Ratings?

Moderator: Puja

User avatar
jngf
Posts: 1587
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 5:57 pm

Re: Ratings?

Post by jngf »

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.rugb ... the-final/

Still holds good. For me the problem is Eddie apprears to be using same strategy, largely the same players and largely the same tactics in the hope it will go one better in 2023 RWC - just have heard nothing from him in terms of a coherent vision on how he plans to go one better this time - in truth we’re going backwards at the same rate as France are going in the opposite direction
User avatar
Oakboy
Posts: 6418
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:42 am

Re: Ratings?

Post by Oakboy »

I'm surprised that so many are surprised. The buck stops with Jones. All the individual carping about players is trivial relative to the basic set-up.
User avatar
Spiffy
Posts: 1987
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 4:13 pm

Re: Ratings?

Post by Spiffy »

Epaminondas Pules wrote:And don’t confuse me with someone who gives a fuck, I’m just asking as it’s quite funny to watch people get so caught up about a single player.

I thought he was cack today, but I could also s ay the same about almost everyone else, but I won’t ignore their impact on the game in favour of an angry wank.
I think people are getting caught up about a single player, Farrell, for a couple of reasons. At 10, he is the fulcrum of the team, the playmaker, the man who makes the decisions and, as captain, the man who leads by example as well as by talk. He was none of this today. His performance is compounded by the fact that he has not been that good as a FH for some time. Of course, he is not responsible for picking himself. That is Jones' thing. Farrell has been the golden boy of English rugby based on very little but the mood of the media and fans. He has never been as good as portrayed. When the team wins he tends personally to get all the accolades (Ice Man, Captain Courageous etc...). So it is only reasonable that he will get some flack when he plays (again) like a drain.
Interestingly, if you go to the BBC website, there are several accounts of the game. One of them is dominated by a full-screen image of a determined looking Farrell with ball under his arm - this after a historic Scottish win.
User avatar
Gloskarlos
Posts: 1142
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: Ratings?

Post by Gloskarlos »

There was next to no rugby played to rate.
User avatar
Oakboy
Posts: 6418
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:42 am

Re: Ratings?

Post by Oakboy »

Gloskarlos wrote:There was next to no rugby played to rate.
Quite, but there was a contrast between Itoje's application and the other Saracens players. I don't think any should have been in the squad but, having said that, I take my hat off to Itoje. He is absolute class. Looking that good when the others looked so bad on the back of such rustiness puts him on a real pedestal.

Also, it makes you re-evaluate the business of 'only Jones can know from the in-camp performances'. How could he (or the coaching group as a whole) not know their current standard after seeing them.
Peej
Posts: 1756
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 12:01 pm

Re: Ratings?

Post by Peej »

England don't pick their best breakdown player and then are surprised they get utterly hammered at the breakdown. On the subject of surprise, May looked genuinely shocked people were kicking the ball at him, rather than for him to chase. And my god, but the Sarries players, bar Itoje, looked miles off the pace. Course, he made up for it by giving away penalties for them too.

These are unbelievably talented players, but they need a complete shift in how they approach the game.
User avatar
Gloskarlos
Posts: 1142
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: Ratings?

Post by Gloskarlos »

Oakboy wrote:
Gloskarlos wrote:There was next to no rugby played to rate.
Quite, but there was a contrast between Itoje's application and the other Saracens players. I don't think any should have been in the squad but, having said that, I take my hat off to Itoje. He is absolute class. Looking that good when the others looked so bad on the back of such rustiness puts him on a real pedestal.

Also, it makes you re-evaluate the business of 'only Jones can know from the in-camp performances'. How could he (or the coaching group as a whole) not know their current standard after seeing them.
Itoje is the only Sarries player I would pick for the next game, agreed. Malins to FB. LCD to start, hell both Simmonds’s after today’s shambles.
Insouciant
Posts: 319
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 10:15 am

Re: Ratings?

Post by Insouciant »

Gloskarlos wrote:There was next to no rugby played to rate.
Eddie could have re-used his Italy interview quotes from a few years back "We haven't played badly cos no one (English) has played any rugby today"
Digby
Posts: 13436
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am

Re: Ratings?

Post by Digby »

Gloskarlos wrote:
Oakboy wrote:
Gloskarlos wrote:There was next to no rugby played to rate.
Quite, but there was a contrast between Itoje's application and the other Saracens players. I don't think any should have been in the squad but, having said that, I take my hat off to Itoje. He is absolute class. Looking that good when the others looked so bad on the back of such rustiness puts him on a real pedestal.

Also, it makes you re-evaluate the business of 'only Jones can know from the in-camp performances'. How could he (or the coaching group as a whole) not know their current standard after seeing them.
Itoje is the only Sarries player I would pick for the next game, agreed. Malins to FB. LCD to start, hell both Simmonds’s after today’s shambles.
Itoje was (again) bad on the discipline front. In isolation we've lived with that before, but in a team lacking discipline elsewhere he was very much part of the problem today. He was also part of a misfiring set piece, a large part of which he runs. He did work hard, he did have some nice moments, but that's not remotely enough.

The centres, Daly and Watson weren't as bad by dint of less involvements, say 2/10, the rest get 1/10 or 0/10 depending on where you start the scoring
loudnconfident
Posts: 349
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 8:46 am

Re: Ratings?

Post by loudnconfident »

Digby wrote: [deleted]

The centres, Daly and Watson weren't as bad by dint of less involvements, say 2/10, the rest get 1/10 or 0/10 depending on where you start the scoring
Daly gets a 1 or less for his non-tackle before the Scotland try. It has been stated before that, great winger that he is. Daly is not a FB. he doesnt play there for his club and simply lacks that psychopathic element needed for a top FB
Digby
Posts: 13436
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am

Re: Ratings?

Post by Digby »

loudnconfident wrote:
Digby wrote: [deleted]

The centres, Daly and Watson weren't as bad by dint of less involvements, say 2/10, the rest get 1/10 or 0/10 depending on where you start the scoring
Daly gets a 1 or less for his non-tackle before the Scotland try. It has been stated before that, great winger that he is. Daly is not a FB. he doesnt play there for his club and simply lacks that psychopathic element needed for a top FB
Do Farrell and May drop to -1 for their failure to catch a ball and tackle in that try being scored? Actually Farrell dropped the ball and missed a tackle, so I suppose he drops to -2
User avatar
Buggaluggs
Posts: 1251
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 2:50 pm

Re: Ratings?

Post by Buggaluggs »

Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face. - Mike Tyson.

Doom and gloom might be a bit much. Remember the WC? The ABs got beat by England and their fans were all "no plan B" "useless leadership".

When you're bent over someone's lap with a horse dildo jammed up your arse it's hard to focus on an effective plan B. Some days you're the arse. Some days you're the dildo. That's how sports is.
Mikey Brown
Posts: 12228
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:10 pm

Re: Ratings?

Post by Mikey Brown »

loudnconfident wrote:
Digby wrote: [deleted]

The centres, Daly and Watson weren't as bad by dint of less involvements, say 2/10, the rest get 1/10 or 0/10 depending on where you start the scoring
Daly gets a 1 or less for his non-tackle before the Scotland try. It has been stated before that, great winger that he is. Daly is not a FB. he doesnt play there for his club and simply lacks that psychopathic element needed for a top FB
I keep seeing this written as Wilson missing Van der Merwe, whereas I felt he did a pretty good job of almost wrestling a try-saver out of it after VDM stepped Daly and bounced off the chosen one. Must be my personal bias kicking in.
Digby
Posts: 13436
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am

Re: Ratings?

Post by Digby »

Mikey Brown wrote:
loudnconfident wrote:
Digby wrote: [deleted]

The centres, Daly and Watson weren't as bad by dint of less involvements, say 2/10, the rest get 1/10 or 0/10 depending on where you start the scoring
Daly gets a 1 or less for his non-tackle before the Scotland try. It has been stated before that, great winger that he is. Daly is not a FB. he doesnt play there for his club and simply lacks that psychopathic element needed for a top FB
I keep seeing this written as Wilson missing Van der Merwe, whereas I felt he did a pretty good job of almost wrestling a try-saver out of it after VDM stepped Daly and bounced off the chosen one. Must be my personal bias kicking in.
I think you might say maybe one defender gets done on the inside and that happens even if you play well, for 2-3 to get done like that they're playing as individuals and not working as a team
User avatar
Puja
Posts: 17807
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:16 pm

Re: Ratings?

Post by Puja »

Buggaluggs wrote:Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face. - Mike Tyson.

Doom and gloom might be a bit much. Remember the WC? The ABs got beat by England and their fans were all "no plan B" "useless leadership".

When you're bent over someone's lap with a horse dildo jammed up your arse it's hard to focus on an effective plan B. Some days you're the arse. Some days you're the dildo. That's how sports is.
I have to say, I think that's a risible comparison. Scotland did solidly to put us away, but they were not a dominant force that stopped us from turning up. They were good enough to take advantage of our sh*tness; they were not the reason for our sh*tness.

Puja
Backist Monk
User avatar
Mellsblue
Posts: 14580
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am

Re: Ratings?

Post by Mellsblue »

Buggaluggs wrote: When you're bent over someone's lap with a horse dildo jammed up your arse it's hard to focus on an effective plan B. Some days you're the arse. Some days you're the dildo. That's how sports is.
Close the board. We won’t beat this. Top class analysis and top class comedy.
User avatar
Mr Mwenda
Posts: 2471
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 7:42 am

Re: Ratings?

Post by Mr Mwenda »

Puja wrote:
Buggaluggs wrote:Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face. - Mike Tyson.

Doom and gloom might be a bit much. Remember the WC? The ABs got beat by England and their fans were all "no plan B" "useless leadership".

When you're bent over someone's lap with a horse dildo jammed up your arse it's hard to focus on an effective plan B. Some days you're the arse. Some days you're the dildo. That's how sports is.
I have to say, I think that's a risible comparison. Scotland did solidly to put us away, but they were not a dominant force that stopped us from turning up. They were good enough to take advantage of our sh*tness; they were not the reason for our sh*tness.

Puja
Definitely a dildo day but that 5-10 minute spell where England got 6 points with seeming little effort I felt gave the lay to the overall quality of the match.
Post Reply