RugbyRebels

Raggs wrote:

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).

The chances of breaking him were simply too high. I don't see a few bits of games for Saracens at club level as a reasonable guide to his fitness taking into account his shape, style of play, his injury record and the fact that, historically, SA are the most physical international side. Him ending up broken was no surprise. I'd guess the odds from the bookies would have been 2-1 on or similar. Even a 3-0 series win would not have justified the risk, IMO.

Mikey Brown wrote: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.

I don't think he's ever seen as limited in attack and has consistently picked small midfields with at least 2 playmakers, a few abortive attempts aside.

I think he sees us as needing to get a big dent in midfield through the forwards before attacking through the backs, but the regularity with which we get it wide to really dangerous wingers has been one of the highlights of his reign.

Peat wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote: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.

I don't think he's ever seen as limited in attack and has consistently picked small midfields with at least 2 playmakers, a few abortive attempts aside.

I think he sees us as needing to get a big dent in midfield through the forwards before attacking through the backs, but the regularity with which we get it wide to really dangerous wingers has been one of the highlights of his reign.

Yeah, I do feel like he's been using the backs relatively well so far. We're not dallying about, we're getting the ball to the dangermen quickly. The problem is the unwillingness to do it off anything but first phase ball. Meanwhile, our forwards are under performing.

Peat wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote: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.

I don't think he's ever seen as limited in attack and has consistently picked small midfields with at least 2 playmakers, a few abortive attempts aside.

I think he sees us as needing to get a big dent in midfield through the forwards before attacking through the backs, but the regularity with which we get it wide to really dangerous wingers has been one of the highlights of his reign.

When I say limited I don’t mean that 13 outwards don’t necessarily get the ball, but we played quite intensely through 9 in the first year or so, despite lack of quality there, and I’m fairly sure he’d have taken a battering ram in midfield were it available.

I don’t think he viewed English players as unable to attack, but simply not skilful enough to do it any meaningful variety of ways, which is true to some extent, but he’s not seemingly become so wedded to his way of doing things with Farrell at 12 that I can’t see him changing it. We manage to get the ball in their hands a lot, but the quality of it is often another matter.

Flimsy wasn’t my assessment of Curry or Simmonds. But I don’t think they’re what he viewed as England-style backrows. I’m very pleased if they continue to get chances.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Peat wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote: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.

I don't think he's ever seen as limited in attack and has consistently picked small midfields with at least 2 playmakers, a few abortive attempts aside.

I think he sees us as needing to get a big dent in midfield through the forwards before attacking through the backs, but the regularity with which we get it wide to really dangerous wingers has been one of the highlights of his reign.

When I say limited I don’t mean that 13 outwards don’t necessarily get the ball, but we played quite intensely through 9 in the first year or so, despite lack of quality there, and I’m fairly sure he’d have taken a battering ram in midfield were it available.

I don’t think he viewed English players as unable to attack, but simply not skilful enough to do it any meaningful variety of ways, which is true to some extent, but he’s not seemingly become so wedded to his way of doing things with Farrell at 12 that I can’t see him changing it. We manage to get the ball in their hands a lot, but the quality of it is often another matter.

Flimsy wasn’t my assessment of Curry or Simmonds. But I don’t think they’re what he viewed as England-style backrows. I’m very pleased if they continue to get chances.

I think I get you. I don't regard attacking a lot through 9 as limited though - I think its the best way to get front foot ball when you have a crack, and I think we've been good about spreading it wide when the crack becomes a gap. I guess you can handle it more in midfield and that maybe Jones would do that more if he thought we would have the skills, but I'm not sure not doing it is limited. If you get me.

Tbh, I think the biggest problem is he built a pack around what he could get from Billy Vunipola and things start going sideways without him. I'd love to see our record with and without him.

With Billy: played 36, won 24, lost 12 (66.7%)
Without Billy (from his debut): played 23, won 18, lost 5 (78.3%)

This might be skewed by oppo quality. “With” includes only 4 easy beats (2x Fiji, 2x Italy) and 12 v Big 3 (4 each NZ, Aust, SA). “Without” includes 6 easy beats (2x Samoa, Uruguay, 3x Italy) and only 5 Big 3 (4x Aust, NZ).

One thing I’d give to Jones is his impact on Billy. He’s been a different player. The record since EJ took over with and without Billy would be interesting if anyone can be arsed.

I spoil you lot, I really do:

Pre-Jones/With Billy: played 21, won 12, lost 9 (57.1%)
Pre-Jones/No Billy*: played 8, won 6, lost 2 (75.0%)
With Jones/With Billy: played 15, won 12, lost 3 (80.0%)
With Jones/No Billy: played 15, won 12, lost 3 (80.0%)

So science says that Jones has (1) improved Billy Vunipola from being a colossal liability to being a perfectly neutral non-influence on the team, and (2) caused him to miss twice as many games as before.


*From Billy's debut

You do , indeed.

I guess Oakboy was right. Billy is a hack. He’s too heavy and his arms are too brittle. Long live Nathan Hughes.

What is the record before Billy's run of injuries and during the run of injuries?

Has Jones improved players individually? I don't think he's done much that natural progressive development would not have done. I would have said Daly on the wing but he's even buggered that up now.

Stubborn perseverance has arguably improved Farrell. It has done zilch with Youngs. Launchbury is a more complete player, I suppose. All the front row players appear to have gone backwards.

Now, he's broken Billy again.

Oakboy wrote:Has Jones improved players individually? I don't think he's done much that natural progressive development would not have done. I would have said Daly on the wing but he's even buggered that up now.

Stubborn perseverance has arguably improved Farrell. It has done zilch with Youngs. Launchbury is a more complete player, I suppose. All the front row players appear to have gone backwards.

Now, he's broken Billy again.

Until this year, Mako was considerably better than before.

Lawes at lock suddenly looked like the player we thought he could be.

Johnny May is looking pretty damn good these days.

And I'm sure there are more.

Mikey Brown wrote:You do , indeed.

I guess Oakboy was right. Billy is a hack. He’s too heavy and his arms are too brittle. Long live Nathan Hughes.

Billy the T Rex?

Billy is about what you’d expect from a mercenary who was never good enough to play for his birthland, or to follow his father’s footsteps and represent his forebears, so is just turning up for the paycheque.

Lizard wrote:Billy is about what you’d expect from a mercenary who was never good enough to play for his birthland, or to follow his father’s footsteps and represent his forebears, so is just turning up for the paycheque.

<polite golf-clap for a nice try>

Puja

Luckily we have Nathan Hughes to replace him who is a bona fide English ma...ah, no, wait a minute.

Much obliged to you Lizard for the stats and gentle wummery.