England 2nd best team in the world?

First topic message reminder :

England are on the verge of going to 2nd in the world rankings. What do people think is their true current standing in the world? I would say that England are now clear of Wales/Ireland in the NH and are on their own as the best NH team. For the last few years there's been nothing separating Ireland/Wales and England but I feel momentum has shifted and England have inched ahead. They are probably vying for the 2nd spot in the world alongside the Aussies and SA but are a fair bit behind NZ. Is this a fair assessment?

Rugby Fan wrote:

ebop wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

ebop wrote:I just want £2 a pop so I can retire early

Then again, if you also lose £2 every time Steve Hansen mentions Eddie Jones or England, then that retirement date will push out quite a bit.

Really?

I've only seen him mention Jones once but I don't read every article. Maybe he was letting Jones know he won't be taking any crap from him like Cheika has.

There's currently no match scheduled between England and New Zealand, so he's got no reason to talk about Jones or England at all. The earliest a fixture could take place is November 2017.

Haha, I see what you did there Rugby Fan

Yup, hopefully England can keep progressing up the curve like everyone is assuming and Jones hasn't been fired so we can look forward to that date. Until then, have a on me every time Jones says we want to be the best or for an ABs.

Have anyone considered the fact that Eddie Jones is an Aussie, and they often use media to their advantage to intimidate or unnerve their opponents?

I always 100% understand that Eddie is Eddie because he is an Aussie. I don't think an Aussie can intimidate or unnerve - they're too loud and showy. Everyone knows it's a gig.

Australia are getting beaten because they're not good enough at the moment. Cheika is an Aussie too and he'll be firing chairs and making air vent holes in brick walls for weeks to come...using the heads of player that have displeased him.

He won't know it yet, but actually a strong England are doing him a service right now. He'll learn how to patch things up better.

Biltong wrote:Have anyone considered the fact that Eddie Jones is an Aussie, and they often use media to their advantage to intimidate or unnerve their opponents?

It had certainly crossed my mind...

Biltong wrote:Have anyone considered the fact that Eddie Jones is an Aussie, and they often use media to their advantage to intimidate or unnerve their opponents?

Its not just Aussies is it, Gatland is the master of the pre match WUM as well. And the New Zealand Herald...jesus.
Theres no secret that he partly got the job to try and bring some of that mentality to England and shoulder more of the media nonsense (and associated abuse back). Its not just about winding up the oppsoition but also sheilding his players.

Being an Aussie he can get away with being more prickly and agressively bombastic without quite the same level of hysteria coming back from Wales supporters and others.

fa0019 wrote:I reckon the true best teams would look something like this

10. WAL 1st
11. ENG 2nd

Point of order...england 2nds beat Wales first recently.

I guess under Biltongs model though that didnt happen 10 years ago so isnt relevant.

Gooseberry wrote:

Point of order...england 2nds beat Wales first recently.

They didn't, but England did beat Wales. Nice try though. Strange that even when England do well you still have this inferiority complex, I'd seek help if I were you.

Gooseberry wrote:

Biltong wrote:Have anyone considered the fact that Eddie Jones is an Aussie, and they often use media to their advantage to intimidate or unnerve their opponents?

Its not just Aussies is it, Gatland is the master of the pre match WUM as well. And the New Zealand Herald...jesus.
Theres no secret that he partly got the job to try and bring some of that mentality to England and shoulder more of the media nonsense (and associated abuse back). Its not just about winding up the oppsoition but also sheilding his players.

Being an Aussie he can get away with being more prickly and agressively bombastic without quite the same level of hysteria coming back from Wales supporters and others.

What's also odd is that when Gatland was supposedly at it he was more hated than Hitler. When Eddie Jones does it he's the bees knees. Strange.

mikey_dragon wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

Biltong wrote:Have anyone considered the fact that Eddie Jones is an Aussie, and they often use media to their advantage to intimidate or unnerve their opponents?

Its not just Aussies is it, Gatland is the master of the pre match WUM as well. And the New Zealand Herald...jesus.
Theres no secret that he partly got the job to try and bring some of that mentality to England and shoulder more of the media nonsense (and associated abuse back). Its not just about winding up the oppsoition but also sheilding his players.

Being an Aussie he can get away with being more prickly and agressively bombastic without quite the same level of hysteria coming back from Wales supporters and others.

What's also odd is that when Gatland was supposedly at it he was more hated than Hitler. When Eddie Jones does it he's the bees knees. Strange.

Hitler never dropped BOD in a Lions test.

Gatland was box-office for many years.  But like all old movie stars, the middle aged spread appears, the hairline ain't what it used to be and lo and behold, the new much younger, sexier guy turns up with much more hair and takes over doing the one-liners to camera.

That's Eddie.  He's just the new kid on the bloc.

rodders wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

Biltong wrote:Have anyone considered the fact that Eddie Jones is an Aussie, and they often use media to their advantage to intimidate or unnerve their opponents?

Its not just Aussies is it, Gatland is the master of the pre match WUM as well. And the New Zealand Herald...jesus.
Theres no secret that he partly got the job to try and bring some of that mentality to England and shoulder more of the media nonsense (and associated abuse back). Its not just about winding up the oppsoition but also sheilding his players.

Being an Aussie he can get away with being more prickly and agressively bombastic without quite the same level of hysteria coming back from Wales supporters and others.

What's also odd is that when Gatland was supposedly at it he was more hated than Hitler. When Eddie Jones does it he's the bees knees. Strange.

Hitler never dropped BOD in a Lions test.

aaaaaaaaaaaand rodders wins the internet

Rodders, have a Guinness on me mate .

mikey_dragon wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

Point of order...england 2nds beat Wales first recently.

They didn't, but England did beat Wales. Nice try though. Strange that even when England do well you still have this inferiority complex, I'd seek help if I were you.

So Japan beat Wales then.

Rodders

SecretFly wrote:

Gatland was box-office for many years.  But like all old movie stars, the middle aged spread appears, the hairline ain't what it used to be and lo and behold, the new much younger, sexier guy turns up with much more hair and takes over doing the one-liners to camera.

That's Eddie.  He's just the new kid on the bloc.

This is a sexy guy with hair??????????

mikey_dragon wrote:Rodders, have a Guinness on me mate .

And one for Gats

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

Point of order...england 2nds beat Wales first recently.

They didn't, but England did beat Wales. Nice try though. Strange that even when England do well you still have this inferiority complex, I'd seek help if I were you.

So Japan beat Wales then.

It's what the history books say. Wales and England were both missing 6-8 players in the recent game. Wales were missing over 20 players for their game against Japan, two semi-pro players also played. It's not difficult to understand.

PS - are Scotland still the only ones in world rugby bragging about beating Japan?

doctor_grey wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Gatland was box-office for many years.  But like all old movie stars, the middle aged spread appears, the hairline ain't what it used to be and lo and behold, the new much younger, sexier guy turns up with much more hair and takes over doing the one-liners to camera.

That's Eddie.  He's just the new kid on the bloc.

This is a sexy guy with hair??????????

So I'm prone to a little exaggeration.... and this is news???

PS still cute though...with that Long John Silver eye of his....

Eddie after a few English losses:

Lancaster on his shoulder whispering "I told you so"

rodders wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

Biltong wrote:Have anyone considered the fact that Eddie Jones is an Aussie, and they often use media to their advantage to intimidate or unnerve their opponents?

Its not just Aussies is it, Gatland is the master of the pre match WUM as well. And the New Zealand Herald...jesus.
Theres no secret that he partly got the job to try and bring some of that mentality to England and shoulder more of the media nonsense (and associated abuse back). Its not just about winding up the oppsoition but also sheilding his players.

Being an Aussie he can get away with being more prickly and agressively bombastic without quite the same level of hysteria coming back from Wales supporters and others.

What's also odd is that when Gatland was supposedly at it he was more hated than Hitler. When Eddie Jones does it he's the bees knees. Strange.

Hitler never dropped BOD in a Lions test.

Biltong would no doubt argue that Hitler was on the best side in WW2, Germany hadnt been beaten for the 21 years prior to it. It was only the racial quotas that held him back.

Wasn't Hitler attempting the very first stab at an EU?

There's gratitude for you.

SecretFly wrote:Wasn't Hitler attempting the very first stab at an EU?

Wasn't that Alexander the great?

rodders wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Wasn't Hitler attempting the very first stab at an EU?

Wasn't that Alexander the great?

No.
Alex was the lad that was 5 feet nothing. Get your facts right, rodders.

Gooseberry wrote:

rodders wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

Biltong wrote:Have anyone considered the fact that Eddie Jones is an Aussie, and they often use media to their advantage to intimidate or unnerve their opponents?

Its not just Aussies is it, Gatland is the master of the pre match WUM as well. And the New Zealand Herald...jesus.
Theres no secret that he partly got the job to try and bring some of that mentality to England and shoulder more of the media nonsense (and associated abuse back). Its not just about winding up the oppsoition but also sheilding his players.

Being an Aussie he can get away with being more prickly and agressively bombastic without quite the same level of hysteria coming back from Wales supporters and others.

What's also odd is that when Gatland was supposedly at it he was more hated than Hitler. When Eddie Jones does it he's the bees knees. Strange.

Hitler never dropped BOD in a Lions test.

Biltong would no doubt argue that Hitler was on the best side in WW2, Germany hadnt been beaten for the 21 years prior to it. It was only the racial quotas that held him back.

I'm sure if England were in the reverse position where you hadn't lost to South Africa in a decade and had not lost in the last 12 match-ups you would probably hold the same position where one would question SA's  perceived "dominance" over England.

SecretFly wrote:

rodders wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Wasn't Hitler attempting the very first stab at an EU?

Wasn't that Alexander the great?

No.
Alex was the lad that was 5 feet nothing.  Get your facts right, rodders.

Napoleon, but we know how much the French care about internationals now.

SecretFly wrote:PS still cute though...with that Long John Silver eye of his....

Cute like an Iguana?

SecretFly wrote:Eddie after a few English losses:

This is truly funny. We could go off with pics like this all day. Unfortunately, I have a patient later this morn who has a coccyx fracture. I have to scope his......well, you know. If I see anything interesting I will be sure to let you know............

ebop wrote:

Heaf wrote:Having the ambition to be the best in the world when everyone knows only the ABs have that right - sacrilege

Never heard SA and Australia mince it up and they've had more right to make such claims.

he's not made any claims - he's stated an ambition - completely different thing ...

Rugby Fan wrote:

kingraf wrote:...Australia are famously dodgy after a World cup...

How do you make that out?

They followed up the 1991 win with a Bledisloe 2-1 victory and an away win against the Boks

After they won in 1999, they defended the Bledisloe again, and won a Lions series.

You can prove anything with facts.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

kingraf wrote:...Australia are famously dodgy after a World cup...

How do you make that out?

They followed up the 1991 win with a Bledisloe 2-1 victory and an away win against the Boks

After they won in 1999, they defended the Bledisloe again, and won a Lions series.

You can prove anything with facts.

Thought it would be interesting to look the following year for AUS post world cups...

87 4th - Lost a 2 match away series to Argentina straight after 0-1. Holds.
91 1st - Beat SCO 2-0 in 2 match series at home and the 92 home NZ tour 2-1. Doesn't hold.
95 QFs - Loses BL cup to NZ 0-2. Draws 1-1 in new 3N tournament with world champs SA & loses 0-2 to NZ. Doesn't really hold.
99 1st - Beats SA 3-0 next season, draws with NZ 1-1. Doesn't hold.
03 2nd - Beats world champs 51-15 only 7 months later. Draws 1-1 with both NZ & SA in 3N tournament. Doesn't hold.
07 QFs - Beats 6N GS champs FRA 2-0 at home, Beats SA 2-1 in 3N. Loses to NZ 1-3 in 3N & BL. Doesn't hold.
11 3rd - Loses to SCO at home, beats 6N GS champs 3-0. Draws 1-1 with SA, Beats ARG 2-0, loses 0-2 to NZ. Doesn't really hold.
15 2nd - Lost home series to England, season yet to conclude

Overall I would say it doesn't hold. The Newcastle ambush in 2012 was a crazy game, crazy weather and to be fair AUS didn't take SCO seriously playing many reserves in weather Scotland is more used to.

Gooseberry wrote:

fa0019 wrote:I reckon the true best teams would look something like this

10. WAL 1st
11. ENG 2nd

Point of order...england 2nds beat Wales first recently.

I guess under Biltongs model though that didnt happen 10 years ago so isnt relevant.

OK, what is eating at you, I can see you are itching for a scratch.

I'd probably take a win over South Africa ahead of NZ to get the monkey off our backs.

Funny thing is, our long losing streak (with one draw) was preceded by a seven match victorious record over the Boks, which is still our longest winning streak over any Southern Hemisphere opposition, including Argentina, Samoa, Fiji and Tonga.

Samoa is actually equal at seven wins. We've only ever faced them seven times.

Should the title not be England 2nd's best team in the world?

" the clowns on Saturday were the Wallabies, their endless routine of dropped balls and pratfalls handing England the victory and the series.

Ringmaster Jones steps up and instantly sought comparisons with the All Blacks, lit the flaming hoop, and sure enough the Lions roared into the tent.

'Oh no" said Eddie, " I could never coach the Lions".

Something I borrowed off Sumo.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
" the clowns on Saturday were the Wallabies, their endless routine of dropped balls and pratfalls handing England the victory and the series.

Ringmaster Jones steps up and instantly sought comparisons with the All Blacks, lit the flaming hoop, and sure enough the Lions roared into the tent.

'Oh no" said Eddie, " I could never coach the Lions".

Something I borrowed off Sumo.

Wrong aucklandlaurie

Ringmaster Jones instantly stated his intention to get England to challenge the All Blacks, pointing out some of the areas where England would have to improve to get near that aspiration. Hardly 'seeking comparisons' as in saying we're as good as them. Of course England aren't. But I think we're allowed to aspire to be.

SecretFly wrote:Eddie after a few English losses:

Nailed it

SimonofSurrey wrote:pointing out some of the areas where England would have to improve to get near that aspiration

Wonder what areas?

Let's get a list going, I'll start

- An even better rolling maul to score tries

- More scrum penalties for Farrell to kick in 3s

- Better fitness so as to attack as well as defend

- Slowing the ball down even more effectively

- Improve basic handling skills in backs

England must be getting good again.

No 7&1/2 wrote:England must be getting good again.

Sounds like some people fear that's the case.

Lots of interest.

England are number 2 on merit under EJ they`ve a 100 percent record,with
basicly SL`s squad.
He`s improved there fitness and co-opted part time coaches to improve
there skill set,and uses his subs well.
Australia without some 10 world class players injured or abroad look inept
poor handling,poor decision making,poor setpiece.
Last Saturdays pitch was a disgrace,but in both matches the scrum has
been a farce.In the the first game not a single one was the ball hooked
at least in the the second test they tried too.
The Front row mafia trying to con the Ref,BOTH sides .
Englands defence in the second test was magnificent,but they created
next to nothing attack wise.
Australia with a dodgy lineout how can you not at least attempt to kick
goals.
13-6 and 3 kickable penalties not attempted Foley must have had night
mares after his first test display.
But the oz SH was dreadful slow and inaccurate,bashing up the middle
when it needed to go wide.
England v NZ in England tomorrow a very real chance of a win,in Nz
probably not.
NZ currently are a long way from the RWC side,but by 2017 when England
meet them.The NZ side will have gelled and will be as hard to beat as ever.

Probably a fair assessment emack, but the attack is the slowest thing for a coach to develop and England are just starting on their journey.

NZ have the advantage of settled coaching team and tactics, but need to develop a raft of less experienced players.

England have a new coach and tactics but - courtesy of Lancaster - more established playing personnel (though with some exciting options in the pipeline. Underhill in particular looks like the real deal).

This team are by a clear and unarguable margin the best England team we have ever seen at this stage of the RWC cycle. Even the 2003 squad took until 2001 to hit their stride.

By 2017, both teams will have improved. The really intriguing question is whether England will have improved to finally match their potential.

ebop wrote:

SimonofSurrey wrote:pointing out some of the areas where England would have to improve to get near that aspiration

Wonder what areas?

Let's get a list going, I'll start

- An even better rolling maul to score tries

- More scrum penalties for Farrell to kick in 3s

- Better fitness so as to attack as well as defend

- Slowing the ball down even more effectively

- Improve basic handling skills in backs

Meow! Christ is this the famed Kiwi humility again

I can't work out if all this pique is a result of England being England, England being coached by an Aussie, or the result of some sort of Southern Hemisphere bat signal that knee-jerks in to action the rare occasions we win something.

Calm down everyone, no-one thinks we're anywhere near the precious and invincible, and yet extremely humble, ABs.

Sorry guys, I'll stop now

Yes England seem to be good again

It's a good thing right, bit of back n forth?

To be fair hood83, it's just 'me' stirring. I'm flying solo. No need to make sweeping generalisations about the SH and kiwis.

ebop wrote:Sorry guys, I'll stop now

Yes England seem to be good again

It's a good thing right, bit of back n forth?

To be fair hood83, it's just 'me' stirring. I'm flying solo. No need to make sweeping generalisations about the SH and kiwis.

Haha, no it's cool mate.

Ah I was just kidding, thought I saw a few other SH posters join in but it's fair game either way, sorry for the blanket dig, it was said in friendship but reading it back it sounds a bit nasty. I should have added more winks. Always need the winks.

Sweet, good man hood83

Like I say, I'm just stirring to generate a bit of heat, get the rivalry going. Can't have us on the same page, just wouldn't work

ebop wrote:Sweet, good man hood83

Like I say, I'm just stirring to generate a bit of heat, get the rivalry going. Can't have us on the same page, just wouldn't work

Poorfour wrote:Probably a fair assessment emack, but the attack is the slowest thing for a coach to develop and England are just starting on their journey.

NZ have the advantage of settled coaching team and tactics, but need to develop a raft of less experienced players.

England have a new coach and tactics but - courtesy of Lancaster - more established playing personnel (though with some exciting options in the pipeline. Underhill in particular looks like the real deal).

This team are by a clear and unarguable margin the best England team we have ever seen at this stage of the RWC cycle. Even the 2003 squad took until 2001 to hit their stride.

By 2017, both teams will have improved. The really intriguing question is whether England will have improved to finally match their potential.

I'm not that up to date with all the English team but does NZ really have a raft of less experienced players to develop compared to England?
Our tight 5 of Moody, Coles, Franks, Whitelock, Rettalick is experienced including some of the reserves (Crockett, Faumuina, Romano) and our loose forwards are fairly experienced Kaino, Cane, Read (but the reserves are new Savea, Dixon, Squire). Our backs of A Smith, Cruden have been around awhile as have B Smith and Savea. Reserves Kerr Barlow, Perenara, Barrett and Dagg have all been there before. So really its one winger, a 2nd five and a centre and some of reserves. Hell there's a lot of World Cups in that team. That's not to say its all hunky dory (so far mostly the ABs have looked pretty poor) but do England really have a more established team?

I'd say what England have is a breath of fresh air which has invigorated the team.

nganboy. I suppose by most standards NZ have an experienced base to build on, but any team would find it hard to cope with the loss of McCaw, Carter, Nonu, Smith and Mealamu - they had more caps between them than many international XVs.

Clearly the replacements are talented and few of them are completely new, but having to replace that much experience will inevitably have a big impact on the team. It's also the challenge of replacing them all at once rather than being able to bring through players one or two at a time.

As you say, NZ have looked a bit off their game in the last two weeks - but I would argue that a lot of that is down to having a number of new combinations to settle in. It will be interesting to see how things improve during the RC.

My point is just that in comparison, England have actually got a very settled squad. We've had some positional switches (Haskell, Robshaw and Farrell - though even there, all of them have experience of playing in those positions), and some new players have made their way into the replacements (George, Hill, Clifford, Daly), but the only change in the starting XV is Itoje, who already looks like he has been there forever.

Eddie has definitely made a difference by focusing the players very clearly on what he wants from them, but he has not had to start with a squad who can barely scrape together 200 caps between them as Lancaster did. That makes a big difference.