RugbyRebels

This is never going to happen as it would involve the RFU accepting it's complicity in the national side under performing.

There will also be some people on here who's response to the suggestion of firing a coach, who has had success to this point, will be to say "this isn't Wendyball". I would like those people to bear in mind two words from here on in: Jim Mallinder.

If you look at the pattern of performance under England coaches since the Abhorrent Robinson era, they have all largely followed the same pattern:

i) Dead cat bounce : Initially a team made up of largely the same personnel reacts well to some fresh ideas and having to prove themselves again.

ii) Optimism : Under--performing and past members of the previous regime's squad are dropped and younger, in form players are brought int.

iii) Stagnation : Results carry on being largely positive but performance drops off as "loyalty" to the squad supersedes form. Any losses are seen as being down to a dip or to inevitable injuries, to be solved by more intensity in training and doubling down on the core group.

iv) Decline : The established squad, especially the leadership group, becomes largely sacrosanct. English sport's cult of the captain means you can't drop the guy you named two years previously as that would be seen as a crisis, regardless of how badly he's playing. Cap count somehow becomes more important than putting functioning units on the pitch. Results are on the positive side of mixed as other countries are experimenting prior to the world cup.

v) Full collapse : A knackered, patched up group of players, for whom performance is no longer a factor for getting picked, end up failing horribly as a confused game plan, cobbled together to try to cover gaps caused by selecting the half fit and out of form, implodes.

I reckon we're at iii now, so the best thing to do would be to get ahead of the curve, thank Eddie for the memories of doing the Aussies 3 - 0 on their own patch, and bring in Baxter so we can be on the up curve of the cycle come the world cup.

NB.

This is the inverse of what the ABs did in '07 by retaining Graham. They broke a cycle of not learning from mistakes by firing coaches too quickly. Keeping Henry past one failure meant he was able to dig into what was wrong and implement fixes that went beyond the 4 year cycle of peaking in between world cups and trying, and failing, to hold the peak of the wave.

The key difference would be that in all the time post-Woodward we’ve not had a coach even remotely of the calibre of Eddie Jones.

Well, this trend is only partly true of Lancaster and was not true of Johnson (Where we were average throughout his whole reign), Ashton (Where we were largely awful and then peaked half way through the world cup) and Robinson (Where we were awful all the time).

This period is more a measure of Eddie as a coach, where he can show if he has the ability to adapt to changing results, as opposed to keep picking the same winning team.

Eddie is a limited lifespan coach. He gets good results initially but ends up pissing everybody off.

I haven’t seen the France game but was a lack of on field game management an issue?

Bring back Johnson IMHO....

Lizard wrote:Eddie is a limited lifespan coach. He gets good results initially but ends up pissing everybody off.

I haven’t seen the France game but was a lack of on field game management an issue?

Partly.

Biggest problems have been evident for a while, I.e. back row balance and issues at the breakdown. England struggled to get on th front foot and really menace the French defence.

A great win for France against the odds, but they too were very limited.

Lizard wrote:Eddie is a limited lifespan coach. He gets good results initially but ends up pissing everybody off.

I haven’t seen the France game but was a lack of on field game management an issue?

Hard to say, as everything gets effected by and becomes a consequence of getting beaten back on the gainline and battered at the breakdown.

I don’t feel as though Eddie has pissed anybody off. Players seem very much with him and happy campers. Has been some suggestions he may be working them a bit hard in camp, considering the post Lions tour emotional and physical hangover...

Timbo wrote:The key difference would be that in all the time post-Woodward we’ve not had a coach even remotely of the calibre of Eddie Jones.

Yeah, the standard of coach we've had has been pretty shocking... Robinson, a 10 years too late Ashton, Johnson, Burt...

And when Eddie goes, who is there? Literally we all just say Baxter because...well...that's it. There's no-one else...

I wouldn’t have appointed him and would have no qualms about sacking him

Tigersman wrote:Bring back Johnson IMHO....

That's a cracker

padprop wrote:Well, this trend is only partly true of Lancaster and was not true of Johnson (Where we were average throughout his whole reign), Robson (Where we were largely awful and then peaked half way through the world cup) and Robinson (Where we were awful all the time).

This period is more a measure of Eddie as a coach, where he can show if he has the ability to adapt to changing results, as opposed to keep picking the same winning team.

Robson? Bobby?

Banquo wrote:

Tigersman wrote:Bring back Johnson IMHO....

That's a cracker

Has his bottom lip got bigger?

In all honesty what ‘calibre’ does Jones posses as an attack coach? As from where I’m sat it looks the best part of bugger all

p/d wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Tigersman wrote:Bring back Johnson IMHO....

That's a cracker

Has his bottom lip got bigger?

In all honesty what ‘calibre’ does Jones posses as an attack coach? As from where I’m sat it looks the best part of bugger all

Didn’t he win the World Cup with S.Africa as an attack coach?

Timbo wrote:

p/d wrote:

Banquo wrote: That's a cracker

Has his bottom lip got bigger?

In all honesty what ‘calibre’ does Jones posses as an attack coach? As from where I’m sat it looks the best part of bugger all

Didn’t he win the World Cup with S.Africa as an attack coach?

Technical advisor, whatever the feck that is. Probably Montgomery's kicking coach

Banquo wrote:

padprop wrote:Well, this trend is only partly true of Lancaster and was not true of Johnson (Where we were average throughout his whole reign), Robson (Where we were largely awful and then peaked half way through the world cup) and Robinson (Where we were awful all the time).

This period is more a measure of Eddie as a coach, where he can show if he has the ability to adapt to changing results, as opposed to keep picking the same winning team.

Robson? Bobby?

fixed

Lizard wrote:Eddie is a limited lifespan coach. He gets good results initially but ends up pissing everybody off.

He was just that during his time at Saracens. Appointed as an advisor, he did a very good job and dragged the club away from the cliff edge of relegation.
He managed to seriously piss off some players. I had some dialogues repeated to me between players and Jones, from someone who was part of the club, and they were very confrontational. Not necessarily a bad thing, but he did manage to alienate a significant number of players who felt no loyalty to his regime.
He had 'favourites', that is players who simply could do no wrong despite what happened on the pitch. By far the worst was Chris Jack who, at his time at Saracens was highly disruptive and bone idle. I recall Gaffney/Jones having a press conference where they said the team performance fell short because Chris Jack was so much better than everyone else in the team that they simply couldn't understand what he wished to achieve. The squad included Richard Hill at that time.
He insisted in putting players out of position, and he didn't change his strategy to suit the players that were available, rather using the same squad without variation. The problem with that was, when the performance of his chosen few started to fall away as they got jaded, the team was not able to sustain good results. In the Gaffney/Jones era that was most evident with Jackson and de Kock, as I recall.
When he eventually got the boot, only Borthwick kicked up a fuss and, within one season, Saracens went from 8th in the table to 2nd under Venter, who had no 'star' players, but adapted the game plan to match the players that he had available.

CONVEX HULL wrote:

Lizard wrote:Eddie is a limited lifespan coach. He gets good results initially but ends up pissing everybody off.

He was just that during his time at Saracens. Appointed as an advisor, he did a very good job and dragged the club away from the cliff edge of relegation.
He managed to seriously piss off some players. I had some dialogues repeated to me between players and Jones, from someone who was part of the club, and they were very confrontational. Not necessarily a bad thing, but he did manage to alienate a significant number of players who felt no loyalty to his regime.
He had 'favourites', that is players who simply could do no wrong despite what happened on the pitch. By far the worst was Chris Jack who, at his time at Saracens was highly disruptive and bone idle. I recall Gaffney/Jones having a press conference where they said the team performance fell short because Chris Jack was so much better than everyone else in the team that they simply couldn't understand what he wished to achieve. The squad included Richard Hill at that time.
He insisted in putting players out of position, and he didn't change his strategy to suit the players that were available, rather using the same squad without variation. The problem with that was, when the performance of his chosen few started to fall away as they got jaded, the team was not able to sustain good results. In the Gaffney/Jones era that was most evident with Jackson and de Kock, as I recall.
When he eventually got the boot, only Borthwick kicked up a fuss and, within one season, Saracens went from 8th in the table to 2nd under Venter, who had no 'star' players, but adapted the game plan to match the players that he had available.

I tend to agree with a lot of this.

I’m not one for knee-jerk reactions, particularly when there isn’t an obvious (viable) solution available.

Eddie does seem to like creating this persona of infallibility and I suspect he doesn’t respond well to being questioned.

I’m hoping he takes it on the chin rather than get defensive and make more dumb decisions.

"I’m hoping he takes it on the chin rather than get defensive and make more dumb decisions".

This is the heart of it. Is he able to abandon some players and modify how we play, or is he going to dig his heels in and stick with what he's got?
Next week and the SA trip will provide the answer.

fivepointer wrote:"I’m hoping he takes it on the chin rather than get defensive and make more dumb decisions".

This is the heart of it. Is he able to abandon some players and modify how we play, or is he going to dig his heels in and stick with what he's got?
Next week and the SA trip will provide the answer.

I'm hoping it won't be the case, but I reckon we're firmly heading into phase iv right now and expect to see a return to the starting XV for Mikey and, if fit, Hartley, possibly with the Hask at 7 with Lawes moving up into the 2nd row, Launchbury to the bench.

Whatever about the rest, but I really don’t think this group of players with England are disillusioned, unhappy or pissed off.

There’s also quite a different dynamic coaching a national team compared to a club. For starters everybody gets lots of long breaks from each other.

Imagine JJ is pissed off

16th man wrote:

fivepointer wrote:"I’m hoping he takes it on the chin rather than get defensive and make more dumb decisions".

This is the heart of it. Is he able to abandon some players and modify how we play, or is he going to dig his heels in and stick with what he's got?
Next week and the SA trip will provide the answer.

I'm hoping it won't be the case, but I reckon we're firmly heading into phase iv right now and expect to see a return to the starting XV for Mikey and, if fit, Hartley, possibly with the Hask at 7 with Lawes moving up into the 2nd row, Launchbury to the bench.

I’d say we’re in ‘phase IV’ already and have been for a while. It’s just that we’ve been getting away with it until now.

We have to be realistic though. We have a squad in place for the 6N so there aren’t going to be sweeping changes from outside of that group. As much as a return to Brown, Hartley and Haskell may be a retrograde step, but it’s probably the right thing to do for what is still a very important game.

We may not have anything to play for in terms of silverware next week, but it is important to win and show a real reaction. A third consecutive defeat with no more games until the summer would be very bad news IMO.

Timbo wrote:Whatever about the rest, but I really don’t think this group of players with England are disillusioned, unhappy or pissed off.

There’s also quite a different dynamic coaching a national team compared to a club. For starters everybody gets lots of long breaks from each other.

Someone, who knows his stuff, said that has never been in a coaching position for more than four years; I haven't checked but sounds about right. He started off well in a number of coaching jobs and it, more often than not, went sh*t shaped after a couple of years. He has a reputation for being abrasive and dogmatic, which was apparent at Saracens.
You should tell the average Saracens season ticket holder that the England squad get long breaks from each other. I gave up my season ticket years ago, because they are forever putting out their B and C squads. Nine players called up by Jones yesterday although the one they really need, BV, is still unavailable.

Just going to bump this, given today's performance and some of the decisions made during it.

Sounds like he's going to have a bit of a clear out. Something has to happen after today and it wouldnt surprise me if a few big names get the chop, as well as changes to the coaching set up. Talk on tv commentary about bringing in an attack coach which strikes me as a sensible move.
I dont think the RFU will consider his position just yet. He really has the 3 SA tests to at least turn things around and get us back to winning ways, or at least playing like a top side.