RugbyRebels

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Even if you accept that’s the only one, which it’s not, it’s still more than Shields has shown.

TBF, let's not get into hyperbole... he did make a couple of decent impacts against Aus.

But on the other hand, my dead grandmother could have made a decent impact against that Aus team!

I didn’t say he hasn’t made any impact, just that Clifford and Simmonds have had more standout moments than Shields, which is what Raggs was talking about.

I don't really understand why such a hard play was made for shields by the England set up. His most remarkable asset seems to be an English grandparent.

morepork wrote:I don't really understand why such a hard play was made for shields by the England set up. His most remarkable asset seems to be an English grandparent.

I believe both his parents are English, so he's not quite so bad of a poach as all that.

I can name two reasons:

1) Before South Africa, Eddie considered that we only had one international quality 6, which was Robshaw. When he was out, it was locks-ahoy and the 6N showed we were screwed in that scenario. After the summer tour and the AIs, now that Curry, Wilson, and Underhill have proven to Eddie what we all knew (to different extents), it seems like less of an issue, but it was back in May.

2) Eddie hates England, the English, and the Premiership. Anyone who has played Super Rugby or NPC is clearly and obviously superior to form shown in the Premiership, regardless of how many times that's proven not to actually be true in practice.

Puja

Puja wrote:

morepork wrote:I don't really understand why such a hard play was made for shields by the England set up. His most remarkable asset seems to be an English grandparent.

I believe both his parents are English, so he's not quite so bad of a poach as all that.

I can name two reasons:

1) Before South Africa, Eddie considered that we only had one international quality 6, which was Robshaw. When he was out, it was locks-ahoy and the 6N showed we were screwed in that scenario. After the summer tour and the AIs, now that Curry, Wilson, and Underhill have proven to Eddie what we all knew (to different extents), it seems like less of an issue, but it was back in May.

2) Eddie hates England, the English, and the Premiership. Anyone who has played Super Rugby or NPC is clearly and obviously superior to form shown in the Premiership, regardless of how many times that's proven not to actually be true in practice.

Puja

Eddie is a tool. There must be about a dozen potential 6s floating round locally that could be used. Opensides seem thinner on the ground, but apparently Shields was needed to add another carcass wearing No.6 to the pile. Just bizarre. You seem to have a team of individuals with no real guiding ethos from the management. Long may that continue I say.


And don't be knocking SR too hard...we babysat the Hask for a season and taught him ruck laws and decision making, which he promptly forgot all about as soon as he got back.

morepork wrote:

Puja wrote:

morepork wrote:I don't really understand why such a hard play was made for shields by the England set up. His most remarkable asset seems to be an English grandparent.

I believe both his parents are English, so he's not quite so bad of a poach as all that.

I can name two reasons:

1) Before South Africa, Eddie considered that we only had one international quality 6, which was Robshaw. When he was out, it was locks-ahoy and the 6N showed we were screwed in that scenario. After the summer tour and the AIs, now that Curry, Wilson, and Underhill have proven to Eddie what we all knew (to different extents), it seems like less of an issue, but it was back in May.

2) Eddie hates England, the English, and the Premiership. Anyone who has played Super Rugby or NPC is clearly and obviously superior to form shown in the Premiership, regardless of how many times that's proven not to actually be true in practice.

Puja

Eddie is a tool. There must be about a dozen potential 6s floating round locally that could be used. Opensides seem thinner on the ground, but apparently Shields was needed to add another carcass wearing No.6 to the pile. Just bizarre. You seem to have a team of individuals with no real guiding ethos from the management. Long may that continue I say.


And don't be knocking SR too hard...we babysat the Hask for a season and taught him ruck laws and decision making, which he promptly forgot all about as soon as he got back.

Yeah, you babysat the Hask and thus prolonged his international career. Thanks?

I agree that there were 6s around, but all of them were showing the thoroughly unsuitable characteristic of playing well in the Premiership and thus could not be trusted. Eddie *is* a tool.

Puja

Eddie doesn’t set much virtue by playing well in the AP

The Shields' business is one reason why I am looking forward to a new era. We are stuck with Jones till the RWC, unfortunately, but I won't be sorry to see him go.

Oakboy wrote:The Shields' business is one reason why I am looking forward to a new era. We are stuck with Jones till the RWC, unfortunately, but I won't be sorry to see him go.

You and loads of others. Let's hope his successor is home grown and acknowledges and rewards the better players in the Premiership.

There are a number of players I'd really like to see in the England team post WC. But mostly, I want a change in how we're playing.

I don't like it. But it's something so prevalent around the world that I don't see how we can get away from it.

I said it a few years ago, but the idea that you need to be in control as a coach is suffocating, imo. I really want to see less structure on the game, not more. If you want structure, watch RL, that's all structure. Or even further, American football.

I want to see Mercurial backs getting their shot and game runners dominating games rather than paint by numbers give it to the big man. Sigh.

Digby wrote:Eddie doesn’t set much virtue by playing well in the AP

which is fair enough IMO.

A prem backline of the season last year for most pundits was like
9. Wigglesworth
10. Farrell
11. May
12. erm Slade/Barritt
13. Trinder
14. Daly
15. Goode

Which would get thrashed.

Stom wrote:There are a number of players I'd really like to see in the England team post WC. But mostly, I want a change in how we're playing.

I don't like it. But it's something so prevalent around the world that I don't see how we can get away from it.

I said it a few years ago, but the idea that you need to be in control as a coach is suffocating, imo. I really want to see less structure on the game, not more. If you want structure, watch RL, that's all structure. Or even further, American football.

I want to see Mercurial backs getting their shot and game runners dominating games rather than paint by numbers give it to the big man. Sigh.

Yup.
I also think that that control is one of Farrell's bigeest plusses as a player, to the coaches.

Which Tyler wrote:

Stom wrote:There are a number of players I'd really like to see in the England team post WC. But mostly, I want a change in how we're playing.

I don't like it. But it's something so prevalent around the world that I don't see how we can get away from it.

I said it a few years ago, but the idea that you need to be in control as a coach is suffocating, imo. I really want to see less structure on the game, not more. If you want structure, watch RL, that's all structure. Or even further, American football.

I want to see Mercurial backs getting their shot and game runners dominating games rather than paint by numbers give it to the big man. Sigh.

Yup.
I also think that that control is one of Farrell's bigeest plusses as a player, to the coaches.

I don't see how it is.

I mean...he doesn't control games, really. He just plays by numbers. That's not controlling things, that's letting things control you.

That stat - 3 tries in 4 games with Farrell at 10. I haven't compiled the full stats on minutes and points scored. But it's pretty terrible.

I just don't get it. If you want to build a team that punches hard in defense and soaks up pressure in a very controlled manner, watch RL, ffs!

I went to the RL final at Wembley about 17-18 years ago and it was atrocious. I just couldn't watch it. It's just not my game, much like American football isn't my game.

Rugby was my game. It was far more fluid, far more versatile and far more interesting to me. I'm questioning that when watching England nowadays, especially with Farrell at 10.

He plays by the number, the coach tells him what the numbers are. That's what coaches want, someone who will somewhat they're told, and not go off-piste.

I must have misunderstood what you meant, I thought you were bemoaning that coaches want players who let the coaches control the play, rather than thinking for themselves. Faz is definitely the former, not the latter.

Stom wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Stom wrote:There are a number of players I'd really like to see in the England team post WC. But mostly, I want a change in how we're playing.

I don't like it. But it's something so prevalent around the world that I don't see how we can get away from it.

I said it a few years ago, but the idea that you need to be in control as a coach is suffocating, imo. I really want to see less structure on the game, not more. If you want structure, watch RL, that's all structure. Or even further, American football.

I want to see Mercurial backs getting their shot and game runners dominating games rather than paint by numbers give it to the big man. Sigh.

Yup.
I also think that that control is one of Farrell's bigeest plusses as a player, to the coaches.

I don't see how it is.

I mean...he doesn't control games, really. He just plays by numbers. That's not controlling things, that's letting things control you.

That stat - 3 tries in 4 games with Farrell at 10. I haven't compiled the full stats on minutes and points scored. But it's pretty terrible.

I just don't get it. If you want to build a team that punches hard in defense and soaks up pressure in a very controlled manner, watch RL, ffs!

I went to the RL final at Wembley about 17-18 years ago and it was atrocious. I just couldn't watch it. It's just not my game, much like American football isn't my game.

Rugby was my game. It was far more fluid, far more versatile and far more interesting to me. I'm questioning that when watching England nowadays, especially with Farrell at 10.

If you can’t take rugby with all the structure, set piece work and tactical decision making I’d argue it’s not your game. Sounds like you should be watching sevens.

No completly free flowing, off-the-cuff team has ever won a World Cup or champions cup, it’s professional teams dedicating there time to be as successful at rugby as possible, it shouldn’t be suprising that 15 players knowing exactly what to do at any one time usually beat the a bunch of players making up what they are doing on the spot.

If it is as cleverly structured as our coaches think why don't we score loads of tries off 1st phase? After all, new ways of doing that are what coaches' wet dreams are all about.

The answer is that the best teams have a sound defensive structure, a solid forwards' base AND the ability to score tries in lots of different wsys. There has to be flair in the backs and raw pace. The structure has to encourage that flair. Ours doesn't - partly because the flair players we have don't get picked.

Which Tyler wrote:He plays by the number, the coach tells him what the numbers are. That's what coaches want, someone who will somewhat they're told, and not go off-piste.

I must have misunderstood what you meant, I thought you were bemoaning that coaches want players who let the coaches control the play, rather than thinking for themselves. Faz is definitely the former, not the latter.

No, you're right. I just misunderstood real life and the way it should be...

padprop wrote:

Stom wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Yup.
I also think that that control is one of Farrell's bigeest plusses as a player, to the coaches.

I don't see how it is.

I mean...he doesn't control games, really. He just plays by numbers. That's not controlling things, that's letting things control you.

That stat - 3 tries in 4 games with Farrell at 10. I haven't compiled the full stats on minutes and points scored. But it's pretty terrible.

I just don't get it. If you want to build a team that punches hard in defense and soaks up pressure in a very controlled manner, watch RL, ffs!

I went to the RL final at Wembley about 17-18 years ago and it was atrocious. I just couldn't watch it. It's just not my game, much like American football isn't my game.

Rugby was my game. It was far more fluid, far more versatile and far more interesting to me. I'm questioning that when watching England nowadays, especially with Farrell at 10.

If you can’t take rugby with all the structure, set piece work and tactical decision making I’d argue it’s not your game. Sounds like you should be watching sevens.

No completly free flowing, off-the-cuff team has ever won a World Cup or champions cup, it’s professional teams dedicating there time to be as successful at rugby as possible, it shouldn’t be suprising that 15 players knowing exactly what to do at any one time usually beat the a bunch of players making up what they are doing on the spot.

Hardly.

I am a firm believer that creativity comes from having boundaries, having structure. And when there is none, creativity runs riot and becomes lesser.

But I also don't want to watch a game with as many big guys as possible trying to break through a line of 13 defenders. That's not rugby to me.

It's the idea that the coach wants to focus on the things he has explicit control over. So he picks a team that will do exactly what they are ordered to do and nothing more and then gets them to act out his exact gameplan.

Farrell does that to an absolute tee. He doesn't have creativity in the way Ford does.

And, unfortunately, my team seem to be going that way With players who just listen and do as they're told and bigger, better defenders preferred whenever possible.

You need a framework I believe, but not a strict "After this, do this." Framework means players know where they should be setting up (doesn't have to be just one), so they aren't bumping into each other, or blocking passing options etc. From there, players should be picking the passes.

Raggs wrote:You need a framework I believe, but not a strict "After this, do this." Framework means players know where they should be setting up (doesn't have to be just one), so they aren't bumping into each other, or blocking passing options etc. From there, players should be picking the passes.

Absolutely.

Coach sets the strategy, which outlines how the tactics work. Tactics need to change on the hoof with the game situation.

If the strategy is too rigid, you get situations like England v Italy. Or England v Ireland. Or England v...well anyone. So, yeah.

You should be providing the player with the tools to do their job. If you constrain them, the strategy/framework/whatever is too rigid.

Unfortunately; we've also seen what happens when the players are given too much freedom - they hate it and revolt (see Ashton's time as head coach) - even players the coach had done that with before, and knew what was going on (eg Catt, Barkley); and knew that there was still a plan to come once through the excessive enablement process.
Pity Ashton wasn't allowed to get to that bit.

Which Tyler wrote:Unfortunately; we've also seen what happens when the players are given too much freedom - they hate it and revolt (see Ashton's time as head coach) - even players the coach had done that with before, and knew what was going on (eg Catt, Barkley); and knew that there was still a plan to come once through the excessive enablement process.
Pity Ashton wasn't allowed to get to that bit.

Well, yeah. But it's about introducing it and setting the players up to win.

I just feel like if we end up with a backline of:

Youngs, Farrell, Big Joe, Te'o, Tuilagi, May, Daly...we're not going to see the best England has to offer. We're going to defend well (except in that little dogleg caused by everyone else bar Farrell not doing their job. Bad players, bad), we're going to compete. But we're ultimately going to fail.

Oakboy wrote:If it is as cleverly structured as our coaches think why don't we score loads of tries off 1st phase? After all, new ways of doing that are what coaches' wet dreams are all about.

The answer is that the best teams have a sound defensive structure, a solid forwards' base AND the ability to score tries in lots of different wsys. There has to be flair in the backs and raw pace. The structure has to encourage that flair. Ours doesn't - partly because the flair players we have don't get picked.

When is the last time a planned move was executed off a set piece? A little cut and thrust from a scrum or a lineout. Seems like every single inside back combination prioritises milking penalties and box kicking at the expense of anything else. Surely you need something else to use once in a while in really tight deadlocked games?

morepork wrote:

Oakboy wrote:If it is as cleverly structured as our coaches think why don't we score loads of tries off 1st phase? After all, new ways of doing that are what coaches' wet dreams are all about.

The answer is that the best teams have a sound defensive structure, a solid forwards' base AND the ability to score tries in lots of different wsys. There has to be flair in the backs and raw pace. The structure has to encourage that flair. Ours doesn't - partly because the flair players we have don't get picked.

When is the last time a planned move was executed off a set piece? A little cut and thrust from a scrum or a lineout. Seems like every single inside back combination prioritises milking penalties and box kicking at the expense of anything else. Surely you need something else to use once in a while in really tight deadlocked games?

My memory is poor but didn't Scotland score a little gem through the lineout in the AIs?

Nowell picked up a nasty leg injury at Eng training ( not for first time) and will be out for several months, according to RB.Some reports say hamstring, others quads..(thought these were different but may be wrong.)
After a bad ankle injury last year, he'll be slipping to the outer fringe from the inner fringe one suspects.

morepork wrote:I don't really understand why such a hard play was made for shields by the England set up. His most remarkable asset seems to be an English grandparent.

Could be worse, it might have been Liam Squire that had the English parents and we’d have been stuck with his dog shit performances at 6.