England 2023 - Post 6N and beyond

First topic message reminder :

Continued......

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ah it was just the ex Leicester man who beat Leicester! Got ya!

Ah come on....if you don't know Leicester fans by now! No defeat is ever the fault of a tiger (past and present) and all wins are due to a Tiger (past and present).

Their one eyed bias is why we all love them!

(Please ignore this post KC - you're an anomaly)

I mean it's not particularly out there to suggest the man of the match was the difference between the sides. Now I could have doubled down and claimed it was the 10/12 combination...

No 7&1/2 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well, Ford has always played second fiddle to Farrell.

Or did Farrell always lay second fiddle to Ford? Ford controls the side, that's what he's there for, hence why he often stood in behind Farrell who would play the phase whilst Ford directed troops ready for the phases thereafter. He did a lot of that at the weekend using du Preez as he used to use Farrell.

I meant that Farrell was consistently seen as the lynch pin. Lancaster and Jones used both to good effect but when they wanted a different option in midfield it was normally Ford who would drop out.

To me, Farrell is an albatross in the whole set-up. He is neither fast (never was) nor quick and agile. His defense has regressed and he was never a dynamic playmaker. Put your stats to the side for a moment - they just don't tell us that much comparing player to player - just use the eye test. Players run at Marcus Smith and George Ford because they are 10s and because they are smaller in stature. Yet, after watching enough Rugby it is crystal clear to me that Farrell is no longer a better defender than either at this stage. Ford used to be not much more than a speed bump but made the effort and improved to competent which is a good grade for most 10s.

I also think Farrell casts a long shadow over the whole setup and the sooner a player who is regressing still has outsize influence is removed the sooner we can turn the page and move on. I have seen that from the inside with some players just starting on teams I work for or with who don't, won't, or can't see it is time to go. And it always ends badly. Unfortunately, he will remain in the squad at the RWC, at which England have barely a puncher's chance of making the finals. Hopefully we can turn the page right after.

That's a rather negative assessment of Farrell and despite his downsides he can still be a very good player. His decision making and execution was very good against Northampton for a recent example.

However, the whole question is whether he's good enough for England. The problem is Smith just hasn't nailed it for England (yet).
Not all his problem of course, the lack of centres been one area and forwards getting badly beaten another. However that aside he hasn't been anything like player he can be.

Other options have been lacking so inevitably Eng coach has stuck with Farrell who is also now captain which also I believe makes it difficult.

With Ford back fit and firing and Borthwick knowing him well I reckon he'll be in RWC squad.

So, Farrell is captain so he'll be there. Ford will be there I think. Question is will Smith of the Marcus variety be as well.
Personally I hope so.

I think we need to realise that international 10s tend to not be wild off the cuff ones...

Hence why Farrell, Ford , sexton to differing degrees......Cipriani never made it and Russell has had his critics in his past.

Even Carter changed his game considerably...

Marcus Smith may have to do the same..and drop that irritating hitch kick/ goose step.

Smith hitch kick is almost like a nervous tic for him. If done once or twice a game it would be effective in making opposition second guess his move but he does it far too often and is predictable.
Whether he'll be able to stop doing it I wonder.

Lets try to coach any enjoyment from the game. Kick the ball, play off opposition mistakes and try to make the rolling maul a lot better. My confidence is a bit shook that Borthwick can do anything else anyway. Hoping the world cup wider squad announcement brings me some optimism.

I'm not saying that 7.5 I'm saying what is fact rhe best 10s in the game tend to be more controllers....

Carter could do it all but still kicked the leather of it.

I'm more moving to the frustration that I have since 2019 when Jones and now Borthwick are hell bent on a kick first and hope strategy. It's been said loads that NZ at their peak through the Carter, McCaw years, to this day (ish I'd have to see another update of stats) kicked the ball loads, but never as a first option unless there was acres of space and would always play to the state of play (unless they needed a drop goal of course, then just ignore it). Ford in 2020 was rubbish kicked it away with the help of Youngs. 2021, Farrell kicked it away with the help of Youngs, 22 Smith kicked it away with the help of Youngs etc. Borthwick has come in as a continuity selection and there's no real change in emphasis as yet; perhaps the odd 15-20 mins per game.

There were of course some caveats and reasons for 2020s mediocre in performance games, covid isolation etc etc. And that year results wise was very successful (a don't play Curry at 8 with a 5m scrum near to a perfect year), but the warnings were there all the while when the entertainment was not. We've gone on to all but ignore doing anything but robotically kick no matter what. The SHs first choice at anything is to shuffle his pack in the way and wait for his chasers to give the thumbs up. If the ball does makes it outside that the backs look so surprised it almost feels a surprise to them and they forget to actually run patterns off the attack. I've lost count of the times the midfield has then actually got some space and numbers and then thought the right option is to kick, normally through to an opposition back.

I'm being harsh on Borthwick, he got, what, 6 weeks to prep for the 6Ns? It was always going to be a push to get a team to perform with that run up, and the scrum and lineout to an extent have improved. But it's been pretty devoid of ambition. We still seem to want to go back to a very by the numbers we'll kick the ball as that's statistically what's shown to be best approach. I don't think that's the way to go, I do think we're wasting yet more talent and more development time and on the whole it's been pretty boring watching the team for far to long.

We've got a long run to the WC, we can pick whoever we want. I don't think anyone here thinks England are in the top 5 favourites for the WC, though we have a nice draw? Lets go out and entertain, pick a risky youngster who may not not have time to properly bed in but will add something to the side in the coming 5 years. I fear it will be the opposite. Old steady hands, by the numbers play, maybe a few half decent wins by 5 then an exit by 20 points. And we come to the 6Ns no further on.

I should be happier for a Thursday.

Well I'm sure Borthwick will be looking to play a strong set piece game...but he brought Evans etc in so cleary he wants an attack rhat can motor when it wants.

Had had little time for the 6n and we did see improvements....we'll try to ignore France. So another spell together and a few wamr up games gibe his ability more time.

Do I have much Hope for this WC. Not alot. I'm of the mind we do our best...blood some potential future mainstays like George Martin, Tom Pearson, etc

If we can get a good run thus world Cup we'll be in a nice position for the next 6n..and ongoing. Some great young kids will be near enough then...like Seb Atkinson to challenge Dan Kelly etc. Carpenter may well give Steward some competition...going to be a fascinating few years for England....

France currently kick the ball more than any other side, and they're not doing so badly.

The point about kicking is that it has to either be contestable or gain you more territory than repeated phases. A lot of great teams kick and then chase so effectively that they have a good chance of getting the ball back ahead of where they kicked it. The issue for England has been that without May, Daly or a fully fit Nowell, they've not really had the firepower to chase effectively.

Ford is one of the world's best kickers when it comes to contestable balls, and Farrell has always been very strong at kicking for territory, but England haven't been backing those kicks up as well as they did in 2019. They've also been trying more kick passing, which Smith is very good at but Farrell lacked the last yard of precision and Malins isn't as good a receiver as, say, Marchant.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Lets try to coach any enjoyment from the game. Kick the ball, play off opposition mistakes and try to make the rolling maul a lot better. My confidence is a bit shook that Borthwick can do anything else anyway. Hoping the world cup wider squad announcement brings me some optimism.

This comes from a presumption that all fans find the tactical side boring. Which I don't, nor do many others. I genuinely find the way France kick to manipulate where they play on the pitch as enthralling as their running game for instance. If all teams played the exact same way it would be boring. If all teams played 7s with 15 men on the field the same would get true rapidly though.

The Prem's current state is a brilliant example of the latter. Since ringfencing we've seen defence and fitness decline to a near Championship level in some matches. They're high scoring, attacking, lots of line breaks, offloads, etc. It was fun briefly but I'm rapidly finding it less and less engaging because the quality is so poor.

Sports needs variety of styles and the clash of those differing styles to be engaging.

Putting that more specifically into England's context I really reject that picking a young, attack focused side would actually result in a rapidly better attack at international level. Defences are simply so incomparable going up from Prem level that I think the attack would still be abject just with more failed miss passes. It's often said when a team loses. "Just pick A, B and C in the backs. Then even if we still lose at least we'll have tried". It's an absolute nonsense and I'd be interested if anyone can point me to an example of a side who have succeeded at the top level having started that way?

Your first sentence is good, but I can't quite get my head round it. All teams play tactically surely? I've been bored with England for a while due to brain dead kicks at all opportunity no matter what. It's not been successful either. Surely with the pretty mediocre way a tighter game has gone there's room to try something more open for England? And it's not exactly starting from scratch, just offering up some balance to the team.

Edit: should add to that I agree it's pointless adding player a, b and c and not adapti g to bring the best out of players. Or getting rid when they don't give you 9 put of 10 performcnes through little fault of their own.

I really hope that Borthwick gives a few of the young 'uns and previously out of favour players a chance in the warm-ups.

Randall, Pearson, Kelly, Mercer, Martin, Murley, Freeman, Blamire, Tom Willis, Earl - even the 2 Fins, Smith and Baxter - I'd like to see them all given their chance to shine properly in at least one match, rather than just being in and around the squad.

It would be just in case of need as well - they may not make the final squad thanks to more established players, but we need a better contingency plan in case of injuries. Ben Spencer in at the last minute in 2019 did us no favours thanks to Eddie's previous myopic scrum half selections.

We need the less-experienced players to know what they're coming into.

I think the point about a side like France is that they absolutely can run the ball from anywhere. They don't have to all the time, but that threat makes their kicking game so much more dangerous.

It is probably a generalisation but all top teams kick a lot, especially NZ, its just that they know when to switch tactics. Kicking only with nothing to back it up is a recipe for taking a beating.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Your first sentence is good, but I can't quite get my head round it. All teams play tactically surely? I've been bored with England for a while due to brain dead kicks at all opportunity no matter what. It's not been successful either. Surely with the pretty mediocre way a tighter game has gone there's room to try something more open for England? And it's not exactly starting from scratch, just offering up some balance to the team.

The idea kicking is bad is usually predicated on the presumption that run first strategies are great and kick first strategies are killing the game. Which I entirely reject. That's the thrust of my point. Kicking has always been a gigantic part of rugby and watching it evolve has been as fascinating to me as watching attacking play evolve.

Saying, somewhat tongue in cheek, we take a combination of a few bits of 'logic' we've heard on occasion around improving attack whilst England's have stuttered for instance. We'll build an attack/backline around Smith. We'll pick club combinations to let them click - because all successful international players have of course needed club teammates to be on their wavelength in order to be good. We'll pick attacking, run first players.

8.Dombrandt 9.Care 10.Smith 11.Murley 12.Lawrence 13.Marchant 14.Radwan 15.Arundell

Watching that get utterly eviscerated by opponents who are not only more physical and better in defence but will also be better in attack off the back of it wouldn't be more exciting and wouldn't result in England having a better attack. It simply wouldn't.

All teams with good attacks build them off a foundation of a good kicking game and a solid defence. I think trying to build an expansive attack without that will result in still having a rubbish attack now but also failing to build a platform to evolve from, hence we will continue to have a rubbish attack into the future. I'd rather see us have as good a defence and kicking game, both of which I find interesting not some sort of purgatory, as possible in the short term then build from that once it is possible to do so.

If, hypothetically, in two years we have a fantastic kicking game and defence but come narrowly second in a Grand Slam decider (feels a long way off, hence the hypothetical) due to the attack being non-existent then that will be a different debate.

king_carlos wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Your first sentence is good, but I can't quite get my head round it. All teams play tactically surely? I've been bored with England for a while due to brain dead kicks at all opportunity no matter what. It's not been successful either. Surely with the pretty mediocre way a tighter game has gone there's room to try something more open for England? And it's not exactly starting from scratch, just offering up some balance to the team.

The idea kicking is bad is usually predicated on the presumption that run first strategies are great and kick first strategies are killing the game. Which I entirely reject. That's the thrust of my point. Kicking has always been a gigantic part of rugby and watching it evolve has been as fascinating to me as watching attacking play evolve.

Saying, somewhat tongue in cheek, we take a combination of a few bits of 'logic' we've heard on occasion around improving attack whilst England's have stuttered for instance. We'll build an attack/backline around Smith. We'll pick club combinations to let them click - because all successful international players have of course needed club teammates to be on their wavelength in order to be good. We'll pick attacking, run first players.

8.Dombrandt 9.Care 10.Smith 11.Murley 12.Lawrence 13.Marchant 14.Radwan 15.Arundell

Watching that get utterly eviscerated by opponents who are not only more physical and better in defence but will also be better in attack off the back of it wouldn't be more exciting and wouldn't result in England having a better attack. It simply wouldn't.

All teams with good attacks build them off a foundation of a good kicking game and a solid defence. I think trying to build an expansive attack without that will result in still having a rubbish attack now but also failing to build a platform to evolve from, hence we will continue to have a rubbish attack into the future. I'd rather see us have as good a defence and kicking game, both of which I find interesting not some sort of purgatory, as possible in the short term then build from that once it is possible to do so.

If, hypothetically, in two years we have a fantastic kicking game and defence but come narrowly second in a Grand Slam decider (feels a long way off, hence the hypothetical) due to the attack being non-existent then that will be a different debate.

I agree with your first points. It's what I tried to put across. Do anything 'first' without thinking is a bad strategy and badly implement tactics. WC final it was run despite what's in front of your. And since its been kick despite what's in front of you. You waste chances and put yourself in trouble doing it.

Mr Bounce wrote:I really hope that Borthwick gives a few of the young 'uns and previously out of favour players a chance in the warm-ups.

Randall, Pearson, Kelly, Mercer, Martin, Murley, Freeman, Blamire, Tom Willis, Earl - even the 2 Fins, Smith and Baxter - I'd like to see them all given their chance to shine properly in at least one match, rather than just being in and around the squad.

It would be just in case of need as well - they may not make the final squad thanks to more established players, but we need a better contingency plan in case of injuries. Ben Spencer in at the last minute in 2019 did us no favours thanks to Eddie's previous myopic scrum half selections.

We need the less-experienced players to know what they're coming into.

Agree.  It's frustrating a bit because all of us have been saying the same things for two years when it was apparent England was not the same team - performance wise - coming out of Covid than the group was previously.  So much time lost and an RWC cycle likely missed.....

Ben Curry is unsurprisingly ruled out of the world cup. Really interesting set of decisions on selections and combo make up in the back row isn't there. Even if available I wouldn't have been taking him.

Can't remember seeing it here but I saw something in passing about how Odogwu is going to be in the Italian training camp. Got injured at the wrong time otherwise he'd probably have had a couple of England caps. Good question if he would have had any more.

Regarding kicking too much, it's not that it's how it's executed and where on pitch. NZ have history of kicking more than other side but they do so usually in own 22 when nothing on. England guilty of kicking possession when in opposition 22. Ben Youngs in 6N a classic example.

The stats are the teams that kick the most win the most apparently. Makes for some god awful rugby at times though, especially in NH.

Missed that Chessum is out for 6 months. That really does open up a slot for Martin to press his claims. And hopefully move Lawes back to lock.

From the Mirror:

'Andrea Pinchen, Tigers’ chief executive, said: “You lose your head coach and your defence coach halfway through what is a disjointed season anyway. Undoubtedly, it’s going to impact you.

“When you go into a club and take pretty much the entirety of its coaching team and IP (intellectual property), it impacts your ability to trade, it impacts you financially, your sponsors.

“For your home nation to be doing that to one of its clubs is hard to swallow. We’ve needed the emotional and financial support of everybody in and around Leicester Tigers to get through this. Without that we could have had real problems.”

Pinchen claims Leicester were so supportive of Borthwick’s England ambitions that last summer they actually contacted the RFU to propose a timetable to him succeeding Eddie Jones.

“I was mindful we needed to start our succession planning, working backwards from post-World Cup,” she said. “They seemed to agree. It was all very amicable, at that stage”.

Then came England’s awful autumn and on December 6 Jones was sacked. RFU boss Bill Sweeney called Pinchen who gave him permission to approach Borthwick.

“The negotiations went backwards and forwards with Bill and myself,” she said. “It's fair to say at times it got a little heated on both sides.

“All the way through what I was trying to do was make sure Leicester weren't losing out financially because somebody else's plans hadn't worked out for them.”


I'd be pretty pleased if we could make Andrea happy and swap Borthwick back as long as we picked up McCall! Interesting to note that Borthwick as I thought is very much the continuity candidate, with even Leicester working before Jones left to ensure a nice transition. That was clearly messed up with the sacking, and then the pretence it was anything other than getting Borthwick in place.

I don’t think England should ever have a head coach who has not been to the RWC as either assistant coach for a Tier 1 or head coach for a Tier 2. McCall may well be a fine international coach in time but he needs to get the experience first.

England are very capable of going a long way into this tournament. As long as they can beat Argentina - not easy, but ought to be doable - then they have a relatively easy group and (probable) QF. The final two rounds will inevitably be against teams who’ve beaten them in recent years - but I think the Dublin game showed that they still have the personnel to go toe to toe with the best sides, and England’s strength in depth is likely to help them in the later stages.

There was still a long to do list at the end of the 6N, but time in camp with a wider pool of players available to the coaches ought to give enough time to settle things down. Top of the list for me are defence and breakdown. Sinfield’s system was good when it closed the attack down in midfield, but opponents found it too easy to get outside it and make serious yards. That probably needs 11, 13 and 14 to be working better together and with more pace. And against France in particular the players were too slow to the breakdown in both attack and defence. Having T Curry back will probably help there, but on the assumption that Underhill won’t be fully fit it will be interesting to see who else they look at.

With Ford and Farrell both fit and in form for the first time in a long while, they could end up at 10 & 12, but Lawrence and Kelly give Borthwick the option to try out some other combinations. Either way, I will be surprised if they try anything too radical in attack, given the coaches and the timescales. That worries me because a conventional attack is only likely to work against the top teams if England can execute brilliantly, and I am not sure there’s enough time in camp to really get that working given it’s likely that the backline will have a number of new players in it.

Poorfour wrote:I don’t think England should ever have a head coach who has not been to the RWC as either assistant coach for a Tier 1 or head coach for a Tier 2. McCall may well be a fine international coach in time but he needs to get the experience first.

England are very capable of going a long way into this tournament. As long as they can beat Argentina - not easy, but ought to be doable - then they have a relatively easy group and (probable) QF. The final two rounds will inevitably be against teams who’ve beaten them in recent years - but I think the Dublin game showed that they still have the personnel to go toe to toe with the best sides, and England’s strength in depth is likely to help them in the later stages.

There was still a long to do list at the end of the 6N, but time in camp with a wider pool of players available to the coaches ought to give enough time to settle things down. Top of the list for me are defence and breakdown. Sinfield’s system was good when it closed the attack down in midfield, but opponents found it too easy to get outside it and make serious yards. That probably needs 11, 13 and 14 to be working better together and with more pace. And against France in particular the players were too slow to the breakdown in both attack and defence. Having T Curry back will probably help there, but on the assumption that Underhill won’t be fully fit it will be interesting to see who else they look at.

With Ford and Farrell both fit and in form for the first time in a long while, they could end up at 10 & 12, but Lawrence and Kelly give Borthwick the option to try out some other combinations. Either way, I will be surprised if they try anything too radical in attack, given the coaches and the timescales. That worries me because a conventional attack is only likely to work against the top teams if England can execute brilliantly, and I am not sure there’s enough time in camp to really get that working given it’s likely that the backline will have a number of new players in it.

Why? Are we currently in a honeymoon period of Borthwick hitting the ground running? And I really don't hold the WC as the be all and end all re experience.

Assuming your comment is about McCall and international experience, realistically all coaches are judged on the RWC, and there have been very few coaches who have done a good job across an RWC cycle without having had prior experience of the tournament.

Even Graham Henry and Clive Woodward didn't get it right first time around, and when England have had coaches with limited RWC experience (Johnson, Lancaster, Woodward in 99) they have done badly whereas coaches who've had RWC experience (Jones, Woodward in 03) have done better.

The exception is Brian Ashton, but he'd at least had international experience and by all accounts in 2007 a pretty experienced team succeeded in spite of him rather than because of him (though arguably wanting the team to take control was a big part of his coaching philosophy...)

I'd be really sceptical about having a coach with zero international experience, however good they were at club level.

McCall has international experience (to a certain extent anyway) and is a vastly more experienced coach and head coach than Borthwick so just find it perplexing the need to have been to a WC. In the overall package it's a tick but not the main one for me. I do think if the view that WC is that big a deal then do we look for a new coach if Borthwick doesn't progress to at least the final?

When has McCall coached internationally?

Everyone who has actually done it has said it's a very different challenge from coaching at club level, and the RWC is even further removed because it's a long tournament with a wide range of different games and a very constrained squad. Putting a coach with no international coaching experience into that is not a recipe for success.

Borthwick has less club DoR experience, but has two RWC cycles' worth of international experience, which to my mind is much more relevant experience.

The RFU will undoubtedly review Borthwick's performance after the fact, but it's daft to set a minimum target before the tournament when you don't know what might happen on the pitch. A card, injury or bad refereeing decision at the wrong time could end an otherwise successful campaign prematurely; ask Warren Gatland, Vern Cotter or Simon Middleton. Equally, like Ashton's team, an unfancied England could build a run to the final but still end up changing their coach.

Under 21 and A team.

So if it's not integral that Borthwick has success at the WC as a game and result has several caveats as to what can go against you etc who is the WC and experience there that important this time around? Could have gone all out for McCall, or Robertson and said you can have the experience of a WC now. If the RFU were really wanting to give the best chance to England in this WC, keeping Jones would surely have been a better roll of the dice? This Borthwick appointment to me is surely them saying well he was our guy after the WC so we'll have him now and we won't even consider whether this appointment is still the best fit. I also look to his background team, vastly inexperienced, very little WC experience there. Is that a mistake by Borthwick going after guys he knows rather than the best guys?

Another thought is that the RFU picked he continuity guy as they felt he was the person to get the best out of the squad quickly.

McCall has been ill and has never shown any interest in wanting to leave Sarries. I'm not sure he was ever available.

Similar with Robertson. He's employed by the NZRU, I don't see them happily waving him away for six months at a time when they were trying to get him and his coaching staff agreed to takeover after the world cup.

The RFU had decided on Borthwick last summer. Tigers had an agreement in place to ease him into the role. The RFU brought plans forward and apparently tried to bully their way into getting him and Sinfield for nothing. Some of Pinchen's comments make the RFU sound like real d!cks.

It's pretty standard for coaches to have in their contract a clause allowing them to leave for an international role.

I can understand why Pinchen would be upset that the RFU decided to call for Borthwick ahead of what she'd planned for, but it's not unusual for that to happen. What's less common is for the coach to then take most of their existing team with them.

Personally, I'd rather they'd stuck with Eddie, if only because I wanted to see if he could pull off what he was trying to build. But Borthwick was going to get the job sooner or later.

Poorfour wrote:It's pretty standard for coaches to have in their contract a clause allowing them to leave for an international role.

I can understand why Pinchen would be upset that the RFU decided to call for Borthwick ahead of what she'd planned for, but it's not unusual for that to happen. What's less common is for the coach to then take most of their existing team with them.

Personally, I'd rather they'd stuck with Eddie, if only because I wanted to see if he could pull off what he was trying to build. But Borthwick was going to get the job sooner or later.

Recent article;

Andrea Pinchen, Tigers’ chief executive, said: “You lose your head coach and your defence coach halfway through what is a disjointed season anyway. Undoubtedly, it’s going to impact you.

“When you go into a club and take pretty much the entirety of its coaching team and IP (intellectual property), it impacts your ability to trade, it impacts you financially, your sponsors.

“For your home nation to be doing that to one of its clubs is hard to swallow. We’ve needed the emotional and financial support of everybody in and around Leicester Tigers to get through this. Without that we could have had real problems.”

Pinchen claims Leicester were so supportive of Borthwick’s England ambitions that last summer they actually contacted the RFU to propose a timetable to him succeeding Eddie Jones.

“I was mindful we needed to start our succession planning, working backwards from post-World Cup,” she said. “They seemed to agree. It was all very amicable, at that stage”.

Then came England’s awful autumn and on December 6 Jones was sacked. RFU boss Bill Sweeney called Pinchen who gave him permission to approach Borthwick.

“All the way through what I was trying to do was make sure Leicester weren't losing out financially because somebody else's plans hadn't worked out for them.”

“The negotiations went backwards and forwards with Bill and myself,” she said. “It's fair to say at times it got a little heated on both sides.

She had seen two clubs “go pop”, leaving Leicester without a home game for seven weeks and blowing a £700,000 hole in their revenue stream. She was not about to just roll over - but was taken aback by what she encountered.

“There were a lot of unnecessary conversations around ‘there's no way we'll get to the money that you want’,” she said. “And even ‘You'll have to tell Steve you've stood in his way’.

“When you negotiate with somebody it's purely business. Trying to play people off, pull people’s strings and use emotional connotations.. I don't see why you would do that. I don’t see the need.”

A bit of deja vu going on - 7 1/2 has already given us this.

I don't think many of us are excited about Borthwick as our new coach, but like a lot of people I was in the anyone but Eddie camp. Would any coach make this current crop of England players anything but a bunch of journeymen?

Personally, I'd rather they'd stuck with Eddie, if only because I wanted to see if he could pull off what he was trying to build. But Borthwick was going to get the job sooner or later.

I was always a supporter of Jones until last autumn when he basically appears to have lost interest or was just picking team almost out of spite against pundits/media calling for likes of Lawrence etc.

His constant stupid comments to media were tiresome and I think hindered not helped team. If England had been winning all games then whatever coach says doesn't matter but they weren't.

As for Borthwick well he hasn't had a good start but maybe understandable given short time with players but I'm slightly concerned with his all ex Leicester coaching team nigh on. Some outside ideas might help but we have to hope he knows best.

He does come across as a dependable, solid bloke rather than an all inspiring maverick but we knew that anyway.

It's still early days so we have to trust and hope he gets it right. Ultimately he can't magic out of thin air 23 world class players so he has to work with what he has available and hopefully get players working best they can together.

nlpnlp wrote:A bit of deja vu going on - 7 1/2 has already given us this.

I don't think many of us are excited about Borthwick as our new coach, but like a lot of people I was in the anyone but Eddie camp.  Would any coach make this current crop of England players anything but a bunch of journeymen?

Why?

His style is ideal for international rugby. If he can get the pack back to being a powerful force..scrum line-out, physicality and then Add some efficiency and potency in attack and England will be a team many won't enjoy playing.

As KC keeps alluding to...its also down to the clubs and the league producing players who are battle hardened and ready for this level...

It's interesting to see some going cool on Borthwick. Whatever the opinion about Jones, when Borthwick was appointed, there was a near universal consensus that he would be the right man for the job. The RFU also will have known exactly what they were getting, as they saw him up close when he was under Jones. His working practices with Leicester were also widely documented.

In short, if Borthwick can't so something with the England team, then an awful lot of pundits, players and administrators are going to have to admit that they are poor judges of what makes a good international rugby coach.

Rugby Fan wrote:It's interesting to see some going cool on Borthwick. Whatever the opinion about Jones, when Borthwick was appointed, there was a near universal consensus that he would be the right man for the job. The RFU also will have known exactly what they were getting, as they saw him up close when he was under Jones. His working practices with Leicester were also widely documented.

In short, if Borthwick can't so something with the England team, then an awful lot of pundits, players and administrators are going to have to admit that they are poor judges of what makes a good international rugby coach.

Not so sure that people are so much losing confidence in Borthwick as simply never having had much. I think there was near universal understanding Eddie Jones had to go, though the RFU was at minimum 6 months too late. And when EJ was released Borthwick was the designated successor so the relief/happiness at EJ's departure reflected on Borthwick. And there were how many viable alternatives?

Fully understanding his turnaround of Tigers, I still look at him as that England captain who put in all the earnest and hard work, but still generally came up a bit short. So typically English. And, unfortunately, that is what I expect from him as coach. Hoping I am wrong.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Missed that Chessum is out for 6 months. That really does open up a slot for Martin to press his claims. And hopefully move Lawes back to lock.

Lawes doesn't play lock, he plays 6. If anyone will move to lock it will be Martin, not Lawes.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Missed that Chessum is out for 6 months. That really does open up a slot for Martin to press his claims. And hopefully move Lawes back to lock.

Lawes doesn't play lock, he plays 6. If anyone will move to lock it will be Martin, not Lawes.

Chessum is touch and go to make the start of the world cup. More than likely not.

Martin hasn't started a game at 6 since November. He converted to lock and brought what made him an effective blindside. He can switch between the two positions but having a lock with that stopping power and work rate in defence is an attractive proposition. Good lineout jumper and relentless carrier though his carrying work is still being developed. He's mobile for a man his size.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Missed that Chessum is out for 6 months. That really does open up a slot for Martin to press his claims. And hopefully move Lawes back to lock.

Lawes doesn't play lock, he plays 6. If anyone will move to lock it will be Martin, not Lawes.

I think he can play there still. Don't rate him massively at 6 hence why I'd move him there.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Missed that Chessum is out for 6 months. That really does open up a slot for Martin to press his claims. And hopefully move Lawes back to lock.

Lawes doesn't play lock, he plays 6. If anyone will move to lock it will be Martin, not Lawes.

I think he can play there still. Don't rate him massively at 6 hence why I'd move him there.

I think you may have mentioned before.....

He'll play 6 and then likely retire post WC judging by reports.

Hope he doesn't play there but there we go.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Missed that Chessum is out for 6 months. That really does open up a slot for Martin to press his claims. And hopefully move Lawes back to lock.

Lawes doesn't play lock, he plays 6. If anyone will move to lock it will be Martin, not Lawes.

I think he can play there still. Don't rate him massively at 6 hence why I'd move him there.

I think you may have mentioned before.....

He'll play 6 and then likely retire post WC judging by reports.

Lawes is a 6 who is excellent cover for the second row. I think he will retire from International duty after the World Cup, but he has re-upped at Saints for another season.

England's problem regardless of the coach is that they cannot play the way the top teams do.  Witness Leinster/La Rochelle or Ireland/France/New Zealand/South Africa - the top teams can make meters with the ball in-hand.  They also have strong packs and a good defense, but they are generally not limited to trying to kick the ball.

England seem to kick, never re-gather and have nowhere else to go.  Choosing Farrell makes things tighter (lose by less) but shuts down attacking options.

On many fronts, very sadly, the English players aren't up there.

That's just tactics. Jones and his protégé go with thale stats. They may catch on that the game can be played otherwise shortly.

No 7&1/2 wrote:That's just tactics. Jones and his protégé go with thale stats. They may catch on that the game can be played otherwise shortly.

Eddie at the Brumbies and Japan was famous for innovative attacking rugby.

Borthwick at Tigers was keen to add strings to the attacking bow, there was just a lot to fix when the took over and things happened slowly. I suspect similar is happening with England. Lineout and scrum were improved in the 6N. The defence is a work in progress and the attack was extremely clunky.

Scrum improved a lot. I've expressed my surprise previously that despite having a big name scrum coach they weren't actually doing much if any training on it and certainly not specific training on opposition. Lineout was ok, maul could have been a lot better and that's certainly an area Borthwick excelled at previously coaching wise.

And that's still where my optimism leaves me. But it's early days for an extremely callow coaching team.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Scrum improved a lot. I've expressed my surprise previously that despite having a big name scrum coach they weren't actually doing much if any training on it and certainly not specific training on opposition. Lineout was ok, maul could have been a lot better and that's certainly an area Borthwick excelled at previously coaching wise.

And that's still where my optimism leaves me. But it's early days for an extremely callow coaching team.

My concern is England just doesn't have front row that can compete and beat with best in world. Genge scrummaging has improved a lot over the years but Sinckler got worse as has Mako and Cole bought back in doesn't fill me with confidence.
Whichever way you look at it, can Eng scrum compete with SA, France and probably NZ? I have severe doubts.

mountain man wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Scrum improved a lot. I've expressed my surprise previously that despite having a big name scrum coach they weren't actually doing much if any training on it and certainly not specific training on opposition. Lineout was ok, maul could have been a lot better and that's certainly an area Borthwick excelled at previously coaching wise.

And that's still where my optimism leaves me. But it's early days for an extremely callow coaching team.

My concern is England just doesn't have front row that can compete and beat with best in world. Genge scrummaging has improved a lot over the years but Sinckler got worse as has Mako and Cole bought back in doesn't fill me with confidence.
Whichever way you look at it, can Eng scrum compete with SA, France and probably NZ? I have severe doubts.

The scrum dealt with everyone bar perhaps France at times in the 6N. Can anyone deal with the SA scrum when it's in full force? I would suggest not.....it's the best in the world. NZ scrum is nothing to get worried about really.

NZ not known for scrum but it's never poor. My point is unless England improve markedly then likes of SA and France will smash them (again) and NZ, Ireland likely to have upper hand.
Again, I can't see where improvement can come from without better players.

The NZ scrum isn't what it was. There's some young talent coming through for them that could improve it. The Irish scrum we have tended to do alright against, Genge seems to be able to get at Furlong and Sinckler stops Porter from going in at at the angle. SA are a force apart and really we just need to get the ball out quick Vs them and probably France who have got some monsters to choose from.

Cole adds to the scrum, round the park I think he's struggled in the 6N where obviously the tempo is a lot higher than club level (where he's been excellent) and the pack was struggling as a unit. He's just a sticking plaster whilst Heyes gets more game time and Stuart gets back to fitness. Hopefully we see VRR in the training squad.

Genge and VRR at loosehead with Sinckler and Stuart at tighthead. Should give us some good options though I'm not certain VRR is the best scrummager, an improvement on Mako though.