England's new style - Gleeson (Telegraph article)

[hookender]

Because we don’t need to. We could have spent all the time since the last WC investing and building around the likes of Smith at 10, Malins (who should be our nailed on 15), any from Robson/Mitchell/Spencer at 9, Slade at 13 and wingers playing on wings. Instead we’ve farted about trying to fit square pegs in round holes. Let’s face it, Gleeson’s hugely radical theory boils down to supplying quick ball. It’s not really transformative. Pick the right players rather than going head to head with the press and 90% of your issues are sorted.

If they want to build a team around Smith, a plan I endorse, then why not get Care back for a few games? He’s playing as well as any 9 but more importantly his relationship with Smith and Dombrandt will at least give some stability while the sort the rest of the mess out.

 Good point, maybe on bench if 5/3 split but won’t fit in with masterplan and probably EJs predjudice

[matelot22]

Because we don’t need to. We could have spent all the time since the last WC investing and building around the likes of Smith at 10, Malins (who should be our nailed on 15), any from Robson/Mitchell/Spencer at 9, Slade at 13 and wingers playing on wings. Instead we’ve farted about trying to fit square pegs in round holes. Let’s face it, Gleeson’s hugely radical theory boils down to supplying quick ball. It’s not really transformative. Pick the right players rather than going head to head with the press and 90% of your issues are sorted.

If they want to build a team around Smith, a plan I endorse, then why not get Care back for a few games? He’s playing as well as any 9 but more importantly his relationship with Smith and Dombrandt will at least give some stability while the sort the rest of the mess out.

Care dared to disagree with EJ and has been outcast ever since.

[Bloke in North Dorset]

Because we don’t need to. We could have spent all the time since the last WC investing and building around the likes of Smith at 10, Malins (who should be our nailed on 15), any from Robson/Mitchell/Spencer at 9, Slade at 13 and wingers playing on wings. Instead we’ve farted about trying to fit square pegs in round holes. Let’s face it, Gleeson’s hugely radical theory boils down to supplying quick ball. It’s not really transformative. Pick the right players rather than going head to head with the press and 90% of your issues are sorted.

If they want to build a team around Smith, a plan I endorse, then why not get Care back for a few games? He’s playing as well as any 9 but more importantly his relationship with Smith and Dombrandt will at least give some stability while the sort the rest of the mess out.

Care dared to disagree with EJ and has been outcast ever since.

That in itself is another problem, if you're only going to select yes men than you automatically limit the pool. A good man manager doesn't fear opposing opinions and knows how to get the best out of people with different ideas. Although TBF there are limits and at some point you have to bite your tongues and do as you're told.

[matelot22]

Because we don’t need to. We could have spent all the time since the last WC investing and building around the likes of Smith at 10, Malins (who should be our nailed on 15), any from Robson/Mitchell/Spencer at 9, Slade at 13 and wingers playing on wings. Instead we’ve farted about trying to fit square pegs in round holes. Let’s face it, Gleeson’s hugely radical theory boils down to supplying quick ball. It’s not really transformative. Pick the right players rather than going head to head with the press and 90% of your issues are sorted.

If they want to build a team around Smith, a plan I endorse, then why not get Care back for a few games? He’s playing as well as any 9 but more importantly his relationship with Smith and Dombrandt will at least give some stability while the sort the rest of the mess out.

Care dared to disagree with EJ and has been outcast ever since.

That in itself is another problem, if you're only going to select yes men than you automatically limit the pool. A good man manager doesn't fear opposing opinions and knows how to get the best out of people with different ideas. Although TBF there are limits and at some point you have to bite your tongues and do as you're told.

Agreed, but it seems that EJ's man management skills are very limited and he relies on autonomy over anything else.

[mike909]

You do have to agree to play to the strategy - but that strategy (like Lol says) needs to be a result from a team being a partnership between players and coach and otherwise when you go on the pitch, you're probably not buying into the plan.

The senior player group needs to be able to lead on the pitch, not be worrying about what the coach might be thinking.

I get the impression that from the turnover of coaches and the inability to take on players who might have ideas, that Jones' key skill is taking an under performing set of players/squad and getting a result. That he's supposed to be England's saviour yet has coached both of England's worst 6Ns campaigns suggests to me that he is too interested in being seen to be clever.

[backdoc]

His behaviour is that of a man [person] a size or two too small for the job.

[EssexWasp]

At Grange Road in Cambridge last night, Trinity College Dublin played the way Gleeson suggested - hardly kicked for touch, no box kicking and often running it from their own try line. Centres and flankers interchangable and wingers seeing the ball more in 40 minutes than the England ones do in an international season.  If they hadn't changed half their side at 1/2 time, it could have been sixty or seventy - Cambridge couldn't cope and were utterly perplexed by the lack of structure shown by TCD. Also, best game I have seen for ages so it can be done [albeit at a lower level]

[westwaleswasp]

Shirt numbers matter in every sport where they are worn.
I mean not literally the numbers, but players playing in positions happens everywhere. The wheel is round, Eddie needs to get over the fact that it can't be reinvented at international level.