We need to talk about Eddie...

[Banquo]

Jones has earned the right to be judged by results. The fact is that results indicate failure currently.

? every coach esp international, is judged by results.

But, whenever criticism of performance, style, gameplan or whatever has come up in the last 5 years the defence of Jones has always been 'judge on results'. My point is that there is nothing else in mitigation. Losing that badly to Scotland and Wales ranks way down in any reasonable expectation measure.

agreed. He needs to fix it, along with the players who let themselves down.

[Which Tyler]

along with the players who let themselves down.

You mean you're not angry, just... disappointed?


Sorry dad

[Banquo]

along with the players who let themselves down.

You mean you're not angry, just... disappointed?


Sorry dad

watevs. If they don't take personal responsibility, then goose cooked. I'd say.

[Which Tyler]

watevs.

Oh gods, he's trying to be "down with the kids" now...

[Banquo]

watevs.

Oh gods, he's trying to be "down with the kids" now...

the shame.

[Oakboy]

? every coach esp international, is judged by results.

But, whenever criticism of performance, style, gameplan or whatever has come up in the last 5 years the defence of Jones has always been 'judge on results'. My point is that there is nothing else in mitigation. Losing that badly to Scotland and Wales ranks way down in any reasonable expectation measure.

agreed. He needs to fix it, along with the players who let themselves down.

The big question is, "Can Jones fix it?"

[Banquo]

But, whenever criticism of performance, style, gameplan or whatever has come up in the last 5 years the defence of Jones has always been 'judge on results'. My point is that there is nothing else in mitigation. Losing that badly to Scotland and Wales ranks way down in any reasonable expectation measure.

agreed. He needs to fix it, along with the players who let themselves down.

The big question is, "Can Jones fix it?"

'yes he can' ....down with the toddlers now

[Digby]

Can Eddie make any major changes to the squad mid-way through the 6N or is he just restricted to replacing injured/unavailable players?

I can't see much changing if he could anyway. He is so stuck in his ways and I can't imagine him admitting to being wrong about selecting the Sarries players over match-fit premiership players who are in good nick.

Also, how many test matches until the RWC starts? It doesn't seem likely we'll see a rash of new blood getting selected. I can imagine the squad including 2 or 3 new players but nothing drastic which is to be expected but this 6N was a massive missed opportunity for new players and it could have put serious pressure on the players who keep getting selected on reputation.

Injuries only; and even then he's limited to the shadow squad if at all possible - all to do with Covid bubbles.

I doubt that he'd make any major changes anyway; it's terrible for morale and cohesion to do that mid-tournament. Fans speculate that he's lost the dressing room as it is, absent any evidence whatsoever - but if you really want to see that happen, start dropping your leaders, or several players mid-tournament.

Yep, to me its pretty clear that the 'in' players love Eddie; that maybe smacks of clique, but twas ever thus especially in successful sides (?). You've got to prove yourself in the training environment, which is very like a 'club' thing. Eddie has run the rule over almost everyone the board would suggest deserves a look, and pretty much does it sooner rather than later.....and if he doesn't like something, you are gone, and likely never return.

That paints quite a stark picture, but Eddie runs a tough school. That said. its incredible that he's allowed the discipline issue to reappear. And I think he should trust the guys more on the park and aspire to fully use the talent, even within the 'in' crowd. I do think that Faz is a key blocker and voice in this, but that's more my bias than anything grounded in reality

In essence either Eddie has (for now) lost the changing room because they're just not listening to him on the discipline front, or he's complicit in the decision to give away so many pens. The players who're being picked will tend to like him, the players not being picked will not. You can get to a situation where players will dislike you even if you're picking them owing to confusion around tactics and poor results, it's very hard to get players to like you if you're not picking them even if all else is amazing

Neither of those positions for Eddie is tenable. For myself I hope Eddie does come through this as he's an excellent coach, and I hope he opens up English rugby more as I originally hoped he would to play at pace. I don't know I've much confidence in either of those things happening, but they certainly could.

[Banquo]

Injuries only; and even then he's limited to the shadow squad if at all possible - all to do with Covid bubbles.

I doubt that he'd make any major changes anyway; it's terrible for morale and cohesion to do that mid-tournament. Fans speculate that he's lost the dressing room as it is, absent any evidence whatsoever - but if you really want to see that happen, start dropping your leaders, or several players mid-tournament.

Yep, to me its pretty clear that the 'in' players love Eddie; that maybe smacks of clique, but twas ever thus especially in successful sides (?). You've got to prove yourself in the training environment, which is very like a 'club' thing. Eddie has run the rule over almost everyone the board would suggest deserves a look, and pretty much does it sooner rather than later.....and if he doesn't like something, you are gone, and likely never return.

That paints quite a stark picture, but Eddie runs a tough school. That said. its incredible that he's allowed the discipline issue to reappear. And I think he should trust the guys more on the park and aspire to fully use the talent, even within the 'in' crowd. I do think that Faz is a key blocker and voice in this, but that's more my bias than anything grounded in reality

In essence either Eddie has (for now) lost the changing room because they're just not listening to him on the discipline front, or he's complicit in the decision to give away so many pens. The players who're being picked will tend to like him, the players not being picked will not. You can get to a situation where players will dislike you even if you're picking them owing to confusion around tactics and poor results, it's very hard to get players to like you if you're not picking them even if all else is amazing

Neither of those positions for Eddie is tenable. For myself I hope Eddie does come through this as he's an excellent coach, and I hope he opens up English rugby more as I originally hoped he would to play at pace. I don't know I've much confidence in either of those things happening, but they certainly could.

Not sure its as binary as that. The players may just lose the plot when they get onto the park. But that needs fixing.

[Digby]

Yep, to me its pretty clear that the 'in' players love Eddie; that maybe smacks of clique, but twas ever thus especially in successful sides (?). You've got to prove yourself in the training environment, which is very like a 'club' thing. Eddie has run the rule over almost everyone the board would suggest deserves a look, and pretty much does it sooner rather than later.....and if he doesn't like something, you are gone, and likely never return.

That paints quite a stark picture, but Eddie runs a tough school. That said. its incredible that he's allowed the discipline issue to reappear. And I think he should trust the guys more on the park and aspire to fully use the talent, even within the 'in' crowd. I do think that Faz is a key blocker and voice in this, but that's more my bias than anything grounded in reality

In essence either Eddie has (for now) lost the changing room because they're just not listening to him on the discipline front, or he's complicit in the decision to give away so many pens. The players who're being picked will tend to like him, the players not being picked will not. You can get to a situation where players will dislike you even if you're picking them owing to confusion around tactics and poor results, it's very hard to get players to like you if you're not picking them even if all else is amazing

Neither of those positions for Eddie is tenable. For myself I hope Eddie does come through this as he's an excellent coach, and I hope he opens up English rugby more as I originally hoped he would to play at pace. I don't know I've much confidence in either of those things happening, but they certainly could.

Not sure its as binary as that. The players may just lose the plot when they get onto the park. But that needs fixing.

It needed fixing a decent while ago, certainly more than 12 months back. Which does leave something of a binary problem, they're either not listening to him or he's complicit, whether through ignoring the problem, accepting it in that he's not seeing any feasible alternatives, or in actively creating a team that plays so in style and choice of leadership in the group.

[Banquo]

In essence either Eddie has (for now) lost the changing room because they're just not listening to him on the discipline front, or he's complicit in the decision to give away so many pens. The players who're being picked will tend to like him, the players not being picked will not. You can get to a situation where players will dislike you even if you're picking them owing to confusion around tactics and poor results, it's very hard to get players to like you if you're not picking them even if all else is amazing

Neither of those positions for Eddie is tenable. For myself I hope Eddie does come through this as he's an excellent coach, and I hope he opens up English rugby more as I originally hoped he would to play at pace. I don't know I've much confidence in either of those things happening, but they certainly could.

Not sure its as binary as that. The players may just lose the plot when they get onto the park. But that needs fixing.

It needed fixing a decent while ago, certainly more than 12 months back. Which does leave something of a binary problem, they're either not listening to him or he's complicit, whether through ignoring the problem, accepting it in that he's not seeing any feasible alternatives, or in actively creating a team that plays so in style and choice of leadership in the group.

My point is that the players likely all agree that giving lots of penalties away is stupid (certainly the ones we give away ), but it gets lost in the heat of battle. I suppose its the difference between hearing and listening . I fail to believe that he is encouraging giving them away, though I'm sure he is encouraging them to be aggressive and competitive......ironic that he won't let them 'express themselves' in attack, but seemingly does in defence

[Digby]

Not sure its as binary as that. The players may just lose the plot when they get onto the park. But that needs fixing.

It needed fixing a decent while ago, certainly more than 12 months back. Which does leave something of a binary problem, they're either not listening to him or he's complicit, whether through ignoring the problem, accepting it in that he's not seeing any feasible alternatives, or in actively creating a team that plays so in style and choice of leadership in the group.

My point is that the players likely all agree that giving lots of penalties away is stupid (certainly the ones we give away ), but it gets lost in the heat of battle. I suppose its the difference between hearing and listening . I fail to believe that he is encouraging giving them away, though I'm sure he is encouraging them to be aggressive and competitive......ironic that he won't let them 'express themselves' in attack, but seemingly does in defence

Perhaps it's part of his seeming conclusion that English rugby is about set piece and defence. I am though stipulating to the idea that if the players aren't responding to what's being talked about they're not listening, and I suspect everyone thinks they can't think in advance giving so many pens away is a good idea.

If we are going to continue to in a similar playing style to the opening 3 games of this 6N, and I hope we do and then look to push on again, we might want to consider not only dropping a player or players to set a standard, but also the selection. Which is to say who in the pack has the mobility and decision making we need to play such a game, and who is offering enough from wing and centre to support continuity in phase possession. Or there might be a slight rethink in resourcing needed because if we're going to play faster the tight five can shift a little in emphasis from being say the first receiver to a more traditional support role in open play, not wholly but some shift in emphasis. Though even if we get the potential to support attack better sorted it doesn't perhaps solve some of the Itoje brain farts, nor the Hill or Robson wtf was that moments, and we're maybe only cutting 2-3 pens from our total, and we need to drop around 6

[Banquo]

It needed fixing a decent while ago, certainly more than 12 months back. Which does leave something of a binary problem, they're either not listening to him or he's complicit, whether through ignoring the problem, accepting it in that he's not seeing any feasible alternatives, or in actively creating a team that plays so in style and choice of leadership in the group.

My point is that the players likely all agree that giving lots of penalties away is stupid (certainly the ones we give away ), but it gets lost in the heat of battle. I suppose its the difference between hearing and listening . I fail to believe that he is encouraging giving them away, though I'm sure he is encouraging them to be aggressive and competitive......ironic that he won't let them 'express themselves' in attack, but seemingly does in defence

Perhaps it's part of his seeming conclusion that English rugby is about set piece and defence. I am though stipulating to the idea that if the players aren't responding to what's being talked about they're not listening, and I suspect everyone thinks they can't think in advance giving so many pens away is a good idea.

If we are going to continue to in a similar playing style to the opening 3 games of this 6N, and I hope we do and then look to push on again, we might want to consider not only dropping a player or players to set a standard, but also the selection. Which is to say who in the pack has the mobility and decision making we need to play such a game, and who is offering enough from wing and centre to support continuity in phase possession. Or there might be a slight rethink in resourcing needed because if we're going to play faster the tight five can shift a little in emphasis from being say the first receiver to a more traditional support role in open play, not wholly but some shift in emphasis. Though even if we get the potential to support attack better sorted it doesn't perhaps solve some of the Itoje brain farts, nor the Hill or Robson wtf was that moments, and we're maybe only cutting 2-3 pens from our total, and we need to drop around 6

I get the distinction on listening and acting (hence hearing v listening) and your extrapolation to 'losing the dressing room'. That's your view.

I actually think the pack as selected on Saturday should be capable of supporting said wider game (if Wilson wasn't slightly off the pace his decision making would have been beneficial, and Curry doesn't have to be used as a first receiver with Mako, Sinckler there tbh), though you might want LCD for George and give him a broader tasking. As you say, if penalty count remains high, it all goes to sh8t anyway.

[Digby]

My point is that the players likely all agree that giving lots of penalties away is stupid (certainly the ones we give away ), but it gets lost in the heat of battle. I suppose its the difference between hearing and listening . I fail to believe that he is encouraging giving them away, though I'm sure he is encouraging them to be aggressive and competitive......ironic that he won't let them 'express themselves' in attack, but seemingly does in defence

Perhaps it's part of his seeming conclusion that English rugby is about set piece and defence. I am though stipulating to the idea that if the players aren't responding to what's being talked about they're not listening, and I suspect everyone thinks they can't think in advance giving so many pens away is a good idea.

If we are going to continue to in a similar playing style to the opening 3 games of this 6N, and I hope we do and then look to push on again, we might want to consider not only dropping a player or players to set a standard, but also the selection. Which is to say who in the pack has the mobility and decision making we need to play such a game, and who is offering enough from wing and centre to support continuity in phase possession. Or there might be a slight rethink in resourcing needed because if we're going to play faster the tight five can shift a little in emphasis from being say the first receiver to a more traditional support role in open play, not wholly but some shift in emphasis. Though even if we get the potential to support attack better sorted it doesn't perhaps solve some of the Itoje brain farts, nor the Hill or Robson wtf was that moments, and we're maybe only cutting 2-3 pens from our total, and we need to drop around 6

I get the distinction on listening and acting (hence hearing v listening) and your extrapolation to 'losing the dressing room'. That's your view.

I actually think the pack as selected on Saturday should be capable of supporting said wider game (if Wilson wasn't slightly off the pace), though you might want LCD for George and give him a broader tasking. As you say, if penalty count remains high, it all goes to sh8t anyway.

I think the pack from Saturday could support a faster and slightly wider game, not sure about Hill (in general). Just it might need a slight tinker in how they resource the play and tell for instance Sincks his job has just gotten a tad more boring. There aren't a lot of options around either, bar maybe Underhill and that's possibly a little harsh on Wilson

Also I didn't extrapolate to losing the dressing room, partly it's you and WT talking about dressing rooms whereas I'll have said changing room (unless I didn't), but also and more importanltly it's either he's lost them or he's for a number of possible reasons going along with it being complicit in the process. It's been going on too long for it to be one or two games where it's not only too high a penalty count but also far too many pointless ones that even if we got away with wouldn't help us, there should have been a reaction long since and it's just not happening.

[Banquo]

Perhaps it's part of his seeming conclusion that English rugby is about set piece and defence. I am though stipulating to the idea that if the players aren't responding to what's being talked about they're not listening, and I suspect everyone thinks they can't think in advance giving so many pens away is a good idea.

If we are going to continue to in a similar playing style to the opening 3 games of this 6N, and I hope we do and then look to push on again, we might want to consider not only dropping a player or players to set a standard, but also the selection. Which is to say who in the pack has the mobility and decision making we need to play such a game, and who is offering enough from wing and centre to support continuity in phase possession. Or there might be a slight rethink in resourcing needed because if we're going to play faster the tight five can shift a little in emphasis from being say the first receiver to a more traditional support role in open play, not wholly but some shift in emphasis. Though even if we get the potential to support attack better sorted it doesn't perhaps solve some of the Itoje brain farts, nor the Hill or Robson wtf was that moments, and we're maybe only cutting 2-3 pens from our total, and we need to drop around 6

I get the distinction on listening and acting (hence hearing v listening) and your extrapolation to 'losing the dressing room'. That's your view.

I actually think the pack as selected on Saturday should be capable of supporting said wider game (if Wilson wasn't slightly off the pace), though you might want LCD for George and give him a broader tasking. As you say, if penalty count remains high, it all goes to sh8t anyway.

I think the pack from Saturday could support a faster and slightly wider game, not sure about Hill (in general). Just it might need a slight tinker in how they resource the play and tell for instance Sincks his job has just gotten a tad more boring. There aren't a lot of options around either, bar maybe Underhill and that's possibly a little harsh on Wilson

Also I didn't extrapolate to losing the dressing room, partly it's you and WT talking about dressing rooms whereas I'll have said changing room (unless I didn't), but also and more importanltly it's either he's lost them or he's for a number of possible reasons going along with it being complicit in the process. It's been going on too long for it to be one or two games where it's not only too high a penalty count but also far too many pointless ones that even if we got away with wouldn't help us, there should have been a reaction long since and it's just not happening.

You did say changing in fairness. You can keep stating the same thing if you wish.

Agreed on Hill. Not sure.

[Digby]

I get the distinction on listening and acting (hence hearing v listening) and your extrapolation to 'losing the dressing room'. That's your view.

I actually think the pack as selected on Saturday should be capable of supporting said wider game (if Wilson wasn't slightly off the pace), though you might want LCD for George and give him a broader tasking. As you say, if penalty count remains high, it all goes to sh8t anyway.

I think the pack from Saturday could support a faster and slightly wider game, not sure about Hill (in general). Just it might need a slight tinker in how they resource the play and tell for instance Sincks his job has just gotten a tad more boring. There aren't a lot of options around either, bar maybe Underhill and that's possibly a little harsh on Wilson

Also I didn't extrapolate to losing the dressing room, partly it's you and WT talking about dressing rooms whereas I'll have said changing room (unless I didn't), but also and more importanltly it's either he's lost them or he's for a number of possible reasons going along with it being complicit in the process. It's been going on too long for it to be one or two games where it's not only too high a penalty count but also far too many pointless ones that even if we got away with wouldn't help us, there should have been a reaction long since and it's just not happening.

You did say changing in fairness. You can keep stating the same thing if you wish.

Agreed on Hill. Not sure.

The flip side to not stating the same thing is Eddie is telling the players exactly what they need to hear, that the players continually fail in delivering, and that Eddie isn't responsible because he told them what they needed to hear and it's on the players who he selects not him if it's going wrong. I can accept that over a much more limited time frame, say 3-4 games after losing a WC final when the group might be somewhat pissed off and struggling to get back on the horse things can go wrong and take some time to correct, but this is repeating over too long a period for me.

I suppose people might think he's brought in some new faces, there's a new dynamic in camp, it's a very inexperienced bench, and so even if it has been going on a long time there's been a more recent reset and there's still some leeway for Eddie and the squad. I don't share that thinking, especially when it's largely Itoje and Farrell driving the indiscipline as senior players in the group

[TheDasher]

He needs to drop players who give away countless penalties. Whether that's Itoje or not, doesn't matter. The penalty count just destroys us, we'll never get anywhere unless something changes.

I do also feel that there's a certain arrogance and an immaturity to England... "we'll play well for 20 minutes and that we'll be enough, we're better than the opposition, we'll play on the edge, give a a few pens away, but still win". Well it's not working.

I'll sound very old now but, some of these guys seem more interested in growing moustaches and mullets. Separately, some of them seem to think 'being hard', is a good look and seem to be focussing on that.

We want hard-working, humble, tough, committed and hungry players, who have no time for anything but pursuit of excellence... Look at Wilkinson, Carter, McCaw, Brady, Nadal, Federer, Kane etc - they just do not accept anything other than perfect performances from themselves, we need more of that.

A few thoughts - LCD has to be the starting 2, Itoje needs to sort it out, or at least to have a serious warning, great character, wonderful player, but penalty count suicidal, Wilson is not special enough at this level, Sam Simmonds needs to play at 8, Youngs isn't as bad as some make out on here, Farrell needs to be dropped, Daly needs to be dropped, Malins to start...

[Banquo]

I think the pack from Saturday could support a faster and slightly wider game, not sure about Hill (in general). Just it might need a slight tinker in how they resource the play and tell for instance Sincks his job has just gotten a tad more boring. There aren't a lot of options around either, bar maybe Underhill and that's possibly a little harsh on Wilson

Also I didn't extrapolate to losing the dressing room, partly it's you and WT talking about dressing rooms whereas I'll have said changing room (unless I didn't), but also and more importanltly it's either he's lost them or he's for a number of possible reasons going along with it being complicit in the process. It's been going on too long for it to be one or two games where it's not only too high a penalty count but also far too many pointless ones that even if we got away with wouldn't help us, there should have been a reaction long since and it's just not happening.

You did say changing in fairness. You can keep stating the same thing if you wish.

Agreed on Hill. Not sure.

The flip side to not stating the same thing is Eddie is telling the players exactly what they need to hear, that the players continually fail in delivering, and that Eddie isn't responsible because he told them what they needed to hear and it's on the players who he selects not him if it's going wrong. I can accept that over a much more limited time frame, say 3-4 games after losing a WC final when the group might be somewhat pissed off and struggling to get back on the horse things can go wrong and take some time to correct, but this is repeating over too long a period for me.

I suppose people might think he's brought in some new faces, there's a new dynamic in camp, it's a very inexperienced bench, and so even if it has been going on a long time there's been a more recent reset and there's still some leeway for Eddie and the squad. I don't share that thinking, especially when it's largely Itoje and Farrell driving the indiscipline as senior players in the group

So it is at least a possibility that they are simply failing to deliver on discipline, which is my point. And the reality is that they don't have that much time together. When they did, like say the world cup, I think the pen count was much lower (but I could be wrong). My feeling is that he hasn't 'lost the changing room' as such, as that normally is accompanied by a lot more leaks of unhappiness. It may be that he simply doesn't know how to fix without dropping his two key players.

[Oakboy]

Much as I agree that Daly cannot continue at FB, I really feel Jones is guilty of destroying him. Turning a world class winger into a poor international FB is not what a quality head coach would ever do. All along, there were better alternatives. The experiment was a long-winded, nonsensical failure.

[fivepointer]

Why has our discipline deteriorated over the last 3 years?
Average number of pens conceded in 2019 was 7.2, it rose to 9 in 2020 and now stands at 13.6 per game.
Why the increase?
The personnel is largely the same, Jones is still in charge, though there has been some changes with other coaches, the Laws havent altered so what can be behind it.
If we can get it as low as 7.2, then I'm not sure how it can almost double in just over a year.

[Banquo]

Why has our discipline deteriorated over the last 3 years?
Average number of pens conceded in 2019 was 7.2, it rose to 9 in 2020 and now stands at 13.6 per game.
Why the increase?
The personnel is largely the same, Jones is still in charge, though there has been some changes with other coaches, the Laws havent altered so what can be behind it.
If we can get it as low as 7.2, then I'm not sure how it can almost double in just over a year.

Great question. What's the answer?

[Oakboy]

Is the discipline deterioration a direct descent from the RWC final defeat? With more limited tactics, a general 'must try harder' message and a desperate, stubborn head coach who always now looks like a dog shitting razor blades, maybe the overall in-camp mood breeds the wrong attitude.

[Digby]

You did say changing in fairness. You can keep stating the same thing if you wish.

Agreed on Hill. Not sure.

The flip side to not stating the same thing is Eddie is telling the players exactly what they need to hear, that the players continually fail in delivering, and that Eddie isn't responsible because he told them what they needed to hear and it's on the players who he selects not him if it's going wrong. I can accept that over a much more limited time frame, say 3-4 games after losing a WC final when the group might be somewhat pissed off and struggling to get back on the horse things can go wrong and take some time to correct, but this is repeating over too long a period for me.

I suppose people might think he's brought in some new faces, there's a new dynamic in camp, it's a very inexperienced bench, and so even if it has been going on a long time there's been a more recent reset and there's still some leeway for Eddie and the squad. I don't share that thinking, especially when it's largely Itoje and Farrell driving the indiscipline as senior players in the group

So it is at least a possibility that they are simply failing to deliver on discipline, which is my point. And the reality is that they don't have that much time together. When they did, like say the world cup, I think the pen count was much lower (but I could be wrong). My feeling is that he hasn't 'lost the changing room' as such, as that normally is accompanied by a lot more leaks of unhappiness. It may be that he simply doesn't know how to fix without dropping his two key players.

I totally accept they're failing to deliver, but that's a repeat occurrence. And there's a line about repeating a process and expecting different outcomes. Maybe the line doesn't quite apply here because the penny could drop with this group, but as we've seen with the likes of Easter in the past, when the culture is you can be selfish not think of the team and just give away a penalty players don't learn the lesson

What tends to change the culture is moving on from selecting certain players, whether an Easter or a Grewcock, or changing the coach and putting every player on notice. And Itoje is starting to remind of Grewock, a fantastic talent who is helping the opposition more than England. Eddie could well be stuck not knowing how to correct, especially with Itoje and Farrell as his leaders, but if he is stuck in that position for me that's him being complicit with the penalty count.

[Scrumhead]

Much as I agree that Daly cannot continue at FB, I really feel Jones is guilty of destroying him. Turning a world class winger into a poor international FB is not what a quality head coach would ever do. All along, there were better alternatives. The experiment was a long-winded, nonsensical failure.

I’m pretty sure Eddie Jones is also responsible for Corona virus and most of the bad things happening in the world ...

I’m pretty sure Eddie was the first to play Daly on the wing. He was a 13 until he was moved to the wing and then subsequently to fullback. By your logic, Eddie took an unproven 13 and turned him in to a world class winger before he became a poor international fullback.

I agree the ‘experiment’ has been unsuccessful and overly ‘long-winded’, but it was never ‘nonsensical’. Daly’s skill set should have made him a very good playmaking fullback. It hasn’t worked but it wasn’t a bad idea. The error has been persevering with it when it was pretty clear it wasn’t getting any better.

[Digby]

Much as I agree that Daly cannot continue at FB, I really feel Jones is guilty of destroying him. Turning a world class winger into a poor international FB is not what a quality head coach would ever do. All along, there were better alternatives. The experiment was a long-winded, nonsensical failure.

I’m pretty sure Eddie Jones is also responsible for Corona virus and most of the bad things happening in the world ...

I’m pretty sure Eddie was the first to play Daly on the wing. He was a 13 until he was moved to the wing and then subsequently to fullback. By your logic, Eddie took an unproven 13 and turned him in to a world class winger before he became a poor international fullback.

I agree the ‘experiment’ has been unsuccessful and overly ‘long-winded’, but it was never ‘nonsensical’. Daly’s skill set should have made him a very good playmaking fullback. It hasn’t worked but it wasn’t a bad idea. The error has been persevering with it when it was pretty clear it wasn’t getting any better.

I don't even agree he's a failure as a 15, he's a bit of a mix of good and bad as with every 15. What he might not have is what people like in a 15, but somewhat akin to people liking a passing 9 (or say they do until they complain about Stringer for instance having no running game to hold the defence) what people like isn't the same as good