Players who should never put on an England shirt again

[Biffer]

As things stand, there will be more Scots players touring with the Lions than English ones. The only nailed on tourist is Itoje, Underhill and Curry should go as well as Cowan Dickie who is streets ahead of George, the rest...meh.

That’ll never happen with Gatland in charge, even if Scotland win the 6Ns.

[SaintK]

As things stand, there will be more Scots players touring with the Lions than English ones. The only nailed on tourist is Itoje, Underhill and Curry should go as well as Cowan Dickie who is streets ahead of George, the rest...meh.

Alas, I don't think any players will be touring this year

[Torquemada 1420]

In no particular order

Elliot Daley
Ben Youngs
Owen Farrell
Billy Vunipola
Jamie George
Mark Wilson

Oh, and Eddie "anti rugby" Jones can fuck off with them

As a dispassionate outsider
- Daley. Actually think he's a decent player...... if positioned correctly.
- Youngs. FFS. What is with intl coaches and obsessions with SHs?
- Farrell. Can't stand the cheap shot ***t but he might have a role at 12.
- Vunipola is a busted flush.
- George. Honestly can't fairly assess since he's played no serious rugby and so this game is not a fair benchmark.
- Mark who?

[Madness]

After a period of reflection and allowing the rage to simmer and dissipate here are my thoughts.

Scotland came with a plan, picked some form players and executed it well. Should have been a long way further ahead and I don't think they'll beat Ireland or France. Russell was on the poor side of the coin in my view but Hogg had one of those days where everything works.

England.....

International rugby, as Eddie has said many times, is all about a couple of percentages. How did he think he could carry most of the spine of the team having not played rugby for a couple of months? Exception was Maro who proved again what a talent he is among the dross of the rest of the team. Lacking a proper spine against a committed team was always going to give us problems. Eddie is unlikely to change and with the covid squad bubble probably unable to change. This mean he'll continue to play most the same players to try and play them into form but it will effectively mean that there will be no development in this Six Nations as it will be just be a mad struggle to regain basic competency.

The pack was missing some key players and I thought Stuart did ok, scrum problems were more on Genge's side. LCD was head and shoulders above George, who almost everyone had as a nailed on Lions starter, and hopefully was off due to the lack of match practise. Not impressed by Genge, which was a surprise but he failed to take his chance as a starter.
As I said before, Itoje was great bar some silly penalties as he got frustrated with those around him.
Hill was ok but that sort of nasty battle was crying out for Launchbury's match awareness and added oomph in the rolling mauls.
The backrow was effectively 2 vs 3 very good and committed players. Curry was the best, Wilson lacked impact and Billy was terrible. I genuinely thought he would be hooked for Earls after the sin bin period. Looked unfit, uninterested and never seems to play as well without Mako on the pitch. Should be nowhere near the team at the moment.

Need a breath before I get onto the backs.

Youngs was classic Youngs, a mix of some nice work and then some shocking passes, the one on first entry to 22 where he missed 4 or 5 players under no pressure and allowed Redpath to clear was shocking.
Robson, of who I've been a big fan, started with a shocker and then didn't do much more. However he only has about 40 mins of international experience and there is no-one else with experience to come on and calm things down.
Farrell, out of form, out of match fitness and played in the wrong position. As others have said he's undoubtedly a coach's dream but he follows a preset plan and does not appear to have the ability to change things up on the pitch. Not that this is easy at international level but the best captains seem to manage it.
Slade and Lawrence barely got the ball so no chance to offer anything positive.
Back 3. To be fair I thought Daly kicked well but outshone in that by Hogg and made a few efforts to get involved but is a turnstyle in defence. Watson just never seemed to get involved at all and May had his worst game in an England shirt.

Eddie has been bold previously in making early subs and I'd have expected him to realise what was happening and made sweeping early changes. Earls for Billy after the yellow card, rest of the Sarries bar Maro at half time and Lawes on for Hill at 55-60 mins. However even doing that if a backline of Robson, Ford, May, Lawrence, Slade, Watson and Malins kept with the plan of kicking away possession to a full back having a great game then it wouldn't have mattered.

[Ymx]

In no particular order

Elliot Daley
Ben Youngs
Owen Farrell
Billy Vunipola
Jamie George
Mark Wilson

Oh, and Eddie "anti rugby" Jones can fuck off with them

As a dispassionate outsider
- Daley. Actually think he's a decent player...... if positioned correctly.
- Youngs. FFS. What is with intl coaches and obsessions with SHs?
- Farrell. Can't stand the cheap shot ***t but he might have a role at 12.
- Vunipola is a busted flush.
- George. Honestly can't fairly assess since he's played no serious rugby and so this game is not a fair benchmark.
- Mark who?

[I like neeps]

I think it's possible looking how the fixtures are Jones thought he could get the Sarries 5 up to speed Vs Scotland (H) and Italy (A) as for the entirety of the six nations those are bankers.

I wonder if Ireland or France were first up if he'd have picked the Saracens

[C69]

what will u say when Ireland beats u guys tomorrow?

"well that went as badly as I expected"

Yeah I don’t get this. Welshers never arrogant in approach to a game.

"Well I certainly didn't see that result coming"

[Paddington Bear]

I think it's possible looking how the fixtures are Jones thought he could get the Sarries 5 up to speed Vs Scotland (H) and Italy (A) as for the entirety of the six nations those are bankers.

I wonder if Ireland or France were first up if he'd have picked the Saracens

I don’t think anyone saw yesterday as a banker but otherwise I think you’re right. After all, despite offering absolutely nothing, we only lost by 5 points.

[Hal Jordan]

True, but Scotland never put a lot of points on us when they win, it's always tight. If they had a bit more composure or cutting edge in the first half they would have been three tries to the good.

No doubt the players will be given the chance to redeem themselves against Italy, and if, as we probably should, we beat up an inexperienced team with a gloss of tries, then the message will be that the Scotland game was a one off, normal service is resumed. As opposed to what it was, a symptom of an underlying problem.

[Slick]

The underlying problem is Jones

[Blackmac]

Not suggesting for a moment he should be dropped of course, but does Itojes penalty counts worry any England supporters? He seems to give away an awful lot

Itoje looked like an immensely talented player who hasn't played for three months. Difficult to play right on the edge without game time behind you.

Maitland managed fine.

[Blackmac]

The underlying problem is Jones

Yep, I don't think its good for a coach to encourage such arrogance in his team. It was obvious there was an unjustified self belief that they just had to turn up yesterday to get a result.

[Biffer]

Not suggesting for a moment he should be dropped of course, but does Itojes penalty counts worry any England supporters? He seems to give away an awful lot

Itoje looked like an immensely talented player who hasn't played for three months. Difficult to play right on the edge without game time behind you.

Maitland managed fine.

I honestly think that it's easier for a back to knock the rust off than it is for a forward. Particularly a wing.

[Un Pilier]

After a period of reflection and allowing the rage to simmer and dissipate here are my thoughts.

Scotland came with a plan, picked some form players and executed it well. Should have been a long way further ahead and I don't think they'll beat Ireland or France. Russell was on the poor side of the coin in my view but Hogg had one of those days where everything works.

England.....

International rugby, as Eddie has said many times, is all about a couple of percentages. How did he think he could carry most of the spine of the team having not played rugby for a couple of months? Exception was Maro who proved again what a talent he is among the dross of the rest of the team. Lacking a proper spine against a committed team was always going to give us problems. Eddie is unlikely to change and with the covid squad bubble probably unable to change. This mean he'll continue to play most the same players to try and play them into form but it will effectively mean that there will be no development in this Six Nations as it will be just be a mad struggle to regain basic competency.

The pack was missing some key players and I thought Stuart did ok, scrum problems were more on Genge's side. LCD was head and shoulders above George, who almost everyone had as a nailed on Lions starter, and hopefully was off due to the lack of match practise. Not impressed by Genge, which was a surprise but he failed to take his chance as a starter.
As I said before, Itoje was great bar some silly penalties as he got frustrated with those around him.
Hill was ok but that sort of nasty battle was crying out for Launchbury's match awareness and added oomph in the rolling mauls.
The backrow was effectively 2 vs 3 very good and committed players. Curry was the best, Wilson lacked impact and Billy was terrible. I genuinely thought he would be hooked for Earls after the sin bin period. Looked unfit, uninterested and never seems to play as well without Mako on the pitch. Should be nowhere near the team at the moment.

Need a breath before I get onto the backs.

Youngs was classic Youngs, a mix of some nice work and then some shocking passes, the one on first entry to 22 where he missed 4 or 5 players under no pressure and allowed Redpath to clear was shocking.
Robson, of who I've been a big fan, started with a shocker and then didn't do much more. However he only has about 40 mins of international experience and there is no-one else with experience to come on and calm things down.
Farrell, out of form, out of match fitness and played in the wrong position. As others have said he's undoubtedly a coach's dream but he follows a preset plan and does not appear to have the ability to change things up on the pitch. Not that this is easy at international level but the best captains seem to manage it.
Slade and Lawrence barely got the ball so no chance to offer anything positive.
Back 3. To be fair I thought Daly kicked well but outshone in that by Hogg and made a few efforts to get involved but is a turnstyle in defence. Watson just never seemed to get involved at all and May had his worst game in an England shirt.

Eddie has been bold previously in making early subs and I'd have expected him to realise what was happening and made sweeping early changes. Earls for Billy after the yellow card, rest of the Sarries bar Maro at half time and Lawes on for Hill at 55-60 mins. However even doing that if a backline of Robson, Ford, May, Lawrence, Slade, Watson and Malins kept with the plan of kicking away possession to a full back having a great game then it wouldn't have mattered.

I have seen worse summaries tbf.

[eldanielfire]

Watson has almost always been shite for England at 15, and to be honest he's not regularly produced much since the previous Lions tour (lack of form and injury). Malins has earned the chance.

There are several extremely talented and high-impact players regularly playing 8 who are better than 2020/21's Billy Vunipola.

Slade I like, but he missed four tackles today. I appreciate that he'd rather the opposition didn't have 75% of the ball, and the ball he got himself came from Owen fucking Stone-hands Farrell, so I'll let him off.

Farrell playing 80 while putting in one of the worst captain's performances I can remember is a proper shocker. Eddie's too arrogant and blinkered to make that sort of call. He's fine when he's ending the careers of fringe squad members for one bad game or a couple of mistakes (hello Alex Lozowski), or binning off guys coming to the end of their careers, but when his "bankers" aren't performing he'll move heaven and earth to protect them. It's pretty cowardly.

I think to some degree Watson is the victim of the fact Farrell's England can't shift the ball left to right quickly and rarely opens up space there, so he receives low quality and slow passes and just has to mostly tucker up and crash into the defense to recycle.

[Slick]

The underlying problem is Jones

Yep, I don't think its good for a coach to encourage such arrogance in his team. It was obvious there was an unjustified self belief that they just had to turn up yesterday to get a result.

That wasn't really what I meant. I actually think this bunch of England players are a reasonably likeable lot, not that the bar is set very high.

I think that Eddie is a bully and that can be OK for a while but the players just seem scared to try anything that isn't to his script. At the same time, and as JM said a couple of days ago, he is happy to act the tough guy with new or fringe players and drop them, but doesn't seem to have the balls to make bigger calls. Or maybe it's just his arrogance.

That performance against NZ at the WC was outstanding but that's the level this England team with the players, depth and resources they have should be at all the time, or at least close, and at least most of the time. Honestly, I think they should get rid of him if they have any hope of winning the next WC.

[Torquemada 1420]

I think that Eddie is a bully and that can be OK for a while but the players just seem scared to try anything that isn't to his script. At the same time, and as JM said a couple of days ago, he is happy to act the tough guy with new or fringe players and drop them, but doesn't seem to have the balls to make bigger calls. Or maybe it's just his arrogance.

All of the 1st point. But that's not unusual i.e. the modern trend to over-coach so players can't think on their feet rather than won't. If you have Plan A and Plan B, someone has to decide when the switch occurs and it's rarely the players. Suggests Eng really has no Plan B when brutalising the oppos does not work.

On the 2nd point. What if he needs a core of players loyal to him in order to keep his position on the throne i.e. he can't p*ss everyone off or he incites a mutiny?

[Lemoentjie]

I think that Eddie is a bully and that can be OK for a while but the players just seem scared to try anything that isn't to his script. At the same time, and as JM said a couple of days ago, he is happy to act the tough guy with new or fringe players and drop them, but doesn't seem to have the balls to make bigger calls. Or maybe it's just his arrogance.

All of the 1st point. But that's not unusual i.e. the modern trend to over-coach so players can't think on their feet rather than won't. If you have Plan A and Plan B, someone has to decide when the switch occurs and it's rarely the players. Suggests Eng really has no Plan B when brutalising the oppos does not work.

On the 2nd point. What if he needs a core of players loyal to him in order to keep his position on the throne i.e. he can't p*ss everyone off or he incites a mutiny?

Yep, the English players (at least those who played on the weekend) were either robots to begin, or have flair coached out of them. The exception is Ford, which is why Jones doesn't like him, despite him being England's best player and probably the second best FH in the world after Pollard.

You can't compare them to a guy like Dupont, who just understands the game.

[Slick]

I think that Eddie is a bully and that can be OK for a while but the players just seem scared to try anything that isn't to his script. At the same time, and as JM said a couple of days ago, he is happy to act the tough guy with new or fringe players and drop them, but doesn't seem to have the balls to make bigger calls. Or maybe it's just his arrogance.

All of the 1st point. But that's not unusual i.e. the modern trend to over-coach so players can't think on their feet rather than won't. If you have Plan A and Plan B, someone has to decide when the switch occurs and it's rarely the players. Suggests Eng really has no Plan B when brutalising the oppos does not work.

On the 2nd point. What if he needs a core of players loyal to him in order to keep his position on the throne i.e. he can't p*ss everyone off or he incites a mutiny?

Yes, they need someone that can turn the game on it’s head, make the decisions on the field and turn a game with a bit of individual brilliance. A Finn Russell type.

[Torquemada 1420]

I think that Eddie is a bully and that can be OK for a while but the players just seem scared to try anything that isn't to his script. At the same time, and as JM said a couple of days ago, he is happy to act the tough guy with new or fringe players and drop them, but doesn't seem to have the balls to make bigger calls. Or maybe it's just his arrogance.

All of the 1st point. But that's not unusual i.e. the modern trend to over-coach so players can't think on their feet rather than won't. If you have Plan A and Plan B, someone has to decide when the switch occurs and it's rarely the players. Suggests Eng really has no Plan B when brutalising the oppos does not work.

On the 2nd point. What if he needs a core of players loyal to him in order to keep his position on the throne i.e. he can't p*ss everyone off or he incites a mutiny?

Yes, they need someone that can turn the game on it’s head, make the decisions on the field and turn a game with a bit of individual brilliance. A Finn Russell type.

There is a reason why someone like Jones would never trust Russell and (if there is a Lions) I'd be interested to see what Gatland's take on the matter is. I'd wager he'd be more likely to pick Sexton.

You clearly don't understand modern rugby at all. (Sadly) games are rarely decided by a flash of genius. They are determined by the least cumulative errors and a brainfart is far more likely to lose you a game than a piece of brilliance wins it.

[Slick]

Jesus. Lighten up.

[JM2K6]

Rugby games are often decided by a flash of genius. That's why players like Carter, Robinson, Cullen, Conrad Smith, Israel Dagg, et al are all lauded and highly respected. They were the ones winning matches by doing something special.

[eldanielfire]

Rugby games are often decided by a flash of genius. That's why players like Carter, Robinson, Cullen, Conrad Smith, Israel Dagg, et al are all lauded and highly respected. They were the ones winning matches by doing something special.

I think a long term flaw with Eddie Jones is he believes he can control everything, somehow. He has spoken about the players being decision makers and he having no influence on the game once it's gone, but his actions, coaching and style seems to betray the opposite. At least to me.

[ASMO]

Rugby games are often decided by a flash of genius. That's why players like Carter, Robinson, Cullen, Conrad Smith, Israel Dagg, et al are all lauded and highly respected. They were the ones winning matches by doing something special.

I think a long term flaw with Eddie Jones is he believes he can control everything, somehow. He has spoken about the players being decision makers and he having no influence on the game once it's gone, but his actions, coaching and style seems to betray the opposite. At least to me.

He is a control freak, an egotistical dwarf who refuses to admit when he is wrong, even when he is wrong.

He was the right man post the catastrophic Lancaster era when teams were coached using powerpoint slides, but he has served his purpose, has nothing more or new to add and now needs to move on to another struggling side. He is the equivalant of a fireman, comes along, puts the fire out, but then when the flames are gone has fuck all else to do except maybe start more fires to make himself work.

[Niegs]

Rugby games are often decided by a flash of genius. That's why players like Carter, Robinson, Cullen, Conrad Smith, Israel Dagg, et al are all lauded and highly respected. They were the ones winning matches by doing something special.

I think a long term flaw with Eddie Jones is he believes he can control everything, somehow. He has spoken about the players being decision makers and he having no influence on the game once it's gone, but his actions, coaching and style seems to betray the opposite. At least to me.

Same here. He's popped up a lot in the coach ed network I have on Twitter over the last few years. It all sounds like bollocks now when you watch what happens (or doesn't!) on the pitch. I seem to recall him talking about player lack of decision-making ability from when he first started, saying he wanted to make himself 'redundant' by giving the players the tools/freedom to direct a game, but what's changed if that was true?

https://trainingground.guru/articles/ed ... themselves

https://trainingground.guru/articles/ed ... n-sessions

[Torquemada 1420]

Rugby games are often decided by a flash of genius. That's why players like Carter, Robinson, Cullen, Conrad Smith, Israel Dagg, et al are all lauded and highly respected. They were the ones winning matches by doing something special.

Disagree. Modern rugby is far more often decided by the error (pick the wrong players, get a red card, miss a long kick to touch) than the a moment of genius. I notice you picked players who are all retired but nonetheless, none of those players came with a high % of f**k ups to accompany their moments of brilliance (Cullen had a few). I'd argue that Carter and Smith rarely did flash of genius: they did something harder i.e. better than everyone else all the time.

Flake Russell is in the same category of guys like Michalak, Hook, Fluke: capable of doing something totally unexpected....... both for and against their team mates. They are the ones who get described as being "mercurial". The writers polite way of saying "flaky".

Hey. Everyone remembers Poitrenaud for his one f**k up which cost his team a European title. How does Russell escape the same for TWO equally bad f**ks ups to lose his team a final? And since most people don't watch T14, I can confirm his intercepted pass rate in particular is stupidly high.

[Slick]

Do you support Racing, Torq?

[JM2K6]

Rugby games are often decided by a flash of genius. That's why players like Carter, Robinson, Cullen, Conrad Smith, Israel Dagg, et al are all lauded and highly respected. They were the ones winning matches by doing something special.

Disagree. Modern rugby is far more often decided by the error (pick the wrong players, get a red card, miss a long kick to touch) than the a moment of genius. I notice you picked players who are all retired but nonetheless, none of those players came with a high % of f**k ups to accompany their moments of brilliance (Cullen had a few). I'd argue that Carter and Smith rarely did flash of genius: they did something harder i.e. better than everyone else all the time.

Flake Russell is in the same category of guys like Michalak, Hook, Fluke: capable of doing something totally unexpected....... both for and against their team mates. They are the ones who get described as being "mercurial". The writers polite way of saying "flaky".

Hey. Everyone remembers Poitrenaud for his one f**k up which cost his team a European title. How does Russell escape the same for TWO equally bad f**ks ups to lose his team a final? And since most people don't watch T14, I can confirm his intercepted pass rate in particular is stupidly high.

All you're saying is that players who are inconsistent are inconsistent. You're ignoring what every coach and player understands: the good outweighs the bad in a lot of cases. Military-medium steady-eddies are all well and good, but you'll lose plenty of matches if you can't break a good defence open with a big of magic from somewhere.

Poitrenaud was good enough to win his side two European titles, so not sure why you're focusing on the one he fucked up in.

Carter and Smith regularly produced breathtaking moments. If you're concerned about retired players, how about both Mo'unga and Barrett? Penaud? Kolbe?

[Kawazaki]

Jones is incredibly conservative allied to being a micro-manager. He's not good at delegation I suspect. It's pretty clear that he only wants players that are totally compliant to his will, any player with ideas above their station or he suspects would go off-script and he ejects them pretty quickly.

It's fair to say I totally loathe the antipodean bastard now.

[sturginho]

I'm hoping that youngs plays the fill 80 minutes on Saturday, it will certainly be a bit of a relief compared to Dupont ;)

[Kawazaki]

I'm hoping that youngs plays the fill 80 minutes on Saturday, it will certainly be a bit of a relief compared to Dupont ;)

I've given up regards Youngs. He's not even the best scrumhalf in Leicester. He's the worst rugby centenarian by miles and I reckon he's probably the worst half-centenarian as well. It's almost as if the first consideration with regards England selection isn't form, ability, fitness, leadership, fortitude etc etc but how many caps you already have. It's one of those paradoxes that are difficult to explain how it starts but essentially Youngs has reached undroppable level. He could step on a landmine and Jones would still pick him.

[Torquemada 1420]

All you're saying is that players who are inconsistent are inconsistent. You're ignoring what every coach and player understands: the good outweighs the bad in a lot of cases. Military-medium steady-eddies are all well and good, but you'll lose plenty of matches if you can't break a good defence open with a big of magic from somewhere.

Poitrenaud was good enough to win his side two European titles, so not sure why you're focusing on the one he fucked up in.

Carter and Smith regularly produced breathtaking moments. If you're concerned about retired players, how about both Mo'unga and Barrett? Penaud? Kolbe?

I think you are being something of the romantic in regards this. There is a distinction between
- someone like Carter who was simply the best ever because he did everything right, better than anyone else, all of the time AND
- PoitreFaux who had the odd flash of brilliance but cost his side more by his brainfarts. I give you

Great players are NOT inconsistent. Inconsistency is not a good thing although we all have a soft spot for it because it doesn't conform and god knows every man and his dog is saying how sterile rugby has become. We can't have difference in size any more but can cling to the odd player who shows difference in playing. But that's down to coaches and the way they want the game played......... and because they've made the game even more rigorously uniform, the unexpected is even more likely to bugger your own team who are all playing to preset patterns. Your comment on titles is at the core of the failure in your thinking
- Poitrenaud won 2 Euro medals because he was part of a TEAM. He did not single handedly win any of them (as an aside, mercuriality can be a winning formula in one man sports some of the time: Higgins, Jockey Wilson, Nastase). Watch the games again and you'll find that he did not screw up in them and so did not undermine the team effort.
- BUT he did lose them one title. That's the friggin' imbalance in rugby. One player's f**k up can cost you the lot. Poitrenaud v Wasps. Russell v Exeter. Dunning v Chiefs (I think).

I'm going to toss in a theory here. There are players like Poitrenaud, Russell, Fluke, Hook who have some special abilities BUT not the composure/brain/feel for or ability to read the game to go along with it. These are the players where often a commentator will say
"he is too fast for his team mates"
"he sees things other players don't see" etc
Trouble is rugby is the ultimate team game and that kind of behaviour is at least as likely to shaft your own team as hurt your opponents. It's like the autistic kid in a classroom of nobodies. Everyone may occasionally marvel at his creativity but he's never going to fit in.

[dpedin]

All you're saying is that players who are inconsistent are inconsistent. You're ignoring what every coach and player understands: the good outweighs the bad in a lot of cases. Military-medium steady-eddies are all well and good, but you'll lose plenty of matches if you can't break a good defence open with a big of magic from somewhere.

Poitrenaud was good enough to win his side two European titles, so not sure why you're focusing on the one he fucked up in.

Carter and Smith regularly produced breathtaking moments. If you're concerned about retired players, how about both Mo'unga and Barrett? Penaud? Kolbe?

I think you are being something of the romantic in regards this. There is a distinction between
- someone like Carter who was simply the best ever because he did everything right, better than anyone else, all of the time AND
- PoitreFaux who had the odd flash of brilliance but cost his side more by his brainfarts. I give you

Great players are NOT inconsistent. Inconsistency is not a good thing although we all have a soft spot for it because it doesn't conform and god knows every man and his dog is saying how sterile rugby has become. We can't have difference in size any more but can cling to the odd player who shows difference in playing. But that's down to coaches and the way they want the game played......... and because they've made the game even more rigorously uniform, the unexpected is even more likely to bugger your own team who are all playing to preset patterns. Your comment on titles is at the core of the failure in your thinking
- Poitrenaud won 2 Euro medals because he was part of a TEAM. He did not single handedly win any of them (as an aside, mercuriality can be a winning formula in one man sports some of the time: Higgins, Jockey Wilson, Nastase). Watch the games again and you'll find that he did not screw up in them and so did not undermine the team effort.
- BUT he did lose them one title. That's the friggin' imbalance in rugby. One player's f**k up can cost you the lot. Poitrenaud v Wasps. Russell v Exeter. Dunning v Chiefs (I think).

I'm going to toss in a theory here. There are players like Poitrenaud, Russell, Fluke, Hook who have some special abilities BUT not the composure/brain/feel for or ability to read the game to go along with it. These are the players where often a commentator will say
"he is too fast for his team mates"
"he sees things other players don't see" etc
Trouble is rugby is the ultimate team game and that kind of behaviour is at least as likely to shaft your own team as hurt your opponents. It's like the autistic kid in a classroom of nobodies. Everyone may occasionally marvel at his creativity but he's never going to fit in.

I watched the Scotland v England game again yesterday and kept an eye on Russell throughout the game. I thought he was superb throughout and mistakes were few and far between. He missed a penalty which was very makeable but for the vast majority of the game he controlled it well. His kick pass to VdM was actually pretty much spot on but the ball bounced far higher than you would expected, if it had bounced normally it was in the breadbasket. VdM is 6'4" and despite jumping up with arms outstretched it went over him! He had one kick to touch missed. However his passing and link play was excellent, his defence spot on and he created space all day for Redpath and other runners. I would argue all day long that Russell was instrumental in winning that game for us, despite playing just ok. He completely outshone 'Mr Dependable' Farrell who had no spark to his game whatsoever. I think Russell's consistency and spot on decision making is often over looked just because he can execute the outrageous skills that no one else can. I think his record against England in his last 4 games is W W D W - consistent enough for me!

[JM2K6]

Torq, ask yourself why these players continue to get picked by club and national coaches and why they have long and successful careers.

[Sandstorm]

Torq, ask yourself why these players continue to get picked by club and national coaches and why they have long and successful careers.

Compromising pictures of the coach?

[Slick]

Torq, ask yourself why these players continue to get picked by club and national coaches and why they have long and successful careers.

They don't understand modern rugby

[sockwithaticket]

[
I watched the Scotland v England game again yesterday and kept an eye on Russell throughout the game. I thought he was superb throughout and mistakes were few and far between. He missed a penalty which was very makeable but for the vast majority of the game he controlled it well. His kick pass to VdM was actually pretty much spot on but the ball bounced far higher than you would expected, if it had bounced normally it was in the breadbasket. VdM is 6'4" and despite jumping up with arms outstretched it went over him! He had one kick to touch missed. However his passing and link play was excellent, his defence spot on and he created space all day for Redpath and other runners. I would argue all day long that Russell was instrumental in winning that game for us, despite playing just ok. He completely outshone 'Mr Dependable' Farrell who had no spark to his game whatsoever. I think Russell's consistency and spot on decision making is often over looked just because he can execute the outrageous skills that no one else can. I think his record against England in his last 4 games is W W D W - consistent enough for me!

Oof, talk about damning with faint praise. Most academy fly halves have more spark than Farrell, saying he showed more isn't doing Russell much of a service!

In most respects Farrell was dependable, he delivered what we've come to expect from him playing 10 for England: an abundance of kicking, whether it's a good option or not, suspect defence and an inability to change the play when required.

[dpedin]

[
I watched the Scotland v England game again yesterday and kept an eye on Russell throughout the game. I thought he was superb throughout and mistakes were few and far between. He missed a penalty which was very makeable but for the vast majority of the game he controlled it well. His kick pass to VdM was actually pretty much spot on but the ball bounced far higher than you would expected, if it had bounced normally it was in the breadbasket. VdM is 6'4" and despite jumping up with arms outstretched it went over him! He had one kick to touch missed. However his passing and link play was excellent, his defence spot on and he created space all day for Redpath and other runners. I would argue all day long that Russell was instrumental in winning that game for us, despite playing just ok. He completely outshone 'Mr Dependable' Farrell who had no spark to his game whatsoever. I think Russell's consistency and spot on decision making is often over looked just because he can execute the outrageous skills that no one else can. I think his record against England in his last 4 games is W W D W - consistent enough for me!

Oof, talk about damning with faint praise. Most academy fly halves have more spark than Farrell, saying he showed more isn't doing Russell much of a service!

In most respects Farrell was dependable, he delivered what we've come to expect from him playing 10 for England: an abundance of kicking, whether it's a good option or not, suspect defence and an inability to change the play when required.

Point taken! I can't believe Engerrland persist with him when they have such talent at 10 elsewhere! The likes of Ford, Simmons and Smith are strike me as more talented 10s who could step up and ignite the English backs. I think Eddie was more concerned about nullifying Russell than he was about his own team. When I saw Farrell at 10 it was obvious they were going to play a kicking game and try and close down Russell, all that did was create more room for Redpath and our back 3.

[JM2K6]

Back in the bizarro-cup in November, I was making the point that the kicking game itself is a fine tactic, we just need to know when not to kick, and to kick well. For a team (and a player in Farrell) so obsessed with kicking the ball, you'd think we'd be better at it. Some of Farrell's kicking was genuinely appalling, and Youngs shit the bed a fair few times, too.

Happily, we don't play Farrell at 10 that often. Just as well, considering how poor our record is with him there. I'd love it if that was the end of the experiment, but Eddie is a champion Double Downer, so who knows, eh?

[sockwithaticket]

[
I watched the Scotland v England game again yesterday and kept an eye on Russell throughout the game. I thought he was superb throughout and mistakes were few and far between. He missed a penalty which was very makeable but for the vast majority of the game he controlled it well. His kick pass to VdM was actually pretty much spot on but the ball bounced far higher than you would expected, if it had bounced normally it was in the breadbasket. VdM is 6'4" and despite jumping up with arms outstretched it went over him! He had one kick to touch missed. However his passing and link play was excellent, his defence spot on and he created space all day for Redpath and other runners. I would argue all day long that Russell was instrumental in winning that game for us, despite playing just ok. He completely outshone 'Mr Dependable' Farrell who had no spark to his game whatsoever. I think Russell's consistency and spot on decision making is often over looked just because he can execute the outrageous skills that no one else can. I think his record against England in his last 4 games is W W D W - consistent enough for me!

Oof, talk about damning with faint praise. Most academy fly halves have more spark than Farrell, saying he showed more isn't doing Russell much of a service!

In most respects Farrell was dependable, he delivered what we've come to expect from him playing 10 for England: an abundance of kicking, whether it's a good option or not, suspect defence and an inability to change the play when required.

Point taken! I can't believe Engerrland persist with him when they have such talent at 10 elsewhere! The likes of Ford, Simmons and Smith are strike me as more talented 10s who could step up and ignite the English backs. I think Eddie was more concerned about nullifying Russell than he was about his own team. When I saw Farrell at 10 it was obvious they were going to play a kicking game and try and close down Russell, all that did was create more room for Redpath and our back 3.

Absolutely kicking gave you more room, broken field is the undoing of many a defence and continual creation of it was a baffling strategy. Then when you didn't choose to run it Hogg put in some wonderful tactical kicks to pin us back, hitting grass a lot.

Ford will kick plenty when told to do so by Eddie, but it's usually a lot more effective and he's also capable of doing something different. There were a few glimpses during the autumn game against Wales of what Ford could do with this back line and it looked wonderful (or possibly just good, but we're so deprived of seeing players in England jersey's make ground ball in hand that even simply passing down the line feels revelatory...).

This is from the guy who does Exeter's match live tweets. He's generally quite a mild-mannered fellow, so the tone of this is noteworthy. He also sums up nicely the frustration many of us have watching the dour kickfest plan even when it's 'working' (securing a win).