England v Georgia

[InBetweenWasp]

This board is becoming hard to please.  I’m not sure if it’s the impact of lockdown, or something else but the constant sniping at Saracens players and about England is getting pretty dull. 

The former has been largely done to death.  Personally, I’ll be incredibly disappointed if they’re allowed straight back up without playing a game in the Championship but find a lot of the comments on here unnecessary and unsavoury.

I’m happy to ignore them in general, but in case anyone else feels the same but was worried about being drowned about by others thought I’d say something.

Back to the topic in hand.  When you ignore the crap that he spouts in some of his press interviews (and often I think they’re provoked by crap questions) most of his assertions about the game are fundamentally true and often his underlying reasons for a particular selection, or tactic ring true.

Yes, there’s a couple of examples where England have struggled to work things out on the pitch (Italy), have choked (Wales away a few years ago) or have been out-muscled (South Africa in the Final) but by and large the Jones era has been successful.  Ultimately, when it came to the final I think South Africa found that extra edge through the emotional energy they brought whereas it seemed the pressure seemed to catch-up with England.

Agree with mike909 about an inability at times to change the way they’re playing although not sure I agree that Saturday was necessary - even if we’d like to of seen some running rugby.  Rob Baxter is seemingly on the same page as Eddie in that he believes the importance of the maul is in how it saps the energy of the opposition (important with a big, physical, Georgian pack with a point to prove) as well as maximises reward in terms of points.  With crappy weather, spinning it wide probably wasn’t the right thing to do.

Eddie has been very complimentary about Jack, no reason why he’d be discarded or that only playing a just over a half is to be seen as a negative.  Perhaps he’d seen all he needed to see and his impression from training matched what he saw on the pitch.  So wanted to see how Earl did.

We’ll see where we’re at somewhat vs Ireland this weekend.  On the back off of a decent win, admittedly against a pretty lacklustre Wales and a with a point to prove after we had a decent at Twickenham in the 6N.

[DGP Wasp]

Weather was pretty horrendous, which makes it easier for those who seek to defend Eddie to do so, but does anyone think the game plan would have been any different in better conditions?  I don't.

Biggest issue for me is half back, and specifically Faz at 10.  Our backs just don't get the opportunity with ball in hand.  Ford and Faz at 10/12 at least gives England some variation, especially with Slade at 13.  With Ford out, the opportunity was there to try Malins, Umaga or Smith at 10 with Faz still at 12 (if we accept that Eddie will never drop him), but Eddie's solution is to move Faz to 10 and Slade to 12 and the backs suffer as a result, not helped by his persistence with Youngs.

[matelot22]

I was disappointed with the game as a spectacle, it was like watching Chiefs play. I accept the purpose of draining the oppo pack and laying down the gauntlet to them, but that was done in the first half, when we scored through the backs in the 37th minute I sat up and started taking more interest thinking that we were going to cut loose, only for us to revert to type for the rest of the match. No ambition and no imagination

[petros]

And the lack of imagination must come down to Farrell, England should have tried to cut loose in the second half

We'll doubtless play the same against Ireland who will be lacking Sexton and Henshaw

[matelot22]

And the lack of imagination must come down to Farrell, England should have tried to cut loose in the second half

We'll doubtless play the same against Ireland who will be lacking Sexton and Henshaw

I don't think you can single out Farrell in all fairness, the team as a whole seemed to be playing very much to a rigid plan, throw in Youngs' ponderous service and it makes for a slow game all round.

[westwaleswasp]

It's a good article

Elsewhere, posters have suggested that Jones is "scarred" by the RWC Final mauling up front and is aiming to build a "SA Style" pack. The main issue for me and others is that looks a little like "fighting the last war"

Watching the NZ- Arg game - the breakdown and game in general was reffed and so played as if the Laws were being applied as written. This in turn meant that the breakdown especially, needs quick thinking and fast legged forwards who can secure ball at the dozens of breakdowns in a game - rather than concentrating on the set piece.

What England lack too often is the ability to switch to a different tactical approach as the game indicates. And Sat was an opportunity to try out approaches beyond the EA's play book at lineout.....

My worry too. The Arg NZ game reffing by Gardiner iirc would not suit the traditional SA or England game. Maybe it was the teams, but they were certainly still using the set piece as a weapon as we try to, and it was hugely physical.
It was just the stuff in between was much faster than what England normally serve up, or, indeed Wales and Ireland did on Fri. I have no doubt England and France could dominate the 6n for half a decade, and still give the Aussies a kicking too in England's case. That would be success in any measure,  but I fear the English game plan will come a cropper against top teams and they won't be able to react, as per the WC final.
Our best win percentage in the 6n was under Lancaster, but he never got trophies for the same reason- his teams were prone to being mugged and unable to react. Maybe it is inherently English to keep trying plan A when it is not working. As Melchett said in Blackadder- 'it is the last thing they will expect'.

[mike909]

My question - which would be the same for a game of rugby or a training event at work is what were the aims of the exercise? England were always going to win this easily. They might have had a target of getting scrum practice with new starting props and practicing lineout options and mauling options. But - opportunities in a competitive game which you are going to win - to test out a range of options are few and far between. Sure - look to challenge a competent pack. But once you've established dominance and scored a few times - then what?

England's weaknesses have generally been in terms of repertoire. And especially looking towards the more expansive areas of the game. It is not one thing or the other for 80 mins. No one expected - in shit weather - to have a BaaBaa's 73 game...but Exeter and Wasps in bad conditions at Twickenham managed to both demonstrate a range of attacking options. and that was in a competitive game. What have England learned from this and the Italy game? Damn all, except that kick and chase vs weaker opposition is effective.....but for me at least...proves nothing of its effectiveness vs stronger teams. That's when you need to have options and preferably ones you've tried out before.

Jones' England in SA in 2018 showed the potential re the attack in the first two tests. Tests lost not because of attacking well....but because of defending like idiots...And yet that seemed to lead to a more conservative approach.

Jones' England also looked at it's best from 2016 for about 18 months. It then stagnated - he has form for that - and it was like a reinvention from mid 2018, after 5 losses in a row seemed to force new thinking.

I'd just like England to play to the strengths of the players they select, rather than try to fit what they think are the best players to an "England Template". England ought to be always one of the better sides, it just seems, too often, that we make it appear more difficult than necessary.

[backdoc]

My concern is that if England had a backs line like Australia in the 90's, they would still play as they are doing now.

[wasps]

It may not be enjoyable - I certainly prefer to watch the excitement that wasps can deliver - however, it is replicable.


Lots of people are calling for Rob Baxter to be the next England coach.
He's based his coaching at Exeter on developing a style through repetition that can be replicated time and again.
Its a consistent style and is used largely regardless of the opposition.



I feel that's what we're seeing with England.
Its a style that's mostly natural to England's known style, it's one that can be replicated in wet or dry conditions, against opposition of all styles.
The idea is to control the game. Be dominant in every aspect and don't allow the game to break up too much.



If you're trying to build a consistent, replicable style, there's a strong argument for not changing it based on the opposition - particularly an opposition where you won't really learn anything about a different style anyway

[westwaleswasp]

My concern is that if England had a backs line like Australia in the 90's, they would still play as they are doing now.

Well said, although if we had that backline, Eddie would not pick it for us unless it fitted in with what he thinks we should have. So the problem would not arise.

[InBetweenWasp]

For those of us who cite the lack of an expansive game-plan.  What about the QF vs Australia and the SF vs New Zealand in the RWC when we played with pace and precision as well as power?

Scoring tries hasn't really been an issue for us, unlike say, a team like Wales who despite their decent backline seem to struggle scoring tries.

I agree with those who are suggesting perhaps our biggest issue is being able to change from one to the other, we're either on pace and precision for the full 80 or 10-man rugby and there's no in-between.

[westwaleswasp]

I think the suggestion is that post WC Eddie *might* be reacting by doubling down on the power game- a reaction to the final- at the expense of what we had in the way of an expansive game.  It is too early to tell, but it would be a very Eddie thing to do.

He certainly shows no sign of giving up on playing players out of position.

[Raggs]

Weather was dire for the Georgia game. I like the fact we went for their strengths, and beat them with it.

For George's tries, whilst he didn't have to do much in the maul, we'd all be looking at him (at least in part) if the lineout hadn't gone smoothly to set the maul up, so he deserves some credit.

[InBetweenWasp]

I think the suggestion is that post WC Eddie *might* be reacting by doubling down on the power game- a reaction to the final- at the expense of what we had in the way of an expansive game.  It is too early to tell, but it would be a very Eddie thing to do.

Which might be a fair question to ask, but it's not their first game back after the World Cup.  I don't recall people bemoaning the way we were playing in the 6N.  A shaky start against France, but then convincingly beat Ireland and Wales.  The Scotland game was played in dismal conditions and Italy the first after a break with a fly-half who had just spent 5 or so weeks on the sidelines and our first choice fly-half injured.

He certainly shows no sign of giving up on playing players out of position.

We saw a reasonable amount of locks-playing-6 in the 6N between Lawes/Maro.  But we had a few injuries in the back-row going on.

The Ireland and Wales games should be more more telling.  Wales are woeful at the moment in defence, so would be nice to see us show  a bit more ambition in the backs assuming the weather is miserable again.

[Heathen]

From what we have seen of Ireland in the 6 Nations last season, they are 2 years over the top. Farrell looks a though he knows it and is starting to blood younger players. Wales are well gone. Bereft of ideas and in need of a new captain. England should beat both without much hassle. Project imports is showing some fruit for the Jocks and France probably have the potential to really come good over the coming seasons.

The question for Eddie is - how does he see England beating NZ, SA iand France in 2023?