England v Barbarians

[Mellsblue]

He missed alot of tackles along with Francis and Robshaw [1]. Yes he was committed and caught a knackered Ashton but he's just not physical enough for international rugby. He's a poor manager of a game unless on the front foot with no pressure [2]. Who decided to kick for goal, Him or Robshaw? Why didn't we slow the game down and play more territory [3]. We stole 3 lineouts yet our kicking game was non existent to capitalise on that pressure. He always escapes criticism because he has nice touches [4] but I believe Farrell would have handled yesterday a lot better and probably Cips too.

1. Citation needed. Got any stats or does it just *feel* like he missed tackles? Cause I don't remember one.

2. So we had massive advantages in territory and possession, but Ford didn't manage the game well?

3. It is a Barbarians game - there is a certain ethos to it. Yes, we could've played against that and been horribly pragmatic, but I'm kinda glad we didn't.

4. We scored 6 tries and I believe Ford was instrumental in 5 of them. That's a little more than "some nice touches".

Most of their tries and pressure came from long range breaks through very sloppy defence and individual missed tackles, none of which came from Ford. Why is this game his fault?

Puja

Unfortunately for your argument, the stats are ugly. But blaming the 10 for his side being shredded physically is a push.

Do they stack up any worse than a Farrell’s tend to? If yes, you know my thoughts on taking stats in isolation. If no, then I rest my case!

[Banquo]

1. Citation needed. Got any stats or does it just *feel* like he missed tackles? Cause I don't remember one.

2. So we had massive advantages in territory and possession, but Ford didn't manage the game well?

3. It is a Barbarians game - there is a certain ethos to it. Yes, we could've played against that and been horribly pragmatic, but I'm kinda glad we didn't.

4. We scored 6 tries and I believe Ford was instrumental in 5 of them. That's a little more than "some nice touches".

Most of their tries and pressure came from long range breaks through very sloppy defence and individual missed tackles, none of which came from Ford. Why is this game his fault?

Puja

Unfortunately for your argument, the stats are ugly. But blaming the 10 for his side being shredded physically is a push.

Do they stack up any worse than a Farrell’s tend to? If yes, you know my thoughts on taking stats in isolation. If no, then I rest my case!

slightly worse than Faz's normal ones at 12; he's a better defender at 10, which should be obvious I spose. I wasn't the one calling for stats

[Mikey Brown]

Tom Curry highlights;



I've said this so many times already but I think his distribution skills could make a massive impact on the effective runners we have, but haven't been getting that much from, George, Simmonds, Hughes etc.

[Which Tyler]

Cold light of day, Daly is class, Ford played well, Launchbury was busy, Curry very good and Mercer played well (no idea why he was taken off). Francis showed some class.

And Robshaw was horrific! Truly terrible. Like another level of shite altogether.

Ford and Francis were 2 of the main reasons we lost yesterday, their channel in defence was laughable. Francis had a couple of nice moments but the damage was done. We had pretty even possession and territory stats yet Ford as usual did nothing to manage the game in our favor.

What exactly would you have liked Ford to have done to "manage the game in our favour"? He seems an odd person to blame, considering he didn't make a single pass that put anyone in trouble, opened a lot of holes for people, and made some good tactical kicks.

judging by Pandions normal posts - Ford should have taken one for the team and run headlong into the posts, consussing himself in the first minute, and letting Cilriani play FH.
That are instantly grow 4" and 2 stone, 'cos everyone knows that size and physicality are the only things that matter for a FH

[Mellsblue]

Unfortunately for your argument, the stats are ugly. But blaming the 10 for his side being shredded physically is a push.

Do they stack up any worse than a Farrell’s tend to? If yes, you know my thoughts on taking stats in isolation. If no, then I rest my case!

slightly worse than Faz's normal ones at 12; he's a better defender at 10, which should be obvious I spose. I wasn't the one calling for stats

Not good, then. I wonder how much of that is a function of new and inexperienced players around him - Trinder, Francis, Curry and Mercer - and how much him just having a bad day. Normally he makes most of his tackles even if he does give away ground. When balancing it all, his two try saving tackles/interventions should be taken in to account.

[Epaminondas Pules]

Just watching again. First try Robshaw is wholly to blame for a shocking missed tackle.

I'm not trying to defend the shirehorse, to use S Barnes's description, he was poor and I called him on here at the time, but do you think Trinder became too disconnected for the first one? Also, was he not stationed wider than usual and therefore more exposed?
Either way, he looks in desperate need of a rest. Unsurprisingly. If its a case that his legs have gone permanently, rather than just temporarily from a hard season, then he's done as a test player.
His lack of dynamism in comparison to Wilson, who was impressive, was stark.

For the first one nah, he just completely misses by going too high. Same later with the second.

[Stom]

Just watching again. First try Robshaw is wholly to blame for a shocking missed tackle.

I'm not trying to defend the shirehorse, to use S Barnes's description, he was poor and I called him on here at the time, but do you think Trinder became too disconnected for the first one? Also, was he not stationed wider than usual and therefore more exposed?
Either way, he looks in desperate need of a rest. Unsurprisingly. If its a case that his legs have gone permanently, rather than just temporarily from a hard season, then he's done as a test player.
His lack of dynamism in comparison to Wilson, who was impressive, was stark.

For the first one nah, he just completely misses by going too high. Same later with the second.

He looked like his brain was on a beach somewhere. Which you can't really blame him for, I would never have picked him for this match, it made no sense.

[fivepointer]

Chris has been run into the ground by both club and country. He shouldnt be touring and shouldnt have played yesterday. Mark Wilson deserved a go and did make a good impression from the bench. It was astonishing that Wilson replaced Mercer and not Robshaw.

[Timbo]

Looking purely at England’s record vs the Baabaas then it’s not really a surprise we lost. I can recall a number of mix and match England teams over the years losing this fixture. And we’ve often conceded a lot of points doing so.

Seems to have been a bit of a weird over reaction to this loss.

[Raggs]

I think it happens every season to be honest. It's just not normally a senior player like robshaw has such a stinker.

[Digby]

Tom Curry highlights;



I've said this so many times already but I think his distribution skills could make a massive impact on the effective runners we have, but haven't been getting that much from, George, Simmonds, Hughes etc.

I don't think you gain that much from one handler in the pack, even at openside. You really want 5+ players in the pack comfortable moving the ball with good decision making and low error rates

[Raggs]

Mako is another.

How good is good enough?

[Mellsblue]

Tom Curry highlights;



I've said this so many times already but I think his distribution skills could make a massive impact on the effective runners we have, but haven't been getting that much from, George, Simmonds, Hughes etc.

I don't think you gain that much from one handler in the pack, even at openside. You really want 5+ players in the pack comfortable moving the ball with good decision making and low error rates

To get to 5+ from 1 (Mako) you will need to add at least 1 more. Incremental steps, old bean. Come 2023 we’ll have the 5 you require.....assuming they aren’t all injured.

[Timbo]

Mako, George, Sinckler, Billy and Tom Curry all in the starting pack against the Saffas. That’s 5 pretty good ball players there.

[Puja]

Itoje and Launchbury aren't exactly cloghands either.

Puja

[Digby]

Tom Curry highlights;



I've said this so many times already but I think his distribution skills could make a massive impact on the effective runners we have, but haven't been getting that much from, George, Simmonds, Hughes etc.

I don't think you gain that much from one handler in the pack, even at openside. You really want 5+ players in the pack comfortable moving the ball with good decision making and low error rates

To get to 5+ from 1 (Mako) you will need to add at least 1 more. Incremental steps, old bean. Come 2023 we’ll have the 5 you require.....assuming they aren’t all injured.

I wouldn't start with just adding 1. I'd consider if I wanted that to be a part of our standard approach in attack (and for me I would want that) and if so I'd add in a number and make it clear I'd want them to be using the ball at club level and in training

[Stom]

Itoje and Launchbury aren't exactly cloghands either.

Puja

I'm not sure I'd class Itoje's hands as being particularly good...Sure, they're decent, but he couldn't fill in at 10. Mako and Billy do both slot in at first receiver for Sarries, Sinckler was a FB...

[Puja]

Itoje and Launchbury aren't exactly cloghands either.

Puja

I'm not sure I'd class Itoje's hands as being particularly good...Sure, they're decent, but he couldn't fill in at 10. Mako and Billy do both slot in at first receiver for Sarries, Sinckler was a FB...

Oh no, you're right in that, but my point was that, as a complement to the likes of Mako, Sinckler, George, etc, they're far from useless.

Puja

[Digby]

Mako is quality, Launch is okay/good. After that the skills vary, the decision making is inconsistent, the error rate too high, and bigger picture there's no commitment to the pack even trying to move the ball much so we don't get enough practice at decision making and there's not enough work off the ball to create options. (And as we saw with the BaaBaas yesterday there were some nice offloads but what really makes it work is the effort off the ball to be providing options)

From the coach through the pack/side we need a change in mindset as well as working on skills in training (and being more selective in selection), and they have to accept there will be fuck ups and not decide on a means of attack and then change it after 3 games as happened under Johnson and then Burt.

[Stom]

Mako is quality, Launch is okay/good. After that the skills vary, the decision making is inconsistent, the error rate too high, and bigger picture there's no commitment to the pack even trying to move the ball much so we don't get enough practice at decision making and there's not enough work off the ball to create options. (And as we saw with the BaaBaas yesterday there were some nice offloads but what really makes it work is the effort off the ball to be providing options)

From the coach through the pack/side we need a change in mindset as well as working on skills in training (and being more selective in selection), and they have to accept there will be fuck ups and not decide on a means of attack and then change it after 3 games as happened under Johnson and then Burt.

This is the crux. It's a bit Mourinho esque. We're not NZ, so we're going to double down on what they don't do. Build a big, athletic pack who do nothing but scrum, run and drop the ball.

I don't care if forward handling moves are an NZ specialty, everyone who's good does it. Sarries do it. Leinster do it. NZ, Ireland do it. We need to get our entire 15 working all the time.

[Mikey Brown]

Tom Curry highlights;



I've said this so many times already but I think his distribution skills could make a massive impact on the effective runners we have, but haven't been getting that much from, George, Simmonds, Hughes etc.

I don't think you gain that much from one handler in the pack, even at openside. You really want 5+ players in the pack comfortable moving the ball with good decision making and low error rates

Well yeah, but if we had them I might be arguing their cases too. It seems to me there are still a lot of calls to load the team with more big carriers, rather than use what we have more effectively. I think Curry could up the effectiveness of some of the others.

As others have said the Vunipolas are great, but they’re also our most destructive runners with the ball.

Robshaw used to be really effective doing this, but (once again) we seem to prefer to see him lumber into contact, maybe making a metre of ground.

[Digby]

Robshaw hasn't been really effective at handling, merely he's shown to be adequate and that's more than many in England, though given where he started he's improved hugely. He does perhaps show at many levels of rugby in England players aren't required to show any handling period. I also don't think Billy V has shown to be a great handler, he's technically okay, but his decision making and execution both need to improve if we're going to look to move the ball faster.

We could more easily just pick more and better carriers of course, it's probably the easier way to go, and I'm sure someone will remark why not both. Any which way staying as we are isn't good enough

[Mikey Brown]

I don’t really see your point beyond we need to pick better players but we don’t have any. Not that I really disagree with it.

The Vunipolas, Mako at least, are the best we have. So...

[Epaminondas Pules]

Having watched the game again, with a break in the middle to cut the lawns, Tom Curry has to play against SA! Only going to get better and he already looks at home internationally.

[Digby]

I don’t really see your point beyond we need to pick better players but we don’t have any. Not that I really disagree with it.

The Vunipolas, Mako at least, are the best we have. So...

Pick better, or better for a given plan, but don't just add one handler and/or one carrier and expect that's going to effect enough change