England vs Italy

First topic message reminder :

28 players that have been kept.

Forwards (16): Jack Clifford (Harlequins), Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers), Charlie Ewels (Bath), Jamie George (Saracens), Teimana Harrison (Northampton Saints), Dylan Hartley (Northampton Saints), James Haskell (Wasps), Nathan Hughes (Wasps), Maro Itoje (Saracens), Joe Launchbury (Wasps), Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints), Joe Marler (Harlequins), Kyle Sinckler (Harlequins), Mako Vunipola (Saracens), Mike Williams (Leicester Tigers), Tom Wood (Northampton Saints)

Backs (12): Mike Brown (Harlequins), Danny Care (Harlequins), Elliot Daly (Wasps), Owen Farrell (Saracens), George Ford (Bath), Jonathan Joseph (Bath), Jonny May (Gloucester), Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs), Henry Slade (Exeter Chiefs), Ben Te’o (Worcester Warriors), Anthony Watson (Bath), Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers)

The Scotland video coach will be raging. He's expected to watch that match and figure out how England play. He won't learn much from that match.

Englands record breaking run continues.

carpet baboon wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Eddie Jones is such a naughty naughty boy. He is trying to deflect the blame for England's incompetence onto Italy. Shame he couldnt just admit that tactically he failed to adapt.

'He'?

He completely invalided the tactic after half time.

So what's he complaining about?  That his team couldn't think on their feet?

And that is the main issue the England fans should be concerned about. The team couldn't work out what to do, they had to wait till EJ to get out the crayons and draw the big picture for them.

I don't know about that, it wasn't exactly a tactic you see every day is it? I would imagine most teams would be flummoxed by it. Ireckon most teams would have needed half time to sort it out. It was very much sprung on England.

It wasn't rugby though.

Heaf wrote:31-5 2nd half ...

England had a 2 point lead after 69 minutes. Did well to adapt after then to close the game out. Needed Nowell to bail them out.

Scottrf wrote:We scored 2 tries in the first 10 minutes of the second half?

Correct. England are a sharp bag of cats when they get some wind in their sails. Teams that play....em conventionally... are always going to be kept on their toes.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Heaf wrote:31-5 2nd half ...

England had a 2 point lead after 69 minutes. Did well to adapt after then to close the game out.

How do you explain the 2 tries in the first 10 minutes of the second half in your narrative?

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Heaf wrote:31-5 2nd half ...

England had a 2 point lead after 69 minutes. Did well to adapt after then to close the game out. Needed Nowell to bail them out.

Aside from trying to be predictably antagonistic i'm failing to see what point you're trying to make?

TightHEAD wrote:It wasn't rugby though.

Well it was. You clearly didn't like it. But it was rugby.

Scottrf wrote:We scored 2 tries in the first 10 minutes of the second half?

Your players were still turning over very soft posession well into the second half because of Italy ruck tactics. Your players looked lost.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:The Scotland video coach will be raging. He's expected to watch that match and figure out how England play. He won't learn much from that match.

No he won't. The Italian players kept getting their bums in the way of the camera too, so not much footage at all to use.

Scottrf wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Heaf wrote:31-5 2nd half ...

England had a 2 point lead after 69 minutes. Did well to adapt after then to close the game out.

How do you explain the 2 tries in the first 10 minutes of the second half in your narrative?

How do you explain all the turnovers Italy won by not joining the ruck well into the second half?

When England don't like something, it's time to change the rules.

carpet baboon wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:It wasn't rugby though.

Well it was. You clearly didn't like it. But it was rugby.

That wasn't rugby, if it was then fewer kids will take up the game.

carpet baboon wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:It wasn't rugby though.

Well it was. You clearly didn't like it. But it was rugby.

It was wild, whacky, weird, cocaine-infused kinda rugby. England have a penchant for these kind of games - we all remember the England v France madhouse game a few years back.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Heaf wrote:31-5 2nd half ...

England had a 2 point lead after 69 minutes. Did well to adapt after then to close the game out.

How do you explain the 2 tries in the first 10 minutes of the second half in your narrative?

How do you explain all the turnovers Italy won by not joining the ruck well into the second half?

You mean all one of them?

TightHEAD wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:It wasn't rugby though.

Well it was. You clearly didn't like it. But it was rugby.

That wasn't rugby, if it was then fewer kids will take up the game.

Oh don't oversell the gloom Tight. You're doing fine with the moral 250+ game.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:When England don't like something, it's time to change the rules.

I'd imagine Roman will put in his game report that the rule needs to be looked at by world rugby.

TightHEAD wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:When England don't like something, it's time to change the rules.

I'd imagine Roman will put in his game report that the rule needs to be looked at by world rugby.

World Rugby didn't seem to mind when it was used before. I also remember people raving about how clever and innovative it was when the Chiefs introduced it. Because it is very risky, it hasn't been used much since. England were too stupid to adapt.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Cumbrian wrote:I don't get why people are saying England didn't adapt. They clearly did after half time. They played the game quicker, kept the ball off the floor and and played a short passing game around the ruck. It took too long, but they won't be caught unawares by it again.

No they didnt. It was a three point game after 68 minutes.

I disagree, we barely got out of our half of the field in the first 40 and spent most of the the second half in theirs. There was a clear shift in tactics (as demonstrated by Launchbury waiting for the Italian to make contact do we could maul them). We scored 4 tries in the second half to one in the first and that simply wasn't down to Italians tiring. I know they missed kicks but so did Farrell and on any other day you'd expect Farrell to nail them.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Heaf wrote:31-5 2nd half ...

England had a 2 point lead after 69 minutes. Did well to adapt after then to close the game out. Needed Nowell to bail them out.

"Bail"

It amazes me it's the usual Irish suspects commenting.....

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:When England don't like something, it's time to change the rules.

I'd imagine Roman will put in his game report that the rule needs to be looked at by world rugby.

World Rugby didn't seem to mind when it was used before. I also remember people raving about how clever and innovative it was when the Chiefs introduced it. Because it is very risky, it hasn't been used much since. England were too stupid to adapt.

The ref was made to look a fool on more than one occasion as he was too busy policing a ridicous rule, eg blowing the whistle and going to the TMO before the ball was even touched down.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:When England don't like something, it's time to change the rules.

I'd imagine Roman will put in his game report that the rule needs to be looked at by world rugby.

World Rugby didn't seem to mind when it was used before. I also remember people raving about how clever and innovative it was when the Chiefs introduced it. Because it is very risky, it hasn't been used much since. England were too stupid to adapt.

I've seen this done at an amateur level a lot. As I've said before I don't know how a bunch of pros were so badly discombobulated by it.

Cumbrian wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Cumbrian wrote:I don't get why people are saying England didn't adapt. They clearly did after half time. They played the game quicker, kept the ball off the floor and and played a short passing game around the ruck. It took too long, but they won't be caught unawares by it again.

No they didnt. It was a three point game after 68 minutes.

I disagree, we barely got out of our half of the field in the first 40 and spent most of the the second half in theirs. There was a clear shift in tactics (as demonstrated by Launchbury waiting for the Italian to make contact do we could maul them). We scored 4 tries in the second half to one in the first and that simply wasn't down to Italians tiring. I know they missed kicks but so did Farrell and on any other day you'd expect Farrell to nail them.

Cumbrian, the Irish will continue to post. It's easier to just say England are Poopie and Ireland will take the tournament

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:When England don't like something, it's time to change the rules.

I'd imagine Roman will put in his game report that the rule needs to be looked at by world rugby.

World Rugby didn't seem to mind when it was used before. I also remember people raving about how clever and innovative it was when the Chiefs introduced it. Because it is very risky, it hasn't been used much since. England were too stupid to adapt.

31 in the second half surely means they did adapt though?

TightHEAD wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:When England don't like something, it's time to change the rules.

I'd imagine Roman will put in his game report that the rule needs to be looked at by world rugby.

World Rugby didn't seem to mind when it was used before. I also remember people raving about how clever and innovative it was when the Chiefs introduced it. Because it is very risky, it hasn't been used much since. England were too stupid to adapt.

The ref was made to look a fool on more than one occasion as he was too busy policing a ridicous rule, eg blowing the whistle and going to the TMO before the ball was even touched down.

If you see an obstruction then you are supposed to blow the whistle. He just wanted to check again.

You're a bit like the players. Moaning instead of thinking.

nathan wrote:It amazes me it's the usual Irish suspects commenting.....

There are only a handful of Irish usual suspects on the site, Nathan. So it isn't rocket science that most of the 'usual suspects' turn up to comment on a game involving England in a 6N that they still have a few fingers attached to

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Heaf wrote:31-5 2nd half ...

England had a 2 point lead after 69 minutes. Did well to adapt after then to close the game out. Needed Nowell to bail them out.

Yes but they started the 2nd half in deficit and Italy also scored a further try so first half 2-1 for Italy and 2nd half 5-1 for England - seems to me like they adapted?

This has nothing to do with Ireland. If England are going to moan about the tactics employed well within the law and ask for the laws to be changed, I'm going to debate it. It is also quite hilarious talking to TightHead in particular. He would be doing the exact same if this had happened to Wales/Ireland.

It was an entertaining game, anyway.

Cumbrian wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Cumbrian wrote:I don't get why people are saying England didn't adapt. They clearly did after half time. They played the game quicker, kept the ball off the floor and and played a short passing game around the ruck. It took too long, but they won't be caught unawares by it again.

No they didnt. It was a three point game after 68 minutes.

I disagree, we barely got out of our half of the field in the first 40 and spent most of the the second half in theirs. There was a clear shift in tactics (as demonstrated by Launchbury waiting for the Italian to make contact do we could maul them). We scored 4 tries in the second half to one in the first and that simply wasn't down to Italians tiring. I know they missed kicks but so did Farrell and on any other day you'd expect Farrell to nail them.

Actually 5 in 2nd half I think ...

Rory_Gallagher wrote:This has nothing to do with Ireland. If England are going to moan about the tactics employed well within the law and ask for the laws to be changed, I'm going to debate it. It is also quite hilarious talking to TightHead in particular. He would be doing the exact same if this had happened to Wales/Ireland.

It was an entertaining game, anyway.

I suspect TightHEAD has been on the brew this afternoon, either way he is clearly on a fishing trip. He certainly doesn't speak for the rest of us.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:This has nothing to do with Ireland. If England are going to moan about the tactics employed well within the law and ask for the laws to be changed, I'm going to debate it. It is also quite hilarious talking to TightHead in particular. He would be doing the exact same if this had happened to Wales/Ireland.

It was an entertaining game, anyway.

I'm not one asking for the laws to be changed but interestedly POC (for whom I have the greatest respect as a player) was just on saying he thought there should be an offside line and thought the situation was silly ... I have to agree - it's legal but daft

It was only silly because England kept falling for it. All England had to do was pick and go, which would have allowed them to make a lot of ground before forcing Italy to commit numbers to the ruck. Then they would have space out wide. It isn't a commonly used tactic because it is very risky. It isn't as if coaches are unaware it exists (unless you're Eddie Jones, apparently).

By the way - I'm well aware of TightHead's trolling antics. It has been quite entertaining today, though.

Missed the match, but after reading about it on here, watched the first half, and Italy were really damn good, even besides the ruck law tactic (which wasn't used for the first 15mins anyways as they had all the posession). If they converted a few of their missed kicks they would have been in amazing shape going into the second half. The idea that their tactic wasn't rugby, or means they shouldn't be in the 6 nations is silly. That first half is exactly why they are well worth their place in this tournament. Eddie's saltiness after not getting his predicted cricket score shows why you need to back up big claims with actual performances...

Heaf wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:This has nothing to do with Ireland. If England are going to moan about the tactics employed well within the law and ask for the laws to be changed, I'm going to debate it. It is also quite hilarious talking to TightHead in particular. He would be doing the exact same if this had happened to Wales/Ireland.

It was an entertaining game, anyway.

I'm not one asking for the laws to be changed but interestedly POC (for whom I have the greatest respect as a player) was just on saying he thought there should be an offside line and thought the situation was silly ... I have to agree - it's legal but daft

Yes...seems daft when looking at it. But let's be clear - there are a lot of tricks and feints that are not legal but are always ignored by refs to let the games 'flow'. So it's interesting that coaches and players want the legal stuff to be outlawed and whistle their way past the illegal stuff they'd all get uppity about if the ref became more fussy with his whistle.

'We haven't played a game of rugby yet. We might go out and train after this' -- Eddie Jones

Really disrespectful to$$er

It wasn't rugby though, seriously.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

wolfball wrote:Missed the match, but after reading about it on here, watched the first half, and Italy were really damn good, even besides the ruck law tactic (which wasn't used for the first 15mins anyways as they had all the posession). If they converted a few of their missed kicks they would have been in amazing shape going into the second half. The idea that their tactic wasn't rugby, or means they shouldn't be in the 6 nations is silly. That first half is exactly why they are well worth their place in this tournament. Eddie's saltiness after not getting his predicted cricket score shows why you need to back up big claims with actual performances...

Jones just wanted to deflect from his own tactical ineptitude.

Or deflect the attention away from the players who aside from the law knowledge situation were very poor today for most parts of the game.

SOme of the tackling was quite appalling such as Campagnaro's try.

That was all a bit different.

Union has always been an imperfect game but the path to a RL approach continues. The banning of rucking, lifting in lineouts, depowering scrums, RL defence lines, increasing offside lines at setpiece are all to reduce structure and attempt to create the conditions for 'fluid' rugby.

If teams don't want to engage in rucks or mauls but rather stand around with their arms in the air, basketball style, the game of Union will evolve into something entirely different and you will just get 15 identical sized players who will each take a turn with the ball under their arm.

It might be entertaining, it might not. My money is on the latter.

TightHEAD wrote:It wasn't rugby though, seriously.

Sure as h*ll was entertainment though - Eddie suggests people should ask for their money back - I think they should patent it as an income stream!!

GunsGermsV2 wrote:'We haven't played a game of rugby yet. We might go out and train after this' -- Eddie Jones

Really disrespectful to$$er

Ah he's just winding it up.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:'We haven't played a game of rugby yet. We might go out and train after this' -- Eddie Jones

Really disrespectful to$$er

It's amusing how much he winds you up.

"We haven't played a game of rugby yet"

Well............................... who is the coach? Blame him.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:It was only silly because England kept falling for it. All England had to do was pick and go, which would have allowed them to make a lot of ground before forcing Italy to commit numbers to the ruck. Then they would have space out wide. It isn't a commonly used tactic because it is very risky. It isn't as if coaches are unaware it exists (unless you're Eddie Jones, apparently).

By the way - I'm well aware of TightHead's trolling antics. It has been quite entertaining today, though.

I agree England should have just gone through the middle - and made that comment at the time - POC was saying not having an offside line in that situation was silly ...

Is it just pure coincidence that the irish became so invested in this thread half an hour into the game??

Not a pip before hand and now they are dominating the thread...

Clear wumming imo.

If you dont think there's a problem if a game of rugby is played without a defensive offside line, I dont know what to tell you.

Let's be honest, it was a good bit of theatre. Could have just been a procession but COS made a game of it.

Much better game than I thought it would be. Kudos to Italy for having a go and damn we were slow at countering it. But.....BP win, bring on Scotland.

Manu's Boxing Coach wrote:Is it just pure coincidence that the irish became so invested in this thread half an hour into the game??

Not a pip before hand and now they are dominating the thread...

Clear wumming imo.

If you dont think there's a problem if a game of rugby is played without a defensive offside line, I dont know what to tell you.

I looked up the Rugby Rule book, and the Irish are still just about legal in it. World Rugby will discuss our future in 2018 - but for now, we're still legal tender.

Still can't understand people knocking Brown. He was immense under the high ball and as usual ran it back strongly in a way that gives enough time to get support.

Campagnaro was class and beat two other players for that try. We don't have anyone better than Brown.

Itoje was huge and made many turnovers not just at breakdown but tackling aswell dumping people into touch.

Howell has to start, pure class. Disappointed for Two as the offside trap totally put him out of the game as we didn't deal with it.

End of re day though...another solid test for England and we came away with a win.

Recwatcher16 wrote:That was all a bit different.

Union has always been an imperfect game but the path to a RL approach continues. The banning of rucking, lifting in lineouts, depowering scrums, RL defence lines, increasing offside lines at setpiece are all to reduce structure and attempt to create the conditions for 'fluid' rugby.

If teams don't want to engage in rucks or mauls but rather stand around with their arms in the air, basketball style, the game of Union will evolve into something entirely different and you will just get 15 identical sized players who will each take a turn with the ball under their arm.

It might be entertaining, it might not. My money is on the latter.

If teams were to do this frequently, they would lose, because most teams adapt very quickly. It is a risky manoeuvre and rarely pays off. It has happened before, it will happen again. It isn't a commonly used tactic at all. It is enjoyable to watch when it works. It is also enjoyable to watch the opposition capitalise on the situation.

Flip me, you would think this was going to change the game of rugby as we know it. Like I said, coaches are aware of this tactic.