Work ons for Spruce Bringsteen

[Banquo]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/65020287

Only headlines (and Beeb ones at that) , but ticks for the coaching team on maul, scrum and lineout; still minus points at the breakdown (ruck speed), lack of creativity (low line breaks), tackle completion (that's really bad, even if some is caused by fast line speed), and WORST GOAL KICKING .

[FKAS]

Hopefully defence will be fixed with some additional work and the pre tournament fitness regime.

Ruck speed remains a real issue, we're unlikely to get the number of line breaks up unless we fix that.

Goal kicking, that's a simple change.

[Banquo]

Hopefully defence will be fixed with some additional work and the pre tournament fitness regime.

Ruck speed remains a real issue, we're unlikely to get the number of line breaks up unless we fix that.

Goal kicking, that's a simple change.

You'd think you could conjure up line breaks off set piece once in a while as well.

[Mellsblue]

Hopefully defence will be fixed with some additional work and the pre tournament fitness regime.

Ruck speed remains a real issue, we're unlikely to get the number of line breaks up unless we fix that.

Goal kicking, that's a simple change.

You'd think you could conjure up line breaks off set piece once in a while as well.

Imagine Stiff Back’s surprise when a grubber wasn’t included as a line break.
Defence is a real worry, imo, from coach to players.

[FKAS]

Hopefully defence will be fixed with some additional work and the pre tournament fitness regime.

Ruck speed remains a real issue, we're unlikely to get the number of line breaks up unless we fix that.

Goal kicking, that's a simple change.

You'd think you could conjure up line breaks off set piece once in a while as well.

I presumed that's where the few got came from. Well when we didn't maul it or go for the scrum penalty.

[Banquo]

Hopefully defence will be fixed with some additional work and the pre tournament fitness regime.

Ruck speed remains a real issue, we're unlikely to get the number of line breaks up unless we fix that.

Goal kicking, that's a simple change.

You'd think you could conjure up line breaks off set piece once in a while as well.

I presumed that's where the few got came from. Well when we didn't maul it or go for the scrum penalty.

we must have made one or two from broken play surely. Lawrence got one from a lineout- well he ran over someone.

[Oakboy]

SB has to factor in some degree of risk. 80 minutes of safety-first is too negative. I think we need more of the Exeter of 2/3 years back with the occasional dose of Quins/Bristol. We must be sufficiently tuned to keep possession with multi-phase periods and look for openings, all the while daring the opposition to compete for the ball without conceding penalties. Just playing for territory with overdoing the kicking does not work if the opposition do it better than us.

We are unlikely to beat SA, France or Ireland by dominating the set-piece. Yes, we need parity/solidarity on opposition ball but we must develop variety and surprise off our own.

Unfortunately, our collective confidence needs a re-build. Teams that fear losing usually lose.

[FKAS]

There's degrees of risk but it's what part of the field you take them in. SB isn't going to advocate playing from his own half unless his player maker opts to make that on field decision. Which Borthwick encourages, was evident at Tigers and Slade has said as much in interviews. Generally we won't be taking risks outside the opposition third of the pitch though we need to start taking better risks because a lot of the decision making in the opposition third and particularly the 22 wasn't great.

[TheNomad]

SB has to factor in some degree of risk. 80 minutes of safety-first is too negative.

Totally agree with this - I wonder how much of that comes from the players? Genuinely not sure

[Banquo]

You have to start with the defence and work from there I'd think; we don't have the players to try and outscore the oppos imo. Then how do you maintain set piece security whilst speeding up breakdowns and maintaining the turnover improvement. Whatever you do, don't start Farrell . Then you have a chance of layering on an attacking game.

[Stom]

You have to start with the defence and work from there I'd think; we don't have the players to try and outscore the oppos imo. Then how do you maintain set piece security whilst speeding up breakdowns and maintaining the turnover improvement. Whatever you do, don't start Farrell . Then you have a chance of layering on an attacking game.

Quins didn't, and we won the title...

It's not necessarily an attacking game, it's just intensity. Lay into the players, get their intensity up.

And drop Farrell.

[Mikey Brown]

Get the intensity up but drop Mr. Intensity? Crazy talk.

[Banquo]

You have to start with the defence and work from there I'd think; we don't have the players to try and outscore the oppos imo. Then how do you maintain set piece security whilst speeding up breakdowns and maintaining the turnover improvement. Whatever you do, don't start Farrell . Then you have a chance of layering on an attacking game.

Quins didn't, and we won the title...

It's not necessarily an attacking game, it's just intensity. Lay into the players, get their intensity up.

And drop Farrell.

Quins didn't what? And, the Prem isn't that much of a benchmark for intl rugby as we've seen recently....plus intensity should be a given at the top table--- though obviously we have a serious issue there ....but intensity on top of flawed/bedding in systems in defence, poor breakdown technique/decisions, and undeveloped attacking (compare our set piece attacking in the backs to the big boys, or even Italy!) wont be enough. So its not 'just' intensity, but intensity (and associated fitness) in executing well technically within great systems and tactics with good technique.

And on the Quins comparator, yes bursts of amazing esp attacking intensity, but also the plan to back yourselves to just keep scoring tries -thats how it seemed anyway; and as I said, imo at intl level I don't think we have those players (its a fair point though to say- how do you know if you don't try! Plus all the intent in the word cant offset all the work ons identified.

[fivepointer]

Could central contracts help? Seems to be they might be on the table.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/ ... ark-mccall

[FKAS]

You have to start with the defence and work from there I'd think; we don't have the players to try and outscore the oppos imo. Then how do you maintain set piece security whilst speeding up breakdowns and maintaining the turnover improvement. Whatever you do, don't start Farrell . Then you have a chance of layering on an attacking game.

Quins didn't, and we won the title...

It's not necessarily an attacking game, it's just intensity. Lay into the players, get their intensity up.

And drop Farrell.

Well Gustard did spend a lot of time trying to improve the defence and set piece before he left. You also finished fourth and then won two one off games. It's not like it was a dominant set of tactics nor one that has generated consistent silverware.

If you look at Leinster and Sarries the two most consistent teams in the NH the defence and set piece are both rock solid and then the attack is built off that solid base. England are a long way from that though.

[Mikey Brown]

You have to start with the defence and work from there I'd think; we don't have the players to try and outscore the oppos imo. Then how do you maintain set piece security whilst speeding up breakdowns and maintaining the turnover improvement. Whatever you do, don't start Farrell . Then you have a chance of layering on an attacking game.

Quins didn't, and we won the title...

It's not necessarily an attacking game, it's just intensity. Lay into the players, get their intensity up.

And drop Farrell.

Well Gustard did spend a lot of time trying to improve the defence and set piece before he left. You also finished fourth and then won two one off games. It's not like it was a dominant set of tactics nor one that has generated consistent silverware.

If you look at Leinster and Sarries the two most consistent teams in the NH the defence and set piece are both rock solid and then the attack is built off that solid base. England are a long way from that though.

I mean that's kind of ignoring the difference between the pre and post Gustard results within that season, along with ditching basically everything he's tried to implement.

I agree Quins are/were a bit of an anomaly and as soon as our squad depth was tested at all the results fell off completely. I do agree you can't just forgo defence at the top level, but there must be something in the New Zealanders' ability to play Super Touch all season and then turn it on for test matches.

[Oakboy]

What about SB's 'clarity' theme? Did it even apply to the coaching crew?

[Banquo]

Quins didn't, and we won the title...

It's not necessarily an attacking game, it's just intensity. Lay into the players, get their intensity up.

And drop Farrell.

Well Gustard did spend a lot of time trying to improve the defence and set piece before he left. You also finished fourth and then won two one off games. It's not like it was a dominant set of tactics nor one that has generated consistent silverware.

If you look at Leinster and Sarries the two most consistent teams in the NH the defence and set piece are both rock solid and then the attack is built off that solid base. England are a long way from that though.

I mean that's kind of ignoring the difference between the pre and post Gustard results within that season, along with ditching basically everything he's tried to implement.

I agree Quins are/were a bit of an anomaly and as soon as our squad depth was tested at all the results fell off completely. I do agree you can't just forgo defence at the top level, but there must be something in the New Zealanders' ability to play Super Touch all season and then turn it on for test matches.

My comments weren't just about defence either.

[Stom]

Quins didn't, and we won the title...

It's not necessarily an attacking game, it's just intensity. Lay into the players, get their intensity up.

And drop Farrell.

Well Gustard did spend a lot of time trying to improve the defence and set piece before he left. You also finished fourth and then won two one off games. It's not like it was a dominant set of tactics nor one that has generated consistent silverware.

If you look at Leinster and Sarries the two most consistent teams in the NH the defence and set piece are both rock solid and then the attack is built off that solid base. England are a long way from that though.

I mean that's kind of ignoring the difference between the pre and post Gustard results within that season, along with ditching basically everything he's tried to implement.

I agree Quins are/were a bit of an anomaly and as soon as our squad depth was tested at all the results fell off completely. I do agree you can't just forgo defence at the top level, but there must be something in the New Zealanders' ability to play Super Touch all season and then turn it on for test matches.

Yeah, I was being a little tongue in cheek, too.

But the fact is, we looked at what we had and decided that sorting out our defense was a good way not to win. By creating the attack we did, we simply over performed compared to the quality of player on offer.

If we’re struggling for quality with England, use what we do have.

[Banquo]

Well Gustard did spend a lot of time trying to improve the defence and set piece before he left. You also finished fourth and then won two one off games. It's not like it was a dominant set of tactics nor one that has generated consistent silverware.

If you look at Leinster and Sarries the two most consistent teams in the NH the defence and set piece are both rock solid and then the attack is built off that solid base. England are a long way from that though.

I mean that's kind of ignoring the difference between the pre and post Gustard results within that season, along with ditching basically everything he's tried to implement.

I agree Quins are/were a bit of an anomaly and as soon as our squad depth was tested at all the results fell off completely. I do agree you can't just forgo defence at the top level, but there must be something in the New Zealanders' ability to play Super Touch all season and then turn it on for test matches.

Yeah, I was being a little tongue in cheek, too.

But the fact is, we looked at what we had and decided that sorting out our defense was a good way not to win. By creating the attack we did, we simply over performed compared to the quality of player on offer.

If we’re struggling for quality with England, use what we do have.

...and as I said, I don't think we have the players who can go all Quins at intl level- but we definitely can improve defence and breakdown work . I don't think its as 'simple' as you say or just injecting intensity- at intl level, all the top teams have that. Suspect this will go round in circles.

[Mikey Brown]

I’m not even sure what or who you’re arguing against. I don’t think Stom is saying replicate the Quins attack with England?

[Banquo]

I’m not even sure what or who you’re arguing against. I don’t think Stom is saying replicate the Quins attack with England?

No he's saying just up the intensity including attack cos that suited, and I replied at length before including the attacking point- I was saying intensity wasn't enough, and as a side point the quins way didn't look like it'd work for us. But it was a discussion with Stom- who made the quins comparator, hence replying to him originally. I thought it was a discussion

[Stom]

I mean that's kind of ignoring the difference between the pre and post Gustard results within that season, along with ditching basically everything he's tried to implement.

I agree Quins are/were a bit of an anomaly and as soon as our squad depth was tested at all the results fell off completely. I do agree you can't just forgo defence at the top level, but there must be something in the New Zealanders' ability to play Super Touch all season and then turn it on for test matches.

Yeah, I was being a little tongue in cheek, too.

But the fact is, we looked at what we had and decided that sorting out our defense was a good way not to win. By creating the attack we did, we simply over performed compared to the quality of player on offer.

If we’re struggling for quality with England, use what we do have.

...and as I said, I don't think we have the players who can go all Quins at intl level- but we definitely can improve defence and breakdown work . I don't think its as 'simple' as you say or just injecting intensity- at intl level, all the top teams have that. Suspect this will go round in circles.

I was mainly questioning the idea that we should start with defense. If we don’t have players who can play a high level defense first game, we’re going to be meh at best.

Find what we’re really good at and select on that.

Could be kicking.

Then pick Ford at 10, probably Watson, Daly, and steward in the back 3, and probably a kicker in the center, either at 12 or 13.

Could be a tight game. So pick Lawes, Hill or Martin at 6, and…

We don’t have the players for that…

Offloading? Our first choice backrow isn’t bad at that, and we’ve got Genge and Sinckler, but are we good enough?

I’m just saying, I’m not sure we should pick for defense. I think we should pick a style to make the most of what we’re best at now, so probably missing kicks at goal and high tackles

[Oakboy]

It seems to me that two areas - fitness and discipline - don't demand world class skill. Start there. Add on defensive alignment and tackling skills which are coachable. Then, on the back of reliable set pieces, also coachable, develop multi-phase competence/confidence. Starve the opposition of the ball. Make them concede penalties. Then, add the hard bits - winning the breakdown off opposition ball and attacking from deep.

[Banquo]

Yeah, I was being a little tongue in cheek, too.

But the fact is, we looked at what we had and decided that sorting out our defense was a good way not to win. By creating the attack we did, we simply over performed compared to the quality of player on offer.

If we’re struggling for quality with England, use what we do have.

...and as I said, I don't think we have the players who can go all Quins at intl level- but we definitely can improve defence and breakdown work . I don't think its as 'simple' as you say or just injecting intensity- at intl level, all the top teams have that. Suspect this will go round in circles.

I was mainly questioning the idea that we should start with defense. If we don’t have players who can play a high level defense first game, we’re going to be meh at best.

Find what we’re really good at and select on that.

Could be kicking.

Then pick Ford at 10, probably Watson, Daly, and steward in the back 3, and probably a kicker in the center, either at 12 or 13.

Could be a tight game. So pick Lawes, Hill or Martin at 6, and…

We don’t have the players for that…

Offloading? Our first choice backrow isn’t bad at that, and we’ve got Genge and Sinckler, but are we good enough?

I’m just saying, I’m not sure we should pick for defense. I think we should pick a style to make the most of what we’re best at now, so probably missing kicks at goal and high tackles

Didn’t mention selection per se-it was about work ons.

Well apart from dropping Faz.

And lol at your last sentence good work