Eddie Jones - England's New Coach

First topic message reminder :

So the worst kept secret is out...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/12005671/Eddie-Jones-to-be-confirmed-as-England-head-coach-in-next-24-hours.html

Jury's out on this one, will have to see how the 6Ns goes then ponder his selection.

That's a fair comment. I did ignore some of Ashton's mistakes and some poor form but primarily because the blame was sometimes fixed on him excessively.

Some players' mistakes are forgiven, some are not, Ashton's were not.

Thanks beshocked, it honestly means a lot you acknowledged that. I'm in the forgiveness stakes for them both.

beshocked wrote:That's a fair comment. I did ignore some of Ashton's mistakes and some poor form but primarily because the blame was sometimes fixed on him excessively.

Some players' mistakes are forgiven, some are not, Ashton's were not.

Mistakes tend to be forgiven if they are not repeated, there is signs of progress, or the player concerned obviously adds a lot elsewhere with their game. Ashton was given plenty of chances, maybe at the wrong time and with the wrong system, but seemed to go backwards from where he had been. The contrast with May is that he was increasingly cutting out the sideways running that drove people nuts and was getting more consistent with his general play.

Poorfour it damages the clubs whose players have to be the travelling reserve, means they are unavailable, I understand the necessity of the travelling reserve but I find it frustating.

If Lawes isn't deemed ready to start why risk him at all?

I believe I have given reasoned arguments and sufficient evidence.

lostinwales I've just always felt with Ashton he never played like he did for Saracens, ironically the good and bad of Ashton was on offer vs Ulster. His poor tackling technique but also his ability to pop up in different areas of the field. I personally didn't see much of the latter for England.

I blamed Lancaster more for Ashton's failure. Though of course Ashton's tackling technique is his own doing.

Part of a coaches' job is to get the best out of their players.

I think most of us can agree that Lancaster didn't seem to do that in the RWC.

Though saying that I am perhaps overly harsh on Lancaster, his overall win % is still higher than other higher rated coaches like Cotter and Gatland at international level.

I think Eddie has got his starting XV bang on for what is available and what he wants to do. Seldom could I have said the same about Lancaster - He's also chosen some new faces on the bench. You can see the reasoning in what he's trying to do and I like that in a coach. He must however be given time as he juggles the players and introduces new players and a style that he feels best suits England from the players at his disposal.

Whether they will be good enough remains to be seen as England appear to be thin on the floor as far as out and out world class players go at the moment and we know they lack a 7. However Eddie on this selection is looking to maximise what he has and develop what is up and coming. Its a fresh start and it needs time. Time is something the media and some fans don't like to allow. It should be interesting.

TJ wrote:As a Scotland fan I fear Care much more than Youngs

Just out of interest, what is it about care that your fear him much more than youngs?

Maybe he simply just doesn't care that he fears youngs as much?

Unpredictability / runs from around the ruck /. accuracy of pass

RubyGuby wrote:I think Eddie has got his starting XV bang on for what is available and what he wants to do. Seldom could I have said the same about Lancaster - He's also chosen some new faces on the bench. You can see the reasoning in what he's trying to do and I like that in a coach. He must however be given time as he juggles the players and introduces new players and a style that he feels best suits England from the players at his disposal.

Whether they will be good enough remains to be seen as England appear to be thin on the floor as far as out and out world class players go at the moment and we know they lack a 7. However Eddie on this selection is looking to maximise what he has and develop what is up and coming. Its a fresh start and it needs time. Time is something the media and some fans don't like to allow. It should be interesting.

As far as the 1st paragraph goes I think a lot of us would have expected Lancaster to have picked something very similar had he been still in charge, although maybe Lancaster had more of a tendency to pick certain players as default (and Robshaw Haskell would have different numbers on their backs). As its the start of a new 4 year cycle its likely that there would have been changes in selection anyway. I think the differences will show more in the approach to the game and longer term development, and we can be hopeful of that.

As for the 'world class' thing I personally I get fed up of that kind of label, not least because its a team game. If Eddie gets results against higher ranked teams more of the players will be considered ' world class'.

3/10 LIW

TJ wrote:Unpredictability / runs from around the ruck /. accuracy of pass

Only your last point has any merit, well this season anyway. But they are very similar players and both in good form so happy either way.

beshocked wrote:Poorfour it damages the clubs whose players have to be the travelling reserve, means they are unavailable, I understand the necessity of the travelling reserve but I find it frustating.

If Lawes isn't deemed ready to start why risk him at all?

I believe I have given reasoned arguments and sufficient evidence.

lostinwales I've just always felt with Ashton he never played like he did for Saracens, ironically the good and bad of Ashton was on offer vs Ulster. His poor tackling technique but also his ability to pop up in different areas of the field. I personally didn't see much of the latter for England.

I blamed Lancaster more for Ashton's failure. Though of course Ashton's tackling technique is his own doing.

Part of a coaches' job is to get the best out of their players.

I think most of us can agree that Lancaster didn't seem to do that in the RWC.

Though saying that I am perhaps overly harsh on Lancaster, his overall win % is still higher than other higher rated coaches like Cotter and Gatland at international level.

Fair enough on most of these, though it should be clear from the dialogue that many of us don't get your reasoning as to why certain players should be included and others shouldn't.

Travelling reserves are kind of frustrating - but they are also part and parcel of the English club/country/international schedule mess that we have to live with.

Lawes is - I suspect - ready to play, but won't have been training all week and Kruis has. As for him vs Itoje on the bench: he has run an international lineout and Itoje hasn't yet.

Ashton was at his best internationally under the Johnson/Smith attacking system and when paired with Foden. He clearly didn't work well in Lancaster's system, but I am not sure how significant the link with Foden is in the whole picture (and whether it remains now they've not played together in so long). If he fits what Eddie wants, then he'll get another shot. First he has to get past his ban, though.

Lancaster made the same mistake as Johnson: he did a fair amount right but didn't have enough experience to handle the pressure of the RWC, and didn't have a good enough plan B when the basics didn't work for him. The big difference is that - as Eddie has acknowledged - Lancaster left behind a pretty decent squad and a strong pipeline of youngsters.

It's a shame that the RFU didn't get Lancaster an Eddie Jones or an Ian McGeechan to provide a bit of an experienced voice - that might actually have been enough to make the difference.

Worse than that. At the RWC we went straight to an untested plan B and forgot about the plan A that had been working pretty well.

lostinwales wrote:Worse than that. At the RWC we went straight to an untested plan B and forgot about the plan A that had been working pretty well.

Lancaster would be still around if he stuck to plan a too

The matchday 23 may well look similar to what Lancaster might have selected but I'd have been no closer to understanding how they might perform if the old coaching team had stayed.

I never really got to grips with how England were supposed to be playing under Lancaster, and that's not just because of the last minute World Cup indecision. It often seemed equally possible that we could win or lose any given match because few of our players demonstrated much consistency.

Jones is a highly prescriptive coach, so I don't think we'll be wondering for too long about what he wants players to do. The downside is that his thinking will undoubtedly not suit some current players and prospects, so we might see some surprising names in the wilderness. In the best case, we don't worry too much about that because the team wins some titles.

There are 4 key changes to what Lancaster would have had, that's a significant amount and each one improves the side IMO

Think Lancaster would have had Itoje in, we'd have likely seen Burrell back at 12, 6 and 7 the other way round. Don't know if he'd have had another 7 on the bench.

beshocked wrote:
I am sure if a Tigers player was put in that situation, let's say they would miss a game vs Saints because they needed to hold a tackle bag, you wouldn't be happy.

He's not just there to hold a tackle bag. He'll be part of a squad travelling to an away game in the 6 Nations and will learn much from it, which will hopefully make it less daunting for him when his time does come.

He's on the bench for Saracens this weekend.

RubyGuby wrote:There are 4 key changes to what Lancaster would have had, that's a significant amount and each one improves the side IMO

What do you think those 4 changes are?

Robshaw/Haskell switching and Robshaw loosing the captaincy are the ones that would be most unlikely to happen.

If he felt Hartley was playing well enough he would have picked him, with possibly TY on the bench although George was getting closer to being selected.

12 is anyone's guess but Lancaster had played Farrell at 12 before so that would not be surprising.

TJ wrote:As a Scotland fan I fear Care much more than Youngs

Yep - I'm delighted to see Care start.

lostinwales wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:There are 4 key changes to what Lancaster would have had, that's a significant amount and each one improves the side IMO

What do you think those 4 changes are?

Robshaw/Haskell switching and Robshaw loosing the captaincy are the ones that would be most unlikely to happen.

If he felt Hartley was playing well enough he would have picked him, with possibly TY on the bench although George was getting closer to being selected.

12 is anyone's guess but Lancaster had played Farrell at 12 before so that would not be surprising.

I'm not thinking, there are actually 4 changes - Hooker, 2nd row, scrum half and wing 5 if you want to count Haskell and that's a lot of change for the better

RubyGuby wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:There are 4 key changes to what Lancaster would have had, that's a significant amount and each one improves the side IMO

What do you think those 4 changes are?

Robshaw/Haskell switching and Robshaw loosing the captaincy are the ones that would be most unlikely to happen.

If he felt Hartley was playing well enough he would have picked him, with possibly TY on the bench although George was getting closer to being selected.

12 is anyone's guess but Lancaster had played Farrell at 12 before so that would not be surprising.

I'm not thinking, there are actually 4 changes - Hooker, 2nd row, scrum half and wing

All of the 'changes' are players who had got caps in those positions for Lancaster and are mostly driven by injuries and form ( All except Hartley really) therefore its not exactly revolutionary

Lancaster would have gone 2- Youngs, 2nd row: Lawes, SH Wigglesworth - Wood at 7 and he would have bypassed Nowell again - Did you not watch the RWC

No he wouldn't have done.

The starters are most certainly a SL side. It's the bench that has changed some.

nathan wrote:

TJ wrote:Unpredictability / runs from around the ruck /. accuracy of pass

Only your last point has any merit, well this season anyway. But they are very similar players and both in good form so happy either way.

I think that they're both great players - Care for me just has a bit more aggression and fight which if properly channelled is invaluable.

RubyGuby wrote:Lancaster would have gone 2- Youngs, 2nd row: Lawes, SH Wigglesworth - Wood at 7 and he would have bypassed Nowell again - Did you not watch the RWC

Last 6N Haskell was playing at 6. Lancaster did prefer Wood but its not the be all end all.

Lawes depends, but he had started Kruis.

Wigglesworth is probably on the 'not going to be there in 4 years time so not to be considered' (as is Barritt).

No May therefore wing choice is easy.... (ish)

Poorfour fair enough, that's what opinions are about. I believe I am right, you believe you are. It would be boring if everyone agreed on everything. We'll only know who is right when we see what happens... even if there are some who don't agree with the evidence.

Ashton was a fool, Eddie Jones offered him an opportunity to win an England spot back with ex Saracens coaches who might have looked on him favourably. He's blown that.

Hoonercat a trip to Murrayfield won't make it less daunting as he's not actually playing. Gametime is the most important learning experience for better or worse.

Will probably learn more from his game vs Bath than a trip up to Scotland as a injury reserve. That was a test in adversity. Will also probably learn more being on the bench vs Exeter. Exeter have caused Sarries quite a few problems in previous matches, going to be tough.

no 7 & 1/2 glad about that. Sarries might well need him,got a lot of respect for Exeter.

Poorfour wrote:
Ashton was at his best internationally under the Johnson/Smith attacking system and when paired with Foden. He clearly didn't work well in Lancaster's system, but I am not sure how significant the link with Foden is in the whole picture (and whether it remains now they've not played together in so long). If he fits what Eddie wants, then he'll get another shot. First he has to get past his ban, though.

I've posted this relentlessly whenever that point is made, but the Ashton / Foden thing is a complete myth at international level. Look at all of Ashton's tries for England and the only one Foden had even the slightest hand in was from two yards out against Georgia.

You could argue there was some communication /positioning element to the partnership that made Ashton effective, but that would probably just be making up facts to fit the argument.

RubyGuby wrote:Lancaster would have gone 2- Youngs, 2nd row: Lawes, SH Wigglesworth - Wood at 7 and he would have bypassed Nowell again - Did you not watch the RWC

He bypassed Nowell in favour of May who is now injured.

Wood got picked to add a lineout option. With Hartley throwing they would arguably not have worried about that so much.

Wigglesworth didn't start at all in the last 6 nations.

Jones has said that Lawes may have started had he not missed so much training with his hamstring niggle.

doctor_grey wrote:

DaveM wrote:I suspect the way the Leicester pack featuring Kitchener was completely annihilated by the Sarries pack with Kruis and Itoje inthe engine-room probably didn't help his cause. Barrow was there too, so plenty of work still needed there as well. Interesting to see how he develops though. He was really highly rated as a teenager coming through at Leeds.

I think it's very possible the team, especially the pack, which tours in June could be pretty different than the team we have now.  For instance, if Slade and Tuilagi are healthy (and firing!) then the backs could look and play very differently.  If Ford continues his mediocre play, the 10s could be Farrell and Cipriani, a very different dynamic there.  With a lot of young talent, the pack has so many permutations it is almost impossible to sift through.  I think we will learn more by the end of the 6 Nations (does anyone fall out?) and the end of the club season (who shows some real potential?).  Great place to be in.

I agree with all that. By the AIs I expect us to have a very strong side.

beshocked wrote:

Hoonercat a trip to Murrayfield won't make it less daunting as he's not actually playing. Gametime is the most important learning experience for better or worse.

Will probably learn more from his game vs Bath than a trip up to Scotland as a injury reserve. That was a test in adversity. Will also probably learn more being on the bench vs Exeter. Exeter have caused Sarries quite a few problems in previous matches, going to be tough.

I'm sure you're right Beshocked. Travelling with the England camp in preparation for their opening 6 Nations game, taking in the atmosphere, bonding with senior players, getting to know and understand the new coach and what he expects, experiencing team talks, seeing the nerves of the first team, experiencing the atmosphere of an international stadium in front of 68,000 fans, how could any of that prepare him for international duty better than being on the bench in front of 12,000 fans away at Exeter?

All in all, he's passed the first test. Decent performance with some areas of improvement but a good win. Italy looks slightly trickier after the France game.

thomh wrote:

Poorfour wrote:
Ashton was at his best internationally under the Johnson/Smith attacking system and when paired with Foden. He clearly didn't work well in Lancaster's system, but I am not sure how significant the link with Foden is in the whole picture (and whether it remains now they've not played together in so long). If he fits what Eddie wants, then he'll get another shot. First he has to get past his ban, though.

I've posted this relentlessly whenever that point is made, but the Ashton / Foden thing is a complete myth at international level. Look at all of Ashton's tries for England and the only one Foden had even the slightest hand in was from two yards out against Georgia.

You could argue there was some communication /positioning element to the partnership that made Ashton effective, but that would probably just be making up facts to fit the argument.

16 of Ashton's 19 tries for England were scored with Toby Flood on the pitch.

Hoonercat still think it doesn't actually beat actually being in the 23 and getting gametime for England.

Eddie Jones has a tough decision to make for the Italy game, Launchbury in my opinion put in a lacklustre performance but does that mean he should be dropped? Lawes was solid off the bench, Kruis was good. Wouldn't surprise me if Itoje misses out again though I think he needs to be in the 23.

no 7 & 1/2 really? You would call that a decent performance?

It was okay but plenty of improvement can be made.

Just hope Eddie Jones makes positive changes needed now that he's got his first win.

Eddie says we need to go out and give Italy a good hiding....

I like his style!

Italy's weekend performance may leave Jones wondering if now is the time for tinkering, they have a strong pack and I think previous score lines have sometimes flattered England. I can't see Haskell being dropped for this one we'll need his bulk likewise Kruis should have cemented his place for the weekend. Not sure about Launchbury, he looked off the pace and out of shape. I would like to see Itoje on the bench but at who's expense?
Please Eddie put Farrell back at 10, Ford was terrible even behind a dominant pack in the 2nd half. He's looking like a player with no confidence and as much as I agree with building a team and sticking with the same players as much as possible I can't see the point when an in-form Farrell is playing so much better.

LondonTiger wrote:

thomh wrote:

Poorfour wrote:
Ashton was at his best internationally under the Johnson/Smith attacking system and when paired with Foden. He clearly didn't work well in Lancaster's system, but I am not sure how significant the link with Foden is in the whole picture (and whether it remains now they've not played together in so long). If he fits what Eddie wants, then he'll get another shot. First he has to get past his ban, though.

I've posted this relentlessly whenever that point is made, but the Ashton / Foden thing is a complete myth at international level. Look at all of Ashton's tries for England and the only one Foden had even the slightest hand in was from two yards out against Georgia.

You could argue there was some communication /positioning element to the partnership that made Ashton effective, but that would probably just be making up facts to fit the argument.

16 of Ashton's 19 tries for England were scored with Toby Flood on the pitch.

Yes he played much better when Flood was on the field but struggled when Farrell took over. I was surprised he wasn't recalled when England began playing a more expansive game again.

beshocked wrote:Hoonercat still think it doesn't actually beat actually being in the 23 and getting gametime for England.

Eddie Jones has a tough decision to make for the Italy game, Launchbury in my opinion put in a lacklustre performance but does that mean he should be dropped? Lawes was solid off the bench, Kruis was good. Wouldn't surprise me if Itoje misses out again though I think he needs to be in the 23.

no 7 & 1/2 really? You would call that a decent performance?

It was okay but plenty of improvement can be made.

Just hope Eddie Jones makes positive changes needed now that he's got his first win.

Yeah decent/satisfactory/did what they had to do. Seems you agree?

Is this rumour about launchbury having stomach problems true?

Did the job is different to a decent performance.

Shouldnt be breaking out the champagne just yet. It's a solid platform but plenty of improvements can be made IMO.

Makes me wonder why Launchbury was played if he wasn't fully fit.

The thing that most surprised me about England's performance was the Farrell-Ford combo; it wasn't bad... however I'm not sure that's because they played well or Scotland didn't exploit it efficiently.  They certainly kicked better than Scotland and that comes from having another option off the base of the ruck.
The interesting thing now for England is how do they approach the rest of the tournament? That pack will lose to Wales even at home. Scotland probably have the best front 5 scrum wise in the tournament and they coped ok with them but Wales' backrow will tear England current trio a new one if they get parity in the set piece. Its too stodgy, too heavy.
They need to put a marker down vs. Italy points wise but for me, whilst I think their current backrow can win vs. Ireland and France, I don't think it will be sufficient to beat Wales and needs bit of speed and ruck specialists. Does Jones drop players after a win or continue?

Decent is ok. We agree.

I think the Scottish front 5 was over egged a little pre game. They're good but Ford has always been a little squiffy with lineouts. The English pack will continue to evolve but it's again shown it is no where near as weak as some try to make out.

Decent is not the same as good.

decent
adjective

Definition: of an acceptable standard; satisfactory.

synonyms: satisfactory, reasonable, fair, acceptable, adequate, sufficient, sufficiently good, good enough, ample, up to scratch, up to the mark, up to standard, up to par, competent, not bad, all right, average, tolerable, passable, suitable;

England put in a decent performance.

Jones achieved what he set out to do in that game. . That a decent start for him.

fa0019 wrote:The thing that most surprised me about England's performance was the Farrell-Ford combo; it wasn't bad... however I'm not sure that's because they played well or Scotland didn't exploit it efficiently.  They certainly kicked better than Scotland and that comes from having another option off the base of the ruck.
The interesting thing now for England is how do they approach the rest of the tournament? That pack will lose to Wales even at home. Scotland probably have the best front 5 scrum wise in the tournament and they coped ok with them but Wales' backrow will tear England current trio a new one if they get parity in the set piece. Its too stodgy, too heavy.
They need to put a marker down vs. Italy points wise but for me, whilst I think their current backrow can win vs. Ireland and France, I don't think it will be sufficient to beat Wales and needs bit of speed and ruck specialists. Does Jones drop players after a win or continue?

We'll see

Thing is its a long time since the Wales scrum has actually got much out of the England one and England have been pretty good at nullifying Wales attack outside of the usual excellent kicking of 1/2p and Biggar. Wales did win the game that really mattered at the RWC but that was down to the usual strong defense and riding their luck until England self combusted.

Its only really been the one recent game where the Welsh backrow have been really successful against England, and that was a few years ago now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/35516834

Think Tindall's summary is actually quite accurate.

Fair enough Londontiger. I always thought decent meant good. You've proved me wrong.

fa0019

Agree with you no 7 & 1/2 Think the Scottish front five came into this game a bit overrated, the English one a bit underrated - remember no Parling or T.Youngs anymore.

Wales might hold the edge at backrow as things stand but set piece I think England might well have some success against Wales.

TJ wrote:Jones achieved what he set out to do in that game.  .  That a decent start for him.  

Exactly. He stated all he wanted was a win. He got that. End of. He moves on to the next game.