• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

[RWC2023] England vs Chile (23/09/2023)

Also not one of England's number 10s was injured. Surely refutes her point.

Yeah, players get injured. It happens in sport.
I mean, I ran across 4 lanes of motorway traffic, drunk... and blindfolded...

I never got hurt, so must have been a clever decision right?
 
Sounds overly pessimistic but not really - we scored the kind of tries any tier 1 side would expect to score against the lowest ranked side in the tournament
There were some nice individual bits of skill, sure, but nothing to particularly read into
We all know the boys can play, we see them do it every week for their clubs - was nice to see more attacking intent in an England shirt but...yeah, let's see that intent week on week before we start saying we're back
All you say there is positive so why say there's nothing really to be optimistic about.three wins from three games in a World Cup is in my opinion performing week on week.what more do you expect them to do to?.🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿
 
Tbf Ludlam is a first choice lineout target for club and (often) country - he's not just a backrow option
With Ribbans (presumably) calling the lineout I wouldn't be surprised if he just called to him and Ludlam as that's the moves he runs at club level and feels most confident in

Don't know about Martin's lineout prowess though, tbh - I think @LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan) said he's been working on it over the last season and been noticeably improving

I think he said he'd been used a reasonable amount, but there's still a gap between that and being a force at this level.

Guess where I'm coming from is that I want 2 line out bankers. Lawes is one, but will probably be gone after this RWC and while Ludlam and Curry, Willis etc are decent occasional options they're not in Lawes class and are seldom going to threaten opposition ball. So that leaves the locks.

Post tournament I'd like to see Chessum and a hopefully rejuvenated Isiekwe in tandem. Isiekwe had a massive health issue last year but he's our best arial operator and can do the grunty TH stuff with Chessum doing the rangier more athletic stuff. Won't happen, but that's what I'd like to see.
 
Guess where I'm coming from is that I want 2 line out bankers. Lawes is one, but will probably be gone after this RWC and while Ludlam and Curry, Willis etc are decent occasional options they're not in Lawes class
Pretty sure I saw a stat that said Ludlam is first choice option at Saints over Lawes, Ribbans and Coles

I think our options are fine, tbh - though I've never been one to buy into the narrative of needing tons of lineout specialists all through the pack. Damn Tom Croft for changing the meta. One specialist and two options is more than enough, and that's less than we have atm

If we lose Billy and bring in one of Willis or Mercer, eventually, then we're flying high
 
That is quite a fallacy right there. 🤣
But you understand my point no? Outcomes do not equal smart decisions!

IMO England were superb v Argentina, got the job done against a poor Japan team, but ultimately threw pretty much the kitchen sink at the worst team in the tournament in a desperate show to prove they are strong.

I took nothing from this game, and a huge amount from the Argentina game.

Listening to Woodward and co claim 'England are back' and 'Farrell has to start' is a problem for England IMO. If I were English I would prefer to be listening to pundits put things in perspective, and take some realistic view of such a mismatch.
 
Do you take more from this game, or the Argentina game?
Do you take more from this game, or the Argentina game?
I take each game on an individual basis.it's a knockout tournament and the most important aspect is to find a way to win the next game.I don't really dwell on how the Argentina game compares to the Chile game(it doesn't really matter)..there's been a performance each week by England that was good enough to win that game on that day and against that opposition.that's all that matters in a knockout tournament competition 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿
 
I take each game on an individual basis.it's a knockout tournament and the most important aspect is to find a way to win the next game.I don't really dwell on how the Argentina game compares to the Chile game(it doesn't really matter)..there's been a performance each week by England that was good enough to win that game on that day and against that opposition.that's all that matters in a knockout tournament competition 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿
Ah so you weight both performances equally as the result was similar?
 
Ah so you weight both performances equally as the result was similar?
What should we do continue to slate the English team who have had plenty of that from all angles the last 18 months, boys you've put 3 wins together when 6 weeks ago you were incapable of putting 3 passes together but those opposition don't count your still ****.
 
What should we do continue to slate the English team who have had plenty of that from all angles the last 18 months, boys you've put 3 wins together when 6 weeks ago you were incapable of putting 3 passes together but those opposition don't count your still ****.
Tbf they still appeared incapable of that at the start of the match.
 
What should we do continue to slate the English team who have had plenty of that from all angles the last 18 months, boys you've put 3 wins together when 6 weeks ago you were incapable of putting 3 passes together but those opposition don't count your still ****.
Being realistic isnt slating tho is it.

As I said I think that Argentina performance was top class in managing a red card, all the credit in the world for me...

But come on. Running in 10 tries against dentists, doctors, and ice cream salesmen isnt any sort of achievement!
 
?

I mean a player can be injured at any point. Even in training. And no one was injured playing for England which just shows the Dupont injury was incredibly misfortunate.
Or falling arse over *** on hotel stairs!!
 
Top