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.

I have to say, I do not understand why the coaches see Manu as a potential 12 and not Barritt.

After all Saracens beat Leicester by four tries to zip.

Now that the Telegraph reckon Itoje is going to be on the bench this weekend, does beshocked now feel that Eddie Jones is a deity amongst coaches?

Sgt Pooly it's auto correct. I am not losing the debate. Your argument is the same - he's not good enough because he's not been picked. Do you not see the flaw in that argument?

You say he outplayed Itoje yet he and the Newcastle pack got overpowered and failed to defend the Sarries rolling maul as well as failing to make any impact on the scoreboard bar 3 points. The Newcastle pack held out for most of the game but eventually the dam burst.Relentless pressure.

Rugby is about units, combinations. The Saracens pack was never in serious trouble against Newcastle.

The relevance is we are talking about Eddie Jones, the England coach, talking about England selection and inevitably picking good young prospects should come up.

I never said he should be picked solely for picking a player of the month gong. It's for his consistency and his ability to step up when it matters.

Your criticism against him is based on that one game vs Newcastle when you believe he was outplayed. Even if I take what you say as the truth which I don't but let's say I did, it still doesn't wipe out all his other strong performances both this season and at the latter stages of last season.

Londontiger you are entitled to your opinion. I believe you are wrong though.

Are you going to ignore Itoje's powerful carries in the link I put in? Look at 1:44. Such a powerful player.

You think Lawes is better at the breakdown than Itoje when Itoje has been one of the top turnover makers this season.

My issue with Nowell was always the timing of his introduction. I actually like him now. May I have never rated.

Rugby is a 80 minute game.

I watched the game. Saracens were comfortably ahead. Newcastle never looked like threatening to win the game.

Honestly just because someone is an experienced coach doesn't make them right on all occasions.

But you are always right - so from now on I will not bother discussing anything with you.

Londontiger on the contrary very few posters admit they are wrong. I am not always right.

I'll tell you where I was wrong.

I underestimated Haskell, he did his job vs Scotland. Still don't think he's the long term solution at 7 but he did what he had to do.

Hartley and Lawes both performed better than I thought they would. Still would rather see other players but neither let England down.

My criticism of Eddie Jones is perhaps overly hasty. I should perhaps have more patience.

Bambam not a deity no, just think it's a good decision if true.

I fail to see the logic of always citing this new player or that young new player as must have game time in a England shirt! Its like Boxing decisions. Unless the young new player is demonstrably better than the experienced incumbent then what's wrong in leaving the newby on the bench until they are really ready? All this 'development' hogwash is true to a certain extent but the overriding imperative must be to win the next game. Therefore you need your best on the field. Not your best and a few maybes. That's a recipe for losing your next game. You can develop your next players slowly and carefully without throwing them in to must win games on the hope they will be OK. If you do that and displace an experienced player then you will also have one seriously hacked off member in the squad that you may want to rely on sometime in the future when it really matters. eg, IF Itoje is better than Lawes, Kruis, Launchbury, Lees, Robinson, or whoever then select him but not before.

"Sgt Pooly it's auto correct. I am not losing the debate. Your argument is the same - he's not good enough because he's not been picked. Do you not see the flaw in that argument?

You say he outplayed Itoje yet he and the Newcastle pack got overpowered and failed to defend the Sarries rolling maul as well as failing to make any impact on the scoreboard bar 3 points. The Newcastle pack held out for most of the game but eventually the dam burst.Relentless pressure.

Rugby is about units, combinations. The Saracens pack was never in serious trouble against Newcastle."

I'm not saying he's not good enough, I'm saying he's not as good as which is totally different.

Your point that Saracens outplayed the Newcastle pack has absolutely no relevance on the fact that Robinson outplayed Itoje. One player can be outplayed yet your pack still get on top.

I'd say that Jonny Gray outplayed Lauchbury at the weekend but our pack still got on top.

Again, your points have no relevance to anything, you just like to argue.

englandglory4ever how can one know if a player is better than the current holder of the shirt if they aren't given a chance?

If player X has excelled at club level - surely he needs to be given an opportunity at international level at some point? Scotland and Italy - two of the easier games to do so.

Of course I have mentioned Itoje repeatedly but of course he's not the only player.

Ksevic is unlucky, at least in his case another talented prospect Clifford might be picked instead.

Daly - unlucky too. George - doomed to get only mere scraps of game time as things stand.



Sgt Pooly We don't know if he's as good or not at international level because he's not been given an opportunity yet.

England's pack was on top vs the Scottish pack - it was a 6 point win not a 35 point win... would have been a bit more worrying if Scotland had scored the interception.

You might argue the Newcastle pack didn't get destroyed -not after 50 no but in the end like the rest of the team it was routed. Couldn't handle the big Sarries carriers for the full 80.

Yes Newcastle played a bit fast and loose at the end but you do that when trying to chase down some sort of consolation.

Launchbury was found to not be fully fit anyway.

Game of rugby is about the team as well as the individual.

I have not seen any evidence that Robinson outplayed Itoje anyway. Perhaps some evidence like Robinson smashing Itoje in the tackle, outmuscling him to steal lineouts, overpowering him with ball in hand, beating him in the stats etc. That might help.

England generally has too many players to give everyone a proper chance though; the drawback of a huge player pool.

"I have not seen any evidence that Robinson outplayed Itoje anyway. Perhaps some evidence like Robinson smashing Itoje in the tackle, outmuscling him to steal lineouts, overpowering him with ball in hand, beating him in the stats etc. That might help."

But you didn't watch the game?

Again you've missed the point. For a player to outplay another player he doesn't have to be directly tackling or carrying against that specific player.

Jeez, this is like explaining rugby to the missus.

no 7 & 1/2 it's not an easy job to sift through the large player pool but a large player pool should mean there's more strength in depth and more chance for someone to emerge from the pack.

Sgt Pooly

Of course I watched the game. I didn't see Robinson outplaying Itoje. I agree he doesn't need to directly tackle the other player but he has to do something to show he's done better.

Though again you can interpret things in different ways. Someone on the defensive should make more tackles, someone on the front foot might make more carries and more metres.

I can only go from what I saw and Itoje's influence grew as the game went on culminating in a big carry which led to a Saracens penalty. Took about 3 Newcastle players to stop him.

Now of course it's only one moment but nonetheless it was a good one.

Not sure I agree as I think it makes it a touch more difficult to emerge from the pack. For one it's harder to get that initial chance, then a hard time keeping the jersey long enough. As I said it's really not possible to give all players that fair chance. And if the player does get a run to prove themselves they will of course be denying a chance for someone else!

I can't believe we've generated this many pages of discussion about, essentially, whether a promising player should be given a place in the squad last week, this week or sometime soon.

The kid will play for England. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow but soon and, if beshocked is right, for the rest of his playing career. The speculation about when is futile because Eddie will play him when he feels like playing him and there's nowt that we can do about it.

We've had the debate, we all know the arguments and no-one is saying anything new. Can we just agree a moratorium and talk about something else?

Back row balance and the choice of inside centre are far more interesting.

For instance, the question of why people see Manu as an option at 12 and not Barritt is an interesting question, because they are very different in skillset and character. Barritt is an excellent defender, solid distributor and powerful enough to straighten the line. Tuilagi is in another league entirely when it comes to power, but has big question marks over his distribution, defensive nous (at 12) and fitness.

But he's being looked at because a) he's a hard person to ignore, b) there are more goofd options at 13 than 12 and c) there is a precedent in Nonu for turning a big unsophisticated lump into a big, sophisticated centre.

At the other end of the scale, it's apparent that Eddie also wants to consider a 2nd 5/8ths type player. Is that going to be horses for courses, or is it a first past the post...?

To be fair Poorfour, if Beshocked was banned from mentioning Itoje this thread would be on about 3 pages.

I do think Jones should get Tom Youngs back in the fold asap though...

That should get us to page 25 by the end of the day.

Does anyone else think Alun Wyn Jones is overrated?

That should do it

I agree no 7 & 1/2 and that's what it keeps coming back to - that first chance.

Sure Poorfour. I am discussing the backrow on the Italy thread.

Barritt sadly doesn't make enough metres or enough breaks on a consistent basis. He can do as at did vs NZ but it's been far too rare.

Let's not forget that Manu is still only 24.

I think it comes down to the 2nd 5/8ths type player being interesting because of the extra kicking option but ultimately it comes down to looking at the players at their merits.

Let's look at some successful centre partnerships.

Tindall,Greenwood - brains and brawn
Darcy,BOD - brains and brawn
Nonu and Smith - brains and brawn.

England need both. I wouldn't say as of yet any of our 13s have shown the capabilities to be leaders in the same way BOD and Smith in particular have been. Of course these could be developed but I think there needs to be one brain in the centres.

I wouldn't say that Farrell fits that criteria either. Not the brightest bulb.

I think Manu could work at 12 but would probably need someone to be the brains outside him. I am not saying Manu is stupid but he lacks the finesse and vision that other players have.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I do think Jones should get Tom Youngs back in the fold asap though...

That should get us to page 25 by the end of the day.

Of course, England also had Greenwood/Catt as a backup option - brains and brains.

Eddie would have some interesting options if he settled on, say, Manu, Slade and JJ as the midfield backs in his XXIII (with Daly as the injury alternate for Slade or JJ). Most crucially, it would give him an instant Plan B and possibly even Plan C as any of the plausible permutations offers very different threats for the opposition:
Manu - JJ
Manu - Slade
Slade - JJ
Slade - Manu

Switching from any one of those to any other would force the opposing defence to reconfigure and create opportunities while they were adapting. The more I think about it, the more it seems like that's what he's aiming for.

I know it's bad form to follow up your own posts, but reading it back reminded me of another England centre switcheroo.

In the mid-90s we used to start with de Glanville and Carling (brawn and brawn), and bring Guscott on for the last 20 minutes.

At the time I always wondered why we left him on the bench until so late, because he invariably came on and tore the opposition to shreds... but now I realise that Phil and Will were pummelling the opposition to breaking point so that they had nothing left in the tank to cope with Jerry.

Poorfour wrote:Of course, England also had Greenwood/Catt as a backup option - brains and brains.

Eddie would have some interesting options if he settled on, say, Manu, Slade and JJ as the midfield backs in his XXIII (with Daly as the injury alternate for Slade or JJ). Most crucially, it would give him an instant Plan B and possibly even Plan C as any of the plausible permutations offers very different threats for the opposition:
Manu - JJ
Manu - Slade
Slade - JJ
Slade - Manu

Switching from any one of those to any other would force the opposing defence to reconfigure and create opportunities while they were adapting. The more I think about it, the more it seems like that's what he's aiming for.

I think that JJ will make a more than adequate back up wing. A lot of flexibility with these guys which will only increase with Daly.

We just have to hope that Manu and Slade get back to their best.

lostinwales wrote:

Poorfour wrote:Of course, England also had Greenwood/Catt as a backup option - brains and brains.

Eddie would have some interesting options if he settled on, say, Manu, Slade and JJ as the midfield backs in his XXIII (with Daly as the injury alternate for Slade or JJ). Most crucially, it would give him an instant Plan B and possibly even Plan C as any of the plausible permutations offers very different threats for the opposition:
Manu - JJ
Manu - Slade
Slade - JJ
Slade - Manu

Switching from any one of those to any other would force the opposing defence to reconfigure and create opportunities while they were adapting. The more I think about it, the more it seems like that's what he's aiming for.

I  think that JJ will make a more than adequate back up wing. A lot of flexibility with these guys which will only increase with Daly.

We just have to hope that Manu and Slade get back to their best.

If the Lancaster era is anything to go by, then our first hope should be that they are fit at the same time. The pessimist in me thinks it's highly unlikely Manu, Slade & Joseph will all be fit together for more than a tour or an autumn series.

But Sean Robinson DID outplay Itoje

Rugby Fan wrote:
If the Lancaster era is anything to go by, then our first hope should be that they are fit at the same time. The pessimist in me thinks it's highly unlikely Manu, Slade & Joseph will all be fit together for more than a tour or an autumn series.

Sadly you might be right. Perhaps Eddie should pick his players on durability first and skills second...

One thing that I've noticed is that Quins provide a disproportionate number of the caps in the squad - and often in players who divide opinion as to whether they should be there at all (Marler, Robshaw, Care, Brown - you could add Easter to that list). What they all have in common is not having missed much game time through injury. Care missed the 2011 RWC, Brown missed half of the 2015 6N, Robshaw missed one game in SA in 2012, I don't think Marler has ever missed an international game through injury. And arguably most of them would have been behind other players but for injury - Corbs and Mako have rarely been available at the same time, Wood and Croft have missed out through injury, Brown may not have got a shot but for Foden's injuries.

Whatever it is our physios are doing, perhaps England needs more of it...

beshocked wrote:I agree no 7 & 1/2 and that's what it keeps coming back to - that first chance.

Sure Poorfour. I am discussing the backrow on the Italy thread.

Barritt sadly doesn't make enough metres or enough breaks on a consistent basis. He can do as at did vs NZ but it's been far too rare.

Let's not forget that Manu is still only 24.

I think it comes down to the 2nd 5/8ths type player being interesting because of the extra kicking option but ultimately it comes down to looking at the players at their merits.

Let's look at some successful centre partnerships.

Tindall,Greenwood - brains and brawn
Darcy,BOD - brains and brawn
Nonu and Smith - brains and brawn.

England need both. I wouldn't say as of yet any of our 13s have shown the capabilities to be leaders in the same way BOD and Smith in particular have been. Of course these could be developed but I think there needs to be one brain in the centres.

I wouldn't say that Farrell fits that criteria either. Not the brightest bulb.

I think Manu could work at 12 but would probably need someone to be the brains outside him. I am not saying Manu is stupid but he lacks the finesse and vision that other players have.

Yup, there just isn't enough games to give all the players a chance.

Geordiefalcon just no.

no 7 & 1/2 just need to pick the correct players to get a chance and learn from mistakes. I think Lancaster's perhaps biggest failing was not learning.

Poofour the Quins guys have been good servants for England but I would say all had mediocre/poor games for England vs Scotland.

I would say that many players are divisive. Not just the Quins players.

Haskell is a case is in point. Farrell is one too.

I've just said on the other thread it's about your choice of players not being given the chance, not that no players are. Fits in with my point though not everyone can be given that chance.

I know it's about picking the right players. That's why coaches need to do it. It's what they get paid to do. Making errors can cost a coach a job as it did with Lancaster.

E.g. wasting gametime on Webber in the RWC was wrong. Should have gone to George.

You can try and make excuses for Lancaster if you want, doesn't change that it was wrong.

Not having sufficient contingency plan in backrow and centre. Wrong.

Farrell Jr wasn't a good centre in the RWC and is still isn't.

I know I keep harking back to events that already happened. It's because if you learn from the mistakes you can improve and move forward positively.

Well we'll never know will we. Hooker in the end wasn't a big problem in the WC so personally I'd say it would have been unlikely to make a difference.

Players do get chances but you can't give a chance to everyone.

We'll never know for sure because we can't go back in time but not giving enough gametime to George was a potential waste.

The scrum and set piece weren't a big problem?

Parling had to be played to look after T.Youngs which weakened the pack. Two underpowered players in the pack.

I thought the whole point was that Hartley was badly missed hence why Eddie Jones has put him on a pedestal - dropped T.Youngs and Parling. He's also kept George as his 2nd choice.

Can't give a chance to everyone but must to the right people.

No they weren't a big problem in the wc.

So as long as the coach picks the players you want and ignores the others like I said.

Just to switch it round why do you think Lancaster gave an opportunity to Clark?

Clark is quite a physical specimen for a no 7 and there was the Leeds Carnegie connection.  He did seem to lead a charmed life though in keeping being selected in view of injuries, suspension, etc.

Some players do seem to get more chances than others though.  Youngs and Care must have been dropped at least half a dozen times each, and not because the other was playing so well but because they were playing so poorly.  Care's performance on Saturday is a case in point.  I don't think Youngs was great when he came on, but I would not be surprised to see him start against Italy.

Kvesic for whatever reason does not seem to be flavour of the month whoever is the England coach.  Personally I think he deserves a chance - Haskell and Robshaw are just temporary measures. Criticism of Lancaster would be that he wasted caps on Phil Dowson, Mo Botha, etc who were never going to be top international players.

Itoje barring injury will get his chance sooner or later, so I am happy to leave it to Eddie Jones when to pick him.  Beaumont I am not so sure about and personally think he is a long way behind Billy and Nathan Hughes (when he is qualified), so for me would almost be a waste of a cap.  Unfair on a 22 year old.

Who was around in 2012 at8 who could have been top quality, Dowson was this years Haskell/Robshaw.

I am not sure Billy and Nathan Hughes are as high in Eddie's thinking as everyone else seems to think. The things he's said so far suggest that he has in mind a highly mobile, handling pack with players who can run the opposition off the park for 80 minutes... He wants a stable setpiece but I don't think he's as in love with sheer power as most of the fans and pundits.

Beaumont offers an interesting option because he's the right size and shape for a forward, and not lacking in power from what I've seen, but grew up playing 10 so offers more in terms of speed, vision and distribution than most of the current crop. Ditto Clifford, who played 12 for most of his rugby education (and it shows in his lines, step and distribution). Both of them have some development still to do, but they could easily be there within the next couple of years.

Billy's hard to defend against because of his power, but you know what's coming. Defences can organise around that, and you break them down essentially by wearing them out. It's like Wales with Jamie Roberts: control Jamie, and your penalty count, and they find it very hard to score.

I think Eddie's long term game may well be to build towards a gameplan where he has carriers who are hard to stop because they offer multiple options. It's much harder to defend against a forward who can go through you or round you, or flip the ball out to the wide channels.

The Kieran Read model .. great if it can be done!

A bit of variety doesn't do any harm. Big guys making space for agile guys to exploit always seems like a good idea.

And Billy, although he could be either one of the greats or nowhere come next RWC, is a bit special at the moment.

There was an interview on the BBC site where EJ was very nice about Billy V after the Scotland game, and also gave Haskell a nod, but not Robshaw. I am beginning to listen very carefully to EJ. He knows exactly what he is saying or not saying.

Chuckle. Suspect the build up to England Wales will be enhanced by a little inter-coach warfare before the game

Apparent insight into EJ's views:

Farrell is number 1 ten

All seems to make sense. Essentially the backline shape will depend on whether Tuilagi can play 12 or not.

I quite like the idea of Farrell, Tuilagi, Daly.

Although Farrell, Devoto, Tuilagi would also be good.

Or perhaps Slade, Hill, Joseph.

Or Cipriani, Slade, Tuilagi.

Basically we really should be able to get an exciting 10, 12, 13 going.

Interesting stuff about England not having the right type of fitness too.

Ah. He sees Farrell as 10. Now that IS inneresting. Ford is nowhere, it seems.

Is that a spur to get Ford out from Daddy? Or does he really not rate Ford?

I would like to see Cipriani Slade Tuilagi, btw. But that's just my curiousity. Has EJ really made his mind up to the extent there are hints he has?

It's certainly something recent English coaches have not been able to do.

Has the team been named yet?

DaveM wrote:Apparent insight into EJ's views:

Farrell is number 1 ten

Lancaster also favoured Farrell, wanted to build his back line around Manu, and believed his squad were not fit enough to compete with the SH (specifically after the NZ tour).

If the article is correct, then Jones and his team are drawing very similar conclusions to the last set-up. In which case, it will all come down to strategy and execution.

Interesting comment on Kvesic being sidelined due to a lack of carrying prowess.

Rugby Fan wrote:

DaveM wrote:Apparent insight into EJ's views:

Farrell is number 1 ten

Lancaster also favoured Farrell, wanted to build his back line around Manu, and believed his squad were not fit enough to compete with the SH (specifically after the NZ tour).

If the article is correct, then Jones and his team are drawing very similar conclusions to the last set-up. In which case, it will all come down to strategy and execution.

Exactly. Looks like Lancaster was indeed right...just could get the team / squad to actually do it!

Cowshot wrote:Ah. He sees Farrell as 10. Now that IS inneresting. Ford is nowhere, it seems.

Is that a spur to get Ford out from Daddy? Or does he really not rate Ford?

I would like to see Cipriani Slade Tuilagi, btw. But that's just my curiousity. Has EJ really made his mind up to the extent there are hints he has?

It's certainly something recent English coaches have not been able to do.

I think any opposition fan is continuously released that England consistently refuse to back Cipriani.

If Farrell is EJ's choice at 10 (and I don't have issue with that) why play him at 12 with an out-of-form Ford at 10? I'd rather see and in-form Farrell doing the business at 10 even if it meant Brad Barritt at 12 for now, I think even out of form Barritt offers more at centre than Farrell, while Farrell offers more at 10 than Ford on current form.

Freddie Burns should be the England 10 with Ford as back up. Farrell should not be in the squad. Haskell and and Mako are also very lucky to be in the squad. Eddie Jones still has a lot to learn about the quality of players in the England pool but I do believe he has the right attitude and the ability to instill the right attitude in his players to be successful.

Hoonercat totally agree.

Not one 12 in Eddie Jones 23.

Also still unsure of his solution at 7. I guess I should be patient.

I wonder where Eddie Jones wants Clifford to settle.

Daly in particular will be very disappointed not to be selected.

Hoonercat wrote:If Farrell is EJ's choice at 10 (and I don't have issue with that) why play him at 12 with an out-of-form Ford at 10? I'd rather see and in-form Farrell doing the business at 10 even if it meant Brad Barritt at 12 for now, I think even out of form Barritt offers more at centre than Farrell, while Farrell offers more at 10 than Ford on current form.

Agree, too. Playing a 10 who is not firing for his club and did not play terribly well in his last International is questionable. I suppose if Ford does not get it done against Italy, then he would not be in consideration for the France, Ireland, Wales?

I would certainly prefer the 10 to be playing well at his club. Ah heck, Andy Goode is playing well. Bring back the rotund one!

Eddie Jones default setting at 12 is a 2nd 5/8. I guess that's why Farrell is there whilst Slade is out.

He has mentioned Manu which would be a different tact from him but he is injured also.