RugbyRebels

32nd Man wrote:

twitchy wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Didn’t Jones make some statement* about not wanting to rely on Tuilagi or a big centre?

He said that england don't produce big ball carrying centres (which is true/also weird?) so he has to work around it.

Because big lads get shoved in the pack at school?

Puja wrote:

32nd Man wrote:

twitchy wrote:
He said that england don't produce big ball carrying centres (which is true/also weird?) so he has to work around it.

Because big lads get shoved in the pack at school?

I was thinking the other day that all the home nations are relying on players of PI descent (or wishing they could) at 12: Manu, Tuipulotu, Aki, Halaholo. White men can't bosh, apparently.

Puja

32nd Man wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:All this talk about Steward as a potential 12 is pointless until Eddie gives the lad a run at 9 when Youngs is injured and Randall and Quirke are available. Joking aside, I reckon Eddie would put Steward on the wing without a thought if Malins, Marchant and Daly were unavailable as he sees the back 3 as interchangeable. He thinks the same about 10, 12 and 13, plus probably thinks every centre is a winger in disguise. If that wasn't enough, he's happy to put a lock in the backrow and isn't too fussed about mixing up 6, 7 and 8.

Shit happens during a match, so playing players out of position is hardly a new phenomena, but his entire selection process depends on shoe-horning players in regardless of whether there's a better option in the position that needs to be filled.

Then there's Eddie's 'trusted' favourites like Youngs, Faz etc. You just know both will feature in the RWC regardless of options.

Face it guys, England are proper fucked with Eddie.

We do seem to have hit the 2nd to last phase of the eternal wheel of England sports team managers / head coaches.

1) previous guy gets fired for clinging too hard to favourites / theories regardless of form, fitness or performances.
2) immediate improvement from new hire as they replace said unfit / out of form favourites with fresh blood.
3) varied levels of success with new picks sees a core group of trusted players established.
4) loyalty to "the group" tickks over from a positive to a negative as favourites emerge he will get picked regardless / theory on how to use your players regardless of results sets in.
5) results and performances drop off, to be met with a bloody minded commitment to issues emerging in 4.
6) get fired, see new guy come in and have immediate improvements through moving away from favourites / theories

Rinse and repeat.

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

32nd Man wrote:
Because big lads get shoved in the pack at school?

I was thinking the other day that all the home nations are relying on players of PI descent (or wishing they could) at 12: Manu, Tuipulotu, Aki, Halaholo. White men can't bosh, apparently.

Puja

cough esterhuizen cough

Puja wrote:

32nd Man wrote:

twitchy wrote:
He said that england don't produce big ball carrying centres (which is true/also weird?) so he has to work around it.

Because big lads get shoved in the pack at school?

I was thinking the other day that all the home nations are relying on players of PI descent (or wishing they could) at 12: Manu, Tuipulotu, Aki, Halaholo. White men can't bosh, apparently.

Puja

WaspInWales wrote:England are truly blessed at the moment with available talent and depth of squad...even accounting for injuries. I'm tempted to argue that overall, we have got better squad options than 2001-2003. Anyone up for that fight?

Eddie is the only thing stopping the squad from reaching its potential.

SDHoneymonster wrote:

32nd Man wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:All this talk about Steward as a potential 12 is pointless until Eddie gives the lad a run at 9 when Youngs is injured and Randall and Quirke are available. Joking aside, I reckon Eddie would put Steward on the wing without a thought if Malins, Marchant and Daly were unavailable as he sees the back 3 as interchangeable. He thinks the same about 10, 12 and 13, plus probably thinks every centre is a winger in disguise. If that wasn't enough, he's happy to put a lock in the backrow and isn't too fussed about mixing up 6, 7 and 8.

Shit happens during a match, so playing players out of position is hardly a new phenomena, but his entire selection process depends on shoe-horning players in regardless of whether there's a better option in the position that needs to be filled.

Then there's Eddie's 'trusted' favourites like Youngs, Faz etc. You just know both will feature in the RWC regardless of options.

Face it guys, England are proper fucked with Eddie.

We do seem to have hit the 2nd to last phase of the eternal wheel of England sports team managers / head coaches.

1) previous guy gets fired for clinging too hard to favourites / theories regardless of form, fitness or performances.
2) immediate improvement from new hire as they replace said unfit / out of form favourites with fresh blood.
3) varied levels of success with new picks sees a core group of trusted players established.
4) loyalty to "the group" tickks over from a positive to a negative as favourites emerge he will get picked regardless / theory on how to use your players regardless of results sets in.
5) results and performances drop off, to be met with a bloody minded commitment to issues emerging in 4.
6) get fired, see new guy come in and have immediate improvements through moving away from favourites / theories

Rinse and repeat.

I'd argue Eddie actually didn't bring in huge amounts of fresh blood immediately. Lancaster wasn't a great head coach but he was a good selector, and Jones recognised that England's issue wasn't a lack of quality in the squad but that it was confused and underperforming. There's a reason it was only really Itoje that properly broke through in his first year in charge, and that's because he'd been left with a pretty good squad who showed they weren't performing as well as they could by immediately going and winning a grand slam.

Mr Mwenda wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:England are truly blessed at the moment with available talent and depth of squad...even accounting for injuries. I'm tempted to argue that overall, we have got better squad options than 2001-2003. Anyone up for that fight?

Eddie is the only thing stopping the squad from reaching its potential.

I don't see it myself. The 2001-3 squad was drawn from players playing at club sides dominating in Europe and continued to dominate at international level. Now most English clubs are well behind the pace and the players look less impressive than their French or Irish counterparts.

As time goes by, I'm less convinced that Jones' England as a squad are underachieving and more concerned that they peaked a few years ago.

Thoroughly hooked by the bait. Unwilling to fight much, mind.

Banquo wrote:

SDHoneymonster wrote:

32nd Man wrote:
We do seem to have hit the 2nd to last phase of the eternal wheel of England sports team managers / head coaches.

1) previous guy gets fired for clinging too hard to favourites / theories regardless of form, fitness or performances.
2) immediate improvement from new hire as they replace said unfit / out of form favourites with fresh blood.
3) varied levels of success with new picks sees a core group of trusted players established.
4) loyalty to "the group" tickks over from a positive to a negative as favourites emerge he will get picked regardless / theory on how to use your players regardless of results sets in.
5) results and performances drop off, to be met with a bloody minded commitment to issues emerging in 4.
6) get fired, see new guy come in and have immediate improvements through moving away from favourites / theories

Rinse and repeat.

I'd argue Eddie actually didn't bring in huge amounts of fresh blood immediately. Lancaster wasn't a great head coach but he was a good selector, and Jones recognised that England's issue wasn't a lack of quality in the squad but that it was confused and underperforming. There's a reason it was only really Itoje that properly broke through in his first year in charge, and that's because he'd been left with a pretty good squad who showed they weren't performing as well as they could by immediately going and winning a grand slam.

Lancaster was a good selector? Cough sam burgess cough...

Banquo wrote: Lancaster was a good selector? Cough sam burgess cough...

p/d wrote:

Banquo wrote: Lancaster was a good selector? Cough sam burgess cough...

You think he had a choice?

WaspInWales wrote:

Mr Mwenda wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:England are truly blessed at the moment with available talent and depth of squad...even accounting for injuries. I'm tempted to argue that overall, we have got better squad options than 2001-2003. Anyone up for that fight?

Eddie is the only thing stopping the squad from reaching its potential.

I don't see it myself. The 2001-3 squad was drawn from players playing at club sides dominating in Europe and continued to dominate at international level. Now most English clubs are well behind the pace and the players look less impressive than their French or Irish counterparts.

As time goes by, I'm less convinced that Jones' England as a squad are underachieving and more concerned that they peaked a few years ago.

Thoroughly hooked by the bait. Unwilling to fight much, mind.

Yes but look at the options England have now in the backrow. Beyond our first choices back then and maybe some seconds...most of which were outstanding, we didn't have the depth we have now imo.

Backrow was just one example, I think we have some superb options for just about every position atm.

Sent from my SM-N986B using Tapatalk

Danno wrote:

Banquo wrote:

SDHoneymonster wrote:
I'd argue Eddie actually didn't bring in huge amounts of fresh blood immediately. Lancaster wasn't a great head coach but he was a good selector, and Jones recognised that England's issue wasn't a lack of quality in the squad but that it was confused and underperforming. There's a reason it was only really Itoje that properly broke through in his first year in charge, and that's because he'd been left with a pretty good squad who showed they weren't performing as well as they could by immediately going and winning a grand slam.

Lancaster was a good selector? Cough sam burgess cough...

At least some of that was down to desperately trying to find anything roughly 12-shaped to fit the shirt

Mr Mwenda wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:

Mr Mwenda wrote:
I don't see it myself. The 2001-3 squad was drawn from players playing at club sides dominating in Europe and continued to dominate at international level. Now most English clubs are well behind the pace and the players look less impressive than their French or Irish counterparts.

As time goes by, I'm less convinced that Jones' England as a squad are underachieving and more concerned that they peaked a few years ago.

Thoroughly hooked by the bait. Unwilling to fight much, mind.

Yes but look at the options England have now in the backrow. Beyond our first choices back then and maybe some seconds...most of which were outstanding, we didn't have the depth we have now imo.

Backrow was just one example, I think we have some superb options for just about every position atm.

Sent from my SM-N986B using Tapatalk

Well, I hope you're right. My glass is half empty, including regarding back row. 2003 Backrows were Back, Dallagio, Hill, Moody, Worsley and Corry from memory. I'd rate that above our current lot (who aren't the worst they've been by any stretch).

FKAS wrote:

Danno wrote:

Banquo wrote: Lancaster was a good selector? Cough sam burgess cough...

At least some of that was down to desperately trying to find anything roughly 12-shaped to fit the shirt

Brad Barritt was in his prime at that point. Not a player for the games but of you wanted a 12 to get the job done he was it. The 12 channel was closed for business with him defending it and he'd carry and tackle all day for the team. Ant Allen and Twelvetrees also in their prime. Don't think he was stuck for options.

Lancaster is the type of DOR you want if you've got someone like Cockers as head coach. Burt was all about the ethos and leadership meetings if you listen to pros at the time. Sounded like he needed a bit more fire in that set up.

Eddie transformed the England side. He's been a great coach but post the last world cup it's not been great. He's immeasurably better than Lancaster.

Mr Mwenda wrote:Well, I hope you're right. My glass is half empty, including regarding back row. 2003 Backrows were Back, Dallagio, Hill, Moody, Worsley and Corry from memory. I'd rate that above our current lot (who aren't the worst they've been by any stretch).

WaspInWales wrote:

Mr Mwenda wrote:Well, I hope you're right. My glass is half empty, including regarding back row. 2003 Backrows were Back, Dallagio, Hill, Moody, Worsley and Corry from memory. I'd rate that above our current lot (who aren't the worst they've been by any stretch).

Don't get me wrong, my glass is completely empty when it comes to England's prospects. However, that is down to Eddie running the show and not for the lack of talent available.

Jones has continually ignored far better alternatives that he has had available.

Woodentop had to leave out some good players at times, but under Jones, they wouldn't even get a chance as he'd much rather play a few players out of position rather than give someone else a chance to claim the shirt.

Banquo wrote:Who and what positions? Genuinely don't know who has been 'overlooked'? He seems to have had almost everyone good in the camp, and discarded a fair few, so interested to know what's been missed?

Banquo wrote:

FKAS wrote:

Danno wrote: At least some of that was down to desperately trying to find anything roughly 12-shaped to fit the shirt

Brad Barritt was in his prime at that point. Not a player for the games but of you wanted a 12 to get the job done he was it. The 12 channel was closed for business with him defending it and he'd carry and tackle all day for the team. Ant Allen and Twelvetrees also in their prime. Don't think he was stuck for options.

Lancaster is the type of DOR you want if you've got someone like Cockers as head coach. Burt was all about the ethos and leadership meetings if you listen to pros at the time. Sounded like he needed a bit more fire in that set up.

Eddie transformed the England side. He's been a great coach but post the last world cup it's not been great. He's immeasurably better than Lancaster.

quite ( always a fan of Allen, bit less of hit and miss Billy at 12) and quite and quite; though I do have a big issue with the backs under Eddie.

WaspInWales wrote:

Banquo wrote:Who and what positions? Genuinely don't know who has been 'overlooked'? He seems to have had almost everyone good in the camp, and discarded a fair few, so interested to know what's been missed?

I'm not referring to the current squad as such, although I've no idea why Radwan hasn't made an appearance as yet. I'm on about over his tenure as a whole. Both Simmonds and Dombrandt could have been blooded earlier. Could Curry have more caps by now too? Same with Smith, Randall, Quirke. How the fuck has Ben Youngs managed to get over 100 caps and is still likely to feature in the world cup when he has had Robson, Randall and Quirke available for much of the last few seasons? Same could be asked about quite a few other players Jones has persisted with.

Did SCW persist with truly awful players for so long?

I'm not suggesting the current generation are better players man for man than the ones leading up to and including the RWC, but I do think Eddie has missed quite a few chances to generate real competition for places. He has had so many options.

Scrumhead wrote:Exactly, I don’t like a lot of Eddie’s selections and he often frustrates the hell out of me … but, @WaspInWales, it’s just not factually accurate to say players don’t ‘even get a chance’. I can’t be bothered to dig out he actual numbers, but IIRC, he’s capped more new players than any other England coach in history.

I’d have liked to have seen a few players get recognised sooner or be given more game time, but there aren’t too many uncapped players that are genuinely deserving of being there IMO. The likes of OHC and Barbeary will be capped soon enough, but I don’t actually believe they’re clearly and obviously better than players picked ahead of them.