RugbyRebels

That's one way to make clear you're missing Nowell. He's a big unit to be chasing box kicks.

How often does the offside player get rumbled these days, though

I'm fully expecting a low risk, steady as she goes kind of selection for this game. I dont expect us to change much tactically so i'm bracing myself for another slow grind with far too much kicking and very limited ambition.
Am i wrong to be have such expectations?

fivepointer wrote:I'm fully expecting a low risk, steady as she goes kind of selection for this game. I dont expect us to change much tactically so i'm bracing myself for another slow grind with far too much kicking and very limited ambition.
Am i wrong to be have such expectations?

I hope you are wrong but expect you are right. It begs the question of how attractive would we find the England team's play if we were neutral? Following on from that, is winning all that matters?

Basically, was it always Farrell before Cipriani? Nothing will change while Jones is in the job.

I think we'd be wrong to think the kicking as Eddie and the team see it as representing limited ambition. And more they don't want to take the risk of multiphase play in general because of how modern defences operation and then for Eddie our skills, going into contact, ruck clearing, passing and decision making

It's a good way to avoid too physical a game as well, reducing impacts will help keep the team fresher.

Digby wrote:I think we'd be wrong to think the kicking as Eddie and the team see it as representing limited ambition. And more they don't want to take the risk of multiphase play in general because of how modern defences operation and then for Eddie our skills, going into contact, ruck clearing, passing and decision making

That’s kind of the definition, though. Reducing opportunities for either side and only playing a game based upon 1 or 2 set plays and opposition mistakes.

I could understand the tactics more if we had the standard of squad from, say, 15 years ago. The mentality of it does not suit the current batch of players - it's as if we go out not to lose rather than to win.

Oakboy wrote:I could understand the tactics more if we had the standard of squad from, say, 15 years ago. The mentality of it does not suit the current batch of players - it's as if we go out not to lose rather than to win.

Oh, I understand it, but it requires you to be better drilled than everyone you come up against. Which is fine against nearly every team.

The problems come against two types of team: the ones who are just better than you at the same thing (SA) or the ones that are so incredibly unstructured or instinctual in attack that they can catch you unaware (France, potentially NZ, but not really in their current incarnation).

The problem is that when you do come unstuck, there’s no goodwill because you’ve been playing such atrocious rugby.

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:I think we'd be wrong to think the kicking as Eddie and the team see it as representing limited ambition. And more they don't want to take the risk of multiphase play in general because of how modern defences operation and then for Eddie our skills, going into contact, ruck clearing, passing and decision making

That’s kind of the definition, though. Reducing opportunities for either side and only playing a game based upon 1 or 2 set plays and opposition mistakes.

Eddie thinks it's creating chances, or rather creating chances we're willing to attack ball in hand. We'll play off 1st phase, we'll play off turnover if Youngs/Farrell don't kick, and we'll play off ball kicked badly to us, but if we don't break the line off that attempt and/or a defence is set we'll kick until we're not playing an organised defence.

And by heavens we're positively entertaining to watch by comparison with SA, and they won the WC, easily.

Oakboy wrote:I could understand the tactics more if we had the standard of squad from, say, 15 years ago. The mentality of it does not suit the current batch of players - it's as if we go out not to lose rather than to win.

Why would chasing kicks suit Sheridan and White?

I don't think our tactics now are hard to understand whether in the context of our current crop or even some slightly different selections, I don't like it but I'm not sure it'd make more sense if we had Matt Tait and Andy Hazell back, or Matt Stevens, Jason Robinson and Jamie Noon.

I think on the mentality that we're trying not to take risks seems, and that we're probably better leading rather than chasing a game

Digby wrote:

Oakboy wrote:I could understand the tactics more if we had the standard of squad from, say, 15 years ago. The mentality of it does not suit the current batch of players - it's as if we go out not to lose rather than to win.

Why would chasing kicks suit Sheridan and White?

I don't think our tactics now are hard to understand whether in the context of our current crop or even some slightly different selections, I don't like it but I'm not sure it'd make more sense if we had Matt Tait and Andy Hazell back, or Matt Stevens, Jason Robinson and Jamie Noon.

I think on the mentality that we're trying not to take risks seems, and that we're probably better leading rather than chasing a game

I think the argument is that our squad is now better equipped for a more expansive/free flowing/possession based game than any squad we’ve previously had, not that the squad ten years ago would perform better under the present tactics than the current lot.
To your first example, you’d rather Sinckler and Mako used in wider/free flowing/expansive gameplan than White and Sheridan. Yet, here we are, kicking the ball away despite ball playing props, a 7 at 6, a no8 who can be used at first receiver, a ball playing 12 and a 15 selection based primarily on ball playing/linking ability.

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:I think we'd be wrong to think the kicking as Eddie and the team see it as representing limited ambition. And more they don't want to take the risk of multiphase play in general because of how modern defences operation and then for Eddie our skills, going into contact, ruck clearing, passing and decision making

That’s kind of the definition, though. Reducing opportunities for either side and only playing a game based upon 1 or 2 set plays and opposition mistakes.

Eddie thinks it's creating chances, or rather creating chances we're willing to attack ball in hand. We'll play off 1st phase, we'll play off turnover if Youngs/Farrell don't kick, and we'll play off ball kicked badly to us, but if we don't break the line off that attempt and/or a defence is set we'll kick until we're not playing an organised defence.

And by heavens we're positively entertaining to watch by comparison with SA, and they won the WC, easily.

Little sign that their instinct is to play. Kicking does seem to be the default option, even when an opportunity to move the ball arises.

Article reported by the times that Eddie has a Thorley training as flanker.

Wtf...?

Gloskarlos wrote:Article reported by the times that Eddie has a Thorley training as flanker.

Wtf...?

Probably just saw him scrumming down, not wanting a repeat of May...

Gloskarlos wrote:Article reported by the times that Eddie has a Thorley training as flanker.

Wtf...?

Eddie is enjoying f*cking with the press, I see.

Puja

Gloskarlos wrote:Article reported by the times that Eddie has a Thorley training as flanker.

Wtf...?

Potential hybrid player apparently. I assume instead of playing like a normal winger in open play he'll operate as an additional flanker to try and increase the carrying and offload options. In defence, dependant on where the team is on the field he may defend as a forward or cover the backfield as a back.

Burgess was used as a hybrid player by Ford at Bath. He defended and attacked as a forward in the loose but come the lineout he'd defend or attack as a midfield strike option. Used to see him support or run moves wkth the midfield in attack quite a bit as well.

Nothing wrong with getting a little creative with positioning. Naturally Jones is bigging it up with the media in usual fun and games kind of way.

Look at the AB game and Lienert Brown packing down with as much aplomb as Johny May. Helps to be a little prepared for a yellow in the pack and how you compensate.

Probably likewise with Earl on the wing. It is just planning for different eventualities.

Raggs wrote:

Gloskarlos wrote:Article reported by the times that Eddie has a Thorley training as flanker.

Wtf...?

Probably just saw him scrumming down, not wanting a repeat of May...

Nobody claimed about May last game did they? So Eddie can get them into the right shape

fivepointer wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:
That’s kind of the definition, though. Reducing opportunities for either side and only playing a game based upon 1 or 2 set plays and opposition mistakes.

Eddie thinks it's creating chances, or rather creating chances we're willing to attack ball in hand. We'll play off 1st phase, we'll play off turnover if Youngs/Farrell don't kick, and we'll play off ball kicked badly to us, but if we don't break the line off that attempt and/or a defence is set we'll kick until we're not playing an organised defence.

And by heavens we're positively entertaining to watch by comparison with SA, and they won the WC, easily.

Little sign that their instinct is to play. Kicking does seem to be the default option, even when an opportunity to move the ball arises.

Players will mostly do what their coaches tell them, especially if it means more caps. Sure the players come with certain areas they'd prefer to concentrate on, but mostly this is down to Eddie. And I don't see what's in the current game not to encourage the teams to kick more

Digby wrote:

fivepointer wrote:

Digby wrote:
Eddie thinks it's creating chances, or rather creating chances we're willing to attack ball in hand. We'll play off 1st phase, we'll play off turnover if Youngs/Farrell don't kick, and we'll play off ball kicked badly to us, but if we don't break the line off that attempt and/or a defence is set we'll kick until we're not playing an organised defence.

And by heavens we're positively entertaining to watch by comparison with SA, and they won the WC, easily.

Little sign that their instinct is to play. Kicking does seem to be the default option, even when an opportunity to move the ball arises.

Players will mostly do what their coaches tell them, especially if it means more caps. Sure the players come with certain areas they'd prefer to concentrate on, but mostly this is down to Eddie. And I don't see what's in the current game not to encourage the teams to kick more

Diggers, are you suggesting that the players LIKE kicking so much? Is that not to deny their own basic rugby skills?

Listening on the touchline, I'd suggest the most called out advice at any match was, "Don't kick." I find myself now yelling that at the TV screen throughout England matches - usually followed by, "the f#cking thing."

The whole 9 forwards thing is so absolutely Eddie just having fun with the press:

Oakboy wrote:

Digby wrote:

fivepointer wrote:
Little sign that their instinct is to play. Kicking does seem to be the default option, even when an opportunity to move the ball arises.

Players will mostly do what their coaches tell them, especially if it means more caps. Sure the players come with certain areas they'd prefer to concentrate on, but mostly this is down to Eddie. And I don't see what's in the current game not to encourage the teams to kick more

Diggers, are you suggesting that the players LIKE kicking so much? Is that not to deny their own basic rugby skills?

Listening on the touchline, I'd suggest the most called out advice at any match was, "Don't kick." I find myself now yelling that at the TV screen throughout England matches - usually followed by, "the f#cking thing."

They'll like being selected and they'll like winning, and they do a lot of that under Eddie. And I think they'll have in mind all the detail that goes around what they want to do when the elect to keep ball in hand. It probably doesn't feel like all they do is kick to them, and they'd probably just think people who claim otherwise don't understand modern rugby nor what England are trying to do

Digby wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Digby wrote:
Players will mostly do what their coaches tell them, especially if it means more caps. Sure the players come with certain areas they'd prefer to concentrate on, but mostly this is down to Eddie. And I don't see what's in the current game not to encourage the teams to kick more

Diggers, are you suggesting that the players LIKE kicking so much? Is that not to deny their own basic rugby skills?

Listening on the touchline, I'd suggest the most called out advice at any match was, "Don't kick." I find myself now yelling that at the TV screen throughout England matches - usually followed by, "the f#cking thing."

They'll like being selected and they'll like winning, and they do a lot of that under Eddie. And I think they'll have in mind all the detail that goes around what they want to do when the elect to keep ball in hand. It probably doesn't feel like all they do is kick to them, and they'd probably just think people who claim otherwise don't understand modern rugby nor what England are trying to do

Hopefully, they’ll also understand the public might be bored watching them. I’d also wager a few of them would want at least a bit more ball in hand.
If some meaningless, cobbled together, temporary competition, days after saying “Whilst we’re getting ready for a Test match, it’s also important players stop and are conscious of their wider responsibilities in a very difficult time for all. We want them to have smiles on their faces but also put smiles on other people’s faces – that’s crucial.” isn’t the time to change game plan, if only so there is an actual plan b (rather than the headless, inaccurate dross we saw in the first ten mins of the RWC final), then surely this is the time to do it.

Ultimate question, "Is Jones good for English rugby?"