• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

England 2024/25

I think that build's pretty much spot on TBH. Bit of height for the high ball, weight should mean he's solid enough in contact and be able to bust tackles once he gets going. But not so heavy as to reduce his pace, or probably more importantly, agility. I'm all for our backs being powerful but for those out wide that should be a secondary trick.

Just one thought. Lot more to any position than sheer physical attributes, but are we missing the threat of some sheer gas? Mitchell and M Smith are probably around the fastest in their positions, but not sure that applies to the outside backs. Definitely not the midfield, and while Sleightholme, IFW, Freeman and Furbank are all quick, none seem to be total sprinters like peak Watson and May who at their peak you'd have backed against anyone. Isn't Earl supposed to be about the fastest over 20m?
Sleightholme is pure gase man, freeman sure, IFW looks quick, furbank is meh but who else is quicker at FB?
 
who else is quicker at FB?
Bath have a couple. De Granville is probably a little shy of international class, but may yet develop further now that Gallagher is out of his way, but I'd back Harris to overtake him if he can put his injuries behind him.
In terms of pace, both are rapid, not Watson quick, but still rapid.
Both are 2nd playmakers, btw
 


Quite hilarious really

They even fiddled the stats.

They played 12 matches this year, including the summer in NZ.

In total England won 5, Italy, Wales, Ireland and Japan X2

So taking 5 wins from 10 (12-NZ) that's a 50% win rate.

So let's include NZ that's 5 from 12 that's just shy of a 42% win rate.

If you want to exclude the two losses to NZ (why? It's just a device to make the win rate better than it was) then surely you should exclude the first win against Japan seeing as that took place on the same tour.
 
On this, we also only won games by a handful of points, two against teams we should be easily winning in wales and italy. People talk about close losses, but the wins werent impressive either.
This isn't being highlighted enough
 
They even fiddled the stats.

They played 12 matches this year, including the summer in NZ.

In total England won 5, Italy, Wales, Ireland and Japan X2

So taking 5 wins from 10 (12-NZ) that's a 50% win rate.

So let's include NZ that's 5 from 12 that's just shy of a 42% win rate.

If you want to exclude the two losses to NZ (why? It's just a device to make the win rate better than it was) then surely you should exclude the first win against Japan seeing as that took place on the same tour.

Don't think they have.

It's a formal annual report, but it can't be for the calendar year as that's not yet finished. Looks like the financial year runs from 1/7 to 30/6 so presumably the whole report is written for the year to 30.6.24.

Last year from Jul to Dec we played 11 winning 7. This year to end Jun we played 6 winning 4. Add them together for an aggregate of 11 out of 17 - 65%.

The NZ fixtures would have been played by the time the report was written but, played in July, were outside the reporting period so not included in the numbers.
 

Latest posts

Top