We need to talk about Eddie...

[Digby]

Who should the RFU survey as opposed to the England players? The Canada team?

And is there an actual poll on do you want to fire Eddie, or do they do seek responses after every run of games as to how things are going from a player perspective?

[16th man]

Or another debate again, would you want to be like Ireland? They're very effective spoilers, organised in the set piece, they've still got some of the Schmidt continuity plays and they happened to have a fair bit of biff in midfield against us once Ringrose dropped out. But whilst Martin Johnson would have liked the display against Scotland, essentially beating them up in the pack and grinding it out, arguably similar against us, I think we'd (a) complain it was boring and (b) complain it's not going to beat the best sides who can play some rugby against your press, and (c) a few things happened to break for Ireland which they entirely earned but they aren't going to replicate consistently

I think the answer to that is going to come down to how far you think we've regressed, and why, in the last 18 months, and how easy that is to fix.

I'm the short term I'd see us as being not far off being able to get back beyond that limited style, with a couple of personnel changes on the pitch and the Sarries contingent getting match fit.

Someone with a bleaker view of the damage done since the rwc final might see getting back to being able to be limited but able to reliably bully everyone bar the top 2 or 3, as being a stretch goal in the current circumstances, and would be happy to be back there in a year.

[Digby]

What does limited style mean? Which I ask because I'll again note this was the best sustained attack structure we've had in almost 20 years coming in this season's 6N.

If this season's 6N is a limited style I will accept it happily and move along to the next issue.

[Mellsblue]

Billy is world class. Even when the media say he's not in form he's generally making more yards after contact than anyone else, making shitloads of tackles and dominating the other teams tight defensive structure, not to mention kick returns.
I think we have to be really clear that if Simmonds is going to get into this England team, it's not going to be as an 8. Dombrandt is more likely to be a Hughes style backup to Billy, but Simmonds is competing with Underhill, Curry and Earl (and eventually Willis, we hope).
If we want Simmonds at 8 we need to really hope Ted Hill comes on massively along with George Martin, otherwise it's Lawes or Itoje at 6 for the long haul, and Charlie Ewels and/or Johnny Hill need to become carrying beasts in the tight, like they never have before.
Personally I'd have him as a replacement over Earl, imagine seeing him coming on for the last 20/30 minutes and getting his hands on the ball. To start I think he'd put too much pressure on Curry and Underhill to be everywhere defensively and at the breakdown, and too much pressure on the second row and Curry for carries.
As for Barbeary. He's a freak. And I can't wait. Wherever he plays.

Given his form, I don’t think you can currently class Billy as world class. I just don’t see what he’s currently doing beyond dragging in an extra tackler. There’s no turnovers, no off loads etc. I suppose it depends on where you set your bar for world class.
As for just dropping Simmonds in as a straight swap, who has suggested that? It evidently won’t work, hence mentioning plan b, tactics that aren’t predicated on winning collisions etc
There will be compromises if you don’t pick Billy but that’s the same in any unit (other than midfield where it seems you can just pick three ball players, obvs) and if he’s not on form, which he himself has said he’s not, or if he’s injured, which he is a lot, then all your chips on Billy is a dangerous game, especially with no like for like replacement up to the task. A bit like having no plan b at 9 and when your plan a stinks out the place in the World Cup final your replacement is a relative novice suffering from jet lag.

[Spiffy]

Who should the RFU survey as opposed to the England players? The Canada team?

And is there an actual poll on do you want to fire Eddie, or do they do seek responses after every run of games as to how things are going from a player perspective?

The current England squad has a vested interest in keeping Eddie in place and keeping their selections alive. Plus, they may actually like him and have a high degree of loyalty.

But all that will not address the current poor level of performance. I think the Jones case is probably over analysed now.
In the simplest view (there are some minor nuances), England has three big problems :

Selection
Tactics
Discipline

If Jones is unable to sort these out, time to move on.

[Digby]

I've said some weeks past Jones is complicit of the penalty count. That's a hard one to fix in a number of ways but it's not a situation than can perpetuate and see the side achieve anything beyond the inconsistent.

Selection, well he's at worst mostly getting that right. He's comfortably the best selector since Woodward (ignoring Clive after '03), he's arguably the best England selector I've seen and especially if not ignoring Clive after '03

The tactics are fine, not perhaps my personal favourites, but the systems make sense in attack and defence. You're always going to get some bad reads, and the discipline is causing the bigger part of our problems.

[Dan. Dan. Dan.]

Billy is world class. Even when the media say he's not in form he's generally making more yards after contact than anyone else, making shitloads of tackles and dominating the other teams tight defensive structure, not to mention kick returns.
I think we have to be really clear that if Simmonds is going to get into this England team, it's not going to be as an 8. Dombrandt is more likely to be a Hughes style backup to Billy, but Simmonds is competing with Underhill, Curry and Earl (and eventually Willis, we hope).
If we want Simmonds at 8 we need to really hope Ted Hill comes on massively along with George Martin, otherwise it's Lawes or Itoje at 6 for the long haul, and Charlie Ewels and/or Johnny Hill need to become carrying beasts in the tight, like they never have before.
Personally I'd have him as a replacement over Earl, imagine seeing him coming on for the last 20/30 minutes and getting his hands on the ball. To start I think he'd put too much pressure on Curry and Underhill to be everywhere defensively and at the breakdown, and too much pressure on the second row and Curry for carries.
As for Barbeary. He's a freak. And I can't wait. Wherever he plays.

Given his form, I don’t think you can currently class Billy as world class. I just don’t see what he’s currently doing beyond dragging in an extra tackler. There’s no turnovers, no off loads etc. I suppose it depends on where you set your bar for world class.
As for just dropping Simmonds in as a straight swap, who has suggested that? It evidently won’t work, hence mentioning plan b, tactics that aren’t predicated on winning collisions etc
There will be compromises if you don’t pick Billy but that’s the same in any unit (other than midfield where it seems you can just pick three ball players, obvs) and if he’s not on form, which he himself has said he’s not, or if he’s injured, which he is a lot, then all your chips on Billy is a dangerous game, especially with no like for like replacement up to the task. A bit like having no plan b at 9 and when your plan a stinks out the place in the World Cup final your replacement is a relative novice suffering from jet lag.

I completely agree. Which is why I'd love to see Billy go with the Lions and for us to try out different back row options on tour.
I think very few people on here are advocating for a Simmonds - Billy straight swap, but the media and other places! My God! It's akin to people treating loose heads and tight heads as the same, or putting Greenwood in your all-time England XV as outside centre. Really pisse me off!
I do struggle somewhat to have Simmonds in my first choice back row without thinking we'd lose out massively in defensive workrate/lineout/tight carrying though. But as I said I've no idea why you wouldn't want him as an impact sub.
As for Billy I do still think he is worldclass. But that's back to the argument of form / quality I guess. Also, I think he's suffered (individually) hugely from teams gameplanning against him, but if you think Lawes sudden improvement in carrying or Curry's, or Ewels looking like he was handy happened in a bubble, your not watching Billy! Every carry there's at least two guys on him to take him down, and if he rediscovers his offloading form, we're away!

[Mellsblue]

Billy is world class. Even when the media say he's not in form he's generally making more yards after contact than anyone else, making shitloads of tackles and dominating the other teams tight defensive structure, not to mention kick returns.
I think we have to be really clear that if Simmonds is going to get into this England team, it's not going to be as an 8. Dombrandt is more likely to be a Hughes style backup to Billy, but Simmonds is competing with Underhill, Curry and Earl (and eventually Willis, we hope).
If we want Simmonds at 8 we need to really hope Ted Hill comes on massively along with George Martin, otherwise it's Lawes or Itoje at 6 for the long haul, and Charlie Ewels and/or Johnny Hill need to become carrying beasts in the tight, like they never have before.
Personally I'd have him as a replacement over Earl, imagine seeing him coming on for the last 20/30 minutes and getting his hands on the ball. To start I think he'd put too much pressure on Curry and Underhill to be everywhere defensively and at the breakdown, and too much pressure on the second row and Curry for carries.
As for Barbeary. He's a freak. And I can't wait. Wherever he plays.

Given his form, I don’t think you can currently class Billy as world class. I just don’t see what he’s currently doing beyond dragging in an extra tackler. There’s no turnovers, no off loads etc. I suppose it depends on where you set your bar for world class.
As for just dropping Simmonds in as a straight swap, who has suggested that? It evidently won’t work, hence mentioning plan b, tactics that aren’t predicated on winning collisions etc
There will be compromises if you don’t pick Billy but that’s the same in any unit (other than midfield where it seems you can just pick three ball players, obvs) and if he’s not on form, which he himself has said he’s not, or if he’s injured, which he is a lot, then all your chips on Billy is a dangerous game, especially with no like for like replacement up to the task. A bit like having no plan b at 9 and when your plan a stinks out the place in the World Cup final your replacement is a relative novice suffering from jet lag.

I completely agree. Which is why I'd love to see Billy go with the Lions and for us to try out different back row options on tour.
I think very few people on here are advocating for a Simmonds - Billy straight swap, but the media and other places! My God! It's akin to people treating loose heads and tight heads as the same, or putting Greenwood in your all-time England XV as outside centre. Really pisse me off!
I do struggle somewhat to have Simmonds in my first choice back row without thinking we'd lose out massively in defensive workrate/lineout/tight carrying though. But as I said I've no idea why you wouldn't want him as an impact sub.
As for Billy I do still think he is worldclass. But that's back to the argument of form / quality I guess. Also, I think he's suffered (individually) hugely from teams gameplanning against him, but if you think Lawes sudden improvement in carrying or Curry's, or Ewels looking like he was handy happened in a bubble, your not watching Billy! Every carry there's at least two guys on him to take him down, and if he rediscovers his offloading form, we're away!

Ah, cool. Yep, agreed other than Billy currently being world class though his lack of offloads etc might be under instruction from Jones rather than him not trusting himself or putting himself in the correct situations. I also think that if you put him in the correct situation that S Simmonds would attract more than one defender but that’s a huge adjustment. It’s akin to that which Banquo regularly states: your running threat in the centres doesn’t necessarily have to be bosh.

[Mikey Brown]

There was a clip of Billy carrying from the Wales game that showed 3 Welsh defenders having to come in, but someone here pointed out there were 5 England players in the contact area to clear out anyway. Much like Tuilagi the idea around attracting defenders even if they don't make ground is often valid, but sometimes it's a bit of a cop-out too.

I feel like Underhill/Curry are almost the only forwards who ever actually break the line, often in tandem, but are we just not that focussed on game-breaking runs from anyone, without Tuilagi in the side? It's great to develop an effective multi-phase system where you can suck in defenders and create mismatches, but when we're not allowed to impose that game on people (or keep coughing up penalties, which I don't think is entirely unrelated) we look very short of ideas.

That's not a cry for Simmonds/Dombrandt at 8 but I'd love to see if Jones can demonstrate a willingness/ability for a bit of plan B. It's not about bringing in a whole load of new players, I just think a lot of us would like to see someone bring a bit of energy and determination to actually beat defenders.

It feels like Watson has been going off script a bit after spending 80 minutes virtually unused in the Scotland game and that's been great to see.

[Digby]

How is 5 players clearing out his carry down to Billy?

[Mikey Brown]

Good question. Did anybody suggest it was?

[Digby]

Then what's the point of saying there's a cop out in saying Billy either makes ground or attracts defenders?

[Mikey Brown]

I feel like I kind of said it already. Often a player won’t break the gain-line or produce particularly quick ball but it’s justified because they’re sucking in defenders (just happens often to be a very telegraphed crash up with a Vunipola) but if the rucks aren’t efficiently resourced there’s no real gain.

That’s not particularly an attack on Billy, and it was referring to a specific moment that was highlighted I think in one of the telegraph articles, but I do think some more explosive, dynamic running from somewhere or other would help avoid those moments we just charge in to a set defence - either taking a dominant hit or failing to clear players quickly enough to beat the defensive re-alignment.

You specifically have talked a bit about this quick rucking game and getting round the corner before a defence can reset, but that’s got to be a serious drain on attacking resources without some sort of pacey, aggressive carrying in there. Curry and Underhill are the only ones I can think of who are capable of quickly changing their point of attack.

[Raggs]

In a general phase, then no, it may not be useful, but running back a kick, sucking in 3-4 defenders is very usfeul, even if there's no subsequent quick ball, as long as it sets us up in their half, with no turnover.

[Digby]

Hell yes the England attack is now a massive drain on resources, it's only going to function with massive workrates off the ball, and lots of good decision making. The decision making will likely be simplified as much as possible by Jones, some will call that formulaic and they'll have a point

And still you want some power carrying options. Else the defence is just free to cover more options, take out Billy for a 'more dynamic' attacker and they'll just face lots of double tackles.

Much better by far to add to the number of primary carriers in the England side, not reduce them. If such option(s) exist, and they might not

[FKAS]

Given his form, I don’t think you can currently class Billy as world class. I just don’t see what he’s currently doing beyond dragging in an extra tackler. There’s no turnovers, no off loads etc. I suppose it depends on where you set your bar for world class.
As for just dropping Simmonds in as a straight swap, who has suggested that? It evidently won’t work, hence mentioning plan b, tactics that aren’t predicated on winning collisions etc
There will be compromises if you don’t pick Billy but that’s the same in any unit (other than midfield where it seems you can just pick three ball players, obvs) and if he’s not on form, which he himself has said he’s not, or if he’s injured, which he is a lot, then all your chips on Billy is a dangerous game, especially with no like for like replacement up to the task. A bit like having no plan b at 9 and when your plan a stinks out the place in the World Cup final your replacement is a relative novice suffering from jet lag.

I completely agree. Which is why I'd love to see Billy go with the Lions and for us to try out different back row options on tour.
I think very few people on here are advocating for a Simmonds - Billy straight swap, but the media and other places! My God! It's akin to people treating loose heads and tight heads as the same, or putting Greenwood in your all-time England XV as outside centre. Really pisse me off!
I do struggle somewhat to have Simmonds in my first choice back row without thinking we'd lose out massively in defensive workrate/lineout/tight carrying though. But as I said I've no idea why you wouldn't want him as an impact sub.
As for Billy I do still think he is worldclass. But that's back to the argument of form / quality I guess. Also, I think he's suffered (individually) hugely from teams gameplanning against him, but if you think Lawes sudden improvement in carrying or Curry's, or Ewels looking like he was handy happened in a bubble, your not watching Billy! Every carry there's at least two guys on him to take him down, and if he rediscovers his offloading form, we're away!

Ah, cool. Yep, agreed other than Billy currently being world class though his lack of offloads etc might be under instruction from Jones rather than him not trusting himself or putting himself in the correct situations. I also think that if you put him in the correct situation that S Simmonds would attract more than one defender but that’s a huge adjustment. It’s akin to that which Banquo regularly states: your running threat in the centres doesn’t necessarily have to be bosh.

Your running threat at 8 or centre doesn't always have to be bosh but at some point you need some bosh somewhere. Currently the England squad is unbalanced in that we don't offer enough running threat in the backline. If we take out the underperforming Vunipola from 8 and make no other adjustment to the pack were going to be short of a powerful carrier. Simmonds would profit from our quick tempo but generating that quick tempo might be difficult if we don't find a strong ball carrier to either replace Ewels, one of the flankers or one of the centres.

[Mellsblue]

I completely agree. Which is why I'd love to see Billy go with the Lions and for us to try out different back row options on tour.
I think very few people on here are advocating for a Simmonds - Billy straight swap, but the media and other places! My God! It's akin to people treating loose heads and tight heads as the same, or putting Greenwood in your all-time England XV as outside centre. Really pisse me off!
I do struggle somewhat to have Simmonds in my first choice back row without thinking we'd lose out massively in defensive workrate/lineout/tight carrying though. But as I said I've no idea why you wouldn't want him as an impact sub.
As for Billy I do still think he is worldclass. But that's back to the argument of form / quality I guess. Also, I think he's suffered (individually) hugely from teams gameplanning against him, but if you think Lawes sudden improvement in carrying or Curry's, or Ewels looking like he was handy happened in a bubble, your not watching Billy! Every carry there's at least two guys on him to take him down, and if he rediscovers his offloading form, we're away!

Ah, cool. Yep, agreed other than Billy currently being world class though his lack of offloads etc might be under instruction from Jones rather than him not trusting himself or putting himself in the correct situations. I also think that if you put him in the correct situation that S Simmonds would attract more than one defender but that’s a huge adjustment. It’s akin to that which Banquo regularly states: your running threat in the centres doesn’t necessarily have to be bosh.

Your running threat at 8 or centre doesn't always have to be bosh but at some point you need some bosh somewhere. Currently the England squad is unbalanced in that we don't offer enough running threat in the backline. If we take out the underperforming Vunipola from 8 and make no other adjustment to the pack were going to be short of a powerful carrier. Simmonds would profit from our quick tempo but generating that quick tempo might be difficult if we don't find a strong ball carrier to either replace Ewels, one of the flankers or one of the centres.

Which is exactly what Triple D and I just agreed in the discussion you replied to.

[Mikey Brown]

Hell yes the England attack is now a massive drain on resources, it's only going to function with massive workrates off the ball, and lots of good decision making. The decision making will likely be simplified as much as possible by Jones, some will call that formulaic and they'll have a point

And still you want some power carrying options. Else the defence is just free to cover more options, take out Billy for a 'more dynamic' attacker and they'll just face lots of double tackles.

Much better by far to add to the number of primary carriers in the England side, not reduce them. If such option(s) exist, and they might not

Again I didn't say this is about dropping Billy or reducing the number of carriers at all. I just don't think that slamming straight in to contact is the only way to manipulate a defence. We already see Billy get gang tackled, sometimes with guys very well prepared to stop him before the gain-line and attack the ball meaning we have to commit at least as many to secure it. The idea of having some more explosive, dynamic carriers in there would be we might actually beat a defender or two and take them out of the game for that phase.

I think we've now circled round to where I joined this conversation about 3 years ago in claiming that sometimes "sucking in defenders" isn't a clear win.

[Digby]

Hell yes the England attack is now a massive drain on resources, it's only going to function with massive workrates off the ball, and lots of good decision making. The decision making will likely be simplified as much as possible by Jones, some will call that formulaic and they'll have a point

And still you want some power carrying options. Else the defence is just free to cover more options, take out Billy for a 'more dynamic' attacker and they'll just face lots of double tackles.

Much better by far to add to the number of primary carriers in the England side, not reduce them. If such option(s) exist, and they might not

Again I didn't say this is about dropping Billy or reducing the number of carriers at all. I just don't think that slamming straight in to contact is the only way to manipulate a defence. We already see Billy get gang tackled, sometimes with guys very well prepared to stop him before the gain-line and attack the ball meaning we have to commit at least as many to secure it. The idea of having some more explosive, dynamic carriers in there would be we might actually beat a defender or two and take them out of the game for that phase.

I think we've now circled round to where I joined this conversation about 3 years ago in claiming that sometimes "sucking in defenders" isn't a clear win.

Billy running into contact clearly isn't the only thing they're doing, but it's often something of a starting point, well, him or Mako.

And yes he's frequently stopped before the gainline, just about everyone is, but the tackle line is a different thing and he's harder to hold on that. And no, we don't need to flood huge numbers into the breakdown just because Billy attracts tacklers, it's not a self-defeating action to have Billy, or Mako, run direct.

I'm not against the idea of explosive/dynamic carriers having already noted we could use some, I would wonder who they are. Naming some players who're good secondary carriers wouldn't be the standard I'd be looking for

[Mikey Brown]

And no, we don't need to flood huge numbers into the breakdown just because Billy attracts tacklers, it's not a self-defeating action to have Billy, or Mako, run direct.

Whether you think that’s actually something I suggested or you’re just throwing it out there as a hypothetical, I don’t know, but this is exhausting. I’ll end my campaign to have Billy dropped now. You win.

Hey Jngf, got any exciting new theories on how Ludlum could lead us to World Cup success in 2023?

[Digby]

And no, we don't need to flood huge numbers into the breakdown just because Billy attracts tacklers, it's not a self-defeating action to have Billy, or Mako, run direct.

Whether you think that’s actually something I suggested or you’re just throwing it out there as a hypothetical, I don’t know, but this is exhausting. I’ll end my campaign to have Billy dropped now. You win.

Hey Jngf, got any exciting new theories on how Ludlum could lead us to World Cup success in 2023?

Your comment 'We already see Billy get gang tackled, sometimes with guys very well prepared to stop him before the gain-line and attack the ball meaning we have to commit at least as many to secure it' I took as meaning there wasn't sufficient value in some of the initial tight plays we get, currently from either Vunipola. And what I wanted to suggest was I don't agree with that take, both in the terms we need to commit to recycle and/or to recycle fast, and because it often is a very useful first step in manipulating a defence. Take away that initial threat Billy poses, whether he does it or not, and there's much less pressure on a defence

And then I still wonder who you think the dynamic and explosive carriers are

[twitchy]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... and-coach/

Why Scott Robertson would be the perfect choice to replace Eddie Jones as the next England coach



There's one immediate snag with Scott Robertson potentially becoming the next England head coach - where on earth is the former All Black going to go surfing? England's Pennyhill Park base might be bursting with amenities but falls short in that regard.

Eddie Jones was fond of a coaching session down in Brighton towards the start of his tenure, the scene of his greatest victory as a Test coach with Japan's win over South Africa. Robertson might find the south coast similarly appealing if it means the 45-year-old can get out on the waves a couple of times a week.

Robertson wasn't listed on a 13-man shortlist of potential candidates to replace Jones sent round this week by one betting company. Which seems like a mistake, given all Robertson has ever done in his coaching career is win.

First with the New Zealand Under-20s, defeating an England side containing Charlie Ewels and Ellis Genge to win the World Rugby Under-20 Championship back in 2015. Not forgetting three titles in four years in the Mitre 10 Cup with Canterbury.

We associate the Crusaders with constant success, like Toulouse or Leinster or Saracens, but when Robertson took over ahead of the 2017 season the Crusaders hadn't won a Super Rugby title in nine years. Robertson has since guided them to three in a row, plus a Super Rugby Aotearoa crown in New Zealand in 2020. The Crusaders are also unbeaten through four matches this year.

Each trophy lift has been followed by a celebration which you cannot imagine any other Test rugby coach attempting (although you would never rule out Fabien Galthié), with Robertson, or 'Razor', in the centre of a circle with his players and support staff huddled around watching on, pulling off a rather impressive breakdancing routine. Who knows what the Rugby Football Union's council members would make of it.



"The boys called me out after one of the Canterbury finals, and I’m not shy!" Robertson told Telegraph Sport in an interview a few years ago about his unique celebration. "So that’s how the tradition started, and it’s one I’m more than happy to do if the captain’s holding the trophy up.

"People that know me appreciate that I might be a little bit quirky at times, but I understand my rugby and how to motivate people."

The last part of that sentence rings particularly true. Robertson has been hailed for his man-management, getting the best out of an already talented player pool at the Crusaders. At a time where Eddie Jones' motivational messages to this England side appear to be falling on deaf ears, Robertson's ability to influence and inspire his players seems refreshing. Two of his biggest success stories in Christchurch have been the development of fly-half Richie Mo'unga and centre Jack Goodhue, with both now first-choice All Blacks. Since Robertson took charge, the Crusaders have averaged 4.5 tries per game.

"He's challenged people to get better and to grow," Sam Whitelock, the All Blacks lock and Crusaders captain said in an interview after the Crusaders' third Super Rugby title on the bounce. "Everyone's done that whether you've been here for a couple of months or 150-plus games. He has the ability to grow players but also grow the coaching and management staff too.

"[He] comes with a few left-field ideas. [Robertson] is prepared to have a go at a few of those different ideas and we thrash them about - some of them we don't take on board but some them we do.

"It's exciting. You get to training, you don't really know what you're going to get sometimes. It keeps us on our toes."

In that Telegraph Sport interview Robertson seemed adamant that he would coach in France one day, having spent three years there as a back-row playing for Perpignan, learning the language and embracing the culture. And while he may end up in France at some point, Robertson back then was speaking after only one Super Rugby title when his stock was just starting to rise. Now he is so revered that when he missed out on being named as Steve Hansen's successor as New Zealand head coach in 2019, with the All Blacks opting to promote Hansen's assistant Ian Foster, there was outrage.

Given the Crusaders' success Robertson could have gone off to coach anywhere in the world, electing instead to stay in New Zealand until at least 2023 with an eye on succeeding Foster. Coaches from the northern hemisphere have been brought into the Crusaders setup in recent years - first Ronan O'Gara, now head coach at La Rochelle, and current Worcester Warriors backs coach Mark Jones - for the squad and Robertson to get a different coaching perspective.

Reports in New Zealand have suggested that Robertson asked Warren Gatland if he could be part of this year's British and Irish Lions coaching staff, after his lack of coaching experience outside of New Zealand was cited as a factor in him not getting the All Blacks job. Eventually landing that role almost feels preordained, with Sir Graham Henry billing Robertson as "red-hot favourite" while suggesting that a stint overseas would be enormously beneficial for Robertson's development.

Well, then why not with England? The national side feel stale and in need of a bucket of cold water thrown over them after their worst-ever Six Nations finish, crying out to be inspired after two months in a Covid-19 bubble which has been described this week as "bloody miserable".

Telegraph Sport's own columnist Will Greenwood worked alongside Robertson in 2018 coaching the Barbarians and summed him up by saying: “Positivity oozes out of every vessel. Give him a bunch of players who want to get better and turn up with some enthusiasm and he will lead them into the Promised Land."

Robertson has nothing left to prove in New Zealand. The All Blacks would be mad not to appoint him in 2023, because if it doesn't happen then, someone else certainly will hire him.

And who doesn't want to see an England head coach breakdancing in the middle of the field at Twickenham? If Pennyhill Park has to be sacrificed so that Robertson can be closer to the waves in his downtime while he turns England around, then so be it. England need the 'Razor'.

[Stom]

Just to wade into the "drop Billy, we need to change style" debate...

This is one big reason I think the loss of Launch from the row is actually the most important factor in our performances this 6N.

He carries super well, not only in tight but as one out. And unlike someone like Ewels, those few times he manages to break through, he has both the pace (for a lock) and the hands to actually do something with it.

This also means Billy doesn't need to carry so much in the tight traffic and can be opened up to do more and more of the one out or two out carries where he will inevitably either be up against backs or pull forwards out a bit further into the defensive line.

And when those slightly slower forwards get into the defensive line further from the ruck, and then they make positioning errors because they're fixated on Billy, they cannot get across to plug the gap that's opened up.

One important caveat with this, though...we need someone with the wit to spot and exploit that gap, which means Ford at 10, not Farrell. Obvs.

I don't think Eddie's tictacs are so far off, I just feel like we're lacking a little from lock when it's Hill or Ewels instead of Launch or Lawes. And at centre, of course, where we need something of a rethink. I hope Marchant gets a look in.

[twitchy]

Eddie seems to think the problem is at 9 and 10.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/ ... ns-unclear

[Digby]

I suspect the player Eddie is most looking at in the pack is Genge. Both to bring a more stable scrum platform and to add to the carrying options we have, but understandably (and perhaps in similar fashion to LCD) it's taking Genge some time to establish himself, still only in the process of trying to do that really.

But yep, not having Launch and his handling isn't helping, although with Launch in there that would be extra lineout pressure coming our way, almost certainly still worth it. But we have given game time to 2 younger players which might prove useful down the line