RugbyRebels

Timbo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:

Timbo wrote:12 phases, just after the hour mark.

Next best was 6 I think.

That is a truly horrific stat ...

Yep. And it’s why a certain poster criticising some of our ball carriers- Moon and Lawes- is total nonsense. The point of going through phases is that you move a defence around and pose different questions. It gives your carriers a chance. You ask anyone, even Billy, to carry into a set defence at this level you’re gonna get smashed.

If you carry as a forward and go backwards in contact I find it hard to be other than critical, on an overall basis, anyone can get knocked back in a one off. Lawes technically carried badly, and it's hardly the only time, and I agree with Raggs that Moon isn't a carrier, there's plenty to Moon's game to like but it doesn't suit this England side as we don't have any need seemingly to support multiphase rugby, and oddly a carrier who might have helped was sat on the bench in Genge. Some other carriers weren't on the bench owing to the selection of Shields, also odd.

I would of course concede Mako and Maro would have changed what was possible, but they weren't available, and Lawes and Moon did a bad job filling in given how England attacked. Lawes did make some nice tackles but we made so many tackles it seemed everyone got a chance to make some nice tackles, and the Welsh lineout is rubbish so only a little credit is available for disrupting their setpiece

Digby wrote:

Timbo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:
That is a truly horrific stat ...

Yep. And it’s why a certain poster criticising some of our ball carriers- Moon and Lawes- is total nonsense. The point of going through phases is that you move a defence around and pose different questions. It gives your carriers a chance. You ask anyone, even Billy, to carry into a set defence at this level you’re gonna get smashed.

If you carry as a forward and go backwards in contact I find it hard to be other than critical, on an overall basis, anyone can get knocked back in a one off. Lawes technically carried badly, and it's hardly the only time, and I agree with Raggs that Moon isn't a carrier, there's plenty to Moon's game to like but it doesn't suit this England side as we don't have any need seemingly to support multiphase rugby, and oddly a carrier who might have helped was sat on the bench in Genge. Some other carriers weren't on the bench owing to the selection of Shields, also odd.

I would of course concede Mako and Maro would have changed what was possible, but they weren't available, and Lawes and Moon did a bad job filling in given how England attacked. Lawes did make some nice tackles but we made so many tackles it seemed everyone got a chance to make some nice tackles, and the Welsh lineout is rubbish so only a little credit is available for disrupting their setpiece

Probably unhelpful to point out that the otherwise excellent AWJ was shunted backwards very noticeably once and made only 9 yards in 14 carries. Albeit better than Lawes 2 yards in 5

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Timbo wrote:
Yep. And it’s why a certain poster criticising some of our ball carriers- Moon and Lawes- is total nonsense. The point of going through phases is that you move a defence around and pose different questions. It gives your carriers a chance. You ask anyone, even Billy, to carry into a set defence at this level you’re gonna get smashed.

If you carry as a forward and go backwards in contact I find it hard to be other than critical, on an overall basis, anyone can get knocked back in a one off. Lawes technically carried badly, and it's hardly the only time, and I agree with Raggs that Moon isn't a carrier, there's plenty to Moon's game to like but it doesn't suit this England side as we don't have any need seemingly to support multiphase rugby, and oddly a carrier who might have helped was sat on the bench in Genge. Some other carriers weren't on the bench owing to the selection of Shields, also odd.

I would of course concede Mako and Maro would have changed what was possible, but they weren't available, and Lawes and Moon did a bad job filling in given how England attacked. Lawes did make some nice tackles but we made so many tackles it seemed everyone got a chance to make some nice tackles, and the Welsh lineout is rubbish so only a little credit is available for disrupting their setpiece

Probably unhelpful to point out that the otherwise excellent AWJ was shunted backwards very noticeably once and made only 9 yards in 14 carries. Albeit better than Lawes 2 yards in 5

Some of their efforts sucked too, both sides were woeful in attack, both lacked ambition and both made mistakes in the limited amount of play they did attempt. They at least continued their built in excuse losing so much lineout ball.

Nollie Waterman makes some very pertinent points about Sinckler bring replaced on her Try Hards podcast.....about 10 mins in if you can’t be bothered to listen to it all.

In essence she said that the decision undermines Sinckler, Farrell and Williams, in various ways, and hands Wales and the crowd a huge psychological boost.

Mellsblue wrote:Nollie Waterman makes some very pertinent points about Sinckler bring replaced on her Try Hards podcast.....about 10 mins in if you can’t be bothered to listen to it all.

In essence she said that the decision undermines Sinckler, Farrell and Williams, in various ways, and hands Wales and the crowd a huge psychological boost.

as it happens, I think it was right- he'd lost the plot and had already handed a more tangible advantage than psychological.

I can see her point. Although with the warning from the ref it makes sense. A full front row replacement would have perhaps been a smarter move, more tactical rather than reactive.

He was knackered, wasnt he? Just on the basis of the work he'd put in there was a case for him to be replaced. It was on 65 minutes if i recall correctly, which would be about the usual time for FR replacements. Why Moon was left on until 75 minutes is a mystery to me.

fivepointer wrote:He was knackered, wasnt he? Just on the basis of the work he'd put in there was a case for him to be replaced. It was on 65 minutes if i recall correctly, which would be about the usual time for FR replacements. Why Moon was left on until 75 minutes is a mystery to me.

It's a perfectly legitimate time to sub a tighthead, and not out of the norm, but it did come at a time when we left the rest of the replacements on the bench (basically), and only subbed him, leaving the likes of Moon still on the pitch.

Why Moon started perplexes me more. If we're not going to move the ball at any serious speed then carriers become more important still, losing Mako and selecting Moon was overly passive given how we setup. Whereas if we actually wanted to play suddenly having players who'll go to the coalface accepting a limited role and just clearing ruck after ruck becomes more important.

Why under Burt and Eddie we have to keep learning about the importance of carriers when playing such stodgy rugby I don't know

Bloody hell, we're into the seventh year of this BS. Neatly coupled with issues at centre, SH and (only very recently remedied and I would argue by luck more than judgement) openside

Edit: this BS

"Why under Burt and Eddie we have to keep learning about the importance of carriers when playing such stodgy rugby I don't know"

Not sure the doom and gloom is warranted. Eng no 4 in the world. Recently lost to No 1 after a 50:50 try decision went the wrong way. Humped no 2. Beating no 3 until 13 mins left and ran out of beans.

Buggaluggs wrote:Not sure the doom and gloom is warranted. Eng no 4 in the world. Recently lost to No 1 after a 50:50 try decision went the wrong way. Humped no 2. Beating no 3 until 13 mins left and ran out of beans.

Because, and surely you felt the opposite, from around the 50th minute there was a sinking feeling. We had 0 control and you were all over us. And no one did a thing to change it.

Danno wrote:Bloody hell, we're into the seventh year of this BS. Neatly coupled with issues at centre, SH and (only very recently remedied and I would argue by luck more than judgement) openside

Edit: this BS

"Why under Burt and Eddie we have to keep learning about the importance of carriers when playing such stodgy rugby I don't know"

15th year at least of crappy coaching.

Stom wrote:

Buggaluggs wrote:Not sure the doom and gloom is warranted. Eng no 4 in the world. Recently lost to No 1 after a 50:50 try decision went the wrong way. Humped no 2. Beating no 3 until 13 mins left and ran out of beans.

Because, and surely you felt the opposite, from around the 50th minute there was a sinking feeling. We had 0 control and you were all over us. And no one did a thing to change it.

Exactly this. England are good at effort and intensity, but piss poor at thinking. There is a history of failing to react or just making plain stupid decisions with this lot. Having a semblance of brainpower is probably quite important in say, the World Cup?

Banquo wrote:

Danno wrote:Bloody hell, we're into the seventh year of this BS. Neatly coupled with issues at centre, SH and (only very recently remedied and I would argue by luck more than judgement) openside

Edit: this BS

"Why under Burt and Eddie we have to keep learning about the importance of carriers when playing such stodgy rugby I don't know"

15th year at least of crappy coaching.

Which of Eddie Jones, Stuart Lancaster, Andy Farrell, John Mitchell, Weismantel, Rowntree, Gustard and Neal Hatley do you want to take to task over being a crappy coach then?

Timbo wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Danno wrote:Bloody hell, we're into the seventh year of this BS. Neatly coupled with issues at centre, SH and (only very recently remedied and I would argue by luck more than judgement) openside

Edit: this BS

"Why under Burt and Eddie we have to keep learning about the importance of carriers when playing such stodgy rugby I don't know"

15th year at least of crappy coaching.

Which of Eddie Jones, Stuart Lancaster, Andy Farrell, John Mitchell, Weismantel, Rowntree, Gustard and Neal Hatley do you want to take to task over being a crappy coach then?

Pretty much all at some stage or other. But more the head coaches, who have all been weighed and found wanting. You missed Robinson, Ashton, Wells, Ford, and of course Johnno.
If you think they've done well, then happy to disagree.
Though I would note I said crappy coaching, rather than crappy coaches; there may be some perfectly good coaches in that lot who have been unable to do the job to the best of their abilities. For example Robinson was an excellent forwards coach for a long period, but a dismal head coach for England; Ashton was a superb backs coach, but struggled as a head coach.

Stom wrote:

Buggaluggs wrote:Not sure the doom and gloom is warranted. Eng no 4 in the world. Recently lost to No 1 after a 50:50 try decision went the wrong way. Humped no 2. Beating no 3 until 13 mins left and ran out of beans.

Because, and surely you felt the opposite, from around the 50th minute there was a sinking feeling. We had 0 control and you were all over us. And no one did a thing to change it.

But it’s just one poor result. We may yet win the 6N’s. We aren’t the all singing, all dancing team i’m sure we’d like us to be, we do play a brand of pretty prosaic rugby, but we are objectively a good team. We’ll go to the World Cup and, along with 3/4 others stand a realistic chance of winning the thing.

So yeah, constructive analysis absolutely. Doom and gloom, no.

Timbo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Buggaluggs wrote:Not sure the doom and gloom is warranted. Eng no 4 in the world. Recently lost to No 1 after a 50:50 try decision went the wrong way. Humped no 2. Beating no 3 until 13 mins left and ran out of beans.

Because, and surely you felt the opposite, from around the 50th minute there was a sinking feeling. We had 0 control and you were all over us. And no one did a thing to change it.

But it’s just one poor result. We may yet win the 6N’s. We aren’t the all singing, all dancing team i’m sure we’d like us to be, we do play a brand of pretty prosaic rugby, but we are objectively a good team. We’ll go to the World Cup and, along with 3/4 others stand a realistic chance of winning the thing.

So yeah, constructive analysis absolutely. Doom and gloom, no.

But it was the mind numbingly dumb way we lost that game... It wasn't lost on the back of great play, or of individual mistakes. It was lost by a complete absence of leadership from players and management alone, which suggests that, no, we have no chance of winning the WC.

Stom wrote:

Timbo wrote:

Stom wrote:
Because, and surely you felt the opposite, from around the 50th minute there was a sinking feeling. We had 0 control and you were all over us. And no one did a thing to change it.

But it’s just one poor result. We may yet win the 6N’s. We aren’t the all singing, all dancing team i’m sure we’d like us to be, we do play a brand of pretty prosaic rugby, but we are objectively a good team. We’ll go to the World Cup and, along with 3/4 others stand a realistic chance of winning the thing.

So yeah, constructive analysis absolutely. Doom and gloom, no.

But it was the mind numbingly dumb way we lost that game... It wasn't lost on the back of great play, or of individual mistakes. It was lost by a complete absence of leadership from players and management alone, which suggests that, no, we have no chance of winning the WC.

Then you’re discounting every top nation from winning the World Cup. I can happily point you in the direction of a dumb, crappy 40 minutes (at least) from every one of the best 4/5 teams in the world over the last 6 months.

One of four or five who could win.....

With our player numbers and finances it should be between us and NZ. Ireland make a bloody good fist of it given their limitations and you should be able to add France in to the England bracket if they were as good at organising their rugby as they are at organising a strike.

Oz are a cash strapped minor sport, Scotland can only put two pro teams together and have to borrow any Kiwi with a Scottish granny or any Saffer who prefers a test cap to sunshine, SA can’t hold onto any of their players and Wales, to Gatland’s credit, consistently punch above their weight.

If you think being fourth best in the world given our strengths and others weaknesses is a
success I can’t agree with you.

If fourth were a slump I’d agree we punch our weight but we should be consistently top 2 and we’re not.

Mellsblue wrote:One of four or five who could win.....

With our player numbers and finances it should be between us and NZ. Ireland make a bloody good fist of it given their limitations and you should be able to add France in to the England bracket if they were as good at organising their rugby as they are at organising a strike.

Oz are a cash strapped minor sport, Scotland can only put two pro teams together and have to borrow any Kiwi with a Scottish granny or any Saffer who prefers a test cap to sunshine, SA can’t hold onto any of their players and Wales, to Gatland’s credit, consistently punch above their weight.

If you think being fourth best in the world given our strengths and others weaknesses is a
success I can’t agree with you.

If fourth were a slump I’d agree we punch our weight but we should be consistently top 2 and we’re not.

No, I agree. We don’t punch our weight. But we are where we are, and there’s been massive strides in the last 10 years with player development. Putting ourselves where we could/should be is a long term project, and not really something you can hold over Eddie Jones or our current player base imo.

Timbo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:One of four or five who could win.....

With our player numbers and finances it should be between us and NZ. Ireland make a bloody good fist of it given their limitations and you should be able to add France in to the England bracket if they were as good at organising their rugby as they are at organising a strike.

Oz are a cash strapped minor sport, Scotland can only put two pro teams together and have to borrow any Kiwi with a Scottish granny or any Saffer who prefers a test cap to sunshine, SA can’t hold onto any of their players and Wales, to Gatland’s credit, consistently punch above their weight.

If you think being fourth best in the world given our strengths and others weaknesses is a
success I can’t agree with you.

If fourth were a slump I’d agree we punch our weight but we should be consistently top 2 and we’re not.

No, I agree. We don’t punch our weight. But we are where we are, and there’s been massive strides in the last 10 years with player development. Putting ourselves where we could/should be is a long term project, and not really something you can hold over Eddie Jones or our current player base imo.

When does this long term project come to fruition? We’ve had the most money and the most players for decades. We’ve been dominant u20s for ages and we provided a bloody large chunk of the test match Lions. Yet, we still perform in fits and starts, and looked one dimensional and clueless last weekend. Further, our talisman, barometer, world class fly half and captain tends to have a stinker/be distinctly average in the big matches - Ire ‘18, NZ ‘18 and Wales ‘19. Given Ireland’s results and performances this 6N, I’m not inclined to lean too heavily for comfort on our performance against them.

Ireland performing as they are is in large part due to the beat down we gave them. Cant knock that performance or result imo. Ireland hadn’t lost a 6N’s game at home for 6 years.

I will say I think there’s a conflation of two pretty seperate issues here; the systemic issues within English rugby, and then the realities of working with the playing resources that we currently have.

That said...I’ve no idea how long ‘the long term project’ will take. The Professional Game Agreement and the academies have made a significant difference, which can be seen in the national teams results and consistency. Our player base and depth is much better than it was, and our young players are much better prepared for top level rugby than they were. We have an 80% win record under Jones, and our overall record is much better than it was 8,9,10 years ago. Hopefully we’ll continue to see incremental improvements over the next period of time and we’ll get to where we want to be.

I'd say the playing resources we currently have are as a consequence of systemic issues within English Rugby; there are signs of encouragement in that at full strength, we have a decent sprinkling of very good players, and some approaching world class/XV standard, probably more so than in a number of years, and some promising youngsters breaking through. I still have great concerns over our ability to turn talent into great international players, and that is a function of the systematic flaws- the two big, linked barriers, are the quality and intensity of domestic rugby, and I believe a lack of really talented and capable coaches throughout our system- imo its far too easy to become a coach at senior level, certainly compared to say NZ. I think this has been amply demonstrated for years and years at national senior level- I've hardly ever looked at England and thought 'they look well coached' since about mid 2003. My biggest gripes have always been two-fold.....lack of world class players, but equally a succession of England coaches who have failed to make the best of what they have to work with, both selectorially and getting the best out of (and even improving) players in their charge. I'm more optimistic about the talent I can see than for a while, but really hope they don't get crushed by the mediocrity of both the GP and Eddies (lack of) playing aspirations.

Looks like I’m going to have to be very patient. Though, tbh, the last 15 have tested my patience quite enough.