RugbyRebels

Spent time last night with an extremely respected coach who said that England’s biggest problem is in adapting, or rather co-adapting to the opposition when things don’t go as they expect. I’m pretty certain it’s been called out several times on here, but interesting to see a seriously respected coach echo same.


He did also say that Eddie Jones is the best ‘noticer’ that he’s ever seen. His eye for minute detail on players is astounding.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:Spent time last night with an extremely respected coach who said that England’s biggest problem is in adapting, or rather co-adapting to the opposition when things don’t go as they expect. I’m pretty certain it’s been called out several times on here, but interesting to see a seriously respected coach echo same.


He did also say that Eddie Jones is the best ‘noticer’ that he’s ever seen. His eye for minute detail on players is astounding.

Surely our Achilles Heal is Mako's hamstring that won't stay fixed. Incidentally, I've fixed the title typo for you.

Frankly, I'm not as bothered about the players not adapting on the pitch if they have several alternate plans and the coaches are happy to quarterback from the sidelines. Doesn't speak well to the captaincy though.

Puja

See Wales x 2, and I’d say there is cause for concern. The ABs are the best because they co-adapt better than anyone else.
And it’s not just a captaincy thing. It’s across the board. The captain, in our case, isn’t going to fix a maul plan that’s not working.

I think it's more simple than that. SA/NZ are simply better teams than us for different reasons. With NH teams if you play into our hands like ireland have done we can beat you but ireland/wales/france/scotland can all beat us if they play it right.

We don't reallly have any thing special about us like say scotland on their day but we are just awkward to play against. If the french have actually got themselves fit (which by the looks of it they have) they could easily don one on us in the WC.

If they play it right then don’t we need to co-adapt to what they’re doing? If we can’t do that then we lose.

twitchy wrote:I think it's more simple than that. SA/NZ are simply better teams than us for different reasons. With NH teams if you play into our hands like ireland have done we can beat you but ireland/wales/france/scotland can all beat us if they play it right.

We don't reallly have any thing special about us like say scotland on their day but we are just awkward to play against. If the french have actually got themselves fit (which by the looks of it they have) they could easily don one on us in the WC.

That's a spectacularly downbeat perspective. If you were picking a world XV, then we'd have at minimum 3 players in it, with another 2-3 pushing hard.

Puja

Puja wrote:

twitchy wrote:I think it's more simple than that. SA/NZ are simply better teams than us for different reasons. With NH teams if you play into our hands like ireland have done we can beat you but ireland/wales/france/scotland can all beat us if they play it right.

We don't reallly have any thing special about us like say scotland on their day but we are just awkward to play against. If the french have actually got themselves fit (which by the looks of it they have) they could easily don one on us in the WC.

That's a spectacularly downbeat perspective. If you were picking a world XV, then we'd have at minimum 3 players in it, with another 2-3 pushing hard.



Puja

Props or second rows then?

Puja wrote:

twitchy wrote:I think it's more simple than that. SA/NZ are simply better teams than us for different reasons. With NH teams if you play into our hands like ireland have done we can beat you but ireland/wales/france/scotland can all beat us if they play it right.

We don't reallly have any thing special about us like say scotland on their day but we are just awkward to play against. If the french have actually got themselves fit (which by the looks of it they have) they could easily don one on us in the WC.

That's a spectacularly downbeat perspective. If you were picking a world XV, then we'd have at minimum 3 players in it, with another 2-3 pushing hard.

Puja

I don't think so? It's a team game any way, that is how it is judged.

So basically what we've been saying on the Board for the past few years. They are thick.

I think the question is does Jones get the best out of the team consistently (rather than the occasional good performance etc.).

That has to include reacting to the opposition doing something unexpected. I don't think Jones's tactical approach to that is consistent with his 'starters/finishers' concept. That always smacks of 'Plan A' being too rigidly applied.

It also has to include discipline and mistakes. If Jones is a detail man to the extent reported, I'd expect preparation to be too solid for the number of penalties that we concede.

twitchy wrote:

Puja wrote:

twitchy wrote:I think it's more simple than that. SA/NZ are simply better teams than us for different reasons. With NH teams if you play into our hands like ireland have done we can beat you but ireland/wales/france/scotland can all beat us if they play it right.

We don't reallly have any thing special about us like say scotland on their day but we are just awkward to play against. If the french have actually got themselves fit (which by the looks of it they have) they could easily don one on us in the WC.

That's a spectacularly downbeat perspective. If you were picking a world XV, then we'd have at minimum 3 players in it, with another 2-3 pushing hard.

Puja

I don't think so? It's a team game any way, that is how it is judged.

You don't think that the number of forwards carriers, who can play the ball, we can put out, isn't special? I cannot think of another side in world rugby that can match the carrying power, workrate, and ball handling ability of Mako, George and Sink.

May's daft pace and aerial work is pretty special too.

Not to mention Billy and Tuilagi.

There’s no doubt we have flaws, but we’ve got a good team and we’re going in to the tournament with good form.

I think there are plenty more reasons to be positive than picking out he negatives.

I’m no dismissing the threat of Argentina or France but neither have been in amazing form and we should be going in to our pool with the confidence that we can top it.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:See Wales x 2, and I’d say there is cause for concern. The ABs are the best because they co-adapt better than anyone else.
And it’s not just a captaincy thing. It’s across the board. The captain, in our case, isn’t going to fix a maul plan that’s not working.

perzackly

There have been times when our inability to alter the approach has been exposed.
The recent 6N's saw 2 painfully dim efforts against Wales and Scotland, when we played in a manner almost devoid of any intelligence.
The captain does take some responsibility, but senior players should be able to influence affairs and steady the ship.
Tactical flexibility mid game doesnt seem to be one of our strengths.

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:See Wales x 2, and I’d say there is cause for concern. The ABs are the best because they co-adapt better than anyone else.
And it’s not just a captaincy thing. It’s across the board. The captain, in our case, isn’t going to fix a maul plan that’s not working.

perzackly

Nobody has bothered much about how bad our mauls have been over the last few games. Odd really, when our front five forwards are rated quite highly and when our top two clubs don't make a habit of ballsing them up from their own lineouts near the try line. Is it unreasonable to expect better?

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:See Wales x 2, and I’d say there is cause for concern. The ABs are the best because they co-adapt better than anyone else.
And it’s not just a captaincy thing. It’s across the board. The captain, in our case, isn’t going to fix a maul plan that’s not working.

perzackly

Nobody has bothered much about how bad our mauls have been over the last few games. Odd really, when our front five forwards are rated quite highly and when our top two clubs don't make a habit of ballsing them up from their own lineouts near the try line. Is it unreasonable to expect better?

Not at all, but I was really reiterating the concern about adapting.

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:See Wales x 2, and I’d say there is cause for concern. The ABs are the best because they co-adapt better than anyone else.
And it’s not just a captaincy thing. It’s across the board. The captain, in our case, isn’t going to fix a maul plan that’s not working.

perzackly

Nobody has bothered much about how bad our mauls have been over the last few games. Odd really, when our front five forwards are rated quite highly and when our top two clubs don't make a habit of ballsing them up from their own lineouts near the try line. Is it unreasonable to expect better?

It's very definitely not unreasonable. I'm hoping that we're planning on doing a lot of dummy drives and BillyV off the back moves.

He oddest thing about our maul is that it's not usually badly set; we just have no capacity to cope with players swinging round the side and getting in the way. Whenever we move forward, it always seems to turn out to've been a trap.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote: perzackly

Nobody has bothered much about how bad our mauls have been over the last few games. Odd really, when our front five forwards are rated quite highly and when our top two clubs don't make a habit of ballsing them up from their own lineouts near the try line. Is it unreasonable to expect better?

It's very definitely not unreasonable. I'm hoping that we're planning on doing a lot of dummy drives and BillyV off the back moves.

He oddest thing about our maul is that it's not usually badly set; we just have no capacity to cope with players swinging round the side and getting in the way. Whenever we move forward, it always seems to turn out to've been a trap.

Puja

Exactly, so is it not a good example of a failure to adapt on the hoof? Not even a wrinkly old cynic like me could suggest that Borthwick has not had them practising mauls at all. It just seems a caricature of there only being a Plan A for everything. I yearn for us to be the innovators for once, rather than bemoaning our failure to cope with another team's ideas, such as the trap you suggest.

Maybe, we can grind our way to a RWC win but, somehow, I doubt we can do so without a bit of craft and invention from coaches and players. Cipriani . . . .

Oakboy wrote:

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
Nobody has bothered much about how bad our mauls have been over the last few games. Odd really, when our front five forwards are rated quite highly and when our top two clubs don't make a habit of ballsing them up from their own lineouts near the try line. Is it unreasonable to expect better?

It's very definitely not unreasonable. I'm hoping that we're planning on doing a lot of dummy drives and BillyV off the back moves.

He oddest thing about our maul is that it's not usually badly set; we just have no capacity to cope with players swinging round the side and getting in the way. Whenever we move forward, it always seems to turn out to've been a trap.

Puja

Exactly, so is it not a good example of a failure to adapt on the hoof? Not even a wrinkly old cynic like me could suggest that Borthwick has not had them practising mauls at all. It just seems a caricature of there only being a Plan A for everything. I yearn for us to be the innovators for once, rather than bemoaning our failure to cope with another team's ideas, such as the trap you suggest.

Maybe, we can grind our way to a RWC win but, somehow, I doubt we can do so without a bit of craft and invention from coaches and players. Cipriani . . . .

I do agree that Cipriani would make a significant difference to our maul.

Puja

To be fair - we rarely score with Mauls without the backs piling in these days…

Oakboy wrote:

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
Nobody has bothered much about how bad our mauls have been over the last few games. Odd really, when our front five forwards are rated quite highly and when our top two clubs don't make a habit of ballsing them up from their own lineouts near the try line. Is it unreasonable to expect better?

It's very definitely not unreasonable. I'm hoping that we're planning on doing a lot of dummy drives and BillyV off the back moves.

He oddest thing about our maul is that it's not usually badly set; we just have no capacity to cope with players swinging round the side and getting in the way. Whenever we move forward, it always seems to turn out to've been a trap.

Puja

Exactly, so is it not a good example of a failure to adapt on the hoof? Not even a wrinkly old cynic like me could suggest that Borthwick has not had them practising mauls at all. It just seems a caricature of there only being a Plan A for everything. I yearn for us to be the innovators for once, rather than bemoaning our failure to cope with another team's ideas, such as the trap you suggest.

Maybe, we can grind our way to a RWC win but, somehow, I doubt we can do so without a bit of craft and invention from coaches and players. Cipriani . . . .

You always have to adapt to other teams ideas, and co-adapt when they adapt to yours. Innovation is great, don’t get me wrong, but adaption and co-adaption are absolutely key to maintained success.

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:See Wales x 2, and I’d say there is cause for concern. The ABs are the best because they co-adapt better than anyone else.
And it’s not just a captaincy thing. It’s across the board. The captain, in our case, isn’t going to fix a maul plan that’s not working.

perzackly

Nobody has bothered much about how bad our mauls have been over the last few games. Odd really, when our front five forwards are rated quite highly and when our top two clubs don't make a habit of ballsing them up from their own lineouts near the try line. Is it unreasonable to expect better?

Though Munster dealt with Exeter's maul rather we’ll both home and away.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote: perzackly

Nobody has bothered much about how bad our mauls have been over the last few games. Odd really, when our front five forwards are rated quite highly and when our top two clubs don't make a habit of ballsing them up from their own lineouts near the try line. Is it unreasonable to expect better?

Though Munster dealt with Exeter's maul rather we’ll both home and away.

Agreed, but Exeter have no forwards regularly starting for England, unlike Saracens who have at least four. Presumably, Exeter's experience was fully investigated and acted upon. Borthwick would have discussed this with Baxter, LCD, Kvesic, wouldn't he . . . . . ?

Oakboy wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
Nobody has bothered much about how bad our mauls have been over the last few games. Odd really, when our front five forwards are rated quite highly and when our top two clubs don't make a habit of ballsing them up from their own lineouts near the try line. Is it unreasonable to expect better?

Though Munster dealt with Exeter's maul rather we’ll both home and away.

Agreed, but Exeter have no forwards regularly starting for England, unlike Saracens who have at least four. Presumably, Exeter's experience was fully investigated and acted upon. Borthwick would have discussed this with Baxter, LCD, Kvesic, wouldn't he . . . . . ?

Doesn’t that go against your previous statement about England’s top 2 and their maul? It worked significantly well at prem but failed in Europe. Or rather they failed to co-adapt to Munster adapting to them.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
Though Munster dealt with Exeter's maul rather we’ll both home and away.

Agreed, but Exeter have no forwards regularly starting for England, unlike Saracens who have at least four. Presumably, Exeter's experience was fully investigated and acted upon. Borthwick would have discussed this with Baxter, LCD, Kvesic, wouldn't he . . . . . ?

Doesn’t that go against your previous statement about England’s top 2 and their maul? It worked significantly well at prem but failed in Europe. Or rather they failed to co-adapt to Munster adapting to them.

Yes, in a way, but Exeter had a successful maul against all but Munster. Add on Saracens success, analyse what went wrong for Exeter and apply all lessons to the national game. Adapt and improve etc. I feel it is reasonable to ask questions about England's maul with the contention that we have the players to be very good at it but we were not!

My overall point is to question the standard of our national coaching set-up and I admit to rating neither Jones nor Borthwick.