With a squad named, its time to start getting excited. Particularly as it was named about a week ago. For those who can't remember it, this is the squad:
Catt, Genge, Marler, Mullan
Cole, Sinckler
Hartley, George, Taylor
Ewels, Itoje, Kruis, Launchbury, Lawes
Clifford, Harrison, Haskell, Hughes, Williams, Wood
Youngs, Care
Ford, Farrell, Lozowski
Daly, Joseph, Slade, Te'o
May, Nowell, Watson, Yarde
Brown
To a certain extent, there's not a lot to say here. Its very much a business as usual squad with everyone bar Catt, Williams and Lozowski previously involved. However, there's a few points of interest.
Uncle Eddie clearly wants Marler in the team asap and isn't sure when that will be, but the inclusion of both Genge and Catt points to an interesting call. Genge had one of the shooting stars of Jones' reign until missing the most recent training squad with Catt getting the nod. I've no idea who'll get the nod for the bench if Marler does miss some games but in any case, spare a thought for Paul Hill, another of the shooting stars who's now not making the squad at all. That might be a sign of Genge's fate as well - a team looking for more experienced scrummagers. We'll see. If Genge does join Hill in the cold, it wouldn't be the worst thing. Sparing young props heavy work loads is always a good thing and so too is Jones' philosophy of making the kids work for it.
Speaking of kids working for it, Ewels can congratulate himself on a job well done in making his first Six Nations squad. He's probably going to be holding tackle bags most of the time, fitness permitting, but its still a big step up for him. It also hints at the possibility of a big step back for Itoje - why else do you need five locks? In Robshaw's absence, Itoje is almost certainly the safest bet for England's blindside and heaven knows the flankers in the squad aren't making a man excited to play them. You'd imagine Itoje would end up besides Hughes in that case. That's a lot of raw talent but I wouldn't be surprised if come mid-point in the Six Nations, we were all pining for Robshaw and Vunipola.
The general assumption in the papers seems to be that May and Nowell are in pole position for starting shirts, with Watson's spell out costing him in the pecking order. If so, this opens up some interesting questions about who gets to sit on the bench. Te'o and Watson would seem to be the obvious pairing, covering everything and offering a few changes in plan. Jones doesn't always put too much stock in that sort of thing though and both Daly and Slade have displayed added versatility under him. In short, it could be anyone.
In any case, the real enemy this window is complacency. Which is not to dismiss the other teams - Ireland in Dublin should be a real challenge - or the impact of the injured. Those things matter a lot. However, Jones' reign to date has revealed an England team whose peak performance allows them to cope with those things (although they are yet to play an in form Ireland). The question is how long can they keep this up?
My prediction for this spring would be four wins and a coin toss as to who takes the Grand Slam in Dublin. Welsh folk may bristle at that one but with Gatland away, I reckon it would be an upset for them to win, Cardiff or no. And its now an upset when England lose to not-NZ in Twickenham until proven otherwise. Soon we'll see how true this holds.
p.s.
I'm a big fan of the U20 6N as a way to spend a Friday night. I haven't been paying too much attention to the squad this time round, so I'm just going to link you a pretty good review of England's squad I found elsewhere.
Wednesday, 25 January 2017
Friday, 20 January 2017
Ten things that really annoy me on a rugby pitch
There are few things more satisfying than playing a good game of rugby and one of them's playing an awful game where the other team don't have a hope. My uncanny ability to pull a muscle has so far limited the amount of this I've done so far this season but I've managed my latest comeback and my gods it is good.
However, there are a few niggling concerns. A few things that mar the enjoyment. Frustrations that I believe others can share, not least because most people reading this play with me and I'm fucking atrocious. So - tongue firmly in cheek - the ten things that annoy me most on a rugby pitch.
1) Getting up from a ruck and seeing the backs drop it/slice it out on the full/give an intercept pass/everything else negative. Bonus marks if it wasn't actually a back but rather a forward who's convinced he has mad skillz.
2) Every time someone gets a bit roughed up - high tackle, collision off the ball, that sort of thing - and someone runs in to start a pushing match. Not to punch them but just to have a good push. Half the time whoever did it is a good ten yards away from what happened by the time they got there.
3) Being about to get up from a ruck only to have next phase's pick and go land right on you because someone decided they could run upright into the biggest player around. They couldn't and now both of them are about to compress your kidneys.
4) Picture it. Its been raining for three days before the game and there's somehow another three days worth of rain coming down right now. You've seen ploughed fields more suitable for rugby and the ball's greasier than cheap chicken. Someone's made a break. He's got support. The full-back tackles him and, rather than go to ground and trust his team to ruck over, he goes for the death or glory offload. Needless to say, there won't be glory but, honestly, even if there was, I'd still be annoyed. Taking high risk moves because they're more fun it part and parcel of social rugby but can people at least wait for good conditions before pretending they're Fijian?
5) On a similar note, getting up from a ruck to see your team halfway up the pitch with a gilt edged opportunity only to watch them somehow bollocks it up. Not only did they not get the try, you've now got to sprint up there instead of casually sauntering back to the halfway line and the water bottles.
6) There's also the annoyance of getting up from a ruck and seeing that the ball's been dotted down without a clue how it happened. Couldn't they have waited that extra few seconds for you to share in the emotional thrill? Also, for some strange reason, these always seem to involve thirty yard runs by props, even if the last ruck was five yards away from the line.
7) Poorly thought out tap penalty moves. We've all seen them, we all know them, we all hate them. Bonus points if the intended receiver wanders off into the backline and the scrum-half panics and picks the fly-half as a crash ball option after a good three seconds of dithering. Or the receiver is already level with the scrum-half by the time he's tapped the ball. Or when a forward takes it and thinks he'll dummy a pass and go himself. Or...
8) I hate dogging on refs. They come along and get it in the ear just so I can have a good time. That's not right really. However, sometimes we do the things we hate, because some refs don't make it easy for themselves. The ref I've come to dread the most is young, keen, knows the laws really well and has great eyesight. The average game of rugby at any level has a potential infringement every five seconds, nevermind at my level. A good ref knows what's important and what's not. Pedantic refs who do not are a misery, particularly when they don't have a sense of humour. No one plays rugby to have a penalty every thirty seconds.
9) Quick throw ins. There are two types of quick throw ins in this world. The first is when there's no one around at all and the forwards have to sprint up the pitch rather than having their well deserved break. The second is when there is someone around and the poor receiver is going to get buried. By some strange quirk of fate, the former only ever seems to happen to the opposition and the latter only ever seems to happen to my team. I wouldn't be quite so annoyed by them if it was the other way around.
10) Doing these things myself. It is easy to be forgiving and slap your team mate on the back and say "Don't worry, heads up". Its a lot harder to be forgiving when you're the knucklehead fucking up everything for everyone else. So the worst thing really is doing things like this myself. Admittedly my style of play means a lot of them just don't happen very often, but I still remember the time I threw a really sloppy offload...
... when already over the try line.
But I'm sure scrum-halves have a very different list of annoyances which contain things I am guilty of.
Anyway. There we go. I apologise for wasting two minutes of your life.
However, there are a few niggling concerns. A few things that mar the enjoyment. Frustrations that I believe others can share, not least because most people reading this play with me and I'm fucking atrocious. So - tongue firmly in cheek - the ten things that annoy me most on a rugby pitch.
1) Getting up from a ruck and seeing the backs drop it/slice it out on the full/give an intercept pass/everything else negative. Bonus marks if it wasn't actually a back but rather a forward who's convinced he has mad skillz.
2) Every time someone gets a bit roughed up - high tackle, collision off the ball, that sort of thing - and someone runs in to start a pushing match. Not to punch them but just to have a good push. Half the time whoever did it is a good ten yards away from what happened by the time they got there.
3) Being about to get up from a ruck only to have next phase's pick and go land right on you because someone decided they could run upright into the biggest player around. They couldn't and now both of them are about to compress your kidneys.
4) Picture it. Its been raining for three days before the game and there's somehow another three days worth of rain coming down right now. You've seen ploughed fields more suitable for rugby and the ball's greasier than cheap chicken. Someone's made a break. He's got support. The full-back tackles him and, rather than go to ground and trust his team to ruck over, he goes for the death or glory offload. Needless to say, there won't be glory but, honestly, even if there was, I'd still be annoyed. Taking high risk moves because they're more fun it part and parcel of social rugby but can people at least wait for good conditions before pretending they're Fijian?
5) On a similar note, getting up from a ruck to see your team halfway up the pitch with a gilt edged opportunity only to watch them somehow bollocks it up. Not only did they not get the try, you've now got to sprint up there instead of casually sauntering back to the halfway line and the water bottles.
6) There's also the annoyance of getting up from a ruck and seeing that the ball's been dotted down without a clue how it happened. Couldn't they have waited that extra few seconds for you to share in the emotional thrill? Also, for some strange reason, these always seem to involve thirty yard runs by props, even if the last ruck was five yards away from the line.
7) Poorly thought out tap penalty moves. We've all seen them, we all know them, we all hate them. Bonus points if the intended receiver wanders off into the backline and the scrum-half panics and picks the fly-half as a crash ball option after a good three seconds of dithering. Or the receiver is already level with the scrum-half by the time he's tapped the ball. Or when a forward takes it and thinks he'll dummy a pass and go himself. Or...
8) I hate dogging on refs. They come along and get it in the ear just so I can have a good time. That's not right really. However, sometimes we do the things we hate, because some refs don't make it easy for themselves. The ref I've come to dread the most is young, keen, knows the laws really well and has great eyesight. The average game of rugby at any level has a potential infringement every five seconds, nevermind at my level. A good ref knows what's important and what's not. Pedantic refs who do not are a misery, particularly when they don't have a sense of humour. No one plays rugby to have a penalty every thirty seconds.
9) Quick throw ins. There are two types of quick throw ins in this world. The first is when there's no one around at all and the forwards have to sprint up the pitch rather than having their well deserved break. The second is when there is someone around and the poor receiver is going to get buried. By some strange quirk of fate, the former only ever seems to happen to the opposition and the latter only ever seems to happen to my team. I wouldn't be quite so annoyed by them if it was the other way around.
10) Doing these things myself. It is easy to be forgiving and slap your team mate on the back and say "Don't worry, heads up". Its a lot harder to be forgiving when you're the knucklehead fucking up everything for everyone else. So the worst thing really is doing things like this myself. Admittedly my style of play means a lot of them just don't happen very often, but I still remember the time I threw a really sloppy offload...
... when already over the try line.
But I'm sure scrum-halves have a very different list of annoyances which contain things I am guilty of.
Anyway. There we go. I apologise for wasting two minutes of your life.
Friday, 6 January 2017
Eddie and Clive
In proof that even broken clocks get it right twice a day, the Mail have posted a pretty interesting interview of Eddie Jones with Lord Baldermort asking the questions. Its well worth reading as a rough guide to what we may expect this year and going forwards from England. For those who don't want to, here's a rough summary of the important bits.
1) The Lions tour will impact on the year
Yes, I know, not a surprise, but Eddie's talking about losing 10-15 players for the Summer and maybe resting them in the Autumn as well. The latter bit's not usual if memory serves but makes sense. The players are taking on huge workloads and if we want them to be around for the World Cup, something has to give. Better to do it at a time of the coach's choosing when they need it most.
What there isn't is any talk of resting front line players who don't make the Lions, like Lancaster did in 2013. This seems understandable if England are going to get stripped as bare as Eddie and anyone who doesn't believe Gatland is totally biased expect. There'll need to be as much experience around as possible to give the many noobs a chance of making it. Eddie talks up the two windows post-Six Nations as a chance to produce great 3rd and 4th choice players and says "If we can sit down in the last week of November and say we have got 45 guys who can play Test rugby at the level that will be required at the 2019 World Cup, then this year will have been an enormous year for us."
2) Two years, two years and three months; the projects in winning a World Cup
When challenged on whether Hartley is a World Cup winning captain, Eddie said he saw the World Cup as three projects. The first two years, the next two years, then the last three months. Right now Eddie's focused on the first two years and says Hartley will do a fantastic job for those. Then they assess what happens for the next two.
Reading between the lines, we can expect a few changes to the team once we've exited the first project. I'm not going to bet on Hartley being one of the victims, but I wouldn't bet against it either. Other obvious potential victims include Haskshaw, Mike Brown, and one of Ford and Farrell. That includes a lot of Eddie's current leadership group so I'm definitely not betting on all of them going but it seems likely that the first project involves grooming new leaders.
3) Ideas from the players
Speaking of leadership, Eddie said that he wants 80% of the ideas coming from the players by the World Cup, and only 20% from the coaches. He reckons its currently 50-50 and that a year ago it was all from the coaches. As Eddie says, "the players must own the game". Its great to hear him target this, but looking at the current England team, you wonder how many of them are genuinely capable of doing that. This could play a big part in shaping who's part of the next England team and who's not.
4) Beating New Zealand
Eddie tried playing the Maori All Blacks with a lot of running the ball and he tried it with a lot of structured play. He lost the first 60-15 and the second 19-18. So cancel all thoughts of trying to beat them at their own game.
The subject of beating New Zealand comes up a lot in this interview. His assessment of the situation is as follows:
1) The Lions tour will impact on the year
Yes, I know, not a surprise, but Eddie's talking about losing 10-15 players for the Summer and maybe resting them in the Autumn as well. The latter bit's not usual if memory serves but makes sense. The players are taking on huge workloads and if we want them to be around for the World Cup, something has to give. Better to do it at a time of the coach's choosing when they need it most.
What there isn't is any talk of resting front line players who don't make the Lions, like Lancaster did in 2013. This seems understandable if England are going to get stripped as bare as Eddie and anyone who doesn't believe Gatland is totally biased expect. There'll need to be as much experience around as possible to give the many noobs a chance of making it. Eddie talks up the two windows post-Six Nations as a chance to produce great 3rd and 4th choice players and says "If we can sit down in the last week of November and say we have got 45 guys who can play Test rugby at the level that will be required at the 2019 World Cup, then this year will have been an enormous year for us."
2) Two years, two years and three months; the projects in winning a World Cup
When challenged on whether Hartley is a World Cup winning captain, Eddie said he saw the World Cup as three projects. The first two years, the next two years, then the last three months. Right now Eddie's focused on the first two years and says Hartley will do a fantastic job for those. Then they assess what happens for the next two.
Reading between the lines, we can expect a few changes to the team once we've exited the first project. I'm not going to bet on Hartley being one of the victims, but I wouldn't bet against it either. Other obvious potential victims include Haskshaw, Mike Brown, and one of Ford and Farrell. That includes a lot of Eddie's current leadership group so I'm definitely not betting on all of them going but it seems likely that the first project involves grooming new leaders.
3) Ideas from the players
Speaking of leadership, Eddie said that he wants 80% of the ideas coming from the players by the World Cup, and only 20% from the coaches. He reckons its currently 50-50 and that a year ago it was all from the coaches. As Eddie says, "the players must own the game". Its great to hear him target this, but looking at the current England team, you wonder how many of them are genuinely capable of doing that. This could play a big part in shaping who's part of the next England team and who's not.
4) Beating New Zealand
Eddie tried playing the Maori All Blacks with a lot of running the ball and he tried it with a lot of structured play. He lost the first 60-15 and the second 19-18. So cancel all thoughts of trying to beat them at their own game.
The subject of beating New Zealand comes up a lot in this interview. His assessment of the situation is as follows:
"The only way you beat them is to minimise that [unstructured play], don’t give them any loose kicks or loose ball. You don’t necessarily have to play long phases against them and if you kick, make sure you have got a good kick-chase so they have to kick the ball back to you. You minimise the situations they enjoy most and maximise those they enjoy least."
Its possible to see this as a call for very boring rugby and it may turn out that way, but that runs counter to everything we've seen of England's ruthlessness in going wide when its on this year. What it is definitely talking about is suffocating them and giving them no chance for unstructured play. That is only sensible.
He also talks about having a forward pack that has pace and power as an area where England can potentially achieve an advantage over New Zealand. We've seen him go straight for adding that with newcomers like Itoje, Clifford, George, Genge, Hill, Sinckler and on and on. Interestingly though he doesn't seem too bothered that his backs aren't physically imposing. Bluff or fact?
The only sobering note is that Eddie emphasises the importance of tempo but agrees with Lord Baldermort's statement that many clubs are playing slow rugby. When asked if he can the need for tempo across to the clubs, Eddie's response is: "No we can’t and we are not really going to try." Lets hope the clubs see the light on their own; another year of frustration dealing with the underfunded Celts in Europe might have been a step forwards.
5) The best is yet to come
Finally, Eddie says England haven't played as well as they can. That's obvious to everyone who can see lightening and hear thunder but it is good to see the coach acknowledge it and point out areas of improvement. The set-piece, defence and attack are all mentioned - or as its otherwise known, rugby - but he talks about the set-piece most. And as he says, there's still a lot of players developing.
What we can expect, therefore, hopefully, is an influx of pace and power (particularly in the pack) starting this summer but only really graduating in 2018. Once we get the pack, once we get the platform, that's when the attacking game can really take off. And from there? Victory. Hopefully.
I still remain slightly sceptical of Eddie, largely because English rugby never has nice things so he can't be a nice thing. It all makes sense so far though. Here's hoping it doesn't stop - we certainly have reason to hope.
Thursday, 10 November 2016
England AI Preview
Lets start this with an odd statement: the more injuries England get, the more interested I am in these Autumn Internationals.
Not that I lacked interest, you understand. All international rugby is good international rugby and England have a complete an unbeaten calender year. The thing is that this year has come a little easy by the standards of international rugby. England’s main opponents in that time period - Wales, Ireland, Australia - were all below their usual standard. I don’t want to dismiss the impact of England’s pressure game and ferocity on them - good teams make other teams look bad - but all three of them had recently shown they could play better at this level.
It is a firm belief of mine that looking good as a coach is relatively easy when things are going well. Eddie Jones inherited a strong team where the main problems were morale, direction, and that last little bit of star quality. All he had to do was give them the first two and reap a waiting harvest with the latter; England have been crying out for a tight five ball carrier like Maro Itoje for a long, long time. Things have, by and large, gone well for him.
Not so much now. England had been fairly injury free in the first choice 23 since Jones took over. The loss of the first choice locks and wingers, as well as the injury to Haskell and just about everyone who may have replaced him, puts a very different complexion on things. And as a cherry on top, Joseph has dropped onto the bench amid reports of a groin injury.
I don’t want to overdo this argument. Jones’ unfamiliarity with his squad led him to a couple of iffy choices down in Australia and he made his own good fortune with his ruthlessness in changing what wasn’t working. And by and large, the men coming into the squad as injury replacements are highly talented players in their own right. This is a weakened England team but not a weak one. Nevertheless, I feel that we’ll have a better idea of just how good an England coach Jones is after this autumn.
The injury count could have been worse mind. There were doubts over Mako Vunipola and Hartley coming into this series - the presence of Tommy Taylor in the 25 squad prior to the final cull testament to the latter. Instead they’ll line up with Dan Cole against South Africa. On the bench are men who could have replaced them with zero fuss and will replace them with zero fuss during the second half. I’d even go so far as to say I’d prefer if Marler and George replaced Vunipola and Hartley in the starting team full stop. Kyle Sinckler has earned far less trust and it will be interesting to see how he goes. He’s an international class athlete - the question is whether he’s an international class prop. Don’t be surprised if Dan Cole plays a very long shift.
Joe Launchbury and Courtney Lawes fall more into the trusted variety of replacement. Indeed, I wish Jones played Launchbury a lot more. However, with Itoje being the all action man who has sparked England’s renaissance, and Kruis installed as lineout general, it will be a difficult task for man to keep their shirt. Dave Attwood returns to the bench and it will be interesting to see how he slots into Jones’ game plan. I came to the conclusion that Attwood simply wasn’t mobile enough for international rugby when Lancaster was in charge; others saw Attwood as harshly done by and providing the bulk that could have transformed England’s pack. The two opinions aren’t completely mutually exclusive and if Jones wants Attwood to cover less ground, we could see the best of the Bath lock.
In the back row, Tom Wood completes what was a very unlikely seeming reunion with Robshaw and Billy Vunipola at the start of Jones’ tenure. This is the man described by Uncle Eddie as ‘average’ and the man had a point. The rebuttal is that being an average international player is incredibly difficult, as witnessed by the lack of alternatives. He’s been fortunate with injury but I have a sneaking suspicion that Wood may very well take his chance. He won’t be surprised by the pace of the game, like Harrison was in Australia, and was always at his best playing a straight forwards abrasive game. He won’t hit as hard as Haskell but his decision making at the breakdown is better. On the bench, Nathan Hughes gets his chance despite reports of being underwhelming for Wasps. Neither stardom nor failure would surprise me if/when he gets onto the pitch. He has the power to be a star; his inexperience and lack of discipline could see him fail. I suspect he’ll be somewhere in the middle.
The 9-10-12 combo remains set and could do so for some time. Many England fans cry out for deliverance from Ben Youngs, refusing to believe a scrum-half with such a comparatively poor pass and tardy decision making at the breakdown can't be good enough. I disagree - for me he's a game breaker around the fringes and does a lot of the simple things well enough. Whatever the truth is, Youngs' service hasn't been slowing down George Ford too much. Ford looked like the heir to Carter as the world's next great fly-half during the tour to Australia. Everybody knows about his skill in opening up defences but his ability to look up and put a team all the way back into their half with his boot is becoming more and more talked about. Whether he could be the complete package and kicks the goals will remain unproven for some with Farrell there. When things have been going well, this trio have been devastating, but whether it will work if the pack's forwards momentum goes missing and someone needs to physically challenge the line remains to be seen.
It certainly won't be Elliot Daly physically challenging the line. Anyone who isn't excited to see Daly finally getting his chance lacks either eyes or soul, but I think we can all agree out and out power isn't in his arsenal. Part of me expects to be disappointed; Joseph hasn't been able to find much space in this system and Daly is similar enough that I don't see things being too much different. Part of me expects Daly to find more gaps because opponents won't be watching him as closely. Yes, the fence is very comfy. In any case, the real questions about Daly are what happens when the other team has the ball. There's no doubt he can tackle but he hasn't proven that he's got the same judgement and defensive positioning as Joseph, who's quietly proven himself a very good international defender. If things go wrong, expect to see Joseph sprang from the bench early.
On the wings we have Not-Semesa Rokoduguni and Not-Semesa Rokoduguni. The exclusion of Rokoduguni is mystifying. He's the most powerful winger England have, arguably the best pure try scorer, a guy who can shut down prime Savea in defence, and seemingly without flaw at Premiership level. Whatever Jones is seeing that the rest of us don't, I'd love to know. Yarde and May aren't bad players by any stretch but better than Rokoduguni? In any case, they have the start and if they play well they can stay in the line up when Watson and Nowell return, particularly if Mike Brown continues to underwhelm. That will involve doing better than Watson and Nowell did with their defensive duties in the summer and if the team continues to expose their wings to so many 2 on 1s, it will be very difficult for them. If it does go very difficult, it wouldn't be a surprise to see Joseph brought on here.
This leaves one player unmentioned: Ben Te'o. I've been a fan of his since watching him in a Leinster shirt and with Tuilagi simply unable to stay fit, Te'o is possibly England's only international class battering ram. There's no guarantees he'll step up on the next level up - I reckon he will though and, if the pack does struggle with no Itoje, he could be crucial in this match. I was going to talk a little about player eligibility and compare the situation with him and Hughes but then I realised I don't care. They're playing, that's the main thing.
And they're playing in a decent team. This is a pleasant new situation where I look at an England team and I look at the SH team in question and I don't think there's much to pick in terms of talent. England have home advantage, South Africa have the confidence that comes from knowing you've got an opponent's number. Everything points to a nice close match - everything except the coaching staffs. Allister Coetzee hasn't looked at home in international rugby so far. Eddie Jones? Well, he's looked quite good so far.
Time to find out just how good he is.
Not that I lacked interest, you understand. All international rugby is good international rugby and England have a complete an unbeaten calender year. The thing is that this year has come a little easy by the standards of international rugby. England’s main opponents in that time period - Wales, Ireland, Australia - were all below their usual standard. I don’t want to dismiss the impact of England’s pressure game and ferocity on them - good teams make other teams look bad - but all three of them had recently shown they could play better at this level.
It is a firm belief of mine that looking good as a coach is relatively easy when things are going well. Eddie Jones inherited a strong team where the main problems were morale, direction, and that last little bit of star quality. All he had to do was give them the first two and reap a waiting harvest with the latter; England have been crying out for a tight five ball carrier like Maro Itoje for a long, long time. Things have, by and large, gone well for him.
Not so much now. England had been fairly injury free in the first choice 23 since Jones took over. The loss of the first choice locks and wingers, as well as the injury to Haskell and just about everyone who may have replaced him, puts a very different complexion on things. And as a cherry on top, Joseph has dropped onto the bench amid reports of a groin injury.
I don’t want to overdo this argument. Jones’ unfamiliarity with his squad led him to a couple of iffy choices down in Australia and he made his own good fortune with his ruthlessness in changing what wasn’t working. And by and large, the men coming into the squad as injury replacements are highly talented players in their own right. This is a weakened England team but not a weak one. Nevertheless, I feel that we’ll have a better idea of just how good an England coach Jones is after this autumn.
The injury count could have been worse mind. There were doubts over Mako Vunipola and Hartley coming into this series - the presence of Tommy Taylor in the 25 squad prior to the final cull testament to the latter. Instead they’ll line up with Dan Cole against South Africa. On the bench are men who could have replaced them with zero fuss and will replace them with zero fuss during the second half. I’d even go so far as to say I’d prefer if Marler and George replaced Vunipola and Hartley in the starting team full stop. Kyle Sinckler has earned far less trust and it will be interesting to see how he goes. He’s an international class athlete - the question is whether he’s an international class prop. Don’t be surprised if Dan Cole plays a very long shift.
Joe Launchbury and Courtney Lawes fall more into the trusted variety of replacement. Indeed, I wish Jones played Launchbury a lot more. However, with Itoje being the all action man who has sparked England’s renaissance, and Kruis installed as lineout general, it will be a difficult task for man to keep their shirt. Dave Attwood returns to the bench and it will be interesting to see how he slots into Jones’ game plan. I came to the conclusion that Attwood simply wasn’t mobile enough for international rugby when Lancaster was in charge; others saw Attwood as harshly done by and providing the bulk that could have transformed England’s pack. The two opinions aren’t completely mutually exclusive and if Jones wants Attwood to cover less ground, we could see the best of the Bath lock.
In the back row, Tom Wood completes what was a very unlikely seeming reunion with Robshaw and Billy Vunipola at the start of Jones’ tenure. This is the man described by Uncle Eddie as ‘average’ and the man had a point. The rebuttal is that being an average international player is incredibly difficult, as witnessed by the lack of alternatives. He’s been fortunate with injury but I have a sneaking suspicion that Wood may very well take his chance. He won’t be surprised by the pace of the game, like Harrison was in Australia, and was always at his best playing a straight forwards abrasive game. He won’t hit as hard as Haskell but his decision making at the breakdown is better. On the bench, Nathan Hughes gets his chance despite reports of being underwhelming for Wasps. Neither stardom nor failure would surprise me if/when he gets onto the pitch. He has the power to be a star; his inexperience and lack of discipline could see him fail. I suspect he’ll be somewhere in the middle.
The 9-10-12 combo remains set and could do so for some time. Many England fans cry out for deliverance from Ben Youngs, refusing to believe a scrum-half with such a comparatively poor pass and tardy decision making at the breakdown can't be good enough. I disagree - for me he's a game breaker around the fringes and does a lot of the simple things well enough. Whatever the truth is, Youngs' service hasn't been slowing down George Ford too much. Ford looked like the heir to Carter as the world's next great fly-half during the tour to Australia. Everybody knows about his skill in opening up defences but his ability to look up and put a team all the way back into their half with his boot is becoming more and more talked about. Whether he could be the complete package and kicks the goals will remain unproven for some with Farrell there. When things have been going well, this trio have been devastating, but whether it will work if the pack's forwards momentum goes missing and someone needs to physically challenge the line remains to be seen.
It certainly won't be Elliot Daly physically challenging the line. Anyone who isn't excited to see Daly finally getting his chance lacks either eyes or soul, but I think we can all agree out and out power isn't in his arsenal. Part of me expects to be disappointed; Joseph hasn't been able to find much space in this system and Daly is similar enough that I don't see things being too much different. Part of me expects Daly to find more gaps because opponents won't be watching him as closely. Yes, the fence is very comfy. In any case, the real questions about Daly are what happens when the other team has the ball. There's no doubt he can tackle but he hasn't proven that he's got the same judgement and defensive positioning as Joseph, who's quietly proven himself a very good international defender. If things go wrong, expect to see Joseph sprang from the bench early.
On the wings we have Not-Semesa Rokoduguni and Not-Semesa Rokoduguni. The exclusion of Rokoduguni is mystifying. He's the most powerful winger England have, arguably the best pure try scorer, a guy who can shut down prime Savea in defence, and seemingly without flaw at Premiership level. Whatever Jones is seeing that the rest of us don't, I'd love to know. Yarde and May aren't bad players by any stretch but better than Rokoduguni? In any case, they have the start and if they play well they can stay in the line up when Watson and Nowell return, particularly if Mike Brown continues to underwhelm. That will involve doing better than Watson and Nowell did with their defensive duties in the summer and if the team continues to expose their wings to so many 2 on 1s, it will be very difficult for them. If it does go very difficult, it wouldn't be a surprise to see Joseph brought on here.
This leaves one player unmentioned: Ben Te'o. I've been a fan of his since watching him in a Leinster shirt and with Tuilagi simply unable to stay fit, Te'o is possibly England's only international class battering ram. There's no guarantees he'll step up on the next level up - I reckon he will though and, if the pack does struggle with no Itoje, he could be crucial in this match. I was going to talk a little about player eligibility and compare the situation with him and Hughes but then I realised I don't care. They're playing, that's the main thing.
And they're playing in a decent team. This is a pleasant new situation where I look at an England team and I look at the SH team in question and I don't think there's much to pick in terms of talent. England have home advantage, South Africa have the confidence that comes from knowing you've got an opponent's number. Everything points to a nice close match - everything except the coaching staffs. Allister Coetzee hasn't looked at home in international rugby so far. Eddie Jones? Well, he's looked quite good so far.
Time to find out just how good he is.
Tuesday, 30 August 2016
A matter of trust
In the past week or so we have seen Owen Franks go uncited for what appears to be an eye gouge on Kane Douglas in the Bledisloe Cup. We have also seen Cillian Willis start legal proceedings against former club Sale for alleged clinical negligence over a career ending concussion. Two very different cases about how the game goes off the field but with a common link. The common link is trust.
There has been a huge amount of disbelief over the Franks non-citing. Of course there is. The video here (complete with music to let you know how evil Franks is) looks very much to me like contact was made with the eye and that Franks was looking to do so. I'm not a hundred per cent certain that's a gouge but based on that angle, its reckless contact with the eye area, an offence that usually results in eight or so weeks off.
The magic words in the last sentence though were 'based on that angle'. We've all seen the cameras tell us one thing from one angle and another from another. You'd like to think SANZAR have more camera angles than just two to work with. Maybe on one of them there was clearly no case to answer. Certainly Poite had a fantastic view of the incident (as Kiwi fans keep telling me) and felt no need to even penalise Franks.
Once again though, we've all seen the ref stare directly at a big decision and get it wrong according to the citing committee. As such, I do not trust Poite - or any other ref - to have definitely got that one right. More crucially, I do not trust the SANZAR citing committee.
Why should I? Any rugby fan with a brain has grown wearily accustomed by now to the random nature of the sport's disciplinary process. An offence may garner a ban one week and nothing the next. Complaints of bias and political influence are common place. I say this not to indicate that I believe them but merely to indicate the perceived scale of injustice. Fans often find the calls so bewildering that its easier to believe in conspiracy than it is to believe in incompetence.
If Cillian Willis is to be believed, there's some of that incompetence going around Sale too. According to the BBC report, Willis was twice treated for a head injury in a game with Saracens in March 2013, but was allowed to keep playing.
Given how little we know I'd be hesitant to say Sale have been negligent but in general I support the case. The majority of rugby fans I've talked to have. Again, this is an issue of trust. It is very plausible to us that a professional rugby club have treated an injury with too little caution. There is a never ending litany of stories from the sport of clubs doing so. Often, it should be noted, with the connivance of the players. Players want to play. The buck stops with the club though. It is up to coaches and medical staff to say "You have to come off."
By and large, I don't think fans trust the clubs to do the right thing. Just like they don't trust citing committees to do the right thing. And this is a problem. A lack of trust is corrosive. Sometimes it takes a long time for it to cause problems but usually, sooner or later, it does.
It is up to the various bodies involved whether they want to act on this. Issuing a video of an angle clearing Franks would stop the story dead. Of course, it would introduce a new standard for citing committees where they explain their work properly, with failures to do so being incredibly suspicious, but I think only people on citing committees would see this as a bad thing.
Similarly, Premiership clubs could look at the introduction of independent medical examiners, or just accept that concussion is an issue where erring on the side of caution is safer. Or introduce annual fMRI scans instead of relying on the neurological tests that we all know players cheat. Rugby has improved its stance on concussion but there is a way to go as we can see from this.
Taking such measures would help restore the trust of fans. We will now see whether those involved had any appetite for doing so - or whether they just want to avoid being sued.
There has been a huge amount of disbelief over the Franks non-citing. Of course there is. The video here (complete with music to let you know how evil Franks is) looks very much to me like contact was made with the eye and that Franks was looking to do so. I'm not a hundred per cent certain that's a gouge but based on that angle, its reckless contact with the eye area, an offence that usually results in eight or so weeks off.
The magic words in the last sentence though were 'based on that angle'. We've all seen the cameras tell us one thing from one angle and another from another. You'd like to think SANZAR have more camera angles than just two to work with. Maybe on one of them there was clearly no case to answer. Certainly Poite had a fantastic view of the incident (as Kiwi fans keep telling me) and felt no need to even penalise Franks.
Once again though, we've all seen the ref stare directly at a big decision and get it wrong according to the citing committee. As such, I do not trust Poite - or any other ref - to have definitely got that one right. More crucially, I do not trust the SANZAR citing committee.
Why should I? Any rugby fan with a brain has grown wearily accustomed by now to the random nature of the sport's disciplinary process. An offence may garner a ban one week and nothing the next. Complaints of bias and political influence are common place. I say this not to indicate that I believe them but merely to indicate the perceived scale of injustice. Fans often find the calls so bewildering that its easier to believe in conspiracy than it is to believe in incompetence.
If Cillian Willis is to be believed, there's some of that incompetence going around Sale too. According to the BBC report, Willis was twice treated for a head injury in a game with Saracens in March 2013, but was allowed to keep playing.
Given how little we know I'd be hesitant to say Sale have been negligent but in general I support the case. The majority of rugby fans I've talked to have. Again, this is an issue of trust. It is very plausible to us that a professional rugby club have treated an injury with too little caution. There is a never ending litany of stories from the sport of clubs doing so. Often, it should be noted, with the connivance of the players. Players want to play. The buck stops with the club though. It is up to coaches and medical staff to say "You have to come off."
By and large, I don't think fans trust the clubs to do the right thing. Just like they don't trust citing committees to do the right thing. And this is a problem. A lack of trust is corrosive. Sometimes it takes a long time for it to cause problems but usually, sooner or later, it does.
It is up to the various bodies involved whether they want to act on this. Issuing a video of an angle clearing Franks would stop the story dead. Of course, it would introduce a new standard for citing committees where they explain their work properly, with failures to do so being incredibly suspicious, but I think only people on citing committees would see this as a bad thing.
Similarly, Premiership clubs could look at the introduction of independent medical examiners, or just accept that concussion is an issue where erring on the side of caution is safer. Or introduce annual fMRI scans instead of relying on the neurological tests that we all know players cheat. Rugby has improved its stance on concussion but there is a way to go as we can see from this.
Taking such measures would help restore the trust of fans. We will now see whether those involved had any appetite for doing so - or whether they just want to avoid being sued.
Monday, 8 August 2016
A quick look at the provisional EPS backs
SH
Care, Robson, Simpson, Youngs B
One of the biggest causes of bellyaching about the selection to tour Australia was the presence of only two scrum-halves.A great many England fans have run out of patience with the continued flaws in the games of Danny Care and Ben Youngs and consequently were quite disgruntled to see them given the run of the place during the summer. By naming Wasps duo Joe Simpson and Dan Robson to the squad, Eddie Jones is now threatening to end the duopoly that's dominated the England scrum-half shirt for the last six years.
Until we see a match day squad though, it is only a threat. Youngs and Care will look at Simpson and Robson and they will not be terrified. Simpson has always been birds of a feather with Youngs and Care - electrifying break, ramshackle basics. That he has improved recently in the last couple of years is beyond doubt but whether he's now a better choice for England isn't. It is not a coincidence that his upsurge in form has come with Wasps renaissance as a side. Dan Robson too is a beneficiary of this new machine. Everyone thought he had potential at Gloucester but the calls for him to be an international only truly took off at Wasps. He probably has the best combination of passing and kicking out of any English scrum-half in contention but that does not mean he is the complete article. The Saxons' second test in South Africa showed that.
A few political commentators have described their 2015 vote for Corbyn as being "not for the surfer, but the wave". It is an analogy that works well in rugby. The team's form is the wave. The individual player is the surfer. All four scrum-halves have put in some fantastic performances at every level they've played but, as is perhaps traditional for the position, have form for going badly missing when things get a bit messy. They are surfers, utterly dependent on the team to make the wave for them. For a player to beat the Youngs/Care duopoly, they will have to prove they are more. Simpson probably isn't. Robson maybe will be. Until someone improves on them it will be the same old story - England winning most of their matches, the scrum-halves vilified as inadequate. There are worse places to be.
FH
Farrell, Ford
From one big complaint of the summer to another - the lack of Cipriani.
Look, there isn't a lot to be said about Ford and Farrell at this point. We know what we're getting, even if there are disagreements on what exactly that is. There have been some very big criticisms of both players (guilty as charged here) but they are both definitely capable enough. The main question therefore is what happens if one or both were to get injured.
Currently the squad suggests the plan is Henry Slade. His professional rugby experience to date is mostly in the centre. He has done enough at fly-half to suggest he could be a future international there but it would be a very brave man who played someone with his limited experience as their third choice fly-half. This 45 man squad seemingly only has two fly-halves.
So why not Cipriani? If not him, then why not Freddie Burns, who was back to his best for Leicester prior to getting injured. They are both international class fly-halves; its not like they'd be including a no-hoper just to make the numbers up. It seems likely Jones is very deliberately focusing everything on Ford and Farrell, but would having a third fly-half around really be such a distraction? Is having that extra forward around really worth the risk that we'll thrust out an unprepared player should both fly-halves get injured? The chances of that happening are small, but not so small as to be completely ignored.
The decision to omit Cipriani (or like player) is confusing. Hopefully it will not be damaging.
C
Daly, Farrell, Joseph, Marchant, Slade, Te'o, Tuilagi
This is a lot of centres.
The easiest to comment on are the speedsters. Joseph has the shirt, Daly deserves a crack at it, Marchant is a very exciting prospect for the future. The only real note of interest here is that the presence of Marchant would seem to indicate Jones has committed fully to the idea of a speedster at outside-centre.
The question mark is over inside-centre. Farrell has the shirt. There is no pressing "move or lose" reason for him not to have it. Plenty of good reasons, but nothing argument clinching. The presence of Henry Slade says a playmaking centre is more than a convenience. But playmaking is the second last word we'd associate with Tuilagi and Te'o, coming right after small.
Does Jones know how best to use these centres? Was Burrell's first test start a reflection on Jones' desire for physicality or a temporary loss of faith in Ford? Tuilagi didn't make the tour, Te'o missed training days before the first test due to injury. Would things have been different if they'd started that first test? Eight tests in and it feels like England are still somewhat in flux in this position. How does this end?
The most likely answer for now seems to be Farrell at 12 with Te'o or Tuilagi on the bench. Such a move would give England a lot of flexibility and a difficult to cope with Plan B. You could easily reverse that and have the big man start too. But what if Jones continues his love affair with the 6-2 bench? You could cover the whole back-line with only one centre but a back three man seems more likely.
In summation, the selection seems reminiscent of Lancaster's days. An awful lot of possible answers for playing in the centres but very little certainty and very little appetite to test them. Hopefully the situation will start to resolve itself in the autumn.
WI
May, Nowell, Rokoduguni, Watson, Yarde
Not a good EPS if your name began with C. Ashton has dropped from EPS to Saxons to potentially not involved at all in just a few short months. Its a bit early to say anything definite about whether he's done but it would no longer be a surprise. Similarly, if Wade never gets a chance to show his skills on the biggest stage it will be a crying shame, but no longer a shock.
That cannot be stated with absolute confidence as all the players named have something of the curate's egg to them. The four of them not named Semesa Rokoduguni have all shown top drawer attacking ability and considerable defensive weaknesses. Its always a struggle to defend a wing once the opposition have created space and numbers, but Watson and Nowell made it look particularly hard this summer. May is usually good in those situations but has not always completed his tackles. Marland Yarde possibly combines the worst of both worlds.
Rokoduguni - arguably the most dangerous of the five at Premiership level - has had less chances at international level. One of them in fact. That time he was very solid in defence and forgotten about in attack. He could be the best of them but at the age of 28, Jones is unlikely to be patient with him. It happens very soon or not at all.
Wing is a position waiting for talented players to add that extra 10% and nail down the shirt. Watson has come closest and will almost certainly start this autumn, but an indifferent summer has hauled him back a little. However, while we wait for the perfect player, there is at least plenty of pace and power to be going on with. Cast your mind back to the time of Cueto, and reflect just how much worse it could be.
FB
Brown, Goode, Haley
Last but not least, the full-backs.
A considerable number of England fans would like Mike Brown dropped. The steady flow of small mistakes is eroding trust and concentrating attention on the flaws in his game. His lack of pace and linking play are both held up on these occasions. His strengths - the ability to make ground and contribute to try scoring chances - are often overlooked.
The problem with replacing Brown is every player must be replaced by someone better and Alex Goode has never shown himself to be that man. Maybe the times have a-changed and... well, maybe not. There's a lot of words on Alex Goode on this blog. More seem unnecessary until such time as Goode is on a pitch in an England shirt.
So if neither are happy* options - which may be an overstatement, particularly concerning Brown - then who? Anthony Watson? There's an interesting case to be made there but Mike Haley might be about to put a spanner in the works there. He backed up a strong season for Sale with an outstanding first test for the Saxons in South Africa before getting injured early in the second. He has shown every desirable trait at least in glimpses - pace, elusiveness, kicking, taking the high ball, linking - and at the age of 22, is still improving. With it possibly preferable to keep Watson's finishing ability out wide and few other young Englishmen getting regular time in the position, there is a window of opportunity opening if Haley is good enough to take advantage of it. We will see how highly Jones rates him but right now, Haley looks like to be one of the most exciting players in the EPS.
*It must be conceded that happy is very rarely a good adjective to use in connection with Mike Brown.
Care, Robson, Simpson, Youngs B
One of the biggest causes of bellyaching about the selection to tour Australia was the presence of only two scrum-halves.A great many England fans have run out of patience with the continued flaws in the games of Danny Care and Ben Youngs and consequently were quite disgruntled to see them given the run of the place during the summer. By naming Wasps duo Joe Simpson and Dan Robson to the squad, Eddie Jones is now threatening to end the duopoly that's dominated the England scrum-half shirt for the last six years.
Until we see a match day squad though, it is only a threat. Youngs and Care will look at Simpson and Robson and they will not be terrified. Simpson has always been birds of a feather with Youngs and Care - electrifying break, ramshackle basics. That he has improved recently in the last couple of years is beyond doubt but whether he's now a better choice for England isn't. It is not a coincidence that his upsurge in form has come with Wasps renaissance as a side. Dan Robson too is a beneficiary of this new machine. Everyone thought he had potential at Gloucester but the calls for him to be an international only truly took off at Wasps. He probably has the best combination of passing and kicking out of any English scrum-half in contention but that does not mean he is the complete article. The Saxons' second test in South Africa showed that.
A few political commentators have described their 2015 vote for Corbyn as being "not for the surfer, but the wave". It is an analogy that works well in rugby. The team's form is the wave. The individual player is the surfer. All four scrum-halves have put in some fantastic performances at every level they've played but, as is perhaps traditional for the position, have form for going badly missing when things get a bit messy. They are surfers, utterly dependent on the team to make the wave for them. For a player to beat the Youngs/Care duopoly, they will have to prove they are more. Simpson probably isn't. Robson maybe will be. Until someone improves on them it will be the same old story - England winning most of their matches, the scrum-halves vilified as inadequate. There are worse places to be.
FH
Farrell, Ford
From one big complaint of the summer to another - the lack of Cipriani.
Look, there isn't a lot to be said about Ford and Farrell at this point. We know what we're getting, even if there are disagreements on what exactly that is. There have been some very big criticisms of both players (guilty as charged here) but they are both definitely capable enough. The main question therefore is what happens if one or both were to get injured.
Currently the squad suggests the plan is Henry Slade. His professional rugby experience to date is mostly in the centre. He has done enough at fly-half to suggest he could be a future international there but it would be a very brave man who played someone with his limited experience as their third choice fly-half. This 45 man squad seemingly only has two fly-halves.
So why not Cipriani? If not him, then why not Freddie Burns, who was back to his best for Leicester prior to getting injured. They are both international class fly-halves; its not like they'd be including a no-hoper just to make the numbers up. It seems likely Jones is very deliberately focusing everything on Ford and Farrell, but would having a third fly-half around really be such a distraction? Is having that extra forward around really worth the risk that we'll thrust out an unprepared player should both fly-halves get injured? The chances of that happening are small, but not so small as to be completely ignored.
The decision to omit Cipriani (or like player) is confusing. Hopefully it will not be damaging.
C
Daly, Farrell, Joseph, Marchant, Slade, Te'o, Tuilagi
This is a lot of centres.
The easiest to comment on are the speedsters. Joseph has the shirt, Daly deserves a crack at it, Marchant is a very exciting prospect for the future. The only real note of interest here is that the presence of Marchant would seem to indicate Jones has committed fully to the idea of a speedster at outside-centre.
The question mark is over inside-centre. Farrell has the shirt. There is no pressing "move or lose" reason for him not to have it. Plenty of good reasons, but nothing argument clinching. The presence of Henry Slade says a playmaking centre is more than a convenience. But playmaking is the second last word we'd associate with Tuilagi and Te'o, coming right after small.
Does Jones know how best to use these centres? Was Burrell's first test start a reflection on Jones' desire for physicality or a temporary loss of faith in Ford? Tuilagi didn't make the tour, Te'o missed training days before the first test due to injury. Would things have been different if they'd started that first test? Eight tests in and it feels like England are still somewhat in flux in this position. How does this end?
The most likely answer for now seems to be Farrell at 12 with Te'o or Tuilagi on the bench. Such a move would give England a lot of flexibility and a difficult to cope with Plan B. You could easily reverse that and have the big man start too. But what if Jones continues his love affair with the 6-2 bench? You could cover the whole back-line with only one centre but a back three man seems more likely.
In summation, the selection seems reminiscent of Lancaster's days. An awful lot of possible answers for playing in the centres but very little certainty and very little appetite to test them. Hopefully the situation will start to resolve itself in the autumn.
WI
May, Nowell, Rokoduguni, Watson, Yarde
Not a good EPS if your name began with C. Ashton has dropped from EPS to Saxons to potentially not involved at all in just a few short months. Its a bit early to say anything definite about whether he's done but it would no longer be a surprise. Similarly, if Wade never gets a chance to show his skills on the biggest stage it will be a crying shame, but no longer a shock.
That cannot be stated with absolute confidence as all the players named have something of the curate's egg to them. The four of them not named Semesa Rokoduguni have all shown top drawer attacking ability and considerable defensive weaknesses. Its always a struggle to defend a wing once the opposition have created space and numbers, but Watson and Nowell made it look particularly hard this summer. May is usually good in those situations but has not always completed his tackles. Marland Yarde possibly combines the worst of both worlds.
Rokoduguni - arguably the most dangerous of the five at Premiership level - has had less chances at international level. One of them in fact. That time he was very solid in defence and forgotten about in attack. He could be the best of them but at the age of 28, Jones is unlikely to be patient with him. It happens very soon or not at all.
Wing is a position waiting for talented players to add that extra 10% and nail down the shirt. Watson has come closest and will almost certainly start this autumn, but an indifferent summer has hauled him back a little. However, while we wait for the perfect player, there is at least plenty of pace and power to be going on with. Cast your mind back to the time of Cueto, and reflect just how much worse it could be.
FB
Brown, Goode, Haley
Last but not least, the full-backs.
A considerable number of England fans would like Mike Brown dropped. The steady flow of small mistakes is eroding trust and concentrating attention on the flaws in his game. His lack of pace and linking play are both held up on these occasions. His strengths - the ability to make ground and contribute to try scoring chances - are often overlooked.
The problem with replacing Brown is every player must be replaced by someone better and Alex Goode has never shown himself to be that man. Maybe the times have a-changed and... well, maybe not. There's a lot of words on Alex Goode on this blog. More seem unnecessary until such time as Goode is on a pitch in an England shirt.
So if neither are happy* options - which may be an overstatement, particularly concerning Brown - then who? Anthony Watson? There's an interesting case to be made there but Mike Haley might be about to put a spanner in the works there. He backed up a strong season for Sale with an outstanding first test for the Saxons in South Africa before getting injured early in the second. He has shown every desirable trait at least in glimpses - pace, elusiveness, kicking, taking the high ball, linking - and at the age of 22, is still improving. With it possibly preferable to keep Watson's finishing ability out wide and few other young Englishmen getting regular time in the position, there is a window of opportunity opening if Haley is good enough to take advantage of it. We will see how highly Jones rates him but right now, Haley looks like to be one of the most exciting players in the EPS.
*It must be conceded that happy is very rarely a good adjective to use in connection with Mike Brown.
Thursday, 4 August 2016
A quick look at the provisional EPS forwards
LHP
Genge, Marler, Mullan, Vunipola M
It should be noted straight away that this is a provisional squad and that things might change. The anger and approval directed at full squads is rarely proportionate with how much they actually mean at the best of times, nevermind when dealing with a 45 man squad that will be changed anyway.
This is said because the inclusion of four looseheads is slightly odd. Do we need four? If four is the minimum number for the front row, there would be four tightheads too. There are not. Is there any particular reason to have four? Ellis Genge is still incredibly raw. While Uncle Eddie's logic for including him for the future is obvious, it would not have been a sin to put him in England's development squad while he learns his trade with Leicester. He is not likely to burst into the England team anytime soon. Nor, more damningly, is Matt Mullan. He had a chance to dislodge the established order in Australia and certainly could have done more to take it. A squad of 45 means not everyone must be a contender but to have two players in a position that are not smacks of indulgence.
It is possible that the reason for this is continued concern over Joe Marler's mental stability. His decision to stay home from Australia to sort things out in his own head was a wise one, but that does not mean it is the end of the matter. It feels distasteful and futile to speculate too much about a player's mental health so it is best to mention this as a possibility and move on for now. Time will tell where Marler is; if he is at his best, Mullan and Genge will face a big struggle to get into the team.
HK
Cowan-Dickie, George, Hartley, Youngs T
The rescue of the good ship Tom Youngs from the waters of international abandonment must have surprised many, particularly after Tommy Taylor's useful summer in a white jersey. The move should be welcomed for all his noted frailties at the set-piece, Youngs' experience and proven impact in the international arena are too valuable to be thrown lightly away.
Whether he is likely to make the team again anytime soon is another matter. Captain Hartley is currently cemented to his place when fit, although the possibility of another concussion must be in Jones' thoughts after last season. Jamie George has not had much time off of the bench but has used what he has extremely well and the argument that he is England's outright best hooker grows louder and louder.
That leaves Youngs scrapping with Luke Cowan-Dickie, a player in a very similar mould. Their inclusion in the squad ahead of Taylor suggests that Jones' devotion to a rock solid set-piece only goes so far. There are now three outstanding loose players competing for a position here, hinting at Jones' future direction. It seems likely that whoever nails their set-piece duties wins third place behind George but until we see how much Jones likes Tom Youngs, it is hard to be confident on the matter. One thing is sure though; the return of Youngs to contention is a great shot in the arm for depth and competition in the hooker position.
THP
Cole, Hill, Sinckler
In the space of just over a year, Paul Hill and Kyle Sinckler have leapfrogged a long queue of English tightheads for this position. Dave Wilson, Kieron Brookes and Henry Thomas all have reason to believe they can reverse this position. All three currently have greater experience than the men in the EPS (I think, Hill's cap count may not be accurate on wikipedia) and that points directly to the current weakness England possess in the position.
England's first choice tighthead is Dan Cole. England's second choice tighthead is Dan Cole on crutches. There is no competition. There is no plan B that doesn't involve a gamble. That is the current situation.
That is not a criticism of Jones' choice of player. It seems quite likely he has the right of it. Nor is it meant to say that the other players are incapable of challenging Cole at some point in the future, possibly quite soon in the future. It is instead saying that they're currently not at that level of form and/or potential. No one knows for sure when any of them will be.
It is simply a bald statement of fact that as of now, England are very dependent on Dan Cole's continuing form and fitness.
LK
Ewels, Itoje, Kruis, Lawes, Launchbury, (Williams)
Many a word has been written in praise of England's second row power quartet. Joyous as it would be to write more, this is being written in quite a hurry due to the EPS being released quite a few days before, so let us just say the position is strong. Any combination of the four would register as quite acceptable in anyone's team, even New Zealand's.
The interesting decisions then are the two understudies. Neither of Charlie Ewels and Mike Williams are household names nor are they the obvious choices. Indeed, both are at clubs with more vaunted men; Attwood at Bath for Ewels, Slater and Kitchener at Tigers for Williams. The most obvious reason for these choices would seem to be that Jones believes he has the present locked down and is turning to prospects with the highest ceilings to fill out his squad. That seems reasonable but the identity of any development squad locks is now a matter of mild curiosity.
What should be expected of them? Ewels is the classic beanpole lock, although not particularly tall at 6'6". He has been highly thought of all the way through age grade, captaining England U20s, but he did not particularly show that promise on tour in South Africa. Given his age though - he is only 20 - that is not particularly surprising. If he stays as mobile while packing on the muscle, he has a fair chance of being another George Kruis. As for Williams - well, Leicester fans would say he's better discussed below
FL
Evans, Harrison, Haskell, Robshaw, Williams
The situation is reminiscent of that at tighthead; Haskell and Robshaw start unless badly injured. Of course, Haskell is badly injured, so now we must find out what will be done next.
Will Evans is probably not a live option just yet. He is after all, only 19 and 14 stone 4 lbs. His inclusion is a sign of his huge potential but it would be amazing if he replaced Haskell come the autumn.
Mike Williams is unlikely to either, being a definite blindside flanker. Being 24 and over 18 stones, he is physically ready to step in if called upon, but he needs Robshaw to fall over for that. Leicester fans have been very excited with him, so maybe he would be in line if that did happen. Maybe. Its quite possible one of the 8s or locks would benefit instead.
Of course the beneficiary to injury woes could be Teimana Harrison. Yes, he froze down under, but he showed definite signs of promise against Wales and should be stronger for both experiences. He's got aggression, he's got abrasiveness, he's got ability... has he got a future? Time will tell. Still, for now, it is not obvious which of these players would replace Haskell in the autumn. Perhaps none of them.
8
Beaumont, Clifford, Hughes, Vunipola
Apparently Jones has talked about Nathan Hughes as a possible Haskell replacement. And we know Jack Clifford can play openside too, to a certain level. We also know they're both capable of doing quite remarkable things on a rugby field. Likewise Josh Beaumont and,of course, Billy Vunipola.
The competition for England's number 8 shirt is currently quite nominal. Vunipola is the proven man, the rest are possible contenders, and Vunipola has no intention of letting anyone else advance beyond that point. Only the exiled Ben Morgan brings similar levels of experience. At some point though, the others will get chances and they will start to take them and we will have a real battle royale on.
As such, it is possible some of the players will start seeking to demonstrate their versatility. Beaumont, for example, is perfectly capable of playing lock (he is in fact the joint tallest man in this squad). Clifford has played all over the back row and while he needs to up his work rate and breakdown impact to be an England starter, he could well do so. Hughes is the only out and out 8 in the group - even Vunipola's played more elsewhere - but, as noted, Jones is thinking of him as an openside. Why not? He is effective at the breakdown, he is quick, and he is awesomely powerful. As a Haskell substitute, he is the most like for like in the squad. Definitely a case of watch this space.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)