England - The Next Episode

mountain man wrote:So ringing endorsment for his assistant coaches. No surprise. He's hardly likely to be critical.

mountain man wrote:The England attack is poor but so is majority of their game at moment as was evidenced by 3 matches so far. It looked though in Italy match there were signs of improvement. Against Wales going down by a score or so plus cards put paid to any ambition, it was just get win.
Scotland, well they killed themselves with errors.
Has Borthwick and Wigglesworth impressed? Not at all. I can see possibility of a different attack coach being brought in, be it Catt or someone else. Unlike yourself I don't see Borthwick being replaced any time soon.

Not wiggy's fault if he's not allowed time with the players

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:So ringing endorsment for his assistant coaches. No surprise. He's hardly likely to be critical.

That's from ages ago and no surprise it's just a generic welcome note. Just wanted to say that at appointment Wigglesworth was the attack coach. If he wasn't supposed to be I have no recollection on who was approached and turned it down.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Nobody has mentioned the best attack coach in England, not that he is available, Sam Vesty.

I know it was against poor opposition, but look how the A team backs and forwards clicked against Portugal, after just a few days with Sam, then look at the full England set up and see how they don't click after months of training.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:So ringing endorsment for his assistant coaches. No surprise. He's hardly likely to be critical.

That's from ages ago and no surprise it's just a generic welcome note. Just wanted to say that at appointment Wigglesworth was the attack coach. If he wasn't supposed to be I have no recollection on who was approached and turned it down.

There was plenty of rumours at the time that Wigglesworth and Harrison at the time were not the preferred options and that Wigglesworth's role was originally kick strategy but then expanded. The Prem clubs were pretty unhelpful with the RFU's approaches by all accounts which isn't really surprising after how they treated Tigers.

Wigglesworth, Harrison and Aled were all up for contract renewals so we're available. Which is probably why the first two were brought in.

England's kicking strategy has generally been bang on point so far in Borthwick's reign. Maintaining that but bringing in a more experienced attack coach, particularly one Borthwick already knows and whose style England have already started replicating makes a lot of sense.

England’s misfiring attack is not being prioritised in training with Telegraph Sport learning that one prominent back touched the ball just once in a particular session.

The revelation comes as the country’s most-capped male player Ben Youngs has questioned how many attacking reps England’s players are undertaking in training. In their 30-21 defeat by Scotland, England committed 25 handling errors and 22 turnovers. With fixtures to come at home to Ireland and away to France, England have scored just six tries in this Six Nations.

Telegraph Sport understands that there is growing frustration within parts of the camp that far more time is devoted to building the hyper-aggressive blitz defence under Felix Jones than honing the attack under Richard Wigglesworth. That lack of focus stands in stark contrast to how the most innovative attacks in the Premiership operate.

Under Sam Vesty at Northampton, every player would be expected to have 150 ‘touches’ of a variety of different balls per session. Similarly at Bath, for example, backs would be expected to pass the ball at least 100 times each and forwards 50 times. Several sources confirmed that one English back, who has featured in the tournament, only got one touch during a session.

Asked about whether England’s poor passing and catching at Murrayfield would lead to a renewed focus on skills work, Wigglesworth said: “We do lots of it and wouldn’t want to be reactionary but I need to know the reasons why both individually and as a team.”

Yet the fact that so many of England’s handling errors were in dry conditions without Scottish pressure has caused Youngs, who retired after last year’s World Cup, to question how much attention attacking play really receives in the camp.

“We have wonderful, gifted players who are great at the line and executing,” Youngs said on the For The Love Of Rugby podcast. “They are brilliant. That makes me think that maybe during the week they are not getting enough reps. Maybe the attack isn’t the focus in the week as much as it should be because there is a new defensive system and maybe that is taking a huge amount of priority along with the foundations of a high kicking game.

“Although they are talking about growing this attack, I am not sure they are getting the reps and the amount of time spent on it to fine tune it. That’s what I am seeing. We look like a team that has only run the strike plays twice in the week and when trying to run it against an opposition trying to stop us, essentially we came unstuck.”

One prominent Premiership coach told Telegraph Sport that England were “seeing ghosts” at Murrayfield because he believes they were used to defending against their own blitz defence in training. Hence England’s playmakers were making unforced errors playing like there were defenders in their face while Scotland were actually sitting off them.

The first-phase strike move that led to the early try by George Furbank was cunningly designed but when England are forced to go off script, either through multi-phase or playing off turnover ball, they rapidly lose their attacking shape. By contrast two of Scotland’s three tries came from turnover ball.

Youngs, who also played under Borthwick at Leicester, added that attack is not “high on his [Borthwick’s] agenda” and that the performance against Scotland was “not an isolated incident”. Indeed, statistics from Opta show that England have averaged fewer than 25 points and 2.5 tries per game against ‘Tier One’ opposition in every year since 2019. While there have been some improvements this year, in terms of defenders beaten and spreading play past first and second receiver, England’s return of 1.8 points per entry into the 22 is the worst in the championship.

Under Eddie Jones, former attack coach Martin Gleeson revealed they did not practise their red-zone finishing. Like Youngs, winger Jonny May, who retired from international rugby after last year’s World Cup, does not believe much has changed under Borthwick. “We didn’t particularly focus on attack with Eddie,” May said. “I wouldn’t expect that attack is a priority with Steve either.”

Borthwick has frequently stated that the attack is the longest thing to get right and that England still lack the cohesion of other sides. However, the more he repeats this as a mantra, the greater the risk that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

formerly known as Sam wrote:So that article is based on comments from two former internationals neither of which has been in camp this 6N and based on reports of one session for which we don't know the point of. Wow, talk about padding an article out to try and prove a theory.

king_carlos wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Just pondering it King. If you were the RFU surely you'd float that idea if it means the difference between a club basically getting a 'free' player?

From what I've heard, they did float the idea. The P-share clubs rejected it though. They were open to more enforced rest periods given the shorter season with 10 clubs.

My concern is that we will see rules around non-EQP numbers tightened though. Which I think makes the league worse and therefore player development worse, but I could see the RFU demanding that instead of more control over selection. Whilst the Prem clubs may well go for it as England players having to be in the Prem keeps their wages down.

Even with the reduced size of the league, 10 teams should be plenty for the best talents to get exposure though. The key is having the necessary standard of exposure every week. Otherwise players stall. That's the issue with the Prem being viewed as the countries premier competition and a nursery for academy grads. Only the absolute freaks should get significant exposure whilst teenagers. Most should be developing in stronger Championship and Nat leagues. Then come into the Prem when they are good enough. Not come into the Prem because they are English enough with the hope they might be good enough. That drags quality down, which hampers development, drags quality down, etc. Which is the cycle the Prem is in IMO.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I kind of hope he doesn't just rush Smith back. If he gets on he's going to get grief for the tactics. If he's on the bench it means we've dropped the other Smith in all likelihood.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Hmm. I read in here we spent the entirety of last year on defence with no time for attack. And now we need to spend of all our time now on defence over attack. Times running out.

Poorfour wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Hmm. I read in here we spent the entirety of last year on defence with no time for attack. And now we need to spend of all our time now on defence over attack. Times running out.

That's revising history. Last year the focus post 6N was on fitness more than it was defence; we've also, in case you hadn't noticed, got a new defence coach with a different system that he's had (checks calendar) six weeks and three matches to implement.

And time is running out for whom, exactly? It clearly ran out in your eyes before he was even appointed, but you don't get a vote. I suspect the decision makers at the RFU are both more informed and more realistic around how long the rebuild is expected to take.

doctor_grey wrote:I'm glad we will see a back line headed by Mitchell and M. Smith which also includes attacking threats in Freeman and, hopefully, IFW.  But if the tactics don't change, isn't this a bit like putting Michelin racing tyres on a Fiat 123?  Just not quite getting the connection between selection and style of play.

Poorfour wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Hmm. I read in here we spent the entirety of last year on defence with no time for attack. And now we need to spend of all our time now on defence over attack. Times running out.

That's revising history. Last year the focus post 6N was on fitness more than it was defence; we've also, in case you hadn't noticed, got a new defence coach with a different system that he's had (checks calendar) six weeks and three matches to implement.

And time is running out for whom, exactly? It clearly ran out in your eyes before he was even appointed, but you don't get a vote. I suspect the decision makers at the RFU are both more informed and more realistic around how long the rebuild is expected to take.

doctor_grey wrote:I'm glad we will see a back line headed by Mitchell and M. Smith which also includes attacking threats in Freeman and, hopefully, IFW.  But if the tactics don't change, isn't this a bit like putting Michelin racing tyres on a Fiat 123?  Just not quite getting the connection between selection and style of play.

king_carlos wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:I'm glad we will see a back line headed by Mitchell and M. Smith which also includes attacking threats in Freeman and, hopefully, IFW.  But if the tactics don't change, isn't this a bit like putting Michelin racing tyres on a Fiat 123?  Just not quite getting the connection between selection and style of play.

Is that the case so far this tournament though?

In R3, they threw 50% more passes than Scotland, had more carries and kicked less of their ball. They were also narrowly up on defenders beaten and equal on clean breaks.

They just dropped the ball a lot whilst doing it.

A team not scoring tries doesn't immediately mean they are kicking the ball away. In the RWC they certainly were. It very nearly worked against the back to back champions as well when they executed it well. The tactics with the ball have obviously shifted in this tournament though.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It would be a free hit if we weren't about 14 months into the new regime. It's getting a bit same old same old now.

mountain man wrote:Before 6N I thought Englands best chance was against Italy, Wales and Scotland. I thought Ireland and France be way too good.
Ireland I'm pretty sure still will be but France have been a massive disappointment so if Eng can have a good showing against Ireland even in defeat, then I'd like to see them really take it to France.
What I don't want is for them to get humped at home to Ireland then go all defensive minded against France to try and eke out a narrow scruffy win/draw.

Geordie wrote:

It also mentioned Mike Catt being out of contract after this 6n and wondered if he's the next to come on board the coaching team.

Geordie wrote:Watched a good podcast last night about what Borthwick is building.

The basic roots of a variation of the South African defence and the Ireland attack. As mentioned above against Scotland, England passed way more, kicked less etc etc...but it was the basic handling errors that was the problem. That will need addressed quickly.

It will require some personnel changes down the line i think, players like Waboso for example looks the type of winger to make this attack and defence work...and someone who can do the Maro role, as good as him from the bench etc...

It also mentioned Mike Catt being out of contract after this 6n and wondered if he's the next to come on board the coaching team.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Geordie wrote:

It also mentioned Mike Catt being out of contract after this 6n and wondered if he's the next to come on board the coaching team.

I think his contract is up in July, same time as Sinfield's. I'm expecting one in one out for us at that time.

dummy_half wrote:

Geordie wrote:Watched a good podcast last night about what Borthwick is building.

The basic roots of a variation of the South African defence and the Ireland attack. As mentioned above against Scotland, England passed way more, kicked less etc etc...but it was the basic handling errors that was the problem. That will need addressed quickly.

It will require some personnel changes down the line i think, players like Waboso for example looks the type of winger to make this attack and defence work...and someone who can do the Maro role, as good as him from the bench etc...

It also mentioned Mike Catt being out of contract after this 6n and wondered if he's the next to come on board the coaching team.

Tactics and systems will only take you so far (and I think England had the better of the Scotland game with regards to those) - sometimes you just have to accept that the players did a poor job in execution (although that does raise the question of whether it was the right players in the right positions).

Second bold follows the above - the biggest questions are back row, in particular number 8, and the centre pairing. Not positions where there is an obvious answer, but where there appear to be players developing who could (injuries and development permitting) provide a major upgrade on what we currently have. Need a combination of some bosh, some elusiveness and some ball handling, which has proven elusive over the last few years (or more like 20 in the 12 shirt...)

Geordie wrote:
i think Wigglesworth is the conundrum though Sam...where does he end up?

Geordie wrote:

dummy_half wrote:

Geordie wrote:Watched a good podcast last night about what Borthwick is building.

The basic roots of a variation of the South African defence and the Ireland attack. As mentioned above against Scotland, England passed way more, kicked less etc etc...but it was the basic handling errors that was the problem. That will need addressed quickly.

It will require some personnel changes down the line i think, players like Waboso for example looks the type of winger to make this attack and defence work...and someone who can do the Maro role, as good as him from the bench etc...

It also mentioned Mike Catt being out of contract after this 6n and wondered if he's the next to come on board the coaching team.

Tactics and systems will only take you so far (and I think England had the better of the Scotland game with regards to those) - sometimes you just have to accept that the players did a poor job in execution (although that does raise the question of whether it was the right players in the right positions).

Second bold follows the above - the biggest questions are back row, in particular number 8, and the centre pairing. Not positions where there is an obvious answer, but where there appear to be players developing who could (injuries and development permitting) provide a major upgrade on what we currently have. Need a combination of some bosh, some elusiveness and some ball handling, which has proven elusive over the last few years (or more like 20 in the 12 shirt...)

Correct...and basic skills are essential...and failed them miserably in Scotland. Im sure they'll have looked at that. And if players cant make the grade they get moved on. But these are players that do it regularly in the Prem and Europe.

SB cant be held responsible for not having the right players and for injuries. Tight head woeful options...No 12...no 8...Dombrandt failed and Mercer...well i dont believe hes the saviour either. Earl isnt an 8 but has given his best. I think CCS is looking better and beeter as the one to go with...but hes a work in progress.
I believe Marcus Smith was going to start during this 6n..but that went to pot aswell.

The players are coming through but its a slow progress.

Poorfour wrote:

Geordie wrote:
i think Wigglesworth is the conundrum though Sam...where does he end up?

I could see a future in which the attacking role is split between managing the space and managing the game. Wiggy is very good at the latter - the RWC saw different kicking strategies for each opponent, each of which gave them big trouble. Catt would be a great option for the former and I can see him working well with the backline England have available given that we have more smart ball players than bosh merchants; Catt as a player was often swapped in for Tindall when England were facing a strong blitz defence so they could move the point of attack away from Wilko and still have a playmaker on the ball, which given the lack of a crash ball 12 may well be how England need to play.

Geordie wrote:

dummy_half wrote:

Geordie wrote:Watched a good podcast last night about what Borthwick is building.

The basic roots of a variation of the South African defence and the Ireland attack. As mentioned above against Scotland, England passed way more, kicked less etc etc...but it was the basic handling errors that was the problem. That will need addressed quickly.

It will require some personnel changes down the line i think, players like Waboso for example looks the type of winger to make this attack and defence work...and someone who can do the Maro role, as good as him from the bench etc...

It also mentioned Mike Catt being out of contract after this 6n and wondered if he's the next to come on board the coaching team.

Tactics and systems will only take you so far (and I think England had the better of the Scotland game with regards to those) - sometimes you just have to accept that the players did a poor job in execution (although that does raise the question of whether it was the right players in the right positions).

Second bold follows the above - the biggest questions are back row, in particular number 8, and the centre pairing. Not positions where there is an obvious answer, but where there appear to be players developing who could (injuries and development permitting) provide a major upgrade on what we currently have. Need a combination of some bosh, some elusiveness and some ball handling, which has proven elusive over the last few years (or more like 20 in the 12 shirt...)

Correct...and basic skills are essential...and failed them miserably in Scotland. Im sure they'll have looked at that. And if players cant make the grade they get moved on. But these are players that do it regularly in the Prem and Europe.

SB cant be held responsible for not having the right players and for injuries. Tight head woeful options...No 12...no 8...Dombrandt failed and Mercer...well i dont believe hes the saviour either. Earl isnt an 8 but has given his best. I think CCS is looking better and beeter as the one to go with...but hes a work in progress.
I believe Marcus Smith was going to start during this 6n..but that went to pot aswell.

The players are coming through but its a slow progress.

dummy_half wrote:

Geordie wrote:

dummy_half wrote:

Geordie wrote:Watched a good podcast last night about what Borthwick is building.

The basic roots of a variation of the South African defence and the Ireland attack. As mentioned above against Scotland, England passed way more, kicked less etc etc...but it was the basic handling errors that was the problem. That will need addressed quickly.

It will require some personnel changes down the line i think, players like Waboso for example looks the type of winger to make this attack and defence work...and someone who can do the Maro role, as good as him from the bench etc...

It also mentioned Mike Catt being out of contract after this 6n and wondered if he's the next to come on board the coaching team.

Tactics and systems will only take you so far (and I think England had the better of the Scotland game with regards to those) - sometimes you just have to accept that the players did a poor job in execution (although that does raise the question of whether it was the right players in the right positions).

Second bold follows the above - the biggest questions are back row, in particular number 8, and the centre pairing. Not positions where there is an obvious answer, but where there appear to be players developing who could (injuries and development permitting) provide a major upgrade on what we currently have. Need a combination of some bosh, some elusiveness and some ball handling, which has proven elusive over the last few years (or more like 20 in the 12 shirt...)

Correct...and basic skills are essential...and failed them miserably in Scotland. Im sure they'll have looked at that. And if players cant make the grade they get moved on. But these are players that do it regularly in the Prem and Europe.

SB cant be held responsible for not having the right players and for injuries. Tight head woeful options...No 12...no 8...Dombrandt failed and Mercer...well i dont believe hes the saviour either. Earl isnt an 8 but has given his best. I think CCS is looking better and beeter as the one to go with...but hes a work in progress.
I believe Marcus Smith was going to start during this 6n..but that went to pot aswell.

The players are coming through but its a slow progress.

Sometimes it's because the players simply don't have the ability. Other times it's just a bad day, and on occasion those bad days appear to become contagious (the last game, RWC final 2019 being prime examples). Now, clearly there are players like Furbank and Lawrence who are still developing as international players - the question is how much time you give them before deciding their fundamentals are simply not up to the task. Seem to remember it took about 18 months to decide that Billy 36 wasn't the next big thing for the 12 jersey for England, despite appearing to have the requisite ability when playing at club level.

Absolutely agree with your comment on Earl - he's a stop gap 8, but he's done a better job there than many anticipated.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Geordie wrote:

dummy_half wrote:

Geordie wrote:Watched a good podcast last night about what Borthwick is building.

The basic roots of a variation of the South African defence and the Ireland attack. As mentioned above against Scotland, England passed way more, kicked less etc etc...but it was the basic handling errors that was the problem. That will need addressed quickly.

It will require some personnel changes down the line i think, players like Waboso for example looks the type of winger to make this attack and defence work...and someone who can do the Maro role, as good as him from the bench etc...

It also mentioned Mike Catt being out of contract after this 6n and wondered if he's the next to come on board the coaching team.

Tactics and systems will only take you so far (and I think England had the better of the Scotland game with regards to those) - sometimes you just have to accept that the players did a poor job in execution (although that does raise the question of whether it was the right players in the right positions).

Second bold follows the above - the biggest questions are back row, in particular number 8, and the centre pairing. Not positions where there is an obvious answer, but where there appear to be players developing who could (injuries and development permitting) provide a major upgrade on what we currently have. Need a combination of some bosh, some elusiveness and some ball handling, which has proven elusive over the last few years (or more like 20 in the 12 shirt...)

Correct...and basic skills are essential...and failed them miserably in Scotland. Im sure they'll have looked at that. And if players cant make the grade they get moved on. But these are players that do it regularly in the Prem and Europe.

SB cant be held responsible for not having the right players and for injuries. Tight head woeful options...No 12...no 8...Dombrandt failed and Mercer...well i dont believe hes the saviour either. Earl isnt an 8 but has given his best. I think CCS is looking better and beeter as the one to go with...but hes a work in progress.
I believe Marcus Smith was going to start during this 6n..but that went to pot aswell.

The players are coming through but its a slow progress.

Bemoan his age if you like but Dan Cole played very well against Scotland and is rolling back the years very well this 6N. Cole up there with the kick chase and tackling vdM when he was looking to break past Cole from the Scottish 22 with a broken field beyond Cole waiting for him is a good example.

Stuart is showing some positive signs.