June International Test: Australia vs. England [1st Test] (11/06/2016)

[Peat]

I was more mulling it over than arguing a case. It's a lovely problem to have with kruis, launchbury and Itoje, would be made a lot easier if EJ dropped Haskell and or Robshaw.

Here's hoping we can have that depth everywhere. As you say, if we had this at 12... too often we've been picking between players who'll never be a star and make plenty of mistakes anyway.

 

[johnmac99]

Eddie Jones on YouTube saying that Nowell had come back from Exeter 'a little bit short of where we need him to be' and Yarde 'is in good form lately'.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

Jones has clearly gone for the most physical side he could (I know there are a few exceptions) to try and out muscle the Aussies. I say, fair enough, as we're never going to beat them playing their game. I still can't get on board with the Yarde/Nowell/Daly situation. For me, Nowell has to start or he's not in the team. I think he's great, but he doesn't make an impact, his best aspect is his reliability, which you don't want off the bench. He should've stayed as a starter, but if Jones really wants Yarde there, then Daly should've been the 23, not Nowell. Daly covers the same positions, +12, and is more electric.

I also can't get over how he's put out such a slow back row, and not even put Clifford or Harrison on the bench. This means that 2 of Robshaw, Haskell, Vunipola are gonna have to play a full game (Itoje to 6) and I'm not sure against the Aussies they can manage that. Billy, good as he is, certainly can't, which means Haskell moving to 8, which after 60 mins of playing at 7, he's not gonna have the energy for.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

If we wanted physical and abrasive then Harrison should have started on one of the flanks. He's got more dog in his little finger than Haskell and Robshaw combined.

 

[Every Time Ref]

I mostly agree with that but I don't think the second row should be considered as a unit. I think they should be considered in light of the pack as a whole.

Does that mean I change them? Probably not today, but given that our pack has a significant weakness in terms of support play and the breakdown, I still remain very much pro-Launchbury as he's the single biggest boost to that available outside of the starting 8.

Probably an argument to be re-examined after the series rather than now though.

I want Launchbury in the team medium- even short-term too, but can't agree that the two second rows aren't intrinsically linked to each other more strongly than the rest of the pack. They link together to push in the scrum, both jumping options, both expect to leave the set piece at similar times therefore should be hitting similar breakdowns at similar times ... I don't understand your logic to be honest

II'm surprised and not in favour, but I can see the logic. The back line wasn't providing enough physicality; Yarde in changes that. Again, I don't think the back three can be considered a unit in isolation. Arguably it creates a defensive weakness but Nowell had some dodgy moments in the Six Nations anyway.



You're arguing against something no one's said in this instance and where the player left out is one of the most error free and consistent we have.

In general though, I'd argue that unless a player makes few mistakes and has very few weaknesses, they're not a star. There's a few monster athletes who are an exception to that rule but for me, stars are players who never drop below a certain threshold and are capable of doing multiple things incredibly well.

Agree on Yarde - not in favour but see the logic, and I do cautiously rate him

 

[Duck a l'Orange]

Jack Nowell rumoured to be nursing thumb ligament damage by the Telegraph.

Although it can't be that bad if he's still on the bench.

 

[Peat]

I want Launchbury in the team medium- even short-term too, but can't agree that the two second rows aren't intrinsically linked to each other more strongly than the rest of the pack. They link together to push in the scrum, both jumping options, both expect to leave the set piece at similar times therefore should be hitting similar breakdowns at similar times ... I don't understand your logic to be honest

And I completely disagrees with yours. There is nothing the second row do that is them and them alone and as such, there's no point considering them as a unit in isolation. If Kruis has a mare in the lineout, then we won't go "Ah hell the second row is bust", we'll go "Ah hell, the lineout is bust".

 

[Aristodemus]

Can't get behind the decision to drop Nowell myself as I think he has been really good these last couple of months. Farrell and Burrell is a but of a downer too but I'm still hopeful we can put in a performance.

 

[The Jones Boy]

My money is on the Aussies but if the Poms can get some points on the board early then the cat could get among the pigeons.

 

[Every Time Ref]

And I completely disagrees with yours. There is nothing the second row do that is them and them alone and as such, there's no point considering them as a unit in isolation. If Kruis has a mare in the lineout, then we won't go "Ah hell the second row is bust", we'll go "Ah hell, the lineout is bust".

I never said in isolation to be fair, obviously no part of a team exists in isolation, but there are still units within it who are more interdependent with each other than with other players.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

https://www.facebook.com/OfficialEnglandRugby/videos/10153848889619825/

Eddie discussing his choices. "Australia scrum relatively legal"

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

I'm surprised at the amount of people (Not on here) that are calling for Goode to be starting over Brown.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Not playing as well as one of the other players can is, imo, enough to warrant dropping.

And you make the switch when you think it wins you the next match..

Not that I'm sure I'd have made the switch given what Kruis means to our line out. I make those points philosophically.

But I still think he's overrated in general and also being rated on one window, which means the rating is possibly premature.

I'm a big fan of Kruis and he should be one of the first names on the team sheet. Launch was stellar in a friendly against Wales but hasn't really torn up many other trees since injury. That said I think they complement each other well and I'd play the pair of them with Itoje at 6. It'll happen, just a question of when.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

The more I think about it the more annoyed I am at Robshaw and Haskell, lawes on the bench instead of Clifford, Burrell at 12 and dropping our best back Nowell.

Really don't understand what Jones is trying to do with this selection.

 

[ncurd]

I'm surprised at the amount of people (Not on here) that are calling for Goode to be starting over Brown.

Not really same people call for Ashton.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh yeah and say Ford always sucked.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

The more I think about it the more annoyed I am at Robshaw and Haskell, lawes on the bench instead of Clifford, Burrell at 12 and dropping our best back Nowell.

Really don't understand what Jones is trying to do with this selection.

Aussie agent. Make us think he's the real deal in the 6N then take us to Aus, get us thrashed and then stay in Aus and wave us goodbye before joining the Stormers as planned

 

[Peat]

I never said in isolation to be fair, obviously no part of a team exists in isolation, but there are still units within it who are more interdependent with each other than with other players.

But if there is no meaningful measurement of them in isolation, how are they a meaningful unit?

Still - lets look at interdependency.

Is the lock dependent on his other lock at scrum time? No more than the prop in front of him, with the flanker besides him and the hooker in front of him also quite important.

Is the lock dependent on his other lock at the line out? He is most dependent on the hooker and the two men lifting him. The latter may include the other lock, particularly in a short lineout, but its unlikely. We're looking at props in particular and the back row as well. He's a bit dependent on the other jumpers to distract the opposition, but there's no guarantee the other jumper they're most fixated on is a lock.

Is the lock dependent on his other lock when breaking from a set piece? Piece of string. Maybe they hit the same ruck. Maybe one player is lining up as the next carrier while the other clears the ruck with a centre. Maybe one lock clears the ruck while the other lurks on the blindside. That's assuming a scrum. If its a maul then, well, anyone could emerge first. If its from a lineout, its not unusual to see the jumper stay out on that wing as the player sweeps to the other side, at which point its not unusual to see the locks with most of the pitch between them.

I really don't see a huge amount of inter-dependence there. Maybe the locks are more inter-dependent, but not to any meaningful degree.

 

[Maverick1987]

But if there is no meaningful measurement of them in isolation, how are they a meaningful unit?

Still - lets look at interdependency.

Is the lock dependent on his other lock at scrum time? No more than the prop in front of him, with the flanker besides him and the hooker in front of him also quite important.

Is the lock dependent on his other lock at the line out? He is most dependent on the hooker and the two men lifting him. The latter may include the other lock, particularly in a short lineout, but its unlikely. We're looking at props in particular and the back row as well. He's a bit dependent on the other jumpers to distract the opposition, but there's no guarantee the other jumper they're most fixated on is a lock.

Is the lock dependent on his other lock when breaking from a set piece? Piece of string. Maybe they hit the same ruck. Maybe one player is lining up as the next carrier while the other clears the ruck with a centre. Maybe one lock clears the ruck while the other lurks on the blindside. That's assuming a scrum. If its a maul then, well, anyone could emerge first. If its from a lineout, its not unusual to see the jumper stay out on that wing as the player sweeps to the other side, at which point its not unusual to see the locks with most of the pitch between them.

I really don't see a huge amount of inter-dependence there. Maybe the locks are more inter-dependent, but not to any meaningful degree.

I see Kruis, Itoje and Launchbury the same as JJ and Daly . Yes Daly and Launchbury are playing well but to make a change would be making it for the sake of it. Unless Itoje goes in the back row that is ....

 

[ratsapprentice]

Nah... because Launch has already played better than Kruis has at international level.

 

[TobesHodges]

Going to throw it out there and say this doesn't look like the best Aussie Team we have seen, No Toomua (who IMO is one of the best 12's on form), DHP and Horne, is no Tomane - Spieght or Nairyavoro. Though with players like Foley, Falou and phibbs and the bang in form Karevi, they'll still cause us problems. I think though the Tight Five can be got at, the Brummies lads have slipped slightly lately and debutants in the second row will be under a lot of pressure. But of course "That back row doe", insanely good and with Mcmahon off the bench will make life for England very difficult. Wondering what the aussie's think on the team, though i know Chieka's hands are slightly tied by injury.

Prediction: England by 5 - The Faz man will bring it home..