We need to talk about Eddie...

[Dan. Dan. Dan.]

That's why it would be a massive deal!

[Digby]

I don't see anything about Eddie that's going to have a problem with a player doing well and putting pressure on his squad for a place, he'll like that. Though I'd be astonished if Simmonds pushes past all the big lumps. Maybe he gets a role like Hogg, picked on tour, they find out he played centre in school and they stick him there in the mid week games ignoring his actual role entirely

[twitchy]

Which simmonds?

[Banquo]

Eddie has to sort the discipline. Questions about style and selection are pointless if a side is going to concede that many daft penalties, and it's been happening for years. I don't see he has any option but to drop players because they're simply not listening as is, how the players respond to some of them being dropped will be telling

Yep

[Digby]

Which simmonds?

I assume Sam, although no doubt some would drop Ford

[Digby]

Eddie has to sort the discipline. Questions about style and selection are pointless if a side is going to concede that many daft penalties, and it's been happening for years. I don't see he has any option but to drop players because they're simply not listening as is, how the players respond to some of them being dropped will be telling

Yep

Tough one for him because this one is about him. Whether he sticks or twists right now he can either claim he's lost the changing room and they're not listening, or he's telling them to be this stupid, and neither position is survivable no matter what other qualities he might offer

The standard from here until the end of the next WC is over would be 8 pens a game, and when you consider you might have to give away 2 and you might get 2 harsh scrum calls that's just a whole different level for this side to attain. That leaves them 4 pens to give away and right now we can crack that one out in the opening 5 minutes

[Puja]

In advance why would Gatland like Simmonds? Eddie is annoyingly negative as England coach, and he's still much more positive a coach than Gats

I wouldn't put it past Gatland to do it just to annoy Eddie.

Puja

[Scrumhead]

While I think it was definitely very generous to pick the Saracens players, if we hadn’t picked them, we’d likely have had Genge, LCD, Ewels, Lawrence/Odogwu and Malins starting. Definite plusses and minuses there.

There’s not much of a drop off from George to LCD (different styles of player but almost equally good IMO), but without Launchbury and Lawes, the drop off to what would have been a starting second row of Ewels and Hill is significant. Similarly, in the backs, the lack of an alternative at 12 would have necessitated playing Lawrence or Slade out of position. It’s impossible to judge Lawrence as a 12 without ever seeing him play there. Sure he has a lot of suitable skills and physical attributes for the role, but so does Slade on paper and he’s never convinced as an inside centre.

Malins over Daly has the potential to be an upgrade on Daly, but it’s not a given.

Arguably Eddie should have rested the Saracens players but I can confidently say that no-one would have been happy with a second row of Ewels and Hill and the changes in the backs would have been a total lottery ... probably worth trying but certainly not guaranteed to succeed.

[twitchy]

If we now lose to ireland and france (pretty likely) what sort of position do you think that will leave eddie?

[Mellsblue]

Foetal.

[Scrumhead]

Without an obviously better alternative, I don’t see that Eddie’s position changes all that much. COVID has hit the RFU’s finances massively hard and I don’t really see that we a) have the money to terminate his contract or b) the funds to get a replacement of suitable quality.

Ultimately, he’ll get a bit more pressure on him post 6N, but that’s it really ...

[Which Tyler]

"WE need to talk about Eddie..."
I'm not sure anything has changed from the ongoing conversation over the last few weeks, certainly not from this weekend

[Stom]

I have 3 thoughts on this...

1) there’s not much wrong with his selection. It’s his job to set the strategy and stick to it rather than chopping and changing every game. If players do not fit to that system (Simmonds, for instance), there’s no point in picking him. However, if the system is falling over, it’s also his job to adapt it, which may involve picking different players.

2) to say there’s no one available is wrong. Quins lost their first game since Gustard was replaced with a guy none thought was up to it... if the atmosphere is broken, you need to change.

3) there’s an old adage about the team reflecting the captain. With Japan, Eddie picked Leitch, a relatively controlled player who led by example. For England, Eddie made it plain to everyone he wanted to play to England’s traditional strengths... then went and picked captain after captain who did not fit the mold of England captains, someone with “dog” as he would call it, but not only that, two captains who had history of backchat, petulance and ill discipline. No wonder we’re struggling with those things.

In conclusion, Eddie needs to ditch the concept of a dog as captain. He needs someone to keep the team calm and bee ruthlessly efficient. Like Exeter are. Like Saracens were with Barritt as captain.

I also think there are some changes he should make to the strategy, but not major ones

[Oakboy]

While I think it was definitely very generous to pick the Saracens players, if we hadn’t picked them, we’d likely have had Genge, LCD, Ewels, Lawrence/Odogwu and Malins starting. Definite plusses and minuses there.

There’s not much of a drop off from George to LCD (different styles of player but almost equally good IMO), but without Launchbury and Lawes, the drop off to what would have been a starting second row of Ewels and Hill is significant. Similarly, in the backs, the lack of an alternative at 12 would have necessitated playing Lawrence or Slade out of position. It’s impossible to judge Lawrence as a 12 without ever seeing him play there. Sure he has a lot of suitable skills and physical attributes for the role, but so does Slade on paper and he’s never convinced as an inside centre.

Malins over Daly has the potential to be an upgrade on Daly, but it’s not a given.

Arguably Eddie should have rested the Saracens players but I can confidently say that no-one would have been happy with a second row of Ewels and Hill and the changes in the backs would have been a total lottery ... probably worth trying but certainly not guaranteed to succeed.

Good points there. Mind you, it would have been Lawes and Hill to start with, which, arguably, in terms of discipline etc. , is not that much of a drop off. You'd probably get some argue that Ewels should not be next in line, in any case. Attwood might have done a good short-term job, for example, and I'd rate Isiekwe above Ewels. Might Ewels be just another Jones 'stubborn-ism'?

[Raggs]

Question is now, does he make big changes now? Farrell has just had a good game at 12, Ford looked solid as ever (not sure what picture changed for him to kick off that scrum, but something happened), Watson looked very good too.

Hill has a propensity for giving bad penalties. Yes Itoje gave away a lot, but even his rolling on the floor rip wasn't as stupid as the ones that Hill has been given. Could we drop Hill and put Itoje on the bench and still have a locking pair upto the task? Had Lawes still been fit I'd have liked to have seen it. Billy earned another go at 8 for me.

The backs didn't seem that bad overall for me. Little punch though, so maybe Odogwu/Lawrence in place of Slade? Assuming Farrell plays well again?

[Mikey Brown]

Fair enough, lock would have been a problem area. Launch, Lawes, Hill, Ewels/Ribbans would have been a good group if available.

I just would have loved an excuse to look at options beyond George, Vunipola, Farrell, Daly.

In terms of changes it's hard to separate these performances from the discipline and the lack of desire to really attack. But I don't get how anyone could possibly think Daly was good enough. Turned his back on a quick tap, failed to pass/look for a near certain try, knocked it on 13/14 times etc.

I thought Billy and Farrell had their best games for a while, solid 6 or 7.

[Raggs]

The change in strategy, in running back those kicks, really needs a Billy like carrier. The defensive line is nearly always going to be well organised, but that doesn't matter to Billy. He hits hard, tends to rumble for at least a second or two even if he doesn't break a tackle, and gives his support time to get to him. I like that strategy over just trying to win the kicking game, it's hopefully more reliable too.

I'd be fine with Daly getting the hook, but there again, he wasn't the source of the problem for me.

[Digby]

Daly doesn't have a defence after turning his back on Hardy, not much you can say about that. The balls lost forwards were in contact, were they man and ball or just not looking after the ball enough? The non pass for the try my impression was from where he took the ball he didn't have much of a chance to get it away before being closed down. But even if everything else was okay there's just no getting past turning your back on a try being conceded, he's not going to need telling that's an utter shambles of a play

Outside those failings, some of which might be explainable, he was part of a better attack. And like Farrell and Youngs wasn't really at the heart of our failings yesterday, that's on the forwards for the lack of discipline, and losing a lineout (and losing a shortened lineout with lots of movement and then putting up Wilson against a lock which is just a why moment? dear god why?)

[Mikey Brown]

Daly doesn't have a defence after turning his back on Hardy, not much you can say about that. The balls lost forwards were in contact, were they man and ball or just not looking after the ball enough? The non pass for the try my impression was from where he took the ball he didn't have much of a chance to get it away before being closed down. But even if everything else was okay there's just no getting past turning your back on a try being conceded, he's not going to need telling that's an utter shambles of a play

Outside those failings, some of which might be explainable, he was part of a better attack. And like Farrell and Youngs wasn't really at the heart of our failings yesterday, that's on the forwards for the lack of discipline, and losing a lineout (and losing a shortened lineout with lots of movement and then putting up Wilson against a lock which is just a why moment? dear god why?)

I don't blame him for everything up front, there was nothing any of the backs could really do about that, but I think he makes poor individual errors too and has continued to look shaky as a fullback for quite a while now. I'm sure he'd improve if everything was rosy from 1-14 but I'm not holding my breath for that either.

[Digby]

Daly doesn't have a defence after turning his back on Hardy, not much you can say about that. The balls lost forwards were in contact, were they man and ball or just not looking after the ball enough? The non pass for the try my impression was from where he took the ball he didn't have much of a chance to get it away before being closed down. But even if everything else was okay there's just no getting past turning your back on a try being conceded, he's not going to need telling that's an utter shambles of a play

Outside those failings, some of which might be explainable, he was part of a better attack. And like Farrell and Youngs wasn't really at the heart of our failings yesterday, that's on the forwards for the lack of discipline, and losing a lineout (and losing a shortened lineout with lots of movement and then putting up Wilson against a lock which is just a why moment? dear god why?)

I don't blame him for everything up front, there was nothing any of the backs could really do about that, but I think he makes poor individual errors too and has continued to look shaky as a fullback for quite a while now. I'm sure he'd improve if everything was rosy from 1-14 but I'm not holding my breath for that either.

Don't think we've had many fullbacks who don't make errors, from Robinson to Lucy to Hull or Catt, or Webb, or Monye or Brown or Armitage. He, Daly, is there now, he does some good stuff and he's got a number of caps which is rather useful.

I think he's put himself well and truly in the could be replaced camp by turning his back on a score, but I don't see an obvious player that makes you think he'll lock down the shirt like Matt Burke if we do try someone else, probably Malins. Something does have to give after that performance though, or lack of, he's going to know he's in the possible firing line

[Which Tyler]

I'll just copy/paste this across from a post I put in another board - it was explicitly addressing another post, but I think it's pretty self-explanatory.

As a sport, we've become ever more coach-led and don't trust players who go off script.
As a player, if you stick to the script, then it's not your fault if the script is wrong - if you go off script, then it's on you, succeed or fail. Go off script too often, and you'll be dropped as the coach can't trust you to play the game-plan.
I find this sad, but I also remember the reaction last time we had a coach who tried to empower the players - the players empowered themselves, reached a RWC final, and everyone blamed the coach, who was fired, for empowering the players.

Billy - a welcome return to form - not great form, but enough to retain his place on merit.

Owen - actually played okay, even ran a few IC lines and asked the defence some questions (basic ones, but better than not).
What he should have done better is to be respectful of the ref. Right or wrong, his word is final. The ref gets to talk first in any conversation, DO NOT talk over him. That gives you a chance to take a few breaths, and force yourself to relax and be less aggressive. Call him sir, say "yes" and that you understand but...
If your team is giving away soft penalties all over the place, you ARE going to lose the ref, and it's up to the skipper to impose better discipline. Don't tell your team mate that they were harshly done by when they were stupid - tell them that shit happens, but don't don't again.
If the ref is being particularly pernickety, then you need to be whiter than white - even if it puts you at a disadvantage in-play.

Elliott - was bad, and it's not just a single bad day at the office. He's not a fullback, and whilst it was a worthwhile experiment, it's also a failed one, that's been given longer than it should have been. He's easily replaced as we already have better options in the squad, including one that actually plays the way we want Daly to (Watson or Steward change the balance and set-up of the team, and need a new game-plan. Malins does on the pitch what Daly does on paper).

Benji - I've talked about this before, but I don't think it's been on this board. Youngs is a naturally talented scrum-half, when he's playing on instinct. Wind him up and let him go, and he can be brilliant, genuinely world class. He'll make mistakes, but they'll be massively outweighed by the good he can bring.
But he's... a bit thick I guess, or possibly not self-confident enough. He's got good instincts, but makes terrible decisions. Ask him to be the playmaker rather than the opportunist and he's great. Tell him to play off 9, select his runners, call the play, and he can't process all the information and starts second guessing himself, takes 3 times longer, and executes poorly and can lose us a game on his own.

Jonny - performed to my biases yesterday. He's played well in the prem and absolutely earned a shot at international level, but I'm not convinced. But nor is Ewels. In a team making too many brain farts, we can't afford him. Unfortunately, Kruis, Lawes and Launch are all unavailable; it's also too early (for me) to call him a failed experiment, but he's really not putting any pressure on those ahead of him in the pecking order.

Dan - on one of Youngs good days, can't complain about sitting on the bench for that long. He's not getting long anyway, even on Youngs bad days, but he needs to do better in 10 minutes if he wants to be trusted with longer.

Ellis - meh, props give away penalities, especially when you're in the ref's bad books as a team. I'd need info from people far more knowledgeable than I about the scrum to say what needs to be done there.

Maro - needs to be captain, and given past experience, that's probably help his game - it worked for Jonno, and Dylan, I see no reason it wouldn't for such an intelligent player. I think he's been given licence to live as close to the edge as he can, and that it's worth the penalties, which comes from higher up; and on a day like yesterday when things aren't going your way, you'll give away too many. I'd suggest he needs to adapt to the ref on the day more than the laws as a whole, and play ever so slightly within himself (or be allowed a touch more leeway as captains usually are).


Discipline - Eddie likes fighty, tough players and fighty, tough teams who play on the edge. I think he's got too many that push too far , but his win ratio in general disagrees with me. Playing like that will always leave you open to sometimes just pissing off the ref, and getting pinged off the plark.

Are we kidding ourselves? - we have a lot of individual talent in the prem, but that doesn't necessarily make a good team, and a lot of that talent is concentrated into positions with a lot of depth. We've a dozen backrowers who have all earned the right to show what they can do. They can't all, and the players in their positions are mostly going well themselves. Billy has in a rut for a while, but we know he's also world class when not in a rut, equally most of our backrow talent is on the flank - where the best are already being looked at. At #8, Wilson, Earl, Willis and Simmonds are all flankers who can cover 8 rather than specialists, they all require a complete reworking of the back 5 and game-plan. Dombrandt is simply not ready for international level yet (maybe this summer), Mercer should have been given a chance during Billy's rut (I know some don't see it - in much the same way that I don't see it in JHill) - but he's thrown his toys out of the pram and taken himself out of contention (I hope it works for him, and that he comes back stronger in a couple of years, but for now, he's not eligible).
At FH, Ford is world class and Farrell is a good international, and neither are remotely close to the scrap heap. However good Umaga, Smith or (especially) Simmonds are, they've got to show that they're better than that. Bear in mid - they won't be given the game-plan they want, they'll have the same restrictions placed on them that Ford does.
It's 9 and 12 we most desperately need someone to come through, we're starting to experiment, but several of our best talents have gone elsewhere.

Premiership - is ever less relevant to international sport. Club coaches get an 8 week pre-season and 36 week season with their players and no contradictions. Internationals get 2 1-week pre-seasons and 4 or 8 week season with their players, contradicting what most of them are told at club level.

Rest of the 6N - There's not a huge amount Eddie can do right now. We're limited by a 28 man squad; and are mid-tournament, we can look at replacing players; and ripping up game-plans, but have to accept that there are consequences to these things.
Ripping up a game-plan mid-tournament, is simply not an option. We live in a world where tactics and game-plans take years to develop. This year especially, with Covid and Saracens' drama; changing ref. interpretations, it's even less viable to just throw it out.
Which leaves us with changing players - and TBH, we're only really looking at the spine of the team.
At Hooker, George found a bit of form against Wales; if he's our first choice hooker, then he really has to start - it's not like LCD is an unknown quantity, or not getting any chances - even if I personally prefer him. It's certainly a judgement call, and I've no problem with a coach who simply disagrees with me about judgement calls.
At #8, as discussed above, Billy has found a bit of form, that was probably his best game in 2 years for England - we also don't have any replacements that don't require either a complete rejig of the back 5, alongside a change in tactics - that would need to be part of a long-term plan; that isn't about to happen. I still think Billy needed to be dropped for a match or 2 in the lead-up to the RWC19 to give him a kick up the arse (and try options as injury cover) but it's too late for that, and we can't viably drop someone after their best performance in a while.
At 9, Youngs has been discussed ad nauseam; but Robson, or anyone else, needs to actually earn the right to expect 30 minutes, let alone 60. The more Robson plays, the more I understand why he wasn't really looked at earlier - and there's no point in bitching that he should have been tried 5 years ago. Have to suspect that the same might apply to Spencer too, who's always had issues with consistency, and being stuck on Saracens' bench for too long.
At 10, Ford is world class, and Fazlet is international class. I don't think Smith or Umaga would keep up their form if forced to play the England game-plan, and I understand why they're being overlooked. Simmonds is the one who could potentially slot right in; but he needs basically needs 2 injuries ahead of him to get an opportunity. Ford isn't playing badly enough to be dropped, and Fazlet is our captain.
At 12, Lawrence is being given chances, but playing him at 12 moves Fazlet to 10, and we know that doesn't work. I want to see Faz dropped at least as far as the bench; but that means stripping him of the captaincy mid-tournament, and I can't think of any international coach who would do that.
At 15, Daly is in serious danger, and we even have a replacement within the squad - he's the only one I can think of who actually should be replaced.

As for any arguments that the result must force change - yesterday's refereeing display gives Eddie all the excuses he needs not to.

[fivepointer]

Question is now, does he make big changes now? Farrell has just had a good game at 12, Ford looked solid as ever (not sure what picture changed for him to kick off that scrum, but something happened), Watson looked very good too.

Hill has a propensity for giving bad penalties. Yes Itoje gave away a lot, but even his rolling on the floor rip wasn't as stupid as the ones that Hill has been given. Could we drop Hill and put Itoje on the bench and still have a locking pair upto the task? Had Lawes still been fit I'd have liked to have seen it. Billy earned another go at 8 for me.

The backs didn't seem that bad overall for me. Little punch though, so maybe Odogwu/Lawrence in place of Slade? Assuming Farrell plays well again?

Think the result means that he has to do something. Carrying on isnt really an option when you've shipped 40 pts in a 6N's game.
The 28 man squad really does narrow choices. Good when things are going well, not so good when you want to change things up a bit.
Some rotation and possible inclusion of Lawrence and Odogwu seem on the cards.
And please stop with the 6:2 bench split!

[Banquo]

Daly doesn't have a defence after turning his back on Hardy, not much you can say about that. The balls lost forwards were in contact, were they man and ball or just not looking after the ball enough? The non pass for the try my impression was from where he took the ball he didn't have much of a chance to get it away before being closed down. But even if everything else was okay there's just no getting past turning your back on a try being conceded, he's not going to need telling that's an utter shambles of a play

Outside those failings, some of which might be explainable, he was part of a better attack. And like Farrell and Youngs wasn't really at the heart of our failings yesterday, that's on the forwards for the lack of discipline, and losing a lineout (and losing a shortened lineout with lots of movement and then putting up Wilson against a lock which is just a why moment? dear god why?)

I don't blame him for everything up front, there was nothing any of the backs could really do about that, but I think he makes poor individual errors too and has continued to look shaky as a fullback for quite a while now. I'm sure he'd improve if everything was rosy from 1-14 but I'm not holding my breath for that either.

Don't think we've had many fullbacks who don't make errors, from Robinson to Lucy to Hull or Catt, or Webb, or Monye or Brown or Armitage. He, Daly, is there now, he does some good stuff and he's got a number of caps which is rather useful.

I think he's put himself well and truly in the could be replaced camp by turning his back on a score, but I don't see an obvious player that makes you think he'll lock down the shirt like Matt Burke if we do try someone else, probably Malins. Something does have to give after that performance though, or lack of, he's going to know he's in the possible firing line

Daly doesnt look like a man who enjoys 15, probably because hes had to learn the position almost exclusively in an England shirt. Tough to do in a position where experience and positional sense are key, and where any technical flaws are exposed.... over and over. I like what he can do ball in hand a lot- though oddly for a 13 originally he dies with the ball too much- but reckon he could offer most of it from the wing, his best intl position, Defensively he is cack at 15, despite a slight improvement under the high ball.

[Scrumhead]

I'll just copy/paste this across from a post I put in another board - it was explicitly addressing another post, but I think it's pretty self-explanatory.

As a sport, we've become ever more coach-led and don't trust players who go off script.
As a player, if you stick to the script, then it's not your fault if the script is wrong - if you go off script, then it's on you, succeed or fail. Go off script too often, and you'll be dropped as the coach can't trust you to play the game-plan.
I find this sad, but I also remember the reaction last time we had a coach who tried to empower the players - the players empowered themselves, reached a RWC final, and everyone blamed the coach, who was fired, for empowering the players.

Billy - a welcome return to form - not great form, but enough to retain his place on merit.

Owen - actually played okay, even ran a few IC lines and asked the defence some questions (basic ones, but better than not).
What he should have done better is to be respectful of the ref. Right or wrong, his word is final. The ref gets to talk first in any conversation, DO NOT talk over him. That gives you a chance to take a few breaths, and force yourself to relax and be less aggressive. Call him sir, say "yes" and that you understand but...
If your team is giving away soft penalties all over the place, you ARE going to lose the ref, and it's up to the skipper to impose better discipline. Don't tell your team mate that they were harshly done by when they were stupid - tell them that shit happens, but don't don't again.
If the ref is being particularly pernickety, then you need to be whiter than white - even if it puts you at a disadvantage in-play.

Elliott - was bad, and it's not just a single bad day at the office. He's not a fullback, and whilst it was a worthwhile experiment, it's also a failed one, that's been given longer than it should have been. He's easily replaced as we already have better options in the squad, including one that actually plays the way we want Daly to (Watson or Steward change the balance and set-up of the team, and need a new game-plan. Malins does on the pitch what Daly does on paper).

Benji - I've talked about this before, but I don't think it's been on this board. Youngs is a naturally talented scrum-half, when he's playing on instinct. Wind him up and let him go, and he can be brilliant, genuinely world class. He'll make mistakes, but they'll be massively outweighed by the good he can bring.
But he's... a bit thick I guess, or possibly not self-confident enough. He's got good instincts, but makes terrible decisions. Ask him to be the playmaker rather than the opportunist and he's great. Tell him to play off 9, select his runners, call the play, and he can't process all the information and starts second guessing himself, takes 3 times longer, and executes poorly and can lose us a game on his own.

Jonny - performed to my biases yesterday. He's played well in the prem and absolutely earned a shot at international level, but I'm not convinced. But nor is Ewels. In a team making too many brain farts, we can't afford him. Unfortunately, Kruis, Lawes and Launch are all unavailable; it's also too early (for me) to call him a failed experiment, but he's really not putting any pressure on those ahead of him in the pecking order.

Dan - on one of Youngs good days, can't complain about sitting on the bench for that long. He's not getting long anyway, even on Youngs bad days, but he needs to do better in 10 minutes if he wants to be trusted with longer.

Ellis - meh, props give away penalities, especially when you're in the ref's bad books as a team. I'd need info from people far more knowledgeable than I about the scrum to say what needs to be done there.

Maro - needs to be captain, and given past experience, that's probably help his game - it worked for Jonno, and Dylan, I see no reason it wouldn't for such an intelligent player. I think he's been given licence to live as close to the edge as he can, and that it's worth the penalties, which comes from higher up; and on a day like yesterday when things aren't going your way, you'll give away too many. I'd suggest he needs to adapt to the ref on the day more than the laws as a whole, and play ever so slightly within himself (or be allowed a touch more leeway as captains usually are).


Discipline - Eddie likes fighty, tough players and fighty, tough teams who play on the edge. I think he's got too many that push too far , but his win ratio in general disagrees with me. Playing like that will always leave you open to sometimes just pissing off the ref, and getting pinged off the plark.

Are we kidding ourselves? - we have a lot of individual talent in the prem, but that doesn't necessarily make a good team, and a lot of that talent is concentrated into positions with a lot of depth. We've a dozen backrowers who have all earned the right to show what they can do. They can't all, and the players in their positions are mostly going well themselves. Billy has in a rut for a while, but we know he's also world class when not in a rut, equally most of our backrow talent is on the flank - where the best are already being looked at. At #8, Wilson, Earl, Willis and Simmonds are all flankers who can cover 8 rather than specialists, they all require a complete reworking of the back 5 and game-plan. Dombrandt is simply not ready for international level yet (maybe this summer), Mercer should have been given a chance during Billy's rut (I know some don't see it - in much the same way that I don't see it in JHill) - but he's thrown his toys out of the pram and taken himself out of contention (I hope it works for him, and that he comes back stronger in a couple of years, but for now, he's not eligible).
At FH, Ford is world class and Farrell is a good international, and neither are remotely close to the scrap heap. However good Umaga, Smith or (especially) Simmonds are, they've got to show that they're better than that. Bear in mid - they won't be given the game-plan they want, they'll have the same restrictions placed on them that Ford does.
It's 9 and 12 we most desperately need someone to come through, we're starting to experiment, but several of our best talents have gone elsewhere.

Premiership - is ever less relevant to international sport. Club coaches get an 8 week pre-season and 36 week season with their players and no contradictions. Internationals get 2 1-week pre-seasons and 4 or 8 week season with their players, contradicting what most of them are told at club level.

Rest of the 6N - There's not a huge amount Eddie can do right now. We're limited by a 28 man squad; and are mid-tournament, we can look at replacing players; and ripping up game-plans, but have to accept that there are consequences to these things.
Ripping up a game-plan mid-tournament, is simply not an option. We live in a world where tactics and game-plans take years to develop. This year especially, with Covid and Saracens' drama; changing ref. interpretations, it's even less viable to just throw it out.
Which leaves us with changing players - and TBH, we're only really looking at the spine of the team.
At Hooker, George found a bit of form against Wales; if he's our first choice hooker, then he really has to start - it's not like LCD is an unknown quantity, or not getting any chances - even if I personally prefer him. It's certainly a judgement call, and I've no problem with a coach who simply disagrees with me about judgement calls.
At #8, as discussed above, Billy has found a bit of form, that was probably his best game in 2 years for England - we also don't have any replacements that don't require either a complete rejig of the back 5, alongside a change in tactics - that would need to be part of a long-term plan; that isn't about to happen. I still think Billy needed to be dropped for a match or 2 in the lead-up to the RWC19 to give him a kick up the arse (and try options as injury cover) but it's too late for that, and we can't viably drop someone after their best performance in a while.
At 9, Youngs has been discussed ad nauseam; but Robson, or anyone else, needs to actually earn the right to expect 30 minutes, let alone 60. The more Robson plays, the more I understand why he wasn't really looked at earlier - and there's no point in bitching that he should have been tried 5 years ago. Have to suspect that the same might apply to Spencer too, who's always had issues with consistency, and being stuck on Saracens' bench for too long.
At 10, Ford is world class, and Fazlet is international class. I don't think Smith or Umaga would keep up their form if forced to play the England game-plan, and I understand why they're being overlooked. Simmonds is the one who could potentially slot right in; but he needs basically needs 2 injuries ahead of him to get an opportunity. Ford isn't playing badly enough to be dropped, and Fazlet is our captain.
At 12, Lawrence is being given chances, but playing him at 12 moves Fazlet to 10, and we know that doesn't work. I want to see Faz dropped at least as far as the bench; but that means stripping him of the captaincy mid-tournament, and I can't think of any international coach who would do that.
At 15, Daly is in serious danger, and we even have a replacement within the squad - he's the only one I can think of who actually should be replaced.

I agree with pretty much all of that.

The name I’d throw out there at 8 is Tom Willis. Now that he’s getting a good run of games, he’s looking very good. Not overly flashy but good at everything an 8 needs in his armoury. I can see him getting a look in over the summer.

He’s kind of like an anti-Dombrandt. Not much of a highlight reel, but always in the thick of it.

That’s not a slight on Dombrandt, who I genuinely really rate, but there’s no question in my mind that Tom Willis would be a better test player at this point in time.

[Banquo]

We can fiddle about all we want, but there are a small handful of selection changes mooted that are serious options, and ones that revolve round and round. All irrelevent whilst conceding 13+ penalties a game, most of which are unforced and give sides easy territory and points.