6N Rugby - Italy v England

by Geordie Mon 08 Feb 2016, 9:50 am

First topic message reminder :

England team to face Italy - Sunday

1 Mako Vunipola (Saracens, 28 caps)
2 Dylan Hartley (captain, Northampton Saints, 67 caps)
3 Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers, 57 caps)
4 Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints, 43 caps)
5 George Kruis (Saracens, 11 caps)
6 Chris Robshaw (Harlequins, 44 caps)
7 James Haskell (Wasps, 63 caps)
8 Billy Vunipola (vice captain, Saracens, 22 caps)
9 Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers, 53 caps)
10 George Ford (Bath Rugby, 18 caps)
11 Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs, 11 caps)
12 Owen Farrell (vice captain, Saracens, 36 caps)
13 Jonathan Joseph (Bath Rugby, 17 caps)
14 Anthony Watson (Bath Rugby, 16 caps)
15 Mike Brown (vice captain, Harlequins, 44 caps)

Replacements
16 Jamie George (Saracens, 4 caps)
17 Joe Marler (Harlequins, 38 caps)
18 Paul Hill (Northampton Saints, uncapped)
19 Joe Launchbury (Wasps, 29 caps)
20 Maro Itoje (Saracens, uncapped)
21 Jack Clifford (Harlequins, 1 cap)
22 Danny Care (Harlequins, 54 caps)
23 Alex Goode (Saracens, 19 caps)

by BamBam Mon 08 Feb 2016, 4:14 pm

propdavid_london wrote:There has to be something! Jones has said that he has spoken to all players and told them what they need to do to get picked in his squad/team.
If they arent picked then they arent good enough.......
I agree with others on here that Clifford isnt the fetcher that we would like to see - personally I would rather see Clifford as a 6 or 8.

On to Kvesic....He is a traditional 7. I agree that he has made some good turnovers. But I dont think he has ever imposed himself on a game the way that you would expect a WC 7 to. Last weeks game against Bath, I can think of perhaps 3 turnovers ( am sure that there are many more before the stats get thrown in my face). A Hooper or Pockock would be looking to steal 6-7 per game perhaps.

My point being, Kvesic isnt a world class 7 yet (thats not to say that he wont be). But when you have others in the pack that can make 2-3 turnovers in a game (Cole, Mako V, Launchbury, Robshaw, Haskell) then that adds up.
There is the argument that he needs game time and experience of the international stage.....but all Jones wants to do at the moment is win and build team confidence.

Or perhaps Jones sees the long term replacement of Robshaw and Haskell as more important than blooding an out and out 7!

I am trying to play devils advocate here - just trying to reason the possible thinking behind Kvesics non selection and Cliffords apparent apeal.

6-7 a game! That seems very high to me .. I'd be over the moon if we had a 7 making 3 turnovers a game at international level

by Sgt_Pooly Mon 08 Feb 2016, 4:19 pm

Agree, 6/7 a game is pretty insane.

I think Nathan Hughes topped the AP turnovers with around 25 or so last season.

by propdavid_london Mon 08 Feb 2016, 4:30 pm

How many turnovers did Pocock make against England in the WC? More than 3 I'd guess.

by bluestonevedder Mon 08 Feb 2016, 4:48 pm

Have a feeling he made 4 propdavid. Robshaw made 0.

I just remember seeing a breakdown of Pocock and Robshaw's game and BamBam dominated every facet.

by emontagu Mon 08 Feb 2016, 4:53 pm

Tbf Jones has picked Kvesic in the EPS (albeit as an injury replacement) so it may have been a case of horses for courses vs Scotland and could still feature.

by Sgt_Pooly Mon 08 Feb 2016, 5:01 pm

Pocock is a bit of a freak in that department though, no other 7 comes close really. McCaw used to get 2-4 a game and Brussow at his peak used to be around the 4 mark.

by BamBam Mon 08 Feb 2016, 5:02 pm

bluestonevedder wrote:Have a feeling he made 4 propdavid. Robshaw made 0.

I just remember seeing a breakdown of Pocock and Robshaw's game and BamBam dominated every facet.

Did I

by Sgt_Pooly Mon 08 Feb 2016, 5:11 pm

i thought we decided BamBam was the next 12??? Don't tell me he's being groomed for 7 now!

by BamBam Mon 08 Feb 2016, 5:13 pm

I am flattered, but think I'm far more suited to 12

by bluestonevedder Mon 08 Feb 2016, 5:15 pm

BamBam wrote:
bluestonevedder wrote:Have a feeling he made 4 propdavid. Robshaw made 0.

I just remember seeing a breakdown of Pocock and Robshaw's game and BamBam dominated every facet.

Did I

Well, maybe! Where exactly were you on the evening of the 3rd October 2015?

(Pocock's nickname is Bam Bam)

by BamBam Mon 08 Feb 2016, 5:18 pm

Haha! My name is based on an NFL player, had no idea that Pocock had the same nickname

by Alex_Germany Mon 08 Feb 2016, 5:55 pm

England still have a problem at 12 and Farrell isn't the answer. He's the form 10 at the moment, playing much better than Ford, so needs to start there.

But who can play 12?

Anyone know how Sam Hill got on at the weekend for Exeter?

Also I notice Daly didn't play for Wasps. Surely that would only be if EJ asked for him not to play? Looking at the highlights again, JJ looked pretty good defensively, but not threatening in attack.

I'd like to see a back line of Ford, Hill and Daly, but realistically, that's one first cap too many.

by englandglory4ever Mon 08 Feb 2016, 6:13 pm

I take back all I said about not risking Clifford. I've just re watched the first half particularly focusing on Robshaw. He did nothing almost any half fit 6 wouldn't do from any league in the land let alone the AP. He was virtually anonymous. Defo not worth his place on that evidence.

by majesticimperialman Mon 08 Feb 2016, 7:18 pm

Any one think their will be many changes for the England team?

I think either Farrell or Ford need to be dropped to the bench...bring in a proper centre along side Joseph.

Maybe make a change in the back row. Haskell or Robshaw on the bench or out of the match day 23 any way.

I am not sure that their should be too many changes. for the Italy game.

I think making too many changes might be direspecting the Italians, and that could end up being dangerous for England.

by maestegmafia Mon 08 Feb 2016, 7:26 pm

majesticimperialman wrote:I think making too many changes might be direspecting the Italians, and that could end up being dangerous for England.

Do you really think England could lose this game against Italy?

by BamBam Mon 08 Feb 2016, 7:29 pm

maestegmafia wrote:
majesticimperialman wrote:I think making too many changes might be direspecting the Italians, and that could end up being dangerous for England.

Do you really think England could lose this game against Italy?

Probably more likely than the Springboks losing to Japan

by maestegmafia Mon 08 Feb 2016, 7:33 pm

BamBam wrote:
maestegmafia wrote:
majesticimperialman wrote:I think making too many changes might be direspecting the Italians, and that could end up being dangerous for England.

Do you really think England could lose this game against Italy?

Probably more likely than the Springboks losing to Japan

I would be surprised if the Spring Boks lost to Japan again.

Italy were efficient if not proficient in Paris, they are never easy to beat in Rome. All the first round matches were very close.

by BamBam Mon 08 Feb 2016, 7:34 pm

maestegmafia wrote:
BamBam wrote:
maestegmafia wrote:
majesticimperialman wrote:I think making too many changes might be direspecting the Italians, and that could end up being dangerous for England.

Do you really think England could lose this game against Italy?

Probably more likely than the Springboks losing to Japan
I would be surprised if the Spring Boks lost to Japan again.

Italy were efficient if not proficient in Paris, they are never easy to beat in Rome. All the first round matches were very close.

Exactly, that's why first thing is winning the game. Blooding young players comes 2nd

by stub Mon 08 Feb 2016, 7:36 pm

We should definitely be careful about the Italians - this could easily be their year to beat us. That said a couple of changes could make us stronger. I'm all for bringing in a proper centre and if Robshaw was really as anonymous as suggested by others then maybe it's time to try another option.

by majesticimperialman Mon 08 Feb 2016, 8:15 pm

maestegmafia wrote:
majesticimperialman wrote:I think making too many changes might be direspecting the Italians, and that could end up being dangerous for England.

Do you really think England could lose this game against Italy?

It is a possability the way they pushed France right dow to the last second of the game.

England should not take Italy lightly.

by jamesandimac Mon 08 Feb 2016, 8:38 pm

Brookes isn't in contention for this week as Jones has kept the match day 23 + Itoje and Daly (the 2 travelling reserves) and only called up Beaumonet and Kvesic to train. The remainder of the wider squad are staying away. Could mean he wants to get another look at Kvesic in training?

Shame about Brookes, but I would rather he be fully fit.

I still think Ford and Farrell at 10 and 12 will work, but you need a big strike runner in the backs for it to work, such as a Manu at 13 which we don't have yet.....

by yappysnap Mon 08 Feb 2016, 8:50 pm

GeordieFalcon wrote:Launchbury was ill though...had the S**ts . That's why he was taken off.

Should be back firing on Saturday.

Also Robshaw has been class all season...do we discard him so readily after one lethargic display?

I hope its cleared up by then!

by little_badger Mon 08 Feb 2016, 9:01 pm

Interesting to see those players retained, at the very least it shows that they are in contention.

I think we'll see 2/3 changes to the starting lineup, he'll pick a couple of new players but will resist wholesale changes, after all Italy were ok at the weekend.

by maestegmafia Mon 08 Feb 2016, 9:16 pm

yappysnap wrote:
GeordieFalcon wrote:Launchbury was ill though...had the S**ts . That's why he was taken off.

Should be back firing on Saturday.

Also Robshaw has been class all season...do we discard him so readily after one lethargic display?

I hope its cleared up by then!

The grounds man was a bit unhappy but said it made good fertiliser.

Poor lad, talented player.

by jamesandimac Mon 08 Feb 2016, 10:52 pm

Anyone think we could see Itoje get game time at 6 in the tournament? Jones has already commented on the fact he doesn't know which position he'll settle into. It would offer another strong lineout option but without losing any of the pace, physicality our breakdown presence.

Just a thought that popped into my head.

by Sgt_Pooly Tue 09 Feb 2016, 8:46 am

jamesandimac wrote:Anyone think we could see Itoje get game time at 6 in the tournament? Jones has already commented on the fact he doesn't know which position he'll settle into. It would offer another strong lineout option but without losing any of the pace, physicality our breakdown presence.

Just a thought that popped into my head.

He can't do any worse than Robshaw.

by **Rugby Fan** Tue 09 Feb 2016, 8:54 am

Sgt_Pooly wrote:
jamesandimac wrote:Anyone think we could see Itoje get game time at 6 in the tournament? Jones has already commented on the fact he doesn't know which position he'll settle into. It would offer another strong lineout option but without losing any of the pace, physicality our breakdown presence.

Just a thought that popped into my head.

He can't do any worse than Robshaw.

It does seem like he was quiet. Can't help thinking we'd have done just as well, or even better, if Haskell and Robshaw had swapped positions. I know that's not the direction Jones intends to go, but it's hard to see there was anything gained from playing them the other way round.

by **LondonTiger** Tue 09 Feb 2016, 9:05 am

jamesandimac wrote:Anyone think we could see Itoje get game time at 6 in the tournament? Jones has already commented on the fact he doesn't know which position he'll settle into. It would offer another strong lineout option but without losing any of the pace, physicality our breakdown presence.

Just a thought that popped into my head.

With reference to the bold bit, you must be watching a different player to me. It is the one major weakness in his game I feel.

by lostinwales Tue 09 Feb 2016, 9:30 am

Sgt_Pooly wrote:
jamesandimac wrote:Anyone think we could see Itoje get game time at 6 in the tournament? Jones has already commented on the fact he doesn't know which position he'll settle into. It would offer another strong lineout option but without losing any of the pace, physicality our breakdown presence.

Just a thought that popped into my head.

He can't do any worse than Robshaw.

And this week's hate figure is ... CHRIS ROBSHAW. Let us denounce him everywhere.

But seriously. With the call ups I wonder if we might even see Billy at 6, Beaumont jnr at 8 and Kvesic at 7.

by englandglory4ever Tue 09 Feb 2016, 9:33 am

Haskell did a good deal of work in that game. If anybody should be dropped its Robshaw. Either Kvesic or Clifford would contribute 80% more to the team effort.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 09 Feb 2016, 9:38 am

It all goes around lost. We've had a bit of Launchbury bashing as well. Everyone gets it eventually.

by **Rugby Fan** Tue 09 Feb 2016, 9:43 am

Anyone know whether Launchbury played because Itoje had already gone back to Saracens? Anscombe was replaced by Williams an hour before kick-off, so there was enough time to name a replacement but perhaps no-one could get there in time.

Otherwise, it sounds daft to have put Launchbury on the pitch. Maybe that's why Billy made so many yards. It can't have been much fun having his head up Joe's backside.

by **LondonTiger** Tue 09 Feb 2016, 9:47 am

I have only seen Beaumont once in the flesh, this weekend, and frankly he was anonymous (excluding being the last man in the maul for the try). Quite how the tallest player in the Sale team could simply disappear I do not know.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 09 Feb 2016, 9:48 am

Itoje was on the sidelines so was still there.

by Sgt_Pooly Tue 09 Feb 2016, 9:56 am

LondonTiger wrote:I have only seen Beaumont once in the flesh, this weekend, and frankly he was anonymous (excluding being the last man in the maul for the try). Quite how the tallest player in the Sale team could simply disappear I do not know.

I think he's a little overrated personally but he looks decent. He's a great lineout option and broken field runner, a slightly more heavyweight Croft perhaps.

by beshocked Tue 09 Feb 2016, 9:56 am

Rugby fan Scotland-England was on Saturday, Exeter-Saracens on Sunday.

Don't forget that Lawes was also only just deemed fit to make the bench. To be fair he was pretty solid off the bench.

lostinwales I think it just shows the competition that is starting to come along in certain positions. Lock and 6 are a stark contrast to 7 and 12.

Londontiger Itoje has made steals, he's also been used a jumper, he's just not been used as much as other players. Doesn't make him a bad lineout option. He's not the primary jumper for Saracens but he's been part of a slick operation at lineout time. I do agree though that it would be good if he could improve his lineout abilities and maybe take more of a responsibility.

jamesandimac don't mind if Itoje plays at lock or 6, just think he needs gametime for England.

by Alex_Germany Tue 09 Feb 2016, 10:18 am

Rugby Fan wrote:Anyone know whether Launchbury played because Itoje had already gone back to Saracens? Anscombe was replaced by Williams an hour before kick-off, so there was enough time to name a replacement but perhaps no-one could get there in time.

Otherwise, it sounds daft to have put Launchbury on the pitch. Maybe that's why Billy made so many yards. It can't have been much fun having his head up Joe's backside.

Ha! I'm sure even Scottish Pharmacies sell Immodium. 4 tablets should do for 120kg! Even so, it's going to knock 10% of the performance, so I think it's a negative for Eddie Jones that he played Launchbury.

Hopefully Launchbury is now rested and has a point to prove.

by Alex_Germany Tue 09 Feb 2016, 10:25 am

Rugby Fan wrote:
It does seem like he was quiet. Can't help thinking we'd have done just as well, or even better, if Haskell and Robshaw had swapped positions. I know that's not the direction Jones intends to go, but it's hard to see there was anything gained from playing them the other way round.

They might as well both had a "6" on their backs. Someone commented about Scotland playing two "7"s against England's two "6". It ended OK for England, but perhaps contributed to a scrappy game.

If England want a 7 and a 6, then it means Kvesic, with one of Robshaw or Haskell playing 6. Haskell played better on Saturday, Robshaw has more "credit in the bank", which probably counts for little with EJ.

EJ seems canny enough also to vary his selections based on hours of video and statistical analysis of Italy's back row (whereas most England fans can only name one of them).

by Geordie Tue 09 Feb 2016, 11:54 am

Must admit I don't want to see too many changes - just a few tweaks.

1) Kvesic or Clifford on at 7 (ideally Kvesic as Clifford covers all the back row from the bench)
2) Farrell to 10 and Hill or Devoto in at 12.
3) Lawes starts if Launchbury has a bad belly or is not in the squad. Itoje on the bench regardless.
Again Ford might be the real one Jones wants...and we shouldn't just chop and change, but at the moment Ford is just so out of form and lacking in any kind of confidence.

And whilst I HATE predetermined Subs I would make a point of getting Jamie George more time and Clifford.
So:
1 Marler
2 Hartley
3 Cole
4 kruis
5 Launchbury (if his belly is still bad, Lawes starts Itoje on the bench)
6 Haskell / Robshaw (Undecided)
7 Kvesic
8 Billy

9 Care
10 Farrell
11 Nowell
12 Hill / Devoto
13 Joseph
14 Watson
15 Brown

16 HIll
17 George
18 Mako
19 Itoje
20 Clifford
21 Youngs
22 Daly
23 Goode ?? TBC

by yappysnap Tue 09 Feb 2016, 12:11 pm

Goals for the game:

1. Win
2. Control the game
3. Score some try's
4. Don't concede a try

If we achieve those 4 aims then it should mean the team and tactics are working well.

We need to look at this game as a chance to lay down a marker for the new era. That doesn't mean training ground trying to run the ball from everywhere but rather how we'd play if we were playing the AB's and not Italy.

by Geordie Tue 09 Feb 2016, 12:31 pm

I agree Yappy. I also think it would be detrimental to change too many. We need to build some consistency and familiarity aswell.

by emontagu Tue 09 Feb 2016, 12:32 pm

GeordieFalcon wrote:Must admit I don't want to see too many changes - just a few tweaks.

1) Kvesic or Clifford on at 7 (ideally Kvesic as Clifford covers all the back row from the bench)
2) Farrell to 10 and Hill or Devoto in at 12.
3) Lawes starts if Launchbury has a bad belly or is not in the squad. Itoje on the bench regardless.
Again Ford might be the real one Jones wants...and we shouldn't just chop and change, but at the moment Ford is just so out of form and lacking in any kind of confidence.

And whilst I HATE predetermined Subs I would make a point of getting Jamie George more time and Clifford.
So:
1 Marler
2 Hartley
3 Cole
4 kruis
5 Launchbury (if his belly is still bad, Lawes starts Itoje on the bench)
6 Haskell / Robshaw (Undecided)
7 Kvesic
8 Billy

9 Care
10 Farrell
11 Nowell
12 Hill / Devoto
13 Joseph
14 Watson
15 Brown

16 Hill
17 George
18 Mako
19 Itoje
20 Clifford
21 Youngs
22 Daly
23 Goode ?? TBC

Need a 10 on the bench so i'd have Ford at 22 with Daly at 23 covering 13/15.

EJ has apparently told Cips he's still in with a shout so wouldn't mind him on the bench over Ford either post 6 nations.

by Geordie Tue 09 Feb 2016, 12:58 pm

Ah, I meant to have ford on the bench. So take Goode out

by lostinwales Tue 09 Feb 2016, 1:02 pm

GeordieFalcon wrote:Ah, I meant to have ford on the bench. So take Goode out

Yes please. We won't see Cips because he's outside the squad but I wouldn't mind seeing him on the bench, especially as he can cover 15 (and at a long stretch wing) as well, and must be in better form than Ford

by Geordie Tue 09 Feb 2016, 1:04 pm

Daly can cover FB, Wing and Centre.

by lostinwales Tue 09 Feb 2016, 1:07 pm

GeordieFalcon wrote:Daly can cover FB, Wing and Centre.

Oh yes. But surely it has been proved that Goode can cover all of those as well as FH. (Just really really badly....)

by **LondonTiger** Tue 09 Feb 2016, 1:10 pm

lostinwales wrote:
GeordieFalcon wrote:Daly can cover FB, Wing and Centre.

Oh yes. But surely it has been proved that Goode can cover all of those as well as FH. (Just really really badly....)

and prop.

Or are we talking Alex?

by Geordie Tue 09 Feb 2016, 1:20 pm

I hope your not ridiculing the falcons saviour now LT warning

by **LondonTiger** Tue 09 Feb 2016, 1:24 pm

GeordieFalcon wrote:I hope your not ridiculing the falcons saviour now LT

TBH I am probably making fun of the younger Goode more Very Happy

by yappysnap Tue 09 Feb 2016, 2:22 pm

In 2014 we won 11-52 shouldn't we expect a better coaching team to be able to at least match that last result??

by Sponsored content