Refreshed side

First topic message reminder :

So a few comments I've lifted from the guardian from Eddie Jones. Pretty much as you'd expect in terms of looking ahead to the next challenge.
“I tell you what happens to teams – they evolve,” Jones said. “Some guys will lose desire, some guys will lose fitness, some guys will get injuries and there’ll be young guys come through. So this team is finished now. There will be a new team made. We’ll make a new team for the Six Nations and that new team for the Six Nations will be the basis of going to the next World Cup.'

Apparently the team at the weekend is the youngest to appear in a WC final so there won't be 15 new guys coming in but clearly a few are coming to the end. Are there particular areas or players jones will be looking at?

For me this bunch stand a decent chance in and around the squad to get more caps soon. Genge, Painter, Willis, Dombrandt, Smith, spencer, Robson and a outside chance of Mullins at full back.

Guys that are all young enough to be around for years to come but all with great potential. Perhaps not as good/proven as some who will step back but hugely talented.

Sam James is a cracking player, but just doesnt seem to get the recognition for international level for whatever reason.

Devoto is actually a great shout. He's really developed at Exeter. He looks a very direct hard runner at 12 also...he could be worth a look

Devoto's definitely flourished since moving to Exeter

The problem England may have going forward is that I don’t think not winning the RWC19 was down to skill level or even size. It turned out that any one of 4 sides could have won it without it being a shock result – how often does that happen? So although reaching the final is a qualified success, losing it is a huge missed opportunity, and dare I say possibly a bottle job. The technical prowess of the England team is pretty high - except under pressure; I’m just not convinced it has that winning mentality (something it would seem that’s hard to coach).

So the question is, where are the players that can give this team a mental edge.

Looking back at the other finals is interesting though. 1991 we tried to alter our style and beat Oz with their own game - they were better at it. 2007 we were technically average but strong mentally (to get to the final at all). 2019 good skill levels, dubious mental strength. Still makes 2003 the best England side ever – skilled, big (for the day), and tough; and a RWC to prove it.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:The problem England may have going forward is that I don’t think not winning the RWC19 was down to skill level or even size. It turned out that any one of 4 sides could have won it without it being a shock result – how often does that happen? So although reaching the final is a qualified success, losing it is a huge missed opportunity, and dare I say possibly a bottle job. The technical prowess of the England team is pretty high - except under pressure; I’m just not convinced it has that winning mentality (something it would seem that’s hard to coach).

So the question is, where are the players that can give this team a mental edge.

Looking back at the other finals is interesting though. 1991 we tried to alter our style and beat Oz with their own game - they were better at it. 2007 we were technically average but strong mentally (to get to the final at all). 2019 good skill levels, dubious mental strength. Still makes 2003 the best England side ever – skilled, big (for the day), and tough; and a RWC to prove it.

This is a really good point Barney. One of the rugby podcasts (forgive me I can't remember which) said that we are at a weird point in time where on any given day, any of the top 6 sides (SA, NZ, England, Wales, Ireland, Oz) can realistically beat each other. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are always going to be close games- as we saw in the final, but that the teams have reached such elite levels that a percentage drop either way can have huge ramifications. I think the emotional toll of coming second in a world cup is massive, and as you have alluded to, England might take some time to overcome it.

LondonTiger wrote:I have archived a series of bipartite bickering. The participants were spoken to yesterday by Admin and really need to consider the potential ramifications of continued bickering

Tbf I tried responding in good faith, realised where it was going, then stopped on the basis of the PMs. Seems easier to just never respond to anything he says now, but apologies to mods.

I'd say the key missing ingredient, moreso than even positional issues, was leadership in that England team. Farrell is a wonderful vice captain and lieutenant type figure, but he doesn't have the qualities of a captain. You want that be an AWJ, a Martin Johnson. Realistically, in the modern game, not picking a captain from the back 5 of the pack is crazy. No one stands out there as I think Itoje is a solid 4 years away from the role at minimum, and the way he speaks...his captaincy credentials seem to be as much media driven than anything else. He clearly leads by example but I don't see him having the complete, all round abilities to lead the whole show. I like the way Underhill talks, he seems mentally tough and switched on. If he nails down the shirt - which he might not - I think he has potential. But England ultimately looked like they lacked all the things were discussed back in the 6Ns - a back up reliably 9 to Youngs, an ability to cope under pressure and when the pack gets nullified, and a captain.

miaow wrote:I'd say the key missing ingredient, moreso than even positional issues, was leadership in that England team. Farrell is a wonderful vice captain and lieutenant type figure, but he doesn't have the qualities of a captain. You want that be an AWJ, a Martin Johnson. Realistically, in the modern game, not picking a captain from the back 5 of the pack is crazy. No one stands out there as I think Itoje is a solid 4 years away from the role at minimum, and the way he speaks...his captaincy credentials seem to be as much media driven than anything else. He clearly leads by example but I don't see him having the complete, all round abilities to lead the whole show. I like the way Underhill talks, he seems mentally tough and switched on. If he nails down the shirt - which he might not - I think he has potential. But England ultimately looked like they lacked all the things were discussed back in the 6Ns - a back up reliably 9 to Youngs, an ability to cope under pressure and when the pack gets nullified, and a captain.

Completely agree regarding the need for a captain in the pack, though I think Itoje is closer than 4 years away from being captain material. Underhill is a good shout as long as he is durable enough to be a consistent figure in the team. he's held out this world cup but did have an injury-plagued start to his career, so fingers crossed. England really missed someone to step up and highlight the fact that our one up runners were not working against the SA defense. It sounds so basic but no one seemingly did it

I don't think Underhill will be durable enough. I also think there's going to be too much competition with him a Curry and the 6 shirt as well. I also don't think he's a guaranteed captain material, just seems an old head at a young age.

Underhill might struggle to be in the side if Curry continues as he does (and takes the 7 spot) and Willis comes in at 6 which many are now expecting. Hes an animal!!
But them so is Underhill

That back row battle is going to fascinating.

But we need to decide how it will be made up and stick with it.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Underhill might struggle to be in the side if Curry continues as he does (and takes the 7 spot) and Willis comes in at 6 which many are now expecting. Hes an animal!!
But them so is Underhill  

That back row battle is going to fascinating.  

But we need to decide how it will be made up and stick with it.

I'd like to see our best players picked in the squad rather then adjust game plan to the situation. Vunipola, Mercer and Dombrandt are the best 8 options in my opinion. All different skill-sets that might require adjusting the game plan depending on availability but that is no bad thing in my opinion.

One issue I have had during Jones tenure is the team not adjusting when plan A fails. Having different tactical options in the squad would help with this in my opinion. Horses for courses as it were.

6.Wilson, Willis, Hill
7.Curry, Underhill, Ludlam
8.Vunipola, Mercer, Dombrandt

The 45-man EPS under Jones has usually included 9 back rowers. Those would be my choices.

The likes of Simmonds, Clifford, Earl and Evans who have featured in training and matchday squads before all have the talent to force their way back in.

Full back is more of an issue. The obvious options are already in the squad. Moving Watson or Nowell to 15. This would also allow Daly to play on the wing where he played every minute of the last Lions test series.

Longer term, the full backs at the last 5 U20 world championships have been Aaron Morris (2015), Max Malins (2016), Tom Parton (2017, 2018) and Josh Hodge (2019).

Morris hasn't really kicked on. Malins needs to settle on a position and possibly a club. Parton and Hodge both need time and experience in the Premiership.

Harry Mallinder has featured in Jones training squads before. He offers a lot of positives, not least a 6'5" frame under the highball and coaches should be able to teach him to tackle with his weaker shoulder.

king_carlos wrote:Full back is more of an issue. The obvious options are already in the squad. Moving Watson or Nowell to 15. This would also allow Daly to play on the wing where he played every minute of the last Lions test series.

Longer term, the full backs at the last 5 U20 world championships have been Aaron Morris (2015), Max Malins (2016), Tom Parton (2017, 2018) and Josh Hodge (2019).

Morris hasn't really kicked on. Malins needs to settle on a position and possibly a club. Parton and Hodge both need time and experience in the Premiership.

Harry Mallinder has featured in Jones training squads before. He offers a lot of positives, not least a 6'5" frame under the highball and coaches should be able to teach him to tackle with his weaker shoulder.

Can't help but think Mike Brown was dropped too early. Daly and Watson are both best on the wing, and the final showed just how key a good physical, tactical fall back who can read the game can be, far more important then being super quick.

Mallinder in an interesting one, has all the physical capabilities and the skill, but mentaly is all Twelvetrees, just can't seem to not screw up at times.

Daly is the ultimate #23. I'm yet to be convinced he's a top level winger. Just a useful, versatileplayer who Saracens will no doubt use all over the backline.

i agree...Daly is a bench option for me aswell. Not a starter.

My first option was always Nowell at 15, but having seen Watson this world cup and how he dealt with pretty much everything thrown at him and how he attacked...i would now say he is a must at Full back. Plus Nowell is almost always out with injuries.

I still think we lose more than we can ever gain by moving Watson from wing to FB.

Captaincy wise I can only think of who captain their club sides and neither is going to be starting many games; Launchbury and Wilson, it is a major problem that doesn't have an obvious. I mentioned before the final that Farrell hadn't been tested as captain as we'd always been so dominant and like during the 6 nations he becomes anonymous in that regard when things start going badly.

LondonTiger wrote:I still think we lose more than we can ever gain by moving Watson from wing to FB.

In attack I'd agree. Watson looks a more dangerous runner from the wing. Defensively we gain his work in air though. Arguably his one on one tackling is more difficult to target at fullback as well.

When fans say that Daly is a bench option not a starter I often feel they are forgetting the Lions tour. Only Faletau, Farrell, Davies and Daly played every minute of that test series. Daly did so on the left wing. England look a better team with Daly in it. I just don't think his best position is 15.

Captaincy wise, I can only see it moving from Farrell if Itoje is named captain early on in this next World Cup cycle.

The thing with Farrell on the final was that he tries to play SA at their own game. I think it was 9-6 to SA, 3 penalt's to SA 2 to England. SA just gave  away a pnalty and Farrell wen't for kick at the post and missed rather than kick for the corner for a line out.

England would have gone for the line out in the 6ns why not in the rugby world cup Final?
Was it Farrell's choice to play the kicking at the post every time SA gave away a penalty?

Or was that from EJ From the off?

Personally, I'm not forgetting the Lions tour at all when I see Daly as a bench starter.

Gatland often makes weird, short term picks that work for a while, but then don't. He also picks players to do a job that they otherwise wouldn't do back with their countries. Did anyone really think Tom Youngs would be England's starting hooker in 2015 but for a Hartley misdemeanour towards the end of the season? Only the brave/foolish. You could also look at Tom Croft from that tour, T'eo from 2017 etc.

England are blessed with back 3 options. Daly's strength is his versatility, not his position specific skills. I see problems for him on the wing, at 15, and even 13, although that's probably where he'd look best. That said, there are all better options for England in each position, and EJ ultimately built a gameplan that mitigated Daly's weaknesses in the one big game they played - v NZ - but was more often that not exploited, pre tournament, but also during it as well, n the 15 shirt.

So you argue 'move hiim back to the wing, it's where he played for the Lions'. Maybe. I think this RWC shows you 100% need rotation and NZ got it wrong with the timing of theirs, England got it right up until the fnal, and Wales probably didn't rotate enough thanks to injuries. No reason to pick Daly here and there at 11.

I just think he looks like your ultimately #23. I've yet to see the kind of blistering or game breaking and changing ability that would demand he starts irrespective of how that disrupts thngs, like a Cheslin Kolbe.

majesticimperialman wrote:The thing with Farrell on the final was that he tries to play SA at their own game. I think it was 9-6 to SA, 3 penalt's to SA 2 to England. SA just gave  away a pnalty and Farrell wen't for kick at the post and missed rather than kick for the corner for a line out.

England would have gone for the line out in the 6ns why not in the rugby world cup Final?
Was it Farrell's choice to play the kicking at the post every time SA gave away a penalty?

Or was that from EJ From the off?

Did England really kick for corners in the Six Nations? Seems a bit unlikely. Not doubting you, but I’m sure in tight games like the Wales one, they’d have gone for goal.

But in what should’ve been a nip and tuck game in the final, every penalty in range should always be a kick at goal. That’s not bad leadership.

It’s a tricky one, especially with hindsight involved. I think the moment maj is referring to is when SA were 6 ahead and a tricky kick for Farrell out on the right. In a normal game I completely agree that it’s the right move to attempt the points and keep in touch.

However, SA’s scrum dominance meant they were always likely to be able to get a chance of a penalty and score straight back if they got thy set piece in England's half. I was screaming for Farrell to go for the corner (admittedly on the angle) as by that stage in the game England needed a bigger outcome of points as SA were likely to win the x3 points tit-for-tat. Also, England’s defensive re-starts were uncharacteristically poor, meaning a penalty kick success would likely be neutralised pretty quickly.

Easy to say now, but I thought England needed to chase the game earlier rather than try to stay in touch.

Those are the kind of goal kicks you should be willing to take. Not the gimmes from 5m out bang in front. Even if you miss, unless you botch the chase, you're getting the ball back around halfway or having a lineout about midway in their half if you can stop them getting a kick away without pressure.

England were ultimately beaten in the tight and the set piece. Staying in touch was the way to go, but they didn't kick well enough - Farrell missed 2 kicks at goal, no? Had they got the score to 15-12 in the second half - as they had the opportunity to - it would have been a very, very different game. Those are the fine margins games flow on. Instead, it became 18-9, and then 18-12, and even then England didn't even begin to chase the game effectiviely. They drip fed the bench, unsettling their flow it seemed, and then the Boks finally got wait they waited all tournament to do - pounce on the counter attack.

Really don't think the kicks at goal were Farrell's failings. It's less specific and more general, I think, that Farrell struggled with the captaincy.

Anyway, apologies for taking it off topic with my post.

Cyril wrote:It’s a tricky one, especially with hindsight involved. I think the moment maj is referring to is when SA were 6 ahead and a tricky kick for Farrell out on the right. In a normal game I completely agree that it’s the right move to attempt the points and keep in touch.

However, SA’s scrum dominance meant they were always likely to be able to get a chance of a penalty and score straight back if they got thy set piece in England's half. I was screaming for Farrell to go for the corner (admittedly on the angle) as by that stage in the game England needed a bigger outcome of points as SA were likely to win the x3 points tit-for-tat. Also, England’s defensive re-starts were uncharacteristically poor, meaning a penalty kick success would likely be neutralised pretty quickly.

Easy to say now, but I thought England needed to chase the game earlier rather than try to stay in touch.

Don't forget that South Africa no longer had scrum dominance, Marler had changed the whole complexion of the set piece once he came on.

Soul Requiem wrote:

Cyril wrote:It’s a tricky one, especially with hindsight involved. I think the moment maj is referring to is when SA were 6 ahead and a tricky kick for Farrell out on the right. In a normal game I completely agree that it’s the right move to attempt the points and keep in touch.

However, SA’s scrum dominance meant they were always likely to be able to get a chance of a penalty and score straight back if they got thy set piece in England's half. I was screaming for Farrell to go for the corner (admittedly on the angle) as by that stage in the game England needed a bigger outcome of points as SA were likely to win the x3 points tit-for-tat. Also, England’s defensive re-starts were uncharacteristically poor, meaning a penalty kick success would likely be neutralised pretty quickly.

Easy to say now, but I thought England needed to chase the game earlier rather than try to stay in touch.

Don't forget that South Africa no longer had scrum dominance, Marler had changed the whole complexion of the set piece once he came on.

Kruis packing down on the TH side of the second row made just as big a difference.

LondonTiger wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Cyril wrote:It’s a tricky one, especially with hindsight involved. I think the moment maj is referring to is when SA were 6 ahead and a tricky kick for Farrell out on the right. In a normal game I completely agree that it’s the right move to attempt the points and keep in touch.

However, SA’s scrum dominance meant they were always likely to be able to get a chance of a penalty and score straight back if they got thy set piece in England's half. I was screaming for Farrell to go for the corner (admittedly on the angle) as by that stage in the game England needed a bigger outcome of points as SA were likely to win the x3 points tit-for-tat. Also, England’s defensive re-starts were uncharacteristically poor, meaning a penalty kick success would likely be neutralised pretty quickly.

Easy to say now, but I thought England needed to chase the game earlier rather than try to stay in touch.

Don't forget that South Africa no longer had scrum dominance, Marler had changed the whole complexion of the set piece once he came on.

Kruis packing down on the TH side of the second row made just as big a difference.

Also true, does make the selection look a bit stupid in hindsight.

miaow wrote: I don't think Underhill will be durable enough. I also think there's going to be too much competition with him a Curry and the 6 shirt as well. I also don't think he's a guaranteed captain material, just seems an old head at a young age.

I worry about this too, the world cup has been somewhat of anomaly in Underhill's (admittedly short) career in regards to injuries. I think people just forget how long he spends on the treatment table, it is a product of his uncompromising game. The depth could be there in the back-row, but we have to remember that despite being exciting/ fantastic prospects the likes of Ted Hill, Jack Willis, Alex Dombrandt are still untested at international level. Some may take to it like a duck to water, it might not click for others.

Question regarding scrum halves, has Harry Randall at Bristol dropped from the conversation all together? He was looking good at the back end of last season. Do people think he is just too small for international rugby?

His size is one of the things I worry about Cumbrian.

He is a good running and passing SH and Faf has shown little is not bad. But Randall plays like a small man. For me it will come down to what Eddie wants from the 6Ns. I would not be surprised to see Youngs stay for a while, though I would look at playing Robson and Spencer while hoping that longer term Mitchell develops.

Mitchell is very good and with Reinach leaving at the end of the season, has real potential to be first choice I think.

LondonTiger wrote:His size is one of the things I worry about Cumbrian.

He is a good running and passing SH and Faf has shown little is not bad. But Randall plays like a small man. For me it will come down to what Eddie wants from the 6Ns. I would not be surprised to see Youngs stay for a while, though I would look at playing Robson and Spencer while hoping that longer term Mitchell develops.

I agree that Youngs is likely to be around for a little time yet, but I am desperate for some fresh blood to come through in the position. It feels like we have seen one of Youngs, Care or Wigglesworth for the entirety of my natural life...

I take your point about Randall's game and actually reconsidering things, I think I might like to exact opposite! For too long we have had scrumhalves who do the 'flash' things well, but are prone to inconsistency in other areas of their game. That is not to say I want somebody like Wigglesworth who only seems to kick the leather off the ball.

I want a competent player that gets to rucks quickly and delivers accurate ball again and again. Ruck, gone, ruck, gone, ruck, gone... try in the corner.

Sometimes things just seems so slow.

Interesting to see just how many SHs are on the list for most kicks in this:

https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sport/rugby/premiership-rugby-player-statistics-opta-17208954

Ben Earl is staring looking at those stats then LT...

Though thats a horror story for Zac Mercer missing 14 tackles!!!!

4 Bath players in the top 6 for missed tackles. That would suggest their system is designed to soak it up. Mike Williams and Jamie Roberts also in the top 5. Roberts is no slouch in defence.

Under Gustard Sarries tended to have high missed tackle stats due to how aggressive their rush defence was. They were looking to push sides back rather than just stop them and accepted that being beaten occasionally was part of the tactic.

Soul Requiem wrote:

Cyril wrote:It’s a tricky one, especially with hindsight involved. I think the moment maj is referring to is when SA were 6 ahead and a tricky kick for Farrell out on the right. In a normal game I completely agree that it’s the right move to attempt the points and keep in touch.

However, SA’s scrum dominance meant they were always likely to be able to get a chance of a penalty and score straight back if they got thy set piece in England's half. I was screaming for Farrell to go for the corner (admittedly on the angle) as by that stage in the game England needed a bigger outcome of points as SA were likely to win the x3 points tit-for-tat. Also, England’s defensive re-starts were uncharacteristically poor, meaning a penalty kick success would likely be neutralised pretty quickly.

Easy to say now, but I thought England needed to chase the game earlier rather than try to stay in touch.

Don't forget that South Africa no longer had scrum dominance, Marler had changed the whole complexion of the set piece once he came on.

They still won a penalty late in the game. Marler made it more competitive, yes, but SA had the edge for the full 80. Did think the ref got the first penalty when Marler came on wrong though. 'Clear' penalty to England for me.

England going to Japan in 2020 or their summer tour.

In 2021, the summer of the Lions, presumably it'll be a second string side against weaker opposition again.

Seems a bit cynical/clever, but risk as well.

1. Rest most of the RWC stars. I imagine about 50-70% of the starting side will be rested, depending on injuries. Particularly those likely to end up with the Lions.
2. Ranking points. Staying in the top 4 means your main challenger might be Scotland or Argentina (or Japan!) instead of NZ or SA in 2023.
3. Tap in to the Japan factor - money? Contacts? Feel good factor for England boys - of will it be a case of bad memories going back to the site of failure?

However, England are likely to have only one 'big'/proper tour as England i.e. not with the Lions to the SH before France 2023. Possibility of being undercooked? Felt the Australia and SA tours really helped England see where they were as a team in 2016 and 2018.

By 2022 England wont have toured NZ for 8 years. The longest gap between AB vs England series in the Pro era. I'd bet that a 3 test series will be lined up for that final summer before the Rugby World Cup in 2023.

England have toured Argentina during the last 3 Lions tours. Could be a reasonable bet there as well for 2021.

I'd absolutely love for England to tour the Pacific Isles that summer playing a single test against each of Fiji, Tonga and Samoa. Often tours that summer are half cooked exercises with ambivalent support. If anything could change that somewhat you'd hope it'd be the chance to visit Suva, Apia and Naku'alofa.

Yeah that was Hansens comments, we dont play England enough. England playing three tests in a row in the PI's would be a hard sell. Even the PI's would probably want them played at Eden park as they'd get far more support and return. Cant see England agreeing to three for low returns.

I feel like we really miss a Delon Armitage style 15, big,combative and powerful with just a really solid all-round game. If only he was around now.

There's some serious depth in the English age grade systems, as well as those who don't make the grades but come good in the end. Guarantee England will have unearthed a 15 in 4 years time, if not 2.

Josh Hodge is on his way for the 15 spot. He has the lot.

Just needs to leave the Amateur falcons side for a top prem side so he can develop,

I didn't see the Irish/Leicester game, but Tom Parton was mentioned in dispatches for scoring the bonus point try, I've heard his name banded around a bit but I don't really recall seeing him play (even struggling to remember him from his England U20s days). What sort of full back is he? All rounder like Brown, attacking like Foden? etc

England simply have to move on from Daly at full back, he has only ever reached 'okay' in the position. The position needs to be one of strength not 'oh look he didn't drop a high ball this game, brilliant!'

GeordieFalcon wrote:Josh Hodge is on his way for the 15 spot. He has the lot.

Just needs to leave the Amateur falcons side for a top prem side so he can develop,

I am hoping that if we get a big enough lead in the league Deano will finally start trusting the youngsters in the second half of the season.

It really burns my toast to see Zach Kibirige score wonder tries for Wasps, when he wasn't trusted by Deano.

Marchant off to super rugby on loan as well. Interesting times for some of those younger quins players youd imagine.

Cumbrian wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Josh Hodge is on his way for the 15 spot. He has the lot.

Just needs to leave the Amateur falcons side for a top prem side so he can develop,

I am hoping that if we get a big enough lead in the league Deano will finally start trusting the youngsters in the second half of the season.

It really burns my toast to see Zach Kibirige score wonder tries for Wasps, when he wasn't trusted by Deano.

Marra, sadly im resigned to the fact Deano is a dinosaur and needs to be moved on. The rugby this season has been amateurish at best, with Flood painfully slow and out of touch with coorindating a fast paced team.

We have the players and pitch to play a dynamic fast game, but Dean doesnt have the ability to coach that. We need a young new coach with fresh modern ideas.
Its an extreme example but when you look at the rugby that Japan played, compared to us...its like a different sport.

Players like Josh Hodge, Adam Radwan, Charlie Wilson (hasnt even played this season!!) Josh Basham, etc will all move on...mark my words.

I don't know that England's priority should be changing a lot of personnel. We can look back and conclude Jones made selection errors. In truth, though, most fans and pundits thought he was right to stick with much the same line-up, so everyone fell into the same trap.

Where we have gone wrong, is not having the nouse to understand how to change momentum in a game when it has going against you.

I've heard several suggestions about how that might have been done in the final, and no-one will ever know if any of them would really have worked. Here are some of them:

1. Use the grubber kick through to counter South Africa's press
2. Bring Marler and Kruis on earlier, to send a message about the scrums
3. Switch Farrell to 10 earlier
4. Get the ball out to Tuilagi to challenge on the outside.
5. Challenge Garces more. Itoje was seen pulling George away from the referee after a scrum penalty but one former player thought George had a good case, and should have left Garces knowing he was unhappy.

Whatever the merits of the individual ideas, they were all designed to change the picture the opposition and referee were seeing.

yappysnap wrote:I feel like we really miss a Delon Armitage style 15, big,combative and powerful with just a really solid all-round game. If only he was around now.

You mean like Harry Mallinder?

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

yappysnap wrote:I feel like we really miss a Delon Armitage style 15, big,combative and powerful with just a really solid all-round game. If only he was around now.

You mean like Harry Mallinder?

Probably not, unless Mallinder has worked on his defence during the injury.

Nothing wrong with HM's defense that cannot be fixed with some good coaching, i am sure Boyd will have that in hand.

How far from a return is he?

I just wonder if he will be one of those who, like Jack Clifford, promise so much young but are never allowed by injury to fulfill that early expectation.