RugbyRebels

Mikey Brown wrote:So 10. Farrell 12. Barritt 13. Te’o is what you’re suggesting?

Don't forget Wigglesworth at 9

By the way, Ford is seen as a running threat, but he have any dabs to speak of this autumn? I can't recall any but then I missed plenty over the three games.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:Also need to consider it wasn't simply a backrow issue that Samoa got after our breakdown, simply they put in bigger numbers, and the England team didn't react to that but kept trying to setup as they'd practiced with the coaches during the week. Similar in some respects to the job that Italy did on us that the players on the field were unable or unwilling to make changes during the game.

Now that attack expects defence to merely fan out there will be chances as Samoa have just shown to flood the breakdown more than expected. Still, it's hardly just on the backrow that we ran into problems, but it was partly them

It was. Technique and decision making about numbers have been a huge issue for us internationally since c 2004 . You'd think given the passivity that seems to have set in to some teams about defending breakdowns, and thus complacency from attacking teams about numbers, you'd soon see the appropriate reaction to that.

We're doing a number of 1 man attacking rucks, and sometimes that's working for us when the ball is being cleared quickly Sometimes it's not enough to survive a counter ruck, and sometimes the one man is clearing out rather than simply bridging, and that's got to be worked on as the ball is then not protected

There was an Itoje clearout which on another day could have gone badly wrong for us, came from when Simmonds took a scrum free kick and ran near the Samoa line in the last quarter of the first half. Ewels took the ball on after the Simmonds carry and Itoje is the supporter who rather than bridging clears out a player and leaves the 2nd Samoan player free to simply pick up the ball. Now the Samoan player is bent over to pick up the ball, but there's not too much doubt that Care rolls the Samoan player picking up the ball in a way which brings the Samoan lad down head first, and the 9 getting sent off is far from helpful

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:Also need to consider it wasn't simply a backrow issue that Samoa got after our breakdown, simply they put in bigger numbers, and the England team didn't react to that but kept trying to setup as they'd practiced with the coaches during the week. Similar in some respects to the job that Italy did on us that the players on the field were unable or unwilling to make changes during the game.

Now that attack expects defence to merely fan out there will be chances as Samoa have just shown to flood the breakdown more than expected. Still, it's hardly just on the backrow that we ran into problems, but it was partly them

It was. Technique and decision making about numbers have been a huge issue for us internationally since c 2004 . You'd think given the passivity that seems to have set in to some teams about defending breakdowns, and thus complacency from attacking teams about numbers, you'd soon see the appropriate reaction to that.

We're doing a number of 1 man attacking rucks, and sometimes that's working for us when the ball is being cleared quickly Sometimes it's not enough to survive a counter ruck, and sometimes the one man is clearing out rather than simply bridging, and that's got to be worked on as the ball is then not protected

There was an Itoje clearout which on another day could have gone badly wrong for us, came from when Simmonds took a scrum free kick and ran near the Samoa line in the last quarter of the first half. Ewels took the ball on after the Simmonds carry and Itoje is the supporter who rather than bridging clears out a player and leaves the 2nd Samoan player free to simply pick up the ball. Now the Samoan player is bent over to pick up the ball, but there's not too much doubt that Care rolls the Samoan player picking up the ball in a way which brings the Samoan lad down head first, and the 9 getting sent off is far from helpful

Technique and decision making. Again.

Raggs wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Playing devils advocate, Launch at 4 and a 7 at 7.

But we did have Launch at 4. And while Robshaw isn't everyone's cup of tea, would Underhill have really made a difference in securing our own ball? Simmonds certainly didn't.

The only combo I can see working with a lock at 6 would be to have BCurry or TCurry, as they're the only ones with the pace and the instincts to secure our own ball with limited help from the rest of the back row. And even with them I'd have concerns about them being blasted off the ball with them only being 19 years old and still growing.

Puja

Launch was at 4 for 30 minutes. Then we got Lawes, who doesn't do as much at the breakdown.

What Raggs said about Launch. If anything I think he went off a little bit earlier than 30 mins. I wouldn’t pair Underhill with a lock at 6 either but he’s not really a ‘traditional’, mobile 7.
Thinking it through to it’s conclusion, we don’t really have a 7 at present that would allow a lock at 6.

Mellsblue wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Puja wrote:
But we did have Launch at 4. And while Robshaw isn't everyone's cup of tea, would Underhill have really made a difference in securing our own ball? Simmonds certainly didn't.

The only combo I can see working with a lock at 6 would be to have BCurry or TCurry, as they're the only ones with the pace and the instincts to secure our own ball with limited help from the rest of the back row. And even with them I'd have concerns about them being blasted off the ball with them only being 19 years old and still growing.

Puja

Launch was at 4 for 30 minutes. Then we got Lawes, who doesn't do as much at the breakdown.

What Raggs said about Launch. If anything I think he went off a little bit earlier than 30 mins. I wouldn’t pair Underhill with a lock at 6 either but he’s not really a ‘traditional’, mobile 7.
Thinking it through to it’s conclusion, we don’t really have a 7 at present that would allow a lock at 6.

What does a 7 look like such you'd want to pair them with a lock?

And what does a lock look like in this discussion, like Fardy, or like Kay?

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: It was. Technique and decision making about numbers have been a huge issue for us internationally since c 2004 . You'd think given the passivity that seems to have set in to some teams about defending breakdowns, and thus complacency from attacking teams about numbers, you'd soon see the appropriate reaction to that.

We're doing a number of 1 man attacking rucks, and sometimes that's working for us when the ball is being cleared quickly Sometimes it's not enough to survive a counter ruck, and sometimes the one man is clearing out rather than simply bridging, and that's got to be worked on as the ball is then not protected

There was an Itoje clearout which on another day could have gone badly wrong for us, came from when Simmonds took a scrum free kick and ran near the Samoa line in the last quarter of the first half. Ewels took the ball on after the Simmonds carry and Itoje is the supporter who rather than bridging clears out a player and leaves the 2nd Samoan player free to simply pick up the ball. Now the Samoan player is bent over to pick up the ball, but there's not too much doubt that Care rolls the Samoan player picking up the ball in a way which brings the Samoan lad down head first, and the 9 getting sent off is far from helpful

Technique and decision making. Again.

Sadly this sort of detail, and it happened again moments later with Ewels clearing a player out rather than bridging which exposed the ball, is passed over in Sky's analysis to make repeat shows of Mike Brown running into a Samoan centre, something that's hard to understand on both counts.

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Back-row? It's very much still open. Puja and others have written off the lock at 6 option but I'm not so sure. Both Underhill and Simmonds are candidates for the 7 shirt but I still think that Robshaw gives a better 80 minute stint which in its own way affects the game more. Billy, if fully fit, comes back in but his influence above Hughes's might not be the cure-all that some imagine. Play one of them at 6? Presumably, it would be Hughes. Robshaw would have to be at 7 then, surely, to get some on-the-hoof brain/experience. 'Robshaw is a good 3rd choice option at 7 now,' says Eddie. That could mean he'll never play him there again or make him 1st choice.

Out of interest, what further would you need to discount the lock at 6 option, given that Samoa openly took the piss out of us at the breakdown?

Puja

I don't see our breakdown issues as the fault of any single player (or type of player even), in that I don't think replacing any one player with any other available would suddenly be a cure-all. What we do in terms of committing players is the system as coached. Furthermore, I think there is room for improvement in the individual performances within the system and a hell of a lot more room for unit performances. I am underwhelmed by Underhill so far but Eddie was unlucky not to have been able to keep Robshaw, Underhill and Hughes together for most of all three matches. Beyond that ideal (as a three-match trial), I think a lock in the back-row was as good as we could do, assuming that Armand stayed out of favour.

I see our big problem still as kicking the ball away too much. Somebody needs to explain that tactic to me when we get the bloody thing back again so rarely.

Oakboy wrote:

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Back-row? It's very much still open. Puja and others have written off the lock at 6 option but I'm not so sure. Both Underhill and Simmonds are candidates for the 7 shirt but I still think that Robshaw gives a better 80 minute stint which in its own way affects the game more. Billy, if fully fit, comes back in but his influence above Hughes's might not be the cure-all that some imagine. Play one of them at 6? Presumably, it would be Hughes. Robshaw would have to be at 7 then, surely, to get some on-the-hoof brain/experience. 'Robshaw is a good 3rd choice option at 7 now,' says Eddie. That could mean he'll never play him there again or make him 1st choice.

Out of interest, what further would you need to discount the lock at 6 option, given that Samoa openly took the piss out of us at the breakdown?

Puja

I don't see our breakdown issues as the fault of any single player (or type of player even), in that I don't think replacing any one player with any other available would suddenly be a cure-all. What we do in terms of committing players is the system as coached. Furthermore, I think there is room for improvement in the individual performances within the system and a hell of a lot more room for unit performances. I am underwhelmed by Underhill so far but Eddie was unlucky not to have been able to keep Robshaw, Underhill and Hughes together for most of all three matches. Beyond that ideal (as a three-match trial), I think a lock in the back-row was as good as we could do, assuming that Armand stayed out of favour.

I see our big problem still as kicking the ball away too much. Somebody needs to explain that tactic to me when we get the bloody thing back again so rarely.

22 wins out of 23

Seriously though, its not just us....NZ do it tons as well. Its about territory generally, and believing you can stop the other team from advancing- much like Rugby League or Ypres, its effectively about inching your way through opposition territory. I'm not a fan, but Bob Dwyer once said, any fool can coach a team to win by simply kicking all the time.

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Puja wrote:
Out of interest, what further would you need to discount the lock at 6 option, given that Samoa openly took the piss out of us at the breakdown?

Puja

I don't see our breakdown issues as the fault of any single player (or type of player even), in that I don't think replacing any one player with any other available would suddenly be a cure-all. What we do in terms of committing players is the system as coached. Furthermore, I think there is room for improvement in the individual performances within the system and a hell of a lot more room for unit performances. I am underwhelmed by Underhill so far but Eddie was unlucky not to have been able to keep Robshaw, Underhill and Hughes together for most of all three matches. Beyond that ideal (as a three-match trial), I think a lock in the back-row was as good as we could do, assuming that Armand stayed out of favour.

I see our big problem still as kicking the ball away too much. Somebody needs to explain that tactic to me when we get the bloody thing back again so rarely.

22 wins out of 23

Seriously though, its not just us....NZ do it tons as well. Its about territory generally, and believing you can stop the other team from advancing- much like Rugby League or Ypres, its effectively about inching your way through opposition territory. I'm not a fan, but Bob Dwyer once said, any fool can coach a team to win by simply kicking all the time.

I hope it soon goes out of fashion, then. I suppose Dwyer spoke sense occasionally, not that I ever liked him.

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Raggs wrote:
Launch was at 4 for 30 minutes. Then we got Lawes, who doesn't do as much at the breakdown.

What Raggs said about Launch. If anything I think he went off a little bit earlier than 30 mins. I wouldn’t pair Underhill with a lock at 6 either but he’s not really a ‘traditional’, mobile 7.
Thinking it through to it’s conclusion, we don’t really have a 7 at present that would allow a lock at 6.

What does a 7 look like such you'd want to pair them with a lock?

And what does a lock look like in this discussion, like Fardy, or like Kay?

Like a tall, blond west midlander with a penchant for an extravagant offload.

In this case Lawes.

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
I don't see our breakdown issues as the fault of any single player (or type of player even), in that I don't think replacing any one player with any other available would suddenly be a cure-all. What we do in terms of committing players is the system as coached. Furthermore, I think there is room for improvement in the individual performances within the system and a hell of a lot more room for unit performances. I am underwhelmed by Underhill so far but Eddie was unlucky not to have been able to keep Robshaw, Underhill and Hughes together for most of all three matches. Beyond that ideal (as a three-match trial), I think a lock in the back-row was as good as we could do, assuming that Armand stayed out of favour.

I see our big problem still as kicking the ball away too much. Somebody needs to explain that tactic to me when we get the bloody thing back again so rarely.

22 wins out of 23

Seriously though, its not just us....NZ do it tons as well. Its about territory generally, and believing you can stop the other team from advancing- much like Rugby League or Ypres, its effectively about inching your way through opposition territory. I'm not a fan, but Bob Dwyer once said, any fool can coach a team to win by simply kicking all the time.

I hope it soon goes out of fashion, then. I suppose Dwyer spoke sense occasionally, not that I ever liked him.

He was ahead of his time, and a brilliant backs coach- who also had brilliant backs to coach with- but not everyone's cup of tea.

Mellsblue wrote: Like a tall, blond west midlander with a penchant for an extravagant offload.

Who's that?

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Like a tall, blond west midlander with a penchant for an extravagant offload.

Who's that?

Don’t be coy.

I don't follow, still

He means Lewis Moody.

Puja

Puja wrote:He means Lewis Moody.

Puja

Played in the East Midlands, and born down Sarf I have in mind (I should know as I read his book). And it's not going to be Back either given it's a tall player

Did his ancestors run a small farm in Scotland?

He has had a very peripatetic life, as have his parents, but his ancestors did not have a Scottish farm. If they did have a small Scottish farm, they certainly wouldn’t have had the luxury of keeping a safari animal.

Well, if his ancestors weren't Crofters, then I'm out of suggestions

No more guesses? What a Wuss. Don’t just Glos over the facts. Are you Exe of this game.

Trick Kvestion

That’s the mattitude, Banquo.

Hang on...it’s not Billy Twelvetrees is it?!

The Teddy Bear and CGS.