England Player Ratings v SA

First topic message reminder :

These are not my ratings, rather an average of those awarded by journos.

As I find more i will amend this post.

Current contributors: Planet Rugby, Telegraph, Sunday Times, The Rugby Paper, The Times

Mike Brown	6.6
Chris Ashton	5.8
Manu Tuilagi	6.8
Brad Barritt	5.2
Ben Foden	6.6
Owen Farrell	5.0
Ben Youngs	5.6
Ben Morgan	5.2
Chris Robshaw	7.0
Tom Johnson	6.4
Geoff Parling	6.2
Mouritz Botha	6.8
Dan Cole	6.0
Dylan Hartley	5.0
Joe Marler	5.4

biltongbek wrote:OK, then how about this.

9. Youngs
10. Flood
11. Ashton
12. Joseph
13. Tuilagi
14. Foden
15 Brown

Agree all those except Youngs at 9. He is too slow at the breakdown and seems more intent on getting somebody to move a foot or so to the left or right before getting the ball out of the ruck, rather than get it back into play quickly and at least give us a chance of running at a retreating defence.

The Boks could have had a fag break, changed their kit, relaced their boots and phoned home to wish their mum a happy birthday in the time it took Youngs to recycle the ball yesterday (and in every game he's played in, actually).

Danny Care has blotted his copybook more than once, but he should be worth another try. Hopefully he has learned his lessons now and will behave in future.

Ozzy3213 wrote:
Whether Garvey is ready for test rugby or not, he is that type of player. A dynamic carrier and scrummager, which is precisely what the England front 5 needs.

Is Garvey a particularly good scrummager? LI often struggled at scrum time, and Garvey was sometimes selected at 6 wasn't he?

Lawes is a very powerful scrummager. Which is actually a reason not to try him at 6 (although I'd still like to see it given a go).

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Rowntree blamed it on them not dealing with the SA replacements in the front row, and like Lancaster singled out Marler for praise. But that does seem to be a case of loving up the new boys.
Who out of Corbs PDJ and Marler make the next team and whether starting or on the bench should say a lot about what Rowntree really though was the cause of the scrum flump.

Early engaging is an odd one, refs hardly ever bother to penalise it unless it has a noticeable effect but getting called more than once for it is pretty poor.

Walsh blamed the early engagements on Morgan. He takes Robshaw & Morgan aside to give them a warning about it after blowing for the scrum in the 36th minute of this video (23 mins into the match)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB5As0nKSkc

niwatts wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Rowntree blamed it on them not dealing with the SA replacements in the front row, and like Lancaster singled out Marler for praise. But that does seem to be a case of loving up the new boys.
Who out of Corbs PDJ and Marler make the next team and whether starting or on the bench should say a lot about what Rowntree really though was the cause of the scrum flump.

Early engaging is an odd one, refs hardly ever bother to penalise it unless it has a noticeable effect but getting called more than once for it is pretty poor.

Walsh blamed the early engagements on Morgan. He takes Robshaw & Morgan aside to give them a warning about it after blowing for the scrum in the 36th minute of this video (23 mins into the match)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB5As0nKSkc

Which is really odd as Morgans the only one who doesnt move at all on that one

Jennifer1984 wrote:

biltongbek wrote:OK, then how about this.

9. Youngs
10. Flood
11. Ashton
12. Joseph
13. Tuilagi
14. Foden
15 Brown

Agree all those except Youngs at 9. He is too slow at the breakdown and seems more intent on getting somebody to move a foot or so to the left or right before getting the ball out of the ruck, rather than get it back into play quickly and at least give us a chance of running at a retreating defence.

The Boks could have had a fag break, changed their kit, relaced their boots and phoned home to wish their mum a happy birthday in the time it took Youngs to recycle the ball yesterday (and in every game he's played in, actually).

Danny Care has blotted his copybook more than once, but he should be worth another try. Hopefully he has learned his lessons now and will behave in future.

At last, someone who gets my genius, well not all of it.

Sadly Brown is now injured

Agree all those except Youngs at 9. He is too slow at the breakdown and seems more intent on getting somebody to move a foot or so to the left or right before getting the ball out of the ruck, rather than get it back into play quickly and at least give us a chance of running at a retreating defence.

Jen, there was no quick ball to be had, the Boks slowed it down beautifully because England went in ones and twos. It was to easy for a couple of Boks to contest the ruck and slow each attack before Youngs got there. Add to that the 10m sideways and 20m backwards he had to throw the ball to find his 10 and no wonder he opted for the management of his forwards. Of the four scrum halves on the day he showed the most attacking threat ball in hand and if Flood comes in at 10 then we'll see more of Youngs using the ball and less careful organisation whilst Farrell sits deep watching and waiting for a place kick.

Care's form has been up and down this season, I'd like to see him on the bench of Dickson (who seemed to be moving so slow it was almost backwards) but Youngs should stay at 10 as Flood must come in. We can't have another game with Farrell at 10, we need to score tries and with Flood at 10 for the final 2 minutes of the first test we saw what could happen (why he didn't switch to 10 earlier and shove Farrell to 12 I don't know).

DaveM wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:
Whether Garvey is ready for test rugby or not, he is that type of player. A dynamic carrier and scrummager, which is precisely what the England front 5 needs.

Is Garvey a particularly good scrummager? LI often struggled at scrum time, and Garvey was sometimes selected at 6 wasn't he?

Lawes is a very powerful scrummager. Which is actually a reason not to try him at 6 (although I'd still like to see it given a go).

Garvey played blindside at the end of the season due to us having no back row forwards fit, and LI's scrum issues were due to not having a decent tighthead.

I'd just like to point out that I am not championing Garvey for England, merely using him to highlight how two players of similar weight can be very different in terms of power and dynamism.

The non-selection of Attwood is the one that amazes me. He has been involved in a number of squads, including the first one SL picked. He is exactly the type of lock we are crying out for at the moment and he is young so could well be a very good long term option. He took a while to settle at Bath but has had a strong second half of the season. He is big and powerful enough to stand up to the Boks and he is a very good all round player, more than capable of doing everything either of the test guys can do, plus a lot more.

I also agree Garvey should have a chance but it is less surprising he hasn't been picked as he has not really been involved (40mins for Saxons?) as much.

For me the Second Row is a massive concern on this tour. The guys who are playing/will likely play are nothing more that decent club pro's. Parling does fine in the lineout but misses Croft, while around the park he doesn't offer much and he doesn't appear to have the necessary power. Botha is just a rubbish version of a Springbok lock. He is supposed to be the big powerful 'enforcer' but isn't as big or powerful as their guys. He is clumsy, and isn't a great lineout forward. I honestly couldn't see him getting anywhere near a SA squad had be stayed there.

Lawes is the obvious first choice, and will hopefully regain his place when he is fit. Then it would be Attwood to partner him for me. That is a partnership which offers power in the tight and loose, massive defence and 2 good lineout options, plus with Croft at 6 the lineout would be very good. That 4,5,6 combo looks so much better than the one we saw on Saturday, which would make a massive difference to the side.

jeffwinger wrote:

Botha is just a rubbish version of a Springbok lock. He is supposed to be the big powerful 'enforcer' but isn't as big or powerful as their guys. He is clumsy, and isn't a great lineout forward. I honestly couldn't see him getting anywhere near a SA squad had be stayed there.

Can't agree more with that statement. I find it a little bit embarrassing to be honest. England used to have real enforcer-type locks, and could really do with one now. Botha has the occasional good game (Barbarians), but otherwise just seems to be overpowered. His work in the loose was pretty non-existent on Saturday, and his tackling is actually not that reliable. Parling I have lot more faith in, and think he's a fine player. I've watched the game back, and he goes about his duty doing the dirty grind work well. His tackling is also very decent, since he used to play backrow if i'm not mistaken...?

Well everytime I expressed my opinion about him not being a great lock, I have been shot down in flames.

biltongbek wrote:Well everytime I expressed my opinion about him not being a great lock, I have been shot down in flames.

Really? I apologise Biltong, for had I seen that I would have backed you unequivocally.

bluestonevedder wrote:

biltongbek wrote:Well everytime I expressed my opinion about him not being a great lock, I have been shot down in flames.

Really? I apologise Biltong, for had I seen that I would have backed you unequivocally.

I have never seen anyone describe Mouritz as a great lock. He is a good, steady club player who has worked his way up the leagues. So sorry people had a go at you.

Lock is an interesting position in England right now. There are a lot of young(ish) pretenders each with their vociferous fans - but no-one who is really going out week in week out putting in international level performances.

Biggest disappointment for me is Attwood. He should be at the heart of this team - but ever since the problems on the tour to Aus in 201 his club performances have been a bit meh.


Botha - not good enough, but tries hard
Parling - Goo din the lineout, tries hard, lightweight.
Palmer - never as good as he should have been
Robson - combination of Botha and Parling
Kitchener - not ready

Lawes - injured, needs to kick on, 6 or lock?
Launchbury - injured, niot ready yet, back row or second row?
Skivington - not good enough
Slater - too small?
Deacon - injured, too old?
Garvey - overhyped

Attwood is a disappointment. As a lot of people on here have said, I think he should have toured. He's started to settle in at Bath, and does possess a hard edge to his game. He's a huge lump too, and rarely takes a step back. I was miffed at hsi name not being on the team sheet to be honest.

Garvey does seem to be overhyped at the moment, although he certainly does have a future on the international stage for sure. Such a shame he looks like Wayne Rooney.

I would rather see Attwood there ahead of Botha, Palmer, Kitchener. He has to look at himself though and really start playing.

Gary Gold may well help with that.

LondonTiger wrote:Biggest disappointment for me is Attwood. He should be at the heart of this team - but ever since the problems on the tour to Aus in 201 his club performances have been a bit meh.

He was huge for Gloucester in 2010-11 season, and a massive loss when he decided to move on last summer. Admittedly took a while to settle at Bath but that can happen when players move around, and he was overshadowed by Ryan Caldwell who had an excellent start to the season. He has been a lot better at Bath as the season has gone on, and if he continues to improve I would really hope to see him involved in the Autumn Internationals.

Biltong, I would also have supported your view had I seen people talking Botha up. Never been a fan at international level. Good for Sarries but no more than that. Hopefully just a stop-gap til some of the younger guys prove themselves to SL.

Slater - too small?

Isn't he of a similar size to Corry? Tigers moving him between 8 and lock show they see him in a similar light and his game does show similarities in terms of the old 110%, lead by example though Corry was much better at the ruck whilst Slater is far more mobile. Wiki lists him at over 18 stone and 6 foot 6. That should be ideal for the current international trends. I don't think he's ready but he should be big enough, when he's not injured.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Slater
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Corry_(rugby_union)

Slater's height is a discussion we have had a few times at matches. Programme says he is 6'6" yet he always looks shorter than Tom Croft who is down as 6'5".

LondonTiger wrote:I would rather see Attwood there ahead of Botha, Palmer, Kitchener. He has to look at himself though and really start playing.

Gary Gold may well help with that.

I hope he lights a fire under him to get him going, if he pulls his finger out he could be a regular fixture for England for a while I think. If Lawes could improve his lineout skills they could be a really good second row combo going forward.

Bathman_in_London wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:I would rather see Attwood there ahead of Botha, Palmer, Kitchener. He has to look at himself though and really start playing.

Gary Gold may well help with that.

I hope he lights a fire under him to get him going, if he pulls his finger out he could be a regular fixture for England for a while I think. If Lawes could improve his lineout skills they could be a really good second row combo going forward.

agreed on both counts.

Of course, with Croft in the side, he can take a lot of pressure off the second rows in the lineout. But with regards to Lawes, at the moment he seems to be an 'enforcerer' without the bulk to do it against the best international teams (in my opinion). Hopefully the lineout skills will come with time, especially as he has to take more responsibility at Saints going forward.

LT I've seen Croft listed as 6 foot 5 a few times and I just can't see it, he always looks taller and closer to the 6 foot 7 locks to me. Then again they always list Manu as 6 foot 1 and when I met him he seemed a touch shorter than me (though far wider, he's massive) and I'm pretty much bang on 6 foot. I wonder if they just ask the player how tall they are and then accept the answer.

Maybe Sam,

Like they do with the cricket where Rob Key's stats had him at 10 stone.

Listed player stats are notoriously bad. If you look at the same player on two or three sites with stats you can almost guarantee they will be different.

I really don't think England's defeat was down to the locks. People are obseesed with an 'enforcer', but I'm not even clear what that means. Certainly the era you could go around putting in cheap shots is well and truely over.

The first two things your locks should do is win line-out ball (directly or through good calling) and push hard in the scrum. Next they need to make plenty of tackles and hit plenty of rucks. Yes it's a bonus if they carry occasionally, but there are plenty of other options (front row, backrow, centres) who can do that. England's locks do most of that ok - nobody is saying that are the 2015 WC locks, but it feels like no matter what happens in the match the need for an 'enforcer' will be trotted out.

England has the test because between 40 and 60 minutes they had no field position. That is mainly down to the kick-chase. Fix that first, worry about the locks another series.

As for Attwood, he was doing ok at Gloucester but has been a serious disappointment since his move to Bath. I've never seen him have an outstanding game there. His omission is on merit.

Agreed field position was the issue, however...

We had no field position because once they got into their systems, the Saffer pack were moving ours around at will through a combination of power and organisation. The 'enforcer' as mentioned by everyone is the behemoth who can stand up and start pushing back. I honestly believe if we added significantly more power to the second row and had one of the first choice guys at 6 then Saturday's result would have been different. For me the second row is a pressing concern.

DaveM wrote:I really don't think England's defeat was down to the locks. People are obseesed with an 'enforcer', but I'm not even clear what that means. Certainly the era you could go around putting in cheap shots is well and truely over.

The first two things your locks should do is win line-out ball (directly or through good calling) and push hard in the scrum. Next they need to make plenty of tackles and hit plenty of rucks. Yes it's a bonus if they carry occasionally, but there are plenty of other options (front row, backrow, centres) who can do that. England's locks do most of that ok - nobody is saying that are the 2015 WC locks, but it feels like no matter what happens in the match the need for an 'enforcer' will be trotted out.

England has the test because between 40 and 60 minutes they had no field position. That is mainly down to the kick-chase. Fix that first, worry about the locks another series.

As for Attwood, he was doing ok at Gloucester but has been a serious disappointment since his move to Bath. I've never seen him have an outstanding game there. His omission is on merit.

Compare how often teams like Australia and New Zealand use their centres truck ball up on slow ball with other nations, and I'm not just talking about off first phase attacking ball. Then ask why are they better exponents of a wide attacking game. Is it any wonder we struggle at times to tie in defenders when we use players like Manu one out off a ruck to try to generate momentum and have forwards replacing them in the attacking line? How many times were SBW and Smith used like this on Saturday? And why weren't they?

To comment on the second row issues, and specifically the enforcer point, I think people, myself included, are looking at the old addage that forwards win matches. 2nd rows, like you point out, are there to scrum, line out, ruck, counter ruck, tackle and carry. On saturday our lineout functioned well, but in every other facet of second row play Botha and Parling struggled to impose themselves, much to the detriment of the rest of the pack. Having the option of a large ball carrying, hard tackling enforcer, who also adds ballast to the scrum, is invaluable to a successful side, they all have one. By gaining dominance through the pack, and not relying on assistance from robust backs, a side can create space and get quick ball BEFORE the back even touch it.

At the moment we don't have a second row who can dominate his opposite number and people are highlighting that fact. And this is why Garvey and Attwood are being talked up so much because out of the current pool of locks available to England they're the only two that really fit the bill at the moment. No one is saying they are going to be world beaters, people have just highlighted an area of weakness within the team at the moment and have identified a solution. This solution may not be perfect at the moment, or ever, but common concensus is it's certainly better than staying as we are.

England have the potential for a pack that could dominate any side in the world, both at the set piece and around the park. Currently the front row is very good, I'd say in the top 4 front rows in the world which is impressive considering their age and experience, and has the potential to be world class but will never reach that without proper support of the second row. The back row, again, is very good with a lot of depth, but will never develop into a world class back row if players are having to constantly cover the deficiencies of others. Breakdown, both in defence an attack, is an issue for England and if the second row continue to miss tackles/make passive tackles the backrow will never be able to compete properly, likewise going forward if the second row fail to make a proper impact on the ruck or fail to break the gain line in carrying then slow ball will always follow.

An excellent discussion going on here.

I like Botha's work rate but i worry at how many times he shoots for the big hit and then misses.

I think a defender doing that can cause problems for his side by either leaving behind a hole in the defensive line or by getting in the way of other defenders.

The other point i would make is that as well as Johnson played in all his spade work - do we not need Haskell's carrying ability for T2?

Particularly in light of the lack of carrying from the srow?

I've said before I think Haskell could be that missing link 6 and offers the characteristics required of a more traditional 6 more than any other options available at present, but I think he should bench as I think Johnson has done enough to warrant re selection. See how he gones tomorrow, bring him on in the second half on Saturday and whoever fairs the best (him or Johnson) gets the starting berth for the third test. It would certainly provide a bit of spark we perhaps lacked in the second half last week off the bench.

I do think there is that balance in the backrow if Haskell were to play though, he has got a hell of an engine on him, gets around park and his all round game (tackling, carrying, support play and breakdown work) really developed last year. His game would complement Robshaws very well.

Would it make up for the lack of grunt in the second row? Not so sure, the second row is the engine room of the pack, it sets the tone at scrum time and conversly sets the tone at the collision area. You look at the great enforcer second rows of the last decade; Martin Johnson, Bakkies Botha and Brad Thorn (is it a coincidence that they are all world cup winners?) All were the bed rock of their sides, neither would take a backward step in defence (they may not have put in Jerry Collins esq tackles but by christ they hit people and stopped them, none of this passive stuff we're seeing at the moment) all were effective carriers, hit hard at the breakdown and were strong in the scrum. Take cars as an example, you can have all the bodywork, electrics, tyres, etc, you want but if you put a bloody Lada engine in it, its still a bloody Lada.

I agree jamesandimac, if you look at the stats from the first test, there really is a lack of go forward ball. I feel that Haskell could change this. He carries well and has a lot of experience at international level which means he knows what to do in the sticky situations.

Haskell, Robshaw and Morgan looks like a very solid back row however are any of them that good in the lineout?

LondonTiger wrote:Maybe Sam,

Like they do with the cricket where Rob Key's stats had him at 10 stone.

I think they just weighed his gut and forgot about the rest of him.

Zander I think Robshaw is actually underrated in the lineout. He's quite a decent target. You're right though, that backrow does look very decent and powerful. However, I was impressed by Tom Johnson, and think that either him or Haskell should take the bench spot with the other starting. Johnson was tenacious at the breakdown, and combined with Robshaw's briiliant deck work, I think they were a bit of a thorn in the Bok's side.

bluestonevedder wrote:Zander I think Robshaw is actually underrated in the lineout. He's quite a decent target. You're right though, that backrow does look very decent and powerful. However, I was impressed by Tom Johnson, and think that either him or Haskell should take the bench spot with the other starting. Johnson was tenacious at the breakdown, and combined with Robshaw's briiliant deck work, I think they were a bit of a thorn in the Bok's side.

bluestone, do you think maybe Tom Johnson could do more of the carrying as Morgan didn't carry enough for the whole game and compared to the South Africa backrow, England's backrow carried far less. I agree about Robshaw being underrated in the lineout but that could be due to him not being a major jumper for Harlequins?

Some pretty harsh judgement of Botha on here. I thought he was pretty good at the weekend, and whilst he's no Martin Johnson or Simon Shaw, he does at least punch his weight and throw himself into the fray.

He is not the long term answer for England, as rightly identified, Attwood and Lawes should come right into the reckoning if fit and on form, but Botha is letting no one down at the moment, and by being rated the second best England forward by the compilation of journalists in the OP, it looks like I'm not the only one saying this.

I'd put Botha in the same camp as Dowson. Probably there based on merit over the course of the season, but ultimately no more than military medium at international level. Unfortunately the other form choice at lock, George Robson, for me wouldn't work together with Parling, who is becoming key due to his line-out contribution. Too similar. So for now, I think it has to be Botha at 4, and if he plays to a similar level on Saturday, England won't be losing because of him.

Zander the reason the English backrow carried an awful lot less is because England had significantly less ball than the Boks.

Robshaw is underrated as a lineout option because he is compared to his contemporaries Croft and Wood who are both significantly better in that department. They are in fact better jumpers than a good number of specialist second row lineout jumpers so it is often an unfair comparison on Robshaw as the lineout is a bit part of his game compared to a serious weapon in the other twos arsenal.

Zander wrote:
bluestone, do you think maybe Tom Johnson could do more of the carrying as Morgan didn't carry enough for the whole game and compared to the South Africa backrow, England's backrow carried far less. I agree about Robshaw being underrated in the lineout but that could be due to him not being a major jumper for Harlequins?

Morgan really did fade in and out of the game, and he made some decent carries, but not enough of them I think. England could have really used him in those tight encounters, but he was anonymous. He did some good ground work, but i'd rather he ran with the ball! Johnson's a great carrier, although I think he flourishes a bit more in open space (like Croft), of which there was none at the weekend. He's seriously quick, but less of a bosher compared tom traditional 6s. Robshaw carried a lot of ball, but to little avail. I think he was taking too much on his own shoulders, because Johnson isn't a tight carrier, and because Morgan was in and out of the game. This is where Haskell comes. There's no doubt he's a great ball carrier, and could take some of the pressure off of Robshaw....BUT, saying that, I really really like Tom johnson! Damn decisions.

......does anything I've written make sense?

In terms of issues for England to solve ahead of Friday, I'd rank them as follows:

1. Lack of creativity in the midfield - solve by switching Farrell to 12 and installing Flood at 10. Rather than asking Tuilagi to break the line by handing him the ball well behind the advantage line and having him run into a brick wall, why not try and introduce him onto the ball at pace and on the angle. If that fails then try Joseph.

2. Kick chase - easy one to solve, England need to actually chase their kicks and apply pressure so that Zane and Habana don't have time for an ice cream before running back the ball. At altitude this is going to be key.

3. Poor carrying by comparison from the back row - solve by getting Morgan on the treadmill and upping his workrate and by convincing Marler that he should just enjoy himself and play as he does for Quins.

4. Scrummaging technique - solve by having a Telfer-esque set of sessions this week focused on winning the hit and getting into the Beast. Cole needs a big game for England on Saturday. I thought he'd do slightly better if I'm being honest.

Yes it does bluestone!

How about 6. Johnson, 7. Robshaw and 8.Haskell.

I know Haskell isn't a specialist 8 but it would certainly make our backrow a bit more reliable especially at higher altitudes.

jeffwinger wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Biggest disappointment for me is Attwood. He should be at the heart of this team - but ever since the problems on the tour to Aus in 201 his club performances have been a bit meh.

He was huge for Gloucester in 2010-11 season, and a massive loss when he decided to move on last summer.

Jeff I really have to disagree with that. He was outstanding the previous season, 09/10, but was quite average in 10/11. After his stupid ban for kicking in the Amlin he never recovered his starting place and was firmly 4th choice behind James. I was sorry to see him go as he has huge potential, but he hasn't had a decent season since 09/10. At time last year for Bath he looked back to his best, but in large he was too inconsistent. I am in total agreement with the majority here that Botha is a poorman's enforcer, but he is playing better than Attwood, who on form doesn't deserve to be on this tour. I am in no doubt Attwood will come good and form a decent partnership with Lawes, but he shouldn't be given the chance until he does come good.

On a completely seperate point, I've just finished watching the game and thought England's fitness levels were poor. You can excuse those coming back from injury, but too many just fell off the pace. There is simply no excuse for this, it wasn't at altitude so the coaching staff need to be looked at. The front 5 were decent in the 1st half and pretty woeful in the 2nd. Rowntree has got a lot of work to do to sort out that over anxious scrum. Youngs was pretty poor, but I do question why he was given so much responsibility to lead the kicking game? Farrell was awful and he cannot stay in the side for next week. His goal kicking was very good, but every other aspect bar a decent pass when we'd already lost was rubbish. He provided so little options for Youngs and what little kicking he did out of hand was dreadful. I just hope SL doesn't do an MJ and show too much loyalty to players. Farrell needs to be dropped and given a kick up the backside as that performance was unacceptable.

That's another good backrow, and although I don't mind seeing Haskell at 8, his control at the scrum is a major issue really, especially against someone like the Boks. I think in all honesty, Haskell should bench for now, and come on at 6 or 8 in the Second Test. See how his performance compares to Johnson's, and let that be there decider for the starting backrow in the 3rd

Robshaw and Haskell are both good in the lineout and are viable options for our own throw. There not going to challenge opposition throw at the front of the lineout like Croft will, although Robshaw did take one against the head on Saturday at the rear, but thats not what the main responsibility of the back row is.

They should be concentrating on delivering quick ball for the next phase after the lineout and offering themselves as the next runner. Conversly in defence they should be targeting 10 and the inside runners and then competing for the intial breakdown.

No other nation, apart from France under Lievremont with Bonnaire, sees it as necessary to have a 6 who can dominate the lineout. Certainly if you've already got a dedicated speciallist in the second row theres no need as you'll only impact other facets of your forward game, unless of course said 6 is the complete package.

HongKongCherry wrote: Farrell was awful and he cannot stay in the side for next week. His goal kicking was very good, but every other aspect bar a decent pass when we'd already lost was rubbish. He provided so little options for Youngs and what little kicking he did out of hand was dreadful. I just hope SL doesn't do an MJ and show too much loyalty to players. Farrell needs to be dropped and given a kick up the backside as that performance was unacceptable.

Can't agree with that more. You need so much more to your boot than a reliable goal-kicking nowadays. Farrell needs to learn how to engage the attacking players in our backline, without constantly going for the grubber or kick behind the line. Until he proves that he can do that, he should be nowhere near the 10 shirt, or 12! Don't get me wrong, I think he's got a fantastic future ahead of him, and he plays very well for Saracens, but his performances haven't warranted reselection so far, especially when we have someone like FLood in the squad, and good inside centres.

Here's an alternative shout, how about we move Croft to the second row. That way England can utilise his lineout ability, he could also lead the lineout and would open up his spot at blindside flanker. He is tall enough, as far as I can remember he is the same height as George Robson so would not lack height.

Thoughts?

Agree - lets just see how Haskell does tomorrow.
Good assesment above there by HKC too. Lancaster needs to be brave and drop Farrell to the bench - he had a poor game at 10 and we've seen him play poorly in the centers too.
Would love to see backline of -
Care, Flood, Monye, Joseph, Tuilagi, Ashton, Foden

Pack of -
Marler, Hartley, Cole, Botha, Parling, Haskell, Robshaw, Morgan.

That should be enough changes to make the Boks think.

Bench of -
Youngs, Palmer, Johnston, PDJ, Mears, Farrell, Goode

HongKongCherry wrote:

jeffwinger wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Biggest disappointment for me is Attwood. He should be at the heart of this team - but ever since the problems on the tour to Aus in 201 his club performances have been a bit meh.

He was huge for Gloucester in 2010-11 season, and a massive loss when he decided to move on last summer.

Jeff I really have to disagree with that. He was outstanding the previous season, 09/10, but was quite average in 10/11. After his stupid ban for kicking in the Amlin he never recovered his starting place and was firmly 4th choice behind James. I was sorry to see him go as he has huge potential, but he hasn't had a decent season since 09/10. At time last year for Bath he looked back to his best, but in large he was too inconsistent. I am in total agreement with the majority here that Botha is a poorman's enforcer, but he is playing better than Attwood, who on form doesn't deserve to be on this tour. I am in no doubt Attwood will come good and form a decent partnership with Lawes, but he shouldn't be given the chance until he does come good.

On a completely seperate point, I've just finished watching the game and thought England's fitness levels were poor. You can excuse those coming back from injury, but too many just fell off the pace. There is simply no excuse for this, it wasn't at altitude so the coaching staff need to be looked at. The front 5 were decent in the 1st half and pretty woeful in the 2nd. Rowntree has got a lot of work to do to sort out that over anxious scrum. Youngs was pretty poor, but I do question why he was given so much responsibility to lead the kicking game? Farrell was awful and he cannot stay in the side for next week. His goal kicking was very good, but every other aspect bar a decent pass when we'd already lost was rubbish. He provided so little options for Youngs and what little kicking he did out of hand was dreadful. I just hope SL doesn't do an MJ and show too much loyalty to players. Farrell needs to be dropped and given a kick up the backside as that performance was unacceptable.

I think by your following statements you've answered why Youngs wasn't his usual self. Farrell offered little to nothing in the way of creativity so it was entirely left on Youngs shoulders, and when your pack isn't exactly giving you front foot ball this can be difficult. I said in another thread that I thought as the game progressed Youngs got more and more frustrated by his 10 and opted to miss him out completely, especially on quick, turnover ball. This in itself creates problems as the defence simply drifted with the miss pass, but I think often it was a case of he was dammed if he did or dammed if he didn't.

The introduction of the new half backs late in the second half saw some spark, and Dickson has been given some praise for this, but I would say that praise lies solely with Flood as he offered a lot of creativity when he came on. Youngs needs to be given a fair crack with his Leicester collegue, and if he does get the chance I would wager we would see a different player.

Zander - then you loose the grunt in the 2nd row!
Its OK to do that if you had a monstorous front row or technically brilliant - but England currently dont.

The days of Sherridan/Thompson/White/Leonard are gone.

Zander wrote:Here's an alternative shout, how about we move Croft to the second row. That way England can utilise his lineout ability, he could also lead the lineout and would open up his spot at blindside flanker. He is tall enough, as far as I can remember he is the same height as George Robson so would not lack height.

Thoughts?

The question is can he scrummage and what impact will it have here? He's only what 16 st. Secondly, what can he bring around the tight in terms of hard yards and the breakdown? Most people would like to see Lawes as the Lineout lock, providing he has the mental agility to do the job effectively, and I think he is much more powerful in that department.

You beat me to it propdavid_london

jamesandimac wrote:

I think by your following statements you've answered why Youngs wasn't his usual self. Farrell offered little to nothing in the way of creativity so it was entirely left on Youngs shoulders, and when your pack isn't exactly giving you front foot ball this can be difficult.

I completely agree. Youngs was still poor, but he had far too much pressure put on him by Farrell's absence. In fairness to Youngs, I think he probably did the best he could and I would suggest the other 2 SHs in the squad would not have coped under that pressure.

Yes deduction my dear Dr Watson. Eliminate guys playing badly by deduction which you can never do with too much chopping and changing.

Pair up Youngs and Flood.....and watch both of them veeeeeeeeeeeery closely.

Dickson always seem to add snap and Care is in great form.

HongKongCherry wrote:

jamesandimac wrote:

I think by your following statements you've answered why Youngs wasn't his usual self. Farrell offered little to nothing in the way of creativity so it was entirely left on Youngs shoulders, and when your pack isn't exactly giving you front foot ball this can be difficult.

I completely agree. Youngs was still poor, but he had far too much pressure put on him by Farrell's absence. In fairness to Youngs, I think he probably did the best he could and I would suggest the other 2 SHs in the squad would not have coped under that pressure.

I think you're right there. Farrell will either stand too deep, which offers nothing for a scrum half wanting to generate some sort of momentum and therefore has to look for options himself using the pack, or when he does stand flat he attacks too straight, which limits his ability to open his body far enough to offer the deeper, wider passes, which is why he'll always opt for the short pop to a runner crashing it up. None of this is creative in any way and all of it is very predictable. Its a shame because there was so much attacking threat outside 12 which is being wasted. The sad thing is we're all pretty much in agreement on it, but I'm not sure that the coaches are.