France / England - a second watch and some thoughts

There has been a fair amount of discussion of this but the main England France thread has overflowed hence this new one

Many England fans saying that England outplayed France and the stats do seem to show this in many ways however I never felt France looked beaten and always looked like scoring again to win the game.

So after the second watch what did I see? France had the greater attacking threat all game - played with much more variety, willing to mix it up and to attack from deep as well as keeping the ball alive and playing a high risk game. England never once got outside the french backs - there was always a defender there to make a tackle but boy did the french miss some tackles. Englands tries came from a individual skills and mistakes by the defenders. the first? Care with a very good quick tap and go and Brown beat 4 tacklers to get the ball down. The second - missed tackles on Vunipola and a great offload to brown. England huffed and puffed a lot but never actually broke the french down. France got outside the English defense a few times and only a couple of very good cover tackles stopped more tries.

The forward battle was very even and from that display I see Ireland winning the breakdown easily given what we have seen fro the two teams so far

Farrell kicked away possession too many times - once when there actually was a potential overlap - the only one England got.

It was more even than I first thought but I stand by my initial impression that despite the stats the french looked far more likely to score a try to win the game.

On the "two lucky bounces" - the first was a very astute kick into space having seen the winger right up in the line and the FB central. even without the lucky bounce England were in big trouble. the second - a very nice bounce for the french it is true. What you must also remeber was there werde a couple of other similar french kicks thru where England got the bounce. What you must also remember is the old adage " the more I practice the luckier I get*" 2 out of 4 or 5 kicks thru worked for France. and it was clever kicking not just luck.

Why on earth was Care subbed? he looked really good all game putting pace and unpredictability on the ball. Farrell needs to take a few more chances I think - he kicked ball away when there was no need to and in attacking positions.

Overall - a close game - closer than I first thought and if England had played with the will to try high risk stuff and to attack from deep they could perhpas have won. But france deserved to win simply for having the greater attacking threat and for being willing to risk more.

England will learn from it I hope. There was a period of play when they took the safe option to much - mid second half and thus lost momentum. a couple of times fareell should not have kicked but passed to the man outside and if he was tackled trusted his forwards to recycle the ball. Farrell needs to either learn to vary his game more or to trust his outside backs and to take some risks - or to be allowed to do this by Lancaster

so yes - England could have won but France never looked beaten and their high risk strategy paid off in the final minutes

I still disagree! Think it was 36 who kicked the ball with an overlap and not Farrell and he showed some good running and passing skills. Still think there's not much you can do with the bounce to defend against (including the deflection on the kick by 36).

I don't think you'll ever convince me France were more dangerous.

I agree Farrell played some good stuff and maybe I have blamed the wrong guy for wasting the overlap but he still kicked away ball when he had backs running free outside him - albeit with defenders there

Another comment - Owens really is the best isn't he - another great game from him

Watch it again 7 1/2 - its on youtube. france really did look dangerous all game

Watched it twice and I don't want to live it again!

Owens is great. Loved his advice to Brown when he was whining in the 2nd half.

That's your opinion, TJ and fair enough. The main reason the result was so gutting to me was that I spent the second half feeling that France had absolutely nothing to offer, no threat whatsoever, and after the scare at the start couldn't envisage them producing a try. That was how little I felt they had to offer between our first try and their try. They scored, so I was wrong, but I felt Italy looked more like beating Wales than France did of scoring again at that point. I do not think they are good enough to win the 6N this year, and that includes their insipid showing against an incredibly wasteful and clumsy Italy yesterday too

on the first kick, i'm pretty sure it deflected off one of the england defenders feet before popping up into the air.

was an intelligent kick, especially given the rush defense and newness of nowell and may, but the deflection and subsequent bounce were lucky.

was a good game though.

TJ I am pretty sure that England kicked the ball less than France. Certainly according to these stats they did.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/25971746

I think you are exaggerating how dangerous France were.

Reading between the lines it seems that you blame Farrell which is a bit harsh in my opinion. He did some excellent touch finding kicks as well as do some good things in attack - evidently you missed him delay the pass to Billy which led to Burrell's try.

You seem to be under the impression that running everything is the way to go. It's not.

Perhaps you need to re-watch the game - Billy passed the ball to Burrell for Burrell's try.

As no 7 & 1/2 mentioned it was Twelvetrees who messed up the overlap.

Don't let those obvious mistakes in your eyesight get away from the point of your rant though!

Thats my point Quins - a good kick gives you the chance and it was on given to position of the england backs. You make your luck. It was not a panicky "kick the ball away" it was deliberate play

Along that note beshocked thought that Twelvetrees had a very good game on Saturday. I know, I know the performance from Scotland wasn't great but there were some promising signs. Love the fact that Farrell is stepping up again and proving people wrong.

I am not blaming Farrell -and I accept the corrections on the names. However Farrells excellent kicks could have been excellent passes to players with space to run in instead. Just a tad too conservative although again I give him credit for some good stuff as well

france didn't run everything by any means - however they were prepared to attack from deep and play a high risk game as well as varying their game . England were not prepared to do this and this is why they lost IMO.

no 7 & 1/2 unfortunately I didn't see all the Scotland game but from what I saw Twelvetrees put in a much improved performance. Agreed.

TJ I am not sure how you can say Farrell is being conservative when he's kicking the ball less, playing flatter and actually making line breaks. He's made in 3 in his last 5 games - 1 vs Australia for his try, 1 vs France and 1 vs Scotland.

I agree that perhaps England should have varied the game a bit more than they did but I feel that you are being a bit unfair. England played the more intelligent game than France but got hit by three opportunistic tries with a healthy slice of luck thrown into all of them.

England were a bit unlucky but then again you could argue they should have been more clinical.

quinsforever wrote:on the first kick, i'm pretty sure it deflected off one of the england defenders feet before popping up into the air.

was an intelligent kick, especially given the rush defense and newness of nowell and may, but the deflection and subsequent bounce were lucky.

was a good game though.

It bounced off Twelvetrees, even when he was just in the way he was a hindrance in that first half! Fair play the subsequent 120 mins have been far far better

Beshocked - my point is that France won by chancing their arm. England didn't take the risks

Farrell looks to be playing better and Care gave him good ball - but he still kicks too much for my liking. - maybe its the tactics or his orders but he is fairly predicatble as were England all game

France never looked beaten. Even when they were losing on the scoreboard!

France fortuituously got out to a big lead. I have nothing wrong with that. My problem was that they thought the lead big enough and shut up shop in the second half. They changed from a flat back line to a deep one. They failed to get over the advantage line for much of that second half because the ruck service was appallingly slow.

England looked more enterprising because they were attacking more. They punched the French line in that second half through quick sniping runs from Care or the English pack breaking the French defensive line. France did none of that so how you can say France never looked like losing is beyond me.

They only started reacting because they were five points down and made an attack that had been beyond them for the entire second half. I think both teams made crucial errors in defending their lead and it was fairly even on who played the better game just as the scoreline suggests. But no way were the French in control throughout that match.

You usually chance your arm when you're not being dangerous. England tried to play percentages, France were a mixture of speculative and pedestrian. But when you go 16 odd points up, you're more likely to win than not. Took them to the last 5 minutes though. Can't see the point of this article. France won, England didn't. Can't see France remaining unbeaten.

kiakahaaotearoa

France were not in control at all - I didn't say they were but Its only my opinion but I thought they always looked like they could score a try. They just looked more dangerous to me. Just an opinion

Barney the point was simply to counter the "England outplayed them" that many posters claimed. I don't think England did outplay them. I think france always looked like scoring another try Its just my opinions from watching the game again and put up for discussion Not trying to prove anything - just to discuss this point

England could have won but France never looked beaten and their high risk strategy paid off in the final minutes.

I see what you're trying to say. But I reiterate that France didn't try anything in the second half until they needed to in the closing minutes and were lucky it came off. Their risk came in the first half but in the middle they were shut down by England and they were risk averse. Only 5 points down did they finally react with a well taken try.

But England did win the second time round right?


Agree on the point regarding the "you make your own luck"principle. France played the percentages, some times it came off some times it didnt ...but England were a shambles in the back 3 defensively and made their job far easier. Its almost as if theyd look at the lack of experience and time training together and figured that out on the back of a fag packet.

Now what should happen over time is that that stage fright starts to go away. Remember Robshaw bumbling through his first few pressured captaincy calls? He looks a lot more assured now.
It was utterly predictable that England would just get themselves in a mess and gift chances even if France didnt play well.
But whilst accepting that scotland didnt exactly pressure england there were signs they are learning and getting better. maybe the early score settled nerves and let them relax who knows but we didnt see the rabbit in headlights stuff kick in. The looked more confident and more organised. They didnt get caught out like they did against France by overcommitting at rucks.
This six nations has seen a real change in their attacking back play too. The half backs are finally being allowed to use their range of skills and vary the play. Its making defences less sure of where the balls going and stand off more. 4 tries from backs moves in two games is unheard of under lancaster, we have to be happy about that.
England are back in business. They are yet to be tested by a good side playing well though.

TJ wrote:
Farrell kicked away possession too many times - once when there actually was a potential overlap - the only one England got.

Wasn't that 36??

Also, re the bounce, such cheeky kick's can be as astute as you want, fact is you're praying to get lucky on the uneven and unpredictable bounce from an irregular shaped 'ball'.

Plus that first kick through was deflected, was it not, so suggesting the kicker had even less to do with the try.

When England did the same (Brown chasing, from memory) we didn't get the luck and the ball bobbled out a few yards short of what would otherwise have been a certain try.

I was correctted on the kicking away the overlap. 36 it was it appears

France tried the kick thru 4 or 5 times and scored twice. You make your luck and for the first try the kicker saw the gap was there and the kick was on - you make your luck

Whoops, just seen everyone else made the same point(s). Sorry...