England today

[Shugs]

The intensity was much better. Huge tackle count from Willis. Only criticism is we just play without craft.

[JonnyD]

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

[Westy68]

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

[mike909]

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.

[Rossm]

Despite the fact that the 6 nations games are the first for SB, he hasn't impressed me at all.

[wycombewasp]

+1

[Bloke in North Dorset]

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.

[Shugs]

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.

[mike909]

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.

[BlackAndGoldSunglasses]

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.

[Nigel Med]

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.

[jamestaylor002]

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.

[Bloke in North Dorset]

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.

[westwaleswasp]

I think the main mitigation was- it was not foul play. Has there been foul play? No. Move on.

[BlackAndGoldSunglasses]

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.