England Pre 2023 6Ns and Beyond.

First topic message reminder :

Continued.......

We'd have 3 world class ones then. Something needs doing for the defence

Will Underhill ever get back to regular playing though?

Will Lawes....and now Curry seems prone.

Geordie wrote:Will Underhill ever get back to regular playing though?

Will Lawes....and now Curry seems prone.  

Underhill has had some tough times but he's 26, time is on his side. Lawes at 34. will possibly retire post WC and will leave a massive hole in the squad. Curry, I don't think he's particularly prone...he has almost 50 caps at 24, he will probably benefit with the time out.

I'd like us to bring a more physical option at 6 moving forward......Hill or Pearson look excellent options moving forward.

Lawes doesn't have to leave a gap though.  

We have two players simply made for that 6 spot. Hill and Martin.  Physical,  tall, aggressive 6s who are athletic to go with it.

Compliment them with an actual 7...Tom Curry and a real classy 8. Cunningham South is looking to me like a a genuine eption who has the lot. But Mercer will be there and maybe Tom Wilis can push on.

And sort the balance of the engine room out.

Post World Cup we can have plenty of hope but we need to learn the lessons from yesterday

Forgot about Martin...another impressive option.

You look at the 3 we put out yesterday and none of them are particularly physical....and then you throw in Chessum and Itoje, who aren't exactly powerhouses either. You can see why we struggled against a mobile, strong French pack.

Hard to imagine a defeat like that happening with Jones still in charge. You wouldn't bet on us winning a series in Australia on current form. Whatever he was getting wrong - it felt like England were regressing under Jones, while other teams forged ahead - embarrassing losses like yesterday were not on the menu.

The RFU might have hoped taking Eddie Jones' dead hand off the tiller would open up a new world of opportunities. It has, though, unfortunately, the range of options now includes getting utterly outclassed.

Jones was prescriptive, and the players largely trusted him, while not always understanding what he wanted. This generally meant they stuck to his plans, even when matches went against them, and maybe that's what stopped teams giving us too many hidings in his day.

It sounds like the current team are clear about what Borthwick wants but perhaps they are yet to be convinced his plans can deliver results at Test level. It's easier to trust your systems when they have a record of working.

On ITV, Wilkinson said how the 1998 Tour of Hell forced him to completely rethink the image he had of himself as a player, and he hopes some of this England team will do the same.

So if Martin and Hill are answer why aren't they even in wider training squad?

One or two different players are not going to make a big enough difference to bridge chasm we saw yesterday.
The entire front row were also comprehensively out played and I stick with what I've previously said, Cole and Mako days are done.

We might just have to accept England just aren't good enough. Could be next RWC cycle when hopefully some of U20s push on and Borthwick(if he's still there) has time to get to grip with team.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Forgot about Martin...another impressive option.

Martin has been shifting to lock and looking really good to be fair. Certainly making that change faster than I expected.

I'd look at Tom Pearson as a back up to Turry. I think he has a really rounded game. Mercer and Hill I'd be interested in coming into the squads over the summer too. If Barbeary is fit I'd expect him to be looked at.

I defended Dombrandt yesterday given the drubbing and shift to centre but fitness does seem an issue. He's pretty much always subbed whilst slowing in the second half. The only other international 8 I can think who seems to be subbed as often is Wiese. I'd argue his strengths have transferred to international rugby better than Dombrandt's have though. There are still question marks over Wiese longer term I think. If one of Dombrandt's biggest issues is fitness then the clock is ticking at 25.

For Willis I think his issue is his lack of impact outside of jackaling. He's a brilliant jackal but it's a strength that is more frequently nullified at international level by sides securing the ball better. Plus it's very reliant on reffing interpretations. His tackling is weaker than Curry, Lawes, Ludlam and Underhill. He's thus far offered less in the carry than another weaker carrier such as Underhill. Whilst I'm not sure the work rate is there to be massive compared to any others in securing our own ruck ball. Jackal threats at international level have more rounded games. Savea, JdvF, Kolisi, Hooper, Ritchie, etc. I'm not sure Willis currently has that. He's the same age as Underhill and 2 years older than Curry as well.

king_carlos wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Forgot about Martin...another impressive option.

Martin has been shifting to lock and looking really good to be fair. Certainly making that change faster than I expected.

I wondered if that switch would happen. Glad it looks to be a success...he could give us a future option of a lock with real physicality finally...

I know we disagree KC but tighthead concerns me.

Geordie wrote:I know we disagree KC but tighthead concerns me.

A number of pundits have said how underwhelming it is to see Vunipola and Cole coming on when England have to chase a game. Which is an indication of how much expectations for the team have changed. Many of the same pundits welcomed Cole back into the England fold, as he was seen as a safe pair of hands, who could help close a game out.

Tge game for me yesterday was devastating to watch.
France was far more the better team if England contiue to play like in the RWc they will not make it out of the pool stages.If and it is big If they do happen to beat Ireland bext week i will put this dow n as a blip,

But in all honesty i think i might be dreaming right now

We can't throw out the baby with the bath water. Back row was out played because as a pack France were rampant. Our whole back row game was negated due to France staying on their feet and offloading not allowing us to have a sniff. They targeted van poorfleet excellently and were laser focused. France are a top test team four years on from their own rebuilding process. They took some defeats on the way to where they are now so we shouldn't panic.

I know we like to bandy names about but we could have put any number of player combos with players who may or may not be better internationals but the French would have them on toast as well. SB is also learning on the job as well as the players and you have to take a few bad defeats to learn the harshest of lessons. Our job as supporters is get behind the team and build them back up not keep smashing them down. Four years seems to be the period of time to get systems and combos to function consistently. Ireland and France have ironed out their issues over time. At least the England squad know this and SB isn't doing an Eddie and blaming everyone but his team or coaching.

Ps well played France you have some absolute worldies there.

I know we like to bandy names about but we could have put any number of player combos with players who may or may not be better internationals but the French would have them on toast as well

Yep totally agree with this.

Steward. Fantastic fullback, great in the air, runs some very good lines and is a big ol' fella. But... Isn't he a bit slow to be a truly top international 15?

Rugby Fan wrote:

Geordie wrote:I know we disagree KC but tighthead concerns me.

A number of pundits have said how underwhelming it is to see Vunipola and Cole coming on when England have to chase a game. Which is an indication of how much expectations for the team have changed. Many of the same pundits welcomed Cole back into the England fold, as he was seen as a safe pair of hands, who could help close a game out.

Recalling Cole with Stuart injured was still the right move IMO. When Stuart is fit again I think he deserves to come back in on merit of his latter England performance compared to Cole's impact here. He's not a bench player.

My enduringly unpopular opinion on Sinckler is that I don't think he's been nearly as bad as many make out. His carrying dropped off but that's an extremely common thing with carrying props. Once sides know to target them doing so with double tackles is relatively easy given even the quickest props aren't beating defenders for pace. His defensive output has largely remained excellent for a prop and I struggle to put the breakdown of England's set-piece at the end of EJs tenure on one player. Contrary to popular belief the TH isn't the most critical factor of a scrum. It comes down to all 13 forwards in the matchday squad these days.

I'd like to see VRR in the warmups but I am a touch sceptical about a player making the step-up that late. I was a big fan early on with Worcester but then he didn't really kick on for a fair while before this sudden improvement in Premiership form. Props mature later but when a player suddenly improves like that so late I do wonder if it's more to do with their team improving, which the Gloucester pack but especially tight five has, hence them being more notable. Rather than their game fundamentally altering.

carpet baboon wrote:Steward. Fantastic fullback, great in the air, runs some very good lines and is a big ol' fella. But... Isn't he a bit slow to be a truly top international 15?

Ramos isn't quick for a back three player but was absolutely brilliant yesterday and consistently is for France. Jaminet must be the quicker of the two but Ramos the better player.

With how much better sides are kicking these days there's an interesting general shift to fullbacks who are rock solid in positioning and kicking rather than running threats on counter attack. The latter tend to gravitate towards wing these days.

Steward's the least of my concerns after this tournament I'd put it that way...

Well that was a pile of smelly brown stuff wasn't it? Still it is important to acknowledge that that was a truly fantastic French performance. They have seemed a little off the boil this 6N so far, but not yesterday. Couple that with the kind of can go wrong will go wrong performance we produced and it was very depressing.

Any word on the Lawrence injury? I am assuming Slade going off was a normal substitution.

lostinwales wrote:Well that was a pile of smelly brown stuff wasn't it? Still it is important to acknowledge that that was a truly fantastic French performance. They have seemed a little off the boil this 6N so far, but not yesterday. Couple that with the kind of can go wrong will go wrong performance we produced and it was very depressing.

Any word on the Lawrence injury? I am assuming Slade going off was a normal substitution.

Agreed France was absolutely fantastic. Key players such as Dupont and Alldritt having their best performances of the tournament. Danty was terrific. Flament is rapidly looking world class. Similarly with Ramos. It was impressive.

Slade was subbed tactically for Farrell with Lawrence shifting to 13. I've not heard anything yet on Lawrence. Presumably Manu would be favourite to return if he's out.

As fantastic as France were and they truly were fantastic yesterday, what really drew my attention (watching again today) was the fact that the English back 3 seemed more intent on playing a set defensive structure and not the actual game situation. That seems to me to be an 'over' coaching issue.

To me this is not a selection issue but something much more structural. Its the safety first mentality - never take risks and I believe this comes a lot from the premiership.

England were playing such simple rugby with no patterns of runners to confuse the defenses. Thats just poor. shoveling Poopie on down the line does not cut it any more. Smith had simply no options other than shoveling it on because there was no one making the runs for him or offering themselves

England completely lost the physical battle and after that it's game over, there was little the backs could do. I don't blame Smith, I don't think he had a bad game particularly certainly no worse than any other England player but entire team out gunned, out thought and out played.

Scottish backs manage to score tries even when their forwards get mashed - as in the England game. when did you last see England counterattacking from deep? complex interplay of passing to create space? they seem not to want to risk it.

NH rugby seems to be splitting in playing styles with France, Italy and Scotland prepared to attack from anywhere and playing a high risk high reward game plan and England and Wales playing stodgy safety first rugby with ireland doing a bit of both

Maybe if likes of Mitchell, Arundell get a start we might see it but I think after 30 mins England were shell shocked. They were simply blown away by intensity of France and on back foot all game.

mountain man wrote:Maybe if likes of Mitchell, Arundell get a start we might see it but I think after 30 mins England were shell shocked. They were simply blown away by intensity of France and on back foot all game.

You can play who you like in the backs but if you're going to get blown away in the physicality stakes like we were then it won't matter.

Yep which is exactly what I've been saying but that was my answer to question from TJ when he asked why Eng don't counter attack from deep. Given how France completely dominated everything physically I can't see any change in personnel making any difference.

king_carlos wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Geordie wrote:I know we disagree KC but tighthead concerns me.

A number of pundits have said how underwhelming it is to see Vunipola and Cole coming on when England have to chase a game. Which is an indication of how much expectations for the team have changed. Many of the same pundits welcomed Cole back into the England fold, as he was seen as a safe pair of hands, who could help close a game out.

Once sides know to target them doing so with double tackles is relatively easy given even the quickest props aren't beating defenders for pace. His defensive output has largely remained excellent for a prop and I struggle to put the breakdown of England's set-piece at the end of EJs tenure on one player. Contrary to popular belief the TH isn't the most critical factor of a scrum. It comes down to all 13 forwards in the matchday squad these days.

I'm not expecting him to run like a back with the ball or think the scrum is solely down to the tight head. My problem is his energy and drive around the park. His body language is awful. He had an aggression issue when he was younger but that drove him ....and now it looks like they've ripped everything out of him. He Saunters form ruck to ruck or getting realigned.  

Look at Furlong today...sprinting Alnost to get back in position or to hit his ruck..he's alert and ready to go. He hits evrytohng woth 100% and dynamically. A  complete contrast to Sinckler.  When the whistle goes for a break  its like he's ready to walk off the pitch.

mountain man wrote:Yep which is exactly what I've been saying but that was my answer to question from TJ when he asked why Eng don't counter attack from deep. Given how France completely dominated everything physically I can't see any change in personnel making any difference.

MY point is other teams do it. England won the forward battle in the calcutta cup but scotlands attacking in the backs from deep won the game. Two tries launched from well in our own half. thats the differnce

mountain man wrote:Yep which is exactly what I've been saying but that was my answer to question from TJ when he asked why Eng don't counter attack from deep. Given how France completely dominated everything physically I can't see any change in personnel making any difference.

We ran more from deep that we did all tournament. Steward usually got us some alright metres and position but France would sap the speed out the ball at the ruck.

Dupont also kicked magnificently. When Smith was in the backfield he kicked short, when kicking to Steward he'd kick long so that Steward was either kicking in return or running into a wall of French defenders.

We couldn't afford to drop more players out of the defensive line either.

Just been reading an interesting debate about the England players strength and conditioning...

Is that an area rhey need to work on?

Geordie wrote:Just been reading an interesting debate about the England players strength and conditioning...

Is that an area rhey need to work on?

Borthwick thinks so. Aled is joining from Tigers in the summer. The Boks S&C guy from the last world cup and he's done wonders at Tigers. Come the world cup the condition of the England players will not be an issue.

Telegraph today:

The Premiership provides wonderful entertainment, but as a vehicle to producing a successful international team, let alone financially solvent clubs, it has been found desperately wanting.

The same observation has been made by other pundits. Tim from Eggchasers on his YouTube channel, for instance.

The Telegraph also notes Borthwick said England lacked power, and their tactics to deal with French power didn't work.

This is exactly what Eddie Jones said. I hope, in the fall-out from last weekend's dispiriting loss, we can acknowledge that Jones didn't spend all his time trying to bait the rugby press and England public. He held some genuine convictions about the weaknesses in English rugby, and was trying to find ways to mitigate them.

The good news is that Borthwick, like Lancaster during his tenure, sees his role as raising the standard of English rugby overall. Jones never saw that as his responsibility, not least because the RFU never made it his responsibility. It's striking how differently Jones talks about his new job, acting as a standard bearer for the code in Australia.

That's just one more black mark for the RFU. They ended up reappointing Jones on the back of England's performance at the World Cup. Unfortunately, the RFU couldn't recognize that was the single moment when the interests of English rugby and Eddie Jones had been aligned.

It's not that Jones deliberately threw away the Six Nations, Autumn internationals, or tour matches. They were simply all subordinate to his ambition to win the World Cup. Since his sacking, there are dozens of stories of how Jones joined coaching clinics around the country, so his enthusiasm to help people improve is not in doubt. What he never did, was try and get more joined-up thinking in English rugby, to improve the player pipeline and development. He didn't see how he could do that in the current set-up.

For instance, despite some media claims, it wasn't Jones who told Alfie Barbeary to stop playing hooker. That was only ever the player's own choice. If anything, Jones wanted more hooker options, which is why he went after Ewan Ashman. Maybe if he'd been appointed from the start as coach for two World Cup cycles, he would have thought further ahead, and committed more time to player development. Maybe not.

Realistically, though, that 2019 World Cup squad was young, and ought to be the backbone of a top international side today. It's shocking how few of those players have kicked on. another Telegraph journalist looking at that angle has concluded that only Genge is really playing better four years on, and possibly Lawes. On the strength of his recent club form, before he got injured, you could perhaps make a case for Elliot Daly.

That could be down to the constant turnover of England coaches under Jones, or else it might just be a result of mediocre standards in the Premiership. All of the Saracens players looked undercooked after a season in the Championship, so league standards do matter. Perhaps we've confused competitiveness in the Premiership with excellence.

Ultimately, the blame goes back to the RFU. They appointed a coach to win a World Cup, on the assumption a victory would solve all their financial and organizational problems. They should have addressed those issues directly, and made them the responsibility of the England coach. Worse, when Jones did raise issues about the English game, the RFU seemed to assume, like the rugby press, he was just being a wind-up merchant, and never worked with him to address his concerns.

There's already some impatience in the air with Borthwick's short tenure. Jones had trouble finding solutions to England's problems, so Borthwick is unlikely to have any easy answers. Here's hoping there is now a greater willingness to get all parties within English rugby pointing in the same direction.

Clubs aren't there to serve England though. First and foremost they're there to be successful.i don't really buy the comments on the prem being a ad place for development either as it really focuses in too much on England being the only team to benefit from the english league. I'm not sure who the ndovidual pundits are but I think it was a bit telling that Woodward gave Borthwick a free pass and barely any criticism following that horror show. Can't help but feel that was down to his previous criticism of Jones and subsequent backing of Steve.

Blame does sit with the RFU though. Their ultimate aim was the world cup and so that's what Jones focused on. Not sure they realised that a lot of people actually like to see entertaining rugby every game not just once every 4 years. Internationals are also not the be all and end all. An entertaining premiership product is a good thing to have.

Well surely see an improved performance at the weekend, can't be worse.

Geordie wrote:Just been reading an interesting debate about the England players strength and conditioning...

Is that an area rhey need to work on?

It would ridiculous if they were not at nigh on peak condition by game 4 in 6N, injury knocks aside. There could be no excuses for them not to be. This would be just one of the areas Borthwick would check at pre 6N camp.
On Saturday they were simply blown away by a far better team. It could hardly have come as a surprise to England that France are big and powerful. Dombrandt as an example looked distinctly under powered as opposed to Alldrit. Same applied pretty much across board.

mountain man wrote:

Geordie wrote:Just been reading an interesting debate about the England players strength and conditioning...

Is that an area rhey need to work on?

It would ridiculous if they were not at nigh on peak condition by game 4 in 6N, injury knocks aside. There could be no excuses for them not to be. This would be just one of the areas Borthwick would check at pre 6N camp.
On Saturday they were simply blown away by a far better team. It could hardly have come as a surprise to England that France are big and powerful. Dombrandt as an example looked distinctly under powered as opposed to Alldrit. Same applied pretty much across board.

Yet smaller than most of their England opposition.

So whats the answer.

Is the above correct...the prem is the issue? Are the England players over played? Do they need rest clauses to work on their power and strength?

The french league was notorious for players being hugely out of condition...what have they done to reverse that?

France looked like a settled team who knew what they were doing. England looked like a team that had suddenly off the back of 5 days training decided to completely change their direction of travel and try and play 'joue joue' rugby with Marcus Smith at 10. The England players were understandably confused and unsure what they were doing, and were therefore not at 100%.

If you had swapped Chessum and Flament over, do you think Flament in an England shirt would have had the game he had and scored a couple of tries? I think Steve Borthwick needs to take a lot of the blame for poor team selection (throwing Marcus Smith under the bus) and even worse tactics. I assume this will now justify him sticking with 'world class' Farrell and Ford through the world cup.

Were France smaller than England? The weights of players are always to be taken with pinch of salt I think.

My point is if the S&C of France or any other team is noticably better than England then that is pretty unforgiveable in this pro, all metric day and age.

One of Borthwicks key points is a set piece, forward dominated game plan. Surely it's occurred to him the physical requirements for that to come about.

*by metric I mean measurements rather than using kgs instead of lbs.

I do generally ignore Matt Dawson as he seems to be a bit adrift of the rugby world in general now.

'There is a chance England can beat Ireland next week. As much as it's very slim, I have been in plenty of scenarios where we have been overwhelming favourites going into the last round of matches and been turned over.

There will be huge amounts of pressure on Ireland. England will be underdogs, they'll be written off and it will be a miserable week. Reputations are on the line.

There will be some harsh words from individuals in the group and they will realise this is the last opportunity under the Borthwick regime to go to a World Cup. That brings a different perspective to a player.

There will be consequences for English rugby as a whole if they lose - from the administration to the coaching.

If England finish the Six Nations with two wins there is something fundamentally wrong with the system and there is potentially a broader consequence to the result next week.

Hopefully, England will embrace that and give a showing that can push Ireland.'

Of course England could win, it's sport so you never know. England had been showing green shoots of recovery in isolation before the dogs dinner of Saturday. I'm intrigued though why anyone thinks another defeat would mean changes in administration or coaching. I seriously doubt that anyone involved in the appointment of Borthwick will fall on their sword as they would be admitting that it was a bad appointment. Ditto do he's really think that Borthwick is going to hand someone out to dry? Evans is obviously due to leave with Wigglesworth coming in but that doesn't count.

Realistically surely the result is a bit secondary this week, performance much more important?

No 7&1/2 wrote:.. Evans is obviously due to leave with Wigglesworth coming in...

That's no longer certain. Wigglesworth is not coming in as attack coach, so there is room for Evans to stay. Danny Care said Evans has been giving nothing away at Quins.

England could win against Ireland, not beyond realms of possibility although given respective performances so far plus Ireland at home means it's pretty unlikely.
Can't see any major changes to admin/coaches if they lose but who knows.

Agree that if they do lose Eng must perform better and surely they will, that was the bottom we must hope.

Would Eng take a fantastically played loss or a dire 3-0 win? I think they'd take win every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

mountain man wrote:Were France smaller than England? The weights of players are always to be taken with pinch of salt I think.

My point is if the S&C of France or any other team is noticably better than England then that is pretty unforgiveable in this pro, all metric day and age.

One of Borthwicks key points is a set piece, forward dominated game plan. Surely it's occurred to him the physical requirements for that to come about.

*by metric I mean measurements rather than using kgs instead of lbs.

I go back to mindset. They were shell shocked.

Rugby Fan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:.. Evans is obviously due to leave with Wigglesworth coming in...

That's no longer certain. Wigglesworth is not coming in as attack coach, so there is room for Evans to stay. Danny Care said Evans has been giving nothing away at Quins.

I had not seen that; thanks. Just assumed, stupid question what roles are left in terms of coaching gaps?

BBC:

England centre Ollie Lawrence will not play in Saturday's Six Nations game in Ireland because of a hamstring injury suffered in the defeat by France.

Lawrence, who started England's past three Tests, is replaced in a 36-player training squad by Leicester's Guy Porter.

Manu Tuilagi will be available in Dublin after completing a suspension for dangerous play.

England lost 53-10 to France on Saturday, their heaviest home defeat.

They are likely to face even tougher opposition in Grand Slam-chasing Ireland on the final weekend.

England wing Ollie Hassell-Collins, who made promising starts against Scotland and Italy before getting injured, returns.

George Ford is back, providing competition at fly-half with Owen Farrell and Marcus Smith. Smith started ahead of Farrell at Twickenham on Saturday.

England training squad
Forwards: Ollie Chessum, Dan Cole, Will Collier, Ben Curry, Alex Dombrandt, Tom Dunn, Ben Earl, Ellis Genge, Jamie George, Jonny Hill, Nick Isiekwe, Maro Itoje, Lewis Ludlam, David Ribbans, Bevan Rodd, Kyle Sinckler, Mako Vunipola, Jack Walker, Jack Willis.

Backs: Henry Arundell, Owen Farrell, Tommy Freeman, George Ford, Ollie Hassell-Collins, Max Malins, Joe Marchant, Alex Mitchell, Cadan Murley, Guy Porter, Henry Slade, Marcus Smith, Freddie Steward, Manu Tuilagi, Jack van Poortvliet, Anthony Watson, Ben Youngs

Really interested to see Collier in there, some influence from Evans with Jones in his ear? Think I'd keep the same starting pack but would love to see Collier and Rodd on the bench.

Backs I'd be inclined to make more changes for Mitchell probably deserves a start clearly changes in midfield, I'd probably go Farrell Tuilagi. Murley and H-C on the wings.

We all know it'll be Youngs Farrell Manu, back to the future

Well, it's a game I won't be watching back.
France were outstanding. The biggest difference seemed to be the pace and general speed of play amongst their forwards - Aldritt (for example) has the speef of a centre, while Dombrandt clearly doesn't.

OK, the ref did us no favours with some odd decisions around the breakdown, but at most it probably made about a 10 point difference - we were getting hammered regardless.

England's performance though - to say error-strewn would be understating things. Looked panicky, like the RWC final - didn't seem able to even do farirly basic things correctly like present and protect the bll at the breakdown.

Oh, and we don't have anyone remotely as good as Dupoint to pull the streings. IIRC, he wasn't named man of the match, which was a travesty.

From n England persepctive, I think this is one you just say you got thoroughly out-played by an outstanding opponent, move on and hope that things improve. I'm not sure that in the short term there's a change or two to players that would make a significant difference. Obviously, Turry and Underhill would make for a stronger back row, but neither are available, and we would still have a question over the #8. Dombrandt doesn't look good enough, but then neither does Simmons. But only a few games from a RWC, do we really want to be experimenting with one fo the most vital positions?

England edged possession and territory stats. Conceded less penalties and won the scrum battle (3-1 on pens). The breakdown speed is a tough read where France got much more quick ball and made 9 linebreaks to our 1.

Breakdown isn't going to be any easier this weekend. It's got to be our area of focus as Ireland will shred our defence with that much quick ball. Can't average 1 point per opposition 22 visit either, not against the top teams, have to take your chances.

formerly known as Sam wrote:England edged possession and territory stats. Conceded less penalties and won the scrum battle (3-1 on pens). The breakdown speed is a tough read where France got much more quick ball and made 9 linebreaks to our 1.

Breakdown isn't going to be any easier this weekend. It's got to be our area of focus as Ireland will shred our defence with that much quick ball. Can't average 1 point per opposition 22 visit either, not against the top teams, have to take your chances.

Stats should also include handling errors and turnovers, to give a better feel for this game. Line breaks per se are not necessarily that important if you can scramble back in defence, but France did so much damage once they were through our first line of defence that it was an important part of their domination. That and that they just ran through the middle of our defence repeatedly, with their back 5 forwards just looking stronger and faster than their opponent.

dummy_half wrote:Well, it's a game I won't be watching back.
France were outstanding. The biggest difference seemed to be the pace and general speed of play amongst their forwards - Aldritt (for example) has the speef of a centre, while Dombrandt clearly doesn't.

OK, the ref did us no favours with some odd decisions around the breakdown, but at most it probably made about a 10 point difference - we were getting hammered regardless.

England's performance though - to say error-strewn would be understating things. Looked panicky, like the RWC final - didn't seem able to even do farirly basic things correctly like present and protect the bll at the breakdown.

Oh, and we don't have anyone remotely as good as Dupoint to pull the streings. IIRC, he wasn't named man of the match, which was a travesty.

From n England persepctive, I think this is one you just say you got thoroughly out-played by an outstanding opponent, move on and hope that things improve. I'm not sure that in the short term there's a change or two to players that would make a significant difference. Obviously, Turry and Underhill would make for a stronger back row, but neither are available, and we would still have a question over the #8. Dombrandt doesn't look good enough, but then neither does Simmons. But only a few games from a RWC, do we really want to be experimenting with one fo the most vital positions?

You dont need one if we use our excellent 10's correctly. Mitchell did what we want a 9 to do when he came on...snipe, quick ball...commit defenders etc. JVP is more than capable of doing it..as was Young...

We need to look at the balance of the pack. Mix brute power and dynamism with more skilled forwards. We DO HAVE the players...

If Itoje is a starter then we have to let him play his BEST game...so give him the support he needs. SImilar to Dombrandt. If we continue with a playmaking 8 with a lack of pace and power then give him the support of the pack to allow him to play or get rid of him for a more physical 8.

Borthwick did it with the Tigers so im pretty sure he has an idea of who he wants in the squad...but he'll be limited with changes post 6n...and up to the world cup.

If Eddie Jones had left after the last RWC he'd have gone down in history as one of the best England coaches and we might have been further down the path of rebuilding. Instead...

Only bright light for us for next weekend is the number of injures Ireland had on Sunday (plus the shorter turn around). It shouldn't be enough, and we have lost our best performing back bar Steward, but there is always hope. We are due a good performance at some point, surely....

formerly known as Sam wrote:England edged possession and territory stats. Conceded less penalties and won the scrum battle (3-1 on pens). The breakdown speed is a tough read where France got much more quick ball and made 9 linebreaks to our 1.

Breakdown isn't going to be any easier this weekend. It's got to be our area of focus as Ireland will shred our defence with that much quick ball. Can't average 1 point per opposition 22 visit either, not against the top teams, have to take your chances.

At risk of coming across a bit harsh I think England are living in the past a bit though with the importance they give to set piece or small on field victories in general. For example they still celebrate scrum penalties like they have just scored their fifth try in a total rout. I don't get it. Matt Dawson also brought this up in the BBC rugby union daily podcast post match review v France "France Run Riot in Twickenham" 7:10. It was the exact same when Ireland beat them in Twickenham last year.

Ireland have only lost once at home in the last 19 games and that was a 13-15 loss to France. Their only loss in Dublin for Andy Farrell. Its all set up for England to ruin the party of course. it will be another big test for this Ireland side.