RugbyRebels

John Mitchell being rumoured to have a shot at an England defensive coach role. Full circle. Back to blighty, do the defensive thing, then move into Jones' warm bed when he gets turfed out for RWC performance.

Wouldn't his feet more than stick out a bit?

morepork wrote:John Mitchell being rumoured to have a shot at an England defensive coach role. Full circle. Back to blighty, do the defensive thing, then move into Jones' warm bed when he gets turfed out for RWC performance.

I tell you what Jones and Mitchell would be a meeting of two boof heads. Love to be a fly on the wall if they had a heated discussion!

Doorzetbornandbred wrote:

morepork wrote:John Mitchell being rumoured to have a shot at an England defensive coach role. Full circle. Back to blighty, do the defensive thing, then move into Jones' warm bed when he gets turfed out for RWC performance.

I tell you what Jones and Mitchell would be a meeting of two boof heads. Love to be a fly on the wall if they had a heated discussion!

Mitchell's "journey" versus the unilateral wisdom of the ewoks.

Is Mitchell capable of changing much?

Let's face it, judging by the training squad selection and Jones's emphasis on cap numbers, we will see a starting XV of: Marler/Mako, Hartley, Cole, Launchbury, Itoje, Robshaw, Haskell, Billy, Youngs, Ford, May, Farrell, JJ, Daly, Watson/Brown. I can't see him tightening that lot up a great deal.

Oakboy wrote:Is Mitchell capable of changing much?

Let's face it, judging by the training squad selection and Jones's emphasis on cap numbers, we will see a starting XV of: Marler/Mako, Hartley, Cole, Launchbury, Itoje, Robshaw, Haskell, Billy, Youngs, Ford, May, Farrell, JJ, Daly, Watson/Brown. I can't see him tightening that lot up a great deal.

Aren't you the guy always going on about how Jones isn't getting the best out of the players?

In which case, surely Mitchell wouldn't have to change selection all that much?

Peat wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Is Mitchell capable of changing much?

Let's face it, judging by the training squad selection and Jones's emphasis on cap numbers, we will see a starting XV of: Marler/Mako, Hartley, Cole, Launchbury, Itoje, Robshaw, Haskell, Billy, Youngs, Ford, May, Farrell, JJ, Daly, Watson/Brown. I can't see him tightening that lot up a great deal.

Aren't you the guy always going on about how Jones isn't getting the best out of the players?

In which case, surely Mitchell wouldn't have to change selection all that much?

You are backing Jones's selection then? I don't think the vulnerability of the three undroppables at 9, 10, 12 can be sorted. IMO, all the other either/or selections are marginal but the on-field managing core-trio is the big issue. How does Mitchell make them a defensive positive all of a sudden?

I am not a Farrell fan but I can almost feel sorry for him being labelled a defensive liability. At 10 he is no such thing but at 12 he is with Ford inside him.

Oakboy wrote:

Peat wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Is Mitchell capable of changing much?

Let's face it, judging by the training squad selection and Jones's emphasis on cap numbers, we will see a starting XV of: Marler/Mako, Hartley, Cole, Launchbury, Itoje, Robshaw, Haskell, Billy, Youngs, Ford, May, Farrell, JJ, Daly, Watson/Brown. I can't see him tightening that lot up a great deal.

Aren't you the guy always going on about how Jones isn't getting the best out of the players?

In which case, surely Mitchell wouldn't have to change selection all that much?

You are backing Jones's selection then? I don't think the vulnerability of the three undroppables at 9, 10, 12 can be sorted. IMO, all the other either/or selections are marginal but the on-field managing core-trio is the big issue. How does Mitchell make them a defensive positive all of a sudden?

I am not a Farrell fan but I can almost feel sorry for him being labelled a defensive liability. At 10 he is no such thing but at 12 he is with Ford inside him.

Teach Fazlet to a) trust Ford (who does make his tackles, even if they're not dominant) and stop stepping in, b) stop trying to have dick-measurig contests with high tackles on big runners and instead go low with decent technique, c) run out of the line only when he's either definitely going to get the ball or when his other defenders are going with him.

He still has problems b and c at 10 and a is entirely his own fault/the defence coach's fault for not making him stop.

Puja

Oakboy wrote:

Peat wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Is Mitchell capable of changing much?

Let's face it, judging by the training squad selection and Jones's emphasis on cap numbers, we will see a starting XV of: Marler/Mako, Hartley, Cole, Launchbury, Itoje, Robshaw, Haskell, Billy, Youngs, Ford, May, Farrell, JJ, Daly, Watson/Brown. I can't see him tightening that lot up a great deal.

Aren't you the guy always going on about how Jones isn't getting the best out of the players?

In which case, surely Mitchell wouldn't have to change selection all that much?

You are backing Jones's selection then? I don't think the vulnerability of the three undroppables at 9, 10, 12 can be sorted. IMO, all the other either/or selections are marginal but the on-field managing core-trio is the big issue. How does Mitchell make them a defensive positive all of a sudden?

I am not a Farrell fan but I can almost feel sorry for him being labelled a defensive liability. At 10 he is no such thing but at 12 he is with Ford inside him.

I am asking whether you believe Jones is failing to get the best out of the players. You normally say yes, but this time your post reads like no.

For what its worth though - I think Jones is more or less right with his selection to date. There's a few ways you can mix that up (and I think Haskell has lost his place now) but the team more or less picks itself and where it doesn't, its marginal as you say.

The big difference would be replacing 12 with someone else... but that requires a good option to stay fit.

Peat wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Peat wrote:
Aren't you the guy always going on about how Jones isn't getting the best out of the players?

In which case, surely Mitchell wouldn't have to change selection all that much?

You are backing Jones's selection then? I don't think the vulnerability of the three undroppables at 9, 10, 12 can be sorted. IMO, all the other either/or selections are marginal but the on-field managing core-trio is the big issue. How does Mitchell make them a defensive positive all of a sudden?

I am not a Farrell fan but I can almost feel sorry for him being labelled a defensive liability. At 10 he is no such thing but at 12 he is with Ford inside him.

I am asking whether you believe Jones is failing to get the best out of the players. You normally say yes, but this time your post reads like no.

For what its worth though - I think Jones is more or less right with his selection to date. There's a few ways you can mix that up (and I think Haskell has lost his place now) but the team more or less picks itself and where it doesn't, its marginal as you say.

The big difference would be replacing 12 with someone else... but that requires a good option to stay fit.

No, I do not think Jones has got the best out of his players individually or as a unit since two thirds of the way through the winning streak. Mitchell would presumably be set the task of tightening the defence to the extent that tight games would be won rather than lost. I am just resigning myself to no Cipriani, a stodge-laden back row and the three undroppables.

If we accept that we are stuck with Youngs at 9, you are right that 12 becomes the big issue. Maybe, Mitchell could influence selection by demanding the best defensive 12 to go with the best defensive 13, JJ. The interesting part about that is that it might as a consequence regenerate JJ's attacking influence - lost, to an extent, in the current defensive process. Mind you, who is the best defensive 12? I have a horrible feeling that the management would say Farrell.

Barritt is surely the best defensive centre

Yeah, what's happened to the imported 12s? Used to be that we'd have bucketloads of Kiwi and Saffa centres. Now they're all blindsides...

Oakboy wrote:

Peat wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
You are backing Jones's selection then? I don't think the vulnerability of the three undroppables at 9, 10, 12 can be sorted. IMO, all the other either/or selections are marginal but the on-field managing core-trio is the big issue. How does Mitchell make them a defensive positive all of a sudden?

I am not a Farrell fan but I can almost feel sorry for him being labelled a defensive liability. At 10 he is no such thing but at 12 he is with Ford inside him.

I am asking whether you believe Jones is failing to get the best out of the players. You normally say yes, but this time your post reads like no.

For what its worth though - I think Jones is more or less right with his selection to date. There's a few ways you can mix that up (and I think Haskell has lost his place now) but the team more or less picks itself and where it doesn't, its marginal as you say.

The big difference would be replacing 12 with someone else... but that requires a good option to stay fit.

No, I do not think Jones has got the best out of his players individually or as a unit since two thirds of the way through the winning streak. Mitchell would presumably be set the task of tightening the defence to the extent that tight games would be won rather than lost. I am just resigning myself to no Cipriani, a stodge-laden back row and the three undroppables.

If we accept that we are stuck with Youngs at 9, you are right that 12 becomes the big issue. Maybe, Mitchell could influence selection by demanding the best defensive 12 to go with the best defensive 13, JJ. The interesting part about that is that it might as a consequence regenerate JJ's attacking influence - lost, to an extent, in the current defensive process. Mind you, who is the best defensive 12? I have a horrible feeling that the management would say Farrell.

Then if he hasn't got the best out of the players, does it matter all that much if Mitchell doesn't really have the horses to change selection all that much? I mean, as you note, there used to be a winning streak, and we did have a good enough defence to win tight games rather than lose them. So surely the personnel can do it?

Also Joseph's attacking influence will not be restored by a better defensive 12 besides his, but by having more runners in the team who can open up time and space for the guys out wide.

edit: Also, again, pretty sure Hask is no longer in Jones' first choice XV.

Digby wrote:Barritt is surely the best defensive centre

He showed his limitations at international level but you could make a case for him in the current set-up, especially with Farrell at 10. It would not be my favourite style of rugby but at this stage effectiveness and results matter above all. That is what Jones has done, IMO - reduce creativity potential to the extent that tighter defence is the only substantial improvement there is time for. It undervalues our performance peak of course.

Peat wrote:
Then if he hasn't got the best out of the players, does it matter all that much if Mitchell doesn't really have the horses to change selection all that much? I mean, as you note, there used to be a winning streak, and we did have a good enough defence to win tight games rather than lose them. So surely the personnel can do it?

Also Joseph's attacking influence will not be restored by a better defensive 12 besides his, but by having more runners in the team who can open up time and space for the guys out wide.

edit: Also, again, pretty sure Hask is no longer in Jones' first choice XV.

I think Joseph has spent too much time covering bad defence inside him resulting in him not being where he wanted to be for his attacking options. Also, slow ball via Farrell when JJ has tried to attack left him with no space. I just hope he is not demoralised.

As for your 1st paragraph, I think you are right theoretically. What matters, though, is that neither Ford nor JJ are playing near their potential. Lately, we have been in touch in games because of the quality of the back three in attack. There might be enough to work on if we stop conceding I suppose.

Oakboy wrote:

Digby wrote:Barritt is surely the best defensive centre

He showed his limitations at international level but you could make a case for him in the current set-up, especially with Farrell at 10. It would not be my favourite style of rugby but at this stage effectiveness and results matter above all. That is what Jones has done, IMO - reduce creativity potential to the extent that tighter defence is the only substantial improvement there is time for. It undervalues our performance peak of course.

I wouldn't make a case for the inclusion of Barritt, but he is the best defender in the centres

I can see the appeal of Barritt in at 12 to shore up the defence, and he’s familiar with Farrell at 10, but that doesn’t make it a good move. We could be up one step closer to Lancaster’s 10. Farrell 11. Brown 12. Barritt trio of awesomeness. At this rate.

Maybe Shields can shift to 12 to allow Rhodes in the backrow. He’s a great defender.

Oakboy wrote:

Peat wrote:
Then if he hasn't got the best out of the players, does it matter all that much if Mitchell doesn't really have the horses to change selection all that much? I mean, as you note, there used to be a winning streak, and we did have a good enough defence to win tight games rather than lose them. So surely the personnel can do it?

Also Joseph's attacking influence will not be restored by a better defensive 12 besides his, but by having more runners in the team who can open up time and space for the guys out wide.

edit: Also, again, pretty sure Hask is no longer in Jones' first choice XV.

I think Joseph has spent too much time covering bad defence inside him resulting in him not being where he wanted to be for his attacking options. Also, slow ball via Farrell when JJ has tried to attack left him with no space. I just hope he is not demoralised.

As for your 1st paragraph, I think you are right theoretically. What matters, though, is that neither Ford nor JJ are playing near their potential. Lately, we have been in touch in games because of the quality of the back three in attack. There might be enough to work on if we stop conceding I suppose.

Joseph being out of position for attack due to defence is only going to be an issue on immediate turnover ball from open play and I don't think there's been a huge amount for this. I'd agree that Farrell has done Joseph no favours in attack - but not because of his defence.

This went downhill fast. Can't we just get [redacted] back?

That's like hoping onto a ski jump slope to escape the downhill course

What a depressing wee fred.

You've arrived merely at a bad time, normally the prevailing sense would imbue a certain joie de vivre

morepork wrote:What a depressing wee fred.

Does your knowledge of Jones's past lead you to recommend that we be upbeat?

Hell no. He is as predictable as a porno script.

morepork wrote:Hell no. He is as predictable as a porno script.

Bloody hell. So it's all an act with no real climax.