How many lineout options have England got this match? Saw some analysis that one reason England struggled was due to having only two real options against the AB's. A 57% success rate is appalling.
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
England v Argentina
- Thread starter Which Tyler
- Start date
Shamelessly stolen from another board
"A last note on England's lineout. The stats say 14 lineouts, 8 won, 6 lost for 57% success rate, which is obviously not ideal, but one of those losses is from Roebuck's offside for the Ford non-try, which seems exceedingly harsh to put on the statistics that way. Of the 5 actual lineout losses, 3 of those were consecutively in one period from minute 7 to 22 in the first half, when New Zealand had worked us out. England then rearranged things on the pitch, without changing personnel, to take 80% for the rest of the game, all of them clean ball that we could attack off (counting the Roebuck offside as a successful lineout, as there was nothing wrong with the actual lineout). This game has gone down in the general opinion as an England lineout calamity - I'm seeing it as we worked a problem out on the fly and overcame it. Much happier with that than I would be with a 90% success rate where we went unchallenged."
"A last note on England's lineout. The stats say 14 lineouts, 8 won, 6 lost for 57% success rate, which is obviously not ideal, but one of those losses is from Roebuck's offside for the Ford non-try, which seems exceedingly harsh to put on the statistics that way. Of the 5 actual lineout losses, 3 of those were consecutively in one period from minute 7 to 22 in the first half, when New Zealand had worked us out. England then rearranged things on the pitch, without changing personnel, to take 80% for the rest of the game, all of them clean ball that we could attack off (counting the Roebuck offside as a successful lineout, as there was nothing wrong with the actual lineout). This game has gone down in the general opinion as an England lineout calamity - I'm seeing it as we worked a problem out on the fly and overcame it. Much happier with that than I would be with a 90% success rate where we went unchallenged."
Positive I'll give them that. Not ideal is an understatement. Not sure about taking the Roebuck one as a successful lineout, it pads out the 80%. Realistically just leave it out.
Still very low for an international lineout. AB's were at 87% for the match.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2012
- Messages
- 5,596
- Reaction score
- 5,424
OK, but if you don’t include it as successful, then don’t include it as unsuccessful … there was nothing wrong with the actual lineout.
spartan32
Bench Player
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2015
- Messages
- 629
- Reaction score
- 265
I don’t get this side at all, and I’ve never understood why Coaches have players in their squad that they clearly don’t trust to be on the pitch. CCS defo deserves game time if he’s fit. Daly coming straight into the starting 15 from injury when Arundell is sat there is just a slap in the face for the lad. Don’t get me wrong, Daly is class, but he hasn’t played in ages, and how is Arundell ever going to grow into the squad if he never gets on the pitch?No CCS?
There's injuries, so i get why it's changed up a lot
But still, I don't like:
No CCS, he should be starting - and they didn't say he's injured
Slade,
Daly (i know he's been in good form recently but he's coming straight in from long term injury to start),
Dan,
Ewels,
6:2 bench
I can swallow Slade I suppose. This just feels like a really muted team which could be dangerous against a firery Argentinian side who play at pace. I still think we can win but feels like an opportunity missed
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2012
- Messages
- 5,596
- Reaction score
- 5,424
It’s not the team I would have picked, but I get it.
CCS is a big omission - ideally I’d have started him at 8. However, there is a question mark over his fitness so perhaps he isn’t quite up to it?
The backs are not exciting, but with the injuries to Lawrence, Freeman and Roebuck, the changes make sense.
Yes, a back line featuring Mitchell, Fin, Ojomoh and Arundell over Spencer, Ford, Slade and Daly is more exciting, but it’s also vastly less experienced. The lineup suggests to me that Borthwick sees picking up a clean sweep of wins as important, which I agree with.
I’m not a massive fan of Spencer, but if he’s going to play, he’s far better as a starter than as a sub. He and Ford worked well together in Argentina so I’m happy enough with that combination.
It’s a big game for AOF, but I think he’s up to it.
Ultimately, I feel like Borthwick should be getting more of the benefit of the doubt. In the past 12 months, I think we’ve made significant steps forward and if picking a more experienced lineup over a more experimental one delivers 4/4 for the AIs, I’ll be perfectly happy with that.
CCS is a big omission - ideally I’d have started him at 8. However, there is a question mark over his fitness so perhaps he isn’t quite up to it?
The backs are not exciting, but with the injuries to Lawrence, Freeman and Roebuck, the changes make sense.
Yes, a back line featuring Mitchell, Fin, Ojomoh and Arundell over Spencer, Ford, Slade and Daly is more exciting, but it’s also vastly less experienced. The lineup suggests to me that Borthwick sees picking up a clean sweep of wins as important, which I agree with.
I’m not a massive fan of Spencer, but if he’s going to play, he’s far better as a starter than as a sub. He and Ford worked well together in Argentina so I’m happy enough with that combination.
It’s a big game for AOF, but I think he’s up to it.
Ultimately, I feel like Borthwick should be getting more of the benefit of the doubt. In the past 12 months, I think we’ve made significant steps forward and if picking a more experienced lineup over a more experimental one delivers 4/4 for the AIs, I’ll be perfectly happy with that.
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2016
- Messages
- 5,664
- Reaction score
- 2,578
CCS is the only one I really dont understand, if not injured, in our fast paced attack his power is noticeable and he ability to smash people back in defence is also useful. But even if he empties the tank for 50 min he still is worth it IMO
The rest I agree and understand why he's done it even if I wouldn't have done it myself.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,861
- Reaction score
- 6,890
Agreed, and although I understand the backs selection in no sense is that a fantasy backline. It’s also aging a bit and IFW’s the only real pace. In theory it should be quite smart - we’ll see.
Forwards are obviously mostly decent. I think AOF will be fine - Arg aren’t the scrummaging powerhouse they were. If Dan gets a run he’ll have to nail his darts.
You never quite know which Arg will show up. But if we’re not on our game this has banana skin written all over it.
For me, the individual safety-first selections are all understandable, it's just that all combined, whilst still understandable, they're also uninspiring.
I absolutely agree that achieving a clean sweep this Autumn (and setting a new record for holding the Raeburn) is an absolutely valid target. But it feels like a switch from playing to win, to playing to not-lose - if that makes sense.
It also feels that we're giving Argentina more respect than we should / less faith in our own threat than we should.
We beat Argentina twice in Argentina with a severely weakened squad just a few months ago. Yes, they've I proved since then, that was the opening rounds of their season etc etc.
With the exception of AOF and Ford, all the changes that I wouldn't make feel like he's gone for the lower risk but much lower reward. (And I would have gone with AOF if I hadn't felt iI was suggesting enough changes already).
Also, yes, SB has earned some slack, but that doesn't mean we have to automatically agree with him on things. It's not like anyone's calling for his head as a result of this selection, or think it's not good enough to win. It's just... uninspiring, fearful, when we've earned the right to be more adventurous and be feared.
I absolutely agree that achieving a clean sweep this Autumn (and setting a new record for holding the Raeburn) is an absolutely valid target. But it feels like a switch from playing to win, to playing to not-lose - if that makes sense.
It also feels that we're giving Argentina more respect than we should / less faith in our own threat than we should.
We beat Argentina twice in Argentina with a severely weakened squad just a few months ago. Yes, they've I proved since then, that was the opening rounds of their season etc etc.
With the exception of AOF and Ford, all the changes that I wouldn't make feel like he's gone for the lower risk but much lower reward. (And I would have gone with AOF if I hadn't felt iI was suggesting enough changes already).
Also, yes, SB has earned some slack, but that doesn't mean we have to automatically agree with him on things. It's not like anyone's calling for his head as a result of this selection, or think it's not good enough to win. It's just... uninspiring, fearful, when we've earned the right to be more adventurous and be feared.
Agree, i think we'll show much of the same.
High balls to Steward on the wing, competing and winning it with the back row putting pressure on to secure ball etc.
But Daly is a creative player, and i just hope we see him and Slade give IFW a few chances to really show what he can do.
We should be winning this. Arguably England have a better team than the touring side from the summer.
With the addition of a few of the Lions players I think we should be fine. England again have broken a few of the 1xv starters so it is what it is. Starting tempo is a minor concern. It's a good opportunity to see any gaps between starters and 2nd/3rd choice players.
With the addition of a few of the Lions players I think we should be fine. England again have broken a few of the 1xv starters so it is what it is. Starting tempo is a minor concern. It's a good opportunity to see any gaps between starters and 2nd/3rd choice players.
spartan32
Bench Player
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2015
- Messages
- 629
- Reaction score
- 265
I’m still struggling to get my head around this team sheet. I thought SB was looking to play a ball carrying outside centre (OL/Freeman/Ojomoh) so why has he picked a player that doesn’t do that in Slade when Ojomoh who does exactly that gets binned? But then he obsessively maintains the kick chase wing by using Steward who isn’t a wing to cover that option. Why not just trust Arundell and keep Steward at 15? Or if you don’t trust Steward put Daly at 15 and Arundell on the wing?
I also don’t get the 6:2 bench again. I know it’s consistent, and it appears to work for us so far, but surely this was opportunity to give more of the backs a run out?
I’m confident we can still win, and on the plus side having Slade at OC should mean IFW actually gets some decent ball to work with, but it just feels like a missed opportunity.
I also don’t get the 6:2 bench again. I know it’s consistent, and it appears to work for us so far, but surely this was opportunity to give more of the backs a run out?
I’m confident we can still win, and on the plus side having Slade at OC should mean IFW actually gets some decent ball to work with, but it just feels like a missed opportunity.
I normally would like 6.2 bench its worked but I question this one. Simply down to the fact Slade/Daly both mid 30s and 1st game back from big injury in months with no cover is very risky. I know Steward can cover wing with Pollock/Earl covering the centres but still I think Earl/Pepper can last a full 80 so I think you could leave a back row off the bench for another utility back.
Last edited:
Pollock covering the centres?
Is everyone smoking crack again? Can I have some?
Is everyone smoking crack again? Can I have some?
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,861
- Reaction score
- 6,890
I think this is quite a big game for Dingwall.
He went OK last week, but it’s pretty easy for everyone to get up for the ABs, even if they’re more the Faded Greys at the moment.
He’ll seldom be spectacular, but this is the sort of game where we’ll want to see him absolutely rock solid, error free and showing the kind of communication and leadership skills he apparently has. There are no Saints around to be a comfort blanket (and only Mitchell last week), so how he goes here might be quite telling.
He went OK last week, but it’s pretty easy for everyone to get up for the ABs, even if they’re more the Faded Greys at the moment.
He’ll seldom be spectacular, but this is the sort of game where we’ll want to see him absolutely rock solid, error free and showing the kind of communication and leadership skills he apparently has. There are no Saints around to be a comfort blanket (and only Mitchell last week), so how he goes here might be quite telling.
He also doesnt have the power of Lawrence alongside him, Slade is a very different partner in the midfield
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2012
- Messages
- 5,596
- Reaction score
- 5,424
True. Although Argentina also have a better lineup than they did in the summer.
I think it’ll be a professional rather than overly entertaining game but our games against them are usually a good watch so I’m looking forward to it.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,861
- Reaction score
- 6,890
Henceforth I am a Pumas fan. Didn’t quite realise how sacrosanct the amateur game was or the depth of links for the players back to their clubs. That’s the soul of rugby that everyone else is busy losing.
Vamos Los Pumas!
Vamos Los Pumas!
Changes vs my suggested team:
Genge > Baxter - no problem - I just liked the impact that bringing on the entire first choice front row made
AOF > Heyes - no problem
Earl > CCS - this was more to give Earl a break, as one of two lions who've started every match
Ford > FSmith - not a problem, but safety first - I just wanted to continue Fin's development as an international
Slade > Ojomoh - safety first, and done to death - I've given up on Slade as an international player; and feel that some both under-rate Ojomoh, and are self-contradictory with what qualifies someone to play OC (15 for Freeman is more than enough, 21 for Ojomoh isn't enough; seeing Dingwall as an IC-only despite 2/3 of his game time at OC, or Lawrence as an IC without ever playing there)
Daly > Arundell - safety first - which is an odd thing to say when starting a 33 year old centre/FB on the wing for his first game in 5 months
Dan > Blamire - is fair enough - and again, done to death - I've kinda given up on Dan as an international player, SB hasn't
Ewels > Isiekwe/CCS - safety first - no problem with Ewels per se, but it loses us flexibility, and I was liking the idea of asking Itoje and Coles to go 80 and bring on a full backrow if injury/fatigue allowed - still seems harsh to kick CCS out entirely
Mitchel > Quirke - as with Earl, I was wanting to give our lions a break. No particular problem with 20 minutes off the bench being a mini-break though.
Genge > Baxter - no problem - I just liked the impact that bringing on the entire first choice front row made
AOF > Heyes - no problem
Earl > CCS - this was more to give Earl a break, as one of two lions who've started every match
Ford > FSmith - not a problem, but safety first - I just wanted to continue Fin's development as an international
Slade > Ojomoh - safety first, and done to death - I've given up on Slade as an international player; and feel that some both under-rate Ojomoh, and are self-contradictory with what qualifies someone to play OC (15 for Freeman is more than enough, 21 for Ojomoh isn't enough; seeing Dingwall as an IC-only despite 2/3 of his game time at OC, or Lawrence as an IC without ever playing there)
Daly > Arundell - safety first - which is an odd thing to say when starting a 33 year old centre/FB on the wing for his first game in 5 months
Dan > Blamire - is fair enough - and again, done to death - I've kinda given up on Dan as an international player, SB hasn't
Ewels > Isiekwe/CCS - safety first - no problem with Ewels per se, but it loses us flexibility, and I was liking the idea of asking Itoje and Coles to go 80 and bring on a full backrow if injury/fatigue allowed - still seems harsh to kick CCS out entirely
Mitchel > Quirke - as with Earl, I was wanting to give our lions a break. No particular problem with 20 minutes off the bench being a mini-break though.
This is probably my biggest concern really.
Jamie George isnt the force he once was, LCD is playing with one shoulder at 70%. So thats both our top two hookers below 100 %
Blamire will NEVER be an international hooker due to his throwing issues.
Dan is well...not showing up as many hoped.
That leaves us with...Tuipolotu whos only just starting to challenge for a spot in the Bath team let alone England.
What is the issue with Langdon, Seb Blake etc that they have barely been looked at?
I still rue that Barbeary didnt stick with hooker.
