NPR

We had a guy who was 6’6” at U15’s. We used to put him at the front of the lineout on the opposition throw in with his arms in the air and watch the hookers struggle to get it over him

I was sort of laughing at this sucks to be an Englisher thread.

But then I remember we have Foster.

Kawazaki wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 5:41 pm

Grandpa wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 5:32 pm

Kawazaki wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 5:08 pm I was always led to believe that the loosehead was usually the bigger prop and preferably taller. Short technical tightheads were the bane of the big loosehead as it meant they had to go lower to bind on and the better tightheads could split the loosehead from his hooker.

I don't know why shorter tightheads have fallen out of favour, they'd likely be even more effective against the monsters at loosehead nowadays.

Maybe they like tall props so they can be taller lifters in the lineout?

Yes, it's possible. I've never been convinced that the lock is the best person to be lifted anyway. Simon Shaw was a great lifter but he was so heavy to try and lift.

I had the idea many years ago that the tallest forward should ideally throw the ball into the lineout. They'd have a much better view of the line, and from a much higher arm they could throw a much flatter trajectory. Much like most quarterbacks are tall to see over the line of scrimmage.

When Sheridan first appeared, he was playing lock for Bristol, but they converted him to the front row because he was too heavy for anyone to lift. Because he converted quite late, he was never very good technically, but he got away with it because he was insanely strong, and that was enough to deal with all but the very best props.

Ymx wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 9:44 pm I was sort of laughing at this sucks to be an Englisher thread.

But then I remember we have Foster.

Plus England will hold that 2019 world cup win over NZ for the next one hundred years... no matter how many times the All Blacks beat them in-between.. much like the 1966 football World Cup...

Kawazaki wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 5:41 pm

Grandpa wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 5:32 pm

Kawazaki wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 5:08 pm I was always led to believe that the loosehead was usually the bigger prop and preferably taller. Short technical tightheads were the bane of the big loosehead as it meant they had to go lower to bind on and the better tightheads could split the loosehead from his hooker.

I don't know why shorter tightheads have fallen out of favour, they'd likely be even more effective against the monsters at loosehead nowadays.

Maybe they like tall props so they can be taller lifters in the lineout?

Yes, it's possible. I've never been convinced that the lock is the best person to be lifted anyway. Simon Shaw was a great lifter but he was so heavy to try and lift.

I had the idea many years ago that the tallest forward should ideally throw the ball into the lineout. They'd have a much better view of the line, and from a much higher arm they could throw a much flatter trajectory. Much like most quarterbacks are tall to see over the line of scrimmage.

True.. imagine how far Itoje could throw Ben Youngs into the air...

I hope if he did throw him into the air he would ensure he landed safely and not pick up an injury, such as breaking both legs badly, cracking a couple of vertebrae or rupturing his spleen causing a delicate and drawn-out recovery.

Grandpa wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 9:58 pm

Ymx wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 9:44 pm I was sort of laughing at this sucks to be an Englisher thread.

But then I remember we have Foster.

Plus England will hold that 2019 world cup win over NZ for the next one hundred years... no matter how many times the All Blacks beat them in-between.. much like the 1966 football World Cup...

That win for the English turned out to be a huge loss, beating the All Blacks was their pinnacle, they thought they had reached the summit. instead of using it to catapult them to greatness by going on and winning the whole shebang they were just happy with that result, that’s why they keep harping on about it, like it was the greatest thing to ever happen in rugby, in the end it was for nothing, they lost their drive, their will to succeed and have been shit ever since. They may have won that battle but they went on to lose the war.

Grandpa wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 4:53 pm

JM2K6 wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 4:23 pm

Grandpa wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 4:11 pm

Carl Hayman was pretty tall but seemed to do ok technically?

He was technically superb, and at the time a bigger tighthead was less of a problem (tightheads tended to be larger than looseheads anyway). Sheridan was even taller, and was a relative newcomer to the front row (a converted backrower) who also played alongside a midget hooker half the time.

Just checked. Hayman was 6ft4 and Sheridan 6ft5.... almost as tall as locks! Actually Ofa Tu'ungafasi, a current All Black prop is 6ft 5 too.. maybe props are getting taller...

Ken Gray was a freak at 6ft2 (188cm) in the 1960s, and he played both sides of the scrum.

Trapper wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 11:00 pm

Grandpa wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 9:58 pm

Ymx wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 9:44 pm I was sort of laughing at this sucks to be an Englisher thread.

But then I remember we have Foster.

Plus England will hold that 2019 world cup win over NZ for the next one hundred years... no matter how many times the All Blacks beat them in-between.. much like the 1966 football World Cup...

That win for the English turned out to be a huge loss, beating the All Blacks was their pinnacle, they thought they had reached the summit. instead of using it to catapult them to greatness by going on and winning the whole shebang they were just happy with that result, that’s why they keep harping on about it, like it was the greatest thing to ever happen in rugby, in the end it was for nothing, they lost their drive, their will to succeed and have been shit ever since. They may have won that battle but they went on to lose the war.

That is a very silly statement indeed.

JM2K6 wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 11:50 pm

Trapper wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 11:00 pm

Grandpa wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 9:58 pm

Plus England will hold that 2019 world cup win over NZ for the next one hundred years... no matter how many times the All Blacks beat them in-between.. much like the 1966 football World Cup...

That win for the English turned out to be a huge loss, beating the All Blacks was their pinnacle, they thought they had reached the summit. instead of using it to catapult them to greatness by going on and winning the whole shebang they were just happy with that result, that’s why they keep harping on about it, like it was the greatest thing to ever happen in rugby, in the end it was for nothing, they lost their drive, their will to succeed and have been shit ever since. They may have won that battle but they went on to lose the war.

That is a very silly statement indeed.

It’s bang on and typical of an EJ coached team. Great at targeting one game but after that nothing. This years 6 Nations is a classic example, Target the French but not the others because he just believes showing up will be good enough.

Apols, my bad, didn’t mean to drag the ABs in to the chat. It was more about I feel your pain. It could be worse you could have Foster.

I didn’t think the English in general dined out too much on that game as made out. If they did, the braying ceased abruptly one week later.

The only one dining out on that one still, might be Eddie himself. Showing he is a mastermind, and feeding his arrogant ego as a tactician and selector. It makes me laugh when he pretends to take the blame for a loss. It is so disingenuously delivered.

Like I say, I feel for you, and like some of you I want my team to lose just to rid ourselves of our coach.

Grandpa wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 4:11 pm
Carl Hayman was pretty tall but seemed to do ok technically?

Yes. No-one is stating that one cannot be tall and not technically good! However, ceteris paribus, biomechanics are against you as a tall prop in rugby:
1) The more weight you carry further from the hinge (your lower back), the greater the leverage forces involved which, in addition, opposition scrums can exploit**
2) Facing an opposite who is shorter/stockier, the oppo
- has the advantage that mechanically, the most powerful driving position is a horizontal back ( which is also the picture the ref wants to see)
- and this immediately means the taller man is having to scrum with his back angled downwards and his shoulders potentially going below his waist

It's a massive lose position for the taller man in every respect. **Also, a cute opposition might attempt to con the ref by putting downward pressure and any collapse
will look like the fault of the taller man. A good loosie has the option of driving under a taller tight too.

Going back to Hayman: he was a freak of strength coupled with technique. That said, even he struggled later on in his career in France where so much more emphasis is on the scrum.

Grandpa wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 5:32 pm Maybe they like tall props so they can be taller lifters in the lineout?

Not sure there is much to this. At least now nowadays. There is not necessarily a correlation between height and arm reach anyway but these days, the answer is having tall, athletic back rows who are easy to throw
high into the air (or a similar such lock e.g. A Williams or Le Roux). We may well see Cameron Woki play a role in RWC2023 as a salmon at lineouts. The one player who has been able to disrupt Itoji.

Kawazaki wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 5:41 pm
Yes, it's possible. I've never been convinced that the lock is the best person to be lifted anyway. Simon Shaw was a great lifter but he was so heavy to try and lift.

It was often claimed that was precisely why Shaw got fewer caps than he ought.

I think there is bigger issue here and that is the choice of the thrower. I'd have a look at using the non jumping lock as the thrower because that takes a significant part of the challenge of throwing down
a few notches i.e. the arc in the trajectory.

I've been repeatedly told this is not done because it takes a key player out of any ensuing maul but I think this is bollox because the hooker usually joins a driving maul and so why not a throwing lock?

On the line out jumpers

This combo worked pretty well for us.



Don’t look down Read.

Trapper wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 4:57 am

JM2K6 wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 11:50 pm

Trapper wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 11:00 pm

That win for the English turned out to be a huge loss, beating the All Blacks was their pinnacle, they thought they had reached the summit. instead of using it to catapult them to greatness by going on and winning the whole shebang they were just happy with that result, that’s why they keep harping on about it, like it was the greatest thing to ever happen in rugby, in the end it was for nothing, they lost their drive, their will to succeed and have been shit ever since. They may have won that battle but they went on to lose the war.

That is a very silly statement indeed.

It’s bang on and typical of an EJ coached team. Great at targeting one game but after that nothing. This years 6 Nations is a classic example, Target the French but not the others because he just believes showing up will be good enough.

No, that continues to be silly. We beat 3 out of the 4 RC sides quite comfortably before coming up against a team with more physicality than us at the world cup, and the flaws of certain players came to the fore (along with our reserve tighthead being badly exposed thanks to Sinckler's injury). Us getting smashed at the set piece and up front has nothing to do with "targeting" the All Blacks. Physicality is physicality. SA are quite often our kryptonite.

Suggesting we targeted the France game and didn't care about the others this 6N is also very strange. Even if it were true, the moment we lost to Scotland all that would've gone out the window. The same Scotland who've given us a ton of trouble recently.

No sign of England "harping on" about the NZ result. If anything, it's the SA game they keep talking about. This is just weird Kiwi shit.

Trapper wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 11:00 pm That win for the English turned out to be a huge loss, beating the All Blacks was their pinnacle, they thought they had reached the summit. instead of using it to catapult them to greatness by going on and winning the whole shebang they were just happy with that result, that’s why they keep harping on about it, like it was the greatest thing to ever happen in rugby, in the end it was for nothing, they lost their drive, their will to succeed and have been shit ever since. They may have won that battle but they went on to lose the war.

Gotta agree with he who is never wrong on this one. Eng had a game plan (physical dominance) based upon the strengths Jones saw in his squad. That was more than enough to defeat NZ at that time. However, SA played exactly the same style............ only they were better at it. Hence Eng lost. It had nothing to do with arrogance, having "played their final" (unlike France in '99 or '07) or any other spurious theory!

Torquemada 1420 wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 8:45 am

Kawazaki wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 5:41 pm
Yes, it's possible. I've never been convinced that the lock is the best person to be lifted anyway. Simon Shaw was a great lifter but he was so heavy to try and lift.

It was often claimed that was precisely why Shaw got fewer caps than he ought.

I think there is bigger issue here and that is the choice of the thrower. I'd have a look at using the non jumping lock as the thrower because that takes a significant part of the challenge of throwing down
a few notches i.e. the arc in the trajectory.

I've been repeatedly told this is not done because it takes a key player out of any ensuing maul but I think this is bollox because the hooker usually joins a driving maul and so why not a throwing lock?

Yes, you have basically repeated the part of my earlier post that you deleted in your quote.

I've never understood why the hooker always has to throw the ball into the lineout. I know it's a learned skill and hookers spend hours practicing by throwing balls along the tryline to hit the side of the post but you might have an absolute natural thrower somewhere else in the pack and, as I suggested, a 1.85m hooker will not have as good a view down the line as a 2.00m lock would plus the lock will have much more height on the ball as he releases it to throw. Much flatter trajectory means it can go faster from release to catch.

Kawazaki wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 9:32 am

Torquemada 1420 wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 8:45 am

Kawazaki wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 5:41 pm
Yes, it's possible. I've never been convinced that the lock is the best person to be lifted anyway. Simon Shaw was a great lifter but he was so heavy to try and lift.

It was often claimed that was precisely why Shaw got fewer caps than he ought.

I think there is bigger issue here and that is the choice of the thrower. I'd have a look at using the non jumping lock as the thrower because that takes a significant part of the challenge of throwing down
a few notches i.e. the arc in the trajectory.

I've been repeatedly told this is not done because it takes a key player out of any ensuing maul but I think this is bollox because the hooker usually joins a driving maul and so why not a throwing lock?

Yes, you have basically repeated the part of my earlier post that you deleted in your quote.

I've never understood why the hooker always has to throw the ball into the lineout. I know it's a learned skill and hookers spend hours practicing by throwing balls along the tryline to hit the side of the post but you might have an absolute natural thrower somewhere else in the pack and, as I suggested, a 1.85m hooker will not have as good a view down the line as a 2.00m lock would plus the lock will have much more height on the ball as he releases it to throw. Much flatter trajectory means it can go faster from release to catch.

Wingers and scrum halves used to throw.

I've never understood why the hooker always has to throw the ball into the lineout. I know it's a learned skill and hookers spend hours practicing by throwing balls along the tryline to hit the side of the post but you might have an absolute natural thrower somewhere else in the pack and, as I suggested, a 1.85m hooker will not have as good a view down the line as a 2.00m lock would plus the lock will have much more height on the ball as he releases it to throw. Much flatter trajectory means it can go faster from release to catch

When I played we had a hooker that just couldn't throw in. He practised for hours with an ex international hooker who was our coach and he just couldn't do it, we would lose easily 50% of our ball per match. I suggested a few times maybe we could try someone else but it never happened. Madness.

Slick wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 10:00 am

I've never understood why the hooker always has to throw the ball into the lineout. I know it's a learned skill and hookers spend hours practicing by throwing balls along the tryline to hit the side of the post but you might have an absolute natural thrower somewhere else in the pack and, as I suggested, a 1.85m hooker will not have as good a view down the line as a 2.00m lock would plus the lock will have much more height on the ball as he releases it to throw. Much flatter trajectory means it can go faster from release to catch

When I played we had a hooker that just couldn't throw in. He practised for hours with an ex international hooker who was our coach and he just couldn't do it, we would lose easily 50% of our ball per match. I suggested a few times maybe we could try someone else but it never happened. Madness.

Ahhh. So this is how you know happyhooker.

Kawazaki wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 9:32 am Yes, you have basically repeated the part of my earlier post that you deleted in your quote.

I've never understood why the hooker always has to throw the ball into the lineout. I know it's a learned skill and hookers spend hours practicing by throwing balls along the tryline to hit the side of the post but you might have an absolute natural thrower somewhere else in the pack and, as I suggested, a 1.85m hooker will not have as good a view down the line as a 2.00m lock would plus the lock will have much more height on the ball as he releases it to throw. Much flatter trajectory means it can go faster from release to catch.

Apologies. Didn't read anything bar the punchline! Yes, am in entire agreement.

The slight caveat is that at intl level, you might not have time to train a player to do something he doesn't at club level and so to change this mentality would require the clubs with the intl players to change their lineout operations.

Torquemada 1420 wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 10:04 am

Kawazaki wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 9:32 am Yes, you have basically repeated the part of my earlier post that you deleted in your quote.

I've never understood why the hooker always has to throw the ball into the lineout. I know it's a learned skill and hookers spend hours practicing by throwing balls along the tryline to hit the side of the post but you might have an absolute natural thrower somewhere else in the pack and, as I suggested, a 1.85m hooker will not have as good a view down the line as a 2.00m lock would plus the lock will have much more height on the ball as he releases it to throw. Much flatter trajectory means it can go faster from release to catch.

Apologies. Didn't read anything bar the punchline! Yes, am in entire agreement.

The slight caveat is that at intl level, you might not have time to train a player to do something he doesn't at club level and so to change this mentality would require the clubs with the intl players to change their lineout operations.

It depends how successful it became. Normal behaviour nearly always begins from outliers or eccentrics adopting something novel. As mentioned earlier, wingers and scrumhalves used to be the norm.

Another bugbear of mine is why the scrumhalf is always the scrumhalf on defensive scrums. If your props are doing ok then let your openside act as the scrumhalf when defending scrums (particularly on the defending left-hand side of the pitch) to give him a better view and a headstart to hit the 10.

Kawazaki wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 10:26 am Another bugbear of mine is why the scrumhalf is always the scrumhalf on defensive scrums. If your props are doing ok then let your openside act as the scrumhalf when defending scrums (particularly on the defending left-hand side of the pitch) to give him a better view and a headstart to hit the 10.

Kinda agree. Given that an 8 peel off always targets the SH for easy yards (unless you have a Kelleher or Dupont), then I wondered why some sides don't stand a lump centre in that channel.

Probably because they'll just pick and go into whichever poor bastard you've stuck on the flank. And flankers do push!

There is an "article" on PR stating that the RFU is conducting a PM into Jones' future
https://www.planetrugby.com/eddie-jones ... x-nations/

2 things I don't get (yes, it's PR and probably ritten by Jake)
-

If the RFU decides to act, it will only be required to pay out the notice period on his contract, which expires after the 2023 World Cup.

This notice period can be activated by either party at any time and this clause in the contract means it would not be prohibitively expensive to part company with the 61-year-old.

Eh? I thought we'd worked this out to be in the £millions bracket?

-

They started the Six Nations in second place on the strength of an eight-Test winning streak that secured the 2020 Championship and the Autumn Nations Cup, only for losses to Scotland, Wales and Ireland to send them hurtling downwards.

And, but for Jonny May’s consolation 79th-minute try at the Aviva Stadium, they would have sunk to fifth, which is occupied by Andy Farrell’s team.

WTF are they talking about? Ireland currently lies 2nd.

Torquemada 1420 wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 12:15 pm There is an "article" on PR stating that the RFU is conducting a PM into Jones' future
https://www.planetrugby.com/eddie-jones ... x-nations/

2 things I don't get (yes, it's PR and probably ritten by Jake)
-

If the RFU decides to act, it will only be required to pay out the notice period on his contract, which expires after the 2023 World Cup.

This notice period can be activated by either party at any time and this clause in the contract means it would not be prohibitively expensive to part company with the 61-year-old.

Eh? I thought we'd worked this out to be in the £millions bracket?

-

They started the Six Nations in second place on the strength of an eight-Test winning streak that secured the 2020 Championship and the Autumn Nations Cup, only for losses to Scotland, Wales and Ireland to send them hurtling downwards.

And, but for Jonny May’s consolation 79th-minute try at the Aviva Stadium, they would have sunk to fifth, which is occupied by Andy Farrell’s team.

WTF are they talking about? Ireland currently lies 2nd.

World ranking ...

Ahah. It seems the England players (or some of them) are revolting. And not just their haircuts.

From the Torygraph
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... miserable/

Several players will admit they had a "bloody miserable" experience on England duty in the review that will determine Eddie Jones’ future as head coach.

Prop Ellis Genge last week referenced the "horrible" psychological toll and sources indicated that opinion is widely shared among the squad, although senior players such as Maro Itoje and Mako Vunipola have already issued supportive statements of Jones.

Actually, the article is pretty poor because it's unclear if the unhappy players are talking about camp under COVID rather than Jones.


On another note

England insisted they knew George Ford could have returned to play at fly-half after Owen Farrell was removed due to a head injury against Ireland, but made a tactical choice to play scrum-half Dan Robson in the position instead.

which is either a lie or an admittance they don't know WTF they are doing. Shades of Italy standing off rucks.........

laurent wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 12:17 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 12:15 pm There is an "article" on PR stating that the RFU is conducting a PM into Jones' future
https://www.planetrugby.com/eddie-jones ... x-nations/

2 things I don't get (yes, it's PR and probably ritten by Jake)
-

If the RFU decides to act, it will only be required to pay out the notice period on his contract, which expires after the 2023 World Cup.

This notice period can be activated by either party at any time and this clause in the contract means it would not be prohibitively expensive to part company with the 61-year-old.

Eh? I thought we'd worked this out to be in the £millions bracket?

-

They started the Six Nations in second place on the strength of an eight-Test winning streak that secured the 2020 Championship and the Autumn Nations Cup, only for losses to Scotland, Wales and Ireland to send them hurtling downwards.

And, but for Jonny May’s consolation 79th-minute try at the Aviva Stadium, they would have sunk to fifth, which is occupied by Andy Farrell’s team.

WTF are they talking about? Ireland currently lies 2nd.

World ranking ...

Thanks. Just realised that!

Torquemada 1420 wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 12:19 pm Ahah. It seems the England players (or some of them) are revolting. And not just their haircuts.

From the Torygraph
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... miserable/

Several players will admit they had a "bloody miserable" experience on England duty in the review that will determine Eddie Jones’ future as head coach.

Prop Ellis Genge last week referenced the "horrible" psychological toll and sources indicated that opinion is widely shared among the squad, although senior players such as Maro Itoje and Mako Vunipola have already issued supportive statements of Jones.

Actually, the article is pretty poor because it's unclear if the unhappy players are talking about camp under COVID rather than Jones.


On another note

England insisted they knew George Ford could have returned to play at fly-half after Owen Farrell was removed due to a head injury against Ireland, but made a tactical choice to play scrum-half Dan Robson in the position instead.

which is either a lie or an admittance they don't know WTF they are doing. Shades of Italy standing off rucks.........

Genge has been pretty open on Good the Bad and the Rugby about how much camp under covid regs sucks and other players have mentioned it not being ideal, so I'd lean more towards that than any revelations they hate being in camp generally.

sockwithaticket wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 12:39 pm Genge has been pretty open on Good the Bad and the Rugby about how much camp under covid regs sucks and other players have mentioned it not being ideal, so I'd lean more towards that than any revelations they hate being in camp generally.

TBH, I'd have been surprised if any Eng players broke rank in kiss and tell (unless intl career over). Just poor reporting to grab a headline from the Torygraph.

So, who is in the frame to replace Jones if he's sacked?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-uni ... ad-coach/
Don't think that Baxter will want ther hassle or move from the West Country or even if he's up to coaching at that level The other English coaches named aren't ready yet
Gatland or Robertson would be interesting

Deano. You know it makes sense.

Paddington Bear wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 5:38 pm Deano. You know it makes sense.

Good longshot

Paddington Bear wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 5:38 pm Deano. You know it makes sense.

He'd be my choice. I reckon he's just the type of person required to follow an arse like Jones.

Paddington Bear wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 5:38 pm Deano. You know it makes sense.

That'll make my autographed can of Fosters worth something

SaintK wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 4:12 pm So, who is in the frame to replace Jones if he's sacked?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-uni ... ad-coach/
Don't think that Baxter will want ther hassle or move from the West Country or even if he's up to coaching at that level The other English coaches named aren't ready yet
Gatland or Robertson would be interesting

Would p*ss myself laughing if Jones went and Farrell snr was given the job.

Candidates.

Take Gatland. Stay the fuck away from our Robertson.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/rugby- ... U6STMEHLU/

Rugby: Scott Robertson as next England coach? 12 potential candidates to succeed Eddie Jones — and whether they can fill his shoes

England's fifth-placed finish in the 2021 Six Nations is their joint-worst finish of all time, as well as being the second time in Eddie Jones' tenure that they have occupied the penultimate spot in the table.

Bill Sweeney, the RFU chief executive, on Sunday branded that lowly finish as "unacceptable" and that his organisation are considering tearing up Jones' contract. The Australian has a break clause in his current deal and insiders believe it would not be an expensive pay-off.

If Jones were to go, who would take over? The Telegraph's Charles Richardson assesses the runners and riders.

Not convinced that Gatland is the answer to the 'lack of running rugby' concerns. Plus that many years as Wales coach...

I'd much prefer an English coach next, Deano is my genuine first choice as well as it being funny. Baxter doesn't want it I think and I don't think Exeter's style would translate brilliantly to the international game.

Outside England I'd be excited by Lam.

Paddington Bear wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 9:28 am Not convinced that Gatland is the answer to the 'lack of running rugby' concerns. Plus that many years as Wales coach...

I'd much prefer an English coach next, Deano is my genuine first choice as well as it being funny. Baxter doesn't want it I think and I don't think Exeter's style would translate brilliantly to the international game.

Outside England I'd be excited by Lam.

I do think England need an English coach. More than most teams they need someone that understands the rugby culture etc.