FKAS wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2023 7:18 pm
Borthwick's tactics defused the Boks kicking game which did for France and limited their ability to attack England. The defence was set up to negate the South African forwards and did a decent job of that. I think he deserves some credit. He isn't a genius bit her certainly knows how to put a game plan together.
It's a start point as opposed to a finished product but without a world cup on the horizon there's less pressure and hopefully we'll see some more options in attack.
Sweet Bejesus was always a bit of a stato - recall in his playing career he’d be the one described by teamates as nose in the laptop trying to second guess lineout calls - in fact I think Grewcock referred to Steve doing my thinking for me
FKAS wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2023 7:18 pm
Borthwick's tactics defused the Boks kicking game which did for France and limited their ability to attack England. The defence was set up to negate the South African forwards and did a decent job of that. I think he deserves some credit. He isn't a genius bit her certainly knows how to put a game plan together.
It's a start point as opposed to a finished product but without a world cup on the horizon there's less pressure and hopefully we'll see some more options in attack.
As before, I’d love him to put these brilliant game plans together more often than 1 in 10.
Interested to know how he changed the tackling and ruck decision making.
Genuine q, btw. I can see how the heavy dose of sarcasm surrounding it may not have made that clear!
I thought there was a definite change of tack from targetting the ball in the tackle, to hitting low and looking to end the competition early, rather than wrestling and looking for a choke, which was prevalent against Fiji and Samoa. I also thought that we were very selective in any ruck competition, opting to overload the fringes rather than compete unless there was an obvious shot at a turnover. We were also very disciplined on the ground - did we give away many penalties for competing in rucks?
All this comes with the caveat that I have only watched the game once, live, and may be seeing patterns that weren't there.
Puja
I noted the lack of compete at the ruck, too. Seemed smart given how often Sinfield’s defence is caught short out wide and how well SA exploit space out wide.
I have the same caveat as you but will also add that I’d pre-medicated against the anticipated battering with a bottle of Beaujolais at the local French restaurant prior to kickoff…
At the end of the day did not yet another RWC finish for us in a glorious defeat?
Some sort of improvement it may have been and perhaps the margin of defeat was surprisingly narrow but it was still a defeat. Talk of 'genius' should surely be saved for actually f##king winning?
I’m just assuming May isn’t ready to retire yet from international rugby.
The one noticeable difference was knocking the ball back rather than trying to catch it on the kick chase. But that has been bleed’in obvious for a fair while now.
All very true Banquo, and full credit to England for a gutsy performance with effective spoiling tactics that worked on the day, suited the elements and almost nicked it. They gave it a good honest thrash. But surely that hardly puts SB in the position of "analytical genius" and rugby's equivalent to Alan Turing? This match, and all SB's previous games in charge, revealed no evidence of rugby intelligence on a higher intellectual plain than other coaches. All we have seen so far is that he is bang average (and maybe that's a tad generous) and short on innovation, creativity and selection. He may be a good motivator, but that's not enough.
somewhere between no credit for tactics and credited as a genius, is some credit. Given the technical damage Ireland inflict in much of the detail of rugby, thought that would recognised.
Well yes - of course some credit is due to SB for this particular game. Though little credit for the overall performance of England so far during his tenure. But the point of my initial post in the thread was only that it's plain stupid (even laughable) for Jonny May to call him an analytical genius when he clearly is not. You may have remarked in the past that Jonny is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
not disagreeing re May, you just seemed to then be saying England only competed through attitude, not through developing a plan to neutralise SA strengths.
BTW- hardly a fan of Sweaty Bumcrack, but as noted before, we aint blessed with a lot f class
somewhere between no credit for tactics and credited as a genius, is some credit. Given the technical damage Ireland inflict in much of the detail of rugby, thought that would recognised.
Well yes - of course some credit is due to SB for this particular game. Though little credit for the overall performance of England so far during his tenure. But the point of my initial post in the thread was only that it's plain stupid (even laughable) for Jonny May to call him an analytical genius when he clearly is not. You may have remarked in the past that Jonny is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
not disagreeing re May, you just seemed to then be saying England only competed through attitude, not through developing a plan to neutralise SA strengths.
BTW- hardly a fan of Sweaty Bumcrack, but as noted before, we aint blessed with a lot f class
Yes - they had a plan, which was a very simple (though effective) one. Yes, it was devised by SB. It worked well on the day, threw the Boks off their game and almost produced a shock result. But I honestly don't think it was the work of an analytical genius and don't believe SB should be described in those terms; and I actually do believe that attitude/mindset played a big role in how England handled the game.
I agree with you that the overall skill level of the squad perhaps does not give SB too much headroom to work with. At the end of the day, a poorly rated England squad reached RWC semi final and gave a good account of themselves when they got there. The team did better than fans expected, so all credit and fair play to them. I hope they move on to better things, but it won't be by playing in the same unambitious style as Sunday's match, which can work in a one-off game (though not quite well enough to win it) but not as a stock approach. It's great to neutralize opponent's strengths but you have to develop some of your own (attack, try scoring) that will threaten them.
Maybe we have flogged it to death by now?
Well yes - of course some credit is due to SB for this particular game. Though little credit for the overall performance of England so far during his tenure. But the point of my initial post in the thread was only that it's plain stupid (even laughable) for Jonny May to call him an analytical genius when he clearly is not. You may have remarked in the past that Jonny is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
not disagreeing re May, you just seemed to then be saying England only competed through attitude, not through developing a plan to neutralise SA strengths.
BTW- hardly a fan of Sweaty Bumcrack, but as noted before, we aint blessed with a lot f class
Yes - they had a plan, which was a very simple (though effective) one. Yes, it was devised by SB. It worked well on the day, threw the Boks off their game and almost produced a shock result. But I honestly don't think it was the work of an analytical genius and don't believe SB should be described in those terms; and I actually do believe that attitude/mindset played a big role in how England handled the game.
I agree with you that the overall skill level of the squad perhaps does not give SB too much headroom to work with. At the end of the day, a poorly rated England squad reached RWC semi final and gave a good account of themselves when they got there. The team did better than fans expected, so all credit and fair play to them. I hope they move on to better things, but it won't be by playing in the same unambitious style as Sunday's match, which can work in a one-off game (though not quite well enough to win it) but not as a stock approach. It's great to neutralize opponent's strengths but you have to develop some of your own (attack, try scoring) that will threaten them.
Maybe we have flogged it to death by now?
FKAS wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2023 7:18 pm
Borthwick's tactics defused the Boks kicking game which did for France and limited their ability to attack England. The defence was set up to negate the South African forwards and did a decent job of that. I think he deserves some credit. He isn't a genius bit her certainly knows how to put a game plan together.
It's a start point as opposed to a finished product but without a world cup on the horizon there's less pressure and hopefully we'll see some more options in attack.
As before, I’d love him to put these brilliant game plans together more often than 1 in 10.
I think the real plus is this England team, who are rank average at best, a new coaching team with little experience trying to undo the Stockholm syndrome of Eddie Jones are somehow living rent free in Spiff's head.
Epaminondas Pules wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2023 10:42 am
I think the real plus is this England team, who are rank average at best, a new coaching team with little experience trying to undo the Stockholm syndrome of Eddie Jones are somehow living rent free in Spiff's head.
Epaminondas Pules wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2023 10:42 am
I think the real plus is this England team, who are rank average at best, a new coaching team with little experience trying to undo the Stockholm syndrome of Eddie Jones are somehow living rent free in Spiff's head.
Puja wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2023 9:49 pm
Thought this was an interesting watch:
Wild to find out that the 22 drop-out and turnover, carry, and drop-goal was a planned 3-phase move.
Puja
Squidge frustrates me generally. Every good point he makes is buggered by 3 in the opposite direction
Agreed, he spoils some decent analysis by just making shit up.
I remember the Eddie Jones England one that talked about our pod chaos against New Zealand as genius, but then pointed out how good coaches were as SA nullified it just a week later, when all they did was run the same defence that they’d run for four years! He just talks absolute bollocks with snippets of genuine analysis.
And the drop out to drop goal will not be a singular pre-planned moved. The drop out and having you're best chasers going after it will be. That's a prime opportunity for turnover ball yes. Earl will have two roles in the chase, for example. To hit the ruck and aid the turnover if needed, or be the available carrier if not needed. What happens after that will be determined by other calls and defensive reactions. The closest to pre-planned move will be as a decision tree. If A, do this, if B, do that.
