England - the build-up and winning the World Cup at a canter

First topic message reminder :

Smith in the back field worked nicely against Ireland. We could interchange him and Steward on defensive duty but keep both in the backfield to receive kicks. Ford dropping in it one or the other has chased a kick up field.

I'd like to see if given a go as the attack does need an injection of something and the AB tactic isn't a bad one. Ruck speed and security needs a big upgrade though as that is the main element killing our attack.

Who doesn't know the laws and disagrees with the red card. Put your name to it!

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yup. True. England's true self was shown. We'll take the drop goals now and pens from tries from the ref even if they ain't correct. We always looked dangerous with the ball and proving we can now defend against a team that looked as ambitious as us shows were set again for at least the par score of a semi final.

I admire your commitment but maybe it time to call time now

I'm actually impressed. We have someone more bitter than the Sky Sports NZ punditry team but it's because he's upset that his side won. Hilarious.

I don't think England did badly the last time they were in Marseilles in a RWC.

king_carlos wrote:I'm actually impressed. We have someone more bitter than the Sky Sports NZ punditry team but it's because he's upset that his side won. Hilarious.

Chin up Carlos. We're all being proved correct. Great discipline, exciting rugby. Ignoring the mistakes we're dominant in the set piece. I'm with you now, viva Borthwick. He really is the second coming.

Fitness levels were good. Looks like the theory about them still having heavy workloads during the warmups was right. As for the red I'm not sure. How Scott Barrett gets a yellow for a dirty off the ball head shot and curry gets a red for just being in the way is a mystery for me.

I always said winning is ultimately what matters.

Superb from England, Ford gets plaudits but Lawes and Itoje immense and fair dos Manu was back to his near bes
Not pretty but who cares, win is all that matters..

This win proves the naysayers idiots. Despite the thought that we were given an easy run to the semis this win against Argentina shows we're on the way. Woop woop.

lostinwales wrote:Argentina played badly because England didn't let them get any momentum.  Even the thing with the ref was because the momentum was all with England.

The defence kept winning collisions tight in which definitely contributes to those sort of mistakes. Argentina couldn't get over the gain line despite having a pack stacked with carriers. Montoya, Kremer, Petti, Matera, Gonzalez.

The lineout defence was very good as well. By having three very strong jumpers in Lawes, Chessum and Itoje they could constantly contest when Argentina put numbers in the lineout. That doesn't only disrupt the lineouts where a counter jumper gets a hand on the ball but also forces the opposition to throw long or cut numbers. Throwing long is higher risk and forces mistakes. Cutting numbers improves your chances of retention but also neuters the potential platform. An area of the game that is easily overlooked but wins or loses matches. Those three together is the best that England's defensive lineout has looked since Kruis retired.

Argentina played poorly but there's something to be said for a strong defence and scoreboard pressure from taking the points causing that.

mountain man wrote:I always said winning is ultimately what matters.

Superb from England, Ford gets plaudits but Lawes and Itoje immense and fair dos Manu was back to his near bes
Not pretty but who cares, win is all that matters..

Yes! All good again! You were sere getting a little disheartened and it was concerning!

Yoda wrote:Fitness levels were good. Looks like the theory about them still having heavy workloads during the warmups was right. As for the red I'm not sure. How Scott Barrett gets a yellow for a dirty off the ball head shot and curry gets a red for just being in the way is a mystery for me.

I mean to me both should be red but Barry's wasn't to the head which is why it wasn't adjudged. Blame the silly laws.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:I'm actually impressed. We have someone more bitter than the Sky Sports NZ punditry team but it's because he's upset that his side won. Hilarious.

Chin up Carlos. We're all being proved correct. Great discipline,  exciting rugby. Ignoring the mistakes we're dominant in the set piece.  I'm with you now, viva Borthwick.  He really is the second coming.

No one has suggested that improvement in the attack isn't needed. I haven't seen anyone suggest England are suddenly brilliant. You aside the posts have been balanced. Pointing out areas that England were still poor and areas they were good. Taking account of Argentina having a poor game but considering areas where England may have pressured that.

The only person taking a black and white, polarised view is you, 7.5. Yet you post this stuff as if you're the only person capable of seeing this in perspective. Which is farcical when you're actually the one refusing to even try to do so. You've been posting this disingenuous schtick that got tedious in about three posts for months now.

It's doubly sad because you were actually a really enjoyable poster to discuss the game with before this drivel.

Yoda wrote:Fitness levels were good. Looks like the theory about them still having heavy workloads during the warmups was right. As for the red I'm not sure. How Scott Barrett gets a yellow for a dirty off the ball head shot and curry gets a red for just being in the way is a mystery for me.

Wasn't there also a French player in the warm-ups that went upright into a tackle with perfect line of sight, no other players involved, no change of height etc and caused a head-on-head but got off with yellow as it was deemed 'passive' - despite the fact that the force was high as the player he ran head-long into was moving at speed ... unfortunately it still seems a bit of a lottery ...

Schtick - love that word ...

All things considered, that was a pretty sweet result.

I don't understand why the Argentine didn't get a red, at the risk of being paranoid, if that had been an England player jumping in the air, no where near the ball, head contact and late......
Argentina really got rattled and forced things far too early. Perhaps we will avoid EJs Australia in the quarters after all, who look like having a very big pack and athletes in the backline, although not convinced with their rookie FH.

king_carlos wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:I'm actually impressed. We have someone more bitter than the Sky Sports NZ punditry team but it's because he's upset that his side won. Hilarious.

Chin up Carlos. We're all being proved correct. Great discipline,  exciting rugby. Ignoring the mistakes we're dominant in the set piece.  I'm with you now, viva Borthwick.  He really is the second coming.

No one has suggested that improvement in the attack isn't needed. I haven't seen anyone suggest England are suddenly brilliant. You aside the posts have been balanced. Pointing out areas that England were still poor and areas they were good. Taking account of Argentina having a poor game but considering areas where England may have pressured that.

The only person taking a black and white, polarised view is you, 7.5. Yet you post this stuff as if you're the only person capable of seeing this in perspective. Which is farcical when you're actually the one refusing to even try to do so. You've been posting this disingenuous schtick that got tedious in about three posts for months now.

It's doubly sad because you were actually a really enjoyable poster to discuss the game with before this drivel.

I'm shocked by this. I've merely been brought around to think differently by some great posts from this forum abd others. I thought that Borthwick would bring us boring to death ineffective rugby based around kicking an hoping for other teams to make mistakes but I've been proved absolutely wrong and have admitted so. Were onto a good thing.

Man I'd never describe this schtick that Borthwick was a good pick or at all sensible was tiresome or silly at all.we all know he was the only sensible pick. As is proved game after game.

Drivel - that's another of my favourite words ...

Earl needs a mention, he was excellent and as a Brucey bonus reined in the celebrations. Likewise Itoje in both respects.

Heaf wrote:

Yoda wrote:Fitness levels were good. Looks like the theory about them still having heavy workloads during the warmups was right. As for the red I'm not sure. How Scott Barrett gets a yellow for a dirty off the ball head shot and curry gets a red for just being in the way is a mystery for me.

Wasn't there also a French player in the warm-ups that went upright into a tackle with perfect line of sight, no other players involved, no change of height etc and caused a head-on-head but got off with yellow as it was deemed 'passive' - despite the fact that the force was high as the player he ran head-long into was moving at speed ...  unfortunately it still seems a bit of a lottery ...

You think Curry was passive in  the tackle then?

Curry was a red, accidental but was head on head so that's it.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Heaf wrote:

Yoda wrote:Fitness levels were good. Looks like the theory about them still having heavy workloads during the warmups was right. As for the red I'm not sure. How Scott Barrett gets a yellow for a dirty off the ball head shot and curry gets a red for just being in the way is a mystery for me.

Wasn't there also a French player in the warm-ups that went upright into a tackle with perfect line of sight, no other players involved, no change of height etc and caused a head-on-head but got off with yellow as it was deemed 'passive' - despite the fact that the force was high as the player he ran head-long into was moving at speed ...  unfortunately it still seems a bit of a lottery ...

You think Curry was passive in  the tackle then?

No, but neither was the French player - just a rubbish excuse to let him off a stone-cold red ... hence the lottery

mountain man wrote:Curry was a red, accidental but was head on head so that's it.

That's the problem though - it isn't always and that's what causes the controversy ...

Heaf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Heaf wrote:

Yoda wrote:Fitness levels were good. Looks like the theory about them still having heavy workloads during the warmups was right. As for the red I'm not sure. How Scott Barrett gets a yellow for a dirty off the ball head shot and curry gets a red for just being in the way is a mystery for me.

Wasn't there also a French player in the warm-ups that went upright into a tackle with perfect line of sight, no other players involved, no change of height etc and caused a head-on-head but got off with yellow as it was deemed 'passive' - despite the fact that the force was high as the player he ran head-long into was moving at speed ...  unfortunately it still seems a bit of a lottery ...

You think Curry was passive in  the tackle then?

No, but neither was the French player - just a rubbish excuse to let him off a stone-cold red ... hence the lottery

I mean I think there is a lottery more in the sense of hitting people in the air, ie Steward was well lucky in hitting a guy in the air for instance in terms of the fact that the outcome relates to a yellow red etc. I suppose you can say though that he's lucky he doesn't hit him directly in the head but then that's what mitigation is for surely.

I can't see how Curry was due anything other than a red - that others might have got away with less is frustrating but doesn't change that.  By the letter of the law the Argentina yellow also seemed right, but a bit annoying that Curry's was very much accidental and Carreras's seemed much more like a cheap shot to me.  

Really pleased with how the team responded though, brilliant from Ford, and what a difference it makes when kicks are actually chased effectively...    and yes please to more drop goals.

The problems will come with how they try and shoehorn Farrell back in, and we don't yet have much evidence that the attack is up to speed.

The point about this evening is that England had a terrible start but from then on played to the conditions and the circumstances perfectly. I don't think we can underestimate how slippery that ball was. It wasn't pretty, but it was hugely compelling. I like it that there are different ways to win.

Big wrote:I can't see how Curry was due anything other than a red - that others might have got away with less is frustrating but doesn't change that.  By the letter of the law the Argentina yellow also seemed right, but a bit annoying that Curry's was very much accidental and Carreras's seemed much more like a cheap shot to me.  

Really pleased with how the team responded though, brilliant from Ford, and what a difference it makes when kicks are actually chased effectively...    and yes please to more drop goals.

I thought Curry was probably unsighted by the blocker - he was in a fairly passive position and Mallia basically landed on him. But he was upright and there was at least one angle (though it was only shown when the card was upgraded) that showed direct head contact. It’s a tough call because I believe Curry was waiting to make the tackle rather than actually going in for it. In real time it looked like a rugby incident rather than a red card.

Carreras seemingly got away with yellow because the head contact came fractionally after contact with Ford’s shoulder. I’m surprised that counts as sufficient mitigation for what was always a late and reckless challenge. And whoever ran under Steward and tipped him was very lucky to get away with just a penalty.

Still, what’s done is done.

lostinwales wrote:The problems will come with how they try and shoehorn Farrell back in, and we don't yet have much evidence that the attack is up to speed.

The point about this evening is that England had a terrible start but from then on played to the conditions and the circumstances perfectly. I don't think we can underestimate how slippery that ball was. It wasn't pretty, but it was hugely compelling. I like it that there are different ways to win.

There's this way to win and that's that. Like to think with 15 men we'd have taken more opportunities for 3 points. But we've proven now that Borthwicl knows the players and the right way to play. The guys moaning about rhe support and the winning way will fall at the wayside.

Russ Petty has some interesting stats. Since beating the All Blacks in New Zealand last year, Argentina have only won two out of eleven matches against Tier 1 sides.

England's combined total of penalties and turnovers conceded was 15. When Ewels got a red against Ireland, the total was 14. The only time we've gone lower than that was the 61-12 victory over Scotland in 2017, and the 6-13 win over Scotland in 2020, during Storm Caiara. Both saw a combined total of 13.

That 2020 match at Murrayfield saw England stats of 47 kicks, 66 passes, 70 runs. There was an almost identical breakdown against Argentina of 43 kicks, 73 passes, 74 runs.

Another stats guy, Ross Hamilton, says

Lewis Ludlam came off the bench for 15 minutes, the ball was only in play for 7 minutes during that time and he made the 4th most tackles of anyone on the pitch (12), just 2 behind Itoje.

Question now for England will be whether to challenge Curry's red. They decided to challenge Farrell's card, as losing mitigation for admitting guilt made little difference to his availability for key matches.

Curry has only just come back, so the coaches would have been hoping to give him game time. We've often seen six week/match bans, halved to three weeks, then settled at two if the player takes a tackle class (assuming that option is available during a tournament).

If England don't appeal, then Curry might be available for the last pool game against Samoa. If they do appeal, and it wasn't upheld, he could miss all the remaining pool games.

Vunipola is available for Japan, so there's more opportunity to rotate the back row forwards, which might be a factor in deciding whether to appeal.

king_carlos wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Argentina played badly because England didn't let them get any momentum.  Even the thing with the ref was because the momentum was all with England.

The defence kept winning collisions tight in which definitely contributes to those sort of mistakes. Argentina couldn't get over the gain line despite having a pack stacked with carriers. Montoya, Kremer, Petti, Matera, Gonzalez.

The lineout defence was very good as well. By having three very strong jumpers in Lawes, Chessum and Itoje they could constantly contest when Argentina put numbers in the lineout. That doesn't only disrupt the lineouts where a counter jumper gets a hand on the ball but also forces the opposition to throw long or cut numbers. Throwing long is higher risk and forces mistakes. Cutting numbers improves your chances of retention but also neuters the potential platform. An area of the game that is easily overlooked but wins or loses matches. Those three together is the best that England's defensive lineout has looked since Kruis retired.

Argentina played poorly but there's something to be said for a strong defence and scoreboard pressure from taking the points causing that.

Good points KC.

I feel actually pretty good about an England performance which is new. Yes, we still employed the tactics of kicking away too much ball and weren't particularly good with ball in hand........but, the defence was outstanding. The fitness levels, set piece and general attitude of the players was excellent (something that has actually missing).

One big plus is I thought we showed some actual rugby intelligence (bar Curry obviously). We adapted to the ref....we removed hands when called, we didn't tackle in the air......it actually seemed like we learnt and adapted throughout the game.

Sounds like the French authorities have really messed up in terms of accessing the stadium again. That's 3 sports games where supporters have been kettled before the game creating a potential dangerous situation and huge delays.

As you'd expect there does seem to be more casual fans dotted around during the world cup. ITV really have done WR a disservice in some of the commentary around the reds with a few people parroting ideas that it should have been a yellow due to it being an accident etc. Don't mind if people want to try and argue that laws should change etc but we really shouldn't have to put up with pundits making out that the refs have got things badly wrong when they haven't.

Well done England. Ironically, that kind of victory will galvinise the whole squad much more than May running in 5 wonder tries.

Curry's red was a red. Nothing more to see here. He was very unlucky but if one of our players had been on the end of that brutal head clash, we'd all be screaming for the laws to be applied.

I'm not sure why anyone would try to detract from England's performance or result here. Error count low, forcing mistakes from the opposition, keeping set piece under control and kicking their penalties. Looks a bit like how South Africa played 3 years ago and nobody criticised them. What else exactly was England supposed to do? The Pumas did not play well at all, but they can have no excuse here.

No 7&1/2 wrote:As you'd expect there does seem to be more casual fans dotted around during the world cup. ITV really have done WR a disservice in some of the commentary around the reds with a few people parroting ideas that it should have been a yellow due to it being an accident etc.  Don't mind if people want to try and argue that laws should change etc but we really shouldn't have to put up with pundits making out that the refs have got things badly wrong when they haven't.

Yes. The streams I watch have exclusively South African commentary and they concluded unanimously that it was a red all day long.

Well played England. They managed to exploit the weaknesses in the Argentinian scrum to the max ( something which Australia did to Georgia as well).
That was their best defensive display for over two years and Ford's game management and drop goals were something that Camille Lopez, the current master of the drop, would have been proud of.

Now Borthwick has got a month to bolt on a useful attacking game before the QF.

It will help once this heat wave breaks as handling will become less of a lottery.

Well I'll hold my hand up and say well done to many I'd written off.

Rugby will die if these red card decisions are made..and that includes caring about player safety. I know people already who are switching off from watching games.

Anyway, great performance by the lads...

I think England be wary of contesting Curry red after all the fuss surrounding Farrell.

That should be Englands toughest pool match and I'd be surprised if he gets more than say 2 match ban so assuming England get through group then he'll be available for QF. Only issue is match time seeing as he missed so much already but that's way it goes.

It seems Curry wasn't missing link anyway, England coped admirably without him. Ludlum back in at 7 for next game, Earl excellent at 8 and Lawes usual very good self at 6.

Amazing what a win does though. Certainly not all ills banished but imagine the feeling if they'd lost. Confidence be justifiably high in camp.

No 7&1/2 wrote:As you'd expect there does seem to be more casual fans dotted around during the world cup. ITV really have done WR a disservice in some of the commentary around the reds with a few people parroting ideas that it should have been a yellow due to it being an accident etc.  Don't mind if people want to try and argue that laws should change etc but we really shouldn't have to put up with pundits making out that the refs have got things badly wrong when they haven't.

Especially because the ref did exactly the right thing. Exactly the type of call the yellow card and bunker review is supposed to deal with. I do worry that most pundits don't understand the bunker review system or stay up to date with the laws. There was a point last night when Martin and Earl held up the Puma over the line where the commentator said "that'll be a defensive scrum to England" erm what? Wasn't even the case in the old law let alone the new drop out law variation.

Ref had a decent game.

I've seen some head clashes where there's a lot of movement pre contact be downgraded but at the same time Curry put himself in that position so he can't complain with the outcome. I'm sure the England QC will admit foul play and then seek mitigation to try and bring it down as much as possible. The amount of force and the fact Curry steps into it won't help his cause much.

One area aside from defence that England were really good was the breakdown, several turnovers won and they really competing well.
Earl won several pens and thankfully kept a lid on the wild celebrations which was better.

Still plenty to work on but so much easier from a win.

Yeah I get the process and head on head and all that but they haven't got it right. When foul play is deemed less dangerous than an accident then priorities are way off. It's like give someone a tougher sentence for manslaughter than murder. Doesn't sit right and imo sets the wrong message about player safety when genuine foul play isn't punished according.

That's a fair point but under current laws refs have to act accordingly. Carreas could have been given red also but it's TMO interpretation.

I'll say again it really doesn't help having all the thought process away from the feed. I get it's to speed up the game but they could at least communicate it effectively afterwards somehow?

Who was the tmo for Freddie Stewarts rescinded red? Come to think of it who upgraded faz's to a red card? Mitigation has not been applied in both the curry and Stewart red, faz's and Billie's were red as they hit with force and high degree of danger. It's not rocket science if you couldn't get out of the way quick enough through no fault of your own. Players will have to defend and run around in a bear crawl otherwise.

formerly known as Sam wrote:...There was a point last night when Martin and Earl held up the Puma over the line where the commentator said "that'll be a defensive scrum to England" erm what?...

I heard the same. Another bloke in the bar said the commentator might have thought the referee was calling it as a turnover at a collapsed maul, short of the line. Then again, the referee seemed to make the "held up" signal with his hands, which was a big clue, even if you hadn't spotted the Argentinian players over the line.

Rugby Fan wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:...There was a point last night when Martin and Earl held up the Puma over the line where the commentator said "that'll be a defensive scrum to England" erm what?...

I heard the same. Another bloke in the bar said the commentator might have thought the referee was calling it as a turnover at a collapsed maul, short of the line. Then again, the referee seemed to make the "held up" signal with his hands, which was a big clue, even if you hadn't spotted the Argentinian players over the line.

About 5mins later Mullins also added 3pts on our score too....he didn't have the best of nights.

Whilst I don't rate Nick Mullins and co, it must be tricky to get everything 100% during a live game especially as "dead air" is a no-no.

I picked on the fact he said England were leading by 21? I think at time instead of 18 but not end of world.

I just wish Flats was in comms, he is excellent.

My dream comms team would be Cotter, Flatman and Grayson.

mountain man wrote:Whilst I don't rate Nick Mullins and co, it must be tricky to get everything 100% during a live game especially as "dead air" is a no-no.

I picked on the fact he said England were leading by 21? I think at time instead of 18 but not end of world.

I just wish Flats was in comms, he is excellent.

My dream comms team would be Cotter, Flatman and Grayson.

He said it was 27pts to 3 and we were leading by 24.......which we would be if we weren't on 24pts. I agree, it's no big deal.....but it was minutes after the defensive scrum mistake.

Hence the ? as I couldn't remember exact score but knew he'd put 3 extra on England.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'll say again it really doesn't help having all the thought process away from the feed. I get it's to speed up the game but they could at least communicate it effectively afterwards somehow?

Yes, this is why I don't like the bunker. Under the old system, you'd hear the discussion and clear reasoning given by the referee and TMO as to why something was, or wasn't, a red. Now we're kept in the dark, which is a big step backwards for viewer engagement, especially with football starting to go the other way and allowing the viewer to hear discussions made by VAR.

It's also worse because this is a World Cup and there'll be a lot of new/casual fans watching who need that kind of explanation, which generally isn't provided by the commentary/pundits.

I think bunker review is an excellent introduction. Maybe could be like in football where after it goes to VAR and ref makes decision in that case the ref then announces decision and why.

Keep bunker and maybe foul play TMO relays reasoning to ref who then states it to respective captains.

Based on the showing's this weekend I think Pool D will only serve as a minor speed bump. Seriously unimpressive games in Pool D. Unless there is major improvement in the coming 3 rounds I can't see anyone in Pool D making the semis.