RugbyRebels

Thought we played quite reasonably in the 1st half. Liked the Randall/Smith partnership and we moved the ball very pleasingly at times.
After our 4th try we went off the boil in a very big and alarming way.
Winning away and not conceding a point is not to be sniffed at, but our failure to press on in the 2nd half was disappointing.

BTW, Daly looked much better at wing- quelle surprise...solid under the high ball in a way he isnt at 15, came off the wing on a good line and with some depth, and kick chase was ok. Slade looked comfy at 12 going forward and distributing- though tried to force some breaks- but it looks a bit soft in defence in midfield still. Back 5 of the pack was a bit on the slow side for me, which I think led to the messy breakdowns, alongside poor presentation and rucking decision making.

Lots for Eddie to fix- will he?

Thought Dombrandt was excellent (5 turnovers) and deserves to start at 8 against Wales.

fivepointer wrote:Thought we played quite reasonably in the 1st half. Liked the Randall/Smith partnership and we moved the ball very pleasingly at times.
After our 4th try we went off the boil in a very big and alarming way.
Winning away and not conceding a point is not to be sniffed at, but our failure to press on in the 2nd half was disappointing.

Took chances,and did some nice things- Malins was a bit of metaphor, some real classy things, but other headless decisions and careless handling. Plus breakdown accuracy was woeful all game.

fivepointer wrote:Thought we played quite reasonably in the 1st half. Liked the Randall/Smith partnership and we moved the ball very pleasingly at times.
After our 4th try we went off the boil in a very big and alarming way.
Winning away and not conceding a point is not to be sniffed at, but our failure to press on in the 2nd half was disappointing.

Bravo, 5p, for looking for positives when there was precious little to get excited about. For me, that was a relegation scrap.

jngf wrote:Thought Dombrandt was excellent (5 turnovers) and deserves to start at 8 against Wales.

Good over the ball, but like a lot of his team mates looked ponderous I thought; one paced back 4 plus Curry.

francoisfou wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Thought we played quite reasonably in the 1st half. Liked the Randall/Smith partnership and we moved the ball very pleasingly at times.
After our 4th try we went off the boil in a very big and alarming way.
Winning away and not conceding a point is not to be sniffed at, but our failure to press on in the 2nd half was disappointing.

Bravo, 5p, for looking for positives when there was precious little to get excited about. For me, that was a relegation scrap.

second place in the table mate

But yes..assume that's a silent 's' in your final word.

Banquo wrote:

jngf wrote:Thought Dombrandt was excellent (5 turnovers) and deserves to start at 8 against Wales.

Good over the ball, but like a lot of his team mates looked ponderous I thought; one paced back 4 plus Curry.

Welsh backrow starting to look very handy (with Basham and Morgan particularly impressive). Would say we need somebody faster and more mobile than Lawes at 6 (for example) to combat that.

Banquo wrote:

francoisfou wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Thought we played quite reasonably in the 1st half. Liked the Randall/Smith partnership and we moved the ball very pleasingly at times.
After our 4th try we went off the boil in a very big and alarming way.
Winning away and not conceding a point is not to be sniffed at, but our failure to press on in the 2nd half was disappointing.

Bravo, 5p, for looking for positives when there was precious little to get excited about. For me, that was a relegation scrap.

second place in the table mate

But yes...

I thought Simmonds did some useful work in defence, getting in their face early.

There will need to be radical changes of personnel and approach if we are to compete with Ireland and France, I don't feel that confident about Wales.

We badly need Hill or Launchbury to partner Itoje in the 2nd row. Both hookers are fine but Genge, Stuart and Sinckler are a concern. Lawes reinstated at 6 should stabilise the back row with Curry at 7. I'd go back to Simmonds at 8.

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

francoisfou wrote: Bravo, 5p, for looking for positives when there was precious little to get excited about. For me, that was a relegation scrap.

second place in the table mate

But yes...

I thought Simmonds did some useful work in defence, getting in their face early.

There will need to be radical changes of personnel and approach if we are to compete with Ireland and France, I don't feel that confident about Wales.

We badly need Hill or Launchbury to partner Itoje in the 2nd row. Both hookers are fine but Genge, Stuart and Sinckler are a concern. Lawes reinstated at 6 should stabilise the back row with Curry at 7. I'd go back to Simmonds at 8.

Ireland and France are at another level that Eddie, for the moment, hasn’t a hope of reaching. It’s a travesty that with the wealth of players at his disposal, he sticks to a game plan that will never be able to compete with the better sides.

francoisfou wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote: second place in the table mate

But yes...

I thought Simmonds did some useful work in defence, getting in their face early.

There will need to be radical changes of personnel and approach if we are to compete with Ireland and France, I don't feel that confident about Wales.

We badly need Hill or Launchbury to partner Itoje in the 2nd row. Both hookers are fine but Genge, Stuart and Sinckler are a concern. Lawes reinstated at 6 should stabilise the back row with Curry at 7. I'd go back to Simmonds at 8.

Ireland and France are at another level that Eddie, for the moment, hasn’t a hope of reaching. It’s a travesty that with the wealth of players at his disposal, he sticks to a game plan that will never be able to compete with the better sides.

I'm struggling to see what the gameplan is, bar trying to get anyone not in the front row to play in unfamiliar positions

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

francoisfou wrote: Bravo, 5p, for looking for positives when there was precious little to get excited about. For me, that was a relegation scrap.

second place in the table mate

But yes...

I thought Simmonds did some useful work in defence, getting in their face early.

There will need to be radical changes of personnel and approach if we are to compete with Ireland and France, I don't feel that confident about Wales.

We badly need Hill or Launchbury to partner Itoje in the 2nd row. Both hookers are fine but Genge, Stuart and Sinckler are a concern. Lawes reinstated at 6 should stabilise the back row with Curry at 7. I'd go back to Simmonds at 8.

Unfortunately for those who came on, the second half was a write off. On my normal soap box, the best in the prem doesn't necessarily equate to being a top notch international- Sinckler looked like he'd taken a kick up the backside to heart though. As before, every single unit needs an upgrade to make the whole a better outfit; though I'm not sure what the players or Eddies excuse can be for some of the penalties or the terrible ball presentation and rucking decisions/technique. TBH it all shows how bad Italy were- and how much worse than against France.

Danno wrote:

francoisfou wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
I thought Simmonds did some useful work in defence, getting in their face early.

There will need to be radical changes of personnel and approach if we are to compete with Ireland and France, I don't feel that confident about Wales.

We badly need Hill or Launchbury to partner Itoje in the 2nd row. Both hookers are fine but Genge, Stuart and Sinckler are a concern. Lawes reinstated at 6 should stabilise the back row with Curry at 7. I'd go back to Simmonds at 8.

Ireland and France are at another level that Eddie, for the moment, hasn’t a hope of reaching. It’s a travesty that with the wealth of players at his disposal, he sticks to a game plan that will never be able to compete with the better sides.

I'm struggling to see what the gameplan is, bar trying to get anyone not in the front row to play in unfamiliar positions

In fairness, Eddies game plans change depending on the oppos- and maybe that's part of his struggle....with Japan, there was pretty much only one way to play, say, and with the Brumbies the players (a lot of whom he developed) made it possible to impose the same attacking plan on anyone.

francoisfou wrote: Bravo, 5p, for looking for positives when there was precious little to get excited about. For me, that was a relegation scrap.

So England win 0-33, France beat basically the same team 37-10, (France handed an interception try), yet todays was a "relegation Battle"? Can you explain the logic in that?

francoisfou wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote: second place in the table mate

But yes...

I thought Simmonds did some useful work in defence, getting in their face early.

There will need to be radical changes of personnel and approach if we are to compete with Ireland and France, I don't feel that confident about Wales.

We badly need Hill or Launchbury to partner Itoje in the 2nd row. Both hookers are fine but Genge, Stuart and Sinckler are a concern. Lawes reinstated at 6 should stabilise the back row with Curry at 7. I'd go back to Simmonds at 8.

Ireland and France are at another level that Eddie, for the moment, hasn’t a hope of reaching. It’s a travesty that with the wealth of players at his disposal, he sticks to a game plan that will never be able to compete with the better sides.

I'm going to challenge that- he does not have the players that say France have at the moment in an attacking sense, and so the game plan (which varies see below) needs to take account of that.

oldbackrow wrote:

francoisfou wrote: Bravo, 5p, for looking for positives when there was precious little to get excited about. For me, that was a relegation scrap.

So England win 0-33, France beat basically the same team 37-10, (France handed an interception try), yet todays was a "relegation Battle"? Can you explain the logic in that?

In fairness, Italy didn't really turn up today in the 1st half...and we had something to do with that I guess....but they were way better with the ball v France.

But we are second in the table, so huzza!

Banquo wrote:

oldbackrow wrote:

francoisfou wrote: Bravo, 5p, for looking for positives when there was precious little to get excited about. For me, that was a relegation scrap.

So England win 0-33, France beat basically the same team 37-10, (France handed an interception try), yet todays was a "relegation Battle"? Can you explain the logic in that?

In fairness, Italy didn't really turn up today in the 1st half...and we had something to do with that I guess....but they were way better with the ball v France.

But we are second in the table, so huzza!

Having played Scotland and Italy!!! As you say, huz-fricking-za.

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

oldbackrow wrote: So England win 0-33, France beat basically the same team 37-10, (France handed an interception try), yet todays was a "relegation Battle"? Can you explain the logic in that?

In fairness, Italy didn't really turn up today in the 1st half...and we had something to do with that I guess....but they were way better with the ball v France.

But we are second in the table, so huzza!

Having played Scotland and Italy!!! As you say, huz-fricking-za.

baby steps

jngf wrote:Thought Dombrandt was excellent (5 turnovers) and deserves to start at 8 against Wales.

I agree. Thought you’d appreciate me saying so

oldbackrow wrote:

francoisfou wrote: Bravo, 5p, for looking for positives when there was precious little to get excited about. For me, that was a relegation scrap.

So England win 0-33, France beat basically the same team 37-10, (France handed an interception try), yet todays was a "relegation Battle"? Can you explain the logic in that?

Gladly. The winning margins may be similar, but that’s where the similarities end. The error count today was unacceptable at this level with a general lack of cohesion. I don’t know why but with the player resources at Eddie’s disposal, I have always expected England to achieve more, and after watching today’s game I’m convinced that a new broom is needed to help England realise their true potential. The French Federation appointed Raphaël Ibañez and Fabien Galthié to bring about the changes desperately needed on this side of the Channel, and it’s already paying dividends and I firmly believe the RFU should act now, but it’s probably already too late with the World Cup approaching swiftly.

Banquo wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Thought we played quite reasonably in the 1st half. Liked the Randall/Smith partnership and we moved the ball very pleasingly at times.
After our 4th try we went off the boil in a very big and alarming way.
Winning away and not conceding a point is not to be sniffed at, but our failure to press on in the 2nd half was disappointing.

Took chances,and did some nice things- Malins was a bit of metaphor, some real classy things, but other headless decisions and careless handling. Plus breakdown accuracy was woeful all game.

Malins is a cultured footballer. Good acceleration too, if somewhat short of top end gas; and adequate defence. But he does lack a bit of urgency/dog to his game and often seems to swan around as though it were Tuesday night training. I'd like to see a bit more of an aggressive and abrasive side.

Doesn’t sound like I missed a lot. Just the 5 min highlights then or is there something to be gleaned from the extended/full version?

Somebody saying “please Italy don’t let us nill you” earlier in the thread got a proper laugh. It’s that sort of sentiment I’ve felt a lot in recent times watching England.

Reading through the list of errors in this thread, without having seen the game, it feels like I’ve watched this exact game a dozen times before. Like it’s great that Jones has plans for all these different scenarios but half the time it feels like the players are hesitating and trying to remember what they’ve been told is the correct move rather than just playing what is in front of them.

What happened to Nowell?

Spiffy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Thought we played quite reasonably in the 1st half. Liked the Randall/Smith partnership and we moved the ball very pleasingly at times.
After our 4th try we went off the boil in a very big and alarming way.
Winning away and not conceding a point is not to be sniffed at, but our failure to press on in the 2nd half was disappointing.

Took chances,and did some nice things- Malins was a bit of metaphor, some real classy things, but other headless decisions and careless handling. Plus breakdown accuracy was woeful all game.

Malins is a cultured footballer. Good acceleration too, if somewhat short of top end gas; and adequate defence. But he does lack a bit of urgency/dog to his game and often seems to swan around as though it were Tuesday night training. I'd like to see a bit more of an aggressive and abrasive side.

I think he showed the opposite of a lack of urgency today tbh. Dog, maybe- he did just poodle around sometimes.

Not convinced he’s a back 3 intl player tbh.

Mikey Brown wrote:Doesn’t sound like I missed a lot. Just the 5 min highlights then or is there something to be gleaned from the extended/full version?

Somebody saying “please Italy don’t let us nill you” earlier in the thread got a proper laugh. It’s that sort of sentiment I’ve felt a lot in recent times watching England.

Reading through the list of errors in this thread, without having seen the game, it feels like I’ve watched this exact game a dozen times before. Like it’s great that Jones has plans for all these different scenarios but half the time it feels like the players are hesitating and trying to remember what they’ve been told is the correct move rather than just playing what is in front of them.

What happened to Nowell?

Pretty good summary

Nowell failed an HIA about 15(?)mins in. Daly came on amd showed everyone why he shouldn't be at FB/13, by playing pretty well on the wing