Discussion
On the positive side England played with more passion than I've seen for a long time now. Unfortunately their backs still look extremely limited, which explains why they persist in trying to drive through using only forward play, a plan which just isn't going to cut it against teams like NZ or the Boks.
The depressing aspect of todays game is that - despite the renewed enthusiasm - there's still a serious lack of ambition in the team. There's virtually no creativity in the midfield and they hardly ever seriously threatened the NZ try line. As a spectator, since MJ took over as coach I've noticed very little improvement and I just can't see a light at the end of the tunnel for them right now.
The depressing aspect of todays game is that - despite the renewed enthusiasm - there's still a serious lack of ambition in the team. There's virtually no creativity in the midfield and they hardly ever seriously threatened the NZ try line. As a spectator, since MJ took over as coach I've noticed very little improvement and I just can't see a light at the end of the tunnel for them right now.
One gets the feeling that Johnson is putting HIS tactics into play - ie a man-mountain able to intimidate and break through the defensive line.
Rather than give reign to the players to improvise and adapt based on the situation.
I'll be very surprised if Martin's still in his job come the 6 Nations, to be honest (which is a real shame).
Rather than give reign to the players to improvise and adapt based on the situation.
I'll be very surprised if Martin's still in his job come the 6 Nations, to be honest (which is a real shame).
the rah-rahs are failing because of several things.
1. Skill. Passing accurately at pace is an absolute neccesity at this level - the england backs don't have the skill therefore they lack
2. Confidence. leads to over reliance on one or two players, which is no tactic for for taking on an international team. If yuo pose no threat, there's no worry which causes
3. one-dimensionality of play, easy to counter, easy to read. this in itself isn't a disaster if you can do the basics really well, however the biggest issue england have is
4. Ball security. has been woeful these last few games. How does Monye get in to the team?? being worried about a team mate not being able to catch =
5. regression into kicking game = dull as s
t reduces confidence further.
Johnson has to go now ahead for 6 nations, get a coach and get integrated.
hardly surprsing that a world cup winning forward, now as an inexperienced coach has a back line that is bereft of ideas....
1. Skill. Passing accurately at pace is an absolute neccesity at this level - the england backs don't have the skill therefore they lack
2. Confidence. leads to over reliance on one or two players, which is no tactic for for taking on an international team. If yuo pose no threat, there's no worry which causes
3. one-dimensionality of play, easy to counter, easy to read. this in itself isn't a disaster if you can do the basics really well, however the biggest issue england have is
4. Ball security. has been woeful these last few games. How does Monye get in to the team?? being worried about a team mate not being able to catch =
5. regression into kicking game = dull as s
t reduces confidence further.Johnson has to go now ahead for 6 nations, get a coach and get integrated.
hardly surprsing that a world cup winning forward, now as an inexperienced coach has a back line that is bereft of ideas....
Famous Graham said:
Rather than give reign to the players to improvise and adapt based on the situation.
Strange one that (although I agree with you) because Brian Smith, whilst at London Irish was credited with teaching his players to play whats in front of them, which is something they they are certainly not doing.I'm sure Johnson will be given at least the Six Nations to improve, but the clock must be ticking.
Nom de ploom said:
the rah-rahs are failing because of several things.
1. Skill. Passing accurately at pace is an absolute neccesity at this level - the england backs don't have the skill therefore they lack
They have the individual skill. What they haven't done is gel as a team to the point where they have team skills. I'm not sure why this is, but the backs certainly don't lack the individual skills, so I can only assume it comes back to coaching.1. Skill. Passing accurately at pace is an absolute neccesity at this level - the england backs don't have the skill therefore they lack
Nom de ploom said:
2. Confidence. leads to over reliance on one or two players, which is no tactic for for taking on an international team. If yuo pose no threat, there's no worry which causes
3. one-dimensionality of play, easy to counter, easy to read. this in itself isn't a disaster if you can do the basics really well, however the biggest issue england have is
I do think for these that the absurd number of injured players does have to be taken into account to an extent. There's only so much you can do about creating multi-dimensional, joined up plays if each time you've nailed one, one of the key players involved breaks down. At international level, it's not as simple as "oh well, the new centre will have to learn the plays".3. one-dimensionality of play, easy to counter, easy to read. this in itself isn't a disaster if you can do the basics really well, however the biggest issue england have is
Nom de ploom said:
4. Ball security. has been woeful these last few games. How does Monye get in to the team??
Monye largely deserves his place in the team. What he didn't deserve was being stuck out of position at fullback. Mauro Bergamasco at Scrum Half spring to mind?Nom de ploom said:
Johnson has to go now ahead for 6 nations, get a coach and get integrated.
hardly surprsing that a world cup winning forward, now as an inexperienced coach has a back line that is bereft of ideas....
I disagree.hardly surprsing that a world cup winning forward, now as an inexperienced coach has a back line that is bereft of ideas....
Who appointed then fired Andy Robinson - the same Andy Robinson who just got Scotland to victory over Australia? Who appointed then sacked Brian Ashton? Who appointed Martin Johnson in the first place?
We are looking at the richest Union in the World game, with the largest number of registered players (albeit including my 4yr old, who is, formally at least, registered to play for England), and we're going through coach after coach, despite which, Will Carling's old farts and Rob Andrew are allowed to carry on regardless!
How about Rob Andrew gets sacked before the 6 Nations, along with half the board of the RFU, and a structure is put in place to actually give the coaching team the support they need?
Look at any other area of business. If a manager employs someone who doesn't deliver the results then fair enough, these things happen. If a manager employs three people in succession who fail to deliver the results, then you don't look at the employee, you look at the manager.
telecat said:
I never understood the sacking of Robinson. He put together a team that nearly won the World cup and they sack him??
He put together a team which, under him management, won 9 games and lost 13. He was sacked in November 2006, 10 months before the start of the World Cup. Did you mean Brian Ashton?Kermit power said:
telecat said:
I never understood the sacking of Robinson. He put together a team that nearly won the World cup and they sack him??
He put together a team which, under him management, won 9 games and lost 13. He was sacked in November 2006, 10 months before the start of the World Cup. Did you mean Brian Ashton?telecat said:
Kermit power said:
telecat said:
I never understood the sacking of Robinson. He put together a team that nearly won the World cup and they sack him??
He put together a team which, under him management, won 9 games and lost 13. He was sacked in November 2006, 10 months before the start of the World Cup. Did you mean Brian Ashton?
As for Ashton, the impression I got was that he's a superb lieutenant, but not a very good general. Ask him to coach the backs and improve them individually and as a back unit and he'll deliver the results. Ask him to design the overall team strategy and he'll struggle.
I think there were just too many players from the RWC squad on record as saying they only started getting results after they chucked away his plans and improvised for it not to be the case. It's also worth bearing in mind that asking the likes of Dallaglio and Catt to improvise against the Boks or the All Blacks is one thing. Asking the new guys who are going to have to run us through to the next RWC to do so is quite another.
I still keep coming back to the thought that we're going through coaches at a rapid rate, yet nobody seems to be questioning the competence of their boss.
I was at the game and I think it is easy to get too positive about the outcome and the supposed improvements:
a) New Zealand were below par and not firing on all cylinders. Dan Carter was solid defensively but his attacking play was poor and Nonu was not given the opportunity to run.
b) England's forward play was improved, largely due to the recall of Simon Shaw who, along with Moody, was everywhere. They are not the future of England rugby.
c) Injuries aside, the backs were awful. Until Geraghty came on, there was no invention what so-ever.
Wilkinson has no attacking ideas anymore and is lacking pace these days. Hipkiss is not international standard - he is in for his power but he missed two crucial tackles. Banahan is strong but lacks the basics at this level. Erinle is just a lump.
There is little at stake in these games and Johnson should have seen them as a great opportunity to expirement with the younger guys. Not trying players out of position!
I still cannot fathom why Foden was not given a chance as a proper full-back. Tait also looked sharp when he came on for 10 minutes at the end. He is better than Hipkiss.
Overall, the ploy was obvious. How long could England hold out defensively, with a hope that New Zealand might make a mistake which could be capitalised on. Extremely negative and I don't know where they go from here.
a) New Zealand were below par and not firing on all cylinders. Dan Carter was solid defensively but his attacking play was poor and Nonu was not given the opportunity to run.
b) England's forward play was improved, largely due to the recall of Simon Shaw who, along with Moody, was everywhere. They are not the future of England rugby.
c) Injuries aside, the backs were awful. Until Geraghty came on, there was no invention what so-ever.
Wilkinson has no attacking ideas anymore and is lacking pace these days. Hipkiss is not international standard - he is in for his power but he missed two crucial tackles. Banahan is strong but lacks the basics at this level. Erinle is just a lump.
There is little at stake in these games and Johnson should have seen them as a great opportunity to expirement with the younger guys. Not trying players out of position!
I still cannot fathom why Foden was not given a chance as a proper full-back. Tait also looked sharp when he came on for 10 minutes at the end. He is better than Hipkiss.
Overall, the ploy was obvious. How long could England hold out defensively, with a hope that New Zealand might make a mistake which could be capitalised on. Extremely negative and I don't know where they go from here.
Legend83 said:
Extremely negative and I don't know where they go from here.
All of which draws me back to the same question. How come Rob Andrew's job never seems to come under any pressure? He's the Director of Elite rugby who appointed Robinson, Ashton and Johnson, we're not getting results in the most elite possible level of elite rugby, and yet he's still there, seemingly unquestioned.Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff