Borthwick’s England 2.0

[Spiffy]

I guess you mean Lawrence at 13 used to defending this system there, as he has played most of his rugby at 13 (81%, and of the 19% at 12, a huge chunk has been in this 6N!). Dingwall regularly performs that kind of distributor role for Saints btw.

Correct. 13 and wing looks absolutely nightmares to defend in this system.

Dingwall could possibly do it but not sure he has the pace to defend the 13 channel in tests? That said, the blitz means the 13’s job doesn’t appear to be to move laterally…

He's probably got similar pace to Slade +/- and is a very good defender at 13 for Saints (and well used to the mix and match between 12 and 13, as Hutchinson (say) isn't trusted in defence in some parts of the field).

Yes. Dingwall/Slade may have more or less equal pace, but in the grand scheme of things you could not call either fast. Good international teams can often get away with 13s who are not that pacy, but smart and good organizers (Conrad Smith; Jaque Fourie; Fickou), but fast 13s who are also skillful are a bit special (Gerber, Umaga, BOD). Speed and skill are not mutually exclusive but we seem to be seeing fewer, traditional fast outside centres now, maybe because much more emphasis is placed on defence over attack and the days of outside breaks are gone.

[Banquo]

Correct. 13 and wing looks absolutely nightmares to defend in this system.

Dingwall could possibly do it but not sure he has the pace to defend the 13 channel in tests? That said, the blitz means the 13’s job doesn’t appear to be to move laterally…

He's probably got similar pace to Slade +/- and is a very good defender at 13 for Saints (and well used to the mix and match between 12 and 13, as Hutchinson (say) isn't trusted in defence in some parts of the field).

Yes. Dingwall/Slade may have more or less equal pace, but in the grand scheme of things you could not call either fast. Good international teams can often get away with 13s who are not that pacy, but smart and good organizers (Conrad Smith; Jaque Fourie; Fickou), but fast 13s who are also skillful are a bit special (Gerber, Umaga, BOD). Speed and skill are not mutually exclusive but we seem to be seeing fewer, traditional fast outside centres now, maybe because much more emphasis is placed on defence over attack and the days of outside breaks are gone.

To be clear, I see Dingwall as (being able to do a good job at) a 12 at intl level, but has the ability to mix and match depending on field position and what you are trying to do. I wouldn't say either Fickou or Smith were short on gas either, both made/make their share of outside breaks.

[Banquo]

Not looked at this in detail, but superficially looks interesting

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68608759

[Oakboy]

Not looked at this in detail, but superficially looks interesting

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68608759

On first read two factors stood out for me:

1. Earl was as good statistically as he appeared to be visibly.


2. "Starting off with team stats and one of the best gauges of how clinical a team is in attack, points per entry into the opposition 22. Only a rejuvenated England made more forays (48) into the opposition 22 than champions Ireland (47).

Crucially, it was Andy Farrell's men who also averaged the most points per entry (2.9), making their time in the red zone count.

Conversely, England's rate of 2.1 points per entry was the lowest of any nation, suggesting they wasted opportunities."

Item 2 is the difference between defeat and victory in two cases, presumably. Why, though? Is it mainly inaccuracy, lack of ruthlessness or just a stuttering attack?

[Banquo]

Not looked at this in detail, but superficially looks interesting

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68608759

On first read two factors stood out for me:

1. Earl was as good statistically as he appeared to be visibly.


2. "Starting off with team stats and one of the best gauges of how clinical a team is in attack, points per entry into the opposition 22. Only a rejuvenated England made more forays (48) into the opposition 22 than champions Ireland (47).

Crucially, it was Andy Farrell's men who also averaged the most points per entry (2.9), making their time in the red zone count.

Conversely, England's rate of 2.1 points per entry was the lowest of any nation, suggesting they wasted opportunities."

Item 2 is the difference between defeat and victory in two cases, presumably. Why, though? Is it mainly inaccuracy, lack of ruthlessness or just a stuttering attack?

inaccuracy, clarity and panic

[Mikey Brown]

And not picking Arundell/Willis.

[FKAS]

Not looked at this in detail, but superficially looks interesting

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68608759

On first read two factors stood out for me:

1. Earl was as good statistically as he appeared to be visibly.


2. "Starting off with team stats and one of the best gauges of how clinical a team is in attack, points per entry into the opposition 22. Only a rejuvenated England made more forays (48) into the opposition 22 than champions Ireland (47).

Crucially, it was Andy Farrell's men who also averaged the most points per entry (2.9), making their time in the red zone count.

Conversely, England's rate of 2.1 points per entry was the lowest of any nation, suggesting they wasted opportunities."

Item 2 is the difference between defeat and victory in two cases, presumably. Why, though? Is it mainly inaccuracy, lack of ruthlessness or just a stuttering attack?

It would be interesting to see if the points per entry improved over the last two games. In the first three games we were incredibly wasteful, particularly Vs Scotland, in the opposition 22.

[Mikey Brown]

Not looked at this in detail, but superficially looks interesting

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68608759

On first read two factors stood out for me:

1. Earl was as good statistically as he appeared to be visibly.


2. "Starting off with team stats and one of the best gauges of how clinical a team is in attack, points per entry into the opposition 22. Only a rejuvenated England made more forays (48) into the opposition 22 than champions Ireland (47).

Crucially, it was Andy Farrell's men who also averaged the most points per entry (2.9), making their time in the red zone count.

Conversely, England's rate of 2.1 points per entry was the lowest of any nation, suggesting they wasted opportunities."

Item 2 is the difference between defeat and victory in two cases, presumably. Why, though? Is it mainly inaccuracy, lack of ruthlessness or just a stuttering attack?

It would be interesting to see if the points per entry improved over the last two games. In the first three games we were incredibly wasteful, particularly Vs Scotland, in the opposition 22.

I'd be sort of baffled if it hadn't, given that's an average. Although I can't really remember how much of the wasted attacking chances in the early games were actually in the 22.

[Puja]

On first read two factors stood out for me:

1. Earl was as good statistically as he appeared to be visibly.


2. "Starting off with team stats and one of the best gauges of how clinical a team is in attack, points per entry into the opposition 22. Only a rejuvenated England made more forays (48) into the opposition 22 than champions Ireland (47).

Crucially, it was Andy Farrell's men who also averaged the most points per entry (2.9), making their time in the red zone count.

Conversely, England's rate of 2.1 points per entry was the lowest of any nation, suggesting they wasted opportunities."

Item 2 is the difference between defeat and victory in two cases, presumably. Why, though? Is it mainly inaccuracy, lack of ruthlessness or just a stuttering attack?

It would be interesting to see if the points per entry improved over the last two games. In the first three games we were incredibly wasteful, particularly Vs Scotland, in the opposition 22.

I'd be sort of baffled if it hadn't, given that's an average. Although I can't really remember how much of the wasted attacking chances in the early games were actually in the 22.

Against Italy and Scotland, it was loads. I remember the stat coming up of how low our entries/points ratio was. Not sure on the Wales game.

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

It's hard to imagine it was much different. That Wales game was hideous.

On the topic of nonsense statistics I'd love to know what Borthwick's win stats might look like if both RWC and 6 nations hadn't had such a nice steady ramp-up from the poor teams to the better ones.

[Oakboy]

It's hard to imagine it was much different. That Wales game was hideous.

On the topic of nonsense statistics I'd love to know what Borthwick's win stats might look like if both RWC and 6 nations hadn't had such a nice steady ramp-up from the poor teams to the better ones.

I suppose we have to settle for slow improvement under Sluggish Beetle. At least there is a small 'moving average' improvement, arguably. It's not exactly a high bar but in the light of what went before him, it's some sort of progress.

[Mikey Brown]

I can't remember which thread is the true home of the never-ending 12 debate, but this seems relevant. I don't think it's been posted yet.

[Banquo]

surprised how low Slade is, even if he does play more of a second 10 in attack.

[Epaminondas Pules]

surprised how low Slade is, even if he does play more of a second 10 in attack.

It's a very skewed view really. Especially as (at club level) Lawence is being put into holes a lot more in the 13 channel, for example, and Slade (also in the 13 channel) is moving about the backline to distribute rather than carry. It is hard to look at some rudimentary carry stats in isolation.

[Banquo]

surprised how low Slade is, even if he does play more of a second 10 in attack.

It's a very skewed view really. Especially as (at club level) Lawence is being put into holes a lot more in the 13 channel, for example, and Slade (also in the 13 channel) is moving about the backline to distribute rather than carry. It is hard to look at some rudimentary carry stats in isolation.

true. I'll stop

[Timbo]

Not looked at this in detail, but superficially looks interesting

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68608759

On first read two factors stood out for me:

1. Earl was as good statistically as he appeared to be visibly.


2. "Starting off with team stats and one of the best gauges of how clinical a team is in attack, points per entry into the opposition 22. Only a rejuvenated England made more forays (48) into the opposition 22 than champions Ireland (47).

Crucially, it was Andy Farrell's men who also averaged the most points per entry (2.9), making their time in the red zone count.

Conversely, England's rate of 2.1 points per entry was the lowest of any nation, suggesting they wasted opportunities."

Item 2 is the difference between defeat and victory in two cases, presumably. Why, though? Is it mainly inaccuracy, lack of ruthlessness or just a stuttering attack?

It would be interesting to see if the points per entry improved over the last two games. In the first three games we were incredibly wasteful, particularly Vs Scotland, in the opposition 22.

I think against France we only had 6 22 entries for 4 try’s.

[FKAS]

On first read two factors stood out for me:

1. Earl was as good statistically as he appeared to be visibly.


2. "Starting off with team stats and one of the best gauges of how clinical a team is in attack, points per entry into the opposition 22. Only a rejuvenated England made more forays (48) into the opposition 22 than champions Ireland (47).

Crucially, it was Andy Farrell's men who also averaged the most points per entry (2.9), making their time in the red zone count.

Conversely, England's rate of 2.1 points per entry was the lowest of any nation, suggesting they wasted opportunities."

Item 2 is the difference between defeat and victory in two cases, presumably. Why, though? Is it mainly inaccuracy, lack of ruthlessness or just a stuttering attack?

It would be interesting to see if the points per entry improved over the last two games. In the first three games we were incredibly wasteful, particularly Vs Scotland, in the opposition 22.

I think against France we only had 6 22 entries for 4 try’s.

Which would stack with the vastly improved attack we saw in the last two games. I suspect the awful looking stat on face value is more down to the first two games where we ran a more limited attacking structure focusing on defence and speed of ruck and then Scotland where we brought more of the attack out to play but were cripplingly error strewn. Against Ireland and France where the game plan looked much more complete than stat you mention would be more expected.

[Banquo]

On first read two factors stood out for me:

1. Earl was as good statistically as he appeared to be visibly.


2. "Starting off with team stats and one of the best gauges of how clinical a team is in attack, points per entry into the opposition 22. Only a rejuvenated England made more forays (48) into the opposition 22 than champions Ireland (47).

Crucially, it was Andy Farrell's men who also averaged the most points per entry (2.9), making their time in the red zone count.

Conversely, England's rate of 2.1 points per entry was the lowest of any nation, suggesting they wasted opportunities."

Item 2 is the difference between defeat and victory in two cases, presumably. Why, though? Is it mainly inaccuracy, lack of ruthlessness or just a stuttering attack?

It would be interesting to see if the points per entry improved over the last two games. In the first three games we were incredibly wasteful, particularly Vs Scotland, in the opposition 22.

I think against France we only had 6 22 entries for 4 try’s.

That's a function of two tries where the bust was made further up the pitch and being efficient in converting. And that we didn't have much ball!

Just rewatched the 4th try- and it was superb, esp Freeman off the ball. He made a half break up the middle ish, and managed to be up and on the outside two phases later to finish with a late run round the corner....excellent team try,

[Banquo]

moderately interesting

[Spiffy]

moderately interesting

We are awash in stats now. Don't know if that info on total carries means much if it is not coupled with the actual metres made, total or average, with those carries. One team might gain significant ground from fewer carries, while another may plug away metre by metre. Still - I suppose those figures at least reflect a decision on how much to keep the ball in hand or boot it away.

[Banquo]

moderately interesting

We are awash in stats now. Don't know if that info on total carries means much if it is not coupled with the actual metres made, total or average, with those carries. One team might gain significant ground from fewer carries, while another may plug away metre by metre. Still - I suppose those figures at least reflect a decision on how much to keep the ball in hand or boot it away.

well that was the point....game plans.

[morepork]

Kilojoules burned celebrating a ruck or scrum penalty.

[Puja]

Andrew Strawbridge rejoins England on a permanent basis ahead of the summer tour! Excellent news!

“My brief stint with England at the front end of the Six Nations was a nourishing experience and I was impressed with the desire of the group to grow and compete,” Strawbridge said.

“I am immensely proud to be involved in the England coaching group and look forward to playing a part in helping the team achieve its goals.

“I really appreciate the opportunity Steve has afforded me to contribute.”

Puja

[FKAS]

Andrew Strawbridge rejoins England on a permanent basis ahead of the summer tour! Excellent news!

“My brief stint with England at the front end of the Six Nations was a nourishing experience and I was impressed with the desire of the group to grow and compete,” Strawbridge said.

“I am immensely proud to be involved in the England coaching group and look forward to playing a part in helping the team achieve its goals.

“I really appreciate the opportunity Steve has afforded me to contribute.”

Puja

That's some very good news. Ruck speed was a massive improvement over the 6N which was Strawbridge's main work on.

[Banquo]

Andrew Strawbridge rejoins England on a permanent basis ahead of the summer tour! Excellent news!

“My brief stint with England at the front end of the Six Nations was a nourishing experience and I was impressed with the desire of the group to grow and compete,” Strawbridge said.

“I am immensely proud to be involved in the England coaching group and look forward to playing a part in helping the team achieve its goals.

“I really appreciate the opportunity Steve has afforded me to contribute.”

Puja

That's some very good news. Ruck speed was a massive improvement over the 6N which was Strawbridge's main work on.

like x 2