Oakboy wrote:If, halfway through the 2nd half, your plans are demonstrably failing, surely you fucking well change something or lose. Jones changed nothing and we lost. It was so predictable at that point. It was close to the most incompetent management ever.
Conversely, the Welsh management, none of whom I rate or like, got things right. Their intensity, within a 'we know how to scrap for a win' approach, was admirable if not pretty.
We were remarkably flat from the out in the 2nd half. God knows whether it was the half time huddle or the Jones pep talk but something seemed rip the intensity out of us.
It was clear that something had to change (Robson would have been my first call) but nothing did, and the minutes kept ticking by. That said good to see us vary the restarts, kick long to Moriarty for Nowell to tackle.
Banquo wrote:Absolute inability to change course is what stood out (apart from the chronic execution that is) , plus a collapse of discipline under pressure. Use of the bench was shocking.
It's annoying how telegraphed in advance this was. Perhaps not this game albeit it looked the most likely example, but at some point the team has to accept if they cannot and/or refuse to play any rugby there will be games when big problems arise
I do feel sorry for Sinckler, Kruis, Wilson and Curry, what Moon was doing on the pitch I don't know and anyone advocating for Moon over Genge one hopes enjoys the lack of carrying, Ford and Farrell pathetic with some slim protection of performing under coaches orders
Bit harsh on Ford.
Billy V carried well. and May did a good shift. Daly again hardly commanded the backfield.
Youngs seems very similar to Ford after eight pints
Digby wrote:
It's annoying how telegraphed in advance this was. Perhaps not this game albeit it looked the most likely example, but at some point the team has to accept if they cannot and/or refuse to play any rugby there will be games when big problems arise
I do feel sorry for Sinckler, Kruis, Wilson and Curry, what Moon was doing on the pitch I don't know and anyone advocating for Moon over Genge one hopes enjoys the lack of carrying, Ford and Farrell pathetic with some slim protection of performing under coaches orders
Bit harsh on Ford.
Billy V carried well. and May did a good shift. Daly again hardly commanded the backfield.
Youngs seems very similar to Ford after eight pints
I thought he had been drinking as well. Surprised Butler didn't pick up on that
We were like, 4 points up with less than 15 minutes to go.
Also the South Africa and NZ games in the Autumn were close.
Did we not lose to NZ and could’ve lost to SA because of Farrell himself?
Close on the scoreboard v Ireland, may be, but we were dominant for almost the entire 80 mins. I’ve rarely felt as comfortable watching an England match.
Back to the original point, it was said that Farrell normal ‘turns the screw for England and it usually works’. That didn’t happen in any of those games you’ve mentioned.
Yes, the ‘turning the screw’ thing is a bit vacuous. Obviously a lot more nuance needed in the analysis.
The ‘closeness’ is obviously subjective, bu it does feel like you’re doing a bit of logical gymnastics to find a way to remove games we’ve won/performed well in with Farrell at 10 to focus on the games we didn’t.
Timbo wrote:
We were like, 4 points up with less than 15 minutes to go.
Also the South Africa and NZ games in the Autumn were close.
Did we not lose to NZ and could’ve lost to SA because of Farrell himself?
Close on the scoreboard v Ireland, may be, but we were dominant for almost the entire 80 mins. I’ve rarely felt as comfortable watching an England match.
Back to the original point, it was said that Farrell normal ‘turns the screw for England and it usually works’. That didn’t happen in any of those games you’ve mentioned.
Yes, the ‘turning the screw’ thing is a bit vacuous. Obviously a lot more nuance needed in the analysis.
The ‘closeness’ is obviously subjective, bu it does feel like you’re doing a bit of logical gymnastics to find a way to remove games we’ve won/performed well in with Farrell at 10 to focus on the games we didn’t.
I haven’t said we haven’t performed well with Farrell at 10. In fact, I said after both Ireland and France that he’d played well and deserved to keep the shirt. I’m just arguing against another blanket statement about how he singlehandedly wins games. It just ain’t true.
That said, he was a defensive liability against NZ.
Last edited by Mellsblue on Sat Feb 23, 2019 8:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Banquo wrote:Absolute inability to change course is what stood out (apart from the chronic execution that is) , plus a collapse of discipline under pressure. Use of the bench was shocking.
It's annoying how telegraphed in advance this was. Perhaps not this game albeit it looked the most likely example, but at some point the team has to accept if they cannot and/or refuse to play any rugby there will be games when big problems arise
I do feel sorry for Sinckler, Kruis, Wilson and Curry, what Moon was doing on the pitch I don't know and anyone advocating for Moon over Genge one hopes enjoys the lack of carrying, Ford and Farrell pathetic with some slim protection of performing under coaches orders
Other than Billy which of our forwards were given the chance to carry? What do you expect from Moon, to rip the ball off Youngs or Farrell just as they’re about to kick so he can show off his carrying abilities?
Buggaluggs wrote:I'd rather play England with Ford at 10 than Farrel. Farrel was average today. Usually he is the guy who turns the screw for England, and it usually works.
What cost England today was Wales' excellence in the air. We clearly worked on it and it showed. Especially in the last 30 mins, we won the aerial battle. There's luck to that too, and it went Wales' way
Turns the screw! More meaningless praise. What actually isn’t that he’s so excellent at? He’s a good player but he’s not the test match greatcthst singlehandedly wins games. His last two big, close games at 10 he’s had for England have been loses to Wales and Ireland and he’s been poor in both. Usually works? When?
Banquo wrote:Absolute inability to change course is what stood out (apart from the chronic execution that is) , plus a collapse of discipline under pressure. Use of the bench was shocking.
It's annoying how telegraphed in advance this was. Perhaps not this game albeit it looked the most likely example, but at some point the team has to accept if they cannot and/or refuse to play any rugby there will be games when big problems arise
I do feel sorry for Sinckler, Kruis, Wilson and Curry, what Moon was doing on the pitch I don't know and anyone advocating for Moon over Genge one hopes enjoys the lack of carrying, Ford and Farrell pathetic with some slim protection of performing under coaches orders
Other than Billy which of our forwards were given the chance to carry? What do you expect from Moon, to rip the ball off Youngs or Farrell just as they’re about to kick so he can show off his carrying abilities?
I expect Genge would have been picked in the first place or Moon subbed off much earlier, trying hard is nice I'm sure, it's just not remotely enough
Billy V carried well. and May did a good shift. Daly again hardly commanded the backfield.
Youngs seems very similar to Ford after eight pints
I thought he had been drinking as well. Surprised Butler didn't pick up on that
Butler had probably consumed more than me. Actually today was a day when all commentators on the game rather lost the plot, Butler, Moore, Davies and Peyper
Digby wrote:
It's annoying how telegraphed in advance this was. Perhaps not this game albeit it looked the most likely example, but at some point the team has to accept if they cannot and/or refuse to play any rugby there will be games when big problems arise
I do feel sorry for Sinckler, Kruis, Wilson and Curry, what Moon was doing on the pitch I don't know and anyone advocating for Moon over Genge one hopes enjoys the lack of carrying, Ford and Farrell pathetic with some slim protection of performing under coaches orders
Other than Billy which of our forwards were given the chance to carry? What do you expect from Moon, to rip the ball off Youngs or Farrell just as they’re about to kick so he can show off his carrying abilities?
I expect Genge would have been picked in the first place or Moon subbed off much earlier, trying hard is nice I'm sure, it's just not remotely enough
Your one specific criticism of him was around his ball carrying, but given that we didn’t look to go through any phases whatsoever, I’m not sure what he was supposed to do about that. Genge wouldn’t have carried much either.
Timbo wrote:
Other than Billy which of our forwards were given the chance to carry? What do you expect from Moon, to rip the ball off Youngs or Farrell just as they’re about to kick so he can show off his carrying abilities?
I expect Genge would have been picked in the first place or Moon subbed off much earlier, trying hard is nice I'm sure, it's just not remotely enough
Your one specific criticism of him was around his ball carrying, but given that we didn’t look to go through any phases whatsoever, I’m not sure what he was supposed to do about that. Genge wouldn’t have carried much either.
I'd expect the team to carry more with carriers rather t turnips, even if industrious turnips
So... Anyone got any ideas for Eddie was actually thinking?
Now assuming he's not actually a total idiot who's never watched a game of rugby before, he would have left the starters on for so long for some sort of actual reason.
He was obviously happy enough to sacrifice this one match for a future benefit. But what the hell benefit would that have been?
Against Ireland and France, we cpactually played a bit of rugby, pulled their back3 out of position, and put the ball where they should have been - both jobs were easy as they decided not to bother using a FB. This time, we didn't even try to earn the right to kick, or even to disguise what we were going to do, and chose to do it against an actual FB who knew where he should be and what he should do. We saw more plan B before securing the first 2 matches than we did in the entity of the Wales match where plan A wasn't working (or being particularly tried).
Why?
If I can understand the why behind it, I can generally be more forgiving of failed execution but I just can't see why we played like that, did nothing to change it on the pitch, and then did nothing to change in from the bench. Our 5 impactful subs managed 8 minutes between them FFS!
I think that match was an absolute condemnation of Farrell's captaincy in particular and having a back as captain in general. A FH constantly kicking possession away badly has to be bollocked. The same with the SH. I thought George had a great game but might we have not lost with Hartley as captain (not of the 'co' variety)? A forward captain who simply called for keeping hold of the ball would have made hell of a difference.
What happens around the May incident where he looked sparked out and we allowed him to play on?
Do we have to pay a fine, indeed is there any sanction? Similar for the officials is there any sanction there?
It was pretty obvious watching on TV having sunk a good few drinks, given we're told people will now be looking out for the players and didn't something should happen when players are left dangerously exposed. May took another hit very quickly after that first blow and that we know is very high risk.
Yep. And it’s why a certain poster criticising some of our ball carriers- Moon and Lawes- is total nonsense. The point of going through phases is that you move a defence around and pose different questions. It gives your carriers a chance. You ask anyone, even Billy, to carry into a set defence at this level you’re gonna get smashed.
Yep. And it’s why a certain poster criticising some of our ball carriers- Moon and Lawes- is total nonsense. The point of going through phases is that you move a defence around and pose different questions. It gives your carriers a chance. You ask anyone, even Billy, to carry into a set defence at this level you’re gonna get smashed.
I think calling Moon a carrier is generous. To my memory he made 1 carry, going nowhere, and one knock on in a previous carry attempt. I don't think that qualifies as a carrier.
Lawes does better on the fringes of the ruck defence.
That was the plan on Sat. Ford had a run out at 9pm. What? You think that’s ridiculous? Less ridiculous than watching us virtual clueless for the entire second half and not changing one or both of the halfbacks.
Yep. And it’s why a certain poster criticising some of our ball carriers- Moon and Lawes- is total nonsense. The point of going through phases is that you move a defence around and pose different questions. It gives your carriers a chance. You ask anyone, even Billy, to carry into a set defence at this level you’re gonna get smashed.
I don't think criticising Lawes' carrying is nonsense, as it wasn't a one off. Billy carried well on Saturday I thought.
