England - what next?

First topic message reminder :

Firstly I take nothing away from Scotland who were fantastic and I hope go on to win a grand slam.

For me this dire England performance may well be a blessing in disguise. Us winning the Autumn cup playing such awful rugby only covered up a number of cracks. We have nothing in attack and our discipline is consistently the worst in the world. We are saved by our defence.

Ok we were missing some props which taught us that Genge is not quite there. Plus Stuart very quiet in the loose. Mako making his usual 21 tackles would have helped. No need to panic, but Eddie has to accept that this is not just a blip but a reflection of recent dire performances. You cannot win matches giving away so many penalties and that is a recurring issue. And he chose to start all those rusty Sarries players who all looked off the pace. Why not start Cowan-Dickie?

But the midfield is dire and Farrell a real problem there. Just not good enough. I remember Eddie being ruthless and taking Luther Burrell off after 25 minutes against the Aussies. We needed that ruthless streak today and Ford should have replaced Farrell with 20 to go. Itoje a penalty machine but because he is normally a machine and plays the full 80 Eddie did not react.

Time for England to take a good hard look at this team and shake it up (not panic, but a decent shakeup).

mountain man wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Don't think you need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Realistically you could bring in a new scrum half and a full back and there would be improvement. Throw Smith in there who looks classy. The rest is merely fitness and a bit of form.

You happy with Bill and Mako V? Both looked clearly unfit and uninterested. Fitness absolutely no excuse, all that time in camp, best facilities, nutrition etc available anywhere.
Sorry, have been fans of them in past, that time gone.
Full back - worth sticking with Malins.
Farrell? Hard to say what to do with him. He had a pretty dreadful 6N, was OK against France but not great. He can be an excellent player but something is not right. If he is kept then definitely need another Captain. Whether it's pressure or whatever but he needs to just play and no more.

The Vunipolas are genetic rarities for England and most of sport science in that so much research and development is done for European, African, and Asian heritage athletes that the Pacific Islanders don't fit the mould. If they were to be trained like a Mark Wilson or Chris Robshaw they would be inferior rugby players. In any case Mako had a very good six nations up until the Ireland game. His performance against France was top notch. As was Billy, he became better as the tournament went on. Both have unparalleled skills for their positions. Uninterested? Say that to their face.

Farrell has never been able to replicate his best form when behind a beaten pack. He's always been that way. The captaincy doesn't suit him well and Jones will not have missed this. Itoje will likely return as co-captain after the Lions tour, where he may well be a test captain himself, which in turn lays the foundations for Itoje as England captain for the world cup. If Underhill wasn't so injury prone he could also take over as captain but it's not much good if your captain is injured 50% of the time.

The performances of Scotland, Wales, and Ireland are irrelevant. When the chips are down England are a much better team.

I sincerely hope Jones and team don't think this. If England are so much better how come they lost to all three this 6N and almost always struggle to beat Wales well? I think Wales always seem to bring their best against England, being the old foe and all.

England have the players to be a better team than those 3 but either don't pick them and/or don't use the right tactics during a game.

It's no good arguing England are so much better if results and performance prove otherwise. Maybe England will come good for 2023 but with current team seems unlikely.

I've edited this as just seen your last comment. Yes Billy looked uninterested and not bothered against Ireland, going through the motions.
Say it to their face? What is this, the playground?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Its the double whammys as well soul. Lose lawes ok. Lose lawes and launchbury along with Kruis. Owch. Lose underhill ok. Lose underhill and then Willis.

I don't think it's a coincidence that Ireland didn't feel the need to attack the English lineout.

mountain man wrote:

The performances of Scotland, Wales, and Ireland are irrelevant. When the chips are down England are a much better team.

I sincerely hope Jones and team don't think this. If England are so much better how come they lost to all three this 6N and almost always struggle to beat Wales well?

I feel like I've just explained that at length tbh.

Wales are the only team to regularly compete to a decent level at world cups but even then they lack the depth and physicality to go with their top talent. Once the injuries start setting in after 3-4 games in a short space of time, they start to struggle, and that was always the case in the knock out rounds under Gatland. Even then, England are a better team. They don't have the same kind of skilled players but their forward power means when they're well coached they usually take Wales apart. Scotland and Ireland have done nothing of note in the world cup, ever.

Soul Requiem wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Its the double whammys as well soul. Lose lawes ok. Lose lawes and launchbury along with Kruis. Owch. Lose underhill ok. Lose underhill and then Willis.

I don't think it's a coincidence that Ireland didn't feel the need to attack the English lineout.

Looked pretty decent first 20 as most things did! Ireland to me looked set on avoiding to many arm wrestles in the set piece and concentrated on holding people up by their necks in open play.

i think theres lots that didnt quite work for England this 6n.

As you say...he lost Kruis, Lawes, Launchbury, Underhill, Marler. Thats quite alot of experience and power. Ewells and Hill hardly match up really but Hill was the inform Prem lock so he looked at him.
Players like Genge have failed to take the chance...thats not Eddies fault per say.

We've had the Sarries issue, Covid...all adds to the mess

In an ideal world he would have had Manu and Cockasaniga in the side...but he lost them at various stages. Hes now looking at Lawrence and Odogwu...
And to be fair Lawrence had a torrid day against probable lions centre Henshaw...

Lets not pretend that Eddie is not fully aware that Smith and Dombrandt and SImmonds etc etc are pulling up trees in the prem..he'll be well aware. Im sure he has set them fitness targets or performance targets etc...certainly Dombrandt looks immeasurably fitter...with his workrate and carries.

They will get their chance in the Summer tour. And if they hit the levels JOnes expects they may well find them selves in the squad for the AI's.

I agree with Poorfour, when he said Eddie is playing the longer game this 6n...than the fans are. i fully suspect that the AI's and next 6n will be a very different situation and Eddie will still be in charge.

You have to feel Lawrence was on a hiding to nothing, thrown in at the last minute behind a pack on the back foot, whilst the game plan seemed to revert to type e.g. 'here you have it!'.

I understand the concept of playing the longer game, and I'm sure the team will come good again, but some of those lads currently aren't earning their spots.

Mako gets beaten too often in the crunch games for my liking, when he is under extreme pressure he doesn't seem to be able to present a different picture to the referee. Having played international rugby for about a decade (and with 60 odd caps) you've got to wonder if he is ever going to be able to address this.

Billy is just getting too frustrating. He shows the odd flash, then goes back to looking slow and overweight with little threat. What is is strike rate for good games at the moment 1 in 3 or 4? England can't keep carrying him as a passenger. I would love to see Barbeary get a go at number 8 (jumping the queue!). I know that they are trying to train him up as a hooker, but he seems like a ready made replacement for Billy. To me I see him as either a potentially deadly no.8 or a no.2 with suspect basics. Dombrandt would be a good choice too. They simply cannot keep giving a free pass to Billy when there are players like Simmonds and Dombrandt smashing at the door.

It pains me to say it, but Wilson might be about done too. There is just too much young blood out there waiting to take his spot.

Cumbrian wrote:You have to feel Lawrence was on a hiding to nothing, thrown in at the last minute behind a pack on the back foot, whilst the game plan seemed to revert to type e.g. 'here you have it!'.

I understand the concept of playing the longer game, and I'm sure the team will come good again, but some of those lads currently aren't earning their spots.

Mako gets beaten too often in the crunch games for my liking, when he is under extreme pressure he doesn't seem to be able to present a different picture to the referee. Having played international rugby for about a decade (and with 60 odd caps) you've got to wonder if he is ever going to be able to address this.

Billy is just getting too frustrating.  He shows the odd flash, then goes back to looking slow and overweight with little threat.  What is is strike rate for good games at the moment 1 in 3 or 4?  England can't keep carrying him as a passenger.  I would love to see Barbeary get a go at number 8 (jumping the queue!).  I know that they are trying to train him up as a hooker, but he seems like a ready made replacement for Billy.  To me I see him as either a potentially deadly no.8 or a no.2 with suspect basics.  Dombrandt would be a good choice too.  They simply cannot keep giving a free pass to Billy when there are players like Simmonds and Dombrandt smashing at the door.  

It pains me to say it, but Wilson might be about done too.  There is just too much young blood out there waiting to take his spot.

Agree on Wilson. Seems a shame as there is a great deal to like about him, but he's been pretty anonymous this 6N.

Wonder whether in a different universe Barbeary hadn't got himself injured and had used the underperformance of Vunipola and injuries to Underhill and Willis to cement himself in the back row already. He is ridiculously good. Given he is still being used in the back row for Wasps I can see him forcing himself in there quickly for England. The question comes do you bother to move him if he's excelling?

formerly known as Sam wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Gatland would be the best coach England have ever had.

Most overrated coach in world rugby.

Are you talking about Steve Borthwick? It can't be Gatland, his record with all teams (bar Chiefs but he's not currently there) says otherwise.

To be fair Borthwick has done well at Leicester this season. I thought they'd struggle given thee mess they were in. Gatland is meh. Half the issue people have with Jones is that the rugby hasn't gotten people excited if the RFU do decide to move on it'll be imo to someone like Lam or Robertson who has a very different open style. Gatland hasn't the record of wins or style to fulfil the 'need' for change.

mikey_dragon wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Gatland would be the best coach England have ever had.

Most overrated coach in world rugby.

Are you talking about Steve Borthwick? It can't be Gatland, his record with all teams (bar Chiefs but he's not currently there) says otherwise.

Jones record is unbelievable to fair. I've criticised him for several things, particularly when he was appointed and I wasn't convinced but his record is remarkable.

1998 to 2001 - Brumbies coach when they were arguably the first union team to truly buy into professionalism. Bob Dwyer alongside Jones played a big part in that then brought those ideas to Leicester which filtered into the SCW England side through Martin Johnson.

2001 to 2005 - Australia coach. Wins Tri Nations at first go and gets to a RWC final.

2007 - Joins South Africa at Jake White's behest and is involved in a RWC win.

2009 to 2015 - First joins Suntory at behest of JRFU and then coaches Japan. Plays a pivotal role as one of the architects of Japan's rise to beating the Boks at the 2011 RWC and Japanese rugby as a whole embracing professionalism with the Top League.

2015 to present - England coach. Wins 3 out of 6 Six Nations titles. Reaches RWC final. Whitewash of Australia in their back yard. 76% win percentage.

I think Gatland is also a fantastic coach for the record but Eddie's CV is quite something. Gatland's win percentage with Wales was 55% and Ireland 47%. At Wasps the Gatland and Edwards combo did brilliant things of course with 3 successive Premiership titles. Gatland has the chance to do something remarkable with the Lions if he can lead a third successful tour in a row. Two excellent coaches in their own rights.

Style and timing are both big factors in choosing a coach. Eddie was absolutely the right guy at the right time. I think he still is but there are of course question marks. Gatland was obviously the right fit for Wales but I just don't see him working for England at all. I don't think we need and AB's reject.

If we are to move on I think it would most likely be somebody with experience working with Eddie or close to the England team to allow for some continuity.

I'm happy for Eddie to stay, as others have said his record is good but only if he starts picking form players and dropping those who don't perform. At the moment the rugby team getting like cricket, harder to get out of than in and too many teachers pets it seems.

Well i think Eddie is in the position now that he will make some changes. Lets hope the summer tour goes ahead so he can cast the ye over a few, then can slowly integrate them over the next year and a half.

This from the XV rugby site: 'The extraordinary revelation that England chose to play 25 minutes with scrum-half Dan Robson at stand-off when they could have replaced concussed Farrell with the already-substituted Ford must go down as one the most brutal coaching snubs of recent times. Admittedly, Ford has been unimpressive during the tournament and, at the age of 28 and with 77 England caps to his name, it is now impossible to imagine him featuring again while Jones is in charge. His standing amongst his peers will have been terminally damaged by the scale of Jones’s second-half rebuff. Remember Robson has hardly been able to get a game under Jones in his regular berth, let alone at 10.'

Can't help but feel Smith has to be starting the next game, or even Malins if he's impressed during the last couple of months.

The thing is i rate Ford highly.

My issue is that he once had a basic running game which seems to have disappeared of the face of the earth. It means the 10 - 12 - 13 is all too predictable...with only really Slade able to run a bit.

With the players around him...its hardly helping the 10 spot is it.

I hope Farrell doesnt go back to 10...that would be far more detrimental. ..

I think Malins is probably glad he was injured for the last game - would probably have done nothing good for his morale otherwise being involved in that debacle.

No 7&1/2 wrote:This from the XV rugby site: 'The extraordinary revelation that England chose to play 25 minutes with scrum-half Dan Robson at stand-off when they could have replaced concussed Farrell with the already-substituted Ford must go down as one the most brutal coaching snubs of recent times. Admittedly, Ford has been unimpressive during the tournament and, at the age of 28 and with 77 England caps to his name, it is now impossible to imagine him featuring again while Jones is in charge. His standing amongst his peers will have been terminally damaged by the scale of Jones’s second-half rebuff. Remember Robson has hardly been able to get a game under Jones in his regular berth, let alone at 10.'

Can't help but feel Smith has to be starting the next game, or even Malins if he's impressed during the last couple of months.

That's actually nuts if true, I somewhat think its EJ covering up for someone's fook up for not knowing they had the option to bring him back on, Ford was not bad enough to warrant the Harrison treatment

Hard to say at the min. Jones is normally very up on detail. Thought it was odd Ford didn't come back on. I've not been impressed with Ford this tournament though

Yeah i cant see them not knowing they could send Ford back on.

Im curious now why they didnt...

Maybe Ford had a slight niggle, and with the game and tournament already over, why risk it..when you can give Robson a run out.

The could be all sorts of reasons Ford didnt come back out.

Ford is excellent when England on front foot and forwards are dominating opposition. He's then got time and space, this 6N that didn't happen so no plan B, just kick and hope.

Get Smith in there. However, don't know if you all listen to BBC rugby podcast but D Care on there makes excellent point in that no good picking Smith to just go with the plan(whatever that is) that Jones currently has. Marcus Smith needs license to play his way, in that case maybe a chance to actually run and pass the ball rather than just aimlessly kick. A decent 9 would help also...

See i dont buy that completely that he can only play well with a dominant pack...

When the tigers have been woeful over the last few seasons...Ford was almost single handedly carrying them with his ability.

However, i agree, i would like to see Smith in there...but give him a chance with some balance at centre...

Maybe for Leicester but for England if not winning forward battle Ford never pulls rabbit out of hat that I can recall. Quite possibly due to team orders which is why if Smith is picked needs freedom to actually play.

I have never been much of a Ford fan at the international level. But, in fairness, with Farrell outside him most of his international career, he could never look great and I am still not sure about him. Plus the game plan appears to me to not work with his skill set. I would have liked to see him with a real 12/13. As said above, if Smith is given a run, then he needs the opportunity to play a semblance of his natural game too.

Got to feel sorry for anyone playing outside youngs though. If you're behind a beaten pack the least you want is quick ball away from the breakdown. Youngs is hes quick enough (rarely) delivers dirge. The best Ford has ever looked for me was outside stringer.

I know I'm one of the few but I really like the Ford-Farrell 10-12 partnership. The best rugby England have played under Jones and by an absolute mile the best rugby England have played since 2003 has come with that partnership.

I've rated Smith a long time and hope he breaks into the squad but I hope they continue with two playmakers in midfield and Farrell is best man we've got to play 12 with that system.

For all the talk of them not offering enough in attack that partnership has played some of best running rugby I've seen from England. Manu has obviously been a huge loss as a carrier but Ford-Farrell-Joseph produced some brilliant attacking play prior to Manu regaining fitness.

No 7&1/2 wrote:This from the XV rugby site: 'The extraordinary revelation that England chose to play 25 minutes with scrum-half Dan Robson at stand-off when they could have replaced concussed Farrell with the already-substituted Ford must go down as one the most brutal coaching snubs of recent times. Admittedly, Ford has been unimpressive during the tournament and, at the age of 28 and with 77 England caps to his name, it is now impossible to imagine him featuring again while Jones is in charge. His standing amongst his peers will have been terminally damaged by the scale of Jones’s second-half rebuff. Remember Robson has hardly been able to get a game under Jones in his regular berth, let alone at 10.'

Complete and utter tripe. This is awful analysis.

I can't quite believe that a paid journalist could fail to understand what England were trying to do this tournament. But maybe that's the point these days, it's not about accuracy, it's about generating controversy for clicks.

That decision looks more like 'what would we do if this happened in a world cup final and Ford were injured as well' rather than punishing Ford. Ford has been far better than Farrell this tournament, who in terms of individual performances has been ok, it's only his captaincy which has been poor. Ford has played well, kicked very well, and at times shown his running threat.

England are underpowered. On that basis of how their pack has performed, particularly at the lineout, judging it on the last 5 games you might think Itoje will never play for England again because he hasn't been good enough.

It's all about England learning to perform when they're not absolutely dominating the opposition physically. It's Jones re-playing the world cup final and England did well in 2020 but this was finally where the wheels came off.

Anyone who thinks Ford has played his last game under Jones is delusional.

GeordieFalcon wrote:The thing is i rate Ford highly.

My issue is that he once had a basic running game which seems to have disappeared of the face of the earth. It means the 10 - 12 - 13 is all too predictable...with only really Slade able to run a bit.

With the players around him...its hardly helping the 10 spot is it.

I hope Farrell doesnt go back to 10...that would be far more detrimental. ..

They're predictable because they haven't changed their attacking lines since late 2018/early 2019. Which in turn were very similar to the attacking systems introduced in 2016. That's a minimum of 2 years going on 5 years with a world cup thrown in there for good measure. It's a lot of info and data for other nations to analyse. In contrast, England played an Ireland team putting in new attacking plays with a fresh attacking shape this six nations. Unsurprisingly they couldn't handle it.

If/when England overhaul their attacking sytems it will be the same result. Rugby has become a sport where the top teams can beat each other on any given day and if the circumstances are right. Preparation and predictability is a key part of this. Scotland prepared to nullify and compete with England and it worked, and then they followed it up by showing how hard it was to transfer that preparation to other teams, as they lost against every other proper team. The same happened to England in the world cup: batter NZ, lose to south africa.

Someone mentioned that the 2023 world cup will be 7s played with 15 men but I think this is way off. Effective pragamatism makes a team harder to beat.

Given how dreadful England were at the lineout and in the penalty count, trying to overcompete for the sake of...wait for it...stopping the opposition at source, on the first phase, like they will want to do against South Africa if/when they find themselves on the back foot...the fact that England were competitive in every loss, and still managed to score tries with their massively outdated attacking patterns, shows their inherent quality. Wales lost to everyone apart from Georgia and Italy last year. England, at their worst, still managed to beat the best French team in a decade. There's the different standards.

The France game was an obvious one where the opposition knew what was coming and how to counteract the England attack. Time and time again, the French knew who was receiving the ball, and when, and they were then able to blitz up and isolate the wide carrier, often turning them over or at least completely killing the attack. The margin for improvement in this England team is absolutly huge but it has very little to do with personnel. Ford can get the backline firing again with ease.

GeordieFalcon wrote:See i dont buy that completely that he can only play well with a dominant pack...

When the tigers have been woeful over the last few seasons...Ford was almost single handedly carrying them with his ability.

However, i agree, i would like to see Smith in there...but give him a chance with some balance at centre...

Agreed. Leicester is all the evidence you need that Ford can play on the back foot. It's Farrell who needs the dominant platform.

king_carlos wrote:I know I'm one of the few but I really like the Ford-Farrell 10-12 partnership. The best rugby England have played under Jones and by an absolute mile the best rugby England have played since 2003 has come with that partnership.

I've rated Smith a long time and hope he breaks into the squad but I hope they continue with two playmakers in midfield and Farrell is best man we've got to play 12 with that system.

For all the talk of them not offering enough in attack that partnership has played some of best running rugby I've seen from England. Manu has obviously been a huge loss as a carrier but Ford-Farrell-Joseph produced some brilliant attacking play prior to Manu regaining fitness.

Ford-Farrell-Tuilagi is the best England combo IMO. But With Manu out, and Farrell as captain, you're suddenly stuck with Slade at 13 and a lack of punch in the backline. Which puts more onus on the Vunipolas to carry. Losing one cog out of the machine, in this case Tuilagi, is the difference between England being one of the best teams in the world and just a very good team.

I don't know why Joseph hasn't been looked at this tournament. For all the chat about Odogwu and Lawrence, Joseph is twice the player.

Marchant should be the long term option in the centre to replace Tuilagi for the next world cup and I think Jones knows this which is why he's taking his time with him.

whatahitson wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:See i dont buy that completely that he can only play well with a dominant pack...

When the tigers have been woeful over the last few seasons...Ford was almost single handedly carrying them with his ability.

However, i agree, i would like to see Smith in there...but give him a chance with some balance at centre...

Agreed. Leicester is all the evidence you need that Ford can play on the back foot. It's Farrell who needs the dominant platform.

who was the halfback pairing with Ford at Leicester?

GeordieFalcon wrote:Yeah i cant see them not knowing they could send Ford back on.

Im curious now why they didnt...

Maybe Ford had a slight niggle, and with the game and tournament already over, why risk it..when you can give Robson a run out.

The could be all sorts of reasons Ford didnt come back out.

I've seen a suggestion elsewhere that Farrell's issue was the shoulder and not his head which is why he was sitting in the stand soon after and not in the changing room undertaking a HIA. At the time I just assumed that they told him he wasn't going back on.

The medica dropped the ball if they didn't say he needed a HIA because that would have allowed Ford back on and he looked like he had a knock to the head anyway so it would have been prudent to check.

doctor_grey wrote:

whatahitson wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:See i dont buy that completely that he can only play well with a dominant pack...

When the tigers have been woeful over the last few seasons...Ford was almost single handedly carrying them with his ability.

However, i agree, i would like to see Smith in there...but give him a chance with some balance at centre...

Agreed. Leicester is all the evidence you need that Ford can play on the back foot. It's Farrell who needs the dominant platform.

who was the halfback pairing with Ford at Leicester?

Why?

Soul Requiem wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:There's training fit and match fit....the Sarries boys just didn't get close to match fit. In hindsight, they shouldn't have been selected, but hey ho....we move on.

Possibly but were they not selected they wouldn't have played any meaningful rugby at all.

Is it England's responsibility to get these guys match fit?

Realistically, they won't be required till November anyway when they will have 6 or so games under their belt with Sarries in the Prem.

I'd say that it is partially the responsibility of England when they are considered vital to the long term goals of the team.

I can't agree with that Soul. Players shouldn't be coming into contention for selection if they are not match fit....an international arena is no place to be getting players up to speed on their fitness.

the fact that England were competitive in every loss,

You really think that? they were well beaten by scotland ireland and Wales

Didn't realise the review had been moved up. Eddie Jones: England coach's future hinges on 'brutally honest' RFU review - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/56503278

The rfu must have some idea of what they're planning i would have thought. They'll know roughly which coaches are available etc.

Maybe Eddie will tell them it's all in the plan, play badly in the 6N and lose so no players get picked for Lions and England don't let on their playbook. And anyway, England were really good and are so much better currently than France, Wales, Ireland and Scotland.

No, I don't believe it either.

I don't believe the first part but the team can and will again play much better than they did. I thought the pack would compete much better even with the background staff in. It may accelerate the promotion of a couple of guys though (with Jones).

England definitely can play better, in fact pick the same XV and they probably could but issue is they don't do it enough. One good game out of 4 is just not acceptable(discounting Italy game). They look stale and bereft of ideas at the moment. If plan A of forward domination isn't working - which it plainly didn't - they have no answer of what to do.
Englands worst game and performance by far was against Ireland and that should have been the best. Off the back of a good win against France, everyone should be match fit but they looked way off it. Credit has to go to Ireland who played a superb game but England never looked like winning.

As I've said before, distinct shake up needed.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Didn't realise the review had been moved up. Eddie Jones: England coach's future hinges on 'brutally honest' RFU review - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/56503278

The rfu must have some idea of what they're planning i would have thought. They'll know roughly which coaches are available etc.

I think the title is a bit misleading. Next month they will review in detail and then decide on the future direction. I'd imagine they'd be doing that at this point each year.

The RFU will select a panel, probably include a former like Sir Clive and a former player. They'll raise a load of points. Jones will give a presentation on the good, the bad and the way forward and then address the raised points. If the RFU are reasonably reassured nothing will change. If Eddie is at a lose to explain things (which I doubt) then you might see change but I wouldn't hold your breath.

mountain man wrote:England definitely can play better, in fact pick the same XV and they probably could but issue is they don't do it enough. One good game out of 4 is just not acceptable(discounting Italy game). They look stale and bereft of ideas at the moment. If plan A of forward domination isn't working - which it plainly didn't - they have no answer of what to do.
Englands worst game and performance by far was against Ireland and that should have been the best. Off the back of a good win against France, everyone should be match fit but they looked way off it. Credit has to go to Ireland who played a superb game but England never looked like winning.

As I've said before, distinct shake up needed.

If you look even slightly longer than this tournament though you can see the pack dominating teams albeit the full strength one. And even in this tournament to me you saw 2 distinct styles of play so I don't get the plan a and b thing.

mountain man wrote:Maybe Eddie will tell them it's all in the plan, play badly in the 6N and lose so no players get picked for Lions and England don't let on their playbook. And anyway, England were really good and are so much better currently than France, Wales, Ireland and Scotland.

No, I don't believe it either.

Stop pinching my very silly thoughts MM, I have already had a Doctor tell me that I am going "Very Machiavellian" thinking that way.

"I have a very silly suspicion that won't go away, did Jones want England to do badly so that not many would tour with the Lions and would be fresh for next year. We all know that the sides contributing the most to the Lions tend to have a disastrous year following the tour. We have had ours 2 years before the RWC, not in year preceding it."

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Didn't realise the review had been moved up. Eddie Jones: England coach's future hinges on 'brutally honest' RFU review - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/56503278

The rfu must have some idea of what they're planning i would have thought. They'll know roughly which coaches are available etc.

I think the title is a bit misleading. Next month they will review in detail and then decide on the future direction. I'd imagine they'd be doing that at this point each year.

The RFU will select a panel, probably include a former like Sir Clive and a former player. They'll raise a load of points. Jones will give a presentation on the good, the bad and the way forward and then address the raised points. If the RFU are reasonably reassured nothing will change. If Eddie is at a lose to explain things (which I doubt) then you might see change but I wouldn't hold your breath.

Ignore the brutally honest but as that's hyperbole to a journalist so they know the rfu is taking it seriously of course. The review has been moved from May to April though. It will apparently include ex players and coaches etc and not unusually a lot of feedback from the squad. I hope you're wrong on Woodward as the only thing he ever does is try to make himself look good.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Didn't realise the review had been moved up. Eddie Jones: England coach's future hinges on 'brutally honest' RFU review - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/56503278

The rfu must have some idea of what they're planning i would have thought. They'll know roughly which coaches are available etc.

I think the title is a bit misleading. Next month they will review in detail and then decide on the future direction. I'd imagine they'd be doing that at this point each year.

The RFU will select a panel, probably include a former like Sir Clive and a former player. They'll raise a load of points. Jones will give a presentation on the good, the bad and the way forward and then address the raised points. If the RFU are reasonably reassured nothing will change. If Eddie is at a lose to explain things (which I doubt) then you might see change but I wouldn't hold your breath.

That would be a mistake if they did include him. 2003 was a one off which we just won, despite having a lot of the best players in the world at that time. An excellent organiser and administrator, but a very poor coach. Look at 1999 and 2005 (Lions), that is more his level of coaching.

Miracles can happen 7 1/2, we actually agree on something

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

mountain man wrote:Maybe Eddie will tell them it's all in the plan, play badly in the 6N and lose so no players get picked for Lions and England don't let on their playbook. And anyway, England were really good and are so much better currently than France, Wales, Ireland and Scotland.

No, I don't believe it either.

Stop pinching my very silly thoughts MM, I have already had a Doctor tell me that I am going "Very Machiavellian"  thinking that way.

"I have a very silly suspicion that won't go away, did Jones want England to do badly so that not many would tour with the Lions and would be fresh for next year. We all know that the sides contributing the most to the Lions tend to have a disastrous year following the tour. We have had ours 2 years before the RWC, not in year preceding it."

I'm not, I was paraphrasing another contributor to these esteemed pages.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Miracles can happen 7 1/2, we actually agree on something

I always knew you were a good poster.

Guardian - Sweeney is heading a panel which is likely to also include the union’s director of performance, Conor O’Shea, and may also feature former England players. Jones started his own debrief with his senior players and coaches on Sunday and will present his findings to Sweeney and the panel.

i think one of the biggest changes should be taking the Captaincy off Farrell.

Who takes up the Captaincy...well thats another question. No real outstanding candidates.

Itoje? Not sure
Curry - Possibly
Underhill - Outside shout..but he puts his head where it hurts...so people will follow him
Launchbury - Is he a guaranteed started? I dont think so.

Who else?

3 clear ones for me. Farrell, Curry and Itoje.