Chris Robshaw

First topic message reminder :

I feel for Chris Robshaw this morning.

It seems he must have spent a large amount of his life in the preceding three months running from one ITV advertising video promo shoot or editing suite to the next. I don't think there's ever been a home captain who has played such a huge role in the marketing and advertising of the tournament.

It's understandable why he would be feeling the pressure to the extent he is. To then be spectacularly thrown under the bus by his coach in the post match interview like he was must be galling and a little baffling.

It's a dog eat dog world in top high profile jobs, and I can imagine that Stuart Lancaster was relieved to avoid talking of his controversial selections for the match (and his inability to settle on a stable side, especially mid field).

I think now though, his stabbing action is in danger of cutting a rift between captain coach and senior players. A disharmonious team is rarely a successful one. In light of Lancaster's direction of blame to his captain, does that not make it his duty to change captains or risk look ineffective? A slippery slope, surely?

Hoonercat wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:
Sorry boys, but I disagree.  I do not 'beg to differ' as some might say.  I simply disagree.  Begging is unseeming.  

Firstly, time was about to expire.  There is only one chance to get it right.
Secondly, Wales were really on the up and England appeared tired and lacking confidence.  Why take chances against a team really turning on the heat when England needed to get off the pitch?
Point three:  Farrell is one of the best kickers in Rugby today.  That gives him a decided edge.  Frankly, I would likely have thought to go for the line-out if Ford was the kicker, such is my lack of confidence in Ford's kicking.  
Fourth:  Converting the line-out does not guarfantee a score.  There are still many opportunities to lose the ball, commit a penalty, or otherwise mess up if the ball stays in play.  
Finally:  For whatever strange reasons Wales have a poor record against Australia.  So, all things being equal, England would have a better chance against the Wallabies.

If only Robshaw had as much time to make his decision as you had to go through all those options. I thought he made the right call, but as others have said the execution was all wrong. Had they gone for the kick and missed I would have had no faith in England getting back up the field and scoring against that fired up Welsh team, not a chance that they were going to let anything past them at that stage having seen so many of their team mates having put their bodies on the line for the win.

Disagree. Robshaw was on the field. He knew the time, Wales were pushing England around, and that Farrell is an excellent kicker.

Look we can debate this until the cows come home and perhaps never agree. Ultimately, it was a total team effort by England to let Wales back in the game. It was also an inspiring fight back by Wales. England should never have been in that situation in the first place.

Robshaw had a poor game highlighted by turning a Wales knock on advantage into an easy three points under no pressure. I do feel that our replacements lessened our competitiveness (in Ford's case due to the midfield he was lumbered with) and that normally Robshaw would be right to back our driving maul at home with just under five minutes on the clock.

He has played very well for England gland over the last four years but I don't think he has the commanding presence nor charisma of the top captains. Then again I'm not sure any of the current squad do and that's half the problem.

maestegmafia wrote:I think it is unfair that Robshaw is taking slack on this. He was right to go for the try, whoever calls the lineout was wrong to call for it at the front...! It's the easiest to defend against.

The reason is they do not have a hooker who can throw to the rear. I think all the throws in the matxh were to the front or front middle so wales knew exactly where it was going

A few points. With a kicker in form all things being equal you take the kick. He misses, assuming it goes dead you get the ball back and try to build for a drop goal.

Had we won every line out convincingly... And had we managed to make  more than a yard with our numerous rolling mauls... Then maybe there's a case. 

Did Lancaster hang him out to dry? He may have tried to scapegoat Robshaw,  but Lancaster picks him, Lancaster chooses not to give instruction but to leave it to the guys on the pitch. Robshaw messes up then Lancaster messes up.it really doesn't matter if Lancaster would have gone for goal, delegation was his call.

You either back yourself or you don't.

Taking the lineout and then throwing to the front was kind of bottling it.

Think back to the Springboks v All Blacks at Ellis park.

ABs come from behind and win it after backing themselves for the lineout when the kick would've drawn the match - so identical situation, They perform some cheekiness that sees Richard McCaw dive over for the winning score.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P55a5qjFYtE



If NZ had regulation thrown short, the result would've been the same as England experienced.

If I'm going to pillory anyone for anything, it was bottling the line out call, not having the balls to go for the win.

What were they going for then?

No 7&1/2 wrote:What were they going for then?

A win, and rugby magic!

So its just criticising them for not scoring.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So its just criticising them for not scoring.

No, I'm criticising them for having one bollock instead of two.

So not throwing to the tail.

donglewood wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So its just criticising them for not scoring.

No, I'm criticising them for having one bollock instead of two.

  Explains why they went for the lineout... Only one bollock, kick the other one away.....  It's a lose lose situation.  At least the lineout was a chance - bollock in hand, as it were

No 7&1/2 wrote:So not throwing to the tail.

Like I said, the short throw was hedging, What was required was all or nothing commitment. That would be my criticism, as I said.

If you need me to type slower or something, just say

But you've surely also seen examples of short throws getting points and long not? You' re just criticising the result and not decision?

You probably should update your op with Lancasters comments may add more to your post if you really want to discuss it.

I'm sensing you're a little spikey and not really ready to discuss it 7.5 so I'll leave it a bit.

Same old then.

In that situation the short throw was a poor option - driven perhaps that Webbers front of middle throw was intercepted earlier.

To get a drive on middle works best, back can work as you spin the maul infield, front is easiest to defend. I can only assume they tried to second guess Wales. If so that failed.

donglewood wrote:You either back yourself or you don't.

Taking the lineout and then throwing to the front was kind of bottling it.

If I'm going to pillory anyone for anything, it was bottling the line out call, not having the balls to go for the win.

Yup - he totally bottled it and made a pigs ear of it.

Lancaster has to back him though, although his comments in the media already has undermined Robshaw a bit, i.e. saying they'll "internally review the process" of how the decision to go for the lineout was made.

It's either the captains decision or it isn't and if Robshaw is his pick as skipper there is nothing more to review.

I couldn't imagine Gats, Schmidt, Hansen etc. making a similar comment about Warbs, POC or McCaw.

Contrast to Meyers passionate public defense of De Villiers post Japan defeat.

I was laughing at that Lancaster politico-statement (saying something not too very much hidden but not outrightly declared either for legal reasons)

We'll have an internal review of the decision - but of course always in public we'll back our players - but we'll look at the decision internally.

Talk about a very pale attempt at diplomacy...................

The only thing I'd say about the lineout is that in crunch situations like that Robshaw is always the guy who takes the ball. He takes the responsibility and he is very good at taking the ball in those situations but it does mean that if the opposition has ever tried to work out what we do they are going to know where that ball is going to be. Add in someone as good as disrupting mauls etc as Charteris and we saw what happened.

SecretFly wrote:I was laughing at that Lancaster politico-statement (saying something not too very much hidden but not outrightly declared either for legal reasons)

We'll have an internal review of the decision - but of course always in public we'll back our players - but we'll look at the decision internally.

Talk about a very pale attempt at diplomacy...................

Whilst he sort of lightly throws Robshaw to the wolves, there is support and then there is blind fibs which we all would have seen through. Its probably refreshing for a coach to say, look I would have taken the 3 but I respect my players for going for it.

It was a loco decision. Everyone knows that. Everyone is capable of them but unfortunately some are more susceptible than others and Robshaw does have a tendency of having crucial brain meltdowns.

As a by the by, I thought is was Dan Biggar who really led Wales on Saturday evening, rather than Warburton.

He did a Jonny Sexton-type speech on field to the troops when they were under the cosh, and conceded the try. No one else spoke, and they got on with it.

doctor_grey wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:
Sorry boys, but I disagree.  I do not 'beg to differ' as some might say.  I simply disagree.  Begging is unseeming.  

Firstly, time was about to expire.  There is only one chance to get it right.
Secondly, Wales were really on the up and England appeared tired and lacking confidence.  Why take chances against a team really turning on the heat when England needed to get off the pitch?
Point three:  Farrell is one of the best kickers in Rugby today.  That gives him a decided edge.  Frankly, I would likely have thought to go for the line-out if Ford was the kicker, such is my lack of confidence in Ford's kicking.  
Fourth:  Converting the line-out does not guarfantee a score.  There are still many opportunities to lose the ball, commit a penalty, or otherwise mess up if the ball stays in play.  
Finally:  For whatever strange reasons Wales have a poor record against Australia.  So, all things being equal, England would have a better chance against the Wallabies.

If only Robshaw had as much time to make his decision as you had to go through all those options. I thought he made the right call, but as others have said the execution was all wrong. Had they gone for the kick and missed I would have had no faith in England getting back up the field and scoring against that fired up Welsh team, not a chance that they were going to let anything past them at that stage having seen so many of their team mates having put their bodies on the line for the win.

Disagree.  Robshaw was on the field.  He knew the time, Wales were pushing England around, and that Farrell is an excellent kicker.  

Look we can debate this until the cows come home and perhaps never agree.  Ultimately, it was a total team effort by England to let Wales back in the game.  It was also an inspiring fight back by Wales.  England should never have been in that situation in the first place.

Cast our minds back 3 years or so ago to the last two dumb/controversial decisions Robshaw made under similar circumstances. Then he was given the benefit of "still learning". Woodward made a real point though, and hes been consistent on this after this one, that a smart well prepared team will know in advance what they plan to do in these kind of circumstances so that its not a "thought process" so much as a recall of the plan.
Was it Robshaws call or Lancasters or a bit of both? We dont really know. But looking at the group situation a draw wouldve sat fine for England, certainly a lot better than a loss.
But then the kick mightve been missed and then we would all be calling him a titburglar for a different reason. Its not easy being captain of a losing side.

the stats from the last world cup said 1/7 of scoring a try from a lineout in 22.

So who would rather have 1/7 chance of getting 5 points and a probable win to probably a fair to good chance of getting 3 with 2-3 mins left to try and get the win... at worst they would have had a 22 kickoff to return on a miss.

Anyone who thinks about it for 3 seconds or more can see the obvious flaw in Robshaw's logic.

fa0019 wrote:the stats from the last world cup said 1/7 of scoring a try from a lineout in 22.

So who would rather have 1/7 chance of getting 5 points and a probable win to probably a fair to good chance of getting 3 with 2-3 mins left to try and get the win... at worst they would have had a 22 kickoff to return on a miss.

Anyone who thinks about it for 3 seconds or more can see the obvious flaw in Robshaw's logic.

Disagree, in the heat of the battle you base your decision on who you are, Robshaws a winner and winning that game was the only thing on his mind. Accepting a draw with a much lesser chance of a win is always going to be a cop out!!!

Winners go for the win, losers think for securing draws.

That said the lineout was a royal Frak up

Fanster wrote:

fa0019 wrote:the stats from the last world cup said 1/7 of scoring a try from a lineout in 22.

So who would rather have 1/7 chance of getting 5 points and a probable win to probably a fair to good chance of getting 3 with 2-3 mins left to try and get the win... at worst they would have had a 22 kickoff to return on a miss.

Anyone who thinks about it for 3 seconds or more can see the obvious flaw in Robshaw's logic.

Disagree, in the heat of the battle you base your decision on who you are, Robshaws a winner and winning that game was the only thing on his mind. Accepting a draw with a much lesser chance of a win is always going to be a cop out!!!

Winners go for the win, losers think for securing draws.

That said the lineout was a royal Frak up

Explain that when England are quite possibly knocked out of the competition in the pools because of their "winning" mentality. I can tell you one thing... the greatest winner in English rugby history was Jonno, he would have taken the 3 every time.

those stats are compelling

What %age of sideline penalties from the right hand side does farrell make?

The stats are just the starting point though... if you're lineout has been rock solid and your rolling maul successful you improve those odds... and if they haven't ....

I think they may have had in mind, to keep attacking the open side form the lineout, and if they couldn't score they'd work themselves towards the middle for a drop goal. As has been said though, with every play/phase there's something that can go wrong... and it did with the first one.

There's a difference between being a winner and wanting to win. Winners are ruthless, they take the percentage play, when the crowd is calling for glory.

fa0019 wrote:

Fanster wrote:

fa0019 wrote:the stats from the last world cup said 1/7 of scoring a try from a lineout in 22.

So who would rather have 1/7 chance of getting 5 points and a probable win to probably a fair to good chance of getting 3 with 2-3 mins left to try and get the win... at worst they would have had a 22 kickoff to return on a miss.

Anyone who thinks about it for 3 seconds or more can see the obvious flaw in Robshaw's logic.

Disagree, in the heat of the battle you base your decision on who you are, Robshaws a winner and winning that game was the only thing on his mind. Accepting a draw with a much lesser chance of a win is always going to be a cop out!!!

Winners go for the win, losers think for securing draws.

That said the lineout was a royal Frak up

Explain that when England are quite possibly knocked out of the competition in the pools because of their "winning" mentality. I can tell you one thing... the greatest winner in English rugby history was Jonno, he would have taken the 3 every time.

A kicker in 'kick the points' shocker? Really? Remind me of Jonny's record post 2003 with England...

You have to unerstand what goes into elite performance, if you don't create a culture of players who want to win more than they hate losing your in trouble. Winning is everything, avoiding losing is a death sentence! An underdog team in any similar scenario to England would take points and avoid the loss first, Sam Warburton would very much have put the ball in the corner, as Mccaw, Devilliers etc have all done in the past, snatched victory from the jaws of defeat.

think he means johnson not wilkinson

It was a tough kick for Farrell but it was within range and he was on form... had hit 7/7 that evening. Better than chance.

Question... when did England last score from a lineout in the 22?

How many lineouts ago was that? They got a penalty try off a lineout vs. Fiji in the first half.

Fanster wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Fanster wrote:

fa0019 wrote:the stats from the last world cup said 1/7 of scoring a try from a lineout in 22.

So who would rather have 1/7 chance of getting 5 points and a probable win to probably a fair to good chance of getting 3 with 2-3 mins left to try and get the win... at worst they would have had a 22 kickoff to return on a miss.

Anyone who thinks about it for 3 seconds or more can see the obvious flaw in Robshaw's logic.

Disagree, in the heat of the battle you base your decision on who you are, Robshaws a winner and winning that game was the only thing on his mind. Accepting a draw with a much lesser chance of a win is always going to be a cop out!!!

Winners go for the win, losers think for securing draws.

That said the lineout was a royal Frak up

Explain that when England are quite possibly knocked out of the competition in the pools because of their "winning" mentality. I can tell you one thing... the greatest winner in English rugby history was Jonno, he would have taken the 3 every time.

A kicker in 'kick the points' shocker? Really? Remind me of Jonny's record post 2003 with England...

You have to unerstand what goes into elite performance, if you don't create a culture of players who want to win more than they hate losing your in trouble. Winning is everything, avoiding losing is a death sentence! An underdog team in any similar scenario to England would take points and avoid the loss first, Sam Warburton would very much have put the ball in the corner, as Mccaw, Devilliers etc have all done in the past, snatched victory from the jaws of defeat.

You think Elite performance is all about throwing the kitchen sink at it on a single roll of the dice chance of ultimate victory?? That's not elite rugby, that's Japan, we have nothing to lose mentality. Had they needed the points they would have taken the 3.

This is what Jerry Guscott said, even the most attack minded player says it was wrong.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/34376488

Warren Gatland said he would have gone for the kick

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/international/england-vs-wales-2015-stuart-lancaster-admits-english-playing-knock-out-rugby-with-must-win-clash-a6668851.html

This is what Clive Woodward said... decision was wrong

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-3251247/England-looked-like-amateurs-against-Wales-pros-Stuart-Lancaster-s-coaching-staff-blame.html

Want to see your strategy at work. Ellis Park 2013. SA went on a blitz vs. NZ and ended up losing... thats right, they lost. Had they said hold back, get the win first it would have done them more good. No one in SA cared about how great they played. The only people who enjoyed it were kiwi's and neutrals.

majesticimperialman wrote:

mid_gen wrote:Lancaster has always been of the mind that he diss the coaching, then it's up to the players to go out on the pitch and be responsible for their performance.

The most disappointing thing is that Farrell didn't take the ball and say "I've got this". He could knock them over in his sleep.

I think it was because George Ford came on and had the ball that Farrell did not say i will take the kick.

Yep. From the replays I've seen, it looks like it was Ford's call, which Robshaw, as captain, could have overruled.

SecretFly wrote:I don't think it was a 'we'll win this' arrogance thing - more a 'let's try not to lose this'.  A chance not to lose.

This is precisely why they should have gone for goal. In the context of the group, this wasn't a must-win game - it was a must-not-lose game. Take the draw. Even if they'd missed the kick, they'd have received from the restart.

Its like the kevin keegan philosophy of football in rugby... know what the prince of the northeast won as a manager... yep, zero.

Know how many times he threw that death or glory dice.... his entire managerial career.

Actually thats a lie, he won the 2nd division title with Newcastle in 93 I think it was. My apologises,  your logic has been restored!

fa0019 wrote:

Fanster wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Fanster wrote:

fa0019 wrote:the stats from the last world cup said 1/7 of scoring a try from a lineout in 22.

So who would rather have 1/7 chance of getting 5 points and a probable win to probably a fair to good chance of getting 3 with 2-3 mins left to try and get the win... at worst they would have had a 22 kickoff to return on a miss.

Anyone who thinks about it for 3 seconds or more can see the obvious flaw in Robshaw's logic.

Disagree, in the heat of the battle you base your decision on who you are, Robshaws a winner and winning that game was the only thing on his mind. Accepting a draw with a much lesser chance of a win is always going to be a cop out!!!

Winners go for the win, losers think for securing draws.

That said the lineout was a royal Frak up

Explain that when England are quite possibly knocked out of the competition in the pools because of their "winning" mentality. I can tell you one thing... the greatest winner in English rugby history was Jonno, he would have taken the 3 every time.

A kicker in 'kick the points' shocker? Really? Remind me of Jonny's record post 2003 with England...

You have to unerstand what goes into elite performance, if you don't create a culture of players who want to win more than they hate losing your in trouble. Winning is everything, avoiding losing is a death sentence! An underdog team in any similar scenario to England would take points and avoid the loss first, Sam Warburton would very much have put the ball in the corner, as Mccaw, Devilliers etc have all done in the past, snatched victory from the jaws of defeat.

You think Elite performance is all about throwing the kitchen sink at it on a single roll of the dice chance of ultimate victory?? That's not elite rugby, that's Japan, we have nothing to lose mentality. Had they needed the points they would have taken the 3.

This is what Jerry Guscott said, even the most attack minded player says it was wrong.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/34376488

Warren Gatland said he would have gone for the kick

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/international/england-vs-wales-2015-stuart-lancaster-admits-english-playing-knock-out-rugby-with-must-win-clash-a6668851.html

This is what Clive Woodward said... decision was wrong

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-3251247/England-looked-like-amateurs-against-Wales-pros-Stuart-Lancaster-s-coaching-staff-blame.html

Want to see your strategy at work. Ellis Park 2013. SA went on a blitz vs. NZ and ended up losing... thats right, they lost. Had they said hold back, get the win first it would have done them more good. No one in SA cared about how great they played. The only people who enjoyed it were kiwi's and neutrals.

guscott offers nothing as usual, but the woodward piece is a good read, he blusters a bit as a pundit, but i'd agree with pretty much every word he's written there.

Fanster wrote:
Sam Warburton would very much have put the ball in the corner

In a one off test match, I'm sure he would. In this context I honestly don't think he would. A difficult kick for sure, but the chance of getting it was certainly higher than scoring a try from the lineout.

A decent chance at getting yourself an extra point - and more importantly, denying your pool rivals 2 points - is the option I think most captains would have taken.

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:

Fanster wrote:
Sam Warburton would very much have put the ball in the corner

In a one off test match, I'm sure he would. In this context I honestly don't think he would. A difficult kick for sure, but the chance of getting it was certainly higher than scoring a try from the lineout.

A decent chance at getting yourself an extra point - and more importantly, denying your pool rivals 2 points - is the option I think most captains would have taken.

That's the difference between one guy who captained the Lions in 2013, and one guy who watched it on the telly.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:

mid_gen wrote:Lancaster has always been of the mind that he diss the coaching, then it's up to the players to go out on the pitch and be responsible for their performance.

The most disappointing thing is that Farrell didn't take the ball and say "I've got this". He could knock them over in his sleep.

I think it was because George Ford came on and had the ball that Farrell did not say i will take the kick.

Yep. From the replays I've seen, it looks like it was Ford's call, which Robshaw, as captain, could have overruled.

This is bizarre. England had Farrell who kicked well in the game and was still on the pitch in the rhythm of the match, yet Ford who hasn't kicked was expected to make the call on whether to kick or not! That is too ridiculous even for Lancaster surely?

There is simply no good reason for Robshaw not to have got Farrell to go for the posts, with the only possible explanation being that both his kickers bottled it and refused to take it, leaving no option but to kick for the line.

It is amusing to think that some might consider it a loser's mentality to kick for the posts, when the opposite is actually the case.
1. The kick taken immediately would have allowed time to score again (remember Munster playing 5 minutes into the red before securing the winning kick?). Especially if the kick was converted England were likely to get possession back.
2. If the kick was missed England still would have received possession to have another go, probably from a long 22 dropout.
3. Kicking for touch automatically used up the clock and potentially had less margin for error than a kick off the tee.
4. The kick for touch meant the Welsh didn't have to worry too much about conceding a penalty afterwards, because the time would have been used up and the worst they were likely to come away with was a draw. If they kept the penalty wide on the touchline it may have been a more difficult kick than the initial penalty.

A winning mentality would have worked out that the best way to win was take the kick, but if both Farrell and Ford refused, that reflects worse on them than Robshaw.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P55a5qjFYtE

That's how you do that.

I realise it's sacrilege to mention rugby league on here, but on Friday, Leeds were in a not dissimilar position to England. They got a penalty with around 2 mins left, when 2 points down.  They could kick for the corner and get 6 plays to score a try, or tie the game with a kick at goal. This was the last match of the regular season.

For those unfamiliar, the top 4 teams in super league play off to become champions... A prize considered more prestigious than topping the league

Leeds needed a win to top the league and win  the league leaders shield... and get a home draw in the grand final semi's. A loss meant they finished 3rd and had an away draw in the grand final semi's. 
A draw would mean they finished second in the league but crucially get a home draw in the playoffs.

From the sidelines, the coach called for them to kick the penalty for the draw... Seemingly giving up the smaller prize to improve the prospects in the bigger one. 

They kicked the goal, got the ball back and ran in an injury time winning try. This bit made for a great story, but the point being... The eye wasn't taken off the priority/the bigger picture. That's professional sport.

Stone him! Stone him!!!!

Sometimes you have to turn to the dark side to appreciate the light

milkyboy wrote:Sometimes you have to turn to the dark side to appreciate the light

The Great Aukster wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:

mid_gen wrote:Lancaster has always been of the mind that he diss the coaching, then it's up to the players to go out on the pitch and be responsible for their performance.

The most disappointing thing is that Farrell didn't take the ball and say "I've got this". He could knock them over in his sleep.

I think it was because George Ford came on and had the ball that Farrell did not say i will take the kick.

Yep. From the replays I've seen, it looks like it was Ford's call, which Robshaw, as captain, could have overruled.

This is bizarre. England had Farrell who kicked well in the game and was still on the pitch in the rhythm of the match, yet Ford who hasn't kicked was expected to make the call on whether to kick or not! That is too ridiculous even for Lancaster surely?

There is simply no good reason for Robshaw not to have got Farrell to go for the posts, with the only possible explanation being that both his kickers bottled it and refused to take it, leaving no option but to kick for the line.

It is amusing to think that some might consider it a loser's mentality to kick for the posts, when the opposite is actually the case.
1. The kick taken immediately would have allowed time to score again (remember Munster playing 5 minutes into the red before securing the winning kick?). Especially if the kick was converted England were likely to get possession back.
2. If the kick was missed England still would have received possession to have another go, probably from a long 22 dropout.
3. Kicking for touch automatically used up the clock and potentially had less margin for error than a kick off the tee.
4. The kick for touch meant the Welsh didn't have to worry too much about conceding a penalty afterwards, because the time would have been used up and the worst they were likely to come away with was a draw. If they kept the penalty wide on the touchline it may have been a more difficult kick than the initial penalty.

A winning mentality would have worked out that the best way to win was take the kick, but if both Farrell and Ford refused, that reflects worse on them than Robshaw.

Good comments, mate. With Farrell's self confidence aboyut his kicking I would be shockecd if didn't want the ball in his hands. The only person who should have responsibility to make the decision whether to kick for goal or to touch is Robshaw. I have no idea what was said on the pitch, but Farrell was the match kicker, and in fact, is a better kicker than Ford. However, even if Ford wanted to kck for touch, Robshaw should have made his own decision - he is the captain.

Even a few days later, the decision is incomprehensible.

Doc.  Do an experiment with me.

Try to genuinely imagine how you'd genuinely feel had they gone for the kick and it was missed.  And Robshaw came out in the post-match interview saying that he had a chat with his team about the lineout, that they weren't all that keen to try it and so he went for a draw instead of the win.

How would you genuinely feel now?  Would that Robshaw decision to go for the posts not now be the 'incomprehensible' decision that everyone would be talking about?  Wouldn't people be more ready then to accept the idea that the lineout, if attempted, might well have worked and might have brought a victory?  Wouldn't we have people now saying that the players, and Robshaw in particular, bottled the decision-making and left a lone kicker, with the weight of a nation on his shoulders, to kick them to a draw.

I honestly think this Thread would still exist.  Do you think it wouldn't?

What do Chris Huhne and Chris Robshaw have in common.

Answer:

SecretFly wrote:Doc.  Do an experiment with me.

Try to genuinely imagine how you'd genuinely feel had they gone for the kick and it was missed.  And Robshaw came out in the post-match interview saying that he had a chat with his team about the lineout, that they weren't all that keen to try it and so he went for a draw instead of the win.

How would you genuinely feel now?  Would that Robshaw decision to go for the posts not now be the 'incomprehensible' decision that everyone would be talking about?  Wouldn't people be more ready then to accept the idea that the lineout, if attempted, might well have worked and might have brought a victory?  Wouldn't we have people now saying that the players, and Robshaw in particular, bottled the decision-making and left a lone kicker, with the weight of a nation on his shoulders, to kick them to a draw.

I honestly think this Thread would still exist.  Do you think it wouldn't?

Lots 'o questions there mate.
Do I think this thread would be here regardless which decision was made if it failed?  No need to ask - no doubt about it.  I suppose that's the nature (and the right?) of most fans.  

My instinct at the time was go for the kick.  I would like to believe that if the kick failed (and remember England would get the ball back, which is important, don't you think?) I would still be comfortable that England failed with one of the best kickers in the world who was having a good night with the boot.  My big worry was that England were not dominating the physical play, and I wanted the game to end as quickly as possible, the draw acceptable at that point in time.

Frankly, I was uncomfortable when I saw Ford come on and was equally uncomfortbale when I saw them go for the kick.  Ford was the wrong guy to bring on with a lead to defend.  I am not sure how I would have felt if Ford was the kicker instead of Farrell.

Top level teams do go through situational analysis just like this as a normal part of match prep.  I see it with the NFL all the time and I see it in Rugby, too.  In fact, the military goes through the same thing constantly, too.  People in business (with real jobs, unlike me) tell me they do this too and call it contingency planning.  In this case looking at the bigger picture - securing the draw (with the ball coming back to England) then all to play for against the dreaded Aussies seemed like the right thing to do.   Not nearly optimal, but I thought the best option at that time to advance to the knock-outs.  I'm surprised you didn't hear me screaming at the tv................

Regarding your question about Robshaw sounding out the team regarding the lineout:  I suppose he should have done that just to make sure the team had one more lineout and maul in them to secure the win given that was his decision.  But, I don't think he did based upon what I saw on tv.  Doesn't mean he didn't, just that I didn't see it.  Ultimately, I still feel the kick was the better option, so I wouldn't mind how the team felt one way or another.  

You buying me yet?

dongle makes a good point...

Mccaw calls the lineout in the 74th minute with a winning mentality and wins the match...

Robshaw calls a lineout in the 78th? minute with a winning mentality and England lose the match...

Both captains had a 3 point defecit to overcome, both captains had a good goal kicker to call on, both captains trusted their pack to do the job, what exactly is the difference between either?

He's come if for some huge amount of unfair stick I feel, he thought they could do it as they had been dominant there for most of game but it failed.

One big decision which I think turned match our way as well was when Lancaster to Ben Youngs off yet that seems to be getting missed.

Fanster wrote:dongle makes a good point...

Mccaw calls the lineout in the 74th minute with a winning mentality and wins the match...

Robshaw calls a lineout in the 78th? minute with a winning mentality and England lose the match...

Both captains had a 3 point defecit to overcome, both captains had a good goal kicker to call on, both captains trusted their pack to do the job, what exactly is the difference between either?

The difference is that this was a group match and a draw would have done England quite nicely. A win would have been ideal, but the main thing on Saturday was to avoid defeat.

bedfordwelsh wrote:He's come if for some huge amount of unfair stick I feel, he thought they could do it as they had been dominant there for most of game but it failed.

One big decision which I think turned match our way as well was when Lancaster to Ben Youngs off yet that seems to be getting missed.

Ben Youngs hurt his ankle. I don't know how and I don't think it is that serious but he may not make the Australia match. He was playing very well.