Sack Eddie now: A thought experiment

[Tigersman]

Will a new coach magically make our forwards tackle harder and be more aggressive?

Can do depends on the coach.
Bakewell improved Tigers pack in a pretty short time.

That being said I rather England added coaches rather than take away, maybe add a breakdown coach. (smith might be available again...)

[Banquo]

I completely agree but the pack selected has zero chance of parity or getting an edge without being helped by good decisions and execution at 9/10. The pack is a shambles and I'm really starting to worry that we don't have the players for Eddie's game plan and he won't change it to suit our strengths.

You've confused me there.....you seem to be saying a shambolic pack can somehow be compensated for by 9/10 doing the right thing; bit of a chicken and egg going on there. When the pack were doing well, the half backs were great yesterday.....

The pack is a shambles I think we could select a much better one, however against a new look boks went well to begin with. Then they came back at us and we melted. I believe better game management might have enabled us to slow the game and get a bit of territory. If we had and our pack regained some momentum we should have won.

Might have helped had the pack not given away so many needless penalties, been able to stop the Boks at the tackle line, no? Pinning it on the half backs when you've said the pack was a shambles seems to miss the primary target. During the period when they scored 4 tries we barely had the ball, and shipped a load of pens without it, giving up easy field position.

We aren't going to agree, but I think blaming 'game management from 9/10' is wrong, unless you incorporate 'losing discipline and defensive focus' in that.

[pandion]

You've confused me there.....you seem to be saying a shambolic pack can somehow be compensated for by 9/10 doing the right thing; bit of a chicken and egg going on there. When the pack were doing well, the half backs were great yesterday.....

The pack is a shambles I think we could select a much better one, however against a new look boks went well to begin with. Then they came back at us and we melted. I believe better game management might have enabled us to slow the game and get a bit of territory. If we had and our pack regained some momentum we should have won.

Might have helped had the pack not given away so many needless penalties, been able to stop the Boks at the tackle line, no? Pinning it on the half backs when you've said the pack was a shambles seems to miss the primary target. During the period when they scored 4 tries we barely had the ball, and shipped a load of pens without it, giving up easy field position.

We aren't going to agree, but I think blaming 'game management from 9/10' is wrong, unless you incorporate 'losing discipline and defensive focus' in that.

of course iys part of it but if you don't want your 9/10s to influence a game then select 2 more backrows instead.

[Mellsblue]

I don’t think that he doesn’t trust Ford. I just think he feels Ford and Farrell is a better option than Ford/Farrell (almost certainly Farrell) and A N Other at 12. Which, given our paucity of 12’s, isn’t a bad decision to take.

That's up to him but I can't see us winning much going forward with that combination. Faz is a 10 as is Ford, completely different players but choose 1 not both.

This I totally agree with. Faz is not an international 12.

All very true but do we have an international 12? Who do we put in the 12 shirt who will do a better job than Farrell. Even if you think there is one, is the team better with this 12 in it than it is with Ford at 10? Jones isn’t going to drop Farrell.

[Mellsblue]

The pack is a shambles I think we could select a much better one, however against a new look boks went well to begin with. Then they came back at us and we melted. I believe better game management might have enabled us to slow the game and get a bit of territory. If we had and our pack regained some momentum we should have won.

Might have helped had the pack not given away so many needless penalties, been able to stop the Boks at the tackle line, no? Pinning it on the half backs when you've said the pack was a shambles seems to miss the primary target. During the period when they scored 4 tries we barely had the ball, and shipped a load of pens without it, giving up easy field position.

We aren't going to agree, but I think blaming 'game management from 9/10' is wrong, unless you incorporate 'losing discipline and defensive focus' in that.

of course iys part of it but if you don't want your 9/10s to influence a game then select 2 more backrows instead.

That’s not his point. The point is it’s very difficult to control a game from 9 & 10 when you pack is going backwards and conceding a lot of penalties.
I’ll note you’ve moved from demanding the 9&10 control/manage to influence. Which are two very different things.

[Mikey Brown]

I’m guessing the assumption here is that had Farrell been at 10 he would have been knocking these runners back with no support?

[pandion]

Might have helped had the pack not given away so many needless penalties, been able to stop the Boks at the tackle line, no? Pinning it on the half backs when you've said the pack was a shambles seems to miss the primary target. During the period when they scored 4 tries we barely had the ball, and shipped a load of pens without it, giving up easy field position.

We aren't going to agree, but I think blaming 'game management from 9/10' is wrong, unless you incorporate 'losing discipline and defensive focus' in that.

of course iys part of it but if you don't want your 9/10s to influence a game then select 2 more backrows instead.

That’s not his point. The point is it’s very difficult to control a game from 9 & 10 when you pack is going backwards and conceding a lot of penalties.
I’ll note you’ve moved from demanding the 9&10 control/manage to influence. Which are two very different things.

Not to me but I suspect we'll never agree.

[Digby]

How do you want the game slowed down, and why do you want the game slowed down?

Because we were under pressure and being run ragged. There are lots of ways to take the sting out of being pumped from tactical kicking to taking a knee. It was obvious that the boks would have periods where they came back at us and we melted physically and mentally. We should have spanked them by fifty but let them get there tails up and ended up watching a quality 9 orchestrate a comeback.

I'd have to watch it back, and it's hard to tell on TV but were their wings up to allow for much kicking that wouldn't just see the ball run back? That doesn't sound like an easy way to rest. There was though plenty of slowing the game from both sides with players taking a knee, the first half was 45 minutes long the second 46 minutes long and with ball not in play time how much more are we looking for them to take a knee?

We could with better discipline have spent more time playing off 9 and just kept the ball for a few phases to take some momentum out of the game, but with our current discipline we'd probably have just been pinged for going off feet or sealing off

[Lizard]

...
In fact looking at the last 5 games we have played we have conceded on average
4.2 tries a game
35.2 points a game
Even taking Baabaas game away it's
3 tries a game
28.25 points per game
Meaning that we on average need to score 29+ point a game to win which at International level is a stupid ask.
...

Erm, under Eddie Jones England is currently averaging 30.45 points per game. So, maybe not so stupid after all?


And there’s no need to limit your ambition. The All Blacks averaged 34.97 points per game under Graham Henry, and are currently averaging a touch more (35.05) under Hansen. And that’s without an annual crack at Italy.

[Digby]

Will a new coach magically make our forwards tackle harder and be more aggressive?

Can do depends on the coach.
Bakewell improved Tigers pack in a pretty short time.

That being said I rather England added coaches rather than take away, maybe add a breakdown coach. (smith might be available again...)

We need to tie our breakdown work in slowing ball (which was perhaps our biggest problem yesterday, though maybe it was discipline) into our whole defensive approach. It's very hard to work on the breakdown when you're so fixated into getting onto the line and getting off the line with the league approach to union

[Mellsblue]

...
In fact looking at the last 5 games we have played we have conceded on average
4.2 tries a game
35.2 points a game
Even taking Baabaas game away it's
3 tries a game
28.25 points per game
Meaning that we on average need to score 29+ point a game to win which at International level is a stupid ask.
...

Erm, under Eddie Jones England is currently averaging 30.45 points per game. So, maybe not so stupid after all?


And there’s no need to limit your ambition. The All Blacks averaged 34.97 points per game under Graham Henry, and are currently averaging a touch more (35.05) under Hansen. And that’s without an annual crack at Italy.

Considering we’ve lost our last five games, the we’ll score more than we concede approach isn’t a successful one. Where I write concede, I mean both points and penalties.

[Scrumhead]

I think it’s fair to make a comparison to the Australia tour two years ago.

In the two years since we have become noticeably worse in defence and have none of the edge/intensity and sheer doggedness we saw in Australia. I just can’t see defining moments like Haskell’s hit on Pocock happening on this tour. We’re too passive for that.

We conceded a lot of points in those three tests but we made Australia work damn hard to score. Yesterday we were almost inviting them through and if it didn’t look like they were going to break the line, we were quite happy to give them 30+ metres from a dumb penalty with a token effort to compete at the lineout. I know that the lineout was affected by Isiekwe going off, but that was Eddie’s choice.

The second and third quarters of the game were arguably our worst under Eddie Jones IMO. Just woeful and inexcusable.

[Lizard]

...
In fact looking at the last 5 games we have played we have conceded on average
4.2 tries a game
35.2 points a game
Even taking Baabaas game away it's
3 tries a game
28.25 points per game
Meaning that we on average need to score 29+ point a game to win which at International level is a stupid ask.
...

Erm, under Eddie Jones England is currently averaging 30.45 points per game. So, maybe not so stupid after all?


And there’s no need to limit your ambition. The All Blacks averaged 34.97 points per game under Graham Henry, and are currently averaging a touch more (35.05) under Hansen. And that’s without an annual crack at Italy.

Considering we’ve lost our last five games, the we’ll score more than we concede approach isn’t a successful one. Where I write concede, I mean both points and penalties.

Fair point, but you can’t say England aren’t scoring a shit load of points under EJ.

This was only the second time an English side has scored 5 tries against the Boks, and the first was Sir Clive’s boys in 2002 at Twickenham. Between those two, only the All Blacks (7 times, 4 in SA) and Wallabies (4 times, 1 in SA) have achieved the feat. Before 2002, only NZ, Oz and the Lions achieved it.

Defence is your problem.

[Digby]

I think it’s fair to make a comparison to the Australia tour two years ago.

In the two years since we have become noticeably worse in defence and have none of the edge/intensity and sheer doggedness we saw in Australia. I just can’t see defining moments like Haskell’s hit on Pocock happening on this tour. We’re too passive for that.

We conceded a lot of points in those three tests but we made Australia work damn hard to score. Yesterday we were almost inviting them through and if it didn’t look like they were going to break the line, we were quite happy to give them 30+ metres from a dumb penalty with a token effort to compete at the lineout. I know that the lineout was affected by Isiekwe going off, but that was Eddie’s choice.

The second and third quarters of the game were arguably our worst under Eddie Jones IMO. Just woeful and inexcusable.

Also Faf played well at 9, whereas when we played the Aussies in Oz their then 9 binned any number of easy chances to advance his team and even score tries. I again think it's a mistake to look back on the run of victories and think much has changed, indeed I'd almost be more inclined to think part of the problem is we haven't changed enough and we're simply getting picked off rehashing the same tactics overly

[Mellsblue]

Erm, under Eddie Jones England is currently averaging 30.45 points per game. So, maybe not so stupid after all?


And there’s no need to limit your ambition. The All Blacks averaged 34.97 points per game under Graham Henry, and are currently averaging a touch more (35.05) under Hansen. And that’s without an annual crack at Italy.

Considering we’ve lost our last five games, the we’ll score more than we concede approach isn’t a successful one. Where I write concede, I mean both points and penalties.

Fair point, but you can’t say England aren’t scoring a shit load of points under EJ.

This was only the second time an English side has scored 5 tries against the Boks, and the first was Sir Clive’s boys in 2002 at Twickenham. Between those two, only the All Blacks (7 times, 4 in SA) and Wallabies (4 times, 1 in SA) have achieved the feat. Before 2002, only NZ, Oz and the Lions achieved it.

Defence is your problem.

There was the entire point of the post you responded to.

[16th man]

I think it’s fair to make a comparison to the Australia tour two years ago.

In the two years since we have become noticeably worse in defence and have none of the edge/intensity and sheer doggedness we saw in Australia.

This is kind of the nub of what I was driving at in the opening post. How and why do we keep on with this loop of bringing in a new coach, who fixes the glaring issues with what the previous guy had done, only for that improvement to plateau or drop right away as their own foibles come to the fore and impact on performance.

Is it a cultural thing in the RFU? Either that they're too swayed by pig headed characters in the selection process, or that they've created an environment where its frowned upon to say, "we need new assistant coaches as we've gone down a wrong path here".

Or are English players more prone than others to losing interest and faith in a coaches methods and need a regular refreshing of the voices around them?

Right now it's hard not to imagine the next coach through the door picking a more balanced back row, putting square pegs in square holes positionally and initially committing one more player to every breakdown, and getting an immediate improvement from largely the same set of players.

[Digby]

Considering we’ve lost our last five games, the we’ll score more than we concede approach isn’t a successful one. Where I write concede, I mean both points and penalties.

Fair point, but you can’t say England aren’t scoring a shit load of points under EJ.

This was only the second time an English side has scored 5 tries against the Boks, and the first was Sir Clive’s boys in 2002 at Twickenham. Between those two, only the All Blacks (7 times, 4 in SA) and Wallabies (4 times, 1 in SA) have achieved the feat. Before 2002, only NZ, Oz and the Lions achieved it.

Defence is your problem.

There was the entire point of the post you responded to.

I don't agree

[Peat]

I think it’s fair to make a comparison to the Australia tour two years ago.

In the two years since we have become noticeably worse in defence and have none of the edge/intensity and sheer doggedness we saw in Australia. I just can’t see defining moments like Haskell’s hit on Pocock happening on this tour. We’re too passive for that.

We conceded a lot of points in those three tests but we made Australia work damn hard to score. Yesterday we were almost inviting them through and if it didn’t look like they were going to break the line, we were quite happy to give them 30+ metres from a dumb penalty with a token effort to compete at the lineout. I know that the lineout was affected by Isiekwe going off, but that was Eddie’s choice.

The second and third quarters of the game were arguably our worst under Eddie Jones IMO. Just woeful and inexcusable.

Man, I don't remember making Australia work to score their tries. We made them work hard to escape the blitz - probably harder than we made South Africa work - but once it was wide, it was on.

Tbh, I thought it was pretty much the same performance we saw vs Oz, just with less physicality up front, comparatively worse discipline, and a few blooper reel defence moments for us rather than the opposition. That was about it. Attack was probably more fluid if anything.

Our pack's been hammered by injuries, age and fatigue. Not sure what to say about the discipline except Australia were suicidal that series and it's been a problem for most of Jones' time. Blooper reel... could be fatigue. Could just be luck. Attack could SA not being all that.

By and large this team's barely changed in the last few years imo - just we're no longer getting the rub of the green with injuries/opponents dipping rather than cresting. It's why I've been eagerly awaiting Jones' team losing form - that's when we'll see changes if we see any.

[twitchy]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/ ... uth-africa


When the Premiership clubs raise the issue of Eddie Jones’s national squad training sessions this summer, bristling at a high attrition rate, Twickenham should show a video of England’s latest defeat against a nascent South Africa side who were able to recover from an appalling start because of an ability, honed in Super Rugby, to play at sustained pace.

It was a Premiership player, the Sale scrum-half Faf de Klerk, who was his side’s catalyst, but the difference was at forward, where the Springboks retained their shape in the loose when a crazy game was at its most frenetic. England took an early 24-3 lead through the passing ability of George Ford that exploited a narrow, naive defence, but once the home side got hold of the ball, the failings that addled this year’s Six Nations campaign surfaced.

England struggled at the breakdown collectively and their discipline melted. They conceded eight penalties at the breakdown, six in the first half and, having dominated possession and territory in the opening quarter, had by the hour mark had the ball for only 33% of the match.


Jones had picked a side to play a fast game, sacrificing scrummaging and lineout options, which he reduced further after 35 minutes when he took off a second-row, Nick Isiekwe, and brought on a back‑rower, Brad Shields, who had only been with the squad for a week, in an attempt to plug the breakdown and constrict De Klerk by slowing down South Africa’s possession.

His decision to pull Luther Burrell early in the opening Test in Australia two years ago after a slow start worked but Shields had little impact. He was better equipped than his team-mates to deal with the relentless pace of the game, having played Super Rugby for four months, but alone he could not recalibrate the team’s disorientation.

International rugby has changed in the past 18 months, as has the game in the European Champions Cup. It is more fluid, faster and places less reliance on set pieces. Jones’s training sessions are regarded as brutal not because he has players smashing into each other, although a judo session in Brighton yielded a few casualties. Everything is done at pace and when players are blowing he does not allow them respite, pushing them to the limits of their endurance and beyond.

He has to because the Premiership does not condition players for Test rugby. It has developed considerably as a tournament in its 20 years in terms of facilities and the interest it attracts from spectators and sponsors but it is self-contained in a way the Pro 14 and Super Rugby are not. Those who declaim Jones’s methods tend to be club owners rather than coaches, interested in the bottom line, but this season’s Champions Cup should have shown them how the game is moving.


Instead of seeking conflict with England and trying to get Jones to change his training methods, which will not happen, they should be aligning their clubs with the national side, as South Africa have done with their Super Rugby franchises. Just as England lost a game they should have won in Johannesburg, so the Premiership clubs had the playing resources to have made a far greater impact on Europe last season.

The elite player agreement between the RFU and the clubs has worked to a point but its value to owners tends to be financial. It is a partnership only in the loose sense of the word and the professional game as a whole should reflect on Saturday’s defeat – only once before had a tier-one nation recovered from a deficit greater than 21 points to win, Wales in Argentina in 1999 – and devise a way of moving forward together.

It was only last year that Jones was talking about England overhauling New Zealand at the top of the rankings before the start of next year’s World Cup. Two more defeats in South Africa could see them slip to fifth, with the All Blacks arriving at Twickenham in November.

Jones has to look at selection, with Mike Brown playing like a full-back and Elliot Daly an outside back, but the different way matches are refereed in the Premiership and at Test level leaves much of his influence on the training field where, alone, only so much can be achieved.

[Banquo]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/ ... uth-africa
stuff we know

Nothing surprising, but can't see it changing quickly.

[Peat]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/ ... uth-africa
stuff we know

Nothing surprising, but can't see it changing quickly.

Hope that one of our teams successfully speeds their game up to near international level and that everyone has to copy to beat them I guess.

[16th man]

Can't even be bothered waiting for the game to finish to bump this again.

Everything that was bad last week has gotten worse in the last 7 days.

[Insouciant]

Tom Curry looks like a good player.. hopefully hanging out with the rest of the squad doesn't make him crap.

[Mellsblue]

Yep. A big decision is required. If we lose the third test he needs to go.

[16th man]

Tom Curry looks like a good player.. hopefully hanging out with the rest of the squad doesn't make him crap.

We have reached that point in the cycle where form players go into camp and visibly deteriorate from exposure to the set up.