Australia vs England - First Test

[Mellsblue]

On the plus side, George, Stuart, Curry, Billy, Care and Marchant all went well. Steward’s timing and angles in to the line have improved (based on a sample size of one). Arundell is clearly the business which, back to being a fun sponge, means he will soon be perma-crocked. Finally, our backrow depth is actually pretty good.

Aye, tho lineout was a tad iffy.

Chessum to 6 and Lawes to 7?

[Puja]

On the plus side, George, Stuart, Curry, Billy, Care and Marchant all went well. Steward’s timing and angles in to the line have improved (based on a sample size of one). Arundell is clearly the business which, back to being a fun sponge, means he will soon be perma-crocked. Finally, our backrow depth is actually pretty good.

I'd agree with that. I'd also say Ludlam looked good when he came on and I was impressed with how well JVP settled into his brief cameo.

Puja

[Banquo]

On the plus side, George, Stuart, Curry, Billy, Care and Marchant all went well. Steward’s timing and angles in to the line have improved (based on a sample size of one). Arundell is clearly the business which, back to being a fun sponge, means he will soon be perma-crocked. Finally, our backrow depth is actually pretty good.

I'd agree with that. I'd also say Ludlam looked good when he came on and I was impressed with how well JVP settled into his brief cameo.

Puja

The good bits of Ludlam are good, and good to see JVP trusted in a big match . His dad will be so chuffed!

[32nd Man]

On the plus side, George, Stuart, Curry, Billy, Care and Marchant all went well. Steward’s timing and angles in to the line have improved (based on a sample size of one). Arundell is clearly the business which, back to being a fun sponge, means he will soon be perma-crocked. Finally, our backrow depth is actually pretty good.

I'd agree with that. I'd also say Ludlam looked good when he came on and I was impressed with how well JVP settled into his brief cameo.

Puja

The problem is Ludlam looked good, ran around a lot etc. but it was very noticeable how disorganised everything was without Curry.

[Banquo]

On the plus side, George, Stuart, Curry, Billy, Care and Marchant all went well. Steward’s timing and angles in to the line have improved (based on a sample size of one). Arundell is clearly the business which, back to being a fun sponge, means he will soon be perma-crocked. Finally, our backrow depth is actually pretty good.

I'd agree with that. I'd also say Ludlam looked good when he came on and I was impressed with how well JVP settled into his brief cameo.

Puja

The problem is Ludlam looked good, ran around a lot etc. but it was very noticeable how disorganised everything was without Curry.

Yes, still a bit heart over head.

[Oakboy]

Sometimes it is about preparation/instilled attitude. Right collective frame of mind = right performance = right result.

One trivial little instance of something starting wrong is having Farrell take the kick-off. It's the FH's job. Farrell being better at it (if he is?) is neither here nor there. It seemed a declaration to sideline Smith. Odd, IMO.

I think Jones should simply pick Farrell at 10.

[32nd Man]

The attacking system looked like something that Eddie thought was very clever, with Smith and Farrell rotating and varying depth, but the Aussies worked it out very quickly and then just chopped off our space.

The one time it worked well, for the Curry break and pass to Marchant, we ended up a metre out, and all semblance of organisation or thinking just wen out of the window. It looked like full on panic mode, which is pretty unforgiveable given we had Billy V and Joe C on the pitch to release at their stretched defence.

[Epaminondas Pules]

Our backrow depth is good at Prem level, but there’s only one that could really lay claim to world class at present. Lawes is good. Billy is in better form. Underhill is good. Willis, Earl, Simmonds, Dombrandt, Hill, Martin, Chessum all unproven. Theoretically we have good depth, but at international level it is largely unknown beyond Curry, Underhill, Lawes and Billy.

I forgot Ludlum originally, who I do feel is the most limited option.

[Banquo]

Sometimes it is about preparation/instilled attitude. Right collective frame of mind = right performance = right result.

One trivial little instance of something starting wrong is having Farrell take the kick-off. It's the FH's job. Farrell being better at it (if he is?) is neither here nor there. It seemed a declaration to sideline Smith. Odd, IMO.

I think Jones should simply pick Farrell at 10.

Why is it the fly half’s job?

[Banquo]

Our backrow depth is good at Prem level, but there’s only one that could really lay claim to world class at present. Lawes is good. Billy is in better form. Underhill is good. Willis, Earl, Simmonds, Dombrandt, Hill, Martin, Chessum all unproven. Theoretically we have good depth, but at international level it is largely unknown beyond Curry, Underhill, Lawes and Billy.

I forgot Ludlum originally, who I do feel is the most limited option.

Soz, are you saying Curry is world class?

[Oakboy]

Sometimes it is about preparation/instilled attitude. Right collective frame of mind = right performance = right result.

One trivial little instance of something starting wrong is having Farrell take the kick-off. It's the FH's job. Farrell being better at it (if he is?) is neither here nor there. It seemed a declaration to sideline Smith. Odd, IMO.

I think Jones should simply pick Farrell at 10.

Why is it the fly half’s job?

Just traditionally, I suppose. 9 out of 10 matches I watch, it is so. It's taking it away from Smith that seems to declare demotion. Either pick Smith to run the game from 10 or don't pick him.

[Raggs]

Sometimes it is about preparation/instilled attitude. Right collective frame of mind = right performance = right result.

One trivial little instance of something starting wrong is having Farrell take the kick-off. It's the FH's job. Farrell being better at it (if he is?) is neither here nor there. It seemed a declaration to sideline Smith. Odd, IMO.

I think Jones should simply pick Farrell at 10.

Why is it the fly half’s job?

Just traditionally, I suppose. 9 out of 10 matches I watch, it is so. It's taking it away from Smith that seems to declare demotion. Either pick Smith to run the game from 10 or don't pick him.

Or tactically it makes more sense having other runners chasing/falling back? Or Farrell is simply better at it? Who cares if it's normally done by a certain player?

[Banquo]

Sometimes it is about preparation/instilled attitude. Right collective frame of mind = right performance = right result.

One trivial little instance of something starting wrong is having Farrell take the kick-off. It's the FH's job. Farrell being better at it (if he is?) is neither here nor there. It seemed a declaration to sideline Smith. Odd, IMO.

I think Jones should simply pick Farrell at 10.

Why is it the fly half’s job?

Just traditionally, I suppose. 9 out of 10 matches I watch, it is so. It's taking it away from Smith that seems to declare demotion. Either pick Smith to run the game from 10 or don't pick him.

Sorry but that’s a tad blazery. You get whoever is best for the job to do the job, all things being equal. If you ask a left footed kicker to penalty kick to the right touch line it doesn’t demote the right footed 10 or whoever is the best right footed line kicker.

It’s also a tad one dimensional to pick a 10 to run the game these days. And even then, restarts can aren’t so much a part of that.

[Oakboy]

I did say 'trivial'. It does not matter who kicks off. I'm talking about the message it sends. A young guy struggling to impose his game is denied first feel of the ball because Farrell is on the pitch. Why did Smith kick off previously in the 10 shirt when Slade is a better kicker from hand, for example?

[Mellsblue]

Our backrow depth is good at Prem level, but there’s only one that could really lay claim to world class at present. Lawes is good. Billy is in better form. Underhill is good. Willis, Earl, Simmonds, Dombrandt, Hill, Martin, Chessum all unproven. Theoretically we have good depth, but at international level it is largely unknown beyond Curry, Underhill, Lawes and Billy.

I forgot Ludlum originally, who I do feel is the most limited option.

Your depth can’t all be world class/top class. Curry and Billy are both good internationals with world class performances in them. Lawes and Underhill are both solid, if limited, test players with the possibility of Underhill moving up a level if he can stay fit. Dombrandt has shown glimpses in a handful of caps. Ludlum can hold his own. Willis is arguably a better player than Curry but needs a run to show whether that’s the case.
England now have a decent pool of players I’d be happy can perform at test level, ie good depth.

[Mellsblue]

I did say 'trivial'. It does not matter who kicks off. I'm talking about the message it sends. A young guy struggling to impose his game is denied first feel of the ball because Farrell is on the pitch. Why did Smith kick off previously in the 10 shirt when Slade is a better kicker from hand, for example?

Because Smith does it for Quins and Slade doesn’t do it for Exeter.

[loudnconfident]

Reminded me of the Barbarians game. (I was there ).

My commiserations.

Thank you. I enclose a pic of England huddling under the posts before a Barbarians conversion.

(I have an extensive collection of these)

twickers.jpg

[Raggs]

Felt that our attack was going well, but Smith started calling it out the back too often, rather than Farrell using the second wave of forwards. Analysis will watch that and make a better call than me.

Lots still to work on, but still not willing to chuck everything away.

[Spiffy]

Sometimes it is about preparation/instilled attitude. Right collective frame of mind = right performance = right result.

One trivial little instance of something starting wrong is having Farrell take the kick-off. It's the FH's job. Farrell being better at it (if he is?) is neither here nor there. It seemed a declaration to sideline Smith. Odd, IMO.

I think Jones should simply pick Farrell at 10.

Why is it the fly half’s job?

Just traditionally, I suppose. 9 out of 10 matches I watch, it is so. It's taking it away from Smith that seems to declare demotion. Either pick Smith to run the game from 10 or don't pick him.

The Jones game plan still seems to require Faz to be the focal point of all that England try to do behind the scrum. Smith will never gain authority and confidence as long as he is clearly defined as the junior partner. He is on the road to becoming George Ford Mk II.
That said, Smith has to learn that he can't make something magic happen every time he has the ball in his mitts. Sometimes it's best to do the bleedin' obvious. He should really stop that vertical, bunny-hop which does nothing and looks silly.

[Banquo]

I did say 'trivial'. It does not matter who kicks off. I'm talking about the message it sends. A young guy struggling to impose his game is denied first feel of the ball because Farrell is on the pitch. Why did Smith kick off previously in the 10 shirt when Slade is a better kicker from hand, for example?

Eh? Drop kicking and kicking from hand are different skills and Slade doesn’t do restarts for Exeter.

Now if you’d focused on how often Faz stepped into first receiver I’d be with you

[Banquo]

Felt that our attack was going well, but Smith started calling it out the back too often, rather than Farrell using the second wave of forwards. Analysis will watch that and make a better call than me.

Lots still to work on, but still not willing to chuck everything away.

No- massive tick for quick ruck ball and some wraparounds. But when every play looks the same, because there is no runner until it gets wider and when you have three runners in the back three, the defence adjusts easily, ditto when over committing players to the breakdown.

[Scrumhead]

Felt that our attack was going well, but Smith started calling it out the back too often, rather than Farrell using the second wave of forwards. Analysis will watch that and make a better call than me.

Lots still to work on, but still not willing to chuck everything away.

I agree.

I really think the Banks injury was a key momentum shift. Prior to that, we were clearly on top and we’d pretty much had all of the possession and territory and were looking decent.

That 10min pause gave them a vital period to re-group and they immediately hit back with a penalty to level the scores. It was like a psychological and actual reset they used well and we didn’t. I know the red card followed fairly shortly after, but as Hill’s yellow led to it being 14 vs. 14 for the remainder of the half, it wasn’t an advantage at that point.

The rest is history, but I genuinely think that period killed the momentum we had built and the penalty on our own put-in for the restart was a sucker punch.

Ultimately, I don’t think defeat changes a great deal.

We had a poor 6 Nations followed by the Barbarians debacle so I (and I assume most of the rest of you) had low expectations on winning.

We’re now in a situation where if we don’t pull a win out of the bag in the second test, I think it’s very likely we get beaten 3-0.

I would hope that is the type of scenario that forces a response, in a similar way to the red card galvanised the Aussies.

Either way, ripping everything up because of today’s result doesn’t make sense. The Smith/Farrell partnership needs time to gel and for better or worse, I think we need to stick with it for at least the remainder of the series.

[p/d]

Drop Smith and Hill to bench. Bring in Underhill and Porter……. And no Eddie, playing against 14 doesn’t work against you.

[Banquo]

Felt that our attack was going well, but Smith started calling it out the back too often, rather than Farrell using the second wave of forwards. Analysis will watch that and make a better call than me.

Lots still to work on, but still not willing to chuck everything away.

I agree.

I really think the Banks injury was a key momentum shift. Prior to that, we were clearly on top and we’d pretty much had all of the possession and territory and were looking decent.

That 10min pause gave them a vital period to re-group and they immediately hit back with a penalty to level the scores. It was like a psychological and actual reset they used well and we didn’t. I know the red card followed fairly shortly after, but as Hill’s yellow led to it being 14 vs. 14 for the remainder of the half, it wasn’t an advantage at that point.

The rest is history, but I genuinely think that period killed the momentum we had built and the penalty on our own put-in for the restart was a sucker punch.

Ultimately, I don’t think defeat changes a great deal.

We had a poor 6 Nations followed by the Barbarians debacle so I (and I assume most of the rest of you) had low expectations on winning.

We’re now in a situation where if we don’t pull a win out of the bag in the second test, I think it’s very likely we get beaten 3-0.

I would hope that is the type of scenario that forces a response, in a similar way to the red card galvanised the Aussies.

Either way, ripping everything up because of today’s result doesn’t make sense. The Smith/Farrell partnership needs time to gel and for better or worse, I think we need to stick with it for at least the remainder of the series.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting rip everything up esp as there is very little in the alternatives basket. But we have to improve our resilience under pressure and produce momentum changing moments, keep intensity up and discipline in check. Same old tbh

[Oakboy]

I did say 'trivial'. It does not matter who kicks off. I'm talking about the message it sends. A young guy struggling to impose his game is denied first feel of the ball because Farrell is on the pitch. Why did Smith kick off previously in the 10 shirt when Slade is a better kicker from hand, for example?

Eh? Drop kicking and kicking from hand are different skills and Slade doesn’t do restarts for Exeter.

Now if you’d focused on how often Faz stepped into first receiver I’d be with you

Diverting a bit, I think Smith would have made a better job of kicking to the corner from that 2nd half penalty. Farrell, as so often, was too conservative. If it's genuinely 'who-does-what' best there needs to be some constructive thinking from the coaching group. It's where I am at. If Farrell is doing all the decisions and all the kicking, just pick him at 10 and give Dingwall a go at 12.

Or, pick the best 10 if it's Smith. No, that won't work. He can't kick.