England - what next?

First topic message reminder :

Firstly I take nothing away from Scotland who were fantastic and I hope go on to win a grand slam.

For me this dire England performance may well be a blessing in disguise. Us winning the Autumn cup playing such awful rugby only covered up a number of cracks. We have nothing in attack and our discipline is consistently the worst in the world. We are saved by our defence.

Ok we were missing some props which taught us that Genge is not quite there. Plus Stuart very quiet in the loose. Mako making his usual 21 tackles would have helped. No need to panic, but Eddie has to accept that this is not just a blip but a reflection of recent dire performances. You cannot win matches giving away so many penalties and that is a recurring issue. And he chose to start all those rusty Sarries players who all looked off the pace. Why not start Cowan-Dickie?

But the midfield is dire and Farrell a real problem there. Just not good enough. I remember Eddie being ruthless and taking Luther Burrell off after 25 minutes against the Aussies. We needed that ruthless streak today and Ford should have replaced Farrell with 20 to go. Itoje a penalty machine but because he is normally a machine and plays the full 80 Eddie did not react.

Time for England to take a good hard look at this team and shake it up (not panic, but a decent shakeup).

To answer the OP.. England - what next?

Ireland ... thats what next. Lose that (which I think will happen) and I think it will be time for a new coach.

Nah...disagree No9

No9 wrote:To answer the OP.. England - what next?

Ireland ... thats what next. Lose that (which I think will happen) and I think it will be time for a new coach.

you talking Jones or Farrell?

Jones is going nowhere. His win-loss record with England has been very good. Even with a loss to Ireland, he has the cred to fix (plus a contract hard to get rid of).

I have no idea about Farrell’s agreement with the IRFU. But I can’t see him going anywhere for a while.

It's well worth watching the Wibble Rugby analysis - Jones is playing a much longer game than we fans are. It explains a lot about the system he is trying to build, why it takes so long to integrate new players - and why, from the perspective of RWC 2023, a couple of losses this year don't really matter.

Eddie's trying not to make the same mistake that Ireland made in 2019 of having a system that was probably the best in the world until someone worked out how to stop it 6 months before the RWC - and that requires players to be fully bought into a system that if Wibble is right is basically 7s played with 15 players for 80 minutes.

A player like Odogwu or Dombrandt is not getting in the squad until he can keep up with the off-the-ball movement for a full match. A player like Sam Simmonds is not getting in the squad because the system relies on having multiple crash ball players in the pack, which Simmonds isn't.

The RFU will be looking at what the long term plan is and how England are executing against it, not at the results of one tournament (especially off the back of an RWC final and two tournament wins in the last 18 months)

Poorfour wrote:It's well worth watching the Wibble Rugby analysis - Jones is playing a much longer game than we fans are. It explains a lot about the system he is trying to build, why it takes so long to integrate new players - and why, from the perspective of RWC 2023, a couple of losses this year don't really matter.

Eddie's trying not to make the same mistake that Ireland made in 2019 of having a system that was probably the best in the world until someone worked out how to stop it 6 months before the RWC - and that requires players to be fully bought into a system that if Wibble is right is basically 7s played with 15 players for 80 minutes.

A player like Odogwu or Dombrandt is not getting in the squad until he can keep up with the off-the-ball movement for a full match. A player like Sam Simmonds is not getting in the squad because the system relies on having multiple crash ball players in the pack, which Simmonds isn't.

The RFU will be looking at what the long term plan is and how England are executing against it, not at the results of one tournament (especially off the back of an RWC final and two tournament wins in the last 18 months)

A couple of losses may not matter but there will be huge pressure on him if they do lose to Ireland as England will have gone from winning the 6 nations to finishing 5th, assuming Scotland don't do the unthinkable against Italy.

From idiots potentially.

Simmonds is a sticking point for many fans but the player in his way is Earl not Billy in my opinion. Simmonds could fit the mould as a flanker with his huge work rate and good kick chase (he's prominent there for Chiefs with his speed) but Earl deservedly broke into the squad and impressed during his chances.

It will be interesting to see if Simmonds gets picked ahead of someone such as Ludlam on the flanks for the summer tour. I really rate Simmonds so hope he does get another chance competing with Earl. His international appearances prior to injury were very strong.

I can't think of any international 8 who is small and prospered long term since Pocock though. Not only was he world class but even a back row with Pocock and Hooper struggled for balance once Fardy was gone.

Gregory Alldritt, Kazuki Himeno and Beka Gorgadze are three of the slighter number 8s compared to the likes of Billy, Faletau, Stander and Vermuelen but still aren't small blokes by any stretch of the imagination.

Keiran Read was a similar build to Alldritt, still much bigger than Simmonds and even then the ABs best balance with Read always came with Kaino at 6.

The French back row currently are interesting as they are all pretty tall for back rows with no real brutes in there - though Jordan Joseph is coming up on the rails! They have balanced that recently though with an absolutely gigantic tight five and Vakatawa as a ball carrier at 13.

England finished 5th in the 2018 Six Nations then made a Rugby World Cup final in 2019.

Wales came 5th in 2020 and are one win from a Grand Slam in 2021.

king_carlos wrote:Simmonds is a sticking point for many fans but the player in his way is Earl not Billy in my opinion. Simmonds could fit the mould as a flanker with his huge work rate and good kick chase (he's prominent there for Chiefs with his speed) but Earl deservedly broke into the squad and impressed during his chances.

It will be interesting to see if Simmonds gets picked ahead of someone such as Ludlam on the flanks for the summer tour. I really rate Simmonds so hope he does get another chance competing with Earl. His international appearances prior to injury were very strong.

I can't think of any international 8 who is small and prospered long term since Pocock though. Not only was he world class but even a back row with Pocock and Hooper struggled for balance once Fardy was gone.

Gregory Alldritt, Kazuki Himeno and Beka Gorgadze are three of the slighter number 8s compared to the likes of Billy, Faletau, Stander and Vermuelen but still aren't small blokes by any stretch of the imagination.

Keiran Read was a similar build to Alldritt, still much bigger than Simmonds and even then the ABs best balance with Read always came with Kaino at 6.

The French back row currently are interesting as they are all pretty tall for back rows with no real brutes in there - though Jordan Joseph is coming up on the rails! They have balanced that recently though with an absolutely gigantic tight five and Vakatawa as a ball carrier at 13.

I always felt sorry for Fardy, particularly when Pocock was out injured. He was tasked with doing all the traditional back row duties pretty much on his own then blamed when it didn't work.

It worked spectacularly well at times when Fardy, Hooper and Pocock were all fully fit though to be fair.

Something I really loved about Pocock was how he changed his game with the breakdown laws. When he tore things up in 2011 a lot of opensides were attacking beyond the ball and then letting the players clearing out drive them back onto it. When refs cracked down on attacking beyond the ball due to the jackal going off feet many opensides either struggled or adapted to slowing the ball more and forcing attackers to commit to rucks rather than targeting stripping the ball and winning turnovers as much. Pocock kept adapting his game to keep winning turnover after turnover though. Plus he somehow kept coming back from injuries. A phenomenal openside.

I don't think it's Sam Simmonds as the sticking point it's more the fact that players are continually picked even though they under perform, cases in point lot of team for Scotland and Wales games. With all respect to Italy that game can be discounted as England were always going to win that one whoever was picked.
Now against France ALL the team was good, including the subs. It'll be interesting to see if England play as well now tomorrow as it's basically same team bar Slade. If England play poorly and lose or even just scrap a win questions will be asked and rightly so.

All we hear is "building for RWC 2023". Well Jones himself has stated that ideally the average age and number of caps is around 28 and 40 respectively. So, it seems unlikely anyone new is going to gain that many caps if they have not already been picked and in wider squad. This would appear to rule out likes of Marcus Smith, Dombrandt, Simmonds, and others. Hopefully I'm wrong but I don't see current squad has enough X factor to win 2023 RWC.

Jones has also said that he sees only 70% of the previous world cup squad making the next.

Poorfour wrote:It's well worth watching the Wibble Rugby analysis - Jones is playing a much longer game than we fans are. It explains a lot about the system he is trying to build, why it takes so long to integrate new players - and why, from the perspective of RWC 2023, a couple of losses this year don't really matter.

Eddie's trying not to make the same mistake that Ireland made in 2019 of having a system that was probably the best in the world until someone worked out how to stop it 6 months before the RWC - and that requires players to be fully bought into a system that if Wibble is right is basically 7s played with 15 players for 80 minutes.

A player like Odogwu or Dombrandt is not getting in the squad until he can keep up with the off-the-ball movement for a full match. A player like Sam Simmonds is not getting in the squad because the system relies on having multiple crash ball players in the pack, which Simmonds isn't.

The RFU will be looking at what the long term plan is and how England are executing against it, not at the results of one tournament (especially off the back of an RWC final and two tournament wins in the last 18 months)

That's all well and good until you look back at world cup winners and apart from New Zealand in 2015 almost every other winner has won the tournament by being ruthlessly pragmatic. South Africa in 2019 and 2007, England in 2003. You could argue about Australia and New Zealand in 1999 and 2011 respectively but they weren't exactly the most flair teams in the world in the years they won it.

I think New Zealand were playing 7s in 2019 and it showed that it can be countered by a technically weaker yet tactically superior team because no one is as good as New Zealand when it comes to basic skills and individual ability. Both South Africa and England outplayed them, the former in the group game was just a dry run and I think South Africa would always have beaten the ABs in a knock out game.

Variety is always what makes a team successful. If NZ had the ability and awareness in the semi final to play percentages and get a territorial foothold in the English half by kicking instead of constantly running, they would have won penalties and got back in the game, but it also means their most potent weapon (the running and counter attacking game) becomes far more successful if it's one of 3 or 4 different options. After 20 minutes of that game England knew that NZ were going to run everything and that helped their wide defence to keep their width and drift on to the ABs who effectively run themselves in to touch time and time again.

If you're one dimensional you're easier to beat. That's true whether you play like Ireland with their pick and go and kicking game, or like NZ in 2019 with their 'run everything from deep' approach which simply didn't work without Mackenzie.

Another point is that it's easier to shut down a running team than a one dimensional pragmatic team because there are far more 'steps' involved in order to create space and score points. Rugby starts at the set piece and the breakdown and if you don't have that (Scotland) you're fighting a losing battle. With all those extra steps, from what they do off 9, to their attacking lines, to their offload and supporting game, all of that can be analysed and the big thing in sport now is that from one game to the next you can have your whole gameplan worked out and nullified by a competent opposition. So, again, if you're one dimensional then you're beatable. But if you're one dimensional and pragamtic, like South Africa and Wales, even if the other team knows what's coming, it's not as threatening but in some ways it's harder to stop.

I just don't see the basis for thinking that rugby is about to change comprehensively to the point where pragmatism becomes a losing game. There's so much more risk involved in playing the kind of rugby France appear to be trying to do that, in knockout rugby, all it takes is one bad game. Just ask New Zealand.

Variety is key and England will have to learn how to win games even when the pack comes up against a France or South Africa. For me Farrell cannot lead the team on the back foot but Ford can and this is where the running and counter attacking game is key. Eddie Jones talked in the week about going from an 'attractive' game one week to the next game where the opposition just shuts you down. That was the world cup and I said in my other thread everything England do from now to France 2023 is about learning how to win games in different ways, but in particular when their pack doesn't have physical dominance. Which is why tomorrow should be a good game, like last week was, because Ireland and France are the only two six nations teams that can regularly go toe to toe with England in terms of physicality.

king_carlos wrote:Simmonds is a sticking point for many fans but the player in his way is Earl not Billy in my opinion. Simmonds could fit the mould as a flanker with his huge work rate and good kick chase (he's prominent there for Chiefs with his speed) but Earl deservedly broke into the squad and impressed during his chances.

Yes it's tough on Simmonds but he's not an 8 he's closer to an openside flanker from the 1970s or 80s. New Zealand is full of players who excel at Super Rugby but never get a look in with the ABs (Ben Lam) because he just doesn't have the game for what the ABs want to do. Look at South Africa and Stander. As fantastic as Stander has been for Ireland, over the last decade, who would he be replacing in SA? He'd maybe have won 5-10 caps for the Boks but that's it, he's not displacing any of the 4-5 main back row players they have.

Earl offers what Simmonds does and more. He's also younger and bigger. Ted Hill and Dombrandt are higher up the pecking order than Simmonds.

With Odogwu it will be very interesting to see how he plays when he gets back to his club. If there are obvious improvements it should give us more confidence in what Jones is doing.

And where he plays for wasps. They've got what would generally be considered as their first choice midfield back.

England. What next?

After tearing them apart a month ago and saying the current England team won’t go anywhere, Matt Dawson has this morning now said that England will be challenging for World Cup.

What a flip flop pundit he is!

whatahitson wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Simmonds is a sticking point for many fans but the player in his way is Earl not Billy in my opinion. Simmonds could fit the mould as a flanker with his huge work rate and good kick chase (he's prominent there for Chiefs with his speed) but Earl deservedly broke into the squad and impressed during his chances.

Yes it's tough on Simmonds but he's not an 8 he's closer to an openside flanker from the 1970s or 80s. New Zealand is full of players who excel at Super Rugby but never get a look in with the ABs (Ben Lam) because he just doesn't have the game for what the ABs want to do. Look at South Africa and Stander. As fantastic as Stander has been for Ireland, over the last decade, who would he be replacing in SA? He'd maybe have won 5-10 caps for the Boks but that's it, he's not displacing any of the 4-5 main back row players they have.

Earl offers what Simmonds does and more. He's also younger and bigger. Ted Hill and Dombrandt are higher up the pecking order than Simmonds.

So lets make make sure we know what Sam Simmonds is. He is an 8 full stop and recognised as one of the best 8s in Europe.
He operates 8 but akin to a BSF of today not a OSF as the days of an OSF being quicker and faster disappeared around 2010 with the new laws, yes maybe an OSF from the 70/80s (I was a typical 6' 5" BSF from that era and he is the exact opposite of guys like me).
Eddie/Saracens aka England operates no possession, defence, strangle, kick, chase....repeat, whilst Baxter/Exeter operates the polar opposite with two big flanking units and a swift 8. Simmonds roundhouse, dogleg and blindside runs highlights in his high score rate and equally good tackle efficiency. He is closer to Faletau style than the lumbering 8's that is vital to Jones playing strategy.

He is an 8 but not Eddies type of 8

tigertattie wrote:England. What next?

After tearing them apart a month ago and saying the current England team won’t go anywhere, Matt Dawson has this morning now said that England will be challenging for World Cup.

What a flip flop pundit he is!

Agree
He is purposely controversial and biased, he's the Donald Trump of rugby punditry, England really have to play poorly for his to criticise them

flyhalffactory wrote:

whatahitson wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Simmonds is a sticking point for many fans but the player in his way is Earl not Billy in my opinion. Simmonds could fit the mould as a flanker with his huge work rate and good kick chase (he's prominent there for Chiefs with his speed) but Earl deservedly broke into the squad and impressed during his chances.

Yes it's tough on Simmonds but he's not an 8 he's closer to an openside flanker from the 1970s or 80s. New Zealand is full of players who excel at Super Rugby but never get a look in with the ABs (Ben Lam) because he just doesn't have the game for what the ABs want to do. Look at South Africa and Stander. As fantastic as Stander has been for Ireland, over the last decade, who would he be replacing in SA? He'd maybe have won 5-10 caps for the Boks but that's it, he's not displacing any of the 4-5 main back row players they have.

Earl offers what Simmonds does and more. He's also younger and bigger. Ted Hill and Dombrandt are higher up the pecking order than Simmonds.

So lets make make sure we know what Sam Simmonds is. He is an 8 full stop and recognised as one of the best 8s in Europe.
He operates 8 but akin to a BSF of today not a OSF as the days of an OSF being quicker and faster disappeared around 2010 with the new laws, yes maybe an OSF from the 70/80s (I was a typical 6' 5" BSF from that era and he is the exact opposite of guys like me).
Eddie/Saracens aka England operates no possession, defence, strangle, kick, chase....repeat, whilst Baxter/Exeter operates the polar opposite with two big flanking units and a swift 8. Simmonds roundhouse, dogleg and blindside runs highlights in his high score rate and equally good tackle efficiency. He is closer to Faletau style than the lumbering 8's that is vital to Jones playing strategy.

He is an 8 but not Eddies type of 8

Unless you're being stringently literal about 'what' a player is based on the shirt number they have on their back then, no, he isn't an 8 just like Don Armand isn't an openside flanker. Exeter play with two huge flankers who do the job of a blindside, at least one of whom can play second row, and their 8 is then basically a free role which would correlate mostly closesly with an old openside flanker.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2019/05/31/have-taken-shackles-revitalised-matt-kvesic-thriving-exeter/

Give that a read and see what position Matt Kvesic was playing for the Chiefs because Simmonds was his direct replacement

In case you are not subscribed:

The Telegraph wrote:Kvesic, nominally a No 8 but with a licence to rove, made his reputation as a foraging openside, fast and fearless, with his head invariably in among the clatter and clash of a breakdown. But the strength became a weakness, a single-mined focus that blinded the player to other possibilities (...)

Kvesic wears the No 8 shirt but plays effectively as an openside flanker, Baxter figuring that his “stocky, powerful” frame is better suited to snaring any bobbing ball at the base than the taller, rangier figures of a Dave Ewers or Don Armand who lend their heft to the side of the scrum.

The Chiefs’ back row works as a combination and will have to do so to counter the obvious yet enduring threat posed by Vunipola on the charge forward. Kvesic is clear as to what it will take to stop his one-time England team-mate on Saturday.

There was me thinking Simmonds had replaced Thomas Waldrom. A big lumbering no.8 (who scored a lot of tries)

whatahitson wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:

whatahitson wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Simmonds is a sticking point for many fans but the player in his way is Earl not Billy in my opinion. Simmonds could fit the mould as a flanker with his huge work rate and good kick chase (he's prominent there for Chiefs with his speed) but Earl deservedly broke into the squad and impressed during his chances.

Yes it's tough on Simmonds but he's not an 8 he's closer to an openside flanker from the 1970s or 80s. New Zealand is full of players who excel at Super Rugby but never get a look in with the ABs (Ben Lam) because he just doesn't have the game for what the ABs want to do. Look at South Africa and Stander. As fantastic as Stander has been for Ireland, over the last decade, who would he be replacing in SA? He'd maybe have won 5-10 caps for the Boks but that's it, he's not displacing any of the 4-5 main back row players they have.

Earl offers what Simmonds does and more. He's also younger and bigger. Ted Hill and Dombrandt are higher up the pecking order than Simmonds.

So lets make make sure we know what Sam Simmonds is. He is an 8 full stop and recognised as one of the best 8s in Europe.
He operates 8 but akin to a BSF of today not a OSF as the days of an OSF being quicker and faster disappeared around 2010 with the new laws, yes maybe an OSF from the 70/80s (I was a typical 6' 5" BSF from that era and he is the exact opposite of guys like me).
Eddie/Saracens aka England operates no possession, defence, strangle, kick, chase....repeat, whilst Baxter/Exeter operates the polar opposite with two big flanking units and a swift 8. Simmonds roundhouse, dogleg and blindside runs highlights in his high score rate and equally good tackle efficiency. He is closer to Faletau style than the lumbering 8's that is vital to Jones playing strategy.

He is an 8 but not Eddies type of 8

Unless you're being stringently literal about 'what' a player is based on the shirt number they have on their back then, no, he isn't an 8 just like Don Armand isn't an openside flanker. Exeter play with two huge flankers who do the job of a blindside, at least one of whom can play second row, and their 8 is then basically a free role which would correlate mostly closesly with an old openside flanker.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2019/05/31/have-taken-shackles-revitalised-matt-kvesic-thriving-exeter/

Give that a read and see what position Matt Kvesic was playing for the Chiefs because Simmonds was his direct replacement

In case you are not subscribed:

The Telegraph wrote:Kvesic, nominally a No 8 but with a licence to rove, made his reputation as a foraging openside, fast and fearless, with his head invariably in among the clatter and clash of a breakdown.  But the strength became a weakness, a single-mined focus that blinded the player to other possibilities (...)

Kvesic wears the No 8 shirt but plays effectively as an openside flanker, Baxter figuring that his “stocky, powerful” frame is better suited to snaring any bobbing ball at the base than the taller, rangier figures of a Dave Ewers or Don Armand who lend their heft to the side of the scrum.

The Chiefs’ back row works as a combination and will have to do so to counter the obvious yet enduring threat posed by Vunipola on the charge forward. Kvesic is clear as to what it will take to stop his one-time England team-mate on Saturday.

That's exactly my point
An 8 operates from the 8 position.
The coaching/playing strategy might be different dependent on many factors ......opposition, weather, form of players etc (as to who the 8 will be on the day) e.g. Billy V would never be able to operate as an 8 in Baxters world, where his 8 is a swift mobile player who tackles efficiently i.e. doesn't have to dominant tackle but just has to stop the flow of the game. Baxters strategy is the flankers will dominate the exit points allowing the 8 to have free rein
Bath are starting to play this way with Faletau

Zach Mercer has been playing 8 for Bath with Faletau at 6 when available.

lostinwales wrote:There was me thinking Simmonds had replaced Thomas Waldrom. A big lumbering no.8 (who scored a lot of tries)

That would be a big lumbering mistake, wouldn't it.

The point about Simmonds' position is really simplye.

If you take him outside the Exeter environment, which position is he most likely to play? It's probably as a flanker not as a number 8.

Therefore, what value is he to England? He's nowhere near any of the other flankers. Earl is better as a versatile back row who could play at 8 if required but Curry was asked to do the job there and given the way he carried against France looks far more likely to play there for England than Simmonds.

It's an unfortunate reality that one of the headline players in club rugby isn't good enough to play international rugby but you can sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to understanding rugby and judging a player like Simmonds. The media love to drum up 'debate' because it generates interest and relies on the 'common sense' assumptions of people who put two and two together when it comes to form player scoring tries and not getting picked for England.

Joe Marler's absence is a far bigger problem for England than Sam Simmonds'.

whatahitson wrote:The point about Simmonds' position is really simplye.

If you take him outside the Exeter environment, which position is he most likely to play? It's probably as a flanker not as a number 8.

Therefore, what value is he to England? He's nowhere near any of the other flankers. Earl is better as a versatile back row who could play at 8 if required but Curry was asked to do the job there and given the way he carried against France looks far more likely to play there for England than Simmonds.

It's an unfortunate reality that one of the headline players in club rugby isn't good enough to play international rugby but you can sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to understanding rugby and judging a player like Simmonds. The media love to drum up 'debate' because it generates interest and relies on the 'common sense' assumptions of people who put two and two together when it comes to form player scoring tries and not getting picked for England.

Joe Marler's absence is a far bigger problem for England than Sam Simmonds'.

I don't agree with you (if I am reading you correctly)
Sam Simmonds is a much better BRF than you give him credit for.
This is little to do with form/tries etc, it's to do with coaching strategy and using the correct combos against specific opposition.

In my mind if England played "Exeter" way instead of "Saracens" then there is no doubt he is better than Underhill or Curry across the BR.
It was clear from the WC2019 Final (albeit Curry was only 20) that when England were bettered in the pack OSF Curry 6' 1" 17st 6lb (alongside BSF Underhill 6' 1" 16st 11lb & 8 Vunipola 6' 2" 20st 7lb) was ineffective in the BR, where OSF Justin Tipuric 6' 2" 16st 1lb in the S-F against the same opposition was a revelation even with the "light" BSF Wainwright 6' 2" 16st 10lb & 8 Moriarty 6' 2" 16st 2lb.
Eddie relies on bulk, brawn, stamina and specific roles e.g Underhill/Curry/Vunipola = 54st 10lb averaging 18st 3lb where the other school of thought....Pivac, Baxter, Townsend is more dynamic, fluid and interchangeable across the BR e.g. Wainwright/Tipuric/Moriarty = 48st 13lb averaging 16st 4lb, or Navid 6' 1" 16st 6lb or Faletau 6' 2" 17st 6"

whatahitson wrote:

lostinwales wrote:There was me thinking Simmonds had replaced Thomas Waldrom. A big lumbering no.8 (who scored a lot of tries)

That would be a big lumbering mistake, wouldn't it.

From the wikipedia page on Thomas the tank (about his time at Exeter)

2017-18
Due to the emergence of Sam Simmonds, Waldron's playing time has been limited in the 2017-18 season.

That page actually references this article in Rugby World

https://www.rugbyworld.com/countries/england-countries/sam-simmonds-87416

I know you have issues with people disagreeing with you but it doesn't make you right.

2 changes at front row and ita probably more to do with presentation to the ref as Woodward said. Ew, don't like agreeing with him.

Good hit by Daly

Ireland just playing the ref really well. If you can get away with it I suppose.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ireland just playing the ref really well. If you can get away with it I suppose.

Ref is getting conned time and time again.

Just brainless 'rugby by stats' from England. STILL!

Well looks to be a really poor tournament this. No street smarts with the ref, Ireland showing exactly how you play to perception. A couple of players on their last legs in youngs and daly. A few people pointing to the guy who led England to 2 tournament wins last year in Jones but for me he's untouchable, and one of the best in the world if not the best.

I don't think ive ever seen England look so disinterested in the six nations. Aside from proving a point against France they couldn't have cared less.

Tigers lost, England lost the cricket, England lost the rugby. I hate sport. No idea why I keep doing this to myself. It's like Stockholm syndrome. When lockdown ends I'm going to go live in the Highlands with 6 cats and no internet connection.

Well Matt Dawson will be flopping back back to calling for the entire
England team to be publicly flogged and castrated to prevent them passing their genes onto the next generation of rugby players.

Soul Requiem wrote:I don't think ive ever seen England look so disinterested in the six nations. Aside from proving a point against France they couldn't have cared less.

Exactly...they weren't interested. Its part of the world Cup cycle...
The summer tour will blood more kids, then the autumns and the next 6n will be a different story

I really dislike the analysis when its by Woodward. Its back to im Great and no one can touch me. Hes actually criticising a follow up to a world cup but the worst succession planning ever.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:I don't think ive ever seen England look so disinterested in the six nations. Aside from proving a point against France they couldn't have cared less.

Exactly...they weren't interested.  Its part of the world Cup cycle...
The summer tour will blood more kids, then the autumns and the next 6n will be a different story

They were interested. They just didn't perform. There are lessons learnt. I'm sure by the ais it will be quite different.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I really dislike the analysis when its by Woodward. Its back to im Great and no one can touch me. Hes actually criticising a follow up to a world cup but the worst succession planning ever.

Have to be honest, there must be people more recently involved in the game, that can offer more than him. I’d probably say the same for Dallaglio too. Same applies for the likes of Gareth Thomas and Shane Williams from a Welsh POV.

People like Warburton show the way to go.

Yep Warburton is excellent IMO - GT always seems to have a bit of a chip on his shoulder to me for some reason ...

No 7&1/2 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:I don't think ive ever seen England look so disinterested in the six nations. Aside from proving a point against France they couldn't have cared less.

Exactly...they weren't interested.  Its part of the world Cup cycle...
The summer tour will blood more kids, then the autumns and the next 6n will be a different story

They were interested.  They just didn't perform. There are lessons learnt. I'm sure by the ais it will be quite different.

1. Eddie wants records of which win% is absolutely one of the most important. So suggesting that England just not interested is both a load of rubbish and disrespectful to Scotland, Wales and Ireland for being clearly the better teams
2. Woodward was spot on. England haven't played a "total" "80" minute performance since NZ in late 2019
3. Eddie Jones obsession with massive totally fit but edgy players is both outdated and does not lend itself to the new 2019/20 laws
4. Why on earth with the trawlerful of pens in the 6Ns wasn't any England player yellow carded

flyhalffactory wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:I don't think ive ever seen England look so disinterested in the six nations. Aside from proving a point against France they couldn't have cared less.

Exactly...they weren't interested.  Its part of the world Cup cycle...
The summer tour will blood more kids, then the autumns and the next 6n will be a different story

They were interested.  They just didn't perform. There are lessons learnt. I'm sure by the ais it will be quite different.

1. Eddie wants records of which win% is absolutely one of the most important. So suggesting that England just not interested is both a load of rubbish and disrespectful to Scotland, Wales and Ireland for being clearly the better teams
2. Woodward was spot on. England have last played a "total" game an "80" minute performance against NZ in late 2019
3. Eddie Jones obsession with massive totally fit but edgy players is both outdated and does not lend itself to the new 2019/20 laws
4. Why on earth with the trawlerful of pens in the 6Ns wasn't any England player yellow carded

Eddie wants the world cup and nothing else. He has never and never will care about losing matches, it's all about progression and peaking at the right time.

Which wouldn't be good enough if true soul.

Soul Requiem wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:I don't think ive ever seen England look so disinterested in the six nations. Aside from proving a point against France they couldn't have cared less.

Exactly...they weren't interested.  Its part of the world Cup cycle...
The summer tour will blood more kids, then the autumns and the next 6n will be a different story

They were interested.  They just didn't perform. There are lessons learnt. I'm sure by the ais it will be quite different.

1. Eddie wants records of which win% is absolutely one of the most important. So suggesting that England just not interested is both a load of rubbish and disrespectful to Scotland, Wales and Ireland for being clearly the better teams
2. Woodward was spot on. England have last played a "total" game an "80" minute performance against NZ in late 2019
3. Eddie Jones obsession with massive totally fit but edgy players is both outdated and does not lend itself to the new 2019/20 laws
4. Why on earth with the trawlerful of pens in the 6Ns wasn't any England player yellow carded

Eddie wants the world cup and nothing else. He has never and never will care about losing matches, it's all about progression and peaking at the right time.

Sorry thats total tripe

What gets me is the inconsistency England have shown. The worst of those is Ben youngs. Capable of some good play and some nice tries then just total garbage. Aside from the French game we didn't seem fired up at all. Many players where guilty of such brain dead decisions to give away stupid penalties when we had to cleaner than a nuns sheets. I worry about Genge and Johnny Hill coming on when we need to stem the penalty count.

We'll have to let the dust settle and see what happens. Thankfully not many of our players are likely to be picked for the lions, could be a blessing in disguise. Plenty of talent to plunder from the prem so there is a flicker of hope.

flyhalffactory wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:I don't think ive ever seen England look so disinterested in the six nations. Aside from proving a point against France they couldn't have cared less.

Exactly...they weren't interested.  Its part of the world Cup cycle...
The summer tour will blood more kids, then the autumns and the next 6n will be a different story

They were interested.  They just didn't perform. There are lessons learnt. I'm sure by the ais it will be quite different.

1. Eddie wants records of which win% is absolutely one of the most important. So suggesting that England just not interested is both a load of rubbish and disrespectful to Scotland, Wales and Ireland for being clearly the better teams
2. Woodward was spot on. England have last played a "total" game an "80" minute performance against NZ in late 2019
3. Eddie Jones obsession with massive totally fit but edgy players is both outdated and does not lend itself to the new 2019/20 laws
4. Why on earth with the trawlerful of pens in the 6Ns wasn't any England player yellow carded

Eddie wants the world cup and nothing else. He has never and never will care about losing matches, it's all about progression and peaking at the right time.

Sorry thats total tripe

Is it?

He sacrificed two six nations campaigns in order to peak for the world cup and came mightily close to being vindicated.

Oh dear Soul...

I didn’t see the game, but something has clearly gone horribly wrong. Fresh players would probably be a good start, the premiership has plenty of them.

Soul Requiem wrote:

Is it?

He sacrificed two six nations campaigns in order to peak for the world cup and came mightily close to being vindicated.

Scotland have been sacrificing six nations campaigns to not win the World Cup for years now, can’t say it’s an approach I’d recommend

England will be in the reckoning for the World Cup. Scotland will not. This Covid Cup is pretty much pointless. Good luck to either France or Wales. There are bigger fish to fry.