rational racism ?It's only racism if it's irrational
rational racism ?It's only racism if it's irrational
True. England's defence looked very NarrowI've seen nothing to suggest England will not be torn apart by every other team in the tournament. All of them can get the ball wide and we seem to flat out refuse to defend out wide.
I think you've summed it up very well.For a while you thought there might be an upset but we closed Italy down in the 2nd half and didn't really look like losing. Italy though had the players to conjure some inspiration and our defence was a bit disorganised so they always had a puncher's chance. Still literally our worst ever result against them and odds on they'll be whitewashed again.
The good: Freeman, defensive line speed - suspiciously fast at times, attacking the Italian line out. Roots was fine but when everyone's available we have better. And, er…..otherwise just a bit meh.
Like Chessum a lot but I think he lacks the outright power to be a totally convincing lock. Think it's only a matter of time before we see Itoje and Martin in the row with Chessum at 6. CCS on the other hand is a naturally powerful unit - lot to learn but one decent carry and put himself about a bit in the tackle……powerful, aggressive, according to Launch is coming on well in the line out and should definitely be invested in.
I think that's harsh, he missed one tackle, same amount as Cunningham-South, Dingwall missed 5, and made the same amount as Slade and UnderhillFord can't tackle
I agree with this.I think that's harsh, he missed one tackle, same amount as Cunningham-South, Dingwall missed 5, and made the same amount as Slade and Underhill
It was just the old physics issue that it's always been: big runners go down his channel and it takes a few metres for him to bring him down.
Agree that that's not ideal at 10, and maybe he could/should go lower, but it is what it is
Did nothing today to change my mind that he shouldn't be starting, don't get me wrong, but defence wasn't an issue
Stats show that but lost a shed load of yards as well when making them.I think that's harsh, he missed one tackle, same amount as Cunningham-South, Dingwall missed 5, and made the same amount as Slade and Underhill
It was just the old physics issue that it's always been: big runners go down his channel and it takes a few metres for him to bring him down.
Agree that that's not ideal at 10, and maybe he could/should go lower, but it is what it is
Did nothing today to change my mind that he shouldn't be starting, don't get me wrong, but defence wasn't an issue
Defensively he lost a lot of yardage, but I wasn't sold on his inventiveness with ball in hand.As I've said I didn't watch the game but you shouldn't really be picking a 10 on their tackling ability anyway.
Farrell?As I've said I didn't watch the game but you shouldn't really be picking a 10 on their tackling ability anyway.
Sorry to disappoint but I haven't actually been in charge of England selectionFarrell?
That's exactly what Borthwick would say if he was on the forum though...Sorry to disappoint but I haven't actually been in charge of England selection
I feel like almost every single one of your posts for the last year is a cut and paste.I can see that. On the other hand I would like England to give me something to be a bit more positive about. A 3pt win over Italy isn't that.
No. He's not a winger. Let's stop this playing players out of position crap.Would like to see Furbank at FB next week, with Freeman and Steward on wings, gradually building to a Freeman, F-W, Furbank back 3.
Yeah, if you want someone like Steward on the wing then you play RoebuckNo. He's not a winger. Let's stop this playing players out of position crap.