England vs Japan - Sunday

[Banquo]

Which players enhanced their reputation? Earl, Smith, Lawrence.

Went backwards: Chessum, Mitchell, Daly, Ford.

Stayed about the same: the rest, though, arguably, some (e.g Tuilagi) could not get worse.

Where do we go from here? I accept, now, that picking a settled side to get continuity matters little. What the hell they did in training since the Argentina game, I can't imagine. Puja commented early in the game that the players looked like they'd just met each other in the car park and that looked about right. Tactics seemed to be 'kick'. (The full stop should be bolded, italicised and underlined.)

Changes? IMO, Smith and Lawrence must start. I'd pick them at 10/12 with Ford on the bench. I'd have Willis at 7. SB will do none of that, I'd guess.

what's your beef with Tuilagi? He's played pretty well in both games. He only touched it 4 times yesterday, such was our kicking obsession. Sure he's below his physical peak, but he's a pretty effective batterer and tackler at 12.

[Banquo]

Steward seems to be getting worse the more he plays. We need another FB to get a couple of games so that we're clamouring for his return.

Agreed - today was an absolute 2/10 performance for him. He spilled high balls, dropped an easy pass, and not even getting close to Matsushima was an utter embarrassment.

Puja

Dropped more than one easy pass, the dropped passes were particularly annoying because he'd run good lines that would have put us on the front foot, possibly scored early doors. It was a pretty dismal display only rescued by some nice interplay out wide when he actually caught the ball and then taking the crossfield kick with a neat finish just before he was subbed.

Needs a kick up the arse, looks like he's cruising a bit.

His last 10 minutes on the park were ok, but very poor before that. Not that we really have a choice at 15 tbh.

[Oakboy]

And I also worry that it'll therefore be Ford-Faz-Manu, leaving out Marchant, who has been our most effective defender in the backs. There was a play when he made THREE tackles in a row. Insane. Not just for his athleticism, but for the uselessness of the rest of the team that he needed to make those tackles.

Can it ever be fulfilling defending alongside Tuilagi? Marchant used his rugby brain to cover Tuilagi's lack of one, I'd suggest.

I really don't understand Ford (never have). His rugby talent is there for all to see - no argument. BUT, with all that he CAN do, why does he accept being such an integral part of tactics that waste his skills so utterly? Reportedly, Farrell is a coach's pet, never disputing what he is told to do. That surprises nobody. Ford seems to be following in the same obedience rut which will end up being self-defeating, I'd guess. Either Farrell will take his 10 shirt or be elbowed in at 12 to spoil his (Ford's) potential to play rugby from 10 anyway.

[Scrumhead]

Which players enhanced their reputation? Earl, Smith, Lawrence.

Went backwards: Chessum, Mitchell, Daly, Ford.

Stayed about the same: the rest, though, arguably, some (e.g Tuilagi) could not get worse.

Where do we go from here? I accept, now, that picking a settled side to get continuity matters little. What the hell they did in training since the Argentina game, I can't imagine. Puja commented early in the game that the players looked like they'd just met each other in the car park and that looked about right. Tactics seemed to be 'kick'. (The full stop should be bolded, italicised and underlined.)

Changes? IMO, Smith and Lawrence must start. I'd pick them at 10/12 with Ford on the bench. I'd have Willis at 7. SB will do none of that, I'd guess.

No I don't think he'll make those changes. I don't agree that Smith or Lawrence advanced their standings. We knew Smith looks good as an impact sub from 15 and he did again, one of the key reasons being he likes to carry the ball and he often ends up at the bottom of a ruck afterwards and when playing at 15 he can do that with Ford still controlling the attack. Lawrence looks good against a disrupted defence, less so when he's carrying hard into a set defence ala Manu.

Earl played very well again, agreed there. Agree Daly and Mitchell showed up poorly. Ford played fairly well just overly pragmatic and when compared to last weekend was always going to look less impressive because of it.

Not sure what Chessum did wrong. Was a solid 6/10 for me. Did the bits he was supposed to do and reacted quickly to steal the ball for the try we scored.

I'd keep changes in the side to a minimum for the next game. Try and change the mindset more than anything. Ring the changes for key players early in the second half but for a side that's been anything other than consistent chopping and changing won't help much.

100% agree.

We have a bye week between Chile and Samoa so I don’t think we need to be too worried about resting players. There is much greater value in developing combinations IMO.

George needs protecting and Dan and Walker need minutes. A change at hooker seems like an obvious move to make.

Whether we like it or not, Farrell will be back in. Annoying, but it’s inevitable. I suspect we might see Billy starting too.

[Banquo]

Not sure what happened to Mitchell and Ford between Argentina and yesterday, but they really were terrible, which is disappointing.

Whoever is coaching the backs is doing a pretty sh*t job in attack. The only 'move' I can discern from 1st phase is to set up grubbers kicks from Daly- who when grubbering from deepish is clearly not on his wing to chase them. Bafflingly bad.

[Oakboy]

Which players enhanced their reputation? Earl, Smith, Lawrence.

Went backwards: Chessum, Mitchell, Daly, Ford.

Stayed about the same: the rest, though, arguably, some (e.g Tuilagi) could not get worse.

Where do we go from here? I accept, now, that picking a settled side to get continuity matters little. What the hell they did in training since the Argentina game, I can't imagine. Puja commented early in the game that the players looked like they'd just met each other in the car park and that looked about right. Tactics seemed to be 'kick'. (The full stop should be bolded, italicised and underlined.)

Changes? IMO, Smith and Lawrence must start. I'd pick them at 10/12 with Ford on the bench. I'd have Willis at 7. SB will do none of that, I'd guess.

what's your beef with Tuilagi? He's played pretty well in both games. He only touched it 4 times yesterday, such was our kicking obsession. Sure he's below his physical peak, but he's a pretty effective batterer and tackler at 12.

Tuilagi fulfils only one useful function, IMO - possibly keeping Farrell out of the 12 shirt. Quite honestly I'm not sure which of them is worse.

I would never argue with your opinion on defence. Were you happy with Tuilagi stepping up as he did several times? I thought once or twice he was a whisker away from giving Japan an inviting dog-leg opening, only rescued by Marchant or Japan's incompetence.

[Banquo]

And I also worry that it'll therefore be Ford-Faz-Manu, leaving out Marchant, who has been our most effective defender in the backs. There was a play when he made THREE tackles in a row. Insane. Not just for his athleticism, but for the uselessness of the rest of the team that he needed to make those tackles.

Can it ever be fulfilling defending alongside Tuilagi? Marchant used his rugby brain to cover Tuilagi's lack of one, I'd suggest.

I really don't understand Ford (never have). His rugby talent is there for all to see - no argument. BUT, with all that he CAN do, why does he accept being such an integral part of tactics that waste his skills so utterly? Reportedly, Farrell is a coach's pet, never disputing what he is told to do. That surprises nobody. Ford seems to be following in the same obedience rut which will end up being self-defeating, I'd guess. Either Farrell will take his 10 shirt or be elbowed in at 12 to spoil his (Ford's) potential to play rugby from 10 anyway.

Seriously Dors, let it go. Manu was fine in defence, but our system again looked creaky; you'd expect a 13 to be making a lot of tackles with our system and a side like Japan who will try and get outside it.

I'm a bit puzzled by Ford yesterday- he is a good kicker, with a great range of kicks; but his USP as a player is playing flat to the tackle line and putting runners over it. Then again, no-one was really running off him, so its a tad confusing; when a line was run, gainline was generally achieved. So do it more, rather than 3 set up plays for a kick.

[Banquo]

Which players enhanced their reputation? Earl, Smith, Lawrence.

Went backwards: Chessum, Mitchell, Daly, Ford.

Stayed about the same: the rest, though, arguably, some (e.g Tuilagi) could not get worse.

Where do we go from here? I accept, now, that picking a settled side to get continuity matters little. What the hell they did in training since the Argentina game, I can't imagine. Puja commented early in the game that the players looked like they'd just met each other in the car park and that looked about right. Tactics seemed to be 'kick'. (The full stop should be bolded, italicised and underlined.)

Changes? IMO, Smith and Lawrence must start. I'd pick them at 10/12 with Ford on the bench. I'd have Willis at 7. SB will do none of that, I'd guess.

what's your beef with Tuilagi? He's played pretty well in both games. He only touched it 4 times yesterday, such was our kicking obsession. Sure he's below his physical peak, but he's a pretty effective batterer and tackler at 12.

Tuilagi fulfils only one useful function, IMO - possibly keeping Farrell out of the 12 shirt. Quite honestly I'm not sure which of them is worse.

I would never argue with your opinion on defence. Were you happy with Tuilagi stepping up as he did several times? I thought once or twice he was a whisker away from giving Japan an inviting dog-leg opening, only rescued by Marchant or Japan's incompetence.

You just have such a bee in your bonnet about him, there's no point in debating it. But here goes- he gets us over the gainline when used, every time. That enables quick ball and another play. The fact that we then kick is another point.

The defensive system calls for him to pressure in that way, and will always put pressure on 13/Marchant. Its a plan, not him flying up randomly; same as when Faz is at 12.

Of all the things to be debating, Manu isn't one of the top 10 tbh.

[p/d]

I'm starting to miss Malins

[Danno]

England has to find a way of getting Smith more game time and using his attacking instincts. With Ford playing well, and Faz lurking, he's not going to get a meaningful run at 10. He has looked OK at 15, but always coming on too late to change the course of things significantly. Some posters question his defensive capabilities at FB, but he usually makes the tackle and is actually quite a tough little nut. But he does not have to sub on at 15. Why not give him a wing slot and a roving, playmaking role - the way that Ireland uses Hansen. He actually has the gas to play wing and could hardly be worse than May/Daly in their current form. England could even start him against minor opposition to see how it goes - it wouldn't be much of a risk against Chile/Samoa.

Your Irish Jedi mind tricks won't work anymore. Eddie Jones is coaching Australia now

[Danno]

I'm starting to miss Malins

You hush that nasty mouth of yours

[Puja]

I'm a bit puzzled by Ford yesterday- he is a good kicker, with a great range of kicks; but his USP as a player is playing flat to the tackle line and putting runners over it. Then again, no-one was really running off him, so its a tad confusing; when a line was run, gainline was generally achieved. So do it more, rather than 3 set up plays for a kick.

This sums it up for me. We had so many opportunities of set, solid, attacking ball, where we passed to Ford and he had the square root of fuck all options available to him. At the absolute bare minimum, at all times, we need to give him one player running on each shoulder and an option out the back, but yesterday he was lucky if he had Daly standing still 15m behind and outside him.

Puja

[Stom]

And I also worry that it'll therefore be Ford-Faz-Manu, leaving out Marchant, who has been our most effective defender in the backs. There was a play when he made THREE tackles in a row. Insane. Not just for his athleticism, but for the uselessness of the rest of the team that he needed to make those tackles.

Can it ever be fulfilling defending alongside Tuilagi? Marchant used his rugby brain to cover Tuilagi's lack of one, I'd suggest.

I really don't understand Ford (never have). His rugby talent is there for all to see - no argument. BUT, with all that he CAN do, why does he accept being such an integral part of tactics that waste his skills so utterly? Reportedly, Farrell is a coach's pet, never disputing what he is told to do. That surprises nobody. Ford seems to be following in the same obedience rut which will end up being self-defeating, I'd guess. Either Farrell will take his 10 shirt or be elbowed in at 12 to spoil his (Ford's) potential to play rugby from 10 anyway.

Seriously Dors, let it go. Manu was fine in defence, but our system again looked creaky; you'd expect a 13 to be making a lot of tackles with our system and a side like Japan who will try and get outside it.

I'm a bit puzzled by Ford yesterday- he is a good kicker, with a great range of kicks; but his USP as a player is playing flat to the tackle line and putting runners over it. Then again, no-one was really running off him, so its a tad confusing; when a line was run, gainline was generally achieved. So do it more, rather than 3 set up plays for a kick.

I mean, it's hardly worse than Eddie, but this coaching team is doing awful. It's like the question was 'How can we make this team worse than the sum of their parts?

[Mikey Brown]

what's your beef with Tuilagi? He's played pretty well in both games. He only touched it 4 times yesterday, such was our kicking obsession. Sure he's below his physical peak, but he's a pretty effective batterer and tackler at 12.

Tuilagi fulfils only one useful function, IMO - possibly keeping Farrell out of the 12 shirt. Quite honestly I'm not sure which of them is worse.

I would never argue with your opinion on defence. Were you happy with Tuilagi stepping up as he did several times? I thought once or twice he was a whisker away from giving Japan an inviting dog-leg opening, only rescued by Marchant or Japan's incompetence.

You just have such a bee in your bonnet about him, there's no point in debating it. But here goes- he gets us over the gainline when used, every time. That enables quick ball and another play. The fact that we then kick is another point.

The defensive system calls for him to pressure in that way, and will always put pressure on 13/Marchant. Its a plan, not him flying up randomly; same as when Faz is at 12.

Yep. It's not pretty most of the time, and he certainly makes fewer clean breaks than he used to, but he provides a solid carrying option for a side that look pretty disjointed and short of ideas in attack. The occasional big busts or tackles in a game do seem to lift the side considerably.

I'm on the fence about Lawrence in the same role. He's maybe a bit more rounded as a player and lighter on his feet, but I don't know if he's a better defender or we know how to get him in good positions in attack from 12.

The Ford discussion is very familiar. For all that we love his ability on the gain-line he's had several periods in his career where we're desperate to for him to keep the ball in hand a bit more. I wonder if he viewed the heat/humidity much like the red card last week? We're limited in what we can do in attack (hence the knock-on every time we played 2+ phases) so just keep it limited and pin them back?

The problem is then relying on Mitchell and Daly so much as your territorial kickers.

[p/d]

Which players enhanced their reputation? Earl, Smith, Lawrence.

Went backwards: Chessum, Mitchell, Daly, Ford.

Stayed about the same: the rest, though, arguably, some (e.g Tuilagi) could not get worse.

Where do we go from here? I accept, now, that picking a settled side to get continuity matters little. What the hell they did in training since the Argentina game, I can't imagine. Puja commented early in the game that the players looked like they'd just met each other in the car park and that looked about right. Tactics seemed to be 'kick'. (The full stop should be bolded, italicised and underlined.)

Changes? IMO, Smith and Lawrence must start. I'd pick them at 10/12 with Ford on the bench. I'd have Willis at 7. SB will do none of that, I'd guess.

what's your beef with Tuilagi? He's played pretty well in both games. He only touched it 4 times yesterday, such was our kicking obsession. Sure he's below his physical peak, but he's a pretty effective batterer and tackler at 12.

Tuilagi fulfils only one useful function, IMO - possibly keeping Farrell out of the 12 shirt. Quite honestly I'm not sure which of them is worse.

I would never argue with your opinion on defence. Were you happy with Tuilagi stepping up as he did several times? I thought once or twice he was a whisker away from giving Japan an inviting dog-leg opening, only rescued by Marchant or Japan's incompetence.

Dors, I wouldn't be picking Manu either. But that isn't because he doesn't bring anything to the party, he does exactly what is asked of him. The problem for England is that his role has become as predictable as us kicking the ball away. We offer no alternative threats so a defence can easily put 2 tacklers on him. I would imagine he is as frustrated as we are.

That said, move Steward to 12 push Manu out one and have Marchant on the wing with Arundell/Smith covering fb............. and get May to cut his fringe off.

[Mikey Brown]

Jesus. A Farrell, Steward, Tuilagi midfield could be hilarious.

[FKAS]

I'm a bit puzzled by Ford yesterday- he is a good kicker, with a great range of kicks; but his USP as a player is playing flat to the tackle line and putting runners over it. Then again, no-one was really running off him, so its a tad confusing; when a line was run, gainline was generally achieved. So do it more, rather than 3 set up plays for a kick.

This sums it up for me. We had so many opportunities of set, solid, attacking ball, where we passed to Ford and he had the square root of fuck all options available to him. At the absolute bare minimum, at all times, we need to give him one player running on each shoulder and an option out the back, but yesterday he was lucky if he had Daly standing still 15m behind and outside him.

Puja

I think Ford threw one pass on his inside all game. That was to May. I fear we're seeing the limitations of Wigglesworth as attack coach. We played so much of the attack off of Mitchell in the first half and really only gave the ball to Ford in multi phase during the second. With an openside as quick and as good ball in hand as Earl you'd really want him loitering on Ford's inside shoulder a lot more. Looked more like we were trying to split the flankers and have them stay wide though, not sure that really worked.

The attack really did look under nourished.

[Oakboy]

Christ, this is depressing. The collective opinion on here seems to be predicting (by implication) an inevitable return for Farrell on the grounds that he is the expert at negativity. Or, is it a plot by the coaching crew to demonstrate that we are actually MORE creative with him on the park?

When do Ireland play SA? There must be a match worth watching some time.

[Danno]

Christ, this is depressing. The collective opinion on here seems to be predicting (by implication) an inevitable return for Farrell on the grounds that he is the expert at negativity. Or, is it a plot by the coaching crew to demonstrate that we are actually MORE creative with him on the park?

When do Ireland play SA? There must be a match worth watching some time.

Farrell's immediate return as a starter is inevitable.

Did you miss Fiji v Aus? Mistakes a plenty, but your heart is made of stone and possibly decorating someone's final resting place if it didn't get you yelling by the end

[fivepointer]

We look like a team that is simply scared to play. We dont want to screw up so its safety first all the way down the line. There's enough talent at SB's disposal to play a far more exciting and i would say effective attacking game, but he simply doesnt want to do it. The intent just isnt there.

[Oakboy]

We look like a team that is simply scared to play. We dont want to screw up so its safety first all the way down the line. There's enough talent at SB's disposal to play a far more exciting and i would say effective attacking game, but he simply doesnt want to do it. The intent just isnt there.

Agreed but why? Is he convinced that his game plan is our best chance? Does he not think he and his coaching crew are up to to it?

What happens when we finally get to decent opposition?

Questions but no answers.

[Oakboy]

Christ, this is depressing. The collective opinion on here seems to be predicting (by implication) an inevitable return for Farrell on the grounds that he is the expert at negativity. Or, is it a plot by the coaching crew to demonstrate that we are actually MORE creative with him on the park?

When do Ireland play SA? There must be a match worth watching some time.

Farrell's immediate return as a starter is inevitable.

Did you miss Fiji v Aus? Mistakes a plenty, but your heart is made of stone and possibly decorating someone's final resting place if it didn't get you yelling by the end

Only caught a few bits of that unfortunately. Thoroughly chuffed with the result, though!

[Stom]

We knew we were getting a safety first anti-rugby coaching team, and that's what we've got.

The gameplan is obvious: kick the leather off the ball and make the opposition do all the work. As we wear them down, start to keep the ball in hand more and look for openings.

If nothing is on after a couple of phases, kick and reset.

It's boring as hell, it's prone to backfiring, and it's what we're stuck with.

The question remains...how badly will we be exposed when Farrell is back? As he is neither a great tactical kicker nor a coolheaded, patient game manager.

And we all know he'll be back in. If he's at FH, we lose Ford's game management and kicking ability. If he replaces Marchant, will our defence fall apart?

[p/d]

We look like a team that is simply scared to play. We dont want to screw up so its safety first all the way down the line. There's enough talent at SB's disposal to play a far more exciting and i would say effective attacking game, but he simply doesnt want to do it. The intent just isnt there.

Agreed but why? Is he convinced that his game plan is our best chance? Does he not think he and his coaching crew are up to to it?

What happens when we finally get to decent opposition?

Questions but no answers.

It's all about damage limitation. We can't be Fiji and we are currently a mile away from being the wet dream of SA.

Take the emotion out of it - which is nigh on impossible when having to sit through the turgid, what seems now to be, 120 mins - but SB will be over the moon with the 2 wins, not give a jot whether they entertained and tickled pink his defence coach makes a great water carrier.

[Mr Mwenda]

We look like a team that is simply scared to play. We dont want to screw up so its safety first all the way down the line. There's enough talent at SB's disposal to play a far more exciting and i would say effective attacking game, but he simply doesnt want to do it. The intent just isnt there.

Agreed but why? Is he convinced that his game plan is our best chance? Does he not think he and his coaching crew are up to to it?

What happens when we finally get to decent opposition?

Questions but no answers.

It's all about damage limitation. We can't be Fiji and we are currently a mile away from being the wet dream of SA.

Take the emotion out of it - which is nigh on impossible when having to sit through the turgid, what seems now to be, 120 mins - but SB will be over the moon with the 2 wins, not give a jot whether they entertained and tickled pink his defence coach makes a great water carrier.

I think you are on to something here. I do think it is partly a strategy of bringing the opposition down to England's level and gambling that the red rose's fitness and patience is greater than the opponents. It worked v Japan, I suspect France or NZ would try something other than kicking back.