How good were England?

Not a WUM as I have not managed to see the game. Had they not been as dominant in the Scrum as seems to be the case did they show anything else that would indicate their continued progress.

The brief clips I have seen have all been Scrums and it was a complete demolition, the sort of dominance that limits the oppositons ability to do anything at all, secure ball, establish territory, attack. There is being on top and then there is a complete smashing and it looked like that is what happened here. Please do not think that I am indulging in back handed critisism as I love a good scrummage and appreciate the application of power and technique that such dominance requires. However unless this unit really does develop the ability to smash allcomers, what else was there to celebrate. Was it a better all round performance than delivered against Wales and France.

I looking forward to next year already it will be fascinating

Good enough

Well it was greasy conditions and both sides were throwing the ball forward like it was a game of volleyball, which was bad for Ireland. England did well though; their best bit of play was when Foden set up Croft on the outside, who sped away and was in the process of passing inside for a certain try before lobbing the ball away. You should watch that bit, you'll like it.

England were better against France but when your scrum is causing that much damage, just tell the backs to go home. Try and catch it on iplayer.

It is hard to assess an overall game whe one area is dominated so much . Not that as side can be criticised for taking advantage when it gets that ascendancy , in fact I would have told them to knock it on to get another scrum if I was coaching.There was therefore no need for an all round game

I think England will take it as a one off as they will know that this kind of over domination is very rare and they will have to prepare for alternatives when touring South Africa for sure.

England were dominant in the scrum, once they realised that they twisted the knife. In a game where the ball was a bar of soap this advantage was massive as this led to far more scrums than a usual match.

Outside the scrum, England were not really that much better than ireland. But the dejection of losing the scrums so severely spread through the team, such that Ben Youngs could catch the Irish napping and sneak his try through.

Also the home crowd support would have helped when Irelands weakness was exposed.

tomhughesnice wrote:England were dominant in the scrum, once they realised that they twisted the knife. In a game where the ball was a bar of soap this advantage was massive as this led to far more scrums than a usual match.

Outside the scrum, England were not really that much better than ireland. But the dejection of losing the scrums so severely spread through the team, such that Ben Youngs could catch the Irish napping and sneak his try through.

Also the home crowd support would have helped when Irelands weakness was exposed.

Completely agree with this.

It was a different game to both the Wales and France matches. England would have been foolish to take their foot off Ireland's collective neck at the scrum. If you've got an advantage over the opposition you drive that advantage home, time after time. This was Ireland remember and we've had a bit of trouble with them in recent 6 Nations. Any win by any means would have been progress. However, nobody guessed it would be that emphatic or achieved in that manner.

The backs realy need some work, too much passing to static players, back three not getting into the game etc. However conditions were not good for a passing game and just like the first two games, England played the pragmatic rugby and let the opposition make the mistakes.

The Croft breakout was funny though, he takes the ball accelerates through the Irish backs, draws the cover and then as he tries to adjust to pass the ball, he squirts it forward like a bar of soap. The llok on his fae when he did it was something else.

I wouldn't have been laughing mind you if the game had been close.

I agree with WELL-PAST-IT, it is difficult to assess a game that was dominated in such a fashion, the reality is Ireland were on the back foot and under so much pressure that the rest of the english performance is hard to judge.

I do however think that the english back line still needs to settle, Barrit and Tuilagi is not yet looking like there is a great understanding between them, but it will come with conituity in selections.

dragonbreath wrote:Not a WUM as I have not managed to see the game. Had they not been as dominant in the Scrum as seems to be the case did they show anything else that would indicate their continued progress.

The brief clips I have seen have all been Scrums and it was a complete demolition, the sort of dominance that limits the oppositons ability to do anything at all, secure ball, establish territory, attack. There is being on top and then there is a complete smashing and it looked like that is what happened here. Please do not think that I am indulging in back handed critisism as I love a good scrummage and appreciate the application of power and technique that such dominance requires. However unless this unit really does develop the ability to smash allcomers, what else was there to celebrate. Was it a better all round performance than delivered against Wales and France.

I looking forward to next year already it will be fascinating

Dragon

I dont see this as a WUM and youre quite right. Aside form utter forward domination built form the scrum and Farrells kicking England ( partly don to the conditions) were pretty poor.

England had the right players and gameplan to dominate this kind of game. That doenst change that the side has limitations. What they do have now though is morale and enjoyment from going on the field.

For me thats the most important change Lancaster has bought. It breeds intensity. The French team have been utterly lacking in that, and so the most talented bunch of players has failed to execute and looked limp. England had on papaer a better squad and were better organised for the world cup than this one has, but they lacked enthusiasm and drive.

Whats exciteing for an England fan is the side can be pretty bad in many aspects of the game ( room for improvement) and blow one of their peers out the water. If they can build on the fondation they have they could start putting in genuinley good peformances. The side has potential and is moving toward it.

Given the conditions England did play an intelligent game. Both sides were constantly knocking the ball on, and given the scrum dominance the obvious thing to do was to constantly make Ireland play. We did put 3 tries on France in Paris so there may well be some hope for running with the ball but it would be nice to see more evidence.

Shouldnt someone try to develop a ball that is easier to handle when its wet?

Anyways - Earls looked to be the most dangerous back on the pitch and made two great breaks but the one clear break which would have lead to a try was the one by Croft.

Barritt & Tui need to learn how to pass to the wingers.
Saturday was not the weather for this certainly, but all tourney I do not recall a good pass centre to the winger ?

The first half was a real battle, and the English pack stood up very well.

We all know what happened in the second, the English pack started to take Ireland's apart. Literally at the scrum.

Behind the pack, England didnt really function, but they didnt need to get the ball wide, especially in the conditions.

Ireland werent that much better except for Kearney and Earls (when they actually got the ball in hand - usually coming out of their defensive 22 to be fair) behind the pack either.

England played the game/conditions perfectly, and the scrum demolition was partly down to Ireland losing Mike Ross, they had the upper hand before that, but nowhere near dominance. However, not taking away from the clinical job the young English pack did.

They have improved game upon game, however, they're very limited in attack through their backline.

gregortree wrote:Barritt & Tui need to learn how to pass to the wingers.
Saturday was not the weather for this certainly, but all tourney I do not recall a good pass centre to the winger ?

I actually think Barritt has a decent pass off both hands. The problem is Farrel doesn't have great distribution skills and Tuilagi has none at all.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

dragonbreath wrote:Not a WUM as I have not managed to see the game. Had they not been as dominant in the Scrum as seems to be the case did they show anything else that would indicate their continued progress.

The brief clips I have seen have all been Scrums and it was a complete demolition, the sort of dominance that limits the oppositons ability to do anything at all, secure ball, establish territory, attack. There is being on top and then there is a complete smashing and it looked like that is what happened here. Please do not think that I am indulging in back handed critisism as I love a good scrummage and appreciate the application of power and technique that such dominance requires. However unless this unit really does develop the ability to smash allcomers, what else was there to celebrate. Was it a better all round performance than delivered against Wales and France.

I looking forward to next year already it will be fascinating

Dragon

I dont see this as a WUM and youre quite right. Aside form utter forward domination built form the scrum and Farrells kicking England ( partly don to the conditions) were pretty poor.

England had the right players and gameplan to dominate this kind of game. That doenst change that the side has limitations. What they do have now though is morale and enjoyment from going on the field.

For me thats the most important change Lancaster has bought. It breeds intensity. The French team have been utterly lacking in that, and so the most talented bunch of players has failed to execute and looked limp. England had on papaer a better squad and were better organised for the world cup than this one has, but they lacked enthusiasm and drive.

Whats exciteing for an England fan is the side can be pretty bad in many aspects of the game ( room for improvement) and blow one of their peers out the water. If they can build on the fondation they have they could start putting in genuinley good peformances. The side has potential and is moving toward it.

Lancaster has done a great job so far. However do you feel that he has it in him to change what has been a largely winning formula. To the casual observer England's strengths and weakness are pretty evident. Farrell for me has yet to show he can run a attacking backline, which may make any analysis of the centre pairing a little unfair but from what we have seen 12 is still a problem (as I believe it is for Wales and for the same reasons). The rest of it looks in good shape to me and I think it may be a while before we see a GS again. England and Wales are close and France will come again and you would think that Ireland will find a TH somewhere. Still I have 12 months to grow my nails back

Barritt was used as a flyhalf back in SA in his early days, he used to have excellant distribution, he has put some nice passes in midfield for Sarries, perhaps its due to him still settling in a backline thats been stagnent for a little while?

Also, the conditions werent great for 3 of the england games, not exactly games you'd expect to see mis-passes out wide from the centres.....

dragonbreath wrote:Not a WUM as I have not managed to see the game. Had they not been as dominant in the Scrum as seems to be the case did they show anything else that would indicate their continued progress.

The brief clips I have seen have all been Scrums and it was a complete demolition, the sort of dominance that limits the oppositons ability to do anything at all, secure ball, establish territory, attack. There is being on top and then there is a complete smashing and it looked like that is what happened here. Please do not think that I am indulging in back handed critisism as I love a good scrummage and appreciate the application of power and technique that such dominance requires. However unless this unit really does develop the ability to smash allcomers, what else was there to celebrate. Was it a better all round performance than delivered against Wales and France.

I looking forward to next year already it will be fascinating

The point which your article misses spectacularly is that if your scrum is dominant to the extent that ours was over the irish scrum you do not need to do much more than wait for the inevitable drops (from either side) and destroy them. Kick penalty and repeat. It is brutal but there it is. It could even be said that with conditions as treacherous as they were for any kind of running and handling game - we would have been feckless to aim to do much more than the obvious and the necessary.

In short : you cannnot use this game as a gauge of anything other than our scrum. We did little else because we didnt need to.

Comfort,

Sorry, but I must have been watching a different game, I cannot remember any time when the Irish pack had the upper hand, parity for about 10 minutes maybe.

WELL PAST IT, you may want to go back and read what i wrote again.

"The backs realy need some work, too much passing to static players, back three not getting into the game etc...."

I agree in part. Yes the backs need some work but the problem was mainly caused by Farrell passing slightly behind the player causing the whole back line to check. No back 3 will see the ball when that continually happens although the greasy conditions didn't help. I expect the coaches to have a word with Farrell after that.

Good post, Dragon. the simple answer is that they were worthy winners by 3 scores and more on the day. Ireland ultimately folded in almost exact ascending numerical order of their shirts. England are a raw and incomplete side who have shown that cussed but priceless ability to win ugly when they need but also, against France, hinted at a more clinical and confident game with ball in hand (I don't care if much of it came from turnovers, line breaks are line breaks to me).

What is especially gratifying for an Englishman is that we have seen a clear and consistent small upward curve in performances, as follows

pre-6N - not quite worthy of the phrase 'total shambles'
Scotland - totally inexperienced side did what its 3 predecessors couldn't in Edinburgh
Italy - had the cojones to come back from 2x potentially catastrophic self-inflicted damage just before half time to silence a partisan crowd
Wales - gave the best team in the NH by a country mile a bloody big scare rather than a massive win to hark back to for years to come
France - terrific performance first to take half chances and then hang on to the lead to the end: not many resist French comebacks at the Stade de France
Ireland - had the nous to turn a slight superiority into a wide margin of victory by identifying opponents' weakness and exploiting it ruthlessly.
post 6N - a position any sensible Englishman would have taken if offered before the tournament started.

My conclusion is that if England find another 3 or 4 players capable of making a Morgan/Farrell-like quick step up to international rugby, and the newly established players learn from this season's 6N and this summer's events, your lot may find next year's back-to-back GS under threat in your own back yard.

At the current rate of English improvement we'd probably be the best team in the world by the end of the year.

But of course this is the point where all Englands progress could be undone. A three test away series in SA is going to be tough! If we come away with 1 win id be pretty happy, a series win though would be a serious statement to world rugby! Im not counting my chickens yet.

One thing that has benefited England this six nations is that all the place kicking and drop goal attempts against have been poor, so we have not leaked as many points. SA can kick points from 50 or so metres away for fun from my memory.

I think that England improved with every game in the 6N. After the first 2 matches i was thinking that Paddy's day would be a very good occasion for Ireland but after the Wales and France games, i had a feeling that it would be close but an Irish win.
England rolled Ireland in the scrum, it was painful to watch. If the play like that against SA then they will certainly push them.

tomhughesnice,

Whoa there, horsey! I assume you're kidding. If you'd started '...we'd possibly be the best team in the NH by this time next year' I might have agreed.

SA will be about the performance(s), individual and collective, over 3 x 80 minutes almost as much as the results. Not for nothing are SA ranked comfortably higher than us. So even 3 heavy defeats could yield some positives while a single win out of 3 tests could be a good return. But I admit that an image of Head Coach Mallett hugging Brad Barritt and Mauritz Botha at the end of the epic series-winning narrow victory in a brutally hard fought 3rd Test makes me smile...

Finally, did we really face such abject place kicking as you suggest? Everyone made a hash of their DG attempts (wasn't the final success rate something like 1/18 over the whole tournament?). Farrell didn't miss much but I'd be surprised if the place kick success rate against us fell much below 70%, ignoring Italy who kicked dreadfully against pretty much everyone.

SimonofSurrey wrote:t Not for nothing are SA ranked comfortably higher than us.

I hate to tell you this but they arent

Spoiler:

The Welsh will maybe calm down a bit about the rankings when they discover if they match Englands results on their tour they will go above England in the rankings. To be honest I think Wales have a better chance of a win than England do ( especially as England may have to do without most of their front row) , although the quality of the Sanzars coming out the world cup and layoff is hard to assess. Its usually a safe bet they will trounce any NH opposition though.

SimonofSurrey wrote:tomhughesnice,

Whoa there, horsey! I assume you're kidding. If you'd started '...we'd possibly be the best team in the NH by this time next year' I might have agreed.

SA will be about the performance(s), individual and collective, over 3 x 80 minutes almost as much as the results. Not for nothing are SA ranked comfortably higher than us. So even 3 heavy defeats could yield some positives while a single win out of 3 tests could be a good return. But I admit that an image of Head Coach Mallett hugging Brad Barritt and Mauritz Botha at the end of the epic series-winning narrow victory in a brutally hard fought 3rd Test makes me smile...

Finally, did we really face such abject place kicking as you suggest? Everyone made a hash of their DG attempts (wasn't the final success rate something like 1/18 over the whole tournament?). Farrell didn't miss much but I'd be surprised if the place kick success rate against us fell much below 70%, ignoring Italy who kicked dreadfully against pretty much everyone.

Yeah im just joshing, jus saying at the rate of improvement we would be world leaders. As we started off struggling against Italy and Scotland, and then went off playing very well against the remaining teams improving game by game.

I agree with what you say about the SA series, except for the holy trinity of Saffa love making to finish. One win away in SA would be a result, as long as its not the last game when its kindof a dead rubber.

Regarding what I said about kicking against, im also mean points scoring in general. Italy fudged up easy place kicks, Scotland fudged up an easy overlap, Wales fudged England, France fudged themselves and Ireland were mother fudged by England. Basically through some luck England gained momentum, we could have easily gone into the Wales game on the back of two losses.

Imagine if englands fixtures had been the other way round.

Ireland started better than they finished, I dont think its hard to make the case they wouldve spanked the England that turned up in Scotland.
France were a bit lacklustre through the whole tournament but a better side than Italy who England could barely cope with, again a probable loss.
Role on Wales, well that was the middle fixture and England lost.

Morale boosting wins over Italy and a shellacking of Scotland would hardly have saved Lancasters job or the reputation of his players. By that point morale may have been so low the side wouldnt have shown the improvements it did. Getting the two weakest teams at the start and one with little morale and little to play for last helped England build confidence and enthusiasm.

All sides thrive on luck at times. England have made the best of theirs.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Imagine if englands fixtures had been the other way round.

Ireland started better than they finished, I dont think its hard to make the case they wouldve spanked the England that turned up in Scotland.
France were a bit lacklustre through the whole tournament but a better side than Italy who England could barely cope with, again a probable loss.
Role on Wales, well that was the middle fixture and England lost.

Morale boosting wins over Italy and a shellacking of Scotland would hardly have saved Lancasters job or the reputation of his players. By that point morale may have been so low the side wouldnt have shown the improvements it did. Getting the two weakest teams at the start and one with little morale and little to play for last helped England build confidence and enthusiasm.

All sides thrive on luck at times. England have made the best of theirs.

When building a new team, you need a lot of factors to go your way at the start.
building confidence and momentum is one of them.... and the order of our fixtures probably helped with that.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

tomhughesnice wrote:England were dominant in the scrum, once they realised that they twisted the knife. In a game where the ball was a bar of soap this advantage was massive as this led to far more scrums than a usual match.

Outside the scrum, England were not really that much better than ireland. But the dejection of losing the scrums so severely spread through the team, such that Ben Youngs could catch the Irish napping and sneak his try through.

Also the home crowd support would have helped when Irelands weakness was exposed.

Completely agree with this.

It was a different game to both the Wales and France matches. England would have been foolish to take their foot off Ireland's collective neck at the scrum. If you've got an advantage over the opposition you drive that advantage home, time after time. This was Ireland remember and we've had a bit of trouble with them in recent 6 Nations. Any win by any means would have been progress. However, nobody guessed it would be that emphatic or achieved in that manner.

Agree with all of this. Didn't care who's scrum it was, in my rugby club we were cheering every knock on and award of the scrum. This was a facet of the game we were utterly dominant at and we wanted to see it again and again and again. Both tries were directly from scrums, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if you said all 6 of Farrell's penalties were from scrums. Everyone fit and available and I'd definitely stick with this team for the first test against South Africa, maybe bringing in Lawes, Wood, Flood and possibly Sharples onto the bench. For now I will just about tolerate Stevens and Mears, but I'm waiting for some better options to stick there hands up.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Comfort,

Sorry, but I must have been watching a different game, I cannot remember any time when the Irish pack had the upper hand, parity for about 10 minutes maybe.

The Irish got parity (and a free kick) as soon as Stevens came on - in his first scrum.

PSW,

Are you for real? I've been watching the 6N (and before that 5) for +/- 40 years now but I've yet to see any of Wales, Ireland or Scotland ever approach their annual encounter with England in a mindset of 'with little morale and little to play for'.

propdavid_london wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Comfort,

Sorry, but I must have been watching a different game, I cannot remember any time when the Irish pack had the upper hand, parity for about 10 minutes maybe.

The Irish got parity (and a free kick) as soon as Stevens came on - in his first scrum.

He really is bad, isn't he? I'd be tempted to replace him with Doran-Jones, but I'm not 100% sold in PDJ either.

SimonofSurrey wrote:PSW,

Are you for real? I've been watching the 6N (and before that 5) for +/- 40 years now but I've yet to see any of Wales, Ireland or Scotland ever approach their annual encounter with England in a mindset of 'with little morale and little to play for'.

So what was different between the 2012 Ireland pack and this one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIyQTGbSfEc

Aside from their morale and intensity?

Dont be so naive to believe that sides always raise their game for England. There may be limited truth in it but England did not face the best performance of Ireland in this tournament, nor are all sides always fully up for games.

Im not saying that Englnad werent good or were lucky winners, just that youd be daft to think the game wouldve gone that way had the disorganised rabble that went out against Scotland had been faced by the fired up Ireland who wouldve beaten Wales but for some poor officiating.


Now Id be happy to cede that my initial statement was an exaggeration, but please dont tell me you believe that the earlier defeats and general mood in the Ireland camp didnt play a part in their limp wristed performance. England on the other hand faced them when on a high with a lot to prove. The body language right from the start made it clear which team was more up for it and switched on, very much the reverse of last year.

PSW,

I hear you, respect your views, but still can't quite agree. Wales 1993 and 1999, Scotland in 1990 and 2000, Ireland in 2001 for starters are the best examples off the top of my head when the other 3 played their game of the season - and then some - against us. There are also others, I'm sure but that already is too many examples for me not to see something of a pattern.

But if you are right about Ireland's mindset last weekend, how on earth did D Kidney manage to send out a disaffected Irish side against England for a game at HQ on St Patrick's Day?

Well Ireland were crushed mentally at least as much as England were in the reverse fixture last season, which was very satisfying after what happened last year.

Obviously the scrum was highly impressive, with Corbs and Cole moving towards the world class category over the course of a the tournament, but the best thing was the way the backrow matched a backrow who had totally dominated them only 12 months ago. You wouldn't say Croft, Robshaw and Morgan are beyond improvement as a unit, but they've matched some very highly rated backrows in this tournament, and with Wood, Haskell and Fearns to join in the next 12 months the backrow is looking good.

Still work to do with the backline, but the English pack is looking more convincing than it has done in a long time.

dragon, team sport is all about application, playing to the ref, playing to your strengths, mixing it up when needed-. I think its quite obvious to most that england didnt go in with a game plan to scrum the mothers out of ireland. however the team picked up on a flaw in the irish and the strength in the english, after it was obvious running rugby wasnt the order of the day and battered them using a plan b.

i dont think you can praise england higher than that in all honesty.. that is what sport at the highest level is about- being adaptabe, making things work, having more than one plan of attack!

How good were England?

They was better than most poster's thought they would be before the tournament kicked off.

And they just got better and better every game. They was more solid in deffence every game too. apart from the game against Wales, that England lost they improved as the tournament went on. Well in my opinion any way.

SimonofSurrey wrote:PSW,

I hear you, respect your views, but still can't quite agree. Wales 1993 and 1999, Scotland in 1990 and 2000, Ireland in 2001 for starters are the best examples off the top of my head when the other 3 played their game of the season - and then some - against us. There are also others, I'm sure but that already is too many examples for me not to see something of a pattern.

But if you are right about Ireland's mindset last weekend, how on earth did D Kidney manage to send out a disaffected Irish side against England for a game at HQ on St Patrick's Day?

Yeah I dont deny that more iften than not England get fired up opposition, hardly surprising as most years tehy are amongst the front runners and one of the the " teams to beat"
I was specificaly refering to this case, as you say Ireland went out there below par and didnt rise to the challenge when England came at them ( the exact reverse of last year). Its happened to them quite a lot recently, sometimes mid game. I guess you could equally ask how did Johnson send out a disaffected England when they were on the verge of a grandslam!
Im sure theres more to this pshycology stuff than getting Gary Neville in for a pep talk.

Peter when do you attribute a teams failings on the opposition's better play?

I think people have a tendancy to say that the opposition lose games rather than the winners winning it- this is normally to justify an opinion or agenda. I take it you are in two minds when it comes to SL?

As an Irishman, i honestly believe that SL got his tactics spot on against Ireland and out-thought Declan Kidney. To me it was'nt about Ireland playing too badly but more about England not allowing Ireland to play well and the frustration building up.

I have personally nothing but credit for Englands performance last Saturday.

robbo277 wrote:

propdavid_london wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Comfort,

Sorry, but I must have been watching a different game, I cannot remember any time when the Irish pack had the upper hand, parity for about 10 minutes maybe.

The Irish got parity (and a free kick) as soon as Stevens came on - in his first scrum.

He really is bad, isn't he? I'd be tempted to replace him with Doran-Jones, but I'm not 100% sold in PDJ either.

That is an easy decision for me, robbo. A Doran Jones who is operating at 80% is still a far better scrummager than Stevens. Unless Stevens is absolutely pulling up trees in the loose, which he hasn't since he came back, then I can't see what he is doing to justify his place on the bench. He is a poor scrummager at loosehead and only an average tighthead. Doran Jones is young in propping terms and has shown genuine improvement over the last couple of seasons. If England are to persist with a guy who can cover both sides rather than a specialist like Mullan or Marler, then Doran Jones has be close to edging Stevens out.

Ayerza instantly put Doran Jones under pressure in the final last weekend, but PDJ adjusted reasonably well and showed that priceless ability to adapt under pressure which for a prop is so important. I am not sure Stevens has that ability anymore.

mystiroakey wrote:Peter when do you attribute a teams failings on the opposition's better play?

I think people have a tendancy to say that the opposition lose games rather than the winners winning it- this is normally to justify an opinion or agenda. I take it you are in two minds when it comes to SL?

Mystir, to be honest I think that is nitpicking at a statement, it really depends from which perspective you look at it.

The losing team will say we lost the match and the winning team will say we won the match, in my very himble opinion it is more in a manner of speaking than intended to be insulting or controversial.

I dont think it is a case of being insulting or controversial- just an opinion and mindset which isnt completly neutral or rounded!

mystiroakey wrote:I dont think it is a case of being insulting or controversial- just an opinion and mindset which isnt completly neutral or rounded!

Well, how many of us are truly neutral?

biltongbek wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Peter when do you attribute a teams failings on the opposition's better play?

I think people have a tendancy to say that the opposition lose games rather than the winners winning it- this is normally to justify an opinion or agenda. I take it you are in two minds when it comes to SL?

Mystir, to be honest I think that is nitpicking at a statement, it really depends from which perspective you look at it.

The losing team will say we lost the match and the winning team will say we won the match, in my very himble opinion it is more in a manner of speaking than intended to be insulting or controversial.

Not sure that i said that myself

"Well, how many of us are truly neutral?"



Only me I think, probably to do with my training and my adherence to empiricism

biltongbek wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:I dont think it is a case of being insulting or controversial- just an opinion and mindset which isnt completly neutral or rounded!

Well, how many of us are truly neutral?

None of us. However some of us are more open minded than others. Not saying that PSW isnt in many espects. just brought up a point based on his recent views on the england team. And i think its quite clear when people have an agenda on an issue they can become less logical!

We call it Cognitive Dissonance in the trade Oakey - Simples really and probably why I'm the only balanced and objective one on here

GS number 4 in 2013

mystiroakey wrote:Peter when do you attribute a teams failings on the opposition's better play?

I think people have a tendancy to say that the opposition lose games rather than the winners winning it- this is normally to justify an opinion or agenda. I take it you are in two minds when it comes to SL?

I fully support what hes acheived, and have publicaly ate my hat on that.
As you say sometimes theres a case of one teams play putting the otehr team off their game. There was certainly an element of that in this case, England came out all guns balzing and full of p2ss and vinegar. Gradualy establishing dominance upfront added to that, it then becomes a cycle. Again exactly the reverse of last year.
In both cases Id argue there was an element of one team going out there and winning the game, and teh otehr rolling over and letting them do that. The clip I posted form the sytart oif the 2011 game shows that. Another example that sprang to mind was how when Croft ran 40m and managed to complelty fluff a simple pass ofr a try his teammates ran up and congratulated him on the break, rather than walking off and sulking and looking for someone to blame as wouldve happened in last years game or the world cup. Thats a positive mindset. Credit to England for going out like that.
Other times youll see one team rise to the challnege as laid down by the other. Thats when you get the really great games. To some extent that happened with Wales when Ireland had them on the ropes.

Anyway backtracking to the point I was trying to make in the first place, the England team that went oiut against Scotland was not fired up and on the game as much as this one. The Ireland team that went out against Wales seemed more fired up and on the game ( at least at the start) than this one did.
I still contend thats its not unfair to say had England faced Ireland in the first week the game probably wouldve gone very differently, and the confidence ( and with that intensity) we saw build over the torunament probably wouldnt have emerged.

This is a great example of how playing hard can help oivercome technical weaknesses. Lets be honest here, tight forward skills, tackling, and goal kicking are the only areas England showed significant technical ability in over the entire torunament ( greased pig excuses not withstanding).

Im not meaning this to beat them with, its just facing reality. It is worthy of praise and optimism that the side looks happy and comes out playing with the intensity that was lacking in the world cup. If they can add execution and attacking organisation to that theres reason to suspect they may become a genuinly good team.

Lancaster was gifted an excellent opportunity and he took it about was well as can be expected. Cant critisize that, can point out where it couldve gone much wrong.


Oh just realised this is a different thread to the one I thought it was so some references in above may not relate to things said in this discussion, sorry.

mystiroakey wrote:

biltongbek wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:I dont think it is a case of being insulting or controversial- just an opinion and mindset which isnt completly neutral or rounded!

Well, how many of us are truly neutral?

None of us. However some of us are more open minded than others. Not saying that PSW isnt in many espects. just brought up a point based on his recent views on the england team. And i think its quite clear when people have an agenda on an issue they can become less logical!

Yeah, look I am not arguing with you, just saying.

mystiroakey wrote:

biltongbek wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:I dont think it is a case of being insulting or controversial- just an opinion and mindset which isnt completly neutral or rounded!

Well, how many of us are truly neutral?

None of us. However some of us are more open minded than others. Not saying that PSW isnt in many espects. just brought up a point based on his recent views on the england team. And i think its quite clear when people have an agenda on an issue they can become less logical!

Not an unfair statement Oakey, part of my alleged "anti Lancaster" stance in the early days was a reaction to what I viewed as excessive media pandering and fan love based on nothing. Theres still an element of bandwagoning with him. I like to look at both sides, I like to think Im a fairly open minded guy who can have his mind changed and often just sit on the fence offering both sides of an argument.
But then Im not neutral when reviewing myself