Time to see a more expansive style of rugby in the Six Nations

First topic message reminder :

Interesting article in the Telegraph by Steve James, demonstrating the attacking stats from the World Cup.

"In seven matches against other Tier One nations New Zealand and Australia scored 25 tries and kicked just 18 penalties, while in 21 games the eight other Tier One nations between them managed just 26 tries and kicked 79 penalties against other Tier One opponents."

"The basics of the set-piece are still kings: 50 per cent of tries at the World Cup were scored from line-outs, and only Ireland had a better success rate than New Zealand’s 95 per cent at the line-out, while New Zealand had the most steals at 24."

"As for the scrummage, 15 per cent of tries came from that (and only 12 per cent from turnovers), and New Zealand scored most tries from scrummages, with their scrum “least likely to be reset and one of the least likely to end in a penalty or free-kick”."



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/sixnations/12081583/Six-Nations-sides-must-realise-it-is-time-to-change.html

wrfc1980 wrote:England are the team that consistantly tops the try scoring charts in the 6 nations. Its a funny one as Wales play a very one dimensional brand of rugby and don't score many tires yet England are always tarnnished with the 'boring' tag. Its down to the likes of Irleand and Wales to stop kicking away possesion and actually try to play some rugby.

England's results in the 6N and RWC would imply therefore that expansive rugby is not the way to go?

6Ns not really no. Played some very good stuff but Ireland completely outplayed us in a kicking duel. WC was disappointing as we moved away from expansive rugby completely.

Its not about the style...its about scoring points and not conceding at the other end...

The Great Aukster wrote:

wrfc1980 wrote:England are the team that consistantly tops the try scoring charts in the 6 nations. Its a funny one as Wales play a very one dimensional brand of rugby and don't score many tires yet England are always tarnnished with the 'boring' tag. Its down to the likes of Irleand and Wales to stop kicking away possesion and actually try to play some rugby.

England's results in the 6N and RWC would imply therefore that expansive rugby is not the way to go?

Oh there's a surprise to see this poster having another dig at Wales! I think your reply will have left him stumped there Aukster.

Facts are facts.

England score a shed load more tries than Wales do

wrfc1980 wrote:England score a shed load more tries than Wales do

Hows that working out for you ?

Quite well in the 6 nations.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Quite well in the 6 nations.

One trophy in a decade. Yeh, fab.

I don't think the trophy haul is that great, but as I said in the 6 nations we're equal and the last few years suggest that England focusing more on tries has helped. Again fair enough if you don't agree.

wrfc1980 wrote:England score a shed load more tries than Wales do

In recent 6 Nations tournaments I don't think they have. But anyway as others have said, how's that working out for you? #facts

As England moved to the more expansive style over the last couple of years we finished above Wales so like I, quite well.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Nations_Championship

Year England Wales Scotland Ireland France Italy Total
points tries points tries points tries points tries points tries points tries points tries
2000 183 20 111 8 95 9 168 17 140 12 106 9 803 75
2001 229 29 125 10 92 8 129 11 115 9 106 8 796 75
2002 184 23 119 11 91 6 145 16 156 15 70 4 765 75
2003 173 18 82 10 81 7 119 10 153 17 100 12 708 74
2004 150 17 125 14 53 4 128 17 144 14 42 2 642 68
2005 121 16 151 17 84 8 126 12 134 13 55 5 671 71
2006 120 12 80 9 78 5 131 12 148 18 72 5 629 61
2007 119 10 86 7 95 7 149 17 155 15 94 9 698 65
2008 108 8 148 13 69 3 93 9 103 11 74 6 595 50
2009 124 16 100 8 79 4 121 12 124 14 49 2 597 56
2010 88 6 113 10 83 3 106 11 135 13 69 5 594 48
2011 132 13 95 6 82 6 93 10 117 10 70 6 589 51
2012 98 7 109 10 56 4 121 13 101 8 53 4 538 46
2013 94 5 122 9 98 7 72 5 73 6 75 5 534 37
2014 138 14 122 11 47 4 132 16 101 9 63 7 603 61
2015 157 18 146 13 73 6 119 8 103 9 62 8 660 62
TOTAL 2218 232 1834 166 1256 91 1952 196 2


England: 232 tries in six nations since yr 2000

England: very expansive on points and tries in 6n.
But no GS cigar. Could say expansive but naive.

No 7&1/2 wrote:As England moved to the more expansive style over the last couple of years we finished above Wales so like I, quite well.

England stayed in the same position, Wales just didn't play as well as previously and went down the table.

gregortree wrote:England: very expansive on points and tries in 6n.
But no GS cigar. Could say expansive but naive.

I never used to enjoy watching England play but under Lancaster, they developed a very attractive style of play. I was screaming that the TV during the RWC as they changed the way they were playing and it cost them. I hope Eddie Jones can bring back that flair and confidence in the England team. If he does, very few teams will live with tem.

gregortree wrote:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Nations_Championship

Year England Wales Scotland Ireland France Italy Total
points tries points tries points tries points tries points tries points tries points tries
2000 183 20 111 8 95 9 168 17 140 12 106 9 803 75
2001 229 29 125 10 92 8 129 11 115 9 106 8 796 75
2002 184 23 119 11 91 6 145 16 156 15 70 4 765 75
2003 173 18 82 10 81 7 119 10 153 17 100 12 708 74
2004 150 17 125 14 53 4 128 17 144 14 42 2 642 68
2005 121 16 151 17 84 8 126 12 134 13 55 5 671 71
2006 120 12 80 9 78 5 131 12 148 18 72 5 629 61
2007 119 10 86 7 95 7 149 17 155 15 94 9 698 65
2008 108 8 148 13 69 3 93 9 103 11 74 6 595 50
2009 124 16 100 8 79 4 121 12 124 14 49 2 597 56
2010 88 6 113 10 83 3 106 11 135 13 69 5 594 48
2011 132 13 95 6 82 6 93 10 117 10 70 6 589 51
2012 98 7 109 10 56 4 121 13 101 8 53 4 538 46
2013 94 5 122 9 98 7 72 5 73 6 75 5 534 37
2014 138 14 122 11 47 4 132 16 101 9 63 7 603 61
2015 157 18 146 13 73 6 119 8 103 9 62 8 660 62
TOTAL 2218 232 1834 166 1256 91 1952 196 2


England: 232 tries in six nations since yr 2000

Proper head in hands moments right now, why are we going back 15 years? wrfc wasn't very specific so I assumed he was talking about recent times which let's be honest are the only years relevant because England will still have some of those players in their current team. So with that in mind let's look at the last world cup cycle.
Year England Wales
Points Tries Points Tries
2012 98 7 109 10 56 4 121 13 101 8 53 4 538 46
2013 94 5 122 9 98 7 72 5 73 6 75 5 534 37
2014 138 14 122 11 47 4 132 16 101 9 63 7 603 61
2015 157 18 146 13 73 6 119 8 103 9 62 8 660 62

England's try total = 44
Wales' try total = 43

One more try, that's not a shed load . You guys should learn that I don't really pipe up unless I'm confident that I'm right and have the evidence to back me up. It seems that I was right again, but it will likely be the guys who were incorrect that will continue flabbing their guts.

mikey, you are a bollix

You mean the dog's bollix?

mikey_dragon wrote:You mean the dog's bollix?

Sure, if you're that way inclined

I took the 15 ys stats right off Wiki without any selective editing Mikey.
The OP was about an expansive 6n.....so took a neutral and holistic look at the stats. England have been and I hope will be expansive in this comp. Would have loved to have closed out a few of those close 2nd places...need to be a bit more ruthless in those close games.

mikey_dragon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:As England moved to the more expansive style over the last couple of years we finished above Wales so like I, quite well.

England stayed in the same position, Wales just didn't play as well as previously and went down the table.

Fair enough but being more expansive has helped England over Wales in recent years. As Geordie said earlier more to do with those tactics suiting the players picked. We're doing quite well with those tactics and for my money now need to push ahead with more of the same. Personally I feel Gatland and Wales would benefit cutting loose a little, as you seem to imply they're a bit in a rut.

gregortree wrote:I took the 15 ys stats right off Wiki without any selective editing Mikey.
The OP was about an expansive 6n.....so took a neutral and holistic look at the stats. England have been and I hope will be expansive in this comp. Would have loved to have closed out a few of those close 2nd places...need to be a bit more ruthless in those close games.

Under Lancaster you all say that you became more expansive. Lancaster coached England for the previous four years (the world cup cycle I alluded to). During this period you failed to win a tournament as well as failing to score a shed-load more tries than Wales - why don't you guys just admit that you're wrong?

We did. 2 years were stodgy before getting more expansive which seemed to suit the younger players coming through.

Which part of my quote is wrong Mikey ?

You seem to be backing up a guy, who was having a dig at Wales, that was completely and utterly wrong - why else did you pull out the table? You're all also under the impression that playing the 'Lancaster way' makes you better than most teams, the results show otherwise. You had believed that these misconceptions were working out quite well for you, well second place isn't bad but lest we forget not a single tournament was won coupled with the early exit. This isn't a dig, these are just facts that seem to imply it isn't working out that well. It's all over now I guess and we'll be seeing more change with Jones now in charge.

*Replying to 7.5 as well.

I personally think that England played some great rugby under Lancaster.

For me, the best coach in the NH is still Gatland but I feel that Cotter may change that...

Eh? What misconceptions? England have an do look better suited to a less forward dominated game. If we had a set of forwards as grisly and as good as few of the past it may be different, but yes on the whole for me expansive for us is better.

Lost me there Mikey with your sidestep.
I asked you which part of my post is wrong, you seem to struggle to answer. The op was about Expansive Rugby. I never mentioned Wales.
The subjective comment I made was wishing England would convert more expansive second places into a few more firsts.

I didn't sidestep. Why did you post a table which lists every 6 Nations performance for the last 15 years? I think I know why, and my previous post covered that.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Eh? What misconceptions? England have an do look better suited to a less forward dominated game. If we had a set of forwards as grisly and as good as few of the past it may be different, but yes on the whole for me expansive for us is better.

I pointed them out. But fair enough, that's fine.

Yeah but I wasn't hence going on quite well.

mikey_dragon wrote:

gregortree wrote:I took the 15 ys stats right off Wiki without any selective editing Mikey.
The OP was about an expansive 6n.....so took a neutral and holistic look at the stats. England have been and I hope will be expansive in this comp. Would have loved to have closed out a few of those close 2nd places...need to be a bit more ruthless in those close games.

Under Lancaster you all say that you became more expansive. Lancaster coached England for the previous four years (the world cup cycle I alluded to). During this period you failed to win a tournament as well as failing to score a shed-load more tries than Wales - why don't you guys just admit that you're wrong?

Who are 'you all' ? Generalisation much ?
Where did I mention Lancaster ?
Where did I mention Wales ?
Where did I say 'shedloads'
Which part of my quote do I need to admit to being 'wrong' Mikey ?

You still haven't answered my question. My post at 7:55pm answered you, and that's when I asked you the question you still haven't asked.

Well anyway back to the subject I was wrongly accused of sidestepping. England played fairly expansive rugby I guess, but it didn't help them win anything worthwhile. It was also claimed that they score a shedload of tries whilst other teams play one dimensional rugby, that was also shown to be incorrect.

mikey_dragon wrote:Well anyway back to the subject I was wrongly accused of sidestepping. England played fairly expansive rugby I guess, but it didn't help them win anything worthwhile. It was also claimed that they score a shedload of tries whilst other teams play one dimensional rugby, that was also shown to be incorrect.

Um I'm confused, if England played expansive rugby under Lancaster and he failed to capitalize on a single tournament opportunity - there were 5 and he came close-  why would Eddie want to adopt any facets of that game. It aint working.

Eddie is brass tacks. He wants a big gnarly pack in front of some real X factor. He will hammer the set piece and maul and then have some unpredictability in the backs. He will take England right back to basics; look what it has done for Australia by becoming the team that had no scrum to one of the best there is; Eddie has a much better product to start with.

Combine Englands traditional strength in the pack with a flat 10 and some real pace out wide. And ffs get the centres sorted.

eirebilly wrote:

gregortree wrote:England: very expansive on points and tries in 6n.
But no GS cigar. Could say expansive but naive.

I never used to enjoy watching England play but under Lancaster, they developed a very attractive style of play. I was screaming that the TV during the RWC as they changed the way they were playing and it cost them. I hope Eddie Jones can bring back that flair and confidence in the England team. If he does, very few teams will live with tem.

Billy, thanks,
Some very close seconds in recent 6n history, what was it last 6n? About 5 points over they tourney, behind a more street wise Ireland, following a staggering try fest on the final Saturday. In fact that Saturday was testimony to what expansive 6n rugby can look like. And a credit to Wales Ireland England and France for the entertainment.
I now hope Eddie can push on, help England find that extra small edge to conv close seconds into a few more firsts.
Really looking forward to this new phase of I hope expansive and successful England rugby.

mikey_dragon wrote:Well anyway back to the subject I was wrongly accused of sidestepping. England played fairly expansive rugby I guess, but it didn't help them win anything worthwhile. It was also claimed that they score a shedload of tries whilst other teams play one dimensional rugby, that was also shown to be incorrect.

? You appear to be making stuff up.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Well anYuriyway back to the subject I was wrongly accused of sidestepping. England played fairly expansive rugby I guess, but it didn't help them win anything worthwhile. It was also claimed that they score a shedload of tries whilst other teams play one dimensional rugby, that was also shown to be incorrect.

? You appear to be making stuff up.

Yes, so he can argue with himself and then win.

As Mark Twain once said:

"Don't argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."

I'm not making anything up. I've replied to comments from multiple England supporters on this thread. I've not lied or made anything up. Don't be offended by it and feel you all have to insult someone when you don't like the truth.

You can be selective as you like over stats to tell whatever story. This is mine

I looked at the stats going backwards from last year in the 6N. England had two very lean years in the last 4 as far as try scoring goes, but usually we do score more tries than anyone else. Wales have tended to be more consistent each year with the number scored  (a bit over 10) Wales score a lot of points but generally fewer tries, so they score a higher percentage from kicks. The curves do oscillate, and it just so happens that looking backwards 4 years the tries scored by Wales and England is almost the same but that is the only time in the last 15 that this is so.

Looking at the cumulative scores over the last 7 years there is almost no difference between overall points scored by England and Wales. (Before then England scored more).

lostinwales wrote:looking backwards 4 years the tries scored by Wales and England is almost the same

So how is it then people are saying, that because of Lancaster's open style of playing rugby England were scoring loads more tries than anybody else, if anything, the loads more tries than anyone else fact can be attributed to England's prior coaches and not Lancaster. These coaches did not play an open and attractive brand of rugby, so this is all a myth then ?

LordDowlais wrote:

lostinwales wrote:looking backwards 4 years the tries scored by Wales and England is almost the same

So how is it then people are saying, that because of Lancaster's open style of playing rugby England were scoring loads more tries than anybody else, if anything, the loads more tries than anyone else fact can be attributed to England's prior coaches and not Lancaster. These coaches did not play an open and attractive brand of rugby, so this is all a myth then ?

Read the rest of what I wrote rather than selectively quote and then you'd see. 2011 we scored 7 tries. 2012 we scored 5. One other occasion over the history of the 6N have we scored less than 10. Wales score 10-11 almost every year

lostinwales wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

lostinwales wrote:looking backwards 4 years the tries scored by Wales and England is almost the same

So how is it then people are saying, that because of Lancaster's open style of playing rugby England were scoring loads more tries than anybody else, if anything, the loads more tries than anyone else fact can be attributed to England's prior coaches and not Lancaster. These coaches did not play an open and attractive brand of rugby, so this is all a myth then ?

Read the rest of what I wrote rather than selectively quote and then you'd see. 2011 we scored 7 tries. 2012 we scored 5. One other occasion over the history of the 6N have we scored less than 10. Wales score 10-11 almost every year

Lancaster has only been in charge for four years though, 2011-2015 so if we are going back 4 years, in a period where Englands open and expansive style of rugby was brought to bare, then the fact that England have not been outscoring other nations by loads of tries means this myth about Lacasters open and expansive style is just that, a myth. Or you are like Wales during 2006-7 years, throwing the ball about willy nilly but not really getting anywhere.

So look at the first 2 years of his reign and then the next to. It's my view the more expansive style brought in those 2nd 2 years improved us.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So look at the first 2 years of his reign and then the next to. It's my view the more expansive style brought in those 2nd 2 years improved us.

But under his reign you have not been scoring loads more tries than everybody else, not just Wales, everyone, so yes you were more expansive, but you were not getting anywhere with it. If anything, you were outscoring other nations on try count by loads under prior coaches, ironically under coaches who were not necessarily know to adopt an expansive style.

LordDowlais wrote:...Lancaster has only been in charge for four years though, 2011-2015 so if we are going back 4 years, in a period where Englands open and expansive style of rugby was brought to bare...

You've just answered your own query by restating what's been said. The other posters here maintain that Lancaster developed a more expansive England side - not that he started off with one. The try count rose as the game plan bedded in during his last two years. By contrast, his first two years saw excellent scrambling defence but limited attacking threat. If you average the four year total, then you aren't looking at what the change in strategy did to the try count.

As Rugby Fan says. I'm saying the more expansive style he was bringing through benefitted and improved us.

Rugby Fan wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:...Lancaster has only been in charge for four years though, 2011-2015 so if we are going back 4 years, in a period where Englands open and expansive style of rugby was brought to bare...

You've just answered your own query by restating what's been said. The other posters here maintain that Lancaster developed a more expansive England side - not that he started off with one. The try count rose as the game plan bedded in during his last two years. By contrast, his first two years saw excellent scrambling defence but limited attacking threat. If you average the four year total, then you aren't looking at what the change in strategy did to the try count.

But you were outscoring other on tries BEFORE Lancaster was there, not WHEN he was there. So this new fandangled expansive style of rugby he had you playing was not yielding the better try count than everybody else, that only happened when you were not playing this new style.

No 7&1/2 wrote:As Rugby Fan says. I'm saying the more expansive style he was bringing through benefitted and improved us.

In what way ? You have not been scoring loads more tries than everybody else, nor have you been adding to your trophy cabinet, so how has it benefitted and improved you ?