So....

[Banquo]

Again, there's a lot of very personal attacks on Brandname on this board, across several threads, that just seem to be relayed and accepted as fact. "Not intelligent", "no vision", "limited character", "no courage". I'm not discussing his England team's performances here or whether he is a good enough coach to get us to where we need to be - I'm shocked by the fact that we have apparently decided that it's okay, without any of us even having met the man, to say these things about him as a person.

Don't like his coaching or what he's doing for England? Fine. But please let's not build up this caricature of his personality by extrapolating from what we don't like about his team, and then use that caricature as fact when discussing where we should go from here. We don't know his character, so saying that it's not good enough for anything more than lineout coach is pretty shitty.

This goes doubly because he did have a pretty successful career before becoming our head coach. Granted, it's limited in that it's only two international jobs as forwards coach and then 1.5 seasons as Leicester head coach, but he has succeeded wherever he's gone so far, so I'm amazed that we feel okay calling him a talentless imbecile. He might not be the right man to be the England head coach - I don't know - but we're going too far into character assassination here and I don't like it.

Puja

Sorry, but he's a very well paid international coach and fans pay his wages; these are not ad hominem attacks from where I'm sitting. I'm sure he's a good guy, but saying he has no (visible) vision is pretty fair comment

I think Puja is correct, it's a bit much generally.

In terms of how he wants the team to play? That is evidently obvious and has been since he arrived. The execution of that vision I can very much understand the questions of but some of the over the top reaction to the AIs by fans and ex players is ridiculous. Mainly the ex pros are hacks looking for clickbait to be fair.

Borthwick wants a physical, high work rate side that applies maximum pressure both sides of the ball and doesn't take unnecessary risks. Hence we have the blitz defence, the kick chase strategy aimed at not playing too many phases in the middle of the pitch etc etc.

As game plans go it's pretty clear and at the end of the 6Ns and on the summer tour it felt like we were on the cusp of realising that vision. Unfortunately we seem to have gone backwards during the AIs. Partly because Simply Boring picked too conservative a squad and partly because we've got a new defence coach and that's taking longer than we'd like to bed in. Add into that some of the players we could have very much done with were injured (Chessum, Mitchell and then IFW, Ford and Dombrandt coming to camp unfit) and others were in rank form (Furbank, Slade etc).

Most disappointing of all has been the attack for me, looked like it was starting to flourish in the summer and then had no width come the Autumn. I don't mind the risk adverse strategy that means we tend to open up when in the opponents half of the field but we didn't really open up bar the first 15 mins Vs Australia (after which we threw the ball around stupidly).

Fair on execution v vision, tho movement away from said vision as you pointed to doesn’t really mean it’s much of one, and really nothing much in terms of backs strategy. What you point to is a pretty limited and bog standard conservative game plan.

And the criticism is hardly ott or especially personal (bar the riffing on initials) for a coach with such a poor win:loss record over nearly 2 years. I get that his initial backers want to see him succeed and want to defend him. But compared to what has been dished out to the relatively successful jones….

[Oakboy]

Arguing over whether the attack or the defence was more mistake-ridden more or less sums up where we are at. Most of us thought SB was shat upon getting the job so close to the RWC. Slack was duly cut. The grim playing style was understandable in the circumstances. Reaching the SF was par+.

Thereafter, we assumed, there would be a good constructive turnover of players a more attractive game plan and solid progress. That reasonable expectation has largely not been fulfilled. Take out the 6N win v Ireland and IFW's arrival and we are left disappointed in every aspect.

Does anybody from RFU chairman to the laundry person expect SB not to be criticised?

[Banquo]

Arguing over whether the attack or the defence was more mistake-ridden more or less sums up where we are at. Most of us thought SB was shat upon getting the job so close to the RWC. Slack was duly cut. The grim playing style was understandable in the circumstances. Reaching the SF was par+.

Thereafter, we assumed, there would be a good constructive turnover of players a more attractive game plan and solid progress. That reasonable expectation has largely not been fulfilled. Take out the 6N win v Ireland and IFW's arrival and we are left disappointed in every aspect.

Does anybody from RFU chairman to the laundry person expect SB not to be criticised?

In fairness it appears to be the tone of criticism rather than criticism itself that’s at issue.

[Epaminondas Pules]

Sorry, but he's a very well paid international coach and fans pay his wages; these are not ad hominem attacks from where I'm sitting. I'm sure he's a good guy, but saying he has no (visible) vision is pretty fair comment

I think Puja is correct, it's a bit much generally.

In terms of how he wants the team to play? That is evidently obvious and has been since he arrived. The execution of that vision I can very much understand the questions of but some of the over the top reaction to the AIs by fans and ex players is ridiculous. Mainly the ex pros are hacks looking for clickbait to be fair.

Borthwick wants a physical, high work rate side that applies maximum pressure both sides of the ball and doesn't take unnecessary risks. Hence we have the blitz defence, the kick chase strategy aimed at not playing too many phases in the middle of the pitch etc etc.

As game plans go it's pretty clear and at the end of the 6Ns and on the summer tour it felt like we were on the cusp of realising that vision. Unfortunately we seem to have gone backwards during the AIs. Partly because Simply Boring picked too conservative a squad and partly because we've got a new defence coach and that's taking longer than we'd like to bed in. Add into that some of the players we could have very much done with were injured (Chessum, Mitchell and then IFW, Ford and Dombrandt coming to camp unfit) and others were in rank form (Furbank, Slade etc).

Most disappointing of all has been the attack for me, looked like it was starting to flourish in the summer and then had no width come the Autumn. I don't mind the risk adverse strategy that means we tend to open up when in the opponents half of the field but we didn't really open up bar the first 15 mins Vs Australia (after which we threw the ball around stupidly).

Fair on execution v vision, tho movement away from said vision as you pointed to doesn’t really mean it’s much of one, and really nothing much in terms of backs strategy. What you point to is a pretty limited and bog standard conservative game plan.

And the criticism is hardly ott or especially personal (bar the riffing on initials) for a coach with such a poor win:loss record over nearly 2 years. I get that his initial backers want to see him succeed and want to defend him. But compared to what has been dished out to the relatively successful jones….

Being physical, high work rate and pressurising sounds more of an agreed standard than vision to me.

Being picky I'd say Slade was in the not fit camp having only played 50 or so mins of rugby this season before then playing the All Blacks.

[Danno]

Arguing over whether the attack or the defence was more mistake-ridden more or less sums up where we are at. Most of us thought SB was shat upon getting the job so close to the RWC. Slack was duly cut. The grim playing style was understandable in the circumstances. Reaching the SF was par+.

Thereafter, we assumed, there would be a good constructive turnover of players a more attractive game plan and solid progress. That reasonable expectation has largely not been fulfilled. Take out the 6N win v Ireland and IFW's arrival and we are left disappointed in every aspect.

Does anybody from RFU chairman to the laundry person expect SB not to be criticised?

In fairness it appears to be the tone of criticism rather than criticism itself that’s at issue.

[Danno]

Playing the man, not the ball, and that's not on really. Apologies if I've done it a bit.

[Puja]

Arguing over whether the attack or the defence was more mistake-ridden more or less sums up where we are at. Most of us thought SB was shat upon getting the job so close to the RWC. Slack was duly cut. The grim playing style was understandable in the circumstances. Reaching the SF was par+.

Thereafter, we assumed, there would be a good constructive turnover of players a more attractive game plan and solid progress. That reasonable expectation has largely not been fulfilled. Take out the 6N win v Ireland and IFW's arrival and we are left disappointed in every aspect.

Does anybody from RFU chairman to the laundry person expect SB not to be criticised?

In fairness it appears to be the tone of criticism rather than criticism itself that’s at issue.

Indeed. I am 100% not questioning the right to criticise performances or results - I think we're a bit hyperbolic at times, but it's kinda hard to defend Slightly Badform's 2024 when you look at the results. My issue was very much the taking as assumed fact that he's "simple", "stupid", "idiot", "few ideas of his own", as a quick search of the board over the last few weeks has turned up - there's a difference between not having the capability to successfully manage England and being a blithering idiot with no vision, character or talent.

Mind, having said that, if we are to get rid of him, who on earth would we hire? Dowson would probably be my favourite, but then we did previously try hiring the coach of the current Premiership champions, even though he only had two seasons of experience as being top-dog at club level, and that hasn't been going great so far.

Puja

[Banquo]

Arguing over whether the attack or the defence was more mistake-ridden more or less sums up where we are at. Most of us thought SB was shat upon getting the job so close to the RWC. Slack was duly cut. The grim playing style was understandable in the circumstances. Reaching the SF was par+.

Thereafter, we assumed, there would be a good constructive turnover of players a more attractive game plan and solid progress. That reasonable expectation has largely not been fulfilled. Take out the 6N win v Ireland and IFW's arrival and we are left disappointed in every aspect.

Does anybody from RFU chairman to the laundry person expect SB not to be criticised?

In fairness it appears to be the tone of criticism rather than criticism itself that’s at issue.

I think we're a bit hyperbolic at times...... being a blithering idiot with no vision, character or talent.

Indeed ....not sure anyone has actually gone that far tbh .

On a serious note, disentangling the man from the execution of the role is quite tricky, when you think about it.....

[Mr Mwenda]

Mind, having said that, if we are to get rid of him, who on earth would we hire? Dowson would probably be my favourite, but then we did previously try hiring the coach of the current Premiership champions, even though he only had two seasons of experience as being top-dog at club level, and that hasn't been going great so far.

Puja

What really pisses me off is I think that England once again ended up hiring someone who wasn't ready for the gig. I wouldn't be surprised if Sally Brown goes on to be a big success somewhere else. But people shouldn't be learning on the job as England coach. I don't understand why it seems to be so hard to get decent talent for what surely be one if the best remunerated positions in rugby.

Is it worth keeping Story Book until the next world cup do England hiring could get in sync with when coaches are actually available?

[Banquo]

Mind, having said that, if we are to get rid of him, who on earth would we hire? Dowson would probably be my favourite, but then we did previously try hiring the coach of the current Premiership champions, even though he only had two seasons of experience as being top-dog at club level, and that hasn't been going great so far.

Puja

What really pisses me off is I think that England once again ended up hiring someone who wasn't ready for the gig. I wouldn't be surprised if Sally Brown goes on to be a big success somewhere else. But people shouldn't be learning on the job as England coach. I don't understand why it seems to be so hard to get decent talent for what surely be one if the best remunerated positions in rugby.

Is it worth keeping Story Book until the next world cup do England hiring could get in sync with when coaches are actually available?

agreed, then not agreed; he can stay on if he performs, obviously. I think he really needs someone new (again!) and experienced in his coaching team though as a minimum. Frankly its impossible, but Edwards would be perfect imo.

[Danno]

It's been the same story for 20 years. He's done, we'll persist for too long, and sever ties at the worst time.

[FKAS]

Arguing over whether the attack or the defence was more mistake-ridden more or less sums up where we are at. Most of us thought SB was shat upon getting the job so close to the RWC. Slack was duly cut. The grim playing style was understandable in the circumstances. Reaching the SF was par+.

Thereafter, we assumed, there would be a good constructive turnover of players a more attractive game plan and solid progress. That reasonable expectation has largely not been fulfilled. Take out the 6N win v Ireland and IFW's arrival and we are left disappointed in every aspect.

Does anybody from RFU chairman to the laundry person expect SB not to be criticised?

In fairness it appears to be the tone of criticism rather than criticism itself that’s at issue.

Indeed. I am 100% not questioning the right to criticise performances or results - I think we're a bit hyperbolic at times, but it's kinda hard to defend Slightly Badform's 2024 when you look at the results. My issue was very much the taking as assumed fact that he's "simple", "stupid", "idiot", "few ideas of his own", as a quick search of the board over the last few weeks has turned up - there's a difference between not having the capability to successfully manage England and being a blithering idiot with no vision, character or talent.

Mind, having said that, if we are to get rid of him, who on earth would we hire? Dowson would probably be my favourite, but then we did previously try hiring the coach of the current Premiership champions, even though he only had two seasons of experience as being top-dog at club level, and that hasn't been going great so far.

Puja

You'd need Vesty and Radford as well. At which point the RFU is dropping a large amount of cash and no doubt ruining a relationship with another Prem club. I wouldn't touch Dowson unless Vesty was coming as well.

[Banquo]

It's been the same story for 20 years. He's done, we'll persist for too long, and sever ties at the worst time.

Possibly- as Puja has repeatedly pointed to, all our recent defeats bar SA have been swung on fine margins; the question is can So Bloodyclose turn that round so we win the key moments ( with basics such as ...eliminate dumbass errors on the way, pick a bench that doesn't lose you the game, get the subbing right....a lot of controllables in there as well as overall selection and good coaching). Lawes was trying to make the point about experience conditioning you to know the key moments and react appropriately; is this on players or on coaches....obviously both, but ultimately its down to Stops Buck here.

[Banquo]

In fairness it appears to be the tone of criticism rather than criticism itself that’s at issue.

Indeed. I am 100% not questioning the right to criticise performances or results - I think we're a bit hyperbolic at times, but it's kinda hard to defend Slightly Badform's 2024 when you look at the results. My issue was very much the taking as assumed fact that he's "simple", "stupid", "idiot", "few ideas of his own", as a quick search of the board over the last few weeks has turned up - there's a difference between not having the capability to successfully manage England and being a blithering idiot with no vision, character or talent.

Mind, having said that, if we are to get rid of him, who on earth would we hire? Dowson would probably be my favourite, but then we did previously try hiring the coach of the current Premiership champions, even though he only had two seasons of experience as being top-dog at club level, and that hasn't been going great so far.

Puja

You'd need Vesty and Radford as well. At which point the RFU is dropping a large amount of cash and no doubt ruining a relationship with another Prem club. I wouldn't touch Dowson unless Vesty was coming as well.

I'd agree, think Dowson much more DOR than innovative hands on head coach; imo England coach has to actually be a really good coach first and foremost.

[p/d]

I don't think he has the vision, I don't think Wigglesworth is remotely close to being a test level attack coach, I think his selections are those of someone who 'hopes' it will come good and he has amassed a squad of players that are short on the quality required to repeatedly beat higher ranked sides.

The best thing about the AI's has been Australia. Knocked out of the pool stages of the WC and with a limited player pool and yet the cohesion and physicality they bring to the pitch whilst still entertaining has been a joy to watch.

[Mikey Brown]

The best thing about the AI's has been Australia. Knocked out of the pool stages of the WC and with a limited player pool and yet the cohesion and physicality they bring to the pitch whilst still entertaining has been a joy to watch.

I love the way Schmidt spoke after the Scotland loss as well. That’s the kind of honest but measured stuff you want to hear.

[FKAS]

Indeed. I am 100% not questioning the right to criticise performances or results - I think we're a bit hyperbolic at times, but it's kinda hard to defend Slightly Badform's 2024 when you look at the results. My issue was very much the taking as assumed fact that he's "simple", "stupid", "idiot", "few ideas of his own", as a quick search of the board over the last few weeks has turned up - there's a difference between not having the capability to successfully manage England and being a blithering idiot with no vision, character or talent.

Mind, having said that, if we are to get rid of him, who on earth would we hire? Dowson would probably be my favourite, but then we did previously try hiring the coach of the current Premiership champions, even though he only had two seasons of experience as being top-dog at club level, and that hasn't been going great so far.

Puja

You'd need Vesty and Radford as well. At which point the RFU is dropping a large amount of cash and no doubt ruining a relationship with another Prem club. I wouldn't touch Dowson unless Vesty was coming as well.

I'd agree, think Dowson much more DOR than innovative hands on head coach; imo England coach has to actually be a really good coach first and foremost.

There's a skill in blending the coaches together and keeping them directed. Borthwick is a really good forwards coach. Whether he's a really good DOR is what's being questioned now. Going to be tough losing a key lieutenant to Ireland.

Dowson seems a good DOR, not sure he's a top class forwards coach. Do have to give him credit for moving on the old defence coach and bringing in Radford, transformed Saints.

[Banquo]

I don't think he has the vision, I don't think Wigglesworth is remotely close to being a test level attack coach, I think his selections are those of someone who 'hopes' it will come good and he has amassed a squad of players that are short on the quality required to repeatedly beat higher ranked sides.

The best thing about the AI's has been Australia. Knocked out of the pool stages of the WC and with a limited player pool and yet the cohesion and physicality they bring to the pitch whilst still entertaining has been a joy to watch.

Whilst I’m mostly with you- you imply he could pick better players en masse. Who?

[p/d]

The best thing about the AI's has been Australia. Knocked out of the pool stages of the WC and with a limited player pool and yet the cohesion and physicality they bring to the pitch whilst still entertaining has been a joy to watch.

I love the way Schmidt spoke after the Scotland loss as well. That’s the kind of honest but measured stuff you want to hear.

Absolutely.

[p/d]

I don't think he has the vision, I don't think Wigglesworth is remotely close to being a test level attack coach, I think his selections are those of someone who 'hopes' it will come good and he has amassed a squad of players that are short on the quality required to repeatedly beat higher ranked sides.

The best thing about the AI's has been Australia. Knocked out of the pool stages of the WC and with a limited player pool and yet the cohesion and physicality they bring to the pitch whilst still entertaining has been a joy to watch.

Whilst I’m mostly with you- you imply he could pick better players en masse. Who?

Ah, poorly worded. I was alluding to the fact the squad aren't 'good enough' for what appears to be a game-plan based around physicality upfront and a destructive blitz defence.......... or something along those lines.

[Banquo]

I don't think he has the vision, I don't think Wigglesworth is remotely close to being a test level attack coach, I think his selections are those of someone who 'hopes' it will come good and he has amassed a squad of players that are short on the quality required to repeatedly beat higher ranked sides.

The best thing about the AI's has been Australia. Knocked out of the pool stages of the WC and with a limited player pool and yet the cohesion and physicality they bring to the pitch whilst still entertaining has been a joy to watch.

Whilst I’m mostly with you- you imply he could pick better players en masse. Who?

Ah, poorly worded. I was alluding to the fact the squad aren't 'good enough' for what appears to be a game-plan based around physicality upfront and a destructive blitz defence.......... or something along those lines.

fair dinkum

[Skalyba]

Arguing over whether the attack or the defence was more mistake-ridden more or less sums up where we are at. Most of us thought SB was shat upon getting the job so close to the RWC. Slack was duly cut. The grim playing style was understandable in the circumstances. Reaching the SF was par+.

Thereafter, we assumed, there would be a good constructive turnover of players a more attractive game plan and solid progress. That reasonable expectation has largely not been fulfilled. Take out the 6N win v Ireland and IFW's arrival and we are left disappointed in every aspect.

Does anybody from RFU chairman to the laundry person expect SB not to be criticised?

Its interesting though because if he had, for example given other players the opportunity at centre, would he have been criticised for not letting Marcus play with a settled back line? Or if he'd have shifted 7 & 8, would CCS have been unsettled?

I've said elsewhere but I do feel the step backwards is, at least in part, due to SB giving opportunities to players to play themselves in or out. Largely, unfortunately, I think they played themselves out - I'd be happy to see the back of Spencer, Dombrandt, the centre partnership, Cowen Dickie and move both CCS and Marcus to the bench as impact players (I'd say the same of Earl). Obviously the other cause was a defence that was just dire, clearly losing our coach had massive impact, hopefully the new boy is up to the task once he's had more time under his belt.

The big test for me is whether we move to the 6 Nations with a revitalised squad and some clarity on where the last central contracts will be used - a progressive 6 nations and a solid summer tour (where we should have a pretty strong squad) could put a new spin on things

[p/d]

Interesting that you highlight CCS and Marcus as the 2 players that might have been unsettled by changes and yet both you would have dropped to the bench anyway.

[Skalyba]

I just feel that they were 2 of the players being given an opportunity to stake their claim. Had the players around them been moved around, and their performances suffered, would that have been seen as mitigation. Instead (potentially, obviously I don't know for sure) he's tried to give them the stability to play their game.

In Marcus's case I think he proved he's our best player. However I also think he demonstrated his inability to bring the outside backs in within the structure we're trying to play (I'm assuming how we played in the back end of the 6 nations and in NZ is the goal)- in my view we either change our attack to accommodate his style or move him to the bench where he can come on later in the game when there's more space.

In CCS's case, again I think he was good but he doesn't seem to be able to sustain it. In a team that's crying out for genuine impact on the bench I think he's more valuable to us there while he matures.

[p/d]

It would be mad if we weren’t building our attack around Marcus. If we haven’t been doing that then it might explain a number of things.

I suppose it is the old Andrew/Barnes, Wilko/Charlie and Farrell/Ford and Cips debate.

Don’t forget we were happy to change the 9.
I’m far from convinced Marcus for 20mins off the bench is the way forward.

Regards CCS to me he is a brilliant option starting at 6. Link him with Willis at 8 and a real poacher at 7 and we have a cracking back row that would make the case for Marcus even stronger.

Someone like Hill off the bench would give impact, especially if the game is breaking up.

Anyhoo, defence is the major concern