The Official English Rugby Thread

[Kawazaki]

Not convinced we learn much at all from whichever 9 & 10 run points past Tonga.

Adding more data to the Youngs and Farrell file is the least useful option though.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

I'll put up front that I'm not English. Can't believe that Jones hasn't used this match to blood a few more youngsters and in particular try new combination at 9 and 10. We all know by now what Farrell and Youngs can/can't do there so why not try some of the young guys? If not Smith, if he isn't fully fit then why not Simmons or someone like that? We know that England will win by 50 points so why not try out some of the youngsters and also build their confidence a little. Absolutely amazed by this selection, only thing you'll take out of this selection is the odd injury or two.

Simmonds who can't even get a regular starting berth for Exeter?

Throwing in a ton of newbies is as pointless as playing a team full of 15+ cap players.

Steward and Radwan are starting, then there's another 5 relatively inexperienced players on the bench. Manu is a mile away now from being considered established and needs to be bedded in again.

I don't understand why Ford isn't in the side. Switching between him and Smith makes so much more sense, but not throwing in a ton of new caps isn't a bad decision in my mind.

Didnt say a ton of newbies but I am not sure what Jones is going to get out of this game. Scotland team had 5 new caps and another 4 off the bench including a couple of youngsters yet still managed to put 50 points on them and it should have been more. Although Tonga have a few more players available and a few more days practice you will beat them very easily. This would have been an ideal time to start a new 9 and/or 10 plus perhaps a younger face or two in the pack a chance of a run out. These guys play at a level in Premiership every week which will be higher than that required to beat Tonga.

It's a fair point, but so too is how similar the sides are named to play Australia, and how they go against Australia. Tonga isn't the only part of this

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Youngs has been significantly better his last few England games tbf

He has, although much that has come from the shift in attacking intent. Though there's a fair point since Care was canned for repeatedly ignoring opportunities Eddie specifically created for him as a breaking 9 we've given far too little attention to anyone who isn't Youngs

[JM2K6]

Youngs has been significantly better his last few England games tbf

He has, although much that has come from the shift in attacking intent. Though there's a fair point since Care was canned for repeatedly ignoring opportunities Eddie specifically created for him as a breaking 9 we've given far too little attention to anyone who isn't Youngs

what

Care was canned for fucking up his basics

[sockwithaticket]

Youngs has been significantly better his last few England games tbf

He has, although much that has come from the shift in attacking intent. Though there's a fair point since Care was canned for repeatedly ignoring opportunities Eddie specifically created for him as a breaking 9 we've given far too little attention to anyone who isn't Youngs

what

Care was canned for fucking up his basics

And challenging Eddie if Mike Brown's column is to be believed.

[Kawazaki]

You've got to hand it to Eddie Jones, he knows exactly how to manage up. Being accused of being an authoritarian bully who doesn't listen? Simple, employ expensive management consultants with zero executive function who report to him and let the facade play out. Deloitte are smart enough to know this trick and just click up as many billable hours as possible while telling Jones what he wants to hear. Classic management playbook.

From The Times

Eddie Jones has enlisted the help of management consultants with the aim of making his England senior players the “best leadership team in the world”.

The England head coach has taken the radical step of picking three vice-captains in the side to face Tonga tomorrow, with support for Owen Farrell, the captain, coming from Tom Curry, Ellis Genge and Courtney Lawes. Maro Itoje, widely considered to be a future England leader, has not been included among the vice-captains.

The team’s leaders have held the first of a series of meetings with representatives of Deloitte, the management services company. “We’ve got a couple of people internally that are consultants to the team and we’re using Deloitte for some leadership programme work,” Jones said yesterday. “We’re looking to give them the necessary support to be the best leadership team in the world.”

You can imagine the conversation;

Eddie: "Listen maaaate, these are the three guys I've picked to be leaders..."
Deloitte: "Mr Jones, normally we would assess the whole squad and after analysis we would suggest who th..."
Eddie: "You obviously didn't hear me maaate, these are the guys I've picked, your job is to make them leaders or whatever shit it is you blokes do."
Deloitte: "Of course, we charge £5000 a day"
Eddie: "Whatever maaate, it's not my money, take your time"

[SaintK]

You can imagine the conversation;

Eddie: "Listen maaaate, these are the three guys I've picked to be leaders..."
Deloitte: "Mr Jones, normally we would assess the whole squad and after analysis we would suggest who th..."
Eddie: "You obviously didn't hear me maaate, these are the guys I've picked, your job is to make them leaders or whatever shit it is you blokes do."
Deloitte: "Of course, we charge £5000 a day"
Eddie: "Whatever maaate, it's not my money, take your time"

[sockwithaticket]

Maybe other teams do this, but we certainly don't hear about it. I had thought we were already getting it via Will Carling's mentoring, he has a business that deals with leadership consultancy iirc, so we're now getting a second bunch of leadership consultants in on top of that.

Perhaps we really don't produce leaders and need to cultivate them through outside influence. Can't help, but think it might be worth investigating why that is. It's surely nothing to do with having autonomy bullied out of them.

[Paddington Bear]

He has, although much that has come from the shift in attacking intent. Though there's a fair point since Care was canned for repeatedly ignoring opportunities Eddie specifically created for him as a breaking 9 we've given far too little attention to anyone who isn't Youngs

what

Care was canned for fucking up his basics

And challenging Eddie if Mike Brown's column is to be believed.

Yes but that is a huge if. The 'I politely disagreed with Jones' assessment' never rang true.

[Kawazaki]

Maybe other teams do this, but we certainly don't hear about it. I had thought we were already getting it via Will Carling's mentoring, he has a business that deals with leadership consultancy iirc, so we're now getting a second bunch of leadership consultants in on top of that.

Perhaps we really don't produce leaders and need to cultivate them through outside influence. Can't help, but think it might be worth investigating why that is. It's surely nothing to do with having autonomy bullied out of them.

Maybe. I think it's more likely Jones has got them in as window dressing. The big brand management consultancies earn a fortune doing this with firms, it's a well known tactic used by management to calm down stakeholders. Jones doesn't even rate the opinions of others rugby coaches, do you really think he gives a toss what a 30-something suit from Deloitte thinks?

[Margin__Walker]

Faz tested positive for Covid and isolating.

[Kawazaki]

Faz tested positive for Covid and isolating.

Oh wow! He's out for two weeks then surely?

Let's hope he French kissed Ben Youngs..

[SaintK]

Faz tested positive for Covid and isolating.

Linky!!!

[Margin__Walker]

Faz tested positive for Covid and isolating.

Oh wow! He's out for two weeks then surely?

Let's hope he French kissed Ben Youngs..

Another PCR test today apparently, but you'd think he'll be out of the picture.

Will be interesting to see whether they feel Smith is fit enough to start

[Margin__Walker]

Faz tested positive for Covid and isolating.

Linky!!!

[sockwithaticket]

Faz tested positive for Covid and isolating.

Oh wow! He's out for two weeks then surely?

Let's hope he French kissed Ben Youngs..

Another PCR test today apparently, but you'd think he'll be out of the picture.

Will be interesting to see whether they feel Smith is fit enough to start

It'd be Furbank if not, presumably.

Scotland managed with Kinghorn at 10 against Tonga, if Furbank is genuinely viewed as 10 cover then there are certainly worse matches he could start.

[sockwithaticket]

what

Care was canned for fucking up his basics

And challenging Eddie if Mike Brown's column is to be believed.

Yes but that is a huge if. The 'I politely disagreed with Jones' assessment' never rang true.

,
Given some of his purported interactions with players I can't imagine Eddie's an easy man to talk to generally let alone disagree with. It was almost certainly a lot less polite than Brown wrote, but then you get what you give and within reason (some things can't be taken back once said) the head coach should be strong enough to withstand that without permanently dropping someone.

[Kawazaki]

When you consider the other options not in Jones squad, it just highlights how he hasn't learned from the last RWC on selection.

Ford and Lozowski must be either seething or laughing their heads off.

[Margin__Walker]

Reckon it would be Furbank (and sure he'll do fine against Tonga), but it would be pretty absurd seeing him start at ten for England in front of some of the other options playing club rugby in England...

[sockwithaticket]

Maybe other teams do this, but we certainly don't hear about it. I had thought we were already getting it via Will Carling's mentoring, he has a business that deals with leadership consultancy iirc, so we're now getting a second bunch of leadership consultants in on top of that.

Perhaps we really don't produce leaders and need to cultivate them through outside influence. Can't help, but think it might be worth investigating why that is. It's surely nothing to do with having autonomy bullied out of them.

Maybe. I think it's more likely Jones has got them in as window dressing. The big brand management consultancies earn a fortune doing this with firms, it's a well known tactic used by management to calm down stakeholders. Jones doesn't even rate the opinions of others rugby coaches, do you really think he gives a toss what a 30-something suit from Deloitte thinks?

Reading it back my post is a lot more equivocal than I'd intended. I do try to avoid being trapped in an Eddie = bad mindset, but this feels like it's at best addressing a symptom of a problem, a problem he could well be the root of, and that's if the consultants aren't just a smokescreen Eddie's using to mollify the board. The argument against the latter is that he's pretty much guaranteed his job until his contract expires at the end of the world cup, so I'm not sure how much upward management he needs to do.

[SaintK]

Faz tested positive for Covid and isolating.

Linky!!!

Ta Where's George Ford when you need him?

[Kawazaki]

Maybe other teams do this, but we certainly don't hear about it. I had thought we were already getting it via Will Carling's mentoring, he has a business that deals with leadership consultancy iirc, so we're now getting a second bunch of leadership consultants in on top of that.

Perhaps we really don't produce leaders and need to cultivate them through outside influence. Can't help, but think it might be worth investigating why that is. It's surely nothing to do with having autonomy bullied out of them.

Maybe. I think it's more likely Jones has got them in as window dressing. The big brand management consultancies earn a fortune doing this with firms, it's a well known tactic used by management to calm down stakeholders. Jones doesn't even rate the opinions of others rugby coaches, do you really think he gives a toss what a 30-something suit from Deloitte thinks?

Reading it back my post is a lot more equivocal than I'd intended. I do try to avoid being trapped in an Eddie = bad mindset, but this feels like it's at best addressing a symptom of a problem, a problem he could well be the root of, and that's if the consultants aren't just a smokescreen Eddie's using to mollify the board. The argument against the latter is that he's pretty much guaranteed his job until his contract expires at the end of the world cup, so I'm not sure how much upward management he needs to do.

Don't forget, Eddie's a master at leadership marketing. After finishing 5th in a Six Nations tournament, he managed to orchestrate an RFU performance review that didn't mention Eddie Jones once in it! That's fucking genius.

[Slick]

Maybe other teams do this, but we certainly don't hear about it. I had thought we were already getting it via Will Carling's mentoring, he has a business that deals with leadership consultancy iirc, so we're now getting a second bunch of leadership consultants in on top of that.

Perhaps we really don't produce leaders and need to cultivate them through outside influence. Can't help, but think it might be worth investigating why that is. It's surely nothing to do with having autonomy bullied out of them.

England have had some incredibly good leaders in the last couple of decades, just not since Eddie has been about.

[Kawazaki]

Maybe other teams do this, but we certainly don't hear about it. I had thought we were already getting it via Will Carling's mentoring, he has a business that deals with leadership consultancy iirc, so we're now getting a second bunch of leadership consultants in on top of that.

Perhaps we really don't produce leaders and need to cultivate them through outside influence. Can't help, but think it might be worth investigating why that is. It's surely nothing to do with having autonomy bullied out of them.

England have had some incredibly good leaders in the last couple of decades, just not since Eddie has been about.

I know I do go on about this, but surely a scrumhalf who you've picked 60 times would be part of any leadership team? What decent scrumhalf have any of you ever played with that isn't a decision maker?

[sockwithaticket]

Maybe other teams do this, but we certainly don't hear about it. I had thought we were already getting it via Will Carling's mentoring, he has a business that deals with leadership consultancy iirc, so we're now getting a second bunch of leadership consultants in on top of that.

Perhaps we really don't produce leaders and need to cultivate them through outside influence. Can't help, but think it might be worth investigating why that is. It's surely nothing to do with having autonomy bullied out of them.

England have had some incredibly good leaders in the last couple of decades, just not since Eddie has been about.

I wonder if professionalism's a little to blame. The last great leaders I can think of come from the World Cup winning team and almost all of those guys started rugby pre-professionalism.

Coaches seem to expect near slavish devotion to the game plan these days and use corporate speak like 'getting buy-in' from the players. Players can be involved in academies from as young as 14 and be subjected to this stuff throughout their development. I'm not sure it leaves room for leaders to develop unless they have a huge amount of natural tendency towards leadership.

[Raggs]

Farrell seems like a very good captain? I'd not officially name him captain, as I'd want someone else talking to the ref, but of the team? Sure.

Works as hard as anyone else on the pitch. Willing to get stuck in. Constantly vocal and driving others. When there were no crowds, his voice was the most consistently heard on the pitch in the games I saw. Constantly talking, encouraging, informing etc. When LRZ got past May and went most the length of the pitch, it was Farrell that was back straight after May (despite having further to go), it's not the only time that he's shown that sort of determination. 36 is another who puts in that sort of workrate, but I don't think he's as vocal a leader as Farrell.

I think he's a limited player in his talents, but there's a very good reason why so many good coaches pick him, even to the detriment of "better" players.

[Kawazaki]

Maybe other teams do this, but we certainly don't hear about it. I had thought we were already getting it via Will Carling's mentoring, he has a business that deals with leadership consultancy iirc, so we're now getting a second bunch of leadership consultants in on top of that.

Perhaps we really don't produce leaders and need to cultivate them through outside influence. Can't help, but think it might be worth investigating why that is. It's surely nothing to do with having autonomy bullied out of them.

England have had some incredibly good leaders in the last couple of decades, just not since Eddie has been about.

I wonder if professionalism's a little to blame. The last great leaders I can think of come from the World Cup winning team and almost all of those guys started rugby pre-professionalism.

Coaches seem to expect near slavish devotion to the game plan these days and use corporate speak like 'getting buy-in' from the players. Players can be involved in academies from as young as 14 and be subjected to this stuff throughout their development. I'm not sure it leaves room for leaders to develop unless they have a huge amount of natural tendency towards leadership.

I don't see any reason why developing as a player now would suppress leadership potential any more or less than development as a player in the environment that existed 30 years ago. If anything, it would be identified earlier nowadays and developed and encouraged earlier.

[Paddington Bear]

Disagree - structure and process conquers all. I think the 'real world' experience that's lacking is also a factor - there's a reason so many current players really aren't very interesting to listen to.

[sockwithaticket]

England have had some incredibly good leaders in the last couple of decades, just not since Eddie has been about.

I wonder if professionalism's a little to blame. The last great leaders I can think of come from the World Cup winning team and almost all of those guys started rugby pre-professionalism.

Coaches seem to expect near slavish devotion to the game plan these days and use corporate speak like 'getting buy-in' from the players. Players can be involved in academies from as young as 14 and be subjected to this stuff throughout their development. I'm not sure it leaves room for leaders to develop unless they have a huge amount of natural tendency towards leadership.

I don't see any reason why developing as a player now would suppress leadership potential any more or less than development as a player in the environment that existed 30 years ago. If anything, it would be identified earlier nowadays and developed and encouraged earlier.

Completely unproven (perhaps even unprovable) speculation on my part, but I think having to make your way outside rugby inculcates a different character to having been ensconced in it from such a young age.

I get the impression from interviews various players have done over the years that there is near slavish adherence to the gameplan and that's the expectation of them. coaches always praise coachable players, but is that perhaps code for someone who just does what their told?

Then of course we hear about players like Cipriani and Brown being shut out by coaches for disagreeing with them (of course it may have been their mode of disagreement that was problematic).

I'm left with an impression that progression in a pro rugby career is facilitated by acquiescence.

[Paddington Bear]

I don't think it's a huge shock when you look at the modern game - hugely structured defence that only successfully works if everyone does their specific job - you can see why coaches favour certain types of player.

[tc27]

Rugby Journo's on twitter obviously heard a 'big' selection change is incoming.

[Raggs]

Cips isn't against a gameplan though, he just disagrees with the gameplan the coaches have. You can see whether it be Sale, Wasps or Glaws (and I guess soon Bath), that when you hire Cips as number 1, your attack will have the same gameplan, as it's the Cips gameplan.

It's not that Cips just tells people to run wherever they like and he'll make it work, everyone runs the exact lines he wants, and he picks the best option.

Structure is somehow a dirty word when it really shouldn't be. You want to see those double pump no-look out the back passes, that's not off the cuff flair, that's a decision that can be made and executed because of a structure.

And yes, in general I want the coaches choosing the structure, albeit with the input of the main playmakers. The coaches and their analysts are the ones that have the time to go over game footage etc, as the players need to be actually working on skills, fitness, and structure.

The reason sides often have a much better defence than attack early into a new coaching regime, is that defensive structure is far less complex and easier to input than attack. And whilst it still relies on relationships a bit, it's not in the same way as attack. It's all structure, but structure doesn't mean player A passes to player B every time. It means player A knows that 3 other players (maybe not even b,c,d) will be running certain lines, allowing him to quickly and easily assess his options.

[Hal Jordan]

Curry to fly half to expand his world classness to no less than four positions, then?

[Kawazaki]

I wonder if professionalism's a little to blame. The last great leaders I can think of come from the World Cup winning team and almost all of those guys started rugby pre-professionalism.

Coaches seem to expect near slavish devotion to the game plan these days and use corporate speak like 'getting buy-in' from the players. Players can be involved in academies from as young as 14 and be subjected to this stuff throughout their development. I'm not sure it leaves room for leaders to develop unless they have a huge amount of natural tendency towards leadership.

I don't see any reason why developing as a player now would suppress leadership potential any more or less than development as a player in the environment that existed 30 years ago. If anything, it would be identified earlier nowadays and developed and encouraged earlier.

Completely unproven (perhaps even unprovable) speculation on my part, but I think having to make your way outside rugby inculcates a different character to having been ensconced in it from such a young age.

I get the impression from interviews various players have done over the years that there is near slavish adherence to the gameplan and that's the expectation of them. coaches always praise coachable players, but is that perhaps code for someone who just does what their told?

Then of course we hear about players like Cipriani and Brown being shut out by coaches for disagreeing with them (of course it may have been their mode of disagreement that was problematic).

I'm left with an impression that progression in a pro rugby career is facilitated by acquiescence.

I fear you could be right. Natural leaders are identified as trouble-makers/mavericks/rogues by coaches and excluded rather than encouraged.

[Paddington Bear]

Tbh I think it's symptomatic of wider working culture. No one gets fired for following the process and structure. Everyone everywhere says they welcome initiative but what they mean by that is they welcome initiative when it's successful only.

If we beat SA based on someone jumping out the line and intercepting a pass we'll praise the vision, if it leaves a gap that SA run through we'll criticise to the rafters. Etc etc

[Kawazaki]

Tbh I think it's symptomatic of wider working culture. No one gets fired for following the process and structure. Everyone everywhere says they welcome initiative but what they mean by that is they welcome initiative when it's successful only.

If we beat SA based on someone jumping out the line and intercepting a pass we'll praise the vision, if it leaves a gap that SA run through we'll criticise to the rafters. Etc etc

The 'nobody got fired for choosing IBM' methodology. Logical thinking kills magic.

[Kawazaki]

Good thread by Will Kelleher on Twitter regarding Eddie Jones's selections since 2016...




Most players he's picked have been from Bath.

Most picked player is Ben Youngs

[inactionman]

Good thread by Will Kelleher on Twitter regarding Eddie Jones's selections since 2016...




Most players he's picked have been from Bath.

Most picked player is Ben Youngs

He's not all bad then.

To be honest, part of that is probably Bath's propensity to let England internationals leave so there's always the next one in - off top of head I can think of Ford, Attwood, Devoto, Eastmond, Burns, Banahan (granted, his was for a retirement gig at Gloucester), although not sure all are on Jones' watch (Barkley, Catt, and Tindall were a long time before). I mention as most of these were still internationals at or around time of departure. Seems to happen at Bath more than other places, although maybe I'm just more attuned to it.


Team for tonight:
Leicester: Burns; Porter, Scott, Kelly, Nadolo; Ford (capt), van Poortvliet; van Wyk, Dolly, Cole, Wells, Green, Chessum, Reffell, Brink.

Replacements: Cowan-Dickie, Leatigaga, Heyes, Snyman, Wigglesworth, Hegarty, Murimurivalu.

Bath: Bailey; Rokoduguni, Joseph, Clark, Muir; Cipriani, Fox; Schoeman, Dunn, Rae, McNally (capt), Richards, Ellis, de Carpentier, Reid.

Replacements: Du Toit, Cordwell, Verden, Merigan, Cowan, Green, Ojomoh, McConnochie.

Thankfully I'm going out for beer with my brother so won't be watching Freddie Burns' inevitable hat trick. Orlando Bailey at fullback is a new one on me, and Mike Williams made sure to avoid the ignominy of losing to his old club by sconing a wasp and getting a 4 week ban. Tactics.

[ASMO]

Looks like Farrell is out, tested positive for covid.....small mercies

[inactionman]

Looks like Farrell is out, tested positive for covid.....small mercies

Cips is already spoken for, sorry.

What are processes for replacement callups at 11th hour?