Eddie Jones is not short on gamesmanship. He is the master of the provocative statement.
He was at his best when he insisted, in the glow of England’s Six Nations Grand Slam, that England could win the June series against the Wallabies 3-0.
Then with that characteristic impish, naughty boy smile on his face he went on to explain how much he’d enjoy spending the week after the series in Australia gloating over his team’s victory.
Like most rugby pundits around the world, either in the UK or down under, I was actually underwhelmed by England’s achievement. I don’t believe that England will win the series, not 3-0 or even 2-1. On what England showed in their Six Nations triumph, the team will exceed expectations if it wins one Test.
Much of the play in the 2016 Six Nations tournament, including England’s performances, was mediocre compared with the standard set by the stronger teams in this season’s Super Rugby tournament.
To take one example, the Chiefs incredible 30-26 victory over the Jaguares at Velez Sarsfield involved a quality of attacking and defensive rugby by both sides that was superior to that of any two teams in the Six Nations.
We need to remember, too, that all the teams in the Six Nations were pathetic performers in the 2015 Rugby World Cup tournament, especially England.
None of the Six Nations teams contested the Rugby World Cup semi-final. The all-southern hemisphere nations semi-finals was a Rugby World Cup first. France was defeated by a T20 cricket score by the All Blacks in the Rugby World Cup quarter-final.
England did not even make the Rugby World Cup finals, the first time a host nation has not progressed out of the group.
The important point to note here is that 13 of the England Rugby World Cup squad was in the 23 for the final match of the 2016 Six Nations against France.
One of other point, too, is that Eddie Jones was fortunate that his England side had a favourable draw for this year’s Six Nations tournament. England struggled to beat Scotland at Murrayfield 15-9. Then they overwhelmed Italy at Rome 40-9.
The next two matches, England’s toughest in the tournament, were played at its fortress, Twickenham.
In the last 16 years, England has lost only six Six Nations matches at Twickenham. So it is to be expected that England defeated Wales 25-21 at Twickenham and Ireland were defeated 21-10.
And in the last match of the tournament, England defeated a poor French side 31-21 in Paris.
Would this England side defeat Wales in Cardiff? I don’t think so. Would England have defeated Ireland in Dublin? Possibly not.
Constant readers of The Roar who believe that this is just old Spiro venting off against northern hemisphere rugby need to take notice of what the British rugby commentators are saying.
Brian Moore, the admittedly grumpy former hooker and multiple Grand Slam winner with England, has described the 2016 Six Nations tournament as having “plenty of effort, close results, yet a dearth of real quality.”
And Stuart Barnes, generally supportive of the northern hemisphere rugby has admitted that the tournament was “average in the extreme.”
Sean Coppack, writing for The Independent, has compared the statistics of the 2012 Six Nations, which was played after a strong northern hemisphere showing in Rugby World Cup 2011, with the statistics of the 2016 Six Nations tournament (after five rounds in both tournaments).
| Team | Errors (2012) | Errors (2016) |
| England | 59 | 125 |
| France | 57 | 116 |
| Ireland | 50 | 113 |
| Italy | 49 | 128 |
| Scotland | 54 | 116 |
| Wales | 40 | 102 |
Coppack makes this observation from these statistics: “This huge increase in the number of errors (this year) is a terrible indictment of the basic ball handling skills of of the northern hemisphere sides at present. The numbers highlight an area in their play which is lagging significantly behind the southern hemisphere power houses of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and now Argentina.”
When the statistics of England’s play in the 2016 Six Nations tournament is compared with the year earlier (2015) there is good evidence to suggest that England’s Grand Slam can be attributed in large measure to the weakness of the opposition rather than to its own resurgence.
Daniel Schofield in The Telegraph (UK) in an article headed The Six Changes Eddie Jones made which led to Six Nations success noted that the main change from the austere, restricted and mechanical regime installed by the former coach Stuart Lancaster was that Jones was prepared to unleash his dogs of war in the tackle.
Jones’ England contested the breakdown with a ferocity that was missing under Lancaster. The side still lacks a genuine number 7 but Jones compensated for this by encouraging every player to be a “jackal,” a stealer of possession from the opposing sides.
The key statistic here is that England had 21 jackals forcing turnovers in the 2016 Six Nations compared with only 13 in 2015.
England’s set piece, too, was significantly better with a new coaching staff than it was under Lancaster. The scrum success rate was 92 per cent and the lineout 90 per cent. In the three key matches against Ireland, Wales and France, England lost only one lineout out of 37 while pilfering nine opposition throws.
This collective aggression and skill at the breakdown and in the set pieces gave England an obvious edge over the other Six Nations sides.
Jones must take credit for introducing what I would an effective mongrel attitude to England’s play. He also simplified England’s game plan. The improvement in England’s set pieces is significant. England also played to score tries rather than force penalties.
As a counter to this, it must be conceded that England gave away 15 more penalties in its total of 63 this year than it gave away in the 2015 Six Nations tournament.
In effect, though, the Jones strategy was designed for England to win the battle of the advantage line and from that advantage line strength impose a match-winning dominance over its opponents. The method was clearly successful.
Billy Vunipola became an 80-minute player with the task of trucking the ball forward. He crossed the gain line 226 times in the Six Nations tournament. This is eight times more than the total gain line wins by England in the 2015 Six Nations tournament.
The backs had simple but effective plays to exploit England’s pacy back three. You could see this clarity in the clear-headed way young George Ford led England around the field from the number 10 position.
George Kruis, who did not play in the 2015 Six Nations, was the outstanding and dominant second rower in the tournament. An injury to Joe Launchbury allowed Jones to bring in Maro Itoje as Kruis’ partner. This combination has the potential to be the equivalent for England of the Botha-Matfield Springboks great pairing.
As Schofield points out, Launchbury was the only enforced replacement Jones had to make. This lack of injuries in a squad during a Six Nations tournament is “almost unprecedented.” Napoleon once said, Schofield noted, “that luck is the most important attribute of any general, and in this case coach.”
I am a great believer that in sport as in life, you make your luck. Eddie Jones is not a lucky coach. He is one of the most successful coaches in world rugby right now.
His task after taking over England was to win the Six Nations tournament. Few of the pundits in the UK gave him or his team much chance of achieving this. Sir Ian McGeechan, for instance, predicted that Wales would win the tournament.
England has won the tournament. This is only the 13th time that England has won a Grand Slam in the 108 years since France came into the tournament. It is 13 years, too, since the last England Grand Slam victory.
Eddie Jones deserves all the applause being heaped upon him for what he has done with the shattered, lacklustre England side he inherited.
He is right, too, to tell his players that “if we’re going to beat Australia in Australia, we’ve got to have a completely physical, aggressive team … We’ve got to take a side down there to play Bodyline.”
And his opening shot of the Australia campaign has already been fired with warning to the squad that triumphed in Paris that no one should take their place for granted when the Tests in Australia are played.
I think Jones is hinting here that changes in centres and on the flanks, especially the need to play a genuine number 7, are going to be made.
So Michael Cheika must not under-estimate the challenge that the Eddie Jones England side is going to present his Wallabies.
To my mind, Cheika’s greatest weakness as a coach is that he is reluctant to bring on new players. He is already talking about bringing back Will Genia from Europe, for instance, to play in the Test series.
Madness!
Cheika needs to remember that no losing team in the final of a Rugby World Cup tournament has ever gone on and competed in the next final. Two winning finalists, Australia in 1999 and England in 2003 have gone on to losing in the next final, in 2003 and 2007. New Zealand has won back-to-back Rugby World Cup finals in 2011 and 2015.
This suggests to me that Cheika needs to start re-stocking his Wallabies squad with younger players rather than relying on players now well past their prime.
If he does this, I have no doubt that the Wallabies can win the series against England in June 3-0, or at worst 2-1.
One of the German generals in the First World War made the point that “war plans rarely survive the first contact of battle.” Gamesmanship, even when practised by a master like Eddie Jones, often suffers from the same fate.
Jesusof Oz
Guest
Oh dear - Kiwis talking like the Welsh again - you never beat them, you just score more points, and the excuses are always of the "cat ate my homework" variety.. the team was crook, the ref made mistakes, it was poor selection, somebody put something in the gravy!
Taylorman
Guest
Yes agree timbo, a win is a win. But here we are talking about the greatest period in England's history. For the ABs it was an average to poor period. That's why I don't rate the side as highly when it comes to the great eras.
ClarkeG
Roar Guru
Johnny I’m not interested in the conspiracy theories but you haven’t answered the question I put to you above. You can interpret that the ball come off Phipps’ chest but are unable to interpret that he attempted to grab it and that he touched it.
ClarkeG
Roar Guru
But the problem OB is who decides when it is warranted. Should it only be if it is the last play of the game, 2mins remaining (as was the case in this instance), 5mins, 10 mins? Who decides what action at what time determines the winning of the match. And then the other point is how would that particular instance play out in regards the TMO. Would the referee ask the TMO if there is any reason why that penalty already awarded should be overturned. Or should the referee award the scrum for the knock (which would have been the case but for the penalty as he had already indicated advantage for this) and then ask the referee are there grounds for a penalty. Two quite different scenarios. We would be opening up a big can of worms if we go down this path.
Tony UK
Guest
Hi guys. Interesting article and comments. I'd like to add my thoughts. England are definitely becoming a growing menace. Under Lancaster we produced some fine rugby but whenever it came to the crunch we bottled it, the performance level dropped. Thus we never gained the experience and momentum from winning the 6N. This was ultimately Lancaster's undoing, his inability to get his side over the line when it mattered most. What Lancaster did do (to which Eddie Jones is benefiting from) is a change in how we play the game. Gone is the 10 man game, stuff it up ya jumper type rugby that became synonymous with England. A far more aggressive, open brand of rugby was adopted and largely produced positive results and performances. Lancaster also brought through a large contingent of uncapped players. The WC was a disaster, however, England were their own worst enemy. They shot themselves in the foot against Wales and thus put a huge amount of pressure on a positive result against Australia. The rest is history. Would Eddie Jones have come in if England had made it to the QF and promptly lost? I doubt it. The WC debacle really could be the best thing that could have happened, no matter how painful at the time. I've always admired the Australian sporting grit and its something that English rugby sorely needs to progress to the next level, of which I believe they are capable of. Eddie just might be the catalyst.
The Clay
Guest
Oz lost to the Lions not that long ago, they may have been a sack of sh*t at that point but it only proves that teams can go forwards or backwards. The home nations that year were able to put together a winning squad despite the difficulties of building a cohesive side from four unions, at the last minute. Australia have improved since that series and are, rightly, favourites for a home series against England, but you can forget it if you think Eddie Jones of all people is going to acknowledge that. England are very much on the up right now and can head over to Australia with no fear and plenty to prove to their many doubters. Eddie will absolute love spinning it whichever way he needs to in order to build a motivated, aggressive, confrontational side with the sole intention of wining every match. That is how professional sport should be played and coached. It's not disrespectful to the opposition or "hot air". He knows it's gonna be a war and he's preparing accordingly. Can't wait.
Johnny J-Dog
Guest
CG, it is therefore an interpretation of what Phipps did or didn't do which isn't black or white. CJ's call isn't "clearly and obviously wrong". Like I said, I'd take more notice of a neutral ref's on-the-spot decision rather than slow-mo replays (which are deceptive) and the statement from the WR some days later which had ulterior motives.
Derm
Roar Guru
Scottish and Welsh fans disagree?
Old Bugger
Guest
CG I concur - we don't want the TMO interfering at every decision but, as Good Game suggested, there are times when a TMO riding shotgun is warranted and particularly, when the winning of a match, can be determined by the last penalty and resulting kick of the day, occurs. I don't think anyone would've worried if the score was blown out and the penalty made no difference to the final outcome.
Colin N
Guest
Perhaps I shouldn't have been so blunt but, for me, a statement like that needs qualifying. There are coaches who are conservative, there are coaches who are not but I don't see that as a NH/SH thing. Also, if the NH are against the SH in terms of their ideals, why are Gatland and Schmidt in jobs? Both have played conservatively but I can't see them being men to do that because of outside influence. I can't imagine, although Nick should correct me if I'm wrong, that Lancaster's game plans were dictated to by people other than he and his coaching team. I also can't imagine that he was dictated to when he/they selected a 10,12, 13 of Farrell, Burgess and Barritt for the game against Wales, a move which staggered most observers. The issue England had under Lancaster was that they never had an identity. At times, they looked to play expansively, at others they were conservative but he never had an identifiable style. One of things Nick could have been referring to was in 2014 when England lost to New Zealand and South Africa and were under severe pressure to beat Australia, so they duly played far more conservatively. However, I doubt that move was because they thought an expansive style was wrong, I'm guessing it was because they were in desperate need of a win and went back to something they thought would give them a better chance. Finally, if you wish to look further down the English system and the under-20s then that side has produced some outstanding teams who have played excellent rugby, particularly since 2011. In fact, the current team, who managed just one win in the U20 Six Nations, were a bit like Lancaster's in the World Cup; soft, lacked physicality and overplayed. The intent was admirable but the execution was terrible and you could argue that they watched the World Cup and were mistaken in how successful rugby teams play.
colvin
Guest
Timbo Well, that 2002 match won't bring you much joy as an England supporter either. That was an official All Black team of course and a win is a win. But 2002 and 2003 was a weird time for NZ rugby. Mitchell was coach and controversially took a development side to UK in 2002 leaving behind a number of first choice ABs. If you watch the You Tube coverage of the 2003 match Taylorman posted you will hear the commentators talk about it. Only four players on that 2002 tour were in the ABs team in 2003. Your comment on the score in 2002 was correct being 31-13 at one stage but the ABs then took England on and rather than England easing up they were run off their feet and only barely managed to hold on winning 31-28. Again not a great performance against a development team. But a win was a win so good on them. So in England's last three wins against the ABs it beat a development team in 2002, won but never should have in 2003 (England's first penalty arose from a referee's mistake) and beat a novovirus stricken team in 2012. To be best in the world England needs to beat the best in the world consistently without anything controversial.
Old Bugger
Guest
t-man Cheers but from another view - there are reasons why the WBs have never won at EP since '86.....they simply weren't good enough, lacked a bit of fortitude perhaps, lacked skills.......same with Scotland and Ireland. But why is that?? All teams prepare for games whether it is a club, provincial, SR or test match. The winning of those matches is centred around how well you prepare and how well you play, in accordance with, that preparation. It makes a difference when players are more experienced, more skilful and more alert about not only their own ability, but also their team-mate's ability and of course, their opponents ability. You and Kane consider the past has impacted other sides simply because the mental impact of not being able to win over this period, has somehow or other, become the "monkey on those team's shoulders" rather than going back to the basic tenets of perhaps, not enough hard yards being done, in the preparatory phases. IMO, I don't understand why sides haven't pieced together this history of incapability and asked themselves the necessary questions like "is it our preparation?? or Is it our skills?? or Is it our players?? or What are we not doing enough of to help us overcome, this record??" I mean, there's 30years of history for one side and approx 100yrs for both the other sides and yet, it still seems like that mountain, gets higher and higher, for them. I agree, of course it will happen that either of these teams will break their shackles but, they will only do so when the preparation is right, the experience is right, the skills are right and each players top 2" are tuned in to not only their own ability but, their team-mates ability and most importantly, their opponents ability, to help them overcome and finally, succeed. Do the hard yards to achieve success.....nothing is a given, is it mate?? Looks like I just gave more than 5c worth, in this lot.....haha!!
PJ
Guest
Spiro, Do you have the equivalent stats of errors for the Rugby Championship. My British colleagues are in denial.
Buk
Guest
Carlos - learning of your back ground was very interesting, thanks for including. (and glad to see some Irish input there :) )
ClarkeG
Guest
haha too many botches
Buk
Guest
CG thats how I read your original comment as well - you were replying to the Samoa game 'botch'. The reply actually botched your botch :)
timbo
Guest
" That match may well have won England the 2003 RWC." Personally, I think the game that won England the RWC was the following week. The Aussies had convinced themselves that on dry, fast ground at home they could run England off their feet. They tried, but it was England that ran in the tries. The two games together was the final proof in their own minds that they could win playing whatever was the appropriate style for the conditions and opposition.
timbo
Guest
.......and 6 months earlier at Twickenham England were 31-14 up after running in 3 tries before easing up as the game was won allowing the ABs margin of defeat to look respectable. However, the records simply show a win; as do the ones regarding Wellington.
Carlos the Argie in the USA
Guest
For those of you who don't know, I was born in Argentina, my dad was Polish. My mom is of English ancestry. She lives in Australia. I went to an Irish school in Buenos Aires where I was introduced to rugby.At home, the culture was primarily English (tea, scones and all that). I lived in the UK. My first NH match was actually at Twickenham in 1978, England possibles against probables. The RFU gave me a "free" ticket to see Wales-England in 1978! I was (and am!) against the stupid war of '82. I am appalled by the "hand of god" in '86. But, somehow, poms got on my nerves over the years. Even if two very close friends have been knighted by the monarch! And the Russian thing comes from Dad. VComrade Stalin invited him to visit Siberia in '42, dad didn't want to go. Comrade Stalin was insistent. Dad couldn't go back to Poland after the war. This is the Russia reason. Now, have a sense of humor.
Taylorman
Guest
Yeah just don't think the finishing was as polished as it is today but certainly the side back then still looked to open it up at least as much as today's. How Marshall didn't go left on that attack that took them right up to the line I don't know.