Always a Wasp
General Category => Wasps Rugby Discussion => Topic started by: backdoc on March 11, 2023, 05:23:20 PM
-
35 mins and not a good situation for England.
Flament looks a fantastic player both in defence and attack, with 2-3 interventions a game that make a differnece.
I cannot help thinking that Tom Willis would be more effective than Dombrandt, who looks underpowered and lacking in direction.
-
Ouch. That's a lesson. If France maintain concentration this is going to get rather nasty...
-
At last England facing real competition. As predicted, being spanked.
-
I'm quite enjoying seeing what Shaun can do when given the freedom to implement it.
As to Dombrandt, we should never see him in an England shirt again.
-
Agreed Backdoc and VV. I'm thoroughly enjoying this (sorry, Jack). I've never before hoped France would win 6N, but .... well this is great so far, and well deserved. You're a star, Smiler.
-
Flament again. MOM if there is any justice. What a player.
-
If MoM meant Man of the Mouth .....my nomination is Fazlet. Winding up the ref a treat.
-
Shaun Edwards made a statement today. A proud Englishman indeed.
-
Shaun Edwards made a statement today. A proud Englishman indeed.
Most valuable commodity in world rugby is Shaun!
-
Congratulations France and Smiler! You deserve it.
-
Quite galling (or should that be Gauling) that Farrell is brought on after 45 minutes but when he's playing badly is only taken off at 79 minutes. Galling because if Borthwick had waited then we wouldn't have been left with a forward in the backs getting exposed for two tries.
-
The U20s got equally exposed last night after a couple of flattering wins.
England rugby is not in a good place.
-
Analysis of that is remarkably simple. They were just better everywhere and in every discipline. England don?t have an international second row. Not sure how many anonymous performances Itoje can be allowed. There were inept, disinterested performances everywhere. You look to the bench and see Cole, Vunipola, Farrell, Ribbans. That?s the real rub. We aren?t missing anyone. There is no one else. We?re just not very good.
-
Analysis of that is remarkably simple. They were just better everywhere and in every discipline. England don?t have an international second row. Not sure how many anonymous performances Itoje can be allowed. There were inept, disinterested performances everywhere. You look to the bench and see Cole, Vunipola, Farrell, Ribbans. That?s the real rub. We aren?t missing anyone. There is no one else. We?re just not very good.
All of that. I'd only add It was a very similar game to the first 20 odd of France vs Scotland - pace, power and intensity that put them way up very early doors. That game differed as France had to defend vs a more than decent Scotland attack and so could not afford to take liberties. Scotland were decent at breakdown too and provided possession. But France were just too good.
Face such a start and have a bit of a "meh" day and not be as good as you'd have hoped you were and you'd get today's result. France were better than vs Scotland - but Scotland were a bigger challenge too.
Whilst the score was an outlier - it wasn't a performance that we hadn't seen before in each of the last two 6N's, and more than once. I suppose the longer term query is to ask how those players levels fell off so markedly and so quickly post 2020.
Taking a player out of the squad - how did BV go from probably near best 8 in world rugby to so poor in such a short time? And that goes for most of the EA's players.
My answer is Jones' regime became corrosive and the EA's got found out.
-
I thought Thibaud should have got MotM.
The 57 old farts should get rid of the chip on their shoulders and break the bank to sign up Shaun Edwards the earliest they have the opportunity. They've had 2, or is it 3, chances in the past and have let him go to countries that recognise his talents.
-
Isn't Shaun contracted until the next world cup? He will be into his 60's then.
-
If I was Shaun Id stay well away from the rapidly sinking ship that is English rugby. Sweeney is still asleep at the wheel and should be long gone as per the advice of the DSMC. Hes thrown the English game under the bus to appease the EAs and now their players find the Prem such a walk in the park they are perpetually undercooked.
Borthwick had the guts to drop Farrell but sticking with Jack van Plodfoot really shows he is out of his depth - I dont think Ive ever seen such an obviously substandard number 9 in an England shirt. Im not sure hes even as good as an aged Youngs and hes not even good enough to be a Prem starter. Atrocious in all aspects of the game, he is particularly slow of thought and his useless boxkick set up Frances first try. Mitchell was on a different planet when he came on. Slade was awful and hid as much as he could, as was Dombrandt, and I really dont know why Watson was in the side.
Its inexplicable that we have France out there playing rugby with class, physicality and verve at test match intensity, and another plodding along like it was a mid table Premiership match on a pudding of a pitch. Englands skills were thoroughly second rate throughout.
The irony is that the greatest English coach in the professional era was with the visiting team and victors yet again because hes not good enough for the RFU, whilst the overhyped Seinfeld and the drowning Borthwick cobble together a stinker of a performance and sit together looking confused and lost. I hope Edwards enjoyed that because theres no one more deserving of handing the RFU their arses on a plate.
-
Isn't Shaun contracted until the next world cup? He will be into his 60's then.
Yes. Signed a new contract recently after nobody at RFU Central coming back to him.
-
The RFU have had at least 2 chances of signing Shaun, haven't they? How incompetent can you get. And how stupid.
-
France were Magnifique yesterday. From a purely rugby perspective it was a joy to watch! Power, precision, application, unity in understanding and performance? Eclatant!!!
England were disjointed in defence, and our forwards were overpowered far too often, they repeatedly failed to resource the breakdown and were turned over as a result. Smith is the future at 10, but there was little his undoubted talents can do when you have no platform to work from.
Going into this game -and next week against Ireland- I had no thoughts of victory, sport is gloriously unpredictable, but when you look at France and Ireland they are streets ahead of us in every possible measure. It is hard to underestimate the damage Eddie Jones caused post 2019, however yesterday was an example. Borthwick has yet to have his fully selected coaching team, and they are going to need time, because they have been parachuted into a pickle that the RFU and Jones created.
Next week will be a loss, Ireland are, in my honest opinion, better than France. We have to forget about the result and focus on the future?..and this also goes for the World Cup. Give it our best by all means, but also recognise that currently our best is no where good enough. It is time to rebuild and although that journey has already started, our aims to become a top team once more need to start to become very serious on round 1 of the six nations next year. Which players will be present for that journey will remain to be seen, and there will be many many discussions about that going forward. However I would be very surprised if Farrell is present, he may be an ultimate professional, but he is not a player that can inspire or lead us to success at the highest level.
-
AndyWasp the backs you mention were unbelievably poor but you have to cut them some slack as it?s difficult to shine without the ball and we had no ball because our forwards were obliterated.
Genge & Sinckler - too busy posturing, looking mean etc etc. They might win one scrum a game but give endless pens away.
George - waddles around like a useless water carrier. Remember the line breaks and supporting runs - they were all 6/7 years ago.
Itoje - Hasn?t looked remotely interested for two years or more.
Chessum - Slightly better than average Prem lock.
Willis - Tried hard as always but was just physically brushed aside at the breakdown.
Ludlam - We are now accepting of a flanker who gives their all but doesn?t have the extras needed above sheer work rate that international players need.
Dombrandt - Not sure he wanted to be on the pitch. Had all the zip, power and desire of a blancmange.
Cole/Vunipola/Curry/Ribbans. Less than zero impact.
That?s the problem. And Englands problem is outside of probably Tom Willis and possibly George McGuigan I can?t think of anyone better waiting to be put in.
-
Good post Wombles. But linking to mine who are you rebuilding with? Backs wise you?d pick out Smith/Ford and Steward. When you watch the prem there are no 12?s. All of the SH?s are similar in their averageness. We have more options at 13 and maybe a slight increase in quality but still I?d probably class as ?workaday?. On the wings? Arundell has promise. You are then into the likes of Watson, May, Nowell, Cockanasiga, Malins. All of whom range from average to adequate. Forwards wise it?s even worse but don?t want to repeat my earlier rant! English rugby is in a dire place and to rebuild you need appropriate materials.
-
What staggers me is how Slade has picked up 50+ caps while rarely putting in good performances at test level
-
No let's not use French to describe them - the French Team were Magnificent!! Lifetimes ahead of Farrells failures.
-
Shame that the English supporters all got mobile calls about fires in their houses, and had to rush home to inspect the damage. They missed a great display of how rugby should be played.
-
Good post Wombles. But linking to mine who are you rebuilding with? Backs wise you?d pick out Smith/Ford and Steward. When you watch the prem there are no 12?s. All of the SH?s are similar in their averageness. We have more options at 13 and maybe a slight increase in quality but still I?d probably class as ?workaday?. On the wings? Arundell has promise. You are then into the likes of Watson, May, Nowell, Cockanasiga, Malins. All of whom range from average to adequate. Forwards wise it?s even worse but don?t want to repeat my earlier rant! English rugby is in a dire place and to rebuild you need appropriate materials.
It's a hard one Shugs - it's too late for the RWC, surely - but looking towards a team that could do the business in the 6N's and win more than 2 of 5 perhaps a bit of clear out might be best, enabling a line to drawn, post Jones.
Scrumwise, at LH, Genge has promise but needs to knuckle down - time for a break? West is playing for Tigers today and VRR looks good too and Rodd. Frankly, hooker needs a clear out. No George or LCD again and look towards Walker. TH Heyes plus.... SR Chessum and Martin are both good enough, though prob not together....Ditto Nick I. Backrow, Wills x 2 and Earl for starters. Curry looks lost, Ludlam not good enough and Ludlow might be worth a punt.
Backline is more awkward. Mitchell and Quirke @ 9, Smith and Grayson? 12.....Kelly at Tigers is well regarded, and Lawrence at 13 with ball is excellent even in a poor Bath side. Worth the time. Back three, Steward is ok. FH is potentially a problem if want more than a younger Brown...Wings - Arundell, OHC, Radwan and the rest.
But - it needs a clear our of pretty much everyone who was a Jones' preference......And then be patient.
-
When my wife is around and reading I usually wear headphones because she doesn't like rugby and I understand in that situation how much of a distraction the commentary can be, however I wasn't them yesterday and when she asked towards the end why I was still watching my answer was that I was enjoying watching the French. I was looking forward to watching then in this 6N but they've been a bit disappointing up to yesterday, but what we saw was what I many others were expecting.
I've mentioned before that I have good friends who are Honorary Stewards at Twickenham and when they stayed with us a couple of weeks ago we got on to why I won't go to Twickenham again (we've also discussed this before on here): because those attending predominantly aren't rugby fans and most are drunken louts (apparently its got worse in the past few years), so it didn't surprise me when all the "fans" started flooding out well before the end.
Whilst I agree Shaun has had a big impact on the French I think its a bit unfair on the rest of the coaching staff and and even the French RU to overdo it it. He's added mental steel and defensive organisation, but the whole structure is geared around producing good rugby and good French players and they've shown you don't need to contract to 8 teams to make it work.
Sadly Shaun will never get in to the England set up, even if the manager wants him, the RFU will never accept a blunt speaking northerner in their midst.
What was really sad yesterday was that England didn't even make France work for the right to play their brand of attacking rugby. France can be quite conservative to start with, kicking penalties and giving themselves a platform but they were never threatened and just slid in to full game mode.
Its going to be a long afternoon next week. I can see Ireland wanting to throw down a marker for France by aiming to beat their score and margin, especially as they are at home and it will probably be for the GS. Ireland also like to build a platform and they've got some of their stars back and with England's mental fragility after that loss the officials are going to need a cricket score book to keep up in the second half.
-
If you think that yesterday was bad at HQ, it could be Armageddon for England in Dublin next week.
-
Good post Wombles. But linking to mine who are you rebuilding with? Backs wise you?d pick out Smith/Ford and Steward. When you watch the prem there are no 12?s. All of the SH?s are similar in their averageness. We have more options at 13 and maybe a slight increase in quality but still I?d probably class as ?workaday?. On the wings? Arundell has promise. You are then into the likes of Watson, May, Nowell, Cockanasiga, Malins. All of whom range from average to adequate. Forwards wise it?s even worse but don?t want to repeat my earlier rant! English rugby is in a dire place and to rebuild you need appropriate materials.
It's a hard one Shugs - it's too late for the RWC, surely - but looking towards a team that could do the business in the 6N's and win more than 2 of 5 perhaps a bit of clear out might be best, enabling a line to drawn, post Jones.
Scrumwise, at LH, Genge has promise but needs to knuckle down - time for a break? West is playing for Tigers today and VRR looks good too and Rodd. Frankly, hooker needs a clear out. No George or LCD again and look towards Walker. TH Heyes plus.... SR Chessum and Martin are both good enough, though prob not together....Ditto Nick I. Backrow, Wills x 2 and Earl for starters. Curry looks lost, Ludlam not good enough and Ludlow might be worth a punt.
Backline is more awkward. Mitchell and Quirke @ 9, Smith and Grayson? 12.....Kelly at Tigers is well regarded, and Lawrence at 13 with ball is excellent even in a poor Bath side. Worth the time. Back three, Steward is ok. FH is potentially a problem if want more than a younger Brown...Wings - Arundell, OHC, Radwan and the rest.
But - it needs a clear our of pretty much everyone who was a Jones' preference......And then be patient.
Mike - completely agree with the names you?ve quoted - they are spot on. But I don?t see equivalents for say a DuPont, Penaud, Marchand, Van der Flier, Byrne, Doris, Fickou, Dante, Russell, Ritchie, Keenan, Ringrose, Flament, Willemse, Alldrit in there. These things are cyclical. I think we?ve just go to take our medicine and wait for the wheel to turn.
-
100% Shugs - but those who could be those in a changed group can grow into those players. Jonny W was only potential even in 99. But we do need patience and the guts to go with younger players.
But whilst these things are cyclical - somehow, Jones managed to take a better than average team from the RWC, maintain their form into 2020 and then allow terrible form/play/performances to kick in with no response. There needs to be some questions asked.
The 2021 6Ns was the most disappointing. Taken apart by Scotland, out thought by Wales and rolled over by Ireland. Vs Wales was a near RWC Final team....Jones has a reputation for losing the changing room and the stories of sausages, his time with both Japan and Oz and things like his cast off of Yarde ("how are you doing?" "Long weekend, quite tired" "No room for you here then..") or v similar. The casting off of Malins etc etc And that sort of "management" of people rarely ends well. And here we are.....
-
And England Rugby couldn't even get their skipper's club correct.
-
And England Rugby couldn't even get their skipper's club correct.
And transferred Jack Walker to Toulouse.
-
Blue Murder says The Sunday Times. Apt. The beast that is top tier English Rugby has been dying for some times. It was put to the sword (or guillotine) yesterday. I actually enjoyed the game. Tibo was magnificent, should have had MotM, but the 'pundits' bottled that one and gave it to the highest scorer (I know it is a skill to kick penalties and conversions, but it doesn't take a rugby brain or stamina).
The backs couldn't perform because most possession they got was on the back foot. Our forwards were outplayed in every aspect of the game. Very few of them would have been in my team. Same goes for the backs. JvP is soooo slow.
But, we don't have the skilled players in the rest of the Premiership. We don't have much better coming through. You all know, I have been massively critical of the entire structure of the game, as the county youth programs and academy programs run by clubs are mostly controlled by the problem. The old boys network. The heavy reliance on private schools. No significant development program in to main stream schools, and no significant funding at grass roots. All that money spent on Twickenham and First Class/5 star expenses paid jollies around the world. Money talks they say. Well, the sugar daddy money is, and it is strangling our game. Money corrupts, and that corruption is spreading, year after year, crumbling the game from within, like wood rotten with termite damage.
-
And England Rugby couldn't even get their skipper's club correct.
And transferred Jack Walker to Toulouse.
Presumably some convoluted logic that as he has the same initials as Jack Willis then he plays for the same club🙄
-
Having seen Ireland win vs a more than decent Scotland....I'm rather concerned about England going to Dublin.....
-
Having seen Ireland win vs a more than decent Scotland....I'm rather concerned about England going to Dublin.....
Ireland appear to have a significant injury list to contend with. England might just get lucky.
-
I doubt it. England have their own selection worries ? namely a dearth of talent.
Thanks to Jones, we?re left with a bunch of past-it codgers and uncooked novices.
It is a similar challenge to the one that Wales are facing, with Pivac have done a Jones during his time in charge. They also have an RFU that consistently challenges our own RFU in terms of world class incompetence. However, Wales probably have a better chance of turning it around as (i) the WRFU CEO has already walked and (ii) they have Gatland.
-
I doubt it. England have their own selection worries ? namely a dearth of talent.
Thanks to Jones, we?re left with a bunch of past-it codgers and uncooked novices.
It is a similar challenge to the one that Wales are facing, with Pivac have done a Jones during his time in charge. They also have an RFU that consistently challenges our own RFU in terms of world class incompetence. However, Wales probably have a better chance of turning it around as (i) the WRFU CEO has already walked and (ii) they have Gatland.
Honestly think Gatland's last Lions tour was crap. And all on him. If Warren was anywhere near England I would not be happy.
I am sure he would turn it round in time, but the end product would suffer from extreme conservatism that dogged the tail end of his first Welsh tenure, but was forgiven in Wales because his team was experienced and streetwise so tended to win the inevitable arm wrestle his tactics produced. It was never really enough to compete with anyone outside the NH.
-
If the Lions were being selected today, does anyone think any of the 23 that represented England on Saturday would get a nod? That's a damning indictment.
-
If the Lions were being selected today, does anyone think any of the 23 that represented England on Saturday would get a nod? That's a damning indictment.
Would any non-Irish make the 23 at all?
England were dire on Saturday, as bad as I can ever remember seeing them in the 6N.
-
If the Lions were being selected today, does anyone think any of the 23 that represented England on Saturday would get a nod? That's a damning indictment.
Would any non-Irish make the 23 at all?
England were dire on Saturday, as bad as I can ever remember seeing them in the 6N.
Chin up, chaps.
There were times in the 60's and 70's where England played like that against average opposition.
-
If the Lions were being selected today, does anyone think any of the 23 that represented England on Saturday would get a nod? That's a damning indictment.
The entire Lions squad would be made up mostly from Ireland plus a fair proportion from Scotland. Hardly anyone from England or Wales would get a look in.
-
Headline in Grauniad that Lawrence out with hamstring, allows possibility of Manu returning....A fit and firing Manu, at 13, not 12, is not a difficult pick...however.....
-
Headline in Grauniad that Lawrence out with hamstring, allows possibility of Manu returning....A fit and firing Manu, at 13, not 12, is not a difficult pick...however.....
Fit for 5 minutes at best. Made of glass these days, sadly.
-
Manu is certainly not the answer. In terms of Ire they had a flanker on line out duty and a prop hooking yesterday and got it done cosily in the end. Their injuries would need to be fourfold what they have for us to avoid a spanking.
-
Manu is certainly not the answer. In terms of Ire they had a flanker on line out duty and a prop hooking yesterday and got it done cosily in the end. Their injuries would need to be fourfold what they have for us to avoid a spanking.
And Cotter couldn't get his around the idea that just because someone other than the hooker is throwing in it doesn't make them a hooker. It was amusing at first then quite irritating.
-
France were unplayable on Saturday. Their physicality was off the scale; when else have you seen the likes of Jack, Genge, Ludlam man-handled so easily... It also felt like a 'one-off' performance for France. A bit like us in the 2019 Semi-Final against New Zealand. France had been building themselves up for this game in particular even if the real big one for them was Ireland.
I'm not really sure where the fix is to have made that game winnable for us. Perhaps taking the points earlier on with hindsight, rather than kicking to the corner (even though i'd happily of advocated the first couple of kicks to the corner at the time) would have helped provide some scoreboard pressure and keep us in the game.
Most people I know and pretty much all the pundits as well were happy with the selection and felt it was right based on form (i.e. Smith for Farrell).
Struggle to see where changes can or could have been made. Perhaps Tom Curry in but he was injured rather than excluded, Ben seemed to compete well when he came on, perhaps it best cameo for England so far.
People calling for the likes of Mercer or T.Willis would have likely seem them outmuscled as well. Billy is the only option that I think could have physically competed on Saturday. Lawes perhaps instead of Chessum if Lawes was still fit.
The irony is, when Eddie picked a team based on size to compete with France he was probably right to do so.
-
I would argue if Eddie had picked a team not on size for France and other similar ideas, we would not have been lamenting the paucity of caps amongst players like Smith et al. You don't out muscle France or SA with size. You beat them by developing a team with a coherent all court game.
-
I was trying to work out if it was France being outstanding or England being dreadful or a combination of the two. It was men against boys, reminded me of the first few years of the Six Nations when Italy were the whipping boys and everyone playing them could try anything and score.
You can't ignore the gulf in quality, this wasn't the "Tour of Hell" with a second choice squad halfway round the world, this was arguably our strongest team at home and we lost to a record score. What's the issue? Is it going to take Borthwick time to try and undo the damage that Jones did sticking with the same selections regardless of form and ignoring young talent? Is Borthwick's lack of International coaching experience being exposed? Is this the RFU's mismanagement of the English game? Is it a result of the 8 man rugby perpetrated by the EAs and Chiefs that is dominating the Premiership meaning we can't compete at International level if we can't dominate up front?
I'm hoping that it was "one of those days" when France were just outstanding and they would have wiped the floor with whoever was in front of them, including Ireland. If they can maintain that standard at their home World Cup they'll be very hard to beat.
The only plus point for me was how gratifying it was to see how good Theo was and it was mentioned a couple of times that it was Wasps who gave him his first shot at professional rugby.
-
Is it a result of the 8 man rugby perpetrated by the EAs and Chiefs that is dominating the Premiership meaning we can't compete at International level if we can't dominate up front?
Yep.
-
For me it wasn?t a one off. This will be the second 6N where we?ve won 2 from 5. The point has been made that selection was there or thereabouts what most would have done. Conclusion: we are not very good and haven?t been for a while - we don?t have the players.
-
Is it a result of the 8 man rugby perpetrated by the EAs and Chiefs that is dominating the Premiership meaning we can't compete at International level if we can't dominate up front?
Yep.
Agree too.
The EA's influence in particular is now so deeply embedded within the Prem and RFU, to the extent that I think English rugby is facing a long time in the wilderness. The forwards based kick, chase and smash strangulation tactics work when you've cheated the salary cap to assemble a star studded super squad to give you a massive advantage, but you can't do that at International level.
Jones and Borthwick have both come through the EAs set-up, as have Sanderson at Sale and Wigglesworth at Tigers - they're now the top three in the Prem. The rise of the EAs blueprint in the GP has coincided with the last two fifth place finishes in the Six Nations. Exeter have functioned off well executed eight man rugby but it looks like the pre-latching rule has put a spoke in their game.
The RFU has signed up to the EAs blueprint now too so I can see Sanderson being lined up as next cab off the rank if it doesn't work out with Borthwick, or maybe Wigglesworth stepping up.
Whoever is coach though, it doesn't explain the lack of test match intensity on Saturday. That's a fundamental requirement but England just didn't have it, mentally or physically.
-
Neatly put.
-
Is it a result of the 8 man rugby perpetrated by the EAs and Chiefs that is dominating the Premiership meaning we can't compete at International level if we can't dominate up front?
Yep.
Agree too.
The EA's influence in particular is now so deeply embedded within the Prem and RFU, to the extent that I think English rugby is facing a long time in the wilderness. The forwards based kick, chase and smash strangulation tactics work when you've cheated the salary cap to assemble a star studded super squad to give you a massive advantage, but you can't do that at International level.
Jones and Borthwick have both come through the EAs set-up, as have Sanderson at Sale and Wigglesworth at Tigers - they're now the top three in the Prem. The rise of the EAs blueprint in the GP has coincided with the last two fifth place finishes in the Six Nations. Exeter have functioned off well executed eight man rugby but it looks like the pre-latching rule has put a spoke in their game.
The RFU has signed up to the EAs blueprint now too so I can see Sanderson being lined up as next cab off the rank if it doesn't work out with Borthwick, or maybe Wigglesworth stepping up.
Whoever is coach though, it doesn't explain the lack of test match intensity on Saturday. That's a fundamental requirement but England just didn't have it, mentally or physically.
It is worse than that.
Borthwick has doubled down and is bringing the EA scrum coach Ian Peel into the England Coaching squad.
-
Jones took advantage of having half plus of one clubs pack selected - that was especially useful when it included an on form BV and Maro and Kruis. Took a lot of requirements for coordination out of the way, increased with the hooker too.
Trouble was - when your plan is "EA's plus" and they go off form....
I hadn't actually noticed before - but the last 6Ns that England were doing ok was 2020. The last season that Kruis was available. And the last that a pack was able to deliver to a "RWC Final - a - like" backline.
What was stunning was the drop off in form and results immediately after. It really suggests that without most of an inform EA's pack to select, England were not at the races - prob caused by their relegation and lack of hard game time.
You can see it in the 2021 6Ns game vs Scotland - off the pace and not in a game they only lost 12-6. Got out thought in Cardiff and dismantled in Dublin. Oddly winning vs a France team that ought to have won.
So - England's successes seemed indeed based upon the EA's being like a "mini England" training team avoiding the need to change too much, and the 10/12 of the U-20's team.
Makes Borthwick's task all the harder. As there isn't really that backbone of England qual EA's.....in form and able to support the England team.
-
England today - again...A back to the future selection. Whilst great to see Arundel on the wing - Farrell, Manu and Slade fail my "dynamism test" and with the slow SH too.
Ireland won't likely be surprised what a Farrell/Manu 10/12 are likely to do....And whilst this midfield did play together before....it was 2019 6Ns and RWC QF. But the team was moving forwards and Manu was in good fitness and form.
Seems more of a "not lose by too many" selection rather than anything else.
-
Must do Smiths confidence the world of good, great man management,reminds me of someone else, lets hope Saint F gets on the wrong side of the reff.
-
England today - again...A back to the future selection. Whilst great to see Arundel on the wing - Farrell, Manu and Slade fail my "dynamism
test" and with the slow SH too.
Ireland won't likely be surprised what a Farrell/Manu 10/12 are likely to do....And whilst this midfield did play together before....it was 2019 6Ns and RWC QF. But the team was moving forwards and Manu was in good fitness and form.
Seems more of a "not lose by too many" selection rather than anything else.
We?ve got ourselves into a funny position with Tuilagi. We?re only concerned with if he?s fit or not. The wider point is that for me even when he is fit I?ve not seen him play particularly well for 2-3 years. He doesn?t actually warrant a place fit or not. As you say it will be slow ball to Farrell - kick. Or slow ball to Farrell, on to Tuilagi crash it up. Ireland will gobble that up all day. And that?s if we get any ball.
-
He's not looked like having any form for ages. I wonder if he's lost condition/pace such that he falls between two stools. He was supposed to be trying to lose weight to help his joints etc - but seemed to have lost that power which made him dangerous in the 13 channel.
Was still going well enough in 2020 6Ns especially vs Wales R4 and Ireland R3 until getting a red vs Wales. Subbed alter 16m vs France in R1 and missed R2
Not played 6Ns since.
-
Big improvement from previous weeks. Cards killed us in the end. Fancy Irelend would still have got there but our lads can take a lot of credit from today.
-
The intensity was much better. Huge tackle count from Willis. Only criticism is we just play without craft.
-
Must do Smiths confidence the world of good, great man management,reminds me of someone else
Yet again, we?re chasing the game with 17 mins to go, game totally flat and Smith stays on the bench the whole time with Farrell not creating anything even with Mitchell?s quicker tempo.
What a demoraliser for the lad.
Sarries Quins could be interesting next week but really hope it doesn?t revert to an arm wrestle and a box kicking competition
-
I agree that our intensity was much better, also agree with shugs, not much craft.
I just don?t understand how slade is picked, he brings nothing to the team game after game, Manu is a lost course now, need to move on now.
Farrell can?t get the team going in attack, I just don?t understand how SB can?t see that. I personally believe Ford if fit will be starting 10 at the World Cup.
I would hate to be on the wings for England, you will never see the ball because of 9,10,12,13
-
An odd game, all in all. The focus and effort was better and whilst not bringing much, ball in hand, the experience of the 10/12/13 meant a better defensive performance. Probably lucky on the scoreline that Ireland were showing nerves. And Willis was excellent and involved and Watson filled in like a 15 with pace....
But not sure - as others have said - why Smith wasn't given the last 20 to see if he could compound their nerves.
Have little idea about what the team will look like come Autumn.
-
Despite the fact that the 6 nations games are the first for SB, he hasn't impressed me at all.
-
+1
-
A team and game plan that had one aim, not lose like they did against France.
I don?t think the cards made much difference, Ireland would have eventually figured it out and picked England apart.
-
I don?t know how the autumn team can look much different really. I?m wracking my brains thinking who could be involved that isn?t at the moment. Ford? Pearson? Quirke? Lawes? T Willis? Daly? We?re in a poor player cycle at the moment.
-
I don?t know how the autumn team can look much different really. I?m wracking my brains thinking who could be involved that isn?t at the moment. Ford? Pearson? Quirke? Lawes? T Willis? Daly? We?re in a poor player cycle at the moment.
It may be that with a few alterations, the RWC team could be similar to the Ireland 23. I did think that the RWC was a write off - but given the draw, it's probably worth a punt with a lower risk selection. Leaving the line in the sand to the 2024 6Ns.
But it wouldn't be necessarily the same starting XV. I'd hope that there are queries around 8,9,10, and how the centres will operate. Back three prob looked better with Watson at 15....
But we ought to make the SF. And then it's game on. But even if that was the case, it ought to not indicate that there isn't a lot of work to do. And looking towards a future squad that might play positively towards 2027.
-
Having watched the Scotland game (and others previously), it's clear that England (thanks, Eddie) missed a trick by not capturing Cam Redpath before Scotland did. Could have been the answer at 12 for years to come.
Ho hum.
As others have said, better performance - at least we turned up this week. The RC was a joke, but don't think it ultimately affected the outcome.
Well done, Ireland. Grand Slam champions.
-
Whilst there was a noticeable improvement from England there are still serious issues and 4th place in the table is entirely justified. I still think Itoje is getting picked on reputation, he's becoming a liability with the number of penalties he gives away and I still don't think Dombrant is an International standard No8 as excellent as he is for Quins. We've still got major issues with 12 and 13. Our defence is still poor, Ireland's first try was a decidedly antique move off a line out. If you're conceding tries from a first phase move like that you've got problems.
I have to admit however that I switched off after the first half having seen the ridiculous red card given to Steward. England were never going to win the game but it might have been a decent close match. Pundits all saying that once the referee applied the protocols he had to go but I don't agree and the protocols are clearly wrong anyway.
Jaco Peyper claimed that there was no mitigation and a high degree of danger. Really? Mitigation was that Keenan was stooping to pick up a ball that had gone forward in spite of an England defender bearing down on him. He put himself in a dangerous position. Steward did everything he could in a split second to avoid contact, that's mitigation. High degree of danger? Really? In the Women's World Cup final, Kiwi Kennedy Simon ran 15 meters and head butted Abby Dow who was running at full speed -and she's quick- and that was deemed to be only worthy of a Yellow Card despite the speed of the collision and the time the New Zealand player had to make sure she tackled legally. That could have been a career ending injury for either player, now THAT'S high degree of danger.
The protocol needs a serious examination to make sure that there's a degree of common sense. Yes, we want to reduce head contact where possible but rugby is a full contact sport, that's what people- players and supporters- love about it, there are going to be collisions, get over it. Make players wear scrum caps if you want (but please not the 150lbs of body armour that American Footballer wear). Protocol should be; was there head contact? Was it a deliberate, malicious act? Was it a reckless act? Who instigated the collision, did the ball carrier hit the defender or vice versa? Apply that and you don't even need to consider mitigation. If there was no recklessness and the ball carrier hit the defender rather than round the other way it's a rugby incident, get on with the game.
In the 2001 Lions tour of Australia, Duncan McRae pinned Ronan O'Gara on the ground and punched him 11 times. He got the same punishment- a red card- as Freddie Steward who accidentally collided with Keenan. Ludicrous.
-
The RC against Steward was the first time I have questioned a red card for head contact and can now see why, in some instances, people respond the way they do sometimes. It was also hard to accept the seatbelt tackle on Watson and the head contact with Ludlam when the Irish player joined a ruck where both were missed.
In my opinion, to the letter of the law, and JP's interpretation, the red card was probably the correct decision. However, what this shows is the way the laws are defined mean that there is a blanket ban on any head contact and does not allow for game-context. Steward was damned if he did, damned if he didn't. He either tackles Keenan anyway and risks an off-the-ball tackle, he kicks Keenan's hands (the replays suggest Steward may have attempted to kick the ball away before colliding with Keenan) or he clashes into him (which is what did happen). It also shows that the interpretation of the ref is key.
I'm not sure how you would define this within the existing laws though because the interpretation is so different between refs. That's if you could at all.
-
There was an incident in the Scotland game that was far more dangerous than Steward's and as far as I can tell hasn't even been cited.
It was about 15mins in and the Italians had the ball and basically the ruck had gone to ground and it was slow ball. Fagerson flew in head first from 2-3 meters and there's no way he could have got under an Italian player and been in a position to counter ruck. I presume because nobody was injured the TMO didn't bother the ref, but if player safety is to mean anything its cutting out that sort of behaviour and not not waiting until someone is injured before it gets punished.
-
I think the main mitigation was- it was not foul play. Has there been foul play? No. Move on.
-
Might not be the place for it, but thoughts on the red card alternative of 20 mins with a man down, and then a sub brought on?
On Saturday this would have meant England down to 14 for 20 mins, but then keeping Arundell on and bringing on Marchant to the wing on the hour mark, and back up to 15 men.
I was in the "no" camp, but I'm definitely reconsidering my position now.
Rugby incident for me - shouldn't have been any card at all.
-
At the time I saw it, I knew he was off. I was thinking as he came up, 'what was he doing?'
Ask yourself why he was in that spot, right there, then.
He ran there, so he clearly intended to do something.
I can only think he intended a fast up in your face tackle, before anything could be done with the ball. Had to gone down to the tackle position, I think it might have been a tad late, but he might have gotten away with it.
But at some point, indecision took hold. He had no idea why he was there, no idea what he was doing. Then, all too late, he woke up. Instead of trying not to injure the other player, he turned and placed his shoulder to protect himself.
All in all, a series of poor split second decisions. I think we call it inexperience. He will learn, we hope. Let us remember, the guy he hit failed his HIA.
When the ref was looking for mitigation, he specifically wanted Steward to go low and tackle him, even if it would be late. By not doing that he demonstrated to the ref that he did the wrong thing. Any chance he had of avoiding the red went out of the window.
Steward started off determined to make a hard hitting tackle. He pulled out way too late, and in a way that saved only himself. Can't blame the ref on that one.
-
Thank you NWW. As you probably realise, I'm not ''technically aware'' but I thought exactly what you said above. You described the action exactly as I felt it was intended. Thank you.
-
Get that NWW. But if we?re putting that argument forward don?t we have to say why was Keenan there? Two options 1) To make a hit on Steward if he gets to the ball first or 2) To scoop up the ball and run with it. Neither scenario allows Steward gently let him pass. Are we saying you can do anything whilst attacking in terms of speed/height and the defender has all of the responsibility for making the scenario safe?
-
Get that NWW. But if we?re putting that argument forward don?t we have to say why was Keenan there? Two options 1) To make a hit on Steward if he gets to the ball first or 2) To scoop up the ball and run with it. Neither scenario allows Steward gently let him pass. Are we saying you can do anything whilst attacking in terms of speed/height and the defender has all of the responsibility for making the scenario safe?
Keenan's side had possession. They were attacking. It is up to the defence to defend safely and within the rules. My view was that Keenan was planning to tap and run through. I am certain Steward saw that and planned to flatten him as he got the ball. But he didn't and it all went south. He still should have completed the tackle, maybe pulling back on the power. Yes, it likely would have been a penalty, maybe a yellow. That's the downside when you commit yourself to an all or nothing strategy. From the moment Steward decided to go for it, he had to finish it. No turning back. I suspect that Keenan saw that and made it a bad moment for Steward, and himself. That's the problem with that type of 'hit' defence. If it doesn't come off, either way, that close to the line, you are screwed.
Which is why I think Steward sealed his own fate the moment he decided to do that. If he had not, would Ireland have scored a try? Maybe. Big risks like that, so close to the line, are not what full backs are supposed to do. They are supposed to be conservative, using sliding defences and back pedalling to buy time. But, I suspect the team had been given instructions. Hit them hard and fast as often as you can.
We can debate it, but the only person who knows what went through is head is Steward, and we can wait until his memoirs for that answer.
-
They did not have possession though, surely?
They knocked on. The ball was loose. The ref would have been playing advantage for the knock on to England.
The England team had the right to pick up the ball and play it from the moment it is knocked on. No Irish player could play that ball, and whilst the tackle was lined up with Ireland in possession, they were not in possession at the moment of contact.
An England player is ran into by an Irish player whose team are no longer in possession. The England player attempts evasive action. The Irish player does not.
No foul play for me. Whereas had the England player committed a tackle that would have been a penalty.
I do not believe any ref in the world other than Jaco would have given it.
-
The problem for me is when you go into the realms of reffing humans with technology as though they are robots. Slow motion, point of contact, let's look at it and look at it again etc. It's not that black and white because there is a human element involved.
It was blatantly obvious Steward had been intending to tackle or kick and was sold by the fact the ball had been knocked forward - it was a split second he had to react and he did what any human being would do when trying to avoid a collision and turned to the side. It should have been judged at normal speed, it was a rugby incident.
A further frustration is when all incidents in the game aren't adjudicated. Pick and choose isn't acceptable - the Ludlow incident is far worse and a failure to cite given the video evidence will be a huge injustice and damning of the whole system. And then there's the obvious seatbelt tackle on Watson that three international officials and a TMO 'failed' to see.
-
Good summary in the Grauniad today:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/mar/20/freddie-steward-red-card-why-was-it-shown-what-happens-now-rugby-union-six-nations
What happened in the Steward/Keenan incident?
Freddie Steward was sent off for a dangerous tackle just before half-time after colliding with Hugo Keenan. The Ireland full-back had just stooped to gather the loose ball which had been knocked forward by Mack Hansen. Steward?s arm was tucked by his side but as he twisted his body ? with both feet briefly leaving the floor ? to brace for contact, he struck his opponent?s head with his elbow. Keenan was taken off the pitch and, after failing his head injury assessment, did not return.
What did referee Jaco Peyper do and with what reasoning?
After pausing play because of a head injury he reviewed the incident with the television match official Marius Jonker. Peyper swiftly identified head contact and determined he and Jonker had to consider if the incident was ?foul play?. Announcing that Steward ?has to take care?, Peyper evidently did so, highlighting the England full-back?s clear line of sight, how he was upright into contact and how he was turning his shoulder. Peyper then determined that there was a high level of danger, that there was no mitigation and decided a red card was warranted. Steward argued his case, stating he braced for impact and ?can?t go anywhere else?. Peyper did not take Steward?s plea into account, citing the ?current climate? and, though Steward insisted he had only ?milliseconds? to adjust, Peyper was adamant he had time to turn his shoulder and issued the red card.
Why was the decision so divisive?
Because it was both a freak incident as well as the kind of thing that can happen in a dynamic collision sport. That may sound contradictory but ultimately it is not typically the sort of incident for which World Rugby?s high-tackle framework is designed and, when putting theory into practice, anomalies such as this will always occasionally happen and always create debate. Those who argue Steward was hard done by tend to ask what else could he have done beyond vanish on the spot; those who agree with Peyper?s decision highlight how Keenan was struck in the head with force by Steward?s elbow and was unable to continue.
What will England and Steward argue at hearing?
Firstly, that this was a ?no fault? incident and that Peyper?s decision should have been to play on instead of applying the framework. In that instance they will point to trigger words listed as part of World Rugby?s law application guidelines ? that there was a sudden and significant drop in height by the ball-carrier, that the player had no time to readjust, it was an involuntary collision, that there was no leading arm when close to the body and that it was a passive action. If England cannot successfully argue that there was no foul play they must then convince the panel that the degree of danger was not high and/or that it was not highly reckless or intentional for mitigation to be taken into account. They may also point to how Ross Tucker, who helped to formulate World Rugby?s high-tackle framework, expressed his opinion on social media that a red card was not warranted.
If the red is rescinded, what does it mean for the game?
Keenan was concussed by the collision with Steward?s elbow and could not continue, at a time when the sport has millions of eyeballs on it, and you can clearly argue that rescinding the red card sends the wrong message at a time when World Rugby, the Rugby Football Union and the Welsh Rugby Union are facing class-action lawsuits from professional and amateur players who allege a negligence in their failure to protect them. World Rugby?s approach in recent years has been to strictly sanction dangerous tackles in an effort to change player behaviour but it is questionable whether this incident should even be considered a dangerous tackle. It certainly isn?t the type of incident World Rugby is targeting ? upright reckless tackles that make contact with the head of which there were better examples in the same match that went unpunished. The great shame is that the sport is so paralysed by its existential crisis that a vastly experienced referee such as Peyper did not feel empowered or emboldened enough to apply common sense and treat the incident as the accidental collision it was. That is not an indictment of Peyper, rather to illustrate how this incident is a microcosm of the crisis facing a sport of which its very nature means head injuries are unavoidable. The panel ought to also consider whether upholding the red card will change behaviour or act as a deterrent. Or to put it another way: if Steward were to find himself in the same situation in the next match he plays, is it realistic to expect a different outcome?
-
The great shame is that the sport is so paralysed by its existential crisis that a vastly experienced referee such as Peyper did not feel empowered or emboldened enough to apply common sense and treat the incident as the accidental collision it was. That is not an indictment of Peyper, rather to illustrate how this incident is a microcosm of the crisis facing a sport of which its very nature means head injuries are unavoidable. The panel ought to also consider whether upholding the red card will change behaviour or act as a deterrent. Or to put it another way: if Steward were to find himself in the same situation in the next match he plays, is it realistic to expect a different outcome?
Spot on
-
Although I'm sure Ireland will be mightily proud of their well deserved Grand Slam, I wouldn't be surprised if they were a bit disappointed that
such a poor decision effectively killed the game of as a contest and therefore diluted their achivement a little.
-
Away from the Steward red, something else I noticed at the end was a bit of an altercation between Sinkler and O'Mahony after the final whistle, it was on screen as the cameras panned around the celebrating players, and Sexton had to step in, at which point it panned away. Anyone else notice or be aware of anything that might have kicked it off?
-
Sorry to return to it, but the Steward RC has been rescinded, and downgraded to a YC.
Still too harsh a sanction: should have been play on (albeit stopped for the head injury - scrum restart).
So, contest ruined incorrectly. As I said earlier, I don't think the result was in question; it may have been more of a game though.
-
Unfortunately the head contact rules have been a problem ever since they came in. Too strict guidelines leaving Referees with no common sense options & fixation with "high tackles" to the exclusion of other dangerous situations like players flying into rucks etc.
Hopefully such a high profile issue will force a review?
-
Half in agreement. I think the downgrading to a YC is a purely face saving move to protect Peyper and Jonker.
The framework is strictly structured, but before entering into the decision tree about point of contact, mitigation etc, there is the option of "No fault". This is detailed in the Law Application Guidelines as (https://twitter.com/RuckedOver/status/1638189149470507009/photo/1):
* Sudden and significant drop in height by the ball carrier
* Player had no time to readjust
* Involuntary collision
* No leading arm when close to the body
I reckon at least two of those definitely apply, and arguably all four. Sufficient leeway in the framework for refereeing discretion.
-
I think it was a pen. To England. Irish player was attempting to gather a ball that was knocked on (and he had no right to play) and ran into an England player who could have legally played the ball. It was the Irish player's responsibility to move out of the way to avoid impeding the England player. Instead he dipped, collided and prevented the England player from any chance of taking part in the move.
Not a red.
Not a yellow.
No foul play.
And although downgrading is rare, the downgrade to yellow is face saving.
-
I too don't think that the decision changed the result but I don't think the score is reflective of the game prior to Steward leaving the field.
Though I do think that the RC being rescinded shows that it was the wrong decision and perhaps influenced in some way by the occasion.
-
I think it was a pen. To England. Irish player was attempting to gather a ball that was knocked on (and he had no right to play) and ran into an England player who could have legally played the ball. It was the Irish player's responsibility to move out of the way to avoid impeding the England player. Instead he dipped, collided and prevented the England player from any chance of taking part in the move.
Not a red.
Not a yellow.
No foul play.
And although downgrading is rare, the downgrade to yellow is face saving.
Agree. If a player knocks the ball on and a player from the same team picks the ball up in front of where it was knocked on, he's offside and it's a pen.
-
Agree. If a player knocks the ball on and a player from the same team picks the ball up in front of where it was knocked on, he's offside and it's a pen.
[/quote]
He's only offside if he's in front of the player who knocks on which he wasn't. He ran to collect the ball from an on side position presumably to gather the ball to stop England gaining the advantage. No penalty, the correct outcome would have been scrum England as there was no advantage from the knock on.
I agree that the downgrading to yellow is just to save face, the mitigation is overwhelming. Very unfortunate incident but Rugby is a brutal old game even when is keeps within the laws, glad that common sense has prevailed.
-
glad that common sense has prevailed.
but too late, although I don't think it affected the outcome, the game had already been ruined.
-
Agree. If a player knocks the ball on and a player from the same team picks the ball up in front of where it was knocked on, he's offside and it's a pen.
He's only offside if he's in front of the player who knocks on which he wasn't. He ran to collect the ball from an on side position presumably to gather the ball to stop England gaining the advantage. No penalty, the correct outcome would have been scrum England as there was no advantage from the knock on.
I agree that the downgrading to yellow is just to save face, the mitigation is overwhelming. Very unfortunate incident but Rugby is a brutal old game even when is keeps within the laws, glad that common sense has prevailed.
[/quote]
I agree he was not offside. But in trying to pick up the ball he obstructed the England player who could have played it. In this case by running into him.