RugbyRebels

Saw these and thought I would share:




http://the1014.com/eddie-jones-england-explained/


http://the1014.com/eddie-jones-england-10-12-axis/

That is dead interesting, and after 10 mins of reading seems good analysis. It shows immediately why changing Ford and Farrell out would be very difficult given that no-one has been able to shadow Farrell for long, and why Eddie is looking at a bunch of 12's who have distribution skills (and would seem to be perfect fit for Slade, but needs a very vocal organiser....so...). Have to say I can't reconcile some aspects to the Japanese system, esp at 9 and off first phase, though get the rest. Also talks to Ford playing very flat- must confess I'd thought he was lying a bit deeper than a year or two ago, but perception and reality can differ

Would have been good to have found these before starting the 'how will England attack' thread.

Not seen it written as 1-2-2-2-1 before, nor 2-2-2-2, but it's been observed we do make a lot of use of 2 man pods with at times just the one man clearing out. I'd been thinking about that in terms of workrate and width, but hadn't given really any thought to how the contact wider of the breakdown can hold the blitz. The articles look well worth continuing with having only just started the article on Eddie' England.

I'll note again I still think we'd find life easier with a 1331, and/or that we could use more carriers in the pack.

Digby wrote:Would have been good to have found these before starting the 'how will England attack' thread.

Not seen it written as 1-2-2-2-1 before, nor 2-2-2-2, but it's been observed we do make a lot of use of 2 man pods with at times just the one man clearing out. I'd been thinking about that in terms of workrate and width, but hadn't given really any thought to how the contact wider of the breakdown can hold the blitz. The articles look well worth continuing with having only just started the article on Eddie' England.

I'll note again I still think we'd find life easier with a 1331, and/or that we could use more carriers in the pack.

its not 1-2-2-2-1 tho.......its 1-2-2-1 with two forwards roaming about. So could be 2-2-2-2 or 1-3-3-1 depending on what's unfolding, (or as he points out 1-5-2 crammed in a quarter of the pitch).

Sorry, 1221. I assume the floaters are Hartley and Cole

Digby wrote:Sorry, 1221. I assume the floaters are Hartley and Cole

they certainly behave like turds in the loose

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:Sorry, 1221. I assume the floaters are Hartley and Cole

they certainly behave like turds in the loose

My memory has clearly gone to turd as I talked about a 1221 on the England attack thread. But seeing as the 1014 articles predate my comments somewhat it's perhaps best I don't try to claim any credit

Edit - Actually the article mentions October but is dated Jan 24th this year so comes after the how will England attack thread. This is a rip off Barnes and Jones would be proud of

Their preview of the 6N is pretty decent too, it's not all scintillating, but it is all rugby and not Ben Kay and Austin Healey making jokes about the hair of the other

One of the stats they cover which stands out to me is that England contested (in the last 6N) 16/65 opposition lineouts, one of the lowest rates of contesting around, but England won 10/16 of the throws they contested. Further England are a team that score a lot of tries from the lineout.