So England won. Now we get the ‘a win is what counts’ message from the team and the ‘dire performance’ message from the media. The question is which is more right and what should we worry or be pleased about?
First away win
The stat that stuck out the most was that this was the first away win England have had since Martin Johnson took over. That is a frightening statistic really, but i’ll come back to that. The second stat is that in the first 13 minutes there were 22 kicks out of hand. As a hard core rugby fan, even I am now seriously depressed by the kicking, and not just because it is boring, which it most certainly is. It represents a completely different game – it's like Ronnie O’Sullivan suddenly making 50%+ of his shots safety shots, even when a pot is on. It turns a game from doing what you can to win, to avoiding doing something that might cause you to lose. It’s that mindset that depresses me so much. The England team (and others) no longer want to create a try scoring opportunity, but hope that one comes about through error or luck.
Crucially though, not only does it seem that the kicking is not a good approach from a strategic point, England’s execution was rubbish, balls were kicked directly to hand with very poor chasing. We lost out over the game on most kicking duals. So the real worry (it being dull aside) is that even when it is so poorly executed, we continue to avoid alternatives, which means kicking must be here to stay.
Solution to the kicking game
There may be reasons as to why this won’t work and if so, I’d like to hear them. But I think the solution to the kicking is the ball. Surely if we made the ball heavier (or with less pressure), the resultant kicks would travel much less distance (instead of from 22 to 22) and running would become a higher % play as a result. Additionally, it would affect the place kicking, so that would not be possible from inside your own half, which is no bad thing either, or those ridiculous Francois Steyn drop goal attempts (success rate is what, around 10%?).
It shouldn’t affect any other part of the game, not the lineout, scrum or passing. So come on Gilbert (or Mitre), let’s do it. Speaking of which, why are there 2 differently shaped balls in professional rugby. That is just ridiculous. So whilst the rugby authorities start working with the manufacturers on heavier balls, can we please get an agreed shape, and give professional players the respect that it needs.
Italy
By listening to the team and some of the press, you’d think that Italy was a top team in the world. Because apparently, they have the ability to completely control how a game is played. Of course they can lie over the ball and disrupt quick ball, but this game should have been about creating space and supporting the runner. The more the ball is killed, the less we should have stuck with the strong arm approach through the forwards (which is undoubtedly where the Italians are the most effective). And dare I say kicking should have played a part, but since when did kicking to touch become obsolete? It’s not as if the Italians have such a great lineout. Spoiled possession from a lineout would have rushed the kicker much more than the aimless kick, and even more aimless chase that England pursued yesterday.
The Try
Even this came with a missed tackle on Monye. Watching it replayed face on, you see the opportunity was great, but the passing and running was slow and ponderous – it was a missed tacked that made the chance, followed by not great passes, but enough to get over the line. None of the backs had a great game, but at least Flutey and Tait tried to change the point or angle of attack, although most times Flutey tried, he was unsupported by runners or not spotted by the ball carrier – how many times on replays did we see Flutey screaming in the background to no avail? The backs seem to have no concept of angles of attack – the only evolution since last week’s aimless effort was to go for the inside ball, which proved effective, even if the runner was still running on the outside. Flutey is always looking to cut back in, but there doesn’t appear to be any understanding of that by the supporting players.
Metronomic Wilkinson?
I’m not sure how many times we heard this about Wilkinson in the lead up to the game (the commentator said he’d practiced for half an hour and not missed one kick). The debate is now whether we sacrifice Wilko and his kicking for a back better suited to unleashing the back line. What I don’t understand is why people go on about his kicking at all. If you look at international % for fly-halves, Wilko is hardly miles ahead of anyone (in fact, I presume Patterson and Carter are above him). Looking up stats, in Oct ’07 (the only ones I can find!) his percentage was 60% (17/28 and number 16 in the world). I know in his early days, Johnny set a new high water mark for % accuracy, but he’s been caught up and overtaken – and for years. The idea that we need him for his goal kicking is completely redundant.
Cole and Mullen
Italians often got the nod on the contact, but we regularly held up the scrum solidly, even if going ever so slightly backwards. Good job by the young lads and hopefully a bright future for them and England.
Ahead to Ireland
I don’t know what to take from yesterday. Yes a win is good. But on that argument, that’s your entire world cup winning strategy – just keep winning – and clearly to build a team successfully requires more than just squeezing out wins. I found the game dull, very very dull. I was impressed by Italy’s backs as they so rarely show endeavor out wide and I was pleased that it was mildly effective. But for England, it was miserable hard work. No leadership, no continuity, no thinking. I don’t care about the positive noises from the England camp because, really, what else can they say (although at least Moody rarely plays ball on the ‘optimism over realism’ thinking). I do care about the approach. In the first minute we nearly scored a try and then within just over 10 minutes we had resorted to ‘aerial ping-pong’. Why? I just cannot get my head round that at all.
Positive note?
Ireland were awful. At least I think that is a positive note. More seriously, I do understand that by grinding out wins, teams develop more trust and can be more adventurous in a less risky manner. But I go back to the kicking – if we can’t look to attempt something against Italy, how many years are we going to have to wait until we have that trust and can push for greater things? Back to the ‘first away win’ stat. What this tells us is that perhaps it’s us, the fans who are at fault. Perhaps this is just not a very good team and it will take years to start to compete again right at the top of the game. My belief is that it’s somewhere in between, but that with the slow rate of progress the coaching team want to pursue, we may never develop to a great side as teams promote talent and gel more quickly around us.
Quick word about Scotland
Why oh why or why, when you went for the restart, didn’t you just kick it out??? The clock had past 80 minutes, you were down to 13 men – surely it was worth protecting a draw? I’m not sure on the laws, but given kicking it straight out would normally result in a scrum (and not a penalty), the game would have ended. Insane decision and the draw was the least they deserved.
Monday, 15 February 2010
Monday, 8 February 2010
England - Wales: it was not about Character
Having watched the game and read the press, I thought I should do my own review. A lot of what has been written is wrapped in narrative rather than truth and so I wanted to do my own summary of who fared well, the positives and the concerns.
Haskell and Care
Both described as having played very well, been crucial even to the victory. I disagree entirely. Yes Care made that break and a couple others, but his ponderous service from the base of a scrum or ruck completely neutralised our potentially exciting back line. The first set of phases took us back at least 20 metres. It's very difficult to quantity the positive/ negatives from this, but if you give a back line no opportunity to break and go forward, then it's almost impossible to build territory through possession and put the fear of God into the opposition. The net result was that when Wales stepped up, we had no response. The Care strategy leaves us reliant on breaks, not patterns. And the fewer patterns we play, the less able we'll be able to do them.
Haskell had an OK game, yes he got 2 tries and it is impressive that he was there to support the second. However, he wasn't that impressive otherwise. He was relatively anonymous on the pick and drive and doubt he made that many yards. I have a suspicion that he is not strong enough (however muscular). Easter is immensely strong and frankly should have been man of the match. He provides ballast and a focal point for attack, along with excellent defence. What worries me about Haskell is his ever being picked at 8, assuming an Easter injury. Then we'd have a massively devalued back 3 in terms of strength. Haskell with Easter? Maybe, but Haskell without Easter, no.
Midfield
It was probably the most anonymous midfield I've ever seen (although some excuse given for Care's slow delivery). I think Tait will be excellent playing outside Flutey who will straighten, (half) break tackles and give Tait the opportunity to run at pace and create space and opportunities. Against Wales, we drifted and shipped the ball along the line. This is the easiest 'attack' to defend against. I'm not even sure I can remember a single set move - even a dummy or scissors. I can't say that they both played badly, but it was just so short of creativity or strategy.
Back three
Most press describe them as not having had much chance, with Delon under-performing. I think on balance that assertion is fair. However, they don't point out what they did well with the limited opportunities they had. Cueto was as commanding under a high ball and with the boot as Armitage was on debut. When he took the ball, he looked purposeful and his first instinct was to run, not kick (to the point that he started taking the kicks at pace, rather than stationary). Even more so, I thought Monye was fantastic, rampaging through tacklers, in much the way that we all imagined Jamie Roberts would. I don't think I've ever seen him do so much with rubbish ball in an england shirt. More of that against Italy and it will be a blood bath.
Front Row
Hartley was surprisingly 'weak' - he didn't penetrate with much depth. However, he did his core job very well and was busy and made himself available. In the days of the pod system, having him constantly putting his hand up is a great boon for the backs looking for better and faster ball. Props were a worry. Not in the least because of the binding on the arm (even I noticed these a few times!). Wilson and Payne seemed very underpowered. It was noticeable that when Cole came on, the scrum seemed so much more assured. I know we are suffering with injuries, but this was clearly not the best available prop pairing. Next week against Italy, Cole must start. It's the perfect platform to demonstrate we can pick a competitive front 3.
Borthwick and Moody
These guys obviously made a pact before the game to swap places. Moody was completely invisible and Borthwick actually played well, in particular doing something good for everyone to see in that crucial turnover. Moody does have quiet games occasionally, so hope that's his one out of the way for the 6 nations.
Extraneous
Kick and chase - absolutely appalling yesterday. Even from the kick off, Moody wasn't 'mad dogging' it to get to the ball. Wilkinson kept having to chase his own kicks, as did Cueto. Where was the support?
Team response
The team is talking rubbish about how they would have lost it 2 years ago, but their character pulled them through. Absolute rubbish. An opportunist (and crucially, a defensive) intercept try was the difference and potentially a 14 point swing, given Delon was covering 2 attackers. He didn't intercept out of character, but necessity. It may be true that going forwards, England can derive character from the win, but it was certainly not the other way round.
Optimism?
I am happy with the win and some things were good and we certainly have areas to build on. Against Italy next week needs to be about endeavour and a relatively high risk game. Unless our backs begin to get some continuity, we'll continue to always feel relieved to win, rather than it being fully earned. Against Italy, we can afford to play to the backs strengths, to give them the opportunity to test themselves. Yes it's high risk, but unless they start to understand and trust themselves (and in a game situation, rather than training). We won't be able to push on and really bully opponents. The order of games is perfect, we just got away with a win and next week, we can really set the backs free. Come the 3rd game, we'll have confidence and continuity to take into a hugely competitive match, which we then could win. Without either, we'd be lucky to do so.
Haskell and Care
Both described as having played very well, been crucial even to the victory. I disagree entirely. Yes Care made that break and a couple others, but his ponderous service from the base of a scrum or ruck completely neutralised our potentially exciting back line. The first set of phases took us back at least 20 metres. It's very difficult to quantity the positive/ negatives from this, but if you give a back line no opportunity to break and go forward, then it's almost impossible to build territory through possession and put the fear of God into the opposition. The net result was that when Wales stepped up, we had no response. The Care strategy leaves us reliant on breaks, not patterns. And the fewer patterns we play, the less able we'll be able to do them.
Haskell had an OK game, yes he got 2 tries and it is impressive that he was there to support the second. However, he wasn't that impressive otherwise. He was relatively anonymous on the pick and drive and doubt he made that many yards. I have a suspicion that he is not strong enough (however muscular). Easter is immensely strong and frankly should have been man of the match. He provides ballast and a focal point for attack, along with excellent defence. What worries me about Haskell is his ever being picked at 8, assuming an Easter injury. Then we'd have a massively devalued back 3 in terms of strength. Haskell with Easter? Maybe, but Haskell without Easter, no.
Midfield
It was probably the most anonymous midfield I've ever seen (although some excuse given for Care's slow delivery). I think Tait will be excellent playing outside Flutey who will straighten, (half) break tackles and give Tait the opportunity to run at pace and create space and opportunities. Against Wales, we drifted and shipped the ball along the line. This is the easiest 'attack' to defend against. I'm not even sure I can remember a single set move - even a dummy or scissors. I can't say that they both played badly, but it was just so short of creativity or strategy.
Back three
Most press describe them as not having had much chance, with Delon under-performing. I think on balance that assertion is fair. However, they don't point out what they did well with the limited opportunities they had. Cueto was as commanding under a high ball and with the boot as Armitage was on debut. When he took the ball, he looked purposeful and his first instinct was to run, not kick (to the point that he started taking the kicks at pace, rather than stationary). Even more so, I thought Monye was fantastic, rampaging through tacklers, in much the way that we all imagined Jamie Roberts would. I don't think I've ever seen him do so much with rubbish ball in an england shirt. More of that against Italy and it will be a blood bath.
Front Row
Hartley was surprisingly 'weak' - he didn't penetrate with much depth. However, he did his core job very well and was busy and made himself available. In the days of the pod system, having him constantly putting his hand up is a great boon for the backs looking for better and faster ball. Props were a worry. Not in the least because of the binding on the arm (even I noticed these a few times!). Wilson and Payne seemed very underpowered. It was noticeable that when Cole came on, the scrum seemed so much more assured. I know we are suffering with injuries, but this was clearly not the best available prop pairing. Next week against Italy, Cole must start. It's the perfect platform to demonstrate we can pick a competitive front 3.
Borthwick and Moody
These guys obviously made a pact before the game to swap places. Moody was completely invisible and Borthwick actually played well, in particular doing something good for everyone to see in that crucial turnover. Moody does have quiet games occasionally, so hope that's his one out of the way for the 6 nations.
Extraneous
Kick and chase - absolutely appalling yesterday. Even from the kick off, Moody wasn't 'mad dogging' it to get to the ball. Wilkinson kept having to chase his own kicks, as did Cueto. Where was the support?
Team response
The team is talking rubbish about how they would have lost it 2 years ago, but their character pulled them through. Absolute rubbish. An opportunist (and crucially, a defensive) intercept try was the difference and potentially a 14 point swing, given Delon was covering 2 attackers. He didn't intercept out of character, but necessity. It may be true that going forwards, England can derive character from the win, but it was certainly not the other way round.
Optimism?
I am happy with the win and some things were good and we certainly have areas to build on. Against Italy next week needs to be about endeavour and a relatively high risk game. Unless our backs begin to get some continuity, we'll continue to always feel relieved to win, rather than it being fully earned. Against Italy, we can afford to play to the backs strengths, to give them the opportunity to test themselves. Yes it's high risk, but unless they start to understand and trust themselves (and in a game situation, rather than training). We won't be able to push on and really bully opponents. The order of games is perfect, we just got away with a win and next week, we can really set the backs free. Come the 3rd game, we'll have confidence and continuity to take into a hugely competitive match, which we then could win. Without either, we'd be lucky to do so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
