RugbyRebels

Essentially to ‘fire a shot’ you need some front foot ball. We didn’t have that so even if we’d had peak Jonah Lomu on the wing we’d still have lost.

If only we’d had an enormous cumbersome lock.

Scrumhead wrote:

Digby wrote:It's why I wasn't entirely joking when pondering after the event if Cockanasiga might not have been a better option at 12. Some teams are happy to play to try and speed up play and then use that speed to win the contact, we want to win the contact before we play, and thus SA are a tricky prospect for us. Granted losing Sinckler really hurt our carrying options and made it easier for SA to look after Billy and Mako

Why on Earth would we have played Cokanasiga at 12?! Sorry, but that is a laughably naive suggestion.

I appreciate that he has the physical attributes to potentially perform that role on paper, but to ask a player to take on a role they’ve never played at senior level in a World Cup final would have been a colossal, not to mention ridiculous gamble.

We didn’t lose the game because we didn’t have a big crash ball 12. As it happened we had very little attacking ball full stop, so he would have spent more of the game being targeted for his unfamiliarity with the defensive positioning needed at 12.

There was barely any rugby played in the game so his movement and scanning options wouldn't have been hugely exposed. And we couldn't get over the gainline so I'm merely having a bit of fun with the idea no idea is too stupid to mention given the above, and given our passing duo at 10 and 12 were so ineffective that having two hard running options at 12 and 13 might (and only might ) have given us a foothold in the game. Whether even if we'd gained a foothold we could have done anything is another question again.

If you feel an internet message board for rugby is the wrong place for some flights on fancy on the subject of rugby than I offer my sincerest apologies.

Well what I really want to know is why we didn’t play Jack Nowell and Jonny May as our flankers?

Eddie’s said Nowell is his 3rd 7 before and we’ve all seen what a beast Jonny is packing down on the blindside.

Mikey Brown wrote:

p/d wrote:

Digby wrote:It's why I wasn't entirely joking when pondering after the event if Cockanasiga might not have been a better option at 12. Some teams are happy to play to try and speed up play and then use that speed to win the contact, we want to win the contact before we play, and thus SA are a tricky prospect for us. Granted losing Sinckler really hurt our carrying options and made it easier for SA to look after Billy and Mako

The Coka WC journey is an interesting one full stop. If Pre tournament you knew we had to face SA, you would have put money on him being in the 23

If only we’d known before the tournament that Nowell was an injury doubt and not worth wasting 2 (!) squad spaces on.

apparently it was a risk worth taking.

p/d wrote:Kudos to SA indeed. But the knock-ons, kicks out on the full and blocking was all our skill set .... not to mention deliberately passing to the crowd when 12 million people could see there was no player to pass to

Nerves and stupidity, who knew. Watson didn't get hammered for that, and he should have.

Banquo wrote:

p/d wrote:Kudos to SA indeed. But the knock-ons, kicks out on the full and blocking was all our skill set .... not to mention deliberately passing to the crowd when 12 million people could see there was no player to pass to

Nerves and stupidity, who knew. Watson didn't get hammered for that, and he should have.

Prob did it in desperation to try to gain just a tiny advantage in that moment given the shitstorm that was happening around him.

Beasties wrote:

Banquo wrote:

p/d wrote:Kudos to SA indeed. But the knock-ons, kicks out on the full and blocking was all our skill set .... not to mention deliberately passing to the crowd when 12 million people could see there was no player to pass to

Nerves and stupidity, who knew. Watson didn't get hammered for that, and he should have.

Prob did it in desperation to try to gain just a tiny advantage in that moment given the shitstorm that was happening around him.

whatever, it didn't help! though as Pollard made a horlicks of the kick, it didn't get much approbation.

Mikey Brown wrote:If only we’d had an enormous cumbersome lock.

...and played him at 8

Banquo wrote:

p/d wrote:I might not be remembering correctly but didn’t NZ take an absolute battering in the first quarter v SA. Plus Pollard missed his first kick at goal.

Not sure if SA confidence disappeared but NZ weathered the storm, adapted and had SA big men chasing shadows.

In our defence I think we were caught cold by SA whilst NZ were well prepared and - having faced them twice - knew what was coming.

..what, like we hadn't seen them play before (and how they've played for years)?

Makes you bloody wonder

Mellsblue wrote: I saw a stat the other day that sums it up:
Eng’s average gain per carry was the lowest in RWC history. The previous lowest was Wales v SA in the semifinal.....

The final that just keeps on giving

Scrumhead wrote:Essentially to ‘fire a shot’ you need some front foot ball. We didn’t have that so even if we’d had peak Jonah Lomu on the wing we’d still have lost.

Lomu never scored a single try against South Africa.

At least we now have the answer to the trivia question ‘Who scored a double try against South Africa?’

Mikey Brown wrote:If only we’d had an enormous cumbersome lock.

Who brought cumbersome into it

I'm just going to stick with "We were awful".

Only thing we can do now is win a Slam in the spring.

Billy needs a good rest too and England need to learn how to play without relying on him to be there. Wilson at 8 would get us through a six nations in a safety first, no thrills sense, but I’d prefer Morgan, Dombrandt or the macbeth option to be tried out (maybe with Billy as a wrecking ball finisher).

If Billy gets surgery to make him 4 inches taller he can be our beastly 20 stone lock. Then Itoje will be free to play 8. Would that make you happy?

Going forward; we can afford to "jetison" some players who won't be around for the next RWC - namely those who would expect to be in the bench, and those where we have plenty of depth ready to step up (Marler, Cole, Lawes, Kruis, Wilson, Heinz)

There is a debate to be had for those in the same position, who may or may not disadvantaged by age in 4 years time - May has learned to be so much more than top-end pace; Tuilagi's injury history may extend (or may curtail) his ability to play well into his 30s.

And then there's Ben Youngs... quite honestly, if we do discard him, we're going to be very green in the SH shirt for quite a while. This is a problem of Eddie's own making, but it is where we are. Eddie also hates having an od number of SHs in his squads - so sod it, I say take 4 SHs in the 6N squad (even if 1 or 2 of them have an asterisk by their name); Youngs and 3 others.

Of course, we can always not-select those older players, and bring them back in (if we need to) in 3 years time if they're still going well.

That still gives us the following core of experienced players to build a squad around:
Mako, Genge
George, LCD
Sinkler
Itoje
Launchbury
Curry
Underhill
Billy

Youngs
Ford
Daly (May?)
Farrell
Slade, Joseph (Tuilagi?)
Nowell, Cokanasiga
Watson

So we'd be introducing the youngsters from the bench, and training around the squad - sounds perfect to me.

For the summer tour 2020; I'd leave the RWC / 6N starting XV at home to simply have some downtime and a nice club pre-season.
This would allow this 6N for some youngsters to get used to international rugby; and still have a decent core group to take to Japan and bring through some of the 6N tackle-bag holders into the 23, and some new blood into the wider squad. Maybe bring 1-2 players you're not intending to use again as a last-hurrah on the summer tour - especially backrow and halfback, where we'd be leaving pretty-much everybody at home otherwise.

Genge, LCD, ___(Hill / Stuart)
Launchbury, ___(Ewels / Isiekwe)
Ludlam, (Wilson), ___(Dombrandt)

(Youngs), ___(Smith)
Slade, Joseph
Nowell, Cokanasiga, ___(McConnochie)

For the AIs we bring back the RWC players, and the best performers from the 6N and SIs; reassess and start building from there. Of those unlikely to make the next RWC, only Youngs should still be playing international rugby in the AIs 2020 - and he should be in his last season.

I might just stop supporting England entirely if Ben Youngs plays again. I just can't face it. I know we'll be inexperienced but I don't think I care anymore.

Mikey Brown wrote:If Billy gets surgery to make him 4 inches taller he can be our beastly 20 stone lock. Then Itoje will be free to play 8. Would that make you happy?

Ah what utter bliss

Which Tyler wrote:Going forward; we can afford to "jetison" some players who won't be around for the next RWC - namely those who would expect to be in the bench, and those where we have plenty of depth ready to step up (Marler, Cole, Lawes, Kruis, Wilson, Heinz)

I don't think I'd be so quick to jettison those barring Heinz. They could all make the next World Cup if better options don't emerge.

I think as England fans we are so used to having mediocre players that we have the mentality of regenerating at the commencement of each World Cup cycle but with the base we now have we should be able to gradually bring new players in on merit and continue winning.

I like the suggestion of having four 9s in the squad (as it is a particular problem position) but except for that I'd like us just to pick our best team available for the Six and try to win a Grand Slam.

For the Japan tour I think we will have to rest a number of those who played a lot of minutes in the World Cup so that will be our opportunity to try a few promising players out (while still aiming to win every game).

Eddie said a while ago he doesn't like more than 2 9s in a squad as it complicates things. He likes consistency of service in practice sessions, which makes you wonder why Youngs was there at all......

Beasties wrote:Eddie said a while ago he doesn't like more than 2 9s in a squad as it complicates things. He likes consistency of service in practice sessions, which makes you wonder why Youngs was there at all......

And makes you think why did we pull in Suntory's 4th choice 9 to train with us throughout the World Cup!

Beasties wrote:Eddie said a while ago he doesn't like more than 2 9s in a squad as it complicates things. He likes consistency of service in practice sessions, which makes you wonder why Youngs was there at all......

As Digby will tell you, Youngs is too busy thinking 4 moves ahead and planning out our attack to bother with stupid shit like passing the ball accurately.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Beasties wrote:Eddie said a while ago he doesn't like more than 2 9s in a squad as it complicates things. He likes consistency of service in practice sessions, which makes you wonder why Youngs was there at all......

As Digby will tell you, Youngs is too busy thinking 4 moves ahead and planning out our attack to bother with stupid shit like passing the ball accurately.

My preference in a 9 is much more a touch and away game where possible. I'm only saying if you ask someone to play like Youngs, checking constantly on his chasing team and scanning the backfield that takes time and focus away from the task of clearing the ball, not much, but not much makes a big difference

I linked somewhere recently a video Raggs brought to my attention, and in it Aaron Smith is talking about how he does't tend to see many runs for himself, and that's because his focus is more on the ball. You cannot look at all options and be as fast and accurate executing on whichever one you happen pick as you would be if you bias towards the one you're more likely to execute, which to me just seems like common sense.

Edit - I'm not sure Smith says that's why he doesn't run, or whether I've read between the lines, but either way it holds for my money