England v. Ireland

[SixAndAHalf]

Old guard or not his attacking threat is restricted to his passing ability ( which has never been doubted).

And his brain, and his match-situation-awareness, and his playmaking, and his game management, and his territorial kicking...


I'm a big fan of FSmith, and a moderate one of MSmith*, but if either had played that game and done exactly the same thing in the same situations, including the missed kicks, we'd be lauding them to high heaven (and pointing out that the missed kicks are a rarity).
Had Farrell done so, we'd all have been here apologising, and marvelling at his newfound powers.


* I'm told that he's really added game management to his repertoire, and once I've seen it for myself, I'll become a big fan.

Like

[Puja]

I don't know I'd agree with FKAS on Steward or Manu on the bench, but they're not wrong about the value of Daly as an impact sub. He was useful in the starting XV as a security blanket - an old head who would be low mistakes on the wing and provided an excellent kick-and-chase game. Now that we've moved beyond that, I don't really know what value he brings, other than the versatility of being okayish in several positions

There is a distinct argument to be made that we could go to a 6:2 against France. I know we saw the exact reason why not to do that play out for Ireland at the weekend, but France are going to be coming full-bore with their hefty pack and heftier 6 forward subs and it might be worthwhile looking to fight fire with fire.

Puja

[Oakboy]

I don't know I'd agree with FKAS on Steward or Manu on the bench, but they're not wrong about the value of Daly as an impact sub. He was useful in the starting XV as a security blanket - an old head who would be low mistakes on the wing and provided an excellent kick-and-chase game. Now that we've moved beyond that, I don't really know what value he brings, other than the versatility of being okayish in several positions

There is a distinct argument to be made that we could go to a 6:2 against France. I know we saw the exact reason why not to do that play out for Ireland at the weekend, but France are going to be coming full-bore with their hefty pack and heftier 6 forward subs and it might be worthwhile looking to fight fire with fire.

Puja

England have good versatility such that covering for FH/FB is easy enough if only 2 backs are on the bench. However, specialist SH cover is essential and neither of Care nor Spencer provide much else. Randall, on the other hand would be comfortable on the wing. Fin Smith, if fit, would offer better centre cover than Ford, though shifting Freeman would be the first option. Yes, Randall and Smith if it has to be just two.

[Banquo]

I don't know I'd agree with FKAS on Steward or Manu on the bench, but they're not wrong about the value of Daly as an impact sub. He was useful in the starting XV as a security blanket - an old head who would be low mistakes on the wing and provided an excellent kick-and-chase game. Now that we've moved beyond that, I don't really know what value he brings, other than the versatility of being okayish in several positions

There is a distinct argument to be made that we could go to a 6:2 against France. I know we saw the exact reason why not to do that play out for Ireland at the weekend, but France are going to be coming full-bore with their hefty pack and heftier 6 forward subs and it might be worthwhile looking to fight fire with fire.

Puja

As I said, several times, bench isn't just about impact, but I'd still say Daly remains decent in terms of that- he's still quick, still has a decent left boot and still can produce good moments of linking in attack. There's huge value off the bench in covering three positions well, it gives you massive flexibility. I recall having this debate about bench composition before in relation to backs- minimising disruption in the event of injury is imo important, others don't believe so.

That said, my other thought was like yours- you'd be better off going 6:2 than Steward/Manu imo (neither of whom are impact or utility these days).

[Banquo]

I don't know I'd agree with FKAS on Steward or Manu on the bench, but they're not wrong about the value of Daly as an impact sub. He was useful in the starting XV as a security blanket - an old head who would be low mistakes on the wing and provided an excellent kick-and-chase game. Now that we've moved beyond that, I don't really know what value he brings, other than the versatility of being okayish in several positions

There is a distinct argument to be made that we could go to a 6:2 against France. I know we saw the exact reason why not to do that play out for Ireland at the weekend, but France are going to be coming full-bore with their hefty pack and heftier 6 forward subs and it might be worthwhile looking to fight fire with fire.

Puja

England have good versatility such that covering for FH/FB is easy enough if only 2 backs are on the bench. However, specialist SH cover is essential and neither of Care nor Spencer provide much else. Randall, on the other hand would be comfortable on the wing. Fin Smith, if fit, would offer better centre cover than Ford, though shifting Freeman would be the first option. Yes, Randall and Smith if it has to be just two.

Just rehearse what happens if an outside back gets injured in the 10th minute.

[Banquo]

Tigers family have you joined their slightly painful marketing team.

I'm quite happy Manu is an ex-Tiger to be honest, especially as I see the rumours swirling now it's contract renewal time and Sale apparently are wanting to reduce his salary. I just would prefer to er on the side of giving our team some impact or difference off the bench rather than Daly who is just a solid versatility option. We disagree on Steward's impact obviously but I feel he's got more to bring in to the side particularly if the attack is actually working.

just trying to communicate in cult lingo, don't shoot the messenger...

focusing just on impact rather than balance with injury/impact flex is indeed to er ....err imo. Daly at his best is better than solid, but made slightly funnier by being juxtaposed by the epitome of solid (other than tackling).

btw....one of the key reasons the attack is working...Furbank

He's added something to the attack but he's not a key reason it's working in my opinion.

The main difference to previous weeks is that passes are going to hand and not being dropped. Mitchell returning to the side is a far bigger reason to that than most. Quick and accurate delivery and his range Vs Ireland was a huge difference. Gave the attack time on the ball, the settled back line looked more cohesive with that time and IFW added as much as Furbank with those darting runs getting us metres when he had no right to.

Quite, between IFW and Furbank they offered loads more gains than before, along with Furbanks excellent counter attacking. So a key reason. Not THE reason. Intent, pace, energy.

[Skalyba]

???? Does anybody not want us to keep the ball in hand and attack more (than in earlier 'kick and hope' games)?

Not sure how you went from my comment to your question, but the answer is pretty much everybody apart from the Steward family and fkas.

Against Wales Steward ran ball in hand more than other player in terms of metres made, came second in number of overall carriers and joint second for number of players beaten (joint highest for England). The idea he's there only for kicking is somewhat unfounded.

He would offer a very different option for England should they need it. A powerful carrier, the option to target the French back three in the air (we got nowhere near contesting attacking kicks the last two weeks) as they start to tire gives a different option we did well with before with Marcus at 10 (Furbank at 15 and Steward at 14 as well on that occasion). A new proposition in attack for France to deal with.

We're only likely to change the centres or wings for Daly in the chance of injury so bringing Steward or Furbank onto the wing and Possibly Freeman into centre isn't a particular concern. Particularly with the back three coming up hard in defence and that suiting Steward as he can commit instead of having to use footwork to cover space.

Impact sub wise it would offer more than the alternatives we have.

I think SB prefers a playmaker in the back 3 though - Steward in at 15 probably means Daly back on the wing. It will be interesting how that dynamic changes if Slade also moves on after this 6 nations and is replaced by a non-playmaker at 13 - would that impact the likes of Hodge and Steward at 15 (assuming the wings stay as they are)? I like that we're starting to utilise the breadth of our player pool but I think we'll see some good individual players with faces that no longer fit

[FKAS]

just trying to communicate in cult lingo, don't shoot the messenger...

focusing just on impact rather than balance with injury/impact flex is indeed to er ....err imo. Daly at his best is better than solid, but made slightly funnier by being juxtaposed by the epitome of solid (other than tackling).

btw....one of the key reasons the attack is working...Furbank

He's added something to the attack but he's not a key reason it's working in my opinion.

The main difference to previous weeks is that passes are going to hand and not being dropped. Mitchell returning to the side is a far bigger reason to that than most. Quick and accurate delivery and his range Vs Ireland was a huge difference. Gave the attack time on the ball, the settled back line looked more cohesive with that time and IFW added as much as Furbank with those darting runs getting us metres when he had no right to.

Quite, between IFW and Furbank they offered loads more gains than before, along with Furbanks excellent counter attacking. So a key reason. Not THE reason. Intent, pace, energy.

Furbank brought creativity and pace but in terms of metres made and defenders beaten his stats aren't particularly good. Particularly when you compare it to the number of times he turned the ball over.

[FKAS]

Not sure how you went from my comment to your question, but the answer is pretty much everybody apart from the Steward family and fkas.

Against Wales Steward ran ball in hand more than other player in terms of metres made, came second in number of overall carriers and joint second for number of players beaten (joint highest for England). The idea he's there only for kicking is somewhat unfounded.

He would offer a very different option for England should they need it. A powerful carrier, the option to target the French back three in the air (we got nowhere near contesting attacking kicks the last two weeks) as they start to tire gives a different option we did well with before with Marcus at 10 (Furbank at 15 and Steward at 14 as well on that occasion). A new proposition in attack for France to deal with.

We're only likely to change the centres or wings for Daly in the chance of injury so bringing Steward or Furbank onto the wing and Possibly Freeman into centre isn't a particular concern. Particularly with the back three coming up hard in defence and that suiting Steward as he can commit instead of having to use footwork to cover space.

Impact sub wise it would offer more than the alternatives we have.

I think SB prefers a playmaker in the back 3 though - Steward in at 15 probably means Daly back on the wing. It will be interesting how that dynamic changes if Slade also moves on after this 6 nations and is replaced by a non-playmaker at 13 - would that impact the likes of Hodge and Steward at 15 (assuming the wings stay as they are)? I like that we're starting to utilise the breadth of our player pool but I think we'll see some good individual players with faces that no longer fit

That is an interesting point with Slade. We saw at the world cup England largely play without a secondary playmaker, Daly is sort of half a playmaker rather than one you'd use frontline or in the boot like you would with Slade or Furbank. For some games when Smooth Baldpatch thought we needed the extra playmaker though he did bring Smith in at 15, much like he used Burns at Tigers.

If Slade were to drop out for say Freeman pushing in and another attacking winger it might put more emphasis on a playmaker at 15. If a 12 with good hands were to come in and Lawrence to step out one though possibly less emphasis. All depends who comes through. It could be an area Dingwall comes through and thrives in. He was pretty solid and didn't get to show off his handling skills due to being paired with Slade, might need to develop his kicking game a touch but not a massive issue. Dan Kelly is pretty handy at distributing and if he can sort his iffy form out could come into that sort of role.

[Banquo]

He's added something to the attack but he's not a key reason it's working in my opinion.

The main difference to previous weeks is that passes are going to hand and not being dropped. Mitchell returning to the side is a far bigger reason to that than most. Quick and accurate delivery and his range Vs Ireland was a huge difference. Gave the attack time on the ball, the settled back line looked more cohesive with that time and IFW added as much as Furbank with those darting runs getting us metres when he had no right to.

Quite, between IFW and Furbank they offered loads more gains than before, along with Furbanks excellent counter attacking. So a key reason. Not THE reason. Intent, pace, energy.

Furbank brought creativity and pace but in terms of metres made and defenders beaten his stats aren't particularly good. Particularly when you compare it to the number of times he turned the ball over.

as said above, acknowledging your repeated assertions, he wasn't perfect, but brought more to the party than he took away. And I think taking risks in the anticipation of winning, vs safety first (and losing like this) is a good strategy for this team. btwm of the 4 turnovers he was credited with, 2 weren't down to him imo, and he made more metres than anyone bar Earl, and even then the stats don't tell the story of energy and pace on the game, nor ambition and ability to play. I think it would be borderline insane to say, that worked really well, but lets change it.

[FKAS]

Quite, between IFW and Furbank they offered loads more gains than before, along with Furbanks excellent counter attacking. So a key reason. Not THE reason. Intent, pace, energy.

Furbank brought creativity and pace but in terms of metres made and defenders beaten his stats aren't particularly good. Particularly when you compare it to the number of times he turned the ball over.

as said above, acknowledging your repeated assertions, he wasn't perfect, but brought more to the party than he took away. And I think taking risks in the anticipation of winning, vs safety first (and losing like this) is a good strategy for this team. btwm of the 4 turnovers he was credited with, 2 weren't down to him imo, and he made more metres than anyone bar Earl, and even then the stats don't tell the story of energy and pace on the game, nor ambition and ability to play. I think it would be borderline insane to say, that worked really well, but lets change it.

As I've already said, I wouldn't change the starting XV. Furbank included. Things worked better than they have done in years and more cohesion can only help us.

Running into forwards unnecessarily and getting turned over and dropping an easy catch were the three I remembered. Poor errors. Tbh I can't remember the fourth. He did add a lot in attack though and him seeing space is worth the risk of him making errors. If he cuts down on the errors then he'll be an awful lot less frustrating to watch.

[Banquo]

Against Wales Steward ran ball in hand more than other player in terms of metres made, came second in number of overall carriers and joint second for number of players beaten (joint highest for England). The idea he's there only for kicking is somewhat unfounded.

He would offer a very different option for England should they need it. A powerful carrier, the option to target the French back three in the air (we got nowhere near contesting attacking kicks the last two weeks) as they start to tire gives a different option we did well with before with Marcus at 10 (Furbank at 15 and Steward at 14 as well on that occasion). A new proposition in attack for France to deal with.

We're only likely to change the centres or wings for Daly in the chance of injury so bringing Steward or Furbank onto the wing and Possibly Freeman into centre isn't a particular concern. Particularly with the back three coming up hard in defence and that suiting Steward as he can commit instead of having to use footwork to cover space.

Impact sub wise it would offer more than the alternatives we have.

I think SB prefers a playmaker in the back 3 though - Steward in at 15 probably means Daly back on the wing. It will be interesting how that dynamic changes if Slade also moves on after this 6 nations and is replaced by a non-playmaker at 13 - would that impact the likes of Hodge and Steward at 15 (assuming the wings stay as they are)? I like that we're starting to utilise the breadth of our player pool but I think we'll see some good individual players with faces that no longer fit

That is an interesting point with Slade. We saw at the world cup England largely play without a secondary playmaker, Daly is sort of half a playmaker rather than one you'd use frontline or in the boot like you would with Slade or Furbank. For some games when Smooth Baldpatch thought we needed the extra playmaker though he did bring Smith in at 15, much like he used Burns at Tigers.

If Slade were to drop out for say Freeman pushing in and another attacking winger it might put more emphasis on a playmaker at 15. If a 12 with good hands were to come in and Lawrence to step out one though possibly less emphasis. All depends who comes through. It could be an area Dingwall comes through and thrives in. He was pretty solid and didn't get to show off his handling skills due to being paired with Slade, might need to develop his kicking game a touch but not a massive issue. Dan Kelly is pretty handy at distributing and if he can sort his iffy form out could come into that sort of role.

Personally, I don't see the absolute necessity for a second playmaker, particularly if at 15. I would like to see the Dingwall/Lawrence combo, particularly because Dingwall commits defences through running good lines and his distribution is excellent- he also has a very good range of short attacking kicks. But given how well Slade and Lawrence mixed and matched v Irelan, that's probably worth persevering with, notwithstanding my reservations over Slade.

[Banquo]

Furbank brought creativity and pace but in terms of metres made and defenders beaten his stats aren't particularly good. Particularly when you compare it to the number of times he turned the ball over.

as said above, acknowledging your repeated assertions, he wasn't perfect, but brought more to the party than he took away. And I think taking risks in the anticipation of winning, vs safety first (and losing like this) is a good strategy for this team. btwm of the 4 turnovers he was credited with, 2 weren't down to him imo, and he made more metres than anyone bar Earl, and even then the stats don't tell the story of energy and pace on the game, nor ambition and ability to play. I think it would be borderline insane to say, that worked really well, but lets change it.

As I've already said, I wouldn't change the starting XV. Furbank included. Things worked better than they have done in years and more cohesion can only help us.

ok, glad we had the chat then

[Mellsblue]

Not a big fan of ascribing turnovers to the player who is tackled bar a stupid error, eg running away from support. I only remember one turnover and he was surrounded by Eng players. The fact is that we obviously wanted to attack in the wider channels and retain the ball so you’ll both give up more jackal opportunities and require more from those resourcing the ruck. The knock on when committing to the hard line is unforgivable but if he’s been ‘credited’ as turning over the ball for the Lawrence non try then that is ridiculous.

[Spiffy]

I think SB prefers a playmaker in the back 3 though - Steward in at 15 probably means Daly back on the wing. It will be interesting how that dynamic changes if Slade also moves on after this 6 nations and is replaced by a non-playmaker at 13 - would that impact the likes of Hodge and Steward at 15 (assuming the wings stay as they are)? I like that we're starting to utilise the breadth of our player pool but I think we'll see some good individual players with faces that no longer fit

That is an interesting point with Slade. We saw at the world cup England largely play without a secondary playmaker, Daly is sort of half a playmaker rather than one you'd use frontline or in the boot like you would with Slade or Furbank. For some games when Smooth Baldpatch thought we needed the extra playmaker though he did bring Smith in at 15, much like he used Burns at Tigers.

If Slade were to drop out for say Freeman pushing in and another attacking winger it might put more emphasis on a playmaker at 15. If a 12 with good hands were to come in and Lawrence to step out one though possibly less emphasis. All depends who comes through. It could be an area Dingwall comes through and thrives in. He was pretty solid and didn't get to show off his handling skills due to being paired with Slade, might need to develop his kicking game a touch but not a massive issue. Dan Kelly is pretty handy at distributing and if he can sort his iffy form out could come into that sort of role.

Personally, I don't see the absolute necessity for a second playmaker, particularly if at 15. I would like to see the Dingwall/Lawrence combo, particularly because Dingwall commits defences through running good lines and his distribution is excellent- he also has a very good range of short attacking kicks. But given how well Slade and Lawrence mixed and matched v Irelan, that's probably worth persevering with, notwithstanding my reservations over Slade.

Yes. Anyone selected to play international rugby at 12/13/15 should already have the required skills to act as a second playmaker, but in many teams they don't. A lot of sides still look as though they do not train enough with the ball in had so that using it becomes second nature.
In both club- and international matches I've noticed reserves warming up at half time by running across the pitch passing the ball back and forth. Most of these passes are forward or flat at the very best and delivered with sloppy hand/body movements, yet in the actual match they are suppose to forget that groove and pass backwards again.

[Banquo]

That is an interesting point with Slade. We saw at the world cup England largely play without a secondary playmaker, Daly is sort of half a playmaker rather than one you'd use frontline or in the boot like you would with Slade or Furbank. For some games when Smooth Baldpatch thought we needed the extra playmaker though he did bring Smith in at 15, much like he used Burns at Tigers.

If Slade were to drop out for say Freeman pushing in and another attacking winger it might put more emphasis on a playmaker at 15. If a 12 with good hands were to come in and Lawrence to step out one though possibly less emphasis. All depends who comes through. It could be an area Dingwall comes through and thrives in. He was pretty solid and didn't get to show off his handling skills due to being paired with Slade, might need to develop his kicking game a touch but not a massive issue. Dan Kelly is pretty handy at distributing and if he can sort his iffy form out could come into that sort of role.

Personally, I don't see the absolute necessity for a second playmaker, particularly if at 15. I would like to see the Dingwall/Lawrence combo, particularly because Dingwall commits defences through running good lines and his distribution is excellent- he also has a very good range of short attacking kicks. But given how well Slade and Lawrence mixed and matched v Irelan, that's probably worth persevering with, notwithstanding my reservations over Slade.

Yes. Anyone selected to play international rugby at 12/13/15 should already have the required skills to act as a second playmaker, but in many teams they don't. A lot of sides still look as though they do not train enough with the ball in had so that using it becomes second nature.
In both club- and international matches I've noticed reserves warming up at half time by running across the pitch passing the ball back and forth. Most of these passes are forward or flat at the very best and delivered with sloppy hand/body movements, yet in the actual match they are suppose to forget that groove and pass backwards again.

My least popular move in coaching was twenty minutes of basic handling at the start of every session, with the last 5 being perfect or start again. All the backs really wanted to do was pointlessly practice unopposed moves. It really annoys me when centres especially can't pass very well off both hands and at least be able to kick well off one foot and passably off the other.

[LongForgotten]

Personally, I don't see the absolute necessity for a second playmaker, particularly if at 15. I would like to see the Dingwall/Lawrence combo, particularly because Dingwall commits defences through running good lines and his distribution is excellent- he also has a very good range of short attacking kicks. But given how well Slade and Lawrence mixed and matched v Irelan, that's probably worth persevering with, notwithstanding my reservations over Slade.

Yes. Anyone selected to play international rugby at 12/13/15 should already have the required skills to act as a second playmaker, but in many teams they don't. A lot of sides still look as though they do not train enough with the ball in had so that using it becomes second nature.
In both club- and international matches I've noticed reserves warming up at half time by running across the pitch passing the ball back and forth. Most of these passes are forward or flat at the very best and delivered with sloppy hand/body movements, yet in the actual match they are suppose to forget that groove and pass backwards again.

My least popular move in coaching was twenty minutes of basic handling at the start of every session, with the last 5 being perfect or start again. All the backs really wanted to do was pointlessly practice unopposed moves. It really annoys me when centres especially can't pass very well off both hands and at least be able to kick well off one foot and passably off the other.

What sort of drills did you use for that?

[Banquo]

Yes. Anyone selected to play international rugby at 12/13/15 should already have the required skills to act as a second playmaker, but in many teams they don't. A lot of sides still look as though they do not train enough with the ball in had so that using it becomes second nature.
In both club- and international matches I've noticed reserves warming up at half time by running across the pitch passing the ball back and forth. Most of these passes are forward or flat at the very best and delivered with sloppy hand/body movements, yet in the actual match they are suppose to forget that groove and pass backwards again.

My least popular move in coaching was twenty minutes of basic handling at the start of every session, with the last 5 being perfect or start again. All the backs really wanted to do was pointlessly practice unopposed moves. It really annoys me when centres especially can't pass very well off both hands and at least be able to kick well off one foot and passably off the other.

What sort of drills did you use for that?

all sorts, Auckland Squares, lines of 4 running to another line of 4 (introduce some miss passes, loops etc if you want), then 4 setting off simultaneously at opposite ends to distract a bit, lines of 4 players starting vertically behind each other and straightening up round 4 sides of an auckland square, 2 v1 , 3 v 2 (defenders given differing instructions, rolling starts), 3 v2 then a covering defender. Small 'game' situations in limited space. Set up 3 in front and 3 behind with the back three coming through late in a wave to take a pass and cycle through for 30 + metres. Progressive normally- but on a bad day, might not get past passing left to right without a mistake). Infinite really, but important to start with the basics every time, then make more complex, introduce pressure etc etc. When I started coaching there weren't many resources, but I bet there are hundreds now. I nicked mine from other coaches, Dwyer and Ashton especially.

[FKAS]

Not a big fan of ascribing turnovers to the player who is tackled bar a stupid error, eg running away from support. I only remember one turnover and he was surrounded by Eng players. The fact is that we obviously wanted to attack in the wider channels and retain the ball so you’ll both give up more jackal opportunities and require more from those resourcing the ruck. The knock on when committing to the hard line is unforgivable but if he’s been ‘credited’ as turning over the ball for the Lawrence non try then that is ridiculous.

I wouldn't be so mean as to criticise him for the Lawrence disallowed try. Bouncing ball with the opposition who's both bigger and stronger scrabbling desperately and your arms as you try to catch it.

He did run into forwards twice unnecessarily and get turned over by van der Flier. The red scrum cap should be a warning. If you're quick with good hands, run or pass away from the opposition forwards don't run into the when you're as small as Furbank. He's more than capable of doing so as demonstrated on several other occasions.

[Mellsblue]

Not a big fan of ascribing turnovers to the player who is tackled bar a stupid error, eg running away from support. I only remember one turnover and he was surrounded by Eng players. The fact is that we obviously wanted to attack in the wider channels and retain the ball so you’ll both give up more jackal opportunities and require more from those resourcing the ruck. The knock on when committing to the hard line is unforgivable but if he’s been ‘credited’ as turning over the ball for the Lawrence non try then that is ridiculous.

I wouldn't be so mean as to criticise him for the Lawrence disallowed try. Bouncing ball with the opposition who's both bigger and stronger scrabbling desperately and your arms as you try to catch it.

He did run into forwards twice unnecessarily and get turned over by van der Flier. The red scrum cap should be a warning. If you're quick with good hands, run or pass away from the opposition forwards don't run into the when you're as small as Furbank. He's more than capable of doing so as demonstrated on several other occasions.

Or trust the men either side of you to clear out the ruck… if he’s such a weakling then if he passes to someone else to take the tackle then he’s got to do the clearing which he’s obviously not big enough to do.
Why has no one ever thought to run away from the oppo before. Simples!

[Puja]

Not a big fan of ascribing turnovers to the player who is tackled bar a stupid error, eg running away from support. I only remember one turnover and he was surrounded by Eng players. The fact is that we obviously wanted to attack in the wider channels and retain the ball so you’ll both give up more jackal opportunities and require more from those resourcing the ruck. The knock on when committing to the hard line is unforgivable but if he’s been ‘credited’ as turning over the ball for the Lawrence non try then that is ridiculous.

I wouldn't be so mean as to criticise him for the Lawrence disallowed try. Bouncing ball with the opposition who's both bigger and stronger scrabbling desperately and your arms as you try to catch it.

He did run into forwards twice unnecessarily and get turned over by van der Flier. The red scrum cap should be a warning. If you're quick with good hands, run or pass away from the opposition forwards don't run into the when you're as small as Furbank. He's more than capable of doing so as demonstrated on several other occasions.

Or trust the men either side of you to clear out the ruck… if he’s such a weakling then if he passes to someone else to take the tackle then he’s got to do the clearing which he’s obviously not big enough to do.
Why has no one ever thought to run away from the oppo before. Simples!

I do take your point generally, but one of the turnovers was the result of him ignoring Earl running a hard line and taking the ball on himself into the Irish forwards while he was isolated. Sometimes a turnover is because your clearers didn't do their job, sometimes you're unlucky and the opposition are good, but sometimes it's because you made a bad decision and ran down a blind alley.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

I wouldn't be so mean as to criticise him for the Lawrence disallowed try. Bouncing ball with the opposition who's both bigger and stronger scrabbling desperately and your arms as you try to catch it.

He did run into forwards twice unnecessarily and get turned over by van der Flier. The red scrum cap should be a warning. If you're quick with good hands, run or pass away from the opposition forwards don't run into the when you're as small as Furbank. He's more than capable of doing so as demonstrated on several other occasions.

Or trust the men either side of you to clear out the ruck… if he’s such a weakling then if he passes to someone else to take the tackle then he’s got to do the clearing which he’s obviously not big enough to do.
Why has no one ever thought to run away from the oppo before. Simples!

I do take your point generally, but one of the turnovers was the result of him ignoring Earl running a hard line and taking the ball on himself into the Irish forwards while he was isolated. Sometimes a turnover is because your clearers didn't do their job, sometimes you're unlucky and the opposition are good, but sometimes it's because you made a bad decision and ran down a blind alley.

Puja

As I said, the one turnover I remember* he took the ball into contact as there was nothing on and another pass is just moving it on further away from support. If he missed Earl on a good hard line on the other occasion then that’s poor judgement at the gain line (he’s obvs nailed on as the next captain in that case ) and he should be picked up on it. I’ve no problem with legitimate criticism of him - I did use the phrase ‘glaring errors’ on here when commenting on his performance after the match.
Essentially we’re agreeing as I said in my post that started it all ‘Not a big fan of ascribing turnovers to the player who is tackled bar a stupid error’ and missing Earl sounds like a stupid error.

*it was also the one fkas criticised earlier in the match thread. Hence me using it as the example.

[Mr Mwenda]

Personally, I don't see the absolute necessity for a second playmaker, particularly if at 15. I would like to see the Dingwall/Lawrence combo, particularly because Dingwall commits defences through running good lines and his distribution is excellent- he also has a very good range of short attacking kicks. But given how well Slade and Lawrence mixed and matched v Irelan, that's probably worth persevering with, notwithstanding my reservations over Slade.

Yes. Anyone selected to play international rugby at 12/13/15 should already have the required skills to act as a second playmaker, but in many teams they don't. A lot of sides still look as though they do not train enough with the ball in had so that using it becomes second nature.
In both club- and international matches I've noticed reserves warming up at half time by running across the pitch passing the ball back and forth. Most of these passes are forward or flat at the very best and delivered with sloppy hand/body movements, yet in the actual match they are suppose to forget that groove and pass backwards again.

My least popular move in coaching was twenty minutes of basic handling at the start of every session, with the last 5 being perfect or start again. All the backs really wanted to do was pointlessly practice unopposed moves. It really annoys me when centres especially can't pass very well off both hands and at least be able to kick well off one foot and passably off the other.

Classic, extra points for running pointless unopposed moves where everybody stands way further apart than in a game.

[Banquo]

Yes. Anyone selected to play international rugby at 12/13/15 should already have the required skills to act as a second playmaker, but in many teams they don't. A lot of sides still look as though they do not train enough with the ball in had so that using it becomes second nature.
In both club- and international matches I've noticed reserves warming up at half time by running across the pitch passing the ball back and forth. Most of these passes are forward or flat at the very best and delivered with sloppy hand/body movements, yet in the actual match they are suppose to forget that groove and pass backwards again.

My least popular move in coaching was twenty minutes of basic handling at the start of every session, with the last 5 being perfect or start again. All the backs really wanted to do was pointlessly practice unopposed moves. It really annoys me when centres especially can't pass very well off both hands and at least be able to kick well off one foot and passably off the other.

Classic, extra points for running pointless unopposed moves where everybody stands way further apart than in a game.

Indeed!

[Mellsblue]

My least popular move in coaching was twenty minutes of basic handling at the start of every session, with the last 5 being perfect or start again. All the backs really wanted to do was pointlessly practice unopposed moves. It really annoys me when centres especially can't pass very well off both hands and at least be able to kick well off one foot and passably off the other.

Classic, extra points for running pointless unopposed moves where everybody stands way further apart than in a game.

Indeed!

Well there’s goes my training plan for this evening’s session.