2014 6 Nations: Italy vs England (Round 5)

[Maverick1987]

i want someone to sort out owen farrell i dont like him, his attitude sucks

His attitude is exactly what you want . Ferociously competitive and combative . This is rugby at the end of the day .....

 

[UlsterRugby2012]

Hey now, don't try and act like you're not massive favourites going in to this game


Ireland by a million!

I just hope you know that you are now responsible for crushing the dreams of every Irish fan.

 

[Big Ewis]

It's one of these situations. David vs Goliath. You can come in here and predict England will crush Italy, they're on a great momentum surf board atm, consistent, strong in nearly every aspect, well established. BUT...turns out Italy shows up: they've got able backs, can string a play if they focus a bit, they're at home and have only played once there this year, capable forwards...and mid way through the match you think to yourself "could Italy ??....noooo...." and then they take the lead with 10 to play and you're actually witnessing history in the making as Italy, David, smites down the great giant Goliath and all the reasons for that become clear and you blame yourself for not seeing it coming and jumping on the bandwagon, having found reasons the whole way for England to win...

Or, of course...
England will simply beat Italy, rather convincingly. By 10+.

 

[Aristodemus]

I don't see how Italy have a hope of beating England. They have been bullied and beaten by every team they have played so far and are now coming up against a confident England on the back of 2 big wins and very consistent performances. Also it doesn't matter if Italy can contain our forwards, our gameplan has moved beyond our forwards quite noticeably now. On the flip side, Italy are still very forwards based and England have shown they can contain that without too much trouble. The side that troubled us most was the one that played backs game and that was France. Psychologically I think this Italian side will be tired and not fired up. They aren't even avoiding a wooden spoon any more realistically. They have just suffered a humilating defeat at the hands of Ireland.

Have to disagree with that, Ireland were the team that really caused us problems. France were very fortunate with two bounces of the ball and we also had the Goode handicap all game.

 

[j'nuh]

"It would be hard to change the starting XV on the back of that performance," said Lancaster.

The coach is considering recalling powerful centre Manu Tuilagi to the bench in place of Alex Goode.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Either of Tuilagi or Yarde would be a huge improvement and actually offer genuine impact in the last quarter.

 

[WillKillSin]

England need Jonny back if they are to have any hope in Rome.

 

[St George]

I commend Big Ewis for trying to make this game into more of an even contest, and the two previous encounters would suggest so too, but IMO this England with personnel change and attitude are far removed from that of the last two years. I would expect a good margin of victory but not in the cricket score area.
Ultimately i expect England to go into this game with the aim to impose their 15man rugby on Italy and not just bish-bash MASS rugby (sorry BigE i couldnt resist).

My 23 would be:

Marler
Hartley
Wilson
Big Joe
Lawes
Woods
Robshaw
Morgan
Care
Farrell
May
36
Burrell
Nowell
Brown

Ford
Tuilagi
Attwood
Thomas
Mako
Johnson
Youngs

 

[Crapspray]

Isn't this conversation the same as the Scotland match one?

They might do this... They could do that... Finally time for an upset... They have good backs... It'll be hard because they're at home... Their pack can match England's... They might show up...

All very pleasant; but reality wasn't to the Scots. I just hope if England do get a lead early on they really go for it. I can't see them getting anywhere near Ireland on points difference, but there's no reason not to try.

 

[Big Ewis]

Well sure England should win this, quite comfortably. But all the others are saying is, Italy do have assets on the pitch and can hang with England for a while.

I think England will have about a 3-4 point lead at halftime, have a scare around the 60th, and finally come away with a nice 10+ win ultimately.
Of course it won't change a thing, because Ireland will win their last match against the great PSA-era France in sheer glory and all things magnificent, and by default the tournament.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Well sure England should win this, quite comfortably. But all the others are saying is, Italy do have assets on the pitch and can hang with England for a while.

I think England will have about a 3-4 point lead at halftime, have a scare around the 60th, and finally come away with a nice 10+ win ultimately.
Of course it won't change a thing, because Ireland will win their last match against the great PSA-era France in sheer glory and all things magnificent, and by default the tournament.

Thing is the current England team doesn't really do "hanging on" any more. With the France game being the exception, England have shown they can play to a high intensity and be a threat for the full 80 mins. I just don't think Italy have the capacity to match England there and think they will fall off in the last 10 mins if the game hasn't already escaped them. Also it takes more than Italy turning up to win, Italy need to turn up and catch other teams on a off day to really beat them. Many times when Italy turns up they make the game closer but don't get a win from it. England last year looked atrocious after the Scotland game. There was absolutely no drive or attacking ability, they were clueless. This 6N have seen England pull off some great attacking and good game management. I'd put the Ireland forwards way above Italy (and their game would seem to confirm that) yet we were able to match them. I can't see Italy posing a threat in the forwards that England haven't already faced and dealt with.

 

[Big Ewis]

England have not had "great attacking", no, far from it. Out of all the chances they've had they blew a ton, and sometimes butchered easy catches and 3 on 2, 3 on 1 situations. It's a constant if you actually care to look at the negatives too, not just the positives.
They've had some nice scores, and the fact that they get that far as to having all those opportunities I mentioned is good enough. But that's the forwards and workrate, not "great attacking". If England are a great attacking team, Rugby is in a bad place.

If anyone replies to this, please make sure it's still on topic. I'm not interested in a "yeah well France. Yeah well blah blah". We know France's issues, there's a few threads for that. I'm addressing England's attack, in the scope of going into Rome and facing an Italian team that has tremendous trouble dealing with a strong backline:
they took an absolute pounding from the Aussies in November, 50. The Fijians dropped 30+ on them and were one man down the whole way. And this year in the tournament, France gave them a lethal 10min dosage, and Ireland dizzied them with pure attacking. Ireland made 1 million passes that game.
They fared up quite well against Wales for example, a far more predictable yet physical side.

England are clean enough in their attack, and that Burrell no-try against Wales was a beautiful piece of attacking Rugby. Dare I say it, it actually had some flair. But otherwise Italy will need to worry about the forwards and just put in tons of work, as opposed to dealing with furious backs running amok.

Mike Brown must be contained immediately, and Italy ought to know they shouldn't kick the ball aimlessly back at England. And that May guy, although often randomly, does get agitated fast and needs to be pinned down.
The rest is force that needs to be contained as best they can.

Can they do all that for 80 minutes ? probably not...probably not.
And yes, Castro is a huge loss, amongst other injuries and Italy aren't France or England, they need those key players. With England softer in the scrum than ever, it was the perfect chance to stuff them there and get a good platform to get points or good position from.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Much better to be butchering chances than making none at all. The former is easier to fix. England also have the players with the most meters run, most defenders beaten and most line breaks. Even with all those butchered opportunities, England are still joint 2nd on tries scored. It's definitely not just the forwards making the England tries and quite frankly you are stuck in the past if you think it is. It's full 15 man rugby that is making that, or has Mike Brown being the single most successful line breaker of the tournament completely slipped your notice? Also did that very close Burrell try completely escape your notice too? That could potentially have been one of the best tries of the tournament and little more than 5cm is what seperated it from being that and simply being in touch. The only thing England are lacking is a bit more vision to finish the moves and attacking is more than simply the finish. We are consistanly breaking the gain line in our games and in every game have run more meters, beaten more defenders and had more clean breaks than our opposition, even in the game we lost.

You really are stuck in the past Ewis, England are not a 10 man rugby side any more and haven't been for the entirity of this 6N. Maybe if you'd like to look at England as they are playing NOW as opposed to some relic from a few years ago you would see that.

 

[Tony Manx]

For my twopence worth.....the reason that Italy showed some class in their backs against Ireland was they managed to get some ball that they should not have got and they were not closed down as this English team closes teams down.....the ball will be their major problem against England where their scrum is better and their line out has been very good so long as Youngs stays on the bench!!

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

"Ireland dizzied them with pure attacking" - Oh dear. You really struggle to talk bout rugby don't you. Out of all the teams playing some good rugby, some bad, why is it still England you try and put down?

There are different ways to be a good attacking team:

1) Showing ambition, running from deep inside your own half
2) Playing rugby where the forwards and banks link up frequently and successfully
3) Successful counter-attacking
4) Well executed set-piece attacking

...And an individual player:
5) Beating defenders
6) Making metres


England are doing most of these things apart from the set-piece moves which are not there yet. I think this is partly something which comes with time, but also partly something obstructed by your choice of fly-half.

I would agree that England have butchered chances and are no Australia/New Zealand in terms of seamless execution matched with flair, but no other northern hemipshere team are either. As for the chances, the blame partly lies at 10 and 12. I'm confident that Ford and Eastmond would have turned those chances into points.
We are showing a lot of ability in attacking from deep, offloading, taking on defenders, and the stats show that we've been successful.

There is no doubt in my mind that we have been a better attacking team than France, Wales, Italy and Scotland. We have played different attacking rugby to Ireland. Less exact and perfect in execution, but arguably more creative plays which don't necessarily require field position. France have showed ability to score from nowhere, but their general attacking at the moment is catastrophically awful - and by general attacking consider the other 3 points I highlighted above which count as attacking.

 

[goodNumber10]

i want someone to sort out owen farrell i dont like him, his attitude sucks

yeah, there is no place in this game for prrofessionalism or the desire to win. At least not in an Englishman, eh?

 

[goodNumber10]

England have not had "great attacking", no, far from it.

mate, are you Trolling?

 

[goodNumber10]

"Ireland dizzied them with pure attacking" - Oh dear. You really struggle to talk bout rugby don't you. Out of all the teams playing some good rugby, some bad, why is it still England you try and put down?

There are different ways to be a good attacking team:

1) Showing ambition, running from deep inside your own half
2) Playing rugby where the forwards and banks link up frequently and successfully
3) Successful counter-attacking
4) Well executed set-piece attacking

...And an individual player:
5) Beating defenders
6) Making metres


England are doing most of these things apart from the set-piece moves which are not there yet. I think this is partly something which comes with time, but also partly something obstructed by your choice of fly-half.

I would agree that England have butchered chances and are no Australia/New Zealand in terms of seamless execution matched with flair, but no other northern hemipshere team are either. As for the chances, the blame partly lies at 10 and 12. I'm confident that Ford and Eastmond would have turned those chances into points.
We are showing a lot of ability in attacking from deep, offloading, taking on defenders, and the stats show that we've been successful.

There is no doubt in my mind that we have been a better attacking team than France, Wales, Italy and Scotland. We have played different attacking rugby to Ireland. Less exact and perfect in execution, but arguably more creative plays which don't necessarily require field position. France have showed ability to score from nowhere, but their general attacking at the moment is catastrophically awful - and by general attacking consider the other 3 points I highlighted above which count as attacking.

great post!

 

[Big Ewis]

You really are stuck in the past Ewis, England are not a 10 man rugby side any more and haven't been for the entirity of this 6N. Maybe if you'd like to look at England as they are playing NOW as opposed to some relic from a few years ago you would see that.

You are stuck on me. Everything I say you take as an enormous caricature of what I'm actually saying. I even mentioned that Burrell no-try against Wales, but sure enough you'll select that I haven't.
I never said England played a 10-man Rugby in that post.

Out of all the teams playing some good rugby, some bad, why is it still England you try and put down?

There are different ways to be a good attacking team:

1) Showing ambition, running from deep inside your own half
2) Playing rugby where the forwards and banks link up frequently and successfully
3) Successful counter-attacking
4) Well executed set-piece attacking

...And an individual player:
5) Beating defenders
6) Making metres


England are doing most of these things apart from the set-piece moves which are not there yet. I think this is partly something which comes with time, but also partly something obstructed by your choice of fly-half.

I would agree that England have butchered chances and are no Australia/New Zealand in terms of seamless execution matched with flair, but no other northern hemipshere team are either. As for the chances, the blame partly lies at 10 and 12. I'm confident that Ford and Eastmond would have turned those chances into points.
We are showing a lot of ability in attacking from deep, offloading, taking on defenders, and the stats show that we've been successful.

There is no doubt in my mind that we have been a better attacking team than France, Wales, Italy and Scotland. We have played different attacking rugby to Ireland. Less exact and perfect in execution, but arguably more creative plays which don't necessarily require field position. France have showed ability to score from nowhere, but their general attacking at the moment is catastrophically awful - and by general attacking consider the other 3 points I highlighted above which count as attacking.

It's amazing that you see my post as "putting England down". Honestly, this isn't very interesting for me because whatever I say about England, if it's not literally 100% positive it'll be seen as a flame post, or trolling, and I get insulted every single time, does not fail. The legendary English susceptibility is in its full manifestation here.
And of course you'd mention France's struggles when this is about England's attacking, and England's attacking in regards to the Italy game. Like it's a personal matter. "Right back at you".

Someone please read my initial post again, read the replies to it, and make your opinion about it

All I'm saying is England have struggled enormously with completing plays, have tremendous difficulty keeping a play alive when it's past a certain number of passes, have butchered more opportunities than any team in the tournament possibly or at least certainly important ones.

I'm not going to post a ton of gifs showing you all the fkd up 3 on 1 plays or a succession of handling errors, or bad passes in the corner wing etc...but they've still happened. It doesn't make my post less true.

I haven't once read an English fan post about that here, and it's been a sheer constant the whole tournament. Every single match. England fans seem so focused on England's success atm they're completely blind and unaware of the many mistakes outsiders will capture, it's quite amusing.

"No other NH are either" ?? France in all their master-disaster this year show better control as a whole (no gameplan, but from a technical standpoint I mean of course), and Ireland absolutely annihilate England with their attacking precision and they've got complex schemes and make shhitloads of passes. If England made that many passes my Lord...they wouldn't win a whole lot of games, just not their thing, just don't have that kind of control.
And Wales may have been lackluster on attack, but they haven't butchered as much.

"Successful counter-attack" ?? Mike Brown in all his ability will bring it up the pitch, beat a few guys, make a pass and then where does it go from there ? They had one nice counter-try against Ireland, but in the Wales game for e.g. the Welsh kept kicking it right back to England and with the shhitloads of balls Brown got he'd run it up, with wiiiiiiide open spaces aplenty all England had to do is move it either side, fix defenders with their power centers in some instances and they had a try.

Their clumsiness in execution in the passing sequences makes them limited in their attack and they easily could've have scored more, particularly against Scotland and Wales. Even against France, I remember holding my breath a little then seeing yet another butchered play and settling down with confidence.

I can feel the English posters right now grinding teeth at my post, so I'll just remind those of the plot: England are a fairly efficient side on attack, but they're by no means "a great attacking team" which ignited my initial reaction, and seeing how they've really killed so many opportunities it seems more than fit to at least mention it. Fair enough. No ? Do I need to be insulted for that ? Isn't that very, very childish to get angry for that ?

It's good they've beaten defenders and "showing ambition" and I'm not asking England to be "Australia/New Zealand", just clearly am criticizing but their lack of competence in the passing area, globally, as shown in this tournament (as before in fact).

EDIT:

mate, are you Trolling?

yes. Yes, yes I'm trolling. England are flawless and profusely precise on attack and have absolutely not destroyed great chances this tournament. Yes, I'm trolling. Surely. England couldn't possibly not be a "great attacking side". I...MUST be trolling.

 

[Angolvagyok]

Interesting passing figures at the 6nations site: Ireland 710, England, 581. Ireland put 258 on Italy, England passed more against Scotland and France than Ireland did against Wales and Scotland. I'm sure England's numbers will move up after they play Italy, could be quite similar. Ireland passed the ball 68 more times than England in the recent match between the two, but still lost. Lies, damned lies and all that.

I actually agree with you to an extent, Ewis, we don't look clinical at times, but that's something that grows with familiarity of players and an additional cutting edge, ie. Wade, Yarde, Tuilagi maybe. It'll come and it's an improvement over last year.