England vs Australia

[Banquo]

I think its more our inability to react to what is in front of us, and/or if things don't go to plan. Complete inability to reverse momentum when it shifts (often through our mistakes) against better sides. Thinking on our feet, rather than 'what does it say we do in this situation in this part of the pi..... oh bugger, they've scored'.

[Epaminondas Pules]

I think its more our inability to react to what is in front of us, and/or if things don't go to plan. Complete inability to reverse momentum when it shifts (often through our mistakes) against better sides. Thinking on our feet, rather than 'what does it say we do in this situation in this part of the pi..... oh bugger, they've scored'.

This!! And I’d add that our outline plan isn’t that good to start with, and then we cannot adapt or co-adapt to what’s happening in game.

[Mikey Brown]

No wonder we’re losing every game by 40 points.

[p/d]

I think the problems are more fundamental than flyhalf. Our alignment is all over the shop. We have little to no depth. Lazy option runners and rarely on any form of short line look to change the point of contact. We’ve next to nothing out the back and no injection into the line.

This. Though I think we may benefit more with F Smith getting game time

[Stom]

I think its more our inability to react to what is in front of us, and/or if things don't go to plan. Complete inability to reverse momentum when it shifts (often through our mistakes) against better sides. Thinking on our feet, rather than 'what does it say we do in this situation in this part of the pi..... oh bugger, they've scored'.

bingo. Which means it makes zero difference which players we pick, unless we unearth some gem from somewhere all of a sudden. It's a coaching issue.

Wouldn't it be amazing if we had Schmidt instead of Scandalous Bumbersnatch.

[Mellsblue]

You could put prime Carter and Cullen in this backline and they’d look like shoite. I’m honestly not that fussed who starts at 10 between Smith x2 and Ford as they’re stymied from the start with the Wigster in charge and rank average centres.

[Banquo]

No wonder we’re losing every game by 40 points.

We did concede 40, but not sure what point you are trying to make tbh.

We have lost a lot of games recently that should have been won- obviously have to credit the oppos, but we are also regularly shooting ourselves in the foot.

[Mellsblue]

No wonder we’re losing every game by 40 points.

We did concede 40, but not sure what point you are trying to make tbh.

We have lost a lot of games recently that should have been won- obviously have to credit the oppos, but we are also regularly shooting ourselves in the foot.

Tbf, Oz lost to Arg by exactly 40pts three matches ago so perhaps that’s MB’s plan. If we’d lost by 40 at the weekend we’d be primed for the 6N.

[Mikey Brown]

No specific point beyond finding the extremity of the reactions kind of funny, I guess? Scoring 37 and conceding 42 is quite different to losing by 40, yes.

Our defence was rubbish and our attack was patchy, but lots of the issues are a matter of small percentages. There is something quite funny about the way Borthwick has gone about things in general though. Maybe it's only my dual allegiance (or more specifically being a Scotland supporter) that makes it easier to rationalise these losses.

Aus have been all over the place, but they have Schmidt now and will always have a bunch of skilled and athletic players, narrowly losing in a game where our (new-ish) defensive strategy fell apart isn't the end of the world. I still feel like they'll go out and be well in the fight against a truly incredible South Africa side.

[Banquo]

No specific point beyond finding the extremity of the reactions kind of funny, I guess? Scoring 37 and conceding 42 is quite different to losing by 40, yes.

Our defence was rubbish and our attack was patchy, but lots of the issues are a matter of small percentages. There is something quite funny about the way Borthwick has gone about things in general though.

Not sure how you can say these are 'extreme reactions' when saying our defence was rubbish

I take your point about over reaction tho, except we have just lost our last 4, and 5 out of 6.

[Banquo]

The amount of buy in from the players does appear to be wanting. We've seen how Borthwick wants to play from the 6N through the summer. The blitz defence the direct attack with options and set plays. There's been a massive regression in performance whilst we are still trying to play the same way. I don't think the game plan has really changed bar the usual tactical tweaks based on the opposition. The execution has been poor.

I'll cop some heat for this but I think it's Marcus. We want (apparently) to play the open attacking play that seemed to be coming toward the end of the 6 nations and in NZ. We even started that way, the problem is that that isn't how he plays. His playmaking comes from a totally different place and relies on him seeing and exploiting space in a reactive way rather than creating and manipulating space in the the way a Ford does - it's very similar to the problem NZ have had with McKenzie over the years (great player, not the right 10). He (Marcus) can win a game on his own, and nearly did against Australia, but sometimes that's not enough.

We also need to recognise that this is an absolutely stacked era for our opposition - of the top 12 teams, SA, Scotland, Ireland, Argentina, Italy, Fiji can all be said to have their best ever teams (arguably) and NZ and France aren't exactly in a bad spot. Oz are developing, with probably their best individuals for a generation, just not a team yet. Only Wales are poor really so it's hard to get the run of results to build confidence.

That said we were poor on Saturday and that needs to be looked at. I feel its more process than personnel though

all agreed. I think Smith is a 'problem'- not of his own making, he plays in his way- that needs solving or more positively, a talent that presents an opportunity we haven't figured out how to exploit. Quick ball, good centres would help

[Cameo]

I mean, he's not wrong to be moaning on general principles - it was an incredibly shitty idea to issue "clarifications" that effectively amounted to changes in the laws just two weeks before the AIs and I believe we all complained about it at the time. It's not affecting any team worse than another though.

Puja

This variation is an interesting one. Blockers have annoyed me for a while, but a few across the games on the weekend looked harsh. There didn't seem many options for players running back who wanted to be around to support their catching teammate or pick up any loose ball. There was also a suspicion that chasers were looking for someone to bump into.

Agreed, especially the last sentence. Will we see a referee with the balls to issue a yellow card for that? Should that happen, I'd suggest we could subsequently get the fair contest everybody wants. As always, it's about being one step ahead of cheats ('coaches'), not two steps behind.

I heard the interpretation read out and it focuses on slowing down. Is the secret to have some big slow players run (at a consistently slow speed) back towards the landing spot? Not their fault if they don't make it, and they are not escorting if they don't slow down.

[Mikey Brown]

No specific point beyond finding the extremity of the reactions kind of funny, I guess? Scoring 37 and conceding 42 is quite different to losing by 40, yes.

Our defence was rubbish and our attack was patchy, but lots of the issues are a matter of small percentages. There is something quite funny about the way Borthwick has gone about things in general though.

Not sure how you can say these are 'extreme reactions' when saying our defence was rubbish

I take your point about over reaction tho, except we have just lost our last 4, and 5 out of 6.

Yeah, France, NZ (x3) and SA are simply better and more settled than we are. Yet all were (frustratingly) close/winnable. We did well to beat a great Ireland side and Aus did well to step up a level and beat us.

[Cameo]

No specific point beyond finding the extremity of the reactions kind of funny, I guess? Scoring 37 and conceding 42 is quite different to losing by 40, yes.

Our defence was rubbish and our attack was patchy, but lots of the issues are a matter of small percentages. There is something quite funny about the way Borthwick has gone about things in general though.

Not sure how you can say these are 'extreme reactions' when saying our defence was rubbish

I take your point about over reaction tho, except we have just lost our last 4, and 5 out of 6.

Yeah, France, NZ (x3) and SA are simply better and more settled than we are. Yet all were (frustratingly) close/winnable. We did well to beat a great Ireland side and Aus did well to step up a level and beat us.

For what it's worth, as another outsider, I agree. I don't think the rest of the world is watchong these matches and thinking 'England are screwed' or 'England don't have the players to compete at the top' or even that 'Marcus Smith is an issue'. I think it is obvious that England have some issues and it is not obvious that the coaching is the best, but they look like a damgerous side who might well beat a lot of good teams over the next couple of years.

[FKAS]

The amount of buy in from the players does appear to be wanting. We've seen how Borthwick wants to play from the 6N through the summer. The blitz defence the direct attack with options and set plays. There's been a massive regression in performance whilst we are still trying to play the same way. I don't think the game plan has really changed bar the usual tactical tweaks based on the opposition. The execution has been poor.

I'll cop some heat for this but I think it's Marcus. We want (apparently) to play the open attacking play that seemed to be coming toward the end of the 6 nations and in NZ. We even started that way, the problem is that that isn't how he plays. His playmaking comes from a totally different place and relies on him seeing and exploiting space in a reactive way rather than creating and manipulating space in the the way a Ford does - it's very similar to the problem NZ have had with McKenzie over the years (great player, not the right 10). He (Marcus) can win a game on his own, and nearly did against Australia, but sometimes that's not enough.

We also need to recognise that this is an absolutely stacked era for our opposition - of the top 12 teams, SA, Scotland, Ireland, Argentina, Italy, Fiji can all be said to have their best ever teams (arguably) and NZ and France aren't exactly in a bad spot. Oz are developing, with probably their best individuals for a generation, just not a team yet. Only Wales are poor really so it's hard to get the run of results to build confidence.

That said we were poor on Saturday and that needs to be looked at. I feel its more process than personnel though

all agreed. I think Smith is a 'problem'- not of his own making, he plays in his way- that needs solving or more positively, a talent that presents an opportunity we haven't figured out how to exploit. Quick ball, good centres would help

When we play in structure we do well. First twenty mins and when Ford comes on. We scored four tries. After twenty minutes at the weekend we went away from the structure and tried to play too much, made mistakes and got punished. Some of those things continued after Ford came on as well.

The issues were there early in the game with a lack of supporting playmakers for Smith. Furbank needs to get involved or the change in law will probably see him dropped as teams aren't kicking long for him to counter attack from. Slade is a disappointment, do England really not have another 13 capable of the lung busting effort required to play outside centre in the blitz? I don't think we have better than Lawrence to replace him with. Slade probably should be dropped, ideally for Lozowski who might be able to offer a secondary playmaker that actually helps Smith.

[Puja]

Squidge's video on this is very interesting:



Talked about how Schmidt deliberately set up the Wallabies attack to knacker out the blitz defence - instead of trying to go around them or over them, setting up in the centre of the pitch and zig-zagging left and right. That means that, instead of going from an edge, where we can just all fly up in numbers and swarm the receiver, they're forcing us to man both sides, which allows them to send lots of one-out carriers at speed, forcing our close defenders to do shuttle runs up and back, over and over, as they run through lots of phases. It also means that there's no big loopy passes for us to run up on and pressure, but short sharp pops that don't cause risk. I did think we looked shagged out early and this was a good explanation that it was an opposition plan. Oddly, I think we'd've been better with the bench that we so heavily criticised the week before against NZ - it'd've been a long way from ideal to not've had Sleightholme available, but probably better to've had BCurry come on, and having 6 forwards to replace our knackered pack would've helped.

One bit of analysis which I found interesting was Tom Wright's first try, showing that it's not really Slade's fault - he gets the blame and it looks bad (as so many bits of blitz do until you go into depth) because he doesn't hit Kellaway, but he's actually just forcing the linespeed to make the timing of the pass that would've seen Suaalii hit man-and-ball by Feyi-Waboso had he been on the pitch, but instead sees the inexperienced Sleightholme panic at the overlap and abort his blitz, ironically causing the overlap to happen by not committing whole-heartedly to cutting it off.

Puja

[Oakboy]

The final paragraph is the same assessment we heard from Goode, isn't it?

[Mellsblue]

The final paragraph is the same assessment we heard from Goode, isn't it?

Yep

[Puja]

The final paragraph is the same assessment we heard from Goode, isn't it?

Ah - I hadn't heard Goode's analysis of the situation. Sorry to be late in.

Puja

[Skalyba]

The amount of buy in from the players does appear to be wanting. We've seen how Borthwick wants to play from the 6N through the summer. The blitz defence the direct attack with options and set plays. There's been a massive regression in performance whilst we are still trying to play the same way. I don't think the game plan has really changed bar the usual tactical tweaks based on the opposition. The execution has been poor.

I'll cop some heat for this but I think it's Marcus. We want (apparently) to play the open attacking play that seemed to be coming toward the end of the 6 nations and in NZ. We even started that way, the problem is that that isn't how he plays. His playmaking comes from a totally different place and relies on him seeing and exploiting space in a reactive way rather than creating and manipulating space in the the way a Ford does - it's very similar to the problem NZ have had with McKenzie over the years (great player, not the right 10). He (Marcus) can win a game on his own, and nearly did against Australia, but sometimes that's not enough.

We also need to recognise that this is an absolutely stacked era for our opposition - of the top 12 teams, SA, Scotland, Ireland, Argentina, Italy, Fiji can all be said to have their best ever teams (arguably) and NZ and France aren't exactly in a bad spot. Oz are developing, with probably their best individuals for a generation, just not a team yet. Only Wales are poor really so it's hard to get the run of results to build confidence.

That said we were poor on Saturday and that needs to be looked at. I feel its more process than personnel though

I don't think Marcus is quite as restricted in approach as you imply. Generally, within the structure, he does the correct grunt work - in that he gets his body in the right place at the right time, especially in defence but also in attack. Where he suffers, IMO, is in not having runners to give him options. The use of Freeman is a classic example. He has the ability (in the same way as Ashton could - even with Farrell) to arrive just as required. Frankly, if the attack coach cannot get running lines from Freeman, IFW, Lawrence and Furbank he is not worth his job. Having Slade as a quick-handed fulcrum should add subtlety. Marcus IS capable of running that show as well as providing his own threat (in which he is unique in the FH options).

I'd throw in another contentious suggestion. Make Furbank captain. Let him be the deep-lying, all-seeing voice. I can't help thinking that George as captain, buried in the front row, is in the job just to stop the team having an oversight (forcing them to stick to script rather than play what is in front of them). Itoje as captain with Furbank as V-C would be a reasonable compromise. Getting in an attack coach with inspirational vision and constructive ideas would help too.

I don't think its that Marcus is restricted, just that we're trying to play a game plan that doesn't suit his natural game. He's not allowing the space for the likes of Furbank to come in as a second playmaker - maybe that's why he's been left our this week, it seems like SB is using this series to test combinations. Playing Marcus necessitates a difference gameplan from Forc...

[Danno]

So it looks like Aus are back

[FKAS]

So it looks like Aus are back

Wales have all the defence of a wet paper bag currently. Losing to Fiji and Australia so far but at least it gets better for them what with South Africa up next...

Schmidt has done a very good job with Australia. They showed some signs in the summer but blew hot and cold. They've found a bit of consistency and belief now.

[fivepointer]

Aus very impressive today. They look to have turned a corner.

[Mellsblue]

So it looks like Aus are back

I could beat Wales on my own, unless Wigglesworth was my coach.

[Danno]

So it looks like Aus are back

I could beat Wales on my own, unless Wigglesworth was my coach.