Team for Italy

[stepsider]

I blame the coach

[Banquo]

All those dinky kicks behind the defence when knocking hard on the tryline looks like an amateur rugby league team from the 1980s going robotically through the motions on the 5th tackle. Makes you wonder if Farrell is actually coaching the backline attack. To add weight to the amateur league side hypothesis, when all else fails, the chippy prick usually gets in a Fite. It is the most perplexingly unsophisticated pivot strategy in ze whole vorld.

It's a dull but low risk strategy. You either score, get a lineout from a hurried clearance or get it kicked to you from the goal line. If you lose shape, grubber and reset.

It’s an utter waste of good ball, cost us the game v Scotland. It will cost us against better sides if we keep on doing it.

[Spiffy]

I blame the coach

Of course.
Any coach who can't see the limitations of Farrell, at either 10 or 12, and the constraints that puts on the team, cannot, by definition, be a good one and is rugby blind, with his head firmly lodged up his bum.
Then add to that the imposed game plan of kicking away good possession, plus the refusal to substitute the incompetent .......
Borthwick out !

[FKAS]

All those dinky kicks behind the defence when knocking hard on the tryline looks like an amateur rugby league team from the 1980s going robotically through the motions on the 5th tackle. Makes you wonder if Farrell is actually coaching the backline attack. To add weight to the amateur league side hypothesis, when all else fails, the chippy prick usually gets in a Fite. It is the most perplexingly unsophisticated pivot strategy in ze whole vorld.

It's a dull but low risk strategy. You either score, get a lineout from a hurried clearance or get it kicked to you from the goal line. If you lose shape, grubber and reset.

It’s an utter waste of good ball, cost us the game v Scotland. It will cost us against better sides if we keep on doing it.

Well it's not. If you lose your shape in attack and rather than risk recycling the ball under pressure you grubber through whilst you still have momentum. Best case scenario you score. Worst case scenario the opposition kick to touch and we have a lineout or the opposition dot the ball down and kick from the goal line.

Grubbers in the opposition 22 didn't cost us the game Vs Scotland. Poor defensive reads cost us the game Vs Scotland.

[FKAS]

How much risk does keeping the ball in hand when presented with an extra man overlap 10 meters from the line when running at full Forrest Gump entail?

Maybe dull and low reward is a better description of the strategy.

Yep. You’d hope converting a four on three would be low enough risk for international players…

When used right it's a dull but low risk strategy. When your playmakers can't spot space or choose to kick it into a wall of defenders it obviously doesn't work.

[Mellsblue]

How much risk does keeping the ball in hand when presented with an extra man overlap 10 meters from the line when running at full Forrest Gump entail?

Maybe dull and low reward is a better description of the strategy.

Yep. You’d hope converting a four on three would be low enough risk for international players…

When used right it's a dull but low risk strategy. When your playmakers can't spot space or choose to kick it into a wall of defenders it obviously doesn't work.

If you think kicking is better than converting a 4 on 3 then I don’t know what to say but I’m glad you recognise Farrell struggles to spot space (in the defensive line).

[Oakboy]

Yep. You’d hope converting a four on three would be low enough risk for international players…

When used right it's a dull but low risk strategy. When your playmakers can't spot space or choose to kick it into a wall of defenders it obviously doesn't work.

If you think kicking is better than converting a 4 on 3 then I don’t know what to say but I’m glad you recognise Farrell struggles to spot space (in the defensive line).

Just thinking about Farrell's close-to-the line grubbers, why does he never think of just going for it himself? He has all sorts of faults of course but he is big enough and quick enough to at least have a go once in a while. I cannot think of another current international FH who refuses to consider the occasional run.

We are told how good his rugby brain is!!!!!! So, is he so wedded to pre-match planning that he plays with a closed mind totally?

The opposition are gifted the easy defensive option of ruling out one dimension.

[Cameo]

It's a dull but low risk strategy. You either score, get a lineout from a hurried clearance or get it kicked to you from the goal line. If you lose shape, grubber and reset.

It’s an utter waste of good ball, cost us the game v Scotland. It will cost us against better sides if we keep on doing it.

Well it's not. If you lose your shape in attack and rather than risk recycling the ball under pressure you grubber through whilst you still have momentum. Best case scenario you score. Worst case scenario the opposition kick to touch and we have a lineout or the opposition dot the ball down and kick from the goal line.

Grubbers in the opposition 22 didn't cost us the game Vs Scotland. Poor defensive reads cost us the game Vs Scotland.

Do you not think it takes the pressure of the defence though? Scotland had very little possession or territory, but it didn't feel like their defence was being stretched near breaking point (I know, I know, England got three tries). The chips felt like real let offs which gave Scotland time to reset and have a breather. Goal line drop outs aren't a bad clearance opportunity either.

[Banquo]

It's a dull but low risk strategy. You either score, get a lineout from a hurried clearance or get it kicked to you from the goal line. If you lose shape, grubber and reset.

It’s an utter waste of good ball, cost us the game v Scotland. It will cost us against better sides if we keep on doing it.

Well it's not. If you lose your shape in attack and rather than risk recycling the ball under pressure you grubber through whilst you still have momentum. Best case scenario you score. Worst case scenario the opposition kick to touch and we have a lineout or the opposition dot the ball down and kick from the goal line.

Grubbers in the opposition 22 didn't cost us the game Vs Scotland. Poor defensive reads cost us the game Vs Scotland.

Its an utter waste of good ball and it cost us the game v Scotland

I understand its theoretically 'low risk' except you are likely giving the ball away, even if executed well (and we haven't done that and haven't scored either). I understand it gives you possibly a territorial pressure. But kicking the ball away almost dogmatically 'cos that's the plan' when you have overlaps (at least 3 times yesterday) and not done that well is just chucking opportunity away; international rugby is about taking try scoring chances when they are there- as well as territorial pressure. Against Scotland, we had huge amounts of territory and a lot of possession, yet we failed to turn the territorial dominence into win....we were 20-12 up, despite having kicked away a lot of possession and 2 poor defensive reads, yet did not capitalise on that position, because we used our own ball poorly giving Scotland a chance. You can have reset plays- that's what good confident teams do; regain your shape, and pull out a move to speed up the ball, its really not that challenging an idea.

Its a useful tactic if used sparingly and well, but the default option? No.

[Banquo]

It’s an utter waste of good ball, cost us the game v Scotland. It will cost us against better sides if we keep on doing it.

Well it's not. If you lose your shape in attack and rather than risk recycling the ball under pressure you grubber through whilst you still have momentum. Best case scenario you score. Worst case scenario the opposition kick to touch and we have a lineout or the opposition dot the ball down and kick from the goal line.

Grubbers in the opposition 22 didn't cost us the game Vs Scotland. Poor defensive reads cost us the game Vs Scotland.

Do you not think it takes the pressure of the defence though? Scotland had very little possession or territory, but it didn't feel like their defence was being stretched near breaking point (I know, I know, England got three tries). The chips felt like real let offs which gave Scotland time to reset and have a breather. Goal line drop outs aren't a bad clearance opportunity either.

well exactly, and tbh the majority of these chips or grubbers weren't even forcing that v Scotland- there were a couple of marks iirc from little chips in the air, a couple of iffy clearances.....but mostly just meh. As you said, we didn't really try and stress your defence before resorting to the boot.

[Banquo]

Just heard Lawes interviewed on the radio, and he says he'll be available for the Wales game. Speaking of which, Biggar was on just before him- what a great bloke he came across as- bright and very articulate, coaching beckons I reckon....and a massive contrast to his on field persona; Saints fans loved him for the way he interacts with fans and kids especially.

[Puja]

Just heard Lawes interviewed on the radio, and he says he'll be available for the Wales game. Speaking of which, Biggar was on just before him- what a great bloke he came across- bright and very articulate, coaching beckons I reckon....and a massibe contrast to his on field persona; Saints fans loved him for the way he interacts with fans and kids especially.

What do you do with him though? Surely you can't start him ahead of either Ludlam or Chessum, who've both been excellent. I wouldn't be averse to him playing 6, with Dombrandt dropping out and Ludlam moving to 8, nor of him taking Isiekwe's spot on the bench.

Puja

[Banquo]

Just heard Lawes interviewed on the radio, and he says he'll be available for the Wales game. Speaking of which, Biggar was on just before him- what a great bloke he came across- bright and very articulate, coaching beckons I reckon....and a massibe contrast to his on field persona; Saints fans loved him for the way he interacts with fans and kids especially.

What do you do with him though? Surely you can't start him ahead of either Ludlam or Chessum, who've both been excellent. I wouldn't be averse to him playing 6, with Dombrandt dropping out and Ludlam moving to 8, nor of him taking Isiekwe's spot on the bench.

Puja

Isiekwe's bench spot only. I actually think he needs to get some games in- hardly played all season.

[Mr Mwenda]

I feel that Lawrence is being a bit overly lauded, he blotted his copy book with a few errors, scratching out jvp's try and then fumbling after a break. Definitely worth persisting with but I remain unconvinced that the 12 problems are over.

Give the lad a chance. It's his first international for some time, and after all, he was playing outside Faz.

Absolutely. As I said, I think he should be continued with. I just think we England fans are so keen to have the 12 issue sorted we see what we want. I am really interested in what puja's trawl reveals about Lawrence's play.

[Oakboy]

I feel that Lawrence is being a bit overly lauded, he blotted his copy book with a few errors, scratching out jvp's try and then fumbling after a break. Definitely worth persisting with but I remain unconvinced that the 12 problems are over.

Give the lad a chance. It's his first international for some time, and after all, he was playing outside Faz.

Absolutely. As I said, I think he should be continued with. I just think we England fans are so keen to have the 12 issue sorted we see what we want. I am really interested in what puja's trawl reveals about Lawrence's play.

It will also be interesting to see what SB does when Kelly is fit!

[FKAS]

Give the lad a chance. It's his first international for some time, and after all, he was playing outside Faz.

Absolutely. As I said, I think he should be continued with. I just think we England fans are so keen to have the 12 issue sorted we see what we want. I am really interested in what puja's trawl reveals about Lawrence's play.

It will also be interesting to see what SB does when Kelly is fit!

Rumoured to be out for 10 weeks. Borthwick has until the summer to think up a plan by the sounds of it.

[FKAS]

Well it's not. If you lose your shape in attack and rather than risk recycling the ball under pressure you grubber through whilst you still have momentum. Best case scenario you score. Worst case scenario the opposition kick to touch and we have a lineout or the opposition dot the ball down and kick from the goal line.

Grubbers in the opposition 22 didn't cost us the game Vs Scotland. Poor defensive reads cost us the game Vs Scotland.

Do you not think it takes the pressure of the defence though? Scotland had very little possession or territory, but it didn't feel like their defence was being stretched near breaking point (I know, I know, England got three tries). The chips felt like real let offs which gave Scotland time to reset and have a breather. Goal line drop outs aren't a bad clearance opportunity either.

well exactly, and tbh the majority of these chips or grubbers weren't even forcing that v Scotland- there were a couple of marks iirc from little chips in the air, a couple of iffy clearances.....but mostly just meh. As you said, we didn't really try and stress your defence before resorting to the boot.

The chips were a Scotland tactic, we wanted them to kick back to us. It worked to a degree though it was dull and I'd agree we didn't use the backs particularly well there.

Vs Italy we changed the tactics to roll the ball on the floor and get it in behind them. Again I'm not really a fan of it but I can see why we did it and a lack of confidence in our new systems caused us to over use it. We regularly got the ball back and the lineouts we got from Italian clearances benefitted us because we were generally dominant on our own ball.

I'm hoping we'll retain it as an emergency option going forward as we'll have enough confidence in our attack to play more phases. I'd certainly agree that kicking to Ireland in that fashion won't result in us getting the ball back.

[Banquo]

I feel that Lawrence is being a bit overly lauded, he blotted his copy book with a few errors, scratching out jvp's try and then fumbling after a break. Definitely worth persisting with but I remain unconvinced that the 12 problems are over.

Give the lad a chance. It's his first international for some time, and after all, he was playing outside Faz.

Absolutely. As I said, I think he should be continued with. I just think we England fans are so keen to have the 12 issue sorted we see what we want. I am really interested in what puja's trawl reveals about Lawrence's play.

Did his carrying job very well (great break, decent pick up pace, shame about the flailing fumble), nice (if slightly illegal jackal) and made most of his tackles- but the midfield defence as a whole was horrid again, as was our wide defence. Couple of glaring errors- wtf was his KADAB about- but I thought given he has hardly played at 12, it was fine. And as Manu was used similarly, it doesn't half simplify attacking launching a biggish fella over the tackle line; much easier for forwards to support and get around the corner with a target in front of them. As as above, you do it once, and the defence becomes a bit more cautious about wider defence.

[Banquo]

Do you not think it takes the pressure of the defence though? Scotland had very little possession or territory, but it didn't feel like their defence was being stretched near breaking point (I know, I know, England got three tries). The chips felt like real let offs which gave Scotland time to reset and have a breather. Goal line drop outs aren't a bad clearance opportunity either.

well exactly, and tbh the majority of these chips or grubbers weren't even forcing that v Scotland- there were a couple of marks iirc from little chips in the air, a couple of iffy clearances.....but mostly just meh. As you said, we didn't really try and stress your defence before resorting to the boot.

The chips were a Scotland tactic, we wanted them to kick back to us. It worked to a degree though it was dull and I'd agree we didn't use the backs particularly well there.

Vs Italy we changed the tactics to roll the ball on the floor and get it in behind them. Again I'm not really a fan of it but I can see why we did it and a lack of confidence in our new systems caused us to over use it. We regularly got the ball back and the lineouts we got from Italian clearances benefitted us because we were generally dominant on our own ball.

I'm hoping we'll retain it as an emergency option going forward as we'll have enough confidence in our attack to play more phases. I'd certainly agree that kicking to Ireland in that fashion won't result in us getting the ball back.

We mixed up chips and grubbers against both tbh, prob more grubbers v Italy tho. I can see why they were doing it, but its misguided (particularly having it as the default position in attack when you won't use it against better sides) and cost us big V Scotland- sure, we kept territory, but then failed to use it and just kicked again- our conversion rate in their 22 was appalling. Against Italy if anything it was worse decision making, because the system had generated authentic overlaps but the premeditation meant they were wasted. Quantity and execution in both games were horrible to see.

I'm glad you agree we need to dump it as a 'habit' and use sparingly as said above.

[twitchy]

[Banquo]

Yep defence remains a big concern.

[Banquo]

Twitter reply concludes that Ford should come in at 10, with Faz going back to 12. Ye gods.

[Danno]

Depaywalled:

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fw ... g-flaws%2F

[p/d]

Twitter reply concludes that Ford should come in at 10, with Faz going back to 12. Ye gods.

twits.

[Which Tyler]

Twitter reply concludes that Ford should come in at 10, with Faz going back to 12. Ye gods.

50% is the pass mark, yeah?