Six Nations 2018
Discussion
Kermit power said:
The Mad Monk said:
That's interesting. They called it in the commentary at the time, but when the ref asked them what the handbags was all about, both Wilson and Hughes just shuffled their feet, looked down at the ground and said "I don't know, Sir!" 
It will be interesting to see how this one plays out - https://twitter.com/bbcrugbyunion/status/967453534...
There was brief hand contact to the face beside the eye - but does being throttled offer any form of mitigation?
There was brief hand contact to the face beside the eye - but does being throttled offer any form of mitigation?
DocJock said:
According to the Edinburgh Evening News, Wilson was giving Ford some verbals and Farrell waded in to 'defend' his mate.
eta: They may be slightly biased though...
I meant what started the cited fracas with Hughes on pitch, rather than the incident in the tunnel. I was expecting the ref to send the TMO back through the footage to find out what caused it, but as he didn't even ping it, we never got to find out.eta: They may be slightly biased though...
Quality performance by Scotland.
What I got pissed off by ans and English fan was
1.) Johnson at the start was clear on the intensity needed. This means smashing every contact for the first 20
2.) Scotland, when playing well, have always had a good ball killing/turnover backrow
3.) Scotland's backrow was not picked to have 1v1 confrontations, it was picked to kill/turnover ball
after the first 10mins it was clear that England was not loading the breakdown, so kept losing the ball (killed/turnover/penalty). I said at the time (shouted with expletives) unless they started smashing the contest point, they would lose.
England showed every sign of being an over-coached bunch of gym meatheads by not being able to realise this on the pitch.
One of Jonny May's breaks being a great example, he made a break with good position, but you had 3 front 5(maybe plus a backrow) within 10m watching whilst the Scots counter rucked well, and the ball was lost.
Scotland played well to win, England were dumb to allow them to play that well. Nigel Owens was irrelevant to the result.
What I got pissed off by ans and English fan was
1.) Johnson at the start was clear on the intensity needed. This means smashing every contact for the first 20
2.) Scotland, when playing well, have always had a good ball killing/turnover backrow
3.) Scotland's backrow was not picked to have 1v1 confrontations, it was picked to kill/turnover ball
after the first 10mins it was clear that England was not loading the breakdown, so kept losing the ball (killed/turnover/penalty). I said at the time (shouted with expletives) unless they started smashing the contest point, they would lose.
England showed every sign of being an over-coached bunch of gym meatheads by not being able to realise this on the pitch.
One of Jonny May's breaks being a great example, he made a break with good position, but you had 3 front 5(maybe plus a backrow) within 10m watching whilst the Scots counter rucked well, and the ball was lost.
Scotland played well to win, England were dumb to allow them to play that well. Nigel Owens was irrelevant to the result.
wsurfa said:
Quality performance by Scotland.
What I got pissed off by ans and English fan was
1.) Johnson at the start was clear on the intensity needed. This means smashing every contact for the first 20
2.) Scotland, when playing well, have always had a good ball killing/turnover backrow
3.) Scotland's backrow was not picked to have 1v1 confrontations, it was picked to kill/turnover ball
after the first 10mins it was clear that England was not loading the breakdown, so kept losing the ball (killed/turnover/penalty). I said at the time (shouted with expletives) unless they started smashing the contest point, they would lose.
England showed every sign of being an over-coached bunch of gym meatheads by not being able to realise this on the pitch.
One of Jonny May's breaks being a great example, he made a break with good position, but you had 3 front 5(maybe plus a backrow) within 10m watching whilst the Scots counter rucked well, and the ball was lost.
Scotland played well to win, England were dumb to allow them to play that well. Nigel Owens was irrelevant to the result.
I completely agree, and I absolutely don't understand it.What I got pissed off by ans and English fan was
1.) Johnson at the start was clear on the intensity needed. This means smashing every contact for the first 20
2.) Scotland, when playing well, have always had a good ball killing/turnover backrow
3.) Scotland's backrow was not picked to have 1v1 confrontations, it was picked to kill/turnover ball
after the first 10mins it was clear that England was not loading the breakdown, so kept losing the ball (killed/turnover/penalty). I said at the time (shouted with expletives) unless they started smashing the contest point, they would lose.
England showed every sign of being an over-coached bunch of gym meatheads by not being able to realise this on the pitch.
One of Jonny May's breaks being a great example, he made a break with good position, but you had 3 front 5(maybe plus a backrow) within 10m watching whilst the Scots counter rucked well, and the ball was lost.
Scotland played well to win, England were dumb to allow them to play that well. Nigel Owens was irrelevant to the result.
If I (pinnacle of rugby experience coaching U10s) can look at all those forwards just standing there wondering why the hell they don't hit the ruck after Barclay has turned over the first couple, why on earth can't any of the England team?
ninja-lewis said:
Awesome!Robbo66 said:
Derek, now come on. Not again.
He’s the best ref in the Tournament. Wholly unbiased, and is recognised as such by his peers.
England lost at the breakdown. Scotland played better in most areas and stifled England. They didn’t play ‘badly’ as quoted ....they weren’t allowed to play.
Can’t stand it when a supporter of a team state their team played ‘badly’ when they have simply been ‘outplayed’. Wholly disingenuous. It’s not oikball.
All I said was that the ref did us no favours, and this from a review of various breakdowns. If you'd wanted to talk about them I'd have been more than happy to.He’s the best ref in the Tournament. Wholly unbiased, and is recognised as such by his peers.
England lost at the breakdown. Scotland played better in most areas and stifled England. They didn’t play ‘badly’ as quoted ....they weren’t allowed to play.
Can’t stand it when a supporter of a team state their team played ‘badly’ when they have simply been ‘outplayed’. Wholly disingenuous. It’s not oikball.
I said that Scotland played well and England played badly. I'm not sure why that should upset you. England did play badly as posters other than me have pointed out. They did not do the basics well. I'd suggest any team that does not protect the ball in the ruck is playing badly. You yourself say they lost the ball at the breakdown.
Owen has got a well deserved reputation for managing matches. He's earned it. I have nothing but praise for his abilities in this respect. His method of control has been copied by other refs. There's no greater tribute than that. However, that doesn't make him infallible. That doesn't mean his performance is invariable.
I reported what I saw after looking through the recording. He did miss two critical knock-ons and one that was near the midway line. I am not being disingenuous. The coach I spoke to saw it real time. I saw one. Then I went through the match and saw the others.
Owen is good but he's not the messiah.
You say that Owens is unbiased. OK. I don't think anyone, least of all me, has suggested anything to the contrary.
As I say, If you'd asked about what I'd seen on the review I'd have been more than happy to talk about it.
Robbo66 said:
England lost at the breakdown. Scotland played better in most areas and stifled England. They didn’t play ‘badly’ as quoted ....they weren’t allowed to play.
Can’t stand it when a supporter of a team state their team played ‘badly’ when they have simply been ‘outplayed’. Wholly disingenuous. It’s not oikball.
I'd disagree with you there.Can’t stand it when a supporter of a team state their team played ‘badly’ when they have simply been ‘outplayed’. Wholly disingenuous. It’s not oikball.
If Scotland had been playing someone like Romania or Canada then I think you would be right in saying they had outplayed them, as even if they were playing at their very best, they wouldn't have been able to counter the efforts of Barclay in particular.
For Scotland to not let England play, on the other hand, does need England to play badly. That's not a criticism of Scotland in any way. It's simply that a team with the resources of the Scots (especially with their current front row injuries) simply shouldn't be in a position to be able to prevent a team with the resources of the English from playing the game. If they were in that position consistently, they'd be 2nd in the World, and England would be 5th.
Did Scotland go into that match with an excellent game plan? Yes. Did they execute against it? Absolutely. Up to that point, it's all about Scotland.
Should England have failed to either detect or adapt to the Scottish game plan? No. For a team with ambitions to be the best in the World, they shouldn't, and to have done so means they played badly.
The record in the Calcutta Cup over the last couple of decades really does serve to confirm that for Scotland to win, it takes a bit both of them playing superbly and England playing poorly, and this is what we saw at the weekend.
Kermit power said:
Robbo66 said:
England lost at the breakdown. Scotland played better in most areas and stifled England. They didn’t play ‘badly’ as quoted ....they weren’t allowed to play.
Can’t stand it when a supporter of a team state their team played ‘badly’ when they have simply been ‘outplayed’. Wholly disingenuous. It’s not oikball.
I'd disagree with you there.Can’t stand it when a supporter of a team state their team played ‘badly’ when they have simply been ‘outplayed’. Wholly disingenuous. It’s not oikball.
If Scotland had been playing someone like Romania or Canada then I think you would be right in saying they had outplayed them, as even if they were playing at their very best, they wouldn't have been able to counter the efforts of Barclay in particular.
For Scotland to not let England play, on the other hand, does need England to play badly. That's not a criticism of Scotland in any way. It's simply that a team with the resources of the Scots (especially with their current front row injuries) simply shouldn't be in a position to be able to prevent a team with the resources of the English from playing the game. If they were in that position consistently, they'd be 2nd in the World, and England would be 5th.
Did Scotland go into that match with an excellent game plan? Yes. Did they execute against it? Absolutely. Up to that point, it's all about Scotland.
Should England have failed to either detect or adapt to the Scottish game plan? No. For a team with ambitions to be the best in the World, they shouldn't, and to have done so means they played badly.
The record in the Calcutta Cup over the last couple of decades really does serve to confirm that for Scotland to win, it takes a bit both of them playing superbly and England playing poorly, and this is what we saw at the weekend.
towser said:
Kermit power said:
Robbo66 said:
England lost at the breakdown. Scotland played better in most areas and stifled England. They didn’t play ‘badly’ as quoted ....they weren’t allowed to play.
Can’t stand it when a supporter of a team state their team played ‘badly’ when they have simply been ‘outplayed’. Wholly disingenuous. It’s not oikball.
I'd disagree with you there.Can’t stand it when a supporter of a team state their team played ‘badly’ when they have simply been ‘outplayed’. Wholly disingenuous. It’s not oikball.
If Scotland had been playing someone like Romania or Canada then I think you would be right in saying they had outplayed them, as even if they were playing at their very best, they wouldn't have been able to counter the efforts of Barclay in particular.
For Scotland to not let England play, on the other hand, does need England to play badly. That's not a criticism of Scotland in any way. It's simply that a team with the resources of the Scots (especially with their current front row injuries) simply shouldn't be in a position to be able to prevent a team with the resources of the English from playing the game. If they were in that position consistently, they'd be 2nd in the World, and England would be 5th.
Did Scotland go into that match with an excellent game plan? Yes. Did they execute against it? Absolutely. Up to that point, it's all about Scotland.
Should England have failed to either detect or adapt to the Scottish game plan? No. For a team with ambitions to be the best in the World, they shouldn't, and to have done so means they played badly.
The record in the Calcutta Cup over the last couple of decades really does serve to confirm that for Scotland to win, it takes a bit both of them playing superbly and England playing poorly, and this is what we saw at the weekend.
Kermit power said:
Well if that's all you can read into my post, then all I can say is your chip, your shoulder, and there's clearly nothing I can do to change that.
No chip here, no need to stoop to insults.However, to me it seems that coaching, tactics, possibly (perish the thought) better, fitter players in key areas of the pitch made a big difference to the result on Saturday. Maybe the sum total of those parts (the key constituents of a team performance) are, from a Scottish perspective, better than England's right now?
Edited by towser on Wednesday 28th February 13:15
If I was EJ, I'd be concerned that the matches with Italy last year, and Scotland this year, have shown that there is a definite inability to think on their feet when confronted with something unexpected.
That back row was always (IMO) going to be second best at the breakdown against Watson and Barclay, but they exacerbated the problem by nit contesting soon or hard enough.
That back row was always (IMO) going to be second best at the breakdown against Watson and Barclay, but they exacerbated the problem by nit contesting soon or hard enough.
I don't really get the negativity surrounding this.
England have lost 2 games under Jones, by 4 points to the Irish and by a couple of scores last week. For what it's worth I don't think England did play that well, especially in the first half, the 3rd try was a shocker!
Scotland played poorly agains't Wales, would they have shipped 34 points playing as they did agains't England last week?
England have lost 2 games under Jones, by 4 points to the Irish and by a couple of scores last week. For what it's worth I don't think England did play that well, especially in the first half, the 3rd try was a shocker!
Scotland played poorly agains't Wales, would they have shipped 34 points playing as they did agains't England last week?
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff