RugbyRebels

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
Against Wales maybe, but 11 times ball in hand vs Ireland, 11 times ball in hand vs France and 19 times ball in hand vs Georgia, and the least amount of tackles in the centres when playing either 12 or 13 would suggest otherwise. He did kick to touch a few times though.

What the hell is he expected to do? Better. He's expected to do better.

And that's not to dismiss the two players inside him either. Ford who kicked like a cement footed twat, and when he did offer a threat made bad decisions, like Wales where he ran away from his support and got turned over. When he could have taken the tackle from LRZ, who had left his wing, we recycle and go right with three men and no defenders.

Farrell was just meh, but of course is satan incarnate so will get all the blame on the pitch. Some justified certainly, but no more culpable than Ford, who ranged from OK to dogs dinner and Slade who failed to influence the game at all.

Lawrence is the one who was basically a defender. He got the ball least of any players in attack, and did little with it, apart from one decent pass in our own 22 really. He defended pretty well mind.

Way too kind to Farrell who was poor in every game. Ford only started two games. Slade was a bit j Arthur but was parachuted into 12 outside said stinker.

Faz was much worse than just meh.

In much the same way that both Ford and Slade were also. There were elements that each did OK in, like Farrell's contestable kicking against Ireland, or defensive organisation, and other elements that were utter cack, like most of the rest of the game. But make no bones all three were sub-standard by a distance.

I would add that the game environment must be very odd and quite possibly distracting in many ways, which should be factored into views on the game at present.

Banquo wrote:

FKAS wrote:

Oakboy wrote:I ask the question in all innocence, ( ) , is the constant 'crap' factor in all this, Jones? He's the one who always picks Farrell and decides on the strategy of kicking it up in the air aimlessly!!!!!

Maybe, it's a case of waking up and smelling the coffee.

Whilst tedious to the point of being a cure for insomnia the kicking games isn't aimless. The long kicks down the middle aim to bring the back three central with at least the winger chasing which then leaves space in the backfield to kick for the corner. Kicking to contest is par for the course in rugby now with the defence often spilling under pressure.

Sadly the territory being more important than possession mantra appears to work.

Whilst understanding the strategy, I do think our kicking has been poorly done- and Dors is right that especially the high launched kicks have been aimless allowing the defence time to pick a better return kick, as happened often v France.... who were equally kicking the leather off it. To your point, we didn’t succeed often in shifting the backfield defence around, and France were winning the kicking battle for a lot of the game, which gave them momentum and confidence imo- they’d prepared for what we would do; given the number of good kickers in our back line we should have been doing better at this. One thing we seem to do which I can’t quite work out - other than steadying yourself, is that our backfield kickers seem mostly to catch it, and then kick it straight away, rather than run say 5 or 10 metres and then kick. Would strike me as beneficial- assuming one can kick well on the run- that bringing the defence towards you would create some space and also put some more decisions the way of the opposing backfield. No doubt I’ve missed some theory along the way

FKAS wrote:

Banquo wrote:

FKAS wrote:
Whilst tedious to the point of being a cure for insomnia the kicking games isn't aimless. The long kicks down the middle aim to bring the back three central with at least the winger chasing which then leaves space in the backfield to kick for the corner. Kicking to contest is par for the course in rugby now with the defence often spilling under pressure.

Sadly the territory being more important than possession mantra appears to work.

Whilst understanding the strategy, I do think our kicking has been poorly done- and Dors is right that especially the high launched kicks have been aimless allowing the defence time to pick a better return kick, as happened often v France.... who were equally kicking the leather off it. To your point, we didn’t succeed often in shifting the backfield defence around, and France were winning the kicking battle for a lot of the game, which gave them momentum and confidence imo- they’d prepared for what we would do; given the number of good kickers in our back line we should have been doing better at this. One thing we seem to do which I can’t quite work out - other than steadying yourself, is that our backfield kickers seem mostly to catch it, and then kick it straight away, rather than run say 5 or 10 metres and then kick. Would strike me as beneficial- assuming one can kick well on the run- that bringing the defence towards you would create some space and also put some more decisions the way of the opposing backfield. No doubt I’ve missed some theory along the way

I said it wasn't aimless I didn't say we executed well at the weekend. We kicked too long and chased poorly when looking to contest. It didn't help that the French 10 and 15 were exceptional whilst our 10/12/15 were not. Dulin showed the benefit of a proper fullback for starters.

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote: Way too kind to Farrell who was poor in every game. Ford only started two games. Slade was a bit j Arthur but was parachuted into 12 outside said stinker.

Faz was much worse than just meh.

In much the same way that both Ford and Slade were also. There were elements that each did OK in, like Farrell's contestable kicking against Ireland, or defensive organisation, and other elements that were utter cack, like most of the rest of the game. But make no bones all three were sub-standard by a distance.

I would add that the game environment must be very odd and quite possibly distracting in many ways, which should be factored into views on the game at present.

Oh yes, they were all poor. I just felt that Ford and Slade had some mitigation. But Farrell did a lot of stuff that was massively bad- penalties v Ireland, missed tackles v Wales, goal kicking and captaincy v France. I’m not giving Faz any marks in defence though, certainly as an individual, and his influence is profound, and I don’t mean that kindly.
I’ve made your second point a few times- weird times, as referenced in the sweary podcast on another thread.

We never have seen eye to eye on Farrell to be fair. I get why coaches and forward pundits love him. I just think he’s one of the luckiest players of all time to get 91 caps as intl 10/12 with the flaws he has. To some extent, Ford and Slade are as frustrating in that they are both very skilled and talented but don’t produce it- but a big chunk is the environment they play in.

Raggs wrote:The thought behindsome kicks may have been as simple as better deep in their half than me getting isolated here and I'll have another go when they kick it back.

Oakboy wrote:Is there a centre (or pair of them) anywhere in world rugby that would make our attack look good with Youngs/Ford/Farrell and our current tactics? Let's face it, if all three play, what is a 13 expected to do except defend and chase kicks?

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
In much the same way that both Ford and Slade were also. There were elements that each did OK in, like Farrell's contestable kicking against Ireland, or defensive organisation, and other elements that were utter cack, like most of the rest of the game. But make no bones all three were sub-standard by a distance.

I would add that the game environment must be very odd and quite possibly distracting in many ways, which should be factored into views on the game at present.

Oh yes, they were all poor. I just felt that Ford and Slade had some mitigation. But Farrell did a lot of stuff that was massively bad- penalties v Ireland, missed tackles v Wales, goal kicking and captaincy v France. I’m not giving Faz any marks in defence though, certainly as an individual, and his influence is profound, and I don’t mean that kindly.
I’ve made your second point a few times- weird times, as referenced in the sweary podcast on another thread.

We never have seen eye to eye on Farrell to be fair. I get why coaches and forward pundits love him. I just think he’s one of the luckiest players of all time to get 91 caps as intl 10/12 with the flaws he has. To some extent, Ford and Slade are as frustrating in that they are both very skilled and talented but don’t produce it- but a big chunk is the environment they play in.

Which is weird considering he leads our defence, which is arguably the best part of our overall game. And that's not in any way to say he played well, but our defence was excellent in the main and he leads that.

Raggs wrote:The thought behindsome kicks may have been as simple as better deep in their half than me getting isolated here and I'll have another go when they kick it back.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Is there a centre (or pair of them) anywhere in world rugby that would make our attack look good with Youngs/Ford/Farrell and our current tactics? Let's face it, if all three play, what is a 13 expected to do except defend and chase kicks?

Except, as mentioned earlier, Slade had plenty of ball in hand time, as has Manu previously. They don't just defend and chase kicks. We tend to chase with our back three and forwards, whilst the centres realign for turnover ball, or a defensive set. Not every time, but you can often see both on kick chase and kick receive that our centres move towards their backline position for the next set.

Banquo wrote: Looking forward to Eddies attacking strategy.

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote: Looking forward to Eddies attacking strategy.

Do you think he was telling the truth for once, then, with the post-Lions remark? His 'showing disrespect' reaction might be nearer his real feeling and if you take that to its logical conclusion, he is floundering, IMO.

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote: Looking forward to Eddies attacking strategy.

Do you think he was telling the truth for once, then, with the post-Lions remark? His 'showing disrespect' reaction might be nearer his real feeling and if you take that to its logical conclusion, he is floundering, IMO.

I don’t think he is floundering tbh. I think he likes to do a lot of detail and needs to work that up with his new attack coach.

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Is there a centre (or pair of them) anywhere in world rugby that would make our attack look good with Youngs/Ford/Farrell and our current tactics? Let's face it, if all three play, what is a 13 expected to do except defend and chase kicks?

Except, as mentioned earlier, Slade had plenty of ball in hand time, as has Manu previously. They don't just defend and chase kicks. We tend to chase with our back three and forwards, whilst the centres realign for turnover ball, or a defensive set. Not every time, but you can often see both on kick chase and kick receive that our centres move towards their backline position for the next set.

Slade is hampered not so much by lack of ball, but by lack of direct running threat around him- our back play is very lateral without the likes of Manu (well actually Manu!) in it, and we aren’t using the back three well at all; even the idea of JJ coming off the blindside and may playing openside was interesting but a frig and inevitably overloaded one side and again a bit lateral. Back line is a bit of a mess- they can’t decide whether to challenge the tackle line, or get outside defences, and either way need to have someone running straight in the primary line and/or the deeper wave of runners. At present we don’t actually even have that deeper wave of runners- they end up in a line. Looking forward to Eddies attacking strategy.

Timbo wrote:Certainly don’t see that Slade lacks for natural talent or pace. I think the whole backline suffers from the quite obvious lack of balance and power. If you don’t carry the ability to play through defences you really are stuffed in the modern game. A few of them look to be lacking in top form too, which doesn’t help.

Can’t be a coincidence that the only time under Jones we’ve complimented our strong pack, set piece and organised aggressive defence with a backline able to cut teams open fairly regularly was during the 15 months Manu was fit. His carrying and the threat of his carrying gives the whole backline the room it needs.

Not sure exactly what the solution to him not being there is, but we badly need to find some.

Spiffy wrote:

Timbo wrote:Certainly don’t see that Slade lacks for natural talent or pace. I think the whole backline suffers from the quite obvious lack of balance and power. If you don’t carry the ability to play through defences you really are stuffed in the modern game. A few of them look to be lacking in top form too, which doesn’t help.

Can’t be a coincidence that the only time under Jones we’ve complimented our strong pack, set piece and organised aggressive defence with a backline able to cut teams open fairly regularly was during the 15 months Manu was fit. His carrying and the threat of his carrying gives the whole backline the room it needs.

Not sure exactly what the solution to him not being there is, but we badly need to find some.

Just convert Sam Simmonds back to 12. He has played there in the past. None better at running hard and straight, and with some pace. (And I'm only half joking.)

Digby wrote:If we're going to move players to other roles they've never really shown up in then justice for Billy to prop, Ford to 9, Itoje to 8....

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
Except, as mentioned earlier, Slade had plenty of ball in hand time, as has Manu previously. They don't just defend and chase kicks. We tend to chase with our back three and forwards, whilst the centres realign for turnover ball, or a defensive set. Not every time, but you can often see both on kick chase and kick receive that our centres move towards their backline position for the next set.

Slade is hampered not so much by lack of ball, but by lack of direct running threat around him- our back play is very lateral without the likes of Manu (well actually Manu!) in it, and we aren’t using the back three well at all; even the idea of JJ coming off the blindside and may playing openside was interesting but a frig and inevitably overloaded one side and again a bit lateral. Back line is a bit of a mess- they can’t decide whether to challenge the tackle line, or get outside defences, and either way need to have someone running straight in the primary line and/or the deeper wave of runners. At present we don’t actually even have that deeper wave of runners- they end up in a line. Looking forward to Eddies attacking strategy.

Well beyond Manu there isn't really a direct threat. Lawrence looks like he might offer that as it is within his game, but was hardly used in that regard, and to be fair is brand new to test rugby. Devoto has that ability too, though for him just a run of games would be great. Redpath maybe, but again he's still new to senior rugby. Beyond that you're looking at people like Atkinson or 36. There is a paucity of direct runners in the centres.

Oh, and if Slade was hampered because he didn't have direct runners around him, couldn't you say the same for Farrell

Timbo wrote:Certainly don’t see that Slade lacks for natural talent or pace. I think the whole backline suffers from the quite obvious lack of balance and power. If you don’t carry the ability to play through defences you really are stuffed in the modern game. A few of them look to be lacking in top form too, which doesn’t help.

Can’t be a coincidence that the only time under Jones we’ve complimented our strong pack, set piece and organised aggressive defence with a backline able to cut teams open fairly regularly was during the 15 months Manu was fit. His carrying and the threat of his carrying gives the whole backline the room it needs.

Not sure exactly what the solution to him not being there is, but we badly need to find some.

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
Do you think he was telling the truth for once, then, with the post-Lions remark? His 'showing disrespect' reaction might be nearer his real feeling and if you take that to its logical conclusion, he is floundering, IMO.

I don’t think he is floundering tbh. I think he likes to do a lot of detail and needs to work that up with his new attack coach.

Despite what some may think, I really hope you are right. I look at everything he has done since his appointment and conclude that he's the biggest con-merchant in the game's history. I take no joy from that and really want to be proved wrong - because I am convinced that he is wrecking our best ever player pool. The latest kick-fest on the back of a horrendous coaching disaster v SA does nothing to suggest he is with it. Yes, he has been there, seen it all, got the t-shirt etc. All he has done is fail, IMO, when it comes to the crunch.

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote: I don’t think he is floundering tbh. I think he likes to do a lot of detail and needs to work that up with his new attack coach.

Despite what some may think, I really hope you are right. I look at everything he has done since his appointment and conclude that he's the biggest con-merchant in the game's history. I take no joy from that and really want to be proved wrong - because I am convinced that he is wrecking our best ever player pool. The latest kick-fest on the back of a horrendous coaching disaster v SA does nothing to suggest he is with it. Yes, he has been there, seen it all, got the t-shirt etc. All he has done is fail, IMO, when it comes to the crunch.

I think you might want to look at his coaching record and the available players with a different pair of specs on