RugbyRebels

OK, so the chickens finally came home to roost yesterday ... As we all know second guessing Eddie is nigh on impossible, but we have to hope that this slap in the face is the wake-up call needed to actually address some obvious failings that have never been properly sorted out.

The breakdown was a massive contributor to the loss and as it's been one of (if not the main) our weaknesses for what feels like forever, what do we do to address it?

Personally, I think we need to look at the breakdown a few separate areas: protecting our own ball, competing for opposition ball, selection

Protecting our own ball:

We were SO bad at this against Scotland it's untrue. It's fair to say Owens didn't do as any favours, but our clear-out work was just woeful and we were asking to be pinged. It neutered our attack (which was poor enough anyway) and gave Scotland so much territorial advantage from the resulting kicks.

It seems that we have a system where certain players have responsibilities for the clear-out work while others are setting-up to carry off the next phase.

This is absolutely pointless if we don't retain possession and I find it alarming that the obedience to the system seems to be overriding any urgency in the players. It's like they're more worried about where they should be standing and less able to recognise the danger of losing the ball if they don't react.

I find it baffling that we are so slow to clear-out and so lacking in physicality when the player finally reaches the ruck. There might be half an excuse if it had been our wingers failing to clear-out bigger players in the wide channels, but for the most part I'm talking about our pack ...

If it is tactical, we really need to stop being complacent about retaining possession and recognise that we need to 'secure the ball' which should be rugby 101. For all his faults, Haskell did this very well, but it's not just about who plays 7 or the back row. It's a team philosophy. Any player, certainly any forward, should be capable of providing adequate support for the ball carrier. Forget offloads and next level stuff - I'm talking about the pure basics of getting there and stopping the oppo from stealing the ball FFS. Not only that, we need to be physical for longer. Until that ball is safely in the 9s hands, don't just stand there thinking the other team won't bother to counter-ruck!

Regardless of specific personnel, I refuse to believe that our players don't have the basic skill level to do this, so it must be tactical. The solutions seem so basic and obvious, but if we're in doubt, why not bring in Rob Baxter and have him work with the forwards on ball retention? Exeter are the masters of phase play and we have a number of players who know their systems, so why not?

This is a bit more radical, but I'd almost be tempted to run a training camp with a number of wildcard players from outside the squad who are there mainly because they are good over the ball e.g. Kvesic/O'Connor etc. Their job would be to screw up the breakdown day in and day out until we get better at it. They have the potential carrot of being selected if they shine.

Competing for the ball:

As yesterday showed, effective turnovers make a massive difference defensively. We coughed up the ball on virtually every attack we had and a good percentage of that would have been penalties for 'holding on' to prevent a Scottish jackal. They kicked the ball away, won the lineout and pinned us back. It was painful to watch and if it was psychologically draining for me, it must have been such a kick in the balls for the players when the tiny bits of good work they did were undone so simply, time and time again. Every time we took the ball in to contact, I was genuinely worried that we'd be turned over.

The opposition don't have that same fear when they're attacking us. We've been playing the same way for years and they know that any attempt to jackal will be half-hearted at best, we're more likely not to compete, fan-out in defence and rely on our pressing game to force a mistake. They also know that there's unlikely to be a proper counter-ruck. We just don't compete in any way.

I've read arguments that 'the Premiership is refereed differently', 'it's the new laws' and that it's nearly impossible to legally effect a jackal. I don't buy any of that. I think it's tactical - some teams play to compete and some don't. Wasps do it very well and Jack Willis has almost debunked the myth that you can't jackal in the Premiership by himself in the last few weeks. It's not just the back row though - I've seen a good chunk of the Wasps pack competing well for turnovers.

Wasps also show how dangerous turnover ball is in attack. A turnover at the right time can be deadly and we're missing opportunities other teams get by not competing.

Not everyone can jackal well and I don't want us giving away cheap penalties (Dan Cole I'm looking at you here ...) but the value of turnover ball in defence, attack and psychologically is so huge that I just can't see why we don't place more emphasis on competing?

As far as solutions go - I'll come on to personnel in a moment, but sticking with the idea of additional coaching input, my big idea would be George Smith. Following his recent sacking, I'd be very tempted to sign him up as a breakdown consultant to work with our players.

If we're worried about our quality over the ball, then let's prioritise counter-rucking. Surely we have a pack that is big enough and ugly enough to do that at the very least?

Selection:

First things first - locks and flankers are not interchangeable. I don't want to see Lawes or Itoje at 6 in anything but an unavoidable mid-game emergency. Similarly, Robshaw is a top class 6, so don't play him at 7.

At 8, I can accept Eddie's hand has been forced by injury. To be without Billy, a fully fit Hughes, Simmonds and Clifford hasn't helped the situation. I understand Eddie was scraping the barrel a little. Hopefully Brad Shields will help to add a bit more depth there.

Injuries are always going to happen though and we need to settle on a balanced back row combination that we can build upon. I refuse to believe that we don't have the players to do this.

I can understand why Eddie didn't feel we had any test quality 7s when he first arrived, but in the last couple of years, genuine options have emerged and I find it strange that we've made little effort to use them save for the positive experimentation in Argentina. Similarly, we've got several good 6s such as Wilson and Armand who can deputise for Robshaw, but Eddie seems intent on marginalising them. I don't get it?

As I see it, we need to learn our lessons and react accordingly. To me, that means that we need a proper 6, a proper 7 and a proper 8. No fannying about with playing people out of position. The evidence that it doesn't work has been there for ages but after yesterday it's time to change it.

Fully fit, the group I'd go for would be:

6. Robshaw / Wilson / Armand / Shields
7. Willis / B. Curry / T. Curry / Underhill*
8. B. Vunipola / Simmonds** / Hughes / Mercer

* I still think he's a 6 but I think we have better rounded players at 7 and better players at 6. The other three I've named at 7 interest me more.
** I'm tempted to consider Simmonds as a 7 at some point. If Billy's fit and Sheilds works out well, that could be an interesting back row combo.

Obviously we aren't always going to be able to select all 12, but let's focus on building a style that works. Simmonds is the outlier in the sense that he's not a traditional 8 or 7, so the balance/combination is key to his selection, but with the other 11, I feel like any combination of those players in the right positions has the potential to work in terms of breakdown threat, carrying, defence and lineout capability. Obviously I appreciate that there's only 3 there that have 5 caps or more, but we still have enough time to work on it and unless we do, we have no hope of winning the World Cup IMO.

Thoughts?

For me it would be currently.
6) Robshaw, Ewers, Willis, Wilson,
7) Underhill, Curry, Curry, Armand
8) Vunipola, Simmonds, Hughes, Mercer

Would also rather Eddie used Spencer instead of Ewels when he has gained some fitness.

If England win the collisions (which only really started to happen later on in the game) then Scotland would have been slower to get over the ball, and if the ref was more like Raynal last year than Owens where Scotland were then even basically stopped from attacking the ball giving England a big edge, but England were held physically. Yesterday the Scotland tight five put in a great physical effort to stop England on the tackle line, and this allowed their two opensides to really get after our backrow with no openside.

Tbh apart from anything else it's nice to see the side being more willing to play rugby and not rely on a physical smash win the game, there is hope for rugby when this happens.

Wasps have only really gone hard for the breakdown in the last month or so though, and the fact they've been so successful should perhaps point out the problems. The refereeing has not only meant we haven't had many jackellers but also the lack of need to prevent it.

Our top clubs don't suffer too much either. Sarries and Wasps tend to have front foot ball, therefore don't need to protect the ball so accurately (though Wasps clearout, along with our jackalling has gone up a few gears recently), Exeter go off their feet so quickly that they don't need to be accurate (they're also very physical). We don't have a need in the league to clear out jackallers that often. Hopefully Wasps will force the issue, by focusing more there.

As Digby keeps pointing out, we can either try and get better at the clearouts, or we can pick some more effective carriers so clearing out is easier (a la Saracens).

Tigersman wrote:For me it would be currently.
6) Robshaw, Ewers, Willis, Wilson,
7) Underhill, Curry, Curry, Armand
8) Vunipola, Simmonds, Hughes, Mercer

Would also rather Eddie used Spencer instead of Ewels when he has gained some fitness.

Save for a couple of 6/7 quibbles, we're only one player different. I can see the argument for Ewers over Shields in the respect that they cover the same positions and we don't yet know how well Shields will take to English rugby. However, I think Ewers has been underwhelming following his return from injury and I think Eddie will follow the same route as he did with Francis and Te'o and put Shields straight in to the squad before he's played for Wasps.

The other player I didn't mention is Michael Rhodes. He's not eligible until after the SA tour so he'd have limited time, but I can see Eddie being attracted to his physicality and lineout game.

Raggs wrote:Wasps have only really gone hard for the breakdown in the last month or so though, and the fact they've been so successful should perhaps point out the problems. The refereeing has not only meant we haven't had many jackellers but also the lack of need to prevent it.

Our top clubs don't suffer too much either. Sarries and Wasps tend to have front foot ball, therefore don't need to protect the ball so accurately (though Wasps clearout, along with our jackalling has gone up a few gears recently), Exeter go off their feet so quickly that they don't need to be accurate (they're also very physical). We don't have a need in the league to clear out jackallers that often. Hopefully Wasps will force the issue, by focusing more there.

As Digby keeps pointing out, we can either try and get better at the clearouts, or we can pick some more effective carriers so clearing out is easier (a la Saracens).

All fair points. Wasps have changed their approach recently, but the fact that it's worked so well - notably against Quins and Exeter shows that it's worth other teams adopting. Hopefully, there's benefits on both sides i.e. players get better at stealing the ball and players get better at defending the jackal.

Scrumhead wrote:

Tigersman wrote:For me it would be currently.
6) Robshaw, Ewers, Willis, Wilson,
7) Underhill, Curry, Curry, Armand
8) Vunipola, Simmonds, Hughes, Mercer

Would also rather Eddie used Spencer instead of Ewels when he has gained some fitness.

Save for a couple of 6/7 quibbles, we're only one player different. I can see the argument for Ewers over Shields in the respect that they cover the same positions and we don't yet know how well Shields will take to English rugby. However, I think Ewers has been underwhelming following his return from injury and I think Eddie will follow the same route as he did with Francis and Te'o and put Shields straight in to the squad before he's played for Wasps.

The other player I didn't mention is Michael Rhodes. He's not eligible until after the SA tour so he'd have limited time, but I can see Eddie being attracted to his physicality and lineout game.

Don't disagree with any of that really. (I'm personally not that sold of shields yet but we will see).

Personally i do think ewers should look at moving from a International POV. (although from a club POV hard to see why he would move)
Same can be said for alot of backrowers though i guess.
Exeter: Ewers
Harlequins: Clifford
Tigers: Evans
Saints: Harrison and Ludlam
Sale: Beaumont (still think he is a 8 not a lock, might not have been international standard but we will never know), Nott (Same as Beaumont wasted at lock IMO)

I agree on some of those - Evans, Ludlam and Nott for sure.

Clifford's problem is staying fit. If he is fit, then he'll play.

Harrison has been one of Northampton's best players for a while now, so I can't see any particular benefit to him moving.

I'm sure people will claim Quins bias, but I do wonder how much better Brad Shields will be than James Chisholm, who IMO is hugely underrated. He was a world junior player of the year in 2015 IIRC and but for injuries, I think he'd be a lot more on the radar than he is at the moment. As a physical, hard carrying, hard working 6/8, he's better than Ewers IMO.

Scrumhead wrote:I agree on some of those - Evans, Ludlam and Nott for sure.

Clifford's problem is staying fit. If he is fit, then he'll play.

Harrison has been one of Northampton's best players for a while now, so I can't see any particular benefit to him moving.

I'm sure people will claim Quins bias, but I do wonder how much better Brad Shields will be than James Chisholm, who IMO is hugely underrated. He was a world junior player of the year in 2015 IIRC and but for injuries, I think he'd be a lot more on the radar than he is at the moment. As a physical, hard carrying, hard working 6/8, he's better than Ewers IMO.

I'm a big fan of Chisholm really, and despite his looks he is only 22.

RE Clifford i don't doubt he would play when fit, BUT just not sure Quins is right fit for him where would he play v where does he want to play, I guess i just think he might benefit from a move.

Harrison same as Clifford it's a case of where does he want to play, Boyd rumoured to be signing some backrowers (We shall see), Brussow was signed to start at 7, and Gibson has been the most consistent player for Saints. (Guess that is more ifs and buts though)

I feel like we're attempting to recreate Sarries. There are just two glaring problems with that. Sarries have George/Brits at 2, not Hartley, power in the centres and a 15 who steps into the line to help out their 10s, neither of whom are particularly good at running the game alone.

Secondly, if you've watched any AP rugby recently, there is a huge gap in quality to international level. The breakdown is just much more competitive when you're playing against 2 opens ides and a blindside compared to BOC and Williams...

I just feel like Eddie has focused way too hard on what he considers our core strength, and hasn't addressed the actual need to play 2 bloody flankers

Tigersman wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:I agree on some of those - Evans, Ludlam and Nott for sure.

Clifford's problem is staying fit. If he is fit, then he'll play.

Harrison has been one of Northampton's best players for a while now, so I can't see any particular benefit to him moving.

I'm sure people will claim Quins bias, but I do wonder how much better Brad Shields will be than James Chisholm, who IMO is hugely underrated. He was a world junior player of the year in 2015 IIRC and but for injuries, I think he'd be a lot more on the radar than he is at the moment. As a physical, hard carrying, hard working 6/8, he's better than Ewers IMO.

I'm a big fan of Chisholm really, and despite his looks he is only 22.

RE Clifford i don't doubt he would play when fit, BUT just not sure Quins is right fit for him where would he play v where does he want to play, I guess i just think he might benefit from a move.

Harrison same as Clifford it's a case of where does he want to play, Boyd rumoured to be signing some backrowers (We shall see), Brussow was signed to start at 7, and Gibson has been the most consistent player for Saints. (Guess that is more ifs and buts though)

I think Clifford would be Quins first choice 8 when fit now. Either 8 or 7. But any combination of Clifford, Chisholm and Robshaw works. I don't see how moving would help him, tbh.

First penalty yesterday set the tone. England took ball in, Scot over the ball competing is unmoved by 2 English forwards. Pen to Scotland. That guy should have been cleared out. Also in the game (and others before it) there are occasions when one player (sometimes Care) is attempting to secure the ball.
So, 2 problems are immediately apparent to me. On too many occasions we dont adequately resource the breakdown enough, relying far too much on one man to get over the ball; and some of our technical play at the breakdown isnt good enough. Both issues shouldnt be that hard to solve. Some personnel changes for sure, but we need to get numbers in to breakdowns and with some genuine intensity.
On opposition ball, we have to have players willing to have a proper go. We seem very reluctant to even make an attempt to stall or steal, preferring to take up a guard position or fan out. With a bit more will and personnel who would contest the breakdown we could make a big difference.
Its not just about personnel but some changes would help. LCD is terrific in this area of play and must be a viable option. Dunn is a great workhorse who tackles and clears rucks for fun. Williams clears out better than any of our props and the case for a genuine openside is surely now unarguable.

Its always funny for me to see the ridicule teams get for picking two 6's but the acclaim when they pick two 7s in the backrow. It can work, as Scotland showed yesterday and Australia did in the world cup, but the biggest issue with it is that it can really stunt your lineout as you will most likely only have 2 jumpers.

Something needs to change for the game in Paris, as if we try to play the power game against the French then that's just playing into their biggest strength.

padprop wrote:Its always funny for me to see the ridicule teams get for picking two 6's but the acclaim when they pick two 7s in the backrow. It can work, as Scotland showed yesterday and Australia did in the world cup, but the biggest issue with it is that it can really stunt your lineout as you will most likely only have 2 jumpers.

I think it's because 2 7s are seen as a proactive, attacking move, whereas 2 6s shows a defensive attitude.

16th man wrote:

padprop wrote:Its always funny for me to see the ridicule teams get for picking two 6's but the acclaim when they pick two 7s in the backrow. It can work, as Scotland showed yesterday and Australia did in the world cup, but the biggest issue with it is that it can really stunt your lineout as you will most likely only have 2 jumpers.

I think it's because 2 7s are seen as a proactive, attacking move, whereas 2 6s shows a defensive attitude.

Yeh traditionally 7's offer far more in the overall attack.

Scotland have 2 7's but pretty different in styles.
Barclay - The leader and can tackle for days.
Watson - An aggressive Ball carrier

Both just happen to be excellent over the ball aswell.

6's tend to be the same bosh workhorses that don't offer that much else.

and if your 8 can jump then that gives you the extra option. For Scotland if Watson wasn't a good ball carrier it wouldn't work though.

fivepointer wrote:First penalty yesterday set the tone. England took ball in, Scot over the ball competing is unmoved by 2 English forwards. Pen to Scotland. That guy should have been cleared out. Also in the game (and others before it) there are occasions when one player (sometimes Care) is attempting to secure the ball.
So, 2 problems are immediately apparent to me. On too many occasions we dont adequately resource the breakdown enough, relying far too much on one man to get over the ball; and some of our technical play at the breakdown isnt good enough. Both issues shouldnt be that hard to solve. Some personnel changes for sure, but we need to get numbers in to breakdowns and with some genuine intensity.
On opposition ball, we have to have players willing to have a proper go. We seem very reluctant to even make an attempt to stall or steal, preferring to take up a guard position or fan out. With a bit more will and personnel who would contest the breakdown we could make a big difference.
Its not just about personnel but some changes would help. LCD is terrific in this area of play and must be a viable option. Dunn is a great workhorse who tackles and clears rucks for fun. Williams clears out better than any of our props and the case for a genuine openside is surely now unarguable.

I've noted a number of times our system of the two man pods is giving us great potential width but comes with the risk of we're designed not to resource the breakdown well, and it's harder to blame the players when they're doing as they're told. And then there's the selection where we've picked too many players not good enough when the ball goes to floor.

I don't want us to bin the use of 2 man pods always, but I think we'd do better to mix in more 1331 plays , and that whether we change the style of player picked at 12 or stay with the 2 10s.

We could make the system change to 1331 even without changing our back row and it would help imo even with the current selection, as of course would getting Billy back, as would picking 1-2 more serious carriers in the pack (notably George and Sinckler, and making sure Sinckler works hard without the absurd penalties)

I don't think we can do nothing in response to this game and hope future teams don't target the breakdown and/or a given ref is more sympathetic to us

This board's far more interesting when we lose. Don't mean to be flippant but this has been a long time coming.

I'm imagining that Eddie will simply see bringing back the Hask as part of the solution. That and reading the riot act to all and sundry. That'll go part of the way but Eddie is part of the problem too and he's not going to change hugely. Also, the French will bring different problems and it would be dangerous to try to solve yesterday's problems in isolation. I just wish he would extend his thinking to allow for the possibility that he"s got certain things wrong.

Yep. Eddie is definitely part of the problem.

The results have allowed him to operate without question/challenge and I don't think it's healthy for a guy like Eddie to start believing he is infallible.

My thoughts are none of this is new, or rocket science. Our rugby lags in decision making and technique at the breakdown, and we don't have enough or good enough carriers being selected to offset this; having pre-programming only goes so far, and in fact hinders players developing good decision making skills. Our domestic rugby is not helping this, and Eddie is compounding it by picking players out of best position, and by 'accepting' the limitations of what he perceives in the 'English game', and using workarounds that have increasingly been worked out- the 6N teams have got there after a couple of seasons.
When you add in our profligacy with the ball in terms of slavish devotion to kick and territory....you see what happens when it doesn't go to plan, as in yesterday. If you were to allow Scotland to select our team and tactics, they would have done what we did yesterday.

Solution- pick carriers, and pick people in their best positions.

Ain't half complicating this.

Put the spine back into the pack, stop building a team around a 10/12 axis that is flawed and starti putting together 'usable' depth at 2, 7, 9, 12 & 15 then we might have a squad capable of winning a WC

Until then Jones remains the limited coach he is

Banquo wrote:My thoughts are none of this is new, or rocket science. Our rugby lags in decision making and technique at the breakdown, and we don't have enough or good enough carriers being selected to offset this; having pre-programming only goes so far, and in fact hinders players developing good decision making skills. Our domestic rugby is not helping this, and Eddie is compounding it by picking players out of best position, and by 'accepting' the limitations of what he perceives in the 'English game', and using workarounds that have increasingly been worked out- the 6N teams have got there after a couple of seasons.
When you add in our profligacy with the ball in terms of slavish devotion to kick and territory....you see what happens when it doesn't go to plan, as in yesterday. If you were to allow Scotland to select our team and tactics, they would have done what we did yesterday.

Solution- pick carriers, and pick people in their best positions.

Also - pick players in form over those not; trim the deadwood; give Ford more freedom to run the game from 10. He did this very well in Argentina in the absence of Farrell. (Though Eddie might give Ford the chop for France)