England still winning the RWC at a canter - The quarter finals and beyond

First topic message reminder :

Carried on..............

mountain man wrote:Well. After how well Fiji played against Wales and Aus I was a bit concerned but they were even worse than England last night, hard to believe.
I was hoping Portugal would win with margin so Eng would face Aus in QF just for the extra Eddie factor.

Fiji will I'm sure be better. England if they play just sensibly should win. That's IF and SENSIBLY.

I think we can be good at seeing the worst in England and the best in others. Yes, if England play as badly as they did against Samoa and Fiji play at their best - England will lose. But on balance England have been better throughout the group stages. I said a couple of weeks ago that if England had been beaten by Wales then marginally scrapped past the worst Aus team in living memory - folks would not be happy here. They were good results for Fiji, with the limitations they have in funding, facilities, etc, and their style of play is more enjoyable to watch - but they weren't great results in the wider context nor better than England's wins against Argentina and Japan. And I dread to think what would happen if England had scrapped past Georgia and been beaten by Portugal. England have been uninspiring in style, but when it comes to the last game (which is the only one they didn't win comfortably), at least had the excuse there was literally nothing at stake having already qualified top of the group.

England should be favourites for the quarter final. There have been numerous excuses for poor performances thus far - a hospital pass 6 Nations, warm up games that don't count, no excuse needed against Argentina as that was a good performance to be fair, then games that England won at a canter or didn't need to win as they'd already done enough. We are now into knockout must win rugby, and there is no excuse for holding anything back. If what we've seen so far is as good as it gets then we probably stumble past Fiji and get blown away by South Africa/France and any argument the team has progressed is rubbish. If there's some underlying improvement now is the time to show it, and blow Fiji away and at the very least make it hard work for South Africa/France.

we can only dream of playing like Portugal and anyone who thinks we should is in dreamland.

Our strengths are historically very different.

I agree with BIg.
Lots of media frenzy about all these teams...Argentina, Japan, Fiji etc...yet Argentina or Japan couldnt beat a rebuilding England side still unsure of the best team selection in many spots...and Argentina couldnt do it with a man up for 70 odd mins!!!

I expected England to be far more comfortable v Samoa, but there were too many individual player mistakes and lack of discipline which we haven seen so much recently. Im sure they'll have had the hair dryer treatment...and i hope we see them make a statement v Fiji.

Do i expect them to win a SF...no. I think thats too far....IF they do get through Fiji in the QF.

But after this....time to let a good number of this squad out to pasture and bring in the new blood.

Big wrote:

mountain man wrote:Well. After how well Fiji played against Wales and Aus I was a bit concerned but they were even worse than England last night, hard to believe.
I was hoping Portugal would win with margin so Eng would face Aus in QF just for the extra Eddie factor.

Fiji will I'm sure be better. England if they play just sensibly should win. That's IF and SENSIBLY.

I think we can be good at seeing the worst in England and the best in others.  Yes, if England play as badly as they did against Samoa and Fiji play at their best - England will lose.  But on balance England have been better throughout the group stages.  I said a couple of weeks ago that if England had been beaten by Wales then marginally scrapped past the worst Aus team in living memory - folks would not be happy here.  They were good results for Fiji, with the limitations they have in funding, facilities, etc, and their style of play is more enjoyable to watch - but they weren't great results in the wider context nor better than England's wins against Argentina and Japan.  And I dread to think what would happen if England had scrapped past Georgia and been beaten by Portugal.  England have been uninspiring in style, but when it comes to the last game (which is the only one they didn't win comfortably), at least had the excuse there was literally nothing at stake having already qualified top of the group.

England should be favourites for the quarter final.  There have been numerous excuses for poor performances thus far - a hospital pass 6 Nations, warm up games that don't count, no excuse needed against Argentina as that was a good performance to be fair, then games that England won at a canter or didn't need to win as they'd already done enough.  We are now into knockout must win rugby, and there is no excuse for holding anything back.  If what we've seen so far is as good as it gets then we probably stumble past Fiji and get blown away by South Africa/France and any argument the team has progressed is rubbish.  If there's some underlying improvement now is the time to show it, and blow Fiji away and at the very least make it hard work for South Africa/France.  

Seeing as England had already won group and through to QF then they should have been relaxed and played better but they didn't. They looked unsure, nervous and at times rabbits in headlights.
Yes I think we can be too critical sometimes but blimey England deserve it at times.

mountain man wrote:Seeing as England had already won group and through to QF then they should have been relaxed and played better but they didn't. They looked unsure, nervous and at times rabbits in headlights.
Yes I think we can be too critical sometimes but blimey England deserve it at times.

I think that might be taking too narrow a view. To me, England looked a lot like they did in the warm-ups. They had also won their group and had a week off before this match, which was against comparatively easy opposition, ahead of a QF where they were expecting to face an opponent with a similar style of play (but better all round as a team) and then an SF that would be tough whichever way it was played.

I think it is likely that Borthwick and Walters used the break week to incresse the training load to top up England's fitness for the knockout rounds, and took a chance on them being heavy legged for this game. We probably won't know for sure until after the tournament is over (at least), but it's consistent with what they did in the warmups.

England gambled on trading short term performance for a medium term gain, had a scare but came through it.

I still worry about selection, because several of the players that Borthwick seems to want in his side have yet to deliver a performance that matches their reptutation, and in some positions we have known weaknesses that better teams will exploit. But I think in terms of preparing the team Borthwick has a plan that makes a certain amount of sense.

Poorfour wrote:

mountain man wrote:Seeing as England had already won group and through to QF then they should have been relaxed and played better but they didn't. They looked unsure, nervous and at times rabbits in headlights.
Yes I think we can be too critical sometimes but blimey England deserve it at times.

I think that might be taking too narrow a view. To me, England looked a lot like they did in the warm-ups. They had also won their group and had a week off before this match, which was against comparatively easy opposition, ahead of a QF where they were expecting to face an opponent with a similar style of play (but better all round as a team) and then an SF that would be tough whichever way it was played.

I think it is likely that Borthwick and Walters used the break week to incresse the training load to top up England's fitness for the knockout rounds, and took a chance on them being heavy legged for this game. We probably won't know for sure until after the tournament is over (at least), but it's consistent with what they did in the warmups.

England gambled on trading short term performance for a medium term gain, had a scare but came through it.

I still worry about selection, because several of the players that Borthwick seems to want in his side have yet to deliver a performance that matches their reptutation, and in some positions we have known weaknesses that better teams will exploit. But I think in terms of preparing the team Borthwick has a plan that makes a certain amount of sense.

I could go along with that...

Rather as happened with the warm up matches and Japan match, lots were very critical during matches but next day there seems to be a change of heart.

I dunno, maybe I'm being too critical but I thought England were terrible against a good Samoa.
A lot can be laid at Borthwicks door for team selection but also far too many individual errors. I'm not sure that is down to workload in week prior. If it was, how come every other team doesn't appear to be affected likewise? Are all other teams fitter or got their S&C work done? England been together months now.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Hmm. Well we'll see soon enough I suspect. Doubt he will be in charge come 2024. Borthwick did well to turn around a group of players who were underachieving with a belt and braces approaches but I think winning the prem has coloured peoples views of his ability. Let's face it if Skosan hadn't dropped what was it about 3 easy catches he would have lost to an erratic Northampton side. And this while the cheating of the cap gave you your own asterisk as was labelled against Farrell yesterday. Seems to have been a 1 off, a bit of a Claudio ranieri or Howard Wilkinson. But yeah we can blame the players until he's gone. Not sure he's added anything to anyone as yet. But he's only had 13 games in charge I suppose. Liz Truss may have pulled it around too!

Had the ref called the Saints off the ball shot on Kelly that ended his game early or done anything to make them scrum legally it might have been different. It's shoulda, woulda, coulda in a one off game. Tigers pumped Saints in the other two games in the league that season.

What isn't is that Borthwick lead Tigers on a winning run where they beat every Prem side in succession. Tigers went from 11th to 6th to 1st under Borthwick and were in a good league position when he left. He wasn't a one season wonder like say Quins post Gustard.

The cheating of the cap occurred pre Borthwick and indeed pre the current board of directors that brought him in. It was during the misplaced period of time where it was decided Leicester needed a world beating backline. Nearly got us relegated. Given the Prem winners have a full forensic review of their accounts post Sarries debacle we should know that Borthwick accomplished what he did within the rules.

He's had 13 games but he's yet to play one with his selected coaching staff. His attack coach doesn't join until after the world cup and the 6N was undertaken with only Sinfield in post.

He'll be in post for 2024, 2025 might be more up in the air. Personally I think his biggest problem is likely to be that he knows how he wants to play but England might not have the players to accomplish that at international level. Tigers went to the market and brought in Liebenburg and Weise. The physical and all action backrow options that were near constants in the side. He's got Lawes as Liebenburg esque, better at the breakdown but not the same work rate and carrying game. There's no one close to Weise currently. Dombrant's work rate leaves a lot to be desired and doesn't like to carry in the tight. BillyV is a shadow of his former self. Earl lacks the raw physicality though at least gets around the park.

Post world cup Mercer or TWillis might come through at 8 but unless Martin switches back to 6 we're scratching around for a big physical 6, maybe Ted Hill. Lots of opensides to choose from in a refreshing change. Borthwick needs to go and reforge the pack for me. Create a similar physical and mobile beast to what he did at Tigers where endless graft was a given.

Whos coming in Sam? What happens to Wigglesworth?

There are definitely selection issues and too many square pegs in round holes, plus quite a bit of dead wood around the current squad.

LH - Marler well past his best
Hooker - short of options with LCD injured. Dan looks quite a light weight, athletic hooker - not sure it fits with the current game plan
TH - Cole beyond pension age, Stuart not good enough
2nd row - Probably one of the better areas, but just missing an absolute monster.
Back row - 6 and 7 OK, but number 8 still a problem. Earls is dynamic, but not that big, Billy V not the player he was

SH - Urgh
10 - Mostly a question of making a decision and sticking with it, as al three options are decent players, but of different styles.
12 - No more Farrell please, as it throws out the whole balance of the back line. Manu not showing up as the human wrecking ball he used to be, so Lawrence should be there for me.
13 - Marchant please for now. Suits the defensive system in having the pace to drift which was sorely lacking on Saturday.
Back 3 - Steward is a full back. Play him there, but please give him some help in covering the wide areas (he was only partly at fault for the try from the cross field kick, as Marchant had been sucked too far inside). Surely we saw enough to know Arundell should be starting on one wing. Not sure anyone is holding their hand up for the other wing position: May has lost his top end pace, Malins never had and looks all at sea on the wing, while Daly perhaps should be a specialist #23. Get some F&%$ing pace in the team please.

Agree pretty much with all that dummy_half.
As for 2nd row, I was puzzled as to why Ribbans not in 23 for Samoa. Surely has to be back for Fiji. And Ludlum.

Oh, and as for how bad a performance it was, first half if Jamie Gorge's pass had found Steward rather than being intercepted, he'd have been in for the try. Instead there was a big momentum shift and Samoa scored a few phases later.

Also, Chessum was very unlucky to have his second try chalked off - there was a bit of movement from his right leg after contact with the ground, but it didn't seem to me to push him forward in any way. Almost like the TMO was trying to even up the tries disallowed after the marginal knock on by Samoa*
* And can we go back to only having the reviews until the conversion is taken. If there's a doubt, delay that rather than the absurdity of letting the conversion be taken and the wiped from the score.

dummy_half wrote:There are definitely selection issues and too many square pegs in round holes, plus quite a bit of dead wood around the current squad.

LH - Marler well past his best
Hooker - short of options with LCD injured. Dan looks quite a light weight, athletic hooker - not sure it fits with the current game plan
TH - Cole beyond pension age, Stuart not good enough
2nd row - Probably one of the better areas, but just missing an absolute monster.
Back row - 6 and 7 OK, but number 8 still a problem. Earls is dynamic, but not that big, Billy V not the player he was

SH - Urgh
10 - Mostly a question of making a decision and sticking with it, as al three options are decent players, but of different styles.
12 - No more Farrell please, as it throws out the whole balance of the back line. Manu not showing up as the human wrecking ball he used to be, so Lawrence should be there for me.
13 - Marchant please for now. Suits the defensive system in having the pace to drift which was sorely lacking on Saturday.
Back 3 - Steward is a full back. Play him there, but please give him some help in covering the wide areas (he was only partly at fault for the try from the cross field kick, as Marchant had been sucked too far inside). Surely we saw enough to know Arundell should be starting on one wing. Not sure anyone is holding their hand up for the other wing position: May has lost his top end pace, Malins never had and looks all at sea on the wing, while Daly perhaps should be a specialist #23. Get some F&%$ing pace in the team please.

Id like to see...
1 Marler
2 George
3 Sinckler
4 Ribbans - Oooooh dropping Itoje...big call
5 Chessum
6 Ludlum dropping lawes....ooooh big call.
7 Curry
8 Earl

9 Meh
10 Ford
11 Daly
12 Manu / Lawrence
13 Marchant
14 Arundell
15 Steward

By the way, what are people's thoughts on Chessum's disallowed try?

I can see why it was disallowed, but I thought the officials focused on the wrong thing. Chessum's arm and leg motion looked like he was trying to propel himself, at least in slow mo, but in real time his leg was slipping out from under him and his arm movement was planting his elbow and then lowering the ball. His body wasn't propelled forward and his position was easily close enough to the line for him to place it without that.

Didn't make a difference in the end, but I do sometimes worry that TMO interventions zero in too much on a particular thing and lose sight of what they need to check overall.

Poorfour wrote:By the way, what are people's thoughts on Chessum's disallowed try?

I can see why it was disallowed, but I thought the officials focused on the wrong thing. Chessum's arm and leg motion looked like he was trying to propel himself, at least in slow mo, but in real time his leg was slipping out from under him and his arm movement was planting his elbow and then lowering the ball. His body wasn't propelled forward and his position was easily close enough to the line for him to place it without that.

Didn't make a difference in the end, but I do sometimes worry that TMO interventions zero in too much on a particular thing and lose sight of what they need to check overall.

I thought try should have been awarded, didn't look like a double movement to me, he placed ball.

Poorfour wrote:By the way, what are people's thoughts on Chessum's disallowed try?

I can see why it was disallowed, but I thought the officials focused on the wrong thing. Chessum's arm and leg motion looked like he was trying to propel himself, at least in slow mo, but in real time his leg was slipping out from under him and his arm movement was planting his elbow and then lowering the ball. His body wasn't propelled forward and his position was easily close enough to the line for him to place it without that.

Didn't make a difference in the end, but I do sometimes worry that TMO interventions zero in too much on a particular thing and lose sight of what they need to check overall.

I think there's a risk with slow mo replays to see things that aren't really there - as you said, I don't think Chessum did anything to move his body forwards even though there was a movement of his leg.
I remember a few years ago in a rugby league test England having a try disallowed for the ball leaving the winger's hand in the action of grounding it (the winger had the ball in one hand and was moving it downwards, there was a momentary separation, but the hand was back on the ball before it touched the ground)- something I bet happens plenty of times if you were to watch similar groundings under super slow mo.

I will though say the TMO did really well with the Ah Wong try from the cross kick - clearly showed that there were a couple of frames between the ball being grounded and his foot touching the dead ball line. Also ultimately got the right decision for the disallowed one from the knock-on, although I didn't iike that it took so long to disallow it.

Chris Ashton thinks Underhill has been called up to provide the kind of ruck opposition in training that England expect they'll face against Fiji.

While fans want their favourite player beamed into a potential starting position, Borthwick will surely select his next 23 from those who have been in camp all these weeks. Anyone getting a call-up now has to be worth a place in the side, it make sense to think about who might add value to the squad over the next week.

Rugby Fan wrote:Chris Ashton thinks Underhill has been called up to provide the kind of ruck opposition in training that England expect they'll face against Fiji.

While fans want their favourite player beamed into a potential starting position, Borthwick will surely select his next 23 from those who have been in camp all these weeks. Anyone getting a call-up now has to be worth a place in the side, it make sense to think about who might add value to the squad over the next week.

There may be some logic in that. The other thing with calling Underhill up, rather than some of the other names mentioned, is he has plenty of big game experience including the last RWC final, so while dropping him into the match day squad is probably not part of the plan, if it became necessary he's more familiar with the situation.

mountain man wrote:Rather as happened with the warm up matches and Japan match, lots were very critical during matches but next day there seems to be a change of heart.

I dunno, maybe I'm being too critical but I thought England were terrible against a good Samoa.
A lot can be laid at Borthwicks door for team selection but also far too many individual errors. I'm not sure that is down to workload in week prior. If it was, how come every other team doesn't appear to be affected likewise? Are all other teams fitter or got their S&C work done? England been together months now.

Fiji

What about Fiji? Do you think they overdid training prior to Portugal match? Any reasons for suspecting that or just that they were as bad as England?

I'll add maybe it was due to workload but if that was case why hasn't Borthwick or one of coaching team said that. They could easily said, yep we were poor but part of that is what we expected due to training plan etc. Take a bit of pressure off etc.
But they didn't so now they are copping grief in media and from supporters for being poor. Having a seige mentality worked(at times) for Jones, not sure Borthwick is right personality for that.

mountain man wrote:What about Fiji? Do you think they overdid training prior to Portugal match? Any reasons for suspecting that or just that they were as bad as England?

They are a team who followed up some moderate performances with a real stinker. Reasons may vary, including team selection and maybe not taking Portugal seriously when their depth may not be all that it could be.

I've read quite a few S&C coaches over the years explaining how top level conditioning works. Summarising, it goes something like this:
- You improve strength and fitness by overloading muscles to the point of exhaustion. That results in breaking (just enough) muscle fibres to trigger it growing back stronger.
- A repeated cycle of overload over a period of time improves fitness, but while you're doing that performances will be heavy-legged
- To get to maximum performance you have to lighten the load for long enough for the muscles to recover (tapering).
- If you don't overload, you can work at a level that tries to maintain fitness but you inevitably get a gradual decline over a long campaign

That leads to some big decisions facing coaches who want their teams to arrive in the best possible shape for the matches that matter:
1) How late do I start the initial taper?
2) Is there a window where I can up the load to top up fitness?
3) Are there any games where I can risk a sub-par performance to create a window?

Borthwick's view of England is probably along the lines of:
- They were starting from a low base level of fitness in the 6N (and didn't have the luxury of managing player fitness directly during the season like Ireland do)
- There isn't the time to develop a particularly clever attacking system but if we are fresher than the opposition in the late stages of a game, we have the players to exploit a broken field or a game that is opening up
- So our best chance of success is to train as hard as possible for as long as possible...
- ... and since we can afford to lose against Samoa, we can up the training load over the fallow week and be fitter for the QFs

Why haven't other teams done the same? There might be a number of reasons:
1) The schedule doesn't permit it (Ireland, Scotland)
2) They already have a higher base of fitness (New Zealand, South Africa possibly)
3) They did do something similar (Wales, Fiji possibly - and very probably South Africa in 2019, who lost to NZ, struggled against Wales but were far fitter than England in the Final - and whose fitness coach is now working for England)
4) It wouldn't have made any difference (Australia)

That might be case poorfour but it could also be complete guesswork. Hence be good to have some clarity from England.

mountain man wrote:That might be case poorfour but it could also be complete guesswork. Hence be good to have some clarity from England.

Let me play that back. You really think that Borthwick should publicly reveal a key part of his strategy for the knockout rounds of the RWC ahead of the games themselves?

It's also very definitely not complete guesswork. Walters has said in so many words that England played the equivalent of a full match on the Tuesday before the Ireland game... we know that - at the very least - they were doing heavy fitness work late into the warm up.

I do not know for certain that they had a heavy training load before Samoa but the point of my post is:
a) it's consistent with what coaches say about training loads
b) it's consistent with what England did in the warm up games
c) it's consistent with patterns of performance we have seen from Aled Walters-coached teams before.

The evidence is circumstantial, but there's quite a lot of it.

Saying what other teams may or may not do is guesswork unless have evidence of something. Wales in particular look really fit and have done since start of warm up games, so they are doing something right all along.

I'm not trying to decry what you are saying, I'm just not sure anyone can reach conclusions on training loads from what we're seeing.
I just think overall England are basically a poor team playing badly with badly thought out tactics. To me that seems more likely going on what I've seen from this team the last 2-3 years.

mountain man wrote:What about Fiji? Do you think they overdid training prior to Portugal match? Any reasons for suspecting that or just that they were as bad as England?

Chris Ashton thought Fiji and England might have had stinkers for the same reason. England had already qualified top of the group, while Fiji had all but qualified. He said, while you never want to take a game for granted, there is often part of a player's brain which just can't get up for a lesser game when there's an important fixture imminent.

Rugby Fan wrote:

mountain man wrote:What about Fiji? Do you think they overdid training prior to Portugal match? Any reasons for suspecting that or just that they were as bad as England?

Chris Ashton thought Fiji and England might have had stinkers for the same reason. England had already qualified top of the group, while Fiji had all but qualified. He said, while you never want to take a game for granted, there is often part of a player's brain which just can't get up for a lesser game when there's an important fixture imminent.

But that is a mental issue not S&C.

Also they were quite scathing on how poor England were. Even Danny Care admitted as much.

England were awful.. that can't be disputed. Unforced errors all over.

Poorfour wrote:

mountain man wrote:That might be case poorfour but it could also be complete guesswork. Hence be good to have some clarity from England.

Let me play that back. You really think that Borthwick should publicly reveal a key part of his strategy for the knockout rounds of the RWC ahead of the games themselves?

It's also very definitely not complete guesswork. Walters has said in so many words that England played the equivalent of a full match on the Tuesday before the Ireland game... we know that - at the very least - they were doing heavy fitness work late into the warm up.

I do not know for certain that they had a heavy training load before Samoa but the point of my post is:
a) it's consistent with what coaches say about training loads
b) it's consistent with what England did in the warm up games
c) it's consistent with patterns of performance we have seen from Aled Walters-coached teams before.

The evidence is circumstantial, but there's quite a lot of it.

It's also consistent with out-of-shape or fatigued team. My point is not to be crabby or sarcastic, but to make the point that I am not ready to jump on this as a reason. One other thing I would find shocking is that a physio would allow athletes with heavy legs or whatever on the pitch against players who might be further along. It's a safety issue.

It's worth noting that Itoje said he didn't want to be rested for the Chile game as those not playing were getting hammered with the fitness regime. I'm guessing Walters will have been tasked with fine tuning those that were rested and over the rest week, perhaps risking slightly less than optimal recovery time for Samoa knowing that the big game was Vs Fiji.

I doubt England sent out the players heavy legged in the same way they did in the friendlies pre tournament.

It's probably not a night and day thing, not like when you've had a tougher gym session than you should and have got bad doms. It's more like two or three percent off, more noticeable in professional athletes than us mere mortals. As Doc says they won't be risking the health of the players.

I suspect it's multi faceted. Could be any number of things from: poor selection, poor preparation due to some time off mid week, untapered mid tourney beasting sessions, attitude was focused on knockout and not getting injured, arrogance in underestimating Samoa, unfamiliarity with combinations that have changed weekly.

Frankly last week needs to be parked and put to bed. Borthers needs to pick the best performing players in their best positions they have played in most recently. Backs wise it should be care, Farrell (because he's skipper), Arundel, Ollie Lawrence, Joe marchant, Daly/may (both been meh) and Smith at full back (if Damian McKenzie can brighten the NZ attack so can Smith). We are very creaky with Manu and steward on the pitch.

As for the forwards well Ludlum can come in at 8 and earl at 7 the rest haven't really shown up consistently yet.

doctor_grey wrote:
It's also consistent with out-of-shape or fatigued team.  My point is not to be crabby or sarcastic, but to make the point that I am not ready to jump on this as a reason.  One other thing I would find shocking is that a physio would allow athletes with heavy legs or whatever on the pitch against players who might be further along.  It's a safety issue.    

But we know that they aren’t out of shape - or at least weren’t when they played Argentina - and the only reason for them to be fatigued given they had had a week off before the Samoa game is that they had had a heavy training loads.

And I think you’re protesting too much about it being a safety issue. For one thing we know that Walters sent England out to play Ireland with heavy legs because he said so in a press conference. So if you were going to be shocked, it should have been when that was revealed (after the Argentina game, IIRC).

From the Telegraph

Wing Henry Arundell has the fastest top-end speed within the England World Cup squad, yet in terms of raw acceleration (measured over 10 metres) Smith is the quickest according to sprint coach Jonas Dodoo who worked with the England team over 12 weeks this summer.

Not only does Dodoo confirm Smith as the fastest off the mark but his acceleration ranks at the “very high end” in his database of hundreds of athletes from rugby, football and the NFL. At Harlequins, Smith’s personal best 10-metre sprint time is 1.78 seconds. For context – and it is far from an exact comparison – Usain Bolt’s first 10 metres of his 2008 Olympic 100 metre final was measured at 1.85 seconds. It is this devastating turn of speed that has helped his transition to full-back where he left a trail of defenders in his wake for his solo try against Chile. “Off the mark he is frightening,” wing Jonny May said. “He just whizzes off the mark; that’s just how he runs. He’s an accelerating guy.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2023/10/10/marcus-smith-sprinting-england-world-cup-daley-thompson/

I see Andy Goode is saying he has.it on good authority that Arundel isn't getting picked because he had a "scrap" with Farrell in training

carpet baboon wrote:I see Andy Goode is saying he has.it on good authority that Arundel isn't getting picked because he had a "scrap" with Farrell in training

I doubt it. More like Goode has it on hearsay and is reporting it as fact because his media career needs a boost.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:I see Andy Goode is saying he has.it on good authority that Arundel isn't getting picked because he had a "scrap" with Farrell in training

I doubt it. More like Goode has it on hearsay and is reporting it as fact because his media career needs a boost.

Are you saying mr Goode would intentionally say something to grab some attention?
Something sensational just so people pay attention to him??

I find that incredibly credible

Good news for anyone fancying some rugby this weekend. 4 600 tickets for the England quarter final are still available.

Is Eng QF only one with tickets available or are others similarly not yet sold out?

Not a clue tbh. Just wanted to share the good news for anyone wanting a last minute splurge.

Love to but in Mallorca at moment. Fortunately hotel TV gets itv so I'll be watching on Saturday.
Wife won't be happy

Semi final tickets, for both games, are popping up on the RWC re-sale site.

Poorfour wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:
It's also consistent with out-of-shape or fatigued team.  My point is not to be crabby or sarcastic, but to make the point that I am not ready to jump on this as a reason.  One other thing I would find shocking is that a physio would allow athletes with heavy legs or whatever on the pitch against players who might be further along.  It's a safety issue.    

But we know that they aren’t out of shape - or at least weren’t when they played Argentina - and the only reason for them to be fatigued given they had had a week off before the Samoa game is that they had had a heavy training loads.

And I think you’re protesting too much about it being a safety issue. For one thing we know that Walters sent England out to play Ireland with heavy legs because he said so in a press conference. So if you were going to be shocked, it should have been when that was revealed (after the Argentina game, IIRC).

A little Shakespearian of you?
Yes, I was annoyed when I heard that. And I am still not sure I am buying what he is selling. But, c'est la vie. Let's hope they are right and England can start to kick on. I'm not so sure the cupboard is quite so bare as it seems.

Presumably some touts and some people assessing theirs teams chances for the semis. Have to say it's a little disappointing given its in France that a QF for England isn't sold out already. I know people have cost of living pressures etc but I guess the lack of excitement that this team has generated is also hitting home.

carpet baboon wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:I see Andy Goode is saying he has.it on good authority that Arundel isn't getting picked because he had a "scrap" with Farrell in training

I doubt it. More like Goode has it on hearsay and is reporting it as fact because his media career needs a boost.

Are you saying mr Goode would intentionally say something to grab some attention?
Something sensational just so people pay attention to him??

I find that incredibly credible

I used to like Goode, especially during his playing career. I find him more and more a bit of an egotistical prat these days though.....seems to think his opinion is the final word on a multitude of topics.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:I see Andy Goode is saying he has.it on good authority that Arundel isn't getting picked because he had a "scrap" with Farrell in training

I doubt it. More like Goode has it on hearsay and is reporting it as fact because his media career needs a boost.

Are you saying mr Goode would intentionally say something to grab some attention?
Something sensational just so people pay attention to him??

I find that incredibly credible

I used to like Goode, especially during his playing career. I find him more and more a bit of an egotistical prat these days though.....seems to think his opinion is the final word on a multitude of topics.

My biggest issue with him is some of the more sensational things he says, I don't think even he believes them and it's just all for attention.

Have met him a couple of times when he's been the after dinner speaker, and he he seems a different person to his twitter/pod cast persona

formerly known as Sam wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:I see Andy Goode is saying he has.it on good authority that Arundel isn't getting picked because he had a "scrap" with Farrell in training

I doubt it. More like Goode has it on hearsay and is reporting it as fact because his media career needs a boost.

Wales Online reported that there was a scrap between Farrell & Arundel.

Seeing as it's in press now no doubt Farrell and Borthwick be asked about it

Re Goode he's just following the Stephen Jones template. Annoy people get clicks and comments and see that as proper journalism.

Oakdene wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:I see Andy Goode is saying he has.it on good authority that Arundel isn't getting picked because he had a "scrap" with Farrell in training

I doubt it. More like Goode has it on hearsay and is reporting it as fact because his media career needs a boost.

Wales Online reported that there was a scrap between Farrell & Arundel.

Wales Online parrot any other stories online normally.

Only me who thinks there are going to be loads of cases where people lose their temper while doing full contact training? I can't believe that it's a reason why Arundell wasn't picked; that's going to be his kick chase ain't it?

Apparently in past likes of Gatland almost encouraged it, bit of competitive spirit in training etc
Quite likely was something but seems odd if that was reason Arundel not picked

No 7&1/2 wrote:Only me who thinks there are going to be loads of cases where people lose their temper while doing full contact training? I can't believe that it's a reason why Arundell wasn't picked; that's going to be his kick chase ain't it?

No, it happens even at my lower league level of playing. I've seen my team-mates come to blows after one bloke didn't like it that he'd been bounced by someone else!