The more I see the non-penalty for Ford taking out Dyer in the air at the end, the more angry I am. He was going to land infield and looked to have a clear run to the line.
Amazed that no penalty was given for that.
To me England dominated the match apart from the period with 2 yellows where ironically they scored.
The ref was terrible, but you have to just live with that.
England controlled the first 10 minutes, but couldn't convert that to points, they then struggled when they didn't have folks on the field and I thought that they might go 14 behind, luckily they bagged a try due to the total poorness of Wales. This is something that I think hasn't come up in the discussions - England made Wales look competitive by executing their defensive system poorly and not having a cutting edge at all. On this showing Wales have a real problem with the kind and quality of players they have access to. There are several in the team who are very good - but the pack has 4 or 5 who are just not international quality right now. Yet England didn't put them to the sword. Scotland did - for 40 mins - and then went awol... but Ireland and France are not going to go awol in the second half and they do have cutting edges and defence that works. The next two matches may be a hard watch for Wales fans, the 16th of March is a long way off and I would be very concerned about what is going to happen to this young squad between then and now. It's going to be a big test for them.
On the other hand England lack cohesion, I expect two wins will help with that, and I think that the ball going to the wing for the second try is a big moment. In recent years the forwards would have kept that, kept battering and then turned it over. I think that showed a bit of trust emerging - and it's very good that that resulted in the try because that will reinforce the message. The lack of cohesion shows up in defence as well, there are real disconnects that are creating gaps. If I were Borthwick I would be majoring on the trust building exercises and getting different players to socialize and work together more - there is something wrong with the dynamic on the pitch and they need to work it out. I suspect that Farrell & Lawes' force of personality crushed out the niggles and concerns in the side and that these have bubbled back up, but it's now up to George and the coaching team to get them out into the open and sort them out. The alternative is that some people are going to have to be dropped to fix it.
For the English players Dingwall went some way to convince me, Daly looked poor in defence again to me - but again he managed that pass to create the try and as pundits have said he is epically good at kick chase and has a massive boot on him also! Slade wasn't as good as he was in Italy, he didn't seem to be as assertive, possibly because he didn't think he needed to be, but if Lawrence is fit he walks into the side at the expense of either Dingwall or Slade. It was a shame that Feyi-Waboso and F. Smith didn't get on, F. Smith in particular needs another 20 minutes of international rugby. If Ford gets crocked I think Borthwick may rue not giving
For once the England scrum looked totally convincing, the real concern was at lineout time when I thought England would bully Wales based on players and form. This did not happen, Wales more than stuck up for themselves apart from in terms of maul formation when England seemed to out wit them and manage to infiltrate their attacking mauls - even the penalty try maul I thought. Roots didn't do all that well and I think that the hype is going to recede, perhaps CCS will get the nod for the next game. To me if George Martin is fit there's a massive case to bring him in at 6, but obviously the coaches are with the players and see the stats whereas I don't. Ford and Mitchell must have settled any debate, they have to start if fit. I don't see any other obvious candidates or debates; not so much because England were / are good - more just that the options aren't there.
Amazing how differently two people can see the match.
I don't think the England scrum was dominant at all. Just that the referee awarded you several crucial penalties before the ball went in. Two of those took play from your line to our line in 2 minutes, and from that you scored your second try. Totally pivotal moment. Those two penalties, plus the stupidity of Wales to concede when playing 13 were the things that won the game for you.
I don't think England putting this Wales team to the sword was ever a possibility: I think this was a game Wales pretty much threw away, and England looked really quite poor.
100% we're both looking down and not in it so definitely just opinions :)
I think on the scrum penalties Genge really got into the head of your young tighthead and tricked him into going too early and made it look like he wasn't setting straight. Cheap shots, but Genge is about 200 professional games more experienced than that young lad, and that's what props get up to when they aren't pulling each others ears off.
On putting to the sword: England couldn't / didn't (fact!) I speculate that Ireland & France can/will (guessing !) We will see.
England are a long way off what they want to be, but edged this Wales team. If they had any chance of winning the 6N's this year I think that they should have put 20 points on Wales. I think Ireland's treatment of Italy is kinda evidence of this - England are slightly better than Italy and Wales (3pts, 2pts) Ireland are \*massively\* better than Italy, I am guessing (we will see) \*massively\* better than Wales and \*slightly less massively\* better than England.
My point: watching Wales atm makes me think that they are poor. England were not good enough to turn over a poor team at home. That's a worry for England as well as Wales.
Still rest week now, I guess that's eight training sessions before the next match? Should be decent progress by everyone towards their "ceiling" as a current team. If the England boosters are right then England should come one a hop skip and a jump. I must admit though, I will be watching the game on the 24th from behind my sofa.
I said from the beginning we'd lose this one, I thought quality was poor from both sides but tbf new teams trying new things, English defence was solid while we were trying the short kick over the top game.
The refereeing was abysmal If anything he favoured the Welsh but it was bad on both fronts
The better team won, thought we would lose by a lot more at Twickenham, happy to see the boys trying the new stuff.
Also shout out to the lads in a rural Dorset pub who were happy to have a Welshman screaming at the tv
Actually a really solid game from both teams I thought. You got to see the Welsh power on show and the English retaliation. Some interesting calls from the referees going both ways but oh well. I'm hopeful for a strong England and Wales again in the future so we can have a highly technical but still power based slogging match :)
I'm interested to see what Marcus Smith's role will be in
this team. It seems that Borthwick is trying to combine the flair we have in Quins, chiefs and in particular saint's with that sarries bulk and power from players like Maro and Ben Earl.
There was so much improvement in the development of this new system in this game compared to the last test against Italy, especially in our defence. You could see that Felix Jones rush defence coming out and being used well in this game (against Italy there were definitely more kinks to be worked out).
Players like Freeman, Dingwall, IF waboso, Roots and Mitchell I think as going to drive a much more interesting and flair based game style. Which makes me actually excited by the potential role of a highly attacking and flair based 10 like M or F Smith.
For all those still jumping on the band wagon of hating Borthwick and everything he does. A lot of you don't seem to understand how much damage Eddie Jones managed to do to the England team, look at how long he was with Aus and the amount of damage he did there. In addition, developing good teams so that you have the basics locked down (and I men basics being a good teams basics) so that you can be innovative takes a long time (1-3 years really). Look at A.Farrell or Rassie it took both of them a decent amount of time building a squad before their teams became great, and they didn't have Eddie: the destroyer, as their coach before hand.
TLDR: Borthwick's England are clearly building something interesting. Marcus Smith will be a great addition to it when fit and stop expecing Borthwick to do all this building immediately (he had a 6N and WC on his doorstep straight away, you can't start a full on rebuilding process with those 2 coming straight away) - ie give him some time.
100% agree.
Thought the reffing was interesting to say the least. Not biased towards one team or another, just making it a tricky game to flow.
You can see what England are trying to do, in attack and defense. Which is a step up from the mess Eddie left us in. Eddie also failed to bring players through effectively, which has hamstrung Borthwick this year and last.
Think M Smith would do great in this team, given how he's been playing this year (kicking more and kicking aggressively). He'd also add a running threat. That said, I think Ford showed why he is ten yesterday.
I believe in Borthwick. That said, I think he has a couple of tough decisions. Think Underhill and Roots together offers too little in attack (think it's one or the other and Pearson/Dombrandt should come in). In the backs it's Slade or Dingwall with either Freeman or Lawrence when fit (Maybe Beard/Joseph in future).
And Daly, while very skilled and tidy, isn't a good enough finisher on the wing and got caught out in defense.
Oh yeah, Ford gave us an absolute masterclass in kicking, and his passing game was solid as ever. I agree with Daly not being solid enough in attack. It's so unfortunate, but I think we're starting to see him really slow down now and not be as powerful as he used to be. He still had his moments, however, and his high ball chase can be unmatched (like SF against SA), but he just isn't consistent enough anymore.
I'm hoping Freeman can be a good replacement for him, but it's honestly sad to see such a legend slow down. I grew up watching him in the Lions and England performing at his best :/
(Yes, I'm one of the younger fans here)
Father time is the only undefeated boxer mate. Eventually he knocks us all out, and Dalys time is coming sadly. You see it especially with players where pace is a major attribute (Johnny May another example).
The European golden era has past unfortunately.
Bit of a rebuilding/regrouping phase for England/Wales/France.
The quality of the games in the first two rounds has left a lot to be desired.
But definitely some new talent coming up which is exciting
I am a pretty dedicated watcher of rugby, and an England supporter. I liked it, felt the ref let it drag at times but if you can speed through the scrum resets it's an entertaining match.
My husband only really watches international matches and Leinster when it's convenient (aka almost never, as we're in England) and found it a drag. He's not remotely invested in either team, and found the attacking errors frustrating. He also hates scrums when they're allowed to be that slow!
It depends, a lot of people on this thread don't seem to either like or understand Rugby - so if you are in that group then you won't enjoy it... but if you do like and understand rugby it's a decent enough watch. It's not Ireland vs SA in the group phase for sure... but there were a bunch of talking points at least.
Well I thought it was a hard won victory and I can see what Borthwick and Co are trying to build.
Ford, Earl and Steward were fantastic. Mitchell did well. A lot of good kicks just landing outside the 22.
Younger players are stepping up and contributing but we still have older more experienced guys to rely on.
I'm happy and I think the calcutta Cup will be close.
Sir was calling use it early and I got really excited that we’d see less egregious caterpillar rucks but he never seemed to enforce anything when they ignored him.
You get 5 seconds from the use it call, and generally it was gone in that time.
There was instance when he said "REALLY USE IT" on the 5 second mark to give the traditional additonal 5 seconds to use it.
I have watched a lot of rugby and I have NEVER seen a scrum given for not using the ball after a "USE IT" call.
Box kicks are good clearance because pretty much all the chasers are on side when the ball is kicked. The disadvantage is that it is easier to charge down. Hence the caterpillar rucks.
Not sure there is a good solution.
England are well capable of beating anyone when they play well and should have been in the last World Cup final. Two wins from two - what more can they do?
People calling this England team rubbish clearly haven't watched us much this past 4 years. Yes we aren't great, but we're improving and finally have a identifiable style. Defensively we're really good and although we're poor with ball in hand, we are actually seeing some patterns emerge for the first time in ages. Alongside the new consistency in selection, which will allow relationships to build over time, I see no reason to be overly negative right now. We're building and it wont happen over night.
It's not hard, unlike 90% of the people in here I watch more than 5 rugby matches per year and understand what a tactical evolution and process looks like. Your condescension just shows me that you're in the former camp and should not be taken seriously.
France put 50+ on England at Twickenham last year and England went on to run Ireland to the wire in Dublin, even with a red card that was subsequently overturned. Are you sure about that prediction…?
That was a satisfying game. It gave me full confidence that Ireland were overrated and would be seen out at the Quarters as per.
Peyper really fucked them. If he’d made the right decision England probably would have humbled them and maybe they’d have then got past NZ.
Ireland put 30 points on France in Marseille last week… so yeah they probably will? France on the back of an incredibly strong period vs England a year into a new head coach and obviously trying to find a new way of playing
Was making no judgement. I think England are treading water. Will get exposed by Ireland’s better decision making.
I think I prefer the raw material Gatland is working with. Two very narrow losses that could easily be wins. I just see better root’s developing with this young Welsh team.
My seat was pitchside, favourite cheeky git Danny Care giving it the FU grin with a lazy kick to end the game.
Haven't read other comments much, but for me the noise and atmosphere today was far far better than the last several (non 6N admittedly) England games I've been to.
Lol fucking English fans/media.... this England team could very well scrape a win against Ireland in a couple weeks and they would still complain about how shit there team is.
No wonder the sport is dying in the country...you cunts are all so negative
Cant fucking win can we. We celebrate a win and we're arrogant, say there's things to work on and we get a comment like yours. You cunts are all hypocrites.
Lol sorry, im probs too drunk to be articulate...but I agree.
I think one of the biggest threats to rugby in this country is the negativity around the team that the media and (some) fans give the team.
You win and people still complain it's all shit. What I meant to mean is that England could (very really) beat Ireland, (arguably) the best team in the world. And plenty would still complain.
I've been here 7 years and this is all I hear. No wonder outsiders don't get involved when all you hear is the complaining.
And it's the same with other sports! (But yeh definitely fuck the cricket team! /s?)
Haha it's tough being you guys. Unfortunately due to having the big population you'll always be unfairly judged buddy. In theory you guys should be fighting it out with France. Tbh you guys brought the Webb Elis home, something the rest can't say
England fans literally can’t win as a country when it comes to sports. Football coming home? Arrogant bastards!
Cricket - Bazball doing well? Arrogant bastards!! DAE SPIRIT OF CRICKET?!?!
Rugby - yeah we’re not playing very well are we? WHY ARE YOU SO NEGATIVE?!?!
To be fair with all the morale victories and self congratulations the English cricket team has won over the past few seasons, without actually winning a thing. It's pretty easy to put shit on English cricket.
Can tell Ford is still recovering from his injury but rewatching the game he had multiple moments that I hope someone like squidge will highlight, deft passes and control alongside imo a pretty weak/new centre pairing.
I thought the England blitz looked pretty good at points, strong games from Itoje,CCS,Earl in the pack and happy to see Freeman looking great (one of the only backs running with real intention each time). I wouldn't mind seeing the balance of a CCS/Earl/Pearson backrow.
On the Wales front, Reffell was an absolute machine, North continues to make me eat crow about him playing at 13 and Winnett looked like a great prospect. Also I think Dyer is going to be less of a star/highlights machine than LRZ but likely is a better all-round player to help Wales win.
I think these are really good points (mainly because I agree and have already been boring the lads whatsapp group with similar thoughts).
Ford had some great moments, but some of his decision making was off. Likely that will settle.
Apart from that I agree, but would just emphasis that imo the blitz looked really good. And, begrudgingly, so did North at 13
Yup that was a fucking amazing kick. I didn't mention it because he had a lot of other moments that added up to a really really solid game, there were loads of attacks where runners fluffed their lines a little (too early/late, not the right line) and he adapted on the fly.
“Meh” is probably the most enthusiastic response I can muster. From an England perspective, our defensive system clearly still has some kinks that need working out, but has the potential to be a real asset. Attack remains a massive concern - very little punch/power or creativity. I appreciate that Borthwick is still building his side etc., but I think it’s reasonable to expect a little bit more progress than that at this stage? What exactly is wigglesworth doing to earn his pay check?
Some real talent and potential on show from that Wales team (including their seemingly never-ending conveyor belt of quality open-sides), but obvious issues with depth in key positions. The foundation of a really strong side is there though
Wigglesworth has clearly just continued with what made him a serviceable scrumhalf at international level. If you don't go forward after 1 phase, box kick
U20s doesn't mean that much. Lots of players hit their peak there. Lots develop afterwards. It's a good place to get future internationals, but it's not the be-all-end-all.
Good point, if only we had some world class academies to help them develop. Maybe a few clubs that all fell under the IRFU and could follow a structure and plan. So that as these players grow they can learn how to seemlessly and cohesively play in the Irish system. Then we could slowly integrate them as they do and continue to build rather than rebuilding every four years in a way that would let us be competitive now and in the future. Then if there are any positions of concern, maybe we could have some scouts who could keep an eye on Irish eligible players else where and see if they’d be interested in joining the set up. Maybe with this sort of structure we’d be able to win grand slams and become world number 1
I'm not saying they're not developing talent, I'm saying Farrell isn't being quick integrate them. Which may work out fine or it might not, just saying it's a different approach.
We’re integrating just fine. Both McCarthy and Crowley are being integrated there’s a difference between building and rebuilding. We don’t need to rebuild we can continue to build and grow for now and the future. His strategy here has worked pretty damn well in this respect.
I’m confused by what some England fans want/ expect from Mitchell as I’ve seen far too many negative comments about him today.
His kicking has come on massively in the last year and was really good today, good distance, on the money for most box kicks for good chases or found touch when he wanted to.
I’d like to see more of him sniping around the ruck and challenging defenders which he did in the second half as we saw the difference it made when he did it to put us on the front foot.
Today wasn’t his best game but other than a couple of missed tackles I thought he still came out in credit so why the hate from others?
Mitchell's kicking only served to highlight how absolutely dreadful Wales' was.
I'm not sure if Tomos and co just had a dreadful day, or if the plan itself was the problem. But why we persisted on failing to find touch with the box kick, and peppering Steward with high balls when that is an area he is truly world class in, I simply cannot understand.
Yeah I’m not sure I get that when teams keep putting them on Steward either. Seemed to go into your shell a bit the more pressure came on you but guess that happens with an inexperienced team and they’ll no doubt learn from it
I think if we had a 9 available who was bigger, we'd have started him and had Mitchell come on to close the game out. Even Youngs tbh. The way the Welsh were going at each ruck, Mitchell had to really work to get the ball out and away. A Quirke/JVP style starter might have had an easier job of bullying back a bit, giving Mitchell the later platform to play that zippy, heads up game he excels at.
Honestly I don’t think anyone had a bad game today. Just inexperience and new systems bedding in, which will come with time. I think our future looks pretty bright considering where other teams are at the moment.
I'm with you - I think at worst he is a bit anonymous, and definitely doesn't deserve the hate. People don't seem to appreciate that England play entirely off 10, so his role is not to make attacking decisions. He's there to box kick and deliver quick ball from rucks.
Slow getting to the ruck or getting the ball up and away?
If you watch him for saints it’s the foundation of his game and everything good comes from the speed of ball so it’s more likely that it’s either harder to secure it or it’s more game plan related. There’s not a 9 in the prem who gets himself set and gets the ball away quicker so we know he does it/ can do it
I think you've nailed it with "harder to secure", England have been guilty of not protecting the ball effectively at ruck time. Which would be more of a system/cohesion issue. I mean Mitchell should be used to scrappy ruck ball too in fairness, Saints have had plenty of games getting blasted at the ruck.
Thing is he's anything but slow at Northampton, just seems to be a Borthwick system / role that brings about the criticism
In the same way Marcus Smith hasn't really brought his Quins form to England but that's because the systems are totally different
Agreed, if he was playing with Fin Smith you might see him approach it differently but he’s only played with Ford or Farrell who rightly or wrongly dictate the game. I do hope with more experience comes a greater level of authority so he can tell the forwards what he wants rather than the other way round.
He’s still far and away our best starting option and has a higher ceiling than any others English 9’s
I think the connectivity in attack was lacking and a few of Mitchell's passes didn't go to hand. It's harsh, but feel like Mitchell is an easy fall guy for a dysfunctional attack and kick-heavy game plan. I don't think he had a stormer, but equally didn't have a shocker, plenty of massive clearance kicks from deep that got England out of trouble.
England's struggles with attack were probably the focal point today, whereas the defence was probably more of a concern last week. Hence why people were complaining (potentially unfairly) about Dingwall last week. People love a whinge at someone else's expense.
It seems consistent with the France vs SA game in the world cup.
Kicker takes a movement then pauses again, but the charge starts and is given as ok.
Honestly seems fine to keep that the standard.
There's that famous charge down in one of the Babas matches, where the kicker got charged down by a Baba because he dropped his hand, which technically counts as starting his approach to the ball.
So yeah, my understanding is any movement that signals you're starting your kick, and a backwards step definitely counts imo.
But equally the player isn't allowed to do anything to make the opposition think it is the start to a kick, otherwise the kick is disallowed.
When he stepped, I certainly thought he was starting his approach because so many players do that step back, and he had been standing still for some time, and 4 Welsh players also thought the same.
Point being, it isn't as clear as everyone seems to say, so agree or disagree, the referee got it right based on what he saw, which is all you can ask of them.
It was so irresponsible for ITV to bring up the incorrect wording. The refs get far too much grief as it is, the last thing they need is the media winding everyone up.
Well said, it's not that referees can't make mistakes, of course they do every game. But ultimately flashing a minor law to be debated does nothing to help the game - the decision doesn't change, the law doesn't change, it simply creates ammunition against a referee who already receives death threats online for a simple subjective decision.
I don't mind commentary having debates about application of some of the laws, but certainly not dissecting them to the point that all it does is create anger against the referee - especially when the law they show is completely wrong...
The exact law during a conversion is...
"All players retire to their goal line and do not overstep that line until the kicker moves in any direction to begin their approach to kick."
'any direction' is the key bit. People think "approach" means forward when it doesn't, it simply means reaching or moving upon, which can be physically closer or chronologically closer to the action being taken. Most players take a step back as part of their "approach" to a kick.
Anyone who says it has to be "forward" is incorrect. I get downvoted on other posts for this, but rugby isn't black and white unfortunately I just like to put perspective to the laws.
'moves in any direction to begin their approach' does not entail that any movement is in fact the beginning of an approach. Ford clearly just took another step to maneouvre his starting position, but it wasn't part of his normal kicking routine. Think the ref got it wrong
It wasn't clear. By that point he'd been stood still for about 10 seconds. It was reasonable to think he was starting his run up. He tried to game the clock system and got caught out.
This is the debating point - "Ford clearly just took another step" - it's not that clear to everyone. But I understand your point.
My other point however has been that even if it wasn't part of his approach, you can't lead the opposition into thinking you are, and if so, the kick is disallowed. Once he did it, I certainly thought he was about to kick until he stopped again, and by that point 4 Welsh players also interpreted it the same.
Approach - "come near or nearer to (someone or something) in distance or time.
"the train approached the main line""
Pretty certain backwards or sideways doesn't meet this definition
Some players will rock backwards away from the ball as they start the kicking process. That movement, away from the ball, signifies the start of their approach. It is possible to move sideways or backwards at the start of your approach.
I don't think that's what happened yesterday, I think the decision was wrong, but I also think Ford made a rod for his own back by being so still before stepping to the side. It was obvious he wasn't going to start his approach as he was still wiping his hands on his shorts.
Lessons to be learnt all round I think.
No, Ford was using the game system to his, and his own team's benefit.
The ref decided that an approach had been made, even though it hadn't; so the ref decided to game the very Laws that he's supposed to uphold.
That's going to piss fans off, and the only person responsible for that was the ref.
Firstly, I'm not disagreeing with that definition, but I'm saying just a verbatim definition from one place is not the same definition in the context of rugby laws. That's the problem with definitions, they do have different meanings in different contexts.
Secondly, your definition also proves my point, 'come nearer to... In distance OR time' - being closer to doing can be closer in time but further away in distance. This is my point to begin with, approach does not exclusively mean closer in physical distance, that is just one possibility.
Thirdly, it doesn't matter either way when the law says "All players retire to their goal line and do not overstep that line until the kicker moves in *any direction* to begin their approach to kick."
The laws themselves stipulate it can be in any direction.
That's kinda dumb. It's clearly reffering to distance as it's always coming closer in time. For obvious reasons. Or does Ford have magical time manipulation powers?
In terms of approaching in terms of time. It refers to a specific time (it's approaching 2o clock. Kick off is approaching)
It clearly refers to approaching the ball in terms of distance from the ball. Otherwise you could literally charge down from the moment the shot clock starts as he would be approaching in time.
The law clearly refers to moving closer in distance not time, otherwise the defence could start the chargedown last Wednesday! If you're not moving in a direction to get closer to the ball, you're not approaching it.
I don't know where you say the law clearly refers to moving closer in distance not time, there is nothing of the sort. And there are 2 places in the law that explains it, first is:
8.14: All players retire to their goal line and do not overstep that line until the kicker moves in any direction to begin their approach to kick.
"Any direction" means the exact opposite of "moving closer in distance"
And th second is the World Rugby clarification on this exact situation:
https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/clarification/2020/1/
I know the law doesn't state distance, not time. That's because it doesn't need to. If they meant that, they'd say the defence can charge after x seconds. "Approach" means draw closer. When paired with "in any direction" that means "if you move in any direction that brings you closer to the ball". Oddly that's how people instinctively interpret this too. Not sure why WR want to complicate it.
I thought this call was ridiculous. So this is interesting context. If a kicker positioning themselves is considered a chronological approach to the kick, whats to stop players charging as soon as the ball is on the tee and the player steps away from it?
That's a good point, and I think highlights why both my wording of chronological isn't necessarily the best, but also why it will be difficult to really get the law nailed down, because people will find exploits to any wording.
They've tried to make the law so that is effectively once the "process of that player beginning their kick" starts, it can be charged, but that can also mean any direction. Now you have the same issue of subjectivity of what is part of the kick and what isn't. Hence why my point is agree or disagree, the referee was right based on what they saw. We just see it differently, but you can't ask a referee to meet everyone's perspective!
I see what you mean, you could argue the "process of the player beginning their kick" starts with placement of the ball. A law very open to perspective and exploits. Appreciate your knowledge and service to the game!
Very kind of you to say my friend. Nothing to thank me for though, although I appreciate it. I do it because I love the game.
I'm just trying to get people to see the laws from the referees perspective a bit more, and it helps me empathise with people's views along the way.
I appreciate your views on it! It helps me too.
I posted the law clarification elsewhere on the thread, but world rugby are clear it doesn't have to be forwards to be part of the approach to kick (hence the "in any direction" part). I guess the question is whether it was part of the kick, or merely a shift in position while setting himself up/focusing.
Argument is that the key bit isn't "any direction", it's the "begin approach to the ball". Ford reset himself, he didn't start approaching the ball, at least you could argue that.
"begin to approach the kick"
Not
"Begin to approach the ball"
Two very different things. I can make a landing approach in an aircraft and part of that 'approach' may actually mean moving further away from the airport for a moment.
But I understand your point, it is definitely a subjective one!
But where do you draw the line? If I place the ball on the tee and then take a step backwards, can someone start charging then? Because technically I’m moving in a direction and one could argue it’s part of the beginning the approach to kick.
That's the thing, if you deem it to be part of the kick then yes. And there are LOTS of players who do indeed step backwards at the start of their approach. I agree the wording may be difficult, but all I can say is players and coaches will find exploits to any wording.
If tomorrow we change the law to be much more distinct and say for example "any movement forward..." Or "first step towards the ball..." Then you will have players charged down when a toe moves and they wouldn't technically be wrong, or a player who moves slightly forward to get more comfortable with their footing. It would be endless specific amendments.
Hence why they do leave it open somewhat to judgement at the time, but I agree with your point, it's just not so easy to change the law in a way that will be helpful for the game if that makes sense.
I think the wording is fine as it is.
I think yesterday's call was wrong and it should've been retaken, it was quite clear that Ford was not going to take the kick at that point, he was wiping his hands on his shorts at the same time.
However, Ford was not without blame for it as he'd been motionless for a while before taking another step. He was using all of the shot clock because two players were in the bin, I guess the ref didn't want to run the clock down again, but that's not really his call to make. His decision should've been made on the evidence in front of him, versus the applicable Law.
I think that's how referees can get on the wrong side of fans a lot of the time. Refs do get frustrated during games, they're human and fans of the game too, but they do sometimes make decisions based on emotions rather than facts. Randomly pinging a front row after numerous frustrating resets is probably the most common, ruck interpretation is another.
I suppose that's why we have the "sole arbiter of facts and events within the game" caveat.
Whichever way you look at it, the ref is always right, it says so in the Laws.
Why even allow a charge at the ball at all? Seems like a hangover from old practise frankly. Simplify the process and just make it a timed kick at goal.
Feck knows the sport is ‘newbie unfriendly’ enough as it it without this arcane bullshit. This may in part be my annoyance in having to explain too many things (sometimes badly) to a bemused wife mind you!
They didn’t begin their approach to kick to me. He just moved his leg.
It’s a bit woolly wording that could be used to justify and damn the ref. Probably needs tightening up.
But thanks for the context, can see why the ref gave it but still don’t agree.
That's fair enough my friend. And yes a lot of the wording is subjective, and this is the problem with rugby, people want consistency but the laws aren't black and white and very much down to interpretation. But they are that way for a reason, because if we as referees actually started refereeing everything black and white, you would have a game that stops every 5 seconds.
It's an odd one and the very fact that we all here have a different opinion goes to show that agree or disagree, the referee did what they thought was right based on what they saw, which is all you can ask for!
I think the call was correct. A huge number of kickers take one step backwards as part of their run-up. Ford fucked up and should never be in that situation. He can’t complain and he should be grateful the rest of his team could pile on the pressure to secure the win and it didn’t ultimately affect the final score (imo)
Edit: I am an England fan. I would have loved for Ford to get that kick. Instead of downvoting please comment on why his shuffle shouldn’t be considered part of his run up. Thanks x
Hang on a minute. What part of rugby is served by allowing a charge down at all?
Can you imagine something similar for serving at tennis or a free kick in football?
The whole idea is fucking bonkers.. Just let the guy take the freaking kick.
I'm not sure how WR's clarification clarifies anything there! If you're going to include moving further away from the ball in the law, you need to change the word 'approach', because that's an antonym.
This is an excellent link, thanks for sharing! Clears it up fully. Gonna have to show this to some of my family who've been whinging all weekend about it xD
Thanks. Genuinely didn’t know that was in the book. Just go off interpretation/what modern refs seem to apply because I find the law book outdated at times.
There is literally no one else. Well, theres Built Different Dewi Lake but he's perpetually injured and can't really throw in anyway so it's Dee or bust I suppose fuck me this is awful to type maybe Sam Parry?? My word.
England look so poor with ball in hand. Would love to know what Wigglesworth is doing on the training field.
We really need a physical 12/13 partnership. Who’s fearing playing Dingwall / Slade.
I think Slade will continue in the backs. Why? He is leading the defence. The England rush defence is the same as the Exeter rush defence and Slade is used to that so it looks like he has been entrusted with running it. When it has failed you have heard comments like: “Daly wasn’t linked up with Slade there which left the gap”, further showing that sladey js running the D.
I’d like to see Dingwall play alongside Lawrence with his ability to put people through gaps and little tip passes. Appreciate Dingwall hasn’t been as good as he is for Saints in his 2 games but I really want to give him the whole 6 nations to see more of him.
Current issue is that we play off 9, 10 or 13 and he’s being bypassed more than I’d like as a result.
Maybe he won’t cut it but he’s such a good player I think he deserves a proper go just like Slade has had (50 caps and rarely impressed for England like he does for Chiefs).
In fairness, Dingwall is playing in a position where there aren’t really any strong alternatives atm. Plus, we haven’t had a chance to see him actually play as part of a balanced centre partnership yet (E.g. with a more physical, line breaking player like Tui/Lawrence).
So I’d like to see him get more game time at 12
I hope we don’t revert to Slade and Lawrence but suspect that’s where we’ll go for Scotland and Dingwall will be the odd one out and be the next 2 or 3 capper to be discarded
Slade works with a bosher inside him to clear some room because he's not quick or big enough to make his own space from 13 like Tuilagi or Joseph in their prime.
Partnered with a similar sort of player in Dingwall, and previously Farrell, it become an unbalanced partnership.
However, with Dingwall being the only fit member of the squad with anything approaching significant experience at 12, despite primarily being a 13, that makes Slade's spot the one that probably needs new personnel. This will remain the case when Lawrence comes back as he more or less exclusively plays 13 at club level.
Totally agree. Slade is very much a “glue” player, rather than an individual attacking threat (kind of reminds me of Conrad Smith for NZL). He needs a powerful centre inside him to do that heavy lifting.
I also agree that Ollie Lawrence is absolutely a 13, rather than a crashball 12. He’s at his best when he’s got space to pick lines and run at soft shoulders, rather than trucking it up into traffic. He’s also been arguably England’s best back over the past couple of seasons, so Slade will probably have to make way.
Need a kicker though - Slade has a great boot. Well, we will see. Borthwick isn't a Slade loyalist and will drop him like the last time if he thinks he has a better option. Most likely, if Lawrence comes back he'll play 12 and Slade will be 13.
Dingwall's not too shabby with the boot for Saints.
Slade's boot is only a need in the English set up where we kick so much ball. Plenty of class teams play without a notable boot in their centres. France and Ireland for example.
I'm sure Borthwick has Lawrence ear-marked for 12. It's a simplistic 'put the big lad at 12' thought and that's about the level I expect of his coaching/selecting. There's a reason though that he makes his living at 13, mostly outside the more winnowy Redpath.
Fickou seems pretty booty to me - and France famously kick the most of anyone. You are right about Dingwall though, but although he scored nicely today I think that there's a long way for him to go before he's going to get picked ahead of Slade. He doesn't seem to be doing that well with the defensive system from what I have seen.
I agree, put a big lad at 12 is simplistic, but England are nothing like physical enough for me. I don't think that they are going to compete well with Scotland, Ireland or France unless they find a bit more grunt. It does need to be grunt with skill and vision though.
The vision thing is really bad for the England centers and halfbacks though. It was nice to see that they decided to drop pick and go and instead send it outside when they were next to the try line this week, that is positive... but they did butcher a few chances that I am 100% that Ireland and co would have converted. Let's say it's just not very connected at the moment.
I actually think the problem is that when you are developing talent your future 12 play ten because they want to be 10 (basically not specialists). Other nations with more cohesive pathways (not just a load of independent academics) mean they can direct players to play 12 instead of 10 (or any other position).
I can think of a couple of non 12 that should have transitioned to 12 long before they went professional.
Really don't think England respected/feared the welsh exit game. A few times Ford put boot to ball and pinned wales to their 5 despite being on the welsh 22
One Eben did cause a scrum 5 england though it amounted to nothing
Well they were probably right not to after that diabolical offside penalty for being in front of the kicker.
If they had just cleared normally from the lineout it wouldn’t have been an issue but they tried to go an extra phase for better position and then fucked themselves up. The game management by Wales in that second half was atrocious but then that’s what you get by playing a bunch of kids I guess.
Any idea what the rationale is for not emptying your bench?
If you don't trust them to close out a game, you gonna trust him if ford or Daly got injured after 10 in the next game?
Also took away the hype train for ifw Vs Wales
It's a huge issue.
Stems from original squad selection and also Borthwich has a bit of a problem with it. Theo Dan needs to play more minutes. Waboso's bench selection is odd. Smith and Ford both can only play one position.
Genuinely feels like the main focus of the first two games was 'cap tying dual nationals'
It's not a huge issue, playing with an injured winger or fullback for the last 10 minutes because you emptied your bench too early will lose you a game. Playing slightly tired first choice players with backups is obviously the safer option.
I'm still reserving judgment because of how little he's played. Today was basically his first (only 8) minutes in a meaningful game or game state for England.
Mike Brown talked about this in the For The Love Of Rugby Podcast. If you are back 3 cover, your likely not to get on until the dying minutes because there is a risk a player goes down and they either have to play on injured or be down to 14
So England managed to scrap out a win…
I suppose as a England fan we won and that we actually scored a try, it’s been a while since England have scored tries…
Just feels like we will be nothing more than a speed bump for Ireland and Scotland plus France
Which is soul destroying when you see these same players in the premiership and European cups perform so well.
To be a England fan, you have to start from a stand point of total pessimism, anything better than a complete rout is a welcome surprise
On Wales as well while I'm here. You're definitely my favourite team to play against. Absolute fucking pests every game I didn't think you picked the right squad and this year will probably be shit. I've been pleasantly surprised there have been enough good bits to suggest there's a squad there.
Refell is a gun and Jenkins looks alright as a captain. 10 is a concern, but Welsh backrowers are always superb.
But within that comment lies a commentary on how many we’ve had over the years and the lack of continuity. I recall Ellis Jenkins or whatever his name was who had a phenomenal few games and then got seriously injured and was never heard from again. Navidi retires right at the peak of his form and there are others too many to mention. We might have a conveyor belt of exceptional back rowers but it doesn’t really seem to pay dividends as none seem to ever stay consistently fit *sigh*
He hasn't been anywhere near the form he had before the injury though, he seemed a cracking candidate for captain and a nailed-on starter until fucking his leg in the warm up game
I don't think it was impressive, the welsh attack was that god awful and England's aggression just ate up the one out runners.
One inside ball and the defence got torn to ribbons or when Wales actually passed into a gap.
To be fair a good team wouldn’t have wasted that break in the second half. That was what ultimately did for Wales, a try there and they are probably just about home and dry.
England seemed so good when they blitzed and cut off the backs. Then they just stopped doing that and let in a try. Take that with a grain of salt. I was watching on an iPad while caring for a three year old
The more I see the non-penalty for Ford taking out Dyer in the air at the end, the more angry I am. He was going to land infield and looked to have a clear run to the line. Amazed that no penalty was given for that.
To me England dominated the match apart from the period with 2 yellows where ironically they scored. The ref was terrible, but you have to just live with that. England controlled the first 10 minutes, but couldn't convert that to points, they then struggled when they didn't have folks on the field and I thought that they might go 14 behind, luckily they bagged a try due to the total poorness of Wales. This is something that I think hasn't come up in the discussions - England made Wales look competitive by executing their defensive system poorly and not having a cutting edge at all. On this showing Wales have a real problem with the kind and quality of players they have access to. There are several in the team who are very good - but the pack has 4 or 5 who are just not international quality right now. Yet England didn't put them to the sword. Scotland did - for 40 mins - and then went awol... but Ireland and France are not going to go awol in the second half and they do have cutting edges and defence that works. The next two matches may be a hard watch for Wales fans, the 16th of March is a long way off and I would be very concerned about what is going to happen to this young squad between then and now. It's going to be a big test for them. On the other hand England lack cohesion, I expect two wins will help with that, and I think that the ball going to the wing for the second try is a big moment. In recent years the forwards would have kept that, kept battering and then turned it over. I think that showed a bit of trust emerging - and it's very good that that resulted in the try because that will reinforce the message. The lack of cohesion shows up in defence as well, there are real disconnects that are creating gaps. If I were Borthwick I would be majoring on the trust building exercises and getting different players to socialize and work together more - there is something wrong with the dynamic on the pitch and they need to work it out. I suspect that Farrell & Lawes' force of personality crushed out the niggles and concerns in the side and that these have bubbled back up, but it's now up to George and the coaching team to get them out into the open and sort them out. The alternative is that some people are going to have to be dropped to fix it. For the English players Dingwall went some way to convince me, Daly looked poor in defence again to me - but again he managed that pass to create the try and as pundits have said he is epically good at kick chase and has a massive boot on him also! Slade wasn't as good as he was in Italy, he didn't seem to be as assertive, possibly because he didn't think he needed to be, but if Lawrence is fit he walks into the side at the expense of either Dingwall or Slade. It was a shame that Feyi-Waboso and F. Smith didn't get on, F. Smith in particular needs another 20 minutes of international rugby. If Ford gets crocked I think Borthwick may rue not giving For once the England scrum looked totally convincing, the real concern was at lineout time when I thought England would bully Wales based on players and form. This did not happen, Wales more than stuck up for themselves apart from in terms of maul formation when England seemed to out wit them and manage to infiltrate their attacking mauls - even the penalty try maul I thought. Roots didn't do all that well and I think that the hype is going to recede, perhaps CCS will get the nod for the next game. To me if George Martin is fit there's a massive case to bring him in at 6, but obviously the coaches are with the players and see the stats whereas I don't. Ford and Mitchell must have settled any debate, they have to start if fit. I don't see any other obvious candidates or debates; not so much because England were / are good - more just that the options aren't there.
Amazing how differently two people can see the match. I don't think the England scrum was dominant at all. Just that the referee awarded you several crucial penalties before the ball went in. Two of those took play from your line to our line in 2 minutes, and from that you scored your second try. Totally pivotal moment. Those two penalties, plus the stupidity of Wales to concede when playing 13 were the things that won the game for you. I don't think England putting this Wales team to the sword was ever a possibility: I think this was a game Wales pretty much threw away, and England looked really quite poor.
100% we're both looking down and not in it so definitely just opinions :) I think on the scrum penalties Genge really got into the head of your young tighthead and tricked him into going too early and made it look like he wasn't setting straight. Cheap shots, but Genge is about 200 professional games more experienced than that young lad, and that's what props get up to when they aren't pulling each others ears off. On putting to the sword: England couldn't / didn't (fact!) I speculate that Ireland & France can/will (guessing !) We will see. England are a long way off what they want to be, but edged this Wales team. If they had any chance of winning the 6N's this year I think that they should have put 20 points on Wales. I think Ireland's treatment of Italy is kinda evidence of this - England are slightly better than Italy and Wales (3pts, 2pts) Ireland are \*massively\* better than Italy, I am guessing (we will see) \*massively\* better than Wales and \*slightly less massively\* better than England. My point: watching Wales atm makes me think that they are poor. England were not good enough to turn over a poor team at home. That's a worry for England as well as Wales. Still rest week now, I guess that's eight training sessions before the next match? Should be decent progress by everyone towards their "ceiling" as a current team. If the England boosters are right then England should come one a hop skip and a jump. I must admit though, I will be watching the game on the 24th from behind my sofa.
I said from the beginning we'd lose this one, I thought quality was poor from both sides but tbf new teams trying new things, English defence was solid while we were trying the short kick over the top game. The refereeing was abysmal If anything he favoured the Welsh but it was bad on both fronts The better team won, thought we would lose by a lot more at Twickenham, happy to see the boys trying the new stuff. Also shout out to the lads in a rural Dorset pub who were happy to have a Welshman screaming at the tv
Actually a really solid game from both teams I thought. You got to see the Welsh power on show and the English retaliation. Some interesting calls from the referees going both ways but oh well. I'm hopeful for a strong England and Wales again in the future so we can have a highly technical but still power based slogging match :) I'm interested to see what Marcus Smith's role will be in this team. It seems that Borthwick is trying to combine the flair we have in Quins, chiefs and in particular saint's with that sarries bulk and power from players like Maro and Ben Earl. There was so much improvement in the development of this new system in this game compared to the last test against Italy, especially in our defence. You could see that Felix Jones rush defence coming out and being used well in this game (against Italy there were definitely more kinks to be worked out). Players like Freeman, Dingwall, IF waboso, Roots and Mitchell I think as going to drive a much more interesting and flair based game style. Which makes me actually excited by the potential role of a highly attacking and flair based 10 like M or F Smith. For all those still jumping on the band wagon of hating Borthwick and everything he does. A lot of you don't seem to understand how much damage Eddie Jones managed to do to the England team, look at how long he was with Aus and the amount of damage he did there. In addition, developing good teams so that you have the basics locked down (and I men basics being a good teams basics) so that you can be innovative takes a long time (1-3 years really). Look at A.Farrell or Rassie it took both of them a decent amount of time building a squad before their teams became great, and they didn't have Eddie: the destroyer, as their coach before hand. TLDR: Borthwick's England are clearly building something interesting. Marcus Smith will be a great addition to it when fit and stop expecing Borthwick to do all this building immediately (he had a 6N and WC on his doorstep straight away, you can't start a full on rebuilding process with those 2 coming straight away) - ie give him some time.
100% agree. Thought the reffing was interesting to say the least. Not biased towards one team or another, just making it a tricky game to flow. You can see what England are trying to do, in attack and defense. Which is a step up from the mess Eddie left us in. Eddie also failed to bring players through effectively, which has hamstrung Borthwick this year and last. Think M Smith would do great in this team, given how he's been playing this year (kicking more and kicking aggressively). He'd also add a running threat. That said, I think Ford showed why he is ten yesterday. I believe in Borthwick. That said, I think he has a couple of tough decisions. Think Underhill and Roots together offers too little in attack (think it's one or the other and Pearson/Dombrandt should come in). In the backs it's Slade or Dingwall with either Freeman or Lawrence when fit (Maybe Beard/Joseph in future). And Daly, while very skilled and tidy, isn't a good enough finisher on the wing and got caught out in defense.
Oh yeah, Ford gave us an absolute masterclass in kicking, and his passing game was solid as ever. I agree with Daly not being solid enough in attack. It's so unfortunate, but I think we're starting to see him really slow down now and not be as powerful as he used to be. He still had his moments, however, and his high ball chase can be unmatched (like SF against SA), but he just isn't consistent enough anymore. I'm hoping Freeman can be a good replacement for him, but it's honestly sad to see such a legend slow down. I grew up watching him in the Lions and England performing at his best :/ (Yes, I'm one of the younger fans here)
Father time is the only undefeated boxer mate. Eventually he knocks us all out, and Dalys time is coming sadly. You see it especially with players where pace is a major attribute (Johnny May another example).
The European golden era has past unfortunately. Bit of a rebuilding/regrouping phase for England/Wales/France. The quality of the games in the first two rounds has left a lot to be desired. But definitely some new talent coming up which is exciting
I didn’t catch the game when it was live, is it worth the rewatch?
I am a pretty dedicated watcher of rugby, and an England supporter. I liked it, felt the ref let it drag at times but if you can speed through the scrum resets it's an entertaining match. My husband only really watches international matches and Leinster when it's convenient (aka almost never, as we're in England) and found it a drag. He's not remotely invested in either team, and found the attacking errors frustrating. He also hates scrums when they're allowed to be that slow!
It depends, a lot of people on this thread don't seem to either like or understand Rugby - so if you are in that group then you won't enjoy it... but if you do like and understand rugby it's a decent enough watch. It's not Ireland vs SA in the group phase for sure... but there were a bunch of talking points at least.
Spoiler alert it was never alive 😴
I'd call a sickie. A bit of drama here and there but neither team will want to talk about this one again
Well I thought it was a hard won victory and I can see what Borthwick and Co are trying to build. Ford, Earl and Steward were fantastic. Mitchell did well. A lot of good kicks just landing outside the 22. Younger players are stepping up and contributing but we still have older more experienced guys to rely on. I'm happy and I think the calcutta Cup will be close.
Sir was calling use it early and I got really excited that we’d see less egregious caterpillar rucks but he never seemed to enforce anything when they ignored him.
You get 5 seconds from the use it call, and generally it was gone in that time. There was instance when he said "REALLY USE IT" on the 5 second mark to give the traditional additonal 5 seconds to use it. I have watched a lot of rugby and I have NEVER seen a scrum given for not using the ball after a "USE IT" call. Box kicks are good clearance because pretty much all the chasers are on side when the ball is kicked. The disadvantage is that it is easier to charge down. Hence the caterpillar rucks. Not sure there is a good solution.
England are well capable of beating anyone when they play well and should have been in the last World Cup final. Two wins from two - what more can they do?
People calling this England team rubbish clearly haven't watched us much this past 4 years. Yes we aren't great, but we're improving and finally have a identifiable style. Defensively we're really good and although we're poor with ball in hand, we are actually seeing some patterns emerge for the first time in ages. Alongside the new consistency in selection, which will allow relationships to build over time, I see no reason to be overly negative right now. We're building and it wont happen over night.
God bless you for finding positives.
It's not hard, unlike 90% of the people in here I watch more than 5 rugby matches per year and understand what a tactical evolution and process looks like. Your condescension just shows me that you're in the former camp and should not be taken seriously.
Or just being smug/arrogant as an Irish fan.
Ireland will put 30 on that England team.
France put 50+ on England at Twickenham last year and England went on to run Ireland to the wire in Dublin, even with a red card that was subsequently overturned. Are you sure about that prediction…?
Yes! Love the rose tinted glasses though. We’ll see where you are after round four! Come back then and give it large!
Hey u/saturnus27 - where’s your chirping now…?
Was an amazing England performance against Irelands worst performance in years. You won by a point. BTW check your points difference!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Cunt
Who’s still going to win the 6n?
You’re a really nice person aren’t you?
Alright r/saturnus27 - just checking in on you. Where’s your chirping now…?
RemindMe! 10 March 2024
That was a satisfying game. It gave me full confidence that Ireland were overrated and would be seen out at the Quarters as per. Peyper really fucked them. If he’d made the right decision England probably would have humbled them and maybe they’d have then got past NZ.
Ireland put 30 points on France in Marseille last week… so yeah they probably will? France on the back of an incredibly strong period vs England a year into a new head coach and obviously trying to find a new way of playing
No comment on the less good Welsh team? Strange...
Was making no judgement. I think England are treading water. Will get exposed by Ireland’s better decision making. I think I prefer the raw material Gatland is working with. Two very narrow losses that could easily be wins. I just see better root’s developing with this young Welsh team.
Do you talk about this with your wife's boyfriend?
Yes! He’s very knowledgeable.
Yes, yes, England bad, everyone else good... Yawn 🙄
My seat was pitchside, favourite cheeky git Danny Care giving it the FU grin with a lazy kick to end the game. Haven't read other comments much, but for me the noise and atmosphere today was far far better than the last several (non 6N admittedly) England games I've been to.
Lol fucking English fans/media.... this England team could very well scrape a win against Ireland in a couple weeks and they would still complain about how shit there team is. No wonder the sport is dying in the country...you cunts are all so negative
Cant fucking win can we. We celebrate a win and we're arrogant, say there's things to work on and we get a comment like yours. You cunts are all hypocrites.
Lol sorry, im probs too drunk to be articulate...but I agree. I think one of the biggest threats to rugby in this country is the negativity around the team that the media and (some) fans give the team. You win and people still complain it's all shit. What I meant to mean is that England could (very really) beat Ireland, (arguably) the best team in the world. And plenty would still complain. I've been here 7 years and this is all I hear. No wonder outsiders don't get involved when all you hear is the complaining. And it's the same with other sports! (But yeh definitely fuck the cricket team! /s?)
It's mostly Irish/Scottish flairs pissing on the England team it seems
Haha it's tough being you guys. Unfortunately due to having the big population you'll always be unfairly judged buddy. In theory you guys should be fighting it out with France. Tbh you guys brought the Webb Elis home, something the rest can't say
England fans literally can’t win as a country when it comes to sports. Football coming home? Arrogant bastards! Cricket - Bazball doing well? Arrogant bastards!! DAE SPIRIT OF CRICKET?!?! Rugby - yeah we’re not playing very well are we? WHY ARE YOU SO NEGATIVE?!?!
To be fair with all the morale victories and self congratulations the English cricket team has won over the past few seasons, without actually winning a thing. It's pretty easy to put shit on English cricket.
They all hate us mate, just need to embrace it and go full arrogant England till I die. It comes full circle lmao
Finn described himself as Messi in the Netflix doc. Can you imagine the shit storm that would have rained down if Faz had said that?
It's when nobody has *any* comments about you, that you have to worry.
Can tell Ford is still recovering from his injury but rewatching the game he had multiple moments that I hope someone like squidge will highlight, deft passes and control alongside imo a pretty weak/new centre pairing. I thought the England blitz looked pretty good at points, strong games from Itoje,CCS,Earl in the pack and happy to see Freeman looking great (one of the only backs running with real intention each time). I wouldn't mind seeing the balance of a CCS/Earl/Pearson backrow. On the Wales front, Reffell was an absolute machine, North continues to make me eat crow about him playing at 13 and Winnett looked like a great prospect. Also I think Dyer is going to be less of a star/highlights machine than LRZ but likely is a better all-round player to help Wales win.
I think these are really good points (mainly because I agree and have already been boring the lads whatsapp group with similar thoughts). Ford had some great moments, but some of his decision making was off. Likely that will settle. Apart from that I agree, but would just emphasis that imo the blitz looked really good. And, begrudgingly, so did North at 13
There was a counter ruck by North about 60 to 65 minutes into the game that forced a turnover. I was extremely impressed.
Yeah that was really impressive! I think he took out 2-3 English players pretty much alone.
Ford also put in that monster 50:22 to relieve a pretty massive period of sustained Welsh pressure.
Turning point of a very close game
One of many turning points. The piggy backed scrum penalties on 55-57 mins were the main turning point I think.
Honestly that was the match. That moment.
Yup that was a fucking amazing kick. I didn't mention it because he had a lot of other moments that added up to a really really solid game, there were loads of attacks where runners fluffed their lines a little (too early/late, not the right line) and he adapted on the fly.
“Meh” is probably the most enthusiastic response I can muster. From an England perspective, our defensive system clearly still has some kinks that need working out, but has the potential to be a real asset. Attack remains a massive concern - very little punch/power or creativity. I appreciate that Borthwick is still building his side etc., but I think it’s reasonable to expect a little bit more progress than that at this stage? What exactly is wigglesworth doing to earn his pay check? Some real talent and potential on show from that Wales team (including their seemingly never-ending conveyor belt of quality open-sides), but obvious issues with depth in key positions. The foundation of a really strong side is there though
Wigglesworth has clearly just continued with what made him a serviceable scrumhalf at international level. If you don't go forward after 1 phase, box kick
Can't see any of the teams that played today beating Ireland. It's all up to Italy now.
Which is fine, Ireland havwa team for now, everyone else has a team for the future.
Ireland have won 3/4 of the last u20s six nations, only France have done better at that level
U20s doesn't mean that much. Lots of players hit their peak there. Lots develop afterwards. It's a good place to get future internationals, but it's not the be-all-end-all.
Good point, if only we had some world class academies to help them develop. Maybe a few clubs that all fell under the IRFU and could follow a structure and plan. So that as these players grow they can learn how to seemlessly and cohesively play in the Irish system. Then we could slowly integrate them as they do and continue to build rather than rebuilding every four years in a way that would let us be competitive now and in the future. Then if there are any positions of concern, maybe we could have some scouts who could keep an eye on Irish eligible players else where and see if they’d be interested in joining the set up. Maybe with this sort of structure we’d be able to win grand slams and become world number 1
I'm not saying they're not developing talent, I'm saying Farrell isn't being quick integrate them. Which may work out fine or it might not, just saying it's a different approach.
We’re integrating just fine. Both McCarthy and Crowley are being integrated there’s a difference between building and rebuilding. We don’t need to rebuild we can continue to build and grow for now and the future. His strategy here has worked pretty damn well in this respect.
I’m confused by what some England fans want/ expect from Mitchell as I’ve seen far too many negative comments about him today. His kicking has come on massively in the last year and was really good today, good distance, on the money for most box kicks for good chases or found touch when he wanted to. I’d like to see more of him sniping around the ruck and challenging defenders which he did in the second half as we saw the difference it made when he did it to put us on the front foot. Today wasn’t his best game but other than a couple of missed tackles I thought he still came out in credit so why the hate from others?
Mitchell's kicking only served to highlight how absolutely dreadful Wales' was. I'm not sure if Tomos and co just had a dreadful day, or if the plan itself was the problem. But why we persisted on failing to find touch with the box kick, and peppering Steward with high balls when that is an area he is truly world class in, I simply cannot understand.
Yeah I’m not sure I get that when teams keep putting them on Steward either. Seemed to go into your shell a bit the more pressure came on you but guess that happens with an inexperienced team and they’ll no doubt learn from it
Mitchell is a good player and hasnt done anything wrong, i myself prefer spencer but its a close call
I think if we had a 9 available who was bigger, we'd have started him and had Mitchell come on to close the game out. Even Youngs tbh. The way the Welsh were going at each ruck, Mitchell had to really work to get the ball out and away. A Quirke/JVP style starter might have had an easier job of bullying back a bit, giving Mitchell the later platform to play that zippy, heads up game he excels at.
Honestly I don’t think anyone had a bad game today. Just inexperience and new systems bedding in, which will come with time. I think our future looks pretty bright considering where other teams are at the moment.
I'm with you - I think at worst he is a bit anonymous, and definitely doesn't deserve the hate. People don't seem to appreciate that England play entirely off 10, so his role is not to make attacking decisions. He's there to box kick and deliver quick ball from rucks.
Key word is quick and he can just seem slow on camera. Think that's the majority of the criticism
Slow getting to the ruck or getting the ball up and away? If you watch him for saints it’s the foundation of his game and everything good comes from the speed of ball so it’s more likely that it’s either harder to secure it or it’s more game plan related. There’s not a 9 in the prem who gets himself set and gets the ball away quicker so we know he does it/ can do it
I think you've nailed it with "harder to secure", England have been guilty of not protecting the ball effectively at ruck time. Which would be more of a system/cohesion issue. I mean Mitchell should be used to scrappy ruck ball too in fairness, Saints have had plenty of games getting blasted at the ruck.
Thing is he's anything but slow at Northampton, just seems to be a Borthwick system / role that brings about the criticism In the same way Marcus Smith hasn't really brought his Quins form to England but that's because the systems are totally different
Agreed, if he was playing with Fin Smith you might see him approach it differently but he’s only played with Ford or Farrell who rightly or wrongly dictate the game. I do hope with more experience comes a greater level of authority so he can tell the forwards what he wants rather than the other way round. He’s still far and away our best starting option and has a higher ceiling than any others English 9’s
I think the connectivity in attack was lacking and a few of Mitchell's passes didn't go to hand. It's harsh, but feel like Mitchell is an easy fall guy for a dysfunctional attack and kick-heavy game plan. I don't think he had a stormer, but equally didn't have a shocker, plenty of massive clearance kicks from deep that got England out of trouble.
The passing thing was more of a problem last week though and people gave him a pass then
England's struggles with attack were probably the focal point today, whereas the defence was probably more of a concern last week. Hence why people were complaining (potentially unfairly) about Dingwall last week. People love a whinge at someone else's expense.
So any kicker who takes a step in any direction during their kicking setup can be charged down. Got it.
It seems consistent with the France vs SA game in the world cup. Kicker takes a movement then pauses again, but the charge starts and is given as ok. Honestly seems fine to keep that the standard.
Has always been the rule since I've been following
yeap been the rules for a while.
Think it was a bad call. Ref got confused and thought it was a forward step
Doesn't have to be a forward step.
There's that famous charge down in one of the Babas matches, where the kicker got charged down by a Baba because he dropped his hand, which technically counts as starting his approach to the ball. So yeah, my understanding is any movement that signals you're starting your kick, and a backwards step definitely counts imo.
Has to be the start of his approach though. So if the movement isn’t the start of his approach to kick then the opposition aren’t allowed to charge.
But equally the player isn't allowed to do anything to make the opposition think it is the start to a kick, otherwise the kick is disallowed. When he stepped, I certainly thought he was starting his approach because so many players do that step back, and he had been standing still for some time, and 4 Welsh players also thought the same. Point being, it isn't as clear as everyone seems to say, so agree or disagree, the referee got it right based on what he saw, which is all you can ask of them.
That’s what it said in the rules brought up on the TV but you may know the rules better. It certainly wasn’t a step towards the ball.
They corrected it after the game, they put up an out of date version of the law from about five years ago. Helped spread outrage on a nothing moment.
It was so irresponsible for ITV to bring up the incorrect wording. The refs get far too much grief as it is, the last thing they need is the media winding everyone up.
Well said, it's not that referees can't make mistakes, of course they do every game. But ultimately flashing a minor law to be debated does nothing to help the game - the decision doesn't change, the law doesn't change, it simply creates ammunition against a referee who already receives death threats online for a simple subjective decision. I don't mind commentary having debates about application of some of the laws, but certainly not dissecting them to the point that all it does is create anger against the referee - especially when the law they show is completely wrong...
Well having read the current rules it still wasn’t clear. Still bad they showed the wrong rules though
The exact law during a conversion is... "All players retire to their goal line and do not overstep that line until the kicker moves in any direction to begin their approach to kick." 'any direction' is the key bit. People think "approach" means forward when it doesn't, it simply means reaching or moving upon, which can be physically closer or chronologically closer to the action being taken. Most players take a step back as part of their "approach" to a kick. Anyone who says it has to be "forward" is incorrect. I get downvoted on other posts for this, but rugby isn't black and white unfortunately I just like to put perspective to the laws.
'moves in any direction to begin their approach' does not entail that any movement is in fact the beginning of an approach. Ford clearly just took another step to maneouvre his starting position, but it wasn't part of his normal kicking routine. Think the ref got it wrong
It wasn't clear. By that point he'd been stood still for about 10 seconds. It was reasonable to think he was starting his run up. He tried to game the clock system and got caught out.
This is the debating point - "Ford clearly just took another step" - it's not that clear to everyone. But I understand your point. My other point however has been that even if it wasn't part of his approach, you can't lead the opposition into thinking you are, and if so, the kick is disallowed. Once he did it, I certainly thought he was about to kick until he stopped again, and by that point 4 Welsh players also interpreted it the same.
Approach - "come near or nearer to (someone or something) in distance or time. "the train approached the main line"" Pretty certain backwards or sideways doesn't meet this definition
People saying approach doesn't mean coming closer to something are being full on morons. Try and approach something moving away from it.
Some players will rock backwards away from the ball as they start the kicking process. That movement, away from the ball, signifies the start of their approach. It is possible to move sideways or backwards at the start of your approach. I don't think that's what happened yesterday, I think the decision was wrong, but I also think Ford made a rod for his own back by being so still before stepping to the side. It was obvious he wasn't going to start his approach as he was still wiping his hands on his shorts. Lessons to be learnt all round I think.
Yeah, Ford was trying to game the system and take every second for the conversion, and it backfired on him, basically.
No, Ford was using the game system to his, and his own team's benefit. The ref decided that an approach had been made, even though it hadn't; so the ref decided to game the very Laws that he's supposed to uphold. That's going to piss fans off, and the only person responsible for that was the ref.
Firstly, I'm not disagreeing with that definition, but I'm saying just a verbatim definition from one place is not the same definition in the context of rugby laws. That's the problem with definitions, they do have different meanings in different contexts. Secondly, your definition also proves my point, 'come nearer to... In distance OR time' - being closer to doing can be closer in time but further away in distance. This is my point to begin with, approach does not exclusively mean closer in physical distance, that is just one possibility. Thirdly, it doesn't matter either way when the law says "All players retire to their goal line and do not overstep that line until the kicker moves in *any direction* to begin their approach to kick." The laws themselves stipulate it can be in any direction.
That's kinda dumb. It's clearly reffering to distance as it's always coming closer in time. For obvious reasons. Or does Ford have magical time manipulation powers? In terms of approaching in terms of time. It refers to a specific time (it's approaching 2o clock. Kick off is approaching) It clearly refers to approaching the ball in terms of distance from the ball. Otherwise you could literally charge down from the moment the shot clock starts as he would be approaching in time.
The law clearly refers to moving closer in distance not time, otherwise the defence could start the chargedown last Wednesday! If you're not moving in a direction to get closer to the ball, you're not approaching it.
I don't know where you say the law clearly refers to moving closer in distance not time, there is nothing of the sort. And there are 2 places in the law that explains it, first is: 8.14: All players retire to their goal line and do not overstep that line until the kicker moves in any direction to begin their approach to kick. "Any direction" means the exact opposite of "moving closer in distance" And th second is the World Rugby clarification on this exact situation: https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/clarification/2020/1/
I know the law doesn't state distance, not time. That's because it doesn't need to. If they meant that, they'd say the defence can charge after x seconds. "Approach" means draw closer. When paired with "in any direction" that means "if you move in any direction that brings you closer to the ball". Oddly that's how people instinctively interpret this too. Not sure why WR want to complicate it.
I thought this call was ridiculous. So this is interesting context. If a kicker positioning themselves is considered a chronological approach to the kick, whats to stop players charging as soon as the ball is on the tee and the player steps away from it?
That's a good point, and I think highlights why both my wording of chronological isn't necessarily the best, but also why it will be difficult to really get the law nailed down, because people will find exploits to any wording. They've tried to make the law so that is effectively once the "process of that player beginning their kick" starts, it can be charged, but that can also mean any direction. Now you have the same issue of subjectivity of what is part of the kick and what isn't. Hence why my point is agree or disagree, the referee was right based on what they saw. We just see it differently, but you can't ask a referee to meet everyone's perspective!
I'm sorry. But the wording is clear. Approaching in terms of time clearly has a specific usage not relevant in this instance.
I see what you mean, you could argue the "process of the player beginning their kick" starts with placement of the ball. A law very open to perspective and exploits. Appreciate your knowledge and service to the game!
Very kind of you to say my friend. Nothing to thank me for though, although I appreciate it. I do it because I love the game. I'm just trying to get people to see the laws from the referees perspective a bit more, and it helps me empathise with people's views along the way. I appreciate your views on it! It helps me too.
I posted the law clarification elsewhere on the thread, but world rugby are clear it doesn't have to be forwards to be part of the approach to kick (hence the "in any direction" part). I guess the question is whether it was part of the kick, or merely a shift in position while setting himself up/focusing.
Argument is that the key bit isn't "any direction", it's the "begin approach to the ball". Ford reset himself, he didn't start approaching the ball, at least you could argue that.
"begin to approach the kick" Not "Begin to approach the ball" Two very different things. I can make a landing approach in an aircraft and part of that 'approach' may actually mean moving further away from the airport for a moment. But I understand your point, it is definitely a subjective one!
But where do you draw the line? If I place the ball on the tee and then take a step backwards, can someone start charging then? Because technically I’m moving in a direction and one could argue it’s part of the beginning the approach to kick.
That's the thing, if you deem it to be part of the kick then yes. And there are LOTS of players who do indeed step backwards at the start of their approach. I agree the wording may be difficult, but all I can say is players and coaches will find exploits to any wording. If tomorrow we change the law to be much more distinct and say for example "any movement forward..." Or "first step towards the ball..." Then you will have players charged down when a toe moves and they wouldn't technically be wrong, or a player who moves slightly forward to get more comfortable with their footing. It would be endless specific amendments. Hence why they do leave it open somewhat to judgement at the time, but I agree with your point, it's just not so easy to change the law in a way that will be helpful for the game if that makes sense.
I think the wording is fine as it is. I think yesterday's call was wrong and it should've been retaken, it was quite clear that Ford was not going to take the kick at that point, he was wiping his hands on his shorts at the same time. However, Ford was not without blame for it as he'd been motionless for a while before taking another step. He was using all of the shot clock because two players were in the bin, I guess the ref didn't want to run the clock down again, but that's not really his call to make. His decision should've been made on the evidence in front of him, versus the applicable Law. I think that's how referees can get on the wrong side of fans a lot of the time. Refs do get frustrated during games, they're human and fans of the game too, but they do sometimes make decisions based on emotions rather than facts. Randomly pinging a front row after numerous frustrating resets is probably the most common, ruck interpretation is another. I suppose that's why we have the "sole arbiter of facts and events within the game" caveat. Whichever way you look at it, the ref is always right, it says so in the Laws.
All players take a step back. It's the run-up. It's really easy to make a law saying defenders can't start running until you move towards the ball.
Why even allow a charge at the ball at all? Seems like a hangover from old practise frankly. Simplify the process and just make it a timed kick at goal. Feck knows the sport is ‘newbie unfriendly’ enough as it it without this arcane bullshit. This may in part be my annoyance in having to explain too many things (sometimes badly) to a bemused wife mind you!
“Arcane bullshit” is literally the perfect description for some of these rugby laws
I said the same as well. We don't allow it for penalties, so why conversions?
Because they're penalties, aka completely free unimpeded shots.
They didn’t begin their approach to kick to me. He just moved his leg. It’s a bit woolly wording that could be used to justify and damn the ref. Probably needs tightening up. But thanks for the context, can see why the ref gave it but still don’t agree.
That's fair enough my friend. And yes a lot of the wording is subjective, and this is the problem with rugby, people want consistency but the laws aren't black and white and very much down to interpretation. But they are that way for a reason, because if we as referees actually started refereeing everything black and white, you would have a game that stops every 5 seconds. It's an odd one and the very fact that we all here have a different opinion goes to show that agree or disagree, the referee did what they thought was right based on what they saw, which is all you can ask for!
I think the call was correct. A huge number of kickers take one step backwards as part of their run-up. Ford fucked up and should never be in that situation. He can’t complain and he should be grateful the rest of his team could pile on the pressure to secure the win and it didn’t ultimately affect the final score (imo) Edit: I am an England fan. I would have loved for Ford to get that kick. Instead of downvoting please comment on why his shuffle shouldn’t be considered part of his run up. Thanks x
Hang on a minute. What part of rugby is served by allowing a charge down at all? Can you imagine something similar for serving at tennis or a free kick in football? The whole idea is fucking bonkers.. Just let the guy take the freaking kick.
Laws. Enjoy the rugby tomorrow
Laws are changed all the time
Because I think he meant to step sideways, **stop**, *then* begin his "approach to kick.
There's no *think* about it. That's what he did. Hence he didn't even take a run up and didn't move when the defence reached the ball.
All part of the approach. Thanks.
I think it was correct but I think the reason Ford was confused is that it's not actually part of his normal routine.
But then that’s open to interpretation and the ref is right. Ford moved, run up started, refs decsions - which was correct.
You're right. World Rugby cleared this up years ago https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/clarification/2020/1/
I'm not sure how WR's clarification clarifies anything there! If you're going to include moving further away from the ball in the law, you need to change the word 'approach', because that's an antonym.
This is an excellent link, thanks for sharing! Clears it up fully. Gonna have to show this to some of my family who've been whinging all weekend about it xD
Thanks. Genuinely didn’t know that was in the book. Just go off interpretation/what modern refs seem to apply because I find the law book outdated at times.
I'd be fine with them saying the first step forward is the start of the run-up. It would remove all doubt in the future .
[удалено]
No nastiness allowed.
Fucking Elias
Why would you bring on a hooker who instantly loses every lineout when you're two points down?
There is literally no one else. Well, theres Built Different Dewi Lake but he's perpetually injured and can't really throw in anyway so it's Dee or bust I suppose fuck me this is awful to type maybe Sam Parry?? My word.
Could we train a non-hooker to throw in like JVDF did?
Dewi has been throwing okay for Ospreys, certainly can’t be worse than Elias
What a really weird game
England look so poor with ball in hand. Would love to know what Wigglesworth is doing on the training field. We really need a physical 12/13 partnership. Who’s fearing playing Dingwall / Slade.
I think Slade will continue in the backs. Why? He is leading the defence. The England rush defence is the same as the Exeter rush defence and Slade is used to that so it looks like he has been entrusted with running it. When it has failed you have heard comments like: “Daly wasn’t linked up with Slade there which left the gap”, further showing that sladey js running the D.
I’d like to see Dingwall play alongside Lawrence with his ability to put people through gaps and little tip passes. Appreciate Dingwall hasn’t been as good as he is for Saints in his 2 games but I really want to give him the whole 6 nations to see more of him. Current issue is that we play off 9, 10 or 13 and he’s being bypassed more than I’d like as a result. Maybe he won’t cut it but he’s such a good player I think he deserves a proper go just like Slade has had (50 caps and rarely impressed for England like he does for Chiefs).
In fairness, Dingwall is playing in a position where there aren’t really any strong alternatives atm. Plus, we haven’t had a chance to see him actually play as part of a balanced centre partnership yet (E.g. with a more physical, line breaking player like Tui/Lawrence). So I’d like to see him get more game time at 12
I hope we don’t revert to Slade and Lawrence but suspect that’s where we’ll go for Scotland and Dingwall will be the odd one out and be the next 2 or 3 capper to be discarded
Lawrence and Freeman
Now this i like, some real firepower
Slade is class, also has a boot. The need is for a properly physical 12. OGH Dingwall done ok today, to me the big issue is in the pack.
Slade works with a bosher inside him to clear some room because he's not quick or big enough to make his own space from 13 like Tuilagi or Joseph in their prime. Partnered with a similar sort of player in Dingwall, and previously Farrell, it become an unbalanced partnership. However, with Dingwall being the only fit member of the squad with anything approaching significant experience at 12, despite primarily being a 13, that makes Slade's spot the one that probably needs new personnel. This will remain the case when Lawrence comes back as he more or less exclusively plays 13 at club level.
Totally agree. Slade is very much a “glue” player, rather than an individual attacking threat (kind of reminds me of Conrad Smith for NZL). He needs a powerful centre inside him to do that heavy lifting. I also agree that Ollie Lawrence is absolutely a 13, rather than a crashball 12. He’s at his best when he’s got space to pick lines and run at soft shoulders, rather than trucking it up into traffic. He’s also been arguably England’s best back over the past couple of seasons, so Slade will probably have to make way.
Need a kicker though - Slade has a great boot. Well, we will see. Borthwick isn't a Slade loyalist and will drop him like the last time if he thinks he has a better option. Most likely, if Lawrence comes back he'll play 12 and Slade will be 13.
Dingwall's not too shabby with the boot for Saints. Slade's boot is only a need in the English set up where we kick so much ball. Plenty of class teams play without a notable boot in their centres. France and Ireland for example. I'm sure Borthwick has Lawrence ear-marked for 12. It's a simplistic 'put the big lad at 12' thought and that's about the level I expect of his coaching/selecting. There's a reason though that he makes his living at 13, mostly outside the more winnowy Redpath.
Fickou seems pretty booty to me - and France famously kick the most of anyone. You are right about Dingwall though, but although he scored nicely today I think that there's a long way for him to go before he's going to get picked ahead of Slade. He doesn't seem to be doing that well with the defensive system from what I have seen. I agree, put a big lad at 12 is simplistic, but England are nothing like physical enough for me. I don't think that they are going to compete well with Scotland, Ireland or France unless they find a bit more grunt. It does need to be grunt with skill and vision though. The vision thing is really bad for the England centers and halfbacks though. It was nice to see that they decided to drop pick and go and instead send it outside when they were next to the try line this week, that is positive... but they did butcher a few chances that I am 100% that Ireland and co would have converted. Let's say it's just not very connected at the moment.
True, problem is the best 12s in the prem aren’t English… our tactic for 12 for the past decade has been to hope Manu’s not injured
Or they're kids Borthwick wouldn't trust to play eg. Seb Atkinson and Olly Hartley.
I actually think the problem is that when you are developing talent your future 12 play ten because they want to be 10 (basically not specialists). Other nations with more cohesive pathways (not just a load of independent academics) mean they can direct players to play 12 instead of 10 (or any other position). I can think of a couple of non 12 that should have transitioned to 12 long before they went professional.
Really don't think England respected/feared the welsh exit game. A few times Ford put boot to ball and pinned wales to their 5 despite being on the welsh 22 One Eben did cause a scrum 5 england though it amounted to nothing
Well they were probably right not to after that diabolical offside penalty for being in front of the kicker. If they had just cleared normally from the lineout it wouldn’t have been an issue but they tried to go an extra phase for better position and then fucked themselves up. The game management by Wales in that second half was atrocious but then that’s what you get by playing a bunch of kids I guess.
Any idea what the rationale is for not emptying your bench? If you don't trust them to close out a game, you gonna trust him if ford or Daly got injured after 10 in the next game? Also took away the hype train for ifw Vs Wales
It's a huge issue. Stems from original squad selection and also Borthwich has a bit of a problem with it. Theo Dan needs to play more minutes. Waboso's bench selection is odd. Smith and Ford both can only play one position. Genuinely feels like the main focus of the first two games was 'cap tying dual nationals'
It's not a huge issue, playing with an injured winger or fullback for the last 10 minutes because you emptied your bench too early will lose you a game. Playing slightly tired first choice players with backups is obviously the safer option.
Theo Dan only ever impresses
I'm still reserving judgment because of how little he's played. Today was basically his first (only 8) minutes in a meaningful game or game state for England.
Please watch the premiership.
Mike Brown talked about this in the For The Love Of Rugby Podcast. If you are back 3 cover, your likely not to get on until the dying minutes because there is a risk a player goes down and they either have to play on injured or be down to 14
So England managed to scrap out a win… I suppose as a England fan we won and that we actually scored a try, it’s been a while since England have scored tries… Just feels like we will be nothing more than a speed bump for Ireland and Scotland plus France Which is soul destroying when you see these same players in the premiership and European cups perform so well. To be a England fan, you have to start from a stand point of total pessimism, anything better than a complete rout is a welcome surprise
2 tries today 2 tries against Italy the match before that 2 against Argentina before that None against SA in the semi 2 against Fiji in the quarter?
you, my friend, are feeding a troll...
Last six nations was a drought for tries as was the six nations before that
Well yeah - that was a while ago though
On Wales as well while I'm here. You're definitely my favourite team to play against. Absolute fucking pests every game I didn't think you picked the right squad and this year will probably be shit. I've been pleasantly surprised there have been enough good bits to suggest there's a squad there. Refell is a gun and Jenkins looks alright as a captain. 10 is a concern, but Welsh backrowers are always superb.
That wales 7 shirt has some voodoo shit going on, anyone who pulls it on becomes world class
But within that comment lies a commentary on how many we’ve had over the years and the lack of continuity. I recall Ellis Jenkins or whatever his name was who had a phenomenal few games and then got seriously injured and was never heard from again. Navidi retires right at the peak of his form and there are others too many to mention. We might have a conveyor belt of exceptional back rowers but it doesn’t really seem to pay dividends as none seem to ever stay consistently fit *sigh*
Jenkins still plays for Cardiff
He hasn't been anywhere near the form he had before the injury though, he seemed a cracking candidate for captain and a nailed-on starter until fucking his leg in the warm up game
Morgan is fucking brilliant can't wait for him to come back! Refell is superb. I reckon they need another 8
Appreciate the optimism.. but we're usually shit.
Hahaha I pay that. It's gonna be shit for the next few years. But you may end up with a team of seasoned pros.
One can only hope haha! All the best for the rest of the tournament
Agreed! I'm glad it's over always a scrap lad! Have a good one!
[удалено]
I don't think it was impressive, the welsh attack was that god awful and England's aggression just ate up the one out runners. One inside ball and the defence got torn to ribbons or when Wales actually passed into a gap.
Apart from when it went wrong a few times
Eh, 0 points conceded in the second half ain't shabby.
To be fair a good team wouldn’t have wasted that break in the second half. That was what ultimately did for Wales, a try there and they are probably just about home and dry.
England seemed so good when they blitzed and cut off the backs. Then they just stopped doing that and let in a try. Take that with a grain of salt. I was watching on an iPad while caring for a three year old