RugbyRebels

Agreed. Our defence against Ireland was unbelievable so we’ve got the blueprint right there. How the same group of players can go from that kind of high point to what we saw in the second half against Scotland boggles my mind. Just outright bizarre.

More difficult to achieve both, though. It goes back to the onfield decision making and intuition......again. When to tighten up a bit, when to attack and seeing those requirements before it’s too late.

We've got all the ingredients to be a really good team, and to put in a worthy RWC challenge.
What we lack is the ability to see what is working and to keep doing it; and what isn't, and to try something else.
This comes from coaching and leadership. We need a tactically astute captain, who isn't a halfback; a defensive rock somewhere in the backline, and a FH who can make the play-by-play decisions correctly.
The problem positions are obviously the halfbacks. Youngs is fine when he acts rather than being given decision-making responsibilities - where he takes 5 times too long and still too ofen makes the wrong decision.
Whilst his play has improved out of all recognition over the last 6 years, Farrell is NOT the man to build a team around, and seems to be the personal ebodiment of our faults. Yes, he's very good at geeing up his own team, and very good at following the script. But he's terrible at recognising when he needs to veer from the script, terrible at doubling down on the mistakes, and still prone to getting overexcited in defence.

Scrumhead wrote:Agreed. Our defence against Ireland was unbelievable so we’ve got the blueprint right there. How the same group of players can go from that kind of high point to what we saw in the second half against Scotland boggles my mind. Just outright bizarre.

This.

Beasties wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:Agreed. Our defence against Ireland was unbelievable so we’ve got the blueprint right there. How the same group of players can go from that kind of high point to what we saw in the second half against Scotland boggles my mind. Just outright bizarre.

This.

It's almost like the blitz isn't always the right defence. Though in part what system survives that many missed tackles?

Which Tyler wrote:We've got all the ingredients to be a really good team, and to put in a worthy RWC challenge.
What we lack is the ability to see what is working and to keep doing it; and what isn't, and to try something else.
This comes from coaching and leadership. We need a tactically astute captain, who isn't a halfback; a defensive rock somewhere in the backline, and a FH who can make the play-by-play decisions correctly.
The problem positions are obviously the halfbacks. Youngs is fine when he acts rather than being given decision-making responsibilities - where he takes 5 times too long and still too ofen makes the wrong decision.
Whilst his play has improved out of all recognition over the last 6 years, Farrell is NOT the man to build a team around, and seems to be the personal ebodiment of our faults. Yes, he's very good at geeing up his own team, and very good at following the script. But he's terrible at recognising when he needs to veer from the script, terrible at doubling down on the mistakes, and still prone to getting overexcited in defence.

Sadly I find myself increasingly yearning for a Bobby Robson stroke of WC luck now, where a couple of " key" players get struck down right at the start of the WC and Eddie's forced into a corner, where the only way to get out is to select those players he doesn't trust. At this point I'd actually be reasonably happy to go down in a blaze of glory.

Of course the other possibilty is that a ref actually finds some stones and Farrell gets a proper sanction for one of his "challenges" early on.

p/d wrote:We explode out of the blocks, but once our intensity drops the opposition get to play there game and suddenly we look vulnerable. Especially when faced with a player of Russell’s quality. Boy did we look pants once he got the ball in behind our back 3.

Really not sure a bench can change that, though perhaps the likes of Goode, Wigglesworth and Robshaw could tighten things up and gain ya field position

Thing is, not really sure what Sat's bench was supposed to do exactly. Luckily Ford was the only one who could've provided some impetus. I'd love to know why Eddie took Farrell off and put Ford on. I suppose we'll never know.

Which Tyler wrote:We've got all the ingredients to be a really good team, and to put in a worthy RWC challenge.
What we lack is the ability to see what is working and to keep doing it; and what isn't, and to try something else.
This comes from coaching and leadership. We need a tactically astute captain, who isn't a halfback; a defensive rock somewhere in the backline, and a FH who can make the play-by-play decisions correctly.
The problem positions are obviously the halfbacks. Youngs is fine when he acts rather than being given decision-making responsibilities - where he takes 5 times too long and still too ofen makes the wrong decision.
Whilst his play has improved out of all recognition over the last 6 years, Farrell is NOT the man to build a team around, and seems to be the personal ebodiment of our faults. Yes, he's very good at geeing up his own team, and very good at following the script. But he's terrible at recognising when he needs to veer from the script, terrible at doubling down on the mistakes, and still prone to getting overexcited in defence.

So, what you're saying is that we need Brad Barritt...

Seriously, though, the failings of the team are so incredibly obvious and have been throughout the 6N that if Jones cannot see them and rectify it, why the hell are the RFU paying him so much?

Beasties wrote:

p/d wrote:We explode out of the blocks, but once our intensity drops the opposition get to play there game and suddenly we look vulnerable. Especially when faced with a player of Russell’s quality. Boy did we look pants once he got the ball in behind our back 3.

Really not sure a bench can change that, though perhaps the likes of Goode, Wigglesworth and Robshaw could tighten things up and gain ya field position

Thing is, not really sure what Sat's bench was supposed to do exactly. Luckily Ford was the only one who could've provided some impetus. I'd love to know why Eddie took Farrell off and put Ford on. I suppose we'll never know.

We do know. He stated that Farrell had 'lost his edge' (no shyte!) and that Ford had been in fine form and offered that something different.

Looking back it would appear we tired ourselves out more than we did Scotland in the first half.

Yep. Youngs and Farrell are to blame for the on-field naivety that cost us against Wales and Scotland, but Eddie has the power/opportunity to change it and either didn’t or did it way too late.

We’ll never know what would have happened if we’d changed our halfbacks earlier/at all but I think Robson/Spencer or Ford could have helped re-establish some degree of control.

The only piece of encouragement I took is that Farrell was subbed for Ford, not shuffled out to 12.

Scrumhead wrote:Yep. Youngs and Farrell are to blame for the on-field naivety that cost us against Wales and Scotland, but Eddie has the power/opportunity to change it and either didn’t or did it way too late.

We’ll never know what would have happened if we’d changed our halfbacks earlier/at all but I think Robson/Spencer or Ford could have helped re-establish some degree of control.

The only piece of encouragement I took is that Farrell was subbed for Ford, not shuffled out to 12.

I don't think it's necessarily their fault, it's Eddie's fault 100%. But Farrell is the on-field leader, he should be taking charge. So he takes a lot of blame for that. Meanwhile, Youngs' failings are so outrageous for a SH (and most of us grew up with SHs whose primary function was to give the ball to the 10 quickly and accurately, not a running, tackling, kicking machine like many are today), that we just can't believe he's first choice...

Stom wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:Yep. Youngs and Farrell are to blame for the on-field naivety that cost us against Wales and Scotland, but Eddie has the power/opportunity to change it and either didn’t or did it way too late.

We’ll never know what would have happened if we’d changed our halfbacks earlier/at all but I think Robson/Spencer or Ford could have helped re-establish some degree of control.

The only piece of encouragement I took is that Farrell was subbed for Ford, not shuffled out to 12.

I don't think it's necessarily their fault, it's Eddie's fault 100%. But Farrell is the on-field leader, he should be taking charge. So he takes a lot of blame for that. Meanwhile, Youngs' failings are so outrageous for a SH (and most of us grew up with SHs whose primary function was to give the ball to the 10 quickly and accurately, not a running, tackling, kicking machine like many are today), that we just can't believe he's first choice...

Its not like he's a tackling machine, or even a kicking one as machines don't make many mistakes.

Scrumhead wrote:Agreed. Our defence against Ireland was unbelievable so we’ve got the blueprint right there. How the same group of players can go from that kind of high point to what we saw in the second half against Scotland boggles my mind. Just outright bizarre.

Yes, but if the team is having a defensive bad patch, the fundamentally obvious thing to do is not defend. If you keep the ball, it's the opposition that has to defend then. Playing by numbers, halfback decision-making, captain at FH, mental anxiety, tiredness, coaching errors etc. etc. are all valid points but we ARE talking about professional international rugby players. All fifteen should know what to do in the circumstances. If they have to be told they should not be there. Basically, at ruck time, the forwards should push the SH aside or demand the ball two metres away from him. Just shut up shop for 15 phases or whatever. It's in the Saracens and Exeter DNA so who has extracted the players' brains for internatioanals?

p/d wrote:

Beasties wrote:

p/d wrote:We explode out of the blocks, but once our intensity drops the opposition get to play there game and suddenly we look vulnerable. Especially when faced with a player of Russell’s quality. Boy did we look pants once he got the ball in behind our back 3.

Really not sure a bench can change that, though perhaps the likes of Goode, Wigglesworth and Robshaw could tighten things up and gain ya field position

Thing is, not really sure what Sat's bench was supposed to do exactly. Luckily Ford was the only one who could've provided some impetus. I'd love to know why Eddie took Farrell off and put Ford on. I suppose we'll never know.

We do know. He stated that Farrell had 'lost his edge' (no shyte!) and that Ford had been in fine form and offered that something different.

Looking back it would appear we tired ourselves out more than we did Scotland in the first half.

And yet he couldn't bring himself to praise Ford for taking his try well. I'd have bet money on Farrell trying a speculative kick to the wing under those same circumstances, which maybe would've been understandable given we had a pen adv and he'd have had to pass left to right otherwise....

Oakboy wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:Agreed. Our defence against Ireland was unbelievable so we’ve got the blueprint right there. How the same group of players can go from that kind of high point to what we saw in the second half against Scotland boggles my mind. Just outright bizarre.

Yes, but if the team is having a defensive bad patch, the fundamentally obvious thing to do is not defend. If you keep the ball, it's the opposition that has to defend then. Playing by numbers, halfback decision-making, captain at FH, mental anxiety, tiredness, coaching errors etc. etc. are all valid points but we ARE talking about professional international rugby players. All fifteen should know what to do in the circumstances. If they have to be told they should not be there. Basically, at ruck time, the forwards should push the SH aside or demand the ball two metres away from him. Just shut up shop for 15 phases or whatever. It's in the Saracens and Exeter DNA so who has extracted the players' brains for internatioanals?

I agree with that, the guys onfield are the only ones who can actually change things. Mind the half times seem to also be counterproductive, and Eddie really has no sense of timing on subs, compared to the scots who iirc made a raft of changes to maintain momentum. So its both, but primary accountability is with the guys on the park for me.

Beasties wrote:

p/d wrote:

Beasties wrote: Thing is, not really sure what Sat's bench was supposed to do exactly. Luckily Ford was the only one who could've provided some impetus. I'd love to know why Eddie took Farrell off and put Ford on. I suppose we'll never know.

We do know. He stated that Farrell had 'lost his edge' (no shyte!) and that Ford had been in fine form and offered that something different.

Looking back it would appear we tired ourselves out more than we did Scotland in the first half.

And yet he couldn't bring himself to praise Ford for taking his try well. I'd have bet money on Farrell trying a speculative kick to the wing under those same circumstances, which maybe would've been understandable given we had a pen adv and he'd have had to pass left to right otherwise....

Agreed. Particularly considering he thought it was a good idea to do exactly that against Wales when we didn’t have a penalty advantage ...

One surprising thing I did notice for the last try was that Curry took over from Spencer to make the first pass and Genge was at first receiver. Genge could easily have taken it in to contact but had the wherewithal to make a good pass under pressure.

Scrumhead wrote:

Beasties wrote:

p/d wrote:

We do know. He stated that Farrell had 'lost his edge' (no shyte!) and that Ford had been in fine form and offered that something different.

Looking back it would appear we tired ourselves out more than we did Scotland in the first half.

And yet he couldn't bring himself to praise Ford for taking his try well. I'd have bet money on Farrell trying a speculative kick to the wing under those same circumstances, which maybe would've been understandable given we had a pen adv and he'd have had to pass left to right otherwise....

Agreed. Particularly considering he thought it was a good idea to do exactly that against Wales when we didn’t have a penalty advantage ...

One surprising thing I did notice for the last try was that Curry took over from Spencer to make the first pass and Genge was at first receiver. Genge could easily have taken it in to contact but had the wherewithal to make a good pass under pressure.

Genge did have nice bookends to his loose play, but the bit in the middle.....that said, he is young and probably needed a bit of guidance from one of senior guys in the pack,

Beasties wrote:

p/d wrote:

Beasties wrote: Thing is, not really sure what Sat's bench was supposed to do exactly. Luckily Ford was the only one who could've provided some impetus. I'd love to know why Eddie took Farrell off and put Ford on. I suppose we'll never know.

We do know. He stated that Farrell had 'lost his edge' (no shyte!) and that Ford had been in fine form and offered that something different.

Looking back it would appear we tired ourselves out more than we did Scotland in the first half.

And yet he couldn't bring himself to praise Ford for taking his try well. I'd have bet money on Farrell trying a speculative kick to the wing under those same circumstances, which maybe would've been understandable given we had a pen adv and he'd have had to pass left to right otherwise....

Jones: "We know George is an excellent player who can bring something different. We ended up getting a draw due to George's brilliant try"

For Jones that is praise.