• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Life after Eddie …

The Rugby Forum - Global Rugby Union News, Six Nations & RWC Discussion

Help Support The Rugby Forum:

Which Tyler said:
All in one sentence too, and presumably, posted with an excess of charm, and not a trace of irony.
Click to expand...
If you really believe that I think you should really re-read some of your posts across this forum and see how you come across.

I love discussions with people especially about Eddie but looking at post WC and he’s constant chopping and changing of gameplan, odd selections (that often don’t match gameplan) and his downturn of results and the way the squad play it’s obvious that something isn’t right and to me it strikes of a man who’s searching for some miracle because they don’t know what to do.

I really do think he’s lost the plot in that he really doesn’t know what to do with the England team so he’s grasping at straws. We look at shadow of our pre WC team and our star players often look toothless since the WC.

But if you don’t think that it’s fine, no need to react as you constantly do.
 
Just a hyperthetical but how would we do if we didnt sack EJ and instead brought back the best previous coaches as assistants.

Say Borthwick in defence, Weisemantel as attack and so on.

I think Jones is a good tactical coach who ****** people off and ends up with an average coaching set and us blaming jones for us looking average in most department.

He should be sacked this is not a Pro Jones post at all im just saying he isnt incharge of some things and the other cosches need to take responsibility for there areas.
 
Scotty said:
Just a hyperthetical but how would we do if we didnt sack EJ and instead brought back the best previous coaches as assistants.

Say Borthwick in defence, Weisemantel as attack and so on.

I think Jones is a good tactical coach who ****** people off and ends up with an average coaching set and us blaming jones for us looking average in most department.

He should be sacked this is not a Pro Jones post at all im just saying he isnt incharge of some things and the other cosches need to take responsibility for there areas.
Click to expand...
I think the head job just isn't for Jones. I think as a tactics / attacking coach he could potentially shine as another recurring theme through his coaching career is his in depth analysis of the game. I think he would have worked better in that role with a head coach who could reign in his worse habits and do all the man-managing. It's common in many industries. I work in engineering and there are some technically fantastic engineers who make **** poor project managers. Jones seems to fit into that category.

I agree the assistant coaches need to take some blame but the flip side is that the frequent turnaround must lie with Jones and also we don't know how much he undermines his own assistants. He also plays a role in selecting his assistants so if multiple assistants aren't doing a good enough job, that should also lie with him and his choices when bringing them in.
 
From what I have seen and read of EJ man management is not his strong suit. No wonder after a certain period of time players turn off and stop listening to him. Apart from those loyal to him. And he is ruthless in how he wants England to play and so players become disposable commodities to him.

Compared to the football Southgate in contrast is a good man manager but he has his tactical limitations and also blind loyalty to certain players. Hoddle was a great tactician but an arsehole when it came to man management.

It takes a wide skill set, decent person but also ruthless in what he wants to achieve. I don’t know enough about Borthwick as a manager. I do recall him as a player and captain and to be honest not really rate him in the above aspects on the pitch.
 
Bada-Bing! said:
From what I have seen and read of EJ man management is not his strong suit. No wonder after a certain period of time players turn off and stop listening to him. Apart from those loyal to him. And he is ruthless in how he wants England to play and so players become disposable commodities to him.

Compared to the football Southgate in contrast is a good man manager but he has his tactical limitations and also blind loyalty to certain players. Hoddle was a great tactician but an arsehole when it came to man management.

It takes a wide skill set, decent person but also ruthless in what he wants to achieve. I don’t know enough about Borthwick as a manager. I do recall him as a player and captain and to be honest not really rate him in the above aspects on the pitch.
Click to expand...
I have read the opposite. Eddie it's been suggested was a much better man manager than Lancaster. He also has been very loyal to several players including Young's, Farrell, both Billy and Mako.

I personally think Eddie is great at going in somewhere and getting results quickly but when it become more long term he gets bored and distracted. 20/20 hindsight suggests he should have left in 2019, there has been no improvement in England since then and we were heading to the next world cup looking very shaky.
 
Tallshort said:
I have read the opposite. Eddie it's been suggested was a much better man manager than Lancaster. He also has been very loyal to several players including Young's, Farrell, both Billy and Mako.

I personally think Eddie is great at going in somewhere and getting results quickly but when it become more long term he gets bored and distracted. 20/20 hindsight suggests he should have left in 2019, there has been no improvement in England since then and we were heading to the next world cup looking very shaky.
Click to expand...
I read that Lancaster was a fantastic man manger when in charge of the Saxons but when he took over the main England team he completely changed.
 
Don't Skip Leg Day said:
I read that Lancaster was a fantastic man manger when in charge of the Saxons but when he took over the main England team he completely changed.
Click to expand...
I get the feeling he was bombarded with "management" development courses etc. James Haskell talked about the time he was invited to a meeting with Lancaster and some senior players and it was Lancaster doing a presentation which he was planning to show the rest of the team and he wanted senior player feedback before he did it. Smacks of someone out of thier comfort zone doing something they were not used to doing.
 
Lancaster strikes me as a very good man manager but I doubt his motivational skills. I feel like Leinster have underperformed overall in big games outside of Lansdowne road, England never really got over the final hurdle with him either prior to the world cup implosion.

Jones on the other hand comes across as the exact opposite.
 
Tallshort said:
I have read the opposite. Eddie it's been suggested was a much better man manager than Lancaster. He also has been very loyal to several players including Young's, Farrell, both Billy and Mako.

I personally think Eddie is great at going in somewhere and getting results quickly but when it become more long term he gets bored and distracted. 20/20 hindsight suggests he should have left in 2019, there has been no improvement in England since then and we were heading to the next world cup looking very shaky.
Click to expand...
Eddie was far too loyal to Youngs, Farrell and the Vunipolas!
 
I was reading the Jonathan Agnew piece on the BBC about why the England cricket team are suddenly winning so much when the players have barely changed. One thing he highlighted was that there seems to be a genuine trust in players to go out and play and they won't be dropped for mistakes, where as previously even though it was said actual evidence was players being consistently dropped and brought back. It didn't give them confidence and put them under more pressure to perform.

For me it's one of EJ's failings. He was too ruthless and didn't give players chances to take risks and perform. It's why he was left with a team who would play it safe. It's also reflected in how many players were tried and discarded. Also as others have said he had his favourites. I think he said in 2020 he knew 90% of his world cup squad. That's bad management and reminds me of Capello and Goran-Eriksson when there were undroppable England players who took it easy. Combined you've got new players afraid to make a mistake and older players sitting comfortably. No wonder we saw such poor performances.
 
Reiser99 said:
I was reading the Jonathan Agnew piece on the BBC about why the England cricket team are suddenly winning so much when the players have barely changed. One thing he highlighted was that there seems to be a genuine trust in players to go out and play and they won't be dropped for mistakes, where as previously even though it was said actual evidence was players being consistently dropped and brought back. It didn't give them confidence and put them under more pressure to perform.

For me it's one of EJ's failings. He was too ruthless and didn't give players chances to take risks and perform. It's why he was left with a team who would play it safe. It's also reflected in how many players were tried and discarded. Also as others have said he had his favourites. I think he said in 2020 he knew 90% of his world cup squad. That's bad management and reminds me of Capello and Goran-Eriksson when there were undroppable England players who took it easy. Combined you've got new players afraid to make a mistake and older players sitting comfortably. No wonder we saw such poor performances.
Click to expand...
I think you also saw it with the England football team and Southgate. He has his favourites even though they were not on form and deemed undroppable, even if it affects the way the team plays ie doesn’t improve it. It comes across a bit as blind loyalty because they didn’t let him down in past tournaments.

So there is a balance but EJ just went the other way constantly chopping and changing and no continuity in the last 3 years. Although I would say Rugby it is more attritional in terms of injuries. Still, waiting for Manu to come good after all his injuries was an indicator he only wanted certain players to play the power game despite being well past it.
 
Bada-Bing! said:
I think you also saw it with the England football team and Southgate. He has his favourites even though they were not on form and deemed undroppable, even if it affects the way the team plays ie doesn’t improve it. It comes across a bit as blind loyalty because they didn’t let him down in past tournaments.

So there is a balance but EJ just went the other way constantly chopping and changing and no continuity in the last 3 years. Although I would say Rugby it is more attritional in terms of injuries. Still, waiting for Manu to come good after all his injuries was an indicator he only wanted certain players to play the power game despite being well past it.
Click to expand...
It's the great Eddie paradox, he is simultaneously accused of not trying enough people and trying too many. As pointed out, he had has favourites, who walked in regardless of form and health. They were completely untouchable. You then had everyone else who could get maybe 5 games tops and then be dropped never to be heard from again. It's the worst of both worlds. We've now got a team whose core have tons of caps but are in poor international form and a fringe of players really struggling to make the squad as they will be dropped even if they outperform the incumbent.
 
Reiser99 said:
I was reading the Jonathan Agnew piece on the BBC about why the England cricket team are suddenly winning so much when the players have barely changed. One thing he highlighted was that there seems to be a genuine trust in players to go out and play and they won't be dropped for mistakes, where as previously even though it was said actual evidence was players being consistently dropped and brought back. It didn't give them confidence and put them under more pressure to perform.
Click to expand...
I disagree with Agnew on this one and other parts of his article. There a slightly diffrent mentality in the batting (bowling was never a problem). Before they were told to go out and biff it but innevitably would be out to a poor shot. Now they are being told to go out and look to score instead of defend. That doesn't excuse bad shots as Brook said post this match and you have to own up to them.

Plus the regime is only 9 matches old only one player was called to dropped in that time bit was very publically backed. So you can't drop him now plus they've won 8 out of 9 matches. You very rarely change a winning side. If they were loosing it would be a different story.

My point is simply I don't think Agnew is right about this one about how they really feel like they won't be dropped leading to better performances. And far more to do other factors of great captaincy and a team ethos that everyone from the 40 year old to the 23 year old have bought into.
 
ncurd said:
I disagree with Agnew on this one and other parts of his article. There a slightly diffrent mentality in the batting (bowling was never a problem). Before they were told to go out and biff it but innevitably would be out to a poor shot. Now they are being told to go out and look to score instead of defend. That doesn't excuse bad shots as Brook said post this match and you have to own up to them.

Plus the regime is only 9 matches old only one player was called to dropped in that time bit was very publically backed. So you can't drop him now plus they've won 8 out of 9 matches. You very rarely change a winning side. If they were loosing it would be a different story.

My point is simply I don't think Agnew is right about this one about how they really feel like they won't be dropped leading to better performances. And far more to do other factors of great captaincy and a team ethos that everyone from the 40 year old to the 23 year old have bought into.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's that they won't be dropped. I think they would be eventually, but it's more giving them a chance and not punishing them after 1 or 2 bad games. Under Root and Cook England were constantly tinkering with the side. Knowing that you are being given a fair chance just takes that bit of pressure off.

Also even if he is wrong it doesn't change the fact that Jones did put players under too much pressure and was too ruthless in cutting players who didn't perform instantly.
 
Clearly better to have a positive can do attitude. But that also has to be tempered with reality as extremes at either end of the scale don’t tend to work for too long.

Pro sport is a results business - end of, it’s not the job of the coach or players to grow the game. ‘Entertainment’ is a bonus but if Jones had a team winning 6N titles by shoving it up the jumper we wouldn’t be looking for a new coach today.

Bazball is a higher risk approach in the cricket and at the moment Stokes has the Midas touch with bold declarations and unconventional field placings etc. It’s spectacular and results have come, so all good. Until the results stop coming at which point genius rapidly starts to look like recklessness. Launching an all out assault on a green Pakistan side on a featherbed is one thing, but if you try that against Australia on a hard track down under you’ll win 1 in 10. Positive is great but not if that’s all you know.

Did someone mention playing what’s in front of them?
 
I also think it's how some head coaches aim to keep the dressing room. They put in place a hierarchy comprising of the captain and a leadership team (senior players) to whom the head coach is extremely loyal and will continue to play them regardless of how they perform. In return, the captain and those senior players give the head coach their unwavering support and keep the rest of the players in check.
 
The Oggmonster said:
I also think it's how some head coaches aim to keep the dressing room. They put in place a hierarchy comprising of the captain and a leadership team (senior players) to whom the head coach is extremely loyal and will continue to play them regardless of how they perform. In return, the captain and those senior players give the head coach their unwavering support and keep the rest of the players in check.
Click to expand...
The role of the senior players is also to let the coach know what is / isn’t working. The coach, rightly, has the final say, but a culture where those conversations don’t happen or are ignored is broken.
 
Le Frére Alpha said:
Lancaster strikes me as a very good man manager but I doubt his motivational skills. I feel like Leinster have underperformed overall in big games outside of Lansdowne road, England never really got over the final hurdle with him either prior to the world cup implosion.

Jones on the other hand comes across as the exact opposite.
Click to expand...

Isn’t motivation a huge chunk of what being a man manager is all about?
 
Old Hooker said:
Isn’t motivation a huge chunk of what being a man manager is all about?
Click to expand...

I would make the distinction as individual motivation and team motivation.

I think Lancaster is incredible at getting players to focus on individual areas of improvement and gives them a clear path to do so, motivates them individually Monday to Friday. I'd class that more as man management than motivation though, attention, clear paths of progression and reward for following instruction.

I don't think he's great at getting a team out on the pitch with the belief that they'll execute no matter what they face. Leinster generally start fast but once the opponent bloodies their nose a little bit they often go back into their shells.

I don't really see this with Jones' teams, generally they're very good at doing what they're told to do and I'd argue they believed in what they were doing right up until this Autumn. His tactics have been terrible, his player development non existent but England always had fight under him, just sweet fa intelligent direction recently.
 
Le Frére Alpha said:
I would make the distinction as individual motivation and team motivation.

I think Lancaster is incredible at getting players to focus on individual areas of improvement and gives them a clear path to do so, motivates them individually Monday to Friday. I'd class that more as man management than motivation though, attention, clear paths of progression and reward for following instruction.

I don't think he's great at getting a team out on the pitch with the belief that they'll execute no matter what they face. Leinster generally start fast but once the opponent bloodies their nose a little bit they often go back into their shells.

I don't really see this with Jones' teams, generally they're very good at doing what they're told to do and I'd argue they believed in what they were doing right up until this Autumn. His tactics have been terrible, his player development non existent but England always had fight under him, just sweet fa intelligent direction recently.
Click to expand...
You may view it differently to me but I've found England didn't look like they had much fight the last 3 years and many players looked like they couldn't be bothered. The number of times teams have made a break against England and you rarely see anyone really pushing to close it down. May is probably the only one who gives it 100% to chase someone down.
 
Ragey Erasmus said:
You may view it differently to me but I've found England didn't look like they had much fight the last 3 years and many players looked like they couldn't be bothered. The number of times teams have made a break against England and you rarely see anyone really pushing to close it down. May is probably the only one who gives it 100% to chase someone down.
Click to expand...
Thats fair, you watch them more closely than I do. I suppose I still fear Jones' England a good bit because they always matched up well against us too.

When things were going well for Jones he tended to always win, and if he lost it was against very good teams. Lancaster on the other hand always seems to have things in control but loses any 50/50 game whilst being prone to the wrong end of a scalp in big occasions.
 

Similar threads

BPM
England 24/25 Depth Chart
2 3
Replies
60
Views
8K
AngloScotsHybrid
A
Quel Carreleur
USA v England - 19/07/25
13 14 15
Replies
429
Views
18K
pagliaccio_euforico
pagliaccio_euforico
dullonien
Wales under Tandy
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
Welsh Exile
W
H
USA Club Rugby Throwback to that Temecula vs Riverside game where one kiwi player changed everything
Replies
2
Views
853
Wishfulthinker580
Wishfulthinker580
TRF_stormer2010
Springbok development towards 2027
Replies
4
Views
2K
TRF_stormer2010
TRF_stormer2010

Latest posts

Back
Top