Itoje Kisses Ass

[Rossm]

England's Maro Itoje defends 'truly special' coach Eddie jones

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/56476683

Maro Itoje says head coach Eddie Jones is "truly special", insisting it is the players who must be held accountable for their fifth-place finish in the Six Nations.

He is of course fundamentally correct. However it is Jones who selects the players and instructs them how to play to his game plan which is immutable.

[wasps]

There's a part of me that feels he has to say this to stay a part of the team

But there's also a part of me that knows that other players have said similar about Eddie Jones even after their careers have ended

[backdoc]

Sounds more like a cult than a rugby team.

[Bloke in North Dorset]

Sounds more like a cult than a rugby team.

+1

[Rossm]

Sounds more like a cult than a rugby team.

Just don't drink the kool aid

[mike909]

Sounds more like a cult than a rugby team.

+1

+2
It's an odd situation where players have to come out and defend their boss....it's too much like they've been told to.....

[Neils]

Sounds more like a cult than a rugby team.

+1

+2
It's an odd situation where players have to come out and defend their boss....it's too much like they've been told to.....

Serious question  - is it only the EA players people have seen doing it? If so there is your reason.

[InBetweenWasp]

I think cult is a fair description but I don't think it needs to be seen in a derogatory way. 

Most high-performing teams or businesses are cult-like and buy into a shared vision or mission, both Saracens and Chiefs are good examples of this in Rugby.  SCW's England Squad were absolutely cult-like and don't forget, players were often selected despite being out of form for their Clubs.

For what it's worth, I think Jones is an incredibly astute coach and man manager - That doesn't mean to say he's loved by all.  It's clear he can be and has been brutal with players throughout his career, but has an inner circle who love him and understand the method to what can seem like madness.

I think the issues with this England squad were really well unpicked by SCW on Saturday and laid out in beautifully simple terms:

i) There has never been a proper de-brief on the World Cup Final no-show
ii) Who does Eddie answer to or use as an external sounding board?

He made the point that having reached a Final and the squad being relatively young, they probably felt that they'd be able to stick together and win the world cup in 2023 - I think that's a fair reflection of what we've seen in terms of the squad and playing style since Japan.

Nothing has evolved, there's no obvious transition (Eddie's own term to describe the squad) in terms of progression.  We've not blooded more than a handful of new players and of those, perhaps only Jonny Hill has seen a reasonable amount of game time - Earl, Malins, Robson, Lawrence have all been bit-part players of those widely thought to be capable of being starters.  If Underhill was fit, we'd likely not see Earl and similarly, we'd probably not be seeing Malins or Lawrence if Nowell were fit.

Playing style has been done to death, we seem to be intent of playing a dull, ineffective kicking game that stifles our own players more than it does the opposition.  Yet, when we play with pace and keep the ball in hand we look dangerous.

I think we need to work out what went wrong in the Final, who is dictating the box-kicking tactics and to work out who really is likely to be in that 2023 squad to figure out what positions we need to start thinking about building some depth in. 

For example, let's say Youngs does his ACL in the 6N in 2023.  At this rate, we'd have Robson as the second most capped player.  He's got 12 Caps currently, zero starts.  Does he have more than 160 international minutes even yet?

[Bloke in North Dorset]

I think we need to work out what went wrong in the Final, who is dictating the box-kicking tactics and to work out who really is likely to be in that 2023 squad to figure out what positions we need to start thinking about building some depth in.

I don't like particularly the tactics but I'll acknowledge that when done well they are a good tool to have in the box.

My problem is that nobody seems to be saying "hang on, this isn't working and we need to stop doing it and try something else". Particular when you consider the speedsters out on the flanks.

If Eddie is that good a coach why doesn't he send a message on, they don't have coaches running on and off every 2 minutes so it should be easy?

[mike909]

Ok - my ha'penny's worth....

Many short term successes have been carried out using a small and inclusive team - a bit of a cult - but in management terms, (and I'm referring to wider management, not sports alone) most small inclusive teams, tend to go off the rails and get things wrong, especially if dissent is discouraged. The classic management example is the Bay of Pigs invasion....a classic example of "Group think" where no one was allowed to stand up and say the obvious "this is a sxxt idea guys"....

What SCW had was a set of players who really did know they needed to perform. And had players and leaders all over the pitch from Johnson to Greenwood to Lewsey and Mike Catt on the bench.

What I see here is a team that's directed to play a certain way - no questions allowed. The kicking possession away game surely is dictated from Jones. It could be seen vs Italy, last 6N's. We used the game as kicking game practice...44 times...I struggle to think that the players really think that's the way forwards.

Mainly problem with that analysis is I have to ask myself - where on earth did the France performance come from? And where did it hide vs Ireland

There is something not working within the England camp and SCW is right - what lessons from the RWC and what sounding boards are being used (if any)?

The team selected this 6Ns is much the same as the SA '18 tour team in Test's 1 & 2 - there are no real changes and good teams tend to evolve, not stay the same.

[hookender]

Do you think that the players would question Mr EJ ‘s tactics or are they just grateful to to be selected?

Just thinking about the players who have been brought in to play in non club positions, they possibly might ask why at the beginning, but if they are given a reason , no matter how shallow, would they turn it down ,knowing they are unlikely to be asked again .

 Same with the game plan ,some might suggest a different call , phase play, but I guess a reply of ‘are you a team player ? ‘ might just focus their mind ,along with the appearance money they get .

[InBetweenWasp]

Do you think that the players would question Mr EJ ‘s tactics or are they just grateful to to be selected?

I'm not sure it's quite that simple.  I genuinely believe the tactics are being driven for the right reasons (i.e. they believe it's the right tactics to win games, helps mitigate the risk of errors/turnovers leading to conceding points and they back their defence to pressure the opposition into mistakes) and that the players buy into it and feel that it's just an execution issue.

I think that's partly right - If they had executed a safety-first gameplan, like Saracens and Chiefs of old used to, they probably would have won most of their games. But the they didn't and conceded stupid penalities, creating pressure.

I think it really needs that external voice to balance the echo chamber. 

For the France game, I think they chose to ran it because they felt they were the less-dominant team and to win they needed to run the French off of their feet because they wouldn't win in an arm wrestle.  Also, because they were the underdog so the pressure was off - if they made mistake that cost points it wouldn't be such an issue as, say, throwing an intercept pass or getting turned over and conceding against say Scotland or Wales. 

Slight tangent - but something that irked me (and ties into the belief that it's just an execution issue) was Earl talking after the Ireland game about Ireland got the bounce of the ball a couple of times and that was the major difference.  It wasn't - they stood up physically, executed their kicking game very well and were decisive for their tries.

[jamestaylor002]

Do you think that the players would question Mr EJ ‘s tactics or are they just grateful to to be selected?

I'm not sure it's quite that simple.  I genuinely believe the tactics are being driven for the right reasons (i.e. they believe it's the right tactics to win games, helps mitigate the risk of errors/turnovers leading to conceding points and they back their defence to pressure the opposition into mistakes) and that the players buy into it and feel that it's just an execution issue.

I think that's partly right - If they had executed a safety-first gameplan, like Saracens and Chiefs of old used to, they probably would have won most of their games. But the they didn't and conceded stupid penalities, creating pressure.

I think it really needs that external voice to balance the echo chamber. 

For the France game, I think they chose to ran it because they felt they were the less-dominant team and to win they needed to run the French off of their feet because they wouldn't win in an arm wrestle.  Also, because they were the underdog so the pressure was off - if they made mistake that cost points it wouldn't be such an issue as, say, throwing an intercept pass or getting turned over and conceding against say Scotland or Wales. 

Slight tangent - but something that irked me (and ties into the belief that it's just an execution issue) was Earl talking after the Ireland game about Ireland got the bounce of the ball a couple of times and that was the major difference.  It wasn't - they stood up physically, executed their kicking game very well and were decisive for their tries.

I agree with the points you make. My issue is that England have often been unable (for whatever reason) to adapt when that gameplan is compromised. In an ideal world, you'd like to see the free running approach England took against France as a Plan B to the safety based Plan A that England prefer.

For what my opinion is worth, I lost interest in watching England try to play a game plan that stopped working (or didn't work at all) only to then persist with it anyway regardless.

[backdoc]

Exactly. Robotic rugby creates no spectacle worth watching.

[hookender]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/mar/22/england-players-to-be-asked-if-eddie-jones-should-stay-on-head-coach-rugby-union-six-nations