Anyone should be able to open and view this. Let me know what you'd want to see extra, if you'd prefer some sort of edited tables to show you etc. I may not oblige but there we go .
We were heavily resourcing the ruck in the first half I believe, but the Irish were smart, and really weren't competing hard for turnovers, meaning we were constantly under resourced in attack. Our attack often looked very poor, and going far too deep. Farrell runs too hot and cold for my liking, sometimes he'll run, and look good doing it, but so often the defence can just ignore him, since he's looking only sideways, crabs sideways, and passes, all whilst very deep. Then at other times he'll get it just right. Ford on the other hand nearly always takes it right up to the line and the defence always takes him seriously. Both made errors today, but I'd still personally like to see Ford with Teo and Joseph. Or of course, Farrell continuing to improve his running game (and actually combining the passing and running, so fixing defenders then giving the pass).
We blew so many chances it's not even funny, which is a repeat really of previous games. A slight lack of cutting edge, and a very slow to organise attack. If this is due to fatigue due to heavy training, it'll hopefully come good when we actually have a proper conditioning program aiming for players to peak for games. We still make some bad choices though, and whilst fatigued might be able to explain this, giving tap and go carries to Itoje and Robshaw, after 70 minutes or more, just seems insane to me.
In terms of individuals, whilst the scrum struggled a little, the Irish are probably one of the best scrummaging sides out there. I'd give Sinckler further starts, and look to move on from Cole even on the bench. I was expecting to see some serious impact from Cole, to make us all realise it's just that he's shattered, but there was no apparent reaction. Let's see if Williams can continue to push hard. Kruis was busy, especially early in the 2nd half when every ruck just seemed to come his way, but I believe he's not been with England for at least some of the time, so will likely be fresher than Launchbury, and yet it didn't feel like he was a significant step up. I wonder if this is Eddie reverting by to Kruis, or trying to use Kruis as a fresher player in the hope of getting something out of this game. James Haskell/Chris Robshaw proved for me the importance of having proper flankers. Sam Simmonds slightly underwhelmed, neither fulfilling the big carrier role, nor the extra flanker role that well. His pace could still be interesting on the flanks though, worth continuing with.
I'm not as despondent as many, but if it turns out the players are being beasted for no long term gains, then I'm worried, I guess we'll only know come the world cup.
Not sure if I quite understand all of it. But for me it looks like:
Maro may be a bit tired and of where he was from last year, but he's still putting in a shift.
Hartley does actually do a lot of unseen work. The question remains whether or not he does it effectivly enough or whether the troubles at our breakdown are a system error.
Sinkler did okay for a first SN start. So goodbye Dan.
Simmonds may not be an 8 in this system. I think Eddie was referring to him when he said some players may not play again. Hopefully the lesson Eddie isn't simply that our 8 has to be Billyesque or nothing as it would be smarter to have a plan that didn't rely on Billy V being fit.
So, apart from Bitts, anyone else actually taken a look? It's a messy format at the moment, and I plan on cleaning it up. Are there any combinations of stats etc you think could be useful? I want to make a final table with clear interesting stats.
Managed to get the oh so interesting ruck by ruck comments (at least if there's somethign to comment on) in a more readable form.
0.15 Robshaw straight off his feet, potentially shoved off by the rest
0.3 CR didn't do much, but enough for Ireland to know they need to commit.
1.06
1.15 Because we committed 4 men to the previous ruck, the forwards are still coming around, we pass a long way back to May as first receiver, who passes even deeper. So we lose 5m.
1.21 Kruis clears out the 7 who's doing absolutely nothing at the side of the ruck, not involved, completely unncessary and just needlessly takes himself out the game and offside.
1.49 Not bad from Hask, didn't get the turnover, but ensured he required a good clearout. 3 forwards do easily clear him though, unsurprisingly.
2.03 Simmonds just sort of bounces off of POMs leg there. No impact.
2.16 Better from Simmonds, but still too easily shifted, Itoje tries a nudge, but it was a pointless exercise.
2.38 Simmonds gets very low and gets Hendersons arms off. Not a powerful clearout, but it did the job, wouldn't work on the likes of Bastareud, but good against the taller jackal, also means he's not taking himself out of the game by rolling them off.
2.44 OK ball, pass to Farrell, defence are watching him but already drifting. He sends it very deep to May, and we're already looking at attacking a 4v3, unfortunately it's the defence with 4, and more drifitng. May makes sure he gives it quite early too, so that Daly can face a solid defensive line with virtually no support instead. Daly picks a great option to kick it through about 7m out.
3.27 More hassling from Robshaw, not massively effective, but more keeping in the Irish heads.
3.58
4.03 If Hartley hadn't hit that line with such huge pace, he'd have got a 1 for the carry. Gets dumped backwards.
4.1 Itoje and Simmonds both there at a similar time, Itoje was with Kruis helping drive through. That's basically a 4 man pod. Farrell kicks that, I know it wasn't great ball, but he's got 4 backs outside him, all dangerous runners. If he'd ran that straight and passed it to Joseph, the defence would have been fixed by Teo inside and Watson and May could have perhaps have made something. Instead Farrell just gives the ball away really, and then gives away the penalty. Late? Maybe, maybe not, but it was always going to be contentious, and if you give the man with a whistle a chance to blow it, it's your own fault.
5.33
7.07 Robshaw is working hard here after a good chase and tackle by Daly.
7.55 Following this, Hask passes the ball pack (no one expects it, so the defence is fixed), ball goes to Teo. Quick hands here sees Joseph with an outside arc to fix the winger, and Daly free to have a go at the full back. Watson could have also managed to go outside rather than in. Instead Teo just runs into 2 Irishmen.
8.05
8.12 Haskell doesn't clear POM, but Itoje manages to come in. That was a good carry, but we're just not close enough to support.
8.25 We actually win a turnover here, because Ireland come straight off their feet, I'm not willing to give KS the turnover here, but in going for the ball he clearly showed the ref the offence.
12.11
12.43
12.57
13.03
13.14 Do we really need 4 forwards to clear a positive carry with no Irishmen competing for the ball? Having used too many resources in the breakdown, and our attack in disarray, I guess a kick is the best choice, despite what should have been half decent attacking ball. Farrell instead decides the best option is to boot it long, unfortunately, under no pressure whatsoever, he hits a near stationary Haskell.
15.01
15.11
15.18 Robshaw tries to get in position, and needs clearing out, but was never in on the ball tor eally slow things.
15.28
15.38 Though not on the ball, definitely a good time to have a nibble after Ireland have just made good yards.
15.48 Again, ireland make a few yards and Haskell whilst not on the ball, probably helps slow things a little.
16.1 Another attempt from Robshaw to just slow it down a tiny bit. Kruis isn't needed and really is wasted hitting that, taking himself out of the defensive line.
16.23 Hartley was on the ball and needed clearing, not the most effective slowdown, but just scores a 3.
16.4 A word on Haskell here, tackle is called whilst Hask and Itoje are on their feet, Itoje lets go, Hask smartly falls down onto the player to prevent him doing anything tricky, then back to his feet to compete.
19.33
19.44 Ball goes wide here, Joseph manages to do OK, Teo first man in to support, and Haskell comes across the pitch to offer further support.
19.55
19.59
20.19 Would like to give Robshaw -1 here. Sinckler was over the ball, Robshaw comes in as well and instead of supporting Sinckler, flops on top of him and also goes for the ball, which takes Sinckler off his feet, conceeding the pen. That was Robshaws screw up.
22.05
22.15 Playing on our own line, so definitely want to heavily resource this, but we seem to get in each others way intially. Secured the ball though, and it was to be kicked out regardless.
23.52 Fantastic take by Daly on the restart, then makes good positive yards, clearout is all over the shop, but it's fast, and Simmonds keeps things going by taking it up again.
23.56 Slowed down because we aren't quick enough to organise our attack, Mako has to carry into heavy traffic.
24.03 The backs still aren't in place, so instead of being able to produce a good attack in the backs, we send Watson away with a slim chance, but no support.
24.12 JJ in first, Hartley with a good effort to get across to support, Itoje gets across, so he can stand behind the scrum half, acheiving nothing.
24.18
24.24
24.3
24.43
24.45 For some reason, despite our supporting players, Hask and Itoje, being off their feet (trying to stop the maul, fair enough) the ref kindly tells Best to not go for the ball.
29.06 Would love to know what was supposed to happen in that lineout, but we lost it, and the chance to score. Argument for a pen try to go along with the yellow for POM earlier?
29.25
29.58 JJ slips. After this though, Farrell makes a great break, why isn't he using this running game more. Yes, if he tries it more, defences will give him less space, but it'll help everyone else out so much more.
30.08 OF with the break, but AJ is the guy who has it when the ruck is formed... an issue with scoring carries here, since offloads avoid the ruck. In terms of Watsons personal carry, it wasn't a 5, it was a 2/3 I reckon, but in terms of what we were working with with regards to go forwards ball, it was a 5. Going to need to think about the system here for the future.
30.11
30.15
30.26
30.3
30.38 After this ruck, Farrell takes the ball deep, never even looks like running forwards, crabs twice and passes, the defence has no interest in him and is drifting easily. Farrell could have easily fixed that defence, and we'd not have needed to work so deep, with Daly coming round at pace, potentially had a nice attack. Instead Joseph slips.
30.45
30.49 Stupid by Simmonds, he's the sole support for the Joseph carry, and then decides to carry himself. Isolated, we thankfully manage to keep the ball, but just because Ireland missed a chance, doesn't make it OK.
30.57
31.02
31.08 We get the advantage, and it was a mess, but there's 6 forwards in there, with Hartley standing next to it too. Free play for Farrell to dink through there and Daly scores.
33.4 Box kick from the restart, hence all the players in.
33.56
34.45 Hate this attitude. OK, Hask isn't the best over the ball, but there's a clear opportunity for him to get into the breakdown as he does, and someone (no good at recognising the voice) is telling him to leave it.
34.49
35.23 Dirty by Robshaw, took out Murray on the box kick with no chance of blocking the kick.
36.04 Hartley shoves Mako off his feet, bad play, could have technically been done for going off feet. Just not supporting each other in the breakdown, working as individuals.
36.09 Kruis passes from the base for some reason, leaving Itoje static, reaching up, and Irish defenders rapidly on him. Thankfully support is good.
40.53
41.13 Again Robshaw pushes his own man off his feet, a bit more forgivable this time, as he may not have expected Mako to get back onto his feet.
41.2
HT The Irish really haven't been going for many turnovers, whilst England have been more heavily resourcing rucks I believe. Eddie reacting to previous games, and Schmidt pre-empting Eddie?
40.1 Robshaw tugging and pushing, not having much effect, but surely not illegal, ref tells him to stop?
40.26
40.32
40.51
40.57
41.03
41.08
42.13
42.19
42.25 How Sinckler wasn't done for obstruction there I don't know, Robshaw takes advantage of the hole with a big carry.
42.35 That's what I want! Farrell takes the ball to the line, with Teo running a hard line too, completely fixes the defences and leaves some space on the outside. Not sure what Daly was supposed to be doing, but regardless, when the defence is fixed it looked a lot better.
42.43
42.48 OF runs himself, doesn't make much yardage, but happy with that.
42.53
42.59 Making some nice yardage in these phases
43.06 Poor carry from Kruis, Hartley off clearing out someone irrelevant, not even at the ruck really. Momentum lost a bit
43.12
43.19 A few not so great carries, slowing us right down.
43.29 No forwards involved. Better from Farrell again, went forward, fixed the defence and passed, BT with a very good carry, easily secured by the backs, but then Farrell gets stuck at 9 with Wiggles next to him, causes a small issue in the next pass and May loses his feet.
43.33 Next attack sees Farrell fling it out to Daly, with the rush out, Kruis may have been the better option, he could have put it through the hands. Think that was unnecessary from Farrell, we weren't doing badly and Daly wasn't in the clear.
44.29
44.35 Cheeky pick and go from May, but almost gets isolated, Wiggles has to go in to help clear. Mako with a good pick and go after though.
44.4 Maro straight off his feet, ref could have easily blown for that.
44.46
44.54
45.02 Hask taking someone who is nothing to do with the ruck.
45.07 The attack is so slow to organise after this ruck.
45.16
45.22
45.29
45.4 May picked up and dumped back, thankfully the backs secure it.
45.49
45.59
46.08
46.14
46.22 Sorry, but that is not a neck roll. AR just did what Kearney told him.
46.26
47.44
48.01 May is taken out in the air due to the contest, harsh to score it a 1.
48.15 Simmonds is technically first man, but he just runs over the top and a long way past, so not actually part of the ruck at all.
50.58
51.5 Though only scored a 2, that carry from Brown was after recovering a kick, huge effort to stay on his feet for his support.
52 Box kick
53.27 Lovely set piece play by JJ at first receiver, and Farrell with quick hands to Daly.
53.33
53.4
53.45
53.55 Farrell once again reverting back to not fixing defence, meaning we're playing a forward runner, just starting 10m further back than we need to.
53.59 We get turned over, Kruis rolls his man, but fails to actually stop him turning over. Scoring that 1 because he doesn't actually acheive anything, argue the 3 though?
54.16 Kick through by Ireland, Teo does well to keep his feet for the other backs to arrive.
54.27 Twice now we see us put in large numbers (ok, previous had a number of backs), including kick guards, but not actually kick it from 9.
55.35
56.2 Brown gives away the penalty due to not releasing.
57.42 Penalty given apparently by George for not rolling? Very harsh in my book.
62.16
62.23
62.31 Jamie George not given much of a chance there.
62.38 Brown gets a good carry there because Ford has fixed the defence, had options on the outside too potentially.
62.45
62.58 Great carry from Teo considering what he was given.
63.06
63.12
63.17
63.25
63.37 Poor pass from Ford leaves May rushing back to get the ball. Marler doesn't seem bothered to really try and secure it, however Ireland kick the ball out, which isn't allowed, but it's missed. Thankfully Brown wins the turnover anyway.
66.22 Restart to Armand, we get a knock on turnover from the kick, but Farrell kicks it, we could have run that I reckon, instead of giving possession back.
66.57
68.51
70.31 Teo recovers the 22 dropout nicely.
70.37
70.44
70.49
70.54
71
71.1
71.17
71.29 We go out the back, then again even deeper, ignoring that this leaves us with almost no support behind the player, and we don't work hard enough to fix that.
71.38
72.05
72.08 George just puts his hands on the ground there and waits for the clearout, awful technique.
72.15
72.23
72.36 Marler with a good turnover, Care goes quickly, not sure that was the best option, why stress the defence now, after 72 minutes, should have been doing this from the start.
72.5
75.46 Another good setpiece play, defence fixed early leaves just enough room for May to barge through.
75.5
75.56
76.01
76.05
76.18
76.3 Over complicated play almost breaks down, no need for it.
76.45 Not sure how we got that back after it was ripped off brown.
76.56 Great and unexpected carry from Robshaw there, good front foot ball on the edge of the pitch.
77.02 Good run by Brown to bust it up again.
77.09
77.14 Not sure why Armand tipped the onto Robshaw to carry. Simple hands should have seen the try scored, but we go straight to Brown and he's put into touch.
77.56
78 Just won the counter ruck, carry score is near irrelevant.
78.14 Lost a lot of ground due to Murray foul play, but Farrells pass to touch is just a howler.
78.46 Is Maro really the best carrier we have on the pitch at this point? Surely Marler or Launchbury would be better, seeing as they're fresh?
79.49
79.58 Poor pass from Farrell means JG has to stoop, if that had been good, he may have been able to put Daly in.
80.05
80.13 Poor pass from Ford sees us lose huge amounts of ground.
80.23
80.34 Quick tap from Care, onto Itoje.
80.44
80.5
80.57
81.07 Turned over, back to pen advantage.
81.25 Again, is Robshaw really the best carrier we have for the tap and go???
Looking at it critically I'd have to say it's all rather pointless, fake news even.
(I will look at it after I've eventually finished the minute by minute - if anyone has access to the GPS data, metres run and specifically metres run by intensity, and also impact data that would really start to round out the picture)
Digby wrote:Looking at it critically I'd have to say it's all rather pointless, fake news even.
(I will look at it after I've eventually finished the minute by minute - if anyone has access to the GPS data, metres run and specifically metres run by intensity, and also impact data that would really start to round out the picture)
Definitely need the off the ball work, unfortunately that's tough, especially when the TV folks aren't kind enough to give a variety of useful to analyse angles .
Digby wrote:Looking at it critically I'd have to say it's all rather pointless, fake news even.
(I will look at it after I've eventually finished the minute by minute - if anyone has access to the GPS data, metres run and specifically metres run by intensity, and also impact data that would really start to round out the picture)
Definitely need the off the ball work, unfortunately that's tough, especially when the TV folks aren't kind enough to give a variety of useful to analyse angles .
Why in this age we can't have the view from behind the posts made available I don't know, okay it's not suitable for TV coverage and only nerds are going to look at it, but it's not like the footage isn't available. I've more sympathy with the teams not releasing their GPS data, and some sympathy with no commercial provider wanting to do it when they in some capacity would likely want to work with the teams
This is great work......the challenge/opportunity for me, as a coach, would be turning this into simple messages for the players, relating to what we are trying to do. Schmidt has the reputation for being almost OCD in prep terms, yet his players have absolute clarity about their roles, and their techniques and actions are well drilled to support whatever that role is, in a given situation- yet seem unburdened by mechanics (unlike our somewhat mechanical look). Your commentary seems to support the view that, that is not the case for our guys- who seem confused, possibly under the weight of over-orchestration- though that's a guess.
Of course the detail is fantastic, objective stuff to highlight to individual players and work on their development. Its how you put that into a simple context for the team that is fascinating; I'd love to see what Eddie does (or Schmidt or Hansen).
Not over orchestrated. If they were I doubt there'd be as many mistakes in the breakdown (players seemingly trying to clear one guy, but in two different directions etc). We looked like we knew we were targeting the clearout, and we'd not done that very much before. When I watch Wasps recent clearout, I'm nearly always impressed in how there's very often a two man clearout, with both working together to clear the threat (not always, but often).
If I wanted to turn this into something to coach with, I'd be looking at the rucks with unnecessary interactions and insufficient ones first, decision making and technique right there. Most other things will require more information about what's happening in the game, field position etc. I'd also want to know why Robshaw and Itoje were the final tap and go carriers, what was the thought process (in truth, at least for Robshaw, I didn't see any evidence of them deciding who would take it up beforehand, just sort of got passed to Robshaw because he was there).
I'd also look at situations where there'd been a good carry 4/5 (and maybe 3), followed by a poor one, and want to know what broke down there. Or a good carry, followed by 3+ clearing players, who shouldn't have been needed.
For me, there is one stat that stands out like a sore thumb. Robshaw carried more than Sinckler, more than Itoje, more than Kruis, more than Haskell and more than Simmonds. In fact, only Mako carried more.
Which is insanity. He is a great recovery carrier, but he's never going to punch any holes. The best you can hope for is that he will present the ball quickly and cleanly. So why the hell was he used so much?
Stom wrote:For me, there is one stat that stands out like a sore thumb. Robshaw carried more than Sinckler, more than Itoje, more than Kruis, more than Haskell and more than Simmonds. In fact, only Mako carried more.
Which is insanity. He is a great recovery carrier, but he's never going to punch any holes. The best you can hope for is that he will present the ball quickly and cleanly. So why the hell was he used so much?
Who's better than him in that pack? Maybe Sinckler (who did 11 in 55 minutes, so in terms of rate, was higher), Mako did carry more (and in a shorter time). You could check the breakdown of the times he carried, wonder if there's a peak between 53 minutes in the second half and around 70m, when Launch and Armand were on?
Raggs wrote:
I'd also want to know why Robshaw......the final tap and go carriers, what was the thought process (in truth, at least for Robshaw, I didn't see any evidence of them deciding who would take it up beforehand, just sort of got passed to Robshaw because he was there).
.
Raggs wrote:
I'd also want to know why Robshaw......the final tap and go carriers, what was the thought process (in truth, at least for Robshaw, I didn't see any evidence of them deciding who would take it up beforehand, just sort of got passed to Robshaw because he was there).
.
This has me shaking my head at the time.
For the Itoje carry there was still time for us to score and get the restart, the win was still a possibility (or even the TBP as well), for the Robshaw one, the LBP was still a possibility. OK we did eventually score, but still, we must have risked losing the ball with these decisions.
Raggs wrote:Not over orchestrated. If they were I doubt there'd be as many mistakes in the breakdown (players seemingly trying to clear one guy, but in two different directions etc). We looked like we knew we were targeting the clearout, and we'd not done that very much before. When I watch Wasps recent clearout, I'm nearly always impressed in how there's very often a two man clearout, with both working together to clear the threat (not always, but often).
If I wanted to turn this into something to coach with, I'd be looking at the rucks with unnecessary interactions and insufficient ones first, decision making and technique right there. Most other things will require more information about what's happening in the game, field position etc. I'd also want to know why Robshaw and Itoje were the final tap and go carriers, what was the thought process (in truth, at least for Robshaw, I didn't see any evidence of them deciding who would take it up beforehand, just sort of got passed to Robshaw because he was there).
I'd also look at situations where there'd been a good carry 4/5 (and maybe 3), followed by a poor one, and want to know what broke down there. Or a good carry, followed by 3+ clearing players, who shouldn't have been needed.
Maybe gone from over-orchestrated to underdone then- I'd had a brain fade in forgetting we over-resourced v Ireland. Mind, as per another thread, our problems before Saturday stemmed from incorrectly resourcing, rather than under, necessarily; I was also referring to the prong/nomad system which imo had a hint of over orchestration in it, leaving players hesitant about committing when it was obvious the likes of Ford (say) might need help.
As I said, I can see the value easily in terms of 1-1 discussions with players; its how you use it as a broader tool, to give clarity and purpose.
I think to some degree we were still operating the same system, but with a significantly more hardworking backrow. Lawes hits ruck at a similar rate to the starting props, whereas Haskell is on par with Robshaw. Lawes is also generally less effective in the rucks. So our nomads were getting to more rucks. At times we did over resource, but others we seemed to try and use 1-2 where possible, with the nomad providing the backup.
Stom wrote:For me, there is one stat that stands out like a sore thumb. Robshaw carried more than Sinckler, more than Itoje, more than Kruis, more than Haskell and more than Simmonds. In fact, only Mako carried more.
Which is insanity. He is a great recovery carrier, but he's never going to punch any holes. The best you can hope for is that he will present the ball quickly and cleanly. So why the hell was he used so much?
Who's better than him in that pack? Maybe Sinckler (who did 11 in 55 minutes, so in terms of rate, was higher), Mako did carry more (and in a shorter time). You could check the breakdown of the times he carried, wonder if there's a peak between 53 minutes in the second half and around 70m, when Launch and Armand were on?
Mako, Sinckler and Simmonds are simply better. Kruis, Haskell and Itoje are more powerful and better in certain circumstances. The only player demonstrably and definitely worse than Robshaw carrying is Hartley.
Raggs wrote:I think to some degree we were still operating the same system, but with a significantly more hardworking backrow. Lawes hits ruck at a similar rate to the starting props, whereas Haskell is on par with Robshaw. Lawes is also generally less effective in the rucks. So our nomads were getting to more rucks. At times we did over resource, but others we seemed to try and use 1-2 where possible, with the nomad providing the backup.
...and I think that's an issue, as its very reliant on carriers making dents, and supporters making great decisions with good technique. When your carriers gets smacked back, you need to over compensate, and then you end up with less options...etc.
Stom wrote:For me, there is one stat that stands out like a sore thumb. Robshaw carried more than Sinckler, more than Itoje, more than Kruis, more than Haskell and more than Simmonds. In fact, only Mako carried more.
Which is insanity. He is a great recovery carrier, but he's never going to punch any holes. The best you can hope for is that he will present the ball quickly and cleanly. So why the hell was he used so much?
Who's better than him in that pack? Maybe Sinckler (who did 11 in 55 minutes, so in terms of rate, was higher), Mako did carry more (and in a shorter time). You could check the breakdown of the times he carried, wonder if there's a peak between 53 minutes in the second half and around 70m, when Launch and Armand were on?
Mako, Sinckler and Simmonds are simply better. Kruis, Haskell and Itoje are more powerful and better in certain circumstances. The only player demonstrably and definitely worse than Robshaw carrying is Hartley.
Mako carried more, Sinckler carried more in terms of time on the pitch. Not convinced by Kruis' carrying whatsoever, and not convinced Itoje is better either. Simmonds is different, but not better in the tight. Haskell made 11 carries vs Robshaw's 13. Had Hask been given the tap and go, it would have evened out. Robshaw isn't great, but he's acceptable. Put Hughes or BV back at 8, and things look better.
Banquo wrote:
Raggs wrote:I think to some degree we were still operating the same system, but with a significantly more hardworking backrow. Lawes hits ruck at a similar rate to the starting props, whereas Haskell is on par with Robshaw. Lawes is also generally less effective in the rucks. So our nomads were getting to more rucks. At times we did over resource, but others we seemed to try and use 1-2 where possible, with the nomad providing the backup.
...and I think that's an issue, as its very reliant on carriers making dents, and supporters making great decisions with good technique. When your carriers gets smacked back, you need to over compensate, and then you end up with less options...etc.
Yes and no, playing with Lawes I think was a big issue, especially when combined with Cole.
Raggs wrote:
Who's better than him in that pack? Maybe Sinckler (who did 11 in 55 minutes, so in terms of rate, was higher), Mako did carry more (and in a shorter time). You could check the breakdown of the times he carried, wonder if there's a peak between 53 minutes in the second half and around 70m, when Launch and Armand were on?
Mako, Sinckler and Simmonds are simply better. Kruis, Haskell and Itoje are more powerful and better in certain circumstances. The only player demonstrably and definitely worse than Robshaw carrying is Hartley.
Mako carried more, Sinckler carried more in terms of time on the pitch. Not convinced by Kruis' carrying whatsoever, and not convinced Itoje is better either. Simmonds is different, but not better in the tight. Haskell made 11 carries vs Robshaw's 13. Had Hask been given the tap and go, it would have evened out. Robshaw isn't great, but he's acceptable. Put Hughes or BV back at 8, and things look better.
Banquo wrote:
Raggs wrote:I think to some degree we were still operating the same system, but with a significantly more hardworking backrow. Lawes hits ruck at a similar rate to the starting props, whereas Haskell is on par with Robshaw. Lawes is also generally less effective in the rucks. So our nomads were getting to more rucks. At times we did over resource, but others we seemed to try and use 1-2 where possible, with the nomad providing the backup.
...and I think that's an issue, as its very reliant on carriers making dents, and supporters making great decisions with good technique. When your carriers gets smacked back, you need to over compensate, and then you end up with less options...etc.
Yes and no, playing with Lawes I think was a big issue, especially when combined with Cole.
We still had the issues of too many in rucks and less options outside; we just didn't get turned over as much, as in parallel Schmidt had anticipated what would happen Do you not think the system is (too) reliant on very good carrying?
Banquo wrote:We still had the issues of too many in rucks and less options outside; we just didn't get turned over as much, as in parallel Schmidt had anticipated what would happen Do you not think the system is (too) reliant on very good carrying?
I'd need to see how it works with a proper backrow against a team competing at the breakdown. Lawes just isn't good enough at 6, along with the knock on effect of Robshaw at 7, for it to be a fair comparison in my mind. We've seemingly made it work in the past with Robshaw, Hask and Hughes, I think we could continue to do so (or other proper flankers).
Banquo wrote:We still had the issues of too many in rucks and less options outside; we just didn't get turned over as much, as in parallel Schmidt had anticipated what would happen Do you not think the system is (too) reliant on very good carrying?
I'd need to see how it works with a proper backrow against a team competing at the breakdown. Lawes just isn't good enough at 6, along with the knock on effect of Robshaw at 7, for it to be a fair comparison in my mind. We've seemingly made it work in the past with Robshaw, Hask and Hughes, I think we could continue to do so (or other proper flankers).
You don't think we've been worked out, gradually then? Either way, better carriers are needed, and it doesnt take a bunch of stats to know that you need to play proper flankers and ask them to do the things they are fit for!!
Banquo wrote:We still had the issues of too many in rucks and less options outside; we just didn't get turned over as much, as in parallel Schmidt had anticipated what would happen Do you not think the system is (too) reliant on very good carrying?
I'd need to see how it works with a proper backrow against a team competing at the breakdown. Lawes just isn't good enough at 6, along with the knock on effect of Robshaw at 7, for it to be a fair comparison in my mind. We've seemingly made it work in the past with Robshaw, Hask and Hughes, I think we could continue to do so (or other proper flankers).
You don't think we've been worked out, gradually then? Either way, better carriers are needed, and it doesnt take a bunch of stats to know that you need to play proper flankers and ask them to do the things they are fit for!!
I think every team is pretty much worked out, it's whether or not you can out do that. Better carriers will always help us, and proper flankers to clear out too.
I think our pack actually did OK, and we were let down by not scoring enough points, we got into the Irish 22 eight times, and only came away with 3 scores.
Raggs wrote:
I'd need to see how it works with a proper backrow against a team competing at the breakdown. Lawes just isn't good enough at 6, along with the knock on effect of Robshaw at 7, for it to be a fair comparison in my mind. We've seemingly made it work in the past with Robshaw, Hask and Hughes, I think we could continue to do so (or other proper flankers).
You don't think we've been worked out, gradually then? Either way, better carriers are needed, and it doesnt take a bunch of stats to know that you need to play proper flankers and ask them to do the things they are fit for!!
I think every team is pretty much worked out, it's whether or not you can out do that. Better carriers will always help us, and proper flankers to clear out too.
I think our pack actually did OK, and we were let down by not scoring enough points, we got into the Irish 22 eight times, and only came away with 3 scores.
Lol, but I get your point.I'd qualify the 'pack doing ok' by pointing to the penalty count, and specifically the passage of play just before half time; and the pack were also a big part of not scoring in the 22, inaccuracy.
Raggs wrote:I think to some degree we were still operating the same system, but with a significantly more hardworking backrow. Lawes hits ruck at a similar rate to the starting props, whereas Haskell is on par with Robshaw. Lawes is also generally less effective in the rucks. So our nomads were getting to more rucks. At times we did over resource, but others we seemed to try and use 1-2 where possible, with the nomad providing the backup.
...and I think that's an issue, as its very reliant on carriers making dents, and supporters making great decisions with good technique. When your carriers gets smacked back, you need to over compensate, and then you end up with less options...etc.
We sometimes use the same system (the prongs) but we've certainly set up with more 3 man pods in the last two games is my impression. And there's little doubt we're mostly about a power game, though we're about power whilst often picking Hartley, Cole and Simmonds who are more support than power options.
For 20 odd games our power game was at times giving us quicker ball, enough quick ball to win at any rate. We've not tipped that far away from doing similar, but we've definitely been found out a bit.
I'm now hoping the players weren't fatigued from being over trained, if Eddie is seriously saying in public he's never going to pick some players again when he's knowingly overtrained the group that's more than a little unreasonable
.
.
