Lancaster on the line

First topic message reminder :

As Sir Clive Woodward has said Lancaster has done a wonderful PR job with all his talk of humility and team spirit but it is results that count.

We are two from two in matches that we could some might say should have lost. We have shown nothing of ourselves on attack and our lineout is wobbling.

The one thing that we can say is that our scrum is holding up well and our discipline seems to have improved.

But let's not fool ourselves here we're on for an absolute pasting at home by the Welsh. If they thrash us at home, it's a long way back from there.

If Lancaster wants to make a game of it at Twickenham he must do the following:

1. If Lancaster wants to keep his job he needs to show that he is more ruthless in selection than his predecessor.

Selection:

OUT:

Golden Boy Farell. His composure in kicking is great but he's not fast enough for his size nor does he unlock defences with passes or footwork.

Mauritz Botha - another player who epitmosises Lancaster's work ethic. Trouble is he not good enough. He is not an enforcer nor a lineout master. He grafts away. He misses or half misses a lot of tackles too.

Strettle - he looks like a schoolboy out there - just ineffectual and Foden is a better stepper. Should have kept his feet after the italian trip.

Hodgson - he's lost his zip. Shame I used to be a big supporter of him.

Stevens - is he the best we have covering both sides? He is a shadow of his former self and I blame him for losing the tighthead vs Italy as soon as he came on.

Webber - see above

Brown - a fine fullback I'm sure but he cannot play anywhere else and Foden is better. Are we going to drop Foden for Brown? No. Harsh but out he goes.

Dowson - as soon as Wood comes back. He will be surplus to requirements at that point because he offers less than the others either starting or on the bench

Youngs - is away with the faeries at the moment. If he was angry at being dragged on Saturday he is deluded. There was one ruck in particular that sticks in my mind. He was waving his arms around in the general direction of the midfiled, the ball came out and was at his feet. He was still looking at the midfield when an italian legally picked the ball up and went forward. Hopefully Leicester can retrain him or give him whatever it is that he needs.

IN:

Manu Tuilagi. Pair him up with Barrit in midfield and at least we've got some defensive ballast and possibly some momentum with the ball.

Lawes - mongrel and athleticism around the park. Big engine too.

Sharples - pacey try scorer

Flood - more of a running threat than Hodgson and a goalkicker

Does Mullan play better on both sides?

Who else is ready? Not exactly a strong suit for us.

Alex Goode - faster and more versatile than Brown with an excellent rugby brain

Wood - was correctly identified as Captain. Similar to Dowson but better.

Simpson - get him on board and get him involved a potential game breaker on the break

2. Fix the lineout.

3. Get us playing in a vaguely coherent way in attack.

doctor_grey wrote:Strange thing that so many people think Wales will come into Twickenham and blow England away. Favourites? Oh yes. But, do England have at least a puncher's chance? Yes, as well.

Look at it this way: Wales beat Ireland on a last minute penalty kick. So, roughly an even match. Wales and Scotland were tied at the half, and Scotland could have been leading. Wales only put Scotland away after the Yellow cards started. But then that was a blitz which was both brutal and terrifically effective.

What this shows is Wales can put teams away in crunch time, as against Ireland, or when they get a sniff, as against Scotland. As long as England can play strong defense and a reasonable attack they can stay in it. And the longer they stay in it, the greater the chance they can win it.

Always talk sense. People have a tendency to read way too much into individual games, rather than looking at the bigger picture. Some teams traditionally just raise their games against others, i.e Ireland against England, France against NZ, Fiji against Wales.
I think England will put up a good fight, and people are being irrational if they think it's going to be a walk in the park, for either team.

think about it, in last years six nations we showed great promise only to be let down by indiscipline and a slow breakdown reinforcement.

Now we are looking better defensively, are not conceding stupid errors but have yet to show the same promise in attack.

Some of our best attackers are still there, Flood, Ashton, Foden with some better looking attacking talent than Tindall, Easter and Moody.

If we lose the next three matches I won't mind, so long as we keep consistent on the good things we are doing and try harder at the things that have yet to pay off. I.e. our tackling remains the good technique that it is now (no more pathetic pawing at the chest), players remain focused and disciplined and that we show more attacking intent and at least start looking for ways to unlock defences.

miteyironpaw wrote:

We know that this England team has more raw talent at their disposal than any other team in the world.

Really mitey? Who is 'we'? Is it just that over the last few months they've chosen to completely under utilise this supposed plethora of talent. Odd timing when theres a thing called the world cup on.

Hi ya doc. Im not saying wales are going to blow england away. Im just saying they should win the match. Should the game break open it will more likely be wales doing the scoring because they've the more attacking players to do so. At least they try to use the ones they have. Typical kiwi thinking though...attack is king.

But the traditional fear of England may cost them at a crucial point. I just think its more a match for wales to lose than for england to win.

Taylorman wrote:

miteyironpaw wrote:
We know that this England team has more raw talent at their disposal than any other team in the world.

Really mitey? Who is 'we'? Is it just that over the last few months they've chosen to completely under utilise this supposed plethora of talent. Odd timing when theres a thing called the world cup on.

Isn't everyone always trying to hoist us with this pitard? "England have the most resources and deliver nothing" ? I thought I was just restating public opinion here. Sir Graham Henry seemed to think so when he wrote that article about England being "world champions at wasting talent". If not, then strike that sentence from my post.

I realise that Foden didnt have his best game against Italy but i still think that England should involve him more, he is a very dangerous attacking threat.

miteyironpaw wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

miteyironpaw wrote:
We know that this England team has more raw talent at their disposal than any other team in the world.

Really mitey? Who is 'we'? Is it just that over the last few months they've chosen to completely under utilise this supposed plethora of talent. Odd timing when theres a thing called the world cup on.

Isn't everyone always trying to hoist us with this pitard? "England have the most resources and deliver nothing" ? I thought I was just restating public opinion here. Sir Graham Henry seemed to think so when he wrote that article about England being "world champions at wasting talent". If not, then strike that sentence from my post.

Oh...Fair enough... I get you now...I thought you meant they were there on the surface now...

Very true though. We're happy for things to stay as they are.

Keeps reminding me of this extremely carefully moulded niche we have in the sport. Every other country has its internal reasons for not knocking us off...

SA with its politics and under utilising its non white population
England with its club focus amongst other things (football draining numbers)
Oz with its high octane team sports (League, football and Oz rules)
Even countries like the USA where if Union was the number one sport theyd have 8 foot locks, 200kg props, 9.0 sec wingers etc...

any of which if reversed to focus oin test match rugby would see a new number one...

The rest is mainly its playing population and other sports- Wales, Ireland etc

Finely carved niche...so we're happy to leave it as it is...

Do you really think it's resource drain in other places that keeps NZ at the top?

My opinion is that rugby resources are not something that scales in a simplistic way.

I think you need a concentration of players and concentration of infrastructure, meaning equipment, training, professional focus and the ability to identify and develop talent.

England have a vast (and over-reported) number of players but in general we have guys running around once for school under a phys. ed. instructor who has no idea about rugby whatsoever. Often nothing more than having everyone in class try to take a drop goal "like Jonny" or if the anecdotes I've heard are true. We don't have the quality of coaches at young age group to identify and develop potential talent and feed it into any kind of system.

NZ is nice has a nice small focussed population and a much higher average level of rugby awareness and knowledge. That seems to form some kind of tight feedback loop that keeps young guys picking up a rugby ball and being told just what to do with it, and playing with other young guys who know what they're doing, watching by coaches who seem to have a collective hot line to the AB selection staff. Or that is my paranoid belief anyway.

The thing I think is most likely to disrupt NZ's prime spot in my opinion is the drain of experienced people out of the country to bolster their retirement funds. It's disruption of the feedback loop to grassroots that NZ should worry about. That is why you lot ought to be thrilled that GH has decided to stay in NZ and fulfill his link in that cycle.

Not having a rugby clue at the schoolboy level might be a little too general as well but it does suggest english players are late starters and seem to have the structure built into them before they have the fun years of throwing the ball around, developing the flair, skills and love for running rugby that our boys all get at such a young age.
Rugby coaches are everywhere here and theres usually no shortage of parents taking on the role- usually players themselves.

Having coached my kids since they popped out of the egg, I agree with this to a certain extent, that in some parts of the country, English kids are late starters. And you are right, many times the kids would come out with people like myself or my mates who play as well.

I am somewhat worried that the reaction to that is instilling structure down to very low age levels. So the kids are in structured programmes but not simply running around in the yard or school ground. I do think the advent of structure at young ages is better than what we had before. But, as you said Taylor, where's the fun?

I agree Dr Grey. Structure is required to a degree, but not right down to all age levels. I remember when I was playing at my local club aged about 12, we had a fantastic young fly-half who had bags of talent. He was taken off to one of these academy schools, where he warmed the bench for a few years instead of playing the game, and his development was shot.

Young players should be left within their environment where the learnt the game, until a reasonable age where they can then start playing immediately. Not being left to stagnate somewhere watching others. First and foremost rugby's a game to play, not study.

bluestonevedder,
Great points.

At the young ages the Rugby structure should be part of the fun, not something rigid. At my club, we always set up time for the younger kids to run around and simply have fun with the ball in hand with absolute minimum structure. This so the kids can have a place to come and just enjoy the Rugby.

And as for the Academies, they are really two edge swords, exactly as you said. They come trolling for talent on a regular basis. We have a number of club players and coaches who went through the Academies and strongly suggest to the parents to let the kids be kids and play as kids until older, when perhaps, the academies make sense. Unfortunately, some parents are afraid their kid might miss their big chance to go to a reputable academy. Shame, that..

This may sound very weird but i do like the idea of giving young lads a season of Rugby League. It teaches them a different awareness and is actually a very skillfull game on its own.

In Ireland alot of the young lads play a season of GAA for the same reason.

But do we have to spend a season training them to speak 'northern' first?

It is a shame Dr Grey, that some parents feel the need to push their children like that, into an environment that not only ruins their development, but personality as a whole. Taking the young talent out of these teams also ruins the chances of the local clubs from becoming successful. When I hit the right age, myself and 8 others from my club were taken to train with the county, and our club suffered. It was no where near as fun or enjoyable as playing with the local teams, and may have been detrimental to my enjoyment of the game today.

@eirebilly, I like the sound of a season of rugby league. It's another way of learning the basics of the game. Just as playing touch rugby teaches children the basics of efficient and effective passing, elusiveness and passing moves, league could teach them the basics of tackling and defending a channel. Maybe it's something we'll see promoted?

Sure why not, could be worse and you could teach them midlands

doctor_grey wrote:But do we have to spend a season training them to speak 'northern' first?

naa, they'll pick that up from the training ground!

Its something that i have long thought about. The skill sets in League may be slightly different but they are very skillfull. I just think that it would help the young kids along.

eirebilly wrote:Sure why not, could be worse and you could teach them midlands

Forget that. Kids will never learn............wait - that's my accent! Is that why my kids don't listen to me?????

And, I also agree that some League is a terrific idea. Passes, looking for gaps, straight up tackling. All very good. Also gets them out of the pure Rugby grind for a bit. That's a plus too.

bluestonevedder wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:But do we have to spend a season training them to speak 'northern' first?

naa, they'll pick that up from the training ground!

Probably a lot more constructive to get them to fine tune their Southern Hemisphere accents

RubyGuby wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:But do we have to spend a season training them to speak 'northern' first?

naa, they'll pick that up from the training ground!

Probably a lot more constructive to get them to fine tune their Southern Hemisphere accents

Ruby

Personally I think the 7's game is a better compliment to 15 aside rugby than League is. The tackled ball rentention and overly predictable kick cycles are a bad habit to learn for rugby, because it encourages you to look for space, rather than supporting runners and doesn't to the same extent require awareness of a tactical kicking game from adhoc play. 7's requires the same kind of increased fitness level and keep-the-ball-alive awareness, but also enhances the notion of supporting the live ball, and finding the best supporting structures when you are personally in posession. The breakdown skills are also much more in the spotlight and it's great for learning timing your attack on the ruck to achieve turn overs.

Did anyone see all the Tigers Sarries game yesterday? I caught the ITV 4 highlights and saw a few good runs from Manu Tuilagi, but had the impression he was blowing a bit towards the end. Just wondering if he's quite up to International speed yet.

Not sure we learned anything about Toby Flood in that sort of game in those conditions except that he lasted and had his kicking boots back. Both of which are good news.

Did we see anything that changes Hodgson Farrell and Barritt as starters for England on Saturday, with Flood and Tuilagi on the bench?

Tuilagi looked ok to me cowshot, Flood didnt.

@Cowshot- I saw the game, and thought Manu looked very good throughout. Made some great breaks and his defence was pretty good too- although I think he rushed the line once and gave away a penalty...

Flood wasn't so great, but he was receiving terrible ball from Grindal, so it's hard to determine how much of his performance was down to him and not dictated by Grindal.

I didn't get much impression of Flood at all from the highlights, so only commented on what I could see. Grindal does his best, but there's a reason he's third choice. I'd also be interested to know if old Geordan called that last second drop goal to himself as Captain's responsibility, or if Toby ducked it. I suspect the former, especially after the result vs Exeter.

Must admit I keep changing my mind on whether to start with the Sarries set who have earned their places with wins, changing only Morgan and Dickson and with Flood and Tuilagi on the bench; or to swap Tuilagi for Barritt to start with Flood on the bench.

I think on balance I'd start Tuilagi.

Tuilagi has great potential, however his temperament is suspect and this will be a game with a great deal of "edge", if he lacks the maturity to deal with it then he may well become as much of a liability as he his an asset

I think its frequently a shot in the dark when a player is coming back from injury. Unless Tuilagi has been playing consistently well for his club for a while, I would prefer him on the bench. Eventually, he will start because to me he is rhe best Outside Centre in England. But I am concerned about his recovery from injury.

RubyGuby wrote:Tuilagi has great potential, however his temperament is suspect and this will be a game with a great deal of "edge", if he lacks the maturity to deal with it then he may well become as much of a liability as he his an asset

You could be right Ruby, but then, with the greatest of respect, the discipline problems seem to belong to Wales of recent. With the extra niggle that is likely to be out there, do you think we'll see a raft of game-changing cards this weekend? A lot of pressure on the match officials not to mess this one up given recent history, I think it could go one of two ways: we might see a lot of leeway on the cards as a passive response to the Ferris issue, or assistants not hesitating to recommend a red if there's any hint of foul play in reaction to the Davies incident. Personally I hope they all take a breath and give themselves an extra few seconds to consider what they've seen before making any rash decisions. This England side has a few notorious hot-heads in various places (potentially - no teams named yet of course), and I hope they can keep composed and focussed. This Wales team is good, but they have enough variant weaknesses to probe in various ways that I think a lot of composure will be called for, and a great deal of on-field leadership might be required. Both teams have the players to score points quickly and there's no need for anyone's head to go down or lose their temper if one side or another start to get a roll on.

What an amazing comment! Few have the Rugby knowledge to write this sort of clear, insightful stuff.

No grey mist about this at all. Nothing ghostly whatever. Clear as a bell and honest as day.

Both teams have the players to score points quickly Hodgson, Barritt, Farrell, Cole????

Cowshot wrote:What an amazing comment! Few have the Rugby knowledge to write this sort of clear, insightful stuff.

No grey mist about this at all. Nothing ghostly whatever. Clear as a bell and honest as day.

Difficult to see, the future is. Always in motion is the future.

Friends ... in trouble, you have. A trap, awaits them. Go to Twickenham they will, and be destroyed.