6 Nations Champions 2017 -E N G L A N D

First topic message reminder :

Well played England, just one more game and I think that makes up for the 2015 RWC shambles.

+ 18 on the trot

So please Congratulate us on a wonderful achievement under Eddie Jones, but please complete the Slam.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:Next thing you know people will be saying Irelands win in the US was a flash in pan and they are infact a fairly avaerage NH side

Ireland fans are saying that.

Bit arrogant to call yourselves average isnt it?

Scottrf wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:The coach is certainly an upgrade....

Fashionable to poke at SCW but he was quite ahead of his time in terms of professionalism IMO. And probably a bit early to judge EJ.

I know, but I've been having a dig at Sir Clive "Winning" Woodward long before it became fashionable....

I feel pretty comfortable judging EJ. He's been a successful international coach for 15+ years.

There are certainly mixed opinions on his coaching exploits, at least in club rugby. For the England team he's done well so far but the real challenge will be in the next stages.

Well given that they are on a world record equalling run, I'd argue that the achievements thus far have been a real challenge. I certainly wouldn't write off those achievements. Yes, the All Blacks are next and beating them would be a big step up, but it's hard not to admire what Eddie's done with the side so far. I actually rated Lancaster, but Jones has blown him out of the water.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Well given that they are on a world record equalling run, I'd argue that the achievements thus far have been a real challenge. I certainly wouldn't write off those achievements. Yes, the All Blacks are next and beating them would be a big step up, but it's hard not to admire what Eddie's done with the side so far. I actually rated Lancaster, but Jones has blown him out of the water.

You're right, and back to back 6 Nations is indeed a great achievement. Without trying to downplay it, he inherited a good team though and I think the overall aim should be (and no doubt is) the World Cup.

Scottrf wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:Well given that they are on a world record equalling run, I'd argue that the achievements thus far have been a real challenge. I certainly wouldn't write off those achievements. Yes, the All Blacks are next and beating them would be a big step up, but it's hard not to admire what Eddie's done with the side so far. I actually rated Lancaster, but Jones has blown him out of the water.

You're right, and back to back 6 Nations is indeed a great achievement. Without trying to downplay it, he inherited a good team though and I think the overall aim should be (and no doubt is) the World Cup.

He inherited the raw materials for a good team, but let's not forget what an underwhelming shambles the last World Cup was for England. The two sides England lost to, Wales and Australia, have been comprehensively put to bed under Eddie Jones. The whole set-up feels different, despite the core group of players being very similar.

Still, the next step of beating the ABs is a real toughie.

Agree FES, the main difference has been composure.

Under Lancaster, England got close but not close enough.

Under Jones, England are winning games they were losing with Lancaster in charge.

Plus it's also down to more organic use of the bench. Not just bringing on players for the sake of it but doing it when necessary. Making it more about the 23.

Borthwick and Gustard do not get enough credit. The set piece has become more reliable with Borthwick looking after it. Defensively, England have been tenacious and combatitive, not unbreakable but have done enough to win every game!

I think they've added a bit more abrasiveness to England.

Borthwick and Gustard were two of the most promising English coaches before Jones got them on board and they've rewarded the faith, Jones has shown in them.

It's a fair point Beshocked. It's very easy to heap praise on the Head Coach but forget the rest of the coaching team who put it all together. Jones has assembled a strong team and, if there is a similarity to Sir Clive "the winner" Woodward, it is that the both surrounded themselves with very good people (Andy Robinson has his faults, but he's a good man to have in charge of your forwards).

No dead rubber, Ireland playing to keep our top tier slot for next RWC, if we lose and Wales beat France then Wales bump us from no 4 in the rankings. So Allen less blues!!

funnyExiledScot wrote:It's a fair point Beshocked. It's very easy to heap praise on the Head Coach but forget the rest of the coaching team who put it all together. Jones has assembled a strong team and, if there is a similarity to Sir Clive "the winner" Woodward, it is that the both surrounded themselves with very good people (Andy Robinson has his faults, but he's a good man to have in charge of your forwards).

Quite amusing seeing Clive getting a cushy job at ITV mainly talking about his former coaching rival Jones.

Must be a little bittersweet having to praise him. Plus the better Jones does..... of course the more potentially he'll put Clive in the shade.

beshocked wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:It's a fair point Beshocked. It's very easy to heap praise on the Head Coach but forget the rest of the coaching team who put it all together. Jones has assembled a strong team and, if there is a similarity to Sir Clive "the winner" Woodward, it is that the both surrounded themselves with very good people (Andy Robinson has his faults, but he's a good man to have in charge of your forwards).

Quite amusing seeing Clive getting a cushy job at ITV mainly talking about his former coaching rival Jones.

Must be a little bittersweet having to praise him. Plus the better Jones does..... of course the more potentially he'll put Clive in the shade.

Quite, although as patriotic as he may be I suspect it's more bitter than sweet for Sir Clive!

This is undoubtedly a generalisation but Sir Clive was the consummate rugby administrator, very good to putting in place systems, structure and the right people, and setting the tone. Eddie Jones on the other hand is the consummate coach, constantly innovating with new tactics and ideas. That's not to say Sir Clive wasn't innovative, in fact I've listened to Martin Johnson openly say that half the time his job as captain was to kybosh some of Sir Clive's crazier ideas, but Sir Clive was very much an out of the box but off the field thinker, whereas Jones seems very much more creative when it comes to game tactics.

I'd chose Jones every day of the week, however it may well be a case of horses for courses. When Woodward took over it was in the era of the game turning professional and England needed someone to put their comparatively infinite resources to work. Woodward suited that role down to the ground, and surrounded himself with some excellent coaches in Ashton, Alred, Larder, Robinson et al. When Jones took over Lancaster had already done some very good work around ethos, structure and tone. He had even taken the liberty of blooding some very promising players. What England needed was a rugby thinker. A proper top notch and experienced coach who (a) could mesh together an undoubtedly talented group, and (b) wouldn't be phased by the size of the job. The RFU have made some truly duff appointments over the years, but full marks for appointing Eddie Jones.

I love the idea of comparative infinity. Douglas Adams-esque.

George Carlin wrote:I love the idea of comparative infinity. Douglas Adams-esque.

I thought a suitable phrase to compare the SRU budget in 1997/1998 to that of the RFU.....

Worthy champions without doubt despite underwhelming more often than not. The best team in the tournament.

funnyExiledScot wrote:The RFU have made some truly duff appointments over the years, but full marks for appointing Eddie Jones.

Surely it was a no-brainer given that Jones was the talk of the RWC?

munkian wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:Agreed.  I vote a big yes.

England are worthy 6 Nations champions.  Grand Slam is a nice bauble but winning the championship is what matters.

Next week's matches are pretty much dead rubbers.  

If England v Ireland in Dublin is ever considered a 'dead rubber' you need to have a long hard look at yourselves

Ok I've done that.

The Championship is done.  It's been won despite the hordes of Englishmen trying to pretend otherwise, including the whole team and their coach.

Next week's matches won't change that outcome one bit. Hence dead rubbers.

No9 wrote:England 19-16       France

The first part of the great escape. England where sh!te, even the pundits said how lucky England where. They where not the better side and pinched the result. Could the beat France now, no way. France have improved and are returning the team we've known from years gone past.

England were poor, but France were worse. Don't believe the hype, France have been varying levels of inept this tournament. How you can dominate physically and make so many line breaks and metres and score so few points speaks volumes for just how bad France were against England.

No9 wrote:Wales 16-21 England

The second part of the great escape. A fantastic tough game, which showed England ride their luck. A wayward kick and some p!ss poor tackling allowed England to go ahead, but most (even the hard lined English press and pundits) agree, it was more Wales lost the game than England won it.

Wales were pretty good, England were a bit better. Wales cracking under sustained pressure is never about 1 moment. In a 2 point game Williams' turnover was illegal. So even if you try reduce it to 1 moment, England would have been wronged anyway.

No9 wrote:England 36-15 Italy

A lesson on how to play the game. England down to Italy at half time. Who would believe that, but then again, just as unbelievable, was that none of the English side knew the rules. The first 40 mins of this game showed how bad this England side really are.

Italy's tactic diverting away from how poor their execution in several facets was. It had nothing to do with not knowing the rules. England's worst performance and yet they still comfortably managed a bonus point. That is not something everyone has achieved.

No9 wrote:England 61-21 Scotland

Another lesson on how to play the game. But this time England took the teaching role. Cant argue, this was the best performance England has put in, and they did teach Scotland a thing or two. Would it have been different if Scotland hadn't suffered so badly with injuries. I don't think so, well not the result anyway. Not sure the score line would have been so impressive though, if Scotland could have kept players on the field.

England were very good, Scotland very bad. Are England THAT good? or are Scotland THAT poor? As usual with all of these things, the truth is usually somewhere in between. Ignore the hype.

To win when not at your best once or twice might be considered a bit flukey, but whatever your level of performance in individual games, no one wins 18 in a row by accident. What England have shown time and time again, is that they have been able to deal with whatever the opposition throw at them.

Is an 18 game win streak less significant when you have not played the best team in the world? Probably a little bit Id say.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Is an 18 game win streak less significant when you have not played the best team in the world? Probably a little bit Id say.

Not sure. You'd have to ask NZ that because they never played England in their run of wins.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Is an 18 game win streak less significant when you have not played the best team in the world? Probably a little bit Id say.

Is NZ's 18 win streak less significant because they didn't play England? Probably a little bit I'd say.

cascough I don't think France are as bad as some people think.

Only 3 point loss to England is better than anyone else so far and that was away.

The main difference between England and the rest has been winning away against a side not called Italy.

Even then it was tough.

At the moment - Ireland,France,Wales and Scotland seem to be very much even with only England and Italy being better and worse respectively.

As for England-Scotland - form and history pointed towards an England victory anyway, it's the manner and margin of defeat which was surprising but then again when you get a powerful pack like England clicking against a lighter side looking to attack....

When a task is so daunting, heads will drop if a strong start doesn't happen. Scotland needed a strong start to stand a chance of winning and the opposite happened.

England always had incredibly powerful reserves they could call on and Scotland knew it. Like being in battle and having heavy cavalry in reserve you can launch at the enemy when they tire but in this case they weren't quite as important.

They still scored 3 tries but for the 1st time in the 6 nations were overshadowed by the starters.

Scotland will generally be a tougher prospect in Murrayfield than Twickenham and inevitably confidence will be higher there.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Is an 18 game win streak less significant when you have not played the best team in the world? Probably a little bit Id say.

I'd agree that it's less significant if you are making a case for England being the best team in the world. But in the context of being worthy championship winners, it's demonstrated that it's no fluke we keep winning even when some would have you believe we've been outplayed.

It is certainly less significant than a run that includes a RWC final. But then as Cascough says it is highly relevant when discussing whether England are worthy champions.

NZ are quite clearly the best team in the world, a defeat in Chicago does not change that. Since RWC15 England though have proven themselves to be the best team in teh NH - and defeat in Dublin will not immediately change that either.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Is an 18 game win streak less significant when you have not played the best team in the world? Probably a little bit Id say.

But they played Wales three times during the winning streak?

funnyExiledScot wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Is an 18 game win streak less significant when you have not played the best team in the world? Probably a little bit Id say.

But they played Wales three times during the winning streak?

Lol. And Australia!

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Is an 18 game win streak less significant when you have not played the best team in the world? Probably a little bit Id say.

Of course. Still pretty good IMO.

Scottrf wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Is an 18 game win streak less significant when you have not played the best team in the world? Probably a little bit Id say.

Of course. Still pretty good IMO.

When you consider that New Zealand didn't play England, Ireland or Scotland in their winning streak either....

This championship has shown that it is no longer possible to beat England in the 6N.

The RFU have too much money and the officials in their pockets.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Is an 18 game win streak less significant when you have not played the best team in the world? Probably a little bit Id say.

We can't play with ourselves!

rodders wrote:This championship has shown that it is no longer possible to beat England in the 6N.

The RFU have too much money and the officials in their pockets.

You're on a streak of baiting comments over the last while, Rodders. Have you had any nibbles?

TightHEAD wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Is an 18 game win streak less significant when you have not played the best team in the world? Probably a little bit Id say.

We can't play with ourselves!

Err... the private habits of the England team and its fans is for discussion another day....

Pot Hale wrote:

rodders wrote:This championship has shown that it is no longer possible to beat England in the 6N.

The RFU have too much money and the officials in their pockets.

You're on a streak of baiting comments over the last while, Rodders.  Have you had any nibbles?

Someone has to take a stand against corruption!

If we continue winning the 6 nations I think the RFU should think about joining the Rugby Championship, at the end of the day we need meaningful games, this is becoming too easy.

Where can I buy the England Slam 2017 T shirt? I'd like to be wearing it on Saturday...

The Great Aukster wrote:Where can I buy the England Slam 2017 T shirt? I'd like to be wearing it on Saturday...

https://www.groupon.co.uk/deals/mens-england-rugby-t-shirt

The Great Aukster wrote:Where can I buy the England Slam 2017 T shirt? I'd like to be wearing it on Saturday...

I hear they've sold out. You'll have to settle for the England Slam 2018 T-shirt which is already out.

I'm going to get an official World Record 19 wins t-shirt.

TightHEAD wrote:If we continue winning the 6 nations I think the RFU should think about joining the Rugby Championship, at the end of the day we need meaningful games, this is becoming too easy.

The standard is weaker in the rugby championship at the moment so off you go. No team managed to lose by less than 19 points v NZ whereas Ireland beat the ABs and France ran them close enough in Nov.

England also won 4 in a row v Australia who also lost to half an Ireland side recently so not sure why you would want to head down there. Ireland also beat SA with 14 men.

TightHEAD wrote:I'm going to get an official World Record 19 wins t-shirt.  

Its not a world record though, Cyprus have the record with 24 wins.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Where can I buy the England Slam 2017 T shirt? I'd like to be wearing it on Saturday...

I hear they've sold out. You'll have to settle for the England Slam 2018 T-shirt which is already out.

There are still plenty of 2011 ones available. Easy to change the second "1" to a "7"

TightHEAD wrote:I'm going to get an official World Record 19 wins t-shirt.  

Why stop there? We play Argentina x3 and then Australia and Samoa to equal Cyprus' out and out record of 24 wins. Which would mean number 25 is whichever unfortunate soul gets us first in the 2018 six nations.

Did Ireland beat NZ, I must have missed that, Why hasn't anyone mentioned it?

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:If we continue winning the 6 nations I think the RFU should think about joining the Rugby Championship, at the end of the day we need meaningful games, this is becoming too easy.

The standard is weaker in the rugby championship at the moment so off you go. No team managed to lose by less than 19 points v NZ whereas Ireland beat the ABs and France ran them close enough in Nov.

England also won 4 in a row v Australia who also lost to half an Ireland side recently so not sure why you would want to head down there. Ireland also beat SA with 14 men.

I'd love to see if the Boks and ABs would agree to Wayne Barnes reffing their fixtures...

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:I'm going to get an official World Record 19 wins t-shirt.  

Its not a world record though, Cyprus have the record with 24 wins.

Eton schoolboys might have 30, not really relevant.

Scottrf wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Where can I buy the England Slam 2017 T shirt? I'd like to be wearing it on Saturday...

https://www.groupon.co.uk/deals/mens-england-rugby-t-shirt

Just the job, I see there's been over 40 of them bought and at nearly half price, I should be able to get a few more. Lets hope we can show them off to the Ireland team on their way in.

Scottrf wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:I'm going to get an official World Record 19 wins t-shirt.  

Its not a world record though, Cyprus have the record with 24 wins.

Eton schoolboys might have 30, not really relevant.

Do Eton schoolboys play international rugby?

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Do Eton schoolboys play international rugby?

Do Cyprus

Do Cyprus? I can't recall seeing them at the WC.....

Yes they do. They are better than England.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Do Cyprus? I can't recall seeing them at the WC.....

Toilet?

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Yes they do. They are better than England.

That sounds like a Wum. I recently received a ban for doing less.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Yes they do. They are better than England.

You've jumped the shark.