91热爆

91热爆.co.uk

England player ratings

  • Mark Orlovac - 91热爆 Sport journalist
  • 10 Feb 07, 05:50 PM

m_orlavac_6666.gif eng_badge.gifTwickenham - I was the website's man at Twickenham on Saturday and after seeing England overcome a stubborn Italy, here are my player ratings.

Let me know what you think.


Balshaw - 5: The Gloucester full-back looked rusty on his return to the starting XV. Made a break for the line in the opening period but kicked poorly from hand before being replaced by Mathew Tait at the end of the first half because of a groin injury.

Lewsey - 6: Did not see the ball that often but made a couple of half breaks when he did. Injuries elsewhere forced him from wing to full-back and back again. Came inside to try and up the tempo in the second half.

Tindall - 5: A disappointing game for the Gloucester man as he failed to make the impact he did last week. Held onto the ball at the end of the first half when Lewsey was in a try-scoring position outside him. Left the field on 61 minutes with a dead leg.

Farrell - 6: Recovered well from an early knock on. Produced a couple of deft inside balls but was sucked into the general malaise.

Robinson - 7: Never stopped working and has fully justified why he has been brought back into the international team. His strong tackle on Roberston led to Wilkinson's third penalty and he took his first-half try well.

Wilkinson - 7: It was always going to be difficult to match the fireworks of last week. Tackled strongly and was reliable as ever kicking from the floor - becoming the highest points scorer in Six Nations history. However, he will be disappointed with his tactical kicking from hand.

Ellis - 6: Did not have the wide open spaces he enjoyed against Scotland. Made an early statement of intent by disrupting an Italian scrum but was forced on to the back foot as his pack faded. Second-half chip in midfield will be one to forget.

Freshwater - 6: Gave the powerful Italian scrum plenty to think about in the opening stages but after that was working hard just to achieve parity.

Chuter - 6: Apart from two scares, line-out throwing was solid. He even found himself in the backline at times but could not make any yards.

Vickery - 6: A quiet game from the skipper. Gave away a couple of penalties in the first half although he did try and give his side some go forward in the closing stages.

Deacon - 5: Some good takes in the line out but struggled to impose himself around the park. Will be disappointed that he could not offer more.

Grewcock - 6 : A few good surges aside, the Bath lock could not make his mark and was replaced by Tom Palmer on 75 minutes.

Easter - 6: An encouraging display from the Harlequins man on his debut and he showed that he has settled in quickly. Like most of his forwards colleagues though, he struggled to contain the Italians after half-time and came off in the dying minutes.

Lund - 6: Started well, continuing his steady form from Scotland last week but as Italy started to dominate, he struggled to give the platform his backs desperately needed.

Corry - 5: A mixed day for the Leicester skipper. He was England's top ball carrier with 11 but also topped the error count with three. He was not at his rampaging best.

Replacements:

Tait - 6: Came on for Balshaw at the end of the first half and played at wing and then outside centre. Did not have a chance to show what he can do in attack but his covering tackle on Josh Sole in the second half was superb.

White, Mears, Palmer, Flood and Rees all had too little time to make an impact.


Comments  Post your comment

  • 1.
  • At 06:14 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Ian Jackson wrote:

England's best two full backs were selected for this match, but both were playing on the wings. Balshaw should not have been selected and should not return when recovered. I know Cueto when fully fit will come back into the team, but Strettle also impressed for the Saxons. Has Deacon justified his selection over Palmer and Jones in these first two matches? On present form, Lund/Easter/Worsley for back row next match.

  • 2.
  • At 06:16 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Keith wrote:

I thought Easter had a good debut, he added some grit alongside Grewcock.

Otherwise England have a lot of work to do if we are to beat Ireland. Balshaw, who I never really have rated was bought back to soon.

England Saxons had a fine display on Friday night, and if Ashton is true to his word should be picking his wingers as they were on fire.

  • 3.
  • At 06:17 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • irishgirlinengland wrote:

And the Italian players...?

  • 4.
  • At 06:25 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • karl halligan wrote:

So disappointing after the Scottish game. If they play like this against Ireland it won't be worth the trip over. I see the bookies have already changed the odds against England winning the Grand Slam !!Hope they get their act together for Croke Park !! Well done Italy.....surprised everyone.

  • 5.
  • At 06:26 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Dan Kearns wrote:

I think spot on, except 7 was too much for wilkinson, although he kicked at goal exceptionally as well as normal, the fly half's job is not goal kicking, it is distribution and running the game and making the backs do things, and i didn't see any of that today!!!

  • 6.
  • At 06:31 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Emily wrote:

Where are the ratings of the Italian players?? Please

  • 7.
  • At 06:39 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Ken wrote:

I agree. Just the usual from the English Broadcasting Service - England, England, England!!

  • 8.
  • At 06:47 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Fiore Cavaliere wrote:

Grande ragazzi Complimenti...
Go Azzuri go!!!

  • 9.
  • At 06:51 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Andy wrote:

Dan, I think johny deserved a 7. He got 15 out of our 20 points. That alone deserves a 7.

And where are the Italy ratings?

  • 10.
  • At 07:07 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Stephen wrote:

Italy definitely improved from their performance last week. England have gone nowhere and are beginning to justify the tag of being one-trick-ponies with their over-reliance on Wee Jonny's boot.

Respect to Brian Moore for awarding the Man Of The Match to Troncon, but raspberries to the broadcast director and the commentators for spending too much time on some minor celebrity no-marks in the stands when they should have been showing us what was happening on the pitch. Were they sucking up in the hope of securing OBEs and MBEs?

  • 11.
  • At 07:15 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • SiMmSiE wrote:

It was a terrible match, the mexican wave being the high point. I dont think any England player deserved a 7, bar perhaps Robinson. Wilkinson was poor, his passing wasn't sharp, his open play kicking was off target, but yet again he was consistent in place kicking.

Italy played well in parts, but also made too many mistakes, such as dropping elimentary passes, passing without looking-culminating in a line out to England-end of pressure.

England need to improve, and they only have 14 days to do it. Brian Ashton needs to get working.

  • 12.
  • At 07:15 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • second row - wrote:

robinson is englands best player at the moment, many would disagree but wilko is still got some to prove.
his ability to team-work isnt good unlike robbo.


Second Row

  • 13.
  • At 07:19 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • pat wrote:

what are you on about, Wilkinson was rubbish today, he kept missing touch and made no runs. i'd give him a 5

  • 14.
  • At 07:23 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Michael wrote:

I think the reason for no Italian ratings are that this is the British Broadcasting Service website, hence no need for anything about the Italians (or the Irish or French for that matter).
Think the most you could really give any of the English players was a six. No one played well, but at the same time no one played badly.
The good thing is that England got a win. The bad mount up, but a lack of flair and almost a lack of confidence at times. Thought Tait look good when he came on and would like to see him more in an England shirt, but would keep Tindall for the Ireland game due to experience.
Put Lewsey at full back and bring in one of the Saxons wingers (or Cueto if fit).

  • 15.
  • At 07:25 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Kev wrote:

Italian forwards were not as bad as people would imagine, their defence was decent.
I thought despite the hype Wilkinson is easing himself into the role of top class player, as is Farrell, the contribution of Farrell was excellent, and their combination as world class ball players( not the finished article in union in the case of Farrell) is developing.
I would controversially add that Tait looks more and more an out and out winger, and Corry is not a starter

  • 16.
  • At 07:26 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • andy wrote:

Congratulations to Brian Ashton on admitting afterwards that he and not the players may have got the tactical balance wrong. After all, we won didn't we!

  • 17.
  • At 07:26 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Richard wrote:

Agree that Balshaw looked unimpressive, thought the back line looked better with Lewsey at fullback. I think Farrel deserves more than the 6. His tackling was good, he kicked well when he had to and he made at least 2 good turnovers.

  • 18.
  • At 07:27 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Dr Dan wrote:

I thought a 5 for balshaw was incredibly generous. The Italians did what the Scots would have done last week given the chance and put him under a lot of pressure with a series of bombs. At no point did he look convincing or even safe. And kicking out of hand he is dreadful. He has only ever looked half decent once and that was 5 years ago. A definite weak link that will continue to be exploited. Must be consigned to the international history books.

  • 19.
  • At 07:29 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Allan Peter Carter wrote:

For how long will the England selectors pick Balshaw!
He has never, and will never manage a consistent run of games due to unjuries. Was he ever fit for this game, it didn't look like it! He is a superstar against weak opposition but a liability when we play a side that puts us under any sort of pressure. Surely Lewsey would be the best option for a red hot Croker Park?

  • 20.
  • At 07:33 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Denis Brennan wrote:

Ratings pretty good but definitely wouldn't give Wilkinson 7. He looked ordinary, his tactical kicking was really quite poor and - although I have to make allowances for the fact that he was playing behind a beaten pack and a scrum half who really didn't feature - for a No. 10 he didn't attempt to run the game or even the backline. Actually, I think one could level the same criticism at him last week and indeed in many of his games. That's why (making reference to John Beattie's blog where people are busy picking their "best XV" of all time, he really wouldn't make the cut. Outstanding kicker, great tackler, fine all round footballer, very good outside half, but not a great one (in my humble opinion).

As for England's resurgence - the jury's definitely out!

  • 21.
  • At 07:34 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • John wrote:

Ed Beans.

You have a choice. If you don't like something, turn it over. You aren't obliged to watch anything you obviously find so offensive. What I find offensive are the wholesale sweeping statements of someone with an obvious chip on their shoulder and no clue as to the opinions of people who are true fans of sport.

Crawl back under the stone you crawled out from.

  • 22.
  • At 07:37 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Denis Brennan wrote:

For my previous comment, I clicked on "post" too quickly. I want to support those who complained about the absence of Italian ratings - there were two teams, you know!

Denis

  • 23.
  • At 07:42 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • charlie grace wrote:

i think wilkinson deserves a 7 he kicked the penelties and thats why he's there his passing led to the try and he tackled well. I cant believe how pore his kickin out of hand is compared to what he could do years ago. Why is balshaw there? he hasent put in a good performance for England for a long time. Lewsey should be fullback and we should have strettle or some young pacey guy who has potential maybe even tait he deserves to be there somewhere well at least untill cueto is fit.

  • 24.
  • At 07:43 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Hugh Jackson wrote:

When will the english media realise that their rugby team is second rate and they have played the worst 2 nations in the competition. Roll on when you come over to Croke Park.

  • 25.
  • At 07:44 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Axis of Arrogance wrote:

Grow up Hasselhoff / Ed Beans.
and thanks for your input.... zzzzzz

Did anyone actually think we were that impressive against Scotland?

  • 26.
  • At 07:54 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • ...Mike... wrote:

I think England had a poor game. Robinson was the best player on the pitch. Wilkinson's kicking, as always, was good, but as some of you say, a fly half's job is to distribute the ball to the backs, which i think Johnny failed to do today. We really need to improve for our next match at Ireland. But we still won, which is the main thing.

  • 27.
  • At 07:55 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • disbelief wrote:

No.17 Michael

Ridiculous comments re British broadcasting service, hence no Italian comments. Every blog to date has posted both nations player ratings. It is a 6 Nations tournament after all, fairly disparaging attitude to the Italians displayed all day - exemplified by Messr Guscott on 91热爆 commentary.

  • 28.
  • At 07:56 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Bid wrote:

I thought Farrell played very well and should have at least a 7 rating.

  • 29.
  • At 08:02 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • wrote:

The hype around Farrell is ridiculous. I understand the RFU propaganda given the huge amount of money they gambled on him. But surely anyone who has played rugby can recognise that he is simply doing the basics that any self-respecting inside centre is expected to do. Not remotely world class as yet.

  • 30.
  • At 08:03 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • James wrote:

Why do England coaches continue to pick Balshaw, he misses tackles, is so bad under high balls, decision making is shocking, kicking is poor. All he can do is run!! He should try athletics!

  • 31.
  • At 08:05 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Alan Bradbury wrote:

Mr Hasselhoff

Althought slightly off topic, I do believe that the 'Prime' in your afformentioned television channel is refering to prime television.

I think that all these people that keep going on about the 91热爆 being biased towards Britain are dispicable.

Of course they should be biased they are a BRITISH broadcasting agency and we should be proud. We probably have the only news channel in the world that would possibly run a story casting their own company in disrepute (as has happend) more than once. It also has the best website in the world.

Keep it up.

Oh and Wilkinson does deserve a 7. Any game is about winning and you need points to win in rugby and he provided more than anyone else.

  • 32.
  • At 08:07 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • wrote:

A very poor England performance. Of the forwards only Lund and Corry showed anything like international class while the backs failed to function for the second week. Despite all the media hype I think the problem is Farrell. He poses no threat to the opposition, merely a static ball shunter, which is why England back moves go sideways rather than forward. The RFU have wasted huge sums on Farrell, and the sooner they face up to the fact the better. I suggest tait at centre Lucey at full back and one of the A-team wingers: Balshaw is out of the picture.

  • 33.
  • At 08:16 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Alan wrote:

Last year England played badly and lost. Today they played badly and won. I seem to remember them winning ugly in the 2 years leading up to the WC and reading similar complaints. Given what we all went through last autumn the two wins are welcome and the jury is still out.

Good to see Robinson back.

  • 34.
  • At 08:18 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • skipper-cw wrote:

to Ed Beans: Get a grip. Inferiority Complex or what...??? tell me... what's your sport, nationality or gripe...? be a little bit more constructive. Xenaphobic perhaps? Or another from another one of those intollerent cultures or religion brain-washed followings?

  • 35.
  • At 08:41 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • rob wrote:

To Ed Beans/Hasselhoff:

Allez la France!

And try to grow up you silly little boy.

  • 36.
  • At 08:44 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • bodhazaffa wrote:

good to see the normal the normal anti English nonsense on this blog. For those of u whinging about the fact there are no scores for the Italians and for the one person who said..' I agree. Just the usual from the English Broadcasting Service - England, England, England!!'...well surprsingly enough the news in England caters for the English, funny that really isn't it! As for tomorrow...come on the French!

  • 37.
  • At 08:46 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • bodhazaffa wrote:

good to see the normal the normal anti English nonsense on this blog. For those of u whinging about the fact there are no scores for the Italians and for the one person who said..' I agree. Just the usual from the English Broadcasting Service - England, England, England!!'...well surprsingly enough the news in England caters for the English, funny that really isn't it! As for tomorrow...come on the French!

  • 38.
  • At 08:47 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • alvi wrote:

NIGEL OWENS: 4

he made terrible mistakes aganist Italy, specially the sin bin and other aganist italy,the off side of the winger on scanavacca kick for example.
we're in the 6 nations since 7 year and we show that we are able to face and struggle aganist every opponent, we need good refrees.
it's anacronistic that we all still on refree's target.

  • 39.
  • At 08:48 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • scarygib wrote:

england no passion no desire no direction ,what a let down after last week 1 step forward 2 steps back ,ashton you moron if your game plan revolves around kicking away every bit of posesion you get ,and its done as badly as it was today.
when were the backs given a chance to run ,never ,did not cause any problems to the italians ,jonny has to take alot of the blame ,he simply did not take charge .
tindell and farrell look no kiond of threat ,theres no go forward ball hit the ball at pace forwards or backs ,if these no improvement ireland by 25 points

  • 40.
  • At 08:49 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • alvi wrote:

NIGEL OWENS: 4

he made terrible mistakes aganist Italy, specially the sin bin and other aganist italy,the off side of the winger on scanavacca kick for example.
we're in the 6 nations since 7 year and we show that we are able to face and struggle aganist every opponent, we need good refrees.
it's anacronistic that we all still on refree's target.

  • 41.
  • At 08:50 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • bodhazaffa wrote:

good to see the normal the normal anti English nonsense on this blog. For those of u whinging about the fact there are no scores for the Italians and for the one person who said..' I agree. Just the usual from the English Broadcasting Service - England, England, England!!'...well surprsingly enough the news in England caters for the English, funny that really isn't it! As for tomorrow...come on the French!

Well played to the Italians, ruined a lot of our ball and made life hard, well done!

  • 42.
  • At 08:53 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Derek Fallon wrote:

Had to laugh at England today. They were absolutely hopeless. Andy Farrell? A joke. Every time he received the ball he was stood still and just shovelled the ball on. Darcy o driscoll and Horgan will shred the english midfield. And as for the back three? Balshaw was hesitant and weak under the high ball, Lewsey was anonomous and Robinson made little impression other than the try. Wilkinson looked a yard slower than he did last week and his tactical kicking was poor. The English pack, picked for its power were out muscled by the Italians.

One thing is for sure-whoever wins tomorrow will win the Grand Slam.

  • 43.
  • At 08:54 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • andy sykes wrote:

It was the press and the people writing disappointed comments who hyped up the currently ability of England, not the players, which is why they're writing such ignorant remarks now.... And for the people complaining about England thinking we're great... we don't claim we're great, so you blatantly are threatened by our country as a whole, as you're so keen to convince us that you're not. I'm not envious of any other countries in the UK, so I don't feel the need to insult you. I just feel comforted in knowing that the way you attempt to feel pride in your country is to write pathetic comments about mine. Chin up.

  • 44.
  • At 08:54 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Tim Dobbs wrote:

Lewsey has said he is a winger and not a fullback so people should respect that and let him play on the wing. The constant suggestion that he should play at fullback are showing a total disregard for his wishes.

  • 45.
  • At 08:55 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • andy sykes wrote:

It was the press and the people writing disappointed comments who hyped up the current ability of England, not the players, which is why they're writing such ignorant remarks now.... And for the people complaining about England thinking we're great... we don't claim we're great, so you blatantly are threatened by our country as a whole, as you're so keen to convince us that you're not. I'm not envious of any other countries in the UK, so I don't feel the need to insult you. I just feel comforted in knowing that the way you attempt to feel pride in your country is to write pathetic comments about mine. Chin up.

  • 46.
  • At 08:56 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • s wrote:

Wow...

Reading this you'd haver thought England got stuffed by 20 points rather than claiming their 3rd win in 10 games in a game they led for 77 minutes and never looked like losing...

Defense was solid... Didn't concede many easily kickable penalties and when Italy finally got on the board it was a surprise... What was Chuter thinking? He should have scored a 4, for being at fault for the try and conceding a couple of needless penalties ... Still Thommo will be back before the world cup.

Ellis should have been rated a 4 at best... He showed last week he's good at sniping with the ball in hand but his pass is just too slow for an international scrum half, and too often England have presented the ball at a ruck and have to wait a couple of seconds for Ellis to arrive.

Fair play to BA for taking the blame for the style of performance... In fairness, losing two of your outside backs is always going to disrupt a team and prevent you playing an expansive game when you only have one one the bench.

  • 47.
  • At 08:57 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • alvise wrote:

NIGEL OWENS: 4

rubbish, it's not possibile that a team who faces and struggles aganist the top nations has this kind of refs.
today he always use two measurements about the situations, one for england an other more and more strict for italy, which committed some errors(in playing) of course.

we need good refs for improving more it's anacronistic.

  • 48.
  • At 08:57 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Tim Dobbs wrote:

Lewsey has said he is a winger and not a fullback so people should respect that and let him play on the wing. The constant suggestion that he should play at fullback are showing a total disregard for his wishes.

  • 49.
  • At 09:12 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Eileen wrote:

Comments re: England's performance more measured than last week...what!! no more talk of winning the world cup!!
It was a dreadful game and I don't rate any of the England team at the moment.
I look forward to seeing them on the celebrity circuit...will it be strictly come dancing for jonny or ice-skating.. more entertaining than their rugby anyway and I bet he'll look cute in a leotard.

  • 50.
  • At 09:21 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Tom wrote:

Ed Beans what the hell are you on about? You're talking a load of rubbish.. what does the america uk alliance have to do with the six nations? its biggoted idiots like you that ruin blogs like 606

  • 51.
  • At 09:25 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Old time player wrote:

I think we need to give cedit, where credit is due. The Itatians had done their homework, our forwards where bossed in most of the set pieces - which didn't come as a surprise - so may be that's why the back line may have struggled to produce the same spark and play with the same fair as last week. What is expected from English rugby fans? I will take a win at almost any cost, because the last couple of years we have been free fall.
The Irish will be very tough, and as always a very tough place to go to. But no team has set the championship on fire as yet (an interesting game on Sunday).

Paul

  • 52.
  • At 09:25 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Ian Jackson wrote:

I appreciate the irony in Tim Dobbs' comment. We do seem to be in proper deference to the players' wishes - perhaps that explains the inclusion of Balshaw in the starting 15. Lewsey makes his contribution more effectively at 15, where his robust approach lends a solidity to England's defense than we had today; there are better, more elusive prospects for the wing.

  • 53.
  • At 09:29 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Pete wrote:

A lot of sense talked here(with the exception of Ed Beans moronic rant),so lets get a few things straight 1.JW is only just back playing full stop,I'm just glad hes still in one piece!!,he'll be useful in Dublin!! 2.Italy are NOT a bad team and will prove this against both Wales and Scotland. 3.Give this team a chance to gel they will get better and will do ok in Dublin.
I would like to see White,Palmer,Cueto and Worsley in the team for Dublin at the expense of Freshwater,Deacon,Balshaw and Corry.Finally we still won so its not all doom and gloom.

  • 54.
  • At 09:32 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Richard Lake wrote:

Italy played well up front and made us look quite ordinary. However, given that the Scottish team we spanked last week played the Welsh off the park, I would disagree that we've played the weakest two teams so far.

Italy, by the fact that their strength is their pack, play a similar game to us. Neither team like to play too expansively early on and it just got very attritional.

Not too many changes next time. I'd bring Margan back in for Balshaw and have Worsley back at 8, with the rest of the back row intact. Deacon needs a performance though - I thought he was quite anonymous today.

  • 55.
  • At 09:49 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Peter Lees wrote:

Given the highly physical nature of the game today don't you think that it would take any side at least 75% of the match to get on top of any international opponents?
Lets take positives from the game. England defended well apart from one error. They made a solid show against a disruptive team who never really looked like winning.
It is a decent side that plays off scraps and still wins.

  • 56.
  • At 10:02 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Duncan Darroch-Thompson wrote:

Isn't it typically English, one week we're singing the praises of our national team and repolishing the world cup, and the next week we're baying for blood.

Why can't anyone look at the game and see that the Italians actually played out of their skins? They didn't turn up against France and readily admitted that, and those of you who listened to the build up this week will have heard that the England team knew that. Gone are the days when Italy rolled over every week, yes they didn't perform against the French but on their day they are a match for anyone. Bortolami (spelling, sorry) led his forwards excellently and they were physical and messed England around.

England still won convincingly, the result was never in doubt and as Ashton said, they taken two steps on a long journey. This team has played together TWICE, bear that in mind.

Player wise, Wilkinson looked sharp again, maybe not as much as last week but certainly sharp. Farrell did nothing wrong, won two turnovers (pretty good for a league convert...) and distributed the ball well. Tindall was injured before he had much of a chance but he defended well and attacked effectively.

Ellis did not have much space today but did a solid job, nothing earth-shattering but solid, all we can ask is a very solid performance every week and an excellent one from time to time, let's get off his back and remember that he's 24. Lund was good again, and Easter had an encouraging debut - what an excellent game to blood him in, good move Ashton.

The forwards didn't exert authority and made some mistakes, but ultimately they were on a par with what is a very strong Italian pack.

Let's give them a chance and let them show what they can do - cut them some slack and get behind them, stop expecting an All Black-esque performance every week.

  • 57.
  • At 10:22 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Johnbegood wrote:

You can't expect England to play like they did against Scotland last week - week-in-week-out. All those that are critisizing England's lacklustre win against Italy today, should just be thankfull we are winning at Twickenham again. Are they so short minded, they can't remember our dire record during the Autumn internationals. As Mr Rugby himself Ian Robertson says, a win, is a win, is a win!!!!!!!

  • 58.
  • At 10:25 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Mike wrote:

Everyone likes to knock the English it seems. Jonny Wilkinson is not the perfect no 10 but he is an asset to England we have sorely missed. Anyone who knows or has played rugby to a reasonble level like myself knows how difficult it is to drop goal and place kick. Any player who contributes the record breaking tally Jonny has is worth his place. I was looking at the records he has broken the other day. They number about 8 world class records. i.e most points ever in 6 nations, most ever in a world cup.

Additionally he is modest polite and generous to his opponents like Scotland last match. Something some of the bloggers on this site could learn some manners from.

The main reason Wilko and Englands backs did not perform today was the forwards too slow to the breakdown, no quick ball to work with. Slow ball means organized defences and boring games.

  • 59.
  • At 10:27 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Tom wrote:

Balshaw simply isn't good enough to play for England (or Gloucester!). Simpson-Daniel should be drafted in the moment he is fit to play. Wilko needs to stop pretending to have the feet of Billy Whizz and give Farrell some early ball so that he can stamp his mark on this code. He clearly has the skills and the composure to be enormously effective for England at 12.
Hats off to Italy though, they stuck to a game-plan, defended well in midfield, kicked to our useless full-back, and suffocated our tight five.
I remain optimistic for an English Grand Slam- all you Irish supporters apparently have very short memories. Did you not watch last weekend's performance? Perhaps you missed the last Heinecken Cup round too? Nevermind, good luck tomorrow- you'll need it!

  • 60.
  • At 10:29 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Sam Griffiths wrote:

I personally think farrel had a good game and desereved more than a six he kicked exceptionally well of both feet and acted at fly half a few times and did a good job.

  • 61.
  • At 10:33 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Sam Griffiths wrote:

I personally think farrel had a good game and desereved more than a six he kicked exceptionally well of both feet and acted at fly half a few times and did a good job.

  • 62.
  • At 10:38 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Pete wrote:

A lot of sense talked here(with the exception of Ed Beans moronic rant),so lets get a few things straight 1.JW is only just back playing full stop,I'm just glad hes still in one piece!!,he'll be useful in Dublin!! 2.Italy are NOT a bad team and will prove this against both Wales and Scotland. 3.Give this team a chance to gel they will get better and will do ok in Dublin.
I would like to see White,Palmer,Cueto and Worsley in the team for Dublin at the expense of Freshwater,Deacon,Balshaw and Corry.Finally we still won so its not all doom and gloom.

  • 63.
  • At 10:42 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Nuala Kearney wrote:

Hi Mark

England did not play as well as last week, in fact it was almost like the Scotland Vs Wales Game " Club Rugby ", however, don't want to say too much until Ireland play France on Sunday. Just one thing, when Ireland play England on the 24 February, they are playing in Croke Park, can you pass the word around it is pronounced "Crow" Park", the "K" is silent.

Regards

NK

  • 64.
  • At 10:59 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Sam wrote:

sorry to say this but does it not seem a bit english orientated that we have ratings for their game but now th Scotland-Wales which infact included two british nations.

  • 65.
  • At 11:02 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Annoyed at reading duplicated blogs wrote:

"Comments are moderated and will not appear on this weblog until the author has approved them."

Well actually 'author' then and stop these silly people like David H/Ed B blogging the same comment six times!

WAKE UP! Some of us want to read the informed opinion of our fellow rugby fans - and not unadulterated duplicated boring waffle!

  • 66.
  • At 11:18 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Sean M wrote:

Some good comments and the now borish, usual chip on shoulder comments from others. Some so pathetic they are not worth commenting on.
In general a compitent performance by England. Not great, but not bad either. Won confortably but didn't set the world alight for all the reasons illustrated by others.
But, it is dangerous to draw comparisons with the future Irish game. Italy's strengths and weaknesses are totally different to Ireland (or Scotlands for that matter) and the game will be different. We expect England to be more dominant in the pack and Ireland have dominance from their centres. So, possibly more like the Scottish game?

  • 67.
  • At 11:22 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Chopper wrote:

Who cares about the Ireland result? They are close on the best team in the World. England have progressed and not just because of Jonnies return.
The Italians were formidable in the pack and Troncon made a huge difference. Why do people insist on thinking a match against them will be a walk over all the time. I think they will beat Wales and possibly Scotland. Around the breakdown they bossed (worked hard).
The game that interests me most is against France.
All I'm saying is don't raise expectations back to the heady days and congratulate progress.
Remember who won the Grand Salm two years ago and who have been scrapping for the wooden spoon ever since (and ever more)......

  • 68.
  • At 11:24 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Johnbegood wrote:

You can't expect England to play like they did against Scotland last week - week-in-week-out. All those that are critisizing England's lacklustre win against Italy today, should just be thankfull we are winning at Twickenham again. Are they so short minded, they can't remember our dire record during the Autumn internationals. As Mr Rugby himself Ian Robertson says, a win, is a win, is a win!!!!!!!

  • 69.
  • At 11:25 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Chopper wrote:

Who cares about the Ireland result? They are close on the best team in the World. England have progressed and not just because of Jonnies return.
The Italians were formidable in the pack and Troncon made a huge difference. Why do people insist on thinking a match against them will be a walk over all the time. I think they will beat Wales and possibly Scotland. Around the breakdown they bossed (worked hard).
The game that interests me most is against France.
All I'm saying is don't raise expectations back to the heady days and congratulate progress.
Remember who won the Grand Salm two years ago and who have been scrapping for the wooden spoon ever since (and ever more)......

  • 70.
  • At 11:27 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Chopper wrote:

Who cares about the Ireland result? They are close on the best team in the World. England have progressed and not just because of Jonnies return.
The Italians were formidable in the pack and Troncon made a huge difference. Why do people insist on thinking a match against them will be a walk over all the time. I think they will beat Wales and possibly Scotland. Around the breakdown they bossed (worked hard).
The game that interests me most is against France.
All I'm saying is don't raise expectations back to the heady days and congratulate progress.
Remember who won the Grand Salm two years ago and who have been scrapping for the wooden spoon ever since (and ever more)......

  • 71.
  • At 11:32 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • Sam wrote:

sorry to say this but does it not seem a bit english orientated that we have ratings for their game but now th Scotland-Wales which infact included two british nations.

  • 72.
  • At 11:43 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • DavoDiablo wrote:

England Ranked 7th in the world beat Italy Ranked 12th . After beating Scotland Ranked 9th.

Just a little perspective

  • 73.
  • At 12:10 AM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • scottishrugby wrote:

Why havent you rated both sets of players?

  • 74.
  • At 12:19 AM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • Doughnut27 wrote:

Always a disappointment to see England struggle in the forwards as it always seems to support the line that they are a one trick pony. I could not believe the number of times England tried to create a rolling maul, only to find themselves going nowhere.

It would have been more encouraging - as well as exciting - if they had used the ball that they did win in the backs, setting up rucks, and losening up the game a bit. England should have had more faith in their ability, taking a few more risks.

In terms of how good they really are, we'll have to wait until they've played the other three sides - still too early, but the scores so far are fair enough.

  • 75.
  • At 12:53 AM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • Adam Smith wrote:

Although the performance wasn't great for England, I thought that Italy performed above expectations. In my opinion I still hold England as favourite's for the Six Nations, and with a decent chance for the World Cup. I expect that France and Engalnd will both win at Crowe Park even though Ireland are the favourites.

  • 76.
  • At 01:03 AM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • gary luton wrote:

The game for England was not good, a win, but nothing too get excited about, the last three games will show us where they are.
More importantly has anyone ever seen or heard John Inverdale praise the England rugby team for anything at all. He is always very quick to run them down when he has the chance.
I think he is a scotsman pretending to be English.....

  • 77.
  • At 01:10 AM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • rich chong wrote:

looking at some of the comments it seems that most of you have never played or understand the game.
Agreed it was a poor performance by both teams. By continually saying that england played so badly is an insult to the Italian team, who have played much better than this in the past. Englands error was keeping the ball in the pack and not using throwing the ball wide to expose the weaker italian backs. Everyone knows the strength and experience of the italian pack. Italy lack a strong number 10 to organise the back line. Too much aimless kicking, giving away valuable possession.

The biggest worry for England from the match is the fact that in 80 mins, despite what the territory stats show, we only visited the oppositions 22 once in the first half and thats when we scored!

Although there are some familiar names in the line up this is still a new team and all teams have good and bad days. it was never going to be as spectacular as last week for so many reasons, the scoreline, the return of Wilkinson, Robinson, Farrel's first game, Vickery's captaincy, Ashton's first game.
Expectations were maybe too high.

Yes, a poor game all round but hey it's a win and 2 from 2 will do no matter how its done. It's a tornament and it's all about winning.

lets face it if England do win the Six Nations or even get the Grand Slam we'll all change our tune.

We're winning again, lets enjoy it!

  • 78.
  • At 01:19 AM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • sam wrote:

I was at the game, and I can safely say it was probably the most boring match of any sport i have ever been to. The highlight for evryone being the mexican wave. Lund and Ellis played well,and Farrel really wasn't great. Balshaw and Tindall should be dropped for Tait and Cueto.

  • 79.
  • At 01:21 AM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • chris wrote:

Nuala Kearney

Shame on you! m Its Croke Park after Dr Croke.

Re 71 - Agree with you entirely.

  • 80.
  • At 01:28 AM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • Mike Buckley wrote:

Ashton is becoming to look exactly as I described him some days before on this blog.....an Irish coaching reject. England are bringing new life to term "mediocrity" in this championship. They have now had their two easiest games they'll have in this championships and have shown only two things....Jonny can still kick and Robinson can still cross the line occasionally. No doubt they will stumble on for the rest of the championship and talk earnestly of "Much achieved but more work to do" leading up to the WC but the truth is plain to see....they are now a middle ranked world team, langouring in the same strata as perhaps Argentina or Wales. (And I'm being generous to them there). I feel sorry for English fans as I think your being duped by the tactically one dimensional Ashton, but then again anything is better than Andy Robinson I suppose. Prepare for a record Irish win in Croker in 2 weeks lads.

  • 81.
  • At 01:38 AM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • charlie grace wrote:

i agree with Duncan Darroch-Thompson the italians did play fantasticly and nothing should be taken away from the italian side. However i would like to see england run more with the ball and stop kicking for possesion, specially if wilko did as poor in his tatical kicking as he did today. I think Tait should play out-side centre next game he is englands answer to brian odriscoll, and although tindall has been playing well he is kinda obvious in the way he plays the game with not much creativity. I dont agree with Tim Dobbs im afraid. People consider Lewsey to be on of the best full-backs in the world but they dont see him as one of the best wingers. I think we could have other wingers there doing a better job like simpson daniel, strettle,paul sacky or cueto. Lewsey needs to realise England need him as a fullback, he is awsome in defence and under high ball he's one of the best in the England squad. In any case im happy with everything as long as brian can wake up and drop balshaw.

  • 82.
  • At 01:46 AM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • Mike Buckley wrote:

Nuala Kearney....are you a plastic Paddy or what? I have been to CroKE Park many times, I have even played at CroKE park.....where are you getting the silent "K" from? It is usually affectionatley just called "Croker" by GAA fans. Go back and have a serious word with your Irish granny or whoever fed you with that silent K rubbish!

  • 83.
  • At 02:22 AM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • DC wrote:

It was infuriating to watch England today. No they weren't exceptionally bad but they were repeating the same conservative style of rugby I remember before the Woodward era.
Kick and ruck, kick and ruck.

What is happening? I thought BA was the impressario who would introduce the wide expansive rugby every England fan dreams of. I lost count of the times England went through over 5 phases of play without once getting the ball to the backline to run at the opposition. No, instead they chose to turn back into the ruck area filled with opposition and trip over the bodies of their fallen comrades.

And when they did have the ball in open field, invariably they just kicked possession away, most of the time poorly!

Yes the Italians disrupted the forward platform but we still could have opened up the play massively with the possession we did have.

Bad decision making time and time again. Somethings got to change.

  • 84.
  • At 05:32 AM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • japanman wrote:

Dear mike and co,
Yes we English are truly a "second class" rubgy nation and we truly apologise if any sense of national pride has ever offended you. It is silly of us to think we can improve on our performance, especially as we re languishing somewhere in the strata of mediocrity. We humbly now roll over and admit everybody else is better than us and the Irish are the best.

Team England

  • 85.
  • At 07:21 AM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • DMW wrote:

I like most of the previous commentators, am pretty disappointed with the England performance. The lack of grunt, tactical nouse, inadequate kicking from hand, lack of cutting edge from the backs etc. How do those French backs manage to kick it so much further than us?
But having had a few hours to mull it over, I'm coming to a different conclusion. With there being so much demand on the players, continual premiership games, just coming off a pretty intense Heineken Cup series and with 5 6 Nations games to play in consecutive weeks. And a key game in Ireland next week. Could it have been part of a cunning plan? To keep the powder dry?
They knew they had the game to beat Italy, was it worth going into physical deficit to please the crowd with an energy sapping performance?
I know they'll never admit it publicly.
To turn the tide and generate consecutive wins is no small achievement.
Now to beat the favorites Ireland away. Wouldn't that be an achievement?

  • 86.
  • At 07:51 AM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • daniel wrote:

Where are the votes for the ref. and the other team players? they also were in the pitch at Twickenham on the same time as the english team weren't they? I Think for the sake of information and a more complete picture it would be nice to read those rating too, considering the man of the match was Alessandro Troncon. So if i may suggest the first rating for the italians i would say, considering Ellis got 6, Troncon 8...
Thanks, have a good day

  • 87.
  • At 08:06 AM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • r0nin wrote:

The world champions can't have a great game every week... I think they played well within themselves given the opposition, I think we'll see a very different England side in two weeks at Croke Park... Wilkinson was i thought was clinical as usual and will be back to his best against the irish, as will most of the rest of the team... You have to also factor in the that injuries are also the key watch word and you don't want to get injured against Italy with a massive game against ireland only 14days away.... most important thing is to win even if it's ugly......

  • 88.
  • At 08:11 AM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • clarky wrote:

Why cant u be more supportive, build some self esteem, we won , give out some 10's, why are english reporters so negative?

  • 89.
  • At 08:28 AM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • CatchAndDrive wrote:

I think the main (or indeed only) reason that there are no Italian players' ratings is contained in the title of the article: "England player ratings".
Anyway, it was another disappointing performance. But a win is a win, and after Sunday England will be one of only 2 teams that can do the Grand-Slam. Maybe our expectations are too high, and we don't (as spectatotrs) give some teams the respect they deserve.

  • 90.
  • At 08:49 AM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • Kate wrote:

I watched the match at Twickers and i must say i was totally impressed.Robinson had to be the best man on England's side closely followed by Wilkinson, as after all no points, no win.

But staying to see the women's afterwards, they'd definately give the boys a run for their money.

  • 91.
  • At 08:54 AM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • Aucklandpom wrote:

Looked like England got sucked into a physical confrontation.
England largely attacked without variation and weren't dominant at the breakdown.
The result, slow ball with forwards running with heads down.
And pretty average tactical kicking that didn't for the most part put pressure on the opposition.
If England are to compete with the best they have to speed up their recycling of their ball and quickly move the ball out of contact areas and off load more in the tackle instead of going to ground so quickly.
I hope England can improve but they have a lot to do in a really short time if they want to get past the 1/4 finals in the world cup.



  • 92.
  • At 09:04 AM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • Ed wrote:

Rate the Italians please, 91热爆. Oh, and also employ some cameramen/producers who understand the laws of rugby. 'It's what we do' !! your coverage is appaling, too much jazzy camera angles and Z list celeb spotting going on and too many restarts/lineouts missed as we idle on the 16th reply angle...

Anyway.. Regards to Ashton for an honest press conf. Eng were poor & indecisive (still got to shake off the '06 hoodoo), Captain Vickery simply can't lead from the front row when he's blowing through his ar*e just trying to keep his scrummaging together. Ex Captain Corry, remains silent & pedantic - surely there are other No. 8's out there ?
Balshaw is not Gloucester's 15, Olly Morgan has kept him out of that jersey pretty much all season. Olly deserved a second cap but was ignored, I hope Ashton can now see the error of his ways.
Otherwise this was a jobbing win against a wonderful Azurri pack. It would be unfair to say they only came here to damage limit, their match plan would have been spot on if their place kicker had been more spot on.

  • 93.
  • At 09:12 AM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • Phil B wrote:

I was very disappointed with what appeared to be a complete lack of effort from the English half-backs and backs. Italy have one of the best packs in rugby, so we were never going to beat them up front - particularly with the likes of Forrester, Ward-Smith, Moody, Worsley, Borthwick, Thompson, Sheridan and Stevens all either injured or recovering.

When we did move the ball around we created problems for them, with Robinson going over in one corner and Balshaw coming close in the other on the couple of occasions that we did. However, instead of running that kind of game Wilkinson kept kicking the ball back to the Italians - without getting touch and nobody chasing to put pressure on the player taking the return kick/running back at us. This must have been hugely demoralising for the forwards, working so hard to get the ball off an excellent pack only to see it handed back on a plater.

  • 94.
  • At 09:13 AM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • alec willetts wrote:

That was a completely different Italian team to the one that didn't turn up last weekend, I'd much rather watch a good tight game than a runaway victory, and in any case England showed nothing for the Irish tactics experts to work on, except two points in the bag.
Let's see how the Irish cope with the French before we start making any premature predictions.

  • 95.
  • At 09:24 AM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • Claire wrote:

You are on an english message board/blog. Got to italian website for italian player ratings.

  • 96.
  • At 09:50 AM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • Penny wrote:

As an English fan, I am always glad to see them win. It may not have been the most exciting game ever, the crowd could have got behind the team more. However, the worst part of watching the game had to be the negative 91热爆 commentators!! They moan that Johnny is getting too much attention, then talk about nothing else!! At the end of the day we won. Well done JW and WELL DONE ENGLAND!!!

  • 97.
  • At 09:58 AM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • dan wrote:

balshaw is weak against ireland, watch him drop o'garas balls, get rid of him lewsey all the way!

  • 98.
  • At 10:17 AM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • David Ware wrote:

Slow and steady should be England鈥檚 changing of the guard. Bring in the future gradually but find a place for James Simpson Daniel he is the best line breaker in English rugby. If England is going to play top class wingers then let鈥檚 get the ball out to them. The amount of ball Josh Lewesey has seen these last two weeks you might as well have played Ben Cohen again (tap dancer in attack) but great defence.

Also can anyone tell me what has happened to all the Gloster wannabees I haven鈥檛 seen Lamb, JSD, Forrester or Anthony Allen even figuring for the Saxons?

  • 99.
  • At 10:17 AM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • andy g wrote:

watched my first full game of rugby union yesterday, mainly to see how farrell and robinson performed. I'll declare that my interest is firmly in League rather than Union.

The game was poor. If you're expecting Farrell to be the saviour I think it's highly probable that you will be dissapointed. He must have lost 2 stone and looks very slow. But what do you expect from someone who has had two knee reconstructions and a prolapsed disc after he left League. Let's not forget he may 'only' be 31 but he's been playing non-stop since 16 with no respite in off season due to his international commitments since he was 17. His body must be absolutely knackered.

All he did was pass the ball before the defensive line - bizarre.

Robinson, still looks the part, he'll still beat anyone one-on-one from 20 yards out.

Wilkinson is an excellent kicker and very brave, but his tackling technique is poor. The number of times he gets his head on the wrong side is petty alarming. Also, with ball in hand he's less than dynamic and a little slow.

Tindall would play at prop in League. I certainly wouldn't like to be his winger you wouldn't know where or when you would get the ball.

The forwards all have a very poor level of skill and no vision, it's all head down.

Anyway, good look to England for the rest of the 6N.

  • 100.
  • At 10:23 AM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • Andy Smith wrote:

I watched from 44mins to 56mins and counted only 19 passes. 57 points and only 2 tries in 160 mins of rug by. After months of anticipation it wont be long till I stop watching the sick nations.

  • 101.
  • At 11:12 AM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • Alec wrote:

Hi, I would just like to point out one thing that has seemed to be missed. JR's try was a knock on and the before the kicker decision against Italy which led to 3 points was amazing. That is 8 points gifted to England by an incompetant Ref. This game was a lot closer than the scoreline suggested. Still lots of work to do.

  • 102.
  • At 11:25 AM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • Rob wrote:

wilkinson was very poor yesterday and only deserves a rating oof 5 or 6 max.

  • 103.
  • At 11:34 AM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • Ellwood Davies wrote:

Stephen's comment [No. 10] is absolutely correct and pertinent.

"Respect to Brian Moore for awarding the Man Of The Match to Troncon, but raspberries to the broadcast director and the commentators for spending too much time on some minor celebrity no-marks in the stands when they should have been showing us what was happening on the pitch. Were they sucking up in the hope of securing OBEs and MBEs?"

Well ?
I have a couple of questions:
1. Who paid for the tickets for the two little princes and whatsa'name?

2. Why was that young officer allowed to go and sit next to our nice Mr. R. Andrew? Will any and every Army officer be allowed to do this at future Rugby matches?

Answers please

  • 104.
  • At 11:41 AM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • Symon wrote:

I've got a binary view - we won.

Italy are a far better side than they often get credit for, and we had lots of untried and untested combinations out there, plus a host of guys coming back into form and fitness. Factor in players returning from injury, or coming back into form, and we have reason to be optimistic. In the backs I'd try Tait in the centre and have Simpson-Daniel and Robinson as the wingers, with Lewsey at full back.

It certainly wasn't a great game, but as a few other people have written - last year we were playing poorly and losing.

Finally, I wish I could read the article by Ed Beans that seems to have caused so much offence - I can't find it, only the reaction! Can it be re-posted so I can enjoy what seems to have been a mindless rant?

  • 105.
  • At 12:00 PM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • dick pearson wrote:

It's not often that you get over a hundred comments on a subject - just proves that everyone has an opinion on players.

Reading through them all there is just one concensus - Balshaw must go.

For myself, I actaally thought that Harry Ellis had an excellent game, especially clearing up after other players errors. As for the speed of pass that is detirmined by the speed with which his forward clear out the ball (or like yesterday fail to): he was still much quicker than anything we saw in the autumn.

Lastly most commentators ignore the real contribution made by two excellent second rows - Grewcock and Deacon - who despite the efforts of a fine Italian pack never took a step back and fought to maintain slightly better than parity for most of the game.

  • 106.
  • At 12:04 PM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • Tim Jenkins wrote:

Don鈥檛 forget that some 鈥渆xpert鈥 pundits picked Italy to beat France in the first game of this year 6 Nations. Clearly, the Italians are now a rugby force to be taken seriously. Many of the Italian players now play in England & France and expecting an easy win is unrealistic. Sure, England did not play well but I don't think we should under-estimate the power of the Italian pack.

Pierre Berbizier maybe kicking himself that he did not try a more expansive game plan, although if they had kept their error count down who knows what would of happened.

  • 107.
  • At 12:05 PM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • Stuart wrote:

Is there anyone else out there who is wondering what happened to the devastating ball player and game maker that was Andy Farrell? I was at the match and could not understand his selection. He made few if any runs from inside centre, and when he and Wilkinson swapped he stood too deep and shipped the ball without ever fixing his man.

The forwards never really gained theupper hand against a very big and strong Italian pack, and the expected fall off of fitness in the last twenty mins, never materialised. Slow grinding play and even slower ball from Ellis condemned the crowd to a dire experience.

What a disappointment!!!!!

  • 108.
  • At 12:14 PM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • Daff wrote:

What is going on with the England selectors continually selecting glorified locks (Corry and Worsley) in the back row! Lets see some more dynamic players like Lipman at Bath, Steffon Armitage at London Irish and Andy Hazell at Gloucester given more of a chance- Lipman was one of our best forwards on the summer tour! Also, who told Farell that an inside centre is the teams distributor, all he does is pass! Pretty strange when you think about his back ground in Rugby League where anything other than running into your opposite number is viewed as incredible. He should be barging up the middle of the pitch setting up phases rather than just shovelling the ball out all the time. Speaking of running into opposie numbers what the hell is Mike Tindall in the team for, he opitomises the phrase 'one dimensional' give Tait a chance with a start! Italy seem to be a bit of a stumbling block for England, last year's game in Rome being a prime example. We should treat the Azzuri with a little more respect- like we would the Springboks or All Blacks, then maybe we might play with a bit more fire in the lilly white belly!

  • 109.
  • At 12:51 PM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • Swampy wrote:

As previous people have commented Italy are not a bad side. Yes it would have been great if England had progressed further from the Scotland game, but if you offered any England player, coach, pundit, or supporter two comfortable (if unspectactular) England wins in the Autumn they would have gladly taken it.
Fair play to Brian Ashton for holding his hand up. Yes he has made some selection & tactical errors, but if he can learn from these while still winning good luck to him.
Cueto returning on 1 wing allowing Lewsey to revert to full back will help, & although Farrell & Tindall individually are solid England require more creativity in 1 of the centre positions. The back row is still not totally balanced & the second row lacks a bit of punch .... BUT this is 4 small points, 6 months ago there were 10 or more places up for discussion!

  • 110.
  • At 12:55 PM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • Will wrote:

#89 CatchAndDrive

I think your missing the point.
Although Italy lost, if the Italian players were given ratings they would all be given higher ratings than their counterparts in the English team, and there are English fans that wouldn't like that

  • 111.
  • At 12:58 PM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • Jill Hearle wrote:

Does anyone else feel that the bbc coverage of the matches so far has been poor. During the england game yesterday as with the previous weekend i had great difficulty in making out what was going on during the play because the camera shot was either too far away or the wrong shot was selected i.e. from the top of the stadium or a 30 sec shot of the Italian coach picking his nose(joke). I am pleased that the six nations is back again on terestial t.v. but you can certainly learn a lot from SKY coverage.

  • 112.
  • At 01:02 PM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • jim wrote:

Where's my post?

  • 113.
  • At 01:22 PM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • Bill Montigue wrote:

I do see an argument for putting Josh Lewsey back at 15 as he's well experienced in that area and i've seen few better under the high ball.Also, being at fullback, he would probably see more of the ball due to the nature of playing on the right wing with a scrum half who's right handed. I've got nothing against Balshaw but why put experienced 15's on the wing and a young up and coming winger/centre on the bench. I can see the point for respecting players wishes but what about the greater good?

  • 114.
  • At 01:40 PM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • Mike wrote:

I remember Rob Andrew saying something about handing responsibility back to the players. Would like to have seen someone on the field change the game plan from the one that obviously wasn't working. Far too much kicking and giving possession away. Was there and really enjoyed the mexican wave!

  • 115.
  • At 02:28 PM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • jason wrote:

Another 'no' try awarded by the ref! This is becoming a joke, the english even got 3 points from a free pen that totally baffled me. The forward pass made for robinson's try was an obvious spot, so why did the 'neutral' commentary not even call it? Maybe its the same reason that they refer to engurland as 'we'. So much for 91热爆 standards eh. Don't hear Nicol or Doyle refer to their nations in such a way as maybe they are too proffessional.

  • 116.
  • At 05:22 PM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • Eric Clegg wrote:

The front five lost the "power game" in the scrum and for some reason played the Italians at their own game.Consequently the back row skills were obliterated. Passing skills in the backs could improve somewhat but even then we looked short of pace (and ideas). How often did the ball reach the wings ? Jason received one good opportunity and scored.

There seemed plenty of replacement put forward but one could detect club bias in some. Balshaw is not on form and continues to have almost permanent injury problems. I would prefer to see Lewsey at 15 with Cueto back if fit. (definitely club bias)

Good English props anyone ? (exclude injured ones)

I thought that is was customary to rate both sides.

Were you only there to watch one team?

  • 118.
  • At 06:23 PM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • Spooner wrote:

Blimey Jason, I'm only just starting to see the light.
It's only down to refereeing errors that England win any games!
As for biased TV pundits, did you hear Phil Matthews? I don't mind a bit of bias from anyone (aka pride in your own national team, get over it) but give Pitbull a bit of credit, he does call against England when he sees fit, didn't hear much of that today.
Saying that, I'd rather look for positives in and optimism for my own team and pundits in general, rather than railing against others. I'm sure the majority of supporters are the same, maybe these blogs inspire the bitter minority?

  • 119.
  • At 06:37 PM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • Mike Buckley wrote:

Japman....I apologise for giving you a dose of reality. It stems from listening to the hyperbole of the English press concerning the state of the current English team and it's pre-ordaianed assumption that a nation which won the WC 4 years ago should somehow have some sort of right to performing well in the 6 nations, irrespective of the other 5 nations competing. The sooner the English press wake up to this the better, and prehaps you may see my point in my original post too.

  • 120.
  • At 09:28 PM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • Simon wrote:

"but raspberries to the broadcast director and the commentators for spending too much time on some minor celebrity no-marks in the stands when they should have been showing us what was happening on the pitch."

Well said - the 91热爆's coverage does leave a lot to be desired in my opinion. The camera work was particularly frustrating, and somebody must have told John Inverdale that he is funny. Disappointing.

  • 121.
  • At 09:37 PM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • Cumbrian Falcon wrote:

with regard to the comment 119 - how do you LISTEN to the press in England ,I usually read the papers (also work in the industry) perhaps some of the posters couldgive some examples of the articles they refer to ,most of the respected journalists do not g overboard about England's current team ,again I challenge -- give specifics

  • 122.
  • At 10:06 PM on 11 Feb 2007,
  • Andrew Stewart wrote:

i think this lucky result against a poor italian side has shown how superficial englands recovery has been under brian ashton. Against scotland, england were good, except their play was augmented by a heavily weakened, poor scottish side. A true test of english mettle will be against the irish and french.

  • 123.
  • At 12:12 AM on 12 Feb 2007,
  • Julien wrote:

Why you didn't rate Italians, you saw their performances too, no? Are you too selfish to consider others teams?

I am not a big fan of Italian鈥檚 team in football but in rugby it鈥檚 an other story. They lost almost every match and every time they come again and try to play as well as they can. RESPECT that what they deserve.

  • 124.
  • At 01:54 AM on 12 Feb 2007,
  • Tom Andrews wrote:

A poor performance by England. Yet again the public has fallen for the hype after the Scotland game.

Wilkinson needs time to re-establish himself, consistent kicker, but needs to be in charge of his own back line.

Ellis showed that against more threatening opposition he isn't quite international class.

Farrell is a good player, good technical skills but as of yet has not shown us he is a 'world class' player.

Lund has played reasonable to date, but although his lack of experience,I believe Rees is the future of England 7. Power and pace may Rees stand above Lund, he needs more time on the pitch to showcase himself.

Robinson has played two good games and justified his selection but Lewsey has to make more of an impact, solid in defence as usual bu not being creative enough in offense.

All in all, 2 games, 4 points, but shape up or Ireland will roll us over,

tom

  • 125.
  • At 09:57 AM on 12 Feb 2007,
  • beowulf wrote:

For some bizarre reason people don't seem to want to give Italy the credit they deserve.

England's style of play was dictated by Italy's tactics for all but the last 10 minutes of the game when, by Troncon's own admission, they opened up their attacking play. Knowing that they could easily compete with England's tight five, Italy played a forward-dominated game, kicking for territorial advantage to great effect.

Anybody who bleats that England weren't creative or attack-minded needs to come up for air for just a moment and ask themselves "Do I really want England to begin their attacks with Ian Balshaw fielding a kick and running it out from his own 22?"

It is simply nonsensical to demand risky rugby from the opening kickoff - you win rugby matches by taking your points when they're offered and then cutting loose when you have at least a double-digit lead. Against Italy England did not "rely" on JW's left foot, they simply benefitted from it when Italy made it clear that they would rather give away a penalty 40 yards from their try line than allow England to advance further. This is not cheating on Italy's part, it's strategy, and if Hodgson was playing at 10 for England, it would have worked.

England play their attacking, passing rugby when they are inside their opponent's 10 metre line and I for one don't want to see them taking a cavalier attitude inside their own half when their front 5 are struggling.

As for SOME of the individual performances:

Balshaw - Must be dropped.

Lewsey - Must move to Fullback

Farrell - Improved on what was a very sound performance against Scotland. Slick passing off both hands, very good in the ruck ( stole two balls that I saw ) fairly good kicking out of hand. Very interesting to see him and JW switch roles in the latter stages

JW - Not fantastic but collected 15 points, and looked interesting at inside centre in the latter stages. Only interesting, mind you.

Ellis - Not remotely good enough. Flattered to deceive against Scotland's dire pack, totally contained by Italy. Fell back into his habit of taking a step prior to passing in slow-ball situations, giving the first receiver little time or space. Even considering his pack was under the cosh, Ellis was poor. Bristol's Shaun Perry is a better option.

Corry - Unnacceptable error count, consistently poor decision-making at breakdowns. How many times did he pick up and drive when he shouldn't have? Looks exhausted and insipid, in dire need of a break.

Front 5: Universally poor, although Grewcock looked a shade better than the rest. Man for man comprehansively out played by the Azzuri

  • 126.
  • At 10:26 AM on 12 Feb 2007,
  • James wrote:

Well played Italy! Felt the scoreline flattered England. If it wasn't for Wilkinson's ability to keep the scoreboard ticking over I think we could have been seeing England lose for the first time against Italy.

The England pack was poor. We were out muscled by the Italians and yet still tried to take them on up front when our back line looked like they could do some damage.

A dull match in every aspect. Still lots to work on for England. Ireland & France will be harder thanever.

  • 127.
  • At 10:39 AM on 12 Feb 2007,
  • Houstie wrote:

I think I could be a player rater for the 91热爆. After reading the ratings for the past couple of weeks I get an idea of the skill & intelligence required to get it right.

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 - for all teams.

Does anyone else think that 6 is the VOGUE number amongst ratings??

  • 128.
  • At 11:17 AM on 12 Feb 2007,
  • Philip Johnson wrote:

We know that the strongest part of the Italian game is their forward play, so why did the English team insist on competing with their strength instead of employing quick release and using the backs? In fact one of the weakest points of the English game continues to be retaining the ball in the tackle and securing quick release to liberate the backs. Granted there is a need to employ forward play occasionally to pull in the opposition forwards, but not every time as England seem to do.

  • 129.
  • At 11:30 AM on 12 Feb 2007,
  • Houstie wrote:

Regarding comment 121. I don't read many English papers & will not comment on what is printed. However, I have ears as do the rest of the non-English contingent of the UK. The constant battering on about England's team, England's coach, Johnny Wilkinson etc etc. is already tiresome after 2 weeks.

I mentioned in another blog that I watched the England v Italy game on Sat & the build up was entirely about England. Funnily enough, in the previous week, the majority of the build up concentrated on England again!!

Then there is the commentary which seems to have a recurring theme of discussion on England's team & tactics. All we ask is that commentary is unbiased & sticks to the relevant facts of the game. For example, watching Ireland v Wales last week & O'Gara scores a try. Eddie "the idiot" butler says "that's not the first try scored by a world class 10 this wkend". Why bring up JW's try during an Ireland v Wales game???

  • 130.
  • At 12:47 PM on 12 Feb 2007,
  • Dan Elliott wrote:

I would pretty much agree with him there although I do think Wilkinson, Corry and Robinson did better than he thinks here are my player ratings where they differ from the 91热爆 Man's
Wilkinson - 8 - Could have done better but as ever his kicking was on form - yes kicking out of hand could have been a bit better but he was one of the few players to find touch when they kicked perhaps not every time he kicked from hand but where it counted. Corry - 7 - Yes it was a bit of a poor performance from Martin but he still powered through and gave his best considering the circs the groung was no doubt a bit wet as was the ball yet Corry still pushed well and defensively played well too so 7 for him. Robinson - 8 again because he worked hard and played well - yes he still needs to recover the form from 2003 World Cup but don't they all - his try does it for me tho - not the best in the game of course but he powered through and kept running and lets be honest Italy could have stopped him but they didnt quite have the pace to do it. On the whole though I would agree with the 91热爆 and my team rating is 6/10 cos although Italy are getting better - they did not play any better than Scotland in my mind and therefore England were at fault - Last week I would have given them 8 or 9 but even then they could have prevented Scotland's Final Try but didnt so I still dont think they have World Cup form but its coming - Ireland will be a big test but England can still win it. Come on England!!!

  • 131.
  • At 01:02 PM on 12 Feb 2007,
  • Darran Mather wrote:

England will perform against Ireland and France. People haven't seen the best of Farrell and Wilkinson yet but please can someone tell the pack that sticking the ball up your shirt, in your own half, forming a rolling maul and playing like donkeys will ensure that we will never compete against the Blacks.

get the ball and give it to the backs at every opportunity. They're there for a reason for god's sake.

we need fluidity from both backs and forwards but these Englsih forwards fail miserably in technical skills and an appalling inability to run the ball as though forwards aren't supposed to run with the ball. That attitude is so 1970's.

Watch the All Blacks. From 1-15, they are all very comfortable with ball in hand. They can all run and pass, basic skills. Why can't the English forwards play like the Blacks forward. WHY?!

very frustrated supporter

  • 132.
  • At 01:07 PM on 12 Feb 2007,
  • Fat10 wrote:

I am fed up of people saying that Italy deserve great respect.

Yes they are a much improved side and are very capable but England showed them too much respect. We should be dictating this game . Italy were 5 players short of their best team and we totally failed to control the game . It is easy for Italy to defend when they know exactly what we are going to do .....kick it ! or maul it through the forwards !
Everyone in Rugby knows that the Italians have a strong pack yet we decide to take them on in the maul and around the fringes time and time again. Why are we attempting driving mauls in the middles 3rd when the end product is always the pack running out of steam and giving the backs slow ball . Who is coaching them this ??
The Italians ,obvious, weakness is in the backs and always has been so why on earth are we not getting quick ball and launching Tindell and Farrell at them . Quick line out ball is the best ball a back can get so why take up the 20m room between backlines with yet another trundle from the forwards. To top it all off we are lifting Lund in the line out which automatically says that we are not going wide. Neil back was normally standing in the midfield waiting for Will Greenwood to meet him !!!Yet again who is coaching this ??
The forwards do not seem to know when to release the ball . When did we ever see Lund and Easter using their skills linking with backs and creating overlaps and confusion. Hand Corry the 4 or 5 shirt by all means but get him out of the back row.

Very disappointed with the display and a thoroughly boring match with England showing no intent to create and no ambition.

HEADS UP RUGBY !! Heads up their own backsides more like !

  • 133.
  • At 01:07 PM on 12 Feb 2007,
  • John Williams wrote:

Agree - where are the Italian ratings ?

If Italy had had more faith in their backs and more drive earlier in the game it could have been a different result. But they do lack a convincing no. 10.

  • 134.
  • At 01:16 PM on 12 Feb 2007,
  • Fat10 wrote:

I agree with Philip Johnson 128 . Taking the Italians on in the forwards is just plain dull . We still do not know how to play in the forwards and there are some fundamental coaching and yactical issues that I just do't undersatnd.

  • 135.
  • At 01:31 PM on 12 Feb 2007,
  • oliver wrote:

In the end it is two points in the bag for england!! I was not the best game, but we are building for the world cup so lets just take things a game at a time. If we end up winning the six nations not many people will care how we played.

  • 136.
  • At 02:03 PM on 12 Feb 2007,
  • JamieMc wrote:

It's clearly not just England who get the constant battering on about there team. Watching the Ireland - France game it was about the same. Everything was about Ireland, just as it had the day before with England. At least the commentators gave credit where credit was due, in giving Troncon man of the match which was throughly deserved.

The commentators should give a neutral commentary however its sadly always going to be more aimed at the largest amount of fans watching the game.

More onto the game, personally I believe that Lund and Easter where the only England forwards to make any sort of impression. However, people have to give credit to Italy and their outstanding pack. The Old saying goes "Your forwards win you the match, the backs decide by how much" they starved our backs of any long term possession (helped by some of the grunts in the English pack) and that is why the scoreline was so close.

Balshaw has to go, he looks very poor at the moment and will hopefully be replaced by Cueto (or one of those two blonde whippets from the Saxons) for the next game with Lewsey coming in at full back. I think that Farrel played well with the ball in hand and looked strong in the contact area, with two quite important turnovers.

Would like to see both Palmer and Jones brought in at some stage due to the slownes of our front 5 and no.8 to the break down which cost us a few times!

  • 137.
  • At 02:15 PM on 12 Feb 2007,
  • Cumbrian Falcon wrote:

With regard to comment 129;Eddie Butler is Welsh ,as for the build up before the Italy game : if you watch the 91热爆 then it is not surprising it is predominantly about England ,one would expect the reverse on Italian TV , 'he who pays the fiddler calls the tune'

  • 138.
  • At 02:16 PM on 12 Feb 2007,
  • Cumbrian Falcon wrote:

With regard to comment 129;Eddie Butler is Welsh ,as for the build up before the Italy game : if you watch the 91热爆 then it is not surprising it is predominantly about England ,one would expect the reverse on Italian TV , 'he who pays the fiddler calls the tune'

  • 139.
  • At 02:37 PM on 12 Feb 2007,
  • Chris wrote:

The forwards got carried away with trying to bully the Italians. Time after time the ball was picked up from a maul/ruck and driven into the Italians (and subsequently backwards or sideways).

The best way of getting the backs actually playing/creating is for two things to happen:
a) Fast 2nd phase ball - which means the forwards clearing out rather than fronting up = more space
b) Practice: the more often they get it, the more likely they will gel (even if it goes pear-shaped to begin with).

Unfortunately our traditional strength (forwards) is doing nothing to help the backs contribute.

I can't really see us beating the Irish without changing the forward strategy from roughing them up to clearing them out at break-down.

  • 140.
  • At 02:47 PM on 12 Feb 2007,
  • GJ wrote:

Did you not have time between Gins and tonic, to try and distinguish between the folks in blue. difficult as their names were in a foreign language.

Typical 91热爆 sports reporting centralised in London
There's only one country on the pitch
There's only one country in the 6 Nations.
There's only one country in the United Kingdom.

The self obsessed EBC (English Broadcastng Corporation)


I see Jim Stokes rated players for both teams on Sunday but then England weren't playing

  • 141.
  • At 12:19 PM on 13 Feb 2007,
  • paddy wrote:

England's poor play was upfront. The forwards kept trying to take the ball on one stage too many, and often got nowhere. Instead of quick release ball, it was pedestrian and easy to defend against. There is no point in internation rugby in trying to gain an extra yard around the sides of a ruck if it is only one extra yard. It just gives the opposition time to realign their defences, and leavesThe fly half with no option but to kick. Time after time, England had second third, fourth, fifth, sixth or whatever phase ball, but left the Italians with enough time to have a cup of tea.
Corry deserves around three out of ten for last Saturday and a place on the starting bench.
Give Balshaw a break. if England are ever going to break out of midfield, they need Balshaw as an attacking full back.

  • 142.
  • At 05:04 PM on 14 Feb 2007,
  • Claire Stocks, assistant editor 91热爆 Sport Interactive wrote:

Folks,
Two things to say about the absence of Italy ratings..
1. Hands up - in retrospect we should have done them. We didn't do ratings for the first weekend's France v Italy game (a question of resources v interest). But having done them for England it did make sense to do them for their opposition. Sorry we (I) got that wrong.
2. But is that evidence of a pro-English bias? Nonsense. There are as many Scottish authors on this blog as English for instance. Indeed, for the record the score (of posts) this weekend was England 2 (Mark Orlovac) Scotland 2 (John Beattie and Andrew Cotter) Ireland 2 (Jim Stokes) and Wales 1 (Sean Davies). If we were only focused on England why indeed would we have bothered with ratings for France v Ireland? Why would there be authors from all four home nations on this blog?
Thanks.

  • 143.
  • At 12:25 PM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • David Lambert wrote:

I was on the last but one row at the back behind the corner flag. It's difficult to see exactly what's hapening from there but I agree that Robinson looked sharp and commititted. I thought that Italy were un-lucky with some basic handling errors just when they were in a position to score.

The Italian croud was as noisy as the England supporters! We were very quite with almost no singing. How can we increase the vocal support at Twickenham? How about some loyal supporters playing brass instruments and drums as at the England Football matches? Being led by the tanoy does little for me. I also wonder if the Ref link has an effect.

  • 144.
  • At 03:50 PM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • RC wrote:

Not a bad result from england's perspective as you're looking at two very similarly constituted teams; strong packs and an inability to use (or a lack of talent in) the backline. Only differences are jason robinson on the wing and wilkinson ahead of ramiro pez. And that was enough to create a margin of 13 points...in this instance anyway. Still feeling confident about dublin?

Post a comment

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the author has approved them. Please note that submitting a comment is not the same as making a formal complaint - see this page for more details.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
    

The 91热爆 is not responsible for the content of external internet sites