The Blame Game My Thoughts on the RWC,Englands Future and everything

First topic message reminder :

Firstly my Bonafides I`m an Anglo-Scot and proud of my Countries teams,BUT my Primary team is the All Blacks since 1953-4.
I`m Alan/aka Emack/aka Emack2 and have profound knowledge of Rugby,especially SH in General ,NZ in particular. I don`t
follow Club/Provincial/or even NH tests except at a peripheral level.
I have been sickened by the media witch hunt,tweets by players,both in or not in the Squad and the cries for Coaches Blood
when everyone should get behind the team.
As an All Black fan who road the halcyon days 1950-69 when they lost one series in 20years,the dark days of the 70`s,slow
recovery in the 80`s patchy 90`s.1998,2009 .I can emphasize "Chokers","4 more years""Home Town Bullies" etc.
In 2004 they lost a squad,,in 2008 a whole squad they rebuilt and moved on NZ have the best team and the worst media in
Rugby.John Hart,Grizz Wyllie,Robbie Deans all great coaches dumped in knee jerk reactions.Graham Henry only being re-elected
because Deans was tainted by 2003.
In 2009 in an injury riddled year lost 3 times to SA and a trophy to France "The Gang of three were under fire the reaction
Thrashing the French at the end of the year,a 6-0 2010 campaign a loss to OZ in Hong Kong,and 2 in 2011,a solid RWC win
v Oz,2012 =6-0 again.England loss 2012,followed an unbeaten 2013.Each loss an inspiration to settle the score.
Under Lancaster England had a good record v NH sides the last 3 -6Ns being decided by points difference so there was
little between most NH sides.
Injuries to some extent and off field activies effected selections BUT the style that had proved successful in most games
2012-15.Suddenly became a defensive no loss rather than try to win attitude which probably cost the Wales game.
This RWC has shown that teams with nothing to lose can be a handful especially if the offside law isn`t applied the
standard is such 150 points thrashing don`t happen.
The unfair 4/5 day turnaround has increased injuries ,reduced recovery times,has cost points/matches.
The laws exist in black and white BUT every Ref I`ve seen so far has applied them differently.
England v Australia injuries to both sides may have affected the result to some extent and Hooper not
seeing Yellow at half time.Was huge 7 man Scrum,key man from breakdown when England were
firing.
Media expectations that purely on Home advantage England would win the Group,then reach the
final was naïve at best.That SH well organised sides wouldn't be able to play a running game in
the NH,.The pressure to pick a league Prop/6 still learning his trade in the centre instead of
dedicated 12 beggars belief[what ever his undoubted skills.
As to the Aus match,congratulations to them by the way,personally when given penalties would have
kicked for goal to slow things down.Been in the Refs ear about Scrum going early and deliberate
bodies at the base of every breakdown.Would have pulled Marler after the first Scrum Penalty
if the Ref thinks your at it he`ll do it every time[Steve Walsh]
The future get a settled game plan,select players who can execute it,one game at a time a more
mobile back row.More care to be seen to be legal at the set piece,better discipline.
I`d be inclined to Keep Lancaster but look at the other coaches and aim to win 6Ns and
thrash Aus next time they meet.

TJ wrote:

fa0019 wrote:..............................

Jonny is certainly better than Richie who tends to get lost in matches. He's a good player from when I've seen him in test rugby. I don't see much else outside of his defensive work but yeah his lineout work is good also.

Its all opinion based anyhow.

One person says x is good and then everyone comes in saying no way... my player is better, no my player is better. Its an opinion in the end.

Lots of good 4s out there.  I rate launchbury not out of anything bar his tendancy to raise his game in the big matches and his lack of putting in poor performances. I can't recall ever seeing him play badly. I can do that however with many other players in the same position.  Cosistency is very high.

I agree he is a very good player  ( launchbury)  but it was the hyperbolic "best" I took issue with.  I agree its all opinions.

I base my assertions on the fact I'd play launchbury in the bok team right now over Etzebeth. I wouldn't pick Jonny over Etzebeth, I myself wouldn't take Jones.... I know he has a lot of supporters amongst the welsh contingent but its my opinion only. Sometimes I think my opinions are valid (as in I said England would suffer big time at set piece leading up to RWC even before their warm up games) sometimes I say things like Ryan Kankowski will be the next Zinzan (actually said so on the old site)... It happens.

There's no need to make personal digs fa.

Fair enough if you think Launchbury is competant beshocked, I rate him higher than that. Probably the stand out lock in England all the same.

Heaf wrote:And Australia faced Fiji after they'd only had 4 days off (arguably a more important match)

FFS mun....

Yes we all know what the scheduling was like for the group, we know how we were all hamstrung with short turnarounds, but England were not. This is what we are saying. They knew that they would have all their games at the same time each week after a full weeks preparation and rest, and the coaches still messed up.

Don't put your team down so much LD. Wales are still a very good side.

fa0019 wrote:

TJ wrote:

fa0019 wrote:..............................

Jonny is certainly better than Richie who tends to get lost in matches. He's a good player from when I've seen him in test rugby. I don't see much else outside of his defensive work but yeah his lineout work is good also.

Its all opinion based anyhow.

One person says x is good and then everyone comes in saying no way... my player is better, no my player is better. Its an opinion in the end.

Lots of good 4s out there.  I rate launchbury not out of anything bar his tendancy to raise his game in the big matches and his lack of putting in poor performances. I can't recall ever seeing him play badly. I can do that however with many other players in the same position.  Cosistency is very high.

I agree he is a very good player  ( launchbury)  but it was the hyperbolic "best" I took issue with.  I agree its all opinions.

I base my assertions on the fact I'd play launchbury in the bok team right now over Etzebeth. I wouldn't pick Jonny over Etzebeth, I myself wouldn't take Jones.... I know he has a lot of supporters amongst the welsh contingent but its my opinion only. Sometimes I think my opinions are valid (as in I said England would suffer big time at set piece leading up to RWC even before their warm up games) sometimes I say things like Ryan Kankowski will be the next Zinzan (actually said so on the old site)... It happens.

sorry Dude - when Launchbury has a record like ickle Jonnys then you can say he is a better player. Iclkle Jonny is perhaps the only world class player we have in Scotland but he is the real deal. You need to see him play a bit more.

LordDowlais wrote:

Heaf wrote:And Australia faced Fiji after they'd only had 4 days off (arguably a more important match)

FFS mun....

Yes we all know what the scheduling was like for the group, we know how we were all hamstrung with short turnarounds, but England were not. This is what we are saying. They knew that they would have all their games at the same time each week after a full weeks preparation and rest, and the coaches still messed up.

Its not completely black and white LD

Yes England had the most days off 7,6 & 6 compared to 5,4 & 8 of Wales and 3,5 & 6 of AUS.

However

England had only 6 days between their 2 big games. Aus too have 6 days. Wales on the other hand have had 13.

Uruguay is a throw away game. It doesn't really count. Fiji does I agree. Put them in and its the following

England 7 & 6 rest days between their 3 matches (of which the 2 big ones are 6 days apart).
Wales 4 & 8 rest days between their 3 matches (of which the 2 big ones are 13 days apart).
Australia 8 & 6 rest days between their 3 matches (of which the 2 big ones are 6 days apart).

Is England's line up to the matches any better??? wouldn't really say so.

TJ wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

TJ wrote:

fa0019 wrote:..............................

Jonny is certainly better than Richie who tends to get lost in matches. He's a good player from when I've seen him in test rugby. I don't see much else outside of his defensive work but yeah his lineout work is good also.

Its all opinion based anyhow.

One person says x is good and then everyone comes in saying no way... my player is better, no my player is better. Its an opinion in the end.

Lots of good 4s out there.  I rate launchbury not out of anything bar his tendancy to raise his game in the big matches and his lack of putting in poor performances. I can't recall ever seeing him play badly. I can do that however with many other players in the same position.  Cosistency is very high.

I agree he is a very good player  ( launchbury)  but it was the hyperbolic "best" I took issue with.  I agree its all opinions.

I base my assertions on the fact I'd play launchbury in the bok team right now over Etzebeth. I wouldn't pick Jonny over Etzebeth, I myself wouldn't take Jones.... I know he has a lot of supporters amongst the welsh contingent but its my opinion only. Sometimes I think my opinions are valid (as in I said England would suffer big time at set piece leading up to RWC even before their warm up games) sometimes I say things like Ryan Kankowski will be the next Zinzan (actually said so on the old site)... It happens.

sorry Dude - when Launchbury has a record like ickle Jonnys then you can say he is a better player.  Iclkle Jonny is perhaps the only world class player we have in Scotland but he is the real deal.  You need to see him play a bit more.

How do you think he did vs. the boks?

fa0019 wrote:Wales on the other hand have had 13.

Where have you plucked that figure from ?

Wales played Uruguay on the Sunday and then played England on the following Saturday = 5 days of rest and preparation.

Wales then played England on the Saturday then played Fiji on the Thursday = 4 days rest and preparation

We now play Australia on Saturday and that has given us a nice 9 day period of rest and preparation.

Not in one single time have I seen a 13 day period.

Also, to not give Fiji any credit for not being a big game smacks of arrogance.

Read what he said. 13 days between the two big games (which I'm assuming is Wales/England/Australia).

Personally would have preferred Australia's schedule but nothing to do with us going out.

LordDowlais wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Wales on the other hand have had 13.

Where have you plucked that figure from ?

Wales played Uruguay on the Sunday and then played England on the following Saturday = 5 days of rest and preparation.

Wales then played England on the Saturday then played Fiji on the Thursday = 4 days rest and preparation

We now play Australia on Saturday and that has given us a nice 9 day period of rest and preparation.

Not in one single time have I seen a 13 day period.

Also, to not give Fiji any credit for not being a big game smacks of arrogance.

They had 13 days between England And Australia.

I said, its not as easy as saying each match is equal to the other. Uruguay is not a serious match. No team (should) play their first team for instance. If the coach does then that's his decision.
When you take Uruguay out of the equation it certainly evens it up a bit.

LordDowlais wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Wales on the other hand have had 13.

Where have you plucked that figure from ?

Wales played Uruguay on the Sunday and then played England on the following Saturday = 5 days of rest and preparation.

Wales then played England on the Saturday then played Fiji on the Thursday = 4 days rest and preparation

We now play Australia on Saturday and that has given us a nice 9 day period of rest and preparation.

Not in one single time have I seen a 13 day period.

Also, to not give Fiji any credit for not being a big game smacks of arrogance.

smacks of arroance right

so you didn't read the following

England 7 & 6 rest days between their 3 matches (of which the 2 big ones are 6 days apart).
Wales 4 & 8 rest days between their 3 matches (of which the 2 big ones are 13 days apart).
Australia 8 & 6 rest days between their 3 matches (of which the 2 big ones are 6 days apart).

seriously was the red dragon mist so strong that you didn't bother to read the actual post??? Fiji strongish...but they didn't get a single point out of their matches with England, Wales or Australia. Their schedule was slightly unfavourable...but only slighty.

HammerofThunor wrote:Read what he said. 13 days between the two big games (which I'm assuming is Wales/England/Australia).

Personally would have preferred Australia's schedule but nothing to do with us going out.

So we are just forgetting about Fiji then ? As if they do not matter and were not worth preparing for, also, that game took nothing out of the players. Oh well, I stand corrected then. How silly of me.

LordDowlais wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Read what he said. 13 days between the two big games (which I'm assuming is Wales/England/Australia).

Personally would have preferred Australia's schedule but nothing to do with us going out.

So we are just forgetting about Fiji then ? As if they do not matter and were not worth preparing for, also, that game took nothing out of the players. Oh well, I stand corrected then. How silly of me.

read post directly above yours.... then go back to original post LD.

A bit hesitant commenting here as I'll readily admit I don't have the depth of Rugby knowledge of many of the people on here. But :

First I think emack's original post makes a lot of sense. Opinions will naturally differ but I've always got more time for reasoned analysis than simplistic calling for heads...

Once England Wales and Australia (not to mention Fiji) were drawn together it was clear a good team was going out in the pool stage. Not necessarily a "humiliation" for the one who missed out. Just a disappointment.

Australia - to my eyes - played a blinder. A few errors ; but generally excellent throughout. England would have had to be at their top to win that match. On the other hand England should probably have beaten Wales. I reckon they tightened up , basically - and of course Wales , with nothing to lose , came home with wonderful spirit and edged it. Happens.

Lancaster seems to me has done a decent job developing a team , for which this World Cup has perhaps come a year or so early. I do think it fair to criticise him though ; primarily for not being quite sure (1) What his best team was ; and (2) How he wanted them to play. Given the nature of this tournament I think he really should have been more decisive - or at least , projected a feeling of decisiveness ; because I don't really think he did. And I suspect this washed over a bit into the team. In his defence , injuries and off-field indiscretions probably messed his plans around a bit. So some good , some bad. Whether he stays on or not I leave to people who know more about the game than I.

Sorry to see England go out. But I am happy enough supporting Wales as far as they can now go...

fa0019 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Read what he said. 13 days between the two big games (which I'm assuming is Wales/England/Australia).

Personally would have preferred Australia's schedule but nothing to do with us going out.

So we are just forgetting about Fiji then ? As if they do not matter and were not worth preparing for, also, that game took nothing out of the players. Oh well, I stand corrected then. How silly of me.

read post directly above yours.... then go back to original post LD.

I have, and at no point do we have a 13 day rest between big games. England,Australia AND Fiji are ALL big games for us.

alfie wrote:A bit hesitant commenting here as I'll readily admit I don't have the depth of Rugby knowledge of many of the people on here. But :

First I think emack's original post makes a lot of sense.  Opinions will naturally differ but I've always got more time for reasoned analysis than simplistic calling for heads...

Once England Wales and Australia (not to mention Fiji) were drawn together it was clear a good team was going out in the pool stage.  Not necessarily a "humiliation" for the one who missed out. Just a disappointment.

Australia - to my eyes - played a blinder. A few errors ; but generally excellent throughout. England would have had to be at their top to win that match.   On the other hand England should probably have beaten Wales.  I reckon they tightened up , basically - and of course Wales , with nothing to lose , came home with wonderful spirit and edged it. Happens.

Lancaster seems to me has done a decent job developing a team , for which this World Cup has perhaps come a year or so early.  I do think it fair to criticise him though ; primarily for not being quite sure (1) What his best team was ; and (2) How he wanted them to play.  Given the nature of this tournament  I think he really should have been more decisive - or at least  , projected a feeling of decisiveness ; because I don't really think he did.  And I suspect this washed over a bit into the team. In his defence , injuries and off-field indiscretions probably messed his plans around a bit. So some good , some bad. Whether he stays on or not I leave to people who know more about the game than I.

Sorry to see England go out.  But I am happy enough supporting Wales as far as they can now go...

Don't jump to that conclusion! Big difference between those who know what they are talking about and those who think they do. I think we for the most part fall into the latter category

I think though LD that the group could have been engineered more to give England an advantage. We would surely want Wales first up then to play Aus after they've had 3 days rest from their game against Wales?

I fail to see why this thread has rolled in to another day of bitterness, finger pointing and complaining about rest days!

England are out Wales and Aus are through what else is there to discuss, England made mistakes form the moment the squad was announced (most of us saw it) and the attacking/flair play book was shredded in favour of Andy Farrell's old Sarrie's game plan and tactics 'post-it note' he found under Owens bed when he was cleaning his bedroom.

Move on nothing to see her until the RFU investigation is completed.

Enjoy the rest of the RWC.

So not only did Wales get the longest rest period of any team in the group, but the well known bad starters also got to play the weakest team first up.  

LordDowlais wrote:This group could not have been organised to favour England any further.

LordDowlais wrote:this group could not have been engineered more to suit England.

LordDowlais wrote:I have a huge chip on my shoulder where England are concerned.

LordDowlais wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Read what he said. 13 days between the two big games (which I'm assuming is Wales/England/Australia).

Personally would have preferred Australia's schedule but nothing to do with us going out.

So we are just forgetting about Fiji then ? As if they do not matter and were not worth preparing for, also, that game took nothing out of the players. Oh well, I stand corrected then. How silly of me.

read post directly above yours.... then go back to original post LD.

I have, and at no point do we have a 13 day rest between big games. England,Australia AND Fiji are ALL big games for us.

well first off I didn't discard Fiji. I clearly said

England 7 & 6 rest days between their 3 matches (of which the 2 big ones are 6 days apart).
Wales 4 & 8 rest days between their 3 matches (of which the 2 big ones are 13 days apart).
Australia 8 & 6 rest days between their 3 matches (of which the 2 big ones are 6 days apart).

so no, wasn't arrogant.

Did I include Fiji in my big game assertion. No, and I stand by that given they didn't even get a single bonus point in either match. England got a try bonus point vs. them, Wales and Aus got 3 tries a piece and really should have got a fourth try. If a team doesn't get a single point in 3 matches and concedes try bonus points (or should) in all 3... do they deserve to be classified as a big team? IMO, no.

Taking out Uruguay and yes the record is England 13 days, Wales 12 and Australia 14 rest days between those 3 matches. Wales had to play Fiji 5 days after England but crucially they didn't have to play England or Australia 5 days after say Fiji and then they got 8 days rest for AUS.
I don't think thats unfair on Wales.

This was a simple retort to you suggesting England were gifted the best schedule and everyone else had to "take it". I simply don't think that was/is the case. It doesn't stand up. View things with context.

Grow up Hoonercat.

I have no beef with England, and I would much rather see them go through than Australia.
The thing is you are another Englishman with this everybody hates England attitude. Stop being so parochial. Not once have I said anything that was not true.

LD, would you not agree with England playing Wales first up then Aus 3 days after they (Aus) played Wales would be better for England?

fa0019 wrote:This was a simple retort to you suggesting England were gifted the best schedule and everyone else had to "take it". I simply don't think that was/is the case. It doesn't stand up. View things with context.

It does stand up. England played their games at 8pm every Saturday. They were given the grace of a full weeks rest and preparation between games. ALL other teams in the group were not afforded this, and that is a fact.

LordDowlais wrote:

fa0019 wrote:This was a simple retort to you suggesting England were gifted the best schedule and everyone else had to "take it". I simply don't think that was/is the case. It doesn't stand up. View things with context.

It does stand up. England played their games at 8pm every Saturday. They were given the grace of a full weeks rest and preparation between games. ALL other teams in the group were not afforded this, and that is a fact.

It like the computer scene in zoolander!

ok yes LD England had 1 game a week and the rest had a midweek game.... but take out Uruguay (as I said its not a serious match) and what do you see.

I know what you're going to say... "but uruguay is a big match".

Take out the Uruguay match (which most played their 2nd XV against)... and overall neither England, Wales or Australia had that much of a better schedule.

Uruguay is still a fixture that you have to prepare for, no matter what team you put out. In case you did not notice, Wales picked up some hefty injuries in that game. Take Uruguay out all you like, but it was still a fixture that had to be fulfilled. The fact is though, that said team are only getting three days rest and preparation before England play them, if this group was to come down to points/try difference, that would have handed England another massive advantage of getting out of this group.

LD? Surely you'd say my proposal would have been better for England?

The fixture schedule was driven simply to maximise income.

Anyone who thinks it was created for any other reason is a sad, delusional, conspiracy theorist.

LordDowlais wrote:Uruguay is still a fixture that you have to prepare for, no matter what team you put out. In case you did not notice, Wales picked up some hefty injuries in that game. Take Uruguay out all you like, but it was still a fixture that had to be fulfilled. The fact is though, that said team are only getting three days rest and preparation before England play them, if this group was to come down to points/try difference, that would have handed England another massive advantage of getting out of this group.

That's the coaches decision though LD.

He has 31 players for the game. Could have rest all his top stars and would have still walked a bonus point. That was his choice in the end.

Hindsight is great. Lancaster wouldn't have had his brain fade at 60 mins with hindsight. The boks would have played a conservative kicking game come the Japan match in the 2nd half. Sometimes these things work out, sometimes not.

Still was not a serious match. Wales could field over 10 teams before Uruguay would challenge them... probably more.

LondonTiger wrote:The fixture schedule was driven simply to maximise income.

Anyone who thinks it was created for any other reason is a sad, delusional, conspiracy theorist.

I do not care why the schedule was done, I did not say it was purposely done for England. But the way it was engineered, organised could not have suited England any better, and they still buggered it up.

I'll take that as you think I'm right then LD!

fa0019 wrote:He has 31 players for the game. Could have rest all his top stars and would have still walked a bonus point. That was his choice in the end.

So what are you saying then ? Wales were training and preparing for England the week before they played Uruguay ?

I am more of the thinking that Wales were preparing for the next game they were playing, and that was Uruguay. They then had five days to prepare for England.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'll take that as you think I'm right then LD!

If you think that England had the best schedule out of all the teams in the group and still cocked it up, then yes, I do agree with you.

If I was LD I'd be looking forward to the AUS game and not why England had so many rest days compared with Uruguay.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'll take that as you think I'm right then LD!

If you think that England had the best schedule out of all the teams in the group and still cocked it up, then yes, I do agree with you.

ok. LD, I'll play along.... they also had home advantage!!!

As host nation! how unfair is that.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'll take that as you think I'm right then LD!

If you think that England had the best schedule out of all the teams in the group and still cocked it up, then yes, I do agree with you.

You said it couldn't have been better it could have been like that. I think that's obvious. You've moved onto whether Englands was favourable; you could and have argued that way but I can see the benefit of not playing the 2 games against the 2 biggest rivals back to back no matter how many days between.

TightHEAD wrote:If I was LD I'd be looking forward to the AUS game and not why England had so many rest days compared with Uruguay.

I am on the Wales V Australia thread. That is what that thread is for.

As I have said earlier on this thread, this thread is titled "The Blame Game My Thoughts on the RWC,Englands Future and everything" and I am genuinely contributing and discussing the authors title on this thread. All the bitching and sarcastic comments are coming from our English members.

Because you are on the wind up fella.

alfie wrote:A bit hesitant commenting here as I'll readily admit I don't have the depth of Rugby knowledge of many of the people on here. But :

First I think emack's original post makes a lot of sense.  Opinions will naturally differ but I've always got more time for reasoned analysis than simplistic calling for heads...

Once England Wales and Australia (not to mention Fiji) were drawn together it was clear a good team was going out in the pool stage.  Not necessarily a "humiliation" for the one who missed out. Just a disappointment.

Australia - to my eyes - played a blinder. A few errors ; but generally excellent throughout. England would have had to be at their top to win that match.   On the other hand England should probably have beaten Wales.  I reckon they tightened up , basically - and of course Wales , with nothing to lose , came home with wonderful spirit and edged it. Happens.

Lancaster seems to me has done a decent job developing a team , for which this World Cup has perhaps come a year or so early.  I do think it fair to criticise him though ; primarily for not being quite sure (1) What his best team was ; and (2) How he wanted them to play.  Given the nature of this tournament  I think he really should have been more decisive - or at least  , projected a feeling of decisiveness ; because I don't really think he did.  And I suspect this washed over a bit into the team. In his defence , injuries and off-field indiscretions probably messed his plans around a bit. So some good , some bad. Whether he stays on or not I leave to people who know more about the game than I.

Sorry to see England go out.  But I am happy enough supporting Wales as far as they can now go...

You say it's just a disappointment. It's a very big one.

To be honest I expect that if Wales or Australia had gone out there would be calls for their coaches to leave but this is worse.

It's worse because England have made the quarter finals at least in every other RWC and it's the first time a host has gone out in the pool stages.

It's worse because England is the richest rugby union in the world,has far greater resources, has one of the top U20s teams in the world, a much bigger player pool.


When you look at it has Lancaster done a good job developing the team?

He's still not fixed the centre problem despite trying every man and their dog in the centres.

Breakdown issues have not been fixed on his watch. Question marks still lie on the backrow balance because Wood/Robshaw/Morgan got taken to the cleaners by Hooper and Pocock.

Mental strength has to be questioned after going out of the pool stages and not winning the big games.

Still bench issues.

No genuine world class players.

A set piece which looks a lot flakier than that of Japan for example.

9s who run hot and cold.

It's a team that's not powerful, organised, quick or creative.

Lack of leaders.

What exactly is Lancaster's gameplan?

TightHEAD wrote:Because you are on the wind up fella.

No I aint, of that I can assure you. Everything I have said is a matter of fact. I cannot help it if you fail to acknowledge it.

WUM

Take it Borthwick is the next guy you'll be bigging up continuously now then beshocked?

LordDowlais wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Because you are on the wind up fella.

No I aint, of that I can assure you. Everything I have said is a matter of fact. I cannot help it if you fail to acknowledge it.

Exactly.

WUM

no 7 & 1/2 Borthwick needs more coaching experience but he showed that as forwards coach at Japan that he's not doing a bad job! Admittedly working with an experienced coach like Eddie Jones helps. Certainly he's a coach that England should keep their eyes on.

Borthwick's has had a better RWC than Rowntree though so far! He also aided Japan in their victory over Wales too.

Borthwick also has more international coaching experience now than the likes of Farrell Sr and Lancaster had when they were chosen as England coaches!

Have to admit i don't know what Japans lineout/forwards were like prior to Borthwick or that he was involved coaching them back when the beat Wales. Maybe Jones will bring his coaches with him...

LordDowlais wrote:I do not care why the schedule was done, I did not say it was purposely done for England.

Really? That's not the impression you gave in your previous posts.

LordDowlais wrote:This group could not have been organised to favour England any further.

LordDowlais wrote:this group could not have been engineered more to suit England.

LordDowlais wrote:Those are all factors that were arranged AFTER the draw was made. No one else were given such graces. This group was arranged to give the hosts the most advantage to qualify after the cards were dealt. Even you should be able to see this.

No 7&1/2 wrote:LD, would you not agree with England playing Wales first up then Aus 3 days after they (Aus) played Wales would be better for England?

You're not the first to ask LD this but he chooses to ignore it, as he chooses to ignore Wales getting a longer rest period between 2 games than any other team.

LordDowlais wrote:It does stand up. England played their games at 8pm every Saturday.

And this benefits England how? The players weren't happy about the late starts yet you seem to think they benefited from it, why?

Hoonercat wrote:Really? That's not the impression you gave in your previous posts.

What, did I say that England picked the schedule ? The way the group was organised/engineered/set up, was most favourable to the hosts. playing one game a week, against any opposition rather than playing two games a week is better.

Hoonercat wrote:You're not the first to ask LD this but he chooses to ignore it, as he chooses to ignore Wales getting a longer rest period between 2 games than any other team.

We are getting a longer rest period now, at the last game of all, yes. But England have the best schedule out of all other teams in the group.

Hoonercat wrote:And this benefits England how? The players weren't happy about the late starts yet you seem to think they benefited from it, why?

It benefits England because they have the same timing for every game, it is a set fixture for them with the same amount of time between each game.

no 7 & 1/2 Borthwick was part of the coaching staff when they beat Wales. Albeit not full time because he was still Saracens player but he was working with Japan.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/former-england-captain-steve-borthwick-4068594

What's his plans now then? I assume he'll be trying to get back to coaching here/France/Pro 12 to build his rep?