RugbyRebels

FKAS wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:It’s a very good point. When Sarries were breaching the salary cap at least they had the good grace to provide England with a quality spine of winners.

On which note, Leicester gave us Ben Youngs and a past it Dan Cole.

Pfft I'd still take Dan Cole over Will Stuart every day of the week.

Not as a hair transplant donor!

Mellsblue wrote:It’s a very good point. When Sarries were breaching the salary cap at least they had the good grace to provide England with a quality spine of winners.

On which note, Leicester gave us Ben Youngs and a past it Dan Cole.

Mr Mwenda wrote:

FKAS wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:It’s a very good point. When Sarries were breaching the salary cap at least they had the good grace to provide England with a quality spine of winners.

On which note, Leicester gave us Ben Youngs and a past it Dan Cole.

Pfft I'd still take Dan Cole over Will Stuart every day of the week.

Not as a hair transplant donor!

Big Dan's just dedicated to his craft and gone aerodynamic to help with those kick chases he's now so good at.

I'm not going to copy and paste this because there is too much content.

He basically shows loads of examples of what england are trying to do and how that could improve with more cohesion etc.




https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... s-reasons/

Slade does not come out of those examples too badly. I think people are only seeing what they want to see when criticising him.

twitchy wrote:I'm not going to copy and paste this because there is too much content.

He basically shows loads of examples of what england are trying to do and how that could improve with more cohesion etc.




https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... s-reasons/

For anyne without a free article this month, you can look at this by either opening on Chrome and pressing the stop button before the page loads or using this link and scrolling down: https://12ft.io/proxy?q=http://www.tele ... es-reasons

Really interesting article - Oakboy's right in that Slade comes out a lot better in a deep dive than he does on a casual view. Notable how Lawes is not even in shot on the examples where an England player is turned over because they're isolated.

Puja

I will never understand this thought that a 15 atop the metres carried chart is a metric for how well they performed. The fact Genge suddenly appeared on the stat sheet when stationed as a kick return pretty much shows how pointless a metric it is. Is it any surprise that the player who fields a high ball and then has 10 yards to run unopposed is at/near the top of metres carried.
The Yanks have a yard after contact stat in the NFL that would give better context.

So does the same section of the article you're (presumably) talking about?

Oakboy wrote:Slade does not come out of those examples too badly. I think people are only seeing what they want to see when criticising him.

Well it is your area of expertise

Mikey Brown wrote:So does the same section of the article you're (presumably) talking about?

Skim read so missed that. Im glad he agrees with me over both this and Slade’s performances. No doubt he would be delighted if he knew we were in agreement and he is therefore 100% correct.

Mr Mwenda wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Slade does not come out of those examples too badly. I think people are only seeing what they want to see when criticising him.

Well it is your area of expertise

Guilty as charged.

Mellsblue wrote:I will never understand this thought that a 15 atop the metres carried chart is a metric for how well they performed. The fact Genge suddenly appeared on the stat sheet when stationed as a kick return pretty much shows how pointless a metric it is. Is it any surprise that the player who fields a high ball and then has 10 yards to run unopposed is at/near the top of metres carried.
The Yanks have a yard after contact stat in the NFL that would give better context.

I always remember a match when Alex Goode was FB v NZ. They were p1ssing themselves for the full 80 because they kept kicking it to him and he would run 15-20m up the pitch, do that silly little skip thing then get piled 5m back at the point of contact and turning over the ball, every single time. Huuuge metres made though…

Our return of clean breaks, defenders beaten and tries scored - - along with games won - speaks volumes to how poor we were and no analysis after the event can change those stats.

Oh, and Lawes is no captain.

Beasties wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I will never understand this thought that a 15 atop the metres carried chart is a metric for how well they performed. The fact Genge suddenly appeared on the stat sheet when stationed as a kick return pretty much shows how pointless a metric it is. Is it any surprise that the player who fields a high ball and then has 10 yards to run unopposed is at/near the top of metres carried.
The Yanks have a yard after contact stat in the NFL that would give better context.

I always remember a match when Alex Goode was FB v NZ. They were p1ssing themselves for the full 80 because they kept kicking it to him and he would run 15-20m up the pitch, do that silly little skip thing then get piled 5m back at the point of contact and turning over the ball, every single time. Huuuge metres made though…

Agreed. It is a smidge amusing to recall that the only FB who nearly always beat the first man in those circumstances was Brown who Jones put on the wing to have Daly in the shirt.

Oakboy wrote:

Beasties wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I will never understand this thought that a 15 atop the metres carried chart is a metric for how well they performed. The fact Genge suddenly appeared on the stat sheet when stationed as a kick return pretty much shows how pointless a metric it is. Is it any surprise that the player who fields a high ball and then has 10 yards to run unopposed is at/near the top of metres carried.
The Yanks have a yard after contact stat in the NFL that would give better context.

I always remember a match when Alex Goode was FB v NZ. They were p1ssing themselves for the full 80 because they kept kicking it to him and he would run 15-20m up the pitch, do that silly little skip thing then get piled 5m back at the point of contact and turning over the ball, every single time. Huuuge metres made though…

Agreed. It is a smidge amusing to recall that the only FB who nearly always beat the first man in those circumstances was Brown who Jones put on the wing to have Daly in the shirt.

Bloody autocorrect.

Oakboy wrote:

Beasties wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I will never understand this thought that a 15 atop the metres carried chart is a metric for how well they performed. The fact Genge suddenly appeared on the stat sheet when stationed as a kick return pretty much shows how pointless a metric it is. Is it any surprise that the player who fields a high ball and then has 10 yards to run unopposed is at/near the top of metres carried.
The Yanks have a yard after contact stat in the NFL that would give better context.

I always remember a match when Alex Goode was FB v NZ. They were p1ssing themselves for the full 80 because they kept kicking it to him and he would run 15-20m up the pitch, do that silly little skip thing then get piled 5m back at the point of contact and turning over the ball, every single time. Huuuge metres made though…

Agreed. It is a smidge amusing to recall that the only FB who nearly always beat the first man in those circumstances was Brown who Jones put on the wing to have Daly in the shirt.

.
Brown would always beat the first man but also always take contact at the second man. Wasn't one for linking with support.

The view that England struggled so badly this 6N due to the loss of Farrell is starting to gain some traction, from what I’ve read…….

Mellsblue wrote:The view that England struggled so badly this 6N due to the loss of Farrell is starting to gain some traction, from what I’ve read…….

Yes, never has a player increased status so much without playing. There is one aspect that may need reassessment (by me/us), mind. Might his leadership presence at least provide some cohesion DESPITE the coaching? He is still the same limited player as he ever was but it is hard to argue with those who claim we looked worse without him.

That is not to say that we could not be better without him but probably not under Jones. It may even be that Farrell's 'flair' limitations provide the simplicity (accidentally) that Jones's complications and wacky ideas otherwise inflict.

If I was picking our 1st XV tomorrow with Jones still in his job, I'd pick Farrell. I absolutely hate having him at 12 but with Tuilagi more or less permanently injured he has to have the shirt if Smith is to stay. I can't believe I've admitted that but I see any other direction as pointless till Jones is gone. That is not maximising our resources, IMO, but we never will under this regime.

Hard to consider the possibility that we are a better side with Farrell in it, given how much I and others have criticised him. But maybe he does bring things to the team that are important and that cannot be easily replaced. True, some of his play on the field is mediocre but perhaps that driven, competitive spirit counts for a bit more.
Given the way we played its hard to think he could have made things worse.
We'll see if he can bring something extra to the team in Australia, where he is bound to play 12 and take over the captaincy.

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:The view that England struggled so badly this 6N due to the loss of Farrell is starting to gain some traction, from what I’ve read…….

Yes, never has a player increased status so much without playing. There is one aspect that may need reassessment (by me/us), mind. Might his leadership presence at least provide some cohesion DESPITE the coaching? He is still the same limited player as he ever was but it is hard to argue with those who claim we looked worse without him.

That is not to say that we could not be better without him but probably not under Jones. It may even be that Farrell's 'flair' limitations provide the simplicity (accidentally) that Jones's complications and wacky ideas otherwise inflict.

If I was picking our 1st XV tomorrow with Jones still in his job, I'd pick Farrell. I absolutely hate having him at 12 but with Tuilagi more or less permanently injured he has to have the shirt if Smith is to stay. I can't believe I've admitted that but I see any other direction as pointless till Jones is gone. That is not maximising our resources, IMO, but we never will under this regime.

Iirc, he was in the team last year when we were almost as bad.
His absence would be a long way down the list of reasons for the poor performance. A new, radically different system, playing with 14 men, a slew of injuries - LCD, Hill, Underhill, Farrell, Watson, May, Tuilagi - and inexperience at 8, 9 & 10 (plus a new 12) are all far more important than Farrell’s leadership, IMO.

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:The view that England struggled so badly this 6N due to the loss of Farrell is starting to gain some traction, from what I’ve read…….

Yes, never has a player increased status so much without playing. There is one aspect that may need reassessment (by me/us), mind. Might his leadership presence at least provide some cohesion DESPITE the coaching? He is still the same limited player as he ever was but it is hard to argue with those who claim we looked worse without him.

That is not to say that we could not be better without him but probably not under Jones. It may even be that Farrell's 'flair' limitations provide the simplicity (accidentally) that Jones's complications and wacky ideas otherwise inflict.

If I was picking our 1st XV tomorrow with Jones still in his job, I'd pick Farrell. I absolutely hate having him at 12 but with Tuilagi more or less permanently injured he has to have the shirt if Smith is to stay. I can't believe I've admitted that but I see any other direction as pointless till Jones is gone. That is not maximising our resources, IMO, but we never will under this regime.

The problem is it not looking remotely like a controlled test, in terms of Team X playing style Z with or without Farrell. Jones has crammed a couple of years worth of tinkering in to one 6 nations.

I do absolutely believe we lose something without his ‘intangibles’ in the squad, but I’m not convinced his skill set would have helped all that much in many of the areas we were found lacking. I wish I had more faith that Marchant would retain the 13 shirt but I think we’ll be going back to Farrel/Slade regardless of anything else.

fivepointer wrote:he is bound to play 12 and take over the captaincy.

How do see the make up of the midfield if this is the case? I agree that he’ll come straight back in but I fear it will be at 10 or at 12, with Slade at 13 meaning three ball players.

Mellsblue wrote:

fivepointer wrote:he is bound to play 12 and take over the captaincy.

How do see the make up of the midfield if this is the case? I agree that he’ll come straight back in but I fear it will be at 10 or at 12, with Slade at 13 meaning three ball players.

I'm sure the plan was to play Smith at 10 and Farrell at 12 to help bed him in. That still applies I reckon. 13 will depend on whether Tuilagi's fit and Jones wants to take another punt on him staying so. If Tuilagi isnt available, then its either Slade or Marchant dependent on the make up of the back 3.

Mikey Brown wrote:

This is the same sort of stat that shows that Genge is a test class fullback.