RWC Week 3: England v Chile
-
@NTA said in RWC Week 3: England v Chile:
I have a lot of admiration for Chile - they've played some nice footy but their ranking outside the top 20 is starting to show.
Poor bastards have played pretty much their 1st XV through two matches in the heat, and a third over the course of 14 days. They have to face a rested Argentina on a 6 day turnaround.
Chile's pool match turnarounds were 6 days, 7 days, and 7 days.
Argentina get 13 days, 8 days, and 9 days.Not exactly fair.
I think the organisers just think ‘They’re minnows, fuck them’
Such is life in pro sport I guess.
-
@NTA said in RWC Week 3: England v Chile:
I have a lot of admiration for Chile - they've played some nice footy but their ranking outside the top 20 is starting to show.
Poor bastards have played pretty much their 1st XV through two matches in the heat, and a third over the course of 14 days. They have to face a rested Argentina on a 6 day turnaround.
Chile's pool match turnarounds were 6 days, 7 days, and 7 days.
Argentina get 13 days, 8 days, and 9 days.Not exactly fair.
What are world rugby supposed to do? Make the tournament last 3 months?
In every pool, two teams have to play 4 weeks in a row. Why not decide it by seedings? Alternative take is also that if you are in a tough pool, you might prefer to take 4 weeks in s row, then a week off pre QF.
Rugby has a lot of issues but Chiles turnaround times are not one of them.
-
@MajorRage said in RWC Week 3: England v Chile:
@NTA said in RWC Week 3: England v Chile:
I have a lot of admiration for Chile - they've played some nice footy but their ranking outside the top 20 is starting to show.
Poor bastards have played pretty much their 1st XV through two matches in the heat, and a third over the course of 14 days. They have to face a rested Argentina on a 6 day turnaround.
Chile's pool match turnarounds were 6 days, 7 days, and 7 days.
Argentina get 13 days, 8 days, and 9 days.Not exactly fair.
What are world rugby supposed to do? Make the tournament last 3 months?
In every pool, two teams have to play 4 weeks in a row. Why not decide it by seedings? Alternative take is also that if you are in a tough pool, you might prefer to take 4 weeks in s row, then a week off pre QF.
Rugby has a lot of issues but Chiles turnaround times are not one of them.
Even numbers in pools then everyone plays every weekend. Simples
-
@Machpants said in RWC Week 3: England v Chile:
@MajorRage said in RWC Week 3: England v Chile:
@NTA said in RWC Week 3: England v Chile:
I have a lot of admiration for Chile - they've played some nice footy but their ranking outside the top 20 is starting to show.
Poor bastards have played pretty much their 1st XV through two matches in the heat, and a third over the course of 14 days. They have to face a rested Argentina on a 6 day turnaround.
Chile's pool match turnarounds were 6 days, 7 days, and 7 days.
Argentina get 13 days, 8 days, and 9 days.Not exactly fair.
What are world rugby supposed to do? Make the tournament last 3 months?
In every pool, two teams have to play 4 weeks in a row. Why not decide it by seedings? Alternative take is also that if you are in a tough pool, you might prefer to take 4 weeks in s row, then a week off pre QF.
Rugby has a lot of issues but Chiles turnaround times are not one of them.
Even numbers in pools then everyone plays every weekend. Simples
In saying all that it seems a bit ridiculous that many teams have played three times and Scots have only played once.
-
@MN5 said in RWC Week 3: England v Chile:
@Machpants said in RWC Week 3: England v Chile:
@MajorRage said in RWC Week 3: England v Chile:
@NTA said in RWC Week 3: England v Chile:
I have a lot of admiration for Chile - they've played some nice footy but their ranking outside the top 20 is starting to show.
Poor bastards have played pretty much their 1st XV through two matches in the heat, and a third over the course of 14 days. They have to face a rested Argentina on a 6 day turnaround.
Chile's pool match turnarounds were 6 days, 7 days, and 7 days.
Argentina get 13 days, 8 days, and 9 days.Not exactly fair.
What are world rugby supposed to do? Make the tournament last 3 months?
In every pool, two teams have to play 4 weeks in a row. Why not decide it by seedings? Alternative take is also that if you are in a tough pool, you might prefer to take 4 weeks in s row, then a week off pre QF.
Rugby has a lot of issues but Chiles turnaround times are not one of them.
Even numbers in pools then everyone plays every weekend. Simples
In saying all that it seems a bit ridiculous that many teams have played three times and Scots have only played once.
Same bunch that did the draw over 3 years before the tournament, so not hugely surprising
-
@Machpants said in RWC Week 3: England v Chile:
@MajorRage said in RWC Week 3: England v Chile:
@NTA said in RWC Week 3: England v Chile:
I have a lot of admiration for Chile - they've played some nice footy but their ranking outside the top 20 is starting to show.
Poor bastards have played pretty much their 1st XV through two matches in the heat, and a third over the course of 14 days. They have to face a rested Argentina on a 6 day turnaround.
Chile's pool match turnarounds were 6 days, 7 days, and 7 days.
Argentina get 13 days, 8 days, and 9 days.Not exactly fair.
What are world rugby supposed to do? Make the tournament last 3 months?
In every pool, two teams have to play 4 weeks in a row. Why not decide it by seedings? Alternative take is also that if you are in a tough pool, you might prefer to take 4 weeks in s row, then a week off pre QF.
Rugby has a lot of issues but Chiles turnaround times are not one of them.
Even numbers in pools then everyone plays every weekend. Simples
Then you need either
- More teams, more stupid results
- Less teams, not growing the game.
Can’t win.
-
@MajorRage said in RWC Week 3: England v Chile:
@Machpants said in RWC Week 3: England v Chile:
@MajorRage said in RWC Week 3: England v Chile:
@NTA said in RWC Week 3: England v Chile:
I have a lot of admiration for Chile - they've played some nice footy but their ranking outside the top 20 is starting to show.
Poor bastards have played pretty much their 1st XV through two matches in the heat, and a third over the course of 14 days. They have to face a rested Argentina on a 6 day turnaround.
Chile's pool match turnarounds were 6 days, 7 days, and 7 days.
Argentina get 13 days, 8 days, and 9 days.Not exactly fair.
What are world rugby supposed to do? Make the tournament last 3 months?
In every pool, two teams have to play 4 weeks in a row. Why not decide it by seedings? Alternative take is also that if you are in a tough pool, you might prefer to take 4 weeks in s row, then a week off pre QF.
Rugby has a lot of issues but Chiles turnaround times are not one of them.
Even numbers in pools then everyone plays every weekend. Simples
Then you need either
- More teams, more stupid results
- Less teams, not growing the game.
Can’t win.
I am of the opinion that the extra 4 teams getting pasted in one tournament every four years isn't 'growing the game' Consistent opportunities would, and even a same time as Lions Plate champs of lower teams, would be better. They need to consistently play, and the new world nations cup championship league (or whatever it is called) with relegation/promotion one day, is not going to help
-
@MajorRage said in RWC Week 3: England v Chile:
0. More Tests between nations at all levels
1. More teams, more stupid results
2.Less teams, notgrowing the game.
3. Awesomeness.Can’twin.Fixed!
-
Ok, so after mulling over the game and reading reports and opinion pieces, I’ve formed a view of the game itself, what we were hoping to learn and what we did actually learn and how all this will inform Borthwick’s thinking.
Firstly the game itself. It was always going to be a comfortable score line for England come the end, so no surprises there. Hats off to Chile though, who made it very difficult, helped a bit by our inaccuracy, for the first 20 minutes and kept going till the end. They were losing by this sort of score to the USA four years ago, so real progress. I was pleased with Theo Dan’s performance at hooker but how I wish he was coming into this tournament with a bit more international experience. Malins is now done for me, lovely player but not quick enough, big enough or strong enough to play wing or fullback at this level. Arundell - same thoughts as for Dan. We really needed to see more if this guy and it’s not as if we’ve got top class wingers keeping him out. We at last showed some attacking intent but to what end? We won’t try that in the tough games. Of the other guys, it is difficult to judge too much due to the opposition but I felt that Chessum and Martin put their hands up at lock, with Ribbans maybe falling back a bit. Props - ok. Flankers - ok. Billy V should have played himself out of contention in that game. He made less metres ball in hand than Earl did in his cameo and by quite a wide margin. He did make one trademark run of old though, which raised my hopes temporarily. He also made 4 tackles. 4. Smith brought some spark into the attack but good sides would find him out at fullback. Farrell had one or two nice touches but Ford brought on a lot more structure and opportunities when he came on. Farrell at 12 is just a handbrake on attack and a red card in waiting on defence.
What did we hope to learn? Well I really don’t think we were looking to learn much, maybe who will be the back up wing, next cab on the second row rank, but that was it IMO. There were never going to be any bolters. The game plan (we have a plan?) is set, the die is cast.
What did we learn? Well, apparently we can pass and catch and some of our guys can run too. However the caveat is again the opposition, so I feel the fringe players will gain very little. We learned that Daley is a decent 13 but no longer has the pace for a wing and has never really had the game for 15, however he is our third best 13 after Marchant and Lawrence. More on this later. We had a reminder that Farrell should not play 12 and that Ford is our best all round 10. Billy V is a busted flush. Youngs is not so much a handbrake, more an anchor. Neither of the last two are new learnings.
So how will all this translate to Borthwick’s strategy and selection? Well it won’t. SB’s plans are statistic based- kick more = win more - conservatism = low error rate - don’t try anything = don’t fail. Except of course that losing the game is the ultimate fail. Our game plan will remain the same. Kick and hope for a mistake, pressure the opposition in possession, live in hope of mistakes. It is dour, mediocrity.
My guess at selection for Samoa and beyond?
Steward, May, Tuilagi, Farrell, Daley, Ford, Mitchell, Genge, George, Sinckler, Itoje, Chessum, Lawes, Vunipola, Earl.
Bench: Marler, Dan, Stuart, Martin, Ludlum, Youngs, Smith, Marchant.
Having said that, he could play Marchant at wing. What it will mean though is that our three best 13s will not be playing 13. That will be our best 12. All in order to play Farrell.
My preference?
Steward, May, Marchant, Tuilagi, Arundell, Ford, Mitchell, Genge, Dan, Sinckler, Itoje, Chessum, Lawes, Earl, Willis.
Bench: Marler, George, Stuart, Martin, Care, Smith, Lawrence.
There, I’ve said it. No Farrell in the squad.
-
Agree but never going to happen (Farrell)
-
England v Chile
What did we hope to learn? Well I really don’t think we were looking to learn much, maybe who will be the back up wing, next cab on the second row rank, but that was it IMO
-
D Duluth moved this topic from RWC Matches on
