Referees in England
- Dec 20, 2018
- Post Likes
- SE London/Kent
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 10
This. They both play polar opposite game styles. One all flair and fancy with plenty of risk. The other more risk adverse and playing the percentages. Both have their place but a choice needs to be made. It just doesn't work when you try to combine. They cancel themselves out. If OF is calling the shots then it will be in a style that MS just doesn't know how to play. That is why when it was OF and Ford it kind of worked. They play the same style.This is the whole problem, with Smith and Farrell together they both make decisions and the game plan becomes confused
Because OF is a massively important and influential player and doesn't normally want to be led by MSFair point CR.
So if it worked cos MS was calling the shots at 10, why not continue with the combo with that basis?
I thoiught Id answered this already.A good example of England confusion was the last two minutes
Smith hurried his conversion to level the score, as he wanted to keep as much time on the clock as possible, to try and win the game
Then when we got the ball, happy with the draw, we kicked it out
Who made the decision to kick it out ? I assume the captain .. was that Farrell at that stage ? I don't think it could have been Smith's call.
When did he make the decision? Why did Smith hurry ?
Thanks for sharing this Didds, I have become so tired of explaining over and again, to friends who purport to understand the game, why it was a good decision.I thoiught Id answered this already.
This was my intial thoiught. then i saw some anaysis.
basically the entire england backrow AND Farrell were dragged into the ruck following the restart. Smith had nobody to start an attack with, deep in his own half, with the subsequent risk of a turnover / PK. It was a good restart by NZ that gave England few options, in short
check out this analysis
Whether it was a good decision or not depends on your objectivesThanks for sharing this Didds, I have become so tired of explaining over and again, to friends who purport to understand the game, why it was a good decision.
Not sure that I agree with that. It was a good rugby decision.Whether it was a good decision or not depends on your objectives
How valuable to England was a win?
How costly is a loss?
How much do we value a draw
Do we care about ranking points
What was the best way to secure Eddi job? The result? The style of play? Demonstrating progress toward the RWC
What about the people in the ground does entertainment count ?
if they had attacked, let's agree that the probability of winning was less that the probability of losingNot sure that I agree with that. It was a good rugby decision.
A couple of the players explained as much afterwards. It was not the intent to settle for a draw at the restart, the intent was to secure the ball and make a decision from there based upon the options availablE. Which is what they did.
Those who took the position that England had just scored two quick tries by “running it” did not really keep up with how England developed those opportunities, and what their options were.
Who in the ground would have felt more entertained had England launched an attack, found the ball carrier isolated, turned over a penalty in front of the posts, and lost by 3 points?
I understand that the same hypothesis could be attached to England “running the ball” and scoring another try - clearly, very entertaining - but the reality is that in that precise situation, the former was far more likely.
My view therefore is that England made a very sensible decision, in the heat of the moment, to assess the alternatives, the likelihood of snatching a win, and settled for the draw.
I rather suspect that you’re over-thinking this.if they had attacked, let's agree that the probability of winning was less that the probability of losing
perhaps: 10% win, 60% draw 30%loss ? Something like that.
but how much is a win worth ?
A win would have won them a LOT more praise an approbation than a last minute loss would have cost them.
A win would likely it would have meant Eddi keeping his job -- so he might well have thought the 10% chance was worth it, because a draw wasn't enough, it was either win or not win
I understnad the RFU are startting to struggle to sell ticks and debentures at full price -- a counter attack might have helped that? Is that important?
he he! I think you are underthinking itI rather suspect that you’re over-thinking this.
I suspect the RFU's desire/need to sell debentures wasn't at the forefront of the players' minds at that moment...I understnad the RFU are startting to struggle to sell ticks and debentures at full price -- a counter attack might have helped that? Is that important?
I agree, but perhaps it should be. Money matters. The spectre of bankruptcy haunts the professional game .., and without those ticket sales they wont get their £25k a game.I suspect the RFU's desire/need to sell debentures wasn't at the forefront of the players' minds at that moment...
yes.Id suggest what many England rugby supporters want to see is some sort of structured approach to their squad, tactical approach, focus, direction, and games, rather than what appears to be bizarre selections playing players out of position, or pairings that dont work together/clashes of responsisbility and influence, and a hint that their is a plan, rather than assurannces that "there is a plan mate" and little else.
Results take care of themselves when that is all in place.
I still will not be convinced that Marcus Smith should be considering how many debentures not kicking the ball out with few options available to him will be his primary focus when a gurt black shirt if heading for him and a couple of props at speed. Maybe the debhnentures get sold on the back of my intial paragraph not on a whim of a fly half.