England too conservative?

Reading a lot of the media analysis of England's undoubtedly disappointing World Cup performance it seems this is a recurring theme: England were too cautious, too conservative; they played stodgy forward-oriented rugby and paid the price. But is that actually the case? I'm not sure it is.

Certainly England didn't set the world alight with their dazzling attacking play, and certainly some of the selections could be described as conservative – Tindall, Wilkinson, Deacon – but I don't think England were notably lacking in ambition or toothless in attack compared to other teams. Someone less lazy than me will doubtless compare England's try-count in the tournament to those of other teams at this stage and if they do I don't think it will reflect too badly on the English.

In fact, for a while now, when England have had possession they have looked like they can score – with the very notable exception of the eye-watering attacking incompetence shown against Wales in Cardiff last time out.

So what went wrong? I think we've let ourselves down in two main areas in this World Cup:

1) Stupid penalties/ poor breakdown work in general. This is something of an old problem. Teams seem to know that we either lack competitiveness at the breakdown, or we concede penalties. We seem incapable of competing and staying on the right side of the law.

2) Lack of intensity/ physicality, especially at the beginning of games. Ireland in Dublin in the 6N – they ripped into us from the start and it completely rattled the whole team. The same thing happened against France on Saturday and against Scotland earlier into the tournament. I was actually impressed with how we got ourselves back into those games, so maybe that's an improvement, but I expect an England team to be able to field a big, mean pack and go toe-to-toe with the opposition from the first second of the match. At the moment we aren't.

So what to do? I think a new forwards coach and a few new faces in the pack would go some way towards solving these issues. I would hate for Johnson to get the sack and for us to start building yet again. We've been a team "in transition" since 2003. Time we had some consistency.

There were obviously more problems than those I've mentioned above – Wilko just wasn't good enough, or Ben Youngs, our handling against France went to pot, we made some silly defensive errors in the same match and fell off tackles earlier in the tournament against Argentina – but I think those were the main issues. England aren't the most exciting side in World Rugby but to accuse them of uber-conservatism in every match is just lazy stereotyping. We went out because we were ill-disciplined and underpowered and came up against a team playing well. We should try and fix that and move on.

Jonno signed his own death warrant in 2009 when he allowed a group of players to dictate a change of tactics. OK, this has taken two years to manifest itself and the players are good enough to largely paper over the cracks on the field, but that's only a matter if time. If Jonno is still around in the 6N you will regret it for years to come. The off field antics also are attributable to this.

Conservative selections leading to too many slow players leads to the breakdown infringements as the opposition are there first.

I'm not sure they were too conservative. In fact in the first 5 minutes of the france game they moved the ball to both wings and looked threatening, but lacked the finish.

Selections have been confusing all throughout MJ's reign

Borthwick - captain for too long when he didn't inspire or deserve his place in the team
Hape - backed for 12 months leading up to the WC then dumped and seemingly not trusted for the france game
Haskell - earned a starting jersey in the WC but then dropped to the bench for Easter when it came to the france game. Surely HAskell was one of the better performers through the group games?
Lawes - billed as a star of now and for the future, but benched in favour of Deacon and Palmer.
Flood - backed in Englands best performcances of recent times, but dropped for JW when it mattered. Should Flood have been allowed to find his form given that he had been at the heart of so much good over the past year?
Moody - after too long out injured he didn't justify his place in the team. maybe lack of eladers meant he got the nod, but Wood or HAskel at 7 would surely have been the better option.

On these selection issues alone, MJ should probably go.

Borthwick - captain for too long when he didn't inspire or deserve his place in the team
Hape - backed for 12 months leading up to the WC then dumped and seemingly not trusted for the france game
Haskell
- earned a starting jersey in the WC but then dropped to the bench for
Easter when it came to the france game. Surely HAskell was one of the
better performers through the group games?
Lawes - billed as a star of now and for the future, but benched in favour of Deacon and Palmer.
Flood
- backed in Englands best performcances of recent times, but dropped
for JW when it mattered. Should Flood have been allowed to find his form
given that he had been at the heart of so much good over the past year?
Moody
- after too long out injured he didn't justify his place in the team.
maybe lack of eladers meant he got the nod, but Wood or HAskel at 7
would surely have been the better option.

On these selection issues alone, MJ should probably go.

I agree MJ does make perplexing selections sometimes. The thing is I've never ever known a manager not to make such selections. His replacement would likely be no exception. Overall he's been bringing the sort of players I want in the team into the team, if a little slowly and inconsistently, and so I'd be happy to give him more time.

I agree...what concerns me though is that whilst MJ will have the final say, who is around him offering advice to counter these selections.

Who is there to say...but Martin Haskell has been Englands form pack player...or look Johnny and Youngs as a combo aint working... etc.

Eustace H Plimsoll wrote:

Borthwick - captain for too long when he didn't inspire or deserve his place in the team
Hape - backed for 12 months leading up to the WC then dumped and seemingly not trusted for the france game
Haskell
- earned a starting jersey in the WC but then dropped to the bench for
Easter when it came to the france game. Surely HAskell was one of the
better performers through the group games?
Lawes - billed as a star of now and for the future, but benched in favour of Deacon and Palmer.
Flood
- backed in Englands best performcances of recent times, but dropped
for JW when it mattered. Should Flood have been allowed to find his form
given that he had been at the heart of so much good over the past year?
Moody
- after too long out injured he didn't justify his place in the team.
maybe lack of eladers meant he got the nod, but Wood or HAskel at 7
would surely have been the better option.

On these selection issues alone, MJ should probably go.

I agree MJ does make perplexing selections sometimes. The thing is I've never ever known a manager not to make such selections. His replacement would likely be no exception. Overall he's been bringing the sort of players I want in the team into the team, if a little slowly and inconsistently, and so I'd be happy to give him more time.

Even I could have realised that the likes of Foden, Ashton, Youngs, Tuilagi and Lawes were the best we have. I Just think there's a stronger argument (experience wise) for the likes of White, Mallinder and others...

th eproblem was simple- infact more than simple- we kept dropping the ball. our handling was poor. we need to learn how to catch under pressure and we would have been fine.

yes that was the problem and had the players caught one or two more passes then we may be preparing for a semi final.

But, selections - and their inconsistency - were strange to say the least

England went into this RWC with average warm up performances and with only Foden, Ashton and Tuilagi guaranteed their places in the team (yes I thought Lawes was guaranteed his) The writing was on the wall long before the Argentina and Scotland games but there remained this elevated expectation from many angles. Until England take an honest look at themselves nothing will change and this inept performance will be put down to dare I say it, "another bad day in the office" What the feck is that? They should have had Jake White as number 1 and Jonno as number 2 when they had the chance. Its not rocket science but do those at the top have the will to make these changes

Care's injury cost us as well - leaving us with Youngs lacking match practice, Wigglesworth who simply isn't international class and Simpson, who is a great runner but not a great SH technician.

Our best performances in recent months have come with Youngs and Flood at half back, yet they hardly played together this tournament.

Of course the bigger problem has been in the forwards - really only Dan Cole at tight head and Croft at blindside were automatic choices (and I know some argue that Crost is too lightweight and is a luxury we cannot afford at present). Moody was getting picked as captain when his spot in the team shouldn't have been guaranteed, Haskell was the form 8 yet got dropped for Easter for the knock-out game.

Picking Stevens at loosehead seemed to be a triumph of hope over experience - he got beasted in the scrum v Scotland and contributed little in open play (his supposed strength), so why repeat the experience agaisnt France, where Corbisiero should have started?

Hooker and second row the issue seems to be more that there is little to choose between the players available in the squad - ideally, Hartley and Lawes should have stood out head and shoulders above their squad rivals, but neither did (Lawes being one of my biggest disappointments of the tournament).

As I've said elsewhere, I'm not too fussed whether Johnno stays or goes (pros and cons each way), but it is absolutely time to get rid of Wells and probably Ford (not that the defence was as bad as the forward effort, but it probably would benefit from fresh ideas).

Less than a year ago, I watched a young england team demolish Australia with audacity, cheek and skill. I really thought we had entered a bright new future. Last weekend, I watched some young england players play like old men. The spark has gone.

Is it a retro eighties thing? Like spandau ballet reunions and Indiana Jones sequels. I almost expected Wade Dooley to come off the bench.

A recent comment from an England player:

"We played this whole tournament in a different way...The way we played at the start of the Six Nations is the best way for us to maximise the talent we have in the squad, without a doubt. But we didn't do that. We didn't use what we've got and I don't see any point in that at all...I have my frustrations, but I’m still a relatively new young player in the England squad, so I don’t feel I can really speak my mind yet. You have to earn your stripes."

I think the biggest problem we had was that we didn't look to build phases in the opposition 22. In fact we were guilty for this all over the park. Big elaborate backs moves that moved from one side of the pitch to the other (normally without anything to tie the opposition defence in). It was all far to do or die and I still think out best piece of rugby in the RWC was the first try against France. Youngs taps and goes and the forwards hit the ruck hard and fast, the pick and go and Youngs moves them forward drawing defenders and bringing forwards onto the ball at pace (for once not standing still). We built phases and pulled the French defence around before releasing the ball to the Johnny and the backs for an easy try for Foden.

We didn't do that enough and you can talk about slow forwards all you like but if they are spending the game racing back and forth trying to keep up with extremely wide and often poorly executed (Mr Wilkinson) backs play then they will be knackered and will struggle. Poor attacking strategy in my eyes and it certainly didn't fit with the defensive strategy or the forward organisation or indeed the backs selection. To many cooks spoiling the broth.