England going forward

[Mellsblue]

Yeah. Not sure what Jones could do once the whistle went. You could argue that he hadn’t prepared them well enough as they were clearly nervous as hell but he could only do so much. There are numerous Lions, European champions, league champions and players with north of 50 caps, they should not make the early mistakes they made no matter who their head coach is.
I wonder whether, in hindsight, he might privately admit he should have made different decisions on selection.

[Banquo]

Yeah. Not sure what Jones could do once the whistle went. You could argue that he hadn’t prepared them well enough as they were clearly nervous as hell but he could only do so much. There are numerous Lions, European champions, league champions and players with north of 50 caps, they should not make the early mistakes they made no matter who their head coach is.
I wonder whether, in hindsight, he might privately admit he should have made different decisions on selection.

I was mulling selection over, and though my backline would have been different, I'm not sure what he could have done up front. We took pretty much the best forwards possible and then he got the 13 right generally; there was nothing in previous games that indicated we'd get such a stuffing at the scrum and in the loose. I guess that is kind of a concern in its own right- it was early nervous errors that knocked some belief out of us imo, SA sniffed it and it raised their game even more. Need to look at the scrum technically also I'd suggest- you could see the power coming through from SA; from a breakdown point of view there are some things that can definitely be looked at technically, and maybe that's what they could have looked at, at half time (and maybe did, with Kruis replacing Lawes).

[Oakboy]

such as?

It had to be some sort of inspiration to get real edge in their game. It is what he's paid for.

seriously?

Yes. If ever there was time for an old-fashioned pep talk it was then. Individual assessment had to be given and a collective gee-up. All he seems to have done is target the scrum with his replacements. Apart from that, he did zilch apparently.

[Oakboy]

Yeah. Not sure what Jones could do once the whistle went. You could argue that he hadn’t prepared them well enough as they were clearly nervous as hell but he could only do so much. There are numerous Lions, European champions, league champions and players with north of 50 caps, they should not make the early mistakes they made no matter who their head coach is.
I wonder whether, in hindsight, he might privately admit he should have made different decisions on selection.

I was mulling selection over, and though my backline would have been different, I'm not sure what he could have done up front. We took pretty much the best forwards possible and then he got the 13 right generally; there was nothing in previous games that indicated we'd get such a stuffing at the scrum and in the loose. I guess that is kind of a concern in its own right- it was early nervous errors that knocked some belief out of us imo, SA sniffed it and it raised their game even more. Need to look at the scrum technically also I'd suggest- you could see the power coming through from SA; from a breakdown point of view there are some things that can definitely be looked at technically, and maybe that's what they could have looked at, at half time (and maybe did, with Kruis replacing Lawes).

A definite 'yes' to that but surely at HT Jones should have been extolling original game plans - "Go back to what we planned and you'll be alright' type of thing. it's his one real chance to have an effect, surely?

[Oakboy]

Yeah. Not sure what Jones could do once the whistle went. You could argue that he hadn’t prepared them well enough as they were clearly nervous as hell but he could only do so much. There are numerous Lions, European champions, league champions and players with north of 50 caps, they should not make the early mistakes they made no matter who their head coach is.
I wonder whether, in hindsight, he might privately admit he should have made different decisions on selection.

Do you mean just for this match?

[Banquo]

It had to be some sort of inspiration to get real edge in their game. It is what he's paid for.

seriously?

Yes. If ever there was time for an old-fashioned pep talk it was then. Individual assessment had to be given and a collective gee-up. All he seems to have done is target the scrum with his replacements. Apart from that, he did zilch apparently.

General Melchett would approve

[Mellsblue]

Yeah. Not sure what Jones could do once the whistle went. You could argue that he hadn’t prepared them well enough as they were clearly nervous as hell but he could only do so much. There are numerous Lions, European champions, league champions and players with north of 50 caps, they should not make the early mistakes they made no matter who their head coach is.
I wonder whether, in hindsight, he might privately admit he should have made different decisions on selection.

I was mulling selection over, and though my backline would have been different, I'm not sure what he could have done up front. We took pretty much the best forwards possible and then he got the 13 right generally; there was nothing in previous games that indicated we'd get such a stuffing at the scrum and in the loose. I guess that is kind of a concern in its own right- it was early nervous errors that knocked some belief out of us imo, SA sniffed it and it raised their game even more. Need to look at the scrum technically also I'd suggest- you could see the power coming through from SA; from a breakdown point of view there are some things that can definitely be looked at technically, and maybe that's what they could have looked at, at half time (and maybe did, with Kruis replacing Lawes).

Yep. Not sure any of us complained about selection prior to the match. I’m not blaming Jones, as you say there wasn’t much evidence the scrum would go the way it did. Hindsight is a wonderful thing etc etc

[Banquo]

Yeah. Not sure what Jones could do once the whistle went. You could argue that he hadn’t prepared them well enough as they were clearly nervous as hell but he could only do so much. There are numerous Lions, European champions, league champions and players with north of 50 caps, they should not make the early mistakes they made no matter who their head coach is.
I wonder whether, in hindsight, he might privately admit he should have made different decisions on selection.

I was mulling selection over, and though my backline would have been different, I'm not sure what he could have done up front. We took pretty much the best forwards possible and then he got the 13 right generally; there was nothing in previous games that indicated we'd get such a stuffing at the scrum and in the loose. I guess that is kind of a concern in its own right- it was early nervous errors that knocked some belief out of us imo, SA sniffed it and it raised their game even more. Need to look at the scrum technically also I'd suggest- you could see the power coming through from SA; from a breakdown point of view there are some things that can definitely be looked at technically, and maybe that's what they could have looked at, at half time (and maybe did, with Kruis replacing Lawes).

A definite 'yes' to that but surely at HT Jones should have been extolling original game plans - "Go back to what we planned and you'll be alright' type of thing. it's his one real chance to have an effect, surely?

But surely a pep talk would have been enough

Neither you or I know what went on at half time, unless you have some insight I have missed. You seem to be assuming it was a passive and desultory chat. I get you want to blame Jones, as it suits your preconceptions, but sometimes the players need to cop it. Plus SA were outstanding; they have a lot of very good players, which seemed to be missed by some on here prior to the match; they had just won the RC.

[Oakboy]

Yeah. Not sure what Jones could do once the whistle went. You could argue that he hadn’t prepared them well enough as they were clearly nervous as hell but he could only do so much. There are numerous Lions, European champions, league champions and players with north of 50 caps, they should not make the early mistakes they made no matter who their head coach is.
I wonder whether, in hindsight, he might privately admit he should have made different decisions on selection.

I was mulling selection over, and though my backline would have been different, I'm not sure what he could have done up front. We took pretty much the best forwards possible and then he got the 13 right generally; there was nothing in previous games that indicated we'd get such a stuffing at the scrum and in the loose. I guess that is kind of a concern in its own right- it was early nervous errors that knocked some belief out of us imo, SA sniffed it and it raised their game even more. Need to look at the scrum technically also I'd suggest- you could see the power coming through from SA; from a breakdown point of view there are some things that can definitely be looked at technically, and maybe that's what they could have looked at, at half time (and maybe did, with Kruis replacing Lawes).

Yep. Not sure any of us complained about selection prior to the match. I’m not blaming Jones, as you say there wasn’t much evidence the scrum would go the way it did. Hindsight is a wonderful thing etc etc

Agreed, except that most of us did not see the Curry/Underhill pairing coming. I think the consensus was Curry/Wilson. I'll probably get shouted down but there were times when we needed Hughes on the bench. Ducks!!!

[Banquo]

I was mulling selection over, and though my backline would have been different, I'm not sure what he could have done up front. We took pretty much the best forwards possible and then he got the 13 right generally; there was nothing in previous games that indicated we'd get such a stuffing at the scrum and in the loose. I guess that is kind of a concern in its own right- it was early nervous errors that knocked some belief out of us imo, SA sniffed it and it raised their game even more. Need to look at the scrum technically also I'd suggest- you could see the power coming through from SA; from a breakdown point of view there are some things that can definitely be looked at technically, and maybe that's what they could have looked at, at half time (and maybe did, with Kruis replacing Lawes).

Yep. Not sure any of us complained about selection prior to the match. I’m not blaming Jones, as you say there wasn’t much evidence the scrum would go the way it did. Hindsight is a wonderful thing etc etc

Agreed, except that most of us did not see the Curry/Underhill pairing coming. I think the consensus was Curry/Wilson. I'll probably get shouted down but there were times when we needed Hughes on the bench. Ducks!!!

Imagine what would have happened to Hughes v SA????

[Mellsblue]

Yeah. Not sure what Jones could do once the whistle went. You could argue that he hadn’t prepared them well enough as they were clearly nervous as hell but he could only do so much. There are numerous Lions, European champions, league champions and players with north of 50 caps, they should not make the early mistakes they made no matter who their head coach is.
I wonder whether, in hindsight, he might privately admit he should have made different decisions on selection.

Do you mean just for this match?

Yep. He might wonder whether picking Marler and Kruis to start would’ve secured the scrum and whether picking Launch over Joseph might’ve helped battle SA’s replacement front five. As per my previous post, I don’t attach any blame to him as there wasn’t any evidence that their scrum would be so dominant and a injury hit Wales pack got parity with the SA pack so why shouldn’t ours. Further, I like the mind set that we back ourselves to beat them with our first choice XXIII rather than react to their specific threats. Look at Hansen picking S Barrett to take account of the oppo, that didn’t go too well.

[Oakboy]

I was mulling selection over, and though my backline would have been different, I'm not sure what he could have done up front. We took pretty much the best forwards possible and then he got the 13 right generally; there was nothing in previous games that indicated we'd get such a stuffing at the scrum and in the loose. I guess that is kind of a concern in its own right- it was early nervous errors that knocked some belief out of us imo, SA sniffed it and it raised their game even more. Need to look at the scrum technically also I'd suggest- you could see the power coming through from SA; from a breakdown point of view there are some things that can definitely be looked at technically, and maybe that's what they could have looked at, at half time (and maybe did, with Kruis replacing Lawes).

A definite 'yes' to that but surely at HT Jones should have been extolling original game plans - "Go back to what we planned and you'll be alright' type of thing. it's his one real chance to have an effect, surely?

But surely a pep talk would have been enough

Neither you or I know what went on at half time, unless you have some insight I have missed. You seem to be assuming it was a passive and desultory chat. I get you want to blame Jones, as it suits your preconceptions, but sometimes the players need to cop it. Plus SA were outstanding; they have a lot of very good players, which seemed to be missed by some on here prior to the match; they had just won the RC.

That's all very well but HT is everything to a manager/head coach if things are going wrong. It is his one chance to put things right. The scoreboard suggests Jones actually made things worse. Yes, I have preconceptions (opinions). The fact is, though, that we lost and, worse, we did not turn up. Yes, players froze but the head coach picked them and sent them out with a plan. The plan failed in the 1st half and, whatever he said or did not say at HT, we continued to under-perform, got worse and lost badly.

[p/d]

Yeah. Not sure what Jones could do once the whistle went. You could argue that he hadn’t prepared them well enough as they were clearly nervous as hell but he could only do so much. There are numerous Lions, European champions, league champions and players with north of 50 caps, they should not make the early mistakes they made no matter who their head coach is.
I wonder whether, in hindsight, he might privately admit he should have made different decisions on selection.

Do you mean just for this match?

Yep. He might wonder whether picking Marler and Kruis to start would’ve secured the scrum and whether picking Launch over Joseph might’ve helped battle SA’s replacement front five. As per my previous post, I don’t attach any blame to him as there wasn’t any evidence that their scrum would be so dominant and a injury hit Wales pack got parity with the SA pack so why shouldn’t ours. Further, I like the mind set that we back ourselves to beat them with our first choice XXIII rather than react to their specific threats. Look at Hansen picking S Barrett to take account of the oppo, that didn’t go too well.

Yet dropping Ford to counter the threat of Kerevi worked - apparently 17 times

[Banquo]

A definite 'yes' to that but surely at HT Jones should have been extolling original game plans - "Go back to what we planned and you'll be alright' type of thing. it's his one real chance to have an effect, surely?

But surely a pep talk would have been enough

Neither you or I know what went on at half time, unless you have some insight I have missed. You seem to be assuming it was a passive and desultory chat. I get you want to blame Jones, as it suits your preconceptions, but sometimes the players need to cop it. Plus SA were outstanding; they have a lot of very good players, which seemed to be missed by some on here prior to the match; they had just won the RC.

That's all very well but HT is everything to a manager/head coach if things are going wrong. It is his one chance to put things right. The scoreboard suggests Jones actually made things worse. Yes, I have preconceptions (opinions). The fact is, though, that we lost and, worse, we did not turn up. Yes, players froze but the head coach picked them and sent them out with a plan. The plan failed in the 1st half and, whatever he said or did not say at HT, we continued to under-perform, got worse and lost badly.

The point is we don't know what he said at half time. We then don't know if the players listened/failed to execute. To expect a half time turnaround to the problems we faced, based on a pep talk, is a tad unrealistic, especially against the game SA play. You seem to forget there are two sides out there.

[p/d]

But 30 mins in he must have looked at our bench, then SA’s and thought ‘feck, I’ve got this one wrong’

Should have kept Ford as our back up 9 and put another forward on the bench

[Oakboy]

But surely a pep talk would have been enough

Neither you or I know what went on at half time, unless you have some insight I have missed. You seem to be assuming it was a passive and desultory chat. I get you want to blame Jones, as it suits your preconceptions, but sometimes the players need to cop it. Plus SA were outstanding; they have a lot of very good players, which seemed to be missed by some on here prior to the match; they had just won the RC.

That's all very well but HT is everything to a manager/head coach if things are going wrong. It is his one chance to put things right. The scoreboard suggests Jones actually made things worse. Yes, I have preconceptions (opinions). The fact is, though, that we lost and, worse, we did not turn up. Yes, players froze but the head coach picked them and sent them out with a plan. The plan failed in the 1st half and, whatever he said or did not say at HT, we continued to under-perform, got worse and lost badly.

The point is we don't know what he said at half time. We then don't know if the players listened/failed to execute. To expect a half time turnaround to the problems we faced, based on a pep talk, is a tad unrealistic, especially against the game SA play. You seem to forget there are two sides out there.

So, did you predict SA dominance before the game started? I predicted that SA would win the RWC before a ball was kicked. All I am saying is that we lost badly and Jones blew it - in preparation and at HT when he had the one chance to put things right.

[fivepointer]

I think its perfectly fair to look at why we didnt really show up in the final. We really should have produced a lot better then we did. Why did we collectively fail to play to the standards we had set the previous 2 games?
You always have to factor in the opposition, and its right to acknowledge SA played their game almost to perfection.
But we were off key.
Sometimes i think its just very hard to keep going to the well and bringing up a high level performance. A few notches down on your level of performance can have a dramatic effect on how you play. Factor that in with a highly charged and highly efficient opponent who didnt give us any freebies or way back into the game.
Maybe we were drained emotionally after the NZ game? Maybe we relaxed a touch? Maybe our prep wasnt all it might have been?
I dont know. I do know it was nothing to do with selection, Farrell's captaincy or whether Jones found the right words at h/t.

[Banquo]

That's all very well but HT is everything to a manager/head coach if things are going wrong. It is his one chance to put things right. The scoreboard suggests Jones actually made things worse. Yes, I have preconceptions (opinions). The fact is, though, that we lost and, worse, we did not turn up. Yes, players froze but the head coach picked them and sent them out with a plan. The plan failed in the 1st half and, whatever he said or did not say at HT, we continued to under-perform, got worse and lost badly.

The point is we don't know what he said at half time. We then don't know if the players listened/failed to execute. To expect a half time turnaround to the problems we faced, based on a pep talk, is a tad unrealistic, especially against the game SA play. You seem to forget there are two sides out there.

So, did you predict SA dominance before the game started? I predicted that SA would win the RWC before a ball was kicked. All I am saying is that we lost badly and Jones blew it - in preparation and at HT when he had the one chance to put things right.

They were beaten in a game of rugby, and if you thought SA would win the whole thing early then you must see they are a good side and its not just England losing the game. I said beforehand that they were a good strong team, and raised my eyebrows when Puja for example said we'd beat them 9 times out of 10, and three times of those comfortably. Blaming Eddie's team talk (s) and prep seems a tad mono-themed.

[Banquo]

I think its perfectly fair to look at why we didnt really show up in the final. We really should have produced a lot better then we did. Why did we collectively fail to play to the standards we had set the previous 2 games?
You always have to factor in the opposition, and its right to acknowledge SA played their game almost to perfection.
But we were off key.
Sometimes i think its just very hard to keep going to the well and bringing up a high level performance. A few notches down on your level of performance can have a dramatic effect on how you play. Factor that in with a highly charged and highly efficient opponent who didnt give us any freebies or way back into the game.
Maybe we were drained emotionally after the NZ game? Maybe we relaxed a touch? Maybe our prep wasnt all it might have been?
I dont know. I do know it was nothing to do with selection, Farrell's captaincy or whether Jones found the right words at h/t.

yep.

Though I would say, that for a long time England sides have wilted in the faces of sides playing with real passion and intensity in big games. We always seem a little surprised, and this predates Eddie.

[Banquo]

But 30 mins in he must have looked at our bench, then SA’s and thought ‘feck, I’ve got this one wrong’

Should have kept Ford as our back up 9 and put another forward on the bench

Probably not, as by then two SA bench forwards were already on, albeit one of them made their team much better.

[Timbo]

Did we play up to our potential today? NO. Is it anything to do with coaching and captaincy? How can it not be?

So, by definition, today, coach and captain failed. We lost. Fact.

In the inquest, what is the main question? Are we wonderful for getting to the final? Or, did we underperform in losing?

I suggest that the fact that we lost, in itself, is not the be all and end all. Had we lost narrowly to a better side and played well we might be able to praise the management/leadership hierarchy and move on. Jolly good show etc.

But, we did not turn up. We lost badly. The same regime will not necessarily do better next time so we need to change it.

You sort of follow a train of logic for the first few paragraphs- a logic that I don’t particularly agree with, but at least it follows on in a reasonable fashion.

Your last sentence makes no sense though, unless you know of a coaching team that’s guaranteed to win a World Cup final?

But, Jones has presided over a team not turning up for a crunch match more than once and he has now stated that he does not know why the team played so badly this time. I certainly know of no coaching team guaranteed ro win a RWC final but I'd hope we could find one that would inspire a team to give of its best on a big occasion.

If nothing else is certain, surely the players must now have doubts about Jones & Co. There was a marginal improvement in performance in the second half to begin with but that's it. That's all he could do. I just don't see how the best way forward is more of the same. If it was just freezing for this one game I might not be so much in favour of change.

All head coaches will lose multiple crunch games, it’s part of the job. Fact is we have won 41/50 tests under Jones, which is an outstanding win percentage by any definition. We’ve won 6/8 summer tour tests, 2/4 six nations and reached a World Cup final.

From a position of not being able to get out of our group playing every game at Twickenham.

And no, I don’t get the impression the players have doubts about Jones at all. I think, if anything, this campaign will further cement their belief in him.

[Oakboy]

I think its perfectly fair to look at why we didnt really show up in the final. We really should have produced a lot better then we did. Why did we collectively fail to play to the standards we had set the previous 2 games?
You always have to factor in the opposition, and its right to acknowledge SA played their game almost to perfection.
But we were off key.
Sometimes i think its just very hard to keep going to the well and bringing up a high level performance. A few notches down on your level of performance can have a dramatic effect on how you play. Factor that in with a highly charged and highly efficient opponent who didnt give us any freebies or way back into the game.
Maybe we were drained emotionally after the NZ game? Maybe we relaxed a touch? Maybe our prep wasnt all it might have been?
I dont know. I do know it was nothing to do with selection, Farrell's captaincy or whether Jones found the right words at h/t.

yep.

Though I would say, that for a long time England sides have wilted in the faces of sides playing with real passion and intensity in big games. We always seem a little surprised, and this predates Eddie.

So, why did we appoint Jones? Surely, the theory was that, as an experienced coach throughout the world, he'd come in, recognise such a trait, change our bad habits and, at least, get us playing up to potential on the day.

Don't forget, he had a wonderful winning streak and just trod water till it ended. Then, he struggled to put things right. The writing was on the wall. He's basically a flat-track bully - quirky and funny when things are going right and clueless when they are not. As has been the case for a year at least, he either wins or he's nothing.

And, before, you accuse me of preconceptions or being right in hindsight, our SH friends have predicted exactly this outcome ever since Jones was appointed.

In some ways, he might have been a good appointment in the light of the mistaken employment of his two predecessors. However, any transitional positive effect is long gone and he should be replaced.

[Banquo]

I think its perfectly fair to look at why we didnt really show up in the final. We really should have produced a lot better then we did. Why did we collectively fail to play to the standards we had set the previous 2 games?
You always have to factor in the opposition, and its right to acknowledge SA played their game almost to perfection.
But we were off key.
Sometimes i think its just very hard to keep going to the well and bringing up a high level performance. A few notches down on your level of performance can have a dramatic effect on how you play. Factor that in with a highly charged and highly efficient opponent who didnt give us any freebies or way back into the game.
Maybe we were drained emotionally after the NZ game? Maybe we relaxed a touch? Maybe our prep wasnt all it might have been?
I dont know. I do know it was nothing to do with selection, Farrell's captaincy or whether Jones found the right words at h/t.

yep.

Though I would say, that for a long time England sides have wilted in the faces of sides playing with real passion and intensity in big games. We always seem a little surprised, and this predates Eddie.

So, why did we appoint Jones? Surely, the theory was that, as an experienced coach throughout the world, he'd come in, recognise such a trait, change our bad habits and, at least, get us playing up to potential on the day.

Don't forget, he had a wonderful winning streak and just trod water till it ended. Then, he struggled to put things right. The writing was on the wall. He's basically a flat-track bully - quirky and funny when things are going right and clueless when they are not. As has been the case for a year at least, he either wins or he's nothing.

And, before, you accuse me of preconceptions or being right in hindsight, our SH friends have predicted exactly this outcome ever since Jones was appointed.

In some ways, he might have been a good appointment in the light of the mistaken employment of his two predecessors. However, any transitional positive effect is long gone and he should be replaced.

I've given up trying to sway your opinions as its a waste of time. You didn't support Eddie on appointment; as Timbo points out, his record with us trumps any predecessor since 2003, quite comfortably I'd guess. So that makes some sense of his appointment.

[Digby]

The one perhaps inadvisable thing Eddie said going into the final was that the NZ match had been two years in the making/planning. It might be he omitted to give similar attention to the final, he certainly leaves himself open to the charge

[Danno]

It had to be some sort of inspiration to get real edge in their game. It is what he's paid for.

seriously?

Yes. If ever there was time for an old-fashioned pep talk it was then. Individual assessment had to be given and a collective gee-up. All he seems to have done is target the scrum with his replacements. Apart from that, he did zilch apparently.

You are Ben Youngs and I claim my £5