[2015 Six Nations] England vs Italy (Round 2)

[j'nuh]

Unchanged 23 is decent, at least until some of the injured players come back back. (Any of Wilson, Launchbury, Lawes, Morgan, Parling and Tuilagi back would mean changes.)

Would like to see Tom Youngs get a start though.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Unchanged match day 23.

The only fair way, really.

Apart from Billy V, I don't think all that many players can be described as 'needing to do more'. Even then I feel Billy V made up for his first half with his second.

I've just remembered that first half moment where Billy knocked it on / spilled it trying an offload - when we were in an attacking position. Will try and find the video reference.
Then the occasion where Burrell appeared to be away but the pass was a bit behind Brown / Brown overran it...

The more I think about it the chances were copious and I'd expect us to finish more of them against Italy

 

[TheSaffycen]

I think that us finishing off chances will progress with a finishing 13. Tuilagi and Burrell are both very good there but Joseph is like another winger at 13 who doesn't need space, look at his try, and doesn't need more than a weak shoulder and it's a try.

 

[goodNumber10]

Then the occasion where Burrell appeared to be away but the pass was a bit behind Brown / Brown overran it...

The more I think about it the chances were copious and I'd expect us to finish more of them against Italy

gosh, that support line from Brown was utterly awful... if he'd just held a bit of width Burrell could have floated that pass instead of just trying to pop it over the top.

Think we'll be fine finishing against Italy, it's creating the chances that concern me - both tries came from moments of exceptional skill, Watsons gather and score and Josephs standing up North and then going - yes there was good build up on both but lets be honest they relied on moments of excellence from one or two players to break the defence.

 

[TheSaffycen]

gosh, that support line from Brown was utterly awful... if he'd just held a bit of width Burrell could have floated that pass instead of just trying to pop it over the top.

Think we'll be fine finishing against Italy, it's creating the chances that concern me - both tries came from moments of exceptional skill, Watsons gather and score and Josephs standing up North and then going - yes there was good build up on both but lets be honest they relied on moments of excellence from one or two players to break the defence.

What about the Attwood no try ? We will score as we managed a 20 phase play against Wales at home, Italy won't be as pumped up as they were against Ireland. Also the backline is so different to Irelands, Ford-Burrell-Joseph are all individually dangerous. Henshaw and Payne are not the same challenge for the Italians as we will be. Gaps will open up a lot more than when we played Wales.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

^ I agree - I remember expecting Burrell to kick, though not sure why as he would not have needed to.

I wouldn't say I worry about the creating chances thing. A lot of that is part and parcel of accurate forward plays, which we have typically been able to put together. In fact, I can barely think of a time when there weren't times where we should have scored ... the problem is we never seem to. In terms of 'Postgate' - we still should have finished that with the backs. Granted, Cuthbert held on and prevented quick ball but we still had numbers.

However, what pleased me is that both tries we did score followed from a reasonable number of phases which we had strung together, as was also the case with Attwood's no try.
In short, the more frequently I see us stringing together lots of phases before finishing through the backs rather than the forwards, the happier I'll be.

 

[Crapspray]

In terms of 'Postgate' - we still should have finished that with the backs. Granted, Cuthbert held on and prevented quick ball but we still had numbers.

I think that was more down to Garces blowing up and playing barely any advantage; he didn't even wait for one phase to complete. If Brown had managed to offload from Hibbard's challenge, Watson would've had a one-on-one five yards out.

 

[goodNumber10]

What about the Attwood no try ? We will score as we managed a 20 phase play against Wales at home, Italy won't be as pumped up as they were against Ireland. Also the backline is so different to Irelands, Ford-Burrell-Joseph are all individually dangerous. Henshaw and Payne are not the same challenge for the Italians as we will be. Gaps will open up a lot more than when we played Wales.

no doubt that we will have more opportunites.

On the Attwood thing, more tries are scored on sub 6 phases than when you run up serious numbered phases like that attwood no try(***Edit, or even josephs try). That's why the primary phase defence is so important as if you haven't stopped the gain line there you are just opening up space for attacking backs before your transition defence settles, and this is also why 1st phase scores are the holy grail of attack coaching - they are the most efficient use of space you can have on the rugby pitch.

I guess the point i'm making is we need a more clinical edge earlier on, it'll come, they've played one game together as a 10-12-13 combo and they had no strike runner on Friday - that'll all come with confidence.

- - - Updated - - -

^ I agree - I remember expecting Burrell to kick, though not sure why as he would not have needed to.

I wouldn't say I worry about the creating chances thing. A lot of that is part and parcel of accurate forward plays, which we have typically been able to put together. In fact, I can barely think of a time when there weren't times where we should have scored ... the problem is we never seem to. In terms of 'Postgate' - we still should have finished that with the backs. Granted, Cuthbert held on and prevented quick ball but we still had numbers.

However, what pleased me is that both tries we did score followed from a reasonable number of phases which we had strung together, as was also the case with Attwood's no try.
In short, the more frequently I see us stringing together lots of phases before finishing through the backs rather than the forwards, the happier I'll be.

The Watson try was off 4 phases, the Joesph try was 20(?) that's quite unusual at this level now, this is why we're seeing so much kicking on early phases, as if the first few phases are not dynamic they will seldom make it to a try scoring conclusion and chose pressure over possesion.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

The thing is England were able to break the gain line over many phases. What's the point of kicking away possession if you think you have a realistic chance of being at the same area of the pitch a bit later whilst still in possession? Tries are scored after few phases but that doesn't mean you should just give up and kick if you haven't scored after 6 phases when you are still making up ground and getting half breaks.

 

[goodNumber10]

The thing is England were able to break the gain line over many phases. What's the point of kicking away possession if you think you have a realistic chance of being at the same area of the pitch a bit later whilst still in possession?

conserve energy?
put pressure on and get the ball back in a danger area quicker?

Tries are scored after few phases but that doesn't mean you should just give up and kick if you haven't scored after 6 phases when you are still making up ground and getting half breaks.

That's pretty much what i've just said, if the first couple of phases are not dynamic you will seldom build to a try scoring conclusion, so if they are you keep going - Josephs try being the example.

There are a number of reasons teams will decide to build phases, one will be dynamism, the other pitch area, but the simple fact is on the weekend only one try was scored in over 7 phases - the Joseph try, every thing else was 7 (scotland) or less. And it was a similar story last year as well.


Teams need to build phases, but it's more important how/the type of phases than the number - if that makes sense.

 

[Peat]

I think the main point should be that JJ's try was atypical. It's very rare to see an attack go on that long and keep its momentum - and that's why every side in the world kicks away a lot of ball, none more than the All Blacks. Kicking works. No one wants to see us kicking away good ball within 30m of their line - but often does that actually happen?

 

[goodNumber10]

I think the main point should be that JJ's try was atypical. It's very rare to see an attack go on that long and keep its momentum - and that's why every side in the world kicks away a lot of ball, none more than the All Blacks. Kicking works. No one wants to see us kicking away good ball within 30m of their line - but often does that actually happen?

probably not that close to the line, certainly 22-10 you'll see teams weighing up field positions - of course that will also depend on set piece effectiveness.

Teams can score off multiple phases and many do, and of course you are always looking for mismatches but it's better to be an efficient team than a team that builds 100's of phases - hence we see teams winning with only 35/40% of possession - because they were more efficient with their possession.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

The thing about stats is context. Many attacks peter out after x number of phases because the defense is settled and the attack can't make gain line success. As long as the gain line is still being broken then it shows the defense can still be beaten and thus possession should be maintained.

 

[goodNumber10]

The thing about stats is context.

Of course, the context is how to be effective in attack and score tries.

Many attacks peter out after x number of phases because the defense is settled and the attack can't make gain line success. As long as the gain line is still being broken then it shows the defense can still be beaten and thus possession should be maintained.

absolutely. I'm not saying teams shouldn't play phases or can't score off big phases - clearly they can, but as you've just said it's just less likely they will succeed.

Hence i'd like to see us (England) being more efficient on low phase ball, better strike moves, better 3/4th phase decision making - like on the watson try, like on Browns try against ireland last year, and like we played against Italy last year .

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I don't particularly care if a try comes after 5 phases or 50, a try is a try.

 

[msf]

Jeez, that good no. 10 guy is boring...just remember that he thinks Daly is a 12, and take his views with a pinch of salt.

- - - Updated - - -

Anyway, who thinks that we have a good chance of winning the world cup now? I still think we are very unlikely to win - after all, we had a good performance/result in the same game against Wales before the 2011 world cup.

- - - Updated - - -

I guess this one being at home counts for a lot though.

- - - Updated - - -

I just think we are too one-dimensional - I was watching a Wayne Smith coaching video, and he was talking about how the second defender has to win the 'race' against the 9 coming round the corner - if Wales had managed that Ben Youngs would have been much less effective, and then were back to either a kicking game, or a passing game with Young's indifferent service.

 

[ncurd]

msf I've thought we've been in with a chance since we beat the all-blacks (I know it was a while back now) proving that with management and group of players we can beat anyone on our day. The real question is can we build a consistent winning mentality, we've been perennial chokers in six nations for the last three iterations with a decent team who should be competing for top honors (and do) fluffing our lines at the last minute. Loosing games we probably should have won or loosing by margins our class suggested in previous games we should not.

Not to mention we've been terrible in consistency vs. SH opposition at times.

I think we really need to think grand slam to suggest we're really up there with a chance and that's way to early to tell. I think come autumn at very least we should be hoping for semi-final berth but our real World Cup opportunity with this squad comes in 2019. Always felt like this was the class of '99 not '03. We've got the building blocks however and I for one hope Lancaster stays for that period I think he's done pretty well so far and improving.

 

[goodNumber10]

Jeez, that good no. 10 guy is boring...just remember that he thinks Daly is a 12, and take his views with a pinch of salt.

don't read my posts then, there is a block button and i highly suggest you use it instead of continually insulting people.

 

[msf]

Yeah, I would probably change my mind somewhat if we won a Grand Slam, at least that would prove that we're not too one-dimensional for the Northern Hemisphere. I agree about the timing, but I don't agree about the coach - I would much rather see either someone with credentials like Mallinder and co. or Walshe and Hunter (the two most successful u-20 coaches) if familiarity with the next-generation of players is the most important thing. I think Rowntree and Farrell (at defence) are good coaches and should be kept on if possible, but I don't see how Catt can justify his retention, especially compared with someone like Alex King, who has transformed the Northampton team from a good team into a winning one.

- - - Updated - - -

I thought you were blocking me? I'm not the only one with this opinion, someone pmed me saying you were 'the biggest ****wit on here.'

- - - Updated - - -

At least I didn't swear.

- - - Updated - - -

To give Lancaster the credit he is due, he seems like he would (and possibly was) be an excellent director of rugby type, I just doubt his coaching/selection credentials.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Please keep on topic, petty personal arguments and name calling aren't welcome on here.
If you don't want to see someone's posts then that's what the block function is for, don't just moan about everything they say.