Who Next?

[didds]

we are going to have to agree to disagree then. After 70 minutes of achieving very little England suddenly burst into life and scored three tries. what changed. who made it change. what factors were at play to change things so dramatically - and what had prevented them from doing it for the previous 70 minutes. They are the real talking points - or should be.

meanwhile if debenture sales are solely dependent on a win/loss ration then twickenham shoud be sold out - Jones had the highest win ration of any england coach ever. So clearly debentures arent sold on the back of whether england win or not

 

[crossref]

@didds
- do you agree that if they had played on it the odds were around 10% win, 60% draw 30% loss?
- (if not, what do you reckon?)
- given the odds, do you think it was the right decision to settle for a draw? and why ?

 

[didds]

@didds
- do you agree that if they had played on it the odds were around 10% win, 60% draw 30% loss?
- (if not, what do you reckon?)
- given the odds, do you think it was the right decision to settle for a draw? and why ?

With that analysis in mind
1% win at best from there, requiring some sort of individual brilliance by white, brainfart by black, and/or bizarre incident/accident

35% loss.

leaves 64% draw.

my 2p.

Take the draw.

 

[crossref]

With those probability I would agree

It all depends on
1 the probability
2 how valuable is a win (compared to a draw)
3 how bad is a loss (compared to a draw)

 

[Mipper]

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 ?

Underthinking? Thanks heavens for that, as to me it is very straightforward

My thinking “under” your thinking;

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

…I would much, much prefer a draw to a loss. In no way would I as a player consider them the same.

Not sure that the hypothetical future RWC group standings really come in to the players consideration either. Robshaws decision was an entirely different context and, ultimately with hindsight, wrong to go for the win rather than the draw.

 

[crossref]

…I would much, much prefer a draw to a loss. In no way would I as a player consider them the same.
.

But yet, really?

In fact it depends

If was the last league game of the season and a win got you promoted and a draw/loss didn't , then a draw is the same as a loss, and you play on

Conversely if a win/draw was enough to get promoted but a loss wasn't, then you catch the ball and kick it out

What scenario were England in ? What did a win draw and loss actually mean to them?

If it was just a mindless win good, draw worse, loss even worse .. .then we'll that's the criticism I am making

 

[Mipper]

Those are very rare and specific examples of games where a loss and a draw would be treated equally.

To demonstrate the ridiculousness of your examples, one could argue exactly the opposite, where a win and a draw would bring the same result in the league position. In very slightly different circumstances.

So my view is based on the overwhelming majority of games played, and the sense that a drawn game is better than a loss (Notwithstanding end of season mathematical league complexities, involving a small number of teams)

 

[crossref]

So my view is based on the overwhelming majority of games played, and the sense that a drawn game is better than a loss

Yes, so that is exactly the point I am making when I say you are underthinking this (to the extent of almost no thought at at all?)

In this particular game, I am saying that a draw was hardly better than a loss (both poor results, they got no reward from it) whereas a win was priceless and would have rescued their season

 

[SimonSmith]

I'm going to try to say this politely.

You've expressed your argument well. But that's cobblers. In fact, it's a lot of cobblers. They're not there to sell debentures. They're there to play rugby matches. Games in which the result is (almost) immaterial: Barbarians. Everything else: it matters. It's either the 6 Nations, or it's training for the World Cup. If the result doesn't matter, get off the f*ucking field.

If I ever felt Scotland weren't playing for the result, I'd quit them. I don't care about the style, I care about the effort and the result. One of the best rugby moments of my life was playing like shit, playing their guts out, and Dunc Hodge falling over the line in the rain. Wouldn't have sold many debentures, but bought a ton of loyalty. Ugly rugby.

 

[crossref]

in this particular gme why was a draw worth having ? In what way was it significantly better than a loss?

I didn't see many people heaping praise and approbation on Englad for getting a draw.
At the end of the 4 games the coach was sacked and many players will now be dropped.

But least they managed a draw, and not a loss? so what.

If they had WON though -- what a difference that would have made

And I don't really undersand your post anyway

If I ever felt Scotland weren't playing for the result, I'd quit them. I don't care about the style, I care about the effort and the result. One of the best rugby moments of my life was playing like shit, playing their guts out, and Dunc Hodge falling over the line in the rain. Wouldn't have sold many debentures, but bought a ton of loyalty. Ugly rugby.

England DIDN'T do that - they kicked the ball out. I am saying they should have been more like that, and gone for th win

 

[menace]

Yes, so that is exactly the point I am making when I say you are underthinking this (to the extent of almost no thought at at all?)

In this particular game, I am saying that a draw was hardly better than a loss (both poor results, they got no reward from it) whereas a win was priceless and would have rescued their season

You sure are overthinking MS actions or at minimum you think in the heatbof the battle a #10 should be thinking all the permutations of what is best for England for the next 3 years.

I'm a mind reader (goes with the title of being a referee...haven't you developed it yet?) and I'm certain MS thought:
"I saw what happened with this referee when NZ beat the Wobblies (aka Wallabies) when they snatched a win from a ridiculous referee decision. FEK DAT! I'm taking the ref out of a decision and kicking it out...at least we can say we didn't lose to NZ!"

 

[Mipper]

Yes, so that is exactly the point I am making when I say you are underthinking this (to the extent of almost no thought at at all?)

In this particular game, I am saying that a draw was hardly better than a loss (both poor results, they got no reward from it) whereas a win was priceless and would have rescued their season

I understand your point and I fundamentally disagree with it.

But you are quite wrong to suggest that my comment was exactly the point you were making. I was precisely the opposite

Please tell me that “crossref” is a parody account???

 

[crossref]

You sure are overthinking MS actions or at minimum you think in the heatbof the battle a #10 should be thinking all the permutations of what is best for England for the next 3 years.

I'm a mind reader (goes with the title of being a referee...haven't you developed it yet?) and I'm certain MS thought:
"I saw what happened with this referee when NZ beat the Wobblies (aka Wallabies) when they snatched a win from a ridiculous referee decision. FEK DAT! I'm taking the ref out of a decision and kicking it out...at least we can say we didn't lose to NZ!"

If you are saying it was an instinctive decision, without much thought I would agree. (Not sure MS made the decision though)

 

[crossref]

I understand your point and I fundamentally disagree with it.

But you are quite wrong to suggest that my comment was exactly the point you were making. I was precisely the opposite

Please tell me that “crossref” is a parody account???

You have lost me
The reason you gave for settling for a draw was a vague one .." the sense that a draw is better than a loss"

Which is true in general ... but in this particular situation.. ..well, not really

 

[Volun-selected]

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?)

Maybe it’s the ghost of Robshaw’s past? Maybe it’s RWC pool game practice (play to win but do not lose!) Maybe England want to go into the RWC as a standing joke but secretly know they can play that 10 min burst for a full match anytime they want but want everyone to underestimate them? (Yes, that last one is my wishful thinking.)

Has anyone have chance to see England at Twickenham recently? I often hear about the Welsh being able to build an intimidating atmosphere when they play at home - are England as intimidating? I’ve not been to Twickenham since (quick google…) 1992 when Bath beat Quinns in the Pilkington Cup final and I was in one of the sheds they still had on 3 sides. Do England enjoy that much of a home advantage?

 

[crossref]

Maybe it’s the ghost of Robshaw’s past? Maybe it’s RWC pool game practice (play to win but do not lose!) Maybe England want to go into the RWC as a standing joke but secretly know they can play that 10 min burst for a full match anytime they want but want everyone to underestimate them? (Yes, that last one is my wishful thinking.)

Has anyone have chance to see England at Twickenham recently? I often hear about the Welsh being able to build an intimidating atmosphere when they play at home - are England as intimidating? I’ve not been to Twickenham since (quick google…) 1992 when Bath beat Quinns in the Pilkington Cup final and I was in one of the sheds they still had on 3 sides. Do England enjoy that much of a home advantage?

My impression has been that they are losing the crowd . They got bood after SA

People above didn't think that players should care much about ticket prices / filling stadium with happy crowds etc

So perhaps they don't need home advantage?

 

[SimonSmith]

in this particular gme why was a draw worth having ? In what way was it significantly better than a loss?

If I actually have to explain this to you, you don't understand player mentality.

 

[SimonSmith]

My impression has been that they are losing the crowd . They got bood after SA

People above didn't think that players should care much about ticket prices / filling stadium with happy crowds etc

So perhaps they don't need home advantage?

My sense is that it isn;t about the results, it's been about how they've been playing.

And I cite Murrayfield as my evidence. For years, Scotland were shite. Often still are, to be honest. But under Matt Williams, we had two issues; not only were we absolutely gash, but the way the players were playing, they lost the crowd. No passion, difficult to discern any pride in playing for the country. It isn't a direct 1:1 comparison to England today, but it's close.

We swapped him out for Frank Hadden. The results improved; not massively, but we got uptick. Coincidentally, we also got a better mentality from the squad - more pride, more effort, less going through the motions. Won the crowd over. We would have been happy with the second part of the equation, even without the improvement in the wins.

One win, in an Autumn internation, under Williams, would not have turned the ship, to use your current examples. It would have perpetuated the misery.

You want the crowd? Yes, results help. People like winning sides. But I think what people want more than anything else is a team that plays its guts out; that gets up after being under the cosh for 78 minutes, and goes again.That doesn't quit. That uses a rugby brain and find the best solution, and doesn't do RF stupid shit. I think MS fulfilled his brief.

 

[Dickie E]

it's a bit sad when a sporting team is so shit-scared of losing that they're happy to manufacture a draw.

Imagine an Ashes Test, scores are tied, with one ball remaining. Batsman plays a dead bat in case he gets out.

 

[crossref]

If I actually have to explain this to you, you don't understand player mentality.

No, exactly the opposite - if the explanation is as simple as "player mentality" ie it's instinctive, then that is exactly the criticism I am making . They didn't think it through properly

And anyway, why didn't player mentality make them want to try to win , as in Dickies post 59 above? Why don't the players have that mentality?