RugbyRebels

Farrell may be phased out after the rwc, but he's not going before. He's our 12 unless we find someone better in terms of running the attacking shape, whilst still being able to act as a carrier/defender.

Raggs wrote:Farrell may be phased out after the rwc, but he's not going before. He's our 12 unless we find someone better in terms of running the attacking shape, whilst still being able to act as a carrier/defender.

act..As in pretend?

Has any player actually significantly improved under Eddie Jones? Some of them seem to be going backwards.

morepork wrote:Has any player actually significantly improved under Eddie Jones? Some of them seem to be going backwards.

Genge, Curry and . . . er . . .

Correlation wise, yes, loads.
But he's been in post for 7 years, so you'd expect that regardless.

morepork wrote:Has any player actually significantly improved under Eddie Jones? Some of them seem to be going backwards.

Are you surprised? Jones coaches the flair out of them.

Oakboy wrote:

morepork wrote:Has any player actually significantly improved under Eddie Jones? Some of them seem to be going backwards.

Genge, Curry and . . . er . . .

Curry has gone back a bit IMO. He is still a terrier but seems to be programmed to run directly into shit. Not great.

Oakboy wrote:

morepork wrote:Has any player actually significantly improved under Eddie Jones? Some of them seem to be going backwards.

Genge, Curry and . . . er . . .

Haskell, Robshaw, Hartley.

FKAS wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

morepork wrote:Has any player actually significantly improved under Eddie Jones? Some of them seem to be going backwards.

Genge, Curry and . . . er . . .

Haskell, Robshaw, Hartley.

With all due respect, that is a catalogue of mediocrity.

Well, he managed to regress Ford and Daly.

The way he has messed Ford around has been criminal.

morepork wrote:

FKAS wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Genge, Curry and . . . er . . .

Haskell, Robshaw, Hartley.

With all due respect, that is a catalogue of mediocrity.

They improved under Jones, I never said they improved to a significant level.

I don't think Ford regressed. He's been consistent bar the season he played with a dodgy achillies. After he got fit he was probably in the best form of his life.

Ewels

FKAS wrote:

morepork wrote:

FKAS wrote:
Haskell, Robshaw, Hartley.

With all due respect, that is a catalogue of mediocrity.

They improved under Jones, I never said they improved to a significant level.

I don't think Ford regressed. He's been consistent bar the season he played with a dodgy achillies. After he got fit he was probably in the best form of his life.

You don’t think Ford regressed for England?!?!?

p/d wrote:Ewels

Mellsblue wrote:

FKAS wrote:

morepork wrote:

With all due respect, that is a catalogue of mediocrity.

They improved under Jones, I never said they improved to a significant level.

I don't think Ford regressed. He's been consistent bar the season he played with a dodgy achillies. After he got fit he was probably in the best form of his life.

You don’t think Ford regressed for England?!?!?

When do you feel he regressed?

One sad stat in the DT: in 12 international appearances, Smith has played with 4 different SHs and 8 different centre combinations.

Rather than Farrell being gone by the RWC, I'm not sure I give much for Smith's chances if Jones carries on like that. It's like a scheme to prove a young FH is not up to it.

I think all this 'new team' bollix will just get discarded somewhere around the 6N.

In the past, I've probably got more wrong than just about any regular poster. One constant message I kept getting when advocating this or that young player in 'new v tried and trusted' debates was the importance of developing a winning habit. Perhaps somebody needs to talk to Jones.

FKAS wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

FKAS wrote:
They improved under Jones, I never said they improved to a significant level.

I don't think Ford regressed. He's been consistent bar the season he played with a dodgy achillies. After he got fit he was probably in the best form of his life.

You don’t think Ford regressed for England?!?!?

When do you feel he regressed?

Pretty steadily over the course of Jones’s tenure. The irony then being that when Jones decided on this play what you see* game plan he dropped Ford, who I believe is England’s best 10 for such a plan.

Do you honestly think he didn’t regress?

* I know there are a set number of pre-planned phase before the play what you see starts.

Oakboy wrote:One sad stat in the DT: in 12 international appearances, Smith has played with 4 different SHs and 8 different centre combinations.

Rather than Farrell being gone by the RWC, I'm not sure I give much for Smith's chances if Jones carries on like that. It's like a scheme to prove a young FH is not up to it.

I think all this 'new team' bollix will just get discarded somewhere around the 6N.

In the past, I've probably got more wrong than just about any regular poster. One constant message I kept getting when advocating this or that young player in 'new v tried and trusted' debates was the importance of developing a winning habit. Perhaps somebody needs to talk to Jones.

It seems to be a constant theme throughout his tenure, players being set up to fail. Quite what Eddie gets out of it I don’t know. I gave up trying to work out all the WTFs years ago.

Adam_P wrote:I hope we get to see an Arundell, Freeman and Steward back three at some point on Saturday. Could be beautiful - all out gas with Arundell, smart hard lines from Freeman and a solid rock at 15

Its what Eddie will call the 45 formation.....

Mellsblue wrote:

FKAS wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: You don’t think Ford regressed for England?!?!?

When do you feel he regressed?

Pretty steadily over the course of Jones’s tenure. The irony then being that when Jones decided on this play what you see* game plan he dropped Ford, who I believe is England’s best 10 for such a plan.

Do you honestly think he didn’t regress?

* I know there are a set number of pre-planned phase before the play what you see starts.

The lineouts we had against aus didn't seem preplanned. Structure in place of course, but we picked options on what was seen. Joe C wasnt given the ball back inside because it was well defended, Arundel got it for the last try because half the Aussie pack had fallen over and left a gaping hole.

Sure there'll be a default for when there's nothing on, which is likely the Billy V carry, but that's still a decision to be made and not just always to Billy on the first carry. After his carry it'll be reassessed, again the structure/framework will be planned in that scenario but not where the ball goes.

Mellsblue wrote:

FKAS wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: You don’t think Ford regressed for England?!?!?

When do you feel he regressed?

Pretty steadily over the course of Jones’s tenure. The irony then being that when Jones decided on this play what you see* game plan he dropped Ford, who I believe is England’s best 10 for such a plan.

Do you honestly think he didn’t regress?

* I know there are a set number of pre-planned phase before the play what you see starts.

No I wouldn't have dropped him either but that could be a thread on its own.

I don't think you can say Ford regressed when he was so good at the delayed 2019 world cup. The game Vs NZ in particular he was key to England dominating. The season after he didn't fare as well, partly down to the awful backline selection and to the previously mentioned achillies injury which limited his running capacity. He missed the summer tour for an Op, got dropped and then not given another chance despite the first half of last season being in the form of his life and scooping a couple of player of the month awards along the way. The game Vs Saints at the Gardens is probably the best individual performance I've seen from a player in the Prem. The brief glimpses he got in the 6N England attacked well but they were brief glimpses.

FKAS wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

FKAS wrote:
When do you feel he regressed?

Pretty steadily over the course of Jones’s tenure. The irony then being that when Jones decided on this play what you see* game plan he dropped Ford, who I believe is England’s best 10 for such a plan.

Do you honestly think he didn’t regress?

* I know there are a set number of pre-planned phase before the play what you see starts.

No I wouldn't have dropped him either but that could be a thread on its own.

I don't think you can say Ford regressed when he was so good at the delayed 2019 world cup. The game Vs NZ in particular he was key to England dominating. The season after he didn't fare as well, partly down to the awful backline selection and to the previously mentioned achillies injury which limited his running capacity. He missed the summer tour for an Op, got dropped and then not given another chance despite the first half of last season being in the form of his life and scooping a couple of player of the month awards along the way. The game Vs Saints at the Gardens is probably the best individual performance I've seen from a player in the Prem. The brief glimpses he got in the 6N England attacked well but they were brief glimpses.

But we’re not talking domestically.
Given how he was playing in the 6N prior to the 2015 World Cup and how it’s gone since then, I’d say it’s gone backwards for England. It’s obviously not a straight line but, for me, he’s trended downwards. Through no fault of his own, mostly. I’d happily argue that at the top of his game he’s the best 10 in the world so it’s not an anti-Ford thing. Just how I see it. It’s subjective.

Raggs wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

FKAS wrote:
When do you feel he regressed?

Pretty steadily over the course of Jones’s tenure. The irony then being that when Jones decided on this play what you see* game plan he dropped Ford, who I believe is England’s best 10 for such a plan.

Do you honestly think he didn’t regress?

* I know there are a set number of pre-planned phase before the play what you see starts.

The lineouts we had against aus didn't seem preplanned. Structure in place of course, but we picked options on what was seen. Joe C wasnt given the ball back inside because it was well defended, Arundel got it for the last try because half the Aussie pack had fallen over and left a gaping hole.

Sure there'll be a default for when there's nothing on, which is likely the Billy V carry, but that's still a decision to be made and not just always to Billy on the first carry. After his carry it'll be reassessed, again the structure/framework will be planned in that scenario but not where the ball goes.

People from the camp are on record saying it’s a set number of set plays and then play it as you see it.

Mellsblue wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Pretty steadily over the course of Jones’s tenure. The irony then being that when Jones decided on this play what you see* game plan he dropped Ford, who I believe is England’s best 10 for such a plan.

Do you honestly think he didn’t regress?

* I know there are a set number of pre-planned phase before the play what you see starts.

The lineouts we had against aus didn't seem preplanned. Structure in place of course, but we picked options on what was seen. Joe C wasnt given the ball back inside because it was well defended, Arundel got it for the last try because half the Aussie pack had fallen over and left a gaping hole.

Sure there'll be a default for when there's nothing on, which is likely the Billy V carry, but that's still a decision to be made and not just always to Billy on the first carry. After his carry it'll be reassessed, again the structure/framework will be planned in that scenario but not where the ball goes.

People from the camp are on record saying it’s a set number of set plays and then play it as you see it.

From the games it looks like to two successive big carries from the forwards to get some momentum and then the playmakers have license to call what they see. It actually worked ok in the first test and the issue was England weren't clinical more than we didn't open up holes and create chances. Needs to get better and we've got to show some more edge in attack but it looked to function more than it did in the 6N.