Stuart Lancaster & the England Job

First topic message reminder :

 
I think that this aspect of the fallout from last night's titanic match deserves a thread of its own.

As a neutral, I am probably the person to start it as I have no truck with England's current head coach either way.

Some numbers first. The figures for Lancaster are only correct to the end of the 6N this year, so that's worth bearing in mind:

Geoff Cooke
Tenure: 16 January 1988 – 19 March 1994
Tests: 50
Won: 36
Drawn: 1
Lost: 13
Win Percentage: 72

Jack Rowell
Tenure: 4 June 1994 – 12 July 1997
Tests: 29
Won: 21
Drawn: 0
Lost: 8
Win Percentage: 72

Sir Clive Woodward
Tenure: 15 November 1997 – 2 September 2004
Tests: 83
Won: 59
Drawn: 2
Lost: 22
Win Percentage: 71

Andy Robinson
Tenure: 15 October 2004 – 29 November 2006
Tests: 22
Won: 9
Drawn: 0
Lost: 13
Win Percentage: 41

Brian Ashton
Tenure: 20 December 2006 – 1 June 2008
Tests: 22
Won: 12
Drawn: 0
Lost: 10
Win Percentage: 55

Rob Andrew
Tenure: 1 June 2008 – 30 June 2008
Tests: 2
Won: 0
Drawn: 0
Lost: 2
Win Percentage: 0

Martin Johnson
Tenure: 1 July 2008 – 16 November 2011
Tests: 38
Won: 21
Drawn: 1
Lost: 16
Win Percentage: 55

Stuart Lancaster
Tenure: 8 December 2011 – present
Tests: 42
Won: 26
Drawn: 1
Lost: 15
Win Percentage: 62

SL was in charge of his first game in March 2012.

Many regard England's failure to beat Wales as attributable directly to the head coach's tactical decisions in selection and to the apparent lack of a clear and consistent game plan which England is playing to.

My questions for the group:

1. What results are needed in this Rugby World Cup for Lancaster to keep his job? Would he still have to go if England exit in the quarters?

2. With reference to his peers above, what win ratio is expected from an England coach and is this reasonable?

3. What are the key areas in which Lancaster can be validly criticised?

4. The RFU is the most profitable union in the sport. Apart from perhaps the NZ head coach's job, there is a fair argument that being England's head coach is the most prestigious coaching appointment in rugby union football. But is it in fact something of a poisoned chalice given the overwhelming expectation to constantly be successful?

lostinwales wrote:You mention Brussow when SA hardly ever play him...

That's an error on Meyer's part IMO. Also, the fact you isolate this particular case to debate suggests that you wish to avoid the real matter at hand, England's lack of a specialist openside.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Who in the prem don't really have a 'proper 7' though. May not be English but majority have don't they?

Whilst Fraser has been injured which is a lot, Saracens use Burger and have used Brown at 7. I wouldn't call them "proper 7s".

Burger has been used both at 6 and 7, Brown - 6,7 and 8.

Would you call Clark for Saints a "proper 7"? I wouldn't.

Louw is he a "proper 7"?

Haskell a "proper 7"?

Salvi,Ksevic and Seymour yes, Wallace is too but of course Quins seem to favour Robshaw.......

Ultimately it's about balance. The main thing is obviously to be effective and compliment the other players.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:You mention Brussow when SA hardly ever play him...

That's an error on Meyer's part IMO. Also, the fact you isolate this particular case to debate suggests that you wish to avoid the real matter at hand, England's lack of a specialist openside.

McCaw - has played No8
Warburton - when Wales lose plenty will claim he should be on the BS
Louw - one of two absolute class NEQ 7s in AP, but ab all rounder
SOB - a wrecking ball who is not an out and out openside
France - like england play left and right
Scotland - played a kiwi from LI in 6Ns and a Kiwi who had never set foot in Scotland in WC
Argentina - Matera a long waty from fetcher mould.



England have had issues - but we till see the KO rounds we have no idea if they were especially bad, or Australia were good.

LondonTiger wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:You mention Brussow when SA hardly ever play him...

That's an error on Meyer's part IMO. Also, the fact you isolate this particular case to debate suggests that you wish to avoid the real matter at hand, England's lack of a specialist openside.

McCaw - has played No8
Warburton - when Wales lose plenty will claim he should be on the BS
Louw - one of two absolute class NEQ 7s in AP, but ab all rounder
SOB - a wrecking ball who is not an out and out openside
France - like england play left and right
Scotland - played a kiwi from LI in 6Ns and a Kiwi who had never set foot in Scotland in WC
Argentina - Matera a long waty from fetcher mould.



England have had issues - but we till see the KO rounds we have no idea if they were especially bad, or Australia were good.

Just because a player has played multiple positions doesn't mean that they aren't a specialist openside.

I seriously doubt any poster on here will say that because McCaw has played at number 8 that he is not a specialist 7.
Warburton is a very good breakdown operartor. Tipuric is better and I myself would play Warbs at 6 to make way for Tipuric but that doesn't mean Warbs isn't a specialist openside. The fact he could switch to the blindside better than Robshaw can switch to the openside kind of proves my point.
SOB is a wrecking ball but the guy scores turnovers, just look at the statistics.
France play a left and right but Dusatoir Nayanga or le Roux they are all proper hybrid flankers capable of doing the ground work or the tackling.
Scotland left Barclay behind a decision that baffled plenty of Scottish fans. However Cowan and Hardie are specialist opensides and since you have resorted to mud slinging regarding their origins suggests that you are defensive and find my opinion valid. Furthermore Barclay has played a lot of rugby at 8 for the Scarlets and has filled in there on occasion for Scotland but he is still a specialist openside. In addition as Beshocked points out Kelly Brown has played a bit of rugby at 7 for Sarries and Scotland but remains a far better blindside.
Matera, couldn't agree more. JMF Lobbe does their fetching and does it spectacularly.

None of this is helping England's cause. Neither is playing a rugby league convert out of position against one of the best breakdown operators at 12 in world rugby (Jamie Roberts) or again throwing him in at 12 when your team is already getting butchered at the breakdown.

Inside centre in world rugby from a defensive point of view is another specialist position that is important to the breakdown. Roberts and De Villiers before his injury turn over a lot of ball. As does Luther Burrell who was for some reason omitted from the England squad.

From an outside perspective looking in Lancaster appears to have been developing a brand of rugby that England wanted to play but upon the RWC he went all conservative and forgot what made his side so competitive during the last two six nations.

There is a danger of mistaking the presence (and role) of a couple of exceptional players for a trend which must be followed (currently the open side flanker thing). It can end up like the 'pick a league player and he'll be brilliant' thing which followed Jason Robinson's time, or the 'pick a huge winger and he'll play like Lomu' thing

lostinwales wrote:There is a danger of mistaking the presence (and role) of a couple of exceptional players for a trend which must be followed (currently the open side flanker thing). It can end up like the 'pick a league player and he'll be brilliant' thing which followed Jason Robinson's time, or the 'pick a huge winger and he'll play like Lomu' thing

I agree, however Lancaster has known for a number of years that his main competition in this RWC group contained breakdown operators like the Pooper combo and Warbs/Tipuric.

He had this time to try and blood a specialist open side and he didn't do it. I believe he can do more with England however he needed to be stuborn in the sense he should have backed the kind of rugby that England were playing in the 6N but also adaptable to realize that his loose forwards weren't turning over much ball.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:There is a danger of mistaking the presence (and role) of a couple of exceptional players for a trend which must be followed (currently the open side flanker thing). It can end up like the 'pick a league player and he'll be brilliant' thing which followed Jason Robinson's time, or the 'pick a huge winger and he'll play like Lomu' thing

I agree, however Lancaster has known for a number of years that his main competition in this RWC group contained breakdown operators like the Pooper combo and Warbs/Tipuric.

He had this time to try and blood a specialist open side and he didn't do it. I believe he can do more with England however he needed to be stuborn in the sense he should have backed the kind of rugby that England were playing in the 6N but also adaptable to realize that his loose forwards weren't turning over much ball.

You may be right, but you say this like these opponents were new to us. We have played very well against both Wales and Australia and beaten them regularly in recent history, playing much the same pack as we have in the last couple of weeks against very similar looking lineups to what faced us here.

There are obviously some big problems with England at the moment but the core of the team should not be one of them

lostinwales wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:There is a danger of mistaking the presence (and role) of a couple of exceptional players for a trend which must be followed (currently the open side flanker thing). It can end up like the 'pick a league player and he'll be brilliant' thing which followed Jason Robinson's time, or the 'pick a huge winger and he'll play like Lomu' thing

I agree, however Lancaster has known for a number of years that his main competition in this RWC group contained breakdown operators like the Pooper combo and Warbs/Tipuric.

He had this time to try and blood a specialist open side and he didn't do it. I believe he can do more with England however he needed to be stuborn in the sense he should have backed the kind of rugby that England were playing in the 6N but also adaptable to realize that his loose forwards weren't turning over much ball.

You may be right, but you say this like these opponents were new to us. We have played very well against both Wales and Australia and beaten them regularly in recent history, playing much the same pack as we have in the last couple of weeks against very similar looking lineups to what faced us here.

There are obviously some big problems with England at the moment but the core of the team should not be one of them

Perhaps it's a psychological issue, as you have stated none of these teams nor their setups are new to you (aside from an Ozzie scrum that has some serious teeth now). However what you're not taking into account is the insane levels of pressure that were being heaped on this very young England squad.

The pressure isn't the only reason England are out but it was hardly conducive to team morale.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:There is a danger of mistaking the presence (and role) of a couple of exceptional players for a trend which must be followed (currently the open side flanker thing). It can end up like the 'pick a league player and he'll be brilliant' thing which followed Jason Robinson's time, or the 'pick a huge winger and he'll play like Lomu' thing

I agree, however Lancaster has known for a number of years that his main competition in this RWC group contained breakdown operators like the Pooper combo and Warbs/Tipuric.

He had this time to try and blood a specialist open side and he didn't do it. I believe he can do more with England however he needed to be stuborn in the sense he should have backed the kind of rugby that England were playing in the 6N but also adaptable to realize that his loose forwards weren't turning over much ball.

You may be right, but you say this like these opponents were new to us. We have played very well against both Wales and Australia and beaten them regularly in recent history, playing much the same pack as we have in the last couple of weeks against very similar looking lineups to what faced us here.

There are obviously some big problems with England at the moment but the core of the team should not be one of them

Perhaps it's a psychological issue, as you have stated none of these teams nor their setups are new to you (aside from an Ozzie scrum that has some serious teeth now). However what you're not taking into account is the insane levels of pressure that were being heaped on this very young England squad.

The pressure isn't the only reason England are out but it was hardly conducive to team morale.

The pressure has to have been a huge factor. We have had issues with injuries just like everyone else, and we had the Burgess experiment which was not a failure (although a big distraction).

But we started by moving away from what was looking to have been a very exciting and positive style of play in the 6N (rather than just tweaking), and despite some good moments have shown very little at the toughest times. Youngest team at the RWC and it has shown. Failure of leadership from Lancaster down, with huge pressure in particular on the shoulders of Robshaw, and not enough character on the pitch to help him out.

RuggerRadge - we will have to just agree to disagree.

It is not who England picked at 7 - and remember Robshaw has not converted as such, he has been 7 for almost all his career - but how England ask the team to play.

For 60 minutes Warburton was a virtual non-entity against us as our pack was on the front foot. Against Australia the situation was reversed. It happens sometimes - after all less than a year ago hooper looked a pointless luxury as Australia lost at Twickenham.


People bang on about what a natural openside is - and then constantly contradict themselves. There are several different styles of playing there - Hooper is different to McCaw, who is different to Warburton etc.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

That's a pretty subjective comment. Their ability can only be measured by who they play against. However based on what you are saying everything is rosy and England don't need a "fetcher". In that case why is there such a clamor in the media and on these boards for someone like Armitage?

The french play their flankers as a left and right flank and both play the same way.

However to say McCaw is an all rounder I would say isn't exactly true. Kaino tends to be the chopper, McCaw when he isn't refereeing the breakdown has his hands on the ball and Reid Carries. The same pattern is repeated with just about all the other "top" sides in the world.

Ireland : O'Mahony as chopper, SOB as Fetcher and Heaslip as carrier.

Wales : Lydiate as chopper, Warbs as fetcher and Faletau as carrier.

Scotland : Strauss as chopper, Hardie or Cowan as Fetcher and Denton as carrier

Argentina : Matera as chopper, Lobbe as fetcher and  Senatore as a carrier.

South Africa : Brussow as a Fetcher, Louw as an all rounder I suppose and Duane Crown Prince of Asguard as a carrier

Australia do seem to play with 2 fetchers and that doesn't do them any harm.


It does seem to me from that non exhaustive list that England lack a very good breakdown/turnover specialist. You can win without one, but when the Ozzies were turing over England ball at will I'm pretty sure Lancaster would be realising the magnitude of his error in not including a proper scavenger.

That's not to say all those players I mentioned put blinkers on to all other duties, but in terms of backrow balance I disagree that the names you listed are all rounders.

A lot of this is just incorrect and a very simplistic view of things. That isn't how the modern international game of rugby works, and the only combination you have correctly listed are Wales. Even there, Faletau is a complete all-rounder and so is Warburton.

As for the rest, O'Mahony is most definitely not a chopper and usually makes the least tackles in the back row. Our back row share roles but currently they aren't performing adequately. Brussow doesn't start for SA. Duane Vermeulen again is an all-rounder and fantastic on the deck. For NZ McCaw is usually very high on the tackle count and carries, that is ignored for some strange reason. And surely as a Scotland fan you would know that Strauss is often used for his robust carries and putting his team on the front foot.

So yes, all in all, this chopper/fetcher/carrier business is just totally outdated and incorrect. You need 3 players who can do all of these things to a reasonably high level, and you need them to be balanced, which also needs to take the rest of the pack into consideration.

EDIT: I could have dissected this a lot more, but this should be enough to show your views on the roles of the back row are incorrect.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

That's a pretty subjective comment. Their ability can only be measured by who they play against. However based on what you are saying everything is rosy and England don't need a "fetcher". In that case why is there such a clamor in the media and on these boards for someone like Armitage?

The french play their flankers as a left and right flank and both play the same way.

However to say McCaw is an all rounder I would say isn't exactly true. Kaino tends to be the chopper, McCaw when he isn't refereeing the breakdown has his hands on the ball and Reid Carries. The same pattern is repeated with just about all the other "top" sides in the world.

Ireland : O'Mahony as chopper, SOB as Fetcher and Heaslip as carrier.

Wales : Lydiate as chopper, Warbs as fetcher and Faletau as carrier.

Scotland : Strauss as chopper, Hardie or Cowan as Fetcher and Denton as carrier

Argentina : Matera as chopper, Lobbe as fetcher and  Senatore as a carrier.

South Africa : Brussow as a Fetcher, Louw as an all rounder I suppose and Duane Crown Prince of Asguard as a carrier

Australia do seem to play with 2 fetchers and that doesn't do them any harm.


It does seem to me from that non exhaustive list that England lack a very good breakdown/turnover specialist. You can win without one, but when the Ozzies were turing over England ball at will I'm pretty sure Lancaster would be realising the magnitude of his error in not including a proper scavenger.

That's not to say all those players I mentioned put blinkers on to all other duties, but in terms of backrow balance I disagree that the names you listed are all rounders.

A lot of this is just incorrect and a very simplistic view of things. That isn't how the modern international game of rugby works, and the only combination you have correctly listed are Wales. Even there, Faletau is a complete all-rounder and so is Warburton.

As for the rest, O'Mahony is most definitely not a chopper and usually makes the least tackles in the back row. Our back row share roles but currently they aren't performing adequately. Brussow doesn't start for SA. Duane Vermeulen again is an all-rounder and fantastic on the deck. For NZ McCaw is usually very high on the tackle count and carries, that is ignored for some strange reason. And surely as a Scotland fan you would know that Strauss is often used for his robust carries and putting his team on the front foot.

So yes, all in all, this chopper/fetcher/carrier business is just totally outdated and incorrect. You need 3 players who can do all of these things to a reasonably high level, and you need them to be balanced, which also needs to take the rest of the pack into consideration.

EDIT: I could have dissected this a lot more, but this should be enough to show your views on the roles of the back row are incorrect.

Your condescending nature aside, that is a lot of opinions, same as my post.

I didn't intend to be condescending (I do apologise) but I do completely disagree with your analysis of the back row. You can check the statistics which back up what I have said, if viewing isn't satisfactory to see that pretty much none of the international back row combinations you have listed operate in that way.

The modern back row forward will generally be adept at all areas of the game. Generally however, the openside is more mobile so that he can reach the breakdown quicker, the blindside is bigger to make the carries/tackles and be a line-out option and the number 8 is a skilful player who is good with ball in hand and adept at the back of the scrum. It just depends on the team, the pack and the tactics. All 3 will be carrying, fetching and tackling and all must be good at it. Some better than others.

An example for Ireland would be that all 3 of our back row forwards are excellent at stealing opposition ball, but the player who probably is the best at it is (pun not intended) Rory Best. I don't care what number is on his back when he is making the turnovers. Some players are just better at it than others, and sometimes they aren't even in the pack (Bastareaud is particularly good on the deck).

Rory talks a lot of sense

How this applies to England would be that their pack in general seems all over the place. There is a total lack of balance at the set-piece and in open play. Robshaw is as much of an openside flanker as anyone considering he has played there at the top level for years now, but the truth is there are just better players in the world than him. He is also a little bulky for his position, and other players may be quicker to the breakdown. However, having a solid and functional pack (including the back row) will compensate for this.

The point was made by someone earlier in the week that England have a mobile tight five and a bulkier back row. Which is a bit strange, and leaves things a little imbalanced I think. Launchberry isn't the most mobile lock around, but I would say he adds a huge amount to the pack and it is silly to drop him because they prefer "mobility". For some teams, having a big intimidating pack might actually be the better option anyway and I always thought England were best when they had that. Especially if they have a smaller and quicker back-line. Right now I think they are caught between 2 minds and are therefore not very effective.

I think we wait until Ireland face a decent side. They were almost beaten by Italy (who are awful, even when they raise their game). The idea that Ireland have 'gears' is very hopeful.

I don't know what Ireland will be like against France honestly. I would be lying if I didn't say I am very nervous...

I would say Launchbury was very mobile. And should go on to be a world class player.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:I don't know what Ireland will be like against France honestly. I would be lying if I didn't say I am very nervous...

Interesting. Most Irish fans seem to think that the side has about three gears to improve, Schmidt is holding it all back and the World Cup is in the bag. Maybe you're more realistic.

Maybe it's your take on them Cyril but the ones I have talked to in and around Cardiff in the real world not the tinter web are by no means over confident.

A lot are worried they may have peaked a bit to soon and are very nervous ahead of this weekend.

Cyril wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:I don't know what Ireland will be like against France honestly. I would be lying if I didn't say I am very nervous...

Interesting. Most Irish fans seem to think that the side has about three gears to improve, Schmidt is holding it all back and the World Cup is in the bag. Maybe you're more realistic.

Most Irish fans think no such thing - if you want to believe that go ahead but it is utter rubbish.

Most Irish fans do recognise we need to up our game to progress, by the same token we have the ability to do so and have done so in the past
So it is a mixture of realistic expectation and nervousness.

GeordieFalcon wrote:I would say Launchbury was very mobile. And should go on to be a world class player.

I wrote on here 18 months ago or just after the NZ game that you should make him Captain and build your team around him. He's a rare talent and consistent.

Cyril wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:I don't know what Ireland will be like against France honestly. I would be lying if I didn't say I am very nervous...

Interesting. Most Irish fans seem to think that the side has about three gears to improve, Schmidt is holding it all back and the World Cup is in the bag. Maybe you're more realistic.

I think we have 3 gears for sure, Murray and Sexton have been holding back on those high balls/box kicks and can kick them even higher.

The opposition can doubt us at their peril.

Confirmation of some of the rumours of an unhappy squad environment "England have confirmed there was a training ground incident involving Mike Catt and Danny Cipriani but insist it was resolved swiftly"
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/oct/07/england-danny-cipriani-mike-catt-bust-up

Cyril wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:I don't know what Ireland will be like against France honestly. I would be lying if I didn't say I am very nervous...

Interesting. Most Irish fans seem to think that the side has about three gears to improve, Schmidt is holding it all back and the World Cup is in the bag. Maybe you're more realistic.

Where are you reading those 'Most' Irish fans, Cyril? Certainly not on the threads I'm contributing to or reading.

It's all a game of Maybes.
Maybe the ABs are truly down on their form and are beatable. Maybe they have smooth gears they're not even trying at this point and bluffing the opponents into a growing false sense of security.
Maybe France aren't now the joke many of you felt they were coming into this WC.
Maybe Wales will shaft Super-Wallabies and bring their pretensions down to earth with a bang.
Maybe South Africa is coming darkly under the radar and nobody is even bothering to watch them.
Maybe Joe Schmidt IS holding back a few gears.

Realism is the truth. The truth ain't happened yet.

Maybe it isn't a crime to believe in your side until they offer you no reasons for doing so anymore?

SecretFly wrote:
Maybe South Africa is coming darkly under the radar and nobody is even bothering to watch them.

I am!

Not having an out and out fetcher at 7 for England is fine if you have other players who can do the job.  But England seem to have things arse about face as they rely on a big heavy weight no8 to do the ball carrying and a tighthead and second row to do the breakdown work.  Neither Faletau or Heaslip fall into the heavy weight no8 mould, although both are good ball carriers.

Not having an out and out fetcher at 7 for England is fine if you are dominating the forward battle and are on the front foot.  The simple fact was, when we either lost this control as against Wales from the 60th minute, or from minute 1 against Australia, then the balance of our backrow did not work.  England can't go into a world cup and expect to dominate teams like they do Australia in mid world cup cycles and that that will let them get away with a sub standard back row.  Come the big games - the 6 Nations deciders, or the world cup games against top 6 sides - England have consistently come up short over the last 12 years, with one win against NZ to justify our high opinion of ourselves.

The thing I don't get is that England haven't had a heavy pack compared with other teams, yet our forwards look slow and tubby by comparison.

SecretFly,

We can only judge the teams based on how they have performed so far in the tournament.
History has proven that the winners never hold back in any shape or form; however, that isn't to say that the pathway to ultimate success isn't always a smooth ride. That's part of the test. It would be crazy to purposely perform below par at any stage of the competition. No team can afford to do that.

It would be pretentious to have a team think they would deliberately hold back and hide some massive gear shift in their ability to deliver at the highest level - especially when they haven't achieved anything yet on the world stage. If they do in fact completely transform themselves in the space of a week or so I will be truly amazed. It will definitely be a world first.

On the contrary, I can only feel that they are adding considerably more pressure on themselves to pull some magical performance out of the hat. France will want to lift their game too but you'd never hear them mention that they have something up their sleeve which will suddenly manifest itself on game day. They will probably just come out and do it... or not.

I think Englands pack were just a little out of form to be honest. And they looked a little jaded.

Marler and Cole were a shadow of themselves. Lawes again looked lacking a lot of power.

I do feel the set up of the pack is just not quite right though.

rodders wrote:

Cyril wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:I don't know what Ireland will be like against France honestly. I would be lying if I didn't say I am very nervous...

Interesting. Most Irish fans seem to think that the side has about three gears to improve, Schmidt is holding it all back and the World Cup is in the bag. Maybe you're more realistic.

I think we have 3 gears for sure, Murray and Sexton have been holding back on those high balls/box kicks and can kick them even higher.

The opposition can doubt us at their peril.

Only 3 gears?

Surely that devastating move where Sexton goes on the loop and throws it into a teammate's face (or get charged down) can be further refined. Ireland only try it about 47 times a game!

Sorry, I forgot, they're doing that on purpose as they don't want to 'show their hand' too early.

Cyril wrote:

rodders wrote:

Cyril wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:I don't know what Ireland will be like against France honestly. I would be lying if I didn't say I am very nervous...

Interesting. Most Irish fans seem to think that the side has about three gears to improve, Schmidt is holding it all back and the World Cup is in the bag. Maybe you're more realistic.

I think we have 3 gears for sure, Murray and Sexton have been holding back on those high balls/box kicks and can kick them even higher.

The opposition can doubt us at their peril.

Only 3 gears?

Surely that devastating move where Sexton goes on the loop and throws it into a teammate's face (or get charged down) can be further refined. Ireland only try it about 47 times a game!

Sorry, I forgot, they're doing that on purpose as they don't want to 'show their hand' too early.

Well Schmidt has analyzed that the pitch at Twickenham is 0.9mm wider so there is a power play where Sexton does an additional loop before throwing the ball to Tommy Bowe's face that we've been holding back.

rodders wrote:

Cyril wrote:

rodders wrote:

Cyril wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:I don't know what Ireland will be like against France honestly. I would be lying if I didn't say I am very nervous...

Interesting. Most Irish fans seem to think that the side has about three gears to improve, Schmidt is holding it all back and the World Cup is in the bag. Maybe you're more realistic.

I think we have 3 gears for sure, Murray and Sexton have been holding back on those high balls/box kicks and can kick them even higher.

The opposition can doubt us at their peril.

Only 3 gears?

Surely that devastating move where Sexton goes on the loop and throws it into a teammate's face (or get charged down) can be further refined. Ireland only try it about 47 times a game!

Sorry, I forgot, they're doing that on purpose as they don't want to 'show their hand' too early.

Well Schmidt has analyzed that the pitch at Twickenham is 0.9mm wider so there is a power play where Sexton does an additional loop before throwing the ball to Tommy Bowe's face that we've been holding back.  

I look forward to seeing that one, rodders. I think being hit in the face by the ball is currently Bowe's best chance of making an impact 

All part of the masterplan Cyril - Bowe's been practicing taking them in the face all summer.

The Loaded Dog wrote:SecretFly,

We can only judge the teams based on how they have performed so far in the tournament.
History has proven that the winners never hold back in any shape or form; however, that isn't to say that the pathway to ultimate success isn't always a smooth ride. That's part of the test. It would be crazy to purposely perform below par at any stage of the competition. No team can afford to do that.

It would be pretentious to have a team think they would deliberately hold back and hide some massive gear shift in their ability to deliver at the highest level - especially when they haven't achieved anything yet on the world stage. If they do in fact completely transform themselves in the space of a week or so I will be truly amazed. It will definitely be a world first.

On the contrary, I can only feel that they are adding considerably more pressure on themselves to pull some magical performance out of the hat. France will want to lift their game too but you'd never hear them mention that they have something up their sleeve which will suddenly manifest itself on game day. They will probably just come out and do it... or not.

You seriously think New Zealand's last game was their best effort? Their best World Cup effort? An effort they'd give to let's say SA or Australia in a semi-final or final?  Loaded, they were guffing and holding their A game back - both in intensity they'll bring to an A game and probably too in tactics.  I just can't believe that people watch rugby for years and still believe that a side like the ABs try their very hardest in all games.  They don't. Fact.

Neither does France, now that you're talking about them.  It's us, as fans, that are wondering about the stuff up the sleeves.  The team aren't saying anything much about it, that's us trying to make sense of our form and perhaps clutching at the familiar straws of any bunch of fans that want their team to play well.

But to suggest Ireland will naturally turn up now and play like they did against Italy, just because that's the way they played in their last game, is as illogical as saying they have a perfect plan that will win every time they choose to use it.
Teams DO try little tricks of disguising what they might do in a future game against stronger opposition.  They do.  Not always and not necessarily in a big way.  But it happens.

HammerofThunor wrote:Have you actually looked at how much game time they get at their clubs? Because it's often commented on at U20 level that the English players are more experienced at top domestic level then their counter-parts.

Is that time (again) where I need to look back at the number of club caps our U20 players have compared with their Welsh/Scottish/Irish equivalent?

Mate, trying to respond to your PM, but you don't allow PMs back, can you PM me a way of answering you please?

Thanks

SecretFly wrote:

The Loaded Dog wrote:SecretFly,

We can only judge the teams based on how they have performed so far in the tournament.
History has proven that the winners never hold back in any shape or form; however, that isn't to say that the pathway to ultimate success isn't always a smooth ride. That's part of the test. It would be crazy to purposely perform below par at any stage of the competition. No team can afford to do that.

It would be pretentious to have a team think they would deliberately hold back and hide some massive gear shift in their ability to deliver at the highest level - especially when they haven't achieved anything yet on the world stage. If they do in fact completely transform themselves in the space of a week or so I will be truly amazed. It will definitely be a world first.

On the contrary, I can only feel that they are adding considerably more pressure on themselves to pull some magical performance out of the hat. France will want to lift their game too but you'd never hear them mention that they have something up their sleeve which will suddenly manifest itself on game day. They will probably just come out and do it... or not.

You seriously think New Zealand's last game was their best effort? Their best World Cup effort?  An effort they'd give to let's say SA or Australia in a semi-final or final?  Loaded, they were guffing and holding their A game back - both in intensity they'll bring to an A game and probably too in tactics.  I just can't believe that people watch rugby for years and still believe that a side like the ABs try their very hardest in all games.  They don't. Fact.

Neither does France, now that you're talking about them.  It's us, as fans, that are wondering about the stuff up the sleeves.  The team aren't saying anything much about it, that's us trying to make sense of our form and perhaps clutching at the familiar straws of any bunch of fans that want their team to play well.

But to suggest Ireland will naturally turn up now and play like they did against Italy, just because that's the way they played in their last game, is as illogical as saying they have a perfect plan that will win every time they choose to use it.
Teams DO try little tricks of disguising what they might do in a future game against stronger opposition.  They do.  Not always and not necessarily in a big way.  But it happens.

NZ banned tactically kicking against Georgia. Doesn't explain all their handling errors but that was not a realistic look at them

Ireland banned scoring tries against Italy but that numpty Earls wasn't listening as usual.

rodders wrote:Ireland banned scoring tries against Italy but that numpty Earls wasn't listening as usual.

Is that why Carter kicked the ball dead!

Now we're beginning to talk sense.

No fly, I simply think the ABs after a hot start lost the plot for the majority of the game until just before the end. I'm pretty sure it wasn't planned that way. Some credit to Georgia too for being able to have the guts to try and compete. I think that's what caught the kiwis off guard.
Put another way; if they had been playing Australia or Ireland... they would most likely have played much, much better.

As regards France; OK, I understand that some fans are thinking and saying things like that.
Or perhaps it is a way of coping with the build up to the game. Some wishful thinking/humour.
The more sane ones (in my opinion) are a little concerned (hoping that will be the case) but are not so bold to put it out there in cyberspace.

I agree with you. Ireland will most likely not play as badly as they did against Italy when they meet France.
As for little tricks... yes (depends what ones though) but certainly not a concealed upgrade from a Ford Focus to a Toyota Hilux.

The Loaded Dog wrote:Some credit to Georgia too for being able to have the guts to try and compete. I think that's what caught the kiwis off guard.
Put another way; if they had been playing Australia or Ireland... they would most likely have played much, much better.

There you go. ABs came to play a team a certain way, based on the supposed ability of that team. They certainly weren't pumped to play Georgia at an intensity level they'd save for better sides. They were ready to win comfortably and as they said themselves (I only paraphrase: "we tried a few things out to keep the opposition guessing about what we'd do later down the line"

Holding back.

On the Focus v the Hilux? Jesus, I'm expecting a better upgrade than either of those two

Correction: "hoping for".

This place is so sensitive these day that fans still in the thing can't even sound hopeful that their fortunes might improve. It's deemed arrogance and a contemptible over-belief in a thing called hope.

I think 1 aspect people fail to factor in when facing teams like Georgia is that they are so unorthodox and unpredictable and hence it is very difficult to plan for some things that go on during the game. I'm sure NZ would have found it much easier to play a traditional nation where they knew what they were up against. The Georgians just got to places where most NH teams would have just stood back. They were disruptive and forced a lot of errors which is a great credit to them.

Maybe they simply didn't do their homework properly. Only so much they could gleam from videos; perhaps they overlooked the reality of the actual physical contact with a relatively unknown bunch of hard-as-nails die hard Georgians? (edit: as Ruby alludes to above)

There you go... "hoping for", "expecting". Make your bloody mind up!

Why don't you just move the goalposts? That would save us all a lot of "confusion".  





btw, why have we hijacked this thread? l*l

I think NZ underestimated the Georgians and weren't prepared mentally for a tough game.

More importantly, just how many tabloids will run with the headlines that Hansen or McCaw has "Georgia on his mind"?

RubyGuby wrote:I think 1 aspect people fail to factor in when facing teams like Georgia is that they are so unorthodox and unpredictable and hence it is very difficult to plan for some things that go on during the game. I'm sure NZ would have found it much easier to play a traditional nation where they knew what they were up against. The Georgians just got to places where most NH teams would have just stood back. They were disruptive and forced a lot of errors which is a great credit to them.

Yeah, it's kind of like playing Whist with my kid brother

The Loaded Dog wrote:
btw, why have we hijacked this thread? l*l

I think we've been over every reason we're out multiple times so feel free to hijack....

Seeing as we're going off topic, can someone tell me what my wife sees in Chris Hemsworth?