RugbyRebels

Second post here for me

There are scant few facts in what we're facing at the weekend, but I think there are some. The rest that we'll discuss is conjecture and opinion, which is fine as that's what a forum is for, I guess.

In terms of facts:
1. We have a greater depth and breadth of player pool and talent. Not saying man-for-man our players *are* better, but they really should be, on average and given the resources at our disposal. If we don't, on average, have the ability to field 23 (and in particular, 23) players, most of whom are better in terms of talent, experience and/or technique than the Scots, then WTF? Not being arrogant here: it's just a numbers thing.
2. They are far more settled, cohesive and familiar with the playing style and individual plays/tactics. That gives them a massive structural advantage, but also means they will likely play in particular ways that make the most of that cohesion and familiarity.
3. We are work in progress, with less being settled but also far less predictability in how we will play on the day. We need to use these two points to our advantage to derive a gameplan to make the most of our capabilities, whilst limiting Scotland's natural advantages (typically individual players like Finn, VdM, etc. but also that cohesion and known plays).
4. We have far more to work on in these two weeks since Wales. We're still developing systems from the ground up, whereas Scotland can use the whole of those two weeks to conjure specific tactics that will be used against us. They need less time to rote learn plays and calls and - conversely to point 3 - might come up with something/things very novel and targeted to hit us... and will be well-practiced at this come Saturday.
5. Related to point 1, our depth really should be better. We need to be targeting their replacements and the impact it will have on their structures and capabilities.

The rest is just opinion. I fear it will be a step too far for us on the day. Murrayfield is a tough place for us to travel to, now, and as Hogg said on the Jim Hamilton podcast, Scotland are best when their tails are up and have some confidence. We've given that over the last few years and belief is half the battle.

My gut feel is we'll come away ruing a game we should have won. We'll play some more good stuff (and hopefully more of that) but our defensive system will creak enough that their star players will expose us in ways Italy and Wales didn't. I do have hope that Felix and our defensive speed will put Finn under more pressure than he's been under so far this 6N. Chip kicks a plenty...

I anticipate this being a higher scoring game than either of the last two and, perhaps, a chance to see what we can do with ball in hand a bit more. IFW to come on and score a screamer, perhaps?!

Hopefully it'll be fun to watch and Puja's m-b-m analysis will be fun to do!

pjm1 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 11:24 am 4. We have far more to work on in these two weeks since Wales. We're still developing systems from the ground up, whereas Scotland can use the whole of those two weeks to conjure specific tactics that will be used against us. They need less time to rote learn plays and calls and - conversely to point 3 - might come up with something/things very novel and targeted to hit us... and will be well-practiced at this come Saturday.

Scotland will be hampered by two key men having been on club duty during the fallow week - White and Kinghorn. I wonder if the English-based players would have been recalled from camp on general principles (given that they've previously been very strident about only allowing what's required Regulation 9 unless a union is willing to pay for it) - it'd be a boost to have their training disrupted by Russell as well.

Cue my usual hobby-horse about "Look at the advantages of England's 'Premiership-only' selection policy", etc. etc.

Puja

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 12:14 pm

pjm1 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 11:24 am 4. We have far more to work on in these two weeks since Wales. We're still developing systems from the ground up, whereas Scotland can use the whole of those two weeks to conjure specific tactics that will be used against us. They need less time to rote learn plays and calls and - conversely to point 3 - might come up with something/things very novel and targeted to hit us... and will be well-practiced at this come Saturday.

Scotland will be hampered by two key men having been on club duty during the fallow week - White and Kinghorn. I wonder if the English-based players would have been recalled from camp on general principles (given that they've previously been very strident about only allowing what's required Regulation 9 unless a union is willing to pay for it) - it'd be a boost to have their training disrupted by Russell as well.

Cue my usual hobby-horse about "Look at the advantages of England's 'Premiership-only' selection policy", etc. etc.

Puja

Very fair point and one I'd overlooked, given the importance of White at SH being totally tuned into their plays. Has Kinghorn played in the first two games? It's still helpful for us though, I guess.

Funnily enough, I wonder if Russell not being at training would make much of a difference, given his "mercurial" nature?! Only half serious of course - and yes, disappointed we're not playing silly buggers and insisting he goes back to his club...

I suspect we're suffering more from Mitchell being out-out, than Scotland are from White being with Toulon last weekend. The prospect of Care starting doesn't fill me with excitement - surely it has to be Spencer, no?

I think point 5 is really key as well. The depth on the Scotland bench, particularly in the tight 5, is really not great.

The line-out tends to fall apart with Gray/Gilchrist off or with Ashman throwing in and the replacement props are in almost constant rotation. We've really struggled with controlling both games so far around the hour mark and I don't really trust Townsend's use of the bench. England should definitely have a plan to hit Scotland with something at this point.

It will be interesting to see the selections for England, especially back row / TH lock. We have the players in the wider squad to really attack lineouts and mauls, but that's not quite the same thing as being able to do it effectively. Your point is well made about the Scottish replacements, but that will need England to step up and take advantage... let's see.

The combination of a still-bedding-in defensive system, together with potential changes in our centres with Manu and Lawrence being back in contention (and too much of a crutch for any England coach not to use) is a worry from an English perspective. Your midfield is well balanced (IMO), very comfortable with the plays and has a 90% genius at 10. I hope we put him under real pressure from our blitz and get the other 10%!

Last 6 Calcutta Cup games we have won 1, drawn 1 and lost 4.

Wish i could be optimistic that we'd add to the solitary win but this game has danger written all over it i feel.

fivepointer wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 3:41 pm Last 6 Calcutta Cup games we have won 1, drawn 1 and lost 4.

Wish i could be optimistic that we'd add to the solitary win but this game has danger written all over it i feel.

Yes, I echo that. It shows how bad our decline is really. The current Scottish team is good and plays to par in most games but it is not outstanding. We should be confident of at least matching it. I just want to see us go for it right from the off. Mistakes can always cost but they should be much reduced after two more weeks.

pjm1 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 3:14 pm It will be interesting to see the selections for England, especially back row / TH lock. We have the players in the wider squad to really attack lineouts and mauls, but that's not quite the same thing as being able to do it effectively. Your point is well made about the Scottish replacements, but that will need England to step up and take advantage... let's see.

The combination of a still-bedding-in defensive system, together with potential changes in our centres with Manu and Lawrence being back in contention (and too much of a crutch for any England coach not to use) is a worry from an English perspective. Your midfield is well balanced (IMO), very comfortable with the plays and has a 90% genius at 10. I hope we put him under real pressure from our blitz and get the other 10%!

Re the England back row - probably same again selection, but they should be worried by their inability in the Wales game to stop Reffell pinching the ball almost at will at the breakdown.

Spiffy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 5:05 pmRe the England back row - probably same again selection, but they should be worried by their inability in the Wales game to stop Reffell pinching the ball almost at will at the breakdown.

If Reffell only wanted to pinch our ball twice, then he's way less competitive than I thought he was.

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 5:08 pm

Spiffy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 5:05 pmRe the England back row - probably same again selection, but they should be worried by their inability in the Wales game to stop Reffell pinching the ball almost at will at the breakdown.

If Reffell only wanted to pinch our ball twice, then he's way less competitive than I thought he was.

I agree, I thought we did a fairly good job at protecting the ball in attack. Reffell was a pest but we generally kept him off it. The only other steal I can remember was an just blatantly illegal and baffling the ref didn't spot.

Spiffy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 5:05 pm

pjm1 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 3:14 pm It will be interesting to see the selections for England, especially back row / TH lock. We have the players in the wider squad to really attack lineouts and mauls, but that's not quite the same thing as being able to do it effectively. Your point is well made about the Scottish replacements, but that will need England to step up and take advantage... let's see.

The combination of a still-bedding-in defensive system, together with potential changes in our centres with Manu and Lawrence being back in contention (and too much of a crutch for any England coach not to use) is a worry from an English perspective. Your midfield is well balanced (IMO), very comfortable with the plays and has a 90% genius at 10. I hope we put him under real pressure from our blitz and get the other 10%!

Re the England back row - probably same again selection, but they should be worried by their inability in the Wales game to stop Reffell pinching the ball almost at will at the breakdown.

We lost 4 attacking rucks in the game against Wales, one of them was a terrible refereeing decision in Beard's favour, one was Reffell being world-class and there was no way anyone could've stopped it. So there were basically two rucks where we should've done better.

Puja

FKAS wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 5:28 pm

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 5:08 pm

Spiffy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 5:05 pmRe the England back row - probably same again selection, but they should be worried by their inability in the Wales game to stop Reffell pinching the ball almost at will at the breakdown.

If Reffell only wanted to pinch our ball twice, then he's way less competitive than I thought he was.

I agree, I thought we did a fairly good job at protecting the ball in attack. Reffell was a pest but we generally kept him off it. The only other steal I can remember was an just blatantly illegal and baffling the ref didn't spot.

I remember watching the game and thinking Reffell was on fire. But then the stats in terms of steals etc., didn't really support it. I think it's one of those cases where the actual end outcome is less measurable than the cumulative effect and "feel" for what the player has done. Reffell was MOM for me against us and slowed down our play at times when they really needed us to slow.

I didn't feel Underhill had a good game - some noticeable hits, but across the two games, he only seemed to be bringing that aspect of a backrower's game to bear and speed to rucks and any sort of linking play was poor for me. Problem is, I don't see Roots (good in the Italy game) moving to 7 as being any part of any solution and moving Earl from 8 where he has been technically very strong feels wrong, too.

For me, Martin has to come in, but is it a simple swap for Chessum? Chessum had a much better outing for me against Wales than the first game. Back row still doesn't feel properly balanced, but not sure we have the cattle selected to shake it up without making it worse? If only a fit and in form Tom Curry were available...

Agree regards Reffell, he had a very good game and was a proper thorn in our side.
Not sure Roots moving to 7 should even be suggested let alone debated. Looks to be a short term fix at 6.

CCS needs to be involved and - swimming against opinion - I would put Earl back to 7.

I actually think a CCS, Earl & Dombrandt back row worth a visit. Oh, and Martin in for Chessum

pjm1 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 5:52 pm

FKAS wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 5:28 pm

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 5:08 pm

If Reffell only wanted to pinch our ball twice, then he's way less competitive than I thought he was.

I agree, I thought we did a fairly good job at protecting the ball in attack. Reffell was a pest but we generally kept him off it. The only other steal I can remember was an just blatantly illegal and baffling the ref didn't spot.

I remember watching the game and thinking Reffell was on fire. But then the stats in terms of steals etc., didn't really support it. I think it's one of those cases where the actual end outcome is less measurable than the cumulative effect and "feel" for what the player has done. Reffell was MOM for me against us and slowed down our play at times when they really needed us to slow.

8 carries for 15m, 1 clean break and 3 defenders beaten. 14 tackles made and 1 missed. 2 breakdown penalties won. Looks pretty effective on the stats I just think everyone assumed Reffell would dominate the breakdown whereas he offered a more rounded game, I think most would have had him as MOTM.

p/d wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 6:04 pm Agree regards Reffell, he had a very good game and was a proper thorn in our side.
Not sure Roots moving to 7 should even be suggested let alone debated. Looks to be a short term fix at 6.

CCS needs to be involved and - swimming against opinion - I would put Earl back to 7.

I actually think a CCS, Earl & Dombrandt back row worth a visit. Oh, and Martin in for Chessum

"Roots to 7" is the answer to no question that should ever be asked. But if Slarti Bartfast is channeling his inner Jack Rowell... who knows, especially when mixed with the tantalising prospect of putting an out-and-out second row in the 6 slot.

CCS, if he can last at least 60 at international level, would be worth a shot at 8 - when he's ready.

Earl should really be a better 7 than 8, but I have to say for England, I've preferred him in the latter role. But that means we end up with lumpier 6s and 7s than we might otherwise have. Although TCurry at 8 was the most surprising - and somewhat acceptable - deployment. Of all the places in the back row, I still struggle to see how that one worked at all.

Against Scotland we have to slow ball and also get up in defence. The current backrow does little to disrupt ball. Stinking Ballbag seems averse to picking a challenger at 7, which leaves us hitting rucks. But Scotland are good at clearing beyond the ball. Without anyone challenging their ball we’ll struggle to make inroads into their ruck speed. Underhill, as much as I like him as a hitter is not threat at the breakdown compared to other 7s.

Epaminondas Pules wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 8:01 pm Against Scotland we have to slow ball and also get up in defence. The current backrow does little to disrupt ball. Stinking Ballbag seems averse to picking a challenger at 7, which leaves us hitting rucks. But Scotland are good at clearing beyond the ball. Without anyone challenging their ball we’ll struggle to make inroads into their ruck speed. Underhill, as much as I like him as a hitter is not threat at the breakdown compared to other 7s.

Underhill has been a threat at the breakdown in the past though. I won't argue that he wasn't poor against Italy and average against Wales, but he has been a very effective 7 in the past and I am willing to give him another game on the basis that class is permanent and he's coming back from a long layoff. If we had JWillis or TCurry available, then I'd be saying something different, but with the alternative being just BCurry, I'm willing to give Underhill another game.

Puja

So accept little to no threat then. No Lawes or LCD which is a major part of out breakdown threat outside of Curry and Itoje.

Didn't Underhill top the turnover stats against Wales? It's not his speciality, but he's still erfectly good at it (when in form)

Of course, I still think he's partially injured and not trusting his body yet

Epaminondas Pules wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 8:08 pm So accept little to no threat then. No Lawes or LCD which is a major part of out breakdown threat outside of Curry and Itoje.

The blitz defence is a major threat in and of itself (and no, I don't mean just to ourselves, smart-arses) - it's designed to cause turnovers from handling errors and forcing opposition into kicks. I am loathe to disrupt it significantly by overtly changing the side when there's not a huge improvement to be made from the people brought in.

Puja

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 8:10 pm Didn't Underhill top the turnover stats against Wales? It's not his speciality, but he's still erfectly good at it (when in form)

Of course, I still think he's partially injured and not trusting his body yet

Spot on on both fronts. Without the additional threat that, say Lawes, would give us then it leaves us somewhat short.

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 8:15 pm

Epaminondas Pules wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 8:08 pm So accept little to no threat then. No Lawes or LCD which is a major part of out breakdown threat outside of Curry and Itoje.

The blitz defence is a major threat in and of itself (and no, I don't mean just to ourselves, smart-arses) - it's designed to cause turnovers from handling errors and forcing opposition into kicks. I am loathe to disrupt it significantly by overtly changing the side when there's not a huge improvement to be made from the people brought in.

Puja

We’re blitzing outside to in. The jackal comes into play from that inside carry if we have a threat, which we largely don’t.

As a pack we’ve gone from four jackaling threats to one and largely not compensated, favouring ballast. Injuries and retirements are a cause but we can’t slow ball without offering significant threats.

Spot on to both the above.

Out of the 6 so called DT rugby 'experts' 5 of them are dropping Roots and Dingwall. Itoje to 6 seems a popular choice with Lawrence in at 12.