England post 2022 6Ns, Aus tour and beyond

First topic message reminder :

Hate to say it and I don't wish him injured but I'm glad Ewels not available!
If you're disappointed with Malins and Daly being selected, imagine how most of us feel about Youngs being there.
In fairness, Malins and Daly been superb this season but please give Radwan and Arundell a run.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:How do you feel Smith is looking poor though Sam? I know you're a big fan of Ford but can't see anything in his game which is at Smith's level, and he's injured.

Smith hasn't looked good in an England shirt since the game Vs Italy. The backline doesn't really move and he's been tried with various 9s including his club partner and England under 20s combination with Randall. He's had his club mate Marchant in there with him, he's had bruisers. There's been attacking options but it's all looked very flat. Yesterday he ran down blind alleys and despite a glut of possession didn't do much with it.

As I said he'll get the rest of this series but needs to show something extra or Eddie will maybe consider changes before the 6N. Which starts two months after Ford is due to return to action.

Skill set wise Smith has the better running game and is a better tackler. Ford is miles ahead as a midfield general, tactically far superior. Passing and kicking capabilities they are on a par. Ford is happy to play five or more phases to engineer his result slowly probing the opposition defence, Smith prefers a quick set up and then go straight for the jugular, very explosive. Very different styles and maybe why Ford has previously managed to get good performances out of similar England teams, they lack the explosive attacking nature (looking at the pedestrian performances in recent times) which might be the experience England need when under increasing fire from the media.

That's ignoring a good run by Ford which it didn't work for him though. He's obviously had Farrell next to him (Ford that is) pulling the  strings so perhaps a jump to suggest he's the major tactician there. I wonder if we'd had the support runners from that nice break he made in the 2nd half or a better pass from the resulting breakdown that you'd see it differently.  Ford will be I'm and around the squad should he recover from his injury and get back to form I'm sure. I'd personally go the other way if  I was Jones to mitigate building pressure and that's not to hang onto the old guns but trust in some talented players to go out there and entertain.

I'd that the break where he ran down a blind alley, England got scrappy ball and Farrell threw a telegraphed interception pass? Neatly summing up our attack on the day.

If Farrell is the main tactician then why are England less effective now? The 10 and 12 is always a partnership. Has to be.

I think Ford has demonstrated repeatedly at club level he's a master tactician, with and without a decent team around him.

Ford's been dropped by England on two occasions under Eddie. The first was for the 2019 6N where England's attack was shockingly one dimensional and Ford was brought back for the world cup where he starred in that win over the All Blacks. The other was following his Achilles Issue following the Post Covid mess. He should have never played in those games not fully fit, nor really the 6N period after. Tigers didn't have much choice but to wrap him in bubble wrap and hope for the best given the lack of options (Burns hadn't signed yet). Since then he's looked good off the bench in games where England have looked lethargic but injuries have not come at good times for him though probably for England as Smith needs experience to be an option at the world cup and you need three options at least to be viable for the world cup.

Eddie's got lots of problems. I don't particularly see the selection of the old guard as a problem in the backline bar Nowell who'd I'd swap out for someone quicker. I'd have quite liked Lawrence in there as well but maybe he'll get the nod for consistent form in the 6N. There's far great issues in the error count up front that must be fixed first. We handed Argentina at least 12 points from needless penalties. Fix that and suddenly there's less pressure on the attack to deliver.

TJ wrote:Smith needs runners outside who will do more than truck it up or kick it away.  Playing with Farrell outside him does not work

Well he's had combinations of Slade/Marchant, Slade/Manu (Marchant on the wing), Atkinson/Marchant? (Baabaas game), Farrell/Marchant, Farrell/Porter, Farrell/Manu.

None of them seem to be the 'right' players for Smith to play alongside for some reason.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:How do you feel Smith is looking poor though Sam? I know you're a big fan of Ford but can't see anything in his game which is at Smith's level, and he's injured.

Smith hasn't looked good in an England shirt since the game Vs Italy. The backline doesn't really move and he's been tried with various 9s including his club partner and England under 20s combination with Randall. He's had his club mate Marchant in there with him, he's had bruisers. There's been attacking options but it's all looked very flat. Yesterday he ran down blind alleys and despite a glut of possession didn't do much with it.

As I said he'll get the rest of this series but needs to show something extra or Eddie will maybe consider changes before the 6N. Which starts two months after Ford is due to return to action.

Skill set wise Smith has the better running game and is a better tackler. Ford is miles ahead as a midfield general, tactically far superior. Passing and kicking capabilities they are on a par. Ford is happy to play five or more phases to engineer his result slowly probing the opposition defence, Smith prefers a quick set up and then go straight for the jugular, very explosive. Very different styles and maybe why Ford has previously managed to get good performances out of similar England teams, they lack the explosive attacking nature (looking at the pedestrian performances in recent times) which might be the experience England need when under increasing fire from the media.

That's ignoring a good run by Ford which it didn't work for him though. He's obviously had Farrell next to him (Ford that is) pulling the  strings so perhaps a jump to suggest he's the major tactician there. I wonder if we'd had the support runners from that nice break he made in the 2nd half or a better pass from the resulting breakdown that you'd see it differently.  Ford will be I'm and around the squad should he recover from his injury and get back to form I'm sure. I'd personally go the other way if  I was Jones to mitigate building pressure and that's not to hang onto the old guns but trust in some talented players to go out there and entertain.

I'd that the break where he ran down a blind alley, England got scrappy ball and Farrell threw a telegraphed interception pass? Neatly summing up our attack on the day.

If Farrell is the main tactician then why are England less effective now? The 10 and 12 is always a partnership. Has to be.

I think Ford has demonstrated repeatedly at club level he's a master tactician, with and without a decent team around him.

Ford's been dropped by England on two occasions under Eddie. The first was for the 2019 6N where England's attack was shockingly one dimensional and Ford was brought back for the world cup where he starred in that win over the All Blacks. The other was following his Achilles Issue following the Post Covid mess. He should have never played in those games not fully fit, nor really the 6N period after. Tigers didn't have much choice but to wrap him in bubble wrap and hope for the best given the lack of options (Burns hadn't signed yet). Since then he's looked good off the bench in games where England have looked lethargic but injuries have not come at good times for him though probably for England as Smith needs experience to be an option at the world cup and you need three options at least to be viable for the world cup.

Eddie's got lots of problems. I don't particularly see the selection of the old guard as a problem in the backline bar Nowell who'd I'd swap out for someone quicker. I'd have quite liked Lawrence in there as well but maybe he'll get the nod for consistent form in the 6N. There's far great issues in the error count up front that must be fixed first. We handed Argentina at least 12 points from needless penalties. Fix that and suddenly there's less pressure on the attack to deliver.

Clean break and then no one was with him; if thats your blind alley then thats harsh Sam! Yeah, Youngs threw a pass on the floor we went backwards, ball was slowed, Farrell's pass was knocked on and away they went. Restarts were rubbish weren't they. It's an area often overlooked, was it Woodward that stated they are the 3rd setpiece? It's an area that since Launchbury went from the team we've gone down a step or 2.

Fair enough Sam. Was any of that consistent selections tho? But point taken

TJ wrote:Fair enough Sam.  Was any of that consistent selections tho? But point taken

That would be a reasonable defence. He generally gets one centre combination per series of games and then by the next international window it's changed again.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:How do you feel Smith is looking poor though Sam? I know you're a big fan of Ford but can't see anything in his game which is at Smith's level, and he's injured.

Smith hasn't looked good in an England shirt since the game Vs Italy. The backline doesn't really move and he's been tried with various 9s including his club partner and England under 20s combination with Randall. He's had his club mate Marchant in there with him, he's had bruisers. There's been attacking options but it's all looked very flat. Yesterday he ran down blind alleys and despite a glut of possession didn't do much with it.

As I said he'll get the rest of this series but needs to show something extra or Eddie will maybe consider changes before the 6N. Which starts two months after Ford is due to return to action.

Skill set wise Smith has the better running game and is a better tackler. Ford is miles ahead as a midfield general, tactically far superior. Passing and kicking capabilities they are on a par. Ford is happy to play five or more phases to engineer his result slowly probing the opposition defence, Smith prefers a quick set up and then go straight for the jugular, very explosive. Very different styles and maybe why Ford has previously managed to get good performances out of similar England teams, they lack the explosive attacking nature (looking at the pedestrian performances in recent times) which might be the experience England need when under increasing fire from the media.

That's ignoring a good run by Ford which it didn't work for him though. He's obviously had Farrell next to him (Ford that is) pulling the  strings so perhaps a jump to suggest he's the major tactician there. I wonder if we'd had the support runners from that nice break he made in the 2nd half or a better pass from the resulting breakdown that you'd see it differently.  Ford will be I'm and around the squad should he recover from his injury and get back to form I'm sure. I'd personally go the other way if  I was Jones to mitigate building pressure and that's not to hang onto the old guns but trust in some talented players to go out there and entertain.

I'd that the break where he ran down a blind alley, England got scrappy ball and Farrell threw a telegraphed interception pass? Neatly summing up our attack on the day.

If Farrell is the main tactician then why are England less effective now? The 10 and 12 is always a partnership. Has to be.

I think Ford has demonstrated repeatedly at club level he's a master tactician, with and without a decent team around him.

Ford's been dropped by England on two occasions under Eddie. The first was for the 2019 6N where England's attack was shockingly one dimensional and Ford was brought back for the world cup where he starred in that win over the All Blacks. The other was following his Achilles Issue following the Post Covid mess. He should have never played in those games not fully fit, nor really the 6N period after. Tigers didn't have much choice but to wrap him in bubble wrap and hope for the best given the lack of options (Burns hadn't signed yet). Since then he's looked good off the bench in games where England have looked lethargic but injuries have not come at good times for him though probably for England as Smith needs experience to be an option at the world cup and you need three options at least to be viable for the world cup.

Eddie's got lots of problems. I don't particularly see the selection of the old guard as a problem in the backline bar Nowell who'd I'd swap out for someone quicker. I'd have quite liked Lawrence in there as well but maybe he'll get the nod for consistent form in the 6N. There's far great issues in the error count up front that must be fixed first. We handed Argentina at least 12 points from needless penalties. Fix that and suddenly there's less pressure on the attack to deliver.

Clean break and then no one was with him; if thats your blind alley then thats harsh Sam! Yeah, Youngs threw a pass on the floor we went backwards, ball was slowed, Farrell's pass was knocked on and away they went. Restarts were rubbish weren't they. It's an area often overlooked, was it Woodward that stated they are the 3rd setpiece? It's an area that since Launchbury went from the team we've gone down a step or 2.

It's been noted before that enticing Smith to step in to a gap that's actually a trap allows England to make a few metres but the defence to swallow up the play maker and slow everything down. Increase chance of forcing errors.

Having said that you'd have hoped that Curry would have just been told to loiter around Smith's shoulder so if he does go for a little run in attack he has either an option or a quick ruck.

Ironic that since Launchbury, a poor lineout jumper for a second row, has gone the restarts have suffered. Must be just the leadership and vision we are lacking. It is very much the third set piece and it's hard to build momentum if you score then immediately give the ball back to the opposition in your half.

So you're saying it was an error to make the clean break? Probably why Youngs thought quickly to reset us back to the half way line!

Well no Dombrandt in the revised squad, George back for McGuigan, Mitchell in for Quirke. No Radwan. same squad bar that.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well no Dombrandt in the revised squad, George back for McGuigan, Mitchell in for Quirke. No Radwan. same squad bar that.

Yep. Mako still there as is Youngs. FFS what's betting exact same 15/23 picked bar George.

Give me strength.

If he thinks it's the right approach then you suspect it'll be similar. He has been switching between 6 2 and 5 3 benches, so we could see that alter again particularly as he didn't really use the bench well. Nowell was awful but is vice captain and a leader now. Similarly he sees Youngs leadership as key. Similar to the conversation on Russell, squad unity we don't really see and if they're driving good performance despite their waning skills then they may be adding more to these performances than we think ie. it may be we'd be doing worse with better players in the team.

Well we lost the game yesterday and with a wretched performance so I can't see how it gets worse with better players in. Even if Eng had won yesterday it would be papering over cracks. Team picked isn't right neither are positions like Farrell 12 and Itoje 6.
Get best players currently on form in team in right places. Go from there.

lol, I'm trying to reassure myself that there's a plan, or hope!

In the spirit of that my pick would be.:

Genge LCD Sinckler
Itoje Tizard
Willis Curry
Simmonds
vP Smith
Murley Farrell Tuilagi May Steward

Rodd George Heyes Ribbans Pearson Mitchell Joseph Freeman.

No 7&1/2 wrote:lol, I'm trying to reassure myself that there's a plan, or hope!

In the  spirit of that my pick would be.:

Genge LCD Sinckler
Itoje Tizard
Willis Curry
Simmonds
vP Smith
Murley Farrell Tuilagi May Steward

Rodd George Heyes Ribbans Pearson Mitchell Joseph Freeman.

I know it is only Japan, but there are not many lineout options there. Tizard is on the short side for an International lock and none of Willis, Curry or Simmonds are quality lineout operators in the Peter O'Mahony mold. I wouldn't fancy that team against South Africa.

You have 4 jumpers, and judging from playing 3 locks on Sunday it doesn't really do much for our lineout or maul work. Only challenged 1 Argentian throw that I remember so I'd go more with work around the pitch.

Ironic that since Launchbury, a poor lineout jumper for a second row, has gone the restarts have suffered. Must be just the leadership and vision we are lacking. It is very much the third set piece and it's hard to build momentum if you score then immediately give the ball back to the opposition in your half.

I think against argentina there was a specific issue that again relates to coaching. Argentina have made a speciality of restarts. they have half a dozen variations they use and some of those variations are rarely seen in NH rugby. either lack of homework or lack of training to take them. the really high straight kick they use a lot. Never seen anyone else do it. At least they didn't get you with the straight grubber they use sometimes. Most teams have one or two restart kicks.

TJ wrote:

Ironic that since Launchbury, a poor lineout jumper for a second row, has gone the restarts have suffered. Must be just the leadership and vision we are lacking. It is very much the third set piece and it's hard to build momentum if you score then immediately give the ball back to the opposition in your half.

I think against argentina there was a specific issue that again relates to coaching.  Argentina have made a speciality of restarts.  they have half a dozen variations they use and some of those variations are rarely seen in NH rugby.  either lack of homework or lack of training to take them.  the really high straight kick they use a lot.  Never seen anyone else do it.  At least they didn't get you with the straight grubber they use sometimes.  Most teams have one or two restart kicks.

I'm still not sure on why it's smart to rely on 2 unchallenged kicks to be dropped though. Not to a pod but merely deep hoping for a mistake, pretty much exactly what England were doing to because of the conditions.

Oh yes thats just poor play. But its poor coaching not to expect the short straight high kick which caught England out

Which one would that be? They did that 25 mins won by England. Next at 36 fairly short but Steward uncharacteristically knocked on unchallenged in the air.
56 mins fairly deep claimed by Itoje in the pod and secured.
60 mins very deep claimed by simmonds.
67 mins deep claimed by simmonds.

Was it more the exit you're focusing on?

I thought they lost 2 like that. Maybe confuzzled.

To be fair to England Argentina are a good team with some outrageously talented players. Their pack is bloody frightening and if Cheika can get them to be a bit more diciplined they woukd dominate a lot of sides. A lot of total ballers out the backs too.

Collapse2005 wrote:To be fair to England Argentina are a good team with some outrageously talented players. Their pack is bloody frightening and if Cheika can get them to be a bit more diciplined they woukd dominate a lot of sides. A lot of total ballers out the backs too.

You're not wrong Argentina are a good side but I think we're all annoyed by the nature of our defeat and another match where our attack was poor. We coughed up really daft penalties and passed into touch or to ground. Our best handlers out there were props. It's particularly annoying that we have some ballers of our own that don't get a chance.

Argentina won and that's good for the game but we are bored of stodgy England.

Finally seen it after being so busy with work over the weekend I'd only seen the score line. It was as dire as I expected.

The ambitious plan to move to a less structured attack with any player able to slot in when it's on has been largely disastrous so far. The level of disjointed play has been startling at times.

George, May and Freeman being available for the weekend is good news. The backs really need some more pace and LCD on the bench completely changes the forward impact in the second half. Quirke being injured is such a shame though.

1.Genge 2.George 3.Sinckler 4.Itoje 5.Tizard 6.Willis 7.Curry 8.Vunipola
9.JvP 10.Smith 11.May 12.Farrell 13.Tuilagi 14.Freeman 15.Steward

16.LCD 17.Mako 18.Heyes 19.Hill 20.Simmonds 21.Mitchell 22.Slade 23.Cokanasiga

I'd probably go for that from the named squad. Maybe with more pace on the wings something in this game plan clicks but it feels entirely like hope rather than expectation now.

It's extremely frustrating that Arundell is injured when we so clearly need pace.

I hate to say it, but it may be time to move away from Smith and look again post WC with a new coach in place.

Smith is the best FH in the NH imo and should have a backline built around him....we're clearly not doing that and he's struggling to play how Eddie wants him to play (I'm really unsure how that is by the way).

I agree with Sam that Ford is better fit in a more tactical game plan and he works better with Farrell (who will never be dropped). In the mean time, it makes sense to go back with Farrell at 10.

Please Eddie, pick some gas in the back 3! If we're maintaining with running in custard Steward for his safe hands, we need some X factor outside him.

What's the tactical game plan that Smith isn't implementing though? What's he being asked to do which he is failing at?

No 7&1/2 wrote:What's the tactical game plan that Smith isn't implementing though? What's he being asked to do which he is failing at?

Only the team would know that.

If adding very little to the game.....crabbing side to side and not producing an attacking threat is what he is being asked to do......he's succeeding.

So running laterally or passing the ball without fixing defenders? And what has Farrell done that makes him the choice at 10 next week?
I ask because I think most of the plan, perhaps the only one was to play quite narrow off 9 and send our big pack up the middle. If the ball was really slow kick high for the wingers to chase. On the second that was split between both Smith and Farrell to slow the initial chase to put pressure on the kick from Argentina. To me both Smith and Farrell implemented those tactics so when criticising either I do have to ask what did they do wrong exactly.

Again it reminds me of the talk on the Scotland thread saying the Russell should just go off script, that's what I think people are wanting here. Criticising our 10 and 12 for implementing what the coaches want.

No 7&1/2 wrote:..............

Again it reminds me of the talk on the Scotland thread saying the Russell should just go off script, that's what I think people are wanting here. Criticising our 10 and 12 for implementing what the coaches want.

Thats not quite what we want. What we want is for the coach to pick the best players and to create a gameplan that suits them

TJ wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:..............

Again it reminds me of the talk on the Scotland thread saying the Russell should just go off script, that's what I think people are wanting here. Criticising our 10 and 12 for implementing what the coaches want.

Thats not quite what we want.  What we want is for the coach to pick the best players and to create a gameplan that suits them

Part of it was re the England point where you said that he went against the ask from the coaches and was praised. I don't think it's entirely an either or. Certain players will naturally look better if certain strengths are played to, Smith is getting stick in part because he's not playing in an England side playing like Harlequins and hence it's viewed as he's playing badly or that others who have traditionally played a more stodgy set of tactics (Saracens, though they've always been able to cut loose and look a team transformed this year) would be better suited to this set of tactics. I'm questioning whether that is the case here. I spotted a couple of 'mistakes' from Smith, an overhit kick to Cokanasiga and when he was tackled in midfield when the ball could have gone out wide sooner. He's actually got criticism for making a break and then not having support with him (still recycled the ball though) and I'm not sure that's a good reflection on his actual performance.

And it'll be intresting to see what happens with Russell on the pitch from the other aspect. He's your best fly half but his style does make for chances to the other team. I think it was you who said you're half expecting him to come on force things and make mistakes (and be dropped off the back of it); and that's one of his backers! The final point I'd like to make is a separate one to tactics in a way. As fans we want to see exciting players be that flair or bulldozing etc. Does it matter if mistakes are made in the seach of genius. Kinda reminds me of making par in Tin Cup.

I've always said play Smith at 10 but in all honesty it's not working especially with Farrell at 12. A definite case for a change with one of them starting other on bench. In which case Farrel 10 Smith bench with Manu 12 and from current squad have to be Slade 13.
I'd keep Coles in 2nd row to start.

I'd go with Genge George Sinckler Itoje Coles Willis Billy Simmonds JvP Farrell Cokansiga Manu Slade Freeman Steward

Bench LCD Heyes Hill Mako(hmmm) Curry Mitchell May Smith

More pace in forwards as well with Willis and Simmonds flankers specifically for Japan who will be quick.
Curry was poor last game, he's too much at automatic pick by Jones.

Ideally sense be seen and likes of Earl, Malins, Radwan be brought into squad and I'd have them straight in starting XV but can't see it ever happening.

For me, for Farrell to operate at 10, he really needs a 9 with quick distribution.

eirebilly_01 wrote:For me, for Farrell to operate at 10, he really needs a 9 with quick distribution.

JvP and Mitchell are the men. Quirke when fit. Sorted.

Youngs is just not up to it now, sorry Benny fans but it's truth. If we get Youngs 9 and Farrell 10 I'll take up watching football....

A quick 9 is the dream for any 10 surely. Malins is back in the squad mm.

Japan...just remembered this was the game that saw Care and Mercer dropped after Nigel Owens treated the first half as an exhibition game. James Doleman is the ref, not sure I've seen him ref (or it's a good thing that it hasn't stuck in my mind!).

Kazuki Himeno is one to watch for the Japan game. He was a total beast v NZ. He can play back row or lock and is very powerful.

Cheers 7.5 I'd missed that. In which case I'd have Malins on wing with Freeman and Joe C bench. May out.
However, watching Gallagher highlights he was interviewed after match and said primary reason for going to Bristol was to play 15 not wing. Assume he'd still play there for Eng though.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So running laterally or passing the ball without fixing defenders? And what has Farrell done that makes him the choice at 10 next week?
I ask because I think most of the plan, perhaps the only one was to play quite narrow off 9 and send our big pack up the middle. If the ball was really slow kick high for the wingers to chase. On the second that was split between both Smith and Farrell to slow the initial chase to put pressure on the kick from Argentina. To me both Smith and Farrell implemented those tactics so when criticising either I do have to ask what did they do wrong exactly.

Again it reminds me of the talk on the Scotland thread saying the Russell should just go off script, that's what I think people are wanting here. Criticising our 10 and 12 for implementing what the coaches want.

Smith is a bystander currently, he's adding next to nothing. Either we're playing a style he doesn't suit or he's not producing......either way, he's not working. Get Farrell in at 10 and a real midfield.

Does anybody think Smith is currently working in this team?

Malins surely can't be drafted in to play wing......please no Eddie.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So running laterally or passing the ball without fixing defenders? And what has Farrell done that makes him the choice at 10 next week?
I ask because I think most of the plan, perhaps the only one was to play quite narrow off 9 and send our big pack up the middle. If the ball was really slow kick high for the wingers to chase. On the second that was split between both Smith and Farrell to slow the initial chase to put pressure on the kick from Argentina. To me both Smith and Farrell implemented those tactics so when criticising either I do have to ask what did they do wrong exactly.

Again it reminds me of the talk on the Scotland thread saying the Russell should just go off script, that's what I think people are wanting here. Criticising our 10 and 12 for implementing what the coaches want.

Smith is a bystander currently, he's adding next to nothing. Either we're playing a style he doesn't suit or he's not producing......either way, he's not working. Get Farrell in at 10 and a real midfield.

Does anybody think Smith is currently working in this team?

I am of the opinion that the Smith-Farrell combo isnt working.
Would prefer the alternative, which is to drop faz to the bench and pick JVP (9), Smith (10), Tuilagi (12) option - with some real pace on the wings.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Malins surely can't be drafted in to play wing......please no Eddie.

He wants to be 15 so unless Jones puts Steward on wing maybe? Be very harsh to drop Steward!

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So running laterally or passing the ball without fixing defenders? And what has Farrell done that makes him the choice at 10 next week?
I ask because I think most of the plan, perhaps the only one was to play quite narrow off 9 and send our big pack up the middle. If the ball was really slow kick high for the wingers to chase. On the second that was split between both Smith and Farrell to slow the initial chase to put pressure on the kick from Argentina. To me both Smith and Farrell implemented those tactics so when criticising either I do have to ask what did they do wrong exactly.

Again it reminds me of the talk on the Scotland thread saying the Russell should just go off script, that's what I think people are wanting here. Criticising our 10 and 12 for implementing what the coaches want.

Smith is a bystander currently, he's adding next to nothing. Either we're playing a style he doesn't suit or he's not producing......either way, he's not working. Get Farrell in at 10 and a real midfield.

Does anybody think Smith is currently working in this team?

Like I said what's he doing wrong?

mountain man wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Malins surely can't be drafted in to play wing......please no Eddie.

He wants to be 15 so unless Jones puts Steward on wing maybe? Be very harsh to drop Steward!

He could be thinking of putting Steward on the wing, it's a slow kick chase but he's better than Nowel at that aspect.

He was on wing against France in 6 N I think(?) and did well so maybe. Nowell along with Curry was well off it I thought. I'd keep Joe C in 23. Trouble is, Malins who's been on fire for Sarries had some iffy games for Eng. However his form so good and in view on who else is picked he's got to be in 23 at least.

I don't have great love for Malins tbh. I don't think he's a great winger, better full back but I wouldn't be dropping Steward for him. My problem with him, Steward, Freeman, Nowell (lesser extent) is that if the ball gets out to the wing unless it's a walk in I'm not confident any of them will be able to provide a finish. Steward and Cokanasiga do provide that power I suppose but it's not a threat that 30 yards out the opposition are cacking themselves. Not as if the plan is actually getting the ball to the wings either tbf.

Yoda wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:To be fair to England Argentina are a good team with some outrageously talented players. Their pack is bloody frightening and if Cheika can get them to be a bit more diciplined they woukd dominate a lot of sides. A lot of total ballers out the backs too.

You're not wrong Argentina are a good side but I think we're all annoyed by the nature of our defeat and another match where our attack was poor. We coughed up really daft penalties and passed into touch or to ground. Our best handlers out there were props. It's particularly annoying that we have some ballers of our own that don't get a chance.

Argentina won and that's good for the game but we are bored of stodgy England.

Just reading through the comments now. We are talking about players, the revolving door of assistant coaches, tactics, overall strategy, and so on. All the mixing and matching of players coaches tactics have produced more or less the same results for the last few years. Maybe, and this is not a great thought, maybe the talent level is not where we think it is? Either that or the coaching?

How the hell likes of Radwan not given a sniff is beyond me. He has Nowell who isn't quick enough and May who has been injured, not played and isn't player he was a few years ago. Then again Mako still in 23 last week and he went really well didn't he. No wait...

Talent is there, look how they play for clubs. It has to be Jones and coaches plus he doesn't pick right players or combinations!

doctor_grey wrote:

Yoda wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:To be fair to England Argentina are a good team with some outrageously talented players. Their pack is bloody frightening and if Cheika can get them to be a bit more diciplined they woukd dominate a lot of sides. A lot of total ballers out the backs too.

You're not wrong Argentina are a good side but I think we're all annoyed by the nature of our defeat and another match where our attack was poor. We coughed up really daft penalties and passed into touch or to ground. Our best handlers out there were props. It's particularly annoying that we have some ballers of our own that don't get a chance.

Argentina won and that's good for the game but we are bored of stodgy England.

Just reading through the comments now.  We are talking about players, the revolving door of assistant coaches, tactics, overall strategy, and so on.  All the mixing and matching of players coaches tactics have produced more or less the same results for the last few years.  Maybe, and this is not a great thought, maybe the talent level is not where we think it is?  Either that or the coaching?  

Its the coaching for me. Having coaches with no experience like Gleeson and Seibold; also Proudfoot has been poor and not sure how Cockerill fits in with them all. Ultimately Jones though has been there for 7 years now and his ways arent working. it happens. He is not a bad coach, but he has said himself about shelf life and his has expired. A long time ago as well in sporting terms.

Seibold...the failed RL coach - one o the worst records in RL......so lets sign him up for England coach!!!

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So running laterally or passing the ball without fixing defenders? And what has Farrell done that makes him the choice at 10 next week?
I ask because I think most of the plan, perhaps the only one was to play quite narrow off 9 and send our big pack up the middle. If the ball was really slow kick high for the wingers to chase. On the second that was split between both Smith and Farrell to slow the initial chase to put pressure on the kick from Argentina. To me both Smith and Farrell implemented those tactics so when criticising either I do have to ask what did they do wrong exactly.

Again it reminds me of the talk on the Scotland thread saying the Russell should just go off script, that's what I think people are wanting here. Criticising our 10 and 12 for implementing what the coaches want.

Smith is a bystander currently, he's adding next to nothing. Either we're playing a style he doesn't suit or he's not producing......either way, he's not working. Get Farrell in at 10 and a real midfield.

Does anybody think Smith is currently working in this team?

Like I said what's he doing wrong?

What's he doing right?

Actually i see Seibolt is away after the AIs and Brett Hodgson will become the new Defence coach

He's playing to the tactics, mixing first receiver with Farrell to buy more time and space. Kicking pretty well for wingers and full back to compete. Mixing kicks deep. Keeping relatively tight through the middle as you'd expect with conditions and the team picked. Had a really good break that was unsupported but still managed to recycle the ball. I picked out 2 errors I thought he had. I don't like the tactics at all, boring as hell but I don't think his implementation of them is bad, nor is Farrells for that matter. So same question Sarge, what's he actually doing wrong in terms of what he's being asked to do? 90% of what I'm reading with regards to Smith being dropped or criticisms of him is around tactics of the team not bad execution of those tactics.