RugbyRebels

I'm really regretting my failure to do my traditional poll before both international windows...

You can't seriously be suggesting getting rid of Jones with about a dozen fixtures to go before the RWC. Even throwing money at the problem who the hell is there to take over that you'd be confident could secure an improvement?

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:You could actually make a decent team out of that lot...

Obano
Dunn
Cole
Lawes
Kruis
WIllis
Underhill
Clifford
Care
Mallinder
Nowell
Tuilagi
Joseph
Roko
Watson

Hartley, Genge, ?, Ewels, Haskell, Wigglesworth, Redpath, Lewington

By decent you mean unable to defend at 10?

Nice team other than that though.

So what's new our 10 can't defend now

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:I'm really regretting my failure to do my traditional poll before both international windows...

You can't seriously be suggesting getting rid of Jones with about a dozen fixtures to go before the RWC. Even throwing money at the problem who the hell is there to take over that you'd be confident could secure an improvement?

It seems the hope is that the initial uptick from a new voice in charge might just coincide with the RWC, which seems pretty dubious, even if there might be one.

I’m talking myself out of any support I had for Eddie every time I post on this thread, but I don’t really see it as an option to get rid at this point.

pandion wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:You could actually make a decent team out of that lot...

Obano
Dunn
Cole
Lawes
Kruis
WIllis
Underhill
Clifford
Care
Mallinder
Nowell
Tuilagi
Joseph
Roko
Watson

Hartley, Genge, ?, Ewels, Haskell, Wigglesworth, Redpath, Lewington

By decent you mean unable to defend at 10?

Nice team other than that though.

So what's new our 10 can't defend now

at least he tries.

I can’t believe even this guy actually thinks Mallinder and Ford’s defence are on a par.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:I'm really regretting my failure to do my traditional poll before both international windows...

You can't seriously be suggesting getting rid of Jones with about a dozen fixtures to go before the RWC. Even throwing money at the problem who the hell is there to take over that you'd be confident could secure an improvement?

It seems the hope is that the initial uptick from a new voice in charge might just coincide with the RWC, which seems pretty dubious, even if there might be one.

I’m talking myself out of any support I had for Eddie every time I post on this thread, but I don’t really see it as an option to get rid at this point.

It seems the most anyone can hope for at this point is that Eddie, you know, learns from the shit he's watching and actually reacts to it. Most people's money is on him grinding on down the same route in the hope he gets a run of injury luck at the right moment coinciding with the WC.

At this moment in time it's looking pretty much as if we're gonna see a repeat of the WC2015 tournament with it all ultimately descending into a morass of disappointment at what might've been and a sense of we were never good enough. I do think however that Eddie has a slightly better pool of players to select from than Burt but he doesn't seem to be getting any more out of them now. It'd take some balls from the RFU to call a halt to this now, it's just not gonna happen. The last Test fills me with more dread than any Eng game for three years.

Is it time to start a ‘What happens if we get whitewashed by SANZAR in the AI’s’ thread?

Owen Slot is gunning for Jones in the times. Comparing this run of results to his stints in charge of Aus and Queensland.

Money is a factor. To terminate Eddie's contract the RFU will be out of pocket by £1M plus the costs of hiring someone new and his preferred coaching team. Big bucks for even for a rich union, but one that is in the throes of significant cost cutting.
I'm sure nothing is going to happen until the Autumn. If the malaise is still evident and we, say, lose 3 out of 4 then the RFU may have no option but to take some action, though just who would take over is hardly clear cut.
For now, sit tight, hope that lessons have been learned, that the right people are employed in attack and defence and that this is the low point in Eddie's tenure.

I did hear that Eddie actually has someone in camp trailing him around to report on how he is doing! Apparently the backroom staff have become bloated.

AI’s is too late to make a change if they’re worried about money. Buying someone out of contract mid-season will cost a fortune. Plus, we don’t have a permanent defence or attack coach and that will probably change come November. I think it’s stick or twist time.

Beasties wrote:It seems the most anyone can hope for at this point is that Eddie, you know, learns from the shit he's watching and actually reacts to it. Most people's money is on him grinding on down the same route in the hope he gets a run of injury luck at the right moment coinciding with the WC.

Actually, I think the best we can hope for at the moment is that Eddie know's what he's doing after all; is intentionally doing what he said he'd do, for the reasons he said he was doing it, and that every piece of evidence suggests that he is doing. We can also hope that he's doing this with the consent of the higher ups, who are aware of the predicted short-term downsides. Most importantly, we can hope that he's right.

So far, I see that he's doing what he siad he'd do; the downsides have been greater than expected; and a large part of the purpose of keeping them mentally and physically exhausted, is that they learn to play better whilst in that state - which seems to be failing. I also think he's going about it wrong with not allowing rest periods... such as June 2018; and that it's a very risky strategy.

I really don't think there's anything to be gained for the RFU by agreeing to this plan, accepting the risks; and then halting it before it's had a chance to provide any benefits. The whole point has been "We are willing to sacrifice 2018 on the altar of peaking in (october) 2019". Quitting the plan now would be akin to one of us signing up to do the London Marathon next year; but quitting in December because it hurts each time you try to extend your distance.
I think the plan was wrong; but if you've committed to it, at least wait for evidence of failure before binning it (and you cannot have any evidence of failure until the RWC warm-ups at the earliest).

Surely, the professional approach from (whichever is the responsible committee of) the RFU is to monitor the situation constantly. As things stand, with results and performance both sub-par, alternatives to Jones and his coaching crew should be being checked out. If there are realistic options available for all coaching positions, make the change. If there are some options available, hammer it out with Jones and get him to agree to some changes. If there are no options available, soldier on with the status quo to the RWC and, depending on the performances/results, resign.

I'd happily accept the entire coaching teams from any of Exeter, Newcastle, Saracens or Wasps in preference to the current regime, for example.

Realistically, no alternatives are likely to be available beyond the odd individual coach or two. That means it is down to sacking Jones and sod the consequences or keep him. That's a hard choice but, on the grounds that Jones's only claim to the job is winning matches and he's currently losing, I'd get rid of him.

Of course, that should be happening anyway; contingency plans should always be evolving.
But if you've green lit the exeriment and accepted the risks, you lose the right to complain when the risks happen.

Equally if the discussions with the RFU agreed to were mild drops in performance, and still winning 3 from 5 in the 6N and 1 from 3 in SA - then he's gone to far and there's a price to pay.

Which Tyler wrote:Actually, I think the best we can hope for at the moment is that Eddie know's what he's doing after all.

True, but are you convinced? I'd really like to believe it but his track record for short-term results improvements followed by implosion has to be considered as a reasonable guideline, IMO.

Oakboy wrote:True, but are you convinced? I'd really like to believe it but his track record for short-term results improvements followed by implosion has to be considered as a reasonable guideline, IMO.

I'm convinced that he's beasting them, and willing to sacrifice 2018 for the sake of best possible performance in 2019.
I've never been convinced that this was a good idea; and I've never been convinced that the players don't need proper recovery time.

If Jones has said all along to the powers that be that we will dip in 2018 because of the conditioning regime only to peak again in 2019 then they’ve no choice but to trust him. In the year prior to the 2011 World Cup Wales were guff due to being beasted in Poland and other places and we all know how their World Cup went. I’m also hoping that keeping the players at sea level accounts for quite a bit.


Anyone know where the grasping at straws emoji is?

Which Tyler wrote:Of course, that should be happening anyway; contingency plans should always be evolving.
But if you've green lit the exeriment and accepted the risks, you lose the right to complain when the risks happen

Yes, that's a good point if it has happened. Can you believe it, though?

I simply can't imagine how the debate went. "My masterplan is to destroy the players in training such that they'll lose just about every game for the next year or so. Then, they'll bounce back in better form than they started etc."


Had Jones proposed that sort of thing they'd have sent for the men in white coats, surely?

Wishful thinking, but maybe there's a clause in his contract with regard to the performance of his squad that if his win percentage dives then they could put him on the next convict ship to Botany Bay.

Which Tyler wrote:

Oakboy wrote:True, but are you convinced? I'd really like to believe it but his track record for short-term results improvements followed by implosion has to be considered as a reasonable guideline, IMO.

I'm convinced that he's beasting them, and willing to sacrifice 2018 for the sake of best possible performance in 2019.
I've never been convinced that this was a good idea; and I've never been convinced that the players don't need proper recovery time.

You may well be right but I can't believe the proposal was approved from above.

Oakboy wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Actually, I think the best we can hope for at the moment is that Eddie know's what he's doing after all.

True, but are you convinced? I'd really like to believe it but his track record for short-term results improvements followed by implosion has to be considered as a reasonable guideline, IMO.

I actually do believe it, at least when it comes to the beastings. And I do believe it has a chance of working.

What I really don't like is the culture this England team gives off. It doesn't feel good and it doesn't sit right. I don't like the alleged impact of some of the players on the squad and I don't like the championing of nastiness. I hope the leadership issues can be solved, but I don't think they can with Farrell as captain.

Oakboy wrote: Yes, that's a good point if it has happened. Can you believe it, though?

I simply can't imagine how the debate went. "My masterplan is to destroy the players in training such that they'll lose just about every game for the next year or so. Then, they'll bounce back in better form than they started etc."

Had Jones proposed that sort of thing they'd have sent for the men in white coats, surely?

Believe what? That he said what he said and did what he did, and told his employers before, or at the same time, as he told the whole world?
Yes, I believe that.
Do I believe in your straw-man about "bounce back in better form than they started" then No, of course, not. How can deliberately sacrificing form possibly lead to instantly better form?
I do believe that working hard on their fitness (mental and physical) can lead to benefits in fitness (mental and physical) - and there's a huge body of sports science evidence to support that. I also believe that you need recovery time to gain the benefit of that over-training; and that part of the purpose of applying that much pressure is to accomodate the players to being under that much pressure, so that the pressure is less of an issue, and their skills (mental and physical) hold up under that load. Again, there's a large body of evidence to support that theory - including that rest is absolutely essential in realising the gains.
I also believe that it's possible to overdo the overtaining, eliminating the gains, even with appropriate rest - and once again, I believe this due to a body of evidence.

I also do not, and never have, believed that it was the right decision.

Stom wrote:I actually do believe it, at least when it comes to the beastings. And I do believe it has a chance of working.

What I really don't like is the culture this England team gives off. It doesn't feel good and it doesn't sit right. I don't like the alleged impact of some of the players on the squad and I don't like the championing of nastiness. I hope the leadership issues can be solved, but I don't think they can with Farrell as captain.

This - Eddie wants us to be too spikey for my liking; too agressive. I also agree that he's granted too much power to the players - if Ford and Farrell have been our attack coaches for the last 3 years; then A] we need a real attack coach; and B] they become too secure in their selection.

Stom wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Actually, I think the best we can hope for at the moment is that Eddie know's what he's doing after all.

True, but are you convinced? I'd really like to believe it but his track record for short-term results improvements followed by implosion has to be considered as a reasonable guideline, IMO.

I actually do believe it, at least when it comes to the beastings. And I do believe it has a chance of working.

What I really don't like is the culture this England team gives off. It doesn't feel good and it doesn't sit right. I don't like the alleged impact of some of the players on the squad and I don't like the championing of nastiness. I hope the leadership issues can be solved, but I don't think they can with Farrell as captain.

There does seem to be a bit of an attitude problem ceeepinb out. I’ve read and heard (second hand) a couple of things about the squad ignoring/dismissing England fans in SA. One example, from the times, is a player pushing to the front of a queue at the team hotel saying it was an emergency.....he needed an iPad charger.
I wonder if Jones telling them to be more nasty has led to the above example, Youngs’ non-interview etc

It's like everything about this team (and it's limitations) is based on Jones' pretty negative view of the English. Arrogant, "spikey", forward-dominated, limited in attack. Well he's managed 3 out of 4 I guess.

I sort of understood his initial assessment of the team and wanting to build a solid foundation, but I didn't feel he ever saw England as having the players to play a complete game, and has somehow found himself picking a midfield of 3 "playmakers" and flimsy little backrowers like Curry and Simmonds, but has managed to undo most of his foundational work.

Tom Curry doesn't seem flimsy.

Raggs wrote:Tom Curry doesn't seem flimsy.

Curry is one of the few successes. I started off thinking he might lack physicality having seen little of him. He seems pretty convincing now. He's done all he could to take his chance with the absence of Willis, Underhill and Simmonds (is he fit?).

The back row remains an issue with Billy's injury departure. Taking him to SA must rank as one of the stupidest ever managerial decisions.

Oakboy wrote:

Raggs wrote:Tom Curry doesn't seem flimsy.

Curry is one of the few successes. I started off thinking he might lack physicality having seen little of him. He seems pretty convincing now. He's done all he could to take his chance with the absence of Willis, Underhill and Simmonds (is he fit?).

The back row remains an issue with Billy's injury departure. Taking him to SA must rank as one of the stupidest ever managerial decisions.

Why? He'd been playing for Sarries for over a month (out for hamstring briefly).