The Official English Rugby Thread

[Paddington Bear]

Let's not start pretending the Billy V and Farrell tackles are seen in every game. They were really bad and deserved bans, and we thankfully don't see many of those cheap shots in the game.

I’m obviously being provocative, but what’s the difference?
- Owen Farrell attempts to put in a big hit on the chest/ball to ‘dominate’. Sloppy, Gets it wrong. Hit in the head, clear red and cue pearl clutching
- Tom Curry. Flies in from miles away. Tackle has already been made. Always out of control, gets it wrong and slams into the face. Dangerous, no arguments on a red and a ban.
- Jesse Kriel. Flies out the line to make a dominant hit and disrupt Scottish possession. Out of control, gets it wrong, hits in the face. Dangerous, no sanction.
- Dan Biggar. Flies out the line to make a dominant hit and disrupt Fiji’s attack. Succeeds. Out of control, head contact. Dangerous, no sanction
- Chilean lad, well you’re getting the idea

I’m not suggesting for a moment Faz didn’t deserve a ban (and said so at the time), I’m saying I’m curious where the moral outrage, ‘our game is dying’, ‘won’t someone PLEASE think of the children’ has gone given the amount of head contact we saw at the weekend.

That's nonsense.

One of the reasons that there was so much reaction to Farrell's most recent transgression is because he is a serial offender - portraying the reaction to him getting that ban as histrionics and "pearl clutching" is more of the same shite you get from those saying we should watch another sport or "game's gone soft".

The reaction was also because he'd been to tackle school before the latest ban - this is a 31 year old professional with around 350 senior games to his name including over 100 England caps plus B&I Lions - you shouldn't be making excuses for him or turning your ire away from him and onto those who want to see these high hits taken out of the game. The blame lies fairly and squarely at Farrell's feet, or shoulder, not with anyone else.

I fully supported Farrell’s ban (and was clear he should have been red carded against Gloucester, a decision that would have cost my team the game) , if you see excuse making for his conduct in that post or my others on the subject it is on you not me.

I’m just surprised that so many people who seemed so concerned about head contact have gone so quiet during a weekend where there were a number of incidents, so poorly and inconsistently officiated

[Tichtheid]

I’m obviously being provocative, but what’s the difference?
- Owen Farrell attempts to put in a big hit on the chest/ball to ‘dominate’. Sloppy, Gets it wrong. Hit in the head, clear red and cue pearl clutching
- Tom Curry. Flies in from miles away. Tackle has already been made. Always out of control, gets it wrong and slams into the face. Dangerous, no arguments on a red and a ban.
- Jesse Kriel. Flies out the line to make a dominant hit and disrupt Scottish possession. Out of control, gets it wrong, hits in the face. Dangerous, no sanction.
- Dan Biggar. Flies out the line to make a dominant hit and disrupt Fiji’s attack. Succeeds. Out of control, head contact. Dangerous, no sanction
- Chilean lad, well you’re getting the idea

I’m not suggesting for a moment Faz didn’t deserve a ban (and said so at the time), I’m saying I’m curious where the moral outrage, ‘our game is dying’, ‘won’t someone PLEASE think of the children’ has gone given the amount of head contact we saw at the weekend.

That's nonsense.

One of the reasons that there was so much reaction to Farrell's most recent transgression is because he is a serial offender - portraying the reaction to him getting that ban as histrionics and "pearl clutching" is more of the same shite you get from those saying we should watch another sport or "game's gone soft".

The reaction was also because he'd been to tackle school before the latest ban - this is a 31 year old professional with around 350 senior games to his name including over 100 England caps plus B&I Lions - you shouldn't be making excuses for him or turning your ire away from him and onto those who want to see these high hits taken out of the game. The blame lies fairly and squarely at Farrell's feet, or shoulder, not with anyone else.

I fully supported Farrell’s ban (and was clear he should have been red carded against Gloucester, a decision that would have cost my team the game) , if you see excuse making for his conduct in that post or my others on the subject it is on you not me.

I’m just surprised that so many people who seemed so concerned about head contact have gone so quiet during a weekend where there were a number of incidents, so poorly and inconsistently officiated

What exactly do you mean by "pearl clutching" in that sentence, then?

[Paddington Bear]

That's nonsense.

One of the reasons that there was so much reaction to Farrell's most recent transgression is because he is a serial offender - portraying the reaction to him getting that ban as histrionics and "pearl clutching" is more of the same shite you get from those saying we should watch another sport or "game's gone soft".

The reaction was also because he'd been to tackle school before the latest ban - this is a 31 year old professional with around 350 senior games to his name including over 100 England caps plus B&I Lions - you shouldn't be making excuses for him or turning your ire away from him and onto those who want to see these high hits taken out of the game. The blame lies fairly and squarely at Farrell's feet, or shoulder, not with anyone else.

I fully supported Farrell’s ban (and was clear he should have been red carded against Gloucester, a decision that would have cost my team the game) , if you see excuse making for his conduct in that post or my others on the subject it is on you not me.

I’m just surprised that so many people who seemed so concerned about head contact have gone so quiet during a weekend where there were a number of incidents, so poorly and inconsistently officiated

What exactly do you mean by "pearl clutching" in that sentence, then?

That people who declared Faz’s tackle/initial non suspension to be the death of the sport, but have suddenly gone quiet this weekend are bullshitters with a personal vendetta

[Tichtheid]

That people who declared Faz’s tackle/initial non suspension to be the death of the sport, but have suddenly gone quiet this weekend are bullshitters with a personal vendetta

Who has done this?

I've read lots on the Kriel incident and also on Biggar, there have also been lots of views that Curry's red was the right decision.

[inactionman]

That people who declared Faz’s tackle/initial non suspension to be the death of the sport, but have suddenly gone quiet this weekend are bullshitters with a personal vendetta

Who has done this?

I've read lots on the Kriel incident and also on Biggar

I'm not sure it was quite the same scale and volume, though.

[inactionman]

Ultimately it's all the same point - there are tackles going in which objectively fail the regulations, and they're not being consistently sanctioned despite all the focus and the TMO oversight.

[sockwithaticket]

That people who declared Faz’s tackle/initial non suspension to be the death of the sport, but have suddenly gone quiet this weekend are bullshitters with a personal vendetta

Who has done this?

I've read lots on the Kriel incident and also on Biggar

I'm not sure it was quite the same scale and volume, though.

True, but being England captain will always draw a lot more attention and he was a serial offender who initially looked to be getting off scot free. I can understand why there isn't quite so much noise about the other incidents.

Although I do think Kriel should be red and he's incredibly lucky not to have been cited.

[Tichtheid]

That people who declared Faz’s tackle/initial non suspension to be the death of the sport, but have suddenly gone quiet this weekend are bullshitters with a personal vendetta

Who has done this?

I've read lots on the Kriel incident and also on Biggar

I'm not sure it was quite the same scale and volume, though.

It depends where you are reading - I think the English media will go all in a story about the English captain and whip up lots of clicks, driving advertising revenue. Less so when it involves players who perhaps don't generate the same interest in England.

[Tichtheid]

Ultimately it's all the same point - there are tackles going in which objectively fail the regulations, and they're not being consistently sanctioned despite all the focus and the TMO oversight.

For me this is the most disappointing thing out of the weekend's action. The new system was supposed to get rid of inconsistency in decisions/sanctions.

The rugby should be the talking point but because of their ineptitude we are still talking about shite officiating.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

I fully supported Farrell’s ban

I didn't, and don't. he shouldn't have got the mitigation he did, he should have gotten time added to the ban for aggravating factors

[JM2K6]

Let's not start pretending the Billy V and Farrell tackles are seen in every game. They were really bad and deserved bans, and we thankfully don't see many of those cheap shots in the game.

I’m obviously being provocative, but what’s the difference?
- Owen Farrell attempts to put in a big hit on the chest/ball to ‘dominate’. Sloppy, Gets it wrong. Hit in the head, clear red and cue pearl clutching
- Tom Curry. Flies in from miles away. Tackle has already been made. Always out of control, gets it wrong and slams into the face. Dangerous, no arguments on a red and a ban.
- Jesse Kriel. Flies out the line to make a dominant hit and disrupt Scottish possession. Out of control, gets it wrong, hits in the face. Dangerous, no sanction.
- Dan Biggar. Flies out the line to make a dominant hit and disrupt Fiji’s attack. Succeeds. Out of control, head contact. Dangerous, no sanction
- Chilean lad, well you’re getting the idea

I’m not suggesting for a moment Faz didn’t deserve a ban (and said so at the time), I’m saying I’m curious where the moral outrage, ‘our game is dying’, ‘won’t someone PLEASE think of the children’ has gone given the amount of head contact we saw at the weekend.

Honestly? The difference is some are poor attempts to tackle legally - i.e. being too upright but still trying to wrap - and some are cheap shots with a braced shoulder aimed high (and sometimes driving up).

Farrell drove a shoulder into a player's jaw with no attempt to wrap. Billy drove a shoulder into a player's jaw with no attempt to wrap. They're cheap shots. I think upright tackles should be stamped out so I'm not going to pretend that they aren't dangerous, but there's a level of understanding that these things take time and that players can be found going in too high without it being 100% their fault. Billy and Faz don't get that benefit of the doubt, because they didn't even bother to do the very basics of a legal tackle, and Farrell is a recidivist. It also blew up more with Farrell because the card was initially rescinded.

Not sure I ever saw any "our game is dying" stuff except in relation to the red card being rescinded, tbf.

As for this weekend's stuff - hand on heart, I only saw one tackle that would be in the same ballpark as Farrell's and that was a Fijian shoulder charge on Tompkins that wasn't caught and wasn't replayed. No argument plenty of headshots were missed and there's been plenty of criticism of that; less than with other tackles because they weren't quite as blatant.

(I also think you're being unfair to Curry - the tackle hadn't already been made, he was trying to hit a player as he came down from a jump and didn't bend enough, though he clearly bent a bit, and the player landing also dropped as he landed, as you'd expect. Still Curry's fault, but it's not like he lined up a tackled player from miles away and headshotted him).

[JM2K6]

I fully supported Farrell’s ban (and was clear he should have been red carded against Gloucester, a decision that would have cost my team the game) , if you see excuse making for his conduct in that post or my others on the subject it is on you not me.

I’m just surprised that so many people who seemed so concerned about head contact have gone so quiet during a weekend where there were a number of incidents, so poorly and inconsistently officiated

What exactly do you mean by "pearl clutching" in that sentence, then?

That people who declared Faz’s tackle/initial non suspension to be the death of the sport, but have suddenly gone quiet this weekend are bullshitters with a personal vendetta

fwiw as someone who was very loud about Faz and the process, I have consistently been critical of how the sport deals with head contact and I've been less vocal this weekend because a) most of my ire was reserved for Carley, b) none of it involved England - Curry's red was fair enough, and c) honestly we all know that this is an absolute shitshow anyway, so responses to a weekend of bonkers decision making are largely a case of throwing your hands up in the air in exasperation.

I got very worked up about Sam Cane smashing Robbie Henshaw's jaw several years ago in the Dublin Revenge Match - far more than for most tackles, because it was (to me) much worse and ridiculous that it was let off scot free at the time. These days it's a straight red and a long ban, no question. Cane's not Farrell and I had no emotional attachment to that game - what gets me worked up is how bad I think the tackle is and how bad I think the officials response to it is.

[tc27]

TL:DR England were getting beasted before and after all those warm up matches with no concessions made towards resting for matches.

I am not at all inclined towards copium about how good England are. But., fitness and physicality did seem to have taken a significant step up on Saturday (however no-one seems to have any idea about what to do in the final third with the ball).

[inactionman]

Let's not start pretending the Billy V and Farrell tackles are seen in every game. They were really bad and deserved bans, and we thankfully don't see many of those cheap shots in the game.

I’m obviously being provocative, but what’s the difference?
- Owen Farrell attempts to put in a big hit on the chest/ball to ‘dominate’. Sloppy, Gets it wrong. Hit in the head, clear red and cue pearl clutching
- Tom Curry. Flies in from miles away. Tackle has already been made. Always out of control, gets it wrong and slams into the face. Dangerous, no arguments on a red and a ban.
- Jesse Kriel. Flies out the line to make a dominant hit and disrupt Scottish possession. Out of control, gets it wrong, hits in the face. Dangerous, no sanction.
- Dan Biggar. Flies out the line to make a dominant hit and disrupt Fiji’s attack. Succeeds. Out of control, head contact. Dangerous, no sanction
- Chilean lad, well you’re getting the idea

I’m not suggesting for a moment Faz didn’t deserve a ban (and said so at the time), I’m saying I’m curious where the moral outrage, ‘our game is dying’, ‘won’t someone PLEASE think of the children’ has gone given the amount of head contact we saw at the weekend.

Honestly? The difference is some are poor attempts to tackle legally - i.e. being too upright but still trying to wrap - and some are cheap shots with a braced shoulder aimed high (and sometimes driving up).

Farrell drove a shoulder into a player's jaw with no attempt to wrap. Billy drove a shoulder into a player's jaw with no attempt to wrap. They're cheap shots. I think upright tackles should be stamped out so I'm not going to pretend that they aren't dangerous, but there's a level of understanding that these things take time and that players can be found going in too high without it being 100% their fault. Billy and Faz don't get that benefit of the doubt, because they didn't even bother to do the very basics of a legal tackle, and Farrell is a recidivist. It also blew up more with Farrell because the card was initially rescinded.

Not sure I ever saw any "our game is dying" stuff except in relation to the red card being rescinded, tbf.

As for this weekend's stuff - hand on heart, I only saw one tackle that would be in the same ballpark as Farrell's and that was a Fijian shoulder charge on Tompkins that wasn't caught and wasn't replayed. No argument plenty of headshots were missed and there's been plenty of criticism of that; less than with other tackles because they weren't quite as blatant.

(I also think you're being unfair to Curry - the tackle hadn't already been made, he was trying to hit a player as he came down from a jump and didn't bend enough, though he clearly bent a bit, and the player landing also dropped as he landed, as you'd expect. Still Curry's fault, but it's not like he lined up a tackled player from miles away and headshotted him).

I might stand to be corrected, but I understood intent/recklessness/laziness etc isn't actually part of the offence - it's only part of the mitigations.

We need an objective law to say what constitutes a fair tackle, we can then add/subtract to the punishment based upon a perception of recklessness and intent and any factors such as lack of wrapping or (yes, yes) whether it's a repeat offence for a given player.

What I'm getting at is it doesn't matter in law or in concept whether the player meant to do it or was reckless. We're supposed to penalise it regardless. And that didn't happen.

We've spoken before about the questionable logic of allowing shoulder high tackles whilst penalising head-high, such that a difference in tackle height of a few inches takes it from high-fives with team mates to red cards, but that's where we are. We still need to penalise the head shots, even if we've a degree of sympathy with the tackler.

On the Sam Cane tackle you reference in a sperate post, I was also appalled when I saw it. and equally appalled by his response - something along the lines of Henshaw pirouetting so what was Cane supposed to do. If he can't work out that players might turn through a tackle, and will naturally be falling to ground so he better not throw a high shoulder, then he's no real place on a rugby field. (I don't think that, btw, I just thought it was a ridiculous defence to an utter shocker of a tackle, and notably recalcitrant)

[inactionman]

Interview with Cips in the Grauniad

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/ ... -world-cup

[JM2K6]

TL:DR England were getting beasted before and after all those warm up matches with no concessions made towards resting for matches.

I am not at all inclined towards copium about how good England are. But., fitness and physicality did seem to have taken a significant step up on Saturday (however no-one seems to have any idea about what to do in the final third with the ball).

Fitness yes, and we definitely seemed to struggle less with the heat than most teams. Physicality... eh, I'm not sure we did anything any of the teams ranked above us wouldn't have done. Look at how Fiji were still tearing lumps out of Wales with 10 minutes to go - we offered nothing like that.

Argentina were so godawful from the first minute that I am very wary of a lot of the takes around how we made them look bad, how our defence was excellent, etc. I'm not sure you can draw a lot of conclusions from that game, other than England's approach works if the opposition drop everything in sight. If we go up against a physical team that doesn't just drop the ball all the time and actually fights back, we are most likely still in for a world of hurt.

Lucky for us, that's not going to happen until the QF at the earliest.

[JM2K6]

I’m obviously being provocative, but what’s the difference?
- Owen Farrell attempts to put in a big hit on the chest/ball to ‘dominate’. Sloppy, Gets it wrong. Hit in the head, clear red and cue pearl clutching
- Tom Curry. Flies in from miles away. Tackle has already been made. Always out of control, gets it wrong and slams into the face. Dangerous, no arguments on a red and a ban.
- Jesse Kriel. Flies out the line to make a dominant hit and disrupt Scottish possession. Out of control, gets it wrong, hits in the face. Dangerous, no sanction.
- Dan Biggar. Flies out the line to make a dominant hit and disrupt Fiji’s attack. Succeeds. Out of control, head contact. Dangerous, no sanction
- Chilean lad, well you’re getting the idea

I’m not suggesting for a moment Faz didn’t deserve a ban (and said so at the time), I’m saying I’m curious where the moral outrage, ‘our game is dying’, ‘won’t someone PLEASE think of the children’ has gone given the amount of head contact we saw at the weekend.

Honestly? The difference is some are poor attempts to tackle legally - i.e. being too upright but still trying to wrap - and some are cheap shots with a braced shoulder aimed high (and sometimes driving up).

Farrell drove a shoulder into a player's jaw with no attempt to wrap. Billy drove a shoulder into a player's jaw with no attempt to wrap. They're cheap shots. I think upright tackles should be stamped out so I'm not going to pretend that they aren't dangerous, but there's a level of understanding that these things take time and that players can be found going in too high without it being 100% their fault. Billy and Faz don't get that benefit of the doubt, because they didn't even bother to do the very basics of a legal tackle, and Farrell is a recidivist. It also blew up more with Farrell because the card was initially rescinded.

Not sure I ever saw any "our game is dying" stuff except in relation to the red card being rescinded, tbf.

As for this weekend's stuff - hand on heart, I only saw one tackle that would be in the same ballpark as Farrell's and that was a Fijian shoulder charge on Tompkins that wasn't caught and wasn't replayed. No argument plenty of headshots were missed and there's been plenty of criticism of that; less than with other tackles because they weren't quite as blatant.

(I also think you're being unfair to Curry - the tackle hadn't already been made, he was trying to hit a player as he came down from a jump and didn't bend enough, though he clearly bent a bit, and the player landing also dropped as he landed, as you'd expect. Still Curry's fault, but it's not like he lined up a tackled player from miles away and headshotted him).

I might stand to be corrected, but I understood intent/recklessness/laziness etc isn't actually part of the offence - it's only part of the mitigations.

We need an objective law to say what constitutes a fair tackle, we can then add/subtract to the punishment based upon a perception of recklessness and intent and any factors such as lack of wrapping or (yes, yes) whether it's a repeat offence for a given player.

What I'm getting at is it doesn't matter in law or in concept whether the player meant to do it or was reckless. We're supposed to penalise it regardless. And that didn't happen.

We've spoken before about the questionable logic of allowing shoulder high tackles whilst penalising head-high, such that a difference in tackle height of a few inches takes it from high-fives with team mates to red cards, but that's where we are. We still need to penalise the head shots, even if we've a degree of sympathy with the tackler.

On the Sam Cane tackle you reference in a sperate post, I was also appalled when I saw it. and equally appalled by his response - something along the lines of Henshaw pirouetting so what was Cane supposed to do. If he can't work out that players might turn through a tackle, and will naturally be falling to ground so he better not throw a high shoulder, then he's no real place on a rugby field. (I don't think that, btw, I just thought it was a ridiculous defence to an utter shocker of a tackle, and notably recalcitrant)

I think there's a clear difference between what consitutes an illegal tackle in the law vs what will make people consider one being worse than the other. Not all headshots are the same. Totally agree they're supposed to be penalised regardless and not for a second do I think Kriel should've gotten away with his (twice, given the lack of citing). Biggar I don't know about as I haven't seen the footage.

Crunch someone in the jaw with a shoulder with no attempt to wrap and it's going to piss people off more than what looks like a simple misjudgment.

Anyway, here's hoping the tackle height changes in the amateur game have the desired effect and we see something similar in the pro game.

[Hal Jordan]

We might sea some old fashioned tackles rather than "dominant hits".

[JM2K6]

We might sea some old fashioned tackles rather than "dominant hits".

I'm not so shore about that. I think defence coaches would probably find a way to sail around it.

[Hal Jordan]

We might sea some old fashioned tackles rather than "dominant hits".

I'm not so shore about that. I think defence coaches would probably find a way to sail around it.

A shoulder driven hard into the ribs/gut like you're trying to tackle their spine from the front is always a great sight. I was never the most skilful but I could tackle bloody hard, and enjoyed it.

[TQoET]

Interview with Cips in the Grauniad

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/ ... -world-cup

Thanks for that.

As a Wasps fan, like many, I watched Cipriani come through and had all the hopes in the world for him as such a talented player. He’s obviously been his own worst enemy at times, but he’s never really seemed (to me) to be the total dickhead, people seem to want him to be (maybe my Wasps bias again ).

Caroline Flack’s death must have been horrendous for him, particularly if he feels things could have been different if he hadn’t missed her call.

As the parent of a child who has suffered from depression since the age of 16, I worry every single day. I’m glad that Cips seems to be at peace with himself.

[TQoET]

We might sea some old fashioned tackles rather than "dominant hits".

I'm not so shore about that. I think defence coaches would probably find a way to sail around it.

A shoulder driven hard into the ribs/gut like you're trying to tackle their spine from the front is always a great sight. I was never the most skilful but I could tackle bloody hard, and enjoyed it.

Kinda whooshed a bit there.

[JM2K6]

I'm not so shore about that. I think defence coaches would probably find a way to sail around it.

A shoulder driven hard into the ribs/gut like you're trying to tackle their spine from the front is always a great sight. I was never the most skilful but I could tackle bloody hard, and enjoyed it.

Kinda whooshed a bit there.

[Hal Jordan]

I'm not so shore about that. I think defence coaches would probably find a way to sail around it.

A shoulder driven hard into the ribs/gut like you're trying to tackle their spine from the front is always a great sight. I was never the most skilful but I could tackle bloody hard, and enjoyed it.

Kinda whooshed a bit there.

No, it was more of an Oof sound when I hit them.

Whoosh was when the pacey players waltzed past me.

[sockwithaticket]

Interview with Cips in the Grauniad

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/ ... -world-cup

Thanks for that.

As a Wasps fan, like many, I watched Cipriani come through and had all the hopes in the world for him as such a talented player. He’s obviously been his own worst enemy at times, but he’s never really seemed (to me) to be the total dickhead, people seem to want him to be (maybe my Wasps bias again ).

Caroline Flack’s death must have been horrendous for him, particularly if he feels things could have been different if he hadn’t missed her call.

As the parent of a child who has suffered from depression since the age of 16, I worry every single day. I’m glad that Cips seems to be at peace with himself.

As a fellow Wasp, I've always felt that, while he has done some dickish stuff, most of it wasn't any different to what other players get up to and are even praised for when they recount their tales on podcasts or at speaking events. If anything his main issue was not appreciating, as a young man, how much of a spotlight was put on him and that the media realised dropping his name was an easy way to get clicks. An awful lot of the column inches devoted to him had none of his input and didn't really revolve around anything specific; e.g. sticking his name into selection discussions when he clearly wasn't in favour with a coach.

Reading that he and I seem to share a lot of opinions about both the country and rugby - conservatism is too baked in and it's spoiling everything.

[petej]

Interview with Cips in the Grauniad

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/ ... -world-cup

Thanks for that.

As a Wasps fan, like many, I watched Cipriani come through and had all the hopes in the world for him as such a talented player. He’s obviously been his own worst enemy at times, but he’s never really seemed (to me) to be the total dickhead, people seem to want him to be (maybe my Wasps bias again ).

Caroline Flack’s death must have been horrendous for him, particularly if he feels things could have been different if he hadn’t missed her call.

As the parent of a child who has suffered from depression since the age of 16, I worry every single day. I’m glad that Cips seems to be at peace with himself.

As a fellow Wasp, I've always felt that, while he has done some dickish stuff, most of it wasn't any different to what other players get up to and are even praised for when they recount their tales on podcasts or at speaking events. If anything his main issue was not appreciating, as a young man, how much of a spotlight was put on him and that the media realised dropping his name was an easy way to get clicks. An awful lot of the column inches devoted to him had none of his input and didn't really revolve around anything specific; e.g. sticking his name into selection discussions when he clearly wasn't in favour with a coach.

Reading that he and I seem to share a lot of opinions about both the country and rugby - conservatism is too baked in and it's spoiling everything.

Good article.

While it was great to see Ford get some deserved recognition it was also depressing that it was about his drop goals and tactical kicking. This was a player who recognised space, had a break in him and a superb passing range but has lost that spark to try to become the player conservative England coaches wanted him to be where possible. I can understand why Cipriani pushed back against that conservatism. The likes of Russell would never have got anywhere in English rugby.

[Raggs]

Thanks for that.

As a Wasps fan, like many, I watched Cipriani come through and had all the hopes in the world for him as such a talented player. He’s obviously been his own worst enemy at times, but he’s never really seemed (to me) to be the total dickhead, people seem to want him to be (maybe my Wasps bias again ).

Caroline Flack’s death must have been horrendous for him, particularly if he feels things could have been different if he hadn’t missed her call.

As the parent of a child who has suffered from depression since the age of 16, I worry every single day. I’m glad that Cips seems to be at peace with himself.

As a fellow Wasp, I've always felt that, while he has done some dickish stuff, most of it wasn't any different to what other players get up to and are even praised for when they recount their tales on podcasts or at speaking events. If anything his main issue was not appreciating, as a young man, how much of a spotlight was put on him and that the media realised dropping his name was an easy way to get clicks. An awful lot of the column inches devoted to him had none of his input and didn't really revolve around anything specific; e.g. sticking his name into selection discussions when he clearly wasn't in favour with a coach.

Reading that he and I seem to share a lot of opinions about both the country and rugby - conservatism is too baked in and it's spoiling everything.

Good article.

While it was great to see Ford get some deserved recognition it was also depressing that it was about his drop goals and tactical kicking. This was a player who recognised space, had a break in him and a superb passing range but has lost that spark to try to become the player conservative England coaches wanted him to be where possible. I can understand why Cipriani pushed back against that conservatism. The likes of Russell would never have got anywhere in English rugby.

Ford has become more rounded, and the kicking and drop goals were exactly the right approach when you need to conserve energy (especially with the high impact defence) and just keep the scoreboard going.

[Brazil]

What Raggs said. If you watch Ford play for Sale you'll see how complete a player he is. He has an exceptional understanding of the game and that's what you saw on Saturday night - he knew what needed to be done and put it into effect. He's also a player who brings out the best in those around him, which is often overlooked. It was a testimony to what a narrow-minded little prick Jones was that he said he'd wished he'd dropped him for the 2019 Final, proving that the poison dwarf is a one-trick pony who's rugby nous is nowhere near as great as he thinks it is. The prick.

[sockwithaticket]

I would echo petej to an extent. Ford is obviously a marvellous player who can play many ways, but in order to continue being selected for England he has basically had to surrender his attacking game. We see glimpses of it every now and then, but it seems that even in the games where we aren't down a man he only really has permission to do the 10 man rugby thing.

It's a bit of a waste.

[Oxbow]

I was thinking to myself yesterday imagine if Youngs had been throwing those passes to Ford for the drop goals, one way above his head, one at his ankles and one inexplicably into the stands despite the pass being straight down the pitch.

[sockwithaticket]

Mitchell was so important. Really pleased for him that he's managed to force his way in. It makes such a difference to the 10 to be getting good service, but also for the 9 to be presenting enough threat on their own as to buy additional time and space for the 10.

[Hal Jordan]

Mitchell was so important. Really pleased for him that he's managed to force his way in. It makes such a difference to the 10 to be getting good service, but also for the 9 to be presenting enough threat on their own as to buy additional time and space for the 10.

And the odd snipe as well to keep the defence on their toes, rather then knowing all that will happen is a pass or a box kick.

[Raggs]

So we want Wales to beat Australia right? Then we get Fiji in the quarters? I feel like our lineout should be able to take theirs apart on the Aus game. Our defence hasn't been awful either. Just choke them out the game and kick to touch to hopefully turnover lineouts? We can probably be a bit free with penalties in their half due to having a good chance at disrupting lineouts?

[Gumboot]

So we want Wales to beat Australia right? Then we get Fiji in the quarters? I feel like our lineout should be able to take theirs apart on the Aus game. Our defence hasn't been awful either. Just choke them out the game and kick to touch to hopefully turnover lineouts? We can probably be a bit free with penalties in their half due to having a good chance at disrupting lineouts?

Yep, it's in the bag. Only a matter of how you want to go about it, really. Masterful. All down to Rassie again?

[JM2K6]

Watched on catchup last night.

Fuck me, worse than I thought. Anyway, let's start with the good:

- Earl back at 7 and producing a very Ben Earl display. Much easier to handwave away the dumb penalties and ball handling errors when the rest of what he does is so impactful. More of this, please! He's a real talent (and if he could cut out that other stuff, he'd be a world beater)
- Defence was decent again
- Marchant was busy off the ball then really came through when things opened up in the 2nd half
- Itoje looking busier than we've seen for a while
- Lawes was decent again (though smashed in contact a couple of times)
- Good impact off the bench from Smith and Lawrence, and a cameo from Dan again
- We almost looked like a team that wanted to attack in the last 20 mins

Now, the bad:

- Ford was much worse than against Argentina. Yes, the game plan requires us to kick it, but it's like they had a go at him for being too independent in the last game and he gets fined if he passes
- Mitchell is a more extreme version of this. He kicked it very poorly very often
- Tuilagi was anonymous
- Starting front row barely made a dent in Japan
- Lineout was garbage, George is lucky he's the only real option
- Back three were varying shades of shit. Daly kicking poorly & being run down easily by a lock, Steward looking like a clumsy oaf, May being May
- Billy was a black hole when he came on, ran into (but not through) brick walls and was easily rounded in defence
- Stuart is a problem; Sinckler wasn't good, but jesus
- At times it felt like Japan were picking us off at will at the breakdown
- As mentioned by others, Kay nailed it when he said there's no-one running lines for Ford. Sure, some players like Ashton or Dombrandt have that innate understanding of when and how to hit a line, but for crying out loud I'm sure Manu or George or Sinckler or anyone can do it. Only Marchant and occasionally May looked like it until the subs came on; then we saw some actually half decent interplay and decision making at the line.


We are being handed wins by teams who struggle to hold the ball and who are shooting themselves in the foot far beyond any pressure being applied by England. We're not 2007 South Africa. We're not even 2007 England. We're 2011 England at best. And if we don't improve massively we're going to get run over in a QF.

[JM2K6]

So we want Wales to beat Australia right? Then we get Fiji in the quarters? I feel like our lineout should be able to take theirs apart on the Aus game. Our defence hasn't been awful either. Just choke them out the game and kick to touch to hopefully turnover lineouts? We can probably be a bit free with penalties in their half due to having a good chance at disrupting lineouts?

Yep, it's in the bag. Only a matter of how you want to go about it, really. Masterful. All down to Rassie again?

Raggs isn't a Saffer.

[el capitan]

Defence has looked bad, really bad, for a couple of years when teams manage to put width and pace on the ball. That would always be the fear against Fiji, but would be true against any team really. The odd times Japan managed to run/inject pace into proceedings yesterday we looked uncomfortable and the line got very flimsy.

As discussed last night in the match thread, that was comically bad at times (both teams) and just so negative and no wonder the fans started booing. The last quarter when we actually tried to play some rugby and put phases together was better. Still pretty shit and with some woeful handling "skills", but at least there was some intent to do something.

[Raggs]

So we want Wales to beat Australia right? Then we get Fiji in the quarters? I feel like our lineout should be able to take theirs apart on the Aus game. Our defence hasn't been awful either. Just choke them out the game and kick to touch to hopefully turnover lineouts? We can probably be a bit free with penalties in their half due to having a good chance at disrupting lineouts?

Yep, it's in the bag. Only a matter of how you want to go about it, really. Masterful. All down to Rassie again?

Raggs isn't a Saffer.

I was just sort of ignoring that comment. It's confused me, we're on a national thread, and he's talking about Rassie too?

[el capitan]

Watched on catchup last night.

Fuck me, worse than I thought. Anyway, let's start with the good:

- Earl back at 7 and producing a very Ben Earl display. Much easier to handwave away the dumb penalties and ball handling errors when the rest of what he does is so impactful. More of this, please! He's a real talent (and if he could cut out that other stuff, he'd be a world beater)
- Defence was decent again
- Marchant was busy off the ball then really came through when things opened up in the 2nd half
- Itoje looking busier than we've seen for a while
- Lawes was decent again (though smashed in contact a couple of times)
- Good impact off the bench from Smith and Lawrence, and a cameo from Dan again
- We almost looked like a team that wanted to attack in the last 20 mins

Now, the bad:

- Ford was much worse than against Argentina. Yes, the game plan requires us to kick it, but it's like they had a go at him for being too independent in the last game and he gets fined if he passes
- Mitchell is a more extreme version of this. He kicked it very poorly very often
- Tuilagi was anonymous
- Starting front row barely made a dent in Japan
- Lineout was garbage, George is lucky he's the only real option
- Back three were varying shades of shit. Daly kicking poorly & being run down easily by a lock, Steward looking like a clumsy oaf, May being May
- Billy was a black hole when he came on, ran into (but not through) brick walls and was easily rounded in defence
- Stuart is a problem; Sinckler wasn't good, but jesus
- At times it felt like Japan were picking us off at will at the breakdown
- As mentioned by others, Kay nailed it when he said there's no-one running lines for Ford. Sure, some players like Ashton or Dombrandt have that innate understanding of when and how to hit a line, but for crying out loud I'm sure Manu or George or Sinckler or anyone can do it. Only Marchant and occasionally May looked like it until the subs came on; then we saw some actually half decent interplay and decision making at the line.


We are being handed wins by teams who struggle to hold the ball and who are shooting themselves in the foot far beyond any pressure being applied by England. We're not 2007 South Africa. We're not even 2007 England. We're 2011 England at best. And if we don't improve massively we're going to get run over in a QF.

Agree with basically all of that.

Re. the running lines, without watching it back it seemed to be that many times the ball would be worked out the back behind an initial pod to Ford/whoever and the second wave of runners..... just wasn't there. Either physically weren't there, or had all trotted up in a line way too early. So you had your playmaker behind the gain line and isolated behind all his support, with the only faint hope being maybe his blind side winger might be coming on a huge loop eventually.

Pick the bones out of that. Agree players should be able to work something a bit more coherent out for themselves, a lot of them have played together for years after all, and maybe Ford could have adjusted better to some of this shit going on and gone into drop goal mode instead of finding himself in these situations and then dinking kicks everywhere desperately to try and get out of it.... but when it's so disjointed you have to ask what they are doing in training and being coached at. Whoever is to blame though, it was shite.

[JM2K6]

Yep, it's in the bag. Only a matter of how you want to go about it, really. Masterful. All down to Rassie again?

Raggs isn't a Saffer.

I was just sort of ignoring that comment. It's confused me, we're on a national thread, and he's talking about Rassie too?

I think he's been in the trenches fighting the Saffers for too long. Everything looks like a Boer now.