[2021 Six Nations] England vs Scotland (06/02/21)

[Ragey Erasmus]

Oh what you were saying was fine I was more on about the other bloke and why he got in hot water. It was less publishing the statistics but what he was trying to say with them.

Keep confusing Augustin Pichot with Augusto Pinochet...

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Serious question, are there more South Africans in the Scotland or Sale squad?

Asking for a friend, haven't looked myself this year yet.

 

[duncanb]

Close game for me England by -7.

 

[spartan32]

Given the likely poor weather, a missing attacking coach, undercooked Sarries players, and the general strangeness of empty stadiums and the times we live in, I can't see anything from England other than kick, chase, reset and go again. Which, under the circumstances, is probably wise. Rely on the strength in defence, look for pens, and hope Faz has remembered how to kick.

Saw EJ in the news stating that England tend to win games in the last 20, so it's the finishing team that matter more than the starting. Surely it's better to have a team that can put games to bed long before the last 20, or is that just crazy talk?

Also a fun stat. Faz at 12, Ford at 10 W31 D1 L6
Faz at 10 W24 D1 L14. Make of that what you will

 

[Not Eddie Jones]

Also a fun stat. Faz at 12, Ford at 10 W31 D1 L6
Faz at 10 W24 D1 L14. Make of that what you will

I'd be interested to see the breakdown of those games (opponents, teammates etc), but rating a flyhalf by won-loss record is like rating a quarterback by how many Super Bowls they've won or a striker by how many Premiership ***les they have - a bit silly. It's a team sport and there are plenty of other chaps on the pitch who have a major influence on the outcome of the game. Just thinking about it though, many of Farrell's starts at 10 were under Lancaster, weren't they? The team certainly wasn't as good then. And didn't Eddie throw Faz in at 10 during our 2018 losing streak just to shake things up? That might account for that higher number of losses to some degree. Interesting though.

 

[Not Eddie Jones]

Saw EJ in the news stating that England tend to win games in the last 20, so it's the finishing team that matter more than the starting. Surely it's better to have a team that can put games to bed long before the last 20, or is that just crazy talk?

Is any game really put to bed before the last 20? I've seen the All-Blacks reel off 4 or 5 tries in the last 20 minutes of matches in which they trailed heavily. And after the 2019 game at Twickenham, I'm considering nothing beddy-byes with 20 minutes left this time around, even if we're 100-0 up!

 

[Which Tyler]

Also a fun stat. Faz at 12, Ford at 10 W31 D1 L6
Faz at 10 W24 D1 L14. Make of that what you will

Ford at 10, no Faz W10 D0 L2
As it's a short enough list, the losses were away to Ireland 6N 2015 and away to France RWC warm-ups 2015, both within his first 10 starts

 

[MikeTheNative]

To be fair didn't Farrell play at 10 a bit during Lancaster's reign? That will make his numbers a bit worse.

 

[Not Eddie Jones]

What about games where Faz started at 10 but Ford came on as a replacement and Fz shifted to 12?

 

[ncurd]

To be fair didn't Farrell play at 10 a bit during Lancaster's reign? That will make his numbers a bit worse.

Was that a problem with Lancaster or Farrell at 10? Fair number of people wanted Ford starting back then and England management appeared confused about who it should be.

 

[MikeTheNative]

Was that a problem with Lancaster or Farrell at 10? Fair number of people wanted Ford starting back then and England management appeared confused about who it should be.

The England team wasn't as good then as it is now, so Farrell is going to have more losses playing at 10 regardless of how well he played.

 

[ncurd]

The England team wasn't as good then as it is now, so Farrell is going to have more losses playing at 10 regardless of how well he played.

Think you'll find a fair number of his starts without Farrell were actually in the Lancaster era, mainly because Ford has been hamstrung by Farrell most of his time with EJ.

 

[MikeTheNative]

I think you guys are being a bit harsh of Farrell, he's a very good player may not be the flashiest though.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

I think you guys are being a bit harsh of Farrell, he's a very good player may not be the flashiest though.

Although against forum rules to say so Barnes wrote a good article in the Times this morning.

Basic thrust, without diluting what they're good at, Farrell needs to go off piste a bit more and play less to the game plan, while Russell needs to come on piste a little more often to control games better. Can't really argue with that.

There have been noises from Eng about playing more expansively in this 6N. We'll have to see, but if we serve up the same dross as the Autumn then Faz's place as 10 and captain ought to be under serious pressure. There are some teams that we should be able to beat up, but others esp Fra will need a bit more guile.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

 

[MikeTheNative]

Yeah this is getting a bit side tracked now, perhaps we should discuss whether Watson is a Fullback or not? ..............................

 

[Nudger]

Anything other than 10 man rugby tomorrow is purely aspirational

 

[Which Tyler]

Think you'll find a fair number of his starts without Farrell were actually in the Lancaster era, mainly because Ford has been hamstrung by Farrell most of his time with EJ.

6 under Burt, 6 under Eddie. But then, Ford's first start was a year out from the 2015 RWC.

I think you guys are being a bit harsh of Farrell, he's a very good player may not be the flashiest though.

I don't think anyone disagrees.
A being better than B doesn't mean that B is considered a bad player.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Saw EJ in the news stating that England tend to win games in the last 20, so it's the finishing team that matter more than the starting. Surely it's better to have a team that can put games to bed long before the last 20, or is that just crazy talk?

Jones made a big thing about finishers earlier in his reign, but that's nonsense. Ask George whether he'd rather wear 2 or 16.

The vast majority of games aren't decided by the hour mark, but the groundwork has been done. The finishers can be the icing on the cake but more often than not they destroy the flow of the game - which is fine if you're losing, but daft if things are going well.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Jones made a big thing about finishers earlier in his reign, but that's nonsense. Ask George whether he'd rather wear 2 or 16.

The vast majority of games aren't decided by the hour mark, but the groundwork has been done. The finishers can be the icing on the cake but more often than not they destroy the flow of the game - which is fine if you're losing, but daft if things are going well.

Not just early - during the WC he was naming the finishing team rather than the starting one in team meetings.

I'd disagree that it's nonsense as well - it has served both England and South Africa very well recently