Borthwick’s England 2.0

[Veyqun]

As a shorthand, I work on our gameplan as being South Africa plus. The plus referring both to the reality we can't out South Africa South Africa (or France), and so we need to add some plus (eg creativity) to beat them. The South Africa bit is basically saying we want to be super physical as a start point.

If so, I think the plan could be sort of a realisation of Eddie Jones' 'fish and chips' rugby (a brand of rugby with an English identity), but with a vaguely credible (for now at least) plan behind it.

Is that a reasonable way of framing what SB 2.0 is all about?

[FKAS]

As a shorthand, I work on our gameplan as being South Africa plus.

Borthwick is a student of the game. He backs his kicking and set piece work but he saw last year the impact of the South African defence and the Irish attack so he's going about taking those tweaking them and implementing them into his framework. It's a bold evolution and if a certain attack coach who's coming out of contract in the summer joins England it will further reinforce this is the plan going forward.

[Banquo]

The glaring work on area for me is the defence following a turnover of the ball. Obviously you're not going to be properly set when something like last night's weird line-out disaster happen, but there needs to be much better collective decision making on how we respond to that sort of situation, rather than some of the u8s level chaos we've seen more than once over the last few weeks.

yes, you put it better than me- we need to change mode a bit when play becomes unstructured, esp against a side like France.

True but there is a reason there's a saying that goes "the best attacking ball is turnover ball". Invariably you have to scramble a bit, especially against a side as fleet footed as France. We did that fairly well.

I'd not blame Dan too much for the try that came from the overthrown lineout, as mentioned by some earlier. Ramos is incredibly fortunate that his slices hack at the ball bounces so incredibly kindly for France to run onto.

Timbo, having Dupont in the side is a cheat code for rugby. He's enough to give any side an extra 10%. What France have gained from this tournament is a viable alternative to Dupont later in the game when he's tiring, Le Garrec can come on and add tempo. We've often seen France move Dupont to 10 because he's not got the legs to keep playing at 9 but they need his attacking brain on their to set the tempo. Perhaps they don't have to flog him in the same way now. Somewhat worrying is thar Janeau down at Clermont is coming through and he's a similar player to those two as well. Incredible depth for France in a year or two.

yes, but staying level headed in defence is important, even post turnover, and the approach that works well 90% of the time off more structured play (insane line speed) may need modding when there's no line

Something was badly awry at that lineout, I wasn't blaming him tbh, but asking what went wrong. Our lineout has only malfunctioned a couple of times a game, but at big moments (two tries in that game came directly from lineout error)...sleepy badger will be pretty grumpy I'd think.

[Puja]

yes, you put it better than me- we need to change mode a bit when play becomes unstructured, esp against a side like France.

True but there is a reason there's a saying that goes "the best attacking ball is turnover ball". Invariably you have to scramble a bit, especially against a side as fleet footed as France. We did that fairly well.

I'd not blame Dan too much for the try that came from the overthrown lineout, as mentioned by some earlier. Ramos is incredibly fortunate that his slices hack at the ball bounces so incredibly kindly for France to run onto.

Timbo, having Dupont in the side is a cheat code for rugby. He's enough to give any side an extra 10%. What France have gained from this tournament is a viable alternative to Dupont later in the game when he's tiring, Le Garrec can come on and add tempo. We've often seen France move Dupont to 10 because he's not got the legs to keep playing at 9 but they need his attacking brain on their to set the tempo. Perhaps they don't have to flog him in the same way now. Somewhat worrying is thar Janeau down at Clermont is coming through and he's a similar player to those two as well. Incredible depth for France in a year or two.

yes, but staying level headed in defence is important, even post turnover, and the approach that works well 90% of the time off more structured play (insane line speed) may need modding when there's no line

Something was badly awry at that lineout, I wasn't blaming him tbh, but asking what went wrong. Our lineout has only malfunctioned a couple of times a game, but at big moments (two tries in that game came directly from lineout error)...sleepy badger will be pretty grumpy I'd think.

I am going to look at it in depth in the m-b-m, but the stolen lineout is a bad choice of call - we think we've cowed the French into giving up the front by going to the back several times and are seeking poor quality, but guaranteed ball, and we've drastically misread the situation, cause France are sitting waiting for us. That wasn't an execution fail - we did everything technically correct - but a tactical one.

Anyone know who was calling the lineout yesterday? Was it Maro?

Puja

[Banquo]

True but there is a reason there's a saying that goes "the best attacking ball is turnover ball". Invariably you have to scramble a bit, especially against a side as fleet footed as France. We did that fairly well.

I'd not blame Dan too much for the try that came from the overthrown lineout, as mentioned by some earlier. Ramos is incredibly fortunate that his slices hack at the ball bounces so incredibly kindly for France to run onto.

Timbo, having Dupont in the side is a cheat code for rugby. He's enough to give any side an extra 10%. What France have gained from this tournament is a viable alternative to Dupont later in the game when he's tiring, Le Garrec can come on and add tempo. We've often seen France move Dupont to 10 because he's not got the legs to keep playing at 9 but they need his attacking brain on their to set the tempo. Perhaps they don't have to flog him in the same way now. Somewhat worrying is thar Janeau down at Clermont is coming through and he's a similar player to those two as well. Incredible depth for France in a year or two.

yes, but staying level headed in defence is important, even post turnover, and the approach that works well 90% of the time off more structured play (insane line speed) may need modding when there's no line

Something was badly awry at that lineout, I wasn't blaming him tbh, but asking what went wrong. Our lineout has only malfunctioned a couple of times a game, but at big moments (two tries in that game came directly from lineout error)...sleepy badger will be pretty grumpy I'd think.

I am going to look at it in depth in the m-b-m, but the stolen lineout is a bad choice of call - we think we've cowed the French into giving up the front by going to the back several times and are seeking poor quality, but guaranteed ball, and we've drastically misread the situation, cause France are sitting waiting for us. That wasn't an execution fail - we did everything technically correct - but a tactical one.

Anyone know who was calling the lineout yesterday? Was it Maro?

Puja

They said Maro on the commentary.

Incidentally, and separately, we have been pretty successful on running good moves off 2 ball, which is something to think about....

[Epaminondas Pules]

Multiple options actually looking like options is a stark difference from our perspective. And then adding in subtlety. Small steps but good steps.

[Spiffy]

yes, you put it better than me- we need to change mode a bit when play becomes unstructured, esp against a side like France.

True but there is a reason there's a saying that goes "the best attacking ball is turnover ball". Invariably you have to scramble a bit, especially against a side as fleet footed as France. We did that fairly well.

I'd not blame Dan too much for the try that came from the overthrown lineout, as mentioned by some earlier. Ramos is incredibly fortunate that his slices hack at the ball bounces so incredibly kindly for France to run onto.

Timbo, having Dupont in the side is a cheat code for rugby. He's enough to give any side an extra 10%. What France have gained from this tournament is a viable alternative to Dupont later in the game when he's tiring, Le Garrec can come on and add tempo. We've often seen France move Dupont to 10 because he's not got the legs to keep playing at 9 but they need his attacking brain on their to set the tempo. Perhaps they don't have to flog him in the same way now. Somewhat worrying is thar Janeau down at Clermont is coming through and he's a similar player to those two as well. Incredible depth for France in a year or two.

yes, but staying level headed in defence is important, even post turnover, and the approach that works well 90% of the time off more structured play (insane line speed) may need modding when there's no line

Something was badly awry at that lineout, I wasn't blaming him tbh, but asking what went wrong. Our lineout has only malfunctioned a couple of times a game, but at big moments (two tries in that game came directly from lineout error)...sleepy badger will be pretty grumpy I'd think.

Trying hard to avoid posting the joke about level headed Englishmen and just about managing to hold off .....

[Which Tyler]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/ ... h-rugby-on

The turning point for this campaign – maybe for Borthwick’s tenure, too – came in the aftermath of the error strewn defeat by Scotland. The squad promised “unbelievably honest” conversations when they gathered in York for the second fallow week and it is understood that some senior players, even some of Borthwick’s staff, challenged him to allow more time to be spent working on attack in training. You could see the absence of it in the clunkiness at Murrayfield, the handling errors, the unfamiliarity and the lack of cohesion in what England were doing.

The focus up to that point had been to drill into the players Felix Jones’s new defensive system but for the two-week buildup to facing Ireland the attack was polished and the results were evident at Twickenham. Against France, having withstood a first-half onslaught, it was similarly electric as they fought back from 16-3 down.

“Our mindset since Scotland has been to really go at teams with ball in hand,” the fly‑half George Ford said. “Be a threat, ask questions, fire shots, be that attacking team, be on the front foot a lot more. I think you’ve seen that the last two weeks. We had to front up after that [Scotland] game. We had to make a choice. It was off the back of that game when we had to have a few honest conversations about things and decide what team we want to be.”

[Puja]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/ ... h-rugby-on

The turning point for this campaign – maybe for Borthwick’s tenure, too – came in the aftermath of the error strewn defeat by Scotland. The squad promised “unbelievably honest” conversations when they gathered in York for the second fallow week and it is understood that some senior players, even some of Borthwick’s staff, challenged him to allow more time to be spent working on attack in training. You could see the absence of it in the clunkiness at Murrayfield, the handling errors, the unfamiliarity and the lack of cohesion in what England were doing.

The focus up to that point had been to drill into the players Felix Jones’s new defensive system but for the two-week buildup to facing Ireland the attack was polished and the results were evident at Twickenham. Against France, having withstood a first-half onslaught, it was similarly electric as they fought back from 16-3 down.

“Our mindset since Scotland has been to really go at teams with ball in hand,” the fly‑half George Ford said. “Be a threat, ask questions, fire shots, be that attacking team, be on the front foot a lot more. I think you’ve seen that the last two weeks. We had to front up after that [Scotland] game. We had to make a choice. It was off the back of that game when we had to have a few honest conversations about things and decide what team we want to be.”

Decent sign to me. Strictly Ballroom has a history of building teams one facet at a time and it did seem like this 6N was initially going to be dedicated solely to getting the defence right, but it's good to see that he wasn't dogmatic about it and was willing and able to change tack based on the situation and what the squad wanted.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

Yep, that's why I was wanting to highlight that package - shows him to be much more adaptable, and willing to listen, than many (including myself) had thought, given his run through the RWC.

[Crash Hamster]

"Bunch of players who have been selected because they're good ball in hand turn out to be good ball in hand" shocker. It's amazing that it's taken injuries, retirements, a player revolt and many, many games of turgid depressing rugby to make Bostik realise this.I said elsewhere that Sniff Brokenose had been tied up, gagged and stored in the luggage compartment of the team coach for the France game, and it turns out I wasn't too far wrong.

Is it adaptability or stubbornness to the end, finally conceding with a petulant 'OK, have it your way'? Hard to say, of course, but I'm less charitable than some, obviously

I wonder when was the last time England backs scored four tries against Tier 1 opposition? Good tries too, the sort of thing which would have lead commentators to say things like 'You just can't live with this sort of French flair!' had we been on the receiving end of them. Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth; standing back under the posts while Ford lines up another conversion is a reasonable way of demoralising an opposing side.

Almost everyone on every rugby social medium which I read, has been saying consistently that England need to play attacking rugby; that's the skillset of the players we have available. It's disappointing it's taken this long to filter through.

Ironically, it was the two lost lineouts (and what looked to me like a blatant deliberate knock on/yellow card/penalty try) which cost us the game; the sort of thing it's easy to practice and SB's speciality.

[16th man]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/ ... h-rugby-on

The turning point for this campaign – maybe for Borthwick’s tenure, too – came in the aftermath of the error strewn defeat by Scotland. The squad promised “unbelievably honest” conversations when they gathered in York for the second fallow week and it is understood that some senior players, even some of Borthwick’s staff, challenged him to allow more time to be spent working on attack in training. You could see the absence of it in the clunkiness at Murrayfield, the handling errors, the unfamiliarity and the lack of cohesion in what England were doing.

The focus up to that point had been to drill into the players Felix Jones’s new defensive system but for the two-week buildup to facing Ireland the attack was polished and the results were evident at Twickenham. Against France, having withstood a first-half onslaught, it was similarly electric as they fought back from 16-3 down.

“Our mindset since Scotland has been to really go at teams with ball in hand,” the fly‑half George Ford said. “Be a threat, ask questions, fire shots, be that attacking team, be on the front foot a lot more. I think you’ve seen that the last two weeks. We had to front up after that [Scotland] game. We had to make a choice. It was off the back of that game when we had to have a few honest conversations about things and decide what team we want to be.”

Decent sign to me. Strictly Ballroom has a history of building teams one facet at a time and it did seem like this 6N was initially going to be dedicated solely to getting the defence right, but it's good to see that he wasn't dogmatic about it and was willing and able to change tack based on the situation and what the squad wanted.

Puja

Stilted Butterfingers must have been able to see the writing on the wall had we replicated the Scotland shambles in the last two games. There's a question of whether it should have taken players and coaches to ask that we try to put together some sort of attacking competence. Especially given our defence is not handling turnover ball well, so a few hours spent trying to avoid face pass ricochets setting up opposition counter attacks was an obvious route to take.

[Puja]

"Bunch of players who have been selected because they're good ball in hand turn out to be good ball in hand" shocker. It's amazing that it's taken injuries, retirements, a player revolt and many, many games of turgid depressing rugby to make Bostik realise this.I said elsewhere that Sniff Brokenose had been tied up, gagged and stored in the luggage compartment of the team coach for the France game, and it turns out I wasn't too far wrong.

Is it adaptability or stubbornness to the end, finally conceding with a petulant 'OK, have it your way'? Hard to say, of course, but I'm less charitable than some, obviously

I wonder when was the last time England backs scored four tries against Tier 1 opposition? Good tries too, the sort of thing which would have lead commentators to say things like 'You just can't live with this sort of French flair!' had we been on the receiving end of them. Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth; standing back under the posts while Ford lines up another conversion is a reasonable way of demoralising an opposing side.

Almost everyone on every rugby social medium which I read, has been saying consistently that England need to play attacking rugby; that's the skillset of the players we have available. It's disappointing it's taken this long to filter through.

Ironically, it was the two lost lineouts (and what looked to me like a blatant deliberate knock on/yellow card/penalty try) which cost us the game; the sort of thing it's easy to practice and SB's speciality.

All very well to say "England need to play attacking rugby" but, without the basics of the strong set piece and the blitz defence, we don't beat Ireland and we certainly come nowhere near France away. You talk about attack like it's something that we've just decided against doing cause we don't feel like it, rather than there only being so much time in a training week and focussing on one thing will be to the detriment of another.

Puja

[p/d]

Hmm, is that really what happened? Not sure I fully get that from Ford's comments.

The honest conversations was a given after the Scotland game, and that 'decide what team we want to be' would be a pretty standard comment in light of what they were trying but executing so poorly. I don't believe for a moment the back line selected for the Scotland game was with defence in mind.

Over the moon we scored 4 tries v Frame but we still lost and our missed tackles/turnovers conceded was shockingly high.

[Crash Hamster]

"Bunch of players who have been selected because they're good ball in hand turn out to be good ball in hand" shocker. It's amazing that it's taken injuries, retirements, a player revolt and many, many games of turgid depressing rugby to make Bostik realise this.I said elsewhere that Sniff Brokenose had been tied up, gagged and stored in the luggage compartment of the team coach for the France game, and it turns out I wasn't too far wrong.

Is it adaptability or stubbornness to the end, finally conceding with a petulant 'OK, have it your way'? Hard to say, of course, but I'm less charitable than some, obviously

I wonder when was the last time England backs scored four tries against Tier 1 opposition? Good tries too, the sort of thing which would have lead commentators to say things like 'You just can't live with this sort of French flair!' had we been on the receiving end of them. Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth; standing back under the posts while Ford lines up another conversion is a reasonable way of demoralising an opposing side.

Almost everyone on every rugby social medium which I read, has been saying consistently that England need to play attacking rugby; that's the skillset of the players we have available. It's disappointing it's taken this long to filter through.

Ironically, it was the two lost lineouts (and what looked to me like a blatant deliberate knock on/yellow card/penalty try) which cost us the game; the sort of thing it's easy to practice and SB's speciality.

All very well to say "England need to play attacking rugby" but, without the basics of the strong set piece and the blitz defence, we don't beat Ireland and we certainly come nowhere near France away. You talk about attack like it's something that we've just decided against doing cause we don't feel like it, rather than there only being so much time in a training week and focussing on one thing will be to the detriment of another.

Puja

Borthwick was the England forwards coach for four years and has been the head coach since the end of 2022. He's been responsible for the strong set piece, in one way or another, for over 5 years. Thus in the same vein, you talk about a strong set piece like it's something we previously just decided against doing 'cause we don't feel like it. Borthwick has had two 6Ns, some AIs, World Cup warm-ups and the World Cup, all with associated training camps. The blitz defence hasn't been tried until F. Jones was recruited. Why not? There has been plenty of time to organise and manage this.

Borthwick has ended up with two of his best performers by chance. Mitchell wasn't in the WC squad and Earl ended up as England's number 8 in a Vunipola-sized accident. JvP was a lively, swift, sniping 9 at Leicester, but seems to have been forced to slow down at international level. Turns out that a scrum half getting the ball away quickly is a huge asset. No-one who has ever watched rugby was surprised.

One more converted try per game would have seen five more wins for Borthwick. Yes, that's simplistic, but how many m-b-ms have you done with KADABs in them?

It just strikes me that he's been out of his depth; I don't think it's to do with the quality of players.

[FKAS]

"Bunch of players who have been selected because they're good ball in hand turn out to be good ball in hand" shocker. It's amazing that it's taken injuries, retirements, a player revolt and many, many games of turgid depressing rugby to make Bostik realise this.I said elsewhere that Sniff Brokenose had been tied up, gagged and stored in the luggage compartment of the team coach for the France game, and it turns out I wasn't too far wrong.

Is it adaptability or stubbornness to the end, finally conceding with a petulant 'OK, have it your way'? Hard to say, of course, but I'm less charitable than some, obviously

I wonder when was the last time England backs scored four tries against Tier 1 opposition? Good tries too, the sort of thing which would have lead commentators to say things like 'You just can't live with this sort of French flair!' had we been on the receiving end of them. Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth; standing back under the posts while Ford lines up another conversion is a reasonable way of demoralising an opposing side.

Almost everyone on every rugby social medium which I read, has been saying consistently that England need to play attacking rugby; that's the skillset of the players we have available. It's disappointing it's taken this long to filter through.

Ironically, it was the two lost lineouts (and what looked to me like a blatant deliberate knock on/yellow card/penalty try) which cost us the game; the sort of thing it's easy to practice and SB's speciality.

All very well to say "England need to play attacking rugby" but, without the basics of the strong set piece and the blitz defence, we don't beat Ireland and we certainly come nowhere near France away. You talk about attack like it's something that we've just decided against doing cause we don't feel like it, rather than there only being so much time in a training week and focussing on one thing will be to the detriment of another.

Puja

Borthwick was the England forwards coach for four years and has been the head coach since the end of 2022. He's been responsible for the strong set piece, in one way or another, for over 5 years. Thus in the same vein, you talk about a strong set piece like it's something we previously just decided against doing 'cause we don't feel like it. Borthwick has had two 6Ns, some AIs, World Cup warm-ups and the World Cup, all with associated training camps. The blitz defence hasn't been tried until F. Jones was recruited. Why not? There has been plenty of time to organise and manage this.

Borthwick has ended up with two of his best performers by chance. Mitchell wasn't in the WC squad and Earl ended up as England's number 8 in a Vunipola-sized accident. JvP was a lively, swift, sniping 9 at Leicester, but seems to have been forced to slow down at international level. Turns out that a scrum half getting the ball away quickly is a huge asset. No-one who has ever watched rugby was surprised.

One more converted try per game would have seen five more wins for Borthwick. Yes, that's simplistic, but how many m-b-ms have you done with KADABs in them?

It just strikes me that he's been out of his depth; I don't think it's to do with the quality of players.

Almost like Borthwick hired a specialist ruck coach to ensure that breakdown speed was a priority and that this was the focus of the attack for the start of the 6N...

Each time Borthwick has got hold of the squad they've ended up better than the time before. He inherited a defence that didn't do much, a bat shit crazy half implemented attack, neglected set piece game and a over reliance on kicking long for territory. Now the change around has not been particularly quick given it's been a year but Borthwick wasn't a planned introduction so his backroom staff wasn't first choice options it was who was available. Now we're starting to see things slot into place.

South Africa allowed themselves 18 games to fully bed in their defence. Farrell took over Ireland in 2019 and had a good base to work from but Ireland finished third in successive 6N after he took over.

Coaches don't just rock up wave a magic wand and the whole game plan falls into place immediately.

[Banquo]

Yep, that's why I was wanting to highlight that package - shows him to be much more adaptable, and willing to listen, than many (including myself) had thought, given his run through the RWC.

Yes, that's also been the feedback from camp. He had been resistant for example to picking the Saints backsm inc Mitchell....but switched 360 on that.

[Banquo]

Hmm, is that really what happened? Not sure I fully get that from Ford's comments.

The honest conversations was a given after the Scotland game, and that 'decide what team we want to be' would be a pretty standard comment in light of what they were trying but executing so poorly. I don't believe for a moment the back line selected for the Scotland game was with defence in mind.

Over the moon we scored 4 tries v Frame but we still lost and our missed tackles/turnovers conceded was shockingly high.

well yes....

[Banquo]

"Bunch of players who have been selected because they're good ball in hand turn out to be good ball in hand" shocker. It's amazing that it's taken injuries, retirements, a player revolt and many, many games of turgid depressing rugby to make Bostik realise this.I said elsewhere that Sniff Brokenose had been tied up, gagged and stored in the luggage compartment of the team coach for the France game, and it turns out I wasn't too far wrong.

Is it adaptability or stubbornness to the end, finally conceding with a petulant 'OK, have it your way'? Hard to say, of course, but I'm less charitable than some, obviously

I wonder when was the last time England backs scored four tries against Tier 1 opposition? Good tries too, the sort of thing which would have lead commentators to say things like 'You just can't live with this sort of French flair!' had we been on the receiving end of them. Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth; standing back under the posts while Ford lines up another conversion is a reasonable way of demoralising an opposing side.

Almost everyone on every rugby social medium which I read, has been saying consistently that England need to play attacking rugby; that's the skillset of the players we have available. It's disappointing it's taken this long to filter through.

Ironically, it was the two lost lineouts (and what looked to me like a blatant deliberate knock on/yellow card/penalty try) which cost us the game; the sort of thing it's easy to practice and SB's speciality.

All very well to say "England need to play attacking rugby" but, without the basics of the strong set piece and the blitz defence, we don't beat Ireland and we certainly come nowhere near France away. You talk about attack like it's something that we've just decided against doing cause we don't feel like it, rather than there only being so much time in a training week and focussing on one thing will be to the detriment of another.

Puja

It just strikes me that he's been out of his depth; I don't think it's to do with the quality of players.

I thought it was both, and I remain to be convinced by the latter.....though it has helped picking players with good all round skill sets in the backs (rather than the likes of....Faz ). Our handling and decision making skills still have plenty of development scope.

[Spiffy]

All very well to say "England need to play attacking rugby" but, without the basics of the strong set piece and the blitz defence, we don't beat Ireland and we certainly come nowhere near France away. You talk about attack like it's something that we've just decided against doing cause we don't feel like it, rather than there only being so much time in a training week and focussing on one thing will be to the detriment of another.

Puja

It just strikes me that he's been out of his depth; I don't think it's to do with the quality of players.

I thought it was both, and I remain to be convinced by the latter.....though it has helped picking players with good all round skill sets in the backs (rather than the likes of....Faz ). Our handling and decision making skills still have plenty of development scope.

I think that Slade has done well enough in the past few games, when not a lot was expected of him. Still, he is a bit of a safe option. England could really use a dynamic and pacy 13 if they really want to stick with the new concept of running and passing. Someone like, say Huw Jones, could transform that midfield, but I can't think of an English counterpart off the top of my head. Freeman may still be a future option with his combination of speed, size and strength.

[Mellsblue]

Joseph Jnr would be my top tip for the 13 jersey.

[Oakboy]

So, Lawrence CAN be effective at 12 then??

[p/d]

So, Lawrence CAN be effective at 12 then??

Hush now Dors.

[Banquo]

So, Lawrence CAN be effective at 12 then??

mostly effective wider , and he wont enjoy the defensive review....

[FKAS]

So, Lawrence CAN be effective at 12 then??

mostly effective wider , and he wont enjoy the defensive review....

Yeah, he will have enjoyed the adulation post the Ireland game. Guessing there won't be as much this time round in terms of defence.