England v Wales

First topic message reminder :

Anyone know much about the ticket sales for this game?

I may head down for this, however just took a quick peak for tickets and there is only one block available, and not 2 tickets sat together. It can't be sold out already can it?

Anyone know?

TightHEAD wrote:Thank god Eddie see the good that Ford does, yes his kicking was poor but he gets us moving and scoring tries, why do so many of you want Farrell at 10?

You don't beat the best teams in the world by kicking 1/7. Ford is in dire form, we're carrying at the minute, this can't continue.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Thank god Eddie see the good that Ford does, yes his kicking was poor but he gets us moving and scoring tries, why do so many of you want Farrell at 10?

You don't beat the best teams in the world by kicking 1/7. Ford is in dire form, we're carrying at the minute, this can't continue.

He still helped orchestrate several tries and away from the tee made no mistakes of note. He also adopted an effective pragmatic approach later on in the game to deny Wales any field position to try and get back in to the game. Whilst his kicking off the tee was shocking that isn't a requirement of a fly half.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Thank god Eddie see the good that Ford does, yes his kicking was poor but he gets us moving and scoring tries, why do so many of you want Farrell at 10?

You don't beat the best teams in the world by kicking 1/7. Ford is in dire form, we're carrying at the minute, this can't continue.

And Farrell is the 10 for the best side in Europe, is playing the best rugby of his career, and doesn't require the presence of a back-up kicker on the pitch.

DaveM wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Thank god Eddie see the good that Ford does, yes his kicking was poor but he gets us moving and scoring tries, why do so many of you want Farrell at 10?

You don't beat the best teams in the world by kicking 1/7. Ford is in dire form, we're carrying at the minute, this can't continue.

And Farrell is the 10 for the best side in Europe, is playing the best rugby of his career, and doesn't require the presence of a back-up kicker on the pitch.

Out of interest lets say England do go with Care or Youngs, Farrell and Burrell 10/12 then Joseph, Nowell, Yarde and Brown. If Farrell had an off day with the boot (all kickers do) who would be the on field back up?

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Thank god Eddie see the good that Ford does, yes his kicking was poor but he gets us moving and scoring tries, why do so many of you want Farrell at 10?

You don't beat the best teams in the world by kicking 1/7. Ford is in dire form, we're carrying at the minute, this can't continue.

He still helped orchestrate several tries and away from the tee made no mistakes of note. He also adopted an effective pragmatic approach later on in the game to deny Wales any field position to try and get back in to the game. Whilst his kicking off the tee was shocking that isn't a requirement of a fly half.

But yesterday you said:

Former known as Sam wrote:Things looking precarious at ten though. If I was the Aussie coach I'd be advising a couple of digs on Farrell early doors to see just how sore those ribs and that hip is. He doesn't make it past the first test and Australia will be feeling confident against the inexperienced Slade, the mentally broken Ford or the mecurial Burns.

Do you think his mental state has improved in 24 hours?

bedfordwelsh wrote:

DaveM wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Thank god Eddie see the good that Ford does, yes his kicking was poor but he gets us moving and scoring tries, why do so many of you want Farrell at 10?

You don't beat the best teams in the world by kicking 1/7. Ford is in dire form, we're carrying at the minute, this can't continue.

And Farrell is the 10 for the best side in Europe, is playing the best rugby of his career, and doesn't require the presence of a back-up kicker on the pitch.

Out of interest lets say England do go with Care or Youngs, Farrell and Burrell 10/12 then Joseph, Nowell, Yarde and Brown.  If Farrell had an off day with the boot (all kickers do) who would be the on field back up?

I don't think Farrell would ever kick as poorly as we saw yesterday, but if he's having a poor day then you'd replace your FH. And this is why Ford shouldn't be in the matchday squad. If he is then one of Slade, Daly or Goode needs to be on the bench.

DaveM wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Thank god Eddie see the good that Ford does, yes his kicking was poor but he gets us moving and scoring tries, why do so many of you want Farrell at 10?

You don't beat the best teams in the world by kicking 1/7. Ford is in dire form, we're carrying at the minute, this can't continue.

He still helped orchestrate several tries and away from the tee made no mistakes of note. He also adopted an effective pragmatic approach later on in the game to deny Wales any field position to try and get back in to the game. Whilst his kicking off the tee was shocking that isn't a requirement of a fly half.

But yesterday you said:

Former known as Sam wrote:Things looking precarious at ten though. If I was the Aussie coach I'd be advising a couple of digs on Farrell early doors to see just how sore those ribs and that hip is. He doesn't make it past the first test and Australia will be feeling confident against the inexperienced Slade, the mentally broken Ford or the mecurial Burns.

Do you think his mental state has improved in 24 hours?

Oh I'd consdier sending him home. Give him the summer off. It's a tough time for him and the Aussies are unlikely to be friendly (may well start sledging). Depends whether home is less hostile than Australia at the minute. He looks stressed and flustered and didn't play with his normal flair but it was a mature performance and he handled things well given he could have lost his head as his kicking game went down the toilet.

Farrell is the obvious choice given he likes to get stuck in, relishes hostile crowds and is bang on form. Those injury concerns will make him a target though and we can't have Ford there unless he's 100% right which I'm not sure he is.

Yep. Well EJ obviously rates him, so I think he'll start the First Test. Hopefully he can find some form, as I think this is a winnable series.

No doubting Ford's talent, he's got a great future. It's just not doing the lad any favours playing this much rugby in such poor form.

Did we not score 5 tries yesterday with umm, Ford at 10?

For me we play Ford at 10 and Farrell at 12 as it just won us a grand slam

Does anyone think EJ should persist with the Farrell Ford axis?

I have to say its not for me. Accepting squad selections and form, i'd go with Farrell Slade and Burrell, 10, 12 & 13.

Cipriani and Devoto are in Africa, Malinder is with the U20's and Twelvetrees will need to change clubs before he plays for England again. Obviously Tuilagi is injured but the question is does he actually need to move to 12 if Slade is there?

If you were playing Cipriani then I'd be happy to play Tuilagi at 12 with either Burrell or Slade at 13 (Joseph if in form). Equally I would happily apply this formula to Burns and Ford once fitness and form are regained.

Te'o isn't apart of my considerations, but to be realistic, I suppose he'll start at 13.

All in all we have many options that can provide differing answers dependent on availability, form, fitness and opposition.

But will EJ persist with Ford and Farrell?

Eddie will do what he thinks will win games. If he thinks that's Ford, Farrell and Joseph, then that's what he'll do. If he thinks it's Slade, Te'o and Burrell (which I think is unlikely) then he'll go with that.

Taking recent form into consideration, I'd not be surprised to see him go with Ford, Farrell and Joseph, at least to start. Ford's performance yesterday, place kicking apart, was better than Slade's on Saturday.

That said, I could see Slade and Burrell coming into contention before the end of the tour.

I think he'll go Ford, Farrell, Joseph, which means out of form, out of position, out of form. It will be harder to get away with this against a good Southern Hemisphere side.

I think Daly is suffering from EJ's believe that caps have been handed out too easily. He's got a more rounded game than JJ, and is in better form, but I don't think EJ is ready to give him a start.

DaveM wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

It's the fact that Cipriani has had poor runs of form for periods such as that in almost every season he's played that prevents him playing for England. If he wants to be an international 10 he needs to consistently be a better decision maker and tactical kicker.

If a 10 is poor from the tee it can be made up for elsewhere (Farrell/Slade/Daly in the centre for instance). If they struggle to make good decisions or put his side in the right area of the field whilst under pressure then that can't be covered for though. Hence Cips has been overlooked.

Ford's goal kicking was shocking yesterday yes, but him being flaky from the tee is nothing new or that we didn't already know. It's also a reason why Farrell was picked alongside him in the 6 Nations. His tactical kicking and decision making however (even in one of his worst games) was still better than what Cips has often displayed when in decent nick.

EJ will pick on form (i.e. Harrison forcing his way in) but he's also always had a very specific idea of what a player needs to succeed in international rugby. At the minute he clearly thinks there are fly halves who have better basics than Cips to succeed against the best and I frankly agree.

I see you don't rate Cipriani, which is fine. He'd still have played better than Ford if given the chance. I'd say the basics for a FH include not kicking as poorly as Ford did yesterday and not defaulting to kicking the ball away when he gets it as his confidence fades. The Australians will be right into him if he has to kick. He should be given the summer off.

And I really don't see how you can say the backs are being picked on form - we've several key players who've been poor all season but keep being selected.

I actually like Cips and would have happily had him touring Oz. I think he's our 4th best fly half but with Slade likely featuring in the centres you could argue he's third and fairly so. I just feel that fans are often very fast to highlight the good and ignore the bad about Prem performances given that it's usually the good that gets more coverage in highlight reels.

I obviously agree that if Ford were to regularly be the sole goal kicker in the XV then he needs to improve massively but he likely wont be. I think it's also prevalent to point out that even in what is being referred to as a terrible season for Ford his kick percentage in the Prem has been 72% which, whilst not good enough for international level, is significantly better than Cipriani at 62%.

Re form I said clearly that EJ seems to want players to have basic skills for their positions before form will demand selection:

- At flanker he wants ball players who can carry and distribute. This saw Kvesic overlooked when in form but Harrison rewarded.
- In the tight 5 he wants dog/fight/aggression. This has seen Genge fast tracked despite Alex Waller being very consistent, harsh IMO but could yet pay off.
-In the back 3 he seems to want athletes with some raw pace and power who will get stuck in physically. Ashton overlooked for Yarde.

Joseph is in poor form but with Burrell re-called the familiarity that Joseph gives with Ford and Watson would have been expected to provide some fluidity. I rate Daly and want him to start a test in Oz but there is clear logic there.

At fly half the obvious alternatives in Farrell and Slade were unavailable. IMO the next most consistent performer this season, especially from the tee was Freddie Burns but he's crocked. Myler is good from the tee but would be a step back at this stage. As for Cips he's just as likely to blow up kicking at goal as wee George and far more likely to implode in open play.

TightHEAD wrote:Thank god Eddie see the good that Ford does, yes his kicking was poor but he gets us moving and scoring tries, why do so many of you want Farrell at 10?

Well given that Ford left 14 points from his missed kicks, he better get us moving. I think the sad reality is depth at fly half is paper thin compared to depth at other positions such as second row and back row. This match showed that if Ford plays 10 then a kicker in another position is needed. I am not much of a Farrell fan, but he seems head and shoulders above Ford at the moment.

"I obviously agree that if Ford were to regularly be the sole goal kicker in the XV then he needs to improve massively but he likely wont be. I think it's also prevalent to point out that even in what is being referred to as a terrible season for Ford his kick percentage in the Prem has been 72% which, whilst not good enough for international level, is significantly better than Cipriani at 62%."

STAT ALERT.....can we have break down of those prem percentages please.

Does this mean that Cipriani kicked 31 out of 50 or that Ford kicked 14 out of 20?

Numbers please as percentages can be SOOOOOOOO misleading.

Ford - 49 attempted, 37 successful - kick percentage of 76%

Cipriani - 103 attempted, 64 successful - kick percentage of 62&

Ford's 72% success rate I stated earlier came from ukrugbystats,co.uk, getting the bigger picture from rugby.statbunker.com I realised that it was slightly off. I've checked those above against premiershiprugby.com to check they're correct and they are this time. Apologies!

Ford missing games due to England duty and Homer also offering a kicking option means he has taken fewer kicks. The comparative success rates still sum up their relative positions as goal kickers though, they are both very inconsistent.

doctor_grey wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Thank god Eddie see the good that Ford does, yes his kicking was poor but he gets us moving and scoring tries, why do so many of you want Farrell at 10?

Well given that Ford left 14 points from his missed kicks, he better get us moving.  I think the sad reality is depth at fly half is paper thin compared to depth at other positions such as second row and back row.  This match showed that if Ford plays 10 then a kicker in another position is needed.  I am not much of a Farrell fan, but he seems head and shoulders above Ford at the moment.  

Farrell is the best of the bunch on current form.

Slade will develop more as he gets game time for Chiefs at 10 next season, which you'd presume he will with Hill, Devoto and Whitten available.

Burns was also very good for Tigers this season but injured at an unfortunate time. His mercurial running and attacking of his early years is less prominent (although still there when the opportunity allows) but his basics in decision making, tactical and goal kicking, game management and distribution are getting better and better.

Ford is already a very good option in open play and will keep improving. If given a dominant pack Cipriani is more than capable of running an excellent attacking game as well although he'd need another kicker in the XV to take the pressure off just as Ford does.

It's not perfect but far from terrible.

DaveM wrote:...I don't think Farrell would ever kick as poorly as we saw yesterday, but if he's having a poor day then you'd replace your FH...

You can be having a poor day kicking at goal but doing well elsewhere. In that instance, you definitely don't want to waste a substitution, you just want the captain to hand the ball to someone else.

That was always my complaint with Lancaster's selections. Once Twelvetrees and Alex Goode fell out of the first XV, we had no onfield alternative. We would have been obliged to swap someone out to change kicker. Most of our leading rivals had at least one other player on the pitch who could do the job, sometimes two.

As it turned out, that never proved to be a problem but Sunday's match was exactly the scenario I worried about, and it just so happened to be the first time Jones selected a starting XV with only one kicker.

Should Jones be wary about doing that again, then he has a few options. Slade, Daly or Farrell starting in the midfield gives us cover, while Alex Goode at full back does the same.

However, start a midfield of Burrell/Te'o and Joseph, with Brown at full back, and we have no cover.

king_carlos wrote:Ford - 49 attempted, 37 successful - kick percentage of 76%

Cipriani - 103 attempted, 64 successful - kick percentage of 62&

Ford's 72% success rate I stated earlier came from ukrugbystats,co.uk, getting the bigger picture from rugby.statbunker.com I realised that it was slightly off. I've checked those above against premiershiprugby.com to check they're correct and they are this time. Apologies!

Ford missing games due to England duty and Homer also offering a kicking option means he has taken fewer kicks. The comparative success rates still sum up their relative positions as goal kickers though, they are both very inconsistent.

There was an article recently about Sale's excellent home form. Apparently, kicking there is very difficult due to the wind, and that gives the local flyhalf the advantage. But it may not help Cipriani's statistics.

Also, Ford won't attempt any penalties from >40m. He's normally not bad with conversions and tight angles, but hopeless with distance, so that will boost his figures. In contrast, Daly will have a low success rate as he rarely kicks from less than 40m. However, the "expected points" from Daly kicking from 45m is still greater than that from going for a close line out.

Follow the stats too closely, and you'll soon have players thinking "I'd better not attempt this goal, as I might miss".

The aussies will see Ford as mentally fragile and a weakness. They will target him both on and off the field relentlessly. He's going to have to man up big time or get destroyed.

(Life of Brian Mode)

"Are there any welsh here today?"

Probably not, but since this wasn't a 'full on international' it probably doesn't count as far as they're concerned.

Back on topic.... Based on that performance, if Jones is going to select Ford at 10 as back up to Farrell, then he might as well throw the dice and select Cipriani instead. I can see the argument against Cipriani of course, but I don't now see how he could be any worse than Ford.

I get that Edie Jones has been supportive of Ford this weekend, but unfortunately, Ford has been in poor form for club and country for well over a year now. I would imagine that although outwardly appearing to back his man all the way, behind closed doors he'll be considering his selection carefully.

The simple fact is that if Ford is retained for the Summer tour and Farrell is injured or can't play for some reason, then it will be meat and drink to the likes of Pocock to snuff him out, and his kicking percentages will preclude England from winning a match.

Rugby Fan wrote:

DaveM wrote:...I don't think Farrell would ever kick as poorly as we saw yesterday, but if he's having a poor day then you'd replace your FH...

You can be having a poor day kicking at goal but doing well elsewhere. In that instance, you definitely don't want to waste a substitution, you just want the captain to hand the ball to someone else.

That was always my complaint with Lancaster's selections. Once Twelvetrees and Alex Goode fell out of the first XV, we had no onfield alternative. We would have been obliged to swap someone out to change kicker. Most of our leading rivals had at least one other player on the pitch who could do the job, sometimes two.

As it turned out, that never proved to be a problem but Sunday's match was exactly the scenario I worried about, and it just so happened to be the first time Jones selected a starting XV with only one kicker.

Should Jones be wary about doing that again, then he has a few options. Slade, Daly or Farrell starting in the midfield gives us cover, while Alex Goode at full back does the same.

However, start a midfield of Burrell/Te'o and Joseph, with Brown at full back, and we have no cover.

But then you are picking someone in your starting line up to act as a back up kicker just incase. Which means you dont trust your first choice kicker. So should you be selecting them?

Are we really saying that Goode should start fullback to act as a back up goal kicker incase Ford has another bad day with the boot but suddently remembers how to pass properly?
Or would it be more senible just to drop him becase hes been on rank form and really sh@t the bed in that test in a way that should never happen to a player at this level, and pick Goode if Goode is the best starting full back available regardless of whther or not hes still a viable goal kicking option in anything other than an emergency (debatable).
Ditto Slade.

DaveM wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Thank god Eddie see the good that Ford does, yes his kicking was poor but he gets us moving and scoring tries, why do so many of you want Farrell at 10?

You don't beat the best teams in the world by kicking 1/7. Ford is in dire form, we're carrying at the minute, this can't continue.

And Farrell is the 10 for the best side in Europe, is playing the best rugby of his career, and doesn't require the presence of a back-up kicker on the pitch.

Its times like this I miss Lancaster, he would just pick Hodgson

thomh wrote:Jonathan Joseph is a bit of a concern for me. Didn't do anything particularly awful, but he's stopped backing himself on the outside. He keeps receiving these bath-style miss passes and then ducking inside rather than trying to step outside his defender. Looks like a bit of confidence has gone.

How much of that is him being told to do certain things by the coaches?
Anyones guess.

You can't read into kicking percentage as a definer of who is the best kicker as no two kicks are the same.

Someone may get 14 straight in front, some may not attempt any beyond the 10m line (i.e. Ford, Laidlaw, Grant, Paterson). Some attempt bombs from their own 10m line with a less than evens chance of scoring.
In Super rugby the king of the stats for years was Peter Grant. Straight up he was the most accurate kicker in the world ruling the stats for 5 years in SR. Yet he was never deemed the best kicker in his own country... and that was right.

Morne Steyn was always a few % points behind him but if I had my life on the line I would without question throw it all to him.

I must look for it but some guy did a study on kicking accuracy position wise and there Morne was hands down the best guy in the SH during his tenure.

Ford has always had this problem, never kicked well for England and doesn't have the range. England were lucky to be fair. How many games vs. Wales do they score 5 to 1 tries wise? Usually its tight and the kicking success rate is often the determinant of victory.
He's not a test match kicker and his problems are not simply someone who with a few tweaks here and there can become a great one. Test match rugby is now very tight and you can't afford to miss such kicks.
England are not NZ, they can't simply say... we'll simply outscore the opposition 3-1 in tries every game. Its the Carlos Spencer situation all over again where you feel you have to accommodate another kicker in the team for his attacking prowess and when you throw him the tee you have to wonder if you're throwing away the test match.

If England can get a kicker elsewhere without sacrificing play then sure he's an option i.e. Goode or Farrell. However I think Farrell looks like he's getting a far better distributor now and is a Ford-Farrell-Joseph a better all round unit then Farrell-Burrell-Joseph... I'd have to say IMO no.

I remember when Paterson was on his record streak of 36 successful kicks that the majority of them were bang in front and the moment a kick had any distance or angle somebody else would take it.

It is a conundrum what to do with Ford as we do play better with him at 10 but we then have to play Farrell at 12 which is far from ideal, it boils down to whether a Ford/Farrell axis is better than a Farrell/Slade axis for instance.

Brown vs Goode (yet again)

Late on in the game Amos makes a really good break with Anscombe(?) on his shoulder. He's pretty much through although with England runners close behind. Brown is coming up very fast at a lovely angle, so Amos passes and Brown nails Anscombe. 2 on 1 and Brown wins.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I remember when Paterson was on his record streak of 36 successful kicks that the majority of them were bang in front and the moment a kick had any distance or angle somebody else would take it.

It is a conundrum what to do with Ford as we do play better with him at 10 but we then have to play Farrell at 12 which is far from ideal, it boils down to whether a Ford/Farrell axis is better than a Farrell/Slade axis for instance.

Ford is heavily accomodated for his backline play. Can't kick... his ball to hand is also sub par and in defence he's thrown anywhere bar contact. He actually can tackle mind and has put in a few try savers I'll give him that but he's a weakline so gets targeted. Farrell doesn't get targeted, players would rather run into the 12 channel or back to the forwards in many instances when he's at 10.

For me Ford doesn't warrant a place in the 23 not unless someone like Goode is on for the kicking duties. Talk of him being under mental stress due to his dad's sacking.. that's poor. Farrell and his relationship with his dad and the heat it generated never phased him. ROG has had the bookies hitmen after him for a decade but he was still able to put them over from all areas.... especially on a cold windy night in Limerick.

lostinwales wrote:Brown vs Goode (yet again)

Late on in the game Amos makes a really good break with Anscombe(?) on his shoulder. He's pretty much through although with England runners close behind. Brown is coming up very fast at a lovely angle, so Amos passes and Brown nails Anscombe. 2 on 1 and Brown wins.

In a 2 on 1 if you don't pass the player its always the attackers fault. Brown sure read it well but done correctly its like facing a Matt Le Tissier penalty.

Overwhelming thoughts whilst watching this match is that both sides will lose down under. The overall skill levels were just not good enough. How many times did both sides knock on, pass badly and just butcher rare opportunities. The half backs were shocking. England of course at least have a decent forward platform, but the Aussie backs playing with the Eng forwards on Sun would have nailed 3 or 4 more tries.

As for Wales I am very worried for them. The fear factor and backs to the wall will motivate them for sure, but I reckon they could be in for a pounding. The lack of a platform and basics killed them in the 2nd half and a quality team like the ABs will make hay.

hugehandoff wrote:Overwhelming thoughts whilst watching this match is that both sides will lose down under. The overall skill levels were just not good enough. How many times did both sides knock on, pass badly and just butcher rare opportunities. The half backs were shocking. England of course at least have a decent forward platform, but the Aussie backs playing with the Eng forwards on Sun would have nailed 3 or 4 more tries.

As for Wales I am very worried for them. The fear factor and backs to the wall will motivate them for sure, but I reckon they could be in for a pounding. The lack of a platform and basics killed them in the 2nd half and a quality team like the ABs will make hay.

Actually think England should at min win a test. AUS look very weak in SR. England... well they went from having the worst set piece in tier 1 rugby under SL at the RWC (not an exaggeration) to one of the best... did they lose a lineout on Sat? Its a huge difference. The lineout is the single most important point of rugby these days... at the RWC it was the basis for the majority of tries scored (if I recall it was something like 68% but admittedly cant be bothered to re-find the source).

Itoje is stealing 1-3 lineouts per match and securing 19/20 with full variation i.e. if you need to go to the back, you have full confidence of retaining it. That's massive.  Go back to the RWC with Youngs and Parling... Parling was in purely because he's the only one that Youngs could throw to and that mean a) they were easy to read and b) variation was minimal which destroyed its attacking threat.

Wales... I mean its NZ, the world champs and they're not playing well. Not playing badly regardless of the 5-1 tries deficit vs. England but not playing well enough to see anything remotely like a expected sole test victory.

(Life of Brian Mode)

"Are there any welsh here today?"

Can't say I've seen any Welsh for some time now. Probably since Saturday now you come to mention it.

hugehandoff wrote:

As for Wales I am very worried for them. The fear factor and backs to the wall will motivate them for sure, but I reckon they could be in for a pounding. The lack of a platform and basics killed them in the 2nd half and a quality team like the ABs will make hay.

I wouldnt read too much into thsi game at all, these fun games are pretty notoriuously bad as indicators of real form.

To save the missing welsh posters the trouble:

• They are focussing on fitness and were tired
  They were holding back after an initial surge
  Its experimental and they are still finding the new patterns
  Gatland didnt use his bench tacticaly but to look at players
  They will have learnt a lot from this

Joking aside all of which have some level of validity.


That said we should worry aboiut any NH side going to NZ. Espeically when they will be under their best and missing players.
I just dont see that this performance was masisvely relevant or changes much.

Fanster wrote:

Shifty wrote:I think we really need to look at Baldwin, it looked he might be ok if he learned to throw in the line out, but it appears he's going backwards, and has stopped trying to improve.  He got the hookers jersey and decided he's "made it".

Baldwin was good at what he does

If being rank poor is what he does, then I agree that he was good at what he does.

Gotta say...all the complaining we are doing - Eddie Jones is right. We beat Wales 5 tries to 1.

Its not a bad position to be in despite all the apparent issues we have according to this thread.

rainbow-warrior wrote:At least England did not have to destroy thousands of Grand Slam T shirts this time round.  I bet there's a Grand Slam DVD too!!  Kettle calling the Pot it seem's.  Mind you 1 GS in 13 years I hope it was done in Blu-Ray. and or 3D if only to show how Wales almost did it again in 20 minutes hahaha

1 RWC = 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 GS's

Gooseberry wrote:

• They are focussing on fitness and were tired
  They were holding back after an initial surge
  Its experimental and they are still finding the new patterns
  Gatland didnt use his bench tacticaly but to look at players
  They will have learnt a lot from this
  

Joking aside all of which have some level of validity.

And the ref allowing Cole's deliberate knock on?

Alex_Germany wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

• They are focussing on fitness and were tired
  They were holding back after an initial surge
  Its experimental and they are still finding the new patterns
  Gatland didnt use his bench tacticaly but to look at players
  They will have learnt a lot from this
  

Joking aside all of which have some level of validity.

And the ref allowing Cole's deliberate knock on?

As opposed to allowing play after the ball went "backwards" off cole??

Welly wrote:

rainbow-warrior wrote:At least England did not have to destroy thousands of Grand Slam T shirts this time round.  I bet there's a Grand Slam DVD too!!  Kettle calling the Pot it seem's.  Mind you 1 GS in 13 years I hope it was done in Blu-Ray. and or 3D if only to show how Wales almost did it again in 20 minutes hahaha

1 RWC = 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 GS's

No it's not, but for some teams, like Wales, a GS in the 6N is the highest possible achievement likely. For all their talk before the match, it was the strongest possible team they could field - had England been playing their Saracens and Exeter contingent, and had Ford made his kicks, the scoreline would have been a drubbing of the 63 point type - which of course we're told doesn't count because there wasn't anything riding on it.

Fact is, Wales are at their absolute ceiling with Gatland, England have frightening potential.

Alex_Germany wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

• They are focussing on fitness and were tired
  They were holding back after an initial surge
  Its experimental and they are still finding the new patterns
  Gatland didnt use his bench tacticaly but to look at players
  They will have learnt a lot from this
  

Joking aside all of which have some level of validity.

And the ref allowing Cole's deliberate knock on?

Each to their own. If the circumstances were reversed and Wales had scored a try from something like that I doubt there would be many Welsh complaints

We'd still have lost, just 4 tries to 2.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Thank god Eddie see the good that Ford does, yes his kicking was poor but he gets us moving and scoring tries, why do so many of you want Farrell at 10?

You don't beat the best teams in the world by kicking 1/7. Ford is in dire form, we're carrying at the minute, this can't continue.

He still helped orchestrate several tries and away from the tee made no mistakes of note. He also adopted an effective pragmatic approach later on in the game to deny Wales any field position to try and get back in to the game. Whilst his kicking off the tee was shocking that isn't a requirement of a fly half.

+1

The criticism of Ford is getting a bit hysterical. He is a superb playmaker and a classy operator. Even in the midst of a slump in form he has still orchestrated a 100% win record for Eddie Jones' England at 10. He seems particularly adept at closing out games - I thought his game management in the last 20 minutes of the Grand Slam decider against France was top drawer.

It's pleasing to hear Jones standing by him.

As a long time Welsh supporter....... We were very poor & Gatball is a dead duck

We're winning despite Ford being awful, this won't continue against the better sides. You can't kick that badly at the top level.

Allty wrote:As a long time Welsh supporter.......  We were very poor & Gatball is a dead duck

As a non Welsh supporter, I'd have to agree. A decade ago, take big, fast guys like Roberts and run hard at the 10,12 channel, and you'd make progress.

Defences have caught up. Flankers are so fast and will quite easily chop down the biggest players (The beginning of the end for Warrenball was when Jo Worsley showed how to tackle). Even small 10s like Ford can tackle way better than Cipriani when he started his career.

Wales still have George North to run elusive lines, and Amos showed quite a bit of class on Sunday. But in attack, players like Fickou (I saw him play a week ago - wow!) and Joseph (if on form) are a lot more scary than Roberts or some big rugby league convert. (Though no one's yet tried out some 22 stone, ultra fast American footballers).

Alex_Germany wrote:

Allty wrote:As a long time Welsh supporter.......  We were very poor & Gatball is a dead duck

As a non Welsh supporter, I'd have to agree. A decade ago, take big, fast guys like Roberts and run hard at the 10,12 channel, and you'd make progress.

Defences have caught up. Flankers are so fast and will quite easily chop down the biggest players (The beginning of the end for Warrenball was when Jo Worsley showed how to tackle). Even small 10s like Ford can tackle way better than Cipriani when he started his career.

Wales still have George North to run elusive lines, and Amos showed quite a bit of class on Sunday. But in attack, players like Fickou (I saw him play a week ago - wow!) and Joseph (if on form) are a lot more scary than Roberts or some big rugby league convert. (Though no one's yet tried out some 22 stone, ultra fast American footballers).

The problem with the 22 stone ultra fast American Footballer is that they will look fantastic for a couple of minutes and then will be knackered for the other 78. Different games.

On the subject of wingers I wonder where everyone rates Watson now? He's a lot more physical and solid in defense than he used to be as well as being very elusive

Watson is exceptional, although I still want to see him at 15.

Shifty wrote:Wales play slow rugby, with poor skills.  New Zealand will recycle quickly and the Welsh defense won't be able to realign, New Zealand will look to use skills and speed, not power and we won't be able to cope with that.  I fully expect New Zealand to score just short of 50 points in each of their games with Wales around 10.  

It's all the more baffling that Gatland, a Kiwi, seems not to want us to play the same way. Does he just think Welsh players can't do it?

lostinwales wrote:

Alex_Germany wrote:

Allty wrote:As a long time Welsh supporter.......  We were very poor & Gatball is a dead duck

As a non Welsh supporter, I'd have to agree. A decade ago, take big, fast guys like Roberts and run hard at the 10,12 channel, and you'd make progress.

Defences have caught up. Flankers are so fast and will quite easily chop down the biggest players (The beginning of the end for Warrenball was when Jo Worsley showed how to tackle). Even small 10s like Ford can tackle way better than Cipriani when he started his career.

Wales still have George North to run elusive lines, and Amos showed quite a bit of class on Sunday. But in attack, players like Fickou (I saw him play a week ago - wow!) and Joseph (if on form) are a lot more scary than Roberts or some big rugby league convert. (Though no one's yet tried out some 22 stone, ultra fast American footballers).

The problem with the 22 stone ultra fast American Footballer is that they will look fantastic for a couple of minutes and then will be knackered for the other 78. Different games.

On the subject of wingers I wonder where everyone rates Watson now? He's a lot more physical and solid in defense than he used to be as well as being very elusive

Marcus Watson is awesome!!