Eddie Jones - England's New Coach

Kruis and Joseph were both poor in the first half. Kruis's tactics when calling the lineouts were shockingly bad. Hartley got away with two squint throws at the start, but was then pinged for a crooked one and saw one pinched. All four Kruis called to himself. After that the calls got more and more complicated, involving a lit of movement and switching of positions - yet every time he kept calling to himself, thus easy to defend and predict.

I am torn on Joseph. Until he made the interception he had been really poor, but that was fantastic play - as was his finish for the 3rd try. so strangely I woul dnot say he was the best player - but with 3 key moments he was MotM i guess.

Youngs did ok, for me 6/10 - average - though having checked about a Dozen reviews now he got one 6, two 8s (crazy) and the rest 7s. One journo even stated he was clearly Englands best player in the first half. Cannot agree - but a sign that we all see things differently.

bluestonevedder wrote:
- Clifford carried well and looked busy, but why was he brought on at 6?

Was he? Robshaw had moved to 7 when Itoje came on, so I just assumed Clifford packed down on the OS when he replaced the former skipper. Did not look closely though.

I hadn't spotted that Youngs got MOTM - had assumed it would be Joseph (about which I would have no complaints). Kruis definitely looks at home at this level - if he and Hartley/George can sort the lineout then he could be around for a long time.

- Itoje missed two tackles from what I can remember, but was immense in everything else he did. I think the missed tackles were due to overeagerness

Agree, one missed tackle was exactly down to that.

I laughed when we won a scrum and Itoje was jumping up and down clapping like he was going to wet himself...

Nice to see enthusiasm like that though.

LondonTiger wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:
- Clifford carried well and looked busy, but why was he brought on at 6?

Was he? Robshaw had moved to 7 when Itoje came on, so I just assumed Clifford packed down on the OS when he replaced the former skipper. Did not look closely though.

Clifford came on at 7. The flanks were:
Robshaw 6 Haskell 7
Itoje 6 Robshaw 7 (Naughty Eddie... didn't he say he wouldn't do that?)
Itoje 6 Clifford 7.

If Haskell and Robshaw aren't international opensides then Itoje, for all his huge potential, definitely isn't!

Poorfour wrote:I hadn't spotted that Youngs got MOTM

He was rather embarrassed about it and tried to give the medal to JJ. Youngs is now being abused on Twitter rather pathetically as if it was hi sfault, rather than the voting audience.

Poorfour wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:
- Clifford carried well and looked busy, but why was he brought on at 6?

Was he? Robshaw had moved to 7 when Itoje came on, so I just assumed Clifford packed down on the OS when he replaced the former skipper. Did not look closely though.

Clifford came on at 7. The flanks were:
Robshaw 6 Haskell 7
Itoje 6 Robshaw 7 (Naughty Eddie... didn't he say he wouldn't do that?)
Itoje 6 Clifford 7.

If Haskell and Robshaw aren't international opensides then Itoje, for all his huge potential, definitely isn't!

Apologies, that's my mistake.

Would it matter anyway? I know Jones has talked about Clifford as an 8 who can play 7, but 6 is probably the least specialised position in the pack, and Clifford has all the attributes you'd want in one.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/12166836/Six-Nations-2016-England-head-coach-Eddie-Jones-does-not-believe-England-possess-any-truly-world-class-players.html

Refreshing to see a coach being honest. Interesting that he talks about coaching the last coaches team and changing 80% of players by the World Cup. Brings up the old debate about defining world class, but interesting that he doesn't think there are currently any world class players in the country with the biggest resources.

Odd one as he stated Cole was the best TH in the world (or perhaps getting back to?) after the Italian game.

offload wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/12166836/Six-Nations-2016-England-head-coach-Eddie-Jones-does-not-believe-England-possess-any-truly-world-class-players.html

Refreshing to see a coach being honest.  Interesting that he talks about coaching the last coaches team and changing 80% of players by the World Cup.  Brings up the old debate about defining world class, but interesting that he doesn't think there are currently any world class players in the country with the biggest resources.

I am not sure he was saying he would change 85 the players. He said he would change the team by 80%. You can change a team by improving the current players as well as bringing in new ones.

Jones is aware that we have played the two easiest matches first up, and is now preparing people for defeat. Of course if we win he can herald his own tactical genius.

I suspect the man has a Masters in Self Publicity.

Eddie constantly talks about the 23 being the team not the 15 and now world class is a world 15?

Jones might claim the team won't represent his brand of rugby for three years, but you can be certain he'll be happy to take the credit for any success England might achieve before then.

Jones has already thanked Lancaster for leaving him with a good squad. However, if we do happen to win this year's 6N, I don't think he'll be inviting Bomber along to collect the trophy.

It's all a double bluff, he's actually being arrogant. He's just not learnt how to do it properly yet.

Mind you, I don't think there are any world 15 players in the NH.

I like his chat about the 23. Just wished he practiced what he preached.

Still a very conservative selection in his first two games.

Not much different to Lancaster so far.

Though if there is any it's that Eddie Jones has a vastly superior defence coach.

I still find it hilarious that Ireland want Farrell Sr. Farrell Sr did okay with England but that's it - okay.

So far Gustard has kept a clean sheet with England and the points conceeded low.

With regards to the World Class players...hes only saying what most of us have been saying for years! And he also said that several of them "should" make the step up.

Again what we have been saying.

With regards to all his other media spouting...he's a master at playing the media. He'll just keep feeding them all sorts...

He will have a very strong idea of where he is with the team and where he wants to be.

Geordiefalcon some players can't step up if only given mere scraps of gametime.....

And there isn't enough game time to provide it to all the players that need it.

Yes but Beshocked...he wants to win games first.

Hes picked 2 teams that has done that so far.

He also finished the game with a young exciting pack.

I for one don't think throwing all the kids in to start against Ireland is the right answer. He will do the same and I expect to see the same pack finish against Ireland.

Rome wasn't built in a day!

Hammerofthunor it's important to give it to those who need it more!

Geordiefalcon yes of course you want to win but you have to get yourself in a position where the team is developing. So far the young exciting players you mentioned have only had mere scraps thrown at them. I have never advocated changing the entire pack, just a little less conservative mindset.

I have never suggested throwing anyone in but if you couldn't try someone new as a starter vs Scotland and Italy then when do you? The toughest matches?

You want to win so it's better to risk vs weaker opposition.

If you hamper the development of newer players then you are forced to stick with the older players which is a conservative and negative mindset. At the moment the balance is still all wrong.

Now someone like Clifford or Itoje might be thrown in against Ireland as a starter, I would have suggested that they should have been introduced as a starter vs Italy or Scotland if that was Eddie Jones' plan.

But Jones wants to have a solid team first, then introduce Itoje, Clifford etc.

They got scraps v Scotland, but all got more time v Italy.
The pack that finished was excellent.

They will get suitable gametime v Ireland, and so on.

I don't get how you say they are not developing the team when a the pack that finished the game was:
1 Marler
2 George
3 Hill
4 Kruis
5 Launchbury
6 Itoje
7 Clfford
8 Billy V

The important question you really need to ask for the Ireland game is what do we need to get the best performance and result. That may well be introducing George (if you really think he's the answer to improve the lineout after one game) or Lawes/Launchbury, even Clifford or/and Itoje (lock or flanker). if they're what the coach sees as the best choice do it.

The lineout failures vs Italy were down to both Kruis and Hartley.

All of the replacements did well and had an impact (which is a nice change from the Lancaster years) but they were playing a team that had been hit by early injuries and that had been ground down by the starting 15. They did as well as they could have done, but its not conclusive proof that they should start.

Geordiefalcon do you honestly think scraps of gametime is sufficient? They got slightly bigger scraps vs Italy than Scotland, still scraps.

Suitable gametime? What's that?

lostinwales I agree it's not conclusive proof they should start.... that's the problem... because of the lack of gametime we don't know.

Squandering opportunities vs Scotland and Italy could bite England.

They got more than scraps though?

Its progressed gradually over the two games.

England are better now they have a Sarries defence coach.

They aren't playing Sarries players enough...

We get it.

What opportunities did England squander exactly? I had the impression that we have been good at scoring off the opportunities we have created. (Just need more opportunities )

Maybe could have done better vs Scotland but both teams we have played lost their other games by much smaller margins than against us.

If George started vs Ireland would it be a terrible thing?

GeordieFalcon wrote:They got more than scraps though?

Its progressed gradually over the two games.

The new(ish) guys brought on all had more time off the bench than they got against Scotland.

No 7&1/2 wrote:If George started vs Ireland would it be a terrible thing?

Quality player wise no problem. Who is captain?

No 7&1/2 wrote:If George started vs Ireland would it be a terrible thing?

No. though the thought of Captain Farrell scares me.

Throw it to Billy or Farrell?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Throw it to Billy or Farrell?

And there rests the case for the preservation of Hartley as 1st choice hooker....

I'd have Hartley start as I think he's better and I think Jones does too and picked his captain based on that. There isn't much between them though and if there were doubt the captaicy would save his spot.

I don't see on what basis you can say Hartley has been better than George this season. I don't even think you can say he's been the best hooker at Saints.

I don't think captaincy is worth making selections round.

I want us to beat Ireland and then win the 6 nations. It's a hell of a lot easier to develop with a happy, winning team.

Dropping Hartley right now isn't an option. Starting George on the summer tour for 1/2 games might be.

Key questions for me:

Brookes/Hill - I'd go Brookes.
Lawes/Itoje - Itoje
I'd put Burrell on the bench as 22.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd have Hartley start as I think he's better and I think Jones does too and picked his captain based on that. There isn't much between them though and if there were doubt the captaicy would save his spot.

There is not much between them. Of course both will play so it is not of matter of which to play but which of them is best to start and which to come from the bench. Personally I think Hartley is better suited to the first part of the game before things open up. George is better able to take advantage of the looser game later on.

Scottrf wrote:I don't see on what basis you can say Hartley has been better than George this season. I don't even think you can say he's been the best hooker at Saints.

I don't think captaincy is worth making selections round.

Form vs quality,he hasn't been available enough but for me hes the best English hooker.

Exiledinborders wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd have Hartley start as I think he's better and I think Jones does too and picked his captain based on that. There isn't much between them though and if there were doubt the captaicy would save his spot.

There is not much between them. Of course both will play so it is not of matter of which to play but which of them is best to start and which to come from the bench. Personally I think Hartley is better suited to the first part of the game before things open up. George is better able to take advantage of the looser game later on.

I agree with that as well.

I never said we should drop Hartley vs Ireland. I am saying he should have never been made captain/started vs Scotland.

As that wasn't the case I would have preferred George to get more than 15 minutes in two games vs the two weakest teams.

I am not even saying Hartley's a bad player - he's been a good servant of England over the years but England cannot rely on one or two players like they have with Billy and Hartley. When you make someone your captain you are forced to play them regardless of form and Hartley was struggling leading into the 6 nations and I wasn't impressed with his performance vs Italy. He was solid vs Scotland I guess.

The experience of back up to Billy and Hartley is close to non existent.

England do have a lack of leadership so why not try and give some more responsibility to the likes of Clifford,Itoje and George who could be potential leaders?

Most of us would agree that Farrell Jr and Billy aren't captain material so why even bother giving them VC roles. Both have enough on their plate anyway.

I think you'll see the youngsters starting in the Summer tour.

You have to understand, Jones has only been in charge of England for a matter of a few months. He's watched many games and no doubt been impressed with the kids, but he's picked solid performers initially.

Players like Robshaw etc are good players, for him to base the side. He'll get a feel for the younsters in their 15 min run outs...

But it's the Summer tour where the ones who impressed will really come to the fore..

We lack caps in depth everywhere in the team.

Geordiefalcon great.... summer tour when everyone's tired from a long season...playing Australia.... good time to throw in the youngsters...one of the strongest opponents you can..

There's only so much that can be learnt from scraps of gametime vs a tired and mentally worn out Italian side. The youngsters did seem promising but more gametime needed.

If only scraps vs the two weakest sides.... how much vs the stronger ones?

no 7 & 1/2 I agree that's why England need to start the development process in certain areas.

Process has begun. Simply can't happen that quickly as there aren't enough games and theres so many good players.

beshocked wrote:Geordiefalcon great.... summer tour when everyone's tired from a long season...playing Australia.... good time to throw in the youngsters...one of the strongest opponents you can..

There's only so much that can be learnt from scraps of gametime vs a tired and mentally worn out Italian side. The youngsters did seem promising but more gametime needed.

If only scraps vs the two weakest sides.... how much vs the stronger ones?

no 7 & 1/2 I agree that's why England need to start the development process in certain areas.

Tired and Mentally worn out?

Is "scraps of gametime" your new words of the day?

beshocked wrote:Geordiefalcon great.... summer tour when everyone's tired from a long season...playing Australia.... good time to throw in the youngsters...one of the strongest opponents you can..

There's only so much that can be learnt from scraps of gametime vs a tired and mentally worn out Italian side. The youngsters did seem promising but more gametime needed.

If only scraps vs the two weakest sides.... how much vs the stronger ones?

no 7 & 1/2 I agree that's why England need to start the development process in certain areas.

I think the idea is that they get "scraps" (in some cases actually a good quarter or more of the game) against Italy and Scotland, then scraps (sub at 60 minutes is a scrap?) against the better teams also. They will then have between 50 and 100 minutes of game time against a variety of sides. Come the Australia tour Jones can then more easily assess them and maybe start those who did well.

Seems very sensible to me.

On a different tack, as a squad I feel England are probably there or there abouts.

Who is one player you would add which you think would improve the overall squad? I.e not picked for this 6 nations. This doesn't include players named in the squad but injured, Slade, Ewers etc.

Mine would be Joe Simpson, real shame he got injured when he did.

little_badger wrote:On a different tack, as a squad I feel England are probably there or there abouts.

Who is one player you would add which you think would improve the overall squad? I.e not picked for this 6 nations. This doesn't include players named in the squad but injured, Slade, Ewers etc.

Mine would be Joe Simpson, real shame he got injured when he did.

Sean Robinson

Only joking.....

When thinking about the England team I like to ask the question "Who would be best to face South Africa or New Zealand?" As far as Hookers go it would be Hartley. It may turn out to be George at some time in the future but right now its Hartley by a street.