The England v Italy match thread

[RodneyRegis]

Loved the commentary today.

England showing clear signs of improving game on game, although Italy will be pleased as that's their best result against England at Twickenham.

Ermm..... So presumably our worst result against Italy at home?

[Cartman]

The one commentator got on my tits. All he did was moan.

[sockwithaticket]

To be honest I don’t think anyone can get that backline going, it’s just not very good all the way across. I don’t watch much English rugby but thought the 10,12,13 combo might be pretty good today, it wasn’t.

Clearly. Sorry Slick, but the idea no one can move that backline is rubbish.

It's partly down to whatever they've been told to do, but also with selecting Farrell. The backs can do the square root of fuck all if he insists on booting the ball as frequently as he does. Some of the most notable moments from the backs came when he wasn't involved (the van Portvliet non-try, the Arundell try).

Well, no one has for about 3 years so I’m pretty comfortable with the statement. I haven’t watched them this season but haven’t the Sarries back line been going well?

Eddie got kicked for making us worse and worse over time, Borthwick's appointment was met with a bit of trepidation by many of us because of how conservatively he had Leicester playing, even if it did win them a title. What you've seen is evidence of our international coaches imposing restrictive philosophy, not any lack of ability on the part of the players.

If you're going to bring up Sarries' club form, then it's worth pointing out that all those backline players are shit hot for their clubs.That's why they're in the national set up ahead of others. I would add, though, that Sarries have frequently had Goode playing 10 for them this season between Farrell's injury, ban and international commitments.

[Paddington Bear]

Loved the commentary today.

England showing clear signs of improving game on game, although Italy will be pleased as that's their best result against England at Twickenham.

Ermm..... So presumably our worst result against Italy at home?

We won by 7 points in 2013 on a bitterly cold day, didn’t score a try and IIRC their only try came from a box kick that went backwards

[Slick]

Clearly. Sorry Slick, but the idea no one can move that backline is rubbish.

It's partly down to whatever they've been told to do, but also with selecting Farrell. The backs can do the square root of fuck all if he insists on booting the ball as frequently as he does. Some of the most notable moments from the backs came when he wasn't involved (the van Portvliet non-try, the Arundell try).

Well, no one has for about 3 years so I’m pretty comfortable with the statement. I haven’t watched them this season but haven’t the Sarries back line been going well?

Eddie got kicked for making us worse and worse over time, Borthwick's appointment was met with a bit of trepidation by many of us because of how conservatively he had Leicester playing, even if it did win them a title. What you've seen is evidence of our international coaches imposing restrictive philosophy, not any lack of ability on the part of the players.

If you're going to bring up Sarries' club form, then it's worth pointing out that all those backline players are shit hot for their clubs.That's why they're in the national set up ahead of others. I would add, though, that Sarries have frequently had Goode playing 10 for them this season between Farrell's injury, ban and international commitments.

I totally accept that the coaches seem to be making them play a certain way, but isn’t that fact all these players are shit hot for their clubs but poor at international level suggest they are maybe just not good enough?

Edit: fwiw I think Borthwick will get them back to winning by going back to the traditional strengths of the forwards which Eddie seemed to ignore, and you could see a bit of that today. I just don’t think Farrell at 10 should take all the blame, because I don’t think there is very much going on outside him either.

[Wetleg]

Someone please explain how Steward can play 80 minutes at fullback and only carry the ball up for 40 meters. JFC has he not bothered to even watch and see how Keenan, Ramos, Kinghorn etc all play the position? Running with the ball is actually encouraged for the average fullback. FFS.

[JM2K6]

Someone please explain how Steward can play 80 minutes at fullback and only carry the ball up for 40 meters. JFC has he not bothered to even watch and see how Keenan, Ramos, Kinghorn etc all play the position? Running with the ball is actually encouraged for the average fullback. FFS.

He only got to run it 5 times so that's hardly a terrible return, Italy rarely kicked it to him and England weren't keen on using their backs today. And kick tennis is something all teams do.

Ramos made his 90m off 11 carries - almost identical return per run. Keenan made his 205m from being brought into the line, hence 18 carries.

[sockwithaticket]

Well, no one has for about 3 years so I’m pretty comfortable with the statement. I haven’t watched them this season but haven’t the Sarries back line been going well?

Eddie got kicked for making us worse and worse over time, Borthwick's appointment was met with a bit of trepidation by many of us because of how conservatively he had Leicester playing, even if it did win them a title. What you've seen is evidence of our international coaches imposing restrictive philosophy, not any lack of ability on the part of the players.

If you're going to bring up Sarries' club form, then it's worth pointing out that all those backline players are shit hot for their clubs.That's why they're in the national set up ahead of others. I would add, though, that Sarries have frequently had Goode playing 10 for them this season between Farrell's injury, ban and international commitments.

I totally accept that the coaches seem to be making them play a certain way, but isn’t that fact all these players are shit hot for their clubs but poor at international level suggest they are maybe just not good enough?

It suggests to me that they're being taken from functional environments that let them play and being put into one that was dysfunctional and now is being built back up from the ground.

I'd also say, and this is something we as England fans need to remember, anyone expecting complete fluidity and fireworks was in for a disappointment as this is yet another completely new backline configuration. You've referenced the last 3 years in your other comment, but it's not like the players involved have been consistent over that period (another of Eddie's failings). The way they lined up today was the first time that configuration has ever happened, the midfield's completely different from last week. Lawrence is Slade's 11th centre partner! Even the 'older' new players like Lawrence and Malins have only just been reintroduced to the set up after being left out for an extended period of time by Eddie for fairly well documented non-rugby reasons. Van Portvliet has fewer than 10 caps, Arundell is on cap 3 while Hassell-Collins and Mitchell are both on their second caps. It is hardly a surprise that they're not a slick unit considering that they've basically just met. That is why Farrell is extra frustrating. As by far the most experienced member of the backline he should be running the show and giving the newbies structure and direction. Instead he's mostly just aimlessly kicking it. What are the rest supposed to do with that?

[JM2K6]

Well, no one has for about 3 years so I’m pretty comfortable with the statement. I haven’t watched them this season but haven’t the Sarries back line been going well?

Eddie got kicked for making us worse and worse over time, Borthwick's appointment was met with a bit of trepidation by many of us because of how conservatively he had Leicester playing, even if it did win them a title. What you've seen is evidence of our international coaches imposing restrictive philosophy, not any lack of ability on the part of the players.

If you're going to bring up Sarries' club form, then it's worth pointing out that all those backline players are shit hot for their clubs.That's why they're in the national set up ahead of others. I would add, though, that Sarries have frequently had Goode playing 10 for them this season between Farrell's injury, ban and international commitments.

I totally accept that the coaches seem to be making them play a certain way, but isn’t that fact all these players are shit hot for their clubs but poor at international level suggest they are maybe just not good enough?

Edit: fwiw I think Borthwick will get them back to winning by going back to the traditional strengths of the forwards which Eddie seemed to ignore, and you could see a bit of that today. I just don’t think Farrell at 10 should take all the blame, because I don’t think there is very much going on outside him either.

Who exactly are you pointing the finger at?

[JM2K6]

Someone please explain how Steward can play 80 minutes at fullback and only carry the ball up for 40 meters. JFC has he not bothered to even watch and see how Keenan, Ramos, Kinghorn etc all play the position? Running with the ball is actually encouraged for the average fullback. FFS.

He only got to run it 5 times so that's hardly a terrible return, Italy rarely kicked it to him and England weren't keen on using their backs today. And kick tennis is something all teams do.

Ramos made his 90m off 11 carries - almost identical return per run. Keenan made his 205m from being brought into the line, hence 18 carries.

In fact I think the "ball played by hand" stat that the 6N stats site has is useful here.

Steward - kicked 83m, 75% "BH" percentage.
Ramos - kicked 358m, 65% BH
Keenan - kicked 301m, 77% BH

So yeah. Steward didn't get the ball.

[Wetleg]

Someone please explain how Steward can play 80 minutes at fullback and only carry the ball up for 40 meters. JFC has he not bothered to even watch and see how Keenan, Ramos, Kinghorn etc all play the position? Running with the ball is actually encouraged for the average fullback. FFS.

He only got to run it 5 times so that's hardly a terrible return, Italy rarely kicked it to him and England weren't keen on using their backs today. And kick tennis is something all teams do.

Ramos made his 90m off 11 carries - almost identical return per run. Keenan made his 205m from being brought into the line, hence 18 carries.

In fact I think the "ball played by hand" stat that the 6N stats site has is useful here.

Steward - kicked 83m, 75% "BH" percentage.
Ramos - kicked 358m, 65% BH
Keenan - kicked 301m, 77% BH

So yeah. Steward didn't get the ball.

Thanks. Had to work so missed the match. Will watch the replay shortly.

[Raggs]

Italians looked in general not to want to do too much kick tennis, especially not to steward.

[Torquemada 1420]

Was very strange but he was clearly trying to tackle everyone. 6 attempts (2 missed) and desperate to make something happen with ball in hand. Guess that's what happens when you sit on the bench watching your rival play like a drain and have 8 minutes to make your case.

100%. See my earlier post. For Smith, read Jalibert. It stinks.

[CM11]

At one stage my son asked me what a prop was doing kicking the ball. Turns out it was Steward.

[Torquemada 1420]

Someone please explain how Steward can play 80 minutes at fullback and only carry the ball up for 40 meters. JFC has he not bothered to even watch and see how Keenan, Ramos, Kinghorn etc all play the position? Running with the ball is actually encouraged for the average fullback. FFS.

Errr, you are wrong. Galthie was clearly p*ssed in his post match interview at any of the Fre players for running it at all but singled out Ramos. Seems he'd read the Jones manual on how to play eye-cancer rugby too.

[_Os_]

Was very strange but he was clearly trying to tackle everyone. 6 attempts (2 missed) and desperate to make something happen with ball in hand. Guess that's what happens when you sit on the bench watching your rival play like a drain and have 8 minutes to make your case.

100%. See my earlier post. For Smith, read Jalibert. It stinks.

I don't think it's that similar, Torq.

England are clearly in a worse position compared to France (in terms of team/player strength), so taking a conservative option is more forgivable. England have Japan/Pumas/Samoa/Chile in their pool then in the quarter if they qualify Wales/Australia/Fiji/Georgia (probably no chance of Portugal making it out).

They could put together a traditional England style 10 man team that can challenge all comers in the core areas of that game plan (scrum/lineout/maul/place kicking/defence), in the time before the RWC, if the picks to make the game plan work are correct and they get match time in combination and they're in form at the RWC. Basically take Jones' side, remove what isn't essential, improve what is left, don't try too much new. They did win a test series in Aus and draw with NZ last year. Will it be able to beat all comers? Probably not. Will it get them out of their pool? Yes. Could it get them to a semi final? Maybe and if they don't face the Wallabies in the quarter then definitely.

If they're going to try something more ambitious it's going to take them longer to build it. At the moment the Pumas are about level with them (Pumas beat England last year, and the Pumas won a test series against Scotland mid year, but lost heavily to Scotland on the EOYT). I would put the Pumas in England's ballpark, if England don't have something fully worked out by the RWC and are a bit half baked, they could lose that one. I have no clue about Japan, England beat them heavily last year, but there were a number of France v Japan matches where Japan lost but put decent scores up, they also got very close to NZ last year. Samoa could be strong, they're always better at a RWC and there's now an IRB rule change and Super Rugby team changes which both help them.

Looks forgivable if England go conservative to try and bank a RWC semi to me. Getting the max out of an England side like the one which played today, could be enough for them to go far come RWC.

The French side of the draw is very different, being conservative there is less helpful if you feel you're not good enough already.

[Ovals]

Was very strange but he was clearly trying to tackle everyone. 6 attempts (2 missed) and desperate to make something happen with ball in hand. Guess that's what happens when you sit on the bench watching your rival play like a drain and have 8 minutes to make your case.

100%. See my earlier post. For Smith, read Jalibert. It stinks.

I don't think it's that similar, Torq.

England are clearly in a worse position compared to France (in terms of team/player strength), so taking a conservative option is more forgivable. England have Japan/Pumas/Samoa/Chile in their pool then in the quarter if they qualify Wales/Australia/Fiji/Georgia (probably no chance of Portugal making it out).

They could put together a traditional England style 10 man team that can challenge all comers in the core areas of that game plan (scrum/lineout/maul/place kicking/defence), in the time before the RWC, if the picks to make the game plan work are correct and they get match time in combination and they're in form at the RWC. Basically take Jones' side, remove what isn't essential, improve what is left, don't try too much new. They did win a test series in Aus and draw with NZ last year. Will it be able to beat all comers? Probably not. Will it get them out of their pool? Yes. Could it get them to a semi final? Maybe and if they don't face the Wallabies in the quarter then definitely.

If they're going to try something more ambitious it's going to take them longer to build it. At the moment the Pumas are about level with them (Pumas beat England last year, and the Pumas won a test series against Scotland mid year, but lost heavily to Scotland on the EOYT). I would put the Pumas in England's ballpark, if England don't have something fully worked out by the RWC and are a bit half baked, they could lose that one. I have no clue about Japan, England beat them heavily last year, but there were a number of France v Japan matches where Japan lost but put decent scores up, they also got very close to NZ last year. Samoa could be strong, they're always better at a RWC and there's now an IRB rule change and Super Rugby team changes which both help them.

Looks forgivable if England go conservative to try and bank a RWC semi to me. Getting the max out of an England side like the one which played today, could be enough for them to go far come RWC.

The French side of the draw is very different, being conservative there is less helpful if you feel you're not good enough already.

Yep - what we saw against Italy is a much better platform for the coaches to build on - you have to do the basics, win the collisions, set pieces etc., before you can start being more ambitious - even so, there's no excuse for constanlty kicking away good and dangerous attacking ball. Willis and Lawrence made a huge difference.

[Wetleg]

even so, there's no excuse for constantly kicking away good and dangerous attacking ball.

Rassieball? Rather watch paint dry.

[Kawazaki]

I hope to just see a bit of risk taken by England. The default tactic against Scotland when England were in their own half was to hoof the ball as far as possible, and keep repeating until there was a knock-on or the ball went out. Watching what Ireland, France and Italy are trying in attack looks light years ahead of where England are in terms of ambition and confidence.

My post before the match yesterday.

We didn't see the risk. No desire to take chances, even chances with a very high probability of working.

[fishfoodie]

One of the things that baffled me was selecting Farrell as his OH .... against Italy !

Lets face it, this is traditionally the game you give youth a chance, & take a bit of a punt, & get to see what some of your 3rd tier can do, & instead he put in a player who he's seen for years. He has very few games before the RWC, & he took an opportunity to field a 50/50 probable/possible side, & put a veteran in at OH, why ?

Farrell had his preferred position, he didn't have a scatter gun inside passing the ball to him, & he was facing Italy, but he kicked away a mountain of good ball.

Now if he picks Smith at OH against Wales, with basically the same team around him, & Smith is able to convert, while Farrell couldn't, he gets to say that he gave them both the same chance, & one delivered, & the other didn't !

[spike]

One of the things that baffled me was selecting Farrell as his OH .... against Italy !

Lets face it, this is traditionally the game you give youth a chance, & take a bit of a punt, & get to see what some of your 3rd tier can do, & instead he put in a player who he's seen for years. He has very few games before the RWC, & he took an opportunity to field a 50/50 probable/possible side, & put a veteran in at OH, why ?

Farrell had his preferred position, he didn't have a scatter gun inside passing the ball to him, & he was facing Italy, but he kicked away a mountain of good ball.

Now if he picks Smith at OH against Wales, with basically the same team around him, & Smith is able to convert, while Farrell couldn't, he gets to say that he gave them both the same chance, & one delivered, & the other didn't !

We're being told the kicking game was the plan from SB, as the stats showed that Italy had very poor exits from their 22. (Idon't buy this as an an excuse for how Farrell played).

[Paddington Bear]

One of the things that baffled me was selecting Farrell as his OH .... against Italy !

Lets face it, this is traditionally the game you give youth a chance, & take a bit of a punt, & get to see what some of your 3rd tier can do, & instead he put in a player who he's seen for years. He has very few games before the RWC, & he took an opportunity to field a 50/50 probable/possible side, & put a veteran in at OH, why ?

Farrell had his preferred position, he didn't have a scatter gun inside passing the ball to him, & he was facing Italy, but he kicked away a mountain of good ball.

Now if he picks Smith at OH against Wales, with basically the same team around him, & Smith is able to convert, while Farrell couldn't, he gets to say that he gave them both the same chance, & one delivered, & the other didn't !

We're being told the kicking game was the plan from SB, as the stats showed that Italy had very poor exits from their 22. (Idon't buy this as an an excuse for how Farrell played).

It's hard to sustain that it *wasn't* the gameplan IMHO, however that doesn't excuse Faz taking it well beyond it's logical conclusion and sticking in kicks when we had overlaps/hookers on the wing etc

[sturginho]

It must be so nice to be able to win and then still complain that you didn't win well enough, what's that like?

[JM2K6]

There's quite a big difference between using kicks to put pressure on and using kicks as an attempt to score tries. Particularly when it's in some cases a dreadful option that no coach would ever ask for.