England v Australia, Sat 13 Nov KO 5.30pm

[WaspInWales]

The thing with proclamations like this is that the coach making them hopes they're sounding innovative and inspirational but generally just comes of as desperate and deluded.

This.
Farrell ending up as first receiver more often than not was more to with shoe horning him back in than innovative.
Little surprise that Slade reverted back to being average, forced to operate as a centre playing in the back 3 whilst Manu’s impact was telegraphed- one dummy run aside - and Youngs influence was once more dampened.

Mind you Morgan’s fellow DT reporters gave OF an 8, so wtf do I know.

8 for being turned over, giving a penalty away, making a tackle, missing a tackle, kicking 4 penalties and a conversion, missing a penalty...did he also fail to find touch? Think it was in his side. Oh and repeatedly grubbing the ball away on most developing attack chances. Plus generally being average in everything esle he did.

Keep having to remind myself that it's Farrell, and the only thing the pundits and experts seem to notice are the successful kicks, big hits and amazing leadership skills.

Sent from my SM-N986B using Tapatalk

[p/d]

Oh come on. So things like Slade butchering a good try scoring opportunity by taking all of May’s space and killing another good move with a basic knock were someone else’s fault?

If they were isolated examples fair enough, but he frequently makes several costly mistakes.

I am not blaming anyone for Slade’s butchering ability, bar him. My (poorly worded) point is that Slade has little influence when outside the two 10’s line up. To assume that was going to change by having Smith instead of Ford seemed a bit hopeful.

I have no problem Farrell starting at 10, just wanted to see the Tuilagi/Slade pairing given another game prior to next week. With two flyers on the wings.

[Mr Mwenda]

It's interesting seeing France go for a Jalibert-Ntamack 10-12 combo. I'm unable to focus as I'm looking after young master mwenda, but is this a similar idea to Smith/Ford-Farrell?

[Beasties]

On a lighter note.

Also, this is ridiculous. Due to my internet being slow, I see that every time I open this page as my phone thinks about loading it, and it's not getting any less ridiculous with each repeat viewing.

Puja

There obv isn't any mirrors in the Hartley household.

[Beasties]

It's interesting seeing France go for a Jalibert-Ntamack 10-12 combo. I'm unable to focus as I'm looking after young master mwenda, but is this a similar idea to Smith/Ford-Farrell?

But with two creative players instead of one? Yeah, it just might work.....

[Oakboy]

Farrell - creative?

[Danno]

On a lighter note.

Also, this is ridiculous. Due to my internet being slow, I see that every time I open this page as my phone thinks about loading it, and it's not getting any less ridiculous with each repeat viewing.

Puja

There obv isn't any mirrors in the Hartley household.

Get that man heap of coal to shovel into a train boiler Asap

[Mikey Brown]

Farrell - creative?

You might want to give that post another look.

[morepork]

Puja

There obv isn't any mirrors in the Hartley household.

Get that man heap of coal to shovel into a train boiler Asap

That's quite an accurate metaphor for Ben Young's passing technique.

[Digby]

Farrell - creative?

You might want to give that post another look.

I thought Farrell went pretty well. Not sure we knew what we wanted from 9 and 10, and the 10 without doubt needs more time. And we didn't have enough running options to simplify the game.

Tonga was a first game up though, and Australia a first game up against a decent side with some brand new pairings at 9 and 10 and 10 and 12. Speed, good decision making and a low error rate would have been astonishing, so hardly astonishing it wasn't astonishing. Enough nice touches to consider there's more to come, some concerns about the balance with no Billy (or carrier) at 8, no Mako or Genge at 1, the three locks not protecting our ball fast enough (odd that), and Farrell at 12 for all he went well is reliant on the team playing faster, which we can do but it's more complex, and in fairness Smith was working the passing 10/12 axis pretty well given it's not exacting the pairing he has with AE, and he didn't disconnect himself dropping back as the deeper 2nd receiver

[Oakboy]

Whatever the merits of picking that backline may have been (or were intended to have been) it is a simple fact that it was complicated. Why not keep it simple for a new, young FH? Give him conventional alignment, Tuilagi at IC to take it short and let Smith add the fancier moves as he settles in. Otherwise, it's a bit like bringing in three new scenes for the understudy's debut when the lead has not tried them out first.

[Mikey Brown]

Was the alignment in the backs really the issue? I think I need to rewatch it but feels like there was a good hour or so of that game we couldn't really get through the phases. It felt like neither side could really find a rhythm or consistent ball without conceding pens. Faz threw some fairly telegraphed/inaccurate passes at times, as he tends to do, and the "12" out the back to "10" move did look a little obvious in general but surely that's not an issue of being overcomplicated.

Saying that, I'd be keen to see more of how we use this shape vs SA if we can actually keep hold of the ball. Their defence is a different beast entirely and Smith will be getting hammered if we're simply popping it out the back for him every time. A hard runner in the Faz pod is needed.

[Digby]

If Smith is getting hammered he needs to think about his depth and timing. He's there as bait in that role, and he needs to deal with it if he wants to play. If he gets it wrong in one game on his 2nd major start it's nothing to worry much about in isolation

[jngf]

Will say once again I was really impressed by Underhill’s tight carrying in that first half - up their with an on form Billy imo - the guy is really powerful, to an extent which believes his raw vital statistics. I’m not saying he’s an alternative 8 option but England really should use this capability of Underhill’s more!

[Mikey Brown]

I’m talking about the half-hearted attacking threat from the first receiver pod then giving it to Smith out the back every time - making it easy for the SA defence to pincer in on him.

Standing deeper won’t really be much of a solution if there’s nothing to hold the defence closer in. I’ve got faith we can mix it up a fair bit more though.

[FKAS]

I’m talking about the half-hearted attacking threat from the first receiver pod then giving it to Smith out the back every time - making it easy for the SA defence to pincer in on him.

Standing deeper won’t really be much of a solution if there’s nothing to hold the defence closer in. I’ve got faith we can mix it up a fair bit more though.

It's the same move we've run forever. Ford got hammered in the 6N because he had no runners outside him and little threat inside him so was just blitzed every time.

Smith does have at least a bit more with Steward and Manu. If we can drop Slade and have two actual wingers so that there's a wide pass option for Smith as well that'll help.

[Mikey Brown]

I’m talking about the half-hearted attacking threat from the first receiver pod then giving it to Smith out the back every time - making it easy for the SA defence to pincer in on him.

Standing deeper won’t really be much of a solution if there’s nothing to hold the defence closer in. I’ve got faith we can mix it up a fair bit more though.

It's the same move we've run forever. Ford got hammered in the 6N because he had no runners outside him and little threat inside him so was just blitzed every time.

Smith does have at least a bit more with Steward and Manu. If we can drop Slade and have two actual wingers so that there's a wide pass option for Smith as well that'll help.

Well sure that would be nice, but Eddie knows best. Like I said I need to rewatch it but felt like the problems were more inside Smith than outside.

Our 1 attacking move just looked a bit less threatening than usual on Saturday and can see it really being exploited by SA if we don’t step it up. Whether it’s the lack of forward runners (minus Vunipolas) or it just being impossible for anyone to time a run when Youngs is playing 9 it’s hard to say.

[Digby]

The problem was also Smith. With not much in the way of a phase attack we complemented that with the lack of a kicking game. Yes he needs time, but Smith was rather part of the problem and hardly an innocent bystander

Also if he needs to think about his depth that doesn't mean he needs to simply drop, only he needs to think about his depth. He might go flatter, which would also be a change in depth some would say

[p/d]

When did rugby really become so complicated?
If you want to start a 10 who plays flat then have a hard running banger at 12 who has no intention of kicking possession away, lined up with a back 3 fielding a couple of quickies

Your 13 can then be the extra playmaker.

[Oakboy]

When did rugby really become so complicated?
If you want to start a 10 who plays flat then have a hard running banger at 12 who has no intention of kicking possession away, lined up with a back 3 fielding a couple of quickies

Your 13 can then be the extra playmaker.

The trouble is, p/d, that the conclusion of that logic is that Farrell should have been at 10 or on the bench, preferably the latter. What bothers me is that the management cannot see that what they did diminished the individual contributions of all the backs (apart from Youngs perhaps).

[Danno]

When did rugby really become so complicated?

When Stuart Lancaster unearthed England Rugby's new messiah. And appointed his dad as a coach.

[p/d]

When did rugby really become so complicated?
If you want to start a 10 who plays flat then have a hard running banger at 12 who has no intention of kicking possession away, lined up with a back 3 fielding a couple of quickies

Your 13 can then be the extra playmaker.

The trouble is, p/d, that the conclusion of that logic is that Farrell should have been at 10 or on the bench, preferably the latter. What bothers me is that the management cannot see that what they did diminished the individual contributions of all the backs (apart from Youngs perhaps).

I get teams like Japan have to find ‘different ways’ of play to beat the likes of SA, but to read Jones talking about how we now have to the same - and then add ‘in only 4 days’ (sorry Eddie, but this game hasn’t just been sprung on you), is a tad disheartening.

[Timbo]

For all the talk of how the back line went, if the forwards had been able to convert a 5m driving maul or use their clear power advantage to get over the line (and actually ground the ball) we’d have been 20 points up at halftime.

[Mikey Brown]

The problem was also Smith. With not much in the way of a phase attack we complemented that with the lack of a kicking game. Yes he needs time, but Smith was rather part of the problem and hardly an innocent bystander

Well sure. I don't really remember anything of England's tactical kicking game, which may be exactly the point you're making. You haven't treated us to a minute-by-minute for a while. Got a spare 24 hours or so to do one? You might even get all the way through before there's another team announcement and we all start freaking out about that instead.

Also if he needs to think about his depth that doesn't mean he needs to simply drop, only he needs to think about his depth. He might go flatter, which would also be a change in depth some would say

I get what you mean but I'm not sure how standing flatter could be an option if the issue is that the inside defence isn't being fixed in any way. Certainly an improved kicking game that keeps defenders back would help. The more I try to remember what we were doing between minutes 10 and 70 the less I can remember.

[FKAS]

I’m talking about the half-hearted attacking threat from the first receiver pod then giving it to Smith out the back every time - making it easy for the SA defence to pincer in on him.

Standing deeper won’t really be much of a solution if there’s nothing to hold the defence closer in. I’ve got faith we can mix it up a fair bit more though.

It's the same move we've run forever. Ford got hammered in the 6N because he had no runners outside him and little threat inside him so was just blitzed every time.

Smith does have at least a bit more with Steward and Manu. If we can drop Slade and have two actual wingers so that there's a wide pass option for Smith as well that'll help.

Well sure that would be nice, but Eddie knows best. Like I said I need to rewatch it but felt like the problems were more inside Smith than outside.

Our 1 attacking move just looked a bit less threatening than usual on Saturday and can see it really being exploited by SA if we don’t step it up. Whether it’s the lack of forward runners (minus Vunipolas) or it just being impossible for anyone to time a run when Youngs is playing 9 it’s hard to say.

The one attacking move rarely works because we've been doing it for years and most teams know it's coming. The advantage of having Smith is having someone who likes to play on the line, just occasionally give him a couple of runners and let him do his thing.