England v Ireland Sat 21 Feb at 2.10pm

[Mellsblue]

Was at the game so have only read through the last few pages but is anyone that surprised by these results? Borthwick has raised our expectations with recent results largely based upon a kicking game plan which has now been worked out. If you consider the likes of Genge and Itoje they are among our better players but you wouldn’t have them as world class.

The biggest error Borthwick has made is loyalty to the older guys (eg Davison, Steward, Dingwall and Rodd) rather than being brutal to try to find top class talent. We have unbelievable depth so should look for ceiling players rather than relying on good club players stepping up. Ultimately the recent losses can be attributed to unforced errors by players which Borthwick can do little about.

Steward, Rodd and Dingwall are 25, 25, and 26 respectively so hardly old, and Davison is about 4th choice.

I keep hearing about unbelievable talent….but who is this? I mean there are some contenders around but…unbelievable’?

‘Strength in depth’, ie a lot of mediocre players (made/coached/prepared to look worse than they are).

[Mellsblue]

Or perhaps starting Pepper and Underhill to shut down Russell was as much a folly as picking a Lions back row to take on Ireland.

This isn’t about changing squad players it’s about playing smart and coaching smart.

SA would have yanked Ford off yesterday, straight swap with Smith. Not sacrificed the fb.

Imagine if we’d had a replacement 10 and a replacement back 3 player on the bench. That’s the next ‘innovation’ I’d like to see. Copying SA looks great until it becomes clear you aren’t SA.

[Mellsblue]

There were at least a dozen moments it looked as though the players had never even encountered a ball before, let alone the other players on their team.

This was my biggest take away. They looked like the BaaBaas without the requisite quality of player or imagination. Though it did look like they had been drinking all week.

[p/d]

Or perhaps starting Pepper and Underhill to shut down Russell was as much a folly as picking a Lions back row to take on Ireland.

This isn’t about changing squad players it’s about playing smart and coaching smart.

SA would have yanked Ford off yesterday, straight swap with Smith. Not sacrificed the fb.

Imagine if we’d had a replacement 10 and a replacement back 3 player on the bench. That’s the next ‘innovation’ I’d like to see. Copying SA looks great until it becomes clear you aren’t SA.

That's just crazy talk!! On paper I get it, but will it catch on?

As you say copying SA will always end in crushing disappointment.

[Insouciant]

We all know Solvent Banana loves stats, so lets look @ a few. Whilst the game plan and make up of the team aren't right - some of the stats are terrible whatever the line up..

Surprising as it sounds - England had the better of:
metres gained (546 v 430)
possession (52% v 48%)
attacking minutes (19 v 17.7)
more carries (153 v 122,)
metres carried (892 v 702)

What England flunked at was:
Turnovers - 24 conceded v 10
Handling errors - 14 v 8
Rucks - lost 10 v 2
Offloads - 5 v 10
penalties conceded - 14 v 12
missed tackles* - 28/129 = 78.2% (Ireland missed more, but had to make more - 29/177)

Ireland kicked more - 18 v 31 and got more kick metres - 453 v 890

** Edit - against Scotland we made:
11 handling errors - to their 7
gave away 19 turnovers to 7
only made 78% of our tackles..

So that's handling skills, rucking and resourcing rucks, tackling.. you know, the basics. Throw on top of that a midfield that looked like it had never defended together, a kick chase game with a back 3 who aren't catching the kicks and a lack of Plan B and here we are.

Two games isn't a yet a pattern but as we're not going to change the game plan, but under 80% of tackles two games in a row is horrendous. The turnover count is also pretty staggering.

Whether it's the plan or the personnel (we've 2 weeks to debate that), you can't miss that many tackles, give away 24 turnovers and make so many unforced errors and expect to win against a good opposition.

** Second Edit

Thought I'd check the stats v Wales. I felt we weren't amazing but pretty competent v a team that was error strewn and clueless. I remember them getting a lineout in our 22 in the first half and just messing it up, the non-tap penalty etc.. quality concerns aside, it felt like Wales weren't anywhere near their potential.

V a very poor Wales, on 55% possession:
11 handling errors
13 turnovers conceded
tackles missed 17/136 = 88%

I'm not saying these are the only things wrong, but it's clear that we've made consistently high amounts of errors in these areas - even against one of the worst Welsh performances we've seen in years (fair play to them for turning up yesterday mind). I guess the question is why ...
- poor mentality?
- over training / poor fitness?
- simply bad players?
- poor tactics?
- some bust up in camp, has SB lost the team?

[Oakboy]

I'd guess that some of the stats get skewed when a side is chasing the game late on. Unfortunately, in both matches we were chasing the game for 70 minutes.

[SixAndAHalf]

Was at the game so have only read through the last few pages but is anyone that surprised by these results? Borthwick has raised our expectations with recent results largely based upon a kicking game plan which has now been worked out. If you consider the likes of Genge and Itoje they are among our better players but you wouldn’t have them as world class.

The biggest error Borthwick has made is loyalty to the older guys (eg Davison, Steward, Dingwall and Rodd) rather than being brutal to try to find top class talent. We have unbelievable depth so should look for ceiling players rather than relying on good club players stepping up. Ultimately the recent losses can be attributed to unforced errors by players which Borthwick can do little about.

Steward, Rodd and Dingwall are 25, 25, and 26 respectively so hardly old, and Davison is about 4th choice.

I keep hearing about unbelievable talent….but who is this? I mean there are some contenders around but…unbelievable’?

We have unbelievable depth not neccessarily unbelievable talent - but you have to be brutal with assessing players and then cycle through others to find those who can step up. For me an obvious barometer is athleticism (which is how South Africa seemingly operate).

All of the above are fighting a battle athletically to really shine at international level - whereas you could look at someone like Fasogbon (as an illustration) who has the right athletic qualities.

[Banquo]

Was at the game so have only read through the last few pages but is anyone that surprised by these results? Borthwick has raised our expectations with recent results largely based upon a kicking game plan which has now been worked out. If you consider the likes of Genge and Itoje they are among our better players but you wouldn’t have them as world class.

The biggest error Borthwick has made is loyalty to the older guys (eg Davison, Steward, Dingwall and Rodd) rather than being brutal to try to find top class talent. We have unbelievable depth so should look for ceiling players rather than relying on good club players stepping up. Ultimately the recent losses can be attributed to unforced errors by players which Borthwick can do little about.

Steward, Rodd and Dingwall are 25, 25, and 26 respectively so hardly old, and Davison is about 4th choice.

I keep hearing about unbelievable talent….but who is this? I mean there are some contenders around but…unbelievable’?

We have unbelievable depth not neccessarily unbelievable talent - but you have to be brutal with assessing players and then cycle through others to find those who can step up. For me an obvious barometer is athleticism (which is how South Africa seemingly operate).

All of the above are fighting a battle athletically to really shine at international level - whereas you could look at someone like Fasogbon (as an illustration) who has the right athletic qualities.

Fair point on depth, kind of, though its not 'unbelievable' . But its all a bit of a pack of players, rather than standouts being missed.....TBH I don't think he's leaving any stone unturned, even looking at Fasogbon iirc.

[fivepointer]

We all know Solvent Banana loves stats, so lets look @ a few. Whilst the game plan and make up of the team aren't right - some of the stats are terrible whatever the line up..

Surprising as it sounds - England had the better of:
metres gained (546 v 430)
possession (52% v 48%)
attacking minutes (19 v 17.7)
more carries (153 v 122,)
metres carried (892 v 702)

What England flunked at was:
Turnovers - 24 conceded v 10
Handling errors - 14 v 8
Rucks - lost 10 v 2
Offloads - 5 v 10
penalties conceded - 14 v 12
missed tackles* - 28/129 = 78.2% (Ireland missed more, but had to make more - 29/177)

Ireland kicked more - 18 v 31 and got more kick metres - 453 v 890

** Edit - against Scotland we made:
11 handling errors - to their 7
gave away 19 turnovers to 7
only made 78% of our tackles..

So that's handling skills, rucking and resourcing rucks, tackling.. you know, the basics. Throw on top of that a midfield that looked like it had never defended together, a kick chase game with a back 3 who aren't catching the kicks and a lack of Plan B and here we are.

Two games isn't a yet a pattern but as we're not going to change the game plan, but under 80% of tackles two games in a row is horrendous. The turnover count is also pretty staggering.

Whether it's the plan or the personnel (we've 2 weeks to debate that), you can't miss that many tackles, give away 24 turnovers and make so many unforced errors and expect to win against a good opposition.

** Second Edit

Thought I'd check the stats v Wales. I felt we weren't amazing but pretty competent v a team that was error strewn and clueless. I remember them getting a lineout in our 22 in the first half and just messing it up, the non-tap penalty etc.. quality concerns aside, it felt like Wales weren't anywhere near their potential.

V a very poor Wales, on 55% possession:
11 handling errors
13 turnovers conceded
tackles missed 17/136 = 88%

I'm not saying these are the only things wrong, but it's clear that we've made consistently high amounts of errors in these areas - even against one of the worst Welsh performances we've seen in years (fair play to them for turning up yesterday mind). I guess the question is why ...
- poor mentality?
- over training / poor fitness?
- simply bad players?
- poor tactics?
- some bust up in camp, has SB lost the team?

Interesting. The turnover/tackle stats do reinforce what i felt watching.

Whatever the tactics you employ if you make errors and repeatedly give up possession you will struggle. Thats the thing for me. Some of what we've done over the last 2 weeks has been just so poorly executed. Our first 3 line outs for instance were just a shambles. That shouldnt happen. Every team misses tackles but making less than 80% is very poor.

[Banquo]

I'd guess that some of the stats get skewed when a side is chasing the game late on. Unfortunately, in both matches we were chasing the game for 70 minutes.

our stats were terrible before the changes I'd warrant!

[SixAndAHalf]

We all know Solvent Banana loves stats, so lets look @ a few. Whilst the game plan and make up of the team aren't right - some of the stats are terrible whatever the line up..

Surprising as it sounds - England had the better of:
metres gained (546 v 430)
possession (52% v 48%)
attacking minutes (19 v 17.7)
more carries (153 v 122,)
metres carried (892 v 702)

What England flunked at was:
Turnovers - 24 conceded v 10
Handling errors - 14 v 8
Rucks - lost 10 v 2
Offloads - 5 v 10
penalties conceded - 14 v 12
missed tackles* - 28/129 = 78.2% (Ireland missed more, but had to make more - 29/177)

Ireland kicked more - 18 v 31 and got more kick metres - 453 v 890

** Edit - against Scotland we made:
11 handling errors - to their 7
gave away 19 turnovers to 7
only made 78% of our tackles..

So that's handling skills, rucking and resourcing rucks, tackling.. you know, the basics. Throw on top of that a midfield that looked like it had never defended together, a kick chase game with a back 3 who aren't catching the kicks and a lack of Plan B and here we are.

Two games isn't a yet a pattern but as we're not going to change the game plan, but under 80% of tackles two games in a row is horrendous. The turnover count is also pretty staggering.

Whether it's the plan or the personnel (we've 2 weeks to debate that), you can't miss that many tackles, give away 24 turnovers and make so many unforced errors and expect to win against a good opposition.

** Second Edit

Thought I'd check the stats v Wales. I felt we weren't amazing but pretty competent v a team that was error strewn and clueless. I remember them getting a lineout in our 22 in the first half and just messing it up, the non-tap penalty etc.. quality concerns aside, it felt like Wales weren't anywhere near their potential.

V a very poor Wales, on 55% possession:
11 handling errors
13 turnovers conceded
tackles missed 17/136 = 88%

I'm not saying these are the only things wrong, but it's clear that we've made consistently high amounts of errors in these areas - even against one of the worst Welsh performances we've seen in years (fair play to them for turning up yesterday mind). I guess the question is why ...
- poor mentality?
- over training / poor fitness?
- simply bad players?
- poor tactics?
- some bust up in camp, has SB lost the team?

Certain of these statistics are absolutely horrendous and I believe are among the highest England have ever recorded since this kind of data has been recorded.

To an extent the game plan we relied upon has been "found out" and the coaches didn't foresee that and adjust, but a number of these errors are unforced - the comments from Genge post game effectively saying they weren't mentally prepared were horrifying for me, and probably require a reaction.

[SixAndAHalf]

Steward, Rodd and Dingwall are 25, 25, and 26 respectively so hardly old, and Davison is about 4th choice.

I keep hearing about unbelievable talent….but who is this? I mean there are some contenders around but…unbelievable’?

We have unbelievable depth not neccessarily unbelievable talent - but you have to be brutal with assessing players and then cycle through others to find those who can step up. For me an obvious barometer is athleticism (which is how South Africa seemingly operate).

All of the above are fighting a battle athletically to really shine at international level - whereas you could look at someone like Fasogbon (as an illustration) who has the right athletic qualities.

Fair point on depth, kind of, though its not 'unbelievable' . But its all a bit of a pack of players, rather than standouts being missed.....TBH I don't think he's leaving any stone unturned, even looking at Fasogbon iirc.

Unbelievable is probably over-egging it (in my defence I was posting after a day at Twickenham..!) - I agree he isn't leaving any stone unturned, e.g. developing the likes of Tuipolotu, Pollock and Caluori however our game plan has perhaps masked certain deficiencies.

[Mr Mwenda]

We all know Solvent Banana loves stats, so lets look @ a few. Whilst the game plan and make up of the team aren't right - some of the stats are terrible whatever the line up..

Surprising as it sounds - England had the better of:
metres gained (546 v 430)
possession (52% v 48%)
attacking minutes (19 v 17.7)
more carries (153 v 122,)
metres carried (892 v 702)

What England flunked at was:
Turnovers - 24 conceded v 10
Handling errors - 14 v 8
Rucks - lost 10 v 2
Offloads - 5 v 10
penalties conceded - 14 v 12
missed tackles* - 28/129 = 78.2% (Ireland missed more, but had to make more - 29/177)

Ireland kicked more - 18 v 31 and got more kick metres - 453 v 890

** Edit - against Scotland we made:
11 handling errors - to their 7
gave away 19 turnovers to 7
only made 78% of our tackles..

So that's handling skills, rucking and resourcing rucks, tackling.. you know, the basics. Throw on top of that a midfield that looked like it had never defended together, a kick chase game with a back 3 who aren't catching the kicks and a lack of Plan B and here we are.

Two games isn't a yet a pattern but as we're not going to change the game plan, but under 80% of tackles two games in a row is horrendous. The turnover count is also pretty staggering.

Whether it's the plan or the personnel (we've 2 weeks to debate that), you can't miss that many tackles, give away 24 turnovers and make so many unforced errors and expect to win against a good opposition.

** Second Edit

Thought I'd check the stats v Wales. I felt we weren't amazing but pretty competent v a team that was error strewn and clueless. I remember them getting a lineout in our 22 in the first half and just messing it up, the non-tap penalty etc.. quality concerns aside, it felt like Wales weren't anywhere near their potential.

V a very poor Wales, on 55% possession:
11 handling errors
13 turnovers conceded
tackles missed 17/136 = 88%

I'm not saying these are the only things wrong, but it's clear that we've made consistently high amounts of errors in these areas - even against one of the worst Welsh performances we've seen in years (fair play to them for turning up yesterday mind). I guess the question is why ...
- poor mentality?
- over training / poor fitness?
- simply bad players?
- poor tactics?
- some bust up in camp, has SB lost the team?

Very interestingly. I wonder how it compares to games in the autumn.

[Banquo]

We have unbelievable depth not neccessarily unbelievable talent - but you have to be brutal with assessing players and then cycle through others to find those who can step up. For me an obvious barometer is athleticism (which is how South Africa seemingly operate).

All of the above are fighting a battle athletically to really shine at international level - whereas you could look at someone like Fasogbon (as an illustration) who has the right athletic qualities.

Fair point on depth, kind of, though its not 'unbelievable' . But its all a bit of a pack of players, rather than standouts being missed.....TBH I don't think he's leaving any stone unturned, even looking at Fasogbon iirc.

Unbelievable is probably over-egging it (in my defence I was posting after a day at Twickenham..!) - I agree he isn't leaving any stone unturned, e.g. developing the likes of Tuipolotu, Pollock and Caluori however our game plan has perhaps masked certain deficiencies.

aye, and unmasked as emperors new clothes when you don't win the 50/50's and/or turn up with the right intensity and line speed. Then panic a bit, lose the basics, players skills/ability brutally exposed (Lawrence in defence as an example, even Dingwall who doesn't normally get reads wrong) and your auntie's a bicycle.

The earlier point about athletic ability and even skill is valid- it used to be the case in say NZ rugby that age group selection and competition was so brutal that without having those prerequisites you'd get nowhere, and probs still true in SA; indeed our age group rugby used to really prize atheletes and graft the skill on: but reproducing skill under intense pressure imo has been a big issue for us, and maybe why our game plan is what it is (certainly Jones chucked that as a reason why we were pretty pragmatic under him).

[p/d]

France v Spain has started with some zip