Scotland v England Sat 24 Feb 4.45pm

[Banquo]

Absolutely.
And the last 20 minutes always skew the perspective of the match as a whole - especially watching live (which I couldn't). But that doesn't mean that there are no positives to pick either, they were just mostly (entirely?) earlier in the game, and more system than individual, which is always harder (for me) to spot, especially when all emotional.
I've no idea on the bleating, as I tend not to listen to what anyone says to the press, as it's usually BS and nothing like what they say to each other.

I saw SB spout that BS live- its part of his job to be sensible and credible.
The lack of intelligence in game management is what concerns me- system adherence is trumping scanning the field, 'feeling the moment', taking advantage of an opportunity- when something unexpected happens, it all goes to sh+t. Guess what....that's going to happen a lot, its a game.

It doesn't matter how good your systems are if it all goes wrong as soon as the opposition refuse to play ball...

….as Mike Tyson might have said,,,

[Banquo]

You do need your rugby nause in the coaching team, but is that the best thing in the head coach? Can’t see wood for trees or summat

[Banquo]

Geez the analysis there is crap. The general points are good but that really feels like an analyst explained it to him and he regurgitated it badly.

Sure the two phase move isn't a great one 34 seconds into the game it should be immediately obvious why they are stood deep if they are pulling the Scottish defence over to try and crossfield to Freeman hopefully up against Scotland's slower defenders still in place after the lineout. They are going deep because the importance is the width not necessarily breaking the gain line (obviously you don't want to lose ground). If contact is taken in the middle of the pitch the defence won't be stretched enough to give him a chance against an isolated defender. It's not a bad ploy but Freeman doesn't get the angle right and Scotland bat it down and escape. Doesn't really show much confidence in the attack going to a trick play straight away.

The second move breaks down because Care fecks up the pass on the second phase carry passing behind Genge to the point he has to stop and turn back. Otherwise Genge charges into contact with two support runners. There's plenty of evidence later in the game of one off runners though and that killed our momentum more.

The pedestrian service and the lack of urgency in the backline is a concern though. With that little chat you'd either assume they aren't clicking or they're all completely in sync and the number of dropped passes suggests it's the former and not the later. Feels like we are missing a general to direct the team or that the halfbacks don't feel they can.

Going wide with no real guile or momentum from depth is a recipe for turnover. If you secure the ball, you're making the gainline at best meaning you've no real momentum into phase 2. t seems kind of pointless. It does little to nothing in terms of defensive manipulation, nor future phase planning.

Yep. They just drift and number up.

[p/d]

Over analysing, dissecting every aspect and highlighting how a set move should have worked had Care not taken a moment to check his hair cannot help players expressing themselves on the pitch.

No problem with SB’s methodology but when you link it with the Wiggle we get what we get.

Austin Healey, attack coach. Give us heads up rugby and Puja’s password!!!

[Banquo]

Over analysing, dissecting every aspect and highlighting how a set move should have worked had Care not taken a moment to check his hair cannot help players expressing themselves on the pitch.

No problem with SB’s methodology but when you link it with the Wiggle we get what we get.

Austin Healey, attack coach. Give us heads up rugby and Puja’s password!!!

agreed. Though its impossible to know how they address it all behind closed doors.

[Mr Mwenda]

It certainly helps but the importance is to get wide. If you are playing to close to the line and the tackle is made in the middle of the pitch then the move isn't happening.

Seems to be an awful lot of effort and hands to go through and support to get wide and secure the ball in order to set up a 50/50 kick across the park tbh.

Yep. This is like arguing over the best way to get to Skegness.

It is so bracing though...

[Oakboy]

Absolutely.
And the last 20 minutes always skew the perspective of the match as a whole - especially watching live (which I couldn't). But that doesn't mean that there are no positives to pick either, they were just mostly (entirely?) earlier in the game, and more system than individual, which is always harder (for me) to spot, especially when all emotional.
I've no idea on the bleating, as I tend not to listen to what anyone says to the press, as it's usually BS and nothing like what they say to each other.

I saw SB spout that BS live- its part of his job to be sensible and credible.
The lack of intelligence in game management is what concerns me- system adherence is trumping scanning the field, 'feeling the moment', taking advantage of an opportunity- when something unexpected happens, it all goes to sh+t. Guess what....that's going to happen a lot, its a game.

That's the entire thing, though.

It doesn't matter how good your systems are if it all goes wrong as soon as the opposition refuse to play ball...

I think SB has got this all wrong. I think we need to ditch the Wig and embrace our baldness.

It may be idealistic but I like to think there is a significant presence in the coaching crew capable of original thinking. New ideas are part of it. Another is the presence of a voice in favour of players thinking on their feet. If everything is statistic-led, by definition, it is reaction not innovation. Obviously, basics are essential but too many formulae must mean relying on planned moves rather than natural rugby brain-waves. In terms of balance our scales are tipped to the wrong extreme. So far, pressure brings panic.

I wonder if the players are yearning to have off-field leadership in which they can have confidence. Surely, at present, there must be doubts. Good teams let the opposition worry about them. We seem way off that stage.

[Mellsblue]

I saw SB spout that BS live- its part of his job to be sensible and credible.
The lack of intelligence in game management is what concerns me- system adherence is trumping scanning the field, 'feeling the moment', taking advantage of an opportunity- when something unexpected happens, it all goes to sh+t. Guess what....that's going to happen a lot, its a game.

That's the entire thing, though.

It doesn't matter how good your systems are if it all goes wrong as soon as the opposition refuse to play ball...

I think SB has got this all wrong. I think we need to ditch the Wig and embrace our baldness.

It may be idealistic but I like to think there is a significant presence in the coaching crew capable of original thinking. New ideas are part of it. Another is the presence of a voice in favour of players thinking on their feet. If everything is statistic-led, by definition, it is reaction not innovation. Obviously, basics are essential but too many formulae must mean relying on planned moves rather than natural rugby brain-waves. In terms of balance our scales are tipped to the wrong extreme. So far, pressure brings panic.

I wonder if the players are yearning to have off-field leadership in which they can have confidence. Surely, at present, there must be doubts. Good teams let the opposition worry about them. We seem way off that stage.

We haven’t even got to worrying about the oppo as we’re still worried about ourselves, or at least we should be. How many points did Scotland score and how many points did we leave on the pitch because of self inflicted crap…

[p/d]

I don’t ask for much, but leading at halftime would be a start

[Stom]

I saw SB spout that BS live- its part of his job to be sensible and credible.
The lack of intelligence in game management is what concerns me- system adherence is trumping scanning the field, 'feeling the moment', taking advantage of an opportunity- when something unexpected happens, it all goes to sh+t. Guess what....that's going to happen a lot, its a game.

That's the entire thing, though.

It doesn't matter how good your systems are if it all goes wrong as soon as the opposition refuse to play ball...

I think SB has got this all wrong. I think we need to ditch the Wig and embrace our baldness.

It may be idealistic but I like to think there is a significant presence in the coaching crew capable of original thinking. New ideas are part of it. Another is the presence of a voice in favour of players thinking on their feet. If everything is statistic-led, by definition, it is reaction not innovation. Obviously, basics are essential but too many formulae must mean relying on planned moves rather than natural rugby brain-waves. In terms of balance our scales are tipped to the wrong extreme. So far, pressure brings panic.

I wonder if the players are yearning to have off-field leadership in which they can have confidence. Surely, at present, there must be doubts. Good teams let the opposition worry about them. We seem way off that stage.

I think you're adding 2+2 and getting 5, though.

If you look at the best teams across sports, they are very, very rigid in their systems. Football tactics have evolved so that players know exactly where they need to be at every moment of the game. Those confines allow the players to be creative within a very small area of opportunity. And that creates more impactful actions.

When it comes to creativity, "thinking outside the box" is nonsense. If you can think of whatever you want, you just fling mud.

But finding a solution to a problem when you have very small confines to work in? That's true creativity.

So, the structure of the system itself is not the problem here, and in fact I'd say that the coaching of that structure is setting England up for success.

But the players seem unable to think on their feet within the structures they're given.

Some of them seem incapable of executing to the level we need (Lawrence for one, for me), others were caught like a rabbit in headlights and didn't show any original thought at all (Spencer, big time).

So, for me, it's not about having faith in the leadership, but more about lacking clarity in what choices they have in each situation. Part of that will come with time. But it's also selection. And I feel like some of these players are just not suited to thinking that way. Maybe Borthwick made that judgement call with Dommers and Mercer (I think he's wrong on Dombrandt, considering how he plays for Quins), but he also made that judgement call on Ben Spencer and Lawrence. And Slade. And were they the correct choices? Not sure about that.

[Oakboy]

That's the entire thing, though.

It doesn't matter how good your systems are if it all goes wrong as soon as the opposition refuse to play ball...

I think SB has got this all wrong. I think we need to ditch the Wig and embrace our baldness.

It may be idealistic but I like to think there is a significant presence in the coaching crew capable of original thinking. New ideas are part of it. Another is the presence of a voice in favour of players thinking on their feet. If everything is statistic-led, by definition, it is reaction not innovation. Obviously, basics are essential but too many formulae must mean relying on planned moves rather than natural rugby brain-waves. In terms of balance our scales are tipped to the wrong extreme. So far, pressure brings panic.

I wonder if the players are yearning to have off-field leadership in which they can have confidence. Surely, at present, there must be doubts. Good teams let the opposition worry about them. We seem way off that stage.

I think you're adding 2+2 and getting 5, though.

If you look at the best teams across sports, they are very, very rigid in their systems. Football tactics have evolved so that players know exactly where they need to be at every moment of the game. Those confines allow the players to be creative within a very small area of opportunity. And that creates more impactful actions.

When it comes to creativity, "thinking outside the box" is nonsense. If you can think of whatever you want, you just fling mud.

But finding a solution to a problem when you have very small confines to work in? That's true creativity.

So, the structure of the system itself is not the problem here, and in fact I'd say that the coaching of that structure is setting England up for success.

But the players seem unable to think on their feet within the structures they're given.

Some of them seem incapable of executing to the level we need (Lawrence for one, for me), others were caught like a rabbit in headlights and didn't show any original thought at all (Spencer, big time).

So, for me, it's not about having faith in the leadership, but more about lacking clarity in what choices they have in each situation. Part of that will come with time. But it's also selection. And I feel like some of these players are just not suited to thinking that way. Maybe Borthwick made that judgement call with Dommers and Mercer (I think he's wrong on Dombrandt, considering how he plays for Quins), but he also made that judgement call on Ben Spencer and Lawrence. And Slade. And were they the correct choices? Not sure about that.

I like a lot of what you say but 'moments of magic' (or whatever you want to call them) often only happen if players go off piste. (In football it is Alexander-Arnold having the skill and courage to hit a long through ball in defiance of passing percentages.) Comparing the two FHs highlights that. I think the English players are restricted - too uptight perhaps - within the coaching design shape.

Maybe it IS just a selection issue. You rate Dombrandt but wasn't he a victim of what I am getting at? His normal game did not fit apparently. So, was the system wrong or was his selection?

One certainty is that the team will not prosper if the players do not have faith in the coaching. Are we reaching the stage when positive evidence of it should be on view?

[Donny osmond]

I love these minute by minute's but I do think there is a damger the focus on the minutiae makes every performance looks better/less bad than it is.

I have a friend who is a terrible driver. However, if you broke it down into a play by play you would see him stopping at traffic lights 19 times out of 20, generally watching the road, and almost never hitting anything/anyone.

Equally, reading these I start to doubt how bad a performance was. You read about five competent things in a row and one mistake and think: "ah, maybe I was harsh, there was more good than bad." Oh course there was, these are professional rugby players. But the good is generally uninspired and the bad is often terrible.

I see the developmental aspect in defence. It is something new to England and it has been proven to have the potential to be a game changer when it works (and even in this game it threw Scotland off). However, I think some of you are giving too much leeway in attack. It's nothing particularly special when it works and most of the time seems to come down to one out runners who sometimes do well and sometimes don't. It shouldn't take forever to slicken up, but at this rate it seems likely that half the players in the backline will have moved on by that time.

Probably true, though we all talk on here as if we’d do a better job out there. It’s good to have that reminder that it’s incredibly hard to do basically any of this stuff under the pressure of the top level.

fair, but its what they train full time and are paid for.

Strange that Ireland, for example, have found a way to do it so much better than anyone else, but it's understandable when our guys can't perform at that level consistently?

[Oakboy]

Probably true, though we all talk on here as if we’d do a better job out there. It’s good to have that reminder that it’s incredibly hard to do basically any of this stuff under the pressure of the top level.

fair, but its what they train full time and are paid for.

Strange that Ireland, for example, have found a way to do it so much better than anyone else, but it's understandable when our guys can't perform at that level consistently?

Are their NZ imports simply better than ours?

[TheDasher]

I don't know why they're trying to play - SB can't afford the losses and for whatever reason, we can't do it. It seems like the England squad and management have gone with public opinion about English rugby struggling, lack of appeal, participation, poor attendance/viewing figures etc - so they're trying to play with more attacking flair, Jamie George talking crap about walking to the ground amongst the fans from another 100 yards down the road etc. A decent marketing department and a business plan would help the game in this country...

It seems clear to me that our best performance for years was against SA in the WC. We battered the eventual WC winners for the first 55-60 minutes. It was an adrenalin fuelled, aggressive, clever and accurate performance playing to our strengths. At the moment, that's what we CAN do. Why try and open the game up against Scotland who like opponents doing exactly that? Then subject us to constant handling errors.

Dropping Steward after one of his best games for England in defence and attack because you want to play another fly half (Furbank) when you already have two in Ford and Slade is odd to me. Yes Slade is really just as much a FH as a 13, let's be honest. He was great for England until 2019 ish and hasn't cut the mustard since.

The reason for poor attendances at HQ and lack of interest is because we lose - we lose to Scotland and Ireland, we lose to France - we're average. Just do everything and anything to win SB, that's what professional sport is about - once you can't stop winning, then polish it, not the other way around.

He has an opportunity to replicate the SA performance but with better selection, which would have won us that game. He's not stuck with Billy V coming off the bench anymore and losing us the game with pathetic defence, he has loads of options. Spend every day working out our prop hierarchy, try them all - then pick big lumpy aggressive forwards and kick well. Oh and we can talk about the 12 problem all day everyday but he has to sort it out - he can talk to Northampton about Freeman at 12, he can really assess Seb Atkinson, Olly Hartley et al in detail and make the right call, he can look at the lad at Sale and dare I say it, make a bold SCW type decision to solve the 12 problem, that's what top managers do. For the first time in a long time, I think he has more than enough talent at his disposal to play the game I'm describing above and in the medium term, that's what he should do. No more losses to the likes of Scotland with their tiny pool of players and two clubs. Duhan VDM is a wonderful player, world class - but he was before last weekend - the hatrick he scored has got the press talking about him as if he's Johan Lomu - let's face it, England gave him that hattrick, we were appalling - I think Cokanasiga would've scored those tries. Nothing against VDM - he's phenomenal he benefited from diabolical England play let's be honest.

[Banquo]

Probably true, though we all talk on here as if we’d do a better job out there. It’s good to have that reminder that it’s incredibly hard to do basically any of this stuff under the pressure of the top level.

fair, but its what they train full time and are paid for.

Strange that Ireland, for example, have found a way to do it so much better than anyone else, but it's understandable when our guys can't perform at that level consistently?

aye, clarity, skills and passion for the shirt and game.

[Mellsblue]

So the plan is to only play in heavy rain?

I agree with you on the balance of the backline with Ford, Slade and Furbank, plus you could add Daly to this list of ball handlers not carriers.

[Stom]

It may be idealistic but I like to think there is a significant presence in the coaching crew capable of original thinking. New ideas are part of it. Another is the presence of a voice in favour of players thinking on their feet. If everything is statistic-led, by definition, it is reaction not innovation. Obviously, basics are essential but too many formulae must mean relying on planned moves rather than natural rugby brain-waves. In terms of balance our scales are tipped to the wrong extreme. So far, pressure brings panic.

I wonder if the players are yearning to have off-field leadership in which they can have confidence. Surely, at present, there must be doubts. Good teams let the opposition worry about them. We seem way off that stage.

I think you're adding 2+2 and getting 5, though.

If you look at the best teams across sports, they are very, very rigid in their systems. Football tactics have evolved so that players know exactly where they need to be at every moment of the game. Those confines allow the players to be creative within a very small area of opportunity. And that creates more impactful actions.

When it comes to creativity, "thinking outside the box" is nonsense. If you can think of whatever you want, you just fling mud.

But finding a solution to a problem when you have very small confines to work in? That's true creativity.

So, the structure of the system itself is not the problem here, and in fact I'd say that the coaching of that structure is setting England up for success.

But the players seem unable to think on their feet within the structures they're given.

Some of them seem incapable of executing to the level we need (Lawrence for one, for me), others were caught like a rabbit in headlights and didn't show any original thought at all (Spencer, big time).

So, for me, it's not about having faith in the leadership, but more about lacking clarity in what choices they have in each situation. Part of that will come with time. But it's also selection. And I feel like some of these players are just not suited to thinking that way. Maybe Borthwick made that judgement call with Dommers and Mercer (I think he's wrong on Dombrandt, considering how he plays for Quins), but he also made that judgement call on Ben Spencer and Lawrence. And Slade. And were they the correct choices? Not sure about that.

I like a lot of what you say but 'moments of magic' (or whatever you want to call them) often only happen if players go off piste. (In football it is Alexander-Arnold having the skill and courage to hit a long through ball in defiance of passing percentages.) Comparing the two FHs highlights that. I think the English players are restricted - too uptight perhaps - within the coaching design shape.

Maybe it IS just a selection issue. You rate Dombrandt but wasn't he a victim of what I am getting at? His normal game did not fit apparently. So, was the system wrong or was his selection?

One certainty is that the team will not prosper if the players do not have faith in the coaching. Are we reaching the stage when positive evidence of it should be on view?

But that's the thing. TAA doesn't hit those through balls DESPITE the system, he hits them BECAUSE OF the system. He isn't picked to play a role he cannot do, he's picked to play a role that highlights his strengths. Hence Liverpool switching to an inverted wing back, and the willingness to sacrifice some of what they get from Robertson on the other side in order to create a system that better suits all the players available to them. Ironically, this same structural change, designed to minimise defensive risk and maximise TAAs output, also ended up in Salah being forced to stay wider, dropping his involvements per game, and highlighting whenever he does not take a chance, because he's having fewer chances.

Those "moments of magic" come from creativity WITHIN a system, not OUTSIDE of the system.

It's why it took Grealish so long to get into Pep's City side. But once there, he was super important.

However, if the system is too rigid, it stifles creativity.

And if the system is too loose, there's not enough structure for creativity to thrive.

It's a difficult balance, but it's one that a HC should really be on top of. And if the message is not getting across, or players are getting tense and sticking to the plan like robots, there's one of three things that are wrong:

The Plan
The Personnel
The Message

So fix one of those and go again.

3) is not the hardest thing, but takes a true understanding of the plan.
2) is obviously the easy option, and in the middle of a tournament is the simplest to implement.
1) well, let's hope it's not 1, as then we're screwed.

[TheDasher]

So the plan is to only play in heavy rain?

I agree with you on the balance of the backline with Ford, Slade and Furbank, plus you could add Daly to this list of ball handlers not carriers.

It's not a video game - you can play as I've described in the dry. You can absolutely focus on set-piece, clever, tactical kicking a dominant forward pack etc in the dry. Zinging the ball along a backline that's totally unable to play cohesively time and again and fcking it up is something England can do in the wet or dry let's be honest.

Agree on Daly - unless you just play as I've described, using him for kick chasing and kicking, high balls etc only.

England need to focus solely on how to make life as difficult as possible for the opposition, not on how to make the game more appealing to fans or "showing that we can play expansively" - all nonsense - just win against Scotland by any means possible ffs, that should've been the game plan.

It's especially infuriating at the moment as we have these short periods in which we absolutely steamroller people up front - vs SA, at times vs Italy, vs Scotland - you can see it. A year ago, we couldn't and didn't even do that. Now we seem to have that within us but we're then trying to play expansively which we clearly cannot do.

[Mikey Brown]

I don't know why they're trying to play - SB can't afford the losses and for whatever reason, we can't do it. It seems like the England squad and management have gone with public opinion about English rugby struggling, lack of appeal, participation, poor attendance/viewing figures etc - so they're trying to play with more attacking flair, Jamie George talking crap about walking to the ground amongst the fans from another 100 yards down the road etc. A decent marketing department and a business plan would help the game in this country...

It seems clear to me that our best performance for years was against SA in the WC. We battered the eventual WC winners for the first 55-60 minutes. It was an adrenalin fuelled, aggressive, clever and accurate performance playing to our strengths. At the moment, that's what we CAN do. Why try and open the game up against Scotland who like opponents doing exactly that? Then subject us to constant handling errors.

Dropping Steward after one of his best games for England in defence and attack because you want to play another fly half (Furbank) when you already have two in Ford and Slade is odd to me. Yes Slade is really just as much a FH as a 13, let's be honest. He was great for England until 2019 ish and hasn't cut the mustard since.

The reason for poor attendances at HQ and lack of interest is because we lose - we lose to Scotland and Ireland, we lose to France - we're average. Just do everything and anything to win SB, that's what professional sport is about - once you can't stop winning, then polish it, not the other way around.

He has an opportunity to replicate the SA performance but with better selection, which would have won us that game. He's not stuck with Billy V coming off the bench anymore and losing us the game with pathetic defence, he has loads of options. Spend every day working out our prop hierarchy, try them all - then pick big lumpy aggressive forwards and kick well. Oh and we can talk about the 12 problem all day everyday but he has to sort it out - he can talk to Northampton about Freeman at 12, he can really assess Seb Atkinson, Olly Hartley et al in detail and make the right call, he can look at the lad at Sale and dare I say it, make a bold SCW type decision to solve the 12 problem, that's what top managers do. For the first time in a long time, I think he has more than enough talent at his disposal to play the game I'm describing above and in the medium term, that's what he should do. No more losses to the likes of Scotland with their tiny pool of players and two clubs. Duhan VDM is a wonderful player, world class - but he was before last weekend - the hatrick he scored has got the press talking about him as if he's Johan Lomu - let's face it, England gave him that hattrick, we were appalling - I think Cokanasiga would've scored those tries. Nothing against VDM - he's phenomenal he benefited from diabolical England play let's be honest.

I didn't even realise this was a wind up until I got to the last few lines.

Just pick a monster team and batter everyone else. Simple.

[Mikey Brown]

fair, but its what they train full time and are paid for.

Strange that Ireland, for example, have found a way to do it so much better than anyone else, but it's understandable when our guys can't perform at that level consistently?

aye, clarity, skills and passion for the shirt and game.

And a near infinite budget.

[Oakboy]

But that's the thing. TAA doesn't hit those through balls DESPITE the system, he hits them BECAUSE OF the system. He isn't picked to play a role he cannot do, he's picked to play a role that highlights his strengths. Hence Liverpool switching to an inverted wing back, and the willingness to sacrifice some of what they get from Robertson on the other side in order to create a system that better suits all the players available to them. Ironically, this same structural change, designed to minimise defensive risk and maximise TAAs output, also ended up in Salah being forced to stay wider, dropping his involvements per game, and highlighting whenever he does not take a chance, because he's having fewer chances.

Those "moments of magic" come from creativity WITHIN a system, not OUTSIDE of the system.

It's why it took Grealish so long to get into Pep's City side. But once there, he was super important.

However, if the system is too rigid, it stifles creativity.

And if the system is too loose, there's not enough structure for creativity to thrive.

It's a difficult balance, but it's one that a HC should really be on top of. And if the message is not getting across, or players are getting tense and sticking to the plan like robots, there's one of three things that are wrong:

The Plan
The Personnel
The Message

So fix one of those and go again.

3) is not the hardest thing, but takes a true understanding of the plan.
2) is obviously the easy option, and in the middle of a tournament is the simplest to implement.
1) well, let's hope it's not 1, as then we're screwed.

Good stuff, most of which I accept. Developing your points, did you see in the BBC clip about England's attack not functioning that our turnover concessions have got progressively worse, culminating in 22 against Scotland? All three of your factors could contribute to that, presumably.

One remark from Warburton seemed apt when he referred to our backs being too deep and none of them getting the forwards into position to benefit from ruck delivery. That presumably referred mainly to Care and Ford. I wonder if either will feature in the 23 against Ireland, especially if hopes of Mitchell and Marcus Smith being fit are fulfilled.

[Mikey Brown]

Why would the starters be the ones to go? I mean there's a chance of rotating one of them out, like Steward was, but I can't see Borthwick using that particular gamble as grounds for another one.

As much as I wanted to see more of them from the beginning of the tournament we haven't seen nearly enough of Ben Spencer of Finn Smith to assume they will displace the old boys.

[TheDasher]

I don't know why they're trying to play - SB can't afford the losses and for whatever reason, we can't do it. It seems like the England squad and management have gone with public opinion about English rugby struggling, lack of appeal, participation, poor attendance/viewing figures etc - so they're trying to play with more attacking flair, Jamie George talking crap about walking to the ground amongst the fans from another 100 yards down the road etc. A decent marketing department and a business plan would help the game in this country...

It seems clear to me that our best performance for years was against SA in the WC. We battered the eventual WC winners for the first 55-60 minutes. It was an adrenalin fuelled, aggressive, clever and accurate performance playing to our strengths. At the moment, that's what we CAN do. Why try and open the game up against Scotland who like opponents doing exactly that? Then subject us to constant handling errors.

Dropping Steward after one of his best games for England in defence and attack because you want to play another fly half (Furbank) when you already have two in Ford and Slade is odd to me. Yes Slade is really just as much a FH as a 13, let's be honest. He was great for England until 2019 ish and hasn't cut the mustard since.

The reason for poor attendances at HQ and lack of interest is because we lose - we lose to Scotland and Ireland, we lose to France - we're average. Just do everything and anything to win SB, that's what professional sport is about - once you can't stop winning, then polish it, not the other way around.

He has an opportunity to replicate the SA performance but with better selection, which would have won us that game. He's not stuck with Billy V coming off the bench anymore and losing us the game with pathetic defence, he has loads of options. Spend every day working out our prop hierarchy, try them all - then pick big lumpy aggressive forwards and kick well. Oh and we can talk about the 12 problem all day everyday but he has to sort it out - he can talk to Northampton about Freeman at 12, he can really assess Seb Atkinson, Olly Hartley et al in detail and make the right call, he can look at the lad at Sale and dare I say it, make a bold SCW type decision to solve the 12 problem, that's what top managers do. For the first time in a long time, I think he has more than enough talent at his disposal to play the game I'm describing above and in the medium term, that's what he should do. No more losses to the likes of Scotland with their tiny pool of players and two clubs. Duhan VDM is a wonderful player, world class - but he was before last weekend - the hatrick he scored has got the press talking about him as if he's Johan Lomu - let's face it, England gave him that hattrick, we were appalling - I think Cokanasiga would've scored those tries. Nothing against VDM - he's phenomenal he benefited from diabolical England play let's be honest.

I didn't even realise this was a wind up until I got to the last few lines.

Just pick a monster team and batter everyone else. Simple.

Charming, thanks. You don't have to agree with what I'm saying but don't suggest that it's a piss take.

When England try and 'play', we fck it up - we've seen that now over the past few years, many, many times - I'm simply saying, be hard to beat, stick to your immediate, obvious strengths, which we saw against SA. I don't want us to have to do that, but it's an obvious move. You enter a competition to beat all the opposition, not to throw the ball in each others faces, drop it and watch them counter punch you with ease.

[Banquo]

Strange that Ireland, for example, have found a way to do it so much better than anyone else, but it's understandable when our guys can't perform at that level consistently?

aye, clarity, skills and passion for the shirt and game.

And a near infinite budget.

near infinite is a big number.- and although not capped, needs to come from somewhere? How much do Irish players earn, and where does it come from?

There's nothing stopping the RFU offering more, either. Our guys who stay are pretty well remunerated.


....eta had a quick look, and Irish players aren't vastly well paid- the key benefits/differences will be bigger squad sizes (though eg Bath have 72-77) and better rotation at a guess. Plus on the surface a system that feeds the pyramid better, provincial rugby being pretty demanding in standards terms, and likely much better (cos there's less) comms between Farrell and the 'club' DORs.

[Banquo]

But that's the thing. TAA doesn't hit those through balls DESPITE the system, he hits them BECAUSE OF the system. He isn't picked to play a role he cannot do, he's picked to play a role that highlights his strengths. Hence Liverpool switching to an inverted wing back, and the willingness to sacrifice some of what they get from Robertson on the other side in order to create a system that better suits all the players available to them. Ironically, this same structural change, designed to minimise defensive risk and maximise TAAs output, also ended up in Salah being forced to stay wider, dropping his involvements per game, and highlighting whenever he does not take a chance, because he's having fewer chances.

Those "moments of magic" come from creativity WITHIN a system, not OUTSIDE of the system.

It's why it took Grealish so long to get into Pep's City side. But once there, he was super important.

However, if the system is too rigid, it stifles creativity.

And if the system is too loose, there's not enough structure for creativity to thrive.

It's a difficult balance, but it's one that a HC should really be on top of. And if the message is not getting across, or players are getting tense and sticking to the plan like robots, there's one of three things that are wrong:

The Plan
The Personnel
The Message

So fix one of those and go again.

3) is not the hardest thing, but takes a true understanding of the plan.
2) is obviously the easy option, and in the middle of a tournament is the simplest to implement.
1) well, let's hope it's not 1, as then we're screwed.

Good stuff, most of which I accept. Developing your points, did you see in the BBC clip about England's attack not functioning that our turnover concessions have got progressively worse, culminating in 22 against Scotland? All three of your factors could contribute to that, presumably.

One remark from Warburton seemed apt when he referred to our backs being too deep and none of them getting the forwards into position to benefit from ruck delivery. That presumably referred mainly to Care and Ford. I wonder if either will feature in the 23 against Ireland, especially if hopes of Mitchell and Marcus Smith being fit are fulfilled.

as others have postulated, the depth of play he singled out was probably deliberate; hard to drop players playing to the plan they've been sent out to execute, though one assumes there was a plan b. Scotland themselves dropped deeper second half to react to our line speed and blitz.