Scotland vs England - Sat 4.40pm

[FKAS]

Agree with Which, it's the issue of Ford being out of the game post run more than it is an anti flyhalf running policy. If it's on in a big way he'll still go for it but it's not worth gambling the way Marcus does. It's one of things that hampered the attack with Marcus at 10. He'd get tackled, held down out of play and the attack loses shape for a couple of phases. It's then hard to refund any momentum. The break has to be a crucial play at that stage to make it worthwhile. Otherwise stay on your feet and keep the attack organised, go through the phases and keep the defence being challenged.

[Mellsblue]

Agreed that a 10 is most useful when on his feet and able to receive the ball but If the attack can’t function for a phase or two because the oppo is lying on the 10 then we’ve got bigger problems than having a 13 who can’t pass.

[Mikey Brown]

Agreed that a 10 is most useful when on his feet and able to receive the ball but If the attack can’t function for a phase or two because the oppo is lying on the 10 then we’ve got bigger problems than having a 13 who can’t pass.

Yep. With all the importance placed on having secondary playmakers (Dingwall, Slade, Furbank) in the backline, you'd like to think it wouldn't be deemed that risky for the 10 to go at a gap if they see it.

I still struggle to make sense of the Marcus at 10 era for England. For many that period is evidence that he can't control a game and Fin/Ford swapping in solved everything, bringing us to this good run of results. I'd love to see him get some more time at fly-half with England running the way they are now, but equally it's hard to argue he's made a case for it. I really wish we'd taken that chance against Wales.

[p/d]

Agreed that a 10 is most useful when on his feet and able to receive the ball but If the attack can’t function for a phase or two because the oppo is lying on the 10 then we’ve got bigger problems than having a 13 who can’t pass.

This… oh yes, this

[Which Tyler]

Agreed that a 10 is most useful when on his feet and able to receive the ball but If the attack can’t function for a phase or two because the oppo is lying on the 10 then we’ve got bigger problems than having a 13 who can’t pass.

[Mikey Brown]

Agreed that a 10 is most useful when on his feet and able to receive the ball but If the attack can’t function for a phase or two because the oppo is lying on the 10 then we’ve got bigger problems than having a 13 who can’t pass.

Is this the moment George decided that carrying the ball just isn't worth the risk?

[Puja]

Re Ford’s running game. Read an interview with him in The Times last week and he basically says he’s had it coached out of him/not been setup to do it since he left Bath.

Wow. That is horrendous. Just one small break per game gives the opposition defenders a headache wondering. As it is they just charge him. For all his so-called game management, he does NOT always play what's in front of him based on that admission. Why would coaches want to restrict the breadth of his game? That's what I would pick him for.

I suppose his acceptance of those restrictions gels with his subordination to Farrell for all those games. Why did he not tell the coaches to fuck off as Russell would do?

I'd imagine it's a bit like Wilkinson getting told off back in the day for clearing out rucks and leaving the team without a 10 for the next phase. With his pace having dropped off after the injuries, there is no value to Ford making a half-break and getting buried for a phase or two - he's not big enough to barrel through and offload for a clean break so if it's not a gap big enough to walk through, then there's no value to him trying for the 1 in 10 chance that he'll make a break - that'd just be selfish hubris and making the wrong decision and slowing the attack 9 times out of 10. I actually just picked out an example in the m-b-m - there was a possible counter on from a kick, he threw the dummy and stepped inside the first defender, but where 2014!Ford might've made a clean break, 2026!Ford got halfway through before being scragged by someone covering across and probably would've been turned over if we hadn't had advantage.

Far better to have a player like Dingwall who can stand at first receiver to keep the defence honest if we need to, and let Ford quarterback the attack.

Puja

[Oakboy]

Re Ford’s running game. Read an interview with him in The Times last week and he basically says he’s had it coached out of him/not been setup to do it since he left Bath.

Wow. That is horrendous. Just one small break per game gives the opposition defenders a headache wondering. As it is they just charge him. For all his so-called game management, he does NOT always play what's in front of him based on that admission. Why would coaches want to restrict the breadth of his game? That's what I would pick him for.

I suppose his acceptance of those restrictions gels with his subordination to Farrell for all those games. Why did he not tell the coaches to fuck off as Russell would do?

I'd imagine it's a bit like Wilkinson getting told off back in the day for clearing out rucks and leaving the team without a 10 for the next phase. With his pace having dropped off after the injuries, there is no value to Ford making a half-break and getting buried for a phase or two - he's not big enough to barrel through and offload for a clean break so if it's not a gap big enough to walk through, then there's no value to him trying for the 1 in 10 chance that he'll make a break - that'd just be selfish hubris and making the wrong decision and slowing the attack 9 times out of 10. I actually just picked out an example in the m-b-m - there was a possible counter on from a kick, he threw the dummy and stepped inside the first defender, but where 2014!Ford might've made a clean break, 2026!Ford got halfway through before being scragged by someone covering across and probably would've been turned over if we hadn't had advantage.

Far better to have a player like Dingwall who can stand at first receiver to keep the defence honest if we need to, and let Ford quarterback the attack.

Puja

Or, if he can't step through a gap in the defence any more, pick one of the other two. I think he still can but he's clearly closed his mind to it. This getting buried nonsense is not the issue. His hands are so good that he only needs a yard before off-loading anyway. I simply don't understand restricting talent, especially now we have got rid of Farrell.

[Puja]

Wow. That is horrendous. Just one small break per game gives the opposition defenders a headache wondering. As it is they just charge him. For all his so-called game management, he does NOT always play what's in front of him based on that admission. Why would coaches want to restrict the breadth of his game? That's what I would pick him for.

I suppose his acceptance of those restrictions gels with his subordination to Farrell for all those games. Why did he not tell the coaches to fuck off as Russell would do?

I'd imagine it's a bit like Wilkinson getting told off back in the day for clearing out rucks and leaving the team without a 10 for the next phase. With his pace having dropped off after the injuries, there is no value to Ford making a half-break and getting buried for a phase or two - he's not big enough to barrel through and offload for a clean break so if it's not a gap big enough to walk through, then there's no value to him trying for the 1 in 10 chance that he'll make a break - that'd just be selfish hubris and making the wrong decision and slowing the attack 9 times out of 10. I actually just picked out an example in the m-b-m - there was a possible counter on from a kick, he threw the dummy and stepped inside the first defender, but where 2014!Ford might've made a clean break, 2026!Ford got halfway through before being scragged by someone covering across and probably would've been turned over if we hadn't had advantage.

Far better to have a player like Dingwall who can stand at first receiver to keep the defence honest if we need to, and let Ford quarterback the attack.

Puja

Or, if he can't step through a gap in the defence any more, pick one of the other two. I think he still can but he's clearly closed his mind to it. This getting buried nonsense is not the issue. His hands are so good that he only needs a yard before off-loading anyway. I simply don't understand restricting talent, especially now we have got rid of Farrell.

I think you've got a weird idea of Ford as a weak-willed and cowable yes-man, subordinated to Farrell and controlled by his coaches. From everything I've read of him, he's obsessive and driven to improve his decision-making and make the "right" choice as often as possible and he's clearly decided that he's better putting other people into space than he is taking contact himself. He's changed his game as he's got older and slower and as the game itself has changed, and is playing superbly in directing runners around him. Yes, he can't hit a gap like Marcus can, but Marcus will hit the cross-field kick for Arundell's try too hard 2 times out of 5, so you pick what you prefer.

I'm happy having a general who runs the rest of the attack and it seems to be working out quite well for us so far.

Puja

[Oakboy]

I'd imagine it's a bit like Wilkinson getting told off back in the day for clearing out rucks and leaving the team without a 10 for the next phase. With his pace having dropped off after the injuries, there is no value to Ford making a half-break and getting buried for a phase or two - he's not big enough to barrel through and offload for a clean break so if it's not a gap big enough to walk through, then there's no value to him trying for the 1 in 10 chance that he'll make a break - that'd just be selfish hubris and making the wrong decision and slowing the attack 9 times out of 10. I actually just picked out an example in the m-b-m - there was a possible counter on from a kick, he threw the dummy and stepped inside the first defender, but where 2014!Ford might've made a clean break, 2026!Ford got halfway through before being scragged by someone covering across and probably would've been turned over if we hadn't had advantage.

Far better to have a player like Dingwall who can stand at first receiver to keep the defence honest if we need to, and let Ford quarterback the attack.

Puja

Or, if he can't step through a gap in the defence any more, pick one of the other two. I think he still can but he's clearly closed his mind to it. This getting buried nonsense is not the issue. His hands are so good that he only needs a yard before off-loading anyway. I simply don't understand restricting talent, especially now we have got rid of Farrell.

I think you've got a weird idea of Ford as a weak-willed and cowable yes-man, subordinated to Farrell and controlled by his coaches. From everything I've read of him, he's obsessive and driven to improve his decision-making and make the "right" choice as often as possible and he's clearly decided that he's better putting other people into space than he is taking contact himself. He's changed his game as he's got older and slower and as the game itself has changed, and is playing superbly in directing runners around him. Yes, he can't hit a gap like Marcus can, but Marcus will hit the cross-field kick for Arundell's try too hard 2 times out of 5, so you pick what you prefer.

I'm happy having a general who runs the rest of the attack and it seems to be working out quite well for us so far.

Puja

Ah, you may well be right. I can't get my head around a gifted player being happy to play in limited fashion. If he thinks that is the best application of his talent it's sad. Long-term it will restrict the team's ceiling.

[pjm1]

Yeah, the nuance has probably been lost in that article (or the way George relayed it).

I can't imagine any coach will ever say, "don't run through that obvious gap and score from 10m out if it's clearly on." But that is very different from, "it's not your job to try to keep the defence honest with occasional, likely-to-fail carries. Outside of the last 10 minutes, the stats show it's more likely to lead to a subsequent loss of [15m] of gainline than it will lead to a linebreak. It's not worth it - leave that to your 12, as their statistical loss from a smashed-back carry is more like [5m]."

Or something like that. The reason coaches* dislike 10s doing it is because the stats can show making that move has a lower probability of a good outcome than the alternatives in most situations. So, they can talk through the situations where you might consider it - which are probably fairly limited. It's not just the next phase problem, it's the fact it basically resets the good work in building gainline momentum and fast ball up until that point. It will absolutely give the defenders time to reset in that phase, and the one after (because the options will be more constrained).

* excluding French coaches, Harlequins and a few other select groups!

[Mikey Brown]

There’s some interesting (enough) little segments on RU weekly podcast with Ford and Heyes. Both seem to have very impressive attitudes.

Ford is pretty humble, yet assured, when pushed about his skills and decision making. I liked the little titbit afterwards about Henson. That when he came to Bath he thought he’d be expected to mentor young George, but it turned out the other way around.

[FKAS]

Or, if he can't step through a gap in the defence any more, pick one of the other two. I think he still can but he's clearly closed his mind to it. This getting buried nonsense is not the issue. His hands are so good that he only needs a yard before off-loading anyway. I simply don't understand restricting talent, especially now we have got rid of Farrell.

I think you've got a weird idea of Ford as a weak-willed and cowable yes-man, subordinated to Farrell and controlled by his coaches. From everything I've read of him, he's obsessive and driven to improve his decision-making and make the "right" choice as often as possible and he's clearly decided that he's better putting other people into space than he is taking contact himself. He's changed his game as he's got older and slower and as the game itself has changed, and is playing superbly in directing runners around him. Yes, he can't hit a gap like Marcus can, but Marcus will hit the cross-field kick for Arundell's try too hard 2 times out of 5, so you pick what you prefer.

I'm happy having a general who runs the rest of the attack and it seems to be working out quite well for us so far.

Puja

Ah, you may well be right. I can't get my head around a gifted player being happy to play in limited fashion. If he thinks that is the best application of his talent it's sad. Long-term it will restrict the team's ceiling.

I think PJM is right, coaches and analysts will have reviewed game footage and showed Ford there's a drop off in efficiency when the 10 or maybe more just him (who knows) goes themselves. Ford always seems focused on what's best for the team and making an little gains where he can. If that means only going for gaps when they are wind open then I can easily imagine him adjusting his style to be more efficient. I've seen him coast through holes and release players for tries at Sale but international defences are a lot better so it might be a case of ever more marginal chances of success.

More likely increasing the teams ceiling by limiting his own highlights reel.

[pjm1]

Have been catching up with a literal truck-load of youtube and MSM content talking about the game. The analysis of the Eng v Wal and Ita v Sco games is interesting, but given the peculiarities of each game, hard to see how much can really be carried forward, other than generic trueisms (lose your lineout in a close match-up and you'll lose the game).

I don't normally watch The Good The Bad The Rugby podcast, but I did. Mike Brown's take was insightful for me: he said that if England can maintain focus (before game, and during game) then we really should have too much for Scotland. I would agree - on paper (where no game is played!) then England 2026 is too strong for Scotland, in spite of recent prior results. What goes against this are a few risks: (1) luck - can never legislate for that, and it's part of what makes games exciting; (2) England not playing to their potential (and Scotland doing so, as we should always expect); or (3) individual brilliance (Hask mentioned Hamish Watson getting something like 5 turnovers as an example from his time). I personally think our biggest risk on that last one is Tuipolotu having the game of the season (and he is world class at his best) and showing our internationally naive centres how it's done.

This isn't meant to be arrogant, I'm just looking where the odds could be rebalanced to get to a 50:50 scenario or better (for Scotland). The biggest one for me is England letting the occasion and game situation get to them. I am more hopeful after Wales that Genge has had his headwreck moment(s), Curry has had his yellow card (noting both highlight how Scotland could still target them) and Ford has demonstrated that sticking to the plan, regardless is the zone he is in right now. Plenty of chat in podcasts etc. on his relentless pursuit of "doing the boring, but right thing" over and over. If he can maintain that, in spite of being 30+ up against a poor Wales, then I'm genuinely confident he will be able to manage the same in Murrayfield.

In England's credit bank is the fact we showed very little "secret sauce" against Italy, bar perhaps the last 10-15. We upped the tempo nicely then, whereas the rest of the match was a combination of bending and breaking their poor mid-defensive line (10, 12, 13 all poor in D) and tactically superlative kicking. Not much for Scotland to train to.

Also to our advantage is the brainbox that is Strawbridge, who should be developing some smart set plays to beat the Scottish defensive setup. Italy managed it with the flooring of both 10 then 12 into defensive rucks in succession. Next phase, they break through that disorganised midfield defence.

The more obvious areas that should be strengths to us will depend on how we (and they) execute on the day. Kicking, lineout, scrum - they all require that we're getting those particular games of rock-paper-scissors right in our prep. Again, for me that's where the game and environment could get to England and mess with execution. I don't think we'll get sucked into overplaying (since we didn't against Wales) but if we end up in the wrong headspace, Scotland can always turn us over.

[Danno]

Is Strawbridge still part of the team? I thought he'd left ages ago

[p/d]

I have nothing against Ford. Just disappointed that he is our first choice.

[Puja]

Or, if he can't step through a gap in the defence any more, pick one of the other two. I think he still can but he's clearly closed his mind to it. This getting buried nonsense is not the issue. His hands are so good that he only needs a yard before off-loading anyway. I simply don't understand restricting talent, especially now we have got rid of Farrell.

I think you've got a weird idea of Ford as a weak-willed and cowable yes-man, subordinated to Farrell and controlled by his coaches. From everything I've read of him, he's obsessive and driven to improve his decision-making and make the "right" choice as often as possible and he's clearly decided that he's better putting other people into space than he is taking contact himself. He's changed his game as he's got older and slower and as the game itself has changed, and is playing superbly in directing runners around him. Yes, he can't hit a gap like Marcus can, but Marcus will hit the cross-field kick for Arundell's try too hard 2 times out of 5, so you pick what you prefer.

I'm happy having a general who runs the rest of the attack and it seems to be working out quite well for us so far.

Puja

Ah, you may well be right. I can't get my head around a gifted player being happy to play in limited fashion. If he thinks that is the best application of his talent it's sad. Long-term it will restrict the team's ceiling.

Have to disagree. Breaking modern defences nowadays is a lot more complicated than just individual running and I'd hardly say Ford's lack of personal breaks is limiting our attacking game; quite the opposite! I'd far rather him concentrate on what he's best at, which is manipulating the defence and making the space for others to score.

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

I also wonder if there’s much in the Radford connection for the Saints pair at centre as well. It must be strange that he is coaching both pairs of centres. He’s been with Scotland since the autumn but I’m not totally sure how settled his system is.

[Danno]

I think you've got a weird idea of Ford as a weak-willed and cowable yes-man, subordinated to Farrell and controlled by his coaches. From everything I've read of him, he's obsessive and driven to improve his decision-making and make the "right" choice as often as possible and he's clearly decided that he's better putting other people into space than he is taking contact himself. He's changed his game as he's got older and slower and as the game itself has changed, and is playing superbly in directing runners around him. Yes, he can't hit a gap like Marcus can, but Marcus will hit the cross-field kick for Arundell's try too hard 2 times out of 5, so you pick what you prefer.

I'm happy having a general who runs the rest of the attack and it seems to be working out quite well for us so far.

Puja

Ah, you may well be right. I can't get my head around a gifted player being happy to play in limited fashion. If he thinks that is the best application of his talent it's sad. Long-term it will restrict the team's ceiling.

Have to disagree. Breaking modern defences nowadays is a lot more complicated than just individual running and I'd hardly say Ford's lack of personal breaks is limiting our attacking game; quite the opposite! I'd far rather him concentrate on what he's best at, which is manipulating the defence and making the space for others to score.

Puja

Quite. I think he's the best in the world at it. Dupont and Jalibert/Ntamack, are close as a combo but still don't have Ford's vision or selflessness, over their own personal brilliance.

[pjm1]

Is Strawbridge still part of the team? I thought he'd left ages ago

Doh! I typed Strawbridge and was thinking Blackett... I was even going add "based on what he did for Bath"!!

Too many bloody changes of England coaching setup for me to keep up

Edit to add: re: Ford and the manipulation of defences, again I think the coaches and system are doing a lot of the heavy lifting here. Yes, Ford is exceptional at implementing the system - largely by making consistently excellent decisions on which option to pick - but it is the wave structure and attention to reload speed, folding decisions (in attack) and high quality scanning (not just looking at where the defense is, but who is where, how are they moving, where will the half-gaps likely appear). Ford and DIngwall within that structure, where everyone else knows what they need to do are the keys to unlocking defences. It's amazing to watch when it clicks.

[Mellsblue]

As it’s generated a lot of debate, here is the relevant excerpt from the Ford interview in The Times:

Ford came through as a triplethreat playmaker and at Bath he was in charge of a dynamic, running attack. But he slowly felt himself being “shoehorned” into a gamemanager role, with his running threat locked away. For England in the 2020s, he saw the ball as “a ticking time bomb” because of how the breakdown was refereed, and in the 2021-22 title-winning Leicester Tigers team, his job was to implement a game plan. That meant standing deep and kicking.
“You want to do your job for the team, but it was taking away from my running game,” he says. “I thought: I know I need to be better than this. In the game now, you’ve got to have a great passing game. You’ve got to have the ability to put people in space, but you’ve got to go and take space yourself as well. You’ve got to play close to the fire, you’ve got to have the ability to run, pass and kick.”

Interesting stat that has been referenced a number of times on here over the years:
Win % with Ford = 70%
Win % without Ford = 59%

There was also a stat that I thought was in the article but isn’t, on second read. Figures are only ballpark as I’m trusting my failing memory but… distance from the tackler/gainline a pass is made by 10s in international matches:
Ford = 1.5m (ish)
Everyone else = just over 2m

[Beasties]

Great stats Mells.

[FKAS]

Scotland: Jordan, Steyn, Jones, Tuipulotu (capt), Dobie, Russell, White; McBeth, Turner, Z Fagerson, Brown, Cummings, Ritchie, Darge, Dempsey.

Replacements: Cherry, Schoeman, Millar Mills, Williamson, M Fagerson, Horne, Hastings, Graham.

Ritchie returning is a ball ache he's a great kick chase option and generally a pest.