[England] Post-6N/Pre-RWC Player Watch

[Every Time Ref]

Did anyone else notice Joseph seemed to be at about 80% pace when he ran in his try, and slightly limping when jogging back afterwards?

That could make the centres debate really interesting ...

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Did anyone else notice Joseph seemed to be at about 80% pace when he ran in his try, and slightly limping when jogging back afterwards?

That could make the centres debate really interesting ...

What Lancaster tripped Joseph up to injury him so he can have his dream 4 Centres of

Barritt, Burgess, Burrell and Twlevetrees

Or "the 12 killer Bees in a tree" as some will call them.

That is interesting.

I honestly get the feeling that the only reason Lancaster might pick Slade or Cips is to ease some pressure of his back now after the last 2 weeks. I can't see him wanting to use them anyway.

 

[Wendigo7]

I don't like the idea were going into the tournament where the presumed possibles at 10, 12 and 13 haven't played with each other altogether once.That's not a good situation to be in.

 

[Every Time Ref]

I like your optimism that there is a presumed 10 and a presumed 12

 

[Peat]

Ok guys, so help a fella out here. Tell me whether I'm right or wrong.

I'm thinking that when England kick, they mainly kick for length with the intention of putting down the receiver quickly. They're not looking for the contestable ball very often.

Of our set-piece ball, it either seems to be straight up 10-12 or looking for the back three player coming to take the outside arc against their 13. I don't really see many players coming back against the grain or attempts to split 12-13. We don't look for the maul off of lineouts outside each 22; we do generally look for the penalty in the scrum.

Once the phases start going, the intention seems to be short-short-short-wide (not necessarily that many or that little short balls); you won't see us regularly going for two passes out, two passes out, continually shifting the point of attack.

On our short balls attacking the fringes, I think we play off 10 almost as much as off of 9, maybe more, particularly when Ford is about. The backs otherwise seem to stay out, except for occasionally Mike Brown and whoever's at 12. Barring Robshaw, the forwards don't shift the ball around between themselves that much at the moment.

Once we go wide, we put it through the hands. The miss-pass seems to be something of an exception. If 13 (or 12 operating out wide) goes, we don't tend to look for an offload from him. We either look for a pass or wait for him to go to ground.

Defensively, we're not putting a lot of emphasis on contesting at the ruck. It seems to be mostly on keeping our shape and pressuring a turnover. We seem to be trying the choke tackle a fair bit. We go narrow with nearly everyone in the line - no sweeper as a rule, wings up - so we can put shooters up and still have a strong line.

Off of turnovers, when we get them, we seem more interested in kicking for territory than putting it through the hands.

Is that a fair summation of England's game plan, or am I reading things wrong?

 

[Wendigo7]

spot on peat

 

[ratsapprentice]

You're doing it wrong, Peat...

I'll explain the situation more concisely:

More Smashy-Smashy needed.

 

[goodNumber10]

Ok guys, so help a fella out here. Tell me whether I'm right or wrong.

I'm thinking that when England kick, they mainly kick for length with the intention of putting down the receiver quickly. They're not looking for the contestable ball very often.

Of our set-piece ball, it either seems to be straight up 10-12 or looking for the back three player coming to take the outside arc against their 13. I don't really see many players coming back against the grain or attempts to split 12-13. We don't look for the maul off of lineouts outside each 22; we do generally look for the penalty in the scrum.

Once the phases start going, the intention seems to be short-short-short-wide (not necessarily that many or that little short balls); you won't see us regularly going for two passes out, two passes out, continually shifting the point of attack.

On our short balls attacking the fringes, I think we play off 10 almost as much as off of 9, maybe more, particularly when Ford is about. The backs otherwise seem to stay out, except for occasionally Mike Brown and whoever's at 12. Barring Robshaw, the forwards don't shift the ball around between themselves that much at the moment.

Once we go wide, we put it through the hands. The miss-pass seems to be something of an exception. If 13 (or 12 operating out wide) goes, we don't tend to look for an offload from him. We either look for a pass or wait for him to go to ground.

Defensively, we're not putting a lot of emphasis on contesting at the ruck. It seems to be mostly on keeping our shape and pressuring a turnover. We seem to be trying the choke tackle a fair bit. We go narrow with nearly everyone in the line - no sweeper as a rule, wings up - so we can put shooters up and still have a strong line.

Off of turnovers, when we get them, we seem more interested in kicking for territory than putting it through the hands.

Is that a fair summation of England's game plan, or am I reading things wrong?

England kick long in the hope opposition kick back giving us territory, or kick poorly and let us counter attack. It's a garbage tactic and both Ford and Fazlet are guilty of this frustrating waste of ball.

On the pack, yeah Billy V and Robshaw pass from 1st receiver a lot, but normally to a one out runner who doesn't really do anything - they've been trying to nail this for about 3 years but they are only ever successful when they revert to more traditional pods/punch groups.

Forwards do their carrying off 9, Ford seldom runs the fringes as Cipriani did on Saturday, that's why everything sped up with Danny Care and Cipriani because they pull players into the gaps while interesting defenders - causing indecision.

Essentially England are stuck between trying to replicate New Zealand and trying to play like South Africa - their skill set lends itself more to the Saffer style than NZ style.

On Defence, we do not commit to the ruck and just set a big defensive line - it works for the most part, our defence held up well and it took a moment from the best right wing in Europe (maybe the world) to prise it open.

Interesing read here from Dean Ryan: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2015/aug/23/england-world-cup-dean-ryan

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Here's a question:
Our forward runners, more often than not, take the ball at a standstill. Is this a tactical decision?
I mean our fitness looks as high as it's ever been, and on defence they look tireless in the tackle and hitting rucks, so I don't think it's a lazy thing?
Lawes, Haskell and Binny are all great carriers, but none of them made much of an impact against France. The only real impact came when Cipriani was on and he was dragging runners into gaps with him.


So yeah: Why? One of the first things you learn at rugby training is to take the ball at pace, why aren't we?

 

[j'nuh]

Here's a question:
Our forward runners, more often than not, take the ball at a standstill. Is this a tactical decision?
I mean our fitness looks as high as it's ever been, and on defence they look tireless in the tackle and hitting rucks, so I don't think it's a lazy thing?
Lawes, Haskell and Binny are all great carriers, but none of them made much of an impact against France. The only real impact came when Cipriani was on and he was dragging runners into gaps with him.


So yeah: Why? One of the first things you learn at rugby training is to take the ball at pace, why aren't we?

Because the coaches want to turn England into a laughing stock before they, and the North, gloriously secedes from the U.K.

 

[ratsapprentice]

The breakdown and our issues in that area....

Has anyone considered that the coaches are simply not equipped to drill our forwards in this area?

What expertise to any of them have there? Let's exclude Farrell and Catt - Lancaster and Rowntree both played in an era that was vastly different to today's breakdown, and Rowntree was hardly a breakdown specialist to the best of my knowledge.

 

[Tony Manx]

England kick long in the hope opposition kick back giving us territory, or kick poorly and let us counter attack. It's a garbage tactic and both Ford and Fazlet are guilty of this frustrating waste of ball.

On the pack, yeah Billy V and Robshaw pass from 1st receiver a lot, but normally to a one out runner who doesn't really do anything - they've been trying to nail this for about 3 years but they are only ever successful when they revert to more traditional pods/punch groups.

Forwards do their carrying off 9, Ford seldom runs the fringes as Cipriani did on Saturday, that's why everything sped up with Danny Care and Cipriani because they pull players into the gaps while interesting defenders - causing indecision.

Essentially England are stuck between trying to replicate New Zealand and trying to play like South Africa - their skill set lends itself more to the Saffer style than NZ style.

On Defence, we do not commit to the ruck and just set a big defensive line - it works for the most part, our defence held up well and it took a moment from the best right wing in Europe (maybe the world) to prise it open.

Interesing read here from Dean Ryan: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2015/aug/23/england-world-cup-dean-ryan

Excellent post and spot on! Would give you rep points but can't on this thing!!

 

[goodNumber10]

The breakdown and our issues in that area....

Has anyone considered that the coaches are simply not equipped to drill our forwards in this area?

What expertise to any of them have there? Let's exclude Farrell and Catt - Lancaster and Rowntree both played in an era that was vastly different to today's breakdown, and Rowntree was hardly a breakdown specialist to the best of my knowledge.

i would agree if we didn't actually get it right quite so frequently.

every autumn we suffer from the same issues, and every six nations we go back to aggressive ball carrying and coming around that corner, open up space and our backs rip teams open.

There is clearly a conscious effort going on to ape the NZ ball handling forwards in the 1st receiver slot, the issue (and this is what Olly is talking about) is that to play that effectively you have to handle and distribute close to the tackle line and our guys decision making just isn't up to it - so everything slows down because they are literally having to think "play flat, draw the man, put ball in space" instead of just hammering the nearest b*stard they see.

 

[Peat]

Essentially England are stuck between trying to replicate New Zealand and trying to play like South Africa - their skill set lends itself more to the Saffer style than NZ style.

That's the succinct version of what I was probing at; that our game plan and players don't quite match up. I wanted to check my understanding of the game plan before saying it but it appears I'm not too far off, and that's what I feel.

edit: Which isn't to say the game plan's bad - just a little wrong for us. Our kicking strategy is bad though.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Something I find baffling is Lancaster has gone on about the lineout a lot and yet it looks like England have barely sorted it out at all. Maybe this is why Lancaster is so desperate for proper lineout options, he knows how **** poor our lineout is without Hartley and wants better jumpers... Would make a lot more sense if that was his reasoning.

 

[goodNumber10]

That's the succinct version of what I was probing at; that our game plan and players don't quite match up. I wanted to check my understanding of the game plan before saying it but it appears I'm not too far off, and that's what I feel.

edit: Which isn't to say the game plan's bad - just a little wrong for us. Our kicking strategy is bad though.

yeah, but we've been saying this for over a year - that we just need to play an english game with the utmost intensity - i can deal iwth losing if we go out and tear into a team and play with a bit of passion and if their just better than us on the day then fair enough, but the fact is France weren't/aren't better than us they just desperately wanted a win and we just didn't want to be on that pitch..

 

[j'nuh]

Why wouldn't we want to play like NZ? Their game plan is the only one which has shown any kind of sustained success. Why settle for an inferior system that is so routinely beaten by the SH? I don't want us to go out as plucky losers, I want us to have a go at winning the trophy...

 

[goodNumber10]

Why wouldn't we want to play like NZ? Their game plan is the only one which has shown any kind of sustained success. Why settle for an inferior system that is so routinely beaten by the SH? I don't want us to go out as plucky losers, I want us to have a go at winning the trophy...

because it's just not in our skillset to play like that - the NZ style of play has been developed over decades, it's taught from mini's upwards it's just alien to anyone outside of NZ except maybe Australia, and teams that get sucked into trying to play like that fall on their own sword because it's ultimately pointless because you'll never beat a team your copying at their own game.

We have the potential to batter NZ upfront and in the midfield (yes even with nonu and smith their), if we just got our patterns right and went hard at the gain line we'd put any team on the back foot, that doesn't mean we have to be one dimensional but i'm still to see any team other than France beat NZ with glorious running rugby (NB: just for clairty that's not how NZ play).

The fact of it is New Zealand are the most athletic team out there with the absolute best in basic skills, we are not, so why try to copy them?

 

[Peat]

yeah, but we've been saying this for over a year - that we just need to play an english game with the utmost intensity - i can deal iwth losing if we go out and tear into a team and play with a bit of passion and if their just better than us on the day then fair enough, but the fact is France weren't/aren't better than us they just desperately wanted a win and we just didn't want to be on that pitch..

True.

Why wouldn't we want to play like NZ? Their game plan is the only one which has shown any kind of sustained success. Why settle for an inferior system that is so routinely beaten by the SH? I don't want us to go out as plucky losers, I want us to have a go at winning the trophy...

Because we can't execute it successfully with the current squad.

I want us to have a go at winning the trophy as well and I want us to stop getting routinely beaten by the SH, but that will be more likely with a game plan that suits us rather than one that apes them mindlessly. New Zealand's current game plan is far from the only successful one ever.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

teams that get sucked into trying to play like that fall on their own sword because it's ultimately pointless

Falling on a pointless sword wouldn't do much harm...