RugbyRebels

Timbo wrote:

jngf wrote:

Digby wrote:Could just be one of those games but it 2 terrible performances in the last 2 games now, and the media will easily be able to write the Sarries players all looked like their minds were elsewhere because of the issues at their club.

Hopefully the selection makes more sense next weekend and we go from there.

I actually think it’s an unhappy squad and that the Sarries episode is having a cancerous impact. No easy solution but release Farrell from captaincy and bench him might be a start?

Let’s at least stick the stuff we can see, not start pulling guesses out of our arses. You’ve no idea what the mood in camp is like, absolutely none.

So, you watched today and thought the players looked stimulated by knowing what to do throughout 80 minutes? I felt sorry for a few who seemed lost. That indicates something pretty wrong usually, IMO. You are right that we can only guess, mind.

Shiny wrote:Is anyone slightly concerned for next week. I feel Scotland would have beaten us today as well. Apart from Sir Jonny May we never looked like creating or scoring anything.

I thought Scotland had to try desperately hard to lose to Ireland. If they click and cut out the mistakes, I doubt that we can win without major changes of personmel and approach.

Oakboy wrote:

Timbo wrote:

jngf wrote:
I actually think it’s an unhappy squad and that the Sarries episode is having a cancerous impact. No easy solution but release Farrell from captaincy and bench him might be a start?

Let’s at least stick the stuff we can see, not start pulling guesses out of our arses. You’ve no idea what the mood in camp is like, absolutely none.

So, you watched today and thought the players looked stimulated by knowing what to do throughout 80 minutes? I felt sorry for a few who seemed lost. That indicates something pretty wrong usually, IMO. You are right that we can only guess, mind.

So basically just randomly guessing for shits and giggles?

Oakboy wrote:

Timbo wrote:

jngf wrote:
I actually think it’s an unhappy squad and that the Sarries episode is having a cancerous impact. No easy solution but release Farrell from captaincy and bench him might be a start?

Let’s at least stick the stuff we can see, not start pulling guesses out of our arses. You’ve no idea what the mood in camp is like, absolutely none.

So, you watched today and thought the players looked stimulated by knowing what to do throughout 80 minutes? I felt sorry for a few who seemed lost. That indicates something pretty wrong usually, IMO. You are right that we can only guess, mind.

Your theory seems to be that we won a semi-final against NewZealand, the best performance by an England team for a generation....then everyone suddenly got really demotivated and unhappy.

Ive seen nothing that leads me to believe they’re not a tight-knit and happy squad. Rather than focus on tabloid-esque speculation I prefer to look at the selection, tactics and technical aspects of today’s performance.

The similarities with today, particularly in attack, and the 2018 6N’s were striking to me. Fundamental lack of gainline, not enough effective ball carriers, no variety in play on the gainline, a weird rotation in our ball carrying (who was carrying tight and who was carrying wide, off 1st phase/2nd phase etc), leading on to slow ruck ball...not competing hard enough in the air, lack of execution in oppo 22 etc, etc.

Despite being shite, we should have won today. With an 80 mins from Manu, or Billy being fit we may well have done. You could easily tweak today’s team and they would be off and running again, but that’s up to Eddie (and would require him to have a bit of a climb down in terms of some of his selections, so...).

For all the talk of what was happening on the pitch can someone please enlighten me to who that was sat next to Jones

p/d wrote:For all the talk of what was happening on the pitch can someone please enlighten me to who that was sat next to Jones

Neil Craig, the man responsible for everything we do bad: leadership, team, support structures

Stom wrote:

p/d wrote:For all the talk of what was happening on the pitch can someone please enlighten me to who that was sat next to Jones

Neil Craig, the man responsible for everything we do bad: leadership, team, support structures

Cheers Stom. He has a face like a smacked arse, and a middle name that is just priceless considering his role/England's performance

p/d wrote:

Stom wrote:

p/d wrote:For all the talk of what was happening on the pitch can someone please enlighten me to who that was sat next to Jones

Neil Craig, the man responsible for everything we do bad: leadership, team, support structures

Cheers Stom. He has a face like a smacked arse, and a middle name that is just priceless considering his role/England's performance

ha

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Puja wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:Annoying as fuck that. Mostly for me that we failed to execute in the 22 and failed to chance personnel when those starting were not cutting it.

Credit to Genge, LCD, Ludlam off the bench. Lawes standout by a mile. Curry, one scrum aside actually controlled quite well, but as a pack we were totally absent. Both scrum halves were poor, but equally we weren’t clearing the ruck well or providing options. Ford was poor as was Farrell and losing Manu really hurt us. Furbank, fair play came back well in the second half. Nothing spectacular but he seemed to realise he could actually play.

Jonny May outstanding in attack but it did take solo genius to get anything. Close to the line the forwards were utterly clueless.

People will pinpoint Lawes at 6 being a problem, but that doesn’t lose lineouts, that doesn’t cause brainfarts, that doesn’t cause the rest of the pack to shut off. That doesn’t cause your support and clearance to fail. It doesn’t cause your fly half to make bad decisions. It doesn’t cause your backs to drop ball after ball. That’s not selection it’s execution.

You missed several - he lost the ball out the back three times and fluffed the presentation on ball going forward twice. Proof, if proof was needed, that 8 is a specialist position and you can't just shove anyone in there.

I agree with most of the rest of what you've said, except that I'd argue Lawes at 6 was the largest problem. It was a major contributor to our support and clearance failures and meant that, what ball we retained came back slowly. Plus losing a third back row meant we were down a dynamic carrier and were sending in Curry on the crash ball where, god bless his little cotton socks, he tried manfully, but was largely embarrassed.

Oddly, I think Eddie's team played like jngf's back row predictions today. We argue that the number on their back shouldn't matter and that it should just affect where they pack down in the scrum, but time and again, we made Curry do the Vunipola work, Underhill do the Curry work, and Lawes... was maybe supposed to be doing something in the loose? The number *shouldn't* matter, but Eddie is making it so.

Puja

Lawes was the largest problem??? Ok!!!!!!

To clarify - Lawes was the largest problem, not the majority of the problems. So I'm not saying picking an actual flanker would have made all the difference, I'm saying that if you could only make one change, that would've had the biggest impact, IMO.

Puja

Any specifics on Manu’s groin injury? That’s a recurring issue for him right? I guess it could be different, but still worrying.

The talk of losing to Scotland is very interesting. There were some quite significant improvements in areas but also regularly coughed up possession via dumb penalties and roundly failed to execute any of the chances created.

Aside from Jonny May being changing things up that doesn’t sound too dissimilar from England today, but as we know form tends to go out of the window for this game particularly.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

jngf wrote:

Digby wrote:Could just be one of those games but it 2 terrible performances in the last 2 games now, and the media will easily be able to write the Sarries players all looked like their minds were elsewhere because of the issues at their club.

Hopefully the selection makes more sense next weekend and we go from there.

I actually think it’s an unhappy squad and that the Sarries episode is having a cancerous impact. No easy solution but release Farrell from captaincy and bench him might be a start?

Why do you think that? On what evidence? You do know they’ve had clear the air talks yeah?

They may have had such talks but given captain and several colleagues have been at the centre of controversy I would question how much air really has been cleared and how much is RFU/Jones/rugby press spin....

Also given Jones’ previous association with Saracens the whole thing doesn’t quite smell right imo

Timbo wrote:

jngf wrote:

Digby wrote:Could just be one of those games but it 2 terrible performances in the last 2 games now, and the media will easily be able to write the Sarries players all looked like their minds were elsewhere because of the issues at their club.

Hopefully the selection makes more sense next weekend and we go from there.

I actually think it’s an unhappy squad and that the Sarries episode is having a cancerous impact. No easy solution but release Farrell from captaincy and bench him might be a start?

Let’s at least stick the stuff we can see, not start pulling guesses out of our arses. You’ve no idea what the mood in camp is like, absolutely none.

But we comment on form, commitment and such like all the time, and that's hard to call too. Also the only way to stop that sort of chat is to play well, and they didn't just lose, they wouldn't have managed to suck an egg

Tough game to analyse.

We got into their 22 so often, yet failed to convert. Another day we'd have smashed them.

Feels like most of those lost balls were failures in the breakdown, and I know who I blame for poor ruck work, but he didn't select himself, and it's not a new issue.

Raggs wrote:Tough game to analyse.

We got into their 22 so often, yet failed to convert. Another day we'd have smashed them.

Feels like most of those lost balls were failures in the breakdown, and I know who I blame for poor ruck work, but he didn't select himself, and it's not a new issue.

Tough on Jack Willis, tough on the causes of Jack Willis. On the off chance it's about Lawes then he certainly has in the past lobbied to play back row, I don't know if he still does

Have to say I was expecting more from Ewels, and Marler hasn't done a huge amount coming back into the side

Agree it’s a tough game to analyse. We made so many unforced errors, and a number of players were individually unintelligent- take a bow Kyle. Discipline and concentration were terrible, tackling and reacting poor, execution in the 22/ their goal line terrible. We didn’t have enough in our carrying game and they consequently committed no-one much to the breakdown. Add that to two poor 9’s, a Horlicks of a back row, shoddy clearing (see Horlicks) and the clumsy Faz (I’d wager a stinger and no feeling in the arm for a while- he did it at the same time Manu was limping off, so maybe he felt he couldn’t depart- wrong!)- and frankly we deserved to be second, but still could have won with some half decent finishing (and credit French goal line defence).

Scrum went well though .

Digby wrote:

Raggs wrote:Tough game to analyse.

We got into their 22 so often, yet failed to convert. Another day we'd have smashed them.

Feels like most of those lost balls were failures in the breakdown, and I know who I blame for poor ruck work, but he didn't select himself, and it's not a new issue.

Tough on Jack Willis, tough on the causes of Jack Willis. On the off chance it's about Lawes then he certainly has in the past lobbied to play back row, I don't know if he still does

Have to say I was expecting more from Ewels, and Marler hasn't done a huge amount coming back into the side

I may do the ruck marks, it's the only chance Ewels has to redeem himself, and for Lawes to convince me it wasn't him.

Willis would have been fantastic in that game, more experience at 8 than Curry, and far far far more effective in the breakdown than Lawes. Reckon Owens would be a good ref for him too, he can relax his precision, since Owens tends to reward persistence more than precision.

As much as I'm not a fan of Faz, I accept his at the least a decent international centre, and those knock ons were extremely uncharacteristic.

Raggs wrote:

Digby wrote:

Raggs wrote:Tough game to analyse.

We got into their 22 so often, yet failed to convert. Another day we'd have smashed them.

Feels like most of those lost balls were failures in the breakdown, and I know who I blame for poor ruck work, but he didn't select himself, and it's not a new issue.

Tough on Jack Willis, tough on the causes of Jack Willis. On the off chance it's about Lawes then he certainly has in the past lobbied to play back row, I don't know if he still does

Have to say I was expecting more from Ewels, and Marler hasn't done a huge amount coming back into the side

I may do the ruck marks, it's the only chance Ewels has to redeem himself, and for Lawes to convince me it wasn't him.

Willis would have been fantastic in that game, more experience at 8 than Curry, and far far far more effective in the breakdown than Lawes. Reckon Owens would be a good ref for him too, he can relax his precision, since Owens tends to reward persistence more than precision.

As much as I'm not a fan of Faz, I accept his at the least a decent international centre, and those knock ons were extremely uncharacteristic.

Agreed on Willis- see earlier in thread; on Faz, as above I think he had a problem with his arm for that period when he dropped two balls-,he’s a decent intl 10, but a very ordinary and sedate 12 imo. I think he has to be 10 or bench.

Banquo wrote:Agree it’s a tough game to analyse. We made so many unforced errors, and a number of players were individually unintelligent- take a bow Kyle. Discipline and concentration were terrible, tackling and reacting poor, execution in the 22/ their goal line terrible. We didn’t have enough in our carrying game and they consequently committed no-one much to the breakdown. Add that to two poor 9’s, a Horlicks of a back row, shoddy clearing (see Horlicks) and the clumsy Faz (I’d wager a stinger and no feeling in the arm for a while- he did it at the same time Manu was limping off, so maybe he felt he couldn’t depart- wrong!)- and frankly we deserved to be second, but still could have won with some half decent finishing (and credit French goal line defence).

Scrum went well though .

Sinckler is in danger of forgetting that, first and foremost, he’s a 19stone international tighthead and his primary role ball in hand is to run hard and straight. It’s like if he can’t get a pass or an offload in he’s not interested.

Timbo wrote:

Banquo wrote:Agree it’s a tough game to analyse. We made so many unforced errors, and a number of players were individually unintelligent- take a bow Kyle. Discipline and concentration were terrible, tackling and reacting poor, execution in the 22/ their goal line terrible. We didn’t have enough in our carrying game and they consequently committed no-one much to the breakdown. Add that to two poor 9’s, a Horlicks of a back row, shoddy clearing (see Horlicks) and the clumsy Faz (I’d wager a stinger and no feeling in the arm for a while- he did it at the same time Manu was limping off, so maybe he felt he couldn’t depart- wrong!)- and frankly we deserved to be second, but still could have won with some half decent finishing (and credit French goal line defence).

Scrum went well though .

Sinckler is in danger of forgetting that, first and foremost, he’s a 19stone international tighthead and his primary role ball in hand is to run hard and straight. It’s like if he can’t get a pass or an offload in he’s not interested.

He didn’t retain the ball and gave away the most stupid of free kicks at a lineout; as you say, just run straight and hard. Just not very smart, and he wasn’t alone- we aren’t a smart team tbh

What I found hard about watching that was that it was all so predictable. No 8 at 8. No 6 at 6. Whatdyaknow there’s not much control at base of scrum and insufficient protection of ball going into contact. And a newbie at 15 in France in the rain? C’mon.

Can we please have Tompkins back

Banquo wrote:Agree it’s a tough game to analyse. We made so many unforced errors, and a number of players were individually unintelligent- take a bow Kyle. Discipline and concentration were terrible, tackling and reacting poor, execution in the 22/ their goal line terrible. We didn’t have enough in our carrying game and they consequently committed no-one much to the breakdown. Add that to two poor 9’s, a Horlicks of a back row, shoddy clearing (see Horlicks) and the clumsy Faz (I’d wager a stinger and no feeling in the arm for a while- he did it at the same time Manu was limping off, so maybe he felt he couldn’t depart- wrong!)- and frankly we deserved to be second, but still could have won with some half decent finishing (and credit French goal line defence).

Scrum went well though .

Apart from all your other valid points, can't understand why Jones has the blinkers on for these scrumhalves.
On this issue alone, you could argue that anyone who keeps on selecting Youngs over and over again, must be, by definition, a crap coach.
And Faz will continue to wear the Emperor's new clothes whatever happens.

p/d wrote:Can we please have Tompkins back

Well yes. At least he does sometimes play 12 for his club

Banquo wrote:

p/d wrote:Can we please have Tompkins back

Well yes. At least he does sometimes play 12 for his club

Tough as it is, reckon Ford will be dropped and Farrell back at 10.
Though Daly and Youngs would be the backs I would be replacing