Post AI Review

[Mellsblue]

He played 16 games in his first season at Ospreys - I'd say that counts.

But stagnation aside, I guess my point of disagreement is how much further ahead you believe he is. The ruck thing seems to be a real issue for a 7 in Jones' system - and I definitely wouldn't discount the Hask.

It’s obviously only an opinion but Jones has been name checking Underhill since his first part season at Ospreys and after Simmonds put in what I thought was a quality performance Jones referenced his weak tackling (not that I particularly noticed it).
I wouldn’t pick him at 7, I’d have played T or B Curry in all three matches but I think Jones likes him and thinks he can add on what he wants, ie securing our ball at the breakdown.
On top of this, Simmonds fits the ‘finisher’ role that Jones wants from his replacements better than Underhill.

Jones was saying Hask could make his way back but you're still happy to discount him

Tbh, Hask or a quick maturation from the Currys was more what I was thinking. He obviously likes Underhill, but as long as someone can claim to be more abrasive at the breakdown, I think he's under real threat.

Blimey, I hadn’t realised he was name checking Haskell. Even if he gets back to form I’d rather move on.
If someone can match Underhill at the breakdown then yep he is under pressure. It’s all a free for all, nobody has a bank of work to demand the shirt, but Underhill must be in pole position.

[Oakboy]

I'm usually all for youngsters but I can't see that any of the aforementioned are really the answer based on what we have seen so far. I'd tend more towards Armand on current performances unless Willis can make it through to first choice at 7 for Wasps. If I was picking the back-row now for the 1st 6N match, I'd go Lawes, Robshaw, Billy with Hughes on the bench. If I was tasked with not playing any of the locks in the back-row I'd play Armand at 6. It's up to the youngsters to demonstrate why they should force their way in. Haskell is history, IMO, now that Eddie has been dragged, kicking and screaming, in to accepting that he might have to pick Robshaw at 7.

[Banquo]

I'm usually all for youngsters but I can't see that any of the aforementioned are really the answer based on what we have seen so far. I'd tend more towards Armand on current performances unless Willis can make it through to first choice at 7 for Wasps. If I was picking the back-row now for the 1st 6N match, I'd go Lawes, Robshaw, Billy with Hughes on the bench. If I was tasked with not playing any of the locks in the back-row I'd play Armand at 6. It's up to the youngsters to demonstrate why they should force their way in. Haskell is history, IMO, now that Eddie has been dragged, kicking and screaming, in to accepting that he might have to pick Robshaw at 7.

I assume you will then be selecting Faz at 10, someone like Barritt at 12, and sticking with Brown at 15?

[Mellsblue]

If I was picking the back-row now for the 1st 6N match, I'd go Lawes, Robshaw, Billy with Hughes on the bench.

Did you not watch the second half yesterday?

[fivepointer]

Its pretty clear that Underhill is going to be our 7 in the 6N's isnt it? Assuming he's fit I expect him to start in that position with Robshaw and Billy at 6 and 8.
The Curry's are going to be challenging but Underhill will get first go i reckon.
I cant see a way back for haskell, in the same way i dont see Tom Wood getting a call.

[Oakboy]

I'm usually all for youngsters but I can't see that any of the aforementioned are really the answer based on what we have seen so far. I'd tend more towards Armand on current performances unless Willis can make it through to first choice at 7 for Wasps. If I was picking the back-row now for the 1st 6N match, I'd go Lawes, Robshaw, Billy with Hughes on the bench. If I was tasked with not playing any of the locks in the back-row I'd play Armand at 6. It's up to the youngsters to demonstrate why they should force their way in. Haskell is history, IMO, now that Eddie has been dragged, kicking and screaming, in to accepting that he might have to pick Robshaw at 7.

I assume you will then be selecting Faz at 10, someone like Barritt at 12, and sticking with Brown at 15?

Nope.

[Oakboy]

If I was picking the back-row now for the 1st 6N match, I'd go Lawes, Robshaw, Billy with Hughes on the bench.

Did you not watch the second half yesterday?

Yes. Why?

[Mellsblue]

If I was picking the back-row now for the 1st 6N match, I'd go Lawes, Robshaw, Billy with Hughes on the bench.

Did you not watch the second half yesterday?

Yes. Why?

Lawes and Robshaw were on the flanks and we were turned over numerous times. Unless you think Billy will solve the problem it looks like a flawed selection.

[Banquo]

I'm usually all for youngsters but I can't see that any of the aforementioned are really the answer based on what we have seen so far. I'd tend more towards Armand on current performances unless Willis can make it through to first choice at 7 for Wasps. If I was picking the back-row now for the 1st 6N match, I'd go Lawes, Robshaw, Billy with Hughes on the bench. If I was tasked with not playing any of the locks in the back-row I'd play Armand at 6. It's up to the youngsters to demonstrate why they should force their way in. Haskell is history, IMO, now that Eddie has been dragged, kicking and screaming, in to accepting that he might have to pick Robshaw at 7.

I assume you will then be selecting Faz at 10, someone like Barritt at 12, and sticking with Brown at 15?

Nope.

so who would you be picking, given that you won't be able to sustain a wide game?

[Oakboy]

Did you not watch the second half yesterday?

Yes. Why?

Lawes and Robshaw were on the flanks and we were turned over numerous times. Unless you think Billy will solve the problem it looks like a flawed selection.

But, we have looked suspect in all the AIs so I don't agree.

[Oakboy]

I assume you will then be selecting Faz at 10, someone like Barritt at 12, and sticking with Brown at 15?

Nope.

so who would you be picking, given that you won't be able to sustain a wide game?

Sustain? We've got to get it there first. I think you are falling into the trap of judging on one-off performances which is my point all along. Without continuity/familiarity, chopping and changing produces apparent fallibility of style etc. We simply don't know who can do what.

Oh, I probably would pick Farrell at 10 until we find a better SH.

[Mellsblue]

Yes. Why?

Lawes and Robshaw were on the flanks and we were turned over numerous times. Unless you think Billy will solve the problem it looks like a flawed selection.

But, we have looked suspect in all the AIs so I don't agree.

This was different. It was 3/4 turnovers conceded in the space of 15 mins when we tried to play a more expansive game. It was very instructive if we have designs on adding to our attack.

[Banquo]

Nope.

so who would you be picking, given that you won't be able to sustain a wide game?

Sustain? We've got to get it there first. I think you are falling into the trap of judging on one-off performances which is my point all along. Without continuity/familiarity, chopping and changing produces apparent fallibility of style etc. We simply don't know who can do what.

Oh, I probably would pick Farrell at 10 until we find a better SH.

No I'm not; if you try and play wide with that back row, you will be screwed by good sides. There's no pace and not much agility.

[Mellsblue]

so who would you be picking, given that you won't be able to sustain a wide game?

Sustain? We've got to get it there first. I think you are falling into the trap of judging on one-off performances which is my point all along. Without continuity/familiarity, chopping and changing produces apparent fallibility of style etc. We simply don't know who can do what.

Oh, I probably would pick Farrell at 10 until we find a better SH.

No I'm not; if you try and play wide with that back row, you will be screwed by good sides.

Turns out you’ll be screwed by average sides, too.

[Banquo]

Sustain? We've got to get it there first. I think you are falling into the trap of judging on one-off performances which is my point all along. Without continuity/familiarity, chopping and changing produces apparent fallibility of style etc. We simply don't know who can do what.

Oh, I probably would pick Farrell at 10 until we find a better SH.

No I'm not; if you try and play wide with that back row, you will be screwed by good sides.

Turns out you’ll be screwed by average sides, too.

aye. Never thought Dors would be a kick and clap guy.

[I R Geech]

The whole thing felt like a bit of step back in terms of imagination, intensity, and ambition from where they were. England looked too content to go though the phases and seemed to lose focus too often. That may be harsh, and Eddie may thinking that England are more suited to a smothering game, but after Ireland against the Saffers, and Scotland against En Zud and Strayer, it all feels a little meh.

[Digby]

so who would you be picking, given that you won't be able to sustain a wide game?

Sustain? We've got to get it there first. I think you are falling into the trap of judging on one-off performances which is my point all along. Without continuity/familiarity, chopping and changing produces apparent fallibility of style etc. We simply don't know who can do what.

Oh, I probably would pick Farrell at 10 until we find a better SH.

No I'm not; if you try and play wide with that back row, you will be screwed by good sides. There's no pace and not much agility.

pfft, if you ignore the times we got turned over yesterday our backrow was just fine supporting wider play. clearly any backrow can support a wide game even with a lock at 6 and a slow flanker at 7

(though credit to Samoa for putting in the numbers, and annoyance that as with the Italy game we had a team unable to respond to what was happening on the pitch and refused to change the shape of the game from what the coaches had instructed)

[Scrumhead]

The whole thing felt like a bit of step back in terms of imagination, intensity, and ambition from where they were. England looked too content to go though the phases and seemed to lose focus too often. That may be harsh, and Eddie may thinking that England are more suited to a smothering game, but after Ireland against the Saffers, and Scotland against En Zud and Strayer, it all feels a little meh.

I know what you mean. I can’t help but feel envious when I see other teams looking so much more fluid and effective. We win, but in the main we look turgid and lacking both invention and intensity. Don’t get me wrong, I’d rather win, even if it is winning ugly, but I don’t really understand why we can’t put in more convincing performances?

[Peat]

In fairness, this team can function when set up with a back line of speedsters who want to play wide and a somewhat stodgy pack. It just means either we score within two phases of any set-play or turnover, or we kick it away, or we settle in for as many phases of not much until we get turned over.

Which beats having the stodgy backline as its basically the last two options and not scoring. Winning games through ferocious defence and opportunism isn't much fun but its more fun than losing them.

But yes, ideally a quick back line would have some forwards who can support them. Also some forwards who can generate quick ball.

Really, the quick ball is the root of all our current evils.

Mells - fairy nuff. Agreed that Underhill is in pole right now.

[Digby]

Why is Underhill in pole position (or is that simply with Eddie) when we lack carriers, pace and an ability to generate quick ball?

[Mellsblue]

Why is Underhill in pole position (or is that simply with Eddie) when we lack carriers, pace and an ability to generate quick ball?

Yes, with Jones.

[Digby]

Why is Underhill in pole position (or is that simply with Eddie) when we lack carriers, pace and an ability to generate quick ball?

Yes, with Jones.

Which is fine when as Peat says we need to score in a couple of phases or we lose impetus too and one assumes Jones is okay with such. But if more is/were wanted it seems an odd selection

[bitts]

For me this was always going to be an odd AI series. So I'm not as concerned about the overall performance as I might otherwise have been. Instead I'd look at what the side is still missing that it needs to have to move onto the next level.

Front row
Williams being blooded is a positive, hopefully when Sinckler comes back Cole will be dropped. But at least it's looking like we have three reasonable options. We could also do with a 3rd hooking option but that probably depends on LCD, Taylor or Walker staying fit and playing some games.


Back row
Underhill getting game time over Haskell is positive, he needs time to develop his game but at least he's getting the caps to do so.
We desperately need another carrying option in the back row. Hopefully, Simmonds will get the chance to see whether he is that option. But at the moment it's still a question mark

]Half backs
We need a third choice scrum half and Flyhalf. Doubt we're going to get one though. Guess Eddie is just hoping our options hold up.

Outside backs
While we may have built up some depth in the centers and wings. But we still need to see which of these two combinations is best: Ford-Faz-JJ, Faz-Teo-JJ, or Ford-Teo-JJ. Ideally, Tuliagi would come into the mix, but let's not plan for it. We could also do with a big ball carrying winger, but unless big Joe C tears the Prem up soon I can't see it happening.

For all Eddie's progress, I can see us stagnating is some of these problems aren't resolved.

The problem with all of this is having to try and take Eddie's words at face value. He could be down on Simmonds, or he could have him penciled in at 7. Similarly, Hartley could be captain in the SN or that may have been his last game for England. What give me hope is that Eddie normally does some random stuff, and talks some sh1t, before making a pretty sound decision.

[Scrumhead]

For me this was always going to be an odd AI series. So I'm not as concerned about the overall performance as I might otherwise have been. Instead I'd look at what the side is still missing that it needs to have to move onto the next level.

Front row
Williams being blooded is a positive, hopefully when Sinckler comes back Cole will be dropped. But at least it's looking like we have three reasonable options. We could also do with a 3rd hooking option but that probably depends on LCD, Taylor or Walker staying fit and playing some games.


Back row
Underhill getting game time over Haskell is positive, he needs time to develop his game but at least he's getting the caps to do so.
We desperately need another carrying option in the back row. Hopefully, Simmonds will get the chance to see whether he is that option. But at the moment it's still a question mark

]Half backs
We need a third choice scrum half and Flyhalf. Doubt we're going to get one though. Guess Eddie is just hoping our options hold up.

Outside backs
While we may have built up some depth in the centers and wings. But we still need to see which of these two combinations is best: Ford-Faz-JJ, Faz-Teo-JJ, or Ford-Teo-JJ. Ideally, Tuliagi would come into the mix, but let's not plan for it. We could also do with a big ball carrying winger, but unless big Joe C tears the Prem up soon I can't see it happening.

For all Eddie's progress, I can see us stagnating is some of these problems aren't resolved.

The problem with all of this is having to try and take Eddie's words at face value. He could be down on Simmonds, or he could have him penciled in at 7. Similarly, Hartley could be captain in the SN or that may have been his last game for England. What give me hope is that Eddie normally does some random stuff, and talks some sh1t, before making a pretty sound decision.

I agree with you for the most part. Definitely re. Eddie’s ‘random stuff’. It is pointless us trying to second-guess what he thinks. I’m about to anyway ...

I think Marcus Smith is our third choice Fly Half. That seems crazy given that he has only had 10 or so games at senior level. However, it would take injuries to both Farrell and Ford for us to be down to third choice and I think Eddie is prepared to take the gamble that Smith is an outrageous talent who will be even better in two years’ time. Keeping him involved in the squad as an ‘apprentice’, gives him the familiarity without exposing him to test rugby too soon.ŵ

I also think that the midfield combination Eddie is most keen to test is th one you haven’t mentioned; Ford-Farrell-Te’o. He wants Te’o in the side and while he could move Farrell to 10 and drop Ford, I think JJ is far more likely to be the player sacrificed.

[Mr Mwenda]

Seemed a pretty reasonable series to me. Another record win and a load of new combos tried.

To me, Cole, George and Kruis all looked varying degrees of knackered and I think if they can catch a break they'll pick uo. (George was good against Samoa, just felt he didn't appear to be as much of a step up from Hartley as he had before).

I think the Samoa game highlighted a lack of pace in the back row. The injuries to Curry and Underhill were the root of that. Jones surely assigns some value to what they do in camp so i can see why he didn't parachute someone in. He gambled on underhill playing all three and lost, that's all.

I think we saw why Jones is favouring the Ford-farrell axis for the moment but i bet he'll drop it if te'o comes back. It was good to see that Ford's play doesn't seem to have much to do with Farrell - he has his good and bad moments whatever so hopefully we can move on from 'Owen limits George'. I hope both players keep pushing each other. Joseph and the rest of the backline in the Aus game should get some credit for not conceding any tries based on the Wallabies other games (of course there was luck).

Looking across the NH, i look forward to the six nations. I don't see why england shouldn't be quietly confident. The Celts' first teams are all good but they lack england's depth. The Murrayfield clash could be a cracker for a chsnge - the Scots'll be bullish and I'd hope Jones has a plan to puncture their often frail congidrnce.