Eddie should have been grilled before he got a new deal

WAS JONES’S REAPPOINTMENT A FORMALITY?

FOR probably 99.9 per cent of people, especially the blazers at the RFU, it was a formality — but for me, absolutely not. I had been Eddie’s biggest fan since his appointment, but in the week of the World Cup final, I saw a side of England — and Eddie — I did not like. Unnecessary disruptions with a lack of leadership and professionalism, and little understanding of what winning finals is about. England were off the pace mentally and physically. This was magnified by Eddie picking the wrong team. It was a mess and England were shockingly poor against South Africa. Ten weeks later, they were poor against France after another chaotic week of preparation. The job should have gone out for interview. Richie McCaw and Rob Baxter needed to come into the equation and, at one stage, Rassie Erasmus seemed he might have been tempted away from South Africa. Others might have put themselves forward. The RFU needed to have a close look at their options. Eddie may well prove to be the right choice — he remains a big hitter — but there badly needed to be a transparent process. He should have been asked to explain why it went so pear-shaped in Japan. Other questions should have been asked. Has he got another gruelling World Cup cycle in him and where is this revolving door policy with his back-up staff taking England? I would like to see a much stronger English element. The perennial problem, though, is that nobody is qualified enough at the RFU to debrief and interrogate Eddie. The decision to re-hire him for another three years — a massive call — must be totally rugby based and CEOs, with other skillsets and pressures, are not best-placed to make it. And if they do they must be prepared to take the rap if it all goes wrong.