Statement made. Not many people expected new coach Eddie Jones to make the full compliment of changes to England’s World Cup squad; he was allowed 11, and he made 11. Plenty of deemed dead wood has been shifted.
Gone are Rob Webber, Tom Youngs, David Wilson, Geoff Parling, Tom Wood, Nick Easter, Ben Morgan, Richard Wigglesworth and Brad Barritt. Sam Burgess of course has switched back to league, while Jonny May’s long term injury ruled him out.
Excluding the defector Burgess, that group has an average of 29 caps and an average age of 30. It is very much a case of out with the old and in with the new; and quite right too. For all the talk of only focussing on the first game against Scotland, this feels like a squad that has been picked for the next few years, not just the next few games.
Of all the omissions, the Leicester hooker Tom Youngs has caused the greatest stir. He has largely been excellent in an England shirt, as deputy for Dylan Hartley or first choice, and has made a fine start to the season with the Tigers. Hartley and Luke Cowan-Dickie, both selected instead, have hardly played this season.
One can only assume it is to do with Youngs and Leicester’s style of scrummaging. The Tigers rarely ask their hookers to actually hook the ball, but rather look to get the shove on in order to win it. Jones’s Japan, conversely, became renowned for a quick hook, and getting the ball out as fast as possible. Will that be his gameplan with England also? If so, has he asked Youngs to go away and add that to his game?
Video credit: Rugby Media
One of the bigger surprises, and most encouraging selections, came in the backline with the inclusion of Ollie Devoto. Devoto has been starved of game-time at Bath, but his inclusion gives a hint of what we can expect as Jones’s philosophy.
He may have been listed as Tuilagi’s injury replacement, but don’t necessarily believe that – he is the most Henry Slade-like replacement for the man himself. It would have been tempting to select a more pragmatic or experienced replacement, like Brad Barritt, but in taking a gamble on the playmaker Devoto, Jones is putting the gameplan first, and picking players that will fit into it – rather than the other way around.
Along with Devoto, youth is the theme amongst the seven new caps in the squad. If the at times unfeasibly talented Maro Itoje’s inclusion was never in doubt, the likes of Josh Beaumont and Paul Hill were names that not many expected to see. Beaumont is a rangy back-rower, more Kieran Read than Duane Vermeulen, and will offer an intriguing counter-option to Billy Vunipola’s power from the base.
Jack Clifford has been tearing up trees with Harlequins but there is a good chance that he will be picked as a seven. Have we not just been here? Matt Kvesic is the only ‘genuine’ openside in the group, and even he has only been named as an injury replacement for Dave Ewers. Are we to assume that had Ewers been fit, there would have been no ‘fetcher’ amongst the group? After the influence that kind of player had on the World Cup, that would have been madness.
Certainly it does not suggest that Kvesic is in line to start against Scotland; indeed, according to the Telegraph, ‘sources’ have said that James Haskell will wear seven that day. Jones made several jokes at yesterday’s press conference about Robshaw being a six, not a six-and-a-half or a seven – but surely to pick Haskell would be repeating that mistake?
With Kvesic, Will Fraser and Luke Wallace all going well, it is baffling that James Haskell could be England’s seven. The ‘sources’ were wrong with their leaked squads, however, so let’s hope they’re wide of the mark with this one as well.
Finally there are recalls for Marland Yarde and Chris Ashton in the backline, but no such luck for Danny Cipriani. Quite what more he could have done to press his case, I’m not sure – you can expect his phone to be ringing off the hook from French agents in the coming weeks, and this time, do not be surprised if he picks up.
All in all though, it is a positive first squad, with an overwhelmingly youthful flavour to it. It looks like a group of players that can play with the high tempo that Jones likes, and there is a nice blend of skillsets in the backline – something that was too often lacking from previous regimes.
The exclusion of Tom Youngs and the reluctance to pick a specialist openside flanker are the two most contentious calls. But Jones is no mug, and these decisions will not have been taken lightly. For the most part, this is the most positive reaction to an England squad announcement for some time. If that does not translate to results on the pitch, however, Jones knows he alone will be accountable.
By Jamie Hosie
Follow Jamie on Twitter: @jhosie43
Photo by: Patrick Khachfe / Onside Images
The other question is if Farrell was seriously being considered at 12, Jones should have called up Cipriani to give himself more options at 10. But he’s gone with 2 x 10s (including Farrell) and 4 x centres (not including Farrell), so it looks like he may not be planning on Farrell at 12, certainly from the start in any case.
The other interesting question at 12 is Tuilagi is in with 2 other 13s, and has been injury replaced by a 12. No, it isn’t like for like (who is like Manu?) but if you rule out Farrell at 12 on the above (and the basis that it doesn’t work very well), you’re left with Manu, Hill or Devoto, and you’d guess it would be Manu when he’s fully fit.
I think a backline of Care, Farrell, Nowell, Tuilagi, Joseph, Watson, Brown with Youngs, Ford and Daly on the bench certainly possesses a lot of threat going forward without being defensively weak.
Youngs has been a liability in the past, BUT Hartley and Cowan-Dickie shouldn’t have been picked for this 6N. Hartley currently isn’t even the best English hooker in Northampton.
I can’t work out why Tommy Taylor – an actual proper hooker who can strike and throw well – has been omitted. Sale, I believe, haven’t lost a single one of their own scrums this season.
That said, on the whole I can’t disagree with his changes though.
We’ll see if he suddenly becomes viable if the predicted move to Wasps goes through.
For me Jones has failed is first test. The more I look at the balance of the forwards ,the more it seems that the ghost of Bomber haunts this selection. The back row is indeed baffling. As `others have already stated it appears that the genuine 7 issue is just that :an issue that refuses to go away.
If Haskell starts against Scotland at seven then what will have changed from the previous regime apart from it not being Robshaw but Haskell doing the “make do and mend” act?
The second row. Yes, jones has been hugely unlucky with injuries to current and potential players but,Itoje apart , there are no new faces and no one who brings serious grunt to the table,another perennial problem.
Looking at the backs it seems odd that having stated he wants England to play with expression and pace (echoes of Lancaster again),he can’t find room for Cips and Simpson.
Feel free to shoot me down if you disagree but I’m a little underwhelmed by Eddies first collection.
It all feels a bit “committee” and rather obvious to me.
I would expect this to be his first raft of changes, seeing as he’s made the maximum he could. He’ll see how the incumbents go, and look at further changes after the summer or something.
He’s addressed the areas he clearly thinks are key first.
My only confusion is why Kvesic is only injury cover. How is he not seen as the only 100% option for 7 if Fraser and Wallace aren’t in the squad?!
All I will say on this is that Eddie Jones could only make 11 changes, yes 7 is a issue but I don’t agree with the second row, I have never seen this as a problem area since the walking yellow card that was Lawes under Johnson sorted himself out.
Its his first game and first squad, give him time.
Who are you thinking about for grunt? No Slater, Attwood…Kitchener?
Kitchener is a lineout man. Kruis and Launchbury both fill the grunt role in a Retallick style. Both scrummage behind a tight head and both carry well, particularly Launchbury.
Kruis provides plenty of grunt, and Itoje is deceptively bigger and heavier than he looks. Apparently weighing in at 18st +!!
Agree with Dazza and Jacob – was wondering who Teecee might suggest. I can’t see that EJ had anyone else to pick from that would be ‘gruntier.’
Mitch Lees seems to be the “gruntiest” around.
Charlie Matthews ?
Not suggesting that either should be ahead of those picked mind you. Just saying…
Lees, yes. Matthews – he’s a big chap, would be good to see him progress.
I think I acknowledged the injury problem……………….,yep!
Let me clarify. Lawes has been a shadow of his former self since before the Wcup. Itoje has huge potential but I would have preferred to see him at 6. L/Bury is proven and can put it about a bit but he’s no earthmover. The most overtly physical is Kruis. All I am doing is highlighting an area that has been strangely problematical for a nation that produced Dooley,Bayfield,Archer,Grewcock,Johhno Shaw et al. Only Attwood seems to have that gnarly “dog” about him and that didn’t suit SL ,hence the oft repeated criticism that the engine room has lacked a certain physical presence in recent years.
None of the players selected really offer a solution to the problem. Lees might, Slater too and possibly Dom Barrow if he gets game time at club level. As is stands we seem underpowered.
To be honest I think this is the first time I’ve seen this about the England lock pairing; other than that daft period where Parling and Lawes were paired to combat our lineout issues.
Who do you want in from those injured? Lawes is picked of one of two line out locks (along with Itoje). Are you suggesting there are better tight locks that Kruis or Launchbury, because I’m not seeing it?
The game has moved on from those players. Retallick and Etzebeth are the modern equivalents and both are far more on the athletic ball carrying side than most of those you mention.
Retallick and Etzebeth are both taller and heavier than the four selected by Jones.
I agree the game has moved on but just taking the home nations as an example Jake ball is over 19 stone, ditto the gray bros, and Toner is just a freak in the nicest possible way.
It’s not worth an argument but it will be interesting to see if the “underpowered lock pairing” mutterings begin again in Feb.
I think viewing locks by their height and weight typifies everything that is wrong with the historic view of English forwards.
Retallick 6’8, 1.8.8st
Etzebeth 6’8, 18.6st
Launchbury 6’6, 18.8st
Lawes 6’7, 18.8st
Itoje 6’5, 18.4st
Kruis 6’6, 18.4st
According to Wikipedia at any rate, I haven’t been out with the tape measure. Not a great deal of difference there, but yes they are bigger.
Dom Barrow looks an angry young man from the couple of times I’ve seen him this season.
There’s nothing in it size wise in the grand scheme of things. I’m more interested in each players ability to handle the ball, the technique at ruck time and their work rate.
Retallick and Etzebeth are the best two locks on the planet because they have the ability to play with ball in hand, they’re athletic carriers. Not because they weigh a couple pounds more than counterparts.
One could even argue (assuming those figures are correct) that the English guys would have a better power to wieght ratio as they are nealy the same weight but giving away a few inches in height.
Jacob’s point is bang on though and when dealing in small differences its what they can do on the pitch that counts.
I think you’re underestimating both Launchbury and Itoje in their “earthmoving” abilities. They may not look to have the same kind of physical presence that previous locks have had, but don’t let that fool you. They are both capable of doing the grunt work, as they do week in week out at club level.
Itoje has played much more at lock than at 6, and it is his best position. Very athletic in the line out with a great pair of hands.
Some of the stuff I have been reading about Jones and the England 7 issue have been interesting… my take away is: there is no genuine England openside good enough for Jones. That he has basically ruled out Kvesic/Fraser (even Clifford, quote: ‘Clifford’s best position is definitely going to be eight, but he might have to start off as a seven’) etc from his future plans. Instead he is going to work with clubs to ‘develop’ talented up and coming 7s into what he wants (Sam Underhill at Ospreys is the name being chucked about), and have Clifford, Haskell and Kvesic cover for now.
All from the Telegraph article Jamie mentions. Apparently Haskell will be considered for 7 in the very short term (6N) along with Clifford – influence of George Smith there. Jones has been consulting with him on the issue. Apparently Haskell has been doing ‘extra training at the breakdown’ with Smith… I will wait to be convinced on Haskell as a 7, but I will say in terms of disruptive first phase breakdown work I think he is the best of the ‘6-and-a-halfs’, so if that is what Jones wants fair enough. I want my 7s with a bit more pace though
Bit of a risky ploy, waiting on Sam Underhill. Sure, he does look bloody good, but he’s far from a proven performer at the top level and the rumour is the Ospreys have him on a long term contract. If he really wanted a top 7 he’s surely be putting effort into getting Armitage back across the channel.
I struggle to see what he’s trying to do though. I had Kvesic down as a potential starter and struggle to believe he’s really only in the squad as injury cover – I’d expect the names put down as injury replacements don’t really matter and he picked the names out of a hat.
It could all be one bit red herring though. Maybe he’s looked at the players he’s got, given up on the idea of a fetcher and is changing the game plan accordingly.
The only thing that puzzles me is the reluctance to pick an out and out 7 who will stay in the squad (as it looks as though Kvesic will be out when Ewers is fit). And for those who say it will be good to see if Fraser can keep fit for a season etc, he’s picked two players (Hartley and Tuilagi) who have been out for some time, and hardly played at all!
I’m not doubting that Clifford will do a job at 7, but when we have two potentially world class out and out 7’s why not give one of them a shot first?
My guess is that he will be looking to develop the “fetcher” skill set amongst the whole team, and have a more mobile ball carrying back row, as that’s what we’ve been lacking.
In Wood and Robshaw we had two players who did a lot of tackling and got stuck in at turnovers, but hardly made any metres, and offered very little in attack. With players like Beaumont and Clifford in we can expect to see them attacking the line more and taking the ball forward with more relish and gusto!!
Dazza, its increasingly unlikley that Ewers will be back during the 6 nations so surely this is the way to get both of them in the squad but stay within the 11 changes. I suspect that come the next set of changes (for the summer tour?) they may well both be included.
I’d take all these “exclusives” with a pinch of salt atm. EJ may have a few names penciled in but I doubt many or any will be inked in, until he sees them in training.
I expect EJ will give an away trip to Scotland the respect it deserves and limit the number of new caps in the starting line up – however I can see Clifford getting the 7 shirt and either Haskell or Robshaw the 6.
Those questioning some of the “non” picks should realize that EJ used his maximum 11 changes. I imagine there will be significant changes come the summer, when he has a free hand. Maybe then Simpson or Chudley replaces Care, Cipriani for Goode etc, but given the limits he has probably prioritized areas where he felt England were weak – in the backs its players with a point of difference and in the forward its strong set piece and pace.
I like that view – missed off making a few changes to make sure he got the problem areas (scrum, back row and centres) right.
Guys like Kvesic coming in as ‘injury cover’ could also be that – if he had a total clean slate may have picked him, but couldn’t drop someone like Haskell to get him in because he had already used up all his changes.
Thing is though, don’t you think ‘proper openside’ fits into the ‘problem area’ category that you and others mention? It certainly does for me. Ewers, Beaumont, Clifford & Haskell are all fairly versatile – I think one of them could have been sacrificed for a Kvesic or a Fraser.
If you get over the fact that Kvesic is listed as an injury replacement whats the realistic chances of Dave Ewers being declared fit during the tournament and resuming his place in the squad.
From what I heard he had 4-6 weeks recovery left from the beginning of the year which means he wouldn’t resume training til mid Feb and if you consider Manu is being touted for the Wales games when he’s already back playing surely that means Ewers misses the tournament
Have to agree with you here Jamie. There’s a lot of versatility there, and also in the second row, where all the players named have played some time (some more than others) at 6.
Whether you agree with him or not, I think he sees Clifford as a genuine 7 and a better bet than either Kvesic or Frazer
He’s already said that Tuilagi can be turned into a “Ma’a Nonu type” of player. Perhaps he has a “Hooper-esque” vision of Clifford.
I’ve heard that Ewers, as a back up player for the World Cup, was actually a registered member of the EPS and therefore he either had to be dropped or have an injury replacement. Perhaps Kvesic coming in only as “injury replacement” is just Jones’ being cute in the way he maximises the 11 changes limit. Certainly, given all he has said about the importance of a good fetcher, I would be amazed if he picks Haskell at 7 over Kvesic or Clifford. The papers haven’t been anywhere near accurate in the probables and possibles this week, so here’s hoping…
Yes i’m not sure how much you can believe the papers these days it seems they have been shut out by Jones so have just started making stuff up and reporting it as fact
Jones: “Hartley is a good player”
Press: Hartley will be next captain
Jones: “Hi Alex would you like to have a chat about rugby”
Press: Alex King has been offered the attack coach role.
Jones: No I have not dropped Haskell
Press: Haskell is having secret fetcher training with George Smith and will be playing at 7 in the 6N
Whats next
Jones: Pocock and McCaw are good opensides
Press: Jones has a secrect cloning factory where he is trying to splice Pocock and McCaws DNA to create a super 7
Extra ,Extra, Enoch makes completely logical,unbiased and intelligent comment about English rugby!!!!!!!Just like thousands of supposedly jingoistic, arrogant English fans manage to do all the time!
Goes on Eddy !!
** about Welsh rugby I meant to add! That faux `pas has totally knackered my attempt at satirical humour. Bugger!!
Am I the only one who’s seen Haskell delivered the goods at 7 then?
I may be having blurred memories about this, but I’m sure he’s played very well at openside both for England and Wasps. And didn’t he play openside most of the time he was at the Highlanders? I may be mistaken on that, but if you can play 7 in New Zealand then you’re pretty well equipped to play there for England I reckon.
Agree largely here. It was actually in NZ that they told him he was more suited to 7. He has historically been a 6 come no.8 before he moved down there.
I think he could do a job there for England, but I don’t think he will be a world beater there.
I think he might surprise you Jacob. He´s always been a quick and enthusiastic learner, which was why he went to NZ and Japan. There´s a tendency to look at him as yesterday´s man but he´s only 30. If he really is working hard with Smith on his fetching skills, and if Jones shows that he has belief in him, I think he could be make the seven shirt his own for some time. I think there is a groundswell of support for Kvesic because he is about the only viable option of his type in the Premiership at present, but while I admire his skills I remain to be convinced that he can step up. Clifford has huge potential but needs at least another full season playing regular first team club rugby.
On a different subject, I feel a bit sorry for Tom Youngs. He and Launchbury were about the only two England forwards to come out of the WC with reputations unsullied and he has been playing really well this season. To get dropped for a man who is not even the best hooker at Saints and has had hardly any game time recently seems harsh. I hope he has the character to come back stronger and force Jones to change his mind a la Neill Back.
Haskell is a very good player, and he certainly has the potential to be around for a long time, he is a phenomenal athlete. When it comes to being an out and out fetcher, he isn’t. He can. and has, become great at the breakdown, but he isn’t the answer I don’t think.
On Youngs, I completely disagree. For me, he came out of the WC most effected by the poor form. His poor throwing meant that we started with both Parling and Lawes as locks which significantly weakened our scrum so we gave up dominance there. Second to that, Wood had to start to help out the lineout too, despite the fact Haskell was in better form.
Throw in the fact that he can not (or does not) hook the ball, and Jones has been clear that his hookers much – I struggle to see why he would be picked.
Think this whole “Hartley isn’t even first choice at Saints” nonsense should stop. He is only just back to fitness after concussion and being eased back in. He’s the best set piece hooker in England by a country mile; but George is closing in on that front for sure, with the added bonus of being a more dynamic carrier.
I don’t see the love for Haskell.
He very rarely strings more than one decent game together at international level and even more damning is that he still often gives stupid penalties away
I can see why you think this Pablito. He hasn´t played as well for England as he is capable of, but he is a very consistent and effective player at club level. I don´t think he ever really felt trusted or valued by Lancaster. He was in and out of the squad and team and rarely got the opportunity to string two games together. He often came on as a sub and I suspect that trying a bit too hard to make an impression and nail down a place may have played a part in him giving away some soft penalties. Anyway, we will see soon. It may all be a clever bit of misdirection by Jones to keep the pressure off Kvesic until as late as possible before the first game!
I have given up trying to work out if he has been clever with injury replacements or whether his picks don’t seem to match his comments. Having Hartley and LCD above Youngs seems odd if you go with picking on form and I don’t buy that LCD is better at the set piece anyway. If, as the article says, EJ wants the scrum to be in and out then surely the onus comes off set piece domination a little and more onto prowess in the loose? I get the hooker has to hook but surely Ian peel could get youngs doing that?
I really hope Kvesic gets a chance as he is the form 7 imo and the only ‘real’ one we have – surely Clifford has to be called a 6 and a half at the moment?
EJ is quoted as saying he wants to speed up the England game. In which case he doesn’t need Deano Richards/Dooley enforcers! He does need fit, agile and rangy second rowers with ball handling skills in the mould of SA’s Etzebeth.
Two lost opportunities for me in selection – Cipriani and one nobody has mentioned Wade who can speed up any game at will!
Wade’s injured, no? Not sure when he’s back but not in the running at the moment.
Eddie is brand new to English rugby and clearly doesn’t have in depth knowledge of the players.He won’t be able to draw clear conclusions until he has got to know them and watch them perform.I am happy to give him the whole season before I judge him.Of course 100% of selection is not right but that’s how you learn
‘the Defector Burgess’….nice one Jamie….the only thing is……
Is the ‘Defector Burgess’ the one who ran off to another country weeks after being found out on the international stage?
Surely he was the defector who had been promised great rewards by his new employers if only he would switch sides.
But is this Guy Francis de Moncy Burgess who was educated at Eton School and Trinity College and was captain of the Cambridge Traitors 1st XV?
(For those of you too young to remember he was the guy that spied for Stalin et al.)
Or is the other Burgess currently in Sydney having ratted not once, but twice.
That sounds more like a double agent to me………….
At least Guy Burgess he had only ratted the once.
Meanwhile fellow traitor Donald Maclean, another of the Cambridge Traitors 1st XV attended Greshams School just like Tom and Ben Youngs!
Bet he’s not on the Oak-panelled, gold leaf lettered ‘Board of distinguished former pupils’ anymore.
Yes ……but would that be the traitor Maclean or the dropped Tomkinson that has had his name blotted out?
Is that the traitor Maclean who deserted Australia to play for Italy, Enoch?
How come he was only allowed to make 11 changes? That seems like a load of rubbish to me….
Just seen that Exeter have signed Devoto from next season.
I really don’t understand that move. Now, instead of competing with Eastmond, he’s competing with both Slade and Hill…?
Crazy move. He has move to the one club in the Premiership that also has young talented 12s that need game time.
I can’t believe this. So do Exeter see Slade as a 10 long term, with Hill and Devoto in the centres? He should have gone to Wasps.
If Exeter are planning to sit at the top table for a while, they’ll need two top 10s and 12s. Plus Camagnaro and whoever else at 13. It makes sense for them, but Devoto could have given himself a better chance elsewhere.
Yes top teams to need squads, but to have two, arguably three, young English players who have the exact same best position it doesn’t help anyone. The big games, and by that I mean Prem finals and European games, are the games that potential England players need to be involved in. Hill, Devoto and Slade can’t all wear the 12 shirt in those games for Exeter.
Personally, I’d like to see Slade become the Chiefs’ first choice 10 and ultimately England’s. He’s potentially a very good meeting point between Ford and Farrell, where we wouldn’t have to sacrifice one thing or the other. Did EJ reference Slade at 10? This would point towards that eventuality.
The alternative is that Baxter is going to juggle three 12s, which I agree makes no sense.
Personally I much prefer Slade as a 12. I think Farrell has developed enough of a running game to be a great international fly half, I’m a big fan of his. As long as Jones encourages him to run with the ball, he has proven that he can do it.
Sure it is a good signing for Exeter but what people are questioning is whether it is a good signing for Devoto
you would be hard pressed to find another team in the premiership (other than maybe Bath) where he would struggle to press for first choice 12
I think we can be confident that Rob Baxter will have a plan in mind. He has been pretty surefooted with his recruitment. Nor should we under estimate Devoto’s intelligence, Baxter will have made it very clear to him how he fits in at Exeter. Bear in mind too that he knows the Exeter youngsters very well from the Under 20s and that Exeter is almost home turf – he comes from Yeovil.
I’m not sure any of those things allays any worries about him getting regular game time at 12? Or that he can get regular game time at 12 whilst Sam Hill and Slade manage the same?
Exeters first choice 10 is the excellent Steenson but he is now 32. It can’t be long before we see Slade at 10 with Hill and Devoto in the centre spots. I don’t think it matters too much what numbers they have on their backs.
Anyone else think that Dave Wilson has been treated harshly? To my mind he has never let England down,particularly at scrum time. Dan Cole on the other hand………………, surprised to see Thomas in their too tbh.
Possibly, but he has not been in the best of form for Bath recently, Auterac and Thomas seem to have the edge as first choice combination there at the moment, but would also agree with your comment re: Thomas, it is only really Auterac who is stopping the Bath scurm from going backwards constantly from games I’ve seen recently, although the retunr of Hooper did seem to settle some of the problems last weekend.
I’d agree with this, although i don’t think he’s played a huge amount some the World Cup.
Nobody has been talking about Cole much, but in the games I’ve watched recently, he’s been having a torrid time at the scrum. I wouldn’t pick him right now. I think K Brookes might be the biggest injury loss as he was looking great.
I agree with you about Cole teecee. Dead lucky to be in on his form this season. However, if Jones is looking to play with tempo and up the pace, I think you have the reason for Wilson´s absence right there. Usain Bolt he ain´t. He is also somewhat inclined to give away daft penalties.
It worries me a little that the speed and tempo thing is becoming an all enveloping mantra.
To the best of my knowledge Union ain’t League ……….. yet.
I take your point but England will still need heft and technique at scrum time in order to secure ball that can then be used at tempo and with expression. Aspiring to a modern,all court game is fine but as we found out under Bombers tenure,the ball has to be won first!
Indeed. I can’t remember the last time I heard of a winger: “yeah, he might not be that quick, but he’s quite good at the breakdown” or “OK he can’t sidestep an opponent, but he’s a great lineout jumper”.
Horses for courses.
Fine, if your prop happens to be able to shift around the park as well as his core duties well good for him, but first and foremost I want a prop who can scrum hard and reliably (without giving away penalties), lift at the lineout and smash a few rucks.
Burgess…now Devoto
Clearly a case of not living up to his name.
Next we’ll have P+sshand going back.
All is not well in the state of Bath…