The question everybody is asking.......................

[mike909]

according to Wikipedia, Jones still has the best win ratio at 77% of any England coach.
Sir Clive is on 71%

Most likely true - but a bit like possession stats and "metres gained" stats, context is everything.....Jones has had quite a lot of good fortune, he had Lancaster's virtually finished team that won 80% of 6Ns games over the previous 4 years and was based on the U-20 RWC winning teams. And a squad that had also toured NZ and performed pretty well.  Jones's best 6Ns period was with that team. After 2017, his win % in the 6Ns is rather poor.

SCW came in with the need to improve and in a first RWC. Jack Rowell was doing well domestically, won a '95 GS and got tonked in the RWC Jack did fine in the 5Ns as was but with the 99 RWC approaching and an aging team, SCW need to change matters. His view was towards '03 and the Tour from Hell and the 99 RWC were learning experiences prob for both coach and squad.

So with England post 2015, you'd probably hope that matters would improve. What you'd not expect is two 5th places. Or a record losing streak (2018) SCW's lowest position was second between 98 and 03 and that didn't reduce their effectiveness at RWC or in winning in NZ etc nor did the AI results beating virtually everyone from 2000 on.

So it does make you wonder, as a fan and sofa based "expert" wtf is going on in a team with all the advantages of resources in money and players, who go from a RWC Final, if outplayed, to a 6Ns win to 5th....(for example) And I do think that any coach would be under some pressure with that sort of record.

[mike909]

according to Wikipedia, Jones still has the best win ratio at 77% of any England coach.
Sir Clive is on 71%

And we beat the current world champions just a few months ago, but people tend to gloss over the victories as though England are entitled to them.

Who is glossing over that? I have said elsewhere, that there was a danger of over hyping that win, just as it was a danger of over reacting to the loss at the w/e. But it's still pertinent to ask what the plan is and if the coach is delivering.

[Trevs Big Tackle]

Eddie still hasn't taken England on a tour to New Zealand. At this stage it feels like he's deliberately avoiding it. There's only been one visit of NZ in an Autumn international in Eddie's reign too.

The semi-final win was fantastic but if you wanted to keep your win record up then avoiding the best is a good way to go about it.

All other England coaches have faced New Zealand much more regularly and that inevitably affects their win %age.

[wycombewasp]

+1

[Neils]

Eddie still hasn't taken England on a tour to New Zealand. At this stage it feels like he's deliberately avoiding it. There's only been one visit of NZ in an Autumn international in Eddie's reign too.

The semi-final win was fantastic but if you wanted to keep your win record up then avoiding the best is a good way to go about it.

All other England coaches have faced New Zealand much more regularly and that inevitably affects their win %age.

The reason the ABs haven't been to Twickers is money. The ABs demand a large fixed fee to appear and the RFU have continually refused to pay.

Downunder no idea why no visits but it could be reciprocal thing (you don't so we won't sort of thing).

[Westy68]

according to Wikipedia, Jones still has the best win ratio at 77% of any England coach.
Sir Clive is on 71%

And we beat the current world champions just a few months ago, but people tend to gloss over the victories as though England are entitled to them.

Not exactly the same team, few player missing. Before the world cup SA were not great

[wasps]

What was Eddie's win record in his first 18 months?
I can't remember exactly, but he was at 100% for a long while..... Then things started to dip.


So SCW started off comparatively poorly and improved as time went on

Eddie started off at 100% and his win percentage of declining.


It'd be interesting to know what Eddie's win percentage is over the last 2 or 3 years

[Skippy]

Can’t imagine England would be this p155 poor if Gatland was in charge. At the very least we’d see some clever tactics rather than paint by numbers rugby.

[Rossm]

What was Eddie's win record in his first 18 months?
I can't remember exactly, but he was at 100% for a long while..... Then things started to dip.

So SCW started off comparatively poorly and improved as time went on

Eddie started off at 100% and his win percentage of declining.

It'd be interesting to know what Eddie's win percentage is over the last 2 or 3 years

Extracted from the article at the beginning of the thread:

So this is the third campaign in a row England have lost their opening game in the Six Nations - for the first time in 46 years. Since his honeymoon Grand Slam in 2016 and then his title defence the next year, Jones has overseen 11 wins in their last 21 Championship matches. That is a desperate return for a country of those resources. In this same period, only Italy have a worse ratio. That is not a blip.


Of his 11 wins, how many were against Italy?

[Bloke in North Dorset]

according to Wikipedia, Jones still has the best win ratio at 77% of any England coach.
Sir Clive is on 71%

And yet under SCW we had fortress Twickenham, nobody talks about it under Eddie.

[DGP Wasp]

Of his 11 wins, how many were against Italy?

4.  So that's just 7 wins against the rest.

[westwaleswasp]

 :-*Any comparison has to remove bottom tier matches, which lowers the pc of both coaches- Eddie down to 70 pc, Woodward down by a slightly smaller  amount. Then you have to remove NZ as Eddie has barely played them , but Woodward won 2 from 8, vs Eddie 1 from 2, ruining Woodward win pc when NZ have not been about to ruin Eddie's.

When you look at what is left you see vs Australlia and France Woodward has a worse record than Eddie, although still more wins than losses vs both He has a far, far better one vs SA,  Wales, Ireland and Scotland, where Eddie languishes at about 50 pc vs these opponents as a whole and Woodward barely lost playing multiple matches vs the same opponents. Taken overall vs Wales, Scotland, Ireland , SA, France, Australia Woodward is ahead.

Argentina, fwiw, barely impact the figures as both coaches generally win.


I think it fair to make a comparison on these grounds, even though Wales are better now than they were and Australia worse, for example. It is as good a metric as any.


The main thing is Eddie won a lot for two years, Woodward lost a lot for a similar time, esp playing the big 3 SH teams.  Is it fair to compare when one started a WC cycle, the other started half way through?  Do you look at WC cycles?.Nobody is arguing with Eddie's short term results, which are outstanding.

Post 2017 we have a picture of mediocrity vs top  tier nations that compares poorly to any 4 and a bit year stretch from Woodwards' reign no matter which way you slice it, but it is still not a like v like comparison.

[Sting]

:-*Any comparison has to remove bottom tier matches, which lowers the pc of both coaches- Eddie down to 70 pc, Woodward down by a slightly smaller  amount. Then you have to remove NZ as Eddie has barely played them , but Woodward won 2 from 8, vs Eddie 1 from 2, ruining Woodward win pc when NZ have not been about to ruin Eddie's.

When you look at what is left you see vs Australlia and France Woodward has a worse record than Eddie, although still more wins than losses vs both He has a far, far better one vs SA,  Wales, Ireland and Scotland, where Eddie languishes at about 50 pc vs these opponents as a whole and Woodward barely lost playing multiple matches vs the same opponents. Taken overall vs Wales, Scotland, Ireland , SA, France, Australia Woodward is ahead.

Argentina, fwiw, barely impact the figures as both coaches generally win.


I think it fair to make a comparison on these grounds, even though Wales are better now than they were and Australia worse, for example. It is as good a metric as any.


The main thing is Eddie won a lot for two years, Woodward lost a lot for a similar time, esp playing the big 3 SH teams.  Is it fair to compare when one started a WC cycle, the other started half way through?  Do you look at WC cycles?.Nobody is arguing with Eddie's short term results, which are outstanding.

Post 2017 we have a picture of mediocrity vs top  tier nations that compares poorly to any 4 and a bit year stretch from Woodwards' reign no matter which way you slice it, but it is still not a like v like comparison.

thanks for posting that it makes interesting reading.
Regardless of the stats, all I feel is that England rugby under Woodward was entertaining. He was entertaining, the players (characters) were entertaining, the matches (win or lose) were entertaining and the fans were supportive, enthusiastic, excited and entertained. I find England rugby under Jones to be boring, the selections boring and the matches not inspiring. As a fan I will always support England (and any team playing France), but Jones needs a fresh approach.

[InBetweenWasp]

The biggest issue for England since Jones came on-board is that other than the first 18 months or so, we haven't seen much progression.

The 6N have been a bumpy ride, the AIs a little smoother, the last World Cup we saw a team that looked good enough to win and looked as though they'd peaked at the right time after a fairly routine group stage but got outclassed in the Final.

It's difficult to see there's a real progression in terms of the gameplan, or style of play.  Whilst we've got a strong squad of Forwards (albeit some balance in the back-row still needs to be found, we're still stuck in no man's land when it comes to our Centres and out 9s. 

Youngs is loved by all Coaches, Players and Pundits yet just about all fans are struggling to see what he brings to the team; it's not energy or decisiveness.  We see lethargy and control that feels stifling to a talented backline.  Week-in, week-out we've seen the likes of Care, Robson and Randall act as catalysts for their teams performances as well as seeing the development of Quirke, van Portlivet and the young Saints Scrum-Half.  That also overlooks Spencer at Bath.

Manu/Slade or Farrell/Manu may be our two 'settled' Partnerships but are yet to bring a consistent, potent attacking threat.  Not helped by indecision over whether we play Farrell at 10 or 12 and Manu's ongoing fitness struggles.