Stade de France Saturday 19th March

[FKAS]

I agree that we should stick with Smith, as much as I think Ford would lead to better results/performances in the next 10 months, but I’m not sure anyone could crack it the way the team are playing. Even Itoje looked below international standard today.

Ford can come back in and run the show when we need him to. I'd definitely stick with Smith for the summer and probably the AIs as well. He's got something about him and we don't know where his ceiling is yet so more caps and experience makes sense to see what comes. Otherwise there's the risk Ford gets injured pre tournament, Smith has been dropped and so Eddie goes with Farrell at flyhalf and no one wants that.

[Puja]

I said before the 6N that Itoje was our only certain starter. The response was that we knew our best 28 or whatever and had alternatives for every position. SCW has now apparently questioned, 'What is our starting XV?'

With 14 or 15 matches to go to the RWC, the kindest I can be on our selection situation is 'muddled'. The players, from game to game, look confused. They do not know with even the slightest degree of continuity how they are supposed to play. The one occasion that things looked natural and joined-up was when we were down to 14 and all pre-match planning was dumped.

It's time for all Jones-apologists, especially those in decision-making positions at the RFU, to wake up and smell the coffee. Jones is floundering. The team performances must average about 60% of potential based on this 6N.

I really don't care who replaces him in the short term. Just give the job to Cockerill or whoever up to the RWC with a brief to find the best XV, stick to it and play simple rugby. Straightforward consistency of selection and an inspiration of players to give of their best will do. Bloody hell, I'd even accept Farrell at 10 for the next 18 months if that's the only way to get back to 100% effort consistently.

One thing is certain. We cannot go on like we are.

Effort is not the issue. The issues are....shortage of quality players in key positions (you could argue on 'succession planning', but mostly its just not top notch quality), dreadful discipline, technique and decision making at the breakdown, calm heads under pressure, leadership across the board--- and too many switches in strategic direction- I reckon 4 since the last World cup. I think what you are seeing is Eddie trying to find a formula that might work for the world cup with the player group available, knowing that territorial rugby with out physicalling the oppo (which was his preferred route for 'England's strengths) probably not successful with what he and we can see as the talent pool. But its all a bit rubbish tbh- some of it is what the players do (they can be colossally dim and slow to react to what is actually happening), but a lot is in the preparation. That said, silk purse, sow's ear and all that- but the basics should be tons better.

If the problem is a shortage of quality players in key positions, why are we trying to play an all-court unstructured game? You might not be able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but you can make excellent pork stock so why are we trying to make the former rather than the latter?

I'm still going back to 2016 where we had superb success by cutting our cloth, acknowledging where we were weak and building teams and tactics around that, rather than trying to reinvent rugby and blaze a new trail for three centres/no pods/double full-back/etc.

Puja

[Stom]

That’s fair, but when you are the player who has his hands on the ball the second most in the team, the impact is greater- and you are bang on about lack of patience.

The thing is, Eddie has done exactly what he said he'd do, more or less. He's built a team in his image. An angry little man who has no patience for anyone, shouts its mouth off, and isn't nice to watch.

Robshaw was kinda the face of "nice England" to me, and to many. Typical clean player who works his ass off and actually works on his skills, just lacks that top end.

Farrell is the face of lad England. A gobby shite who's familial history has fast tracked him above more naturally talented players.

And we see which one Eddie prefers.

I don't like it. England don't play like England, despite what Eddie said about playing to England's historic strengths. They play like an angry little man with no patience.

Yes but we were very shyte under Robshaw/Burt (again a limited nice guy at the time) and at the end were losing mostly. The problem with Eddie's approach is of course, when we don't win. Neither environment seems right.

Oh, I’m not saying it was better under Burt, just that it was a lurch from one extreme to the other, when something different could have worked better.

[Mellsblue]

Look, we keep saying we don’t have the players but this is patently untrue. As Stephen Jones has pointed out in The Sunday Times, Jones has failed to consistently select Elliott Stooke.

[Puja]

Look, we keep saying we don’t have the players but this is patently untrue. As Stephen Jones has pointed out in The Sunday Times, Jones has failed to consistently select Elliott Stooke.

The answer at 12!

Puja

[Mr Mwenda]

Firstly, France are bloody marvellous to watch. Have ability to change gear and step up at key points. Very much the signs of a WC winning side. Class.

Us, well, we play exactly like a side trying too hard to try and compete. Where France have cohesion and control we have frantic and poor execution. We complicate when we need simplicity, we stick to a plan when we should be playing what is in front of us.

The pack lacks that ‘something’, be it simply Curry working with the outstanding Underhill or a nasty lock, whatever it is we made it easy for France. 9 & 10 became more a problem than a problem solver and as good as Steward was we still sacrificed an out and out flier in an attempt to try and stop France winning rather than to play to win

Players take some stick but wtf is Gleeson trying to get them to do!!

This last line is something I was thinking, it also goes for Jones. I don't understand what is the aim in much of what they're doing and thus also wonder what on earth they do while on the training park?

[twitchy]

Look, we keep saying we don’t have the players but this is patently untrue. As Stephen Jones has pointed out in The Sunday Times, Jones has failed to consistently select Elliott Stooke.

[p/d]

Jones has failed to consistently select Elliott Stooke.

The Peter Short of Jones’ tenure.

[32nd Man]

I can't believe that this is essentially the team that gave us such an emphatic reaming in a world cup semi two and a half years ago.

It’s clearly not though. From that semi 3 starters in the pack and 1 in the back line started tonight.

And that hasn't been done through a coherent plan of change to refresh the team and try new players. It's been a bizarre mix of being stubborn past reason with keeping in the off form or knackered then a seeming complete about face to just chucking ransoms at it.

[Mellsblue]

Look, we keep saying we don’t have the players but this is patently untrue. As Stephen Jones has pointed out in The Sunday Times, Jones has failed to consistently select Elliott Stooke.

The answer at 12!

Puja

Puja, Puja, Puja. You are so 2021 - all of England’s players are now numberless. Positionless, even. It doesn’t matter which number you allocate to Stooke when he can cover all of the pitch simultaneously. He will recover the ball when Daly kicks away a three on one overlap. He will resource the ruck when we run down yet another blind alley out wide. He will catch Smith mid hitch-kick and carry him over the opposition defence. As Bhikkhu Wilkinson would say, “It is not the number of the shirt put on the man, it is the number of the man you put in the shirt.”

[FKAS]

I said before the 6N that Itoje was our only certain starter. The response was that we knew our best 28 or whatever and had alternatives for every position. SCW has now apparently questioned, 'What is our starting XV?'

With 14 or 15 matches to go to the RWC, the kindest I can be on our selection situation is 'muddled'. The players, from game to game, look confused. They do not know with even the slightest degree of continuity how they are supposed to play. The one occasion that things looked natural and joined-up was when we were down to 14 and all pre-match planning was dumped.

It's time for all Jones-apologists, especially those in decision-making positions at the RFU, to wake up and smell the coffee. Jones is floundering. The team performances must average about 60% of potential based on this 6N.

I really don't care who replaces him in the short term. Just give the job to Cockerill or whoever up to the RWC with a brief to find the best XV, stick to it and play simple rugby. Straightforward consistency of selection and an inspiration of players to give of their best will do. Bloody hell, I'd even accept Farrell at 10 for the next 18 months if that's the only way to get back to 100% effort consistently.

One thing is certain. We cannot go on like we are.

Effort is not the issue. The issues are....shortage of quality players in key positions (you could argue on 'succession planning', but mostly its just not top notch quality), dreadful discipline, technique and decision making at the breakdown, calm heads under pressure, leadership across the board--- and too many switches in strategic direction- I reckon 4 since the last World cup. I think what you are seeing is Eddie trying to find a formula that might work for the world cup with the player group available, knowing that territorial rugby with out physicalling the oppo (which was his preferred route for 'England's strengths) probably not successful with what he and we can see as the talent pool. But its all a bit rubbish tbh- some of it is what the players do (they can be colossally dim and slow to react to what is actually happening), but a lot is in the preparation. That said, silk purse, sow's ear and all that- but the basics should be tons better.

If the problem is a shortage of quality players in key positions, why are we trying to play an all-court unstructured game? You might not be able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but you can make excellent pork stock so why are we trying to make the former rather than the latter?

I'm still going back to 2016 where we had superb success by cutting our cloth, acknowledging where we were weak and building teams and tactics around that, rather than trying to reinvent rugby and blaze a new trail for three centres/no pods/double full-back/etc.

Puja

Very much agree with that. Eddie seems to want to crowbar the players he likes into the system he wants irrespective of whether it will work or not.

I'm hoping he rows it back a bit in the summer and looks to expand the available options as there's some guys showing up week in and week out in the Prem that deserve a go.

[Puja]

Look, we keep saying we don’t have the players but this is patently untrue. As Stephen Jones has pointed out in The Sunday Times, Jones has failed to consistently select Elliott Stooke.

The answer at 12!

Puja

Puja, Puja, Puja. You are so 2021 - all of England’s players are now numberless. Positionless, even. It doesn’t matter which number you allocate to Stooke when he can cover all of the pitch simultaneously. He will recover the ball when Daly kicks away a three on one overlap. He will resource the ruck when we run down yet another blind alley out wide. He will catch Smith mid hitch-kick and carry him over the opposition defence. As Bhikkhu Wilkinson would say, “It is not the number of the shirt put on the man, it is number of the man you put in the shirt.”

I hate both you and this. I just want you to know that.

Puja

[Stom]

I said before the 6N that Itoje was our only certain starter. The response was that we knew our best 28 or whatever and had alternatives for every position. SCW has now apparently questioned, 'What is our starting XV?'

With 14 or 15 matches to go to the RWC, the kindest I can be on our selection situation is 'muddled'. The players, from game to game, look confused. They do not know with even the slightest degree of continuity how they are supposed to play. The one occasion that things looked natural and joined-up was when we were down to 14 and all pre-match planning was dumped.

It's time for all Jones-apologists, especially those in decision-making positions at the RFU, to wake up and smell the coffee. Jones is floundering. The team performances must average about 60% of potential based on this 6N.

I really don't care who replaces him in the short term. Just give the job to Cockerill or whoever up to the RWC with a brief to find the best XV, stick to it and play simple rugby. Straightforward consistency of selection and an inspiration of players to give of their best will do. Bloody hell, I'd even accept Farrell at 10 for the next 18 months if that's the only way to get back to 100% effort consistently.

One thing is certain. We cannot go on like we are.

Effort is not the issue. The issues are....shortage of quality players in key positions (you could argue on 'succession planning', but mostly its just not top notch quality), dreadful discipline, technique and decision making at the breakdown, calm heads under pressure, leadership across the board--- and too many switches in strategic direction- I reckon 4 since the last World cup. I think what you are seeing is Eddie trying to find a formula that might work for the world cup with the player group available, knowing that territorial rugby with out physicalling the oppo (which was his preferred route for 'England's strengths) probably not successful with what he and we can see as the talent pool. But its all a bit rubbish tbh- some of it is what the players do (they can be colossally dim and slow to react to what is actually happening), but a lot is in the preparation. That said, silk purse, sow's ear and all that- but the basics should be tons better.

If the problem is a shortage of quality players in key positions, why are we trying to play an all-court unstructured game? You might not be able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but you can make excellent pork stock so why are we trying to make the former rather than the latter?

I'm still going back to 2016 where we had superb success by cutting our cloth, acknowledging where we were weak and building teams and tactics around that, rather than trying to reinvent rugby and blaze a new trail for three centres/no pods/double full-back/etc.

Puja

The cloth cutting I remember best was under Ashton when we got to the final. The difference from them to now, though, was the pack…

We had Sheridan, Vickery, Shaw, Corry, Easter… a big pack.

Which begs the question: why isn’t Eddie selecting launch? But also, that he’s literally the only big player not being selected…

The top class players we do have are well suited to a quick game. Itoje, curry, George, Sinckler. We seem stuck in a half way house, neither playing to our strengths nor beating our weaknesses. Would be nice to do one or the other.

[Oakboy]

The top class players we do have are well suited to a quick game. Itoje, curry, George, Sinckler. We seem stuck in a half way house, neither playing to our strengths nor beating our weaknesses. Would be nice to do one or the other.

It seems obvious that we need to pick a game style together with the best available players, stick to it and build.

Yes, we don't have 25 world beaters but even if we did could they give of their best with constantly changing team combinations, constantly changing game plans and poorly transmitted messages?

[Banquo]

I said before the 6N that Itoje was our only certain starter. The response was that we knew our best 28 or whatever and had alternatives for every position. SCW has now apparently questioned, 'What is our starting XV?'

With 14 or 15 matches to go to the RWC, the kindest I can be on our selection situation is 'muddled'. The players, from game to game, look confused. They do not know with even the slightest degree of continuity how they are supposed to play. The one occasion that things looked natural and joined-up was when we were down to 14 and all pre-match planning was dumped.

It's time for all Jones-apologists, especially those in decision-making positions at the RFU, to wake up and smell the coffee. Jones is floundering. The team performances must average about 60% of potential based on this 6N.

I really don't care who replaces him in the short term. Just give the job to Cockerill or whoever up to the RWC with a brief to find the best XV, stick to it and play simple rugby. Straightforward consistency of selection and an inspiration of players to give of their best will do. Bloody hell, I'd even accept Farrell at 10 for the next 18 months if that's the only way to get back to 100% effort consistently.

One thing is certain. We cannot go on like we are.

Effort is not the issue. The issues are....shortage of quality players in key positions (you could argue on 'succession planning', but mostly its just not top notch quality), dreadful discipline, technique and decision making at the breakdown, calm heads under pressure, leadership across the board--- and too many switches in strategic direction- I reckon 4 since the last World cup. I think what you are seeing is Eddie trying to find a formula that might work for the world cup with the player group available, knowing that territorial rugby with out physicalling the oppo (which was his preferred route for 'England's strengths) probably not successful with what he and we can see as the talent pool. But its all a bit rubbish tbh- some of it is what the players do (they can be colossally dim and slow to react to what is actually happening), but a lot is in the preparation. That said, silk purse, sow's ear and all that- but the basics should be tons better.

If the problem is a shortage of quality players in key positions, why are we trying to play an all-court unstructured game? You might not be able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but you can make excellent pork stock so why are we trying to make the former rather than the latter?

I'm still going back to 2016 where we had superb success by cutting our cloth, acknowledging where we were weak and building teams and tactics around that, rather than trying to reinvent rugby and blaze a new trail for three centres/no pods/double full-back/etc.

Puja

I said one of the problems- and as an aside, do you disagree?
As I also said, he's casting around for a style, because he can't see an obvious one with his player pool. I'm not saying its right, nor well executed to be clear. I can sort of see why when you are short of physicality esp carriers up front , when you can't dominate up front, and when you have a skilled but lightweight and none too speedy set of backs, you might want to play with a bit less structure, and try and make the most of the likes of Smith who do play what's in front of them (but he is used to doing it in a side which is adept at shifting defences about and turn oppo ball over a lot- cue Esthuizen)......but I don't think he or his team know how to do this, even if it were correct and even if the players bought into it and were capable of doing it. I totally agree cutting our cloth would probably lead to better results and less frustrating performances- and massively help develop the team as winning gives confidence- but he wants to win the RWC and I think he's getting desperate to find a way...imo he's given up on the version that got us to the final last time. And tbh, its not really an all court game he seems to be after...but that might be a semantic.

[Banquo]

Effort is not the issue. The issues are....shortage of quality players in key positions (you could argue on 'succession planning', but mostly its just not top notch quality), dreadful discipline, technique and decision making at the breakdown, calm heads under pressure, leadership across the board--- and too many switches in strategic direction- I reckon 4 since the last World cup. I think what you are seeing is Eddie trying to find a formula that might work for the world cup with the player group available, knowing that territorial rugby with out physicalling the oppo (which was his preferred route for 'England's strengths) probably not successful with what he and we can see as the talent pool. But its all a bit rubbish tbh- some of it is what the players do (they can be colossally dim and slow to react to what is actually happening), but a lot is in the preparation. That said, silk purse, sow's ear and all that- but the basics should be tons better.

If the problem is a shortage of quality players in key positions, why are we trying to play an all-court unstructured game? You might not be able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but you can make excellent pork stock so why are we trying to make the former rather than the latter?

I'm still going back to 2016 where we had superb success by cutting our cloth, acknowledging where we were weak and building teams and tactics around that, rather than trying to reinvent rugby and blaze a new trail for three centres/no pods/double full-back/etc.

Puja

The cloth cutting I remember best was under Ashton when we got to the final. The difference from them to now, though, was the pack…

We had Sheridan, Vickery, Shaw, Corry, Easter… a big pack.

Which begs the question: why isn’t Eddie selecting launch? But also, that he’s literally the only big player not being selected…

The top class players we do have are well suited to a quick game. Itoje, curry, George, Sinckler. We seem stuck in a half way house, neither playing to our strengths nor beating our weaknesses. Would be nice to do one or the other.

Are they? Quick game means good quick decisions and high skill levels. Curry ok, but the other three aren't great decision makers in attack for me.

[Banquo]

Effort is not the issue. The issues are....shortage of quality players in key positions (you could argue on 'succession planning', but mostly its just not top notch quality), dreadful discipline, technique and decision making at the breakdown, calm heads under pressure, leadership across the board--- and too many switches in strategic direction- I reckon 4 since the last World cup. I think what you are seeing is Eddie trying to find a formula that might work for the world cup with the player group available, knowing that territorial rugby with out physicalling the oppo (which was his preferred route for 'England's strengths) probably not successful with what he and we can see as the talent pool. But its all a bit rubbish tbh- some of it is what the players do (they can be colossally dim and slow to react to what is actually happening), but a lot is in the preparation. That said, silk purse, sow's ear and all that- but the basics should be tons better.

If the problem is a shortage of quality players in key positions, why are we trying to play an all-court unstructured game? You might not be able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but you can make excellent pork stock so why are we trying to make the former rather than the latter?

I'm still going back to 2016 where we had superb success by cutting our cloth, acknowledging where we were weak and building teams and tactics around that, rather than trying to reinvent rugby and blaze a new trail for three centres/no pods/double full-back/etc.

Puja

Very much agree with that. Eddie seems to want to crowbar the players he likes into the system he wants irrespective of whether it will work or not.

I'm hoping he rows it back a bit in the summer and looks to expand the available options as there's some guys showing up week in and week out in the Prem that deserve a go.

Who? Genuine q.

I sort of get the rationale behind what he is trying to do- but I think he's wrong, and its certainly being deployed poorly. I suppose the argument could be that is one hell of a French team- even in 3rd gear- and we managed to give ourselves a vague sniff, despite shooting ourselves in the foot a lot in the 1st half.

[Oakboy]

I sort of get the rationale behind what he is trying to do- but I think he's wrong, and its certainly being deployed poorly. I suppose the argument could be that is one hell of a French team- even in 3rd gear- and we managed to give ourselves a vague sniff, despite shooting ourselves in the foot a lot in the 1st half.

But, was that the best side/game plan/application against France or not? If not and we got close that is incompetent by definition. If it was the best should we be content with coming a close second (that is basically all Jones has done since 2018). Even he says not????

If Jones does not have the tools to do a better job - ideas, inspiration, coaching appointments etc. - when will the RFU say enough is enough?

[fivepointer]

Small issue maybe but Jones use - or non use - of subs is something i find bloody annoying.
Stuart is playing well and gets subbed early on 49 minutes.
Youngs is playing like a drain and lasts until the 64th minute.
Ford is given all of 4 minutes to turn the game around.
Dolly is left on the bench, despite George hardly setting the world alight. Dolly's no great shakes but if you select a guy then you've got to be prepared to play him.
This isnt a one off example. Subs are routinely made too early or too late. Its not been uncommon for Jones to make a sub with a few minutes to go (see Blamire last week)

[Puja]

Effort is not the issue. The issues are....shortage of quality players in key positions (you could argue on 'succession planning', but mostly its just not top notch quality), dreadful discipline, technique and decision making at the breakdown, calm heads under pressure, leadership across the board--- and too many switches in strategic direction- I reckon 4 since the last World cup. I think what you are seeing is Eddie trying to find a formula that might work for the world cup with the player group available, knowing that territorial rugby with out physicalling the oppo (which was his preferred route for 'England's strengths) probably not successful with what he and we can see as the talent pool. But its all a bit rubbish tbh- some of it is what the players do (they can be colossally dim and slow to react to what is actually happening), but a lot is in the preparation. That said, silk purse, sow's ear and all that- but the basics should be tons better.

If the problem is a shortage of quality players in key positions, why are we trying to play an all-court unstructured game? You might not be able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but you can make excellent pork stock so why are we trying to make the former rather than the latter?

I'm still going back to 2016 where we had superb success by cutting our cloth, acknowledging where we were weak and building teams and tactics around that, rather than trying to reinvent rugby and blaze a new trail for three centres/no pods/double full-back/etc.

Puja

I said one of the problems- and as an aside, do you disagree?
As I also said, he's casting around for a style, because he can't see an obvious one with his player pool. I'm not saying its right, nor well executed to be clear. I can sort of see why when you are short of physicality esp carriers up front , when you can't dominate up front, and when you have a skilled but lightweight and none too speedy set of backs, you might want to play with a bit less structure, and try and make the most of the likes of Smith who do play what's in front of them (but he is used to doing it in a side which is adept at shifting defences about and turn oppo ball over a lot- cue Esthuizen)......but I don't think he or his team know how to do this, even if it were correct and even if the players bought into it and were capable of doing it. I totally agree cutting our cloth would probably lead to better results and less frustrating performances- and massively help develop the team as winning gives confidence- but he wants to win the RWC and I think he's getting desperate to find a way...imo he's given up on the version that got us to the final last time. And tbh, its not really an all court game he seems to be after...but that might be a semantic.

Here is where I disagree heartily - it is the time to have *more* structure. Sides with great speed or great power can afford be more unstructured, because they can outrun or overpower issues and can get themselves out of trouble with individual prowess. Sides like us cannot afford to have no structure, because otherwise you get situations like last night, where players got tackled on the gainline because they weren't powerful or fast enough to make a dent and no-one was in support (or quick enough to get there or powerful enough to shift a set jackaller) so you had an instant turnover Mediocrity requires structure to be good.

Puja

[Banquo]

If the problem is a shortage of quality players in key positions, why are we trying to play an all-court unstructured game? You might not be able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but you can make excellent pork stock so why are we trying to make the former rather than the latter?

I'm still going back to 2016 where we had superb success by cutting our cloth, acknowledging where we were weak and building teams and tactics around that, rather than trying to reinvent rugby and blaze a new trail for three centres/no pods/double full-back/etc.

Puja

I said one of the problems- and as an aside, do you disagree?
As I also said, he's casting around for a style, because he can't see an obvious one with his player pool. I'm not saying its right, nor well executed to be clear. I can sort of see why when you are short of physicality esp carriers up front , when you can't dominate up front, and when you have a skilled but lightweight and none too speedy set of backs, you might want to play with a bit less structure, and try and make the most of the likes of Smith who do play what's in front of them (but he is used to doing it in a side which is adept at shifting defences about and turn oppo ball over a lot- cue Esthuizen)......but I don't think he or his team know how to do this, even if it were correct and even if the players bought into it and were capable of doing it. I totally agree cutting our cloth would probably lead to better results and less frustrating performances- and massively help develop the team as winning gives confidence- but he wants to win the RWC and I think he's getting desperate to find a way...imo he's given up on the version that got us to the final last time. And tbh, its not really an all court game he seems to be after...but that might be a semantic.

Here is where I disagree heartily - it is the time to have *more* structure. Sides with great speed or great power can afford be more unstructured, because they can outrun or overpower issues and can get themselves out of trouble with individual prowess. Sides like us cannot afford to have no structure, because otherwise you get situations like last night, where players got tackled on the gainline because they weren't powerful or fast enough to make a dent and no-one was in support (or quick enough to get there or powerful enough to shift a set jackaller) so you had an instant turnover Mediocrity requires structure to be good.

Puja

Happy to disagree, and note I said a little less structure (and indeed said I didn't think what he was doing was right), not the overly structured pre-programmed approach he had before. And as said repeatedly, they are doing it badly. He thinks if we play with structure, we will fail in attack, as defences line us up too easily, as we have no power or pace; he's trying something that doesn't look like it works, and I think he's trying to see what Smith makes of it all- and its a bit unfair.
I assume you didn't mean tackled at the gainline, because that's not so bad (did you mean behind the tackle line?), and actually we did make some better dents than other games, but as you say in the 1st half let down by support and support decision making; but that's more getting used to the way we played, as shown second half. He's trying to make a limited set of players do more, and I think we both agree that they aren't up to it. So you can settle for being limited and eke out results, or be ambitious and struggle. I think he has it wrong- for the 5th time- but understand the rationale.

How about the quality players question?

[Banquo]

I sort of get the rationale behind what he is trying to do- but I think he's wrong, and its certainly being deployed poorly. I suppose the argument could be that is one hell of a French team- even in 3rd gear- and we managed to give ourselves a vague sniff, despite shooting ourselves in the foot a lot in the 1st half.

But, was that the best side/game plan/application against France or not? If not and we got close that is incompetent by definition. If it was the best should we be content with coming a close second (that is basically all Jones has done since 2018). Even he says not????

If Jones does not have the tools to do a better job - ideas, inspiration, coaching appointments etc. - when will the RFU say enough is enough?

These all seem to be rhetorical questions
I said it was deployed poorly. No-one else can come up with a better team- bar maybe Furbank. Coming up with a game plan v that French team and our players is a challenge....and in fairness, we were pretty decent in the second half.

What I can't forgive is the constant themes of discipline, terrible breakdown, poor decision making, and poor execution of basics under no pressure.

[Puja]

I said one of the problems- and as an aside, do you disagree?
As I also said, he's casting around for a style, because he can't see an obvious one with his player pool. I'm not saying its right, nor well executed to be clear. I can sort of see why when you are short of physicality esp carriers up front , when you can't dominate up front, and when you have a skilled but lightweight and none too speedy set of backs, you might want to play with a bit less structure, and try and make the most of the likes of Smith who do play what's in front of them (but he is used to doing it in a side which is adept at shifting defences about and turn oppo ball over a lot- cue Esthuizen)......but I don't think he or his team know how to do this, even if it were correct and even if the players bought into it and were capable of doing it. I totally agree cutting our cloth would probably lead to better results and less frustrating performances- and massively help develop the team as winning gives confidence- but he wants to win the RWC and I think he's getting desperate to find a way...imo he's given up on the version that got us to the final last time. And tbh, its not really an all court game he seems to be after...but that might be a semantic.

Here is where I disagree heartily - it is the time to have *more* structure. Sides with great speed or great power can afford be more unstructured, because they can outrun or overpower issues and can get themselves out of trouble with individual prowess. Sides like us cannot afford to have no structure, because otherwise you get situations like last night, where players got tackled on the gainline because they weren't powerful or fast enough to make a dent and no-one was in support (or quick enough to get there or powerful enough to shift a set jackaller) so you had an instant turnover Mediocrity requires structure to be good.

Puja

Happy to disagree, and note I said a little less structure (and indeed said I didn't think what he was doing was right), not the overly structured pre-programmed approach he had before. And as said repeatedly, they are doing it badly. He thinks if we play with structure, we will fail in attack, as defences line us up too easily, as we have no power or pace; he's trying something that doesn't look like it works, and I think he's trying to see what Smith makes of it all- and its a bit unfair.
I assume you didn't mean tackled at the gainline, because that's not so bad (did you mean behind the tackle line?), and actually we did make some better dents than other games, but as you say in the 1st half let down by support and support decision making; but that's more getting used to the way we played, as shown second half. He's trying to make a limited set of players do more, and I think we both agree that they aren't up to it. So you can settle for being limited and eke out results, or be ambitious and struggle. I think he has it wrong- for the 5th time- but understand the rationale.

How about the quality players question?

I think, while we have some significant weak spots, we're not lacking quality players. We've got Lions test front row players, Itoje, Curry, Underhill, May and Watson can all be world class in the right side, you're aware of my opinion of Ford, and there's a lot of potential in Quirke, Mitchell, Smith, Marchant and Steward. We're not short on talent - we bemoan the lack of quality in our centres, but Chris Harris was about our 10th choice centre when he was poached and Scotland have made something out of him. We're not especially devoid of talent; we're just failing to make good use out of what we do have.

Puja

[Dan. Dan. Dan.]

I agree, talent is there, we just seem constantly obsessed on finding an otherworldly physical freak like Manu. Cokanisiga is the other likely, Ollie Lawrence was touted, but just isn't and probably never will be.
Marchant showed that he has all the tools to break the line at centre, he just doesn't necessarily take 3 men with him. There's not many players that do, you have to adjust your gameplan accordingly...

[Oakboy]

It would be fascinating to have a new head coach and see who he retained, dumped or promoted.

Would anybody but Jones rate Ewels for example? Would Slade remain in favour?

What of Youngs, Randall, Smith, Marchant, Daly, Farrell or Ford? There are alternatives to all of them.

What about Lawes at 6?

Just how many are Jones favourites but would not be his successor's?

We say that there is nobody better but in terms of the starting XV there could be quite a few changes - even 10, say.