Rugby - Six Nations, S14, Lions, Can't Wait

[finbar]

At least the Taffys weren't much better.

[kittenOFchaos]

The NZers toyed with the Welsh, it was a thoroughly depressing game that lacked any bite or energy.

The England game was useful in that the front row boys were promising and several players will have deselected themselves should nothing change in the next few games.

England will have Armitage at fullback, Banahan will be no-where near the squad and hopefully a real 12 when it comes around to the 6 Nations and World Cup.

[kittenOFchaos]

I take back nothing of what I said about Will Genia. Though I'll admit that's the best I've seen him play. He's hinted at it before, today he delivered.

He comes over really well too...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/8348557.stm

After the game I came to realise I didn't notice our scrum half at all that game...admittedly I was watching in Spanish using justin.tv.

The commentator was hilarious...Cooperrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrr

[finbar]

The ABs did a job on the Taffys. A calculated, professional job. A first half of territory control, taking out the sting; a second half in which they cranked up the pressure. And they weren't even at their best. That's the thing with the ABs. They can change tactics, change gears. That's how they beat the Wallabies in the Tri Nations. Typically, the Wallabies would lead at half time. The ABs would change gear, crank up the pressure and swarm. The Taffys should think themselves lucky the ABs weren't at their best.

The booing of Carter was pathetic. Yes, it was a high tackle. There was no malice. Penalty. Gatland is blaming the officials for the loss. He's in the same state of denial as J****.

Matt Banahan, per se, isn't the problem. The problem is that he's not being used properly. At Bath, he's frequently used as a decoy. He distracts defenders. All part of an attacking mix. Now there's a world of difference between club and international defences, but England still display no attacking strategy, no guile - no plan to break down a defence, as Havak says. They do one of two things: inside ball to someone like Hipkiss to crash into the defence; or hand it to a pod of forwards to burrow a couple of yards past a breakdown. Nothing that will bother a half-decent international defence.

For starters, you can't threaten a defence from as deep as Wilko and Geraghty were playing. On the couple of occasions that Wilko was on the gain line, he found holes. Giteau and Cooper were always somewhere near the gain line. That's what creates doubts for a defence. They also, obviously, had better, sharper service from Genia than Care offered. It's how Geraghty caused so many problems for Munster. He can do it against serious opposition. It's simply bizarre that Brian Smith, who used these fundamental attacking tactics successfully in club rugby, can't - or, perhaps, isn't allowed to - drill them into the England team. J**** can't think beyond 10-man rugby, and the chances of him or any of his staff walking the plank seem remote.

I despair. Trouble is, the Argies are missing their best playmakers, so they're probably not going to threaten sufficiently. England's 10-man rugby will probably see them through and the delusion will continue.

[kittenOFchaos]

Watching the extended highlights on BBC, it is a good reminder that the English played well in the first half. They didn't convert their pressure well however and let past a soft try, but that half was won, and won well. In the first period, Banahan and Geraghty didn't look bad at all...that came later.

[finbar]

Well, they had territory and possession in the first half, but nothing came of it. As you say. The Wallaby lineout was also worse than crap, handing England possession on a plate. It's been crap for months. Regardless, even in the first half, the Wallabies always looked dangerous. England never really did. One of their fundamental problems. The SH teams can and will attack from anywhere. They practise it, they rehearse it. England doesn't seem to.

[kittenOFchaos]

Well, they had territory and possession in the first half, but nothing came of it. As you say. The Wallaby lineout was also worse than crap, handing England possession on a plate. It's been crap for months. Regardless, even in the first half, the Wallabies always looked dangerous. England never really did. One of their fundamental problems. The SH teams can and will attack from anywhere. They practise it, they rehearse it. England doesn't seem to.

We practice running sideways and doing miss-passes, we're getting good at it.

[Havak]

Well that is true certainly.

You need to look deeper than the possession in the first half. Rugby isn't just about having the ball, it's about using it and we get that part badly wrong. Two Wilko penalties and a drop goal wasn't sufficient return for the possession.

The game was summed up when with 15 mins left Wilko had a put at a drop when we finally had good field position - he didn't back his side for any other option.

We crab across the field, we excel in slow ball, we always look for contact not space, we kick the ball away hoping the oppo will make mistakes (and against tri-nations sides that has proved futile time and time again so why do it?). The fundamental approach is wrong.

But as Finbar says if the Pumas are understrength we could win and the cracks are papered over for one more week - but even a misfiring AB side will destroy an England that plays like that. The only chance againt the ABs is to compete hard at the breakdown - the way Wales could not - and England can possibly do that but what will it matter if they don't know what to do with the pill when they do have it?

And if Ben Youngs has concentration problems I wouldn't mind having them too. He should be in Care's shirt, no doubt about that.

[finbar]

Go here: http://apolyton.net/forums/newthread...ewthread&f=305