RugbyRebels

Looks like Eddie agrees with Timbo.....slightly tetchy here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05xrtzj

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:
Apparently he has to score tries every game to be anything other than ‘totally awful’ or out of his depth.

He wasn’t great, but he wasn’t noticeably bad. I actually thought he was key to a lot of our better pick and go moments.

I thought I was one of the harsher critics on this board, but clearly not.

The amount of negativity is genuinely surprising to me. Has everyone forgotten how genuinely shocking we were in Cardiff last year?

Also, for all our concerns about the breakdown, Garces was our biggest problem there, not the Welsh players.

I think it’s unfair to read too much in to his 40 mins. Mainly as a player of his qualities will naturally profit when players tire and gaps open. Picking on the instance he was stopped still on the gain line by a gang tackle is pretty harsh. We’ve seen Hughes go backwards in such situations and even Billy doesn’t always break the first tackle. I’d be happy for critism of his control at the base.

As for the game as a whole. I thought we went well. We could’ve done with a bit more in the Welsh 22 but I think the scoreline flattered them. A backrow of Robshaw, Simmonds and Billy would make a huge difference and, as Banquo pointed out, Daly on the wing, preferably with Watson at fullback, would’ve boosted our attacking options. As well as Brown played it was limited, defensive work with Wales playing into his hands. We should be blowing away a weakened Wales team and Brown’s solidity won’t help us do that.

We kicked too much, and badly enough times to make the impression worse than the impact; our approach play was ok, until it got to the key play, when we did something daft- credit Wales' defence with some of that. We missed quite a lot of tackles as the game got looser, with our less mobile players being exposed.
Not a great hit out, in truth.

Au contraire, I’ve just read Dallaglio’s piece in The Sun Times and Farrell ‘was superb...in defence’. That must mean he didn’t miss 7(?) tackles and our tackle % was therefore in the 90’s. Being serious, they didn’t score a try against us other than a lucky bounce off the shin of their winger. I’d count that as a good 80 mins of d. Though, as always, there is room for improvement.
Whilst on Farrell, who I thought was superb overall, did anyone else see his movements prior to his turnover in our 22 deep in the second half. As Davies moved the ball away from the breakdown our line moved forwards with a slow drift and, against all previous evidence, Farrell began to backtrack as if we were short of numbers. The ball carrier saw this gap and went straight through it only for Farrell to save his bacon with the turnover. I only ask as it’s so out of character. Further to that, I thought Ford’s d was very good but was over looked as it was consistently solid rather than erratic with the odd big hit.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I think it’s unfair to read too much in to his 40 mins. Mainly as a player of his qualities will naturally profit when players tire and gaps open. Picking on the instance he was stopped still on the gain line by a gang tackle is pretty harsh. We’ve seen Hughes go backwards in such situations and even Billy doesn’t always break the first tackle. I’d be happy for critism of his control at the base.

As for the game as a whole. I thought we went well. We could’ve done with a bit more in the Welsh 22 but I think the scoreline flattered them. A backrow of Robshaw, Simmonds and Billy would make a huge difference and, as Banquo pointed out, Daly on the wing, preferably with Watson at fullback, would’ve boosted our attacking options. As well as Brown played it was limited, defensive work with Wales playing into his hands. We should be blowing away a weakened Wales team and Brown’s solidity won’t help us do that.

We kicked too much, and badly enough times to make the impression worse than the impact; our approach play was ok, until it got to the key play, when we did something daft- credit Wales' defence with some of that. We missed quite a lot of tackles as the game got looser, with our less mobile players being exposed.
Not a great hit out, in truth.

Au contraire, I’ve just read Dallaglio’s piece in The Sun Times and Farrell ‘was superb...in defence’. That must mean he didn’t miss 7(?) tackles and our tackle % was therefore in the 90’s. Being serious, they didn’t score a try against us other than a lucky bounce off the shin of their winger. I’d count that as a good 80 mins of d. Though, as always, there is room for improvement.
Whilst on Farrell, who I thought was superb overall, did anyone else see his movements prior to his turnover in our 22 deep in the second half. As Davies moved the ball away from the breakdown our line moved forwards with a slow drift and, against all previous evidence, Farrell began to backtrack as if we were short of numbers. The ball carrier saw this gap and went straight through it only for Farrell to save his bacon with the turnover. I only ask as it’s so out of character. Further to that, I thought Ford’s d was very good but was over looked as it was consistently solid rather than erratic with the odd big hit.

http://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/playerstats ... gue=180659

Ford always puts himself in the right place; on defence, we looked shaky when the ball was moved quickly, and started to dog leg when tired- Lawes' miss on Shingler, was a consequence of that, as was the Williams blown try.

A win's a win

We won despite not being dominant in the set piece, and with Wales conceding just 2 penalties (a truly phenomenal number).

Just to be clear my comment about Simmonds was about everyone else writing him off, I’m still a fan despite Saturday suiting him an awful lot less. As someone mentioned Hughes got 10 caps before he was anything other than crap. Hopefully Simmonds gets a go like Hughes, not like Clifford.

I was just fucking bored yesterday. There were big patches where it didn’t even look like we were trying to build anything, just waiting for Wales to drop one of our terrible, terrible kicks. It was like watching a worst-of-Gatball compilation.

I’m not suggesting we ‘ignore the faults’. I’m just calling for some perspective. We didn’t play very well, but we won and there were positives to take from the game.

We’ve already looked better this year than we did last year IMO.

With two weeks to rest and work on a few things, I expect us to go to Scotland and win. I’ll be curious to see how they get on today, but whatever the result, I’m confident that we can win and win well at Murrayfield.

Raggs wrote:We won despite not being dominant in the set piece, and with Wales conceding just 2 penalties (a truly phenomenal number).

surprisingly small number of scrums in total (given the conditions), and we had a relatively small number of lineouts. Set pieces were 50/50 mainly, though Wales got a bit of a nudge in a couple of our scrums.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote: We kicked too much, and badly enough times to make the impression worse than the impact; our approach play was ok, until it got to the key play, when we did something daft- credit Wales' defence with some of that. We missed quite a lot of tackles as the game got looser, with our less mobile players being exposed.
Not a great hit out, in truth.

Au contraire, I’ve just read Dallaglio’s piece in The Sun Times and Farrell ‘was superb...in defence’. That must mean he didn’t miss 7(?) tackles and our tackle % was therefore in the 90’s. Being serious, they didn’t score a try against us other than a lucky bounce off the shin of their winger. I’d count that as a good 80 mins of d. Though, as always, there is room for improvement.
Whilst on Farrell, who I thought was superb overall, did anyone else see his movements prior to his turnover in our 22 deep in the second half. As Davies moved the ball away from the breakdown our line moved forwards with a slow drift and, against all previous evidence, Farrell began to backtrack as if we were short of numbers. The ball carrier saw this gap and went straight through it only for Farrell to save his bacon with the turnover. I only ask as it’s so out of character. Further to that, I thought Ford’s d was very good but was over looked as it was consistently solid rather than erratic with the odd big hit.

http://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/playerstats ... gue=180659

Ford always puts himself in the right place; on defence, we looked shaky when the ball was moved quickly, and started to dog leg when tired- Lawes' miss on Shingler, was a consequence of that, as was the Williams blown try.

A win's a win

Of course there were mistakes as you’ll never get the perfect game, even if you should be aiming for it. Granted the alignment and missed tackle for Shingler’s break was the sort of thing I produced after a few too many post work drinks on a Friday!! On balance, though, I thought we went well.

So, Farrell missed over a third of his tackles. Not so good, along with Itoje. Kudos to Underhill. He may be a tad limited but 13 tackles with none missed, plus ‘that’ tackle, in 40 mins is one hell of a shift. Ditto George.
Whilst I’m being critical of Faz, the missed con for the first try was poor, leading on from an average kicking display against Italy, and had the Welsh try been given could’ve been crucial. I’ll reiterate that I thought he was very good yesterday; though, not a 9/10 as per Stephen Jones.

In contrast to some, the more I watch this England the more I feel that the reason for the teams relative flatlining is that the coaching and selection is already at optimum level. Eddie and the coaching team have already squeezed about as much out of this group of players as is possible, and frankly, throwing in a second rate 7 (Kvesic for example), just to have one is not going to make any difference.

TLDR; we need better players to move the team forwards. Our systems, coaching, game plans, preparation are pretty much spot on imo. Billy, Marler, Sinckler, Hughes, Youngs and Daly are obviously some of those better players, mind.

Mikey Brown wrote:Just to be clear my comment about Simmonds was about everyone else writing him off, I’m still a fan despite Saturday suiting him an awful lot less. As someone mentioned Hughes got 10 caps before he was anything other than crap. Hopefully Simmonds gets a go like Hughes, not like Clifford.

I was just fucking bored yesterday. There were big patches where it didn’t even look like we were trying to build anything, just waiting for Wales to drop one of our terrible, terrible kicks. It was like watching a worst-of-Gatball compilation.

I don’t think Eddie’s written-off Clifford. If he can get fit and stay fit, he’ll be in contention.

Scrumhead wrote:I’m not suggesting we ‘ignore the faults’. I’m just calling for some perspective. We didn’t play very well, but we won and there were positives to take from the game.

We’ve already looked better this year than we did last year IMO.

With two weeks to rest and work on a few things, I expect us to go to Scotland and win. I’ll be curious to see how they get on today, but whatever the result, I’m confident that we can win and win well at Murrayfield.

Yes, and I've pointed both sides of it out (pick and go, approach work). I was responding to Timbo, for the avoidance of doubt.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Au contraire, I’ve just read Dallaglio’s piece in The Sun Times and Farrell ‘was superb...in defence’. That must mean he didn’t miss 7(?) tackles and our tackle % was therefore in the 90’s. Being serious, they didn’t score a try against us other than a lucky bounce off the shin of their winger. I’d count that as a good 80 mins of d. Though, as always, there is room for improvement.
Whilst on Farrell, who I thought was superb overall, did anyone else see his movements prior to his turnover in our 22 deep in the second half. As Davies moved the ball away from the breakdown our line moved forwards with a slow drift and, against all previous evidence, Farrell began to backtrack as if we were short of numbers. The ball carrier saw this gap and went straight through it only for Farrell to save his bacon with the turnover. I only ask as it’s so out of character. Further to that, I thought Ford’s d was very good but was over looked as it was consistently solid rather than erratic with the odd big hit.

http://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/playerstats ... gue=180659

Ford always puts himself in the right place; on defence, we looked shaky when the ball was moved quickly, and started to dog leg when tired- Lawes' miss on Shingler, was a consequence of that, as was the Williams blown try.

A win's a win

Of course there were mistakes as you’ll never get the perfect game, even if you should be aiming for it. Granted the alignment and missed tackle for Shingler’s break was the sort of thing I produced after a few too many post work drinks on a Friday!! On balance, though, I thought we went well.

So, Farrell missed over a third of his tackles. Not so good, along with Itoje. Kudos to Underhill. He may be a tad limited but 13 tackles with none missed, plus ‘that’ tackle, in 40 mins is one hell of a shift. Ditto George.
Whilst I’m being critical of Faz, the missed con for the first try was poor, leading on from an average kicking display against Italy, and had the Welsh try been given could’ve been crucial. I’ll reiterate that I thought he was very good yesterday; though, not a 9/10 as per Stephen Jones.

Yep

Other may suggest that Hughes got unfairly ragged on early, before people became more realistic, and Simmonds has been equally unfairly hyped, with people perhaps getting a taste of realism? Though he does need more caps, and I'd definitely want to keep him at 7 (though I do want to see his breakdown work from yesterday).

I don't think the team is flatlining, Farrell finding a running attacking game is a huge step forward. Throw back in the likes of Vunipola, Sinkler, Marler, Youngs etc for that final 20 minutes, and that's a big difference in not only how the final 20 go, but in how hard the likes of the starting 1,3 and 9 can go.

Timbo wrote:In contrast to some, the more I watch this England the more I feel that the reason for the teams relative flatlining is that the coaching and selection is already at optimum level. Eddie and the coaching team have already squeezed about as much out of this group of players as is possible, and frankly, throwing in a second rate 7 (Kvesic for example), just to have one is not going to make any difference.

TLDR; we need better players to move the team forwards. Our systems, coaching, game plans, preparation are pretty much spot on imo. Billy, Marler, Sinckler, Hughes, Youngs and Daly are obviously some of those better players, mind.

I agree we need better players, but I also don't agree that for example our kicking game is as good as it should be, both in thought and execution, I think we can do better at re-starts, and work to do on scrums as well. So I agree good progress has been made, but still think we can get more out of what we have. The only really black mark v Eddie is at 9 for me.....with the massive caveat that its not crystal clear what a good plan b would be.

So Murray Kinsella believes Farrell was the best defender on the pitch, and those misses were mostly of the ultra aggressive, pressurise the players and if you miss it doesn't matter, sort of thing. I trust him to know what he's talking about for the most part.

Raggs wrote:So Murray Kinsella believes Farrell was the best defender on the pitch, and those misses were mostly of the ultra aggressive, pressurise the players and if you miss it doesn't matter, sort of thing. I trust him to know what he's talking about for the most part.

I was going to mention it depends on his assignment....that's still a huge number of fails, even if 20 attempted tackles is a also a big number. Puts some pressure on the other defenders, and its why you need someone like JJ to call and cover; he does also agree that Faz is the best 12 in the world.............

Raggs wrote:Other may suggest that Hughes got unfairly ragged on early, before people became more realistic, and Simmonds has been equally unfairly hyped, with people perhaps getting a taste of realism? Though he does need more caps, and I'd definitely want to keep him at 7 (though I do want to see his breakdown work from yesterday).

I don't think the team is flatlining, Farrell finding a running attacking game is a huge step forward. Throw back in the likes of Vunipola, Sinkler, Marler, Youngs etc for that final 20 minutes, and that's a big difference in not only how the final 20 go, but in how hard the likes of the starting 1,3 and 9 can go.

We also don't know how much the team are being overtrained with a view to 2019. Though I still think we've big problems with both system and selection, and Eddie getting cross that there isn't as much praise as he'd like for Hartley and especially Brown isn't helpful

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:We won despite not being dominant in the set piece, and with Wales conceding just 2 penalties (a truly phenomenal number).

surprisingly small number of scrums in total (given the conditions), and we had a relatively small number of lineouts. Set pieces were 50/50 mainly, though Wales got a bit of a nudge in a couple of our scrums.

50/50 or close is probably fair, the problem there being we're reliant on being dominant as we're not good at turning slow ball into fast ball, and we don't win many turnovers. Though we did win some turnovers yesterday and then just kicked the ball away anyway, which shows maybe how much pressure the Welsh defence was putting on our decision making.

Raggs wrote:Other may suggest that Hughes got unfairly ragged on early, before people became more realistic, and Simmonds has been equally unfairly hyped, with people perhaps getting a taste of realism? Though he does need more caps, and I'd definitely want to keep him at 7 (though I do want to see his breakdown work from yesterday).

I don't think the team is flatlining, Farrell finding a running attacking game is a huge step forward. Throw back in the likes of Vunipola, Sinkler, Marler, Youngs etc for that final 20 minutes, and that's a big difference in not only how the final 20 go, but in how hard the likes of the starting 1,3 and 9 can go.

Yep. 100% agree on all of the above. Farrell’s running game in particular.

Sinckler is starting today for Quins so with any luck he’ll be in contention for the squad for Scotland. Marler and, dare I say it, Haskell, will also be available.

What is it now, 23 wins out of 24? I think most of us would have killed for as record like that.
Are we being a touch over critical?
I dunno. At times this season (and a fair bit of the last 6Ns) i've felt really frustrated about some of our play, while at other times we've looked a million dollars. We are consistently winning, yet not consistently playing well i'd say.
I think we're further along than we were when Eddie took over, but maybe not as far along as I hoped following the Australia tour.
maybe there is a touch of flatlining here.

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:So Murray Kinsella believes Farrell was the best defender on the pitch, and those misses were mostly of the ultra aggressive, pressurise the players and if you miss it doesn't matter, sort of thing. I trust him to know what he's talking about for the most part.

I was going to mention it depends on his assignment....that's still a huge number of fails, even if 20 attempted tackles is a also a big number. Puts some pressure on the other defenders, and its why you need someone like JJ to call and cover; he does also agree that Faz is the best 12 in the world.............

He did fall off Parkes a fair few times in standard defensive positions and missed a sitter in a kick chase.

Raggs wrote:So Murray Kinsella believes Farrell was the best defender on the pitch, and those misses were mostly of the ultra aggressive, pressurise the players and if you miss it doesn't matter, sort of thing. I trust him to know what he's talking about for the most part.

With Kinsella on this. The 'missed' tackle on the Welsh Kiwi was as effective as it would have been had Lawes (for example) lassoed his ankles. The simple fact he stood in his way slowed a promising Welsh attack down.

And I am one of Farrell's harshest critics.

fivepointer wrote:What is it now, 23 wins out of 24? I think most of us would have killed for as record like that.
Are we being a touch over critical?
I dunno. At times this season (and a fair bit of the last 6Ns) i've felt really frustrated about some of our play, while at other times we've looked a million dollars. We are consistently winning, yet not consistently playing well i'd say.
I think we're further along than we were when Eddie took over, but maybe not as far along as I hoped following the Australia tour.
maybe there is a touch of flatlining here.

Depends if you see a 12-6 victory at Twickers progress over 2 years. A game where we are still playing a lock at 6 and Wiggleswoeth on the bench. Not to mention Hartley still starting. I assume a few us would have hoped for a little bit more.

And let's not kid ourselves that was a topnotch Welsh side.

Twitter video showing that the first Welsh player to touch the ball before the Anscombe dot down, actually knocked it on, so no try anyway.

Mellsblue wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:I was in a terrible mood today but I thought that was fucking awful and sort of wanted wales to score at the end just because. I can’t really explain it.

It’s a shame that Simmonds is now totally awful.

I did suggest before the game that Simmonds was being over-hyped after one game v Italy. I hope he gets a chance at 7 but it would be a risk.

So Hughes must have at least double digit caps before we’re allowed to judge him but Simmonds is automatically out of his depth after 40 mins against Wales?

No, all I suggest is that some are getting carried away with the guy. He is the real deal but he needs managing. It would be far better to have him make steady progress than to break him, IMO.