1
England were seduced by Samoa, admits Jones
By Peter Hanson
Head coach Eddie Jones felt England were "seduced" into a false sense of security in their 48-14 victory over Manu Samoa on Saturday.
England won for the 200th time at Twickenham, the most by any international side at a single venue, with Elliot Daly scoring twice from the left wing and George Ford impressing at 10.
However, the hosts were guilty of careless errors at times during what was a routine win, while Samoa's brave defending stifled England's undoubted attacking prowess during the early stages of the second half.
And Jones wants to see more consistency from England, while urging his side not to ease off the pressure in any match.
"It was a bit of a muddling performance from us," the Australian told Sky Sports.
"We started well, maybe got a little bit seduced by the perceived easiness of the game. We stopped doing the small things well, we got pulled back and then finished the game off.
"We stopped doing the small things well enough. It cost us a few points out there."
Jones did take plenty of positives, though, adding: "I thought Elliot Daly was superb on the left wing, George Ford controlled things well at 10, I thought Sam Simmonds did pretty well in his first start at eight.
"We don't have the consistency of doing the small things right but we've got two years to get that right."
Trending on RugbyPass
2
Saracens statement: The outcome of Billy Vunipola investigation
3
Hacjivah Dayimani exits SA following Springbok snub
4
Henry Slade and Exeter Chiefs come to terms
5
Latest Comments
I have heard it asked if RA is essentially one of the part owners and I suppose therefor should be on the other side of these two parties. If they purchased the rebels and guaranteed them, and are responsible enough they incur Rebels penalties, where is this line drawn? Seems rough to have to pay a penalty for something were your involvement sees you on the side of the conned party, the creditors. If the Rebels directors themselves have given the club their money, 6mil worth right, why aren’t they also listed as sitting with RA and the Tax office? And the legal threat was either way, new Rebels or defunct, I can’t see how RA assume the threat was less likely enough to warrant comment about it in this article. Surely RA ignore that and only worry about whether they can defend it or not, which they have reported as being comfortable with. So in effect wouldn’t it be more accurate to say there is no further legal threat (or worry) in denying the deal. Unless the directors have reneged on that. > Returns of a Japanese team or even Argentinean side, the Jaguares, were said to be on the cards, as were the ideas of standing up brand new teams in Hawaii or even Los Angeles – crazy ideas that seemingly forgot the time zone issues often cited as a turn-off for viewers when the competition contained teams from South Africa. Those timezones are great for SR and are what will probably be needed to unlock its future (cant see it remaining without _atleast _help from Aus), day games here are night games on the West Coast of america, were potential viewers triple, win win. With one of the best and easiest ways to unlock that being to play games or a host a team there. Less good the further across Aus you get though. Jaguares wouldn’t be the same Jaguares, but I still would think it’s better having them than keeping the Rebels. The other options aren’t really realistic 25’ options, no. From reading this authors last article I think if the new board can get the investment they seem to be confident in, you keeping them simply for the amount of money they’ll be investing in the game. Then ditch them later if they’re not good enough without such a high budget. Use them to get Jaguares reintergration stronger, with more key players on board, and have success drive success.
Go to commentsYeah, and ours is waaay bigger than yours. Just as you's get a semi…oh hold on that never happens
Go to comments