RugbyRebels

Billy back for Saracens tomorrow night.

Good for you to have us first up. It's generally our worst game. However being favourites hasn't bothered Ireland for about 5 years so I wouldn't hold much store by that. On the plus side the "raising their game to play England" thing has almost always been bollocks - we've got just as many shit performances against England as everyone else - so you don't need to worry about that.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Good for you to have us first up. It's generally our worst game. However being favourites hasn't bothered Ireland for about 5 years so I wouldn't hold much store by that. On the plus side the "raising their game to play England" thing has almost always been bollocks - we've got just as many shit performances against England as everyone else - so you don't need to worry about that.

Agreed it's probably our best shot at you to have you first. I think the "raising the game to play against England" mostly only works for teams not demonstrably better than us - we tend to get screwed by crapper nations suddenly pulling one out of the bag against us.

While there's still plenty of time for it all to go horribly wrong, we're actually in danger of having a decent squad to pick from this 6N. Launch is back, BillyV's back, Itoje's back next week, Genge and Mako and Manu are all fit. At the moment, I think we're only missing Watson, Joseph, and Underhill (bloody Bath injuring all our England players) from our first choice XV (although having Cokanasiga fit would also be nice). Even LCD's fit for once, for all that we won't pick him.

Where's the spread on the number of EPS players to go down broken in the next fortnight? 10-15? We all know Fazlet and Youngs are impervious to any harm, but I'm willing to bet we'll have none of one position left by the squad naming. Let's see, last 6N it was back row, in the summer it was locks, AIs was loosehead props - will it be a run on wingers this time?

Puja

Puja wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Good for you to have us first up. It's generally our worst game. However being favourites hasn't bothered Ireland for about 5 years so I wouldn't hold much store by that. On the plus side the "raising their game to play England" thing has almost always been bollocks - we've got just as many shit performances against England as everyone else - so you don't need to worry about that.

Agreed it's probably our best shot at you to have you first. I think the "raising the game to play against England" mostly only works for teams not demonstrably better than us - we tend to get screwed by crapper nations suddenly pulling one out of the bag against us.

While there's still plenty of time for it all to go horribly wrong, we're actually in danger of having a decent squad to pick from this 6N. Launch is back, BillyV's back, Itoje's back next week, Genge and Mako and Manu are all fit. At the moment, I think we're only missing Watson, Joseph, and Underhill (bloody Bath injuring all our England players) from our first choice XV (although having Cokanasiga fit would also be nice). Even LCD's fit for once, for all that we won't pick him.

Where's the spread on the number of EPS players to go down broken in the next fortnight? 10-15? We all know Fazlet and Youngs are impervious to any harm, but I'm willing to bet we'll have none of one position left by the squad naming. Let's see, last 6N it was back row, in the summer it was locks, AIs was loosehead props - will it be a run on wingers this time?

Puja

In terms of difficulties with a single position, might it not do us good (especially in the long-term) to pretend that Youngs and Care are permanently injured?

Oakboy wrote:

Puja wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Good for you to have us first up. It's generally our worst game. However being favourites hasn't bothered Ireland for about 5 years so I wouldn't hold much store by that. On the plus side the "raising their game to play England" thing has almost always been bollocks - we've got just as many shit performances against England as everyone else - so you don't need to worry about that.

Agreed it's probably our best shot at you to have you first. I think the "raising the game to play against England" mostly only works for teams not demonstrably better than us - we tend to get screwed by crapper nations suddenly pulling one out of the bag against us.

While there's still plenty of time for it all to go horribly wrong, we're actually in danger of having a decent squad to pick from this 6N. Launch is back, BillyV's back, Itoje's back next week, Genge and Mako and Manu are all fit. At the moment, I think we're only missing Watson, Joseph, and Underhill (bloody Bath injuring all our England players) from our first choice XV (although having Cokanasiga fit would also be nice). Even LCD's fit for once, for all that we won't pick him.

Where's the spread on the number of EPS players to go down broken in the next fortnight? 10-15? We all know Fazlet and Youngs are impervious to any harm, but I'm willing to bet we'll have none of one position left by the squad naming. Let's see, last 6N it was back row, in the summer it was locks, AIs was loosehead props - will it be a run on wingers this time?

Puja

In terms of difficulties with a single position, might it not do us good (especially in the long-term) to pretend that Youngs and Care are permanently injured?

Don't be foolish. It's never in a position that would actually help! Or, if it was, then all the good options would go down too. So we'd lose Youngs and Care to injury, but then Maunder, Robson, Spencer, and Vellacott would all go down as well, leaving us with Wigglesworth and Cook!

Puja

Why are Ireland being seen as such a strong side? They're decent for sure, and we're not, or certainly not consistently so, meaning it's a game we can lose without surprise. But our record against Ireland is hardly shocking, and whilst they've a few really classy players the side as a whole isn't terrifying, I'd still consider this as a game we should win if we perform

Digby wrote:Why are Ireland being seen as such a strong side? They're decent for sure, and we're not, or certainly not consistently so, meaning it's a game we can lose without surprise. But our record against Ireland is hardly shocking, and whilst they've a few really classy players the side as a whole isn't terrifying, I'd still consider this as a game we should win if we perform

We have lost our last two games to them. Plus they are the holders of the 6N, Grand Slam, Raeburn Shield and have won 2 of the last three against New Zealand. They are pretty good.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:Why are Ireland being seen as such a strong side? They're decent for sure, and we're not, or certainly not consistently so, meaning it's a game we can lose without surprise. But our record against Ireland is hardly shocking, and whilst they've a few really classy players the side as a whole isn't terrifying, I'd still consider this as a game we should win if we perform

We have lost our last two games to them. Plus they are the holders of the 6N, Grand Slam, Raeburn Shield and have won 2 of the last three against New Zealand. They are pretty good.

Puja

They're pretty good, but I still feel if we do well on selection, tactics and execution we can and should win, whereas if we got those three right against NZ I'd still only rate us as might win.

Nah - I think Ireland under Schmidt have a combination of a strong squad and game plan they are able to execute perfectly (largely because the bulk of the side plays for Leinster). Add in the advantages of their approach to player welfare and it makes them very hard to beat.

Player for player, there’s not much in it, but Schmidt has them playing in a far more cohesive and consistent way than Eddie’s managed with us. Even in our unbeaten spell under Eddie the results were far better than the performances, whereas I’d say Ireland’s wins have been far more convincing.

We can beat them, but to suggest we ‘should’ is overestimating us by a distance.

Scrumhead wrote:Nah - I think Ireland under Schmidt have a combination of a strong squad and game plan they are able to execute perfectly (largely because the bulk of the side plays for Leinster). Add in the advantages of their approach to player welfare and it makes them very hard to beat.

Player for player, there’s not much in it, but Schmidt has them playing in a far more cohesive and consistent way than Eddie’s managed with us. Even in our unbeaten spell under Eddie the results were far better than the performances, whereas I’d say Ireland’s wins have been far more cownvincing.

We can beat them, but to suggest we ‘should’ is overestimating us by a distance.

Completely agree. Diggers ought to be right but under Jones we have yet to perform to near-maximum-capacity for 80 minutes, IMO.

Ireland, on the other hand, often do under Schmidt.

Selection at 6 caricatures the relative coaching prowess.

Digby wrote:Why are Ireland being seen as such a strong side? They're decent for sure, and we're not, or certainly not consistently so, meaning it's a game we can lose without surprise. But our record against Ireland is hardly shocking, and whilst they've a few really classy players the side as a whole isn't terrifying, I'd still consider this as a game we should win if we perform

They can maintain intensity in contact for 80 minutes and most of their passes go to hand. I'm pretty sure that's about all they do but it's enough to win a lot of games and set them apart from most other teams in the world except NZ.

I'm sticking with if we lose any games in the 6N as things stand it's most likely down to us under performing in one or more of selection, tactics and execution

Interesting to see how we approach this game, with our extra width previously coming from one man support play we corrected that last time out against Ireland and Schmidt had seen that coming and barely had Ireland contest a ruck relying instead on fanning out

Mikey Brown wrote:

Digby wrote:Why are Ireland being seen as such a strong side? They're decent for sure, and we're not, or certainly not consistently so, meaning it's a game we can lose without surprise. But our record against Ireland is hardly shocking, and whilst they've a few really classy players the side as a whole isn't terrifying, I'd still consider this as a game we should win if we perform

They can maintain intensity in contact for 80 minutes and most of their passes go to hand. I'm pretty sure that's about all they do but it's enough to win a lot of games and set them apart from most other teams in the world except NZ.

Which is fair enough, but if I look at where we can't match up I come up with Furlong and Murray, and that's not a long enough list to scare me.Thus in advance we could lose but shouldn't be expecting to

Digby wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

Digby wrote:Why are Ireland being seen as such a strong side? They're decent for sure, and we're not, or certainly not consistently so, meaning it's a game we can lose without surprise. But our record against Ireland is hardly shocking, and whilst they've a few really classy players the side as a whole isn't terrifying, I'd still consider this as a game we should win if we perform

They can maintain intensity in contact for 80 minutes and most of their passes go to hand. I'm pretty sure that's about all they do but it's enough to win a lot of games and set them apart from most other teams in the world except NZ.

Which is fair enough, but if I look at where we can't match up I come up with Furlong and Murray, and that's not a long enough list to scare me.Thus in advance we could lose but shouldn't be expecting to

If we pick the best team, or if we pick the team that we're actually going to pick? Cause we're going to pick Hartley, Shields, Fazlet at 10, and Daly at 15, which unevens the battle a fair chunk.

I take your point that, if we do well on selection, tactics and execution we can and should win, but we don't have any of those things and that's not considering the inevitable burnout injuries. Ireland aren't insuperable and they're not doing much that's outstandingly clever, but they are doing a lot that's right, which is not one of our virtues.

Puja

If Dombrandt gets fit, he could save us from Shields. Because the latter is picked for his l/o work, which is decent. But his performances elsewhere have not been good enough to justify picking him over the other options.

We're starting to get some really good backrow options, mind.

What changes would England need to make to be more likely to beat Ireland?

I've seen suggestions of playing two 7s…
I'd hope for wingers who are solid positionally and under the high ball
I'd not want to try and win a tactical kicking game against them
But I don't know what the key is to beating them

(ETA: I don't mean things like “not picking Shields, Youngs, Farrell”)

Paying some sort of attention to what's going on at the breakdown might be a good starting point. I guess that's just the sort of flippant answer you weren't looking for, but we seem incredibly slow to notice whether an opposition team is generally putting 1 guy in or 14. Equally we'll keep sending a lone runner with one guy to clearout while all the other forwards fuck off to the far side of the pitch, regardless of whether we often (quickly) get the ball back.

Mikey Brown wrote:Paying some sort of attention to what's going on at the breakdown might be a good starting point. I guess that's just the sort of flippant answer you weren't looking for, but we seem incredibly slow to notice whether an opposition team is generally putting 1 guy in or 14. Equally we'll keep sending a lone runner with one guy to clearout while all the other forwards fuck off to the far side of the pitch, regardless of whether we often (quickly) get the ball back.

To be fair, it's actually the kind of answer I was after! And I agree with your analysis…

In the past we definitely have seemed to have a ruck strategy that is completely devoid of what the opposition are doing

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:
They can maintain intensity in contact for 80 minutes and most of their passes go to hand. I'm pretty sure that's about all they do but it's enough to win a lot of games and set them apart from most other teams in the world except NZ.

Which is fair enough, but if I look at where we can't match up I come up with Furlong and Murray, and that's not a long enough list to scare me.Thus in advance we could lose but shouldn't be expecting to

If we pick the best team, or if we pick the team that we're actually going to pick? Cause we're going to pick Hartley, Shields, Fazlet at 10, and Daly at 15, which unevens the battle a fair chunk.

I take your point that, if we do well on selection, tactics and execution we can and should win, but we don't have any of those things and that's not considering the inevitable burnout injuries. Ireland aren't insuperable and they're not doing much that's outstandingly clever, but they are doing a lot that's right, which is not one of our virtues.

Puja

Then we'll not simply be losers in the game but judged more generally as a failure, hardly unusual for team England, but it would warrant harsher criticism

Renniks wrote:What changes would England need to make to be more likely to beat Ireland?

I've seen suggestions of playing two 7s…
I'd hope for wingers who are solid positionally and under the high ball
I'd not want to try and win a tactical kicking game against them
But I don't know what the key is to beating them

(ETA: I don't mean things like “not picking Shields, Youngs, Farrell”)

The bolded bit is the crux of the matter to me. Every time we play Ireland, we insist on going through our same patterns - set up slow ruck ball between our 22m and halfway line, wait to make sure Ireland know exactly what we're going to do, and then kick high to compete.

Now, I know that playing in your own half isn't always a sensible plan, but kicking to compete isn't a percentage play against Ireland because it never ever ever works. All it does is gain 15m and lose us the ball, which Ireland then either keep or kick to our corner.

A better percentage play against the best high ball team in the world is surely to go long and aim for grass - you'll still give them the ball, but it'll be 40m further forward, rather than 10m.

Puja

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:
Which is fair enough, but if I look at where we can't match up I come up with Furlong and Murray, and that's not a long enough list to scare me.Thus in advance we could lose but shouldn't be expecting to

If we pick the best team, or if we pick the team that we're actually going to pick? Cause we're going to pick Hartley, Shields, Fazlet at 10, and Daly at 15, which unevens the battle a fair chunk.

I take your point that, if we do well on selection, tactics and execution we can and should win, but we don't have any of those things and that's not considering the inevitable burnout injuries. Ireland aren't insuperable and they're not doing much that's outstandingly clever, but they are doing a lot that's right, which is not one of our virtues.

Puja

Then we'll not simply be losers in the game but judged more generally as a failure, hardly unusual for team England, but it would warrant harsher criticism

True, but it's what we have and what we are. Saying we'd be better if we got our players and our team to play better is true, but a bit tautological.

Puja

But I do tend myself to look at selection, tactics and execution rather than results, and then judge. Mostly England are found wanting. Nonetheless there's no need to be overtly worried about a trip to Dublin, there might be reasonable concern we'll play like England, but that's a different thing

Digby wrote:But I do tend myself to look at selection, tactics and execution rather than results, and then judge. Mostly England are found wanting. Nonetheless there's no need to be overtly worried about a trip to Dublin, there might be reasonable concern we'll play like England, but that's a different thing

It's a bit of a funny way to look at things - as long as we don't play the way we always do, there's no reason to be worried. I can respect it though - better than the bitter nihilism I find myself sinking into.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:But I do tend myself to look at selection, tactics and execution rather than results, and then judge. Mostly England are found wanting. Nonetheless there's no need to be overtly worried about a trip to Dublin, there might be reasonable concern we'll play like England, but that's a different thing

It's a bit of a funny way to look at things - as long as we don't play the way we always do, there's no reason to be worried. I can respect it though - better than the bitter nihilism I find myself sinking into.

Puja

Even when we play the way we do games against this Ireland tend to be close, win or lose. So I'll comeback to they're hardly such a strong side we need be worried, and they are being hyped beyond what looks their actual ability

Others may not agree we'd be favourites if we performed well, but this isn't a trip to Auckland with a back three of Wilson, Lomu and Cullen running the ball back

I don't see us winning - but I don't think that's because of the strength of this Ireland team…

I think it's because we can't sort our shit out.