Mental Eddie loses another and may gain Cockerill.

[hookender]

Thought part of Jones’ remit (originally) was to bring on an English coach or team to take over when he departed. All that’s happened Is everyone else has departed.

Neutral over Cockerill,but if he is brought in hopefully it would be with view to take over.

[DGP Wasp]

I've never taken Cockerill as someone who will take shit from anyone.

If he's involved and feels he's being undermined, then he'll let it be known.

The RFU know this too.
They must surely know that with 2 egos like Jones and Cockers that at some point it may come to having to choose between them.
Is there a master plan here somewhere

I thought the same.  If Cockers is appointed then I give him 6 months at the absolute most.

[andermt]

I've never taken Cockerill as someone who will take shit from anyone.

If he's involved and feels he's being undermined, then he'll let it be known.

The RFU know this too.
They must surely know that with 2 egos like Jones and Cockers that at some point it may come to having to choose between them.
Is there a master plan here somewhere

I thought the same.  If Cockers is appointed then I give him 6 months at the absolute most.

Eddie or Cockers?

[westwaleswasp]

Comes to something where the best case scenario I am rooting for is Cockerill comes in and metaphorically stabs Eddie in the back and takes his job.
One thing that I utterly and totally reject that is often put up as an argument against removing EDdie is the 4/6/8 year WC plan. It is not true. The Boks were absolutely sinking a couple of years prior to the WC. They were not in much better shape prior to the 2007 WC. Teams have repeatedly won the WC and made the final without a careful 4+ year plan, some have changed coaches two years out. I am not saying it will yield results if we do change, but I am saying that sacking Eddie would not remove our chances of success in 2023. 

[Bloke in North Dorset]

Comes to something where the best case scenario I am rooting for is Cockerill comes in and metaphorically stabs Eddie in the back and takes his job.
One thing that I utterly and totally reject that is often put up as an argument against removing EDdie is the 4/6/8 year WC plan. It is not true. The Boks were absolutely sinking a couple of years prior to the WC. They were not in much better shape prior to the 2007 WC. Teams have repeatedly won the WC and made the final without a careful 4+ year plan, some have changed coaches two years out. I am not saying it will yield results if we do change, but I am saying that sacking Eddie would not remove our chances of success in 2023.

Good points.  One country even had a very carefully laid out 4 year plan and didn’t even get past the group stages of the World Cup it was hosting.

[Shugs]

Jeez. Jones and Cockerill. That strikes me as having an extremely short lifespan. I think the real problem with Jones is that he's so full of himself he doesn't really care who else is in the coaching set up. He's all that is needed in his opinion.

[Neils]

Jeez. Jones and Cockerill. That strikes me as having an extremely short lifespan. I think the real problem with Jones is that he's so full of himself he doesn't really care who else is in the coaching set up. He's all that is needed in his opinion.

+1 Volcanic bust up(s) if it gets beyond one.

[JF]

Comes to something where the best case scenario I am rooting for is Cockerill comes in and metaphorically stabs Eddie in the back and takes his job.
One thing that I utterly and totally reject that is often put up as an argument against removing EDdie is the 4/6/8 year WC plan. It is not true. The Boks were absolutely sinking a couple of years prior to the WC. They were not in much better shape prior to the 2007 WC. Teams have repeatedly won the WC and made the final without a careful 4+ year plan, some have changed coaches two years out. I am not saying it will yield results if we do change, but I am saying that sacking Eddie would not remove our chances of success in 2023.

Good points.  One country even had a very carefully laid out 4 year plan and didn’t even get past the group stages of the World Cup it was hosting.

As someone once said, plans are what you make whilst others are getting on with things.

[wasps]

It's all about looking to see what gives the team the best possible chance of winning... Primarily the world cup, but essentially winning all the time.

The club v's country debate is all about preparing the English team to have the best possible chance of winning.

Having a stable coaching team over a number is years would usually be seen as good preparation for that too.



Ultimately, one of the things that SCW said was that being the World number 1 team heading into a world cup meant that they had prepared the best of any other team and were in the best position to win.
If they weren't No.1's then essentially they'd won against the odds.

We all know there are plenty of problems with the ranking system, but the premise is accurate.
If you are a good team, winning all/most of your games against all opposition in the lead up to a world cup year then you've done a lot of what's needed to prove you can win a world cup.


In reality, that can happen 1 or 2 years out with a new coaching team, but more often it'd be good to show long term form over a number of years