RugbyRebels

Apparently Stander fractured his eye socket/cheekbone that in the first minute and played on until well after half time.

p/d wrote:

Spiffy wrote:

Banquo wrote: will give Schmidt some pause for thought.

The problem is that Schmidt does not seem to have too many options beyond the current squad, several of whom looked tired and well off the pace yesterday. The loss of locks Henderson and Beirne and the absence of Leavy is a big blow. Now Toner and Stander my be out too (Stander apparently fractured cheek/eye socket).

You just didn't adapt to the pressure England put on. A couple of senior players could have changed tact but stuck rigidly to the game plan, compounding the unforced errors and poor decision making at key times.

Do not see that happening again.

And I think you missed an open goal in consistently targetting May with box kicks (who has been consistently good under them for both club and country), versus passing back to Sexton to put up garryowens on Daly (who, to put it gently, has been slightly less good). I don't think he got properly tested once.

Puja

Puja wrote:

p/d wrote:

Spiffy wrote:
The problem is that Schmidt does not seem to have too many options beyond the current squad, several of whom looked tired and well off the pace yesterday. The loss of locks Henderson and Beirne and the absence of Leavy is a big blow. Now Toner and Stander my be out too (Stander apparently fractured cheek/eye socket).

You just didn't adapt to the pressure England put on. A couple of senior players could have changed tact but stuck rigidly to the game plan, compounding the unforced errors and poor decision making at key times.

Do not see that happening again.

And I think you missed an open goal in consistently targetting May with box kicks (who has been consistently good under them for both club and country), versus passing back to Sexton to put up garryowens on Daly (who, to put it gently, has been slightly less good). I don't think he got properly tested once.

Puja

He certainly came nowhere near a number of kicks, but that's not the same

Yeah - he tended to avoid doing so, mainly leaving it to May. The one ball May wasn’t there to bail him out on, he promptly dropped. He was decent in other aspects of the game though so it wan’t the disaster I feared.

Scrumhead wrote:Apparently Stander fractured his eye socket/cheekbone that in the first minute and played on until well after half time.

That would explain his absence whilst present

fill in the gaps.....wrong thread! good night

paddy no 11 wrote:fill in the gaps.....wrong thread! good night

Gotcha covered - moved to the right thread. Night!

Puja

Puja wrote:

Freddo wrote:Hasn't he previously said he wants to play 13 as he feels that is his best position?

Foden thought his best position was scrum-half. Sometimes players shouldn't get to decide.

Mind, I think he's a wing every day of the week, rather than a full-back, but at least his attacking play and entering the line on Saturday looked like a real 15.

Puja

Can't see him playing at 15 for Saracens, with Goode and Williams available, he is quite likely to end up at 13, or on the wing.

CONVEX HULL wrote:

Puja wrote:

Freddo wrote:Hasn't he previously said he wants to play 13 as he feels that is his best position?

Foden thought his best position was scrum-half. Sometimes players shouldn't get to decide.

Mind, I think he's a wing every day of the week, rather than a full-back, but at least his attacking play and entering the line on Saturday looked like a real 15.

Puja

Can't see him playing at 15 for Saracens, with Goode and Williams available, he is quite likely to end up at 13, or on the wing.

I suspect that's one of the many reasons he's going to Saracens - they've promised him he's being signed as a centre. I still don't rate him that highly there and think he's best at wing, but he's proven me wrong before.

Puja

Sarries could see him as a 15 and like Eddie be seeking a step change in attack over the previous more limited player, though one might then ponder on the role of Williams

Or Sarries could be looking to play a back two rotating in game depending on which of Good, Daly and Williams are pushed up

As others have said, Launchbury in for Itoje, Lawes to stay on the bench. Cokanasiga if fit on for Ashton, otherwise, as you were.

I wouldn't be rushing Hartley back in personally, as others have said maybe we should. He played well in the Autumn so he wouldn't be out of my thinking entirely but if we're winning convincingly against France, I'd like to give LCD a good 25/30 mins ideally to see what he's got.

TheDasher wrote:As others have said, Launchbury in for Itoje, Lawes to stay on the bench. Cokanasiga if fit on for Ashton, otherwise, as you were.

I wouldn't be rushing Hartley back in personally, as others have said maybe we should. He played well in the Autumn so he wouldn't be out of my thinking entirely but if we're winning convincingly against France, I'd like to give LCD a good 25/30 mins ideally to see what he's got.

Agreed that we don't need to rush Hartley back, but LCD needs a kick up the arse for his sole contribution being to switch off in defence and allow Ireland's consolation try.

Puja

I think if we can keep the intensity, and the way we played in structured play, then I'm not too fussed about the changes we make
I think the development I'd be looking from the last game is how do we play better when we're not in a structured format


On this, I'd pay a lot of attention to the unseen work of players like Wilson - changing him out for Shields could have a big impact in the way they facilitate other players

If Wilson is dropped after those last five performances then I will, err, write a strongly worded letter.
I’d love us to start using turnover ball but that would require a change at 9 & 10 (and, I guess, at HC) and that ain’t going to happen.

Mellsblue wrote:I’d love us to start using turnover ball but that would require a change at 9 & 10 (and, I guess, at HC) and that ain’t going to happen.

We can surely get to the point that where we're not actively scared of it though. Can't we?

Mikey Brown wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I’d love us to start using turnover ball but that would require a change at 9 & 10 (and, I guess, at HC) and that ain’t going to happen.

We can surely get to the point that where we're not actively scared of it though. Can't we?

It would be nice to get to a point where we at least take a second or two to look as to which is the best option before then booting it away regardless.
Jones was again saying, post match, that they haven’t really worked on attack, as yet. From that I take two things. The first is that we may look to attack off turnovers once they work on it in camp. The second is whether they aren’t starting to run out of time to work on attack.

Or Jones was bullshitting...

Raggs wrote:Or Jones was bullshitting...

Yep, which is worst case scenario as that means we will continue to just hoof away turnover ball. Slade said that his first try was straight off the training paddock, so that would undermine Jones’s statement. Jones, of course, could just mean that it’s not a particular focus. I could understand it if Ireland was deemed must win and we now try and expand our game. If we’re still as limited come March we will just have to accept that is how it will stay. That said, to an extent it’s all academic with that halfback partnership.

Mellsblue wrote:

Raggs wrote:Or Jones was bullshitting...

Yep, which is worst case scenario as that means we will continue to just hoof away turnover ball. Slade said that his first try was straight off the training paddock, so that would undermine Jones’s statement. Jones, of course, could just mean that it’s not a particular focus. I could understand it if Ireland was deemed must win and we now try and expand our game. If we’re still as limited come March we will just have to accept that is how it will stay. That said, to an extent it’s all academic with that halfback partnership.

Attack doesn't need as much structure as defense, really. Or at least, the most attacking part of attack.

I think the reason is we've been focusing so much on structure and I agree with that.

From a football PoV, it's generally accepted that if you start, as a coach, by stiffening the defense, attack will start to come naturally, with a lot less resistance. It's about putting the structure in place to allow attack to function.

And from that PoV, I think we've been heading in the right direction.

There are just a lot of GAH moments with England.

Mellsblue wrote: That said, to an extent it’s all academic with that halfback partnership.

Do you see no hope for Farrell? I'm starting to wonder if he might start to be more expansive naturally as Jones gets the shape settled around him. I suspect that we've seen the last of him at 12 now that Jones has got the centre pairing that he wants. Through to the RWC, might he settle on Tuilagi/T'eo at 12 with Slade/JJ at 13? The back three will be as Saturday's in balance with Daly/Watson at FB and a gas/physicality pairing on the wings.

Of course, that still leaves the problem at 9.

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: That said, to an extent it’s all academic with that halfback partnership.

Do you see no hope for Farrell? I'm starting to wonder if he might start to be more expansive naturally as Jones gets the shape settled around him. I suspect that we've seen the last of him at 12 now that Jones has got the centre pairing that he wants. Through to the RWC, might he settle on Tuilagi/T'eo at 12 with Slade/JJ at 13? The back three will be as Saturday's in balance with Daly/Watson at FB and a gas/physicality pairing on the wings.

Of course, that still leaves the problem at 9.

There’s nothing from what I’ve seen from his play with both Eng and Sarries that make me think he’ll excel at it. I’m not sure to counter attack I’d his first/natural reaction.
As an example, he is repeatedly lauded for his grubbers to the corner. For me, the execution is great but alot of the time I’m of the opinion that he’s kicked it too early.

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: That said, to an extent it’s all academic with that halfback partnership.

Do you see no hope for Farrell? I'm starting to wonder if he might start to be more expansive naturally as Jones gets the shape settled around him. I suspect that we've seen the last of him at 12 now that Jones has got the centre pairing that he wants. Through to the RWC, might he settle on Tuilagi/T'eo at 12 with Slade/JJ at 13? The back three will be as Saturday's in balance with Daly/Watson at FB and a gas/physicality pairing on the wings.

Of course, that still leaves the problem at 9.

I suppose one way to try and answer that is to see how expansive he is at Sarries, with a very settled shape around him...it's hard to deny that he is a very important cog in the machine - as much so in defence as in attack.

Whilst possibly per the playbook, the pass to Daly for May's try was nicely executed. The "playbook" may not have banked on Earls biting in, so if there is an element of instinct there then he executed good skill under pressure, which is maybe more than I'd have given credit for (unfairly).

Just re the comments on Wilson - he really was excellent. Even as a Robshaw fanboy it's hard to look back now. Him and Curry have possibly solved one of our most long-standing personnel issues. With Underhill, Clifford and hopefully Willis lurking in the background there's decent balance and combinations to sit alongside Billy ("please stay fit!").

Mellsblue wrote:If Wilson is dropped after those last five performances then I will, err, write a strongly worded letter.
I’d love us to start using turnover ball but that would require a change at 9 & 10 (and, I guess, at HC) and that ain’t going to happen.

He's been great at everything he has been asked to do, and is a lineout bonus too. A touch of the Hildas, dare one say.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:If Wilson is dropped after those last five performances then I will, err, write a strongly worded letter.
I’d love us to start using turnover ball but that would require a change at 9 & 10 (and, I guess, at HC) and that ain’t going to happen.

He's been great at everything he has been asked to do, and is a lineout bonus too. A touch of the Hildas, dare one say.

Well, that’s him crocked until Xmas.

If Robson does not get 20 minutes plus off the bench against France I can't see the point in replacing Care.