England forward pack as things stand

[Banquo]

I understand that, but by now I’d have hoped he’d have seen that some of our players have the skill set to do more than just execute a basic gameplan.

I think there’s an argument to say he’s probably favoured more skilful forwards - for example, he’s generally favoured/encouraged a ball playing front row. However, my frustration is that we have a lethal back three that are under-utilised with the amount of kicking from 10-12. Farrell at 12 is often referred to as a ‘second playmaker’ when I think he truth is that he’s actually a second kicker. This is why I’m firmly of the opinion that 13 is the worst position to play for this England side - you’d barely get he ball and on the rare occasion you did it’s unlikely to be in any time or space.

Not just about physical skill set though, its about decision making, and micro decision making. He's not a stupid man, nor poor coach, and he sees them more than we do up close. That said, I do think we waste some of our assets.

[Mellsblue]

In Ford and Slade, now he’s finally settled in to test rugby, I think we have two of the finest ball players, hands and brain, in the world and in May, Watson and Daly we have possibly the most potent back 3 in the world yet, well, you know.

Not sure whether it’s Jones dogma, he said from the outset, before seeing the players in camp, that he’d play to England’s traditional strengths, just as he had to Japan’s*, or truly a belief that we don’t have the talent.

Finally, in what is increasingly becoming a wayward post, was the Gameplan set not just by perceived talent levels in the backs but rather by not having a backrow to complement, Robshaw and Haskell supporting an expansive game on the hard ground in Oz, and/or the lack of a coach to implement an expansive game plan until too close to the RWC? Finally, finally, was it just the lack of talent at 9 & 12. You can have top class players at 10, 13 and back 3 but that’s not much use if your 9 & 12 are so limited.

Ramble over. Is it too early for a beer?

*I get Jones’s Japan thinking as they’re a nation of smaller people with a culture of following direction/orders but English rugby traditional strengths from the days of a hard-nosed bullying pack aren’t really applicable anymore.

[Banquo]

In Ford and Slade, now he’s finally settled in to test rugby, I think we have two of the finest ball players, hands and brain, in the world and in May, Watson and Daly we have possibly the most potent back 3 in the world yet, well, you know.

Not sure whether it’s Jones dogma, he said from the outset, before seeing the players in camp, that he’d play to England’s traditional strengths, just as he had to Japan’s*, or truly a belief that we don’t have the talent.

Finally, in what is increasingly becoming a wayward post, was the Gameplan set not just by perceived talent levels in the backs but rather by not having a backrow to complement, Robshaw and Haskell supporting an expansive game on the hard ground in Oz, and/or the lack of a coach to implement an expansive game plan until too close to the RWC? Finally, finally, was it just the lack of talent at 9 & 12. You can have top class players at 10, 13 and back 3 but that’s not much use if your 9 & 12 are so limited.

Ramble over. Is it too early for a beer?

*I get Jones’s Japan thinking as they’re a nation of smaller people with a culture of following direction/orders but English rugby traditional strengths from the days of a hard-nosed bullying pack aren’t really applicable anymore.

Its about decision making skills and some technical ability, and yes it is up front where we still imo struggle in those areas. Plus our domestic rugby is a hotch potch of styles and quality.

[jngf]

Despite the renegotiated contract, I can see Jones and RFU parting company before next RWC.

[Danno]

Unless the results fall off a cliff I really don't. There are barely any alternatives and they won't have the funds to write the chq necessary to tempt someone else in and buy Eddie out.

[Scrumhead]

Exactly. Who know how many games will be played before the 2023 RWC? With post COVID-19 finances, I can’t see Eddie and the RFU falling out so spectacularly that they’d pay what they’d need to move him on.

[Digby]

Eddie might decline a salary reduction, not out of spite but just out of thinking there are places he'd rather be living if he's not getting a huge salary

[Scrumhead]

Like where? Australia and NZ have only just made appointments and have no money (Australia in particular). Japan are happy with Jamie Joseph and France have also only recently put a new head coach in place. I guess the other home nations could all try, but do they have the kind of money to tempt Eddie? I doubt it.

[Banquo]

Like where? Australia and NZ have only just made appointments and have no money (Australia in particular). Japan are happy with Jamie Joseph and France have also only recently put a new head coach in place. I guess the other home nations could all try, but do they have the kind of money to tempt Eddie? I doubt it.

I think he was referring to places to live, rather than places to coach.

[Digby]

Like where? Australia and NZ have only just made appointments and have no money (Australia in particular). Japan are happy with Jamie Joseph and France have also only recently put a new head coach in place. I guess the other home nations could all try, but do they have the kind of money to tempt Eddie? I doubt it.

I think he was referring to places to live, rather than places to coach.

Yep, just go kick back in Grenada, watch a bit of cricket, write a book, have a couple of drinks.

[Danno]

He already took a salary reduction

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/52055221

[Peej]

Or we could use Billy as currently, and very successfully, and have a plan b for when he’s not available. Contrary to that, using Billy less as a bludgeon may mean we see him more often.

Agreed, but what bothers me a little is that the current plan b has a lock at 6. I'm not against that as a principle as much as others are BUT, if it is seen as essential because Billy is not at 8, I think it is flawed thinking. I'd start by having Curry, Underwood, Willis and Simmonds in the 23 in some combination to discover whether the loss of a few stones really hurt us. (To combine that with recent thinking, depending on the opposition, Lawes as a second lock on the bench would provide a fallback option at 6.)

You'd think given the speed in the backline, unleashing that and having a rapid back row, to force opponents to try and keep up and burn out, might not be a bad strategy?

[Stom]

Or we could use Billy as currently, and very successfully, and have a plan b for when he’s not available. Contrary to that, using Billy less as a bludgeon may mean we see him more often.

Agreed, but what bothers me a little is that the current plan b has a lock at 6. I'm not against that as a principle as much as others are BUT, if it is seen as essential because Billy is not at 8, I think it is flawed thinking. I'd start by having Curry, Underwood, Willis and Simmonds in the 23 in some combination to discover whether the loss of a few stones really hurt us. (To combine that with recent thinking, depending on the opposition, Lawes as a second lock on the bench would provide a fallback option at 6.)

You'd think given the speed in the backline, unleashing that and having a rapid back row, to force opponents to try and keep up and burn out, might not be a bad strategy?

Well, indeed. Considering our front row is pretty damn mobile, and Itoje, Launch and Lawes are no slouches around the park, it would be a pretty epic team if we could pick a backrow to support a very fast, wide game.

I actually think it would be one of the best uses of this England squad.

And we have the backrowers. Curry, Underhill, Curry, Simmonds, Mercer...they're all pretty quick. Clifford (if ever fit). Slade and Manu in midfield...

[Oakboy]

Agreed, but what bothers me a little is that the current plan b has a lock at 6. I'm not against that as a principle as much as others are BUT, if it is seen as essential because Billy is not at 8, I think it is flawed thinking. I'd start by having Curry, Underwood, Willis and Simmonds in the 23 in some combination to discover whether the loss of a few stones really hurt us. (To combine that with recent thinking, depending on the opposition, Lawes as a second lock on the bench would provide a fallback option at 6.)

You'd think given the speed in the backline, unleashing that and having a rapid back row, to force opponents to try and keep up and burn out, might not be a bad strategy?

Well, indeed. Considering our front row is pretty damn mobile, and Itoje, Launch and Lawes are no slouches around the park, it would be a pretty epic team if we could pick a backrow to support a very fast, wide game.

I actually think it would be one of the best uses of this England squad.

And we have the backrowers. Curry, Underhill, Curry, Simmonds, Mercer...they're all pretty quick. Clifford (if ever fit). Slade and Manu in midfield...

Agreed - shame Jones doesn't!

[Stom]

You'd think given the speed in the backline, unleashing that and having a rapid back row, to force opponents to try and keep up and burn out, might not be a bad strategy?

Well, indeed. Considering our front row is pretty damn mobile, and Itoje, Launch and Lawes are no slouches around the park, it would be a pretty epic team if we could pick a backrow to support a very fast, wide game.

I actually think it would be one of the best uses of this England squad.

And we have the backrowers. Curry, Underhill, Curry, Simmonds, Mercer...they're all pretty quick. Clifford (if ever fit). Slade and Manu in midfield...

Agreed - shame Jones doesn't!

Well, in 5 years time, you could argue the pack will be even more mobile...

Genge is more mobile than Mako, Singleton doesn't lose much in mobility vs George (it's everywhere else that's a problem), Sincks will still be around, as will Itoje, the young locks are stupidly athletic, and the backrowers are all young.

[Scrumhead]

If Barbeary delivers on his potential we’ll have a big, but highly mobile hooker to add in to the mix too.

[jngf]

Any chance of a big lock, mobile or otherwise?

[Banquo]

Agreed, but what bothers me a little is that the current plan b has a lock at 6. I'm not against that as a principle as much as others are BUT, if it is seen as essential because Billy is not at 8, I think it is flawed thinking. I'd start by having Curry, Underwood, Willis and Simmonds in the 23 in some combination to discover whether the loss of a few stones really hurt us. (To combine that with recent thinking, depending on the opposition, Lawes as a second lock on the bench would provide a fallback option at 6.)

You'd think given the speed in the backline, unleashing that and having a rapid back row, to force opponents to try and keep up and burn out, might not be a bad strategy?

Well, indeed. Considering our front row is pretty damn mobile, and Itoje, Launch and Lawes are no slouches around the park, it would be a pretty epic team if we could pick a backrow to support a very fast, wide game.

I actually think it would be one of the best uses of this England squad.

And we have the backrowers. Curry, Underhill, Curry, Simmonds, Mercer...they're all pretty quick. Clifford (if ever fit). Slade and Manu in midfield...

Its less about mobility and physical speed, rather than speed of thought, technique and decision making when fatigued. He had little problem with Japan playing that sort of game, so.....what do you think he is thinking?

[Digby]

Also what tournaments would we play that a fast approach would work in? A big key to not just having a successful opening round but still going strong in round 5 is conserving energy.

If England are to truly speed up play then (a) the domestic games they play in need to be much faster to temper the decision making and execution of technical skills and (b) you're not going to want England players to make more than 10-15 appearances outside their England duties each year

[Digby]

If Barbeary delivers on his potential we’ll have a big, but highly mobile hooker to add in to the mix too.

It's not like the Kiwis and French haven't thrown up some outstanding underage hookers of recent times

(it occurs there are very limited contexts in which you can write that sentence)

[Banquo]

Also what tournaments would we play that a fast approach would work in? A big key to not just having a successful opening round but still going strong in round 5 is conserving energy.

If England are to truly speed up play then (a) the domestic games they play in need to be much faster to temper the decision making and execution of technical skills and (b) you're not going to want England players to make more than 10-15 appearances outside their England duties each year

yep. Didn't want to light the blue touch paper on playing styles in the Prem, but indeed.

[Digby]

Also what tournaments would we play that a fast approach would work in? A big key to not just having a successful opening round but still going strong in round 5 is conserving energy.

If England are to truly speed up play then (a) the domestic games they play in need to be much faster to temper the decision making and execution of technical skills and (b) you're not going to want England players to make more than 10-15 appearances outside their England duties each year

yep. Didn't want to light the blue touch paper on playing styles in the Prem, but indeed.

I was chatting to someone the other day who wanted to go back to having the speed of game under Clive, and wasn't having that was not just us doing well but also being up against people like Colin Charvis who trained in a pub lifting beers and silk cut, and we just don't have that comparative advantage anymore, we might at times enjoy a slight advantage depending on the athleticism of the various squads, but Wales and Ireland especially are now basically on a par with us.

I suppose if we want to play at pace there is some option to rotate 5-7 players in with each new lineup but that's going to come with problems of its own

[Banquo]

Also what tournaments would we play that a fast approach would work in? A big key to not just having a successful opening round but still going strong in round 5 is conserving energy.

If England are to truly speed up play then (a) the domestic games they play in need to be much faster to temper the decision making and execution of technical skills and (b) you're not going to want England players to make more than 10-15 appearances outside their England duties each year

yep. Didn't want to light the blue touch paper on playing styles in the Prem, but indeed.

I was chatting to someone the other day who wanted to go back to having the speed of game under Clive, and wasn't having that was not just us doing well but also being up against people like Colin Charvis who trained in a pub lifting beers and silk cut, and we just don't have that comparative advantage anymore, we might at times enjoy a slight advantage depending on the athleticism of the various squads, but Wales and Ireland especially are now basically on a par with us.

I suppose if we want to play at pace there is some option to rotate 5-7 players in with each new lineup but that's going to come with problems of its own

The ball wasn't in play anything like as much as it is today under SCW either; he did lead the way on conditioning and physical prep at the time, but England have long since been caught up and overtaken; Eddie might have got us back level again, though evidence is a bit sketchy there too.

[Oakboy]

Also what tournaments would we play that a fast approach would work in? A big key to not just having a successful opening round but still going strong in round 5 is conserving energy.

If England are to truly speed up play then (a) the domestic games they play in need to be much faster to temper the decision making and execution of technical skills and (b) you're not going to want England players to make more than 10-15 appearances outside their England duties each year

yep. Didn't want to light the blue touch paper on playing styles in the Prem, but indeed.

Would a faster game-style in the England camp not automatically get transferred to the club game after a short period - cause and effect? Club HCs don't want a slower game as a principle do they? They want whatever wins them matches and slicker skills (mental and physical) would help their cause. I think Jones (or any national HC) automatically brings about the Pygmalion bit. Jones thinks England players can only play in a limited way so they (and the rest of the club game) end up believing him. Maybe, Cipriani didn't but he soon got ejected.

[Mikey Brown]

Any chance of a big lock, mobile or otherwise?

My mate Gary is 6'10" and horrendously overweight. He's 45, never played rugby and I don't think he even likes it but he's English qualified. Worth a shot? His fitness and hand-eye co-ordination are pretty poor but 6'10" - 22 stone 7lb looks good on a team-sheet, right?