• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

[2025 Six Nations] England vs Scotland - 22/02/25

It's not like we don't have the players. Firmly one for the we are playing to instructions and coaching issues file
 
It was a weird old game. Borthwick definitely lost the tactical battle but his team still won the game thanks to taking points when on offer and good defence in England's 22 to keep Scotland from building up a score. Scotland showed more invention and played better attacking rugby but just weren't quite clinical enough on the day particularly with the missed conversions from Russell (one of which gets nailed 9 times out of 10). Scotland's lack of quality on the bench meant that the pack just ran out of steam in the last 20 as I suspected might happen. Not going to moan about the try grounding/non grounding. England carved out the opportunity and gave the referee a decision to make. Scotland should have defended their 22 better.

Positives from a Scotland perspective are that we came very close without Tuipolotu, a first choice second row and a weakish bench. That first try was a thing of beauty. The main positive is that Borthwick will hopefully still be at the helm when the CC is up for grabs again next year and we have a near full strength squad and home advantage.
Ooh, Salty much…. I mean we were missing two of our first choice backs, George Martin and Sam Underhill but don't let that get in the way of a good old Scottish glorious failure mess up.
 
Whoa, that's damning.


If Scotland had been stopping us at will, there might have been some justification but there was just 0 intent to play from England. By my count, that's 33/48 incidences of possession that were only 2 phases - more than two thirds …

When you consider most of those were kicked away rather than 'stopped' by the opposition, it's even more damning. Yes, some of that is territorial, but it also smacks of zero ambition and makes picking Marcus and Sleightholme in the back three a total waste.
 
Does beg the question to the Marcus haters (I'd like to admit there are none on this board) that maybe he wasn't the issue. Maybe the players weren't on his page as they were in a state of shock when he didn't kick it away
 
I think some got over carried away after Fra and are too heavy on the doom after yesterday.

Both were wins, but both streaky. Nonetheless wins they were against teams we hadn't beaten in this tournament for a few years. That should give a foundation of confidence going into 2 matches that we should expect to win.

Wal were better yesterday but took big advantage of 20 mins v 14. Back to parity they looked pretty ordinary again. On the back of a couple of wins, if we can't land authoritative wins vs them and Ita then I'm joining the anti SB chorus.

FWIW I didn't think SB was the right guy for the job at outset and still don't. But the guy got us to within a whisker of an RWC final and with a newish team ought to be seeing us to a second successive improvement in the 6N in terms of wins. There are loads of caveats and the foundations might be more sand than concrete, but in a results business that's actually quite hard to argue against.

SB's biggest failing has been to surround himself with a second rate coaching set up. And if your attack coach is a former box kicking 9, what do you really expect…..
 
Meanwhile, England A playing Ireland A with much more attacking intent than the full side.

So we're encouraging attack-minded play in the team which is the final stepping-stone to full honours, then playing completely differently in Test matches.
 
I think some got over carried away after Fra and are too heavy on the doom after yesterday.

Both were wins, but both streaky. Nonetheless wins they were against teams we hadn't beaten in this tournament for a few years. That should give a foundation of confidence going into 2 matches that we should expect to win.

Wal were better yesterday but took big advantage of 20 mins v 14. Back to parity they looked pretty ordinary again. On the back of a couple of wins, if we can't land authoritative wins vs them and Ita then I'm joining the anti SB chorus.

FWIW I didn't think SB was the right guy for the job at outset and still don't. But the guy got us to within a whisker of an RWC final and with a newish team ought to be seeing us to a second successive improvement in the 6N in terms of wins. There are loads of caveats and the foundations might be more sand than concrete, but in a results business that's actually quite hard to argue against.

SB's biggest failing has been to surround himself with a second rate coaching set up. And if your attack coach is a former box kicking 9, what do you really expect…..
Sure, but then why not pick players that are best suited to that plan? Why pick smaller, faster creative players in favour of bigger players who are used to executing a kick chase game like Steward and Roebuck?
 
Meanwhile, England A playing Ireland A with much more attacking intent than the full side.

So we're encouraging attack-minded play in the team which is the final stepping-stone to full honours, then playing completely differently in Test matches.
Agreed. It's all very confused …
 
Sure, but then why not pick players that are best suited to that plan? Why pick smaller, faster creative players in favour of bigger players who are used to executing a kick chase game like Steward and Roebuck?

A slightly facetious dig at Wiggles on my part. But you can't argue with that!
 
Last edited:
Does Borthwick have compromising pictures of Mitchell? It must take serious mental fortitude to avoid your natural playing style to that extent.

Was the plan to be SA because that's how SA beat Scotland?

I'm glad we won and the defensive sets are to be applauded but this team feels chained and misguided. A Golf GTI doing the school run.
If that's the case, then why play Mitchell, his kicking is the weakest of all the SH we have.

More than pictures, SB listens to the press too much and plays the players they want, but then asks them to play his way.
SB needs to grow some and say, it is my team.
 
If that's the case, then why play Mitchell, his kicking is the weakest of all the SH we have.

More than pictures, SB listens to the press too much and plays the players they want, but then asks them to play his way.
SB needs to grow some and say, it is my team.
I think Randell is the weakest kicker
 
Meanwhile, England A playing Ireland A with much more attacking intent than the full side.

So we're encouraging attack-minded play in the team which is the final stepping-stone to full honours, then playing completely differently in Test matches.
Makes it easy to weed out the one's who might go off grid, or show any sign of improvising.
 
Whoa, that's damning.


Stats might be misleading as the ball never made it past Mitchell's foot, into Smith's hands. Same kicked ball which was rarely successfully contested v Scotland's taller wings and FB. Not seeing this as a good game plan, particularly if it's a territory strategy which relies on England defense.
 
42% of England's ruck ball was over 6 seconds. How much of that was down to Scotland or England. The truths probably some where in the middle.
 
Stats might be misleading as the ball never made it past Mitchell's foot, into Smith's hands. Same kicked ball which was rarely successfully contested v Scotland's taller wings and FB. Not seeing this as a good game plan, particularly if it's a territory strategy which relies on England defense.


Yes, I think you've accurately spotted why there were lots of 1-phase possessions. Doesn't seem misleading though, just confirms everyone's suspicions.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Top