RugbyRebels

Mellsblue wrote:

Interesting, that potentially leaves time for a quick replacement coach search in time for the autumn (summer can be placeholder).

If they have to move on from Eddie I would hope all the board members who signed off on extending his contract fall on their swords. They cannot say they didn't know what they were getting

Might have already been mentioned but wasn’t part of the deal for Jones to ‘develop’ his successor?

Raggs wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Interesting, that potentially leaves time for a quick replacement coach search in time for the autumn (summer can be placeholder).

Mallinder's time to shine!

Puja

It'll be Mitchell. And I hope you're all pleased with yourselves...

I'm pretty sure Jones wont be fired.
The panel will want to see what he has in mind for the coming year and for him to set out a plan to move us on, but they'll keep him in post.
They might want to have a look at the backroom staff and the off field stuff generally. I can see some shuffling there. Its not at all clear what Simon Amor is bringing to the setup, and the stock of Proudfoot and Mitchell has hardly risen this last year. Farrell's captaincy will surely be under scrutiny.

How does Jones explain being comprehensively out-coached by Andy Farrell, an assistant-coach from our previous (failed) regime? Pretending defeat in Dublin was part of some grand development plan with the team in a 'transitional stage' is not exactly a credible argument.

fivepointer wrote:I'm pretty sure Jones wont be fired.
The panel will want to see what he has in mind for the coming year and for him to set out a plan to move us on, but they'll keep him in post.
They might want to have a look at the backroom staff and the off field stuff generally. I can see some shuffling there. Its not at all clear what Simon Amor is bringing to the setup, and the stock of Proudfoot and Mitchell has hardly risen this last year. Farrell's captaincy will surely be under scrutiny.

Can the captaincy be part of an investigative panel's remit? Surely, it is a pure selection issue totally at the behest of the head coach? Mind you, I suppose an honourable head coach would walk if a change of captaincy was imposed on him . . .

Discussing the captaincy is an important part of the panel's agenda.

Even the best get out coached in one off games. Jones out coached Hansen in the semifinal and then was out coached by Erasmus in the final. Is the pecking order of those coaches definitely Erasmus > Jones > Hansen? I’d say not.

The review needs to, and sounds like it will, look at the long term and analyse Jones’s reaction to the loss in the final, as it’s been downhill and backwards from there. I think it hit him hard and everything stems from that loss. I also hope it looks at the quality of player coming through and Jones’s selection choices. I think he is 90% correct with his selections but he is too wedded to certain players and blind to many tearing it up in the Prem and Europe. I’d also argue that he’s hamstrung by a lack of choice and quality at the second lock position (given injuries), back up props, 9, 12 and 15. Some of that is him failing to try alternatives but some of that is that there are no top quality options.

Mellsblue wrote:Even the best get out coached in one off games. Jones out coached Hansen in the semifinal and then was out coached by Erasmus in the final. Is the pecking order of those coaches definitely Erasmus > Jones > Hansen? I’d say not.

The review needs to, and sounds like it will, look at the long term and analyse Jones’s reaction to the loss in the final, as it’s been downhill and backwards from there. I think it hit him hard and everything stems from that loss. I also hope it looks at the quality of player coming through and Jones’s selection choices. I think he is 90% correct with his selections but he is too wedded to certain players and blind to many tearing it up in the Prem and Europe. I’d also argue that he’s hamstrung by a lack of choice and quality at the second lock position (given injuries), back up props, 9, 12 and 15. Some of that is him failing to try alternatives but some of that is that there are no top quality options.

Agree with all that. I think he needs to at least try an alternative style of player at No 8. Explosive runs of the back of the scrum and more pace in the loose could make a large difference. Whilst I advocate Simmonds, ultimately, Barbeary might offer more (with better bludgeoning than Billy V?).

Mellsblue wrote:Even the best get out coached in one off games. Jones out coached Hansen in the semifinal and then was out coached by Erasmus in the final. Is the pecking order of those coaches definitely Erasmus > Jones > Hansen? I’d say not.

The review needs to, and sounds like it will, look at the long term and analyse Jones’s reaction to the loss in the final, as it’s been downhill and backwards from there. I think it hit him hard and everything stems from that loss. I also hope it looks at the quality of player coming through and Jones’s selection choices. I think he is 90% correct with his selections but he is too wedded to certain players and blind to many tearing it up in the Prem and Europe. I’d also argue that he’s hamstrung by a lack of choice and quality at the second lock position (given injuries), back up props, 9, 12 and 15. Some of that is him failing to try alternatives but some of that is that there are no top quality options.

Until this 6N I'd have agreed there was little progression if not out and out regression, and even then there have been new players coming into the side, but we clearly have taken some steps forward this 6N.

So I'm happy with the revamp in tactics. The problem is really with the 10 or so new players coming into the side none of them have been especially positive additions, some have had little chance, some might need some time to find their feet, some might simply not be good enough. But even then on the new players is anyone really beating England in that area? Most sides will at best be at parity for number of players tried since the WC and who has come in and established themselves? Ireland and France are probably doing the best on that front right now even if Wales might want to claim they've got the golden child, and if we'd had their records this 6N we'd still be laying into England.

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Even the best get out coached in one off games. Jones out coached Hansen in the semifinal and then was out coached by Erasmus in the final. Is the pecking order of those coaches definitely Erasmus > Jones > Hansen? I’d say not.

The review needs to, and sounds like it will, look at the long term and analyse Jones’s reaction to the loss in the final, as it’s been downhill and backwards from there. I think it hit him hard and everything stems from that loss. I also hope it looks at the quality of player coming through and Jones’s selection choices. I think he is 90% correct with his selections but he is too wedded to certain players and blind to many tearing it up in the Prem and Europe. I’d also argue that he’s hamstrung by a lack of choice and quality at the second lock position (given injuries), back up props, 9, 12 and 15. Some of that is him failing to try alternatives but some of that is that there are no top quality options.

Agree with all that. I think he needs to at least try an alternative style of player at No 8. Explosive runs of the back of the scrum and more pace in the loose could make a large difference. Whilst I advocate Simmonds, ultimately, Barbeary might offer more (with better bludgeoning than Billy V?).

Yep. I said that when Billy was first injured and we tried to replace him like for like with a far inferior player who, IMO, wasn’t test class. That Billy is no longer the same player makes it even more vital.

Over reliance on Billy is a symptom of one of the issues I hope the review explores - the fact he’s so bloody dogmatic, stubborn etc. This idea that as it’s England history dictates we must and can only win by picking a big physical pack pisses me off. He’s decided that what happened in the era of the pack being staffed by hard nosed coppers must still be the correct course now. IMO, numerous failings stem from this - capt (both), tactics and selection.

What does being over reliant on Billy mean, and what teams aren't over reliant on world class players?

This seems similar to accusing NZ of being over reliant on Nonu because they've struggled over a period of time to replace him with anyone who works hard enough, makes decent decisions and carries an actual threat.

Are you really over reliant on class players, or more simply lucky to have some class players to pick. Because the only way you can build strength in depth is having the sort of number of quality players that's never been seen anywhere in rugby history, you're much more likely to build strength in meh!

It means you’re reliant on an injury prone player whose impact is impossible to replicate to any great degree when he is injured or out of form, ie roughly 90% of the time.
I’m happy to be reliant on Itoje, Curry etc as they’re reliably fit and on form, and, in Curry’s case, replaceable in style even if accepting a slight drop in quality.
Further, when you’re tactics and, it seems, chances of winning rely solely on winning the gain line through collisions and Billy is in a small minority of probably one capable of doing that then I’d say you’re overly reliant.

As for Nonu, did NZ have a plan b, did they just replace him with Nonu-lite, did they have a more rounded game that was able to cope with the loss than England do, did any of that work? You tell me. If they didn’t try to find a solution then Jones is just replicating mistakes made previously and they’re both wrong rather than Jones being absolved of blame. If NZ did then Jones has little to no excuse.
Regardless, if your answer to losing a critical player is to replace him with a substandard player in the same structure or select the critical player regardless of form, and just shrug your shoulders and say, well, it’s the best I can come up with then you’re not really earning your seven figure salary.

Is Billy even world class at present? Or do we just know he has the potential to be?
I’d say the latter.

Its not unfair to say Billy isn't hitting the heights one might want. But he's still fixing large numbers of defenders, so just the potential of Billy is very influential

Billy is world class. Even when the media say he's not in form he's generally making more yards after contact than anyone else, making shitloads of tackles and dominating the other teams tight defensive structure, not to mention kick returns.
I think we have to be really clear that if Simmonds is going to get into this England team, it's not going to be as an 8. Dombrandt is more likely to be a Hughes style backup to Billy, but Simmonds is competing with Underhill, Curry and Earl (and eventually Willis, we hope).
If we want Simmonds at 8 we need to really hope Ted Hill comes on massively along with George Martin, otherwise it's Lawes or Itoje at 6 for the long haul, and Charlie Ewels and/or Johnny Hill need to become carrying beasts in the tight, like they never have before.
Personally I'd have him as a replacement over Earl, imagine seeing him coming on for the last 20/30 minutes and getting his hands on the ball. To start I think he'd put too much pressure on Curry and Underhill to be everywhere defensively and at the breakdown, and too much pressure on the second row and Curry for carries.
As for Barbeary. He's a freak. And I can't wait. Wherever he plays.

Dan. Dan. Dan. wrote:Billy is world class. Even when the media say he's not in form he's generally making more yards after contact than anyone else, making shitloads of tackles and dominating the other teams tight defensive structure, not to mention kick returns.
I think we have to be really clear that if Simmonds is going to get into this England team, it's not going to be as an 8. Dombrandt is more likely to be a Hughes style backup to Billy, but Simmonds is competing with Underhill, Curry and Earl (and eventually Willis, we hope).
If we want Simmonds at 8 we need to really hope Ted Hill comes on massively along with George Martin, otherwise it's Lawes or Itoje at 6 for the long haul, and Charlie Ewels and/or Johnny Hill need to become carrying beasts in the tight, like they never have before.
Personally I'd have him as a replacement over Earl, imagine seeing him coming on for the last 20/30 minutes and getting his hands on the ball. To start I think he'd put too much pressure on Curry and Underhill to be everywhere defensively and at the breakdown, and too much pressure on the second row and Curry for carries.
As for Barbeary. He's a freak. And I can't wait. Wherever he plays.

Dan. Dan. Dan. wrote:Billy is world class. Even when the media say he's not in form he's generally making more yards after contact than anyone else, making shitloads of tackles and dominating the other teams tight defensive structure, not to mention kick returns.
I think we have to be really clear that if Simmonds is going to get into this England team, it's not going to be as an 8. Dombrandt is more likely to be a Hughes style backup to Billy, but Simmonds is competing with Underhill, Curry and Earl (and eventually Willis, we hope).
If we want Simmonds at 8 we need to really hope Ted Hill comes on massively along with George Martin, otherwise it's Lawes or Itoje at 6 for the long haul, and Charlie Ewels and/or Johnny Hill need to become carrying beasts in the tight, like they never have before.
Personally I'd have him as a replacement over Earl, imagine seeing him coming on for the last 20/30 minutes and getting his hands on the ball. To start I think he'd put too much pressure on Curry and Underhill to be everywhere defensively and at the breakdown, and too much pressure on the second row and Curry for carries.
As for Barbeary. He's a freak. And I can't wait. Wherever he plays.

All fair comment but has Jones seriously tried an alternative back row balance or has he just been forced to fiddle each time BV has been injured? Since Hughes, presumably a theoretical size like-for-like, we have seen Wilson and Curry, both surprisingly effective despite not being sumo-wrestler in shape and style. Maybe, for all we know, a back row of Underhill, Curry and Simmonds could work even with the net loss of 4 stones. I've never been as vitriolically opposed to Lawes at 6 as some (I think it's arguably his best position) but whatever his merits or otherwise he has often been picked WITH BV at 8 rather than as supplementary ballast because BV was missing from the 8 shirt.

Where I find Jones inconsistent in approach is in his confounding so many by picking two 7s, Underhill and Curry, (assuming it was his idea) but not trying pace and mobility in all three back row positions with equal commitment.

Dan. Dan. Dan. wrote:Billy is world class. Even when the media say he's not in form he's generally making more yards after contact than anyone else, making shitloads of tackles and dominating the other teams tight defensive structure, not to mention kick returns.
I think we have to be really clear that if Simmonds is going to get into this England team, it's not going to be as an 8. Dombrandt is more likely to be a Hughes style backup to Billy, but Simmonds is competing with Underhill, Curry and Earl (and eventually Willis, we hope).
If we want Simmonds at 8 we need to really hope Ted Hill comes on massively along with George Martin, otherwise it's Lawes or Itoje at 6 for the long haul, and Charlie Ewels and/or Johnny Hill need to become carrying beasts in the tight, like they never have before.
Personally I'd have him as a replacement over Earl, imagine seeing him coming on for the last 20/30 minutes and getting his hands on the ball. To start I think he'd put too much pressure on Curry and Underhill to be everywhere defensively and at the breakdown, and too much pressure on the second row and Curry for carries.
As for Barbeary. He's a freak. And I can't wait. Wherever he plays.

Wow. A post that I agree with in entirety.

Arguably Simmonds is too good to ignore but everyone calling for a straight swap with Billy clearly has very little idea of what that would actually mean.

Oakboy wrote:How does Jones explain being comprehensively out-coached by Andy Farrell, an assistant-coach from our previous (failed) regime? Pretending defeat in Dublin was part of some grand development plan with the team in a 'transitional stage' is not exactly a credible argument.

POC

Dan. Dan. Dan. wrote:Billy is world class. Even when the media say he's not in form he's generally making more yards after contact than anyone else, making shitloads of tackles and dominating the other teams tight defensive structure, not to mention kick returns.
I think we have to be really clear that if Simmonds is going to get into this England team, it's not going to be as an 8. Dombrandt is more likely to be a Hughes style backup to Billy, but Simmonds is competing with Underhill, Curry and Earl (and eventually Willis, we hope).
If we want Simmonds at 8 we need to really hope Ted Hill comes on massively along with George Martin, otherwise it's Lawes or Itoje at 6 for the long haul, and Charlie Ewels and/or Johnny Hill need to become carrying beasts in the tight, like they never have before.
Personally I'd have him as a replacement over Earl, imagine seeing him coming on for the last 20/30 minutes and getting his hands on the ball. To start I think he'd put too much pressure on Curry and Underhill to be everywhere defensively and at the breakdown, and too much pressure on the second row and Curry for carries.
As for Barbeary. He's a freak. And I can't wait. Wherever he plays.

Nail meet head

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:How does Jones explain being comprehensively out-coached by Andy Farrell, an assistant-coach from our previous (failed) regime? Pretending defeat in Dublin was part of some grand development plan with the team in a 'transitional stage' is not exactly a credible argument.

POC

Now that opens up another debate! AF is either a superb appointer of assistants (in contrast to Jones) or just a guy that other coaches want to work with perhaps. Was it Hartley quoted at the weekend as saying AF was the best defence coach he'd ever worked with? Maybe now, with experience, AF has become a good managing head coach. POC certainly added something and appears to have been happy to link with AF.

Or another debate again, would you want to be like Ireland? They're very effective spoilers, organised in the set piece, they've still got some of the Schmidt continuity plays and they happened to have a fair bit of biff in midfield against us once Ringrose dropped out. But whilst Martin Johnson would have liked the display against Scotland, essentially beating them up in the pack and grinding it out, arguably similar against us, I think we'd (a) complain it was boring and (b) complain it's not going to beat the best sides who can play some rugby against your press, and (c) a few things happened to break for Ireland which they entirely earned but they aren't going to replicate consistently

It seems the RFU is to poll the England players to see if they support the continued appointment of Jones.
Not a good idea.
This is a collection of Jones' favourite players, many of whom have won umpteen caps under him, deserved or not, and are in possession of the jersey.
Are they likely to kill off their own international careers and the fat financial rewards of playing for England, by having Jones replaced by someone else, who could boot half of them out of the squad?
Duh.