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.

George Kruis is in camp this week. Presumably as a lineout coach again. God I wish he hadn't retired so early. Still only 33 and he'd slot into the current squad brilliantly as a tighthead lock and lineout leader to partner Itoje, mentor the younger locks.

I actually think Itoje and Chessum complement each other very similarly and could rapidly become a fantastic partnership. A B&I Lion that rarely had a bad game and locked down the set-piece never goes amiss though.

It felt written in the stars for him to sign as an injury joker late last season and break into the summer camps. Wishful thinking on my part.

It's not "there all out to get England" it's just a shambles. And at some point it will be other fans complaining it's a conspiracy

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

I said the game suited him because when he's in the grove his tactical kicking is an art. He was able to dictate how the game was played.

king_carlos wrote: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.

I wasn't gainsaying Ford's record. Quite the opposite. Any pundit claiming Ford could only shine becaus Farrell was absent, ignores all the times he played well, and won titles, with Farrell outside him. It also ignores the times he couldn't work his magic when Farreĺl wasn't there, most recently against Fiji.

That certainly doesn't mean Ford needs Farrell. Just that the idea Farrrell shackles him is overplayed. It's quite possible to think Farrell shouldn't start for reasons other than the idea he cramps Ford's style.

It's a variation on the pundit claim that England hasn't had a settled centre partnership since Tindall and Greenwood. Farrell and Jonathan Joseph were the pairing for most of England's record winning streak.

[quote="carpet baboon"]It's not "there all out to get England" it's just a shambles. And at some point it will be other fans complaining it's a conspiracy [

Things may calm down and perhaps England are due some luck with some decisions. Kriel, carreras and the Chilean lad should feel very relieved and lucky not to have been banned and not to have done much damage. The only really contentious decisions are the Freddie steward and curry reds as the others were worthy of a ban. I won't be losing sleep over it as I thought the ref was actually good and I should publicly go on record that I was wrong about him having previously said he was a poor referee. Please God can we have games where we talk about the wonderful skills on display rather than inconsistent refereeing.

Referees are always going to be the talking point.

Personally I don’t think you chase a kick and stand upright. It would’ve been easier for him to have bent over a fair bit more and clattered him early.

The citing process really does rely too heavily on what is picked up at the time be commentary, footage and crowd reaction. Perhaps the reduction in replays (surely that's the case as it does seem odd) has impacted less being picked up too?

What should our best back row look like and how does the suspension of Curry and the return of Billy alter things? I like continuity and in a perfect world we would see Lawes, Earl and Curry bed in together for a couple of games. But Curry is out for 2 games. Do we just replace him with Billy and get Billy back up to speed? I have not rated Billy for some time so I think for now I would prefer Ludlam/Willis to replace Curry.

Earl Lawes and Ludlum fine by me in back row until Curry back.

No doubt Billy be back but maybe to just rest one or two in easier games. Unless he can do a Manu and turn back the years.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The citing process really does rely too heavily on what is picked up at the time be commentary, footage and crowd reaction. Perhaps the reduction in replays (surely that's the case as it does seem odd) has impacted less being picked up too?

That was issue when refs gave reds but bunker system should defuse it a bit. As for citing, not sure how crowd influences that process. You'd hope(!) they'd be impartial to any external influence anyway.

mountain man wrote:Earl Lawes and Ludlum fine by me in back row until Curry back.

No doubt Billy be back but maybe to just rest one or two in easier games. Unless he can do a Manu and turn back the years.

We have seen quite an upturn in performance from a few players last weekend. Aled Walters clearly saying that this is a lot to do with the S&C and the fact that he has been aiming to get the boys in shape for the RWC rather than the warm ups - tapering and recovery etc. Maybe Billy on the bench and see what Ludlam offers from the start and then see Billy for the last 20?

mountain man wrote:Earl Lawes and Ludlum fine by me in back row until Curry back.

No doubt Billy be back but maybe to just rest one or two in easier games. Unless he can do a Manu and turn back the years.

The issue with Vunipola is, if you plan on using him, then you need to play him, as he only seems to get up to speed with a run of games.

mountain man wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:The citing process really does rely too heavily on what is picked up at the time be commentary, footage and crowd reaction. Perhaps the reduction in replays (surely that's the case as it does seem odd) has impacted less being picked up too?

That was issue when refs gave reds but bunker system should defuse it a bit. As for citing, not sure how crowd influences that process. You'd hope(!) they'd be impartial to any external influence anyway.

Basically my thinking is that crowd reaction, big talks on commentary etc bring attention, newspaper columns, social media focus.

mountain man wrote:Earl Lawes and Ludlum fine by me in back row until Curry back.

No doubt Billy be back but maybe to just rest one or two in easier games. Unless he can do a Manu and turn back the years.

England have finally confirmed what I suspected from the warm ups: Aled Walters was still working them ultra-hard, which explains the heavy legs: Grauniad on "Smart Aled"

That being the case, I'd expect to see Billy bringing a different level of energy once he's available, and I think it would benefit England to play him and get the back row combinations working together. If he is back to full fitness, it would be a serious boost and gives Borthwick some interesting problems if he has all of Curry, Lawes, Billy, Earl and Ludlam available at once.

I've not been a fan of Earl or Billy in their pre-tournament form, but Earl was excellent on Saturday and if Billy is actually properly fit, Lawes, Earl and Billy would be my pick. Curry might be better off the bench once he's available, until he's settled back in properly.

Hard to tell as he was on for less than 3 mins of course but I'm not sure Curry missed anyway. For me like several others Curry not been player he was 2-3 years ago. Ludlum has been consistently very good so I dont think England losing anything with Curry not there.
Great of course to have more options when he's available but back row is at least one area where England do have strength.

Billy was injured for much of the warm up period, so I am not sure where he is in comparison to the others.

I just hope there are good reasons for not bringing Mercer or Dombrandt. (maybe lack of experience/ not cutting it respectively). I think the game has moved on and Billy has gone backwards at the same time, but I do look forward to him proving me wrong.

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.

Never a truer word spoken.

I see someone has disliked my comment about Curry. That's fine, all opinions equally valid but why not reply with reasons rather than an anonymous response.

Old Man wrote: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.

Never a truer word spoken.

Very good quote. Who did that come from bilt?

I think it was bsando

No Pourfour

I'd agree with others that Billy is worth looking at in the next two rounds. We've seen Earl impress at 8 in the warmups and now R1. With Turry injured I think it makes sense to see a completely different tactical option in Billy. If he's as poor as he's been recently then he'll disappear for the later stages of the tournament. If the immensely improved conditioning the squad showed for the Argentina game can help get him anywhere closer to his best then he offers a focal point carrying though.

I'd guess we'll see something like below for Japan. Minimal changes bar Turry out and Billy in. Give them a chance to keep building some cohesion.

1.Genge 2.George 3.Stuart 4.Itoje 5.Chessum 6.Lawes 7.Earl 8.Vunipola
9.Mitchell 10.Ford 11.May 12.Tuilagi 13.Marchant 14.Daly 15.Steward

16.Dan 17.Marler 18.Sinckler 19.Martin 20.Ludlam 21.Care 22.Smith 23.Lawrence

I have a feeling that Cole was simply a tactical matchup against the shorter but technically strong Thomas Gallo at LH. With Inagaki and Millar not representing that sort of challenge I suspect they'll go back to Stuart and Sinckler, if the latter is fit of course.

If Arundell is fit then he might come into the 23 shirt.

Against Chile I expect Farrell to return at 12 and several of the locked on starters such as George, Itoje, Lawes, Tuilagi and Daly to rotate out. With the group stages being over 5 weeks rather than 4 this time there are no midweek games so they could feasibly just build partnerships if they wanted.

I know we have differing opinions on Stuart KC, but with our current TH stables I would be happy if he proved me wrong.

I think that back row could be very good and very eell balanced. Earl is showing his Saracens levels now and Lawes was top class v Argentina.

The big question would be Billy. Can he wind back the years for a final hit at the world Cup...

I'd start Sinckler. Stuart has been disappointing so far which is a shame as he looked decent in the 6N.

Poorfour wrote:

mountain man wrote:Earl Lawes and Ludlum fine by me in back row until Curry back.

No doubt Billy be back but maybe to just rest one or two in easier games. Unless he can do a Manu and turn back the years.

England have finally confirmed what I suspected from the warm ups: Aled Walters was still working them ultra-hard, which explains the heavy legs: Grauniad on "Smart Aled"

That being the case, I'd expect to see Billy bringing a different level of energy once he's available, and I think it would benefit England to play him and get the back row combinations working together. If he is back to full fitness, it would be a serious boost and gives Borthwick some interesting problems if he has all of Curry, Lawes, Billy, Earl and Ludlam available at once.

I've not been a fan of Earl or Billy in their pre-tournament form, but Earl was excellent on Saturday and if Billy is actually properly fit, Lawes, Earl and Billy would be my pick. Curry might be better off the bench once he's available, until he's settled back in properly.

I saw the same thing somewhere and I am not convinced.  In my work with professional athletes and sport teams I have never seen a coaching staff knowingly put out a team not in shape to play, even in pre-season matches. The so-called 'heavy legs' is a risk, most especially against teams which do not have 'heavy legs'.  Granted I am probably missing a lot of nuance here, but taken at face value it seems weird to me.  Also, does it really seem right to you that like magic the England team which has looked slow, almost lethargic, for the last four years suddenly looks like they found a tiny bit of the fountain of youth?

They always play better when under pressure, especially a man down and tbh Argentina played the perfect game for them, keeping it tight without invention and giving away silly pens.

It'll be interesting to see how England look in the rest of the pool games, are they now suddenly fitter and able to play the full 80 or was this more of a one off?

formerly known as Sam wrote:I'd start Sinckler. Stuart has been disappointing so far which is a shame as he looked decent in the 6N.

Only issue is Sinckler been awful. Miles off player he once was.

Stuart has the odd good game then several bad. Whether it's technique or not as he's such a big strong bloke but he regularly gets pinged in scrum.

doctor_grey wrote:
I saw the same thing somewhere and I am not convinced.  In my work with professional athletes and sport teams I have never seen a coaching staff knowingly put out a team not in shape to play, even in pre-season matches.   The so-called 'heavy legs' is a risk, most especially against teams which do not have 'heavy legs'.  Granted I am probably missing a lot of nuance here, but taken at face value it seems weird to me.  Also, does it really seem right to you that like magic the England team which has looked slow, almost lethargic, for the last four years suddenly looks like they found a tiny bit of the fountain of youth?

It's not that they weren't "in shape". It's that they had delayed the recovery period they needed to reach proper fitness as late as possible. I'm sure I'm not telling you anything new when I say that to build muscle you first have to break it down, and to get the benefits you have to allow a recovery period. It's also not new news that it's hard for a pro athlete to maintain peak performance, so they have to make choices about when they aim to peak. It's routine to hear sprinters, for instance, talking about their performance in an early season event in terms of the main event they are aiming to peak for.

Rugby fitness coaches talk about pre-season as being the time they can build strength and fitness, and that once you're into competitive games the best you can do is try to maintain it. And before that, there's a transitional period where muscles have to be allowed to recover.

Borthwick and Walters clearly wanted to achieve a bigger improvement in their squad's fitness than most of the other coaches, because their view was that England were unfit in the 6N. Everything I've seen suggests they gambled on keeping a pre-season workload through most of the warm up games, and accepting the poor performances, in return for a bigger fitness gain when they did eventually taper.

Walters said that England effectively played a full match on the Tuesday before the Ireland game, which seems to have been a deliberate approach to stress their systems and get some fitness benefit from it. Unless you think he's lying about that, of course, but I can't see why he would.

Walters has form for tapering late. It seems pretty clear in hindsight that the 2019 Boks didn't fully taper and recover until after their NZ game, taking a small gamble that they could make the knock-out rounds and that then the additional fitness would pay off.

England clearly didn't want to risk the game against Argentina, and it seems that that was the right choice.

I thought Sinckler had a good Six Nations. He's declined from that peak between the 2017 Lions and 2019 RWC but few props ever maintain those sort of peaks. How many props have put together that level of carrying, defensive work rate and set-piece strength for a prolonged period? In the current game Kitshoff and Furlong are the obvious two. I'd add Cyril Baille who I think is underrated. Antonio is probably at that sort of level over a prolonged period now? Andrew Porter certainly has the talent to do so. Taniela Tupou could do as well but hasn't had quite the consistency Sinckler did in that period.

I'd add that I don't mean that those are the only props as good as Sinckler from that period. I simply mean props that combined carrying, defensive work and set-piece all at such a high standard simultaneously. Malherbe for instance isn't as strong as peak Sinckler was defensive or in attack but his scrummaging is brilliant, makes him one of the best in the world on it's own. Pierre Schoeman is in that discussion too now in that his scrummaging is outstanding, carrying reliable and defence solid. The Georgia pair of Gigashvili and Gogichasvili are both excellent. Danillo Fischetti is quietly becoming a world class LH. Plenty of a terrific props around but very few ever offer the array of skills that Sinckler briefly did for those 3 years.

If Sincks can be good at set-piece, make a ton of tackles a game for a prop and not go backwards carrying off 9 into a set-defence (which realistically is the carrying job most props are relied on for) as he did in the Six Nations is that a terrible thing? It's frustrating compared to his peak but still a pretty darn good package to get from an international TH. That basically describes exactly what Marco Riccioni can do and that's made him a hot prospect for Italy who was rumoured to be a target for several of the leading Top 14 clubs when he signed a recent extension with Sarries. If Sinckler can maintain that level from the Six Nations and rediscovering his handling skills around contact then we'd have a very good TH again. I've said it many times but if an unknown TH came into the squad playing at Sinks standard in the Six Nations then we'd all be delighted.

Poorfour wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:
I saw the same thing somewhere and I am not convinced.  In my work with professional athletes and sport teams I have never seen a coaching staff knowingly put out a team not in shape to play, even in pre-season matches.   The so-called 'heavy legs' is a risk, most especially against teams which do not have 'heavy legs'.  Granted I am probably missing a lot of nuance here, but taken at face value it seems weird to me.  Also, does it really seem right to you that like magic the England team which has looked slow, almost lethargic, for the last four years suddenly looks like they found a tiny bit of the fountain of youth?

It's not that they weren't "in shape". It's that they had delayed the recovery period they needed to reach proper fitness as late as possible. I'm sure I'm not telling you anything new when I say that to build muscle you first have to break it down, and to get the benefits you have to allow a recovery period. It's also not new news that it's hard for a pro athlete to maintain peak performance, so they have to make choices about when they aim to peak. It's routine to hear sprinters, for instance, talking about their performance in an early season event in terms of the main event they are aiming to peak for.

Rugby fitness coaches talk about pre-season as being the time they can build strength and fitness, and that once you're into competitive games the best you can do is try to maintain it. And before that, there's a transitional period where muscles have to be allowed to recover.

Borthwick and Walters clearly wanted to achieve a bigger improvement in their squad's fitness than most of the other coaches, because their view was that England were unfit in the 6N. Everything I've seen suggests they gambled on keeping a pre-season workload through most of the warm up games, and accepting the poor performances, in return for a bigger fitness gain when they did eventually taper.

Walters said that England effectively played a full match on the Tuesday before the Ireland game, which seems to have been a deliberate approach to stress their systems and get some fitness benefit from it. Unless you think he's lying about that, of course, but I can't see why he would.

Walters has form for tapering late. It seems pretty clear in hindsight that the 2019 Boks didn't fully taper and recover until after their NZ game, taking a small gamble that they could make the knock-out rounds and that then the additional fitness would pay off.

England clearly didn't want to risk the game against Argentina, and it seems that that was the right choice.

Another good post, Poorfour.

It's curious how long it's taken for periodisation to come into some team sports. I guess the very long seasons for some sports just make peaks difficult outside of something like a RWC.

I was a low level rower at Uni and even we had a huge focus on periodisation, tapering to two peaks a year for the big races and regattas.

Doc, on the team often looking off the pace of international for 4 years. They did win the 2020 Six Nations and ANC despite playing much more poorly than the RWC. Then came the covid interrupted Six Nations where England had very strict bubbles that wouldn't allow squad players out for game time and coincided with Sarries being in the Championship. Then the came ringfencing and reduced salary cap which is widely viewed to have led to a divebomb in standard of many Premiership games, hence a worsening of it's ability to prepare players for international rugby.

So I do think it makes some sense in context that the prolonged RWC camps, being able to remove the players from the Premierships currently questionable standards and get the best talents into a longer training block than they ever do outside of this tournament would see a huge improvement. I'll be really interested to see how players such as Pearson and Tom Willis who were in camp right up until the squad was selected go in the Premierships early rounds.

I thought Sinckler had a good Six Nations.

Really? I thought he was poor to be honest. Looked disinterested, didn't impose himself in scrum and his previous strength of making good metres in carry had gone.

I think he's been a reallly good player for England but he's a way off his best.

Again, other opinions available as always.

I get the coaching team is trying to get the team to proper and peak tournament/season readiness. And typically the tapering is very different for a singular event such as track and field events compared to season long sport. I just don't think the speed, agility, quickness we saw last weekend is explained by optimising training, compared to the last four games (or the last four years). What I saw, or thought I saw, seemed to be speed of thought and urgency.

mountain man wrote:

I thought Sinckler had a good Six Nations.

Really? I thought he was poor to be honest. Looked disinterested, didn't impose himself in scrum and his previous strength of making good metres in carry had gone.

I think he's been a reallly good player for England but he's a way off his best.

Again, other opinions available as always.

England's scrum was good in the Six Nations. By not imposing himself I guess you might mean not dominating all LHs before him but Malherbe is about the only TH in the game who does that now. Especially against the head.

As for looking disinterested. I stray away from that amateur psychology side of discussion that many engage in. I just think it's nonsense. I couldn't care less what facial expression someone wears whilst playing international rugby. It just makes me laugh when pundits and fans try to take anything from things like that. Jerry Collins used to run around smirking or giggling and he was terrifying. McCaw used to wear a facial expression like he'd witnessed every war in the last century and he was one of the best ever. It's the sort of thing often mentioned but I just think that stuff is utter guff used to fill column inches for lazy writers and disguise dead air for s***e pundits.

What are the feelings ahead of the team then? Japan should cause a lot more problems to us to I'm intrigued at the makeup of the midfield more than anything. I think we may get 2 or 3 tries ourselves though this game! Vunipola for me is bound to come straight back in.

Japan aren't the force they were...or the team they should have become. BUT England shouldnt be walking in to this game thinking anything other than full commitment.

Continue to build on the Argentina game. Continue the impressive defence, the other good aspects and then look to now show a bit of attacking play...

Also continue to see players coming back into form..ie Itoje, Earls showing his Saracens form.

Can Sinckler, Billy V etc...find their top form.

What I mean by disinterested is lack of agression and effort being put in. Who said anything about facial expression?

Not getting up off ground quickly and running back into position, strolling around and not looking for work.

mountain man wrote:What I mean by disinterested is lack of agression and effort being put in. Who said anything about facial expression?

Not getting up off ground quickly and running back into position, strolling around and not looking for work.

Ive said this many a time about Sinckler. Ive often thought this goes back to the aggression issues he had early in his years...at quins. Its something that they very publicly worked on calming him down. I often wonder if they took a bit of his mojo away when they did that.

Going through the Six Nations stats, Sinckler made the most tackles of any prop on either side in 4 out of 5 games. Scotland being the only one where he didn't. Scotland made nearly twice as many tackles as a team compared to England in that game though. Sinckler still made more tackles than Dombrandt and 1 less than Ludlam in that odd game. I'm not sure you do that by not getting off the ground and back into position quickly or not looking for work.

Sinckler has always looked casual on the pitch. When he was brilliant no one commented on it. Now he's below brilliant but still pretty good the problem is suddenly something he did when he was world class. I find it amusing.

You also seem unable to admit he is a long way below his best which he undoubtedly is. I wish he was back in top form but he isn't and unfortunately the same applies to quite a few of the England squad. hence woes of recent and not so recent times.

And no it's not just the coaching although that is part of it.

king_carlos wrote:I thought Sinckler had a good Six Nations. He's declined from that peak between the 2017 Lions and 2019 RWC but few props ever maintain those sort of peaks. How many props have put together that level of carrying, defensive work rate and set-piece strength for a prolonged period? In the current game Kitshoff and Furlong are the obvious two. I'd add Cyril Baille who I think is underrated. Antonio is probably at that sort of level over a prolonged period now? Andrew Porter certainly has the talent to do so. Taniela Tupou could do as well but hasn't had quite the consistency Sinckler did in that period.

I'd add that I don't mean that those are the only props as good as Sinckler from that period. I simply mean props that combined carrying, defensive work and set-piece all at such a high standard simultaneously. Malherbe for instance isn't as strong as peak Sinckler was defensive or in attack but his scrummaging is brilliant, makes him one of the best in the world on it's own. Pierre Schoeman is in that discussion too now in that his scrummaging is outstanding, carrying reliable and defence solid. The Georgia pair of Gigashvili and Gogichasvili are both excellent. Danillo Fischetti is quietly becoming a world class LH. Plenty of a terrific props around but very few ever offer the array of skills that Sinckler briefly did for those 3 years.

If Sincks can be good at set-piece, make a ton of tackles a game for a prop and not go backwards carrying off 9 into a set-defence (which realistically is the carrying job most props are relied on for) as he did in the Six Nations is that a terrible thing? It's frustrating compared to his peak but still a pretty darn good package to get from an international TH. That basically describes exactly what Marco Riccioni can do and that's made him a hot prospect for Italy who was rumoured to be a target for several of the leading Top 14 clubs when he signed a recent extension with Sarries. If Sinckler can maintain that level from the Six Nations and rediscovering his handling skills around contact then we'd have a very good TH again. I've said it many times but if an unknown TH came into the squad playing at Sinks standard in the Six Nations then we'd all be delighted.

Nowhere have I remotely suggested he's at his peak. Much the opposite. Merely putting those performances in perspective that I don't believe he's been terrible and still merits selection. Solid set-piece and usually double digit tackle stats is a more than decent package for a TH regardless of his carrying being way below where it was.

I also feel that the decline of England's once 'primary carriers' has had a knock on impact on the 'secondary carriers'. At their peak we had Billy and Manu especially but also Mako at points who could get over the gain line from slow ball. Which meant that all the second phase carriers in Genge, Sinckler, George/LCD, Itoje, Lawes and Curry were building on momentum not trying to create momentum. Without having as many individuals who could turn slow ball into quick ball we've subsequently been forced to use players such as Sinckler and Genge for the job. Which they naturally then have less impact doing.

The counterargument to that might be that they should be 'primary carriers' capable of consistently getting over the gain line from slow ball. But once again it's a tiny list of props who do that. Kitshoff and Antonio probably from those that are strong in set-piece. Maybe Tupou if looking at someone less consistent on set-piece. If we're really stretching then maybe a few impact sub type players such as Falatea and Revai. Ben Tamiefuna for a time, I adore watching big Ben play but not sure he's really doing that anymore. There's not a lot of them though. The nuts and bolts of propping takes so much out of most players. Hence those 'primary carrier' that turn slow ball to quick against best defences predominantly being number 8s, freakish centres, a few flankers and fewer second rows.

doctor_grey wrote:I get the coaching team is trying to get the team to proper and peak tournament/season readiness.  And typically the tapering is very different for a singular event such as track and field events compared to season long sport.  I just don't think the speed, agility, quickness we saw last weekend is explained by optimising training, compared to the last four games (or the last four years).  What I saw, or thought I saw, seemed to be speed of thought and urgency.  

The RWC is funny in that regard, because it's the one time in the whole 4 year cycle that coaches get to prepare their players to peak over a short period.

With hindsight, the Boks in 2019 clearly targeted their peak somewhere within the tournament itself - I would be willing to guess that they were prepared to sacrifice the NZ game knowing that their remaining pool games were against Namibia, Italy and Canada and may only have fully peaked for the QFs. They were certainly the fittest team over the last 3 games... whereas England had to be ready for Argentina, France (even though it wasn't played in the end), Australia, NZ and the Boks.

No team has won the trophy by beating more than 4 Tier 1 teams in a row. Australia did it once (in 1991), albeit the first of those was a fairly weak Wales. Most teams have only had to play 3 top class games in a row for the QFs, SF and Final. South Africa, oddly, have won each of their titles when their QF opponent was a tier 2 team - Samoa in 95, Fiji in 07 and Japan in 19.

I would say speed of thought and urgency in the game is harder to change than physical condition - and is very hard to do if the physical conditioning isn't there. The telling moments for me were the last 5 minutes where England were clearly out on their feet and for the first time in the match Argentina were able to play their own game. The mental sharpness fell off - but it was preceded by running out of gas in the the more physical sense.

king_carlos wrote:Going through the Six Nations stats, Sinckler made the most tackles of any prop on either side in 4 out of 5 games. Scotland being the only one where he didn't. Scotland made nearly twice as many tackles as a team compared to England in that game though. Sinckler still made more tackles than Dombrandt and 1 less than Ludlam in that odd game. I'm not sure you do that by not getting off the ground and back into position quickly or not looking for work.

Sinckler has always looked casual on the pitch. When he was brilliant no one commented on it. Now he's below brilliant but still pretty good the problem is suddenly something he did when he was world class. I find it amusing.

Its a long time since ive given Sinckler much praise KC. Some of that might have been unfair, but hes a very different player to the one who came through at the start. His aggression etc.

Poorfour wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:I get the coaching team is trying to get the team to proper and peak tournament/season readiness.  And typically the tapering is very different for a singular event such as track and field events compared to season long sport.  I just don't think the speed, agility, quickness we saw last weekend is explained by optimising training, compared to the last four games (or the last four years).  What I saw, or thought I saw, seemed to be speed of thought and urgency.  

The RWC is funny in that regard, because it's the one time in the whole 4 year cycle that coaches get to prepare their players to peak over a short period.

With hindsight, the Boks in 2019 clearly targeted their peak somewhere within the tournament itself - I would be willing to guess that they were prepared to sacrifice the NZ game knowing that their remaining pool games were against Namibia, Italy and Canada and may only have fully peaked for the QFs. They were certainly the fittest team over the last 3 games... whereas England had to be ready for Argentina, France (even though it wasn't played in the end), Australia, NZ and the Boks.

No team has won the trophy by beating more than 4 Tier 1 teams in a row. Australia did it once (in 1991), albeit the first of those was a fairly weak Wales. Most teams have only had to play 3 top class games in a row for the QFs, SF and Final. South Africa, oddly, have won each of their titles when their QF opponent was a tier 2 team - Samoa in 95, Fiji in 07 and Japan in 19.

I would say speed of thought and urgency in the game is harder to change than physical condition - and is very hard to do if the physical conditioning isn't there. The telling moments for me were the last 5 minutes where England were clearly out on their feet and for the first time in the match Argentina were able to play their own game. The mental sharpness fell off - but it was preceded by running out of gas in the the more physical sense.

Thats a hugely important part.

Telegraph thinks Borthwick will keep the same backline for Japan. Sinckler & Vunipola expected to be in the match day squad.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2023/09/14/england-japan-team-news-kyle-sinckler-billy-vunipola-play/

Geordie wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Going through the Six Nations stats, Sinckler made the most tackles of any prop on either side in 4 out of 5 games. Scotland being the only one where he didn't. Scotland made nearly twice as many tackles as a team compared to England in that game though. Sinckler still made more tackles than Dombrandt and 1 less than Ludlam in that odd game. I'm not sure you do that by not getting off the ground and back into position quickly or not looking for work.

Sinckler has always looked casual on the pitch. When he was brilliant no one commented on it. Now he's below brilliant but still pretty good the problem is suddenly something he did when he was world class. I find it amusing.

Its a long time since ive given Sinckler much praise KC. Some of that might have been unfair, but hes a very different player to the one who came through at the start. His aggression etc.

Most props become very different players over their career. Sinckler apparently has a back issue that isn't going away. That may well be why he's far less dynamic in the carry now. England had 96% retention on their own scrum ball in the Six Nations and Sinckler averaged over 10 tackles per game. That's still pretty darn good, if a new TH came in and achieved that we'd be delighted. It's not what Sinckler was when carrying more prominently but I don't think being below the level of those peak three years means he's a bad player. As I've argued several times. Especially when I've felt he's actually played well in poor team performances but has taken a lot of flack anyway because he's become a common target.

Cian Healy is a great example of another prop that changed drastically over his career. He was dynamite as a carrier for a prop at his peak. At a time when very few props were dynamic carriers Healy could be devastating. Since the near career ending neck injury he has changed completely as a player and carries far less now but has still been of huge value to Ireland since that injury in 2015. A full two RWC cycles since nearly retiring! His scrummaging has got more and more solid, he's even started covering TH and hooker since the laws tightening around uncontested scrums and he found a place in the Farrell's system that he fits perfectly. He's a big loss for Ireland despite being 35-years-old and comparatively far less influential than at his peak.

Geordie wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:I get the coaching team is trying to get the team to proper and peak tournament/season readiness.  And typically the tapering is very different for a singular event such as track and field events compared to season long sport.  I just don't think the speed, agility, quickness we saw last weekend is explained by optimising training, compared to the last four games (or the last four years).  What I saw, or thought I saw, seemed to be speed of thought and urgency.  

The RWC is funny in that regard, because it's the one time in the whole 4 year cycle that coaches get to prepare their players to peak over a short period.

With hindsight, the Boks in 2019 clearly targeted their peak somewhere within the tournament itself - I would be willing to guess that they were prepared to sacrifice the NZ game knowing that their remaining pool games were against Namibia, Italy and Canada and may only have fully peaked for the QFs. They were certainly the fittest team over the last 3 games... whereas England had to be ready for Argentina, France (even though it wasn't played in the end), Australia, NZ and the Boks.

No team has won the trophy by beating more than 4 Tier 1 teams in a row. Australia did it once (in 1991), albeit the first of those was a fairly weak Wales. Most teams have only had to play 3 top class games in a row for the QFs, SF and Final. South Africa, oddly, have won each of their titles when their QF opponent was a tier 2 team - Samoa in 95, Fiji in 07 and Japan in 19.

I would say speed of thought and urgency in the game is harder to change than physical condition - and is very hard to do if the physical conditioning isn't there. The telling moments for me were the last 5 minutes where England were clearly out on their feet and for the first time in the match Argentina were able to play their own game. The mental sharpness fell off - but it was preceded by running out of gas in the the more physical sense.

Thats a hugely important part.

It was also garbage time in a game that was over. Not beating the dead horse (well, not beating it too much), but it is unusual to see kind of transition in a short period of time. The training may be part of it, but I think the major difference was the players realised Ford was going to keep taking the points and grew into the game. And played it the only way which could lead to a win, with speed and an urgency we have not seen in a very long time.

It will be interesting to see what happens over the next few weeks with two tier two teams and Chile. That win was so important in that it makes the rest of the pool matches almost an extended, albeit intense, training. Which this team obviously needs.

Rugby Fan wrote:Telegraph thinks Borthwick will keep the same backline for Japan. Sinckler & Vunipola expected to be in the match day squad.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2023/09/14/england-japan-team-news-kyle-sinckler-billy-vunipola-play/

Interesting that Ludlam is in line to start after that impressive bench impact. I'm becoming a bigger and bigger fan of him. Huge work rate, good leg drive after contact in the carry and he smashes blokes in the tackle.

1.Genge 2.George 3.Sinckler 4.Itoje 5.Chessum 6.Lawes 7.Ludlam 8.Earl
9.Mitchell 10.Ford 11.May 12.Tuilagi 13.Marchant 14.Daly 15.Steward

16.Dan 17.Marler 18.Stuart 19.Martin 20.Billy 21.Care 22.Smith 23.Lawrence

Probably something like that then if the backline's unchanged but Ludlam due to start. Schofield not being drawn either way on whether Sinckler will start but others reporting he's first choice at TH.

Personally, I'd start Billy to see where he's at in terms of conditioning but I can't bemoan any of that back row starting after their respective performances against Argentina.

Ludlum for me has been the most consistent presence in the team for a couple of years. Brings a physical edge to the team. Shame the teams been underperforming for the last few years. I would pick him over Willis as he's a better carrier and I think Willis is very good and curry who hasn't hit 2019 form. I also think he should be our no8 going beyond the world cup unless Courtney Hangs the boots up with earl at 7.

mountain man wrote:What I mean by disinterested is lack of agression and effort being put in. Who said anything about facial expression?

Not getting up off ground quickly and running back into position, strolling around and not looking for work.

What you're thinking about is the very specific tactics Quins and EJ used with him, where he came in repeatedly as first reciever for those teams and made play maker decisions, whether to pass or carry the ball in himself, this also let him make a lot more breaks and show his running skills. During '18'-19 he got to play like this and so was far more prominent.

Post RWC that style of tactic was dropped for whatever reason, and he left Quins, and now he does far more of the classic prop work instead.

That performance by Uruguay out to help focus minds in the England camp. Japan looked out of sorts in recent matches but so did Engand. Japan could easily pull it together, and pose a threat.