England post 2022 6Ns, Aus tour and beyond

First topic message reminder :

sensisball wrote:
With Bath enduring a terrible season how many tries has Cokonasiga scored?

In five starts and four sub appearances he's bagged five tries. One appearance and one try for England.

It's a bench lacking experience but it's the type of players we'd like to have as options come the world cup.

Ignore the front row that pretty much picked itself.

Chessum - covers lock and 6 highly mobile and physical, good lineout option and we've been desperate for a young lock to come through.

Ludlam - covers 8 and 7 which is what the bench needs, club captain so adds much needed leadership here.

JVP - no one likes the current 9 options for last season's Under 20 captain and player of the J6N gets a chance. Best kicking game of the three 9s on tour and likes to play high tempo.

Porter - covers every position in the backs outside of 9 and 10, could probably do a job on the flank as well. Eddie likes a versatility option as they very much help the overall squad come world cup so audition time for Guy.

Arundell - exciting young player, not ready yet but Eddie will be hoping some international game time might speed up his development. Unlikely starter but potential game changer off the bench, always handy to have one of those at a world cup. Porter's inclusion means Arundell won't have to go in early unless there's multiple injuries.

So much drama in this game

One thing that's guaranteed with the Wallabies - it'll be an exciting test match!

I reckon the restart will decide the fate of this game. England MUST get this right.

Eight point game again. Australia had two good chances from the lineout in the England 22, but fluffed both. Could prove to be the difference, though there's still enough time left.

JoC has had an absolute shocker this game, just when the Wallabies needed his experience

Why on earth didn't Care let it go dead???

Cumbrian wrote:Why on earth didn't Care let it go dead???

A good question!

What do they do? Sticks or corner? Instinct would be to bank the points...

Would love to see the penalty stats at the end of the game - it seems like England get an immediate advantage every time they get in the Aussie half. I can't for the life of me see what that maul pen was actually for.

Penalties have been the difference here.

Cumbrian wrote:What do they do?  Sticks or corner?  Instinct would be to bank the points...

Yeah make it two converted tries required.

Ah, he's pulled it! Will we regret that?

Owen Farrel has put in a big performance tonight. Smith not so much.

What do England do for the future?

RDW wrote:Owen Farrel has put in a big performance tonight. Smith not so much.

What do England do for the future?

Smith will get another chance next weekend. Eddie has said it's the 10/12 combination he wants to work on. I'll be more interested to see what the decision is at 13 as Porter has looked good defensively and made a couple of good hard carries. Marchant is a classy operator though.

England deserving of the win over the 80, particular given the utter dominance of the first half. Wallabies again a brave performance given the significant injury disruption, but discipline really killed them tonight (the ref very much didn't like anything they were doing tonight). They also blew at least 3 chances in the England 22.

The huge swing in momentum from 45-65 mins will give England something to think about but they've gone a long time without a win so they'll savour this.

England looking good for the series win next week too - Wallabies will be struggling for players!

Credit to England for gritting it out, but a lot of the issues that have dogged us for two or three years persists.

Unfortunately I have to say that I have been really underwhelmed with Smith on this tour. He seems to kick the ball away in attacking positions too much for my liking.

Very good win for England, but the second half was as concerning as the first half was excellent. I think losing Itoje left the forwards very underpowered.

Australia had the chance to win it with the two line-out opportunities to take the lead, but they butchered both with basic errors. They had horrendous luck with injuries, also.

RDW wrote:Would love to see the penalty stats at the end of the game - it seems like England get an immediate advantage every time they get in the Aussie half. I can't for the life of me see what that maul pen was actually for.

Penalties have been the difference here.

By the same token, so did Australia (including at least one completely incorrect scrum pen). England just chose to kick for points rather than the corner; Australia went for the corner and converted the first two but then started to lose focus.

Watching England is like watching a cheesy horror film.

"That looks really dangerous. Let's split up and investigate"

Everything starts off fine, then people start making inexplicably bad decisions, and it all goes horribly wrong.

Well decent overall, may have looked a bit better had we got the pen try for the knock on. By the end it was a callow pack, the loss of Itoje hit us ad much as Curry last week. I'm still underwhelmed by the wingers, didn't really show much ball in hand. Porter was OK, barely noticed him. van Poortvliet was really good, him and Quirke will be a great combo come the autumn.

Rugby Fan wrote:Watching England is like watching a cheesy horror film.

"That looks really dangerous. Let's split up and investigate"

Everything starts off fine, then people start making inexplicably bad decisions, and it all goes horribly wrong.

Funny!

I wanted to take a few minutes after the match to think about it, and in the immortal words of Queen Vic, "We are not amused".

No doubts, the team looked better than last week, and also radically different from the first half to the second (save in a few neat passages of play). But England really started to cool off earlier, after the yellow in the first. Not sure the issue. Conditioning? Did they change tactics, and if so, then why? Or, my bet, focus. Focus is frequently the issue when the ball stops going to hand.

For me, I didn't think England looked all that good overall. Lot's of possession (better), breakdown work (better), but could barely convert the opportunities. One try. Kicking all those pens was what? A strategy to keep the scoreboard kicking over? Fear of turnovers and failing to score? Understandable based on team performance, but no tier 1 team should have given up a some of those opportunities. And a mediocre second half. And then when the attack became more muddled, the defense comes under pressure. And, shock, gives up points.

The Wallabies have lost a number of their top tier players. And England still needed a late kick to put the game away. Agree, it is good England got the W, but this does almost nothing to change how I feel about England at the moment. All we saw is what the team is capable of, but we knew that already. The job of the coach is to get that out of the players for the full 80.

I think we might be in danger of over analysing the disparity in first and second half. Australia did well second half and dogged it out and we often forget there are actually two teams in the contest who can influence the ebb and flow of a test match so kudos Australia. We did well not to completely panic and wrestled control back when it mattered to close the game out. There's so much more positivity to work on compared last week.

We mustn't forget Australia's record at the Suncorp, pretty impressive wins against sa and NZ so they are no basket case. A 20 min Aussie purple patch was always going to materialise and we did better than I predicted before the game. It wasn't as good a victory as the Irish earlier but I'll still take a win in Australia when not supposedly in form. If we find another gear next week then I can see us winning the series well and starting to get some much needed momentum.

Good summary, doctor g.

Occasionally, when we are in a good position, our ruck presentation lets us down, and the opposition drives us off. We don't often do that to other teams these days. It always feels like a big momentum shift when that happens. While we need to do better on our own possession, it surely can't hurt to engineer a co-ordinated counter ruck now and again, so the opposition can't spread attackers against us without impunity.

Bit of a game of two halves that.

I thought TMOs only got involved in foul play or checking scores. The TMO over turning the 50/22 was a bit of a turning point. It was also the wrong call in my humble opinion.

I have always hated the penalty/yellow card for someone not making an interception. Penalties should be for foul play, not missing execution. Bring back the old law where you only go pinged for hitting the ball down or forward with your arm making that movement.

All being said, the biggest turning point for me was after the great break, kick the dragging England over the line, the Ozzie hooker chucked it in squint. Momentum was with Oz then and that blew the game I feel

Rugby Fan wrote:Good summary, doctor g.

Occasionally, when we are in a good position, our ruck presentation lets us down, and the opposition drives us off. We don't often do that to other teams these days. It always feels like a big momentum shift when that happens. While we need to do better on our own possession, it surely can't hurt to engineer a co-ordinated counter ruck now and again, so the opposition can't spread attackers against us without impunity.

Couldn't agree more.  To that point exactly JVP generally got to the rucks fairly quick but then had moments where the forwards were late (when not diving over!), he got to the ruck and then waited because he either needed direction or simply didn't know what to do. This slowed the attack and ended up conceding a couple of turnovers.  I give him a lot of cred, he was eager and willing, did make some plays, and was his first start.  Got into some decent contact too, took a licking and kept on ticking, as the quote says.  A fairly mixed start, but clear signs he can (and will) get batter.  

Farrell-Porter?  Grrr.  Better than the last starts of Farrell's which I can actually remember.  On the other hand Porter's 3 carries is simply an indictment of Farrell (perhaps Smith, too) and EJ:
Every single person we brought into the squad to get a few power yards to replace Tuilagi has failed to get the ball enough to make a lasting impact.  In fact, I recall one of Porter's runs was exactly what was needed - a powerful run which netted 5-10 yards.  Why not give him perhaps about a half dozen chances at that over the course of the game?  Who knows wtf goes on in the mind of EJ, but I can not seriously entertain the notion he has wanted every Tuilagi replacement to fail.  When everyone fails to see the ball enough to make an impression, it stops being a player issue is down to the coach and the players immediately around the player.  This has been going on for the length of EJ's second RWC cycle.  And the biggest ignorer (is that a word?) is Farrell.  How can the second receiver, a play maker, consistently for quite a few years now ignore his OC?  

Bloody hell, my rant could go on for a long time.  Better cut and run.  It's only 12:15.  Out to the garden to play in the dirt!  Sun.  85°F (30°C in France).  Beer.  Family away for the weekend. What more does one need?

doctor_grey wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:Good summary, doctor g.

Occasionally, when we are in a good position, our ruck presentation lets us down, and the opposition drives us off. We don't often do that to other teams these days. It always feels like a big momentum shift when that happens. While we need to do better on our own possession, it surely can't hurt to engineer a co-ordinated counter ruck now and again, so the opposition can't spread attackers against us without impunity.

Couldn't agree more.  To that point exactly JVP generally got to the rucks fairly quick but then had moments where the forwards were late (when not diving over!), he got to the ruck and then waited because he either needed direction or simply didn't know what to do. This slowed the attack and ended up conceding a couple of turnovers.  I give him a lot of cred, he was eager and willing, did make some plays, and was his first start.  Got into some decent contact too, took a licking and kept on ticking, as the quote says.  A fairly mixed start, but clear signs he can (and will) get batter.  

Farrell-Porter?  Grrr.  Better than the last starts of Farrell's which I can actually remember.  On the other hand Porter's 3 carries is simply an indictment of Farrell (perhaps Smith, too) and EJ:
Every single person we brought into the squad to get a few power yards to replace Tuilagi has failed to get the ball enough to make a lasting impact.  In fact, I recall one of Porter's runs was exactly what was needed - a powerful run which netted 5-10 yards.  Why not give him perhaps about a half dozen chances at that over the course of the game?  Who knows wtf goes on in the mind of EJ, but I can not seriously entertain the notion he has wanted every Tuilagi replacement to fail.  When everyone fails to see the ball enough to make an impression, it stops being a player issue is down to the coach and the players immediately around the player.  This has been going on for the length of EJ's second RWC cycle.  And the biggest ignorer (is that a word?) is Farrell.  How can the second receiver, a play maker, consistently for quite a few years now ignore his OC?  

Bloody hell, my rant could go on for a long time.  Better cut and run.  It's only 12:15.  Out to the garden to play in the dirt!  Sun.  85°F (30°C in France).  Beer.  Family away for the weekend.  What more does one need?

Bit harsh on JVP, he's never played with either 10 before and the times of delay were either Aussie counter rucks his forwards couldn't sort out (ref wasn't giving anything for paying the 9) or switch moves with the playmakers swapping sides and more than once the main issue there was a forward stood in the way being about as much use as a chocolate teapot. You'd hope the fluidity will come with experience and time with Smith/Farrell. Quite liked Care coming off the bench, could have done with it a few minutes earlier ideally, he's always been good at using the tempo.

Farrell was very good at 12. Smith improved from last weekend but still struggled and the kicks to nowhere when there were passing options were very poor. Porter did a job, like Marchant last weekend was mainly utilised as the dummy option. I do wish we'd hit the dummy option early in the game just to keep the opposition defence honest. Currently the opposition tend to drift straight past the 13 cutting the hard line because they know we never give them the ball. Even when Manu is in the team I've tended to think we should get the ball in his hand a bit more.

Has anyone seen why England ditched the 6 2 bench after Willis was injured?

Can’t read the thread now. Just wanted to say congrats to England. Great result.

Commiserations to the Australian supporters on here.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:Good summary, doctor g.

Occasionally, when we are in a good position, our ruck presentation lets us down, and the opposition drives us off. We don't often do that to other teams these days. It always feels like a big momentum shift when that happens. While we need to do better on our own possession, it surely can't hurt to engineer a co-ordinated counter ruck now and again, so the opposition can't spread attackers against us without impunity.

Couldn't agree more.  To that point exactly JVP generally got to the rucks fairly quick but then had moments where the forwards were late (when not diving over!), he got to the ruck and then waited because he either needed direction or simply didn't know what to do. This slowed the attack and ended up conceding a couple of turnovers.  I give him a lot of cred, he was eager and willing, did make some plays, and was his first start.  Got into some decent contact too, took a licking and kept on ticking, as the quote says.  A fairly mixed start, but clear signs he can (and will) get batter.  

Farrell-Porter?  Grrr.  Better than the last starts of Farrell's which I can actually remember.  On the other hand Porter's 3 carries is simply an indictment of Farrell (perhaps Smith, too) and EJ:
Every single person we brought into the squad to get a few power yards to replace Tuilagi has failed to get the ball enough to make a lasting impact.  In fact, I recall one of Porter's runs was exactly what was needed - a powerful run which netted 5-10 yards.  Why not give him perhaps about a half dozen chances at that over the course of the game?  Who knows wtf goes on in the mind of EJ, but I can not seriously entertain the notion he has wanted every Tuilagi replacement to fail.  When everyone fails to see the ball enough to make an impression, it stops being a player issue is down to the coach and the players immediately around the player.  This has been going on for the length of EJ's second RWC cycle.  And the biggest ignorer (is that a word?) is Farrell.  How can the second receiver, a play maker, consistently for quite a few years now ignore his OC?  

Bloody hell, my rant could go on for a long time.  Better cut and run.  It's only 12:15.  Out to the garden to play in the dirt!  Sun.  85°F (30°C in France).  Beer.  Family away for the weekend.  What more does one need?

Bit harsh on JVP, he's never played with either 10 before and the times of delay were either Aussie counter rucks his forwards couldn't sort out (ref wasn't giving anything for paying the 9) or switch moves with the playmakers swapping sides and more than once the main issue there was a forward stood in the way being about as much use as a chocolate teapot. You'd hope the fluidity will come with experience and time with Smith/Farrell. Quite liked Care coming off the bench, could have done with it a few minutes earlier ideally, he's always been good at using the tempo.

Farrell was very good at 12. Smith improved from last weekend but still struggled and the kicks to nowhere when there were passing options were very poor. Porter did a job, like Marchant last weekend was mainly utilised as the dummy option. I do wish we'd hit the dummy option early in the game just to keep the opposition defence honest. Currently the opposition tend to drift straight past the 13 cutting the hard line because they know we never give them the ball. Even when Manu is in the team I've tended to think we should get the ball in his hand a bit more.

I don't think I said about JVP what I interpret you think I said.  I didn't think he was bad.  Just that this was his first game and had good moments and ones he can learn from.  I think what you described were indeed valid reasons why JVP had only a decent game and what kept him from, in my opinion, a very good one. I also said I think he showed enough where he could be one of the good ones.  The rucks I described were 100% on him for just standing there and not putting a shoulder in.  But he will learn, he is just a kid.  

Regarding Farrell:  I think he looked pretty good up to the Smith yellow.  But the whole team played well and fast and looked good up to the Smith yellow.  After that, frankly for me, gobs of inconsistency.  I think the lack of touches by Porter in this game, as well as damn near every other 'power runner' not named Tuiilagi over the course of Farrell's virtually entire career is on Farrell, and EJ should have corrected.   It is a big time problem, amplified in big time games (though this Wallaby team might be on the lower cusp of big time, which is also a problem evaluating this England side).  Also in that same time period, England blew more scoring chances than they took.  Not entirely on Farrell that, but he was equally part of the more dismal 2nd half and the encouraging 1st.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Has anyone seen why England ditched the 6 2 bench after Willis was injured?

Having two locks on the bench potentially being a bit of a waste when it's unlikely to sub Itoje but for injury would be my I'd guess. Then of course Itoje got injured for the first time in a while!

Brace usually allows a decent contest from the defending side so I'd guess they wanted Willis and Ludlam to do that. With Curry gone home, then Willis injured they'd have had to go with Isiekwe or 5-3.

I thought Ludlam was really good once again. He's added far stronger carrying in contact to his already very good ruck work and tackling. His pace makes him a useful sub as well. He covers a lot of ground.

doctor_grey wrote:

Regarding Farrell:  I think he looked pretty good up to the Smith yellow.  But the whole team played well and fast and looked good up to the Smith yellow.  After that, frankly for me, gobs of inconsistency.  I think the lack of touches by Porter in this game, as well as damn near every other 'power runner' not named Tuiilagi over the course of Farrell's virtually entire career is on Farrell, and EJ should have corrected.   It is a big time problem, amplified in big time games (though this Wallaby team might be on the lower cusp of big time, which is also a problem evaluating this England side).  Also in that same time period, England blew more scoring chances than they took.  Not entirely on Farrell that, but he was equally part of the more dismal 2nd half and the encouraging 1st.

To be fair to Farrell, I don't like being so but hey ho, it was generally Smith who left the Porter running lines to be dummy ones. It's not even just the power runners, Marchant was thoroughly underused last weekend as well.

Yeah a bit down to bare bones now in the back row King. Bit surprises to see Joseph catapulted to the bench, he's obviously impressing in training. Wonder if we'll get the 3rd new outside centre of the tour next week.

Rumours that Marchant and Dingwall both had knocks so maybe one or both will come back into the 23. Porter was solid but realistically didn't do anything to really demand selection. His defence was very aggressive as always and the hit on Valentini excellent. So he did much more right than wrong but didn't really shine.

Stuart has quietly had a couple of good games I think.

Billy was very good yesterday as well. The footwork he's added around contact has brought his carrying back to life.

Hill too had a good game yesterday. They are coming too infrequently at the moment but he was good this week. Second row without Itoje is extremely underwhelming though.

Smith could do with a decent game. He largely had front foot ball yesterday, forwards getting over the gain line and backs playing well outside him but was frankly very poor. If Ford or Farrell have that game from the same platform they get crucified by the same fans calling for Smith. I want the Smith-Farrell axis given time but Smith could do with a performance to demand that time.

How much of Smith being poor is down to him simply playing the tactics that Jones wants? Most people I've read that from didn't like him kicking ball away but it seemed to be a move to have the Aussies having to play very deep and under pressure.

With Ford I guess it was the factor that alot of people felt him and Farrell were on a similar level. Smith is now clearly the best fly half so less pressure?

I think more people than you might think would debate the Smith being "clearly" the best fly-half bit, 7.5. He's got a very high ceiling and against Premiership defences can be genuinely spell binding but he's yet to really bed into international rugby. Someone like Squidge is far from alone in arguing that Ford and Farrell both do a lot of things better against international teams at this stage.

Kicks being what seems just way too long but are actually trying to find a specific opposition player is definitely a thing. A bit like when teams used to run at Pocock or McCaw as much as possible on phase play and people would think, "why run at their best defender". The purpose of course being to get them on the deck so they can't target breakdowns. Similar does happen in kick tennis.

Given Farrell and JvP seemed to be kicking more to either find grass or compete but Smith put a fair few kicks straight to back three players I'd doubt that being the case. He also had that extremely poor grubber early on when England had great momentum to keep attacking. I just thought he had a poor game.

I much prefer England with playmakers at 10 and 12, I think Farrell is absolutely vital to this side. Smith will keep getting chances and given his talent should come good. I think that 10-12 axis could be very good indeed. Especially as the back three naturally gets better and quicker with May and Watson to return plus Arundell coming through.

Nowell had one of his best games in a while and showed his defence is still fantastic. His carrying still looks less than it once was to me though. The option to go outside early and easily get tackled into touch was really poor. I also wonder if someone such as May, Watson or Arundell would do more with the space that excellent cross-field kick from Farrell gave him.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah a bit down to bare bones now in the back row King. Bit surprises to see Joseph catapulted to the bench, he's obviously impressing in training. Wonder if we'll get the 3rd new outside centre of the tour next week.

If Dingwall gets a run in the centres for the 3rd match then it would probably have been EJ's plan to rotate each game and see who performs. Good idea, but about 1 year late.

Rumours that Marchant and Dingwall were both injured for T2, Doc. So potentially just that at play with Porter starting.

king_carlos wrote:I think more people than you might think would debate the Smith being "clearly" the best fly-half bit, 7.5. He's got a very high ceiling and against Premiership defences can be genuinely spell binding but he's yet to really bed into international rugby. Someone like Squidge is far from alone in arguing that Ford and Farrell both do a lot of things better against international teams at this stage.

Kicks being what seems just way too long but are actually trying to find a specific opposition player is definitely a thing. A bit like when teams used to run at Pocock or McCaw as much as possible on phase play and people would think, "why run at their best defender". The purpose of course being to get them on the deck so they can't target breakdowns. Similar does happen in kick tennis.

Given Farrell and JvP seemed to be kicking more to either find grass or compete but Smith put a fair few kicks straight to back three players I'd doubt that being the case. He also had that extremely poor grubber early on when England had great momentum to keep attacking. I just thought he had a poor game.

I much prefer England with playmakers at 10 and 12, I think Farrell is absolutely vital to this side. Smith will keep getting chances and given his talent should come good. I think that 10-12 axis could be very good indeed. Especially as the back three naturally gets better and quicker with May and Watson to return plus Arundell coming through.

Nowell had one of his best games in a while and showed his defence is still fantastic. His carrying still looks less than it once was to me though. The option to go outside early and easily get tackled into touch was really poor. I also wonder if someone such as May, Watson or Arundell would do more with the space that excellent cross-field kick from Farrell gave him.

It's squidges selling point now that he talks down Smith and for all his hood work the fact he thinks Ford is the best fly half in the world is laughable. Can't believe he's left up the video where he just stupidly criticises him when he did he'd take it down. PR work at play. I do think the 2 play maker things makes things tick, though with 2 9s like van Poortvliet and Quirke it becomes less important. That said I would love to see a midfield of Ojomoh and Kelly this autumn.

And completely agree with that last point,  Freeman and Nowell were good defensively but neither are wingers who given an inch do you think yup that's a try.

We do go around in circles with all this. Farrell has an amazing history with England, but there is a price to pay with him playing. What I am uncertain about is the way in which we have gone from him being the source of all evil (in terms of boring, limited play, lack of running threat etc) to being the new saviour of England (because he's a 'playmaker').

As a playmaker I still think he's limited because he offers minimal running threat himself and from evidence isn't exactly helping the runners outside of him. I do get how Tuilagi is such a legendary player that he makes the midfield work all on his own, and that the attempts to replace him don't work, but surely that is as much down to Farrell as missing our Samoan.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:I think more people than you might think would debate the Smith being "clearly" the best fly-half bit, 7.5. He's got a very high ceiling and against Premiership defences can be genuinely spell binding but he's yet to really bed into international rugby. Someone like Squidge is far from alone in arguing that Ford and Farrell both do a lot of things better against international teams at this stage.

Kicks being what seems just way too long but are actually trying to find a specific opposition player is definitely a thing. A bit like when teams used to run at Pocock or McCaw as much as possible on phase play and people would think, "why run at their best defender". The purpose of course being to get them on the deck so they can't target breakdowns. Similar does happen in kick tennis.

Given Farrell and JvP seemed to be kicking more to either find grass or compete but Smith put a fair few kicks straight to back three players I'd doubt that being the case. He also had that extremely poor grubber early on when England had great momentum to keep attacking. I just thought he had a poor game.

I much prefer England with playmakers at 10 and 12, I think Farrell is absolutely vital to this side. Smith will keep getting chances and given his talent should come good. I think that 10-12 axis could be very good indeed. Especially as the back three naturally gets better and quicker with May and Watson to return plus Arundell coming through.

Nowell had one of his best games in a while and showed his defence is still fantastic. His carrying still looks less than it once was to me though. The option to go outside early and easily get tackled into touch was really poor. I also wonder if someone such as May, Watson or Arundell would do more with the space that excellent cross-field kick from Farrell gave him.

It's squidges selling point now that he talks down Smith and for all his hood work the fact he thinks Ford is the best fly half in the world is laughable. Can't believe he's left up the video where he just stupidly criticises him when he did he'd take it down. PR work at play. I do think the 2 play maker things makes things tick, though with 2 9s like van Poortvliet and Quirke it becomes less important. That said I would love to see a midfield of Ojomoh and Kelly this autumn.

And completely agree with that last point,  Freeman and Nowell were good defensively but neither are wingers who given an inch do you think yup that's a try.

Well going on Smith's form in the 6N and this summer tour Squidge might have a point...

Freeman has scored quite a few tries for Saints this season he's a good finisher. I'd like to see more of him at this level before writing him off. Thought he did well yesterday and with him and Steward at the back we looked rock solid. The attack looked better than last week if we can improve it again for next week, maybe with Smith turning up, then our wings and 13 will get more ball in hand.

Ojomoh and Kelly is two inside centres, I know we've been desperate for one for a while but I wouldn't combine two just because we can. Kelly did play 13 in his first couple of appearances for Tigers and for Ireland under 20s but probably not for 18 months. Perhaps give the one in form a shot in the Autumn alongside a more experienced 10 and 13.

king_carlos wrote:Rumours that Marchant and Dingwall were both injured for T2, Doc. So potentially just that at play with Porter starting.

More injuries? Shame.
I think Dingwall and Marchant would be a pretty handy combo!

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:I think more people than you might think would debate the Smith being "clearly" the best fly-half bit, 7.5. He's got a very high ceiling and against Premiership defences can be genuinely spell binding but he's yet to really bed into international rugby. Someone like Squidge is far from alone in arguing that Ford and Farrell both do a lot of things better against international teams at this stage.

Kicks being what seems just way too long but are actually trying to find a specific opposition player is definitely a thing. A bit like when teams used to run at Pocock or McCaw as much as possible on phase play and people would think, "why run at their best defender". The purpose of course being to get them on the deck so they can't target breakdowns. Similar does happen in kick tennis.

Given Farrell and JvP seemed to be kicking more to either find grass or compete but Smith put a fair few kicks straight to back three players I'd doubt that being the case. He also had that extremely poor grubber early on when England had great momentum to keep attacking. I just thought he had a poor game.

I much prefer England with playmakers at 10 and 12, I think Farrell is absolutely vital to this side. Smith will keep getting chances and given his talent should come good. I think that 10-12 axis could be very good indeed. Especially as the back three naturally gets better and quicker with May and Watson to return plus Arundell coming through.

Nowell had one of his best games in a while and showed his defence is still fantastic. His carrying still looks less than it once was to me though. The option to go outside early and easily get tackled into touch was really poor. I also wonder if someone such as May, Watson or Arundell would do more with the space that excellent cross-field kick from Farrell gave him.

It's squidges selling point now that he talks down Smith and for all his hood work the fact he thinks Ford is the best fly half in the world is laughable. Can't believe he's left up the video where he just stupidly criticises him when he did he'd take it down. PR work at play. I do think the 2 play maker things makes things tick, though with 2 9s like van Poortvliet and Quirke it becomes less important. That said I would love to see a midfield of Ojomoh and Kelly this autumn.

And completely agree with that last point,  Freeman and Nowell were good defensively but neither are wingers who given an inch do you think yup that's a try.

Well going on Smith's form in the 6N and this summer tour Squidge might have a point...

Freeman has scored quite a few tries for Saints this season he's a good finisher. I'd like to see more of him at this level before writing him off. Thought he did well yesterday and with him and Steward at the back we looked rock solid. The attack looked better than last week if we can improve it again for next week, maybe with Smith turning up, then our wings and 13 will get more ball in hand.

Ojomoh and Kelly is two inside centres, I know we've been desperate for one for a while but I wouldn't combine two just because we can. Kelly did play 13 in his first couple of appearances for Tigers and for Ireland under 20s but probably not for 18 months. Perhaps give the one in form a shot in the Autumn alongside a more experienced 10 and 13.

Not for me. Its more down to Ford fans looking to talk down the better player.
Ojomoh has already showed up well with Bath at 13 this year so very much looking forward to them both and Joseph making strides. And no it'll be Smith from now on not Farrell at 10.

lostinwales wrote:We do go around in circles with all this. Farrell has an amazing history with England, but there is a price to pay with him playing. What I am uncertain about is the way in which we have gone from him being the source of all evil (in terms of boring, limited play, lack of running threat etc) to being the new saviour of England (because he's a 'playmaker').

As a playmaker I still think he's limited because he offers minimal running threat himself and from evidence isn't exactly helping the runners outside of him. I do get how Tuilagi is such a legendary player that he makes the midfield work all on his own, and that the attempts to replace him don't work, but surely that is as much down to Farrell as missing our Samoan.

I've felt Farrell's one of our best players for a long time now and continually argued it. His best in attack has been superb. He's shown that best very recently with Sarries too where he was sublime at times in the season run in. I've never bought that's he's the limited player many argue.

I've never bought that he makes the players outside him look poor either. Plenty of outside backs other than Tuilagi have looked excellent outside of Farrell. Look at JJs best. May and Watson have had super careers thus far. Nowell has been very good when fully fit. Even Slade as an outside centre

My main bone of contention with the recent back line debates has been the idea that England should mould themselves to Smith rather than Smith mould his game to suit international rugby. That's what basically all successful internationals have to do rather than some newfound hardship forced on Smith by Jones and Farrell. Carter started out as a running 10 who got his chance at 12 and kicked relatively little. He developed into the 10 leading the best side I've ever seen which kicked more than any team in international rugby.

It's how international rugby works. What succeeds against club and international teams is very different. What suits a players club squad and their international teams player pool is also going to be very different. So what players offer at club and international level has to vary in order to succeed.

Carter isn't even the only example from that NZ era either. Nonu started off as a bullocking 13 (and winger) with little nuance to his game. Kaino started out as a predominantly ball carrying flanker. Nonu developed into a 12 with a very good passing and kicking game. Kaino developed into a work horse who's phenomenal work rate in the middle of the pitch allowed them to play Kaino and McCaw wide on the wings in attack to ensure quick ball when they attacked touchline to touchline or a strong chase when they kicked to pressure. What their franchises needed them to be and what the ABs needed them to be were fundamentally different so they developed. That's international rugby!

Thought the injury count meant our back five options were looking a bit light. However, haven't heard of call-ups.

In addition to Ewels and Curry, Itoje is out, Underhill failed an HIA, and Wills couldn't play yesterday.

If all are confirmed unavailable, that would leave us with Chessum and Hill at lock, with Lawes, Ludlam, Vunipola, Isiekwe and the recently-arrived Jeffries. Numbers would dictate a 5-3 bench split, because we wouldn't have enough for 6-2.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not for me. Its more down to Ford fans looking to talk down the better player.

Alternatively it's possible that some of us rate more than one English fly-half at the same time and think the respective options all have different strengths and weaknesses as opposed to a strange binary situation in which we need to simplify things to one player being objectively superior when it's simply not the case.

Smith has some fantastic skills, his pace and footwork around contact are a clear point of difference to Ford and Farrell. He is also adapting to international rugby being very different to club rugby and has had some mixed games with downright poor moments in them.

I keep saying I rate Smith, think he'll be very special and I want the Smith-Farrell partnership given a run too. I think he's the right option long term. I just don't see why that needs to exempt him from criticism when he does things that are rubbish like most young players do whilst adapting.

I've said similar about Steward as well for instance. Overall he's been fantastic for England but when acting as the final defender on the wing close to his line (as fullbacks often do) he can sometimes get flatfooted. Instead of rushing up to make a hit or drifting to use the touchline as an extra defender, hence forcing the opposition to cut inside he has at times done neither and been beaten on the outside by good wingers.

Saying that I think Ford and Farrell do certain things better isn't me offering some sacrosanct blasphemy against Smith. It's just a realistic and balanced view of a situation where England have more than one good player in a single position.

Rugby Fan wrote:Thought the injury count meant our back five options were looking a bit light. However, haven't heard of call-ups.

In addition to Ewels and Curry, Itoje is out, Underhill failed an HIA, and Wills couldn't play yesterday.

If all are confirmed unavailable, that would leave us with Chessum and Hill at lock, with Lawes, Ludlam, Vunipola, Isiekwe and the recently-arrived Jeffries. Numbers would dictate a 5-3 bench split, because we wouldn't have enough for 6-2.

No news of a callup has surprised me. I was hoping Earl and either Launchbury or Ribbans would get called up.

Underhill being ruled out presumably means Ludlam will start at 7. He deserves that after T1 and 2. He's been very good off the bench.

king_carlos wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not for me. Its more down to Ford fans looking to talk down the better player.

Alternatively it's possible that some of us rate more than one English fly-half at the same time and think the respective options all have different strengths and weaknesses as opposed to a strange binary situation in which we need to simplify things to one player being objectively superior when it's simply not the case.

Smith has some fantastic skills, his pace and footwork around contact are a clear point of difference to Ford and Farrell. He is also adapting to international rugby being very different to club rugby and has had some mixed games with downright poor moments in them.

I keep saying I rate Smith, think he'll be very special and I want the Smith-Farrell partnership given a run too. I think he's the right option long term. I just don't see why that needs to exempt him from criticism when he does things that are rubbish like most young players do whilst adapting.

I've said similar about Steward as well for instance. Overall he's been fantastic for England but when acting as the final defender on the wing close to his line (as fullbacks often do) he can sometimes get flatfooted. Instead of rushing up to make a hit or drifting to use the touchline as an extra defender, hence forcing the opposition to cut inside he has at times done neither and been beaten on the outside by good wingers.

Saying that I think Ford and Farrell do certain things better isn't me offering some sacrosanct blasphemy against Smith. It's just a realistic and balanced view of a situation where England have more than one good player in a single position.

Oh Farrell and Ford are good players, not talking either down. I'd be very surprised should either now get more than a sniff at 10 for England if Smith is fit.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:I think more people than you might think would debate the Smith being "clearly" the best fly-half bit, 7.5. He's got a very high ceiling and against Premiership defences can be genuinely spell binding but he's yet to really bed into international rugby. Someone like Squidge is far from alone in arguing that Ford and Farrell both do a lot of things better against international teams at this stage.

Kicks being what seems just way too long but are actually trying to find a specific opposition player is definitely a thing. A bit like when teams used to run at Pocock or McCaw as much as possible on phase play and people would think, "why run at their best defender". The purpose of course being to get them on the deck so they can't target breakdowns. Similar does happen in kick tennis.

Given Farrell and JvP seemed to be kicking more to either find grass or compete but Smith put a fair few kicks straight to back three players I'd doubt that being the case. He also had that extremely poor grubber early on when England had great momentum to keep attacking. I just thought he had a poor game.

I much prefer England with playmakers at 10 and 12, I think Farrell is absolutely vital to this side. Smith will keep getting chances and given his talent should come good. I think that 10-12 axis could be very good indeed. Especially as the back three naturally gets better and quicker with May and Watson to return plus Arundell coming through.

Nowell had one of his best games in a while and showed his defence is still fantastic. His carrying still looks less than it once was to me though. The option to go outside early and easily get tackled into touch was really poor. I also wonder if someone such as May, Watson or Arundell would do more with the space that excellent cross-field kick from Farrell gave him.

It's squidges selling point now that he talks down Smith and for all his hood work the fact he thinks Ford is the best fly half in the world is laughable. Can't believe he's left up the video where he just stupidly criticises him when he did he'd take it down. PR work at play. I do think the 2 play maker things makes things tick, though with 2 9s like van Poortvliet and Quirke it becomes less important. That said I would love to see a midfield of Ojomoh and Kelly this autumn.

And completely agree with that last point,  Freeman and Nowell were good defensively but neither are wingers who given an inch do you think yup that's a try.

Well going on Smith's form in the 6N and this summer tour Squidge might have a point...

Freeman has scored quite a few tries for Saints this season he's a good finisher. I'd like to see more of him at this level before writing him off. Thought he did well yesterday and with him and Steward at the back we looked rock solid. The attack looked better than last week if we can improve it again for next week, maybe with Smith turning up, then our wings and 13 will get more ball in hand.

Ojomoh and Kelly is two inside centres, I know we've been desperate for one for a while but I wouldn't combine two just because we can. Kelly did play 13 in his first couple of appearances for Tigers and for Ireland under 20s but probably not for 18 months. Perhaps give the one in form a shot in the Autumn alongside a more experienced 10 and 13.

Not for me. Its more down to Ford fans looking to talk down the better player.
Ojomoh has already showed up well with Bath at 13 this year so very much looking forward to them both and Joseph making strides. And no it'll be Smith from now on not Farrell at 10.

Don't recall me saying Farrell at 10 is the desired direction. Smith needs to improve before the world cup and in a big way. Eddie will give him time because he's a special talent but if he's still playing like this come the 6N next year and Ford is in the form he was this season then we might see a switch back. Eddie knows Ford can do a good enough job against anybody but he also knows he needs another option and an option like Smith who's a real talent adds really good competition. Smith might have the keys to a more deadly England attack but so far it's not really been there.

Define 'better' it's a pretty poor description as apart from the running game there's no real area where you'd clearly have Smith in front. Smith's game management is some way behind Ford but that's not unusual for young flyhalf Vs experienced flyhalf. If you want to talk form then Ford was streets ahead last season, Smith was the form option by a distance the year before.

Ojomoh started at 13 for Bath once last season, he actually started more games at flyhalf (2).

Ok a few grounds for optimism now. We have seen against Ireland and now against Aus that our forwards can front up and really take it to the oppo. Genge was very good and add in Mako's good form and with Marler we have 3 very decent loose heads. Hooker is sorted and happy with both Jamie and Luke. The big bonus has been the excellent display of Stuart. Ball carrying really impressive and now offers a genuine alternative to Sinckler. If a strong scrummaging team like Ireland, SA or France then Marler could be on the bench, but otherwise we could bring on both Mako and Kyle for the final 25 minutes which could be really impactful.

Billy superb and again having Dombrandt on the bench would be great for the final more open stages at the end. JVP looked decent, but the armchair ride was probably as comfortable as a debut gets.

But the backs were still basically horrible and continue to threaten nothing. Smith was very poor and clearly the tactics are wrong for him. Farrell excellent, but no threat at all.

But well done the forwards and their efforts do offer some hope for us fans who have been a wee bit critical of Eddie and his England team.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:I think more people than you might think would debate the Smith being "clearly" the best fly-half bit, 7.5. He's got a very high ceiling and against Premiership defences can be genuinely spell binding but he's yet to really bed into international rugby. Someone like Squidge is far from alone in arguing that Ford and Farrell both do a lot of things better against international teams at this stage.

Kicks being what seems just way too long but are actually trying to find a specific opposition player is definitely a thing. A bit like when teams used to run at Pocock or McCaw as much as possible on phase play and people would think, "why run at their best defender". The purpose of course being to get them on the deck so they can't target breakdowns. Similar does happen in kick tennis.

Given Farrell and JvP seemed to be kicking more to either find grass or compete but Smith put a fair few kicks straight to back three players I'd doubt that being the case. He also had that extremely poor grubber early on when England had great momentum to keep attacking. I just thought he had a poor game.

I much prefer England with playmakers at 10 and 12, I think Farrell is absolutely vital to this side. Smith will keep getting chances and given his talent should come good. I think that 10-12 axis could be very good indeed. Especially as the back three naturally gets better and quicker with May and Watson to return plus Arundell coming through.

Nowell had one of his best games in a while and showed his defence is still fantastic. His carrying still looks less than it once was to me though. The option to go outside early and easily get tackled into touch was really poor. I also wonder if someone such as May, Watson or Arundell would do more with the space that excellent cross-field kick from Farrell gave him.

It's squidges selling point now that he talks down Smith and for all his hood work the fact he thinks Ford is the best fly half in the world is laughable. Can't believe he's left up the video where he just stupidly criticises him when he did he'd take it down. PR work at play. I do think the 2 play maker things makes things tick, though with 2 9s like van Poortvliet and Quirke it becomes less important. That said I would love to see a midfield of Ojomoh and Kelly this autumn.

And completely agree with that last point,  Freeman and Nowell were good defensively but neither are wingers who given an inch do you think yup that's a try.

Well going on Smith's form in the 6N and this summer tour Squidge might have a point...

Freeman has scored quite a few tries for Saints this season he's a good finisher. I'd like to see more of him at this level before writing him off. Thought he did well yesterday and with him and Steward at the back we looked rock solid. The attack looked better than last week if we can improve it again for next week, maybe with Smith turning up, then our wings and 13 will get more ball in hand.

Ojomoh and Kelly is two inside centres, I know we've been desperate for one for a while but I wouldn't combine two just because we can. Kelly did play 13 in his first couple of appearances for Tigers and for Ireland under 20s but probably not for 18 months. Perhaps give the one in form a shot in the Autumn alongside a more experienced 10 and 13.

Not for me. Its more down to Ford fans looking to talk down the better player.
Ojomoh has already showed up well with Bath at 13 this year so very much looking forward to them both and Joseph making strides. And no it'll be Smith from now on not Farrell at 10.

Don't recall me saying Farrell at 10 is the desired direction. Smith needs to improve before the world cup and in a big way. Eddie will give him time because he's a special talent but if he's still playing like this come the 6N next year and Ford is in the form he was this season then we might see a switch back. Eddie knows Ford can do a good enough job against anybody but he also knows he needs another option and an option like Smith who's a real talent adds really good competition. Smith might have the keys to a more deadly England attack but so far it's not really been there.

Define 'better' it's a pretty poor description as apart from the running game there's no real area where you'd clearly have Smith in front. Smith's game management is some way behind Ford but that's not unusual for young flyhalf Vs experienced flyhalf. If you want to talk form then Ford was streets ahead last season, Smith was the form option by a distance the year before.

Ojomoh started at 13 for Bath once last season, he actually started more games at flyhalf (2).

Better I'm most aspects of his game. Smith is the guy now. Ford may get back in if him or Farrell get an injury but can't see him getting another call if not for that. Ford isnt in the same league these days.

Great to get a much needed win. A few thoughts:

You're never going to completely dominate like we did in that opening 30 for a full game at this level. So the Oz come back was to be expected. But we will be gutted to not score more, and the lack of communication in the backs is still a big big issue.

We look like what we are, a struggling team trying to remember how to win. Hopefully this will help with the confidence, but at the moment we are in a bit of a rut.

Some players just seem out of form too, Smith and Genge are both guys the team rely on who are underwhelming at the moment by their own standards. Nowell as well but he may genuinely just be past it.

On brighter notes Porter went very well, JVP was brilliant, it's another tour where Steward shows how good he is too.

I wonder if we'll see the current attack coach moved along after this tour? Eddie doesn't let them linger usually and our attack has been very poor for 2 years now, I imagine he's thinking it's time for someone else to come and have a try.