Decisive Performances

First topic message reminder :

After the Ireland game Clive Woodward made the following comment: "This is the most significant win for this current England team. It is a special team, a special coaching team and that was a defining moment. I think England will really go on now and become something special. There are still some players to come back, the competition is fantastic and I think this sets England up for a long time."

I can see where Woodward is coming from. Under Lancaster, England are building real consistency in their performances and Ireland came to Twickenham in ominous form. Being behind on the scoreboard doesn't seem to faze this group of players and there seems genuine trust in the game plan they have and faith in their ability to carry it out, no matter what the opposition throws against them.

However, where I am doubtful is Woodward's ability to read into that particular performance what will occur in the future. There is no doubt England will gain a lot of confidence from that result against Ireland and rightly so. But let's take NZ vs SA last year in Ellis Park. In a way they were very similar circumstances except NZ were away and SA were the ones believing they could beat the ABs at home and the match would be a revenge for the Eden Park fiasco. That was a defining performance in that it showed NZ at the top of their game but look at what happened after that performance. They won convincingly enough against Australia but leaked many tries. Their attacking mojo largely vanished on the northern tour and they looked ordinary against Japan and finished with an ordinary display against Ireland (taking nothing away from the spirited performances of Japan and Ireland). Could you trace the character they showed to come out on top in all their games by that performance in SA? Certainly there is a case for saying that they found a way to win in the face of adversity in all of those matches and having experienced that real and very much present threat of losing those matches may have helped them overcome those odds.

It's interesting that Woodward takes a home victory as a defining performance. What about an away win? I think the belief England derived from their impressive away runs in the SH were more instrumental in their victory in 2003, for example, than their home victories. What was more decisive to Wales' 6N victory last year: their second half comeback against Ireland or their away win in France? Both can be seen as vital performances that gave confidence back to the players so how do you pinpoint a specific performance?

Which raises the question can losses be defining performances? England's defeat of NZ in 2012, it could be argued, set up the professional era's first perfect season. A RWC loss has similarly seen NZ climb again to the top of the rankings. Does England's loss to NZ in 2013 have parallels with their defeat to France in 2014? Both games saw England fall quickly behind early on and both games saw England display a lot of character to fight their way back into the game, only to be undone by some opposition brilliance having clawed their way into the lead. Did Ireland set up this year thinking about the loss to Australia or NZ?

Is it possible to pinpoint a performance and say this is where things all changed for a team?

England are better in attack for 2 reasons

1. Care sniping the breakdown
2. Kick return

The centre axis is definitely not better.

England have taken everything from the last 30 minutes v ireland, currently everything is fine again, the world must now sit up and take note, special team, another 6 nations win, successful tour to NZ and then a run in to a successful RWC blah de blah. You read it here first (ok 2nd if you read SCW's stuff)

Scratch wrote:England are better in attack for 2 reasons

1. Care sniping the breakdown
2. Kick return

The centre axis is definitely not better.

England have taken everything from the last 30 minutes v ireland, currently everything is fine again, the world must now sit up and take note, special team, another 6 nations win, successful tour to NZ and then a run in to a successful RWC blah de blah. You read it here first (ok 2nd if you read SCW's stuff)

Scratch.

No one is claiming that "this" England team are World beaters. But if you look at the England v Ireland game. if you look at the team that played in last years 6ns, the team that lost too Wales. If that team played last Saturday they would of lost. but this team battled on, they took every think Ireland through at them and they survived.

Lets not get carried away right now, lets just wait and see what the out come of next week's game is before you shout England are a special team.

Could this team become like the one in 2003 RWC. The answer is "Possible" and at this moment in time nothing more.

majesticimperialman wrote:

Scratch wrote:England are better in attack for 2 reasons

1. Care sniping the breakdown
2. Kick return

The centre axis is definitely not better.

England have taken everything from the last 30 minutes v ireland, currently everything is fine again, the world must now sit up and take note, special team, another 6 nations win, successful tour to NZ and then a run in to a successful RWC blah de blah. You read it here first (ok 2nd if you read SCW's stuff)

Scratch.

No one is claiming that "this" England team are World beaters. But if you look at the England v Ireland game. if you look at the team that played in last years 6ns, the team that lost too Wales. If that team played last Saturday they would of lost. but this team battled on, they took every think Ireland through at them and they survived.

Lets not get carried away right now, lets just wait and see what the out come of next week's game is before you shout England are a special team.

Could this team become like the one in 2003 RWC. The answer is "Possible" and at this moment in time nothing more.

I don't think they are a special team SCW does, but it doesn't matter, they're England, they only need a wink and all of a sudden they are world beaters. Same every year yet every year they stuff up in the 6 Nations. To suggest it is possible they will become special a la 2003 is frankly the funniest thing i heard since grandma got her boobie caught in the mangle

Allow me to repeat an earlier post, SCW is seeing more potential than England has seen in a few years.
That team has not played yet, and yes, the midfield is not yet (again) firing properly, but:

An opinion if I may: I think what we are seeing plan B. Plan A is on a bit of a slow brew. Waiting for Manu, Cole to get fit, Ford / Eastmond / Watson to get some game time, Farrell to continue (I think) his promising development at FH, backed up by debutante Ford. Farrell/ Ford/ Manu / Burrell /Eastmond maybe 12T, to open up the midfield and get ball to May/Yarde/ Wade / Watson / Nowell * (* delete/ add other wings according to taste). England's best team is very close, just have not seen it yet for a complexity of reasons.
The NZ tour will be a very tough finishing school for thr touring squad. Will get taught a lesson or two. But we need that..

gregortree wrote:

An opinion if I may: I think what we are seeing plan B. Plan A  is on a bit of a slow brew. Waiting for Manu, Cole to get fit, Ford / Eastmond / Watson  to get some game time, Farrell to continue (I think) his promising development at FH, backed up by debutante Ford. Farrell/ Ford/ Manu / Burrell /Eastmond maybe 12T, to open up the midfield and get ball to May/Yarde/ Wade / Watson / Nowell * (* delete/ add other  wings according to taste). England's best team is very close, just have not seen it yet for a complexity of reasons.
The NZ tour will be a very tough finishing school for thr touring squad. Will get taught a lesson or two. But we need that..

That's an incredibly bold opinion!  

Back on topic... it does not matter that performances are defining or not for any team. Because what they fail to consider is what other teams are doing. England could improve 100% over the next 18 months, but if other teams also improve it could be to no avail. England could go backwards, and other teams go further backwards and England could come out on top! In other words it's all relative!

RDSguru wrote:Back on topic... it does not matter that performances are defining or not for any team. Because what they fail to consider is what other teams are doing. England could improve 100% over the next 18 months, but if other teams also improve it could be to no avail. England could go backwards, and other teams go further backwards and England could come out on top! In other words it's all relative!

? Nonsense. One hopes your arguments improve 100% by next year. And i do blame your relatives.

It's always "seeing potential" though isn't it? When is this potential delivered? At some point England need stake in the ground that says "we're here" rather than this ethereal nonsense about promises and potential. It's a kind if perpetual deferral of responsibility.

Scratch wrote:

RDSguru wrote:Back on topic... it does not matter that performances are defining or not for any team. Because what they fail to consider is what other teams are doing. England could improve 100% over the next 18 months, but if other teams also improve it could be to no avail. England could go backwards, and other teams go further backwards and England could come out on top! In other words it's all relative!

? Nonsense. One hopes your arguments improve 100% by next year. And i do blame your relatives.

Not nonsense at all, if you have 2 teams of similar ability at this moment, one improves by say 10% and the other regresses by 10%, it opens quite a gap...

And what do you blame my relatives for?

Good point RDS.

England's problem isn't improvement, it's the rate of improvement.

This current team is hands down better than the 2003 side.

Rugby has moved on. Faster, bigger, stronger, more organised.

England have been steadily improving since 2005, but their vector isn't steep enough as other team's, notably Wales, Ireland, NZ, Australia and SA.

Now recently England have jumped up a bit, but they will need to continue to improve just to stay where they are.

You could plot a power rating graph, which would be the first derivative of IRB ranking with respect to time which might be used against the existing rating to predict an outcome on the next meeting.

E.g. Hypothetically  England (85.6) meet Australia (86.1) but England's delta is 0.3 whilst Australia's is -0.4.

Even though Australia are ranked higher, they are noticeably in decline versus England's improvement, hence England might be expected to win (assuming a linear extrapolation on rate of change).

The second derivative would then show the rate at which the rate of change was changing. I.e. Is the improvement improving or is the improvement declining. Is the decline being arrested? Or getting worse?

RDSguru wrote:

Scratch wrote:

RDSguru wrote:Back on topic... it does not matter that performances are defining or not for any team. Because what they fail to consider is what other teams are doing. England could improve 100% over the next 18 months, but if other teams also improve it could be to no avail. England could go backwards, and other teams go further backwards and England could come out on top! In other words it's all relative!

? Nonsense. One hopes your arguments improve 100% by next year. And i do blame your relatives.

Not nonsense at all, if you have 2 teams of similar ability at this moment, one improves by say 10% and the other regresses by 10%, it opens quite a gap...

And what do you blame my relatives for?

20%

All the data would be historical, you'll never know until after the event if the improvement has peaked or the decline arrested... not to mention it being skewed on different and irregular opposition. I won't comment on deltas, derivites and linear extrapolations cause its way over my head! I prefer the black and white that while you can improve performance ad finitum, any success derived from that is in the hands of others also!

Scratch wrote:

RDSguru wrote:

Scratch wrote:

RDSguru wrote:Back on topic... it does not matter that performances are defining or not for any team. Because what they fail to consider is what other teams are doing. England could improve 100% over the next 18 months, but if other teams also improve it could be to no avail. England could go backwards, and other teams go further backwards and England could come out on top! In other words it's all relative!

? Nonsense. One hopes your arguments improve 100% by next year. And i do blame your relatives.

Not nonsense at all, if you have 2 teams of similar ability at this moment, one improves by say 10% and the other regresses by 10%, it opens quite a gap...

And what do you blame my relatives for?

20%

So you blame my relatives for a value? Very enlightening. I'll be sure to let one of my four siblings know.

GloriousEmpire wrote:It's always "seeing potential" though isn't it? When is this potential delivered? At some point England need  stake in the ground that says "we're here" rather than this ethereal nonsense about promises and potential. It's a kind if perpetual deferral of responsibility.

Potential is being able to "beat anyone on our day", when (if) that day comes ...Im sure the welsh will be happy to tell you about it.

Let's not start up the old punching bags again?

Nah... Sir Clive and I are onto something. When was the last time you heard SCW sound positive about England. IRB no 4, beating no 3 for fun, and with our youngest and best yet to join the fray. 6n champs will be a waypoint on the way to RWC semis (at least) in 2015.
(Olde Moore in a vision told me all this)
However NZ tour will be a very stern test and a necessary lesson I feel.