Eng - Arg: Match Thread

[Epaminondas Pules]

Job done. Scrappy, messy at times, but five points and we’ve qualified. First pressure game overcome. I’ll take that. Some nice moments and individual performances, equally some less so, but job still done. And we’ve got through Owens refereeing. Not that he’s a bad ref at all just that we always seem to struggles somewhat with his breakdown interpretation.

[richy678]

I think Farrell didn't play well, but the knock on the head was part of it - some skullduggery (see what I did there?) in not getting a HIA. He's had one or two in row now so bound to be a bit punchy.

Good old Fordy - I had him on PaddyPower to score a try - nice £30 in the back skyrocket.

Billy not at the races. Whisper it, but I thought I saw Underhill go through a period when he was falling off and missing a few tackles - however the volume of and work rate may disguise those stats.

May - to me - looks a bit slower across the turf. I used to hate playing openside with that type of player - you couldn't sort your running line out to support or get to the breakdown. Old fashioned description of running around headless chicken style, disappearing up his own arsehole.

I also thought Daly looked a bit more assured and confidence giving today. Farrell should have given him at least one of the long-range kicks. Zona del Daly and all that old flannel.

Well - were maximum points and through. Yes - some of the play is a bit bitty, but England have always played in fits and starts. In my years of watching them the best-sustained game play - which brought results was the 2002 grand slam game in Ireland, and pre 2003 world cup game in Oz.

This team is nowhere near that comparative level against the other teams - but let's see what happens in Le Crunch next week.
Bring it Picamoles, and bring all your mates as well.

[Oakboy]

Jones keeps the team winning. I don't like much of what I see but results are everything at this point.

[Scrumhead]

Farrell was pretty awful throughout. His kicking was poor and his attempted "running".......well, really. He is seriously limited and should have been taken off instead of Ford.
Youngs was typically mediocre. No surprise there. Unfortunately i didnt think Heinz looked much sharper. Weakness at SH is this team's achilles heel.

Agreed on all points.

Re. Farrell’s ‘running’, there were a couple of occasions where he got the ball in the centre of the field, hesitated and then died with the ball. Rubbish.

The pass to Nowell off his left hand was surprisingly good though.

[Mellsblue]

Farrell was pretty awful throughout. His kicking was poor and his attempted "running".......well, really. He is seriously limited and should have been taken off instead of Ford.
Youngs was typically mediocre. No surprise there. Unfortunately i didnt think Heinz looked much sharper. Weakness at SH is this team's achilles heel.

Agreed on all points.

Re. Farrell’s ‘running’, there were a couple of occasions where he got the ball in the centre of the field, hesitated and then died with the ball. Rubbish.

The pass to Nowell off his left hand was surprisingly good though.

Yep. He looked indecisive and was caught with the ball a number of times. When you're not the best athlete but a good kicker and have possibly the quickest back three in the world, why not just pick a runner or kick the ball.

[Epaminondas Pules]

Farrell was pretty awful throughout. His kicking was poor and his attempted "running".......well, really. He is seriously limited and should have been taken off instead of Ford.
Youngs was typically mediocre. No surprise there. Unfortunately i didnt think Heinz looked much sharper. Weakness at SH is this team's achilles heel.

Agreed on all points.

Re. Farrell’s ‘running’, there were a couple of occasions where he got the ball in the centre of the field, hesitated and then died with the ball. Rubbish.

The pass to Nowell off his left hand was surprisingly good though.

There was also a couple where he took the tackle after player around him shovelled shit on. Though overall he wasn’t great.

[Bloggs]

Lucky enough to be out in japan at the moment although today was my last game. From my view at the end, Marler, Sinckler, itoje, underhill and ford the highlights for England. Daly’s best game at 15 for England too.

Farrell was dreadful, Youngs and billy not a lot better either. Not sure if it was concussion with Farrell as he’s been poor all summer and World Cup imo (and o rate him highly).

England didn’t need to get out of second gear, still think we can go far

If you can stand the heat, Japan is brilliant for a tour and I’d recommend 2020 out here for japan v England

[Spiffy]

Farrell was pretty awful throughout. His kicking was poor and his attempted "running".......well, really. He is seriously limited and should have been taken off instead of Ford.
Youngs was typically mediocre. No surprise there. Unfortunately i didnt think Heinz looked much sharper. Weakness at SH is this team's achilles heel.

Agreed on all points.

Re. Farrell’s ‘running’, there were a couple of occasions where he got the ball in the centre of the field, hesitated and then died with the ball. Rubbish.

The pass to Nowell off his left hand was surprisingly good though.

One decent pass in an otherwise awful performance means nowt.
The clumsy Farrell looks increasingly slow of speed and thought for an international midfielder.
Ford is in a different class re. natural talent, rugby brains and gas.
He must be quite pissed off that Jones does not allow him to do the things that a 10 normally does - line kicking, restarts, goal kicking etc. so that Captain Courageous Ice Man can continue to hold centre stage.
The message is loud and clear that he is the junior partner, even though he regularly outshines Farrell.
Still a mystery why the thick media can't see this and tell it like it is.

[Renniks]

BBC article on Ford - and the possibility of EJ get twitchy and reverting back to OF

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/49945744

---

Bit of a non article realllly, but, what's really interesting is the number of comments now backing Ford over Farrell - something I've never seen before and the tide definitely seems to be turning

[Puja]

BBC article on Ford - and the possibility of EJ get twitchy and reverting back to OF

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/49945744

---

Bit of a non article realllly, but, what's really interesting is the number of comments now backing Ford over Farrell - something I've never seen before and the tide definitely seems to be turning

I read the article and nearly sprained my eye-rolling muscles, but didn't think to look at the comments as they're usually 90% "Ford is too small and we've not seen him play behind a retreating pack, whereas Farrell is the best". Interesting turnaround.

Also on the BBC, Farrell says he was fine to play on, because that is exactly how concussion assessments work: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/49945747

Apparently concussions only happen if you get hit on the top of your head and can't happen if you're smacked in the jaw, which I'm sure will be news to quite a few boxers out there. Glad to see that the education around head injuries has taken such solid root in England.

Puja

[Renniks]

There are a number of those “retreating pack” comments - but actually, I'd say there is a majority in favour of either Ford + Farrell, or just Ford… but definitely a minority saying that Farrell is the critical player

[Scrumhead]

BBC article on Ford - and the possibility of EJ get twitchy and reverting back to OF

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/49945744

---

Bit of a non article realllly, but, what's really interesting is the number of comments now backing Ford over Farrell - something I've never seen before and the tide definitely seems to be turning

Yes. I thought the same. Perhaps Farrell’s aura of infallibility is fading.

[Galfon]

Geech extolled Ford's game management and control yesterday, choosing good options at key moments.
('best game for his country..').He probably meant considering the fixture in question.
For Eng to progress they need to be able to bring the back 3 fliers into the game wherever possible and Ford has played this type of game since he was an egg.
Faz may still suit EJ's game plan for certain opponents.
(Another pulverising hit on his head after recent American kisses and he may be sitting out the tournament for different reasons...he does appear to be targetted a bit )

[Beasties]

Maybe the oppo are believing all the guff about him being absolutely crucial to our cause put out by our media?

[Mellsblue]

Stephen Jones ratings. The final comment on Farrell aside, I actually think they are pretty accurate, which probably means I’m wrong:

Elliot Daly
8/10
Saracens
Age 26 Caps 36
Good game, good choices of play, prominent in several try-scoring moves, plus his own try

Anthony Watson
6/10
Bath
Age 25 Caps 39
Looked hungry, a few good early runs, but not used well and must have felt frustration at the end

Manu Tuilagi
6/10
Leicester
Age 28 Caps 37
Needs to take more part in the collective, and to play on the same wavelength as others

Owen Farrell
6/10
Saracens
Age 28 Caps 76
Not at his best with the boot or as a midfield general, which means he will be outstanding next week

Jonny May
7/10
Leicester
Age 29 Caps 49
Scored the first try for England, was well-marked and left looking for a party to attend

George Ford
9/10
Leicester
Age 26 Caps 62
Excellent performance, held the whole thing together. Judgment clear, execution excellent

Ben Youngs
7/10
Leicester
Age 30 Caps 92
Took his try with sharpness, heavily involved though a succession of box kicks

Joe Marler
8/10
Harlequins
Age 29 Caps 65
Revival continues. Tremendous performance, in and out of the scrum

Jamie George
7/10
Saracens
Age 28 Caps 42
Level of involvement not quite as high as usual, had a great battle with Julian Montoya

Kyle Sinckler
7/10
Harlequins
Age 26 Caps 28
A few lapses of handing and not the sort of weather to suit him but now established in the side

Maro Itoje
9/10
Saracens
Age 24 Caps 31
Core player in this pack. England will hope that he has the power to last right through until the end

George Kruis
7/10
Saracens
Age 29 Caps 38
A little quiet, even after Lavanini was given his red card. Still the boss of the lineout

Tom Curry
7/10
Sale Sharks
Age 21 Caps 16
The pride of Sale seems unstoppable, and is a key man in the back row

Sam Underhill
8/10
Bath
Age 23 Caps 12
Tough man and workrate wonderful. Fulfilling every prediction of the colt years

Billy Vunipola
6/10
Saracens
Age 26 Caps 48
Left at half-time after spilling the ball a few times. There will be prayers for his form and fitness

[Danno]

Stephen Jones ratings. The final comment on Farrell aside, I actually think they are pretty accurate, which probably means I’m wrong

If it wasn't for the Farrell comment I'd think someone was ghostwriting for Jones

[Oakboy]

Several, including Jones, have rated Underhill more highly than Curry. I'd have them the other way around. Curry's overall contribution, including lineout work and a successful stint at 8 was worth more, IMO.

The biggest negative in Farrell's assessment ought to have been his total clumsiness when running with the ball. On three or four occasions his efforts were embarrassing - when compared with two or three of our forwards, for example.

The other glaring over-rating is 6 for Billy. His contribution in a single half with at least three instances of coughing up the ball cannot be more than 4. He was a shadow of his normal self - worryingly. In fact, Curry's far superior performance at 8 was one of the real pluses of the game now I think about it.

[Banquo]

Several, including Jones, have rated Underhill more highly than Curry. I'd have them the other way around. Curry's overall contribution, including lineout work and a successful stint at 8 was worth more, IMO.

The biggest negative in Farrell's assessment ought to have been his total clumsiness when running with the ball. On three or four occasions his efforts were embarrassing - when compared with two or three of our forwards, for example.

The other glaring over-rating is 6 for Billy. His contribution in a single half with at least three instances of coughing up the ball cannot be more than 4. He was a shadow of his normal self - worryingly. In fact, Curry's far superior performance at 8 was one of the real pluses of the game now I think about it.

10 carries, 9 yards. He coped well at the base, but that's about it. Ludlam was very good however, made more of an impact in a half than Curry did all game. I also thought Underhill played very well.

Billy was off, no question, but still was the leading carrier in the forwards, despite playing only one half.

[p/d]

Underhill rightly motm.... though could have been Puma’s captain.

DT gave Farrell 7 - in summary. Kicked like a drain and got caught in possession. But showed great leadership

[Stom]

Several, including Jones, have rated Underhill more highly than Curry. I'd have them the other way around. Curry's overall contribution, including lineout work and a successful stint at 8 was worth more, IMO.

The biggest negative in Farrell's assessment ought to have been his total clumsiness when running with the ball. On three or four occasions his efforts were embarrassing - when compared with two or three of our forwards, for example.

The other glaring over-rating is 6 for Billy. His contribution in a single half with at least three instances of coughing up the ball cannot be more than 4. He was a shadow of his normal self - worryingly. In fact, Curry's far superior performance at 8 was one of the real pluses of the game now I think about it.

10 carries, 9 yards. He coped well at the base, but that's about it. Ludlam was very good however, made more of an impact in a half than Curry did all game. I also thought Underhill played very well.

Billy was off, no question, but still was the leading carrier in the forwards, despite playing only one half.

Aye. Billy wasn't used to carry into space nor for his link play. So he was less effective.

Underhill was excellent for me. His carrying has really come on.

[Oakboy]

Billy was off, no question, but still was the leading carrier in the forwards, despite playing only one half.

The fact that three of his carries (or attempted ones) led to him losing the ball rather undermines that, surely?

[Banquo]

Billy was off, no question, but still was the leading carrier in the forwards, despite playing only one half.

The fact that three of his carries (or attempted ones) led to him losing the ball rather undermines that, surely?

Not really, as I meant he carried for the most yards. The first of those attempted carries was a bullet pass at knee height from guess who....

He was off, as I said, but still made good yards (26 ), rather than negative yards; Curry's handling was also a tad suspect if we are being picky.

[Digby]

Several, including Jones, have rated Underhill more highly than Curry. I'd have them the other way around. Curry's overall contribution, including lineout work and a successful stint at 8 was worth more, IMO.

The biggest negative in Farrell's assessment ought to have been his total clumsiness when running with the ball. On three or four occasions his efforts were embarrassing - when compared with two or three of our forwards, for example.

The other glaring over-rating is 6 for Billy. His contribution in a single half with at least three instances of coughing up the ball cannot be more than 4. He was a shadow of his normal self - worryingly. In fact, Curry's far superior performance at 8 was one of the real pluses of the game now I think about it.

10 carries, 9 yards. He coped well at the base, but that's about it. Ludlam was very good however, made more of an impact in a half than Curry did all game. I also thought Underhill played very well.

Billy was off, no question, but still was the leading carrier in the forwards, despite playing only one half.

Trouble with Ludlam is we weren't able to play the ball quickly, Curry was much better at getting the ball back on his carries

[Mikey Brown]

Dozens of mistakes from Youngs yet again completely ignored. What is it about him?

[Banquo]

Several, including Jones, have rated Underhill more highly than Curry. I'd have them the other way around. Curry's overall contribution, including lineout work and a successful stint at 8 was worth more, IMO.

The biggest negative in Farrell's assessment ought to have been his total clumsiness when running with the ball. On three or four occasions his efforts were embarrassing - when compared with two or three of our forwards, for example.

The other glaring over-rating is 6 for Billy. His contribution in a single half with at least three instances of coughing up the ball cannot be more than 4. He was a shadow of his normal self - worryingly. In fact, Curry's far superior performance at 8 was one of the real pluses of the game now I think about it.

10 carries, 9 yards. He coped well at the base, but that's about it. Ludlam was very good however, made more of an impact in a half than Curry did all game. I also thought Underhill played very well.

Billy was off, no question, but still was the leading carrier in the forwards, despite playing only one half.

Trouble with Ludlam is we weren't able to play the ball quickly, Curry was much better at getting the ball back on his carries

Mostly because Curry wasn't making any ground and the support had fck all to do to get there; Ludlam was in theory responsible for one turnover, when he made a superb carry that no-one reacted to, despite him staying on his feet a reasonable amount of time; there were plenty of occasions when a carrier was isolated as his team-mates looked on- some due to Youngs picking the wrong option. I don't think Ludlam's presentation is any worse than Curry's- and I actually thought Curry looked a little lightweight in contact tbh. Being asked to do the wrong things.....