Who Next?

[DocP]

Generally, id agree.
but for ten minutes against NZ it did. So what was the difference for those ten minutes?

Farrell crocked his ankle and was not up with play allowing MS to play his game. I spotted it straight away as soon as OF started limping

 

[crossref]

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 ?

And I got the impression the team themselves did not instinctively know what would happen.
If it had been Quins playing all 15 would have known they were going to attack for a win
In another team all 15 would have known a draw was good enough

I don't think they knew, they were waiting for a decision

Without the instinctive attack, there was no option but settle for the draw

 

[DocP]

This is the whole problem, with Smith and Farrell together they both make decisions and the game plan becomes confused

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.
Also, Manu is a 12. Play him at 12. MS is used to having a giant hulk on his inside shoulder dragging in defenders and creating space. Space that he is used to either running into or putting someone through

 

[crossref]

Fair point CR.
So if it worked cos MS was calling the shots at 10, why not continue with the combo with that basis?

Because OF is a massively important and influential player and doesn't normally want to be led by MS
And Eddi as well , always emphasising how MS can learn from OF .. so who is supposed to be in charge anyway?

 

[SimonSmith]

I compare it to the round ball sport when there was the Gerrard Lampard situation.

When the right answer was Scholes?

 

[Camquin]

And Jones is going to coach the Barbarians.
It will be the least barbarian bar-bars ever.

 

[didds]

Also, Manu is a 12. Play him at 12.

This.

 

[didds]

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 ?

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

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1594246179746988034

 

[crossref]

another consideration was that MR was quite trigger happy on breakdown PKs, so some risk when in your own half

but at the end of the day this was a friendly, at home, against 14 players, and we had the momentum.... and a bad autumn means your coach is going to get sacked.

 

[Mipper]

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

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1594246179746988034

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.

 

[crossref]

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.

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 ?

 

[Mipper]

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 ?

Not 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.

 

[crossref]

Not 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.

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?

 

[Mipper]

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?

I rather suspect that you’re over-thinking this.

I suspect that the question of future debenture sales, or even Eddie Jones’ future employment didn’t really pop up in the moments after the try and until Smith kicked the ball out.

I suspect that the players long ingrained preference for win/draw/lose in that order kicked in, along with the very reasonable probabilities that you noted.

I suspect too that the probabilities changed from the restart kick, until the decision to kick it out and end the game. With the win probability dropping.

I vaguely recall a game not so long again, whereby Wales had pulled back a considerable deficit, to reach a draw, only to keep pushing for a win, and ultimately lose on the last play. That was definitely not treated as a plucky attempt at winning, it was treated as an amateur defeat.

 

[crossref]

I rather suspect that you’re over-thinking this.

he he! I think you are underthinking it
given Win 10% Draw 60% Loss 30% you have to add in how much each of those is 'worth'

If it was a RWC group game and

1. Win = qualify 1st in group
2. Draw = qualify 2nd in group
3. Loss = go home

then clearly you'd play for the draw, as a loss is so much worse than the other two (wasn't this basically the mistake Robshaw made?)

But when it's a friendly at home, after a run of poor results with morale poor, and the coaches job at risk, and next up the World Champions then you might think

1. Win = rescue your entire season by beating NZ, coach keeps his job, players keep place in the team all go to the RWC
2. Draw = ho hum at least we have ten minutes when we looked good, so long Eddi, half of us are going to get dropped
3. Loss = ho hum at least we had ten minutes when we looked good, so long Eddi, half of us are going to get dropped

Ie a win is so much better than the other two.. Then perhaps it's worth playing on ?

 

[didds]

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 suspect the RFU's desire/need to sell debentures wasn't at the forefront of the players' minds at that moment...

 

[didds]

?)

But when it's a friendly at home, after a run of poor results with morale poor, and the coaches job at risk,

Clearly a move by the players to get rid of the boss then.

 

[crossref]

I suspect the RFU's desire/need to sell debentures wasn't at the forefront of the players' minds at that moment...

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.

Its a home friendly game. What's the purpose of it other than selling tickets?

England fans don't want to see Baa Baa rugby but they did want to see England have a go at winning that particular game

 

[didds]

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.

 

[crossref]

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.

yes.

but my overall point is : in this particular game they settled for a draw that (for a number of reasons) was really no more valuable than a loss.

decision making in the last two minutes of a game is very tricky. Sometimes the imperative is to avoid a loss, sometimes the imperative is to achieve a win. Sometimes a draw is a 'good enough' result for what you are tying to achieve, sometimes a draw is falling short.


my thesis is that the team lacked clarity. They got the idea that a draw was good enough, much better than losing, so settle for a draw rather than risk a loss. I think - in that particular game - a draw was not much better for them than a loss, so risk the loss, in an attempt to get the prize - the victory.

(It's the opposite of the mistake Robshaw made when he went for a win in very different circumstances - when a draw likely would have been good enough)