[2017 RBS Six Nations] Round 3: England vs Italy (26/02/2017)

[martinspoonboy1]

Warburton was suggested, but feels like a step backwards.

For something new and hopeful, what about Jonny Gray or CJ Stander?

Maybe Gray, but will he start? Has CJ captained consistently?

 

[munstermuffin]

Maybe Gray, but will he start? Has CJ captained consistently?

CJ has captained Munster all last year and few times when POM doesn't play

 

[mosfeldt]

From the Grauniad;

"Conor O'Shea should be investigated by the IRU for match-fixing.
He was happy to let Ireland rack up a cricket score in Rome against his Italian side but chose to deploy a clearly well-rehearsed damage limitation tactic against England. Why was the same tactic not executed against Ireland?
Very suspicious indeed, especially as the 6N could well come down to bonus points and points differences, and Italy allowed Ireland to hoover up on both."

lol. How will English fans react when Scotland then Ireland beat them? I sense accusations of a sinister Celtic kabal dominating the upper echelons of the 6N.

 

[martinspoonboy1]

CJ has captained Munster all last year and few times when POM doesn't play

Good shout then! Guess there will be a massive step up but if there aren't other options. I do have a bit of a problem with the residency issue. Seems wrong for someone with no ties whatsoever to Britain or Ireland captaining the lions . But they the rules. Not his fault!

 

[martinspoonboy1]

From the Grauniad;

"Conor O'Shea should be investigated by the IRU for match-fixing.
He was happy to let Ireland rack up a cricket score in Rome against his Italian side but chose to deploy a clearly well-rehearsed damage limitation tactic against England. Why was the same tactic not executed against Ireland?
Very suspicious indeed, especially as the 6N could well come down to bonus points and points differences, and Italy allowed Ireland to hoover up on both."

lol. How will English fans react when Scotland then Ireland beat them? I sense accusations of a sinister Celtic kabal dominating the upper echelons of the 6N.

That is pretty funny. Would be interesting to know why they chose to do it against England though. They can't have thought of employing the tactic this week surely. Maybe they thought England would want to play ball in hand more than Ireland and Wales so it would be most effective.

 

[Goodey]

TIL conceding a bunch of tries is a well-rehearsed damage limitation tactic

- - - Updated - - -

That is pretty funny. Would be interesting to know why they chose to do it against England though. They can't have thought of employing the tactic this week surely. Maybe they thought England would want to play ball in hand more than Ireland and Wales so it would be most effective.

This is their first away game of the tournament, maybe? Perhaps they thought they could compete for the ball more at home.

 

[The Jones Boy]

Ha Ha Someone at the Guardian doesn't like Conor O'Shea...

 

[The5thOfficial]

From the Grauniad;

"Conor O'Shea should be investigated by the IRU for match-fixing.
He was happy to let Ireland rack up a cricket score in Rome against his Italian side but chose to deploy a clearly well-rehearsed damage limitation tactic against England. Why was the same tactic not executed against Ireland?
Very suspicious indeed, especially as the 6N could well come down to bonus points and points differences, and Italy allowed Ireland to hoover up on both."

lol. How will English fans react when Scotland then Ireland beat them? I sense accusations of a sinister Celtic kabal dominating the upper echelons of the 6N.

That's rediculous! Where would the line be drawn between coaches changes their tactics and strategies and 'match fixing'? O'Shea couldn't have possibly known how the match would play out. And the timing of the tactics might have come to him in in one of those sublime moments. Utterly stupid!!! I intimated in another post the accusations of cheating etc wouldn't be long coming.

 

[ncurd]

Here is a fair point, should the tournament be decided on the fact this tactic was first employed against England? It wasn't used against Ireland and its fair to say Scotland will be well rehearsed in handling it.

What did Italy actually gain form it? They still lost they didn't get any bonus points. Its also not a game I think they would of targetted to get a win or a loosing BP pre-tournament.

I'm hoping it doesn't but it would be an almighty shame if the torunament winner was decided because of a one off shock tactic.

This doesn't excuse England for not adapting or being utter **** for the first 20 mins. I just rather the reason we didn't score a cricket score was from us playing badly, Italy playing well or a shock tactic that was actually a genuine threat in future games.

 

[Peat]

The tournament is still completely in our hands and will be decided in the next two games as much, if not more, than it was in the Italy game.

 

[Mike Rolls]

From the Grauniad;

"Conor O'Shea should be investigated by the IRU for match-fixing.
He was happy to let Ireland rack up a cricket score in Rome against his Italian side but chose to deploy a clearly well-rehearsed damage limitation tactic against England. Why was the same tactic not executed against Ireland?
Very suspicious indeed, especially as the 6N could well come down to bonus points and points differences, and Italy allowed Ireland to hoover up on both."

lol. How will English fans react when Scotland then Ireland beat them? I sense accusations of a sinister Celtic kabal dominating the upper echelons of the 6N.

Utterly disgraceful comment - but then, what does one expect from the Guardian?
Mike

 

[ratsapprentice]

I've just seen that Guardian comment.... 'kin hell.

 

[Goodey]

Here is a fair point, should the tournament be decided on the fact this tactic was first employed against England? It wasn't used against Ireland and its fair to say Scotland will be well rehearsed in handling it.

What did Italy actually gain form it? They still lost they didn't get any bonus points. Its also not a game I think they would of targetted to get a win or a loosing BP pre-tournament.

I'm hoping it doesn't but it would be an almighty shame if the torunament winner was decided because of a one off shock tactic.

This doesn't excuse England for not adapting or being utter **** for the first 20 mins. I just rather the reason we didn't score a cricket score was from us playing badly, Italy playing well or a shock tactic that was actually a genuine threat in future games.

The reason we didn't score a cricket score was entirely because of England playing badly. Despite Italy's tactics and sometimes because of them there were plenty of opportunities. In the unlikely event the tournament is decided on points difference against us, Ireland not dropping the ball and kicking their goals against Italy will have been a part of them being better.

- - - Updated - - -

Consider exhibit A

https://streamable.com/ba9f2

- Italy make full use of no-ruck tactics for several phases
- England take it 30m upfield by going straight over the top which is what you are supposed to do in that situation
- Overlap successfully constructed
- May drops it

Italy's defending strategy is not what's causing the lack of points here

Edit: Also notice this is after 20 minutes' play, the idea England were completely stifled by this defending for the entire first half is total fiction

 

[The Jones Boy]

Here is a fair point, should the tournament be decided on the fact this tactic was first employed against England?

How about play better and react faster and win by more hmmmm????
England are so much better than Italy it's off the scale but they outwitted England and kept them largely scoreless for an entire half.

It wasn't used against Ireland and its fair to say Scotland will be well rehearsed in handling it.

Boo F***ing Hoo, how old are you, it's not the schoolyard mate, get over it.

What did Italy actually gain form it? They still lost they didn't get any bonus points. Its also not a game I think they would of targetted to get a win or a loosing BP pre-tournament.

Credidbility.
Italy are under heavy fire in this tournament that they shouldn't be in it, that they devalue the tournament because they are a 'gimme'.
They didn't ship 60+ points as everybody expected, not least Eddie Jones. Thats a big plus for a team so far behind England in every sphere, on or off the field, I guarantee Italy feel it was worth it. Shipping less than 40 points at Twickenham, thats a result for Italy. Thats how far behind the rest of the 6 Nations teams they are... Italy are a 2nd tier rugby nation. They shouldn't be in this competition, they are woefully outgunned.

I'm hoping it doesn't but it would be an almighty shame if the torunament winner was decided because of a one off shock tactic.

It's not a shock tactic if your team can remember simple counter measures like running straight and hard from the 'pick and go' makes life very difficult for a team employing the tactic. England were embarrassingly slow at reacting to it and not until halftime when they got roared at in the shed by the convict did they get a plan together.
Eddie Jones is the key staff member at fault, he should have had the waterboy out there as soon as he saw an issue telling Hartley and Farrell to tell the forwards and Teo to 'Pick and go', straight and hard and support the runner. Italy would have disintegrated just like they did in the second half when England finally got the message and did the basics.

 

[Groundhog]

Essentially you just asked why Italy insisted on not being thumped by England. Simple answer, they got pounded by us so hard they had two weeks to find a way to at least prevent themselves from being destroyed and knew they couldn't afford to take more losses like they did vs Ireland.
I'm pretty sure that the Guardian very quickly edited that article because when I searched the article above it appeared and you can see snippets of the quoted portion on google, but when you actually enter the Guardian site the article is changed to a far more praising and unbiased article.

 

[mosfeldt]

It was in the comments section, not an article itself

 

[Goodey]

It was in the comments section, not an article itself

You'd have thought that was obvious.

 

[ncurd]

Italy came out of this with credibility? Not really, they still lost, they had a BP scored against them they didn't get loosing BP. It isn't going to work against Scotland and France (which BTW is why it is a shock tactic you can bambozle one team you can't do it again) both of whom might give them a right kicking.

All they've managed to do is make England look like right wally's but guess what nobody will care if England end up winning this whole thing. My questioning of Italy's need to be part of this tournament hasn't changed.

 

[The5thOfficial]

I think a clueless Haskell and Hartley having to discuss it with the ref (who is a ref not a coach!) is more disturbing than any blame that could be put on EJ tbh. I'd think that EJ took for granted that his more senior players, captain included knew the rules.

 

[Groundhog]

You'd have thought that was obvious.

Ok I'm being very slow today, and to be fair the Guardian's not normally a rag, so it shouldn't have taken that long, but I did find it eventually.
On Italy having credibility from this, I think it just exposed weaknesses in England's game rather than the skill of Italy. When England played wide they cut Italy to pieces and put no doubt on the result by the end. All it's done is make me a bit more confident for England coming to Dublin because I don't think they've played particularly well this tournament despite always getting the result. In Dublin I fancy us to scrape by.