Mikey Brown wrote:What’s the chances Aus were running at Farrell to try and milk a red card. I can’t possibly imagine anything more Cheika-like in response to his recent confusion around the tackle area.
That sounds eminently likely. The entire Australian rugby scene appears utterly baffled by the high-tackle focus from what I've seen of their papers - they're acting like every card is completely incomprehensible, the process impossible to understand, and the cards handed out at random for nothing in particular.
p/d wrote:Agree with Danno. Better sides would have made good meterage through our 10, 12, 13 channels. Though they would have had their legs taken from them once they met The Wall at fb
All of that, even The Wall bit cos it's it's too damn funny.
Today's combination (Faz, Manu, Slade) doesn't inspire any confidence but then Ford, Farrell, Manu doesn't either, but I'd take the second version because then it's really just Faz that misses tackles outright, rather than all three of them. Or we could just pick a different midfield without Faz. Tbf he was actually fairly good today. I'd rather we were better than fairly good though.
Mellsblue wrote:
Why mention it if not excited?
I don’t think it’s impressive for a 10. At best they’re just running at him and he’s doing his job, at worst he’s looking for tackles and isn’t free to conduct play on a turnover.
I just think it’s a strange stat to highlight and praise and, again, symptomatic of what is wrong with English rugby.
If you mention something it doesn’t mean you’re excited. FFS! And if you’d noticed you have seen his scramble defence which accounted for a number of tackles.
And no, let’s not praise doubling everyone else’s tackles. That’s not impressive at all. It’s not praiseworthy in any regard. And again you can praise something as it is notable without being excited.
But then if praising something praiseworthy is what’s wrong with English rugby that I’m hugely proud to be wrong.
So we’re just noting random stats that standout, regardless of context? His scramble defence is good but, if you’d noticed, that’s the 10’s role in England’s defence.
It’s like noting Marler made 100 yards whilst stood in the open spaces. Well done but it’s not what you’re there for, you’re in the wrong place.
I’ll go back to not wanting at 10 under that many breakdowns and not praising a 10 for his tackle count. I’ll praise for the pass to Sinckler, his kicking off the tee and his overall performance. I’ll not randomly praise something that ranks very low on my wish list from a 10.
Just catching up with this. Hopefully you’ve managed to clear the sand from your vagina by now.
We’re not going to agree. You think a fly half putting in a serious defensive shift when we only had 36% possession isn’t praiseworthy, or even simply a random stat. When the opposition made over double the carries we did. For me that shift defensively is praiseworthy. Defence was kind of important yesterday, and that isn’t just down to the big fellas. Everyone played their part in restricting Aus to 16 points and a single try. Making 17 tackles from FH is something of note, especially when compared with the players around him.
His kicking was spot on, overall play decent and the pass to Sinkler a thing of beauty, which I remarked at the time.
DrG wrote:If we prefer Farrell at 10 (rather than 12) and Manu at 13 - who plays 12 ?
I don't know anyone here prefers Farrell at 10 over Ford. I'd say if we want Manu at 13 (which to me clearly gets the best out of him), it has to be Ford/Faz/Manu, as the other options of Francis or Slade out of position are underwhelming.
Epaminondas Pules wrote:As an aside Farrell made 17 tackles today. That’s seriously impressive. Still missed three, but forgivable with those figures and to be fair your going to miss more Vs a team like Aus.
Goal kicking was excellent as well. Makes me think he was definitely concussed against argentina.
+1 Especially the first two conversions, both from the touchline. Psychologically important?
I thought Farrell had one of his better games, yes. That pass was great, kicked well, tackled and motivated etc. Good.
Despite not having that much possession that was one of the best 1-9 collective performances we’ve seen in a while. I would have liked to get something more out of the midfield. It seems like we should been able to.
How much does Farrell take responsibility for either of those things? If he helps drive the pack to performances like that (from 10 specifically) then great, but I still think having him at 12 allows him to do everything he can do well, but gives us two fantastic players at 10/13.
If you mention something it doesn’t mean you’re excited. FFS! And if you’d noticed you have seen his scramble defence which accounted for a number of tackles.
And no, let’s not praise doubling everyone else’s tackles. That’s not impressive at all. It’s not praiseworthy in any regard. And again you can praise something as it is notable without being excited.
But then if praising something praiseworthy is what’s wrong with English rugby that I’m hugely proud to be wrong.
So we’re just noting random stats that standout, regardless of context? His scramble defence is good but, if you’d noticed, that’s the 10’s role in England’s defence.
It’s like noting Marler made 100 yards whilst stood in the open spaces. Well done but it’s not what you’re there for, you’re in the wrong place.
I’ll go back to not wanting at 10 under that many breakdowns and not praising a 10 for his tackle count. I’ll praise for the pass to Sinckler, his kicking off the tee and his overall performance. I’ll not randomly praise something that ranks very low on my wish list from a 10.
Just catching up with this. Hopefully you’ve managed to clear the sand from your vagina by now.
We’re not going to agree. You think a fly half putting in a serious defensive shift when we only had 36% possession isn’t praiseworthy, or even simply a random stat. When the opposition made over double the carries we did. For me that shift defensively is praiseworthy. Defence was kind of important yesterday, and that isn’t just down to the big fellas. Everyone played their part in restricting Aus to 16 points and a single try. Making 17 tackles from FH is something of note, especially when compared with the players around him.
His kicking was spot on, overall play decent and the pass to Sinkler a thing of beauty, which I remarked at the time.
Sand from your vagina?!?! How old are you?
We aren’t going to agree....apart from the last para. Happy to praise him when deserved. I just don’t think a high tackle count is something worth noting and think it symptomatic of English rugby’s poor priorities.
Perhaps Farrell played well in defence in a gameplay many don't understand/agree with. They'd rather Farrell played/controlled the game in such fashion a 10 didn't need to make 17 tackles
Mellsblue wrote:
So we’re just noting random stats that standout, regardless of context? His scramble defence is good but, if you’d noticed, that’s the 10’s role in England’s defence.
It’s like noting Marler made 100 yards whilst stood in the open spaces. Well done but it’s not what you’re there for, you’re in the wrong place.
I’ll go back to not wanting at 10 under that many breakdowns and not praising a 10 for his tackle count. I’ll praise for the pass to Sinckler, his kicking off the tee and his overall performance. I’ll not randomly praise something that ranks very low on my wish list from a 10.
Just catching up with this. Hopefully you’ve managed to clear the sand from your vagina by now.
We’re not going to agree. You think a fly half putting in a serious defensive shift when we only had 36% possession isn’t praiseworthy, or even simply a random stat. When the opposition made over double the carries we did. For me that shift defensively is praiseworthy. Defence was kind of important yesterday, and that isn’t just down to the big fellas. Everyone played their part in restricting Aus to 16 points and a single try. Making 17 tackles from FH is something of note, especially when compared with the players around him.
His kicking was spot on, overall play decent and the pass to Sinkler a thing of beauty, which I remarked at the time.
Sand from your vagina?!?! How old are you?
We aren’t going to agree....apart from the last para. Happy to praise him when deserved. I just don’t think a high tackle count is something worth noting and think it symptomatic of English rugby’s poor priorities.
Well, stop being a miserable gimp then. Everything that’s wrong with English rugby blah blah.
Well without a high tackle count we concede more points. I’d rather tackle them than let them through. Defence is quite important, but hey ho, each to their own. When your opponents have over 150 carries then tackling is kind of a bit of a priority for English rugby.
For all their faults aus have incredibly impressive runners out wide. We were hanging on at times. I don't think that defensive performance was anything to be sniffed at.
twitchy wrote:For all their faults aus have incredibly impressive runners out wide. We were hanging on at times. I don't think that defensive performance was anything to be sniffed at.
Don’t think anyone questioned our defensive performance, but it was only to be expected in light of us wanting to play the game without the ball.
Digby wrote:For the 2nd May try what are the rules on playing the 9 when Itoje does a number on Genia?
Both Australians had dived right over the ruck, meaning the ball was behind the back foot and completely out. So Genia was fair game the minute he touched the ball.
Digby wrote:For the 2nd May try what are the rules on playing the 9 when Itoje does a number on Genia?
Both Australians had dived right over the ruck, meaning the ball was behind the back foot and completely out. So Genia was fair game the minute he touched the ball.
Puja
I had in mind two Aussies were still on their feet in front of Genia?
Digby wrote:For the 2nd May try what are the rules on playing the 9 when Itoje does a number on Genia?
Both Australians had dived right over the ruck, meaning the ball was behind the back foot and completely out. So Genia was fair game the minute he touched the ball.
Puja
I had in mind two Aussies were still on their feet in front of Genia?
Screenshot_20191021-111629_YouTube.jpg
This is the best I can do on my phone - it's about half a second too early to be exact, but you can get the idea. In the next frame, no 4 continues running forward past the breakdown and the ball is placed back by the tackled man. Then Genia put his hands on it and Itoje moves. The no 2 does go in to make a ruck just after that, but it's too late by then.
Gamble from Itoje though - he's technically right, but there'd be a lot of occasions where a ref would give a penalty there regardless just for the picture it created.
Puja
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Puja wrote:
Both Australians had dived right over the ruck, meaning the ball was behind the back foot and completely out. So Genia was fair game the minute he touched the ball.
Puja
I had in mind two Aussies were still on their feet in front of Genia?
Screenshot_20191021-111629_YouTube.jpg
This is the best I can do on my phone - it's about half a second too early to be exact, but you can get the idea. In the next frame, no 4 continues running forward past the breakdown and the ball is placed back by the tackled man. Then Genia put his hands on it and Itoje moves. The no 2 does go in to make a ruck just after that, but it's too late by then.
Gamble from Itoje though - he's technically right, but there'd be a lot of occasions where a ref would give a penalty there regardless just for the picture it created.
Puja
Just watched it back now, seemingly gold 2 goes to play acting 9 and thus is slower binding onto gold 4 than I remembered once he realised Genia is there, or what passes for binding, i.e. being next to. And yes, in many instances you would get pinged. Poor from gold 4 to step past the ball, okay gold 1 is done by Itoje's matador move, but gold 4 can still control that situation
