SF v SA

[Oakboy]

To summarise: there was a point in it, we could have won but we lost.

[Banquo]

To summarise: there was a point in it, we could have won but we lost.

or, had we got crucial moments in our control right, having been pretty much spot on for 65 minutes, a win was there for the taking. Important to take notice if you want to improve.

[Epaminondas Pules]

To summarise: there was a point in it, we could have won but we lost.

or, had we got crucial moments in our control right, having been pretty much spot on for 65 minutes, a win was there for the taking. Important to take notice if you want to improve.

This! It was absolutely controllable. The not straight under no competing pressure a prime example. It just let them off the hook. And it was errors from players who had played at this level of pressure before who set a poor tone with their mistakes. George and Billy V notably. Yes there were other mistakes and errors, and the odd kick will go straight out or short.

[Banquo]

To summarise: there was a point in it, we could have won but we lost.

or, had we got crucial moments in our control right, having been pretty much spot on for 65 minutes, a win was there for the taking. Important to take notice if you want to improve.

This! It was absolutely controllable. The not straight under no competing pressure a prime example. It just let them off the hook. And it was errors from players who had played at this level of pressure before who set a poor tone with their mistakes. George and Billy V notably. Yes there were other mistakes and errors, and the odd kick will go straight out or short.

Plus sticking with contestable kicks? no- in those conditions, at 15-6 up, ask them the question....can you run it back for a try, or do we just play kick tennis? (in fairness to Faz, and although I hate the grubbers in their 22, he did show the way a couple of times....and then forgot)

[Mikey Brown]

I take your point, but given George’s contribution to England and us flogging him so thoroughly I find it hard to criticise that missed line-out too much.

You pretty much need to be 10 points better than your opposition to take those moments of chance or 50/50 refereeing calls out of the equation. We had the opportunity to dominate the scoreboard much earlier in the game and were too conservative to make the most of it.

Thinking we’d continue with that momentum and intensity for the full 80 (especially having watched the SA/France game) was a bit naive. Though maybe that was the limit of this group given how we’ve been playing in the run up to this game.

[Epaminondas Pules]

I take your point, but given George’s contribution to England and us flogging him so thoroughly I find it hard to criticise that missed line-out too much.

You pretty much need to be 10 points better than your opposition to take those moments of chance or 50/50 refereeing calls out of the equation. We had the opportunity to dominate the scoreboard much earlier in the game and were too conservative to make the most of it.

Thinking we’d continue with that momentum and intensity for the full 80 (especially having watched the SA/France game) was a bit naive. Though maybe that was the limit of this group given how we’ve been playing in the run up to this game.

Well, there was that one and the total mishap on the next one too a few moments later. Error on error.

And don't disagree at all on the rest.

[Epaminondas Pules]

or, had we got crucial moments in our control right, having been pretty much spot on for 65 minutes, a win was there for the taking. Important to take notice if you want to improve.

This! It was absolutely controllable. The not straight under no competing pressure a prime example. It just let them off the hook. And it was errors from players who had played at this level of pressure before who set a poor tone with their mistakes. George and Billy V notably. Yes there were other mistakes and errors, and the odd kick will go straight out or short.

Plus sticking with contestable kicks? no- in those conditions, at 15-6 up, ask them the question....can you run it back for a try, or do we just play kick tennis? (in fairness to Faz, and although I hate the grubbers in their 22, he did show the way a couple of times....and then forgot)

Mind that is expecting them to be able to change tactics mid game. Baby steps mate

[Banquo]

I take your point, but given George’s contribution to England and us flogging him so thoroughly I find it hard to criticise that missed line-out too much.

You pretty much need to be 10 points better than your opposition to take those moments of chance or 50/50 refereeing calls out of the equation. We had the opportunity to dominate the scoreboard much earlier in the game and were too conservative to make the most of it.

Thinking we’d continue with that momentum and intensity for the full 80 (especially having watched the SA/France game) was a bit naive. Though maybe that was the limit of this group given how we’ve been playing in the run up to this game.

The point is not about criticising individuals in the round for me....its about seizing the critical moments and there are tactical and technical points in there. And that also applies to your point about earlier opportunities.

(We were 9 points up all we needed was to convert one of those three chances in their 22 into 3 points; then, having ceded momentum through the scrums....kick long and slow the game down. One of England's biggest failings over the last 'n' years has been an inability to halt momentum- that requires some thought)

[Banquo]

This! It was absolutely controllable. The not straight under no competing pressure a prime example. It just let them off the hook. And it was errors from players who had played at this level of pressure before who set a poor tone with their mistakes. George and Billy V notably. Yes there were other mistakes and errors, and the odd kick will go straight out or short.

Plus sticking with contestable kicks? no- in those conditions, at 15-6 up, ask them the question....can you run it back for a try, or do we just play kick tennis? (in fairness to Faz, and although I hate the grubbers in their 22, he did show the way a couple of times....and then forgot)

Mind that is expecting them to be able to change tactics mid game. Baby steps mate

It is comical isn't it?

[Mellsblue]

Plus sticking with contestable kicks? no- in those conditions, at 15-6 up, ask them the question....can you run it back for a try, or do we just play kick tennis? (in fairness to Faz, and although I hate the grubbers in their 22, he did show the way a couple of times....and then forgot)

Mind that is expecting them to be able to change tactics mid game. Baby steps mate

It is comical isn't it?

As if Farrell wasn’t putting through those grubbers if it where bright sunshine and 22degreesC, as alluded to.

[Mellsblue]

I take your point, but given George’s contribution to England and us flogging him so thoroughly I find it hard to criticise that missed line-out too much.

You pretty much need to be 10 points better than your opposition to take those moments of chance or 50/50 refereeing calls out of the equation. We had the opportunity to dominate the scoreboard much earlier in the game and were too conservative to make the most of it.

Thinking we’d continue with that momentum and intensity for the full 80 (especially having watched the SA/France game) was a bit naive. Though maybe that was the limit of this group given how we’ve been playing in the run up to this game.

The point is not about criticising individuals in the round for me....its about seizing the critical moments and there are tactical and technical points in there. And that also applies to your point about earlier opportunities.

(We were 9 points up all we needed was to convert one of those three chances in their 22 into 3 points; then, having ceded momentum through the scrums....kick long and slow the game down. One of England's biggest failings over the last 'n' years has been an inability to halt momentum- that requires some thought)

Read that piece and thought the bit about changing kicking tactics once our scrum became a clear second best was pretty incisive.

[Oakboy]

Does Farrell's selection, by definition, not mean that SB requires nothing off-script? We've done it to death but can our criticism, no matter how constructive in intent, include on-field tactical changes? It will never happen with Farrell (without water break messages every 5 minutes). What bothers me is that SB might like/want it that way.

[Banquo]

Does Farrell's selection, by definition, not mean that SB requires nothing off-script? We've done it to death but can our criticism, no matter how constructive in intent, include on-field tactical changes? It will never happen with Farrell (without water break messages every 5 minutes). What bothers me is that SB might like/want it that way.

when Scrotum Blaster looks in the mirror and imagines himself as a back, he'd see Farrell.

[Oakboy]

Does Farrell's selection, by definition, not mean that SB requires nothing off-script? We've done it to death but can our criticism, no matter how constructive in intent, include on-field tactical changes? It will never happen with Farrell (without water break messages every 5 minutes). What bothers me is that SB might like/want it that way.

when Scrotum Blaster looks in the mirror and imagines himself as a back, he'd see Farrell.

I wonder if the opposite is true.

[Banquo]

Does Farrell's selection, by definition, not mean that SB requires nothing off-script? We've done it to death but can our criticism, no matter how constructive in intent, include on-field tactical changes? It will never happen with Farrell (without water break messages every 5 minutes). What bothers me is that SB might like/want it that way.

when Scrotum Blaster looks in the mirror and imagines himself as a back, he'd see Farrell.

I wonder if the opposite is true.

Both mediocre internationals, both poor captains. But I'd think Farrell sees himself when imagining himself as a forward. Or Bakkies Botha.

[Oakboy]

when Scrotum Blaster looks in the mirror and imagines himself as a back, he'd see Farrell.

I wonder if the opposite is true.

Both mediocre internationals, both poor captains. But I'd think Farrell sees himself when imagining himself as a forward. Or Bakkies Botha.

I was trying to think of the name of that Scottish forward who used to take the place kicks. OF would insist on keeping the tee.

[Banquo]

I wonder if the opposite is true.

Both mediocre internationals, both poor captains. But I'd think Farrell sees himself when imagining himself as a forward. Or Bakkies Botha.

I was trying to think of the name of that Scottish forward who used to take the place kicks. OF would insist on keeping the tee.

Peter Brown

[Oakboy]

Both mediocre internationals, both poor captains. But I'd think Farrell sees himself when imagining himself as a forward. Or Bakkies Botha.

I was trying to think of the name of that Scottish forward who used to take the place kicks. OF would insist on keeping the tee.

Peter Brown

That's the feller.

[Mellsblue]

when Scrotum Blaster looks in the mirror and imagines himself as a back, he'd see Farrell.

I wonder if the opposite is true.

Both mediocre internationals, both poor captains. But I'd think Farrell sees himself when imagining himself as a forward. Or Bakkies Botha.

Given the way he plays, I think he already sees himself as a forward.

[Banquo]

I wonder if the opposite is true.

Both mediocre internationals, both poor captains. But I'd think Farrell sees himself when imagining himself as a forward. Or Bakkies Botha.

Given the way he plays, I think he already sees himself as a forward.

well he does have the hands of Jamie George and the feet of Jonny Hill

[Epaminondas Pules]

Does Farrell's selection, by definition, not mean that SB requires nothing off-script? We've done it to death but can our criticism, no matter how constructive in intent, include on-field tactical changes? It will never happen with Farrell (without water break messages every 5 minutes). What bothers me is that SB might like/want it that way.

That was exactly Eddie Jones’ way. Script, script, script! Deviate means dropped! That’s part of the current Stockholm syndrome we’ve got.

[Mellsblue]

Does Farrell's selection, by definition, not mean that SB requires nothing off-script? We've done it to death but can our criticism, no matter how constructive in intent, include on-field tactical changes? It will never happen with Farrell (without water break messages every 5 minutes). What bothers me is that SB might like/want it that way.

That was exactly Eddie Jones’ way. Script, script, script! Deviate means dropped! That’s part of the current Stockholm syndrome we’ve got.

I can’t imagine Soiled Bananahammock is much better.

[Oakboy]

Does Farrell's selection, by definition, not mean that SB requires nothing off-script? We've done it to death but can our criticism, no matter how constructive in intent, include on-field tactical changes? It will never happen with Farrell (without water break messages every 5 minutes). What bothers me is that SB might like/want it that way.

That was exactly Eddie Jones’ way. Script, script, script! Deviate means dropped! That’s part of the current Stockholm syndrome we’ve got.

I can’t imagine Soiled Bananahammock is much better.

If so, I can't see how he can get the best out of players. Maybe I'm being unrealistic to think players want to use their brains. I confess to not knowing any current international players personally.

[Banquo]

That was exactly Eddie Jones’ way. Script, script, script! Deviate means dropped! That’s part of the current Stockholm syndrome we’ve got.

I can’t imagine Soiled Bananahammock is much better.

If so, I can't see how he can get the best out of players. Maybe I'm being unrealistic to think players want to use their brains. I confess to not knowing any current international players personally.

I've said before, not sure its the brightest of bunches, but that's remote observation. Slightly Biased is a cautious man, and clearly only believes in incremental development, and until the lineout and maul is perfect don't expect to see much more!

[Puja]

That was exactly Eddie Jones’ way. Script, script, script! Deviate means dropped! That’s part of the current Stockholm syndrome we’ve got.

I can’t imagine Soiled Bananahammock is much better.

If so, I can't see how he can get the best out of players. Maybe I'm being unrealistic to think players want to use their brains. I confess to not knowing any current international players personally.

Depends on if that's his avowed approach forever, or if he was going cautious to get through the RWC unshamed and plans to implement a better approach going forwards. We'll see.

Puja