RugbyRebels

Max Lahiff posted this - "If you jackal, your flirting with the reapers scythe (injury wise). That’s why it’s such a heroic skill. No way your getting around making it “safe”. Your bent over focused on the ball and some savages are enroute to decapitate your ass. Make peace with it. Or get rid of it"

I think the problem now is that far too many people are off their feet at the breakdown and far too many have shoulders below hips. Jackalers are exposing their upper body to heavy duty hits, and their lower limbs to risk as we saw with Willis and the croc roll.
Solution? Bring back the ruck. Proper rucking where players bind properly and stay on their feet.

Mellsblue wrote:

16th man wrote:We're not that far removed in time from a period where people like Lawes were praised for much more aggressive, borderline late, blindside shots on 9s and 10s are we?

I suppose the difference is Lawes was committed to the tackle prior to the player passing the ball, whereas those arguing Farrell committed a foul are arguing he could’ve avoided making the ‘tackle’/committed after the ball was gone.

I'd suggest that in almost every incident, Lawes could have reduced the force of his hit even after committing but chose to steam through.

As has been pointed out, short of chucking himself to one side to get out of the way of an opponent running backwards into him, Farrell couldn't stop the contact. He chose to make sure it happened on his terms.

I'm against Farrell being the hyped up, undroppable talisman too, but it really is getting to the point of being a mania for some posters on here.

twitchy wrote:

Ooh, what is being said? I was hoping sharper eyes than mine might discuss the tactical changes England made. It looked like a considerable change. I also thought that Lawes had a good game at 6 - however was that a weakness of the opposition thing or signalling some rejig of responsibilities in the pack?

I must be about as anti-Fazlet as anyone on here (ETA: actually, that's probably not true anymore); but that incident was a load of nothing.
He could, potentially, have dived out of the way after Varney passed the ball, but I've never seen a rugby player actualy do that. Faz took the contact on his own terms, but didn't make it dangerous (a couple of years ago, he'd have turned side on and dipped a shoulder). It happens all the time in this sport.
It could have bee a penalty, at worst, and that would have been harsh, and largely based on the clash of heads rather than any lateness of the contact.

(Loads of images and gifs in between the paragraphs which is why it looks weird with just text).



Inside Line: As in 2018, England are undergoing a tactical reboot… but five defining selection calls loom

England spread their forwards across the field in a 1-3-2-2 formation, hinting that a tactical revamp is underway





You can trace back ­­­the origins of England’s kick-heavy strategy to their slump of 2018.

Five consecutive Test defeats and cripplingly poor ball retention that year convinced Eddie Jones that the contest for the ball at the breakdown was prevailing over continuity when it came to worldwide trends in rugby union. That meant it was more often better to be without possession.

With the help of new defence coach John Mitchell, as well as the emergence of destructive defenders Tom Curry and Sam Underhill, he overhauled his line-up and altered England’s tactics.

The subsequent implementation of this plan nudged England back onto the curve, then ahead of it. They reached the final of Rugby World Cup 2019. South Africa met them, and were better at the aspects of the game in which England had excelled.



Jones persevered with a pared-down, kick-first approach over a disjointed 2020 and achieved good results. However, if the opening two rounds of Six Nations fixtures is anything to go by, we may have reached another officiating sea change.

And so, if referees are going to favour continuity, punish jackallers that are not technically perfect and consistently reward teams that generate quick ball more consistently, might we see another England revamp?

To a degree, Jones’ hands are tied by two things. First, there is the 28-man Covid bubble to minimise movement to and from Premiership clubs. Because he has selected rusty Saracens as part of that, he must feel compelled to stick with them while they find form.

With the caveat that their opponents had lost their previous 28 Six Nations matches, there were hints of change against Italy. Even so, five questions linger ahead of a fascinating trip to Wales.
Can you stick with a Ford-Farrell-Slade midfield?

England only kicked from hand 21 times on Saturday and went through 107 rucks. You may remember that they registered 44 kicks and just 70 rucks in Rome last October.

On Saturday, they generally kept ball in hand and used the distribution of George Ford, Owen Farrell and Henry Slade to feed the flanks while deploying their forwards across the field in something resembling a 1-3-2-2 formation – akin to how New Zealand, Japan and Ireland have operated in recent years.

Here is a rough template, with England’s forwards identified by their initials. Individual roles were not rigid and players moved between these pods. For instance, Kyle Sinckler (KS) flitted between the centre-field ‘3’ and ‘2’ groupings:

This passage, from the seventh minute, begins with a bustling carry from Sinckler after Jonny May has secured an Italy kick:



From there, Ben Youngs feeds Ford and another pass heads to Farrell. Note the positions of the highlighted England forwards. Tom Curry, the ‘1’, is close to the far touchline.

Jonny Hill, Mako Vunipola and Luke Cowan-Dickie are about to form a central ‘3’ pod. Beyond them, nearer to the camera, Maro Itoje and Courtney Lawes are also grouping together in a ‘2’:

Following a carry from Curry, Youngs reaches the ruck and feeds Mako Vunipola. The loosehead is supported by Hill and Cowan-Dickie, forming the ‘3’. Behind him are Ford and Slade. Closer to the camera are Sinckler and Billy Vunipola:




These groupings of forwards provide a structure for England’s support play. With Cowan-Dickie holding Italy narrow, Mako Vunipola throws a pull-back to Ford. These subtle passes, and tip-ons to flat runners, bring an added dimension. The Vunipola brothers and Sinckler are superb at them.

Watch how Ford, Sinckler and Billy Vunipola then fix three rival defenders – David Sisi (5), Johan Meyer (7) and Carlo Canna (12) – before a pass to Slade.

Slade is able to arc across-field, sucking in Luca Sperandio (14) and releasing Elliot Daly:



This attack eventually led to England’s first points.

Around 11 minutes later, Youngs finds Ford at first-receiver. Farrell is on the near side, and note that Italy have to pay respect to that by deploying four defenders there.

On the far side, Slade and Daly sweep behind Ford. Itoje and Billy Vunipola are together in a ‘2’ pod with Curry again on his own out wide:

A swift passing movement gives Anthony Watson room to dance past three tackles and over halfway:



It was no coincidence that England’s wings enjoyed eye-catching afternoons.

Here, another first-half attack starts with Youngs finding Ford. Farrell sits in a second wave, with the Vunipola brothers together in a two-man pod. The duo of Lawes and Itoje are out wide once more:

Ford and Farrell swing the ball to their right, allowing Lawes and Itoje to combine trundle into Italy’s half:




The passing of these three playmakers was not perfect. Slade could have released May in the second half but sent the ball too far in front of his target. However, they did help England impart width.

Where this midfield trio is limited, though, is in the power stakes – on both sides of the ball. Italy unapologetically aimed Sebastian Negri towards Ford and Farrell from their first lineout:

They generated quick ball, and scored around three phases later.

In the second half, Federico Mori caused more first-phase problems. He pierced the space between Ford and Slade, setting up Tommaso Allan’s try:


From England’s own first-phase strike-moves, a centre partnership of Farrell and Slade lacks the presence to fix too many defenders. At this one, in the first half, Billy Vunipola fizzes a pass to Ben Youngs from a maul.

Farrell cuts an angle with Ford fading behind:

Slade, also running a hard line, is beyond Farrell, but Youngs turns inside to feed May and a poor pass drops to floor:




Manu Tuilagi has been a fundamental component of England’s strike-moves. In his absence, Ollie Lawrence would provide thrust and attract defenders.

When momentum is lost in phase-play, as it was for England on a number of occasions at the weekend, tackle-breaking centres can help regain it.

Against better opposition than Italy, a more balanced midfield will be essential. And that means dropping one of Ford, Farrell or Slade to accommodate Lawrence, unless someone else like Piers O’Conor climbs the pecking order.
Could Luke Cowan-Dickie replace Jamie George?

Whereas Jamie George held his width against Scotland, rendering him a peripheral figure when his side had possession…


…Luke Cowan-Dickie was a focal point for England on Saturday in their central pods. This second-half rampage through midfield epitomised his influence:



The set-piece excellence of George has been a pillar of England’s game for a while, but Cowan-Dickie’s aggression and dynamism would be valuable if Jones his team wants to spend more time with the ball.

Cowan-Dickie mucked in prior to Hill’s pick-and-go try, even taking the quick-tap to set off the sequence. He ended up with 13 carries and a total of 25 metres in a display that underlined his starting credentials.
And what might that mean for Billy Vunipola?

Carrying statistics never paint the full picture of a Billy Vunipola performance because he contributes in many aspects. In attack, his mere presence also manipulates defences and creates space for others, as the first section of this article should demonstrate.

That said, he registered a tally of seven carries for a total of one metre against Italy. Bolstered by Cowan-Dickie, England may feel as though they have enough muscle elsewhere in the pack with Lawes perhaps remaining at blindside flanker to aid a lineout that has stuttered slightly. Consequently, it may be time to consider starting Ben Earl.

Transferring his role for Bristol Bears, Earl has held width for England when arriving as a replacement. Here, his is part of a two-man pod alongside Itoje with George close to the far touchline on his own – in the ‘1’ of a 1-3-2-2:

A neat step beats Guglielmo Palazzani:




The identity of Jack Willis’ injury replacement will tell us a great deal about Jones’ thinking here. Sam Underhill would be the obvious choice if he is fit again, but Alex Dombrandt or Sam Simmonds may enhance England’s new attacking framework in possession.
What to do about Elliot Daly?

The reason for Daly succeeding Mike Brown in 2018 was that Jones wanted an attacking full-back. At the moment, though, his uncertainty with ball in hand is obvious.

The pass that skidded in front of Jonny May and into touch represented a horrible start to Daly’s game. And the defensive mistakes are not helping.

For Italy’s first try, he bit in on to Jacopo Trulla rather than trusting Watson to cover across. There was also a bad missed tackle on Montanna Ioane.

Max Malins would not bring the snarl that Brown did – and Cardiff may not be the best place for a first Test start – but he is a sparky playmaker with poise whose distribution is slick. That is what England would need with this new attitude.
Has Dan Robson earned a start?

Youngs, and particularly his box-kicking, has been a target for the ire of England supporters during their team’s kick-heavy matches as the scrum-half has fulfilled his function within Jones’ strategy.

Dan Robson’s first touch of a half-hour cameo on Saturday was a well-judged box-kick that launched an aggressive chase:


Indeed, Lawes forced a jackal turnover straightaway:



It is always difficult to compare starters with replacements, who often look livelier because opponents have grown weary.

That said, Robson’s performance was impressive. There was a slaloming run from a quick-tap penalty and this neat shoulder ball, ­­­feeding an arcing Curry to help England cut through Italy following an offload to Sinckler.

Robson’s sniping threat holds Sebastian Negri on the fringe for just long enough:

Clearly, if England are going to spend more rucks in possession, the passing accuracy and the ruck-to-ruck speed of their scrum-halves will be more important.

Harry Randall’s attributes are similar to those of Yutaka Nagare, Japan’s diminutive general and pass-master. The 23-year-old could be the future of England’s scrum-half position.

You will have noticed that many players pushing for inclusion play for Exeter, Bristol and Wasps – Premiership clubs that are comfortable in possession and use the ball intelligently, attacking with clear plans.

There are intriguing signs that Eddie Jones, persuaded by pervading trends, is steadily moving towards a similar approach on the road to Rugby World Cup 2023. But tricky selection calls await.

16th man wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

16th man wrote:We're not that far removed in time from a period where people like Lawes were praised for much more aggressive, borderline late, blindside shots on 9s and 10s are we?

I suppose the difference is Lawes was committed to the tackle prior to the player passing the ball, whereas those arguing Farrell committed a foul are arguing he could’ve avoided making the ‘tackle’/committed after the ball was gone.

I'd suggest that in almost every incident, Lawes could have reduced the force of his hit even after committing but chose to steam through.

As has been pointed out, short of chucking himself to one side to get out of the way of an opponent running backwards into him, Farrell couldn't stop the contact. He chose to make sure it happened on his terms.

I'm against Farrell being the hyped up, undroppable talisman too, but it really is getting to the point of being a mania for some posters on here.

What Lawes did or didn’t do post committing is moot. If you’re committed before the player releases the ball you’re legally allowed to make the tackle. The point of those on here who view it as illegal, is that he seems to only initiate/increase forward movement once Varney has passed the ball. It’s a subjective call and options range from that at worst it is a pen but more likely a talking to, to it just being a rugby incident. Nobody, from what I’ve read, is calling for a card.
My views have nothing to do with how he’s hyped up (though a lot of the media now seem to have swung 360 and think he’s the reason for all ills, which is just as untrue as him being a world class player) but in isolation I think it’s a cheap shot that deserved a talking to but nothing more.

Oakboy wrote:I can't help thinking of JW when Farrell's physical offerings come up for debate. The former was a hard man who could tackle with the best - but did so legally without niggle. Farrell, in terms of physical contact with opponents has a nasty streak.

One of my favourite passage of plays ever was the 2003 GS game away to Ireland where after Ireland had largely attacked well in the warmth of Dublin around 30 minuets in Jonny makes 3 tackles in the space of a minute that for a player already fatigued would have been lung busting, most players would have stayed down after one and certainly after two of those tackles to just get some oxygen back. Though the reason for mentioning this is the third of those tackles, on Justin Bishop I think, is a nailed on spear tackle, so it's worth remembering the 'clean' play of Jonny was in a less powerful era when you weren't as dependent on sticking the shoulder in, when in some respects more stuff was allowed as a norm, and Jonny did stick the shoulder in anyway

I'd also note as Jonny aged the game became more powerful and his shoulders were increasingly buggered he was more inclined to stick a shoulder in. With that sort of thing in mind I've often wondered if Faz doesn't perhaps have an ongoing issue with the shoulder

Yeah Wilkinson would have a dozen red cards if his tackling was looked at now, but of course he was just playing by whatever the rules were at the time. I never saw dirty/cheap shots in anything he did.

Mellsblue wrote:

16th man wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I suppose the difference is Lawes was committed to the tackle prior to the player passing the ball, whereas those arguing Farrell committed a foul are arguing he could’ve avoided making the ‘tackle’/committed after the ball was gone.

I'd suggest that in almost every incident, Lawes could have reduced the force of his hit even after committing but chose to steam through.

As has been pointed out, short of chucking himself to one side to get out of the way of an opponent running backwards into him, Farrell couldn't stop the contact. He chose to make sure it happened on his terms.

I'm against Farrell being the hyped up, undroppable talisman too, but it really is getting to the point of being a mania for some posters on here.

What Lawes did or didn’t do post committing is moot. If you’re committed before the player releases the ball you’re legally allowed to make the tackle. The point of those on here who view it as illegal, is that he seems to only initiate/increase forward movement once Varney has passed the ball. It’s a subjective call and options range from that at worst it is a pen but more likely a talking to, to it just being a rugby incident. Nobody, from what I’ve read, is calling for a card.
My views have nothing to do with how he’s hyped up (though a lot of the media now seem to have swung 360 and think he’s the reason for all ills, which is just as untrue as him being a world class player) but in isolation I think it’s a cheap shot that deserved a talking to but nothing more.

I do think this is swayed by the slowmo replays. In real time, there is practically no time between Varney releasing the ball and contact.

Puja

As regards the crocodile roll, if ref's aren't going to ping hands in the ruck or maintaining bodyweight, then there are so few options for players to evict defenders who are in there. The laws are there to be enforced which will offer protection for players. On Saturday, the ref should have blown his whistle for Negri coming in at the side, for example

16th man wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

16th man wrote:We're not that far removed in time from a period where people like Lawes were praised for much more aggressive, borderline late, blindside shots on 9s and 10s are we?

I suppose the difference is Lawes was committed to the tackle prior to the player passing the ball, whereas those arguing Farrell committed a foul are arguing he could’ve avoided making the ‘tackle’/committed after the ball was gone.

I'd suggest that in almost every incident, Lawes could have reduced the force of his hit even after committing but chose to steam through.

As has been pointed out, short of chucking himself to one side to get out of the way of an opponent running backwards into him, Farrell couldn't stop the contact. He chose to make sure it happened on his terms.

I'm against Farrell being the hyped up, undroppable talisman too, but it really is getting to the point of being a mania for some posters on here.

I'm not massively fussed as to whether he gets out the way or not it's more at the height he makes contact. His poor tackling technique could have easily led to us finishing the game with 14. At least when Lawes came flying out to blindside players he was normally a missile hitting well below the shoulders. Given the current environment of shoulder meets head equals red if you come off the line and look to be hitting someone late get your hands out and push them away. Reduces the risk of a TMO review.

Peej wrote:As regards the crocodile roll, if ref's aren't going to ping hands in the ruck or maintaining bodyweight, then there are so few options for players to evict defenders who are in there. The laws are there to be enforced which will offer protection for players. On Saturday, the ref should have blown his whistle for Negri coming in at the side, for example

The game doesn't have a problem with the sort of injury or risk of injury as seen with Willis

Leavy has gone for more surgery on catilage out for 9 months by way its being reported seems like this was always a possibility

Only mention as comparisons with willis were drawn

I think the biggest difference between Lawes flying into a half back and Farrell standing his ground is that the former is highly entertaining.

Also the fact its an actual tackle with arms wrapped, no where near the head or neck.

Getting caved in from the blindside by a charging lock who's worked around the intent of the law is plenty jarring enough to the neck on a whiplash basis.

On another aspect - how should England play Ben Earl and is he a like for like player to Sam Simmonds or is there sufficient points of difference between the two for them both to play in a future England backrow?