England World Cup Squad

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Maybe Borthwick needs to take a leaf out of Rassie's book and hook him after 30 minutes then.

If he's sent out to simply chase kicks and he isn't doing it, then get him off.

If a kick isn't contestable, then surely racing up on your own just makes you easily beatable.

He couldn't really hook him because he picked a rubbish bench without a back three option on it.

 

[BrokenWing]

He couldn't really hook him because he picked a rubbish bench without a back three option on it.

Lawrence on, which is what happened wasn't it?, and Marchant to the wing.

He's not the first player recently to get away with a crap attitude if that is the case.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Im actually gutted Arundell didnt take his chance, he didnt chase that hard and looked abit lost vs Argentina. A season in france could do him alot of good.

I think "lost" nails it and that some of the other comments on Arundell are a bit harsh.

He's still only got about 10 minutes top class experience of which about 8.5 have been at full back.

He's made his name as a runner and here people are judging him on the way he's chasing high kicks in what's still his secondary position. If he hasn't put in the effort or has an attitude problem that's one thing, but I suspect most of what we saw was uncertainty about what he needed to do and how to do it in a game plan that clearly didn't play to his strengths. No doubt frustrated but I'd be surprised if he wasn't trying.

I said on here that he'd been given a hospital pass when picked on the wing v Ire in the 6N and little has changed since.

I was hoping to see him make an impact from the bench in this tournament, but it wasn't to be.

If round pegs are being put in square holes though, that is 100% the coach's fault. And what's a point of a back 3 with Smith and Arundell if all you're going to do is hoof it?

 

[BrokenWing]

I don't really get the online reviews giving him 4/10 and saying "Didn't get the ball"

Who's fault is that? It's great going looking for the ball(look up, it's probably in the air), but if your team then drops it after two passes(and judging recent performances that's not inconceivable) you're out of position and get slated for bad defence.

 

[Scotty]

Tbh LIrish played a very a fast attacking brand of rugby where he played as an attacking FB, tbh how much has he actually played wing for club?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

tbh how much has he actually played wing for club?

Never started there, not sure how many of his bench spots were there though (AllRugby just says shirt numbers)

 

[Reiser99]

I thought Arundell did try to compete, though possibly could have done better. I definitely don't think even 1 pass came near him and unlike NZ, England players aren't given the licence to deviate from tactics. I think the only one brave enough was Ford in the first match. Honestly, as long as England keep Farrell at 10 there is very little point of having a winger like Arundell. Might as well play 3 full backs.

 

[BrokenWing]

Might as well play 3 full backs.

Well technically we started with fullbacks on both wings and a ten at fullback.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Arundell has all the potential in the world but so little experience to fall back on and this was the latter end of the biggest tournament around (not the best, that's obvs the 6N ).

His time in France will do him good, but in some ways it's a shame he will still be available for Eng while learning his craft - which he shouldn't really be having to do on the international stage. There's a rough diamond waiting to be cut and polished, but Borthwick really needs to get the man management right. I wouldn't object to him being taken out of the international limelight if handled sensitively.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

I still think Langdon is the one to replace George - got MOTM in horrendous conditions yesterday
Pearson starting to properly click at Saints too now (how are his darts?)

Pearson made a lovely break and offload for Langdon's try against Falcons. Thought both were a bit younger than they are - 24 and 26 respectively.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Thought both were a bit younger than they are - 24 and 26 respectively.

Pearson is 24??
Yeah I thought 20/21 as well - he would've been in the same academy/age grade year as the Currys

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Yep. Went the same Cardiff Met route as Dombrandt.

Exciting talent. Be interesting to see how / if he fits into the future England set up.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

I know this goes back a bit to the cipriani vs Farrell kick through to score discussion we had previously.

But I listening to one of the rugby pod casts and they chatted to Justin Marshall who was talking about how sarries would tell the players off of they deviated from tactics even if it resulted in a try.

Makes me think that Farrell has been under those systems way too long and has no brain for himself any more on a rugby pitch. Maybe Farrell was actually angry and cips for going against tactics even if it results in a try?

 

[Geordie]

The 6n back 3 will be:

11 Daly
14 A.N.Other - Watson, Arundell, Roebuck, Freeman, OHC, Murley etc etc...plenty of options.
15 Steward

But the curious part is if he continues with the experiment of Smith coming in to 15...and HOW he does that.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

I know this goes back a bit to the cipriani vs Farrell kick through to score discussion we had previously.

But I listening to one of the rugby pod casts and they chatted to Justin Marshall who was talking about how sarries would tell the players off of they deviated from tactics even if it resulted in a try.

Makes me think that Farrell has been under those systems way too long and has no brain for himself any more on a rugby pitch. Maybe Farrell was actually angry and cips for going against tactics even if it results in a try?

Seriously? That does my nut in.

Too many blokes with laptops trying to justify jobs.

There are some elements of the game like scrummaging where the detail really matters, but fundamentally that's poor coaching. Give the players a broad framework and then make sure they're then equipped with the skills / freedom to play what they see. Coaching is mostly about empowerment not instruction.

"Phil, what was that sidestepping cr*p all about? You were told to find touch if you got the ball in our 22. You nearly got JPR decapitated and no, I don't care if Gareth did go in at the corner".

 

[McTallshort]

I know this goes back a bit to the cipriani vs Farrell kick through to score discussion we had previously.

But I listening to one of the rugby pod casts and they chatted to Justin Marshall who was talking about how sarries would tell the players off of they deviated from tactics even if it resulted in a try.

Makes me think that Farrell has been under those systems way too long and has no brain for himself any more on a rugby pitch. Maybe Farrell was actually angry and cips for going against tactics even if it results in a try?

I think there is a difference between doing a Cipriani and doing what you want and doing a Farrell and doing what you have trained to do.

First off if you have a squad of players and they have been practicing all week and the fly half goes off and does something completely different in the game then most of the players particularly the forwards are going to be at 6s and 7s trying to react. That is perhaps the Cipriani way of doing things which has lead to a career of a few England caps and loads of different clubs.

Then you have the game plan that the squad has practiced and it's the scrum and Fly Half's job to implement on the pitch. Now sometimes they might deviate from this but anything out of the ordinary is a no no because the other 13 players won't have a clue. This is the Farrell way and he has loads of England and Lions caps and has stayed at 1 club all his career.

You also have Ford who is a very much a middle ground but I would always prefer Farrell to Cipriani (although I may have said different in the past)

 

[higgik]

Seriously? That does my nut in.

Too many blokes with laptops trying to justify jobs.

There are some elements of the game like scrummaging where the detail really matters, but fundamentally that's poor coaching. Give the players a broad framework and then make sure they're then equipped with the skills / freedom to play what they see. Coaching is mostly about empowerment not instruction.

"Phil, what was that sidestepping cr*p all about? You were told to find touch if you got the ball in our 22. You nearly got JPR decapitated and no, I don't care if Gareth did go in at the corner".

Remember the saying, the best mentors want you to be even better.
If a coach or teacher does not want their tutee to become independent then that is a worry.

I do not believe the Sarries quote, they have many 'coaches' on the field who run the plays from what they see in front of them.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

I think there is a difference between doing a Cipriani and doing what you want and doing a Farrell and doing what you have trained to do.

First off if you have a squad of players and they have been practicing all week and the fly half goes off and does something completely different in the game then most of the players particularly the forwards are going to be at 6s and 7s trying to react. That is perhaps the Cipriani way of doing things which has lead to a career of a few England caps and loads of different clubs.

Then you have the game plan that the squad has practiced and it's the scrum and Fly Half's job to implement on the pitch. Now sometimes they might deviate from this but anything out of the ordinary is a no no because the other 13 players won't have a clue. This is the Farrell way and he has loads of England and Lions caps and has stayed at 1 club all his career.

You also have Ford who is a very much a middle ground but I would always prefer Farrell to Cipriani (although I may have said different in the past)

Why was Dan Carter so good?

It wasn't because he blindly followed orders.

It wasn't because he was a maverick.

It's because he largely did the right thing at the right time - game management which included a lot of kicking and running preordained plays, but also taking chances when he saw them. Presumably his coaches trusted him to do that. Generally executing well will have helped build that trust.

He was also surrounded by players who had the footballing brains to be able to adapt to the off the cuff. That didn't happen by accident and the Kiwis are probably still the best around at doing that.

Game plans sound great, but rugby's a multi phase game. How can you realistically have a sensible plan after the first few phases when players are all over the place (other than dully driving at the opponents line for about 37 phases). Framework's fine but prescription isn't.

On Cips sometimes it's hard to separate the views of the person from the player. On the field for the vast majority of most games he'd do the right thing. But coaches would know that he wasn't a total % player and that he would sometimes try things that others wouldn't even see. Sometimes they'd work, sometimes not but with players like that you had to work on the basis that the good would outweigh the bad more often than not. Maybe that's not for today's risk adverse analysts. But he won't die wondering. Faz might, Ford might also regret becoming a much more conservative version of his original self.

 

[higgik]

Why was Dan Carter so good?

It wasn't because he blindly followed orders.

It wasn't because he was a maverick.

It's because he largely did the right thing at the right time - game management which included a lot of kicking and running preordained plays, but also taking chances when he saw them. Presumably his coaches trusted him to do that. Generally executing well will have helped build that trust.

He was also surrounded by players who had the footballing brains to be able to adapt to the off the cuff. That didn't happen by accident and the Kiwis are probably still the best around at doing that.

Game plans sound great, but rugby's a multi phase game. How can you realistically have a sensible plan after the first few phases when players are all over the place (other than dully driving at the opponents line for about 37 phases). Framework's fine but prescription isn't.

On Cips sometimes it's hard to separate the views of the person from the player. On the field for the vast majority of most games he'd do the right thing. But coaches would know that he wasn't a total % player and that he would sometimes try things that others wouldn't even see. Sometimes they'd work, sometimes not but with players like that you had to work on the basis that the good would outweigh the bad more often than not. Maybe that's not for today's risk adverse analysts. But he won't die wondering. Faz might, Ford might also regret becoming a much more conservative version of his original self.

Why does Farrell always seem more comfortable at Sarries?

1) the club game is slower
2) he has players around him to make good decisions when needed.
Wigglesworth, Spencer, Barritt, Goode, Losowski are all capable of making a decision when needed.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I think the worst bit about England's attacking gameplan is it doesn't seem to factor in the opponents existence at all other than as a means to execute a tackle causing a ruck. The opposition could have straw dummies on the field and we'd still likely look for contact and a slow recycle than to take advantage of the fact they can't actually move.

It's also so weird how we build our game around rucks rather than offloading and 1 out passing and yet constantly set up our players to not support the runner ready to clear out the ruck and have our players constantly stood far back and fanned across the field rather than tighter up and on each others shoulders. It's like we just expect the opposition to stand there and let us do what we want at a nice, steady pace.

The fact we point blank make any effort to keep the ball in hand anywhere except maybe 10m from the opposition try line is also infuriating. Our first option after a line break is to ******* kick!