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

First topic message reminder :

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

Well, with Farrell out for the foreseeable future, whoever gets the opportunity at 10 for the next half dozen or so matches need to stake a claim if he wants to be the first choice starter ahead of Farrell when he returns.

Will need to show some leadership, game management, tactical nouse and an 80%+ goal kicking record.


As for Farrell, don't what he is going through, and whilst the media and supporters can be cruel, I suspect outside England he might not be seen as a likeable fellow, certainly not in South Africa. His onfield antics, tackle technique and disrespect often showed on the pitch has not endeared him to many South Africans.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Cunningham-South like Willis in at blindside for his club.

And no Collier isn't injured.

And Quirkes on the bench with LCD starting.

Willis has played one game at blindside.

Great to see Quirke is back in.

May be misremembering but I thought Collier went off injured last weekend.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:I have seen a lot of names mentioned as possible THs to replace Cole and Sinkler. Paul Hill has been quietly competent for Saints this season. He also adds the advantage of being mobile and a decent ball handler. It will be interesting to see how he goes this weekend against Sarries.

I thought Davison was first choice at tighthead. Doesn't help any Saints prop that the scrum is a weakness for them.

Telegraph says Farrell is likely to skip more than just the Six Nations. It makes sense that he wouldn't tour in summer, given his decision. However, the paper understands he might also miss the Autumn internationals.

While most of the coverage of Farrell's announcement has pointed the finger at social media, his club boss, Mark McCall has laid into mainstream media.

“It wasn’t the emotional toll of playing a lot that created this - it was something completely different.

“Social media we have zero control over. For me, this began in the mainstream media – not from everybody – and the narrative that was created around Owen. And then there was a pile-on on social media. There are some in the media industry who need to look at themselves.

“Down the years he has been made to feel that he has done something much worse than he has done. Every single thing that has been picked up on and scrutinised – that doesn’t happen with other players.

“You might say ‘he’s the England captain’, but I’m not sure that England captains have faced the level of scrutiny that he has. Very rarely is it positive and we’re talking about someone who is a model professional, who cares deeply about what he does and who he does it with.

“He has been portrayed in a way that doesn’t fit the person that people close to him know. We’ve ended up where we’ve ended up.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2023/11/30/owen-farrell-england-mental-health-break-miss-year/

I find the whole Farrell situation very sad. That a player of his calibre feels they have to withdraw from the international game for their own mental well-being is somewhat distressing. Farrell's a very private person anyway and rarely mentions his life outside of rugby, and rightly so. For him to take the decision to remove himself from the England equation speaks volumes about the pressure he must feel under.

The very fact that a man of his steely determination feels the need to say "enough" means that the whole social media situation has become far out of hand. I hope that his detractors are satisfied. I also would like to think that he gets the chance to shine in an England shirt again.

Old Man wrote:Well, with Farrell out for the foreseeable future, whoever gets the opportunity at 10 for the next half dozen or so matches need to stake a claim if he wants to be the first choice starter ahead of Farrell when he returns.

Will need to show some leadership, game management, tactical nouse and an 80%+ goal kicking record.


As for Farrell, don't what he is going through, and whilst the media and supporters can be cruel, I suspect outside England he might not be seen as a likeable fellow, certainly not in South Africa. His onfield antics, tackle technique and disrespect often showed on the pitch has not endeared him to many South Africans.

Aw yeah because they're such a likeable bunch aren't they....

Anyway looks like he's out longer than the 6n probably NZ summer tour and the AIs ..so we probably won't see him back I wouldn't have thought.

So SB needs to decide on who's his man and who's the two coming through behind.

It's almost like a new squad and team for the 6n...there's very few actually inked in starters...

1 ?
2 George
3 Cole (and he's at the limit now)
4 Itoje
5? (Chessum or Martin)
6?
7?
8 Earl (for the moment)

9 Mitchell (for the moment)
10?
11?
12?
13 (Maybe Lawrence)
14?
15 Steward

I'd say George, Itoje, Chessum, Earl, Mitchell, Lawrence and Steward are only cast iron certainties.
I'm not sure Cole is.

I cannot think who else is an automatic starter, probably Ford at 10 but that's not definite.

Geordie wrote:

Old Man wrote:Well, with Farrell out for the foreseeable future, whoever gets the opportunity at 10 for the next half dozen or so matches need to stake a claim if he wants to be the first choice starter ahead of Farrell when he returns.

Will need to show some leadership, game management, tactical nouse and an 80%+ goal kicking record.


As for Farrell, don't what he is going through, and whilst the media and supporters can be cruel, I suspect outside England he might not be seen as a likeable fellow, certainly not in South Africa. His onfield antics, tackle technique and disrespect often showed on the pitch has not endeared him to many South Africans.

Aw yeah because they're such a likeable bunch aren't they....

Well, my comment wasn't really about the Springboks or their fans. But now that you brought it up, no, I think the Boks are many's least favourite team, the fans are all brushed with the same brush because of a bunch of idiots and the Springboks are constantly narrated as a boring cheating time wasting team who's tactics are killing the game, whether they play exciting rugby or not. I have accepted that,

Yet takes nothing away from my opinion in regards to Farrell.

Old Man wrote:

Geordie wrote:

Old Man wrote:Well, with Farrell out for the foreseeable future, whoever gets the opportunity at 10 for the next half dozen or so matches need to stake a claim if he wants to be the first choice starter ahead of Farrell when he returns.

Will need to show some leadership, game management, tactical nouse and an 80%+ goal kicking record.


As for Farrell, don't what he is going through, and whilst the media and supporters can be cruel, I suspect outside England he might not be seen as a likeable fellow, certainly not in South Africa. His onfield antics, tackle technique and disrespect often showed on the pitch has not endeared him to many South Africans.

Aw yeah because they're such a likeable bunch aren't they....

Well, my comment wasn't really about the Springboks or their fans. But now that you brought it up, no, I think the Boks are many's least favourite team, the fans are all brushed with the same brush because of a bunch of idiots and the Springboks are constantly narrated as a boring cheating time wasting team who's tactics are killing the game, whether they play exciting rugby or not. I have accepted that,

Yet takes nothing away from my opinion in regards to Farrell.

The same thing has been said of Farrell.

It must be very frustrating. The Boks do things other teams can't, but they can open up and play when they need to.

At the RWC England successfully became a very difficult team to beat (only lost one game by one point) but they haven't yet relearned how to score tries against the best opposition. Farrell has been at the heart of things during many of the good times over the last few years but times change and he's become the public face of the safety first game.

Old Man wrote:

Geordie wrote:

Old Man wrote:Well, with Farrell out for the foreseeable future, whoever gets the opportunity at 10 for the next half dozen or so matches need to stake a claim if he wants to be the first choice starter ahead of Farrell when he returns.

Will need to show some leadership, game management, tactical nouse and an 80%+ goal kicking record.


As for Farrell, don't what he is going through, and whilst the media and supporters can be cruel, I suspect outside England he might not be seen as a likeable fellow, certainly not in South Africa. His onfield antics, tackle technique and disrespect often showed on the pitch has not endeared him to many South Africans.

Aw yeah because they're such a likeable bunch aren't they....

Well, my comment wasn't really about the Springboks or their fans. But now that you brought it up, no, I think the Boks are many's least favourite team, the fans are all brushed with the same brush because of a bunch of idiots and the Springboks are constantly narrated as a boring cheating time wasting team who's tactics are killing the game, whether they play exciting rugby or not. I have accepted that,

Yet takes nothing away from my opinion in regards to Farrell.

I actually like the Boks team and the way they play (bar this whole Tom Curry thing). Its proper rugby...and they don't care if anyone likes it or not . It wins. I love that..its more the fans I find pretty tasteless..but it's a minority on social media...hopefully not a reflection of them as a whole.

I agree Geordie, SA play to their strengths and play to win. It's not pretty usually but it works.
I always think it's better to play ugly and win than play pretty and lose. And I'm absolutely certain the players, coaches etc agree.

mountain man wrote:I'd say George, Itoje, Chessum, Earl, Mitchell, Lawrence and Steward are only cast iron certainties.
I'm not sure Cole is.

I cannot think who else is an automatic starter, probably Ford at 10 but that's not definite.

Se3 I'm not sure Mitchell, Chessum or Lawrence are ironed in starters yet.... Chessum has competition from Martin both offer very different games. Mitchell got it by default but has taken his opportunity..but you still have debates about other 9s who could be starting.

Only maybe Underhill could be another...if he's fit he's world class at what he does..

Sport is all about entertainment.

Old Man wrote:...Well, my comment wasn't really about the Springboks or their fans....

You are right to make that point. This shouldn't be a discussion about who has the most toxic fans, or which players deservedly attract opprobrium.

You might not remember this (and forgive me for dragging you in to illustrate a point) I recall you being very critical of Courtney Lawes in the 2011 World Cup after he slid into to tackle Mario Ledesma, and got him in the back with his knee. You described Lawes in passing as something like a thug (maybe not the exact word), and he picked up a two match ban. Your opinion stuck with me, because I didn't see Lawes that way.

Three years later, watching Wales on tour in South Africa, Liam Williams made a no-arms tackle, leading to a penalty try, which cost Wales the match. At the time, I remember thinking Williams was just an ill-disciplined thug, and a blight on the game. Then it struck me that's exactly what your response had been to Lawes. Supporting neither Wales or South Africa, I'd just had a visceral reaction to what I'd seen. Sometimes, something just presses the wrong button.

However, I didn't get into any online argument about Williams (and nor did you about Lawes) so my jaundiced view of Williams didn't get tethered to anything. Not too long afterwards, I started to admire him as a player. Changing my view cost me nothing, because no-one knew what my view had been.

However, if I had criticised him at the time, and got some fierce online backlash, or even won some applause, I might have dug in my heels and planted a flag. "What I Think About Liam Williams" could have become my entrenched opinion, rather than a fleeting thought of half a day. I might have remained sour on him, because changing my view would have meant changing my public identity.

And that's one of the problems with social media. It invites us to carve our instant reactions in stone. If people we like agree with us, we feel vaildated. If people we dislike, disagree with us, then that's another form of validation. Especially if people we like, push back in support.

A lot of reaction to Owen Farrell seems to follow that pattern. People have a negative view of him, which has put down roots. Nothing good he does moves the needle, while anything bad he does reinforces the first opinion. I can't think of another figure in rugby in the same position. Everyone thought Richie McCaw got away with murder but there was a grudging respect. Michael Hooper, who picked up a record number of yellow cards, is generally seen as a good guy. In a World Cup final, the highest profile stage of all, Siya Kolisi and Sam Cane, both captains of their teams, committed the sort of illegal tackles which for which Farrell gets lambasted. Instead of being criticized for letting down their countries, and the sport, there has largely been sympathy for the players. Good guys, who just happened to get it wrong.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Sport is all about entertainment.

Yes for a lot of fans but I would say 99.9% of players would rather win than lose. Hence teams like SA play what some consider dull boring rugby but it's mightly effective so they don't care.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Sport is all about entertainment.

It's about Winning at the top level

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Sport is all about entertainment.

It's about Winning at the top level

But being boring and losing also loses fans.

Geordie wrote:

mountain man wrote:I'd say George, Itoje, Chessum, Earl, Mitchell, Lawrence and Steward are only cast iron certainties.
I'm not sure Cole is.

I cannot think who else is an automatic starter, probably Ford at 10 but that's not definite.

Se3 I'm not sure Mitchell, Chessum or Lawrence are ironed in starters yet.... Chessum has competition from Martin both offer very different games. Mitchell got it by default but has taken his opportunity..but you still have debates about other 9s who could be starting.

Only maybe Underhill could be another...if he's fit he's world class at what he does..

I don't think Borthwick even likes Mitchell as a 9, so I doubt he will be with England during the 6 Nations unless all other options are out.

Aw I think he'll be with England in the 6n ....he's earned that much.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Old Man wrote:...Well, my comment wasn't really about the Springboks or their fans....

You are right to make that point. This shouldn't be a discussion about who has the most toxic fans, or which players deservedly attract opprobrium.

You might not remember this (and forgive me for dragging you in to illustrate a point) I recall you being very critical of Courtney Lawes in the 2011 World Cup after he slid into to tackle Mario Ledesma, and got him in the back with his knee. You described Lawes in passing as something like a thug (maybe not the exact word), and he picked up a two match ban. Your opinion stuck with me, because I didn't see Lawes that way.

Three years later, watching Wales on tour in South Africa, Liam Williams made a no-arms tackle, leading to a penalty try, which cost Wales the match. At the time, I remember thinking Williams was just an ill-disciplined thug, and a blight on the game. Then it struck me that's exactly what your response had been to Lawes. Supporting neither Wales or South Africa, I'd just had a visceral reaction to what I'd seen. Sometimes, something just presses the wrong button.

However, I didn't get into any online argument about Williams (and nor did you about Lawes) so my jaundiced view of Williams didn't get tethered to anything. Not too long afterwards, I started to admire him as a player. Changing my view cost me nothing, because no-one knew what my view had been.

However, if I had criticised him at the time, and got some fierce online backlash, or even won some applause, I might have dug in my heels and planted a flag. "What I Think About Liam Williams" could have become my entrenched opinion, rather than a fleeting thought of half a day. I might have remained sour on him, because changing my view would have meant changing my public identity.

And that's one of the problems with social media. It invites us to carve our instant reactions in stone. If people we like agree with us, we feel vaildated. If people we dislike, disagree with us, then that's another form of validation. Especially if people we like, push back in support.

A lot of reaction to Owen Farrell seems to follow that pattern. People have a negative view of him, which has put down roots. Nothing good he does moves the needle, while anything bad he does reinforces the first opinion. I can't think of another figure in rugby in the same position. Everyone thought Richie McCaw got away with murder but there was a grudging respect. Michael Hooper, who picked up a record number of yellow cards, is generally seen as a good guy. In a World Cup final, the highest profile stage of all, Siya Kolisi and Sam Cane, both captains of their teams, committed the sort of illegal tackles which for which Farrell gets lambasted. Instead of being criticized for letting down their countries, and the sport, there has largely been sympathy for the players. Good guys, who just happened to get it wrong.

I will be surprised if that was me, not saying it isn't, can't remember the incident. However on the whole I agree with your sentiment.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Sport is all about entertainment.

Well yes it is and it isn't.

Rugby in South Africa is more than just an entertainment. It is a tribal war (not in the ethnic sense, but rather an us vs them) my team vs your team, and it is more than just who scored the most tries and who played the most entertaining rugby (again beauty is in the eye of the beholder)

South Africa played seven matches in the RWC. Two of those matches were played in wet conditions, and were also the two most important matches as it was a final and a semi final. The other five matches were entertaining and the Boks played with more freedom, yet nobody (well those who like to criticise them) will acknowledge that the Boks have different ways of playing a game.

Their format is really quite simple. The first half is about brutality, direct in your face rugby and softening (tiring) the opponent.

As the opposition fades the Boks will exploit the errors their opponents make and also become more positive on attack. If conditions or the opponent does not allow the Boks the space or make errors, the Boks are prepared to grind it out.

The Ireland vs SA pool game is one of the most entertaining matches I've ever seen. An incredible display of physicality from both throughout. Two of the best drilled, smartest and aggressive teams I've seen in rugby absolutely smashing into one another for 80 minutes. It was by a distance the most engrossed I was in any match through the tournament, even more so than the NZ vs Ireland and France vs SA games. The score line was 8 - 13 with two tries scored. It was magnificent.

Sport needs to be entertaining but the idea that running rugby and tries are the deciding factor in whether rugby is entertaining has never rung true to me. The Premiership since ringfencing removed any jeopardy from poor performance is a great example of that. Lots of running rugby, lots of tries against atrocious defenses, dogs**t standards, poor entertainment in most games, a crumbling league.

Old Man wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Sport is all about entertainment.

Well yes it is and it isn't.

Rugby in South Africa is more than just an entertainment. It is a tribal war (not in the ethnic sense, but rather an us vs them) my team vs your team, and it is more than just who scored the most tries and who played the most entertaining rugby (again beauty is in the eye of the beholder)

South Africa played seven matches in the RWC. Two of those matches were played in wet conditions, and were also the two most important matches as it was a final and a semi final. The other five matches were entertaining and the Boks played with more freedom, yet nobody (well those who like to criticise them) will acknowledge that the Boks have different ways of playing a game.

Their format is really quite simple. The first half is about brutality, direct in your face rugby and softening (tiring) the opponent.

As the opposition fades the Boks will exploit the errors their opponents make and also become more positive on attack. If conditions or the opponent does not allow the Boks the space or make errors, the Boks are prepared to grind it out.

Why do I feel the urge to post this again????
Winning: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1631550690243597

Old Man wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Sport is all about entertainment.

Well yes it is and it isn't.

Rugby in South Africa is more than just an entertainment. It is a tribal war (not in the ethnic sense, but rather an us vs them) my team vs your team, and it is more than just who scored the most tries and who played the most entertaining rugby (again beauty is in the eye of the beholder)

South Africa played seven matches in the RWC. Two of those matches were played in wet conditions, and were also the two most important matches as it was a final and a semi final. The other five matches were entertaining and the Boks played with more freedom, yet nobody (well those who like to criticise them) will acknowledge that the Boks have different ways of playing a game.

Their format is really quite simple. The first half is about brutality, direct in your face rugby and softening (tiring) the opponent.

As the opposition fades the Boks will exploit the errors their opponents make and also become more positive on attack. If conditions or the opponent does not allow the Boks the space or make errors, the Boks are prepared to grind it out.

No it literally is. But that may suggest why there is so much feet stamping in some quarters. SA are more entertaining than England by a huge margin tho. Borthwick is inept as well. If literally all people are interested in is the win no matter what I do question what is the point. Why would people be consistently pleased with winning if they're bored out of their mind.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Old Man wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Sport is all about entertainment.

Well yes it is and it isn't.

Rugby in South Africa is more than just an entertainment. It is a tribal war (not in the ethnic sense, but rather an us vs them) my team vs your team, and it is more than just who scored the most tries and who played the most entertaining rugby (again beauty is in the eye of the beholder)

South Africa played seven matches in the RWC. Two of those matches were played in wet conditions, and were also the two most important matches as it was a final and a semi final. The other five matches were entertaining and the Boks played with more freedom, yet nobody (well those who like to criticise them) will acknowledge that the Boks have different ways of playing a game.

Their format is really quite simple. The first half is about brutality, direct in your face rugby and softening (tiring) the opponent.

As the opposition fades the Boks will exploit the errors their opponents make and also become more positive on attack. If conditions or the opponent does not allow the Boks the space or make errors, the Boks are prepared to grind it out.

No it literally is. But that may suggest why there is so much feet stamping in some quarters. SA are more entertaining than England by a huge margin tho. Borthwick is inept as well. If literally all people are interested in is the win no matter what I do question what is  the point. Why would people be consistently pleased with winning if they're bored out of their mind.

How so?

On his teams so far. He seems to be getting a bit of grace on his basic wc performance indeed he is (presumably) drumming into his team that they were expected to (by that evil mail stream media) to have been favoured for an early exit while nearly everyone expected a semi final. Its just a matter of time before everyone comes round to it.

Yeah it's been hilarious the performances so far tbf.

Was thinking about the A game..there's some serious talent coming through...

What about something like
1 Brantingham / Baxter
2 Riley
3 Painter
4 Coles (If he's not in the 6n squad)
5 Tizard/ Tuima
6 CCS
7 Pepper
8 Chick

9 ??
10 Fin Smith
11 Reed
12 Ojomoh / Atkinson (Whoever is not in the 6n)
13 Jospeh
14 Sleightholme (If not in the 6n)
15 Carpenter/ Hodge (whoever Is not in the 6n)

Yup. Well set for the new coach.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yup. Well set for the new coach.

Given you've said outright that your only remaining motivation for being on here is hoping the team fails so you can say I told you so, why don't you just come back when that happens?

You used to be a fun person to discuss rugby with even if with didn't always agree but you don't discuss rugby anymore. You just take anything anyone tries to say and twist it into a new means of whining. We get it, you don't rate a coach. Take how bored you might be with England's tactics, multiply it by about 1000, that's how f***ing boring this schtick is at this point.

Geordie wrote:Was thinking about the A game..there's some serious talent coming through...

What about something like
1 Brantingham / Baxter
2 Riley
3 Painter
4 Coles (If he's not in the 6n squad)
5 Tizard/ Tuima
6 CCS
7 Pepper
8 Chick

9 ??
10 Fin Smith
11 Reed
12 Ojomoh / Atkinson (Whoever is not in the 6n)
13 Jospeh
14 Sleightholme (If not in the 6n)
15 Carpenter/ Hodge (whoever Is not in the 6n)

Hopefully Warr gets capped at 9. Quality player. Roebuck on the wing too.

1.Baxter 2.Blamire 3.Painter 4.Coles 5.Tizard 6.CCS 7.B Curry (c) 8.Barbeary/Tillis
9.Warr 10.Smith 11.Roebuck 12.S Atkinson 13.Dingwall 14.Radwan 15.Carpenter

16.Frost 17.Brantingham 18.Heyes 19.Hill 20.Harding 21.Randall 22.Barton 23.Joseph

I'd have Obano in there ahead of both but think he might get picked in the Six Nations if Marler is retired as rumoured.

Chunya Munga has impressed me at Quins, did at LI previously.

Hill has started the season well for a strong Sale side though...

I mean it's happening all the time so it's good to be proved right in real Time.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I mean it's happening all the time so it's good to be proved right in real Time.

What is?

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I mean it's happening all the time so it's good to be proved right in real Time.

What is?

The point(s) made above.

Even guys supporting Borthwick are hoping for numerous changes in personnel and the hope the attack vastly improves.

king_carlos wrote:

Geordie wrote:Was thinking about the A game..there's some serious talent coming through...

What about something like
1 Brantingham / Baxter
2 Riley
3 Painter
4 Coles (If he's not in the 6n squad)
5 Tizard/ Tuima
6 CCS
7 Pepper
8 Chick

9 ??
10 Fin Smith
11 Reed
12 Ojomoh / Atkinson (Whoever is not in the 6n)
13 Jospeh
14 Sleightholme (If not in the 6n)
15 Carpenter/ Hodge (whoever Is not in the 6n)

Hopefully Warr gets capped at 9. Quality player. Roebuck on the wing too.

1.Baxter 2.Blamire 3.Painter 4.Coles 5.Tizard 6.CCS 7.B Curry (c) 8.Barbeary/Tillis
9.Warr 10.Smith 11.Roebuck 12.S Atkinson 13.Dingwall 14.Radwan 15.Carpenter

16.Frost 17.Brantingham 18.Heyes 19.Hill 20.Harding 21.Randall 22.Barton 23.Joseph

I'd have Obano in there ahead of both but think he might get picked in the Six Nations if Marler is retired as rumoured.

Chunya Munga has impressed me at Quins, did at LI previously.

Hill has started the season well for a strong Sale side though...

KC that's the crazy thing isn't it. I mean I was having bit of fun with the side..but we actually have no real idea what the actual 6n squad will be...that must be quite a unique situation...

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I mean it's happening all the time so it's good to be proved right in real Time.

What is?

The point(s) made above.

Maybe in your mind....

But hey if you are right many on here will say well done you were right...and you can do a little jig...

We already agree on a load of stuff. The need for the England squad to change. The need on the tactics to change. The main thing we don't agree on is that I don't think Borthwick can envisage the change and that he will be replaced pretty quickly. So by thw time we all.do the little jig we will see it as either a wasted 6 months or so or that he's been given his full chance.

No 7&1/2 wrote:...they were expected to (by that evil mail stream media) to have been favoured for an early exit while nearly everyone expected a semi final....

You said this before, and it's not true that "nearly everyone expected a semi final".

The draw meant that England would face teams they ought to be capable of beating until the semi-final stage. However, form leading up to the tournament had cast serious doubts on that outcome. Assuming we progressed from the group, we would face Wales, Australia or Fiji. Both Wales and Fiji beat us in August. Australia had a series of bad results but Eddie Jones retained a reputation for preparing teams well for the World Cup. Consequently, many pundits thought the Wallabies could turn England over.

As it turned out, given the tournament form of England and the opposition, a semi-final exit was a par result. It was certainly not what "everyone expected" on the eve of the tournament.

No 7&1/2 wrote:We already agree on a load of stuff. The need for the England squad to change. The need on the tactics to change. The main thing we don't agree on is that I don't think Borthwick can envisage the change and that he will be replaced pretty quickly. So by thw time we all.do the little jig we will see it as either a wasted 6 months or so or that he's been given his full chance.

We agreed on very little. Weve all said he clearly had a plan for the world cup, and now will face big squad turnover and will need to evolve and bring an attack in, but your blind hatred of SB just cant see it...

Hes not going to bring in some fijian style 7s game that you want...

Rugby Fan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:...they were expected to (by that evil mail stream media) to have been favoured for an early exit while nearly everyone expected a semi final....

You said this before, and it's not true that "nearly everyone expected a semi final".

The draw meant that England would face teams they ought to be capable of beating until the semi-final stage. However, form leading up to the tournament had cast serious doubts on that outcome. Assuming we progressed from the group, we would face Wales, Australia or Fiji. Both Wales and Fiji beat us in August. Australia had a series of bad results but Eddie Jones retained a reputation for preparing teams well for the World Cup. Consequently, many pundits thought the Wallabies could turn England over.

As it turned out, given the tournament form of England and the opposition, a semi-final exit was a par result. It was certainly not what "everyone expected" on the eve of the tournament.

All I'm saying is that practically to a person all the main media people did predict a semi. I'm not sure if it's this board that predicted less?

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:We already agree on a load of stuff. The need for the England squad to change. The need on the tactics to change. The main thing we don't agree on is that I don't think Borthwick can envisage the change and that he will be replaced pretty quickly. So by thw time we all.do the little jig we will see it as either a wasted 6 months or so or that he's been given his full chance.

We agreed on very little. Weve all said he clearly had a plan for the world cup, and now will face big squad turnover and will need to evolve and bring an attack in, but your blind hatred of SB just cant see it...

Hes not going to bring in some fijian style 7s game that you want...

I agree that things need to change. We disagree that Borthwick is the man to do it. And yet again not wanting England to kick the ball away and hope for mistakes after 2 phases doesn't mean we have to play the tactics for a different sport.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I mean it's happening all the time so it's good to be proved right in real Time.

What is?

The point(s) made above.

Even guys supporting Borthwick are hoping for numerous changes in personnel and the hope the attack vastly improves.

I wouldn't say I necessarily support Borthwick but I'm realistic enough to know that he's going nowhere so it's rather pointless to keep on moaning about his appointment. I'm certainly one who wants to see squad refreshed and some more attacking tactics but whilst SB is coach I will support team(as I would with any Eng coach).

The one part of the SB criticism that I can't understand is that he won't build an attack.

He's been around rugby for a long time on a variety of teams and coached a variety of teams and been unstudy to Eddie Jones etc. To say he doesn't know that a strong attack is vital..... is just stupid.

Ha. I'm sure he knows. He just likes doing it this way. There's so many great players putting their hands up at the moment so he's got all the chance in the world to do it and do it well.

Just catching up on last night's game again a few talented youngsters ousting their hands up in front of Borthwick. Cunningham-South was great at blindside,Joseph did everything asked of him and Smith was just his normal self. Quirke looked great from the bench and oh my Opoku-Fordjour looks a prospect. Turned around the scrums and name dropped by Marler.

[quote="No 7&1/2"]Ha. I'm sure he knows. He just likes doing it this way. There's so many great promising players putting their hands up at the moment so he's got all the chance in the world to do it and do it well.

Just catching up on last night's game again a few talented youngsters ousting their hands up in front of Borthwick. Cunningham-South was great at blindside,Joseph did everything asked of him and Smith was just his normal self. Quirke looked great from the bench and oh my Opoku-Fordjour looks a prospect. Turned around the scrums and name dropped by Marler. [/q

Corrected that one for you, there are no GREAT players putting their hands up, only players that might with a lot of work become great in a few years time.

Fair enough point. Still so much choice should he choose to use them properly.

Good to see a profit for the RFU and all the covid debt cleared now. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/67596449

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:We already agree on a load of stuff. The need for the England squad to change. The need on the tactics to change. The main thing we don't agree on is that I don't think Borthwick can envisage the change and that he will be replaced pretty quickly. So by thw time we all.do the little jig we will see it as either a wasted 6 months or so or that he's been given his full chance.

We agreed on very little. Weve all said he clearly had a plan for the world cup, and now will face big squad turnover and will need to evolve and bring an attack in, but your blind hatred of SB just cant see it...

Hes not going to bring in some fijian style 7s game that you want...

I agree that things need to change. We disagree that Borthwick is the man to do it. And yet again not wanting England to kick the ball away and hope for mistakes after 2 phases doesn't mean we have to play the tactics for a different sport.

Yet his advice for Cadan Murley was work on getting your hands on the ball more. Go looking for work and carries. No mention of kicking game.

https://www.premiershiprugby.com/content/cadan-murley-borthwick-wants-me-more-involved-jack-nowell

Are you all promising were going to move away from this kick and hope tactic then?you all seem confident it's going to become less boring. Maybe I should move back to lookingmon the bright side that Jones is about to remind Borthwick and Wigglesworth that you actually allowed to pass the ball into the hands of wingers.