RugbyRebels

ENGLAND XV
15. Freddie Steward (Leicester Tigers, 6 caps)
14. Max Malins (Saracens, 11 caps)
13. Joe Marchant (Harlequins, 8 caps)
12. Henry Slade (Exeter Chiefs, 44 caps) (VC)
11. Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs, 35 caps)
10. Marcus Smith (Harlequins, 6 caps)
9. Harry Randall (Bristol Bears, 2 caps)
1. Ellis Genge (Leicester Tigers, 32 caps) (VC)
2. Jamie George (Saracens, 62 caps)
3. Will Stuart (Bath Rugby, 16 caps)
4. Charlie Ewels (Bath Rugby, 27 caps)
5. Nick Isiekwe (Saracens, 4 caps)
6. Maro Itoje (Saracens, 52 caps)
7. Tom Curry (Sale Sharks, 37 caps) (C)
8. Alex Dombrandt (Harlequins, 5 caps)

FINISHERS

16. Luke Cowan-Dickie (Exeter Chiefs, 32 caps) (VC)
17. Joe Marler (Harlequins, 75 caps)
18. Kyle Sinckler (Bristol Bears, 48 caps)
19. Ollie Chessum (Leicester Tigers, uncapped)
20. Sam Simmonds (Exeter Chiefs, 10 caps)
21. Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers, 113 caps)
22. George Ford (Leicester Tigers, 78 caps)
23. Elliot Daly (Saracens, 53 caps)


Italy:
Padovani; Mori, Brex, Zanon, Ioane; Garbisi, Varney; Fischetti, Lucchesi, Petro Ceccarelli, Cannone, Ruzza, Steyn, Lamaro (capt), Halafihi.

Replacements: Faiva, Traore, Pasquali, Sisi, Negri, Pettinelli, Fusco, Marin.

That is certainly a team that he's named there. The good, I guess, is that we have two centres, two wingers, and a full-back, which is nice. If this signals the end of Eddie trying to reinvent the backline, I am all for it. However, if he's planning to go back to that hybrid thing in the future, why are we changing it for this game when it clearly needs practice to bed in? Plus, I think everyone else is aware that Randall could score 5 tries and be MotM and still will be dropped for the next game.

The pack is okay - is dropping LCD a good thing to do in terms of his confidence? Yes, it was the most inept and obvious professional foul ever seen by man or beast, but it was one mistake and, even if the plan was originally to rotate, doing it now sends the wrong message. Sinckler needs a kick up the backside and it's nice to see Chessum potentially getting a cap. However, if Ewels is ever the answer, then you have asked the wrong question, and why are we moving our one world class lock to be an okay back row, especially when Isiekwe is possibly better suited to 6 than 5?

Puja

Itoje 6 Curry 7 Dombrandt 8 might just have a nice balance about it

Assuming everyone’s seen team announcement ?

I am happy enough with the rest of the team but didn't see Itoje at 6 coming (not saying its right or wrong, just that I didn't see it coming). Uncle Eddie does like to try players out of position doesn't he?

Shiny wrote:I am happy enough with the rest of the team but didn't see Itoje at 6 coming (not saying its right or wrong, just that I didn't see it coming). Uncle Eddie does like to try players out of position doesn't he?

Itoje’s been capped there a few times but unlike Lawes he appears far happier (and frankly puts in better test performances) at lock. Would be nice to see him improve at 6 though as Lawes eventually has

That’s a slow back three. I don’t see the point of moving Itoje to no6 unless it’s a long term plan, and I hope it’s not, given Isiekwe could be the long term answer to a 5/6 given he spends a lot of his playing time there. Glad Sinckler is getting a kick up the ‘arris despite Stuart not really being up to it. Harsh on LCD and unwarranted and short sighted knee-jerk reaction. Confirmation Randall > Quirke in Eddie’s mind, not that I’m sure I agree. Ewels in the XV just makes me sad.

I thought Sinkler was thought to have played very well?

Itoje at 6 just seems dumb when a) it’s to make room for Ewels b) Isiekwe plays there as much as he plays lock.

Nice to see two centres. At least if we give Slade this full 6 nations at 12 we can finally know one way or the other.

Eddie giveth- the backs (well at least players are roughly in positions that suit them), and then taketh away....the back 5 of the scrum. Just no. Itoje at 6 is a terrible and very short term idea- why not just play isiekwe there, or even Chessum. It may no matter in this game, but who knows.

Mikey Brown wrote:I thought Sinkler was thought to have played very well?

Other than the uptick with his Lions non-selection the general consensus, from what I’ve read, is that he’s been pretty average since moving to Bristol/the last World Cup. I’d be inclined to agree.

Mikey Brown wrote:I thought Sinkler was thought to have played very well?

I think he was all right, but there's no doubt that there's more in him as a player and I think he suffers a bit if he doesn't have competition. It's worth a reminder to him that his place isn't guaranteed.

Puja

Puja wrote:That is certainly a team that he's named there. The good, I guess, is that we have two centres, two wingers, and a full-back, which is nice. If this signals the end of Eddie trying to reinvent the backline, I am all for it. However, if he's planning to go back to that hybrid thing in the future, why are we changing it for this game when it clearly needs practice to bed in? Plus, I think everyone else is aware that Randall could score 5 tries and be MotM and still will be dropped for the next game.

The pack is okay - is dropping LCD a good thing to do in terms of his confidence? Yes, it was the most inept and obvious professional foul ever seen by man or beast, but it was one mistake and, even if the plan was originally to rotate, doing it now sends the wrong message. Sinckler needs a kick up the backside and it's nice to see Chessum potentially getting a cap. However, if Ewels is ever the answer, then you have asked the wrong question, and why are we moving our one world class lock to be an okay back row, especially when Isiekwe is possibly better suited to 6 than 5?

Puja

Could also read it the other way, in that being rotated out against Italy probably means you're first choice for the bigger games? I suspect that's an overly generous assessment however, and I agree that the best thing for Cowan-Dickie would've probably been to get straight back on the horse and prove it was a blip rather than an audition for the Olympic volleyball team.

Shiny wrote:I am happy enough with the rest of the team but didn't see Itoje at 6 coming (not saying its right or wrong, just that I didn't see it coming). Uncle Eddie does like to try players out of position doesn't he?

In sort of fairness, Itoje has played 6 for Sarries quite a bit, and the odd cap for England; but he really isn't a very good 6.

But being dropped against Italy seems virtually meaningless given the rest of the team.

Same way it seems a pointless use of a game for Itoje, but I guess between him and Isiekwe at 5/6 it won’t really have much impact.

I suppose it depends what the message is. It could be ‘punishment’ for LCD, ‘rested’ for Sinckler and ‘you’ve a youngster hot on your heels’ for Youngs. It’s all just supposition and internet bluster unless we know the workings of Jones’s mind. Which is something I’d rather not be privy to.

What's the spell that Ewels has on Eddie? What qualities does he have that a lot of us don't seem to be aware of?

On a positive note, the selection of Randall is encouraging and, lo and behold, centres who regularly play centre.
Good to see Nowell there too - a winger who should really hav had a loads more caps than he has.

I agree with mike this could be more to do with fitness/resting. Randall and smith hopefully should be fun though.

Starting with the 9-15 in the positions that should have seen out the last quarter v Scotland.

Who would have thought

Jones seems to me to be asking loads of questions. Are the answers making sense, though? Are we seeing steady progress towards building a team, a squad and a playing style?

For example, is a 2nd row of Isiekwe/Ewels a genuine long-term prospect? If not, why pick it against Italy rather than stick with genuine candidates. The same applies to Itoje at 6. Where does this leave Simmonds? How meaningful would Dombrandt having a good game be?

I certainly like the 12/13 pairing but how can it be right for Italy and wrong for Scotland?

I can't look at this selection in isolation. I have to look at both the first two selections together. Frankly, if there is structured progress in there, it needs explaining.

As an aside I was really impressed with the Italian pack in France, hope we haven’t underestimated

p/d wrote:Starting with the 9-15 in the positions that should have seen out the last quarter v Scotland.

Who would have thought

Well, you could argue it is an extension of Slade/Marchant looking good in the AI. Maybe, someone has just reminded Jones?

p/d wrote:As an aside I was really impressed with the Italian pack in France, hope we haven’t underestimated

The first choice front row is on the bench ready.

Oakboy wrote:Jones seems to me to be asking loads of questions. Are the answers making sense, though? Are we seeing steady progress towards building a team, a squad and a playing style?

For example, is a 2nd row of Isiekwe/Ewels a genuine long-term prospect? If not, why pick it against Italy rather than stick with genuine candidates. The same applies to Itoje at 6. Where does this leave Simmonds? How meaningful would Dombrandt having a good game be?

I certainly like the 12/13 pairing but how can it be right for Italy and wrong for Scotland?

I can't look at this selection in isolation. I have to look at both the first two selections together. Frankly, if there is structured progress in there, it needs explaining.

Yeah I share a lot of that. Saying that, Dombrandt has just looked a bit shell shocked and very short of confidence in his appearances so far, maybe just getting some game time will be worth it either way.

Pleased that Stuart and Randall get starts.
Itoje and Isiekwe seem the wrong way around to me too.
Is there a plan for who plays at 8, or are they going to alternate during the 6Ns?
Dropping LCD seems a touch harsh.
Backs are in the right positions.
Overall, a typical selection, mostly Ok but with the odd curveball.

Oakboy wrote:I certainly like the 12/13 pairing but how can it be right for Italy and wrong for Scotland?

I'm hoping that our toothlessness in attack and our fragility in defence against Scotland has put the nail in the coffin of this Total Rugby bullshit that he's been trying to force into working for the past year or so and he's finally realised that it *does* *not* *work*.

Crackpots in rugby always are convinced that they can reinvent the wheel and revolutionise rugby positions, a proud tradition including SCW's attempt at a 2-fly-halves routine with Wilkinson/Hodgson, his "Back four" idea with Robinson at 13, Eddie's 9-forwards game with Japan, and now this three centres nonsense. Almost every single one of them has ended in failure because, no matter how clever your new formation might be, international teams do not get enough time with players to inculcate them into entirely changing how the game of rugby works and, when the pressure comes on, they'll revert back to the instincts that they've grown up with and that they play every week, not your new reinvented formation. You can try and hammer a square peg into a round hole, but you don't have the time to get the coping saw out and recut the puzzle board so that it's now got two square holes instead of one.

The *only* one that ever even slightly worked was SCW's thing about playing two scrum-halves at once and that only did because Healey was a pretty unique player and could play as an orthodox wing as well.

Puja

Mikey Brown wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Jones seems to me to be asking loads of questions. Are the answers making sense, though? Are we seeing steady progress towards building a team, a squad and a playing style?

For example, is a 2nd row of Isiekwe/Ewels a genuine long-term prospect? If not, why pick it against Italy rather than stick with genuine candidates. The same applies to Itoje at 6. Where does this leave Simmonds? How meaningful would Dombrandt having a good game be?

I certainly like the 12/13 pairing but how can it be right for Italy and wrong for Scotland?

I can't look at this selection in isolation. I have to look at both the first two selections together. Frankly, if there is structured progress in there, it needs explaining.

Yeah I share a lot of that. Saying that, Dombrandt has just looked a bit shell shocked and very short of confidence in his appearances so far, maybe just getting some game time will be worth it either way.

It'll be his kind of game and I think he'll have a blinder, but I don't think it'll do much to tell us whether he's up to international standard on a regular basis.

Puja