England’s tour to Australia thread

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Got to wonder would England have lost if they had Wigglesworth, Freddie Burns and Chris Ashton starting?

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Eddie Jones talks a load of ****, he's always been the same so I don't pay attention too much to what he says. It's on the pitch though England have just looked lacklustre. I agree that he's world cup final probably give's him the credit in the bank to have another shot. I thought Smith looked a bit aimless and chose the wrong option a number of times on the weekend. He's still relatively new to test rugby for a 10 so I expect him to improve although you would expect that Care and Farrell should be helping to run the game.

Smith was always going to go through some bumpy periods as he learned the international ropes. If he's our man we have to stick with him through those. He'll better for it.

But Farrell's just not the right foil.

 

[MikeTheNative]

Smith was always going to go through some bumpy periods as he learned the international ropes. If he's our man we have to stick with him through those. He'll better for it.

But Farrell's just not the right foil.

I do agree that Smith should be the choice going forward for 10, point was Care and Farrell picked for their experience either side of him but didn't seem to work.
What do England fans think of Cokanasiga?
I just don't get it. You get one great run out of him then proceed to not see him many any impact with the ball and/or get beaten in defence a lot.

 

[Reiser99]

What do England fans think of Cokanasiga?
I just don't get it. You get one great run out of him then proceed to not see him many any impact with the ball and/or get beaten in defence a lot.

I think that he is a bit overrated and is being picked mainly for his size and power. Too often he is weak either defensively or in the air and has shown numerous times to make the wrong choice after a line break. Having said that, he shouldn't have been picked in the first place and should have stayed home to rest and prepare for next season after having so much time off. On top England's ability to get the ball to the wings in space is atrocious, so like most players he's being asked to do a job that doesn't match his position. If EJ wants to use his as a power player equivalent to Manu, then he needs to be at centre.

Simply I don't think he's good enough right now, but he's also being given a **** hand.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I do agree that Smith should be the choice going forward for 10, point was Care and Farrell picked for their experience either side of him but didn't seem to work.
What do England fans think of Cokanasiga?
I just don't get it. You get one great run out of him then proceed to not see him many any impact with the ball and/or get beaten in defence a lot.

Coka is another example of a player with great physical attributes but next to no rugby intelligence. His positioning and decision making are frequently off. I'd like to see how he performs after being in a team that can properly coach him, because he definitely isn't getting that at Bath or England.

In the last game he rarely saw the ball on the wing and when he came infield it was often running a forwards line into traffic. I'd say he is one to keep an eye on because of how powerful he could be but he needs to improve many aspects of his game, simple hard running isn't enough. Get him in Chiefs, Sarries or Tigers and see how he performs as part of a well-oiled machine with a defined role but I wouldn't say he is deserving of his spot ATM.

A combination of injury, an underperforming Bath team and an underperforming England have not helped his case as I think he is a player who can exploit situations the team as a whole have created rather than creating them himself.

 

[BPM]

Way too early to drop the Smith-Farrell axis.
Besides, however much people say "Eddie's just using stop-gaps until Manu is fit" - he's built his England set-up around have an ersatz 10 at IC; if Manu is fit and in form, he'd slot in at 13.

If we're breaking up Smith-Farrell, then it's either Ford-Farrell or Ford/Farrell - Slade; or we need to find another ersatz 10 to play the IC role.
Which isn't Dingwall, or Porter.


As for Coka, not sure what he's supposed to have done wrong this weekend; or why he seems to be a favourite hate-figure for England fans this summer.
He's far from a joke, everyone seems to have forgotten that he's pretty damned quick, and can do things no other contender for England can do.
He's not likely to ever become one of rugby's great thinkers - but then, nor is May (and that much was obvious by the time he was 12); but he's far, far from a joke, and anyone should be able to see why any professional coach would LOVE to get their hands on him, and any of them SHOULD have the confidence that they can turn his form around.

None of which is to say that he's in this squad on form - he's coming back from physical and mental problems, and needs to show form at club level first; but he absolutley doesn't deserve a lot of the criticism he's been getting the last few weeks.

On Cokanasiga specifically, I questioned whether he is a 'good rugby player' based upon what I feel the weaknesses in his game are.

Having a true feel for the game is something you have or you don't so it's not his fault if that doesn't come to him completely naturally. He seems to have a good attitude, so I have no reason to believe he's not actively trying to work on the areas he needs to improve.

I think a lot of the criticism comes from the POV that he is judged by different standards to other players. I agree with this, but at the same time, I acknowledge that he doesn't pick himself.

Only one poster called him 'a joke'. No prizes for guessing who.

 

[RedruthRFC]

Hair pulling, though, is categorically a red card offence (on the less serious end of the spectrum). I don't see how the ref can determine otherwise except that he doesn't know the rule. Low end is a two week ban: https://www.world.rugby/organisation/governance/regulations/reg-17/appendix-1.

Now - you can forgive a ref missing it in the heat of the moment. Its impossible to expect them to get them all right (my biggest issue with cards period - an impossible system to apply equitably) but the judiciary failing to cite him is a serious structural issue. There are even recent examples of bans being issued for hair pulling (Creevy, for example).

This has long been one of my soap box rugby subjects. I can't see why so few people can see what a joke it makes of the sport and how much harder it makes it for the sport to attract new supporters in significant numbers.
I have sypmathy for the referee missing this, but absolutely none for the team of four. To me, examining how palpable mistakes like this happen would lead to positive change in the future. To me, it has to be one of:

- TMO failed to spot it
- TMO doesn't understand the gravty, so failed to report it to the referee
- Referee received the report, but doesn't understand the gravity of the offence

I'm not sure if it was during this incident, but I do remember at some point in the game wishing for Wayne Barnes' level of clarity of communication from the ref.

I completely agree that the lack of a citing is a sign of an even more systematic failure. I don't know if it's that citing officers are told to be conservative to avoid highlighting how many offences that match official teams miss or to avoid high numbers of bans or whether they don't understand the laws of the game.

Also, I would suggest that the concept of "interpretations" needs to be scrapped straight away. It's all too often that referees are lauded for contravening the law book as a result of "interpretations" that only those within the game are party to. How can anyone think that this going to do anything other than discourage interaction with the game?

 

[Eleutherarch]

From what I've seen of Cokanasiga, it is a problem of versatility. I just don't think the sole credentials of "jeez he's a big unit" cuts it anymore. There are always those players that can read things in real time, fluidly and instinctively reacting in a perfect manner. Those are the world class players. But a base positional awareness and anticipatory action is essential at test match level. He's just not proactive.

You guys have gotta give the Smith-Farrell axis a chance to bed in btw. It was far from a bad performance (see Elton Jantjies for a case study on nightmares at 10). There were some generally interesting passages of play with some decent ideas. For all the complaints I've read about chopping and changing, I'm surprised there are those that won't give this pairing a chance to see where it goes. On field relationships take time to build. I'm not saying that they'll ever reach Matfield/Bakkies or Smith/Nonu levels of cohesion but give them a chance. Those guys had ages to build that sort of telepathy.

 

[Derpus]

Anyway, on to more positive things. Like this:

 

[ncurd]

I don't know if it's that citing officers are told to be conservative to avoid highlighting how many offences that match official teams miss or to avoid high numbers of bans or whether they don't understand the laws of the game.

I've long felt the real issue here is citing officers only give them out for absolute certainties rather than more explorative ones where they might fail to convict. This leads to lots of stuff being 'missed'. I'm also not a fan of the ref dealt with it so we can't have a second look post game.

 

[BPM]

From what I've seen of Cokanasiga, it is a problem of versatility. I just don't think the sole credentials of "jeez he's a big unit" cuts it anymore. There are always those players that can read things in real time, fluidly and instinctively reacting in a perfect manner. Those are the world class players. But a base positional awareness and anticipatory action is essential at test match level. He's just not proactive.

You guys have gotta give the Smith-Farrell axis a chance to bed in btw. It was far from a bad performance (see Elton Jantjies for a case study on nightmares at 10). There were some generally interesting passages of play with some decent ideas. For all the complaints I've read about chopping and changing, I'm surprised there are those that won't give this pairing a chance to see where it goes. On field relationships take time to build. I'm not saying that they'll ever reach Matfield/Bakkies or Smith/Nonu levels of cohesion but give them a chance. Those guys had ages to build that sort of telepathy.

Well said.

A lot of people criticise Eddie Jones for 'chopping and changing' and then suggest chops and changes …

If there were obvious alternatives, there might be more of an argument to be had, but as I see it, the current suggestions of drafting in uncapped players who don't regularly play at 12 doesn't feel like a strong enough solution.

I'm not even sure that I'm ready to agree there's a problem with Smith/Farrell in the first place … it can and should get better with time. Canning it so soon for no clear gain would be odd.

 

[Eleutherarch]

This has long been one of my soap box rugby subjects. I can't see why so few people can see what a joke it makes of the sport and how much harder it makes it for the sport to attract new supporters in significant numbers.
I have sypmathy for the referee missing this, but absolutely none for the team of four. To me, examining how palpable mistakes like this happen would lead to positive change in the future. To me, it has to be one of:

- TMO failed to spot it
- TMO doesn't understand the gravty, so failed to report it to the referee
- Referee received the report, but doesn't understand the gravity of the offence

I'm not sure if it was during this incident, but I do remember at some point in the game wishing for Wayne Barnes' level of clarity of communication from the ref.

I completely agree that the lack of a citing is a sign of an even more systematic failure. I don't know if it's that citing officers are told to be conservative to avoid highlighting how many offences that match official teams miss or to avoid high numbers of bans or whether they don't understand the laws of the game.

Also, I would suggest that the concept of "interpretations" needs to be scrapped straight away. It's all too often that referees are lauded for contravening the law book as a result of "interpretations" that only those within the game are party to. How can anyone think that this going to do anything other than discourage interaction with the game?

I don't have much sympathy for the referee in this case as it happened directly in front of him. That said, maybe it was too far off in his peripheral field. But there is no excuse for the goddamn TMO. That is their ******* job. They have the luxury of multiple angles on several monitors with the ability to replay. So it shouldn't be missed and if it was, they were incompetent. If they decided against mentioning it, that is an egregious abuse of their responsibilities and they should be fired.

But for the citing panel? With that much time? I'm sorry but has me questioning the legitimacy of the institution. They can sod off with their "professionalism" and "concerns" for player welfare. It's nothing but a veneer and we should look at them with scorn.

I want consistency and accountability. For everyone from everywhere. That's it. Things get missed on-field in real time. It happens. But we must correct it retrospectively.

 

[RedruthRFC]

I've long felt the real issue here is citing officers only give them out for absolute certainties rather than more explorative ones where they might fail to convict. This leads to lots of stuff being 'missed'. I'm also not a fan of the ref dealt with it so we can't have a second look post game.

Good point, although in this instance, if the law book / sanctions list are followed, I don't see how anyone could argue that this is anything other than a nailed on, 100% missed red card and a citing.

Given the disruption that a citing brings to teams / players, I wouldn't want to see fatuous citings brought, but a very high percentage of success does suggest that there are bans slipping through the cracks.

 

[RedruthRFC]

But for the citing panel? With that much time? I'm sorry but has me questioning the legitimacy of the institution. They can sod off with their "professionalism" and "concerns" for player welfare. It's nothing but a veneer and we should look at them with scorn.

I want consistency and accountability. For everyone from everywhere. That's it. Things get missed on-field in real time. It happens. But we must correct it retrospectively.

If there's corruption, for me it's to facilitate WR short-termism. I think they'd rather brush incidents like this under the carpet to avoid the short-term embarrassment rather than taking the hit and eventually ending up with a game where these incidents are very rare.

In this particular instance, it's not a safety issue, but there are many previous instances where I would wholeheartedly agree with you.

 

[Geordie]

i havent seen the full game admittedly, only a few highlights, but did Johnny Hill actually have a decent game or was he as bad as i keep hearing.

I don't have much sympathy for the referee in this case as it happened directly in front of him. That said, maybe it was too far off in his peripheral field. But there is no excuse for the goddamn TMO. That is their ******* job.

I have a HUGE issue with TMO's these days. I dont know what videos or replays they are watching but some of their decisions defy belief!!

 

[Scotty]

With Curry out id really like to see Willis starting, nothing against Ludlam he has a great workrate but i just cant see him ever having a high enough ceiling. Where as weve all seen Willis on form for Wasps he is a very good all round player and great over the ball.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

i havent seen the full game admittedly, only a few highlights, but did Johnny Hill actually have a decent game or was he as bad as i keep hearing.

I have a HUGE issue with TMO's these days. I dont know what videos or replays they are watching but some of their decisions defy belief!!

I can't think of times I noticed him other than when he did the 2 handed face shove and the hair pulling incident. He is gaining a reputation as a guy who does completely pointless crap off the ball though and could be a liability if he doesn't sort it out, or at least becomes good enough to offset the occasional slap on the wrist. I don't seem him having the position secured at all if the younger locks put on a good show, he feels like a player simply filling in until someone better comes along. He has had better moments recently but still not really doing well enough IMO.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

On Cokanasiga specifically, I questioned whether he is a 'good rugby player' based upon what I feel the weaknesses in his game are.

Having a true feel for the game is something you have or you don't so it's not his fault if that doesn't come to him completely naturally. He seems to have a good attitude, so I have no reason to believe he's not actively trying to work on the areas he needs to improve.

I think a lot of the criticism comes from the POV that he is judged by different standards to other players. I agree with this, but at the same time, I acknowledge that he doesn't pick himself.

Only one poster called him 'a joke'. No prizes for guessing who.

Gold star for me lol

As an international wing he is a joke. I'm not sure he's a guaranteed starter at most premiership clubs to be honest.

 

[Scotty]

Anyone think we might end up with a Arundell Steward Freeman back three eventually? 2 solid runners in space with Arundell as the main attacking threat, all 3 are can play full back and good in the air. Can chop and change position for attack and defence because it think id rather see Arendall at 15 going forward to track the ball and Smith, with Steward back there as the solid defence under the high balls.

Freemans just unlucky not to have a shot as likely the most deserving of the wingers. Who i dont think did bad a FB vs the Baba's

 

[MikeTheNative]

Gold star for me lol

As an international wing he is a joke. I'm not sure he's a guaranteed starter at most premiership clubs to be honest.

He doesn't seem to play that much for Bath so that's really saying something.