England 2023 - Post 6N and beyond - Prep for WC

First topic message reminder :

Continued.....

It just strikes me as a bit odd as to the approach to the squad though. We heard that fitness was a key reason to results in the 6ns, now we're putting out eggs in the basket of experience. Except with underhill who is now dropped despite him being in 2019 shape. Just contradictions.

Well if fitness really was the isue with 6N results that is unforgiveable for pro Int athletes.
However, even if it was surely by mid tournament that would be addressed/resolved.

That to me smacks of excuses. I just think England were not good eenough.

Probably never know actual truth until players retire and write their stories.

In 2003 Hill pulled hamstring in a group match that took a long time to recover, and Woodward chose to keep him in camp in the hope that he’d be fit for the knockout stages. His knee issues came later.

I think teams will risk carrying someone recovering from injury, but only for players who are a) highly likely to recover full fitness in time and b) almost automatic picks for the XXIII if fit. I don’t think any of England’s injured group fall into that category - perhaps Billy is the closest, depending on Borthwick’s back row preferences. The main scenario I can see where Mako would get in is if Rapava-Ruskin doesn’t look quite ready, but he has seemingly seen off the challenge of Rodd.

I can see the case for Pollard and perhaps Kolisi, but it probably has to be a player at that level for it to be worth the risk

Well the ultimate example of that is Manu and so often it hasn't worked.

mountain man wrote:Well the ultimate example of that is Manu and so often it hasn't worked.

But thats down to desperation when you have no other options.

Poorfour wrote:In 2003 Hill pulled hamstring in a group match that took a long time to recover, and Woodward chose to keep him in camp in the hope that he’d be fit for the knockout stages. His knee issues came later.

I think teams will risk carrying someone recovering from injury, but only for players who are a) highly likely to recover full fitness in time and b) almost automatic picks for the XXIII if fit. I don’t think any of England’s injured group fall into that category - perhaps Billy is the closest, depending on Borthwick’s back row preferences. The main scenario I can see where Mako would get in is if Rapava-Ruskin doesn’t look quite ready, but he has seemingly seen off the challenge of Rodd.

I can see the case for Pollard and perhaps Kolisi, but it probably has to be a player at that level for it to be worth the risk

Rodd needs to go to Marlers school of scrummaging.

mountain man wrote:Well if fitness really was the isue with 6N results that is unforgiveable for pro Int athletes.
However, even if it was surely by mid tournament that would be addressed/resolved.

That to me smacks of excuses. I just think England were not good eenough.

Probably never know actual truth until players retire and write their stories.

A lot of the SA players spoke very highly of Walters in the run into the last world cup and credited him with helping them work at a higher intensity for longer.

The work he did with Tigers really helped produce night and day still difference in performance in terms of intensity and endurance.

Well we've pretty much got every Leicester coach available now. Which means it's the players fault if we fail.

mountain man wrote:Well if fitness really was the isue with 6N results that is unforgiveable for pro Int athletes.

You can be fit as a professional athlete, but not fit for the gameplan. There's a school of thought that the 2015 England World Cup squad trained to expect a high ball-in-play time, which turned out not to be the case across the tournament. I recall seeing the forwards looking distinctly unerpowered in the warm-up games, compared with the Six Nations just a few months before. At the time, some thought we were just heavy-legged after the training camps. However, it seemed to follow through in the pool match performances.

Rugby Fan wrote:

mountain man wrote:Well if fitness really was the isue with 6N results that is unforgiveable for pro Int athletes.

You can be fit as a professional athlete, but not fit for the gameplan. There's a school of thought that the 2015 England World Cup squad trained to expect a high ball-in-play time, which turned out not to be the case across the tournament. I recall seeing the forwards looking distinctly unerpowered in the warm-up games, compared with the Six Nations just a few months before. At the time, some thought we were just heavy-legged after the training camps. However, it seemed to follow through in the pool match performances.

I agree - Lancaster tried to use the camps to change the way England played, but I think he tried to change too much at once and didn't have time to embed the tactics that would capitalise on the change.

Rugby Fan wrote:

mountain man wrote:Well if fitness really was the isue with 6N results that is unforgiveable for pro Int athletes.

You can be fit as a professional athlete, but not fit for the gameplan. There's a school of thought that the 2015 England World Cup squad trained to expect a high ball-in-play time, which turned out not to be the case across the tournament. I recall seeing the forwards looking distinctly unerpowered in the warm-up games, compared with the Six Nations just a few months before. At the time, some thought we were just heavy-legged after the training camps. However, it seemed to follow through in the pool match performances.

As I said, if that was the case then by say games 3 or 4 this should have been resolved. It wasn't hence I'm sceptical the poor performances in 6N were down to lack of fitness. Or "wrong" type of fitness or whatever.

Well regardless im actually confident we'll see a much improved performance coming up.

I think we'll be physical, well drilled, and set piece based...with effective kick chase. Not flashy but efficient in attack.

We wont win it...but this will be the start of the rebuilding for the 6n and onwards.

I'm not confident. We'll have a decent scrum, hoping the rolling maul may actually be good as it's probably since Borthwick left it's gone down hill. Attacking tactics will consist of kicking the ball away until we're in the 22. We'll should get to the semis and that will be hailed as success by the RFU who have picked the wrong guy.

Rebuilding should be being done now, the fact Ben Youngs is in the squad is ridiculous.

The RFU really have stuffed this up for a number of years.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm not confident. We'll have a decent scrum, hoping the rolling maul may actually be good as it's probably since Borthwick left it's gone down hill. Attacking tactics will consist of kicking the ball away until we're in the 22. We'll should get to the semis and that will be hailed as success by the RFU who have picked the wrong guy.

Rebuilding should be being done now, the fact Ben Youngs is in the squad is ridiculous.

The RFU really have stuffed this up for a number of years.

I think thats overly negative. I think your just narked because you want to see Fijian style rugby and know that wont happen.

Just wanted to see some entertainment. I don't find throwing it around no matter what a good way to play any more than kicking it every time you have it before assessing options. I think my negativity is pretty much spot on after that 6Ns.

Who was the right option for you out of interest 7.5?

I'd have loved McCall but given he was on a break for his health around the time the coach was selected I very much doubt he'd have considered it for a second.

Baxter by several accounts doesn't want the gig and I do think the way Exeter have dealt poorly with their squad aging and rule changes is a concern.

Razor was never looking at coming to Europe. His focus was solely on the NZ job. He clearly wasn't actually an option.

I'd have gone McCall or Robertson as initial approaches. I'd have gone to Edwards as well. We don't know who would have taken an approach seriously tbf, as we only went to Borthwick. Given it is him tbh I'm disappointed by who he has approached as his group of coaches, he could have cast his next a little further.

I'd have steered clear of Baxter.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Just wanted to see some entertainment. I don't find throwing it around no matter what a good way to play any more than kicking it every time you have it before assessing options. I think my negativity is pretty much spot on after that 6Ns.

I really think we need to put very little store by the 6 Nations. Borthwick inherited a team in disarray and only had a couple of weeks with the squad. The results were disappointing - but I think there was an element of trying different approaches and finding what did and didn't work, and there was a definite improvement in the Ireland game where - but for an incorrectly awarded red - England could well have been in contention at the death.

With a 3 month camp to change the fitness levels, work out the squad dynamics and embed tactics, we could see a very different mode of play. I expect it will be pragmatic and fairly structured, but I'd also expect the setpiece, defence and breakdown to be much more effective, and there should be big improvements in the areas of play that need players to spend time working together, like the kick chase, kick passing and the timing of unusual passing lines. There were probably a dozen moments across the 6 Nations where England tried a kick pass or an inside ball that didn't go to hand but would have led to a break or a score if they had.

Likewise, Kevin Sinfield has said in so many words that he was very much learning on the job in the 6N - and you can see that in how England's defence was good close in but lacked the flexibility to react fast enough when an opponent got wide. Sinfield is a class act and I'd expect him to have improved the system massively by the time we get to the tournament proper.

I don't personally care about the entertainment side, although that is always a bonus. I do care about being competitive. We have had too many games recently where I didn't see us having any hope, and I find those games hard to watch.

Maybe we have been spoilt by years of being one of the best teams with many loses down to 'on the day' kind of performances.

Big plus point from Borthwick was that he knew the players, the English league and systems etc. He knows his coaches inside out pretty much. It's just been so underwhelming. I do think the scores will look competitive though on the whole. Playing defensively can keep games tight but I don't think it's the right way to go. I can see us being quite like Wales under the earlier iterations of Gatland.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Just wanted to see some entertainment. I don't find throwing it around no matter what a good way to play any more than kicking it every time you have it before assessing options. I think my negativity is pretty much spot on after that 6Ns.

After the France drubbing yes. But im just giving him the benefit of the doubt. Lack of preparedness etc.

Now i dont expect us to win this world cup BUT i do expect to see big signs of improvement, a system that they understand and is efficient and one that they can take away post WC and really build on for the 6n and a system that they can bring new players in successfully.
i do expect to really control Argentina and Japan etc.

Part of me suspects with the squad he currently has is to adopt the pre-2019 WC model - Keep it tight and aggressive, stay in the game and then unleash a bench that can completely change a game.

Back then it was a younger Sinkler coming on for Cole, George for Hartley, Care for Youngs, Lawes for Kruis, Ford coming on while Farrell shifted out to 12. Guys that could turn the game on its head and win it in the last 15mins.

Its what England have missed (one element of it) is a killer bench.
Arundell for Steward, Care for JvP, Murley for Cockanasinga, Smith for Farrell, Dan for George

(not likely picks - but all could turn a tight game on its head)

Poorfour wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Just wanted to see some entertainment. I don't find throwing it around no matter what a good way to play any more than kicking it every time you have it before assessing options. I think my negativity is pretty much spot on after that 6Ns.

I really think we need to put very little store by the 6 Nations. Borthwick inherited a team in disarray and only had a couple of weeks with the squad. The results were disappointing - but I think there was an element of trying different approaches and finding what did and didn't work, and there was a definite improvement in the Ireland game where - but for an incorrectly awarded red - England could well have been in contention at the death.

With a 3 month camp to change the fitness levels, work out the squad dynamics and embed tactics, we could see a very different mode of play. I expect it will be pragmatic and fairly structured, but I'd also expect the setpiece, defence and breakdown to be much more effective, and there should be big improvements in the areas of play that need players to spend time working together, like the kick chase, kick passing and the timing of unusual passing lines. There were probably a dozen moments across the 6 Nations where England tried a kick pass or an inside ball that didn't go to hand but would have led to a break or a score if they had.

Likewise, Kevin Sinfield has said in so many words that he was very much learning on the job in the 6N - and you can see that in how England's defence was good close in but lacked the flexibility to react fast enough when an opponent got wide. Sinfield is a class act and I'd expect him to have improved the system massively by the time we get to the tournament proper.

Dont forget things like Dombrandts timing. Many of the dropped catches were due to a time delay between his runs and the passes etc. You would expect those little things will be fixed and then if Dombrandt can get his angles and off loads going...the attack has a different look to it.

I think a  53 - 10 drubbing by France is going to take more than a few caught passes to turn around.  The honest assessment of England is that we are miles off the top teams - Internationally and at club level.  

Thanks to the world cup seedings we have a golden opportunity to get through to a semi final and after we are well beaten, will likely then face Australia or Wales in the Bronze Final to finish third overall.

I will say it through gritted teeth, but I would take the third place playing boring rugby now if it was offered.  People very quickly forget the performances and if we were to finish above Ireland and France, I think this would be a welcome boost to our club game.

nlpnlp wrote:I think a  53 - 10 drubbing by France is going to take more than a few caught passes to turn around.  The honest assessment of England is that we are miles off the top teams - Internationally and at club level.  

Thanks to the world cup seedings we have a golden opportunity to get through to a semi final and after we are well beaten, will likely then face Australia or Wales in the Bronze Final to finish third overall.

I will say it through gritted teeth, but I would take the third place playing boring rugby now if it was offered.  People very quickly forget the performances and if we were to finish above Ireland and France, I think this would be a welcome boost to our club game.

And if you read up above most people are saying that....

The French game reminded me of the reverse score we inflicted on them a few years back. Everything we did came off everything they did was crud. That was probably a very good game to learn just how far we were off from the top. However there were green shoots against Ireland even when one down and the levels were so much better than against France. If you can improve that quickly then perhaps we shouldn't be so pessimistic. Going into the world cup under the radar with very little expectation could be a blessing and allow us to slowly build.

Rugby is a game of fine margins. In most International matches, the difference between the two sides is a few % here or there, and neither side will be ahead in all areas. Coaches design tactics that play to their side's edges while looking to nullify the other side's.

When you get a blowout score, it's generally because one side comes out ahead on most of the aspects of the game, rather than it being evenly balanced. In the France game, England weren't at the races at the breakdown, which gave Dupont plenty of time to see the gaps in an immature defensive model and - frequently - chip over the line into space that England weren't covering.

It was definitely instructive - and I think England learned from it for the Ireland match. France and Ireland were 3 1/2 years into their build for RWC 2023; England were effectively 6 weeks in with about 3 weeks' training time. For France and Ireland it's about sustaining where they are and developing some new tactics (Squidge makes the point that Ireland showed nothing new in the 6N - which implies they have at least a few tricks in reserve); for England it's about closing the gap. Three months in camp allows for a lot of catch up.

Whether it'll be enough is one of the intriguing questions of the the RWC.

nlpnlp wrote:I think a  53 - 10 drubbing by France is going to take more than a few caught passes to turn around.  The honest assessment of England is that we are miles off the top teams - Internationally and at club level.  

Thanks to the world cup seedings we have a golden opportunity to get through to a semi final and after we are well beaten, will likely then face Australia or Wales in the Bronze Final to finish third overall.

I will say it through gritted teeth, but I would take the third place playing boring rugby now if it was offered.  People very quickly forget the performances and if we were to finish above Ireland and France, I think this would be a welcome boost to our club game.

Yep totally agree with all that.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well we've pretty much got every Leicester coach available now. Which means it's the players fault if we fail.

Unless they're Leicester players obvs.

I have doubts over Wigglesworth as attack coach and Sinfield whilst very good at Tigers doesn't have much experience at coaching defence, he is a natural leader so hopefully he comes good. Walters and Borthwick though I rate very highly. Walters has a lot of experience across the world (Scarlets, Brumbies, Taranaki, Munster, Tigers) and won the last world cup with the Boks having joined in 2018.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd have gone McCall or Robertson as initial approaches. I'd have gone to Edwards as well. We don't know who would have taken an approach seriously tbf, as we only went to Borthwick. Given it is him tbh I'm disappointed by who he has approached as his group of coaches, he could have cast his next a little further.

I'd have steered clear of Baxter.

Robertson was never going anywhere. I doubt very much he's not had offers over the last couple of years, he's never taken the cash that was undoubtedly on offer because he wanted the AB job.

McCall leave Sarries? Same as Baxter, will only leave the club if forced out. Plus McCall had health issues last year, added stress of international management probably not high on his list of wants.

Edwards had meetings with the RFU top brass before he signed his five year deal with France. He is quoted as saying as much. He didn't want to wait on any deal, was happy in France and wanted job security. We certainly won't going to get him out of his France contract.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well we've pretty much got every Leicester coach available now. Which means it's the players fault if we fail.

Unless they're Leicester players obvs.

I have doubts over Wigglesworth as attack coach and Sinfield whilst very good at Tigers doesn't have much experience at coaching defence, he is a natural leader so hopefully he comes good. Walters and Borthwick though I rate very highly. Walters has a lot of experience across the world (Scarlets, Brumbies, Taranaki, Munster, Tigers) and won the last world cup with the Boks having joined in 2018.

Whoa, how come Walters can't keep a job?

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd have gone McCall or Robertson as initial approaches. I'd have gone to Edwards as well. We don't know who would have taken an approach seriously tbf, as we only went to Borthwick. Given it is him tbh I'm disappointed by who he has approached as his group of coaches, he could have cast his next a little further.

I'd have steered clear of Baxter.

Robertson was never going anywhere. I doubt very much he's not had offers over the last couple of years, he's never taken the cash that was undoubtedly on offer because he wanted the AB job.

McCall leave Sarries? Same as Baxter, will only leave the club if forced out. Plus McCall had health issues last year, added stress of international management probably not high on his list of wants.

Edwards had meetings with the RFU top brass before he signed his five year deal with France. He is quoted as saying as much. He didn't want to wait on any deal, was happy in France and wanted job security. We certainly won't going to get him out of his France contract.

Untested though. I think England would dtabd a good chance of changing anyone's mind would they knock on the door. Clearly though they have the man they wanted.

Well lets just see how we go in France and whichever parties can have their "i told you so moment"....

Whats this im seening about the laws at the world cup. 30 second lineouts, 1 minute scrums. Is that just enforcing the current laws of the game?

doctor_grey wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well we've pretty much got every Leicester coach available now. Which means it's the players fault if we fail.

Unless they're Leicester players obvs.

I have doubts over Wigglesworth as attack coach and Sinfield whilst very good at Tigers doesn't have much experience at coaching defence, he is a natural leader so hopefully he comes good. Walters and Borthwick though I rate very highly. Walters has a lot of experience across the world (Scarlets, Brumbies, Taranaki, Munster, Tigers) and won the last world cup with the Boks having joined in 2018.

Whoa, how come Walters can't keep a job?

Keeps getting head hunted and offered promotions.

That and apparently his wife wanted to be a bit closer to Wales or that was a reason he mentioned for taking the Tigers job when offered.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd have gone McCall or Robertson as initial approaches. I'd have gone to Edwards as well. We don't know who would have taken an approach seriously tbf, as we only went to Borthwick. Given it is him tbh I'm disappointed by who he has approached as his group of coaches, he could have cast his next a little further.

I'd have steered clear of Baxter.

Robertson was never going anywhere. I doubt very much he's not had offers over the last couple of years, he's never taken the cash that was undoubtedly on offer because he wanted the AB job.

McCall leave Sarries? Same as Baxter, will only leave the club if forced out. Plus McCall had health issues last year, added stress of international management probably not high on his list of wants.

Edwards had meetings with the RFU top brass before he signed his five year deal with France. He is quoted as saying as much. He didn't want to wait on any deal, was happy in France and wanted job security. We certainly won't going to get him out of his France contract.

Untested though. I think England would dtabd a good chance of changing anyone's mind would they knock on the door. Clearly though they have the man they wanted.

They had decided on him by the time Eddie was pushed out but as Edwards has already talked about having meetings with Sweeney it's clear they were talking to various coaches. Baxter had publicly turned down the job before and McCall has never mentioned any ambitions outside of Sarries, I'd be surprised if the IRFU haven't at least enquired about that with him as well as the RFU. Robertson wasn't going to have his mind changed, especially because him taking the AB job was a surprise to no one and I suspect it was only announced earlier this year to shut up the press campaign and rumour mill and that it had been decided some time before that.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd have gone McCall or Robertson as initial approaches. I'd have gone to Edwards as well. We don't know who would have taken an approach seriously tbf, as we only went to Borthwick. Given it is him tbh I'm disappointed by who he has approached as his group of coaches, he could have cast his next a little further.

I'd have steered clear of Baxter.

Robertson was never going anywhere. I doubt very much he's not had offers over the last couple of years, he's never taken the cash that was undoubtedly on offer because he wanted the AB job.

McCall leave Sarries? Same as Baxter, will only leave the club if forced out. Plus McCall had health issues last year, added stress of international management probably not high on his list of wants.

Edwards had meetings with the RFU top brass before he signed his five year deal with France. He is quoted as saying as much. He didn't want to wait on any deal, was happy in France and wanted job security. We certainly won't going to get him out of his France contract.

Untested though. I think England would dtabd a good chance of changing anyone's mind would they knock on the door. Clearly though they have the man they wanted.

They had decided on him by the time Eddie was pushed out but as Edwards has already talked about having meetings with Sweeney it's clear they were talking to various coaches. Baxter had publicly turned down the job before and McCall has never mentioned any ambitions outside of Sarries, I'd be surprised if the IRFU haven't at least enquired about that with him as well as the RFU. Robertson wasn't going to have his mind changed, especially because him taking the AB job was a surprise to no one and I suspect it was only announced earlier this year to shut up the press campaign and rumour mill and that it had been decided some time before that.

That's my understanding of the timeline.

The RFU were already looking for a post RWC replacement in the summer of 2022 and were talking to several candidates. Borthwick was picked from them. The initial plan being that he'd join as an assistant for the RWC then take over in the aftermath.

Then when they decided to boot Jones early SB was approached about taking the HC position immediately and that was successful. Which has been inaccurately spun into "only spoke to one coach" by some even though several coaches were spoken to.

Geordie wrote:Well lets just see how we go in France and whichever parties can have their "i told you so moment"....

Whats this im seening about the laws at the world cup. 30 second lineouts, 1 minute scrums. Is that just enforcing the current laws of the game?

Yup.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd have gone McCall or Robertson as initial approaches. I'd have gone to Edwards as well. We don't know who would have taken an approach seriously tbf, as we only went to Borthwick. Given it is him tbh I'm disappointed by who he has approached as his group of coaches, he could have cast his next a little further.

I'd have steered clear of Baxter.

Robertson was never going anywhere. I doubt very much he's not had offers over the last couple of years, he's never taken the cash that was undoubtedly on offer because he wanted the AB job.

McCall leave Sarries? Same as Baxter, will only leave the club if forced out. Plus McCall had health issues last year, added stress of international management probably not high on his list of wants.

Edwards had meetings with the RFU top brass before he signed his five year deal with France. He is quoted as saying as much. He didn't want to wait on any deal, was happy in France and wanted job security. We certainly won't going to get him out of his France contract.

Untested though. I think England would dtabd a good chance of changing anyone's mind would they knock on the door. Clearly though they have the man they wanted.

They had decided on him by the time Eddie was pushed out but as Edwards has already talked about having meetings with Sweeney it's clear they were talking to various coaches. Baxter had publicly turned down the job before and McCall has never mentioned any ambitions outside of Sarries, I'd be surprised if the IRFU haven't at least enquired about that with him as well as the RFU. Robertson wasn't going to have his mind changed, especially because him taking the AB job was a surprise to no one and I suspect it was only announced earlier this year to shut up the press campaign and rumour mill and that it had been decided some time before that.

Edwards mentioned they didn't contact him after Jones had left. No one was; straight to Borthwick. In a sense, good that they had made their decision early, there was no panic in the RFU's approach to replacing Eddie. This was the long term decision merely brought forward.

king_carlos wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd have gone McCall or Robertson as initial approaches. I'd have gone to Edwards as well. We don't know who would have taken an approach seriously tbf, as we only went to Borthwick. Given it is him tbh I'm disappointed by who he has approached as his group of coaches, he could have cast his next a little further.

I'd have steered clear of Baxter.

Robertson was never going anywhere. I doubt very much he's not had offers over the last couple of years, he's never taken the cash that was undoubtedly on offer because he wanted the AB job.

McCall leave Sarries? Same as Baxter, will only leave the club if forced out. Plus McCall had health issues last year, added stress of international management probably not high on his list of wants.

Edwards had meetings with the RFU top brass before he signed his five year deal with France. He is quoted as saying as much. He didn't want to wait on any deal, was happy in France and wanted job security. We certainly won't going to get him out of his France contract.

Untested though. I think England would dtabd a good chance of changing anyone's mind would they knock on the door. Clearly though they have the man they wanted.

They had decided on him by the time Eddie was pushed out but as Edwards has already talked about having meetings with Sweeney it's clear they were talking to various coaches. Baxter had publicly turned down the job before and McCall has never mentioned any ambitions outside of Sarries, I'd be surprised if the IRFU haven't at least enquired about that with him as well as the RFU. Robertson wasn't going to have his mind changed, especially because him taking the AB job was a surprise to no one and I suspect it was only announced earlier this year to shut up the press campaign and rumour mill and that it had been decided some time before that.

That's my understanding of the timeline.

The RFU were already looking for a post RWC replacement in the summer of 2022 and were talking to several candidates. Borthwick was picked from them. The initial plan being that he'd join as an assistant for the RWC then take over in the aftermath.

Then when they decided to boot Jones early SB was approached about taking the HC position immediately and that was successful. Which has been inaccurately spun into "only spoke to one coach" by some even though several coaches were spoken to.

No spin. They only considered one coach since Jones. There were informal conversations at early points in his reign, I've linked to them. Only Borthwick was approached after Jones was sacked. He was was the RFUs first choice, well done to them for bringing him early etc, but he was the only formal approach. He ticks the key boxes for them, English, international experience, known to the squad. Lots of their boxes were ticked.

That ignores them having already gone through a process of looking a multiple coaches though. They came up with a succession plan over a year out when they talked to several options. They chose Borthwick from multiple candidates. Then the time line shifted forwards.

They wouldn't have spoken to multiple coaches around the summer of 2022 when building that long term plan if they were only considering one coach.

It's ignoring facts to fit a narrative. Which is the definition of spin.

Wasn't what I meant by saying they only looked at 1. I agree completely that they would have had a shortlist etc and whittled it down to their preference. When Jones was sacked they only went to Borthwick. Some of the guys won't even have been considered when you hear the views the next manager needed to be English. If they considered the walk down the beach with Edwards as a serious discussion on selecting him as the next manager and discounting him, fair enough.

Borthwick is the main man. He has his team. He has a relatively easy run to the the semis and then who knows. Pressure can do funny things to a team as happened with England 4 years ago. If we do manage to win the WC, great. Borthwick is still not up to the job, and I have a feeling that will be borne out over his time with England. We will see his approach as close to Andy Robinson I reckon.

New video looks at how players deal with training in punishing heat. There's a focus on how Joe Cokanasiga and Henry Arundell are going.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Wasn't what I meant by saying they only looked at 1. I agree completely that they would have had a shortlist etc and whittled it down to their preference. When Jones was sacked they only went to Borthwick. Some of the guys won't even have been considered when you hear the views the next manager needed to be English. If they considered the walk down the beach with Edwards as a serious discussion on selecting him as the next manager and discounting him, fair enough.

Borthwick is the main man. He has his team. He has a relatively easy run to the the semis and then who knows. Pressure can do funny things to a team as happened with England 4 years ago. If we do manage to win the WC, great. Borthwick is still not up to the job, and I have a feeling that will be borne out over his time with England. We will see his approach as close to Andy Robinson I reckon.

That depends on whether Edwards said he wanted to see out his France commitments long term though. That's why those informal initial conversations occur. To avoid dragging out a recruitment process with someone who isn't actually interested.

You must realise that's an overt admittance that you've made your mind up about everything in advance and are going to refuse to change it regardless of results or performance...? Which will make any form of reasoned discussion fairly challenging for the foreseeable future.

Well it's sport, so anything can happen and I've seen poor teams and poor coaches win games and win trophies. The run for England in this world cup is frankly a dream isn't it? A series of games where you would say a good number of times out of 10 that England will win. I'm comfortable in saying that the semi final is probably par. 2 games then to win, I'd be surprised at that point that we would be playing someone other than France and I do expect we will be going out at that point....but a bounce of the ball, a silly red etc and suddenly an ok or average team finds themselves in a final. Should we fluke the win great but I don't think Borthwick will 1 be able to do that, and 2 be able to develop the team to the level of the current Irish or French teams.

That's what I think so what would you have me say? If we fluke a WC everythings great? To have me change my mind about Borthwick, well he's already compounded it in his WC selections so far, but it will have to be pick the array of talent we have preferably in the right positions, right off bits and pieces guys like Malins and don't pick players simply because they have experience. Play smart rugby not rugby by numbers, ie kicking it away as you have a stat saying the most successful teams kick the most. Win at least 75% to 80% of your games.

I simply want the world. I think Borthwick is going to bring negative, overly kicking rugby which will consistently seeing us about 3rd in the 6Ns, with regular beatings from the big 3 SH teams.

No 7&1/2 wrote:...If we fluke a WC...

Has anyone ever fluked a World Cup? What would that look like?

Rugby Fan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:...If we fluke a WC...

Has anyone ever fluked a World Cup? What would that look like?

Any cup comp you can fluke to be fair. Knock out games, easy run, 2 big games for a semi and a final. The opposition could bottle it, could get a red after 20 seconds and we beat them by 3. The best team doesn't always win.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:...If we fluke a WC...

Has anyone ever fluked a World Cup? What would that look like?

Any cup comp you can fluke to be fair. Knock out games, easy run, 2 big games for a semi and a final. The opposition could bottle it, could get a red after 20 seconds and we beat them by 3. The best team doesn't always win.

Apologies for coming across poorly but I've sometimes wondered about this. I can't think of any major team sport World Cup where general opinion thinks the winner fluked it. Winners often had a good slice of luck (e.g. England's 3rd goal in 1966; NZ not getting penalized in the latter stages of the 2011 Rugby World Cup; England getting some freakish plays in the 2019 Cricket One Day World Cup etc). While teams might sometimes not be among the favourites at the start of a competition, if they go on to win, then people usually think they deserved it.

Rugby Fan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:...If we fluke a WC...

Has anyone ever fluked a World Cup? What would that look like?

Not in rugby, no. All the RWCs have been won by excellent teams.

Prior to 2019 it had never been won by a side that dropped a pool game. The Boks lost to an excellent ABs side in the group stages of the last RWC but were clearly a fantastic side worthy of lifting the trophy. Having the best depth in the tight five that rugby was seen, a fantastic starting back row, world class half backs, the best centre partnership across the tournament and probably the tournaments most exciting back in Kolbe.

Poorer sides have 'fluked' a run to the final but none have won in 9 tournaments.

SA fluked it last time when Sinckler knocked himself out.

Pretty much every time nz haven't won since 03 was a fluke to an extent. The 07 England team was Pretty rank and could have won it so you'd accept its feasible. This run England have is pretty great for us. Realistically 2 above average performances and a dose of luck and we win it. I'd class it as a fluke as of now but its not exactly a massively long shot.