RugbyRebels

I know the journo- can't say I agree with a fair bit of it, but its a good start point for a debate

https://www.planetrugby.com/opinion-fiv ... 2SNXv-sC4k

I think it's a fair enough article personally - I'm not as overly vexed as many seem to be with how England are going currently. That's not to say I'm satisfied or happy but I actually think in terms of integrating a new core of players England are actually further along in comparison to where they were in 2018 and on top of that we have an almost entirely new backroom staff who've only just spent their second period of time with the squad. It'll take some time to bed in, and although that shouldn't excuse poor performances it should perhaps, with hindsight, show that some expectations before the 6N were perhaps inflated (Charlie Morgan has made the comparison more than once with Ireland in 2020/21 and I think that's bang on). I think the squad taken to Australia is going to look considerably different again to the one for the 6N and injury permitting there's several players - Barbeary, J. Willis, Cokanasiga - who have the firepower to really drag the team forward.

Hmm. The instant dismissal of the argument that "Jones plays players out of position" is facile - yes, players can move around, but players get 30 club games a season inculcating the instincts and reactions for being in a certain position and having certain responsibilities. Put them somewhere they're not used to and they're using more of their brain trying to remember where they ought to be rather than being able to react instinctively. Round pegs in round holes isn't a trope for no reason.

I'm also raising an eyebrow at, "The simple truth is that anyone close to an international cap has been looked at and assessed in detail," and "the idea that players can be parachuted in to a team structure at the drop of a hat is wholly wrong," being combined with "drop Nowell, Isiekwe, Underhill, and Simmonds" and "bring in Ribbans, Lozowski, Barbeary, Rapava-Ruskin, Hassell-Collins, Odogwu, BillyV, and Joseph."

Puja

Puja wrote:Hmm. The instant dismissal of the argument that "Jones plays players out of position" is facile - yes, players can move around, but players get 30 club games a season inculcating the instincts and reactions for being in a certain position and having certain responsibilities. Put them somewhere they're not used to and they're using more of their brain trying to remember where they ought to be rather than being able to react instinctively. Round pegs in round holes isn't a trope for no reason.

I'm also raising an eyebrow at, "The simple truth is that anyone close to an international cap has been looked at and assessed in detail," and "the idea that players can be parachuted in to a team structure at the drop of a hat is wholly wrong," being combined with "drop Nowell, Isiekwe, Underhill, and Simmonds" and "bring in Ribbans, Lozowski, Barbeary, Rapava-Ruskin, Hassell-Collins, Odogwu, BillyV, and Joseph."

Puja

100% agree on your first paragraph. Overall it’s a bit of a weird article that flits between good points and strange or contradictory ones.

In fairness to the writer, the “ The simple truth is that anyone close to an international cap has been looked at and assessed in detail” piece you quoted was specifically referring to centres, but the notion we should can those specific players was odd, particularly considering the players being suggested are not obviously better. The call for revisiting Shields has some merit, but JJ has been anonymous for quite while and I don’t see a huge amount of benefit to bringing him back.

Hmm. I'm struggling with what to pick out from all that, to be honest. Yes we need more clarity in what we're doing, better balance, more patience, more players that can give us momentum. Those certainly aren't new ideas on here. Has Jones ever been famed for being clear

I don't think Care is not a serious option for a number of reasons. Do we know how to get 2016 Billy back and use him to his full effect? Where do VRR/Willis/Barbeary/Lozowksi actually fit it in? Is Joseph still up to it? Will Ribbans really be able to make up for Underhill's disgusting lack of try-scoring ability? What does he actually need to see from OHC/Odogwu/Coka to make them players he can't ignore?

I'm just a bit confused by the whole thing, to be honest. Are "simplicity, basics and clarity" really the hallmarks of Jones's coaching?

Well Puja beat me to most of those points.

Puja wrote:I'm also raising an eyebrow at, "The simple truth is that anyone close to an international cap has been looked at and assessed in detail," and "the idea that players can be parachuted in to a team structure at the drop of a hat is wholly wrong," being combined with "drop Nowell, Isiekwe, Underhill, and Simmonds" and "bring in Ribbans, Lozowski, Barbeary, Rapava-Ruskin, Hassell-Collins, Odogwu, BillyV, and Joseph."

Puja

To be fair, we would be better with 19 men on the pitch!


I have some sympathy for some of his points, but he does seem to like absolutes, and contradicting himself.


Number on the back being irrelevant - there's a point to it, but it also requires practice to work. Equally, fans do seem to get over hung-uo on the numbers, and often don't notice when a player actually plays elsewhere at club level (Lawes is only a lock, Watson is only a winger, Daly & Marchant only play OC). There's a lot of overlap between the flanks, and between the centres, and for some, between OC and wing. But it isn't simple as Eddie tells us (though, again, fans put too much weight on "stuff coaches say to the press"), but equally it's not as simple as fans make out. I agree with him that it's about skill balance - but it's also about sheer time spent reading the game from elsewhere to normal. Equally, some players can, and some just can't - even if they have everything on paper that says they should. Daly reached that point at FB quite a while ago, Slade at 12 has reached it as well (though I still want to see what would happen given 30 matches there for Ex.)

Dumping under-performers (including favourites like Underhill/Farrell) is absolutely fine, but you really do need to have someone to replace them with. Except.... Sometimes, a player might be underperforming so badly for so long, you just have to gamble, however harsh that might be for the incoming SH.

Yep, mixed bag all right, but he is pretty well connected, even if he has some hobby horses.

I don't see how the current situation can be discussed without mentioning the highlight of the 6N - the 14 man performance against Ireland. Simplicity of objective, togetherness in adversity etc. produced a better performance than any 15 man one under Jones. It was still a defeat but the only forgiveable one taking result and performance in balance.

There appears to be too much 'we are stuck with him so make the best of it' about this article and the RFU's stance.

I would hate having Gatland but if he offered his services tomorrow they should just write a cheque and go with him. Jones IS that bad. No amount of fiddling by him is going to work unfortunately. Thinking otherwise is futile and details are irrelevant.

The article gets off on the wrong foot by claiming that Englands 6N campaign "was somewhat nonplussing". I can think of a few terms to describe the sub par performances served up and nonplussing wouldnt be among them.
The writer makes some fair points (player depth and quality, time in camp, club v country) but these were in place when Jones took over and it didnt stop him having great initial success. And its right to say Jones overall record is very good. But post 2019 it hasnt been great and two back to back 6N's with 2 wins each is a very poor return.
Some of the names mentioned seem darn odd. JJ, Care and Lozowski are very unlikely to get a recall and, while I regard Val R-R and Ribbans highly, the odds must be on them being continually ignored. I actually think he's right about Underhill ,who is a bit of a one trick pony and Slade does need to demonstrate some consistent effectiveness.
And yes, we need to have one quick guy in the side.
Red zone efficiency isnt that good but our issues are all over pitch, not just in the opposition 22. No mention of discipline, poor ball presentation and retention, ineffective mauling or lack of turnovers being won.
The points about making things simple seem pretty obvious. Why would any experienced coach not make things as simple as possible? The comments regarding Jones frayed relationship with the media are spot on. I cannot bear to listen to him and i'm sure i'm not alone. Some less defensive, non BS comment would be welcome.

Banquo wrote:I know the journo- can't say I agree with a fair bit of it, but its a good start point for a debate

https://www.planetrugby.com/opinion-fiv ... 2SNXv-sC4k

Well I disagree with your mate’s assessment of Underhill, Simmonds and Nowell - including pointing a finger about Underhill failing at the breakdown but not mentioning Lawes in this context (in fact rather bigging him up)

jngf wrote:

Banquo wrote:I know the journo- can't say I agree with a fair bit of it, but its a good start point for a debate

https://www.planetrugby.com/opinion-fiv ... 2SNXv-sC4k

Well I disagree with your mate’s assessment of Underhill, Simmonds and Nowell - including pointing a finger about Underhill failing at the breakdown but not mentioning Lawes in this context (in fact rather bigging him up)

....frankly, if you are disagreeing with him....

in order-- Underhill without Curry as a minder is a much lesser player, Simmonds has been anonymous, and Nowell is both a sicknote and flatters to deceive at this level imo. His overall point is about needing to find better players than some of the mediocrity filling the shirts at the moment, and two out of those three are, at this level.

Banquo wrote:

jngf wrote:

Banquo wrote:I know the journo- can't say I agree with a fair bit of it, but its a good start point for a debate

https://www.planetrugby.com/opinion-fiv ... 2SNXv-sC4k

Well I disagree with your mate’s assessment of Underhill, Simmonds and Nowell - including pointing a finger about Underhill failing at the breakdown but not mentioning Lawes in this context (in fact rather bigging him up)

....frankly, if you are disagreeing with him....

in order-- Underhill without Curry as a minder is a much lesser player, Simmonds has been anonymous,.

The whole set of our backrow options are much lesser players without Curry. They're much lesser players with Curry when he is asked to play 8, in a similar way that Simmonds getting dicked around in terms of positional selection and role asked to perform lessens him and the rest of the unit.

32nd Man wrote:Simmonds getting dicked around in terms of positional selection and role asked to perform lessens him and the rest of the unit.

It's not just the back row. As has been said so often, it could have been Slade/Marchant for all 5 matches. Daly could have got back into the swing of being the winger he was a few years back with 5 straight games. Nowell and Malins was always a mistake - it had to be either/or (or neither). Why chop Smith against Scotland and then ask him to do 80 every game thereafter? If Randall was right as starting 9 why not in the last game? Why move Steward from FB? Dombrandt or Simmonds - just make a decision. Can either really play as flanker? Malins/Furbank?

It was just consistent inconsistency!! Grand plan? I don't think so.

32nd Man wrote:

Banquo wrote:

jngf wrote:
Well I disagree with your mate’s assessment of Underhill, Simmonds and Nowell - including pointing a finger about Underhill failing at the breakdown but not mentioning Lawes in this context (in fact rather bigging him up)

....frankly, if you are disagreeing with him....

in order-- Underhill without Curry as a minder is a much lesser player, Simmonds has been anonymous,.

The whole set of our backrow options are much lesser players without Curry. They're much lesser players with Curry when he is asked to play 8, in a similar way that Simmonds getting dicked around in terms of positional selection and role asked to perform lessens him and the rest of the unit.

Not sure about the 8 thing with Curry, as all that changed in the way he played was packing down at 8; it is/was when he is tasked with heavy carrying that his impact is lessened- though the two are I guess linked in the sense we possibly are a carrier down if he is at 8. On Simmonds, tbh not sure whatever he does he looks intl quality, though that might be unfair, in the same way that Slade is getting stick for not performing miracles at 12.

Oakboy wrote:

32nd Man wrote:Simmonds getting dicked around in terms of positional selection and role asked to perform lessens him and the rest of the unit.

It's not just the back row. As has been said so often, it could have been Slade/Marchant for all 5 matches. Daly could have got back into the swing of being the winger he was a few years back with 5 straight games. Nowell and Malins was always a mistake - it had to be either/or (or neither). Why chop Smith against Scotland and then ask him to do 80 every game thereafter? If Randall was right as starting 9 why not in the last game? Why move Steward from FB? Dombrandt or Simmonds - just make a decision. Can either really play as flanker? Malins/Furbank?

It was just consistent inconsistency!! Grand plan? I don't think so.

Some of that can be rationalised under horses for courses esp the final game. The rest, to me, looks like is trying to figure out how to get the best out of a moderate set of back options- as been said before, its being over thought and under prepared. IIRC we were in a similar sort of state this time last world cup cycle, and I was unhappy then .

Scrumhead wrote:

Puja wrote:Hmm. The instant dismissal of the argument that "Jones plays players out of position" is facile - yes, players can move around, but players get 30 club games a season inculcating the instincts and reactions for being in a certain position and having certain responsibilities. Put them somewhere they're not used to and they're using more of their brain trying to remember where they ought to be rather than being able to react instinctively. Round pegs in round holes isn't a trope for no reason.

I'm also raising an eyebrow at, "The simple truth is that anyone close to an international cap has been looked at and assessed in detail," and "the idea that players can be parachuted in to a team structure at the drop of a hat is wholly wrong," being combined with "drop Nowell, Isiekwe, Underhill, and Simmonds" and "bring in Ribbans, Lozowski, Barbeary, Rapava-Ruskin, Hassell-Collins, Odogwu, BillyV, and Joseph."

Puja

100% agree on your first paragraph. Overall it’s a bit of a weird article that flits between good points and strange or contradictory ones.

In fairness to the writer, the “ The simple truth is that anyone close to an international cap has been looked at and assessed in detail” piece you quoted was specifically referring to centres, but the notion we should can those specific players was odd, particularly considering the players being suggested are not obviously better. The call for revisiting Shields has some merit, but JJ has been anonymous for quite while and I don’t see a huge amount of benefit to bringing him back.

I do agree, but then again JJ has been playing in the worst side in the AP for a while, and shining at 13 in a sh*t side isn't that easy. I think his injuries have done for him, that said.

I had actually been thinking that Simmonds was looking more comfortable at international level over the campaign. Not tearing up trees I guess, which is what had been the hope.

Banquo wrote:

32nd Man wrote:

Banquo wrote: ....frankly, if you are disagreeing with him....

in order-- Underhill without Curry as a minder is a much lesser player, Simmonds has been anonymous,.

The whole set of our backrow options are much lesser players without Curry. They're much lesser players with Curry when he is asked to play 8, in a similar way that Simmonds getting dicked around in terms of positional selection and role asked to perform lessens him and the rest of the unit.

Not sure about the 8 thing with Curry, as all that changed in the way he played was packing down at 8; it is/was when he is tasked with heavy carrying that his impact is lessened- though the two are I guess linked in the sense we possibly are a carrier down if he is at 8. On Simmonds, tbh not sure whatever he does he looks intl quality, though that might be unfair, in the same way that Slade is getting stick for not performing miracles at 12.

Simmonds is very good when playing to the Exeter game plan.
He has much less impact in trying to play a fairly undefined role for England.
Jones seems to have picked him because he dose some things very well week to week, then asks him to do something different.

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

32nd Man wrote:Simmonds getting dicked around in terms of positional selection and role asked to perform lessens him and the rest of the unit.

It's not just the back row. As has been said so often, it could have been Slade/Marchant for all 5 matches. Daly could have got back into the swing of being the winger he was a few years back with 5 straight games. Nowell and Malins was always a mistake - it had to be either/or (or neither). Why chop Smith against Scotland and then ask him to do 80 every game thereafter? If Randall was right as starting 9 why not in the last game? Why move Steward from FB? Dombrandt or Simmonds - just make a decision. Can either really play as flanker? Malins/Furbank?

It was just consistent inconsistency!! Grand plan? I don't think so.

Some of that can be rationalised under horses for courses esp the final game. The rest, to me, looks like is trying to figure out how to get the best out of a moderate set of back options- as been said before, its being over thought and under prepared. IIRC we were in a similar sort of state this time last world cup cycle, and I was unhappy then .

But, if Jones is as good as he thinks he is why is he unsure about how to get the best out of players? None of them are strangers. Surely, a coach of his reputed stature should be able to pick the best players in the best positions in the best game plan without chopping and changihg every match. Also, by now, why aren't we imposing our game on others rather than adjusting to the opposition?

It's not like he is a raw coach 6 months into his stint. He is mega-experienced and 6 years in. Maybe he just does not cut it any more in the modern game?

That’s part of what is so frustrating. The lack of direction and cohesion was so widespread across the team that it feels difficult to actually assess how good a lot of players were.

Simmonds did a lot of very good things, Slade did some great stuff, Smith had good moments, were they a success in their roles? I haven’t got a clue.

Itoje is fantastic, Genge is good at bashing in to people, Steward is good at jumping in the air. I think these are the only concrete take-aways I have.

Oakboy wrote:I don't see how the current situation can be discussed without mentioning the highlight of the 6N - the 14 man performance against Ireland. Simplicity of objective, togetherness in adversity etc. produced a better performance than any 15 man one under Jones. It was still a defeat but the only forgiveable one taking result and performance in balance.

There appears to be too much 'we are stuck with him so make the best of it' about this article and the RFU's stance.

I would hate having Gatland but if he offered his services tomorrow they should just write a cheque and go with him. Jones IS that bad. No amount of fiddling by him is going to work unfortunately. Thinking otherwise is futile and details are irrelevant.

I’m not at all sure about that … do you really thank that was a better performance than the semi final?

If the rest of the year goes badly and Eddie is fired, Gatland could probably do a decent enough job of getting us in reasonable shape to be competitive at the RWC, but that’s really the only scenario where I’d remotely countenance turning to him.

jngf wrote:

Banquo wrote:I know the journo- can't say I agree with a fair bit of it, but its a good start point for a debate

https://www.planetrugby.com/opinion-fiv ... 2SNXv-sC4k

Well I disagree with your mate’s assessment of Underhill, Simmonds and Nowell - including pointing a finger about Underhill failing at the breakdown but not mentioning Lawes in this context (in fact rather bigging him up)

Holy gods, an opinion on the back row that I'm in support of.

Banquo does have a point that Underhill without Curry is a significantly lesser player, but he's hardly the reason that the backrow didn't work. Plus it's asking a hell of a lot of him, considering he's only 3 games into his comeback, when some of the best opensides in the world have failed to make a cohesive backrow with Lawes at 6. I don't care that CGS doesn't want to play at lock and has achieved sufficient leverage over Northampton that he never does - he is not consistently good enough at flank to be an international 6 and one BIL test where everything fell in his favour does not excuse the dross that has shown up on every other occasion. If he wants to play internationals, he should be a lock or nothing.

Puja

Mikey Brown wrote:That’s part of what is so frustrating. The lack of direction and cohesion was so widespread across the team that it feels difficult to actually assess how good a lot of players were.

Simmonds did a lot of very good things, Slade did some great stuff, Smith had good moments, were they a success in their roles? I haven’t got a clue.

Itoje is fantastic, Genge is good at bashing in to people, Steward is good at jumping in the air. I think these are the only concrete take-aways I have.

Wait, Slade did some great stuff? When? The highest point I saw him reach this 6N was "competence" and he wasn't there often enough.

Puja

He did a big cool pass at some point.

I guess what I mean is that there were individual moments that were good/terrible, but hard to judge because of everything else going on around them. I'm not saying Slade was great or even had great games, but that I found it difficult to say any particular player (particularly in the backs) was especially good or bad because it was all so disjointed.

Slade for instance threw some great passes, made some nice tackles, did a lot of "okay, well at least he didn't lose the ball" carrying. Maybe it was all his fault it didn't click, maybe it was the fault of the guy next to him, I don't know. It's annoying because seeing him given the Farrell/playmaker role at 12 was a great opportunity. Eddie gave him the keys to his [insert fancy car brand] and told him he was driving now, but he'd switched the pedals around, changed the numbers on the gearbox and put apple juice in the fuel tank.