Taskmaster

As a bit of an aside to the 6 nations but firmly in people's minds: what sets jones aside from other coaches in or around england? Certainly seems to be work ethic and the highest set of demands (for most players apart from brown and hartley ).

Most of you will know I back coaches to have time to make an impact but the main difference between Lancaster and jones appears to be from my view that the former was.bothered about the big view whereas the latter gets down to the minute detail. It must help players to know exactly what theyve got to do to succeed under him. It does put questions in my head as to how we move seemlessly on when he departs. I know that there is now the overlap between him and whoever takes over but how will that work and will it be successful.

Getting a bit ahead, just looking forward to the next few years and hope people keep.perspective when a rough patch comes!

Six Nations 2018: How Eddie Jones will get England to peak at World Cup - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/42866825

I'd characterise it a little differently - Lancaster was pretty detail oriented, too, but my sense is that he focused on putting processes in place and having the players follow them.

Eddie seems to be more about giving very specific goals and leaving the players to work out how to get there.

Can Eddie Jones help England kick on? It can be argued that performances were better in his first year than his second, and while it may be the nature of the current game it is nerve-wracking to watch matches where we seem to be set up to draw the opposition sting then strike once they are tired.

When Lancaster took over the job, the common perception was that England had an aging team with a disciplinary problem. Bomber was pretty much tasked with changing the ethos of England Rugby and improve it's PR. He did well for most of his tenure but lack of experience told during RWC 15.

Jones on the other hand took over a team that was at a low ebb, but in many ways had the building blocks for a decent team. Unlike Lancaster he did not have to make wholesale changes and could instead concentrate on improving what he had. He has very much put his stamp on how England play and players have to adapt to the system rather than the system adapting to the players (though does this apply to him trying to squeeze in as many locks as possible?)

For all his high profile, left-field call ups, Jones has been a rather conservative selector when it actually comes to matches. For me nothing wrong with this as the natural wastage caused by injuries will always give chances for new players.

I agree that coaches (and players) need time. I dislike the sacking mentality that is creeping into the game (though to be fair some coaches are going after having perhaps spent too long in one place). I like that Jones brings in new voices regularly to avoid the "message" getting stale. Does he actually listen to other people though?

It will be an interesting couple of years though for some Jones will only be viewed as a success if England win the World Cup - which seems harsh.

9 of Lancasters first matchday 23 were in the WC squad a few months earlier.
19 of Jones first matchday 23 were in the WC squad a few months earlier. (The skipper was the only member of the starting XV not to be in the WC squad and thus one of the few untainted by what was ultimately a debacle)

LondonTiger wrote:It will be an interesting couple of years though for some Jones will only be viewed as a success if England win the World Cup - which seems harsh.

That's the goal he's set for himself.

Scottrf wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:It will be an interesting couple of years though for some Jones will only be viewed as a success if England win the World Cup - which seems harsh.

That's the goal he's set for himself.

Harsh ? Hes coaching the biggest/richest team in the world, surely that's his job ?

Both Jones and Lancaster best seasons in their first season. Both actually exceeding expectations.

Unfortunately with Lancaster I never really felt there was a significant improvement - even when he had more resources at his disposal.

Unfortunately with Jones even though he's won 22/23 which is great - there's again a feeling England aren't looking forward in certain ways.


Oh and another thing that I'd say - Jones has superior assistants to Lancaster. Gustard did a good job defensively for Saracens and has done likewise with England. Borthwick obviously assisted Jones with Japan and he's known as professor of the lineout.

Jones' England have been difficult to beat - of course 1 loss would suggest that but England haven't conceded many points.

In the Ais they only conceded 3 tries.


Compare this to Scotland who conceded 12 tries. Scotland have aspirations to win the 6 nations but their defence isn't top class.

Ireland and England are superior to Scotland because they are comfortable in both defence and attack.

Of course I'd like England to continue to keep improving their overall skill levels too.

Hmm depends on who you're talking to on exceeding expectations I think. For me there has been a continual overall progression. The squad now is miles better than that Lancaster took over and both have had a big.say in that. I.do like.how everyone is challenged to improve though.

Should mention coaches though you're correct. Both Farrell and rowntree came with a bit of a fan fare. Farrell has gone on to enhance his rep and status possibly.putting himself in the wider line.for succession with batter et al. Rowntree seems to be plodding a little but involved with a successio props in and around the england squad. Catt was meh at best.

The current set seem to be doing well. I feel that Hatley and borthwick will be tested quite a bit this tournament. Will be good to see how.much we come out swinging.

Well you don't expect a coach to beat NZ in their first year in charge - it was a pleasant surprise and arguably Lancaster's high point.

As for Jones winning a GS - first GS since 2003 and going unbeaten was exceeding expectations.


You shouldn't forget England has had a lot of success at U20s in the last few years - the players have been coming through.

The assistant coaches have also improved.

Lancaster when he took over in 2012 didn't have much to work with but in subsequent years he had more and more resources which IMO he didn't make the most of.

Jones has utilised players more that Lancaster didn't.

This year is a golden opportunity to pick up another GS.

England always have the tools to be consistently on the top or thereabouts.  They always have, always had and always will have.  Let's be honest about that bit.  So, you might have to go back to a side like Japan to unearth what truly makes Jones a potent coach because with England, a good coach has an easy life................. if they are good, to emphasise that point again.

Lancaster was good.  He was methodical and strangely unemotional (in a good way).  Maybe he simply felt it was good to suppress emotion and maybe he was very emotional underneath the surface, but I think he was a dangerous coach; and had he been given more time and amassed a little more confidence in his own instincts rather than perhaps giving in to the collegiate decision making that must often happen in such a big organisation, then I think he'd have eventually had a similar successful run as Jones has enjoyed.  

The biggest factor Jones brings is his ability to generate a desire that is technical - yes - but more so he just appeals to the animal, tribal and warlike instincts in high end rugby players.  He wants his players to have feelings, to have thoughts about the opposition, to bring attitude, to bring a confidence that perhaps strays into...arrogance.  

I don't mean to say that he wants his players thinking they are superior but then again, that's exactly what I think he wants - he wants his players to feel the confidence that they are the best in their positions in the world.  He's a coach that appeals to the emotions.  But then I think he's smart enough as a coach to know that kind of confidence then has to be controlled and used positively in games rather than it being just let loose.

So he appeals to England's traditional sense of prowess but he's wise enough to channel it into real methodology in coaching.

Well yes and no. England tend to beat nz every 10 times or so. Think it reflected the talent but also inexperience in that squad. Teams tend to get that consistency when they have more games and time under the belt. I didn't expect a gs but thought it was certainly possible as I called it before the tournament. Similar to this year it'll be blooming tough to do but fixtures fall the nicest way on an even year. I still don't agree that England didn't improve from Lancaster first year. As I said still not sure rowntree isn't better than Hatley and borthwick though slightly different remits. Farrell is certainly.in par with Gustard and doing very well with ireland now.

Good point fly. There does need to be that balance of raw emotion.

Farrell on par with Gustard - you do like to wind me up.

To be fair Farrell has done better than I expected but I think Farrell contributes less than Gustard.

Gustard has obviously been integral to Saracens' famed defence and he's now be making England very difficult to break down - 22/23 is something he deserves credit for to.

It's just not defensively but having that resilience.

Farrell and Lancaster's England weren't as resilient.

I've always been under the belief - England's current success isn't just down to Jones.

Just as Japan's strong RWC performance wasn't just down to Jones.

As for Rowntree? Not sure he could do what Borthwick did with Japan.

Borthwick has achieved more in his relatively short coaching career than anything Rowntree has done.

Can't really underestimate how impressive that win over SA was for Japan.

Why don't you feel they are on par? What exactly in processes etc do each contribute to their teams ie style of play etc?
Again what has borthwick introduced in training etc that rowntree failed to do?

beshocked wrote: Farrell on par with Gustard - you do like to wind me up.

To be fair Farrell has done better than I expected but I think Farrell contributes less than Gustard.

Gustard has obviously been integral to Saracens' famed defence and he's now be making England very difficult to break down - 22/23 is something he deserves credit for to.

It's just not defensively but having that resilience.

Farrell and Lancaster's England weren't as resilient.

I've always been under the belief - England's current success isn't just down to Jones.

Just as Japan's strong RWC performance wasn't just down to Jones.

As for Rowntree? Not sure he could do what Borthwick did with Japan.

Borthwick has achieved more in his relatively short coaching career than anything Rowntree has done.

BESHOCKED IN SARRIES BIAS SHOCKER!*

*Farrells don't count, they didn't sign Beshocked's programme.

From my own point of view I think that the structure of the coaching under Lancaster overlapped to much. Perhaps from the outside it also looks as if he wasn't quite as hands on as he needed to be. Hard to judge though. The catt position seemed a little too confused with Lancaster himself and Farrell. Could potentially be harder to get clear messages across to players as.jones seems to have nailed this.

cascough is it bias to call 2 coaches (Borthwick and Gustard) with successful track records good?

no 7 & 1/2 yes I know excuses can be made for Lancaster's failings but it could be simple - Jones,Gustard and Borthwick are simply superior.

Why I don't feel they are on par - well for one - Gustard has been more influential, the defence and resilience of England has improved. He also has a good understanding with Borthwick and Jones.

England's locks have been rubbish haven't they since Borthwick has been in the England set up?

You have to assume that Borthwick as an ex lock himself has had a positive influence.

I do think that yes - the locks have improved from the Lancaster tenure to where we are now.

Now perhaps I am bonkers but it doesn't seem to be a coincidence lock is our strongest position - especially when you consider that Borthwick would have helped with the development work - 3 of the locks coming from his old club. Now of course perhaps Gustard would have played his part too.

Borthwick must have been proud that Kruis,Lawes and Itoje got picked for the Lions. Sure he would be disappointed Launchbury missed out but lock is healthy.

No you're certainly not being bonkers just trying to understand your point of view by seeing what you're seeing. I'm. Struggling though as I feel you're talking a little in generalisations. You haven't really talked at all above about training differences and impact there. The nearest for me to you getting there is the resilience which I'm assuming to mean getting people back on their feet and into the defensive line faster than they would under Farrell? No detail for the rest though that I can see. Do you see that changing slightly though if jones is looking to alter his back row and possibly.compete more?

On the contrary I find it difficult to understand how you think Farrell Sr who was mostly a failure for England is equal to Gustard whose record is superior.

Of course if we look at both at Saracens - Saracens' attack improved when Farrell Sr left.

Okay answer me this - would you bring back Farrell Sr, give Gustard to the Irish if you could?

Or indeed Rowntree who has achieved relatively little in his coaching career is on par with Borthwick.

Would you welcome Rowntree back?


Jones has to alter things because of injuries, not through his own choice.

Oh and before you forget - Jones used to coach Saracens also but I scrutinise his decisions.

beshocked wrote:

Of course if we look at both at Saracens - Saracens' attack improved when Farrell Sr left.

Thank God he isn't Ireland's attack coach then

He is forwards coach though and a casual neutral observer might say that the forwards machine is the most potent piece of kit operating in the Irish team right now.... and like I referred to earlier...with less sweets to choose from than England

So what changed in attack for saravens beshocked? Who brought the new ideas or was it partly to do with new players and guys like Farrell getting more experience in how to manage games? What have the coaches brought in terms of ideas patterns of play? At the moment would it be a swap between rowntree and borthwick with Hatley staying as scrum coach of taking forwards on? As I said it's difficult to judge with the overlaps in roles which seemed to exist under Lancaster. Would I swap borthwick and rowntree for his current role. No purely as it's the team jones wants. Would I welcome.rowntree back if borthwick left and jones wanted him. Yes.

SecretFly wrote:

beshocked wrote:

Of course if we look at both at Saracens - Saracens' attack improved when Farrell Sr left.

Thank God he isn't Ireland's attack coach then  

He is forwards coach though and a casual neutral observer might say that the forwards machine is the most potent piece of kit operating in the Irish team right now.... and like I referred to earlier...with less sweets to choose from than England

Well according to the Irish website, Farrell is the defence coach not forwards coach but I guess Simon Easterby doesn't do anything?

It's why I compare Farrell to Gustard and not to Borthwick.

A head coach needs good assistants. Jones does. It makes Jones' job easier.

Jones focuses on the media sound bites whilst Gustard and Borthwick do the grafting behind the scenes.

Lancaster didn't have access to as good assistants. Now Farrell has likely improved since his days with England but he still has things to prove.

How has he improved? I'm assuming you mean that Jones focuses on more than media?will you add detail on any of this?

beshocked wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

beshocked wrote:

Of course if we look at both at Saracens - Saracens' attack improved when Farrell Sr left.

Thank God he isn't Ireland's attack coach then  

He is forwards coach though and a casual neutral observer might say that the forwards machine is the most potent piece of kit operating in the Irish team right now.... and like I referred to earlier...with less sweets to choose from than England

Well according to the Irish website, Farrell is the defence coach not forwards coach but I guess Simon Easterby doesn't do anything?

Well Ireland are pretty good at that too....... Maybe too good and too interested in doing it for my liking but.............

I think your forgetting the experience level Beshocked.

Jones as the head coach has been there done it bought the t-shirt
He dictates very clearly what he wants....to his deputies and his troops.

Lancaster was TOO inexperienced to do that and ultimately it showed.

lets be clear, whilst Jones HAS won a 6n Grand Slam, that's the ONLY thing he has achieved more than Lancaster, and unless he wins the 2019 WC...he'll be judged the same!

Secretfly Ireland conceded more tries than England in the AIs.... almost losing to Samoa....

Geordiefalcon I agree.

True Jones does dictate clearly and I think that was a problem Lancaster had.

You say the ONLY thing but it's silverware. It's a GS. He won't be judged the same. He needs to add NZ to his defeated foes though.

Disagree. If Jones can pick up another GS then he'll increase his reputation.

A semi final at 2019 is the minimum though as one would expect from an England coach.

So just to confirm beshocked are you basing your observations of how good a coach is purely on result first then tries if they are a backs coach etc? Or just wanting to avoid the detail?

You say the ONLY thing but it's silverware. It's a GS. He won't be judged the same. He needs to add NZ to his defeated foes though.

Yes its silverware, but Lancaster won 6n titles also. The experience thing comes back into play about getting them over the line - the difference between a 6n and a GS. Jones has the experience and Lancaster didn't.

The delay and build up in playing NZ is putting far more pressure on Jones as well. He's talking the talk, but ultimately a defeat to NZ will have a HUGE psychological impact....so close to the World Cup when England have been on this great unbeaten (bar one game ) run.

Disagree. If Jones can pick up another GS then he'll increase his reputation.

IF he gets a GS this year then yes a little, but I really don't think that will be the case. I think we could even drop to 3/4 - its a close tournament this year....and surely again the psychological aspects come in to play.

A semi final at 2019 is the minimum though as one would expect from an England coach

Disagree...only a Final or a win matters!

I'd ask the same question to you geordie. If a final is a minimum what happens if we go out before. Maybe in game we've narrowly lost? Jones to be sacked and his techniques coaches questioned??or a bit of a stand back and acknowledgment that's it's not the be all and end all?

Then he'll probably get sacked 7.5

So.it would be 3 in a row. Seemingly never learn.

It is the RFU...7.5

GeordieFalcon wrote:

You say the ONLY thing but it's silverware. It's a GS. He won't be judged the same. He needs to add NZ to his defeated foes though.

Yes its silverware, but Lancaster won 6n titles also. The experience thing comes back into play about getting them over the line - the difference between a 6n and a GS. Jones has the experience and Lancaster didn't.

The delay and build up in playing NZ is putting far more pressure on Jones as well. He's talking the talk, but ultimately a defeat to NZ will have a HUGE psychological impact....so close to the World Cup when England have been on this great unbeaten (bar one game ) run.

Disagree. If Jones can pick up another GS then he'll increase his reputation.

IF he gets a GS this year then yes a little, but I really don't think that will be the case. I think we could even drop to 3/4 - its a close tournament this year....and surely again the psychological aspects come in to play.

A semi final at 2019 is the minimum though as one would expect from an England coach

Disagree...only a Final or a win matters!

Lancaster didn't win a 6 nations title.

Delaying the game vs NZ gives Jones more time though.

I think dropping to 3/4 is unlikely - I think Scotland are being overhyped for example. Wales vs Scotland will be a crucial game.

Not sure we can have that attitude when our record in the last 2 RWCs has been below par.

Come on beshocked join the discussion answer questions if you can. You said you have a great knowledge of the game didn't you? A few questions.going unanswered above.

It's effectiveness of a coach which is important - that isn't necessarily just one thing.

Of course we don't see everything behind the scenes - we don't know exactly what the coaches are doing but we can measure it by the results.

Well no of course a coach isn't necessarily always just about winning, it's about improving the team as a whole, what they add to players.

We can see that with Gustard in charge of the England defence, England have been difficult to score points against and beat. Of course it's not just about him but he's played his part. Being able to protect your line is a skill.

I believe Gustard has helped make England more difficult to beat yes. So yes he's proving himself to be good in his role.

England are more difficult to beat than under Lancaster - of course it's not only one factor but a good defence is a strong platform.


I also believe if he was Scotland defence coach he'd improve their defence.

My mistake, I thought Lancaster had won a 6n.

Still it doesn't change things a whole lot. Lancaster was an extremely under experienced head coach changing an entire squad just about.

Jones is a "world class" world leading coach on a substantial salary.

With that comes very high expectations from those paying his wages. Especially with the biggest playing resource and the most amount of money being pumped in to the team!

I'm going to give in asking you to explain this point for the time being then beshocked as you seem unable to.

Don't know what point you are on about - I answered this: So just to confirm beshocked are you basing your observations of how good a coach is purely on result first then tries if they are a backs coach etc? Or just wanting to avoid the detail?

Lancaster didn't win a 6 nations title.

My mistake...

Delaying the game vs NZ gives Jones more time though.

And more pressure. He's had more than enough time to build his team and has 22 wins from 23 games.
Lose to NZ....and the confidence is blown away in one game.
Psychological edge to NZ.

I think dropping to 3/4 is unlikely - I think Scotland are being overhyped for example. Wales vs Scotland will be a crucial game.

Many of our players are not in great form. We have injuries to a number of positions.
Scotland can beat anyone on their day. Like wise an injury hit wales can still do the same and are always fired up for England. Ireland are tournament favorites...and France...well who knows what they will be able to produce

Not sure we can have that attitude when our record in the last 2 RWCs has been below par.

Because the last 2 WC's we completely underperformed. Serious money is being spent to ensure a successful 2019...to not make the final would be seen as failure.

Read back beshocked. I'm simply asking why you think something. Just to add understanding. Your point on this seems to be Gustard is better because england defend better and thus concede fewer points and lose less. You're a clever man surely you can see that is limited analysis ie non existent? You've not even backed.it by points conceded under them both. You see a lot of saraces and england and are one of the only people who is critical of Farrell. I'd like.to see why but when you're reasoning comes down to he's not as.good because england didn't defend as well....Well it doesn't make me see.anything. How does englands defending differ. How.much is due to individuals. Is the system easier to follow allowing more individual mistakes etc etc.

Just a quick add up but last year ireland conceded fewer point tries didn't they?

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Yes its silverware, but Lancaster won 6n titles also.

He didn't.

He did have a great record in the 6N though, winning 4 games every time. Any coach that loses 4/4 6N on such a fine margin of points difference is a quality operator. However, under him England lacked the hard edge that was required. Something I'd argue is evident in both men and how they speak.

cascough wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Yes its silverware, but Lancaster won 6n titles also.

He didn't.

He did have a great record in the 6N though, winning 4 games every time. Any coach that loses 4/4 6N on such a fine margin of points difference is a quality operator. However, under him England lacked the hard edge that was required. Something I'd argue is evident in both men and how they speak.

Yes im aware of that now.