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

First topic message reminder :

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

No 7&1/2 wrote: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.

Your making the assumption that what you would like to see is what everyone else wants to see. The kicking game is fine if it gets you up into the opponents 1/3 of the pitch, but then you do need an attacking game to compliment it.

Saints are one of the most attacking sides in the PL, but against a good resolute defence, they use it to allow their attack to make shorter successful breaks or gain penalties.

If you have pace in your team, it is also far more difficult for the opposition to get a breakaway try from their 22.

Biggest issue with England regarding kicking is they have done it far too often in opposition 22, both in 6N and in RWC. Japan game a particular nadir.

Absolutely a kicking game is required but it's where and when which is key.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote: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.

Your making the assumption that what you would like to see is what everyone else wants to see. The kicking game is fine if it gets you up into the opponents 1/3 of the pitch, but then you do need an attacking game to compliment it.

Saints are one of the most attacking sides in the PL, but against a good resolute defence, they use it to allow their attack to make shorter successful breaks or gain penalties.

If you have pace in your team, it is also far more difficult for the opposition to get a breakaway try from their 22.

All teams kick. Some excellent ones kick a lot. But not the way england do. It's boring. It's ineffective unless the opposition have a mare and it's very telegraphed.

I do get that some people like to see a really basic grinding game but even SA show more risk than us. We have loads of players capable of playing a much more open game and actually go out to create. And we just don't as we're happy to kick deep and hope the other sides lose their heads.

As has been said on here many times by a number of people, in the RWC England's kicking gave them field position for long periods of the games, it was our inability to do anything with it that was the issue. It won us the game against Argentina and allowed us to scrape through the other tight games, being in a position to kick penalties.

In my opinion, we quite simply we do not have the players to play an open attacking game against the top sides. We have a number of excellent attacking wingers, all of whom are flawed in some way that would make them weak at international level, we completely lack a good playmaking 12 or 13 that can do the defensive stuff, hold the defence because of their size or skill and put people into the space when the occasion demands. We haven't had anyone like that since Greenwood.

Until we do, we need to do what we do best, get position then attack.

there is kicking and kicking. the kicks to contest from within your own half that England do are very good indeed and win them a bit of ball if very predictable. Its the kicking away of good attacking possession that many folk find hard to stomach. How many times did you see England with good attacking ball in the opposition half and then kick it away meaning the chance is gone?

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:As has been said on here many times by a number of people, in the RWC England's kicking gave them field position for long periods of the games, it was our inability to do anything with it that was the issue. It won us the game against Argentina and allowed us to scrape through the other tight games, being in a position to kick penalties.

In my opinion, we quite simply we do not have the players to play an open attacking game against the top sides. We have a number of excellent attacking wingers, all of whom are flawed in some way that would make them weak at international level, we completely lack a good playmaking 12 or 13 that can do the defensive stuff, hold the defence because of their size or skill and put people into the space when the occasion demands. We haven't had anyone like that since Greenwood.

Until we do, we need to do what we do best, get position then attack.

And I'm very much in the camp we do have the players. When we simply kick the ball away and don't even try to play with any pace so consistently and we have in the past it must be down to how Borthwick wants to play the game. If we do continue with this plan we will lose more than we win,those that we do win will endure some booing at full time again and lead to the rfu having to pull the trigger. If say you're correct and the players simply aren't hood enough,again we may as well try to entertain.

TJ wrote:there is kicking and kicking.  the kicks to contest from within your own half that England do are very good indeed and win them a bit of ball if very predictable.  Its the kicking away of good attacking possession that many folk find hard to stomach.  How many times did you see England with good attacking ball in the opposition half and then kick it away meaning the chance is gone?

Lots is the answer. It's soul destroying.

TJ wrote:there is kicking and kicking.  the kicks to contest from within your own half that England do are very good indeed and win them a bit of ball if very predictable.  Its the kicking away of good attacking possession that many folk find hard to stomach.  How many times did you see England with good attacking ball in the opposition half and then kick it away meaning the chance is gone?

The kicking away of attacking ball is normally due to a) the attack not going anywhere so rolling the dice before it falters completely or b) the players lacking faith in the attacking structure and so looking apply pressure via the boot.

We saw the amount of scenarios b) coming down during the world cup but a) remains a bit of a problem. Now Borthwick has the attack coach he wants we should see some movement in that regard.

You don't have to compete for the ball in the air for it to be a good kick. If you kick a bit longer and then tackle the catcher you can apply pressure on the breakdown and normally have another shot at the breakdown at the phase after as most sides will try to use a short forward carry to get their backs back on their feet. That's then two rucks you can attack with your jacklers. Tigers did this a lot under Borthwick with Reffell and Montoya attacking the breakdowns. If the opposition sit deep you kick shorter and look to compete, if they come shorter to make competition hard you kick longer and look to take man and ball. Failing all that you kick really long and back yourself to move them around until you isolate a weaker player.

Again were not sure that Jones will be the attack coach. At this moment it remains Wigglesworth.

TJ wrote:there is kicking and kicking.  the kicks to contest from within your own half that England do are very good indeed and win them a bit of ball if very predictable.  Its the kicking away of good attacking possession that many folk find hard to stomach.  How many times did you see England with good attacking ball in the opposition half and then kick it away meaning the chance is gone?

That is exactly what I mean, we kick well to get field position, but then don't know what to do with it when it comes to attack.

7 1/2, we have a lot of promising players, but I cannot think of any centres that are fit to clean Greenwood's boots at the moment, they are all crash ball merchants devoid of guile or lightweights that are very skilful but have trouble defensively and cannot fix the defence with a possible crash ball. International defences are so much better the PL teams, if they know someone is weak in an area, i.e. will crash the ball 9 out of 10 times, they will be waiting for it and have a player up in the face of any possible receiver knowing the ability of the crash ball player is limited. When was the last time anyone saw Manu pass the ball more than a couple of metres.

I think the best all-round centre we have at the moment is Dingwall, but I do not think he would be so effective against France or Ireland. Lawrence may develop to be that person but is not there yet, Freeman looks very good at 13 but needs at least another year to learn all the skills and tricks of the trade. I am sure there are others, but no one is holding their hand up and showing they are fit for selection.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

TJ wrote:there is kicking and kicking.  the kicks to contest from within your own half that England do are very good indeed and win them a bit of ball if very predictable.  Its the kicking away of good attacking possession that many folk find hard to stomach.  How many times did you see England with good attacking ball in the opposition half and then kick it away meaning the chance is gone?

That is exactly what I mean, we kick well to get field position, but then don't know what to do with it when it comes to attack.

7 1/2, we have a lot of promising players, but I cannot think of any centres that are fit to clean Greenwood's boots at the moment, they are all crash ball merchants devoid of guile or lightweights that are very skilful but have trouble defensively and cannot fix the defence with a possible crash ball. International defences are so much better the PL teams, if they know someone is weak in an area, i.e. will crash the ball 9 out of 10 times, they will be waiting for it and have a player up in the face of any possible receiver knowing the ability of the crash ball player is limited. When was the last time anyone saw Manu pass the ball more than a couple of metres.

I think the best all-round centre we have at the moment is Dingwall, but I do not think he would be so effective against France or Ireland. Lawrence may develop to be that person but is not there yet, Freeman looks very good at 13 but needs at least another year to learn all the skills and tricks of the trade. I am sure there are others, but no one is holding their hand up and showing they are fit for selection.

God no we don't have a Greenwood but them he's an all time great for England so you won't have these types of players at all times. I don't think we should be looking for a player but a combo and a style. Bit harsh on Tuialgi too when he's getting the ball 3 times a game and each of our wingers are touching the ball once or twice there are serious issues.

The closest match we have had for Greenwood in terms of the balance of running, defence, vision and being a second playmaker is Farrell (if you don't count Catt).

That's not saying he is as good a 12 as Greenwood, but everyone else we have tried has been significantly deficient in at least one facet of Shaggy's game, whereas Farrell lacks the creativity but is close in most other aspects.

There are some promising options who might be ready in a few years. At Quins, I am hoping that Anyanwu and Hyde will break through sooner rather than later.

And while I don't think it will happen, if Tigers tried Steward at 12, he has all the attributes to grow into that position, where I think at International level he would be better than at 15. The trouble is, he's too good a club fullback for them to want to shift him.

Well Borthwick as yet doesn't seem sold on Kelly. If these new contracts give him as much say as is rumoured he could get Leicester to switch positions.

Sinckler interview saying he wouldn't be surprised to see more England players taking a break from internationals as the pressure is ramped up through social media etc.

Poorfour wrote:The closest match we have had for Greenwood in terms of the balance of running, defence, vision and being a second playmaker is Farrell (if you don't count Catt).

That's not saying he is as good a 12 as Greenwood, but everyone else we have tried has been significantly deficient in at least one facet of Shaggy's game, whereas Farrell lacks the creativity but is close in most other aspects.

There are some promising options who might be ready in a few years. At Quins, I am hoping that Anyanwu and Hyde will break through sooner rather than later.

And while I don't think it will happen, if Tigers tried Steward at 12, he has all the attributes to grow into that position, where I think at International level he would be better than at 15. The trouble is, he's too good a club fullback for them to want to shift him.

I would have thought Flutey but he had only a brief spell in the sun. It is a cursed position for us.

We need to drop trying to replace Greenwood and focus on finally finding a 12 that can function gr3at for this team.

Big powerhouses seem flavour of the month but we don't really have those...when you consider the front runners are Ojomoh, Seb Atkinson and Dan Kelly. I don't really want Manu there but if we have Lawrence or Freeman at 13..then they have some power...

Nick Tompkins was someone very few people were talking about as an international quality player, but has shown that he is a capable player at that level.  George North isn't someone many of us would say was a Welsh great outside centre, yet through some coaching and a game plan by Gatland, they have become an efficient international centre partnership.

As has been said waiting to find someone as good as Will Greenwood is very likely a pointless exercise.  Likewise having a revolving door policy with our centre pairings looks a pointless exercise - under Borthwick we have seen Porter, Daly, Marchant, Manu, Farrell, Lawrence, Slade, Kelly and possibly more I have forgotten.  Borthwick needs to identify 2 players and give them a run of games together.

nlpnlp wrote:under Borthwick we have seen Porter, Daly, Marchant, Manu, Farrell, Lawrence, Slade, Kelly and possibly more I have forgotten.  Borthwick needs to identify 2 players and give them a run of games together.

Kelly hasn't played for England under Borthwick. Porter only played in the world cup warm up games if memory serves. Leaves about five centres that England have used, Daly and Farrell as utility option and Slade who was omitted from the world cup where we concentrated on the three of Manu, Lawrence and Marchant.

Marchant is no longer available and Manu is injured (again) whilst not getting any younger so we'll have to see some changes and that will mean an amount of experimentation as we look to get the right mix. The 6N ramps up in difficulty as it goes along so we do have a couple of games at the start to identify the right pairing before nailing it down for the harder games towards the end.

This is one of the reasons I rate Dingwall so highly, it's what else he brings to the side other than his playing ability. Quote from Lee Radford Saints new defence coach:

“He’s very good,” Radford said of the centre who also set up Ollie Sleightholme’s try with a perfectly-weighted crossfield kick.

“He’s very good at articulating his point, he gets his point across very well and his communication levels are through the roof on the field.

“In pre-game, the build-up, the little add-ons he brings to the team – it’s like having another coach on the field and the more of them we can have, the better.”

He is only 24, so that is some skill set.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:This is one of the reasons I rate Dingwall so highly, it's what else he brings to the side other than his playing ability. Quote from Lee Radford Saints new defence coach:

“He’s very good,” Radford said of the centre who also set up Ollie Sleightholme’s try with a perfectly-weighted crossfield kick.

“He’s very good at articulating his point, he gets his point across very well and his communication levels are through the roof on the field.

“In pre-game, the build-up, the little add-ons he brings to the team – it’s like having another coach on the field and the more of them we can have, the better.”

He is only 24, so that is some skill set.

I don't think anybody doubts his skill set, has always been one that's looked to have leadership capabilities so nice it's really coming through. He's definitely improved this season but I still don't know how he'd get on at international level where the physicality is a step up. He just about punches his weight at that level now that's an improvement on previous seasons.

The new defence coach has definitely been good for him. He's getting lower into the tackle which used to be an issue for him, particularly at 12, as he doesn't seem to drive into contact and he used to try and target the ball. In one of the East Midlands Derbies the other year I think he got run over in heavy traffic three times in five minutes or something ridiculous. That might be a tough five minutes at club level but the standard of carriers at international level is a huge jump up.

It's not like the Saints defence is particularly famed for its organisation, though huge strides have been taken with the new defence coach. You see Seb Atkinson hitting well above his weight at Glaws, he's smaller than Dingwall but in defence and carrying through traffic he's far superior and he brings a nice range of skills. There's a lot of competition there at the minute amongst the less experienced guys.

Marler has confirmed hes available for England...but is retiring from rugby in 2025.

Marler, Genge, Obano / Rodd...with Baxter and Brantingham as apprentices? Surely thats decent depth?

formerly known as Sam wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:This is one of the reasons I rate Dingwall so highly, it's what else he brings to the side other than his playing ability. Quote from Lee Radford Saints new defence coach:

“He’s very good,” Radford said of the centre who also set up Ollie Sleightholme’s try with a perfectly-weighted crossfield kick.

“He’s very good at articulating his point, he gets his point across very well and his communication levels are through the roof on the field.

“In pre-game, the build-up, the little add-ons he brings to the team – it’s like having another coach on the field and the more of them we can have, the better.”

He is only 24, so that is some skill set.

I don't think anybody doubts his skill set, has always been one that's looked to have leadership capabilities so nice it's really coming through. He's definitely improved this season but I still don't know how he'd get on at international level where the physicality is a step up. He just about punches his weight at that level now that's an improvement on previous seasons.

The new defence coach has definitely been good for him. He's getting lower into the tackle which used to be an issue for him, particularly at 12, as he doesn't seem to drive into contact and he used to try and target the ball. In one of the East Midlands Derbies the other year I think he got run over in heavy traffic three times in five minutes or something ridiculous. That might be a tough five minutes at club level but the standard of carriers at international level is a huge jump up.

It's not like the Saints defence is particularly famed for its organisation, though huge strides have been taken with the new defence coach. You see Seb Atkinson hitting well above his weight at Glaws, he's smaller than Dingwall but in defence and carrying through traffic he's far superior and he brings a nice range of skills. There's a lot of competition there at the minute amongst the less experienced guys.

I think you are looking at last seasons Dingwall, there are not many better defensive backlines than Sarries, and he was more than just effective, he made ground most times and in the tackle he stopped them dead. He seems to have muscled up a bit, a lot of the Saints backs have, Handy was saying that he was given a programme over the summer to bulk up a bit, he put on 5kg of muscle and it is really showing this season, he is now going through the tackle rather than being stopped. The Ludlam leg drive seems to have been taught across the team as well, unless they are grounded they are getting the leg drive going a lot more and making that extra yard or two.

Atkinson is actually shorter and heavier than Dingwall at 1.79m and 91kg against 1.88m and 86kg. I have not seen enough of him to comment on his form or abilities, but playing for Gloucester at the moment cannot be easy.

That's my point 86 kg for a centre over 6ft is really small for international rugby. Look at who he'll face off against at 12 if he were to start in the 6N; Tuipulotu, Aki, Danty will all have a couple of stone on him. Without checking I'd assume they are all around the 16 stone mark.

I can't say I remember him carrying in the tight this season. His defence has definitely improved but it's not dominant so there are still concerns because of the huge step up between club and international rugby. As I said the new defence coach at Northampton has made a huge impact (hopefully they don't wise up to the ability of good coaches to much and hire a competent scrum coach). We'll see who he does in Europe as Tuipulotu will provide a stern test.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:This is one of the reasons I rate Dingwall so highly, it's what else he brings to the side other than his playing ability. Quote from Lee Radford Saints new defence coach:

“He’s very good,” Radford said of the centre who also set up Ollie Sleightholme’s try with a perfectly-weighted crossfield kick.

“He’s very good at articulating his point, he gets his point across very well and his communication levels are through the roof on the field.

“In pre-game, the build-up, the little add-ons he brings to the team – it’s like having another coach on the field and the more of them we can have, the better.”

He is only 24, so that is some skill set.

I don't think anybody doubts his skill set, has always been one that's looked to have leadership capabilities so nice it's really coming through. He's definitely improved this season but I still don't know how he'd get on at international level where the physicality is a step up. He just about punches his weight at that level now that's an improvement on previous seasons.

The new defence coach has definitely been good for him. He's getting lower into the tackle which used to be an issue for him, particularly at 12, as he doesn't seem to drive into contact and he used to try and target the ball. In one of the East Midlands Derbies the other year I think he got run over in heavy traffic three times in five minutes or something ridiculous. That might be a tough five minutes at club level but the standard of carriers at international level is a huge jump up.

It's not like the Saints defence is particularly famed for its organisation, though huge strides have been taken with the new defence coach. You see Seb Atkinson hitting well above his weight at Glaws, he's smaller than Dingwall but in defence and carrying through traffic he's far superior and he brings a nice range of skills. There's a lot of competition there at the minute amongst the less experienced guys.

I think you are looking at last seasons Dingwall, there are not many better defensive backlines than Sarries, and he was more than just effective, he made ground most times and in the tackle he stopped them dead. He seems to have muscled up a bit, a lot of the Saints backs have, Handy was saying that he was given a programme over the summer to bulk up a bit, he put on 5kg of muscle and it is really showing this season, he is now going through the tackle rather than being stopped. The Ludlam leg drive seems to have been taught across the team as well, unless they are grounded they are getting the leg drive going a lot more and making that extra yard or two.

Atkinson is actually shorter and heavier than Dingwall at 1.79m and 91kg against 1.88m and 86kg. I have not seen enough of him to comment on his form or abilities, but playing for Gloucester at the moment cannot be easy.

Now that's funny because the saints back who has impressed me the most has bene Furbank...and he looks like he's put some beef on. I know he was derided a bit for england but in this form he looks quality. And he absolutely bossed Esterhuizen in defence when they played quins...

Geordie,

Furbank has been on fire this last few weeks, against Quins he was playing at 10 and was brilliant, as you say he bossed Esterhuizen, knocked him back in the tackle at least 3 times. It was his all-round game that impressed me, not just his defence, he kicked only when he thought there was advantage in it, passed most of the time and took the ball up himself numerous times usually making good ground.

Hendy is another wing/15 off the Saints production line, good ball skills. blisteringly quick, he made Murley look like a prop chasing back for a ball the other week. With Freeman looking like he will play 13, we have Ramm and Hendy as wing/15s with Sleightholme and Seabrook as wingers. Not bad options to have.

As I said after the game, Eddie Jones said his best position was 10. His place kicking is not to be dismissed either.

Furbank been really good this season but I look back on his previous Eng games and shudder. (In fairness he had one good match v France?) but otherwise pretty mediocre.

He's surely never going to play 10 for Eng as long as Ford and Smith are available and Steward is 15. I suppose he could be a bench option to cover both positions but then we're back to players who are jack of all trades masters of none.

With the predominance of the kicking game, I don't think a winger that is magic at being a winger only is suitable for todays tactics. A player that can play in any of the 11/14/15 positions is a not hybrid compromise, they are modern players where positions are interchangeable, they just have a greater skill set in order to compete in the game as it is today. The likes of Watson and May could play 15 to a good level, but not a good international level, they were/are wingers. The likes of Freeman and other similar players (the younger generation) have always played in both positions and have the skill set to play either. With so much kicking the wings have to be able to field/catch he ball and return kicks with accuracy and distance as well as run the ball back at speed. The ability to be able to kick and compete for the high ball or kick into areas that puts pressure on the opposition is now a requirement of the game

Fair comment but 10 and 15 are such different positions that only the very best are capable of being Int standard in both. Beauden Barrett is one that springs to mind, with respect to the man Furbank isn't.

Furbank is unlikely to get ahead of Ford, Farrell, Smith and Smith to be honest is he. His best best is the jack of all trades role but surely there are others than fit that bill better.

mountain man wrote:Fair comment but 10 and 15 are such different positions that only the very best are capable of being Int standard in both. Beauden Barrett is one that springs to mind, with respect to the man Furbank isn't.

I'm not sure I agree with you there. Positionally, I'd say that in the modern game the major difference is that the fullback is required to marshall the pendulum in defence, which is a distinct skill in itself. These days both positions tend to drop back to field kicks (though a fullback is more frequently expected to take the high balls - typically because they're the return of a kick from the flyhalf), and both act as playmaker in attack.

I'd say it's a lot easier for someone who is a top class 10 to adapt to being a fullback than the other way round. There are a decent number of 10s who also play or played fullback to international standard. Nick Evans and Mike Catt all played both positions at international level. Alex Goode started out at 10 and switched to fullback when Farrell came through the game. Marcus Smith has all the characteristics to make a decent fullback except the physical heft.

There aren't so many who started at FB and came forward - Furbank and Blair Kinghorn are the one that spring to mind but I suspect both of them will have played 10 at age grade.

Larkham is probably the best example of starting at 15 and shifting forwards. When MacQueen did that with Australia it was controversial as Larkham was already a terrific fullback when Matt Burke was injured.

The switch was helped by him being a Brumbies product though. They were effectively the first professional rugby team. Proper fitness standards, strong rucking and defensive work across the entire team rather than certain positions, set-piece plays run over a series of phases rather than one phase at best. That Brumbies setup is probably the fastest leap forward in development rugby ever took. MacQueen then transplanted those tactics into the Australia team that won the 1999 RWC. There's an argument that Australia were playing such a different style of rugby then that having a Brumbies fullback at 10 was a smaller learning curve for Larkham than a 10 from elsewhere shifting into those tactics. They'd not really replaced Lynagh after all.

He also made the shift with one of the great 9s inside him in George Gregan and the best 12 of all time outside him in Tim Horan. Which also helps.

I think Furbank could potentially end up a better 10 than 15. He's not an international 10 though. I think he's in that same bracket as Dombrandt where he consistently shines at domestic level but lacks that extra quality needed to step up, looked a bit lost more often than not for England.

king_carlos wrote:Larkham is probably the best example of starting at 15 and shifting forwards. When MacQueen did that with Australia it was controversial as Larkham was already a terrific fullback when Matt Burke was injured.

The switch was helped by him being a Brumbies product though. They were effectively the first professional rugby team. Proper fitness standards, strong rucking and defensive work across the entire team rather than certain positions, set-piece plays run over a series of phases rather than one phase at best. That Brumbies setup is probably the fastest leap forward in development rugby ever took. MacQueen then transplanted those tactics into the Australia team that won the 1999 RWC. There's an argument that Australia were playing such a different style of rugby then that having a Brumbies fullback at 10 was a smaller learning curve for Larkham than a 10 from elsewhere shifting into those tactics. They'd not really replaced Lynagh after all.

He also made the shift with one of the great 9s inside him in George Gregan and the best 12 of all time outside him in Tim Horan. Which also helps.

I think Furbank could potentially end up a better 10 than 15. He's not an international 10 though. I think he's in that same bracket as Dombrandt where he consistently shines at domestic level but lacks that extra quality needed to step up, looked a bit lost more often than not for England.

he was a bit reminiscent of Goode in that respect (who might have made an interesting international 10 )

Goode was a FH that moved to FB rather than the other way round wasn't he?

I think Goode's another who just lacked that bit of athleticism to step up in either position. He'd be in Ford or Smith's bracket as a defensive 10. He'd have a short boot for a FH either from the tee or tactically. He was noticeably slow at fullback but didn't have Steward or Brown's aerial skills. His distribution as a second playmaker is brilliant but as a FH I don't think it would have stood out much.

A terrific Premiership player who didn't quite have that extra few percent in any areas that long term internationals have.

It must be such a tough thing for players if they realise that in real time, on the pitch. It's not something I've really heard pro rugby players talk about. Maybe as it's such a young professional sport so there haven't been as many previous generations to discuss these things a few years down the line. It must happen though. Players who's game at domestic level is built around dominating contact for instance, but then come up against a strong international team and get rag dolled repeatedly. First time, "ah maybe bad luck, I got hit hard". Second time, "oh he's a quality player, brilliant tackler, these things happen". Third time, "ah, that was one of the smallest blokes on the pitch who just emptied me". Players must have those sorts of moments where they're realising at the same time as the fans watching that this might just be a step too far for them. It's something cricketers have spoken about a bit. Fantastic batters at domestic level, who made tons of runs and dominated each level they play. Then they get to Tests and are struggling to put bat on ball. At first they think, "tough conditions this morning". Then they steadily realise the 'tough conditions' don't seem to be as reliant on conditions against this class of bowlers.

There's still something to be said about the integration of some of the players. I've said that for most you really need around 10 games to properly judge someone; sometimes it's easier as they step on the pitch and you think wow (for good or bad!). The examples are both Saracens in my mind in Itoje and Tomkins. It has to be said that sometimes we really don't make things easy to flourish either often giving players vastly different roles to ones where they've caught the eye in the first place.

It's a discussion we've done to death but I generally take the view that players being able to adapt to the team and tactics around them is generally a prerequisite of international class. I often feel that players who "need a team built around them" or need "free reign over the attack" or "the freedom to run the lines they see" etc etc tend to just not have that extra quality it takes. The very best players adapt to what those around them need rather than the other way round.

There's also the issue that the roles some players thrive in at domestic level just don't work in higher level internationals. Dombrandt being used for crash ball more by England feels a perfect example. The gaps around the fringes he exploits fantastically when running off Care at Quins just aren't gaps at international level. Defences like SA, Ireland and France generally reset too quickly. It's a brick wall where the weakest shoulder you can try to exploit are mountains like Malherbe and Furlong. A few Dombrandt fans said he was just used poorly but number 8s who's main skill is carrying need to be able to make yards against set defences to succeed at the top level.

Mitchell is a great example of someone adapting his game well on the other hand. The rate that his fitness, kicking and defensive work improved over about 6 months from the Six Nations, through the RWC was terrific and a huge credit to his quality. I was sceptical he'd convert his bright bench apps to being a starter. When faced with tiring defenders those two steps he took at the base before passing was changing the picture in attack due to his pace. 9s who do that often get worked over by fresher defenses when they start though. Mitchell's basics have come on a lot and he was deservedly first choice at the RWC though. He adapted to what the team needed. Rather than waiting for his teammates, tactics and the opposition's weaknesses to suit him.

And that's fair enough. If you want to play a certain way pick players that suit the way you play. There may be players that look great because of certain aspects, if you don't play to those strengths then the rest of their game may not look up to scratch. One of the main aspects of Dombrandt is to get to the line free up his hands and offload out, rarely see that used, tbf you rarely see any offloads from England. So I agree look to others. The way we play it's probably set up for Barbeary and get him to reign in his pick and goes a bit as he'll get too isoloated.

Intersting half rumour in the Torygraph. Looks like the RFU are still playing to the tune of the clubs. Arundell is being offered a hybrid contract and unless he moves to Bath he will be ineligible for the 6Ns. Be interesting then to see what that means in terms of promises made to Arundell, will Borthwick be forced to pick him, or potentially lose more money from France on the half promise of England appearance money?

There was some real opportunity to improve things ... and this is sounding like typical RFU. From a prem perspective wonder how salary cap plays around this.

Does using a forward to shift the point of attack on the gain line work if they aren't a gain line threat against stronger defences though? If a 4th choice Prem prop from the Championship the season before is faced by Dombrandt running off Care then he needs to fully commit to stop him, which makes the distribution a threat as you've fixed a defender, the man outside may well have stepped in knowing his inside man is a weaker tackler, etc. Pieter-Steph du Toit on the other hand probably feels more like a golden retriever puppy is bounding towards him looking for cuddles. The Boks defense is more likely to think, "Aw look he hasn't grown into his paws yet", than, "oh no, better double up on the melting snowman".

To get frequent offloads away you need to win the initial collision. Which at the top level means being able to get over the gain line against international forwards tackling you. But if Dombrandt could do that then running crash ball wouldn't have been an issue. Yet it was. That to me isn't tactics. It's just a player clearly lacking something that they needed to succeed at the highest level. You can tell him to throw offloads every time he goes into contact. If he can't win a collision against a tackler such as Josh van der Flier then the offload is just going to be shovelling s**t though.

That's more what I'm getting at. I think players with glaring holes in their game either need to improve them (Mitchell) or they probably aren't international class regardless of the tactics.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Intersting half rumour in the Torygraph. Looks like the RFU are still playing to the tune of the clubs. Arundell is being offered a hybrid contract and unless he moves to Bath he will be ineligible for the 6Ns. Be interesting then to see what that means in terms of promises made to Arundell, will Borthwick be forced to pick him, or potentially lose more money from France on the half promise of England appearance money?

There was some real opportunity to improve things ... and this is sounding like typical RFU. From a prem perspective wonder how salary cap plays around this.

It's an interesting debate on whether the hybrid contracts will lead to players being favoured. At the end of the day the RFU currently pay £40k a season for an EPS player. It's a 45-man EPS. So that's £1.8m a season on EPS players paid to the clubs regardless of whether they make the matchday 23. EPS players go full seasons without making a 23 every year.

There's also a difference between saying you'll be eligible and saying you'll be picked. A few Tigers fans felt that Harry Potter as sold a dummy as he had contact from the ARU before moving back to Super Rugby but wasn't picked. I just didn't see that though. Moving back made him eligible, so obviously improved chances but it shouldn't guarantee selection. IMO promises of caps should never be given regardless of the regs. Players should be told whether signing a contract will make you available/unavailable for selection and make the call from there.

king_carlos wrote:Does using a forward to shift the point of attack on the gain line work if they aren't a gain line threat against stronger defences though? If a 4th choice Prem prop from the Championship the season before is faced by Dombrandt running off Care then he needs to fully commit to stop him, which makes the distribution a threat as you've fixed a defender, the man outside may well have stepped in knowing his inside man is a weaker tackler, etc. Pieter-Steph du Toit on the other hand probably feels more like a golden retriever puppy is bounding towards him looking for cuddles. The Boks defense is more likely to think, "Aw look he hasn't grown into his paws yet", than, "oh no, better double up on the melting snowman".

To get frequent offloads away you need to win the initial collision. Which at the top level means being able to get over the gain line against international forwards tackling you. But if Dombrandt could do that then running crash ball wouldn't have been an issue. Yet it was. That to me isn't tactics. It's just a player clearly lacking something that they needed to succeed at the highest level. You can tell him to throw offloads every time he goes into contact. If he can't win a collision against a tackler such as Josh van der Flier then the offload is just going to be shovelling s**t though.

That's more what I'm getting at. I think players with glaring holes in their game either need to improve them (Mitchell) or they probably aren't international class regardless of the tactics.

There's also no opportunity to throw them as there's never the support players.

king_carlos wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Intersting half rumour in the Torygraph. Looks like the RFU are still playing to the tune of the clubs. Arundell is being offered a hybrid contract and unless he moves to Bath he will be ineligible for the 6Ns. Be interesting then to see what that means in terms of promises made to Arundell, will Borthwick be forced to pick him, or potentially lose more money from France on the half promise of England appearance money?

There was some real opportunity to improve things ... and this is sounding like typical RFU. From a prem perspective wonder how salary cap plays around this.

It's an interesting debate on whether the hybrid contracts will lead to players being favoured. At the end of the day the RFU currently pay £40k a season for an EPS player. It's a 45-man EPS. So that's £1.8m a season on EPS players paid to the clubs regardless of whether they make the matchday 23. EPS players go full seasons without making a 23 every year.

There's also a difference between saying you'll be eligible and saying you'll be picked. A few Tigers fans felt that Harry Potter as sold a dummy as he had contact from the ARU before moving back to Super Rugby but wasn't picked. I just didn't see that though. Moving back made him eligible, so obviously improved chances but it shouldn't guarantee selection. IMO promises of caps should never be given regardless of the regs. Players should be told whether signing a contract will make you available/unavailable for selection and make the call from there.

Don't know if these hybrids mean that salaries are uplifted from what they would have got from the clubs alone either or if it's just a helping hand to the club. I can't imagine we're too far away from those discussions as to why club A gets preferential treatment over club B.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Does using a forward to shift the point of attack on the gain line work if they aren't a gain line threat against stronger defences though? If a 4th choice Prem prop from the Championship the season before is faced by Dombrandt running off Care then he needs to fully commit to stop him, which makes the distribution a threat as you've fixed a defender, the man outside may well have stepped in knowing his inside man is a weaker tackler, etc. Pieter-Steph du Toit on the other hand probably feels more like a golden retriever puppy is bounding towards him looking for cuddles. The Boks defense is more likely to think, "Aw look he hasn't grown into his paws yet", than, "oh no, better double up on the melting snowman".

To get frequent offloads away you need to win the initial collision. Which at the top level means being able to get over the gain line against international forwards tackling you. But if Dombrandt could do that then running crash ball wouldn't have been an issue. Yet it was. That to me isn't tactics. It's just a player clearly lacking something that they needed to succeed at the highest level. You can tell him to throw offloads every time he goes into contact. If he can't win a collision against a tackler such as Josh van der Flier then the offload is just going to be shovelling s**t though.

That's more what I'm getting at. I think players with glaring holes in their game either need to improve them (Mitchell) or they probably aren't international class regardless of the tactics.

There's also no opportunity to throw them as there's never the support players.

There could be multiple support runners. If a number 8 can't threaten the gain line then throwing offloads whilst going backwards wont suddenly solve the issue. That's my point. Tactics are frequently used as an excuse for players clearly lacking skills that successful internationals in those positions have. He'd still lack that regardless of the tactics.

Same with Cokanasiga forgetting he has arms when trying to catch high balls using a different example. Getting passed the ball more in attack wouldn't solve that.

Bit of a 2 way street though as when there's been a break from anyone they've generally been alone and died with the ball. I fully support the dropping of Dombrandt as there's little point in playing him.

BBC: England and Bristol prop Ellis Genge is set to miss a number of weeks because of a hamstring injury.

The 28-year-old picked up the injury in training but a Bears statement said he was expected to return "ahead of England's 2024 Six Nations campaign".

Immediately my thoughts go to Baxter.

Marler's still available he's confirmed. Rodd is talented. Obano finally fit. Baxter and Brantingham look like talents. LH is in a relatively good place.

Stuart vs Kitshoff and Obano vs O'Toole are two of the better matchups for looking at where players are against strong opposite numbers this weekend.

Lawrence opposite McCloskey there as well. A good test for Lawrence's physicality against a big opposite number.

Arundell at 15 against Quins is the one I'm looking forward to the most. He seems to be ahead of Max Spring on performance there. Spring is a quality young 15 so that's really promising. No Tuisova, Le Roux or Rowlands for Racing, sadly. Depleted at second row but Woki is still there. Palu is a talented player but it's a small partnership. If Le Roux or Rowland's were avialable I'd guess they'd be alongside Woki for balance. Tuisova opposite Esterhuizen would have been muchos fun.

Daly is at 13 against a strong set of outside backs for the Bulls. Kriel in the midfield. Arendse, Moodie and le Roux in the back three. That might give a decent indication of his defense in the OC channel.

Stormers and Stade have rotated massively against Tigers and Sale respectively. So unlikely to learn too much there as they should be mismatches unfortunately.

If Borthwick thinks Baxter is ready, I could see a lot of value for England in using the opportunity to pair him with Marler, at least for the opening couple of matches until Genge is fully fit.

The bigger question is how we bring the next generation of tightheads through.

Would pairing him with Marler do much given they wouldn't be on the pitch at the same time unless something goes very wrong?!

No 7&1/2 wrote:And that's fair enough. If you want to play a certain way pick players that suit the way you play. There may be players that look great because of certain aspects, if you don't play to those strengths then the rest of their game may not look up to scratch. One of the main aspects of Dombrandt is to get to the line free up his hands and offload out, rarely see that used, tbf you rarely see any offloads from England. So I agree look to others. The way we play it's probably set up for Barbeary and get him to reign in his pick and goes a bit as he'll get too isoloated.

Makes me think of Easter in his prime, Billy too. It was all about pulling in defenders and offloading.

king_carlos wrote:Would pairing him with Marler do much given they wouldn't be on the pitch at the same time unless something goes very wrong?!

I meant in the XXIII

Tommy Freeman is playing a blinder at 13 against Glasgow and Huw Jones. Has just carried McDowell over the try line when it looked like he'd been stopped. Been strong in defence as well.

He was very good. Smith was generally class as well.