Jones

[p/d]

I'd also like to note I don't think Daly at 15 is a failed experiment, or at least I cannot recall having a 15 who didn't come with issues in their game, at least not from a list of

Webb
Hodgkinson
Hull
Callard
Perry
Hunter
Catt
Stimpson
Balshaw
Perry
Robinson
Foden
Armitage
Morgan
Brown
Goode
Daly

Okay in fairness Nick Beal was just fecking awesome, but you don't get that level of perfection as the norm. I was of course going to add MVG to the list, but wasn't sure some of you would be able to contain your excitement about being reminded of the greatness of MVG

Leave MVG alone. For Wasps he was gold!!!

If Daly was anywhere near as good as those mentioned- Catt aside - then perhaps we wouldn't be questioning Eddie's decision.

[Puja]

I'd also like to note I don't think Daly at 15 is a failed experiment, or at least I cannot recall having a 15 who didn't come with issues in their game, at least not from a list of

Webb
Hodgkinson
Hull
Callard
Perry
Hunter
Catt
Stimpson
Balshaw
Perry
Robinson
Foden
Armitage
Morgan
Brown
Goode
Daly

Okay in fairness Nick Beal was just fecking awesome, but you don't get that level of perfection as the norm. I was of course going to add MVG to the list, but wasn't sure some of you would be able to contain your excitement about being reminded of the greatness of MVG

You forgot Lewsey, who is another in the Nick Beal mould. Also, a little harsh on Robinson - okay he was short, but he leapt like his mother had been inappropriate with a kangaroo.

"Issues in his game" is significantly underselling Daly though. His positioning is poor, he's dire under the high ball, his one-on-one defence is risible, and his counter-attacking runs from kicks have been utterly ineffective this calendar year (I don't remember the last time he carried the ball back and beat the first line of defence). He's got worse positioning than Scarbrough, worse high ball than 2002!Balshaw, worse defence than Goode, and worse counter-attacking than Webb. His plus points are his ability to join the line and to playmake/decisionmake on turnover ball, none of which is sufficient to overturn the issues.

Puja

[Danno]

Whoops. Thought it was Jngf who had proposed that.

Harsh

[Digby]

I'd also like to note I don't think Daly at 15 is a failed experiment, or at least I cannot recall having a 15 who didn't come with issues in their game, at least not from a list of

Webb
Hodgkinson
Hull
Callard
Perry
Hunter
Catt
Stimpson
Balshaw
Perry
Robinson
Foden
Armitage
Morgan
Brown
Goode
Daly

Okay in fairness Nick Beal was just fecking awesome, but you don't get that level of perfection as the norm. I was of course going to add MVG to the list, but wasn't sure some of you would be able to contain your excitement about being reminded of the greatness of MVG

Leave MVG alone. For Wasps he was gold!!!

If Daly was anywhere near as good as those mentioned- Catt aside - then perhaps we wouldn't be questioning Eddie's decision.

You're saying Daly is a worse option for England than Hunter? Actually the supposed failings of Daly tend to be given around defence, and you're noting he's worse than Webb and Hodgkinson in this area?

[Beasties]

I'd also like to note I don't think Daly at 15 is a failed experiment, or at least I cannot recall having a 15 who didn't come with issues in their game, at least not from a list of

Webb
Hodgkinson
Hull
Callard
Perry
Hunter
Catt
Stimpson
Balshaw
Perry
Robinson
Foden
Armitage
Morgan
Brown
Goode
Daly

Okay in fairness Nick Beal was just fecking awesome, but you don't get that level of perfection as the norm. I was of course going to add MVG to the list, but wasn't sure some of you would be able to contain your excitement about being reminded of the greatness of MVG

You forgot Lewsey, who is another in the Nick Beal mould. Also, a little harsh on Robinson - okay he was short, but he leapt like his mother had been inappropriate with a kangaroo.

"Issues in his game" is significantly underselling Daly though. His positioning is poor, he's dire under the high ball, his one-on-one defence is risible, and his counter-attacking runs from kicks have been utterly ineffective this calendar year (I don't remember the last time he carried the ball back and beat the first line of defence). He's got worse positioning than Scarbrough, worse high ball than 2002!Balshaw, worse defence than Goode, and worse counter-attacking than Webb. His plus points are his ability to join the line and to playmake/decisionmake on turnover ball, none of which is sufficient to overturn the issues.

Puja

I just assumed he'd left Lewsey out because there were no issues with his game. As opposed to MVG.

[Danno]

I'd also like to note I don't think Daly at 15 is a failed experiment, or at least I cannot recall having a 15 who didn't come with issues in their game, at least not from a list of

Webb
Hodgkinson
Hull
Callard
Perry
Hunter
Catt
Stimpson
Balshaw
Perry
Robinson
Foden
Armitage
Morgan
Brown
Goode
Daly

Okay in fairness Nick Beal was just fecking awesome, but you don't get that level of perfection as the norm. I was of course going to add MVG to the list, but wasn't sure some of you would be able to contain your excitement about being reminded of the greatness of MVG

You forgot Lewsey, who is another in the Nick Beal mould. Also, a little harsh on Robinson - okay he was short, but he leapt like his mother had been inappropriate with a kangaroo.

"Issues in his game" is significantly underselling Daly though. His positioning is poor, he's dire under the high ball, his one-on-one defence is risible, and his counter-attacking runs from kicks have been utterly ineffective this calendar year (I don't remember the last time he carried the ball back and beat the first line of defence). He's got worse positioning than Scarbrough, worse high ball than 2002!Balshaw, worse defence than Goode, and worse counter-attacking than Webb. His plus points are his ability to join the line and to playmake/decisionmake on turnover ball, none of which is sufficient to overturn the issues.

Puja

Also allows us to crowbar in a left footed kicker if we want May, Watson/Nowell on the wings.

Chief straw-clutcher, me.

[Digby]

I'd also like to note I don't think Daly at 15 is a failed experiment, or at least I cannot recall having a 15 who didn't come with issues in their game, at least not from a list of

Webb
Hodgkinson
Hull
Callard
Perry
Hunter
Catt
Stimpson
Balshaw
Perry
Robinson
Foden
Armitage
Morgan
Brown
Goode
Daly

Okay in fairness Nick Beal was just fecking awesome, but you don't get that level of perfection as the norm. I was of course going to add MVG to the list, but wasn't sure some of you would be able to contain your excitement about being reminded of the greatness of MVG

You forgot Lewsey, who is another in the Nick Beal mould. Also, a little harsh on Robinson - okay he was short, but he leapt like his mother had been inappropriate with a kangaroo.

"Issues in his game" is significantly underselling Daly though. His positioning is poor, he's dire under the high ball, his one-on-one defence is risible, and his counter-attacking runs from kicks have been utterly ineffective this calendar year (I don't remember the last time he carried the ball back and beat the first line of defence). He's got worse positioning than Scarbrough, worse high ball than 2002!Balshaw, worse defence than Goode, and worse counter-attacking than Webb. His plus points are his ability to join the line and to playmake/decisionmake on turnover ball, none of which is sufficient to overturn the issues.

Puja

I'm disappointed in myself I omitted Lewsey, christ I even remembered the likes of Horak, Mallinder and Scarbourgh but didn't list them.

Also Robinson had issues in his positioning, also big issues with his kicking. And I think in being critical of Daly much of the time people aren't accounting for what's happening in the backfield (ours and theirs), as tends to happen with some perhaps unfair criticism of Goode. It would of course help if we could have some sensible camera angles covering rugby, but there's no way we not going to continue having a focus on giving closeups to the sponsor logos on the jerseys

I'm not in saying this I'd have Daly at the top of the list as a fullback in that list. But I'm also not quite sold he's the problem he's made out, especially when we don't have any other proven better options. As with the 9 shirt I'm open to argument we haven't tried enough other people, but the main alternative is probably Watson and he had an injury that ruled him out when that trial might have happened

[p/d]

You're saying Daly is a worse option for England than Hunter? Actually the supposed failings of Daly tend to be given around defence, and you're noting he's worse than Webb and Hodgkinson in this area?

In all honesty, out of his 7 caps how many do you think Hunter started at fb?

And I made no mention to him being 'worse' than Webb or anyone else in defence. But as you mention it then probably no better.

[Oakboy]

Re. the bolded section, I can’t understand why you’re seemingly criticising him for using the quality of resources at his disposal? Surely that would have benefitted anyone coaching England?

I wasn't criticising that, merely pointing out that most of his success has been gifted on a plate, especially in comparison with his predecessors. It took no special managerial gift to select most of the players so his innovations in selection/development are few and far between. Of course, he did commit a fair few playing minutes to Shields . . . .

[Timbo]

If Jones did go, I would be happy enough to give Boyd a crack.

[Banquo]

Re. the bolded section, I can’t understand why you’re seemingly criticising him for using the quality of resources at his disposal? Surely that would have benefitted anyone coaching England?

I wasn't criticising that, merely pointing out that most of his success has been gifted on a plate, especially in comparison with his predecessors. It took no special managerial gift to select most of the players so his innovations in selection/development are few and far between. Of course, he did commit a fair few playing minutes to Shields . . . .

Have you forgotten what Lancaster left behind?

[Mellsblue]

Re. the bolded section, I can’t understand why you’re seemingly criticising him for using the quality of resources at his disposal? Surely that would have benefitted anyone coaching England?

I wasn't criticising that, merely pointing out that most of his success has been gifted on a plate, especially in comparison with his predecessors. It took no special managerial gift to select most of the players so his innovations in selection/development are few and far between. Of course, he did commit a fair few playing minutes to Shields . . . .

Have you forgotten what Lancaster left behind?

The foundations of Jones’s success, according to quite a few.

[p/d]

Re. the bolded section, I can’t understand why you’re seemingly criticising him for using the quality of resources at his disposal? Surely that would have benefitted anyone coaching England?

I wasn't criticising that, merely pointing out that most of his success has been gifted on a plate, especially in comparison with his predecessors. It took no special managerial gift to select most of the players so his innovations in selection/development are few and far between. Of course, he did commit a fair few playing minutes to Shields . . . .

Have you forgotten what Lancaster left behind?

Luckily for Jones not Any Farrell

[Oakboy]

Re. the bolded section, I can’t understand why you’re seemingly criticising him for using the quality of resources at his disposal? Surely that would have benefitted anyone coaching England?

I wasn't criticising that, merely pointing out that most of his success has been gifted on a plate, especially in comparison with his predecessors. It took no special managerial gift to select most of the players so his innovations in selection/development are few and far between. Of course, he did commit a fair few playing minutes to Shields . . . .

Have you forgotten what Lancaster left behind?

No. Why do you ask?

Of Jones's final XV, how many had not been capped by Lancaster: Sinckler, Underhill, Curry? Is that some sort of case FOR Jones or against?

[Banquo]

I wasn't criticising that, merely pointing out that most of his success has been gifted on a plate, especially in comparison with his predecessors. It took no special managerial gift to select most of the players so his innovations in selection/development are few and far between. Of course, he did commit a fair few playing minutes to Shields . . . .

Have you forgotten what Lancaster left behind?

No. Why do you ask?

Of Jones's final XV, how many had not been capped by Lancaster: Sinckler, Underhill, Curry? Is that some sort of case FOR Jones or against?

He left behind an unfit squad in disarray. Nothing was 'gifted on a plate'.
Selection is only pne part of it, but Daly, Itoje, Sinckler, Underhill and Curry; one third of the starting XV plus Wilson, Slade, and Spencer from the bench. In addition, some peripheral players under Burt have become regulars- George, Kruis, LCD for example.

From Lancaster's final key match, V Oz, only 9 of that squad were in the final in 2019. That's a lot of churn (its only 7 from the previous game v Wales).

I've been a vocal critic of Jones, but your representation of him does not stack up tbh. Snippets from his book do confirm what many of us have thought- that he isn't confident about (amongst other things) our players ability to think and act independently, and that players are constrained a little by fear; sadly, whilst he got us fitter, and trying to play faster or at least the ability to vary the tempo...he wasn't able to fix the inability to flex and execute new tactics on the hoof, not to freeze in the headlights a bit, both of which we saw in the final. Criticise him for this, but its a big cultural issue with our rugby, risk aversion.

[Oakboy]

Have you forgotten what Lancaster left behind?

No. Why do you ask?

Of Jones's final XV, how many had not been capped by Lancaster: Sinckler, Underhill, Curry? Is that some sort of case FOR Jones or against?

He left behind an unfit squad in disarray. Nothing was 'gifted on a plate'.
Selection is only pne part of it, but Daly, Itoje, Sinckler, Underhill and Curry; one third of the starting XV plus Wilson, Slade, and Spencer from the bench. In addition, some peripheral players under Burt have become regulars- George, Kruis, LCD for example.

From Lancaster's final key match, V Oz, only 9 of that squad were in the final in 2019. That's a lot of churn (its only 7 from the previous game v Wales).

I've been a vocal critic of Jones, but your representation of him does not stack up tbh. Snippets from his book do confirm what many of us have thought- that he isn't confident about (amongst other things) our players ability to think and act independently, and that players are constrained a little by fear; sadly, whilst he got us fitter, and trying to play faster or at least the ability to vary the tempo...he wasn't able to fix the inability to flex and execute new tactics on the hoof, not to freeze in the headlights a bit, both of which we saw in the final. Criticise him for this, but its a big cultural issue with our rugby, risk aversion.

I always respect your opinion. A lot of what you say makes sense but Jones is hardly a martyr to the cause as you imply. I simply cannot see him as anything other than a gallant runner-up - ironical in that he is apparently saying that it is our traditions/habits/playing style that are at fault for exactly what he is by reputation.

Winning a SF against NZ in such spectacular fashion set the standard. If he created an environment whereby the same team/squad totally failed to turn up and compete a week later how the hell can he blame anybody but himself? What did the coaching crew and all the other hangers-on (psycho-analysts etc.) do all week? Yes, nerves were a huge issue but he has had years to sort out our failure to turn up for crunch matches. The simple fact is that it was HIS team after 4 years, nobody else's.

I don't like the bloke and I don't like him as a coach, I've made that plain enough BUT his very nature means that he HAS to be judged by results. Even so, had we lost narrowly to SA in the final with every player putting in a performance and the team unit dying in the attempt, fair enough - I've said that about every regime consistently enough over the last 12 years that we have been posting together.

Now though, him saying it is our culture and he couldn't shift it is a touch feeble, to say the least.

[Banquo]

No. Why do you ask?

Of Jones's final XV, how many had not been capped by Lancaster: Sinckler, Underhill, Curry? Is that some sort of case FOR Jones or against?

He left behind an unfit squad in disarray. Nothing was 'gifted on a plate'.
Selection is only pne part of it, but Daly, Itoje, Sinckler, Underhill and Curry; one third of the starting XV plus Wilson, Slade, and Spencer from the bench. In addition, some peripheral players under Burt have become regulars- George, Kruis, LCD for example.

From Lancaster's final key match, V Oz, only 9 of that squad were in the final in 2019. That's a lot of churn (its only 7 from the previous game v Wales).

I've been a vocal critic of Jones, but your representation of him does not stack up tbh. Snippets from his book do confirm what many of us have thought- that he isn't confident about (amongst other things) our players ability to think and act independently, and that players are constrained a little by fear; sadly, whilst he got us fitter, and trying to play faster or at least the ability to vary the tempo...he wasn't able to fix the inability to flex and execute new tactics on the hoof, not to freeze in the headlights a bit, both of which we saw in the final. Criticise him for this, but its a big cultural issue with our rugby, risk aversion.

I always respect your opinion. A lot of what you say makes sense but Jones is hardly a martyr to the cause as you imply. I simply cannot see him as anything other than a gallant runner-up - ironical in that he is apparently saying that it is our traditions/habits/playing style that are at fault for exactly what he is by reputation.

Winning a SF against NZ in such spectacular fashion set the standard. If he created an environment whereby the same team/squad totally failed to turn up and compete a week later how the hell can he blame anybody but himself? What did the coaching crew and all the other hangers-on (psycho-analysts etc.) do all week? Yes, nerves were a huge issue but he has had years to sort out our failure to turn up for crunch matches. The simple fact is that it was HIS team after 4 years, nobody else's.

I don't like the bloke and I don't like him as a coach, I've made that plain enough BUT his very nature means that he HAS to be judged by results. Even so, had we lost narrowly to SA in the final with every player putting in a performance and the team unit dying in the attempt, fair enough - I've said that about every regime consistently enough over the last 12 years that we have been posting together.

Now though, him saying it is our culture and he couldn't shift it is a touch feeble, to say the least.

Well to top and tail, I didn't describe him as a martyr, and it was me saying he didn't shift our culture enough; but shifting a culture ingrained over a long period, is not trivial.

I think you are missing what a sad state the national side was when he took it over- he has done many things right in moving things forward; I guess I'm less angsty over our RWC outcome, as after the last 6N, getting to the final was way above my expectations. As for the final, we were mullered, imo having peaked the previous week- be fascinated to hear the players side; I'm not sure what he could have done about them bottling the 1st 20 minutes or so.

You've also shifted the argument away from him being gifted the side- hopefully because you realise he wasnt!

[Tigersman]

Let's be real the way our club game and national game have divided it's going to be hard for any coach to fully trust their squad.
Unlike other countries our National union doesn't get much of a say about where players play for their clubs, or what club might be best for them.

So whilst we have so much more resources available we actually have less control over them.



Also the only reason you think he is being a made a matyr is because you just can't see past Eddie Jones being completely bad with nothing he did being of benefit to English rugby. also it's pretty clear that you are letting your feelings of him as a person get in the way of your feelings of him as a coach.

[fivepointer]

Dors,
In your opening post you made the following point - "His apparent success with England coincides with increased numbers of quality players that a better head-coach would have exploited to better effect"
This may have been covered already but i'm wondering just who that better head coach could have been? There wasnt a long list of outstanding candidates for the job post 2015 WC and the general consensus was that England had done the sensible thing in appointing a highly experienced coach.
Who was available and could have transformed us into world beaters, rather than runners up?
As i've said already, i dont think Jones is immune to fair criticism but for the life of me i can't accept that he has been useless and a terrible failure.

[p/d]

He wrote a book!!!

[Mr Mwenda]

I must say I like EJ. He takes me back to the good old days when both he and Woodward would spout any old shite pregame.

[Tigersman]

Dors,
In your opening post you made the following point - "His apparent success with England coincides with increased numbers of quality players that a better head-coach would have exploited to better effect"
This may have been covered already but i'm wondering just who that better head coach could have been? There wasnt a long list of outstanding candidates for the job post 2015 WC and the general consensus was that England had done the sensible thing in appointing a highly experienced coach.
Who was available and could have transformed us into world beaters, rather than runners up?
As i've said already, i dont think Jones is immune to fair criticism but for the life of me i can't accept that he has been useless and a terrible failure.

At the time it was
Eddie
Mallinder
Ford
Baxter
Mallet
White

As the most talked about names and shorter odds at the bookmakers.

[jngf]

I personally think Jones has taken England a big step further from Burt’s own solitary achievement of instilling pride back into the players of what it should mean to play for England - On the positive side to begin with Jones got rid of some of Burt’s pet players who weren’t anything special (but seemed to think they were entitled to a place in the test side even after a failure to qualify in our own hosted tournament )when arguably better candidates were available and made some sensible positional switches e.g. moving Robshaw back to blindside and was rewarded with a grand slam for his efforts (showing IMO he was a massive improvement on Burt and could get an England team winning albeit in an ‘ugly’ style). However, Jones has shown some quirks of his own:

(I) the strange early tenure Jones quest to find the biggest player at 7 north of Pretoria (ignoring Armitage and Kvesic)

(II) Lawtoje

(iii) Still no settled 12/13 partnership

(IV) Lack of thoroughly tested backup at 8,9 and 15

(V) Team providing little evidence of being able to adapt when behind on the score line.

(Vi) Loyalty to some players like Farrell yet arguably disloyal to Hartley and Robshaw (both being integral to Jones’ early success).

(Vi) Whilst I do think the head coach has to assert his authority as superior to his players (and not be just one of the players/lads as was the impression given in the MJ tenure) - arguably the pendulum has gone too far the other way with Jones being the all wise ‘parent’ and the players ‘children’ whose hands still need holding until they are old enough and worldly enough for the stabilisers to be allowed off - under Jones that’s going to be a very long wait indeed methinks as I can’t see him believing they ever will be...

I guess I’m saying this side has gone as far as it can with Jones at the helm and without a clean sweep I see the law of diminishing returns setting in.

Ps. Tbh I think I’d reach the same conclusion even if we had managed to win the World Cup Final

[Oakboy]

Dors,
In your opening post you made the following point - "His apparent success with England coincides with increased numbers of quality players that a better head-coach would have exploited to better effect"
This may have been covered already but i'm wondering just who that better head coach could have been? There wasnt a long list of outstanding candidates for the job post 2015 WC and the general consensus was that England had done the sensible thing in appointing a highly experienced coach.
Who was available and could have transformed us into world beaters, rather than runners up?
As i've said already, i dont think Jones is immune to fair criticism but for the life of me i can't accept that he has been useless and a terrible failure.

Bloody hell, 5P, you stalwarts are ganging up on me.

I'll throw one in then. I can't stand Gatland either but, IMO, he and Edwards in the Englsnd job over the last four years would probably have had an indifferent start but achieved a gradual improvement to the extent of being the best side in the NH by the 2019 6N. Then, shit or bust, we would have turned up for every RWC game including the final if we had got there.

There would not have been the Jones 'boom and bust' bollix. That initial 'wonderful' winning streak and the subsequent inconsistency just characterises Jones, IMO. It's like so many top public figures' performances - claim the credit when it goes well and blame anything (our culture for Christ's sake) when it goes tits-up.

[Scrumhead]

I was really pleasantly surprised by Gatland on the BBC rugby pod. It’s like he immediately came across as more likeable after quitting Wales.