RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
Well it was laughable. You only have to take a cursory glance at the language used alongside the volume.

And yeah, he's kind of pivotal in one of, if not our best area of play. And that's not to say he should be picked, just that it has to be factored in to any thought process.

What's that? If it's defence, is there any evidence to suggest he's a better defensive organiser than, say, Joseph? And is that a role you want your primary creator to be taking on? Or even your secondary creator...

JJ is a better defender, and perhaps the better communicator. But JJ isn't the man who carries the team forward at pace to apply pressure, JJ might default to let the man take the outside shoulder, Farrell is the one who defaults to moving up, and I can't think of a single side who think a lack of time on the ball is easier to deal with than better organised defence showing you the outside

JJ is a very good defender. Communicating to stay in contact sure, but JJ doesn't set or change the defensive structure to adapt to the attack or situation. To do that you've got to be a bit of a good communicator. Farrell's individual role is often to shoot out, though that can change, like the AB's where we rushed from 13 to cut the wide ball, a classic Saracens ploy to bring attacks back into traffic and (relative) defensive safety.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:
What's that? If it's defence, is there any evidence to suggest he's a better defensive organiser than, say, Joseph? And is that a role you want your primary creator to be taking on? Or even your secondary creator...

JJ is a better defender, and perhaps the better communicator. But JJ isn't the man who carries the team forward at pace to apply pressure, JJ might default to let the man take the outside shoulder, Farrell is the one who defaults to moving up, and I can't think of a single side who think a lack of time on the ball is easier to deal with than better organised defence showing you the outside

yes, but all too often does it without letting anyone else know or oft inappropriately. See France's try for an obvious example. He's a miles better defender with Barritt telling him what to do. Actually quite a lot of England back line players fly up- Slade, Watson, even May. On JJ, he does both situationally- steps in to stop an attack or shows the outside; but at 13, flying up carries even more risk than at 12 imo. I'd also argue that less time for the attack also means less time for the defence to adapt- its the founding principle of the flat back line.....so its not simple.

A decent part of the structure with England when the attack looks to shift the ball is a constant press in to out to put pressure on the hands of the attack and force them back behind the gainline, rather than allowing them to come forward and press the defence into individual decisions. Saracens shifted to this model more. Originally they pressed from 13 to bring the attack back inside, and then shifted to rushing out from 10 or 12 to put momentum in the defences favour. I think it was Gustard who talked about taking the 3rd and 4th steps away from the inside backs when they have the ball and ideally trying to force them to pass stationary. So as close you get to 1st step the better as the 'creators' in the attack are more limited in creating go forward ball.

The idea being that a backline with momentum from 10 (and even 9) onwards is far more difficult to stop from gaining ground. The further out you can push the initiation of forward momentum the less options they have to gain ground, and in fact are likely already in deficit. That in turn generates slower ball, forces the forwards back and around (ideally) and give opportunity to isolate and attack the breakdown.

Of course if it fails you have to cover and scramble well, which thankfully we have improved on.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
JJ is a better defender, and perhaps the better communicator. But JJ isn't the man who carries the team forward at pace to apply pressure, JJ might default to let the man take the outside shoulder, Farrell is the one who defaults to moving up, and I can't think of a single side who think a lack of time on the ball is easier to deal with than better organised defence showing you the outside

yes, but all too often does it without letting anyone else know or oft inappropriately. See France's try for an obvious example. He's a miles better defender with Barritt telling him what to do. Actually quite a lot of England back line players fly up- Slade, Watson, even May. On JJ, he does both situationally- steps in to stop an attack or shows the outside; but at 13, flying up carries even more risk than at 12 imo. I'd also argue that less time for the attack also means less time for the defence to adapt- its the founding principle of the flat back line.....so its not simple.

A decent part of the structure with England when the attack looks to shift the ball is a constant press in to out to put pressure on the hands of the attack and force them back behind the gainline, rather than allowing them to come forward and press the defence into individual decisions. Saracens shifted to this model more. Originally they pressed from 13 to bring the attack back inside, and then shifted to rushing out from 10 or 12 to put momentum in the defences favour. I think it was Gustard who talked about taking the 3rd and 4th steps away from the inside backs when they have the ball and ideally trying to force them to pass stationary. So as close you get to 1st step the better as the 'creators' in the attack are more limited in creating go forward ball.

I totally get all that (including the edit - and its always been true that the wider you try and attack the more you are likely behind the gainline which makes creating momentum very tuff) - I'm just pointing out that the flat backline was built on giving both defenders and attacker little time....and depended on very skilled attackers moving the ball under pressure with late lines and late passes, and this is one of two ways to beat the blitz, even a good blitz. A poor blitz is an open goal to moderately skilled attacks. It all becomes difficult to impossible for attacks when the forward press England use is effective for long periods, eg Ireland.
That said, Ireland worked out how to beat the back defence twice, and should have done it more, and France got both inside and outside it. But I'm sure that's being looked at; we still look susceptible if being picky, to offloads two or three out, and switches in direction of attack if we over resource the breakdown. Our scrambling defence is excellent- and surprisingly, I tip my hat to Farrell here when he is in control emotionally.

As a matter of interest, and taking some note of what a few like, have Ford, Tuilagi and Joseph ever played at 10/12/13?

Oakboy wrote:As a matter of interest, and taking some note of what a few like, have Ford, Tuilagi and Joseph ever played at 10/12/13?

would be my preferred option, think I've said several times

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:As a matter of interest, and taking some note of what a few like, have Ford, Tuilagi and Joseph ever played at 10/12/13?

would be my preferred option, think I've said several times

Quite. I just wondered if it had ever been tried. It would have to have been on one of the few occasions that Farrell was injured and I'd not be surprised if the other two were out at the same time!

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote: yes, but all too often does it without letting anyone else know or oft inappropriately. See France's try for an obvious example. He's a miles better defender with Barritt telling him what to do. Actually quite a lot of England back line players fly up- Slade, Watson, even May. On JJ, he does both situationally- steps in to stop an attack or shows the outside; but at 13, flying up carries even more risk than at 12 imo. I'd also argue that less time for the attack also means less time for the defence to adapt- its the founding principle of the flat back line.....so its not simple.

A decent part of the structure with England when the attack looks to shift the ball is a constant press in to out to put pressure on the hands of the attack and force them back behind the gainline, rather than allowing them to come forward and press the defence into individual decisions. Saracens shifted to this model more. Originally they pressed from 13 to bring the attack back inside, and then shifted to rushing out from 10 or 12 to put momentum in the defences favour. I think it was Gustard who talked about taking the 3rd and 4th steps away from the inside backs when they have the ball and ideally trying to force them to pass stationary. So as close you get to 1st step the better as the 'creators' in the attack are more limited in creating go forward ball.

I totally get all that (including the edit - and its always been true that the wider you try and attack the more you are likely behind the gainline which makes creating momentum very tuff) - I'm just pointing out that the flat backline was built on giving both defenders and attacker little time....and depended on very skilled attackers moving the ball under pressure with late lines and late passes, and this is one of two ways to beat the blitz, even a good blitz. A poor blitz is an open goal to moderately skilled attacks. It all becomes difficult to impossible for attacks when the forward press England use is effective for long periods, eg Ireland.
That said, Ireland worked out how to beat the back defence twice, and should have done it more, and France got both inside and outside it. But I'm sure that's being looked at; we still look susceptible if being picky, to offloads two or three out, and switches in direction of attack if we over resource the breakdown. Our scrambling defence is excellent- and surprisingly, I tip my hat to Farrell here when he is in control emotionally.

Totally. Was just adding more rather than disagreeing. And then editing to remove typos and make more sense

And yes with Ireland. The one especially where they did the thing nobody expected which was snipe from nine to effect the defensive decision under pressure and then pass which worked a treat.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
A decent part of the structure with England when the attack looks to shift the ball is a constant press in to out to put pressure on the hands of the attack and force them back behind the gainline, rather than allowing them to come forward and press the defence into individual decisions. Saracens shifted to this model more. Originally they pressed from 13 to bring the attack back inside, and then shifted to rushing out from 10 or 12 to put momentum in the defences favour. I think it was Gustard who talked about taking the 3rd and 4th steps away from the inside backs when they have the ball and ideally trying to force them to pass stationary. So as close you get to 1st step the better as the 'creators' in the attack are more limited in creating go forward ball.

I totally get all that (including the edit - and its always been true that the wider you try and attack the more you are likely behind the gainline which makes creating momentum very tuff) - I'm just pointing out that the flat backline was built on giving both defenders and attacker little time....and depended on very skilled attackers moving the ball under pressure with late lines and late passes, and this is one of two ways to beat the blitz, even a good blitz. A poor blitz is an open goal to moderately skilled attacks. It all becomes difficult to impossible for attacks when the forward press England use is effective for long periods, eg Ireland.
That said, Ireland worked out how to beat the back defence twice, and should have done it more, and France got both inside and outside it. But I'm sure that's being looked at; we still look susceptible if being picky, to offloads two or three out, and switches in direction of attack if we over resource the breakdown. Our scrambling defence is excellent- and surprisingly, I tip my hat to Farrell here when he is in control emotionally.

Totally. Was just adding more rather than disagreeing. And then editing to remove typos and make more sense

And yes with Ireland. The one especially where they did the thing nobody expected which was snipe from nine to effect the defensive decision under pressure and then pass which worked a treat.

and the two chips over.....which is where I was wondering where the sweeper was!

And meant to add, but I won’t edit that susceptibility to changes in direction was a driver in leading to the change from ‘out to in’ to ‘in to out’. I think it was Glasgow who really troubled Sarries when they had runners coming from blind or against the direction of attack and cut holes through the middle that way.

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote: I totally get all that (including the edit - and its always been true that the wider you try and attack the more you are likely behind the gainline which makes creating momentum very tuff) - I'm just pointing out that the flat backline was built on giving both defenders and attacker little time....and depended on very skilled attackers moving the ball under pressure with late lines and late passes, and this is one of two ways to beat the blitz, even a good blitz. A poor blitz is an open goal to moderately skilled attacks. It all becomes difficult to impossible for attacks when the forward press England use is effective for long periods, eg Ireland.
That said, Ireland worked out how to beat the back defence twice, and should have done it more, and France got both inside and outside it. But I'm sure that's being looked at; we still look susceptible if being picky, to offloads two or three out, and switches in direction of attack if we over resource the breakdown. Our scrambling defence is excellent- and surprisingly, I tip my hat to Farrell here when he is in control emotionally.

Totally. Was just adding more rather than disagreeing. And then editing to remove typos and make more sense

And yes with Ireland. The one especially where they did the thing nobody expected which was snipe from nine to effect the defensive decision under pressure and then pass which worked a treat.

and the two chips over.....which is where I was wondering where the sweeper was!

Ah yeah. The one that led to the try Robson seemed poorly positioned, but it’s not really possible to tell if that was individual positioning or scripted.

And of course the gig is all about finding ways to negate the defence and forcing them into something their not familiar or even just hesitating. I’ve been pleased so far, but someone will work it out and how we truly react under pressure will be very telling.


And I know SA did it, but we have altered since them.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:And meant to add, but I won’t edit that susceptibility to changes in direction was a driver in leading to the change from ‘out to in’ to ‘in to out’. I think it was Glasgow who really troubled Sarries when they had runners coming from blind or against the direction of attack and cut holes through the middle that way.

yep. And i do think we remain susceptible to attacks that switch wide quickly and don't react to overloads very well; SA did this late in the game to us, albeit we were trying to play catch up and legs had gone. I often see quite a lot too much space on the edge of our defence, but our conditioning has been getting us out of jail. Or perhaps more simply, when we can't knock the oppos backwards in defence, our backline defence seems a lot frailer- but likely true of most.

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:And meant to add, but I won’t edit that susceptibility to changes in direction was a driver in leading to the change from ‘out to in’ to ‘in to out’. I think it was Glasgow who really troubled Sarries when they had runners coming from blind or against the direction of attack and cut holes through the middle that way.

yep. And i do think we remain susceptible to attacks that switch wide quickly and don't react to overloads very well; SA did this late in the game to us, albeit we were trying to play catch up and legs had gone. I often see quite a lot too much space on the edge of our defence, but our conditioning has been getting us out of jail. Or perhaps more simply, when we can't knock the oppos backwards in defence, our backline defence seems a lot frailer- but likely true of most.

Agreed, and yeah likely true of most.

I think we have luxury in that (when fit) May and Watson can come up late to close that wide ball off pretty quickly with a reactive drift / scramble from 13. It is the area we seem to concede ground most when they get there, but we do seem to have limited it to metres rather than scoring chances. So concede ground and reset because we’re confident we’ll press them back and regain that ground.

Whereas previous getting outside is represented serious danger.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:And meant to add, but I won’t edit that susceptibility to changes in direction was a driver in leading to the change from ‘out to in’ to ‘in to out’. I think it was Glasgow who really troubled Sarries when they had runners coming from blind or against the direction of attack and cut holes through the middle that way.

yep. And i do think we remain susceptible to attacks that switch wide quickly and don't react to overloads very well; SA did this late in the game to us, albeit we were trying to play catch up and legs had gone. I often see quite a lot too much space on the edge of our defence, but our conditioning has been getting us out of jail. Or perhaps more simply, when we can't knock the oppos backwards in defence, our backline defence seems a lot frailer- but likely true of most.

Agreed, and yeah likely true of most.

I think we have luxury in that (when fit) May and Watson can come up late to close that wide ball off pretty quickly with a reactive drift / scramble from 13. It is the area we seem to concede ground most when they get there, but we do seem to have limited it to metres rather than scoring chances. So concede ground and reset because we’re confident we’ll press them back and regain that ground.

yep, I'm kind of now assuming/hoping that's deliberate as that a recurring 'picture' of our wide defence. Proof of the pudding is lack of tries- though there have been isolated games where tries have been shipped- France away this year, and Wales at home this year (but we were a player down!). I'd think our back defence will continue to evolve, and its tricky with quite a lot of personnel change (imo) needed, and you have the chicken and egg of suiting the player to the defence, or adapting the defence to a player(s) (probs the former).

Mikey Brown wrote:Both Simmonds brothers missing from this thread.

Maybe Sam is our Tuilagi replacement. Probably the only chance he's got of getting in the team.

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote: yep. And i do think we remain susceptible to attacks that switch wide quickly and don't react to overloads very well; SA did this late in the game to us, albeit we were trying to play catch up and legs had gone. I often see quite a lot too much space on the edge of our defence, but our conditioning has been getting us out of jail. Or perhaps more simply, when we can't knock the oppos backwards in defence, our backline defence seems a lot frailer- but likely true of most.

Agreed, and yeah likely true of most.

I think we have luxury in that (when fit) May and Watson can come up late to close that wide ball off pretty quickly with a reactive drift / scramble from 13. It is the area we seem to concede ground most when they get there, but we do seem to have limited it to metres rather than scoring chances. So concede ground and reset because we’re confident we’ll press them back and regain that ground.

yep, I'm kind of now assuming/hoping that's deliberate as that a recurring 'picture' of our wide defence. Proof of the pudding is lack of tries- though there have been isolated games where tries have been shipped- France away this year, and Wales at home this year (but we were a player down!). I'd think our back defence will continue to evolve, and its tricky with quite a lot of personnel change (imo) needed, and you have the chicken and egg of suiting the player to the defence, or adapting the defence to a player(s) (probs the former).

Yeah definitely, on all counts. You can see the evolution so far, bot in individual roles and the collective. What I'm most interested in now is how it adapts to on the pitch changes that start to unlock us. So far it copes well. Certainly far better than it did, which is a really solid foundation to build from. But I'll caveat to say that it hasn't been consistently tested by anyone yet.

With Ford at 10 but Farrell replaced with Slade at 12 how do we think Slade would have got on there? My thoughts are that at the very least he would have made a more visible impact - and I’m half hoping Slade at 12 might evolve into a good balance/halfway house between the footballing skills of a playmaker (in other words a 10 playing 12) and an out and out crash ball Manu type 12.

I think Simmonds would take to international rugby at 10 based on his European games for Exeter and if I was going to start Tuilagi it would be at 13 outside Simmonds and Slade. I think there is far more to come from Slade, used properly.

Oakboy wrote: I think there is far more to come from Slade, used properly.

That's true for every back in the side and a good few on the fringes

Digby wrote:

Oakboy wrote: I think there is far more to come from Slade, used properly.

That's true for every back in the side and a good few on the fringes

Yes. England has plenty of decent backs. The problem lies with the limited ability of Youngs and Farrell and the limited scope of Jonesball tactics. At the moment England is winning games by dominating rather poor 6N/ European teams up front in a one dimensional game plan. That probably won't work against the ABs/Boks/Oz/Pumas, but there is no plan B.

Spiffy wrote:

Digby wrote:

Oakboy wrote: I think there is far more to come from Slade, used properly.

That's true for every back in the side and a good few on the fringes

Yes. England has plenty of decent backs. The problem lies with the limited ability of Youngs and Farrell and the limited scope of Jonesball tactics. At the moment England is winning games by dominating rather poor 6N/ European teams up front in a one dimensional game plan. That probably won't work against the ABs/Boks/Oz/Pumas, but there is no plan B.

I'd probably not pick Young and Farrell, but aspects of what we're going and indeed not doing under Jones are something they could reasonably want changed first. And I think our plan as is comes under particularly harsh scrutiny when we play someone who can live with the power, and that's France and SA. NZ history says are a threat come what may. The Aussies went on the offence against us at the WC in one of the big attacking efforts of the last WC and didn't come all that close tbh, and the Argies can make any game a niggle fest but they've not exactly pushed on since 2015

Digby wrote:

Spiffy wrote:

Digby wrote:
That's true for every back in the side and a good few on the fringes

Yes. England has plenty of decent backs. The problem lies with the limited ability of Youngs and Farrell and the limited scope of Jonesball tactics. At the moment England is winning games by dominating rather poor 6N/ European teams up front in a one dimensional game plan. That probably won't work against the ABs/Boks/Oz/Pumas, but there is no plan B.

I'd probably not pick Young and Farrell, but aspects of what we're going and indeed not doing under Jones are something they could reasonably want changed first. And I think our plan as is comes under particularly harsh scrutiny when we play someone who can live with the power, and that's France and SA.

That’s what I’ve been most baffled by about this season. Eddie is clearly waking up every night in a cold sweat thinking about that SA final, presumably with PTSD playing the role of Freddie Kruger, and wants the power/contact game to deal with them. But the equally important part B in the final was that we didn’t have an alternative plan or method of scoring tries when our pack came off second best.

Maybe this is just like 2018, and true to his word he will get things moving in attack post-Lions, but the France game must have hammered it home that some days you simply won’t get on top in the forwards.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Digby wrote:

Spiffy wrote:Yes. England has plenty of decent backs. The problem lies with the limited ability of Youngs and Farrell and the limited scope of Jonesball tactics. At the moment England is winning games by dominating rather poor 6N/ European teams up front in a one dimensional game plan. That probably won't work against the ABs/Boks/Oz/Pumas, but there is no plan B.

I'd probably not pick Young and Farrell, but aspects of what we're going and indeed not doing under Jones are something they could reasonably want changed first. And I think our plan as is comes under particularly harsh scrutiny when we play someone who can live with the power, and that's France and SA.

That’s what I’ve been most baffled by about this season. Eddie is clearly waking up every night in a cold sweat thinking about that SA final, presumably with PTSD playing the role of Freddie Kruger, and wants the power/contact game to deal with them. But the equally important part B in the final was that we didn’t have an alternative plan or method of scoring tries when our pack came off second best.

Maybe this is just like 2018, and true to his word he will get things moving in attack post-Lions, but the France game must have hammered it home that some days you simply won’t get on top in the forwards.

It was interesting to read from the SA perspective that they knew England were rattled when Farrell through the big miss pass on his own try line rather than just playing territory early doors. If you can get to the opposition captain early doors then you start effecting decision making.

I agree though there needs to be more to the game plan that what is there currently and there just has to be better selection in the backline. The backline for the French game was woefully unbalanced there was just never going to be anything going with those options.

I hope this is Eddie rebuilding from the ground up. Starting with the basics and he's going to use this as a platform. If not it's going to be a turgid few years.

Mikey Brown wrote: That’s what I’ve been most baffled by about this season. Eddie is clearly waking up every night in a cold sweat thinking about that SA final, presumably with PTSD playing the role of Freddie Kruger, and wants the power/contact game to deal with them. But the equally important part B in the final was that we didn’t have an alternative plan or method of scoring tries when our pack came off second best.

Maybe this is just like 2018, and true to his word he will get things moving in attack post-Lions, but the France game must have hammered it home that some days you simply won’t get on top in the forwards.

Yes. It makes us very vulnerable should we get two scores behind later in the game.

FKAS wrote: I hope this is Eddie rebuilding from the ground up. Starting with the basics and he's going to use this as a platform. If not it's going to be a turgid few years.

Are you trying to cheer us up?

I don't think the SA perspective would have changed had we played more conservatively early doors in the final, SA would still have remained uber conservative playing basically no rugby whatsoever unless they had a penalty advantage. That SA team for all it's one of the most boring I've seen, and not just among SA variants, was also super disciplined when sticking to their plans, and in its own way that is impressive.

I don't however know when Eddie has ever really had a focus on attack. He's presented a number of styles but we're much more a defensive and somewhat boring side ourselves. But like SA we've picked up a number of impressive wins, so...