England V NZ

[Oakboy]

It's all Jones's fault. Yes, that's me saying it before I get the accusation. BUT, and it's a serious 'BUT', it MUST be 99% the head coach's fault how the first ten minutes game-time pans out. He's picked the XV, he's dictated the strategy/tactics and he's organised the programme in the training camp in preparation. Most important of all, IMO, he's worked on the players' individual and collective mental readiness - he's geed them up to the best of his ability (presumably) to start like an express train.

'He can't be accountable for individual errors', I hear. Well, that is only partially true. IF he's selected players with the required ability and mental toughness and IF he's got the mood right, players are many times less likely to make mistakes in that early period IF things are going to plan - provided that plan is better than the opposition head-coach's.

That's the over-riding flaw. It wasn't. And, it rarely is. That's why it really is all Jones's fault.

[Epaminondas Pules]

I’d say it’s more that it is scripted and there is no room for ad libbing. Take the intercept. As planned as could be. Off the too long ball to 10. Regardless. Just do that no matter what.

[Scrumhead]

It's all Jones's fault. Yes, that's me saying it before I get the accusation. BUT, and it's a serious 'BUT', it MUST be 99% the head coach's fault how the first ten minutes game-time pans out. He's picked the XV, he's dictated the strategy/tactics and he's organised the programme in the training camp in preparation. Most important of all, IMO, he's worked on the players' individual and collective mental readiness - he's geed them up to the best of his ability (presumably) to start like an express train.

'He can't be accountable for individual errors', I hear. Well, that is only partially true. IF he's selected players with the required ability and mental toughness and IF he's got the mood right, players are many times less likely to make mistakes in that early period IF things are going to plan - provided that plan is better than the opposition head-coach's.

That's the over-riding flaw. It wasn't. And, it rarely is. That's why it really is all Jones's fault.

OK, but that ‘catch all’ argument is undermined when you look at it even slightly deeper.

For example, the first few of those individual errors in the early minutes were van Poortvliet’s. I’m almost certain you’d have been critical if he’d been dropped in favour of Youngs. JvP was actually a brave choice. That bad start can only have rocked his and the team’s confidence, but on balance, I’d far rather we continued to persevere with JvP rather than drop him for having one bad game this early on in his test career. Particularly when Raynal’s refereeing didn’t help him at all (no way that ball was out for example).

I don’t like to blame referees, but a few of Raynal’s calls early on were very questionable. In the build up to their second try, he called a JvP knock-on that wasn’t a knock on, which led to a scrum a few phases later where Genge was wrongly penalised which then led to the penalty that created the score. 2 highly debatable decisions that cost us 50m and 7pts. When they were hot on the heels of the intercept try, I can understand the team being a little shell shocked.

What I DO hold Eddie accountable for is the horrible sloppiness. It felt to me that there was a repeat pattern of us doing something decent only to screw it up with indiscipline just as we were building momentum. We gave away tons of good possession through basic errors from experienced players - Billy being particularly culpable. That’s where he and the coaching team should really be cracking the whip.

[Oakboy]

I'd certainly start JVP against SA but I'm not sure I would if Quirke was fully fit, on form and available.

Hesitation and doubt can precede errors. Bad discipline often succeeds errors resulting from hesitation and doubt. Well-tuned teams don't exhibit hesitation and don't suffer doubt.

The refereeing influence can be chicken/egg with ill-discipline, I suppose. Upset a ref with stupid fouls and get the wrong side of iffy decisions, perhaps? That pillock yesterday was worse than that sort of marginal effect but it's the best defence I csn offer.

[FKAS]

I’d say it’s more that it is scripted and there is no room for ad libbing. Take the intercept. As planned as could be. Off the too long ball to 10. Regardless. Just do that no matter what.

Pretty sure Eddie wants an unscripted attack so there is licence to ad lib. The issue looked like there was a complete lack of accuracy and the lineout is the perfect example for me. The lineout should be caught just inside the 15 meaning the NZ defence has to wait, the ball should be dropped into JVP's bread basket and then whipped away to probably a big Manu carry up the middle. What actually happens is the lineout is overthrown, as it's over the 15m the Kiwi flanker is allowed to fly up. The pass down to JVP is down to his left so he has to readjust before throwing the pass blind, a more experienced scrum half probably aborts and goes to plan B.

That lack of accuracy was throughout the first 70 mins.

Puja, joking aside I agree. Porter came on and did a solid job making the right decisions and generally just what England needed him to. Slade similar.

I wonder if we might see Stuart given the nod Vs the Boks next week and perhaps a change in substitute loosehead. I'm fairly sure that Simmonds won't get another chance to repeatedly knock on in contact.

[Puja]

I'm fairly sure that Simmonds won't get another chance to repeatedly knock on in contact.

Oh, we are absolutely going back to Itoje at 6, especially with Ribbans having played a stormer. No way Eddie's not going back into his shell, despite the lineout having been utterly immaculate with only two locks. It was actually probably better, because having 2 jumpers forced us to be clever and work on going up unopposed (the best ball), rather than our previous approach of "We've got tall people, I'm sure we can outjump them."

Puja

[Scrumhead]

In fairness, I think we’d have gone back to Itoje at 6 for the Boks regardless. Less about the lineout and more about the extra size/weight against a bigger team.

I’m OK with it if it means Ribbans gets a start and does well.

[fivepointer]

I see Nowell managed 0 metres with ball in hand, and 1 pass

Crikey, that must be some sort of record for a back 3 player.

Some of the stats are quite interesting.

We edged possession 54-46 and territory 63-37.
We made 121 runs, NZ made 87
We made 490 meters against 379 for NZ.
We made 100 tackles (23), NZ 161 (18) misses in brackets

[Mr Mwenda]

I see Nowell managed 0 metres with ball in hand, and 1 pass

Crikey, that must be some sort of record for a back 3 player.

Some of the stats are quite interesting.

We edged possession 54-46 and territory 63-37.
We made 121 runs, NZ made 87
We made 490 meters against 379 for NZ.
We made 100 tackles (23), NZ 161 (18) misses in brackets

Those stats back up my feeling that the write ups are a bit generous to England. Two poor sides, just England were largely the poorer.

[padprop]

Couple of thoughts on the final 20 mins:

Mako was unbelievable, honestly watch it back, I’d say he was more impressive than Stuart. I haven’t seen two props have such an impact on a game, outside of the tight, in a long long time.

Ditto Ribbans, adds further peculiarity to sticking with Ewels for so long. Offload was gamechanging.

Curry had one of his least effective games in a long time, but there was a moment towards the end where he was fully committed to running a hard heads line in the midfield, put the breaks on after noticing the overlap, and passed it out wide leading to a score. Form is temporary, class is permanent etc etc

Steward had a much much better second half. His ability to put up a high ball in the middle of the field and win it back 50% of the time is a great USP.

Just a general lack of pace in the backline has been exposed vs argentina and New Zealand. It just becomes a done deal when the opposition has an intercept. If we have Steward at 15, which we should, I think we need two genuine flyers on the wings: 2 out of May, Arundell, Watson, Radwan (How quick is Freeman?).Failing that we need a 13 with winger pace which I’m struggling to think of.

[16th man]

Just a general lack of pace in the backline has been exposed vs argentina and New Zealand. It just becomes a done deal when the opposition has an intercept. If we have Steward at 15, which we should, I think we need two genuine flyers on the wings: 2 out of May, Arundell, Watson, Radwan (How quick is Freeman?).Failing that we need a 13 with winger pace which I’m struggling to think of.

Daly at 13? (Joking).

The lack of pace didn't just mean it was a done deal with the intercept, it also made the crossfield kick much more dangerous, as they really didn't need to be pinpoint accurate, as Farrell and Tuilagi's lack of pace meant they couldn't really cover across to help Nowell, so anything roughly in the right area was setting up mismatches for the ABs. It improved a bit when we were able to switch Steward out to the wing to cover it, but that just made us even more slow through the middle.

[Puja]

Couple of thoughts on the final 20 mins:

Mako was unbelievable, honestly watch it back, I’d say he was more impressive than Stuart. I haven’t seen two props have such an impact on a game, outside of the tight, in a long long time.

Firmly agreed - he did an excellent job and was pivotal in our attacks. Hit that sweet spot that Sinckler keeps missing where he might carry and might pass, but looks like he might do the other one until he commits.

Frankly, I think he's a great foil to the more boshy Stuart, like Sinckler is to Genge. Good combo of subs to be able to bring on.

Puja

[oldbackrow]

I was quite drunk watching it live, and it felt soul-destroyingly bad for 70 minutes (partly due to the fact that every time we did something we'll we immediately cocked it up) and then so insane for 10 minutes it was impossible to understand.

I've watched it back sober this morning, and it seems to be exactly the same. Happy to note that every time we did make a mistake we stored it in the memory banks for repetition later on when we "needed" it. The last 10 minutes shouldn't be allowed to mask the fact that the first 70 was horrifyingly bad.

I'd argue the first 62 minutes were hide behind the sofa but we had started to dent their defence and make inroads which led to the break that led to the yellow for Barrett.
And much as I dislike knocking refs, watching it back today with less emotion, some of the calls (the ball 'out' at the back of the ruck, the 'knock on' by JVP and 3 of the scrum penalties) were incorrect.

[Banquo]

I’d say it’s more that it is scripted and there is no room for ad libbing. Take the intercept. As planned as could be. Off the too long ball to 10. Regardless. Just do that no matter what.

Pretty sure Eddie wants an unscripted attack so there is licence to ad lib. The issue looked like there was a complete lack of accuracy and the lineout is the perfect example for me. The lineout should be caught just inside the 15 meaning the NZ defence has to wait, the ball should be dropped into JVP's bread basket and then whipped away to probably a big Manu carry up the middle. What actually happens is the lineout is overthrown, as it's over the 15m the Kiwi flanker is allowed to fly up. The pass down to JVP is down to his left so he has to readjust before throwing the pass blind, a more experienced scrum half probably aborts and goes to plan B.

That lack of accuracy was throughout the first 70 mins.

Puja, joking aside I agree. Porter came on and did a solid job making the right decisions and generally just what England needed him to. Slade similar.

I wonder if we might see Stuart given the nod Vs the Boks next week and perhaps a change in substitute loosehead. I'm fairly sure that Simmonds won't get another chance to repeatedly knock on in contact.

mako was outstanding so that would be odd.

[FKAS]

I’d say it’s more that it is scripted and there is no room for ad libbing. Take the intercept. As planned as could be. Off the too long ball to 10. Regardless. Just do that no matter what.

Pretty sure Eddie wants an unscripted attack so there is licence to ad lib. The issue looked like there was a complete lack of accuracy and the lineout is the perfect example for me. The lineout should be caught just inside the 15 meaning the NZ defence has to wait, the ball should be dropped into JVP's bread basket and then whipped away to probably a big Manu carry up the middle. What actually happens is the lineout is overthrown, as it's over the 15m the Kiwi flanker is allowed to fly up. The pass down to JVP is down to his left so he has to readjust before throwing the pass blind, a more experienced scrum half probably aborts and goes to plan B.

That lack of accuracy was throughout the first 70 mins.

Puja, joking aside I agree. Porter came on and did a solid job making the right decisions and generally just what England needed him to. Slade similar.

I wonder if we might see Stuart given the nod Vs the Boks next week and perhaps a change in substitute loosehead. I'm fairly sure that Simmonds won't get another chance to repeatedly knock on in contact.

mako was outstanding so that would be odd.

Yeah but he's not a great scrummager and the Boks Bomb Squad is incoming.

[Timbo]

I’d say it’s more that it is scripted and there is no room for ad libbing. Take the intercept. As planned as could be. Off the too long ball to 10. Regardless. Just do that no matter what.

Pretty sure Eddie wants an unscripted attack so there is licence to ad lib. The issue looked like there was a complete lack of accuracy and the lineout is the perfect example for me. The lineout should be caught just inside the 15 meaning the NZ defence has to wait, the ball should be dropped into JVP's bread basket and then whipped away to probably a big Manu carry up the middle. What actually happens is the lineout is overthrown, as it's over the 15m the Kiwi flanker is allowed to fly up. The pass down to JVP is down to his left so he has to readjust before throwing the pass blind, a more experienced scrum half probably aborts and goes to plan B.

That lack of accuracy was throughout the first 70 mins.

Puja, joking aside I agree. Porter came on and did a solid job making the right decisions and generally just what England needed him to. Slade similar.

I wonder if we might see Stuart given the nod Vs the Boks next week and perhaps a change in substitute loosehead. I'm fairly sure that Simmonds won't get another chance to repeatedly knock on in contact.

The lineout wasn’t overthrown, it’s clearly meant to go over the 15. And the pass off the top is perfectly within the range a scrum half should be expecting and able to deal with.

[Mikey Brown]

Why would you plan a move that allow the opposition defence that chance to get up on your playmakers though?

[Mellsblue]

Because you’re already that little bit wider and therefore closer to the edge.
Throwing beyond the 15 is pretty common. It’s just up to the 9 to make the correct decision. If Papali’i is on for the interception then there’s a gap to exploit.

[Timbo]

Why would you plan a move that allow the opposition defence that chance to get up on your playmakers though?

Mainly because the attacking team can start advancing too, especially if you’re crashing the ball up the ball carrier will receive the ball a lot closer to the gainline. Also allows the front pod(s) to leave lineout and get to where they need to be quicker, beat the opposition around the corner etc.

Main reason Papilii gets to the intercept is because he starts advancing well before the ball goes over the 15. He’s at full sprint and 5 or so metres offside when the ball crosses the 15. Technically should have been a pen to England, but these things happen & JVP should never be throwing that pass.

[Banquo]

Pretty sure Eddie wants an unscripted attack so there is licence to ad lib. The issue looked like there was a complete lack of accuracy and the lineout is the perfect example for me. The lineout should be caught just inside the 15 meaning the NZ defence has to wait, the ball should be dropped into JVP's bread basket and then whipped away to probably a big Manu carry up the middle. What actually happens is the lineout is overthrown, as it's over the 15m the Kiwi flanker is allowed to fly up. The pass down to JVP is down to his left so he has to readjust before throwing the pass blind, a more experienced scrum half probably aborts and goes to plan B.

That lack of accuracy was throughout the first 70 mins.

Puja, joking aside I agree. Porter came on and did a solid job making the right decisions and generally just what England needed him to. Slade similar.

I wonder if we might see Stuart given the nod Vs the Boks next week and perhaps a change in substitute loosehead. I'm fairly sure that Simmonds won't get another chance to repeatedly knock on in contact.

mako was outstanding so that would be odd.

Yeah but he's not a great scrummager and the Boks Bomb Squad is incoming.

Who you replacing him with?

[Banquo]

Why would you plan a move that allow the opposition defence that chance to get up on your playmakers though?

Mainly because the attacking team can start advancing too, especially if you’re crashing the ball up the ball carrier will receive the ball a lot closer to the gainline. Also allows the front pod(s) to leave lineout and get to where they need to be quicker, beat the opposition around the corner etc.

Main reason Papilii gets to the intercept is because he starts advancing well before the ball goes over the 15. He’s at full sprint and 5 or so metres offside when the ball crosses the 15. Technically should have been a pen to England, but these things happen & JVP should never be throwing that pass.

Spot on. As above great move if it comes off- iirc did that move as the start of the build up to the 2019 semi opening score.

[fivepointer]

https://samrobertsrugby.com/2022/11/19/why-not/

Enjoyed this.

[Mellsblue]

Yeah. That pretty much sums it all up.

[p/d]

Great after match interview with Greenwood floating about (the interview not Will)

[Oakboy]

https://samrobertsrugby.com/2022/11/19/why-not/

Enjoyed this.

Like so many articles it confirms that England are under-performing and that there are related questions about Smith:

1. Can he run the game at international level?
2. Will Jones set up the side to allow Smith to run the game?
3. How much does Farrell at 12 affect answers to questions 1 and 2?
4. Would it be better for the team if Smith was dropped and Farrell was at 10?

I see Jones is quoted as saying he wants Smith to go for it more. That seems odd to me because other selections - players and tactics - do not encourage him to do so. Jones can't have it both ways. IMO, he needs to set the team up to allow Smith to be creative or drop him.

Mind you, it's hard to believe that this consideration is on the table at this point. It should have been resolved one way or the other ages ago.