RugbyRebels

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

fivepointer wrote:I think its perfectly fair to look at why we didnt really show up in the final. We really should have produced a lot better then we did. Why did we collectively fail to play to the standards we had set the previous 2 games?
You always have to factor in the opposition, and its right to acknowledge SA played their game almost to perfection.
But we were off key.
Sometimes i think its just very hard to keep going to the well and bringing up a high level performance. A few notches down on your level of performance can have a dramatic effect on how you play. Factor that in with a highly charged and highly efficient opponent who didnt give us any freebies or way back into the game.
Maybe we were drained emotionally after the NZ game? Maybe we relaxed a touch? Maybe our prep wasnt all it might have been?
I dont know. I do know it was nothing to do with selection, Farrell's captaincy or whether Jones found the right words at h/t.

yep.

Though I would say, that for a long time England sides have wilted in the faces of sides playing with real passion and intensity in big games. We always seem a little surprised, and this predates Eddie.

So, why did we appoint Jones? Surely, the theory was that, as an experienced coach throughout the world, he'd come in, recognise such a trait, change our bad habits and, at least, get us playing up to potential on the day.

Don't forget, he had a wonderful winning streak and just trod water till it ended. Then, he struggled to put things right. The writing was on the wall. He's basically a flat-track bully - quirky and funny when things are going right and clueless when they are not. As has been the case for a year at least, he either wins or he's nothing.

And, before, you accuse me of preconceptions or being right in hindsight, our SH friends have predicted exactly this outcome ever since Jones was appointed.

In some ways, he might have been a good appointment in the light of the mistaken employment of his two predecessors. However, any transitional positive effect is long gone and he should be replaced.

Quick guys, we lost a final, let’s sack the coach pronto ...

Your suggestions to replace Eddie were ‘Baxter/Sanderson’. I have my own frustrations with Eddie on certain specific issues, but if you think either/both would do a better job, you’ll be in a very significant minority.

Also we've come this far with Eddie, and withe some acceptance he's going to want to address set piece again, we are in theory ready for him to start putting an attack game together. And that's what I was encouraged by bringing him in to begin with.

Well, seems almost certain he’ll be with us for another 2 years at least. Both Eddie and the Chief Exec have said today that they’re honouring the contract and happy to crack on together.

Personally I’m quite excited to see where Jones goes in certain positions, with young players coming into a settled and very talented squad.

I agree. As gutted as I am about our failure to show up in the final, I’m excited about the talent coming through. It does feel like we say this every time, but I do genuinely feel that we’ll have a stronger team in 4yrs time.

On a webinair last night with Rusty and Fletch, Fletch was saying that the word from inside the camp was Eddie was going to pick horses for courses and change the side at the start of last week for the final but then changed his mind and gave the lads who won the SF the Final. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but maybe he should of...

I just can't get my head around the lack of criticism of Jones. We lost the first half narrowly, playing badly. We then lost the second half by a large margin having improved for 10 - 15 minutes before collapsing. And we should keep the guy? For losing the most important match since 2003, a match that we could and should have won?

But we beat NZ en-route to the final, so everything will be alright next time. No, it won't. It really won't.

I seem remember a certain team choking several times prior to coming good in 2003.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:I seem remember a certain team choking several times prior to coming good in 2003.

I mentioned that too...

Oakboy wrote:I just can't get my head around the lack of criticism of Jones. We lost the first half narrowly, playing badly. We then lost the second half by a large margin having improved for 10 - 15 minutes before collapsing. And we should keep the guy? For losing the most important match since 2003, a match that we could and should have won?

But we beat NZ en-route to the final, so everything will be alright next time. No, it won't. It really won't.

FFS can you just stop?

Unless you’ve got a sensible alternative, this really isn’t an argument worth having.

Scrumhead wrote:

Oakboy wrote:I just can't get my head around the lack of criticism of Jones. We lost the first half narrowly, playing badly. We then lost the second half by a large margin having improved for 10 - 15 minutes before collapsing. And we should keep the guy? For losing the most important match since 2003, a match that we could and should have won?

But we beat NZ en-route to the final, so everything will be alright next time. No, it won't. It really won't.

FFS can you just stop?

Unless you’ve got a sensible alternative, this really isn’t an argument worth having.

Although I don't buy into a lot of what Dors is saying,I do think he is right to be asking the question.

Banquo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:

Oakboy wrote:I just can't get my head around the lack of criticism of Jones. We lost the first half narrowly, playing badly. We then lost the second half by a large margin having improved for 10 - 15 minutes before collapsing. And we should keep the guy? For losing the most important match since 2003, a match that we could and should have won?

But we beat NZ en-route to the final, so everything will be alright next time. No, it won't. It really won't.

FFS can you just stop?

Unless you’ve got a sensible alternative, this really isn’t an argument worth having.

Although I don't buy into a lot of what Dors is saying,I do think he is right to be asking the question.

If we don’t ask what can be done differently, we won’t improve. But Jones has improved a lot. I just feel like the core thing that’s wrong is something he has failed to address.

But he may be able to now.

Banquo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:

Oakboy wrote:I just can't get my head around the lack of criticism of Jones. We lost the first half narrowly, playing badly. We then lost the second half by a large margin having improved for 10 - 15 minutes before collapsing. And we should keep the guy? For losing the most important match since 2003, a match that we could and should have won?

But we beat NZ en-route to the final, so everything will be alright next time. No, it won't. It really won't.

FFS can you just stop?

Unless you’ve got a sensible alternative, this really isn’t an argument worth having.

Although I don't buy into a lot of what Dors is saying,I do think he is right to be asking the question.

This. Ultimately, we failed to achieve the set goal, ie to win the World Cup. It was a bloody good effort and the best we’ve achieved, by some distance, since 2003. Not to mention probably the best performance ever by an England team. However, we didn’t win and we need to question everything - you’d still do the same even if we won - even if you think the answer will be to maintain the status quo.

Yes, but he’s taking one very disappointing performance and making that the main crux of his argument, dismissing the fact that a lot of other coaches wouldn’t even have got us this far.

I’ve consistently said that Eddie’s decision-making drives me nuts, but I don’t know if I’d have done too much differently across the RWC.

Looking at the final specifically, our players were not right. The occasion got to them as it often does with English sports people when it comes to the crunch games. Obviously coaches have some accountability for getting the players in the right head space, but psychology in sport shouldn’t be underestimated. We were nervous and panicky and it showed in almost everything we did. The accuracy and composure we showed against NZ was completely gone. I don’t really know what Eddie could have done about that once we crossed the whitewash?

Tactically we probably should have started with Marler over Mako, but I think Eddie wanted us to take the game to them and not vice versa. He should have made the change at half time, but by then the die was cast in Garces’ mind anyway.

He’s not beyond reproach, but losing a final doesn’t mean we should immediately sack him and it certainly doesn’t mean replacing him with Baxter/Sanderson as Oakboy has suggested.

Give me Stern Vern and I might consider it.

Scrumhead wrote:Yes, but he’s taking one very disappointing performance and making that the main crux of his argument, dismissing the fact that a lot of other coaches wouldn’t even have got us this far.

I’ve consistently said that Eddie’s decision-making drives me nuts, but I don’t know if I’d have done too much differently across the RWC.

Looking at the final specifically, our players were not right. The occasion got to them as it often does with English sports people when it comes to the crunch games. Obviously coaches have some accountability for getting the players in the right head space, but psychology in sport shouldn’t be underestimated. We were nervous and panicky and it showed in almost everything we did. The accuracy and composure we showed against NZ was completely gone. I don’t really know what Eddie could have done about that once we crossed the whitewash?

Tactically we probably should have started with Marler over Mako, but I think Eddie wanted us to take the game to them and not vice versa. He should have made the change at half time, but by then the die was cast in Garces’ mind anyway.

He’s not beyond reproach, but losing a final doesn’t mean we should immediately sack him and it certainly doesn’t mean replacing him with Baxter/Sanderson as Oakboy has suggested.

Give me Stern Vern and I might consider it.

He's been arguing the same since Jones started, to give credit, and Eddie is the one who more or less said, judge me on the world cup.

I totally agree on the nerves and panic, and frankly we have shown that before, notably in failing to defend fairly big leads. Questioning Jones is right- one reason I think that some are more sanguine than others about the final loss is that our expectations pre-tournie weren't very high on the back of a bad 6N, plus SA did play outstandingly. I don't think there was much Eddie could have done differently on the day, and he'd had an excellent RWC to that point (though only 2 9's bit him in the ar5e), which is the crux of my disagreement w Dors. But ultimately we came up short in what looked like an eminently winnable game- maybe, like some posters, the group didn't take SA seriously enough, which is mad given what they did in the RC.

Personally, I think its a conversation worth having.

As a pack in due course I would love to see:

1.Mako
2.George
3.Sinckler
4.Ipoku
5.Launchbury
6.Underhill
7.S Simmonds or J Clifford
8.You know who student at SOAS

Nice balance of 3 line out, bulk in second row, jackling and solid defence

I would say this RWC is a big success.
People was talking about this team being a Quarter final team pre competition.

England IMO was never going to beat that fired up Boks team, and we don't have the personnel to do so currently in England.
We don't have forwards with the size and the power yet.

Itoje (6ft 5, 18 stone 2) v Etzebeth (6ft8 19 stone 5)
Lawes (6 ft 7, 18 stone 2) v LdJ (6ft9 19 stone 10)
Underhill (6ft 1, 16 stone 10) v Kolisi (6ft 2, 16 stone 7)
Curry (6ft 2, 17 stone 1) v PsdT (6ft 6, 18stone 13)
Vunipola (6ft 3, 20st 7) v Vermeulen (6ft 4, 18st 6)

That was where the game was lost.
Now Eddie made a mistake picking Mako and Lawes ahead of Marler and Kruis.

But regardless England currently don't have the size in the pack IMO.

Now NZ can beat SA normally without size yes, BUT no way could NZ have beaten SA in that final also.

The promising thing is we do have players with that size coming up
Isiekwe (Who needs to start more for Saracens or move IMO), Hill, Dombrandt, are all big lads who are very athletic also for example.

I personally don't feel England ever had the right player base to beat that South African pack on the day, regardless of the coach.

jngf wrote:As a pack in due course I would love to see:

1.Mako
2.George
3.Sinckler
4.Ipoku
5.Launchbury
6.Underhill
7.S Simmonds or J Clifford
8.You know who student at SOAS

Nice balance of 3 line out, bulk in second row, jackling and solid defence

Groan ...

I think you might as well give up on Clifford. He is made of glass and injured again.

Even when fit, he’s a long way down the list behind both Currys, Ludlam and Willis and I wouldn’t mind betting several others come to the fore over the next little while.

Kpoku (presumably who you meant when you wrote ‘Ipoku’) is a way down the pecking order at Sarries and even if he is moving to Saints as has been reported, he’ll need to show he’s more than just potential to leapfrog the likes of Ewels and Isiekwe.

jngf wrote:As a pack in due course I would love to see:

1.Mako
2.George
3.Sinckler
4.Ipoku
5.Launchbury
6.Underhill
7.S Simmonds or J Clifford
8.You know who student at SOAS

Nice balance of 3 line out, bulk in second row, jackling and solid defence

Outside of the front row that looks a significant downgrade to me.

Tigersman wrote:I would say this RWC is a big success.
People was talking about this team being a Quarter final team pre competition.

England IMO was never going to beat that fired up Boks team, and we don't have the personnel to do so currently in England.
We don't have forwards with the size and the power yet.

Itoje (6ft 5, 18 stone 2) v Etzebeth (6ft8 19 stone 5)
Lawes (6 ft 7, 18 stone 2) v LdJ (6ft9 19 stone 10)
Underhill (6ft 1, 16 stone 10) v Kolisi (6ft 2, 16 stone 7)
Curry (6ft 2, 17 stone 1) v PsdT (6ft 6, 18stone 13)
Vunipola (6ft 3, 20st 7) v Vermeulen (6ft 4, 18st 6)

That was where the game was lost.
Now Eddie made a mistake picking Mako and Lawes ahead of Marler and Kruis.

But regardless England currently don't have the size in the pack IMO.

Now NZ can beat SA normally without size yes, BUT no way could NZ have beaten SA in that final also.

The promising thing is we do have players with that size coming up
Isiekwe (Who needs to start more for Saracens or move IMO), Hill, Dombrandt, are all big lads who are very athletic also for example.

I personally don't feel England ever had the right player base to beat that South African pack on the day, regardless of the coach.

Not sure I agree with the gist of your argument there. South Africa stopped us on the gain line like nobody else can, but for 60 odd minutes we pretty much did the same to them. The key areas of difference were the scrum (obviously) and the subsequent energy that took out of our tight 5, and the fact they won the kicking and aerial battle- if we’d achieved parity in those two facets this Saffa team would have really struggled for any sort of territory, but we didn’t. We nullified their maul, which is there other ‘in’ for territorial gains.

The game plan of going wide-wide even from deep against them, looking for an edge, was the right one, we just didn’t execute very well.

I don’t know for me from the off SA looked the way more dominate team up front.

And the unknown impact of losing the worlds best tighthead after 2 minutes.

I really don't think you have to do much more analysis than the glaring fact that we simply didn't turn up. Quite why that was I have no idea and I'm sure no one inc Eddie knows why either. Obv there's gonna be a huge amount of head scratching in the coming weeks but I'll say it again, our team beats theirs 6 times out of 10. I don't buy the idea that they are a more powerful team than us, why doesn't someone ask NZ that question?

What they do have is a more basic gameplan than us which may have been one factor of many on the day, and they executed it well, as did we in the semi. I don't think there's that much wrong with our team other than the baffling non-appearance on the day. It needs a bit of tinkering rather the engine and gearbox taking out. I'm not keen on Eddie continuing but I can see the logic in keeping him on, I'd just want it to be four years not two. He's achieved a lot (inc that semi performance) but I do wonder how his relationship with the players will be in the coming years.

Scrumhead wrote:

jngf wrote:As a pack in due course I would love to see:

1.Mako
2.George
3.Sinckler
4.Ipoku
5.Launchbury
6.Underhill
7.S Simmonds or J Clifford
8.You know who student at SOAS

Nice balance of 3 line out, bulk in second row, jackling and solid defence

Groan ...

I think you might as well give up on Clifford. He is made of glass and injured again.

Even when fit, he’s a long way down the list behind both Currys, Ludlam and Willis and I wouldn’t mind betting several others come to the fore over the next little while.

Kpoku (presumably who you meant when you wrote ‘Ipoku’) is a way down the pecking order at Sarries and even if he is moving to Saints as has been reported, he’ll need to show he’s more than just potential to leapfrog the likes of Ewels and Isiekwe.

Can someone explain to me what’s so special about Ewels for him to be so high up the pecking order? -doesn’t seem particularly big for starters and we already have 3 locks on the smallish side (Launchbury not withstanding).

Tigersman wrote:I would say this RWC is a big success.
People was talking about this team being a Quarter final team pre competition.

England IMO was never going to beat that fired up Boks team, and we don't have the personnel to do so currently in England.
We don't have forwards with the size and the power yet.

Itoje (6ft 5, 18 stone 2) v Etzebeth (6ft8 19 stone 5)
Lawes (6 ft 7, 18 stone 2) v LdJ (6ft9 19 stone 10)
Underhill (6ft 1, 16 stone 10) v Kolisi (6ft 2, 16 stone 7)
Curry (6ft 2, 17 stone 1) v PsdT (6ft 6, 18stone 13)
Vunipola (6ft 3, 20st 7) v Vermeulen (6ft 4, 18st 6)

That was where the game was lost.
Now Eddie made a mistake picking Mako and Lawes ahead of Marler and Kruis.

But regardless England currently don't have the size in the pack IMO.

Now NZ can beat SA normally without size yes, BUT no way could NZ have beaten SA in that final also.

The promising thing is we do have players with that size coming up
Isiekwe (Who needs to start more for Saracens or move IMO), Hill, Dombrandt, are all big lads who are very athletic also for example.

I personally don't feel England ever had the right player base to beat that South African pack on the day, regardless of the coach.

Regarding size of Tom Curry I think there may have been some mischievous Wikipedia meddling going on given for a long time he was listed as being 6’1” (1.85m and his brother was previously listed as 6’2” and now has swapped an inch with his brother whose shrunk from 1.88m to 1.85) - is Mitchell in collusion with the Wikimafia to justify switching Tom to blindside ?

Btw I also have my doubts about T Curry being 17 stone 2lb - he looks a fair bit smaller/slighter than Underhill let alone Piet Steph Du Toit

jngf wrote: Can someone explain to me what’s so special about Ewels for him to be so high up the pecking order? -doesn’t seem particularly big for starters and we already have 3 locks on the smallish side (Launchbury not withstanding).

I don't know about "so special", but hits hard, great work-rate, good hands, seemingly quite vocal on the pitch. Good player. I can totally see why he is of interest. Not outstanding in the way Itoje can be, but might be a good foil for him at some point.

I think he fits the more modern second row archetype, isn't really a brutish enforcer like Botha or a wimpy lineout nerd like Borthwick, but seems very capable at everything. Basically everyone except SA have abandoned the 1 dimensional 'enforcer' idea. I know you love it but nobody else regularly produces these 6'9", 20 stone monsters. You can't get away with it unless you're absolutely dominant all over the pitch.

I'm a bit surprised at Curry's quoted stats (or that identical twins would be different heights at all?) but I reckon everybody ups their stats, including those monster Saffas.