RugbyRebels

Oakboy wrote:

p/d wrote:
Back in my management training days one snippet, oft used but still relevant today in every field of management, was 'Kiss'. Keep, It, Simple, Stupid.

Messages need to be understood. Do the easy things well and then build on solid foundations.

Jones's management style appears somewhat at odds with that, judging by results, performances and absence of consistency.

In danger of over analysing every aspect there are a few things that don’t always add up. For example Atkinson. Bring him in for AI and then for 6n squad. Ultimately don’t use/trust him and we see time in training camp wasted on a player in the twilight of his career rather than building on Kelly’s one cap.

p/d wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

p/d wrote:
Back in my management training days one snippet, oft used but still relevant today in every field of management, was 'Kiss'. Keep, It, Simple, Stupid.

Messages need to be understood. Do the easy things well and then build on solid foundations.

Jones's management style appears somewhat at odds with that, judging by results, performances and absence of consistency.

In danger of over analysing every aspect there are a few things that don’t always add up. For example Atkinson. Bring him in for AI and then for 6n squad. Ultimately don’t use/trust him and we see time in training camp wasted on a player in the twilight of his career rather than building on Kelly’s one cap.

The argument to that is that, if there was an injury to Slade, who would we trust to step in - experienced Prem campaigner like Atkinson or player who had, previous to this season, little other than promise and potential to bring to the table. Kelly's been on fire this past month or so and I'd actually have very few problems with England taking another look at him now, but back when the England squad was named, I'd've been bricking it if there'd been an injury run and he was likely to have to play.

Puja

Puja wrote:

p/d wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

In danger of over analysing every aspect there are a few things that don’t always add up. For example Atkinson. Bring him in for AI and then for 6n squad. Ultimately don’t use/trust him and we see time in training camp wasted on a player in the twilight of his career rather than building on Kelly’s one cap.

The argument to that is that, if there was an injury to Slade, who would we trust to step in - experienced Prem campaigner like Atkinson or player who had, previous to this season, little other than promise and potential to bring to the table. Kelly's been on fire this past month or so and I'd actually have very few problems with England taking another look at him now, but back when the England squad was named, I'd've been bricking it if there'd been an injury run and he was likely to have to play.

Puja

I suppose you can take opposing views: Jones was unlucky to lose Farrell, on the one hand; conversely, he should have lined up IC back-up years ago. In favour of the former view is Farrell's fantastic fitness record. In contrast, should Jones have moved on from Tuilagi ages ago with his injury history?

Maybe, Wigglesworth, Heinz and Atkinson can be similarly categorised. All three were brought in beyond their best-by dates instead of risking younger options. Luck conspired after that to give them game time or not. I'd have picked none of them but Jones obviously considered that he had no choice after considering younger alternatives. That's the sad part - not that he was necessarily wrong but that he might have been right.

Puja wrote:

p/d wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

In danger of over analysing every aspect there are a few things that don’t always add up. For example Atkinson. Bring him in for AI and then for 6n squad. Ultimately don’t use/trust him and we see time in training camp wasted on a player in the twilight of his career rather than building on Kelly’s one cap.

The argument to that is that, if there was an injury to Slade, who would we trust to step in - experienced Prem campaigner like Atkinson or player who had, previous to this season, little other than promise and potential to bring to the table. Kelly's been on fire this past month or so and I'd actually have very few problems with England taking another look at him now, but back when the England squad was named, I'd've been bricking it if there'd been an injury run and he was likely to have to play.

Puja

I suppose the argument to that is when Farrell pulled out he drafted in Ford and ditched Bailey. So I assume he could have done similarly with Atkinson/Kelly

Oakboy wrote:

Puja wrote:

p/d wrote:
In danger of over analysing every aspect there are a few things that don’t always add up. For example Atkinson. Bring him in for AI and then for 6n squad. Ultimately don’t use/trust him and we see time in training camp wasted on a player in the twilight of his career rather than building on Kelly’s one cap.

The argument to that is that, if there was an injury to Slade, who would we trust to step in - experienced Prem campaigner like Atkinson or player who had, previous to this season, little other than promise and potential to bring to the table. Kelly's been on fire this past month or so and I'd actually have very few problems with England taking another look at him now, but back when the England squad was named, I'd've been bricking it if there'd been an injury run and he was likely to have to play.

Puja

should Jones have moved on from Tuilagi ages ago with his injury history?

.

by the same measure, should he not have moved on from Nowell, Watson, Underhill and to a lesser extent Launchbury? Genuine question...

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Puja wrote:
The argument to that is that, if there was an injury to Slade, who would we trust to step in - experienced Prem campaigner like Atkinson or player who had, previous to this season, little other than promise and potential to bring to the table. Kelly's been on fire this past month or so and I'd actually have very few problems with England taking another look at him now, but back when the England squad was named, I'd've been bricking it if there'd been an injury run and he was likely to have to play.

Puja

should Jones have moved on from Tuilagi ages ago with his injury history?

.

by the same measure, should he not have moved on from Nowell, Watson, Underhill and to a lesser extent Launchbury? Genuine question...

Agree with that. But as you say in a post above, perhaps Jones does not like what he sees in the newcomers in training camp and reverts to the tried and trusted, but limited, old favourites. Sometimes you have to take a punt on an exciting new player and get him into the system, rough edges and all, to shake things up. Radwan might be a case in point, capped in the autumn and now ditched. Perfectly capable of playing against Italy and quite likely to make something happen.

Have to say, really feel sorry for Lewis LudlAm having to miss this game - feel he can make the test 6 shirt his own ( especially with Willis still injured and Curry back at 7 in the wake of Underhill’s injury)

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Puja wrote:
The argument to that is that, if there was an injury to Slade, who would we trust to step in - experienced Prem campaigner like Atkinson or player who had, previous to this season, little other than promise and potential to bring to the table. Kelly's been on fire this past month or so and I'd actually have very few problems with England taking another look at him now, but back when the England squad was named, I'd've been bricking it if there'd been an injury run and he was likely to have to play.

Puja

should Jones have moved on from Tuilagi ages ago with his injury history?

.

by the same measure, should he not have moved on from Nowell, Watson, Underhill and to a lesser extent Launchbury? Genuine question...

Yes, arguably, depending on medical reports. Tuilagi's next injury seems just around the corner, inevitably. If the others can be similarly categorised without a chance of long-term improvement, I see no alternative.

Perhaps, you could argue that the other three being in and out of the squad would be less disruptive in that our whole game plan alters with Tuilagi?? The others are more easily replaced without disruption.

Think Townsend should substitute Russell for that kick

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Puja wrote:
The argument to that is that, if there was an injury to Slade, who would we trust to step in - experienced Prem campaigner like Atkinson or player who had, previous to this season, little other than promise and potential to bring to the table. Kelly's been on fire this past month or so and I'd actually have very few problems with England taking another look at him now, but back when the England squad was named, I'd've been bricking it if there'd been an injury run and he was likely to have to play.

Puja

should Jones have moved on from Tuilagi ages ago with his injury history?

.

by the same measure, should he not have moved on from Nowell, Watson, Underhill and to a lesser extent Launchbury? Genuine question...

A fit Underhill is too good a player for England to afford to drop, no other England player in the same class defensively. The question always however, how do you get more in attack from him and the answer to that it possibly a move to 6 or 8, him being more a carrier than link man imo

jngf wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote: should Jones have moved on from Tuilagi ages ago with his injury history?

.

by the same measure, should he not have moved on from Nowell, Watson, Underhill and to a lesser extent Launchbury? Genuine question...

A fit Underhill is too good a player for England to afford to drop, no other England player in the same class defensively. The question always however, how do you get more in attack from him and the answer to that it possibly a move to 6 or 8, him being more a carrier than link man imo

sorry everyone

Jiffy has Oakboy’s jacket on

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote: should Jones have moved on from Tuilagi ages ago with his injury history?

.

by the same measure, should he not have moved on from Nowell, Watson, Underhill and to a lesser extent Launchbury? Genuine question...

Yes, arguably, depending on medical reports. Tuilagi's next injury seems just around the corner, inevitably. If the others can be similarly categorised without a chance of long-term improvement, I see no alternative.

Perhaps, you could argue that the other three being in and out of the squad would be less disruptive in that our whole game plan alters with Tuilagi?? The others are more easily replaced without disruption.

Nowells next injury, ditto, but fair point on Manu

jngf wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote: should Jones have moved on from Tuilagi ages ago with his injury history?

.

by the same measure, should he not have moved on from Nowell, Watson, Underhill and to a lesser extent Launchbury? Genuine question...

A fit Underhill is too good a player for England to afford to drop, no other England player in the same class defensively. The question always however, how do you get more in attack from him and the answer to that it possibly a move to 6 or 8, him being more a carrier than link man imo

If everyone is fit, I'd not pick Underhill. I prefer Lawes or Willis at 6, Curry at 7 and any of Simmonds, Dombrandt or t'other Willis at 8. I'd expect Barbeary to overtake Underhill too.

p/d wrote:Jiffy has Oakboy’s jacket on

I'll have it when he's finished with it.

Banquo wrote: sorry everyone

Think you might want to use this post again

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote: by the same measure, should he not have moved on from Nowell, Watson, Underhill and to a lesser extent Launchbury? Genuine question...

Yes, arguably, depending on medical reports. Tuilagi's next injury seems just around the corner, inevitably. If the others can be similarly categorised without a chance of long-term improvement, I see no alternative.

Perhaps, you could argue that the other three being in and out of the squad would be less disruptive in that our whole game plan alters with Tuilagi?? The others are more easily replaced without disruption.

Nowells next injury, ditto, but fair point on Manu

But Nowell has given up alcohol to improve his fitness!!

p/d wrote:

Banquo wrote: sorry everyone

Think you might want to use this post again

Sorry too. I bit.

p/d wrote:

Banquo wrote: sorry everyone

Think you might want to use this post again

Why?

Banquo wrote:

p/d wrote:

Banquo wrote: sorry everyone

Think you might want to use this post again

Why?

Cause you got Oakboy biting as well

p/d wrote:

Banquo wrote:

p/d wrote:
Think you might want to use this post again

Why?

Cause you got Oakboy biting as well

I've already apologised and hang my head in shame.

p/d wrote:

Banquo wrote:

p/d wrote:
Think you might want to use this post again

Why?

Cause you got Oakboy biting as well

Ah, fair point.

Realistically how do you just ‘move on’ from players like Launchbury, Underhill, Watson, Manu etc? Keep picking Atkinson and Ewels for example, even when Launchbury and Manu are fit and obviously far better players?

Results today reasonable re. Eng- just need to go into the game tomorrow with a championship mindset and target a BP win, rather than in days of yore going through the motions towards the end of a workmanlike showing (one hopes).

Timbo wrote:Realistically how do you just ‘move on’ from players like Launchbury, Underhill, Watson, Manu etc? Keep picking Atkinson and Ewels for example, even when Launchbury and Manu are fit and obviously far better players?

Good question. Theoretically, you pick talented youngsters and bring them through in a structured development plan. In practice, you can only pick what's available and we find ourselves relying on injury-prone experienced options or 31 year-old debutants. Maybe, the problem was not fine-tuning the production line 6 or 7 years back.

Everything's Farrell's fault. I say that in jest but when you get a player who (arguably) is not quite top notch and allow him to fill a shirt come what may there can be no progression. Ditto Youngs and, to a lesser extent, Ford. I think it takes a brave coach to re-build by discarding solid regulars but sometimes that is what it takes. Picking for tomorrow might still include the Vunipolas, but next year?

Then, if Sinckler is not finding top form, should we recall Cole? Where do you draw the line?