England (mens) tactics - discussion thread

[pjm1]

Puja et al, feel free to move this into an existing thread if there is a better home for it.

I was wanting to have a place to discuss England's tactical evolution and capture views on where it works well and where it falls down. Yes, this obviously follows our painful defeat to Scotland last weekend - and is just in time ahead of the game against Ireland later today.

Team selection and announcement

I don't understand the rationale for announcing our team on Tuesday (or worse, Monday). Whilst the full training session for the opposition on a Tuesday afternoon (assuming a Saturday game) is probably not able to take much advantage of an early release, the coaches have the Wednesday day off to plan the non-contact session on the Thursday, and identify specific strike plays and tweaks to take into account the team selected to face them.

It might not be a big thing, but I don't see any advantage to doing this, so why do we persist with it? It also gives the captain more time to think about their captain's run session on the Friday and how they get the team "up" for the game the following day.

Ridigity of system and "playing to the book"

I'm torn on this as we have very capable playmakers in both Mitchell and Ford (as well as Dingwall) who have shown their ability to tweak our approach when it's needed. Yet, the awful decisions that look to have been made by Mitchell (kicking away possession from the first rolling maul, plus calling the DG a phase too early) raise genuine questions about the execution of the rigid gameplan.

I also think the more strategic decisions made by Ford/Itoje et al on the field against Scotland were proven to be very flawed. Having to chase the game and being a winger down, we ended up kicking less and kicking less well. The combination of those certainly contributed to our coughing up of possession, turnovers and the like.

Strike plays

A lovely delayed pass from Ford to put Arundell throught the gap was a great example of manipulating the defence and then executing a sublime move, that will have been practiced. But Scotland's ability to repeatedly target Arundell (when he was on the pitch) and our defensive sloppiness (when he wasn't) exposed that left wing (their right wing) that allowed Steyn one the games of his career.

There was also the targeting of our misaligned defense which saw Itoje in the role usually occupied by Freeman, inside Roebuck. With a wider channel than the usual 10-15m, Jones was able to collect the fantastic tap on from Russell with only Itoje to go around - which he did easily. Roebuck was playing the system and had Russell been a fraction slower or less gifted, he would have been flattened, man and ball. It was targeted and executed with precision. We don't seem to have the same frequency of successful strike plays (with the Ford/Arundell example above being the only one I recall from this last game).

Set piece dominance

Our lineout ranges from highly effective to average... given Borthwick's focus on this area, I don't really understand why we don't have regular dominance here. Scotland's was attrocious against Italy, yet they saw decent success against us, including some nice, first-phase strike plays from lineouts. It feels we aren't able to maintain our approach here - and the quality of our mauling isn't driven home with enough regularity.

Our scrum, conversely, is fairly reliable and of a high standard. Against weaker opposition, we can milk penalities, yet again seem to fail to go for the jugular in the way SA, for example does.

As a former SH, I don't understand enough about what goes on, so looking for others to chip in here.

Our "Wave" attack system

Dominant carries, anchoring the inside shoulder of defenders, gives us options of a well-presented ruck, a pull-back or offload or, potentially a half-break. The following waves allow for continuity of attack if the ball doesn't die with that first runner, and allows for manipulation of defensive lines through having more options than most players (on either side) can mentally compute. For me, this is where Ford (or Fin) and Dingwall in particular are needed - they have the speed of thought to make these split-second decisions, and we have heavier runners who play more by the book. We also have very fast reloading back rowers, who can make it back into the attacking line when normal humans would still be tied up in the previous ruck.

Against Scotland, this failed: speed of thought seemed to be lacking, and from memory (I can't bring myself to re-watch it!) Scotland managed to wrap up our carriers very well (I vaguely remember lots of double tackles), slowing down the ruck formation, preventing offloads and often making a dominant hit. Interestingly, the double-tackle is a high risk tactic against our wave attack, as if the defense call it wrong, we end up out-numbering them quickly in the following wave or two. Yet time and again, Scotland did call it correctly - yes, we were down to 14 for 30 minutes, which will have helped, but they had clearly studied and planned for how to defuse that forward carrier "anchor". It also led to their own back row having more of a field day with less well presented ruck ball by us. And I won't mention the ref!

Our moderated blitz defence

I actually like the shooting out of the winger, leaving the (usually) 13 to wrap around if the ball gets to the edge. But if we have the wrong player in the 13 defensive channel, we have a problem. Similarly, our transition defence has got a lot better since the coach whose name I now can't remember has come in, to focus on that specific issue... but it can be unpicked. Freeman has generally done well for an inexperienced lad in this difficult defensive role, but Lawrence coming back in is, for me, both a defensive and offensive call.

Against a FH of the quality of Russell, our rush can be passed around - and for me this is one of the key reasons why Scotland do so well against us, time and again. His long, pinpoint accurate passing, and the quality of Huwipulotu outside is literally the perfect set up to get to this transition point and beyond. Combine that with us being a winger down, and Houston, we have a problem. The critical piece in our defense out wide is making our first-up tackles, so ending up with Mitchell defending there (who is a generally poor defender) or Steward up against someone with footwork is a big risk.

Right -- that's it for now, as I want to watch the build up!

Keen for comments and thoughts...

[Oakboy]

A comprehensive reflection. I'm surprised you did not mention 6:2 because that is symptomatic of the channelled thinking that is undoing us in all areas, IMO.

I think a lot of SB's management has been successful and I really like the stability in his coaching crew. Having said that is there a suspicion that the freer thinking has been curbed by Wigglesworth's return? The gleam of performances in Argentina dulled a bit in the AIs and has gone matt in the 6N. Is that ideas running out or book-bound dogma taking over - statistics over enterprise?

It might all change with a convincing win or two. It might be individual injuries/loss of form undoing cohesion.

[pjm1]

Sorry everyone. I could have saved words and just written “shite”.

[Insouciant]

We have tactics?

[Banquo]

Sorry everyone. I could have saved words and just written “shite”.

lots has fallen apart v quickly

[loudnconfident]

One simple tactical improvement would be for Simply Bewildering to refrain from announcing the team till the Thursday. Announcing the England 23 on the Tuesday allows the opposition coach 2 days to prep and plan his selection to beat us. Andy Farreli must have thought Xmas came early... (Note his backrow selection).