RugbyRebels

Those days are long gone, buddy.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:As an aside Farrell made 17 tackles today. That’s seriously impressive. Still missed three, but forgivable with those figures and to be fair your going to miss more Vs a team like Aus.

Goal kicking was excellent as well. Makes me think he was definitely concussed against argentina.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:As an aside Farrell made 17 tackles today. That’s seriously impressive. Still missed three, but forgivable with those figures and to be fair your going to miss more Vs a team like Aus.

The epitome of what is wrong with English rugby, getting excited about how many tackles our 10 made. Don’t get me wrong, he played well, and that pass to Sinckler was a beauty, but getting excited by a high tackle count by a 10 is wrong headed.

I’m not getting excited by it, it’s just impressive that’s all. What’s wrong with that? Are we not allowed to praise something that is praiseworthy?

Why mention it if not excited?
I don’t think it’s impressive for a 10. At best they’re just running at him and he’s doing his job, at worst he’s looking for tackles and isn’t free to conduct play on a turnover.
I just think it’s a strange stat to highlight and praise and, again, symptomatic of what is wrong with English rugby.

I think Farrell played well today and proved conclusively that he has to be at 10 or out of the team. As he is undroppable in Jones's view, 10 is where he has to be, whatever the consequences to others.

Many of us may prefer Ford at 10 to Farrell but moving Farrell to 12 to accommodate him results in the worst combination of the squad's resources.

Lots have said that Australia are not a strong unit which is stating the obvious. What they did do, though, is provide the best test of an opposing loose-field attack that we are going to get before facing NZ. Today's 10/12/13 selection is likely to be Jones's choice next week, I'd guess. It will be better next time out now that Slade has a game under his belt.

Another workmanlike performance. Put away a, sadly, dire Australian team without breaking into a sweat.

Australia aside the scrum made for dire viewing and killed of any momentum in play.

Curry outstanding.

Mellsblue wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: The epitome of what is wrong with English rugby, getting excited about how many tackles our 10 made. Don’t get me wrong, he played well, and that pass to Sinckler was a beauty, but getting excited by a high tackle count by a 10 is wrong headed.

I’m not getting excited by it, it’s just impressive that’s all. What’s wrong with that? Are we not allowed to praise something that is praiseworthy?

Why mention it if not excited?
I don’t think it’s impressive for a 10. At best they’re just running at him and he’s doing his job, at worst he’s looking for tackles and isn’t free to conduct play on a turnover.
I just think it’s a strange stat to highlight and praise and, again, symptomatic of what is wrong with English rugby.

If you mention something it doesn’t mean you’re excited. FFS! And if you’d noticed you have seen his scramble defence which accounted for a number of tackles.

And no, let’s not praise doubling everyone else’s tackles. That’s not impressive at all. It’s not praiseworthy in any regard. And again you can praise something as it is notable without being excited.

But then if praising something praiseworthy is what’s wrong with English rugby that I’m hugely proud to be wrong.

To be fair, people used to beat themselves off - well Andyprop did - if Wilco made that number of tackles

Mind you they would also hang CH out to dry if he missed one let alone 3

Fickle bunch

Farrell played OK. Making 17 tackles is a very good effort. I also thought Youngs had one of his better games.

This may not have been an all singing, all dancing performance graced with glittering tries but it was a fine, highly proficient performance that featured some very impressive individual efforts. Thats a good thing and sets us up nicely for next week when the opposition will be a good deal tougher.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
I’m not getting excited by it, it’s just impressive that’s all. What’s wrong with that? Are we not allowed to praise something that is praiseworthy?

Why mention it if not excited?
I don’t think it’s impressive for a 10. At best they’re just running at him and he’s doing his job, at worst he’s looking for tackles and isn’t free to conduct play on a turnover.
I just think it’s a strange stat to highlight and praise and, again, symptomatic of what is wrong with English rugby.

If you mention something it doesn’t mean you’re excited. FFS! And if you’d noticed you have seen his scramble defence which accounted for a number of tackles.

And no, let’s not praise doubling everyone else’s tackles. That’s not impressive at all. It’s not praiseworthy in any regard. And again you can praise something as it is notable without being excited.

But then if praising something praiseworthy is what’s wrong with English rugby that I’m hugely proud to be wrong.

So we’re just noting random stats that standout, regardless of context? His scramble defence is good but, if you’d noticed, that’s the 10’s role in England’s defence.

It’s like noting Marler made 100 yards whilst stood in the open spaces. Well done but it’s not what you’re there for, you’re in the wrong place.

I’ll go back to not wanting at 10 under that many breakdowns and not praising a 10 for his tackle count. I’ll praise for the pass to Sinckler, his kicking off the tee and his overall performance. I’ll not randomly praise something that ranks very low on my wish list from a 10.

Seems the midfield missed a fair few tackles- 9? Is that right?

Banquo wrote:Seems the midfield missed a fair few tackles- 9? Is that right?

I'd guess that was an accurate statistic but in the first 10-15 minutes of pretty much total one-way traffic everyone was piling in desperately and missed tackles stacked up everywhere. However, the queue to tackle meant few meaningful misses in that period so that statistic may give a false picture. More important, for me, was that 10/12/13 were in reasonable sync defensively as a unit so the individual mistakes counted for little on the scoreboard.

What the f--ck were you doing missing it, anyway? At this stage usually, you are pointing out that I am talking bollix. Now, I need somebody else to put me straight.

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:Seems the midfield missed a fair few tackles- 9? Is that right?

I'd guess that was an accurate statistic but in the first 10-15 minutes of pretty much total one-way traffic everyone was piling in desperately and missed tackles stacked up everywhere. However, the queue to tackle meant few meaningful misses in that period so that statistic may give a false picture. More important, for me, was that 10/12/13 were in reasonable sync defensively as a unit so the individual mistakes counted for little on the scoreboard.

What the f--ck were you doing missing it, anyway? At this stage usually, you are pointing out that I am talking bollix. Now, I need somebody else to put me straight.

You’re talking bollocks.

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:Seems the midfield missed a fair few tackles- 9? Is that right?

I'd guess that was an accurate statistic but in the first 10-15 minutes of pretty much total one-way traffic everyone was piling in desperately and missed tackles stacked up everywhere. However, the queue to tackle meant few meaningful misses in that period so that statistic may give a false picture. More important, for me, was that 10/12/13 were in reasonable sync defensively as a unit so the individual mistakes counted for little on the scoreboard.

What the f--ck were you doing missing it, anyway? At this stage usually, you are pointing out that I am talking bollix. Now, I need somebody else to put me straight.

Hey! Stop talking bollix.

I'm pretty ambivalent about the midfield defence today. They didn't let anything of note through - Koroibete's try should have been stopped by Daly if that was down to a break through them.
SCW thought Slade was amazing, I thought he was pretty shunt.
I never felt they were solid. If Genia had the ability to get quick ball to Kerevi or Petaia on a decent line I reckon Aus would have done well running between them

Is Dors talking bollix again

Agree with Danno. Better sides would have made good meterage through our 10, 12, 13 channels. Though they would have had their legs taken from them once they met The Wall at fb

p/d wrote:Is Dors talking bollix again

I'm sort of newish but feel like I've been lurking and occasionally posting long enough to finally ask: Dors?

Danno wrote:

p/d wrote:Is Dors talking bollix again

I'm sort of newish but feel like I've been lurking and occasionally posting long enough to finally ask: Dors?

Oakboy in a previous life.

Danno wrote:

p/d wrote:Is Dors talking bollix again

I'm sort of newish but feel like I've been lurking and occasionally posting long enough to finally ask: Dors?

Ha!!! Back to original 'rugbyrebels when Oakboy was Dorset, Banquo was Tim and Mellsblue was Veronicapreparedtotravel

Edit. Veronica beat me to it

What’s the chances Aus were running at Farrell to try and milk a red card. I can’t possibly imagine anything more Cheika-like in response to his recent confusion around the tackle area.

Much obliged.

p/d wrote:

Danno wrote:

p/d wrote:Is Dors talking bollix again

I'm sort of newish but feel like I've been lurking and occasionally posting long enough to finally ask: Dors?

Ha!!! Back to original 'rugbyrebels when Oakboy was Dorset, Banquo was Tim and Mellsblue was Veronicapreparedtotravel

Edit. Veronica beat me to it

Sighs!

Then, there was Beefeater.

Mellsblue wrote:

Danno wrote:

p/d wrote:Is Dors talking bollix again

I'm sort of newish but feel like I've been lurking and occasionally posting long enough to finally ask: Dors?

Oakboy in a previous life.

Threw my teddies out of the pram, left but couldn't stay away. Sneaked back in under a different moniker and got recognised by being just as stupid. Interestingly enough, I was identified by P/D's reference to my affection for his avatar. Now, he doesn't have one. He's never explained why. My own theory is that senility means he can't remember how to post one.

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Danno wrote:
I'm sort of newish but feel like I've been lurking and occasionally posting long enough to finally ask: Dors?

Oakboy in a previous life.

Threw my teddies out of the pram, left but couldn't stay away. Sneaked back in under a different moniker and got recognised by being just as stupid. Interestingly enough, I was identified by P/D's reference to my affection for his avatar. Now, he doesn't have one. He's never explained why. My own theory is that senility means he can't remember how to post one.

and you would be right. Not a bloody clue..... though since our relationship has moved on I feel obliged to respect Nat's privacy

p/d wrote:Another workmanlike performance. Put away a, sadly, dire Australian team without breaking into a sweat.

Australia aside the scrum made for dire viewing and killed of any momentum in play.

Curry outstanding.

I think just about sums it up. England never really had to do anything really special to win it, since Australia were just dire. That's not England's fault, nor a knock on them, it's more a result of the current gulf in class between the two sides last night. Australia had no answers against England's defensive pressure, and were clearly out of ideas and imagination. The two Aussies (or at least one of them) who did a tip tackle on Billy V probably should have been binned as well, IMO.

Sinckler's scrummaging was a bit patchy, but I wonder how much of that has to do with the turf - if there's one criticism I'd make of this World Cup, it'd be that the pitches haven't been entirely suitable for rugby as a couple of the calls that went against him seemed a bit harsh, like when he got pinged for collapsing a scrum right out in front of his own posts after it appeared he'd lost his footing. All in all though, I'd say he'd put in a big shift.