England vs Argentina

[Banquo]

Eddie will make few changes as he rarely does after a loss. I think the only time he's made radical changes after any sort of game was that one against Japan. Now it will be the 'we need a chance to bounce back, not the time to bring in inexperience' excuse.

Thing is, we have to start asking legitimate questions. Who is going to play 12 if either Farrell or Smith get injured? Seriously, who? He can't be relying on Manu.

On this note, Eddie has selected 194 players for training squads. 76 have been given debuts, 83 have been discarded entirely. 147 have won less than 10 caps, 47 have won more than 10.

Maybe he just doesn't rate English players, which is fine. But how does that square with what is served up in the Premiership and the quality English players consistently deliver there?

Prem standard is way lower?

[Mellsblue]

Those England players got 25k a man for that. Embarrassing.

I don’t blame the players*…

*other than Farrell obvs

oh I do-a lot of brain dead play sans ball. But poorly selected and prepared- black marks all round.

Youngs has to go, and Smith doesnt seem at all comfy.

I was wrong and you were both right. Apols.

[Banquo]

I don’t blame the players*…

*other than Farrell obvs

oh I do-a lot of brain dead play sans ball. But poorly selected and prepared- black marks all round.

Youngs has to go, and Smith doesnt seem at all comfy.

I was wrong and you were both right. Apols.

its not either/or, its both....tho one influences the other.

[Puja]

I don’t blame the players*…

*other than Farrell obvs

oh I do-a lot of brain dead play sans ball. But poorly selected and prepared- black marks all round.

Youngs has to go, and Smith doesnt seem at all comfy.

I was wrong and you were both right. Apols.

Anyone else feel like that's Clive starting to position himself as the man to come in to rescue England if Eddie goes?

Puja

[Stom]

Eddie will make few changes as he rarely does after a loss. I think the only time he's made radical changes after any sort of game was that one against Japan. Now it will be the 'we need a chance to bounce back, not the time to bring in inexperience' excuse.

Thing is, we have to start asking legitimate questions. Who is going to play 12 if either Farrell or Smith get injured? Seriously, who? He can't be relying on Manu.

On this note, Eddie has selected 194 players for training squads. 76 have been given debuts, 83 have been discarded entirely. 147 have won less than 10 caps, 47 have won more than 10.

Maybe he just doesn't rate English players, which is fine. But how does that square with what is served up in the Premiership and the quality English players consistently deliver there?

Defence is quite often close to optional in some of the domestic games.

Have you seen the standard of defending in Super Rugby? Yet they can produce test teams who aren't just coherent, they play good rugby - at times.

No, the standard isn't the problem. The problem is that Eddie has backed himself into a corner and is too stubborn to admit that he made a mistake, rip it all up and start again.

[Oakboy]

The problem is that Eddie has backed himself into a corner and is too stubborn to admit that he made a mistake, rip it all up and start again.

Rewind the clock to 2019 and you've nailed it!

[Danno]

oh I do-a lot of brain dead play sans ball. But poorly selected and prepared- black marks all round.

Youngs has to go, and Smith doesnt seem at all comfy.

I was wrong and you were both right. Apols.

Anyone else feel like that's Clive starting to position himself as the man to come in to rescue England if Eddie goes?

Puja

Why would you share that thought. Why.

[Banquo]

On this note, Eddie has selected 194 players for training squads. 76 have been given debuts, 83 have been discarded entirely. 147 have won less than 10 caps, 47 have won more than 10.

Maybe he just doesn't rate English players, which is fine. But how does that square with what is served up in the Premiership and the quality English players consistently deliver there?

Defence is quite often close to optional in some of the domestic games.

Have you seen the standard of defending in Super Rugby? Yet they can produce test teams who aren't just coherent, they play good rugby - at times.

No, the standard isn't the problem. The problem is that Eddie has backed himself into a corner and is too stubborn to admit that he made a mistake, rip it all up and start again.

I think the standard is a bit of a problem- the intensity and pace of Super rugby is more akin to test rugby. Then again, Ireland produce very intense and competitive sides, admittedly forged more in European comp and more team combos and I think better rested.

What corner do you mean though? Rip up the selection, or play more conventionally...or?

[Stom]

Defence is quite often close to optional in some of the domestic games.

Have you seen the standard of defending in Super Rugby? Yet they can produce test teams who aren't just coherent, they play good rugby - at times.

No, the standard isn't the problem. The problem is that Eddie has backed himself into a corner and is too stubborn to admit that he made a mistake, rip it all up and start again.

I think the standard is a bit of a problem- the intensity and pace of Super rugby is more akin to test rugby. Then again, Ireland produce very intense and competitive sides, admittedly forged more in European comp and more team combos and I think better rested.

What corner do you mean though? Rip up the selection, or play more conventionally...or?

That we can’t play rugby and that we need to play a slow, forwards dominated style that’s kind of South Africa lite. It works for them because they raise some nasty fecks. We don’t. We have Curry and Willis and Lawes… and while they’re very aggressive for English standards, they don’t come close to SA “ferocity”. So we’re always going to fall flat as we can’t keep up the intensity playing that way.

I feel we’re much better suited to playing like Ireland, basically. Structured, but the aggression is channeled into being busy, not ferocious. And we’ve got the backs to be more expansive, plus the pace in the pack if we pick the right players

[Mellsblue]

https://www.rugbyworld.com/featured/mee ... son-147586

[Banquo]

Have you seen the standard of defending in Super Rugby? Yet they can produce test teams who aren't just coherent, they play good rugby - at times.

No, the standard isn't the problem. The problem is that Eddie has backed himself into a corner and is too stubborn to admit that he made a mistake, rip it all up and start again.

I think the standard is a bit of a problem- the intensity and pace of Super rugby is more akin to test rugby. Then again, Ireland produce very intense and competitive sides, admittedly forged more in European comp and more team combos and I think better rested.

What corner do you mean though? Rip up the selection, or play more conventionally...or?

That we can’t play rugby and that we need to play a slow, forwards dominated style that’s kind of South Africa lite. It works for them because they raise some nasty fecks. We don’t. We have Curry and Willis and Lawes… and while they’re very aggressive for English standards, they don’t come close to SA “ferocity”. So we’re always going to fall flat as we can’t keep up the intensity playing that way.

I feel we’re much better suited to playing like Ireland, basically. Structured, but the aggression is channeled into being busy, not ferocious. And we’ve got the backs to be more expansive, plus the pace in the pack if we pick the right players

Whilst I agree that playing like SA lite isn't great and isn't necessarily suited to the players we have- we really don't have the brutality- I'm not convinced we have the backs to play especially expansively (though dumping faz and starting JVP would help), and more critically our decision making up front would be very tested; we tend to panic and do daft things when the plan doesn't work (we really do have a lack of smarts up front). I'd agree Ireland are a good template- they absorb pressure well, make good decisions at the breakdown and execute well with the ball. I agree that Eddie mindset seems very fixed and he needs to flex to a different philosophy and stick there- he is constantly trying out new stuff, albeit quite conservatively....and perhaps he experiments too much. In fairness, the pack were doing a lot of offloads and hitting some quite decent lines at the weekend, but it was in no way joined up with what the backs were up to.

[Timbo]

Can’t work out why Nowell made no attempt to chase back for Argentinas intercept try.

[Banquo]

Can’t work out why Nowell made no attempt to chase back for Argentinas intercept try.

Can't work out why he gets picked tbh. Well I can, but there are better options.

[16th man]

Can’t work out why Nowell made no attempt to chase back for Argentinas intercept try.

Knew he wasn't going to catch up, so was saving his energy?

[Timbo]

Can’t work out why Nowell made no attempt to chase back for Argentinas intercept try.

Can't work out why he gets picked tbh. Well I can, but there are better options.

Be that is it may, not a good look to see captain and vice captain throw their arms in the air and appeal to the ref while the youngest bloke in the team makes a 60 metre sprint in an effort to stop the try.

[Banquo]

Can’t work out why Nowell made no attempt to chase back for Argentinas intercept try.

Can't work out why he gets picked tbh. Well I can, but there are better options.

Be that is it may, not a good look to see captain and vice captain throw their arms in the air and appeal to the ref while the youngest bloke in the team makes a 60 metre sprint in an effort to stop the try.

Totally agree, Faz was particularly egregious but Nowell equally dim. Its a bit indicative of the mindset possibly.

Very frustrating watch esp when you then look at the stats, and how dominent we were in theory land.