Eddie Jones - England's New Coach

by **LondonTiger** Mon 15 Feb 2016, 1:48 pm

First topic message reminder :

Kruis and Joseph were both poor in the first half. Kruis's tactics when calling the lineouts were shockingly bad. Hartley got away with two squint throws at the start, but was then pinged for a crooked one and saw one pinched. All four Kruis called to himself. After that the calls got more and more complicated, involving a lit of movement and switching of positions - yet every time he kept calling to himself, thus easy to defend and predict.

I am torn on Joseph. Until he made the interception he had been really poor, but that was fantastic play - as was his finish for the 3rd try. so strangely I woul dnot say he was the best player - but with 3 key moments he was MotM i guess.

Youngs did ok, for me 6/10 - average - though having checked about a Dozen reviews now he got one 6, two 8s (crazy) and the rest 7s. One journo even stated he was clearly Englands best player in the first half. Cannot agree - but a sign that we all see things differently.

by Poorfour Tue 01 Mar 2016, 11:57 am

If Eddie can somehow keep Slade, Manu, JJ all fit, he can perm 4 centre combinations, all of which are exciting and present a different challenge for defences:

Slade - JJ
Slade - Manu
Manu - JJ
Manu - Slade

Assuming Manu can learn to pass, I would be quite happy to see any of those take the field. Plus he has Farrell and Burrell as serviceable backups. We're already starting to see how Eddie uses his squad: he starts with combinations intended to do a job for the first 60 minutes, and then uses the bench to change things up and keep the opposition guessing.

A team that's had 60 minutes of trying to stop JJ nipping through a hole into an offload from Manu is going to find it hard to adapt to, say, Slade chipping or passing the ball for Manu to run onto in a wider channel. I think he'll use them in whatever combination he sees fit for that week's gameplan.

by Geordie Tue 01 Mar 2016, 12:05 pm

Poorfour

Do you not see Slade settling in to the 10 role? Is he definitely a 12 for you?

by Cumbrian Tue 01 Mar 2016, 12:11 pm

Considering that Cheif's have Sam Hill and are bringing in Ollie Devoto (assuming Devoto plays at inside centre for them) I reckon they are viewing Slade as a long term option at 10. Their depth at 10 is much lighter than in either centre position.

by Sgt_Pooly Tue 01 Mar 2016, 12:52 pm

Agree Cumbrian, I see Slade at 10. He'd be seriously challenging Ford right now if fit.

by yappysnap Tue 01 Mar 2016, 1:01 pm

Crazy to think of the options:

10. Ford, Farrell, Slade
12. Slade, Farrell, Tuilagi, Devoto
13. Joseph, Tuilagi, Daly, Burrell

I'd like us to start with Farrel, Tuilagi, Joseph. Then finish with Ford, Tuilagi, Daly

by Geordie Tue 01 Mar 2016, 1:22 pm

Lots of options...

But I really think we need to pick 2 from each and stick with them. No more chopping and changing.

In a way Im glad hes doing that with Ford. We know ford is a cracking playmaker who is horribly off form...but hes giving him the chance. Not just getting rid of him straight away

by Scottrf Tue 01 Mar 2016, 1:42 pm

The problem is that our two best centres are 13s. Looks like we are going to solve it by pretending one is a 12.

by **Rugby Fan** Tue 01 Mar 2016, 2:02 pm

Just listened to the Blood & Mud podcast, and one of the guys said "England are playing like they did under Lancaster before the wheels fell off at the Cup".

That's how I feel right now. With the dark gloom of an early Cup exit, it's easy to forget that there was a similar amount of enthusiasm and eagerness about England under Lancaster as we are hearing about under Jones.

Look at the player interviews back then, and they usually spoke about how everything was much more focused and professional than under Johnson. Exactly the same as now.

It's not about Lancaster vs Jones though. It's still about England vs our World cup win.

Since 2003, England have been very brittle when they feel the tide going against them. Funnily enough, that frailty seems to be worse against teams we feel we should be beating.

For a long time after 2003, one certain way to beat an England team was to get nine points or more in front at any stage of the game. We'd never turn that around.

I remember thinking "Oh, we've finally done it" under Lancaster, with the 20-13 win over Australia in 2013, but I'm not sure we've done it since. France in 2014 was close, but...

Of course, it's great to be a team which never goes behind by that amount, but even NZ have gone further than nine points down and come away with wins. I have a nagging feeling we've done it only once since 2003 (willing to be corrected).

It's almost as if the team battles as much with its self-image as it does with the opposition.

A classic case of that was the 2005 Six Nations match against France at Twickenham. We went in 17-6 ahead, having dominated the first half, and then lost 17-18. Indiscipline let France back in, and then we didn't have the composure to conjure a single point in the second half.

I'd feel more confident about our chances to win another World Cup if we could start demonstrating consistent resilience in the face of adversity.

England under Jones have faced three significant tests, but we haven't yet been put in a tough position to test our character. I hope Wales or France do that, so we can see whether something has really changed, or if the old fault lines still remain.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 01 Mar 2016, 2:05 pm

Ireland was a bit tough, went behind didn't panic, 2 sin bins held out. Promising.

by king_carlos Tue 01 Mar 2016, 2:11 pm

GeordieFalcon wrote:Lots of options...

But I really think we need to pick 2 from each and stick with them. No more chopping and changing.

In a way Im glad hes doing that with Ford. We know ford is a cracking playmaker who is horribly off form...but hes giving him the chance. Not just getting rid of him straight away

Jones says that in order to challenge the best he wants to develop 3 viable options in every position. It looks like he's earmarked Slade and Manu as his first 2 at 12 with Faz possibly the 3rd who's able to slip in - if he wanted a third outside of that then I'd presume that Devoto would have got a chance from the bench when he was there.

10.Ford, Farrell, Slade
12.Manu, Slade, Farrell
13.Joseph, Daly, Manu

That seems to be the 3 options he considers his best in the midfield spots currently. Given that it includes Faz, Slade and Manu jumping around it is pretty much Jones picking two guys he rates highest in each and sticking with them though.

by englandglory4ever Tue 01 Mar 2016, 2:15 pm

Looking forward to seeing Hughes, Billy, Manu, Ewers playing for England and on the pitch at the same time. Even the opposition fans might feel a touch of fright let alone the opposition players.

by **LondonTiger** Tue 01 Mar 2016, 2:21 pm

englandglory4ever wrote:Looking forward to seeing Hughes, Billy, Manu, Ewers playing for England and on the pitch at the same time. Even the opposition fans might feel a touch of fright let alone the opposition players.

So who plays openside?

by **Rugby Fan** Tue 01 Mar 2016, 2:40 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ireland was a bit tough, went behind didn't panic, 2 sin bins held out. Promising.

Our nerve was tested but not not to a significant degree. I'm talking about our character as a team over a long period now.

No England side has won a game at the death since 2003. Think about late wins from behind in Test matches: Ireland vs NZ (2013), South Africa vs Wales (2014), England vs Wales (World Cup 2015), Scotland vs Australia (World Cup 2015).

Unlike the Southern Hemisphere Big 3, England don't do come-from-behind wins at the death. I think our last one might be the 22-19 win over Australia in 2000. Hang on, that's 16 years ago.

No side ever plays itself into a difficult position just to show it has the stones to get out but the England team often plays as if it's in its own bubble of self worth. When its pricked, we go down.

I hope we've changed.

by Geordie Tue 01 Mar 2016, 3:00 pm

LondonTiger wrote:
englandglory4ever wrote:Looking forward to seeing Hughes, Billy, Manu, Ewers playing for England and on the pitch at the same time. Even the opposition fans might feel a touch of fright let alone the opposition players.

So who plays openside?

Don't be silly....its back to the days of Jack Rowell....monsters everywhere!

6 Tim Rodber
7 Ben Clarke
8 Dean Richards

by Poorfour Tue 01 Mar 2016, 3:18 pm

GeordieFalcon wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:
englandglory4ever wrote:Looking forward to seeing Hughes, Billy, Manu, Ewers playing for England and on the pitch at the same time. Even the opposition fans might feel a touch of fright let alone the opposition players.

So who plays openside?

Don't be silly....its back to the days of Jack Rowell....monsters everywhere!

6 Tim Rodber
7 Ben Clarke
8 Dean Richards

Yeah, but that's when rucking was allowed and Neil Back was too small for international rugby. Until, like a reverse Norma Desmond, it's not him that got big but international rugby that got small. Or something.

by lostinwales Tue 01 Mar 2016, 4:06 pm

englandglory4ever wrote:Looking forward to seeing Hughes, Billy, Manu, Ewers playing for England and on the pitch at the same time. Even the opposition fans might feel a touch of fright let alone the opposition players.

Manu. Mind you by that stage he'll be taking the goal kicks too

by lostinwales Tue 01 Mar 2016, 4:11 pm

Rugby Fan wrote:Just listened to the Blood & Mud podcast, and one of the guys said "England are playing like they did under Lancaster before the wheels fell off at the Cup".

That's how I feel right now. With the dark gloom of an early Cup exit, it's easy to forget that there was a similar amount of enthusiasm and eagerness about England under Lancaster as we are hearing about under Jones.

Look at the player interviews back then, and they usually spoke about how everything was much more focused and professional than under Johnson. Exactly the same as now.

It's not about Lancaster vs Jones though. It's still about England vs our World cup win.

Since 2003, England have been very brittle when they feel the tide going against them. Funnily enough, that frailty seems to be worse against teams we feel we should be beating.

For a long time after 2003, one certain way to beat an England team was to get nine points or more in front at any stage of the game. We'd never turn that around.

I remember thinking "Oh, we've finally done it" under Lancaster, with the 20-13 win over Australia in 2013, but I'm not sure we've done it since. France in 2014 was close, but...

Of course, it's great to be a team which never goes behind by that amount, but even NZ have gone further than nine points down and come away with wins. I have a nagging feeling we've done it only once since 2003 (willing to be corrected).

It's almost as if the team battles as much with its self-image as it does with the opposition.

A classic case of that was the 2005 Six Nations match against France at Twickenham. We went in 17-6 ahead, having dominated the first half, and then lost 17-18. Indiscipline let France back in, and then we didn't have the composure to conjure a single point in the second half.

I'd feel more confident about our chances to win another World Cup if we could start demonstrating consistent resilience in the face of adversity.

England under Jones have faced three significant tests, but we haven't yet been put in a tough position to test our character. I hope Wales or France do that, so we can see whether something has really changed, or if the old fault lines still remain.

Broadly speaking yes and plenty of us have said that we think tweaking what was there was a very valid way of moving forward. So far I'd say that outside of the continued maturing and bringing through of new players there have really only been 2 real points of difference, but they are very important ones.
1) Eddie isn't going to panic. Ever.
2) Use of the bench. So far this 6N its been used very offensively and the players coming on have made a real impact. In the Lancaster days it seemed (barring Mako) to be much more about maintaining and reinforcing the defense and was all a bit meh at best.

by yappysnap Tue 01 Mar 2016, 8:04 pm

lostinwales wrote:
Rugby Fan wrote:Just listened to the Blood & Mud podcast, and one of the guys said "England are playing like they did under Lancaster before the wheels fell off at the Cup".

That's how I feel right now. With the dark gloom of an early Cup exit, it's easy to forget that there was a similar amount of enthusiasm and eagerness about England under Lancaster as we are hearing about under Jones.

Look at the player interviews back then, and they usually spoke about how everything was much more focused and professional than under Johnson. Exactly the same as now.

It's not about Lancaster vs Jones though. It's still about England vs our World cup win.

Since 2003, England have been very brittle when they feel the tide going against them. Funnily enough, that frailty seems to be worse against teams we feel we should be beating.

For a long time after 2003, one certain way to beat an England team was to get nine points or more in front at any stage of the game. We'd never turn that around.

I remember thinking "Oh, we've finally done it" under Lancaster, with the 20-13 win over Australia in 2013, but I'm not sure we've done it since. France in 2014 was close, but...

Of course, it's great to be a team which never goes behind by that amount, but even NZ have gone further than nine points down and come away with wins. I have a nagging feeling we've done it only once since 2003 (willing to be corrected).

It's almost as if the team battles as much with its self-image as it does with the opposition.

A classic case of that was the 2005 Six Nations match against France at Twickenham. We went in 17-6 ahead, having dominated the first half, and then lost 17-18. Indiscipline let France back in, and then we didn't have the composure to conjure a single point in the second half.

I'd feel more confident about our chances to win another World Cup if we could start demonstrating consistent resilience in the face of adversity.

England under Jones have faced three significant tests, but we haven't yet been put in a tough position to test our character. I hope Wales or France do that, so we can see whether something has really changed, or if the old fault lines still remain.

Broadly speaking yes and plenty of us have said that we think tweaking what was there was a very valid way of moving forward. So far I'd say that outside of the continued maturing and bringing through of new players there have really only been 2 real points of difference, but they are very important ones.
1) Eddie isn't going to panic. Ever.
2) Use of the bench. So far this 6N its been used very offensively and the players coming on have made a real impact. In the Lancaster days it seemed (barring Mako) to be much more about maintaining and reinforcing the defense and was all a bit meh at best.

I love these kinds of totally unproven comments that the Jones topic seems to conjure.

How do you know he won't panic? What would it look like if he did?

by **LondonTiger** Tue 01 Mar 2016, 9:45 pm

England Head Coach Eddie Jones has released 11 players back to their clubs ahead of the weekend's Aviva Premiership fixtures.

The remaining 22 players will continue to train at the University of Bath as England look to build on their three wins in the RBS 6 nations so far. England currently sit top of the table and face Wales at Twickenham on 12 March.

Jamie George (Saracens), Paul Hill (Northampton Saints), Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints) and Alex Goode (Saracens) have all featured in all three RBS 6 Nations match day squads but will return to their clubs get some game time under their belts.

Dave Ewers (Exeter Chiefs) and Manu Tuilagi (Leicester Tigers), called into the squad this week, will also return to their clubs as they seek to build on their recent return from injury.

Matt Kvesic (Gloucester Rugby), Matt Mullan (Wasps), Sam Hill (Exeter Chiefs), Semesa Rokoduguni (Bath Rugby) and Marland Yarde (Harlequins) are the others returning to take part in Premiership matches.

ENGLAND SQUAD
Forwards (13)

Kieran Brookes (Northampton Saints)
Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers)
Luke Cowan-Dickie (Exeter Chiefs)
Jack Clifford (Harlequins)
Dylan Hartley (Northampton Saints)
James Haskell (Wasps)
Maro Itoje (Saracens)
George Kruis (Saracens)
Joe Launchbury (Wasps)
Joe Marler (Harlequins)
Chris Robshaw (Harlequins)
Billy Vunipola (Saracens)
Mako Vunipola (Saracens)

Backs (9)

Mike Brown (Harlequins)
Danny Care (Harlequins)
Elliot Daly (Wasps)
Owen Farrell (Saracens)
George Ford (Bath Rugby)
Jonathan Joseph (Bath Rugby)
Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs)
Anthony Watson (Bath Rugby)
Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers)

by **LondonTiger** Tue 01 Mar 2016, 9:47 pm

I suspect that George and goode have been released to give them game time with Sarries rather than being a clue to the 23 for Wales.

Other than that it perhaps suggests that the 23 will be the same as that originally selected for Ireland.

by lostinwales Tue 01 Mar 2016, 10:04 pm

yappysnap wrote:...
1) Eddie isn't going to panic. Ever.
2) Use of the bench. So far this 6N its been used very offensively and the players coming on have made a real impact. In the Lancaster days it seemed (barring Mako) to be much more about maintaining and reinforcing the defense and was all a bit meh at best.

I love these kinds of totally unproven comments that the Jones topic seems to conjure.

How do you know he won't panic? What would it look like if he did?[/quote]

Probably slightly more eye bulging and frog like..

I think its what you get when you buy in that kind of experience. Whatever is going on in the inside he's going to stay calm on the surface. My biggest complaint about the previous regime is that they lost it when it came to the RWC

by jamesandimac Tue 01 Mar 2016, 10:20 pm

Maybe Kieran Brookes onto the bench? Its a good move as he was by far the form tight head before his injury and will challenge Cole once he gets that form back. Personally I do think Cole gives away too many penalties for my liking.

by lostinwales Tue 01 Mar 2016, 10:22 pm

jamesandimac wrote:Maybe Kieran Brookes onto the bench? Its a good move as he was by far the form tight head before his injury and will challenge Cole once he gets that form back. Personally I do think Cole gives away too many penalties for my liking.

Are they scrum penalties or breakdown offences? Its a difficult one if the latter because it means hes doing good there aswell

by **LondonTiger** Wed 02 Mar 2016, 9:54 am

Yeah, meant to say Brookes looks like the one certain change in the 23. However as I have a bias, I refuse to discuss the TH starting spot.

by Geordie Wed 02 Mar 2016, 11:16 am

Brookes comes off the bench and Hill gets a full run out for Saints. Makes total sense.

Likewise Goode etc.

So there will be one or two changes, but not more than that.

by Barney McGrew did it Wed 02 Mar 2016, 11:48 am

The Wales game will be interesting at least. Ever since 2003 England have been 'developing'/'rebuilding' usually with a new coaching team after every RWC 'disappointment'. Still we usually end up 6N runners up. A few more 2nds and I think we'd have to finally accept that we're only developing at the same rate as everyone else, and hopefully stop using the R and D words as if there is a huzzah around the corner. An English GS is becoming a mythical beast much like a world class IC. A championship win would be a massive moral booster though.

by jamesandimac Wed 02 Mar 2016, 11:52 am

Both if I'm honest. He tends to get pinged quite often at scrum time, now whether thats a perception thing I'm not entirely sure, and also he is liable to go off his feet at the breakdown too. With both he seems to be one of the main offenders for conceeding good attacking positions as a result of ill-discipline.

by **LondonTiger** Wed 02 Mar 2016, 11:53 am

In which case Cole is doomed, as last week was his best performance for England since the Lions tour of 2013.

by Hoonercat Wed 02 Mar 2016, 11:57 am

I think this 6 Nations has seen Cole play at his best for some time, just wish he could ease back on the penalty count.

by Geordie Wed 02 Mar 2016, 12:00 pm

To be honest Barney whilst I would much prefer to win this championship.....I would accept 2nd place again if we were to lose only one of our last two games.

1) It will show that the WC was a horrific blip - we're genuinely not as bad as everyone keeps saying...
2) We will have integrated several new lads or real quality. Itoje, Hill, George, Clifford, Daly etc etc all given exposure to international rugby.
3) Several features have already improved. ie The set piece looks to be coming back, defence looks rock solid.
4) It highlights areas we still have issues with ...most specifically...PENALTIES!
5) It has given Eddie a chance to see what he has available and who can adapt to play the way HE wants them to and who he wants to take to Australia.
6) Puts us in a decent position to head for the Summer tour of Oz.

by **LondonTiger** Wed 02 Mar 2016, 12:00 pm

Hoonercat wrote:I think this 6 Nations has seen Cole play at his best for some time, just wish he could ease back on the penalty count.

Just one rather dodgy scrum penalty conceded against Ireland. Secured two turnovers including one in our 22. Actually carried the ball and was the only front row forward for england that broke a tackle.

i am fine with Brookes starting if he is deemed best - just worried that people allow their preconceptions to over-ride their eyes.

by **LondonTiger** Wed 02 Mar 2016, 12:08 pm

Grand slam would be great - but I doubt we can do it. a championship with 4 wins means diddly squat to me. Last 5 6ns seasons we have secured 4/5 - winning the title once and finishing 2nd the other four times.

To me their is f*** all difference between finishing 1st or 2nd (or indeed 3rd) when it is merely a matter of points difference.

by yappysnap Wed 02 Mar 2016, 12:13 pm

Strange times. We've won 3 from 3 and so far public enemies have been Robshaw, Haskell, Cole, Youngs, Ford and probably more...

by **LondonTiger** Wed 02 Mar 2016, 12:16 pm

yappysnap wrote:Strange times. We've won 3 from 3 and so far public enemies have been Robshaw, Haskell, Cole, Youngs, Ford and probably more...

Throw in Marler, Hartley, Lawes, Brown and Goode too.

by beshocked Wed 02 Mar 2016, 12:19 pm

LondonTiger wrote:Grand slam would be great - but I doubt we can do it. a championship with 4 wins means diddly squat to me. Last 5 6ns seasons we have secured 4/5 - winning the title once and finishing 4th the other four times.

To me their is f*** all difference between finishing 1st or 2nd (or indeed 3rd) when it is merely a matter of points difference.

Londontiger agree with the latter but I think England's chance for a GS is pretty good despite the lack of a GS since 2003.

A Welsh side who are competent but beatable, not as strong as the tri nations.

A French side who are disorganised and mediocre as they have been in the last few years.

Both have their dangers but neither have looked better than England so far.

by Mad for Chelsea Wed 02 Mar 2016, 12:20 pm

Sensible really to send George and Goode back to Sarries to get some game time, given how little they've played in the tournament so far. I see Jones has held onto LCD, perhaps to get a closer look at him, and maybe as a bit of insurance should - heaven forbid - George pick up a knock playing this week-end. Don't think it's an indication of George being replaced in the 23.

by Hoonercat Wed 02 Mar 2016, 12:56 pm

beshocked wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:Grand slam would be great - but I doubt we can do it. a championship with 4 wins means diddly squat to me. Last 5 6ns seasons we have secured 4/5 - winning the title once and finishing 4th the other four times.

To me their is f*** all difference between finishing 1st or 2nd (or indeed 3rd) when it is merely a matter of points difference.

Londontiger agree with the latter but I think England's chance for a GS is pretty good despite the lack of a GS since 2003.

A Welsh side who are competent but beatable, not as strong as the tri nations.

A French side who are disorganised and mediocre as they have been in the last few years.

Both have their dangers but neither have looked better than England so far.

There is a chance that they could do it but there are 2 big hurdles to overcome first Very Happy

If they manage to win the 6 nation with 4/5 wins I think that's an achievement in itself as I expected a 2nd place at the start of the tournament (and had them down for a loss v Wales). A GS would be out of this world but, based on the first 3 games, not deserved. For me any team achieving the GS should be head & shoulders above the other teams, which England haven't been. Yet Very Happy

by Barney McGrew did it Wed 02 Mar 2016, 1:10 pm

LondonTiger wrote:
yappysnap wrote:Strange times. We've won 3 from 3 and so far public enemies have been Robshaw, Haskell, Cole, Youngs, Ford and probably more...

Throw in Marler, Hartley, Lawes, Brown and Goode too.

Hmmm maybe, I must be one of the few that actually rates Robshaw - he works tirelessly, doesn't get pinged, helps out Haskell, does the job of a decent 6.5. Cole was pants in the RWC but has been slowly improving over the 6N. And I've got a feeling that Ford would be better without a 2nd FH at centre breathing down his neck.

Haskell has also improved with what seems like a simpler game-plan but he could have picked up 2 YC from 2 games - for which he has to be accountable. And Youngs is Youngs - he brings a lot but his service is a bit ponderous and inaccurate tbh. One or two of his passes on Saturday were barely AP level.

I think the rest have been good. Just not Goode.

by RubyGuby Wed 02 Mar 2016, 1:23 pm

It's like watching the Famous Five discuss rugby Hug

by beshocked Wed 02 Mar 2016, 2:30 pm

Hoonercat wrote:
beshocked wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:Grand slam would be great - but I doubt we can do it. a championship with 4 wins means diddly squat to me. Last 5 6ns seasons we have secured 4/5 - winning the title once and finishing 4th the other four times.

To me their is f*** all difference between finishing 1st or 2nd (or indeed 3rd) when it is merely a matter of points difference.

Londontiger agree with the latter but I think England's chance for a GS is pretty good despite the lack of a GS since 2003.

A Welsh side who are competent but beatable, not as strong as the tri nations.

A French side who are disorganised and mediocre as they have been in the last few years.

Both have their dangers but neither have looked better than England so far.

There is a chance that they could do it but there are 2 big hurdles to overcome first If they manage to win the 6 nation with 4/5 wins I think that's an achievement in itself as I expected a 2nd place at the start of the tournament (and had them down for a loss v Wales). A GS would be out of this world but, based on the first 3 games, not deserved. For me any team achieving the GS should be head & shoulders above the other teams, which England haven't been. Yet

4/5 wins is not an achievement when England have done it 4 years in a row. Winning a GS in Eddie Jones first year - now that would be a hell of an chievement! Still a lot to do I agree but getting closer.

Well personally I think England have been the best team so far in the competition. Not claiming they've been perfect or the finished article but they've been better than all their rivals IMO. Not head and shoulders above but ahead nonetheless.

Remember English sides having been doing well in the club game at European level, this confidence and winning has obviously transferred over to the international game.

by **LondonTiger** Wed 02 Mar 2016, 2:48 pm

Barney McGrew did it wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:
yappysnap wrote:Strange times. We've won 3 from 3 and so far public enemies have been Robshaw, Haskell, Cole, Youngs, Ford and probably more...

Throw in Marler, Hartley, Lawes, Brown and Goode too.

Hmmm maybe, I must be one of the few that actually rates Robshaw - he works tirelessly, doesn't get pinged, helps out Haskell, does the job of a decent 6.5. Cole was pants in the RWC but has been slowly improving over the 6N. And I've got a feeling that Ford would be better without a 2nd FH at centre breathing down his neck.

Haskell has also improved with what seems like a simpler game-plan but he could have picked up 2 YC from 2 games - for which he has to be accountable. And Youngs is Youngs - he brings a lot but his service is a bit ponderous and inaccurate tbh. One or two of his passes on Saturday were barely AP level.

I think the rest have been good. Just not Goode.

We are not expressing our views, just pointing out what people are saying.

People always seem to think the grass is greener

by beshocked Wed 02 Mar 2016, 2:59 pm

Well Londontiger so far Eddie Jones and co are doing a better job than their predecessors.

We'll see if it lasts. Still big question marks - discipline, backrow balance and centre issue that haven't been fixed yet but hopefully in time.... Problems inherited from Lancaster.

Some continuity is fine but there needs to be some evolution. Eddie seems to be doing that with the introduction of Daly,Itoje and Clifford for example.

by little_badger Wed 02 Mar 2016, 3:20 pm

Someone tell Ben Youngs he isn't 'drawing defenders' he's eating up space for Ford!! Ford plays better with quick service, there is a reason he played so well with Peter Stringer!

That said at the moment Farrell is our best 10 so if anyone else was fit at 12 I would consider them, but frankly no one is so on that basis he should continue.

I'd swap Brookes for Hill. It's going to be very hard to drop Itoje after that performance so I might put Launchbury on the bench.

by **LondonTiger** Wed 02 Mar 2016, 4:52 pm

Jones inherited a much better squad than Lancaster did. Some credit should really go to Bomber for that - irrespective of the man sausage up in the last 3 months of his reign.

by Poorfour Wed 02 Mar 2016, 5:03 pm

LondonTiger wrote:Jones inherited a much better squad than Lancaster did. Some credit should really go to Bomber for that - irrespective of the man sausage up in the last 3 months of his reign.

Well said. As I recall, Lancaster's first team had fewer caps than the benches of most of the teams they were facing. Lancaster's inexperience led to a bunch of decisions around the RWC none of which came off, but he did a good job of rebuilding the squad and bringing through new talent.

by doctor_grey Wed 02 Mar 2016, 6:35 pm

Poorfour wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:Jones inherited a much better squad than Lancaster did. Some credit should really go to Bomber for that - irrespective of the man sausage up in the last 3 months of his reign.

Well said. As I recall, Lancaster's first team had fewer caps than the benches of most of the teams they were facing. Lancaster's inexperience led to a bunch of decisions around the RWC none of which came off, but he did a good job of rebuilding the squad and bringing through new talent.

You two guys are a couple of softies. Lancaster brought in new players and did a nice job. After his first year, however, he never deviated from his plan, which was his ultimate undoing at the RWC. As we see now there were viable options which were not considered. Players, game plan, leadership, philosophy, etc..

by No 7&1/2 Wed 02 Mar 2016, 7:56 pm

I'd go the opposite way doc. Lancaster had a plan, then changed it for the wc, annoylingly like Johnson.

by doctor_grey Wed 02 Mar 2016, 8:34 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd go the opposite way doc. Lancaster had a plan, then changed it for the wc, annoylingly like Johnson.

How do you mean, mate? Serious question. I thought he made his 4 year plan after Jonno and kept to the plan regardless of any success or failure. The development of Georgie Ford must have given Lancaster fits. Jonno should never have changed course, i agree.

by Hammersmith harrier Wed 02 Mar 2016, 8:53 pm

Changing to a pure powerhouse midfield was a big deviation from what we'd been doing for the previous two years, he panicked when it really mattered.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 02 Mar 2016, 9:11 pm

Yeah for me it was going from a whole team game to focused around the pack. The injury to Joseph and seemingly lack of faith in Slade meant we went to a stodgy midfield. The lack of faith in Ford was also against the grain from what we saw from most of his reign as well.

by Sponsored content