England vs New Zealand - Saturday

[Mellsblue]

He was telling in defence but that’s it. Equally we stopped playing which negated him somewhat

Yep. Why have Dombrandt and Randall on the bench and then slow things down when you bring them on.

[Danno]

Bench made a huge difference in the wrong direction. And we stopped playing! Bring Randall on and totally negate his game with the tactics! Terrible game management from the coaches. We just shat ourselves. But to be fair they were far superior largely, certainly ball in hand.

As was predictable.

Yeah. This is the most annoying piece for me. ‘The Bomb Squad’ comes on to put their foot on the throat of the opponent. We use our bench to attempt to contain the opposition and protect a lead. The mentality is almost the polar opposite. Worse, we don’t even pick the right personnel for a containment job.

These narrow defeats are infuriating. With the exception of the France game, it’s like we stop playing at 60 mins, encourage the opposition to attack us until they inevitably score. Then spend the last 5mins trying to play again. It’s bizarre.

Overall, that was a big backwards step from the summer and now 2/4 looks like our best case which is just not good enough.

Small positive, but I did think Spencer was better (and considerably zippier) than I expected him to be.

Bang on. It's a really, really weird strategy.

[Mellsblue]

The bench was self inflicted, but I agree that the players aren’t as good as is believed.

I really want to disagree but somebody summed it up as, "Take Itoje, Marcus and IFW out through injury and we are no better than ordinary."

Harsh but not totally wrong. Picking a XV from the combined squads yesterday would probably only include those three from our lot.

I think SB COULD improve several areas with better selection, especially the back row.

Ccs was excellent I thought. We’ve nothing much better in the front and second rows, maybe Willis could come into 8 and Earl to 7, but who knows if that’d be better; we could certainly do with a few ruck turnovers and slowing their ball down.
Still unconvinced by Marcus, midfield not great and as a huge Freeman fan, felt he looked a bit statuesque compared with his oppos. IFW is the biz with the ball. They targeted Furbank in the air, it’s an obvious one. But stick Steward in and you have a different problem to solve.

The new laws around the high ball may swing selection back in Steward’s favour. If we ‘attack’ as we did yesterday Furbank’s strengths are wasted anyway.

[Banquo]

I really want to disagree but somebody summed it up as, "Take Itoje, Marcus and IFW out through injury and we are no better than ordinary."

Harsh but not totally wrong. Picking a XV from the combined squads yesterday would probably only include those three from our lot.

I think SB COULD improve several areas with better selection, especially the back row.

Ccs was excellent I thought. We’ve nothing much better in the front and second rows, maybe Willis could come into 8 and Earl to 7, but who knows if that’d be better; we could certainly do with a few ruck turnovers and slowing their ball down.
Still unconvinced by Marcus, midfield not great and as a huge Freeman fan, felt he looked a bit statuesque compared with his oppos. IFW is the biz with the ball. They targeted Furbank in the air, it’s an obvious one. But stick Steward in and you have a different problem to solve.

The new laws around the high ball may swing selection back in Steward’s favour. If we ‘attack’ as we did yesterday Furbank’s strengths are wasted anyway.

doubt young Fred would have been on hand for the scoring pass to IFW, but a minor point. As you say, no point in having Furbanks attacking skills if not used.

[Mikey Brown]

I can’t think of much that hasn’t been covered. Tactics vs talent, a few individuals off the bench doing okay but the timing and strategy didn’t add up - Smith and Dombrandt passing like ships in the night. Frustrating but also predictable.

Randall’s panic pass from the scrum one of the worst things I’ve ever seen though. Ford hitting the post and then receiving another shocker pass for the drop goal is cruel, but he didn’t look to have any spark at all when he came on.

I actually really enjoyed the game overall though. Both teams can feel a few moments of improved accuracy could have seen them go a couple of scores ahead, but felt NZ deserved it overall.

[Banquo]

I can’t think of much that hasn’t been covered. Tactics vs talent, a few individuals off the bench doing okay but the timing and strategy didn’t add up - Smith and Dombrandt passing like ships in the night. Frustrating but also predictable.

Randall’s panic pass from the scrum one of the worst things I’ve ever seen though. Ford hitting the post and then receiving another shocker pass for the drop goal is cruel, but he didn’t look to have any spark at all when he came on.

I actually really enjoyed the game overall though. Both teams can feel a few moments of improved accuracy could have seen them go a couple of scores ahead, but felt NZ deserved it overall.

ridiculous chucking rusty George into that tbh.


Barnes reckons Smith would Definitely have nailed the last drop goal, desite referencing his first two lamentable ones. eh?

It was a good watch. Couple of the kiwis and IFW box office

[fivepointer]

"Rusty George....." Harsh but true, and entirely as feared.

But why make the change? Smith was going well, was obviously fit and had plenty in the tank. He had enabled us to get into the lead, so surely he had to be left on.

We might bemoan our lack of quality and options in certain positions but the coaches arent helping by some dim selection calls, poorly timed substitutions and failure to use the talent that we do have.

[Scrumhead]

Smith’s drop goals are not a strength. However, I do think he’d probably have slotted the penalty Ford missed.

The most disappointing thing about the last passage of play was the lack of composure all round. The AB’s were down to 14 and knew that they had to be squeaky clean so with the right level of composure, we could have found the space to score a try or at least put Ford in a much easier position for the drop goal attempt. It was pure panic in a moment where we had several things in our favour. My biggest criticism of Ford is not managing that. He dropped back in to the pocket way too early and made life difficult for himself. Nothing like the composure we saw from him in the RWC opener.

[Oakboy]

"Rusty George....." Harsh but true, and entirely as feared.

But why make the change? Smith was going well, was obviously fit and had plenty in the tank. He had enabled us to get into the lead, so surely he had to be left on.

We might bemoan our lack of quality and options in certain positions but the coaches arent helping by some dim selection calls, poorly timed substitutions and failure to use the talent that we do have.

Might a thought for Fin Smith be appropriate? On the bench (as cover ahead of Ford as some may suggest was logical), he would presumably have stayed there. Ford's presence as a game manager to hold a lead was pre-conceived beyond common sense. It is not just players who fail to play what is in front of them.

[Scrumhead]

But why take Marcus Smith off in the first place? He wasn’t struggling if you’re going to use Dombrandt, why not use the partnership with Smith?

[Epaminondas Pules]

The whole passage of play from the scrum to set the drop goal was awful. We set up completely to not attack and literally telegraphed a drop goal from the off. It was utterly woeful in approach and execution.

[Scrumhead]

100%. Zero ambition, guile or composure.

[Epaminondas Pules]

The bench was self inflicted, but I agree that the players aren’t as good as is believed.

Though the squad and team are the coaches choice. There are alternatives who could have been looked at in the squad environment who offer something different. They chose safety and players known to be OK or never will be. Bold we are not.

Not sure many would have picked a different starting xv in fairness, given injuries. The bench was comedy tho.


On a side note, Spencer went ok I thought.

Having three non match fit players in the 23 was a shocking decision. Bench as you say was utter comedy. Don’t get why Baxter didn’t start; he’s been the form loosehead, whilst Genge has been off his best. The scrum half / fly half combos just felt the wrong way round. I thought Spencer did alright, but you’d think Randall would be more of a match with Smith, and Spencer with Ford.

The whole 30 odd squad just feels like settling for average rather than looking for something different / potentially better.

[Scrumhead]

But who though? With the exception of maybe Langdon and Willis, I wouldn’t say there’s anyone who is screaming ‘pick me’ for the starting XV.

There are others you could make a case for including in the squad on form like Joe Batley for example, but I don’t think they’d make a material difference to the 23.

For me, it’s less personnel, more gameplan. It just makes no sense to pick players known for their flair and then ask them to play prosaic, percentage rugby.

It’s also weird considering we were starting to look better in attack over the summer.

[Puja]

I do think that people are also looking at the last 15 minutes and working on a presumption that it was entirely our decision that we "went into our shells" and "stopped playing", like New Zealand weren't on the pitch and didn't get a say in the matter. As I recall, we spent a large chunk of time without either ball or territory, mostly because our discipline went to shit and we went from 1 penalty to a shit-tonne, but we did do some attacking when we had it and were possibly unlucky not to score (with the shit cross-field kick that MSmith put in for an unmarked Freeman and Slade's loopy pass to an unmarked IFW being big misses).

Everyone has seized onto the narrative that we deliberately stopped playing, and I'm not sure how true it is.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

I do think that people are also looking at the last 15 minutes and working on a presumption that it was entirely our decision that we "went into our shells" and "stopped playing", like New Zealand weren't on the pitch and didn't get a say in the matter. As I recall, we spent a large chunk of time without either ball or territory, mostly because our discipline went to shit and we went from 1 penalty to a shit-tonne, but we did do some attacking when we had it and were possibly unlucky not to score (with the shit cross-field kick that MSmith put in for an unmarked Freeman and Slade's loopy pass to an unmarked IFW being big misses).

Everyone has seized onto the narrative that we deliberately stopped playing, and I'm not sure how true it is.

Puja

It’s not just this match, though. There’s a body of evidence.
I’m a fan of M. Smith but this ain’t because he’s off the pitch:

https://x.com/willgkelleher/status/1853 ... MV3j-SK8yQ

[Puja]

I do think that people are also looking at the last 15 minutes and working on a presumption that it was entirely our decision that we "went into our shells" and "stopped playing", like New Zealand weren't on the pitch and didn't get a say in the matter. As I recall, we spent a large chunk of time without either ball or territory, mostly because our discipline went to shit and we went from 1 penalty to a shit-tonne, but we did do some attacking when we had it and were possibly unlucky not to score (with the shit cross-field kick that MSmith put in for an unmarked Freeman and Slade's loopy pass to an unmarked IFW being big misses).

Everyone has seized onto the narrative that we deliberately stopped playing, and I'm not sure how true it is.

Puja

It’s not just this match, though. There’s a body of evidence.
I’m a fan a M. Smith but this ain’t because he’s off the pitch:

https://x.com/willgkelleher/status/1853 ... MV3j-SK8yQ

That's Kinda my point though - everyone is automatically saying "We do this EVERY SINGLE TIME; why do we shut up shop and stop playing!?" when I'm not actually convinced that was something we did try to do on this occasion (or in the second test in NZ, for that matter).

Puja

[Mellsblue]

I do think that people are also looking at the last 15 minutes and working on a presumption that it was entirely our decision that we "went into our shells" and "stopped playing", like New Zealand weren't on the pitch and didn't get a say in the matter. As I recall, we spent a large chunk of time without either ball or territory, mostly because our discipline went to shit and we went from 1 penalty to a shit-tonne, but we did do some attacking when we had it and were possibly unlucky not to score (with the shit cross-field kick that MSmith put in for an unmarked Freeman and Slade's loopy pass to an unmarked IFW being big misses).

Everyone has seized onto the narrative that we deliberately stopped playing, and I'm not sure how true it is.

Puja

It’s not just this match, though. There’s a body of evidence.
I’m a fan a M. Smith but this ain’t because he’s off the pitch:

https://x.com/willgkelleher/status/1853 ... MV3j-SK8yQ

That's Kinda my point though - everyone is automatically saying "We do this EVERY SINGLE TIME; why do we shut up shop and stop playing!?" when I'm not actually convinced that was something we did try to do on this occasion (or in the second test in NZ, for that matter).

Puja

Which option is correct:
A) We shut up shop in the last 20/25/30 mins as a tactic and that hasn’t been identified as an issue.
B) The coaches and players still don’t know how to manage the last 20/25/30 mins of a test match despite it being an ongoing problem.
C) They’re both massive problems.

[Stom]

I do think that people are also looking at the last 15 minutes and working on a presumption that it was entirely our decision that we "went into our shells" and "stopped playing", like New Zealand weren't on the pitch and didn't get a say in the matter. As I recall, we spent a large chunk of time without either ball or territory, mostly because our discipline went to shit and we went from 1 penalty to a shit-tonne, but we did do some attacking when we had it and were possibly unlucky not to score (with the shit cross-field kick that MSmith put in for an unmarked Freeman and Slade's loopy pass to an unmarked IFW being big misses).

Everyone has seized onto the narrative that we deliberately stopped playing, and I'm not sure how true it is.

Puja

Because we started to drop off the intensity in defense. It went from defending as a weapon to keeping the oppo out, and suddenly, when we don't have a point of difference, the better footballing team were able to get on top of us.

If we're going to play this way, and if we're going to pick a 6:2 bench to allow fresh legs on, then keep at it, and for gods sake, if the point is to keep up the defensive intensity, don't pick the bench that was picked. As much as I love Dommers, he's not the player to add defensive intensity. Is Randall? Is Ford?

It feels all a bit Safety Boys. When we really need Savage Bastards.

[Oakboy]

It’s not just this match, though. There’s a body of evidence.
I’m a fan a M. Smith but this ain’t because he’s off the pitch:

https://x.com/willgkelleher/status/1853 ... MV3j-SK8yQ

That's Kinda my point though - everyone is automatically saying "We do this EVERY SINGLE TIME; why do we shut up shop and stop playing!?" when I'm not actually convinced that was something we did try to do on this occasion (or in the second test in NZ, for that matter).

Puja

Which option is correct:
A) We shut up shop in the last 20/25/30 mins as a tactic and that hasn’t been identified as an issue.
B) The coaches and players still don’t know how to manage the last 20/25/30 mins of a test match despite it being an ongoing problem.
C) They’re both massive problems.

The selected bench (apart from the front rows) presumably acknowledges the issue. As a solution it failed - predictably.

Puja's point simply emphasises that trying to shut the game down to protect a lead was the wrong strategy. SB picked the bench that NZ yearned for in terms of personnel, balance and approach, arguably.

[Mikey Brown]

people are also looking at the last 15 minutes and working on a presumption that it was entirely our decision that we "went into our shells" and "stopped playing", like New Zealand weren't on the pitch
Puja

This is a bugbear of mine in general to be honest, not just on here but seems to be a big thing with England rugby. We are the great England and other teams beating us is only ever down to us not fulfilling our potential.

Not that this does anything to explain the last 20 minutes. Would have to rewatch it in full I think.

[Banquo]

For me, it’s less personnel, more gameplan.

again...both for me, chicken meet egg, I guess

[Banquo]

Though the squad and team are the coaches choice. There are alternatives who could have been looked at in the squad environment who offer something different. They chose safety and players known to be OK or never will be. Bold we are not.

Not sure many would have picked a different starting xv in fairness, given injuries. The bench was comedy tho.


On a side note, Spencer went ok I thought.

Having three non match fit players in the 23 was a shocking decision. Bench as you say was utter comedy. Don’t get why Baxter didn’t start; he’s been the form loosehead, whilst Genge has been off his best. The scrum half / fly half combos just felt the wrong way round. I thought Spencer did alright, but you’d think Randall would be more of a match with Smith, and Spencer with Ford.

The whole 30 odd squad just feels like settling for average rather than looking for something different / potentially better.

true of squad as a whole, but you are really only fiddling at the edges teamwise tbh.

[Stom]

For me, it’s less personnel, more gameplan.

again...both for me, chicken meet egg, I guess

And gameplan plus selection together…again, I get it, I love Dombrandt as a player. But he’s not the player needed in that situation.

I’d argue Earl isn’t, either…

[Scrumhead]

I do think that people are also looking at the last 15 minutes and working on a presumption that it was entirely our decision that we "went into our shells" and "stopped playing", like New Zealand weren't on the pitch and didn't get a say in the matter. As I recall, we spent a large chunk of time without either ball or territory, mostly because our discipline went to shit and we went from 1 penalty to a shit-tonne, but we did do some attacking when we had it and were possibly unlucky not to score (with the shit cross-field kick that MSmith put in for an unmarked Freeman and Slade's loopy pass to an unmarked IFW being big misses).

Everyone has seized onto the narrative that we deliberately stopped playing, and I'm not sure how true it is.

Puja

It’s not just this match, though. There’s a body of evidence.
I’m a fan a M. Smith but this ain’t because he’s off the pitch:

https://x.com/willgkelleher/status/1853 ... MV3j-SK8yQ

That's Kinda my point though - everyone is automatically saying "We do this EVERY SINGLE TIME; why do we shut up shop and stop playing!?" when I'm not actually convinced that was something we did try to do on this occasion (or in the second test in NZ, for that matter).

Puja

I guess it’s similar to saying that all tries are a failing of the defence rather than focusing on the skill of the attack. One being good doesn’t necessarily mean the other is outright bad.

In some cases, it’s simply a case of the opposition finishing more strongly. However, I do think we change to a more negative approach in the final quarter and often our substitutes are picked with this in mind. I assume that the aim of the bench last weekend was to try to play for territory, dominate through the forwards and ‘keep it tight’. I still think the mindset behind that is more about protecting a lead than compounding it, which is flawed on a number of levels:

1) it’s working on the assumption we’re leading.
2) we’re not good at it, so if we are leading, it needs to be by a bigger margin than when we usually go in to ‘shut down mode’.
3) if we’re going 6:2, it compromises our ability to respond to how the game is actually going - if we’re behind and chasing the game, maybe we need changes that are unsuited to the personnel we have on the bench. 5:3 is less risky in that respect.
4) it’s more likely we make the substitutions at predetermined times rather than reacting to the situation in real time.
5) if the plan is to play percentage rugby, pick the players that are best suited to it. I get the logic with Ford and Cole, but Randall and Dombrandt were the least suitable options for the apparent plan.

Ultimately, it’s a 23 man game and our bench is repeatedly letting us down. Some of that is personnel, but if we’re asking them to do a specific job that ignores what’s actually happening on the pitch, we’re setting them up to fail. Ben Spencer is a case in point - he looked a lot better as a starter last week playing more like how he does at Bath, whereas it seems like his role from the bench was to be the Saracens version of himself. Weird.