RugbyRebels

Thought I'd start the usual thread - and give my usual answer to my own question. Realistically, I think we have the fourth best player base just now so, if we finish fourth, that is not a great failure that needs an investigation. Equally, though, chances are running out for this crop (and our u20s haven't been great), so I will be disappointed if we are not in the running come round 4. I say round 4 rather than round 5 because if we are in the running come round 5 that means we just have Italy to beat.

Anyone have any different thoughts?

Incidentally, this was prompted by reading the Offside Line's preview. They, and others, are still obsessed with this fastest rugby in the world line. They say it was dropped after WC 2019. Who in their right minds thinks we were trying to play the fastest rugby in the world in that tournament? We have already settled on Chris Harris at 13!

Unfortunately, the team has been named, so if you are expecting a realistic response, the opportunity has gone. Heart full of optimism, head full of unquestioning conviction - this is our year!

I would be more than happy if, come round 5, we “just have Italy to beat”. Just?!

I don’t know if it’s realistic with the player pool, chopping and changing in the coaching setup, endless different refereeing interpretations and controversies etc. but I just want to see us look cohesive and clinical to some degree.

Accuracy, discipline and general fight/aggression have been inconsistent for such a long time. It’s felt like as soon as we try to get tough we lose our shape and focus, or concede dumb technical penalties. There’s something odd about the mindset with this side where will happily throw everything at it against the All Blacks, but will go super defensive against certain opposition who we deem more ‘on our level’.

How does this translate in to results or our position on the table? No idea. France and Ireland are clearly better sides, but there’s no reason they should be unbeatable.

In terms of the championship, I think 4 wins would be above expectations, 2 or 3 wins about expectations, 1 win below expectations and 0 a very poor return. 5 is obviously fantasy land stuff and not happening.

In terms of performance, we need to cut out stupid penalties and I would like to see something that suggests we have an approach to playing teams the more physical teams given who we have in the WC.

The world cup aside if we are to offer Townsend a new deal it would be beneficial to know he could coach a win over Gatland or Farrell led teams.

I suspect three is about as good as we can expect. I don’t think we’ll beat Ireland or France and to tell the truth I’m not sure we can beat all three of England, Wales and Italy. I really don’t want to be going in to the last weekend needing a win to avoid a whitewash but unfortunately I can see it happening. The one I most want to win is actually against Wales. We’ve lost too many games against them that we should have won.

Yeah, Wales is the biggest game for me in terms of determining whether we are underperforming.

Saturday is a big game but losing at Twickenham wouldn't mean we have had a bad tournament. If we win on Saturday, then it would be disappointing to finish with only two wins. If we lose on Saturday, but beat Wales and Italy then that is realistically about par (depending on performances obviously).

Two wins would be enough for me and I'm feeling really pessimistic. Think that our lack of depth will be exposed this tournament and so expect us only to win one. We're already starting London Irish's backup scrum-half and a 36(?) year old tighthead and think that we will really miss Graham's spark.

Triple crown but lose to France and Italy

I'm hoping to find the time and space to actually watch some of it this year. Tomorrow is not going to happen, but there's a chance I'll get to see the game next weekend.

Any changes based on Saturday? I'm trying really hard not to get carried away with the difference we saw in attack. We can't expect Mooar/Horne to come in and turn things round a full 180 straight away, but the difference in accuracy (and timing) of the passing and running intent in attack was so encouraging. I'd love to see that continue. It's easy to say that quick ball starts up front, but this kind of approach ball-in-hand makes everything infinitely easier for the clearing/supporting players.

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 1:22 pm Any changes based on Saturday? I'm trying really hard not to get carried away with the difference we saw in attack. We can't expect Mooar/Horne to come in and turn things round a full 180 straight away, but the difference in accuracy (and timing) of the passing and running intent in attack was so encouraging. I'd love to see that continue. It's easy to say that quick ball starts up front, but this kind of approach ball-in-hand makes everything infinitely easier for the clearing/supporting players.

Maybe Zander in for Nel. Injury permitting I'd give the group another crack.

I suppose I meant more changes to hopes and expectations based on the result and the manner of the performance, but it's a fair shout. Was pleased Nel still looks to be a solid option but of course Fagerson makes the 23 if he's ready.

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 2:17 pm I suppose I meant more changes to hopes and expectations based on the result and the manner of the performance, but it's a fair shout. Was pleased Nel still looks to be a solid option but of course Fagerson makes the 23 if he's ready.

We have to back up Saturday with a win at home against Whales. France look beatable but France in Paris are a different animal. Ireland at Murrayfield is a stretch but maybe. Italy should be a win. So for me, min 3 wins, 4 would be great. 5 is dreaming, but why not set us ourselves up for perpetual heartbreak of supporting Scotland

before anyone gets carried away, ignore the re-writing of the match history and rationalisation from down south, and consider how shite England were.

We didn't give away as many pens as we often do because we ceded possession and so territory at every breakdown bar 2. Imagine Ireland or France getting a free run at permanent possession. And the English maul after getting a lineout close to our goal line - probably the weakest attempts I've seen in the last decade of pr rugby. It was almost laughable.

One decent win, need to step up a whole lot thisweek, and the rest

septic 9 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 3:14 pm before anyone gets carried away, ignore the re-writing of the match history and rationalisation from down south, and consider how shite England were.

We didn't give away as many pens as we often do because we ceded possession and so territory at every breakdown bar 2. Imagine Ireland or France getting a free run at permanent possession. And the English maul after getting a lineout close to our goal line - probably the weakest attempts I've seen in the last decade of pr rugby. It was almost laughable.

One decent win, need to step up a whole lot thisweek, and the rest

I don't think anyone is getting carried away.

Should we beat Wales and Italy at home? Absolutely. If we don't then we're still where we've been for the last 10+ years.
Can we beat France? The Italians came pretty close and if they had more composure in the last few minutes could have done. So it's not out of the question but Paris is a different scenario to playing them at MF.
Can we beat Ireland at home? Probably not but stranger things have happened.

Will we change our breakdown tactics against another team? Probably. So I would expect us to compete more in other games. Yes we didn't compete as much as usual but we also didn't give away (other than Tuipolotu's) silly penalties. We didn't concede multiple penalties on the bounce to turn a 5m attack into a 5m defense which we have been guilty of for a long time. When was the last time we didn't concede a YC? With all that possession/territory we'd have given away a yellow even to Italy historically.

I think less than 3 wins now must be seen as a disappointment. Wales will be hurting but should be there for the taking.

Yeah, from here it would be very disappointing not to get three wins. This week is massive. If we win this, we can have a crack against France and Ireland from a position of strength. Yeah, it would still be a bit deflating to go from 2/2 to 2/4 butas ling as we give it a good shot, could live with that.

I generally care more about number of wins than position in the table (other than 1st) but that bonus point might also avoid us repeating our speciality of 3 wins and 4th place.

That was a quality win. But do not get carried away.

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 1:22 pm Any changes based on Saturday? I'm trying really hard not to get carried away with the difference we saw in attack. We can't expect Mooar/Horne to come in and turn things round a full 180 straight away, but the difference in accuracy (and timing) of the passing and running intent in attack was so encouraging. I'd love to see that continue. It's easy to say that quick ball starts up front, but this kind of approach ball-in-hand makes everything infinitely easier for the clearing/supporting players.

Not for me. Beat Garland for the first time then I'll start revising upwards, but Italy loom as a banana skin. Could be a terrible game, could be a 42-38 sort of affair.

I think 3 is now par, and we shouldn't be gutted if we end up with that, even though it'd be deflating to lose the next too.

Important that we fire some shots though. If we play well and still lose by 10 to each of France and Ireland, then so be it, but let's show we can challenge them.

Okay, a bit deflating but I think we did enough vs France and Ireland to show we really are better than the last couple of years. They are outstanding though (France didn't quite show it against us, Ireland did).

I think we have shown we are clearly the third best team in the tournament. I mean clearly both ways, we look to be comfortable better than England and Wales but also comfortably worse than Ireland and France. Let's not blow it against Italy though and undo all the good work. When they are on they are really good but they do give you lots of chances.

Cameo wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 7:21 pm Okay, a bit deflating but I think we did enough vs France and Ireland to show we really are better than the last couple of years. They are outstanding though (France didn't quite show it against us, Ireland did).

I think we have shown we are clearly the third best team in the tournament. I mean clearly both ways, we look to be comfortable better than England and Wales but also comfortably worse than Ireland and France. Let's not blow it against Italy though and undo all the good work. When they are on they are really good but they do give you lots of chances.

Ireland clearly better than us, I agree
France, probably - I mean better on top form, yes, clearly better, not so sure. Ireland are clearly better because they don't let standards slip. I know its a what if but had we not had such an early deficit in Paris we could have won , maybe comfortably - as it was we still nearly did and I can tell you the atmosphere in the stadium said the french though we would!
I think we have a good side

That's fair. I just think their ceiling is so high plus even when not playing very well they have enough individual talent that they will win more often than not. We need to be good to have a chance against top teams, France are likely to be competitive either way.

I Think that England Vs France was the first time we saw an 80minute display from France.

The red cards and the early domination disturbed France enough to keep us from getting trounced.