Ireland vs England - Sat 4.45pm

[Oakboy]

It is kind of funny how much this game has reinforced basically everyone’s preconceived notions about the team, whether they contradict eachother or not.

I should have mentioned as well how painful it was watching Harry Randall come on and just box kick it 30 times. I remember Willis getting a couple of touches but mostly he was just chasing kicks.

I don’t know if it’s a stamina thing or what, but there seems to be some sort of trigger where we just revert to this kicking game that we aren’t particularly good at executing. It’s unfair to dismiss it completely given the two late tries we scored, but I’d love to understand better why/when we make that call.

We may as well just throw in the towel and pick Sloebuck if we’re always going to default to that.

I was pleasantly surprised at Laurence, I thought he had a good game. Slade I also thought went fine until that try that shouldn't have been where he missed the tackle and then nonchalantly jogged back.

The problem is...we can look at the details of the game and see where we've changed, where we've improved, etc., but the overall way we play, the overall way we lose concentration, the overall way we do not give players confidence, and the list goes on...it's just frustrating watching it happen game after game.

I just get the impression that the England squad is not a nice place to be.

In the DT yesterday there were various predictions from pundits. One guy said that he had spent a week with England and he never once heard a player or coach say, "We are going to beat Ireland."

That sort of sums up where we are at. The selection of three 7s and Murley together with the game plan seemed to make what happened unsurprising. We disrupted for 40 and got ahead on the scoreboard. Then, we lacked all that was required to step up the quality and intensity to counter the improvement from Ireland that everybody watching must have expected.

One of the best match squash players I knew won a large proportion of games 3-0 against opponents he was not expected to beat. With a 2-0 lead, he used to go balls-out at the start of the 3rd game to counteract opponents desperate to make a come-back. Winning that 3rd game was always easier than winning either the 4th or 5th, he maintained,.

What is SB doing at HT in a similar sort of scenario? He had to see that our 1st half performance must improve, surely? After the AIs the necessity to up the intensity in the second half rather than let it fall off had to have been a major part of preparation.

The fairness of we fans being optimistic/pessimistic is one debate. What cannot be disguised, though, is the disappointment of watching the same thing happening game after game - starting well and then falling apart. It is accurate and reasonable to criticise that.

[Cameo]

There may be something in this from Dawson on the BBC website talking about the drop offs:

"Firstly, their gameplan is very demanding. Perhaps too demanding.

In defence, they come up with a lot of line speed, phase after phase. Then in attack, they are focusing on moving the ball, involving forwards and backs. It can feel frenetic and frantic, burning through energy. It is certainly hugely ambitious. Ultimately I think they pay for it in the back end of games.

There needs to be someone who calms down the team and, occasionally, takes pace out of the match. At the moment, they are wedded to this all-action plan A, which is effective but very hard to sustain over the course of 80 minutes without a bench who can replicate what the starting team have done."

The issue to me though is that they do try to calm down, but do it too much. I see the merit in every now amd then changing approach, kicking and putting the pressure on. What seems to happen instead though is that at some point they seem to decide "Right, that was fun but we are knackered, let's stop all this fast paced attack for the rest of the match".

If the gameplan is really so demanding that it has to be abandoned at half time or before (in attack at least), maybe it's time for a new one (that still involves some attack).

[Stom]

Good article in the granuiad, though probably just because it backs up my beliefs…

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/ ... -borthwick

It is in moments such as this that he most reminds you of Stuart Lancaster. Another England coach whose character cannot be questioned but who has just been shown the door by Racing 92, another excellent technician who has struggled in a top job again. Both have habits of drilling down into the granular detail of defeats at a time when supporters want to be told why they should keep believing. “There’s execution in attack, execution in defence and there’s execution in the kicking game,” Borthwick said. “And in some key moments it was a little bit off where it needs to be to win these Test matches.”

[Oakboy]

Let's face it, after a coach picks the team and game plan, he is restricted in subsequent influences to replacements, the odd message via water-boys and the HT team talk. SB seems inadequate in all three, especially the last. Maybe, given a week to analyse things to the last pixel, he is not too bad. When required to read a game as it happens and inspire in a ten minute slot he is just not up to it. The pattern of defeat after defeat against tier-1 teams suggests that.

[fivepointer]

Another very good review from Youngs & Cole. Ben doesnt sound too downbeat and thinks there are positives. There are, of course, but they arent being translated into wins....

[FKAS]

Let's face it, after a coach picks the team and game plan, he is restricted in subsequent influences to replacements, the odd message via water-boys and the HT team talk. SB seems inadequate in all three, especially the last. Maybe, given a week to analyse things to the last pixel, he is not too bad. When required to read a game as it happens and inspire in a ten minute slot he is just not up to it. The pattern of defeat after defeat against tier-1 teams suggests that.

Odd comment re the team talk as it's something that players in the squad regularly praise him for. Apparently he keeps it simple and gives the players just a couple of things to focus on instead of trying to analyse the first half.

Impact of replacements is more of a concern, we had the bench to take the fight to Ireland and didn't really execute that until the final ten mins when it was too late.

[Oakboy]

Let's face it, after a coach picks the team and game plan, he is restricted in subsequent influences to replacements, the odd message via water-boys and the HT team talk. SB seems inadequate in all three, especially the last. Maybe, given a week to analyse things to the last pixel, he is not too bad. When required to read a game as it happens and inspire in a ten minute slot he is just not up to it. The pattern of defeat after defeat against tier-1 teams suggests that.

Odd comment re the team talk as it's something that players in the squad regularly praise him for. Apparently he keeps it simple and gives the players just a couple of things to focus on instead of trying to analyse the first half.

Impact of replacements is more of a concern, we had the bench to take the fight to Ireland and didn't really execute that until the final ten mins when it was too late.

Are you suggesting the team talk achieves its objective?

[fivepointer]

Rewatched the game.

We were right in it until the Beirne try on 64 minutes.
We did a lot of good things defensively, particularly close to our line, but 3 missed tackles out wide cost us dearly.
We were a bit hard done by the referee. The closing the gap call when we won a line out on the Irish throw was absolute BS and we should have had a scrum penalty early in the 2nd half.
Murley did OK. The first time he tried to run the ball out of the 22, he had to try it as he touched the ball. The second he should have done better but outside of that he made a very solid contribution.
Randall was similarly mostly fine bar one awful kick. Get on the front foot and he does come into his own.
We did overdo the kicking but not by that much. Plainly we werent going to run from our half, so kicking was the option and most of it was done pretty well. Where we did overdo it was on attack in the final third of the pitch.
Small errors cost us. CCS got penalised for a late tackle and we went back 60 odd meters. From the resulting l/o Ireland scored their decisive 3rd try.
The two Curry's were tremendous. Lawrence went really well. We have to get the ball in his hands far more.
Our 2 late tries were well constructed and showed a degree of spirit that was good to see.

I dont think we're a million miles away.

[Banquo]

Small errors cost us.

....a continual problem, esp when conceding penalties and then doubling down. Its almost systemic.

(do badly missed tackles count as 'small errors').

[Scrumhead]

Thanks for sharing @fivepointer. This is why I loved Puja’s MBMs.

That retrospective/analytical view is much better than any ‘in the moment’ assessment.

[Banquo]

Thanks for sharing @fivepointer. This is why I loved Puja’s MBMs.

That retrospective/analytical view is much better than any ‘in the moment’ assessment.

...but doesn't capture the 'in the moment' momentum of the game. Which is where we have to find ways of not giving it away or turning it round.

[Which Tyler]

Thanks for sharing @fivepointer. This is why I loved Puja’s MBMs.

That retrospective/analytical view is much better than any ‘in the moment’ assessment.

Hear hear

[Banquo]

there's both encouragement and discouragement as always in here
https://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/playerstat ... gue=180659

Making Ireland miss so many tackles, and metres made ball in hand in the backs is encouraging. Missed tackles in the backs, not so much. The number of lineouts in the game is huge.

2nd half possession v territory is interesting for sure.

[FKAS]

Let's face it, after a coach picks the team and game plan, he is restricted in subsequent influences to replacements, the odd message via water-boys and the HT team talk. SB seems inadequate in all three, especially the last. Maybe, given a week to analyse things to the last pixel, he is not too bad. When required to read a game as it happens and inspire in a ten minute slot he is just not up to it. The pattern of defeat after defeat against tier-1 teams suggests that.

Odd comment re the team talk as it's something that players in the squad regularly praise him for. Apparently he keeps it simple and gives the players just a couple of things to focus on instead of trying to analyse the first half.

Impact of replacements is more of a concern, we had the bench to take the fight to Ireland and didn't really execute that until the final ten mins when it was too late.

Are you suggesting the team talk achieves its objective?

What evidence do you have they don't? We don't hear it and aren't in the room to see the reaction.

[FKAS]

there's both encouragement and discouragement as always in here
https://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/playerstat ... gue=180659

Making Ireland miss so many tackles, and metres made ball in hand in the backs is encouraging. Missed tackles in the backs, not so much. The number of lineouts in the game is huge.

2nd half possession v territory is interesting for sure.

Lawrence with 12 tackles and none missed. 6 defenders beaten. Stats backing up the general view he had a good game.

[Mikey Brown]

Earl with 2 made 3 missed, Mitchell 3 made 6 missed, Slade 4 missed. I'm never sure how accurate these are but that's pretty rough.

[Mikey Brown]

Whoops, 7 made for Earl, but 2 turnovers conceded. Still no turnovers won on these stats?

18/0 for Ben Curry is good going.

[p/d]

I’m stuck on the 21 day chair yoga

[Oakboy]

Odd comment re the team talk as it's something that players in the squad regularly praise him for. Apparently he keeps it simple and gives the players just a couple of things to focus on instead of trying to analyse the first half.

Impact of replacements is more of a concern, we had the bench to take the fight to Ireland and didn't really execute that until the final ten mins when it was too late.

Are you suggesting the team talk achieves its objective?

What evidence do you have they don't? We don't hear it and aren't in the room to see the reaction.

The scoreboard. Surely, losing is NOT the objective.

[Banquo]

Are you suggesting the team talk achieves its objective?

What evidence do you have they don't? We don't hear it and aren't in the room to see the reaction.

The scoreboard. Surely, losing is NOT the objective.

my thoughts too. Though the defence could be that we did exactly what Semi Balding said, but the oppos were better, or similar.

[FKAS]

Are you suggesting the team talk achieves its objective?

What evidence do you have they don't? We don't hear it and aren't in the room to see the reaction.

The scoreboard. Surely, losing is NOT the objective.

I doubt he thought either of his two key points to the team needed to be "don't fall off tackles in the wide channels" or "don't shit the bed dealing with routine kicks in the 22".

Depends what he said re tactics at half time. Ireland changed their game plan quite a bit for the second half. Started to target the wings with kicks, kept the ball away from Steward. Played the phases, starved England of ball. As Puja likes to say, the opposition are allowed to be good.

[Mellsblue]

What about the other half time talks, adjustments etc when we’ve subsequently been blown away. Our second half points difference when excluding Japan is horrific.
I wonder if Ireland, France, SA etc sit back after a loss, rare as they are for them, and think that the other team are allowed to be good. Isn’t the entire idea of sport, let alone test rugby, to be better than the other team.
No one is asking us to win every second half, to out think the oppo with adjustments every match but for it to happen semi regularly would be lovely.

[Oakboy]

What about the other half time talks, adjustments etc when we’ve subsequently been blown away. Our second half points difference when excluding Japan is horrific.
I wonder if Ireland, France, SA etc sit back after a loss, rare as they are for them, and think that the other team are allowed to be good. Isn’t the entire idea of sport, let alone test rugby, to be better than the other team.
No one is asking us to win every second half, to out think the oppo with adjustments every match but for it to happen semi regularly would be lovely.

This!!!!

[Puja]

What about the other half time talks, adjustments etc when we’ve subsequently been blown away. Our second half points difference when excluding Japan is horrific.
I wonder if Ireland, France, SA etc sit back after a loss, rare as they are for them, and think that the other team are allowed to be good. Isn’t the entire idea of sport, let alone test rugby, to be better than the other team.
No one is asking us to win every second half, to out think the oppo with adjustments every match but for it to happen semi regularly would be lovely.

Weren't we behind at halftime for the majority of our games last year? I thought the pattern was that we came back in the second half and then lost it in the last 20 minutes after a Ben Earl mistake?

I also don't think we're suggesting that the team should be relaxed about losing a game away from home to the second ranked side in the world. However, I am suggesting that maybe the fans should be slightly more relaxed.

Puja

[Banquo]

https://www.planetrugby.com/?