifically in how England utilise them.

I predict a reference to Wavell Wakefield and maybe someone as modern as Peter Winterbottom.

[Oakboy]

Launchbury was used successfully in the lineout for shorter, safe throws. Itoje did the harder, longer stuff. It was good enough for Ireland but Jones must consider a 3rd option. I've always liked a significant back row lineout presence - Croft remains the best I have seen. Curry is rarely used despite having club experience and ability.

What might concern some is that Jones's practical alternative is Itoje at 6 with Hill at 4 against sides with better lineouts and/or heavier packs. That also gives an extra maul presence.

This subject has been covered many times. Normally, I'm very much on the 'genuine' flanker side of the debate and I would still pick Curry, Willis, Simmonds. I'm starting to waver a bit, though.

If we want the ultimate forwards-orientated dominance that seems to be our destiny and if Itoje can do it all (including the jackaling bit) is Jones right? I can't believe I just typed that but, and it is a big 'but', if we take it one stage further with some greater variation of groundhog ability and pace at 8 (Earl, Willis or Simmonds?), might the overall balance be more effective? Billy looks leaner and meaner this season. He played well against Ireland. But, might a different mix suit the team as a whole - Itoje, Curry, Earl, say, with Hill/Launchbury in the 2nd row.

[fivepointer]

Nice to have a genuine l/o option in your back row. Curry is no great jumper but can be put up to win the odd ball. I think that could be developed and he could be a bit more versatile.
Its a trade off. What we lose in the l/o we gain elsewhere.
Ted Hill is really the only back rower in the current squad who is good at the l/o. Whether he can offer the all round game that Curry, Underhill and Billy can bring is another matter. I'd like to see him given a go, mind.
Having only 2 jumpers does put an awful lot of pressure on them and your hooker.

[Banquo]

Nice to have a genuine l/o option in your back row. Curry is no great jumper but can be put up to win the odd ball. I think that could be developed and he could be a bit more versatile.
Its a trade off. What we lose in the l/o we gain elsewhere.
Ted Hill is really the only back rower in the current squad who is good at the l/o. Whether he can offer the all round game that Curry, Underhill and Billy can bring is another matter. I'd like to see him given a go, mind.
Having only 2 jumpers does put an awful lot of pressure on them and your hooker.

Which we saw, though not as bad as I thought it might be with Launchbury doing well, and Itoje exceptional both sides of the ball. It’s not rocket science to use Curry more. Willis is also decent in the lineout.

[p/d]

In the backs, Youngs and esp Faz are a creative vacuum (Fazs defence was as ropey as ever, stupid penalties, and v average kicking) The centres saw little ball.

Genuine questions: Does Jones care? Or, is he blind to what is happening? Does he think the alternatives are no better? What are the assistant coaches being paid for (in terms of attack/creativity)?

As you well know I didn't want him appointed, have never expressed delight at his wit nor felt the need to unleash the 15 stitches of embroidery onto a favoured t-shirt for the purpose of expressing a love for the man. That said ............

....nope, still cant take to him.

I just don't think he believes we have backs available with the necessary skill set to worry himself too much about looking beyond 9 & 10 as part of 1-8.

I would also suggest that not one our backs has improved as a player under Jones.

[francoisfou]

I too, would like to see Ted Hill given an opportunity, but there are only two matches left in this Autumn Nations Cup, next Saturday in Llanelli and then the final at HQ, where Eddie will undoubtedly go for his first choice team, so that leaves the Wales match for Hill.
Go for it, Eddie. You know it makes sense!

[Banquo]

In the backs, Youngs and esp Faz are a creative vacuum (Fazs defence was as ropey as ever, stupid penalties, and v average kicking) The centres saw little ball.

Genuine questions: Does Jones care? Or, is he blind to what is happening? Does he think the alternatives are no better? What are the assistant coaches being paid for (in terms of attack/creativity)?

As you well know I didn't want him appointed, have never expressed delight at his wit nor felt the need to unleash the 15 stitches of embroidery onto a favoured t-shirt for the purpose of expressing a love for the man. That said ............

....nope, still cant take to him.

I just don't think he believes we have backs available with the necessary skill set to worry himself too much about looking beyond 9 & 10 as part of 1-8.

I would also suggest that not one our backs has improved as a player under Jones.

May certainly has. Slade has. Daly did on the wing. Ford likely has. Faz has too, but a low bar.

[Banquo]

I too, would like to see Ted Hill given an opportunity, but there are only two matches left in this Autumn Nations Cup, next Saturday in Llanelli and then the final at HQ, where Eddie will undoubtedly go for his first choice team, so that leaves the Wales match for Hill.
Go for it, Eddie. You know it makes sense!

Has Ted Hill earned a go?

[francoisfou]

I too, would like to see Ted Hill given an opportunity, but there are only two matches left in this Autumn Nations Cup, next Saturday in Llanelli and then the final at HQ, where Eddie will undoubtedly go for his first choice team, so that leaves the Wales match for Hill.
Go for it, Eddie. You know it makes sense!

Has Ted Hill earned a go?

To be honest, I don't know, as I've only read match reports, but he seems to be of the same ilk as Tom Croft who I admired as a player.

[Scrumhead]

Generally that would be a terrific game for the winning coach, as there are so many ostensibly easy things to point out in the debrief to improve. Unfortunately in this case, they are recurring themes- brainless penalties (Launch and Faz had 3 daft ones apiece, the latter especially so), overdoing the kicking, and kicking poorly at that, and quality of some of the passing. But also, I think, a lack of confidence ball in hand beyond a couple of phases- one lovely interchange between Youngs and the back row showed what can be done by playing a bit more heads up, and Mays try was terrific in ambition and good hands to get him the ball early.

There were big positives- Mako and Sinckler were excellent, along with the locks and esp the backrow unit in defence. Lineout wasn’t great, but it was heavily targeted, and didn’t fall apart; the errors were all George’s and that’s unusual (probably a combination of mental pressure and being knackered from shit loads of tackles, thanks to us not wanting the ball ). I do think we need to use Curry more as a jumper, it’s too much to rely on the locks exclusively. The jackaling against a side as good at the breakdown was a massive plus.

In the backs, Youngs and esp Faz are a creative vacuum (Fazs defence was as ropey as ever, stupid penalties, and v average kicking) The centres saw little ball, and made 4 yards between them- their defence was ok, especially Lawrence who defended well at 12.

The May at openside and JJ at blindside wing was interesting, but we didn’t use the ball enough to see if JJ as a third centre off the blindside wing would work, and it caused a lot disruption; we did work some space on a couple of occasions, only to find the man out wide in space was George, twice, and Ollie Lawrence....and I think it was similar on the two or three kicks we shouldn’t have done in good attacking positions.

We have enough good back three players to not have to fanny about like this, as interesting as it is.

We had 30% (32 overall) possession and 23% (28 overall) territory second half. Fair play in defence but you can’t have those stats regularly and keep winning. These were driven by a high penalty count and kicking the ball 34 times, which is a huge percentage of that possession.

Because of that terrific platform- subject to slight lineout tweaks- it should be possibly to graft some much more orthodox ways of attacking ball in hand, but probably not with the half back pairing and Faz in poor nick.

The positives are big, the downsides fixable mostly. That’s the challenge.

Where is this Curry lineout jumper business come from? ( presumably the same place that Curry is a big carrier) I get that he’s enthusiastic and will try his hand to whatever Eddie and Mitchell throw his way - but Curry’s versatility is massively over stated imo - I’ve become a stuck record on the point and appreciate most on board disagree with me so I’ll try and avoid repeating it anymore but just for the record I think he’s a great test openside, a mediocre 6 and an absolutely dire no.8 - over and out

Curry is a perfectly decent lineout jumper. He’s never going to be the main target but he’s shown he’s a reliable option at test level. For a good reminder, many of us went in to the RWC semi final with concerns over a lack of lineout jumpers, particularly given Hansen had selected Scott Barrett at 6 (to give them 4 jumpers). Lawes, Itoje and Curry all contributed to a superior lineout on the day.

You’re wrong when you say ‘most’ on the board disagree with you. I think you’ll find it’s everyone when it comes to your unfounded and frankly bizarre criticism of Curry.

As for Curry being a ‘mediocre 6’ he’s played the majority of his test rugby wearing 6. That includes the RWC where he comfortably made most people’s (I’m talking about global media/pundits) had him in their team of the tournament. Mediocre my ass.

[Danno]

Player of the year nominee to boot

[Scrumhead]

I too, would like to see Ted Hill given an opportunity, but there are only two matches left in this Autumn Nations Cup, next Saturday in Llanelli and then the final at HQ, where Eddie will undoubtedly go for his first choice team, so that leaves the Wales match for Hill.
Go for it, Eddie. You know it makes sense!

Has Ted Hill earned a go?

To be honest, I don't know, as I've only read match reports, but he seems to be of the same ilk as Tom Croft who I admired as a player.

Not really, no. He’s got more in common with du Toit or O’Mahony as a rangy, tall blindside who carries hard, tackles harder and jumps well in the lineout. He might play in the same position as Croft, but I don’t really see the comparison?

As for him earning a go. I don’t really think he has. He’s consistently very good for Worcester and I think he could be an integral part of England’s back row in future, but currently he’s not better than Curry or Willis (most likely options at 6).

[francoisfou]

Has Ted Hill earned a go?

To be honest, I don't know, as I've only read match reports, but he seems to be of the same ilk as Tom Croft who I admired as a player.

Not really, no. He’s got more in common with du Toit or O’Mahony as a rangy, tall blindside who carries hard, tackles harder and jumps well in the lineout. He might play in the same position as Croft, but I don’t really see the comparison?

As for him earning a go. I don’t really think he has. He’s consistently very good for Worcester and I think he could be an integral part of England’s back row in future, but currently he’s not better than Curry or Willis (most likely options at 6).

Thanks for the info!

[Epaminondas Pules]

Generally that would be a terrific game for the winning coach, as there are so many ostensibly easy things to point out in the debrief to improve. Unfortunately in this case, they are recurring themes- brainless penalties (Launch and Faz had 3 daft ones apiece, the latter especially so), overdoing the kicking, and kicking poorly at that, and quality of some of the passing. But also, I think, a lack of confidence ball in hand beyond a couple of phases- one lovely interchange between Youngs and the back row showed what can be done by playing a bit more heads up, and Mays try was terrific in ambition and good hands to get him the ball early.

There were big positives- Mako and Sinckler were excellent, along with the locks and esp the backrow unit in defence. Lineout wasn’t great, but it was heavily targeted, and didn’t fall apart; the errors were all George’s and that’s unusual (probably a combination of mental pressure and being knackered from shit loads of tackles, thanks to us not wanting the ball ). I do think we need to use Curry more as a jumper, it’s too much to rely on the locks exclusively. The jackaling against a side as good at the breakdown was a massive plus.

In the backs, Youngs and esp Faz are a creative vacuum (Fazs defence was as ropey as ever, stupid penalties, and v average kicking) The centres saw little ball, and made 4 yards between them- their defence was ok, especially Lawrence who defended well at 12.

The May at openside and JJ at blindside wing was interesting, but we didn’t use the ball enough to see if JJ as a third centre off the blindside wing would work, and it caused a lot disruption; we did work some space on a couple of occasions, only to find the man out wide in space was George, twice, and Ollie Lawrence....and I think it was similar on the two or three kicks we shouldn’t have done in good attacking positions.

We have enough good back three players to not have to fanny about like this, as interesting as it is.

We had 30% (32 overall) possession and 23% (28 overall) territory second half. Fair play in defence but you can’t have those stats regularly and keep winning. These were driven by a high penalty count and kicking the ball 34 times, which is a huge percentage of that possession.

Because of that terrific platform- subject to slight lineout tweaks- it should be possibly to graft some much more orthodox ways of attacking ball in hand, but probably not with the half back pairing and Faz in poor nick.

The positives are big, the downsides fixable mostly. That’s the challenge.

Where is this Curry lineout jumper business come from? ( presumably the same place that Curry is a big carrier) I get that he’s enthusiastic and will try his hand to whatever Eddie and Mitchell throw his way - but Curry’s versatility is massively over stated imo - I’ve become a stuck record on the point and appreciate most on board disagree with me so I’ll try and avoid repeating it anymore but just for the record I think he’s a great test openside, a mediocre 6 and an absolutely dire no.8 - over and out

Probably from him being used as a jumper regularly for his club.

[Epaminondas Pules]

Launchbury was used successfully in the lineout for shorter, safe throws. Itoje did the harder, longer stuff. It was good enough for Ireland but Jones must consider a 3rd option. I've always liked a significant back row lineout presence - Croft remains the best I have seen. Curry is rarely used despite having club experience and ability.

What might concern some is that Jones's practical alternative is Itoje at 6 with Hill at 4 against sides with better lineouts and/or heavier packs. That also gives an extra maul presence.

This subject has been covered many times. Normally, I'm very much on the 'genuine' flanker side of the debate and I would still pick Curry, Willis, Simmonds. I'm starting to waver a bit, though.

If we want the ultimate forwards-orientated dominance that seems to be our destiny and if Itoje can do it all (including the jackaling bit) is Jones right? I can't believe I just typed that but, and it is a big 'but', if we take it one stage further with some greater variation of groundhog ability and pace at 8 (Earl, Willis or Simmonds?), might the overall balance be more effective? Billy looks leaner and meaner this season. He played well against Ireland. But, might a different mix suit the team as a whole - Itoje, Curry, Earl, say, with Hill/Launchbury in the 2nd row.

It is interesting in a sense that it was good enough for Ireland who had four jumpers, three of which are excellent in the air, but having a two jumper strategy is a little light IMO. Curry is used a lot of Sale, but less so for England. We could easily use him more, though it hasn't been an issue particularly to date, but never hurts to have more well used variety.

[fivepointer]

Hill is a different flanker to the others in the squad. He's more a "conventional" blindside. If you were looking for an alternative to what we have currently, he would supply it. I've seen enough of him to be seriously impressed.

Jones obviously isnt going to experiment now, so we'll have to wait and see when/if he gets a chance in the 6N's.

[Raggs]

Launchbury was used successfully in the lineout for shorter, safe throws. Itoje did the harder, longer stuff. It was good enough for Ireland but Jones must consider a 3rd option. I've always liked a significant back row lineout presence - Croft remains the best I have seen. Curry is rarely used despite having club experience and ability.

What might concern some is that Jones's practical alternative is Itoje at 6 with Hill at 4 against sides with better lineouts and/or heavier packs. That also gives an extra maul presence.

This subject has been covered many times. Normally, I'm very much on the 'genuine' flanker side of the debate and I would still pick Curry, Willis, Simmonds. I'm starting to waver a bit, though.

If we want the ultimate forwards-orientated dominance that seems to be our destiny and if Itoje can do it all (including the jackaling bit) is Jones right? I can't believe I just typed that but, and it is a big 'but', if we take it one stage further with some greater variation of groundhog ability and pace at 8 (Earl, Willis or Simmonds?), might the overall balance be more effective? Billy looks leaner and meaner this season. He played well against Ireland. But, might a different mix suit the team as a whole - Itoje, Curry, Earl, say, with Hill/Launchbury in the 2nd row.

It is interesting in a sense that it was good enough for Ireland who had four jumpers, three of which are excellent in the air, but having a two jumper strategy is a little light IMO. Curry is used a lot of Sale, but less so for England. We could easily use him more, though it hasn't been an issue particularly to date, but never hurts to have more well used variety.

My guess is whilst 2 jumpers are working, stick to it. If it starts to fail, send Curry up to throw a cat in amongst the pigeons.

[Epaminondas Pules]

Launchbury was used successfully in the lineout for shorter, safe throws. Itoje did the harder, longer stuff. It was good enough for Ireland but Jones must consider a 3rd option. I've always liked a significant back row lineout presence - Croft remains the best I have seen. Curry is rarely used despite having club experience and ability.

What might concern some is that Jones's practical alternative is Itoje at 6 with Hill at 4 against sides with better lineouts and/or heavier packs. That also gives an extra maul presence.

This subject has been covered many times. Normally, I'm very much on the 'genuine' flanker side of the debate and I would still pick Curry, Willis, Simmonds. I'm starting to waver a bit, though.

If we want the ultimate forwards-orientated dominance that seems to be our destiny and if Itoje can do it all (including the jackaling bit) is Jones right? I can't believe I just typed that but, and it is a big 'but', if we take it one stage further with some greater variation of groundhog ability and pace at 8 (Earl, Willis or Simmonds?), might the overall balance be more effective? Billy looks leaner and meaner this season. He played well against Ireland. But, might a different mix suit the team as a whole - Itoje, Curry, Earl, say, with Hill/Launchbury in the 2nd row.

It is interesting in a sense that it was good enough for Ireland who had four jumpers, three of which are excellent in the air, but having a two jumper strategy is a little light IMO. Curry is used a lot of Sale, but less so for England. We could easily use him more, though it hasn't been an issue particularly to date, but never hurts to have more well used variety.

My guess is whilst 2 jumpers are working, stick to it. If it starts to fail, send Curry up to throw a cat in amongst the pigeons.

I'm with you. I'd just use a bit of variety a little more regularly to keep the opposition 'guessing', but overall our lineout is pretty good.

[Epaminondas Pules]

Hill is a different flanker to the others in the squad. He's more a "conventional" blindside. If you were looking for an alternative to what we have currently, he would supply it. I've seen enough of him to be seriously impressed.

Jones obviously isnt going to experiment now, so we'll have to wait and see when/if he gets a chance in the 6N's.

He is a bloody good player and still just 21.

It is kind of frightening when you look at the flankers and their ages considering how good they are.

Wilson 31 (the grandaddy)
Underhill 24
Willis 23
Earl 22
Curry 22
Hill 21

And then not far off
Evans 23
Curry 22

This essentially means 10 years of pushing each other in a similar way to the old days of the Holy Trinity.

[Which Tyler]

May certainly has. Slade has. Daly did on the wing. Ford likely has. Faz has too, but a low bar.

It's tough to tell, most of them had no significant caps before Jones took over. Of those who did.
Youngs is Youngs is Youngs, and hasn't really improved in the last 5 years.
Farrell improves year on year - baby steps, but he really does seem better with each batch of 10caps he receives.
Ford is a much better player.
Manu has mostly been injured.
May is a far better player.

I don't think anyone our other backs were properly established internationals when Eddie took over, so you'd have to say that they're all significantly better.

[Puja]

Hill is a different flanker to the others in the squad. He's more a "conventional" blindside. If you were looking for an alternative to what we have currently, he would supply it. I've seen enough of him to be seriously impressed.

Jones obviously isnt going to experiment now, so we'll have to wait and see when/if he gets a chance in the 6N's.

He is a bloody good player and still just 21.

It is kind of frightening when you look at the flankers and their ages considering how good they are.

Wilson 31 (the grandaddy)
Underhill 24
Willis 23
Earl 22
Curry 22
Hill 21

And then not far off
Evans 23
Curry 22

This essentially means 10 years of pushing each other in a similar way to the old days of the Holy Trinity.

Even the Holy Trinity didn't have this level of competition. They had each other, Moody nibbling at the edges and Worsley as a promising youngster (who never really fulfilled the hoped-for promise), but none of the top three were realistically in danger of dropping out of our world cup final team.

I think Hill doesn't necessarily have to be better than Curry or Underhill, but to be better than Itoje at 6 for games where we need more lineout, which I think is a much easier target.

Puja

[Banquo]

Launchbury was used successfully in the lineout for shorter, safe throws. Itoje did the harder, longer stuff. It was good enough for Ireland but Jones must consider a 3rd option. I've always liked a significant back row lineout presence - Croft remains the best I have seen. Curry is rarely used despite having club experience and ability.

What might concern some is that Jones's practical alternative is Itoje at 6 with Hill at 4 against sides with better lineouts and/or heavier packs. That also gives an extra maul presence.

This subject has been covered many times. Normally, I'm very much on the 'genuine' flanker side of the debate and I would still pick Curry, Willis, Simmonds. I'm starting to waver a bit, though.

If we want the ultimate forwards-orientated dominance that seems to be our destiny and if Itoje can do it all (including the jackaling bit) is Jones right? I can't believe I just typed that but, and it is a big 'but', if we take it one stage further with some greater variation of groundhog ability and pace at 8 (Earl, Willis or Simmonds?), might the overall balance be more effective? Billy looks leaner and meaner this season. He played well against Ireland. But, might a different mix suit the team as a whole - Itoje, Curry, Earl, say, with Hill/Launchbury in the 2nd row.

It is interesting in a sense that it was good enough for Ireland who had four jumpers, three of which are excellent in the air, but having a two jumper strategy is a little light IMO. Curry is used a lot of Sale, but less so for England. We could easily use him more, though it hasn't been an issue particularly to date, but never hurts to have more well used variety.

My guess is whilst 2 jumpers are working, stick to it. If it starts to fail, send Curry up to throw a cat in amongst the pigeons.

But it didn’t really- George was under a lot of pressure and we duffed at least 2, with 2 or three very untidy ones. But I was fearing it might be worse against 4 Irish jumpers- and their trade off failed, as we moidered them on the deck.

[Banquo]

May certainly has. Slade has. Daly did on the wing. Ford likely has. Faz has too, but a low bar.

It's tough to tell, most of them had no significant caps before Jones took over. Of those who did.
Youngs is Youngs is Youngs, and hasn't really improved in the last 5 years.
Farrell improves year on year - baby steps, but he really does seem better with each batch of 10caps he receives.
Ford is a much better player.
Manu has mostly been injured.
May is a far better player.

I don't think anyone our other backs were properly established internationals when Eddie took over, so you'd have to say that they're all significantly better.

Well, yes.

[Puja]

It is interesting in a sense that it was good enough for Ireland who had four jumpers, three of which are excellent in the air, but having a two jumper strategy is a little light IMO. Curry is used a lot of Sale, but less so for England. We could easily use him more, though it hasn't been an issue particularly to date, but never hurts to have more well used variety.

My guess is whilst 2 jumpers are working, stick to it. If it starts to fail, send Curry up to throw a cat in amongst the pigeons.

But it didn’t really- George was under a lot of pressure and we duffed at least 2, with 2 or three very untidy ones. But I was fearing it might be worse against 4 Irish jumpers- and their trade off failed, as we moidered them on the deck.

I think Curry/Willis is a perfectly acceptable 3rd jumper to have if we've got two good lineout locks. I'm not sure it works with Launchbury there.

Puja

[Banquo]

My guess is whilst 2 jumpers are working, stick to it. If it starts to fail, send Curry up to throw a cat in amongst the pigeons.

But it didn’t really- George was under a lot of pressure and we duffed at least 2, with 2 or three very untidy ones. But I was fearing it might be worse against 4 Irish jumpers- and their trade off failed, as we moidered them on the deck.

I think Curry/Willis is a perfectly acceptable 3rd jumper to have if we've got two good lineout locks. I'm not sure it works with Launchbury there.

Puja

Despite your misgivings, Launchbury and Itoje went well and Launch did an excellent job in the lineout especially given the competition. We did imo make it a bit harder for George by not getting Curry in the air, the point I made before; you can’t say it wouldn’t work with Launchbury there, when it was nearly fine with just him and Itoje.