Teddy Thomas the latest La Rochelle player to join Toulouse – report

England were better at defending, but that doesn't tell us anything about what they were doing when they were attacking.

You've presented nothing to support your case re Marcus at all.

Pretty obvious stuff.

He's a good example of grandparentage qual, could have opted for any one of Samoa, Scotland or NZ. So what's your alternative? Only parentage?

So that England continue languishing in the bottom half the top 10 world rankings?

"Look at the kick:pass ratio from England’s games under Borthwick:

Italy 20:100

Argentina 50:100

South Africa 53:100

Fiji 24:100

Samoa 22:100

Chile 12:100

Japan 25:100

Argentina 55:100

Fiji 30:100

Ireland 21:100

Wales 24:100

Wales 13:100

Ireland 26:100

France 22:100

Wales 26:100

Italy 23:100

Scotland 18:100

The average is 27:100

The average in games we have won is 28:100

The average in games we have lost is 26:100, but these averages are skewed by the fact that we have tended to kick less and pass more against worse sides

The average in games where we have beaten current top 10 sides is 35:100

The average in games where we have beaten current top 8 sides is 39:100

The average in games where we have beaten current top 7 sides is 53:100

The average in games where we have lost to teams currently ranked lower than us is 20:100"

on the article "Four talking points after England's narrowest-ever win over Italy" I said:

"Look at the kick:pass ratio from England’s last 8 games

Italy 20:100

Argentina 50:100

South Africa 53:100

Fiji 24:100

Samoa 22:100

Chile 12:100

Japan 25:100

Argentina 55:100

So (1) England spread it wide more yesterday than against anyone bar Chile, and (2) all of england’s best performances have been when we kick loads, and in every match where we kick loads we have had a good performance."

"In particular you're neglecting the impact of the type of D Felix Jones was trying to introduce, which demanded most of England's training energy at the time."

I'm not, actually, I'm hyper aware of that fact and of its impact. I think it is because of the defence that England's new attack faltered so much for the first three games, something you ignore when you try to judge England's attack in the six nations by taking an average of either the trys scored or the rucks completed over the whole tournament.

"International coaches don't just pick those styles like sweets from a sweet shop!"

Yeah, I know. England's defence wasn't exactly the same as SA's, but it was similar. England's attack did rely on turnovers more than the Irish system did, but it was still pretty similar to it, and then shifted to something similar-but-not-identitcal to the Labit/Nick Evans systems, which are themselves similar but not identical.

why can't it? it empirically did last year.

"That is why England sat 34 rucks adrift of Ireland in the 6N..."

You refuse to engage with the point that rucks completed only tells the full story when the Irish-style attack is being executed successfully - which it wasn't for the first 3 games. Disingenous at best! In the match against Ireland, England completed more rucks than Ireland did; so you think England weren't running an Irish style attack because they completed too few rucks, but Ireland completed even fewer in that match, so I guess in that match Ireland weren't running an Irish style attack? Make it make sense!

Your argument is far too patchy to stand up I'm afraid!