Chat Forum
It is currently Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:39 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 74097 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 1729, 1730, 1731, 1732, 1733, 1734, 1735 ... 1853  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am
Posts: 6306
DragsterDriver wrote:
booji boy wrote:
DragsterDriver wrote:
Raggs wrote:
He gets knocked back in defence. Yet we continue to insist on having him at 10 when defending set piece. We could easily push him out further. The only reason i see to have him there for set piece is turnovers and most the time either youngs kicks it or Ford passes to Farrell who kicks it.

At least only put him at 10 in their half where we may actually use turnover ball and losing yards in defence doesn't hurt so much.


Who would you stand at 10 with a better tackle percentage?


OZ used to hide Quade Cooper at fullback or wing but it just meant good teams would target him with bombs to exploit the weakness. Can't be good for a player or a backline constantly shifting position depending on the next play.


He’s nowhere near being our worst defender, that’s the problem. Off line outs it should be a back row there and you’d expect some help from a scrum. Ford will give up a yard but rarely miss.


Agreed, that was my point. Trying to (needlessly) hide him would just unsettle the backline even more.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25445
Location: Gypsy Jack Nowell
booji boy wrote:
DragsterDriver wrote:
booji boy wrote:
DragsterDriver wrote:
Raggs wrote:
He gets knocked back in defence. Yet we continue to insist on having him at 10 when defending set piece. We could easily push him out further. The only reason i see to have him there for set piece is turnovers and most the time either youngs kicks it or Ford passes to Farrell who kicks it.

At least only put him at 10 in their half where we may actually use turnover ball and losing yards in defence doesn't hurt so much.


Who would you stand at 10 with a better tackle percentage?


OZ used to hide Quade Cooper at fullback or wing but it just meant good teams would target him with bombs to exploit the weakness. Can't be good for a player or a backline constantly shifting position depending on the next play.


He’s nowhere near being our worst defender, that’s the problem. Off line outs it should be a back row there and you’d expect some help from a scrum. Ford will give up a yard but rarely miss.


Agreed, that was my point. Trying to (needlessly) hide him would just unsettle the backline even more.


:thumbup:

Just think we’re looking in the wrong place for problems- shape and back row would cure loads.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 10:12 pm
Posts: 3165
DragsterDriver wrote:
booji boy wrote:
DragsterDriver wrote:
Raggs wrote:
He gets knocked back in defence. Yet we continue to insist on having him at 10 when defending set piece. We could easily push him out further. The only reason i see to have him there for set piece is turnovers and most the time either youngs kicks it or Ford passes to Farrell who kicks it.

At least only put him at 10 in their half where we may actually use turnover ball and losing yards in defence doesn't hurt so much.


Who would you stand at 10 with a better tackle percentage?


OZ used to hide Quade Cooper at fullback or wing but it just meant good teams would target him with bombs to exploit the weakness. Can't be good for a player or a backline constantly shifting position depending on the next play.


He’s nowhere near being our worst defender, that’s the problem. Off line outs it should be a back row there and you’d expect some help from a scrum. Ford will give up a yard but rarely miss.

But that's still a massive problem at this level especially when your up against it in the pack. Can you honestly say if you were coaching a side you wouldn't deliberately send carriers down his channel? Knowing you'll more than likely get over the gainline and tell them to watch for him being exposed on the blindside. How can Curry be a nuisance at the breakdown of he's on the floor covering Ford.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 46202
Who's he being compared to that wouldn't need babysitting at ten? At a pinch: Beauden Barrett, Owen Farrell on a good day. Wilko and Carter.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:35 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12545
JM2K6 wrote:
Who's he being compared to that wouldn't need babysitting at ten? At a pinch: Beauden Barrett, Owen Farrell on a good day. Wilko and Carter.

Sexton's technically a very good defender. Similar to Wilko in that he gets hurt alot.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 46202
Wendigo7 wrote:
JM2K6 wrote:
Who's he being compared to that wouldn't need babysitting at ten? At a pinch: Beauden Barrett, Owen Farrell on a good day. Wilko and Carter.

Sexton's technically a very good defender. Similar to Wilko in that he gets hurt alot.


He is.

Ireland tend not to let him do it all himself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am
Posts: 6306
JM2K6 wrote:
Who's he being compared to that wouldn't need babysitting at ten? At a pinch: Beauden Barrett, Owen Farrell on a good day. Wilko and Carter.


Aaron Cruden wasn't the biggest guy in the world but he did his job at least slowing the attacking player down enough for the loose forward cavalry to arrive.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25445
Location: Gypsy Jack Nowell
booji boy wrote:
JM2K6 wrote:
Who's he being compared to that wouldn't need babysitting at ten? At a pinch: Beauden Barrett, Owen Farrell on a good day. Wilko and Carter.


Aaron Cruden wasn't the biggest guy in the world but he did his job at least slowing the attacking player down enough for the loose forward cavalry to arrive.


We’re brainwashed by Wilkinson, we want the ball carrier smashed back 5 metres :P lets get the back row mobile, curry seemed ok Saturday. Billy can carry ball but he’s not doing enough, whether that’s fitness I don’t care. It’s about the here and now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:48 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12545
booji boy wrote:
JM2K6 wrote:
Who's he being compared to that wouldn't need babysitting at ten? At a pinch: Beauden Barrett, Owen Farrell on a good day. Wilko and Carter.


Aaron Cruden wasn't the biggest guy in the world but he did his job at least slowing the attacking player down enough for the loose forward cavalry to arrive.

You're lucky in that you have a fabulous backrow (collectively).

We don't have that luxury and haven't for nearly 2 decades unfortunately. The loose forwards wouldn't arrive unlike yours.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 10:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16616
Location: West of Londinium
Bit harsh to single out Ford for being unable to put the team back on the front foot given he was shipping the ball to Daly who would proceed to kick it dead or out on the full - or Ben Youngs would invite the SA back three to counter. Do we expect the lad to put his shoulder in and dump tackle a forward? England lost because they thought it'd be a stroll after 25 minutes and lost their shape, their intensity, their discipline and all trust in the systems. We look so easy to score against. Our passivity is a pattern replicated all over the pitch; we don't contest the line-out, we surrender the breakdown and we drift when we should blitz.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 11:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15792
Location: South Oxfordshire
Gospel wrote:
Bit harsh to single out Ford for being unable to put the team back on the front foot given he was shipping the ball to Daly who would proceed to kick it dead or out on the full - or Ben Youngs would invite the SA back three to counter. Do we expect the lad to put his shoulder in and dump tackle a forward? England lost because they thought it'd be a stroll after 25 minutes and lost their shape, their intensity, their discipline and all trust in the systems. We look so easy to score against. Our passivity is a pattern replicated all over the pitch; we don't contest the line-out, we surrender the breakdown and we drift when we should blitz.


So much this. Ford was core to.the few good things we did on Saturday


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 11:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11966
Saint wrote:
Gospel wrote:
Bit harsh to single out Ford for being unable to put the team back on the front foot given he was shipping the ball to Daly who would proceed to kick it dead or out on the full - or Ben Youngs would invite the SA back three to counter. Do we expect the lad to put his shoulder in and dump tackle a forward? England lost because they thought it'd be a stroll after 25 minutes and lost their shape, their intensity, their discipline and all trust in the systems. We look so easy to score against. Our passivity is a pattern replicated all over the pitch; we don't contest the line-out, we surrender the breakdown and we drift when we should blitz.


So much this. Ford was core to.the few good things we did on Saturday


Absolutely


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 1:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 89
I love that the solution being offered to Ford's vulnerability to big carriers is to play Cipriani... There's times I've worried about Ford, but how you watch that game and come away with the idea that he was the problem, I have no idea.
I agree about the passivity. I don't want to keep harping on about the Irish, but contrast them without the ball to us without the ball. They challenge hard at the lineout. They rush up to target isolated carriers. They pile into rucks. They choke and hold-up carriers. They generally make taking the ball off you and smashing you backwards a plan. We just fanny about from side to side and wait for a knock-on. We don't even seem to hit hard any more. Yet again I found myself missing the Hask just for a bit of simple physicality. Why have we gone from a side that blasted people off rucks and overwhelmed teams with power to a bunch of shufflers undone by obvious wrap-arounds?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13168
Location: The centre of The Horrendous Space Kablooie!
booji boy wrote:
JM2K6 wrote:
Who's he being compared to that wouldn't need babysitting at ten? At a pinch: Beauden Barrett, Owen Farrell on a good day. Wilko and Carter.


Aaron Cruden wasn't the biggest guy in the world but he did his job at least slowing the attacking player down enough for the loose forward cavalry to arrive.


So he used to get...knocked back?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 7:13 pm
Posts: 2124
elfieldinho wrote:
I love that the solution being offered to Ford's vulnerability to big carriers is to play Cipriani... There's times I've worried about Ford, but how you watch that game and come away with the idea that he was the problem, I have no idea.
I agree about the passivity. I don't want to keep harping on about the Irish, but contrast them without the ball to us without the ball. They challenge hard at the lineout. They rush up to target isolated carriers. They pile into rucks. They choke and hold-up carriers. They generally make taking the ball off you and smashing you backwards a plan. We just fanny about from side to side and wait for a knock-on. We don't even seem to hit hard any more. Yet again I found myself missing the Hask just for a bit of simple physicality. Why have we gone from a side that blasted people off rucks and overwhelmed teams with power to a bunch of shufflers undone by obvious wrap-arounds?


100% agree with all of this.

The Boks won’t give us a 20 point headstart next week and now they know we’re easy to score against, any hesitation they may have had will be gone.

I’m genuinely worried about a whitewash and what that may mean in terms of fall out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am
Posts: 6306
The Man Without Fear wrote:
booji boy wrote:
JM2K6 wrote:
Who's he being compared to that wouldn't need babysitting at ten? At a pinch: Beauden Barrett, Owen Farrell on a good day. Wilko and Carter.


Aaron Cruden wasn't the biggest guy in the world but he did his job at least slowing the attacking player down enough for the loose forward cavalry to arrive.


So he used to get...knocked back?


No he had pretty good tackling technique. Would go low and take the attacking player around the legs whilst getting himself out of the way as a small man should vs a big man. No point trying to do a Henry Honiball when he wasn't physically equipped to tackle like that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5575
booji boy wrote:
The Man Without Fear wrote:
booji boy wrote:
JM2K6 wrote:
Who's he being compared to that wouldn't need babysitting at ten? At a pinch: Beauden Barrett, Owen Farrell on a good day. Wilko and Carter.


Aaron Cruden wasn't the biggest guy in the world but he did his job at least slowing the attacking player down enough for the loose forward cavalry to arrive.


So he used to get...knocked back?


No he had pretty good tackling technique. Would go low and take the attacking player around the legs whilst getting himself out of the way as a small man should vs a big man. No point trying to do a Henry Honiball when he wasn't physically equipped to tackle like that.


It's almost like you are describing Ford, who has a very good tackle completion rate and either brings his man down or slows him enough for support to arrive.

The problem apparently being that some people think that's not enough in a FH, when in reality that's what you get from most FHs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25445
Location: Gypsy Jack Nowell
I feel that now we’re all in agreement it’s time to lock the thread? :P


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:49 am
Posts: 18671
The suggestion of hiding Ford for defensive set piece in our half is less that I'm concerned about his tackle rate, he's fine, more about the advantages it gives the opposition, and disadvantages it brings us. Shift everyone else in one, and put Ford on the wing. We gain no advantage having Ford at 10 for these, even if we turn it over, he cannot utilise the turnover ball well due to other players decisions. On the wing, whilst the opposition can still get the ball out to him, the lost yards are less of an issue because players are often well behind. In the 10 channel after a lineout, the opposition have quick ball, in centre field, and if it's planned move, are likely to have been able to wrap around faster than us. Farrell isn't much better, I know, but in those circumstances I think it's worth it.

70 minutes through so far, and a huge issue has been our lack of competing at the breakdown so often, we just give them faster and faster ball, and with Faf that's suicide, he'll play as fast as he can, and our defence is on the backfoot, we lose the collision, and it just get's worse. With Le Roux then making great attacking calls further out, we get repeatedly stung.

When we actually have ball in hand, it's weird. Some of the time, we look incisive, smart and able to make yards at will, but at others, we look completely lost and disorganized with no sort of structure or ability, people just seem unsure of where they're supposed to be. Perhaps an issue with having Ford, Farrell, Slade and Daly likely trying to make attacking calls, but without any sort of familiarity to bring cohesion to it, meaning Youngs just dithers a lot as well. Wasps can play with a significant number of playmakers, and do it well, it's definitely possible, but familiarity is going to be important, and that was definitely absent in the England backline.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25445
Location: Gypsy Jack Nowell
To clarify- who defends the 10 channel while ford takes a breather?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1179
I would argue that our lack of a cohesive attacking structure is down to the fact we're chopping and changing our coaches there every tournament. How can the players develop a cohesive attacking plan when the bloke trying to tell them changes every couple of months?
Anyway, I'm a bit annoyed about Saturday. The decision to take Isiekwe off looked like lunacy to me. I personally thought he was playing well, and the Boks were beginning to win the collisions and get front foot ball – so what on earth possessed Eddie to take one of our biggest players out of the engine room and replace him with a flanker making him debut, I don’t know. Especially as Robshaw (and I’m a fan of his) was having a much more passive game. The annoying thing was this change directly lead to Le Roux’s try – we didn’t compete well at the lineout, got pumped at the maul (possibly because we were now underpowered with the sub) and they scored. Much too easily, it must be said. Brown looked off the pace there.
Thought Curry went well – saw a stat he made much more tackles than anyone else which is what Eddie wants, I think. But as numerous people in here have said, our system is so bloody passive and weak. We were praying for someone – anyone – to step out of the line and smash someone, but from what I can remember, no-one even came close. Another bizarre call Eddie made was to make Itoje target De Klerk, who quite frankly made him look a fool. That mistake for the try was unforgiveable, and him coming off second best really put him off his game. George was also singularly unimpressive, in a gritty game like that I struggle to see what he brings to the party.
On the positive side, I thought the 10-12-13 axis looked good, May was superb (including his customary comedy run :lol: ) and Brown wasn’t too bad on the wing, but as I said he was exposed for Le Roux’s try. It’s a bit telling that none of the forwards really stood out, I'd say Curry was the pick of them.
It’s a very negative post for sure but I’m not entirely downhearted – let’s see how we do away from altitude before we worry too much as the first 20 mins were brilliant, the last 20 pretty good as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 9:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:49 am
Posts: 18671
DragsterDriver wrote:
To clarify- who defends the 10 channel while ford takes a breather?


Farrell. It's not about a breather, it's about having a bit more bulk to prevent easy yards. I'm not a fan of Farrell's blitz in regular open play, where he just swings an arm, but here I'd hope he'd slow someone down a bit more than Ford. Even better would be replacing Farrell with a proper 12, but we don't seem to have one of those lying around.

Isiekwe was seemingly a bit off the pace with his workrate, and his clearouts at ruck time were awful, twice out of 4 proper rucks, he failed to clear out, leading to turnovers. He went up twice in the lineout in his time on the pitch, (not sure how many opportunities to be fair), Shields went up 4 times, 3 of those were competing for opposition ball. Our scrum also didn't seem to be too awful until the 2nd half, when Sinckler was knackered and Williams wasn't coping so well. Perhaps more importantly, I think Shields did a better job than Hill would have managed, and Isiekwe wasn't upto scratch.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 9:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 1:25 pm
Posts: 5300
Location: Leafy Cheshire
Chaps, I just watched the game last night knowing England lost but that was about it. Goodness knows how you feel after watching that live. You've got plenty to look at on the +ve side and things have changed a lot from the 6N where you looked tired at the end of that.

Daly had a mixed bag but he's a class act. May makes me laugh and his try was sheer brilliance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 9:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13168
Location: The centre of The Horrendous Space Kablooie!
Looking at the Grand Slam and unbeaten year pack, I think they were operating very differently to how even the same personnel are now.

Mako is a great impact sub for England, but I don't think he does the work in the tight or in defence that Marler did during the Grand Slam and unbeaten year. Marler hits like a train in the tackle and combined with Haskell smashing, Kruis on form, Robshaw not looking like a veteran in a 1st XV match, and an undiminished Billy V we had a good pack. Itoje was in his breakthrough year, Cole had an Indian summer and we might now be seeing why Hartley was picked, his carrying was pish but his set piece was immaculate and he was obviously doing the tight stuff. We were aggressive in defence and had the smarts to slow stuff up and mess with opposition ball, and in attack we had enough carriers, tight and loose, and enough pace, to open holes.

Now we sit off. Robshaw is still making a fair few tackles, but they're not as effective and he isn't getting to the breakdown or to loose ball like he did (if you look at who was often first man to it, he was). Curry isn't the same player as Haskell but we seem to want him to do the same Hulk Smash stuff. Billy V is unfit and I worry about the cumulative effect of all the injuries over such a short time. The tight five don't seem to arrive with any gusto at the breakdown. Launchbury would help a lot.

With some personnel tinkering and a bit more attitude we could get it back. I would get Genge in the mix now I think of it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 9:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25445
Location: Gypsy Jack Nowell
Raggs wrote:
DragsterDriver wrote:
To clarify- who defends the 10 channel while ford takes a breather?


Farrell. It's not about a breather, it's about having a bit more bulk to prevent easy yards. I'm not a fan of Farrell's blitz in regular open play, where he just swings an arm, but here I'd hope he'd slow someone down a bit more than Ford. Even better would be replacing Farrell with a proper 12, but we don't seem to have one of those lying around.

Isiekwe was seemingly a bit off the pace with his workrate, and his clearouts at ruck time were awful, twice out of 4 proper rucks, he failed to clear out, leading to turnovers. He went up twice in the lineout in his time on the pitch, (not sure how many opportunities to be fair), Shields went up 4 times, 3 of those were competing for opposition ball. Our scrum also didn't seem to be too awful until the 2nd half, when Sinckler was knackered and Williams wasn't coping so well. Perhaps more importantly, I think Shields did a better job than Hill would have managed, and Isiekwe wasn't upto scratch.


Bigger guy that misses more tackles? That’s no answer.

Isiekwe looked out of his depth, sometimes it’s sink or swim and he sunk. Itoje was awful (and no he doesn’t look knackered). I agree marler is a starter and genge needs a look in. I can’t envision robshaw being dropped for shields but if he does I don’t think we’ll see him again. Shields is just much better equipped.

If it was me, and it’s not, I’d be tempted to run shields at 8 but not base our plan around one out runners from slow ball.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 9:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:49 am
Posts: 18671
So here's the data for ruck marks: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

I may try and write a decent article out of it. There's comments alongside some of the times.

Shields looks very handy to me. Think I'd look at something like this:

Marler
George
Sinckler
Launch
Itoje
Shields
Curry
Vunipola
Youngs
Ford
Brown
Farrell
Slade
May
Daly

LCD, Genge, Williams, Isiekwe, Robshaw, Hughes, Robson, Cips

If Kruis was fit and firing I'd drop Itoje, need to make a point that such poor discipline is not allowed. Mako isn't dropped so much as rested. Robshaw wasn't bad, but Shields looked good. I figure that Cips in the 23 shirt allows for the whole backline to be covered in some fashion, but he'd only get 10 minutes at the end since I'd be fearful of injury.

I'd also tell Youngs to move the ball faster, and Farrell, Slade and Daly to only call for the ball if there's an absolute awesome move on, otherwise Ford calls the shots.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 9:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 9:18 pm
Posts: 2504
No need for full panic stations yet. With some minor tweaks England could be right back up there, looking at the penalty count for example:

SA 4 vs 12 England. Obviously not all penalties are a straight conversion to 3 points, but if you imagine that at least 4 of those 8 penalties were kickable, then England now win by 9 points.

It was the same story against Scotland. Lesser sides would lose by far more points with those sorts of differences in the penalty count.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 11:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 89
It's not like being heavily penalised is an occasional thing for England though, or just an occupational hazard to be shrugged off. We commit a lot of stupid penalties game in and game out. If you get pinged for slowing down ball in a dangerous position, that's one thing. A lot of teams get penalised when stretched and needing to push the envelope to hold out. We seem to give a way an awful lot of penalties either when in possession or when the other team is just running through a couple of non-threatening phases before a kick. Some of this is a lack of numbers and aggression at the breakdown, but some of it just seems to be an inability to calculate the risk-reward. I often think - like every fan - that we get the rough end of things from the ref, but so often I think they just lose patience with the ridiculous choices our players are making. I do wonder if much of it comes from not having any real intent to win possession and so people just try it on due to the lack of shared conviction that defending can be a positive thing. Anyway, the point is that far from the penalty count in that game being an anomaly, it is typical of the last 6 Nations and likely typical of games to come unless something changes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 11:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13168
Location: The centre of The Horrendous Space Kablooie!
I'd say a good slug of the penalties are from running out of support after a few tight phases resulting in the carrier being isolated against two or three defenders who can then pick off the ball at their leisure.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 12:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:49 am
Posts: 18671
:lol: :lol:

Wasps now working with midlands law firm, Wright Hassall... brilliantly named law firm!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 12:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5250
Raggs wrote:
:lol: :lol:

Wasps now working with midlands law firm, Wright Hassall... brilliantly named law firm!


Aptly named, in my experience!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 12:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5575
englishchief wrote:
No need for full panic stations yet. With some minor tweaks England could be right back up there, looking at the penalty count for example:

SA 4 vs 12 England. Obviously not all penalties are a straight conversion to 3 points, but if you imagine that at least 4 of those 8 penalties were kickable, then England now win by 9 points.

It was the same story against Scotland. Lesser sides would lose by far more points with those sorts of differences in the penalty count.


It was 13-7 v Scotland, 10-2 v Wales, 15-11 v France. It's something of a habit now to be on the wrong side of the penalty count. Ireland is the one exception, when the count was even.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 1:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11966
elfieldinho wrote:
It's not like being heavily penalised is an occasional thing for England though, or just an occupational hazard to be shrugged off. We commit a lot of stupid penalties game in and game out. If you get pinged for slowing down ball in a dangerous position, that's one thing. A lot of teams get penalised when stretched and needing to push the envelope to hold out. We seem to give a way an awful lot of penalties either when in possession or when the other team is just running through a couple of non-threatening phases before a kick. Some of this is a lack of numbers and aggression at the breakdown, but some of it just seems to be an inability to calculate the risk-reward. I often think - like every fan - that we get the rough end of things from the ref, but so often I think they just lose patience with the ridiculous choices our players are making. I do wonder if much of it comes from not having any real intent to win possession and so people just try it on due to the lack of shared conviction that defending can be a positive thing. Anyway, the point is that far from the penalty count in that game being an anomaly, it is typical of the last 6 Nations and likely typical of games to come unless something changes.


There's a lack of 'street smarts' in the England side. I'm sure SA committed more than 4 infringements - but, like most sides, they play the ref far better than we do.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 1:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11966
Singleton called up as cover for LCD who reported tightness in his hamstring after the 1st test.

Why did we only have 2 Hookers on a 3 test tour ?????


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 1:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19934
ovalball wrote:
Singleton called up as cover for LCD who reported tightness in his hamstring after the 1st test.

Why did we only have 2 Hookers on a 3 test tour ?????

Because Dylan's aura was traveling with us.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 1:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1179
God knows. It's one of Eddie's strange quirks. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 1:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25445
Location: Gypsy Jack Nowell
Singleton looked really good the other week- never really seen him before.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 1:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19934
45jumper wrote:
God knows. It's one of Eddie's strange quirks. :lol:

While you're here, if you make any 'jokey' predictions about stupid selections for this test, I will fûcking cut you


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 1:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4043
happyhooker wrote:
45jumper wrote:
God knows. It's one of Eddie's strange quirks. :lol:

While you're here, if you make any 'jokey' predictions about stupid selections for this test, I will fûcking cut you


Don't worry 45, he's all bark and no bite. He's a teddybear in real life.

Spoiler: show
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 2:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25445
Location: Gypsy Jack Nowell
happyhooker wrote:
45jumper wrote:
God knows. It's one of Eddie's strange quirks. :lol:

While you're here, if you make any 'jokey' predictions about stupid selections for this test, I will fûcking cut you


And I’ll roll you in salt.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 74097 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 1729, 1730, 1731, 1732, 1733, 1734, 1735 ... 1853  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bessantj, camroc1, Da iawn diolch, David990, frillage, geordie_6, Google [Bot], Jumper, lemonhead, Margin_Walker, MrBunhead, mr flaps, Mustapha, Nolanator, penguin, Plastic Sarrie, Punter15, Risteard, themaddog, Turbogoat, Wendigo7, Yourmother and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group