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.

mountain man wrote:Thought it was 8 pens against Arg but anyway still excellent in adversity.

The high tackle issue is a problem, and for all teams. Games played at such a pace that incidents will happen and shoulders to heads will continue unless everyone only tackles below waist. Trying to stop off loads in tackles and making dominant hits is where problem lies.

I'd be amazed if no more reds this weekend.

As for RFU keeping Borthwick should England win RWC, I really don't even think that's a question they'll need to answer.

Agree about the reds.  The faster, or rather quicker, players become, the harder it is to react to avoid head contact.  That is why I think the instructions to the referees, TMOs, Bunker boys, should be to look at body position first and if a player was always in poor position or not.  Then get to whether or not the contact is more of a bad accident, a rugby play, or something more.  That adds shades of gray, but we already have that de facto.  

Regarding Borthwick, whether people think he was a good hire, as some do, or whether people think he was a poor hire, as others do, I think we can all agree that England have already exceeded expectations in this RWC by beating Argentina.  And not just beating them, but in the manner they defeated the Pumas.

Geordie wrote:Is there anything in it that he's playing a rock solid prop with an Explosive one? As he did v Argentina also?

I think Cole was just a tactical matchup with Sinckler injured. Thomas Gallo is a lot shorter than modern props and a smart scrummager. Rugby stats are hilariously inconsistent but Gallo is listed at 5'9"-5''10' and around 17 stone. 3 inches shorter than Bevan Rodd and noticeably lighter for reference. Shorter than Theo Dan but only a stone heavier. He's a really odd prop in the modern game. Cole's experience and scrummaging technique makes sense as a matchup there.

I do like Genge off the bench though. Around the 50 minute mark he could make a big impact.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:This is why i went a bit satire for a few weeks. Easier just agreeing with the Borthwick love in than to point out the emperor ain't wearing a stitch.

Your prolonged tantrum is all built on deciding that they wont ever try to expand the game plan though. Which you don't know. In 2021/22 Tigers did develop their game plan. In the regular season they scored 88 tries with 11 TBPs. The Prem is poor now but for comparison Sarries, coached by McCall, scored 93 tries with 12 TBPs in the same season. Tigers did that whilst conceding 8 fewer tries than Sarries, with by a distance the lowest points and tries conceded in the league. Saints for instance topped the tries scored with 99 but conceded 30 more tries than Tigers.

Faz Snr was a defence coach by trade and many doubted he was a good choice to take over from Schmidt due to fears he wouldn't develop the game plan. Ireland's attack is now one of the most cohesive structures we've seen with a playbook of brilliant multi phase moves that have broken down excellent defences.

Galthie took 3 attempts at the Six Nations to win a title with a generational talent group. It takes time. That's not new to Borthwick. Yet you keep insisting that anything but an instant turnaround is abject failure. Which is a farcical lack of balance in discussion.

It's not a love in for posters being able to point out some things that have improved (scrum, lineout, defence and on the Argentina game fitness by remarkable margin) whilst criticising things that haven't (largely the attack with the squandered overlap on Saturday being embarrassing but also kicking being inconsistent). That's balance. No one has suggested everything is solved from one win. Merely that the win showed some things have improved.

Yet you've taken a black and white stance that regardless of what is achieved the coach is a complete a failure and will remain a failure into the future regardless of results because 7.5 has already decided what the future will be too. Which amusingly feels so ridiculous that it's almost more satirical than the months spent trying to post satire.

Boring rugby was a part. The other was that it wastes the talent we have as its completely unambitious.  The other is, leading from point 2, it will be unsuccessful.

That's again built on the idea that the game plan wont develop in time. Which you don't know. So it's again deciding what will happen in the future, forming an opinion based on soothsaying and deciding that you won't ever change your mind regardless of if it turns out your crystal ball was actually a bowling ball and you were on a bad trip.

Even in a poor Six Nations I mentioned England's tactics in the backfield as something interesting. Not always successful due to execution but it seemed smart. They tended to have one player they tried to manipulate into the most likely area for contestable high balls (ideally Steward, if not Malins). One very strong kicker who the ball would immediately be shifted to if returning a kick (ideally a halfback with JvP and Farrell both dropping for this role in the Six Nations, if not available then Malins). Then one winger who would be responsible for covering a ton of ground to allow the former two roles to get into the respective position where they are most likely to contest a highball or return a kick respectively.

At times it worked well. At other times it produced mistakes. Against France for instance Steward and JvP tried to switch to get into the best position respectively but did it far too late. Dupont was set and being Dupont he put a pinpoint kick in whilst they were both out of position. I find that breaking down of the backfield to those roles interesting though as once well drilled it could hypothetically make interchanging players easier. If Steward is crocked you don't have to pick a like for like fullback who's as good under a high ball. You simply need a winger (or two wingers) that you are comfortable in that role. If your best kicker in the back three gets injured midgame you don't need a like for like on the bench if you can shift a halfback into the back field for kick tennis whilst mitigating them having to contest high balls or cover lots of ground.

Ireland with Rob Kearney used to frequently play with only two men back to give an 'extra defender' in the line. Kearney would cover a freakish amount of ground with a low error count to allow this. Murray would in turn usually act as the final defender on the openside. He'd defend in the traditional wingers spot, ideally with a strong jackaler on his inside. This meant two things. Firstly, the openside winger could drop alongside Kearney. Secondly, turnovers often come when teams go wide, if your scrum-half is already defending there you are much likely to be able to play quickly from the ruck where you turnover the ball.

The 50-22 rule and improved kicking games generally mean that only dropping two players now would be tactical suicide. England almost seem to dropping three players but using a Kearney-esque role of one man covering so much ground to allow the other two to cover less ground and prioritise their strengths in a far more specific role. Then by so frequently dropping a halfback they can have one back three player chase the returned kicks very hard without it leaving them short staffed if the opposition immediately kick back.

Smith being used at 15 to get an extra fullback later in the game made me think about it again. Smith for Steward is about as big a shift in skillsets as you can make. But hypothetically the system can stay exactly the same by shifting roles. To start you'd have Steward under highballs, Daly or Ford as a kicker and May ideally covering a ton of ground. With Smith on you get May under the most likely area to contest highballs, Daly covers a ton of ground, Smith is your primary kicker. The tactics to control kick tennis and the territorial battle stay the same and should still work. Yet in attack you've got an extra playmaker to completely shift the structure you can use with ball in hand.

As always it's all in execution. England were inconsistent with that in the Six Nations. It's a system that in theory seems really smart to me though.

Maybe I'm just sad for thinking about things like this.

king_carlos wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:This is why i went a bit satire for a few weeks. Easier just agreeing with the Borthwick love in than to point out the emperor ain't wearing a stitch.

Your prolonged tantrum is all built on deciding that they wont ever try to expand the game plan though. Which you don't know. In 2021/22 Tigers did develop their game plan. In the regular season they scored 88 tries with 11 TBPs. The Prem is poor now but for comparison Sarries, coached by McCall, scored 93 tries with 12 TBPs in the same season. Tigers did that whilst conceding 8 fewer tries than Sarries, with by a distance the lowest points and tries conceded in the league. Saints for instance topped the tries scored with 99 but conceded 30 more tries than Tigers.

Faz Snr was a defence coach by trade and many doubted he was a good choice to take over from Schmidt due to fears he wouldn't develop the game plan. Ireland's attack is now one of the most cohesive structures we've seen with a playbook of brilliant multi phase moves that have broken down excellent defences.

Galthie took 3 attempts at the Six Nations to win a title with a generational talent group. It takes time. That's not new to Borthwick. Yet you keep insisting that anything but an instant turnaround is abject failure. Which is a farcical lack of balance in discussion.

It's not a love in for posters being able to point out some things that have improved (scrum, lineout, defence and on the Argentina game fitness by remarkable margin) whilst criticising things that haven't (largely the attack with the squandered overlap on Saturday being embarrassing but also kicking being inconsistent). That's balance. No one has suggested everything is solved from one win. Merely that the win showed some things have improved.

Yet you've taken a black and white stance that regardless of what is achieved the coach is a complete a failure and will remain a failure into the future regardless of results because 7.5 has already decided what the future will be too. Which amusingly feels so ridiculous that it's almost more satirical than the months spent trying to post satire.

Boring rugby was a part. The other was that it wastes the talent we have as its completely unambitious.  The other is, leading from point 2, it will be unsuccessful.

That's again built on the idea that the game plan wont develop in time. Which you don't know. So it's again deciding what will happen in the future, forming an opinion based on soothsaying and deciding that you won't ever change your mind regardless of if it turns out your crystal ball was actually a bowling ball and you were on a bad trip.

Forming a thought based on what's gone before, what's said and what I predict. Its not a leap.

What's gone before with England is a small sample size taking over a poor team. As said and displayed with stats the game plan at Tigers evolved under Borthwick.

What's said by coaches and players in public is largely meaningless but even if we're acting like that's important, they've repeatedly said they know the attack needs to evolve and improve but they believe a foundation is required for that to be possible.

What you predict is back to 7.5 can see the future.

It's just different ways of framing the same thing. You've decided what will happen going forward, formed an opinion based on that, then stated you won't change your mind regardless of what happens.

Doesn't everyone basically form an opinion and go with it. I really don't expect Borthwick to do anything with us. For me he sits in the andy Robinson level hence would love him to leave as soon as possible for us to move forward. When are people able to judge him and call for his head? Are they ever?

KC you told me it was futile arguing....now your doing it

Yeah. Just come back once you've decided I was right all along.

Lol.....never gonna happen.

Nah. I think most of us allow our opinions to evolve as things change rather than deciding something based on presumptions then stating we will not change our mind regardless.

I really didn't rate Ludlam at a point. I just didn't see it. But he's turning into one of my favourite players.

I thought Marchant didn't look comfortable defensively as a 13 at international level so I thought trying to utilise his talent on the wing made sense given his excellent aerial skills. He's been terrific defensively at 13 in the warmups and R1 though.

I also thought Mitchell might struggle as a starter. His strength from the bench was taking a couple of passes before passing, due to his pace that drew tired defenders in and added tempo. I was concerned that very few international SHs succeed doing that from the start though as less fatigued international fringe defences punish it. I then queried whether Mitchell had the game to just deliver good service and kicking from the base when it hadn't opened up. Which were my rationale for feeling he should be behind JvP and Quirke but still third choice ahead of the Youngs and Care. Against Argentina he showed a rounded game I doubted he had though. His kicking and game management were excellent.

I thought Pearson would tear it up in the warmups and force his way in. He tired noticeably quicker than Ludlam and about as drastically as Dombrandt in that Wales warmup though so I could accept that I was expecting too much, too soon with the RWC so close.

On coaches, I was one who queried Farrell as a head coach. Especially when Catt joined as attack coach. Faz Snr is clearly a brilliant defence coach but his attempts to coach early phase attack off set-piece under Lancaster didn't go well and with Catt as backs coach that side were startling poor at finishing chances a lot of the time. Yet Ireland are now one of the smartest teams I've seen at building multi phase attacking moves from set-piece and they are incredibly clinical at finishing chances. I'll hold my hands up and admit I was wrong.

Forming an opinion and going with it regardless of what happens is ludicrous though.

We can judge coaches and call for their head to our hearts content. Equally folk can argue for giving them time to develop the game plan. Logically justifying our stance is surely the purpose of a message board though. "I've decided what's going to happen and that's that, nothing will change but even if it does change then it still won't matter that it's changed", doesn't seem the most logical of stances. Which does make discussion somewhat difficult. And makes it doubly frustrating when the poster with the least balanced view possible keeps suggesting others aren't being balanced and are involved in a "love in".

I'd admire your persistence KC but you know 7.5 will just wear you down like a dog with a bone

You see I've said there's a possibility that Borthwick actually turns things around before so I don't think you've really taken that on board. It's just that I can't see how he will do it with his brand of rugby. He is at least now giving Mitchell a go but he needs to really ditch the dour tactics. But again don't think he has the imagination to do so.

This is all probably a hallucination anyway. Back in the 90s some bloke called No 7&1/4 decided that Tim Berners-Lee was stupid and his ideas could never be successful. The presumption that World Wide Web was a s**t idea is of course still correct regardless of what's happened since. So the internet doesn't really exist. So this message board can't be real.

Anyway.....after all that....

What are people expecting from Billy. Do they think he can show something of his Explosive past....or has Ludlum moved ahead of him as a physical,hard carrying hard tackling back rower...

Ludlum on recent showings is better. Far quicker, and remarkably doesn't seem to tire. In matches he's started he's been as effective towards end as start.
Billy has a role to play but I think these days Ludlum is better

God I think I liked it more when all you lot banged on about was 03 and how your chariot was so so so low swinging.

I want the classic English arrogance back, makes it much more fun when you lose.

Come on guys think of the rest of us, your spoiling our fun

mountain man wrote:Ludlum on recent showings is better. Far quicker, and remarkably doesn't seem to tire. In matches he's started he's been as effective towards end as start.
Billy has a role to play but I think these days Ludlum is better

Personally Ludlam has been your best forward for the last 12 months, consistent, aggressive both sides of the ball and can play 6,7or 8.

Can you call up a player to replace a banned player? England could call up Tom Currys brother and just play Tom Curry as no one can tell the difference between them anyway.

Collapse2005 wrote:Can you call up a player to replace a banned player? England could call up Tom Currys brother and just play Tom Curry as no one can tell the difference between them anyway.

The Hollywood version would be two twins declaring for different countries. Both are selected for the World Cup but one twin's team goes out at the pool stage, while the other's team progresses. But the second twin gets injured. While he'll recover in time for the semi-final, his team need cover (perhaps he's a hooker) and so he's about to be sent home. Until his twin says he'll pretend to be his brother...

carpet baboon wrote:God I think I liked it more when all you lot banged on about was 03 and how your chariot was so so so low swinging.

I want the classic English arrogance back, makes it much more fun when you lose.

Come on guys think of the rest of us, your spoiling our fun

I think most England supporters don't bring up 2003 much any more because we are at peace with it.  20 years of history between then and now clearly shows the incredible superiority of that team compared to any which have come since and before (excepting possibly the 1973 Barbarians).  

Despite our generally shy and unassuming manner, we are now comfortable owning that piece of history.  After all, it was won through that most English of traits:  sheer dominant force of will.  Plus that win was not just for England Rugby supporters, but for all right and proud Englishmen and Englishwomen, all the UK, and let's face it, the entire Anglosphere.  And inspired by, and gifted to, Her Majesty, Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of her other realms and territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

GSTQ!

Regarding bunker review system, I think it's an excellent introduction.

Takes pressure off ref, lot less booing and jeering from home crowd influencing him. Keeps game moving, players and crowd not hanging around watching endless replays etc.

One point 7.5 made is having feedback on decision by bunker TMO. This is discussed in BBC rugby union podcast and Chris Jones agrees on that. Worth a listen. it's the one where they interview Ford.

The concept is great. The execution needs some work. Fans in the stadium and on TV need to understand the decisions better, so the bunker need to give the ref a package setting out the clearest picture of the facts. Ideally, the ref would then have the option to disagree with their interpretation as they can with the TMO. It would take a little longer but be a lot clearer.

By all means get bunker foul play tmo to explain reasons but not for ref to then over rule of he doesn't agree.

Hearing JW talking about the psychology of a drop goal is really something else

Jeez Johnny man..

When you kick the ball youre in communication with the ball...

He does talk some waffling nonsense. Great player but awful pundit

Fair play to Johnny he's quite rugby and taken up shrooms.
I'm all for it

So many of my favourite players turned out to be awful pundits which turned me off them.

But not Jonny, I thought. Never Jonny. Oh dear...

Going 60 mins for the red card this time.

Looks a bit greasy out there.

Lots of handling errors early, a messy start.

Poor Daly has had a few hospital passes.

Well Japan have certainly turned up for this game!

Ouch. Tom Curry's face has seen better days.

Water break just in time for England.

England need to get a player sent off, it's how they improve.

Very jittery start, plenty of errors. Fortunate to survive the charge down and not get pinged for a sealing off pen. Japan's scrum looks strong.

Bloody hell.

England reverting to type, bleeding awful so far

Deserved lead for Japan.

England back to being pants ... officials not great either, they can spot offside but not a line out that's about 2m not straight ...

Nice gift against the run of play.

Better

Way to shoot themselves in the foot.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Nice gift against the run of play.

Yes but put in that position by a great kick to touch ...

Hopefully that will settle them a bit

Heaf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Nice gift against the run of play.

Yes but put in that position by a great kick to touch ...

Indeed. The tactic of kick and hope for a mistake is bringing its rewards today.

FFS brainless by May.

Big swing that. Could have been a 7 point lead if Ford kicked it through the posts.

Terrible from England. Zero ability in the backs. We need to treat this as like Argentina and just play for 3s.