England 2023 - Post 6N and beyond

Continued......

No 7&1/2 wrote:Interesting conundrum  there. Steward moved to 12 on the nod from the current England boss to his new assistant. Let's Brown play 15. Sure that would go down great with Leicester if it turns out to be a disaster.

Many a true word said in jest... I hadn't thought about Steward at 12, but he has many of the characteristics to be successful there. There's shades of Matt Banahan - I can only remember seeing him play there once for England (against the BaaBaas), but it was so obviously the right position to make use of his abilities and minimise his weaknesses that I wondered why it hadn't been done earlier and more often.

Of course, with Brown playing well and Kelly still injured, it could actually work well for Leicester in the short term...

By the way, the conversation around Steward at 12 reminds me of George North, though North came up and earned most of his caps on the wing. He has been fine at 12, though I don't think he has the same impact as on the wing. Perhaps he is slowing a bit after all the miles and those horrific injuries. Not really a playmaker at 12 but has seemed effective.

Wasn't there talk (probably only on here) of Joe C being used in centre?

I can't see Steward being put at 12, as someone else mentioned would Tigers give him time there to practise. The one player who should have been put at 13 is Nowell, that could have been his ideal position.

As for North, I thought his game on Saturday was best he's had in centre. He's nowhere near player he was though.

And Sam Simmonds at 12....

I think North plays mostly at 13 Doc....can't say I've seen him play 12 from memory??

I think alot of talk of moving players to centre were due to a lack of options...but i think we need to be patient...the players are definitely coming.

Geordie wrote:I think alot of talk of moving players to centre were due to a lack of options...but i think we need to be patient...the players are definitely coming.

Yep, finally Lawrence seems answer at 12 and when Kelly is fit another option plus others hopefully make grade.

The late Bleddyen Jones thought Steward would make a good stand off, as he put it. Steward did play some flyhalf at school but was a 13 for Loughborough University as they wanted to get him ball in hand more often.

I think his acceleration or lack there of is over played. Brown was never particularly quick but developed that area as much as he could and then used his rugby intellect to work around it. Alex Goode is considerably slower than Steward and still won European Player of the Year. There's not many fullbacks that can carry as strongly as Steward can and we need to start playing to that strength more (there were small signs this 6N). Having multiple running threats and distributors in midfield and fullback should start creating a lot of space for the wingers.

mountain man wrote:

Geordie wrote:I think alot of talk of moving players to centre were due to a lack of options...but i think we need to be patient...the players are definitely coming.

Yep, finally Lawrence seems answer at 12 and when Kelly is fit another option plus others hopefully make grade.

Move Lawrence to his usual 13 position and slot Kelly in at 12. That would be a fun experiment.

mountain man wrote:

Geordie wrote:I think alot of talk of moving players to centre were due to a lack of options...but i think we need to be patient...the players are definitely coming.

Yep, finally Lawrence seems answer at 12 and when Kelly is fit another option plus others hopefully make grade.

Was thinking more Lawrence at 13 his actual position and Kelly or one of the above at 12...as Sam says then it gets interesting...

Purely for Sh1ts and Giggles....this would be interesting

1 Genge
2 Blamire
3 Sinckler
4 Martin
5 Itoje / Chessum
6 T. Hill
7 Curry / Underhill
8 Mercer / Barbeary

9 Quirke
10 Farrell / Ford/ M. Smith/ F. Smith - Take your pick
11 Arundle
12 Kelly
13 Lawrence
14 Watson
15 Steward

England for so long haven't had a decent 12, Jones as we know kept waiting for Manu to get fit. Farrell tried at 12 and plainly didn't work so Lawrence despite 13 being his usual position excelled at 12 and until someone else puts hand up he's inside centre for England.

Dan Kelly would have been the 12 bar injury...and when hes fit...id be utterly amazed if he doesnt come in with Lawrence at 13. Very nicely balanced midfield.

I think we can only expect marginal improvements in Steward's speed and acceleration, as we are working against the physical attributes that are strengths in other areas.

Interesting article in the Telegraph...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2023/03/21/englands-pathways-system-destroyed-left-playing-catch-up/

Why do empires fall? Australian author Max Barry argues it is not for lack of power. It is the opposite. "Their power lulls them into comfort. They become undisciplined. Those who had to earn power are replaced by those who have known nothing else."

And so it is with the Rugby Football Union who for years boasted a world-leading coach and youth development programme, with the England Under-20s winning the Junior World Championship three times in four years and providing a steady pipeline of talent to the senior team. Through neglect, complacency and almost willful sabotage the foundations of English rugbywere allowed to crumble and now the consequences are being felt. A run of three successive two-win Six Nations campaigns is not a blip. It is a trend. Particularly when the England Under-20 team also finished fourth, below Italy

It is well documented that the current Ireland set-up is spearheaded by the coaches who the RFU jettisoned in 2015. Stuart Lancaster is Leinster's senior coach, Munster are now led by Graham Rowntree while Ireland head coach Andy Farrell and his assistant Mike Catt, are now basking in the glow of a Grand Slam.

What is less well known is that RFU never held an exit interview with Lancaster or his assistants. All that experience and crucial learnings were just left in the ether and are now directly benefiting Ireland. Contrast that with how ferociously the New Zealand Rugby Union protects its intellectual property, particularly when the RFU came sniffing around Wayne Smith, and how it retains contact with all its foreign-based coaches.

With Eddie Jones winning a Grand Slam in 2016 and another ***le the year after, the cracks in the English system were not yet coming to surface. Behind the scenes, however, there was turmoil.

In 2016, Dean Ryan was appointed as the Rugby Football Union's head of international player development. This effectively replaced the role that Lancaster held before he became England head coach in 2011.

Ryan was always a curious appointment. Previously director of rugby with Worcester Warriors and Gloucester, he had little background in development. He was, however, close friends with Nigel Melville, then the RFU's director of professional rugby and he wasted no time stamping his mark.

England Under-20s coach Martin Haag was let go four months after winning the Junior World Championship in 2016. Two years later, John Fletcher and Peter Walton, the enormously popular coaches of the England Under-18s, were sacked in the middle of a coaching conference, to a chorus of mutiny among current and former players on social media.

Others who left during this period included Kevin Bowring and Richard Shuttleworth within the coaching development programme, Russell Earnshaw, Alun Powell, the head of regional academies who has taken up a similar role with the English Cricket Board, sports psychologist James Bell and strength and conditioning coach Neil Taylor. It amounted to a wholesale gutting of the development pathway as well as a move towards a more structured approach.
Ryan would argue that his hands were forced by budget cuts. "When I first came we had a £750,000 budget for coach development, now we have nothing," Ryan said in a newspaper interview in 2019. "The department here has just been squeezed and squeezed."

Earnshaw says that there are a lot of good people back involved at Twickenham, but the damage caused by letting so much expertise go will take years to rebuild. "Development takes a long time to build but can be destroyed quickly," he said. "It is not just the expertise, it is the relationships that they have built up with clubs, schools and parents. That level of trust takes years and years to build."

It was not just the relationships further down the pyramid that were being damaged. Jones' public spat with Bath owner Bruce Craig, whom he called the "Donald Trump of rugby", in 2018 was symbolic of a breakdown in relations with Premiership clubs. At least one Premiership club banned England coaches from visiting their training ground, although Borthwick is already mending fences in this regard.

There was little coordination around the programmes for some England Under-20 players who ended up playing as few as half a dozen matches a season. This is an area that urgently needs to be addressed by next year's Professional Game Agreement between Premiership Rugby and the RFU. In Ireland, talent is funnelled through the schools and academy system into the provinces and national team. In England, the talent is there – see the recent emergence of Lewis Chessum and Robert Carmichael –but too frequently it ends up being poured through a sieve.

For all the envious glances currently being cast towards Ireland, whose Under-20s sealed their own 'green sweep' this weekend, it was not too long ago that England had a world-leading youth programme. It is also worth remembering that Leinster's playing pool is about the same size as Yorkshire's.

The implicit assumption that the world's largest playing pool and financial resources would keep England ahead of the opposition must come to an end.

Size counts for nothing unless you have the structure to harness it.

Two Quins centres Northmore and Anyanwu both look like quality prospects post RWC, learning from Estehuizen can't hurt either. I know Anyanwu burst on to the scene at the start of the season but Northmore has looked quality for a couple of years now, they both just need consistent game time.

Big lads as well Northmore is 1.88 and 99kg, Anyanwu is 1.82 and 102kg

The Opta stats on England's tournament (reported by the BBC) made interesting viewing:

OptaJohnny wrote:Steve Borthwick endured a challenging first Six Nations as head coach. His side broke the defensive line the least often of any outfit (16 times), and combined with the lowest tackle success rate (83%) and worst goal-kicking (62%) you can understand how they failed to pick up more than a couple of wins.

Having the slowest average ruck speed (3.8 seconds) of any team didn't help their attack find the gaps, nor did the four unique midfield combinations (10-12-13) they had through the campaign.

One area of success they did have was in the set-piece and maul. England managed the best line-out success rate (92%) of any team, made the most maul metres of any side and scored as many tries from mauls (3) as the other nations combined. They completed the set-piece strength by managing the best scrum success rate in the Championship (96%).

Lots to build on - the issue seems to be the coherence of the attack. With a solid set piece like that, there has to be an argument for picking the whole backline around who has the best tactical/attacking kicking game. Dare I say it, a South African game plan would seem to be playing to the team's strengths.

The teams strengths are guided by the coach. I fear you're right in terms of tactics.

Poorfour wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Interesting conundrum  there. Steward moved to 12 on the nod from the current England boss to his new assistant. Let's Brown play 15. Sure that would go down great with Leicester if it turns out to be a disaster.

Many a true word said in jest... I hadn't thought about Steward at 12, but he has many of the characteristics to be successful there. There's shades of Matt Banahan - I can only remember seeing him play there once for England (against the BaaBaas), but it was so obviously the right position to make use of his abilities and minimise his weaknesses that I wondered why it hadn't been done earlier and more often.

Of course, with Brown playing well and Kelly still injured, it could actually work well for Leicester in the short term...

In the theoretical view of potential post RWC 12s, I would include Ethan Grayson.  Doing great in his appearances and in Saints academy.  6' 2" and currently 214 st. 8 lbs. And only 20.  Runs hard and can distribute (the distribution is probably genetic).

George Carlin wrote:The Opta stats on England's tournament (reported by the BBC) made interesting viewing:

OptaJohnny wrote:Steve Borthwick endured a challenging first Six Nations as head coach. His side broke the defensive line the least often of any outfit (16 times), and combined with the lowest tackle success rate (83%) and worst goal-kicking (62%) you can understand how they failed to pick up more than a couple of wins.

Having the slowest average ruck speed (3.8 seconds) of any team didn't help their attack find the gaps, nor did the four unique midfield combinations (10-12-13) they had through the campaign.

One area of success they did have was in the set-piece and maul. England managed the best line-out success rate (92%) of any team, made the most maul metres of any side and scored as many tries from mauls (3) as the other nations combined. They completed the set-piece strength by managing the best scrum success rate in the Championship (96%).

Lots to build on - the issue seems to be the coherence of the attack. With a solid set piece like that, there has to be an argument for picking the whole backline around who has the best tactical/attacking kicking game. Dare I say it, a South African game plan would seem to be playing to the team's strengths.

Slightly reminiscent of how Borthwick started at Tigers. Get the set piece detail in first, tactical kicking game as well, then build up the defence and the attack is the icing on top of the cake.

There will be a huge push on fitness before the world cup with Aled Walters coming in. That should help the relentless Sinfield style of defence work more coherently.

We desperately need to find a settled 10/12/13 though. That's got to be a priority otherwise the attack will not function irrespective of what else we do.

Agree on 10/12/13 but I rather suspect Borthwick will settle on Farrell for sure at 10 and quite possibly Lawrence Slade at 12 13.

doctor_grey wrote:
In the theoretical view of potential post RWC 12s, I would include Ethan Grayson.  Doing great in his appearances and in Saints academy.  6' 2" and currently 214 st. 8 lbs. And only 20.  Runs hard and can distribute (the distribution is probably genetic).

Howwww much?

BamBam wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:
In the theoretical view of potential post RWC 12s, I would include Ethan Grayson.  Doing great in his appearances and in Saints academy.  6' 2" and currently 214 st. 8 lbs. And only 20.  Runs hard and can distribute (the distribution is probably genetic).

Howwww much?

They added Tuilagi genes during the process

mountain man wrote:Agree on 10/12/13 but I rather suspect Borthwick will settle on Farrell for sure at 10 and quite possibly Lawrence Slade at 12 13.

I'm annoyed about the treatment of Smith already. Did you see the comments from Ashton basically saying Borthwick had nothing to do with the attack for Leicester (limited as it was) and just left it to Ford? That's worrying to have a head coach with so limited impact/interest.

We could well see Ford on bench with Farrell 10 for summer/RWC. Wouldn't surprise me at all.

i wonder what it is with Smith that coaches arent warming to. There must be one sticking point as thats Eddie Jones and Now Borthwick and his team who dont seem to know what to do.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:Agree on 10/12/13 but I rather suspect Borthwick will settle on Farrell for sure at 10 and quite possibly Lawrence Slade at 12 13.

I'm annoyed about the treatment of Smith already. Did you see the comments from Ashton basically saying Borthwick had nothing to do with the attack for Leicester (limited as it was) and just left it to Ford? That's worrying to have a head coach with so limited impact/interest.

Or is it better to have a head coach that recognises the strengths within the environment and channels them to where they are at their best?

Do you want a man who's speciality is tactics and set piece to get involved in attack where his skill set is limited?

Nick Evans was brought in for a reason, he had a job to do. A big one as Eddie didn't leave much in place.

I can see Borthwick turning to Ford again as an on field coach if he's fit and in form. Sanderson has said on multiple occasions that Ford has been developing Sale's attack/backs game whilst out injured. They've made huge strides this season, I doubt it's a coincidence.

The axis of Ford and Kelly at 10/12 would be straight out the Tigers playbook from the league winning season and unbeaten run. Would give JVP or Quirke a 10 they know and once you add Lawrence at 13 and a couple of wings that will look for work it should be good to go.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:Agree on 10/12/13 but I rather suspect Borthwick will settle on Farrell for sure at 10 and quite possibly Lawrence Slade at 12 13.

I'm annoyed about the treatment of Smith already. Did you see the comments from Ashton basically saying Borthwick had nothing to do with the attack for Leicester (limited as it was) and just left it to Ford? That's worrying to have a head coach with so limited impact/interest.

Or is it better to have a head coach that recognises the strengths within the environment and channels them to where they are at their best?

Do you want a man who's speciality is tactics and set piece to get involved in attack where his skill set is limited?

Nick Evans was brought in for a reason, he had a job to do. A big one as Eddie didn't leave much in place.

I can see Borthwick turning to Ford again as an on field coach if he's fit and in form. Sanderson has said on multiple occasions that Ford has been developing Sale's attack/backs game whilst out injured. They've made huge strides this season, I doubt it's a coincidence.

The axis of Ford and Kelly at 10/12 would be straight out the Tigers playbook from the league winning season and unbeaten run. Would give JVP or Quirke a 10 they know and once you add Lawrence at 13 and a couple of wings that will look for work it should be good to go.

Ideally someone more involved, I don't think a head coach can completely delegate a role and it have a positive affect. The comments from Ashton surprised me tbh. A bit like Jones just letting the forwards get on with the scrum themselves. It went downhill, and when Borthwick has had that overview it's improved.

Early noises (Murray Kinsella) indicate the red card has been rescinded.

The thing is with Smith he hasn't played his best in an England shirt, not always down to him (see France demolition) but in general he's not been player he is for club. Yes, different teams and pressure and opposition etc but the overall picture has been with Smith at 10 it hasn't really worked. That's the bare bones of it rightly or wrongly. *
It's frustrating as most of us know what he can do as a 10 and I was first in line pre 6N to say he should be England 10.

As was said on BBC podcast highly likely Farrell, Smith and Ford go to RWC anyway so depends on how coaching team see things once there I suppose. Might see a horses for courses selection so certain games it's Farrell at 10 another Smith or Ford.

I'd be surprised if he's not involved at all, that would be a shock but who knows.

*I'll add as we all know 10 is such a key position that if a team plays badly/loses then usually focus is on 10 as much as any player hence Smith might cop unfair flak. I suspect this is what is happening.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Early noises (Murray Kinsella) indicate the red card has been rescinded.

Stewards?

Whats the point?

Geordie wrote:

BamBam wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:
In the theoretical view of potential post RWC 12s, I would include Ethan Grayson.  Doing great in his appearances and in Saints academy.  6' 2" and currently 214 st. 8 lbs. And only 20.  Runs hard and can distribute (the distribution is probably genetic).

Howwww much?

They added Tuilagi genes during the process

Whoa. That was just a wee mistake. 14 stone, 8 lbs.. I must have had a flashback to an old girlfriend...

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Early noises (Murray Kinsella) indicate the red card has been rescinded.

Stewards?

Whats the point?

Avoids ban plus vindicates player. If it was me I'd be happy if a card was rescinded.

Also makes it more clear to some refs about the actual options they have. It should never have been included within the normal tackle framework. That's assuming this rumour is true, but I look forward to reading the conclusions anyway.

Another point WR still need to address is how hit and miss citings are. I've not seen a citing for Ryan (so may be about to mini rant needlessly if I've missed it) and it seems that only if the commentators pick it up at the time of broadcast or that it gets retweets under prominent rugby voices on twitter does the citing process work. The majority of the time the panels get to the right conclusion but how many incidents just sail under the radar?

And maybe gives Peyper something to think about

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Early noises (Murray Kinsella) indicate the red card has been rescinded.

Stewards?

Whats the point?

Well Tigers would like him to be able to play in the next couple of weeks so there's that. He's due one rest week which will probably be against Bristol but then it would be good for him to play against Edinburgh in Europe. Mike Brown's contract runs outs shortly as well though he'll probably get an extension given how well he's played (bit of a shock all round that).

No 7&1/2 wrote:Also makes it more clear to some refs about the actual options they have. It should never have been included within the normal tackle framework.

Not true. There's several get outs within the framework and one is for involuntary collisions. You don't have to go straight for the flow diagram with the "Is it foul play" etc.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:And maybe gives Peyper something to think about

More important that is gives Jonker something to think about... but I doubt it will.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:Agree on 10/12/13 but I rather suspect Borthwick will settle on Farrell for sure at 10 and quite possibly Lawrence Slade at 12 13.

I'm annoyed about the treatment of Smith already. Did you see the comments from Ashton basically saying Borthwick had nothing to do with the attack for Leicester (limited as it was) and just left it to Ford? That's worrying to have a head coach with so limited impact/interest.

Or is it better to have a head coach that recognises the strengths within the environment and channels them to where they are at their best?

Do you want a man who's speciality is tactics and set piece to get involved in attack where his skill set is limited?

Nick Evans was brought in for a reason, he had a job to do. A big one as Eddie didn't leave much in place.

I can see Borthwick turning to Ford again as an on field coach if he's fit and in form. Sanderson has said on multiple occasions that Ford has been developing Sale's attack/backs game whilst out injured. They've made huge strides this season, I doubt it's a coincidence.

The axis of Ford and Kelly at 10/12 would be straight out the Tigers playbook from the league winning season and unbeaten run. Would give JVP or Quirke a 10 they know and once you add Lawrence at 13 and a couple of wings that will look for work it should be good to go.

Ideally someone more involved, I don't think a head coach can completely delegate a role and it have a positive affect. The comments from Ashton surprised me tbh. A bit like Jones just letting the forwards get on with the scrum themselves. It went downhill, and when Borthwick has had that overview it's improved.

Borthwick has a big hand on tactics so it won't be like he has no interest in what we do once the ball leaves the set piece. He is big on allowing players to go for it if they think it's on though and he likes his playmakers to have options and back themselves. It's more in the 22/opposition third that I think Ashton would be referring to, when the attack is probing the opposition defence. Ford's ability to turn rugby into chess and plot several phases ahead was then left to do it's bit.

That'll be the bit that Borthwick will have been looking at his senior playmakers and Evans to manage.

Sometimes you need to trust the specialists in the room to deliver in their area.

Poorfour wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:And maybe gives Peyper something to think about

More important that is gives Jonker something to think about... but I doubt it will.

Jonker think? You might be asking to much there.

"Freddie Steward is free to play immediately after an independent Disciplinary Committee chose not to uphold his red card from the Guinness Six Nations game between Ireland and England on Saturday in Dublin.

The judgement is available to read below:

England fullback Freddie Steward appeared before an independent Disciplinary Committee via video link having received a red card in the Guinness Six Nations match between Ireland and England on Saturday 18th March 2023 played at the Aviva Stadium.

The Red Card was issued as a result of the Referee concluding that the Player had acted contrary to Law 9.13 (A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously. Dangerous tackling includes, but is not limited to, tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders),

The independent Disciplinary Committee consisting of Nigel Hampton KC – Chair (New Zealand), Frank Hadden (Scotland) and John Langford (Australia) heard the case, and considered all the available evidence, including multiple broadcast angles and submissions from the Player and his representative.

After hearing the submissions, the Disciplinary Committee formally amended the Law which was breached to Law 9.11 (Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others including leading with the elbow or forearm, or jumping into, or over, a tackler.)

The player denied that he had committed an act of foul play worthy of a red card as described in Law 9.11. Having reviewed all the evidence, the Committee decided that: (i) head contact with an opposing player had occurred; (ii) there had been an act of foul play in breach of Law 9.11 in that the Player had been reckless in his actions and in his upright positioning as he approached and came into highly dangerous contact with the other player; and (iii) there were sufficient mitigating factors including the late change in the dynamics and positioning of the opposing player which should have resulted in the issue of a yellow card rather than a red card.

On that basis, the Committee did not uphold the red card and the player is free to play again immediately.

The Committee acknowledged that match officials are required to make decisions under pressure and in the heat of a live match environment."

A bit of face saving for the officials with a down grade to a yellow card and the last bit.

Confirmed that it's overturned.

And yeah it's not even a yellow. Face saving for a really bad decision.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:Agree on 10/12/13 but I rather suspect Borthwick will settle on Farrell for sure at 10 and quite possibly Lawrence Slade at 12 13.

I'm annoyed about the treatment of Smith already. Did you see the comments from Ashton basically saying Borthwick had nothing to do with the attack for Leicester (limited as it was) and just left it to Ford? That's worrying to have a head coach with so limited impact/interest.

Or is it better to have a head coach that recognises the strengths within the environment and channels them to where they are at their best?

Do you want a man who's speciality is tactics and set piece to get involved in attack where his skill set is limited?

Nick Evans was brought in for a reason, he had a job to do. A big one as Eddie didn't leave much in place.

I can see Borthwick turning to Ford again as an on field coach if he's fit and in form. Sanderson has said on multiple occasions that Ford has been developing Sale's attack/backs game whilst out injured. They've made huge strides this season, I doubt it's a coincidence.

The axis of Ford and Kelly at 10/12 would be straight out the Tigers playbook from the league winning season and unbeaten run. Would give JVP or Quirke a 10 they know and once you add Lawrence at 13 and a couple of wings that will look for work it should be good to go.

Ideally someone more involved, I don't think a head coach can completely delegate a role and it have a positive affect. The comments from Ashton surprised me tbh. A bit like Jones just letting the forwards get on with the scrum themselves. It went downhill, and when Borthwick has had that overview it's improved.

Borthwick has a big hand on tactics so it won't be like he has no interest in what we do once the ball leaves the set piece. He is big on allowing players to go for it if they think it's on though and he likes his playmakers to have options and back themselves. It's more in the 22/opposition third that I think Ashton would be referring to, when the attack is probing the opposition defence. Ford's ability to turn rugby into chess and plot several phases ahead was then left to do it's bit.

That'll be the bit that Borthwick will have been looking at his senior playmakers and Evans to manage.

Sometimes you need to trust the specialists in the room to deliver in their area.

Have to say that's not how it came across to me, but we'll see how it develops in the coming months. The approach so far has been a little confused.

OptaJohnny wrote:Steve Borthwick endured a challenging first Six Nations as head coach. His side broke the defensive line the least often of any outfit (16 times), and combined with the lowest tackle success rate (83%) and worst goal-kicking (62%) you can understand how they failed to pick up more than a couple of wins.

Having the slowest average ruck speed (3.8 seconds) of any team didn't help their attack find the gaps, nor did the four unique midfield combinations (10-12-13) they had through the campaign.

One area of success they did have was in the set-piece and maul. England managed the best line-out success rate (92%) of any team, made the most maul metres of any side and scored as many tries from mauls (3) as the other nations combined. They completed the set-piece strength by managing the best scrum success rate in the Championship (96%).

The key stat for me there is that ruck speed. It was most obvious in the France game, but England only really had quick ball in attack in the Wales game - where Wales were even worse at getting to the breakdown. It'd be interesting to see the stats for England forwards hitting rucks, but I doubt they're available to the general public. Dombrandt seemed to be at the bottom of a lot of breakdowns but too often on his own, and in the France game there were periods where Smith was hitting more breakdowns than he was handling the ball.

No flyhalf on earth is going to be able to spark an attack with that sort of service, especially not one like Smith whose game is based on spotting momentary mislignments in the defence. Quins' attack runs on three things to create space for him to use: enough hard carriers in the forwards to tie up the big defenders, a high percentage of sub-2 sec rucks (as did the England attack in 2019), and multiple runners offering targets.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Confirmed that it's overturned.

And yeah it's not even a yellow. Face saving for a really bad decision.

Thats a really perverse decision. Its either a rugby incident and play on or a red.

TJ wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Confirmed that it's overturned.

And yeah it's not even a yellow. Face saving for a really bad decision.

Thats a really perverse decision.  Its either a rugby incident and play on or a red.

It's a fudge to protect the refs.

As the red card has been rescinded, giving a yellow card would have been a much more pragmatic result. Giving a controversial red could have cost England the game and France the 6 Nations - which seems a much more perverse decision.

Too many people quoting "to the letter of the law" with little understanding of playing rugby .

Good card rescinded, bad it's been deemed a yellow. That is unquestionably to save face for Peyper and Jonker.

It's either a red or a rugby incident and as anyone sensible knows it's the latter.

Interesting to see comments now from those who were saying it was a cast iron, nailed on red.