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.

What was telling for me was England's fitness. In the warm up games they generally started well and faded badly in the second half. Against Argentina they maintained a high level of effort until the last 5-10 minutes, which given they had played 65 minutes a player down, was a significant step up.

The attacking play was pragmatic under the circumstances and there was still clearly some confusion when they did try to attack - but assuming England can keep all 15 players on the pitch for once, they should be in better shape to stretch defences.

If Billy shows the same level of improvement when he returns, it tips the balance a bit in terms of power and ability to tie up defenders, which should then create more chances to score. There's reason to be optimistic - except about the continuing propensity for red cards.

You think the game plan would have been different with 15 players on the pitch?

No 7&1/2 wrote:You think the game plan would have been different with 15 players on the pitch?

Would have been a BIT less conservative, but we certainly wouldn't have been playing like the BaaBaas.

While Ford took a lot of the plaudits, I thought Ben Earl had an absolutely storming game both doing what we need of an 8 in providing a primary carrier and tackler, and also in making up for the lack of a true 7 in his breakdown and turnover work.

Whole team was defensively good. Though lets face Argentina's heads went.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You think the game plan would have been different with 15 players on the pitch?

We'll never know. The conditions for running rugby didn't look great though

For me Ford played the situation perfectly, things slowed down in attack and rather than stick to the "game plan" he trusted himself to get the points.
Backed his skill and delivered.
Would he have done the same with 15 on the park? Who knows, I would have hoped he is old enough and clever enough to of done the exact same thing.

I think the more interesting question is would he have done the same with Farrell on the pitch?

I've seen a few comments on Ford for that. In terms of game plan did anything change bar the end bit of try to take drop goal opportunities? That was apparently a coaching tactic bringing it back more, which I fully support it as a way to keep the score ticking when you run out of ideas. However the ideas are still kick the ball up in the air and hope we get lucky.

If we have Farrell, Ford or Smith we've seen the same from them all bsaically.

carpet baboon wrote:For me Ford played the situation perfectly, things slowed down in attack and rather than stick to the "game plan" he trusted himself to get the points.
Backed his skill and delivered.
Would he have done the same with 15 on the park? Who knows, I would have hoped he is old enough and clever enough to of done the exact same thing.

I think the more interesting question is would he have done the same with Farrell on the pitch?

Would Argentina have collapsed without that scoreboard pressure? Gut feeling is that if we had Farrell playing at 10 it would have been an 'improved performance' in a battling defeat with much 'pride in the boys performance' and focus on the upcoming games

I do get peed off with the talk of kicking vs running. It is obvious that because France (say) is a good 'running' team that opposition defenses push their players up leaving space for kicking to be more effective. Good running and kicking games go hand in hand. So far we only have the latter.

We don't have a good kicking game!

Includes post-match changing room clips

Borthwick might be starting to achieve his first principles in making his team difficult to beat with a 14 man defensive display against a pretty powerful team that can only be positively acknowledged.

Farrell Snr is now lauded as clever coach but a lot of the irish media were questioning or calling for him to be released in his first year, post Schmidt. Borthwick should be given time.

For the next game, Lawes and Earl should be rested and a back row of  Ludlum, Willis and Vunipola tested and get Arundel on as fullback. The half backs and centres should remain to build game time and the front five looks after itself.
It's only one game, but the England style suits knockout rugby and I think there are definitely positive signs.

Fitness was definitely up there their training hadn't been tapered for the warmups that is clear now. Speed of defence was the best bit and the general hunger in the team. The gloss of attack will come hopefully but the core principles were evident. They now need consistency and keep energy levels high.

I

dummy_half wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You think the game plan would have been different with 15 players on the pitch?

Would have been a BIT less conservative, but we certainly wouldn't have been playing like the BaaBaas.

While Ford took a lot of the plaudits, I thought Ben Earl had an absolutely storming game both doing what we need of an 8 in providing a primary carrier and tackler, and also in making up for the lack of a true 7 in his breakdown and turnover work.

Earl was very impressive as was Lawes. Whilst Itoje and George led the tackle stats it's worth noting Ludlam making 12 (11 by some stats) tackles in 7 minutes of the ball being in play and Stuart making 8 tackles off the bench. The defence was roundly impressive.

Earl had his best game for England by a distance though. I've been a big fan of his at Sarries and called for him before but some of his England apps have looked slightly headless chicken. Tons of energy and aggression but achieving little with it. Whereas on Saturday he was leading the line speed brilliantly, making dominant hits, attacking the breakdown smartly and carried well. On Prem performances I was more excited to see Pearson in warmups than Earl. The Sarries man clearly impressed the coaches more in the camps though and it looked like the right call in R1.

lostinwales wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:For me Ford played the situation perfectly, things slowed down in attack and rather than stick to the "game plan" he trusted himself to get the points.
Backed his skill and delivered.
Would he have done the same with 15 on the park? Who knows, I would have hoped he is old enough and clever enough to of done the exact same thing.

I think the more interesting question is would he have done the same with Farrell on the pitch?

Would Argentina have collapsed without that scoreboard pressure? Gut feeling is that if we had Farrell playing at 10 it would have been an 'improved performance' in a battling defeat with much 'pride in the boys performance' and focus on the upcoming games

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/clear-sighted-controlled-england-best-without-owen-farrell-pm6c5hs82

Small chance that Curry gets off scot free today then? Clear red card of course but Kriel hasn't been cited for his red card tackle so it could be that WR are simply.ignoring their laws to avoid a glut of reds at the tournament? And that's just from England.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Small chance that Curry gets off scot free today then? Clear red card of course but Kriel hasn't been cited for his red card tackle so it could be that WR are simply.ignoring their laws to avoid a glut of reds at the tournament? And that's just from England.

It seems more likely that they’re going to make an example of someone - I don’t think Curry gets off unless they can show that he was unsighted. But if the net result of four clear head contacts, all of which involved a level of foul play, is a ban and red card for one, two yellows and no sanction for the fourth then there is something seriously wrong with World Rugby’s commitment to player safety.

It's just odd given the pretty consistent approach up until the citing panel letting off Farrell.

One thing that impressed me about England was how committed they were to being the best at doing the things that don't take any skill, (as O'Connell once said) getting back on feet, chasing, getting back in the correct position. Etc

The other thing that impressed me was Marchants defence at 13 he always gets a lot of praise for his attack, but I thought he marshalled the backline brilliantly.

And despite Manus big hit i still question his defence at 12, a couple of times he was lucky the Argentinians had replaced there hands for dildos

Poorfour wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Small chance that Curry gets off scot free today then? Clear red card of course but Kriel hasn't been cited for his red card tackle so it could be that WR are simply.ignoring their laws to avoid a glut of reds at the tournament? And that's just from England.

It seems more likely that they’re going to make an example of someone - I don’t think Curry gets off unless they can show that he was unsighted. But if the net result of four clear head contacts, all of which involved a level of foul play, is a ban and red card for one, two yellows and no sanction for the fourth then there is something seriously wrong with World Rugby’s commitment to player safety.

If there is one thing we have all learnt, it's never, ever try and guess what a disciplinary panel will decide, it's like playing darts in the dark, you may think you know what you scored but when the lights come on you will always be surprised

I don’t suppose anyone has the video editing skills to make a TAS Analytics-style “Where is the consistency?” Video with suitably mournful music?

Poorfour wrote:I don’t suppose anyone has the video editing skills to make a TAS Analytics-style “Where is the consistency?” Video with suitably mournful music?

Ha yeah, still waiting for the TAS Analytics (Bok marketing team) to produce a video on the Jesse Kriel incident.

What will Borthwick do with Farrell when his ban ends? He is the captain after all. Be brave and leave Ford in control with Courtney as captain or revert to Ford, Farrell and Manu midfield? Us hoping he leaves Farrell on the bench sadly does not count for much. And of course it might mean leaving Smith out of the squad completely.

You have to stick with Ford, he is and has been for a long time England's best ten and its kind of obvious that he played even better when he isnt restricted by having Farrell in the team calling shots. When he was called on and England needed him he put in the best shift a ten has put in for England in 20 years. You have to reward that.

hugehandoff wrote:What will Borthwick do with Farrell when his ban ends? He is the captain after all. Be brave and leave Ford in control with Courtney as captain or revert to Ford, Farrell and Manu midfield? Us hoping he leaves Farrell on the bench sadly does not count for much. And of course it might mean leaving Smith out of the squad completely.

BBC ruby union podcast worth listening to about this. It's a real issue for Borthwick in making Farrell captain, this we knew it would before pre warm up games.

England looked good on Saturday so changing winning side be an issue. Monye who I usually do not rate says something sensible for a change in that Borthwick should make Lawes captain from now on. It won't happen but it would solve issue as Lawes always be in side and should be, Farrell maybe not so much.
Borthwick made a real rod for his back on this.

For Japan, Farrell still missing so it'll be Ford Manu 10 12 I'd think. For Chile maybe Smith gets 10 and I suspect Farrell 12. Samoa might be a tougher game so who gets picked then and for subsequent QF is the key.

It strikes me England won primarily because of commitment, togetherness and a clear game plan.
In addition Argentina could not handle the occasion and were terrible.

However I do think key selections at 9,10,12 were important as well

A 9 who was nippy around the park as opposed to ponderous (Youngs)
A 10 with genuine flair as opposed to one who plays to a formula, albeit efficiently (Farrell)
A real 12 as opposed to a 10 at 12 (Farrell)

England should be brave and stick with those in possession

I have long been an advocate of giving Ford a run at 10 with two specialist centres. Ford is the best England have when it comes to getting the best out of the guys outside him, and has the rare knack of being able to get the backs producing the occasional bit of magic even when the pack is misfiring (as demonstrated in some of his Tigers years). But, I fear that there is a little too much focus on the last game here...

I thought the same about giving Ford a run when he took control in the last 10 minutes against Wales (magnificently then as well). But he didn't really have the same impact the following two weeks against Ireland (which is kind of understandable because they are just plain better than us right now), and Fiji (which is a tad more concerning). So, let's see if this performance level can be sustained before deciding what to do with Farrell. On that basis, I'd probably have Farrell back - but on the bench. That gives Ford the chance to continue and keep it going, but also the option to bring Farrell on as a second playmaker or substitute 10 if it better suits the game on the day.

mountain man wrote:Anyone mentioned how bad Carley was reffing Wales Fiji?

Favoured Wales no end I thought, Wales gave away 4 pens in a row on own try line and just a warning, immediately after Wales counter attack and Fiji infringe in their 22 and yelllow straight away.

Plus no arms tackles etc.

Loads of back chat which isn't a good look neither was trying to influence ref to TMO check etc.

Good game but a mess from officials.

Carley was a disgrace - worse ref so far.
I hope he got a good red shirt for his bias

geoff999rugby wrote:It strikes me England won primarily because of commitment, togetherness and a clear game plan.
In addition Argentina could not handle the occasion and were terrible.

However I do think key selections at 9,10,12 were important as well

A 9 who was nippy around the park as opposed to ponderous (Youngs)
A 10 with genuine flair as opposed to one who plays to a formula, albeit efficiently (Farrell)
A real 12 as opposed to a 10 at 12 (Farrell)

England should be brave and stick with those in possession

Manu had his best ever stint at 7

geoff999rugby wrote:It strikes me England won primarily because of commitment, togetherness and a clear game plan.
In addition Argentina could not handle the occasion and were terrible.

However I do think key selections at 9,10,12 were important as well

A 9 who was nippy around the park as opposed to ponderous (Youngs)
A 10 with genuine flair as opposed to one who plays to a formula, albeit efficiently (Farrell)
A real 12 as opposed to a 10 at 12 (Farrell)

England should be brave and stick with those in possession

Totally agree with all this as well... Ford was great, but his kicking game would not have looked nearly so good if players hadn't been chasing and pressuring Argentina effectively, as well as competing really well at the rucks! All options at 10 will look better if the players are committed like that.

geoff999rugby wrote:
In addition Argentina could not handle the occasion and were terrible.

I'm a firm believer that teams only play to the extent that they can impose their gameplan on the opposition. If the opposition is able to disrupt the key aspects of a team's game, the opposition gets the upper hand. Do it to them more than they do it to you, you win the game. Do it to the extent that you close off all their options, you end up with a dominant performance.

England's tactics were specifically designed to disrupt Agentina's gameplan. The spearhead defence meant that they barely got to use their wingers. The breakdown approach meant that England had a jackaller in the ruck ahead of the clearout just often enough to make crucial turnovers. But it relied on a stunning level of effort - as evidenced by the last 5-10 minutes where England had emptied their tanks and Argentina started to play the way they can.

I feel that when we talk about "choking" or one team "wanting it more" it more often means "they stopped our game plan and we didn't have a plan B". There was a memorable review of the 2018 Eng v NZ match that pointed out that although England lost, they had shown that they could stop the All Blacks' plans A, B, C and D - something that proved to be true when they met again in the semi-final. No-one can credibly claim that the ABs didn't want to win that match as much as England, but they ran out of ways to win it.

The way England played, and Borthwick's comments afterwards, suggest that the gameplan on Satuday was specifically designed for Argentina, and there will be a slightly different plan for Japan. It'll be interesting to see if a) England have enough defensive gameplans to be able to counter the bigger beasts they're likely to meet in the knockout rounds and b) they have an attacking gameplan that will enable them to score against those teams - and can keep enough players on the field to do it.

carpet baboon wrote:One thing that impressed me about England was how committed they were to being the best at doing the things that don't take any skill, (as O'Connell once said) getting back on feet, chasing, getting back in the correct position. Etc

This is part of why the few of us wanting Borthwick to succeed Is. He'd get the basics right...and be brutal at them.

Very early days and this might have just been a one off....or it might be that suddenly the players are getting what he wants and doing it.

It's a wait and see really

IF its the latter...then post World Cup could be a very exciting rebuilding time for England, with some very talented players to be introduced.

Very early days and this might have just been a one off....or it might be that suddenly the players are getting what he wants and doing it

This is the crux of it. Ford of course was starting 10 against Fiji and England were awful so we can only hope that Saturday was not a one off and a win in a crucial RWC match will trigger something in team and coaches.

Argentina made so many errors that on another day if they'd been merely average it could have been different but of course we'll never know.

England need to score tries and well worked ones as well. The defence is there now and team will be confident but the attack needs to fire big time.

mountain man wrote:

Very early days and this might have just been a one off....or it might be that suddenly the players are getting what he wants and doing it

This is the crux of it. Ford of course was starting 10 against Fiji and England were awful .

I'm glad someone has said this. A number of pundits are claiming Ford shone because he no longer had Farrell barking at him. He's played a few times at ten for England when Farrell hasn't been on the pitch. This is the first time he's really lived up to his club reputation for game management. It helped that the forwards gave him a platform.

Don't forget Borthwick knows ford very well indeed from their tigers days.

That game fitted Ford's strengths. I do rate Ford, but worth saying that Alex Goode, who I do not rate as an international, had a fabulous game against Ireland in appalling conditions where his kicking game made a tremendous difference.

Kiwi supporter wondering whether England accidentally stumbled on a way to win the World Cup.

Rugby Fan wrote:

mountain man wrote:

Very early days and this might have just been a one off....or it might be that suddenly the players are getting what he wants and doing it

This is the crux of it. Ford of course was starting 10 against Fiji and England were awful .

I'm glad someone has said this. A number of pundits are claiming Ford shone because he no longer had Farrell barking at him. He's played a few times at ten for England when Farrell hasn't been on the pitch. This is the first time he's really lived up to his club reputation for game management. It helped that the forwards gave him a platform.

Not really, there was a friendly Vs Wales a few years ago where he led an understrength England to a dominant victory (albeit with an off day from the tee). He led England to back to back wins in Argentina. He's rarely had the chance at 10 without Farrell. When he has its mainly been in games during Lions tours or pre world cup friendlies.

It's not a one man job though. The defensive organisation was a massive improvement for England and whilst Argentina have been berated for a poor performance a lot of that was from England's defence. Phil Larder agrees with that view as well in Telegraph today. So many big ball carriers in that Puma side who made very little in terms of metres. An incredible 14 man effort. The team gave him a platform in defence, in attack there's a lot to do. Ford guiding them into position but his dropping into the pocket was an innovation to get around the fact that the England ball carriers weren't making the ground they needed to. Still there some breaks that England backs managed to butcher out wide.

Ford has definitely earned the right to make a go of playing as the team's flyhalf and with a midfield that actually offers something, with Manu not covering with the forwards we might well see a lot more space for Marchant and the outside backs.

It was the perfect game for a lot of players though. Didn't really have to do much thinking at all, nothing was expected due to 14 men in terms of attack; and nothing was delivered bar some excellent drop goals. Scrum was the real difference (reffed a little loosely at times), and Argentina really bottled the game. Pretty much a free run now until Samoa then, if we get through one of Aus, Fiji or Wales. I really didn't see too much difference in terms of management than normal, i.e. carry a couple of times then kick it away. The main difference was due the red the expectations were lower.

Do you think England barely noticed playing with 14 players because they are so used to it? Borthwick is a very detailed and thorough coach and I think his planning of playing with 12 against Wales was pure genius. 14 felt like a luxury. Someone else will need to take their turn getting sent off against Japan so just wondering who that might be?

Then come the final we play with 15 and rugby will be coming home for sure.

lostinwales wrote:That game fitted Ford's strengths. I do rate Ford, but worth saying that Alex Goode, who I do not rate as an international, had a fabulous game against Ireland in appalling conditions where his kicking game made a tremendous difference.

I think it's worth noting in Ford's defence there that England have won 3 Six Nations titles with him at 10. To name achievements from one tournament. For reference Sextion has 4 titles from 5 more years in international rugby. That's a slightly better body of work than one good game against Ireland in bad conditions.

Anyone suggesting Ford can't play attacking rugby really hasn't watched him play much.

As I said above...the next few games will be telling if Argentina was a one off....or suddenly the team is picking up their roles and the tactics.

But with Ford having a good game, Earl actually showing his Saracens standards, even the much maligned Itoje really showing up...etc etc...there is hope...

No 7&1/2 wrote:It was the perfect game for a lot of players though. Didn't really have to do much thinking at all, nothing was expected due to 14 men in terms of attack; and nothing was delivered bar some excellent drop goals. Scrum was the real difference (reffed a little loosely at times), and Argentina really bottled the game. Pretty much a free run now until Samoa then, if we get through one of Aus, Fiji or Wales. I really didn't see too much difference in terms of management than normal, i.e. carry a couple of times then kick it away. The main difference was due the red the expectations were lower.

The Guardian made the excellent point that Ford realised that the extra defensive effort required of the forwards in particular would be draining, and so opted for the most efficient approach to getting points on the board so as to minimise the drain on them in attack and save more for defence.

In many ways it is exactly the strategy that South Africa and Jannie de Beer used against England in 99 - knowing that they would have a hard time scoring points, they chose to take what was on offer as soon as they could and rely on defence and a low penalty count.

I think it's out of order to say "didn't really have to do much thinking at all" - a team that's a player down has to think a LOT harder in defence and make earlier and faster decisions. Preserving those resources was a smart move.

On a biased note nice to see a few falcons getitng some experience with the squad doing tackle bag duty.

Young Centre Ben Redshaw last week and Ben Stevenson this week.

The fitness looked incomparably better than it has since the last RWC. Ever since the covid interrupted years with the strict bubbles England have looked off in terms of conditioning. I think Sarries being in the Championship actually distracted from the bigger issue of how the very strict bubbles England had in camp for the Six Nations probably affected the squad. They couldn't get players out of camp to get game time for match sharpness regardless of what league their clubs were in. Then longer term the ringfencing and dropping of the cap in the Jeff of course led to a divebomb in standard there that has been well discussed recently.

England looked fitter than they have in years and were therefore winning collisions deeper into the game than they have in a long time. The line speed around the fringes was fantastic at times. It was noticeable from the very first defensive sets as well. They were pressuring one out runners more like they used to under Gustard, then Mitchell early in EJ's tenure.

147 tackles to Argentina's 82 but only 7 penalties conceded compared to 13 for the Pumas. England's starting pack made 75 tackles. That's with Curry being sent off so early.

Winning collisions makes everything else in rugby look easier. England haven't been doing it enough for a long while.

That doesn't mean all is rosy. There are still gigantic areas that need improvement. The butchered overlap with Marchant's pass behind Daly that was then exacerbated by shovelling s**t to May was reminiscent of the Lancaster days of squandering opportunities. That level of improved fitness and winning more collisions are gigantic steps forward though. That's in addition to the scrum and lineout (attack and defence) having improved under the new coaches from where both were.

Curry - 3 game ban reduced to 2 'if he undertakes the coaching intervention'

lostinwales wrote:Curry - 3 game ban reduced to 2 'if he undertakes the coaching intervention'

Yet no sanction for the other head knocks. Curry should feel a little aggrieved. Still onwards and upwards.

Geordie wrote:Anyone suggesting Ford can't play attacking rugby really hasn't watched him play much.

As I said above...the next few games will be telling if Argentina was a one off....or suddenly the team is picking up their roles and the tactics.

But with Ford having a good game, Earl actually showing his Saracens standards,  even the much maligned Itoje really showing up...etc etc...there is hope...

Has anyone suggested Ford can't play attacking rugby? Not seen that here.

A few have suggest the game suited him...a defensive game with little attack....

Yoda wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Curry - 3 game ban reduced to 2 'if he undertakes the coaching intervention'

Yet no sanction for the other head knocks. Curry should feel a little aggrieved. Still onwards and upwards.

Had Farrell done the Finn Russell no arms tackle he would have been looking at a card.  Had Manu done the Jessie Kreil headbut, I think the only question would be how many game ban he got - the TMO would have made sure that the ref reviewed it and let him know that there was no mitigation.  I don't have a problem with Curry's head clash being deemed a red, as long as other nations are reffed to the same level of scrutiny that England players are.  The game is making itself look stupid with its inconsistency of treatment.  I know this won't bother fans of other countries as long as their team is getting away with it and it is England on the receiving end of these decisions.  Sooner or later though, it is going to bite one of the other teams - god help rugby if it is one of the French players in the semis or final.