England vs Canada - 10/07/21

[Crash Hamster]

I think in club rugby, there is always the danger of having to play someone out of position due to injuries etc and there's always the necessity/opportunity to try things out to see if a player can develop in a different position. Squads are limited.

At international level, you can literally pick anyone you like who's lived in your country for the last 3 years, so there's no reason to develop a lock as a flanker or a winger as a full back. Development is the role of the clubs and junior international sides. It's literally what the U20s and A side are for.

It should be a pretty simple rule: you pick the best players in the country in each position. I can see why the third best inside centre might get a game (maybe he works well with the best FH and OC) but there's no reason to be picking an OC at FB, when we have several good FBs.

Coaching quirks and cleverness are the cherry on top of the cake, not an integral ingredient of any side.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Yeah clubs have a drop off after the first 15 in most cases where as international teams don't. Lawes covered 6 at the saints due to injuries but we didn't really have a decent other option at 6. Where as England could have played about 4 top 6s instead of Lawes.

I still like what Baxter has done as a coach. Exeter are good to watch and all work together on a game plan. He's not the saviour of English rugby but he's done some good work for the lot down south.

I do wonder if Borthwick will be lined up as the new England coach after his time at Leicester.

 

[Geordie]

Isnt that quite an Australian thing though...to generally disregard the number on a players back...?
How many Aussie backs have covered most positions in the back line over their test careers.

Playing a lock at 6 is nothing new...if anything its a means of introducing young mobile locks to the game...

Launchbury and Kruis both played most of their early stuff at 6...before moving to their natural position, Martin is clearly doing it now...and Isiekwe has gone the other way. Though now hes back at Sarries, i hope he nails that lock spot...he has all the tools for a top lock.

Lawes has made a career of just playing both...due to his basketball style athleticism.

Ted Hill, well it looks like he might be making the transition to lock, though in all honesty id rather he stayed as a bruising 6.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I do wonder if Borthwick will be lined up as the new England coach after his time at Leicester.

Would definitely make sense, considering when EJ was initially brought in one of his tasks was to get an English coach into a position to succeed him - Borthwick was the first English coach he named on his staff

 

[BPM]

I think in club rugby, there is always the danger of having to play someone out of position due to injuries etc and there's always the necessity/opportunity to try things out to see if a player can develop in a different position. Squads are limited.

Except that's not what Baxter has done with Exeter. The way their back row lines up is unlike any other team and that's not down to injury etc. He deliberately created a system and signs the players who fit that. I'm not saying that's wrong and clearly it's brought him a lot of success, but if he got the England job and wanted to replicate the same system he'd probably be playing someone like Lawes or Itoje at 7 to do the Armand/Vermeulen/Kirsten job.

Do you really think being an international coach is as simple as 'pick the best 15 players'?

Eddie always wanted a lineout option at 6 - basically our version of PSdT. We didn't really have a player like this, so the next best thing (in his opinion) was to pick a mobile lock/flanker who could offer that. I never liked it, but I could see what he was trying to do. Let's not pretend that Lawes and Itoje haven't played plenty of club/European games at 6. When the breakdown laws changed, we switched to dual opensides or at least more traditional flankers and that's mostly where we are now.

The Daly 'experiment' looked like it could/should work and at that point in time, the alternative was an ageing Mike Brown (pre Indian Summer) and Goode. Dlay certainly has most of the skill set to be a good 15, but it didn't work out. Again, I don't question the idea behind it, but I do question persevering with it for as long as we did.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Except that's not what Baxter has done with Exeter. The way their back row lines up is unlike any other team and that's not down to injury etc. He deliberately created a system and signs the players who fit that. I'm not saying that's wrong and clearly it's brought him a lot of success, but if he got the England job and wanted to replicate the same system he'd probably be playing someone like Lawes or Itoje at 7 to do the Armand/Vermeulen/Kirsten job.

Do you really think being an international coach is as simple as 'pick the best 15 players'?

Eddie always wanted a lineout option at 6 - basically our version of PSdT. We didn't really have a player like this, so the next best thing (in his opinion) was to pick a mobile lock/flanker who could offer that. I never liked it, but I could see what he was trying to do. Let's not pretend that Lawes and Itoje haven't played plenty of club/European games at 6. When the breakdown laws changed, we switched to dual opensides or at least more traditional flankers and that's mostly where we are now.

The Daly 'experiment' looked like it could/should work and at that point in time, the alternative was an ageing Mike Brown (pre Indian Summer) and Goode. Dlay certainly has most of the skill set to be a good 15, but it didn't work out. Again, I don't question the idea behind it, but I do question persevering with it for as long as we did.

I actually wouldn't have minded Itoje at 6 with two massive locks and then some big props. My problem with Lawes (as I watch him a lot), is that he's weak in the ruck, his carrying game is very hot or miss and he doesn't play like a 6.

Hea a good abrasive player who doesn't ruffle feathers or make many mistakes but he's not on the same level as a proper 'big 6'.

Then I get having those giant pack as game plan, but then he has to do that as his end goal but I'm not really sure what his tactics were to be honest. Whereas when we played Undercurray we've looked balanced and settled.

 

[Geordie]

Would definitely make sense, considering when EJ was initially brought in one of his tasks was to get an English coach into a position to succeed him - Borthwick was the first English coach he named on his staff

He certainly seems to have a clear focus on how to turn the tigers back in to a power....and we can visibly see the pieces of the jigsaw being put in place...

Lets see how he goes in the next few seasons but you would be hard to argue against him...

 

[Crash Hamster]

Do you really think being an international coach is as simple as 'pick the best 15 players'?

Yes. This is the basic job of an international coach, as opposed to 'let's play a load of people out of position and kick the ball away because the stats say this is a good idea.' The fundamental problem is that the basics get forgotten in a closed environment. Ever been on a committee where there are arguments about the sort of biscuits that should be served with tea?

Closed environments always lead to focus on petty things while ignoring the big picture. Pick the best players, design a system which suits their strength. If the ball is in play, in your possession, then a third lineout jumper is less important. Maybe then work on making one of your back-rowers into a better lineout option, rather than trying to make your lineout option into a back-rower?

When your backs can't do simple things like pass and tackle (last 6N), there's something wrong with selection. Simple things first, clever, subtle stuff on top.

 

[BPM]

Isnt that quite an Australian thing though...to generally disregard the number on a players back...?
How many Aussie backs have covered most positions in the back line over their test careers.

Playing a lock at 6 is nothing new...if anything its a means of introducing young mobile locks to the game...

Launchbury and Kruis both played most of their early stuff at 6...before moving to their natural position, Martin is clearly doing it now...and Isiekwe has gone the other way. Though now hes back at Sarries, i hope he nails that lock spot...he has all the tools for a top lock.

Lawes has made a career of just playing both...due to his basketball style athleticism.

Ted Hill, well it looks like he might be making the transition to lock, though in all honesty id rather he stayed as a bruising 6.

Yes, but how many players have we actually done that with?

Fair enough on Daly and Curry at 8, but I think that's more or less it? He's joked about playing Nowell at 7 etc. but hasn't actually done it.

Lawes and Itoje have regularly played 6 at club/European level and Farrell has played plenty of 12 prior to doing it for England.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Starting Joseph on the wing was a weird one - especially as it was a friendly vs Georgia so would've been a good opportunity to try an actual new winger out

Not even like JJ was one of EJ's golden boys and he just had to have him in the side no matter where he played, as he was dropped soon after

 

[BPM]

Yes. This is the basic job of an international coach, as opposed to 'let's play a load of people out of position and kick the ball away because the stats say this is a good idea.' The fundamental problem is that the basics get forgotten in a closed environment. Ever been on a committee where there are arguments about the sort of biscuits that should be served with tea?

Closed environments always lead to focus on petty things while ignoring the big picture. Pick the best players, design a system which suits their strength. If the ball is in play, in your possession, then a third lineout jumper is less important. Maybe then work on making one of your back-rowers into a better lineout option, rather than trying to make your lineout option into a back-rower?

When your backs can't do simple things like pass and tackle (last 6N), there's something wrong with selection. Simple things first, clever, subtle stuff on top.

Sorry but this is very naive and simplistic view.

You would need to be very lucky to have your best 15 players all perfectly and conveniently aligned with the positions on the pitch.

As for 'Let's play a load of people out of position' - show me how many this is actually the case for.

Yes, the passing and tackling in the 6N was very sub par, but TBH, I think you're making a lot of stuff up to fit a narrative.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

.

He certainly seems to have a clear focus on how to turn the tigers back in to a power....and we can visibly see the pieces of the jigsaw being put in place...

Lets see how he goes in the next few seasons but you would be hard to argue against him...

Have been impressed with what Borthwick's done so far, but TBH that was the fairly easy bit. Like Jones succeeding Lancaster, things should have got better and they have.

Over the next couple of years we should see if Borthwick has that real point of difference.

 

[Crash Hamster]

Sorry but this is very naive and simplistic view.

Cool opinion, but not a demonstable fact. I'd cite finishing 5th in the 6N and playing awfully at the same time as evidence that the current selection and tactics aren't working. I contend that my 'very naive and simplistic' view would have worked as well or better (in terms of finishing higher up the 6N table and working towards the RWC) than the overly complex and rigid system employed. You can disagree and that's fine, but you need to show me how Eddie's 6N tactics were in some way effective.

 

[Which Tyler]

It should be a pretty simple rule: you pick the best players in the country in each position. I can see why the third best inside centre might get a game (maybe he works well with the best FH and OC) but there's no reason to be picking an OC at FB, when we have several good FBs.

Coaching quirks and cleverness are the cherry on top of the cake, not an integral ingredient of any side.

That sounds really simple. Because it is - too much so. No coach in history has ever followed that rule, because it's a terrible way of picking a team.
Just to take a couple of examples - it means that Ant Watson would only ever have played full back for England - because that's where he plays at club level; even though he's one of the 2 best wingers in the country, whilst it's very arguable whether he's the best fullback (though if the alternative is Daly...) Equally, Dallaglio, Hill and Back would never have played a single match together, as they were all OSFs initially (though LOL was more of a hybrid flanker), nor would Greenwood and Catt.

Building a team is about doing what's best for the team; which may not even include playing the best players; let alone playing them exclusively in their club position - as is known and demonstrated by every professional rugby coach, every match. Players are humans, and positions are human constructs with no actual meaning; consequently all players are hybrids of some description or other. Beyond that, what might work in a club set-up may not work with different players around them; or it may exploit a tactic that simply doesn't translate to better opposition (or equal quality opposition with better / more targetted analysis teams).

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

The Daly 'experiment' looked like it could/should work and at that point in time, the alternative was an ageing Mike Brown (pre Indian Summer) and Goode. Dlay certainly has most of the skill set to be a good 15, but it didn't work out. Again, I don't question the idea behind it, but I do question persevering with it for as long as we did.

Agree in part, all top coaches need to experiment a bit to stay ahead and Jones' problem is he is so stubborn that once he has got it into his head that an experiment could work, he REALLY struggles to come to accept he has not been some tactical genius who is revolutionising the game and his experiment was actually a failure. His inability to accept he has made a poor choice results in him doubling down on the poor decisions until things really go ***s up. That has been a consistent failure of his through his whole tenure.

Then there is the problem of baffling selection choices where it's not any sort of legitimate experiment but him just ******* about for the sake of it. His insistence on JJ / Marchant on the wings, using Wiggy / Heinz as the backup to Youngs rather than getting Robson or Simpson in at a reasonable time (yes I know injuries prevented it later but it should have happened much much earlier). Again this seems to revolve around Jones inability to accept his initial decision was wrong. He comes to a decision whether it is tactically or about a player and he just will not change it. This is why some players are in the team despite atrocious form, because he determined they were the best, and others can't break in despite consistently great form, because he has already decided they were not up to it.

Ultimately most of Jones' failures can be brought back to his stubbornness and inflexibility once he has made a decision.

 

[Crash Hamster]

That sounds really simple. Because it is - too much so. No coach in history has ever followed that rule, because it's a terrible way of picking a team.
Just to take a couple of examples - it means that Ant Watson would only ever have played full back for England - because that's where he plays at club level; even though he's one of the 2 best wingers in the country, whilst it's very arguable whether he's the best fullback (though if the alternative is Daly...) Equally, Dallaglio, Hill and Back would never have played a single match together, as they were all OSFs initially, nor would Greenwood and Catt.

Building a team is about doing what's best for the team; which may not even include playing the best players; let alone playing them exclusively in their club position - as is known and demonstrated by every professional rugby coach, every match. Players are humans, and positions are human constructs with no actual meaning; what might work in a club set-up may not work with different players around them; or it may exploit a tactic that simply doesn't translate to better opposition (or equal quality opposition with better / more targetted analysis teams).

Yeah, you'll see I said exactly that in the piece you quote. Here it is:

"I can see why the third best inside centre might get a game (maybe he works well with the best FH and OC) but there's no reason to be picking an OC at FB, when we have several good FBs."

The point I was making is that you have to get the basics right before doing the clever stuff. Doing the clever stuff without taking care of the basics is counter-productive. I think I've expressed that clearly. I'll shut up now.

 

[Which Tyler]

Yeah, you'll see I said exactly that in the piece you quote. Here it is:

"I can see why the third best inside centre might get a game (maybe he works well with the best FH and OC) but there's no reason to be picking an OC at FB, when we have several good FBs."

The point I was making is that you have to get the basics right before doing the clever stuff. Doing the clever stuff without taking care of the basics is counter-productive. I think I've expressed that clearly. I'll shut up now.

Quite honestly, if you think that's exactly what I said, then you fail at English Comprehension

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

It will prob be between Borthwick or Sanderson for the coach role IMO

 

[BPM]

Agree in part, all top coaches need to experiment a bit to stay ahead and Jones' problem is he is so stubborn that once he has got it into his head that an experiment could work, he REALLY struggles to come to accept he has not been some tactical genius who is revolutionising the game and his experiment was actually a failure. His inability to accept he has made a poor choice results in him doubling down on the poor decisions until things really go ***s up. That has been a consistent failure of his through his whole tenure.

Then there is the problem of baffling selection choices where it's not any sort of legitimate experiment but him just ******* about for the sake of it. His insistence on JJ / Marchant on the wings, using Wiggy / Heinz as the backup to Youngs rather than getting Robson or Simpson in at a reasonable time (yes I know injuries prevented it later but it should have happened much much earlier). Again this seems to revolve around Jones inability to accept his initial decision was wrong. He comes to a decision whether it is tactically or about a player and he just will not change it. This is why some players are in the team despite atrocious form, because he determined they were the best, and others can't break in despite consistently great form, because he has already decided they were not up to it.

Ultimately most of Jones' failures can be brought back to his stubbornness and inflexibility once he has made a decision.

I don't actually disagree with anything you've said there, but those weren't the points I was arguing …

This isn't an impassioned defence of Eddie Jones. I simply took issue with Crash Hamster suggesting that coaching at test level is just a case of picking the best 15 players.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I don't actually disagree with anything you've said there, but those weren't the points I was arguing …

This isn't an impassioned defence of Eddie Jones. I simply took issue with Crash Hamster suggesting that coaching at test level is just a case of picking the best 15 players.

I was more tacking on my own views in addition to your comment than really arguing a point with you