Win rate by itself is meaningless, you need to remove all the guff, which was my point. By and large works cup warm ups, and tier 2 matches need removing to get fair comparisons.
Win rate vs SA and NZ is fifty percent.
It is better than most but short of Woodward, but still only fifty pc from a small number of games. Eddie has not had a series vs NZ yet either, unlike his predecessor who had them to NZ and SA. Eddie lost his tour to SA.
Win rate vs Australua is excellent. Fair play.
Win rate in the 6n is lower than Lancaster and Woodward, better than Ashton and Johnson. Mid table currently.
Those are the facts, really. WC warm ups count for little to nothing. You can forget the rest, basically.
If you want to take into account peaks, then you devalue Eddie's 7 matches vs Australia as much as you gain with Ireland and Wales.
Anyone can take charge of England for ten matches vs Uruguay and will have the best record of any England coach in win pc terms, so I don't see how anyone can use straight win pc as a method of attacking or defending a coach. Eddie has a good record overall, please don't get me wrong, but in 6n terms he is mid table percent win wise, and his record is not as good as the headline win rate.
Clearly both Woodward and Lancaster matched my 6n expectations as they have a better record in terms of matches lost and won, and Woodward more than exceeded it with his trinations matches, Eddie overall is about in line, don't get me wrong, but to suggest he is better than Woodward based on win percentage seems way off, and I don't think many would agree Eddie's record beats Woodward.
Obviously trophy wise Eddie scores very highly as his losses clumped.