“I don’t regret anything, mate.” That was Eddie Jones’ response during the post-match media conference in Ireland, when queried on his statement made earlier in the week on whether Jonny Sexton’s parents should be worried in light of his recent history of head trauma.
This statement of strength is reflective of the new aura England has encompassed in private quarters, and quietly out on the field.
It may also prove to be England’s Icarus Paradox.
But before we get to that, let’s break down the English performance against Ireland.
Set piece
There was relative parity between both sets of scrums, however again England’s came to the fore in the final quarter.
Early on, Ireland’s scrum posed problems, using pre-set head positions to disrupt not only England’s ability to drive straight, but consequentially disrupting their bind. It is incredibly taxing on the upper body to employ such headstrong positions, especially in the case of Mike Ross, who only recently had returned from injury.
Ireland also employed the tactic of changing the power of their hit on the ‘set’ calls, which also led to binding issues for Ireland’s props. England stuck to their guns with eight-man straight-drive scrummaging, and reaped the rewards. Case in point, an Ireland scum destroyed 10 metres out from the English line in the 74th minute.
England enjoyed supremacy come lineout time, as thrice Ireland had threatening lineout positions foiled. In contrast to Ireland, who veered toward simplistic movement, England used deception, with Chris Robshaw collecting in the front when attacking the tryline – the only take Robshaw had the whole game. Overall, Ireland lost close to 60 per cent of their lineouts.
England’s mauling game, again, was disappointing. Maul attempts were easily foiled, and it appears they are still grasping the setup stage of the system, leaving the ball carrier prone to disturbances from the opposition locks.
Breakdown and defence
The English forwards’ tackling techniques has been superb. They really dial in on the first tackler coming into the contact area, with good feet position in close to the ball carrier, and a solid spinal position targeted at the hips.
Notwithstanding Dan Cole and Dylan Hartley’s communication mix-up in allowing Ultan Dillane to canter through, a big reason for Ireland’s inability to put points on – despite 70 per cent possession and territory in the second half – lay in England’s tackling, line-speed and subsequent breakdown pressure.
This England defensive setup is acutely aware of who the first receiver of rucks is, and use the defensive ‘key’ position (third man from ruck) to really fly out and apply pressure. Once tackled behind the gain-line, Ireland had no choice but to pile numbers into the breakdown, leaving them numerically disadvantaged on the outside.
Ireland’s forwards were completely dominated come phase play in both attack and defence, leaving space for England’s attack, and a lack of space for Ireland’s.
The only real blight on defence was Connor Murray’s sneaky try. Because of this dominance, it would be unfair to commend the backline for their defensive work.
Attack
George Ford’s kicking game was vastly improved from his previous two performances. His Garry Owens were accurate and many a time left little option for Ireland to launch a counter attack. The subsequent breakdown pressure left Ireland reeling, with more forwards than they would have liked committed to the breakdown to retain possession, thus negating the width gameplan they were looking to employ.
The backline play from England was poor. Around the half-hour mark, England had two consecutive midfield scrums in Ireland’s red zone. They stacked four players on the left, and left two on the right. The pre-call was for Owen Farrell to run an ‘unders’ line, with Jamie Joseph running an ‘overs’ line. The first time Ford got caught, as Farrell timed his run poorly. The second time Ford looked to put Joseph on the outside of his defender with a miss pass, which went to ground.
It is hard to fathom the thinking behind this play call. Simple plays tend to be most effective close to the line, however, Farrell is not going to draw much attention defensively due to his lack of stature, and the pass to Joseph was beyond Ford’s capabilities.
England also manufactured two-on-two, three-on-three and four-on-four situations, with their forwards dominating the midfield gain line contest in phase play. Many a time, you would see England’s inability to interest the second defender outside the ball carriers. The reluctance to drift, shimmy or step with pace, perhaps in fear of being dragged into touch, is really telling. This is what sets southern hemisphere rugby apart from northern.
This lack of adventure, skill even, is sadly a symptom not only of England, but all the Home Nations. These situations are gold, especially in Test rugby.
England’s attack systems were a lot more polished, with players having better understanding of their positional demands. And with their forward dominance, quicker ball was available against a retreating defence, which led to the best try they have manufactured so far this tournament in the 61st minute. Options aplenty, and smart decisions taken.
England’s Icarus Paradox
Wikipedia describes the Icarus Paradox as a reference to “the phenomenon of businesses failing abruptly after a period of apparent success, where this failure is brought about by the very elements that led to their initial success.”
The swagger, confidence and good old aggressive English pompousness are the intangibles Jones has reinstate, as seen in the continued selection of players such as Farrell and Mike Brown. They are both voracious characters, however they are ill-suited to the positional demands required of England’s game plan.
The immediate selection of Manu Tuilagi, despite only having played three games in the last 13 months, is indicative of Jones’ understanding that Farrell is not the 12 England needs to elevate their backline to world-class standard.
Brown has played just below average in his three appearances so far. He stifles England’s counterattack by continuing to return kicks on his own, despite teammates having opportunities further out. His passing as first receiver is poor, and he is not the attacking threat at Test level that he is for his club. The only reason I can find for his inclusion is his character traits appeal to Jones. It is also to be noted he is one of England’s vice-captains.
England must be careful, because the intangibles that will see them win the Six Nations will prove futile when it comes to playing southern teams. How many times have we seen the Six Nations champions struggle and later question themselves after playing the world’s top three teams?
If the persistence on character traits sans rugby intellect continues, it is going to be a long year ahead for this English side.
John R
Roar Guru
Wow. Like OMG. I just can't. I just can't even deal. That's you. That's how you talk. https://youtu.be/hguiN8oo0dI?t=39
John R
Roar Guru
Not Bothered: Has a go at a bloke about not learning how to read when questioned about his use of paragraphs. But takes the advice on board and structures his next post with paragraphs. Walking paradox.
John R
Roar Guru
It does mean "3 TEAMS FROM SANZAR" when comparing tier one to tier one. If you want to go that route though, then let's pit the PI teams against the North American teams, and other outliers in Europe etc. and we'll see how we go. Get some perspective. Or save yourself the increased blood pressure, and stay on English and French rugby fan forums.
ben
Guest
Just a question...why do you always put things in caps? Tell us.
Not Bothered
Guest
In what way is the Welsh backrow incomparable? Wales has the better openside but England edges Wales at 8 easily on form and its debatable but I think Robshaw edges the Welsh blindides so far too. England lacks a quality 7 and Haskell is probably a short term answer. Vunipola is the player of the 6 nats so far. I think their backrows are comparable and its debatable whos is better even with Haskell. England has 2 very good wingers, Watson especially will be a quality player and I think he will be a starting Lion against NZ. Brown is solid and makes very few poor decisions or mistakes. Hes hard to tackle and his defence us pretty good for an international 15 but he is not a distributor or a playmaker. Joseph, Daly and Tuilagi are all fantastic centres however none are noted 2nd 5/8 type players which would be ideal if Brown is your fullback. Enter Henry Slade. Slade has all the ingredients to become a fantastic 12 or 15 imo and is exactly what England needs. The problem is where to put him. Im a big fan of a fullback with playmaking ability. The likes of Beale, McKenzie, Barrett, Hogg can make a massive impact from 15. Sure its not for every team, some, like NZ, have well rounded fullbacks such as Dagg or B.Smith because of the ability of almost the entire backline to create and direct play to some degree. However it is my opinion that England, like Ireland, Aus and Wales, does not have the player pool to avoid using 2 major playmaking options. Thats why Giteau was used, thats why Eastmond, Farrell, Twelvetrees and others were used for England. Thats why Wales and Ireland often lack creative play at times. As for the rest of the English forward pack, the 2nd row has outstanding depth and potential. Itoje, Lawes, Kruis, Attwood, Launchbury, no worries. The front 3 are quality but imo its the bench where Eng are outstanding here. George, Vunipola and Brookes!? Thats impact and quality. Although George is out for this match.
NickG
Roar Rookie
Thanks Nicholas for your comments. Agreed Ireland, and the very shrewd Joe Schmidt (big fan), found more holes in England. Just didn't have the time this week to fully explore. Just a question, in light of your article on David Pocock, who in your opinion would be the best 7 in England currently available to England ?
NickG
Roar Rookie
Thanks Not Bothered for your opinions. I don't feel pompousness and swagger are not bad traits when it comes to physically confrontational sports, akin to when boxers/MMA fighters always proclaiming to the best or greatest. Even the All Blacks worked on their mantra of being the best team in history. The Home Nations look at the original tri nations teams as their barometer of progress, did not mean to belittle the many other teams, who I find have not only contributed greatly in individual skills to the top 3, but also frequently compete against the best, despite their very limited resources.
NickG
Roar Rookie
I'm actually Canadian, but have lived in Singapore almost my entire life. i think England will edge Wales, taking into account England has a stronger set piece, yet has an incomparable backrow to England, and Wales has a stronger front 3 back line unit against a smaller England front 3 that has struggled against bulk in moments this championship. Goal kicking key to final result, with Twickenham thrown in as well. Don't mean to disregard the other teams, but the winner of this game will win the comp, and albeit very difficult to call (I like Wales and always root for them). The only reason why above mentioned oracled ha.
nickoldschool
Guest
"England must be careful, because the intangibles that will see them win the Six Nations will prove futile when it comes to playing southern teams. How many times have we seen the Six Nations champions struggle and later question themselves after playing the world’s top three teams?" That's very true nick, thing is all 6N already know that. In the 30 odd years I have been watching the game I have never heard a northern coach or player say the same game plan that worked at 5N or 6N level will be enough to beat the kiwi, aussies or saffas. They very well know it's a notch up yet they just struggle to bridge the gap. That's one of the reasons guys like Lancaster, Smit and a few others have tried or are trying to offer something different. But it ain't just easy with the players they have, the domestic set up etc. As an aside I don't know if you are english yourself but it seems England winning the 6N is very much a fait accompli!? Well I know a few irish, welsh and french who still hope they are going to spoil your party!
Not Bothered
Guest
If you go away, learn to read, come back, read my post, take a while, think a bit, get somebody to explain it, then you might grasp that my post mentions why there are no paragraphs. How about you and Ben think about rugby and post something about that instead of suggesting I yell at my ex and need to use paragraphs? Cant actually debate the game? Ive noticed.
Not Bothered
Guest
Wow. I thought I knew what kind of person you were Ben and youve just confirmed it. I bet you are somebody that bought your ex wife with the money you saved up from income support.
soapit
Guest
paragraphs wouldnt hurt either. (for a few reasons)
ben
Guest
Not bothered...why do you always put stuff in caps? I bet your a shouter when you debate with your ex wife.
Dan in Devon
Guest
I would argue the problem with the backline begins with the scrum half and in this Youngs may well get the nod from commentators for his carrying and kicking but I think Ford and the backs would be better served by Care who dispenses the ball far more quickly from the rucks. The other problem is the Ford-Farrell combination and the lateral movement - but if my first point holds true and the slow (or lack of ) distribution from Youngs is forcing the backline to play deeper, then changing the cattle will not make a great difference.
Not Bothered
Guest
Seriously? Limited room? He could make and has made 11 changes to the squad. Thats a lot and there are no players to speak of that deserve selection. He has a very good bunch of players to choose from. If Cheika could pick from Englands pool I would suggest at least half the forwards and half the backs in the 23 would be English. Jones faces the same problem Lancaster had, although hes managed it better than Lancaster so far, and that is getting enough playmaking in his backline. Slade is the key but hes young and imo 13 is not the ideal spot for your 2nd playmaker. I would like to see Slade used at 15 with Daly, Tuilagi and/or Joseph in the centres and Farrell at 10. I doubt it will happen.
Not Bothered
Guest
Rubbish. First of all, "southern hemisphere teams" IS NOT 3 TEAMS FROM SANZAR!!!!!!!!! It includes all teams in the southern hemisphere! Will Englands attempts be futile against Namibia, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga and Arg? For the love of god can we stop saying "southern hemisphere" when we dont mean "southern hemisphere". There are many, many teams in the SH, not 3, OK? It really irritates me that people refer to SANZAR as "the southern hemisphere". 2nd, "the imeadiate selection of Tuilagi" is not indicative of what you claim, nor was it imeadiate. Tuilagi returned before the 6 nats began and hasnt been part of the squad for the first 3 games. Sure he has played only a few games but it is an extremely long bow to draw to assume it is because Farrell isnt the right option at 12. Now if you will excuse my inability to use my return key I will continue. The suggestion that Jones'continued selection of Brown and Farrell is a reinstatement of English pompousness is absurd and makes no sense at all. Farrells selection at 12 has allowed for a 2nd, much needed, playmaker in the English backline and has nothing to do with "swagger" or "pompousness" ( how ridiculous). I dont agree with much in this article or the explainations given for assumptions made except for the general idea that the backline hasnt functioned properly in attack, although thats often the case under new management and early in the season. The English backline compares well on paper against Australias probable backline and it remains to be seen what they are capable of or what the final make up will look like.
Nicholas Bishop
Expert
The new EPS agreement won't allow EJ to make any more changes (about eleven at a time) than he's able to do already. Moreover there aren't that many high-quality players demanding inclusion who aren't already in the EPS squad! He'll stick with what he's got and develop slowly, but I doubt there will be be any sudden tipping point in selection.
Nicholas Bishop
Expert
Good article, with some very valid points made! However I don't think that England's domination on D and at the breakdown was anywhere near as complete as you imply. Ireland did after all get the ball over the line on two other occasions, and it was very hard to see how Josh van der Flier could have failed to score a try after the Dillane break. England's demand for line-speed on D can leave them looking very ragged, and they also ask a lot of Hartley and Cole to stay on the field as long as they do. Tight five fatigue was a big factor in the missed tackle on Dillane and other misses before that in the second period. Wales' defence will be much superior - and far more physical - to anything England have faced in the tournament so far, so it will be interesting to see how well England's combination of passers and finishers (without any gain-line breakers) goes.
NickG
Roar Rookie
I'm actually a huge Wallabies fan, and think the June series will be a cracker. English will be riding high in confidence after winning the Six Nations, and Wallabies will be going through a semi-transitional phrase after the World Cup. 2 abrasive Aussie coaching greats, Poms vs Aussies, can't get much better than that !! Im also a big Eddie Jones fan, and can see the systems he's trying to develop, perhaps coming to fruition only past B&I tour 2017. I do worry bout the playing personnel, and it'll the most interesting once the English elite player squad is able to be fully re-vamped by Eddie. He had very limited room for change when he first came in, due to Union/Club contractual agreements. This year appears a stretch to far for England I'm afraid.
timbo
Guest
Some good sense here, but the potential of the English backline is underrated. Certainly, there was some breakdown in communication in the two instances highlighted, but Ford certainly has the ability to nail the sort of passes noted. England's problem in the backs has consistently been related to the absence of quick ball at the breakdown and never solving the 12 conundrum - partly through bad luck with injuries and partly through flaky selection. Over the next 12-18 months the signs are that both of these issues will be resolved. I'd be very surprised if the Robshaw/Haskell axis survives much longer, with Clifford, Itoje (who can play 6 as well as lock), Kvesic, Beaumont, Ewers and a young lad called Underhill who is making great strides, likely to come through as well as a more mobile front 5. In terms of the 12 slot Tuilagi and Slade are now almost fully back, and Watson has been marked down as the future England fullback for a while allowing May (when fit next season), Nowell, Wade, and a few others to contest the wing spots. Joseph and Daly will be battling it out for years in the 13 position. For a number of reasons, not least that many of England's players will have been going at it virtually non-stop for 12 months, the June tour might be too early. I suspect, though, by next 6 Nations they'll have come on in leaps and bounds. Regarding their record against the SH, it's dire against the ABs throughout history, apart from the 2002-2003 period, and the Boks in the last decade, but the RWC was the first big game in a long while against England the Wallabies have won, and most betting going into England/Wallabies games tends to be 50-50. I think the England - Wallabies rivalry will be great over the next RWC cycle, with England perhaps a much bigger threat than some Wallaby fans seem to recognise.