[solved]England Pre 2023 6Ns and Beyond.

First topic message reminder :

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/jan/06/eddie-jones-mistakes-with-england-why-i-got-the-sack-rugby-union

Interview with Jones about being sacked there. Some interesting stuff in amongst it.

No 7&1/2 wrote:And Tom Willis is coming back to England with Saracens apparently.

Good move for him. I actually prefer him to Jack as a player....he could see himself involved in the Int set-up with any luck.

Barbeary is the backrow I've been most excited about, if only he could get a good run of games. He has such natural explosive power.....he could be outstanding.

And funnily enough Barbeary is one i have zero interest in as a backrower.

I've been excited about him since he burst on the scene. You can't teach that kind of physicality...he's really unique. I was disappointed he didn't join one of the better sides when leaving Wasps tbh.

When available he was already being picked ahead of Willis. My disappointment was that he didn't want to play as hooker. Granted we never got to see what his setpiece was like but he would bring a very different skill set in the loose to any other hooker we had. Hey ho, shed loads of choice as ever.

Jon Clarke is the latest coach mooted by the Daily Heil to England from the womens team with Aled Walters then going to the Roses.

Anyone heard anything about Farrell's disciplinary hearing? Wasn't it last night?

No 7&1/2 wrote:When available he was already being picked ahead of Willis. My disappointment was that he didn't want to play as hooker. Granted we never got to see what his setpiece was like but he would bring a very different skill set in the loose to any other hooker we had. Hey ho, shed loads of choice as ever.

Agree, if he could have nailed the set piece, he'd have a real point of difference as a hooker. He's still got a good shot in the back row (fitness depending), but I'm not sure what he brings is as unique.

We'll see.

No 7&1/2 wrote:When available he was already being picked ahead of Willis. My disappointment was that he didn't want to play as hooker. Granted we never got to see what his setpiece was like but he would bring a very different skill set in the loose to any other hooker we had. Hey ho, shed loads of choice as ever.

Was he? Didn't they move Willis to 6 to try and keep Tom Willis in the side? That was certainly the case for the start of this season.

Barbeary was freakishly explosive. That was the interest. As a hooker that would have been of immense interest, as an 8 less so but would have still offered something fairly unique. Needs to get back fit and playing regularly before he's close to the conversation.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:When available he was already being picked ahead of Willis. My disappointment was that he didn't want to play as hooker. Granted we never got to see what his setpiece was like but he would bring a very different skill set in the loose to any other hooker we had. Hey ho, shed loads of choice as ever.

Was he? Didn't they move Willis to 6 to try and keep Tom Willis in the side? That was certainly the case for the start of this season.

Barbeary was freakishly explosive. That was the interest. As a hooker that would have been of immense interest, as an 8 less so but would have still offered something fairly unique. Needs to get back fit and playing regularly before he's close to the conversation.

More often than not when they had all their pieces it was Willis the younger on the bench and Shields at 6. That said the injury disruptions to both Shields and Barbeary meant plenty of chances. Talk about ceiling in talent, Barbeary's seems much higher than Willis'.

I think it'll be really interesting to see how that Bath back row go. Seen sometimes that a club partnership (of a high standard anyway) can keep out better players as the partnership is seen as stronger. You have to think that Hill, Underhill and Barbeary have a very balanced and good look to them if they can transfer that to the pitch.

3 week ban for Farrell

BBC reporting Farrell likely available for 6N.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/64233595

So won't be included in next week's England squad else he sits put Scotland due to the squad rules around release. Probably.

Shock horror that he is available for the start of the 6 nations. Gets 2 weeks off for admitting the charge & showing good conduct during the hearing.....

Oakdene wrote:Shock horror that he is available for the start of the 6 nations. Gets 2 weeks off for admitting the charge & showing good conduct during the hearing.....

Unsurprisingly given the nature of the challenge and process re admitting.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Oakdene wrote:Shock horror that he is available for the start of the 6 nations. Gets 2 weeks off for admitting the charge & showing good conduct during the hearing.....

Unsurprisingly given the nature of the challenge and process re admitting.

So if you admit fault you get weeks knocked off every time?

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Oakdene wrote:Shock horror that he is available for the start of the 6 nations. Gets 2 weeks off for admitting the charge & showing good conduct during the hearing.....

Unsurprisingly given the nature of the challenge and process re admitting.

So if you admit fault you get weeks knocked off every time?

In most cases yes. Contrition involved, behaviour to the panel, past behaviour, how you accepted it on the pitch etc etc.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Oakdene wrote:Shock horror that he is available for the start of the 6 nations. Gets 2 weeks off for admitting the charge & showing good conduct during the hearing.....

Unsurprisingly given the nature of the challenge and process re admitting.

So if you admit fault you get weeks knocked off every time?

In most cases yes. Contrition involved, behaviour to the panel, past behaviour, how you accepted it on the pitch etc etc.

So keep doing what you do but as long as you say sorry each time....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/54081068

Tught Oak, it's coming out in drabs, read initially he had accepted that on review he had made contact with his head directly, after thinking at first it was chest I've just read another snippet from Chris Jones that he denied his actions warranted a red card. They generally release the full details for everyone all at once so guess that's upcoming and tere'll be more detail on the lowering or setting of ban.

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Oakdene wrote:Shock horror that he is available for the start of the 6 nations. Gets 2 weeks off for admitting the charge & showing good conduct during the hearing.....

Unsurprisingly given the nature of the challenge and process re admitting.

So if you admit fault you get weeks knocked off every time?

In most cases yes. Contrition involved, behaviour to the panel, past behaviour, how you accepted it on the pitch etc etc.

So keep doing what you do but as long as you say sorry each time....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/54081068

Or change your name to Johnny Sexton, whereby you don't even get sited for a head on head collision - Jarrad Butler 'tackle'.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Tught Oak, it's coming out in drabs, read initially he had accepted that on review he had made contact with his head directly, after thinking at first it was chest I've just read another snippet from Chris Jones that he denied his actions warranted a red card. They generally release the full details for everyone all at once so guess that's upcoming and tere'll be more detail on the lowering or setting of ban.

I know people will think I'm only saying what I have said because I'm Welsh etc but I'm really not, I just can't believe he continues to get away with it.

As to another case (Colman) that really is bonkers re the ban. Should anyone actually think Farrell got off lightly due to his nationality and standing Colman got a 3 match ban and now missesa Baa Baas game, a Prem Cup and Prem game. Fair enough on first glance some would think....yet they accepted that he would have been picked for these despite a 1 day turn around!

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Tught Oak, it's coming out in drabs, read initially he had accepted that on review he had made contact with his head directly, after thinking at first it was chest I've just read another snippet from Chris Jones that he denied his actions warranted a red card. They generally release the full details for everyone all at once so guess that's upcoming and tere'll be more detail on the lowering or setting of ban.

I know people will think I'm only saying what I have said because I'm Welsh etc but I'm really not, I just can't believe he continues to get away with it.

He hasn't got away with anything though.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Tught Oak, it's coming out in drabs, read initially he had accepted that on review he had made contact with his head directly, after thinking at first it was chest I've just read another snippet from Chris Jones that he denied his actions warranted a red card. They generally release the full details for everyone all at once so guess that's upcoming and tere'll be more detail on the lowering or setting of ban.

I know people will think I'm only saying what I have said because I'm Welsh etc but I'm really not, I just can't believe he continues to get away with it.

He hasn't got away with anything though.

Sorry poor choice of phrase, I mean he should have had a bigger ban.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Tught Oak, it's coming out in drabs, read initially he had accepted that on review he had made contact with his head directly, after thinking at first it was chest I've just read another snippet from Chris Jones that he denied his actions warranted a red card. They generally release the full details for everyone all at once so guess that's upcoming and tere'll be more detail on the lowering or setting of ban.

I know people will think I'm only saying what I have said because I'm Welsh etc but I'm really not, I just can't believe he continues to get away with it.

He hasn't got away with anything though.

Of course he has over the years and given two previous bans for dangerous tackles then how can he merit a reduction?

Compare his treatment to hartley

Re the bigger ban, I'd like to see the conclusion/summary of why they've given it. Before it came out I said he was likely getting a ban but a shortish one given the nature of the tackle. I'm guessing that's the primary weighting. Re the 2 previous bans TJ, I can think of the red for Atkinson but my memory is failing me for the other.

From the beeb:

The offence - which Farrell admitted to - was deemed to be at the mid-range of dangerous tackles and attracted a six-week ban as a starting point.

He was given two weeks' mitigation for his early admission of the charge and "exemplary" conduct during the hearing.

"The panel accepts that the player thought he had struck the chest of his opponent but in our view the footage confirms he was wrong," Farrell's disciplinary report said.

"We acknowledge there was no injury to the opposition player and have taken this into account in our decision.

"We do not however think that this effects our conclusion that a high degree of danger existed."

It is the second time in less than two-and-a-half years that Farrell has been banned for a dangerous tackle.

In September 2020 he was suspended for five weeks after a dangerous tackle on Charlie Atkinson in a game against Wasps - the offence was deemed to be at the high end of severity and had a 10-week ban as its starting point.'

So mid range offence, given the previous red could they have just upheld the whole thing, yeah they could have done, would be pretty rare though.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/64238850

As thought Curry ruled out. Opens the door for Willis, Earl, Pearson as front runners?

No 7&1/2 wrote:David Duckham has died.

He and John Spencer were a pretty useful center pairing.

Sports law blogger Tim O'Connor (@timoconnorbl on Twitter) has been calling out the lazy reporting of the ruling.

Rugby Pass says Farrell wasn't treated as a repeat offender but that's not what the judgement says. It acually says he's not a serious enough repeat offender to warrant adding on extra penalties but his past record means he's not entitled to rare offender mitigation.

Tom Hamilton of ESPN thinks Farrell has got the benefit of a loophole. O'Connor says the process had been the same as for everyone: work out entry point; add on any relevant penalties, then take off any applicable mitigation. In this case, the mitigation was all down to Farrell's apology, acceptance of guilt, and behaviour up to and including the disciplinary hearing.

No 7&1/2 wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/64238850

As thought Curry ruled out. Opens the door for Willis, Earl, Pearson as front runners?

Or Ben Curry?

is anyone honestly surprised that Farrell is available....he was never going to be risked.

Not at all surprised that Farrell gets to play. Didn't think he was ever at risk, just not a bad enough tackle.

Re B Curry, reckon he's in the wider discussion, think he's behind those 3 pretty comfortably but who knows.

It would be nice for B.Curry to be in the discussion at least....he's a pest around the breakdown. I imagine he'll be very keen to make an impression with his brother out.

Tom must have earned close to £1m over the years with England appearances alone....crazy really. Pretty sure Ben was capped before him? May be wrong.

Yeah Ben was the one they thought was better. But just injury prone and Tom took his chance.

Is Ben a 7 for sale & Tom a 6?

On the relatively few occasions that they have played together this year Ben has been 7 and Tom 6.  Obviously Tom has been away a lot with England plus he has missed some other games with the odd niggle or being rested.  However Ben seems to have stepped up his performances this year having previously been quite far down the pecking order - behind the Du Preezs and Jono Ross, as well as Tom.  I would say though on performances over the last season and a half he is behind Earl, Underhill, Pearson and Willis, but he is definitely on an upward trend.  I know people like to think of him and Tom being identical rugby players because they are twins - they are not - Tom has for 3 years been performing at a level or two above Ben.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:It would be nice for B.Curry to be in the discussion at least....he's a pest around the breakdown. I imagine he'll be very keen to make an impression with his brother out.

Tom must have earned close to £1m over the years with England appearances alone....crazy really. Pretty sure Ben was capped before him? May be wrong.

Ben was selected in the squad for the 2017 Argentina tour ahead of Tom but got a bad injury. Tom was called up, made his debut and just kept getting better.

It's a fascinating case study in how an injury at that age of physical development can knock a player back. A year on from then and Tom was increasingly looking like David Pocock whilst Ben looked much the same as in the U20s. He was also back playing in the U20s I believe. It took Ben a while to catch up physically but he's put in some fantastic performances in the last 2 years. Losing out on the chance to fully train at that age where you develop so quickly is a hammer blow to a young player.

Tom is still the more physical especially in the tackle but also carrying in contact. Ben is very good over the ball though, makes a ton of tackles and has grown into a good link man. I'd agree with Sharkey that Tom is still the significantly better player.

I haven't seen it posted anywhere so I'll mention the passing of David 'Dai' Duckham here. Well before my time but a highly respected player.

Despite the intense rivalry with England, Duckham's swashbuckling style of play and tryscoring prowess earned him huge respect among Welsh fans. Hence the nickname, as it was felt he was the one English player who would have fitted into the thrilling way Wales played in the 1970s golden era.

Off topic, but I didn't see the need for a new one as 24 after the event no one had set one up. David Duckham (Dai Duckham to our Welsh brethren), I have been looking at the old clips of him for England, Lions and the Barbarians, what a fantastic player. If you want to show an example of a swerve or step at pace, then he is your man.

In the amateur era by a considerable number of years, but still one of England's best ever backs, probably the best I can think of, only one that comes close is Jason Robinson, but he was pro and had a lot more advantages.

RIP David (Dai) Duckham

PS. I am getting worried, he was not that much older than me, as a number of recently deceased players have been, am I getting close to leaving this world?

Mikey, just beat me to it.

When is the squad announced? Next week?

Monday I think

So what team do you all expect for Scotland?

Genge, George, Itoje, Farrell, Steward. They'll play if fit, after that don't know.

Is Watson fit again or still injured?

I reckon Ollie Lawence be in 23, possibly even starter. Maybe Farrell, Manu, Lawrence at 10, 12, 13?

Who knows though (well Borthwick we assume).

Would love to see Lawrence. I'd love to see a few changes to last lineup. Will Borthwick follow the Leicester model? How much will he lean into Evans view?

And how will the squad be announced re Farrell. He can play the Scotland game if he's technically involved in the last saracens game. But then can't if he's in the England squad. But then he can't be in the England squad as he'll be suspended. Which means he can play in the saracens game......arrgghhhh

Geordie wrote:Is Watson fit again or still injured?

He was fit for a couple of games, played really well and is now injured again.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Geordie wrote:Is Watson fit again or still injured?

He was fit for a couple of games, played really well and is now injured again.

Yeah i knew he went off injured the other week...i was wondering how severe?