England v Wales - Part 2, 26 September

SecretFly wrote:T'was Biggar's long kick wot did it.

Plus - England plainly and simply seemed to go to butter mentally at a specific point in the second half.  Brown suddenly became invisible and I felt like they either lost belief or simply that the mental pressure of the attempt seemed to suddenly overcome them.

Welsh pressure to be sure helped that English crumble along, but England have faced tougher pressure games against them and still kept their composure.  But in this game.... composure just seemed to melt away.  Possibly the dangers of going into a game with scoreboards at the end already defined in your head.  I think England believed they'd be further ahead and when they weren't they started doubting their ability to hold out or indeed push on.  I just think Mental baggage got to them.

But the problem with Burgess is that England have put so much faith in him that they pushed their best defensive No.12, Brad Barritt, to No.13, to accommodate Burgess at No.12, both at the exclusion of the youngster Henry Slade, who is better than both. Barritt was dreadful, caught out badly twice in the second half in the No.13 channel even before the misread that led to the dramatic Welsh try that levelled the scores. Stuart Lancaster has hacked his midfield to bits to find a way to get Burgess involved, putting faith in intangibles such as presence and aura, and the English will be merciless in their treatment of that decision.

DaveM wrote:

But the problem with Burgess is that England have put so much faith in him that they pushed their best defensive No.12, Brad Barritt, to No.13, to accommodate Burgess at No.12, both at the exclusion of the youngster Henry Slade, who is better than both. Barritt was dreadful, caught out badly twice in the second half in the No.13 channel even before the misread that led to the dramatic Welsh try that levelled the scores. Stuart Lancaster has hacked his midfield to bits to find a way to get Burgess involved, putting faith in intangibles such as presence and aura, and the English will be merciless in their treatment of that decision.

That's basically it. And Barritt's defence at IC is overrated - how many international 12s do you see who can't defend well? It's not a difficult channel (as Twelvetrees has demonstrated), and yet Barritt gets huge credit for his defence and this is used to justify playing a centre who offers about as much as Noon in attack. In any case 13 is the harder position to defend, and Barritt made a mess of it. The midfield should have been Burgess and Slade, as it was in the impressive backs performance against France. With that midfield our wings would have torn Wales to pieces.

maestegmafia wrote: Garces penalised Gethins bind from the wrong side of the scrum. I think Wales did well while trying not to concede penalties in he scrum.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

DaveM wrote:

But the problem with Burgess is that England have put so much faith in him that they pushed their best defensive No.12, Brad Barritt, to No.13, to accommodate Burgess at No.12, both at the exclusion of the youngster Henry Slade, who is better than both. Barritt was dreadful, caught out badly twice in the second half in the No.13 channel even before the misread that led to the dramatic Welsh try that levelled the scores. Stuart Lancaster has hacked his midfield to bits to find a way to get Burgess involved, putting faith in intangibles such as presence and aura, and the English will be merciless in their treatment of that decision.

That's basically it. And Barritt's defence at IC is overrated - how many international 12s do you see who can't defend well? It's not a difficult channel (as Twelvetrees has demonstrated), and yet Barritt gets huge credit for his defence and this is used to justify playing a centre who offers about as much as Noon in attack. In any case 13 is the harder position to defend, and Barritt made a mess of it. The midfield should have been Burgess and Slade, as it was in the impressive backs performance against France. With that midfield our wings would have torn Wales to pieces.

It's a two edged sword though that, you then need to play Ford at ten and as fabulous a player as he is I just don't trust his goal kicking, highlights our over reliance on JJ which a team with our resources shouldn't be having.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

It's a two edged sword though that, you then need to play Ford at ten and as fabulous a player as he is I just don't trust his goal kicking, highlights our over reliance on JJ which a team with our resources shouldn't be having.

George Carlin wrote:Cully in the Sydney Morning Herald:

Taulupe Faletau was simply a giant. This World Cup is bringing out something special from No.8s, and the Welshman was as good as any in Wales' win. It's easy for a No.8 to look good when his tight five is dominating, but Faletau was magnificent even when the opposite was happening. His ability to carve out the hard yards was central to the Welsh comeback in the second half, even from the back of struggling scrums.

And when England kicked ahead after the Welsh knocked on in attack in the 62nd minute, Faletau was one of three Welsh chasers who prevented English winger Anthony Watson from collecting the ball after a lung-busting 60-metre chase. Dan Biggar won man of the match, but I suspect the players will give their own award to Faletau.

SecretFly wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

It's a two edged sword though that, you then need to play Ford at ten and as fabulous a player as he is I just don't trust his goal kicking, highlights our over reliance on JJ which a team with our resources shouldn't be having.

Ford mightn't have taken so many assured kicks/points.  But surely the argument is that he might have facilitated his backs in taking a try or two more?   A balance between assured kicking on one side and more aggressive/dynamic attack on the other.

SecretFly wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

It's a two edged sword though that, you then need to play Ford at ten and as fabulous a player as he is I just don't trust his goal kicking, highlights our over reliance on JJ which a team with our resources shouldn't be having.

Ford mightn't have taken so many assured kicks/points.  But surely the argument is that he might have facilitated his backs in taking a try or two more?   A balance between assured kicking on one side and more aggressive/dynamic attack on the other.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

George Carlin wrote:Cully in the Sydney Morning Herald:

Taulupe Faletau was simply a giant. This World Cup is bringing out something special from No.8s, and the Welshman was as good as any in Wales' win. It's easy for a No.8 to look good when his tight five is dominating, but Faletau was magnificent even when the opposite was happening. His ability to carve out the hard yards was central to the Welsh comeback in the second half, even from the back of struggling scrums.

And when England kicked ahead after the Welsh knocked on in attack in the 62nd minute, Faletau was one of three Welsh chasers who prevented English winger Anthony Watson from collecting the ball after a lung-busting 60-metre chase. Dan Biggar won man of the match, but I suspect the players will give their own award to Faletau.

He rarely gets plaudits. He deserves so many more.

DaveM wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

It's a two edged sword though that, you then need to play Ford at ten and as fabulous a player as he is I just don't trust his goal kicking, highlights our over reliance on JJ which a team with our resources shouldn't be having.

Ford mightn't have taken so many assured kicks/points.  But surely the argument is that he might have facilitated his backs in taking a try or two more?   A balance between assured kicking on one side and more aggressive/dynamic attack on the other.

Ford wouldn't have got anymore out of the backs, because Barritt at 13 in an international (every time I type that I find it incredible) can negate any FH.

I'm sure Ford would love playing inside Burgess and Slade, but then so would Farrell.

GeordieFalcon wrote:England are out....There deluded if they think they'll beat Australia.

Lancaster is just not good enough.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:
I do see that argument but a midfield of Ford, Burgess and Slade seems a bit too inexperienced, in a perfect world Slade would have played 10; better defensively than Ford and better creativity than Farrell. His inclusion seems a waste of a place if we're not going to play him, we'd have been better off taking Burrell who i'm sure would have been trusted to play yesterday, mismanagement all around really.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:England are out....There deluded if they think they'll beat Australia.

Lancaster is just not good enough.

They always say that just before we beat Australia yet again.

George Carlin wrote:Cully in the Sydney Morning Herald:

1. England are in a mess and Burgess is in the middle of it. Alarm bells should have started ringing for England in the 45th minute of their astonishing 25-28 loss to Wales on Saturday night. With England leading 19-9, Sam Burgess took the ball from his halfback and kicked it aimlessly downfield straight into Welsh hands, on the full. That, of course, is not why England lost, and Burgess stuck to his individual tasks admirably, save for one horrible defensive read in the first half that opened up a huge gap for Welshman Scott Williams.

But the problem with Burgess is that England have put so much faith in him that they pushed their best defensive No.12, Brad Barritt, to No.13, to accommodate Burgess at No.12, both at the exclusion of the youngster Henry Slade, who is better than both. Barritt was dreadful, caught out badly twice in the second half in the No.13 channel even before the misread that led to the dramatic Welsh try that levelled the scores. Stuart Lancaster has hacked his midfield to bits to find a way to get Burgess involved, putting faith in intangibles such as presence and aura, and the English will be merciless in their treatment of that decision.

2. Keep Joe Marler straight, and the Wallabies scrum will handle itself. Has there been a more incriminating camera angle introduced to rugby broadcasting than the overhead one at scrum time? As England won three early scrum penalties, it showed the same thing: England captain Chris Robshaw hanging off the side of the scrum to generate the angle to push his loose-head Joe Marler across the tight-head. In fact, the third of those scrums went sideways, not forwards, yet referee Jerome Garces ruled that England has achieved dominance.

However, when Garces went to Marler's side of the scrum for the next set piece to keep a close eye on him, England's advantage immediately disappeared. ''I'd like to see if the England pack square on the loosehead side ... just the once,'' tweeted former referee Jonathan Kaplan. Over to you, Romain Poite.

3. Taulupe Faletau was simply a giant. This World Cup is bringing out something special from No.8s, and the Welshman was as good as any in Wales' win. It's easy for a No.8 to look good when his tight five is dominating, but Faletau was magnificent even when the opposite was happening. His ability to carve out the hard yards was central to the Welsh comeback in the second half, even from the back of struggling scrums.

And when England kicked ahead after the Welsh knocked on in attack in the 62nd minute, Faletau was one of three Welsh chasers who prevented English winger Anthony Watson from collecting the ball after a lung-busting 60-metre chase. Dan Biggar won man of the match, but I suspect the players will give their own award to Faletau.

SecretFly wrote:

DaveM wrote:

Ford wouldn't have got anymore out of the backs, because Barritt at 13 in an international (every time I type that I find it incredible) can negate any FH.

I'm sure Ford would love playing inside Burgess and Slade, but then so would Farrell.

Maybe.  I don't think England ever had the correct tempo though with Farrell taking things too incrementally.  I think a player like Ford sees opportunities quicker - looks for the surprise turns more.  And in that sense, I think he would be more in tune with instinctive players like Brown and May for those off-the-cuff surprise line breaks.

He'd have faced a big physical challenge coming at him on the night of course but that's what's going to always come at you at this level.  You have to put your trust in all your players to be able to handle extra physical pressure if you want to win a WC.

GeordieFalcon wrote:England are out....There deluded if they think they'll beat Australia.

Lancaster is just not good enough.

wrfc1980 wrote:Better team lost. End of.

alive555 wrote:Wales to be rewarded with a nicely positioned game on thursday against a well rested Fiji

Risca Rev wrote:

wrfc1980 wrote:Better team lost. End of.

Ah well. Chin up butt

RubyGuby wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:England are out....There deluded if they think they'll beat Australia.

Lancaster is just not good enough.

You called this a few weeks ago GF you were never comfortable and knew the cracks were there.

RubyGuby wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:England are out....There deluded if they think they'll beat Australia.

Lancaster is just not good enough.

You called this a few weeks ago GF you were never comfortable and knew the cracks were there.

DaveM wrote:As for Wales, it's a shame that after such a gutsy performance the injuries have surely ended any chance of them actually winning the tournament.

RubyGuby wrote:You will need to get the breakdown right Dave. As for your backs, Aus have the most potent in the RWC, it will be another titanic battle but I'm not quite sure that "certainly" is the right choice of word there. As it stands Aus will have to have an off day and England a very good day IMO Good Luck with it

SecretFly wrote:

DaveM wrote:As for Wales, it's a shame that after such a gutsy performance the injuries have surely ended any chance of them actually winning the tournament.

Gatland and co will do absolutely everything in their power to try to prove that truism wrong.  I think we can all agree on that.  As the man says, he's best under pressure.  And through his whole career he's proven it often enough to be true.

nathan wrote:

GavinDragon wrote:Flopping on the mam when he was on floor. It was very harsh

It was indeed as it looked like he was pushed by the number 8

Barney McGrew did it wrote:I see Stewie is blaming 20 minutes or so of on-field performance for the Wales loss – Robshaw’s LO debacle and ill-discipline. Funny that, I blame 4 years of off-field buffoonery for the loss actually Stewie. I’ve tried to give him the benefit but he’s shown himself for what he is – a RU idiot. He’s had 4 years to build a team and has done ok with the forwards (until the last few months when they’ve regressed). But he clearly can’t multi-task because it’s taken him 3.9 of those 4 to even start assembling a backline of any merit. And then to cap it all he’s done what all rookies do – bottle it when the pressure’s on. It’s as if no lessons from the MJ days have been learnt.

We go into a home RWC with a realistic chance of making the final with 4 centres that don’t recognise each other and at whom all other sides must be giggling hysterically: A RL forward convert who’s been in RU for 5 minutes and is developing quite nicely as a flanker, a rookie utility back who SL doesn’t trust in the big games (hey Stewie, they’re all big games in a RWC), an IC who’s just back from injury (and was a bit of a stop-gap anyway) stuck at OC, and one proper decent centre (well done for eventually getting 1 out of 4 right Stewie).... who’s injured (I’m just wondering if that’s SL’s fault as well)

And then he rounds it off by appointing a nice-but-dim Captain Sensible. And an ickle centre as hooker (ironically he could have made it as a centre given the standard).

So in 4 years he’s produced a team that nobody fears. I know let’s give him another 4 years, he can learn his trade on England’s time. And if we’re still carp in 8 years’ time perhaps we can suggest he moves on. FFS it’s as if professionalism has passed England by.

My advice – no more rookies, after this RWC find an experienced proven gnarly been-there-and-done-it coach, and offer him as much as it takes. And if he still demurs, offer him double – it’s not as if we can’t afford it.

Finally – NO MORE ROOKIES.

And is that a fat Aussie lady singing?

GeordieFalcon wrote:I agree Barney.

First two years he has done spot on....rebuilt the team.

But.next two he has not moved on.

Heaf wrote:

nathan wrote:

GavinDragon wrote:Flopping on the mam when he was on floor. It was very harsh

It was indeed as it looked like he was pushed by the number 8

It was beyond harsh IMO ...

Biltong wrote:My thoughts on the game.

I was surprised England didn't make more use of their scrum advantage, a few more knock ons in Wales' redzone would have meant points.

On attack although England look busy and industrious they looked ponderous at the same time.

I said to a mate before the match I think putting Burgess at 12 and Barret at 13 was a mistake.

I understand why because Burgess looked lost at 13 in the warm ip matches.

Wales showed incredible guts to come back into this match with so many injuries, England were stunned in the last quarter, I think they thought the game was won, and in a moment Wales took control.

Why England didn't take the three pointer during a world cup pool match surprised me, some would say you need the win, but in this pool two points would have put them in a better position than just 1 and considering Wales would have gotten 2 instead of four it makes a big impact on how England will have to play the rest of their pool matches.

Kudos to Wales, that was an impressive win, guts, pasion, attitude and determination.

DaveM wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:I agree Barney.

First two years he has done spot on....rebuilt the team.

But.next two he has not moved on.

Of course we've moved on. Shane Williams said we had the most potent back 3 in the tournament - when's the last time that was true for an England side? SL put that together - in a slightly haphazard way maybe, but he got there. The forwards are a match for anyone in the tournament too, other than a weakness at the breakdown which is probably quite a deep-seated issue for English rugby, and the halfbacks are good enough. Unfortunately, as someone else said, he bottled it with his selection for this game and put out a midfield which completely stymied out greatest strength, and then took off the only 'centre' in the matchday squad who was actually a threat to Wales - presumably in a premeditated move.

If SL goes lose his job I predict that the 6 Nations starting side will only see two or three changes from side SL has been building. That to me suggests we have moved on. That's different from saying SL hasn't made some major mistakes this week though.