The Rugby Thread

[danperkins]

Mike Brown's interview was funny, so awkward. Chap wasn't in the humour

[Boogs]

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/201...P=share_btn_tw

Personally I would drop Barritt pair Slade with Burgess and leave Farrell at 10. Ford has looked way off recently.

Chris Robshaw has been condemned for opting for an attacking lineout in the closing moments when awarded a penalty instead of giving Owen Farrell the chance to kick for goal - albeit from a difficult position near the touchline - that would have levelled the scores at 28-28.

He'd come off for Ford by then hadn't he?

[Chazza]

Ford came on for Burgess and Farrell went to 12.

[Boogs]

Oh right. I was to busy going mental by then

[RichC]

Welsh mate I was with earlier is very worried about Fiji, decimated squad and you don't like playing the Island teams.

I of course will be a Fiji supporter on Thursday

[Boogs]

I expect nothing less

Hook and Anscombe coming in and can play most places on the back line. It's going to be a rough ride Thursday.

[RichC]

Hooks a good player, your injury list is ridiculous I've never seen anything like it

[Cormack74]

and then the ridiculous decision to go for the try.

I've heard this so many times over the past couple of days.

The inference seems to be that the kick would definitely have gone over - that it would have been a guaranteed 3 points.

So what if we'd opted for it and the kick was missed - it was hardly a gimme especially for a right footed kicker in a pressure cooker atmosphere.

And even if it had gone over we'd quite probably still be in the situation where we would need to beat Australia.

IMO there was nothing wrong with the decision to take the line out, the error was in taking the safe option in throwing to 2 instead of the more ambitious one of throwing to 4. Not only is a throw to the front far easier to defend (as was shown) it was also more predictable because it's generally a safer option and because we've done similar against Wales in the recent past.

The Welsh put all their eggs in one basket by not contesting the ball in the air and concentrating on driving back the jumper when he hit the ground.

A decent throw to 4 would almost certainly have guaranteed a try and would have been no more risky than a shot at goal from a tricky angle.

I would have like to have thought that with all the resources and analysts at the RFU's disposal Lancaster might have considered these sorts of things prior to the game (or any game) but unless the players went against his instructions apparently this sort of analysis by him and his team was sadly lacking.

[Chazza]

True but even if he misses the kick it is likely to be a 22 drop out with a good chance of getting possession back and having another go for the score. Farrell was nailing everything and he is normally cool under pressure.

The percentages said kick the pen especially with the piss poor line out England have had for the last few years.

[Buzzo]

I've heard this so many times over the past couple of days.

The inference seems to be that the kick would definitely have gone over - that it would have been a guaranteed 3 points.

So what if we'd opted for it and the kick was missed - it was hardly a gimme especially for a right footed kicker in a pressure cooker atmosphere.

And even if it had gone over we'd quite probably still be in the situation where we would need to beat Australia.

IMO there was nothing wrong with the decision to take the line out, the error was in taking the safe option in throwing to 2 instead of the more ambitious one of throwing to 4. Not only is a throw to the front far easier to defend (as was shown) it was also more predictable because it's generally a safer option and because we've done similar against Wales in the recent past.

The Welsh put all their eggs in one basket by not contesting the ball in the air and concentrating on driving back the jumper when he hit the ground.

A decent throw to 4 would almost certainly have guaranteed a try and would have been no more risky than a shot at goal from a tricky angle.

I would have like to have thought that with all the resources and analysts at the RFU's disposal Lancaster might have considered these sorts of things prior to the game (or any game) but unless the players went against his instructions apparently this sort of analysis by him and his team was sadly lacking.

Bottom line, the mistakes were made during the game ahead of this, England should never have been in a position where the game was so close.

...however

I disagree. The kick was tricky, but Farrell was kicking well, so he had a good chance of making it. Even if he missed it, then Wales would have had a 22 drop out giving the ball back to England - with the amount of discretions in the game to that point the chance to build a platform for either another penalty, or to get the ball in position for a drop goal were both options. England could conceivably have kicked that pen, received the ball back and gone for the win with another pen or a drop goal. What they did effectively smothered the game.

However, having gone for the lineout to then chose to throw short was clearly wrong. That said I also disagree that a throw to 4 would have definitely resulted in a try - if were so easy, then, well, surely they would have thrown to 4 . We have seen strong defences on the line thoughout the tournament - and Wales were putting their bodies on the line, and with the transgressions, and with the clock ticking - there is no way a try was even close to guaranteed in a game that had only had 2 trys.

I don't know if there is any truth in this, but the accusation is that Lancaster is an authoritarian, meaning that when crunch decisions need to be made he hasn't previously trusted squad members enough to make them - meaning they haven't prior experience to do so.

The problem here is that not only did England drop points, they gave them to Wales making the remaining matches far more challenging. Though a good result would still be important against Australia - it wouldn't be essential - it is now.

I have a feeling we saw a pivotal 10 minutes, and I don't necessarily mean that it will bring about the end of Englands tournament. Its all about the response now, and England are definitely good enough to beat Australia. They just need to keep discipline and make smart choices during the game.

[Cormack74]

True but even if he misses the kick it is likely to be a 22 drop out with a good chance of getting possession back and having another go for the score. Farrell was nailing everything and he is normally cool under pressure.

The percentages said kick the pen especially with the piss poor line out England have had for the last few years.

Del

[Cormack74]

True but even if he misses the kick it is likely to be a 22 drop out with a good chance of getting possession back and having another go for the score. Farrell was nailing everything and he is normally cool under pressure.

The percentages said kick the pen especially with the piss poor line out England have had for the last few years.

Leaving aside the difficulty of the kick, a draw could quite easily have had no effect on the group - we would have to better all Wales results which might still have meant we would have to beat the Aussies.

Plus a drop out would have taken at least a minute to complete (ball thrown from player to player; shall we take a quick one, oh let's not). Sure we would have got the ball back but we would have been back on half way.

And as it happens we did win the line out - the probability was that we would regardless of how our line out has performed this year because a line out is easier to defend if you set up for a maul rather than hope to win the contest in the air. Trying to out jump your opponent on their throw that close to your line is an extremely risky strategy which is why Wales didn't try and do it.

We were just dumb throwing to the front which is the easiest line out to defend - The New Zealand coach makes the same point in today's Guardian.

[Cormack74]

However, having gone for the lineout to then chose to throw short was clearly wrong. That said I also disagree that a throw to 4 would have definitely resulted in a try - if were so easy, then, well, surely they would have thrown to 4 . We have seen strong defences on the line thoughout the tournament - and Wales were putting their bodies on the line, and with the transgressions, and with the clock ticking - there is no way a try was even close to guaranteed in a game that had only had 2 trys.

Ok "definitely" may be over stating it but the fact that Wales most likely defensive strategy was to anticipate a front throw and set up to defend it from the ground (which is what they did). A throw to 4 would have secured the ball and provided an attacking platform for the maul to go left, right or straight on.

In that situation a try is more often scored than not and the next most likely outcome is an attacking 5m scrum from a held up ball.

Either way the line out was the correct option IMO but as you infer maybe the creative / imaginative follow up play which was needed (i.e. a throw to the middle) isn't sufficiently encouraged in Lancaster's set up.

My defence of the specific tactic is absolutely not a defence of his time as England coach during which the team has definitely underperformed given its' resources.

[ChesterDave]

Pleased with my decision to put Michalak in my Fantasy Team today

[Boogs]

BIG game for England Saturday because Wales win last night. Although they've had a week off the game last week was a tough 80 mins and will have taken its toll. The Auzzies haven really had a pressure cooker of a match yet and look to have treated the games pretty much as a warm up games so far.
It going to be a blistering game whatever the result and I cannot wait