Team for Japan

[Beasties]

I'm not saying his introduction didn't make a difference yesterday, but I think that perhaps very stern words from Eddie along the lines of "you are playing for your test futures now" may have had more impact.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

This.

[WaspInWales]

I'm sure having tried it in this game Eddie will not want to try it again, not seeing what happens. That would just be silly

Beasties above may echo the thoughts of many that Eddie would come in and up the pace, instead Eddie came in and rather seemed to panic at the fitness levels and skills on show and instead we've had a focus on physicality and intent, it feels akin to having Jeremy Clarkson involved screaming power above any other voices raising other concerns

Martin Johnson era......"...win the collisons..."

Hardly just that era, also at times we had the most interesting attack under Johnson post 2002 with Flood, Flutey and Foden to the fore. One should never underestimate the power of alliteration

Imagine, if you will, a backline of Foden, Flood, Fashton, Flutey, Farrell, Fanahan, Francis.

They'd f@#king f@#k f-everyone.

[WaspInWales]

No Ford though...

F@#k that.

[WaspInWales]

Downloading the match now. Will then studiously watch the second half, whilst sober and concentrating mainly on passages of play including Farrell.

I will even consider hand clapping and backslapping as positive play.

Report to follow.

[Mellsblue]

Correlation doesn't imply causation.

England improved in the second half thanks to a number of reasons imo.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

This pretty much sums it up. The big difference was Lawes turning up for the last 15 mins....when did he move to lock......and Sinckler and Underhill stopping them on the gain line. I thought Farrell played well when he came on - there was one top class offload out of the back of the hand - but putting the second half revival down to his presence alone is ridiculous. Ford didn’t stand a chance behind that pack and nine in the first half. I note no mention of his superb kicking from the tee, something Farrell is repeated lauded for.
I thought George went well but if we are to play up yer jumper, ten man rugby then Hartley may be the better bet. That said, there seems to be little to no mention of his brilliant try saving tackle on the blind side in the first 5/10 mins or his reading of the game that got him in position to set-up Care - even if he did try and pass it at Care’s rapidly balding scalp. Speaking of Care, my son started referring to him as Danny Day Care as he ‘played like a child’.

[Oakboy]

I like how the article praises Japan for bossing possession and territory, and as a result control in the first half, then blames Ford for lack of control.

How can one control the game when the other team is in the ascendancy?

I don't think Ford did much wrong yesterday, but he is being blamed for Japan playing well.

It also notes the backline was more cohesive with Farrell on the pitch, but does little to explain the experimental feature of it when he wasn't on the pitch.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

I suppose the argument would be that Ford was the FH/game-manager and captain in the first half when things were going wrong. It was his responsibility to manipulate and cajole the team into doing better but he did/could not. One problem with watching on TV is that we only see what the director shows. Sky's obsession with ramming replays into every spare second denies us the chance to see what the players were doing. When Farrell came on we were shown his angry face and gesticulations as he sought to raise the players' game. Was Ford doing that in the 1st half but we weren't shown it? He either was and failed or he wasn't but should have been, perhaps.

I hoped for more leadership from him than he apparently showed. The fact is that he was not trusted to turn things round in the 2nd half after Jones's ht talk. Farrell was sent on to do it.

[WaspInWales]

It seems very hard to get any objectivity into the Farrell debate, particularly as the media are obsessed with him to an embarrassing degree..
I'm no admirer. I've criticised him in the past, heck his defence last week was abject, but you do have to concede that at times he can galvanise those around him.
Yesterday he played a part in turning things around. He wasnt the only reason we won: we did make tactical tweaks, other players did come and contribute also and Japan lost some of their fluency due to the pressure we applied. The fact is we looked a better side with him on the 2nd half. I dont think its unreasonable to say that he played a positive part in the win.
Elsewhere the 2 starting props did little to advance their cause, neither centre was a success and Daly hasnt really got to grips with the FB position.

Some fair, rational, reasoned comments and observations as per usual 5p.

I have been openly critical of Farrell as I simply think he is overrated, in that some opinions of him seem to consider his ability as being a lot better than it actually is.

I don't dislike the guy. He can be a bit chirpy at times and as captain, that can be a bit dodgy, but otherwise he stands his ground and gives as good as he gets.

I even think he has improved quite a bit over the past few years. He has even won us matches with his kicking. We beat the Aussies in Oz 3-0 with his goal kicking playing a vital role in those wins....

And that is where the media obsession comes from.

Owen Farrell kicks goals, goals win matches, therefore Farrell must be omnipotent.

He puts in occasional big hits, so...
Owen Farrell makes big hits, big hits change matches, therefore Farrell must be omnipotent.

What annoys me is that they gloss over the mistakes. The very sloppy passes. If he really is a world class flyhalf, surely he should be able to pass accurately off both hands? Even the best occasionally throw a stinker, but Farrell does it most matches, sometimes more than one every match. Then there's the missed kicks and kicks out on the full. Barely a mention, but yesterday on the Beeb extended highlights, the commentator was sticking the knife into Ford questioning why he was kicking with the messiah on the pitch, then Ford nails it right through the middle. Ford has had a dodgy day or two from the tee for England and that is seemingly held against him many years later. Farrell's indiscretions don't get a mention. The many missed tackles don't get a mention either, or in some cases, other players get blamed for Farrell missing a tackle.

There is a massive element to hype when it comes to Farrell, some of it is deserved for some aspects of his play, but quite a bit is embellished, or as a result of enhancing what he can actually do.

It would be nice to read some balanced, objective view points in the press, instead of the undue praise and worship.

[Oakboy]

Correlation doesn't imply causation.

England improved in the second half thanks to a number of reasons imo.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

This pretty much sums it up. The big difference was Lawes turning up for the last 15 mins....when did he move to lock......and Sinckler and Underhill stopping them on the gain line. I thought Farrell played well when he came on - there was one top class offload out of the back of the hand - but putting the second half revival down to his presence alone is ridiculous. Ford didn’t stand a chance behind that pack and nine in the first half. I note no mention of his superb kicking from the tee, something Farrell is repeated lauded for.
I thought George went well but if we are to play up yer jumper, ten man rugby then Hartley may be the better bet. That said, there seems to be little to no mention of his brilliant try saving tackle on the blind side in the first 5/10 mins or his reading of the game that got him in position to set-up Care - even if he did try and pass it at Care’s rapidly balding scalp. Speaking of Care, my son started referring to him as Danny Day Care as he ‘played like a child’.

It is quite depressing to think that Youngs or Wigglesworth are the best alternatives.

[WaspInWales]

First thing mentioned before the second half started...

Japan making changes too....three of them.

Could it be possible those changes affected the game as well?

Three changes to start the second half is kinda drastic. Empties the bench kinda early, no?

[Oakboy]

One criticism I have often made of Farrell is his conservative aiming of penalty kicks to touch, especially when Daly and/or Slade are on the pitch. Yesterday, Ford did the same so is it head-coach policy?

[Oakboy]

First thing mentioned before the second half started...

Japan making changes too....three of them.

Could it be possible those changes affected the game as well?

Three changes to start the second half is kinda drastic. Empties the bench kinda early, no?

I think playing against a heavier team is always likely to tire individuals earlier.

[Mellsblue]

First thing mentioned before the second half started...

Japan making changes too....three of them.

Could it be possible those changes affected the game as well?

Three changes to start the second half is kinda drastic. Empties the bench kinda early, no?

One of those was their nine, who is probably their best player.
It’s also not true that we were suddenly on top in the second half. Things were pretty even until the last 15 mins or so.

[WaspInWales]

England gather the kick off, set up a good maul. It looks like there's a clear plan to kick and chase. Farrell looks eager and times his chase well but the kick is a fraction out of his way. Japan gather, and Itoje turns over their scrum half really well. The ball is spread to Ford, then Farrell who puts in a nice kick just inside their 22....perhaps there was an attack on. Japan looked a little narrow and we had numbers, but the kick was a good one tbf.

[Mellsblue]

Correlation doesn't imply causation.

England improved in the second half thanks to a number of reasons imo.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

This pretty much sums it up. The big difference was Lawes turning up for the last 15 mins....when did he move to lock......and Sinckler and Underhill stopping them on the gain line. I thought Farrell played well when he came on - there was one top class offload out of the back of the hand - but putting the second half revival down to his presence alone is ridiculous. Ford didn’t stand a chance behind that pack and nine in the first half. I note no mention of his superb kicking from the tee, something Farrell is repeated lauded for.
I thought George went well but if we are to play up yer jumper, ten man rugby then Hartley may be the better bet. That said, there seems to be little to no mention of his brilliant try saving tackle on the blind side in the first 5/10 mins or his reading of the game that got him in position to set-up Care - even if he did try and pass it at Care’s rapidly balding scalp. Speaking of Care, my son started referring to him as Danny Day Care as he ‘played like a child’.

It is quite depressing to think that Youngs or Wigglesworth are the best alternatives.

If we’re going to play Farrell and Te’o I think the Wiggler is our best bet.

[WaspInWales]

Hand slap with Ford after the kick...Ford has now been galvanised.

This is good play from the England centre.

[Mellsblue]

One criticism I have often made of Farrell is his conservative aiming of penalty kicks to touch, especially when Daly and/or Slade are on the pitch. Yesterday, Ford did the same so is it head-coach policy?

Yet nailed two line kicks to the five yard line. It might be a policy to play safe until we are in the red zone.

[Mr Mwenda]

It would be nice to read some balanced, objective view points in the press, instead of the undue praise and worship.

I think everyone would agree with this. However, why do you expect that in the sports pages? Why not just ignore it. Sports 'journalism' seems to draw in many people with little reporting skills and even if they have knowledge (e.g. many ex-players) they lack the ability or the desire to communicate it. One could spend an evening dissecting the complicated situation at fly-half or one could just knock out the cliches and fuck off for a drink. It's the same with pundits, much easier to parrot a narrative than actually analyse. After all, it's not like any if it matters. This is largely why i read RR, there are people who spot things I don't and it improves my experience and understanding. I just tune out the commentators and reporters for the most part.

My favourite piece of sports journalism is fear and loathing at the superbowl, during which Hunter s. Thompson just files his report from the previous year, just changing the names of the teams to match the current year. That's basically what Barnes and co do in my eyes.

[WaspInWales]

41:38 Harrison says "it's seems a long time since England started a match so well though....flying into a 7-0 lead"

Did he not watch last weekend?

Or the series against SA?

[Oakboy]

One criticism I have often made of Farrell is his conservative aiming of penalty kicks to touch, especially when Daly and/or Slade are on the pitch. Yesterday, Ford did the same so is it head-coach policy?

Yet nailed two line kicks to the five yard line. It might be a policy to play safe until we are in the red zone.

I don't think there is any doubt that Ford and Farrell could get more distance nor that Slade/Daly could do better. I'd just like to see a bit more risk whoever takes the damned kicks.

[Mellsblue]

I like how the article praises Japan for bossing possession and territory, and as a result control in the first half, then blames Ford for lack of control.

How can one control the game when the other team is in the ascendancy?

I don't think Ford did much wrong yesterday, but he is being blamed for Japan playing well.

It also notes the backline was more cohesive with Farrell on the pitch, but does little to explain the experimental feature of it when he wasn't on the pitch.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

I hoped for more leadership from him than he apparently showed. The fact is that he was not trusted to turn things round in the 2nd half after Jones's ht talk. Farrell was sent on to do it.

That’s quite the Damascene conversion. #injoneswetrust

Could just be that Lowzowski was having a bit of a mare?

[Mellsblue]

One criticism I have often made of Farrell is his conservative aiming of penalty kicks to touch, especially when Daly and/or Slade are on the pitch. Yesterday, Ford did the same so is it head-coach policy?

Yet nailed two line kicks to the five yard line. It might be a policy to play safe until we are in the red zone.

I don't think there is any doubt that Ford and Farrell could get more distance nor that Slade/Daly could do better. I'd just like to see a bit more risk whoever takes the damned kicks.

I’m not convinced Slade and Daly would do any better. I’ve seen Slade miss a couple of line kickers for Exe this season. That’s not a dig at Slade, it happens, but I don’t think they would prove to be a step up.

[WaspInWales]

It would be nice to read some balanced, objective view points in the press, instead of the undue praise and worship.

I think everyone would agree with this. However, why do you expect that in the sports pages? Why not just ignore it. Sports 'journalism' seems to draw in many people with little reporting skills and even if they have knowledge (e.g. many ex-players) they lack the ability or the desire to communicate it. One could spend an evening dissecting the complicated situation at fly-half or one could just knock out the cliches and fuck off for a drink. It's the same with pundits, much easier to parrot a narrative than actually analyse. After all, it's not like any if it matters. This is largely why i read RR, there are people who spot things I don't and it improves my experience and understanding. I just tune out the commentators and reporters for the most part.

My favourite piece of sports journalism is fear anf loathing at the suitable, during which Hunter s. Thompson just files his report from the previous year just changing the names of the teams to match the current year. That's basically what Barnes and co do in my eyes.

I do expect it. Hype is nothing new. Beckham was another who received crazy adulation but was limited in some aspects of his game.

I used to ignore it, but it has such influence. I can't stand Trump, but the 'fake news' he touts (which is mostly invented by himself), has a massive influence on the masses. The media Farrell love-in has the same effect on many.

I'm not asking the media to start a hate campaign (like they did with Beckham after he got sent off), just objectivity. Write it, as they see it.

[p/d]

Japan pinged twice at the start of 2nd half. Geech’s thinks Jones might have had a word with ref at half time

To be honest I’m more concerned about the first 40 than discussing who/what was the catalyst for the second.

11 changes, a new midfield pairing and not a natural leader in the XV.
You reap what you sow.

He shouldn’t have ‘pissed about’. Mind you o would have started Hill alongside Wilson and Underhill

[Oakboy]

I like how the article praises Japan for bossing possession and territory, and as a result control in the first half, then blames Ford for lack of control.

How can one control the game when the other team is in the ascendancy?

I don't think Ford did much wrong yesterday, but he is being blamed for Japan playing well.

It also notes the backline was more cohesive with Farrell on the pitch, but does little to explain the experimental feature of it when he wasn't on the pitch.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

I hoped for more leadership from him than he apparently showed. The fact is that he was not trusted to turn things round in the 2nd half after Jones's ht talk. Farrell was sent on to do it.

That’s quite the Damascene conversion. #injoneswetrust

Could just be that Lowzowski was having a bit of a mare?

Yes, it was more than one factor, probably, but Slade could have been swapped for Lozowski IF Jones wanted to see if the team could turn it around under Ford's captaincy. Maybe trying it for 20 minutes might have been worthwhile. After all, should Farrell get injured they might have to try something different against a better side than Japan. Rightly or wrongly, it seems that Jones will always want Farrell on the pitch for important matches (or parts - as yesterday). What it means for Ford is that he is unlikely to be in the starting XV unless both T'eo and Tuilagi are injured, I suspect.

[p/d]

It is quite depressing to think that Youngs or Wigglesworth are the best alternatives.

I’m almost resigned to Wigglesworth being first choice with Youngs/Care on bench