Team for Japan

[Stom]

Spencer was the form 9 is why he got the squad nod and Mitchell was and is crocked. We aren’t overstocked there.

I actually think Spencer is quite a big fail in terms of an opportunity for England to develop a quality 9. Of course down to the player a bit/lot

To be fair to Spencer, his bench performances have been utterly awful, but so have nearly every single bench appearance since SB took over...

Suggesting it's a coaching and tactical problem (again).

What would Dombrandt be like as a starter? We do not know. Can we truly judge his performances? Again, do not know. Same goes for nearly everyone else.

Spencer got "lucky" in that he got to start a couple of games. Now he's been discarded as he was not up to it.

Will others get that chance?

With these fringe players, what happened to the HC's judgement, pure and simple? For example, Porter or Spencer; Willis or Dombrandt. Might watching them a few times for their clubs, followed by a couple of weeks in camp be enough? To make decisions requires decisiveness of course.

What I am getting at is whether we are further forward in more than a few obvious positions.

We are no further forward because the decision making seems muddled.

[Insouciant]

Do people largely think Ford is a busted flush?

That narrative has picked up across the AIs due to missed kicks, a bad tackle and England losing games narrowly that we could have won. It's worth noting the following:
V NZ - Ford came on @ 62 minutes, we manufactured 2 kicking opportunities to win the game in the final seconds
- yes he goofed the kicks (one of which was a crap pass for a dg so that's not on him imo).., but we had kicks to win ergo we made scoring chances within dg range.
- final whistle, one score from winning

V Aus - Ford came on @ 62 minutes, we scored two tries
- yes he goofed a tackle, but we actually made try scoring opportunities whilst handling the ball in the last 20 minutes
- final whistle, one score from winning

V SA - Ford doesn't come on. We manufacture penalties but decide not to kick.
- It turns out we can't do lineouts or ball retention. Continual one out runners, we look incredibly unthreatening and turn the ball over a lot.
- did we have a dg or try scoring opportunity in the last 20 mins?
- final whistle, two scores from winning

I'm not 100% either way - it's a tad grey. t's a team game. I think when he comes on, he takes pressure of Smith from doing everything creativity wise (that's also why I think Slade is picked to a lesser extent). The defence has a couple of people to target. Yes, it'd be good to have a Wilko level kicker coming on or for M. Smith to win close games himself. It may not only be coincidence that we ended up closer to beating NZ and Aus than SA.

Just food for thought. Apologies in advance if I've mis-remembered anything. Sub timings from BBC. TBH I'm just bored waiting for Snoring Badger to release the XV.

[TheDasher]

Spencer's main strength is still his running, then his length of kick....but no idea why he was completely binned.

Isiekwe is a waste of space imo. Agreed on back three- tbh, this isn't a match for experimenting, its a match for sticking out as near a 1st team as possible, given the lack of cohesion, previous; especially if we are switching how we aim to play post law change.

I think he's a better box kicker than JVP personally, but that's history now - as you say, binning Spencer completely very odd.

I agree with you on picking not experimenting and picking best team, which is why it's so odd that Roebuck came in last time to the bench vs SA but now I guess is to be jettisoned and Murley is in. What did Roebuck do wrong?

Not sure, but its possible Freeman is moving to centre?

Hopefully. And if he's ever actually given the ball in the oppo 22 I'd suggest he'll be lethal there with a bit of space, a great step and a lot of power. Let's see.

[Stom]

No, Ford is not a busted flush. But he's also not fully fit.

The problem is a tactical one. The "idea" seems to be for Ford to come on and instantly change our shape so that we just kick the ball. Which is insane. It's been a trend for a while, and I hate it. Kicking when you're points down late in the game just seems ridiculous to me, you should be kicking to pin the oppo back when you're leading, but we continually allow the opposition to run down the clock with our kicking game late on.

[TheDasher]

Do people largely think Ford is a busted flush?

That narrative has picked up across the AIs due to missed kicks, a bad tackle and England losing games narrowly that we could have won. It's worth noting the following:
V NZ - Ford came on @ 62 minutes, we manufactured 2 kicking opportunities to win the game in the final seconds
- yes he goofed the kicks (one of which was a crap pass for a dg so that's not on him imo).., but we had kicks to win ergo we made scoring chances within dg range.
- final whistle, one score from winning

V Aus - Ford came on @ 62 minutes, we scored two tries
- yes he goofed a tackle, but we actually made try scoring opportunities whilst handling the ball in the last 20 minutes
- final whistle, one score from winning

V SA - Ford doesn't come on. We manufacture penalties but decide not to kick.
- It turns out we can't do lineouts or ball retention. Continual one out runners, we look incredibly unthreatening and turn the ball over a lot.
- did we have a dg or try scoring opportunity in the last 20 mins?
- final whistle, two scores from winning

I'm not 100% either way - it's a tad grey. t's a team game. I think when he comes on, he takes pressure of Smith from doing everything creativity wise (that's also why I think Slade is picked to a lesser extent). The defence has a couple of people to target. Yes, it'd be good to have a Wilko level kicker coming on or for M. Smith to win close games himself. It may not only be coincidence that we ended up closer to beating NZ and Aus than SA.

Just food for thought. Apologies in advance if I've mis-remembered anything. Sub timings from BBC. TBH I'm just bored waiting for Snoring Badger to release the XV.

I absolutely don't think Ford is a busted flush. I think if Ford was SB's main man and was starting every game, playing the full 80, he'd really have the opportunity to show that at only 31, he is still a very fine player.

Because of all the farting around with Farrell and Ford, Farrell or Ford, Ford and Smith (15), Ford or Smith, selection at 10, like everywhere else has been jumpy to say the least, until the last few games in which Smith has been backed, finally. So Ford then gets random minutes at the end of tight games when everything is in the balance when Marcus has been playing beautifully... if Ford gets it wrong, he's public enemy number one. So SB should've just kept Marcus on, there hasn't been any reason to take him off in these games. Ford should be up for selection if Marcus' form drops of over a period of a few games (not one) and he and Finn Smith should fight it out for that shirt.

If Marcus and Finn didn't exist and Ford played the next 10 games I think he'd be really pretty good, a good intl 10. But they do exist and Marcus at this moment is better than him and should keep playing until it's obvious he shouldn't. Make changes to key personnel when you're 20 points up not when things are on knife-edge and the player you're taking off is doing well.

[p/d]

I think Sale will benefit from him for a few season’s yet

[Danno]

Do people largely think Ford is a busted flush?

That narrative has picked up across the AIs due to missed kicks, a bad tackle and England losing games narrowly that we could have won. It's worth noting the following:
V NZ - Ford came on @ 62 minutes, we manufactured 2 kicking opportunities to win the game in the final seconds
- yes he goofed the kicks (one of which was a crap pass for a dg so that's not on him imo).., but we had kicks to win ergo we made scoring chances within dg range.
- final whistle, one score from winning

V Aus - Ford came on @ 62 minutes, we scored two tries
- yes he goofed a tackle, but we actually made try scoring opportunities whilst handling the ball in the last 20 minutes
- final whistle, one score from winning

V SA - Ford doesn't come on. We manufacture penalties but decide not to kick.
- It turns out we can't do lineouts or ball retention. Continual one out runners, we look incredibly unthreatening and turn the ball over a lot.
- did we have a dg or try scoring opportunity in the last 20 mins?
- final whistle, two scores from winning

I'm not 100% either way - it's a tad grey. t's a team game. I think when he comes on, he takes pressure of Smith from doing everything creativity wise (that's also why I think Slade is picked to a lesser extent). The defence has a couple of people to target. Yes, it'd be good to have a Wilko level kicker coming on or for M. Smith to win close games himself. It may not only be coincidence that we ended up closer to beating NZ and Aus than SA.

Just food for thought. Apologies in advance if I've mis-remembered anything. Sub timings from BBC. TBH I'm just bored waiting for Snoring Badger to release the XV.

I absolutely don't think Ford is a busted flush. I think if Ford was SB's main man and was starting every game, playing the full 80, he'd really have the opportunity to show that at only 31, he is still a very fine player.

Because of all the farting around with Farrell and Ford, Farrell or Ford, Ford and Smith (15), Ford or Smith, selection at 10, like everywhere else has been jumpy to say the least, until the last few games in which Smith has been backed, finally. So Ford then gets random minutes at the end of tight games when everything is in the balance when Marcus has been playing beautifully... if Ford gets it wrong, he's public enemy number one. So SB should've just kept Marcus on, there hasn't been any reason to take him off in these games. Ford should be up for selection if Marcus' form drops of over a period of a few games (not one) and he and Finn Smith should fight it out for that shirt.

If Marcus and Finn didn't exist and Ford played the next 10 games I think he'd be really pretty good, a good intl 10. But they do exist and Marcus at this moment is better than him and should keep playing until it's obvious he shouldn't. Make changes to key personnel when you're 20 points up not when things are on knife-edge and the player you're taking off is doing well.

[Oakboy]

Ford has not looked himself in his appearances in the AIs. Context did not help. It was a mistake to have him in the squad unnecessarily. Smith/Smith for the AIs would have been the correct decision - reviewed for the 6N depending on form/fitness of all three.

[Captainhaircut]

England: Furbank; Freeman, Lawrence, Slade, Sleightholme; M Smith, Van Poortvliet; Genge, George (capt), Stuart, Itoje, Martin, T Curry, Underhill, Earl.
Replacements: Cowan-Dickie, Baxter, Opoku-Fordjour, Isiekwe, Cunningham-South, Randall, F Smith, Roebuck.

Horrible selection. Centres and back row are just dreadful.

Positives- Fin smith, AOF

[Mellsblue]

I’m calling wum

[Mellsblue]

I take it back. So AOF is a tighthead?!?!?

[Danno]

Guff.

[Stom]

lol. All that talk and AOF is a tighthead.

That team, though... the backrow is absolutely horrible. Where is the carrying going to come from? And the centres...and the Murley tease...

sigh.

[francoisfou]

Ffs!
Another opportunity down the sink to find an effective pair of centres and to put Ted Hill in the back row before the next match, Ireland away, swiftly followed by France, when experiments are not advised.
And Isiekwe? Wtf does he bring to the squad?
Strictly Braindead has well and truly lost the plot.

[p/d]

Ah!!! So this is the game that the centre pairing is going to rip up trees.

[Stom]

Look, I get the idea of patience, and of giving players a chance to settle into a team.

But when does that give way to actually realising you're not getting what you need from those players and giving alternatives a go.

How many tests on the bounce have we had Earl at 8? Curry was better than Earl at 8. At least he can carry in traffic. Earl literally makes ZERO ground in traffic. Yet we need a player who can punch a hole or at least create go-forward.

Literally all our momentum is sucked out of our attacks every time we're asking unsuited players to truck it up at first receiver and seeing them land on their arse.

[Insouciant]

It's a bit of a meh selection. It's odd to call up only Opoku-Fordjour to the main team from the A team. Other players played better and were in positions where a change could have helped more - Murley/Ibitoye to the wing, Pollock to the back row, the centres..

It's also odd to call up only Opoku-Fordjour to the main team from A team because B. A. Baracus, Face, Murdoch and Hannibal always get the job done. Yeah I know.. sorry.

[Oakboy]

In the absence of a big SA-type threat, SB has picked close to HIS best available 23. That is the correct decision for HIM. He cannot afford to lose this match.

Whilst it is nowhere near the 23 I wanted, I applaud his judgement in terms of taking the match seriously. Oddly too, I suspect that he has changed his plans for this game in that had he not lost the previous three he would have fielded a quite different team.

[Which Tyler]

It's interesting reading all of the comments and thoughts. I've reflected on this over the course of this week and it's fair to say being an international (Tier 1) coach is a bloody tough job! But on the flip side, there are also some things you definitely can't get away with... so if you remove the non-starters, what you're left with on the table represent the only viable options. I would have thought:

• Tactical coherence is key - design the way(s) you want your team to play and make sure you have the cattle selected to deliver
• Selection is about trades: consistency vs form vs tactical approach (for that one game) vs experience (historical and incremental gained in this match) - there is rarely a perfect answer
• International tactics do need to be different or at least tailored vs club - speed of game, ferocity of defence and accuracy are all higher. Exploiting deficiencies is a less reliable approach at the top level
• Rock, paper, scissors - no one approach is best, but you can deploy tactics to better your opponent's if you predict correctly how they'll play. Assuming you have the cattle, again
• Adaptability is an asset! Being able to deviate from the plan (and know when to), without breaking things is a big bonus and players/captains who can muster this are worth their weight in gold, rather than waiting for water carriers, half time talks etc.
• Culture is crucial, especially long-term. That extra 1-2% that can separate W vs L is discretionary effort: belief in what you're working towards, why and overall cohesion as a group.
• Media will always blow things out of proportion (as will we). You're not as good as they say and not as bad either. However, they'll be more understanding if you explain your plan (without giving opposition coaches too much)
• Platitudes are worse than meaningless. They erode goodwill and can even be disingenuous. Brutal honesty (and owning it) will get far more from everyone

Simply Blundering is failing, IMO, on many of the above. And in particular, doesn't seem to have a plan to help our players deal with the increased intensity of international level, versus club. Our ruck performance, centres effectiveness and over reliance on Magic Marcus just feels like we're not respecting the step up at this level.

The lack of apparent internal consistency with what he actually wants us to achieve in a game is inexplicable. Why does he insist on contrasting styles of player that interact in their roles (SH, FH for example)? If he could explain why he's doing this shit, might get him more latitude!

Stuttering Blowhard cannot convey (to me) the grand strategy and why we should believe the next games after this one will be better. For me, that's why I'm becoming less interested in watching as each game goes by.

[fivepointer]

Its a very lazy shortsighted selection to my mind. I thought he'd freshen up the team and stand down a few players but this is just a retread of what we've had over the last 3 weeks.
Chance missed to look at some alternatives and a worrying lack of faith in the wider squad. You do wonder why certain players were picked in the first place.
AOF is one positive and its good to see Fin Smith in the 23.

[twitchy]

Playing curry for the most meaningless game (but still at test match intensity) in a while is straight up negligence.

[Oakboy]

Its a very lazy shortsighted selection to my mind. I thought he'd freshen up the team and stand down a few players but this is just a retread of what we've had over the last 3 weeks.
Chance missed to look at some alternatives and a worrying lack of faith in the wider squad. You do wonder why certain players were picked in the first place.
AOF is one positive and its good to see Fin Smith in the 23.

For 'lazy' read 'shit-scared' perhaps?

He's convinced that this IS his best team and that he has to win. I think he is wrong about the first part of that sentence but there it is.

I'm pretty sure now that it was a mistake to appoint him but I haven't reached the stage where I hope we lose to hasten his departure.

In a way, by picking his 'tried and trusted' he has made this a must-win game. His judgement is on the line. Had he swapped in half a dozen 'experiments' would he have an excuse should we lose? That would have been the worst scenario.

Conversely, I suppose, winning convincingly with this lot proves little because it is 'only Japan' - but it keeps him in a job.

[fivepointer]

Its a very lazy shortsighted selection to my mind. I thought he'd freshen up the team and stand down a few players but this is just a retread of what we've had over the last 3 weeks.
Chance missed to look at some alternatives and a worrying lack of faith in the wider squad. You do wonder why certain players were picked in the first place.
AOF is one positive and its good to see Fin Smith in the 23.

For 'lazy' read 'shit-scared' perhaps?

He's convinced that this IS his best team and that he has to win. I think he is wrong about the first part of that sentence but there it is.

I'm pretty sure now that it was a mistake to appoint him but I haven't reached the stage where I hope we lose to hasten his departure.

In a way, by picking his 'tried and trusted' he has made this a must-win game. His judgement is on the line. Had he swapped in half a dozen 'experiments' would he have an excuse should we lose? That would have been the worst scenario.

Conversely, I suppose, winning convincingly with this lot proves little because it is 'only Japan' - but it keeps him in a job.

I accept much of that but it is "only Japan" and frankly we should be able to get the job done with a side showing some changes and with at least one eye to the future.

[Oakboy]

Playing curry for the most meaningless game (but still at test match intensity) in a while is straight up negligence.

Curry must be extremely important to him. I don't think him starting on Sunday (in the 0-3 circumstances) is any bigger a mis-judgement than having him in the squad in the first place.

[jngf]

The lack of hard yards carrying threat in the pack is quite a concern, only Martin, Underhill and Itoje ( on a good day ) are really capable of making dents in traffic at test level imo.
Also only 2 lineout targets.