Good call Mr Lancaster

Taking Youngs off for the for the flair of Dickson.

Pathetic.

Portnoy wrote:Taking Youngs off for the for the flair of Dickson.

Pathetic.

About once a month we agree Portnoy it seems . This is that time for June. It was an unbelievably odd decision.

In reality though Youngs was blowing hard, and Dixon is always a livewire if nothing else.

I wish Youngs was Welsh!!!

Oh come on, Dickson and Mears turned the game (the wrong way).

thebluesmancometh wrote:I wish Youngs was Welsh!!!

When he is good he is very good. Most English fans wanted him dropped for this test though.

Mears came on and I swear I saw the beast nudge Spies and say 'him again really?'

London

I'd take him anyday! Try playing Robshaw at 9 then see how we feel...

thebluesmancometh wrote:Mears came on and I swear I saw the beast nudge Spies and say 'him again really?'

Nah he said "Ooh, the dwarf throwing has started already"

Jesus, why would they bring on mears when our scrum was starting to come along. Care should have been on the bench, I wouldn't have bet against him sneaking a try

LondonTiger wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:Mears came on and I swear I saw the beast nudge Spies and say 'him again really?'

Nah he said "Ooh, the dwarf throwing has started already"

Personaly i dont know why Lamcaster brought Mears on. Would of liked to see Tom Youngs or Webber.

Ben Youngs semed to me like he had run himself into the ground. And that is why Dickson was brought on. Would of liked to see Care on the bench though.

Still a very good game, but England had to much to do in playing catch up rugby. still not a bad result for a young team with not that many cap players compaired to South Africa.

Plenty of argument why Dickson & Mears were on the bench in the first place, but given there was 5 mins to go, SA had just scored and England were 9 points behind, I really can't see there was much to lose in taking 2 players off who didn't have much more to give.

Getting everyone in the 23 time on the pitch is possibly my least favourite aspect of the modern game.

I wish it was already 23 rather than 22.

Whether it was enough to make a difference or not, I don't know (like everyone else here I've never played international rugby), but if the players are out on their feet I can understand getting critical players off in the final minutes of a lost match when there is another big endeavour the next week.

All the subs except Corbs and maybe Waldrom were Poopie. Waldrom only looked good because Morgan set the bar so low.

Mears - useless, even this lineout throwing wasn't good enough.
Palmer - lightweight and seemingly past his best.
Dickson - so slow in everything he did coupled with a moronic waste of precious time as he tried to run a penalty out if his own 22.
Farrell - a long aimless kick in the build up to the Bold winner his only noteable contribution.
Goode - barely on long enough to make an impact.

formerly known as Sam wrote:All the subs except Corbs and maybe Waldrom were Poopie. Waldrom only looked good because Morgan set the bar so low.

Mears - useless, even this lineout throwing wasn't good enough.
Palmer - lightweight and seemingly past his best.
Dickson - so slow in everything he did coupled with a moronic waste of precious time as he tried to run a penalty out if his own 22.
Farrell - a long aimless kick in the build up to the Bold winner his only noteable contribution.
Goode - barely on long enough to make an impact.

Not that surprised - they'll all be soon gone (except maybe Goode). The important learning is that Morgan is way off test quality - you can't start when you've only 20 mins in you. The penny dropped when he took a kick off in our 22 and immediately passed to Strettle to carry - ffs!. Back to square one with trying to develop Haskell as a no 8 and hope that Crane can make an imapct.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:The important learning is that Morgan is way off test quality - you can't start when you've only 20 mins in you. The penny dropped when he took a kick off in our 22 and immediately passed to Strettle to carry - ffs!. Back to square one with trying to develop Haskell as a no 8 and hope that Crane can make an imapct.

Taking him on the word of the Welsh is starting to look like the rugby equivalent of buying a caravan from Brad Pitt.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:All the subs except Corbs and maybe Waldrom were Poopie. Waldrom only looked good because Morgan set the bar so low.

Mears - useless, even this lineout throwing wasn't good enough.
Palmer - lightweight and seemingly past his best.
Dickson - so slow in everything he did coupled with a moronic waste of precious time as he tried to run a penalty out if his own 22.
Farrell - a long aimless kick in the build up to the Bold winner his only noteable contribution.
Goode - barely on long enough to make an impact.

Not that surprised - they'll all be soon gone (except maybe Goode). The important learning is that Morgan is way off test quality - you can't start when you've only 20 mins in you. The penny dropped when he took a kick off in our 22 and immediately passed to Strettle to carry - ffs!. Back to square one with trying to develop Haskell as a no 8 and hope that Crane can make an imapct.

Yet everyone lets Lawes get a free pass on his 80 minutes fitness.

But yes :
Morgan: not fit enough but has promise
The second row : Lacks magic. Not easily solved, ongoing issue for the last decade.
Dickson : Has no real point in existing
Mears : Shouldve retired before Chuter did, quite why Lancaster hgas bought himn along is bizarre especially given his hatred of anyone that had a cap before he got the job. Anyone that can make you think " oh god" when the current incarnation of Hartley is subbed is a real problem
Strettle: Seriously why? 22 tries in 99 matches and 1 in 12 tests sums it up...he fails in the primary job of a winger. Even Mark Jones had a better tries to game ratio

I thought it was Joseph who did that unbelievably bad kick in the build up to the last try rather than Farrell.

We lost the gainline battle and the territorial kicking game again. Not sure how easy to remedy that is to be honest, but there is a huge amount to like about this team and they are still very young.

Was Strettle playing? I don't think I actually ever saw him in action in the whole match.

Care has to be on the bench next week surely, Lancaster is just coming across as an idiot now, no tactics, no gameplan, no smart banch options and holding what appears to be a personal grudge against one of the few form players out there.

Looks like Lancaster should have tajen Youngs off earlier:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/18479748

Oh FFS

Back to the drawing board then!

Barney McGrew did it wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:All the subs except Corbs and maybe Waldrom were Poopie. Waldrom only looked good because Morgan set the bar so low.

Mears - useless, even this lineout throwing wasn't good enough.
Palmer - lightweight and seemingly past his best.
Dickson - so slow in everything he did coupled with a moronic waste of precious time as he tried to run a penalty out if his own 22.
Farrell - a long aimless kick in the build up to the Bold winner his only noteable contribution.
Goode - barely on long enough to make an impact.

Not that surprised - they'll all be soon gone (except maybe Goode). The important learning is that Morgan is way off test quality - you can't start when you've only 20 mins in you. The penny dropped when he took a kick off in our 22 and immediately passed to Strettle to carry - ffs!. Back to square one with trying to develop Haskell as a no 8 and hope that Crane can make an imapct.

I have to disagree with this a little. I think during the 6n he showed that he can play at this level...the issue is his fitness. But this is not a new problem...at scarlets it was noticed also.

Now he has been injured...so maybe he shoudlnt have toured. But it is a concern...that he cant lack 40 mins at the moment.

Hopefully Gloucester can sort this problem out...if not then we're looking for another 8...Crane if his form is good after his big injury...or fearns IF he can find the form that brought him to everyones attention....

BRING BACK SHAW

Portnoy wrote:Taking Youngs off for the for the flair of Dickson.

Pathetic.

You're right, Lancaster should have played him for longer to do as much damage to his shoulder as possible, rule him out for as long as he could, I'm sure as a Tiger fan you would have loved that.

It's great that as armchair critics we give such fair and well determined judgment on coaches because we know we have such perfect information at out disposal.

timhen wrote:

Portnoy wrote:Taking Youngs off for the for the flair of Dickson.

Pathetic.

You're right, Lancaster should have played him for longer to do as much damage to his shoulder as possible, rule him out for as long as he could, I'm sure as a Tiger fan you would have loved that.

It's great that as armchair critics we give such fair and well determined judgment on coaches because we know we have such perfect information at out disposal.

There wasnt any sign of injury until after the match

The imperfection of our knowledge from the TV screens compared to what the coaches know was exactly my point. There are at least as many, if not more limiting injuries to players that aren't particularly apparent as they leave the field as are, yet the OP was chomping at the bit to condemn rather than question.