We need to talk about Eddie...

[Banquo]

The flip side to not stating the same thing is Eddie is telling the players exactly what they need to hear, that the players continually fail in delivering, and that Eddie isn't responsible because he told them what they needed to hear and it's on the players who he selects not him if it's going wrong. I can accept that over a much more limited time frame, say 3-4 games after losing a WC final when the group might be somewhat pissed off and struggling to get back on the horse things can go wrong and take some time to correct, but this is repeating over too long a period for me.

I suppose people might think he's brought in some new faces, there's a new dynamic in camp, it's a very inexperienced bench, and so even if it has been going on a long time there's been a more recent reset and there's still some leeway for Eddie and the squad. I don't share that thinking, especially when it's largely Itoje and Farrell driving the indiscipline as senior players in the group

So it is at least a possibility that they are simply failing to deliver on discipline, which is my point. And the reality is that they don't have that much time together. When they did, like say the world cup, I think the pen count was much lower (but I could be wrong). My feeling is that he hasn't 'lost the changing room' as such, as that normally is accompanied by a lot more leaks of unhappiness. It may be that he simply doesn't know how to fix without dropping his two key players.

I totally accept they're failing to deliver, but that's a repeat occurrence. And there's a line about repeating a process and expecting different outcomes. Maybe the line doesn't quite apply here because the penny could drop with this group, but as we've seen with the likes of Easter in the past, when the culture is you can be selfish not think of the team and just give away a penalty players don't learn the lesson

What tends to change the culture is moving on from selecting certain players, whether an Easter or a Grewcock, or changing the coach and putting every player on notice. And Itoje is starting to remind of Grewock, a fantastic talent who is helping the opposition more than England. Eddie could well be stuck not knowing how to correct, especially with Itoje and Farrell as his leaders, but if he is stuck in that position for me that's him being complicit with the penalty count.

You are of course entitled to your way of looking at things.

[Banquo]

Much as I agree that Daly cannot continue at FB, I really feel Jones is guilty of destroying him. Turning a world class winger into a poor international FB is not what a quality head coach would ever do. All along, there were better alternatives. The experiment was a long-winded, nonsensical failure.

I’m pretty sure Eddie Jones is also responsible for Corona virus and most of the bad things happening in the world ...

I’m pretty sure Eddie was the first to play Daly on the wing. He was a 13 until he was moved to the wing and then subsequently to fullback. By your logic, Eddie took an unproven 13 and turned him in to a world class winger before he became a poor international fullback.

I agree the ‘experiment’ has been unsuccessful and overly ‘long-winded’, but it was never ‘nonsensical’. Daly’s skill set should have made him a very good playmaking fullback. It hasn’t worked but it wasn’t a bad idea. The error has been persevering with it when it was pretty clear it wasn’t getting any better.

Yep. The same skill set theory sort of applied when Campo was tried at 15, but it was pretty much a disaster. Mind, he was tried quite a bit there by different coaches.

[Digby]

So it is at least a possibility that they are simply failing to deliver on discipline, which is my point. And the reality is that they don't have that much time together. When they did, like say the world cup, I think the pen count was much lower (but I could be wrong). My feeling is that he hasn't 'lost the changing room' as such, as that normally is accompanied by a lot more leaks of unhappiness. It may be that he simply doesn't know how to fix without dropping his two key players.

I totally accept they're failing to deliver, but that's a repeat occurrence. And there's a line about repeating a process and expecting different outcomes. Maybe the line doesn't quite apply here because the penny could drop with this group, but as we've seen with the likes of Easter in the past, when the culture is you can be selfish not think of the team and just give away a penalty players don't learn the lesson

What tends to change the culture is moving on from selecting certain players, whether an Easter or a Grewcock, or changing the coach and putting every player on notice. And Itoje is starting to remind of Grewock, a fantastic talent who is helping the opposition more than England. Eddie could well be stuck not knowing how to correct, especially with Itoje and Farrell as his leaders, but if he is stuck in that position for me that's him being complicit with the penalty count.

You are of course entitled to your way of looking at things.

What is the mitigation for him not being responsible? Not in the isolation of this one game, or this and the Scotland game, but over a course of months and over a year? And if he is responsible why does not sit in one of the camps alluded to?

[Banquo]

I totally accept they're failing to deliver, but that's a repeat occurrence. And there's a line about repeating a process and expecting different outcomes. Maybe the line doesn't quite apply here because the penny could drop with this group, but as we've seen with the likes of Easter in the past, when the culture is you can be selfish not think of the team and just give away a penalty players don't learn the lesson

What tends to change the culture is moving on from selecting certain players, whether an Easter or a Grewcock, or changing the coach and putting every player on notice. And Itoje is starting to remind of Grewock, a fantastic talent who is helping the opposition more than England. Eddie could well be stuck not knowing how to correct, especially with Itoje and Farrell as his leaders, but if he is stuck in that position for me that's him being complicit with the penalty count.

You are of course entitled to your way of looking at things.

What is the mitigation for him not being responsible? Not in the isolation of this one game, or this and the Scotland game, but over a course of months and over a year? And if he is responsible why does not sit in one of the camps alluded to?

Not denying his responsibility. You are saying by not fixing it, he's condoning it. And round we go.

[Digby]

You are of course entitled to your way of looking at things.

What is the mitigation for him not being responsible? Not in the isolation of this one game, or this and the Scotland game, but over a course of months and over a year? And if he is responsible why does not sit in one of the camps alluded to?

Not denying his responsibility. You are saying by not fixing it, he's condoning it. And round we go.

Not wanting to be a pedant but complicit rather than condoning. But yes, by not fixing it he's complicit in it, it's still his responsibility even if he doesn't know how to fix it or consider he has the options to do so, or even if he's trying really hard to fix it and his efforts are failing.

[Banquo]

What is the mitigation for him not being responsible? Not in the isolation of this one game, or this and the Scotland game, but over a course of months and over a year? And if he is responsible why does not sit in one of the camps alluded to?

Not denying his responsibility. You are saying by not fixing it, he's condoning it. And round we go.

Not wanting to be a pedant but complicit rather than condoning. But yes, by not fixing it he's complicit in it, it's still his responsibility even if he doesn't know how to fix it or consider he has the options to do so, or even if he's trying really hard to fix it and his efforts are failing.

'not wanting to be a pedant' - er.....ok

Eddie is responsible, I'd think he is trying to fix it and failing. We clearly have a different view on what complicit means, and I may be wrong on the semantic.

[Scrumhead]

It’s not semantics. Being ‘complicit’ would suggest that he’s actively giving the team license to concede dumb penalties. I highly doubt that is the case.

When I look at the penalties we’re conceding a lot of them are harsh. Personally I don’t mind the players pushing the boundaries to begin with as long as they quickly adapt if they’re getting pinged. That is relatively easily solved IMO.

It’s the sloppy stuff that irritates me. Sealing off or flying in to rucks illegally when we have the ball is dumb and the players have to better. Jumping across in the lineout is a bit more forgiveable given it’s probably not intentional. These kind of individual ‘brain fart’ offences are harder to fix, but can be solved by some tough love. For example, Jonny Hill needs to learn that diving in to rucks like he does when he plays for Exeter isn’t going to wash at test level. If he wants to keep his place, he needs to be told that he has to adapt or he’ll be on the outside looking in.

I often played with a very good, experienced number 8 that was really good at ‘managing’ me. While not being an exceptionally good rugby player, I’ve always been good over the ball but like all 7s, prone to chancing my arm. That number 8 was always in my ear and either great at helping me win turnovers or shouting at me to leave it when it wasn’t on. I don’t know why that kind of thing isn’t happening for us? Why isn’t someone like George turning around to Itoje and telling him to reign it in when he ref seems to have his card marked?

[Banquo]

It’s not semantics. Being ‘complicit’ would suggest that he’s actively giving the team license to concede dumb penalties. I highly doubt that is the case.

When I look at the penalties we’re conceding a lot of them are harsh. Personally I don’t mind the players pushing the boundaries to begin with as long as they quickly adapt if they’re getting pinged. That is relatively easily solved IMO.

It’s the sloppy stuff that irritates me. Sealing off or flying in to rucks illegally when we have the ball is dumb and the players have to better. Jumping across in the lineout is a bit more forgiveable given it’s probably not intentional. These kind of individual ‘brain fart’ offences are harder to fix, but can be solved by some tough love. For example, Jonny Hill needs to learn that diving in to rucks like he does when he plays for Exeter isn’t going to wash at test level. If he wants to keep his place, he needs to be told that he has to adapt or he’ll be on the outside looking in.

I often played with a very good, experienced number 8 that was really good at ‘managing’ me. While not being an exceptionally good rugby player, I’ve always been good over the ball but like all 7s, prone to chancing my arm. That number 8 was always in my ear and either great at helping me win turnovers or shouting at me to leave it when it wasn’t on. I don’t know why that kind of thing isn’t happening for us? Why isn’t someone like George turning around to Itoje and telling him to reign it in when he ref seems to have his card marked?

well yes, but I was kinda bored. I think Eddie is likely at his wits end trying to 'get the players to listen and furthermore, act'. You ask very valid questions about...wtf do the rest of the team think, and ergo what should they be doing to help; I did see earlier someone commenting that 'mistakes' seemed to be acknowledged via the medium of commiseration- I'm not suggesting throwing hissy fits or visible bollockings, but onfield leadership is sorely lacking, and....round we go again. The side lacks a spine of leadership imo; this could be the consequence of being micromanaged I guess.

I remember why I absented my self before now.

[Mikey Brown]

Hard to distinguish cause from symptoms sometimes with the discipline stuff. Does feel a bit like we’ve built a game around not having the ball and disrupting the opposition possession, and when we struggle with that we don’t seem to adapt very well.

[Epaminondas Pules]

Out of interest, and I genuinely can't remember, but what was the catalyst to change when we last had this issue of conceding penalities? It isn't a new issue for this team / group of players, but we went through a period (post 2018) where we tightened up discipline considerably, without losing edge.

Or is it simply scrabbling for form, which often leads to an increase in infringements.

[Oakboy]

It’s not semantics. Being ‘complicit’ would suggest that he’s actively giving the team license to concede dumb penalties. I highly doubt that is the case.

When I look at the penalties we’re conceding a lot of them are harsh. Personally I don’t mind the players pushing the boundaries to begin with as long as they quickly adapt if they’re getting pinged. That is relatively easily solved IMO.

It’s the sloppy stuff that irritates me. Sealing off or flying in to rucks illegally when we have the ball is dumb and the players have to better. Jumping across in the lineout is a bit more forgiveable given it’s probably not intentional. These kind of individual ‘brain fart’ offences are harder to fix, but can be solved by some tough love. For example, Jonny Hill needs to learn that diving in to rucks like he does when he plays for Exeter isn’t going to wash at test level. If he wants to keep his place, he needs to be told that he has to adapt or he’ll be on the outside looking in.

I often played with a very good, experienced number 8 that was really good at ‘managing’ me. While not being an exceptionally good rugby player, I’ve always been good over the ball but like all 7s, prone to chancing my arm. That number 8 was always in my ear and either great at helping me win turnovers or shouting at me to leave it when it wasn’t on. I don’t know why that kind of thing isn’t happening for us? Why isn’t someone like George turning around to Itoje and telling him to reign it in when he ref seems to have his card marked?

It's not a single game's worth, though, is it? I don't have a single clue how Jones runs his training camp preparation but surely discipline is one of the main headings on the white board? The player-to-player on-field guidance that you describe must have been planned/emphasised or whatever. At the very least, they must have given Farrell some communication-with-refs training, you'd have thought.

I suspect a lot of the ill-discipline is anxiety-based. Did Jones not say they were trying too hard? Running through the 23 from last Saturday, who has regularly demonstrated any sort of composure? In the backs, at a push, I might suggest Ford, Slade and Watson. In the forwards, George and Wilson perhaps? Hot-headedness, feistiness (call it what you like) has great merit sometimes (most of the time in rugby, possibly) but there needs to be solid common sense on penalty-conceding. To be fair, losing Launchbury (especially) and Lawes did not help.

[Oakboy]

Hard to distinguish cause from symptoms sometimes with the discipline stuff. Does feel a bit like we’ve built a game around not having the ball and disrupting the opposition possession, and when we struggle with that we don’t seem to adapt very well.

Spot on. It's certainly a cause and effect thing. Only one person can be responsible for that (and thus, only one person can put it right - if he knows how).

[Puja]

Much as I agree that Daly cannot continue at FB, I really feel Jones is guilty of destroying him. Turning a world class winger into a poor international FB is not what a quality head coach would ever do. All along, there were better alternatives. The experiment was a long-winded, nonsensical failure.

I’m pretty sure Eddie Jones is also responsible for Corona virus and most of the bad things happening in the world ...

I’m pretty sure Eddie was the first to play Daly on the wing. He was a 13 until he was moved to the wing and then subsequently to fullback. By your logic, Eddie took an unproven 13 and turned him in to a world class winger before he became a poor international fullback.

I agree the ‘experiment’ has been unsuccessful and overly ‘long-winded’, but it was never ‘nonsensical’. Daly’s skill set should have made him a very good playmaking fullback. It hasn’t worked but it wasn’t a bad idea. The error has been persevering with it when it was pretty clear it wasn’t getting any better.

I don't even agree he's a failure as a 15, he's a bit of a mix of good and bad as with every 15. What he might not have is what people like in a 15, but somewhat akin to people liking a passing 9 (or say they do until they complain about Stringer for instance having no running game to hold the defence) what people like isn't the same as good

He's a liability under a high ball, he is always beaten one-on-one, he's a very weak tackler, and his kicking isn't particularly accurate. By what metric is he not a failure as a full-back?

Puja

[fivepointer]

It’s not semantics. Being ‘complicit’ would suggest that he’s actively giving the team license to concede dumb penalties. I highly doubt that is the case.

When I look at the penalties we’re conceding a lot of them are harsh. Personally I don’t mind the players pushing the boundaries to begin with as long as they quickly adapt if they’re getting pinged. That is relatively easily solved IMO.

It’s the sloppy stuff that irritates me. Sealing off or flying in to rucks illegally when we have the ball is dumb and the players have to better. Jumping across in the lineout is a bit more forgiveable given it’s probably not intentional. These kind of individual ‘brain fart’ offences are harder to fix, but can be solved by some tough love. For example, Jonny Hill needs to learn that diving in to rucks like he does when he plays for Exeter isn’t going to wash at test level. If he wants to keep his place, he needs to be told that he has to adapt or he’ll be on the outside looking in.

I often played with a very good, experienced number 8 that was really good at ‘managing’ me. While not being an exceptionally good rugby player, I’ve always been good over the ball but like all 7s, prone to chancing my arm. That number 8 was always in my ear and either great at helping me win turnovers or shouting at me to leave it when it wasn’t on. I don’t know why that kind of thing isn’t happening for us? Why isn’t someone like George turning around to Itoje and telling him to reign it in when he ref seems to have his card marked?

Or the captain perhaps?

[Banquo]

It’s not semantics. Being ‘complicit’ would suggest that he’s actively giving the team license to concede dumb penalties. I highly doubt that is the case.

When I look at the penalties we’re conceding a lot of them are harsh. Personally I don’t mind the players pushing the boundaries to begin with as long as they quickly adapt if they’re getting pinged. That is relatively easily solved IMO.

It’s the sloppy stuff that irritates me. Sealing off or flying in to rucks illegally when we have the ball is dumb and the players have to better. Jumping across in the lineout is a bit more forgiveable given it’s probably not intentional. These kind of individual ‘brain fart’ offences are harder to fix, but can be solved by some tough love. For example, Jonny Hill needs to learn that diving in to rucks like he does when he plays for Exeter isn’t going to wash at test level. If he wants to keep his place, he needs to be told that he has to adapt or he’ll be on the outside looking in.

I often played with a very good, experienced number 8 that was really good at ‘managing’ me. While not being an exceptionally good rugby player, I’ve always been good over the ball but like all 7s, prone to chancing my arm. That number 8 was always in my ear and either great at helping me win turnovers or shouting at me to leave it when it wasn’t on. I don’t know why that kind of thing isn’t happening for us? Why isn’t someone like George turning around to Itoje and telling him to reign it in when he ref seems to have his card marked?

Or the captain perhaps?

That's the obvious base camp- frankly though, when has a forward ever listened to a back . Forwards generally do make the best skippers for that reason. I would be making that change, its the strongest symbolic gesture, even if it looks cruel on the actual performance that Faz put in as a player; as skipper, he was a negative.

[Scrumhead]

I suggested George on the basis that he’s a highly respected, experienced and above all, very disciplined. I imagine if he spoke, the others might listen.

[Banquo]

I suggested George on the basis that he’s a highly respected, experienced and above all, very disciplined. I imagine if he spoke, the others might listen.

Its a fair call, one wonders about the lack of collective guidance; but it does start from the top of on field chain as it were

[Digby]

I’m pretty sure Eddie Jones is also responsible for Corona virus and most of the bad things happening in the world ...

I’m pretty sure Eddie was the first to play Daly on the wing. He was a 13 until he was moved to the wing and then subsequently to fullback. By your logic, Eddie took an unproven 13 and turned him in to a world class winger before he became a poor international fullback.

I agree the ‘experiment’ has been unsuccessful and overly ‘long-winded’, but it was never ‘nonsensical’. Daly’s skill set should have made him a very good playmaking fullback. It hasn’t worked but it wasn’t a bad idea. The error has been persevering with it when it was pretty clear it wasn’t getting any better.

I don't even agree he's a failure as a 15, he's a bit of a mix of good and bad as with every 15. What he might not have is what people like in a 15, but somewhat akin to people liking a passing 9 (or say they do until they complain about Stringer for instance having no running game to hold the defence) what people like isn't the same as good

He's a liability under a high ball, he is always beaten one-on-one, he's a very weak tackler, and his kicking isn't particularly accurate. By what metric is he not a failure as a full-back?

Puja

Well I'd reject the premise of the question because it's somewhat overblown. And I'm not against trying someone else in the role, there really isn't a defence to him turning his back on Hardy and playing anywhere, but he does do a lot of good stuff, and nobody else looks a sure bet to not bring similar problems

[Spiffy]

Re. Daly ; the handiest thing Jones could try is just switching Daly and Watson positionally. Daly was a very good wing for both England and the Lions before he was switched to FB. Watson looks sound under the high ball, and might have a tad more space at 15 to show his running/footwork.

[Scrumhead]

Yep. I think we’re all agreed on that. Particularly considering Watson was already playing more regularly at 15 for Bath anyway ...

[jngf]

Is anybody really that surprised we are where we are with Jones? A minority of us predicted it was going to be downhill post the RWC 2019 final a point at which Jones himself had thoughts that it would be better to pack it all in. Jones never gave much of an explanation as to why the side were so badly prepared for that final and he’s never articulated any sort of roadmap as to what he’d do better or what he’s learned from what went wrong as far as I’m aware. I suspect RFU went into a covid induced panic to re-sign Jones up last year and they will take an ice age to change tack and concede they got this wrong. Jones strikes me as being rather Robinsonesque in that he won’t go of his own accord.

[Digby]

I don't know if Watson does replicate what Daly does going forwards, which is okay if we shift thinking to what Watson's good at. And Watson doesn't always look a rock at the back. The real interest in the Daly/Watson switch might come of Cokanasiga were available, this side would love a carrying option in the backs, two really, as at that point one would likely be for the drop

[jngf]

Did RFU/Eddy pay Torygraph to write this? https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.tele ... jones/amp/

[ExAviator]

Did RFU/Eddy pay Torygraph to write this? https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.tele ... jones/amp/

What would you dispute in this article? Are the stats quoted incorrect?

[jngf]

Did RFU/Eddy pay Torygraph to write this? https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.tele ... jones/amp/

What would you dispute in this article? Are the stats quoted incorrect?

Its conclusion