Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

Going after Finn Russell backfired for England

(Photos by Craig Mercer/MB Media/Getty Images and Dan Mullan - RFU/The RFU Collection via Getty Images)

England’s first Test under new head coach Steve Borthwick against Scotland showed glimpses of a new identity and some promise in terms of reviving an attack that had become threadbare.

ADVERTISEMENT

But it was a couple of lapses on defence born from a desire to pressure Scotland flyhalf Finn Russell which ultimately backfired for the home side.

Two Scottish tries can be traced back to England chasing Russell and leaving the defensive line compromised.

Video Spacer

Video Spacer

This tactic to go after the Scotland No 10 was visible early.

On an early clearing kick 10 minutes in Farrell took the opportunity to bury the Scottish flyhalf with a strong tackle, signalling England’s intent to try and throw the playmaker off his game with extra attention.

Minutes later Scotland had their first attacking lineout opportunity and Farrell went after him again, costing his side a line break that ultimately led to Scotland’s first try.

Scotland ran a clever deliberate overthrow from the lineout to captain Jamie Ritchie (6) who linked with Russell (10) out the back behind a block runner.

ADVERTISEMENT

Smith (10) had the threat of Russell (10) covered but Farrell (12), insistent on making another big hit on the Scotland No 10, broke rank and went after him.

It was fairly unnecessary with the ball well gone by the time Farrell got there.

Scotland’s centre Huw Jones (13) had flashbacks to 2018 with a gargantuan hole to burst through.

ADVERTISEMENT

England midfield’s defence was very poor on this occasion, not up to Test match standard.

Scotland took play down to the five metre line after Jones was able to find an offload. England’s defence was reeling after one phase.

Under penalty advantage Scotland used a grubber kick in behind the line to find open space.

It was a great play by the Scotland midfield combination of Tuipulotu and Jones, made possible by the costly initial decision by Farrell to go after Russell and concede a line break.

Marchant wasn’t able to do much to prevent Jones’ pursuit of the kick with a feeble attempt to slow him down, having had to track across after instructions from Farrell.

The England No 13 was originally on the opposite side of the ruck but told to fold by his captain. This was just one example of England’s confusion around the policy of splitting the midfielders on either side of the ruck.

Later in the second half it came back to bite them a second time.

On Scotland’s next big attacking possession, Farrell essentially made the same decision to rush out of the line and belt Russell as Scotland went wide from a lineout play.

The big tackle by Farrell forced a key turnover, but unfortunately for England their exit kick found Duhan van der Merwe who tore them to pieces with one of the all-time great individual tries.

The issue with Farrell’s original tackle, despite coming up with a big play, was that it was arguably Marchant’s assignment.

England looked to show Scotland the sideline with a drift defence and it was Marchant’s man, but Farrell again broke rank and went after him.

Farrell overriding his teammate is not ideal for England’s midfield combination to build chemistry and trust.

The pair of England defenders that Van der Merwe ran through on the kick return were Farrell and Marchant.

The England captain didn’t make an attempt after some light shading by Scotland. By all accounts Van der Merwe was Farrell’s assignment, he started the return on Farrell’s inside shoulder and bounced outside him.

There were big communication issues between the two centres not helped by Farrell’s vendetta against Finn Russell. Was Marchant deferring to Farrell after just being slighted by him?

The try scored by Scotland’s scrumhalf Ben White in the second half to spark the Scotland comeback included more breakdowns in communication by England’s playmakers.

Scotland played wide to the left touchline after a scrum and have a ruck roughly five metres infield.

England’s backline was crowded around the breakdown, the backfield pendulum swung too far around while naturally the inside backs drifted across tracking the ball.

England’s defence then falls apart with self-inflicted communication issues and poor decision-making.

On the next phase Marcus Smith (10) chased after Russell just to shove him in the back after the pass, while Owen Farrell (12) decided to reset the opposite edge and abandon the short side.

Farrell (12) took himself out of the line to sprint across the backfield toward the opposite edge. Smith (10) also decided to join Farrell.

Marchant (13) tried to raise the alarm and called for help with too many England players going to the open side.

The aerial shot illustrates just how disjointed England’s defence was.

Only one of Smith or Farrell needed to potentially be on the opposite edge, but both went. Neither are in a position to be of use as the ball is recycled.

Ben White slipped the one-on-one tackle of Ben Curry and scampered through exactly where Smith and Farrell were defending.

Had one of them remained they would have likely been able to clean up Curry’s miss.

In the final quarter Scotland knew they had England on the ropes.

The exit strategy became run it from deep to take advantage of the cooked forward pack. They nearly scored when Kyle Steyn broke free down the right hand side and found Stuart Hogg backing up inside.

They did score through Duhan van der Merwe after going sideline-to-sideline, with Russell pulling the strings to stretch England past their limits.

If England had preserved a bigger lead it may not have mattered that they ran out of puff. The defensive breakdowns on two occasions, Jones’ try and White’s try, were largely avoidable.

Marchant may end up paying the price for his defensive showing but he wasn’t helped by his captain.

Although Farrell may have let his side down on more than one occasion on defence it was his showing on attack which offered hope that a rebuild under Borthwick will reap results soon.

There were clear schemes to get England’s two most prominent ball carriers involved, No 8 Alex Dombrandt and Ellis Genge, while Owen Farrell’s role at No 12 more resembled the old 10-12 axis with George Ford.

Farrell’s involvement at first receiver throughout the match was more pronounced, particularly on the 10-phase passage of attack that led to Max Malins’ second try. He took over on every phase and directed proceedings.

The Farrell-led attack had no issue winning the gain line and grinding down Scotland until the opportunity presented for Malins on the edge with tidy work from forwards Genge and Lewis Ludlam to make the most of the opportunity.

When Marcus Smith was involved as first receiver England didn’t quite find the same rewards, with Smith opting to plug the corners in behind with kicks when nothing eventuated.

When the England captain is playing as a de facto 10 and Smith is used as a floating runner in behind, England look their best. Farrell knew when to flatten up more and play flatter.

Smith’s best play came off a pullback pass when he identified the space in behind Scotland’s winger Steyn and executed the chip over the top for Malins to dive on.

It wasn’t a fine-tuned machine but definite strides were made on attack, the side only managed eight tries in last year’s entire campaign and scored three in the 29-23 loss.

It was the decision to chase after Finn Russell that really cost England as Scotland made them pay for doing so.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

2 Comments
R
Roy 654 days ago

Nonesense article. England dropped off tackles but for the most part, they pressured Finn and he had a difficult day. Yeah England were wide open to Huw Jones' try but this is international rugby, you won't stop everything. England won the kicking game largely thanks to getting in Finn's face and closing down options.

D
David 654 days ago

Obviously the tackle school had no impact on Farrell it's in his nature/DNA if he was not playing for England he would be on the door of a nightclub I'm quite surprised Steve did not stand Farrell down he was on a suspension and could have been Red Carded by the ref if he actually noticed the cheap shots on Russell with no ball in hand, we need Farrell but we don't need his poor skill set.

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
JW 1 hour ago
'Passionate reunion of France and New Zealand shows Fabien Galthie is wrong to rest his stars'

Ok, managed to read the full article..

... New Zealand’s has only 14 and the professional season is all over within four months. In France, club governance is the responsibility of an independent organisation [the Ligue Nationale de Rugby or LNR] which is entirely separate from the host union [the Fédération Française de Rugby or FFR]. Down south New Zealand Rugby runs the provincial and the national game.

That is the National Provincial Championship, a competition of 14 representative union based teams run through the SH international window and only semi professional (paid only during it's running). It is run by NZR and goes for two and a half months.


Super Rugby is a competition involving 12 fully professional teams, of which 5 are of New Zealand eligibility, and another joint administered team of Pacific Island eligibility, with NZR involvement. It was a 18 week competition this year, so involved (randomly chosen I believe) extra return fixtures (2 or 3 home and away derbys), and is run by Super Rugby Pacific's own independent Board (or organisation). The teams may or may not be independently run and owned (note, this does not necessarily mean what you think of as 'privately owned').


LNR was setup by FFR and the French Government to administer the professional game in France. In New Zealand, the Players Association and Super Rugby franchises agreed last month to not setup their own governance structure for professional rugby and re-aligned themselves with New Zealand Rugby. They had been proposing to do something like the English model, I'm not sure how closely that would have been aligned to the French system but it did not sound like it would have French union executive representation on it like the LNR does.

In the shaky isles the professional pyramid tapers to a point with the almighty All Blacks. In France the feeling for country is no more important than the sense of fierce local identity spawned at myriad clubs concentrated in the southwest. Progress is achieved by a nonchalant shrug and the wide sweep of nuanced negotiation, rather than driven from the top by a single intense focus.

Yes, it is pretty much a 'representative' selection system at every level, but these union's are having to fight for their existence against the regime that is NZR, and are currently going through their own battle, just as France has recently as I understand it. A single focus, ala the French game, might not be the best outcome for rugby as a whole.


For pure theatre, it is a wonderful article so far. I prefer 'Ntamack New Zealand 2022' though.

The young Crusader still struggles to solve the puzzle posed by the shorter, more compact tight-heads at this level but he had no problem at all with Colombe.

It was interesting to listen to Manny during an interview on Maul or Nothing, he citied that after a bit of banter with the All Black's he no longer wanted one of their jersey's after the game. One of those talks was an eye to eye chat with Tamaiti Williams, there appear to be nothing between the lock and prop, just a lot of give and take. I thought TW angled in and caused Taylor to pop a few times, and that NZ were lucky to be rewarded.

f you have a forward of 6ft 8ins and 145kg, and he is not at all disturbed by a dysfunctional set-piece, you are in business.

He talked about the clarity of the leadership that helped alleviate any need for anxiety at the predicaments unfolding before him. The same cannot be said for New Zealand when they had 5 minutes left to retrieve a match winning penalty, I don't believe. Did the team in black have much of a plan at any point in the game? I don't really call an autonomous 10 vehicle they had as innovative. I think Razor needs to go back to the dealer and get a new game driver on that one.

Vaa’i is no match for his power on the ground. Even in reverse, Meafou is like a tractor motoring backwards in low gear, trampling all in its path.

Vaa'i actually stops him in his tracks. He gets what could have been a dubious 'tackle' on him?

A high-level offence will often try to identify and exploit big forwards who can be slower to reload, and therefore vulnerable to two quick plays run at them consecutively.

Yes he was just standing on his haunches wasn't he? He mentioned that in the interview, saying that not only did you just get up and back into the line to find the opposition was already set and running at you they also hit harder than anything he'd experienced in the Top 14. He was referring to New Zealands ultra-physical, burst-based Super style of course, which he was more than a bit surprised about. I don't blame him for being caught out.


He still sent the obstruction back to the repair yard though!

What wouldn’t the New Zealand rugby public give to see the likes of Mauvaka and Meafou up front..

Common now Nick, don't go there! Meafou showed his Toulouse shirt and promptly got his citizenship, New Zealand can't have him, surely?!?


As I have said before with these subjects, really enjoy your enthusiasm for their contribution on the field and I'd love to see more of their shapes running out for Vern Cotter and the like styled teams.

286 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING Cheslin Kolbe backed to end 16-year wait Cheslin Kolbe backed to end 16-year wait
Search