Same again for England

[Tiglon]

Not at all, if you don't understand it... ignore it - but don't try to tell me what I want to say.

By the way, does anyone know if there is a 'block' option on this messageboard?

[Tiglon]

Never mind, found it

[tig1]

Stats assessment of a few of the England players vs France:

Foden ran more metres with the ball than anyone else on the pitch, although that can be tempered with the fact that as a fullback he often gets a few 'free' metres while the chasers make their way up the field. Still, he ran less times than Poitrenaud, and made more yards.

Sharples hardly touched the ball, and missed half of his tackles. Hardly makes a good claim for the jersey. Could be argued he needs to be used better - no point having this type of player if you're not going to put him in space or at least give him the ball once in a while. Maybe he needs to come looking for work more?

Barritt ran nearly half the ball he received (6 times) and made a grand total of 5 yards. Also conceded 2 turnovers and missed 20% of his tackles. Statistically speaking, a very poor performance.

Dickson only ran once in the game, but did make 10 metres from it. Conceded 4 (!) turnovers.

Morgan made 64 metres with ball in hand, performed one of just 2 offloads by England, set up a try, didn't concede a turnover, and didn't miss a tackle (although he did only make 2). Surely cemented his place as first choice 8.

What stands out for me (other than the much discussed penalty count) is the amount of missed tackles by the backs (apart from Farrell) and the lack of offloads. Furthermore, only 16 metres were gained by English front 5 players in the entire match (53 from France) - it was only Morgan and Croft who injected any "go-forward" in the forwards. The English front 5 was second best at the set pieces, and displayed zero dynamism in open play.

Hi Tiglon,

The previous evening at Bath, Grindal and Ford ran once the whole game between the two of them. The Tigers backs in total at Bath ran 19 times vs Englands backs 31 times. Tigers backs made a total 116 meters compared to Englands 245 metres. Twelvetrees, Forsyth and Smith didnt make one metre, beat one defender or make one offload between them in the entire match. Dickson made the same number of metres for England as grindal and Ford combined for Tigers, and beat 1 defender compared to zero from Ford and Grindal.

Even if you look at the Gloucester game which was widely regarded as Tigers best display of the season. Tigers backs ran less ball (22), made fewer metres (187), and made fewer clean breaks than Englands backs did on Saturday. And keep in mind that also included a long run in from Alex.

Sharples...agree he had a very poor game...but he did make 15 meters. Interestingly the same amount that Billy made in the 2 Tigers matches combined.

What does stand out from the Gloucester game is the number of runs, meters and breaks made by Youngs and Flood.

[Nailsworthstiger]

Stats assessment of a few of the England players vs France:

Foden ran more metres with the ball than anyone else on the pitch, although that can be tempered with the fact that as a fullback he often gets a few 'free' metres while the chasers make their way up the field. Still, he ran less times than Poitrenaud, and made more yards.

Sharples hardly touched the ball, and missed half of his tackles. Hardly makes a good claim for the jersey. Could be argued he needs to be used better - no point having this type of player if you're not going to put him in space or at least give him the ball once in a while. Maybe he needs to come looking for work more?

Barritt ran nearly half the ball he received (6 times) and made a grand total of 5 yards. Also conceded 2 turnovers and missed 20% of his tackles. Statistically speaking, a very poor performance.

Dickson only ran once in the game, but did make 10 metres from it. Conceded 4 (!) turnovers.

Morgan made 64 metres with ball in hand, performed one of just 2 offloads by England, set up a try, didn't concede a turnover, and didn't miss a tackle (although he did only make 2). Surely cemented his place as first choice 8.

What stands out for me (other than the much discussed penalty count) is the amount of missed tackles by the backs (apart from Farrell) and the lack of offloads. Furthermore, only 16 metres were gained by English front 5 players in the entire match (53 from France) - it was only Morgan and Croft who injected any "go-forward" in the forwards. The English front 5 was second best at the set pieces, and displayed zero dynamism in open play.

Hi Tiglon,

The previous evening at Bath, Grindal and Ford ran once the whole game between the two of them. The Tigers backs in total at Bath ran 19 times vs Englands backs 31 times. Tigers backs made a total 116 meters compared to Englands 245 metres. Twelvetrees, Forsyth and Smith didnt make one metre, beat one defender or make one offload between them in the entire match. Dickson made the same number of metres for England as grindal and Ford combined for Tigers, and beat 1 defender compared to zero from Ford and Grindal.

Even if you look at the Gloucester game which was widely regarded as Tigers best display of the season. Tigers backs ran less ball (22), made fewer metres (187), and made fewer clean breaks than Englands backs did on Saturday. And keep in mind that also included a long run in from Alex.

Sharples...agree he had a very poor game...but he did make 15 meters. Interestingly the same amount that Billy made in the 2 Tigers matches combined.

What does stand out from the Gloucester game is the number of runs, meters and breaks made by Youngs and Flood.

Blimey... Do people go to a rugby match to watch the game or do they scrutinise every move?

Think I will take my tape measure next time!!!

[Tiglon]

No need for the tape measure - this website does all the work for you:

http://www.espnscrum.com/

Statistics aren't everything, but they do sometimes provide some valuable insight, or highlight things that you didn't pick up during the game.

tig1 - that is why I said in the Bath thread that we won due to their mistakes, rather than our own excellence. Tigers posed very little attacking threat, but fortunately Bath made a lot of errors and gave the game away.

[jgriffin]

I am always heartened to know that all the stats in the world cannot tell you the most important one - the final score.

I'm almost reduced to tears over the lionisation of a mediocre England team. If we settle for this we are doomed, I tell you, doomed!

[sam16111986]

Tigers posed very little attacking threat, but fortunately Bath made a lot of errors and gave the game away.

It helped that Tigers but Bath under pressure in the right areas of the field to make those errors. The try an excellent example, it was a gorgeous kick from Ford and then we were all over their lineout forcing a desperate tip back and then we chased the ball and hounded their 9 and supporting players. We managed to get hold of the loose ball (a loose rugby ball is a fickle thing) and scored. A Bath mistake but Tigers forced it.

I'm almost reduced to tears over the lionisation of a mediocre England team. If we settle for this we are doomed, I tell you, doomed!

What is worrying is just how deep the backs are sitting and just how unimaginative the team is in terms of set plays and even kicking options. The kicks vs France were long and aimless with little kick chase and the backs moves were just shoving the ball down the line hoping that someone who work something.

[Tiglon]

Not convinced by that Sam!

Despite the good kick and pressure at the lineout, 99% of the time the other team clears that. After the ball was tipped back it actually went nowhere near their 9, but to a different player. He spilt the ball forwards into the arms of Kitchener. Bath were under no more pressure than any other team at this level in a similar situation, and they made 2 consecutive mistakes (the poor tap back and the spillage) which cost them a try.

I'm not trying to take anything away from a very useful win, but we certainly shouldn't be getting carried away with what was an average performance against probably the most erratic team in the Premiership.

[GEH]

........while we're on this topic can someone explain Barritt's role in this team?

[jgriffin]

........while we're on this topic can someone explain Barritt's role in this team?

err......no yards, few tackles.....

SL being seriously talked up by the Independent's Hewett who is an inveterate Saffas brown-noser. He lauds the media access and info. Reports that Ritchie is praising SL as well. I scent a major mistake in the making.

[Bill W (2)]

........while we're on this topic can someone explain Barritt's role in this team?

err......no yards, few tackles.....

SL being seriously talked up by the Independent's Hewett who is an inveterate Saffas brown-noser. He lauds the media access and info. Reports that Ritchie is praising SL as well. I scent a major mistake in the making.

Happy for Ritchie to praise Lancaster.

That he has, with Farrell(snr)'s assistance adapted the Sarries game plan to translate not losing into winning is worthy of praise. His manipulation of the press (with RA assistance?) is also laudable.

These strengths are to be recognised and praised.

Now talk to me about how he is building a squad to win WC 2015? And how he has game plans that will open up SH defences. And defence strategies that will contain SH offences.

Er...... Charge down kicks? #8 and #6 show individual flair? Oh and rely on loose ball being thrown out to a centre with pace?

[GT1]

I wonder if SL has a strategy for Mr N Owens? He's the ref on Sat.
Also Mr A Rolland has Italy v Scots how bad has this guy got to be to stop being given international matches?

[Bill W (2)]

I wonder if SL has a strategy for Mr N Owens? He's the ref on Sat.
Also Mr A Rolland has Italy v Scots how bad has this guy got to be to stop being given international matches?

IMHO Owens and Rolland are totally incomepetent whereas Clancy is merely incompetent.

[kingol22]

Sarries are saying they will not allow A Farrell to go to England if the RFU want to keep the current set up. Apparently he is an important part in the something special they are building.

[tig1]

......


Happy for Ritchie to praise Lancaster.

That he has, with Farrell(snr)'s assistance adapted the Sarries game plan to translate not losing into winning is worthy of praise. His manipulation of the press (with RA assistance?) is also laudable.

These strengths are to be recognised and praised.
?

This 'not losing' strategy, what is it that all about ?

If I understand it correctly the thought process is that Saracens became premiership champions by not losing 20 games out of 24.

And now somewhat cunningly England having copied this strategy and not lost 3 games out of 4.

That's smart. Imagine working out if you don't lose, call it the football equivalent of keeping a clean sheet, then you probably have a very high chance of winning.

Which makes me wonder...Shoudnt somebody give the likes of Andy Robinson, John Wells and Deano a call and suggest they adopt it PDQ ?