RugbyRebels

I thought Scotland were largely an irrelevance to their win. Now they might have won in the event of a game being played, but we just gave away too many pens, and too many in quick succession to allow for a match to play out.

Scotland did do some good things on the back of the pens, but it's the pens that stand out.

fivepointer wrote:We were well beaten by Scotland. They bossed the game.
Wales put 40 points on us (a record). You can make the point that they had a couple of calls go their way but the way they controlled the final quarter was pretty emphatic.

Actually that is a fair point on scotland in terms of territory and possession, but we were still within 5 points despite a nonsensical unforced penalty count. And yes Wales did a good number in the final 15 minutes, but that was enabled by penalties, and the score belied what actually happened for most of the game. There is some perspective required vs a statement like second best by a long way.

fivepointer wrote:We were well beaten by Scotland. They bossed the game.
Wales put 40 points on us (a record). You can make the point that they had a couple of calls go their way but the way they controlled the final quarter was pretty emphatic.

I don't know I'd agree with your Scotland assessment, but you're bang on about Wales. Forget the lucky tries and our comeback, they were utterly dominant in the last quarter in a way that is just not acceptable from our perspective.

Puja

Puja wrote:

fivepointer wrote:We were well beaten by Scotland. They bossed the game.
Wales put 40 points on us (a record). You can make the point that they had a couple of calls go their way but the way they controlled the final quarter was pretty emphatic.

I don't know I'd agree with your Scotland assessment, but you're bang on about Wales. Forget the lucky tries and our comeback, they were utterly dominant in the last quarter in a way that is just not acceptable from our perspective.

Puja

They were dominent on the scoreboard because we kept giving them penalties imo- unforced at that- and they capitalised well on those, and held their discipline.

however, literally in my case, this is bald men fighting over a comb.

Every single thread on here at the moment is just going round in circles.

Mikey Brown wrote:Every single thread on here at the moment is just going round in circles.

Its because no-one has a convincing solution I reckon. I think the issues are relatively clear, its just the weighting of them.

Mikey Brown wrote:Every single thread on here at the moment is just going round in circles.

Quite. Starting from scratch gets more attractive by the day.

Mikey Brown wrote:Every single thread on here at the moment is just going round in circles.

There are basically two extreme positions:
1) Rugby is a simple game. Select players who are in form now and make tactics based on who that is.
2) (International) rugby is a hugely complicated game. Teams are planning stuff to come to fruition years down the line. The speeds of contemporary rugby are such that players cannot simply be thrown together. As such, class is key, form temporary.

Everyone here largely falls somewhere between the two but one probably could classify most and there is likely a correlation to one's feelings towards Jones.

I'm largely in the number 2 camp myself. I just don't see the instant changes anyone would make. I also can't think of any better candidates beyond wishful thinking.

Player-wise, I think that we fans generally overate players. I'm concerned how the transition within the wider squad away from Sarries (e.g. Wigglesworth and Lowowski going) does not seem to be strengthening things. I think the difficulties Hill and Lawrence has had getting up to speed speak to the difficulties of bringing new faces into the team.

Mr Mwenda wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Every single thread on here at the moment is just going round in circles.

There are basically two extreme positions:
1) Rugby is a simple game. Select players who are in form now and make tactics based on who that is.
2) (International) rugby is a hugely complicated game. Teams are planning stuff to come to fruition years down the line. The speeds of contemporary rugby are such that players cannot simply be thrown together. As such, class is key, form temporary.

Everyone here largely falls somewhere between the two but one probably could classify most and there is likely a correlation to one's feelings towards Jones.

I'm largely in the number 2 camp myself. I just don't see the instant changes anyone would make. I also can't think of any better candidates beyond wishful thinking.

Player-wise, I think that we fans generally overate players. I'm concerned how the transition within the wider squad away from Sarries (e.g. Wigglesworth and Lowowski going) does not seem to be strengthening things. I think the difficulties Hill and Lawrence has had getting up to speed speak to the difficulties of bringing new faces into the team.

Very good points. I am veering towards whilst we probably have about the right squad, give or take, there is a (huge) problem with leadership....but not sure how to correct that.

Yep, the discipline cannot stand and yet the worst culprits are some of our most obvious selections.

I suppose we can now drop a player or two more easily because we've lost a number of games, the players will not like it, but it's not going to look weird to them. And trying to force in a drop for discipline will look weird, and they can easily say look what happened to France when they tried not to give away pens against Wales (before reverting to gouging that is), so actually they could also say look what happened to France went they went back to brutal cheating, they won.

But who to drop, and what will the leadership do then. Because it's a great idea if it works, but if you do it and it doesn't work then you've got a big problem. Still, that's what Eddie gets around £500k a year to sort

Digby wrote:Yep, the discipline cannot stand and yet the worst culprits are some of our most obvious selections.

I suppose we can now drop a player or two more easily because we've lost a number of games, the players will not like it, but it's not going to look weird to them. And trying to force in a drop for discipline will look weird, and they can easily say look what happened to France when they tried not to give away pens against Wales (before reverting to gouging that is), so actually they could also say look what happened to France went they went back to brutal cheating, they won.

But who to drop, and what will the leadership do then. Because it's a great idea if it works, but if you do it and it doesn't work then you've got a big problem. Still, that's what Eddie gets around £500k a year to sort

There's cheating with intent and there's being dumb, and we've been pretty indiscriminate on that front.

Banquo wrote:

Mr Mwenda wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Every single thread on here at the moment is just going round in circles.

There are basically two extreme positions:
1) Rugby is a simple game. Select players who are in form now and make tactics based on who that is.
2) (International) rugby is a hugely complicated game. Teams are planning stuff to come to fruition years down the line. The speeds of contemporary rugby are such that players cannot simply be thrown together. As such, class is key, form temporary.

Everyone here largely falls somewhere between the two but one probably could classify most and there is likely a correlation to one's feelings towards Jones.

I'm largely in the number 2 camp myself. I just don't see the instant changes anyone would make. I also can't think of any better candidates beyond wishful thinking.

Player-wise, I think that we fans generally overate players. I'm concerned how the transition within the wider squad away from Sarries (e.g. Wigglesworth and Lowowski going) does not seem to be strengthening things. I think the difficulties Hill and Lawrence has had getting up to speed speak to the difficulties of bringing new faces into the team.

Very good points. I am veering towards whilst we probably have about the right squad, give or take, there is a (huge) problem with leadership....but not sure how to correct that.

Some good thoughts but nothing explains the massive difference between England's best and worst this 6N.

My simple(ton) view drifts towards the reports about the 6/8 week bubble and players having sweet FA to do except sit in their rooms. Compare that with, say, Scotland's captain going back to play with Exeter. Basically, even at elite level, it is as much about attitude and mood as it is about the science of the game. Stories of coaches being exhausted with Jones expecting replies to emails at 2.00 am etc. compound my opinion that the whole approach must be largely non-inspirational and unlikely to survive crises (such as covid) well.

Reports suggested that at some point players had taken the lead in switching from over-kicking. One whisper of player-power is like the first murmurings of revolution. I think the leadership thing starts quite simply with the attitude of the head coach. IMO, Jones got it right with Hartley and has gone downhill ever since. His old-fashioned reliance on a hooker as RSM was the limit of his creative thinking with the English psyche.

I also think that the worst aspect of introducing fresh blood is a perceived belief that existing favourites stay in the shirts no matter how much they are out-played by alternative candidates. That is a built-in disincentive whether it affects the introduction of one new player or ten.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:Yep, the discipline cannot stand and yet the worst culprits are some of our most obvious selections.

I suppose we can now drop a player or two more easily because we've lost a number of games, the players will not like it, but it's not going to look weird to them. And trying to force in a drop for discipline will look weird, and they can easily say look what happened to France when they tried not to give away pens against Wales (before reverting to gouging that is), so actually they could also say look what happened to France went they went back to brutal cheating, they won.

But who to drop, and what will the leadership do then. Because it's a great idea if it works, but if you do it and it doesn't work then you've got a big problem. Still, that's what Eddie gets around £500k a year to sort

There's cheating with intent and there's being dumb, and we've been pretty indiscriminate on that front.

If anything that's too kind, we're not seeing much cheating with specific and warranted intent. It's either just pushing for the sake of pushing (which isn't nothing), say Itoje going at a 9s wrist to dislodge a ball, or just plain dumb, ignoring set piece tribulations.

'Tis also alarming we're getting into trouble in the set piece on defence and on attack. Although maybe there's also the thought if the problems are everywhere then correspondingly it has to follow there are more potential gains

I honestly feel like there's not much we can do or should do about the personnel. We're struggling with 13, imo, and also at 15, while Genge has been a total disappointment for me. We also struggle for Itoje's partner if Launch and Lawes are absent, though Ewels was perfectly adequate there, imo.

But the problems are that, despite the fact we had a good couple of seasons without them, we're back to having the exact same problems we've been moaning about throughout Eddie's regime. Discipline, leadership, the ability to play what's in front of you.

For me, it just feels like Eddie has tried to build a team in his image, chosen Farrell as his captain as he's the most similar, and instead created a team in Farrell's image. And we've seen what Farrell gives you... he sticks to a gameplan almost perfectly for 80-90% of the time, and the rest of the time he is reckless, petty and petulant.

So that's what we get: a team who rigidly adhere to what Eddie wants them to do, without playing what's in front of them, except for 10-15 minutes of the game (can be broken down throughout) where we give away insane penalties, back-chat, are offside, make stupid mistakes, and so on.

We can't keep the intensity up for the entire 80 because we've decided to build a team in someone's image instead of building a team that is the sum of its parts.

That's my feeling and I know it's only a feeling and not backed up by anything... but while I actually think Farrell is probably our best option at 12 right now (if we continue on the same general tactical plan, which I actually think might be the right course of action), I think the biggest improvement to our general play would be to strip him of the captaincy and give it to someone who is the epitome of Mr. Consistent. Someone like a less nice Robshaw...

I feel there's only 1 player who fits that mould: Ford.

Stom wrote:I honestly feel like there's not much we can do or should do about the personnel. We're struggling with 13, imo, and also at 15, while Genge has been a total disappointment for me. We also struggle for Itoje's partner if Launch and Lawes are absent, though Ewels was perfectly adequate there, imo.

But the problems are that, despite the fact we had a good couple of seasons without them, we're back to having the exact same problems we've been moaning about throughout Eddie's regime. Discipline, leadership, the ability to play what's in front of you.

For me, it just feels like Eddie has tried to build a team in his image, chosen Farrell as his captain as he's the most similar, and instead created a team in Farrell's image. And we've seen what Farrell gives you... he sticks to a gameplan almost perfectly for 80-90% of the time, and the rest of the time he is reckless, petty and petulant.

So that's what we get: a team who rigidly adhere to what Eddie wants them to do, without playing what's in front of them, except for 10-15 minutes of the game (can be broken down throughout) where we give away insane penalties, back-chat, are offside, make stupid mistakes, and so on.

We can't keep the intensity up for the entire 80 because we've decided to build a team in someone's image instead of building a team that is the sum of its parts.

That's my feeling and I know it's only a feeling and not backed up by anything... but while I actually think Farrell is probably our best option at 12 right now (if we continue on the same general tactical plan, which I actually think might be the right course of action), I think the biggest improvement to our general play would be to strip him of the captaincy and give it to someone who is the epitome of Mr. Consistent. Someone like a less nice Robshaw...

I feel there's only 1 player who fits that mould: Ford.

So what is it about Farrells game at 12 that makes you say that?

I'd like to know why Ewels looks adequate

"You need someone to burst into that leadership group and try and change a philosophy. We need to break up this holy huddle if we want to invoke change."

Ugo Monye, who is often very wrong, is, I think, very right about this.

A shake up is overdue.

Think the coaches have a case to answer as well. Proudfoot came with much expectation but our forward play hasnt developed much since he came into the group.

fivepointer wrote:"You need someone to burst into that leadership group and try and change a philosophy. We need to break up this holy huddle if we want to invoke change."

Ugo Monye, who is often very wrong, is, I think, very right about this.

A shake up is overdue.

Agree. Farrell needs a break from captaincy [he said diplomatically]. We can then look at him as a player first.
I'd go for Itoje for skipper. He's great media-wise at the very least.

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:I honestly feel like there's not much we can do or should do about the personnel. We're struggling with 13, imo, and also at 15, while Genge has been a total disappointment for me. We also struggle for Itoje's partner if Launch and Lawes are absent, though Ewels was perfectly adequate there, imo.

But the problems are that, despite the fact we had a good couple of seasons without them, we're back to having the exact same problems we've been moaning about throughout Eddie's regime. Discipline, leadership, the ability to play what's in front of you.

For me, it just feels like Eddie has tried to build a team in his image, chosen Farrell as his captain as he's the most similar, and instead created a team in Farrell's image. And we've seen what Farrell gives you... he sticks to a gameplan almost perfectly for 80-90% of the time, and the rest of the time he is reckless, petty and petulant.

So that's what we get: a team who rigidly adhere to what Eddie wants them to do, without playing what's in front of them, except for 10-15 minutes of the game (can be broken down throughout) where we give away insane penalties, back-chat, are offside, make stupid mistakes, and so on.

We can't keep the intensity up for the entire 80 because we've decided to build a team in someone's image instead of building a team that is the sum of its parts.

That's my feeling and I know it's only a feeling and not backed up by anything... but while I actually think Farrell is probably our best option at 12 right now (if we continue on the same general tactical plan, which I actually think might be the right course of action), I think the biggest improvement to our general play would be to strip him of the captaincy and give it to someone who is the epitome of Mr. Consistent. Someone like a less nice Robshaw...

I feel there's only 1 player who fits that mould: Ford.

So what is it about Farrells game at 12 that makes you say that?

He provides a great foil with Ford and understands generally what he is looking to do. He's good at providing a second set of eyes, though he's not good enough as the primary scanner. His one-on-one defence is generally good. He provides a kicking option. Slade has never looked comfortable at 12. Devoto has always been injured. Erm...Northmore was suggested as someone to look at for the summer tour...that's how many options we have at 12...

Stom wrote:
He provides a great foil with Ford and understands generally what he is looking to do. He's good at providing a second set of eyes, though he's not good enough as the primary scanner. His one-on-one defence is generally good. He provides a kicking option. Slade has never looked comfortable at 12. Devoto has always been injured. Erm...Northmore was suggested as someone to look at for the summer tour...that's how many options we have at 12...

Justice for 36 (and Burrell)!

More likely you could also look at TBC, POC - really anyone with a 3LA it seems

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:I honestly feel like there's not much we can do or should do about the personnel. We're struggling with 13, imo, and also at 15, while Genge has been a total disappointment for me. We also struggle for Itoje's partner if Launch and Lawes are absent, though Ewels was perfectly adequate there, imo.

But the problems are that, despite the fact we had a good couple of seasons without them, we're back to having the exact same problems we've been moaning about throughout Eddie's regime. Discipline, leadership, the ability to play what's in front of you.

For me, it just feels like Eddie has tried to build a team in his image, chosen Farrell as his captain as he's the most similar, and instead created a team in Farrell's image. And we've seen what Farrell gives you... he sticks to a gameplan almost perfectly for 80-90% of the time, and the rest of the time he is reckless, petty and petulant.

So that's what we get: a team who rigidly adhere to what Eddie wants them to do, without playing what's in front of them, except for 10-15 minutes of the game (can be broken down throughout) where we give away insane penalties, back-chat, are offside, make stupid mistakes, and so on.

We can't keep the intensity up for the entire 80 because we've decided to build a team in someone's image instead of building a team that is the sum of its parts.

That's my feeling and I know it's only a feeling and not backed up by anything... but while I actually think Farrell is probably our best option at 12 right now (if we continue on the same general tactical plan, which I actually think might be the right course of action), I think the biggest improvement to our general play would be to strip him of the captaincy and give it to someone who is the epitome of Mr. Consistent. Someone like a less nice Robshaw...

I feel there's only 1 player who fits that mould: Ford.

So what is it about Farrells game at 12 that makes you say that?

He provides a great foil with Ford and understands generally what he is looking to do. He's good at providing a second set of eyes, though he's not good enough as the primary scanner. His one-on-one defence is generally good. He provides a kicking option. Slade has never looked comfortable at 12. Devoto has always been injured. Erm...Northmore was suggested as someone to look at for the summer tour...that's how many options we have at 12...

Devoto's played 1049 minutes of prem rugby this season so far. Of the 14 matches this season he's started 13 of them, all at 12, and played the full 80 in 9 of them. The only centre who's played more is Piers O'Connor.

By contrast Lawrence has played a grand total of 80 minutes, on Boxing Day. He was about as undercooked as the sarries contingent, arguably more so given that he hardly played in the autumn series. Perhaps not surprising that he struggled to get up to speed.

switchskier wrote:Devoto's played 1049 minutes of prem rugby this season so far. Of the 14 matches this season he's started 13 of them, all at 12, and played the full 80 in 9 of them. The only centre who's played more is Piers O'Connor.

Is Devoto the new Sinbad (albeit of lesser talent) - in that it's assumed he's injured and unavailable, even when he isn't?

So we're saying Devoto has established himself as a constant in the worst performing Exeter team of many seasons

Digby wrote:So we're saying Devoto has established himself as a constant in the worst performing Exeter team of many seasons

Not really - let's face it, when fit, he's been more-or-less a constant in the best performing Exeter team ever - he's been their first choice 12 since a month or so after arriving there.

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:So we're saying Devoto has established himself as a constant in the worst performing Exeter team of many seasons

Not really - let's face it, when fit, he's been more-or-less a constant in the best performing Exeter team ever - he's been their first choice 12 since a month or so after arriving there.

So more or less a constant when good and an actual constant when falling away?

I did think at one point he might be something akin to Jauzion for England, but even though he's not that old I've moved on in my head. Not sure moving on is sensible or fair if I actually think about it, but I find I have lumped him in with the Burrells and Twelvtrees