RugbyRebels

Amen

Scrumhead wrote:Amen

Praying may be our only option.

Good thread destroyed by religion.

You could pick up Chekia for relatively modest outlay after Oz drop from the sky like a lead dart in Japan.

No thanks. I really don’t rate Cheika at all.

He's joined the libdems!

Banquo wrote:He's joined the libdems!

Are you saying we should Chukka Eddie Jones as soon as possible?

Or that we need a Change?

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:He's joined the libdems!

Are you saying we should Chukka Eddie Jones as soon as possible?

Or that we need a Change?

Surely we just need a name change. The Independent RFU Black Tie Dinner Party.

I quite like Cheika myself, although I liked Link too. I know have struggled for results but they do struggle for top end talent and depth.

Jones is alright - from a Kiwi's perspective - but Mitchell?

Dear God, please save the English from Mitchell.

Jones has given England the ability to win ugly including using a selection policy of big is better for certain positions like 7 (to begin with),8 and 12. I hope his successor has the confidence to encourage a bit of footballing ability and style into the blend - at present we are more like the vintage of ‘91 than of 2003 imo.

jngf wrote:Jones has given England the ability to win ugly including using a selection policy of big is better for certain positions like 7 (to begin with),8 and 12. I hope his successor has the confidence to encourage a bit of footballing ability and style into the blend - at present we are more like the vintage of ‘91 than of 2003 imo.

Are you saying Billy is not our best 8? He started with Faz at 12 iirc, and persisted for a long while. I do agree that we could play with some more style.

The vintage of 91? Very good team, plenty of skill and style, but played misguidedly in 91 final.

jngf wrote:Jones has given England the ability to win ugly including using a selection policy of big is better for certain positions like 7 (to begin with),8 and 12. I hope his successor has the confidence to encourage a bit of footballing ability and style into the blend - at present we are more like the vintage of ‘91 than of 2003 imo.

Like Banquo, I agree that we could play with more style, but I’d question the accuracy of the rest of your post.

I’d like to have seen us experiment a bit more with what we want from our 8s (i.e. less smash, more guile) but there’s no getting away from the fact that Billy is our best option. To suggest that he is only there because he is big is ridiculous.

Similarly, we haven’t used a notably big 7 since Haskell. Curry and Underhill are physical, but both are fairly average-sized flankers and are far more dynamic than you seem to be suggesting.

Jones more than picking big has tried to create width by enforcing a style which circumvents the players having neither the skills nor the decision making Jones views as necessary to play the game, arguably he still doubts their fitness too

Adding in some carriers came after opponents had started to negate the width of the first 12-18 months.

Digby wrote:Jones more than picking big has tried to create width by enforcing a style which circumvents the players having neither the skills nor the decision making Jones views as necessary to play the game, arguably he still doubts their fitness too

Adding in some carriers came after opponents had started to negate the width of the first 12-18 months.

I see the problem as Jones simply not preparing properly. He was carried away with his own success in that early winning streak. We still have a limited set of options at 9 and 12 and the team is set up to play a limited style (with too much kicking) around a non-flair 10 in Farrell.

There are question marks over the best make-up of the back three.

All of that is Jones's fault. He could have experimented more constructively back when results mattered less.

In the forwards, I can argue that Jones has been lucky rather than managerially skilled but he has got a reasonable balance of availability. I still think he has wasted a developmental squad place with having Shields in the mix. As a principle, trying to be better than NZ by picking a player that was not good enough for them, still puzzles me.

As ever, it is a case of maximising resources. I think Jones has failed in that.

Banquo wrote: Are you saying Billy is not our best 8? He started with Faz at 12 iirc, and persisted for a long while. I do agree that we could play with some more style.

The vintage of 91? Very good team, plenty of skill and style, but played misguidedly in 91 final.

I would say England have become dangerously reliant on Billy. In tight, busy traffic he is undoubtedly our best no.8 - though I'm not so convinced his 'all court' game is as good as many think - specific limitations being lack of mobility and athleticism, low flat out pace and no contribution as a line out jumper. I honestly think he's a step up from Easter, on a par with Morgan but behind the standard set by Dallaglio pre 2003.

I think the new rule should be if you don't want a player playing for england you have to argue why another player that is available to england is a better choice.

jngf wrote:

Banquo wrote: Are you saying Billy is not our best 8? He started with Faz at 12 iirc, and persisted for a long while. I do agree that we could play with some more style.

The vintage of 91? Very good team, plenty of skill and style, but played misguidedly in 91 final.

I would say England have become dangerously reliant on Billy. In tight, busy traffic he is undoubtedly our best no.8 - though I'm not so convinced his 'all court' game is as good as many think - specific limitations being lack of mobility and athleticism, low flat out pace and no contribution as a line out jumper. I honestly think he's a step up from Easter, on a par with Morgan but behind the standard set by Dallaglio pre 2003.

I totally understand saying there are more mobile players or better lineout jumpers, but I feel these limitations you're talking about are far more theoretical than they are anything to do with what we've seen on the pitch.

If you've got an 8 who can trample just about anybody in the world, requires the attention of multiple defenders, wins turnovers, makes tackles, has very good hands/vision, clears rucks and fields the ball well from kicks then I think it's fair you can ask somebody else to jump in the lineout or to be on the shoulder of more breaks.

You're right that he doesn't contribute as a jumper, but not every player is equally useful as a lifter either.

The problem of being "reliant" on Billy appears more when we saw that (most of) his understudies weren't capable of offering as much. That could be a criticism of EJ and the coaches but that can't be a criticism of Billy.

twitchy wrote:I think the new rule should be if you don't want a player playing for england you have to argue why another player that is available to england is a better choice.

I don't want Farrell to play for England. Because George Ford is better at running games, has more of a running threat, can pass accurately and creatively off both hands, kicks from hand excellently, makes his tackles, and has a good kick %age.

Scrumhead wrote:

jngf wrote:Jones has given England the ability to win ugly including using a selection policy of big is better for certain positions like 7 (to begin with),8 and 12. I hope his successor has the confidence to encourage a bit of footballing ability and style into the blend - at present we are more like the vintage of ‘91 than of 2003 imo.

Like Banquo, I agree that we could play with more style, but I’d question the accuracy of the rest of your post.

I’d like to have seen us experiment a bit more with what we want from our 8s (i.e. less smash, more guile) but there’s no getting away from the fact that Billy is our best option. To suggest that he is only there because he is big is ridiculous.

Similarly, we haven’t used a notably big 7 since Haskell. Curry and Underhill are physical, but both are fairly average-sized flankers and are far more dynamic than you seem to be suggesting.

This.

Mikey Brown wrote:

jngf wrote:

Banquo wrote: Are you saying Billy is not our best 8? He started with Faz at 12 iirc, and persisted for a long while. I do agree that we could play with some more style.

The vintage of 91? Very good team, plenty of skill and style, but played misguidedly in 91 final.

I would say England have become dangerously reliant on Billy. In tight, busy traffic he is undoubtedly our best no.8 - though I'm not so convinced his 'all court' game is as good as many think - specific limitations being lack of mobility and athleticism, low flat out pace and no contribution as a line out jumper. I honestly think he's a step up from Easter, on a par with Morgan but behind the standard set by Dallaglio pre 2003.

I totally understand saying there are more mobile players or better lineout jumpers, but I feel these limitations you're talking about are far more theoretical than they are anything to do with what we've seen on the pitch.

If you've got an 8 who can trample just about anybody in the world, requires the attention of multiple defenders, wins turnovers, makes tackles, has very good hands/vision, clears rucks and fields the ball well from kicks then I think it's fair you can ask somebody else to jump in the lineout or to be on the shoulder of more breaks.

You're right that he doesn't contribute as a jumper, but not every player is equally useful as a lifter either.

The problem of being "reliant" on Billy appears more when we saw that (most of) his understudies weren't capable of offering as much. That could be a criticism of EJ and the coaches but that can't be a criticism of Billy.

This, too

Oakboy wrote:

Digby wrote:Jones more than picking big has tried to create width by enforcing a style which circumvents the players having neither the skills nor the decision making Jones views as necessary to play the game, arguably he still doubts their fitness too

Adding in some carriers came after opponents had started to negate the width of the first 12-18 months.

I see the problem as Jones simply not preparing properly. He was carried away with his own success in that early winning streak. We still have a limited set of options at 9 and 12 and the team is set up to play a limited style (with too much kicking) around a non-flair 10 in Farrell.

There are question marks over the best make-up of the back three.

All of that is Jones's fault. He could have experimented more constructively back when results mattered less.

In the forwards, I can argue that Jones has been lucky rather than managerially skilled but he has got a reasonable balance of availability. I still think he has wasted a developmental squad place with having Shields in the mix. As a principle, trying to be better than NZ by picking a player that was not good enough for them, still puzzles me.

As ever, it is a case of maximising resources. I think Jones has failed in that.

If he had gotten carried away with his early success would he not be picking Ford and Farrell?

I think perhaps the development stalled, partly Jones partly the ridiculous jamboree tour, but then he has kept pushing. He's just having to push without players like Gregan, Larkham and Smith, and he doesn't seem to much trust the players he has in England

Scrumhead wrote:

jngf wrote:Jones has given England the ability to win ugly including using a selection policy of big is better for certain positions like 7 (to begin with),8 and 12. I hope his successor has the confidence to encourage a bit of footballing ability and style into the blend - at present we are more like the vintage of ‘91 than of 2003 imo.

Like Banquo, I agree that we could play with more style, but I’d question the accuracy of the rest of your post.

I’d like to have seen us experiment a bit more with what we want from our 8s (i.e. less smash, more guile) but there’s no getting away from the fact that Billy is our best option. To suggest that he is only there because he is big is ridiculous.

Similarly, we haven’t used a notably big 7 since Haskell. Curry and Underhill are physical, but both are fairly average-sized flankers and are far more dynamic than you seem to be suggesting.

I dont see its big is best style team.

The counter-argument to this is when did we last properly dominate a game up front against anyone - especially top tier nations?
If anything we sometimes get outmuscled - which is crazy when you consider Itoje and Billy are usually in the team.
The forwards - although its a modern game and it requires thought etc....never seem to get up to that playing on aggression and nastiness level. Itoje gets told off for shouting - ok.