Team for Australia

[Oakboy]

England squad to face Australia:
Forwards: Charlie Ewels, Jamie George, Dylan Hartley, Alec Hepburn, Ted Hill, Nathan Hughes, Maro Itoje, Courtney Lawes, Ben Moon, Brad Shields, Kyle Sinckler, Elliott Stooke, Sam Underhill, Harry Williams, Mark Wilson.
Backs: Chris Ashton, Joe Cokanasiga, Elliot Daly, Owen Farrell, George Ford, Piers Francis, Jonny May, Jack Nowell, Henry Slade, Ben Te'o, Manu Tuilagi, Richard Wigglesworth, Ben Youngs.


So, 28 names - meaning 5 to miss out from the match day 23.


From 15 forwards, the two will be Hill and Stooke, presumably.


From 13 backs, the 3 will be Tuilagi/Francis and Ashton/Cokanasiga depending on the fitness of the former in each case. The 3rd will depend on whether Farrell or T'eo starts at 12 presumably.

[Digby]

We seem to want to solve the problems evident from the first half against Japan with intensity, with fronting up, with physicality and winning collisons. Now those aren't to be ignored but we're overlooking our skill set, the three locks, no openside, dodgy hands in the pack (and at 9) and the very limited sense of how we tactically approach both defence and attack

[Renniks]

Hoping Shields and Stooke are the ones to miss out from the forwards
And Francis, Te'o, Ashton are to miss out from the backs

[Mellsblue]

Piers Francis?!?!?

[Renniks]

I always wonder if we were more positive / in line with the media's fervour on this forum whether some of the lurkers would join in…

[Oakboy]

Hoping Shields and Stooke are the ones to miss out from the forwards
And Francis, Te'o, Ashton are to miss out from the backs

Agreed as regards Francis and Ashton, certainly, but will Tuilagi be fit? I'm inclined to agree about T'eo but I would prefer that Farrell does not play at 12.

If Tuilagi IS fit, will he be risked to start? I'd normally say fit to start or should not be in the 23 but in Tuilagi's case his ability to injure himself alters things.

[Mellsblue]

I always wonder if we were more positive / in line with the media's fervour on this forum whether some of the lurkers would join in…

Piers Francis. Woo hoo. Whoop whoop.

[TheDasher]

I always wonder if we were more positive / in line with the media's fervour on this forum whether some of the lurkers would join in…

I'm not sure it's got anything to do with the media. I'm not defending Farrell because of SCW or Barnes or Dallaglio, I'm defending him because he's doing well. I suspect that some lurkers have been reading page after page of criticism of Farrell from a very small group of people (the only contributors to the board) when he's actually been playing rather well and have thought, oh for fuck's sake change the record, this is dull, but perhaps haven't wanted to get involved as the small group on here all had the same point of view and jump on any opinion to the contrary.

It was getting a tad dull and I'd guess that if we want this place to thrive or get back to something like what it used to be, perhaps this doesn't help.

[Oakboy]

I always wonder if we were more positive / in line with the media's fervour on this forum whether some of the lurkers would join in…

Piers Francis. Woo hoo. Whoop whoop.

Of course, him being there (and able to cover FH) could mean Ford is not in the 23.

I'm already running for cover.

[padprop]

Is it a common thing around the world to convert fly half's into other positions because they're just not quite there at the top top level?

In the GP alone we currently have:
Goode
Francis
Loz
Farrell (The opening statement doesn't apply to him)
Mills
Slade
And I'm sure I've missed a bunch

Is it more a result of when you are younger you usually stick your best player at 10 and at the top level the flaws in their game get found out?

Or is it more a result of the top of england rugby knowing we were short of decent centres and have gone around clubs telling them to convert a decent ball playing 12. Much like how LCD was converted at under 20's to hooker as we had Corbs, Mako, Marler coming through. In hindsight it may have been wiser for him to stay at loosehead.

[Oakboy]

I always wonder if we were more positive / in line with the media's fervour on this forum whether some of the lurkers would join in…

I'm not sure it's got anything to do with the media. I'm not defending Farrell because of SCW or Barnes or Dallaglio, I'm defending him because he's doing well. I suspect that some lurkers have been reading page after page of criticism of Farrell from a very small group of people (the only contributors to the board) when he's actually been playing rather well and have thought, oh for fuck's sake change the record, this is dull, but perhaps haven't wanted to get involved as the small group on here all had the same point of view and jump on any opinion to the contrary.

It was getting a tad dull and I'd guess that if we want this place to thrive or get back to something like what it used to be, perhaps this doesn't help.

Er, Dash, maybe more posters praising Farrell would influence us. The snag is that the most significant absentee, Banquo, was not a fan either. Maybe others were the same. I can't think of anyone missing who constantly rated him.

For the whole of Jones's era, there have been few real alternatives to Farrell at 12. That is the biggest frustration, together with Cipriani not getting enough chances. Add on the lack of a SH of top international standard, JJ's injury/form loss and Tuilagi's permanent injury state and we are left with hoping that the back three conjure up something. Jones insisting on Daly at FB has further frustrated any attacking ambitions.

Had Farrell been at 10 all along, maybe opinion would be different by now.

I have to say that I thought he affected the game significantly last Saturday whatever his individual contribution might have been. Furthermore, the 1st half ended Ford's chances of playing FH ahead of him, should it be a case of one or the other.

I also think that Farrell is symptomatic of the Jones playing style. How many rate that?

[Stom]

Is it a common thing around the world to convert fly half's into other positions because they're just not quite there at the top top level?

In the GP alone we currently have:
Goode
Francis
Loz
Farrell (The opening statement doesn't apply to him)
Mills
Slade
And I'm sure I've missed a bunch

Is it more a result of when you are younger you usually stick your best player at 10 and at the top level the flaws in their game get found out?

Or is it more a result of the top of england rugby knowing we were short of decent centres and have gone around clubs telling them to convert a decent ball playing 12. Much like how LCD was converted at under 20's to hooker as we had Corbs, Mako, Marler coming through. In hindsight it may have been wiser for him to stay at loosehead.

Nah, it happens everywhere.

NZ have McKenzie and J.Barrett, Aus have Beale and JOC (and Gitau). Scotland had Paterson. The list is quite long, tbh...

[Stom]

I always wonder if we were more positive / in line with the media's fervour on this forum whether some of the lurkers would join in…

I'm not sure it's got anything to do with the media. I'm not defending Farrell because of SCW or Barnes or Dallaglio, I'm defending him because he's doing well. I suspect that some lurkers have been reading page after page of criticism of Farrell from a very small group of people (the only contributors to the board) when he's actually been playing rather well and have thought, oh for fuck's sake change the record, this is dull, but perhaps haven't wanted to get involved as the small group on here all had the same point of view and jump on any opinion to the contrary.

It was getting a tad dull and I'd guess that if we want this place to thrive or get back to something like what it used to be, perhaps this doesn't help.

Er, Dash, maybe more posters praising Farrell would influence us. The snag is that the most significant absentee, Banquo, was not a fan either. Maybe others were the same. I can't think of anyone missing who constantly rated him.

For the whole of Jones's era, there have been few real alternatives to Farrell at 12. That is the biggest frustration, together with Cipriani not getting enough chances. Add on the lack of a SH of top international standard, JJ's injury/form loss and Tuilagi's permanent injury state and we are left with hoping that the back three conjure up something. Jones insisting on Daly at FB has further frustrated any attacking ambitions.

Had Farrell been at 10 all along, maybe opinion would be different by now.

I have to say that I thought he affected the game significantly last Saturday whatever his individual contribution might have been. Furthermore, the 1st half ended Ford's chances of playing FH ahead of him, should it be a case of one or the other.

I also think that Farrell is symptomatic of the Jones playing style. How many rate that?

How exactly? What could he have done differently?

[Mellsblue]

I always wonder if we were more positive / in line with the media's fervour on this forum whether some of the lurkers would join in…

I'm not sure it's got anything to do with the media. I'm not defending Farrell because of SCW or Barnes or Dallaglio, I'm defending him because he's doing well. I suspect that some lurkers have been reading page after page of criticism of Farrell from a very small group of people (the only contributors to the board) when he's actually been playing rather well and have thought, oh for fuck's sake change the record, this is dull, but perhaps haven't wanted to get involved as the small group on here all had the same point of view and jump on any opinion to the contrary.

It was getting a tad dull and I'd guess that if we want this place to thrive or get back to something like what it used to be, perhaps this doesn't help.

You thought he played well against NZ and single-handedly saved us against Japan? Because that is what the majority of the media are saying.

George Ford set up a try with a moment of high quality, kicked well for touch and kicked all his goals bar one on the touch line yet gets 5/10 in The Times and is widely considered to have had a bad game. I do wonder what Farrell would’ve got? By way of comparison Farrell was given a 7/10 in the S Times for the loss to Ireland. He was given a 5/10 in the Guardian but is considered a ‘qualified success’ and is let off a 0% kicking performance because of the weather - Ireland managed 67%. That’s before you get to the fact he was directly responsible for giving away our position in their 22 in the first 5 mins which ultimately led to Stockdale’s try. Still better than Ford yesterday, it seems.

[TheDasher]

I always wonder if we were more positive / in line with the media's fervour on this forum whether some of the lurkers would join in…

I'm not sure it's got anything to do with the media. I'm not defending Farrell because of SCW or Barnes or Dallaglio, I'm defending him because he's doing well. I suspect that some lurkers have been reading page after page of criticism of Farrell from a very small group of people (the only contributors to the board) when he's actually been playing rather well and have thought, oh for fuck's sake change the record, this is dull, but perhaps haven't wanted to get involved as the small group on here all had the same point of view and jump on any opinion to the contrary.

It was getting a tad dull and I'd guess that if we want this place to thrive or get back to something like what it used to be, perhaps this doesn't help.

Er, Dash, maybe more posters praising Farrell would influence us. The snag is that the most significant absentee, Banquo, was not a fan either. Maybe others were the same. I can't think of anyone missing who constantly rated him.

For the whole of Jones's era, there have been few real alternatives to Farrell at 12. That is the biggest frustration, together with Cipriani not getting enough chances. Add on the lack of a SH of top international standard, JJ's injury/form loss and Tuilagi's permanent injury state and we are left with hoping that the back three conjure up something. Jones insisting on Daly at FB has further frustrated any attacking ambitions.

Had Farrell been at 10 all along, maybe opinion would be different by now.

I have to say that I thought he affected the game significantly last Saturday whatever his individual contribution might have been. Furthermore, the 1st half ended Ford's chances of playing FH ahead of him, should it be a case of one or the other.

I also think that Farrell is symptomatic of the Jones playing style. How many rate that?

I'm sure Beefeater loves him!

I take your points mate, totally understand. I think it's just the ongoing suggestions that Farrell can't pass, isn't a good 10 and can't tackle that are grating... none of those things are true. Frankly George Ford (and I'm a fan) is not unquestionably a better 10 than Farrell, and regardless of what the media say, I'd suggest that it's more important that Farrell is in the team than Ford at the moment if we're looking to do something at the next WC. On the basis of what we've seen this autumn, I'd say that leaving Farrell out of the XV would be pretty odd...

Re Jones' playing style, I think Farrell at 10 would not be anywhere near the top of the list of issues Jones has, nowhere near it.

[Mellsblue]

I'm not sure it's got anything to do with the media. I'm not defending Farrell because of SCW or Barnes or Dallaglio, I'm defending him because he's doing well. I suspect that some lurkers have been reading page after page of criticism of Farrell from a very small group of people (the only contributors to the board) when he's actually been playing rather well and have thought, oh for fuck's sake change the record, this is dull, but perhaps haven't wanted to get involved as the small group on here all had the same point of view and jump on any opinion to the contrary.

It was getting a tad dull and I'd guess that if we want this place to thrive or get back to something like what it used to be, perhaps this doesn't help.

Er, Dash, maybe more posters praising Farrell would influence us. The snag is that the most significant absentee, Banquo, was not a fan either. Maybe others were the same. I can't think of anyone missing who constantly rated him.

For the whole of Jones's era, there have been few real alternatives to Farrell at 12. That is the biggest frustration, together with Cipriani not getting enough chances. Add on the lack of a SH of top international standard, JJ's injury/form loss and Tuilagi's permanent injury state and we are left with hoping that the back three conjure up something. Jones insisting on Daly at FB has further frustrated any attacking ambitions.

Had Farrell been at 10 all along, maybe opinion would be different by now.

I have to say that I thought he affected the game significantly last Saturday whatever his individual contribution might have been. Furthermore, the 1st half ended Ford's chances of playing FH ahead of him, should it be a case of one or the other.

I also think that Farrell is symptomatic of the Jones playing style. How many rate that?

How exactly? What could he have done differently?

Stamped on Care’s big toe before the match and demand Jones played a 6 at 6 and a 7 at 7. He could’ve also ensured that Williams didn’t play like a 20st turd, that George didn’t get sin binned and that Wilson didn’t have a 10 min brain freeze, though demanding he was played at 6 (see above) may have solved that problem. Further, he could’ve demanded Lowzowski didn’t wear the same boots leading to confusion when he missed that tackle and kicked like a drain. All doable, he just needed to grimace and shout a bit more.

[Mellsblue]

I'm not sure it's got anything to do with the media. I'm not defending Farrell because of SCW or Barnes or Dallaglio, I'm defending him because he's doing well. I suspect that some lurkers have been reading page after page of criticism of Farrell from a very small group of people (the only contributors to the board) when he's actually been playing rather well and have thought, oh for fuck's sake change the record, this is dull, but perhaps haven't wanted to get involved as the small group on here all had the same point of view and jump on any opinion to the contrary.

It was getting a tad dull and I'd guess that if we want this place to thrive or get back to something like what it used to be, perhaps this doesn't help.

Er, Dash, maybe more posters praising Farrell would influence us. The snag is that the most significant absentee, Banquo, was not a fan either. Maybe others were the same. I can't think of anyone missing who constantly rated him.

For the whole of Jones's era, there have been few real alternatives to Farrell at 12. That is the biggest frustration, together with Cipriani not getting enough chances. Add on the lack of a SH of top international standard, JJ's injury/form loss and Tuilagi's permanent injury state and we are left with hoping that the back three conjure up something. Jones insisting on Daly at FB has further frustrated any attacking ambitions.

Had Farrell been at 10 all along, maybe opinion would be different by now.

I have to say that I thought he affected the game significantly last Saturday whatever his individual contribution might have been. Furthermore, the 1st half ended Ford's chances of playing FH ahead of him, should it be a case of one or the other.

I also think that Farrell is symptomatic of the Jones playing style. How many rate that?

I'm sure Beefeater loves him!

I take your points mate, totally understand. I think it's just the ongoing suggestions that Farrell can't pass, isn't a good 10 and can't tackle that are grating... none of those things are true. Frankly George Ford (and I'm a fan) is not unquestionably a better 10 than Farrell, and regardless of what the media say, I'd suggest that it's more important that Farrell is in the team than Ford at the moment if we're looking to do something at the next WC. On the basis of what we've seen this autumn, I'd say that leaving Farrell out of the XV would be pretty odd...

Re Jones' playing style, I think Farrell at 10 would not be anywhere near the top of the list of issues Jones has, nowhere near it.

No one is saying he isn’t a good 10, they just think his passing and decision making at the gainline is questionable.
On the basis of what I’ve seen this autumn I’d say that thinking him a nailed on starter would be pretty odd. Poor discipline (again) that could and probably should have lost us the match against SA and a bit of a shocker against NZ. That said, he was good against Japan an I would have him at 12 this Sat.

[TheDasher]

I always wonder if we were more positive / in line with the media's fervour on this forum whether some of the lurkers would join in…

I'm not sure it's got anything to do with the media. I'm not defending Farrell because of SCW or Barnes or Dallaglio, I'm defending him because he's doing well. I suspect that some lurkers have been reading page after page of criticism of Farrell from a very small group of people (the only contributors to the board) when he's actually been playing rather well and have thought, oh for fuck's sake change the record, this is dull, but perhaps haven't wanted to get involved as the small group on here all had the same point of view and jump on any opinion to the contrary.

It was getting a tad dull and I'd guess that if we want this place to thrive or get back to something like what it used to be, perhaps this doesn't help.

You thought he played well against NZ and single-handedly saved us against Japan? Because that is what the majority of the media are saying.

George Ford set up a try with a moment of high quality, kicked well for touch and kicked all his goals bar one on the touch line yet gets 5/10 in The Times and is widely considered to have had a bad game. I do wonder what Farrell would’ve got? By way of comparison Farrell was given a 7/10 in the S Times for the loss to Ireland. He was given a 5/10 in the Guardian but is considered a ‘qualified success’ and is let off a 0% kicking performance because of the weather - Ireland managed 67%. That’s before you get to the fact he was directly responsible for giving away our position in their 22 in the first 5 mins which ultimately led to Stockdale’s try. Still better than Ford yesterday, it seems.

Yes I thought he played well against New Zealand. Bearing in mind most of us thought we'd get hammered vs NZ, and instead we were full of balls, grit and competitiveness with him very obviously heavily involved and influential. He was extremely good for extended periods of that game. For some reason, I came on here during the game and the chat was mainly negative about the England performance (ridiculous) and he was slated, wrongly.

Remember, I'm not criticising Ford, I like and rate him. Write to the Times if you don't like their rating. I'm criticising the relentless criticism of Farrell on here which goes to far and is in my opinion, incorrect.

[Oakboy]

How exactly? What could he have done differently?

I've already given my opinion on that in another post. I'm suggesting that in Jones's eyes, Ford, as captain, needed to influence matters in the 1st half but failed to do so. It is the corollary (is that the right word for sort of opposite) of Puja asking what did Farrell do in the 2nd half. What it amounts to is that the team plays far better with Farrell on the pitch and that Ford cannot supplant him.

Bear in mind that I was clamouring for Ford to be captain before the match. I thought his rugby brain and personal skill-set would be enhanced by the captaincy. He has gifted hands and good feet etc. etc. but, IMO, he does not run things and grab the game by the scruff of the neck. I hoped it was just Farrell's presence subduing him but, in one 40 minute chance, he did not stand up.

I know the forwards and Care were not giving him the ball on a plate but that was the test. He may have been chivvying team-mates off-camera, as I suggested previously. I can only comment on what I saw, or, in this case did not see.

[Mellsblue]

I'm not sure it's got anything to do with the media. I'm not defending Farrell because of SCW or Barnes or Dallaglio, I'm defending him because he's doing well. I suspect that some lurkers have been reading page after page of criticism of Farrell from a very small group of people (the only contributors to the board) when he's actually been playing rather well and have thought, oh for fuck's sake change the record, this is dull, but perhaps haven't wanted to get involved as the small group on here all had the same point of view and jump on any opinion to the contrary.

It was getting a tad dull and I'd guess that if we want this place to thrive or get back to something like what it used to be, perhaps this doesn't help.

You thought he played well against NZ and single-handedly saved us against Japan? Because that is what the majority of the media are saying.

George Ford set up a try with a moment of high quality, kicked well for touch and kicked all his goals bar one on the touch line yet gets 5/10 in The Times and is widely considered to have had a bad game. I do wonder what Farrell would’ve got? By way of comparison Farrell was given a 7/10 in the S Times for the loss to Ireland. He was given a 5/10 in the Guardian but is considered a ‘qualified success’ and is let off a 0% kicking performance because of the weather - Ireland managed 67%. That’s before you get to the fact he was directly responsible for giving away our position in their 22 in the first 5 mins which ultimately led to Stockdale’s try. Still better than Ford yesterday, it seems.

Yes I thought he played well against New Zealand. Bearing in mind most of us thought we'd get hammered vs NZ, and instead we were full of balls, grit and competitiveness with him very obviously heavily involved and influential. He was extremely good for extended periods of that game. For some reason, I came on here during the game and the chat was mainly negative about the England performance (ridiculous) and he was slated, wrongly.

Remember, I'm not criticising Ford, I like and rate him. Write to the Times if you don't like their rating. I'm criticising the relentless criticism of Farrell on here which goes to far and is in my opinion, incorrect.

So, other than the numerous missed tackles and the restart out on the full that led to three points to NZ just before halftime you thought he went well?
I was part of that ‘negativity’ as I pointed out his glaring mistakes. He made four before halftime. If Savea could catch they would’ve cost a minimum of 10 points.
Again, I think he’s a good player. It’s the messianic status that grates.

[Renniks]

I wasn't saying that people like Dasher or Rich were blindly following the media - as I don't think that's the case…

More that if the general population here were more positive AND more in line with the media (Sometimes) - we might get more lurkers joining in…

One of the reasons I post on here is because I get challenged when I post shit, but also because it's an echo chamber… Nearly everyone who posts has some modicum of rugby knowledge, which is better than when you look at facebook or instagram posts, and generally we want more from England - generally that is aimed at playing players in their main positions, exploring expansive rugby, not ignoring players who are ripping up trees in the prem, etc etc

I'd love more posters - especially those that challenge the group think, and especially people who keep an eye on different players in the prem…
I am, however, less fussed by people telling me that Farrell is world class, because I've explored that idea many times and I'm not likely to change my view Regardless of whether he is or not

[TheDasher]

How exactly? What could he have done differently?

I've already given my opinion on that in another post. I'm suggesting that in Jones's eyes, Ford, as captain, needed to influence matters in the 1st half but failed to do so. It is the corollary (is that the right word for sort of opposite) of Puja asking what did Farrell do in the 2nd half. What it amounts to is that the team plays far better with Farrell on the pitch and that Ford cannot supplant him.

Bear in mind that I was clamouring for Ford to be captain before the match. I thought his rugby brain and personal skill-set would be enhanced by the captaincy. He has gifted hands and good feet etc. etc. but, IMO, he does not run things and grab the game by the scruff of the neck. I hoped it was just Farrell's presence subduing him but, in one 40 minute chance, he did not stand up.

I know the forwards and Care were not giving him the ball on a plate but that was the test. He may have been chivvying team-mates off-camera, as I suggested previously. I can only comment on what I saw, or, in this case did not see.

Certain people were criticising Farrell for not 'changing tactics' when he was captain vs NZ when the lineout went to shit. England played the worst 40 minutes ever basically on Saturday when Ford was co-captain. He didn't do too much about that did he? We were atrocious.

[Mellsblue]

I wasn't saying that people like Dasher or Rich were blindly following the media - as I don't think that's the case…

More that if the general population here were more positive AND more in line with the media (Sometimes) - we might get more lurkers joining in…

One of the reasons I post on here is because I get challenged when I post shit, but also because it's an echo chamber… Nearly everyone who posts has some modicum of rugby knowledge, which is better than when you look at facebook or instagram posts, and generally we want more from England - generally that is aimed at playing players in their main positions, exploring expansive rugby, not ignoring players who are ripping up trees in the prem, etc etc

I'd love more posters - especially those that challenge the group think, and especially people who keep an eye on different players in the prem…
I am, however, less fussed by people telling me that Farrell is world class, because I've explored that idea many times and I'm not likely to change my view Regardless of whether he is or not

Feel free to disagree. Dasher is on here challenging us and only getting respectful responses. Granted, he is very much outnumbered! Rich is a known WUM who is getting the response he is getting because he turns up every now and again, normally late at night after possibly having a few too many, and doesn’t really come across as if knows what he is talking about, ie Daly having only played 3 matches at fullback.

[Renniks]

How exactly? What could he have done differently?

I've already given my opinion on that in another post. I'm suggesting that in Jones's eyes, Ford, as captain, needed to influence matters in the 1st half but failed to do so. It is the corollary (is that the right word for sort of opposite) of Puja asking what did Farrell do in the 2nd half. What it amounts to is that the team plays far better with Farrell on the pitch and that Ford cannot supplant him.

Bear in mind that I was clamouring for Ford to be captain before the match. I thought his rugby brain and personal skill-set would be enhanced by the captaincy. He has gifted hands and good feet etc. etc. but, IMO, he does not run things and grab the game by the scruff of the neck. I hoped it was just Farrell's presence subduing him but, in one 40 minute chance, he did not stand up.

I know the forwards and Care were not giving him the ball on a plate but that was the test. He may have been chivvying team-mates off-camera, as I suggested previously. I can only comment on what I saw, or, in this case did not see.

Certain people were criticising Farrell for not 'changing tactics' when he was captain vs NZ when the lineout went to shit. England played the worst 40 minutes ever basically on Saturday when Ford was co-captain. He didn't do too much about that did he? We were atrocious.

Fair shout!

If I had to choose between giving Ford captaincy of England between now and the RWC for any games… or never giving it him again, I'd lean towards never again.

Ideally it'd be somewhere in between

But he didn't stand up as a leader, and he can be chastised for that - I imagine part of the reason we didn't is because we like him, and part of the reason is because it isn't against the narrative the media already spout about him (that he's a good player when things are going his way)

Personally, I'd have given Wilson captaincy - as I think he looks a calm head and workhorse

[Mellsblue]

How exactly? What could he have done differently?

I've already given my opinion on that in another post. I'm suggesting that in Jones's eyes, Ford, as captain, needed to influence matters in the 1st half but failed to do so. It is the corollary (is that the right word for sort of opposite) of Puja asking what did Farrell do in the 2nd half. What it amounts to is that the team plays far better with Farrell on the pitch and that Ford cannot supplant him.

Bear in mind that I was clamouring for Ford to be captain before the match. I thought his rugby brain and personal skill-set would be enhanced by the captaincy. He has gifted hands and good feet etc. etc. but, IMO, he does not run things and grab the game by the scruff of the neck. I hoped it was just Farrell's presence subduing him but, in one 40 minute chance, he did not stand up.

I know the forwards and Care were not giving him the ball on a plate but that was the test. He may have been chivvying team-mates off-camera, as I suggested previously. I can only comment on what I saw, or, in this case did not see.

Certain people were criticising Farrell for not 'changing tactics' when he was captain vs NZ when the lineout went to shit. England played the worst 40 minutes ever basically on Saturday when Ford was co-captain. He didn't do too much about that did he? We were atrocious.

Not sure anyone was blaming him for not changing tactics, I certainly wasn’t, but he didn’t even challenge them to try something different or chat to them about what was going wrong. A quick word in the ear of the ref about Kruis’s arm being grabbed in the air might’ve led to other fouls being picked up on. That’s what the best captains do. Other than bollocking all the forwards and Care and doing their job for them, I’m not sure what Ford could’ve done. That said, I don’t think he’s captain material - leadership group, yes, captain, no - but other than Hartley I’m not sure who is.