RugbyRebels

TheDasher wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 3:50 pm

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 10:48 am

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 10:44 am No offence meant. That was intended more at poor Joe C’s expense than yours. I don’t doubt he has the pace, power and step in his locker, but we seem to have either a collective mental block or persistent coaching issues where we just can’t translate the talent of our enormous player pool in to consistently being a top 5 team.

I get what you’re saying about the South Africa game. I absolutely loved it. George Martin’s performance gave me such a boost in terms of belief that England can find the (cliched as it is) “traditional strengths” again.

Trouble is I think that game suffers from the same problems as wanting our exciting backs to run loose. England seem to be able to go in to full war mode for a World Cup knock out game, or facing Ireland with 14 men, but where is it the rest of the time? It must a mental thing, whether that’s coming directly from the players or the wrong kind of focus/motivation from the coaches.

A forward focused game is obviously less reliant on handling skills and fancy backs moves, but I don’t think that means it’s necessarily an easier option to consistently dominate the likes of Ireland, France and South Africa in the physical battle. I’m not sure we’ve really even had the players for it since Kruis and Vunipola were in their prime. Guys like Martin and CCS give me hope though.

Its not just physicality though- look how 'smart' the irish are up front, both sides of the ball. That said, we are getting smarter in the sense that the penalty count has plummeted from peak Jones-- not sure what impact that might have had on oppos ruck speed, that said.

As you've said, that approach is much more suited to the world cup knockout style of rugby, where most sides play very conservatively against opponents they respect. I'm a big fan of winning (almost at all costs), because you can develop much better when doing so- but you will need to develop more than just a forward game to beat the top 4 sides regularly.

The approach proposed by TheDasher is pretty much what Eddie Jones said when he took over btw.

By the way - with the approach I'm proposing, I'm certainly not saying we'll become better than Ireland, they're phenomenal - one of the most complete sides I've seen. But with our current approach they're going to absolutely pump us and, crucially we're not improving. We could take the pumping if our trajectory was generally up, but it's not, well, not enough. I think Borthwick has enough at his disposal in the Prem to pick and hone a pack that could cause Ireland some real problems. They won't be as complete players as Ireland's and our backs are miles off, but you can trouble sides with a great pack and the right game plan.

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 10:44 am No offence meant. That was intended more at poor Joe C’s expense than yours. I don’t doubt he has the pace, power and step in his locker, but we seem to have either a collective mental block or persistent coaching issues where we just can’t translate the talent of our enormous player pool in to consistently being a top 5 team.

I get what you’re saying about the South Africa game. I absolutely loved it. George Martin’s performance gave me such a boost in terms of belief that England can find the (cliched as it is) “traditional strengths” again.

Trouble is I think that game suffers from the same problems as wanting our exciting backs to run loose. England seem to be able to go in to full war mode for a World Cup knock out game, or facing Ireland with 14 men, but where is it the rest of the time? It must a mental thing, whether that’s coming directly from the players or the wrong kind of focus/motivation from the coaches.

A forward focused game is obviously less reliant on handling skills and fancy backs moves, but I don’t think that means it’s necessarily an easier option to consistently dominate the likes of Ireland, France and South Africa in the physical battle. I’m not sure we’ve really even had the players for it since Kruis and Vunipola were in their prime. Guys like Martin and CCS give me hope though.

FKAS wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 3:25 pm

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 1:15 pm The problem is the experience of assistant coaches, imo. We resolved that with F. Jones for Sinfield but we desperately need to replace The Wiggler, based on the evidence we’ve seen so far.

Sinfield by the world cup had a working defence. Replacing him as defence coach whilst Wigglesworth was still coaching the same three options in attack was an error. Hopefully we've kidnapped Sam Vesty to assist for the next few weeks following the A League game.

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 3:49 pm

TheDasher wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 3:46 pm

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 11:53 am
Well you do need the physicality as a start point, and I'd taken your reference to specific players as having the necessary start point. But anyway, we violently agree, though I do think the forward drilling could be executed in the relatively short term, assuming access and a willing player group.

On Jones- international rugby is tough, maybe he was too intense over a long period, but can't undersell what he did 2016-9; I'm sure the players were similarly motivated post Jonno's world cup, for example.

really strong pool of players to play in the limited way I've described,

He is? Not much in the front row as far as I can see, second row have three good options, backrow..CCS and?

I may be missing the obvious and some contenders I suppose.

We do not have the players in the backs in the right frame of mind to play an all court game, nor imo the coaches to create that.....and tbh the pack would need a lot of work to support that game and the consequences of it when it gets unstructured in both attack and defence.

TheDasher wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 3:43 pm

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 12:29 pm

TheDasher wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 9:37 am

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.

I’m still waiting for the tongue in cheek emoji.
You could play like that in the dry but then you’d get dry humped by the top teams.

Haha, I know what you mean, but you know what I mean too. There are ways of keeping things tight, limited, and 'arm wrestle(y)' that suit England at the moment more than playing as we did vs Scotland - where we suddenly burst into life, passing the ball along our three fly halves, throwing it into each others' faces and then watching the other team nab it and score. It was fcking ludicrous let's be honest. I truly believe that with the same game plan we employed vs SA, we'd have beaten Scotland.

TheDasher wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 4:28 pm

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 3:49 pm

TheDasher wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 3:46 pm

really strong pool of players to play in the limited way I've described,

He is? Not much in the front row as far as I can see, second row have three good options, backrow..CCS and?

I may be missing the obvious and some contenders I suppose.

We do not have the players in the backs in the right frame of mind to play an all court game, nor imo the coaches to create that.....and tbh the pack would need a lot of work to support that game and the consequences of it when it gets unstructured in both attack and defence.

I thought our pack showed that we could be on top of Scotland's, I think it was on top of SA's (hammered in the scrum crucially!) in play, on top of the Welsh, above the Argies... You say three good options in the second row - these are the people he's picked, Martin, Chessum and Itoje - I think he has an increasing number of interesting options there in the prem. Up front Marler and Cole are strong scrummagers no doubt, Stuart has played quite well and is a big unit, Genge we know about, we have some young interesting options coming through and SB has to manage that. In terms of the back row - I'm genuinely excited about Earl and his future, CCS, Tom Willis (have been for years), Barbeary, Pepper, Roots looks a player to me and a few others - I think the stocks are growing in the Prem for SB - I just don't think he'll make the most of it. Second row, Martin, Chessum, Itoje, Hill, Tuima, Coles, Moon etc - and some good young talent coming underneath that. I'm not saying they're all going to become Tadhg Beirne (what a player) - but there's some promise amongst all of that lot in my view. The problems come when we try and play the ball wide beyond ten...

TheDasher wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 4:07 pm

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 10:44 am No offence meant. That was intended more at poor Joe C’s expense than yours. I don’t doubt he has the pace, power and step in his locker, but we seem to have either a collective mental block or persistent coaching issues where we just can’t translate the talent of our enormous player pool in to consistently being a top 5 team.

I get what you’re saying about the South Africa game. I absolutely loved it. George Martin’s performance gave me such a boost in terms of belief that England can find the (cliched as it is) “traditional strengths” again.

Trouble is I think that game suffers from the same problems as wanting our exciting backs to run loose. England seem to be able to go in to full war mode for a World Cup knock out game, or facing Ireland with 14 men, but where is it the rest of the time? It must a mental thing, whether that’s coming directly from the players or the wrong kind of focus/motivation from the coaches.

A forward focused game is obviously less reliant on handling skills and fancy backs moves, but I don’t think that means it’s necessarily an easier option to consistently dominate the likes of Ireland, France and South Africa in the physical battle. I’m not sure we’ve really even had the players for it since Kruis and Vunipola were in their prime. Guys like Martin and CCS give me hope though.

No offence taken - I know Joe C is nothing on Duhan VDM - I just think Duhan's hattrick is being lauded as magnificent and I didn't think it was. I think he generally is a great player, I'd have him in my Lions team for sure.

Re your other points - the SA game was wonderful, watching that regularly would get the Twickenham turnstiles spinning so to speak. I agree on the 'war mode' point too, I posted that here at the time - why the fck does it take some adversity for us to get into that mode, it shouldn't. The win over Argentina with 14 men was also absolutely wonderful for purists in my view - what a performance, what winning rugby that was. But then we try and go all Fiji sevens vs Scotland and can't pass and catch.

I'd go full England vs SA mode and pick strike runners and defenders in the backs that can punish teams on the scraps when things open up. It's why having players that can genuinely beat their man is so important, it creates gaps and holes when you don't have creative players to do it.

When you mention Kruis and Vunipola - Kruis was a great player but never the most physical, he was just bloody good. Vunipola was good but only physical in the carry and was a bit lazy otherwise - I'm with you, Martin and CCS give me great hope, as by the way do: Earl, Pearson, Barbeary, Pepper, Tuima, Clarke, Painter, Dan/Blamire, Tom Willis, Iosefa-Scott, Fisilau, Olly Hartley, Lawrence (at 13), Freeman, Steward, Roebuck/OHC/Coka, Marcus Smith, Bamber, Clarke, Roots.

I suspect if Rassie Erasmus had taken over after the WC, we might go into next year's (2025) feeling pretty good about winning four games in the 6ns, it's that kind of level. With SB currently, god knows, I can't tell you where we'll go from here, no idea.

morepork wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 5:35 pm This is starting to feel like self harm now. You cannot, should not be content to play as dull as you possibly can just for fear of losing.

morepork wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 5:44 pm SA can nail an opposition defence with some pretty slick backs. English backs are picked only to kick and catch. I mean, how much money are the coaches making to come up with that genius template? I'd be spitting tacks if I were English. It's fucking pathetic.

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 3:54 pm

TheDasher wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 3:50 pm

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 10:48 am

Its not just physicality though- look how 'smart' the irish are up front, both sides of the ball. That said, we are getting smarter in the sense that the penalty count has plummeted from peak Jones-- not sure what impact that might have had on oppos ruck speed, that said.

As you've said, that approach is much more suited to the world cup knockout style of rugby, where most sides play very conservatively against opponents they respect. I'm a big fan of winning (almost at all costs), because you can develop much better when doing so- but you will need to develop more than just a forward game to beat the top 4 sides regularly.

The approach proposed by TheDasher is pretty much what Eddie Jones said when he took over btw.

By the way - with the approach I'm proposing, I'm certainly not saying we'll become better than Ireland, they're phenomenal - one of the most complete sides I've seen. But with our current approach they're going to absolutely pump us and, crucially we're not improving. We could take the pumping if our trajectory was generally up, but it's not, well, not enough. I think Borthwick has enough at his disposal in the Prem to pick and hone a pack that could cause Ireland some real problems. They won't be as complete players as Ireland's and our backs are miles off, but you can trouble sides with a great pack and the right game plan.

Frankly, as above, I don't see that great pack; big holes in front and back row for me, certainly compared with the Irish and French.

Spiffy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 5:53 pm

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 3:54 pm

TheDasher wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 3:50 pm

By the way - with the approach I'm proposing, I'm certainly not saying we'll become better than Ireland, they're phenomenal - one of the most complete sides I've seen. But with our current approach they're going to absolutely pump us and, crucially we're not improving. We could take the pumping if our trajectory was generally up, but it's not, well, not enough. I think Borthwick has enough at his disposal in the Prem to pick and hone a pack that could cause Ireland some real problems. They won't be as complete players as Ireland's and our backs are miles off, but you can trouble sides with a great pack and the right game plan.

Frankly, as above, I don't see that great pack; big holes in front and back row for me, certainly compared with the Irish and French.

Yes. It's not really just about size any more. Gone are the days when England could pick a pack bigger than anyone else's, and blatter them into submission. The others have caught up physically. Most packs weigh in at around 900Kg give or take a few Kg. and are well conditioned.
Last week the French pack was reported as 966 Kg (I suspect even heavier with their massive subs on), an almost 100 Kg advantage over Italy, who, nonetheless, outplayed them in the second half and finished on top.
You need significant skills to play international rugby. Even the might Boks, the World's greatest blatterers, can play some nifty rugby when they need to.
What England needs is not more beef, but skills and brains and better coaching..

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 3:45 pm This will be enough to get him dropped - he'll miss the explanation of why his role in lineout variation 74 followed by set play 49x leading to secret cross field kick XL5 is crucial in catching James Lowe's eye.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68423075

Oakboy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 5:58 pm

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 3:45 pm This will be enough to get him dropped - he'll miss the explanation of why his role in lineout variation 74 followed by set play 49x leading to secret cross field kick XL5 is crucial in catching James Lowe's eye.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68423075

IFW should definitely be in the starting XV if he can avoid our coaching for a week!

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 4:24 pm

FKAS wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 3:25 pm

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 1:15 pm The problem is the experience of assistant coaches, imo. We resolved that with F. Jones for Sinfield but we desperately need to replace The Wiggler, based on the evidence we’ve seen so far.

Sinfield by the world cup had a working defence. Replacing him as defence coach whilst Wigglesworth was still coaching the same three options in attack was an error. Hopefully we've kidnapped Sam Vesty to assist for the next few weeks following the A League game.

Working but flawed- we’ve disagreed over this numerous times so let’s not go over it again.
Only in error in the short term if F Jones is the man he wants to run his d in the long term. This also assumes F Jones was happy to take up either position. It may have been defence or bust, for all we know.

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 5:56 pm

Spiffy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 5:53 pm

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 3:54 pm

Frankly, as above, I don't see that great pack; big holes in front and back row for me, certainly compared with the Irish and French.

Yes. It's not really just about size any more. Gone are the days when England could pick a pack bigger than anyone else's, and blatter them into submission. The others have caught up physically. Most packs weigh in at around 900Kg give or take a few Kg. and are well conditioned.
Last week the French pack was reported as 966 Kg (I suspect even heavier with their massive subs on), an almost 100 Kg advantage over Italy, who, nonetheless, outplayed them in the second half and finished on top.
You need significant skills to play international rugby. Even the might Boks, the World's greatest blatterers, can play some nifty rugby when they need to.
What England needs is not more beef, but skills and brains and better coaching..

yup, no idea how long I've been beating this drum. We are way behind in terms of how the game works and what it takes to win.

Oakboy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 6:08 pm

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 5:56 pm

Spiffy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 5:53 pm Yes. It's not really just about size any more. Gone are the days when England could pick a pack bigger than anyone else's, and blatter them into submission. The others have caught up physically. Most packs weigh in at around 900Kg give or take a few Kg. and are well conditioned.
Last week the French pack was reported as 966 Kg (I suspect even heavier with their massive subs on), an almost 100 Kg advantage over Italy, who, nonetheless, outplayed them in the second half and finished on top.
You need significant skills to play international rugby. Even the might Boks, the World's greatest blatterers, can play some nifty rugby when they need to.
What England needs is not more beef, but skills and brains and better coaching..

yup, no idea how long I've been beating this drum. We are way behind in terms of how the game works and what it takes to win.

Banquo, you are mostly right (of course) but it does not alter the frustration for we fans of the RFU not appointing a head coach who could get the best out of what we've got - yet again! What is worse, IMO, is that even if we get rid of the mediocrity that has been holding us back, those players that follow do not enter an inspirational environment. The public image of the coaching crew may not be accurate but to my eyes it is funereal.

FKAS wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 6:06 pm

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 4:24 pm

FKAS wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 3:25 pm

Sinfield by the world cup had a working defence. Replacing him as defence coach whilst Wigglesworth was still coaching the same three options in attack was an error. Hopefully we've kidnapped Sam Vesty to assist for the next few weeks following the A League game.

Working but flawed- we’ve disagreed over this numerous times so let’s not go over it again.
Only in error in the short term if F Jones is the man he wants to run his d in the long term. This also assumes F Jones was happy to take up either position. It may have been defence or bust, for all we know.

Ys the defence wasn't perfect but it was functional.

Felix Jones coached both attack and defence for the Boks in different world cup cycles. Given Sinfield is finishing at the end of the summer tour it could have been just a short term thing.

Oakboy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 6:08 pm

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 5:56 pm

Spiffy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 5:53 pm Yes. It's not really just about size any more. Gone are the days when England could pick a pack bigger than anyone else's, and blatter them into submission. The others have caught up physically. Most packs weigh in at around 900Kg give or take a few Kg. and are well conditioned.
Last week the French pack was reported as 966 Kg (I suspect even heavier with their massive subs on), an almost 100 Kg advantage over Italy, who, nonetheless, outplayed them in the second half and finished on top.
You need significant skills to play international rugby. Even the might Boks, the World's greatest blatterers, can play some nifty rugby when they need to.
What England needs is not more beef, but skills and brains and better coaching..

yup, no idea how long I've been beating this drum. We are way behind in terms of how the game works and what it takes to win.

Banquo, you are mostly right (of course) but it does not alter the frustration for we fans of the RFU not appointing a head coach who could get the best out of what we've got - yet again! What is worse, IMO, is that even if we get rid of the mediocrity that has been holding us back, those players that follow do not enter an inspirational environment. The public image of the coaching crew may not be accurate but to my eyes it is funereal.

p/d wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 6:19 pm The cold hard truth is that our players are currently not good enough.

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 6:27 pm

Oakboy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 6:08 pm

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 5:56 pm

yup, no idea how long I've been beating this drum. We are way behind in terms of how the game works and what it takes to win.

Banquo, you are mostly right (of course) but it does not alter the frustration for we fans of the RFU not appointing a head coach who could get the best out of what we've got - yet again! What is worse, IMO, is that even if we get rid of the mediocrity that has been holding us back, those players that follow do not enter an inspirational environment. The public image of the coaching crew may not be accurate but to my eyes it is funereal.

Its possible to hold both concepts simultaneously; we ARE way behind, but we should still perform better than we do. I agree on the environment, but I would as its confirmation bias.

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 5:19 pm

TheDasher wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 4:28 pm

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 3:49 pm
He is? Not much in the front row as far as I can see, second row have three good options, backrow..CCS and?

I may be missing the obvious and some contenders I suppose.

We do not have the players in the backs in the right frame of mind to play an all court game, nor imo the coaches to create that.....and tbh the pack would need a lot of work to support that game and the consequences of it when it gets unstructured in both attack and defence.

I thought our pack showed that we could be on top of Scotland's, I think it was on top of SA's (hammered in the scrum crucially!) in play, on top of the Welsh, above the Argies... You say three good options in the second row - these are the people he's picked, Martin, Chessum and Itoje - I think he has an increasing number of interesting options there in the prem. Up front Marler and Cole are strong scrummagers no doubt, Stuart has played quite well and is a big unit, Genge we know about, we have some young interesting options coming through and SB has to manage that. In terms of the back row - I'm genuinely excited about Earl and his future, CCS, Tom Willis (have been for years), Barbeary, Pepper, Roots looks a player to me and a few others - I think the stocks are growing in the Prem for SB - I just don't think he'll make the most of it. Second row, Martin, Chessum, Itoje, Hill, Tuima, Coles, Moon etc - and some good young talent coming underneath that. I'm not saying they're all going to become Tadhg Beirne (what a player) - but there's some promise amongst all of that lot in my view. The problems come when we try and play the ball wide beyond ten...

Nope, unconvinced at front row still (Marler and Cole are just not up to it in the loose with any pace in the game, Genge still hit and miss, Stuart had the ball reamed like he was an u12 and is...average. No mention of hooker . Earl is doing ok, only ball in hand (better than nothing), Roots wouldn't be in many top 5 side squads...etc...you've chucked Jonny Hill and Alex Moon in there so, um... So tbh, for your all beating pack hypothesis, looks like you are coming up short on readiness to go toe to toe today- which seemed to be your start point.

Again, I think we overestimate the quality of our players at our own peril. We have one forward who would be in most teams, and a couple who'd be on the fringe, imo.