England Under Eddie Jones

I don't know how you can compare, tbh. Robshaw does the jobs of an international flanker - he tackles, he works hard at the breakdown, and he organises the defense. Goode cannot tackle one on one to save his life. He's a liability at international level.

They both have big issues in their game, Goode his pace and his tackling (sometimes), Robshaw his pace, decision making at the breakdown and technique at the breakdown, lack of height in the lineout, and too often being a rather powderpuff carrier. That's not to say they both don't have some big positives in their games, and if you're not after anything but grunt at the breakdown one mayn't share my concerns about Robshaw at the ruck.

Well, grand slam decider next week, Eddie Jones Factor kicking in already?

Itoje showed his class yesterday with great lineout ready to steal two.

Going with usual OTT positivity Itoje needs to cut out the stupid penalties. Damn good player, but with no extra effort he could be much better

Hard still to say what happened in that game to let Wales back in. It was getting close to being a good performance, and yet it feels rather flat just a few days out of going for a slam.

I felt the front row changes especially taking off Hartley had an impact and of course Cole being carded didn't help the matter.

That chargedown try was a horrible play though, and there hadn't been a sub or card at that point. It was a series of bad decisions and bad executions by a number of players, from Farrell to Hartley, Kruis and Robshaw, to Youngs, to Ford

Just to add a picture with I think a lovely series of ellipses



England in their wisdom decide to throw front ball, reminding me of the Lions in 2013, and then try to send the ball out to a wide(ish) 10, so yes it's a shocker of a pass from Youngs but they've given a player who we doesn't have a great pass the longest pass they could. If they must throw to the front and then pass to Ford to clear then Ford should be sat deeper, if they want to hit Ford where he is the ball should be off the top at the back of the lineout. Even had that played not fecked up up for England it's a bad set of decisions, as it happens we paired bad decisions with bad executions and got punished with a very soft 7 points.

Well, not a bad start I suppose Eddie, room for improvement though

So after two games down under how do people thing Eddie is sorting things out for England?

I think Eddie has given some very clear responsibilities to each player on how the help in their unit, and how they help the team. So we don't see much of Cole carrying now as a for instance, instead he hits rucks, Hartley sets as guard and Mako carries - mostly. And that repeats. And in this we see a much more cohesive team who've churned out some really good results.

That said whilst it's two brilliant wins I think we're a bit fortunate in that I don't expect you'll win many games with such a poor attack, and the Aussies have unloaded both barrels into their feet with their turning down 3 points over and over to go for a try. I also think for all the domination of field and ball the Aussies have not gotten enough from sending their flankers wide, and their 9, 10 and frankly their 12 have shown less wit and imagination than a dead mouse. I also think the Aussies will be a bot grumpy about both refs so far, but that's just how it is sometimes, get over it and get on with the game.

I've seen that attack argument a few times. Fact is, however little ball we've had, we've been clinical. So whether you see attack as winning the ball and keeping it, or scoring points is the question, because on the latter we've been excellent.

We've just not created many opportunities.

This isn't a great Aussie team, and I think we've played to our strengths and their weaknesses so far. I'm sure we'll adapt more as Eddie continues, but he's started well and players are performing well for him in roles that suit them.

Does causing spilled ball and kicking through before falling on the ball count as clinical attack? Seems a bit of a stretch, we've certainly not spurned many chances, but mostly that's as not only haven't we created many we haven't really tried to create any.

That's not to be wholly critical of England, there's a lot they've done exceptionally well, and in the conditions of the 2nd game it's a fair call to say let them have the ball and we'll defend in the main, just not perhaps quite as much as we ended up defending when we struggled to get good 1st phase ball.

The last game was a bit of a mix, players did well in the very limited roles we undertook, but that the roles were so limited isn't a good thing if the opposition can muster up a brain cell. I am looking forwards to seeing how Eddie develops the side over the next 2-3 years, it's certainly not all going to come by the AI

Having only seen highlights of the last 2 games I can't comment too much on those, but I do agree with quind when he said the players now seem to have much more structured roles to play with in the game. Also agree with stom as we are clinical in scoring points. Will be watching the final test in Saturday as off from work.

The first game was more about the team that played less bad than which team played well. Although what ever EJ has given Haskell i want some, i might even start playing again!!

But Haskell is playing well because of the more structured game - like a Moody he has been told to run hard and tackle, not think, just if it is gold and green and in front of you tackle and tackle hard. But that suites him he is not a ball player, he can carry but defense is where he is best.

More structured doesn't mean play by numbers though, and some of the play has been good, just few and far between due to lack of possession.

I have never seen a defensive performance in an international like the second test, i have seen teams try and fail, but if you don't conceed points you only need one hooker with a good grubber to win the game - whilst not pretty it could bring more success than previous regimes. And already has done than Burts reign.

gazla wrote:The first game was more about the team that played less bad than which team played well. Although what ever EJ has given Haskell i want some, i might even start playing again!!

But Haskell is playing well because of the more structured game - like a Moody he has been told to run hard and tackle, not think, just if it is gold and green and in front of you tackle and tackle hard. But that suites him he is not a ball player, he can carry but defense is where he is best.

More structured doesn't mean play by numbers though, and some of the play has been good, just few and far between due to lack of possession.

I have never seen a defensive performance in an international like the second test, i have seen teams try and fail, but if you don't conceed points you only need one hooker with a good grubber to win the game - whilst not pretty it could bring more success than previous regimes. And already has done than Burts reign.

I think that's it, really. It's the old adage: the forwards win you the game, the backs decide by how much. Our pack have very strict roles. Then, when there is a potential opening, our backs are encouraged to play what's in front of them. It works well. Add in a few livewire forwards (Jamie George for one) and you have a system that works so long as we perform to ability.

While the 2nd test wasn't great for "champagne" rugby, nor was it a true arm wrestle, I thought the 1st was very good. I enjoyed it a lot. We played in the right areas, used the ball effectively (after Ford came on), and were able to adapt.

Given more time together and a few tweaks to the 23, and we could see a very nice looking England team.

One more thing: by the time of the next WC, we're going to have a core of 8-10 players with 50+ caps on average. Some of them will be nearing 100 (Cole, Hartley). And the age profile will still be young (28ish, less if we ditch Robshaw and Haskell).