RugbyRebels

Banquo wrote:

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

He was improved after the break, in fairness. And the team as a whole looked much better once the changes in the pack were made- Ludlam, Kruis, Genge and LCD gave us a far better balance and good deal more power. Heinz was a slight upgrade on Youngs. Would have been nice to see Devoto given 20-30 mins.

Timbo wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Timbo wrote:
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

He was improved after the break, in fairness. And the team as a whole looked much better once the changes in the pack were made- Ludlam, Kruis, Genge and LCD gave us a far better balance and good deal more power. Heinz was a slight upgrade on Youngs. Would have been nice to see Devoto given 20-30 mins.

What, you mean actually having back row players in the back row, an experienced lock coming on, and adding greatly to our carrying made us play a bit better- well I never!!! We still showed a lack of intelligence in the last quarter, and leadership vacuum remained.

What’s mad is that a lot of this was obvious pre game- back row balance and lack of carriers were clear, Tuilagi going off further hurt the latter. Issue at 9 is just tedious now.

The more I think about it, the more I feel that the lack of Mako and Billy wasn't what hurt us. We repeatedly got into the French 22, clearly our attacking strategy cannot have been that bad. It was our lack of retention in the ruck that ultimately killed most those chances I believe.

Raggs wrote:The more I think about it, the more I feel that the lack of Mako and Billy wasn't what hurt us. We repeatedly got into the French 22, clearly our attacking strategy cannot have been that bad. It was our lack of retention in the ruck that ultimately killed most those chances I believe.

Given the possession and territory in the second half, we were doing some things well eventually- dominating the scrum created that platform; what was poor was not only retention, but muddled thinking and poor clearing out.

Next week
1. MVunipola
2. George (c)
3. Sinckler
4. Itoje
5. Kruis
6. Curry
7. Underhill
8. Earl

9. Heinz
10. Ford
11. May
12. Devoto
13. Tuilagi / Joseph
14. Daly / Watson
15. Watson / Furbank

16. LCD, 17. Genge, 18. Stuart, 19. Ewels, 20. Ludlam
21. Youngs, 22.Farrell, 23. Furbank/Daly


Simmonds/Kvesic/Dombrandt/Harrison/Morgan/Mercer brought into the wider squad to get into speed for match 3 - Mercer would be the best face-saver, assuming he's close enough to returning from injury, Kvesic has the most recent experience with the squad (is he fit?). Otherwise, he's made his bed with the squad, and now has to lie in it IMO.


Front Row: IMO Mako and Marler get selected on a horses for courses, Genge gets to bench throughout this 6N to get more experience. George is a better leader than Farrell, and is in the best position to lead from, captaincy aside, I'd give LCD his chance. Sinckler has a poor game, but he's stil our best THP, Stuart needs more than 3 minutes.
Locks: We o it need 2 of them, preferably our best pairing. Ewels wouldn't be my choice initially, but played better than Lawes, and if he was bad enough individually to deserve dropping then we have to replace a full dozen - definitely doesn't deserve scape-goat status.
Back Row: Earl is the closest thing to a #8 in the wider squad. The closest England have ever come to making 3 locks work was when one of them was Croft. Have either of Lawes/Itoje had even 1 good game wearing 6?

SH: Young is terrible, and has been for a while now. There's no-one putting their hands up and demanding selection, and we've only got 2 SHs in the wider squad (and Irish or Welsh juniors we can target?), so he either benches, or we play without a bench SH. Ford is simply a better rugby player and a better FH than Farrell. It also means that the 3 worst performing players today (all of them seniors who are supposed to be calm heads) are dropped from the starting XV.
Midfield: Imagine that, an inside centre and an outside centre, playing together in the centres. You know what? It might just work!
Back 3: May and Watson have to start (if fit) so it's really a selection between Furbank and Daly, Daly can be good on the wing (but hasn't yet at FB), no shame for Furbank in sitting on the bench.

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:The more I think about it, the more I feel that the lack of Mako and Billy wasn't what hurt us. We repeatedly got into the French 22, clearly our attacking strategy cannot have been that bad. It was our lack of retention in the ruck that ultimately killed most those chances I believe.

Given the possession and territory in the second half, we were doing some things well eventually- dominating the scrum created that platform; what was poor was not only retention, but muddled thinking and poor clearing out.

We were rancid, and even then France allowed us any number of chances which we couldn't take.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:The more I think about it, the more I feel that the lack of Mako and Billy wasn't what hurt us. We repeatedly got into the French 22, clearly our attacking strategy cannot have been that bad. It was our lack of retention in the ruck that ultimately killed most those chances I believe.

Given the possession and territory in the second half, we were doing some things well eventually- dominating the scrum created that platform; what was poor was not only retention, but muddled thinking and poor clearing out.

We were rancid, and even then France allowed us any number of chances which we couldn't take.

Yup, as before we deserved to lose, but yet could easily have won

Raggs wrote:The more I think about it, the more I feel that the lack of Mako and Billy wasn't what hurt us. We repeatedly got into the French 22, clearly our attacking strategy cannot have been that bad. It was our lack of retention in the ruck that ultimately killed most those chances I believe.

Was our struggle for quick rucks and ball retention not directly related to the fact that we weren’t dominant in contact though? And if Tom Curry and Underhill are 2 of your primary tight ball carriers then you’re often losing 2 of your best, most dynamic ruck clearers.

I agree in principle that it wasn’t the lack of Billy and Mako that cost us. More that we in effect replaced those 2 with Lawes and Marler, then replaced Manu with Joseph, and asked all those players to replicate what the missing players normally do.

It was a hot mess. Yet, still feel with a pretty small improvement we would have won.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: Given the possession and territory in the second half, we were doing some things well eventually- dominating the scrum created that platform; what was poor was not only retention, but muddled thinking and poor clearing out.

We were rancid, and even then France allowed us any number of chances which we couldn't take.

Yup, as before we deserved to lose, but yet could easily have won

I'm sort of pleased we didn't given the selection, and I'm sort of pleased Nige tried to have teams play the ball from the scrum rather than wait for a penalty, and yet...

This felt like the early days under Burt, that staring at a XV or XXIII wondering why a professional coach thinks it'll work

I’m only one then who, at no stage, thought we might/could win?

p/d wrote:I’m only one then who, at no stage, thought we might/could win?

I thought we could after Mays second try and we were camped on their line. I wasn’t especially optimistic given the continued ball retention issues.

Timbo wrote:

Raggs wrote:The more I think about it, the more I feel that the lack of Mako and Billy wasn't what hurt us. We repeatedly got into the French 22, clearly our attacking strategy cannot have been that bad. It was our lack of retention in the ruck that ultimately killed most those chances I believe.

Was our struggle for quick rucks and ball retention not directly related to the fact that we weren’t dominant in contact though? And if Tom Curry and Underhill are 2 of your primary tight ball carriers then you’re often losing 2 of your best, most dynamic ruck clearers.

I agree in principle that it wasn’t the lack of Billy and Mako that cost us. More that we in effect replaced those 2 with Lawes and Marler, then replaced Manu with Joseph, and asked all those players to replicate what the missing players normally do.

It was a hot mess. Yet, still feel with a pretty small improvement we would have won.

Forwards carrying stats are miserable reading for the second game in a row.

Banquo wrote:

p/d wrote:I’m only one then who, at no stage, thought we might/could win?

I thought we could after Mays second try and we were camped on their line.

Fair enough. I just couldn’t see where it would come from.

p/d wrote:I’m only one then who, at no stage, thought we might/could win?

I think we would have won if Kruis had gone over with 5 mins left.

But I suppose the point is more that we were shite and still spent large parts of the game camped on their line, 7 entries into their 22 in the first half, 83% territory in the 2nd half etc.

p/d wrote:

Banquo wrote:

p/d wrote:I’m only one then who, at no stage, thought we might/could win?

I thought we could after Mays second try and we were camped on their line.

Fair enough. I just couldn’t see where it would come from.

After the 2nd May try we had a couple of scrums from which if we'd won penalties I thought we were in with a chance, underserved, but a chance.

Next week, assuming players fit:

1.Marler
2.LCD
3.Stuart
4.Launchbury (c)
5.Lawes
6.Underhill
7.Curry
8.Ludlum
9.Heinz
10.Ford
11.May
12.Tuilagi
13.Joseph
14.Daly
15.Furbank

16.George,17.Genge.18.Sinckler,19.Hill,20.Moon,21.Youngs,22.Farell,23.Watson

jngf wrote:Next week, assuming players fit:

1.Marler
2.LCD
3.Stuart
4.Launchbury (c)
5.Lawes
6.Underhill
7.Curry
8.Ludlum
9.Heinz
10.Ford
11.May
12.Tuilagi
13.Joseph
14.Daly
15.Furbank

16.George,17.Genge.18.Sinckler,19.Hill,20.Moon,21.Youngs,22.Farell,23.Watson

Itoje hoes from first choice number 8 to out of the squad? Fickle I say

Timbo wrote:

p/d wrote:I’m only one then who, at no stage, thought we might/could win?

I think we would have won if Kruis had gone over with 5 mins left.

But I suppose the point is more that we were shite and still spent large parts of the game camped on their line, 7 entries into their 22 in the first half, 83% territory in the 2nd half etc.

Did no one else see in the buildup, Farrell offloaded from the tackle into someone’s face before three ball rebounded back to Farrell...

Summed it all up, I felt

Banquo wrote:

jngf wrote:Next week, assuming players fit:

1.Marler
2.LCD
3.Stuart
4.Launchbury (c)
5.Lawes
6.Underhill
7.Curry
8.Ludlum
9.Heinz
10.Ford
11.May
12.Tuilagi
13.Joseph
14.Daly
15.Furbank

16.George,17.Genge.18.Sinckler,19.Hill,20.Moon,21.Youngs,22.Farell,23.Watson

Itoje hoes from first choice number 8 to out of the squad? Fickle I say

It’s the Aswad hair do.

Banquo wrote:

Timbo wrote:

Raggs wrote:The more I think about it, the more I feel that the lack of Mako and Billy wasn't what hurt us. We repeatedly got into the French 22, clearly our attacking strategy cannot have been that bad. It was our lack of retention in the ruck that ultimately killed most those chances I believe.

Was our struggle for quick rucks and ball retention not directly related to the fact that we weren’t dominant in contact though? And if Tom Curry and Underhill are 2 of your primary tight ball carriers then you’re often losing 2 of your best, most dynamic ruck clearers.

I agree in principle that it wasn’t the lack of Billy and Mako that cost us. More that we in effect replaced those 2 with Lawes and Marler, then replaced Manu with Joseph, and asked all those players to replicate what the missing players normally do.

It was a hot mess. Yet, still feel with a pretty small improvement we would have won.

Forwards carrying stats are miserable reading for the second game in a row.

They are. Underhill made 17 meters in 9 carries which was the best effort. Sinckler made 2 meters in 10 carries.

Also from the stats, our SH's had possession 111 times to Dupont's 54.

We didn't lack for ball, or for good positions from which to score from as we enjoyed 61% possession and 70% territory.

Apologies to those who this might offend. SCW in the DM wants Dombrandt in at 8 with Kruis and LCD starting, and probably Genge.
By SCW own admission that was the worst game Farrell has played for England, so rewards him with the 10 shirt.

And to Jones; ‘Best team ever? Just be best team in next game’

..... I find myself agreeing with him

p/d wrote: By SCW own admission that was the worst game Farrell has played for England, so rewards him with the 10 shirt.

I'd have thought SCW would've seen more than just a handful of games?

fivepointer wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Timbo wrote:
Was our struggle for quick rucks and ball retention not directly related to the fact that we weren’t dominant in contact though? And if Tom Curry and Underhill are 2 of your primary tight ball carriers then you’re often losing 2 of your best, most dynamic ruck clearers.

I agree in principle that it wasn’t the lack of Billy and Mako that cost us. More that we in effect replaced those 2 with Lawes and Marler, then replaced Manu with Joseph, and asked all those players to replicate what the missing players normally do.

It was a hot mess. Yet, still feel with a pretty small improvement we would have won.

Forwards carrying stats are miserable reading for the second game in a row.

They are. Underhill made 17 meters in 9 carries which was the best effort. Sinckler made 2 meters in 10 carries.

Also from the stats, our SH's had possession 111 times to Dupont's 54.

We didn't lack for ball, or for good positions from which to score from as we enjoyed 61% possession and 70% territory.

Not surprising. We kept the ball relatively securely, if incredibly slowly, but our attacking moves mostly consisted of passing the ball down the line and hoping someone beat a tackle against a Shaun Edwards defence. Simon Amor has not impressed so far

Puja

Puja wrote:

fivepointer wrote:

Banquo wrote:
Forwards carrying stats are miserable reading for the second game in a row.

They are. Underhill made 17 meters in 9 carries which was the best effort. Sinckler made 2 meters in 10 carries.

Also from the stats, our SH's had possession 111 times to Dupont's 54.

We didn't lack for ball, or for good positions from which to score from as we enjoyed 61% possession and 70% territory.

Not surprising. We kept the ball relatively securely, if incredibly slowly, but our attacking moves mostly consisted of passing the ball down the line and hoping someone beat a tackle against a Shaun Edwards defence. Simon Amor has not impressed so far

Puja

Sir Johnny May defo put lipstick on a pig in that regard.

Puja wrote:

fivepointer wrote:

Banquo wrote:
Forwards carrying stats are miserable reading for the second game in a row.

They are. Underhill made 17 meters in 9 carries which was the best effort. Sinckler made 2 meters in 10 carries.

Also from the stats, our SH's had possession 111 times to Dupont's 54.

We didn't lack for ball, or for good positions from which to score from as we enjoyed 61% possession and 70% territory.

Not surprising. We kept the ball relatively securely, if incredibly slowly, but our attacking moves mostly consisted of passing the ball down the line and hoping someone beat a tackle against a Shaun Edwards defence. Simon Amor has not impressed so far

Puja

....we kept the ball relatively securely???