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

Zander wrote: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.

I think this is a good back row......... except at scrum time where Haskell is a liability at the base of the scrum (and it's really not that hard!!). Can Johnson play 8?

I suspect we will see Morgan start but as people said, he was in and out of the game on Saturday (more out than in), and if that is due to fitness then we can forget about him altogether in Jo'berg. I think we will see Haskell start on the bench and come on for Morgan or Johnson so most than likely we will see the back row you suggest for most of the second half.

HKC you really don't think Glaws have missed Attwood? I'd say a massive part of the downfall at the end of the season was due to a lack of power in the pack, and every Gloucester fan I've spoken to or heard says that signing a big powerful second row is a huge priority. I'd agree he was more consistent in 09/10 but when available in 10/11 he put in some huge performances, especially in defence. I'm thinking specifically Northampton at home towards the end of that season, never seen a lock put in so much effective defensive work.

On the subject of England's back row, I'd agree that Haskell should come in at the weekend. Morgan is clearly not quite match fit but this will only return with game time, so I'd say keep him in. Johnson had a decent game but nothing special. Also could have made the tackle on Morne Steyn for his try. Harsh criticism I know, and would have been a good tackle had he made it, but at this level you'd think it was certainly makable. He deserves to remain in the squad so I'd have him on the bench, he should provide more impact than Dowson.

Robshaw, Croft, Wood, Haskell and Morgan are the best 5 back-rowers we have, and should all be chosen when available, in whatever combination is best at the time. They should make up our back row for at least the next few years. The 4 flankers are proven international class players and Morgan should develop into one as well. Given the injuries to Croft and Wood it makes sense that Haskell, Robshaw, Morgan is the starting trio this time. The lineout is weakened without Croft and/or Wood, but we cant have it all every time.

jeffwinger wrote:HKC you really don't think Glaws have missed Attwood? I'd say a massive part of the downfall at the end of the season was due to a lack of power in the pack, and every Gloucester fan I've spoken to or heard says that signing a big powerful second row is a huge priority. I'd agree he was more consistent in 09/10 but when available in 10/11 he put in some huge performances, especially in defence. I'm thinking specifically Northampton at home towards the end of that season, never seen a lock put in so much effective defensive work.

On the subject of England's back row, I'd agree that Haskell should come in at the weekend. Morgan is clearly not quite match fit but this will only return with game time, so I'd say keep him in. Johnson had a decent game but nothing special. Also could have made the tackle on Morne Steyn for his try. Harsh criticism I know, and would have been a good tackle had he made it, but at this level you'd think it was certainly makable. He deserves to remain in the squad so I'd have him on the bench, he should provide more impact than Dowson.

Robshaw, Croft, Wood, Haskell and Morgan are the best 5 back-rowers we have, and should all be chosen when available, in whatever combination is best at the time. They should make up our back row for at least the next few years. The 4 flankers are proven international class players and Morgan should develop into one as well. Given the injuries to Croft and Wood it makes sense that Haskell, Robshaw, Morgan is the starting trio this time. The lineout is weakened without Croft and/or Wood, but we cant have it all every time.

We miss the 09/10 version of him without doubt. But we don't miss the 10/11 version of the player once quoted as saying "I'd never play for f###### Bath!"

I agree with you about Haskell should return to the side. It would be harsh to drop Johnson who had a decent enough debut with a baptism of fire, but there is a strong argument that Haskell would have started had it not been for the jet lag. So it is less a case of TJ being dropped but more JH returning. I've thought his S15 form had been good until his ban so he deserves a shot. Likewise, I agree that TJ offers more options and impact than Dowson.

A lot of interesting discussion re: the locks and backrow. Specifically on the SR the question of an enforcer or otherwise is one that will plague Rowntree and Lancaster as long as they seem to favour a 'lightweight' pack.

What surprised me on the w/end was that the England pack were weighing in around 50kg heavier than the SA one. That really did strike me as odd. As jamesbigmac has already pointed out it's not just a question of weight, and power while correlative is not always precisely representative, take Banahan for example.

For me it's a question of balance. Not just in the SR but throughout the pack. As some people have already alluded to there just seems to be a dearth of players in the pack willing to carry. It's something that's come to light before and something which still hasn't been addressed.

We all know the basics of rugby, go forward to go wide etc... but I struggle to reconcile that basic concept with what Rowntree and Lancaster are trying to achieve with a more athletic pack. It's certainly not because of their handling skill sets. Dowson starting at no.8 was a classic example in the 6N; even his retention on the bench I struggle with. Not because he doesn't have ability but because with him to replace Morgan you gain nothing and loose more balance. The same may be said of diddy Mears, precisely what do you gain for what you lose?

Thus we arrive back at the concept of balance in the pack. Some strong carriers are required as well as the more athletic player. Below is the starting England pack from the w/end and below that is my pack for the next test.

1. J Marler - Carrier (No signs of this in Test 1 though)
2. D Hartley - All Rounder (Carried little in Test 1)
3. D Cole - Tackling/Scumage/BDown (Never been a carrier)
4. M Botha - Tackler/Carrier (Question marks over carrying effectiveness)
5. G Parling - Lineout/Tackler (Not a Carrier)
6. T Johnson - Defence/Breakdown (Few Carries)
7. C Robshaw - Defence/Breakdown/Lineout (Some carries to little effect)
8. B Morgan - Carrier (Our only reliable carrier, used little perhaps due to fitness?)

As you can see, purely from a go forward perspective the pack lacks some dependable carriers. Guys who can put there hand up time after time. A lot of the Springbok pack carries and does so to effect despite their 'inferior' weight.

I do think we need a decent dependable carrier in the SR. Botha to be fair to him has played relatively well, but he doesn't carry that well. If Deacon had been fit pre 6N he would be there and I don't think Botha would have started a test.

There are options such as Garvey, Attwood and Lawes when fit but for the time being we have to work with the squad that's there. Bearing in mind we need to keep some balance, and not try to out Bok the Boks here's my pack for Test 2.

1. J Marler (With instructions to do some carrying)
2. D Hartley
3. D Cole
4. M Botha (There's no other lock in his mould in the whole squad)
5. G Parling
6. J Haskell
7. C Robshaw
8. B Morgan

Only Haskell in to start, had the squad been different i'd have perhaps given Garvey a shot. The balance of carrying can hopefully be inspired by Haskell and Morgan encouraging Hartley, Botha and Marler to do likewise. This allows Robshaw, Parling and Cole to do some more link work and breakdown fishing.

The main changes come on the bench, somewhere Lancaster really lacks vision to me. Whether it's because he's been used to Saxons games where the bench is far less important due to inferior fitness levels of the opposition I don't know. He has however, never picked a well balanced and impact laden bench.

Here's mine for Test 2.

16. T Youngs (No chance i'd be going Mears and Gray I don't rate)

17. PDJ (Mauls very well but isn't a replacement for Marler!!)

18. G Robson (Little carrying prowess but excellent tackler and Lineout)

19. C Fearns (Heavyweight ball carrier can replace any backrower)

20. D Care (Please some pace and vision at game's end not Dickson!)

21. C Hodgson (Farrell needs to add to his skill set before more Tests)

22. C Wade (Electric young man and could work well with Joseph at end)

For me this bench is a world apart from the Dowson/Mears etc.. tedium we've had before. It worries me that there seems to be little planning for the bench impact or gamechangers.

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.

His kicking was very poor though, far too long when in field or too short when going off the pitch. Tbh i'd like a lot less kicking fullstop and hopefully if Flood starts we'll see this. But either way Youngs basics were poor at times.

Farrel for me is a terrible fly half, I am now wishing that Burns had come along to play in the mid weekers side, he could coach Farrel in attacking play while he was there.

yappysnap wrote:

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.

His kicking was very poor though, far too long when in field or too short when going off the pitch. Tbh i'd like a lot less kicking fullstop and hopefully if Flood starts we'll see this. But either way Youngs basics were poor at times.

Farrel for me is a terrible fly half, I am now wishing that Burns had come along to play in the mid weekers side, he could coach Farrel in attacking play while he was there.

Young's isn't renoun for his pinpoint kicking ability though and, looking at his recent form with Leicester, wasn't picked based on this. Due to Farrell's limitations he was put in a position whereby he has to rely on his kicking which led to some poor kicks. Also a kick is only as good as its chase, and Englands kick chase was at times woeful, thus if Young's did produce a good kick it was turned poor by the lack of a follow up.

Its one thing I dont get about England, they always seem to turn Leicester scrum halves into box kick merchants.

1)
I think Botha has grafted hard...no doubt about it...but he's just not tough enough...and as is aparently over 18st also...doesnt appear to use it...

Parling did ok in the lineout but i dodnt see enough of him with ball in hand...but then as were under the cosh...im beginnig to understand why.

Croft is not a second row...as his strength is not in the tight mauling people at the break down...its using his pace to get to the breakdown first...and be a nusiance...thus would be wasted at 4/5

Im actually at a loss where to go...we're stuck with this until next season when hopefully the pretneders stand up and fight for their spot.

2) Back Row
Morgan's fitness was highlighted by Scarlets fans before his England debut. I hope this doesnt turn out to be a major concern over his long term international career,,,cos he could be awesome. He should be given another chance on Sat to show what he can do.

Robshaw and Johnson played very well...i would keep them.

3) Until Farrell can control a backline...he can not be Englands 10....and not even 12.

jamesandimac wrote:
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. How many times were SBW and Smith used like this on Saturday? And why weren't they?

At the moment we don't have a second row who can dominate his opposite number and people are highlighting that fact.

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.

With the greatest respect to Ireland, whose pack were smashed by England in the 6 Nations, NZ weren't exactly playing SA. Tuilagi carried in open a field a fair few times, which is just as valid as carrying in the tight if you are trying to make ground and space.

We did not lose because of a lack of carrying from the second row or anyone else. It's difficult to carry if the only time you see the ball is on turnoever ball in your own 22. The South African pack is massively physical, we could have had Martin Johnson and Brad Thorn at their absolute peak and we still wouldn't have been able to get out of our 22 without a decent kick-chase. Even if you break the first tackle you are highly exposed to turn-over. England defended well and won a reasonable number of turn-overs, but a few seconds later they were defending again. Any defence will eventually break if they don't get any respite.

Our second row were serviceable - I wouldn't expect any England lock to 'dominate' his SA counterpart, and we shouldn't be trying to play that sort of game. We need to compete, but we need to focus on moving the ball away from contact and getting field position ourselves. If we achieve field position I predict the metres carried by the England pack will rise substantially.

DaveM wrote:

jamesandimac wrote:
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. How many times were SBW and Smith used like this on Saturday? And why weren't they?

At the moment we don't have a second row who can dominate his opposite number and people are highlighting that fact.

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.

With the greatest respect to Ireland, whose pack were smashed by England in the 6 Nations, NZ weren't exactly playing SA. Tuilagi carried in open a field a fair few times, which is just as valid as carrying in the tight if you are trying to make ground and space.

We did not lose because of a lack of carrying from the second row or anyone else. It's difficult to carry if the only time you see the ball is on turnoever ball in your own 22. The South African pack is massively physical, we could have had Martin Johnson and Brad Thorn at their absolute peak and we still wouldn't have been able to get out of our 22 without a decent kick-chase. Even if you break the first tackle you are highly exposed to turn-over. England defended well and won a reasonable number of turn-overs, but a few seconds later they were defending again. Any defence will eventually break if they don't get any respite.

Our second row were serviceable - I wouldn't expect any England lock to 'dominate' his SA counterpart, and we shouldn't be trying to play that sort of game. We need to compete, but we need to focus on moving the ball away from contact and getting field position ourselves. If we achieve field position I predict the metres carried by the England pack will rise substantially.

You're right about the constant loss of possesion after turnovers and the effect it had on the team. Thats something I've been discussing all day with various people and this boils down to the inability of the 10 to effectively control proceedings. You're also right about the poor kick chase of England, again something which has been mentioned quite a bit today. However I have to disagree about the second row and their involvement.

The second row on saturday missed a great deal of tackles and defensively let the side down. Now I've seen ESPNs stats and I completely disagree with them as I watched the match again saturday evening and, picking on Botha, he missed at least 4 alone in the second half. The missing of tackles has such an impact on the team as all defensive cohesion is lost, also by not contesting breakdowns effectively, or at all, allows quick and dangerous ball for the opposition, finally poor positioning and a lack of commitment can lead to tries. If you don't think this is a description of our second row just take a look at one incident, Botha's contribution in the build up to the Steyn try.

Firstly, just after De Villiers makes the break down the left hand side, Botha has the opportunity to make the secondary tackle on Alberts thus slowing the South African advance, he holds back. He then has the opportunity to be first over the ball and potentially win a turnover (as some of the South African support runners were too busy looking for the off load to compete), he doesn't commit to the breakdown and allows Alberts to offload off the floor to Du Plessis who then charges up field causing disarray to Englands defence. Following him through the next rucks we acts as a guard on the side where the South Africans aren't attacking, allowing backs including Ben Young's to stop the South African pick and drive. When the defence on the blindside is stretched too thin and Ashton calls for assistance, Botha reacts and has the opportunity to make ammends.....however he does not push the winger out further to cover his opposite man so he, the big enforcer 2nd row, can take his place as as guard to mark the advance of Spies and Kruger, oh no... he goes around the back of Ashton and takes his place on the wing marking Pieterson and leaving ashton to tackle the forwards. Finally the try, when the ball is played out Johnson is out of position in the guards, but not once does Botha jesture or call him wider. And when Steyn gets the ball Botha, even though he is the last man, buys the dummy and drifts onto the last man allowing Steyn to go over for the try (school kids get taught to always go for the ball, better to have one man go through than two). Harsh?

That is just one passage of play in defence and I saw lots more like it, and I you watch it back and scrutinise you would too. The man neglects the basic responsibilities of a second row forward and its having a huge impact on the team in defence. Yes people have off days, but this discussion has been going on long before the tour started.

As for not expecting any English pack to dominate a South African pack, why not? Surely to be successful and be considered the best you must have to dominate your opposition, otherwise you leave yourself open to scrutiny. When the All Blacks go to South Africa and win do they do it through sheer luck and kicking penalties despite having an overwhelmed pack? When the Aussies won there last year, was it by being bullied up front? No they meet them head on and won the collision areas, the tackle, the breakdown. You can't beet them by Cat footing around and you certainly aren't going to be world champions unless you can dominate the top sides up front. Why, because doing so sets the platform for everything else.

jamesandimac wrote:
As for not expecting any English pack to dominate a South African pack, why not? Surely to be successful and be considered the best you must have to dominate your opposition, otherwise you leave yourself open to scrutiny. When the All Blacks go to South Africa and win do they do it through sheer luck and kicking penalties despite having an overwhelmed pack? When the Aussies won there last year, was it by being bullied up front? No they meet them head on and won the collision areas, the tackle, the breakdown. You can't beet them by Cat footing around and you certainly aren't going to be world champions unless you can dominate the top sides up front. Why, because doing so sets the platform for everything else.

You don't win by trying to play your oponents game better than them. When we next play in NZ I wouldn't suggest trying to play them at an open running game. Against SA there will be times where we have to stand uip physically, but we need to look for opportunities to move the ball away from contact. As others have commented it sounds worryingly like some of the forwards are becoming obessed with 'earning respect' and match SAs physicality. It's a hiding to nothing.

what happened to the thread "England XV for second test"

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Its up the top.

I also have to say...England traditionally play a big abrasive pack so why should we not expect our second rows to match them.WE have always had big powerhouse second rows....its only in the recent history that we have changed. Next season fingers crossed hopefully we will have attwood, gravey, Lawes, launchbury, and maybe some newbies....and I expect my second rows to match their counterparts whoever they are.

Triangulation wrote:what happened to the thread "England XV for second test"

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

It's gone all sticky...

what is this "sticky" thing anyway?

i dont understand it. why is it called sticky? why move a perfectly good thread to an obscure part of the board?

I am not happy today!

It was merged with the match day thread which is in the sticky section so it stays on the front page. It's not the end of the world. If we all pull together and support each other we CAN get through this. One baby step at a time. Don't look back in anger, love changes everything. Make mine a double.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Its up the top.

I also have to say...England traditionally play a big abrasive pack so why should we not expect our second rows to match them.WE have always had big powerhouse second rows....its only in the recent history that we have changed. Next season fingers crossed hopefully we will have attwood, gravey, Lawes, launchbury, and maybe some newbies....and I expect my second rows to match their counterparts whoever they are.

100% agree with that.

DaveM wrote:

jamesandimac wrote:
As for not expecting any English pack to dominate a South African pack, why not? Surely to be successful and be considered the best you must have to dominate your opposition, otherwise you leave yourself open to scrutiny. When the All Blacks go to South Africa and win do they do it through sheer luck and kicking penalties despite having an overwhelmed pack? When the Aussies won there last year, was it by being bullied up front? No they meet them head on and won the collision areas, the tackle, the breakdown. You can't beet them by Cat footing around and you certainly aren't going to be world champions unless you can dominate the top sides up front. Why, because doing so sets the platform for everything else.

You don't win by trying to play your oponents game better than them. When we next play in NZ I wouldn't suggest trying to play them at an open running game. Against SA there will be times where we have to stand uip physically, but we need to look for opportunities to move the ball away from contact. As others have commented it sounds worryingly like some of the forwards are becoming obessed with 'earning respect' and match SAs physicality. It's a hiding to nothing.

All successful teams dominate their opposition up front, the difference in style comes from what they choose do with the ball once they've gained their platform, and thats something England has been notoriously s@"t at over the last decade. SA will just keep sending runners straight at you and use a very aggressive kick chase game, NZ use the space they've created to great affect by using their multitude of strike runners. England on the other hand, over the last decade at least, have chosen to send big runners into a brick wall of traffic, resulting in slow ball which the 10 just aimlessly kicks away with no effective chase.

Back to the side, I really hope the two centres go well on Saturday, not least because I want a win, but mostly because it would be nice to prove to people you don't need to play rugby with 2 great knuckle draggers in your midfield to be successful. I hope Catt's noticed how narrow the SA midfield was last week because there was so much space outside JDV, be great if we can exploit it.

LondonTiger wrote: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

Two of best top 3 are foreign import. What it says about England player development?

anotherworldofpain wrote:

LondonTiger wrote: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

Two of best top 3 are foreign import. What it says about England player development?

Not to go into the debate about whether someone is allowed to play for a certain country but, Manu Tuilagi moved to England when he was young and has been brought through England's player development system. However Botha is a different matter... Botha is currently a stop gap player until one of the better young locks comes through, like Launchbury.

anotherworldofpain wrote:

LondonTiger wrote: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

Two of best top 3 are foreign import. What it says about England player development?

Thought you of all people would be more sympathetic about those with confused nationality.

DaveM wrote:

jamesandimac wrote:
As for not expecting any English pack to dominate a South African pack, why not? Surely to be successful and be considered the best you must have to dominate your opposition, otherwise you leave yourself open to scrutiny. When the All Blacks go to South Africa and win do they do it through sheer luck and kicking penalties despite having an overwhelmed pack? When the Aussies won there last year, was it by being bullied up front? No they meet them head on and won the collision areas, the tackle, the breakdown. You can't beet them by Cat footing around and you certainly aren't going to be world champions unless you can dominate the top sides up front. Why, because doing so sets the platform for everything else.

You don't win by trying to play your oponents game better than them. When we next play in NZ I wouldn't suggest trying to play them at an open running game. Against SA there will be times where we have to stand uip physically, but we need to look for opportunities to move the ball away from contact. As others have commented it sounds worryingly like some of the forwards are becoming obessed with 'earning respect' and match SAs physicality. It's a hiding to nothing.

I'm sorry, do you think New Zealand's open running game is built on powder puff forwards? They gain a platform for this through dominating the opposition's pack. It's an all court game.

'You don't win by trying to play your opponents game better than them' ...and yet that is exactly what you suggest, unless my eyes have deceived me, moving the ball away from contact is not a traditional strength of England's is it? Whereas a big physical pack, for example, is.

I agree we need to get better at developing this area of our game. But before that, we need to do the one thing every team who beats South Africa accepts. You have to match them at the collisions for 80 minutes, and you have to carry well.

No, New Zealand's game is based on not being dominated up front. Sometimes they have the better forwards, sometimes they don't, but they rarely get clearly beaten up front and they use the ball better than anyone else when it gets to space. At the start of the Ireland game both the scrum and the breakdown were closely fought, but New Zealand tore them apart a few times and suddenly you are chasing the game and beaten.

England need to compete physically, but to expect us to go out and dominate up front is unrealistic and, even if you did have forwards who are capable of that, you are pretty much guarenteeing the ball never gets to the backs.

Careful GG, your prejudice is showing!

DaveM wrote:No, New Zealand's game is based on not being dominated up front. Sometimes they have the better forwards, sometimes they don't, but they rarely get clearly beaten up front and they use the ball better than anyone else when it gets to space. At the start of the Ireland game both the scrum and the breakdown were closely fought, but New Zealand tore them apart a few times and suddenly you are chasing the game and beaten.

England need to compete physically, but to expect us to go out and dominate up front is unrealistic and, even if you did have forwards who are capable of that, you are pretty much guarenteeing the ball never gets to the backs.

No, their game is based on not being dominated at the set piece and dominating all other areas of forward play. They ruck and counter ruck better than anyone, they carry better than anyone except maybe the Saffas on a good day and they defend better than anyone. They gain parity in the line-out and scrum.

With this pack, maybe you're right, England can't dominate, but we aren't blessed with creativity in the backs either. You were suggesting previously that we match them for periods. I'd suggest we need to match them for the 80. You're right New Zealand use the ball better than anyone, and in the long-term we need to produce players of that quality. New Zealand probably don't distinguish between the two as well - big carriers in the pack gain ground with a great, quick clear out and out to the backs. If that's what you're advocating then we're on the same page, but it starts with the forwards getting over the gain line which means dominating their opposite numbers.