RugbyRebels

Mikey Brown wrote:

p/d wrote:Harrison and Flats top drawer today

Are you joking?

Not at all.

Mikey Brown wrote:

p/d wrote:Harrison and Flats top drawer today

Are you joking?

Harrison was weird I thought. They were both full on scrum bantz

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

FKAS wrote:

Banquo wrote: Yes not very good in d but hardly touched the ball,

He was very good in D. Shut down a few potential Aussie breaks and absolutely smashed the Aussie 8 in the first half. Stopped an Aussie drive just short of the line only for them to score the phase after. His two carries say him make decent carries. It was a workman like display but seemed to work in a way. The carry off the scrum (may have been offside) got England out of a tricky situation.

If Marchant is fit I'd have thought he'd be back in at 13 but Porter probably showed he's going to be a useful 22/23 shirt option for England.

He missed four tackles….

How many were rushing the man to force him back inside to stop Australia going wide? 3 carries for 21 metres as well with all three into contact.

The English centres did seem to have the game plan of shoot out and force the Australian attack back inside towards the forwards, when you do that you'll miss tackles. Farrell missed 3 as well. I suspect Smith's missed tackles were more just the big ball carriers going over the top of him which he really couldn't do much about.

I was most disappointed by Porter, keep hoping one of these random centre selections is going to pay off.

Saint Benny is dead. Long live Saint Porter.

FKAS wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

FKAS wrote:
He was very good in D. Shut down a few potential Aussie breaks and absolutely smashed the Aussie 8 in the first half. Stopped an Aussie drive just short of the line only for them to score the phase after. His two carries say him make decent carries. It was a workman like display but seemed to work in a way. The carry off the scrum (may have been offside) got England out of a tricky situation.

If Marchant is fit I'd have thought he'd be back in at 13 but Porter probably showed he's going to be a useful 22/23 shirt option for England.

He missed four tackles….

How many were rushing the man to force him back inside to stop Australia going wide? 3 carries for 21 metres as well with all three into contact.

The English centres did seem to have the game plan of shoot out and force the Australian attack back inside towards the forwards, when you do that you'll miss tackles. Farrell missed 3 as well. I suspect Smith's missed tackles were more just the big ball carriers going over the top of him which he really couldn't do much about.

Midfield were pretty porous on the back of the plan and gave up easy yards; there were a couple of times Porter shot out missed his man and then went chasing shadows- it was one such intervention that prompted two posters to say he looked out of his depth, which seemed harsh but fair. Mind the Telegraph thought he was ace. I thought it was an average performance in part redeemed by the nice carry which i remarked on, but marred by two turnovers- and maybe we should have done that a bit more as a general tactic as I've only remarked a million times in 5 years .

MInd Billy missed 5 tackles, so looks like the ausies were targeting weak shoulders noting our defensive pattern.

Chessum & JVP already big pluses so far, and having Nowell, Billy and Underhill fit.
Genge developing well as a leader, but midfield perennial problem.
They'd be disappointed not to put this 1 away in Sydney now, so EJ flies on.

Banquo wrote:

FKAS wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
He missed four tackles….

How many were rushing the man to force him back inside to stop Australia going wide? 3 carries for 21 metres as well with all three into contact.

The English centres did seem to have the game plan of shoot out and force the Australian attack back inside towards the forwards, when you do that you'll miss tackles. Farrell missed 3 as well. I suspect Smith's missed tackles were more just the big ball carriers going over the top of him which he really couldn't do much about.

Midfield were pretty porous on the back of the plan and gave up easy yards; there were a couple of times Porter shot out missed his man and then went chasing shadows- it was one such intervention that prompted two posters to say he looked out of his depth, which seemed harsh but fair. Mind the Telegraph thought he was ace. I thought it was an average performance in part redeemed by the nice carry which i remarked on, but marred by two turnovers- and maybe we should have done that a bit more as a general tactic as I've only remarked a million times in 5 years .

MInd Billy missed 5 tackles, so looks like the ausies were targeting weak shoulders noting our defensive pattern.

He also fecked up on a kick chase that led to a big counter attack. He looks too leaden footed to me. Still, twas only his first cap.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

FKAS wrote:
How many were rushing the man to force him back inside to stop Australia going wide? 3 carries for 21 metres as well with all three into contact.

The English centres did seem to have the game plan of shoot out and force the Australian attack back inside towards the forwards, when you do that you'll miss tackles. Farrell missed 3 as well. I suspect Smith's missed tackles were more just the big ball carriers going over the top of him which he really couldn't do much about.

Midfield were pretty porous on the back of the plan and gave up easy yards; there were a couple of times Porter shot out missed his man and then went chasing shadows- it was one such intervention that prompted two posters to say he looked out of his depth, which seemed harsh but fair. Mind the Telegraph thought he was ace. I thought it was an average performance in part redeemed by the nice carry which i remarked on, but marred by two turnovers- and maybe we should have done that a bit more as a general tactic as I've only remarked a million times in 5 years .

MInd Billy missed 5 tackles, so looks like the ausies were targeting weak shoulders noting our defensive pattern.

He also fecked up on a kick chase that led to a big counter attack. He looks too leaden footed to me. Still, twas only his first cap.

yus, and playing outside two guys in less than perfect harmony. And to give him credit, he did do a good job shutting down a couple of outside threats.

Lawes had two superb turnovers, one in each half. One of Jones's better selections, IMO.

Looking ahead to the RWC, I think today's starting 4,5 and 6 are inked in, fitness permitting. Curry will start at 7. Most other positions are 1 from 2/3 (or more in one or two cases). There's far more work to do at this stage than I like. At least we have a win under our belts.

Some interesting stats, either positive if soluble or negative if not

29 missed tackles reflects partly om our strategy of pushing them back inside, but also a soft underbelly. 79% tackle completion is poor.
54% possession but only 42pc territory, which reflects poorly on our use of possession and notably kicking (28% territory second half!!)
10 pens is quite low for us, but still should avoid double digits.

Faz MOTM BTW

Banquo wrote:Faz MOTM BTW

p/d wrote:

Banquo wrote:Faz MOTM BTW

I know, Billy's language won't have improved

Banquo wrote:

p/d wrote:

Banquo wrote:Faz MOTM BTW

I know, Billy's language won't have improved

Punditry watches a different game. I suppose Jones's contrariness might lead to Smith being persevered with but I think he's on borrowed time, unfortunately.

Banquo wrote:Some interesting stats, either positive if soluble or negative if not

29 missed tackles reflects partly om our strategy of pushing them back inside, but also a soft underbelly. 79% tackle completion is poor.
54% possession but only 42pc territory, which reflects poorly on our use of possession and notably kicking (28% territory second half!!)
10 pens is quite low for us, but still should avoid double digits.

For balance, I’d like to know what theirs was in the first half. A couple of those penalties were from the scrum lottery too, so I think 10 is actually better than usual.

Oakboy wrote:Punditry watches a different game. I suppose Jones's contrariness might lead to Smith being persevered with but I think he's on borrowed time, unfortunately.

He’s been poor so far, but it would require too much of a re jig without a recognised 12 in the squad. That probably gives him a bit of a reprieve.

Scrumhead wrote:

Banquo wrote:Some interesting stats, either positive if soluble or negative if not

29 missed tackles reflects partly om our strategy of pushing them back inside, but also a soft underbelly. 79% tackle completion is poor.
54% possession but only 42pc territory, which reflects poorly on our use of possession and notably kicking (28% territory second half!!)
10 pens is quite low for us, but still should avoid double digits.

For balance, I’d like to know what theirs was in the first half. A couple of those penalties were from the scrum lottery too, so I think 10 is actually better than usual.

Oakboy wrote:Punditry watches a different game. I suppose Jones's contrariness might lead to Smith being persevered with but I think he's on borrowed time, unfortunately.

He’s been poor so far, but it would require too much of a re jig without a recognised 12 in the squad. That probably gives him a bit of a reprieve.

...as I said 10 pens is quite low for us! They/aus had 16 pens in total, mostly 1st half I'd say; we had them on the ropes for 30 mins, but fell away badly for the next 30, again. But credit to us, got off the ropes.

Scrumhead wrote:

chris1850 wrote:We miss Itoje and Curry when they're not on the pitch. Our other options may be good prem players but they're not international class

I agree on your first sentence, but the second one is complete crap.

Underhill and Ludlam might not be as good as Curry but to suggest they’re ‘not international class’ is total bullshit.

Chessum is light years away from Itoje, but that’s not unexpected given the gulf in experience, but so far he’s looked at home in test rugby.

Fair point. I phrased it badly. Meant that Chessum and Underhill are a step down from Itoje and Curry, and it showed tbh

p/d wrote:

Banquo wrote:Faz MOTM BTW

I thought this would have been one of the odd games where both lovers and haters could agree he was just totally fine. Not much more, not much less. Ah well.

The way Smith is playing is a concern. We don’t look set up to make the most of his strengths but his general skill execution just isn’t where it should be. God knows what’s happened to his kicking, some real aimless stuff in there.

Maybe Faz/Porter/Marchant might see our attack spring in to life but I’d be a little bit surprised.

Scrumhead wrote:

chris1850 wrote:We miss Itoje and Curry when they're not on the pitch. Our other options may be good prem players but they're not international class

I agree on your first sentence, but the second one is complete crap.

Underhill and Ludlam might not be as good as Curry but to suggest they’re ‘not international class’ is total bullshit.

Chessum is light years away from Itoje, but that’s not unexpected given the gulf in experience, but so far he’s looked at home in test rugby.

Chris1850 had this to say, but accidentally reported the post rather than replying:

"Fair point. I probably phrased it badly. Meant that Chesssum and Underhill are a step down from Itoje and Curry and it showed tbh."

Mod

Mikey Brown wrote:

p/d wrote:

Banquo wrote:Faz MOTM BTW

I thought this would have been one of the odd games that both lovers and haters could agree he was just totally fine. Not much more, not much less. Ah well.

yep, as I noted, median Farrell. Though his missed kick to touch at the end of the first half made me a little grumpy. He also didn't defend very well. No r kick well. And he gave away a penalty. But nothing to really laugh at

Mikey Brown wrote:

p/d wrote:

Banquo wrote:Faz MOTM BTW

I thought this would have been one of the odd games where both lovers and haters could agree he was just totally fine. Not much more, not much less. Ah well.

The way Smith is playing is a concern. We don’t look set up to make the most of his strengths but his general skill execution just isn’t where it should be. God knows what’s happened to his kicking, some real aimless stuff in there.

Maybe Faz/Porter/Marchant might see our attack spring in to life but I’d be a little bit surprised.

As you say Farrell was fine. Not motm, but fine nonetheless. The problem for me he is half of a 10/12 axis that looks terribly at sea. Smith is starting to look a luxury this side currently doesn’t need, and that isn’t where we should be. As you say wouldn’t be surprised to see Farrell with Porter and Marchant next week. (But that is what I wanted for this game)

p/d wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

p/d wrote:

I thought this would have been one of the odd games where both lovers and haters could agree he was just totally fine. Not much more, not much less. Ah well.

The way Smith is playing is a concern. We don’t look set up to make the most of his strengths but his general skill execution just isn’t where it should be. God knows what’s happened to his kicking, some real aimless stuff in there.

Maybe Faz/Porter/Marchant might see our attack spring in to life but I’d be a little bit surprised.

As you say Farrell was fine. Not motm, but fine nonetheless. The problem for me he is half of a 10/12 axis that looks terribly at sea. Smith is starting to look a luxury this side currently doesn’t need, and that isn’t where we should be. As you say wouldn’t be surprised to see Farrell with Porter and Marchant next week. (But that is what I wanted for this game)

We've been so gaslighted by Farrell that an inside centre making one run for 6 yards, missing three tackles out of 10, conceding one turnover and one penalty, kicking with mediocrity from hand, and even missing one kick at goal is agreed as being 'fine' and also MOTM.

Lol.

I thought he played ok and his motm was more a reflection of how distinctly average everyone else was. For me, only JVP, Lawes and Billy were obviously better with Stuart perhaps edging ahead. I thought it was a low quality (and pretty boring) match. Bad times.