Australia vs England - First Test

[Mellsblue]

Well it kind of means out of the top tier nations they’re up there.

Which is different to being world class.

Yeah cause a lion starter is rarely considered world class!

Fuck me. We’ve got backrow depth but no world class players? Well that depth is a bit shit then and hardly worth calling as depth eh!

Depth has nothing to do with how good your best player is. Anyway, round in circles we go. I’ll leave it here.

[Mellsblue]

Which is different to being world class.

Yeah cause a lion starter is rarely considered world class!

Fuck me. We’ve got backrow depth but no world class players? Well that depth is a bit shit then and hardly worth calling as depth eh!

Lawes is a Lions test starter but you’ve said yourself he isn’t world class. Daly started at 13, does that make a world class OC? Is Ali Price world class? How about Sutherland? I could name some more.
Depth has nothing to do with how good your best player is. Anyway, round in circles we go. I’ll leave it here.

[Epaminondas Pules]

So what actual depth do we have then? Curry apparently isn’t world class, neither is Lawes, Billy was once and then a solid player in Underhill and a bunch of players who are unproven. Wow what depth! We have lots of players. Excellent. And?

[Epaminondas Pules]

I’ll leave it here and then comment again

[Banquo]

Just watched it. Pretty dire. SCW is saying the issue is lack of pace. Thoughts?

Lack of discipline and inability to clear the rucks would be bigger issues personally.

Sir Clive was a fantastic coach, 20 years ago...

He is right that we had a lack of pace in the backline. You are right that our discipline was poor and that we stopped (or couldn't) putting bodies into the rucks after half time (cough Curry off), we had excellent ruck speed first half.

To the argument above, we do have a lot of decent players esp back row; but we have very few standouts in world rugby terms. More importantly for me, is that we don't have enough/any players who make momentum changing interventions....we crumble under pressure, and tend to lack resilience/resolve/intelligence, take your pick.

[Oakboy]

We've had 'definition of world class' debates countless times in the past. If there are 8 or more top quality rugby-playing countries it seems reasonable to suggest that 'world class' must include being in the top four in a player's position. That is the situation at any given time even if one era has better players than another. There could be more 'world class' players in a position at any given time but, arguably, not less.

Runs for cover . . .

[Oakboy]

Just watched it. Pretty dire. SCW is saying the issue is lack of pace. Thoughts?

Lack of discipline and inability to clear the rucks would be bigger issues personally.

Sir Clive was a fantastic coach, 20 years ago...

He is right that we had a lack of pace in the backline. You are right that our discipline was poor and that we stopped (or couldn't) putting bodies into the rucks after half time (cough Curry off), we had excellent ruck speed first half.

To the argument above, we do have a lot of decent players esp back row; but we have very few standouts in world rugby terms. More importantly for me, is that we don't have enough/any players who make momentum changing interventions....we crumble under pressure, and tend to lack resilience/resolve/intelligence, take your pick.

Banquo, thinking about the old adage that forwards win games and backs determine by how much (or words to that effect) . . .

Did we get enough decent ball yesterday to win the match? If so, how did we manage to lose it?

You said before the match that player performances improve when Jones has them in camp for a period. Are you still confident about that?

I'm wondering how long a losing streak can last before the players, as a group, lose faith in the management. We must be close to that, I'd suggest. When the likes of Gatland says there is no discernible plan for the future, surely there are all sorts of doubts?

[Banquo]

We've had 'definition of world class' debates countless times in the past. If there are 8 or more top quality rugby-playing countries it seems reasonable to suggest that 'world class' must include being in the top four in a player's position. That is the situation at any given time even if one era has better players than another. There could be more 'world class' players in a position at any given time but, arguably, not less.

Runs for cover . . .

Yeah I wasn't going down that route. But we do have a bit of a habit of overestimating our own player quality.

[Epaminondas Pules]

Lack of discipline and inability to clear the rucks would be bigger issues personally.

Sir Clive was a fantastic coach, 20 years ago...

He is right that we had a lack of pace in the backline. You are right that our discipline was poor and that we stopped (or couldn't) putting bodies into the rucks after half time (cough Curry off), we had excellent ruck speed first half.

To the argument above, we do have a lot of decent players esp back row; but we have very few standouts in world rugby terms. More importantly for me, is that we don't have enough/any players who make momentum changing interventions....we crumble under pressure, and tend to lack resilience/resolve/intelligence, take your pick.

Banquo, thinking about the old adage that forwards win games and backs determine by how much (or words to that effect) . . .

Did we get enough decent ball yesterday to win the match? If so, how did we manage to lose it?

You said before the match that player performances improve when Jones has them in camp for a period. Are you still confident about that?

I'm wondering how long a losing streak can last before the players, as a group, lose faith in the management. We must be close to that, I'd suggest. When the likes of Gatland says there is no discernible plan for the future, surely there are all sorts of doubts?

I think we had plenty of ball and decent ruck speed too in the first half, certainly early on, and some in the second, but we didn’t make the most of it and fell away badly. We moved the ball pretty well early on but Australia started reading our plays as they pretty templated.

To be fair Aus ramped up their efforts and we dropped off. Credit to them, but we need a look at ourselves over that as it was a bad drop and we ceded momentum entirely. We couldn’t disrupt their flow really.

Concerning that we didn’t do much with very good possession and ruck speed, which kept them well and truly in the game.

And age old concerns about stupidity in decision making and conceded needless penalties.

Can’t really change much in terms of personnel. Could add more speed to the back three. Change a flanker maybe. There’s not much in the squad that looks like a real team changer. Time in camp is our main hope for change.

[Epaminondas Pules]

We've had 'definition of world class' debates countless times in the past. If there are 8 or more top quality rugby-playing countries it seems reasonable to suggest that 'world class' must include being in the top four in a player's position. That is the situation at any given time even if one era has better players than another. There could be more 'world class' players in a position at any given time but, arguably, not less.

Runs for cover . . .

Yeah I wasn't going down that route. But we do have a bit of a habit of overestimating our own player quality.

He’s not the messiah he’s a solid international

[Banquo]

We've had 'definition of world class' debates countless times in the past. If there are 8 or more top quality rugby-playing countries it seems reasonable to suggest that 'world class' must include being in the top four in a player's position. That is the situation at any given time even if one era has better players than another. There could be more 'world class' players in a position at any given time but, arguably, not less.

Runs for cover . . .

Yeah I wasn't going down that route. But we do have a bit of a habit of overestimating our own player quality.

He’s not the messiah he’s a solid international

ish

[Banquo]

Lack of discipline and inability to clear the rucks would be bigger issues personally.

Sir Clive was a fantastic coach, 20 years ago...

He is right that we had a lack of pace in the backline. You are right that our discipline was poor and that we stopped (or couldn't) putting bodies into the rucks after half time (cough Curry off), we had excellent ruck speed first half.

To the argument above, we do have a lot of decent players esp back row; but we have very few standouts in world rugby terms. More importantly for me, is that we don't have enough/any players who make momentum changing interventions....we crumble under pressure, and tend to lack resilience/resolve/intelligence, take your pick.

Banquo, thinking about the old adage that forwards win games and backs determine by how much (or words to that effect) . . .

Did we get enough decent ball yesterday to win the match? If so, how did we manage to lose it?

You said before the match that player performances improve when Jones has them in camp for a period. Are you still confident about that?

I'm wondering how long a losing streak can last before the players, as a group, lose faith in the management. We must be close to that, I'd suggest. When the likes of Gatland says there is no discernible plan for the future, surely there are all sorts of doubts?

Pack went very well in loose play for 25 minutes, better than for a while- the composition and style was right/better, carrying way better and reflecting some work together; problem is they probably only train for about 20 odd mins at that intensity and maybe that showed; more time in camp should see that improve, IF that's the issue; we stopped doing what was good at the breakdown after Curry went off-- coincidence or causation?. We had enough ball to make a bigger lead- the AB's for example may have stuck two or three tries on in that period. The backs looked quite pretty and cohesive on the back of that, but there was no cutting edge really, and the tasking out wide broke down- but it was a newish system with a new back three (and one comprising three runners (though Nowell made one lovely pass)) and needs time to make a relatively sophisticated attacking mode gel--- I don't think its a great system idea, but it could play to what we have....BUT it needs good,accurate, fast hands and great decision making, as the execution has to be much closer to the tackle line to work.

I'm confident the pack can improve their set piece- iffy yesterday- and get better decision making at the breakdown- yesterday's pack should be good enough there, and carrying can improve too. I have less confidence over the backline improving, because there is a lot to do and personnel limitation.

No idea how we stop the intensity drop off, poor decision making and discipline. There is a real lack of (rugby) intelligence imo.

and...Australia really aren't all that, esp having lost 3 players early doors and then one sent off. From the 60th minute to the 77th we were so poor in every aspect of the game.

[Scrumhead]

Yep. I’d say their win was as much to do with our alarming drop off as it was with them doing anything particularly good.

Despite the obvious negatives, there were some positive signs.

I firmly believe we can win he second test and then it’s game on.

If we don’t respond and lose again, I really don’t know where we can go from there?

[Banquo]

Yep. I’d say their win was as much to do with our alarming drop off as it was with them doing anything particularly good.

Despite the obvious negatives, there were some positive signs.

I firmly believe we can win he second test and then it’s game on.

If we don’t respond and lose again, I really don’t know where we can go from there?

Indeed- there is consensus that he's picking the right players from a squad pov- though not always in the right order, and I disagree in the backs but..

The biggest issues are the same as ever- intensity drop off at key moments, poor discipline at key moments, poor decision making at key moments/under pressure, and a lack of star quality esp in the backs. IMO we have problems with (rugby) intelligence, and that's pretty hard to fix tbh. If I was Eddie I'd be pretty frustrated, yet accountable.

Can definitely build on the first 20 mins, and be much more direct from quick ball; haven't worked out how yet...maybe repeat the Curry play over and over , IMO - and I know its against the tide- having two distributors is pretty but confusing and ineffective with the personnel we have.....so at least task the back three differently and look to change them, or stick a runner at 12.

[fivepointer]

Yep. I’d say their win was as much to do with our alarming drop off as it was with them doing anything particularly good.

Despite the obvious negatives, there were some positive signs.

I firmly believe we can win he second test and then it’s game on.

If we don’t respond and lose again, I really don’t know where we can go from there?

Indeed- there is consensus that he's picking the right players from a squad pov- though not always in the right order, and I disagree in the backs but..

The biggest issues are the same as ever- intensity drop off at key moments, poor discipline at key moments, poor decision making at key moments/under pressure, and a lack of star quality esp in the backs. IMO we have problems with (rugby) intelligence, and that's pretty hard to fix tbh. If I was Eddie I'd be pretty frustrated, yet accountable.

Can definitely build on the first 20 mins, and be much more direct from quick ball; haven't worked out how yet...maybe repeat the Curry play over and over

Isnt that down to leadership, though? Would a really smart captain not be able to identify key moments and ensure those around him understand them? What is Farrell there to do if not do exactly these kind of things? Why was Care brought back if not to supply some nous at important times in a game?

[Oakboy]

Is Care, at 35, going to start all three tests? Might JVP/ Farrell/Dingwall be an option for the 2nd match? Maybe Randall and Smith on the bench?

That leaves Care as an option for the decider if things go well.

[Banquo]

Yep. I’d say their win was as much to do with our alarming drop off as it was with them doing anything particularly good.

Despite the obvious negatives, there were some positive signs.

I firmly believe we can win he second test and then it’s game on.

If we don’t respond and lose again, I really don’t know where we can go from there?

Indeed- there is consensus that he's picking the right players from a squad pov- though not always in the right order, and I disagree in the backs but..

The biggest issues are the same as ever- intensity drop off at key moments, poor discipline at key moments, poor decision making at key moments/under pressure, and a lack of star quality esp in the backs. IMO we have problems with (rugby) intelligence, and that's pretty hard to fix tbh. If I was Eddie I'd be pretty frustrated, yet accountable.

Can definitely build on the first 20 mins, and be much more direct from quick ball; haven't worked out how yet...maybe repeat the Curry play over and over

Isnt that down to leadership, though? Would a really smart captain not be able to identify key moments and ensure those around him understand them? What is Farrell there to do if not do exactly these kind of things? Why was Care brought back if not to supply some nous at important times in a game?

Well Farrell wasn't the captain, but yes it absolutely is on field leadership (think I said that before but maybe not, its such a recurring theme) but its not captaincy per se, but having the key (experienced) players making the right decisions in their units and leading by example. Yes the skipper can exhort in the huddle, but if there aren't enough smart players, you are screwed at this level. And that's where we are.

[Scrumhead]

Lawes was skipper yesterday so if we’re saying it’s the captain’s responsibility to ‘identify key moments and ensure those around him understand them’, Farrell isn’t directly to blame.

Realistically, Care was brought back simply because the alternatives were Randall (who probably played himself out of the side vs. The Barbarians) or Mitchell (1 or 2 caps) and JvP (0 caps).

I absolutely agree on the rugby intelligence. It’s almost like there’s no point in trying anything clever because we have too few players with the smarts to execute it. Dumb penalties are just infuriating - some are so obvious that you can see them coming a mile off. Depressing that it’s still a theme.

[Scrumhead]

Is Care, at 35, going to start all three tests? Might JVP/ Farrell/Dingwall be an option for the 2nd match? Maybe Randall and Smith on the bench?

That leaves Care as an option for the decider if things go well.

I just don’t get what throwing the baby out with the bath water achieves?

What is the point of having Care there if he’s not going to start? Even more so if you’re suggesting JvP with his 2mins of test rugby and handful of Premiership starts is the man we should be replacing him with.

Smith and Farrell need time to gel. Canning it after one sub par performance makes no sense to me.

Let’s say we were to go with your suggestion … what happens if that doesn’t work straight away? Do we change again or give it time to work? Honestly, 1 game is not enough time to judge a playmaking combination IMO.

[Mellsblue]

I absolutely agree on the rugby intelligence. It’s almost like there’s no point in trying anything clever because we have too few players with the smarts to execute it. Dumb penalties are just infuriating - some are so obvious that you can see them coming a mile off. Depressing that it’s still a theme.

Yep.

[p/d]

God it is depressing that we have resigned ourselves to seeing if The Smith/Farrell combo will gel.

[32nd Man]

Just watched it. Pretty dire. SCW is saying the issue is lack of pace. Thoughts?

Not sure if he's saying pace across the whole team, or players with top end speed.

Certainky with yesterday's team and game plan, as soon as big Joe took the ball up the middle Australia knew they could narrow the defence and push up as there was no one else really able to threaten them outside.

[Banquo]

God it is depressing that we have resigned ourselves to seeing if The Smith/Farrell combo will gel.

not what i want but will be persevered with

[Banquo]

Just watched it. Pretty dire. SCW is saying the issue is lack of pace. Thoughts?

Not sure if he's saying pace across the whole team, or players with top end speed.

Certainky with yesterday's team and game plan, as soon as big Joe took the ball up the middle Australia knew they could narrow the defence and push up as there was no one else really able to threaten them outside.

backline pace is lacking for me, and the pack has nothing special either.

so we are stupid and slow to cut to the chase

[Timbo]

I don’t believe this squad of players are inherently stupid. I do think there’s a lack of tactical clarity and belief in the game plan that is resulting in mediocre decision making. I’ve always rated Jones but I am starting to get the feeling that he’s lost his way with this group. We are so conservative and risk averse on the pitch, but all the messaging that comes out is about how positive they want to be- there’s obviously a disconnect somewhere. Watching Quins turn things around last season and the England test (and previously odi) team turn things around so quickly speaks to the benefit of giving players clarity and a philosophy that everyone can buy into. I’m not seeing that in this England team at the moment.