What's up with England's ball-carrying forwards?

[Every Time Ref]

OK I'm not claiming any incisive original thought here, but over the autumn internationals I have, like many England supporters, noticed a frustrating and perplexing tendency by the English forwards to take the ball the ball standing still, deep behind the gainline, making them an easy target for the defence. Everyone who played rugby as a child will remember being told to stand deep and run onto the ball so you're already at speed when you catch it, and the reasons are obvious - more chance of breaking the gainline, winning the contact, etc., giving your team front foot ball which makes it easier to attack and harder to defend on the next phase. For as long as I can remember it's been a basic truism of rugby.

So - why are England not doing this? I find it very hard to believe that eight international players are en masse forgetting to do something they have been taught since they were probably eight years old. So it must be a conscious choice, mustn't it? But I really can't see any good reason for it. I can't see any advantage to it. It seems inevitably destined to lose ground, not to suck in defenders and to give your half backs rubbish ball to play with. Most of the autumn it has had me screaming at the TV and punching tables in frustration at England's apparent ineptitude in this area, but there's a part of me that's thinking ... it can't be that simple. There must be something I'm missing which would help this make a little more sense to me.

Any ideas? Answers on a postcard.

 

[goodNumber10]

it's two reasons mainly:

slow ball needs to be made fast, you don't do that by slinging it out the back of the ruck to a man 10 feet away - they need to pick and go more to tie in the fringe defence and then let the guys run off that/let 9 pop to guys coming onto the gainline.

Second it's because the defence is getting off the line quick, due to the slow ball, and thus they are sitting deeper to give themselves more time and space.

It really revolves around two things, not having a decent midfield target (hence Eastmond getting dropped), and our forwards not coming around the corner of that target. The only team that doesn't play around the corner is New Zealand who play straight, we're not NZ so we should go back to our traditional strengths which is round the corner smash the tackle line.

 

[TommiG88]

it's two reasons mainly:

slow ball needs to be made fast, you don't do that by slinging it out the back of the ruck to a man 10 feet away - they need to pick and go more to tie in the fringe defence and then let the guys run off that/let 9 pop to guys coming onto the gainline.

Second it's because the defence is getting off the line quick, due to the slow ball, and thus they are sitting deeper to give themselves more time and space.

It really revolves around two things, not having a decent midfield target (hence Eastmond getting dropped), and our forwards not coming around the corner of that target. The only team that doesn't play around the corner is New Zealand who play straight, we're not NZ so we should go back to our traditional strengths which is round the corner smash the tackle line.

Running on to the ball helps with quick ball as you're pushing the defence back making it harder to get over and slow the ball. Our stand still players makes it easy to get over the ball and slow it down.

What do you mean by a midfield target? Who would you have?

What about the inadequacy of Farrell?

 

[Wendigo7]

Standing deep, poor passing and a lack of ball carriers were a good summarisation of England in the first 2 games.

 

[goodNumber10]

Running on to the ball helps with quick ball as you're pushing the defence back making it harder to get over and slow the ball. Our stand still players makes it easy to get over the ball and slow it down.

Yes, but running on to the ball to meet a tackle line already on the gain line will not give you go forward ball.

Send the defence backwards, then send runners over the gain line to suck them in then move it wide.

What do you mean by a midfield target? Who would you have?

Tuilagi or Burrell - they get over the gain line and give the forwards a target to aim at even when the ball is slow.

What about the inadequacy of Farrell?

With good going forward ball his lack of attacking flair isn't an issue - we saw ford struggle to ignite his backs as well. Farrell is not as gifted a runner as Ford, or have the same level of decision making in his passing but Farrell off set piece ball brings it to the line and sends runners over it (watch the SA game), he actually plays flatter then Ford but has very few options outside him in the last four weeks.

 

[Geordie]

I have been going mad at this very point...but its not just about hitting traffic its about forwards intelligent enough to run in space and gaps.

Ie Morgan is the only one who carried well this AI for England (well except for Brad Barritt) and he mixes it up nicely running into defenders when required but often showing intelligence by hitting the gaps. Attwood had his moments.

I also have to say many of the current squad arent renowned as great carriers..they are better known for being grafters - Wood, Lawes, Robshaw, Launchbury, all similar kind of players.

Even Hartley and Marler dont bring their carrying game to this level.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I think part of it is our scrum halves have a habit of either taking steps before passing (Care) or throwing inaccurately (Youngs). Neither really give forwards the confidence to try to run at pace before receiving the pass.

 

[Every Time Ref]

I agree that poor passing from nine doesn't help, and neither does Care's step-step-step - the thing is, a couple of steps can be a useful weapon for a scrum-half, especially a renowned sniper, because it can hold defenders in and create space further out, but there's a difference between when Care at his best does that, and Care at the moment trundling sideways and letting the defenders line up his ball carriers. I guess it messes with the timing of the run as well, but why not run from deeper, getting crap ball running is better than getting crap ball stood still.

Yes, but running on to the ball to meet a tackle line already on the gain line will not give you go forward ball.

Send the defence backwards, then send runners over the gain line to suck them in then move it wide.

That does make sense, and I do like to see pick and goes from any team as they keep it moving fast without risking too much and can suck in defenders even when you're not making big yards. I was looking at this as a separate issue though (I know they;re not, but for the sake of argument) - even with slow ball, surely it's better to be running on a little bit, even if you don't have the luxury of really sprinting onto it. Any extra velocity you have increases your chances of winning the hit a little, no?

It really revolves around two things, not having a decent midfield target (hence Eastmond getting dropped), and our forwards not coming around the corner of that target.

True but you don't need an inside centre target to play round the corner rugby, you can run two pods of forwards taking it in turns.

I have been going mad at this very point...but its not just about hitting traffic its about forwards intelligent enough to run in space and gaps.

Ie Morgan is the only one who carried well this AI for England (well except for Brad Barritt) and he mixes it up nicely running into defenders when required but often showing intelligence by hitting the gaps. Attwood had his moments.

I absolutely agree with this, the difference between hitting a weak shoulder and a strong shoulder or chest is the difference between crossing the gainline and not, or even between a clean break and not.

What about the inadequacy of Farrell?

Oh hell no, I am not touching that one!

 

[goodNumber10]

That does make sense, and I do like to see pick and goes from any team as they keep it moving fast without risking too much and can suck in defenders even when you're not making big yards. I was looking at this as a separate issue though (I know they;re not, but for the sake of argument) - even with slow ball, surely it's better to be running on a little bit, even if you don't have the luxury of really sprinting onto it. Any extra velocity you have increases your chances of winning the hit a little, no?

Absolutely, but i think the issue is knowing that tckle line is ahead of you to the gain line. like anyone peopel want time on the ball, so they can pick their line and make decision, forwards are no different to 10's in that aspect, and thus they sit deeper and go static as they are A: not wanting to put themselves sunder pressure, B: not confident in their hands in the conditions.

True but you don't need an inside centre target to play round the corner rugby, you can run two pods of forwards taking it in turns.

agreed, you don't and pod systems are fine, but it does help. For example this is my preferred flow pattern.

1: straight 9 to Midfield hit up, or 10 outside pop from off the top ball, or 10-midfield switch off scrumball. If 12 carries, blind side winger and 13 clear out, if 13 carries Blind side winger and 15 clear out - if 12/13 break the tackle line and they should be looking to do so, then those two trackers switch into support mode left and right.
2: If we breakdown, then 1st pod round the corner if quick ball take pop from 9, if slow pick and go or inside ball from 10
3: 3rd pod takes ball inside or outside of 10, whilst 1st pod either pulls on the 10's call or reloads to come back the other way with an outside hit off 10, or if space is open we play behind the pod to where the call has come from.

That won't work without a decent midfield option - yeah it can be a forward off lineout or 8 form the scrum but a center at pace will cause more damage to the midfield defence and if tracked in quicker ball.

Though to be fair I coach saturday afternoon social club so it seldom gets looks anything like that, or gets above 5 phases

 

[Maverick1987]

With good going forward ball his lack of attacking flair isn't an issue - we saw ford struggle to ignite his backs as well. Farrell is not as gifted a runner as Ford, or have the same level of decision making in his passing but Farrell off set piece ball brings it to the line and sends runners over it (watch the SA game), he actually plays flatter then Ford but has very few options outside him in the last four weeks.

I don't see this . From what I saw in the autumn Ford had better tactical kicking a better running game a better passing game and FEWER options outside . Farrell played both his games with Eastmond . Ford had to play with Farrell (out of form and position) and 36 (easily the most inconsistent player in the universe)

Now the red mist after the games has disappeared I can honestly say I don't mind Farrell as much as some on here . He's been at the helm in some really impressive victories but just feel that Ford can take us forward from here . Imo it's not a bye bye Farrell by any stretch of the imagination but if I was in charge it would certainly be a go back to Sarries and work on X Y Z then come back and we can have another look at things . Imo Ford HAS to start against Wales or else we are sending out a reaaaaaallllyyyy bad message to all the youngsters from the u20s JWC winning teams

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I agree, Ford should be 1st choice unless Farrell can show he can up his game. Ford has been a better distributor, as good at kicking and has had more awareness. His perceived defensive weaknesses have not materialised at all so there is literally no area that Farrell outclasses Ford right now.

Same with Eastmond, he hasn't shown himself to be a liability in defence and did more than Farrell or 12tress to distribute the ball and running good lines. He almost set up a try for Brown too that failed due to Brown's error. The tackling weakness keeps getting brought up as a reason not to select them over others yet just isn't showing up as anything more than a purely hypothetical problem. Farrell and 12trees are big guys and more powerful but Ford and Eastmond have better tactical sense and if we learned anything from Wales recently, going for guys based on size first and skills second leads to VERY uncreative rugby that the SH sides can defend forever.

 

[goodNumber10]

I don't see this . From what I saw in the autumn Ford had better tactical kicking a better running game a better passing game and FEWER options outside . Farrell played both his games with Eastmond . Ford had to play with Farrell (out of form and position) and 36 (easily the most inconsistent player in the universe)

I said he had few options, not fewer. I wasn't making a comparison between Ford and Farrells respective merits, I was just illustrating that both flyhalfs struggled to get anything going because we didn't have any (or very little) front foot ball.

We're talking about getting the ball moving forward, and Farrell was playing flat and trying to get the team going forward with passing on the gain line off primary phase but the penetration from his runners was negligible at best.

The point i'm trying to make is that regardless of the fly half England's inability to create fast, go forward ball hampers pretty much everything else they were trying to do and we saw that impact as much on Fords ability to distribute as Farrells, on 36's as much as Eastmond's and that until we fix that we won't be playing wide open rugby because we're giving the opposition free yards on the tackle line.

Now the red mist after the games has disappeared I can honestly say I don't mind Farrell as much as some on here . He's been at the helm in some really impressive victories but just feel that Ford can take us forward from here . Imo it's not a bye bye Farrell by any stretch of the imagination but if I was in charge it would certainly be a go back to Sarries and work on X Y Z then come back and we can have another look at things . Imo Ford HAS to start against Wales or else we are sending out a reaaaaaallllyyyy bad message to all the youngsters from the u20s JWC winning teams

Really don't want this to descend into a Ford/Farrell debate, but out of curiosity what are those X, Y & Z's that wouldn't be fixed by the team generating quick front foot ball?

On Ford has to start, personally I think the Wales game is 8/9 weeks away and we need to see who's the form fly half at the time.

 

[Jbobo]

I agree, Ford should be 1st choice unless Farrell can show he can up his game. Ford has been a better distributor, as good at kicking and has had more awareness. His perceived defensive weaknesses have not materialised at all so there is literally no area that Farrell outclasses Ford right now.

Same with Eastmond, he hasn't shown himself to be a liability in defence and did more than Farrell or 12tress to distribute the ball and running good lines. He almost set up a try for Brown too that failed due to Brown's error. The tackling weakness keeps getting brought up as a reason not to select them over others yet just isn't showing up as anything more than a purely hypothetical problem. Farrell and 12trees are big guys and more powerful but Ford and Eastmond have better tactical sense and if we learned anything from Wales recently, going for guys based on size first and skills second leads to VERY uncreative rugby that the SH sides can defend forever.

To be fair, against Australia Wales showed an adventurous side and attacked very well our defense and mistakes only let us down. Against NZ and SA we tried to create more but errors and set piece problems stifled our opportunities. We also were just so desperate for a win against the top 3 that we had to revert back to Gatland ball to try and ensure this. We will gradually see this change, the question is whether it will happen in time for the world cup.

I agree however that England have this problem too, except their set piece has been much better compared and there didn't look to even be an incentive to play with any adventure which may be an issue going forward.

 

[mcc100763]

Wow I thought Rugby was a creative sport where a split second decision to either run, kick etc could ignite the game into a series of thrilling interplays between highly skilled professional full time players, having watched Bath's early season stuff featuring Messrs Ford, Eastmond and Joseph showed massive creativity and pretty risky stuff.

I think England should pick them all and let them do the stuff they do for Bath....

As for forward play, if you have one runner? standing stock still to receive the ball, as a defender you know exactly where he is going.

Another question though: Would a team of English forwards and Australian backs win the world cup?

 

[Maverick1987]

I said he had few options, not fewer. I wasn't making a comparison between Ford and Farrells respective merits, I was just illustrating that both flyhalfs struggled to get anything going because we didn't have any (or very little) front foot ball.

We're talking about getting the ball moving forward, and Farrell was playing flat and trying to get the team going forward with passing on the gain line off primary phase but the penetration from his runners was negligible at best.

The point i'm trying to make is that regardless of the fly half England's inability to create fast, go forward ball hampers pretty much everything else they were trying to do and we saw that impact as much on Fords ability to distribute as Farrells, on 36's as much as Eastmond's and that until we fix that we won't be playing wide open rugby because we're giving the opposition free yards on the tackle line.




Really don't want this to descend into a Ford/Farrell debate, but out of curiosity what are those X, Y & Z's that wouldn't be fixed by the team generating quick front foot ball?

On Ford has to start, personally I think the Wales game is 8/9 weeks away and we need to see who's the form fly half at the time.

When I said X Y Zs I didn't mean anything in particular although I think he could work on some things . NZ did the same with Nonu . They sent him away with things to work on and he came back a far better player . Agreed in the forwards hitting the line running rather than being static . Tuilagi brings the opportunity to bend the defensive line too and gives the half backs options

I don't disagree with what you are saying to be fair .

I just think Ford has a much higher potential ceiling than Farrell has . Can't see Farrell getting a great deal better at the things we need as a team

He's great at kicking from the tee, defending and being a pest at the breakdown but I love a out half that is a danger to the opposition himself aswell as his passing game bringing others in too

 

[Peat]

Wow I thought Rugby was a creative sport where a split second decision to either run, kick etc could ignite the game into a series of thrilling interplays between highly skilled professional full time players, having watched Bath's early season stuff featuring Messrs Ford, Eastmond and Joseph showed massive creativity and pretty risky stuff.

I think England should pick them all and let them do the stuff they do for Bath....

As for forward play, if you have one runner? standing stock still to receive the ball, as a defender you know exactly where he is going.

Another question though: Would a team of English forwards and Australian backs win the world cup?

It would have a chance. Not sure it's better than full strength NZ or SA. England's pack has plenty of weaknesses (hence the discussion...) and we just saw the Aussie backs blow a few gilt-edged chances to win a game.

Further to GN10's points, I don't get why forward pick and go isn't used more to turn slow ball into quick ball. I'd like to see us do more of that and around the corner (as he said) fo' sho'.

 

[mcc100763]

Old days

I used to watch in the old days forwards running in a bunch inter-passing as they came into contact rather than just setting up ruck or maul, I do wonder if we have become bogged down with the technicalities of the game with gain line, number of carries, metres made, gain line broken isn't it about scoring more than the opposition, I know its an over simplification but some years ago I lived in Valencia and had the opportunity to coach my sons team and most of the Spanish lads were brought up on basket ball and wow could they run and pass, I saw moves and tries scored from deep within their own 22m that blew me away....

 

[Every Time Ref]

That is another thing, forwards passing between them and changing the point of attack. I feel we do a lot less of that than other international teams and it's something else which makes our forward play easier to defend. One thing about Ford which I haven't seen in his two England games is that he is very good at bringing forward runners into the game - obviously Australia was a specific game plan, but I hope England use this side of him in future, as it is another good way to get go-forward ball. Basically, I like to see a mix of forward running styles, so some pick-and-goes, some runners off the nine, some off the ten, changing the point of attack and stretching the defence a little before you even think about going wide and trying to stretch it there. If done right, it makes the wide stuff possible by narrowing the defence as it seeks to cover all the holes - the proverbial "earning the right". It would mean selecting more ball carriers, which in my opinion means Haskell at the moment, but there's plenty waiting in the wings, Ewers and the like.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

I'm of the opinion this is largely a scrum half issue. None of our scrum halves appear to be able to sensibly marshall the pack, choose the right side to pass etc..

There's also a skills issue which seems to prevent our 9's from varying the length of passses and therefore protecting the ball carrier for as long as possible because the opposition don't know for sure who is going to be trucking it up. There's also therefore an issue when you have only one obvious carrier.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWhLJ0hqYB4
I just watched this and got quite excited about Burrell - I think most of us here underrate him, especially as an option at 13.
In fact I would be happy to see a combination of 12. Tuilagi 13. Burrell switching positions left and right.

 

[ratsapprentice]

The thing that worries me about Burrell is that his distribution is just as flakey as 36's... yes he can pull off some awesome passes, but he's well capable of giving away intercepts or ones that hit the deck too.