• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Is English rugby too conservative?

Ragey Erasmus

Hall of Fame
TRF Legend
Joined
Sep 20, 2011
Messages
11,299
Country Flag
England
Club or Nation
Bath
I've found it interesting watching how English clubs play compared to particularly the Pro 14 and how the English team has played compared to Ireland and Scotland. It seems we are stuck in a old mentality of one out passes to forwards hoping to bash our way over the gain line before releasing the backs, regardless of if there is already space our wide to be exploited. It seems the national team and many clubs are stuck just going through the motions and seem overcoached, they stick to the script and don't play heads up rugby.

It also seems that the way the laws are being applied now and the way the game is naturally going, this style of rugby is being left in the past in the same way Warrenball was. The blitz defence is being found out by passes out the back to backs running at speed hitting the dog legs or going wide. When a blitz rushes up but doesn't meet a player with the ball, it becomes very ineffective as the player is just left standing in no mans land with no proper defence formed up. It's a defence designed to counter the style of play used by England and English clubs where you expect one out passes to forwards running into contact.

So do people think English rugby as a whole is getting stuck in the past and still clinging too much to 10 man stuff it up the jumper play and "right to go wide" or are there other reasons beyond fatigue for the drastic decline in English rugby at both club and country level in the last year or 2?
 
I don't know mate, I just don't view punching holes upfront before releasing the backs as conservative rugby. Conservative rugby to me is Saracens from 5 years ago, kicking possession away unless you're basically in the opposition 22 and trying to win through penalties. Of the 6N teams only Scotland are notably less conservative, but honestly I think their play style will lose them more matches than it wins. England just lacked the players to play the usual style and Eddie decided to shoehorn players in rather than adjust the tactics. If anything I would've preferred more one out passes instead of constantly passing behind a completely unconvincing pod of 'decoy' forwards to get it wide quickly.

Obviously we could be more adventurous, but we could also be a hell of a lot more conservative. Our LH can't scrum for **** but he's still in the team because his handling is absolutely sublime. We play someone's teenage son at 10 alongside a 12 with poor running/tacking purely to play with width. A conservative setup would also probably not even consider using May on the wing or Watson at FB.

In the club game Exeter can be boring as **** but Saracens, Wasps and Newcastle are all exciting, heads-up style teams. Below them Tigers have shifted (too far I'd say) from a forward, set-piece orientated team to an attacking one and both Gloucester and Sale play to outscore the opposition rather than stifle them. Tbh I think you need to go all the way down to Irish to find a team which is truly risk-averse.

We're just a bit **** this year - partly because our refs are quick to penalise poachers for simply looking at the ball while simultaneously allowing the attacking team to fly into the ruck like a ******* missile, leading to the breakdown being ignored because it's just not worth it.
 
I think we've moved too far away from specialists - at the international level at least, which then trickles down as players modify their game to try and fit into the England set up.

Sarries battered at the scrum and maul yesterday - how often did that used to happen?
Teams want their packs to be 8 flankers, they don't want tight forwards who do the unseen dirty work.
Commentary wax lyrical about the passing game of front rowers but then ignore that they're getting shoved back at scrum time.
 
I don't know mate, I just don't view punching holes upfront before releasing the backs as conservative rugby.

That depends... "punching holes" implies you're actually carrying with venom, not standing still and trying to get to ground as quickly as possible to avoid being turned over.
 
I don't know mate, I just don't view punching holes upfront before releasing the backs as conservative rugby. Conservative rugby to me is Saracens from 5 years ago, kicking possession away unless you're basically in the opposition 22 and trying to win through penalties. Of the 6N teams only Scotland are notably less conservative, but honestly I think their play style will lose them more matches than it wins. England just lacked the players to play the usual style and Eddie decided to shoehorn players in rather than adjust the tactics. If anything I would've preferred more one out passes instead of constantly passing behind a completely unconvincing pod of 'decoy' forwards to get it wide quickly.

Obviously we could be more adventurous, but we could also be a hell of a lot more conservative. Our LH can't scrum for **** but he's still in the team because his handling is absolutely sublime. We play someone's teenage son at 10 alongside a 12 with poor running/tacking purely to play with width. A conservative setup would also probably not even consider using May on the wing or Watson at FB.

In the club game Exeter can be boring as **** but Saracens, Wasps and Newcastle are all exciting, heads-up style teams. Below them Tigers have shifted (too far I'd say) from a forward, set-piece orientated team to an attacking one and both Gloucester and Sale play to outscore the opposition rather than stifle them. Tbh I think you need to go all the way down to Irish to find a team which is truly risk-averse.

We're just a bit **** this year - partly because our refs are quick to penalise poachers for simply looking at the ball while simultaneously allowing the attacking team to fly into the ruck like a ******* missile, leading to the breakdown being ignored because it's just not worth it.

I agree with a fair bit of this.

England been very poor, but I would say it's more to do with poor execution and decision-making rather than conservative tactics.

Eddie's pod system hasn't worked but actually I believe the intention was to commit one less player to each ruck to allow an extra player for the next phase. This suggests that there is an intention to provide more attacking options and build momentum through quick phases, but there are a combination of reasons it hasn't worked. At a top level, I'd break it down in to three main factors that are mainly in our control. Firstly, our players have lacked the necessary aggression and accuracy on the clear out. Secondly, they've been too slow to react when the system hasn't worked. Thirdly, they've failed to adapt to different interpretations of the ruck from different referees. It's obvious to me that other coaches/teams have worked us out and are able to negate Eddie's tactics. Clearly what the opposition's coaches do is not in our control. However, I do think there's an argument to say that we are predictable and easy to work out and it is absolutely Eddie's job to make us less so and keep the opposition guessing.

At a club level, I think Fuzzy is spot on. There is something to admire in Exeter's ability to retain possession phase after phase, but it's not sexy attacking rugby ... That said, I think the majority of AP clubs do play with ambition rather than taking an overly conservative approach.

Also, what are you comparing us to? Scotland play attractive, attacking rugby, but they're not without fault. Ireland have only just started playing some nice rugby. Until recently, Schmidt's copped a decent amount of criticism for being overly formulaic and conservative. Similarly, Gatland flirted with the idea of playing more expansively and then shelved it as soon as Biggar was fit.

Glasgow, Leinster and Scarlets play nice, ambitious, attack-minded rugby, but I wouldn't have said the rest of the Pro14 teams do. Munster have some nice moments, but not as consistently IMO.
 
I don't think Ireland or Leinster are doing anything spectacular. Its just good basics like handling skills and the gameplan is based on a lot of physicality although things have moved on this season from last season. Scotland and Wales are playing more inventive rugby, inspired by Glasgow and the Scarlets.


I don't think Munster are too pretty to watch. They can play a bit in patches but the attack isn't that fluid.


From an outside perspective I think England pick the wrong players. The 2 best attacking English backs I have seen in the champions cup this season are Ashton and the Exeter center Slade. Te'o is ordinary at international level because he isn't dominating physically. Ford and Farrell are a good combination.
 
Where to start?

I don't think we're too conservative, but I do think there's a wide inability to flex styles as a game unfolds. Can't prove it, but gut reaction's that coaching's too prescriptive.

The breakdown's been done to death on here, but the shortcomings there are massive.

To the naked eye, the Irish in particular are a lot more aggressive with ball in hand, at the tackle and in the subsequent breakdown. Rats used a good word "venom". We just seem too nice. Look at the difference Underhill made against Scotland, just by hitting hard - its not rocket science and frankly should be a given. The likes of Genge, LCD, Sinckler, flavour of the weekend Attwood, can all do that so there is hope. Loz although not the biggest runs really aggressively at space in a way that the Faz / Ford combo doesn't.

As for earning the "right to go wide", rugby's still all about finding space. If you're playing sprinters like Joseph, May, Watson and Daly you need to create the space for them, its going to be rare that they conjure something up in heavy traffic. Different dynamic with a Manu or a Cokanasiga who might be able to break tackles. But it doesn't really matter who the backs are if the pack's not on the front foot.

As for Olyy's post, I couldn't agree more. Would Eng be a better team with the Georgian front row?
 
Where to start?

I don't think we're too conservative, but I do think there's a wide inability to flex styles as a game unfolds. Can't prove it, but gut reaction's that coaching's too prescriptive.

The breakdown's been done to death on here, but the shortcomings there are massive.

To the naked eye, the Irish in particular are a lot more aggressive with ball in hand, at the tackle and in the subsequent breakdown. Rats used a good word "venom". We just seem too nice. Look at the difference Underhill made against Scotland, just by hitting hard - its not rocket science and frankly should be a given. The likes of Genge, LCD, Sinckler, flavour of the weekend Attwood, can all do that so there is hope. Loz although not the biggest runs really aggressively at space in a way that the Faz / Ford combo doesn't.

As for earning the "right to go wide", rugby's still all about finding space. If you're playing sprinters like Joseph, May, Watson and Daly you need to create the space for them, its going to be rare that they conjure something up in heavy traffic. Different dynamic with a Manu or a Cokanasiga who might be able to break tackles. But it doesn't really matter who the backs are if the pack's not on the front foot.

As for Olyy's post, I couldn't agree more. Would Eng be a better team with the Georgian front row?
To be fair I think every team would be better with the Georgian front row.
 
Selection is too safe IMO for alot of clubs.

Also more clubs need to invest in their pitches more for Winter rugby, every year start and end of season = great attacking rugby, now you can't control the weather but you can control the pitches.
 
Selection is too safe IMO for alot of clubs.

Also more clubs need to invest in their pitches more for Winter rugby, every year start and end of season = great attacking rugby, now you can't control the weather but you can control the pitches.

I think the weather is more important than the pitch quality, tbh.

Comfortable temperatures and bright sunlight directly contribute to more expansive rugby and better handling.
 
I think the main issue other than fatigue is how its reffed in the prem compared to internationals, European and pro14.
 
the irish are ahead of everyone now.....they arent great in the backs just solid and good in the aerial game...up front though theyre playing the modern way ball handling mobiles and intelligence. the english back line has looked wooden for a while imo and the irish have the extra advantage all their players play together week in week out...id also add the english back row is a mess with no specialist at all
 
Selection is too safe IMO for alot of clubs.

Also more clubs need to invest in their pitches more for Winter rugby, every year start and end of season = great attacking rugby, now you can't control the weather but you can control the pitches.

On the safe selections as people have highlighted we have lots of good younger players who make an impact at junior level and then don't get lots of opportunities. It's changing slowly, but some players need more chances than Anglo-Welsh Cup and a few sub appearances.
 

Latest posts

Top