RugbyRebels

Wow that website is horrible, but from the little I read I think he has a point.

It’s felt that way for a while. Ireland changed it up and England didn’t respond until it was too late.

I think that’s why I’ve felt like having some leaders who can be brought on from the bench with a new message/strategy would have been a good tactic in recent seasons. It doesn’t seem to happen on its own.

It pretty much backs up what we’ve seen on the field and what has been written about Spreadsheet Betrothed, and, despite it being obvious to even plebs like us, nothing seems to have changed. Depressing.
It’s another reason to stop worrying about the oppo and try to make them worry about us. All the brilliant tinkering in the week before the match to counteract the oppo’s strength is pretty pointless if you can’t react in game. Let’s just nail our game plan taking in to account our strengths, let the players play as they see within that plan, ala Sam Vesty, and let the oppo worry about us.

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 4:39 pm It pretty much backs up what we’ve seen on the field and what has been written about Spreadsheet Betrothed, and, despite it being obvious to even plebs like us, nothing seems to have changed. Depressing.
It’s another reason to stop worrying about the oppo and try to make them worry about us. All the brilliant tinkering in the week before the match to counteract the oppo’s strength is pretty pointless if you can’t react in game. Let’s just nail our game plan taking in to account our strengths, let the players play as they see within that plan, ala Sam Vesty, and let the oppo worry about us.

Quite. One wonders if selection reflects the dedicated 'yes-men' required (by implication). It may sound naive but how universal among international head-coaches is this approach? Might English players generally not be up to adapting on the hoof as much as other nationalities? Even if this accusation is over-exaggeration there must be a 'no smoke without fire' thought. Does it account for coaching-staff surprise departures?

Oakboy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 4:52 pm

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 4:39 pm It pretty much backs up what we’ve seen on the field and what has been written about Spreadsheet Betrothed, and, despite it being obvious to even plebs like us, nothing seems to have changed. Depressing.
It’s another reason to stop worrying about the oppo and try to make them worry about us. All the brilliant tinkering in the week before the match to counteract the oppo’s strength is pretty pointless if you can’t react in game. Let’s just nail our game plan taking in to account our strengths, let the players play as they see within that plan, ala Sam Vesty, and let the oppo worry about us.

Quite. One wonders if selection reflects the dedicated 'yes-men' required (by implication). It may sound naive but how universal among international head-coaches is this approach? Might English players generally not be up to adapting on the hoof as much as other nationalities? Even if this accusation is over-exaggeration there must be a 'no smoke without fire' thought. Does it account for coaching-staff surprise departures?

I often read posts before looking at the username to see if I know who it is.

I think everyone can guess the easiest, but you’re definitely second well, second among the English board, cash is pretty obvious, too

Stom wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 5:09 pm

Oakboy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 4:52 pm

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 4:39 pm It pretty much backs up what we’ve seen on the field and what has been written about Spreadsheet Betrothed, and, despite it being obvious to even plebs like us, nothing seems to have changed. Depressing.
It’s another reason to stop worrying about the oppo and try to make them worry about us. All the brilliant tinkering in the week before the match to counteract the oppo’s strength is pretty pointless if you can’t react in game. Let’s just nail our game plan taking in to account our strengths, let the players play as they see within that plan, ala Sam Vesty, and let the oppo worry about us.

Quite. One wonders if selection reflects the dedicated 'yes-men' required (by implication). It may sound naive but how universal among international head-coaches is this approach? Might English players generally not be up to adapting on the hoof as much as other nationalities? Even if this accusation is over-exaggeration there must be a 'no smoke without fire' thought. Does it account for coaching-staff surprise departures?

I often read posts before looking at the username to see if I know who it is.

I think everyone can guess the easiest, but you’re definitely second well, second among the English board, cash is pretty obvious, too

You think I get paid to post crap?????

Oakboy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 4:52 pm

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 4:39 pm It pretty much backs up what we’ve seen on the field and what has been written about Spreadsheet Betrothed, and, despite it being obvious to even plebs like us, nothing seems to have changed. Depressing.
It’s another reason to stop worrying about the oppo and try to make them worry about us. All the brilliant tinkering in the week before the match to counteract the oppo’s strength is pretty pointless if you can’t react in game. Let’s just nail our game plan taking in to account our strengths, let the players play as they see within that plan, ala Sam Vesty, and let the oppo worry about us.

Quite. One wonders if selection reflects the dedicated 'yes-men' required (by implication). It may sound naive but how universal among international head-coaches is this approach? Might English players generally not be up to adapting on the hoof as much as other nationalities? Even if this accusation is over-exaggeration there must be a 'no smoke without fire' thought. Does it account for coaching-staff surprise departures?

Every team has to have some kind of game plan, but it should be flexible enough to allow the players significant leeway to make on field decisions as dictated by the flow of the game. Perhaps England is one of the most rigid, play-by-numbers setups in this respect.
Can't help thinking of George Ford as an example. He managed to get 98 caps despite being forced to (a) play beside Farrell, (b) curb his natural rugby instincts. A highly talented, probably generational player and England never got close to getting the best out of him. And their highly-structured approach probably deprived him of a Lions tour. With the two Smiths around now, George may never make the ton (like Peter Stringer who retired on 98.)

Spiffy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 5:26 pm

Oakboy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 4:52 pm

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 4:39 pm It pretty much backs up what we’ve seen on the field and what has been written about Spreadsheet Betrothed, and, despite it being obvious to even plebs like us, nothing seems to have changed. Depressing.
It’s another reason to stop worrying about the oppo and try to make them worry about us. All the brilliant tinkering in the week before the match to counteract the oppo’s strength is pretty pointless if you can’t react in game. Let’s just nail our game plan taking in to account our strengths, let the players play as they see within that plan, ala Sam Vesty, and let the oppo worry about us.

Quite. One wonders if selection reflects the dedicated 'yes-men' required (by implication). It may sound naive but how universal among international head-coaches is this approach? Might English players generally not be up to adapting on the hoof as much as other nationalities? Even if this accusation is over-exaggeration there must be a 'no smoke without fire' thought. Does it account for coaching-staff surprise departures?

Every team has to have some kind of game plan, but it should be flexible enough to allow the players significant leeway to make on field decisions as dictated by the flow of the game. Perhaps England is one of the most rigid, play-by-numbers setups in this respect.
Can't help thinking of George Ford as an example. He managed to get 98 caps despite being forced to (a) play beside Farrell, (b) curb his natural rugby instincts. A highly talented, probably generational player and England never got close to getting the best out of him. And their highly-structured approach probably deprived him of a Lions tour. With the two Smiths around now, George may never make the ton (like Peter Stringer who retired on 98.)

Absolutely spot-on! Also, worrying. Based on what I read about Ford in club training etc., I used to think he should either be captain (with Farrell not in the 23) or not in the 23 himself. Playing him at 10 with Farrell at 12 simply undermined his talent. I do not understand how he could NOT want to run things.

Oakboy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 5:45 pm

Spiffy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 5:26 pm

Oakboy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 4:52 pm

Quite. One wonders if selection reflects the dedicated 'yes-men' required (by implication). It may sound naive but how universal among international head-coaches is this approach? Might English players generally not be up to adapting on the hoof as much as other nationalities? Even if this accusation is over-exaggeration there must be a 'no smoke without fire' thought. Does it account for coaching-staff surprise departures?

Every team has to have some kind of game plan, but it should be flexible enough to allow the players significant leeway to make on field decisions as dictated by the flow of the game. Perhaps England is one of the most rigid, play-by-numbers setups in this respect.
Can't help thinking of George Ford as an example. He managed to get 98 caps despite being forced to (a) play beside Farrell, (b) curb his natural rugby instincts. A highly talented, probably generational player and England never got close to getting the best out of him. And their highly-structured approach probably deprived him of a Lions tour. With the two Smiths around now, George may never make the ton (like Peter Stringer who retired on 98.)

Absolutely spot-on! Also, worrying. Based on what I read about Ford in club training etc., I used to think he should either be captain (with Farrell not in the 23) or not in the 23 himself. Playing him at 10 with Farrell at 12 simply undermined his talent. I do not understand how he could NOT want to run things.

What undermined Ford/England with Faz at 12, was Faz's play at 12. 10 'in charge' 'running things' is just so yesteryear......and I'm not joking.

Ford as skipper? Why? and why is it skipper or he doesn't play? Really don't understand.

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 6:04 pm

Oakboy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 5:45 pm

Spiffy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 5:26 pm Every team has to have some kind of game plan, but it should be flexible enough to allow the players significant leeway to make on field decisions as dictated by the flow of the game. Perhaps England is one of the most rigid, play-by-numbers setups in this respect.
Can't help thinking of George Ford as an example. He managed to get 98 caps despite being forced to (a) play beside Farrell, (b) curb his natural rugby instincts. A highly talented, probably generational player and England never got close to getting the best out of him. And their highly-structured approach probably deprived him of a Lions tour. With the two Smiths around now, George may never make the ton (like Peter Stringer who retired on 98.)

Absolutely spot-on! Also, worrying. Based on what I read about Ford in club training etc., I used to think he should either be captain (with Farrell not in the 23) or not in the 23 himself. Playing him at 10 with Farrell at 12 simply undermined his talent. I do not understand how he could NOT want to run things.

What undermined Ford/England with Faz at 12, was Faz's play at 12. 10 'in charge' 'running things' is just so yesteryear......and I'm not joking.

Ford as skipper? Why? and why is it skipper or he doesn't play? Really don't understand.

I always thought he was skilful but restricted. Captaincy, I used to think (used to) would have lifted that restriction.

Oakboy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 8:20 pm

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 6:04 pm

Oakboy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 5:45 pm

Absolutely spot-on! Also, worrying. Based on what I read about Ford in club training etc., I used to think he should either be captain (with Farrell not in the 23) or not in the 23 himself. Playing him at 10 with Farrell at 12 simply undermined his talent. I do not understand how he could NOT want to run things.

What undermined Ford/England with Faz at 12, was Faz's play at 12. 10 'in charge' 'running things' is just so yesteryear......and I'm not joking.

Ford as skipper? Why? and why is it skipper or he doesn't play? Really don't understand.

I always thought he was skilful but restricted. Captaincy, I used to think (used to) would have lifted that restriction.

pretty rare that...

Spiffy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 4:14 pm https://www.planetrugby.com/news/courtn ... s-clueless

Spreadsheet Basher gonna Spreadsheet Basher

“Does this England side have enough players of that ilk, who are capable of turning a game?

“Or are the players not involved enough in developing the game plan to be comfortable reacting to what they see and feel out on the field and adapting it on the fly?

“I am not inside the England camp any more but, from my own recent experience of Test rugby and playing under Borthwick, it seems to be a bit of both.”

Sets the tone for a potentially interesting interview and then sits on the fence.

I thought it was fair. Too few players able to adapt and a gameplan that is absolutely predefined to the nth degree! Same as Jones. There is the gameplan. Do not deviate from the gameplan. Robots make robots.

‘Borthwick, just a tall Eddie Jones’ . Murphy, on noises coming from camp.

p/d wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 7:33 am ‘Borthwick, just a tall Eddie Jones’ . Murphy, on noises coming from camp.

Yeah Geordie Murphy doesn't pull any punches. He and Borthwick are definitely not friends.

Basically says he's a good coach with no personal skills.

IBWT.

p/d wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 7:33 am ‘Borthwick, just a tall much less successful Eddie Jones’ . Murphy, on noises coming from camp.

FTFY

FKAS wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 7:54 am

p/d wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 7:33 am ‘Borthwick, just a tall Eddie Jones’ . Murphy, on noises coming from camp.

Yeah Geordie Murphy doesn't pull any punches. He and Borthwick are definitely not friends.

Basically says he's a good coach with no personal skills.

His communication skills are worse than Jones, sources say.

Banquo wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 8:17 am

p/d wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 7:33 am ‘Borthwick, just a tall much less successful Eddie Jones’ . Murphy, on noises coming from camp.

FTFY

Is there an emoji for laughing and crying at the same time?

Banquo wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 8:17 am

p/d wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 7:33 am ‘Borthwick, just a tall much less successful Eddie Jones’ . Murphy, on noises coming from camp.

FTFY

I thank you.

The quote from Murphy about Borthwick turning down an invitation to coffee from fellow-players, then turning up at the same venue to sit and sup on his own, is concerning. To me, it indicates more than a lack of team spirit. It suggests egotism and arrogance. Worst, from his current role POV, it suggests no recognition of the need for consistently good communication skills.

The article may be tosh but the description of Borthwick as 'not a people person' rings true. What is really odd is that it seems fair to suggest that none of this should be new to the RFU. That they thought it was not a sufficient negative to look elsewhere is a bit strange perhaps.

Where’s the article with the Murphy quote(s)?

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 8:49 am Where’s the article with the Murphy quote(s)?

DT.

Oakboy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 8:57 am

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 8:49 am Where’s the article with the Murphy quote(s)?

DT.

Cheers.