RFU==EJ

RFU finally say they are disapointed with England's performance in the 6ns. but are happy with the progress of new England andf they say Eddie is the guy to take us to the RWC.

I mean what hell.

That to me means they probably can't afford to sack him.

I suppose we didn't finish 5th...

You could argue England had a better campaign last year. Both this year and last year they only managed 2 wins from 5 however at least last year they managed to beat France who placed 2nd. This year England only won v the 4th and 5th place teams. They also scored more tries last year.

Collapse2005 wrote:You could argue England had a better campaign last year. Both this year and last year they only managed 2 wins from 5 however at least last year they managed to beat France who placed 2nd. This year England only won v the 4th and 5th place teams. They also scored more tries last year.

Maybe but finishing 3rd looks a lot better than 5th. Another 5th place would have been very damaging even if really Eng/Wales/Scot not much between them. England will be disappointed by this 6N but I'd argue it's worse for Scotland and Wales. Scotland promised so much but didn't deliver. Wales went from having chance to beating France to losing at home to Italy and ending up 5th.
As for Jones, I always thought he was going nowhere until after RWC whatever happened. Combination of money, pride and lack of viable alternatives this close to RWC just made it very unlikely.

Collapse2005 wrote:You could argue England had a better campaign last year. Both this year and last year they only managed 2 wins from 5 however at least last year they managed to beat France who placed 2nd. This year England only won v the 4th and 5th place teams. They also scored more tries last year.

Surely 5th and 6th this year...

Also last year England had the excuse that many of the players were undercooked (it was self-inflicted, but still an issue to some extent outside Eddie's control). The general squad not playing for a couple of weeks before camp when Euro matches were cancelled, and unlike TOP14 and URC not reorganising, and the Sarries contingent in particular who hadn't really played since November.

Sorry yes 5th and 6th. Your observation begs the question, how much of Jones’ success was down to piggybacking Sarries' success?

Without a yellow and a red this tournament despite being rubbish to watch we'd be sitting on 4 wins. You could still argue that players developed by Saracens contributed of course such as Daly, Isiekwe, George, Malins but piggy backing the English clubs development of players is kind of the point of internationals.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Without a yellow and a red this tournament despite being rubbish to watch we'd be sitting on 4 wins. You could still argue that players developed by Saracens contributed of course such as Daly, Isiekwe, George, Malins but piggy backing the English clubs development of players is kind of the point of internationals.

You seem more confident of that than I am! I certainly don't have great confidence England would have beaten Ireland without the red. But, even were it guaranteed England would have won - part of playing well is not getting sent off, and if England don't keep disciplined then they deserve to lose. And it's not like this is a new and unforeseeable thing, there seemed to be a red-card every round last year...

Well quite, and Ewels was an idiot. There's always a chance of someone doing that but given that England then outplayed Ireland with 14 I wouldn't say it was a bad performance and I'm not sure how a coach would go about beating Ireland with 14 men and produce better. Perhaps not bring Ben Youngs on.

I think England only “out played” Ireland in the scrum and it’s fairly well documented at this stage that England weren’t as dominant as the referee originally thought including by his own admission. Ireland played pretty much all the rugby (in terms of positive attacking rugby and creating try scoring chances) in that game and despite ill discipline and some sloppiness were deserved winners.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Without a yellow and a red this tournament despite being rubbish to watch we'd be sitting on 4 wins. You could still argue that players developed by Saracens contributed of course such as Daly, Isiekwe, George, Malins but piggy backing the English clubs development of players is kind of the point of internationals.

OK, if you’re doing ‘ifs and buts’……..Wales would probably have beaten England if Liam Williams didn’t get a yellow card against you. So maybe not 4 wins

Collapse2005 wrote:I think England only “out played” Ireland in the scrum and it’s fairly well documented at this stage that England weren’t as dominant as the referee originally thought including by his own admission. Ireland played pretty much all the rugby (in terms of positive attacking rugby and creating try scoring chances) in that game and despite ill discipline and some sloppiness were deserved winners.

You're being silly.

If the scrum had been correctly referred the main England advantage would have been eliminated.
The scrum penalties gave England a lot of territory.
Having said that England showed a lot of spirit with 14 men.

I think even with 15 all 80 mins England would have struggled to beat Ireland but we'll never know so all a bit hypothetical. Would England have played like they did with 15 men as they did with 14? Never know.
Before game I had Ireland as favourites and nothing post game has changed that.

geoff999rugby wrote:If the scrum had been correctly referred the main England advantage would have   been eliminated.
The scrum penalties gave England a lot of territory.
Having said that England showed a lot of spirit with 14 men.

Yes they did, it was very obvious how fired up they were to win that game.

geoff999rugby wrote:If the scrum had been correctly referred the main England advantage would have   been eliminated.
The scrum penalties gave England a lot of territory.
Having said that England showed a lot of spirit with 14 men.

And if the Sexton and Furlong tackles had been reffed correctly....

All ifs and buts......yes we outplayed Ireland for the majority of the game with 14 men but we still got beat.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:All ifs and buts......yes we outplayed Ireland for the majority of the game with 14 men but we still got beat.

No you did not. Did you watch the game? Look at the stats! England fought really well and showed great spirit but never looked like winning and were well beaten by the better side.

Just a few stats for you - possession - 60% irreland Territory - 57% ireland M run 555 to 214 clean breaks ireland 8 england 1

4 tries to nil and England never looked like scoring.

https://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/matchstats?gameId=595091&league=180659

Is this deluded attitude whyJones will continue as coach?

Lol. How many coaches would you back to beat Ireland with 14 men for 78 mins TJ? We'll let the RFU know to go hire them.

None - but the idea England outplayed Ireland shows the level of delusion in english rugby

They did outplay Ireland until they tired; stats aren't a substitute for watching.

Soul Requiem wrote:They did outplay Ireland until they tired; stats aren't a substitute for watching.

To be fair thats like saying a club I used to play for outplayed the league leaders when we played them until they went in front.... we lost 3-80.

Oakdene wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:They did outplay Ireland until they tired; stats aren't a substitute for watching.

To be fair thats like saying a club I used to play for outplayed the league leaders when we played them until they went in front.... we lost 3-80.

Not having seen your game it would be hard to agree, but that's Soul's point, you can't judge without watching.

Why is it arrogance to suggest that England outplayed Ireland for a large part of the game? Anyone that watched would at least be open to the idea that England got on top for some part.

I've not seen anyone suggest we should have won....the fact is Ireland were clinical and put the game to bed with a dominant last 20mins, they deserved to win.

Some posters (the usual suspects tbh) can't seem to accept that we're not particularly upset about the result and have taken positives from it......I can only see arrogance coming from non-English posters if anything.

Yes I watched the game.  twice now.   I applauded the spirit and fight in the game but there is no way on earth England outplayed them at all.  England never looked like scoring a try, made less than half the m, made one clean break all game.   Its no disgrace to be beaten by a better team especially when you are down a man all game.  Just show some ralism.  This is why England fans are seen as arrogant - the total unwuillingness to accept being beaten by a better side

Now if you had said they outplayed Scotland and were unlucky to loose I would tend to agree.  But the ireland game?

Its total blind arrogance to suggest they outplayed them at all when they were comprehensively beaten.  The stats do not lie. Lets pick out a few more. Ireland tackle success - 91% england 83%. Defenders beaten 26 to 7.

England gave their all and the scrum penalties were important in keeping Ireland under pressure. However, in that game, as in all the other matches England looked to a greater, sometimes lesser, extent rudderless in attack.
In reality they weren't close to France or Ireland in terms of attacking play, breakdown or ability to counterattack.
They did well to hang on against a poor Welsh team and were unable to beat an underpowered Scotland having dominated territory and possession through large parts of the match.
In my opinion this was another lacklustre competition for England and they have a massive level of improvement to find if they are to make an impact next year.
If the strategy is simply to bring Owen Farrell back then I don't think it will end well for England or their fans

TJ wrote:Yes I watched the game.  twice now.   I applauded the spirit and fight in the game but there is no way on earth England outplayed them at all.  England never looked like scoring a try, made less than half the m, made one clean break all game.   Its no disgrace to be beaten by a better team especially when you are down a man all game.  Just show some ralism.  This is why England fans are seen as arrogant - the total unwuillingness to accept being beaten by a better side

Now if you had said they outplayed Scotland and were unlucky to loose I would tend to agree.  But the ireland game?

Its total blind arrogance to suggest they outplayed them at all when they were comprehensively beaten.  The stats do not lie.  Lets pick out a few more.  Ireland tackle success - 91% england 83%.  Defenders beaten 26 to 7.  

Not really no, as we outplayed them. To be anywhere near a tier 1 side with 15 mins to go after being down a man since the 2nd min shows that. Farrell will not have been a happy bunny at all.

I agree with your point though, England outplayed Scotland.

sensisball wrote:unable to beat an underpowered Scotland

Scotland had their first choice team out. it was England seriously underpowered, like they were for the entirety for the six nations. Scotland went on to have several players missing by the end of the tournament, but they were all playing in the first game. And one of them was a suspension, so you cant count that like an injured player missing.

For England Ireland, the scoreline was similar to the 2019 and 2021 games, but I don't think anyone would say the winning team dominated the loser like they did in those two matches. Truly a case of the scoreline not reflecting the match itself. To be objective though, and some posters need to look that up, the 2017 Ireland England game was won by Ireland by 4 points but in the match itself Ireland were about 20 points better.

And for the 'English arrogance' nonsense, see link below about what Eddie O'Sullivan said after the match

https://extra.ie/2022/03/12/sport/rugby/eddie-osullivan-england-ireland

Not sure what he said is anything different to what people have said on here. And before anyone jumps up and down about Eddie O'Sullivans relevance or anything, the point is he is not English, but agrees with the points raised about England.

Yet again....no it is not arrogance, we outplayed Ireland (for large parts of the game). We didn't deserve to win though, nobody as said that.

You're anti-English bias somewhat clouds your judgement I feel TJ, I find it hard to take you seriously. I'm pretty sure you never seen the game, which is fine....I didn't catch some of the games also.

MichaelT wrote:

sensisball wrote:unable to beat an underpowered Scotland

Scotland had their first choice team out. it was England seriously underpowered, like they were for the entirety for the six nations. Scotland went on to have several players missing by the end of the tournament, but they were all playing in the first game. And one of them was a suspension, so you cant count that like an injured player missing.

For England Ireland, the scoreline was similar to the 2019 and 2021 games, but I don't think anyone would say the winning team dominated the loser like they did in those two matches. Truly a case of the scoreline not reflecting the match itself. To be objective though, and some posters need to look that up, the 2017 Ireland England game was won by Ireland by 4 points but in the match itself Ireland were about 20 points better.

And for the 'English arrogance' nonsense, see link below about what Eddie O'Sullivan said after the match

https://extra.ie/2022/03/12/sport/rugby/eddie-osullivan-england-ireland

Not sure what he said is anything different to what people have said on here. And before anyone jumps up and down about Eddie O'Sullivans relevance or anything, the point is he is not English, but agrees with the points raised about England.

Eddie is payed to be sensational, he is also entitled to his opinion just like anyone though a bit like Clive in England he does seem to hold some sort of grudge at times too.

His comments were largely based on the destruction of the scrum and they came prior to it being apparent that the ref missed a lot in the scrum.

Where did my post go? Bizarre for that post to get deleted.

I watched the game.  to say you outplayed them is just not credible given how one sided it was.  Its arrogant and deluded to think otherwisde

England fought well with huge heart and spirit yes.  But outplayed them?  No

ps - scotland were pure mince the whole series even when beating England. 2 bald men fighting over a comb

It's not "arrogant and deluded", it's called having a different opinion.

I think the only fair way to judge the game is how the teams played when it was 15 v 15.

Now for those 82 seconds both teams had 1 full attacking possession.
England i believe lost about 15 meters.
Ireland made approx. 35 meters.

So its clear that if we extrapolate that 82 seconds of data its empirically clear that Ireland were the superior team, and would have scored more if the hadn't been hampered by the England getting the advantage of only having 14 men on the pitch.
Everything after that 82 seconds is non measurable outlying non pertinent fluff

So as you can see science has answered all your questions

Thank you for your time

As I mentioned earlier, I think Ireland currently better team and would have likely won anyway even if 15 v 15 all game.

However, NO-ONE knows or can say for sure so that's it really. Rest is just opinion, bias, call it what you want.

NO-ONE you are correct.
But SCIENCE clearly has

ROG is certainly proving his worth.....he wouldn't would he?

Well Squidge Rugby is saying Jones will win the WC next year...so good luck who ever follows him.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:ROG is certainly proving his worth.....he wouldn't would he?

No. Likely a bridge to far for both sides.....