RugbyRebels

Someone told me something last night which I found incredibly interesting and I have no reason to doubt.

The story was that they knew someone involved in the GPS system that England use. They said that when Eddie Jones took over he asked for stats on the length of time England forwards spent on the ground. Apparently it was 40% longer than the Aussies and 50% longer than the ABs. It was said that much of the effort of the coaching team has been to cut that disparity and that it has borne obvious fruit.

It feels true. If it is it shows excellent judgement by EJ. He must have felt there was an issue by naked eye, looked for the stats to back that up, and then gone about remedying it.

I know they had the stats because it was used to be remarked on how quick Parling was off the floor statistically. So a bit staggering that they were sitting on that disparity. Great work by Jones to cut it.

Yeah, I've heard a similar story. Eddie himself says it's the one statistic he's bothered about.

Sums EJ up really, utter clarity in terms of where he wants to get to and what is needed to get there. Complete contrast to Lancaster where after the initial couple of phases (mainly off field stuff) he seemed unable to nail down exactly where the team had to improve to compete with the best on a consistent basis.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Someone told me something last night which I found incredibly interesting and I have no reason to doubt.

The story was that they knew someone involved in the GPS system that England use. They said that when Eddie Jones took over he asked for stats on the length of time England forwards spent on the ground. Apparently it was 40% longer than the Aussies and 50% longer than the ABs. It was said that much of the effort of the coaching team has been to cut that disparity and that it has borne obvious fruit.

It feels true. If it is it shows excellent judgement by EJ. He must have felt there was an issue by naked eye, looked for the stats to back that up, and then gone about remedying it.

yep that was reported in the torygraph a few months back. Made sense then still does

Someone posted a planetrugby analysis of Underhill's first cap and one of the things which struck me was a passage where Underhill made a big positive tackle on Lavanini and was up, back in the defensive line, tackled Creevy, and was getting up again by the time Lavanini had regained his feet.

Ah, found it: http://www.planetrugby.com/news/spotlig ... and-debut/

It is a use of statistics that I can definitely get behind and a far better view of rugby fitness than bleep tests.

Puja

Definitely. I believe it is referred to as 'bounce time'.

Apparently the timing of Eddie's substitutions for the forwards are often based around whether a player's 'bounce time' has dropped below a certain level.

Its nothing new though, when I was playing in NZ in 91 the coaches would be on all the time about being out of the game when you were off your feet and they didn't have GPS to back them up. It was an eye opener to me and when I came home the lads looked at me like I was some witch talking gibberish when I mentioned it.

Maybe, Italy took it to the extreme by never getting on the ground in the first place?

Seriously, though, is there enough of an issue to consider how many commit to rucks? Or, is it just after tackling? Taking that a stage further, does it make a case for tackling high to prevent the offload?

In an era where stats are being over used it's great to see someone using them and concentrating on improving the ones that will actually make a difference,

Timbo wrote:Yeah, I've heard a similar story. Eddie himself says it's the one statistic he's bothered about.

Sums EJ up really, utter clarity in terms of where he wants to get to and what is needed to get there. Complete contrast to Lancaster where after the initial couple of phases (mainly off field stuff) he seemed unable to nail down exactly where the team had to improve to compete with the best on a consistent basis.

It's almost as if hiring an experienced, career coach was actually a good idea in some way, shape of form. Who'da thought it

I've seen this mentioned in articles. Jones is just a top coach. Identifies a key issue and sets about improving this aspect of our performance.

Oakboy wrote:Maybe, Italy took it to the extreme by never getting on the ground in the first place?

Seriously, though, is there enough of an issue to consider how many commit to rucks? Or, is it just after tackling? Taking that a stage further, does it make a case for tackling high to prevent the offload?

The problems with tackling high are that it massively increases your chances of getting bumped off and reduces your chances of driving someone backwards. Physics says going low is more stable and powerful than going high.

Puja

http://www.express.co.uk/sport/rugbyuni ... ews-Gossip
The championship grave robbers, who stole a second successive game in the dead of night in Cardiff on Saturday, did so with the England coach's three-second rule ringing in their ears.

Jones gives his players that long to be back on their feet and in the action after a tackle or a ruck involvement and believes their ability to meet the target is an important barometer for him of the upgrade he has overseen since taking over a team down on its knees 15 months ago.

"I think some of the blokes used to have a cup of tea and a scone with jam and cream before they got off the ground. It was terrible," said the England coach.

"The improvement has been enormous but I went through it with the staff today and we were talking about the gap between us and New Zealand. In terms of getting off the ground we are seven seven per cent below New Zealand. We are still not where we need to be.

"Everything we do is geared towards bridging that gap between us and New Zealand. We are not happy being the best team in Europe, we want to be the best team in the world."

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Maybe, Italy took it to the extreme by never getting on the ground in the first place?

Seriously, though, is there enough of an issue to consider how many commit to rucks? Or, is it just after tackling? Taking that a stage further, does it make a case for tackling high to prevent the offload?

The problems with tackling high are that it massively increases your chances of getting bumped off and reduces your chances of driving someone backwards. Physics says going low is more stable and powerful than going high.

Puja

yep, look at NZ, all about low, chop tackles. Be interesting to see the contrast v double teaming, aiming for the choke....tomorrow.

If we have to give up tea and scones I'd rather go back to being average.

Haven't heard this but it doesn't surprise me.
It's the toughest part of the game. Up and down is agony.

Launch doesn't seem bothered.