RugbyRebels

Owen is the only attack coach we need.
"CHASE!"

Trouble at t' mill

Yep. I believe they were back in camp a full week before the Scotland debacle.

The real issue is that we currently have a good player base and a quality head coach would be getting far more out of the team. If the SF v NZ was, say, 95% and the final, say, 60%, Saturday was about 40%. Have we reached 70% since the RWC?

It's not a bit below par, it's pitifully poor. We have no right to expect the team to automatically beat anyone but we surely have the right to expect the team to be well-organised, full of effort and capable of producing 80%+ on a regular basis.

Why all the concern? England will hump Benetton and all in the garden will be rosy again. Problems solved.

Raggs wrote:Sticking to your guns, that Curry should play 7, and now you're saying he's been completely outplayed (and I believe previously said should be dropped for his performance) having played 7, rather than 6?

I’m not sure it’s inconsistent to maintain that Tom Curry’s best position is 7 despite on this occasion him being outplayed by his opponent. I also do not see it as unreasonable to suggest he and Billy be dropped from the starting XV against Italy in favour of Willis and Earl.

Just to be clear I think Tom Curry is a very good test flanker and am even starting to be persuaded that he’s interchangeable between 6 and 7 in the way say Lewis Moody was - where I think I buck the consensus is that I’m not sure he’s quite Lions class (yet) and I don’t think he’s demonstrably better in any single aspect of backrow play compared to the other backrows in the current squad (save perhaps youthful energy/commitment?) and I honestly just don’t see this big ball carrying quality he’s meant to have. Just my opinion.

jngf wrote: Just to be clear I think Tom Curry is a very good test flanker and am even starting to be persuaded that he’s interchangeable between 6 and 7 in the way say Lewis Moody was - where I think I buck the consensus is that I’m not sure he’s quite Lions class (yet) and I don’t think he’s demonstrably better in any single aspect of backrow play compared to the other backrows in the current squad (save perhaps youthful energy/commitment?) and I honestly just don’t see this big ball carrying quality he’s meant to have. Just my opinion.

I've said I'd have Curry and Watson on the flank for the Lions for a while. I stick by that. The workrate if the pair of them is awesome.

Curry struggled at the weekend. Not surprising as there was never any momentum for him to come out the line for a trademark big tackle of the low driving variety. No opportunity to get on the ball because the Scottish pack dominated their attacking breakdowns so well. Hard to make an impression if you are always going backwards and your flyhalf kicks away all your overlaps.

Spiffy wrote:Why all the concern? England will hump Benetton and all in the garden will be rosy again. Problems solved.

In some ways playing Italy now is a good thing. We will surely win, it will give more game time to some players, give combinations a chance to bed in and a resounding win will restore a bit of confidence.
On the downside it is just Italy who havent won a 6N game in years. Its very hard to see them posing a sustained challenge. Anything less than a 50 pt win will be seen as a letdown.

Expecting a revised approach in our play is a bit optimistic. Jones isnt suddenly going to change his method, so we're stuck with the rather limited style we've seen over the last year.
It will be more than enough for Italy but the remaining 3 games look likely to be a considerable test.

fivepointer wrote:

Spiffy wrote:Why all the concern? England will hump Benetton and all in the garden will be rosy again. Problems solved.

In some ways playing Italy now is a good thing. We will surely win, it will give more game time to some players, give combinations a chance to bed in and a resounding win will restore a bit of confidence.
On the downside it is just Italy who havent won a 6N game in years. Its very hard to see them posing a sustained challenge. Anything less than a 50 pt win will be seen as a letdown.

Expecting a revised approach in our play is a bit optimistic. Jones isnt suddenly going to change his method, so we're stuck with the rather limited style we've seen over the last year.
It will be more than enough for Italy but the remaining 3 games look likely to be a considerable test.

5P, I agree but I could argue that defeat would do us hell of a lot of good in the long run. Jones could not hang on then. His departure is the single best thing for English rugby, IMO. I'd settle for it any way it can be achieved.

50 points can't be expected when the French put 50 on them, and our attack is not there. If we concede more points than the French did, then I'll be disappointed.

Oakboy wrote:
5P, I agree but I could argue that defeat would do us hell of a lot of good in the long run. Jones could not hang on then. His departure is the single best thing for English rugby, IMO. I'd settle for it any way it can be achieved.

I’d take that!

Raggs wrote:50 points can't be expected when the French put 50 on them, and our attack is not there. If we concede more points than the French did, then I'll be disappointed.

I assume basically everyone on here is already watching the Squidge videos, but there's some interesting bits in there about the Italian defence and it's made me more interested for the weekend.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Raggs wrote:50 points can't be expected when the French put 50 on them, and our attack is not there. If we concede more points than the French did, then I'll be disappointed.

I assume basically everyone on here is already watching the Squidge videos, but there's some interesting bits in there about the Italian defence and it's made me more interested for the weekend.

I have now. Makes me worried since we're not doing to well on line breaks.

I still like Eddie as a coach, and if he goes are we going to get someone in who looks at the players available and frankly does much different? I'd like to see Eddie progress a little, because without doubt there's much more he could be doing on attack and he's simply choosing not to look at it, or if Eddie is moving on to have some idea of how we set about bringing in a coach who can (a) deliver a well coached side, and normally whilst I don't like the play Eddie does normally coach the side well, and (b) is somewhat more progressive than we've seen of Eddie with England so far.

Otherwise we're just going to pay a lot of money to move Eddie on, possibly to move Eddie's coaches on, and then a lot of money to bring in a new head coach and perhaps some new coaches. And we don't have much in the way of revenue right now so I'd be loathe to spend £0.01

Is Jones mega-mercenary? What I am getting at is will he cling on to screw the RFU for every last contract penny or will he resign with good grace once he realises it's not going to happen for him? I'm inclined to think he is honourable enough to prefer to go before he is pushed.

Let's face it, by any standards he cannot claim to he succeeding in his job if he loses any more games this 6N. If he was to lose a 2nd match he'd have only a 60% success rate. With the standard of our squad that can only mean 'goodbye' for a coach judged purely on results surely?

Oakboy wrote:Is Jones mega-mercenary? What I am getting at is will he cling on to screw the RFU for every last contract penny or will he resign with good grace once he realises it's not going to happen for him? I'm inclined to think he is honourable enough to prefer to go before he is pushed.

Let's face it, by any standards he cannot claim to he succeeding in his job if he loses any more games this 6N. If he was to lose a 2nd match he'd have only a 60% success rate. With the standard of our squad that can only mean 'goodbye' for a coach judged purely on results surely?

Losing to Italy is a firing. Losing to anyone else isn't, as disappointing as it may be. Losing to others, and then doing poorly in the next series is a problem. However, he's just come off a win in the 6n and an autumn nations cup win. Losing a series, even with some poorer results (let's be honest, losing to Wales, Ireland and France (even Scotland) aren't instant firing offenses).

We are stuck on this road, with him at the wheel. Let’s hope he knows where we are going, ‘cause I’ll be fecked if I do

Oakboy wrote:Is Jones mega-mercenary? What I am getting at is will he cling on to screw the RFU for every last contract penny or will he resign with good grace once he realises it's not going to happen for him? I'm inclined to think he is honourable enough to prefer to go before he is pushed.

Let's face it, by any standards he cannot claim to he succeeding in his job if he loses any more games this 6N. If he was to lose a 2nd match he'd have only a 60% success rate. With the standard of our squad that can only mean 'goodbye' for a coach judged purely on results surely?

Mercenary - of course. Why not. Coaching is a short career and you have to screw every penny out of it. He will not voluntarily give up his contract cash for the good of English rugby. If he goes it's the golden handshake. Anyone know his salary? Is it tied to results, win bonuses etc.

Digby wrote:I still like Eddie as a coach, and if he goes are we going to get someone in who looks at the players available and frankly does much different? I'd like to see Eddie progress a little, because without doubt there's much more he could be doing on attack and he's simply choosing not to look at it, or if Eddie is moving on to have some idea of how we set about bringing in a coach who can (a) deliver a well coached side, and normally whilst I don't like the play Eddie does normally coach the side well, and (b) is somewhat more progressive than we've seen of Eddie with England so far.

Otherwise we're just going to pay a lot of money to move Eddie on, possibly to move Eddie's coaches on, and then a lot of money to bring in a new head coach and perhaps some new coaches. And we don't have much in the way of revenue right now so I'd be loathe to spend £0.01

This is the real problem for me. What do we gain from sacking Eddie and who (seriously who!) do we genuinely think could do a better job? And to what extent, in the mad, extremely out of the ordinary year that we are having, can we make a proper judgment anyway?

I genuinely rate Eddie as a rugby mind, but that's not to say some of his decisions aren't confounding to say the least.
He seems to get blinkered by a new obsession every year (started off with the time getting back to feet, now kicks being how games are decided (rather than, you know, points scored!)) and it feels like for England its all underwritten by his judgement on what the English way of Rugby is.
When we had Robshaw/Haskell as our 6 & 7 it was hard to argue with, but now? We have a good 5 - 10 young, exciting and dynamic back row players, two props who combine a more than solid tight game with unheard of ball skills.
Possibly the best lock in the world (and, from the outside, someone who looks like a natural leader and captain in waiting), and outside backs who flash brilliance (Slade, Watson), have in the past been consistently brilliant before being dicked around positionally (Daly), have been consistently brilliant (until Saturday) despite very little help (May), or have potential in buckets (Malins, Lawrence, Cokanisiga, Thorley etc etc...
We also have an experienced fly half who can be a world class game manager who thrives playing flat off a dominant pack (which we generally have), has brilliant timing and flashes a great running game as well as being a brave and willing defender. Not to mention 2 or 3 young backups that look too good to not win caps at some point.
Unfortunately we still have Youngs and Farrell. Also I'm starting to wonder if Billy V might be entering their sphere of undroppable whatever the crap they produce too.
In short, there's lots I don't like the look of at the moment, and I very much feel that Eddie's stubbornness and misjudgements are starting to hurt England. But, despite all this, I really can't see anyone who would realistically take over and do a better job at the moment.
Exeter are great at what they do, but I feel their gameplan is just as limited as England's at the moment, completely unsuited to.international rugby and, unlike Eddie, Baxter's never shown he can come up with anything different. McCall? I don't think you can write him off just because Saracens got away with having a squad that was clearly stronger and deeper than everyone else, but you can write him off with the assumption that iceman will be more integral to England rather than less! Pat Lam's an interesting one, but probably unlikely. Any genuinely realistic alternatives?

Dan. Dan. Dan. wrote:

Digby wrote:I still like Eddie as a coach, and if he goes are we going to get someone in who looks at the players available and frankly does much different? I'd like to see Eddie progress a little, because without doubt there's much more he could be doing on attack and he's simply choosing not to look at it, or if Eddie is moving on to have some idea of how we set about bringing in a coach who can (a) deliver a well coached side, and normally whilst I don't like the play Eddie does normally coach the side well, and (b) is somewhat more progressive than we've seen of Eddie with England so far.

Otherwise we're just going to pay a lot of money to move Eddie on, possibly to move Eddie's coaches on, and then a lot of money to bring in a new head coach and perhaps some new coaches. And we don't have much in the way of revenue right now so I'd be loathe to spend £0.01

This is the real problem for me. What do we gain from sacking Eddie and who (seriously who!) do we genuinely think could do a better job? And to what extent, in the mad, extremely out of the ordinary year that we are having, can we make a proper judgment anyway?

I genuinely rate Eddie as a rugby mind, but that's not to say some of his decisions aren't confounding to say the least.
He seems to get blinkered by a new obsession every year (started off with the time getting back to feet, now kicks being how games are decided (rather than, you know, points scored!)) and it feels like for England its all underwritten by his judgement on what the English way of Rugby is.
When we had Robshaw/Haskell as our 6 & 7 it was hard to argue with, but now? We have a good 5 - 10 young, exciting and dynamic back row players, two props who combine a more than solid tight game with unheard of ball skills.
Possibly the best lock in the world (and, from the outside, someone who looks like a natural leader and captain in waiting), and outside backs who flash brilliance (Slade, Watson), have in the past been consistently brilliant before being dicked around positionally (Daly), have been consistently brilliant (until Saturday) despite very little help (May), or have potential in buckets (Malins, Lawrence, Cokanisiga, Thorley etc etc...
We also have an experienced fly half who can be a world class game manager who thrives playing flat off a dominant pack (which we generally have), has brilliant timing and flashes a great running game as well as being a brave and willing defender. Not to mention 2 or 3 young backups that look too good to not win caps at some point.
Unfortunately we still have Youngs and Farrell. Also I'm starting to wonder if Billy V might be entering their sphere of undroppable whatever the crap they produce too.
In short, there's lots I don't like the look of at the moment, and I very much feel that Eddie's stubbornness and misjudgements are starting to hurt England. But, despite all this, I really can't see anyone who would realistically take over and do a better job at the moment.
Exeter are great at what they do, but I feel their gameplan is just as limited as England's at the moment, completely unsuited to.international rugby and, unlike Eddie, Baxter's never shown he can come up with anything different. McCall? I don't think you can write him off just because Saracens got away with having a squad that was clearly stronger and deeper than everyone else, but you can write him off with the assumption that iceman will be more integral to England rather than less! Pat Lam's an interesting one, but probably unlikely. Any genuinely realistic alternatives?

Dan - that was great until you got to the bit about Faz having a great running game.

I thought he was talking about Ford?

Ha! Definitely Ford!

Dan. Dan. Dan. wrote:Ha! Definitely Ford!

Then I agree wholeheartedly.