Eddie Jones - England's New Coach

First topic message reminder :

So the worst kept secret is out...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/12005671/Eddie-Jones-to-be-confirmed-as-England-head-coach-in-next-24-hours.html

Jury's out on this one, will have to see how the 6Ns goes then ponder his selection.

nathan wrote:Interesting read, all the coaching team gone

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/dec/12/eddie-jones-england-backroom-team-paul-gustard

Thanks, mate.  Not really a surprise, methinks.  Gustard seems a good choice.  Unfortunately, when Eddie chooses his coaching staff, it does screw clubs to lose key coaches mid-season.  

I can see Rowntree landing a job easily.  Whether the Wales job or in the Premiership.  Farrell goes back to Saracens.  
You think Catt will get another job right away?  What about Lancaster?

I did not think that Eddie Joines would keep on the 3 coaches to be honest.

Lets hope the new setup will be better for England than the last 3. I think Rowntree will be fine when it comes to getting a job. The other 2 might no be so lucky. not straight away any way.

Rowntree to Bristol in return for borthwick?

SO is Eddie Jones going to do the attack coaching himself?

GeordieFalcon wrote:SO is Eddie Jones going to do the attack coaching himself?

Seems that way if the article is correct

Yeah that's how I read it.

I thought Alex King was rumoured to be attack coach? Hopefully not anyway, he's done nothing with Saints.

Did, England under Lancaster have a Kicking coach?

And will there be one under Eddie Jones?

majesticimperialman wrote:Did, England under Lancaster have a Kicking coach?

And will there be one under Eddie Jones?

Was Alred in the fold under Stewie?

Do you think Eddie will retain the boot boy as his investments coach?

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I thought Alex King was rumoured to be attack coach? Hopefully not anyway, he's done nothing with Saints.

Mate, under Alex King Saints have been amongst the best scoring teams in the Premiership.  Last season they averaged 28 points per game, 4th best.  The season before Saints averaged 27 points per game, 2nd best.  I think Alex King has done a great job in his two seasons with Saints.

You can have as many coaches as you like. Too many, though, and they all start competing for time with the players. That was apparently one of the problems with both the 2001 and 2005 Lions tours.

New Zealand largely relied on Henry, Hansen and Smith. When they wanted to freshen things up, they all swapped jobs, which isn't something you can imagine too many coaching teams being able to do.

I wonder whether England really needs a separate lineout and scrum coach. Who is the forwards coach in that set-up, responsible for breakdown work? By all accounts, Borthwick had a wider brief with Japan where he had more overall strategic input.

The head coach ought have whatever he wants but I'll confess I'm not always clear what the difference is supposed to be between a backs coach and an attack coach.

As I recall, Lancaster's original plan was to have just Farrell and Rowntree in his team, to keep short lines of communication. Catt was only brought on board in an interim position for the summer tour when Farrell initially turned down the chance to make his position permanent, and Wayne Smith was being sounded out as Farrell's replacement. Funnily enough, Lancaster also asked Alex King to be involved, but he was still tied up with Clermont Auvergne.

doctor_grey wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I thought Alex King was rumoured to be attack coach? Hopefully not anyway, he's done nothing with Saints.

Mate, under Alex King Saints have been amongst the best scoring teams in the Premiership.  Last season they averaged 28 points per game, 4th best.  The season before Saints averaged 27 points per game, 2nd best.  I think Alex King has done a great job in his two seasons with Saints.

Through forward dominance rather than outstanding back play. I've never watched Saints and been blown away by how they backs rip a side to bits. They get on top in the scrum/maul and the play off the back of this. If they don't get forward dominance, they rarely look like scoring imo. For this reason, King would be a bad choice.

Japan had Borthwick and a scrum coach (a french guy) under Eddie.

doctor_grey wrote:

nathan wrote:Interesting read, all the coaching team gone

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/dec/12/eddie-jones-england-backroom-team-paul-gustard

Thanks, mate.  Not really a surprise, methinks.  Gustard seems a good choice.  Unfortunately, when Eddie chooses his coaching staff, it does screw clubs to lose key coaches mid-season.  

I can see Rowntree landing a job easily.  Whether the Wales job or in the Premiership.  Farrell goes back to Saracens.  
You think Catt will get another job right away?  What about Lancaster?

Hope Farrell Fr.doesn't go back to Saracens. Saracens don't need him. Better to have no coach than Farrell Sr.

Imagine the furore there would be if Saracens kicked up a fuss about losing Gustard, in contrast Saracens are accepting it with grace.

Gustatd is out of contract end of the season isn't he?

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I thought Alex King was rumoured to be attack coach? Hopefully not anyway, he's done nothing with Saints.

Mate, under Alex King Saints have been amongst the best scoring teams in the Premiership.  Last season they averaged 28 points per game, 4th best.  The season before Saints averaged 27 points per game, 2nd best.  I think Alex King has done a great job in his two seasons with Saints.

Through forward dominance rather than outstanding back play. I've never watched Saints and been blown away by how they backs rip a side to bits. They get on top in the scrum/maul and the play off the back of this. If they don't get forward dominance, they rarely look like scoring imo. For this reason, King would be a bad choice.

I see your point, but I don't necessarily equate back play to attacking play. Alex King took a team with a decent attack, a good pack, and functional backs (excepting Foden, who on form, is a terrific attacking player), and turned them into one of the best scoring teams in the Premiership. What else do we need? Points is points.

Problem is Doc if we review this season Saints have only won matches when the scrum went well. Racing had the upper hand here and saints sadly looked toothless.

by all accounts King did well at Clermont but seems, so far, to have added nothing to Saints. you guys were heavy scorers before he arrived - second leading try scorers in 2012/13 with 55, just one behind Leicester; 3rd highest in 2011/12 with 51 (behing Leicester 70!!!! and quins 53).

Since then the entire premiership (Leicester excluded) started to score tries for fun.


Personally with the number of coachs Jones is saiud to be recruiting I woulkd rather he took control of attack - else we end up with the same mess we had before with blurred responsibilities (Farrell in charge of defence including defensive breakdown, first phase attack; catt in charge of multiphase attack, rowntree attacking breakdowns)

I'm not doubting Saints score points Dr, they're a very good team. A lot of their attacking play tends to be off the back of a strong rolling maul or dominant set piece, I don't think you really get this at international level.

I honestly don't think King has had much of an influence. If Saints don't get this pack dominance, they often fail to open up defences, Metro at the weekend a prime example.

If I was thinking of sides with a decent pack who can open up any team, I'd be thinking Exeter or Wasps at the minute.

Sgt Pooly Wasps' attack wasn't particularly impressive vs Bath. Just 1 try despite dominating in stats like possession and metres made.

It's all well and good topping attacking stats but the big stat is tries scored.

A try from 5 metres out is worth as much as one from your own 22.

doctor grey unfortunately Saints have a monkey on their back - it's name is Racing Metro, 3 times in a row you've lost to them now. Racing Metro are not an unbeatable team yet Saints made them seem that way.

I said in a previous post that it's a black mark against a coach if they struggle against a side others can beat.

Alex King is not riding high at the moment, just as a player can go through poor form, he is going through a slump at the moment.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Japan had Borthwick and a scrum coach (a french guy) under Eddie.

That's Marc dal Maso. In sad news, he's just revealed he's suffering from Parkinson's disease.

http://www.lequipe.fr/Rugby/Actualites/Marc-dal-maso-souffre-de-la-maladie-de-parkinson/616499

It's Official -  Mike Catt, Andy Farrell and Graham Rowntree have been shown the door by Eddie

TightHEAD wrote:It's Official -  Mike Catt, Andy Farrell and Graham Rowntree have been shown the door by Eddie

About time, hardly surprising that coaches who have failed to deliver any success are replaced. Unless you have Ritchie as CEO in which case you give them 20 year contracts

Student-A1 wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:It's Official -  Mike Catt, Andy Farrell and Graham Rowntree have been shown the door by Eddie

About time, hardly surprising that coaches who have failed to deliver any success are replaced. Unless you have Ritchie as CEO in which case you give them 20 year contracts

I think it's a little unfair to say they haven't delivered any successes. There have been a few but obviously they didn't deliver on the biggest one of them all.

But we were led to believe that all was rosy behind closed doors in the England camp when clearly they were not, JJ having to play when injured was just a joke, plus the whole Burgess issue what a farce.

These guys were out of their depth and I bet you some coaches at amateur clubs could have done better.

TightHEAD wrote:But we were led to believe that all was rosy behind closed doors in the England camp when clearly they were not, JJ having to play when injured was just a joke, plus the whole Burgess issue what a farce.

These guys were out of their depth and I bet you some coaches at amateur clubs could have done better.

But that isn't what we were talking about, you said they failed to deliver any success. They did, but this is still the right outcome.

TightHEAD wrote:But we were led to believe that all was rosy behind closed doors in the England camp when clearly they were not, JJ having to play when injured was just a joke, plus the whole Burgess issue what a farce.

These guys were out of their depth and I bet you some coaches at amateur clubs could have done better.

I think it is appalling that JJ played in that state, but he did pass the tests and was desperate to play. He didn't realise the extent of the damage until later. I'd put that one more down to faulty diagnosis than coaching.

The coaches did feck up, and they did so on the biggest stage. But not everything that went wrong was down to them

nathan wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:It's Official -  Mike Catt, Andy Farrell and Graham Rowntree have been shown the door by Eddie

About time, hardly surprising that coaches who have failed to deliver any success are replaced. Unless you have Ritchie as CEO in which case you give them 20 year contracts

I think it's a little unfair to say they haven't delivered any successes. There have been a few but obviously they didn't deliver on the biggest one of them all.

I don't think unfair at all, coming second in 6 nations is not success. Winning the odd game against the SH sides but losing the majority in the series againt them, e.g. beat NZ but lose to Aus and SA. Not success.

So I think it is very fair to say they failed in most aspects and with all the stories dripping out about player welfare it is obvious they were inept and unprofessional.

You may not see them as a success but they were. 

I agree the injury story that's coming out doesn't sound good, but then there are two sides to the story - are we to actually believe a player would play if they felt they couldn't due to injury?

So some blame has to go to the player

nathan wrote:You may not see them as a success but they were. 

I agree the injury story that's coming out doesn't sound good, but then there are two sides to the story - are we to actually believe a player would play if they felt they couldn't due to injury?

So some blame has to go to the player

A one off win is not a success, a series win yes, winning two out of three maybe but they never did. Just one off performance followed by dross.

The injury thing isn't new, Youings went back injured too. They were a shambles, just because they seemed like nice people does not alter this. Good riddance as far as I am concerned, I look forward to the new team.

lostinwales wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:But we were led to believe that all was rosy behind closed doors in the England camp when clearly they were not, JJ having to play when injured was just a joke, plus the whole Burgess issue what a farce.

These guys were out of their depth and I bet you some coaches at amateur clubs could have done better.

I think it is appalling that JJ played in that state, but he did pass the tests and was desperate to play. He didn't realise the extent of the damage until later. I'd put that one more down to faulty diagnosis than coaching.

The coaches did feck up, and they did so on the biggest stage. But not everything that went wrong was down to them

JJ probably looked world class in training... it's what you needed to be picked by Lancaster....

I find it amusing that in 2011 we had Nick Easter say "£35k down the toilet".

Sounds like in 2015 it was the kit man who encouraged more than £35k down the toilet..... Wonder if Easter was part of that. Now that would be ironic....

Hmm,

According to the radio Borthwick to be appointed as Forwards Coach. Not happy about that at all if true as he is a complete novice. Hoping the journo got his wires crossed as best thing all round would be for him to stay at Bristol and keep learning how to be a forwards coach whilst being seconded to England for all International gatherings as a lineout consultant.

Student-A1 wrote:

A one off win is not a success, a series win yes, winning two out of three maybe but they never did. Just one off performance followed by dross.

Failing to win the 6Ns is a disappointment, but not a failure of the epic proportions you have claimed across a number of threads. nor has the Lancaster been complete dross. 80% winning record across four tournaments is a decent return.

Ultimately we were not successful at the crucial time, but to then apply revisionist rewriting tactics for the entire tenure is myopic foolishness of the highest order. I sincerely hope you do not apply these high standards to your own life - else you are set for decades of disappointment.

LondonTiger wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:

A one off win is not a success, a series win yes, winning two out of three maybe but they never did. Just one off performance followed by dross.

Failing to win the 6Ns is a disappointment, but not a failure of the epic proportions you have claimed across a number of threads. nor has the Lancaster been complete dross. 80% winning record across four tournaments is a decent return.

Ultimately we were not successful at the crucial time, but to then apply revisionist rewriting tactics for the entire tenure is myopic foolishness of the highest order. I sincerely hope you do not apply these high standards to your own life - else you are set for decades of disappointment.

Outstanding phrases of garbage there superstar. What triumphs were there?? Every big game was lost, when ever they were playing for anything we lost. The record against the SH was a joke, but we can take solice in beating the might of Scotland and Italy on each occassion of the great tenure. I hope you go for something less than mediocrity in your life, felt I owed you advice as you seemed to want to offer me some.
To have zero 6 nations titles let alone a Grand Slam is pathetic as we saw the standard of it at the world cup. The bar should be set hugely high in this job, to think otherwise is an appalling attitude to have and argubly one held by too many in powerful positions in the RFU hence the results the last 10 or so years. If you are happy with substandard performances then yes I get your dissappointment of the coaches leaving. I will chose to expect performances of a higher standard but I will take your advice and reflect upon it for the duration it warrants. Note I never said anyone was wrong in their opinion just happened to voice my own, maybe you should reflect on that.

I think we need to remember it wasn't just JJ that was injured. Half the bloomin squad they picked had an injury or was recovering from one etc.

You can risk a couple...but not the numbers they seemed to take.

Personally id rather a fully fit fourth choice that an injured / out of condition first choice.

That's Lancasters biggest clanger!

GeordieFalcon wrote:I think we need to remember it wasn't just JJ that was injured. Half the bloomin squad they picked had an injury or was recovering from one etc.

You can risk a couple...but not the numbers they seemed to take.

Personally id rather a fully fit fourth choice that an injured / out of condition first choice.

That's Lancasters biggest clanger!

One of may IMO (although seems like this is a forum where not allowed opinions). Lancasters whole regime just screams unprofessional but people don't criticise it as he is a lovely chap and the culture was great.

I am in no way Stuart Barnes' biggest fan (selling it short somewhat) but hard to disagree that next to no progress was made in the 4 years. Lancasters fault?? Not really he wasn't qualified, he was given the job on the basis of grinding out some ok results playing a dull brand of rugby which he reverted to in the world cup. I have said it before that the blame is all on the RFU really but to be happy with the performances in the last 4 years bar the odd one off is just not correct.

I think we did see some progress at times, but that wasn't continued and we stood still and weren't good enough ultimately.

I personally think they were so blinded by trying to copy NZ that they lost focus.

I also wasn't totally sold on the ultra fitness malarkey...turning powerful props like Cole in to "flankers"...

But I agree with the above...it wasn't all bad. They did play some good rugby at times and won some games.

But GeordieFalcon they played some good rugby under Johnson. And success is not measured over 80 minutes, this tenure was a farce. You mention some of the stuff, making dominant props into pushovers in the scrum. That is so dumb it is unreal. I would also argue Cole makes less turnovers now than when he was more powerful. I just do not see any progress from when Johnson was there. The odd good game follwed by crap. I just don't see that as progress.

Fiji play some lovely rugby at times too, all teams do but surely consistency of performance is what defines success and Englands against the top teams was woeful. The fact that people were so happy winning the Calcutta cup and other trophies of similar standing is indicative of the decline.

I have faith that they now have a coach who will have a plan for the way to play, will not be happy with second in the 6 nations and will push on. I may be wrong but the difference in experience and quality between Jones and Lanacaster is huge. Exciting times I believe.

I still think theres a bit of rating the players a bit too highly. We are a good team and the core of it could become very good. Given the experience, age and some of the younger players coming through the next 4 years always looked to be more promising than the last 4.

We are all entitled to our opinions...I just don't think it was a total farce, but I do agre ultimately it was a failure.

I think they were probably a little out of their depth and lost focus on what they should have been doing.

There were too many areas where we were obviously poor yet they never seemed to work on fixing them. Ie the breakdown

We missed carriers in the pack. I think it was a big mistake to have pretty much the number 8 as our only big time carrier.

So yes...not a good one...but we draw a line under it now...take the jokes that's been slung at us after the WC hope that this new team will install some power, drive, and start wiping the smirks of the others fans faces.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I still think theres a bit of rating the players a bit too highly. We are a good team and the core of it could become very good. Given the experience, age and some of the younger players coming through the next 4 years always looked to be more promising than the last 4.

I think your right 7.5

So at the moment is this what we have...or should have shortly.

Head Coach & Attack Coach - Eddie Jones
Lineout Coach (and other forward duties) - Steve Borthwick
Defence Coach (and some forward duties) - Paul Gustard
Scrum Coach - To be confirmed

GeordieFalcon wrote:We are all entitled to our opinions...I just don't think it was a total farce, but I do agre ultimately it was a failure.

I think they were probably a little out of their depth and lost focus on what they should have been doing.

There were too many areas where we were obviously poor yet they never seemed to work on fixing them. Ie the breakdown

We missed carriers in the pack. I think it was a big mistake to have pretty much the number 8 as our only big time carrier.

So yes...not a good one...but we draw a line under it now...take the jokes that's been slung at us after the WC hope that this new team will install some power, drive, and start wiping the smirks of the others fans faces.

Agree with all, do think it is an exciting future and drew the line under Lancaster after world cup as his job was untenable. We chose a novice and it showed for 4 years but now we have a proven coach. Should be good.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I still think theres a bit of rating the players a bit too highly. We are a good team and the core of it could become very good. Given the experience, age and some of the younger players coming through the next 4 years always looked to be more promising than the last 4.

I think everyone is guilty of this but don't think us English fans are as bad as the Welsh or Irish who always seem to think they have the next world great. Would also say we criticise harshly too, its what fans do I suppose.

Student-A1 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:We are all entitled to our opinions...I just don't think it was a total farce, but I do agre ultimately it was a failure.

I think they were probably a little out of their depth and lost focus on what they should have been doing.

There were too many areas where we were obviously poor yet they never seemed to work on fixing them. Ie the breakdown

We missed carriers in the pack. I think it was a big mistake to have pretty much the number 8 as our only big time carrier.

So yes...not a good one...but we draw a line under it now...take the jokes that's been slung at us after the WC hope that this new team will install some power, drive, and start wiping the smirks of the others fans faces.

Agree with all, do think it is an exciting future and drew the line under Lancaster after world cup as his job was untenable. We chose a novice and it showed for 4 years but now we have a proven coach. Should be good.

Lets hope so....we'd really be in the pits if he cant get us playing and winning.

I know how it works...

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

Rugby Fan wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Japan had Borthwick and a scrum coach (a french guy) under Eddie.

That's Marc dal Maso. In sad news, he's just revealed he's suffering from Parkinson's disease.

http://www.lequipe.fr/Rugby/Actualites/Marc-dal-maso-souffre-de-la-maladie-de-parkinson/616499

English press has the reports now. He's pretty sure it's a result of head injuries he picked up as a player.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/dec/14/france-marc-dal-maso-parkinsons-disease

nathan wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:It's Official -  Mike Catt, Andy Farrell and Graham Rowntree have been shown the door by Eddie

About time, hardly surprising that coaches who have failed to deliver any success are replaced. Unless you have Ritchie as CEO in which case you give them 20 year contracts

I think it's a little unfair to say they haven't delivered any successes. There have been a few but obviously they didn't deliver on the biggest one of them all.

What successes have they delivered for England? I can't think of anything.

LondonTiger wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:

A one off win is not a success, a series win yes, winning two out of three maybe but they never did. Just one off performance followed by dross.

Failing to win the 6Ns is a disappointment, but not a failure of the epic proportions you have claimed across a number of threads. nor has the Lancaster been complete dross. 80% winning record across four tournaments is a decent return.

Ultimately we were not successful at the crucial time, but to then apply revisionist rewriting tactics for the entire tenure is myopic foolishness of the highest order. I sincerely hope you do not apply these high standards to your own life - else you are set for decades of disappointment.

Try an find any 'success' in the England team under Lancaster and i guarantee you the same mistakes will happen again. The highlighted bit is staggering. I mean, if you get to the fins game of the annual tourney with a look in to win it but lose then the whole tourney is a lost opportunity. Your win % therein is irrelevant.

Its that inherent arrogance that England and some of its so called fans seem unable to shed.

nathan wrote:You may not see them as a success but they were. 

I agree the injury story that's coming out doesn't sound good, but then there are two sides to the story - are we to actually believe a player would play if they felt they couldn't due to injury?

So some blame has to go to the player

How so? Burgess? That was a choice decision.

Someone needs to look up what arrogance actually means before attempting to throw barbs and insults.

Expecting to win the Grand Slam may be arrogance, thinking that doing better than most teams is not a failure palpably is not.

Of course in the modern age, where we are told that someone is always to blame I guess we deem anything that is not an unequivocal success as a dire failure. All I can say is that for most of my rugby watching life losing just once in the 5/6Ns would have been an unattainable dream.