Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

Johnnie Beattie: 'Toothless, blunt, brittle' - Eddie Jones was completely outcoached

Maro Itoje and Freddie Steward (L) of England walk off the pitch (David Rogers/Getty)

Watching Murrayfield boil as Scotland outboxed the English heavyweight on Saturday, the question that kept leaping out at me was why.


Why did England keep kicking the ball away? Why was poor Luke Cowan-Dickie left defending a cross-kick, one-on-one with a winger? Why did England turn down three points and a kick to level the scores near the end? Why was Joe Marler throwing in to a line-out? Why didn’t they put eight men in to defend a scrum in their own 22 instead of packing down with seven and conceding the match-deciding penalty? Why take off Marcus Smith when the game hung in the balance?

England committed a catalogue of schoolboy errors stemming from coaching, personnel and a chronic lack of confidence. Remove Owen Farrell, Courtney Lawes and Manu Tuilagi from their team, and they looked physically and mentally fragile. It was astonishingly un-England-like. They loaded up the gun, pointed it at their foot, and emptied both barrels.

Video Spacer

Ryan Wilson and Jim Hamilton | Rugby Roots | Ep 1

Video Spacer

Ryan Wilson and Jim Hamilton | Rugby Roots | Ep 1

Scotland had the ball in England’s half three times in the opening forty minutes (yes, I said half, not 22) and came away with 10 points. Their red-zone possession totalled seven seconds in that period, an incredible strike rate. England had roughly two-thirds of possession and three-quarters of the territory but Scotland led 10-6 at the break.

That England could not transfer their overwhelming statistical dominance into points and victory will be deeply concerning for Eddie Jones. The decision-making, in particular, left you scratching your head. Every time England worked the ball to the edges of the Scottish defence, they looked panicked. Every time they created an overlap, they chose to kick in behind rather than exploit the mismatch they’d set up. Why? Was this a pre-determined tactic? Were they scared of Chris Harris and his defensive prowess?

They’d done the hard work by getting in to Scotland’s third and then took the pressure right back off again. Scotland exited cleanly over and over. The thought process behind what England’s backline was trying to do, I did not understand. They were totally toothless.

Compare that with the level of Gregor Townend’s cunning and his players’ execution. Compare the English strategy with how Scotland schemed and innovated to make their tries happen. George Turner, the hooker, was often lurking way behind the defence by the touchline when Ben Youngs was box-kicking out of England’s 22. That meant he could carry if the ball stayed in, or be quickly in place for a line-out throw. Schalk Brits used to play that role for Saracens and on Saturday, it was a masterstroke.


Townsend does not have a massive pack who can bludgeon a team to death. He never will. Scotland don’t make many players in that mould. He does have a team who can shift the point of contact, be creative, and have now found the precious ability to hang in games when they need to dog it out, striking from nothing when they get a sniff.

Turner’s quick line-out to Jamie Ritchie caught England on the hop. They weren’t allowed to set their line-out or defensive line. That’s what rugby is all about: being smart enough to stress opposition. One good ball-carry, and a phase later, on a premeditated short-side return play Maro Itoje shoots out of the line, disconnecting himself from those beside him, and Darcy Graham carves England open.

That is off-field, pre-match intelligence from Townsend. His players implemented it brilliantly.

Eddie Jones
Eddie Jones /PA

Where England’s kicking was limited, Finn Russell’s was outstanding. Every time he went long, he found grass or the touchline. He turned England’s back three again and again.


Before the match, Scottish Rugby sponsors Tennents had branding up across the city, encouraging Scotland to ‘get Finntae’ England. The play-maker and mischief-maker duly delivered.

Finn is one of the few players on the planet with the vision and nous to make Scotland’s second try happen. Most – I’d say 99.9 per cent – would not even consider back-to-back cross-kicks an option, let alone be skilled enough to pull them off.

His first kick, from right to left, drew in so many defenders as Duhan van der Merwe thundered away. Cowan-Dickie was left defending the opposite flank. In a sweeper system which England operate, that should never happen. It is not right. Russell cruelly exposed him. A piece of carefully created and curated chaos.

Luke Cowan-Dickie
Luke Cowan-Dickie and Darcy Graham /Getty

In the aftermath, Cowan-Dickie apologised on social media having batted the ball deliberately into touch, earning himself a yellow card and Scotland a penalty try. He has no need to say sorry. There are few more committed, dynamic and full-blooded competitors in the game. He was a fish out of water, trying to perform a skill he has never been coached to perform, to save his team in a Calcutta Cup match. He tried to do the right thing.

The Cowan-Dickie incident raised more questions about what England were up to in the heat of battle. With no hooker, Marler threw in to a line-out that looked it had been dreamed up on the fly. In that situation, if you choose not to bring on a hooker, or cannot get one on, you let the scrum-half throw over the top and get the hell out of there. At Bayonne, we called that play Tom Brady.

England didn’t seem to have that level of detail. What was their Plan B? They couldn’t problem-solve on the field. They went from Cowan-Dickie’s error, to Marler’s illegal throw, to defending the scrum with seven men. You have to commit or sacrifice a back there. You have to have eight men in that shove. It is just fundamental. Their scrum was squeezed, they conceded a penalty, and Russell put over the decisive three points.

With every error and every infringement, you also got the sense the Scottish players and crowd grew in belief, a crescendo built at least half by England’s failings.

Even at the frenetic, anxiety-laden end with several minutes of reset scrums, England were so concentrated on the double-shove that not one of their pack got out to clear the first phase. Neither did the backline. The ball-carrier was completely isolated, so much so that the smallest man on the pitch, Darcy Graham, was able to turn him over. England were just not at the races in the moments that mattered.

In amongst it all, Jones made the huge decision to replace Marcus Smith with George Ford. As terrific as Ford has been for Leicester, and as first-class as his tactical kicking is, it looked like the wrong call. Smith played very well – it was what happened outside him that went wrong. Removing him for the final throes reeked of a lingering lack of trust from the head coach.

I don’t want to heap more pressure on Jones, who is one of the game’s shrewdest and most successful operators. But after finishing fifth in last year’s Six Nations, after losing to Scotland again and potentially facing another championship in the bottom half of the table, does the RFU have to consider making a change? That is their biggest question as the 2023 World Cup looms.


Townsend completely outcoached Jones and not for the first time. England looked completely blunt and brittle despite their vastly superior resources. That is why questions should and will be asked.

For Scotland, Wales await. They have not won in Cardiff since 2002 and believe me, winning in Llanelli in front of nobody in 2020 is not the same as going to the Principality with 80,000. It is a fiendishly difficult place to conquer.

Scotland have to start extremely well, quieten that crowd, and be hugely physical. They have to be better than they were in round one, for they cannot give teams as much possession and territory as they did England and expect to win consistently. They have to control the game. But it is a massive opportunity against a Wales side thumped by Ireland and missing shedloads of experience.

Working with Lawrence Dallaglio on Saturday, he said he’d played Scotland nine times and won all but two. This Scottish team have shifted the dial in a way that was hard to imagine even five years ago. Now is their time to make momentum count.


Join free



Trending on RugbyPass


As part of a series of planned improvements, we will need you to reset your RugbyPass password from 24/07/24 to continue commenting on articles.

You don’t need to change anything until that time.

Thank you,


martin 893 days ago

I sometimes wonder what game commentators have been watching when 'reporting' on a match and this is no different! I don't disagree that many decisions both pre and during the match were 'questionable' from England's perspective, but for goodness sake unless I was watching a different game all I saw was Scotland totally dominated and pushed into their own half for the majority of the game - they simply had no territory gain. If the cross field kick goes into touch or circumstances were any different then it is an England victory that is somewhat uninspired - but as it turned out Scotland win by the skin of their teeth and really do not look any better than previous seasons - a solid team that will struggle against top competition - simple as that. Of course England beat the world champions recently...such short memories!

Timothy 895 days ago

I thought that putting Daley in at centre might help him, as that is his normal position But it backfired, he has not played well for sometime now for England. But to be honest, I think Eddie Jones has turned England into a team that only plays his way. Jack Nowell, might just as well not got on the field for all he was asked to do. Eddie Jones has said he wants England to be the best in the world, but the way he has them playing they are nowhere near being the best in the Northern Hemisphere. It is all to predictable, even with Marcus Smith playing, it is Eddie's way and Smith is wasted in that sort of game. We need some more players , who can play instinctively in vital positions.

Nathan 895 days ago

This article highlights what’s terrible about the nature of both commentary and reporting in Rugby.

We seem to think having ex-players and ex-coaches makes for good reporting. It truth it makes low grade reporting that just produces articles designed for click bait instead of saying anything interesting or useful.

Clive Woodward and Matt Dawson to name a few haven’t said or written anything of value in the past 6-7 years that I can remember. They just write articles being like “Eddie Jones is amazing” when he wins and then write articles saying “Eddie should be fired and Owen Farrell dropped” when they lose. Whilst having no idea what goes on in the RFU or what’s going on with a player.

Like why don’t the reporters and columnists write something useful. Like reform of the English Championship, or how to improve Italian Rugby.

Or talk about concepts like a transfer window for club rugby and issue of the salary cap instead of just producing articles which are a lengthy form of click bait, full of bias, sensationalist opinion and not actually engaging new fans.

Roy 896 days ago

You can't have it both ways.

England were toothless + brittle, they choked AND Eddie made bad decisions and was "outcoached".

OK, yet Scotland only won by 3 points, at home (the home team wins 65% of the games in 6N not including Italy) and were down 10:17 with 20 minutes to go.

How does that make sense?

We all agree, England's inexperience showed. They choked a little, that's fair.

We all agree Eddie's coaching decisions back fired.

I find it hard to see another perspective there.

Yet saying all that, Scotland were 7 points down until Cowan-Dickie made a really silly mistake. Scotland until that point had only 30% of the territory?

You can't say England were poor out one side of your mouth and then say Scotland were great outside the other. It's not logical.

It only works if you were away from home and won by 10. At home and winning by 3, you're talking with your bias not with objectivity. It doesn't add up.

England's youngsters learnt a lot. A hostile / passionate stadium, difficult conditions and relentless Scottish defence. They stood up for 60 mins and run into a brick wall, but they made some errors (not helped by the coach) and imploded.

That's completely fair. They were well beaten, but there's a lot to take away and learn from.

Scotland were not great. Their defense was exceptional but they allowed England to control most of the game. They ground out the result, which is what really matters at the 6N, and what champions do. But equally, there needs to be plenty of improvement because France and Ireland will not implode like England did. They need to get more control of the game and play more.

That seems more honest and a realistic assessment of Scotland. But we're not allowed to be critical of Scotland are we? Because everywhere they've been lauded.

I just don't understand how a mediocre performance from the opposition and grinding a 3 point win can ever be classified as convincing.

Load More Comments

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

TRENDING Eddie Jones' Japan humbled by Italy in Sapporo Eddie Jones' Japan humbled by Italy in Sapporo