RugbyRebels

Way things are going reckon Jones will have most of his backs available to him during Lions tour

twitchy wrote: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.”

If, at the next RWC, we are producing our best, we will win it. Should Jones achieve that I will be delighted to eat humble pie and admit I was wrong about him. Maybe, his long-term plan will work. I simply doubt it.

Oakboy wrote:

Mr Mwenda wrote:

Timbo wrote:

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.

I think Eddie is among the hardest working and most innovative coaches in rugby full stop. That doesn’t mean to say I love the way he has us playing, but to dismiss him as a busted flush who has ‘no new ideas’, shows a fundamental lack of understanding of Eddie’s reputation/standing in the global game. He may not be universally liked, but no-one questions his intelligence/rugby smarts.

What is the rationale on the sub 45yrs old piece? Andy Farrell is the only Tier 1 test coach who is 45, none are under that. Most of the ‘young’ coaches who people see as the future of test rugby such as Scott Robertson or Rob Baxter are over 45.

There are very few coaches under 45 likely to have accumulated the knowledge to be a serious contender to be a head coach for a Tier 1 country. Farrell is the exception and many would argue that the Ireland job came too soon.

You say you want ‘proof of a track record of ideas/innovation’, but if we’re talking about ex players, there only going to have had circa 10 years to develop that as a coach to meet your age criteria. It would be very unusual for a coach to have such a rapid rise.

If we’re looking at English coaches, you can take Paul Gustard (44) and Steve Borthwick (41) as the most obvious examples. Both are clearly trying to prove their credentials as a head coach after stints in specialist roles. Would you want either of those anywhere near the top job right now?

I rest my case ...

Oakboy wrote:

Mr Mwenda wrote:

Timbo wrote:

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.

Name the person you want to replace him.

Oakboy wrote:

twitchy wrote: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.”

If, at the next RWC, we are producing our best, we will win it. Should Jones achieve that I will be delighted to eat humble pie and admit I was wrong about him. Maybe, his long-term plan will work. I simply doubt it.

Can you please tell me the god given right we have to win the world cup? If we unarguably had the best players in each position, sure, but I really don't see how you can make that argument.

Digby wrote: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

He has been his own worst enemy though. He has not used his talent well, plus some mismanagement along the way. But he's shot himself in the foot a number of times.

Raggs wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

twitchy wrote: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.”

If, at the next RWC, we are producing our best, we will win it. Should Jones achieve that I will be delighted to eat humble pie and admit I was wrong about him. Maybe, his long-term plan will work. I simply doubt it.

Can you please tell me the god given right we have to win the world cup? If we unarguably had the best players in each position, sure, but I really don't see how you can make that argument.

Amen to that ...

It’s no unrealistic to expect to be contenders given the players we have, but to expect to win and define Eddie’s success solely bet that measure is exactly the sort of talk that leads to the accusation of ‘arrogant England’.

Oakboy wrote:

Mr Mwenda wrote:

Timbo wrote:

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 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.
.

This reads like one of those job ads you see for a graduate roll where a candidate needs to somehow have 5 years experience working in a technology that's existed for 3, whilst also getting their degree.

Scrumhead wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
If, at the next RWC, we are producing our best, we will win it. Should Jones achieve that I will be delighted to eat humble pie and admit I was wrong about him. Maybe, his long-term plan will work. I simply doubt it.

Can you please tell me the god given right we have to win the world cup? If we unarguably had the best players in each position, sure, but I really don't see how you can make that argument.

Amen to that ...

It’s no unrealistic to expect to be contenders given the players we have, but to expect to win and define Eddie’s success solely bet that measure is exactly the sort of talk that leads to the accusation of ‘arrogant England’.

I think Semi final can be a reasonable expectation, as I'd normally expect us to win our pool, and therefore face a team I'd not expect to travel through to the semis in the quarters. But even then, with NZ, SA, Eng, Ire, Wal, Arg, Aus all being very capable of hitting their straps at the world cup, along with the likes of Japan and Scotland etc all more than capable of putting in impressive performances, suddenly getting through the quarters is not a guarantee.

Oakboy should be banned from discussing this subject until he stops dodging the question of who he thinks should be appointed. It's like ground hog day and incredibly tedious.

Raggs wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

twitchy wrote: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.”

If, at the next RWC, we are producing our best, we will win it. Should Jones achieve that I will be delighted to eat humble pie and admit I was wrong about him. Maybe, his long-term plan will work. I simply doubt it.

Can you please tell me the god given right we have to win the world cup? If we unarguably had the best players in each position, sure, but I really don't see how you can make that argument.

Standard issue RR posturing isn't it.

Goes hand in hand with people posting in any 6ns expectations thread that "only a grand slam, playing attractive rugby and developing depth across the squad, is acceptable to people who know their onions."

Oakboy just say who should have been appointed 5 yrs ago (Baxter for me). Then sit back and hear why that would have been a poor decision.

You know things like, never been past junction 21 of the M5

p/d wrote:Oakboy just say who should have been appointed 5 yrs ago (Baxter for me). Then sit back and hear why that would have been a poor decision.

You know things like, never been past junction 21 of the M5

No say who should be appointed right now.

twitchy wrote:

p/d wrote:Oakboy just say who should have been appointed 5 yrs ago (Baxter for me). Then sit back and hear why that would have been a poor decision.

You know things like, never been past junction 21 of the M5

No say who should be appointed right now.

Why?if he feels that Jones hit a wall at the WC and pens a number of reasons to support that opinion, then he has a right to that opinion. Not sure why naming a successor is required to support that view

p/d wrote:

twitchy wrote:

p/d wrote:Oakboy just say who should have been appointed 5 yrs ago (Baxter for me). Then sit back and hear why that would have been a poor decision.

You know things like, never been past junction 21 of the M5

No say who should be appointed right now.

Why?if he feels that Jones hit a wall at the WC and pens a number of reasons to support that opinion, then he has a right to that opinion. Not sure why naming a successor is required to support that view

Because not doing so is a major gap in the argument of someone wanting him to be removed?

Scrumhead wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
If, at the next RWC, we are producing our best, we will win it. Should Jones achieve that I will be delighted to eat humble pie and admit I was wrong about him. Maybe, his long-term plan will work. I simply doubt it.

Can you please tell me the god given right we have to win the world cup? If we unarguably had the best players in each position, sure, but I really don't see how you can make that argument.

Amen to that ...

It’s no unrealistic to expect to be contenders given the players we have, but to expect to win and define Eddie’s success solely bet that measure is exactly the sort of talk that leads to the accusation of ‘arrogant England’.

Yes. The wilderness years rather disabused me of the idea that England can win all the time. Compared to previous regimes, EJ's work has been a breath of fresh air. The margins at the top are now so tight that even if one team gets it slightly wrong then they will lose.

p/d wrote:

twitchy wrote:

p/d wrote:Oakboy just say who should have been appointed 5 yrs ago (Baxter for me). Then sit back and hear why that would have been a poor decision.

You know things like, never been past junction 21 of the M5

No say who should be appointed right now.

Why?if he feels that Jones hit a wall at the WC and pens a number of reasons to support that opinion, then he has a right to that opinion. Not sure why naming a successor is required to support that view

I will only say that I cannot possibly know who should be appointed. As I have said before, give me the job of finding the right candidate and the appropriate budget and I will make an appointment.

As for us winning the RWC, in 2003, we knew we would. SCW's side DID play to their potential and trampled over everyone. I think we have a better squad now, at this stage of the 4 year cycle. Those you of you who don't share that opinion are entitled to do so. Those of you who think Jones will get the best out of the team are entitled to that view.

I only started the debate this particular time because the question arose of what I meant by Jones not being good for English rugby. Many others watch our recent performances and are happy - presumably. Fair enough. I am not.

So, another dodge.

No I think that meant being back sir Clive.

Umm...



Am I just blinded by bias at this point? Was his tactical kicking good? I sort of glazed over after a while, as I tend to do now when England play.

Maybe he was knocking kicks in to the corner all day and I just don't remember? Fairly sure they've also used a screenshot of a grubber kick that went to absolutely nobody. It's probably my fault for wasting so much time clicking on these stupid videos.

Oakboy wrote:

p/d wrote:

twitchy wrote:
No say who should be appointed right now.

Why?if he feels that Jones hit a wall at the WC and pens a number of reasons to support that opinion, then he has a right to that opinion. Not sure why naming a successor is required to support that view

I will only say that I cannot possibly know who should be appointed. As I have said before, give me the job of finding the right candidate and the appropriate budget and I will make an appointment.

As for us winning the RWC, in 2003, we knew we would. SCW's side DID play to their potential and trampled over everyone. I think we have a better squad now, at this stage of the 4 year cycle. Those you of you who don't share that opinion are entitled to do so. Those of you who think Jones will get the best out of the team are entitled to that view.

I only started the debate this particular time because the question arose of what I meant by Jones not being good for English rugby. Many others watch our recent performances and are happy - presumably. Fair enough. I am not.

Did we trample over everyone in ‘03? I seem to recall us winning the final with an extra time drop goal, and we avoided playing the All Blacks which is always a nice bonus.

I actually have no issue with not naming a potential successor. International rugby head coach/manager is such a specific role and so unlike being a club DOR that I think you’d have to have really in depth knowledge of any potential candidate. The best person for the job may not be an obvious choice.

I do take issue with the idea that any coach getting the best out of this England squad should 100% win the World Cup. I’d like to see an in depth analysis of the French, South African and New Zealand squads that doesn’t conclude they are commensurate in talent with ours.

Oakboy wrote:

p/d wrote:

twitchy wrote:
No say who should be appointed right now.

Why?if he feels that Jones hit a wall at the WC and pens a number of reasons to support that opinion, then he has a right to that opinion. Not sure why naming a successor is required to support that view

I will only say that I cannot possibly know who should be appointed. As I have said before, give me the job of finding the right candidate and the appropriate budget and I will make an appointment.

As for us winning the RWC, in 2003, we knew we would. SCW's side DID play to their potential and trampled over everyone. I think we have a better squad now, at this stage of the 4 year cycle. Those you of you who don't share that opinion are entitled to do so. Those of you who think Jones will get the best out of the team are entitled to that view.

I only started the debate this particular time because the question arose of what I meant by Jones not being good for English rugby. Many others watch our recent performances and are happy - presumably. Fair enough. I am not.

OK. It would still be great to get some more insight in to your thoughts re. the next appointment being under 45 with a proven track record of innovation. I can’t think of many who fit that profile.

Alex Sanderson, Sam Vesty and Ali Hepher are probably closest. Sanderson’s early retirement means he’s got a lot of coaching experience for his age (41) and he’s certainly been successful as a forwards/defence coach but I don’t know if I’d describe him as innovative? Vesty’s definitely more in the ‘innovative’ category when he’s not eating his own bogies, but he’s not had anywhere near the same level of success and IMO, doesn’t come across as obvious HC material. Hepher is 46 so doesn’t quite fit your brief, but it’s often forgotten that he is actually Exeter’s Head Coach these days while Baxter is DoR. He definitely has the right sort of profile to be on the radar, but watching Exeter play, I’d definitely question the innovation piece ...

Scrumhead wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

p/d wrote: Why?if he feels that Jones hit a wall at the WC and pens a number of reasons to support that opinion, then he has a right to that opinion. Not sure why naming a successor is required to support that view

I will only say that I cannot possibly know who should be appointed. As I have said before, give me the job of finding the right candidate and the appropriate budget and I will make an appointment.

As for us winning the RWC, in 2003, we knew we would. SCW's side DID play to their potential and trampled over everyone. I think we have a better squad now, at this stage of the 4 year cycle. Those you of you who don't share that opinion are entitled to do so. Those of you who think Jones will get the best out of the team are entitled to that view.

I only started the debate this particular time because the question arose of what I meant by Jones not being good for English rugby. Many others watch our recent performances and are happy - presumably. Fair enough. I am not.

OK. It would still be great to get some more insight in to your thoughts re. the next appointment being under 45 with a proven track record of innovation. I can’t think of many who fit that profile.

Alex Sanderson, Sam Vesty and Ali Hepher are probably closest. Sanderson’s early retirement means he’s got a lot of coaching experience for his age (41) and he’s certainly been successful as a forwards/defence coach but I don’t know if I’d describe him as innovative? Vesty’s definitely more in the ‘innovative’ category when he’s not eating his own bogies, but he’s not had anywhere near the same level of success and IMO, doesn’t come across as obvious HC material. Hepher is 46 so doesn’t quite fit your brief, but it’s often forgotten that he is actually Exeter’s Head Coach these days while Baxter is DoR. He definitely has the right sort of profile to be on the radar, but watching Exeter play, I’d definitely question the innovation piece ...

I can't give you names because I simply do not know enough about the up-and-coming brigade. I'd prefer English but if I had the recruitment brief, I'd consider every practising head coach and assistant coach in France and thei SH.

As for the age factor, I simply believe that somewhere in the 42 - 47 bracket there would be the best chance of getting the right combination of post-playing coaching experience and a credible mind still in touch with the game. By starting to look for under 45s and accepting outstanding candidates a few years above the 'ideal' you cover all bases. In practice, of course, there are legal pitfalls in ageism advertising so, '20 years active career potential minimum' or some such label would be necessary.

On the innovation side, I believe we are in one of those horrendous stalemate situations with the game where, effectively, the cheats are ruling and the blazers are too stuck in their ways to law-tinker the way out of it. Scrum resets, caterpillar rucks are just two examples. On the game style side of that stalemate we have the game-killer statistic that sides who kick most win and that, by definition, means that possession is a bad thing. Until somebody comes along with a new approach we are stuck with it. Thinking outside the box, encouraging players to play what's in front of them, new first-phase moves etc. are out.

I don't want to get your back up further by mentioning Jones but my idea of coaching style and exploiting the player quality does not mean kicking the ball straight down the middle constantly nor negating backs' moves totally. Forward domination is as essential as it ever was but we have gifted forward handlers and forwards with real gas - Simmonds for example - who need the incentive to convert their domination into broader attacking movement.

I think a younger man with ideas is essential. I also think he needs a broader mind with the charisma to attract the best assistants and keep them. These days, sports management has to be a team effort. All teams need time, including coaching teams. They do not need to be workaholics and they should not be knackered after a year or two in the job. There needs to be better motivational skills from the head-coach.

Oakboy wrote:
As for us winning the RWC, in 2003, we knew we would. .

Did we? I had us as favourites going into the event, probably with a bit of bias in that thinking but had we lost to any of France, Australia or NZ in a one off game I wouldn't have been surprised, disappointed sure but that's all.

In the event we never had to play NZ, we did well against SA and France, and we only just snuck past Wales and then Oz, frankly we were hardly comfortable against Samoa. And to my of thinking if you're only edging Samoa and Wales you're quite some ways off knowing you will win a WC.

Oakboy wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
I will only say that I cannot possibly know who should be appointed. As I have said before, give me the job of finding the right candidate and the appropriate budget and I will make an appointment.

As for us winning the RWC, in 2003, we knew we would. SCW's side DID play to their potential and trampled over everyone. I think we have a better squad now, at this stage of the 4 year cycle. Those you of you who don't share that opinion are entitled to do so. Those of you who think Jones will get the best out of the team are entitled to that view.

I only started the debate this particular time because the question arose of what I meant by Jones not being good for English rugby. Many others watch our recent performances and are happy - presumably. Fair enough. I am not.

OK. It would still be great to get some more insight in to your thoughts re. the next appointment being under 45 with a proven track record of innovation. I can’t think of many who fit that profile.

Alex Sanderson, Sam Vesty and Ali Hepher are probably closest. Sanderson’s early retirement means he’s got a lot of coaching experience for his age (41) and he’s certainly been successful as a forwards/defence coach but I don’t know if I’d describe him as innovative? Vesty’s definitely more in the ‘innovative’ category when he’s not eating his own bogies, but he’s not had anywhere near the same level of success and IMO, doesn’t come across as obvious HC material. Hepher is 46 so doesn’t quite fit your brief, but it’s often forgotten that he is actually Exeter’s Head Coach these days while Baxter is DoR. He definitely has the right sort of profile to be on the radar, but watching Exeter play, I’d definitely question the innovation piece ...

I can't give you names because I simply do not know enough about the up-and-coming brigade. I'd prefer English but if I had the recruitment brief, I'd consider every practising head coach and assistant coach in France and thei SH.

As for the age factor, I simply believe that somewhere in the 42 - 47 bracket there would be the best chance of getting the right combination of post-playing coaching experience and a credible mind still in touch with the game. By starting to look for under 45s and accepting outstanding candidates a few years above the 'ideal' you cover all bases. In practice, of course, there are legal pitfalls in ageism advertising so, '20 years active career potential minimum' or some such label would be necessary.

On the innovation side, I believe we are in one of those horrendous stalemate situations with the game where, effectively, the cheats are ruling and the blazers are too stuck in their ways to law-tinker the way out of it. Scrum resets, caterpillar rucks are just two examples. On the game style side of that stalemate we have the game-killer statistic that sides who kick most win and that, by definition, means that possession is a bad thing. Until somebody comes along with a new approach we are stuck with it. Thinking outside the box, encouraging players to play what's in front of them, new first-phase moves etc. are out.

I don't want to get your back up further by mentioning Jones but my idea of coaching style and exploiting the player quality does not mean kicking the ball straight down the middle constantly nor negating backs' moves totally. Forward domination is as essential as it ever was but we have gifted forward handlers and forwards with real gas - Simmonds for example - who need the incentive to convert their domination into broader attacking movement.

I think a younger man with ideas is essential. I also think he needs a broader mind with the charisma to attract the best assistants and keep them. These days, sports management has to be a team effort. All teams need time, including coaching teams. They do not need to be workaholics and they should not be knackered after a year or two in the job. There needs to be better motivational skills from the head-coach.

This is a bit like when jngf goes on about picking a huge lock who just doesn’t exist. It’s pointless.

Mid-40s is too young for a Tier 1 test coach IMO. Andy Farrell and Gregor Townsend are the exceptions, but the jury is very much out on both of them. Farrell got that job through sheer force of will, not through having the depth of experience really required to replace Schmidt. The SRFU seem happy enough to invest in Townsend, but again, he’s mostly there on enthusiasm and a couple of good Pro14 seasons with Glasgow. It’s a bit like like when Martin Johnson got the England job - the idea of him is a fair bit better than the reality. Townsend has more coaching credentials than Johnson did but he’s also under a lot less pressure.

Beyond that, every other Tier 1 coach has considerably more experience. Even those that are new to test rugby like Rennie and Pivac are in their late 50’s. International coaching is not a young man’s game IMO. Test rugby is the pinnacle and to reach that, it stands to reason that you need to be successful at club level or with a smaller rugby nation to earn a seat at the top table. Skipping that learning curve hasn’t worked that well for anyone yet AFAIK?

If Rob Baxter ultimately wants to succeed Eddie Jones, he’s gone about it in the right way. I don’t think anyone can question that he has put the miles on the clock and has done a fantastic job with Exeter. If you had said 10 years ago that they would have been European champions in 2020, I don’t think anyone would have believed it, but he’s got them there. He’s also a very reasonable, likeable bloke who doesn’t court controversy and is widely recognised as having built a brilliant team and coaching culture. Players want to play for him which is an invaluable quality IMO. He’ll want to back up his success and maybe surpass Saracens’ achievements (before anyone says it - how they got there isn’t relevant for this post), but he doesn’t really have anything else to prove at club level. My only reservation is the style of play ...