England vs. Ireland - Saturday 21st Nov

[Banquo]

We look good on the back of huge setpiece dominance, brutally winning contact or the other side dropping every kick or allowing a stupid number of kicks to find grass. And you can't reasonably expect any of those in a test match, else it's not really a test.

With Japan and us Eddie has sought a simplified answer to initial problems in players available. One of those simplified answers also produced something people more often liked watching.

Yep, though I’d argue in both cases the actual detail isn’t that simple, even if the outcome in our case looks it .

You do wonder if that’s why he seems to stall as a coach- gets a bit caught with getting the answers to the initial problems perfect, as opposed to answering a different question- in this case, he has a marked difference in the back row options (and indeed pack potential overall) compared to his start point.

[Banquo]

The Times reporting that Jack had a dead leg and couldn't train Monday. Seems to suggest he'll be fit by the weekend, as it was a selection, not a fitness issue for the weekend. However it's not like he's Sinkler/Farrell/Ford etc where he's already familiar with the side and the gameplan in general etc. I wouldn't have selected him if he hadn't trained either.

Wonder how early on he picked that up, he definitely had it by half time.

Hope this is right. It did seem a premature end to his game.

[Raggs]

The Times reporting that Jack had a dead leg and couldn't train Monday. Seems to suggest he'll be fit by the weekend, as it was a selection, not a fitness issue for the weekend. However it's not like he's Sinkler/Farrell/Ford etc where he's already familiar with the side and the gameplan in general etc. I wouldn't have selected him if he hadn't trained either.

Wonder how early on he picked that up, he definitely had it by half time.

Hope this is right. It did seem a premature end to his game.

I say half time because in the England Rugby video you could clearly see him rubbing his leg and grimacing.

[Digby]

We look good on the back of huge setpiece dominance, brutally winning contact or the other side dropping every kick or allowing a stupid number of kicks to find grass. And you can't reasonably expect any of those in a test match, else it's not really a test.

With Japan and us Eddie has sought a simplified answer to initial problems in players available. One of those simplified answers also produced something people more often liked watching.

Yep, though I’d argue in both cases the actual detail isn’t that simple, even if the outcome in our case looks it .

You do wonder if that’s why he seems to stall as a coach- gets a bit caught with getting the answers to the initial problems perfect, as opposed to answering a different question- in this case, he has a marked difference in the back row options (and indeed pack potential overall) compared to his start point.

Agreed on the detail. It's only simple in giving a specific gameplay to the players, what goes into enabling that involves a lot of hard work and attention to detail. I find what Eddie is doing very easy to admire, I just don't happen to like it much.

Eddie has changed too since coming in, it's just I've not liked any of the iterations. But then if Eddie played like I wanted whilst I might accept a higher loss rate lots of other people wouldn't like that.

I think all coaches/teams are a bit like this now. Whether it's us, NZ, SA, Japan, whatever, there's so much work going into how plays are setup it's very difficult play what you see for more than a phase, 2 phases tops, because by then people will be getting back into shape on both attack and defence

[Timbo]

I do think we have a few combinations of back three players (if all fit) that would scare top sides if we used them better. It doesn’t even need a big unit to enable that, but it does need running threat, good handling and a pack able to support it.

I think this is what annoys me the most. We have an incredibly mobile pack, with world class players smattered throughout, a back three that is full of truly fast and elusive players and yet.....

....our decision making and technique in the loose isn’t deemed good enough to play this sort of game?

Yes, pretty much. Judging from the way the team trains and his various comments over the years he has identified it as our biggest work on. I do think one of the biggest areas of improvement under Eddie, one that has been absolutely key, is our ability to organise defensively while in transition. But as of yet we’ve not seen the same level of improvement in attacking transition.

[Banquo]

We look good on the back of huge setpiece dominance, brutally winning contact or the other side dropping every kick or allowing a stupid number of kicks to find grass. And you can't reasonably expect any of those in a test match, else it's not really a test.

With Japan and us Eddie has sought a simplified answer to initial problems in players available. One of those simplified answers also produced something people more often liked watching.

Yep, though I’d argue in both cases the actual detail isn’t that simple, even if the outcome in our case looks it .

You do wonder if that’s why he seems to stall as a coach- gets a bit caught with getting the answers to the initial problems perfect, as opposed to answering a different question- in this case, he has a marked difference in the back row options (and indeed pack potential overall) compared to his start point.

Agreed on the detail. It's only simple in giving a specific gameplay to the players, what goes into enabling that involves a lot of hard work and attention to detail. I find what Eddie is doing very easy to admire, I just don't happen to like it much.

Eddie has changed too since coming in, it's just I've not liked any of the iterations. But then if Eddie played like I wanted whilst I might accept a higher loss rate lots of other people wouldn't like that.

I think all coaches/teams are a bit like this now. Whether it's us, NZ, SA, Japan, whatever, there's so much work going into how plays are setup it's very difficult play what you see for more than a phase, 2 phases tops, because by then people will be getting back into shape on both attack and defence

It’s still basically big pack and kick your way upfield, he has grafted on an intense start to each half, assuming we are in their territory. It’s a bit strange in some ways, in that I think he’s probably putting more work into these programmed plays than it would likely take to execute a more ball in hand version.

One thing that does need to be borne in mind is that all the top teams do kick a lot. We probably kick a little more than most though, and often in the wrong places.

On transitions, one thing that does puzzle me is that when we do recover the ball from say a box kick - and I don’t think our contesting percentages are good enough- we then often just kick it again through Youngs without scanning; maybe that’s just bad communication.

[Banquo]

I think this is what annoys me the most. We have an incredibly mobile pack, with world class players smattered throughout, a back three that is full of truly fast and elusive players and yet.....

....our decision making and technique in the loose isn’t deemed good enough to play this sort of game?

Yes, pretty much. Judging from the way the team trains and his various comments over the years he has identified it as our biggest work on. I do think one of the biggest areas of improvement under Eddie, one that has been absolutely key, is our ability to organise defensively while in transition. But as of yet we’ve not seen the same level of improvement in attacking transition.

I have some sympathy for his view on this, and as you say he has improved some players basics (something other recent England coaches have struggled to do, or not even tried; I think Gatland showed this was possible for an intl coach in recent times; it used to be what the likes of Geech/telfer did on Lionstours). We do have a problem still with the basic skills at high intensity and under fatigue- this imo is the biggest failing with our domestic rugby. That said, I do think this crop could be ‘more trusted’ and a higher intensity, more ball in hand game could be made to work. But he is results driven.

[Mellsblue]

....our decision making and technique in the loose isn’t deemed good enough to play this sort of game?

Possibly true. Would be nice to find out. I think players such as Itoje, Curry, Ford and Slade are good enough to play a wider game and we’ve certainly achieved in isolated matches.

Indeed, just trotting out Eddie think. He is wedded to the traditions of ‘how countries have played historically’ so big pack, kick and clap it is - obviously regarding England under SCW til 2003 as a blip - and in fairness...

All true.

[Oakboy]

One thing that does need to be borne in mind is that all the top teams do kick a lot. We probably kick a little more than most though, and often in the wrong places.

It is hard not to blame Farrell for everything, especially when he is at FH. Kicking from the right places and an improved accuracy of execution occurs when Ford is at FH perhaps? But, it all starts with Youngs. Jones must want him box-kicking most of the time. If I was going to make one change in style it would be to insist that Youngs at least looks to pass from every scenario, reverting to kicking only if a pass is impossible. I wonder what the percentage retrieval of his box-kicks is.

At least Slade regularly kicks accurately!

[Mr Mwenda]

This discussion relates to one of the interesting things about the minute by minute review. Things break down with a couple of basics letting England down and kick is the default recovery. One hopes it'll suddenly click but I have sympathy with the suggestion that English domestic rugby doesn't prepare players sufficiently skillwise. I assume that also explains ej's interest in anyone whose seen a super rugby match.

[Epaminondas Pules]

EnGt9_MXUAEizQb.jpeg

[Digby]

Yep, though I’d argue in both cases the actual detail isn’t that simple, even if the outcome in our case looks it .

You do wonder if that’s why he seems to stall as a coach- gets a bit caught with getting the answers to the initial problems perfect, as opposed to answering a different question- in this case, he has a marked difference in the back row options (and indeed pack potential overall) compared to his start point.

Agreed on the detail. It's only simple in giving a specific gameplay to the players, what goes into enabling that involves a lot of hard work and attention to detail. I find what Eddie is doing very easy to admire, I just don't happen to like it much.

Eddie has changed too since coming in, it's just I've not liked any of the iterations. But then if Eddie played like I wanted whilst I might accept a higher loss rate lots of other people wouldn't like that.

I think all coaches/teams are a bit like this now. Whether it's us, NZ, SA, Japan, whatever, there's so much work going into how plays are setup it's very difficult play what you see for more than a phase, 2 phases tops, because by then people will be getting back into shape on both attack and defence

It’s still basically big pack and kick your way upfield, he has grafted on an intense start to each half, assuming we are in their territory. It’s a bit strange in some ways, in that I think he’s probably putting more work into these programmed plays than it would likely take to execute a more ball in hand version.

One thing that does need to be borne in mind is that all the top teams do kick a lot. We probably kick a little more than most though, and often in the wrong places.

On transitions, one thing that does puzzle me is that when we do recover the ball from say a box kick - and I don’t think our contesting percentages are good enough- we then often just kick it again through Youngs without scanning; maybe that’s just bad communication.

Dollars to doughnuts on those transitions you'll have space to kick into which forces the other team back it'd be some bloody weird defence if you kicked on transition and they had 3 back three players and a number 8 back covering, and we prefer to attack off organise 1st phase than broken play. And I think Youngs is looking, but because he's looking for the kick he's less aware of other possibilities because you can't scan for everything.

And it's not just Youngs, Farrell is very aware that back to back kicks create the outcome that England are seeking. And the data probably doesn't tell them they're wrong, sadly.

[Digby]

Bimey, Ireland will indeed go for out lineout it would seem. Not sure that's an Ireland team though, maybe Ireland All-Stars, or maybe Ireland Slightly Well Known But Not Quite Stars would be better names.

[Puja]

It's very weird seeing a full third of the Irish starting XV whose only connection to Ireland is having lived there for three years. I mean, England have had some dodgy poaches in the past, but I don't think even at our worst we got close to that.

It's not a vintage team in terms of quality either - combination of injuries and rebuilding and Andy Farrell. On paper, this should be ours to lose, although we don't often play on paper.

Puja

[Banquo]

Agreed on the detail. It's only simple in giving a specific gameplay to the players, what goes into enabling that involves a lot of hard work and attention to detail. I find what Eddie is doing very easy to admire, I just don't happen to like it much.

Eddie has changed too since coming in, it's just I've not liked any of the iterations. But then if Eddie played like I wanted whilst I might accept a higher loss rate lots of other people wouldn't like that.

I think all coaches/teams are a bit like this now. Whether it's us, NZ, SA, Japan, whatever, there's so much work going into how plays are setup it's very difficult play what you see for more than a phase, 2 phases tops, because by then people will be getting back into shape on both attack and defence

It’s still basically big pack and kick your way upfield, he has grafted on an intense start to each half, assuming we are in their territory. It’s a bit strange in some ways, in that I think he’s probably putting more work into these programmed plays than it would likely take to execute a more ball in hand version.

One thing that does need to be borne in mind is that all the top teams do kick a lot. We probably kick a little more than most though, and often in the wrong places.

On transitions, one thing that does puzzle me is that when we do recover the ball from say a box kick - and I don’t think our contesting percentages are good enough- we then often just kick it again through Youngs without scanning; maybe that’s just bad communication.

Dollars to doughnuts on those transitions you'll have space to kick into which forces the other team back it'd be some bloody weird defence if you kicked on transition and they had 3 back three players and a number 8 back covering, and we prefer to attack off organise 1st phase than broken play. And I think Youngs is looking, but because he's looking for the kick he's less aware of other possibilities because you can't scan for everything.

And it's not just Youngs, Farrell is very aware that back to back kicks create the outcome that England are seeking. And the data probably doesn't tell them they're wrong, sadly.

Hence ‘communication’. I think you’ve nailed it by saying Youngs is looking to kick whatever tho. And for all the backfield isn’t covered, the rest of the defence will also be less than well set.

[Banquo]

Not the paciest back row I’ve seen.

[Digby]

Not the paciest back row I’ve seen.

Rodber, Clark and Richards I'd have thought

[Banquo]

Not the paciest back row I’ve seen.

Rodber, Clark and Richards I'd have thought

I think Ben would have edged POM.

[Digby]

Also I don't think Youngs is quite looking to kick whatever, merely he's significantly biased in that direction.

[Banquo]

Also I don't think Youngs is quite looking to kick whatever, merely he's significantly biased in that direction.

Tomato potato

[Digby]

Also I don't think Youngs is quite looking to kick whatever, merely he's significantly biased in that direction.

Tomato potato

Maybe Youngs and Farrell have ignored everything they've ever been told tactically and are simply engaged on a long running highly visible game of hot potato

[Mellsblue]

Also I don't think Youngs is quite looking to kick whatever, merely he's significantly biased in that direction.

Tomato potato

Maybe Youngs and Farrell have ignored everything they've ever been told tactically and are simply engaged on a long running highly visible game of hot potato

Will def need to change game plan this weekend, then. Say what you want about the Irish but they know their potatoes.

[Digby]

Tomato potato

Maybe Youngs and Farrell have ignored everything they've ever been told tactically and are simply engaged on a long running highly visible game of hot potato

Will def need to change game plan this weekend, then. Say what you want about the Irish but they know their potatoes.

History says otherwise to the tune of a famine

[Mellsblue]

Maybe Youngs and Farrell have ignored everything they've ever been told tactically and are simply engaged on a long running highly visible game of hot potato

Will def need to change game plan this weekend, then. Say what you want about the Irish but they know their potatoes.

History says otherwise to the tune of a famine

A famine of entertaining rugby?

[Banquo]

Also I don't think Youngs is quite looking to kick whatever, merely he's significantly biased in that direction.

Tomato potato

Maybe Youngs and Farrell have ignored everything they've ever been told tactically and are simply engaged on a long running highly visible game of hot potato

Certainly neither of them seem to love handling the ball that much. Perhaps alongside chucking Youngs a bag of sweets, he had him and Faz training with balls pre heated to very hot indeed