RugbyRebels

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote: Across the board our decision making and discipline are pony as well.

Do you think that is because the players are incapable of adapting or because coaching restrictions stifle them? Also, how much of it is down to captaincy?

For example, going back to Itoje, he was touted as a long-term captaincy candidate and he seems to be an intelligent man. Yet, he's one of the worst examples of absolutely stupid penalty conceding.


As an aside, is there an official pack leader?

(poor) Decision making is a function of many things, but often over coaching from very young; imo this can be improved by international coaches if they have sufficient access (like on a Lions tour ). Discipline is likely a function of captaincy, also a sign of a team that is say struggling at the breakdown ....and the lack of discipline just piles more pressure on all elements of the game as you ceded territory.

Itoje just tries to hard to make up for others deficiencies, being charitable. If you had 8 Itojes up front, they wouldn't be ceding penalties. But he does need to cut back on them, as its harming the team (and at a personal level because it distracts from all the other good stuff he does)

Raggs wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:It doesn't help Daly having a slow wing, but Daly needs to be able to cope with that.

As I said before, during the 6n, I think Eddie is deliberately trying to limit which players he uses, to keep it within his likely RWC squad whenever possible, hence Lawes at 6 etc.

why? We shouldn't have to select slow wings at international level.

On your theory on the squad, right or wrong, its dumb.

We shouldn't, but Brown is probably intended to be a fullback, but for now, the need to expose Daly at 15 is greater. For back 3, Jones is seemingly looking at Brown, Daly, Watson, May, Nowell (and maybe Cips, but I'll believe it when I see it). So if he can get 3 of those on the pitch, getting more game time, more experience, more fitness etc, then he's going to do it.

The same thing looked to be true in the 6N, when he kept putting Lawes at 6. Basically preferring to get gametime in likely rwc squad members, than even bother with someone who's simply not in his plans even as a contender (Armand).

Its fatally flawed, even if I accept your theory. Its buggering up players and the team, for the sake of the illusion that you can recreate the RWC squad environment on an ongoing basis; its an illusion for many reasons, not least of which is the attrition rate on players.

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:Itoje was superb for Sarries.

Isiekwe was harming the team and himself, and is perhaps 5th choice lock. Daly is clearly being viewed as a serious option at fullback, and is going to need that experience and game time to prove it. He over kicked a couple, likely due to a lack of familiarity with altitude, though he dialed it in by the end. The non-grounding of the bouncing ball is bad, but he'll learn from that.

I'm not really sure what else people are now looking for in Itoje at international level; he is excellent in the lineout, excellent at restarts, does his scrummaging job well, and puts himself about in the loose; his discipline I can fault, but not the effort he puts in. If anything, he needs to pace himself and pick and choose- he's trying to make up for some other collective failings imo. He stands out in club rugby in a dominant side, but its much harder to do that in international rugby full stop, let alone in a struggling team.

On Daly. fair enough giving him a go at 15, though I think wing is where he should be, but why both select Brown and then persist; that helped Daly not a jot.

We also need to remember that this losing thing is pretty new to him. Other than that run of games for Sarries and this run of games for England, he’s not used to losing. How to react to that is a skill/learning experience in itself. It seems to me that he’s singlehandedly trying to turn things around by trying things that just aren’t on. Someone needs to sit him down and tell him that the best thing he can do is just play his normal game, as he makes things happen/turns games just be doing that.

Interesting bit in the times today about pens. That although they’ve talked about giving away too many, this is the first week they’ve really hammered home the issue rather than just having it as something to work on. Supposedly, they have previously just been saying that pens and the number of pens are bad in isolation rather than where those pens can lead. The example cited was Farrell’s pen in the Ireland 22 that led to lineout and try.
If true, it beggars belief it hasn’t been properly raised before.

The thing is Itoje isnt giving away penalties because he's over reaching. He's giving away soft penalties that are entirely needless.
He's still a terrific player who brings a lot to the team, but dull penalties are becoming the norm and that simplyy has to be eliminated from his game.

https://www.planetrugby.com/news/expert ... -of-bloem/

Interesting, if nothing surprising.

fivepointer wrote:The thing is Itoje isnt giving away penalties because he's over reaching. He's giving away soft penalties that are entirely needless.
He's still a terrific player who brings a lot to the team, but dull penalties are becoming the norm and that simplyy has to be eliminated from his game.

I'm not sure I agree, I think they are over-reaching tbh. It wasn't a penalty as Faf scored, but what he did was definitely over-reaching. I guess in truth its a mix.

Mellsblue wrote:Interesting bit in the times today about pens. That although they’ve talked about giving away too many, this is the first week they’ve really hammered home the issue rather than just having it as something to work on. Supposedly, they have previously just been saying that pens and the number of pens are bad in isolation rather than where those pens can lead. The example cited was Farrell’s pen in the Ireland 22 that led to lineout and try.
If true, it beggars belief it hasn’t been properly raised before.

agreed.

Banquo wrote:https://www.planetrugby.com/news/expert ... -of-bloem/

Interesting, if nothing surprising.

From this Rob Andrew, like myself, seems to be questioning our (Over) reliance on Billy V.

Points I’d bring up:

In a wet weather Autumn Test Match or a damp 6 Nations game against in Cardiff, there’s no one better to keep it tight and act as the wrecking ball however on the flip side:

- Billy V’s not a lineout jumper option (and either the 6 or 8 should be imo)

-He’s not at all quick

-and he’s far from the most mobile back row (imo suggestions to pick him as a test flank would not work exactly the opposite case for Simmonds)

Thus we need other options at 8 rather than a Billy at all costs policy imo. Btw that’s in no way meant to detract from the impressive shear physical presence of the guy which to an extent makes up for the lack of heavy enforcer type second rows in vogue for England in the past decade

Shields went up in the air more than any other English player (admittedly, mostly trying to interfere with SA lineouts).

BV isn't mobile, but he can move enough to not simply be hitting centre mass each time, and he sucks in defenders like nobodies business (which I believe led to the one on one for Brown in his try).

I can understand the issues with an over reliance on Billy - I’ve said numerous times that in his absence we should have a different plan rather than playing Billy-lite - but that’s not that same as not wanting to play him at all, even in certain conditions. He is our best no8 whether playing at a boggy Murryfield or a dry as a bone Ellis Park.

Mellsblue wrote:I can understand the issues with an over reliance on Billy - I’ve said numerous times that in his absence we should have a different plan rather than playing Billy-lite - but that’s not that same as not wanting to play him at all, even in certain conditions. He is our best no8 whether playing at a boggy Murryfield or a dry as a bone Ellis Park.

Yep. There are strengths and weaknesses, but I can't imagine an opposition or a weather type that makes him not our best 8.

He was far from his best on Saturday but really pretty impressive given his injuries and role within the team. He was still breaking the gain-line right until the end, whereas a fresh-ish Hughes offered absolutely fuck all except that one break around the ruck where he got isolated.

Lineout option or not. There is no comparison.

I'm still not sure why BV get's an allowance for his recent injury record and lack of game time, whilst the fact Hughes has been out of action most the season, and has even less recent gametime than Billy, is just ignored...

Because he plays for Wasps and everyone is naturally biased against them.

It’s all about balance.

Mellsblue wrote:I can understand the issues with an over reliance on Billy - I’ve said numerous times that in his absence we should have a different plan rather than playing Billy-lite - but that’s not that same as not wanting to play him at all, even in certain conditions. He is our best no8 whether playing at a boggy Murryfield or a dry as a bone Ellis Park.

indeed

Mikey Brown wrote:Because he plays for Wasps and everyone is naturally biased against them.

, and because Billy is a traitor.

Raggs wrote:I'm still not sure why BV get's an allowance for his recent injury record and lack of game time, whilst the fact Hughes has been out of action most the season, and has even less recent gametime than Billy, is just ignored...

I don't think Hughes has been mentioned much at all re this game- where has this allowance not been given?

The post above mine? He's not Billy, no one is, but he can fill the role enough not to require a complete rewrite of the game plan.

Raggs wrote:The post above mine? He's not Billy, no one is, but he can fill the role enough not to require a complete rewrite of the game plan.

that's me told. Though the context did say Hughes was fresh-ish in game time terms.

Banquo wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Because he plays for Wasps and everyone is naturally biased against them.

Billy is a traitor.

I had forgotten he came up through the Wasps academy. Suddenly, all has become clear

Mellsblue wrote:I can understand the issues with an over reliance on Billy - I’ve said numerous times that in his absence we should have a different plan rather than playing Billy-lite - but that’s not that same as not wanting to play him at all, even in certain conditions. He is our best no8 whether playing at a boggy Murryfield or a dry as a bone Ellis Park.

Yes. A fit Billy should start. The problem is not Billy, it's the flankers on either side of him. Jones has yet to come up with a balanced backrow with a blend of power, speed, athleticism, breakdown skills and link play. Curry is looking promising. And surely a player like Simmonds, with his gas, power running, good hands and nose for the line should be getting a run against the Boks.

Mellsblue wrote:He is our best no8 whether playing at a boggy Murryfield or a dry as a bone Ellis Park.

It’s the latter bit of this, I’m really sceptical about - though more than happy to be proved wrong by a barn storming performance on Saturday of course

I've always tended to think mako and billy are better impact subs.

pandion wrote:I've always tended to think mako and billy are better impact subs.

struggling to recall last time Billy was an impact sub for anyone, other than injury return. On Mako, as carrier and distributor, he's a key starter.