Ireland vs England - 5:30pm Saturday

[FKAS]

I didn’t see the game, just 5 minute “highlights”, but it feels like with a team that good (on paper) it can’t really be that much about selection, can it? 8 and 9 are looking particularly dull but they can’t have just become completely useless?

Strategy and confidence just seem way off. Cohesion is important, but it’s not like that many of these players are actually new to eachother. It’s hard to imagine Borthwick has spun things around so drastically from Eddie’s time that all the familiarity is gone.

We just look uninspired. It will be very impressive if Borthwick finds a way to get the players looking motivated and confident again. There seems to be so little ambition in how we play.

I can't imagine you saw England doing anything if you only saw highlights of the game - should've just been 5 minutes of Irish play, no?

My one hope/dream/clutched straw is that this is all some ploy where we're still getting beasted for fitness and that explains the lazy play, the failures of basic skills at key times, the ponderous support play. I want there to be another explanation than us just being really shit, and that we'll show up perfectly tuned for Argentina and run them off their feet.

I suspect that is not correct though.

Puja

The support play is horrendous. Particularly up front. On the rare occasions we did make a half break there was no one there for the offload or to clear the ruck quickly. That was painful.

You can see the tanker turning though with the lineout looked good, the kicking game getting us in the right areas but it's not turning nearly fast enough.

[fivepointer]

At the current rate that tanker wont be turned around till after the next WC.

I'm finding very little reason to be even mildly optimistic.

Something isnt right with this whole set up.

[p/d]

The wriggler

[Oakboy]

At the current rate that tanker wont be turned around till after the next WC.

I'm finding very little reason to be even mildly optimistic.

Something isnt right with this whole set up.

Now I know we are in trouble if your assessment is so grim.

What the hell are they doing in the training camp when there are no noticeable improvements game to game?

[rjjb]

At the current rate that tanker wont be turned around till after the next WC.

I'm finding very little reason to be even mildly optimistic.

Something isnt right with this whole set up.

Now I know we are in trouble if your assessment is so grim.

What the hell are they doing in the training camp when there are no noticeable improvements game to game?

Working out in the gym?

[Which Tyler]

I can't imagine you saw England doing anything if you only saw highlights of the game - should've just been 5 minutes of Irish play, no?

I'm not sure I saw England doing anything much, and I watched 60+ minutes of it live.

My one hope/dream/clutched straw is that this is all some ploy where we're still getting beasted for fitness and that explains the lazy play, the failures of basic skills at key times, the ponderous support play. I want there to be another explanation than us just being really shit, and that we'll show up perfectly tuned for Argentina and run them off their feet.

Hey, that's my straw - I'm not sure it's strong enough for either of us, let alone both of us!

[Mush]

At the current rate that tanker wont be turned around till after the next WC.

I'm finding very little reason to be even mildly optimistic.

Something isnt right with this whole set up.

Now I know we are in trouble if your assessment is so grim.

What the hell are they doing in the training camp when there are no noticeable improvements game to game?

Working out in the gym?

Then you might expect them to look strong and aggressive in contact, but they don't - individually or collectively

[p/d]

Working out in the gym?
[/quote]

That just reminds me of watching Earl roll up his, already very short, sleeves to give his guns better definition when changing his top.

[Scrumhead]

I can't imagine you saw England doing anything if you only saw highlights of the game - should've just been 5 minutes of Irish play, no?

I'm not sure I saw England doing anything much, and I watched 60+ minutes of it live.

My one hope/dream/clutched straw is that this is all some ploy where we're still getting beasted for fitness and that explains the lazy play, the failures of basic skills at key times, the ponderous support play. I want there to be another explanation than us just being really shit, and that we'll show up perfectly tuned for Argentina and run them off their feet.

Hey, that's my straw - I'm not sure it's strong enough for either of us, let alone both of us!

I feel the same.

I’m clinging on to the (wildly unrealistic) thought that this is all an elaborate rope a dope charade to fool the world in to thinking we’re terrible.

I obviously don’t believe that is the case, but if we can pull something out of the bag against Argentina, I do think that could be the catalyst we need. Here’s hoping anyway.

[Danno]

I can't help but feel Gatland would have got a lot more out of this group.

I agree with many of your points, but wash your mouth out

But, your reaction to the suggestion that Gatland might have done better indicates how hopeless we have been, surely?

I don't think Gatland would be much better for us. We're a total shambles.

[Oakboy]

I can't imagine you saw England doing anything if you only saw highlights of the game - should've just been 5 minutes of Irish play, no?

I'm not sure I saw England doing anything much, and I watched 60+ minutes of it live.

My one hope/dream/clutched straw is that this is all some ploy where we're still getting beasted for fitness and that explains the lazy play, the failures of basic skills at key times, the ponderous support play. I want there to be another explanation than us just being really shit, and that we'll show up perfectly tuned for Argentina and run them off their feet.

Hey, that's my straw - I'm not sure it's strong enough for either of us, let alone both of us!

I feel the same.

I’m clinging on to the (wildly unrealistic) thought that this is all an elaborate rope a dope charade to fool the world in to thinking we’re terrible.

I obviously don’t believe that is the case, but if we can pull something out of the bag against Argentina, I do think that could be the catalyst we need. Here’s hoping anyway.

It makes me wonder if SB is sticking to his plans. Even without the red card issues he must have serious doubts about quite a few of the players pencilled in for the starting XV for Argentina. If Farrell misses the game, for example, will he decide to start with Mitchell and Smith? If Billy V misses the game dare he not replace him, in which case can he justify not doing the same with Farrell?

It's going to be interesting if nothing else!

[Banquo]

As an outsider, I don't think Borthwick should get much leeway on account of him rebuilding. Your attack strategy looks the same as under Jones at its worst. Only then, we kept being assured that there were tricks under his sleeve for the world cup.

I think you'll get to the semis and, after that, who knows, but the tactics are really dire to watch. And I don't get this nonsense that you don't have the players to do better. Yes, you don't have standouts in every position, but plenty of countries who play far more enterprising rugby have far bigger gaps. Whether it is the coaches or something else, there is something very wrong.

What do you mean by do better- more 'enterprising' isnt necessarily doing better, if you lose? If you mean being a more effective team, showing competence and being competitive against the top 4, then I agree we likely do have the players on their day to do that if really well coached. But you do need standouts in a lot of places to expect to be at the top table- and we have few. Funnily enough, I think a more enterprising approach would suit what I think is our best 23 players, even if skills and decision making under pressure be questionable.

I mean both be more enterprising and be more effective.

I may be in a minority but I see them as both worthwhile in their own right. I agree there are many ways to skin a cat but even if England's current tactics were the most effective ones for their players (which they are not), I don't think it would be worth it.

They can obviously co-exist and as I said, I think new tactics would be good.

[p/d]

It makes me wonder if SB is sticking to his plans. Even without the red card issues he must have serious doubts about quite a few of the players pencilled in for the starting XV for Argentina. If Farrell misses the game, for example, will he decide to start with Mitchell and Smith? If Billy V misses the game dare he not replace him, in which case can he justify not doing the same with Farrell?

It's going to be interesting if nothing else!

Dors, we will face Argentina with a 6/2 bench. Each defeat sends SB further into his area of comfort and towards the holy grail of winning without scoring a try.........

[16th man]

It's going to be interesting if nothing else!

Hopefully, as the Rugby we've been putting out certainly hasn't been

[morepork]

It's positively Sylvia Plath on here at the moment. You all need you support test match animal.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Ireland made more mistakes in that game than they have in two years, yet still reamed us. We were utterly shyte in long periods. Our defence was splintered too easily for tries, our tackling (esp backs) was shockingly weak/poor, we continue to ship ludicrous penalties, pathetic at the breakdown, and ball in hand clumsy with a bizarre tactic of kicking to a very good back three after no more than 3 good phases.

Poor fare with the turd topping of Billys fazalike red (sadly he'd been dire as well- bye), and Dalys missed touch from a pen (much as I wanted him at 11, he was shocking in defence today- so weak in the tackle). Improving from desperate to rubbish isnt much consolation.

Lineout was mostly fine. Chessum and Dan looked lively. All of Steward, Daly, Youngs, Stuart and Billy were pants. Earl was anonymous bar a couple of carries and his ridiculous shouting. Cant be bothered with the rest tbh. Dunno what happens next, bar a stout defence of Steward

So so so many mistakes.I haven't seen us pass that much ball on the deck and to the opposition in a very very long time. I'll be a bit surprised if Ross Byrne survives as our no2 no10. And a misfiring line out is practically unheard of.

As for England, your main problems appear to be selection and tactics. You seem to have positively decided not to attempt to play until you get to 50+ minutes. My suspicion is that you just aren't fit enough to play the modern fast game for long enough - hence your team have the least sticky contact lenses in Christendom and constant niggles. When you decide to play and remove the anchor which is Youngs you can play a bit. Ford is a proper threat

Just selection and tactics .

Seriously I’d add piss poor execution and dreadful ruck technique/decision making. Oh and defence and tackling.

Not just, but mainly...

There weren't a lot of positives. But kicking to us is just fucking mental. You'd have deserved the 22-22 Lowe nearly got. And there is no question to which Youngs is a sensible answer in rugby as currently refereed. But Care and Fird can play the fast game and you have some athletes who can keep up. Manu will run good lines and Marchant has talent. But what the fuck's the point in any of them without actually passing the backs the ball before 60 minutes.

[FKAS]

So so so many mistakes.I haven't seen us pass that much ball on the deck and to the opposition in a very very long time. I'll be a bit surprised if Ross Byrne survives as our no2 no10. And a misfiring line out is practically unheard of.

As for England, your main problems appear to be selection and tactics. You seem to have positively decided not to attempt to play until you get to 50+ minutes. My suspicion is that you just aren't fit enough to play the modern fast game for long enough - hence your team have the least sticky contact lenses in Christendom and constant niggles. When you decide to play and remove the anchor which is Youngs you can play a bit. Ford is a proper threat

Just selection and tactics .

Seriously I’d add piss poor execution and dreadful ruck technique/decision making. Oh and defence and tackling.

Not just, but mainly...

There weren't a lot of positives. But kicking to us is just fucking mental. You'd have deserved the 22-22 Lowe nearly got. And there is no question to which Youngs is a sensible answer in rugby as currently refereed. But Care and Fird can play the fast game and you have some athletes who can keep up. Manu will run good lines and Marchant has talent. But what the fuck's the point in any of them without actually passing the backs the ball before 60 minutes.

England had more territory than Ireland. Somewhat suggesting the kicking game didn't go that badly, especially since you guys dominated the breakdown. Wasn't a lot of point trying to run it from our own half so that you could turn us over and take easy shots at goal or to the corner (though your rolling mauls didn't go anywhere).

The backs saw more of the ball in this game than in the last two but when the ruck is so badly resourced and so effectively targeted they don't want the achingly slow ball that arrives at the same time as a defender.

[Mikey Brown]

So what do we actually do to sort out the breakdown? I can't bring myself to watch the full 80 and really assess what was going wrong.

I have definitely fallen in to the camp of Lawes being a safe choice at 6, probably in equal parts because I do believe he's improved in recent years and (like Youngs and Farrell) because he is a coaches favourite.

He adds a lot to the lineout and I was under the impression he was a good leader, but it sounds like he really fell short in that area on Saturday. He's good over the ball for a tall guy but he's no breakdown wizard and simply doesn't look explosive enough anymore in either tackling, hitting rucks or carrying the ball. The injuries have finally taken their toll?

Can Ludlam or Willis drop straight in without the lineout falling to shit?

George, Sinkler, Itoje and Curry don't seem to have the dynamism they did a few years back. Guys like Marler, Stuart and Billy can get by in an otherwise mobile pack, but this one seems to be stodgy without even being that powerful. I still don't think we're far off the best team personnel-wise, but there must be a way to get more out of them.

[Oakboy]

So what do we actually do to sort out the breakdown? I can't bring myself to watch the full 80 and really assess what was going wrong.

I have definitely fallen in to the camp of Lawes being a safe choice at 6, probably in equal parts because I do believe he's improved in recent years and (like Youngs and Farrell) because he is a coaches favourite.

He adds a lot to the lineout and I was under the impression he was a good leader, but it sounds like he really fell short in that area on Saturday. He's good over the ball for a tall guy but he's no breakdown wizard and simply doesn't look explosive enough anymore in either tackling, hitting rucks or carrying the ball. The injuries have finally taken their toll?

Can Ludlam or Willis drop straight in without the lineout falling to shit?

George, Sinkler, Itoje and Curry don't seem to have the dynamism they did a few years back. Guys like Marler, Stuart and Billy can get by in an otherwise mobile pack, but this one seems to be stodgy without even being that powerful. I still don't think we're far off the best team personnel-wise, but there must be a way to get more out of them.

I know it will sound like the needle is stuck. Pick the two Willises with Curry, if fit, and Lawes, if not. Billy V is shot and the red card should provide the excuse to dump him. Earl has not convinced ahead of Ludlam apart from perhaps being better cover at 8.

You are right about George. He's the safe option for the set piece. SB needs to start with Marler, George and Cole to make a statement at scrum time, then throw caution to the wind and bring Genge, Dan and Stuart/Sinckler on.

Itoje is a problem. On form, he remains our best lock. Off form maybe he's not any more. I still maintain that he plays better with Hill than any of the others. Maybe for the Fiji game trying a pairing without Itoje is worthwhile.

The snag is that we should not be experimenting at this stage. SB should know his best XV and play it. Does he though? And, has it changed following the warm-ups so far? I can't imagine how the preparations could have gone worse.

[Mikey Brown]

Yep. The record is well and truly jammed. We all want Tom Willis in there. He isn't. We all want Borthwick to have had enough time to work out what his best 23, but he didn't.

Vunipola will get a 2/3 week ban. We'll make do with Earl or Ludlam at 8 until then. I'm sorry but that's the situation.

Itoje may not be at his peak but he's still our best lock. I really don't think it's a matter of every single player just being off form at the same time. The team is just not firing, but if they're getting back on track Itoje is undoubtedly going to be a part of that. I understand wanting Hill alongside as the big set piece anchor but he isn't in the squad either. Itoje did seem to gel quite well with Chessum though, so I'm hoping that adds something.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Just selection and tactics .

Seriously I’d add piss poor execution and dreadful ruck technique/decision making. Oh and defence and tackling.

Not just, but mainly...

There weren't a lot of positives. But kicking to us is just fucking mental. You'd have deserved the 22-22 Lowe nearly got. And there is no question to which Youngs is a sensible answer in rugby as currently refereed. But Care and Fird can play the fast game and you have some athletes who can keep up. Manu will run good lines and Marchant has talent. But what the fuck's the point in any of them without actually passing the backs the ball before 60 minutes.

England had more territory than Ireland. Somewhat suggesting the kicking game didn't go that badly, especially since you guys dominated the breakdown. Wasn't a lot of point trying to run it from our own half so that you could turn us over and take easy shots at goal or to the corner (though your rolling mauls didn't go anywhere).

The backs saw more of the ball in this game than in the last two but when the ruck is so badly resourced and so effectively targeted they don't want the achingly slow ball that arrives at the same time as a defender.

The aim of the game is to score tries. You can grind away between the half and the 10 and your territory stats will look great. Similarly by the simple expedient of conceding tries quickly the same will happen. I've seen the ABs thump teams by 30 points with 35% territory because they get the ball and execute. Now of course territory is useful particularly if you're England and long range scores are unlikely. But I can't recall a single kick that actually achieved anything and i can recall a few kicking battles lost.

[Mr Mwenda]

Itoje is fine, he's doing a lot of work.

I hope the Willises match the hype.

Hill ...

[twitchy]

"England’s World Cup send-off is set to be played in front of a half empty Twickenham in a mark of the supporter base’s growing disillusionment.

Telegraph Sport understands that around 40,000 tickets have been sold for the final warm-up match against Fiji on Saturday with the upper deck of Twickenham being blocked off. The Rugby Football Union remain hopeful that a further five days of ticket sales may take the attendance to 50,000 with seats available for £35 for adults and £10 for children."

"Meanwhile New Zealand’s match against South Africa on Friday night at Twickenham is expected to be a sell out with fewer than 100 seats remaining despite tickets being nearly double the price of England’s match against Twickenham, which has a capacity of 82,000. It will also mark the first time the England women’s side have attracted a bigger attendance than the men in the same calendar year, having brought 58,498 into Twickenham in April for their Six Nations match against France."

https://12ft.io/www.telegraph.co.uk/rug ... well-fiji/

[Cameo]

Not just, but mainly...

There weren't a lot of positives. But kicking to us is just fucking mental. You'd have deserved the 22-22 Lowe nearly got. And there is no question to which Youngs is a sensible answer in rugby as currently refereed. But Care and Fird can play the fast game and you have some athletes who can keep up. Manu will run good lines and Marchant has talent. But what the fuck's the point in any of them without actually passing the backs the ball before 60 minutes.

England had more territory than Ireland. Somewhat suggesting the kicking game didn't go that badly, especially since you guys dominated the breakdown. Wasn't a lot of point trying to run it from our own half so that you could turn us over and take easy shots at goal or to the corner (though your rolling mauls didn't go anywhere).

The backs saw more of the ball in this game than in the last two but when the ruck is so badly resourced and so effectively targeted they don't want the achingly slow ball that arrives at the same time as a defender.

The aim of the game is to score tries. You can grind away between the half and the 10 and your territory stats will look great. Similarly by the simple expedient of connecting tries quickly the same will happen. I've seen the ABs thump teams by 30 points with 35% territory because they get the ball and execute. Now of course territory is useful particularly if you're England and long range scores are unlikely. But I can't recall a single kick that actually achieved anything and i can recall a few kicking battles lost.

I was about to post something similar. Having more territory than the opponents doesn't mean your kicking game worked. In this case it just means that Ireland were happier to play with it in their half than England were in their's.

If England is going to be effectiveness with this kicking game, they either need to absolutely dominate up front or have the guts to counter attack sometimes (though that needs the kicks to stress the opposition and pull them out of position). As it is, you will win some games as you still have a fair bit of power, a half decent defence when it works, and some okay players, but you are shooting yourselves in the foot.

[FKAS]

England had more territory than Ireland. Somewhat suggesting the kicking game didn't go that badly, especially since you guys dominated the breakdown. Wasn't a lot of point trying to run it from our own half so that you could turn us over and take easy shots at goal or to the corner (though your rolling mauls didn't go anywhere).

The backs saw more of the ball in this game than in the last two but when the ruck is so badly resourced and so effectively targeted they don't want the achingly slow ball that arrives at the same time as a defender.

The aim of the game is to score tries. You can grind away between the half and the 10 and your territory stats will look great. Similarly by the simple expedient of connecting tries quickly the same will happen. I've seen the ABs thump teams by 30 points with 35% territory because they get the ball and execute. Now of course territory is useful particularly if you're England and long range scores are unlikely. But I can't recall a single kick that actually achieved anything and i can recall a few kicking battles lost.

I was about to post something similar. Having more territory than the opponents doesn't mean your kicking game worked. In this case it just means that Ireland were happier to play with it in their half than England were in their's.

If England is going to be effectiveness with this kicking game, they either need to absolutely dominate up front or have the guts to counter attack sometimes (though that needs the kicks to stress the opposition and pull them out of position). As it is, you will win some games as you still have a fair bit of power, a half decent defence when it works, and some okay players, but you are shooting yourselves in the foot.

Except that's the type of area England kick so they didn't grind away in that area.

Ireland didn't play that much from their own half. They edged the possession stats but from memory it was 52/48.

I understand the kicking game isn't thrilling to watch but it created plenty of opportunities for England. We butchered them, mainly because we failed miserably to resource the rucks, Youngs was more ponderous than he normally is and the players were running one out and not forming into their pods. Ireland's defence and breakdown work is far to good for that to be effective.