The Official English Rugby Thread

[Paddington Bear]

I'm not sure it's totally inexplicable. The pressure game plan still insists that we give the opposition a lot of ball, that we swarm them in defence and at ruck time, and make a lot of tackles. We willingly put far more pressure on our own fitness and energy reserves, despite not being obviously fitter than the opposition.

Itoje is having an excellent season and I don't hate the idea of a "follow me" on field captain, especially in an international squad that has spent the last decade or so being told what to do down to the finest detail. His post match interview was dreadful, mind!

Not sure I agree with this - leaving aside Japan in most of our recent games we have finished very brightly, be it two good tries at the end yesterday, dominating but failing to score vs South Africa, two shots to win it vs NZ, Ireland last year. The side’s fitness seems fine to me, they just have a habit of major defensive lapses and handling errors that compound to knock us out the game

[JM2K6]

I'm not sure it's totally inexplicable. The pressure game plan still insists that we give the opposition a lot of ball, that we swarm them in defence and at ruck time, and make a lot of tackles. We willingly put far more pressure on our own fitness and energy reserves, despite not being obviously fitter than the opposition.

Itoje is having an excellent season and I don't hate the idea of a "follow me" on field captain, especially in an international squad that has spent the last decade or so being told what to do down to the finest detail. His post match interview was dreadful, mind!

Not sure I agree with this - leaving aside Japan in most of our recent games we have finished very brightly, be it two good tries at the end yesterday, dominating but failing to score vs South Africa, two shots to win it vs NZ, Ireland last year. The side’s fitness seems fine to me, they just have a habit of major defensive lapses and handling errors that compound to knock us out the game

That's after throwing the bench on, though. That 45-60 minute period had everyone thinking we were gassed, and not for the first time under Borthwick.

Ireland also made defensive errors and missed far more tackles than England, but importantly they weren't inviting pressure needlessly. For all England were clearly on top in the first half, they had noticeably less of the ball and had to do a mountain of work to get on top. I just don't think that's an approach that can work regularly for entire matches at this level, especially without set piece dominance.

The defence wasn't anywhere near as suicidal this time, which is great.

[el capitan]

I'm not sure we were even on top first half - good start to get the first score, then dropped the restart, and seemed to be under pressure for a lot of the rest of the half. Competing well yes, but soaking up a lot of pressure.

Ultimately I think we just had too much cumulative defence to do and eventually tired, plus Ireland sharpened up in attack a bit. They had opportunities first half they totally barbecued, and second go around made some stick.

As I said last night, really was the epitome of England under Borthwick. Lots of defence, some good some crap. Attack rather aimless. Brief glimpses of what could be, but really only play when we're forced to or like yesterday late on when the game is over and opposition winds down a bit.

[Hal Jordan]

I'm not sure it's totally inexplicable. The pressure game plan still insists that we give the opposition a lot of ball, that we swarm them in defence and at ruck time, and make a lot of tackles. We willingly put far more pressure on our own fitness and energy reserves, despite not being obviously fitter than the opposition.

Itoje is having an excellent season and I don't hate the idea of a "follow me" on field captain, especially in an international squad that has spent the last decade or so being told what to do down to the finest detail. His post match interview was dreadful, mind!

Reminded me of an England Captain Borhwick post match interview, full of "almost there" "learn from this" "just fell short" and other shit.

[Ovals]

I'm not sure we were even on top first half - good start to get the first score, then dropped the restart, and seemed to be under pressure for a lot of the rest of the half. Competing well yes, but soaking up a lot of pressure.

Ultimately I think we just had too much cumulative defence to do and eventually tired, plus Ireland sharpened up in attack a bit. They had opportunities first half they totally barbecued, and second go around made some stick.

As I said last night, really was the epitome of England under Borthwick. Lots of defence, some good some crap. Attack rather aimless. Brief glimpses of what could be, but really only play when we're forced to or like yesterday late on when the game is over and opposition winds down a bit.

We certainly invited pressure onto ourselves - we rarely went through multiple phases of possession without either kicking it away, for negligible territory gain, or giving away penalties - especially in the 2nd half. The hectic pace that we defend with, is bound to shag out our players and sooner or later we'll either get gassed or lose concentration - probably both. That 10 minute effort when Smith was binned, looked like it took a toll.

[inactionman]

@saintk, did you catch any of Bath Bedford?

Lovely offload by the lock with the beard for the loosehead to run it in for Bedfords second (sorry, don't know many names on the Bedford side), and they gave it a really good shot after going 4 :tries down. Worley in particularooked very lively

[SaintK]

@saintk, did you catch any of Bath Bedford?

Lovely offload by the lock with the beard for the loosehead to run it in for Bedfords second (sorry, don't know many names on the Bedford side), and they gave it a really good shot after going 4 :tries down. Worley in particularooked very lively

Yes, I did watch it. Not really up to speed with Bedford but they were pretty good value and gave Bath a bit of a scare particularly in the second half
Thouight the lock and loosehead were excellent as was their 7

[inactionman]

@saintk, did you catch any of Bath Bedford?

Lovely offload by the lock with the beard for the loosehead to run it in for Bedfords second (sorry, don't know many names on the Bedford side), and they gave it a really good shot after going 4 :tries down. Worley in particularooked very lively

Yes, I did watch it. Not really up to speed with Bedford but they were pretty good value and gave Bath a bit of a scare particularly in the second half
Thouight the lock and loosehead were excellent as was their 7

Sorry mate, had it in my head you were involved with Bedford

Bath definitely on the ropes for a bit early in the second half

[SaintK]

@saintk, did you catch any of Bath Bedford?

Lovely offload by the lock with the beard for the loosehead to run it in for Bedfords second (sorry, don't know many names on the Bedford side), and they gave it a really good shot after going 4 :tries down. Worley in particularooked very lively

Yes, I did watch it. Not really up to speed with Bedford but they were pretty good value and gave Bath a bit of a scare particularly in the second half
Thouight the lock and loosehead were excellent as was their 7

Sorry mate, had it in my head you were involved with Bedford

Bath definitely on the ropes for a bit early in the second half

No worries. I keep an eye on their teamsheet to see who is on loan from Saints. But that's about it!

[inactionman]

Yes, I did watch it. Not really up to speed with Bedford but they were pretty good value and gave Bath a bit of a scare particularly in the second half
Thouight the lock and loosehead were excellent as was their 7

Sorry mate, had it in my head you were involved with Bedford

Bath definitely on the ropes for a bit early in the second half

No worries. I keep an eye on their teamsheet to see who is on loan from Saints. But that's about it!

Cool - I was worried I'd dropped a bollock mixing Bedford up with Ampthill or something similarly dreadful!


Bath are signing Exeter's hooker Dan Frost (ex-Bath academy) for next season. It's been spoken about on the Bath forums for a while so not a great surprise.

I'll admit I'm not up to speed on his set piece, which is where - lineout in particular - Bath have had a few wobbles at crunch moments. Exeter as a team have looked poor so I' not sure how to take recent performances. He does look very dynamic in the loose.

[sockwithaticket]

Sorry mate, had it in my head you were involved with Bedford

Bath definitely on the ropes for a bit early in the second half

No worries. I keep an eye on their teamsheet to see who is on loan from Saints. But that's about it!

Cool - I was worried I'd dropped a bollock mixing Bedford up with Ampthill or something similarly dreadful!


Bath are signing Exeter's hooker Dan Frost (ex-Bath academy) for next season. It's been spoken about on the Bath forums for a while so not a great surprise.

I'll admit I'm not up to speed on his set piece, which is where - lineout in particular - Bath have had a few wobbles at crunch moments. Exeter as a team have looked poor so I' not sure how to take recent performances. He does look very dynamic in the loose.

I was always very impressed with Frosty at Wasps, he seemed like a ready made replacement for Tom Cruse while being a bit better in the loose.

[SaintK]

No worries. I keep an eye on their teamsheet to see who is on loan from Saints. But that's about it!

Cool - I was worried I'd dropped a bollock mixing Bedford up with Ampthill or something similarly dreadful!


Bath are signing Exeter's hooker Dan Frost (ex-Bath academy) for next season. It's been spoken about on the Bath forums for a while so not a great surprise.

I'll admit I'm not up to speed on his set piece, which is where - lineout in particular - Bath have had a few wobbles at crunch moments. Exeter as a team have looked poor so I' not sure how to take recent performances. He does look very dynamic in the loose.

I was always very impressed with Frosty at Wasps, he seemed like a ready made replacement for Tom Cruse while being a bit better in the loose.

Yes, he's a feisty character and will be an ideal long term replacement for Dunn. Darts can be a bit iffy ar times. Quite a few more "senior" players leaving Chiefs so could be another season of "rebuilding" for them

[ASMO]

Murley out of the squad (injured apparently), Lowzowski in as a replacement.

[Paddington Bear]

Feel sorry for Murley - he’s experienced some wild highs and lows even for test rugby. Not just the try in the positive column - he did well for Curry’s try as well. Sadly there’s a good chance he’ll always be followed around by Lowe bundling him up, a bit like Tait was.

Pleased for Loz - hopefully he’s there to do a bit more than hold tackle bags, he has a lot to offer this squad

[SaintK]

Murley out of the squad (injured apparently), Lowzowski in as a replacement.

I hope that means Sleightholme is fit
Feel sorry for Murley and like watching him play but he completely shat the bed twice on Saturday

[Kawazaki]

Murley out of the squad (injured apparently), Lowzowski in as a replacement.

That replacement choice suggests all kinds of things. None of them particularly planned.

[Raggs]

Loz looks like a good option for running a team against in training. Not a player who you're realistically planning on taking up a permanent starting slow. Not necessarily a bad thing, he's a flexible player.

[inactionman]

Murley out of the squad (injured apparently), Lowzowski in as a replacement.

I'm almost hoping that's just for injury.

Chucking a player into a tough international - Ireland away is no bed of roses - and then discarding them when they make mistakes is something I'd expect from Eddie.

Either you believe they're good enough, or you don't, and you should have enough evidence in the team and coaching sessions to make a call.

For what its worth, I don't think bringing someone straight into a side with a defensive system that is - to put it kindly - in flux is going to give great results.

[Lobby]

Murley out of the squad (injured apparently), Lowzowski in as a replacement.

I'm almost hoping that's just for injury.

Chucking a player into a tough international - Ireland away is no bed of roses - and then discarding them when they make mistakes is something I'd expect from Eddie.

Either you believe they're good enough, or you don't, and you should have enough evidence in the team and coaching sessions to make a call.

For what its worth, I don't think bringing someone straight into a side with a defensive system that is - to put it kindly - in flux is going to give great results.

It was reported yesterday that he had picked up a foot injury in the Ireland game and was doubtful for the France test. So it looks like it might be a genuine injury rather than just being dropped.

[inactionman]

Murley out of the squad (injured apparently), Lowzowski in as a replacement.

I'm almost hoping that's just for injury.

Chucking a player into a tough international - Ireland away is no bed of roses - and then discarding them when they make mistakes is something I'd expect from Eddie.

Either you believe they're good enough, or you don't, and you should have enough evidence in the team and coaching sessions to make a call.

For what its worth, I don't think bringing someone straight into a side with a defensive system that is - to put it kindly - in flux is going to give great results.

It was reported yesterday that he had picked up a foot injury in the Ireland game and was doubtful for the France test. So it looks like it might be a genuine injury rather than just being dropped.

Who'd be an England winger? Injury graveyard at the moment.

[JM2K6]

Can't have been self inflicted - judging by Saturday if he tried to kick the wall in frustration he'd have missed

[JM2K6]

Murley out of the squad (injured apparently), Lowzowski in as a replacement.

I hope that means Sleightholme is fit
Feel sorry for Murley and like watching him play but he completely shat the bed twice on Saturday

Twice is generous tbf

I'm still confused by Sleightholme being a bench option so often for Saints. There has to be something else going on there.

If he's not fully fit, then it has to go to Roebuck instead. He's great in the air and an excellent attacker in his own right.

[SaintK]

Murley out of the squad (injured apparently), Lowzowski in as a replacement.

I hope that means Sleightholme is fit
Feel sorry for Murley and like watching him play but he completely shat the bed twice on Saturday

Twice is generous tbf

I'm still confused by Sleightholme being a bench option so often for Saints. There has to be something else going on there.

If he's not fully fit, then it has to go to Roebuck instead. He's great in the air and an excellent attacker in his own right.

Yeah. I'd be happy enough with Roebuck. The rumours that Steward may be picked on the wing fill me with dread!
Sleightholme has 7 starts and 3 off the bench this season. Partly Saints rotating and partly a couple of niggling injuries.

[JM2K6]

I hope that means Sleightholme is fit
Feel sorry for Murley and like watching him play but he completely shat the bed twice on Saturday

Twice is generous tbf

I'm still confused by Sleightholme being a bench option so often for Saints. There has to be something else going on there.

If he's not fully fit, then it has to go to Roebuck instead. He's great in the air and an excellent attacker in his own right.

Yeah. I'd be happy enough with Roebuck. The rumours that Steward may be picked on the wing fill me with dread!
Sleightholme has 7 starts and 3 off the bench this season. Partly Saints rotating and partly a couple of niggling injuries.

Looking at it again I think I just noticed on the occasions he was being rotated or coming back from injury. 80%+ starts last season for example.

[Kawazaki]

The rumours that Steward may be picked on the wing fill me with dread!

I think it would be hilarious, especially if he's opposite Penaud. You'd genuinely laugh out loud.

I seriously think the best hope England have got is to pick as many of the Northampton backs as possible, at least they will tick the 'cohesive' box that Borthwick always moans about.

9. Mitchell
10. F. Smith
11. Sleightholme
12. Dingwall
13. Lawrence
14. Freeman
15. M. Smith or Daly

[Paddington Bear]

Daily Mail reporting Smith at 15 is a done deal. Were they the ones who were right or wrong last week?

[SaintK]

The rumours that Steward may be picked on the wing fill me with dread!

I think it would be hilarious, especially if he's opposite Penaud. You'd genuinely laugh out loud.

I seriously think the best hope England have got is to pick as many of the Northampton backs as possible, at least they will tick the 'cohesive' box that Borthwick always moans about.

9. Mitchell
10. F. Smith
11. Sleightholme
12. Dingwall
13. Lawrence
14. Freeman
15. M. Smith or Daly

And Sam Vesty as attack coach
Rumours around that both Smiths will start on Saturday

[sockwithaticket]

Penaud or Bielle-Bierray, it doesn't really matter. Both will round Steward like he's an arthritic pensioner.

M. Smith to fullback is a solution searching for a problem that in turn becomes it's own problem and needlessly so. There are limits to 'get your best players on the pitch' and we wouldn't be so desperate for a playmaker at fullback if we actually picked a better centre partnership (i.e. one without Slade).

How much longer 'til Borthwick's contract expires?

[Slick]

Daily Mail reporting Smith at 15 is a done deal. Were they the ones who were right or wrong last week?

And the Times. Deary me

[JM2K6]

Poor Joe Carpenter, eh.

[SaintK]

Poor Joe Carpenter, eh.

Indeed!

[SaintK]

Another Saffer scrum half to Bath
That'll be 3 on the books though I should imagine Schreuder will be his way soon with Carr-Smith breaking through

On Tuesday, the English Premiership club announced the signing of Bernard van der Linde from the Bulls.
The 24-year-old will move to The Rec later this year on a two-year deal.
Educated at Menlopark High School, Van der Linde played rugby at age-group level with the Bulls before signing for the franchise’s senior team where he’s been in the set-up for the last six years, featuring in the Currie Cup, United Rugby Championship, and Champions Cup.

https://rugby365.com/tournaments/prem ... ans-bath/

[inactionman]

An interesting article in the Torygraph about Smith at 15 -they're presenting some reasonable arguments as to why they think it's a good call.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... x-nations/

The link is free to me so assume it's not paywalled.

Interesting comments about the nature of France's kicking and from Fraser Dingwall about playing with Smith at 10.

[SaintK]

An interesting article in the Torygraph about Smith at 15 -they're presenting some reasonable arguments as to why they think it's a good call.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... x-nations/

The link is free to me so assume it's not paywalled.

Interesting comments about the nature of France's kicking and from Fraser Dingwall about playing with Smith at 10.

Unfortunately aywalled mate!
How about cut and paste and spoiler it

[inactionman]

An interesting article in the Torygraph about Smith at 15 -they're presenting some reasonable arguments as to why they think it's a good call.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... x-nations/

The link is free to me so assume it's not paywalled.

Interesting comments about the nature of France's kicking and from Fraser Dingwall about playing with Smith at 10.

Unfortunately aywalled mate!
How about cut and paste and spoiler it

No idea how I've got access, I'm not a subscriber.

May be worth archive ph as there's a few vids in it?

@ASMO can I post archive ph or is that breaking the rules?

[JM2K6]

An interesting article in the Torygraph about Smith at 15 -they're presenting some reasonable arguments as to why they think it's a good call.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... x-nations/

The link is free to me so assume it's not paywalled.

Interesting comments about the nature of France's kicking and from Fraser Dingwall about playing with Smith at 10.

Charlie Morgan really frustrates me. No question he's got a good eye for the game and his analysis of tactics and execution is usually very grounded, but he approaches his articles as if anything England (coaches or players) does is the correct thing to do and works backwards from there. He's a very good mouth piece

The questions of: what does it say about this England team and the tactical approach that having Marcus's creativity overrides all other considerations, to the point of shoehorning him in at 15? What does it say about Fin Smith? (Autocorrect changed that to 'Fin Sloth' and you can guarantee I will start using that if things go south)

What about what Fin needs from his back line? Why are we wedded to a 6-2 bench when it hamstrings our ability to be flexible in the backline, and essentially guarantees comprises from the start? Why do we need Slade if he's still missing tackles and his creativity extends to a good kick now and then?

Why, when Marcus put Earl through a gap with a peach of a pass, did the resulting ruck see Mitchell butcher a massive opportunity by half heartedly going for a gap? Why are we not seeing Mitchell tracking runners much? Why is Randall in the squad given his kicking is woeful but he's still being asked to do loads of it?

Explaining to the plebs why this is all a good idea actually has worn thin.

[inactionman]

An interesting article in the Torygraph about Smith at 15 -they're presenting some reasonable arguments as to why they think it's a good call.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... x-nations/

The link is free to me so assume it's not paywalled.

Interesting comments about the nature of France's kicking and from Fraser Dingwall about playing with Smith at 10.

Charlie Morgan really frustrates me. No question he's got a good eye for the game and his analysis of tactics and execution is usually very grounded, but he approaches his articles as if anything England (coaches or players) does is the correct thing to do and works backwards from there. He's a very good mouth piece

The questions of: what does it say about this England team and the tactical approach that having Marcus's creativity overrides all other considerations, to the point of shoehorning him in at 15? What does it say about Fin Smith? (Autocorrect changed that to 'Fin Sloth' and you can guarantee I will start using that if things go south)

What about what Fin needs from his back line? Why are we wedded to a 6-2 bench when it hamstrings our ability to be flexible in the backline, and essentially guarantees comprises from the start? Why do we need Slade if he's still missing tackles and his creativity extends to a good kick now and then?

Why, when Marcus put Earl through a gap with a peach of a pass, did the resulting ruck see Mitchell butcher a massive opportunity by half heartedly going for a gap? Why are we not seeing Mitchell tracking runners much? Why is Randall in the squad given his kicking is woeful but he's still being asked to do loads of it?

Explaining to the plebs why this is all a good idea actually has worn thin.

I'm not sure England are looking at shoehorning Marcus Smith in at 15 for the sake of it, it's also about losing Furbank and our other main candidate* not being particularly dynamic, if I may be diplomatic.

It's Hobson's choice to some extent, but there's some rationale for it.



* that we're not looking at other candidates from the Prem is an issue in and of itself.

[JM2K6]

An interesting article in the Torygraph about Smith at 15 -they're presenting some reasonable arguments as to why they think it's a good call.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... x-nations/

The link is free to me so assume it's not paywalled.

Interesting comments about the nature of France's kicking and from Fraser Dingwall about playing with Smith at 10.

Charlie Morgan really frustrates me. No question he's got a good eye for the game and his analysis of tactics and execution is usually very grounded, but he approaches his articles as if anything England (coaches or players) does is the correct thing to do and works backwards from there. He's a very good mouth piece

The questions of: what does it say about this England team and the tactical approach that having Marcus's creativity overrides all other considerations, to the point of shoehorning him in at 15? What does it say about Fin Smith? (Autocorrect changed that to 'Fin Sloth' and you can guarantee I will start using that if things go south)

What about what Fin needs from his back line? Why are we wedded to a 6-2 bench when it hamstrings our ability to be flexible in the backline, and essentially guarantees comprises from the start? Why do we need Slade if he's still missing tackles and his creativity extends to a good kick now and then?

Why, when Marcus put Earl through a gap with a peach of a pass, did the resulting ruck see Mitchell butcher a massive opportunity by half heartedly going for a gap? Why are we not seeing Mitchell tracking runners much? Why is Randall in the squad given his kicking is woeful but he's still being asked to do loads of it?

Explaining to the plebs why this is all a good idea actually has worn thin.

I'm not sure England are looking at shoehorning Marcus Smith in at 15 for the sake of it, it's also about losing Furbank and our other main candidate* not being particularly dynamic, if I may be diplomatic.

It's Hobson's choice to some extent, but there's some rationale for it.



* that we're not looking at other candidates from the Prem is an issue in and of itself.

He's been pushed to fullback on many occasions, though. Yes, we're missing Furbank. Why does that mean we have to pick a small 10 at 15 rather than selecting a player who is comfortable playing there and is more suited to it, like Carpenter or Freeman? Or either of the promising Exeter guys who've racked up appearances? The argument being made is that Marcus is one of England's best players and needs to be on the pitch. Why? Because perversely, in a game plan that has been laser focused on the kicking game and defensive pressure, having a player who can break open teams is critical.

Can't question the game plan, mind.

[dpedin]

An interesting article in the Torygraph about Smith at 15 -they're presenting some reasonable arguments as to why they think it's a good call.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... x-nations/

The link is free to me so assume it's not paywalled.

Interesting comments about the nature of France's kicking and from Fraser Dingwall about playing with Smith at 10.

Charlie Morgan really frustrates me. No question he's got a good eye for the game and his analysis of tactics and execution is usually very grounded, but he approaches his articles as if anything England (coaches or players) does is the correct thing to do and works backwards from there. He's a very good mouth piece

The questions of: what does it say about this England team and the tactical approach that having Marcus's creativity overrides all other considerations, to the point of shoehorning him in at 15? What does it say about Fin Smith? (Autocorrect changed that to 'Fin Sloth' and you can guarantee I will start using that if things go south)

What about what Fin needs from his back line? Why are we wedded to a 6-2 bench when it hamstrings our ability to be flexible in the backline, and essentially guarantees comprises from the start? Why do we need Slade if he's still missing tackles and his creativity extends to a good kick now and then?

Why, when Marcus put Earl through a gap with a peach of a pass, did the resulting ruck see Mitchell butcher a massive opportunity by half heartedly going for a gap? Why are we not seeing Mitchell tracking runners much? Why is Randall in the squad given his kicking is woeful but he's still being asked to do loads of it?

Explaining to the plebs why this is all a good idea actually has worn thin.

I'm not sure England are looking at shoehorning Marcus Smith in at 15 for the sake of it, it's also about losing Furbank and our other main candidate* not being particularly dynamic, if I may be diplomatic.

It's Hobson's choice to some extent, but there's some rationale for it.



* that we're not looking at other candidates from the Prem is an issue in and of itself.

I can understand trying to get your best players on the field together but asking Marcus Smith to start his first international at 15 against the current French team with their kicking expertise and ability to release their speedy back 3 into space out wide is a bit of an ask! It would be a tough game for a battle hardened and experienced 15 at the best of times. I would have thought a couple of games at 15 during AIs might have been a good test run for Smith in advance of this? It is going to be a real ask for Smith at 15 in terms of the high ball, positioning and last man tackles. There is a whiff of desperation and no plan B here and for both Smiths' sake I hope it doesn't end up the disaster it might be!

[Raggs]

I'd trust Smith to get a hand on the French wingers out scrum half if they break through, than I would steward it even Freeman. That hopefully buys enough time for someone else to get in there.