RugbyRebels

The substitution of Isiekwe is utterly inexcusable.

Firstly, it shut down all of our tactical options in the forwards. Bring off Robshaw, if he continued to struggle or just to freshen up the back row - nope not an option anymore. Replace Billy as he tired - nope, not an option because Hughes was now covering the entire back 5 for 45 minutes. Plus, we couldn't get any impetus from bringing fresh legs off the bench, because we already used that back before anyone was tired yet and, btw he's now tired because we put him in the second row.

Secondly, it took off one of our players most likely to deal with altitude, as Isiekwe is young, fast, and famed for his engine, without even giving him the chance to remotely empty his tank.

Thirdly, Isiekwe was playing pretty well, I thought. Yes, he wasn't dominating the game utterly, but I don't recall any mistakes, certainly nothing worth replacing him with someone who doesn't play his position.

Fourthly, what the hell does this do to Isiekwe's confidence? This was his second cap, his first start and he has been hauled off before half time which is clearly a rebuke. Jones believed the situation was so dire that removing Isiekwe from the pitch immediately and ruining all of those tactical options I mentioned was better than allowing him to continue playing. Fuck me, even if you're Kevin Pietersen levels of cocky, that's gotta knock you. Not so bad if Joe Launchbury's fit for next week, but what happens if he's not. Does Jones pick Isiekwe despite implying that he was so bad that a ersatz lock was a better bet. Does he start Shields?! Please let the latter not be the option, although it fits Jones's style of doubling down.

I just don't get what the benefit of that action was. To anyone.

Puja

On the plus side, Isiekwe will be fresh for next week.

The best English sides we have seen in the modern era have had the dominant players to be able to scrum or maul opposition to a standstill and control games pace and field position. OK that's a generational thing of either having those players or not, but I will say that recently we have not had any control and opposition bring the game to us. OK scrummaging has also changed due to different laws and interpretations.

It could be as simple as saying we are not very good tacklers? But not only do we fall off tackles, or half tackle so a second or third man gets dragged in, because of this our defence gets narrow or gappy.
I am not, or have not been coached by a modern defensive coach so do not understand the modern subtlties of the plans, but England's plan is very brittle, if you can bust there's not a lot of scramble or sweeping secondary to worry about. Obviously there's the exception in the Sam Underhil last ditch amazing tackle last year.

I'd say England scramble rather well, but have to do it too often, and having run the blitz with as many runners as they do it's at times understandable they lack numbers corner flagging and whatnot, even if it's not so understandable why they so love the blitz

richy678 wrote:The best English sides we have seen in the modern era have had the dominant players to be able to scrum or maul opposition to a standstill and control games pace and field position. OK that's a generational thing of either having those players or not, but I will say that recently we have not had any control and opposition bring the game to us. OK scrummaging has also changed due to different laws and interpretations.

It could be as simple as saying we are not very good tacklers? But not only do we fall off tackles, or half tackle so a second or third man gets dragged in, because of this our defence gets narrow or gappy.
I am not, or have not been coached by a modern defensive coach so do not understand the modern subtlties of the plans, but England's plan is very brittle, if you can bust there's not a lot of scramble or sweeping secondary to worry about. Obviously there's the exception in the Sam Underhil last ditch amazing tackle last year.

I don't understand how Eddie can talk about English rugby and playing to our traditional strengths and select weak packs? It's as though the style played in the premiership doesn't suit him so therefore players performances in it are irrelevant. I'll be slated for it again but our half backs cannot control a game when the pressure is on.

pandion wrote:

richy678 wrote:The best English sides we have seen in the modern era have had the dominant players to be able to scrum or maul opposition to a standstill and control games pace and field position. OK that's a generational thing of either having those players or not, but I will say that recently we have not had any control and opposition bring the game to us. OK scrummaging has also changed due to different laws and interpretations.

It could be as simple as saying we are not very good tacklers? But not only do we fall off tackles, or half tackle so a second or third man gets dragged in, because of this our defence gets narrow or gappy.
I am not, or have not been coached by a modern defensive coach so do not understand the modern subtlties of the plans, but England's plan is very brittle, if you can bust there's not a lot of scramble or sweeping secondary to worry about. Obviously there's the exception in the Sam Underhil last ditch amazing tackle last year.

I don't understand how Eddie can talk about English rugby and playing to our traditional strengths and select weak packs? It's as though the style played in the premiership doesn't suit him so therefore players performances in it are irrelevant. I'll be slated for it again but our half backs cannot control a game when the pressure is on.

They don’t manage it particularly well, not many do as it’s a difficult skill, but you’ll have to include Farrell in that criticism, as well. He is captain and, as been repeatedly been said, a second set of eyes for Ford.

Mellsblue wrote:

pandion wrote:

richy678 wrote:The best English sides we have seen in the modern era have had the dominant players to be able to scrum or maul opposition to a standstill and control games pace and field position. OK that's a generational thing of either having those players or not, but I will say that recently we have not had any control and opposition bring the game to us. OK scrummaging has also changed due to different laws and interpretations.

It could be as simple as saying we are not very good tacklers? But not only do we fall off tackles, or half tackle so a second or third man gets dragged in, because of this our defence gets narrow or gappy.
I am not, or have not been coached by a modern defensive coach so do not understand the modern subtlties of the plans, but England's plan is very brittle, if you can bust there's not a lot of scramble or sweeping secondary to worry about. Obviously there's the exception in the Sam Underhil last ditch amazing tackle last year.

I don't understand how Eddie can talk about English rugby and playing to our traditional strengths and select weak packs? It's as though the style played in the premiership doesn't suit him so therefore players performances in it are irrelevant. I'll be slated for it again but our half backs cannot control a game when the pressure is on.

They don’t manage it particularly well, not many do as it’s a difficult skill, but you’ll have to include Farrell in that criticism, as well. He is captain and, as been repeatedly been said, a second set of eyes for Ford.

How many failures in decision making were there at halfback? How many Vs what would be a normal number even in a game where a side is going forwards and dominating? And how does x number of questionable decision stack up Vs all those penalties?

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

pandion wrote:
I don't understand how Eddie can talk about English rugby and playing to our traditional strengths and select weak packs? It's as though the style played in the premiership doesn't suit him so therefore players performances in it are irrelevant. I'll be slated for it again but our half backs cannot control a game when the pressure is on.

They don’t manage it particularly well, not many do as it’s a difficult skill, but you’ll have to include Farrell in that criticism, as well. He is captain and, as been repeatedly been said, a second set of eyes for Ford.

How many failures in decision making were there at halfback? How many Vs what would be a normal number even in a game where a side is going forwards and dominating? And how does x number of questionable decision stack up Vs all those penalties?

quite.

One of the most disturbing features was how easy it was to launch big runners at Ford, even off a lineout. Doesn't matter how good a defender any 10 is, a big geezer at pace down that channel- the aspiration of most sides truth be told- will create a big gainline gain. Had no-one even thought of that; FFS it might have even been a good use of Mikey Brown, but they shouldn't have been able to get to the 10 in the 1st place.

Some of the half back execution was iffy, but I wouldn't be holding them too much to account for what they did with the ball on this occasion; I'd be asking some big questions about our contact play, breakdown, and our defence as a whole and out wide under scrutiny again.

Oh and discipline in all its manifestations, including the above on defence.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: They don’t manage it particularly well, not many do as it’s a difficult skill, but you’ll have to include Farrell in that criticism, as well. He is captain and, as been repeatedly been said, a second set of eyes for Ford.

How many failures in decision making were there at halfback? How many Vs what would be a normal number even in a game where a side is going forwards and dominating? And how does x number of questionable decision stack up Vs all those penalties?

quite.

One of the most disturbing features was how easy it was to launch big runners at Ford, even off a lineout. Doesn't matter how good a defender any 10 is, a big geezer at pace down that channel- the aspiration of most sides truth be told- will create a big gainline gain. Had no-one even thought of that; FFS it might have even been a good use of Mikey Brown, but they shouldn't have been able to get to the 10 in the 1st place.

Some of the half back execution was iffy, but I wouldn't be holding them too much to account for what they did with the ball on this occasion; I'd be asking some big questions about our contact play, breakdown, and our defence as a whole and out wide under scrutiny again.

Oh and discipline in all its manifestations, including the above on defence.

Our tactical kicking on the back foot has been pretty woeful for a while. However, as I alluded to, looking good as a half back whilst on the back foot is very difficult to do.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
How many failures in decision making were there at halfback? How many Vs what would be a normal number even in a game where a side is going forwards and dominating? And how does x number of questionable decision stack up Vs all those penalties?

quite.

One of the most disturbing features was how easy it was to launch big runners at Ford, even off a lineout. Doesn't matter how good a defender any 10 is, a big geezer at pace down that channel- the aspiration of most sides truth be told- will create a big gainline gain. Had no-one even thought of that; FFS it might have even been a good use of Mikey Brown, but they shouldn't have been able to get to the 10 in the 1st place.

Some of the half back execution was iffy, but I wouldn't be holding them too much to account for what they did with the ball on this occasion; I'd be asking some big questions about our contact play, breakdown, and our defence as a whole and out wide under scrutiny again.

Oh and discipline in all its manifestations, including the above on defence.

Our tactical kicking on the back foot has been pretty woeful for a while. However, as I alluded to, looking good as a half back whilst on the back foot is very difficult to do.

yus

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: They don’t manage it particularly well, not many do as it’s a difficult skill, but you’ll have to include Farrell in that criticism, as well. He is captain and, as been repeatedly been said, a second set of eyes for Ford.

How many failures in decision making were there at halfback? How many Vs what would be a normal number even in a game where a side is going forwards and dominating? And how does x number of questionable decision stack up Vs all those penalties?

quite.

One of the most disturbing features was how easy it was to launch big runners at Ford, even off a lineout. Doesn't matter how good a defender any 10 is, a big geezer at pace down that channel- the aspiration of most sides truth be told- will create a big gainline gain. Had no-one even thought of that; FFS it might have even been a good use of Mikey Brown, but they shouldn't have been able to get to the 10 in the 1st place.

Some of the half back execution was iffy, but I wouldn't be holding them too much to account for what they did with the ball on this occasion; I'd be asking some big questions about our contact play, breakdown, and our defence as a whole and out wide under scrutiny again.

Oh and discipline in all its manifestations, including the above on defence.

Watching Curry get across to support Ford was great to see but also frustrating. He can't attack the breakdown when he's the tackler. Our players and our tactics don't suit a Young's/Ford partnership, it's not enough control when the game needs slowing down and cool heads.

How do you want the game slowed down, and why do you want the game slowed down?

Mellsblue wrote:

pandion wrote:

richy678 wrote:The best English sides we have seen in the modern era have had the dominant players to be able to scrum or maul opposition to a standstill and control games pace and field position. OK that's a generational thing of either having those players or not, but I will say that recently we have not had any control and opposition bring the game to us. OK scrummaging has also changed due to different laws and interpretations.

It could be as simple as saying we are not very good tacklers? But not only do we fall off tackles, or half tackle so a second or third man gets dragged in, because of this our defence gets narrow or gappy.
I am not, or have not been coached by a modern defensive coach so do not understand the modern subtlties of the plans, but England's plan is very brittle, if you can bust there's not a lot of scramble or sweeping secondary to worry about. Obviously there's the exception in the Sam Underhil last ditch amazing tackle last year.

I don't understand how Eddie can talk about English rugby and playing to our traditional strengths and select weak packs? It's as though the style played in the premiership doesn't suit him so therefore players performances in it are irrelevant. I'll be slated for it again but our half backs cannot control a game when the pressure is on.

They don’t manage it particularly well, not many do as it’s a difficult skill, but you’ll have to include Farrell in that criticism, as well. He is captain and, as been repeatedly been said, a second set of eyes for Ford.

That's true though I give Faz more slack as he's always played out of position. Ford would be better with a proper 12 but clearly Eddie doesn't trust him with some areas of his game. Young's is as frustrating for different reasons. England need more game management and smarts at 9/10 and a lot more physicality across the board.

pandion wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

pandion wrote:
I don't understand how Eddie can talk about English rugby and playing to our traditional strengths and select weak packs? It's as though the style played in the premiership doesn't suit him so therefore players performances in it are irrelevant. I'll be slated for it again but our half backs cannot control a game when the pressure is on.

They don’t manage it particularly well, not many do as it’s a difficult skill, but you’ll have to include Farrell in that criticism, as well. He is captain and, as been repeatedly been said, a second set of eyes for Ford.

That's true though I give Faz more slack as he's always played out of position. Ford would be better with a proper 12 but clearly Eddie doesn't trust him with some areas of his game. Young's is as frustrating for different reasons. England need more game management and smarts at 9/10 and a lot more physicality across the board.

I don’t think that he doesn’t trust Ford. I just think he feels Ford and Farrell is a better option than Ford/Farrell (almost certainly Farrell) and A N Other at 12. Which, given our paucity of 12’s, isn’t a bad decision to take.

Which England players lacked physicality yesterday? You can make an argument for George (just not quite on it), Shields (by dint of role), Billy (by dint of match fitness), and Robshaw (just meh) in the pack, and Farrell and Slade in the backs. I don't know LCD would offer much above George as a physical player, maybe someone could start ahead of Robshaw, Billy should be better for the game, and I'm supposing we'll pick locks as locks next week, which leaves the centres, and the other options on tour would be players like Francis, Lozowski and Daly, none of whom are overtly more physical

pandion wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

pandion wrote:
I don't understand how Eddie can talk about English rugby and playing to our traditional strengths and select weak packs? It's as though the style played in the premiership doesn't suit him so therefore players performances in it are irrelevant. I'll be slated for it again but our half backs cannot control a game when the pressure is on.

They don’t manage it particularly well, not many do as it’s a difficult skill, but you’ll have to include Farrell in that criticism, as well. He is captain and, as been repeatedly been said, a second set of eyes for Ford.

That's true though I give Faz more slack as he's always played out of position. Ford would be better with a proper 12 but clearly Eddie doesn't trust him with some areas of his game. Young's is as frustrating for different reasons. England need more game management and smarts at 9/10 and a lot more physicality across the board.

Physicality isn't enough, though needed; decision making, technique are all lacking, as well as discipline. That's where we have to look long and hard at the resources we have, as I think we can put together a better pack, that will then need some really intensive coaching to cope with the intensity and technique they will come across at intl level. In all our run of defeats, we have been absolutely done up front in the loose.

There were a couple of opportunities to 'put our foot on the ball' to use a soccer term, yesterday...including Ben Youngs crass missed touch. But to focus on that against the horror show of ceding gainline/quick ball, penalties, turnovers, missed tackles, woeful defence out wide, and zero leadership would be a mistake.

Digby wrote:How do you want the game slowed down, and why do you want the game slowed down?

Because we were under pressure and being run ragged. There are lots of ways to take the sting out of being pumped from tactical kicking to taking a knee. It was obvious that the boks would have periods where they came back at us and we melted physically and mentally. We should have spanked them by fifty but let them get there tails up and ended up watching a quality 9 orchestrate a comeback.

Banquo wrote:

pandion wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: They don’t manage it particularly well, not many do as it’s a difficult skill, but you’ll have to include Farrell in that criticism, as well. He is captain and, as been repeatedly been said, a second set of eyes for Ford.

That's true though I give Faz more slack as he's always played out of position. Ford would be better with a proper 12 but clearly Eddie doesn't trust him with some areas of his game. Young's is as frustrating for different reasons. England need more game management and smarts at 9/10 and a lot more physicality across the board.

Physicality isn't enough, though needed; decision making, technique are all lacking, as well as discipline. That's where we have to look long and hard at the resources we have, as I think we can put together a better pack, that will then need some really intensive coaching to cope with the intensity and technique they will come across at intl level. In all our run of defeats, we have been absolutely done up front in the loose.

There were a couple of opportunities to 'put our foot on the ball' to use a soccer term, yesterday...including Ben Youngs crass missed touch. But to focus on that against the horror show of ceding gainline/quick ball, penalties, turnovers, missed tackles, woeful defence out wide, and zero leadership would be a mistake.

I completely agree but the pack selected has zero chance of parity or getting an edge without being helped by good decisions and execution at 9/10. The pack is a shambles and I'm really starting to worry that we don't have the players for Eddie's game plan and he won't change it to suit our strengths.

Mellsblue wrote:

pandion wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: They don’t manage it particularly well, not many do as it’s a difficult skill, but you’ll have to include Farrell in that criticism, as well. He is captain and, as been repeatedly been said, a second set of eyes for Ford.

That's true though I give Faz more slack as he's always played out of position. Ford would be better with a proper 12 but clearly Eddie doesn't trust him with some areas of his game. Young's is as frustrating for different reasons. England need more game management and smarts at 9/10 and a lot more physicality across the board.

I don’t think that he doesn’t trust Ford. I just think he feels Ford and Farrell is a better option than Ford/Farrell (almost certainly Farrell) and A N Other at 12. Which, given our paucity of 12’s, isn’t a bad decision to take.

That's up to him but I can't see us winning much going forward with that combination. Faz is a 10 as is Ford, completely different players but choose 1 not both.

pandion wrote:

Banquo wrote:

pandion wrote: That's true though I give Faz more slack as he's always played out of position. Ford would be better with a proper 12 but clearly Eddie doesn't trust him with some areas of his game. Young's is as frustrating for different reasons. England need more game management and smarts at 9/10 and a lot more physicality across the board.

Physicality isn't enough, though needed; decision making, technique are all lacking, as well as discipline. That's where we have to look long and hard at the resources we have, as I think we can put together a better pack, that will then need some really intensive coaching to cope with the intensity and technique they will come across at intl level. In all our run of defeats, we have been absolutely done up front in the loose.

There were a couple of opportunities to 'put our foot on the ball' to use a soccer term, yesterday...including Ben Youngs crass missed touch. But to focus on that against the horror show of ceding gainline/quick ball, penalties, turnovers, missed tackles, woeful defence out wide, and zero leadership would be a mistake.

I completely agree but the pack selected has zero chance of parity or getting an edge without being helped by good decisions and execution at 9/10. The pack is a shambles and I'm really starting to worry that we don't have the players for Eddie's game plan and he won't change it to suit our strengths.

You've confused me there.....you seem to be saying a shambolic pack can somehow be compensated for by 9/10 doing the right thing; bit of a chicken and egg going on there. When the pack were doing well, the half backs were great yesterday.....

pandion wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

pandion wrote: That's true though I give Faz more slack as he's always played out of position. Ford would be better with a proper 12 but clearly Eddie doesn't trust him with some areas of his game. Young's is as frustrating for different reasons. England need more game management and smarts at 9/10 and a lot more physicality across the board.

I don’t think that he doesn’t trust Ford. I just think he feels Ford and Farrell is a better option than Ford/Farrell (almost certainly Farrell) and A N Other at 12. Which, given our paucity of 12’s, isn’t a bad decision to take.

That's up to him but I can't see us winning much going forward with that combination. Faz is a 10 as is Ford, completely different players but choose 1 not both.

This I totally agree with. Faz is not an international 12.

Digby wrote:Which England players lacked physicality yesterday? You can make an argument for George (just not quite on it), Shields (by dint of role), Billy (by dint of match fitness), and Robshaw (just meh) in the pack, and Farrell and Slade in the backs. I don't know LCD would offer much above George as a physical player, maybe someone could start ahead of Robshaw, Billy should be better for the game, and I'm supposing we'll pick locks as locks next week, which leaves the centres, and the other options on tour would be players like Francis, Lozowski and Daly, none of whom are overtly more physical

It just highlights the ridiculousness of the selection. Burt did the same thing and went to SA without enough grunt. I watched 3 massively physical games in the semis and Prem final but most of the guys who stood out are at home.

Eddie needs to focus on his coaching staff IMO, the team is slowly building itself together, and when you factor the players out injured its a pretty complete squad.

BUT coaches wise
Gustard - Honestly glad he is off now, the last time England defence was a proper weapon consistently was in the AI's when Jason Ryles was helping out, Looking at the last 12 months defence wise.
In fact looking at the last 5 games we have played we have conceded on average
4.2 tries a game
35.2 points a game
Even taking Baabaas game away it's
3 tries a game
28.25 points per game
Meaning that we on average need to score 29+ point a game to win which at International level is a stupid ask.

Wisemantel seems to have done some good in attack IMO, we had structure in the backs considering he has only been with them a week or two is promising hopefully we can keep him or get in someone full time as it tells when we have a attack coach.
Games with Vesty, Ella and Wisemantel in charge of attack we have scored an average of
3.5 tries a game.

Forwards wise
Borthwick not sure what he brings currently.
Hatley Scrums are alright I guess.

Banquo wrote:

pandion wrote:

Banquo wrote: Physicality isn't enough, though needed; decision making, technique are all lacking, as well as discipline. That's where we have to look long and hard at the resources we have, as I think we can put together a better pack, that will then need some really intensive coaching to cope with the intensity and technique they will come across at intl level. In all our run of defeats, we have been absolutely done up front in the loose.

There were a couple of opportunities to 'put our foot on the ball' to use a soccer term, yesterday...including Ben Youngs crass missed touch. But to focus on that against the horror show of ceding gainline/quick ball, penalties, turnovers, missed tackles, woeful defence out wide, and zero leadership would be a mistake.

I completely agree but the pack selected has zero chance of parity or getting an edge without being helped by good decisions and execution at 9/10. The pack is a shambles and I'm really starting to worry that we don't have the players for Eddie's game plan and he won't change it to suit our strengths.

You've confused me there.....you seem to be saying a shambolic pack can somehow be compensated for by 9/10 doing the right thing; bit of a chicken and egg going on there. When the pack were doing well, the half backs were great yesterday.....

The pack is a shambles I think we could select a much better one, however against a new look boks went well to begin with. Then they came back at us and we melted. I believe better game management might have enabled us to slow the game and get a bit of territory. If we had and our pack regained some momentum we should have won.

Will a new coach magically make our forwards tackle harder and be more aggressive?