Autumn review?

[Mr Mwenda]

I see several other boards are doing it...

I'd give England overall a 6/10, job done, but they made hard work of it.

I think there's agreement that Farrell should not be guaranteed a starting spot. Personally, I'd like the captaincy given to someone else and Farrell told to concentrate on getting his game up to international class. There's room in the squad for young tyros at 10 and 12 I reckon (and of course 9, but that seems to be permanent). I'd hope Farrell and Ford would respond.

England's pack is looking pretty good, although several had their worst games for a long time today.

I think some good talents were blooded. I hope Malins and Lawrence can kick on. I thought the former showed up very well for the first time. He plays 10 as well, right? So he's probably ok with the full black as playmaker role. Daly can fight it out with Cocka and the rest for a wing berth then.

I'm feeling much happier than I was at halftime.

[Scrumhead]

On the one hand 6 feels generous considering how poor we’ve been, but on the other hand, we did win the tournament (and 6N).

I really don’t know how Farrell can continue to be so poor with apparent impunity. His performances really don’t merit his ‘untouchable’ status and maybe dropping him would do him good in the long run?

He was simply awful at 10, but actually the biggest problem IMO is that we don’t have a 12, so he stays in the side almost by default.

Devoto is probably the best equipped to step in, but I’m not sure how viable an alternative he is when he rarely plays 3 games in a row. Redpath is another but he’s currently playing at 13.

While Farrell remains in the side, our attack will continue to be limited.

In terms of positives, Stuart, Willis, Earl, Lawrence and to a lesser extent Hill and Malins (through lack of game time) seem to have capably made the step up to test rugby.

[FKAS]

Lots of positives. Pack looks great. Depth is starting to come through very nicely and it's got to the point where we have multiple capped and viable options everywhere other than tighthead where third choice still looks like a one off swansong for Cole as no one else has really pushed themselves into the reckoning behind Sinckler and Stuart.

Negative is the backline looks shite. Youngs is consistently average, no errors but no creation. Robson has some minutes and looked no better which was a shame as he does have fireworks in the locker. Farrell possibly the worst players each week but still gets smoke blown up his arse by the press. Ford added a significant amount of creativity at 10 but the appalling selection in the backline held him back and he could do with tightening up his kicking from hand which varies from the sublime to the ridiculous. Daly showed flashes of quality as did Slade and Mallins. Lawrence didn't get much chance outside Farrell who seemed to consider passing as a last resort. May looked sharp on the wing and the other wingers showed flashes. Feels like we are missing a fullback and centre to bring the whole thing together and no not Furbank who looks about as secure as a job in the Trump administration.

[Digby]

More impressed with Underhill than I've been in the past, even if Underhill like Slosh didn't have his best day today. Although even being more impressed with Underhill I'm not totally convinced by our balance at flank, especially given how we (don't) play, another more physical player, and especially another aggressive carrier seems a more obvious pick thinking about our attack.

[Spiffy]

On the one hand 6 feels generous considering how poor we’ve been, but on the other hand, we did win the tournament (and 6N).

I really don’t know how Farrell can continue to be so poor with apparent impunity. His performances really don’t merit his ‘untouchable’ status and maybe dropping him would do him good in the long run?

He was simply awful at 10, but actually the biggest problem IMO is that we don’t have a 12, so he stays in the side almost by default.

Devoto is probably the best equipped to step in, but I’m not sure how viable an alternative he is when he rarely plays 3 games in a row. Redpath is another but he’s currently playing at 13.

While Farrell remains in the side, our attack will continue to be limited.

In terms of positives, Stuart, Willis, Earl, Lawrence and to a lesser extent Hill and Malins (through lack of game time) seem to have capably made the step up to test rugby.

Haven't seen anything special about Earl at all. Some rave about his speed but England has not made use of it. I wonder if he's any faster than Sam Simmonds, a very rapid and powerful back rower with a great engine who continues to score tries for fun, and is in the thick of everything at the best club side in the country.

[Stom]

So...

Positives:

- We won.
- Willis had his debut, Stuart continued to impress, Hill looked good, Robson got more minutes, Lawrence looked good.
- Itoje is incredible.
- Our pack is starting to step up (today excepted).

Negatives:

- When we set the tempo, we win. When the opposition set the tempo, they win or push us waaay too close.
- Farrell is an embarrassment.
- We don't use our backs at all.
- We lack intensity in everything except defence.
- We play rugby by numbers with no leadership at all.
- The kicking, oh my god, the kicking. It's less that we do it and more the standard.

[CunningPunter]

Ian Fleming had a phrase "Delusions of adequacy".

[Puja]

In terms of positives, Stuart, Willis, Earl, Lawrence and to a lesser extent Hill and Malins (through lack of game time) seem to have capably made the step up to test rugby.

Haven't seen anything special about Earl at all. Some rave about his speed but England has not made use of it. I wonder if he's any faster than Sam Simmonds, a very rapid and powerful back rower with a great engine who continues to score tries for fun, and is in the thick of everything at the best club side in the country.

Agreed - he's been superb for Bristol, but he's not added masses in his (brief) appearances off the bench. I suspect that it's more that we're misusing him than him not being up to snuff, but if we are going to insist on playing this godawful brand of rugby, you'd've thought him a poor fit to it.

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

On the one hand 6 feels generous considering how poor we’ve been, but on the other hand, we did win the tournament (and 6N).

I really don’t know how Farrell can continue to be so poor with apparent impunity. His performances really don’t merit his ‘untouchable’ status and maybe dropping him would do him good in the long run?

He was simply awful at 10, but actually the biggest problem IMO is that we don’t have a 12, so he stays in the side almost by default.

Devoto is probably the best equipped to step in, but I’m not sure how viable an alternative he is when he rarely plays 3 games in a row. Redpath is another but he’s currently playing at 13.

While Farrell remains in the side, our attack will continue to be limited.

In terms of positives, Stuart, Willis, Earl, Lawrence and to a lesser extent Hill and Malins (through lack of game time) seem to have capably made the step up to test rugby.

The problem is Farrell seems to offer something to Jones that transcends any debate about positional requirements or form/skill/execution. He is the leader. He drives his team on and he keeps things ticking over. These aren’t quantifiable, measurable attributes so his actual form on the pitch is pretty much irrelevant.

As long as he maintains his fanatic work-rate and keeps making noise it doesn’t really matter what he does. It’s him and whichever 10/12 is in form and fits the Eddie plan. I can’t see anything changing that.

[Spiffy]

On the one hand 6 feels generous considering how poor we’ve been, but on the other hand, we did win the tournament (and 6N).

I really don’t know how Farrell can continue to be so poor with apparent impunity. His performances really don’t merit his ‘untouchable’ status and maybe dropping him would do him good in the long run?

He was simply awful at 10, but actually the biggest problem IMO is that we don’t have a 12, so he stays in the side almost by default.

Devoto is probably the best equipped to step in, but I’m not sure how viable an alternative he is when he rarely plays 3 games in a row. Redpath is another but he’s currently playing at 13.

While Farrell remains in the side, our attack will continue to be limited.

In terms of positives, Stuart, Willis, Earl, Lawrence and to a lesser extent Hill and Malins (through lack of game time) seem to have capably made the step up to test rugby.

The problem is Farrell seems to offer something to Jones that transcends any debate about positional requirements or form/skill/execution. He is the leader. He drives his team on and he keeps things ticking over. These aren’t quantifiable, measurable attributes so his actual form on the pitch is pretty much irrelevant.

As long as he maintains his fanatic work-rate and keeps making noise it doesn’t really matter what he does. It’s him and whichever 10/12 is in form and fits the Eddie plan. I can’t see anything changing that.

Totally disagree with all that Mikey. His leadership is poor and he certainly does not lead by example. He misses a lot of tackles and offers nothing in attack. I prefer the traditional approach - pick your best players then make one of them captain. On the evidence of several recent games, he does not deserve his place on the team, based on ability.
Work rate per se means nothing if you are doing nothing well.
But I do agree with your observation that Jones will not ditch him. That would be an admission of poor judgement.

[Doorzetbornandbred]

You wouldn't be rushing out to buy the dvd of the highlights of this campaign. watched the 1st half of the Georgia game then switched off due to the crap coverage, fell asleep for the 2nd half of the Ireland game, turned off the Wales game as it was so dire, watched all the France game with disbelief at how shit we were in attack and no hint of any ambition at all. I have never in my life switched off an England game and stopped watching, very poor adverts for the game.
In the words of Maximus Decimus Meridius "Are you not entertained?"
No son far from it, can you please pop round to Eddies and unleash hell on him ta muchly...

[Beasties]

You wouldn't be rushing out to buy the dvd of the highlights of this campaign. watched the 1st half of the Georgia game then switched off due to the crap coverage, fell asleep for the 2nd half of the Ireland game, turned off the Wales game as it was so dire, watched all the France game with disbelief at how shit we were in attack and no hint of any ambition at all. I have never in my life switched off an England game and stopped watching, very poor adverts for the game.
In the words of Maximus Decimus Meridius "Are you not entertained?"
No son far from it, can you please pop round to Eddies and unleash hell on him ta muchly...

Is it just me or is watching England now like going to work on a drizzly Monday morning? Something you feel you have to do rather than want to do? I used to really look forward and get excited by the notion of watching an Eng game on a weekend, not now. We're just dreadful to watch.

All of the excitement and pleasure of yesterday's game came entirely from the very real prospect that we were going to get beaten by the French third team, I was so disappointed it didn't happen at the end, I've never felt that way about Eng before. All of this way of playing seems to be coming from Eddie's reaction to being beaten by a good but non-vintage SA team in that final. My view remains that we simply didn't turn up on the day a week after playing possibly our greatest game ever.

Oh, and the Amazon viewing experience has added to the misery.

[Scrumhead]

You wouldn't be rushing out to buy the dvd of the highlights of this campaign. watched the 1st half of the Georgia game then switched off due to the crap coverage, fell asleep for the 2nd half of the Ireland game, turned off the Wales game as it was so dire, watched all the France game with disbelief at how shit we were in attack and no hint of any ambition at all. I have never in my life switched off an England game and stopped watching, very poor adverts for the game.
In the words of Maximus Decimus Meridius "Are you not entertained?"
No son far from it, can you please pop round to Eddies and unleash hell on him ta muchly...

Can’t say I disagree ... yesterday’s game was enthralling I suppose, but I would have much preferred to be entertained by watching us confidently disposing of a young, inexperienced French side rather than labouring to a poor win.

Very few bright spots in the tournament at all really. NH rugby doesn’t seem in great shape right now.

[fivepointer]

Played 5 Won 5. That in itself is a considerable positive. Not only winning but winning when playing only sporadically well.

Willis, Hill, Dunn, Malins and Lawrence introduced, Robson got some game time, Stuart started a game. We defended very well and our set piece was excellent.

Good signs from most of the forwards. Itoje and Curry stood out but Billy and Launchbury went well. May was our best back, though i did like Joseph's contributions.

Largely injury free.

The negatives are a horribly constipated, under developed attacking game. Far too much kicking, often poorly executed. Lack of assessing options and exploiting space to attack in. Even when we had a clear numerical advantage and a good chance to move the ball, we kicked it away.

I thought the selections throughout lacked enterprise and far too much time was invested in certain players. The treatment Dunn got was appalling. More rotation could have told us a lot more about some of the players. Overall the backs were disappointing, lacking penetration and innovation.

And so to Farrell. He was abject throughout. Other than one or two well placed kicks he didnt make it to average. England cannot advance with him in the side, he simply doesnt have the running or passing game to bring out the best of those around him. What do we do? Well, I hate myself for saying this and it goes against the grain and its something i've never wished on anybody, but I wish he picks up an injury for the 6N's so Jones has to play someone else. That is the only way he isnt going to play. It would actually do him good to sit out some games, and it would require JOnes to invest some genuine effort in finding a midfield combination that can move us forward.

[twitchy]

I missed a load of graphics, give the article a click because it deserves it for the effort put in.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... cup-final/


Inside Line: Reviewing England's 2020 - how are they rebuilding from the World Cup final wreckage?

England were not particularly convincing in their second final in 13 months, but have progressed over a tough 2020




Most coaches spend their career juggling three chief priorities: building depth, developing their team’s tactical identity and winning.

In the Test arena, these things tend to become more or less important depending on factors such as the proximity of a Rugby World Cup and the age profile of that nation’s best players. Ideally, all three can be fulfilled at once. But that is not easy. Look at Wales.

Having inherited an experienced squad, some of whom may not make Rugby World Cup 2023, Wayne Pivac has endeavoured to introduce new faces – amid a raft of injuries – while unpicking habits from the Warren Gatland era and implementing different ideas. Results have dipped.

England began their 2020 schedule two months after losing to South Africa in Yokohama. They ended it at Twickenham and were not much more convincing in their second final in 13 months, albeit against opposition inferior to the inspired Springboks.

With that in mind, how should we evaluate England’s year?
Results: Bucking a trend

Perhaps because of the chastening nature of their defeat in the Rugby World Cup decider, or to reinforce the idea that a young squad had more to give, England targeted Test victories at the start of this year. They did not want to slump like other finalists before them.

This screenshot, taken from The Next Level YouTube series, shows captain Owen Farrell leading a meeting during their Portugal training camp. On the wall behind him is a chart outlining each World Cup finalist since 2003, their winning percentage for the following year and over the next four-year cycle, plus how they fared at the subsequent World Cup.

Every one of them – Australia in 2007 and 2019, England in 2011 and France in 2015 – crashed out in the quarter-finals at the next major tournament, sometimes spectacularly:




As you can see, no runner-up mustered a win ratio of greater than 75 per cent, the mark achieved by Jones’ Wallabies in 2004, over the 12 months following a World Cup final defeat. If you include Sunday’s extra-time triumph, England’s was 89 per cent in 2020.

A record of eight wins from nine matches and two trophies sounds good, but it will not be lost on Eddie Jones that his team failed its most difficult assignment and showed scars from Japan.

A 24-17 loss to Fabien Galthié’s resurgent France in February was characterised by wasteful and inaccurate attack. Starting without either Mako or Billy Vunipola, England lost Manu Tuilagi to injury early on.

In the absence of both Jack Nowell and Joe Cokanasiga, Jones lacked brawn in the backline and curiously kept Ollie Devoto on the bench until the 78th minute. France were more assured in the kicking exchanges and dominated the breakdown thanks to spoiler supreme Grégory Alldritt. Shades of 2018 laced England’s frustrating afternoon.



Antoine Dupont sprinkled some stardust and, although the visitors created openings and camped in their opponents’ 22 for long periods, France were deserved winners. Two solo tries from Jonny May and a late Owen Farrell penalty salvaged the fateful bonus point that sealed the Six Nations title.

From there, England never seemed in grave danger of losing until this weekend. Two second-half wobbles against Wales and a wet and windy visit to Murrayfield were probably the most nervous they had looked. And yet, in retrospect, they will believe that they threatened to cut loose and thrash teams without delivering any statement results.

England led 17-0 and then 22-5 over Ireland during the Six Nations. Against the same adversaries nine months later, they opened up an 18-0 advantage with half an hour remaining. Their cushion became 33-16 when Manu Tuilagi outflanked Wales in the 61st minute back in March. On all three occasions, England lifted a foot from the throat.



In their last outing of the year, it appeared as though one subplot – the chance to show that a final would not cow them – weighed heavy. Familiar failings, which we will address later on, arose. As the enviable resources of France were underlined by a fresh and motivated line-up, the best that can be said for England is that they escaped an embarrassing setback.

Then again, history tells us that losing World Cup finalists are susceptible to wobbles. It may have been ugly at times, but England have defied that trend and kept on winning.

Six of the top 10 nations in World Rugby’s rankings suffered two or more losses – New Zealand (3rd), France (4th), Ireland (5th), Australia (6th), Scotland (7th) and Wales (9th). Two others, South Africa (1st) and Japan (10th), did not play at all. The remaining pair, to have emerged with just a single defeat, are Argentina (8th) and England (2nd).
Building depth: Best of a bad situation

Jones used 38 players in 2020 Tests, fewer than he has in any calendar year as England head coach. All of his Six Nations rivals used over 40 and New Zealand cycled through 36 despite playing only six matches. Of course, England were in a good place because of how a youthful group had performed in 2019.


It was not easy to track all the positional combinations over the year, especially with funky contingencies such as Tom Curry sliding up to lock with Jonny May acting as a blindside flanker during Jonny Hill’s yellow card in Rome:



How fitting that Farrell and Maro Itoje, the two men to play every minute of England’s nine matches, combined to beat France at the death on Sunday. Itoje forced the breakdown penalty and Farrell slotted it to reach 1,000 points in Test rugby.

May, Elliot Daly, Kyle Sinckler, Curry, Jamie George and Sam Underhill established themselves further as senior figures. Joe Launchbury was resurgent, picking up four starts, and Henry Slade represented a backline pocketknife. Ellis Genge progressed, Billy Vunipola finished 2020 superbly and Ben Youngs became an England centurion, too.

On the other end of the experience scale, Jones introduced new faces in most position groups. George Furbank had been in form for Northampton Saints. Tom Dunn deserved his cameos. Will Stuart is now second-choice tighthead, phasing out Dan Cole. Jonny Hill may grow in the role vacated by George Kruis. Jack Willis and Ben Earl stirred up the back-row mix.

Ollie Lawrence is an explosive, low-sling centre capable of injecting impetus. Ollie Thorley packs punch and Max Malins is a highly promising, creative playmaker with pace.



Crucially, most of these nine players have the potential to reach 50 Tests. Each of them adds something different. Jones is proud of his record of dripping youth into squads and does so with tactical nuances of the future in mind. Earl and Malins looked particularly confident and capable yesterday.

Covid-related cancellations of the two-Test July tour of Japan and the Barbarians fixture stunted precious development opportunities and yet England have expanded their roster – even in the position groups that did not see a debutant.

Loosehead prop Beno Obano spent more time in camp, as did scrum-half Alex Mitchell and fly-half Jacob Umaga. Hooker-cum-flanker Alfie Barbeary joined up for a few training sessions last week. According to Dylan Hartley, such short secondments are invaluable because they ease player turnover and ensure that transition periods are not too jarring. The 2023 World Cup may not be too soon for Barbeary.




Should the next two years bring a cull like the one between 2018 and 2019, when Hartley, Chris Robshaw and others lost their places, rookies are waiting in the wings. Questions over half-back back-up and midfield balance do linger. A British and Irish Lions year always broadens horizons as far as squad depth.

After such a chaotic year, here are some reminders of more selection quirks:

Willi Heinz started against Scotland and may have remained ahead of Dan Robson this autumn but for a calf injury. Eddie Jones is still very particular about scrum-halves
George Furbank started the first two Tests of the year, plus the final Six Nations game, at full-back
Henry Slade came on in that position against Ireland and spent 72 minutes there in the 33-30 win over Wales. Elliot Daly and Anthony Watson were on the wings outside a midfield of George Ford, Owen Farrell and Manu Tuilagi
In the second half of the win over Ireland, Charlie Ewels occupied the number eight role between Tom Curry and Sam Underhill with Ben Earl joining later
Mark Wilson’s single Test appearance was an impressive start against Wales. A training injury scuppered his autumn, letting in Jack Willis
Ollie Lawrence defended at inside centre and attacked as an outside centre during the Autumn Nations Cup win over Ireland
Against Georgia, there was a short-lived centre partnership of Slade and Elliot Daly with Max Malins at full-back


Style of play: A functional foundation

Given they have won 15 of their last 17 Tests, it is probably far-fetched to claim that there is a tactical template for beating England. But there have definitely been common threads in the opposition performances that have troubled them.

When sides compete hard at the breakdown, overseen by a referee agreeable to that approach, and disrupt England’s lineout while staying patient in the kicking exchanges, they stand a decent chance. France followed that model on Sunday. They found success, almost springing an upset.



That will irk Jones, because the appointment of ex-South Africa forwards coach Matt Proudfoot appeared to be steeling England against a repeat of how they had wilted against the Springboks. Undeniably at least, the scrum looks very strong.

In many ways, 2020 was reminiscent of 2016 – Jones’ first year as head coach and a pared-down period of consolidation. This autumn, England kicked a great deal and relied on their ferocious, organised defence to make things happen. Itoje’s defining jackal against France came at the end of an unbroken sequence lasting about 90 seconds.

A 94th-minute chase led by Slade, Daly and Curry summed up how England graft off the ball. Alivereti Raka went to ground. So did his support. Itoje pounced:



Jones slammed “disrespectful” criticism of his team on Sunday evening. It is worth remembering that he had admitted eight days previously that England have not improved markedly as an attacking force – certainly not enough to meet another of his stated aims to become “the greatest team that the game of rugby has ever seen”.

There have been glimpses of slick stuff. Prior to lockdown, this first-phase strike move against Wales was imaginative:



In the absence of backline strike-runners such as Tuilagi, Cokanasiga and Nowell, England’s forwards have honed their gain-line decision-making and shown that they can play through opponents…



…as well as manufacturing space out wide. However, they were thwarted by a goal-line stand on Sunday – another concerning parallel with their last two losses. Clunky moments and poor passing undermined England’s back-play again.

Here, May creeps too flat and Ford is cut off from Daly when a miss-pass directly to his full-back would have surely brought a try:



That said, Daly’s interplay with Anthony Watson was not at its most precise. A number of wide rucks were surrendered.

England do not seem to deploy a rigid 1-3-3-1 or 1-3-2-2 shape. Hooker Jamie George has migrated wide on occasions, as have Billy Vunipola and Ben Earl. But when they have held the ball for any length of time rather than kicking, England’s phase-play has been varied.

Wings have roamed in-field with players cutting tight angles on both sides of the breakdown as distributors organise matters further wide. There have been deft tip-on passes and offloads. At their best, England regularly alter the picture that defenders are looking at.

We just have not seen that a great deal because mistakes and conservative decision-making have provided let-offs. Reasonable mitigating factors include the cancellation of the Barbarians game and tricky weather conditions.

In time, England may become more fluent and penetrative. As far as priorities for 2021, convincing and consistently clinical attacking displays have to be high on England’s list.

[Oakboy]

So...

Positives:

- We won.
- Willis had his debut, Stuart continued to impress, Hill looked good, Robson got more minutes, Lawrence looked good.
- Itoje is incredible.
- Our pack is starting to step up (today excepted).

Negatives:

- When we set the tempo, we win. When the opposition set the tempo, they win or push us waaay too close.
- Farrell is an embarrassment.
- We don't use our backs at all.
- We lack intensity in everything except defence.
- We play rugby by numbers with no leadership at all.
- The kicking, oh my god, the kicking. It's less that we do it and more the standard.

Good summary, that!


I know many will disagree but I think Billy V (even the fitter, revitalised version) is no longer worthy of being an automatic choice at 8. No matter how well he plays, his style is restrictive now that opposition sides know how to stop him early. I'd go further to upset many, by suggesting that Itoje should be at 6. He also should be captain. I think several periods, the 1st half yesterday for example, showed the absolute need for a specialist line-out jumper in the back row to give three front line options.

I'd go on to say that overall balance in the second and back rows would be better woth Itoje's physicality at 6 and a more mobile option at 8. My preference would be Simmonds but I'd consider Willis, Earl or Currry in the shirt too. I still think Curry is our best flanker, much as I'd love to see Willis in.

If I was picking a 2nd/backrow for a game tomorrow (with all fit), I'd choose Hill, Launchbury, Itoje, Curry, Simmonds with Lawes and Willis on the bench.

[Banquo]

You wouldn't be rushing out to buy the dvd of the highlights of this campaign. watched the 1st half of the Georgia game then switched off due to the crap coverage, fell asleep for the 2nd half of the Ireland game, turned off the Wales game as it was so dire, watched all the France game with disbelief at how shit we were in attack and no hint of any ambition at all. I have never in my life switched off an England game and stopped watching, very poor adverts for the game.
In the words of Maximus Decimus Meridius "Are you not entertained?"
No son far from it, can you please pop round to Eddies and unleash hell on him ta muchly...

Can’t say I disagree ... yesterday’s game was enthralling I suppose, but I would have much preferred to be entertained by watching us confidently disposing of a young, inexperienced French side rather than labouring to a poor win.

Very few bright spots in the tournament at all really. NH rugby doesn’t seem in great shape right now.

Not sure SH rugby is either, the 3n was hardly spectacular. As it says on the other message board, prob the worst NZ side since 2009 has just won the reduced championship.

We probably do need to factor in the general weirdness of the times.

From an England POV, we have genuine strength and depth in all units of the pack, and a handful of world class on their day. We need to configure them properly and look hard especially at carrying and using some dextrous handlers properly, and playing with intensity week in week out.

The backs are such a mess now, I don’t know where to start tbh. If you are going to play Ford, he needs a much freer rein. 9 just looks unappealing option wise. There are some good centres about, but not much to be really excited about. Back three a bit more star quality but need to decide what we want the 15 to do, and that is informed to some extent by midfield composition.

Work to do- we do have most of the materials to be a lot better imo. Oh and Faz should be dropped- beggars belief that he has 90 ish caps.

[Stom]

So...

Positives:

- We won.
- Willis had his debut, Stuart continued to impress, Hill looked good, Robson got more minutes, Lawrence looked good.
- Itoje is incredible.
- Our pack is starting to step up (today excepted).

Negatives:

- When we set the tempo, we win. When the opposition set the tempo, they win or push us waaay too close.
- Farrell is an embarrassment.
- We don't use our backs at all.
- We lack intensity in everything except defence.
- We play rugby by numbers with no leadership at all.
- The kicking, oh my god, the kicking. It's less that we do it and more the standard.

Good summary, that!


I know many will disagree but I think Billy V (even the fitter, revitalised version) is no longer worthy of being an automatic choice at 8. No matter how well he plays, his style is restrictive now that opposition sides know how to stop him early. I'd go further to upset many, by suggesting that Itoje should be at 6. He also should be captain. I think several periods, the 1st half yesterday for example, showed the absolute need for a specialist line-out jumper in the back row to give three front line options.

I'd go on to say that overall balance in the second and back rows would be better woth Itoje's physicality at 6 and a more mobile option at 8. My preference would be Simmonds but I'd consider Willis, Earl or Currry in the shirt too. I still think Curry is our best flanker, much as I'd love to see Willis in.

If I was picking a 2nd/backrow for a game tomorrow (with all fit), I'd choose Hill, Launchbury, Itoje, Curry, Simmonds with Lawes and Willis on the bench.

I'm going to disagree on both points there :p

We don't use our carriers effectively, so Billy is almost always the only big carrying option. He's essential.

Itoje at 6 reduces one of our biggest strengths: our sheer speed and intensity in defence. He's a superb defender, but whoever comes in to replace him at lock is far from comparable to any of our flank options. It would drastically impinge our ability to strangle teams for a very marginal gain.

Our best option for adding lineout would surely be Ted Hill, but he isn't trusted yet, perhaps with good reason. I'm not too fussed about that, if we can get everything else right, as Curry is a very adequate jumper and if Willis comes in for Underhill, we have 2 very adequate jumpers in the back row already.

I think the best possible balance in the pack is...pretty much as is. I'd bring in Willis for Underhill personally, but otherwise I'd leave it: that 8 is world class.

Behind it is where the problems happen, mainly through tactics and a midfield lacking any kind of penetration.

I'd actually like to see the 3rd centre and openside wing system used again, but with Daly as the 3rd centre and Watson at FB. I'd also, obviously, drop the melted man for Lawrence (if Tuilagi is not fit).

[Oakboy]

So...

Positives:

- We won.
- Willis had his debut, Stuart continued to impress, Hill looked good, Robson got more minutes, Lawrence looked good.
- Itoje is incredible.
- Our pack is starting to step up (today excepted).

Negatives:

- When we set the tempo, we win. When the opposition set the tempo, they win or push us waaay too close.
- Farrell is an embarrassment.
- We don't use our backs at all.
- We lack intensity in everything except defence.
- We play rugby by numbers with no leadership at all.
- The kicking, oh my god, the kicking. It's less that we do it and more the standard.

Good summary, that!


I know many will disagree but I think Billy V (even the fitter, revitalised version) is no longer worthy of being an automatic choice at 8. No matter how well he plays, his style is restrictive now that opposition sides know how to stop him early. I'd go further to upset many, by suggesting that Itoje should be at 6. He also should be captain. I think several periods, the 1st half yesterday for example, showed the absolute need for a specialist line-out jumper in the back row to give three front line options.

I'd go on to say that overall balance in the second and back rows would be better woth Itoje's physicality at 6 and a more mobile option at 8. My preference would be Simmonds but I'd consider Willis, Earl or Currry in the shirt too. I still think Curry is our best flanker, much as I'd love to see Willis in.

If I was picking a 2nd/backrow for a game tomorrow (with all fit), I'd choose Hill, Launchbury, Itoje, Curry, Simmonds with Lawes and Willis on the bench.

I'm going to disagree on both points there :p

We don't use our carriers effectively, so Billy is almost always the only big carrying option. He's essential.

Itoje at 6 reduces one of our biggest strengths: our sheer speed and intensity in defence. He's a superb defender, but whoever comes in to replace him at lock is far from comparable to any of our flank options. It would drastically impinge our ability to strangle teams for a very marginal gain.

Our best option for adding lineout would surely be Ted Hill, but he isn't trusted yet, perhaps with good reason. I'm not too fussed about that, if we can get everything else right, as Curry is a very adequate jumper and if Willis comes in for Underhill, we have 2 very adequate jumpers in the back row already.

I think the best possible balance in the pack is...pretty much as is. I'd bring in Willis for Underhill personally, but otherwise I'd leave it: that 8 is world class.

Behind it is where the problems happen, mainly through tactics and a midfield lacking any kind of penetration.

I'd actually like to see the 3rd centre and openside wing system used again, but with Daly as the 3rd centre and Watson at FB. I'd also, obviously, drop the melted man for Lawrence (if Tuilagi is not fit).

I knew few would agree. I think we must have real pace from the 8 shirt and a player who is capable of starting and joining backs moves, in other words a different type of player to BIlly. I don't see his carrying in heavy traffic as an effective weapon any more. Our failure to score once we got within 5 metres yesterday worried me and maybe you would claim Billy's physicality there as vital. I think more flexible, athletic carriers (Curry is the obvious example) will become gradually more important as the game develops.

[Digby]

In the absence of backline strike-runners such as Tuilagi, Cokanasiga and Nowell, England’s forwards have honed their gain-line decision-making and shown that they can play through opponents…

I've found this really interesting, at a time when Eddie is accused of not progressing the attack we've now got so many players happy to go in at first receiver and so many of them are forwards, it's actually rather remarkable. And yet we're lacking some aggressive carrying despite having Mako, George, Sinckler, Itoje, Hill and Curry, and instead we're once again so reliant on Billy to carry. So are we getting the balance a little wrong, and instead of trying to reinvent the wheel should a few of these lumps be looking to carry a little more a little harder? Or is this simply the way the game is going, or is the system fine but is still reliant on having Manu back (and maybe Cockansiga)?

Kudos to Billy because he hasn't been faultless in this series, but he's put in a massive shift and he's just so crucial to the team.

[FKAS]

In the absence of backline strike-runners such as Tuilagi, Cokanasiga and Nowell, England’s forwards have honed their gain-line decision-making and shown that they can play through opponents…

I've found this really interesting, at a time when Eddie is accused of not progressing the attack we've now got so many players happy to go in at first receiver and so many of them are forwards, it's actually rather remarkable. And yet we're lacking some aggressive carrying despite having Mako, George, Sinckler, Itoje, Hill and Curry, and instead we're once again so reliant on Billy to carry. So are we getting the balance a little wrong, and instead of trying to reinvent the wheel should a few of these lumps be looking to carry a little more a little harder? Or is this simply the way the game is going, or is the system fine but is still reliant on having Manu back (and maybe Cockansiga)?

Kudos to Billy because he hasn't been faultless in this series, but he's put in a massive shift and he's just so crucial to the team.

It's to easy to defend because There's no outside threat. One of the backrow might run off the shoulder of the flyhalf but that's it. The backline has no strike runners whether bosh or clever. It's just a bit simple to defend for a team like France who had a big pack who knew they could just mark up their opposite numbers close in. They had a 17 stone inside centre in Danty who would mop up anything coming off the 10. If you've got Cocka, Manu or Lawrence in there then they'd have been dropping a backrow into the backs and Danty is no longer defending on his 10s shoulder because Farrell is no running threat.

When it went wide there was no penetration so you can just drift out en masse and swamp the winger.

Simon Amor wasn't Eddie's ideal choice of attack coach perhaps Eddie doesn't back him and there will be a coaching change sooner rather than later.

[Mr Mwenda]

A conclusion seems to be that Farrell and Slade is a bad centre combo. So what are the options going forward? We seem to be agreed also that Farrell could do with being dropped. Where does Slade fit in? To my mind, he's also failed to bring his skills to the party this autumn and I don't think that can be completely blamed on Farrell. The backline is less than the some of its parts for a variety of reasons.

[Stom]

A conclusion seems to be that Farrell and Slade is a bad centre combo. So what are the options going forward? We seem to be agreed also that Farrell could do with being dropped. Where does Slade fit in? To my mind, he's also failed to bring his skills to the party this autumn and I don't think that can be completely blamed on Farrell. The backline is less than the some of its parts for a variety of reasons.

Well no, it can't be 100% blamed on Farrell. Eddie must shoulder the majority of the blame. Slade was on a hiding to nothing. His job was literally to defend, kick and chase. What the hell is he expected to do?

We need a change in approach ball in hand.

[Mikey Brown]

A conclusion seems to be that Farrell and Slade is a bad centre combo. So what are the options going forward? We seem to be agreed also that Farrell could do with being dropped. Where does Slade fit in? To my mind, he's also failed to bring his skills to the party this autumn and I don't think that can be completely blamed on Farrell. The backline is less than the some of its parts for a variety of reasons.

I just think Ford, Farrell and Slade all have their strengths watered down by not having a direct running threat somewhere in midfield, rather than being directly to blame for the performance of the others.

There was a specific moment yesterday I remember Farrell getting the ball running a bit sideways and just shovelled it on to Slade without even looking up at the opposition, when I think there was some opportunity for one of them to cut inside or at least engage the defence. Pretty much summed up that pairing for me.

It’s still Slade vs Ford for me, as Farrell is undroppable, and hoping Lawrence perhaps can provide something more direct.

[Banquo]

In the absence of backline strike-runners such as Tuilagi, Cokanasiga and Nowell, England’s forwards have honed their gain-line decision-making and shown that they can play through opponents…

I've found this really interesting, at a time when Eddie is accused of not progressing the attack we've now got so many players happy to go in at first receiver and so many of them are forwards, it's actually rather remarkable. And yet we're lacking some aggressive carrying despite having Mako, George, Sinckler, Itoje, Hill and Curry, and instead we're once again so reliant on Billy to carry. So are we getting the balance a little wrong, and instead of trying to reinvent the wheel should a few of these lumps be looking to carry a little more a little harder? Or is this simply the way the game is going, or is the system fine but is still reliant on having Manu back (and maybe Cockansiga)?

Kudos to Billy because he hasn't been faultless in this series, but he's put in a massive shift and he's just so crucial to the team.

It's to easy to defend because There's no outside threat. One of the backrow might run off the shoulder of the flyhalf but that's it. The backline has no strike runners whether bosh or clever. It's just a bit simple to defend for a team like France who had a big pack who knew they could just mark up their opposite numbers close in. They had a 17 stone inside centre in Danty who would mop up anything coming off the 10. If you've got Cocka, Manu or Lawrence in there then they'd have been dropping a backrow into the backs and Danty is no longer defending on his 10s shoulder because Farrell is no running threat.

When it went wide there was no penetration so you can just drift out en masse and swamp the winger.

Simon Amor wasn't Eddie's ideal choice of attack coach perhaps Eddie doesn't back him and there will be a coaching change sooner rather than later.

Think you missed the point- we could use our handling forwards a lot better to launch other forwards and get the defence turned. Then even our backline could create something; but you are right that we lack a backs strike runner from deep or in midfield.....though you could get the back three to hit better lines, and the third centre play seemed to be designed to fudge the lack of a running threat at 12 and even 13. We effectively had 4 playmaker backs in the way Daly was sometimes used; at best he appears in the line, rather than hits a line off a flat pass. We are a mess behind the scrum for sure, but we could do more, more often with our forward strengths. We need to get Ford flat, and a flatter midfield with a direct runner there- and I'd favour a late running 15, rather than another playmaker there.