Categories
England Italy Six Nations Slideshow

Rate the match: Italy vs England, Six Nations 2016

Rate the match between Italy and England at the Stadio Olimpico in the Six Nations, and leave your thoughts on the game

italy

italy

Rate the match between Italy and England at the Stadio Olimpico in the Six Nations, and leave your thoughts on the game in the comments section.

Rate the match: Italy vs England

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Photo by: Patrick Khachfe / Onside Images

107 replies on “Rate the match: Italy vs England, Six Nations 2016”

Really? better that the France V Ireland granted, better than the Wales v Scotland match? England iom struggled to get any momentum until Italy tired and I felt the final score line flatter a disjointed England performance. Wales Scotland had me on the edge of my seat for the whole 80 minutes plus, far better around game and advert for the game of Rugby.

Footnote Itoje to get a yellow card before Hartley.

Well Itoje and Clifford looked so much more threatening at the breakdown than either of Robshaw and Haskell. I would be tempted to start at least one of them next week.
Frustrating first half. The replacements made the difference.
Don’t know why Youngs got MotM. He started well but was a bit up and down all game. Thought Care really upped the tempo of service, helped by the new back grow securing quicker ball.

Agree re Youngs. Only played 50 minutes, and Joseph scored a hat-trick, so seems a very odd choice. Didn’t do anything outstanding.

Tedious stuff. Few tries ran in once the Italian heads dropped and their legs and hearts gave out. Not much to learn from playing a side like that other than whether you can hold them out for the first 30, or 60 in this case then make hay with superior fitness and bench. Ho hum all round this weekend. No doubt some will create a blinkers tier from this triumvirate of rubbish to again claim that Eng are top of this particular pile of poo.

Unusually dour for you, brighty- it’s not all bad, your guys were pretty decent yesterday and that was a good game. Admittedly it’s not been a pristine tournament but hey, can’t be amazing every year- if memory serves the standard isn’t usually high after a world cup

I thought it was pretty rough stuff yesterday snewe. Aimless kicking. Brainless decisions. Odd flashes of quality, a bit more from Wales so we won the match, but at the no it’s only the results that are exciting rather than the play.

Well a good winning margin and a nice game for a couple of first caps. The game plan of knackering out Italy then put the points on them at the end was clear and fairly well executed. Will need a huge improvement to compete with the remaining 3 sides but you can only beat the team in front of you and 2 wins from 2 away games without conceding a try is about as good as you could ever be expected. I like the efficient manner / relative ease to which England have won the opening 2 games.
However is it just me or does this years tournament feel like it’s missing the quality and intensity of previous years?

Definitely. Probably because, at this point, its not looking or feeling terribly competitive; only 2 teams really in it – Wales and England. Ireland looking very ordinary and not able to deal with the injuries; Scotland fallen back a bit; France disorganised and unstructured and Italy the same old, same old.

Quality of all sides shows yet again why none of them got to rwc semis and why gap with SH continues to grow.The rwc might not have existed for all the 6N have learnt.Depressing

If you’re good enou to beat the SH sides regularly then you’d be good enough to dominate the 6N. Criticism of Wales and Ire seems to miss out this important fact – if we are stodgy, etc. then it just highlights how poor the other sides are to not even be able to win Slams against this supposed shower. The only way then for things to improve is for a team to come along and play as well as the SH sides, walk the comp, and show everyone else how to do it. No side is showing any signs of being that side at the moment. Any idea that one or other is, is just wishful thinking based on changes of personnel. Bird in the hand is needed rather than two in the bush.

On the only two teams in it pt – anyone see Invers yesterday with his usual guff, calling Fra v Eng, in the middle of the Wales match, as “the potential grand slam decider”? I know it’s correct mathematically but to be calling it after one single game for England. Got to love Inverdale.

Yup, he is seriously irritating.

As is Nick Mullins. And Jonathan Davies screaming ‘its on’ every time Wales manage to pass the ball past Jamie Roberts, only to promptly run into the nearest tackler. You can hear the hope in his voice slowly die

On the plus side, there’s no Stuart Barnes

I’d prefer to see Jiffy on the field at 12 for Wales. At least they’d maybe have a go at using overlaps once in a while. I actually feel sorry for George North who’d score a lot more tries playing for a NZ for instance. His try was all to do with him going sod it, ill get the ball, I’ll step tackles, look for space and run into it, as opposed to ooooo look a man to run into.

Jiffy “NUMBERS!! BANG!” Davies
I assume the BANG represents Roberts running into the nearest defender and butchering the afore mentioned overlap that Jiffy just identified

Ha Leon, at the mo it’s more like Roberts running through the nearest defender 🙂 I’d point the wastefulness finger more at JD and Liam W at the moment given the 1st two games. Draw and give, it’s basic execution that is needed.

I don’t know about that it looked to me that on several occasions in the last two games that Roberts have failed to pass when an overlap was on. That said you are right in that he has invariably gone over the gainline and drawn two defenders into the tackle when he does truck it up

I think if you look at the figures Roberts made about 45cm in territory and beat approx 0.5 of a defender. Ok, he scored a try, and did make some tackles but in attack he offered little more.

If just once Roberts would pop a pass out the back with a defence in front of him expecting the bosh (as Billy did for Fords try) or pop round the corner like SBW he could be an amazing player. But…

I’d say Eddie Jones’s tactics were well vindicated, especially the 6/2 bench: demolished the Italian forwards, creating spaces all over the park.

Joseph was brilliant, particularly considering how well Campagnaro played opposite him.

Replacements all made a positive impact. Tempo went up noticeably, Care adds real pace to the game. Doesn’t necessarily mean he should start ahead of Youngs, he’s arguably at his most dangerous coming in against tired defences.

Not convinced by JJ today – yes he took his tries well but was run over several times in the first half. Johnathan Davies must be licking his lips!

If nobody else has the guts to answer the big question, I guess I’ll have to.

1) Hodor
2) Robert Baratheon
3) Greatjon Umber
4) Sandor Clegane
5) Gregor Clegane
6) Eddard Stark
7) Littlefinger
8) Tywin Lannister (c)

9) Tyrion Lannister
10) Jon Snow
11) Oberyn Martell
12) Bronn
13) Jaime Lannister
14) Loras Tyrell
15) Lord Varys

I think all selections are fairly self-explanatory.

I think this must be a generational thing Jeff. No idea what you are talking about. Is this a team selected from previous winners of the poetry prize at a Welsh Eistedfodd?

Game of Thrones andy. I’ve not seen it myself but that’s what Google tells me. I can see the link though what with Eddie’s intent to play in the old fashioned “White Orcs” mode….

Oddly, this makes a lot of sense. All except Varys at 15, not seeing your logic there. The lineout would be pretty dominant.

to me it should av n could av been a different game had the ref got the yellow card out at least twice for english foul play, a late cowardly push into the stands on who had been italys best player up to that point , i think he was taken off injured after that , i thought brown played the ball while off his feet for the first try but not sure seen it only once, anyway to me those decisions are devestating to a second tier team like italy and there was nothing in it until their heads dropped as you would expect when you feel you have not got your just desserts , …Watson is sharp as knife , powerful and speedy but nothing in that game made me think england will beat Wales come the final game, it was a boring second half when italies spirit was broken but i kno that was the english game plan , how anyone can say it was more than a 7 is beyond me , 5-6 ,.OK

Haskell was a bit lucky. Nowell did nothing any other player wouldn’t have done with the nudge on Garcia to stop him chasing his kick. The injury was nothing to do with that push – he was already hobbled by that point. Gave the game a 7 – TBH if I wasn’t English it might have been a 6!

Who chooses these man of the match awards? Youngs was poor again. Looked like he was running through treacle to get to the breakdowns. A couple of balls were nicked due to his slowness and a better team would have made us pay. Care looked so much sharper when he came on

Plus surely Kruis should have been man of the match

Anyway rubbish first half. OK second one. Not sure we can tell much from that game other than that Jones’ plan was decent and worked.

Oh and the subs are pretty decent

As for the balls being nicked, in part that’s not all Youngs fault, there were a few occasions where the English ruck drove so far over the ball they left it exposed out of the back of ruck and not retained in the back foot, where either not doing this or the last player in acting as scrum half to prevent this would have stopped the ball getting nicked, a bit of rugby intelligence would have helped as the scrum half can’t always get to every single ruck.

Apparently MotM was awarded after 60 minutes which is just ridiculus as the game didnt open up until after that. Also it was voted for rather than awarded by an expert… what a joke do it properly or dont bother at all

Totally agree with your views on both Youngs and Kruis. I didn’t want to be the one to mention Kruis for man of the match (being a Sarries fan people would assume bias!), but I thought he was immense. With just himself and Billy the only two forwards to play the full 80, Kruis was still throwing himself into everything at the death.
How does a player who played (quite poorly at times) 50 minutes win man of the match. Some of Youngs’ passing was atrocious, the fact that Ford had to let one bounce before catching it tells you all you need to know!

Very frustrating match, but fair dos to Eddie, his strategy paid off. However England’s error count is way to high in the first 2 matches, we keep allowing the opposition in, and so if our experienced players keep playing in a brainless manner why not start with the rookies? I know Italy were tired in the 2nd half but the speed and intensity that Itoje, Hill and Clifford brought to the match was so marked in comparison to the lumbering Robshaw and Haskell. Care also made a massive difference, Youngs was abject. Kruis and Launchbury must surely be first choice pairing now.

Not a classic 6N, but I do give France and England some slack as they are in transition. Not sure what excuses Wales and Scotland have , world cup fatigue perhaps.

Of course, a part of the reason Italy were knackered in the second half was because they’d had to deal with Haskell and Robshaw

Haskell tackled very well indeed. Some great tackles forcing Italy back and stopping momentum. Still showed he has the odd stupid act in his repertoire though and was lucky not to see yellow. Also needs to carry more effectively. Surely all that gym time should have paid off??

Robshaw tackled well and did a great job of slowing Italian ball. I think he also turned over a ball or two (or at least aided in a couple). He’s not a heavy carrier but we began to see some of the nice linking work that he does for Quins

I know it’s not an ideal balance but with players like Clifford and Itoje to come on, it’s great to have worn the opposition down first

I think a flanker should offer more than just tacking. Itoje could do that role and more. I know they came on when the opposition was tiring, but I really thought they showed so much more bite and intensity that Robshaw and Haskell did at the start.

What a curates egg that was. How Ironic that the best centre on the park was an Italian plying his trade in England! I acknowledge JJ ran him a pretty close second and his third try was superb.

I think we’re all frustrated because we can see the massive potential in the young ‘uns but we aren’t dictating the pace of the transition. George looked excellent again,Itoje and Clifford brought zest and power,and Hill was generally sound albeit against a knackered and depleted Italian pack.

However, it’s one thing to come on in the last 20 against tiring opponents who have been demoralised by gifting the other team a try and playing the full 80 against a fired up Ireland or Wales. It’s a conundrum because at some point at least one or two of them may have to do that. Over to you EJ.

Lawes was largely anonymous, Haskell and Robshaw offered next to nowt in attack (again),Dan Cole is the luckiest man in England and hopefully will be supplanted by Brookes sooner rather than later and Ford still looks indecisive.

I have to agree with others about the damp squib nature of the 6N so far.

By and large England are inching in the right direction. Scotland deserve more than their efforts so far have yielded and Ireland and Wales are looking for inspiration. Italy are doing the best with what they have. Have I missed anyone out? Ah,oui,the dark horses.

If England keep committing errors like they are doing, at least 2 of their remaining opponents will beat them. When playing with a simple game plan it’s just inexcusable. However I was a bit mystified by some of the refereeing both ways. Not the first-time I’ve thought that this 6N either.
Our work at the breakdown in the first half was also dire. Haskell and Robshaw are not the answer EJ or should I call you SL. Centres did work a bit better though.

Forgot to moan about the line-out – what the devil happened there?
Actually thought Cole had a better game today. The French showed yesterday that you need 4 fit world class props in the squad nowadays. We are lucky to have great strength in depth at that position. Can’t help wondering what happened to Rowntrees coaching at the end. The scrum just went to pieces in his last six months. Same players now able to scrummage. Most odd.

Courtney Lawes. He looked almost bored at times today and is a shadow of his former self. Kruis and JL for me . They seem to understand each other’s game and have the same energy and desire in attack and defence. Lawes and Kruis had no chemistry.

Rearding the scrum,,step forward Steve Borthwick.

Have England got 3 top tight heads? I think Wilson has been harshly done by. Cole is ok,Brookes could be world class and Hill is a tyro. Thomas can be iffy at the scrum, Cooper – Woolley is another youngster. After that, who?

I really rated ford last season, but at this rate I’d drop him to the bench. Lawes doesn’t seem to as menacing round the park as he once was. Other then that not a bad outing. Bench looked dangerous(including Alex Goode). Just hope we grow as tho tournament progresses.

Hartley was completely anonymous again except when missing his jumpers a couple of times. George is quicker, a much better carrier and brings real bite. The sooner he takes over the better. For me Danny Care looks sharper than Youngs, Marler should start in front of Mako. Kruis and Launchbury is definitely the best second row pairing, and for all their perceived limitations for the moment I would keep the back row as it is with Itoje and Clifford on the bench.
I think England supporters should bear in mind that EJ been in the job for only a few weeks. It took Clive Woodward six years to build the team he wanted, and I expect it to take Jones at least two to build the strong squad that he wants, playing in the way that he wants them to. I thought this was a thoroughly workmanlike performance and a definite improvement on the game against Scotland. Looking at the younger players beginning to come through I genuinely think that England could be on the up fairly soon.
Totally agree with Teecee about Lawes but not about Wilson. Lawes seems to have lost his edge completely. Wilson is no better in the tight than Cole, slower round the park and gives away just as many penalties.

My takeaway from the lineout wasn’t that Hartley was at fault, felt he was hitting the right spot and the Italians either read it right or his jumpers weren’t getting up fast or high enough. I do however agree that Jamie George should be starting.

I agree with everything else except perhaps that some consideration should be given to changing up the back row, Robshaw for me has been largely anonymous and is having very little impact on the game. Not saying definitely drop him or Haskell but I think the idea needs to be entertained.

Victor Matfield was on the BBC highlights last night analysing the England line-out. Made the point that out of a back row of Robshaw, Haskell and Billy V, none of them are really ever likely to jump, which makes the actual target easier for the oppo to identify. They showed clips of Robshaw making dummy runs and no Italian bought them.
Maro Itoje offers another very effective lineout target. And did you say how high he got to disrupt one of Italy’s throws without anyone even lifting him?

Didn’t see the highlights so missed that, can’t disagree with the man though, I certainly wouldn’t worry about them in the lineout. At the moment if I’m the opposing team, I’d probably just focus on Kruis, pure numbers alone dictate that you’re likely to nick a couple a game because we throw to him so often.

I think we all know it’s only a matter of time before Maro starts whether it’s during the six nations or a little further down the line. I think Jones is right to ease him in slowly rather than throwing him in straight away, hints at his rather more long term gain approach ahead of short term success.

Robshaw needs to go. Has been virtually anonymous in both games. Nor do I expect to hear the usual claptrap about the dark arts and oh about how he’s the busiest around the park putting in unsung work. When you are playing well you are noticed! Simple as! In fact when you play outrageously well you get yourself noticed! It’s a proactive process!
So yes remove Robshaw to the bench and put Clifford on from the start.
Really start developing an English 7 and then more ‘Celtic’ aficionados will start fearing England.

I usually do buy that type of claptrap, especially for a flanker much of whose work is often hidden by piles of bodies. However, when you see Itoje come on and do that work so visibly – carrying hard, winning turnovers, clearing out, disrupting opposition line-outs – well it’s hard to defend Robshaw’s inconspicuousness.

I agree Robshaw wasn´t high profile, but he still had the highest tackle count among the England forwards and was good at slowing down Italian ball. Our aggressive defence caused the Italians to cough up possession 17 times and I think EJ recognises that without a proven number 7 to win turnovers at close quarters at his disposal this is a pragmatic way of winning the ball and counter-attacking quickly from broken play. I agree he is a somewhat limited player and his time may be nearly up, but I don´t think he gets the credit he deserves for his absolute commitment.
Having said that, England only had 39% possession and that won´t be enough against Ireland or Wales. England back row for next season? Billy V. at 6, Hughes at 8, Itoje at 7 gives far better primary possession at line-out, huge physical presence and greater athleticism round the park. Unfortunately it still doesn´t solve the problem of a real ball winner. Oh for a George Smith! He was magic for Wasps on Saturday evening, but I don´t see anyone England qualified on the horizon who is in the same mould.

Andy, your picking Itoje at 7? He’s never played there! He ain’t a 7. He’d be another 6.5. Billy is your 8 in possession. Hughes, if he truly is good enough, should put pressure on Billy but to play Billy at 6 is to lose his primary ability of being the game maker from 8. (And add to the mix Morgan, Clifford, Beaumont, there’s some competition for you.)
My preference is Itoje 6, Clifford or Fraser 7 and Billy 8.

Honestly don’t think Vunipola, as good as he has been for England, is going to be in the same league as Hughes a year from now. Right now I would have Billy with Itoje and Haskell. I still think we need one experienced player in the back row, and a player that is going to rack up 20 tackles. That allows Billy and Itoje to roam a bit freer that if Clifford was there.

Fraser as well is miles off the pace for me. He has no influence in games unless the Sarries front 5 smash the opposition. If he was playing for any other team, I don’t even think he would get a mention. I’d have Haskell, Kvesic, Clifford and definitely Wallace at least ahead of Fraser.

Still Robshaw over Haskell for me. Haskell made just 7 tackles on Sunday and touched the ball just once, making 0 metres

And he showed that he lost none of his ability to give away silly penalties. Lucky not to get carded

Sort of agree Pablito, the two can’t play in same team. But Robshaw at 7? That’s a huge step back…so do you start Clifford and keep Robshaw at 6?

For the rest of the 6 Nations I’d stick with starting Robshaw and Haskell and continue to bring on Clifford either at 6 or 7 and Itoje either at 6 or lock

Long-term, I’d consider Itoje primarily as a lock rather than a back rower. Although its great to have a player who can cover both

Just a bit of idle speculation Jez. I know he hasn´t and I agree he´d be another 6.5 but I just don´t see a genuine number 7 of international class emerging at present. Itoje is big, quick, disruptive and above all intelligent. If he got a few games in at club level (which I acknowledge is not likely to happen) I could see him being a truly horrible man to play against as a fly half, but I admit I´m trying to cram three good 6 or 8´s into the same back row, partly because I think Launchbury-Kruis is a good second row combination and want to see Itoje, Hughes and Billy in the starting line up. I think all three of them the potential to be world class, but EJ is doing the right thing by bringing Itoje along slowly. Hughes is quicker than Billy, and with Billy´s low centre of gravity I could see him becoming a ball winner as well as a carrier. I like the fact that there is real competition for the back row places but I agree with Jacob that Fraser is a long way off, and I don´t see Clifford as a long term answer. At present I´d have Itoje, Billy and Haskell, who is playing like a man who believes that at last he has found a coach who has confidence in him. It will be fascinating to see what develops in the next couple of years.

Surprised to see much positivity in here; thought it was pretty poor.

Ford looks woefully out of form still. JJ, despite his hatrick, I didn’t actually think was great. Lawes looked off pace. Robshaw was anonymous (not in the workmanlike old school 6 way where he was doing the unseen, just anonymous).

Positives. Kruis looks outstanding. Youngs/Care had a great dynamic – Youngs works the fringes for 50 minutes before Care comes on and ups the pace. Farrell was very good in the second receiver role. Nowell/Watson both very busy, showed good feet. The bench – Itoje and Clifford both brilliant, Launchbury alongside them too really upped the pace of the game.

Ford is not offering anything at the moment and I can’t understand why EJ went with the Ford/Farrell combo other than the fact he doesn’t feel he can put Devoto or Daly at 12 right now. Ford doesn’t take the kicks from the tee, nor the panalty kicks from hand so why is he playing!?? He also got flattened two or three times by big hits which is highlighting this lack of size and Ireland/Wales will surely be targeting that relentlessly. For me Daly should have got a run out in this game putting Farrell to 10. Robshaw should now be dropped for Itoje. Haskell whilst not my favourite he can be a nuisance so I’d keep him but for 60min then bring on Clifford. Playing Farrell at 10 also isn’t helping his Lions credentials. Whilst Sexton is prob still the front runner (as it stands) I’d like to see Farrell pushing for the second 10 spot.

In my team of the week I put Biggar at 10, mainly as he a) played on one leg and b) did his best to get the Welsh back line by trying to cut out the boring predictable ball to Roberts to thump up for another inch gain.
However, (and yes I am biased)but Owen is only doing his reputation good even playing out of position at 12. I’d even go as far to say he’s been the most creative back on show in the 6 nations so far (and though George North was also very good on Saturday) and also the best defensive leader as well. His stop, step and pass for Fords try was top drawer, the line he ran for his try, whilst simple made Jamie Georges (should he not be starting) break and pass into something g world class.
I’m happy as an English supporter to be playing Ireland next with the hope of another step or two forward with two weeks training before the ultimate test of Wales, who, despite their one dimensional play, must still be favourites.

I love the way you put a lad who can’t walk at 12 and a guy with one hand at 13. Or in other words centres with marginally better passing skills than the Welsh centres…..

Positives
1. We won with a significant points difference
2. Itoje was as good as we hoped when he came on ball carrying, lineouts, two turnovers, general menace at the breakdown
3. Clifford, Hill and George were busy when they came on and a great offload by George for Farrells try
4. We tried to play with ambition. Quick ruck ball, snappy passing, varied lines
5. Good defence, still haven’t conceded a try and defensive pressure led to Fords try and Josephs intercept

Negatives
1. Execution, execution execution. For all the ambition we had we kept undoing the good work with poor passes, dropped balls and poor kicks allowing Italy into our half
2. Too many silly penalties sapping momentum and giving Italy an easy escape route
3. George’s quick lineout in the Italian 22 which he threw straight to the nearest Italian player (Doh!) undoes all the good work he did with the earlier offload
4. Lineout doesn’t work well with such a heavy backrow
5. Too many players not in form but shoo ins for the next game (Lawes, Ford, Robshaw)

I think your a little unfair on George and he is unworthy of having a negative point all on his own (especially when Hartley doesn’t get any mention, although, given his general anonymity (other than the shoulder charge…how long before a yellow?), it’s hardly a suprize.) but this error should probably go down as part of point 1, execution.
At least a) he was trying things and b) did do something in the game!

It goes in the negative column for exactly that reason. I want EJ to pick George over Hartley in the long run which means i want him to trust him with more game time in the short term.
Such a stupid mistake will have cancelled out all the good work he did in the game and put doubts in EJ’s mind about trusting him with more than 10 minutes against better opposition

I disagree. When coaching players what you want are players who are not afraid to make a desicion. After all, there is no such thing as a wrong desicion unless no desicion is made. Ok there are good and bad desicions. But ask yourself, was this a bad desicion to which the answer is an unequivocal no. The reason? Jamie obviously saw something on, that if executed would have resulted in an attacking opportunity. It was made at a time when England were well in the lead, and therefore, even it went completely wrong woukd not have cost the game.
Almost every game England, and particularly RWC, are/were criticised for not being daring or expansive enough. Yet, when a player tries something he is singled out for not executing it right.
In fact George should be applauded for trying something, which Dylan Hartley was singularly did not do, and not criticize (by all means question the execution). It certainly doesn’t overshadow his contribution of good.

“what you want are players who are not afraid to make a desicion. After all, there is no such thing as a wrong desicion unless no desicion is made. Ok there are good and bad desicions. But ask yourself, was this a bad desicion to which the answer is an unequivocal no.”

What???
Sounds like Donald Rumsfeld’s “known unknowns” speech! 😉

A good match, and EJ got his gameplan spot on. Knacker them out in the first half, and then bring on the young guns and finish them off.

Kruis was outstanding and his partnership with Launchbury needs to be a starter for the big games. Not sure about Itoje as cover at 6 (although he did a great job when he came on, I still think lock is his better position). Lawes is not on form, and I would be tempted to have Beaumont and Itoje on the bench to cover 6 and lock.

Ford still not on great form, and I fear he will get found out against the big boys. The back line still functioned ok, and defended well, but against Henshaw, Roberts and Danty?

Cole gives away too many silly penalties, and Brookes needs to be brought in.

I don’t have too much fear about a shockingly poor and injury ravaged Ireland team which will be a good test for England but one ultimately I think they’ll have enough to cope with.
Wales will be harder, not that they are any better, just more experienced, game tough and could cause problems at breakdown, scrum and line out.
France, well who knows. But with them playing away matches I expect them, unlike Inverdale, to not be in the mix by last game
P’s, anybody else think itv coverage wad hugely better than BBC. Never thought I’d say that ever.

I always think ITV coverage is better than BBC but thats beacause im not a fan of Inverdale, Guscott or the god awful commentators

I don’t mind Inverdale and the Beeb, in my opinion Eddie Butler is far better than Nick Mullins but that doesn’t take much but totally agree with Guscott the man would bring the atmosphere down at a funeral, I’m surprised he hasn’t got a role on Eastenders.

I do fear that everyone is getting a touch over-excited about Itoje. Its worth remembering that he came on against a tired Italian team with a resurgent England on top

Its an entirely different thing starting against the French, Welsh or Irish back rows. Personally I am happy to keep starting the more experienced players and use Itoje and Clifford the way they were on Saturday,

These guys are the long-term future but I am happier with them getting their experience the way Jones is using them

Would also like to see Itoje considered as a lock. Number 6 for me has Dave Ewers written all over it once he’s back from injury and assuming he regains his form. Would personally like to see A Kruis/Launchbury starting partnership with Itoje on the bench in place of Lawes

I think Jones will do that Pablito, sadly IMO. Re Itoje’s position, it struck me that the entire backrow not being legitimate line-out targets contributed somewhat to England being picked off so easily. Itoje and then Clifford later certainly provided extra options, without any loss of grunt.

Re line-out, though he’s no Croft, Robshaw is often used as a line out option by Quins and under SL by England. So its not like he isn’t an option

In the Scotland game, Kruis called almost every throw to himself. I think Italy did their research and realised that Kruis was going to call almost everything to either himself or the other lock

But yes, Itoje certainly adds another option in the line-out

With all of the conversation about Robshaw it sounds as though we’re back to Armitage (the only 7 good enough ready to hit the ground running). At least one paper has said EJ wants him and will try and get him!
Oh happy days if that were to happen

Armitage is hardly the future though. Personally I wonder if Kvesic is a victim of some anti Gloucester bias? I don’t know but he is constantly being labelled not good enough while constantly being the top performer in a poor pack ,which only ups his value IMO. As I recall he was none too shabby on the tour to Argentina a few seasons ago too.

At the end of the day a player can only show what they can do by getting games. Up to that point any opinion is just that and nothing more. Give him five/six games and see. Nothing ventured etc……

Kvesic,BV,Ewers long term. Short term,Kvesic,BV,Clifford.

Can someone tell me why EJ is still persisting with Mike Brown. Yes he is safe under the high ball and looks to counter, but he can’t pass, 3 or 4 times he had created the space for Watson but due to his obvious lack of ability to pass the opportunities were lost. What a difference when Goode came on……..

Albeit in a period of less pressure and for less time Goode kicking was more accurate, he made no mistakes under the high ball and was more of a threat in attack.
Plus he did pretty well when on for Farrell in first half at centre.
What does the guy have to do?

Feel the phrase one swallow does not a summer make applies here, Goode has been poor in the past with his poor tackling resulting in a few tries for the opposition. I’ve always thought Goode’s best position is at 10, it’s where he played all his formative years (I think he stated a couple of years back that 10 was his preferred position, not sure though) and if Sarries had given him a run of games there earlier on in his carreer I feel his skill set would have lent itself nicely to that position.

Personally I think Watson should be playing at full back with someone else coming in on the wing.

Far from being one swallow etc, Saturdays performance is only a continuation of what Alex has been doing at club level over the last two/three seasons.
The areas he needed to improve on he has, whilst his core attributes have only come on too.

Yes at CLUB level, he’s absolutely brilliant for Sarries and I wish he could replicate that for England but he only does so on very rare occasions.

Jez im not even going to try to answer that as it would involve criticising a Sarries player which will fall on deaf ears same for George comment above

So what do you want me to say? Yeah I agree with you, Goode rubbish? Ffs, I have only pointed out the facts as borne out by his performances. The same as I have done for players such as Danny Care for example who last time I. Looked played for Quins?

Nope all I want is from time to time to be able to express an opinion of my own without the next post being told i’m wrong because Jez has all the “facts”.

It is only my opinion presented as the fact as I see it. You are fully within your rights to disagree with them.
However, it seems to me that the only way you ever disagree with me is by saying I’m wrong which hardly refutes the ‘facts’ as you offer little or no evidence as to why I’m wrong.

I think the issue is that they are presented as facts. You often make sensible comments but your always so quick to jump down the throat of anyone who mentions Sarries in a mildly negative light

I have made 9 rugby related posts on this thread
5 made no reference to Sarries you were next poster on 1
4 mentioned Sarries you were next poster on all of them

My favorite being when you tried to convince me that George throwing a quick lineout straight to an Italian player was a good thing because he was trying stuff.

But I do genuinely believe it is a good thing. And here’s why.
When I coached young players (successfully for many years ) my main aim was to develop players to make a desicion on the field. There is no such thing as a wrong desicion,only good and bad, other than making no desicion. In the case when a bad desicion is made the desire is that you have a team of players who understand that anyone of their team mates will try things and will work to make their desicions good and /or if it is a bad desicion will work to rectify that situation, which is what happened on Sunday.
The last thing you want is a team of players frightened to try things and to play safety first rugby. That takes us back to the worst days of Lancaster. I guareentee now that a young all black player doing something similar would be supported publicly whilst discussing the play privately in a positive fashion.
And on the question of Saracens and their players, of course I will support and defend them. They are, in the majority, players I admire, respect and rate. That’s the definition of support. However, that’s not to say there are players above criticism, we have Nils Mordt for instance.

There a difference between playing with ambition and doing something stupid. I would argue that this falls into the later category as there was nothing to be gained from trying it even if the ball had made it to the player he would just of been munched in a tackle straight away either way we lose possession and put ourselves under pressure, At this level I expect intelligent decision making

Scenario: Ford on the halfway line spots some space in behind the defence and kicks to find touch in their 22.

Outcome: Ball bounces into touch halfway into the 22
Analysis: Excellent play allows England to pressure the oppo throw
Rating: +15 England can compete the lineout knowing that if the oppo win the ball worse case they will kick possession back to England in their half

Outcome: Ball bounces infield and defender gets back in time to kick the ball out between the 10m and the 22
Analysis: Good play put the defender under pressure forced him into a difficult decision
Rating: +10 England ball 15m gained

Outcome: He misjudged the space and the defender catches it cleanly and kicks it back with interest
Analysis: Not great but he was trying something which if it had worked would have been good
Rating: 0 No advantage gained but at least he was trying something

Outcome: He misses his range and ball bounces on the line
Analysis: Not great execution but he was trying something which if it had worked would have been good
Rating: 0 only just missed his mark so gets benefit of the doubt

Outcome: He misses his range and ball goes straight into touch by 1 metre
Analysis: Poor execution but he was trying something which if it had worked would have been good
Rating: -2 at this level you would expect a kicker to know his range

Outcome: He misjudges how much time he has to make the kick and gets charged down
Analysis: Poor decision making shouldn’t have made the kick should of passed or stepped the defender
Rating: -10 England now on scramble defence 50% chance we will concede some points

This is a game of fine margins and therefore decisions need to be made in an instant weighing risk and reward. George had all the time in the world to make that decision and got it horribly wrong

Can I ask at what level you played Rugby if at all Leon? This isn’t going to be the basis of a criticism either. It’s just that putting the unavailable option of hindsight into any analysis is not really fair? In the heat of the moment, with a team heavily in the ascendancy the desicion to take said quick line out (and bear in mind it won’t have been Georges desicion alone, he undoubtedly would have received a call from one or maybe more team mates) is on my view an admirable one and bearing in mind the situation, score, state of opposition etc highly understandable. (And I’m also sure had it been the second minute and/or a tight score, one he wouldn’t have done.)
What sets an international apart from us mere mortals is the ability to do things that others can only dream about, to make a desicion immediately and to react correctly if the result is good or bad plus to learn from the result good and bad and use it to become an even better player.
Now, the execution may have been poor, and be fair that is a criticism that can be made, however I don’t believe the intent can or should be.
Look at it from a different point of view. In the next game the quick throw is on, England need a try to win the game. The percentages are there that the quick throw is taken there’s a good chance of the try being scored. However, because George, or whoever, has been subject to criticism because of his willingness to try something, takes the safety first option, with the result the opportunity is lost.
I know which player mindset I’d prefer.

I have played relatively low level for about 15 years not that its particularly relevant to this scenario. I’m not judging based on hindsight i’m judging based on his decision making process.

Best case:
Ball makes it to the unsupported England player man and ball and he steps the onrushing defender. 20:80 chance to score with Italy having 14 men behind the ball but less organised than normal

Likely outcomes:
Ball makes it to the England player man and ball and he is tackled backwards. Due to lack of support turnover or Penalty

Ball makes it to the Italian player man and ball and he is tackled backwards. Due to onrushing support Italy secure possession

Worse case:
Ball makes it to the Italian player man and ball and he steps and fends the defender. Italy break down field causing scramble defence with an Italian Forward in space no one to beat he will not make it to the line on pace but may be able to find quicker support 50:50 chance to score

Reward Extremely low, Risk Very High

I’m not saying a quick throw should never be taken just that it should only ever be attempted when there isn’t an Italian standing there waiting for it

You will never ever convince me that this was a worthwhile risk or that George should be applauded for giving it a go so stop trying

Ok, we’ll have to agree to beg to differ. But I don’t think your seeing my point. I’m not denying that it wasn’t a) a great desicion and b) well executed. It plainly wasn’t, on that I agree.
What I am saying is that you shouldn’t criticize a player who wants to do something different on the field. You are suggesting players play the percentages. That I cannot agree with. I want to see players with a bit of sparkle, stardust and vision.
In other words, if you could pick a team from any players in the world who would you pick in the centres? A head down non passing bosh percentage player like Roberts or a visionary like SBW? Now I don’t blame the player but the coach in Roberts case, by gosh he’d be some player if he had a coach who’d trust to off load on the tackle once in a while.
What I am saying really is encourage young players to be confident to try something. By all means highlight when it goes wrong, but do so by challenging their desicion making, ask them why a lot and watch them develop into players, like SBW or Jason Robinson for instance who not only had the swagger to do something to put the crowd on their fit, but more often than not get it right and become game changing winners.
I’m afraid that playing the percentages breeds a player more frightened of losing than daring to win. A situation NH teams have too often found themselves in.

Believe it or not I think we are actually nearing an agreement.

“What I am saying is that you shouldn’t criticize a player who wants to do something different on the field”
I agree players should express themselves last week Ben Youngs saw a good opportunity to score and tried to get the ball wide but the ball was intercepted and had Russell passed the ball to Hogg we could have been behind on the scoreboard with minutes on the clock. I haven’t said a bad word about that because he was trying to play and the attack was on.
“I want to see players with a bit of sparkle, stardust and vision.” so do I but I want that tempered with a bit of common sense. SBW is great because he only tries it when it is on, sometimes it doesn’t work out but the risk reward is in his favor. In essence he has a great skill set AND a good decision making process
“By all means highlight when it goes wrong, but do so by challenging their desicion making” that’s exactly what i’m doing it was poor decision making which blotted his copy book. other than that moment of madness he had a great game

I think the main reason I’m taking offense to your logic is that had Hartley done the exact same thing you would be slagging him off and saying we should be selecting George to start

Tbf to me 1) I wish Hartley would do more off the cuff things except go through the motions (as he did vs Italy) 2)unless that off the cuff thing isn’t a stupid shoulder charge giving away a penalty…
The point with Hartley is given his vast more experience than George he should be more equipped to do the right things. The problem with him is a) he doesn’t try them and b) he too often does the wrong thing.

Jez, you cannot present opinion as fact. Fact is something that is widely accepted by everyone to be true, and this is not the case here. If you would like to persuade people to your way of thinking rather than simply telling everyone that they are wrong, just provide a few examples of Goode performing at International level that point to him consistently deserving to be there.

For the record, I thought he looked very dangerous when he came on, but I’ve never seen him perform like that at International level before.

Jez
I guarantee your decision not to use a spellchecker is wrong – that’s a fact, ha ha.
Gents keep up the banter it is most entertaining.
I even found myself agreeing with some of Brighty’s comments this week OMG I need to lie down.

Col, I apilllageise me spill chucker is nit two ure hi standids, I fink I do quit well considering my level of dyslexia.

Comments are closed.