Analysis: Eddie Jones' two-prong England attack

By Conor Wilson / Roar Pro

As of October 2017, nearly two years into Eddie Jones’ reign at Twickenham, England don’t have an attack coach.

England have a dedicated defence coach Paul Gustard, forwards coach Steve Borthwick, scrum coach Neal Hatley, a key man Dean Benton as strength and conditioning coach and consultants such as Jonny Wilkinson and the sensational Will Greenwood.

Jason Ryles of the Melbourne Storm has come in as a guest defence coach, and we even have an eye-training specialist in Sherylle Calder, who was part of both the 2003 and 2007 WC wins. Yet for all the people brought in, one role remains glaringly vacant: that of attack coach.

Glen Ella has been brought into the England set-up on more than one occasion to assist Jones, but the RFU don’t want an Australian attack coach, they want an Englishman. Ali Hepher of the Exeter Chiefs is being considered by them, but not by Jones.

Ella loves coaching England. We saw his reactions to England’s victories in 2016 against Australia and Argentina in 2017. His enthusiasm at England snatching games from the fire was as passionate and excited as any Englishman I know, and he wants to take the role. He’s hugely experienced and knows exactly what skill-sets Jones values.

(Photo by Tim Anger)

He’s the closest we could get to a Wayne Smith – a Professor of our own who would be invaluable in England’s think tank. Yet we don’t have him. So, Jones coaches the attack himself, not trusting anyone else bar his childhood friend to take the reins.

Attack

The England attack is unique. It doesn’t follow any standard system of attack used by other international teams. It doesn’t follow a 1-3-3-1 or a 2-4-2. It’s largely derived from the Japanese game plan, with many similar patterns of play to Japan under Jones.

However, a key is greater emphasis being placed on power and physicality due to the player size we’re able to select.

This game is geared towards utilising the distribution skills of both George Ford and Owen Farrell, with particular emphasis on the backline’s alignment off Ford and flat passes on the gain line to the forwards.

This deception is paired with extreme physicality from the England pack, and the fitness of England’s forwards. Philosophically, I believe Jones is bringing the Rod MacQueen Brumbies pattern that worked so well in the 90s.

Back to the future. He’s modernised it, that’s for sure. But England’s hit-and-run rugby, plus Jones’ exclusive use of Ella, leads me to believe he doesn’t want anyone else coaching it, as no one else understands it in detail.

Let’s get into it.

Derivations and objectives

England don’t try to go around teams. They have the players to do it, but English Rugby is and always was meant to be physical, uncompromising and hard-hitting. We have fast wingers who can utilise space, and we have the patterns to do so. However, we also have the forwards to go through teams.

The likes of Billy Vunipola, Nathan Hughes, Maro Itoje, Courtney Lawes, Jamie George, Tommy Taylor, Kyle Sinckler and Ellis Genge are key to this. Not only are all of these players extremely powerful, they’re also very fast.

Half of those mentioned are arguably players that are on the bench and can be brought on against tiring legs. Hence, we want to use them in a specific type of way. It’s a point of difference and one advantage we have against many other teams in international rugby.

However, Jones has also picked very mobile forwards. This is highlighted in the locks, with Itoje, George Kruis and Courtney Lawes being some of the most physical, yet mobile forwards in the northern hemisphere. This is key. While England have their patterns, it demands a high level of fitness from the forwards to switch between them.

(Photo by Tim Anger)

The two-prong pattern

England alternate their patterns. Most of the time, there’s a forward out on either wing like in a 1-3-3-1 but England performs it more along the lines of a 1-2-2-1, which I have christened the ‘two-prong’ pattern.

Usually, it’ll be Itoje and Jamie George due to their speed. There are also two two-man pods (or prongs) split near the 20-metre lines or, on one side of the field, depending on how the backline is aligned.

As for the last two forwards, they’re nomadic. Not only do they provide extra support for the ruck if needed, they can operate in support of the 9 or 10. You often see them coming in as inside runners off the fly-half. This is a structural pattern – it happens too often not to be. Alternatively, they move around from the blind to open, offering themselves as hard runners on the fringe of the ruck.

This 1-2-2-1 pattern, however, whilst the default, is not always used. Sometimes, all forwards move to one side of the pitch to secure the ball and play tight. This leaves only backline players on three-quarters of the pitch. Other times, there have been instances of 2-2-2-2, which could be Eddie Jones adapting to the new ruck laws, which allow far more leniency to the attacking side. That’s why this pattern is currently so unique.

England forwards, aside from the two prongs, seem to have great autonomy in their phase play. As such, they have to be fit.

(David Davies/PA Wire)

First prong:

In the example below, we can see Ben Youngs passing to the first prong.

The first prong’s job is to hold the line-speed out wide, prior to the next phase. Launchbury and Itoje are running hard onto the ball, working as a unit to drive over the gain line. George Ford is running behind them as a decoy receiver, which keeps the defence on the outside wary.

Even more so, though you can’t see it, Haskell and Lawes are moving forward into a flatter position as well, keeping the defence interested. This is important, as they’re trying to present multiple options.

Second prong

This is the second prong at work. The first has taken the ball into contact, the ruck cleared out by the nomads, and Ford has jumped in as first receiver. His sole job is to pass to Lawes, a powerful runner in his own right.

Ford stepping in as first receiver is important. This allows the second prong to stand a greater distance away than it would do if it was run off the 9.

The second prong follows the first in terms of their attack, running onto the ball, working as a unit to get over the advantage line, ruck and retain the ball. However, the objective is different.

The second prong generally cuts an inside line. This is because they hit the line wider. Therefore, it’s able to fulfill its main target point at the edge of the defensive line, as seen below.

Ford as first receiver

Ford allows the ball to be stretched out quicker. It also stops the defensive fulcrum rushing up on them. With Ford, we’re working towards the blindside with quick ball and therefore cutting out defenders with long passes. This allows England to spread across the field faster than defenders can number up.

Analysis of what’s been created

What we see here is the result of the prior phases. The ball has moved across the field quickly and the forwards have been able to provide quick ball. Youngs has fired a long, flat pass to Ford. The men outside him keep their width and flatness off the 10 and Ford himself is stood flat at the line.

Look closely, this allows him to hold the inside shoulder of Cuthbert.

Brown runs a hard inside line off Ford, which holds part of the inside defence, not allowing them to drift across. Again, this is the effect of multiple options. Ford takes the ball flat to the line, giving the pass to Jamie George, the 1 in the 1-2-2-1 system.

With the space created on the inside by the two-prong combo, quick ball and flat alignment, George makes inroads halfway into the 22.

This wasn’t done with any fancy decoy moves or offloading in the tackle to generate space. This was done with three phases across the pitch, accurate distribution, quick ball and good lines by multiple players offering themselves as an option.

Again, this attests to the fitness of England’s forwards and the effect of good basics – something all coaches can learn from.

(Photo by Tim Anger)

Purpose of this movement

The objective of the shape is to constrict the defence between the two 20-metre channels. It also cuts down line-speed of the defence, allowing England space and time to use their wide men.

This isn’t simply a one-way pattern. If the ball is taken into contact by the second prong and there’s no space out wide, Ford can reverse the direction of play, targeting the first prong of Launchbury and Itoje from the prior phase.

However, as shown below, it’s not always designed to constrict the opposition in the middle of the field but on one side as well.

Back the other way

This ruck is the result of the Jamie George inroad. One prong is already running hard approximately five metres from the ruck. Out wide you can see Owen Farrell, in the absence of Ford, organising the next prong.

They have stressed the defence so much that they haven’t contested their ruck ball, even with only England backs in the ruck. As such, the defence is still realigning as the prong charges in.

One phase later, Haskell and Marler are the second prong and Owen Farrell is preparing a wide play. In this case, the wide play is on as there are players out on the wing (out of shot).

However, better decisions could be made.

Better decision making needed

England have slipped into a 2-2-2-1. The first prong has just hit in the prior phase and there are two other prongs set up. Haskell and Marler form one, Cole and Launchbury the other.

Youngs has passed directly to Haskell when he shouldn’t have. The first receiver on this phase should’ve been Owen Farrell using Haskell or Marler as decoy runners.

He could, with his distribution, take the ball to the line, allowing time for Launchbury and Cole, as the second prong, to take the ball flat. This is because Launchbury and Coles are far closer to the edge of the defensive line and therefore hold the drift.

If this prong finds contact and England generate quick ball, the defence hasn’t had time to number up out wide. It’s a standard pass to the blind and they’re already past the umbrella defensive fulcrum on the flank. Out of shot, there are also three rapid players in Joseph, Nowell and Itoje.

These three are looking at an empty wing and could create a three-on-one situation.

(Photo by Tim Anger)

Instead, Haskell takes the ball into contact and they attempt to go wide. Due to the contact being far from the edge of the defensive line and the second prong of Marler and Haskell not getting much gain line advantage, the Welsh have more time to rush up and cut off the wing.

This is an example of trying to constrict the defence on one side but it wasn’t as effective as other occasions. The designed targeting of the edge of the line is better shown in the following example.

Variation one

Here, we have a similar situation. Brown is on the inside of the first prong, running hard straight lines to hold the line speed.

The prong goes into contact, Youngs manages to get quick ball and fires a pass off to George Ford (red), who’s standing very flat. This occupies the defence and stops them from drifting. As another option, you see Brown on his inside shoulder.

Ford fires his miss-pass very late and hits Clifford in the second prong (yellow). Clifford, with Lawes, is running hard, targeting the edge of the defensive line and preventing the line rushing up. You can see Farrell (red) behind Clifford – outside him are two of England’s fast men in Joseph and Daly.

The pass finding Clifford here is essential and a testament to the passing skills needed for this to work. Clifford can offer up Lawes as an inside option and the one thing that checks a defence drift better than a screen pass is an inside ball.

He shapes to make an inside pass to hold the defence, instead looping a pass to Farrell. With the pass made so late, Clifford and Lawes can subtly act as blockers for the drift defence. This leaves Farrell, who then has two fast men on his outside and one man to draw.

Unfortunately, his pass is not a good one and stymies the momentum. If it goes to hand cleanly, Joseph/Farrell can draw Cuthbert, leaving Daly on his wing. It’s a run-in try as the second prong usually commits the sweeper behind due to the hard running nature of it.

Variation two

As can be seen here, we have the same basic pattern.

The ball goes to the first prong who go into contact. See the nomads on the inside who are running to try and form the ruck. Quick ball is generated and Youngs fires the ball out to Ford.

Ford steps in as the first receiver, whilst the second prong, again, targets the edge of the defensive line. You can see Cuthbert charging up in anticipation.

Ford fires the pass to Farrell who then finds Jamie George, again the one-pod in the system. George takes the ball from the 22 to the five-metre line. This is all created by the work of the inside men. This includes Launchbury who’s making an obstacle of himself for the drift.

Simple rugby, performed to a high level.

This pattern isn’t always performed this way. Either prong can act as a screen or one can run a loop play to go wide-wide. Sometimes the forwards within a prong will do an interplay and act as first receiver.

There are many variations but this structure is one that England use often and is quite prevalent in their multiple phase play.

The Crowd Says:

2018-02-14T14:17:48+00:00

HenryHoneyBalls

Guest


I cant imagine many coaches selecting Genia over Murray nor Kepu over Furlong. Furlong in particular has been one of the stand out players of the last 12 months.

2018-02-11T16:02:21+00:00


South africa is currently very bad, you only need to follow rugby casually to know that. When someone says South Africa is bad, doesn’t mean to take anything away from England.

2018-02-11T09:55:10+00:00

cuw

Guest


They kept "WALES" out , coz they lacked imagination. Shingler kicking ahead ? DUH knocking on on the oark when going down in a tackle ? seriosly? and a great tackle from Sam Underhill - that is why Eddie wants to keep him wrapped in cotton wool. they broke the England defence time and again - im sure more breaks happened in the last 20 than in the first 60. England constructed one good try - nicely drawing out the defence . but made plenty of mistakes - i wonder Eddie also throws boots at players like Sir Alec Ferguson :D

2018-02-11T09:49:21+00:00

Fionn

Guest


'Has Hannigan played very well before. Yes in Super Rugby, he stood out for selection.' Well we can totally agree to disagree there, my friend. You're entitled to your opinions on Hanigan and Phipps but I personally feel they're devoid from reality. But each to their own, maybe you're right and I'm wrong. P.S. I don't think the fact that Hanigan was successful at a lower level than SR is indicative whatsoever of his abilities at SR. Luke Saville stood out in the juniors and was even world number 1. He's still not done well at all in the seniors.

2018-02-11T09:40:13+00:00

FunBus

Roar Rookie


I’m not sure the last 20 were a negative with regard to England’s fitness. They got off the floor time and time again and kept Wales out, who were desperately throwing the kitchen sink at them. They’ll definitely by one of the fittest, if not the fittest, side in Japan.

2018-02-11T09:34:45+00:00

FunBus

Roar Rookie


????

2018-02-11T07:34:54+00:00

Mmmmm..k

Guest


Has Hannigan played very well before. Yes in Super Rugby, he stood out for selection. He also gained selection for Aus as a school kid and at age group levels. Maybe Cheika told the Aus U20 coach to make a bad selection and pick Hannigan? And seriously, Phipps has played well at all levels. However he's now being pushed for selection by Powell and a couple of othes who had breakthrough years in 2017. His form wasn't great in 2016-17 but Frisby flopped (see what I did there?) and White left so there was a void of serious comp until it emerged in 2017 again. Yes Fardy could have been selected in 2017 but he had signed to go overseas and Hannigan was a player who had played well at Super level, played well for Aus at School and age group level. Dempsey has been capped 6 times. Cheika selected him. But I hear Cheikas selections have been poor so maybe he shouldn't have.

2018-02-11T07:18:39+00:00

Mmmmm..k

Guest


TM, you keep claiming all of the SH as ours as if Fijians playing in and for NZ is somehow not as bad as a SA player playing in and for Ireland. It makes no sense. It's still a player playing in and for another country and the equator is utterly meaningless in this. It makes no difference. NZ play to beat Aus, NZ play to beat Eng. There is no difference. There is no NH team, there is no SH team. Eng and France are huge rivals. They are not working together to beat Arg or SA. Arg is not ours and Georgia is not theirs. The eastern and western hemispheres are meaningless. We did not steal Japan from the NH for Super Rugby and the Pacific nations cup. They did not steal Aki to play for Ireland. There is no conspiracy. Players from Tonga may play in NZ or they may play in Wales but one is not good and the other bad. Yet you persist in talking in terms of hemispheres. Players go where the money and opportunities are and as you can see, hemispheres don't change anything. England played 1 player on Sat from NZ via Aus on Saturday. He qualified because of his parents. Fafita, Naholo, Fekitoa and Laulala have probably all played in the same test match yet you will talk about the "southern" influence in England. All that you do, imo, is use the equator to avoid realising that to point the finger is being hypocritical. All countries use players and coaches (M.Byrne) from other countries.

2018-02-11T07:15:43+00:00

Fionn

Guest


'Does any coach select players that excellent everytime in your opinion?' No. No one, not even McCaw, Carter or George Smith were excellent every time. There's nothing wrong with a bad match here or there. The issue is, have Phipps or Hanigan ever had an excellent match for the Wallabies? Do they even have excellent matches at SR level? Are they ever even decent for the Wallabies? Word on the street is that Fardy signed overseas because he wasn't needed. He could still have been picked in 2017. Even if you don't go for Fardy, just pick a lock then, or RHP. Hanigan did little in tight. Did you see his attempted cleanout on Brodie Retallick in Bled 1? He had zero impact in tight, and guys like Simmons are much better line out targets also. I don't feel the need to preface every comment with 'I like Cheika'. It's irrelevant that I like him as a bloke.

2018-02-11T06:52:06+00:00

Mmmmm..k

Guest


How bad it's got? How bad what's got? Oh, England can't be good. SA has to be bad. Hemispheres again?

2018-02-11T06:45:38+00:00

Mmmmm..k

Guest


Yeah, if I throw heads 3 times it will always be heads TM. History makes it so...in both hemispheres. But if they threw heads again in the NH it would be because "our" Fijian players from us helped and it's all because of us and ours, not them but us.

2018-02-11T06:41:53+00:00

Mmmmm..k

Guest


And you can't like Cheika, you disagree with his selections. Isn't that how it works Fionn or is it possible to like him but not agree with something he did? Anyway, no coach ever had picked players that excellent from game 1 and many coaches persist with players they see as project players because they have the attributes and potential. See G.Henry and I.Toeava.

2018-02-11T06:37:29+00:00

Mmmmm..k

Guest


Nostradamus was from the NH TM. I'm not sure what country but that doesn't matter now does it? I wonder if we (the SH) had a Nostradamus of our own. I come from NZ but even if he was from Namibia, he be part of my hemisphere so he would be from where I'm from.

2018-02-11T06:32:14+00:00

Mmmmm..k

Guest


Fionn. Does any coach select players that excellent everytime in your opinion? Coaches often select players based on a need. Clearly Cheikas feels a need for a lineout jumper who is in in the tight stuff whilst Hoops is free to do his thing. Fardy worked well in that respect but has signed for overseas so he picked the in form Hannigan from Super Rugby. He hasn't excelled yet. So in conclusion, all Cheikas selections are bad all the time. There you go.

2018-02-11T06:27:52+00:00

Mmmmm..k

Guest


No, I'm not telling you what you think. So, no, not like that at all.

2018-02-11T05:02:06+00:00

cuw

Guest


@ Nicholas Bishop what do u make of the apparent ascendancy of Wales in the last 30? was it becoz GarethA came to 10 and started playing like a NZer? or was it becoz England were less-fit compared to Wales and fell of the pace? and any other reasons? cheers

2018-02-11T04:59:43+00:00

cuw

Guest


Seriosly - the Powers that Be really need to have a look at this TV ref thingy. I have been saying many times that it is rubbish for someone to look at a play in slo-mo from different angles for like 3-5 minutes and then comeup with a ridiculous decision. i think he says something like " there is no Welsh hand on it and England player grounded it". WTF was he looking at??? if at all i expected the guy to say the Welsh player knocked it forwards in trying to ground the ball. that is the only alternative view of that play IMO. this sort of decisions have been seen in test rugger over and over again. not the way to expand the game or attract new viewers. i suspect even existing viewers will be turned off from such rubbish.

2018-02-11T04:54:09+00:00

cuw

Guest


everything is bought from Canterbury - Crusaders :D :P

2018-02-11T04:52:49+00:00

cuw

Guest


well it seemed last night that England are not as fit as Wales - perhaps the injuries a reason ( tho not a good one :) ) Wales gained ascendancy in the last 30 minutes with their bench - compared to England. maybe the England's 3rd and 4th level are not as good or fit. maybe its a one-off , got to wait n see. there has been a lot said about the fitness camps of Eddie Jones - specially when a few guys hurt trying to learn Judo skiills. They are saying the exeter flanker may never play again. Is Jones a good coach? yes he is , but then dont discount his assistants. if one needs to see the definition of "synergy effect" , then i think it is Eddie and his team of assistants. it was same with japan - Borthwick was with japan as well ( others am not sure).

2018-02-11T04:45:05+00:00

cuw

Guest


if u saw England last night - they are not as fit as they claim to be. perhaps having lost some frontliners to injuries maybe an explanation - but Wales were fitter in the last 30 minutes. something saffas prided in was their fitness and physicality - it has to be the prime focus for them in the immediate. they have players with skill - they need to get their main usp right , and fast.

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar