England Pre 2023 6Ns and Beyond.

First topic message reminder :

Continued.......

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

Prior to match I think most thought that was a good a pack as available, it was certainly effective against Italy and Wales but found out big time against France.
I'm not sure England do have the players to compete with the best at the moment. Do you really think one or two changes in forwards would have made much difference? Who then comes in and who is jettisoned?

I will say it depends upon how they go against Ireland, if blown away again in similar manner then I think we know it wasn't a one-off terrible day at office.

On the BBC podcast, Chris Ashton seemed genuinely baffled by England on Saturday. Having worked with Borthwick at Leicester, he has no doubt the coach would have kept his message very simple, so he couldn't understand why players often looked clueless. Ashton suspects George Ford might come into the picture, as he was crucial in getting players to execute Borthwick's strategy at the club, and may best-equipped to do that for England.

Meanwhile, YouTube Rugby Analyst was a fairly consistent critic of Eddie Jones but now says in today's video that his selections may have had more of a logic than he realized at the time. Still, he'd rather we were hanged for a sheep than a lamb, so would prefer us to go bold next week.

Geordie wrote:

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...
.

I find it odd Mitchell gets his review of the game from the first 5 mins he was on (which were brilliant to be fair to him). The interception thrown 5m from the French line that was completely unnecessary and cost us a try and the indecision allowing Ollivon to score with the ball over the line were very poor errors.

He certainly injects tempo to the game but there is a cost.

JVP is a bit naive but is a good all rounder and can certainly play a higher tempo. Switching them round might be good for JVP's confidence as he's taken an unfair battering from the press after the France game. It's easier to look offer the impact option than start the game at a high tempo when the opposition are fresh. Starting might not help Mitchell's chances though, he drifts in and out of games at club level and is prone to the magical and the ridiculous one phase to the next.

Ashton suspects George Ford might come into the picture

That might well be case although Ford being out paced for a try by a replacement prop at weekend not a great look!

Basically England got nothing to lose this weekend, might as well give it a crack. Be utterly pointless, excuse the pun, to go in ultra conservative and just try and limit losses.
Seems a long time ago when last year England nearly beat Ireland with 14 players for most of match. Now it's fear what could happen even with all 15 on all the time.

I saw Stephen Jones on twitter (I don't follow him), point the finger at Smith. Said it would have been different had we not set up with an unorthodox 10 who is a poor defender...
Also said that England paid the price on Saturday because of Eddie Jones' incoherence.

So sounds like it's a real simple solution for the Ireland game, drop Smith and sack Jones.

Former England scrum coach Matt Proudfoot spoke about England on South African TV.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I saw Stephen Jones on twitter (I don't follow him), point the finger at Smith. Said it would have been different had we not set up with an unorthodox 10 who is a poor defender...
Also said that England paid the price on Saturday because of Eddie Jones' incoherence.

So sounds like it's a real simple solution for the Ireland game, drop Smith and sack Jones.

When your pack, and in particular your back row is getting hammered as badly as happened on Saturday, I don't think a hybrid of Johnny Wilkinson and Dan Carter would have made a blind bit of difference. Don't think Smith did much wrong from what I recall - I don't think the France try where he was dragged back over the line was on him (actually, pretty sure it should have been a penalty to England, but that's a different discussion), and otherwise I don't recall him being responsible for either missed tackles or defensive misalignment that let the French through. OK, not sure he did that much particularly good either, but he had no hope of doing much with the scrappy ball England generated for much of the match.

Smith did little wrong. I've been less sympathetic to some of his poorer international outings than some but Saturday was a hiding to nothing for the backs. If I'm being very critical from memory. He hit that spiral bomb from the free kick very badly which handed France the ball back. Had a kick to the left hand corner from a penalty in the first half that realistically you'd want much closer to 5m - though it was still slightly better than Slade's similarly poor effort to the right hand corner soon after. Then there was the grubber from good attacking ball that was easily collected at the back by France but looked like a set play poorly executed to me rather than a decision on Smith's shoulders alone.

If the forwards get that sort of pummeling there's little the halfbacks can do. I can sparsely remember a back row being dominated that comprehensively. Trying to think of good interventions from our starting back row, Dombrandt showing good hands off a lineout move to shift it to Lawrence a fraction before contact early on is genuinely the only thing. Burry, somewhat surprisingly after R1, probably had the best showing in the back row. Even Wales 2013 I don't think that woefully imbalanced back row were dominated so emphatically as a lot of damage there was at the set-piece and tight exchanges rather than the breakdown and tackle area specifically. Though Warburton near the peak of his powers did make hay at the ruck still.

Ringrose is out. And Henderson.

And sounds like there's a bit of doubt for Doris, Sheehan and Kelleher.

Rugby Fan wrote:Former England scrum coach Matt Proudfoot spoke about England on South African TV.

pretty much what weve all said on here.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ringrose is out. And Henderson.

And sounds like there's a bit of doubt for Doris, Sheehan and Kelleher.

Just need Porter, Furlong, JVDF, Sexton, Gibson-Parke, Keenan, Lowe, Hansen et al to also drop out and we're quids in. Possibly.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ringrose is out. And Henderson.

And sounds like there's a bit of doubt for Doris, Sheehan and Kelleher.

Henderson and Ringrose are definitely out but good chance Doris and Sheehan will make it. Ross Moloney from Leinster called up for Hendo. Ulsters Tom Stewart covers hooker. Id say Aki will play 12 and Henshaw 13 with maybe Jimmy OBrien or McCloskey on the bench. Ringrose is a big loss but Henshaw is decent.

Henshaw's a little more than decent...

Ireland's lock depth is outstanding. Baird being 4th choice is such a luxury. He looks like an extremely special player in the making to me.

king_carlos wrote:Henshaw's a little more than decent...

Ireland's lock depth is outstanding. Baird being 4th choice is such a luxury.  He looks like an extremely special player in the making to me.

Yeah he is I just think he is probably a better 12 than 13, anyway I think England have their own injury problems at centre.

We are going through a horrible period and Ireland should/will comfortably win regardless of personnel. I agree that the world's best 10 wouldn't have made a difference behind our pack. When you are being pushed back, smashed and generally being man handled as a pack you can't expect the 10 to pull you out of that situation. Perhaps faz should have started but it may have only reduced the deficit by a small margin, who knows. It's not like we have any better players available at the moment either. 2023 could be the annus horrribilis of English rugby, professional game in disarray with clubs bankrupt and several struggling and the international team being s**t. It could get worse before it gets better so we are in for a bumpy ride.

The only glimmer of hope is that two of England's best coaches are very successful, it's just a shame they aren't coaching England ‍�.

If England do win in Dublin and prevent Ireland from winning the Grand Slam, do Ireland still wim the six n\tions?

majesticimperialman wrote:If England do win in Dublin and prevent Ireland from winning the Grand Slam, do Ireland still wim the six nations?

Ireland have 19 points, with a scoring points difference of 66, and France have 15, with a difference of 46. If Ireland get something out of a loss, then they should still take the title.

I watched it back again, albeit skipping through stoppages, out of almost morbid curiousity.

The way we lost so many contact battles both in tackle and breakdown I can't help but feel that forwards who can win collisions will be looked at in the warm-ups regardless of them having other areas to work on.

George Martin - Very early in the move to lock but he can dominate collisions in the tackle and carry
Tom Pearson - A really strong runner who makes yards and breaks as well as being good at the breakdown
Ted Hill - Extremely physical in contact even if there are other areas to work on
Barbeary and Underhill - Both have picked up new injuries but if they get fit over the summer I think they could be looked at as both win collisions

Curry, Lawes and LCD hopefully coming back too who are all strong in contact. I'd really like to see Marler back in the fold not just for his set-piece but also strength in defence where he's great in the tackle.

Another thing I'd add from the re-watch is that Sinckler looked really uncomfortable. He had that back injury last year. I wonder if that hasn't cleared up fully as he frankly looked like he was struggling to get low for contact in the loose. Worrying if so.

king_carlos wrote:I watched it back again, albeit skipping through stoppages, out of almost morbid curiousity.

The way we lost so many contact battles both in tackle and breakdown I can't help but feel that forwards who can win collisions will be looked at in the warm-ups regardless of them having other areas to work on.

George Martin - Very early in the move to lock but he can dominate collisions in the tackle and carry
Tom Pearson - A really strong runner who makes yards and breaks as well as being good at the breakdown
Ted Hill - Extremely physical in contact even if there are other areas to work on
Barbeary and Underhill - Both have picked up new injuries but if they get fit over the summer I think they could be looked at as both win collisions

Curry, Lawes and LCD hopefully coming back too who are all strong in contact. I'd really like to see Marler back in the fold not just for his set-piece but also strength in defence where he's great in the tackle.

I'm along this train of thought too KC.

The pack was seriously underpowered against the French and it just hasn't been highlighted as much in earlier games. Chessum and Itoje are really good players, but not a working combination against the stronger sides...you need some strength in there to compliment either player.

All 3 of the backrow aren't exactly fantastic in the collision....perhaps Ludlum offers something here. Willis isn't Curry or Lawes.....or even Underhill. The back 5 just got showed up to be weak and the front row (especially George and Sink....had big off days).

king_carlos wrote:I watched it back again, albeit skipping through stoppages, out of almost morbid curiousity.

The way we lost so many contact battles both in tackle and breakdown I can't help but feel that forwards who can win collisions will be looked at in the warm-ups regardless of them having other areas to work on.

George Martin - Very early in the move to lock but he can dominate collisions in the tackle and carry
Tom Pearson - A really strong runner who makes yards and breaks as well as being good at the breakdown
Ted Hill - Extremely physical in contact even if there are other areas to work on
Barbeary and Underhill - Both have picked up new injuries but if they get fit over the summer I think they could be looked at as both win collisions

Curry, Lawes and LCD hopefully coming back too who are all strong in contact. I'd really like to see Marler back in the fold not just for his set-piece but also strength in defence where he's great in the tackle.

I'm hoping Val Rapava-Ruskin gets a look in at loosehead as well. Very good at the breakdown and has the handling skills to replace what Mako does.

I'm expecting to see George Martin come in if he's still playing in the form he is come the summer. He's offering everything he did at 6 from lock.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

king_carlos wrote:I watched it back again, albeit skipping through stoppages, out of almost morbid curiousity.

The way we lost so many contact battles both in tackle and breakdown I can't help but feel that forwards who can win collisions will be looked at in the warm-ups regardless of them having other areas to work on.

George Martin - Very early in the move to lock but he can dominate collisions in the tackle and carry
Tom Pearson - A really strong runner who makes yards and breaks as well as being good at the breakdown
Ted Hill - Extremely physical in contact even if there are other areas to work on
Barbeary and Underhill - Both have picked up new injuries but if they get fit over the summer I think they could be looked at as both win collisions

Curry, Lawes and LCD hopefully coming back too who are all strong in contact. I'd really like to see Marler back in the fold not just for his set-piece but also strength in defence where he's great in the tackle.

I'm along this train of thought too KC.

The pack was seriously underpowered against the French and it just hasn't been highlighted as much in earlier games. Chessum and Itoje are really good players, but not a working combination against the stronger sides...you need some strength in there to compliment either player.

All 3 of the backrow aren't exactly fantastic in the collision....perhaps Ludlum offers something here. Willis isn't Curry or Lawes.....or even Underhill. The back 5 just got showed up to be weak and the front row (especially George and Sink....had big off days).

I think that Chessum and Itoje is the best lock combination I've seen us have since Itoje and Kruis. Chessum at a shade under 19 stone is doing all the bits we need in the set piece but still getting round the park.

I think the balance might not be quite right across 4-8. We're lacking a little bit of venom in physical exchanges. Dombrandt feels a bit like an openside in the body of an 8 and then the dual openside combination aren't bad but there's something missing.

As Carlos says Ted Hill might help (I think Geordie has mentioned his a time or two), we need someone bringing the aggression Genge brings to the front row into the backrow. If we haven't got that readily available then going 4. Ribbans, 5. Itoje, 6. Chessum might be a short term answer.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

I think that Chessum and Itoje is the best lock combination I've seen us have since Itoje and Kruis. Chessum at a shade under 19 stone is doing all the bits we need in the set piece but still getting round the park.

I think the balance might not be quite right across 4-8. We're lacking a little bit of venom in physical exchanges. Dombrandt feels a bit like an openside in the body of an 8 and then the dual openside combination aren't bad but there's something missing.

As Carlos says Ted Hill might help (I think Geordie has mentioned his a time or two), we need someone bringing the aggression Genge brings to the front row into the backrow. If we haven't got that readily available then going 4. Ribbans, 5. Itoje, 6. Chessum might be a short term answer.

I don't doubt they're both good players, but do they compliment each other? I don't think they do particularly, neither dominate the collision area (in attack or defence). Tie the engine room in with a lackluster/weak backrow and you start to see why we struggled so much. The struggling pack and JVP having another nightmare game.....

Andy Goode says on his pod that Borthwick and Billy Vunipola had a falling out somewhere along the line, which means Borthwick will not consider him as an England option.

Rugby Fan wrote:Andy Goode says on his pod that Borthwick and Billy Vunipola had a falling out somewhere along the line, which means Borthwick will not consider him as an England option.

Interesting to hear. Billy's latter England performance were way below his best. He's once again been dropped and looked above the competition at Prem level though which is a big concern. His worst England performance weren't on the level of Saturday's debacle but still not good enough to challenge the best.

As said if Barbeary gets fit I'd be looking to him at number 8 as a currently not perfect player but one that can win collisions. George Martin too. Maybe Ted Hill in his absence. Somewhat similar to Nathan Hughes and Ben Te'o in 2017 I guess. Not perfect internationals by a long stretch but they filled a role that needed filling.

Mercer and Pearson I think are interesting options as more rounded players who add in attack and defence.

I want to see Willis work worry that a player so reliant on jackaling to be influential might struggle to translate from Prem to international. Jackaling is so reliant on reffing interpretation anyway, then add (good...) international sides securing their own ball so much better. If an opposition can neutralise that I'm not sure how much he can influence the game. He hasn't shown more as a carrier than other weak carrying flankers such as Underhill. He's not prominent in the tackle. Not much of a link man. It's a bit boom or bust. If he has his day at the breakdown it can be brilliant, if not it's anonymous. That's a big concern.

Willis is probably one of the best carriers we have as a flanker. Really don't get what you guys don't see in him. France's offloading was great on Saturday and he was taken completely out of the game but...so was everyone else. Sam is right in his assessment on Mitchel's performance. He's getting some good write ups as he came on and provided some impetus and helped with the try but the rest of the time was the same level as everyone else. Steward was good in what he did but the French nullified him a lot by his tactics. Itoje was fine. And then everyone else is about a 4 out of 10 at best. It's why I'm still mystified by Woodwards saying of fine margins (paraphrasing as can't remember his best quote).

I thought that Jones should go after 3 years of dross, but there are currently some in media trying to turn any focus off Borthwick. That looked like the players were sent out there with the bare basics and when it went differently to what they were told it was game over. That's happened to us before (it does happen to everyone at points) but never to that extent.

George Martin looks like he's bulked up over last 12 months, this correct? He was a bit too lanky before I thought but getting size now that could be effective at top level.
Mercer though, is he big enough and strong enough?

Going on France match England looked so under powered they need some big, strong and powerful carriers. Who currently has that?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Willis is probably one of the best carriers we have as a flanker. Really don't get what you guys don't see in him. France's offloading was great on Saturday and he was taken completely out of the game but...so was everyone else.

I argued that Willis was a better carrying flaker but don't think it's translated against international defences at all. He's certainly offering less in the carry than Curry or Lawes were prior to injury. Less than Ludlam as well this tournament. I'd say his carrying is on par with Underhill and it was always the weak area of his game.

Is it not a concern to you to see a flanker taken completely out the game once the breakdown is nullified though? I just don't see where Willis can influence an international outside of the jackal. As we saw on Saturday good sides can take that away with better support play.

king_carlos wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Willis is probably one of the best carriers we have as a flanker. Really don't get what you guys don't see in him. France's offloading was great on Saturday and he was taken completely out of the game but...so was everyone else.

I argued that Willis was a better carrying flaker but don't think it's translated against international defences at all. He's certainly offering less in the carry than Curry or Lawes were prior to injury. Less than Ludlam as well this tournament. I'd say his carrying is on par with Underhill and it was always the weak area of his game.

Is it not a concern to you to see a flanker taken completely out the game once the breakdown is nullified though? I just don't see where Willis can influence an international outside of the breakdown. As we saw on Saturday good sides can take that away with good support play and strict reffing interpretations.

The wider point on Saturday is that absolutely everyone was taken out of the game. You did well to sit through a second time, I will not be doing so, but yes an effective game plan can make things look very different. The support play was none existent from us.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

I think that Chessum and Itoje is the best lock combination I've seen us have since Itoje and Kruis. Chessum at a shade under 19 stone is doing all the bits we need in the set piece but still getting round the park.

I think the balance might not be quite right across 4-8. We're lacking a little bit of venom in physical exchanges. Dombrandt feels a bit like an openside in the body of an 8 and then the dual openside combination aren't bad but there's something missing.

As Carlos says Ted Hill might help (I think Geordie has mentioned his a time or two), we need someone bringing the aggression Genge brings to the front row into the backrow. If we haven't got that readily available then going 4. Ribbans, 5. Itoje, 6. Chessum might be a short term answer.

I don't doubt they're both good players, but do they compliment each other? I don't think they do particularly, neither dominate the collision area (in attack or defence). Tie the engine room in with a lackluster/weak backrow and you start to see why we struggled so much. The struggling pack and JVP having another nightmare game.....

Well we clearly disagree because the lock combination has been one of the few highlights of the tournament for me.

JVP having a 'nightmare' still cost us less points than Mitchell did. When you're getting smashed at the breakdown like we were trying to pass judgement on the halfbacks is pointless. You can't compare either of our 9s to Dupont with all things being equal, when Dupont gets an armchair ride and ours are getting no protection or clean ball...

No 7&1/2 wrote:I saw Stephen Jones on twitter (I don't follow him), point the finger at Smith. Said it would have been different had we not set up with an unorthodox 10 who is a poor defender...
Also said that England paid the price on Saturday because of Eddie Jones' incoherence.

So sounds like it's a real simple solution for the Ireland game, drop Smith and sack Jones.

Well its hard to deny that Smith at 10 has not worked at all.

However, that doesnt make him a bad player nor is it necessarily all his fault. If you want to play Smith you need to build a game plan around with some structure and moves.

England dont seem to have any of that and as a result he seems lost, with no options nor any clue what to do a lot of the time.

He has the talent to be good at a lot of things but to date until England put the plan, structure, options, moves, cohesion etc in place its hard to know if he is any good at all as to date has had very little impact at all.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The wider point on Saturday is that absolutely everyone was taken out of the game. You did well to sit through a second time, I will not be doing so, but yes an effective game plan can make things look very different. The support play was none existent from us.

As dire as it was I don't think absolutely everyone was taken out the game though, especially on second viewing. The set-piece was actually good on our own ball. Itoje I thought had a decent game. Ben Curry impressed off the bench, particularly watching it again as seeing the second half live I was just laughing at points. Chessum actually did the second row basics solidly amongst the destruction. All three of the starting back row were dominated in a way I can never remember seeing in an England game before though.

Have we seen carrying translate over significantly in any other international games from Willis though? Likewise I've not seen him be prominent as a tackler compared to most modern flankers. He's not a link man even at club level such as Pearson, albeit potentially, could be. He doesn't add at set-piece. It just feels extremely one note.

mountain man wrote:George Martin looks like he's bulked up over last 12 months, this correct? He was a bit too lanky before I thought but getting size now that could be effective at top level.
Mercer though, is he big enough and strong enough?

Going on France match England looked so under powered they need some big, strong and powerful carriers. Who currently has that?

Martin has been north of 18 stone for a while now, probably since he broke into the team. He might be a kilo or two heavier now but I think it's the confidence levels and experience of playing at senior level that's making the difference. He's using his weight and mobility much better, he's got a fantastic tackling technique where he hits low, hard and then leg drives through the contact. His carrying is slowly coming through. See 6.25 below from yesterday.

https://youtu.be/TG51ctH-QoA

He'd probably make a good option at 19 as he can slot into lock or 6.

king_carlos wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:The wider point on Saturday is that absolutely everyone was taken out of the game. You did well to sit through a second time, I will not be doing so, but yes an effective game plan can make things look very different. The support play was none existent from us.

As dire as it was I don't think absolutely everyone was taken out the game though, especially on second viewing. The set-piece was actually good on our own ball. Itoje I thought had a decent game. Ben Curry impressed off the bench, particularly watching it again as seeing the second half live I was just laughing at points. Chessum actually did the second row basics solidly amongst the destruction. All three of the starting back row were dominated in a way I can never remember seeing in an England game before though.

Have we seen carrying translate over significantly in any other international games from Willis though? Likewise I've not seen him be prominent as a tackler compared to most modern flankers. He's not a link man even at club level such as Pearson, albeit potentially, could be. He doesn't add at set-piece. It just feels extremely one note.

Scrum was good. Lineout? After I saw Scotland worry the hell out of France with their mauls I'm still massively underwhelmed. I'll bow to your second watching still, I was almost going to wander away and just cook tea rather than watch it first time.

Re Willis' carrying probably not yet, re setpiece he's one of the few showing he knows how a maul works for me, he's grown up with Launchbury next to him though. As you've watched it again, what are your feelings on defence so far? Individual errors , system, both? One thing I thought we would get from Borthwick and Sinfield was strong set piece and good defence with attack taking more time, takes time but Scotland France have taken it apart with ease.

formerly known as Sam wrote:JVP having a 'nightmare' still cost us less points than Mitchell did. When you're getting smashed at the breakdown like we were trying to pass judgement on the halfbacks is pointless. You can't compare either of our 9s to Dupont with all things being equal, when Dupont gets an armchair ride and ours are getting no protection or clean ball...

A case of agreeing and disagreeing.

I struggle to criticise Mitchell for forcing it given the game situation. That said the tap and go followed by intercept was poor, almost felt like Mitchell was playing as if he had penalty advantage having just taken the tap! But forcing it that far down is expected. When he came on the tempo clearly raised but Farrell also made a big difference during that run to Steward's try by straightening the line and picking good options. The best structure we saw in attack was with Farrell on interestingly.

A big part of what Mitchell adds against the tiring defences is pace. He takes two or three steps prior to passing which changes the tempo of the attack in the second half. It prevents tiring forwards in fringe defence from rushing. Generally I feel that tactic of the 9 taking two or three paces speeds things up against tiring defences but can actually slow things down in a first half as fresh sides can adjust to it quickly, close space on the 10. That then puts a lot of pressure on the 9. Hence the only international 9s that play like that long term tend to be outliers like Dupont and Faf.

I think JvP looks like a player learning on the job across the tournament. Which is to be expected given his experience level. I hope Quirke can get fit as I think he's better at playing off 9 than JvP but has a more rounded game than Mitchell. Those three would be my 9s going to the RWC though and are the standout talents I've seen in the Premiership.

Collapse2005 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I saw Stephen Jones on twitter (I don't follow him), point the finger at Smith. Said it would have been different had we not set up with an unorthodox 10 who is a poor defender...
Also said that England paid the price on Saturday because of Eddie Jones' incoherence.

So sounds like it's a real simple solution for the Ireland game, drop Smith and sack Jones.

Well its hard to deny that Smith at 10 has not worked at all.

However, that doesnt make him a bad player nor is it necessarily all his fault. If you want to play Smith you need to build a game plan around with some structure and moves.

England dont seem to have any of that and as a result he seems lost, with no options nor any clue what to do a lot of the time.

He has the talent to be good at a lot of things but to date until England put the plan, structure, options, moves, cohesion etc in place its hard to know if he is any good at all as to date has had very little impact at all.

I disagree entirely we don't need to build a team around him. He showed signs of adapting at the weekend and I would like to see him have another go.

The idea the result was anything to do with him is entirely incorrect. We lost because we got battered at the breakdown. Not the flyhalfs fault.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Scrum was good. Lineout? After I saw Scotland worry the hell out of France with their mauls I'm still massively underwhelmed. I'll bow to your second watching still, I was almost going to wander away and just cook tea rather than watch it first time.

Re Willis' carrying probably not yet, re setpiece he's one of the few showing he knows how a maul works for me, he's grown up with Launchbury next to him though. As you've watched it again, what are your feelings on defence so far? Individual errors , system, both? One thing I thought we would get from Borthwick and Sinfield was strong set piece and good defence with attack taking more time, takes time but Scotland France have taken it apart with ease.

Yes, I thought the lineout was decent on second watch. 100% retention but it just went nowhere. Notably given the rout only one French try off the lineout too which was the final one from a set play off a dummy maul so not really the lineouts fault anyway.

As for Willis in maul defence I really have noticed that to be honest. It's a part of the game I concentrate on a lot as I used to do some analysis around lineout play but really not something I've seen Willis be prominent in at all.

On defence very much both. A lot of weak tackles with even completed tackles seeing players carried across the gain line. Then double tackles failing to stop offloads which is dire at this level. Rather than the blitz I expected from Sinfield England are using a softer line speed with numbers in the line. This should allow a very high success rate in the tackle around the fringes and a lot of double tackles to stop offloads wider out. Hence forcing the opposition to go through phases which suits that controlled defensive system. The execution simply wasn't there though with tacklers getting smashed around the fringes and offloads on tap wider out.

In terms of the backs the midfield as a whole, 10-12-13, weren't good in positioning defensively with Slade deserving most criticism there as it's his strength. The bigger issue in defence though was that lack of physicality in collisions. Given how directly France played I think they saw that slower, controlled line speed and targeted hurling Aldritt, Flament, Ollivon and Danty in particular at certain tacklers hoping to carry them over the gain line. Basically allowing England to have that high tackle completion the system aims for but render in useless by making yards from the completed tackles. Dupont then did the rest with that quick ball.

As poor as England were I must say on second viewing the intelligence and then execution of the French game plan was even more incredible. Someone like Marchant usually carries brilliantly but isn't really a brute force type carrier though. In this game he seemed to carry less but was relentless as a clearer. Cros was similar.

king_carlos wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:JVP having a 'nightmare' still cost us less points than Mitchell did. When you're getting smashed at the breakdown like we were trying to pass judgement on the halfbacks is pointless. You can't compare either of our 9s to Dupont with all things being equal, when Dupont gets an armchair ride and ours are getting no protection or clean ball...

A case of agreeing and disagreeing.

I struggle to criticise Mitchell for forcing it given the game situation. That said the tap and go followed by intercept was poor, almost felt like Mitchell was playing as if he had penalty advantage having just taken the tap! But forcing it that far down is expected. When he came on the tempo clearly raised but Farrell also made a big difference during that run to Steward's try by straightening the line and picking good options. The best structure we saw in attack was with Farrell on interestingly.

A big part of what Mitchell adds against the tiring defences is pace. He takes two or three steps prior to passing which changes the tempo of the attack in the second half. It prevents tiring forwards in fringe defence from rushing. Generally I feel that tactic of the 9 taking two or three paces speeds things up against tiring defences but can actually slow things down in a first half as fresh sides can adjust to it quickly, close space on the 10. That then puts a lot of pressure on the 9. Hence the only international 9s that play like that long term tend to be outliers like Dupont and Faf.

I think JvP looks like a player learning on the job across the tournament. Which is to be expected given his experience level. I hope Quirke can get fit as I think he's better at playing off 9 than JvP but has a more rounded game than Mitchell. Those three would be my 9s going to the RWC though and are the standout talents I've seen in the Premiership.

Yeah I'd agree with much of that. Mitchell standing two metres back from the ball on our line when Olivon scored also annoyed me. Get in there and take control or at least have your hands on the damn ball. Anyway. Mitchell has looked good in the cameos but the error rate even when forcing it was disappointing. For the interception he had Steward running as an option 5m from the line which was a much safer bet than the lob to Arundell.

Quirke does have a lot about his game to like. I've not seen the Sale game from the weekend but apparently he's a bit rusty still. Hopefully he's back to his best for the world cup as I'd select the same three as you.

king_carlos wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:Andy Goode says on his pod that Borthwick and Billy Vunipola had a falling out somewhere along the line, which means Borthwick will not consider him as an England option.

Interesting to hear. Billy's latter England performance were way below his best. He's once again been dropped and looked above the competition at Prem level though which is a big concern. His worst England performance weren't on the level of Saturday's debacle but still not good enough to challenge the best.

As said if Barbeary gets fit I'd be looking to him at number 8 as a currently not perfect player but one that can win collisions. George Martin too. Maybe Ted Hill in his absence. Somewhat similar to Nathan Hughes and Ben Te'o in 2017 I guess. Not perfect internationals by a long stretch but they filled a role that needed filling.

Mercer and Pearson I think are interesting options as more rounded players who add in attack and defence.

I want to see Willis work worry that a player so reliant on jackaling to be influential might struggle to translate from Prem to international. Jackaling is so reliant on reffing interpretation anyway, then add (good...) international sides securing their own ball so much better. If an opposition can neutralise that I'm not sure how much he can influence the game. He hasn't shown more as a carrier than other weak carrying flankers such as Underhill. He's not prominent in the tackle. Not much of a link man. It's a bit boom or bust. If he has his day at the breakdown it can be brilliant, if not it's anonymous. That's a big concern.

That is always the way with opensides. Incidentally it is one of the 'unseen' reasons why Robshaw was very useful. He was very good at nullifying opposition 7's.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

I think that Chessum and Itoje is the best lock combination I've seen us have since Itoje and Kruis. Chessum at a shade under 19 stone is doing all the bits we need in the set piece but still getting round the park.

I think the balance might not be quite right across 4-8. We're lacking a little bit of venom in physical exchanges. Dombrandt feels a bit like an openside in the body of an 8 and then the dual openside combination aren't bad but there's something missing.

As Carlos says Ted Hill might help (I think Geordie has mentioned his a time or two), we need someone bringing the aggression Genge brings to the front row into the backrow. If we haven't got that readily available then going 4. Ribbans, 5. Itoje, 6. Chessum might be a short term answer.

I don't doubt they're both good players, but do they compliment each other? I don't think they do particularly, neither dominate the collision area (in attack or defence). Tie the engine room in with a lackluster/weak backrow and you start to see why we struggled so much. The struggling pack and JVP having another nightmare game.....

Well we clearly disagree because the lock combination has been one of the few highlights of the tournament for me.

JVP having a 'nightmare' still cost us less points than Mitchell did. When you're getting smashed at the breakdown like we were trying to pass judgement on the halfbacks is pointless. You can't compare either of our 9s to Dupont with all things being equal, when Dupont gets an armchair ride and ours are getting no protection or clean ball...

I've given JVP some space as the pack was so bad.....but he was the poorest player on the pitch for me. Some scrum halfs can still produce somewhat given slow ball (Mitchell for one is used to playing this way as you can see when he came on).........JVP doesn't seem to be able to.

The locks have had a good 6N, I agree....but as a combo I think they lack power.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I saw Stephen Jones on twitter (I don't follow him), point the finger at Smith. Said it would have been different had we not set up with an unorthodox 10 who is a poor defender...
Also said that England paid the price on Saturday because of Eddie Jones' incoherence.

So sounds like it's a real simple solution for the Ireland game, drop Smith and sack Jones.

Well its hard to deny that Smith at 10 has not worked at all.

However, that doesnt make him a bad player nor is it necessarily all his fault. If you want to play Smith you need to build a game plan around with some structure and moves.

England dont seem to have any of that and as a result he seems lost, with no options nor any clue what to do a lot of the time.

He has the talent to be good at a lot of things but to date until England put the plan, structure, options, moves, cohesion etc in place its hard to know if he is any good at all as to date has had very little impact at all.

I disagree entirely we don't need to build a team around him. He showed signs of adapting at the weekend and I would like to see him have another go.

The idea the result was anything to do with him is entirely incorrect. We lost because we got battered at the breakdown. Not the flyhalfs fault.

All that playing Farrell would have done is (probably) reduced the points difference. If losing by less points is what makes you happy then he's your man.

liw

I'm not sure that's the case with most these days being the issue. Savea, JdvF, Hooper, Ollivon, Kolisi, Lamaro, Himeno. Great at the breakdown but not reliant on it at all.

Looking at other England options that aren't available currently, Curry can still be devastating in the tackle for instance if the jackaling is effective whilst his carrying has improved immeasurably. Underhill, at his peak, can affect the game just as much with his tackling.

This is something I really like about Pearson. He seems to have the talent to affect the game on attack and defence.

I don't think Smith to blame at all, not sure any 10 in world could have done much more given the battering England pack had.
Whether he starts against Ireland I wonder though. I suspect Borthwick could start with Farrell and have Ford on bench. Who knows though.

As I said post match, really only Itoje and Steward came away in credit. Others were either blown away or on back foot scrambling to do a King Canute. And failing.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I saw Stephen Jones on twitter (I don't follow him), point the finger at Smith. Said it would have been different had we not set up with an unorthodox 10 who is a poor defender...
Also said that England paid the price on Saturday because of Eddie Jones' incoherence.

So sounds like it's a real simple solution for the Ireland game, drop Smith and sack Jones.

Well its hard to deny that Smith at 10 has not worked at all.

However, that doesnt make him a bad player nor is it necessarily all his fault. If you want to play Smith you need to build a game plan around with some structure and moves.

England dont seem to have any of that and as a result he seems lost, with no options nor any clue what to do a lot of the time.

He has the talent to be good at a lot of things but to date until England put the plan, structure, options, moves, cohesion etc in place its hard to know if he is any good at all as to date has had very little impact at all.

I disagree entirely we don't need to build a team around him. He showed signs of adapting at the weekend and I would like to see him have another go.

The idea the result was anything to do with him is entirely incorrect. We lost because we got battered at the breakdown. Not the flyhalfs fault.

You dont need to build the team around him but you do need a plan for the backs that includes structure, moves, cohesion, consistency and familiarity and options etc. You cant rely on Smith to do something special off the cuff. There doesnt seem to be much of a plan and as a result he often looks lost and if not lost its very obvious and telegraphed what he is going to do because of how limited the plan and options are.

I also didnt say England lost because of him, I know that not to be true but England have scored very few tries over the last few years because the backline he is managing is not functioning at all. There has been an improvement this year though.

king_carlos wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:The wider point on Saturday is that absolutely everyone was taken out of the game. You did well to sit through a second time, I will not be doing so, but yes an effective game plan can make things look very different. The support play was none existent from us.

As dire as it was I don't think absolutely everyone was taken out the game though, especially on second viewing. The set-piece was actually good on our own ball. Itoje I thought had a decent game. Ben Curry impressed off the bench, particularly watching it again as seeing the second half live I was just laughing at points. Chessum actually did the second row basics solidly amongst the destruction. All three of the starting back row were dominated in a way I can never remember seeing in an England game before though.

Have we seen carrying translate over significantly in any other international games from Willis though? Likewise I've not seen him be prominent as a tackler compared to most modern flankers. He's not a link man even at club level such as Pearson, albeit potentially, could be. He doesn't add at set-piece. It just feels extremely one note.

Totally agree, Willis has really flattered to deceive. He's an outstanding jackler at Prem level, but this skill seems to mainly negated at International level.....once this is removed, he's not really offering much.

To steel a phrase from Eddie.......He's just not a test match animal.

Quote like this piece. Sorry you're going to have to click the link for the vids.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2023/03/13/fixes-england-can-make-time-ireland-cannot/

mountain man wrote:I don't think Smith to blame at all, not sure any 10 in world could have done much more given the battering England pack had.
Whether he starts against Ireland I wonder though. I suspect Borthwick could start with Farrell and have Ford on bench. Who knows though.

As I said post match, really only Itoje and Steward came away in credit. Others were either blown away or on back foot scrambling to do a King Canute. And failing.

Saw those quotes from Ashton re Ford. Little scary from a coaching aspect re Borthwick not overly involved. You'd suspect that Evans has a bit more say for England than (who was the attack coach at Leicester?) for Borthwicks old club.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:The wider point on Saturday is that absolutely everyone was taken out of the game. You did well to sit through a second time, I will not be doing so, but yes an effective game plan can make things look very different. The support play was none existent from us.

As dire as it was I don't think absolutely everyone was taken out the game though, especially on second viewing. The set-piece was actually good on our own ball. Itoje I thought had a decent game. Ben Curry impressed off the bench, particularly watching it again as seeing the second half live I was just laughing at points. Chessum actually did the second row basics solidly amongst the destruction. All three of the starting back row were dominated in a way I can never remember seeing in an England game before though.

Have we seen carrying translate over significantly in any other international games from Willis though? Likewise I've not seen him be prominent as a tackler compared to most modern flankers. He's not a link man even at club level such as Pearson, albeit potentially, could be. He doesn't add at set-piece. It just feels extremely one note.

Totally agree, Willis has really flattered to deceive. He's an outstanding jackler at Prem level, but this skill seems to mainly negated at International level.....once this is removed, he's not really offering much.

To steel a phrase from Eddie.......He's just not a test match animal.

Then none of our team are.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

king_carlos wrote:I watched it back again, albeit skipping through stoppages, out of almost morbid curiousity.

The way we lost so many contact battles both in tackle and breakdown I can't help but feel that forwards who can win collisions will be looked at in the warm-ups regardless of them having other areas to work on.

George Martin - Very early in the move to lock but he can dominate collisions in the tackle and carry
Tom Pearson - A really strong runner who makes yards and breaks as well as being good at the breakdown
Ted Hill - Extremely physical in contact even if there are other areas to work on
Barbeary and Underhill - Both have picked up new injuries but if they get fit over the summer I think they could be looked at as both win collisions

Curry, Lawes and LCD hopefully coming back too who are all strong in contact. I'd really like to see Marler back in the fold not just for his set-piece but also strength in defence where he's great in the tackle.

I'm along this train of thought too KC.

The pack was seriously underpowered against the French and it just hasn't been highlighted as much in earlier games. Chessum and Itoje are really good players, but not a working combination against the stronger sides...you need some strength in there to compliment either player.

All 3 of the backrow aren't exactly fantastic in the collision....perhaps Ludlum offers something here. Willis isn't Curry or Lawes.....or even Underhill. The back 5 just got showed up to be weak and the front row (especially George and Sink....had big off days).

I think that Chessum and Itoje is the best lock combination I've seen us have since Itoje and Kruis. Chessum at a shade under 19 stone is doing all the bits we need in the set piece but still getting round the park.

I think the balance might not be quite right across 4-8. We're lacking a little bit of venom in physical exchanges. Dombrandt feels a bit like an openside in the body of an 8 and then the dual openside combination aren't bad but there's something missing.

As Carlos says Ted Hill might help (I think Geordie has mentioned his a time or two), we need someone bringing the aggression Genge brings to the front row into the backrow. If we haven't got that readily available then going 4. Ribbans, 5. Itoje, 6. Chessum might be a short term answer.

Ha ha once or twice.

It's not rocket science to see the pack has missed some basic raw aggression and power alongside Undherill.

Add him, Martin and a fit again Undehrill suddenly there's some ferocious physicality in the squad you can then place your more athletic skilled players around.

Hill can then work on improving his other skills. Imagine him at 8 with Curry and Underhill

Hypothetical...
4 Martin
5 Chesusm
6 Curry
7 Underhill
8 Hill

That'd be fun...

Drop our best lock...

Aside from that did the Hill at 8 experiment go anywhere for Wuss? When I've seen Bath he's playing back at 6, though he's not played in a while has he?