RugbyRebels

And the break weekends should have gone with amateurism. Several years i've had friends who are not normally rugby watchers get into it and then get irritated at the pointless break.

Puja wrote:
The selection is not helping me in the slightest. I want England to win (and gods, I cannot take a loss to Wales considering how many Welsh I work with), but it feels like the only way Lawes at 6, Curry at 8, and Daly at 15 might stop happening is if we lose. And, if we continue winning with them, then it'll be cemented in as our side and we'll continue playing with one hand tied behind our back until we play NZ or SA and get destroyed.

Puja

I see it more as experimentation. Trying to get a team that can lose billyv and still continue to dominate. Also, Jones has always prioritised time in camp over selecting specialists, i do wonder how long people are felt to need to adjust, mind. Particularly when that kiwi was seemingly expected to be immediately up to it...

I'd certainly like to see more in attack, mind. But Daley looked better back there, oddly and with Watson fit it all seems to make sense. Hopefully it all clicks a la the semifinal.

Mr Mwenda wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
Talking to friends from the other home nations, I get, "I don't bother to watch England unless we are playing them. They are so boring." I don't have a counter-argument and my only defence is that I am an avid fan so I'll carry on watching. As ever, it is what we have with Jones - the 'Mourinho effect'. Effectively it's win or zero.

I think many of them would say "boring, boring England" whatever was put in front of them. Lord knows Ireland, Wales and Scotland have stunk out the place enough this and previous seasons despite in some cases having their best ever teams.

England v Wales for a triple crown? That still interests me.

Previously, Celtic acquaintances still watched England for the joy of someone else possibly beating us. Now, in my experience, quite a few don't bother.

It's quite depressing that the 6N teams managed to pull away from SA and Aus a bit but right now they're just terrible.

France are looking good but are early in their development and will make mistakes.
We will be hard to beat bar the odd implosion.

The others? Poor. Wales had a great tight 5 a short while ago. Now they have a pensioner holding together a bunch of journeymen.
Scotland are just, well, Scotland.
Italy have gone backward.
Ireland haven't developed.

I just can't see the 6N preparing us to face the 3N again. So we're going to lose against them all. But then we'll revert to stodge because it can win the 6N.

Oakboy wrote:

Mr Mwenda wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
Talking to friends from the other home nations, I get, "I don't bother to watch England unless we are playing them. They are so boring." I don't have a counter-argument and my only defence is that I am an avid fan so I'll carry on watching. As ever, it is what we have with Jones - the 'Mourinho effect'. Effectively it's win or zero.

I think many of them would say "boring, boring England" whatever was put in front of them. Lord knows Ireland, Wales and Scotland have stunk out the place enough this and previous seasons despite in some cases having their best ever teams.

England v Wales for a triple crown? That still interests me.

Previously, Celtic acquaintances still watched England for the joy of someone else possibly beating us. Now, in my experience, quite a few don't bother.

Ah, so it's because England are losing less. Shame.

Oakboy wrote:

Beasties wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Anyone else sort of lost interest a bit in this 6 nations? Particularly with the Italy situation. Maybe it’s always this way after the World Cup.

Defo subdued after a WC. But also the two breaks in the middle make it a struggle to sustain interest.

I certainly agree that the 6N needs to scrap the gap weeks which lose all credibility with players turning out for their clubs. What depresses me most is that our RWC SF performance showed how we could play. Then, because SA steamrollered us, Jones now sees copying those tactics as the new fashion. I think that England are a horrendous team to watch for the neutral based on all our matches in this 6N. The current style of kicking and trying to dominate without the ball has no chance of attracting non-rugby people to watch the game - effectively destroying any PR blip from reaching the SF.

Talking to friends from the other home nations, I get, "I don't bother to watch England unless we are playing them. They are so boring." I don't have a counter-argument and my only defence is that I am an avid fan so I'll carry on watching. As ever, it is what we have with Jones - the 'Mourinho effect'. Effectively it's win or zero.

Do you ever get bored of spouting inaccurate rubbish just to pursue your own narrative?

With the Mourinho comparison you’re more or less making out that we play 0 rugby and win by kicking goals or grinding out wins with 10 man rugby which plainly isn’t true.

Look I’d rather we kicked a lot less and played more ball-in-hand rugby, but the stats speak for themselves. Last year we scored 24 tries - almost twice as many as the 14 scored by Ireland and Scotland. In 2018 (when we were $hit) we were still there 2nd for tries scored. In 2017 we were top with 16 tries ... do you want me to keep going?

With the possible exception of Scotland, the other ‘home nations’ are very much the pot calling the kettle black if they’re labelling us ‘boring’. Schmidt’s most successful Ireland teams were much more befitting of your Mourinho comparison and Warrenball was the epitome of unimaginative rugby. Scotland at least try to play but more often than not lack the skill to match the ambition.

I’d question your friends if they’re coming to you for an informed opinion.

Scrumhead wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Beasties wrote: Defo subdued after a WC. But also the two breaks in the middle make it a struggle to sustain interest.

I certainly agree that the 6N needs to scrap the gap weeks which lose all credibility with players turning out for their clubs. What depresses me most is that our RWC SF performance showed how we could play. Then, because SA steamrollered us, Jones now sees copying those tactics as the new fashion. I think that England are a horrendous team to watch for the neutral based on all our matches in this 6N. The current style of kicking and trying to dominate without the ball has no chance of attracting non-rugby people to watch the game - effectively destroying any PR blip from reaching the SF.

Talking to friends from the other home nations, I get, "I don't bother to watch England unless we are playing them. They are so boring." I don't have a counter-argument and my only defence is that I am an avid fan so I'll carry on watching. As ever, it is what we have with Jones - the 'Mourinho effect'. Effectively it's win or zero.

Do you ever get bored of spouting inaccurate rubbish just to pursue your own narrative?

With the Mourinho comparison you’re more or less making out that we play 0 rugby and win by kicking goals or grinding out wins with 10 man rugby which plainly isn’t true.

Look I’d rather we kicked a lot less and played more ball-in-hand rugby, but the stats speak for themselves. Last year we scored 24 tries - almost twice as many as the 14 scored by Ireland and Scotland. In 2018 (when we were $hit) we were still there 2nd for tries scored. In 2017 we were top with 16 tries ... do you want me to keep going?

With the possible exception of Scotland, the other ‘home nations’ are very much the pot calling the kettle black if they’re labelling us ‘boring’. Schmidt’s most successful Ireland teams were much more befitting of your Mourinho comparison and Warrenball was the epitome of unimaginative rugby. Scotland at least try to play but more often than not lack the skill to match the ambition.

I’d question your friends if they’re coming to you for an informed opinion.

I don't think there is any need to be so unpleasant.

He's not wrong in saying that Eddie is all about results and not performance; I don't have a problem with that personally, but do question some of his methods of getting there. I think we do have sufficient players of all round quality to aspire to more ambitious rugby; that said, we do do somequite interesting things, but more likely to 'amuse' the purist, and not done consistently well. Our basic executions can be frustratingly bad.

Mr Mwenda wrote:

Puja wrote:
The selection is not helping me in the slightest. I want England to win (and gods, I cannot take a loss to Wales considering how many Welsh I work with), but it feels like the only way Lawes at 6, Curry at 8, and Daly at 15 might stop happening is if we lose. And, if we continue winning with them, then it'll be cemented in as our side and we'll continue playing with one hand tied behind our back until we play NZ or SA and get destroyed.

Puja

I see it more as experimentation. Trying to get a team that can lose billyv and still continue to dominate.

See, that I can totally get behind. It's the method by which we're trying to do it that's confusing me. Lawes is not an international flanker. He never will be an international flanker. It has never worked at the top level, with the Ireland game being the only slight exception and, even then you'd say it was a good lock performance rather than that of a flanker. I just don't see why we're going back to a well that has been proven dry half a dozen times and expecting to get water from it.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mr Mwenda wrote:

Puja wrote:
The selection is not helping me in the slightest. I want England to win (and gods, I cannot take a loss to Wales considering how many Welsh I work with), but it feels like the only way Lawes at 6, Curry at 8, and Daly at 15 might stop happening is if we lose. And, if we continue winning with them, then it'll be cemented in as our side and we'll continue playing with one hand tied behind our back until we play NZ or SA and get destroyed.

Puja

I see it more as experimentation. Trying to get a team that can lose billyv and still continue to dominate.

See, that I can totally get behind. It's the method by which we're trying to do it that's confusing me. Lawes is not an international flanker. He never will be an international flanker. It has never worked at the top level, with the Ireland game being the only slight exception and, even then you'd say it was a good lock performance rather than that of a flanker. I just don't see why we're going back to a well that has been proven dry half a dozen times and expecting to get water from it.

Puja

Because Lawes does all the stat work at 6.

We boost our l/o. He makes more "dominant hits". He's a wonderful stats player.

Until you get to ruck time.

But, hey, our ruck %ages are similar or better than our opposition, so he's doing a good job there.

Until you get to our ruck timings. Where we're terrible. Slow, slow, slow.

Mr Mwenda wrote:
England v Wales for a triple crown? That still interests me.

Wales losing to Ireland, France and England would make it a memorable 6n

Stom wrote:
Because Lawes does all the stat work at 6.

We boost our l/o. He makes more "dominant hits". He's a wonderful stats player.

Until you get to ruck time.

But, hey, our ruck %ages are similar or better than our opposition, so he's doing a good job there.

Until you get to our ruck timings. Where we're terrible. Slow, slow, slow.

How do England's ruck timings differ from other teams playing in their right positions? Based on digby's minute reviews it seems to be a problem everyone has. Also, does England's ruck speed change dramatically when they go Cunderhill and billyv? I ask as someone who is also dismayed by Lawes at 6.

I keep forgetting this game is on. Thinking which club fixture I should watch on saturday afternoon. I don't think that has happened for 20 years.

What an odd year it has been.

First 6n I can recall where my sole focus is hoping our replacement front row get a decent run out as a unit

p/d wrote:First 6n I can recall where my sole focus is hoping our replacement front row get a decent run out as a unit

To be fair, it's a damned useful unit. I was wondering which of Farrell and Itoje has been replaced least. Farrell staying on is pretty much cast in stone. Itoje's 80 minute toughness must be right up with the best for a lock.

Oakboy wrote:

Beasties wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Anyone else sort of lost interest a bit in this 6 nations? Particularly with the Italy situation. Maybe it’s always this way after the World Cup.

Defo subdued after a WC. But also the two breaks in the middle make it a struggle to sustain interest.

I certainly agree that the 6N needs to scrap the gap weeks which lose all credibility with players turning out for their clubs. What depresses me most is that our RWC SF performance showed how we could play. Then, because SA steamrollered us, Jones now sees copying those tactics as the new fashion. I think that England are a horrendous team to watch for the neutral based on all our matches in this 6N. The current style of kicking and trying to dominate without the ball has no chance of attracting non-rugby people to watch the game - effectively destroying any PR blip from reaching the SF.

Talking to friends from the other home nations, I get, "I don't bother to watch England unless we are playing them. They are so boring." I don't have a counter-argument and my only defence is that I am an avid fan so I'll carry on watching. As ever, it is what we have with Jones - the 'Mourinho effect'. Effectively it's win or zero.

I think Ireland have taken the dull crown in the Norf. England are a dangerous side, but the set up is too busy wanking to pictures of Owen Farrell taking place kicks to get it together consistently.

Totally agree.

+1 for kicking Ireland out of the 6 nations, if not rugby altogether.

Mikey Brown wrote:Totally agree.

+1 for kicking Ireland out of the 6 nations, if not rugby altogether.

doirty feckers. POM is the devil.

Enjoy the game folks- I'm off to HQ tomorrow, via a big lunch in Richmond. Someone might have to tell me what happened!

Banquo wrote:Enjoy the game folks- I'm off to HQ tomorrow, via a big lunch in Richmond. Someone might have to tell me what happened!

Munchin' leeks? Bon appétit!!

Banquo wrote:Enjoy the game folks- I'm off to HQ tomorrow, via a big lunch in Richmond. Someone might have to tell me what happened!

Enjoy!

bet he leaves his book in a Richmond restaurant

Only after regaling the entire establishment with Jones’s pearls of wisdom.

Is that a euphemism?

morepork wrote:Is that a euphemism?

No, it is a surprisingly good read

Banquo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
I certainly agree that the 6N needs to scrap the gap weeks which lose all credibility with players turning out for their clubs. What depresses me most is that our RWC SF performance showed how we could play. Then, because SA steamrollered us, Jones now sees copying those tactics as the new fashion. I think that England are a horrendous team to watch for the neutral based on all our matches in this 6N. The current style of kicking and trying to dominate without the ball has no chance of attracting non-rugby people to watch the game - effectively destroying any PR blip from reaching the SF.

Talking to friends from the other home nations, I get, "I don't bother to watch England unless we are playing them. They are so boring." I don't have a counter-argument and my only defence is that I am an avid fan so I'll carry on watching. As ever, it is what we have with Jones - the 'Mourinho effect'. Effectively it's win or zero.

Do you ever get bored of spouting inaccurate rubbish just to pursue your own narrative?

With the Mourinho comparison you’re more or less making out that we play 0 rugby and win by kicking goals or grinding out wins with 10 man rugby which plainly isn’t true.

Look I’d rather we kicked a lot less and played more ball-in-hand rugby, but the stats speak for themselves. Last year we scored 24 tries - almost twice as many as the 14 scored by Ireland and Scotland. In 2018 (when we were $hit) we were still there 2nd for tries scored. In 2017 we were top with 16 tries ... do you want me to keep going?

With the possible exception of Scotland, the other ‘home nations’ are very much the pot calling the kettle black if they’re labelling us ‘boring’. Schmidt’s most successful Ireland teams were much more befitting of your Mourinho comparison and Warrenball was the epitome of unimaginative rugby. Scotland at least try to play but more often than not lack the skill to match the ambition.

I’d question your friends if they’re coming to you for an informed opinion.

I don't think there is any need to be so unpleasant.

He's not wrong in saying that Eddie is all about results and not performance; I don't have a problem with that personally, but do question some of his methods of getting there. I think we do have sufficient players of all round quality to aspire to more ambitious rugby; that said, we do do somequite interesting things, but more likely to 'amuse' the purist, and not done consistently well. Our basic executions can be frustratingly bad.

OK. Maybe my last sentence was a touch harsh. Sorry Oakboy.

As I’ve said previously (and even in the post), I’d like us to play more, kick less and make more of our players who are genuinely skilful but I don’t think we’re a results only team either. We’re certainly not the most boring team in the 6N.