The trouble is, I don't see anyone who's an improvement over Eddie, and away from the on-pitch performance, he's fulfilling his brief.
I also see what he's doing strategically, and quite honestly, it makes a refreshing change to have a head coach who's actually looking further ahead than the next match of batch of matches.
What Eddie does is he develops a game-plan for the opposition he feels is most dangerous to his team, and relies on 95% of that being good enough in the other matches - it worked for Australia in 03 (targeting NZ), South Africa in 07 (targeting Eng), Japan in 15 (targeting SA) and got us to the final in 19 with arguably 2 of the best displays England have ever produced (before failing horribly in the final).
He sees the first 2 years of a RWC cycle as a time when laws and interpretations change, and by the time the next RWC comes around, rugby is a different sport around the margins. The basics are always the same, but the margins are different. If you spend the first 2 years of a cycle fine-tuning your game plan, then A] you're fighting the last war, B] you'll be constantly tinkering and changing, potentially confusing the players, and C] showing your hand too early.
He (seems to) see the first 2 years as a time to drill the basics - 10-man rugby. Nail the fitness, lineout, maul and the kicking game This should be enough to win against all but the top 2-3 teams in the world, although obviously when it fails, it looks absolutely dire. Once things have settled down in terms of law interpretations and style of play (AKA, "after the lions") then work on the attack, the tackle area, the ruck - the stuff that's constantly changing. Ideally, work on your perfect gameplan in practice, and only show 20% of it in any one game; until less than a year out. Maybe try the whole lot in 1 single game to make sure you can actually put it together.
No point giving your opponents any more time to look at what you're doing than you absolutely have to.
5 years ago he told us all that year 2 of that RWC cycle would be about fitness, and decision making / skills whilst absolutely knackered, and that performances and results would take a hit whilst doing so, but the benefits should be seen 2 years later at the RWC. He then did exactly that, and everyone was shocked because we took a hit to performances and results that he told us to expect - and people called for his head and claimed that he didn't know what he was doing.
This year he's told us that he's working on the basics, and ignoring the attack until after the lions. It looks like he's working on the basics and ignoring the attack until after the lions, and people seem shocked that he's doing exactly that, and are calling for his head.
I don't necessarily like it, but anyone saying that he doesn't have a plan or doesn't know what he's doing (or excessively over-simplify what he's doing - "oh he thinks 8, 9 and 10 have to be hyper-experienced, and that's all he cares about") is plainly not paying attention. There's a difference between not liking the plan, and denying its existence.
I, as most of us, would far rather he came up with 2 plans (say, one for NZ, and one for SA), and put them into practice more often - &/ concentrate on our assets rather than negating our most-dangerous-opponent's - make them worry about us for a change. Of course, I'd also like to see us experiment a little more with the playing pool - especially in those first 2 years of a cycle.
www.bbc.co.uk
