England Vs Italy post match discussion

England vs Italy post match discussion

Thread still locked.

How good was Mays leap of faith. Are we allowed to say faith these days just in case someone is offended?

Nice to see Watson get some space to open his legs up. Looked sharp today.

TightHEAD wrote:Nice to see Watson get some space to open his legs up. Looked sharp today.

He was good ball in hand, but his passing and catching were awful in the first 20 minutes, and his defensive positioning was off. As was Daly’s - Italy exposed him several times, and Wales will have been watching with interest.

On the plus side, England were far better up front with Mako and Sinckler back. But they really need a more balanced back row.

"Post Match" discussion always makes me think of Haskell.


Its pretty much exactly what we expected, as is the reaction of fans. Italy are so bad that no matter how much and in what style they won its pretty meaningless. Its good for player morale and confidence, thats about it.

People still hate certain players and choose to view the game based on that. Seems some people have managed to reinforce their dislike of their chief targets in spite of a 6 try win. Sums up playing Italy really, its a no win situation even if you win.

That said I do think Jones will be more focussed on the defensive slips than he will May and Watson running through non existent defenders. With all the talk about 15 man defence through the autumn the first try in particular will be a big concern. Should encourage Wales to build on the stuff that worked for them when they started putting the more lively replacements on against Scotland, get after England. Could be a corker of a game if both teams click, or could push England to become even more safety first orientated and keep trying to play territory.


Lets see how the Wales game goes. They had a period just before and after the red card where they showed what they can do when the right players are on the pitch. It would just be typical that England get them when they finally get their formula right and play closer to their potential. There's also some real weak links though its a game England absolutely should be winning.

Wait and see how it goes. We know the team wont change drastically, can they raise their game further?

Looking forward Wales will be better but they have had two very tight games where they have had an extra player for significant portions of the match. I don't think they are up to much. Our game seems to have been built our around beating Ireland for a few years and we should keep that up.

That leaves France. We could easily end up playing them for the championship, unless their point difference is so ridiculous that we can't overhaul it.

We learnt nothing because Italy are so poor. Wales will be a tough test - they've hit a knack of winning without playing especially well, which makes any side dangerous. England's inevitably high penalty count will guarantee the game is a close one.

I'd rather we scored ten points less but kept our discipline and stopped Italy scoring tries.

Interesting Dawson on BBC thinks Farrell has to be dropped.

So Nigel Owens wouldn't have allowed Mays try.

For me it was a dive not a jump.

Just listend to Sam Warburton saying England only scored try,s because Italy gifted them the try's, They ( England) wont get away with it against Wales.

Excuse me have Wales suddenly   became the All Blacks after winning 2 out of 2 with hardly  a stunning performance in either game. Cheeky man.

majesticimperialman wrote:Just listend to Sam Warburton saying England only scored try,s because Italy gifted them the try's, They ( England) wont get away with it against Wales.

Excuse me have Wales suddenly   became the All Blacks after winning 2 out of 2 with hardly  a stunning performance in either game. Cheeky man.

It's like saying Wales only win because of the red cards. To some extent every team scores tries because the other team gift them, but there is all the pressure beforehand and regardless of how gift wrapped the pressie is you still have to actually get the ball over the line.

On Jonny May's try, I'm not disputing what the laws say or don't say, but if a player can jump out of / over a tackle in order to score, then we're effectively forcing the last defender to go high, and I'm not sure that's the road we want to be going down.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:On Jonny May's try, I'm not disputing what the laws say or don't say, but if a player can jump out of / over a tackle in order to score, then we're effectively forcing the last defender to go high, and I'm not sure that's the road we want to be going down.

You do have to think that there will be copycats, but the fact that May's leap is so remarked upon is a pretty strong indicator about how rare an event it is, if you consider it is not a straightforward dive for the line.

You can't legislate over one off events.

lostinwales wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:On Jonny May's try, I'm not disputing what the laws say or don't say, but if a player can jump out of / over a tackle in order to score, then we're effectively forcing the last defender to go high, and I'm not sure that's the road we want to be going down.

You do have to think that there will be copycats, but the fact that May's leap is so remarked upon is a pretty strong indicator about how rare an event it is, if you consider it is not a straightforward dive for the line.

You can't legislate over one off events.

'Straightforward' is an interesting way of describing that dive!

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:On Jonny May's try, I'm not disputing what the laws say or don't say, but if a player can jump out of / over a tackle in order to score, then we're effectively forcing the last defender to go high, and I'm not sure that's the road we want to be going down.

You're not forcing anyone to go high at all, going over the tackle is no different to going around the tackle.

There’s no law against jumping the tackle unless the ref deems it as dangerous play. Means we’re back into the land of ref interpretation deciding outcomes.

World rugby need to look at it as it could result in more players jumping and then you’ll see more faceplant landings. Especially if those feet are take out in midair

Diving forward to reach the line is one thing. Leaping up and over players is another entirely.

Its not illegal until the laws say it is....
If they want it to be...then make it illegal.


Move on next please.

Soul Requiem wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:On Jonny May's try, I'm not disputing what the laws say or don't say, but if a player can jump out of / over a tackle in order to score, then we're effectively forcing the last defender to go high, and I'm not sure that's the road we want to be going down.

You're not forcing anyone to go high at all, going over the tackle is no different to going around the tackle.

If someone's potentially going to vault over you to score, you'll have to go high to prevent it. How else can you do it?

As I said, I'm not disputing the laws, but if we're all about player welfare and protecting the head, it seems a bit odd. It's just my opinion.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Its not illegal until the laws say it is....
If they want it to be...then make it illegal.


Move on next please.

I thought you were a better poster than that.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:On Jonny May's try, I'm not disputing what the laws say or don't say, but if a player can jump out of / over a tackle in order to score, then we're effectively forcing the last defender to go high, and I'm not sure that's the road we want to be going down.

You're not forcing anyone to go high at all, going over the tackle is no different to going around the tackle.

If someone's potentially going to vault over you to score, you'll have to go high to prevent it. How else can you do it?

As I said, I'm not disputing the laws, but if we're all about player welfare and protecting the head, it seems a bit odd. It's just my opinion.

May jumped once Sperandio had committed to the tackle, this is not a situation that is going to be replicated very often so it's largely irrelevant. If you go high but legal then May doesn't jump, i'm really struggling to see what the issue is. Players diving low is far more of an issue with regards to player welfare.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Seriously ? Is this really called for ?

It would seem that everyone and their dog can dissect and pick the bones out of the last two Wales games because of the goings on, but here we are just debating another game and we get this thrown at us.

Not sure what the fuss is about. On a case-by-case basis, judging the danger of a jump for the line seems perfectly within the grasp of a ref, lineman & tmo (they have to judge the danger of 2 players jumping for a high kick after all). It’s different than in-field since all wingers will at least dive for the line (and a dive is fine). In this case the tackler was left grasping thin and at no risk of injury (apart from his pride). Wonderful try - end of story. And I’m not too concerned with what Nige says as he’s no longer a test ref, effectively just a pundit - leave it to a real ref on the field.

LordDowlais wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:.

Seriously ? Is this really called for ?

It would seem that everyone and their dog can dissect and pick the bones out of the last two Wales games because of the goings on, but here we are just debating another game and we get this thrown at us.

Ignore...nothing to do with nationalites...

With May jumping you don't have to go high, that much is obvious. Was it Scott Williams who slid early for the line when Underhill pulled off the wonder tackle? The head seems in far more danger of contact in that situation than jumping, I don't have an issue with either but you seem to be concentrating on the wrong thing.

BigGee wrote:Lets keep it to the rugby guys and the event, nothing to do with nationalities

There you go. ive changed it...

Comes back to the tackler being in control and not being reckless. If you're putting in a tackle where you are not in control then you are putting yourself at risk of a red if things go wrong.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:On Jonny May's try, I'm not disputing what the laws say or don't say, but if a player can jump out of / over a tackle in order to score, then we're effectively forcing the last defender to go high, and I'm not sure that's the road we want to be going down.

You do have to think that there will be copycats, but the fact that May's leap is so remarked upon is a pretty strong indicator about how rare an event it is, if you consider it is not a straightforward dive for the line.

You can't legislate over one off events.

'Straightforward' is an interesting way of describing that dive!

No it wasn't straightforward at all. It involved quite some skill and was totally instinctive.

What I am getting at is that the end result of a 'jump' is to land on your feet. A dive ends with you on the ground. I'd argue that what May did was dive for the line, it's just his dive took a somewhat higher arc than normal. This should be a non story. The only reason it is not is because of Owen's column.

Its not illegal....
If you want to make it legal do so.

Otherwise its legal....its a brilliantly taken try....

Next move on...

According to secret directives it is illegal Geordie. It becomes an issue and one which should be talked about when no one knows the details of what the directive directs! Owens has got into a right tangle trying to justify it. It really needs WR to update their law book with all directives which are active.

Anyone know when an injury replacement can be expected for Willis?

Jonathan Kaplan said on Sunday that the try was correctly awarded, I know who i'm more likely to listen to.

No 7&1/2 wrote:According to secret directives it is illegal Geordie. It becomes an issue and one which should be talked about when no one knows the details of what the directive directs! Owens has got into a right tangle trying to justify it. It really needs WR to update their law book with all directives which are active.

Anyone know when an injury replacement can be expected for Willis?

Is it listed in the published laws that this is illegal? No...

Hence its not legal...regardless of secret directives.

if they want to make it illegal...have it listed and published in the laws..

Hey, I'm on the side of whats in the book they should play to. I've seen other clarifications to make the laws more understandable ie backward motion of the hands for forward passes which I get and I fully back that the refs shouldn't be implementing things from the WR in secret. The fact that the refs disagree in regards to the secret directive also doesn't help. I'd ask him on twitter but he's blocked bigger accounts than me for not falling into line!

No 7&1/2 wrote:Hey, I'm on the side of whats in the book they should play to.!

GeordieFalcon wrote:

BigGee wrote:Lets keep it to the rugby guys and the event, nothing to do with nationalities

There you go. ive changed it...

Can I just say that I'm not saying the try shouldn't have stood, and also that I've never read a column by Nigel Owens in my life.

On the game, i thought starting Ford at 10 was a very good move considering the English performance against Scotland but moving Farrell to 12 didn't really change or improve his form. I thought he was constantly pedestrian, out of position and actually bypassed a lot of the time.

Farrell is a very good player that is out of form due to lack of games but is the 6N the place to allow him to get back into form? I think its only a matter of time before his lack of form leads to frustration and he does something very petulant and is sent off myself.

eirebilly wrote:On the game, i thought starting Ford at 10 was a very good move considering the English performance against Scotland but moving Farrell to 12 didn't really change or improve his form. I thought he was constantly pedestrian, out of position and actually bypassed a lot of the time.

Farrell is a very good player that is out of form due to lack of games but is the 6N the place to allow him to get back into form? I think its only a matter of time before his lack of form leads to frustration and he does something very petulant and is sent off myself.

Agree.  And he did do his petulant thing a couple of times.  Next time he could easily be gone.  Referees know the behaviour of many players and he would be watched a bit closer.  And, if his play doesn't improve, it could easily lead to problems with other players in the squad.  

I thought Ford played a smart game, bypassing Farrell on a regular basis.

I think there would have been a great deal more outrage had the try been chalked off.

Ford and Farrell. I think the old debate goes about how well either work without the other. Based on recent evidence we know that Farrell at 10 without Ford isn't currently working.

eirebilly wrote:On the game, i thought starting Ford at 10 was a very good move considering the English performance against Scotland but moving Farrell to 12 didn't really change or improve his form. I thought he was constantly pedestrian, out of position and actually bypassed a lot of the time.

Farrell is a very good player that is out of form due to lack of games but is the 6N the place to allow him to get back into form? I think its only a matter of time before his lack of form leads to frustration and he does something very petulant and is sent off myself.

For most of the game, Ford skipped Farrell and went straight to Slade or others...

GeordieFalcon wrote:

eirebilly wrote:On the game, i thought starting Ford at 10 was a very good move considering the English performance against Scotland but moving Farrell to 12 didn't really change or improve his form. I thought he was constantly pedestrian, out of position and actually bypassed a lot of the time.

Farrell is a very good player that is out of form due to lack of games but is the 6N the place to allow him to get back into form? I think its only a matter of time before his lack of form leads to frustration and he does something very petulant and is sent off myself.

For most of the game, Ford skipped Farrell and went straight to Slade or others...

Some of the passing further out was atrocious.

lostinwales wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

eirebilly wrote:On the game, i thought starting Ford at 10 was a very good move considering the English performance against Scotland but moving Farrell to 12 didn't really change or improve his form. I thought he was constantly pedestrian, out of position and actually bypassed a lot of the time.

Farrell is a very good player that is out of form due to lack of games but is the 6N the place to allow him to get back into form? I think its only a matter of time before his lack of form leads to frustration and he does something very petulant and is sent off myself.

For most of the game, Ford skipped Farrell and went straight to Slade or others...

Some of the passing further out was atrocious.

Dont get me started on Daly!!! He's in there to be creative and for his skills...it was appalling...which then raises the questions...why is he there...

GeordieFalcon wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

eirebilly wrote:On the game, i thought starting Ford at 10 was a very good move considering the English performance against Scotland but moving Farrell to 12 didn't really change or improve his form. I thought he was constantly pedestrian, out of position and actually bypassed a lot of the time.

Farrell is a very good player that is out of form due to lack of games but is the 6N the place to allow him to get back into form? I think its only a matter of time before his lack of form leads to frustration and he does something very petulant and is sent off myself.

For most of the game, Ford skipped Farrell and went straight to Slade or others...

Some of the passing further out was atrocious.

Dont get me started on Daly!!! He's in there to be creative and for his skills...it was appalling...which then raises the questions...why is he there...

There is an article in today's Telegraph discussing personnel decisions Eddie Jones needs to consider. And Daly is mentioned as someone who has seemed to regress. The article also wonders, as we have, about keeping the Ford-Farrell-Slade midfield together. Was very detailed and a nice analysis.

What advantages does Farrell hold over Slade that makes him more suited to playing 12? Better tactical kicker perhaps but aside from that i'm struggling which does make me wonder what Jones is seeing.

Soul Requiem wrote:What advantages does Farrell hold over Slade that makes him more suited to playing 12? Better tactical kicker perhaps but aside from that i'm struggling which does make me wonder what Jones is seeing.

He's played better at 12 than Slade ever has. If you follow Jones' thoughts that 12 and 13 are interchangeable for the majority of the time then it's a simple case of who has played better in an England shirt. Farrell by a country mile. Short term form, not even sure Slade is the better option still.

Daly is a good player and has played a big part in the attack when it has functioned well. The problem is, when he isnt performing...his defence is woeful...so his place immediately becomes at risk.

Is Eddie just goig to try to play them in to form through this 6n.

I think he will...

I kind of get Eddie's thoughts that a 12 and 13 are virtually interchangeable at international level. What I don't understand is how he then turns it completely on its head by picking Farrell at 12, I can't imagine he'd ever put him at 13 (or maybe he would and I'm the madman for thinking differently).

At their best, Ford/Farrell have worked due to Tuilagi possessing enough of a running threat for an entire back line, or JJ being at his best as the runner. At the moment we just don't have that strike runner from 13 while Slade plays there, I lost count of the amount of times he was stood out on the wing and although he was better, I was never expecting much of him

For me, we should be lining up with 2 from Ford / Farrell / Slade in whatever combination at 10/12. I'd go with Ford at 10 and don't really mind who is at 12 as long as the 13 is not Slade

Some, in fact quite a lot, of the England passing was very poor and simply not test standard.
The line-up has to change with Ford at 10, Slade at 12 and Lawrence at 13 with the latter two perhaps interchangeable, given the size of North lurking at 13 for Wales.
I would also swap Watson and Daly around, although disappointed Cokanasiga has lost form and Thorley fallen out of favour thus putting Daly on the bench with Farrell. Malins is a super player but not likely to create an impact with 15 mins to go.

Recwatcher16 wrote:Some, in fact quite a lot, of the England passing was very poor and simply not test standard.
The line-up has to change with Ford at 10, Slade at 12 and Lawrence at 13 with the latter two perhaps  interchangeable, given the size of North lurking at 13 for Wales.
I would also swap Watson and Daly around, although disappointed Cokanasiga has lost form and Thorley fallen out of favour thus putting Daly on the bench with Farrell. Malins is a super player but not likely to create an impact with 15 mins to go.

I think England started to play franticly again and throw the ball around to make low percentage plays. Perhaps because they were winning and felt overly confident. But they need to realise they are not playing nearly as well as going into the RWC and need to remain under control at all times regardless of the team they are playing and the scoreline. This is where the on field leadership was needed to show up - and obviously failed.

https://youtu.be/_zeNxJLhqNE

You always need to hold your hands up when you're wrong I find. I'll reluctantly accept that even though I'm right about no law which says you cant jump there is a law that says you cant jump

Still loving these vids by Barnes, though as a ref he still can't say whether individual incidents are correct from others!