3 reasons England are just so damn good

There is no debate to it now, England are the second best team in the world. Some people will argue for the top spot, but that can only truly be judged come the Autumn, when New Zealand come to Twickenham. England look streets ahead of any of their Northern Hemisphere counter parts, and convincingly beat Australia in a 3-0 white wash to finish the season. They weren't clear and away better than Australia, and sometimes you wonder how Australia didn't win a test, but England finished every match the stronger side and were more than worthy of their three victories.

There are three particular areas that I have seen which play a significant part in their success, there may well be others, and feel free to discuss in the comments.

Leadership

The England team that walked out of their own World Cup had one glaring flaw. The decision makers on the park either didn't have the ability to make decisions, or the conviction to follow them through. It wasn't just in the World Cup it had become a consistent talking point among pundits that the captain didn't seem to know whether to go for goal or kick to the corner.

Hartley has been a leading light for England.

Six months later it is a different story, every opportunity England are given they know exactly what they are going to do, the entire team backs the decision and follows through with it. There is a belief that the captain - Hartley - and his vice captains (which will come onto in a minute) know what they are doing and the team will profit from the choices made.

Speaking of Hartley, making him captain has been an inspired decision, so much so that for me he is the man to lead the Lions on tour next year. His past is marred in ugly incidents which constantly threatened his position as a top quality hooker. But what others saw as over aggression and recklessness, Eddie Jones saw as combativeness and a will to win. Naming him captain set the tone for the sort of rugby England wanted to play. Hartley refusing to back down from a battle is what inspires his troops to follow him into the melee.

As brilliant as the "gamble" has been in the choice of captain, the reason it has worked so successfully is because Hartley isn't alone in leading the team. It's not often you see players publicly announced as a vice-captain, it's not something most coaches bother with, focusing instead on "defence captains" or "lineout captains". Not so for England. When Eddie Jones announced his first team he also listed three vice captains to support his hooker. Mike Brown at fullback; Owen Farrell at centre; and the young talent of Billy Vunipola at No. 8. Each player contained a facet of the Hartley leadership design. Brown is aggressive and never backs down; Farrell is calm assured, an excellent decision maker; Vunipola charges into the fray and drags the rest of the team forward with him. As vice-captain they were then each expected to do a role: Brown surveys the field and bosses from the back; Farrell controls the game, finding the way to move forward; and Vunipola was asked to put England on the front foot.

Vunipola is loving his role as Vice-Captain.

Vunipola is another - like Hartley -  that has thrived under the leadership role, he had struggled to become the player everyone wanted him to be under Lancaster, but with the expectation of him to perform and to make others follow him he has risen to the top. He knows everyone is watching him, so he gives them something to watch.

It helps in the leadership stakes when everything comes off as it has been doing, but that's down to well drilled players rather than luck. England deserve their "risks" to come off because they've worked for them, and having the peerless kicking of Farrell to take the points doesn't help either.

Simple "Northern Hemisphere" Rugby

After the World Cup last year every pundit was saying the age of forward power and defences was at an end and all the Northern Hemisphere teams had to learn how to play with width and creativity akin to New Zealand and Australia. At the time it seemed like the reality of rugby in the modern professional era. Six months later and with a Grand Slam Eddie Jones has shown a giant middle finger to that, and he took it with him to Australia.

England have set their foundations for victory
in the lineout.

Eddie Jones knew two things. One, he needed to restore faith in England by turning them back into the global force they were meant to be; Two, the players available to him did not have the skills or confidence to run a game like the Kiwi's. So what did he do? He took England back to the style of rugby that made them incredibly difficult to beat, and took them to the title in 2003. Focused on a 100% set piece, which provided clean possession every time and allowed the construction of
dangerous mauls, and the rampaging Vunipola to attack the 10 channel. It was then down to forwards running hard in endless waves, off both 9 and 10. With fast recycled ball at the breakdown the forwards could make continual inroads against unorganised defences. Wingers Nowell and Yarde were charged with using their size, strength, and speed in a similar fashion.

Combined with a kicking game ran by the accuracy of Ford and Farrell it meant England could dictate where the game was played. Either lofting cross field kicks and allow the wing-come-fullbacks on the flanks to compete against retreating defenders, or putting in long precise kicks over the opposition back three and forcing them to play from deep. With the opposition in their own third England look to pile on the pressure, they use their lineout as the first stage of their defence, the athletic Itoje competing at almost every one. This would either steal possession giving England a great chance to score, or simply produce ugly, messy ball for their opponents which then allowed the second wave to cause havoc. Lead by the aggressive James Haskell the English defensive line used what I refer to as a "chaos blitz", designed to push the opposition into trying something risky. Everyone flies up Haskell aims for the 10, Farrell aims for the 12, it is likely to produce dog legs, but that is the point. England put you under pressure and dare you to beat them, if you manage to find a way through then you've done well, if you can't get around the blitz then you're in deep trouble.

Haskell was player of the series with his aggressive defence, and unending work rate, simply superb.

Time and time again this defence paid off against the Australians, twice leading directly to tries which turned the tide of matches. Despite all this simple, hard running, set piece dominated system, there is still room for a bit of flair. Weirdly it mainly comes from forwards. Jamie George is putting the captain under pressure with his offloading ability, and grubber which won the series for England. Mako Vunipola has perfected the prop offload, taking two defenders with him before giving it to his support. The flair is there, but it is not a prerequisite, it is an added gloss which is only used when the outcome is as assured as it can be. Luck comes in a little bit, but when you're a team this good you're always "lucky".

Ford & Farrell have combined brilliantly, similar
to when they played together at Under 20's.

England's attack isn't without it's potency, they are still a top tier rugby team, but it plays differently to any rugby I've seen in a long time. It's less about power, or speed or width, and more about constantly wrong footing the opposition and getting hard runners attacking a disorganised defence. With the two "fly-halves" in Ford and Farrell, they are able to attack both sides of the breakdown, and the extra pair of eyes is capable of spotting where the mismatches are. Forwards are trusted to link up with each other to shift the point of contact and then follow their pass. The likes of Brown and Nowell consistently show up to add a bit of pace and ball ability among the forwards and the breakdown carries. It is a game plan based heavily in the England of old: simple, forward orientated, set piece domination and intelligent kicking; but the foundations of a more expansive  and instinctive game are present and will be built upon sooner rather than later.

Eddie Jones

This seems a bit of a given seeing as how England became #2 in the world under Eddie Jones, but let me explain. First up is his handling of the media. It is second to none, simultaneously dropping "grenades" which shift focus/blame to the opposition, while also refusing to allow journalists to attack his players, out right stating his players are great and any claims of poor form are unfounded. Just look at the way he handled the questions over George Ford in the 6 Nations, where his response to Ford's form in the Aviva Premiership was to state how well he played for England. Jones wont have anyone targeting his players, instead he makes slightly off colour comments, or controversial statements which mean the media will focus on him instead of his players. It takes a large amount of pressure and expectation off the players and allows them to play without fear of public scrutiny.

Eddie Jones is a media controlling marvel - always takes the pressure off his players.

Luther Burrell didn't perform as demanded.

Instead there is a fear of disappointing Jones, as little regard as he has for naysayers, he has even less for players not performing in his side. We saw it twice during the tour of Australia, Eddie Jones pulling players off at the 30 minute mark for not pulling their required weight. Luther Burrell was the first to feel the sheep's hook, later revealed to have been failing to implement the defensive system effectively after Australia had scored two tries in 20 minutes. It reinstated the Ford/Farrell axis which had flourished in the 6 Nations, and  was the primary reason for the 3-0 whitewash. Then in the third test Teimana Harrison was given a chance to prove he could be the long term successor to James Haskell; 30 minutes in he was pulled off in favour of Lawes, and Itoje moved to the back row. Claims that Harrison was not supplying the required physicality expected of him being the reason for his
withdrawal. This sort of ruthlessness has a double effect. Firstly it forces players to give everything they have for the shirt every minute of the game, the shadow of the bench looming large over everyone. But also it can mess with the oppositions pre-match preparation, if, as a team you've practiced how to defend and attack against a hard carrying centre like Burrell all week, but then 30 minutes into the game you're suddenly faced with a play-making 12, it can throw everything out of kilter. Whether this is intentional or not, it plays a significant part in England's victories.

Borthwick's appointment, has
done wonders for the England
lineout.

Jones' ruthlessness also extends to his acquisition of coaching staff, caring little for the impact on the teams he takes his backroom staff from. Hatley was taken from Bath at the end of the season, and
Paul Gustard removed from his position as Saracens defence coach while they were going for the double. Then the business with Steve Borthwick departing Bristol was a media storm, as Bristol denied any successful signing by the RFU vehemently. In the end it didn't matter, Eddie Jones' vision for England meant these coaches wanted to be a part of it, and he was always going to get his man, especially with the financial power of the RFU behind him. He didn't stop there, as he regularly brought in legends of the game to offer insight to his players: George Smith was tasked with coaching how to win the breakdown; Wilkinson to improve the kicking ability of the backline; even Australian Rugby League legend Andrew Johns was brought in during the summer to improve core skills and decision making of the half backs. With all of these influences coming in with a high level of expertise, the players have flourished.

Lastly, and perhaps most simply, the biggest impact Eddie Jones has had - compared to Lancaster - has been his insatiable desire to win. No other result is good enough, he came in wanting to win the Grand Slam and when he won that he instantly stated it was only a stepping stone to winning the Australia series 3-0. Now he's done that he has already set his sights on beating the All Blacks. As a player you can't understand the effect this would have, having your top man refusing to settle for any sort of "heroic defeat" or even basking in the glow of a well earned victory. He just wants more, and it is filtering down to the players. The England team under Lancaster looked to be respected and liked, a team of gentlemen in an aggressive sport. The team under Jones doesn't care about their image, if they are feared, loathed or hated it doesn't matter, provided that they win. This isn't to say Jones will accept victory no matter the cost, he will not accept players getting into fights or public altercations, but instead of quashing the aggression he targets it in a positive manner on the pitch. He understands the players, understands they need to let off steam every now and again, if players want to have a night out and relax then they can. Provided they know they have to be able to train at maximum intensity the next day, its a simple case of man-management, players know what is expected of them, if they do that then they will succeed under Eddie Jones. If they step out of line then the ramifications will be swift and uncompromising.



There we have it, my three reasons for why England are a dominant force in world rugby yet again, and are likely to be one for years to come. I will not be surprised to see England complete the first ever back to back Grand Slam come 2017.