The Official English Rugby Thread

[Tichtheid]

The comeback is on

[Raggs]

Stopped watching, pointless.

[sockwithaticket]

From what I've pieced together, as soon as they receive a positive PCR, they run a second one. If that comes back positive, end of story. Fazlet's came back negative, which made them re-run the original sample, which then came back negative.

But there’s now an outbreak....



Bath are a shambles, coached by a lock and can’t run a line out or defend a maul. Glaws rampant.

Whilst I don't disagree about Bath being a shambles, they simply don't have the personnel to do any better in the cup. I think Wasps are going to end up in similar circumstances against Falcons. Can't afford to risk senior personnel, since there simply aren't enough of them fit.

Yeah I had a quick look at the Wasps team, it's basically all academy plus a few loan players.

[Tichtheid]

Not a lot of point in that.

From a Scottish point of view Davidson ran the Glaws pack well, he was their best player. I don’t know if Chapman is still Scottish but his pass is good, he lacked the pace to finish after running the archetypal scrum half inside line, but he had a decent game.

Ben Morgan in full flight is fun to see again

[Dragster]

From what I've pieced together, as soon as they receive a positive PCR, they run a second one. If that comes back positive, end of story. Fazlet's came back negative, which made them re-run the original sample, which then came back negative.

But there’s now an outbreak....



Bath are a shambles, coached by a lock and can’t run a line out or defend a maul. Glaws rampant.

Whilst I don't disagree about Bath being a shambles, they simply don't have the personnel to do any better in the cup. I think Wasps are going to end up in similar circumstances against Falcons. Can't afford to risk senior personnel, since there simply aren't enough of them fit.

They shouldn’t be ‘point a minute’ bad. The coaching staff are horrendous.

[Raggs]

But there’s now an outbreak....



Bath are a shambles, coached by a lock and can’t run a line out or defend a maul. Glaws rampant.

Whilst I don't disagree about Bath being a shambles, they simply don't have the personnel to do any better in the cup. I think Wasps are going to end up in similar circumstances against Falcons. Can't afford to risk senior personnel, since there simply aren't enough of them fit.

They shouldn’t be ‘point a minute’ bad. The coaching staff are horrendous.

If your pack doesn't have the capability to stop a maul from the oppositions 22, reaching your own 10m line, then a point a minute really isn't that surprising.

[JM2K6]

But there’s now an outbreak....



Bath are a shambles, coached by a lock and can’t run a line out or defend a maul. Glaws rampant.

Whilst I don't disagree about Bath being a shambles, they simply don't have the personnel to do any better in the cup. I think Wasps are going to end up in similar circumstances against Falcons. Can't afford to risk senior personnel, since there simply aren't enough of them fit.

They shouldn’t be ‘point a minute’ bad. The coaching staff are horrendous.

They picked a development team and Glaws had a largely seasoned Premiership side out. Not really a surprise is it.

[Tichtheid]

Whilst I don't disagree about Bath being a shambles, they simply don't have the personnel to do any better in the cup. I think Wasps are going to end up in similar circumstances against Falcons. Can't afford to risk senior personnel, since there simply aren't enough of them fit.

They shouldn’t be ‘point a minute’ bad. The coaching staff are horrendous.

If your pack doesn't have the capability to stop a maul from the oppositions 22, reaching your own 10m line, then a point a minute really isn't that surprising.

There was a huge gulf in the quality out there, even given the youth v experience aspect.

As an aside, who was the centre who used to play at Glaws around the same time Matt Scott was there, really good player but prone to injuries?

[Tichtheid]

Henry Trinder, thanks Google

He never got a full England cap says Wiki, which is a bit surprising, I always thought he looked like a player

[JM2K6]

Henry Trinder, thanks Google

He never got a full England cap says Wiki, which is a bit surprising, I always thought he looked like a player

Couldn't stay fit and at some stage it just becomes counter productive even considering him. He was never that good, though after a decent TV game I remember Jake demanding they fast track him and make him the world cup centre

[Tichtheid]

Henry Trinder, thanks Google

He never got a full England cap says Wiki, which is a bit surprising, I always thought he looked like a player

Couldn't stay fit and at some stage it just becomes counter productive even considering him. He was never that good, though after a decent TV game I remember Jake demanding they fast track him and make him the world cup centre

I watched him when Scott was there, 2016/2018, he looked good when fit.

England have had a long term problem trying to find an identity imo and I think the centre debate sums it up - JJ, Tuilagi, Slade, Farrell etc etc

[JM2K6]

Henry Trinder, thanks Google

He never got a full England cap says Wiki, which is a bit surprising, I always thought he looked like a player

Couldn't stay fit and at some stage it just becomes counter productive even considering him. He was never that good, though after a decent TV game I remember Jake demanding they fast track him and make him the world cup centre

I watched him when Scott was there, 2016/2018, he looked good when fit.

England have had a long term problem trying to find an identity imo and I think the centre debate sums it up - JJ, Tuilagi, Slade, Farrell etc etc

Is that fair? We've had Farrell as an almost ever-present at 12 for years. The 13 is whoever stays fit and whether we need more punch (Tuilagi) or pace (JJ) or distribution (Slade). We've played the dual playmakers system for a long time.

Whether the identity was helping us or not is another question, but the consistency has been there.

(By "never that good" I mean he was never good enough to really be a good international IMO, but he was a talent)

[Tichtheid]

Couldn't stay fit and at some stage it just becomes counter productive even considering him. He was never that good, though after a decent TV game I remember Jake demanding they fast track him and make him the world cup centre

I watched him when Scott was there, 2016/2018, he looked good when fit.

England have had a long term problem trying to find an identity imo and I think the centre debate sums it up - JJ, Tuilagi, Slade, Farrell etc etc

Is that fair? We've had Farrell as an almost ever-present at 12 for years. The 13 is whoever stays fit and whether we need more punch (Tuilagi) or pace (JJ) or distribution (Slade). We've played the dual playmakers system for a long time.

Whether the identity was helping us or not is another question, but the consistency has been there.

(By "never that good" I mean he was never good enough to really be a good international IMO, but he was a talent)

It just always seemed/seems to me that England are selecting in lieu of Manu Tuilagi's fitness, rather than going for an ideology and then finding the players. Lawes is another one in this, is he a lock or a six?

England have huge depth and have some extremely talented players, I don't know all of them but the way the game is going is all about pace, Genge is becoming very good and less of a liability, LCD and George are good players, Williams is good, Itoje is first name on most team sheets, get a lock who plays like Launchbury if Launchbury isn't fit, Underhill and Curry are class. You want an 8 that is a lineout option in that pack

I don't know the scrum half options, is Ben Youngs really the best? He might be, I don't know.
It's only taken 100+ games for Quins, Smith might get a chance at a run now (I've said for a while now he will be the best player in the world soon, maybe better than Carter was - call it hyperbole when it's not possible, not now).

I like Slade as a player, he makes good decisions and I think Watson is seriously good, I'm out of touch with the GP, so I don't really know who else would make the team, but keep the tempo up

This has been Kronenbourg-fuelled and to be honest if Eddie goes with stodge so much the better for the rest of us

[Sinkers]

I was just thinking that each of those selections might make sense if taken in isolation and against weaker opposition to test if it would work in an injury emergency or similar

But to do them all in one 23 and so many of them from kick-off and against an in form Australia.
I just don’t get it.

[Paddington Bear]

Tuilagi at 14 is one of those where being the talent he is he could easily make a couple of game changing breaks. More likely he’s caught out of position on kicks and it puts us under pressure. Either way it’s a silly idea

[ASMO]

Tuilagi at 14 is one of those where being the talent he is he could easily make a couple of game changing breaks. More likely he’s caught out of position on kicks and it puts us under pressure. Either way it’s a silly idea

He also doesnt have a wingers pace either

[Paddington Bear]

Tuilagi at 14 is one of those where being the talent he is he could easily make a couple of game changing breaks. More likely he’s caught out of position on kicks and it puts us under pressure. Either way it’s a silly idea

He also doesnt have a wingers pace either

No, I’m envisioning more him popping up a little out of nowhere as JJ/Watson did off set moves particularly in Jones’ early years

[Kawazaki]

Tuilagi at 14 is one of those where being the talent he is he could easily make a couple of game changing breaks. More likely he’s caught out of position on kicks and it puts us under pressure. Either way it’s a silly idea

If Australia can move Steward and Tuilagi together in the same area if the pitch to cover box kicks then that leaves May to cover the entire backfield on his own. That's a lot of grass to hit and an open door.

[Raggs]

Tuilagi at 14 is one of those where being the talent he is he could easily make a couple of game changing breaks. More likely he’s caught out of position on kicks and it puts us under pressure. Either way it’s a silly idea

He also doesnt have a wingers pace either

Reckon he's faster than Nowell though. If we use others to drop back into the backfield and use him defending at 13, I can see it working.

[Hal Jordan]

That's the problem, though, isn't it. Sometimes you can't pick all your "best" players and then try and fit a system round them. Continuously compensating for an out of position player will eventually bite you in the arse.

[geordie_6]

Highlight from this game has to be Malin's absolute failure to pull Itoje back to his feet

[sockwithaticket]

Well that was a load of shite.

Reasonably comfortable on the scoreboard, but the Saffas will eat as alive if we play like that again.

[Oxbow]

Yeah, despite the win that somehow feels deeply unsatisfying.

[Kawazaki]

Dare I say this...?

Spoiler

Show

Farrell played ok and looked after Smith very well?

[Dinsdale Piranha]

Dare I say this...?

Spoiler

Show

Farrell played ok and looked after Smith very well?

If by "looked after him very well" you mean "stopped him getting much ball" then you are correct

[Hal Jordan]

100 caps and he still cannot pass left to right, or suppress the urge to kick first, anything second.

[tc27]

Pack got munched at too many of the rucks and went nowwhere with its mauls. Has to be a concern vs SA.

Pleasantly surpised by Jonny Hill today.

[petej]

Feel sorry for Smith after that. Forwards had dominance and England should have been comfortably away. The problem with Farrell apart from the hand off and missed tackle where Smith covered him, kicking a ball away in a good positions and the missed touch finder is that the way he basically stifles all around him. Why put the lumpen average passing but aggressive committed thicko to be first receiver instead of your fleet footed playmaking 10? Why shift your best centre out of the centre to the wing? By having Farrell standing at first receiver miles away from the 9 you make it a really difficult pass for the 9 (some of young's issues are because Farrell stands miles away from him). Having none thinking 9 (youngs) and 10 (when Farrell stands there) doesn't work. Having a thick captain reduces the IQ of the team which has been noticeable for a while. The advantage of Farrell for Jones is undoubtedly in his blind obedience to probably run into brick walls head first if told. No individual player should be bigger than the team and the way various players are shifted around to accommodate Farrell is clearly detrimental to the team. Also it would be nice if Slade could actually hit a decent line and commit defenders instead of drifting sideways taking the space away from the wingers.

Thought the ref was kind to England.

[Paddington Bear]

Disagree on Faz, thought he was much much improved on the 6N where his international career could have ended. Appreciate he’s the go to punching bag but I tend to agree with the BBC report that having 100 caps next to Smith takes a bit of the heat off of him and means oppositions can’t just take flying shots at him. Smith is clearly international standard but let’s not pretend he’s the finished article yet.

The weak link remains Youngs. The pack did pretty well at securing quick ball which was then slowed down at the base. Twice in very good attacking positions Youngs crabbed the wrong way and gave Oz time to recover that they shouldn’t have had.

Tuilagi basically didn’t spend any time on the wing. That’s fine but other teams will exploit this.

Think it’s possible to be too critical. This is a proper Australian outfit. Not the world class lot of 15-20 years ago but a side that can and does give the Saffers and ABs a run for their money. They never looked like winning. They had one meaningful attack based on a good counterruck in loose play and it got defended pretty well. We shouldn’t take for granted the 8 wins in a row over them, it obviously makes it less of a highlight of an autumn than it used to be but it’s a proper test win. Bar an excellent tackle by White in a phase where George had done everything right it could have started to get ugly.

Sloppy discipline remains an issue. Thought Peyper was very officious which stymied the game for both sides, but 6 points given away from unarguable pens under no pressure straight from kick offs.

I genuinely think we can beat the Boks next week. Our backs can stretch them across the pitch, we can compete at rucks and in the lineout, we have a backline that can take it’s chances. Scrum remains the major red flag.

Last point - how much better was the handling by our forwards? Lawes chucking inside balls, people collecting passes on the run with instant contact, Underhill taking a one hander at the back of the line out, and Blamire/Simmonds at the end. Serious improvement.

[sockwithaticket]

This is a proper Australian outfit. Not the world class lot of 15-20 years ago but a side that can and does give the Saffers and ABs a run for their money.

It wasn't, though. Compared to the team that did the double over South Africa in the Rugby Championship this year they're missing both their tighthead (Tupou, Alalaatoa), Koroibete, Kerevi, Cooper, Hodge, Petaia and a couple of others who probably aren't so key.

We had our own absentees, but we have much, much greater depth.

[SaintK]

Pack got munched at too many of the rucks and went nowwhere with its mauls. Has to be a concern vs SA.

Pleasantly surpised by Jonny Hill today.

Yes apart from one silly penalty, easily his best game in an England shirt.

[geordie_6]

Pack got munched at too many of the rucks and went nowwhere with its mauls. Has to be a concern vs SA.

Pleasantly surpised by Jonny Hill today.

Yes apart from one silly penalty, easily his best game in an England shirt.

Not the highest bar to get over right enough...

[Plim]

Disagree on Faz, thought he was much much improved on the 6N where his international career could have ended. Appreciate he’s the go to punching bag but I tend to agree with the BBC report that having 100 caps next to Smith takes a bit of the heat off of him and means oppositions can’t just take flying shots at him. Smith is clearly international standard but let’s not pretend he’s the finished article yet.

The weak link remains Youngs. The pack did pretty well at securing quick ball which was then slowed down at the base. Twice in very good attacking positions Youngs crabbed the wrong way and gave Oz time to recover that they shouldn’t have had.

Tuilagi basically didn’t spend any time on the wing. That’s fine but other teams will exploit this.

Think it’s possible to be too critical. This is a proper Australian outfit. Not the world class lot of 15-20 years ago but a side that can and does give the Saffers and ABs a run for their money. They never looked like winning. They had one meaningful attack based on a good counterruck in loose play and it got defended pretty well. We shouldn’t take for granted the 8 wins in a row over them, it obviously makes it less of a highlight of an autumn than it used to be but it’s a proper test win. Bar an excellent tackle by White in a phase where George had done everything right it could have started to get ugly.

Sloppy discipline remains an issue. Thought Peyper was very officious which stymied the game for both sides, but 6 points given away from unarguable pens under no pressure straight from kick offs.

I genuinely think we can beat the Boks next week. Our backs can stretch them across the pitch, we can compete at rucks and in the lineout, we have a backline that can take it’s chances. Scrum remains the major red flag.

Last point - how much better was the handling by our forwards? Lawes chucking inside balls, people collecting passes on the run with instant contact, Underhill taking a one hander at the back of the line out, and Blamire/Simmonds at the end. Serious improvement.

Farrell is a very limited player IMO, bar his kicking. His bad-form match runs are longer than any good ones. If Smith turns out to be the real deal and we can get some decent centre combinations to stay fit, I’d drop Farrell down the selection order quickly. He stays for now I guess.

Also agree re the refereeing. Neither side had anything to grumble about, but the crowd and audience did.

Lawes’s hands have always been better than many would credit. Not sure about Blamire’s future - it’s horrendous if a team has to opt out of lineouts because the hooker gets the shakes on his throw - but I’m a fan of Simmonds.

[SaintK]

Pack got munched at too many of the rucks and went nowwhere with its mauls. Has to be a concern vs SA.

Pleasantly surpised by Jonny Hill today.

Yes apart from one silly penalty, easily his best game in an England shirt.

Not the highest bar to get over right enough...

True All the performance ratings I've seen on the match put him ahead of Itoje mind

[Torquemada 1420]

It just always seemed/seems to me that England are selecting in lieu of Manu Tuilagi's fitness, rather than going for an ideology and then finding the players. Lawes is another one in this, is he a lock or a six?

Because that is true (as BCM pointed out) i.e. some players will always be selected ahead of any system: Farrell and Tuilagi most notably. Itoje is another but then he would self select in any side in the world.

[Paddington Bear]

Disagree on Faz, thought he was much much improved on the 6N where his international career could have ended. Appreciate he’s the go to punching bag but I tend to agree with the BBC report that having 100 caps next to Smith takes a bit of the heat off of him and means oppositions can’t just take flying shots at him. Smith is clearly international standard but let’s not pretend he’s the finished article yet.

The weak link remains Youngs. The pack did pretty well at securing quick ball which was then slowed down at the base. Twice in very good attacking positions Youngs crabbed the wrong way and gave Oz time to recover that they shouldn’t have had.

Tuilagi basically didn’t spend any time on the wing. That’s fine but other teams will exploit this.

Think it’s possible to be too critical. This is a proper Australian outfit. Not the world class lot of 15-20 years ago but a side that can and does give the Saffers and ABs a run for their money. They never looked like winning. They had one meaningful attack based on a good counterruck in loose play and it got defended pretty well. We shouldn’t take for granted the 8 wins in a row over them, it obviously makes it less of a highlight of an autumn than it used to be but it’s a proper test win. Bar an excellent tackle by White in a phase where George had done everything right it could have started to get ugly.

Sloppy discipline remains an issue. Thought Peyper was very officious which stymied the game for both sides, but 6 points given away from unarguable pens under no pressure straight from kick offs.

I genuinely think we can beat the Boks next week. Our backs can stretch them across the pitch, we can compete at rucks and in the lineout, we have a backline that can take it’s chances. Scrum remains the major red flag.

Last point - how much better was the handling by our forwards? Lawes chucking inside balls, people collecting passes on the run with instant contact, Underhill taking a one hander at the back of the line out, and Blamire/Simmonds at the end. Serious improvement.

Farrell is a very limited player IMO, bar his kicking. His bad-form match runs are longer than any good ones. If Smith turns out to be the real deal and we can get some decent centre combinations to stay fit, I’d drop Farrell down the selection order quickly. He stays for now I guess.

Agree on the latter part. I’m not wedded to him but I thought when we did attack in the first half having a second distributor made life hard for the Aussies and having a kicker takes a huge amount of pressure off Smith in his early starts. We also need to bear in mind that the Boks will relentlessly target him next week, he can expect some late hits etc and having someone else who can and will stand at first receiver gives him more opportunities to unpick defences.

[notfatcat]

I guess it must have been a shit game because I got almost no enjoyment from watching it.

[geordie_6]

One for the stattos:

https://autumnnationsseries.com/report/ ... atch-stats

Oz spent 14s in our 22...

[JM2K6]

The Boks will see how ponderous Farrell was when taking the ball to the line and using the pull back pass, because even Australia worked out that he was offering zero threat and the ball was always going to go to Smith every time, so Smith got lined up.

The pull back works with players who are threats when they have the ball. Sometimes it's a lump of a forward who needs two tacklers. Sometimes it's an agile running threat who scares defences. Sometimes it's someone who mixes it up and will put players through gaps.

What it should never be is a guy just jogging towards the line only to pull it back every time. If Farrell is going to play like that, he needs to commit, and players around him need to get the ball.

[JM2K6]

Also why do we suddenly have a hard on for explaining a disjointed and misfiring attacking performance by saying "oh, having a second distributor was useful in some cases and he took pressure off Smith"? Do we want to take pressure off him? Ford was at his best when he was allowed to run a game. And in case anyone missed it, England have played with at least two distributors for the last 5+ years, often with a third at 13. Was anyone impressed with Farrell and Slade's distribution yesterday? Did it hurt Australia a lot?

Edit: Also, know what else makes space? A 9 who actually worries fringe defences. And one who passes quickly.