The Eddie Jones Attack - Youtube analysis

[Insouciant]

I thought people on here might find this interesting plus given the obvious effort put in buy the creator I feel they deserve a signal boost.

The guy in question is Wibble Rugby, a youtube rugby analysis channel. Low on jokes compared to squidge but importantly an excellent analysis of movement and attack patterns. Very in depth, especially his England 2003 analysis video clocking in @ a feature film length, just shy of 97 mins!!

His most recent offering, 30 mins, concerns what he believes Eddie Jones is trying to build in terms of attack. It looks at the structures being used, or trying to be used, and some of the history of where the ideas may have come. Using this analysis he also posits reasons for why certain players may not have been given more of a chance yet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdb_EyP-q0M&t=434s

[Scrumhead]

Thanks. I’ll definitely check this out.

[Dan. Dan. Dan.]

Definitely hopeful stuff. Reckon the video could have been half the length though!
I feel the tactics are clearly there, but the end.product is missing somewhat atm. I think even in his (slightly limited) example clips both Farrell and Slade botched quite a few of the possible breaks, and he even mentioned at one point Farrell's tendency to over involve himself in the ruck.
Ford really is quietly wonderful though...

[Digby]

They are playing much faster though, and that takes time to get good at doing and still being able to support and make good decisions. You can't just flip a switch on this, or at least it's very unlikely you can. I'm really surprised they've not gotten a least a smidge more praise when it's such a swing in attacking intent, yes they binned some wins with their discipline, but that's much less important than setting this sort of tempo.

[Digby]

France could be an interesting test as it's real clash of styles, England looking for 2 second rucks and faster have been allowed to play by teams who back off the breakdown. France are not likely to back off the breakdown as they don't really do passive. And it's just this sort of contest rugby was invented for

[Stom]

A good video. Interesting analysis of what’s working for England and why the players who we feel could help us improve are not being selected.

Bringing launch back will have the biggest impact on our results, though. He seems very important now. Very interesting how we’ve gone from having 4 excellent locks to 1 with the injuries to Launch and Lawes. And what a big impact it makes on our results.

[Digby]

When you say Launch is that a new spelling variant of Tuilagi?

[Stom]

When you say Launch is that a new spelling variant of Tuilagi?

No, I really feel like there’s the biggest step down at lock now.

[Digby]

When you say Launch is that a new spelling variant of Tuilagi?

No, I really feel like there’s the biggest step down at lock now.

The step down at lock is huge, but a serious carrying option in the backs would still for me deliver a still more stark improvement. And Hill hasn't been all bad, he's done good things, then average things, and the odd really poor thing, he's been okay, which isn't good enough but he's only just started at this level.

Nonetheless playing the ball this fast I'm not sure what you'd do to cover Tuilagi as even if we can't put him into holes we'd be giving him 1 on 1s, and that has gainline win written all over it and then some.

[Danno]

Totally agree, our backline has zero linebreakers. We're desperate for Tuilagi, Nowell or Cokanasiga (fitness and form permitting ofc).

It seems like May is trying to take on that role more than anyone else by attempting to weave through people and make sure he has support before taking contact and, to my mind, he's been making a decent fist of that this tourney, but he's never going to punch through walls.

Ofc we could have given Lawrence more time (I thought his cameo was good today and thank gawd he saw the ball this time), but he's not going to be starting next week as a result. Hopefully he gets picked v Ireland with a chunk of time off the bench (20mins+)

[Digby]

It wouldn't have occurred to me we were even thinking about Nowell, and it suppose it should given Eddie's previous on the slow not very powerful wing option. And I don't know if Lawrence is a power running option either, he's perhaps more powerful than Farrell and Slade but his game is maybe more about movement and passing than out and out power.

Nowell is an interesting player to cite though, if he can break the line it really doesn't matter how, still there's the problem of you I just don't see why you'd drop one of Watson, May or Daly for him

[Which Tyler]

I thought people on here might find this interesting plus given the obvious effort put in buy the creator I feel they deserve a signal boost.

The guy in question is Wibble Rugby, a youtube rugby analysis channel. Low on jokes compared to squidge but importantly an excellent analysis of movement and attack patterns. Very in depth, especially his England 2003 analysis video clocking in @ a feature film length, just shy of 97 mins!!

His most recent offering, 30 mins, concerns what he believes Eddie Jones is trying to build in terms of attack. It looks at the structures being used, or trying to be used, and some of the history of where the ideas may have come. Using this analysis he also posits reasons for why certain players may not have been given more of a chance yet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdb_EyP-q0M&t=434s

Just got around to watching this - brilliant video, i love analysis that goes this deep - especially when it goes this deep and supports my bias / observations.

You can really see why Mercer (for example) just isn't in the picture at the moment.

[Which Tyler]

I wrote this elsewhere about England's willingness to attack (before watching Wibble's video) - this thread seems the best place to put it.


I think he's been forced to go early on that [attack] - He will have been working on it anyway; but the issues with putting it into play too early are: A] It may not survive first contact with referees whilst getting new interpretations of the laws (first 2 years of any RWC cycle) - this can be somewhat mitigated by having a couple of ref.s in camp for the last 2 weeks; but may be an issue with non-English ref.s. And B] If you show your hand too early (and too often) then you give opposition analysts more time (and more occassions) to counter your intended attack.

If you take the last RWC cycle; he did much the same thing:
Year 1 he proved that England's poor 2015 performance wasn't because of the players; and he improved, and earned, their confidence.
Year 2 he told us all that he'd be beasting the players; every international window would be treated like a RWC (no unenforced call-ups) and the players would be playing whilst knackered in an attempt to improve decision making and margins after having given their all. He was, of course, criticised for doing exactly what he told us he'd do.
Year 3 he evolved the basic game-plan, made a few changes to the balance of the team. He was, of course, criticised for being boring and having lost the dressing room.
Year 4, he introduced new attacking moves and structures, but only generally for 1-2 plays per match; and then 2-3 matches themselves. Suddenly, the criticisms largely disappeared.

This time around, we've had
Year 1 he told us that he saw his main job was to buck the trend of losing RWC finalists, and not suffer a big slump in form/results; trying to rebuild confidence after the comprehensive defeat to the Boks. He won lots, but took a lot of criticism for doing what he told us he'd do (prioritise wins over performance)
Year 2 he told us that he'd be concentrating on the core game-plan, and not even looking to attack until after the lions (for reasons, see above). Covid and Sarries relegation (and over-confidence? arrogance?) have resulted in underperfmance of the core game-plan in the first 2 matches; and criticism heaped uo on Eddie; so that plan has had to be fast-forwarded a little; but still constrained by the smaller Covid squad.
We saw some attacking moves against Wales, and several of them against France. They looked rusty, and as if they hadn't been practiced and evolved enough on the training pitch - almost as if they were a first / second draft of a new attacking coach and philosophy
ETA: Of course, initially, when drawing up his 4-year plan; he expected to be handing the reigns over to someone else at this point.
Year 3 was expected to be the year of evolving the game-plan and the balance of the team; and the first real-world trials of new attacking patterns, to be fine-tuned, and trialled in full matches in year 4.

[fivepointer]

Thats all fine and dandy but my real irritation over the last 18 months has been our reluctance to simply play whats in front of us. Far too many good attacking opportunities have been spurned due to a rigid kick first attitude. We wouldnt be revealing too much, and its surely not too much to expect, that players move the ball when its on.
No matter what stage your development is at, the ability to weigh up options and to attack where there's a chance to do so should really be a given.

[Scrumhead]

While I think it’s certainly the case that Eddie is telling the players to operate within a specific game plan, I don’t genuinely believe he’s actively telling them to do so to the point that they ignore attacking opportunities when they present themselves.

IMO, that’s more of a reflection on the players failure to identify or to execute something on the fly. When Farrell (in particular) has ignored a pretty obvious overlap and kicked, I think it’s because he’s not even looking for it. He’s robotically following a mantra and as I see it, that’s on him rather than Eddie. I don’t believe Eddie would be annoyed that Farrell or anyone else ‘played what’s in front of them’ if it was genuinely on. If they were forcing it and screwing up, then yes, but that’s not what we’re talking about here.

[Digby]

Thats all fine and dandy but my real irritation over the last 18 months has been our reluctance to simply play whats in front of us. Far too many good attacking opportunities have been spurned due to a rigid kick first attitude. We wouldnt be revealing too much, and its surely not too much to expect, that players move the ball when its on.
No matter what stage your development is at, the ability to weigh up options and to attack where there's a chance to do so should really be a given.

18 months? We've been refusing to play what's in front of us for 18 years.

But this 6N we've clearly seen a shift in emphasis, and even after 2 losses Eddie held his nerve, picked a backrow to take on France at the breakdown not a 3rd lock, and kept his never getting the side to play at pace. What we've seen this last 4 games is why I was enthused he arrived in the first place, it never occurring to me in advance he'd wait this long to push the side to play rather than try to find risk free ways of playing.

[Mr Mwenda]

After that France match I'm back to being a Jones fan, but I don't understand why other teams don't feel the need to e.g. put attack development on hold for extended periods. I get that England are fit but South Africa humped them in the world cup despite the 2016 bad year

[twitchy]

An excellent video.