RugbyRebels

Puja, I get your point on Dombrant not helping Marler in that lineout, but I think Marler was on a hiding to nothing there anyway. As soon as I saw it was Marler throwing my first thought was that it's either going to a jumper at the front or, if they can, a guy peeling round to the front. Those are the two options Scotland are going to cover - if he throws it over to a jumper in the middle, then fair play.

On LCD, agree completely with most of you. He was in a very difficult position but unless he didn't know the rules he picked the worst possible option.

Incredibly frustrating match. We did look ok at times. It's quite hard to judge overall given all the player changes.

Jones on not bringing on George straight away:
“I never have regrets,” said Jones. “I make judgments in the split-moment. We decided we needed three back-rowers on because they were trying to move the ball from side to side and we went with the fact that we’d practised with him in the sin-bin and were confident we’d win the ball with who we had on the field. Now unfortunately we didn’t execute that as we would have liked and it resulted in the free kick.”

Problem with having a non thrower throwing in you basically have one option: a hard flat ball to the front. Non hookers, or those who dont normally throw, wont be able to deliver anything other than that. Consequently the timing and organisation from everyone needs to be 100% spot on. A line out 5m out just added greater pressure to an already demanding situation.

Mellsblue wrote:Jones on not bringing on George straight away:
“I never have regrets,” said Jones. “I make judgments in the split-moment. We decided we needed three back-rowers on because they were trying to move the ball from side to side and we went with the fact that we’d practised with him in the sin-bin and were confident we’d win the ball with who we had on the field. Now unfortunately we didn’t execute that as we would have liked and it resulted in the free kick.”

Weird. I feel like he basically said it was a mistake and his fault in the post match press thing.

fivepointer wrote:Problem with having a non thrower throwing in you basically have one option: a hard flat ball to the front. Non hookers, or those who dont normally throw, wont be able to deliver anything other than that. Consequently the timing and organisation from everyone needs to be 100% spot on. A line out 5m out just added greater pressure to an already demanding situation.

Exactly- timing, especially under pressure.

Another interesting titbit:
Ben Youngs, England’s scrum-half, said that the captain Tom Curry and lock Maro Itoje led the immediate debrief.

Could he have brought George on without it being a proper substitution, and thus leaving us a backrow short / hooker in the backrow when LCD came back from the yellow?

Mellsblue wrote:Jones on not bringing on George straight away:
“I never have regrets,” said Jones. “I make judgments in the split-moment. We decided we needed three back-rowers on because they were trying to move the ball from side to side and we went with the fact that we’d practised with him in the sin-bin and were confident we’d win the ball with who we had on the field. Now unfortunately we didn’t execute that as we would have liked and it resulted in the free kick.”

He is a right Charlie.

Up there with his ‘lucky winner and unlucky loser’ and ‘these players will learn’

…. When will you Edward

Epaminondas Pules wrote:Could he have brought George on without it being a proper substitution, and thus leaving us a backrow short / hooker in the backrow when LCD came back from the yellow?

Yeah I had thought you may only be able to freely swap in a hooker at a scrum because it's a safety concern, rather than a lineout which is an inconvenience, and maybe he'd adjusted his opinion having had a check of the rules after the game. I've not actually seen anyone clarify this though, and can't be bothered to look it up myself.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:Could he have brought George on without it being a proper substitution, and thus leaving us a backrow short / hooker in the backrow when LCD came back from the yellow?

Brian Moore reckons a player should have gone down to allow George the time to get on the field. But short of Malins running into a post and going of for an HIA not sure how it would have not been a proper substitution

The thing is, Jones clearly doesn't trust Smith, which is why Youngs has to stay on and control the ball and the play. Remember, without Farrell there Smith can't possibly do it himself.

Biggest frustration for me was the amount of poor kicking. Kicking in itself can be effective, but England just don't seem to do it well. Youngs' were all over the place, Daly kicked away the ball when we had a 5 on 2 (an homage to the injured leader?), and even at the end when we forced the scrum and the chance to win the game we were still hoofing kicks away that we had no chance of contesting. We picked a supposedly running team, and then kicked away lots of ball? Why?

That said, I think we lacked punch in the midfield. Slade and Daly just don't have enough physicality, and it seemed odd we were trying to use Malins as a tight carrier an infield runner.

As for the freelance comment on Care and Loz - I just assumed Loz was dropped after that Japan game because he was absolutely awful in an awful performance.

Also - I clicked that Dawson article, but as the headline includes the phrase 'Scotland were world class' I refuse to countenance reading it further

Peej wrote:The thing is, Jones clearly doesn't trust Smith, which is why Youngs has to stay on and control the ball and the play. Remember, without Farrell there Smith can't possibly do it himself.

Biggest frustration for me was the amount of poor kicking. Kicking in itself can be effective, but England just don't seem to do it well. Youngs' were all over the place, Daly kicked away the ball when we had a 5 on 2 (an homage to the injured leader?), and even at the end when we forced the scrum and the chance to win the game we were still hoofing kicks away that we had no chance of contesting. We picked a supposedly running team, and then kicked away lots of ball? Why?

That said, I think we lacked punch in the midfield. Slade and Daly just don't have enough physicality, and it seemed odd we were trying to use Malins as a tight carrier an infield runner.

As for the freelance comment on Care and Loz - I just assumed Loz was dropped after that Japan game because he was absolutely awful in an awful performance.

Which is why he took Youngs off against South Africa and left Smith on........

Ah that is a good point. But we didn't have a recognised replacement 10 in the squad that day did we?

No, but equally he didn't take Youngs off when Ford came on. Don't think anyone can say he doesn't trust Smith as frankly nobody knows but Jones.

All in all a very frustrating game. Lots of possession and territory, but then large chunks of doing little with it. Ball presentation / ruck clearance was pretty poor, slowing us sufficiently, but then options off 9 and 10 were laboured in the main, meaning we often just ran into contact against a team that has built upon defence. Which seemed a rather odd tactic. When we did get round them we made good yards, and then went back into passages of running into a wall again.

17 missed tackles is a poor return, though oddly our discipline was the better of the two teams, which it didn't seem to be watching live. Mostly thanks to alcohol and only having one working eye.

The LCD thing....well, yeah. Catch it, or let the winger catch it and smash him, or frankly scan, but don't do what you did. Still, it is what it is, and shouldn't really have mattered had we not be so sub-optimal (and credit to Scotland here) in denting the scoreboard.

The bench offered little to nothing. They were largely the antithesis of 'finishers'. Ford made more tackles than the replacement forwards put together. Three of whom were on for over 17 minutes, who also combined to give us a mighty 2 carrier for 7 metres. For all the bench being strong, they were basically anonymous. Randall and Nowell aside.

Swapping Smith for Ford struck me as a predetermined substitution without thought of how the game was going, "if we're winning swap the young fly half for the experienced head to close out the game".

Epaminondas Pules wrote:All in all a very frustrating game. Lots of possession and territory, but then large chunks of doing little with it. Ball presentation / ruck clearance was pretty poor, slowing us sufficiently, but then options off 9 and 10 were laboured in the main, meaning we often just ran into contact against a team that has built upon defence. Which seemed a rather odd tactic. When we did get round them we made good yards, and then went back into passages of running into a wall again.

17 missed tackles is a poor return, though oddly our discipline was the better of the two teams, which it didn't seem to be watching live. Mostly thanks to alcohol and only having one working eye.

The LCD thing....well, yeah. Catch it, or let the winger catch it and smash him, or frankly scan, but don't do what you did. Still, it is what it is, and shouldn't really have mattered had we not be so sub-optimal (and credit to Scotland here) in denting the scoreboard.

The bench offered little to nothing. They were largely the antithesis of 'finishers'. Ford made more tackles than the replacement forwards put together. Three of whom were on for over 17 minutes, who also combined to give us a mighty 2 carrier for 7 metres. For all the bench being strong, they were basically anonymous. Randall and Nowell aside.

On the subs… that might be because the ball was in the bloody air so much, or out of play. Remember, of those last 17 minutes, at least 4 were spent in scrums, probably a lot more. Take away 3 for the try and another 5 for the 3 lineouts and another minute for the penalties and…that’s like 2 minutes they had ball in play to influence things.

That just shows how poor we were at actually making something of the game, imo. Scotland wanted the game to be ticked down and it was.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:No, but equally he didn't take Youngs off when Ford came on. Don't think anyone can say he doesn't trust Smith as frankly nobody knows but Jones.

“At the moment he's the right guy for the job," Jones said of Farrell's captaincy selection to BBC Sport. "You talk about Marcus Smith, Owen's going to be an important player for Marcus. Marcus could be an absolutely brilliant 10 so he needs to have a 12 next to him that can run the game for him and that's where Owen is so good."

Doesn’t sound like Jones completely trusts Smith. Counter to that, Ford does have previous in coming off the bench to help rescue a game vs Scotland.

Mellsblue wrote:
Doesn’t sound like Jones completely trusts Smith. Counter to that, Ford does have previous in coming off the bench to help rescue a game vs Scotland.

Did the game need rescuing at that point?

It was a pants substitution

There are always 'if onlys' but it is about winning crunch games and games at the crunch. We don't do either that well.

Is a pre-arranged plan to sub your playmaker good management? Even if we had gone on to win with Ford for the last 17 minutes, does the message that the planned change sends do anything for team morale? When the head coach subsequently mentions luck on the back of that planning, what do the players think afterwards?

Epaminondas Pules wrote:All in all a very frustrating game. Lots of possession and territory, but then large chunks of doing little with it. Ball presentation / ruck clearance was pretty poor, slowing us sufficiently, but then options off 9 and 10 were laboured in the main, meaning we often just ran into contact against a team that has built upon defence. Which seemed a rather odd tactic. When we did get round them we made good yards, and then went back into passages of running into a wall again.

17 missed tackles is a poor return, though oddly our discipline was the better of the two teams, which it didn't seem to be watching live. Mostly thanks to alcohol and only having one working eye.

The LCD thing....well, yeah. Catch it, or let the winger catch it and smash him, or frankly scan, but don't do what you did. Still, it is what it is, and shouldn't really have mattered had we not be so sub-optimal (and credit to Scotland here) in denting the scoreboard.

The bench offered little to nothing. They were largely the antithesis of 'finishers'. Ford made more tackles than the replacement forwards put together. Three of whom were on for over 17 minutes, who also combined to give us a mighty 2 carrier for 7 metres. For all the bench being strong, they were basically anonymous. Randall and Nowell aside.

Yes, good to praise the scots for their defence and taking their chances. The conditions weren't fab, but that doesn't excuse what was a very poor defensive effort out wide from us and some kicking choices on the front foot that were so sub optimal as to be underground.

p/d wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:
Doesn’t sound like Jones completely trusts Smith. Counter to that, Ford does have previous in coming off the bench to help rescue a game vs Scotland.

Did the game need rescuing at that point?

It was a pants substitution

Smith wasn't playing that well, but the timing was off at best.

Peej wrote:Also - I clicked that Dawson article, but as the headline includes the phrase 'Scotland were world class' I refuse to countenance reading it further

Their defence and Finn Russell were very good when it counted.