[2025 Six Nations] England vs France - 08/02/25

[Which Tyler]

No need for excuses on this one we're just not as good a team. The issue with excuses is simply the manner of defeat rather than the defeat itself.

That's what annoyed me last week.

Exactly this. "excuses" for losing are when you expect to win, but fail to do so.
If you pick a combined team from this match, there's a decent chance you'd end up with 15 Frenchmen (depending on what you want from your #4)

 

[spartan32]

Exactly this. "excuses" for losing are when you expect to win, but fail to do so.
If you pick a combined team from this match, there's a decent chance you'd end up with 15 Frenchmen (depending on what you want from your #4)

Maybe (although I'm not sure thats fair on all the England Lads), but how far off would you say England are? Dupont aside, man for man is their really a huge gulf, or not too much in it? I often find that when people rate players, they are thinking of that player on their best day, firing on all cylinders. England have home advantage, some of the French lads may be carrying a ****le, or not quite have the right mind set. We all know how the French start to crumple psychologically if the game starts to get on top of them. So if the difference across the board isnt that great, there could arguably be a fairly even match on the day.

Of course you may be suggesting that the gulf is clear and wide, in which case fair enough. I really dont know the French team well enough to comment, however I would not expect any of the England players to accept that there is a huge gap between the teams.

Either way I don't think England can have excuses. They have access to decent players, have all the kit, and are usually one try away (sometimes less) from turning over the best teams in the world. They simply need to execute.

 

[Which Tyler]

Maybe (although I'm not sure thats fair on all the England Lads), but how far off would you say England are? Dupont aside, man for man is their really a huge gulf, or not too much in it?

Front row - huge gap
Locks - not a huge amount in it, but IMO enough to count (depending on what you want from your #4)
Backrow - set up to do different things, so all a bit apples vs oranges; but definitely a more cohesive unit
Half-backs - huge gap - mostly Dupont, but Jalibert as well at this moment in time (IMO Fin has a higher ceiling, but is much further from it)
Centres - pretty big gap
Back 3 - pretty big gap

In terms of individuals, France have 3-5 world class players (as in, would be in the squad for the Earth in the Rugby Galactic Cup). England have 0.

however I would not expect any of the England players to accept that there is a huge gap between the teams.

Of course not - you can't go into any match expecting to come off second best in any aspect. Hell, even Randall on the bench probably thinks he could out-do Dupont if he was just allowed to try.
That doesn't mean that he's right.

 

[spartan32]

Front row - huge gap
Locks - not a huge amount in it, but IMO enough to count (depending on what you want from your #4)
Backrow - set up to do different things, so all a bit apples vs oranges; but definitely a more cohesive unit
Half-backs - huge gap - mostly Dupont, but Jalibert as well at this moment in time (IMO Fin has a higher ceiling, but is much further from it)
Centres - pretty big gap
Back 3 - pretty big gap

In terms of individuals, France have 3-5 world class players (as in, would be in the squad for the Earth in the Rugby Galactic Cup). England have 0.



Of course not - you can't go into any match expecting to come off second best in any aspect. Hell, even Randall on the bench probably thinks he could out-do Dupont if he was just allowed to try.
That doesn't mean that he's right.

Well, based on that assessment the English lads are going to have to dig deep and find something extra in themselves. For me thats the thing about rugby. True passion and commitment can really make up the balance. Suppose this is a proper Agincourt moment for the lads. "Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more; Or close the wall up with our English dead". They should get Sir Ian Mckellan in the dressing room before the game. Give them a blast while a choir gently hums Jerusalem in the background.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

SB trotted out the line after Ire that we were much less experienced than them. Which was true, but he's also used lots of very similar lines in the past about developing etc. My point was that this weekend we have the higher cap count, so he can't wheel out that one again if things don't go well.

Man for man France are mostly better. There was also was a big article in today's Times talking about the cohesion they've got from familiarity through playing with each other at club level - the kind of thing I've banged on about on here before. Sounds like Borthwick does want to bring more of that to the England team, which I support.

On the excuses / reasons thing. It is a results business, but realistically we can only judge a coaching set up by whether they get the most out of the players available. It's not SB's fault that he doesn't have players of the stature of Johnson, Hill, Vickery, Robinson etc available. But I don't think anyone would argue that he has got close to maximising the potential of the players available to him.

 

[BPM]

Front row - huge gap
Locks - not a huge amount in it, but IMO enough to count (depending on what you want from your #4)
Backrow - set up to do different things, so all a bit apples vs oranges; but definitely a more cohesive unit
Half-backs - huge gap - mostly Dupont, but Jalibert as well at this moment in time (IMO Fin has a higher ceiling, but is much further from it)
Centres - pretty big gap
Back 3 - pretty big gap

In terms of individuals, France have 3-5 world class players (as in, would be in the squad for the Earth in the Rugby Galactic Cup). England have 0.



Of course not - you can't go into any match expecting to come off second best in any aspect. Hell, even Randall on the bench probably thinks he could out-do Dupont if he was just allowed to try.
That doesn't mean that he's right.

Really depends on which second row you're talking about. If it's Flament and Woki, fine. If it's the one we're facing tomorrow, I disagree.

I also disagree on the 10s. Dupont makes their half back pairing world class. I think anyone playing with him is bound to look good. Ntamack and Jalibert our overrated IMO.

France absolutely deserve credit for their turnaround in the past 5/6 years. However, I also think there's an element of luck when a 'golden generation' comes around with 3-5 world class players all at similar ages.

 

[BPM]

I've said it many times but our system is set up to provide plenty of good players but rarely produces very good or excellent.

 

[Which Tyler]

I've said it many times but our system is set up to provide plenty of good players but rarely produces very good or excellent.

Same.

We were talking about it the other day on the Bath forum, so I'll just copy/paste my response from there:

It has always been a mystery to those of us outside England why England, with all its resources, does not develop more international class players. All other things being equal, England should be producing 10 times the number of international class players Scotland does, and if there are ten times as many you'd expect there to far more top class players.

We've got loads who are ready to be on the fringes of international rugby - I'd back our 6th XV against anyone who isn't France (14 clubs).

But you get to be an established international by... playing international rugby. Club rugby just isn't the same.
England doesn't have any more international matches than any other top tier nation, so cannot just develop more players comfortable at that level.
As for kicking on to be even better - this is where our numbers count against us. Take Ireland around 2010ish. They had O'Gara approaching retirement, and Sexton barely a fringe quality at that time; but no-one else who looked like they'd ever make it. So O'Gara and Sexton it was then, and everyone accepted that. So if Sexton had a run of poor form, there still wasn't anyone else, so he played anyway, and learned, and adapted, and had all the resources the IRFU could put at his disposal, at his disposal.
If Marcus has a poor run of form, he'll be out on his ear, and Fin gets the shirt. If he also has a poor run of firm, he'll be out on his ear, and George comes back in, then we'd all clammer for Owen to come back; if we're down to 5th choice, we'd be looking at Burke, or Atkinson, or Bailey, or... To the point where our 4th/5th choice players often start checking around for eligibility elsewhere.
The Irish especially, but also the Welsh, Scots, Italians feel loved, valued and are nurtured to get the absolute best out of them. The English are 4-5 games away from the scrap-heap. When we do finally get someone who gets given a lot of chances (take Dombrandt for example) we fans complain that he's picked ahead of a different option (like Mercer, Willis, Earl, Barbeary, Cunningham-South etc). When you've got 6 valid options to choose from, you're only going to get ~1/6 of fans agreeing with you initially, and the other 5/6 will think you're an idiot - you pretty much get 1, maybe 2 international windows to prove that you know more than the armchair fans.

Add to that, the lack of cohesiveness down the pyramid, where all the Prem teams play different game-plans to each other, and the England management get barely any say in anything the clubs and players do outside of England camps.
Which also means that we don't scout overseas for any additional talent (clubs do, RFU doesn't).
The players get resources whilst they're being picked, but they have to share them with 2-3 others. And if they're rejected for the next new shiny option, they get nothing.


NB: This is not a "boo hoo, poor old England" - it just trying to explain my opinion of some of our down-sides.


I'd ETA this to point out that Dombrandt didn't get as many chances is my instinct suggested - 9 starts and 900 minutes from his 20 caps - it's just about enough, but makes me think I was calling for his head too early. My bias was always Willis or Mercer - so I was absolutely in that 5/6 who needed to be convinced, rather than willing to give him a proper chance.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

I've said it many times but our system is set up to provide plenty of good players but rarely produces very good or excellent.

And if the system's not right then you're relying on chance to achieve consistent results - and even a golden generation of players needs to be married up with the right coach.

 

[BPM]

Same.

We were talking about it the other day on the Bath forum, so I'll just copy/paste my response from there:


We've got loads who are ready to be on the fringes of international rugby - I'd back our 6th XV against anyone who isn't France (14 clubs).

But you get to be an established international by... playing international rugby. Club rugby just isn't the same.
England doesn't have any more international matches than any other top tier nation, so cannot just develop more players comfortable at that level.
As for kicking on to be even better - this is where our numbers count against us. Take Ireland around 2010ish. They had O'Gara approaching retirement, and Sexton barely a fringe quality at that time; but no-one else who looked like they'd ever make it. So O'Gara and Sexton it was then, and everyone accepted that. So if Sexton had a run of poor form, there still wasn't anyone else, so he played anyway, and learned, and adapted, and had all the resources the IRFU could put at his disposal, at his disposal.
If Marcus has a poor run of form, he'll be out on his ear, and Fin gets the shirt. If he also has a poor run of firm, he'll be out on his ear, and George comes back in, then we'd all clammer for Owen to come back; if we're down to 5th choice, we'd be looking at Burke, or Atkinson, or Bailey, or... To the point where our 4th/5th choice players often start checking around for eligibility elsewhere.
The Irish especially, but also the Welsh, Scots, Italians feel loved, valued and are nurtured to get the absolute best out of them. The English are 4-5 games away from the scrap-heap. When we do finally get someone who gets given a lot of chances (take Dombrandt for example) we fans complain that he's picked ahead of a different option (like Mercer, Willis, Earl, Barbeary, Cunningham-South etc). When you've got 6 valid options to choose from, you're only going to get ~1/6 of fans agreeing with you initially, and the other 5/6 will think you're an idiot - you pretty much get 1, maybe 2 international windows to prove that you know more than the armchair fans.

Add to that, the lack of cohesiveness down the pyramid, where all the Prem teams play different game-plans to each other, and the England management get barely any say in anything the clubs and players do outside of England camps.
Which also means that we don't scout overseas for any additional talent (clubs do, RFU doesn't).
The players get resources whilst they're being picked, but they have to share them with 2-3 others. And if they're rejected for the next new shiny option, they get nothing.


NB: This is not a "boo hoo, poor old England" - it just trying to explain my opinion of some of our down-sides.


I'd ETA this to point out that Dombrandt didn't get as many chances is my instinct suggested - 9 starts and 900 minutes from his 20 caps - it's just about enough, but makes me think I was calling for his head too early. My bias was always Willis or Mercer - so I was absolutely in that 5/6 who needed to be convinced, rather than willing to give him a proper chance.

And I'm probably the 1, but even I acknowledge that he didn't make the best of the opportunities he was given.

Sometimes there were good reasons for that such as being asked to play a heavy carrying role he isn't suited to, but others where he had a great opportunity he didn't take. Most recently, I thought that Curry going off against Australia was an ideal opening to show his skills in a loose game and he was practically invisible.

 

[HamJan]

Both play both positions a lot though though (McKenzie 57% fullback, 43% flyhalf - Barrett 16% fullback, 84% flyhalf), M.Smith has only started there 4 times (and only one of those at club level - 2% fullback, 98% flyhalf) - international rugby isn't really the place to learn the role is it?

Like I'm sure he'll do a decent job there but he's a much better 10 and has said he wants to play 10 - like someone said earlier: it's a solution looking for a problem
If you've got two great 10s then you rotate them, you don't shove one out of position to get them both on the pitch - this isn't Barbarians or Lions rugby

There is a problem though and although Marcus has rightly been lauded as our best and most creative player over the past couple of seasons, it's clear that he isn't great at bringing in the back line. I'm not saying he's crap at it, but from what I've seen of them both this season this seems to be an area where Fin could be more effectively used, and with the FBs available to England tomorrow Marcus could be really effective from broken field play.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

@Which Tyler great post

 

[Crash Hamster]

Same.

We were talking about it the other day on the Bath forum, so I'll just copy/paste my response from there:


We've got loads who are ready to be on the fringes of international rugby - I'd back our 6th XV against anyone who isn't France (14 clubs).

But you get to be an established international by... playing international rugby. Club rugby just isn't the same.
England doesn't have any more international matches than any other top tier nation, so cannot just develop more players comfortable at that level.
As for kicking on to be even better - this is where our numbers count against us. Take Ireland around 2010ish. They had O'Gara approaching retirement, and Sexton barely a fringe quality at that time; but no-one else who looked like they'd ever make it. So O'Gara and Sexton it was then, and everyone accepted that. So if Sexton had a run of poor form, there still wasn't anyone else, so he played anyway, and learned, and adapted, and had all the resources the IRFU could put at his disposal, at his disposal.
If Marcus has a poor run of form, he'll be out on his ear, and Fin gets the shirt. If he also has a poor run of firm, he'll be out on his ear, and George comes back in, then we'd all clammer for Owen to come back; if we're down to 5th choice, we'd be looking at Burke, or Atkinson, or Bailey, or... To the point where our 4th/5th choice players often start checking around for eligibility elsewhere.
The Irish especially, but also the Welsh, Scots, Italians feel loved, valued and are nurtured to get the absolute best out of them. The English are 4-5 games away from the scrap-heap. When we do finally get someone who gets given a lot of chances (take Dombrandt for example) we fans complain that he's picked ahead of a different option (like Mercer, Willis, Earl, Barbeary, Cunningham-South etc). When you've got 6 valid options to choose from, you're only going to get ~1/6 of fans agreeing with you initially, and the other 5/6 will think you're an idiot - you pretty much get 1, maybe 2 international windows to prove that you know more than the armchair fans.

Add to that, the lack of cohesiveness down the pyramid, where all the Prem teams play different game-plans to each other, and the England management get barely any say in anything the clubs and players do outside of England camps.
Which also means that we don't scout overseas for any additional talent (clubs do, RFU doesn't).
The players get resources whilst they're being picked, but they have to share them with 2-3 others. And if they're rejected for the next new shiny option, they get nothing.


NB: This is not a "boo hoo, poor old England" - it just trying to explain my opinion of some of our down-sides.


I'd ETA this to point out that Dombrandt didn't get as many chances is my instinct suggested - 9 starts and 900 minutes from his 20 caps - it's just about enough, but makes me think I was calling for his head too early. My bias was always Willis or Mercer - so I was absolutely in that 5/6 who needed to be convinced, rather than willing to give him a proper chance.

Yep, this. Having so many players who appear to be about as good as eachother makes picking the best XV far trickier than when there is little choice. The ability to change also means that, if you're not careful, you end up deploying your 'generational talent*' fly half at full back.

There is always talk of combinations playing together at club and international level, but England players operate with different team-mates each game. How are the players supposed to develop as a unit?
1-5 are the same.
6 is the same, 8 is now 7 and 21 is now 8
9 is the same, 23 is now 10
12 and 13 are the same
14 is the same, 11 is an unavoidable change, 10 is now 15
These aren't substitutions made because of injury, they're changing the way the back row, half backs and back three function.

England are a big rugby nation; we ought to have a style of play (based on the talent available) which we don't change from week to week. I'm currently baffled as to where Sniff Bostik is trying to take this team, and this bafflement is not results-dependent.

* Dan Carter, Johnny Sexton on Marcus Smith

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Vintage NZ 2011 onwards had monumental strength in depth in some positions (not all), yet largely identified their men and stuck with them allowing them to build huge experience. Where it didn't work, you can't tell me they weren't ruthless in moving on.

That's more the model we should look at. Some very good players only got a few caps, many others none at all, but they built a culture that encouraged excellence not the good. How they identified and developed those eventual world class talents is an extension of the question, but Retallick / Whitelock and Kaino / McCaw / Read probably knew each other better than their own families. From what we hear, a lot of it was actually player driven, demanding these standards of each other. Don't suppose too many Englishmen have swept out the Twickenham changing rooms recently.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

My biggest issue with England is how little evidence there is of things improving. How long have we had some of the worst discipline if any tier 1 nation? How long has it tackle completion rate been poor? How long have we left the guys on the wings completely exposed with toffee rest of the defence making next to no effort to drift once the opposition get round the blitz? How often do players make zero attempt to scramble back when the opposition make a break or rush to support one of our breaks?

It's strange how England seem to simultaneously be very lazy yet also fading off drastically in the last 20...

None of these are new problems, they are old problems that have been there for years that we are repeatedly failing to address.

 

[Which Tyler]

Vintage NZ 2011 onwards had monumental strength in depth in some positions (not all), yet largely identified their men and stuck with them allowing them to build huge experience. Where it didn't work, you can't tell me they weren't ruthless in moving on.

That's more the model we should look at. Some very good players only got a few caps, many others none at all, but they built a culture that encouraged excellence not the good. How they identified and developed those eventual world class talents is an extension of the question, but Retallick / Whitelock and Kaino / McCaw / Read probably knew each other better than their own families. From what we hear, a lot of it was actually player driven, demanding these standards of each other. Don't suppose too many Englishmen have swept out the Twickenham changing rooms recently.

Trouble is, you need really good coaches to do that, who have the full backing of their employers, and their players.
They need to be good enough to make the right choice in the first place, for the right reasons, and the ability to convince everyone of their reasons.
We'll never get this whilst insisting that the head coach is Engish. TBH, I'm not sure there currently exists a head coach with this skill-set to the degree needed.

You then need a top-down approach to the whole environment of professional rugby, with clubs/franchises dancing to the union's tune.
The horse bolted for that 30 years ago.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Trouble is, you need really good coaches to do that, who have the full backing of their employers, and their players.
They need to be good enough to make the right choice in the first place, for the right reasons, and the ability to convince everyone of their reasons.
We'll never get this whilst insisting that the head coach is Engish. TBH, I'm not sure there currently exists a head coach with this skill-set to the degree needed.

You then need a top-down approach to the whole environment of professional rugby, with clubs/franchises dancing to the union's tune.
The horse bolted for that 30 years ago.

What you're basically saying is your head guy needs to be more a people manager, and less a technical coach. Totally agree. The rest of the world may hate him, but I'll bet Rassie's players and Boks fans would walk over broken glass for him. People skills is one of the reasons Robertson got the AB gig.

And yes, everything being aligned for the national team would be helpful…..if we fall short against those who are it's scarcely a surprise.

 

[Half Pint]

Oh man, when is the Rugby Galactic Cup?? It sounds epic. Are there any home games ?? I think Earth has a good shot at winning, but obviously in away fixtures it can be tricky adapting to the local atmosphere.

Back to Saturday - I'll be pleased if the game is still in the balance at half time, in time for the traditional fade-away from England.

 

[LardFingers]

SB trotted out the line after Ire that we were much less experienced than them. Which was true, but he's also used lots of very similar lines in the past about developing etc. My point was that this weekend we have the higher cap count, so he can't wheel out that one again if things don't go well.

Man for man France are mostly better. There was also was a big article in today's Times talking about the cohesion they've got from familiarity through playing with each other at club level - the kind of thing I've banged on about on here before. Sounds like Borthwick does want to bring more of that to the England team, which I support.

On the excuses / reasons thing. It is a results business, but realistically we can only judge a coaching set up by whether they get the most out of the players available. It's not SB's fault that he doesn't have players of the stature of Johnson, Hill, Vickery, Robinson etc available. But I don't think anyone would argue that he has got close to maximising the potential of the players available to him.

I would argue that he is close to getting the best out of his forwards but he is nowhere near an effective back line - neither in his selections nor the plays and tactics his attack coach comes up with.

 

[spartan32]

In defence of the England players, they've hardly had a very stable coaching set up. Coaches coming and going like bloody buses. One week doing one thing, then all change. So these lads have to first adapt from what their clubs want from them to what England want, and then that keeps changing. No wonder they are struggling to be consistent. If we really are to turn things around we must have a set, consistent, and top quality coaching team in place. I am no expert in coaching, but I suspect it would be fair to say that our coaches would be way down the pecking order on the international scene. That surely creates somewhat of a glass ceiling for the players. How can they reach their full potential when the team coaching them doesn't have the skills to get them there?

Maybe I'm being unfair on the incumbent set up, but it always seems like there's plenty of talent to work with, it just never comes together.