2014 Six Nations: France vs England (Round 1)

[Big Ewis]

I don't know what kind of training England goes through, but they're really big physically...I think we need to intensify our gym sessions in France...modern Rugby will be, and already is, basically all about the muscle. Huge forwards, huge backs, and a simple game plan to utilize those two divisions. Huge tackles on defense and turnover ball in rucks, and then breaking through the defense or bending the defensive curtain with ball in hand. There's no substitute for weight in Rugby, and it's no mystery Wales, England and South Africa are amongst the best in the world right now. The "pass, ruck, pass, ruck" or 'one pass game' works perfectly well, just look at the Springboks. Say what you want about that last comment, it's the mere truth.

 

[j-dawg]

I don't know what kind of training England goes through, but they're really big physically...I think we need to intensify our gym sessions in France...modern Rugby will be, and already is, basically all about the muscle. Huge forwards, huge backs, and a simple game plan to utilize those two divisions. Huge tackles on defense and turnover ball in rucks, and then breaking through the defense or bending the defensive curtain with ball in hand. There's no substitute for weight in Rugby, and it's no mystery Wales, England and South Africa are amongst the best in the world right now. The "pass, ruck, pass, ruck" or 'one pass game' works perfectly well, just look at the Springboks. Say what you want about that last comment, it's the mere truth.

I can't help but think the English pack, and forwards in general, are less inclined to be huge and more inclined to be athletic and mobile than say 2007. England had some real big 'uns back then with guys like Shaw. I can't think of any real mass monsters in the set up right now.

 

[Jockstap]

I don't know what kind of training England goes through, but they're really big physically...I think we need to intensify our gym sessions in France...modern Rugby will be, and already is, basically all about the muscle. Huge forwards, huge backs, and a simple game plan to utilize those two divisions. Huge tackles on defense and turnover ball in rucks, and then breaking through the defense or bending the defensive curtain with ball in hand. There's no substitute for weight in Rugby, and it's no mystery Wales, England and South Africa are amongst the best in the world right now. The "pass, ruck, pass, ruck" or 'one pass game' works perfectly well, just look at the Springboks. Say what you want about that last comment, it's the mere truth.

While size is important, it's pace, skill and work rate that wins the day. As the All Blacks consistently prove.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Ive always been a Fan of Farrell, im not going to say hes been brilliant for England in the past but hes still only young and constantly improving and personally i think hes got the number 10 jersey down for the World cup

To be fair I've veen a big critic of Farrell but he did well today. He had some really nice touches, and his dummy/delay passes put some people through flr nice breaks.
I still would've liked another 10 on thw bench to replace/pressure him, but I'm more than happy that he's showing more attacking intent, especially as he's clearly (in Lancaster's eyes) head and shoulders above the competitors.

 

[Aristodemus]

Yeah it is mobility that is the England pack's strength. Apart from the Vunipola brothers I wouldn't say they were a big pack that will dominate you through power like the Bok's.

 

[Saint Matt]

Have to feel for the guys who played after a result like that. Always tough to take.

Personally, I agree the stance taken by previous posters in regards to the fact that I thought England were in control of the game for large periods. The first try should have been dealt with at the end of the day, but I thought we responded well and looked confident. There is an argument to say that we attempted to almost force things at times, but as I say, we played with some real positivity which is always a good sign. I felt as though the inexperienced side of certain players came out at times, and that our decision making was off at times. The overlap situation in the first half comes to mind.

The whole interchange situation disappointed me - we were in control of that game. I can't understand Lancaster's decision to take Care off when he did (he was excellent in my opinion), and our line out took a step backwards when Hartley went off. Same applies with Barritt. Off memory, Dan Cole conceded a penalty deep in the French half for their final try. Sadly it's those small errors that cost you ultimately, and they did today.

Positives. I thought Vunipola was superb and carried well - his offload for Burrell's score was outstanding. Courtney Laws was tremendous too in my opinion. Care, as I have previously highlighted, looked lively for me and Farrell showed glimpses of what he is capable of. At the end of the day, we made some mistakes and the bounce of the ball literally didn't go our way. Still, plenty of positives to take away from the game and hopefully lessons will be learnt that will benefit the squads progression in the long run.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Hartley for youngs is always an awkward switch: on the one hand Youngs was everywhere and carried very very well, but we lost a lot in the line out and a bit in the scrum.
Youngs is decent impact though as he's a very effective carrier, due to his height/centre of gravity he's hard to put down

 

[MojoTrwall]

We have the same problem in France

Kayser is important when there's a throw.

But Szarzewski is a really really good ball carrier (He did a good job on Fickou's try), but he can't throw very well, but has great quality in the game while Kayser is not impressive.

 

[Big Ewis]

While size is important, it's pace, skill and work rate that wins the day. As the All Blacks consistently prove.

the All-Blacks are an anomaly. They're sound in every aspect of the game, first of all, unlike Australia - and then they do what the Aussies do best, even better. They score tries. A try is 7 points, and they score a bunch of them because they're absolute freaks whom I suspect secretly share a brain in common. Never have I seen a team play so harmoniously, in any sport or era, ever, it's simply eerie how they do it. But for every other shhity human team, there's weight and work rate.

Aussies are a gorgeous side to watch, that's why I love them, but they got thrashed by South Africa twice this year because South Africa are huge. Period. Period. It's understood I mean work rate and a sound but simple plan along with the weight.
There's a couple of games from around 2008 where Australia go up by 25 or 30 or something crazy against South Africa, twice they do it I could get you the reference - and South Africa gradually get back into the game, and actually win one of those. Not because they stringed magnificent plays together; they don't know how. Not because of brilliant ideas by field technicians who found openings and what not - boorish forward work, that's it. Aussies gave away and gave away and gave away meter after meter, penalty after penalty.
Pretty flair Rugby from the 60's/80's wouldn't work today, because the guys were tiny compared to now. They'd get hammered down and wouldn't get up, that shhit is over, though it was gorgeous. These days it's not an anomaly to have a 105kg center or winger anymore.

It's cool to have a Nyanga on your team, he's agile for a flanker, sometimes looks like an outside back running ball in hand with sidesteps and all...good work rate, powerful in his own right....but he's 100kg. A guy like W. Alberts is 120kg. Vermeulen 115kg and Louw 112kg. When your team is 7kg-per-forward down, what do you think is going to happen at the breakdown ? How is a Nyanga or Dusautoir or Lauret (all around 95/100kg) going to do in the rucks ? How exhausted are they going to be after having to tackle monster after monster, what disadvantage is your team at when you need a couple or 3 guys for each tackle ?

I pick South Africa because they're the most perfect example anyone could want for this argument:
the only team that beat them was NZ, because like I said they're inhumanly in sync. Every other team needs to meet and even beat them in the physicality department, very hard to do. Or come up with amazingly designed tries like the Aussies sometimes do to them. Is it a coincidence SA only lost to NZ last year ? And yes, okay, there's the occasional LeRoux, or Habana who can run like he's on fast-forward. But think about it...for just one little second. WEIGHT.

 

[Toby Sweeney]

England lost so post match discussion is cut to 30 seconds, bloody typical.
England you need to throw out Andy farrell and Lancaster needs to have a look at playing form players like Morgan from the bloody start Arrrgghhh !
Who was it chasing back to slowly to intercept Fickou 5 metres short of the try line?
Was it Barrett puffing like an old man? Please correct me because i want to know who that sluggard was...
Tom Woods is exonerated there he actually got back and got left with a two on one, but the centre, was it Barrett ? Was puffing like an old man and ouldn't get near a pedestrian Fickou.
Shameful.

You obviously don't watch premiership rugby, Morgan has not been on form and Billy is a certain for the starting no 8 position!

 

[Jockstap]

the All-Blacks are an anomaly. They're sound in every aspect of the game, first of all, unlike Australia - and then they do what the Aussies do best, even better. They score tries. A try is 7 points, and they score a bunch of them because they're absolute freaks whom I suspect secretly share a brain in common. Never have I seen a team play so harmoniously, in any sport or era, ever, it's simply eerie how they do it. But for every other shhity human team, there's weight and work rate.

Aussies are a gorgeous side to watch, that's why I love them, but they got thrashed by South Africa twice this year because South Africa are huge. Period. Period. It's understood I mean work rate and a sound but simple plan along with the weight.
There's a couple of games from around 2008 where Australia go up by 25 or 30 or something crazy against South Africa, twice they do it I could get you the reference - and South Africa gradually get back into the game, and actually win one of those. Not because they stringed magnificent plays together; they don't know how. Not because of brilliant ideas by field technicians who found openings and what not - boorish forward work, that's it. Aussies gave away and gave away and gave away meter after meter, penalty after penalty.
Pretty flair Rugby from the 60's/80's wouldn't work today, because the guys were tiny compared to now. They'd get hammered down and wouldn't get up, that shhit is over, though it was gorgeous. These days it's not an anomaly to have a 105kg center or winger anymore.

It's cool to have a Nyanga on your team, he's agile for a flanker, sometimes looks like an outside back running ball in hand with sidesteps and all...good work rate, powerful in his own right....but he's 100kg. A guy like W. Alberts is 120kg. Vermeulen 115kg and Louw 112kg. When your team is 7kg-per-forward down, what do you think is going to happen at the breakdown ? How is a Nyanga or Dusautoir or Lauret (all around 95/100kg) going to do in the rucks ? How exhausted are they going to be after having to tackle monster after monster, what disadvantage is your team at when you need a couple or 3 guys for each tackle ?

I pick South Africa because they're the most perfect example anyone could want for this argument:
the only team that beat them was NZ, because like I said they're inhumanly in sync. Every other team needs to meet and even beat them in the physicality department, very hard to do. Or come up with amazingly designed tries like the Aussies sometimes do to them. Is it a coincidence SA only lost to NZ last year ? And yes, okay, there's the occasional LeRoux, or Habana who can run like he's on fast-forward. But think about it...for just one little second. WEIGHT.

Not an anomaly, a choice in the way they play the game. Rugby is their national sport, it's the same with South Africa only the boks choose to go the way of power. It's pretty clear which works better. Australia are still the 3rd best team in the world, yet union is their 4th sport, why, because most teams can't live with the pace of their game.

 

[The Jones Boy]

South Africa are the real chance for the next RWC.
England will be seasoned by then and very tough at home, but the Saffers will be at the height of their powers with a plethora of attack pigs ready to come off the bench and hurt anyone and everyone.
I still don't know how the AB's managed to beat them twice last year but I'll take it.

The French are in a rebuilding mode and they have some incredible players like Picamoles and Nyanga to build around. They can beat anyone on their day.
The AB's are not freaks.
They are just humans who work to a plan through self belief.
That is all.
The flair that is shown by Aussie and Wales and France and Fiji is as good as anything that comes out of New Zealand, but rarely do those countries match the AB's for self belief.
Weight plays a role but weight will not play a role for 80 minutes.
Weight comes at a price.
Stamina.
Look at where the AB's hurt the big WEIGHT teams?
In the last 20 minutes when they have to bring on fresh legs that leave teams a little disjointed in their continuity.
The modern game is about pace and continuity.
Thats why you can never count out teams like he All Blacks, Aussie, France and Wales and dare I say it Ireland.
If England can bring some more sustained pace to their game then watch out, they will be nigh on unstoppable.

my pick for the next RWC = South Africa. They will beat England in the final. I will be gutted.

The AB's are rebuilding and it will be too soon.

 

[Feicarsinn]

If weight were the most important thing in modern rugby Tony Buckley would be the world's best prop.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

If weight were the most important thing in modern rugby Tony Buckley would be the world's best prop.

He is
#Sale

 

[Big Ewis]

well this is a very interesting (and intriguing) conversation but I guess it's too late to move it elsewhere, let's carry on here if others don't mind.
I'd pick South Africa as having a good chance too, a very good one in fact. As I keep repeating, power doesn't need good form. You're huge, you're huge.
It takes the AB or Aussies impeccable timing, coordination and pure improvisation to score a magical try like they do. It takes a bunch of work rate for the Saffas to score one. Bigass maul off a lineout, move forward, bam. Or, ruck pass ruck pass ruck pass ruck pass try. That'll always, always be there for them. And when there's pressure, they can just smash into rucks to spend the adrenaline, that's their game anyways; the All-Blacks/Aussies need to keep their cool and put together a masterpiece of team sports to get their 7 pointer.

Beating the Saffas is all about exploiting the rare opportunities and converting the 7points - and knowing when to challenge and when not to in the physicality section, a fine compromise and balance between the two to counter them but not be too spent from it. Because they are going to throw themselves at you over and over.....and over again.
It's too early to say anything for the RWC though really......but it'll be very interesting to see who will beat South Africa this year. Will NZ do it twice again ? Wales are going there, 2 tests, Scotland once. And then they visit Ireland, England, Italy and Wales....lots of candidates.

 

[MojoTrwall]

And Opeti Fonua he's the best number 8 if Weight is the only thing.

Along with Bastareaud in outside center.

 

[Big Ewis]

If weight were the most important thing in modern rugby Tony Buckley would be the world's best prop.

And Opeti Fonua he's the best number 8 if Weight is the only thing.

Along with Bastareaud in outside center.

Awwww shhit, you're right guys ! Oh well, I guess I was wrong with my argument then !

 

[munstermuffin]

After rewatching - Was that Lawes best game in English jersey?
But I do believe Lancaster lost this in some bits but in others it wasn't his fault.
He brought on guys like Youngs and Dickinson in a "just for sake of it". Like Care didn't seem shattered and was man of the match in my eyes. Hartley was playing his part and it think should've been left on bit lingers as then Youngs impact would've been felt more too.
But then I can't blame Lancaster for Goode coming on so early (and costing a lot of points). Mays injury was unfortunate as he looked lively. And that meant Brown had to be sacrificed to the wing. Burrell also had to go on wing to accommodate Barritt due to injury.
In my opinion it seems Lancaster got first 15 right but selected his bench wrong.
Also Farrell was a passenger for last 10 and I'd question why they practically went with 14 as opposing to trusting Ford.

 

[Rich Taff]

I think Lawes has the natural talent to be one of the greatest second rows in the history of rugby. Whether he has the mentality is a completely different matter though.

(Oh, and Goode is the most inaccurately named sportsman since Robbie 'Savage')

 

[Peat]

Strength and power will always be key attributes in rugby but those things are not size. They are heavily related, but they're not the same. Look at David Pocock, incredibly effective and hugely strong, he's only 104kg. Keep looking, other examples will crop up. O'Driscoll and O'Connell. Dusautoir himself, not big, but highly effective and capable of tackling 34 men in a match.

There are so many other attributes of vital importance as well. Speed. Fitness. Agility - the ability to step, the ability to bounce back to your feet quickly, to get over the ball. Technical ability. All the mental attributes - the ability to make good decisions quickly, the discipline, the willingness to work, composure under pressure, huge competitiveness. Chris Robshaw is far from the most blessed of players. He does not have outstanding pace or strength. His height makes him at best a good lineout operator. He's England captain though - why? Because he's worked really hard. Because he's an excellent technical player and his top 4 inches, his rugby mind, are incredible. It's difficult to play rugby without guys like Vunipola or Picamoles but equally it's difficult to play rugby without your Robshaws and Smiths. The dream of course is 15 guys who are excellent in all aspects - I don't think you could create a team like that from everyone in the world.

More importantly... England's pack, not so big. Vunipolas are huge and give our average weight a big boost. Lawes and Launchbury aren't big men. Lawes is listed as 17st 6lb on his RFU profile and 18st 8lbs on his wikipedia. Don't trust given weights too much, for they lie. Tom Wood is tall and rangy, not tall and huge. Marler, there's bigger guys... they look very well conditioned though. As strong and fit as can be.