England Summer Tour - Part 2

First topic message reminder :

LondonTiger wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:I just don't get the point in the Cipriani experiment...and I don't get why Robson was taken.

Eddie Jones just baffles me. What is actually going on in his head. Whats his plans with people like this..and Mark Wilson?? etc. Why does he manage people like this.

Pick them for tours then not even look at them again until another meaningless tour needs some bodies to fill the squad.

At least Cipriani is getting a start. I was wondering if Eddie only took him on tour to stop him signing a big money contract overseas. It does seem strange that Robson has not had even a sniff, especially with Danny-boy starting this test. Supposedly the weather is meant to be wet and windy tomorrow so maybe Jones thinks the Wasp's game is not tight enough?

Wilson has at least added marginally to his tally of caps - but Jones does seem to view him as an inferior alternative to Robshaw.

I agree that's how he probably does see him, and probably a large majority of England fans aswell. However in that case why bother taking him. Why not take the young potential in both Curry's to see if they can eclipse Robshaw. Why has Simmonds not even had a minute on the pitch.
Why is Mercer not getting games.
Why take Ben Earl??


His whole management just confuses me a lot.

No I don't think they would be. you're looking at Lancaster with rose tinted specs there.

He had a plan I'm sure, but it wasn't working and I don't think it ever would have worked.

He wanted a very athletic pack that were all endurance athletes. They weren't powerful enough, or physical enough to actually compete though, and I don't think he was looking at changing.

His backs were very conservative picks, based around a game plan of Farrel at 10 kicking a lot.

He struggled with Farrel snr and by all accounts wasnt in full control.

He messed around with the backrow, he mucked up the whole Burgess situation, he stuck with some players too long and others never got a chance.

He sounds a lot like Eddie actually!

But Eddie gave the players belief, swagger, a winners mentality. Yes we've taken a big knock. But k still believe Eddie can galvanized this team far better then SL could.

Thatll be a first for Eddie if he does then. Once the downward spiral starts it usually doesnt stop, or he jumps ship.

yappysnap wrote:No I don't think they would be. you're looking at Lancaster with rose tinted specs there.

He had a plan I'm sure, but it wasn't working and I don't think it ever would have worked.

He wanted a very athletic pack that were all endurance athletes. They weren't powerful enough, or physical enough to actually compete though, and I don't think he was looking at changing.

His backs were very conservative picks, based around a game plan of Farrel at 10 kicking a lot.

He struggled with Farrel snr and by all accounts wasnt in full control.

He messed around with the backrow, he mucked up the whole Burgess situation, he stuck with some players too long and others never got a chance.

He sounds a lot like Eddie actually!

But Eddie gave the players belief, swagger, a winners mentality. Yes we've taken a big knock. But k still believe Eddie can galvanized this team far better then SL could.

Agree with your points, mate.  However, to add to them, when Lancaster made his plans, he was unable or unwilling to change them or adapt.  I thought this was his ultimate undoing.  

Plus, he unrealistically wanted all his players to be choir boys and actually discouraged the players from going out for a pint or two.  That was weird.  I remember the situation with the team when he came in, but there was no need to swing the pendulum that far when the answer was to deal with the specific people problem.

I thought it was very bad to not cover for and support Robshaw as captain more aggressively.  Whether Robshaw should have been captain is a fair topic.  But Robshaw always works like a dog, and certainly appears a good man and fine role model.  To not support him to a greater degree and take criticism more on himself was unfair.  I felt Lancaster went through the motions only.

The Burgess situation was even weirder, and Lancaster was unable to get on the same page with Bath and with the RFU which caused more problems.  One thing Burgess could certainly do in Rugby Union was defend.  But in that Wales match when there was a lead to protect, what did Lancaster do?  Sub out Burgess.  I presumed that was his plan which, again, Lancaster was unable to change.  

Where Eddie goes from here is unknown.  But given he is on £750k per year (so I am told), I doubt he is anxious to leave.

funnyExiledScot wrote:I'm an Everton fan

COYB!!

When Eddie came out and said some of his players were slow learners and he was bringing in a brain research expert I thought that’s an interesting development. Ok, sports psychology and psychologists are common as daylight these days but to say some of his players are ‘slow learners’ didn’t really seem like a good thing to be saying to the media. That’s public humiliation kind of stuff. It could be true but it doesn’t scream team harmony.

ebop wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:I'm an Everton fan

COYB!!

When Eddie came out and said some of his players were slow learners and he was bringing in a brain research expert I thought that’s an interesting development. Ok, sports psychology and psychologists are common as daylight these days but to say some of his players are ‘slow learners’ didn’t really seem like a good thing to be saying to the media. That’s public humiliation kind of stuff. It could be true but it doesn’t scream team harmony.

They probably didn't understand.

Taylorman wrote:Thatll be a first for Eddie if he does then. Once the downward spiral starts it usually doesnt stop, or he jumps ship.

That's a fair point. But I expect him to have at least another season with us before he does, so a chance to tighten it a bit

yappysnap wrote:Ashton, Yarde, Solomena, Earl. I'd say it's between those four for a spot in the EPS.

And the wing and FB slots are already well covered with May, Nowell, Brown and Daily.

Is it still an EPS or has it changed again?

There is a 45-man EPS but I'm not sure if it gets announced any more. He then picks smaller squads for training camps and series.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Here's a question: would England be better off with Lancaster still in charge?

I know that Eddie had a remarkable start as England coach and yes, Lancaster went a bit mad at the last World Cup with Sam Burgess et al, but I always felt that Lancaster had a plan, and his selections made sense. With Eddie everything now feels a little but chaotic.

I'm an Everton fan, so apologies for this football analogy, but it reminds me of when Roberto Martinez inherited a well run club from David Moyes, sprinkled a bit a creativity on it, and everything started well. But the fundamentals then started to fall to pieces and the inherited structures started to decline. Is that what we're seeing here with England, or is it simply a case of going through a tricky period? On the plus side Jonny May is in storming form!!

It's an interesting question, and I guess some of it depends on would the team around Lancaster change? Potentially Lancaster with a different coaching team around him would have been better? Or just a rejig of everyone's roles and responsibilities?

When Lancaster was in charge, we were a decent enough side but lacked something. We didn't win the Six Nations in 4 years (despite going 4/5 each year, we could never bring everything together) we didn't win in the Southern Hemisphere in our two main tours 2 tours (SA 2012 and NZ 2014) and our Autumn record was poor against the big 3: 1/3 in 2012, 1/2 in 2013, 1/3 in 2014.

That's not to slate the guy too much, he brought us forward from where we were under Johnson, but he didn't quite get us to where Eddie got us 2016 and 2017. Yes, we suffered 5 straight losses under Eddie, but we also suffered that under Lancaster in 2014 (3 away tests in NZ, home tests against NZ and SA) - and he didn't win the trophies or away test and series wins that Eddie has pulled off.

robbo277 wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:Here's a question: would England be better off with Lancaster still in charge?

I know that Eddie had a remarkable start as England coach and yes, Lancaster went a bit mad at the last World Cup with Sam Burgess et al, but I always felt that Lancaster had a plan, and his selections made sense. With Eddie everything now feels a little but chaotic.

I'm an Everton fan, so apologies for this football analogy, but it reminds me of when Roberto Martinez inherited a well run club from David Moyes, sprinkled a bit a creativity on it, and everything started well. But the fundamentals then started to fall to pieces and the inherited structures started to decline. Is that what we're seeing here with England, or is it simply a case of going through a tricky period? On the plus side Jonny May is in storming form!!

It's an interesting question, and I guess some of it depends on would the team around Lancaster change? Potentially Lancaster with a different coaching team around him would have been better? Or just a rejig of everyone's roles and responsibilities?

When Lancaster was in charge, we were a decent enough side but lacked something. We didn't win the Six Nations in 4 years (despite going 4/5 each year, we could never bring everything together) we didn't win in the Southern Hemisphere in our two main tours 2 tours (SA 2012 and NZ 2014) and our Autumn record was poor against the big 3: 1/3 in 2012, 1/2 in 2013, 1/3 in 2014.

That's not to slate the guy too much, he brought us forward from where we were under Johnson, but he didn't quite get us to where Eddie got us 2016 and 2017. Yes, we suffered 5 straight losses under Eddie, but we also suffered that under Lancaster in 2014 (3 away tests in NZ, home tests against NZ and SA) - and he didn't win the trophies or away test and series wins that Eddie has pulled off.

It seems that there were parts of the role Lancaster was very good at and others that he was poor at. I hope he has learned a great deal but I think the kinds of changes he needed to make to become a much better coach are not the kinds of things that are easy to do while staying in the same role.

Ellis Genge's will miss the start of the season, and probably not return for Leicester till after AIs. With Watson also on the long term injured list, wonder how others are doing. Anyone seen an update on Billy?

I understand there is some finger-pointing regarding Billy's injury and whether it was appropriate for him to return when he did. Not much transparency regarding other injuries, so hard to tell.

Genge hurt his knee first against Barbarians and some suggestions that he should not have toured. Aggregated it in first week of training then finally knackered it in training before second test.

I get that EJ wants tough training, but there often seems to be a lack of any duty of care.

Do you think its just EJ or the RFU in general?
I guess when someone is paralyzed or dies things might change but in the meantime its all business and money talks.

There's already casea of players being paralysed in training has there not?

No 7&1/2 wrote:There's already casea of players being paralysed in training has there not?

Matt Hampson for one, though the circumstances of that (scrum collapse) make it a genuine accident. Sam Jones injury, caused by practicing judo when not all the participants had received the relevant coaching really should have sparked a H&S investigation.

What really worries me about Jones is the way he rushes players back after injury, when they appear palpably unfit to play.

LondonTiger wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:There's already casea of players being paralysed in training has there not?

Matt Hampson for one, though the circumstances of that (scrum collapse) make it a genuine accident. Sam Jones injury, caused by practicing judo when not all the participants had received the relevant coaching really should have sparked a H&S investigation.

What really worries me about Jones is the way he rushes players back after injury, when they appear palpably unfit to play.

To be fair, Billy was playing for Sarries before the SA tour so should have been fit enough (arm) to play for England. If the break had not mended properly, he shouldn't have played for Sarries

That's the guy his name was escaping me.

I always think bringing back players is a bit of art and science.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:There's already casea of players being paralysed in training has there not?

Matt Hampson for one, though the circumstances of that (scrum collapse) make it a genuine accident. Sam Jones injury, caused by practicing judo when not all the participants had received the relevant coaching really should have sparked a H&S investigation.

What really worries me about Jones is the way he rushes players back after injury, when they appear palpably unfit to play.

To be fair, Billy was playing for Sarries before the SA tour so should have been fit enough (arm) to play for England. If the break had not mended properly, he shouldn't have played for Sarries

This is exactly the point about the finger pointing:  Who was ultimately responsible?  Clearly, the other guy.  Sarries wanted a championship to end the season.  EJ and/or RFU wanted a successful June tour.  Billy even?  To me, the lack of transparency is a big part of the problem.  Combined with the overall mentality which allows overuse of players, and this has not changed one bit in any Rugby country in any significant manner since the turn of the century (pick which one).  And the medical teams are part of it too..

The difference in level between club and international rugby is significant, so a player can be club fit but not international fit. Most people would put South Africa in the top 2 or 3 teams for physicality in the world, so if there was any potential weakness then Billy should not have gone. Yes it would have been nice to have won the series, but the world hasn't ended because we lost it. There has to be the risk now that Billy's arm will always have a weakness and perhaps a longer term view of resting Billy for the tour to help ensure he was in peak fitness and health for the World Cup was something a lot of people on this site were advocating.

Hughes is another player who never seems to have fully recovered from the knee injury issues that started in the last test in Argentina 2017.

There do seem to be more issues with Eddie - the suitability of some of the exercises being undertaken such as the judo and the general intensity level he insists on - which feeds into the view that player welfare is not high up on his list. His arrogant attitude to the clubs and media won't in the long run do him any favours.

Once players whose careers are adversely affected by injuries start suing their clubs and rugby unions, then things will change.

With Eddie, the guy has unreasonably high standards. Eventually the players check out because they are giving it 100%. Eddie doubles down and calls his players ‘slow learners’ because he thinks they’re ‘only’ giving it 98.5% when they’re maxed out. Game over. He can’t get that 1.5% he thinks he needs but will never attain using the methods he knows because he’s a fookwit.

Im not a fan of Nathan Hughes but that lad has been flogged relentlessly. Never been allowed to get over injuries or anything.

Don't feel this deserves it's own thread, guess we won't really need one until the next England squad announcement so we can tear chunks out of it.

But it is being reported on the BBC that Eddie Jones is looking for a defence coach to replace Gustard and an attack coach before the Autumn.

Brown says England are in "discussions with various people" for a new defence coach, after Paul Gustard stepped down following the South Africa tour to take charge of Premiership side Harlequins.

"Eddie (Jones) and the RFU are looking to appoint a coach as quickly as possible and before the autumn internationals.

"This is Eddie's appointment as well so it's important that he is making the selection too. He is also talking about an attack coach as well, so that we have a full complement in terms of the autumn."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/45012717

We need them both! And attack coach and a defence coach.

Maybe a new head coach aswell

A new forwards coach would be good too

Indeed

LondonTiger wrote:A new forwards coach would be good too

Dorian West??????????????????????

Well would Dorian be a bad coach? He developed a hell of a pack when he arrived at Saints. Maybe he just got stale.

A fresh challenge might invigorate him and the England pack

GeordieFalcon wrote:Well would Dorian be a bad coach? He developed a hell of a pack when he arrived at Saints. Maybe he just got stale.

A fresh challenge might invigorate him and the England pack

He did get Saints to scrimmage effectively.  But his initial Premiership starting front row included a young Hartley sandwiched between two really great scrummagers, Brian Mujati and Tiny.   And they could also run a bit, too.  Not bad raw materials for an effective pack.  Ultimately, I think Dorian needs to build back his rep elsewhere.  I still have this feeling Richard Hill could liberate himself from his current commitments and coach the pack.  Lead by smarts and example.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/45033976

I guess we're stuck with Hartley until after the WC!!!

Doc..."The Burgess situation was even weirder, and Lancaster was unable to get on the same page with Bath and with the RFU which caused more problems. One thing Burgess could certainly do in Rugby Union was defend. But in that Wales match when there was a lead to protect, what did Lancaster do? Sub out Burgess. I presumed that was his plan which, again, Lancaster was unable to change."

I thought this was a strange move at the time, but the alleged thinking was to have 2 kickers (Ford replaced Burgess) pin Wales in their own half for the final 10 minutes. Of course Ford and Farrell have worked out pretty good since then.

The real crime was in panicking and playing a side against Wales and also Australia that contained mid-fields that had not played together before. With all the preparation time and matches why did this happen? Quite rightly sacked. I am glad to see him do well at Leinster and do believe he is an excellent coach, just not a head coach. Eddie could do worse than recruit Stuart to be our attack coach.

hugehandoff wrote:Doc..."The Burgess situation was even weirder, and Lancaster was unable to get on the same page with Bath and with the RFU which caused more problems.  One thing Burgess could certainly do in Rugby Union was defend.  But in that Wales match when there was a lead to protect, what did Lancaster do?  Sub out Burgess.  I presumed that was his plan which, again, Lancaster was unable to change."

I thought this was a strange move at the time, but the alleged thinking was to have 2 kickers (Ford replaced Burgess) pin Wales in their own half for the final 10 minutes. Of course Ford and Farrell have worked out pretty good since then.

The real crime was in panicking and playing a side against Wales and also Australia that contained mid-fields that had not played together before. With all the preparation time and matches why did this happen? Quite rightly sacked. I am glad to see him do well at Leinster and do believe he is an excellent coach, just not a head coach. Eddie could do worse than recruit Stuart to be our attack coach.  

Good points.  I think bringing on Ford with a lead to defend was a clear mistake.  But, as you say, in the big picture, playing unfamiliar mid-field combinations was more of the problem.  

So...is Brad Shields not a thing anymore ? I'm assume Ashton will be in the backrow now ?

munkian wrote:So...is Brad Shields not a thing anymore ? I'm assume Ashton will be in the backrow now ?

Shields is rested post his Hurricanes season having just concluded

munkian wrote:So...is Brad Shields not a thing anymore ? I'm assume Ashton will be in the backrow now ?

??

munkian wrote:So...is Brad Shields not a thing anymore ? I'm assume Ashton will be in the backrow now ?

We need a Number 8. A Number 8 who will make a splash....