England going forward

[Oakboy]

Did we play up to our potential today? NO. Is it anything to do with coaching and captaincy? How can it not be?

So, by definition, today, coach and captain failed. We lost. Fact.

In the inquest, what is the main question? Are we wonderful for getting to the final? Or, did we underperform in losing?

I suggest that the fact that we lost, in itself, is not the be all and end all. Had we lost narrowly to a better side and played well we might be able to praise the management/leadership hierarchy and move on. Jolly good show etc.

But, we did not turn up. We lost badly. The same regime will not necessarily do better next time so we need to change it.

You sort of follow a train of logic for the first few paragraphs- a logic that I don’t particularly agree with, but at least it follows on in a reasonable fashion.

Your last sentence makes no sense though, unless you know of a coaching team that’s guaranteed to win a World Cup final?

But, Jones has presided over a team not turning up for a crunch match more than once and he has now stated that he does not know why the team played so badly this time. I certainly know of no coaching team guaranteed ro win a RWC final but I'd hope we could find one that would inspire a team to give of its best on a big occasion.

If nothing else is certain, surely the players must now have doubts about Jones & Co. There was a marginal improvement in performance in the second half to begin with but that's it. That's all he could do. I just don't see how the best way forward is more of the same. If it was just freezing for this one game I might not be so much in favour of change.

[Oakboy]

As regards the captaincy, I'd like a player who is guaranteed his shirt. I'd prefer a forward to a back and I'd not want the captain to be the main goal kicker.

[Mellsblue]

Questioning Farrell's captaincy is fair enough, though its not the reason we lost. Although he isnt one of our better players, i do feel he has a positive effect on those around him. He does lead by example in that he is a true competitor and wont back down from a challenge. Thats not to be dismissed lightly.
My view is that outstanding captains are extremely rare and are usually players who inspire team mates by their actions. Does Farrell do that? I think he may do, but its not altogether obvious and we wouldnt really know what goes on in camp. I sense that he is respected by fellow players and is obviously favoured by coaches.
He isnt going to retire or get dropped, so having him as captain isnt really a live issue.
For me we have other more pressing issues to deal with involving who plays at 9,12,15 and settling on an ideal balance in the back row.

I don't know.

So many commentators and coaches like to compare it to military leadership. And that gets it all wrong for me.

In my opinion, a captain should have the ability (both given by the coach and his own ability) to alter the gameplan during play. Either because the opposition have nullified you or because something isn't working.

Farrell (just like Hartley before) seem unable to do this.

Mainly this is because Jones doesn't create leaders because he cannot have his leadership challenged.

Farrell has previously shown the ability to be a beacon and to lead. BUT he has disappeared in big games several times now, when the pressure comes on.

Someone like Mark Wilson is always there, constantly leading from the front, whether we're 100 points up or 100 down.

Robshaw led from the front but lacked that pure focused aggression.

I want my captain to both be someone who leads by example AND makes good decisions under pressure.

And, more importantly, I want my team to have the ability to adapt. To screw the coach and change on the fly.

If I had to pick a captain who lacked the 1st or lacked the 2nd, I'd pick a cool head over bombast every time. He can lean on VCs for that.

Which is why I would be very tempted by Ford as captain.

He sees the whole pitch in front of him, he has the ability to recognise threats and attempt to change the gameplan. And he can speak to the ref. Then lean on others as VCs - George, Itoje and Farrell all have experience here.

I don’t see Ford as the answer. He looks just as fazed under the cosh as Farrell does. I also think the flyhalf has enough to cope with without the extra pressure of captaining the side.

[Scrumhead]

As regards the captaincy, I'd like a player who is guaranteed his shirt. I'd prefer a forward to a back and I'd not want the captain to be the main goal kicker.

OK then, who? Itoje? George?

I’m not a particular fan of Eddie’s, but the crunch games he’s been in charge for have been Grand Slam deciders and knock-out games in the RWC. We may have come up short, but you seem to be overlooking the fact that you need to win all of the other games to get to that point.

He’s definitely made mistakes and I’m not sure he’s had us performing to our maximum apart from the odd game. BUT, when it comes down to it, it’s the same question, who would have done a better job?

The players are the ones on the field and they bottled it. It’s not new for English sport. I think we have a overriding psychological weakness that’s hard to overcome. We’re sporting bridesmaids and in most cases lack the killer instinct to finish the job.

[Scrumhead]

Questioning Farrell's captaincy is fair enough, though its not the reason we lost. Although he isnt one of our better players, i do feel he has a positive effect on those around him. He does lead by example in that he is a true competitor and wont back down from a challenge. Thats not to be dismissed lightly.
My view is that outstanding captains are extremely rare and are usually players who inspire team mates by their actions. Does Farrell do that? I think he may do, but its not altogether obvious and we wouldnt really know what goes on in camp. I sense that he is respected by fellow players and is obviously favoured by coaches.
He isnt going to retire or get dropped, so having him as captain isnt really a live issue.
For me we have other more pressing issues to deal with involving who plays at 9,12,15 and settling on an ideal balance in the back row.

I don't know.

So many commentators and coaches like to compare it to military leadership. And that gets it all wrong for me.

In my opinion, a captain should have the ability (both given by the coach and his own ability) to alter the gameplan during play. Either because the opposition have nullified you or because something isn't working.

Farrell (just like Hartley before) seem unable to do this.

Mainly this is because Jones doesn't create leaders because he cannot have his leadership challenged.

Farrell has previously shown the ability to be a beacon and to lead. BUT he has disappeared in big games several times now, when the pressure comes on.

Someone like Mark Wilson is always there, constantly leading from the front, whether we're 100 points up or 100 down.

Robshaw led from the front but lacked that pure focused aggression.

I want my captain to both be someone who leads by example AND makes good decisions under pressure.

And, more importantly, I want my team to have the ability to adapt. To screw the coach and change on the fly.

If I had to pick a captain who lacked the 1st or lacked the 2nd, I'd pick a cool head over bombast every time. He can lean on VCs for that.

Which is why I would be very tempted by Ford as captain.

He sees the whole pitch in front of him, he has the ability to recognise threats and attempt to change the gameplan. And he can speak to the ref. Then lean on others as VCs - George, Itoje and Farrell all have experience here.

I agree with most of this.

Wilson is a proper captain. Unfortunately, he’s a little long in the tooth to be a serious contender and he’s got a huge fight on his hand to stay in the picture with the Curry and Underhill combination preferred and a plethora of superb young options like Willis and Hill snapping at his heels.

On paper, Jamie George would be my choice, but I don’t see enough obvious on-field leadership from him. Itoje leads by example, but I don’t know if that’s enough?

[Oakboy]

As regards the captaincy, I'd like a player who is guaranteed his shirt. I'd prefer a forward to a back and I'd not want the captain to be the main goal kicker.

OK then, who? Itoje? George?

I’m not a particular fan of Eddie’s, but the crunch games he’s been in charge for have been Grand Slam deciders and knock-out games in the RWC. We may have come up short, but you seem to be overlooking the fact that you need to win all of the other games to get to that point.

He’s definitely made mistakes and I’m not sure he’s had us performing to our maximum apart from the odd game. BUT, when it comes down to it, it’s the same question, who would have done a better job?

The players are the ones on the field and they bottled it. It’s not new for English sport. I think we have a overriding psychological weakness that’s hard to overcome. We’re sporting bridesmaids and in most cases lack the killer instinct to finish the job.

I'd definitely choose Itoje. He's the one I'd want talking to the other players - at close quarters at lineout, scrum, maul and ruck; whilst a place kick is being taken; when defending near our own line.

I was never in favour of a foreign head coach and I've always seen Jones as a bit of a runner-up.

[Scrumhead]

OK - so if you’re not looking at a foreign head coach, who would you want? We don’t have anyone who is anywhere close to being up to it ATM.

Baxter and Gustard are probably about the best we have, but neither is ready for the England job.

If we’re looking domestically, McCall is the best candidate by some distance IMO but he’s not English and apparently has no interest in coaching test rugby.

[Oakboy]

OK - so if you’re not looking at a foreign head coach, who would you want? We don’t have anyone who is anywhere close to being up to it ATM.

Baxter and Gustard are probably about the best we have, but neither is ready for the England job.

If we’re looking domestically, McCall is the best candidate by some distance IMO but he’s not English and apparently has no interest in coaching test rugby.

I'd be happy with Baxter/Sanderson but it's an impossible question for a mere fan to answer. Offer me £250,000 to set up the job description, conduct the background research and preside over the interview panel and I'll give you a definite answer.

[Scrumhead]

Do you want to see England playing like Exeter?

Their style of play is effective to a point, but it hasn’t really worked in Europe and isn’t what I’d want to see from an England team.

[Oakboy]

Do you want to see England playing like Exeter?

Their style of play is effective to a point, but it hasn’t really worked in Europe and isn’t what I’d want to see from an England team.

Not necessarily but some aspects - ball retention especially - are worth having. I happen to think that Baxter is too intelligent to only have a single play method. It happens to suit Exeter's set-up at present. It's also why I'd want Sanderson. Based purely on listening to the guy, I think he can inspire in lots of different directions. Plus, it gives you the best of our two top clubs - theoretically, anyway. Can't think of the English backs coach's name who they were talking about on BT yesterday - used to play FH? He'd add to the mix.

[p/d]

Questioning Farrell's captaincy is fair enough, though its not the reason we lost. Although he isnt one of our better players, i do feel he has a positive effect on those around him. He does lead by example in that he is a true competitor and wont back down from a challenge. Thats not to be dismissed lightly.
My view is that outstanding captains are extremely rare and are usually players who inspire team mates by their actions. Does Farrell do that? I think he may do, but its not altogether obvious and we wouldnt really know what goes on in camp. I sense that he is respected by fellow players and is obviously favoured by coaches.
He isnt going to retire or get dropped, so having him as captain isnt really a live issue.
For me we have other more pressing issues to deal with involving who plays at 9,12,15 and settling on an ideal balance in the back row.

I don't know.

So many commentators and coaches like to compare it to military leadership. And that gets it all wrong for me.

In my opinion, a captain should have the ability (both given by the coach and his own ability) to alter the gameplan during play. Either because the opposition have nullified you or because something isn't working.

Farrell (just like Hartley before) seem unable to do this.

Mainly this is because Jones doesn't create leaders because he cannot have his leadership challenged.

Farrell has previously shown the ability to be a beacon and to lead. BUT he has disappeared in big games several times now, when the pressure comes on.

Someone like Mark Wilson is always there, constantly leading from the front, whether we're 100 points up or 100 down.

Robshaw led from the front but lacked that pure focused aggression.

I want my captain to both be someone who leads by example AND makes good decisions under pressure.

And, more importantly, I want my team to have the ability to adapt. To screw the coach and change on the fly.

If I had to pick a captain who lacked the 1st or lacked the 2nd, I'd pick a cool head over bombast every time. He can lean on VCs for that.

Which is why I would be very tempted by Ford as captain.

He sees the whole pitch in front of him, he has the ability to recognise threats and attempt to change the gameplan. And he can speak to the ref. Then lean on others as VCs - George, Itoje and Farrell all have experience here.

Right on the money Stom. Especially about Wilson.

[Digby]

We're 8 days away from an England performance that either is the best England performance ever or at the very least in the discussion for best England performance. We've got a lot of good players and potential to improve, and the squad looks together having just put together the best WC campaign for 16 years.

The changes needed to swing the momentum/emotion around from what happened yesterday aren't actually that big.

And lastly where we are now as a position to move forwards from is the best I've ever known coming out of any WC campaign, what we do with that we'll have to wait and see, but I haven't been this positive about England rugby for a long time, and I'm a grumpy old man without doubt

Also some good things have even happened this weekend, I've finished raking the lawns, the Christmas puddings are cooking now, and I'll be having some nice food later and a few glasses of wine, it's not a bad lot all in all.

[francoisfou]

Ford is my choice if captain, post Eddie who can’t see further than you know who,with Itoje as vice captain. Two players who are more than worthy of their place over the next few years.

[SixAndAHalf]

The lack of leadership was evident in the key moments just before half time which meant we went in trailing by 6 points rather than 3 (in the grand scheme of things it probably would not have made any difference). We had the kick off and should have at worst have been aiming to pin them back so they had to kick it out for half time with an upside of getting a score if they made an error. Instead we overcommitted to a ruck in desperation which allowed them to spread it wide and break out of their 22.

I think this is a key area where the current side flounders in comparison to 2003. The problem is we don't have many players captaining their clubs and getting that important experience. How many of the side have captained their club in a club final or knockout game? Perhaps sarries being forced to fit under the cap would help as Mako, George, Itoje, Billy and Farrell all demonstrate leadership potential.

I imagine Eddie will continue with Farrell but I agree with those above that it is not ideal to have your goalkicker as captain as you lose vital moments to give key messages. I also don't think Farrell should be an automatic first choice which the captain ideally would be. Whomever is our captain for the next cycle I would like them to be the Lions captain in 2021 to get those vital reps in (there should be an opportunity assuming AWJ does not tour).

[Epaminondas Pules]

We're 8 days away from an England performance that either is the best England performance ever or at the very least in the discussion for best England performance. We've got a lot of good players and potential to improve, and the squad looks together having just put together the best WC campaign for 16 years.

The changes needed to swing the momentum/emotion around from what happened yesterday aren't actually that big.

And lastly where we are now as a position to move forwards from is the best I've ever known coming out of any WC campaign, what we do with that we'll have to wait and see, but I haven't been this positive about England rugby for a long time, and I'm a grumpy old man without doubt

Also some good things have even happened this weekend, I've finished raking the lawns, the Christmas puddings are cooking now, and I'll be having some nice food later and a few glasses of wine, it's not a bad lot all in all.

This. Apart from I haven’t raked the lawn and desperately need to. We failed at the final hurdle but have shown some big positives along the way. Add in to that the competition for places that’s building, albeit less so in some areas, and we’re in a bloody good shape going forwards. We don’t need major change. We need to build on some bloody solid foundations and the pain of yesterday.

[Sandydragon]

I think you need to make a call on who is fly half. I’m not convinced by Farrell at IC. Even if you start with Farrell and bring on Ford it would possibly work better.

[SixAndAHalf]

I think you need to make a call on who is fly half. I’m not convinced by Farrell at IC. Even if you start with Farrell and bring on Ford it would possibly work better.

I'm not convinced Farrell's strongest attributes (goalkicking, scramble defence and mentality) are best suited to playing 10. It works for Sarries (besides having a huge advantage up front) as Goode can step up and play as first receiver when Farrell is at the bottom of a ruck or out of position after a scrambling tackle. Be interesting to see whether Daly plays 15 with Goode injured (and how that works).

I think if we are to play Farrell at 10 we need to build the backline around him (with a natural playmaker at 12 or 15), whereas Ford slots in more naturally as a cog in the team. I'm not convinced Farrell is worth the adjustment.

If Farrell is to play 12 I think he needs to play there more at club level as it would enable him to work on his weaknesses. I do think he was the best 12 available for this World Cup with Slade injured and out of form.

[Banquo]

Seemed to me mostly nerves yesterday; teams like SA use big occasions to supercharge their performances and 'play for the shirt/country', but often under pressure the reverse has happened to England teams. I think there is something that needs to be worked on there; to some extent, we probably felt like underdogs v NZ, so a different sort of pressure. Then we choked and consequently got choked v SA; I'd also say the lack of leaders in the side and experience in some positions had an impact. So its quite a complex set of things that need unpicking, but all doable.

I think enough class personnel are around- in contrast to (after) the previous two or three campaigns- to see us compete regularly at the top table, with the caveat that some positions lack first up top quality and depth, but definitely not insurmountable. Some players should be looking over their shoulders a bit more as well

[Oakboy]

It is easy to forget that we had two raw flankers who could not be expected to draw on past experience when things got difficult. That, together with Billy V not at his best and a SH who gets worse with experience means crucial decision making went awry.

I would have thought that a top coach would have done more at HT, though.

[Banquo]

It is easy to forget that we had two raw flankers who could not be expected to draw on past experience when things got difficult. That, together with Billy V not at his best and a SH who gets worse with experience means crucial decision making went awry.

I would have thought that a top coach would have done more at HT, though.

such as?

[Spiffy]

Questioning Farrell's captaincy is fair enough, though its not the reason we lost. Although he isnt one of our better players, i do feel he has a positive effect on those around him. He does lead by example in that he is a true competitor and wont back down from a challenge. Thats not to be dismissed lightly.
My view is that outstanding captains are extremely rare and are usually players who inspire team mates by their actions. Does Farrell do that? I think he may do, but its not altogether obvious and we wouldnt really know what goes on in camp. I sense that he is respected by fellow players and is obviously favoured by coaches.
He isnt going to retire or get dropped, so having him as captain isnt really a live issue.
For me we have other more pressing issues to deal with involving who plays at 9,12,15 and settling on an ideal balance in the back row.

He might get dropped. But not as long as Eddie Jones is coach.
He is a decent enough 10, rather pragmatic in approach, but without the skills and flair of Ford. He still looks like a stop-gap 12, a 10 playing out of position who is not that comfortable. The problem is that no other footballing 12 comes to mind at present. Like others, I think there was an opportunity a couple of years ago to convert Slade into a 12. He has the skills, an OK defence, a bit of pace, a big left boot and a rugby brain. But he has not had an extended run at IC with club or country.
The alternative to two playmakers is to play Tuilagi at 12 as a power runner and hope he can offload some ball.

[SixAndAHalf]

It is easy to forget that we had two raw flankers who could not be expected to draw on past experience when things got difficult. That, together with Billy V not at his best and a SH who gets worse with experience means crucial decision making went awry.

I would have thought that a top coach would have done more at HT, though.

Curry and Wilson looked good in Argentina in 2017 - it's a shame Eddie wasted caps on a host of others before coming round to them in the last year or so.

If Curry had 10-15 more caps he might have had a bit more experience in handling the situation.

[Oakboy]

It is easy to forget that we had two raw flankers who could not be expected to draw on past experience when things got difficult. That, together with Billy V not at his best and a SH who gets worse with experience means crucial decision making went awry.

I would have thought that a top coach would have done more at HT, though.

such as?

It had to be some sort of inspiration to get real edge in their game. It is what he's paid for.

[p/d]

It is easy to forget that we had two raw flankers who could not be expected to draw on past experience when things got difficult. That, together with Billy V not at his best and a SH who gets worse with experience means crucial decision making went awry.

I would have thought that a top coach would have done more at HT, though.

such as?

It had to be some sort of inspiration to get real edge in their game. It is what he's paid for.

To be fair to Jones he looked as dumbstruck as those on the pitch. Not sure where he could get inspiration from, the dye was cast. Mind you pulling Underhill and not Billy, plus the May for Slade wasn’t the answer for sure.

[Banquo]

It is easy to forget that we had two raw flankers who could not be expected to draw on past experience when things got difficult. That, together with Billy V not at his best and a SH who gets worse with experience means crucial decision making went awry.

I would have thought that a top coach would have done more at HT, though.

such as?

It had to be some sort of inspiration to get real edge in their game. It is what he's paid for.

seriously?