England Selection

As all the teams go forth to what is essentially the knockout stages already....i.e. 1 defeat either knocks you out or puts you into a 1/4 final that means you can book the flight home with confidence.....it is vital that teams know their best XV. Sadly with England we are pretty clueless in this regard and who will line up for the Scotland game is anyone's guess. It feels like we are picking our team based on how they perform in these current pool matches rather than on any long term strategy that has built upon careful preparation. I am all for changing a player or 2 based on someone clearly putting their hand up in these matches, but we are not sure of who to play in nearly all the key positions aka the spine. Thompson or Hartley....with Sheridan going it seems to favour Thompson to support the scrummaging with Hartley to come off the bench. 2nd row....a real confused area I feel. MJ clearly rates LD whereas I really rate SS in the enforcer role. Both CL and TP are class, but you do need an enforcer type against tough packs, which England now face all the way through. SS and CL to start and TP to come off the bench. Back row the problem is Easter and nearly all of us want JH to start as we clearly need more dynamism and maybe Easter's injury problems may turn out to be a blessing in disguise.

But the biggest area of concern is the halfbacks. TF seemed to have cemented his place over JW during the 1st half of the 6Ns but then he lost form. JW has not displayed anything creative at all since he came in and I believe we need to restore TF and back him all the way. Let us pray that his form returns and we can see some of that form as displayed against the Aussies last Autumn. JW should have to content himself with a bench spot. TF can then concentrate on getting our back 3 into the game more often. Centres....Hape played well but clearly the top pairing is Tindall and Tuilagi so let's stick with that.

Then we need to implement a game plan that suits England and that does mean dire slow stodge. Nor does it mean trying to spread the ball wide before we have earned the right to do so. I want the forwards to stand up and to make their mark on this RWC. How about a rolling maul or two that sucks in the opposition forwards and maybe even scores a try from a lineout? Then I want to see some more pacey driving up the middle with the pack offloading well to each other before presenting quick ball for the backs. TF to kick well and accurately with excellent follow up chasing. Then some enterprising back play when the opposition really doesn't know what England will do (I hate it when every other team's coach says that England did everything as they predicited ) as the attack might be through the forwards or the backs. I am not after a complicated game plan, but more a reversion to basics that are executed well.

It is about time that England got their act together, but unless there is clarity in thought from MJ and his coaching team then I fear the worse. Selection now should be about fine tuning and not having to discover your best XV. Anyone else think differently?

In MJ we trust.

Give the guy a break, its not like its his 1st coaching roll in rugby?

For how long do we trust? 1 more 6Ns and if no improvement then a new manager for Autumn Internationals 2012?

Wow we won the 6nations for the first time since 2003 and have beaten Oz home and away.

Let’s just sack him before we even see how the RWC pans out…great

Give him another two years after the world cup, then its not too late for someone else to come in if it all goes t its up for 2015.

hugehandoff wrote:For how long do we trust? 1 more 6Ns and if no improvement then a new manager for Autumn Internationals 2012?

The WarLord Mashaka wrote:Wow we won the 6nations for the first time since 2003 and have beaten Oz home and away.

Let’s just sack him before we even see how the RWC pans out…great

Completely agree. Everyone was praising him after the 6 nations win ad beating Oz, but as soon as something goes wrong, that's it. Give the guy a break, we have seen what he can get out of his players, and I get the sense that they all respect him a hell of a lot. Following strogn wins, he's never been over-excited in post-match interviews, but rather has kept his head and tried to restore a level of reality. Personally, I think those attributes makes a good coach, just give him more time.

you miss the fact that players are not just being selected on form, but how they play against different types of opposition.

Welcome to the World Cup

PS: I hope he gets the contract up till the next RWC, he needs time like SCW, he's more of a Manager than Coach, he needs to change his Coaches though and he needs a Captain who is consistently fit and one of our better players.

Croft or Haskell methinks

For how long do we trust? 1 more 6Ns and if no improvement then a new manager for Autumn Internationals 2012?.

Ridiculous. The guy has transformed the way England play, gone is the stodgey kick the leather off the ball, ten man game and in it's place we're playing a much more dynamic game and at the same time are keeping hold of the tactical nous that has served us so well. OK, there have been some hefty teething problems but that happens to all teams, Ireland have had massive ups and downs as well as Australia and not even the All Blacks get it all their own way.

Under MJ the team has got younger and more dangerous, there's issues but that won't be solved with a football style sacking mentality. We won the 6N and have won both games so far this tournament. If our discipline can be improved then we can do well this year.

you miss the fact that players are not just being selected on form, but how they play against different types of opposition.

Armitage winning back his shirt over Banahan, Thompson displacing Hartley, Manu earning a call up and selection etc. There has to be a core of a team maintained you can't just axe everybody and start fresh every 6 months, there needs to be some consistentcy and experience in the squad. Who do you think are the glaring ommissions?

It appears that my shaken faith in MJ has upset a few people For that I do not apologise, especially when I see what is happening on the pitch. The bottom line is that Engalnd's current form is very poor and a 1/4 final defeat seems likely. Maybe that is just our level, but I believe we are capable of more.
"Let’s just sack him before we even see how the RWC pans out…great".....not exactly what I am advocating. Continuity is important and there is no point replacing someone unless the replacement is better, but that does not mean that England cannot reassess if MJ is the right person to continue for the 2015 RWC.
"Everyone was praising him after the 6 nations win ad beating Oz, but as soon as something goes wrong, that's it. Give the guy a break".......let's be honest about his whole tenure in charge of England shall we? I think we could say he has managed over a slow but gradual improvement. If he continues then fair play, but if not then we should look at other options. No panic reactions, but once he has had a decent run then he should be judged on his results. That is why I said another 6Ns.
"you miss the fact that players are not just being selected on form, but how they play against different types of opposition.
Welcome to the World Cup".......so you think the England teams were picked specifically to combat Argentina and Georgia? I beg to differ. I believe MJ is still hoping for some players to really stick their hands up and there was also the need to give more of the squad a game. Otherwise your point would be valid.
"he's more of a Manager than Coach, he needs to change his Coaches though and he needs a Captain who is consistently fit and one of our better players.".....now this I do agree with.
"Ridiculous. The guy has transformed the way England play, gone is the stodgey kick the leather off the ball, ten man game and in it's place we're playing a much more dynamic game ".......I believe you are remembering golden times last Autumn against Australia. That was great, but instead of heralding a new dawn it appears to have raised our hopes too much. Let's face it we have been more stodgey than dynamic of late.

I truly hope that my doubting of MJ is unneccessary and that the side leave a positive mark on this RWC. Then he can continue to develop this England side into a decent team. But I fear that the evidence points to a different outcome and I stand by my original post.

"The bottom line is that England's current form is very poor".


No it isn't.

There's you're entire argument dismantled in one sentence.

Great White...you are obviously easily pleased. I have higher standards If you are happy with the performances against Georgia, Argentina, Wales, Ireland (6Ns), Scotland then so be it, but I am not.

I believe you are remembering golden times last Autumn against Australia. That was great, but instead of heralding a new dawn it appears to have raised our hopes too much. Let's face it we have been more stodgey than dynamic of late.

I think some of the attacking play against Georgia was excellent and against Ireland were unlucky not to grab another 5 pointer or two. Ball in hand England are doing very good things. The issues lie within the support network when the forwards take the ball up, we need to get there faster and the breakdown in defence where we need to be more patient.

The scrum is working well, the line out is working well and with Youngs back we are suddenly playing at a tempo other teams find hard to match. Not perfect but a lot better than at the last RWC.

not the performances, but we won didn't we..?

damage_13 wrote:not the performances, but we won didn't we..?

I don't think he actually understands what 'form' means.

HugeHandoff; ok fair enough, but gradual progress is better than stagnant rubbish. The 'golden era' after beating Oz in november was not due to MJ, as per usual it was the british media hyping things beyond belief. MJ played no part in that, and by all accounts, as I have said, actually tried to keep supporters feet firmly placed on the ground.
I agree that he should be judged on his results, which so far include a 6 nations win, good november tests which instilled confidence within the team, and a 2 from 2 record at the world cup so far. I feel that the reason england currently look poor on form are because of the penalties we are conceding- which I think represents the player's mentality more than the coaching quality.
Sure england could be playing a lot better than they currently are, but the issues are comparatively easily fixed- infringe less. With ball in hand, I think our backs look pretty good, and the forwards play a good game. That I think, is more reflective of good coaching.

Basically, what i'm saying is stick with MJ for a while longer. The problems on the field, I believe, are more to do with players not performing their necessary roles for a full 80 mins, not poor coaching.

Woah, being an Ireland fan I also keep my eye on England, Wales and Scotland.

There is nothing wrong with England's form, Argentina was difficult in difficult conditions, if Wilkinson's kicking performance was better England would of won more comfortably.

Georgia was a better performance, scored tries and bossed the game. England form isn't poor at all, the fringe players like Shaw, Wood all performed well against Georgia surely that's a positive?

Tuilagi has given England a new lease of life at centre, Ashton is still scoring tries and if Johnson opts for Youngs and Flood and it begins to work again, I have no doubts that England will reach the quarter finals maybe even the semis.

Would somebody like to explain the difference between 'performance' and 'form' please?

Even if we were going to sack MJ, which I wouldn't want. Just who would you have in his place?

In my opinion there's no one out there who could make any more of a difference then he is that isn't already contracted to a team.

He should get till the next WC to prove himself.

Whilst England might not be the awe inspring side of 2003 they are in one of their best runs since then. Its a bit harsh to be calling for Jojhnsons head when they have 9 points form 2 games so far and are performing better than they have under the previous two regimes.

Ashtons side was a joke, whereas this time its the manager grabbing the players and laying down the law last world cup it took the players to go to the coach and tell him he was letting them down....yet people still paint it as if Ashton was some kind of hard done by martyr. England have had some bad scorelines under Johnsons but nothing to match the wankings they took at the hands of South Africa under Ashton.
Its also possible to imagine this side playing better than they currently are under the same system ( just a question of execution) and theres not really any major glaring "wtfs" in the selections or style of play.

The bottom line is that England arent one of the top three sides in teh world and havent been for many years. England doesnt have (or perhaps hasnt had) one of the best systems for developing players form a young age and supporting them through to International level. Its not the England team mangers job to sort that out, although hes hould have a voice in how its done. Rob Andrew and the others rats who left the sinking RFU should shoulder some of the balem. The rest I place firmly on the Welsh and referees.

Then we need to implement a game plan that suits England and that does mean dire slow stodge

Ill give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you missed an n't there.
The last thing England want or need is to keep getting sucked into endless rucks. They are a better side than Scotland, they should beat them by playing rugby but if its an arm wrestling contest they can lose.

Shaw I think would be OK agaisnt Scotland but I dont trust he has the mobility to match a Tri Nations side, France or Ireland who will actually try and play at tempo against England. Come the knockouts England will want Lawes and Palmer.


The Romania game, they could pick Erinle and May for all I care.

Great White wrote:Would somebody like to explain the difference between 'performance' and 'form' please?

Will you?

Your performance is dictated by your ability and then affected by your form? So are you saying that England are poor and playing well, or good and playing poorly, or poor and playing OK , or Good and playing OK, or that England are OK and playing OK, or something else? Is their performance down to the form or their ability to perform to a standard and what do you currnetly see that performance being in terms of their form reelative to their ability to put in good performances?

Its not entirely clear what your point is. (or mine)

Bluestone...fair enough also to you. Some valid points (unlike Great White) made and it is similar to when someone questioned Gatland's position with Wales in that maybe MJ is doing as well as can be expected with the current crop of players. I don't believe this is true, but it is not all bad I agree. I hope you are right in the errors being easily fixed as the breakdown seems to be a persistent problem area. Hopefully Scotland won't dominate this area as much as last time.

My whole thread has got sidetracked on the MJ sacking issue which was not the main point and which I have not advocated for as a panic measure. Another 6Ns I said. My whole thread was meant to be about a lack of clarity as to the spine of the side that will perform in the knockout stages. And if it is clear to MJ then hopefully that will translate to the peformances improving.

hugehandoff wrote:Bluestone...fair enough also to you. Some valid points (unlike Great White) made and it is similar to when someone questioned Gatland's position with Wales in that maybe MJ is doing as well as can be expected with the current crop of players. I don't believe this is true, but it is not all bad I agree. I hope you are right in the errors being easily fixed as the breakdown seems to be a persistent problem area. Hopefully Scotland won't dominate this area as much as last time.

My whole thread has got sidetracked on the MJ sacking issue which was not the main point and which I have not advocated for as a panic measure. Another 6Ns I said. My whole thread was meant to be about a lack of clarity as to the spine of the side that will perform in the knockout stages. And if it is clear to MJ then hopefully that will translate to the peformances improving.

Don't go into a srop and accuse me of making invalid points because you don't know the difference between performance and form.

Hugehandoff; I honestly think that the 'coached' part of england's game is good at the moment, but the onfield discipline of the players is what is dragging down our overall performance. I really hope this does get sorted! I don't know how professional rugby players can't understand the importance of breakdown work- and really hope this gets fixed soon! Surely it's all about finding the balance between numbers in the ruck, and not over-committing...not too hard, surely? hmmmm....

On a side note, regarding england's age grade system- I think that finally, we're out of that rut we entered after the Woodward years, and that some fantastic young players are finally make their names at club level.

You can always read "not knowing your best side" in one of two ways. The first is the bad way, in that it means that the coach can't select the best player because no one is standing up and sticking out as the very best available.

The other is the good way. Imagine you had a Dan Carter and a Daniel Carter, who do you pick (other than the quickest one to type)? After all, both are the very best and both are in great form - you wouldn't know which to choose. I'm not saying this is the case with England for every position, but with some it plays a part. E.g. I couldn't care less about who started at hooker at the moment. Thompson and Hartley have pluses and minuses, pick whichever suits the opposition.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Great White wrote:Would somebody like to explain the difference between 'performance' and 'form' please?

Will you?

Your performance is dictated by your ability and then affected by your form? So are you saying that England are poor and playing well, or good and playing poorly, or poor and playing OK , or Good and playing OK, or that England are OK and playing OK, or something else? Is their performance down to the form or their ability to perform to a standard and what do you currnetly see that performance being in terms of their form reelative to their ability to put in good performances?

Its not entirely clear what your point is. (or mine)

England have, in the main, got the individual and collective ability to deliver. There have been some indifferent performances, but this should not be confused with their overall form, which has been good - or at least has improved. To suggest that England's form has been poor coming off the back of a 6N title, back to back wins over Oz and two back to back wins in the wC with but one loss in Cardiff is ludicrous in the extreme.

BATH_BTGOG wrote:In MJ we trust.

Give the guy a break, its not like its his 1st coaching roll in rugby?

I agree.

If MJ was a coach and not a team manager, then that would be a great question.

Time and his teams' relative successes will tell at some time in the future.

No point knocking anyone at this juncture.

I personally quite like the under the radar performances of England - a bit like the German approach to footy WCs.

But I think that France are the best placed to cause an upset.

Its like the USA and how they perceive where they are in the world. They had a long period of unchallenged supremacy and cant get quite used to the fact that things have changed.

England were top of the heap a few years back but that was built on the backs of the arrival of some very good players and a lot of hard work over several years - but too many fans are too used to expecting success. That and the number of English (or should we say 'English Qualified) pro players means that a lot of positions are up for debate - means that there will always be a lot of people upset with the status quo.

England are a good team that will cause any other side problems. They are very unlikely to win it this time but no body will want to play us. The 1st half penalty counts have been a big problem - as have breakdowns and handling errors - but there is still a lot of muscle and attacking ability and that feeling that there is still a lot of potential to be realised. Sadly we might not put in any displays that match what we may be capable of this time round but we might. That and the favourable draw should mean we go a long way.

Great White....thanks for continuing input.....performance I mean to be the quality of play....form (for me) is the results and the quality of performance combined.

One thing not mentioned so far is the effect of having a Board more interested in egos and politics than English and World Rugby.

That isn't Jonno's fault and imo is why we are a year or so behind where we would ideally be.

Dave Alred certainly was employed by MJ, not English Rugby. Who decides the coaches? Not MJ. I suspect the Blackett Report is right, and the Board have been indulging in politics rather than planning the future and helping with the present.

In the circumstances, I think Jonno has done well.

As a Welshman I thought that I would add my point of view as i am sure people will want to read it???

I think the problem with England at the moment, and it is one that creating a number of issues is that they do not seem to have a good destructive openside such as other teams are developing such as Pocock, Warburton, the Samoa 7, and O'Brian for ireland. As they are not creating the turn overs as other teams are they then have to throw numbers into rucks and hence give away penalties.

The England set piece is very good, but i do feel that they still try to win the forward battle bythe big crash bang wallop technique, which will only get so far. Other Nations have worked on this aspect of their game which creates a bit of a level playing field, but have also worked on speed which may give them the edge.

I also feel that Johnson does not know his best side, particularly the backs. If he did why would he have left Flutey behind, a player who is probably the most creative centre england have.

One more thing before all my points get taken to pieces. The Premiership has so many foreign players in it that it reduces the chances for home grown players and this will inevitably have an impact on the nattional side. The player pool is reduced considerably so there is no choice but to pick those who have "chosen" to represent England.

England fans just seem to be polarised between the optimists and the realists - The Optimists focus on

* We won the 6 Nations
* We beat Australia home and away
* We stuffed Ireland in Dublin recently
* We stuffed Italy

The realists focus more on

* We were dire against Scotland and could have lost
* A depleted SA dominated us for 80 minutes at Twickenham
* We could have played for 3 days against Wales in Cardiff and not scored a try - Wales won by 10 points and were hardly in the game
* Argentina, what a dire performance, we expect more, same goes for Georgia although we wore them down in the end.


England are somewhere in the middle, dare I say it; they can beat anyone on their day, however if they are not careful they will lose to Scotland and it wouldn't be a surprise by the way

We could have played for 3 days against Wales in Cardiff and not scored a try - Wales won by 10 points and were hardly in the game

I thought that game was an excellent reminder for the coaches of the need to bring pace and penetration to the backline. It saw Banahan reduced to the subs bench at best and saw Manu given the OC shirt full time. It was an important game in terms of learning about the strengths of certain squad members. I think we have improved since because of it.

As for the Georgia game I think they were only ever in it because of infringments at the ruck. Anyone else find it amusing that Haskell was all for dishing out blame but it was his mess at the base of the scrum that set up Georgia for the disallowed try?

formerly known as Sam wrote:

We could have played for 3 days against Wales in Cardiff and not scored a try - Wales won by 10 points and were hardly in the game

. Anyone else find it amusing that Haskell was all for dishing out blame but it was his mess at the base of the scrum that set up Georgia for the disallowed try?

He used the phrase "we" not "they" and a number of players have been quoted in the press today saying they welcomed the clear the air meeting. Im sure Haskell took his criticism along with the rest of them and will be working on his game. He isnt a speacilist 8, hardly suprising if he isnt top class when it comes to speacilist 8 skills.

No but being able to control the ball at the base of the scrum when your pack is steadily moving forward is pretty much expected. I'd have a lot of sympathy for him if it had happened under pressure but that was just a tad sloppy, especially 5m out from your own line.

To be fair it wasn't just him, Youngs had a chance to grab the ball as well but fumbled it.

More than anything it just shows they need more time playing together at 8.

I'd still prefer that slip up and all his good points then Easters current trend of constant infringing and lazyness but being safe at the base of the scrum.

I don't think Haskell is the cleanest at the breakdown though Yappy. He has certainly upped his workrate but is by no means a vast improvement on Easter in that department, I think he edges it on form though. I'd have a lot of sympathy for any scrum half who loses out to his opposite number when the ball bobbles out between them at a scrum it's an unpleasent place to be, particularly if the opposition flanker gets there first (I've been there before and swore to play further back afterwards, no further forwards than 10).

Easters only contribution to his last match was 3 penalties. Haskell for me is a lot better at 8 than him how. I'd love for Nick to prove me wrong but I just can't see it.

Although word from the squad is that his back's better so we may well see him against Romania, if he is going to step up i'd hope it'd be then. According to Thompson Romania have the best scrum in the WC so he may well be clearing up a lot of messy balls.

formerly known as Sam wrote:No but being able to control the ball at the base of the scrum when your pack is steadily moving forward is pretty much expected. I'd have a lot of sympathy for him if it had happened under pressure but that was just a tad sloppy, especially 5m out from your own line.

I have no problem in pointing out that you expect your 8 to have the basic skills of that position, its the misconceptions regarding his interview I objected to.

Fair enough Pete.

As a neutral, I think that Johnson has done a reasonable job with what are clearly a bigger bunch of strong personalities that Woodward had. Unless the RFU is planning to net a Jake White or a Robbie Deans (and incidentally, Deans should probably be first on your wish list), then he's a perrfectly fair option.

On to future games, are England fans concerned at all about their set piece against Scotland with Sheridan missing? Scotland will have two thirds of a Lions front row and it seems that Euan Murray is coming back into form. If Robinson does what he's threatened and put Hines and Big Jim Hamilton in the boiler room, that's quite a large tight 5 to contend with.

The England scrum suffered a little vs Georgia as Stevens struggled with his binding but even with the less powerful Hartley in there they still held up firm. Cole is a really powerful cornerstone to a pack and with Thompson (a scrummaging unit in his own right) they should do ok. Corbisiero is a solid loosehead and Stevens is by no means weak so we shouldn't be under to much pressure.

As for the lineout England have an A Class set piece merchant in Deacon who commands the lineout well and adds to the scrum. With Croft in the backrow and Palmer also up in the line they should hold it there. My worry is the breakdown as Scotland have a couple of decent 7s who could force quite a few penalties out of us if our discipline doesn't improve and Robinson will certainly select Patterson to make sure those 3 pointers go over.

George Carlin

I'm a scot dude but lions or not that same front five was dominated by Georgia & Romania. Upfront we will struggle for parity.

When beetle brow came into the job he had no previous experience, and it showed, now he has grown into an international coach....he has a core of youngsters forming the spine of a winning side and a respect/understanding with the team.

He deserves another 4 years, i believe with this group and with MJ as coach they have enough to win in 2015. In the next 4 years however this is what he needs to find

a captain
number 8 (haskell the plank should come back to england now !)
world class fetcher
inside centre
another hooker

P.s..IMO a performance is something you watch for entertainment....therefore against argentina and georgia englands performance has been poor, Form is your track record in your last games e.g "form guides"......a form guide for england's last 5 games would read WLWWW...englands form is quite good !

fa0019 wrote:George Carlin

I'm a scot dude but lions or not that same front five was dominated by Georgia & Romania. Upfront we will struggle for parity.

Fa? Do you mean that Scotland's top five were dominated by Georgia?

Did you watch the game? Or am I misunderstanding? Never seen Chunk so comfortable in the hit.