England still winning the RWC at a canter - The RWC phase

First topic message reminder :

Assuming and currently it is quite a big assumption England get through group I can't see them winning QF against whoever they face. Bloody hopeless

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:After Wales Australia result anyone here still think England should have kept Jones? OK different team but same old bewildering team selection etc.

I think we'd be in a better position with a better coach, so yes.

Are you serious?

Fiji have been exciting to watch this RWC and were unlucky to lose against Wales. But I think that if they meet England in the QFs it will be a very different game from in the warm ups.

It’s been clear since the Argentina game that England were still under a heavy training load all the way through the warm ups, and were fading badly in the second half as a result. But aside from the last 5-10 minutes against Argentina (where exhaustion is completely understandable), England have been stronger towards the ends of games and able to exploit the space. They’ve also conceded one try - while a player down and with the game won - since the start of the tournament.

Fiji will likely not find it as easy to breach the English defence as they did in the warmups, and even if they do, England look a lot more able to score than they did a few weeks ago.

I would much rather see Wales go up against Argentina - which I think they can win - and then face Ireland or NZ in the semi. I think England have a chance to beat France or South Africa, given their injury losses, though it will take a significant step up in performance and control of the game - with France, they need to pressure Dupont (assuming he is able to play) or whichever half backs are playing, and with South Africa hold out physically while staying close enough to make points off the boot an important factor.

If Ireland can manage to keep their squad fit and unbanned, and not get bamboozled by Scotland, then they look to have the beating of any team in the tournament, but anything can happen in knockout rugby.

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:After Wales Australia result anyone here still think England should have kept Jones? OK different team but same old bewildering team selection etc.

I think we'd be in a better position with a better coach, so yes.

Are you serious?

Yeah, Jones is a miles better coach than Borthwick. There was potential for quick bounce from a honeymoon period but that hasn't happened. The main issue provided is that the new coaches don't have enough time to implement their own ideas beyond the basics, so all in all I think we would have been better off. That said I would have ideally got rid of Jones and got someone else in. But the choices were A or B.

George Carlin wrote:Did anyone see the first head tackle on Jamie Ritchie in Scotland's match at the weekend?

Absolutely identical to Curry's shot but a yellow card only.

Blatant red. The explanation of a dip by Ritchie is half correct, but it had to have been sudden and significant which it wasn't.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:After Wales Australia result anyone here still think England should have kept Jones? OK different team but same old bewildering team selection etc.

I think we'd be in a better position with a better coach, so yes.

Are you serious?

Yeah, Jones is a miles better coach than Borthwick. There was potential for quick bounce from a honeymoon period but that hasn't happened. The main issue provided is that the new coaches don't have enough time to implement their own ideas beyond the basics, so all in all I think we would have been better off. That said I would have ideally got rid of Jones and got someone else in. But the choices were A or B.

Thing is if Jones was still coach with Eng would he have picked likes of Earl and Dan for RWC squad? Both been good and I can't remember but think he didn't rate them? All academic of course but I would be worried about what team he'd pick, rather as Borthwick does it has to be said.
I'll add would he have picked Mitchell? We know he loves Youngs so when JVP ruled out would he have even bought in a replacement? He made some odd choices with Aus, only Carter Gorden as first choice 10 etc.

Anyway, all done now but I said at time it was right call for Jones to go. His time was up.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:After Wales Australia result anyone here still think England should have kept Jones? OK different team but same old bewildering team selection etc.

I think we'd be in a better position with a better coach, so yes.

Are you serious?

Yeah, Jones is a miles better coach than Borthwick. There was potential for quick bounce from a honeymoon period but that hasn't happened. The main issue provided is that the new coaches don't have enough time to implement their own ideas beyond the basics, so all in all I think we would have been better off. That said I would have ideally got rid of Jones and got someone else in. But the choices were A or B.

The team has already been together for about 5 months so far in 2023 under Borthwick. How much time is needed?

Completely hypothetical, but I am convinced we would have lost against Argentina had Jones still been in charge. He'd lost the plot and we were on a downward spiral which has been tough for SB to correct. Look at the state of Aus to see how far gone he is.......

doctor_grey wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:After Wales Australia result anyone here still think England should have kept Jones? OK different team but same old bewildering team selection etc.

I think we'd be in a better position with a better coach, so yes.

Are you serious?

Yeah, Jones is a miles better coach than Borthwick. There was potential for quick bounce from a honeymoon period but that hasn't happened. The main issue provided is that the new coaches don't have enough time to implement their own ideas beyond the basics, so all in all I think we would have been better off. That said I would have ideally got rid of Jones and got someone else in. But the choices were A or B.

The team has already been together for about 5 months so far in 2023 under Borthwick.  How much time is needed?  

I'm throwing it in there as a main reason why he may not have hit the ground running as some hoped or expected. My main worry moving forward is that we're picking some established players as we expected new players to not be able to flourish; with the hopes of some turn over for the upcoming 6Ns we may be in the space where we are again with a new set of players trying to take in all this detail. A reason I was a bit disappointed that he wasn't braver with his WC selections.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Completely hypothetical, but I am convinced we would have lost against Argentina had Jones still been in charge. He'd lost the plot and we were on a downward spiral which has been tough for SB to correct. Look at the state of Aus to see how far gone he is.......

True enough. We've seen that immediate improvement under Borthwick.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:After Wales Australia result anyone here still think England should have kept Jones? OK different team but same old bewildering team selection etc.

I think we'd be in a better position with a better coach, so yes.

Are you serious?

Yeah, Jones is a miles better coach than Borthwick. There was potential for quick bounce from a honeymoon period but that hasn't happened. The main issue provided is that the new coaches don't have enough time to implement their own ideas beyond the basics, so all in all I think we would have been better off. That said I would have ideally got rid of Jones and got someone else in. But the choices were A or B.

But surely you would agree that the performances and results were visibly getting worse under Jones. Top players were playing woeful.

SB has managed to get Itoje back in to some form, brought Ben Earl in playing fabulous, and generally just trying to put things in to place. Jones would have continued with his ultra rugby that our players just werent getting to grips with .

doctor_grey wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:After Wales Australia result anyone here still think England should have kept Jones? OK different team but same old bewildering team selection etc.

I think we'd be in a better position with a better coach, so yes.

Are you serious?

Yeah, Jones is a miles better coach than Borthwick. There was potential for quick bounce from a honeymoon period but that hasn't happened. The main issue provided is that the new coaches don't have enough time to implement their own ideas beyond the basics, so all in all I think we would have been better off. That said I would have ideally got rid of Jones and got someone else in. But the choices were A or B.

The team has already been together for about 5 months so far in 2023 under Borthwick.  How much time is needed?  

The team was dire Doc. It needs radically over hauled and back to basics. It needs alot of work!

So. With England pretty much guaranteed a QF place(not checked mathematical permutations but are we there already?), what team does Borthwick go with for Samoa.

If qualified do we want to risk injuries to key players so field a "2nd" team or get 1st team in to build cohesion?
We can assume Curry be in starting 15 and probably Billy to give him game time. Itoje wasn't in 23 for Chile neither was Lawes so they'll likely be in 23 at least.

Unlike France with DuPont I don't think England have any players who if ruled out would be a massive blow to chances so go with 1st 15?

At least with Jones no longer coach chances of injury in training should be reduced....

George Carlin wrote:Did anyone see the first head tackle on Jamie Ritchie in Scotland's match at the weekend?

Absolutely identical to Curry's shot but a yellow card only.

I actually thought it was much worse ...

mountain man wrote:So. With England pretty much guaranteed a QF place(not checked mathematical permutations but are we there already?), what team does Borthwick go with for Samoa.

If qualified do we want to risk injuries to key players so field a  "2nd" team or get 1st team in to build cohesion?
We can assume Curry be in starting 15 and probably Billy to give him game time. Itoje wasn't in 23 for Chile neither was Lawes so they'll likely be in 23 at least.

Unlike France with DuPont I don't think England have any players who if ruled out would be a massive blow to chances so go with 1st 15?

At least with Jones no longer coach chances of injury in training should be reduced....

Go with your strongest team. Samoa are no slouches and we are still a huge work in progress. We must continue to build familiarization and understanding of the tactics and try to bring some of the attack in...

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:After Wales Australia result anyone here still think England should have kept Jones? OK different team but same old bewildering team selection etc.

I think we'd be in a better position with a better coach, so yes.

Are you serious?

Yeah, Jones is a miles better coach than Borthwick. There was potential for quick bounce from a honeymoon period but that hasn't happened. The main issue provided is that the new coaches don't have enough time to implement their own ideas beyond the basics, so all in all I think we would have been better off. That said I would have ideally got rid of Jones and got someone else in. But the choices were A or B.

But surely you would agree that the performances and results were visibly getting worse under Jones. Top players were playing woeful.

SB has managed to get Itoje back in to some form, brought Ben Earl in playing fabulous, and generally just trying to put things in to place. Jones would have continued with his ultra rugby that our players just werent getting to grips with .

It was awful under Jones, I wanted him gone at the time but like I said if it were a choice of Jones or Borthwick I'd be going Jones.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Completely hypothetical, but I am convinced we would have lost against Argentina had Jones still been in charge. He'd lost the plot and we were on a downward spiral which has been tough for SB to correct. Look at the state of Aus to see how far gone he is.......

True enough. We've seen that immediate improvement under Borthwick.

Hence the "has been tough for SB to correct".

Results and performances were getting worse for EJ and we've seen an improvement in both (although not as quickly as we'd have hoped) from SB.

I sometimes wonder if you actually read what people put or if you just have your agenda and comments pre-selected........

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:After Wales Australia result anyone here still think England should have kept Jones? OK different team but same old bewildering team selection etc.

I think we'd be in a better position with a better coach, so yes.

Are you serious?

Yeah, Jones is a miles better coach than Borthwick. There was potential for quick bounce from a honeymoon period but that hasn't happened. The main issue provided is that the new coaches don't have enough time to implement their own ideas beyond the basics, so all in all I think we would have been better off. That said I would have ideally got rid of Jones and got someone else in. But the choices were A or B.

But surely you would agree that the performances and results were visibly getting worse under Jones. Top players were playing woeful.

SB has managed to get Itoje back in to some form, brought Ben Earl in playing fabulous, and generally just trying to put things in to place. Jones would have continued with his ultra rugby that our players just werent getting to grips with .

It was awful under Jones, I wanted him gone at the time but like I said if it were a choice of Jones or Borthwick I'd be going Jones.

Thats just totally perplexing? Why would you want someone who is making things worse over someone who is improving things? I think we're seeing your stubbornness ....

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Completely hypothetical, but I am convinced we would have lost against Argentina had Jones still been in charge. He'd lost the plot and we were on a downward spiral which has been tough for SB to correct. Look at the state of Aus to see how far gone he is.......

True enough. We've seen that immediate improvement under Borthwick.

Hence the "has been tough for SB to correct".

Results and performances were getting worse for EJ and we've seen an improvement in both (although not as quickly as we'd have hoped) from SB.

I sometimes wonder if you actually read what people put or if you just have your agenda and comments pre-selected........

Results and performances have been far worse under his successor. We have not seen improvement in terms of results and certainly not performance.

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:After Wales Australia result anyone here still think England should have kept Jones? OK different team but same old bewildering team selection etc.

I think we'd be in a better position with a better coach, so yes.

Are you serious?

Yeah, Jones is a miles better coach than Borthwick. There was potential for quick bounce from a honeymoon period but that hasn't happened. The main issue provided is that the new coaches don't have enough time to implement their own ideas beyond the basics, so all in all I think we would have been better off. That said I would have ideally got rid of Jones and got someone else in. But the choices were A or B.

But surely you would agree that the performances and results were visibly getting worse under Jones. Top players were playing woeful.

SB has managed to get Itoje back in to some form, brought Ben Earl in playing fabulous, and generally just trying to put things in to place. Jones would have continued with his ultra rugby that our players just werent getting to grips with .

It was awful under Jones, I wanted him gone at the time but like I said if it were a choice of Jones or Borthwick I'd be going Jones.

Thats just totally perplexing? Why would you want someone who is making things worse over someone who is improving things? I think we're seeing your stubbornness ....

Like I said in the response to sarge, thins are actually deteriorating quite quickly now. There is little to cheer about with Borthwick and there was always the inkling that Jones was putting all his eggs in the WC basket. I'm not sure Borthwick owns a baskets, he's dropping them on the floor.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:After Wales Australia result anyone here still think England should have kept Jones? OK different team but same old bewildering team selection etc.

I think we'd be in a better position with a better coach, so yes.

Are you serious?

Yeah, Jones is a miles better coach than Borthwick. There was potential for quick bounce from a honeymoon period but that hasn't happened. The main issue provided is that the new coaches don't have enough time to implement their own ideas beyond the basics, so all in all I think we would have been better off. That said I would have ideally got rid of Jones and got someone else in. But the choices were A or B.

But surely you would agree that the performances and results were visibly getting worse under Jones. Top players were playing woeful.

SB has managed to get Itoje back in to some form, brought Ben Earl in playing fabulous, and generally just trying to put things in to place. Jones would have continued with his ultra rugby that our players just werent getting to grips with .

It was awful under Jones, I wanted him gone at the time but like I said if it were a choice of Jones or Borthwick I'd be going Jones.

Thats just totally perplexing? Why would you want someone who is making things worse over someone who is improving things? I think we're seeing your stubbornness ....

Like I said in the response to sarge, thins are actually deteriorating quite quickly now. There is little to cheer about with Borthwick and there was always the inkling that Jones was putting all his eggs in the WC basket. I'm not sure Borthwick owns a baskets, he's dropping them on the floor.

Your responses are quite illogical 7.5?
How are things deteriorating quite quickly now?
Players are coming back in to form...Itoje etc. We have won 3 on the bounce, 2 of which everyone said we'd lose, and should beat Samoa to make the 1/4's.

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:After Wales Australia result anyone here still think England should have kept Jones? OK different team but same old bewildering team selection etc.

I think we'd be in a better position with a better coach, so yes.

Are you serious?

Yeah, Jones is a miles better coach than Borthwick. There was potential for quick bounce from a honeymoon period but that hasn't happened. The main issue provided is that the new coaches don't have enough time to implement their own ideas beyond the basics, so all in all I think we would have been better off. That said I would have ideally got rid of Jones and got someone else in. But the choices were A or B.

But surely you would agree that the performances and results were visibly getting worse under Jones. Top players were playing woeful.

SB has managed to get Itoje back in to some form, brought Ben Earl in playing fabulous, and generally just trying to put things in to place. Jones would have continued with his ultra rugby that our players just werent getting to grips with .

It was awful under Jones, I wanted him gone at the time but like I said if it were a choice of Jones or Borthwick I'd be going Jones.

Thats just totally perplexing? Why would you want someone who is making things worse over someone who is improving things? I think we're seeing your stubbornness ....

Like I said in the response to sarge, thins are actually deteriorating quite quickly now. There is little to cheer about with Borthwick and there was always the inkling that Jones was putting all his eggs in the WC basket. I'm not sure Borthwick owns a baskets, he's dropping them on the floor.

Your responses are quite illogical 7.5?
How are things deteriorating quite quickly now?
Players are coming back in to form...Itoje etc. We have won 3 on the bounce, 2 of which everyone said we'd lose, and should beat Samoa to make the 1/4's.

Reading it back I can see how it appears that way. I put a tongue in cheek comment around how we've seen an improvement under Borthwick as I assumed most would see we've gone backwards!

I think before the WC even following the horrendous run of form that par was a semi final, that's still the case.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Completely hypothetical, but I am convinced we would have lost against Argentina had Jones still been in charge. He'd lost the plot and we were on a downward spiral which has been tough for SB to correct. Look at the state of Aus to see how far gone he is.......

True enough. We've seen that immediate improvement under Borthwick.

Hence the "has been tough for SB to correct".

Results and performances were getting worse for EJ and we've seen an improvement in both (although not as quickly as we'd have hoped) from SB.

I sometimes wonder if you actually read what people put or if you just have your agenda and comments pre-selected........

Results and performances have been far worse under his successor. We have not seen improvement in terms of results and certainly not performance.

Not true at all.....I really don't know what you use as a metric.

Lets bring one up.......in the AI we got beat at home off Argentina (Jones in charge). Jump forward to the WC and we dismantle the same Argentina side with 14 men.

I think I'm done with this for the day as it's kind of pointless.

1 off games sarge. We drew with NZ, we ain't doing that with Borthwick. We lost to Fiji for the 1st time ever under Borthwick. Record home defeats coming as regular things. I get you guys really like Borthwick and the way he's going about things, there are people who seeing Robinson like approaches. Feels like we're in the 2005 phase where we beat Canada 70 nil and then beat SA.

I just think Jones was a proper top level coach who was so blinded by his holy grail that he took he eye off the ball in the bread and butter. I personally didn't think his approach was appropriate and that the RFU gave him an easy time. The Argentina game and the empty seats and booing did for him.

I was hoping someone would come in and do an approach as has been done in cricket but we've obviously gone another way. Hindsight is 20 20.

I don't really like Borthwick at all....

Heaf wrote:

George Carlin wrote:Did anyone see the first head tackle on Jamie Ritchie in Scotland's match at the weekend?

Absolutely identical to Curry's shot but a yellow card only.

I actually thought it was much worse ...

Agree with this - there was much more intent and aggression in this one than in Curry's tackle. I still accept that TC's tackle and clash of heads did reach the red card threshold given the current guidance (although I think it was much more a misjudgement than anything intentiona,l or malicious), but some of the ones that have been yellow carded or only penalties have looked worse. This one, the tackler started low but drove upwards towards Ritchie's head prior to impact. Ritchie was leaning forward a bit, but no more than normal for carrying a ball into contact, and didn't change height significantly or suddenly.

Borthwick (with a little help from Gatland) has got England to a place where an RWC SF is the most likely outcome. That was in no way a given coming in to the tournament, though most fans would have thought it a reasonable aim given the pools.

Given the way things have fallen, that SF is now probably reachable just by continuing to play solild rugby with strong defence and a low penalty count.

The question for me is twofold:
- Can England put in a creditable performance in the semi final? They won't be expected to win, barring an injury nightmare for their opponents, but can they raise their game enough to make it a close result?
- Can England begin to add a creative layer to their game that offers the prospect of unlocking the top teams?

I think the two are closely related. It's just about possible at the top level to put in a close performance against the top team by sheer grit and attention to detail in targeting their weaknesses and putting them off their gameplan (which was essentially how England won against Argentina), but get people believing they can win against the top sides, tbey need a functioning attack.

That's very much in the air - though I'm encouraged that in each of the RWC martches so far England have scored points in the final quarter and been able to use subs effectively and exploit the game opening up. They will need to find a way to do more of that in the earlier parts of the game - or at least score regularly enough to stay in touch until the final quarter.

The Argentina game and the empty seats and booing did for him.

It was more than that. England been terrible last few years. The Argentina game etc just capped it off. Results and performances(which I believe you value higher than results?) were awful.

I'm not at all convinced on Borthwick but hopefully the 3 wins so far will help confidence in both players and coaches and we build from there.

He's going nowhere so like it or not that's situation.

mountain man wrote:

The Argentina game and the empty seats and booing did for him.

It was more than that. England been terrible last few years. The Argentina game etc just capped it off. Results and performances(which I believe you value higher than results?) were awful.

I'm not at all convinced on Borthwick but hopefully the 3 wins so far will help confidence in both players and coaches and we build from there.

He's going nowhere so like it or not that's situation.

For the fans I think definitely, for the RFU not so sure. I think I was a pretty lone voice when I was expressing some concern in 2020 when we won 2 tournaments and lost 1 game which could have gone the other way (Curry as an 8..). We were winning, but performances were poor, think there was a prevailing thinking that it was all good as long as we were winning.

And yes I place entertainment very high on the agenda, the only reason I watch sport is to enjoy it. And that's annoying when you link your trailer to a team and are practically forced to watch.

dummy_half wrote:

Heaf wrote:

George Carlin wrote:Did anyone see the first head tackle on Jamie Ritchie in Scotland's match at the weekend?

Absolutely identical to Curry's shot but a yellow card only.

I actually thought it was much worse ...

Agree with this - there was much more intent and aggression in this one than in Curry's tackle. I still accept that TC's tackle and clash of heads did reach the red card threshold given the current guidance (although I think it was much more a misjudgement than anything intentiona,l or malicious), but some of the ones that have been yellow carded or only penalties have looked worse. This one, the tackler started low but drove upwards towards Ritchie's head prior to impact. Ritchie was leaning forward a bit, but no more than normal for carrying a ball into contact, and didn't change height significantly or suddenly.

I've been thinking about this a bit. At the moment the interpretation seems to be skewed against players who are caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. In real time, Curry clearly wasn't expecing Mallia to land when and where he did - he was still getting into position for the tackle rather than expecting to make one. Likewise, Steward was actively trying to get out of the way of a situation that developed rapidly (and was eventually exonerated for it).

On the other hand, Carreras stayed at yellow for a technicality in a very clearly reckless act, and the tackle on Ritchie got credited with mitigation for a change of height that the player could and should have been expected to take into account.

The current framework has - correctly - taken intention out of the picture, but I am wondering if there's a need to take into account some measure of readiness. Was the player set for contact, or still getting into position? Was their positioning reckless, or would it have been OK if the tackle had happened as expected? Should they have been ready for what occurred, or is there room for them to be surprised by it?

Poorfour wrote:

dummy_half wrote:

Heaf wrote:

George Carlin wrote:Did anyone see the first head tackle on Jamie Ritchie in Scotland's match at the weekend?

Absolutely identical to Curry's shot but a yellow card only.

I actually thought it was much worse ...

Agree with this - there was much more intent and aggression in this one than in Curry's tackle. I still accept that TC's tackle and clash of heads did reach the red card threshold given the current guidance (although I think it was much more a misjudgement than anything intentiona,l or malicious), but some of the ones that have been yellow carded or only penalties have looked worse. This one, the tackler started low but drove upwards towards Ritchie's head prior to impact. Ritchie was leaning forward a bit, but no more than normal for carrying a ball into contact, and didn't change height significantly or suddenly.

I've been thinking about this a bit. At the moment the interpretation seems to be skewed against players who are caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. In real time, Curry clearly wasn't expecing Mallia to land when and where he did - he was still getting into position for the tackle rather than expecting to make one. Likewise, Steward was actively trying to get out of the way of a situation that developed rapidly (and was eventually exonerated for it).

On the other hand, Carreras stayed at yellow for a technicality in a very clearly reckless act, and the tackle on Ritchie got credited with mitigation for a change of height that the player could and should have been expected to take into account.

The current framework has - correctly - taken intention out of the picture, but I am wondering if there's a need to take into account some measure of readiness. Was the player set for contact, or still getting into position? Was their positioning reckless, or would it have been OK if the tackle had happened as expected? Should they have been ready for what occurred, or is there room for them to be surprised by it?

In a lot of instances you also as a player have got to be able to think am I going to risk being high and go for an absorbing tackle. Had Curry stepped back rather than forward and a bit up and just accepted it wasn't going to be dominant, it would have been a yellow.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

mountain man wrote:Best thing is England score 11 tries, concede zero points but lots of moaning.

Need Smith on pitch but question is what position. He's never quite cracked it at 10, his cameos at 15 so far been positive but whether he'd be good enough against better teams never know until it's tried. I was sceptical of it to be honest but I really do want to see more from England in attack and this is one way of achieving it.

Smith hasn't really had many chances playing 10 in a decent England side, though. Even then, there were times that it clocked and we saw what he could do - those 10 minutes against the ABs for instance.

Ah come on PF.......Smith has had stacks of chances to nail the shirt but has never looked comfortable at Int level. I'm a huge fan of his for Quins but he's struggled. We've even tried bringing in his team mates and coach but he's still not produced.

Disagree with that. He's played the tactics pretty well. Ended up top point scorer in last years 6ns didn't he? I think Smith struggles more in comparison to Ford and farrell as the expectation is that he will shred defences. Its just not what England want so he plays within himself. Stillmplays well though in terms of implementation.

He also had to contend with:

Youngs for most of his caps
A team that did not understand how to run off him and give the defence too many options
For a number of his caps, 10 minute cameos where the match was dead and he was the last hope of something happening (which it often did).

I'm a boring chap - so I did a plot of opposition points (in world ranking, +3 if they were playing at home as per WRs usage) against points difference in each match England have played under Borthwick this year, and Jones in 2022. The points difference was consistently about +10 in England's favour under Jones. Make of that what you will. England definitely got consistently worse from the end of 2019 through to Jones leaving, and may have slipped even further had he stayed, but results this year seem to be objectively worse than last year.

Big wrote:I'm a boring chap - so I did a plot of opposition points (in world ranking, +3 if they were playing at home as per WRs usage) against points difference in each match England have played under Borthwick this year, and Jones in 2022.  The points difference was consistently about +10 in England's favour under Jones.  Make of that what you will.  England definitely got consistently worse from the end of 2019 through to Jones leaving, and may have slipped even further had he stayed, but results this year seem to be objectively worse than last year.

And SB has managed to stop the rot that Jones had started, and trying to turn it around.

Jury still out for me on Borthwick. England were utterly awful in warm ups but maybe it was just getting ready for RWC with S&C etc, we don't know for sure.

The win against Argentina in adversity in losing Curry so early was a turning point I thought but then it all went a bit iffy against Japan. Far too much kicking and badly done at that.
An absolute hammering of Chile gives the feel good factor as everyone looked good, tons of tries etc.

The proof of the pudding will be QF and on should England progress. A win against Fiji is essential(obviously) but if they lose then big questions be asked.

Question for the Fiji game, if it happens. Who do you play in the centres? I would be loath to put in Daly against any of the Fijian centres, Lawrence and Manu perhaps at least try and match power with power. Also are we going to match Arundell against Radradra, might just be a case for Steward on the right wing and Arundell or May on the left.

I suspect we'll see Farrell 12 and Manu 13 for Fiji. I'd go Manu Lawrence as you suggest though. Wings? Hmm, tricky. I reckon Steward be 15 and May Arundell wings.
I'd be surprised if Borthwick puts Smith 15 for that match but perhaps it's the start of a brave new world.

mountain man wrote:Jury still out for me on Borthwick. England were utterly awful in warm ups but maybe it was just getting ready for RWC with S&C etc, we don't know for sure.

The win against Argentina in adversity in losing Curry so early was a turning point I thought but then it all went a bit iffy against Japan. Far too much kicking and badly done at that.
An absolute hammering of Chile gives the feel good factor as everyone looked good, tons of tries etc.

The proof of the pudding will be QF and on should England progress. A win against Fiji is essential(obviously) but if they lose then big questions be asked.

I don't know how much surer we can be on the first point. Aled Walters has said, in so many words, that England played the equivalent of a full match on the Tuesday before the Ireland game, and that they were setting out to force the team to play hard games when theyr were tired. The turnaround in fitness for the Argentina game can only have come from tapering the training given how close it was to the warm ups.

England are miles from being the finished article, but fitness, defence and discipline are all hugely improved from the 6N and warmups, and there are glimmers of an attacking structure beyond the most basic "play in the right part of the pitch" approach.

Has defence really improved? There's been a certain ease at which Argentina and Japan have walked through us before unforced errors stopped them dead. Chile even a couple of times made a lot of metres.

But against Japan they were as bad as in warm ups, like REALLY bad.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Has defence really improved? There's been a certain ease at which Argentina and Japan have walked through us before unforced errors stopped them dead. Chile even a couple of times made a lot of metres.

We conceded one try across 3 games. It is not bad going

mountain man wrote:But against Japan they were as bad as in warm ups, like REALLY bad.

Were they THAT bad? Their kicking and some of the decision making admittedly poor. But thats not SB...these are top prem players who should be kicking better.

But i dont believe Japan are a bad side either. They arent quite the side of 2019 but they still looked good playing with pace all over.

I think they were, I haven't gone back over previous pages but I recall myself and several others commenting just how awful they were during game.

However, like warm up matches that's done and Chile result and performance will I hope trigger something better in both players and coaches.

i dont take anything from the Chile game....bar the fact there is an attacking game there. It will need to be developed v the big teams though. And that will take time.

lostinwales wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Has defence really improved? There's been a certain ease at which Argentina and Japan have walked through us before unforced errors stopped them dead. Chile even a couple of times made a lot of metres.

We conceded one try across 3 games. It is not bad going

Lies, damn lies and stats. What I get from it though was Argentina lost their heads, made unforced errors, Japan pretty similar at times. Chile were, well, Chile.

Geordie wrote:i dont take anything from the Chile game....bar the fact there is an attacking game there. It will need to be developed v the big teams though. And that will take time.

And bravery.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Has defence really improved? There's been a certain ease at which Argentina and Japan have walked through us before unforced errors stopped them dead. Chile even a couple of times made a lot of metres.

We conceded one try across 3 games. It is not bad going

Lies, damn lies and stats. What I get from it though was Argentina lost their heads, made unforced errors, Japan pretty similar at times. Chile were, well, Chile.

All teams that played under the lights on very hot humid nights in the South of France made a lot more errors than would be expected due to the bar of wet soap they are using for a ball.

I can't argue that mistakes were made by everybody, we just played pragmatic rugby due to the conditions rather than trying to run everything. Kicking is boring and bad kicking is worse than boring, but if the opposition is making a lot of mistakes with knockons and losing the ball in the tackle as a result of even bad kicking, gifting you territory, that is what you do. When you are a man down after 3 minutes, you take the easiest option to make ground, that is done with the boot.

Samoa will be a test of how SB wants us to play. I expect the side to be a lot different but hope the execution is similar.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Has defence really improved? There's been a certain ease at which Argentina and Japan have walked through us before unforced errors stopped them dead. Chile even a couple of times made a lot of metres.

We conceded one try across 3 games. It is not bad going

Lies, damn lies and stats. What I get from it though was Argentina lost their heads, made unforced errors, Japan pretty similar at times. Chile were, well, Chile.

Or did England put pressure on them to make the errors

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Geordie wrote:i dont take anything from the Chile game....bar the fact there is an attacking game there. It will need to be developed v the big teams though. And that will take time.

And bravery.

Im pretty sure they have that.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Has defence really improved? There's been a certain ease at which Argentina and Japan have walked through us before unforced errors stopped them dead. Chile even a couple of times made a lot of metres.

We conceded one try across 3 games. It is not bad going

Lies, damn lies and stats. What I get from it though was Argentina lost their heads, made unforced errors, Japan pretty similar at times. Chile were, well, Chile.

All teams that played under the lights on very hot humid nights in the South of France made a lot more errors than would be expected due to the bar of wet soap they are using for a ball.

I can't argue that mistakes were made by everybody, we just played pragmatic rugby due to the conditions rather than trying to run everything. Kicking is boring and bad kicking is worse than boring, but if the opposition is making a lot of mistakes with knockons and losing the ball in the tackle as a result of even bad kicking, gifting you territory, that is what you do. When you are a man down after 3 minutes, you take the easiest option to make ground, that is done with the boot.

Samoa will be a test of how SB wants us to play. I expect the side to be a lot different but hope the execution is similar.

Probs, and then QFs and beyond definitely. I do expect risk averse stuff no matter what though. Perhaps only playing off pens.

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Geordie wrote:i dont take anything from the Chile game....bar the fact there is an attacking game there. It will need to be developed v the big teams though. And that will take time.

And bravery.

Im pretty sure they have that.

Borthwick hasn't demonstrated that as yet. If we do progress and we're playing rugby from our own half, not immediately kicking it away after 1 or 2 phases then great. No bravery re tactics as yet, again can we really count Chile?