RugbyRebels

https://www.sixnationsrugby.com/statistics/

Quite a lot to digest. Itoje's stats reinforce the feeling that he was England's most consistently effective player.

Guess who "tops" the missed tackles list?

I know this one. It's only because he puts so much pressure on the opponent, that someone else can then easily get them. None of those misses are real, they just really good pressure.

fivepointer wrote:https://www.sixnationsrugby.com/statistics/

Quite a lot to digest. Itoje's stats reinforce the feeling that he was England's most consistently effective player.

Guess who "tops" the missed tackles list?

Although nearly three times as many penalties conceded as our next nearest. That's the big area of his game which needs improvement.

Puja

England, despite winning the thing, have no players close to the top in any attacking discipline, except poor George Ford and his 4 try assists.

Bottom of metres made, bottom of carries, top of kicking, bottom for broken tackles...

Stom wrote:Bottom of metres made, bottom of carries, top of kicking, bottom for broken tackles...

In a side with carriers in the pack and Manu.

Raggs wrote:I know this one. It's only because he puts so much pressure on the opponent, that someone else can then easily get them. None of those misses are real, they just really good pressure.

I always looked for missed tackles as being indicative of a quality 12

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:Bottom of metres made, bottom of carries, top of kicking, bottom for broken tackles...

In a side with carriers in the pack and Manu.

Not only carriers in the pack but pretty good ones at that!

Beggars belief how poor we are ball in hand.

And yet, despite carrying the ball the least, we made the most handling errors.

On the flip side, we have "weaponised defence", lol, with most dominant tackles and most turnovers won in the tackle. Which means we made just 3 turnovers outside the tackle...

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:Bottom of metres made, bottom of carries, top of kicking, bottom for broken tackles...

In a side with carriers in the pack and Manu.

Not only carriers in the pack but pretty good ones at that!

Beggars belief how poor we are ball in hand.

You could see why some of those Robinson and Burt teams didn't have a prayer at carrying anything when the likes of Borthwick were a primary carrier (which was weird even then but was still a thing) now it's just..., well there is it works at times, and the results overall are excellent. But by heavens we're a hard (ugly) team to watch

It all rather sums up Jones - winning is everything. Ironically, you can argue that he's a great traditionalist, enhancing our reputation as the worst to watch and the worst to play against.

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:
In a side with carriers in the pack and Manu.

Not only carriers in the pack but pretty good ones at that!

Beggars belief how poor we are ball in hand.

You could see why some of those Robinson and Burt teams didn't have a prayer at carrying anything when the likes of Borthwick were a primary carrier (which was weird even then but was still a thing) now it's just..., well there is it works at times, and the results overall are excellent. But by heavens we're a hard (ugly) team to watch

I'd almost managed to clear the horror of Borthwick's carrying from my mind and then you go and bring it up again.......

Beasties wrote: I'd almost managed to clear the horror of Borthwick's carrying from my mind and then you go and bring it up again.......

Would itnhelp if I reminded you about that constant bleeding wound on his nose?

Stom wrote:And yet, despite carrying the ball the least, we made the most handling errors.
..

.... I just love those sort of stats.

p/d wrote:

Stom wrote:And yet, despite carrying the ball the least, we made the most handling errors.
..

.... I just love those sort of stats.

Maybe that's why Eddie doesn't want us carrying .

Raggs wrote:

p/d wrote:

Stom wrote:And yet, despite carrying the ball the least, we made the most handling errors.
..

.... I just love those sort of stats.

Maybe that's why Eddie doesn't want us carrying .

It certainly supports the ‘get rid of it’ approach to winning

Top two teams kicked the most by (and for) a long way. We need to look to create more turnovers, cue Jack Willis. We clearly are not wanting to do any carrying! And maybe our defence isn't quite as good as we think.

We do like to kick after turnovers, so more turnovers can only be good

I can see it now. Down by 4 in the grand slam game. 70th minute. Willis gets a steal on our 10m. Umaga is calling like crazy having spotted our 4 on 3 overlap where the last defender is a prop covering Lawrence and May. Robson whips it out to Umaga, Umaga to Farrell, Farrell spots space and hoofs it down the middle so we can win the territory battle....

Banquo wrote:Top two teams kicked the most by (and for) a long way. We need to look to create more turnovers, cue Jack Willis. We clearly are not wanting to do any carrying! And maybe our defence isn't quite as good as we think.

As ever, is all the statistical stuff a bit of a diversion? Nothing counts till we come up against the SH teams and find out where we are at. The irony is that, last time out, we outplayed NZ with multi-faceted rugby. Using the tactics from the Italy game against NZ might invite a hammering.

Is Jones just looking for a way not to get trampled into the turf by SA? Ironically, I'd suggest the Exeter tactics and denying SA the ball might be more effective, especially with Willis added.

Raggs wrote:I can see it now. Down by 4 in the grand slam game. 70th minute. Willis gets a steal on our 10m. Umaga is calling like crazy having spotted our 4 on 3 overlap where the last defender is a prop covering Lawrence and May. Robson whips it out to Umaga, Umaga to Farrell, Farrell spots space and hoofs it down the middle so we can win the territory battle....

You've just put me off my breakfast . . . Ugh!

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:Top two teams kicked the most by (and for) a long way. We need to look to create more turnovers, cue Jack Willis. We clearly are not wanting to do any carrying! And maybe our defence isn't quite as good as we think.

As ever, is all the statistical stuff a bit of a diversion? Nothing counts till we come up against the SH teams and find out where we are at. The irony is that, last time out, we outplayed NZ with multi-faceted rugby. Using the tactics from the Italy game against NZ might invite a hammering.

Is Jones just looking for a way not to get trampled into the turf by SA? Ironically, I'd suggest the Exeter tactics and denying SA the ball might be more effective, especially with Willis added.

We did kick against NZ, are you thinking of a different game? Actually in addition to lots of kicking both saw some more intent to run early doors and then lots of kicking

Digby wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:Top two teams kicked the most by (and for) a long way. We need to look to create more turnovers, cue Jack Willis. We clearly are not wanting to do any carrying! And maybe our defence isn't quite as good as we think.

As ever, is all the statistical stuff a bit of a diversion? Nothing counts till we come up against the SH teams and find out where we are at. The irony is that, last time out, we outplayed NZ with multi-faceted rugby. Using the tactics from the Italy game against NZ might invite a hammering.

Is Jones just looking for a way not to get trampled into the turf by SA? Ironically, I'd suggest the Exeter tactics and denying SA the ball might be more effective, especially with Willis added.

We did kick against NZ, are you thinking of a different game? Actually in addition to lots of kicking both saw some more intent to run early doors and then lots of kicking

Kicked a lot and dominated territory, more so than possession.

Against Italy we would have had much more territory than possession, probably. We might have edged possession too as Italy were far more inept with the ball than NZ would've been

Digby wrote:Against Italy we would have had much more territory than possession, probably. We might have edged possession too as Italy were far more inept with the ball than NZ would've been

yep, quite similar to the NZ stats.

That said, NZ have won many many games when ostensibly losing the possession and territory stats.