Borthwick’s England 2.0

[Stom]

Agreed. Changing the half backs only potentially works, IF we change the game plan, and also up the pack considerably at the breakdown and carry, on both sides of it. We can't become more expansive if we continue to present the slowest ruck speed since time was invented. But that requires genuine carriers, dynamism, multi-option, targeting space not bodies, breakdown intelligence, clearance, repeat. Our pack is competitive at set piece, competes at the breakdown ok, defends pretty well, has good line speed, but in attack offers little to nothing. It is static, targets contact, does not combat opposition compete / slowing, is slow to reform into more static positions. Occasionally we get 3 or 4 little offloads and make real inroads, or get a decent carrier with some actual momentum, and then go back to static slow nonsense. What is really frustrating is the players can do it. The can change the point of attack, can deceive defenders. We just do it incredibly rarely, favouring straight up one out contact over manipulation.

At the moment we present a ball in hand attack that most sides would love an opposition side to play, so the only other option is kick to compete as we do have good chasers who are largely good in the air from 13 outwards.

Exactly this- everybody gets very excited about backs selection, but unless the coach wants to actually use them creatively and picks,deploys and coaches the forwards to be able to support width/pace/linebreaks and generate the requisite speed of ball, its all hot air.

Also - no scrum no win. For sure the wider game. But if a pack is not able to be at least competitive against the very best / SA/ then they will continue to lose against the top. Marler is he retiring? What other very top levels scrummaging props are there around? I don’t watch enough club rugby to have any idea. But if I was England coach finding or developing some nightmarish for the opposition props would be #1 priority.

You see...I feel like that's the exact thinking that led us to this mess in the first place.

Only SA have a scrum. It's literally just them. If our entire thing is building up the part of our game that's going to nullify SA, that's the exact same thing we've been doing these past 8 years, and look where that got us.

No, if we want to compete, we need to improve our all round game and execution. And THEN add on the one world class element.

And while SA have shown that POWER can be the thing right now, that's not always going to be the case. If we can get ahead of the curve, we can win and win for a long time. But that means we don't just react to what just happened.

England rugby obviously needs to work on core skills and execution. Without that, we'll never get anywhere.

[16th man]

Agreed. Changing the half backs only potentially works, IF we change the game plan, and also up the pack considerably at the breakdown and carry, on both sides of it. We can't become more expansive if we continue to present the slowest ruck speed since time was invented. But that requires genuine carriers, dynamism, multi-option, targeting space not bodies, breakdown intelligence, clearance, repeat. Our pack is competitive at set piece, competes at the breakdown ok, defends pretty well, has good line speed, but in attack offers little to nothing. It is static, targets contact, does not combat opposition compete / slowing, is slow to reform into more static positions. Occasionally we get 3 or 4 little offloads and make real inroads, or get a decent carrier with some actual momentum, and then go back to static slow nonsense. What is really frustrating is the players can do it. The can change the point of attack, can deceive defenders. We just do it incredibly rarely, favouring straight up one out contact over manipulation.

At the moment we present a ball in hand attack that most sides would love an opposition side to play, so the only other option is kick to compete as we do have good chasers who are largely good in the air from 13 outwards.

Exactly this- everybody gets very excited about backs selection, but unless the coach wants to actually use them creatively and picks,deploys and coaches the forwards to be able to support width/pace/linebreaks and generate the requisite speed of ball, its all hot air.

Also - no scrum no win. For sure the wider game. But if a pack is not able to be at least competitive against the very best / SA/ then they will continue to lose against the top. Marler is he retiring? What other very top levels scrummaging props are there around? I don’t watch enough club rugby to have any idea. But if I was England coach finding or developing some nightmarish for the opposition props would be #1 priority.

After the damage we did to the development of potentially our most talented unit post 2019, by planning to fight the last war and sticking a lock at 6, I reckon we should be careful about wishing for it to happen again with the scrum, this time around, given we only really got badly beaten for the last quarter of a game, with some fairly contentious reffing chucked into the mix.

[Banquo]

Agreed. Changing the half backs only potentially works, IF we change the game plan, and also up the pack considerably at the breakdown and carry, on both sides of it. We can't become more expansive if we continue to present the slowest ruck speed since time was invented. But that requires genuine carriers, dynamism, multi-option, targeting space not bodies, breakdown intelligence, clearance, repeat. Our pack is competitive at set piece, competes at the breakdown ok, defends pretty well, has good line speed, but in attack offers little to nothing. It is static, targets contact, does not combat opposition compete / slowing, is slow to reform into more static positions. Occasionally we get 3 or 4 little offloads and make real inroads, or get a decent carrier with some actual momentum, and then go back to static slow nonsense. What is really frustrating is the players can do it. The can change the point of attack, can deceive defenders. We just do it incredibly rarely, favouring straight up one out contact over manipulation.

At the moment we present a ball in hand attack that most sides would love an opposition side to play, so the only other option is kick to compete as we do have good chasers who are largely good in the air from 13 outwards.

Exactly this- everybody gets very excited about backs selection, but unless the coach wants to actually use them creatively and picks,deploys and coaches the forwards to be able to support width/pace/linebreaks and generate the requisite speed of ball, its all hot air.

Fair comment, of course. Any sensible definition of good management involves 'maximising resources'. We used to have an Australian head coach who was scathing of our skill levels and at various times employed a limited style of play to reflect that. One could argue that SB had little alternative but to follow that in the short-term for the RWC.

Now, though?

Our back row choices are pretty extensive in numbers and skill levels. We still have, in Itoje + 1, a competitive 2nd row. We have several feisty hookers who can stir up the 'loose pot'. The right coaching approach has the raw material to produce the quality ball that backs could use well.

It is surely a question of whether SB and his coaching crew are good enough. I see a pretty good set of potential across most of the fifteen positions. There is definitely enough to work with if the attitude is right and 'tired' thinking does not hold us back in playing style or selection.

Unfortunately, as before, I'm not quite as positive about the quality of players or skill levels. Bit like Eddie

[Banquo]

True dat. I think personell changes in areas will help. Whether they happen or not, who knows. With Lawes departure we might find a different backrow dynamic, or he could move Chessum / Martin (boo!). There will be two new nines post Care and Youngs. Who knows beyond that.

For me one of the key things is we need a serious forwards coach, or the incuments to get our forwards into a different mindset and approach. It all starts there. We have to move the point of attack, we have to make better decisions (e.g. when to offload and when the risk is too great so take contact and recycle), we have to get ferocious and accurate at the breakdown (I would get a breakdown specialist in to coach them), we have to do something a bit more imaginative than basic static pod structures, we have to stop telegraphing the receiver, etc. etc. etc.

+1. Absolutely this.

I will cry if we escape from Lawes at 6 only to try and recreate it with the next generation. There's a very good reason why our most fluid performance at the RWC was with Cunderhearl against Argentina - we've got such good quality at back row that it's arrant madness to pick a lock there to hamstring us. Yes, lineouts are important, but TWillis/Mercer are excellent lineout forwards, and Curry/Underhill/Pearson/Earl are all perfectly functional. We have many times more rucks in a game than we do lineouts and, if we can't make a third jumping option out of the above, then we may as well give up now.

Puja

It has fckd me off for years that we can't simply find a way of having (at least three quality lineout 'options' to throw to.

[16th man]

True dat. I think personell changes in areas will help. Whether they happen or not, who knows. With Lawes departure we might find a different backrow dynamic, or he could move Chessum / Martin (boo!). There will be two new nines post Care and Youngs. Who knows beyond that.

For me one of the key things is we need a serious forwards coach, or the incuments to get our forwards into a different mindset and approach. It all starts there. We have to move the point of attack, we have to make better decisions (e.g. when to offload and when the risk is too great so take contact and recycle), we have to get ferocious and accurate at the breakdown (I would get a breakdown specialist in to coach them), we have to do something a bit more imaginative than basic static pod structures, we have to stop telegraphing the receiver, etc. etc. etc.

+1. Absolutely this.

I will cry if we escape from Lawes at 6 only to try and recreate it with the next generation. There's a very good reason why our most fluid performance at the RWC was with Cunderhearl against Argentina - we've got such good quality at back row that it's arrant madness to pick a lock there to hamstring us. Yes, lineouts are important, but TWillis/Mercer are excellent lineout forwards, and Curry/Underhill/Pearson/Earl are all perfectly functional. We have many times more rucks in a game than we do lineouts and, if we can't make a third jumping option out of the above, then we may as well give up now.

Puja

It has fckd me off for years that we can't simply find a way of having (at least three quality lineout 'options' to throw to.

Because you need to be at least 6 foot 5 to be a line-out target, in the same way you can't possibly tackle a guy you aren't a stone heavier than.

[Banquo]

Exactly this- everybody gets very excited about backs selection, but unless the coach wants to actually use them creatively and picks,deploys and coaches the forwards to be able to support width/pace/linebreaks and generate the requisite speed of ball, its all hot air.

Also - no scrum no win. For sure the wider game. But if a pack is not able to be at least competitive against the very best / SA/ then they will continue to lose against the top. Marler is he retiring? What other very top levels scrummaging props are there around? I don’t watch enough club rugby to have any idea. But if I was England coach finding or developing some nightmarish for the opposition props would be #1 priority.

You see...I feel like that's the exact thinking that led us to this mess in the first place.

Only SA have a scrum. It's literally just them. If our entire thing is building up the part of our game that's going to nullify SA, that's the exact same thing we've been doing these past 8 years, and look where that got us.

No, if we want to compete, we need to improve our all round game and execution. And THEN add on the one world class element.

And while SA have shown that POWER can be the thing right now, that's not always going to be the case. If we can get ahead of the curve, we can win and win for a long time. But that means we don't just react to what just happened.

England rugby obviously needs to work on core skills and execution. Without that, we'll never get anywhere.

as I sort of think you are saying, it doesn't need to be one thing OR another. The whole skill of rugby selection and prep is/used to be the ability to vary game plan, and adjust to opposition during the game; I say used to be, because huge benches with tactical subs has somewhat neutered that (and SA in particular have really exploited that).

[Banquo]

+1. Absolutely this.

I will cry if we escape from Lawes at 6 only to try and recreate it with the next generation. There's a very good reason why our most fluid performance at the RWC was with Cunderhearl against Argentina - we've got such good quality at back row that it's arrant madness to pick a lock there to hamstring us. Yes, lineouts are important, but TWillis/Mercer are excellent lineout forwards, and Curry/Underhill/Pearson/Earl are all perfectly functional. We have many times more rucks in a game than we do lineouts and, if we can't make a third jumping option out of the above, then we may as well give up now.

Puja

It has fckd me off for years that we can't simply find a way of having (at least three quality lineout 'options' to throw to.

Because you need to be at least 6 foot 5 to be a line-out target, in the same way you can't possibly tackle a guy you aren't a stone heavier than.

exactly...trope city.

[Oakboy]

There is one certainty: we won't get back to the top without taking risks. Safety-first timidity can make a team hard to beat but it won't win tournaments. We need to take risks in selection and style. That means finding our own methods, adding innovation and not copying anyone. The main issue is coaching. I'd still break the bank to get Edwards.

[Mellsblue]

He can't qualify for France, thank all the gods. You can only swap nations after being capped, if you're going to a nation that you've got parent, grandparent, or birthplace for. Can't swap through residency, mostly because of this very type of situation (although I still question whether having a grandparent born somewhere really gives you a credible link, more so than living in a country for 5 years).

Puja

It’s WR. They’ll be completely fooled by the change from Henry to Henri.

True. It's not like he'd be playing for Spain or anything.

Puja

He just needs to ask his agent to curate his social media and he’s golden.

[Epaminondas Pules]

There is one certainty: we won't get back to the top without taking risks. Safety-first timidity can make a team hard to beat but it won't win tournaments. We need to take risks in selection and style. That means finding our own methods, adding innovation and not copying anyone. The main issue is coaching. I'd still break the bank to get Edwards.

This I totally agree with. There's always a danger of too much risk, or taking risk when the likelihood of reward is low.

One of the biggest risks we should take is allowing the players to have a looser script. You don't develop game intelligence by playing by strict numbers.

[Banquo]

Safety-first timidity can make a team hard to beat but it won't win tournaments. We need to take risks in selection and style. That means finding our own methods, adding innovation and not copying anyone. The main issue is coaching. I'd still break the bank to get Edwards.

cough SA x 2 in 2. Again....its using what you've got, to win.

Edwards would up our defence and attitude, but I wouldn't call him the king of style or risk taking.

[Spiffy]

+1. Absolutely this.

I will cry if we escape from Lawes at 6 only to try and recreate it with the next generation. There's a very good reason why our most fluid performance at the RWC was with Cunderhearl against Argentina - we've got such good quality at back row that it's arrant madness to pick a lock there to hamstring us. Yes, lineouts are important, but TWillis/Mercer are excellent lineout forwards, and Curry/Underhill/Pearson/Earl are all perfectly functional. We have many times more rucks in a game than we do lineouts and, if we can't make a third jumping option out of the above, then we may as well give up now.

Puja

It has fckd me off for years that we can't simply find a way of having (at least three quality lineout 'options' to throw to.

Because you need to be at least 6 foot 5 to be a line-out target, in the same way you can't possibly tackle a guy you aren't a stone heavier than.

Nah .... E.g. : Wales used the relatively small Tipuric very successfully in the line out. Smallish, lightish, easy to hoist. It's more about lifting/throwing/timing than inches. Long arms help too.

[Mikey Brown]

That’s you put in your place, 16th man. What a silly opinion.

[Puja]

It has fckd me off for years that we can't simply find a way of having (at least three quality lineout 'options' to throw to.

Because you need to be at least 6 foot 5 to be a line-out target, in the same way you can't possibly tackle a guy you aren't a stone heavier than.

Nah .... E.g. : Wales used the relatively small Tipuric very successfully in the line out. Smallish, lightish, easy to hoist. It's more about lifting/throwing/timing than inches. Long arms help too.

Google says Tipuric is 6' 2. I mean, I'll take "relatively small" if our relatives for comparison are lock forwards, but that does still put him a chunk above a lot of back rows!

That's not to take away from the point, which is agreeing with me! Oddly, Stop Ballkicking was the forwards coach in 2019 when we walked all over the All Blacks lineout (who'd picked SBarrett at 6 to attack us) by using movement and Curry (6ft1) as the third jumper, so you'd've thought he'd be perfectly fine with not picking a lock in the back row. I'm hoping that 2023 was just about picking Lawes, rather than any particular dogmatic notions about picking one of the backrow for lineout prowess.

Puja

[Banquo]

That’s you put in your place, 16th man. What a silly opinion.

as you might have said once, get a grip Spiff.

[Banquo]

Because you need to be at least 6 foot 5 to be a line-out target, in the same way you can't possibly tackle a guy you aren't a stone heavier than.

Nah .... E.g. : Wales used the relatively small Tipuric very successfully in the line out. Smallish, lightish, easy to hoist. It's more about lifting/throwing/timing than inches. Long arms help too.

Google says Tipuric is 6' 2. I mean, I'll take "relatively small" if our relatives for comparison are lock forwards, but that does still put him a chunk above a lot of back rows!

That's not to take away from the point, which is agreeing with me! Oddly, Stop Ballkicking was the forwards coach in 2019 when we walked all over the All Blacks lineout (who'd picked SBarrett at 6 to attack us) by using movement and Curry (6ft1) as the third jumper, so you'd've thought he'd be perfectly fine with not picking a lock in the back row. I'm hoping that 2023 was just about picking Lawes, rather than any particular dogmatic notions about picking one of the backrow for lineout prowess.

Puja

As I've said before a few times, the French use their locks as lifters a lot of the time, hoisting back row forwards way higher than a dumpy old prop can. I fairness to Lawes, he did hugely improve in his flanking duties, so wasn't a ridiculous choice (in a back row picked to balance his presence #flaw)

[FKAS]

Nah .... E.g. : Wales used the relatively small Tipuric very successfully in the line out. Smallish, lightish, easy to hoist. It's more about lifting/throwing/timing than inches. Long arms help too.

Google says Tipuric is 6' 2. I mean, I'll take "relatively small" if our relatives for comparison are lock forwards, but that does still put him a chunk above a lot of back rows!

That's not to take away from the point, which is agreeing with me! Oddly, Stop Ballkicking was the forwards coach in 2019 when we walked all over the All Blacks lineout (who'd picked SBarrett at 6 to attack us) by using movement and Curry (6ft1) as the third jumper, so you'd've thought he'd be perfectly fine with not picking a lock in the back row. I'm hoping that 2023 was just about picking Lawes, rather than any particular dogmatic notions about picking one of the backrow for lineout prowess.

Puja

As I've said before a few times, the French use their locks as lifters a lot of the time, hoisting back row forwards way higher than a dumpy old prop can. I fairness to Lawes, he did hugely improve in his flanking duties, so wasn't a ridiculous choice (in a back row picked to balance his presence #flaw)

Helped by Charles Ollivon being 6ft6, Jelonch 6ft4 and then both Cros and Aldritt being 6ft3. Some big blokes there. Even then Woki jumps a lot, it's their big blokes Taofifénua and Willemse that lift instead of jump which makes sense given the size of them.

[francoisfou]

As I've said before a few times, the French use their locks as lifters a lot of the time, hoisting back row forwards way higher than a dumpy old prop can. I fairness to Lawes, he did hugely improve in his flanking duties, so wasn't a ridiculous choice (in a back row picked to balance his presence #flaw)

Ha! I'm trying to imagine Itoje and Chessum hoisting Bumbling Billy V!

[Oakboy]

Safety-first timidity can make a team hard to beat but it won't win tournaments. We need to take risks in selection and style. That means finding our own methods, adding innovation and not copying anyone. The main issue is coaching. I'd still break the bank to get Edwards.

cough SA x 2 in 2. Again....its using what you've got, to win.

Edwards would up our defence and attitude, but I wouldn't call him the king of style or risk taking.

Edwards would give the base defence establishment to build more style upon. He'd also be a voice of authority with unquestionable experience.

[badback]

Also - no scrum no win. For sure the wider game. But if a pack is not able to be at least competitive against the very best / SA/ then they will continue to lose against the top. Marler is he retiring? What other very top levels scrummaging props are there around? I don’t watch enough club rugby to have any idea. But if I was England coach finding or developing some nightmarish for the opposition props would be #1 priority.

You see...I feel like that's the exact thinking that led us to this mess in the first place.

Only SA have a scrum. It's literally just them. If our entire thing is building up the part of our game that's going to nullify SA, that's the exact same thing we've been doing these past 8 years, and look where that got us.

No, if we want to compete, we need to improve our all round game and execution. And THEN add on the one world class element.

And while SA have shown that POWER can be the thing right now, that's not always going to be the case. If we can get ahead of the curve, we can win and win for a long time. But that means we don't just react to what just happened.

England rugby obviously needs to work on core skills and execution. Without that, we'll never get anywhere.

as I sort of think you are saying, it doesn't need to be one thing OR another. The whole skill of rugby selection and prep is/used to be the ability to vary game plan, and adjust to opposition during the game; I say used to be, because huge benches with tactical subs has somewhat neutered that (and SA in particular have really exploited that).

Exactly. Not saying copy SA. Just saying important to have forwards for tight as well as wide game.

[p/d]

I can’t see any changes where creation becomes more of a focus than prevention. They will want to build a 2015/2016 Saracens style of rugby, which is not a bad thing at all, just need the players to do it. Clear downside is that it will be built around OF for the next few years

[Banquo]

Google says Tipuric is 6' 2. I mean, I'll take "relatively small" if our relatives for comparison are lock forwards, but that does still put him a chunk above a lot of back rows!

That's not to take away from the point, which is agreeing with me! Oddly, Stop Ballkicking was the forwards coach in 2019 when we walked all over the All Blacks lineout (who'd picked SBarrett at 6 to attack us) by using movement and Curry (6ft1) as the third jumper, so you'd've thought he'd be perfectly fine with not picking a lock in the back row. I'm hoping that 2023 was just about picking Lawes, rather than any particular dogmatic notions about picking one of the backrow for lineout prowess.

Puja

As I've said before a few times, the French use their locks as lifters a lot of the time, hoisting back row forwards way higher than a dumpy old prop can. I fairness to Lawes, he did hugely improve in his flanking duties, so wasn't a ridiculous choice (in a back row picked to balance his presence #flaw)

Helped by Charles Ollivon being 6ft6, Jelonch 6ft4 and then both Cros and Aldritt being 6ft3. Some big blokes there. Even then Woki jumps a lot, it's their big blokes Taofifénua and Willemse that lift instead of jump which makes sense given the size of them.

They've done it for years, irrespective of those units. Obviously it makes sense. Point still stands about y'know, thinking about what's possible.

[Banquo]

As I've said before a few times, the French use their locks as lifters a lot of the time, hoisting back row forwards way higher than a dumpy old prop can. I fairness to Lawes, he did hugely improve in his flanking duties, so wasn't a ridiculous choice (in a back row picked to balance his presence #flaw)

Ha! I'm trying to imagine Itoje and Chessum hoisting Bumbling Billy V!

or, more usefully, Curry....

[Banquo]

Safety-first timidity can make a team hard to beat but it won't win tournaments. We need to take risks in selection and style. That means finding our own methods, adding innovation and not copying anyone. The main issue is coaching. I'd still break the bank to get Edwards.

cough SA x 2 in 2. Again....its using what you've got, to win.

Edwards would up our defence and attitude, but I wouldn't call him the king of style or risk taking.

Edwards would give the base defence establishment to build more style upon. He'd also be a voice of authority with unquestionable experience.

ah....so defence is important then . Jones had a voice of authority with (un) questionable experience.

Edwards would be great, but you still need good intl players.

[p/d]

As I've said before a few times, the French use their locks as lifters a lot of the time, hoisting back row forwards way higher than a dumpy old prop can. I fairness to Lawes, he did hugely improve in his flanking duties, so wasn't a ridiculous choice (in a back row picked to balance his presence #flaw)

Ha! I'm trying to imagine Itoje and Chessum hoisting Bumbling Billy V!

or, more usefully, Curry....

or a backrower with long arms