Eddie Jones Review

Looks like we have got him for a bit longer, the review has backed him. The only reason seems to be we have learned a lot of lessons.

What I find astonishing is that we, on this board didn't need to learn them, we already new that the Sarries guys were not ready, that continually swapping the backs around was not helpful, players that were out of form and were knackered should have been rested before the squad was picked.

Full article from the BeeB


Eddie Jones has been backed to continue as England head coach following a review into the team's disappointing fifth-place finish in the Six Nations.

Jones' position had been under scrutiny since defeats by Ireland, Wales and Scotland in the same tournament for the first time in 45 years.

"The debrief was a valuable process, we all learned a lot," Jones said.

"Most importantly, we have identified actions to enable the team to move forward positively towards 2023."

The panel reviewing England's performance consisted of "RFU board members, executives and independent experts", while past and present players - as well as the coaches - also gave their feedback.

The RFU says the overall response from the players was "positive and supportive" and there were a "number of contributing factors" that led to England's poor campaign.

Among them was the absence from the coaching team of Jason Ryles and Neil Craig, who were both unable to travel because of the Covid pandemic. Forwards coach Matt Proudfoot missed the start of the training camp after testing positive for the virus while Jones himself was also forced to self-isolate.

The RFU also admits a number of players - especially those from Saracens - "did not have enough game time going into the Six Nations", while other players were overly-fatigued after back-to-back seasons.

The review also concluded England's stringent coronavirus protocols, which they say were "in some cases greater than other unions", had a detrimental impact on the coaching staff and the cohesion of the players.

The RFU added that several recommendations will be implemented before the July Test matches against the United States and Canada, which are currently under review.

As part of the recommendations, the RFU plans to "deepen its alignment" with England's professional clubs, which will start with a summer conference between the major stakeholders in order "to find common ground and goals for the English game going forward".

There will also be additional refereeing input in a bid to rectify England's alarming ill-discipline, as well as "enhanced sports psychology", a more streamlined use of data, and the counsel of "external rugby experts" to help Jones after each campaign.

"Sport is all about fine margins, which is why every campaign debrief is invaluable in helping us to learn and improve," said RFU boss Bill Sweeney.

"Eddie approached this review with a great deal of self-awareness and humility, allowing us to look at every aspect of the tournament to identify every small change we can make in order to improve."

Jones, who steered England to the World Cup final in 2019, was candid about his side's below-par results so far this year.

"During the Six Nations we were not up to our usual high standards and we recognise that," said the Australian.

"I'm looking forward to the summer tour, which will provide a great opportunity to see more of our emerging talent and I'm confident our next team will come back stronger this autumn building up to a winning performance in the next Six Nations.

So....nothing about game plan and decision making?

And the back-to-back seasons for some unknown reasons didn't hurt Ireland, Scotland, or Wales? I think a full scale investigation into what sort of evil doings and illicit activities and were going in Ireland, Scotland, and Wales is warranted. Clearly they cheated or England would have won big.

You don't buy into the reasons then doc. Thought it was an honest assessment personally. You may not like the game plan but its effective when executed well. Take a look at the Scotland game, for all the plaudits what did ecotland do tactics wise? Defend well good line speed kick really well.

Only to a degree.  But I am going only on what was reported in the BBC article.  Seems a rehash of old issues.  There is some truth in what was reported, but lack of coaches (Covid and travel) did not make the players out of shape.  Nor force their selection.  We have good players who know how to play giving away critical penalties and they all know better and have done better.  

And the total lack of adjusting to either the referees or to how the other teams were playing.  Now we are going to have even greater analytics which, if handled unwisely, as with many sports teams, makes players and management more robotic and less flexible.  

And, finally, how many times have we heard about the need for better alignment between the RFU and the Premiership and only a few things have ever really been done.    

It seems most of the issues are the same points WPI was making and we have been saying.  I am disappointed we didn't see anything else or maybe what I was hoping for anything more insightful than this.

I mean its always nice to have a magic bullet item which crops up and is easy to solve but life doesn't often work like that! There are a few things like style or players where a few would have said another way was better, switch it though on players with that smaller squad is it better to risk the fitness of players you know work well for you or roll the dice on form. I get the argument either way even though I'd have gone for the dice! I still think had we not lost all of Launchbury, Lawes, Underhill and Willis the pack would have looked a lot better.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I mean its always nice to have a magic bullet item which crops up and is easy to solve but life doesn't often work like that! There are a few things like style or players where a few would have said another way was better, switch it though on players with that smaller squad is it better to risk the fitness of players you know work well for you or roll the dice on form. I get the argument either way even though I'd have gone for the dice! I still think had we not lost all of Launchbury, Lawes, Underhill and Willis the pack would have looked a lot better.

They are massive losses...and Willis was showing how good he was aswell

But Johnny Hill has had a season blooding in. And whilst he did make a couple of big errors i rate him highly and he will have learnt so much from that 6n (hopefully)

Definitely agree about Launchbury, Lawes, Underhill and Willis. Especially Willis, who was just coming into his own and made such a dramatic start to his international career.

Not to mention Tuilagi, Nowell and Cokanasiga missing. Carrying option if even one of those three was playing. Missed in the backs.

However, its two of these poor tournaments Jones has had now. Getting beat isnt a problem, but the poor performances and repetitive mistakes should be corrected for the future. Otherwise he will have to go. He said himself an international coach has a four year shelf life. He is over that now.

And hopefully the others like Lawrence and Odogwu who with the squad so long...have also been readied for inclusion properly in the team now.

True enough. For every injury it opens the door for someone else. Some players take to international rugby immediately, some sink and some take a run of games to show it. Jones has been open to say he is using the summer to look at younger more inexperienced players with the view of integrating them to the 'full' side.

Exactly 7.5, so lets wipe the slate after the 6n...and see who he looks at in the summer games and how we go in the AI's (which will be a big indicator to me where we stand)

One factor which did hamper us was the small initial squad. If Jones did conclude the Saracens were undercooked, he had limited alternatives within the group he had chosen. A normal size might have given him more flexibility.

It also would have been much better if the England PR team had spelled this out more clearly at the time. Instead, we got weeks of media speculation about which players might be called up to turn the ship around, when the Premiership agreement limited what changes were possible.

I hope the review contained a more detailed discussion than the summary suggests. Woodward maintains there was never a proper autopsy of the World Cup final, and he has a point. Mostly, Jones put his hand up, and said he was wrong not to tweak his team. It's not clear to me that we ever looked at why we failed to anticipate the South African strategy, which would usually be Jones' forte. Or, how much the lack of a seasoned third scrum half affected Jones' decision to persist with a misfiring Youngs.

If we had conducted a full World Cup review (perhaps we did, and it wasn't made public), then that would have been a good foundation for this one. If someone tells you they learned a particular lesson, and then demonstrates they didn't, you can address that blind spot. If we are only at the stage when Jones is saying he's learned a lesson, then we've missed a chance to press him on the matter.

It's not a question of playing "Gotcha" with Jones. He might have free and open discussions with players and coaches, but he does so as the boss. The RFU is his employer. If they can recognize that Jones needs help in an area he can't see himself, then they are in a unique position to do something about it.

A number of people are talking about the summer tour as an opportunity for Eddie to refresh and revitalise the squad after the increasingly steep drop off in performances since the World Cup semi-final win against New Zealand.

Taking into account Eddie has said the next generation of England players are not yet good enough for Test rugby, are we really expecting to get much out of games against USA and Canada?

If we have an average to poor Summer set of games – don’t play well, lose games, no wunderkind stick their hands up, etc – does there need to be another review of Eddie’s performance? Or do we just say it’s too late now to change coach for the next World Cup and stick with him come what may?

Has Jones said that recently? 'I’m looking forward to the summer tour which will provide a great opportunity to see more of our emerging talent and I’m confident our next team will come back stronger this autumn building up to a winning performance in'. That suggests there will be integration of new players from the air to me.

And yes he will be undernpressure if there are further under par performances and results.

Well Woodward has unsurprisingly chipped in (DAily Mail). His criticsms are no one had put their name to it, he doesn't agree that there should be regular reviews and says he doesnt see the need for them, he questions the qualifications of any panel brought together by the RFU, he calls on a Director of Rugby role to be created and he didn't like any of the excuses.

I'm sure he read that there should have been a review after the world cup though and I'm sure he would throw his cap in the ring for that director role straight away and criticise the appointment of anyone else!

'1. Additional refereeing input to provide technique improvement and awareness during player preparation and development.

Really? We are talking about England here not Maidenhead Under 11s! We had Steve Lander, a full-time referee, helping us 20 years ago. He was a key member of my backroom team, keeping abreast of new laws and interpretations, analysing the penalties we conceded, the modus operandi of upcoming refs.

This is stone age stuff. You take it as a given that it is going on - and if not, why not?

2. The use of data and analytics in high performance and campaign management is increasing and to support this approach, England Rugby will continue to work with Premiership Rugby with the objective of identifying and introducing one common data system across the pathway and elite performance game. This will be vital to monitoring and developing emerging talent in the pathway as well as being an additional tool to manage player welfare.

Data is powerful but there is way too much analysis in the English game already - and it's often meaningless. In the wrong hands it threatens to paralyse the game.

All the data in recent years has convinced gullible coaches that it is dangerous to have the ball in hand and that the best option is to kick for territory. Look where that has taken us.

Did England really need data to see that the Sarries boys were undercooked and off the pace? World-class, hands-on coaching from Eddie downwards is what England need right now. Keep the sports scientists and performance directors at arm's length.

+6
England finished fifth in the Six Nations, losing three out of their five matches this year

3. Introduction of additional support structures for coaches and players including enhanced sports psychology and programmatic leadership development.

I would love to know where this came from. The best sports psychologists are the coaches. That is part of your job. Part of the art of being a head coach is picking good leaders who you can normally spot a mile off. It's not rocket science.

You identify players with leadership qualities, you give them responsibility - captain, vice-captain, lineout boss, defence leader. Get the right coach, the correct game plan, pick the right, in-form players in their best positions and life quickly becomes relatively straightforward.

4. Coaching - the absence of Jason Ryles and Neil Craig was a significant loss in coaching expertise and team support and this had a significant impact on the wider coaching team. The initial unavailability of Matt Proudfoot and isolation of Eddie Jones also had an effect on the effectiveness of the coaching team.

The buck must start and finish with the head coach. Are we really going to point the finger at Gareth Southgate's assistants if England bomb out this summer?

England enjoyed the best part of 10 weeks together last autumn and winter, an astonishingly enviable time. And then, as usual, they gathered two weeks before the tournament. No side could have had more preparation time before a Six Nations.

Over the last 12 months every team has had considerable Covid challenges to overcome, just as millions have had in their own lives. Five-star facilities, state-of-the-art back-up. I am acutely embarrassed that England even put this forward as an excuse.

Jones, who guided England to the 2019 World Cup final, will be eager to prove his critics wrong +6
Jones, who guided England to the 2019 World Cup final, will be eager to prove his critics wrong

5. Player preparation and availability - several players did not have enough game time going into the Six Nations. Conversely, a wider group were fatigued as a result of being the only country to have back-to-back seasons, resulting in players having no mental break from one season to the next.

Everybody knew the situation with the Saracens contingent. The choice was simple. Are they ready or not? If not, drop them and bring in many of the great, in-form English players lighting up the Premiership.

And who exactly were these fatigued players who, remember, played no rugby at all from March to August last year. Many didn't appear in the Premiership play-offs and played very limited rugby, or none at all, in the autumn internationals. I don't think you will find Max Malins, Ollie Lawrence, Ben Earl, Dan Robson, Ellis Genge, Mark Wilson, Harry Randall, Paolo Odogwu and Anthony Watson complaining of rugby and fatigue. On the contrary they were straining at the leash. And if there were players complaining of mental fatigue, don't pick them.

6. Covid - the necessary stringent protocols, in some cases greater than other Unions - had a significant impact on coaching and support staff as well as the playing squad cohesion. Squad transition - the agreed protocols, which the RFU and Eddie were fully supportive of due to Covid challenges - meant fixed squads prevented players coming in and out during the campaign as they would normally.

Again England doth protest too much. They faced the same challenges as all the other sides.

It was England, in negotiation with the Premiership clubs, who put a limit on the size of their squad. They opted for a 28-man squad, which should have been plenty given they could bring in injury replacements. Jones and England picked exactly who they wanted when they wanted. Again, this excuse sticks in the craw.

Just when English rugby was looking for the RFU and Jones to front up and take responsibility, we are served up excuses.

The reality is, England got smashed in much the same way as the World Cup final. Selection was wrong and we've been sleepwalking into a style of rugby that leaves us with nowhere to go.

Eddie should stay until the next World Cup because I know how good he can be. But since the World Cup semi-final he has stagnated and, unfortunately for the players and supporters, there was nobody remotely qualified at the RFU who spotted that. I hope we now see the old Eddie back at his best but let’s forget meaningless panels and sorry excuses. '

The direct comments from the Mail again I'm sure he did the exact same thing and got refs into training, I seem to remember he used psychologists himself for the squad or at least encouraged players to use them if they felt it helped! He also expressed shock at the way England played so he's hardly questioning the Saracens contingent ahead of time.

If England pick fit, inform players and try to play rugby and lose - so be it.  I would not criticize too much.  The summer matches can be used to try things out and players.  What was frustrating about the 6 N's was the feeling that we could do better but for lots of mainly self-inflected reasons were failing.

Sorry but I find myself saying the same thing again (and again) - do you honestly believe that Eddie wil pick fit, inform players and try to play rugby?

He is probably going to pick his old 30+ year old mates, regardless of fitness and form and play kick and chase rugby. He will then no doubt tell us that this is the future of International rugby.

Well he certainly has provided debuts and produced a winning percentage up there with the best; so yes probably.

7&1/2 wrote: I still think had we not lost all of Launchbury, Lawes, Underhill and Willis the pack would have looked a lot better.

So you are saying that the above 4 would have replaced who of the below, I mean Lawes was only on the bench

Pack v Scotland
1. Genge
2. George
3. Stuart
4. Itoje
5. Hill Launch
6. Wilson Underhill
7. Curry Willis
8. Vunipola
19. Lawes

Pack v Wales
1. Vunipola
2. George
3. Sinckler
4. Itoje Lawes
5. Hill Launch
6. Wilson Underhill
7. Curry Willis
8. Vunipola

With regards to the excuses
1. Saracens players undercooked - Didn't affect Maitland
2. Saracens players undercooked - If that was the case (which it wasn't) then Steady should have been sacked immediately
3. Saracens players undercooked - It meant them having more time with Uncle Eddie and going through strategic combos and assessing Plan Bs and Cs
4. Covid restrictions more stringent that the other nations - What!. I am sure Scotland had more than adequate processes in place
5. Injured players - every team was the same, Scotland at one point was playing a SH in the bleeding pack

None addressed the fundamental issues
1. Officials were told beit directly or indirectly (Toonie / Pivac / Farrell) of certain players indiscretions from previous campaigns (6Ns 2020 & ANC) e.g. delays in scrum, offside in open play etc. It was clear by the pack performance and in the amount of pens that England gave away that the officials took notice of these concerns brought up
2. It's clear Eddie cannot play an expansive game, or the current players cannot adapt under his watch
3. It's clear certain key players cannot asses during the game if the Plan A is working and cannot implement a Plan B on the hoof.
4. He picks certain players no matter what and they are all Saracens players.
5. He ignores form players, he plays players out of position i.e. your best FB Brown in the form of his life, Odogwu in blistering form, 22 yr old Smith your best FH by a country mile all ignored, Daly who potentially was your best OC for a decade played as a FB when you have Brown, Watson even Ashton who are better

The excuses were by large a crock of Poopie

When a team starts to underperform, you sometimes hear "the coach has lost the dressing room". It's striking that there is no sign of anyone within the England camp briefing against Jones. Anyone speaking publicly, sings his praises.

You could perhaps make the case that, rather than losing the dressing room, Jones has become a svengali figure, and trusted too much.

In other words, he is so good at getting inside everyone's heads, to motivate them; and has proved effective at working out ways to the overcome opposition, that players trust him too much. They outsource too much of the thinking to him.

Woodward was an innovative thinker, who deserves great credit for getting us to the World Cup. At the same time, we also learned later how the leadership team, particularly Johnson, would rein in his more outlandish ideas. Not just because they were daft. For instance, Johnson wrote about how the vision training exercises seemed interesting but were not worth pursuing at such a late stage in his career. Woodward called the shots but he didn't operate in a vacuum.

If I had been running that RFU review, I would have liked to know how Jones compared our current dip with the one we experienced under him before. For instance, how our leadership group compares with that time. How he evaluates players now compared with then.

I do hope the review addressed the issue of how Jones expects the game to develop until the next tournament, and what he is looking for from players. I would not expect that discussion to be made public, but it is crucial to have that on the record, so you can test what Jones does against what he told you he planned to do.

Of course, no-one should stick rigidly to any plan, and any good, instinctive, coach may not be able to articulate at the time why he is doing something. Still it is one of the few you have as an employer to make sure your coach isn't unknowingly veering off course. If the players aren't acting as much of a corrective to Jones' instincts, then the only other people who can do so are his coaches, or the RFU.

The one thing we know is that Jones isn't afraid to change how we play. You're never going to hear that publicly though.

No 7&1/2 wrote: I still think had we not lost all of Launchbury, Lawes, Underhill and Willis the pack would have looked a lot better.

Apparently this made no difference whatsoever. Underhill was the big loss and once Willis was injured meant we were stuck with Wilson who was performing poorly. Ordinarily he's dropped and someone like Ludlam is called up but restrictions meant that wasn't possible.

Those same restrictions ensured Marler was unavailable, have to assume he starts against Ireland and Wales. Jonny Hill starting goes against the Jones norm of easing players into the 15, were Lawes or Launchbury available throughout he'd have been on the bench.

The self inflicted severe Covid restrictions were a tad over the top in comparison to other teams. Full contact training was ok but socialising was not, an odd face saving decision. With that in mind it stands to reason why Jones persisted with the usual players. From the outside we don't know how individuals reacted to the restrictions, there's normally a lot of camaraderie in camp.

Soul Requiem wrote:Apparently this made no difference whatsoever.

Can you qualify that? because losing quality players always makes a difference especially if you are like Scotland who haven't got the strength in depth of a France or an England....can you imagine if England had to play a SH in the pack or play a FB as a FH because the rugby structure restricts player development or strength in depth, now that would be a valid excuse

So in your opinion the covid restrictions resulted in England underperforming and the other nations weren't in the same position

Marler starting before Vunipola?.....I doubt it.
Johnny Hill 8 caps played in the England 6Ns 2020 winning team, he played for Eng U20s seven years ago, he is without doubt one of your form locks even keeping Sam Skinner out of the Exeter team. Maybe he would have been dropped maybe that might have made a difference.

Scotland deffo did not socialise after the training sessions (in fact I'm not sure it was even allowed irrespective of the SRU stance).

Off the cuff
Maybe if we hadn't had our 3rd choice hooker we might have nicked that narrow loss against Wales, maybe if Maitland was allowed to play against France we might have had a couple more tries, maybe if we hadn't lost Finn and Adam we wouldn't have had to play Stuart at 10, maybe if we hadn't lost Brown, McNally we wouldn't have had to play our 3rd and 4th choice hooker, maybe if Duncan Taylor hadn't so many atrocious injuries he would have been as close to a world class O/C to accompany Cameron Redpath whose brilliant debut couldn't have continued throughout the campaign.

Maybe if my Aunty had a pair she'd be........you kinda get my drift!

Or perhaps it's the other factors I mentioned
A coach knowing the cracks were there from way before the WC 2019 Final (irrespective if the win ratio) that with all the wealth of talent available, could have developed players using the ANC as a vehicle to provide experience to the raw talent e.g. Smith, Odogwu, Gabriel Oghre, Joel Kpoku, Capstick and form players Joe/Sam Simmonds, and players in their proper positions e.g. Daly at 13 instead of stubbornly selecting his out of form but in the comfort zone, declining Saracens superstars

Soul Requiem wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote: I still think had we not lost all of Launchbury, Lawes, Underhill and Willis the pack would have looked a lot better.

Apparently this made no difference whatsoever. Underhill was the big loss and once Willis was injured meant we were stuck with Wilson who was performing poorly. Ordinarily he's dropped and someone like Ludlam is called up but restrictions meant that wasn't possible.

Those same restrictions ensured Marler was unavailable, have to assume he starts against Ireland and Wales. Jonny Hill starting goes against the Jones norm of easing players into the 15, were Lawes or Launchbury available throughout he'd have been on the bench.

The self inflicted severe Covid restrictions were a tad over the top in comparison to other teams. Full contact training was ok but socialising was not, an odd face saving decision. With that in mind it stands to reason why Jones persisted with the usual players. From the outside we don't know how individuals reacted to the restrictions, there's normally a lot of camaraderie in camp.

Its just one for those odd situations. We're in an event that happens about once in a hundred years. Given all that I'm thankful for a bit of rugby despite the underperformance. Give it to the autumn and fingers crossed we'll all be getting used to the rat race again.

7&1/2 wrote:Its just one for those odd situations. We're in an event that happens about once in a hundred years. Given all that I'm thankful for a bit of rugby despite the underperformance. Give it to the autumn and fingers crossed we'll all be getting used to the rat race again.

Top Man

Incredible amount of whataboutery, if only this was a discussion about the Scotland team. You are of course aware that England played 15 against Italy with only 7 forwards after the injury to Willis?

Soul Requiem wrote:Incredible amount of whataboutery, if only this was a discussion about the Scotland team. You are of course aware that England played 15 against Italy with only 7 forwards after the injury to Willis?

Indeed and that's its not a valid excuse as I'm sure all teams can produce a quota of key injured players, the difference is the structure and funds means England (and France) have strength in depth.
The report/review is just lame excuses when they should examine the proper areas;
1. Eddie being the best paid international coach should keep his fingers in the England pie, not have consultancy contracts galore and advertising/marketing ventures abound.
2. Review why he stubbornly refuses to drop Saracens players even when its plainly obvious it's in the long term transitional interests.
3. Why he refuses to bring in best players in their position, prime example Marcus Smith or Joe Simmonds almost 22 has had very little international exposure.

As the saying goes "fish where the fish is"

Soul Requiem wrote:Incredible amount of whataboutery, if only this was a discussion about the Scotland team. You are of course aware that England played 15 against Italy with only 7 forwards after the injury to Willis?

I think its ok to have a look around at the other teams and judge against them too but don't think anyone really excelled. Wales will be the happiest but their win comes with caveats as much as englands defeats. Ireland have been pretty quiet and Scotland are disappointed they didn't back up their start. Id rather have englands coaches and players going into the autumn.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Incredible amount of whataboutery, if only this was a discussion about the Scotland team. You are of course aware that England played 15 against Italy with only 7 forwards after the injury to Willis?

I think its ok to have a look around at the other teams and judge against them too but don't think anyone really excelled. Wales will be the happiest but their win comes with caveats as much as englands defeats. Ireland have been pretty quiet and Scotland are disappointed they didn't back up their start. Id rather have englands coaches and players going into the autumn.

You would rather have the team beaten by Scotland, Wales and Ireland? That is an interesting call that I would think only you and your ego would agree with. Engalnd were other than for 40 minutes in the France game very poor We have no teams in the Heineken semi finals. We have a coach who has some very serious question marks against him. But No 7&1/2 thinks we are quality. Thank God!

For good analysis of the Scotland / England game then check squidge on youtube.

IMO Scotland did a few things - most important is the gameplan was not what england were expecting. Scotland kicked for territory much more than we have seen previously. Scotland knew england were going to kick a lot and made sure they won the kicking game. Last year we ran back all the deep kicks. this year we did not. the other thing Scotland did was much more predictable but ran a very disciplined blitz defense.

The breakdown was also interesting - Scotland did not attack the breakdown much - mainly because to counter this threat England put more players in the ruck. this meant Scotland always had more men in the defensive line.

So for me once again Englands main issue was the lack of flexibility. Scotland did not play the way england were expecting and England did not adjust their gameplan once it was obvious Scotland were not doing as predicted.

However - it was also a game where every bounce of the ball went scotlands way and the 50/50 decisions seemed to as well.

Sharkey06 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Incredible amount of whataboutery, if only this was a discussion about the Scotland team. You are of course aware that England played 15 against Italy with only 7 forwards after the injury to Willis?

I think its ok to have a look around at the other teams and judge against them too but don't think anyone really excelled. Wales will be the happiest but their win comes with caveats as much as englands defeats. Ireland have been pretty quiet and Scotland are disappointed they didn't back up their start. Id rather have englands coaches and players going into the autumn.

You would rather have the team beaten by Scotland, Wales and Ireland?  That is an interesting call that I would think only you and your ego would agree with.  Engalnd were other than for 40 minutes in the France game very poor We have no teams in the Heineken semi finals.  We have a coach who has some very serious question marks against him.  But No 7&1/2 thinks we are quality.  Thank God!

Yeah. You wouldn't want englands choices going into the autumn? Why?

TJ wrote:For good analysis of the Scotland / England game then check squidge on youtube.

IMO Scotland did a few things - most important is the gameplan was not what england were expecting.  Scotland kicked for territory much more than we have seen previously.  Scotland knew england were going to kick a lot and made sure they won the kicking game.  Last year we ran back all the deep kicks.  this year we did not.  the other thing Scotland did was much more predictable but ran a very disciplined blitz defense.

The breakdown was also interesting - Scotland did not attack the breakdown much - mainly because to counter this threat England put more players in the ruck.  this meant Scotland always had more men in the defensive line.

So for me once again Englands main issue was the lack of flexibility.  Scotland did not play the way england were expecting and England did not adjust their gameplan once it was obvious Scotland were not doing as predicted.

However - it was also a game where every bounce of the ball went scotlands way and the 50/50 decisions seemed to as well.

Scotland also played better. Certainly with the top 10%.

i think England are at a major crossroads now...

With the talent we have and coming through, we simply HAVE to be playing better than we have...

Its going to be interesting to see if Eddie is up to the job...

Every coach is a few games away from pressure. Just can't see us losing to the teams we currently have lined up. I think there's a certain freshness that needs to be brought to the squad but the players and coaches are there. Still waiting for Sharkey to actually explain why he would prefer the other players and coaches though.

Im curious how he goes with the back row and the midfield...two areas that do need addressing.

GeordieFalcon wrote:i think England are at a major crossroads now...

With the talent we have and coming through, we simply HAVE to be playing better than we have...

Its going to be interesting to see if Eddie is up to the job...

I think Eddie has shown previously that he's good at bouncing back from adversity. Previous bad 6N results have seen him shake things up. This summer is the ideal opportunity for him to reset. I just hopes he goes as experimental as we all want him to.

its not necessarily about full experimental Sam...its just picking the right players in certain positions that will enhance the first XV as we hope / expect.

In truth...as i just said above...its the back row and particulary the midfield that needs address.

Full back is an issue but we have genuine options there now...either Malins or Steward, or slightly further back Hodge.

Time to move on from the Daly experiment and Watson needs to stay as a world class winger.

GeordieFalcon wrote:its not necessarily about full experimental Sam...its just picking the right players in certain positions that will enhance the first XV as we hope / expect.

In truth...as i just said above...its the back row and particulary the midfield that needs address.

Full back is an issue but we have genuine options there now...either Malins or Steward, or slightly further back Hodge.

Time to move on from the Daly experiment and Watson needs to stay as a world class winger.

I don't think it's just those areas though. Actually backrow would be a little bit down my list of concerns. For me in order of importance;

Scrum half - Robson isn't up to international level and Benny is 31. We're one injury away from issues in this department. Eddie doesn't fancy Spencer for whatever reason so this summer we have to find a successor to bring through for Benny.

Front row - loosehead isn't too bad we've got some options but tighthead is a huge concern. Sinckler we know is class, Stuart a good back up but after that Williams who we know is only average and then what? The only other options are DC or Hill who's was last capped during the last Lions tour. We desperately need to get some game time into other tightheads. Hooker is the same again, LCD and George are great but then what Singleton and Dunn with their smattering of caps? Dunn has barely been on the field for England.

Midfield - if Manu's not fit the midfield looks like a dog's dinner. Got to spend some time sorting this.

Fullback - agree Daly experiment should be over and we now have an embarrassing amount of young talented fullbacks in Malins, Steward, Parton, Freeman and Hodge.

Lock - Hill and Ewels have helped bring down the average age a bit in this department but neither has shown any hint of automatic selection in their performances. 

Flyhalf - reliant on the two options, would be nice for a third to put their hand up and pressure.

Backrow - if we could find the balance to include a more explosive 8 or just a viable option to Billy that would be nice.

Wing - May isn't getting any younger.

I don't think theres ay doubt there will be experimentation as it's going to be enforced through absences anyway. I think from a perspective of what success from the summer would look like, ideally I think 3 new faces in the match day squad for the first AI would be great. A new scrum half (hopefully 2), a new fly half and a new full back. If anyone else puts their hand up great. Would be great to see people like Lawrence and Odogwu shine.

There are normally some players who benefit from these more developmental tours, winners last time were probably, Genge, Williams, Slade and Ewels.

So are you saying we go all out with a complete Saxons side...and a few fringe players?

Will Stuart is apparently on the Lions long list. Would be quite a left field selection, but must be held in some regard

I once heard that going on a lions tour can be as good as 3/4 years worth of international experience...has anyone else heard that and do you believe it?

Stuart is a big unit...6'3 ish and 20+ stone. And is a good scrummager. He'd be a good squad member over in SA. W

GeordieFalcon wrote:I once heard that going on a lions tour can be as good as 3/4 years worth of international experience...has anyone else heard that and do you believe it?

Stuart is a big unit...6'3 ish and 20+ stone. And is a good scrummager. He'd be a good squad member over in SA. W

Yeah he's not eye catching as such* but has never looked out of place which is an achievement in itself.


* - that haircut......

GeordieFalcon wrote:So are you saying we go all out with a complete Saxons side...and a few fringe players?

Yes. That is what we should do. Scotland A, USA and Canada are not worth sending out a first team for. We'll win but we'll learn nothing. There's enough quality to be able to send out quality young players who are regulars in the Prem to stake a case without looking at the same names as we did in the 6N.

Give the established 6N players a rest let those that haven't gone with the Lions get a full pre season. Generate some competition and then watch the now larger player pool go all out to impress ahead of the AIs. Let's make the existing squad members feel a little less comfortable and a little more like they are playing for their shirts.

i see its announced...

Usa will travel to Dublin to play Ireland and London to play England in the summer.

3rd JUly Usa v England
10th July USA v Ireland

Good to have it confirmed at last. With it being on home soil I'd imagine a smaller squad will be announced, probably a similar size to the Six Nations bubble.

1.Genge, Obano
2.Dunn, Capon
3.Stuart, Heyes
4.J Hill, Martin
5.Ewels, Ribbans
6.T Hill, B Curry
7.Earl, Ludlam
8.Simmonds, Dombrandt

9.Randall, Mitchell
10.Smith, Simmonds

11.O'Flaherty, Thorley
12.Slade, O'Connor
13.Joseph, Lawrence
14.Odogwu, Marchant
15.Malins, Steward

I'd be delighted with something like that. Just enough experience that it isn't a Barbarians team where we'd probably learn little but a load of talented younger players mixed in.

Ludlam has been right back to his best recently in my opinion and really deserves a recall.

It's a shame Radwan is injured though as I personally view him as the better international prospect than Thorley. I just think he's got a better all round game with no obvious weaknesses but still has that similar pace as a point of difference.

No Barbaery?

I'd be disappointed by the wingers if that was the selection. Cokanasiga and the London Irish lads need to be there for me ahead of O'Flaherty who is a good prem player and nothing more and 2 guys id consider to be centres.

I do wonder if Jones has cast Thorley into the outer darkness.

Do we know if Slade had a Lions letter?

GeordieFalcon wrote:No Barbaery?

I don't think I'd pick him in the back row ahead of those 6 just yet. If Ben Curry doesn't get back to fitness in time then perhaps in that 6th spot. I really hope he ends up playing hooker given the comparative talent in the back row.