RugbyRebels

As this started with the 'likes of me' finding reasons to not rate Roko, Wade and Yarde as international candidates, can I just say that I consider Cipriani to have international quality far in excess of any of those three. In terms of pure skill, Cipriani remains our best FH, IMO.

If I was going to reject players purely on non-rugby skill factors, I'd have Solomona and Tuilagi on the list, probably with Marler and Hartley. Then, what about Care and Youngs?

The trouble is that I don't meet the players and can't judge accurately. Eddie has rejected Cipriani and Wade, apparently. He has been reluctant to pick Roko. He is quoted as saying Yarde is still in the mix. I'm surprised he welcomed Solomona back so quickly.

Healey, in the DT, today, suggests Eddie's confrontational style of management only works short-term. Let's hope 2019 is within that.

Oakboy wrote:As this started with the 'likes of me' finding reasons to not rate Roko, Wade and Yarde as international candidates, can I just say that I consider Cipriani to have international quality far in excess of any of those three. In terms of pure skill, Cipriani remains our best FH, IMO.

If I was going to reject players purely on non-rugby skill factors, I'd have Solomona and Tuilagi on the list, probably with Marler and Hartley. Then, what about Care and Youngs?

The trouble is that I don't meet the players and can't judge accurately. Eddie has rejected Cipriani and Wade, apparently. He has been reluctant to pick Roko. He is quoted as saying Yarde is still in the mix. I'm surprised he welcomed Solomona back so quickly.

Healey, in the DT, today, suggests Eddie's confrontational style of management only works short-term. Let's hope 2019 is within that.

Yes, its all about you Dors . And apologies 'the likes of you' was intemperate- I can only offer up illness as an excuse!

Cips is/was outrageously talented, but as Raggs eloquently put it, has pi55ed it away. Not sure that he had internatonal quality 'far in excess' of Wade and Roko, who are huge talents imo- with flaws, like Cips.

PS- don't quite understand rejecting Youngs on 'non-rugby-skill factors?

Austin Healey, wise rugby sage

Jones himself has admitted he was too hard on the players in previous jobs and has learnt to tone it down. Whether it’s enough, who knows. It worked for the three years he was at Japan, but the very different Japanese culture and work ethic may be more suited to Jones’ style.
I’m ten times more happier than I was at this stage of Lancaster’s reign. That’s a low bar, admittedly. The fact we’re grasping around in history and have only a very small number of selectorial quibbles when looking for negatives is a positive thing.

Banquo wrote:PS- don't quite understand rejecting Youngs on 'non-rugby-skill factors?

Diet, I assume.

Mellsblue wrote:Austin Healey, wise rugby sage

Jones himself has admitted he was too hard on the players in previous jobs and has learnt to tone it down. Whether it’s enough, who knows. It worked for the three years he was at Japan, but the very different Japanese culture and work ethic may be more suited to Jones’ style.
I’m ten times more happier than I was at this stage of Lancaster’s reign. That’s a low bar, admittedly. The fact we’re grasping around in history and have only a very small number of selectorial quibbles when looking for negatives is a positive thing.

not that small, and significant in the scheme of things, but generally agree; I just don't get the couple of blind spots in a sharp operator, that may yet come to haunt us.

Austins insights here - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/ ... nds-world/

He may have a point about Eddie's style, though so far the results point to a high level of success, but what the coach says to the press and what he says to players face to face could be somewhat different. I think we've all come to take some of Eddie's comments with a large pinch of salt.

fivepointer wrote:Austins insights here - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/ ... nds-world/

He may have a point about Eddie's style, though so far the results point to a high level of success, but what the coach says to the press and what he says to players face to face could be somewhat different. I think we've all come to take some of Eddie's comments with a large pinch of salt.

suspect (mental) resilience is quite high on Eddie's agenda. Austin clearly misjudges Eddie if he doesn't think he is pragmatic- suspect he's just grumpy because he can't predict what Jones will do, and it makes him a bit redundant as a pundit.

Mellsblue wrote:Jones himself has admitted he was too hard on the players in previous jobs and has learnt to tone it down. Whether it’s enough, who knows. It worked for the three years he was at Japan, but the very different Japanese culture and work ethic may be more suited to Jones’ style.
I’m ten times more happier than I was at this stage of Lancaster’s reign. That’s a low bar, admittedly. The fact we’re grasping around in history and have only a very small number of selectorial quibbles when looking for negatives is a positive thing.

What about 2 years into Johnson's reign? Robinson? Hell, even SCW after 2 years?

Which Tyler wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Jones himself has admitted he was too hard on the players in previous jobs and has learnt to tone it down. Whether it’s enough, who knows. It worked for the three years he was at Japan, but the very different Japanese culture and work ethic may be more suited to Jones’ style.
I’m ten times more happier than I was at this stage of Lancaster’s reign. That’s a low bar, admittedly. The fact we’re grasping around in history and have only a very small number of selectorial quibbles when looking for negatives is a positive thing.

What about 2 years into Johnson's reign? Robinson? Hell, even SCW after 2 years?

Ha. Very true. What an absolute balls up the RFU have made of it for the past 15ish years.

Two years into Clive's time in charge I was much happier, against which Clive got to play against a whole slew of much weaker teams which perhaps made some of the attacking intent easier to bring to out.

Further on Jones he's saying we'll go into the AI and into the 6N with players fatigued with a view to seeing fitness gains by the 2019 RWC, he's also quite disparaging on the state of fitness on some players who were on the summer jamboree to raise money for NZ.

Digby wrote:Two years into Clive's time in charge I was much happier, against which Clive got to play against a whole slew of much weaker teams which perhaps made some of the attacking intent easier to bring to out.

Further on Jones he's saying we'll go into the AI and into the 6N with players fatigued with a view to seeing fitness gains by the 2019 RWC, he's also quite disparaging on the state of fitness on some players who were on the summer jamboree to raise money for NZ.

Clive didn't inherit quite the sh*tstorm that Eddie did, plus had better quality to choose from, imo. But he did make a step change in coaching professionalism and on field intent

Did Eddie inherit a sh*storm? Looks like he inherited a young and improving squad, with the up and coming youngsters already mostly earmarked by Lancaster. He's clearly a better coach at getting better results out of them, but I think Lancaster inherited a far tougher position than Eddie has. Admittedly Lancaster didn't need to use the knife quite so viciously in his first few months, but if his target was building a young experienced squad, regardless of the immediate cost, he did OK.

*Think Eddie got about as good a deal as possible. Very good young squad, good up and comers, who had shown some very good stuff in previous campaigns, but now had a very low bar due to the upset at the world cup.

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:As this started with the 'likes of me' finding reasons to not rate Roko, Wade and Yarde as international candidates, can I just say that I consider Cipriani to have international quality far in excess of any of those three. In terms of pure skill, Cipriani remains our best FH, IMO.

If I was going to reject players purely on non-rugby skill factors, I'd have Solomona and Tuilagi on the list, probably with Marler and Hartley. Then, what about Care and Youngs?

The trouble is that I don't meet the players and can't judge accurately. Eddie has rejected Cipriani and Wade, apparently. He has been reluctant to pick Roko. He is quoted as saying Yarde is still in the mix. I'm surprised he welcomed Solomona back so quickly.

Healey, in the DT, today, suggests Eddie's confrontational style of management only works short-term. Let's hope 2019 is within that.

Yes, its all about you Dors . And apologies 'the likes of you' was intemperate- I can only offer up illness as an excuse!

Cips is/was outrageously talented, but as Raggs eloquently put it, has pi55ed it away. Not sure that he had internatonal quality 'far in excess' of Wade and Roko, who are huge talents imo- with flaws, like Cips.

Apology? Not necessary - in any case, I was quite amused, even proud, of the label.

Not sure why I included Youngs - just stupidity/senility.

Sorry to hear you are ill. Best wishes for a speedy recovery.

Mellsblue wrote:Austin Healey, wise rugby sage

Jones himself has admitted he was too hard on the players in previous jobs and has learnt to tone it down. Whether it’s enough, who knows. It worked for the three years he was at Japan, but the very different Japanese culture and work ethic may be more suited to Jones’ style.
I’m ten times more happier than I was at this stage of Lancaster’s reign. That’s a low bar, admittedly. The fact we’re grasping around in history and have only a very small number of selectorial quibbles when looking for negatives is a positive thing.

Agreed.

fivepointer wrote:Austins insights here - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/ ... nds-world/

He may have a point about Eddie's style, though so far the results point to a high level of success, but what the coach says to the press and what he says to players face to face could be somewhat different. I think we've all come to take some of Eddie's comments with a large pinch of salt.

Agreed. Plus, Healey likes to provoke and stir. As he does it with a tongue in his cheek, he does not offend me. At times, as a commentator, he offers better explanations than most. That can matter because we only see a limited view on TV.

I also think Eddie's style of management is better suited to international than club coaching. He gets less time with them so can be harder, and the players are desperate to be in the environment so you get more leeway than where they can move clubs. Although even at test level if you go full on Jim Telfer from the '97 Lions at some point the players will just tune you out

Digby wrote:Two years into Clive's time in charge I was much happier, against which Clive got to play against a whole slew of much weaker teams which perhaps made some of the attacking intent easier to bring to out.

Further on Jones he's saying we'll go into the AI and into the 6N with players fatigued with a view to seeing fitness gains by the 2019 RWC, he's also quite disparaging on the state of fitness on some players who were on the summer jamboree to raise money for NZ.

Didn't Clive crash out of a World Cup two years in?

bitts wrote:

Digby wrote:Two years into Clive's time in charge I was much happier, against which Clive got to play against a whole slew of much weaker teams which perhaps made some of the attacking intent easier to bring to out.

Further on Jones he's saying we'll go into the AI and into the 6N with players fatigued with a view to seeing fitness gains by the 2019 RWC, he's also quite disparaging on the state of fitness on some players who were on the summer jamboree to raise money for NZ.

Didn't Clive crash out of a World Cup two years in?

Burt did crashing out, Clive lost to a better team, and also to a player who dropped 5 goals which was and remains remarkable. And even allowing for 'crashing out' there was a clear line of improvement and seemingly a lot more to come, so much so I was astonished at the time people were speculating Clive should be moved on

Raggs wrote:Did Eddie inherit a sh*storm? Looks like he inherited a young and improving squad, with the up and coming youngsters already mostly earmarked by Lancaster. He's clearly a better coach at getting better results out of them, but I think Lancaster inherited a far tougher position than Eddie has. Admittedly Lancaster didn't need to use the knife quite so viciously in his first few months, but if his target was building a young experienced squad, regardless of the immediate cost, he did OK.

*Think Eddie got about as good a deal as possible. Very good young squad, good up and comers, who had shown some very good stuff in previous campaigns, but now had a very low bar due to the upset at the world cup.

he inherited a demoralised and poorly coached squad, post burgess -gate, and one under a lot of oressure having crashed out of a home world cup....or have I mis-remembered? I guess the only way is up, is one way of looking at it. But Lancaster left a mess.

I'm not buying into 'Lancaster was ok' tbh.

In any case, I was comparing his and Woodward's situation- do you think Eddie took over a better situation than Woodward?

Interesting on who inherited the stronger players between Clive and Eddie. Clive had perhaps more top end talent, then again Clive didn't have much depth, and for a while was picking from the likes of Grayson, Diprose, Adebayo, Beale, Long, Green, Archer, PDG, Rees, Perry... they weren't all a Dallaglio to begin with

Digby wrote:Interesting on who inherited the stronger players between Clive and Eddie. Clive had perhaps more top end talent, then again Clive didn't have much depth, and for a while was picking from the likes of Grayson, Diprose, Adebayo, Beale, Long, Green, Archer, PDG, Rees, Perry... they weren't all a Dallaglio to begin with

....but they were also a Hill, Johnson, Back , Leonard, Greenwood, Guscott, Healey, Shaw, Grewcock, Catt up , with Wilko about to come on board. Perry is only a Brown throwback with better hands. Archer was not a bad player, just bad discipline. And even David Rees did a number on Lomu.

You may be right on top end talent v depth; but its top end talent that is important and can cover many sins (eg Mike Tindall )

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:Interesting on who inherited the stronger players between Clive and Eddie. Clive had perhaps more top end talent, then again Clive didn't have much depth, and for a while was picking from the likes of Grayson, Diprose, Adebayo, Beale, Long, Green, Archer, PDG, Rees, Perry... they weren't all a Dallaglio to begin with

....but they were also a Hill, Johnson, Back , Leonard, Greenwood, Guscott, Healey, Shaw, Grewcock, Catt up , with Wilko about to come on board. Perry is only a Brown throwback with better hands. Archer was not a bad player, just bad discipline. And even David Rees did a number on Lomu.

You may be right on top end talent v depth; but its top end talent that is important and can cover many sins (eg Mike Tindall )

Certainly by 2000 Clive was able to put out in relative terms a much stronger XV than Eddie could. And whilst the initial phase wasn't as strong it was being driven by the likes of Johnson and especially Dallaglio and it really felt like the team were improving all the time.

And no Archer wasn't a bad player, nor are some of the current crop, they're just also not contesting a World XV

One area where there is a big difference is the quality of the 2nd, 3rd or even 4th choice in any position now compared with 2003. I suppose, with injuries in mind and the nature of the game, we could debate cause and effect. Generally, though, the number of quality players coming through is a lot higher. Are any of us fearful about 2023?

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:Interesting on who inherited the stronger players between Clive and Eddie. Clive had perhaps more top end talent, then again Clive didn't have much depth, and for a while was picking from the likes of Grayson, Diprose, Adebayo, Beale, Long, Green, Archer, PDG, Rees, Perry... they weren't all a Dallaglio to begin with

....but they were also a Hill, Johnson, Back , Leonard, Greenwood, Guscott, Healey, Shaw, Grewcock, Catt up , with Wilko about to come on board. Perry is only a Brown throwback with better hands. Archer was not a bad player, just bad discipline. And even David Rees did a number on Lomu.

You may be right on top end talent v depth; but its top end talent that is important and can cover many sins (eg Mike Tindall )

Certainly by 2000 Clive was able to put out in relative terms a much stronger XV than Eddie could. And whilst the initial phase wasn't as strong it was being driven by the likes of Johnson and especially Dallaglio and it really felt like the team were improving all the time.

And no Archer wasn't a bad player, nor are some of the current crop, they're just also not contesting a World XV

yes, but you'd bracketed him with Long and Green .

its the world xv point I'm driving at tbh, with respect to SCW.