**OFFICIAL** English Rugby Thread

All things Rugby
ovalball
Posts: 11240
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: **OFFICIAL** English Rugby Thread

Post by ovalball »

tc27 wrote:Maybe the lack of dynamism at the breakdown can be countered by a more conservative attacking forward pattern of 1-3-3-1 with a big focus in training on clearing our those rucks more aggressively (easier to do if you the first man in a three man pod and know others can secure the ball once you have blasted through).


George should also be a bit quicker to the breakdown than Dylan - as well as being an extra carrying option.

ovalball
Posts: 11240
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: **OFFICIAL** English Rugby Thread

Post by ovalball »

Rugby2023 wrote:How much can we really expect from Daly in this match, he hasn't played rugby in months. Not sure who else was available but you'd think a fit, in-form player would fare better. Expected a muted game from him tbh.


Tend to agree - EJ seems to think his training camps are better, than real matches, for getting players match ready. Hughes was way off the pace against the Scots.

piquant
Posts: 8651
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am

Re: **OFFICIAL** English Rugby Thread

Post by piquant »

ovalball wrote:
tc27 wrote:Maybe the lack of dynamism at the breakdown can be countered by a more conservative attacking forward pattern of 1-3-3-1 with a big focus in training on clearing our those rucks more aggressively (easier to do if you the first man in a three man pod and know others can secure the ball once you have blasted through).


George should also be a bit quicker to the breakdown than Dylan - as well as being an extra carrying option.


Also the 1331 isn't inherently conservative, you can use it more in the style of Ireland than say NZ, but it allows for all sorts. We could though use a 1331 to bring in an extra resource, or we would just have the pods reduce the spacing which would make it easier for players to move across from a previous phase. We could also make more use of our pick and go game. There was also something flagged up by someone on the 1014 site of the England supporting player tending to clear out by going to ground, croc rolls in the examples given, and given we've often a one man support that exposes us and there is maybe an option to work harder and try to keep our feet over the ball though that might take getting there earlier which starts us going round this whole loop again

User avatar
DragsterDriver
Posts: 24461
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Big Willi Style

Re: **OFFICIAL** English Rugby Thread

Post by DragsterDriver »

JM2K6 wrote:I've never spoken to him, I think. I don't think it's outrageous to ask whether your sources would be people who'd actually know. No need to be a dick about it.

You thought he might be a problem child having been dropped, so people who've been around him in team environments would be a good source.


You’re right, I was being a bit of a dick.

User avatar
fatcat
Posts: 14265
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: **OFFICIAL** English Rugby Thread

Post by fatcat »

DragsterDriver wrote:
JM2K6 wrote:I've never spoken to him, I think. I don't think it's outrageous to ask whether your sources would be people who'd actually know. No need to be a dick about it.

You thought he might be a problem child having been dropped, so people who've been around him in team environments would be a good source.


You’re right, I was being a bit of a dick.


I've heard you're a nice guy away from here.

tc27
Posts: 4786
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: **OFFICIAL** English Rugby Thread

Post by tc27 »

piquant wrote:
ovalball wrote:
tc27 wrote:Maybe the lack of dynamism at the breakdown can be countered by a more conservative attacking forward pattern of 1-3-3-1 with a big focus in training on clearing our those rucks more aggressively (easier to do if you the first man in a three man pod and know others can secure the ball once you have blasted through).


George should also be a bit quicker to the breakdown than Dylan - as well as being an extra carrying option.


Also the 1331 isn't inherently conservative, you can use it more in the style of Ireland than say NZ, but it allows for all sorts. We could though use a 1331 to bring in an extra resource, or we would just have the pods reduce the spacing which would make it easier for players to move across from a previous phase. We could also make more use of our pick and go game. There was also something flagged up by someone on the 1014 site of the England supporting player tending to clear out by going to ground, croc rolls in the examples given, and given we've often a one man support that exposes us and there is maybe an option to work harder and try to keep our feet over the ball though that might take getting there earlier which starts us going round this whole loop again



I agree - its only conservative when compared to 1-2-2-2-1.

piquant
Posts: 8651
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am

Re: **OFFICIAL** English Rugby Thread

Post by piquant »

tc27 wrote:
piquant wrote:
ovalball wrote:
tc27 wrote:Maybe the lack of dynamism at the breakdown can be countered by a more conservative attacking forward pattern of 1-3-3-1 with a big focus in training on clearing our those rucks more aggressively (easier to do if you the first man in a three man pod and know others can secure the ball once you have blasted through).


George should also be a bit quicker to the breakdown than Dylan - as well as being an extra carrying option.


Also the 1331 isn't inherently conservative, you can use it more in the style of Ireland than say NZ, but it allows for all sorts. We could though use a 1331 to bring in an extra resource, or we would just have the pods reduce the spacing which would make it easier for players to move across from a previous phase. We could also make more use of our pick and go game. There was also something flagged up by someone on the 1014 site of the England supporting player tending to clear out by going to ground, croc rolls in the examples given, and given we've often a one man support that exposes us and there is maybe an option to work harder and try to keep our feet over the ball though that might take getting there earlier which starts us going round this whole loop again



I agree - its only conservative when compared to 1-2-2-2-1.



I still look at the 12221 and think that's not a proper system. Ignoring that however I don't see why the 1331 can't be more adventurous, the spacing between the players, the roles they look to enact all bleeds into it. The system is just a starting point not an entire picture

User avatar
DragsterDriver
Posts: 24461
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Big Willi Style

Re: **OFFICIAL** English Rugby Thread

Post by DragsterDriver »

fatcat wrote:
DragsterDriver wrote:
JM2K6 wrote:I've never spoken to him, I think. I don't think it's outrageous to ask whether your sources would be people who'd actually know. No need to be a dick about it.

You thought he might be a problem child having been dropped, so people who've been around him in team environments would be a good source.


You’re right, I was being a bit of a dick.


I've heard you're a nice guy away from here.



#fakenews

User avatar
DragsterDriver
Posts: 24461
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Big Willi Style

Re: **OFFICIAL** English Rugby Thread

Post by DragsterDriver »

I prefer 4-4-2 or 1-4-4-1

User avatar
Margin_Walker
Posts: 12929
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: **OFFICIAL** English Rugby Thread

Post by Margin_Walker »

DragsterDriver wrote:I prefer 4-4-2 or 1-4-4-1


I always like the Christmas tree formation. They should bring that back.

ovalball
Posts: 11240
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: **OFFICIAL** English Rugby Thread

Post by ovalball »

What's happened to Nick Schonert - wasn't he being touted to break into the England side this year ?

tc27
Posts: 4786
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: **OFFICIAL** English Rugby Thread

Post by tc27 »

My club uses 2-4-2 with the locks and props making up the 4.

Might be a comment on the fitness of us tight forwards :D

I still look at the 12221 and think that's not a proper system. Ignoring that however I don't see why the 1331 can't be more adventurous, the spacing between the players, the roles they look to enact all bleeds into it. The system is just a starting point not an entire picture


I think it works if you have Billy making massive carries and Hask smashing the first breakdown plus contributions from the rest of the pack that seemed to be more dynamic in 2016/17.

piquant
Posts: 8651
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am

Re: **OFFICIAL** English Rugby Thread

Post by piquant »

tc27 wrote:My club uses 2-4-2 with the locks and props making up the 4.

Might be a comment on the fitness of us tight forwards :D

I still look at the 12221 and think that's not a proper system. Ignoring that however I don't see why the 1331 can't be more adventurous, the spacing between the players, the roles they look to enact all bleeds into it. The system is just a starting point not an entire picture


I think it works if you have Billy making massive carries and Hask smashing the first breakdown plus contributions from the rest of the pack that seemed to be more dynamic in 2016/17.


The 242 works well on reducing the amount of running required in the tight five, whether one cares to deem that lazy or efficient probably depends on the team. What the 242 also does is expose the handling and decision making in the tight five, and whether that's a good idea or not again depends on the team.

Also Billy making carries would make any system look better.

User avatar
JM2K6
Posts: 37186
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: **OFFICIAL** English Rugby Thread

Post by JM2K6 »

ovalball wrote:What's happened to Nick Schonert - wasn't he being touted to break into the England side this year ?


Was that anything more than Jake's hot tip?

User avatar
JM2K6
Posts: 37186
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: **OFFICIAL** English Rugby Thread

Post by JM2K6 »

Oh Christ, I really should rephrase that

User avatar
happyhooker
Posts: 23117
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: **OFFICIAL** English Rugby Thread

Post by happyhooker »

JM2K6 wrote:
ovalball wrote:What's happened to Nick Schonert - wasn't he being touted to break into the England side this year ?


Was that anything more than Jake's hot tip?

User avatar
fatcat
Posts: 14265
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: **OFFICIAL** English Rugby Thread

Post by fatcat »

x(

User avatar
eldanielfire
Posts: 28621
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: **OFFICIAL** English Rugby Thread

Post by eldanielfire »

JM2K6 wrote:Oh Christ, I really should rephrase that


:lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
DragsterDriver
Posts: 24461
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Big Willi Style

Re: **OFFICIAL** English Rugby Thread

Post by DragsterDriver »

Margin_Walker wrote:
DragsterDriver wrote:I prefer 4-4-2 or 1-4-4-1


I always like the Christmas tree formation. They should bring that back.

Good old terry venables.

User avatar
Raggs
Posts: 18569
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:49 am

Re: **OFFICIAL** English Rugby Thread

Post by Raggs »

Schonert was out for a long time with a broken ankle i believe.

User avatar
Nieghorn
Posts: 19039
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Centre of the Universe

Re: **OFFICIAL** English Rugby Thread

Post by Nieghorn »

tc27 wrote:My club uses 2-4-2 with the locks and props making up the 4.



When did you start using it? The first I heard of this stuff was from a Murray Kinsella article comparing ABs / Connacht's use of it vs the Aussies' preference for the other thing.

I'm not a fan of any of it, but will spare you my ranting. :) Just wondering how long it's been in operation with club teams?

tc27
Posts: 4786
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: **OFFICIAL** English Rugby Thread

Post by tc27 »

Just came in this season with our new coaches (from Blackheath so assume they did it there).

To be clear we are a level 5 club.

Why do you dislike it?..as a prop I like the structure.

User avatar
RodneyRegis
Posts: 15140
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: **OFFICIAL** English Rugby Thread

Post by RodneyRegis »

mr flaps wrote:
ovalball wrote:
JM2K6 wrote:Watson is a better winger than Daly, who is a fine player in his own right but doesn't have Watson's ability in the air and Watson has the edge for tight finishing. Happy to have them both ahead of May, though.

Watson has played fullback for England before, hence my caution. He's been a bit of a no show.


Given the choice, I'd take Daly. Just as good in attack, better defender/tackler, harder to bring down, passes better. He'd also, most likely, be a better FB than Watson. Just a better, all round, player.



Daly is one of the best players in the world.


I don't know why he doesn't get a shot at 13. Neither Te'o nor jj are pulling up trees.

User avatar
RodneyRegis
Posts: 15140
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: **OFFICIAL** English Rugby Thread

Post by RodneyRegis »

But yes, I think it would have made more sense to put him at 23 for this game given his lack of game time and the weather forecast. He's the perfect 23. Covers entire back 4.

TopNacker
Posts: 390
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2016 1:43 am

Re: **OFFICIAL** English Rugby Thread

Post by TopNacker »

Eddie has officially lost the plot. Last game we get stiffed at the breakdown, Watson and the FF axis were a defensive shambles and added nothing offensively. So we pick the same back row, move Watson to FB and stick with the dire FF axis. Fan fookin tastic. Thanks Eddie you complete moron.

I would have dropped Ford, moved Farrell to 10 with Te’o and Daly at centre. Solomona and Watson on the wing and Brown at FB (would really prefer Woodward but the Jones radar doesn’t work very well outside London). Simmonds in the back row.

Expecting to see the same breakdown shambles, and the big Basteraud going straight through Owen ‘missed tackle’ Farrell who will kick 3 points to justify his selection at centre. Ford will mince around doing zilch again. Watson will be jittery in defence and under the high ball, and will be stripped in contact or run down a blind alley and be turned over. Johnny May will flap around as usual. Oh and of course we lost yet another for the season in a buckin training incident. How many is that now ? How many needed before training sessions change ? Most of them look shattered before they get on the pitch FFS.

Get a fuckin grip Eddie or get out.

User avatar
Raggs
Posts: 18569
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:49 am

Re: **OFFICIAL** English Rugby Thread

Post by Raggs »

So, in the past I've definitely been one calling to see Farrell at 10. And I suppose that things shouldn't change too quickly on that front. But what exactly are people watching that they believe that Ford has been worse than Farrell and should be dropped instead of him?

ovalball
Posts: 11240
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: **OFFICIAL** English Rugby Thread

Post by ovalball »

Raggs wrote:So, in the past I've definitely been one calling to see Farrell at 10. And I suppose that things shouldn't change too quickly on that front. But what exactly are people watching that they believe that Ford has been worse than Farrell and should be dropped instead of him?


It's beyond me.

Besides which, it's nonsense to complain abut the FF axis, offensively, when they are getting such poor ball and the attacks break down so quickly because we lose it at the Breakdown.

Our problems do not lie with FF - sort the pack (especially the back row) out to get some clean ball and then maintain some continuity in attack. Retain the ball through more than a few phases and start putting defences under continued pressure - stop coughing it up, or giving away penalties, as soon as we get in the oppo 22.

I'd also like to see us challenge for the ball more, at line outs. If we must play 3 Locks, we should, at least, nick a few more from the oppo's throw.

User avatar
DragsterDriver
Posts: 24461
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Big Willi Style

Re: **OFFICIAL** English Rugby Thread

Post by DragsterDriver »

tc27 wrote:Just came in this season with our new coaches (from Blackheath so assume they did it there).

To be clear we are a level 5 club.

Why do you dislike it?..as a prop I like the structure.


You’re in Shelford’s league? :thumbup:

The 2/4/2 type structures have been around a while- Tom Croft played as /1 like Kieron read does.

Makes it really easy for players, saves loads of energy as well.

User avatar
DragsterDriver
Posts: 24461
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Big Willi Style

Re: **OFFICIAL** English Rugby Thread

Post by DragsterDriver »

Just spoke to the missus- completely enraged brown has been dropped...something about best player etc

User avatar
eldanielfire
Posts: 28621
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: **OFFICIAL** English Rugby Thread

Post by eldanielfire »

Raggs wrote:So, in the past I've definitely been one calling to see Farrell at 10. And I suppose that things shouldn't change too quickly on that front. But what exactly are people watching that they believe that Ford has been worse than Farrell and should be dropped instead of him?



I always find this perplexing. Any observation will show Farrell limitations as a test 10. Ford has better vision, a much better, faster and more accurate pass and unlike Farrell can pass left to right.Ford also kicks better form hand and makes his tackles and creates more tries. Farrell is a better place kicker and more aggressive. I might take him in a wet weather game but he's weirdly always be heralded as the 2nd coming since he was a teenager and didn't even had a place.

But what needs to be sorted is the pack, the breakdown and scrum half. The pack need to give go forward ball, ideally by running onto passes at speed and making yards and pushing defenses back. The backrow needs to sort it's breakdown shit out and we need a scrum half who uses quick ball and can pass onto running players accurately.

User avatar
DragsterDriver
Posts: 24461
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Big Willi Style

Re: **OFFICIAL** English Rugby Thread

Post by DragsterDriver »

Farrell is bigger with an angry face. That means he tries harder etc.

User avatar
eldanielfire
Posts: 28621
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: **OFFICIAL** English Rugby Thread

Post by eldanielfire »

DragsterDriver wrote:Farrell is bigger with an angry face. That means he tries harder etc.


:lol: :lol: :lol: Also he is a great place kicker, the uniquely English obsession as the defining requirement in a Fly Half.

User avatar
DragsterDriver
Posts: 24461
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Big Willi Style

Re: **OFFICIAL** English Rugby Thread

Post by DragsterDriver »

eldanielfire wrote:
DragsterDriver wrote:Farrell is bigger with an angry face. That means he tries harder etc.


:lol: :lol: :lol: Also he is a great place kicker, the uniquely English obsession as the defining requirement in a Fly Half.


What’s his percentage this tournament? I reckon he’s fluffed a few.

Classic man in the pub talk- ‘need a huge pack and a kicker’ :P

User avatar
ManInTheBar
Posts: 5891
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2016 12:40 pm
Location: Suffolk ba

Re: **OFFICIAL** English Rugby Thread

Post by ManInTheBar »

eldanielfire wrote:
DragsterDriver wrote:Farrell is bigger with an angry face. That means he tries harder etc.


:lol: :lol: :lol: Also he is a great place kicker, the uniquely English obsession as the defining requirement in a Fly Half.


Not unique, see debates on the Oirish fred about Sexton

User avatar
Chips
Posts: 1270
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:51 pm

Re: **OFFICIAL** English Rugby Thread

Post by Chips »

TopNacker wrote:Eddie has officially lost the plot. Last game we get stiffed at the breakdown, Watson and the FF axis were a defensive shambles and added nothing offensively. So we pick the same back row, move Watson to FB and stick with the dire FF axis. Fan fookin tastic. Thanks Eddie you complete moron.

I would have dropped Ford, moved Farrell to 10 with Te’o and Daly at centre. Solomona and Watson on the wing and Brown at FB (would really prefer Woodward but the Jones radar doesn’t work very well outside London). Simmonds in the back row.

Expecting to see the same breakdown shambles, and the big Basteraud going straight through Owen ‘missed tackle’ Farrell who will kick 3 points to justify his selection at centre. Ford will mince around doing zilch again. Watson will be jittery in defence and under the high ball, and will be stripped in contact or run down a blind alley and be turned over. Johnny May will flap around as usual. Oh and of course we lost yet another for the season in a buckin training incident. How many is that now ? How many needed before training sessions change ? Most of them look shattered before they get on the pitch FFS.

Get a fuckin grip Eddie or get out.




That's filled me with optimistic joy.

User avatar
JM2K6
Posts: 37186
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: **OFFICIAL** English Rugby Thread

Post by JM2K6 »

Thought Faz was pretty ponderous at 10 when he moved there against Scotland. The subs gave us some momentum but he was mostly just jogging and passing miles in front of the defensive line.

User avatar
blindcider
Posts: 8056
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: **OFFICIAL** English Rugby Thread

Post by blindcider »

I would have made fewer changes if I had been in charge.

Hartley obviously replaced as an injury and George needs a chance to impress as a starter. Personally I'd prefer LCD to have a go but that would be slightly unfair on George

I'd have had Launch and Lawes as second row, Robshaw across to 6 with Haskell in to 7.

I would have started with the same backline as the Scottish game but If Daly was to come straight in I'd have bought him in for May.

I'd also have been tempted to go Ford, Teo, Joseph across 10, 12, 13 as if Farrell starts missing hits on the French centres England are in trouble.

User avatar
DragsterDriver
Posts: 24461
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Big Willi Style

Re: **OFFICIAL** English Rugby Thread

Post by DragsterDriver »

I’ve not seen the French back row- hopefully not a mobile selection.

User avatar
eldanielfire
Posts: 28621
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: **OFFICIAL** English Rugby Thread

Post by eldanielfire »

blindcider wrote:I would have made fewer changes if I had been in charge.

Hartley obviously replaced as an injury and George needs a chance to impress as a starter. Personally I'd prefer LCD to have a go but that would be slightly unfair on George

I'd have had Launch and Lawes as second row, Robshaw across to 6 with Haskell in to 7.

I would have started with the same backline as the Scottish game but If Daly was to come straight in I'd have bought him in for May.

I'd also have been tempted to go Ford, Teo, Joseph across 10, 12, 13 as if Farrell starts missing hits on the French centres England are in trouble.


Pretty much dead-on my opinion on the issue.

User avatar
DragsterDriver
Posts: 24461
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Big Willi Style

Re: **OFFICIAL** English Rugby Thread

Post by DragsterDriver »

eldanielfire wrote:
blindcider wrote:I would have made fewer changes if I had been in charge.

Hartley obviously replaced as an injury and George needs a chance to impress as a starter. Personally I'd prefer LCD to have a go but that would be slightly unfair on George

I'd have had Launch and Lawes as second row, Robshaw across to 6 with Haskell in to 7.

I would have started with the same backline as the Scottish game but If Daly was to come straight in I'd have bought him in for May.

I'd also have been tempted to go Ford, Teo, Joseph across 10, 12, 13 as if Farrell starts missing hits on the French centres England are in trouble.


Pretty much dead-on my opinion on the issue.


Same here I think.

Locked