Australia vs England - First Test

[Banquo]

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.

It was a mild joke with a hint of truth- more about rugby smarts as above. And not sure I am with you on tactical clarity, more that under pressure and slight fatigue, discipline skills and decision making drop off alarmingly and invite the opposition on. Simplifying might help, but intensity replication might also be apart of the prep missig

[Mellsblue]

[Oakboy]

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

I just don't think they can gel. One match or ten, I doubt much will change.

Mind you, I can remember loads on here saying Daly was not an international standard FB after one match. How long did that daft idea take to get binned?

So, don't worry. There's loads of time - 14 months or so.

[Spiffy]

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

Right on both counts. Time for a dose of reality. It's difficult to talk up a fairly average team with ineffective tactics.

In addition, England lack (and do not encourage) instinctive rugby players - those who have the feel (and the skills) to do the right thing in a fraction of a second without thinking about it.

[Banquo]

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

Right on both counts. Time for a dose of reality. It's difficult to talk up a fairly average team with ineffective tactics.

In addition, England lack (and do not encourage) instinctive rugby players - those who have the feel (and the skills) to do the right thing in a fraction of a second without thinking about it.

We produce loads of instinctive talented players at age group level- just look at Arundell and Smith. But the transition to prem rugby brings certain professional realities, and to my earlier point you can get away with intensity drop off and errors etc in our prem. Not an excuse, just some reasons, and it’s been a big issue for a long time.

[Mikey Brown]

Part of me wonders if some games off the bench from Smith wouldn’t do him some good? A different perspective maybe? But I agree chopping and changing it constantly is not helping anybody.

[Raggs]

For someone who seems so sure about how Eng manage each situation between Smith and Farrell I’m surprised you’re not in the know about this.

It's not about having inside information, it's just how pull back balls like that work. The guy in the back position calls the play to himself if the wants it, the guy in front doesn't make that call. I know England are trying to vary attack but it's still the basic diamond in those situations.

I disagree. The ball player has autonomy, at least according to anyone I’ve ever spoken to and when I’ve played, plus it doesn’t accord with your previous post:
‘Farrell isn't making all the decisions though. Any time it goes out the back from Farrell to Smith, that's Smith calling it. Every time it went to Farrell could have been Smith or Farrell calling it.’

Let me try again, I'm not explaining myself well apparently.

The person with the ball makes the final decision. No argument.

However, the person with the ball doesn't make the pullback pass without that option sounding out that they're an option (which they won't do unless they believe there's something they can do with it).

If someone like Ford, Farrell or Smith, is calling for the pullback option, as the ball player I'm going to do my utmost to give it to them most the time, because unless there's something blatant in front of me, I trust them to be giving a good call.

Smith will be feeding information to Farrell all the time (and vice versa), but he only ever gets the pullback if he's called for it.

Basically.

Not every time Smith calls it, Farrell pulls back to him. However, every time Farrell pulls back to Smith, Smith has called for it.

In the first 25-30 minutes (to memory, I'm sort of expecting to do a rewatch), we were varying up the options, from the forward pod carrying, to one pullback and then another forward pod, or the double pullback etc. After that, we rarely seemed to use Farrell to give that pass to a runner, and instead kept going out the back.

I'd also quite like to see what happens if we swap Smith and Farrell. Smith would offer a greater individual threat and help hold defenders early, and Farrell would be less likely to spend time thinking about going himself and instead get it wide when he's called for the pullback from Smith. Being so far back, Smith was so far from the defensive line they just had time to drift out and shut the move down whilst Smith carried the ball a little but not committing hard enough (which is tough to do so far back anyway). Whereas I feel Farrell would just sling it wider and conserve the space/mismatch a little better (hopefully assisted further by the threat of Smith closer to the line earlier in the move).

[Mikey Brown]

Make Smith wear 12 so he can actually stand at 10, then Farrell vice versa.

[Scrumhead]

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

I just don't think they can gel. One match or ten, I doubt much will change.

Mind you, I can remember loads on here saying Daly was not an international standard FB after one match. How long did that daft idea take to get binned?

So, don't worry. There's loads of time - 14 months or so.

Why not though? In theory, they have different skill sets that could work well in tandem if given time to develop. The potential upside makes it worth persevering with, particularly with no outstanding candidates for the 12 shirt. Why change it after 2 games when there isn’t an obviously better alternative.

You never answered my question earlier … let’s humour your idea and bin Smith for the stellar talent of Dingwall or Porter. What if they don’t immediately convince? How many games do they get?? Is it only worth more than 2 if it’s your preferred lineup?

[Oakboy]

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

I just don't think they can gel. One match or ten, I doubt much will change.

Mind you, I can remember loads on here saying Daly was not an international standard FB after one match. How long did that daft idea take to get binned?

So, don't worry. There's loads of time - 14 months or so.

Why not though? In theory, they have different skill sets that could work well in tandem if given time to develop. The potential upside makes it worth persevering with, particularly with no outstanding candidates for the 12 shirt. Why change it after 2 games when there isn’t an obviously better alternative.

You never answered my question earlier … let’s humour your idea and bin Smith for the stellar talent of Dingwall or Porter. What if they don’t immediately convince? How many games do they get?? Is it only worth more than 2 if it’s your preferred lineup?

Well, I suppose it's a case of your interpretation of history. For my sins, I never liked Ford and Farrell at 10/12. IMO, it never brought out the best of either and was always, in Jones's eyes, the best he could do with Tuilagi unavailable. It has always been a case of picking one or the other FH.

Had injury not intervened I would have persevered with Smith, Slade and Marchant. Before you accuse me of only backing my preferred lineup, remember that I did not want Marchant but openly admitted that I was wrong once he had got a decent go. And, I would never have played him on the wing!!!!!

I have simply never rated Farrell at 12. His selection in that shirt has held England back for years.

I just don't think that anyone will gel with Farrell at 12 and my fear, long-term, is that Smith will be damaged by playing with him. If I was choosing from scratch, I'd pick Smith at 10 but in the light of reality with the current regime Farrell is always going to start. That means he should be at 10.

I'd try Dingwall at 12. Had I chosen the squad I would have tried Lizowski.

As for continuity, there can only be a three game stint anyway. Slade will be back for the AIs as will Tuilagi. I'd not have picked Smith/Farrell in the first place and keeping them for the next two matches is neither here nor there compared with picking another combination for the two games.

[Mikey Brown]

What’s Dingwall like at pretending he plays fly-half?

[Mellsblue]

It's not about having inside information, it's just how pull back balls like that work. The guy in the back position calls the play to himself if the wants it, the guy in front doesn't make that call. I know England are trying to vary attack but it's still the basic diamond in those situations.

I disagree. The ball player has autonomy, at least according to anyone I’ve ever spoken to and when I’ve played, plus it doesn’t accord with your previous post:
‘Farrell isn't making all the decisions though. Any time it goes out the back from Farrell to Smith, that's Smith calling it. Every time it went to Farrell could have been Smith or Farrell calling it.’

Let me try again, I'm not explaining myself well apparently.

The person with the ball makes the final decision. No argument.

However, the person with the ball doesn't make the pullback pass without that option sounding out that they're an option (which they won't do unless they believe there's something they can do with it).

If someone like Ford, Farrell or Smith, is calling for the pullback option, as the ball player I'm going to do my utmost to give it to them most the time, because unless there's something blatant in front of me, I trust them to be giving a good call.

Smith will be feeding information to Farrell all the time (and vice versa), but he only ever gets the pullback if he's called for it.

Basically.

Not every time Smith calls it, Farrell pulls back to him. However, every time Farrell pulls back to Smith, Smith has called for it.

In the first 25-30 minutes (to memory, I'm sort of expecting to do a rewatch), we were varying up the options, from the forward pod carrying, to one pullback and then another forward pod, or the double pullback etc. After that, we rarely seemed to use Farrell to give that pass to a runner, and instead kept going out the back.

I'd also quite like to see what happens if we swap Smith and Farrell. Smith would offer a greater individual threat and help hold defenders early, and Farrell would be less likely to spend time thinking about going himself and instead get it wide when he's called for the pullback from Smith. Being so far back, Smith was so far from the defensive line they just had time to drift out and shut the move down whilst Smith carried the ball a little but not committing hard enough (which is tough to do so far back anyway). Whereas I feel Farrell would just sling it wider and conserve the space/mismatch a little better (hopefully assisted further by the threat of Smith closer to the line earlier in the move).

That’s where the confusion lay because I read:
‘Any time it goes out the back from Farrell to Smith, that's Smith calling it. Every time it went to Farrell could have been Smith or Farrell calling it.’
as you saying Smith out the back is all Smith’s decision but for Farrell out the back it could’ve been either, which makes no logical sense.
Beyond that, I still believe the ball carrier/player should and does have the autonomy to make the decision beyond slavishly making the pass 9 times out of 10 when called. If nothing else it’d make the defence’s life harder than knowing the the pull back will almost certainly occur if the deeper player calls for it. I’ve also never heard, or known, a playmaker agree to be so subservient; especially a personality such as Farrell, I would’ve thought.
Agreed on having Smith lying deep wastes his biggest talent, ie exploiting and manipulating gaps on the gain line.

[Epaminondas Pules]

I’m with you Mells, though would add a fair amount is pre planned rather than called ad hoc. It’s play by numbers drilled into them.

[Scrumhead]

I just don't think they can gel. One match or ten, I doubt much will change.

Mind you, I can remember loads on here saying Daly was not an international standard FB after one match. How long did that daft idea take to get binned?

So, don't worry. There's loads of time - 14 months or so.

Why not though? In theory, they have different skill sets that could work well in tandem if given time to develop. The potential upside makes it worth persevering with, particularly with no outstanding candidates for the 12 shirt. Why change it after 2 games when there isn’t an obviously better alternative.

You never answered my question earlier … let’s humour your idea and bin Smith for the stellar talent of Dingwall or Porter. What if they don’t immediately convince? How many games do they get?? Is it only worth more than 2 if it’s your preferred lineup?

Well, I suppose it's a case of your interpretation of history. For my sins, I never liked Ford and Farrell at 10/12. IMO, it never brought out the best of either and was always, in Jones's eyes, the best he could do with Tuilagi unavailable. It has always been a case of picking one or the other FH.

Had injury not intervened I would have persevered with Smith, Slade and Marchant. Before you accuse me of only backing my preferred lineup, remember that I did not want Marchant but openly admitted that I was wrong once he had got a decent go. And, I would never have played him on the wing!!!!!

I have simply never rated Farrell at 12. His selection in that shirt has held England back for years.

I just don't think that anyone will gel with Farrell at 12 and my fear, long-term, is that Smith will be damaged by playing with him. If I was choosing from scratch, I'd pick Smith at 10 but in the light of reality with the current regime Farrell is always going to start. That means he should be at 10.

I'd try Dingwall at 12. Had I chosen the squad I would have tried Lizowski.

As for continuity, there can only be a three game stint anyway. Slade will be back for the AIs as will Tuilagi. I'd not have picked Smith/Farrell in the first place and keeping them for the next two matches is neither here nor there compared with picking another combination for the two games.

I don’t think there is any absolute certainty on any of the bolded section. If the Smith/Farrell combination starts to show promise, I think it’s more likely that Marchant would (wrongly IMO) end up as the one being left out to accommodate either Tuilagi or Slade.

In any case, what is the realistic likelihood of Tuilagi actually being available? I’d say slim at best.

I think it’s fair to say Marchant is taking his chance. He’s rarely less than good and often very good. I find it quite bizarre that he’s still widely underrated (that’s not directed at you). I would like to hope that he is taking ownership of the 13 shirt. Slade has had bigger highs but has rarely been as consistently good for England as Marchant has IMO and I don’t want him to drop straight back in to the side. Even less so if it’s alongside Smith and Farrell.

Lozowski is second choice for Saracens behind Tompkins so I don’t think he’s a realistic option.

[Mikey Brown]

I didn't see this at the time. Not particularly smart.

[Danno]

I didn't see this at the time. Not particularly smart.

That car boot sale redneck will never be smart. Somehow he's escaped a citing. I wouldn't be unhappy if that was his last cap, I don't want dirty shitbags playing for us, and that was a dirty shitbag move.

[p/d]

Should have gone for the hair pull and cited for that. Absolute arse

[Scrumhead]

I’ve seen Hill make plenty of reckless/dangerous clear outs etc. but I don’t recall ever seeing him as blatantly dirty as he was last weekend.

I don’t like seeing it at all and I absolutely don’t condone Hill’s behaviour. However, it does look like there was a plan to wind Swain up which might suggest Hill was told to do anything he could to get to him. If that’s the case, I like it even less.

I don’t know how much leniency is given when there is obvious provocation, but hopefully this is used as additional mitigation for Swain and reduces the ban a little.

[Raggs]

I’ve seen Hill make plenty of reckless/dangerous clear outs etc. but I don’t recall ever seeing him as blatantly dirty as he was last weekend.

I don’t like seeing it at all and I absolutely don’t condone Hill’s behaviour. However, it does look like there was a plan to wind Swain up which might suggest Hill was told to do anything he could to get to him. If that’s the case, I like it even less.

I don’t know how much leniency is given when there is obvious provocation, but hopefully this is used as additional mitigation for Swain and reduces the ban a little.

In my mind it's hill that loses his head first. The slap to the face was more than just winding up. The hair pull too. Swain paid the price and did react but hill had lost it already and just got lucky. I don't think that was planned.

[Mr Mwenda]

I never understood why Hill has been persevered with. English lock stocks looking bare.

What's worse, Jonny Hill pulling someone's hair or Jonny Hill's hair?

[Oakboy]

I agree with the negative comments about Hill but a little part of me finds just a smidgeon of sympathy for somebody who wanted to scrap for a result within the context of that game. I don't condone his behaviour but at least he was hating being stuffed midway through that second half when others disappeared because 14-man Australia were ruling us physically.

We've had very similar from Itoje in the past, conceding penalties wholesale but fighting his crown jewels off.

When the rest of the forwards (apart from Ludlum) let their competitiveness drop off 10% or more, Hill fought. There's some merit in his will to do so.

[p/d]

Pulling hair and slapping!!! Not sure that falls into scraping for a result.
That and Itoje screaming was jut plain embarrassing. I miss the old days and the art of skullduggery

[Mikey Brown]

I never understood why Hill has been persevered with. English lock stocks looking bare.

What's worse, Jonny Hill pulling someone's hair or Jonny Hill's hair?

I think the feeling is Hill can do the grunt work and give Itoje the set piece platform to do his thing. Itoje playing well is pretty much the most important thing for this side.

Hill seems to have improved a lot but unconvinced he can be accurate enough in what he does to not be a liability.

[fivepointer]

Didnt like the hair pull, like the push into the face even less. Very lucky not to have got a red. I understand forwards will wind each other up but on another day, with different officials, England would have been down to 14 men.
Cut it out.

[Scrumhead]

I never understood why Hill has been persevered with. English lock stocks looking bare.

Well you’ve answered your own question there. Hill and Ewels have only really been in the squad due to a lack of other options. I’d prefer Isiekwe starting, but TBH, he hasn’t really fulfilled his promise as of yet.

David Ribbans deserves to have picked up some caps, but has an unfortunate knack of getting injured right before the test windows. The likes of Harry Wells and Freddie Clarke are decent, but not any better than Hill or Ewels.

Hugh Tizard looks like an England lock in the making and I’m a bit surprised he didn’t make the tour. However, he’s still pretty raw and his lineout game needs a fair bit of work. I’m gutted he’s leaving Quins, but I’d grudgingly acknowledge that Saracens might be the better place for him to iron out those kinks. If he does, he could be a bolter for the RWC squad.