Just how good can this England team become?

First topic message reminder :

Let's take a look at the facts that are indisputable and then discuss the opinions various individuals may have in an unbised manner.

The facts:

1. This young England team have bee together a mere 7 weeks.
2. They went away to Scotland and beat a tough, improving Scotland with a lot more exerience.
3. Won away in Italy.
4. Lost to an experienced, relatively successful Wales side having controlled the game and been denied a try at the end that would have drawn the match.
5. Gone to Paris and played the narrowly defeated RWC finalists, outscored them 3 tries to 1, and come away with a famous victoy.
6. Risen to be the top ranked NH team after a mere 7 weeks together and very few caps between them.

Okay now for some opinion:

I believe this team is running at less than 50% of its potential as is evident in the way that the team clearly aren't playing as a unit (how could they after 7 weeks and 4 matches?), which is key as 15 players together are far stronger than 15 individuals. Yet look at what they've achieverd - it's astounding! I think we should do very well in SA this summer, winning the series and finish the year in the top 3, possibly second place. From then on the sky's the limit - the front row look awsome already, second row are bossing the line out but perhaps need Lawes back to offer a little more in the loose, the back row are outstanding with an embarresment of riches but may be even better with an out and out 7, half backs world class with lots of depth on the bench, centres at last look great and a backline that can tear any team to shreds with the right pocession.

The future looks very bright indeed but other teams are bound to improve so Enland must keep SL in the job and carry on wortking hard and show no signs of complacency which I sincerely doubt they will. Thought?

maj

In all fairness it is difficult not to draw comparisons between the Welsh side of last year and this England side.

Both were testing front row combos, both struggling for a 2nd row partnership to solidify, both bringing in new young back rowers, club form threw 10's onto the scene that have shone, and new faces in the rest of the backline started to combine.

mystiroakey wrote:well lets be honest even i am talking about wales now- jeas another thread hijacked lol.

Ok England- where can they go?

all the way to the top!

Nice too see someone back on topic. Some of the stuff I read on the first page has baffled me. Anyway, England shouldn't get too far ahead of themselves. They played extremely poorly against Scotland and Italy, but they are hardly hard places to play away from home and were extremely lucky that Scotland were not able to finish multiple try scoring opportunities. Italy were looking the better side but lost their discipline like they normally do around the 60 minute mark, and all credit to Farrell he's been kicking like a dream.

Onto Wales, and it was a vast improvement. Looked allot more threatening going forward and defended well throughout the game. This is where we caught a glimpse of how good they could possible be. But, contrary to what someone said on the first page, where are people getting their info from if they think England dominated the game. It was an entertaining game in which both sides played reasonably well (Wales weren't great) but the fact it England scored 0 tries, and lost the game, and quite frankly, apart from two occasions never really looked like scoring. But it was a massive step forward to the previous encounters.

Onto France and again the good work done against Wales was built on. France I thought got their game plan all wrong as well as their selection. They weren't at the races in the first 20 at all and defensively they were a shambles. However, England highlighted how they are capable of being clinical through Tuilagi's and Croft's tries, both opportunistic and both with a great deal of skill, particularly Croft's in which he spotted the drift defence and straightened the line, something he was excellent at on the Lions tour in '09. Foden's in my view was down to poor defence from the French. It was an aimless kick and then two poor tackles on Morgan to allow him the space to run into. But, all credit to Morgan, he showed the form that he's been showing for the Scarlets and went on a superb run, and it was good support also from Foden to get there.

Lancaster has done well in his short space of time. People talk of how he's turned this team from a bunch of baffons at a hotel to a well organised, disciplined unit. I agree with this to a certain extent, only because I believe that it was a relatively easy solution, anyone can create a disciplined environment in a rugby team, which is why his good work should be built on by a more experienced international coach, such as Mallet who can takeover from the solid foundations laid by Lancaster, who can lead a club side in the future and continue to build on his coaching abilities.

A

Ah yes, but what about Wales though?

Obviously they're critical to England's success........

martyr_94 wrote:They played extremely poorly against Scotland and Italy, but they are hardly hard places to play away from home

Yes, England played pretty average in those two game but disagree strongly about those places being "hardly hard" places to get a win. Pretty disrespectful to both sides. Italy beat France at home last year and were very close to beating Ireland.

thebluesmancometh wrote:maj

In all fairness it is difficult not to draw comparisons between the Welsh side of last year and this England side.

Both were testing front row combos, both struggling for a 2nd row partnership to solidify, both bringing in new young back rowers, club form threw 10's onto the scene that have shone, and new faces in the rest of the backline started to combine.

Except the England team is winning more games

Thing with Farrell is though his club form wasnt anything to shout about, certainly not at 10. He was a massive gamble that was taken because Flood was injured and then Hodgson. It payed off, sometimes luck shines on the brave.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

martyr_94 wrote:They played extremely poorly against Scotland and Italy, but they are hardly hard places to play away from home

Yes, England played pretty average in those two game but disagree strongly about those places being "hardly hard" places to get a win. Pretty disrespectful to both sides. Italy beat France at home last year and were very close to beating Ireland.

Yeah I didn't really mean it's a walkover, more like your sort of expecting to win there. Every top side from France, England, Ireland and Wales will expect to win away to those sides. Scotland Italy have hardly been a the top of their game in the last 7 years have they. Although on their day they can be decent sides, when I see Wales' fixtures of the Blue sides away like next year for example, I would expect us to win away to Scotland and Italy that's all, and i'm sure as an England supporter, you would feel the same.

fair point optimist

martyr_94 wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

martyr_94 wrote:They played extremely poorly against Scotland and Italy, but they are hardly hard places to play away from home

Yes, England played pretty average in those two game but disagree strongly about those places being "hardly hard" places to get a win. Pretty disrespectful to both sides. Italy beat France at home last year and were very close to beating Ireland.

Yeah I didn't really mean it's a walkover, more like your sort of expecting to win there. Every top side from France, England, Ireland and Wales will expect to win away to those sides. Scotland Italy have hardly been a the top of their game in the last 7 years have they. Although on their day they can be decent sides, when I see Wales' fixtures of the Blue sides away like next year for example, I would expect us to win away to Scotland and Italy that's all, and i'm sure as an England supporter, you would feel the same.

Id agree with you Martyr, although England have struggled to win in Scotland in recent years that just seems to be down to them imploding rather than scotland actually being any good.
Its all very well citing Italys one win ever against France, but its extremely rare they win more than one game ...so its relatively easy to win there compared to any other 6 nations away fixture.
I dont think its unfair to say that England should aspire to win every game in Italy ( as they always have done) and at least 2 out of 3 in Scotland when the sides as bad as the one they faced this year...even if they havent done that much in recent years.
The oddity comes with the France away win which on paper appears huge, till you look at the last 8 years and reallise its become pretty routine for England to win there.
Losing at home to Wales sucks full stop, but they have been the best side in this tournament so far. England gave them a game at least. they were competitive, and thats a start, although Im struggling to think of any 6 nations home game where they havent been. Again historicaly, thats only the minimum standard.

In the context of the appalling results England have put out in most of the last few years this has not been a shabby 6 nations at all. Added to that its a new coach with a largely new side, and a few players off form as a fan I have to be happy with whats been achieved.

But they are still one win short of where they were last year, and a lot further behind on performance that they were at the start of the previous tournament. The opposition this time around hasnt put up much of a fight. But the optimism has to come from seeing that the side is moving forward, not backwards. Seeing that these players are not yet reaching their potential, they can get better as a side and become more organised.

Its not been glorious or anything to crow about, but better than I had expected it was going to be. Mild optimism from me.

Its not been glorious or anything to crow about, but better than I had expected it was going to be. Mild optimism from me.

Bloody hell!

I agree. I'd say the things that we're lacking at the moment (primarily the organised attack) come with time together. What we need and what we've needed for 9 years is a stable, semi-experienced side that 'new' young players can be easily integrated into. If we don't have that we'll have problems making the most out of great players coming through. It's something Irelnd have had for years and Wales have had since Gatland settled in. Of course the key thing is that having a settled team doesn't become the primary goal and young guys don't have a chance.

Johnson started this and IMO he was doing well at it. I'd like to think he would have done something similar as SL after the world cup if he stayed on. We'll never know.

One thing that is in Lancaster's favour in my eyes is that if we bring someone else in we have to go through all of this again, STILL with no guarantee of success.

Earlier people were saying how hard the games after the 6 nations will be, anyone fancy doing that with a new coach?

For that reason I think if we beat Ireland we keep Lancaster. He couldn't do much more really (ok, he could have got a grand slam, but come on!). If we lose (which is probably more likely) then there is a real debate to be had.

Incidentally I think one of the biggest improvements has been in the forwards now Rowntree has taken over from Wells (who was awful). So long as the coach keeps him on and listens to him then he 's got a good foundation for his team.