RugbyRebels

Shame old farmer Griffin there couldn't find a still from the game

Oakboy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 11:01 am

Puja wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 10:37 am Telegraph have an article today analysing what went wrong in each of the games lost at the death - not especially deep, but the factoid I took away from it was that Ben Earl has conceded the vital penalty through a tired-looking error in three of the four games where we threw away a lead. No arms tackle against France, not rolling away in NZ first test, and no-arms tackle (plus the failed jackal that gave them the advantage they used for Telea's try) against NZ in the AIs.

Not a great look for him and backs up what I said earlier in the thread about it being better to ask him to empty the tank and then bring him off to let Dombrandt roam after 60, rather than make him do all the carrying at 8 and then ask him to shift to flank for the last 20. Those aren't errors he makes in the first half of games.

Puja

You could be right but I can't get my head around a professional international No 8 not being able to maintain his best for 80 minutes. If he can't do it, find someone who can.

On top of that, I think Dombrandt should be a starter or not in the 23. He's not exactly a rampaging stallion champing at the bit to get stuck into the opposition. I see him as a clever link-man who fits or does not (probably not).

I see your point, but it's surely that's the whole concept of impact subs - get someone to absolutely empty the tank and then replace them with a rampaging stallion keen to prove a point. Makes sense for that to be your primary carrier at 8, like England used to do with the Bill and Ben duo.

Puja

Puja wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 12:29 pm

Oakboy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 11:01 am

Puja wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 10:37 am Telegraph have an article today analysing what went wrong in each of the games lost at the death - not especially deep, but the factoid I took away from it was that Ben Earl has conceded the vital penalty through a tired-looking error in three of the four games where we threw away a lead. No arms tackle against France, not rolling away in NZ first test, and no-arms tackle (plus the failed jackal that gave them the advantage they used for Telea's try) against NZ in the AIs.

Not a great look for him and backs up what I said earlier in the thread about it being better to ask him to empty the tank and then bring him off to let Dombrandt roam after 60, rather than make him do all the carrying at 8 and then ask him to shift to flank for the last 20. Those aren't errors he makes in the first half of games.

Puja

You could be right but I can't get my head around a professional international No 8 not being able to maintain his best for 80 minutes. If he can't do it, find someone who can.

On top of that, I think Dombrandt should be a starter or not in the 23. He's not exactly a rampaging stallion champing at the bit to get stuck into the opposition. I see him as a clever link-man who fits or does not (probably not).

I see your point, but it's surely that's the whole concept of impact subs - get someone to absolutely empty the tank and then replace them with a rampaging stallion keen to prove a point. Makes sense for that to be your primary carrier at 8, like England used to do with the Bill and Ben duo.

Puja

I can see the front row requirements but if Itoje can do 80 without flagging why can't his partner? The pre-conceived bit is the issue. A 2nd row cover for injury/ bad game etc. seems more important. Somebody in the back row has to do 80. Why not pick three who can and take off one depending only on the game situation?

Impact must surely apply to the back three most in that not having a speed merchant to bother the opposition more or less removes positivity. 6:2 just seems negative except for thuggery.

On top of all that is there any Head Coach good enough to predict the opposition with 100% accuracy? It's insulting to believe the can't surprise. Flexibility trumps guesswork.

Oakboy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 1:07 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 12:29 pm

Oakboy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 11:01 am

You could be right but I can't get my head around a professional international No 8 not being able to maintain his best for 80 minutes. If he can't do it, find someone who can.

On top of that, I think Dombrandt should be a starter or not in the 23. He's not exactly a rampaging stallion champing at the bit to get stuck into the opposition. I see him as a clever link-man who fits or does not (probably not).

I see your point, but it's surely that's the whole concept of impact subs - get someone to absolutely empty the tank and then replace them with a rampaging stallion keen to prove a point. Makes sense for that to be your primary carrier at 8, like England used to do with the Bill and Ben duo.

Puja

I can see the front row requirements but if Itoje can do 80 without flagging why can't his partner? The pre-conceived bit is the issue. A 2nd row cover for injury/ bad game etc. seems more important. Somebody in the back row has to do 80. Why not pick three who can and take off one depending only on the game situation?

Impact must surely apply to the back three most in that not having a speed merchant to bother the opposition more or less removes positivity. 6:2 just seems negative except for thuggery.

On top of all that is there any Head Coach good enough to predict the opposition with 100% accuracy? It's insulting to believe the can't surprise. Flexibility trumps guesswork.

I mean, the obvious answer is that very few people are Itoje or even close to him. We are actually quite lucky in Chessum and Martin that they can actually match him, which is why we tend to use our #19 in the back row, unless there's an injury.

I absolutely get your point that injury/form can leave best laid plans ganging aft agley, but the question is whether you're getting the most out of players by using the subs bench reactively. Are you going to get a higher performance by using it tactically and getting a 10/10 effort for 8 players for 55-60 minutes, rather than telling everyone they may all be doing 80 and having the 8 players that you do take off only having given a 9/10 because they were saving something for the last 20 minutes that it turned out they didn't need? Or, worse, having the whole XV give a 10/10 for 60 minutes, and then concede 20 points at the end because 7 of your team are gassed?

Puja

I think if our players can't beat NZ we should just drop them and select some that can.

Yes, I'm available for Ted Talks.

Oakboy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 11:53 am

p/d wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 11:41 am

Banquo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 11:18 am

Rivals has given Dors a new lease of life.

I had to look that up................no doubt he will be thumbing his way through Tackle

Jilly Cooper? - must be 30 years since I read any of that. Mind you, at my age, anything that hints at a new lease of life is worth a crack.

twitchy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 1:29 pm I think if our players can't beat NZ we should just drop them and select some that can.

Yes, I'm available for Ted Talks.

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/jake-whi ... 0-minutes/

The Jake White review. Fairly scathing of the England attack and Marcus Smith.

Not a lot to disagree with either, TBH.
Although he does say both that Marcus was lucky to last 60 minutes without being hauled off, AND that teams shouldn't replace their 10 absent of injury

I stopped reading after he wrote ‘epic test’….

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2024 10:52 am Not a lot to disagree with either, TBH.
Although he does say both that Marcus was lucky to last 60 minutes without being hauled off, AND that teams shouldn't replace their 10 absent of injury

I guess his implication is the best 10s (Larkham, Wilkinson) stay on for 80, which it's fair to say Smith is nowhere near that. It feels like a very confused article to me.

Smith made a couple of big errors. He only created England's try by accident because he's such a bad defender. Ford also made a couple of big errors but if he hadn't people would have viewed his performance differently... Well, yeah.

I agree Smith was far from perfect, we still don't manage to put many multi-phase attacks together, but his arguments for Ford all come with excuses for a very poor showing on Saturday. Again this comes down to Borthwick though. How much has Ford actually played recently?

Even the suggestion that he was lucky to be on for 60 mins is just bollox. When we are opting for kicks at goal and the on field kicker is nailing them you don’t yank him with the game in the balance.

Sounds to me like an article in support of one player by highlighting flaws in another’s.

p/d wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2024 11:55 am Even the suggestion that he was lucky to be on for 60 mins is just bollox. When we are opting for kicks at goal and the on field kicker is nailing them you don’t yank him with the game in the balance.

Sounds to me like an article in support of one player by highlighting flaws in another’s.

Missed pens to touch and missed drop goals were mentioned. It was more bemoaning England's inability to score tries as the reason we lost the game as opposed to switching the flyhalfs. Which is fair. He doesn't support Ford a great deal. More supporting New Zealand, I thought the three fairly cynical tackles off the ball being omitted from his review of the game certainly helped his spin on proceedings.

Yeah, and he does mention NZ indiscipline - but the only specific he mentions is when he calls the slap down to prevent a 3 on 1 "accidental"

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2024 12:46 pm Yeah, and he does mention NZ indiscipline - but the only specific he mentions is when he calls the slap down to prevent a 3 on 1 "accidental"

Yeah NZ cynical pens didn't fit the theme he was going for.

Interesting to see Ireland struggling at the scrum Vs NZ already. At least we managed it well until the second half.

New Zealand end up beating Ireland pretty comfortably. Almost like they're a good team that actually gets to influence what's happening on the pitch, rather than a straw man that we only lost to because all our players and coaches failed and did everything poorly?

Puja

On the scoreboard, yes. Otherwise I’d argue it was a far closer matchup than last Saturday.

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2024 11:04 pm On the scoreboard, yes. Otherwise I’d argue it was a far closer matchup than last Saturday.

Sorry but England leading with how long left whereas Ireland led for a few minutes at the start of the second half when NZ were down to 14?

As a resident of Kiwi-land, I'd recommend the RFU dust off the spot they have in their trophy cabinet where they plonk the Triple Crown at least. If Ireland play like this at the start of next year, they've got a snowball's chance in hell of beating England.

England will probably go into the 6Ns in a better place based on the quality of opposition they're facing. They lost one of the two big tests, but they've still got South Africa to play. Ireland just had their big test of the Autumn and they blew it.

Ireland pretty poor i thought. Very high error count for them and unusually slack discipline.

NZ were comfortable winners.

Irelands subs made a big difference, much like ours, in the wrong direction. They were also pretty telegraphed in attack for them. And they were matched physically, especially their big name big men. McCarthy more than met his match again. George Martin put him in his place and so did Scott Barrett, albeit with a healthy bit of help from Aumua.

Puja wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2024 10:39 pm New Zealand end up beating Ireland pretty comfortably. Almost like they're a good team that actually gets to influence what's happening on the pitch, rather than a straw man that we only lost to because all our players and coaches failed and did everything poorly?

Puja

NZ were better than us think most said so, or should have done. Ireland were pony tho.

oldbackrow wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 1:34 am

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2024 11:04 pm On the scoreboard, yes. Otherwise I’d argue it was a far closer matchup than last Saturday.

Sorry but England leading with how long left whereas Ireland led for a few minutes at the start of the second half when NZ were down to 14?

I refer you to my first sentence.

In terms of full potential (i.e. selection + strategy + performance on the day etc.) I'd suggest NZ - 95%; England - 85%; Ireland - 80%.

NZ were more match-ready understandably. Did I hear BOD right that NZ play 13 or 14 internationals most calendar years? With 4 AIs, 5 6N and 2 tour matches, we never reach that, do we?