Eng v. Ire - Match thread

[Spiffy]

Genuine questions: Does Jones care? Or, is he blind to what is happening? Does he think the alternatives are no better? What are the assistant coaches being paid for (in terms of attack/creativity)?

As you well know I didn't want him appointed, have never expressed delight at his wit nor felt the need to unleash the 15 stitches of embroidery onto a favoured t-shirt for the purpose of expressing a love for the man. That said ............

....nope, still cant take to him.

I just don't think he believes we have backs available with the necessary skill set to worry himself too much about looking beyond 9 & 10 as part of 1-8.

I would also suggest that not one our backs has improved as a player under Jones.

May certainly has. Slade has. Daly did on the wing. Ford likely has. Faz has too, but a low bar.

It could be argued that the improvement in these players has little to do with Jones and is more related to their increased experience and natural learning curve. If anything, Jones has curbed Ford's natural game.

[Banquo]

As you well know I didn't want him appointed, have never expressed delight at his wit nor felt the need to unleash the 15 stitches of embroidery onto a favoured t-shirt for the purpose of expressing a love for the man. That said ............

....nope, still cant take to him.

I just don't think he believes we have backs available with the necessary skill set to worry himself too much about looking beyond 9 & 10 as part of 1-8.

I would also suggest that not one our backs has improved as a player under Jones.

May certainly has. Slade has. Daly did on the wing. Ford likely has. Faz has too, but a low bar.

It could be argued that the improvement in these players has little to do with Jones and is more related to their increased experience and natural learning curve. If anything, Jones has curbed Ford's natural game.

Don’t agree tbh- for a start he has given them that experience. Put more trust in Ford than Burt, for example. Ford is way more consistent, and I can’t think of anything he doesn’t do for England other than goal kick and line kick (which he should do).

[Oakboy]

As you well know I didn't want him appointed, have never expressed delight at his wit nor felt the need to unleash the 15 stitches of embroidery onto a favoured t-shirt for the purpose of expressing a love for the man. That said ............

....nope, still cant take to him.

I just don't think he believes we have backs available with the necessary skill set to worry himself too much about looking beyond 9 & 10 as part of 1-8.

I would also suggest that not one our backs has improved as a player under Jones.

May certainly has. Slade has. Daly did on the wing. Ford likely has. Faz has too, but a low bar.

It could be argued that the improvement in these players has little to do with Jones and is more related to their increased experience and natural learning curve. If anything, Jones has curbed Ford's natural game.

That's the crunch, though. Jones and 'natural game' simply don't go together. Some of the backs may have marginally improved despite Jones but woe betide anybody who acts instinctively at the behest of their rugby brain. Overall, Jones is simply not good for English rugby. He has been good for the England XV's results. Many don't want to comprehend the difference. I think there is a connect. A better head coach (who, I really cannot suggest) might just have played better rugby AND got even better results. Yawn!!!!

[Timbo]

[Overall, Jones is simply not good for English rugby. He has been good for the England XV's results. Many don't want to comprehend the difference. I think there is a connect.

I think you’re just incapable of explaining what you mean by this. The rest of the forum’s comprehension abilities has nothing to do with it. I think an awful lot of your (and one or two others) criticisms of Jones rely on heavy doses of cognitive dissonance.

[jngf]

[Overall, Jones is simply not good for English rugby. He has been good for the England XV's results. Many don't want to comprehend the difference. I think there is a connect.

I think you’re just incapable of explaining what you mean by this. The rest of the forum’s comprehension abilities has nothing to do with it. I think an awful lot of your (and one or two others) criticisms of Jones rely on heavy doses of cognitive dissonance.

Well I understand the point that yes Jones is winning matches (other than the most important of all) but he’s doing it in such a way as to be a throwback to the turgid stuff produced in the later Cooke/Jack Rowell era - kick and chase with Owen Farrell being a latter day Rob Andrew but (even) less willing to pass it to the three quarters.

[fivepointer]

Our style might be a bit risk averse and defence centric but it is producing results.
Start losing and the debate about method and coach become germane. Right now, Jones has a winning record that no other coach has matched.
That gives him the platform to pick who he chooses and play the way that he deems to be the most effective to win games.
It sometimes isnt pretty and goodness knows i'd love to see a bit more intent with the ball but you can't argue with results.

[Scrumhead]

Agreed.

There’s an interesting parallel with Gatland and Wales. Under his stewardship, their results were usually a lot better than their performances.

The Welsh fans wanted more attractive rugby so the WRFU went for Pivac. We know where they are now ... I imagine most would love to have Gatland back.

I think there’s a happy medium where we keep winning but play some better rugby and I don’t think that’s impossible under Eddie. We’re establishing the platform with the pack but we’re not using the ball well. I’m hoping Ford coming back helps us to do that more effectively. We’ve actually played some attractive AND effective rugby during Eddie’s tenure, we’re just not doing that ATM.

[morepork]

Eddie always has one or two players that essentially run the show for him. If you are lucky they are George Smith and Stephen Larkham. If you are not, they are Owen Farrell and Ben Youngs. England are still a pretty formidable unit under the squeaky little bastard, and by thunder the tactical molasses served up by some of the domestic teams doesn't exactly scream progressive alternatives.

[Banquo]

Eddie always has one or two players that essentially run the show for him. If you are lucky they are George Smith and Stephen Larkham. If you are not, they are Owen Farrell and Ben Youngs. England are still a pretty formidable unit under the squeaky little bastard, and by thunder the tactical molasses served up by some of the domestic teams doesn't exactly scream progressive alternatives.

Very well put. He uses what is at his disposal that gives the best chance of winning. And he perceives he is limited by what you describe.

[Banquo]

Our style might be a bit risk averse and defence centric but it is producing results.
Start losing and the debate about method and coach become germane. Right now, Jones has a winning record that no other coach has matched.
That gives him the platform to pick who he chooses and play the way that he deems to be the most effective to win games.
It sometimes isnt pretty and goodness knows i'd love to see a bit more intent with the ball but you can't argue with results.

I also think people are ignoring the number of players he does bring on and into the squad. Off hand, it’s pretty much only Joe Simmonds of the favoured board players that he hasn’t had a look at. This year alone - from memory- he has ‘invested’ in Stuart, Dunn, Hill x 2, Willis, Earl, Mitchell, Umaga, Malins, Lawrence, Dingwall, and Furbank, as well as other fringe players continuing to get exposed. He watches a hell of a lot of players.

But I wish he’d change tack at 9 and especially his favoured 10/12 combo

[Which Tyler]

And even then, Joe Simmonds simply bloomed later than Marcus Smith, and was too old for an apprentice spot when Images got picked.
Now that Umaga's in the senior squad, it's a result of good form and being semi-incumbent.

Of course, I'd still rather Joe Simmonds, but as you say, that's 1 out of 20-odd that we champion who hasn't been looked at.

[Oakboy]

And even then, Joe Simmonds simply bloomed later than Marcus Smith, and was too old for an apprentice spot when Images got picked.
Now that Umaga's in the senior squad, it's a result of good form and being semi-incumbent.

Of course, I'd still rather Joe Simmonds, but as you say, that's 1 out of 20-odd that we champion who hasn't been looked at.

So, who is Jones's 3rd choice FH who would start on Saturday if Farrell and Ford get ill or injured?

[Which Tyler]

We don't know - but then, we don't know the 3rd choice for quite a few positions.
Nor do many other nations, for that matter.


ETA: Actually, scratch that. Given that he's constrained by the EPS, Umaga is 3rd choice.
But being too focussed on a plan for "what happens if we get multiple injuries in 1 position" is never particularly sensible.
However, if we're talking about 2 longer-term injuries, taking them both out for an entire international window - then I suspect Cipriani would be called up, with Umaga/Smith as backup

[Spiffy]

We don't know - but then, we don't know the 3rd choice for quite a few positions.
Nor do many other nations, for that matter.


ETA: Actually, scratch that. Given that he's constrained by the EPS, Umaga is 3rd choice.
But being too focussed on a plan for "what happens if we get multiple injuries in 1 position" is never particularly sensible.
However, if we're talking about 2 longer-term injuries, taking them both out for an entire international window - then I suspect Cipriani would be called up, with Umaga/Smith as backup

Yer joking. Eddie Jones would name his own mum at 10 before calling up Cipriani.

[Puja]

We don't know - but then, we don't know the 3rd choice for quite a few positions.
Nor do many other nations, for that matter.


ETA: Actually, scratch that. Given that he's constrained by the EPS, Umaga is 3rd choice.
But being too focussed on a plan for "what happens if we get multiple injuries in 1 position" is never particularly sensible.
However, if we're talking about 2 longer-term injuries, taking them both out for an entire international window - then I suspect Cipriani would be called up, with Umaga/Smith as backup

Yer joking. Eddie Jones would name his own mum at 10 before calling up Cipriani.

Cipriani's the last non Ford/Farrell person to play at 10 for England, IIRC. 2018 South Africa tour. There's a decent argument that Cips is Eddie's third choice if both Ford and Faz went down long-term.

Mind, to call up Cipriani instead of Simmonds on current form and capability would be perverse.

Puja

[Puja]

We don't know - but then, we don't know the 3rd choice for quite a few positions.
Nor do many other nations, for that matter.


ETA: Actually, scratch that. Given that he's constrained by the EPS, Umaga is 3rd choice.
But being too focussed on a plan for "what happens if we get multiple injuries in 1 position" is never particularly sensible.
However, if we're talking about 2 longer-term injuries, taking them both out for an entire international window - then I suspect Cipriani would be called up, with Umaga/Smith as backup

I have a suspicion that Malins, Slade, or Furbank might come in ahead of Umaga.

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

I think Simmonds is probably 3rd choice starting 10 - if that makes sense - but probably won’t look at him until there are long term injuries. Unless Umaga/Smith have come on further by the time that situation were to arise of course. Cipriani is done.

[Digby]

Cipriani should be done at this point. And it can stand as testament to our greatness that the most talented English player I've seen has something like 10 starts

[Mr Mwenda]

I think you’re just incapable of explaining what you mean by this. The rest of the forum’s comprehension abilities has nothing to do with it. I think an awful lot of your (and one or two others) criticisms of Jones rely on heavy doses of cognitive dissonance.

Some people (not me) think that a non-English coach is bad for English rugby. I can't remember if that's the case for Oakboy. But if 'good for English rugby' is defined in such narrow times as 'English coach in charge" then I guess it makes sense on some logical level.

[Mr Mwenda]

Cipriani should be done at this point. And it can stand as testament to our greatness that the most talented English player I've seen has something like 10 starts

I think English rugby, Cipriani himself and (bad) fortune have all been part of the story. I remember the sound of his screams when his ankle went...

There was a period when it felt like whenever someone was in great form on the verge of playing for England and in great form (I have Cipriani and Ward-Smith in mind) they would inevitably pick up a long-term injury. Has that continued under Jones - didn't Willis pick up an ill-timed injury and there was that lad who got done in a judo accident? Just bad luck or is the English rugby system/coaching set ups the problem?

[Mr Mwenda]

Eddie always has one or two players that essentially run the show for him. If you are lucky they are George Smith and Stephen Larkham. If you are not, they are Owen Farrell and Ben Youngs. England are still a pretty formidable unit under the squeaky little bastard, and by thunder the tactical molasses served up by some of the domestic teams doesn't exactly scream progressive alternatives.

Good post.

[Oakboy]

I think you’re just incapable of explaining what you mean by this. The rest of the forum’s comprehension abilities has nothing to do with it. I think an awful lot of your (and one or two others) criticisms of Jones rely on heavy doses of cognitive dissonance.

Some people (not me) think that a non-English coach is bad for English rugby. I can't remember if that's the case for Oakboy. But if 'good for English rugby' is defined in such narrow times as 'English coach in charge" then I guess it makes sense on some logical level.

If two coaches were of equal merit, I'd certainly want the English one ahead of a foreigner. What I mean about Jones, though, is that I don't think he gets best-possible performances from the English players, regardless of results. His rugby way is too restrictive. Regardless of his 'nerd' claims, I think he has no new ideas left and I think his time is done - a stage he has reached in most appointments throughout his career.

If I were to write a job requirement sheet, I'd probably have a 45 maximum age and proof of a track record for ideas/innovation. I suppose some hoped for that from Jones based on his time with Japan but his root instinct is for a structured game - Banquo's 'robot' label for Farrell sums up his inbuilt style limitations.

Yes, I harp on about it, but I see this batch of players as our best ever by some distance. We should not waste the chance to be supreme. Jones's limited style WILL waste it unfortunately, IMO, and that is what I mean about him not being good for English rugby - no matter how good some recent results have been.

[Digby]

I just don't see how you conclude Jones has run out of ideas, his history suggests he's outstanding at devising new plans.

Also the team Jones had at Japan was structured, structured very differently to us, but you cannot possibly play like that Japan side without frankly very rigid structures, you'd never have support in place if players were wandering around the pitch all making how to support and how to move off the ball decisions on the fly.

Put another way Japan were every bit as limited as us, just in a different way

[twitchy]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... op-attack/

“We’ve got to keep winning,” said England’s head coach. “But we will start doing a lot more work on our attack post the Lions [tour in 2021], when we’ll have the players for a more consistent period of time.”

[Oakboy]

Diggers, you are saying that limiting our play is 'best-possible'?