England’s sudden fall from grace has left fans scratching their heads, but the issue is clear: not a lot has changed, with wins papering over some rather large cracks.
In their past four Tests against the Wallabies, maybe three tries were created from actual attacking play, with the rest coming form opportunistic kicks or poor play from their opponents.
This lack of attacking smarts was again on display in the Six Nations.
Their first five minutes against France started well, but the French began to line up their defensive system, and stopped competing at the breakdown, where England overcommited. The attack then narrowed, and when it was passed out wide, it narrowed again quickly. The space was there but England refused to run into it.
One thing the English were good at was winning and winning in tight situations, with a group of Saracens players, who had won several titles, at the team’s core.
What Eddie Jones did with England is similar to what he did with Japan, played to the team’s strengths rather than fixing the obvious weaknesses. Japan utilised their quick backs and wide passing and it worked against South Africa in the World Cup. But they ignored their tiny pack and poor tackling technique, often having two players commit to the tackle, leaving massive gaps in the defensive line.
England’s biggest problem is their lack of a specialist openside – it has been for years, Chris Robshaw is not a 7. So Jones opted to have multiple players who are decent at the breakdown. For this to work, they need to make big tackles and force mistakes, which is what happened against Australia and in their successful Six Nations.
But this tactic has now backfired.
[latest_videos_strip category=”rugby” name=”Rugby”]
Firstly, as seen in the game against Scotland, the Scots allowed the big English pack to take extra metres in the tackle and took their breakdown to pieces as the tackled player was isolated. Their pack managed parity with England and allowed these turnovers to occur.
Secondly, as seen against France, was the issue of facing a bigger, nastier pack. France outmuscled the English and England didn’t get the turn overs they were so used to, leading to a French victory.
Ireland employed a combination of the two tactics and were successful. With no specialist openside, they’re was no protection agains these three sides and England paid for it.
The third way which caught Jones with his pants down was the new change in breakdown laws, forcing the tackler to return through the gate.
England also appear to have zero rugby smarts. Perhaps this was best shown when they played Italy two years ago, when the Italians didn’t commit to the breakdown, meaning that their was no offside line. Any other team would have adapted, yet the English spent 80 minutes waving their hands at the referee.
Against South Africa on the weekend, when England had a large lead after 20 minutes, managing to lose showed a lack of game awareness and strategy. Yes, the Springobks played well, but not 39-15 in 50-odd minutes well.
Watching England’s attack over the Six Nations, I had no idea what they were trying to achieve. They created the space in the defensive line and yet refused to run into it, instead running into the same players, in the same areas, time and time again. There was a clear improvement against the Springbok, attacking the flanks and getting success from it, yet this was largely thanks to some atrocious defence.
The only time England had a semi-cohesive attack was against Argentina and, to a lesser extent, Australia two years ago. This was when they had Glen Ella as their attack coach and their lack of an attack coach over the Six Nations showed.
They have now employed Scott Wisemantel, who worked as skills coach for Jones in 2003 and the attack seems to have improved.
If England want to keep up with the vastly improving Australian, Scottish, South African, and Irish, they need a forward pack that isn’t one dimensional and a backline that can play with some flare and creativity.
Jay
Guest
England is too rich a rugby nation. Spoilt children and hard to manage. Ask Ben Ryan!
Kirky
Roar Rookie
Worlds Biggest! ~ You're probably right with your assumption that the ERU knew what they had when they hired Eddie Jones: ~ But the England panel or recruiters who hired Jones went out on a limb and propositioned a hell of a lot of prospective Coaches far better that Eddie Jones, ( I know that they tried a number of the top or ex top Kiwi Coaches, Wayne Smith, Graeme Henry to name but a couple) ~ They all turned the ERU down and the general consensus was that they would never be able to Coach as they liked because of the ridiculous amount of interference by the Hierarchy of the ERU, who have always done it! But Eddie being Eddie' made a bird of himself getting the job, perhaps because he's a silvertongue, always has been and his Resume' would be written in gold ink! I don't know of the mindset and Coaching for all the other Rugby playing Countries, ~ As far as the Coaching goes in New Zealand, the Coaches have a free rein and the NZRFU (or whatever they're called these days) have no input whatsoever and the Honcho's of the organisation trust their Selector/Coaches as getting it right first time up! Shag'Hansen, Foster and Foxy, and whoever else is involved are just left alone to do as they wish, and it works! You mention Eddie Jones as being a hard task master, well he wouldn't hold a candle to the Coaching mindset and methods used by the All Blacks and Super Coaches just as an example! The difference is possibly that the New Zealanders have trained as such all their lives if they were Representing a top Team environment, they're all brought up as first year School Kids to train like that, it's a fact of wanting to be a Rugby player in New Zealand! I could be wrong, but it appears that first up, Eddie' had seen something that needed rectifying and got the England Boys really stuck in to the hard stuff and it seemed to work for a fair while, but it seems now that the majority of the Team has in a way, ''had enough of this tough stuff" and it's showing in the results in recent games! ~ Looking at recent pix' of Eddie Jones in Newspapers etc, and he looks like he's had enough also, who knows, because when things are not going England's way it could be imagined that the screws are being put on one Edward Jones.
Neil Back
Roar Rookie
Can I be bothered ..... no. No I can't.
MH01
Guest
Peter - you are spot on. I was referring to Cheika being tribal by nature and not this test. I view that as a weakness that her persists with certain players out of loyalty. For instance, our backup to Genia - we really should be looking to 2019 with a solid backup .....
Hoy
Roar Guru
He sure hit the ground running, and had a GREAT run for 3 years, but it has now crashed badly it seems... can he get them out of it? Time will tell us I guess. It does appear this is a Jones issue. Rapid change through change, and intensity, but the intensity can't be kept up for such a long period of time. What is scary, is people will see this, and want Jones back coaching Aus, and think he will do better here... and look, I guess it depends what you want to see... short turn around, it might be good for us. Long term? I can't imagine it is. What we need is long term systems, to build up long term success.
MH01
Guest
Great win by rhe boys. Just pointing out Jones and Cheika are short term coaches . Ideally wallabies and England would be wanting them taking over the teams this year
Worlds Biggest
Guest
I think England knew what they had when they hired Jones. He turned around the ship wreck of a World Cup team into Grand Slam Champs. However given his hard task master and take no prisoners approach burns players out, it’s no surprise we are seeing England tailing off. We saw it all be it painfully with the Wallabies. It’s not to say England can’t have a good World Cup however has he hit the ceiling too early ?
Kirky
Roar Rookie
Englishbob! A decent Coach is what you need, and you'll very likely have on hell of a job getting one post Eddie Jones as the common theory in the appointment of Head Coach of England Rugby is, it's regarded as a "poisoned chalice" mainly because of the interference of the ruling Fathers of the ERU who have their own way of thinking as to how the England Team should be Coached, Managed, and run and the methods and outlook they demand, come hell or high water, ~ I'd imagine Eddie is at the stage of intolerance about now by those 'upstairs'! I don't know what the majority think the reason is for the continual losses by the English, but it seems as if they're on a downwards slide but for whatever reason they are not playing as they were the last couple of years, ~ gut instinct leads one to presume the players have had a gutful of Eddie Jones and his methods and if the squad proper in any team sport is unhappy with the Coach, they will never play to the full potential! Brad Shields is going to find it vastly different in the Coaching Training scenario of the England squad, because the top teams in New Zealand be they the National Team, Super team, Provincial, or the First 15 at School, train like demons from go to whoa!! The Coaches demand it and the players do it without question as if you don't, you don't play Saturday, simple, ~ So I don't know what the English methods entail, but Brad Shields may find that things are nothing like it used to be for him, who knows he may get disillusioned and go back home to New Zealand. I feel sure that we'll see possibly the best team All Blacks side ever at the next World Cup 2019 as they are leaving players out at this very moment who are or have been in the run on side of very recent times, such is the available talent coming through in all positions, all the time! ~ Waisake Naholo springs to mind as per last weekend!
Faith
Guest
Good observation re: certain teams have the wood over the others. England struggles against S.A because they essentially have the same rugby philosophy only that S.A has been better at forward-oriented play for a long time. For the same reason England tend to push over Australia more than they should. Australia tend to play well against other NH teas because they are allowed to be 'creative' which NZ and SA learnt a long time after playing them again and again to counter. And yes Oz is probably the most unpredictable team like France. However poor Wannabies are they always have the best chance against the ABs ... ABs seem to struggle against them (till recently) and S.A. I always feel that unless England?Ireland change their predictable ways they will push the ABs but rarely beat the. AB games against France/Wales seem more of a challenge for whatever reason ...
Fionn
Guest
Absolutely. Federer came out during he Australian Open and basically said the onus was on the young guys to push him and Rafa out, and that it was an indictment on them that people were talking about him as favourite (although it could have just been to get some of the pressure off). That said, the middle generation (Dimitrov, Raonic and co just aren't good enough). This next generation of Thiem and Zverev aren't good enough yet, but in a couple of years I think those two, Cheung, Khachanov and especially Shapovalov might be absolute superstars. Shapovalov in particular has the talent I think, just not the experience yet. Agree that comparing between eras is difficult, but he, Rafa and Djokovic are surely one of the greatest ever I think.
Kia Kaha
Roar Guru
I think it shows the value of experience. Ol’ Richie, for example, knew the shortcuts to the breakdown. Having a plan and knowing when to adapt it isn’t learned overnight. Smarts can triumph over the physical side of things. Composure when faced with adversity also depends heavily on experience. And lastly, it helps to have talent. Roger and Rafa mirror the talent of the 2011 - 2015 vintage. Some of the best talent and arguably the best ever seen, although comparing with other eras is always problematic.
taylorman
Roar Guru
Yep, definitely agree with that. Ive always thought England were the poor mans SA and France the Wallabies. Only France in the NH could match the unpredictability and backplay of Oz.
Fionn
Guest
For what it's worth, Paul, I am sorry for my tone, that was uncalled for and I do apologise. But legitimately, I did mean 3 points (across 2 games).
Fionn
Guest
Crazy, isn't it, Kia Kaha? Does it reflect badly on the youngsters, indicate that Federer and Rafa are just that amazing, or both? That's a question I've been pondering recently and I'm really not sure what the answer is.
Fionn
Guest
You were right to correct me when I said 2 points instead of 3, no arguments. But I fail to see how I am being a "...." by pointing out the factually true statement that 3 additional points over two games would have meant we won the Bledisloe?
Kia Kaha
Roar Guru
I like your competitive spirit, Fionn. Something tells me you’d be devishly difficult to face on the tennis court. 11 wins for Rafa at RG. I hear he’s not playing Wimbledon. He’s earned the right to pick and choose like Roger to get more mileage out of the body. Incredible that the youngest and brightest can’t beat these legends of the game. Inspiring for oldies like me.
Paul D
Roar Rookie
Ok Fionn, Why not just say we were 1.2 points off winning the bledisloe? We only needed 0.1 in the first, and 1.1 points in the second after all to “mathematically” win the Bledisloe. You could go down to a low a decimal you like really, then we’re basically just 1 point off winning the bledisloe right? If you want to carry on like a "...." because I corrected you, go right ahead. I’m done here.
Paul D
Roar Rookie
Ok Fionn, Why not just say we were 1.2 points off winning the bledisloe? We only needed 0.1 in the first, and 1.1 points in the second after all to "mathematically" win the Bledisloe. You could go down to a low a decimal you like really, then we're basically just 1 point off winning the bledisloe right? If you want to carry on like a tool because I corrected you, go right ahead. I'm done here.
Fionn
Guest
Paul, would an additional 1 point in the 12-12 draw + an additional 2 points in the 28-29 loss have delivered us the cup? As a follow up, does 1 + 2 = 3? If the answer is 'yes' to both above questions then I'm not being 'deliberately misleading' and I am instead speaking factually. Jerry, that is a fair point and you are perhaps right. Nevertheless, the fact remains (and it is a fact) that there were only 3 points across two games in it. It was a good performance in the Bledisloe by Australia and for some to try and paint it as unsuccessful (not you, but others) is wrong.
Paul D
Roar Rookie
"Good job though, you got me on a small technicality." It's hardly a small technicality. You are just being deliberately misleading to just say it was a 3 point difference between having the cup or not. 3 points, or even a try in either game wouldn't deliver the Bledisloe.