RugbyRebels

Marchant's might be a delayed infection from the Castres game

IMO, we're not as good as France - so demanding a GS is silly.
Both that, and requiring "three genuine top international options for every position, tried and tested" is a bar that no other coach has ever been required to reach - which is lucky, because none of them have (possibly depending on what is meant by "top international" and "tried and tested"; it's just not how the game works in the real world.

If everyone stays fit, and plays to their par, then
1. France
2. England = Ireland
4. Wales = Scotland
6. Italy.
But covid, a couple of injuries, a moment of inspiration or the bounce of a ball could play havoc with that - all we know, is that it's unlikley that any team will have everyone fit and playing to their par.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:A failure to what end? Booting Jones?

Pointless at this stage but in terms of RFU expectations relative to his employment status I simply suggest that is a reasonable assessment. 20 years on from our one success, have we ever had a better chance? If there are not three genuine top international options for every position, tried and tested, it can only be one person's fault. Jones, after losing in the final last time, must have real ambitions to win the RWC next time out with a better squad than in 2019. Would he not agree that anything but a GS was failure?

It would be nice to be at that point but I don’t think we are. Jones looks well behind schedule in trying to establish a bit of depth in some keys positions (beyond Vunipolas, Farrell, Youngs, Tuilagi etc.) and we appear to be doing some of that now.

I don’t disagree that’s largely down to Jones but I don’t understand what it means for a single loss in this tournament to be deemed a failure, even though we might still make huge strides forward as a squad.

I see where you are coming from but competitions need winning. Crunch matches are just that. I can't accept going into a competition not minding if we lose the odd game. After the AIs (good yardstick friendlies), the 6N involves 5 competitive games. Yes, there are 2 or 3 good teams in opposition but there always are in competitions. One close, narrow defeat in Paris or whatever might not be a disaster in review but heading into the thing we have to have realistic expectations of winning every game.

I’m with Which on this. A grand slam would be great, but isn’t an accurate assessment of where we are and TBH is disrespectful to other very good teams to regard anything less as a ‘failure’. Oakboy’s outright hatred of Eddie Jones is skewing his logic I think.

It is a bit of a cliche, but with the exception of Italy, every one of our opponents wants to beat us more than anyone else and raises their game in a way we don’t really see for other rivalries. That has to come in to the equation.

Our preparations haven’t been ideal for this weekend and these days, Scotland at Murrayfield is a very tough opener. If we come out it with a win of any sort, I’ll be happy.

With Ireland and Wales at home, our chances of winning those increase but they’re still very tough games.

Finishing with Le Crunch in Paris is a hard ending - even more so if it’s a slam decider.

If anyone looks at those fixtures and thinks ‘only a slam is good enough’ they need their head (and arrogance) checked IMO.

I may be idealistic and I admit to never having rated or liked Jones but if we are throwing insults about are a few of us not just getting our excuses in early?

Which Tyler wrote:IMO, we're not as good as France - so demanding a GS is silly.
Both that, and requiring "three genuine top international options for every position, tried and tested" is a bar that no other coach has ever been required to reach - which is lucky, because none of them have (possibly depending on what is meant by "top international" and "tried and tested"; it's just not how the game works in the real world.

If everyone stays fit, and plays to their par, then
1. France
2. England = Ireland
4. Wales = Scotland
6. Italy.
But covid, a couple of injuries, a moment of inspiration or the bounce of a ball could play havoc with that - all we know, is that it's unlikley that any team will have everyone fit and playing to their par.

This.

I'd like to see England beat Scotland as they've held the Calcutta cup for too long frankly and I'm concerned there is a generation of Scottish players undamaged by regular defeat.

I also want to see England playing well, no one in the 6n is out of sight and we definitely don't want the Welsh doing one of their grand slams because everyone plays shite and gives stupid red cards against them.

I can see England putting in a scrappy but winning effort against Scotland, followed by a big, dominating performance against Ireland but then playing absolute shite against Wales.

Wider afield, I think France are still quite vulnerable. I can see them winning the tournament but not sure anyone will take a GS.

Scrumhead wrote:I’m with Which on this. A grand slam would be great, but isn’t an accurate assessment of where we are and TBH is disrespectful to other very good teams to regard anything less as a ‘failure’. Oakboy’s outright hatred of Eddie Jones is skewing his logic I think.

It is a bit of a cliche, but with the exception of Italy, every one of our opponents wants to beat us more than anyone else and raises their game in a way we don’t really see for other rivalries. That has to come in to the equation.

Our preparations haven’t been ideal for this weekend and these days, Scotland at Murrayfield is a very tough opener. If we come out it with a win of any sort, I’ll be happy.

With Ireland and Wales at home, our chances of winning those increase but they’re still very tough games.

Finishing with Le Crunch in Paris is a hard ending - even more so if it’s a slam decider.

If anyone looks at those fixtures and thinks ‘only a slam is good enough’ they need their head (and arrogance) checked IMO.

I have to say, to a certain extent, I think I'm with Oakboy. Saying, "I expect a Slam" is arrogance, as there are very good teams in the competition. Saying, "I want a Slam and that's my marker for success," isn't. We shouldn't be aiming for "not doing too badly" as our target if we have ambitions of winning the RWC - we need to be looking at these four hard games and planning on winning them, cause we are a very good team and have ambitions on being the best team.

Don't get me wrong; I won't call it an abject failure worthy of sacking if we lose a match. However, I would say losing 2 would be a significant disappointment and anything more than that *would* be an abject failure. We're third in the world - we *should* be aiming to win almost every game or else something is wrong with our standards.

Puja

Oakboy wrote:I may be idealistic and I admit to never having rated or liked Jones but if we are throwing insults about are a few of us not just getting our excuses in early?

Sorry if you’re insulted, but if Eddie himself was showing this level of arrogance I think you’d inevitably chastise him for it.

Winning grand slams is very hard. That’s why they’re relatively rare.

I think we are capable of beating all 5 but I don’t ‘expect’ that we will. Personally, I can accept losing one along the way if we play well, possibly even two given where we’re at in the cycle (bedding in a new 10 etc.).

It all depends on the manner of it. Of course I’d prefer a situation where we play brilliantly and sweep everyone away to win a glorious grand slam, but I’d almost rather lose a game but see real progress over grinding out a lucky grand slam playing like crap.

Raggs wrote:

jngf wrote:I can see a 6 Ludlum 7 Curry 8 Dombrandt trio doing a good job. I do have my reservations that that I’d like the 7 role to have more attacking emphasis and Curry’s strengths lie more on the defensive side imo. Dombrandt has a great game in wider attack but I expect he’ll have to focus on the close quarters hard yards carrying allowing less bandwidth for much of this wider attack work (hence my argument that openside needs to focus more on this).

Just for the hell of it, I'm going to try again.

At which point in the game, does the guy wearing the 7 shirt, have to do more attack minded stuff, than the guy wearing the 6 shirt? And why isn't generating quick ruck ball, attacking emphasis?

I would argue generating quick ruck ball is more about ball winning than attacking in space with ball in hand which is what I think a test 7 should offer and why I’m so keen for advocating Sam Simmonds for this job

With the injury concerns over Dupont and Jalibert for France I'm not inking them in as champions just yet.

England can best any of those sides if they improve the discipline, focus and maintain the adding creativity from the Autumn. It's going to be tough but no one wants an easy 6N, there's no fun in that, every week should be war.

Historical note.
Eddie Jones England have won ONE GS. In 2016, his first attempt.
We might like to win them, but actually doing it has proved a tough nut for us to crack. This year will be no different.
its reasonable for us to have genuine hopes of winning every game we contest. We are a top side and should always be competitive, even against the very best and even with multiple absentees.
However, I dont think a GS, or even a Championship win, is likely given the quality against us.
I would settle for 5 good performances, with a steady improvement throughout. I'd like to see more players improve, Smith to make the 10 shirt his own, some development in our attacking play and better discipline and accuracy.
We simply have to be better than last year.

Scrumhead wrote:
but I’d almost rather lose a game but see real progress over grinding out a lucky grand slam playing like crap.

It's good enough for Wales

jngf wrote:

Raggs wrote:

jngf wrote:I can see a 6 Ludlum 7 Curry 8 Dombrandt trio doing a good job. I do have my reservations that that I’d like the 7 role to have more attacking emphasis and Curry’s strengths lie more on the defensive side imo. Dombrandt has a great game in wider attack but I expect he’ll have to focus on the close quarters hard yards carrying allowing less bandwidth for much of this wider attack work (hence my argument that openside needs to focus more on this).

Just for the hell of it, I'm going to try again.

At which point in the game, does the guy wearing the 7 shirt, have to do more attack minded stuff, than the guy wearing the 6 shirt? And why isn't generating quick ruck ball, attacking emphasis?

I would argue generating quick ruck ball is more about ball winning than attacking in space with ball in hand which is what I think a test 7 should offer and why I’m so keen for advocating Sam Simmonds for this job

I genuinely want to understand where your viewpoint comes from. Can you give an example of a test 7 who is playing like this? When I look across the Tier 1 nations you might argue Tipuric and Hooper probably do this a bit more regularly, but we’re talking about sometimes, not as a primary attacking role.

I also think there’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what a 7 is actually there to do.

When Raggs is referring to ‘generating quick ruck ball’, he’s not talking about ‘winning’ the ball. He’s talking about keeping it. As someone who has played most of their rugby at 7, I’d say the job description of an openside is primarily focused on continuity. Often that means being first to the ruck before the opposition and making sure there is a next phase of the attack. In test rugby, where competition for the ball is as tough as you’re going to see, it’s no surprise that a big priority is getting to that first ruck and securing the ball so the move doesn’t die on the first phase.

Simmonds has the pace and power to do that job quite well, but I’ve never seen him do it so I’m not sure? Pick Curry at 7 and we know he can, pick Simmonds and it’s a bit more of a lottery.

A 7 should definitely run good support lines and be an option in attack, but that’s only if their main job has been done.

Danno wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:
but I’d almost rather lose a game but see real progress over grinding out a lucky grand slam playing like crap.

It's good enough for Wales

True … but I can guarantee that scraping to a bad grand slam would not do anything to change Oakboy’s mind. He’d then move the goalposts and say that a slam should be the minimum standard and say sack Eddie unless he wins the next one in style.

I should be clear and say that I’d love us to run riot and demolish he other five. It’s just that even the most causal analysis of the available data suggests that we probably won’t.

Oakboy wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:A failure to what end? Booting Jones?

Pointless at this stage but in terms of RFU expectations relative to his employment status I simply suggest that is a reasonable assessment. 20 years on from our one success, have we ever had a better chance? If there are not three genuine top international options for every position, tried and tested, it can only be one person's fault. Jones, after losing in the final last time, must have real ambitions to win the RWC next time out with a better squad than in 2019. Would he not agree that anything but a GS was failure?

TBH your aspiration of both expecting a GS and your three top players are unrealistic, no matter who the head coach is; for a start our structures don't really focus on international excellence. Two things, a GS is actually difficult to achieve- how many did SCW manage, and he had a fantastic group of players, including 3 or 4 of the best players we or anyone else has had. And secondly, I don't think any team would have three 'top' internationals in every position, and it would be nigh impossible for Jones given the talent at his disposal- none of us can actually point to one top 12, for example.

Have we a better squad than 2019? I can't really tell . We should of course be aiming for a GS, but expecting one is kinda arrogant- we always hear 'with our resources' etc etc, but numbers don't mean anything unles the pathways develop great players to queue at England's door.

Scrumhead wrote:I’m with Which on this. A grand slam would be great, but isn’t an accurate assessment of where we are and TBH is disrespectful to other very good teams to regard anything less as a ‘failure’. Oakboy’s outright hatred of Eddie Jones is skewing his logic I think.

It is a bit of a cliche, but with the exception of Italy, every one of our opponents wants to beat us more than anyone else and raises their game in a way we don’t really see for other rivalries. That has to come in to the equation.

Our preparations haven’t been ideal for this weekend and these days, Scotland at Murrayfield is a very tough opener. If we come out it with a win of any sort, I’ll be happy.

With Ireland and Wales at home, our chances of winning those increase but they’re still very tough games.

Finishing with Le Crunch in Paris is a hard ending - even more so if it’s a slam decider.

If anyone looks at those fixtures and thinks ‘only a slam is good enough’ they need their head (and arrogance) checked IMO.

I'm not sure about wanting to beat us more than anyone else- Ireland, for example set their sights much higher these days

Puja wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:I’m with Which on this. A grand slam would be great, but isn’t an accurate assessment of where we are and TBH is disrespectful to other very good teams to regard anything less as a ‘failure’. Oakboy’s outright hatred of Eddie Jones is skewing his logic I think.

It is a bit of a cliche, but with the exception of Italy, every one of our opponents wants to beat us more than anyone else and raises their game in a way we don’t really see for other rivalries. That has to come in to the equation.

Our preparations haven’t been ideal for this weekend and these days, Scotland at Murrayfield is a very tough opener. If we come out it with a win of any sort, I’ll be happy.

With Ireland and Wales at home, our chances of winning those increase but they’re still very tough games.

Finishing with Le Crunch in Paris is a hard ending - even more so if it’s a slam decider.

If anyone looks at those fixtures and thinks ‘only a slam is good enough’ they need their head (and arrogance) checked IMO.

I have to say, to a certain extent, I think I'm with Oakboy. Saying, "I expect a Slam" is arrogance, as there are very good teams in the competition. Saying, "I want a Slam and that's my marker for success," isn't. We shouldn't be aiming for "not doing too badly" as our target if we have ambitions of winning the RWC - we need to be looking at these four hard games and planning on winning them, cause we are a very good team and have ambitions on being the best team.

Don't get me wrong; I won't call it an abject failure worthy of sacking if we lose a match. However, I would say losing 2 would be a significant disappointment and anything more than that *would* be an abject failure. We're third in the world - we *should* be aiming to win almost every game or else something is wrong with our standards.

Puja

That doesn't sound like you're agreeing with Oakboy at all to be honest? Saying it's a marker for success is very different to being the minimum standard of not failing.

I don't think anyone saying it's a slightly OTT target is saying that "not doing too badly" is good enough. We can win every game. We should aim to win every game, but pretending there aren't a trillion other variables in the equation that leads to a grandslam seems like an entirely different statement. I think people really gloss over how many results are decided by seemingly superficial factors.

jngf wrote:

Raggs wrote:

jngf wrote:I can see a 6 Ludlum 7 Curry 8 Dombrandt trio doing a good job. I do have my reservations that that I’d like the 7 role to have more attacking emphasis and Curry’s strengths lie more on the defensive side imo. Dombrandt has a great game in wider attack but I expect he’ll have to focus on the close quarters hard yards carrying allowing less bandwidth for much of this wider attack work (hence my argument that openside needs to focus more on this).

Just for the hell of it, I'm going to try again.

At which point in the game, does the guy wearing the 7 shirt, have to do more attack minded stuff, than the guy wearing the 6 shirt? And why isn't generating quick ruck ball, attacking emphasis?

I would argue generating quick ruck ball is more about ball winning than attacking in space with ball in hand which is what I think a test 7 should offer and why I’m so keen for advocating Sam Simmonds for this job

Simmonds never ever does this job for Exeter- he probably could, but its not his role. He is the one attacking space with ball in hand, when not goal hanging for short range tries .

Scrumhead wrote:

jngf wrote:

Raggs wrote:
Just for the hell of it, I'm going to try again.

At which point in the game, does the guy wearing the 7 shirt, have to do more attack minded stuff, than the guy wearing the 6 shirt? And why isn't generating quick ruck ball, attacking emphasis?

I would argue generating quick ruck ball is more about ball winning than attacking in space with ball in hand which is what I think a test 7 should offer and why I’m so keen for advocating Sam Simmonds for this job

I genuinely want to understand where your viewpoint comes from. Can you give an example of a test 7 who is playing like this? When I look across the Tier 1 nations you might argue Tipuric and Hooper probably do this a bit more regularly, but we’re talking about sometimes, not as a primary attacking role.

I also think there’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what a 7 is actually there to do.

When Raggs is referring to ‘generating quick ruck ball’, he’s not talking about ‘winning’ the ball. He’s talking about keeping it. As someone who has played most of their rugby at 7, I’d say the job description of an openside is primarily focused on continuity. Often that means being first to the ruck before the opposition and making sure there is a next phase of the attack. In test rugby, where competition for the ball is as tough as you’re going to see, it’s no surprise that a big priority is getting to that first ruck and securing the ball so the move doesn’t die on the first phase.

Simmonds has the pace and power to do that job quite well, but I’ve never seen him do it so I’m not sure? Pick Curry at 7 and we know he can, pick Simmonds and it’s a bit more of a lottery.

A 7 should definitely run good support lines and be an option in attack, but that’s only if their main job has been done.

I think we should just abandon the use of numbers in this kind of argument; if 7(or 6 in SA, or left or right in France )=plays like an openside used to do, but doesn't any more after a couple of phases because the tasking changes is shorthand, then fine (though Hooper probably does play more like an old school openside, picking and choosing). But when Curry played 6, he did so at the scrum only (allowing Underhill's more aggressive defence to put pressure on the 10 say) and then did what he does playing 7 for Sale, mixing it up with Underhill.

Scrumhead wrote:

jngf wrote:

Raggs wrote:
Just for the hell of it, I'm going to try again.

At which point in the game, does the guy wearing the 7 shirt, have to do more attack minded stuff, than the guy wearing the 6 shirt? And why isn't generating quick ruck ball, attacking emphasis?

I would argue generating quick ruck ball is more about ball winning than attacking in space with ball in hand which is what I think a test 7 should offer and why I’m so keen for advocating Sam Simmonds for this job

I genuinely want to understand where your viewpoint comes from. Can you give an example of a test 7 who is playing like this? When I look across the Tier 1 nations you might argue Tipuric and Hooper probably do this a bit more regularly, but we’re talking about sometimes, not as a primary attacking role.

I also think there’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what a 7 is actually there to do.

When Raggs is referring to ‘generating quick ruck ball’, he’s not talking about ‘winning’ the ball. He’s talking about keeping it. As someone who has played most of their rugby at 7, I’d say the job description of an openside is primarily focused on continuity. Often that means being first to the ruck before the opposition and making sure there is a next phase of the attack. In test rugby, where competition for the ball is as tough as you’re going to see, it’s no surprise that a big priority is getting to that first ruck and securing the ball so the move doesn’t die on the first phase.

Simmonds has the pace and power to do that job quite well, but I’ve never seen him do it so I’m not sure? Pick Curry at 7 and we know he can, pick Simmonds and it’s a bit more of a lottery.

A 7 should definitely run good support lines and be an option in attack, but that’s only if their main job has been done.

I’m suggesting that the 6 can take more responsibility for the continuity work you describe above and free up the 7 to be more prominent ball in hand - aspiring to play like Tipuric and Hooper seems something to be lauded imo. Continuing with the stodge 7 approach rather less so (imo).

Scrumhead wrote:Winning grand slams is very hard. That’s why they’re relatively rare.

Side note - found the statistic this morning that, since the 5N became 6N, 11 out of 22 tournaments have had a Grand Slam. They're not actually that rare.

Puja

jngf wrote:I’m suggesting that the 6 can take more responsibility for the continuity work you describe above and free up the 7 to be more prominent ball in hand - aspiring to play like Tipuric and Hooper seems something to be lauded imo. Continuing with the stodge 7 approach rather less so (imo).

OK, which brings me full circle to my usual question. Seeing as the only thing that a 7 does that a 6 cannot, is being on the openside of the scrum, how the hell do you expect the 6 to be responsible for continuity in the vast majority of moves off a scrum, seeing as he's got to run all the way around the scrum to get to the breakdown?

Subject to covid issues my selection would be:

1.Genge
2.Cowan-Dickie
3.Sinckler
4.Hill
5.Lawes
6.T Curry
7. S Simmonds
8. Dombrandt
9. Randall
10. Smith
11. Daly
12. Slade
13. Nowell
14. Radwan
15. Steward

Yeah, feck off Itoje, you've had your moment in the sun.