Eng v. Ire - Match thread

[switchskier]

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 actually disagree with this. As an outsider I think that England's first 15 is probably the strongest in the world and that you have more depth and experience than any other team. If they play their best in ever playoff game then I'd expect them to win, although there's a reasonable argument that NZ and SA may have as much potential for 2023, and France potentially have more.

[Mr Mwenda]

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’.

More like 'stupid England' to me. Even if England have the best squad (which I'm far from convinced about) it's not like it's so much better to guarantee a win every time. One can't plan for everything and sometimes the opposition just play well.

[Stom]

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.

Sounds like you have more problem with the rule makers than Eddie, tbh.

We do have a problem with the laws as they are right now but I think Eddie is probably getting the most out of them. I also think he’s one of the more innovative coaches around, innovation doesn’t just mean flowing backs moves.

Until the laws change, we’re not going to see the kind of innovation you want, which seems less like innovation and more like harking back to a previous time.

[p/d]

RIP Dominici

What a player!!!!

[Oakboy]

Sounds like you have more problem with the rule makers than Eddie, tbh.

We do have a problem with the laws as they are right now but I think Eddie is probably getting the most out of them. I also think he’s one of the more innovative coaches around, innovation doesn’t just mean flowing backs moves.

Until the laws change, we’re not going to see the kind of innovation you want, which seems less like innovation and more like harking back to a previous time.

I don't understand that. Just because statistics show that on average in recent games 'kicking most' wins does not mean that there is not a better way, does it? Jones follows the stats and wins, fair enough. What will happen at some point, though, is that somebody will find a way to re-programme the stats and everyone will follow slavishly. That's what I mean about innovation - being the first to find the solution. For all that you and others protest, I just cannot see that Jones is the one to lead the world in that way. Just for example, as I said on another thread, if France decide to go for it in attacking efforts, win a few games and dick us on the way, is that suddenly the new fashion?

[Digby]

Where is the idea coming form that France just go for it?

[Stom]

Sounds like you have more problem with the rule makers than Eddie, tbh.

We do have a problem with the laws as they are right now but I think Eddie is probably getting the most out of them. I also think he’s one of the more innovative coaches around, innovation doesn’t just mean flowing backs moves.

Until the laws change, we’re not going to see the kind of innovation you want, which seems less like innovation and more like harking back to a previous time.

I don't understand that. Just because statistics show that on average in recent games 'kicking most' wins does not mean that there is not a better way, does it? Jones follows the stats and wins, fair enough. What will happen at some point, though, is that somebody will find a way to re-programme the stats and everyone will follow slavishly. That's what I mean about innovation - being the first to find the solution. For all that you and others protest, I just cannot see that Jones is the one to lead the world in that way. Just for example, as I said on another thread, if France decide to go for it in attacking efforts, win a few games and dick us on the way, is that suddenly the new fashion?

But that’s it, he’s been rather innovative. Innovative doesn’t mean new, it means doing something a new way. Eddie’s England do defense very differently to anyone else. They’ve taken it to its extreme and it’sa really potent weapon.

He’s previously innovated in all his high profile international jobs. I’d say he’s probably the most innovative of the coaches around right now. The reason we like France is because they play quite a traditional game.

[Oakboy]

Sounds like you have more problem with the rule makers than Eddie, tbh.

We do have a problem with the laws as they are right now but I think Eddie is probably getting the most out of them. I also think he’s one of the more innovative coaches around, innovation doesn’t just mean flowing backs moves.

Until the laws change, we’re not going to see the kind of innovation you want, which seems less like innovation and more like harking back to a previous time.

I don't understand that. Just because statistics show that on average in recent games 'kicking most' wins does not mean that there is not a better way, does it? Jones follows the stats and wins, fair enough. What will happen at some point, though, is that somebody will find a way to re-programme the stats and everyone will follow slavishly. That's what I mean about innovation - being the first to find the solution. For all that you and others protest, I just cannot see that Jones is the one to lead the world in that way. Just for example, as I said on another thread, if France decide to go for it in attacking efforts, win a few games and dick us on the way, is that suddenly the new fashion?

But that’s it, he’s been rather innovative. Innovative doesn’t mean new, it means doing something a new way. Eddie’s England do defense very differently to anyone else. They’ve taken it to its extreme and it’sa really potent weapon.

He’s previously innovated in all his high profile international jobs. I’d say he’s probably the most innovative of the coaches around right now. The reason we like France is because they play quite a traditional game.

But, he copied SA after they thumped us and he is copying the general trend with over-kicking. How is that innovative? I would say that duplicating our SF performance against NZ against the trend of 'leather into orbit' would be innovative as well as having a far higher ultimate performance ceiling. Let's face it, that was not 'harlem globe trotter stuff'. It was balanced forward/back play, kicking and passing as circumstances required. Why interpret the final defeat as 'the players cannot be trusted to play rugby' rather than 'I was out-coached'? Rather than apply a balanced review he has just refused to admit his own failure and that is the ultimate in counter-innovation.

Let's just agree to disagree. I am in a minority, I accept. If Jones wins every game he/you are right, I suppose. Even then, I don't think he will be totally exploiting our potential but the history books will applaud him statistically.

[morepork]

Yes. Devour yourselves from within my Engrish pretties.

[Mr Mwenda]

I'm amazed at the level of insight people have into Jones and his reaction to the world cup final. This is a man who makes a point of talking nonsense in public whenever he can.

[p/d]

I would say that duplicating our SF performance against NZ against the trend of 'leather into orbit' would be innovative as well as having a far higher ultimate performance ceiling. Let's face it, that was not 'harlem globe trotter stuff'. It was balanced forward/back play, kicking and passing as circumstances required.

I wouldn’t read too much into a game against the current whipping boys of international rugby

[morepork]

Must...not...bite...

[Puja]

I would say that duplicating our SF performance against NZ against the trend of 'leather into orbit' would be innovative as well as having a far higher ultimate performance ceiling. Let's face it, that was not 'harlem globe trotter stuff'. It was balanced forward/back play, kicking and passing as circumstances required.

I wouldn’t read too much into a game against the current whipping boys of international rugby

Puja

[Puja]

I mean, it's kinda sad. They've gone like Wales and Ireland, what with their new number 8 being poached from England. They'll be scouring the ranks of our team next Barbarians game, trying to find someone with a Kiwi granny somewhere who's willing to give up on playing for England to get more caps elsewhere.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

I would say that duplicating our SF performance against NZ against the trend of 'leather into orbit' would be innovative as well as having a far higher ultimate performance ceiling. Let's face it, that was not 'harlem globe trotter stuff'. It was balanced forward/back play, kicking and passing as circumstances required.

I wouldn’t read too much into a game against the current whipping boys of international rugby

As with Jonny May under Jones’s latest tactics, your interventions are minimal but of the highest quality.

[morepork]

It takes the edge off losing Brad Shields and Willy Heinz.

And fuck you BTW.

[Digby]

NZ are making the same mistake as us, continually messing around with selection to pick a supposedly talented 10 who doesn't seemingly fit any role he's asked to play

[Puja]

It takes the edge off losing Brad Shields and Willy Heinz.

And fuck you BTW.

Well, you can't blame Shields and Heinz, can you? I mean, in an ideal world, pride in the shirt would be enough and they'd want to play for the second tier little island nation where they were born, but you can't really rail against a player for wanting to play for a bigger and better side if they're qualified. It's a short career, only a few chances to mix it with the very best, etc. etc.

Mind, I am in favour of the mooted IRB rules change that would allow them to switch back to New Zealand now that they're in the twilight of their careers and England don't need them anymore. I think that'd be a real boost.

Puja


PS. We're just jealous that your lot have actual non-insane leadership

[twitchy]

Noted idiot and bad rugby player sam warburton (sarcasm for anyone that misses it):

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/int ... on-so-much

The All Blacks have made a success from kicking the ball away and using their defence to profit off opposition mistakes.

It's a tactic that has masked their supposed love of running rugby.

It's a philosophy that has also been a hallmark of the stunning Super Rugby success of the Crusaders who, like the All Blacks, have proven masters of the counter-attack.

And it's a ploy that other teams have followed, taking the tactic to all levels of the game.

It's often led fans and viewers to air their frustrations, wondering how hard-earned possession can be instantly handed back to the opposition, often in an instant?

Former Wales and British & Irish Lions captain Sam Warburton has explained the theory behind the kicking game that now dominates the international scene.

These days a pundit on British TV, Warburton revealed the thinking behind tactic as Wales used it to good effect last weekend, even against second-tier opposition Georgia.

“People say to me regularly, why do we kick the ball all the time? Why are we kicking the ball?” Warburton admitted on Amazon Prime Video during the match call.

“Straight away I think, ‘You haven’t played international rugby then’ because you can not run yourself out of trouble for 80 minutes.

“You’ll run yourself down a blind alley, a dark alley, and you’ll be in trouble.

“You have to kick, because kicking on to an opposition team, you can gain 50 or 60 metres of territory, you put the ball in their court, and if you’ve got a defence as good as England, you put a massive amount of pressure on from your defence and it can often cause a knock-on.

“That means that 50 yard kick and good kick chase, you’ve got the ball back 50 to 60 yards later,” he said on Amazon Prime Video.

“Or you could try and run your ball out from your try line, 20 phases, and progress there,” Warburton noted with a bit of sarcasm.

“A good kick chase is much more efficient, so that’s why [international teams kick so much].”

Fellow Wales star and co-pundit Scott Quinnell chipped in to support Warburton’s explanation, using the All Blacks as a prime example.

“It is so funny, as well, that New Zealand, who have been the No.1 side in the world, for about 150 years; that during 2011 to 2015, when they won back to back World Cups, I think they played with about 30 per cent possession,” Quinnell said.

“They kicked a huge amount away, but what they were very good at was turnover and counter-attack ... absolutely superb,” he told Amazon Prime Video.

[Mr Mwenda]

Squidge rugby had a couple of interesting points on England's kick chase organisation this week as well.

[Banquo]

Yes, it’s not really new tbh. Dwyer said 30+ years ago- just to annoy Puja- that any decent coach can get a side winning through kicking all the time. And then proved it by changing his sides no kick policy for one game and winning easily.

[Oakboy]

Kicking to clear danger has always been an acceprable tactic. The groans from fans occur when Farrell, on about the 10 metre line with no opponents within 10 metres and his own team aligned comfortably, kicks the ball towards the sky hopefully. If the backs outside him don't groan as well I'd be surprised.

[Mellsblue]

As someone who has moaned about the present tactics, Warburton’s words are hardly a great revelation - it’s been said ad nauseum that NZ kick the ball more than any other team but, importantly, they can flick the switch and attack you when the opportunity presents, ie they play what’s in front of them. May’s second try, ie the intention and thought process that led to it, is an exception rather than a rule. I’m therefore not saying kick first is not a good way of winning, that I don’t understand why it’s the go to tactic or that we shouldn’t kick unless in extremis, just that it is boring to watch, even more so when you can field the 13 and back 3 Eng can, and it makes us a limited team. It’s also f**king frustrating seeing an overlap being wasted by kicking away the ball, a kick first mentality on turnover etc etc
If kicking and big d is universally believed in the game to be the key to a win, it is also an insight in to why Farrell is so highly rated by those who get paid by results.
There is some solace that Jones admits it’s limited and plans to work on attack post Lions but a) that’s a bloody long time away, b) it’s Jones so I’m not sure I completely believe him and c) I wonder how far up the list of the thought process at 9, 10 & 12 it will ever be.
I wonder how good a player George Ford would be by now if he weren’t in a shite club team and England had based their game around his passing and game management skills. What could’ve been....

[p/d]

I wonder how good a player George Ford would be by now if he weren’t in a shite club team and England had based their game around his passing and game management skills. What could’ve been....

[Mellsblue]

I wonder how good a player George Ford would be by now if he weren’t in a shite club team and England had based their game around his passing and game management skills. What could’ve been....

Yep. Probably underplayed how bad the presently are.