England - Summer Tour to South Africa

First topic message reminder :

Fixtures

9 June - 16:05: South Africa v England - Emirates Airline Park, Johannesburg SkySports action
16 June - 16:05: South Africa v England - Toyota Stadium, Bloemfontein SkySports action
23 June - 16:05: South Africa v England - DHL Newlands, Cape Town SkySports action




Officials

1st Test
Referee: Ben O'Keeffe (New Zelaand)
Assistant 1: Romain Poite (France)
Assistant 2: Glen Jackson (New Zealand)
TMO: Simon McDowell (Ireland)

2nd Test
Referee: Romain Poite (France)
Assistant 1: Glen Jackson (New Zealand)
Assistant 2: Ben O'Keeffe (New Zelaand)
TMO: Simon McDowell (Ireland)

3rd Test
Referee: Glen Jackson (New Zealand)
Assistant 1: Romain Poite (France)
Assistant 2: Ben O'Keeffe (New Zelaand)
TMO: Simon McDowell (Ireland)



Squads

TBC

ebop, you continue to alienate everyone.. Your comment had no relevance and was intended to WUM.

... as my dear granny used to say.. "You cant educate pork"...

... so carry on, fill your boots...

munkian wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

munkian wrote:A union that huge having to import players over is a shocking advert for player pathways and development. I don't care where he was born but having never played in a country he is going to represent is odd.

Tomas Francis born in York has never played in Wales. Ross Moriarty born up north in England (Wearside?) And has yet to play in Wales. They've both got multiple Wales caps. Moriarty played England age grade as well.

Wales is tiny and comparatively poor. Not sure how hot you are on geography but there is quite the leap from Glaws to Wales than England to NZ ?

Plus his Dad and Uncle played for Wales and Ross was born in England whilst his Dad was playing league. Ross also grew up in Wales and played his age grade rugby there. They aren't comparable  

Is it not concerning that England can't develop test level back rowers ?

What's the difference? Ross was born and lived in a different country because his dad worked there, same with Brad. Ross played his age grade rugby for England whilst attending Hartpury College (definitely in Gloucester) and has never played rugby professionally in Wales. Brad similar, grew up in the country where his dad works and represented them at age grade and now is opting to represent the country of his father's birth (I think both his parents are English).

Your arguement is that Brad lives further away and his dad wasn't good enough to play rugby for England makes him less eligible. They are both products of a different unions development system.

I'm not a fan of Brad being picked before earning a place through his form in the AP but that's Eddie's decision.

Away from Shields for a second...

Some interesting quotes from Eddie about the team getting complacent and some players 'going to the back of the bus and say it's not my fault, I've done my job'. Seems like there may have been some problems in camp in the 6Ns with some players getting complacent and some only looking out for themselves.

He also mentions the amount of money they can make, perhaps hinting that some are more interested in the money then the rugby.

No9 wrote:ebop, you continue to alienate everyone.. Your comment had no relevance and was intended to WUM.

... as my dear granny used to say.. "You cant educate pork"...

... so carry on, fill your boots...

To be fair No9

Your England team is riddled with NZ influence

And it’s because, your country can’t produce it’s own talent to compete at the highest level. Your union brought in the foreigners, but that wasn’t enough, so they brought in the foreign coach, but even that wasn’t enough. So then they went uber desperate and brought in players that haven’t even set foot in the country.

So what are your boots filled with?

ebop wrote:

No9 wrote:ebop, you continue to alienate everyone.. Your comment had no relevance and was intended to WUM.

... as my dear granny used to say.. "You cant educate pork"...

... so carry on, fill your boots...

To be fair No9

Your England team is riddled with NZ influence

And it’s because, your country can’t produce it’s own talent to compete at the highest level. Your union brought in the foreigners, but that wasn’t enough, so they brought in the foreign coach, but even that wasn’t enough. So then they went uber desperate and brought in players that haven’t even set foot in the country.

So what are your boots filled with?

Players qualified to play for England.

By the way, unlike some other NH & SH countries, England do not bring in players from other countries with a view to them becoming England players, the clubs are autonomous, (something Kiwis teams no little about) and bring in who they think will best fit. We do however bring in the odd league convert from abroad, but they tend to talk with a broad Yorkshire or Lancashire accent. Project players are not an English thing, nor is bringing over potential talent at a very early age and letting it grow up in whichever country. The "foreigners" in the England squad have generally come over here with their parents and grown up here, Hartley may be the exception here or they have come to play club rugby and stayed here long enough to become qualified. The RFU has had nothing to do with it.

ebop wrote:

No9 wrote:ebop, you continue to alienate everyone.. Your comment had no relevance and was intended to WUM.

... as my dear granny used to say.. "You cant educate pork"...

... so carry on, fill your boots...

To be fair No9

Your England team is riddled with NZ influence

And it’s because, your country can’t produce it’s own talent to compete at the highest level. Your union brought in the foreigners, but that wasn’t enough, so they brought in the foreign coach, but even that wasn’t enough. So then they went uber desperate and brought in players that haven’t even set foot in the country.

So what are your boots filled with?

Why are you getting your knickers in a twist over one incident of picking an England qualified professional rugby player. Yes OK we get we are not as good as nz but why shouldn't we cast our nets wide. We do provide alot of countries with immigrants who work and generate wealth can we not allow our global citizens a chance to play for one of his eligible nations. It's a pro sport and any country will look for an edge. Why we get so much stick when others like Scotland have an actual program to find players with Scottish ancestry. If shields was Scottish there wouldn't be a fuss made.

Put yourselves in our shoes, if your team needed a ready made quality back rower and he was eligible would you not pick him? Laugh all you like as its easy when your on top but don't play the holier than thou card when you lot have benefitted from immigration and scholarships for talented students, you lot are just as bad if not worse than us as pointed out by posters.

I really wouldn't waste your time.

As previously mentioned Yoda the rules about eligibility is the same for all nations.To make out
NZ have given scholarships to a few players is true from an early age.BUT since 1903 only about
45 or so not born in or of NZ parents.The Super franchises are ring fenced not more than 5 non
NZ players in a squad.Many Polynesians are immigrants at some point in NZ in the same way as
many immigrants come to this country to better themselves.

I mean, I think we are losing out on testing younger, potentially better players and Shields isn't the best use of a cap especially when we've never seen how he plays with or against any of the other players involved, but the hypocrisy of people looking at how different unions treat calling up contentious qualified players is amusing. If the rules aren't right, change them. Until then, they are the same for everyone and comments about how England are somehow worse than every other country for follow their loopholes and getting what they think is the best from them (even if we disagree that it is the best, especially in terms of long term player production) are logically weak

What ever side if the fence we are regarding shields, for the record I thought he should have played for wasps first, if will be interesting to see how he gets on. I'm quite excited for this squad provided the youngsters like Willis get a chance to demonstrate whether they are ready or not. I know one thing for sure regardless of results other nations fans, naming no names, will slate us and find something that offends them.

What do people think of a Farrell, lowaski (sorry spelling)and Slade midfield. Not a defense wall but could be creative.

My main problem with the squad:

Cameron Redpath - really what is the point. Does Eddie think a guy who has yet to play in the AP will push to be in the team come RWC? Or is this another of Eddie's "look how clever I am" calls?

Breakdown - We have struggled to win quick ball, and struggled to slow down opposition ball. Last season we were schooled at the breakdown by France, Ireland, Scotland and Samoa. Thus it worries me that the flanker options are dominated by guys who have played the last season for their clubs at 6 - Robshaw, Shields, Wilson, Willis. Perhaps Jones has selected the best players available to him - but if the breakdown is not sorted out, and I am not sure our Forwards coach has the skills for that, we will continue to struggle against good sides.

LondonTiger wrote:My main problem with the squad:

Cameron Redpath - really what is the point. Does Eddie think a guy who has yet to play in the AP will push to be in the team come RWC? Or is this another of Eddie's "look how clever I am" calls?

Breakdown - We have struggled to win quick ball, and struggled to slow down opposition ball. Last season we were schooled at the breakdown by France, Ireland, Scotland and Samoa. Thus it worries me that the flanker options are dominated by guys who have played the last season for their clubs at 6 - Robshaw, Shields, Wilson, Willis. Perhaps Jones has selected the best players available to him - but if the breakdown is not sorted out, and I am not sure our Forwards coach has the skills for that, we will continue to struggle against good sides.

He's definitely playing some psychological game. Whether that's with Townsend, the English media, other members of his squad, or Scottish Supporters remains to be seen. Maybes he's just playing with himself.

All this qualification bs is an irrelevant rose pilchard.
We've fallen back considerably over the last 12 months, so much so, that realistically the prize has gone from our reach.
I'm not seeing any real change on the horizon and so have adjusted my expectations accordingly.
Rob Baxter to take over 2019/20

Wilson and and what I've seen of Willis are stronger at the breakdown (from a fetcher point of view) than Robshaw, Haskell etc. Shields is pretty good from what I remember but I doubt he'll start. If we go:

6. Robshaw
7. Wilson
8. Vunipola

That's a pretty balanced back row, I'm confident Wilson can play each role to a good level. If we ask Wilson and Billy to try and target the turnover and allow Robshaw to clean up, I think it can work. Wilson also carries better than Robshaw, he gives us options.

Farrell has been named captain but I just don't see it. He has an Incredible attitude but is not a leader of men. So who is the future - Shields is the Canes captain and they appear to be doing OK, and he will certainly be a point of difference which is always necessary when making real change.

Shields needs to get in the team first. And that's assuming hartley doesn't come back in if and when fit.

Wilson is an option at 6 but he's not an international 7. Curry should be the guy starting this summer.

As with any tour there will be one or two new or new-ish players who will really shine and some that simply won't work. I'm thinking that Lozowski will work well from the bench (I think he's class), and Tom Curry will finally get the chance to show what he can do. I think the player most likely to shine though will be Dan Robson. He's pretty much guaranteed to get capped and injuries aside should be well-blooded by the end of the tour.

I am not sure that Nathan Earle will be on Eddie's list to play in the tests, nor Cameron Redpath. However, expect Cipriani to make at least one appearance from the bench, potentially at 15. I would love to see him at 10 as he really can start something from nothing.

It's a shame we never got to see him at his best - he had that wonderful game against Ireland then suffered his awful ankle injury followed by a too early recall and then his well-documented personal problems started. His trip to Oz then stopped him being selected. He's a bit of a "What if" player for me but I for one would like to see him do well.

Another I would love to see shine on this tour is Henry Slade. He's had so many false starts interrupted by injury but is a genuinely talented player and one that deserves his chance. When on form he has a real sense of "X" Factor about him - he just has to be careful he doesn't try to do that too often as it doesn't always work. When it does though...

There will be injuries for certain on this tour, so expect experiments to cover broken players.

kingelderfield wrote:...Shields is the Canes captain...

I don't think you can read a lot into that. A couple of games ago, Shields was about to make an onfield decision to go kick a penalty to touch, when his coach overruled him and told him to take the points. Shades of Robshaw at the World Cup (or Tom Wood in the World Cup warm-up, when he lost track of the scoreboard). The rest of the match showed his coach made the right choice.

Shields is obviously no mug but captaining a club side is no guarantee of leadership ability at test level. Marler, Robshaw, Youngs, Ford, Launchbury, Haskell etc have all captained their club sides too.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Wilson is an option at 6 but he's not an international 7. Curry should be the guy starting this summer.

I disagree, Wilson has the attributes to make a very capable 7. He's great at the breakdown, technique wise and possibly more so than Tom Curry. Just because Wilson normally turns out at 6(as does Tom Curry much of the time) doesn't mean he can't be successful there. It depends what EJ wants....does he want a player to do a job there (I'd argue Wilson is currently better than Curry) or does he want to mould a player (Curry) for the future.

Him and graham were outshone by the other brother in the recent head to head. Wilsons best chance is the 6 or covering the bench. More likely a squad filler.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Him and graham were outshone by the other brother in the recent head to head. Wilsons best chance is the 6 or covering the bench. More likely a squad filler.

Oh yea, the game Wilson didn't play in and Graham won motm

Ah fair dos. Graham was outgunned perhaps hat was he reason. Graham had an excellent game carrying but wasn't in the same class at the breakdown. Welch was it?

Not sure why your so quick to slate Wilson and Graham 7.5
Ive argued for years now just how good Wilson is. He played great in Argentina, then was dumped and will be excellent this tour.

If he doesn't get on the pitch at all and is a squad filler as you put it.....then I honestly hope he tells Eddie to shove it.

Not slating. Both good 6s. I don't think either is a 7 to excel at international level.

So what I can summarise from this is we have taken the wrong curry? And there's a worry we only have one genuine seven on tour. I think Wilson is an excellent breakdown forward and hard as nails. On the tour of Argentina didn't he play a great foil to curry who was playing 7? I think six shirt is Robshaw to lose at the moment and he will be vital on a callow team with his seventy odd caps. If breakdown woes continue with the squad picked we will just have to hold our hands up and say we just ain't good enough at the moment as he has picked the best breakdown practitioners available in my opinion. (I don't know if this is an area of strength for shields yet).

I like Mark Wilson, but he is (imo) a long way from being a 7.

Surely the Vunipola boys shouldn't be touring. Both are in prone injury positions; Mako has been flogged beyond the departed equine and Billy will have had a ridiculously inadequate amount of game time and will therefore again tear and brake for absolutely no good reason.
Jones is a fool to take them.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Him and graham were outshone by the other brother in the recent head to head. Wilsons best chance is the 6 or covering the bench. More likely a squad filler.

Careful No7 you're becoming almost Beshockedesq with your obsession with head to heads over all else

Also The Times had Gustard down as one of three on the shortlist to be the new DoR at Quins.

If he leaves the England set up so close to the RWC then that could screw with a lot of Eddie's plans. Could he do both?

Other two are Ben Ryan and Sean Edwards. Although it's a little hazy if all three of these are for DoR or for DoR and Head Coach.

yappysnap wrote:Also The Times had Gustard down as one of three on the shortlist to be the new DoR at Quins.

If he leaves the England set up so close to the RWC then that could screw with a lot of Eddie's plans. Could he do both?

Other two are Ben Ryan and Sean Edwards. Although it's a little hazy if all three of these are for DoR or for DoR and Head Coach.

Ben Ryan has been linked with Nick Kennedy as a possible double-ticket.

Thing is, these jobs aren't always going to come up. Quins is probably attractive to Paul Gustard and Shaun Edwards because I believe they both live in or around London.

Are either Edwards or Gustard really number 1 characters, surely they're 2's?
That leaves Ryan who has already fronted a mini organization in the entirely different 7's environment.
I'd go with Ryan, Edward's would be fun to watch in a Brian Clough eske way, though I suspect Quins will select Guscard for his strategy.
No double acts please. They rarely work.

Yoda wrote:So what I can summarise from this is we have taken the wrong curry? And there's a worry we only have one genuine seven on tour. I think Wilson is an excellent breakdown forward and hard as nails. On the tour of Argentina didn't he play a great foil to curry who was playing 7? I think six shirt is Robshaw to lose at the moment and he will be vital on a callow team with his seventy odd caps. If breakdown woes continue with the squad picked we will just have to hold our hands up and say we just ain't good enough at the moment as he has picked the best breakdown practitioners available in my opinion. (I don't know if this is an area of strength for shields yet).

No, it's the right Curry, but he generally plays 6 for Sale. They lined up in one of the Argentina games 6. Wilson 7. Curry and it went well. Both are strong at the breakdown (Curry with brains and Wilson with strength and technique). I'd be happy with either getting a start tbh and the pairing perhaps would be better together than one with Robshaw.

I watch a lot of Wilson and he's a an outstanding backrow option, he's a real all rounder.

I do want to make a general point on the breakdown issues as hey have been primarily protecting the ball. A big part of that was having 3 locks on the pitch for me so a return to 2 actual flankers would improve things. I think the return of an attack.coach will help us no end as well. A number of times we lost possession making silly errors and not supporting once we were slowed and run out of ideas a little. A more concrete plan would help us here.

I agree completely with that 7.5, we have been schooolboyishly bad protecting the ball.

That MUST be fixed in this tour.

As to the back row.
I would be more than happy to see 6. Wilson 7. Curry run out. But it wont happen. They'll get Shields in as quick as possible with Robshaw at 7

GeordieFalcon wrote:I agree completely with that 7.5, we have been schooolboyishly bad protecting the ball.

That MUST be fixed in this tour.

As to the back row.
I would be more than happy to see 6. Wilson 7. Curry run out. But it wont happen. They'll get Shields in as quick as possible with Robshaw at 7

I'm not sure they will, and I wouldn't be too surprised if Shields didn't play all tour. I think he'll start Vunipola at 8 and want some cover for him on the bench. Simmonds is the only other specialist 8 so that is him in. He is able to cover across the back row and with Isiekwe also an option at 4/5/6, I would imagine we'd see those two in 19 and 20. That leaves two flanker spots open. One almost definitely for Robshaw. I'd possibly put Shields as the front runner for the other spot in Eddie's mind, but equally I don't think it's a huge leap to see Curry or Wilson in there. I think Willis or Earl are probably a bridge too far, and would expect they're apprentice players even if they're not named as such.

So I'd expect something like:

4. Launchbury
5. Itoje
6. Robshaw
7. Shields/Curry/Wilson
8. Vunipola
19. Isiekwe
20. Simmonds

It wouldn't be beyond possibility to see Curry/Wilson to start and offer cover (either way round) in the event of any injury and Shields not play.

I've said it before but he did it with Te'o in 2016, parachuting Burrell in after Tuilagi's injury and starting him in T1 (although Burrell did put a good performance in against Wales when Te'o wasn't available). Jones might decide that he wants one window to assess Shields and wants Shields to have one window with the squad learning calls and patterns in training before pushing for selection in the autumn, as both Curry and Wilson have had call-ups before.

Saying that, if I had to put money on it now I would probably say Jones will go Robshaw and Shields in T1.

kingelderfield wrote:...No double acts please. They rarely work...

Almost every club splits the responsibilities, its just that, as supporters, we aren't always aware of it. The Cullen and Lancaster partnership at Leinster has been an eye-opener for many in that respect. Funny you should mention Brian Clough, because he was the senior partner in a very successful double act with Peter Taylor.

The job split is supposed to be Director of Rugby, and Head Coach. In US professional sports, the counterpart would be General Manager and Head Coach, where the GM is responsible for the commercial operations of the team. He signs players and coaches, and then the coaches handle training and on field management.

There is no consistent demarcation evident in the Premiership. Going from club websites, this is roughly how it looks (i'd appreciate any corrections):

Exeter - Rob Baxter/Ali Hepher
Saracens - Mark McCall/Mark McCall (he's probably DoR but the website isnt clear)
Wasps - Dai Young/No-one with head coach title
Newcastle - Dean Richards/Dave Walder
Leicester - Ged Glynn?/Matt O'Connor
Gloucester - David Humphries/Johan Ackermann
Sale - Steve Diamond/No-one with head coach title
Bath - Todd Blackadder/Used to be Tabai Matson, but no-one currently with that title.
Harlequins - TBA/Mark Mapletoft
Northampton - Chris Boyd/TBA
Worcester - Alan Solomons/Rory Duncan
London Irish - Declan Kidney/Les Kiss
Bristol - Unknown/Pat Lam

Dean Richards is a DoR with a very strong grip on any club he's involved with but he does no coaching. By contrast, Dai Young, Rob Baxter and Mark McCall all still do. McCall used to be Head Coach under Brendan Venter, before being promoted.

By and large, the press treats Johan Ackermann and Todd Blackadder as if they have the same role but Ackermann is a Head Coach (like Pat Lam at Bristol), while Blackadder is a DoR (the job Chris Boyd has been named to at Northampton).

An odd case is Matt O'Connor. We take it for granted that he replaced Richard Cockerill but Cockerill was DoR, with Aaron Mauger as Head Coach. When Cockerill was sacked, Mauger took over but was replaced by O'Connor. O'Connor only has a Head Coach role, with no-one formally named as DoR at Leicester. Austin Healey believes that Ged Glynn, who is Director of Rugby Operations, has taken on some of the DoR responsibilities.

It makes a big difference. If you are a coach, with no final say over recruitment decisions, then you may not have the control you want. On the other hand, it seems clear that Blackadder has taken longer than he expected to come to terms with being a DoR in the Premiership.

Nick Kennedy said that there are around a hundred agents to deal with these days and it takes a lot of time to keep up with the transfer market. He gave Dean Richards enormous credit for spotting Gary Graham in Jersey, pointing out that you can't just watch a highlight reel to evaluate a player. You need scouts you trust completely, or else the time to do full due diligence on what a player offers. When you add the need to be constantly balancing the books for the salary cap, as well as working out who nets you RFU payments, and who will be away on international  duty, then it doesn't leave a lot of time for coaching.

It's fashionable to go for southern hemisphere coaches but the top 4 teams this season all have senior northern hemisphere guys with long tenure. It's a steep learning curve for coaches who don't know the premiership. I think Ben Ryan would love to coach in the Premiership but needs to work with someone who is familiar with the logistics of assembling a squad, which is a skillset he doesn't yet have.

Rugby Fan wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:...No double acts please. They rarely work...

Almost every club splits the responsibilities, its just that, as supporters, we aren't always aware of it. The Cullen and Lancaster partnership at Leinster has been an eye-opener for many in that respect. Funny you should mention Brian Clough, because he was the senior partner in a very successful double act with Peter Taylor.

The job split is supposed to be Director of Rugby, and Head Coach. In US professional sports, the counterpart would be General Manager and Head Coach, where the GM is responsible for the commercial operations of the team. He signs players and coaches, and then the coaches handle training and on field management.

There is no consistent demarcation evident in the Premiership. Going from club websites, this is roughly how it looks (i'd appreciate any corrections):

Exeter - Rob Baxter/Ali Hepher
Saracens - Mark McCall/Mark McCall (he's probably DoR but the website isnt clear)
Wasps - Dai Young/No-one with head coach title
Newcastle - Dean Richards/Dave Walder
Leicester - Ged Glynn?/Matt O'Connor
Gloucester - David Humphries/Johan Ackermann
Sale - Steve Diamond/No-one with head coach title
Bath - Todd Blackadder/Used to be Tabai Matson, but no-one currently with that title.
Harlequins - TBA/Mark Mapletoft
Northampton - Chris Boyd/TBA
Worcester - Alan Solomons/Rory Duncan
London Irish - Declan Kidney/Les Kiss
Bristol - Unknown/Pat Lam

Dean Richards is a DoR with a very strong grip on any club he's involved with but he does no coaching. By contrast, Dai Young, Rob Baxter and Mark McCall all still do. McCall used to be Head Coach under Brendan Venter, before being promoted.

By and large, the press treats Johan Ackermann and Todd Blackadder as if they have the same role but Ackermann is a Head Coach (like Pat Lam at Bristol), while Blackadder is a DoR (the job Chris Boyd has been named to at Northampton).

An odd case is Matt O'Connor. We take it for granted that he replaced Richard Cockerill but Cockerill was DoR, with Aaron Mauger as Head Coach. When Cockerill was sacked, Mauger took over but was replaced by O'Connor. O'Connor only has a Head Coach role, with no-one formally named as DoR at Leicester. Austin Healey believes that Ged Glynn, who is Director of Rugby Operations, has taken on some of the DoR responsibilities.

It makes a big difference. If you are a coach, with no final say over recruitment decisions, then you may not have the control you want. On the other hand, it seems clear that Blackadder has taken longer than he expected to come to terms with being a DoR in the Premiership.

Nick Kennedy said that there are around a hundred agents to deal with these days and it takes a lot of time to keep up with the transfer market. He gave Dean Richards enormous credit for spotting Gary Graham in Jersey, pointing out that you can't just watch a highlight reel to evaluate a player. You need scouts you trust completely, or else the time to do full due diligence on what a player offers. When you add the need to be constantly balancing the books for the salary cap, as well as working out who nets you RFU payments, and who will be away on international  duty, then it doesn't leave a lot of time for coaching.

It's fashionable to go for southern hemisphere coaches but the top 4 teams this season all have senior northern hemisphere guys with long tenure. It's a steep learning curve for coaches who don't know the premiership. I think Ben Ryan would love to coach in the Premiership but needs to work with someone who is familiar with the logistics of assembling a squad, which is a skillset he doesn't yet have.

Interesting reading. How does this affect the "Baxter for England" bandwagon? Obviously Exeter's success story is legendary in rugby circles and Rob Baxter is a huge part of that, but if he is the DoR, does that role have transferable skills to being England head coach? E.g. recruitment and salary cap fly out the window, but talent identification is no doubt important.

With Lancaster's redemption being a key feature of the Champions Cup final from the English media's perspective, it's worth noting those pieces coming out that say he spent more of his time as England head coach doing powerpoints than coaching, which wasn't an area he excelled and isn't a job he's doing now. Maybe someone like Baxter with Premiership DoR pedigree as England "head coach" with a person with Premiership Head Coach pedigree as our "senior coach" in a team of 3 is what we need post Eddie Jones?

Is Eddie Jones therefore taking on too much? He's obviously in that DoR role, picking the squads, watching the players, dealing with the press, but he's also head of a team of 3 (Jones, Gustard and Hatley) with consultants occasionally coming in (e.g. Ella, Vesty, etc).

robbo277 wrote:Interesting reading. How does this affect the "Baxter for England" bandwagon? Obviously Exeter's success story is legendary in rugby circles and Rob Baxter is a huge part of that, but if he is the DoR, does that role have transferable skills to being England head coach? E.g. recruitment and salary cap fly out the window, but talent identification is no doubt important.

With Lancaster's redemption being a key feature of the Champions Cup final from the English media's perspective, it's worth noting those pieces coming out that say he spent more of his time as England head coach doing powerpoints than coaching, which wasn't an area he excelled and isn't a job he's doing now. Maybe someone like Baxter with Premiership DoR pedigree as England "head coach" with a person with Premiership Head Coach pedigree as our "senior coach" in a team of 3 is what we need post Eddie Jones?

Woodward was very much a DoR type, running a team of top coaches. I think that's one reason you are starting to hear more calls for Dean Richards to be considered for the England job again. He had just the sort of skillset England needed - a highly respected rugby man, with few public doubts, and an ability to delegate. However, he put himself out of the running with Bloodgate, and, even if some think he has served his time, there will always be a faction in the RFU which won't want that association.

Personally, I think Jones' contract extension muddies the waters a bit. If he is supposed to act as a mentor to the next man, then that, almost by definition, means a Head Coach type being groomed for more responsibility. Hard to see proud DoRs like Baxter or McCall wanting to play second fiddle to Jones for a couple of years.

robbo277 wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:...No double acts please. They rarely work...

Almost every club splits the responsibilities, its just that, as supporters, we aren't always aware of it. The Cullen and Lancaster partnership at Leinster has been an eye-opener for many in that respect. Funny you should mention Brian Clough, because he was the senior partner in a very successful double act with Peter Taylor.

The job split is supposed to be Director of Rugby, and Head Coach. In US professional sports, the counterpart would be General Manager and Head Coach, where the GM is responsible for the commercial operations of the team. He signs players and coaches, and then the coaches handle training and on field management.

There is no consistent demarcation evident in the Premiership. Going from club websites, this is roughly how it looks (i'd appreciate any corrections):

Exeter - Rob Baxter/Ali Hepher
Saracens - Mark McCall/Mark McCall (he's probably DoR but the website isnt clear)
Wasps - Dai Young/No-one with head coach title
Newcastle - Dean Richards/Dave Walder
Leicester - Ged Glynn?/Matt O'Connor
Gloucester - David Humphries/Johan Ackermann
Sale - Steve Diamond/No-one with head coach title
Bath - Todd Blackadder/Used to be Tabai Matson, but no-one currently with that title.
Harlequins - TBA/Mark Mapletoft
Northampton - Chris Boyd/TBA
Worcester - Alan Solomons/Rory Duncan
London Irish - Declan Kidney/Les Kiss
Bristol - Unknown/Pat Lam

Dean Richards is a DoR with a very strong grip on any club he's involved with but he does no coaching. By contrast, Dai Young, Rob Baxter and Mark McCall all still do. McCall used to be Head Coach under Brendan Venter, before being promoted.

By and large, the press treats Johan Ackermann and Todd Blackadder as if they have the same role but Ackermann is a Head Coach (like Pat Lam at Bristol), while Blackadder is a DoR (the job Chris Boyd has been named to at Northampton).

An odd case is Matt O'Connor. We take it for granted that he replaced Richard Cockerill but Cockerill was DoR, with Aaron Mauger as Head Coach. When Cockerill was sacked, Mauger took over but was replaced by O'Connor. O'Connor only has a Head Coach role, with no-one formally named as DoR at Leicester. Austin Healey believes that Ged Glynn, who is Director of Rugby Operations, has taken on some of the DoR responsibilities.

It makes a big difference. If you are a coach, with no final say over recruitment decisions, then you may not have the control you want. On the other hand, it seems clear that Blackadder has taken longer than he expected to come to terms with being a DoR in the Premiership.

Nick Kennedy said that there are around a hundred agents to deal with these days and it takes a lot of time to keep up with the transfer market. He gave Dean Richards enormous credit for spotting Gary Graham in Jersey, pointing out that you can't just watch a highlight reel to evaluate a player. You need scouts you trust completely, or else the time to do full due diligence on what a player offers. When you add the need to be constantly balancing the books for the salary cap, as well as working out who nets you RFU payments, and who will be away on international  duty, then it doesn't leave a lot of time for coaching.

It's fashionable to go for southern hemisphere coaches but the top 4 teams this season all have senior northern hemisphere guys with long tenure. It's a steep learning curve for coaches who don't know the premiership. I think Ben Ryan would love to coach in the Premiership but needs to work with someone who is familiar with the logistics of assembling a squad, which is a skillset he doesn't yet have.

Interesting reading. How does this affect the "Baxter for England" bandwagon? Obviously Exeter's success story is legendary in rugby circles and Rob Baxter is a huge part of that, but if he is the DoR, does that role have transferable skills to being England head coach? E.g. recruitment and salary cap fly out the window, but talent identification is no doubt important.

With Lancaster's redemption being a key feature of the Champions Cup final from the English media's perspective, it's worth noting those pieces coming out that say he spent more of his time as England head coach doing powerpoints than coaching, which wasn't an area he excelled and isn't a job he's doing now. Maybe someone like Baxter with Premiership DoR pedigree as England "head coach" with a person with Premiership Head Coach pedigree as our "senior coach" in a team of 3 is what we need post Eddie Jones?

Is Eddie Jones therefore taking on too much? He's obviously in that DoR role, picking the squads, watching the players, dealing with the press, but he's also head of a team of 3 (Jones, Gustard and Hatley) with consultants occasionally coming in (e.g. Ella, Vesty, etc).

Lancaster has been applauded for modernising and changing the way Leinster approach training. Cullen gets the credit for setting the culture for the players and staff to operate it. It's a combination that works. With England Lancaster ended up in a combination that didn't work and either didn't see it or wasn't brave enough to act.

Just listened to the Times Ruck Podcast, and Stephen Jones had a good description of the squad "Every player seems to have been selected on a different principle", which sums up the way I felt about it.

Alan Dymock suggested that Jones started assembling his squad with the intention of resting players but began adding them back in when he thought about trying to be competitive, to halt the losing streak. Consequently, it looks a bit like he's fallen betweem two stools.

Another podcast (forget which one) wondered if Jones has a pathological dislike of agreeing with popular opinion, and would rather cut off his nose to spite his face. Almost everyone said Jones didn't have enough scrum halves in his squad, and the chickens came home to roost.

The knock-on effect of his stubborness, is that he had to resort to Wigglesworth in the Six Nations as a safe pair of hands. His tour selection suggests, however, that Wigglesworth isn't really his third choice, despite the claim the Saracens man is only being rested. This means he has wasted valuable playing time, as he did when he selected Jack Maunder (although injuries have played a part there).

Jones contended selecting additional scrum halves reduced playing time, yet it's normal to have three in a World Cup squad. Even if he plans on only taking two, the need to have a third option available would only be greater. The same goes for hooker, where any injury on tour means we'll need to call up a replacement. Beshocked has always complained about the lack of opportunities for George, but we also have no clarity on who is next in line for that position.

I'm less worried about players like Armand, Attwood, Wade, etc being overlooked, since coaches will always have preferences. It's a bit more concerning when you consider how inconsistent Jones' preferences are. If Wilson is in the squad now, then he should have been ahead of Armand for the Six Nations. If Marcus Smith warranted selection as an apprentice, then he should be getting the exposure to an England tour that Jones is now offering to Redpath. Jones surprised everyone by giving Graham an opportunity and, after showing he warranted a call-up, he gets left behind.

You can't feel confident that Jones won't turn on a sixpence again, and decide, say, that he needs an experienced, gnarly lock like Attwood despite never looking at him again after the Saxons tour.

The impression coming out of the England camp is that Jones no longer trusts his early selections to deliver. Not surprising, after three straight Six Nations defeats. It would be nice to know what the England camp feels about our breakdown failure. Is that the fault of the coaches, for not preparing players for different refereeing interpretations? Do the players bear the brunt of the responsibility, for not adjusting? Or is it a leadership issue, where the captain needed to manage the officials, and other leaders had to rally the troops more effectively?

If there are some stand-out performers in South Africa, then it could create a bit of a dilemma in the autumn. Where will they rank against players rested for the tour, or those coming back from injury? It would be easier to judge, if there was more obvious logic to selection policy. Some of England's problems are nice problems to have. Others seem to be problems we have unnecessarily created for ourselves.

Can't agree. I think he's been really consistent in his first choice selection. It's the back ups where he seems to be bringing them into squads to have a further closer look.I don't think deciding on whoch 3rd or 4th chive number 6 etc still is that bad.

Not enough life boats? Just bring those deck chairs over will you.
And the band played on.........

But normally you're level headed about coaches and results. Who should he be sacked for then king. Still after mallet?

I think it's quite simple. The players he's rested are halfway between rested and dropped.

Why Cole and not Mako? Why Haskell and not Itoje? Why Care and not Farrell? Put simply, Eddie would be happy going into an Autumn series or possibly even a World Cup without the first group, but not the second.

He's seen enough of Sinckler and Williams to know they can ball internationally. He hasn't decided to completely cast Cole away, but he wants to have a better look at them and if they go well and Cole doesn't stsrt the season on top form, then he'll leave Cole out again.

Same with all the players left out this time in my opinion.

In the 34 I think he's also gone about 28+6 or a similar kinda split. He's gone with his best squad of 28 then having a look at a couple of longer term guys. Similar to the apprentice system, even if they're not named as such.

The reason he may have switched some in and out, e.g. Smith for Redmond, may be because he doesn't think this tour is best for Smith and an off-season may be better as he's had a higher workload.

Even if you don't agree with his selections, which I don't 100%, I think it's possible to see his logic.

Trinder and Yarde added to the squad for Barbarians game.

http://www.englandrugby.com/news/trinder-and-yarde-called-into-england-squad/

Trinder has had a storming end to the season so glad about that.

Yarde by all accounts was very good too

LondonTiger wrote:Trinder and Yarde added to the squad for Barbarians game.

http://www.englandrugby.com/news/trinder-and-yarde-called-into-england-squad/

I think this is just the training squad this week? Although there is a chance they'll be retained for the Barbarians game.

England Rugby wrote:Following the conclusion of the Premiership semi finals next weekend, a final training squad will be confirmed to prepare for the Barbarians match.

It sounds like they might drop players into the squad from the losing semi-finalists, so it could be that Trinder and Yarde are just placefillers for now. E.g. will Trinder play if Slade becomes available? Will Yarde play if Earle becomes available?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Can't agree. I think he's been really consistent in his first choice selection.  It's the back ups where he seems to be bringing them into squads to have a further closer look.

I don't think we disagree. Jones has certainly been consistent in selecting his match day squads but not so in his wider training squad selections, especially if you include the 2016 Saxons squad.

If you take Jones at his word (not always a wise thing to do) then he now believes he should have refreshed his team earlier, which I take to mean that he feels he ought to have given more playing time to others. Perhaps even given the captaincy to someone else, while resting Hartley. If everyone is available for selection, then I don't think we can now safely predict who Jones would select as his first choice match day squad.

That's not necessarily a bad thing but it does look, as robbo says, that he has rested players he is considering replacing, while retaining those he wants to rely upon. This seems a bit back-to-front. From the start of next season, players are going to have almost no break until the World Cup, so this is really the last chance to give core players a chance to refresh themselves mentally and physically.

If Jones ends up with the squad he wants, then all well and good. However, I'm not convinced his selection policy has given him the best chance to assess how a wider group of players can handle the Test environment.