The Official English Rugby Thread

[JM2K6]

Back on the discussion about whether current sanctions are doing the job - it's actually really hard to say, because plenty of refs are bottling reds or seeking any opportunity possible to avoid a red. Meanwhile, commentators complain about players being "unlucky", and players act shocked when they're sanctioned for headshots. The sport needs to get its fucking act together. Against Bristol, White got smashed in the face with a shoulder and despite him not having changed body height appreciably, the ref gave a yellow.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Ewels performs the basics well? He's a fucking donkey, and that's when he's actually doing anything. Bad hands, not a particularly effective tackler, not particularly good at the breakdown, a poor carrier. Yes, I'm sure he can shift some bodies.

As for Ireland lacking cohesion - well, they looked pretty cohesive in the first 20 minutes when they threatened to run riot. The red card if anything made them a bit casual for a while.

Can't agree that the lack of attack is just down to being down to 14. It doesn't take all 15 players to mount an effective attack, especially on turnover ball. And when you look at how it's been malfunctioning the rest of the tournament...

His set piece work, scrum, lineout and restarts are solid (and that isn't the case for all our options), and yes he clears bodies well enough. He has big limitations such he's not going to keep a returning Hill or fit Launchbury or a correctly selected Lawes out, but he's normally disciplined to not try anything beyond his limited job description and that allows others a bit more freedom. We don't actually have a lot of forwards like that, a Rowntree for current times perhaps, so I can see why a coach would like him.

Also anything you want to do on attack pretty much takes all 15 (or 14) players, else you'd be betting the bank you're going to score on that phase. Just because players aren't touching the ball, possibly aren't remotely close to doing so, doesn't mean they're not involved. If we'd had something akin to a fit and firing Radradra in midfield then maybe you can score on the back of one player, but we don't have that, the closest we'd have would be Manu and we'd have picked him were he available

[sockwithaticket]

Nobody I've seen is arguing England were going to win had it remained 15 vs 15. Only it ended a contest for a possible win given England were going to blow up at some point.

Also you might not like Ewels, and certainly he's no world beater, but he does a lot of basics to a good standard and you cannot just skip past even if you're set strongly against his inclusion not just in the XV but the EPS

The point is that you can't point at England losing handily at home after being in the contest for the first 71 minutes and then just blame the red, when it's a game England were expected to lose even by those who set the odds. England's "bravery" doesn't hide the fact that coaching of the attack is practically non-existent, that the midfield is horribly unbalanced, that the back row cover was insane, etc etc.

As for Ewels - he's one player, one of the the worst in the side. It's unlikely his presence or otherwise alters the balance of play that much. Ewels doesn't alter our attack in a significant way. Ewels doesn't make our scrum more successful (how much more do you need?). It does mean our tactics at the lineout & mauls were impacted, and it does mean we lacked a big body in other areas, but Ireland were also impacted by his actions and lost out a bit themselves. His removal did not make the match any more of a foregone conclusion than it was already.

I think largely you can cite the red and losing a lock who performs the basics as well as Ewels for 78 minutes is a huge thing. Losing him changes resourcing across the game.

Yes on another day Ireland could have been much better and won with/without the red being issued, but on the day there was a red and Ireland lacked cohesion.

I don't like all our selection all that said, nor that Lawes showed again he's an excellent lock which will perhaps be overlooked. I don't think what we're doing in attack is invisible, ignoring we eschewed attack against Ireland because we only had 14 players (something some oddly seem to think isn't especially relevant) but in other games the shape of what they want to do is there, it lacks the decision making and accuracy you'd want, I agree the backrow needs more back rows, it would have been nice to have Willis and Curry and then probably Dombrandt, and it'd be nice to have some pace in the back three.

It'd also be nice if Randall didn't start like a player somewhat worse than your opinion of Ewels, he should of course stay imo, but his opening trio of contributions would not have made pleasant watching on review

That's a choice, though, isn't it? I've seen plenty of games, where a player pick up a red, even an early one, where teams don't just go into damage limitation mode, they keep trying to attack. Often,they'll succeed. Admittedly it's not as common to be a man down from the second minute, but teams do play matches a man down for a large chunk and not only score points, but keep it close.

[Hal Jordan]

Being reported in The Times that Eddie Jones is going to pick Furbank at fullback.


And start Steward on the wing.

England have been experimenting with a new back line as Eddie Jones plans to expose France’s weakness under the high ball.
The Guinness Six Nations reaches its finale on Saturday night when England hope to deny the French a grand slam in Paris by outkicking their opponents.
England have been training with George Furbank at full back and Freddie Steward moving from No 15 to the wing. If Steward, the 6ft 5in high-ball expert, starts out wide it may indicate that Jones, the head coach, wants to target Gabin Villière, the 5ft 11in France wing.
Playing Steward on the wing could indicate that England are planning to target Villière under the high ball
Playing Steward on the wing could indicate that England are planning to target Villière under the high ball

Or it could mean Jones is just picking a team on a reactive basis, worried about their kicking game, so stuff the back three with high ball specialists.

[Kawazaki]

Or it could mean Jones is just picking a team on a reactive basis, worried about their kicking game, so stuff the back three with high ball specialists.

Yes perhaps. At £800k plus all living expenses he's a real bargain for this kind of elite insight isn't he.

[Hal Jordan]

That's a choice, though, isn't it? I've seen plenty of games, where a player pick up a red, even an early one, where teams don't just go into damage limitation mode, they keep trying to attack. Often,they'll succeed. Admittedly it's not as common to be a man down from the second minute, but teams do play matches a man down for a large chunk and not only score points, but keep it close.

Or if you're England, piss away all ten minutes of the sin bin period against 14, managing to score at the end the 3 points you should have knocked over right when the binning offence was penalised.

[Hal Jordan]

Or it could mean Jones is just picking a team on a reactive basis, worried about their kicking game, so stuff the back three with high ball specialists.

Yes perhaps. At £800k plus all living expenses he's a real bargain for this kind of elite insight isn't he.

I'll do it for ten bob and a pickled egg.

[JM2K6]

Ewels performs the basics well? He's a fucking donkey, and that's when he's actually doing anything. Bad hands, not a particularly effective tackler, not particularly good at the breakdown, a poor carrier. Yes, I'm sure he can shift some bodies.

As for Ireland lacking cohesion - well, they looked pretty cohesive in the first 20 minutes when they threatened to run riot. The red card if anything made them a bit casual for a while.

Can't agree that the lack of attack is just down to being down to 14. It doesn't take all 15 players to mount an effective attack, especially on turnover ball. And when you look at how it's been malfunctioning the rest of the tournament...

His set piece work, scrum, lineout and restarts are solid (and that isn't the case for all our options), and yes he clears bodies well enough. He has big limitations such he's not going to keep a returning Hill or fit Launchbury or a correctly selected Lawes out, but he's normally disciplined to not try anything beyond his limited job description and that allows others a bit more freedom. We don't actually have a lot of forwards like that, a Rowntree for current times perhaps, so I can see why a coach would like him.

Also anything you want to do on attack pretty much takes all 15 (or 14) players, else you'd be betting the bank you're going to score on that phase. Just because players aren't touching the ball, possibly aren't remotely close to doing so, doesn't mean they're not involved. If we'd had something akin to a fit and firing Radradra in midfield then maybe you can score on the back of one player, but we don't have that, the closest we'd have would be Manu and we'd have picked him were he available

We're clearly not going to agree here! Plenty of attacks do not require all 15. Especially if you're using a pod system when players are bypassed with regularity. Ewels wasn't missed in the scrum, he was missed at the lineout and maul where we did fine (and hurt them). Beyond that, he's a very poor carrier, he has no handling skills, he's not a big tackler (ironic), he has no appreciable skills over the ball...

Losing one player out of 15 does not mean you're relying on an individual genius to create and score tries. That's not only a silly thing to say, but demonstrably untrue, as seen by the many, many occasions in which a team that is a man down scores tries.

[Kawazaki]

We're clearly not going to agree here! Plenty of attacks do not require all 15. Especially if you're using a pod system when players are bypassed with regularity. Ewels wasn't missed in the scrum, he was missed at the lineout and maul where we did fine (and hurt them). Beyond that, he's a very poor carrier, he has no handling skills, he's not a big tackler (ironic), he has no appreciable skills over the ball...

Precis: he plays for Bath.

He speaks well in training though which is why Eddiot likes him apparently.

Marvelous.

[Paddington Bear]

He looks a little bit like Jonno, so there's that.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Ewels performs the basics well? He's a fucking donkey, and that's when he's actually doing anything. Bad hands, not a particularly effective tackler, not particularly good at the breakdown, a poor carrier. Yes, I'm sure he can shift some bodies.

As for Ireland lacking cohesion - well, they looked pretty cohesive in the first 20 minutes when they threatened to run riot. The red card if anything made them a bit casual for a while.

Can't agree that the lack of attack is just down to being down to 14. It doesn't take all 15 players to mount an effective attack, especially on turnover ball. And when you look at how it's been malfunctioning the rest of the tournament...

His set piece work, scrum, lineout and restarts are solid (and that isn't the case for all our options), and yes he clears bodies well enough. He has big limitations such he's not going to keep a returning Hill or fit Launchbury or a correctly selected Lawes out, but he's normally disciplined to not try anything beyond his limited job description and that allows others a bit more freedom. We don't actually have a lot of forwards like that, a Rowntree for current times perhaps, so I can see why a coach would like him.

Also anything you want to do on attack pretty much takes all 15 (or 14) players, else you'd be betting the bank you're going to score on that phase. Just because players aren't touching the ball, possibly aren't remotely close to doing so, doesn't mean they're not involved. If we'd had something akin to a fit and firing Radradra in midfield then maybe you can score on the back of one player, but we don't have that, the closest we'd have would be Manu and we'd have picked him were he available

We're clearly not going to agree here! Plenty of attacks do not require all 15. Especially if you're using a pod system when players are bypassed with regularity. Ewels wasn't missed in the scrum, he was missed at the lineout and maul where we did fine (and hurt them). Beyond that, he's a very poor carrier, he has no handling skills, he's not a big tackler (ironic), he has no appreciable skills over the ball...

Losing one player out of 15 does not mean you're relying on an individual genius to create and score tries. That's not only a silly thing to say, but demonstrably untrue, as seen by the many, many occasions in which a team that is a man down scores tries.

Any system, pod or otherwise, needs players on their feet presenting as options, wide and narrow, and players able to support. And whilst it's probably better to lose a forward than a back you'd still then be wanting to 'borrow' some effort from the backs to support the pack's efforts. There is simply no way losing a player helps, there's frankly no way it does other than hurt, even if you don't like the player. You can work around that somewhat if the other side is somewhat worse, or you've got players who can individually change the play, but there aren't many Jason Robinsons going. If the other side is however of a similar standard and fitness, and there's an argument Ireland even edge both of those, it's just bad.

You cannot, or should not, be simply observing players are bypassed in a pod system, take a resource out and not only isn't there a player to mark you can more easily put 2 into a tackle, you can put more pressure on the breakdown, or you can happily sit 3 deep. And for attack there are moments of hesitation as players continually adapt to being down a man, and those little hesitations can turn a 2.8 second ruck into a 3.4 second ruck, and that's huge unless you've a freak who can just break the line and finish or find support

I suppose as the attack providing you still get width you can probe the blindside more to limit the running in support, but that does mean you'll stress the opposition less too assuming they're not simply going to fall off tackles

And worth keeping in mind in some fashion England did have a freak player, they got a massively skewed outcome from the scrum, you'd never normally get that sort of outcome at tier 1 level, and even with it they crashed to a record defeat against a side playing seemingly blindfolded

[Kawazaki]

French team;

15. Melvyn Jaminet, 14. Damian Penaud, 13. Gaël Fickou, 12. Jonathan Danty, 11. Gabin Villière, 10. Romain Ntamack. 9. Antoine Dupont (c), 1. Cyril Baille, 2. Julien Marchand, 3. Uini Atonio, 4. Cameron Woki, 5. Paul Willemse, 6. François Cros, 7. Anthony Jelonch, 8. Grégory Alldritt.

Replacements: 16. Peato Mauvaka, 17. Jean-Baptiste Gros, 18. Mohamed Haouas, 19. Romain Taofifenua, 20. Thibaud Flament, 21. Dylan Cretin, 22. Maxime Lucu, 23. Thomas Ramos


England might get 3 players in that team.

[Hal Jordan]

When the hell is our team named?

[Kawazaki]

When the hell is our team named?

In 15 minutes

[JM2K6]

There is simply no way losing a player helps, there's frankly no way it does other than hurt, even if you don't like the player.

This is getting very silly. No-one claimed losing a player to a red card helps. Stop with the strawman arguments.

[You can work around that somewhat if the other side is somewhat worse, or you've got players who can individually change the play, but there aren't many Jason Robinsons going. If the other side is however of a similar standard and fitness, and there's an argument Ireland even edge both of those, it's just bad.

You cannot, or should not, be simply observing players are bypassed in a pod system, take a resource out and not only isn't there a player to mark you can more easily put 2 into a tackle, you can put more pressure on the breakdown, or you can happily sit 3 deep. And for attack there are moments of hesitation as players continually adapt to being down a man, and those little hesitations can turn a 2.8 second ruck into a 3.4 second ruck, and that's huge unless you've a freak who can just break the line and finish or find support

I suppose as the attack providing you still get width you can probe the blindside more to limit the running in support, but that does mean you'll stress the opposition less too assuming they're not simply going to fall off tackles

And worth keeping in mind in some fashion England did have a freak player, they got a massively skewed outcome from the scrum, you'd never normally get that sort of outcome at tier 1 level, and even with it they crashed to a record defeat against a side playing seemingly blindfolded

Again, stop pretending that you need some kind of genius to be able to mount effective attacks with 14 vs 15. It's total nonsense and is clearly total nonsense because of how often we see sides launch good attacks while down to 14 men. It's not a rare occurrance. It is a bit of a handbrake but nothing more. Maybe in your world every single player cleans out effectively, carries effectively, is heavily involved in every attack that's ever made, but in the real world even phase play regularly has a player or two who basically did nothing except stay in their little part of the field. It does mean you have to be extra judicious about how many people you throw into a ruck but guess what? If you have someone who carries effectively and ties in multiple defenders, then that player missing does not matter.

Countless tries have been scored without using the entire team, even as just a dummy runner. This isn't a huge ask. The red card is not the reason why England spent 16 seconds in the Ireland 22.

[Kawazaki]

All this chat about the England centres, missing Tuilagi etc and France pick a 110kg 12 with a 105kg 13 outside him!

[JM2K6]

We'd kill for Danty. I was thinking this when watching some highlights the other day - we try and make guys like Odogwu and Lawrence into our crash ball centres, but while both those guys are strong buggers, they're just not that big. Danty is huge in comparison.

[Margin__Walker]

He's actually done it. Stop the train. I want to get off.

"Nah Mate. Wingers don't have to be quick. That's what they want you to think"

[Kawazaki]

Fucking hell, it was true...

15. George Furbank
14. Freddie Steward
13. Joe Marchant
12. Henry Slade
11. Jack Nowell
10. Marcus Smith
9. Ben Youngs
1. Ellis Genge
2. Jamie George
3. Will Stuart
4. Maro Itoje
5. Nick Isiekwe
6. Courtney Lawes
7. Sam Underhill
8. Sam Simmonds

Subs

16. Nic Dolly
17. Joe Marler
18. Kyle Sinckler
19. Ollie Chessum
20. Alex Dombrandt
21. Harry Randall
22. George Ford
23. Elliot Daly

[JM2K6]

[inactionman]

Much as I like Ford, why have a pretty much exclusive 10 on the bench when we've got a 10/15 at 15 and a 15 on the wing? Ford's ben touted as cover for 9 in a pinch but we've got Randall.

Why am I even asking.

[Monk]

i would be loathe to condemn Ewels for his red card

kak happens

bloody sure he cried that night

[JM2K6]

Randall dropped despite Youngs' negative impact off the bench. Furbank at 15. Steward on the wing. Underhill straight in at 7 with no replacement for him in the match day squad. Chessum on the bench ahead of better options (this was a wider squad issue). Stuart starting. Same centre combo. Daly still in the squad. Lawes still on the flank despite showing why he's a lock. Launchbury gone completely.

[Margin__Walker]

A few years ago we had prime Watson and May on the wing.

Now we have 2022 Nowell and Steward. With Furbank adding the panache from the back.

We'll probably bloody win, because Eddie always gets a lifeline, but fucking hell.

[Paddington Bear]

[Monk]

Fucking hell, it was true...

15. George Furbank

14. Freddie Steward




9. Ben Youngs

the artful dodger is an idiot

[Kawazaki]

They say it's the hope that kills you.

Well, at least we'll all live through this one.

[sockwithaticket]

Laugh or cry really. I've really given up on Eddie's England. I'll watch the game, but I don't have it in me to care about the results. I was feeling that even going into the Ireland game. Just marking time 'til the poisonous dwarf is gone.

[Oxbow]

Jesus H Christ. The whole thing just stinks of Eddie knows best.

[Ovals]

There is simply no way losing a player helps, there's frankly no way it does other than hurt, even if you don't like the player.

This is getting very silly. No-one claimed losing a player to a red card helps. Stop with the strawman arguments.

[You can work around that somewhat if the other side is somewhat worse, or you've got players who can individually change the play, but there aren't many Jason Robinsons going. If the other side is however of a similar standard and fitness, and there's an argument Ireland even edge both of those, it's just bad.

You cannot, or should not, be simply observing players are bypassed in a pod system, take a resource out and not only isn't there a player to mark you can more easily put 2 into a tackle, you can put more pressure on the breakdown, or you can happily sit 3 deep. And for attack there are moments of hesitation as players continually adapt to being down a man, and those little hesitations can turn a 2.8 second ruck into a 3.4 second ruck, and that's huge unless you've a freak who can just break the line and finish or find support

I suppose as the attack providing you still get width you can probe the blindside more to limit the running in support, but that does mean you'll stress the opposition less too assuming they're not simply going to fall off tackles

And worth keeping in mind in some fashion England did have a freak player, they got a massively skewed outcome from the scrum, you'd never normally get that sort of outcome at tier 1 level, and even with it they crashed to a record defeat against a side playing seemingly blindfolded

Again, stop pretending that you need some kind of genius to be able to mount effective attacks with 14 vs 15. It's total nonsense and is clearly total nonsense because of how often we see sides launch good attacks while down to 14 men. It's not a rare occurrance. It is a bit of a handbrake but nothing more. Maybe in your world every single player cleans out effectively, carries effectively, is heavily involved in every attack that's ever made, but in the real world even phase play regularly has a player or two who basically did nothing except stay in their little part of the field. It does mean you have to be extra judicious about how many people you throw into a ruck but guess what? If you have someone who carries effectively and ties in multiple defenders, then that player missing does not matter.

Countless tries have been scored without using the entire team, even as just a dummy runner. This isn't a huge ask. The red card is not the reason why England spent 16 seconds in the Ireland 22.

The average points defecit for a sin binning is 3-5 points - lose a player for the equivalent of 8 sin bins, against a good side, and you're facing a potential 24- 40 point disadvantage. England beat the spread but he result of the Ireland game was all but decided when the idiot Ewels got himslef sent off.

[JM2K6]

There is simply no way losing a player helps, there's frankly no way it does other than hurt, even if you don't like the player.

This is getting very silly. No-one claimed losing a player to a red card helps. Stop with the strawman arguments.

[You can work around that somewhat if the other side is somewhat worse, or you've got players who can individually change the play, but there aren't many Jason Robinsons going. If the other side is however of a similar standard and fitness, and there's an argument Ireland even edge both of those, it's just bad.

You cannot, or should not, be simply observing players are bypassed in a pod system, take a resource out and not only isn't there a player to mark you can more easily put 2 into a tackle, you can put more pressure on the breakdown, or you can happily sit 3 deep. And for attack there are moments of hesitation as players continually adapt to being down a man, and those little hesitations can turn a 2.8 second ruck into a 3.4 second ruck, and that's huge unless you've a freak who can just break the line and finish or find support

I suppose as the attack providing you still get width you can probe the blindside more to limit the running in support, but that does mean you'll stress the opposition less too assuming they're not simply going to fall off tackles

And worth keeping in mind in some fashion England did have a freak player, they got a massively skewed outcome from the scrum, you'd never normally get that sort of outcome at tier 1 level, and even with it they crashed to a record defeat against a side playing seemingly blindfolded

Again, stop pretending that you need some kind of genius to be able to mount effective attacks with 14 vs 15. It's total nonsense and is clearly total nonsense because of how often we see sides launch good attacks while down to 14 men. It's not a rare occurrance. It is a bit of a handbrake but nothing more. Maybe in your world every single player cleans out effectively, carries effectively, is heavily involved in every attack that's ever made, but in the real world even phase play regularly has a player or two who basically did nothing except stay in their little part of the field. It does mean you have to be extra judicious about how many people you throw into a ruck but guess what? If you have someone who carries effectively and ties in multiple defenders, then that player missing does not matter.

Countless tries have been scored without using the entire team, even as just a dummy runner. This isn't a huge ask. The red card is not the reason why England spent 16 seconds in the Ireland 22.

The average points defecit for a sin binning is 3-5 points - lose a player for the equivalent of 8 sin bins, against a good side, and you're facing a potential 24- 40 point disadvantage. England beat the spread but he result of the Ireland game was all but decided when the idiot Ewels got himslef sent off.

Someone should tell those teams that failed to win when playing against a roughly equivalent side with a man down, then. Teams don't get gifted points just for having the man advantage. In the last 5 years we've seen countless examples of this.

Also not to state the bleedin' obvious, but a yellow card is often followed by 3 points because of the penalty that's been given. You can't just multiply it like that.

[Crash669]

Jesus H Christ. The whole thing just stinks of Eddie knows best.

Been that way for a while now, but whenever he gets publicly questioned too much he's got to up the ante on trolling. He really is a petty, spiteful man.

[Ovals]

This is getting very silly. No-one claimed losing a player to a red card helps. Stop with the strawman arguments.



Again, stop pretending that you need some kind of genius to be able to mount effective attacks with 14 vs 15. It's total nonsense and is clearly total nonsense because of how often we see sides launch good attacks while down to 14 men. It's not a rare occurrance. It is a bit of a handbrake but nothing more. Maybe in your world every single player cleans out effectively, carries effectively, is heavily involved in every attack that's ever made, but in the real world even phase play regularly has a player or two who basically did nothing except stay in their little part of the field. It does mean you have to be extra judicious about how many people you throw into a ruck but guess what? If you have someone who carries effectively and ties in multiple defenders, then that player missing does not matter.

Countless tries have been scored without using the entire team, even as just a dummy runner. This isn't a huge ask. The red card is not the reason why England spent 16 seconds in the Ireland 22.

The average points defecit for a sin binning is 3-5 points - lose a player for the equivalent of 8 sin bins, against a good side, and you're facing a potential 24- 40 point disadvantage. England beat the spread but he result of the Ireland game was all but decided when the idiot Ewels got himslef sent off.

Someone should tell those teams that failed to win when playing against a roughly equivalent side with a man down, then. Teams don't get gifted points just for having the man advantage. In the last 5 years we've seen countless examples of this.

Countless

Lots of factors to consider - eg how many of them played the whole game with 14. Anyway, it stands to reason that losing a player for 80mins, against a team that were already favourites, is a huge disadvantage and, even if you then play well, you're almost certain to lose.

[Paddington Bear]

At least we've settled the great 'should I go easy on the beers at lunchtime on Super Saturday' debate for another year.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Well that makes very little sense if true. Even less sense with a bad kicker like Randall, so there might be more news people might not like

It did feel like it was coming if the very strange rumours were true, the return of the Youngs. There is Randall did play like a turkey against Ireland, and Youngs was an improvement off the bench, but this does feel like a retrograde step and for what? It's not like we can win anything from this game so back some players who need the experience .

Also, last season we beat France playing about as fast a game as ever seen from England, and now we arrive at this. I'd have been happy with the game last season had we lost, I cannot imagine being happy with this one if we win

[JM2K6]

The average points defecit for a sin binning is 3-5 points - lose a player for the equivalent of 8 sin bins, against a good side, and you're facing a potential 24- 40 point disadvantage. England beat the spread but he result of the Ireland game was all but decided when the idiot Ewels got himslef sent off.

Someone should tell those teams that failed to win when playing against a roughly equivalent side with a man down, then. Teams don't get gifted points just for having the man advantage. In the last 5 years we've seen countless examples of this.

Countless

Lots of factors to consider - eg how many of them played the whole game with 14. Anyway, it stands to reason that losing a player for 80mins, against a team that were already favourites, is a huge disadvantage and, even if you then play well, you're almost certain to lose.

It's plenty of times, yeah - because it's always mentioned on here when it happens and it's been happening often enough to become a meme. Of course you also jumped into an argument that was partly about England's total lack of attacking ability, which cannot be blamed purely on the red card even though R&C seems convinced that all and every attack is stymied by the lack of Ewels.

But you missed my edit as well, 3-5 points for a yellow card is meaningless given how often a yellow is immediately followed by a 3 point penalty. You can't just multiply that out. They don't get a free penalty every 10 minutes. Plus yellows are sometimes given for sides that are under huge pressure and infringing to stop tries in situations where they were likely to concede anyway. Stats analysis doesn't work like that.

[Ovals]

Well that makes very little sense if true. Even less sense with a bad kicker like Randall, so there might be more news people might not like

It did feel like it was coming if the very strange rumours were true, the return of the Youngs. There is Randall did play like a turkey against Ireland, and Youngs was an improvement off the bench, but this does feel like a retrograde step and for what? It's not like we can win anything from this game so back some players who need the experience .

Also, last season we beat France playing about as fast a game as ever seen from England, and now we arrive at this. I'd have been happy with the game last season had we lost, I cannot imagine being happy with this one if we win

Do you seriously think Youngs was an improvement in the Ireland game

[JM2K6]

Well that makes very little sense if true. Even less sense with a bad kicker like Randall, so there might be more news people might not like

It did feel like it was coming if the very strange rumours were true, the return of the Youngs. There is Randall did play like a turkey against Ireland, and Youngs was an improvement off the bench, but this does feel like a retrograde step and for what? It's not like we can win anything from this game so back some players who need the experience .

Also, last season we beat France playing about as fast a game as ever seen from England, and now we arrive at this. I'd have been happy with the game last season had we lost, I cannot imagine being happy with this one if we win

Youngs was not an improvement and calling Randall a turkey is bizarre. He messed up a couple of kicks, but so did Youngs. He provided some actual pace and threat on occasion, and Youngs did not. He tackled better than Youngs. He didn't give away a dumb penalty like Youngs.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Well that makes very little sense if true. Even less sense with a bad kicker like Randall, so there might be more news people might not like

It did feel like it was coming if the very strange rumours were true, the return of the Youngs. There is Randall did play like a turkey against Ireland, and Youngs was an improvement off the bench, but this does feel like a retrograde step and for what? It's not like we can win anything from this game so back some players who need the experience .

Also, last season we beat France playing about as fast a game as ever seen from England, and now we arrive at this. I'd have been happy with the game last season had we lost, I cannot imagine being happy with this one if we win

Do you seriously think Youngs was an improvement in the Ireland game

Randall was really bad in fairness, properly stank the place out at times. still don't think it makes sense not to pick Randall again mind

[Ovals]

Someone should tell those teams that failed to win when playing against a roughly equivalent side with a man down, then. Teams don't get gifted points just for having the man advantage. In the last 5 years we've seen countless examples of this.

Countless

Lots of factors to consider - eg how many of them played the whole game with 14. Anyway, it stands to reason that losing a player for 80mins, against a team that were already favourites, is a huge disadvantage and, even if you then play well, you're almost certain to lose.

It's plenty of times, yeah - because it's always mentioned on here when it happens and it's been happening often enough to become a meme. Of course you also jumped into an argument that was partly about England's total lack of attacking ability, which cannot be blamed purely on the red card even though R&C seems convinced that all and every attack is stymied by the lack of Ewels.

But you missed my edit as well, 3-5 points for a yellow card is meaningless given how often a yellow is immediately followed by a 3 point penalty. You can't just multiply that out. They don't get a free penalty every 10 minutes.

Except that most times the attacking side doesn't take the 3 points on offer, preferring to go for the try, knowing they have an extra man and the defending side is at a big disadvantage.

So, what other games have a side won after being down a man in the 1st couple of mins ?