2014 6 Nations: Italy vs England (Round 5)

[Big Ewis]

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.

you do ????? You agree with the fact that England have butchered a lot of plays, many of which were really bad, and really important this tournament ??
Bless you.

 

[Tony Manx]

...... 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.

In fairness, Yes!

 

[Angolvagyok]

Like I said, to an extent. We are creating them, though, I wouldn't agree with a lot and we'll have to wait and see how important they were on Saturday evening, won't we?

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

What you seem to know about rugby is mostly misconceptions and could fit on the back of a postage stamp as far as I can see. I presume this is why you drag out your posts to nauseating lengths when actually you are saying something rather simple. Time and time again, you don't manage to address the actual points people make, but cover up your misunderstandings with expansive language.

What's funny is that you seem to believe we all deny the massive amount of mistakes in our game and areas of improvement... yet for years on this board the english posters have been some of the most down-to-earth, and we spend massive amounts of words slagging off certain players, discussing whether they are up to the level, etc. Nobody is saying England are world-beaters, or are playing the most flairsome brand of rugby - except you feel the need to constantly point out the fact that we're not.

Let's be honest here; considering the tournament and leading up to the tournament: the amount you have praised and criticised each team should be proportionate to how they are performing overall. Yet I have seen you donate zero intellectual effort to trying to point out how, say, Ireland can improve their game, and after finally renouncing Warrenball I've no clue where you stand on that. On the other hand, you seem to have plenty of time to say stuff like, "don't worry wales you'll beat England next time". In short, you disproportionately zone in on Englands weaknesses to make yourself feel better to the fact that we've won a couple of games. This is what's sad. If you could open your ears for a second longer you might notice how grounded most of us are in reality and our limitations.

So what have you actually said above?

England have been clumsy at times and not taken chances: Agreed entirely. England will not be a top top team until we can do that. I tear my hair out at Farrell and Twelvetrees sometimes. But if you really think this is all there is to attacking rugby then you're more hopeless than I thought.

But you fixate on the ability to finish. Secondly, England have not kept counter attacks going after a few passes? This is absolute rubbish, England have strung together plenty of inter-plays between players following a break.

So what I'm hearing is that England have not been successfully counter-attacking, because our breaks have not always led to points. This is essentially what your post keeps coming back to. For you, attack is in the ends rather than the means. I think most peopel would disagree with you on that.

You keep saying that your only point is about butchering points. Except that you're using that fact to go way beyond and talk about attacking game overall. You don't seem to have a lot of ammunition to back up what you think.

 

[Big Ewis]

Nobody is saying England are world-beaters, or are playing the most flairsome brand of rugby - except you feel the need to constantly point out the fact that we're not.

Ah but they might be. I didn't even graze the subject of England as a whole, or EVEN England's attacking as a whole. Just their terrible lack of control when there's just a little speed put into the passing, or too many passes in a sequence. Hence, heavily questioning the statement "England are a great attacking team".

Let's be honest here; considering the tournament and leading up to the tournament: the amount you have praised and criticised each team should be proportionate to how they are performing overall. Yet I have seen you donate zero intellectual effort to trying to point out how, say, Ireland can improve their game, and after finally renouncing Warrenball I've no clue where you stand on that.

I've said explicitly I thought I was wrong after all about Gatland ball. It is probably too one-dimensional. Ireland, what ??...are you telling me what to comment about, and what not to ?

On the other hand, you seem to have plenty of time to say stuff like, "don't worry wales you'll beat England next time". In short, you disproportionately zone in on Englands weaknesses to make yourself feel better to the fact that we've won a couple of games. This is what's sad. If you could open your ears for a second longer you might notice how grounded most of us are in reality and our limitations.

Yes in a Wales England fixture, I'm for Wales. Would you like to sue me for this, or, should I hide the reality of my intentions ?
Your accusations are 100% wrong and a product of your apprehension for my posts. That's the reality. I've praised England, and I've criticized them a tiny bit. Lots more praising than criticizing in fact. But your conditioned mind blows my criticism out of its actual proportions, and shuns the good selectively.

But you fixate on the ability to finish. Secondly, England have not kept counter attacks going after a few passes? This is absolute rubbish, England have strung together plenty of inter-plays between players following a break.

I don't fixate on anything in reality, in the real world. I'm just saying England butcher plays on attack...that's.......it. The point was developed up there, but that's the bulk of it.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

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.



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:


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.

Ah but they might be. I didn't even graze the subject of England as a whole, or EVEN England's attacking as a whole. Just their terrible lack of control when there's just a little speed put into the passing, or too many passes in a sequence. Hence, heavily questioning the statement "England are a great attacking team".



I've said explicitly I thought I was wrong after all about Gatland ball. It is probably too one-dimensional. Ireland, what ??...are you telling me what to comment about, and what not to ?



Yes in a Wales England fixture, I'm for Wales. Would you like to sue me for this, or, should I hide the reality of my intentions ?
Your accusations are 100% wrong and a product of your apprehension for my posts. That's the reality. I've praised England, and I've criticized them a tiny bit. Lots more praising than criticizing in fact. But your conditioned mind blows my criticism out of its actual proportions, and shuns the good selectively.



I don't fixate on anything in reality, in the real world. I'm just saying England butcher plays on attack...that's.......it. The point was developed up there, but that's the bulk of it.

Meh you seem to have back-peddled a bit it seems to me.

I don't fundamentally disagree with you over the facts but your interpretation of them.
Ragerancher didn't even say "We're a great attacking team" - he said this six nations "has seen us pull off some great attacking" What on earth is wrong with that!?
However, you took up the former and ran with it and later claimed all you were saying is that we butchered chances.
Its just my humble opinion that you want to believe the english are as blind as you think.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Ewis likes to deal in massive hyperbole and will try and slip in a dig at the English at any and all opportunities.
This is nothing new.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Ewis likes to deal in massive hyperbole and will try and slip in a dig at the English at any and all opportunities.
This is nothing new.

Yeah I recall before every single game he has said the other side could beat us if they turn up... He can't bring himself to say that there is no reason beyond a freakish occurance that England would lose. Hell you've got a wooden spoon Italy that has struggled against many sides, been recently thrashed, has nothing to gain any more and never beaten England potentially beating a consistant, on form and confident England, as he has been saying in every Italian fixture against England. He's just so French.

 

[Big Ewis]

There is definitely a great susceptibility or touchiness about English people. From my experience on here a lot, as elsewhere in my life, it's clear to me.
All things "national" are subjects a foreigner ought to be very delicate and reckoning with around English people.

Yeah I recall before every single game he has said the other side could beat us if they turn up... He can't bring himself to say that there is no reason beyond a freakish occurance that England would lose. Hell you've got a wooden spoon Italy that has struggled against many sides, been recently thrashed, has nothing to gain any more and never beaten England potentially beating a consistant, on form and confident England, as he has been saying in every Italian fixture against England. He's just so French.

The mere fact.....the mere fact that you actually took this as anti-English, or provocative, or negative in any possible sort of a way is just such an amazing example of how touchy you in particular are. Not that I care about you, but you just serve as a golden example.

I was just looking at it neutrally as the little team, as I said David vs Goliath, against a very consistent and strong England team, trying to pick out all the hope one could have for Italy to win. Then on the side, but this really is on the side, obviously I'm for Italy always against England, and specifically here because if they win and France beats Ireland they win the tournament. It's positive thinking for Italy, not nearly negative thinking for England. It's playing Devil's advocate, like, let's weigh in the OTHER side, that other much less likely side.

"He's just so French". Where does that even come into play in coherence with what you're saying ???!!! :lol: It's beautiful...

I don't know what to tell you about *me and England* that I haven't already or that isn't clear for a reason or another:

- I like England's inclusion of the backs this year a whole lot. Last year they were utterly boring to watch, and rigid, and predictable. This year, much much better. I salute that. I like Brown, May I know beats defenders but he's still a very agitated guy who moves laterally and should be a whole lot more concise with his athleticism. That Burrell no-try was a beautiful piece of attacking Rugby, no looks, good catches, fluid running...last year they never could've done that, and without Tuilagi were basically lost on attack. I respect their dedication and hunger at the breakdown a lot, their consistency. How the whole pack plays in unison, 1st 2nd and 3rd row. I like that Farrell actually contributes a lot in defense for a 10, even gets TO ball in rucks, wtf, and that he kicks penalties well. They can play excellent defense.

I don't like that though they're an efficient attacking squad you can count on them to butcher enormous occasions, destroy a 3 on 1, are slow and sloppy/clumsy with the passes in those instances. I'm not a huge fan of their attacking, still. Despite Brown and May and their defender-beating, they still rely on power and moving forward with force: both centers are big and smash into people, Nowell is so so, the pack is a predominant in their gameplan, Farrell isn't the most exciting or consistent 10 (though efficient).
I have apprehension because it's England, but don't let it get in the way of my judgment contrary to what ppl say here. I comment on what I've seen the past weekend, and look for tendencies.

 

[goodNumber10]

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.

come on BE, that's not really what you said now is it?<_<

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I never mentioned anti-English anywhere, I was making a statement of fact of what you have been doing these 6N. Your motives are you own and frankly I don't care what they are but the fact remains you have been predicting England defeats in every game this 6N. The fact you still say the England pack are all that decides the game shows you don't know what you are talking about. Ever heard of "earn the right to go wide"? You have to use forwards to open up spaces and all teams do this. In your eyes though that makes England a forward game. How many times have the forwards powered through the line? Not often. How many times has it been the backs breaking the gain line and making the most distance? Regularly. English attack fully utilises the backs and your stubborn unwillingness to accept that is your own problem. Yes we butcher overlaps, all teams do. However better to be in that position than in a position where you can't even make the overlap in the first place.

Your views on England are just so detached from reality. Also why the hell are you still going on about England being a "Great attacking side"? It's already pointed out that is NOT what was said. What was said was "This 6N have seen England pull off some great attacking and good game management." Do you deny this is true? Have England not pulled off any great attacking or game management? If you don't think they have, I suggest you stop praising Brown or Burrell for their work because it clearly hasn't been great attacking. If they have then stop whinging.

 

[Big Ewis]

now now, don't trivialize England's specific trademark for butchering plays when they go wide. Sure every team in the world does, heck even the mighty AB and they're not even human, but trying to drown the argument in a sea of common mediocrity with the rest is a fallacy. England has issues there, and they know it, and we all do on this thread I see.

I'm not saying England only play their forwards, as they have in the past. I'm saying they don't play a style offensively that is exactly what I look for in Rugby, still, despite the augmented utilization of backs this year.
The counters like I said aren't managed well, Nowell/May/Brown look dangerous and shake off a guy or two but then it settles into another bunch of rucks. They'll do a lot of all the way right, all the way left out of the rucks. Then an attempted kick at some point. I mean Burrell's try against Wales at the 33rd comes off a fkd up lineout throw from Hibbard, and grabbing a kick-pass as they go wide left quick enough. Well done though. They'll distribute the ball out wide every now and then and look exciting, but then again it's slow execution, predictable, and often miss out on opportunities as I've said...Farrell will kick ahead, then England plays defense, get the ball back, repeat.
Like, I definitely like that they're consistent, have a solid game plan, have got much better and their progression is very very nice. It's fantastic for them that they're winning. But then if you ask ME, just me personally, I'm just not a big fan. Although hey, if they start pulling some of those Burrell no-try movements a tad more, they've got a fan - yes a fan - right here in the making. I like how England has progressed, but I'm not completely sold yet as their style isn't all that creative, their backs aren't aesthetically very pleasing to watch (although efficient), and there's a whole lot of muscle and frantic/clinical play rather than actual beauty of movements for me.

And I apologize if that previous post makes it look like 'what pretty little old me' thinks about England is important at all to this forum. It's just a need for clarity, that's all.

 

[j-dawg]

I was agreeing with Ewis (like everyone) about England messing up opportunities and so-so until he called it England's 'specific trademark'. Missing opportunities is a very common part of rugby from grassroots to elite and if you watched from an entirely neutral point of view you'd see that. Unfortunately I do get the anti-English vibe reading some of Ewis' posts; not neccessarily the ones in this thread, but generally. He likes to completely make up stereotypes about the English and then say some English posters are reinforcing them. He likes to hint to some past 'bad experiences' with only English people, or that the way the English celebrate victories is truly only a foul bastion of Englishness and that no one from any other nation participates in this behaviour. In short, Ewis likes to negatively generalise English people when coming into conflict with them, he is very quick to point out that it is an English person he is debating with, like it matters.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Just to try and get this slightly back on topic, and away from the France good, England bad, (Beer good, napster bad) yawnfest:

No surprises there. There is some real firepower on the bench now - Youngs, Vunipola, Thomas, Attwood and Tuilagi coming on in the latter stages, against tiring defenders, could be carnage.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Just to try and get this slightly back on topic, and away from the France good, England bad, (Beer good, napster bad) yawnfest:

Might they bring Tuilagi on for Brown - put him on the right wing and see what Nowell is like at FB?

Unlikely... but would be interesting.

 

[goodNumber10]

i think it will be carnage. Lets not forget what australia did to italy in rome only four months ago, and i would say we're a lot further along from Australia last November, wheras Italy seem to have regressed.

This is a relativley confident England side, playing with a lot of cohesion and pace. They are due a blow out and this could be it if they are patient i think we could eb looking at 4-5 trys by the end fo the game - close enough first half one a piece, then england to score 3-4 in the second 20?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I hope the other way round - I'm in work at 2 so can only watch the first half :lol:

 

[goodNumber10]

lol!

 

[B10]

England may be forced into a late change for Saturday's Six Nations match in Italy as Harlequins prop Joe Marler waits for the birth of his child.
If Marler, 23, does not arrive in Rome by Friday, boss Stuart Lancaster says Mako Vunipola will start at loosehead prop with Matt Mullan on the bench.

 

[Big Ewis]

i think it will be carnage. Lets not forget what australia did to italy in rome only four months ago, and i would say we're a lot further along from Australia last November, wheras Italy seem to have regressed.

This is a relativley confident England side, playing with a lot of cohesion and pace. They are due a blow out and this could be it if they are patient i think we could eb looking at 4-5 trys by the end fo the game - close enough first half one a piece, then england to score 3-4 in the second 20?

Disagreed. Italy were playing their worst Rugby since the 6N (2013) all of last year from June in Joburg til the end of November. Now they may have a few key injuries going into this one, but since their first game of 2014 in Cardiff they've played a whole lot better as a whole, and their backline and attacking intentions have become more obvious.
Saying they've regressed just shows one hasn't paid attention to them at all. France's ability to stun opponents with consecutive tries closely sequenced wasn't exclusive to their game against Italy, and Ireland were just in a momentum one could call "in the zone".

And England as good as they are now are no Australia. I don't mean in terms of overall quality, but in the nature of their game. Australia had a field day against an Italian squad in the midst of a nightmare tour, and poured in a bunch of fluid running-passing tries on them which saw the score inflate all the way to 50.

England sure ain't dropping 50 on Italy. You can just cross that out (in case you're secretly anticipating it). Their backs may be more capable than Italy's, but as it's been well discussed here have their own issues on attack themselves.

As I've said before, Italy's cryptonite is backs play:
I'm NOT SAYING they will definitely contain England's forwards. I'm saying their only hope is to do just that: contain England's forwards. Because apart from Brown and May, England won't play a dazzling style on attack, which works to Italy's advantage. Burrell and 36 will be a handful but won't go crazy with sidesteps. Italy are afraid of more complex combinations in the backs and/or running backs and their steps. They can't keep up with that on defense as other teams can. What they CAN do is offer themselves defensively and play with heart, and if England can't get their attack to work some creativity or enough speed it might be a problem. In theory. It probably won't be a problem though...

As an Italy enthusiast, I'm hoping for this realistically:
England play their "bad game" of the tournament. They're looking great atm, really good, but being still young, maybe somehow they feel intimidated by the idea of winning the tournament, and having to do it on the road, vs an Italian team that is just so different, that's got an entirely other agenda in this tournament and doesn't share that same load and expectations, and therefor pressure.
They stutter their Rugby, the attack looks stale, the forwards are clinical but come up short to an Italian squad that came to play, despite having the upperhand the whole way. Italy realistically can hope for maybe one well constructed try, and another off broken play/interception...etc. They've GOT to make those penalty kicks. And hopefully Brunel and co. have worked out some intelligent tactics to counter England. A lot can be said about stopping England in theory, but that's another post of its own...