England vs Japan - Sunday

[Banquo]

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.

I knew SCW was on here somewhere.

On the Manu thing, if they are putting two defenders on him, happy frickin days. Miss him out, more time for Daly to weight up his kicking options. Having Manu or Lawrence at 12 is infinitely better than the obsession with sticking failed 10's there or failed 15's.

[Banquo]

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.

I think the coaches are scared to coach/don't know their jobs/don't know what to coach.....apply one to each coach. Just having a fucking flip chart in the changing room at half time should be a sackable offence; players need a couple of key messages and if you can't remember them, they can't be key.

[Puja]

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.

I knew SCW was on here somewhere.

On the Manu thing, if they are putting two defenders on him, happy frickin days. Miss him out, more time for Daly to weight up his kicking options. Having Manu or Lawrence at 12 is infinitely better than the obsession with sticking failed 10's there or failed 15's.

One thing which I did notice was that we did work a lovely first phase move exactly once. It was off a lineout maul in the first half - Tuilagi and Marchant ran hard crash-ball lines off Mitchell, who was then able to pass behind them to Ford. The defence had entirely focussed on Manu and Marchant, and Daly had drifted around from the blind wing, leaving a 4-on-2 across 30m of pitch, with Ford getting to decide which of Daly, Steward, and May he put in for the try. Beautifully worked and executed and the only reason it didn't work was Mitchell having his brain replaced with soggy toilet paper and deciding to try and pass to Manu after he'd already been tackled, rather than pass to Ford.

Puja

[Banquo]

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.

I knew SCW was on here somewhere.

On the Manu thing, if they are putting two defenders on him, happy frickin days. Miss him out, more time for Daly to weight up his kicking options. Having Manu or Lawrence at 12 is infinitely better than the obsession with sticking failed 10's there or failed 15's.

One thing which I did notice was that we did work a lovely first phase move exactly once. It was off a lineout maul in the first half - Tuilagi and Marchant ran hard crash-ball lines off Mitchell, who was then able to pass behind them to Ford. The defence had entirely focussed on Manu and Marchant, and Daly had drifted around from the blind wing, leaving a 4-on-2 across 30m of pitch, with Ford getting to decide which of Daly, Steward, and May he put in for the try. Beautifully worked and executed and the only reason it didn't work was Mitchell having his brain replaced with soggy toilet paper and deciding to try and pass to Manu after he'd already been tackled, rather than pass to Ford.

Puja

Was that the one when Japan then went the length of the pitch? Another classic though- we wait until the maul is stationary before waiting and then a bit of a wait and then passing it out.

[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.

I think the coaches are scared to coach/don't know their jobs/don't know what to coach.....apply one to each coach. Just having a fucking flip chart in the changing room at half time should be a sackable offence; players need a couple of key messages and if you can't remember them, they can't be key.

I thought that was the best moment of the evening.................... absolutely staggering. I can only assume on it was depicted 3 stickmen - one kicking cross field, one catching a ball and the third lifting the WC

[p/d]

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.

I knew SCW was on here somewhere.

Now, now. No need for that .............................. though I bet you are warming to the idea (Freddie at 12 not SCW on this forum)

[Puja]

I knew SCW was on here somewhere.

On the Manu thing, if they are putting two defenders on him, happy frickin days. Miss him out, more time for Daly to weight up his kicking options. Having Manu or Lawrence at 12 is infinitely better than the obsession with sticking failed 10's there or failed 15's.

One thing which I did notice was that we did work a lovely first phase move exactly once. It was off a lineout maul in the first half - Tuilagi and Marchant ran hard crash-ball lines off Mitchell, who was then able to pass behind them to Ford. The defence had entirely focussed on Manu and Marchant, and Daly had drifted around from the blind wing, leaving a 4-on-2 across 30m of pitch, with Ford getting to decide which of Daly, Steward, and May he put in for the try. Beautifully worked and executed and the only reason it didn't work was Mitchell having his brain replaced with soggy toilet paper and deciding to try and pass to Manu after he'd already been tackled, rather than pass to Ford.

Puja

Was that the one when Japan then went the length of the pitch? Another classic though- we wait until the maul is stationary before waiting and then a bit of a wait and then passing it out.

That's the one. I paused and rewound to work out what the fuck had actually occurred, and it was actually a really nice play that had worked beautifully, right up to the point of the scrum-half seeing a tackled player and thinking that was his best passing option, rather than the unmarked 10 pleading for it.

Puja

[Puja]

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.

I knew SCW was on here somewhere.

Now, now. No need for that .............................. though I bet you are warming to the idea (Freddie at 12 not SCW on this forum)

Not with his current cloghands, no.

Puja

[Banquo]

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.

I knew SCW was on here somewhere.

Now, now. No need for that .............................. though I bet you are warming to the idea (Freddie at 12 not SCW on this forum)

given his turning circle is bigger than a tanker stuck in the suez canal, I'm not sure old clog hands is suited. Could be a bit of the Harry Mallinders going on.

In fairness to Fred-lar, he had a very good 10 minutes including the try- also, what a left footed kick from Mike's lad.

[FKAS]

One thing which I did notice was that we did work a lovely first phase move exactly once. It was off a lineout maul in the first half - Tuilagi and Marchant ran hard crash-ball lines off Mitchell, who was then able to pass behind them to Ford. The defence had entirely focussed on Manu and Marchant, and Daly had drifted around from the blind wing, leaving a 4-on-2 across 30m of pitch, with Ford getting to decide which of Daly, Steward, and May he put in for the try. Beautifully worked and executed and the only reason it didn't work was Mitchell having his brain replaced with soggy toilet paper and deciding to try and pass to Manu after he'd already been tackled, rather than pass to Ford.

Puja

Was that the one when Japan then went the length of the pitch? Another classic though- we wait until the maul is stationary before waiting and then a bit of a wait and then passing it out.

That's the one. I paused and rewound to work out what the fuck had actually occurred, and it was actually a really nice play that had worked beautifully, right up to the point of the scrum-half seeing a tackled player and thinking that was his best passing option, rather than the unmarked 10 pleading for it.

Puja

It looked like Mitchell took a few steps sideways from the maul possibly because a Japanese forward was loitering on the side, saw the blitz defence come up and just panicked trying to give it to Manu so we could reset.

[p/d]

Was that the one when Japan then went the length of the pitch? Another classic though- we wait until the maul is stationary before waiting and then a bit of a wait and then passing it out.

That's the one. I paused and rewound to work out what the fuck had actually occurred, and it was actually a really nice play that had worked beautifully, right up to the point of the scrum-half seeing a tackled player and thinking that was his best passing option, rather than the unmarked 10 pleading for it.

Puja

It looked like Mitchell took a few steps sideways from the maul possibly because a Japanese forward was loitering on the side, saw the blitz defence come up and just panicked trying to give it to Manu so we could reset.

Don’t think you needed to add the bit in bold

[Oakboy]

Was our 9 the same bloke who played v Argentina? What happened in training camp to shatter his confidence/composure?

Before the Japan game I was convinced that keeping the team together was a step towards cohesion. How could things become worse? I genuinely don't understand what explanation there can be. What are the bloody coaches for?

[Mikey Brown]

Was our 9 the same bloke who played v Argentina? What happened in training camp to shatter his confidence/composure?

Before the Japan game I was convinced that keeping the team together was a step towards cohesion. How could things become worse? I genuinely don't understand what explanation there can be. What are the bloody coaches for?

I understand your point about building cohesion, but a lot of these players aren't that new to eachother. Continuity feels almost impossible at the moment because of the number of errors. It feels like the strategy we're taking is meant to limit that, but also seems to be leading to a lot of confusion. Maybe it's not ideal to keep changing the 23 but I think there are other big factors to the lack of cohesion.

All the talk when Borthwick came in was about clarity yet it still feels a bit muddled and error strewn with the most basic kick and clap game plan. We've won 2 games and maybe it'll continue working but it's hard to see it against the very top sides. Maybe we're just saving our energy and working on conditioning still, but I'm not sure I fully buy it.

[newgalesurf]

Well, the only takeaway I have from that is a ball to the face is not a knock-on

[Banquo]

Well, the only takeaway I have from that is a ball to the face is not a knock-on

SCW was talking about how they had a backs move (assume at Henley) which was a miss 1 followed by the 13 deliberately heading the ball forward . For some reason he called it a Nobby Stiles, that well known header of a ball.

[Banquo]

Was our 9 the same bloke who played v Argentina? What happened in training camp to shatter his confidence/composure?

Before the Japan game I was convinced that keeping the team together was a step towards cohesion. How could things become worse? I genuinely don't understand what explanation there can be. What are the bloody coaches for?

I understand your point about building cohesion, but a lot of these players aren't that new to eachother. Continuity feels almost impossible at the moment because of the number of errors. It feels like the strategy we're taking is meant to limit that, but also seems to be leading to a lot of confusion. Maybe it's not ideal to keep changing the 23 but I think there are other big factors to the lack of cohesion.

All the talk when Borthwick came in was about clarity yet it still feels a bit muddled and error strewn with the most basic kick and clap game plan. We've won 2 games and maybe it'll continue working but it's hard to see it against the very top sides. Maybe we're just saving our energy and working on conditioning still, but I'm not sure I fully buy it.

Agreed- its hardly a radically changed set of personnel, bar Mitchell as a newby.

It'd save a lot more energy if you didn't drop the ball (scrum) and have to chase loads of kicks and scramble when you miss tackles.

I still can't get over not seeing a backs move in what seems like 3 years.

[16th man]

Well, the only takeaway I have from that is a ball to the face is not a knock-on

SCW was talking about how they had a backs move (assume at Henley) which was a miss 1 followed by the 13 deliberately heading the ball forward . For some reason he called it a Nobby Stiles, that well known header of a ball.

The guy who's face is being.used as a wall ends up with teeth like nobby Stiles?

[TheDasher]

I knew SCW was on here somewhere.

Now, now. No need for that .............................. though I bet you are warming to the idea (Freddie at 12 not SCW on this forum)

given his turning circle is bigger than a tanker stuck in the suez canal, I'm not sure old clog hands is suited. Could be a bit of the Harry Mallinders going on.

In fairness to Fred-lar, he had a very good 10 minutes including the try- also, what a left footed kick from Mike's lad.

Fred (despite some pretty ropey moments of late) is a very fine full-back, I think he could become great over time, he's very young.

At a pinch I could see him at 13, not 12, but not sure why one would do that really.

If we were to move him, I think I'd play him on the wing to have that cross-field kick option and to still utilise his qualities under the high-ball.

It might enable us to play Smith at 15 (which I don't love but we can't argue he's made an impact from the bench) and then I'd throw Arundell on the other wing.

Smith 15, Arundell 11, Stewart 14 could be an option to play within in the coming games.

Daly has been poor imo, and May just isn't enough of a threat either for me. When SCWs sides weren't particularly creative, Jason Robinson made things happen, made openings with his footwork. Smith and Arundell will do that just from being on the pitch, they'll beat people and make openings, create doglegs etc even if Ford/Farrell/whoever is in the midfield are doing their best not to be creative.

[Danno]

I'm a little bit over Steward.
I hate to say it but he's getting a bit like Mike Brown in that he offers a few very solid things but very little spark. I don't want him dropped and I certainly don't want to EJ him about by sticking him on a wing or midfield, but it would be nice to have a genuine option to switch in when we're not just scared of endless aerial bombardment.

Honestly think a season in France/NZ would work wonders for him (don't ban me please, Puja)

[Puja]

I'm a little bit over Steward.
I hate to say it but he's getting a bit like Mike Brown in that he offers a few very solid things but very little spark. I don't want him dropped and I certainly don't want to EJ him about by sticking him on a wing or midfield, but it would be nice to have a genuine option to switch in when we're not just scared of endless aerial bombardment.

Honestly think a season in France/NZ would work wonders for him (don't ban me please, Puja)

I think there is a good amount left to come, but that he's also suffering from being dropped into international rugby incredibly young and being an automatic pick for pretty much the last two years, as well as being lauded to the skies as "the best high ball player in the world". He's got some flaws in his game, but hasn't the time to work on them, nor the competition to drive to get the best out of him. He's also got a bit of the Peter Crouch syndrome, in that every coach looks at him being 6ft 5 and starts working out ways to use him aerially rather than looking at the other things that he can do.

I would agree that a season in NZ would do wonders for him - less so France, as they would be buying him for a high price and expecting to see the one trick that they bought their one trick pony for - but I also think he just needs to be dropped and sent back to Leicester and given time to work on his weaknesses for a bit (preferably with the same club head coach for a prolonged period of time). Not right now, of course, but after the RWC, we should be looking at other options.

Puja

[Oakboy]

I'm never sure about this business of just setting out to use a player late in the game. Yes, the bench should offer the capacity to make tactical changes but any player on it should be capable of fulfilling a useful function for 79 minutes or whatever. If Smith does not offer realistic FB cover for that, find another solution.

We are now, reportedly, considering three FHs on the pitch together. That means Farrell at 12 and Smith at 23, presumably with Marchant dropping to the bench and Tuilagi moving to 13.

Is that really the best strategic plan the coaches can come up with? It was bad enough when Jones could not make up his mind between Ford and Farrell. Why not start with Ford at 10 and bring Smith on in that position at 50 or so? That leaves the option of having a real threat, Arundel, on the bench. Otherwise, Marchant is pushing Lawrence off it when they should be starting at 12/13.

SB should just have the balls to decide on his best 10 and not crowbar Farrell into the 23 because he is the captain or whatever. Also, he should already have found out in the warm-ups whether Malins is a realistic defensive alternative to Steward at FB, possibly offering more in attack too.

[Mikey Brown]

I think you've answered your own questions there. Nobody knows how to get around the Farrell/fly-half log-jam. His motivational presence is seemingly irreplaceable, which doesn't say much for any of our coaches.

I get your point that every bench player needs to be capable coming on in minute 1, but we're simply a bit desperate and underprepared. With the other two at 10 Borthwick is just seeing if he can salvage anything from the time invested in Smith.

We all seem to pretty much agree on the state of the backs situation, but sadly I think this problem will persist as long as Farrell/Ford are both playing.

[Puja]

I think you've answered your own questions there. Nobody knows how to get around the Farrell/fly-half log-jam. His motivational presence is seemingly irreplaceable, which doesn't say much for any of our coaches.

I get your point that every bench player needs to be capable coming on in minute 1, but we're simply a bit desperate and underprepared. With the other two at 10 Borthwick is just seeing if he can salvage anything from the time invested in Smith.

We all seem to pretty much agree on the state of the backs situation, but sadly I think this problem will persist as long as Farrell/Ford are both playing.

Speaking of people that would be better for a long sojourn in France, where we can't pick him...

Puja

[FKAS]

I think you've answered your own questions there. Nobody knows how to get around the Farrell/fly-half log-jam. His motivational presence is seemingly irreplaceable, which doesn't say much for any of our coaches.

I get your point that every bench player needs to be capable coming on in minute 1, but we're simply a bit desperate and underprepared. With the other two at 10 Borthwick is just seeing if he can salvage anything from the time invested in Smith.

We all seem to pretty much agree on the state of the backs situation, but sadly I think this problem will persist as long as Farrell/Ford are both playing.

Speaking of people that would be better for a long sojourn in France, where we can't pick him...

Puja

Racing need a marquee flyhalf. Time to get Farrell's agent over there.

[FKAS]

I'm never sure about this business of just setting out to use a player late in the game. Yes, the bench should offer the capacity to make tactical changes but any player on it should be capable of fulfilling a useful function for 79 minutes or whatever. If Smith does not offer realistic FB cover for that, find another solution.

When Borthwick talked about it at Tigers he used to talk about getting the best 80 minute side on the field. It wasn't a "he's there if we need him". I suspect the weekend performance was based around 50-60 mins of attritional and physical rugby where we look to strangle Japan and then deploy the bench to take advantage of the tiring Japan side with their weaker bench.

Genge, BillyV, Dan there's plenty of carrying ability there, even with Billy not what he was. Smith and Lawrence Vs tired defenders had the desired effect of opening them up repeatedly.

It wasn't pretty (huge understatement) but it was an efficient use of the bench.