• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

[2021 Six Nations] England vs Italy (13/02/21)

Old Hooker said:
Exactly that. When a team is achieving less than the sum of its parts the root problem is invariably with the leadership. Doesn't matter whether it's rugby or a call centre.

Rightly or wrongly sports coaches now have short shelf lives. Before us, Jones reputation was one of immediate impact that he was unable to sustain. From what I can see he's about to embark on his 6th 6N campaign and this is the longest he's ever held a job. I'm not necessarily calling for his head right now, but he will undoubtedly be beyond his shelf life come 2023.
Click to expand...
I'm calling for his head now. If Farrell doesn't deserve to be dropped after last week then he never will. Jones has created a culture of expecting to turn up and win.
 
Don't know how popular this opinion is but I'm actually quite a big fan of the 6-2 split generally. Think every back (bar 9s) should comfortably be able to go for 80 mins - they're significantly lighter than every forward and get much more down time while the forwards are scrummaging. A 6-2 split means that you have 1 extra ~120kg forward who's able to go all out for 45-50 minutes rather than having to conserve their energy for 80 (think its a massive part of why SA won RWC, and essentially had the 2 best tight 5s in the world - one starting and one on the bench). When you have backs like Farrell, Slade, Watson, Daly and Malins all able to cover multiple positions then you still have suitable injury cover too.
 
TBeastT said:
Don't know how popular this opinion is but I'm actually quite a big fan of the 6-2 split generally. Think every back (bar 9s) should comfortably be able to go for 80 mins - they're significantly lighter than every forward and get much more down time while the forwards are scrummaging. A 6-2 split means that you have 1 extra ~120kg forward who's able to go all out for 45-50 minutes rather than having to conserve their energy for 80 (think its a massive part of why SA won RWC, and essentially had the 2 best tight 5s in the world - one starting and one on the bench). When you have backs like Farrell, Slade, Watson, Daly and Malins all able to cover multiple positions then you still have suitable injury cover too.
Click to expand...
Kinda agree. 6-2 not the biggest issue there by far.
 
EJ is planning for the new SRAu law variations to come in.

They really support a kicking, powerful team.



In his defence, after last week a win is imperative so go back to what you know.
 
Jones would be such a **** poker player, his response to problems is always to double down on what went wrong rather than fix anything.

I think it's one thing playing badly but it's Jones' mismanagement of the players that really grates with me. He has so many players he has dangled a carrot in front of to then not include them in anything only to then drop them again or give them token caps. It goes beyond incompetent and into sadistic. It's not happened once, it's happening repeatedly. It's the double whammy of ruining that players self-esteem and also hindering the team by having a player taking up a space that Jones clearly never has any intention of using. I imagine a fair few players are seeing the callous disregard Jones has for these younger players with few caps compared to his completely blinkered selection of the underperforming Sarries favourites + Youngs.

I can see us losing young talent to other nations because of how Jones treats them.

I repeat my concerns from the 6N last year, Jones is squandering yet another chance to try different players and with the number of English players who seem to be playing themselves out of the Lions, I can guarantee any "big names" that get left behind will continue to play for England during our internationals whilst the Lions contingent are away.
 
higgik said:
EJ is planning for the new SRAu law variations to come in.

They really support a kicking, powerful team.



In his defence, after last week a win is imperative so go back to what you know.
Click to expand...
No defence. While a win is imperative, he didn't have to select this team to do it.
 
Mako should be on the bench to give him 20 mins of impact to get back into match fitness, as long as we have the game won by then.
 
TBeastT said:
Don't know how popular this opinion is but I'm actually quite a big fan of the 6-2 split generally. Think every back (bar 9s) should comfortably be able to go for 80 mins - they're significantly lighter than every forward and get much more down time while the forwards are scrummaging. A 6-2 split means that you have 1 extra ~120kg forward who's able to go all out for 45-50 minutes rather than having to conserve their energy for 80 (think its a massive part of why SA won RWC, and essentially had the 2 best tight 5s in the world - one starting and one on the bench). When you have backs like Farrell, Slade, Watson, Daly and Malins all able to cover multiple positions then you still have suitable injury cover too.
Click to expand...
It's a fair point but i'm not a fan of jack of all trades players.
 
6-2 on the bench doesn't work when one of those 'important' forwards only gets 5 minutes. If you are going to use that split then use it properly and not leave Billy V on for longer than 1 minute.

Have the kick off, then take billy off.
 
living sacrifice said:
6-2 on the bench doesn't work when one of those 'important' forwards only gets 5 minutes. If you are going to use that split then use it properly and not leave Billy V on for longer than 1 minute.

Have the kick off, then take billy off.
Click to expand...
Agree EJ rarely uses it effectively - I was talking about how useful it can be in a more general sense.
 
TBeastT said:
Don't know how popular this opinion is but I'm actually quite a big fan of the 6-2 split generally. Think every back (bar 9s) should comfortably be able to go for 80 mins - they're significantly lighter than every forward and get much more down time while the forwards are scrummaging. A 6-2 split means that you have 1 extra ~120kg forward who's able to go all out for 45-50 minutes rather than having to conserve their energy for 80 (think its a massive part of why SA won RWC, and essentially had the 2 best tight 5s in the world - one starting and one on the bench). When you have backs like Farrell, Slade, Watson, Daly and Malins all able to cover multiple positions then you still have suitable injury cover too.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting 6 / 2 from? Eddie tells us Earl can do anything so it's 5.5 / 2.5.

Because 9 is so specialist one of your back subs is invariably a 9 leaving one sub to cover all the other back positions in a 6 / 2. Fair point on versatility in the backs but few players can play multiple positions equally well. And there's always the risk of multiple outside back injuries - it happens......e.g Eng v Wal Eng in 2015 RWC when Amos, Scot Williams and Liam Williams were all forced off and they ended up with a SH on the wing.....and we all know how that ended☹️

SA went the bomb squad route because it suited their strengths and resultant tactics. But if you're looking at a more balanced game then 6 / 2 is a bigger risk.
 
Old Hooker said:
Where are you getting 6 / 2 from? Eddie tells us Earl can do anything so it's 5.5 / 2.5.

Because 9 is so specialist one of your back subs is invariably a 9 leaving one sub to cover all the other back positions in a 6 / 2. Fair point on versatility in the backs but few players can play multiple positions equally well. And there's always the risk of multiple outside back injuries - it happens......e.g Eng v Wal Eng in 2015 RWC when Amos, Scot Williams and Liam Williams were all forced off and they ended up with a SH on the wing.....and we all know how that ended☹️

SA went the bomb squad route because it suited their strengths and resultant tactics. But if you're looking at a more balanced game then 6 / 2 is a bigger risk.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's far from perfect and definitely a high risk but also a very high reward IMO. In SA's case it also meant that all of their Tight 5 players were able to get significantly bigger and stronger as they only had to be fit for 45-50 mins rather than 80, so you end up with a much stronger scrum and much more powerful ball carriers for the full 80. Given how rare getting 2 outside back injuries is I think it's a risk worth taking but that is a matter of opinion.
 
TBeastT said:
Yeah, it's far from perfect and definitely a high risk but also a very high reward IMO. In SA's case it also meant that all of their Tight 5 players were able to get significantly bigger and stronger as they only had to be fit for 45-50 mins rather than 80, so you end up with a much stronger scrum and much more powerful ball carriers for the full 80. Given how rare getting 2 outside back injuries is I think it's a risk worth taking but that is a matter of opinion.
Click to expand...
I think it's probably a horses for courses thing.

I hate the idea that front rowers particularly only expect to play so little and have powered up so much on the back of it. The whole question of subs is one that World Rugby need to get a grip of.

But nothing's new under the sun. Ollie Le Roux only started 11 of his 54 Boks caps and his last one was in 02. Much to my astonishment, and probably anyone else who remembers him playing, I've just read that he's done an Ironman triathlon.
 

Similar threads

TRF_Olyy
[2024 Six Nations] Italy vs England - 03/02/24
28 29 30
Replies
592
Views
17K
Which Tyler
Which Tyler
TRF_Olyy
[2024 Six Nations] Ireland vs Italy - 11/02/24
6 7 8
Replies
153
Views
6K
Smurfy
S
AlRums
[2024 Six Nations] Scotland vs England - 24/02/24
28 29 30
Replies
599
Views
19K
Which Tyler
Which Tyler
TRF_Olyy
[2024 Six Nations] England vs Wales - 10/02/24
36 37 38
Replies
748
Views
23K
Vieux Talonneur
Vieux Talonneur
TRF_Olyy
[2024 Six Nations] France vs Ireland - 02/02/24
12 13 14
Replies
278
Views
10K
Jimbo
J

Latest posts

Top