England Player Ratings - Second Test

As with the first test, these are not my ratings but an average of all the ratings I find published by pundits and journos.

Current contributions from: Sunday Times, PlanetRugby, Telegraph, Rugby365, the Rugby Paper

Foden	6.00
Ashton	6.20
Joseph	5.60
Manu	5.60
Strettle	5.20
Flood	6.20
Youngs	8.20
Morgan	6.00
Robshaw	6.20
Johnson	6.20
Parling	5.6
Botha	5.00
Cole	7.00
Hartley	5.00
Marler	5.8

If you find any ratings please let me know, and I will add them in.

So what do YOU think. Who stepped up to the mark for England? Who is over or under marked?

Personally, I think Morgan should have had a lower score. He made a few good carriers but other than that he was pretty non-existant, maybe a 5.00 would have been better.

England were beter when Corbiseiro came on.

Thought Youngs had a fantastic game

Centres were poor and still feel this is the area that is letting England down

bedfordwelsh wrote:England were beter when Corbiseiro came on.

Thought Youngs had a fantastic game

Centres were poor and still feel this is the area that is letting England down

I agree, we really need Billy Twelvetrees there.

Harsh on Ashton, thought he was one of England's better players. Solid on his wing and mopped up well at the back a few times, as well as making a decent bit of ground through the middle. He also deserves as much credit for the first try as Youngs, if he hadn't spotted the chance and latched on straight away it would have come to nothing.

Flood was rubbish: fell off Bismark for his try, kicked loosely and didn't provide much of the attacking shape he was supposed to bring. Tough game behind the weaker pack but still didn't impress at all. Nothing like the player seen at Leicester. Yet another poor display for England, how many more can he survive? He is not good enough.

Once again the second row were awful, as highlighted by the marks. Neither are international quality. Botha is simply shocking, the most clumsy player I've seen in a long time and offers absolutely nothing. Parling started showing up a bit in the loose but then the lineout went to pot. The lineout was far worse than the stats suggest. Parling is the lineout man, the blame lies with him.

Johnson does not seem up to the required standard, he always appears to be half a yard off the pace. Decent work rate and adequate in the tight, but just not got that extra bit of class. He is probably about 4th choice in his position so it isn't really surprising or worrying.

Kinda lost a bit of interest when I saw that Ben 'I'm a little bit tired now' Morgan scored the same as Flood.

jeffwinger wrote:Harsh on Ashton, thought he was one of England's better players. Solid on his wing and mopped up well at the back a few times, as well as making a decent bit of ground through the middle. He also deserves as much credit for the first try as Youngs, if he hadn't spotted the chance and latched on straight away it would have come to nothing.

Flood was rubbish: fell off Bismark for his try, kicked loosely and didn't provide much of the attacking shape he was supposed to bring. Tough game behind the weaker pack but still didn't impress at all. Nothing like the player seen at Leicester. Yet another poor display for England, how many more can he survive? He is not good enough.

Once again the second row were awful, as highlighted by the marks. Neither are international quality. Botha is simply shocking, the most clumsy player I've seen in a long time and offers absolutely nothing. Parling started showing up a bit in the loose but then the lineout went to pot. The lineout was far worse than the stats suggest. Parling is the lineout man, the blame lies with him.

Johnson does not seem up to the required standard, he always appears to be half a yard off the pace. Decent work rate and adequate in the tight, but just not got that extra bit of class. He is probably about 4th choice in his position so it isn't really surprising or worrying.

Agree with all of that, except the points on Flood, but then I think we have very different takes on what he provides.

Personally I thought for our first try he showed awareness and pace that none of our other 10s have. Being bounced off by Bismark - that includes half of our pack, sadly. I wouldn't think too harshly of him for that.

Bit gutting that Morgan hasn't stepped up. Does the search for an 8 continue? Do we try Haskell there or do we make sure Morgan has a proper conditioning programme. Guarantee the latter will see him lose about half a stone and any ability to gain ground.

Is it really that hard to produce massive players who can compete for 80 mins

Should England now look towards Fearns at 8? He carries well and looks like he can last the 80 mins.

Morgan doesn't seem to be fit, both in general aerobic fitness and match sharpness terms. He has missed a bit of rugby recently with his injury and we've heard from Scarlets fans that he doesn't have much of an engine even when fully fit. Unfortunately he has been a bit exposed against a monstrous SA pack due to this lack of fitness. However he clearly has something about him, he should definitely be involved in the future.

As for next week I have no idea. Morgan wasn't so bad that it'd be a travesty if he played, I just worry that playing him when unfit will damage his reputation and confidence. Waldrom looked decent yesterday, but he came on when they had basically stopped trying. I think he would struggle from the start, while he isn't a young player and I'd rather give someone with more of a future the opportunity. Haskell might be the answer but is he a number 8? Fearns hasn't impressed me in anything he has done for the last year or so, not sure where his reputation has come from, I'd be massively surprised if he made any impact at test level.

Zander wrote:Should England now look towards Fearns at 8? He carries well and looks like he can last the 80 mins.

A year ago I would have said yes, but I'm inclined to agree with jeff on this, he's gone backwards at an alarming rate. Thanks a lot Bath.

With Waldrom, Morgan and Fearns it's the battle of the guts (which I think Fearns wins by a head (or is that a pie)). I actually thought Haskell was slowly acquiring the skills of an 8 before he disappeared into the sun for his holidays. I'd persevere with him and have the others as impact off the bench.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:With Waldrom, Morgan and Fearns it's the battle of the guts (which I think Fearns wins by a head (or is that a pie)). I actually thought Haskell was slowly acquiring the skills of an 8 before he disappeared into the sun for his holidays. I'd persevere with him and have the others as impact off the bench.

It's depressing isn't it. What the feck do English conditioning coaches actually do?! Outside of Haskell, Marler and Robshaw, do any of our players even look like athletes? I know they're rugby players first, athletes second, but compare them to their SH equivalents.

Marks from the Rugby Paper added.

Morgan doesn't look fit, but any failings at 8 are exacerbated by the under-powered second row. Botha just does not look international quality, and Parling trys hard but is lightweight.

While we need more dynamic power in the pack, there were good signs though. The scrum held up well, especially when the Beast was prevented from illegally pulling the bind down (I loved one scrum when he tried and Robshaw pushed his arm back up) and there were some powerfull rolling mauls.

Hood83 wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:With Waldrom, Morgan and Fearns it's the battle of the guts (which I think Fearns wins by a head (or is that a pie)). I actually thought Haskell was slowly acquiring the skills of an 8 before he disappeared into the sun for his holidays. I'd persevere with him and have the others as impact off the bench.

It's depressing isn't it. What the feck do English conditioning coaches actually do?! Outside of Haskell, Marler and Robshaw, do any of our players even look like athletes? I know they're rugby players first, athletes second, but compare them to their SH equivalents.

I would prefer to have good rugby players rather than gym monkeys that qualify how good a rugby player they are by how much they bench. Waldrom for his "unique" physique isnt unfit yes there are doubts whether he can cope with high intensity matches after his poor AP final performance but he isnt unfit. There have always been doubts about Morgans fitness but he has just been rushed back from an injury so that cant help. I just hope people wont completely write him off because of 2 games probably not at full fitness.

I was a sceptic about Morgan before the 6N. What I discovered was an intelligent player who could when the moment was right do some very good things with a lot of power. Right now he does seem to be the right guy long term but it does seem the fitness/form thing is a factor on this tour.

Waldrom actually made a big difference when he came on...as did corbs.

Marler isnt ready yet....might be athletic but just needs to toughen up.

Flood was much better than Farrell...

AND for god sake we NEED some power in the second row!!!!

Overall our pack looked weak...

What about a longshot of a backrow for the 3rd test of 6. Haskell 7. Robshaw 8. Gibson. Good work rate from Robshaw, Haskell for the carrying ability and Gibson for his work in the linout and his turnover ability.

Thoughts?

In Morgans defence most of us Welsh (me included) were hoping he chose the Dragon over the Rose and I do think he has what it takes.

He does lack fitness and as been injured of late but with some conditioning work and regaining his form h will be far more of a positive to the Englash squad than a negative.

Zander wrote:What about a longshot of a backrow for the 3rd test of 6. Haskell 7. Robshaw 8. Gibson. Good work rate from Robshaw, Haskell for the carrying ability and Gibson for his work in the linout and his turnover ability.

Thoughts?

I could only see Gibson being bullied by the Boks. He seems slightly lightweight in the AP if I am honest, so I really cant see him being at all effective next week.

Looking at those scores i'd take points off Strettle (was he even on the field?), Foden, Manu, Morgan and both second rows.But i'd add points to Ashton and Flood.

Morgan needs to be dropped and rested, he needs a big preseason with Glos and for the Eng coaching team to have words with him and his coach about match fitness and goals, simply put if he doesn't achieve them then no white shirt.

We should def go with Hask at 8 for the third test, he's played there before a few times at Int level and would hopefully add a bit more oomph. At 6 i'd really like Lawes actually, he would be the perfect big hitter to complement mr tackles at 7. Sadly he's crocked so probably go with Johnson again.

In the locks like everyone else we need a clear out, I was shocked to see the difference in ages between the SA locks (21 &26) and ours (28 & 30) and the complete contrast in skills and physicality.

Much like Woodward using the tour from hell to realise that some players weren't worth the investment and that some were i'd def say both locks aren't worth it. Add to that list Mears, Dowson, Dickson, Hodgson, JTH and Strettle. Get rid of those now and get focussed on the next generation for the AI's.

I agree Yappy...now is a good chance to clear the dirge from the squad...as you have rightly listed...Dowson, Mears, Dickson, Hodgson...

Lawes at 6 is interesting..and i believe its his favorite position...

Ive said on another post...we need to find:

1) A top class and powerful second row combo.
2) A hooker whos tough and carries (Youngs, Lindsay, Geroge)
3) An Inside centre...
4) Sort out the back row balance.

GeordieFalcon wrote:I agree Yappy...now is a good chance to clear the dirge from the squad...as you have rightly listed...Dowson, Mears, Dickson, Hodgson...

Lawes at 6 is interesting..and i believe its his favorite position...

Ive said on another post...we need to find:

1) A top class and powerful second row combo.
2) A hooker whos tough and carries (Youngs, Lindsay, Geroge)
3) An Inside centre...
4) Sort out the back row balance.

I think Dickson is unfairly treated, this is mostly down to him keeping out the in form Care who should be on the bench. But I think he actually is a decent impact 9, he doesnt have the pace or theat of Care but he is very good and upping the tempo by moving the ball out of the ruck extremely quickly. He shouldnt be completely discarded and has done alright when coming on, I think he is a very adequate 3rd choice no 9.


Parling has been shown up on this tour and I am a big fan but he just isnt physical enough for top level test match rugby. I think Lawes is a must to come back in and isnt a 6, his physical tackling and athleticism does make him a real asset, now just for a big lump to carry and hit hard, Botha is another stop gap, Deacon is an option he can also run a lineout but is old and Garvey deserves a shot but not so sure about Attwood......

I am quite happy with Hartley but would really like Youngs and Lindsay to sort out their throwing both extremely strong carriers similar to Bismarck.

Manu is only 21 and still has time to develop, hopefully in the same way Nonu did. But that is in the future and quite possibly a distant one. It is a real conundrum at the moment. We have many 12's at the same level looking very accomplished at club level but not yet looking good enough to really take the step up of being a real attacking threat at test match rugby.

The back row is a better situation as we do have enough options do put together a more than competent back row. No 8 is a problem as Morgan isnt quite the big ball carrying no 8 he suggested he was throughout the 6n.

We seem incapable of using our centres correctly. I was one of those that said Tuilagi isn't a 12, but if you're going to play him there then he needs to be used in a way that will maximise what he brings. There wasn't enough (if any) of him charging on to late flat balls or using him as a decoy to give Joseph space to work with on a miss pass. We also need to focus much more on supporting our linebreakers, too often when players like Tuilagi make breaks there is no one close enough to carry the move on, or worse they get isolated and we lose possession. The backs and forwards, particularly the backrow must work on those follow up runs.

Manu's Boxing Coach wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:With Waldrom, Morgan and Fearns it's the battle of the guts (which I think Fearns wins by a head (or is that a pie)). I actually thought Haskell was slowly acquiring the skills of an 8 before he disappeared into the sun for his holidays. I'd persevere with him and have the others as impact off the bench.

It's depressing isn't it. What the feck do English conditioning coaches actually do?! Outside of Haskell, Marler and Robshaw, do any of our players even look like athletes? I know they're rugby players first, athletes second, but compare them to their SH equivalents.

I would prefer to have good rugby players rather than gym monkeys that qualify how good a rugby player they are by how much they bench. Waldrom for his "unique" physique isnt unfit yes there are doubts whether he can cope with high intensity matches after his poor AP final performance but he isnt unfit. There have always been doubts about Morgans fitness but he has just been rushed back from an injury so that cant help. I just hope people wont completely write him off because of 2 games probably not at full fitness.

It's a fair point and i do agree. It's just that when I see one of our more rotund players blowing through his a after 20 mins and being outplayed by his opposite number, I can't help but think he'd be better off if he was properly conditioned. For a country that supposedly puts great emphasis on this area of the game, it's hard to see where. You're right on Morgan and Waldrom, but they're also still not players who can manage all areas of forward play for 80 mins. Morgan needs a full preseason on this I'd imagine.

I actually think that both a lack of rugby players AND athletes is a problem for England. Do our best athletes go into rugby in this country? I'd say probably not, most go into athletics, football or A N Other. You can create an excellent rugby player from an excellent athlete, it's not all innate...we just need to get the right people engaged early enough. The alternative is a pack of Nick Easter's, and for all his faults, I'd take a Haskell gym monkey over a lazy fecker like him any day of the week.

Zander wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:England were beter when Corbiseiro came on.

Thought Youngs had a fantastic game

Centres were poor and still feel this is the area that is letting England down

I agree, we really need Billy Twelvetrees there.

apparently he turned down the chance to tour because Lancaster said he may be used off the bench and have to cover 10 sometimes.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Zander wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:England were beter when Corbiseiro came on.

Thought Youngs had a fantastic game

Centres were poor and still feel this is the area that is letting England down

I agree, we really need Billy Twelvetrees there.

apparently he turned down the chance to tour because Lancaster said he may be used off the bench and have to cover 10 sometimes.

I wonder why Lancaster wants to use Twelvetrees at 10 when he is far better at 12 and we have a better 10 in Flood.

Zander wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Zander wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:England were beter when Corbiseiro came on.

Thought Youngs had a fantastic game

Centres were poor and still feel this is the area that is letting England down

I agree, we really need Billy Twelvetrees there.

apparently he turned down the chance to tour because Lancaster said he may be used off the bench and have to cover 10 sometimes.

I wonder why Lancaster wants to use Twelvetrees at 10 when he is far better at 12 and we have a better 10 in Flood.

Dont worry it was a joke regarding 36s stated reason for leaving welford road ( not the money honestly)
Im actually very surprised he didnt take twelvetrees who is a great all round player at 12. I guess it was the lack of first team gametime that cost him, unlike Ton Youngs who errrr didnt start a single jeff game all season

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Zander wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Zander wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:England were beter when Corbiseiro came on.

Thought Youngs had a fantastic game

Centres were poor and still feel this is the area that is letting England down

I agree, we really need Billy Twelvetrees there.

apparently he turned down the chance to tour because Lancaster said he may be used off the bench and have to cover 10 sometimes.

I wonder why Lancaster wants to use Twelvetrees at 10 when he is far better at 12 and we have a better 10 in Flood.

Dont worry it was a joke regarding 36s stated reason for leaving welford road ( not the money honestly)
Im actually very surprised he didnt take twelvetrees who is a great all round player at 12. I guess it was the lack of first team gametime that cost him, unlike Ton Youngs who errrr didnt start a single jeff game all season

Anyway, I wouldn't have been surprised if he had been player at 10.

My player ratings:

1. Marler - 5 - lacking the aggression and all action performance that made his a hit in the AP, looks like he needs more experience before he shines at this level as well.
2. Hartley - 5.5 - improvement on last weekend but still needs to get more involved, where's his aggression gone?
3. Cole - 7 - good in the scrum (had the Beast on toast in the second half) and got through more work than the rest of the tight five put together in defence. Far to quiet in attack though.
4. Botha - 3 - far to easily tamed by his countrymen, he put his body on the line but that wasn't enough. Poor missed tackle on Hougaard for the Boks SH's try.
5. Parling - 5 - struggled at the lineout with only himself as a top quality lineout jumper, made the effort round the park but looked lightweight.
6. Johnson - 5.5 - ever willing and pacey but frankly out of his depth at this level. Will lose his place in the team the second Croft or Wood is fit.
7. Robshaw - 5.5 - his worst performance in an England shirt, got on the wrong side of the refs breakdown interpretation, missed tackles and let JDV talk the ref round to the Boks way of thinking through out.
8. Morgan - 2 - couple of half decent runs were offset by him going missing in defence and showing the same fitness levels as the average amatuer prop. Glad he's going to Gloucester who will at least sort out his conditioning, what have the Scarlets fitness team been doing?
9. Youngs - 9.5 - would have been 10 if his passing had been crisper, not anymore you could ask the 22 year old to do. He tackled his heart out and either scored or created all of England's tries.
10. Flood - 7 - mixed bag from the Leicester 10. His tackling looked a bit rusty and he struggled to create space for the outside backs. Place kicking at 100% and kicking from hand improved from last weeks offerings and he got the wingers coming in and running lines off him.
11. Strettle - 3 - forgot he was there.
12. Manu - 6 - not an IC but worked his socks off and made some decent carries.
13. Joseph - 4 - out of his depth at this level. The decision to run the ball out of the 22 and kick it right down the throat of Pieterson following Farrell's decision to engage the Boks in kick tennis was a rookie error.
14. Ashton - 7 - solid in defence and happier in attack with Youngs and Flood to run off.
15. Foden - 5.5 - no kicking game to speak of and his attacking contributions were limited.

16. Mears - 1 - no use in the scrum or loose and only 50% success at the lineout.
17. Corbisiero - 7 - came off the bench and did his job at the scrum and in the loose. Would like to see him available to carry more though.
18. Palmer - 5 - jack of all lineout trades and master of none, easily outmuscled by the Boks.
19. Waldrom - 5.5 - looked better than Morgan (which wasn't hard) but crucially lost control at the base of the scrum which cost England a penalty and then knocked on from the following restart.
20. Dickson - 4 - accurate passing but no flair in attack or tempo at the breakdown.
21. Farrell - 3 - not really sure why he came on. Flood was kicking beautifully to touch and at the posts from penalties. Farrell's first touch was to kick long and aimlessly down field which was the start of the play that led to the Pieterson try. He does look marginally better as an IC than a 10 at international level when Flood is at 10.
22. Goode - 6 - only the one touch to show his class and he managed to live up expectations. Neat side step and then bounced through another challenge for some good yards under pressure from the kick chase.

Harsh to say JJ is out of his depth at this level after just one match. Otherwise reasonably fair ratings.

formerly known as Sam wrote:My player ratings:

1. Marler - 5 - lacking the aggression and all action performance that made his a hit in the AP, looks like he needs more experience before he shines at this level as well.
2. Hartley - 5.5 - improvement on last weekend but still needs to get more involved, where's his aggression gone?
3. Cole - 7 - good in the scrum (had the Beast on toast in the second half) and got through more work than the rest of the tight five put together in defence. Far to quiet in attack though.
4. Botha - 3 - far to easily tamed by his countrymen, he put his body on the line but that wasn't enough. Poor missed tackle on Hougaard for the Boks SH's try.
5. Parling - 5 - struggled at the lineout with only himself as a top quality lineout jumper, made the effort round the park but looked lightweight.
6. Johnson - 5.5 - ever willing and pacey but frankly out of his depth at this level. Will lose his place in the team the second Croft or Wood is fit.
7. Robshaw - 5.5 - his worst performance in an England shirt, got on the wrong side of the refs breakdown interpretation, missed tackles and let JDV talk the ref round to the Boks way of thinking through out.
8. Morgan - 2 - couple of half decent runs were offset by him going missing in defence and showing the same fitness levels as the average amatuer prop. Glad he's going to Gloucester who will at least sort out his conditioning, what have the Scarlets fitness team been doing?
9. Youngs - 9.5 - would have been 10 if his passing had been crisper, not anymore you could ask the 22 year old to do. He tackled his heart out and either scored or created all of England's tries.
10. Flood - 7 - mixed bag from the Leicester 10. His tackling looked a bit rusty and he struggled to create space for the outside backs. Place kicking at 100% and kicking from hand improved from last weeks offerings and he got the wingers coming in and running lines off him.
11. Strettle - 3 - forgot he was there.
12. Manu - 6 - not an IC but worked his socks off and made some decent carries.
13. Joseph - 4 - out of his depth at this level. The decision to run the ball out of the 22 and kick it right down the throat of Pieterson following Farrell's decision to engage the Boks in kick tennis was a rookie error.
14. Ashton - 7 - solid in defence and happier in attack with Youngs and Flood to run off.
15. Foden - 5.5 - no kicking game to speak of and his attacking contributions were limited.

16. Mears - 1 - no use in the scrum or loose and only 50% success at the lineout.
17. Corbisiero - 7 - came off the bench and did his job at the scrum and in the loose. Would like to see him available to carry more though.
18. Palmer - 5 - jack of all lineout trades and master of none, easily outmuscled by the Boks.
19. Waldrom - 5.5 - looked better than Morgan (which wasn't hard) but crucially lost control at the base of the scrum which cost England a penalty and then knocked on from the following restart.
20. Dickson - 4 - accurate passing but no flair in attack or tempo at the breakdown.
21. Farrell - 3 - not really sure why he came on. Flood was kicking beautifully to touch and at the posts from penalties. Farrell's first touch was to kick long and aimlessly down field which was the start of the play that led to the Pieterson try. He does look marginally better as an IC than a 10 at international level when Flood is at 10.
22. Goode - 6 - only the one touch to show his class and he managed to live up expectations. Neat side step and then bounced through another challenge for some good yards under pressure from the kick chase.

The best ratings I have seen - Harsh on Robshaw and Joseph IMO but otherwise brutally honest and the sort of appraisal required to take this team forward - I wrote last week, "why do you guys persist with Strettle" - I'm still wondering

It is slightly harsh on Joseph but he really didn't get into the game at all and credit is due for his stoic attempts at defence I just don't think he's ready. I'd be happy if he was to revert to a bench option so that Barritt can come back in and lead the defensive line with Manu at 13. To persist with a young man who struggled to get through the first tackle and who seems to lack experience when we don't need to put that pressure on him seems silly.

Ruby, had Robshaw played in the second test like he did in the first test than England may have won that. Without his great input at the breakdown we suffered badly. That doesn't reflect particuarly well on the other backrow players either.

I agree with the Robshaw summation Sam, however he can't do it all on his own as perhaps you might be suggesting. Morgan was ineffective at best and whilst TJ had a decent game, the backrow balance between 6 and 7 was not good and England suffered immeasurably in that department. Waldrom added more grunt but I dont think he is the answer - In a strange way I actually think this was a game Easter would have excelled in for all his limitations as an 8

Hood83 wrote:

Zander wrote:Should England now look towards Fearns at 8? He carries well and looks like he can last the 80 mins.

A year ago I would have said yes, but I'm inclined to agree with jeff on this, he's gone backwards at an alarming rate. Thanks a lot Bath.

You're welcome.
2nd rows need changing. Botha did ok in the losse in the 1st test, but was absent on Saturday. Parling is in the side to run the lineout, yet we don't win all of ours, and don't nick any of theirs so replace him. Cole is having difficulty in the scrum with such a pansy in the row behind him.

Fearns is nowhere near an International class player for me. Backrow of:

6. Haskell
7. Robshaw
8. Morgan

A couple of iffy games for Morgan and hes suddenly terrible after getting Lions comments during the 6N, so fickle boys!

I thought Youngs/Flood were quality with Youngs surpassing his Tigers partner. Flood brought a gain line presence and got us moving great with ball in hand (when we got any decent ball). We seen as soon as Farrell came on and punted a good bit of possession straight down field how much a better player Flood is.

I read a comment that Flood was at fault for BdP's try.....wrong. BdP brushed Hartley off and carried Flood & one other over the line. The person at fault for that try was Mr Hartley who had a terrible game all round.

Bathmad, I think Parling is really struggling because there are so few options in the England lineout. Parling is the only jumper of any real ability in there and the Boks are finding it just to easy to throw it to where he isn't and get decent ball. England have called correctly on a few Bok throws but they can't get the man in the air quick enough to challenge.

Other than Parling there is Botha, a big lug who really only jumps at the front. Johnson and Robshaw who are both tail end options who are ok on their own ball but not tall or quick enough to get up on the oppositions. Morgan is also there but you couldn't lift him with a forklift. In opposition to that the Boks have two young locks who both jump very well and Spies who is in the Croft/Wood style for backrow jumping. It means that plain and simple England are just out gunned at the lineout.

Strettle was useless, get rid of him. Replace him with May.
Joseph is a talent, and I'd give him a few more games.
Morgan, useless. Lets get Haskell in at 8 please.
Should have brought Garvey with us to partner Parling.

formerly known as Sam wrote:15. Foden - 5.5 - no kicking game to speak of and his attacking contributions were limited.

I wouldn't give him a much higher score, but I'm not sure about that criticism in relation to the rest of the team, Foden had the best attacking stats of the England players. Most metres (which you expect from the FB), 3 clean breaks, 1 defender beaten and 2 offloads.

Regarding Joseph, yes he didn't particularly get into the game attack wise, but that was always going to be difficult outside an out of position 12 in a match of that sort on debut. I also think England missed a trick in how the centres were used and engineering space in the backline. If Barritt is back for the next test Joseph to move to the bench or on the wing, I'm really not keen on persisting with Strettle.

Agree with that formerly known as sam.
People forget how effective Kruger was a Saints, and there was a lot of talk on here about how huge a loss he would be to saints.

Alcoombe, I think Foden stayed deep and out of the line a good deal over the course of the game. It is most unlike him, he normally comes in on the shoulder of Ashton or the 13 and tries to make things happen. Not enough of that went on and he'll be disappointed by that as well.

Flankertyre, the only thing that suprised me about Kruger was how long it took him to get into the Boks first team.

formerly known as Sam wrote:Bathmad, I think Parling is really struggling because there are so few options in the England lineout. Parling is the only jumper of any real ability in there and the Boks are finding it just to easy to throw it to where he isn't and get decent ball. England have called correctly on a few Bok throws but they can't get the man in the air quick enough to challenge.

Other than Parling there is Botha, a big lug who really only jumps at the front. Johnson and Robshaw who are both tail end options who are ok on their own ball but not tall or quick enough to get up on the oppositions. Morgan is also there but you couldn't lift him with a forklift. In opposition to that the Boks have two young locks who both jump very well and Spies who is in the Croft/Wood style for backrow jumping. It means that plain and simple England are just out gunned at the lineout.

+1

formerly known as Sam wrote:It is slightly harsh on Joseph but he really didn't get into the game at all and credit is due for his stoic attempts at defence I just don't think he's ready. I'd be happy if he was to revert to a bench option so that Barritt can come back in and lead the defensive line with Manu at 13. To persist with a young man who struggled to get through the first tackle and who seems to lack experience when we don't need to put that pressure on him seems silly.

Ruby, had Robshaw played in the second test like he did in the first test than England may have won that. Without his great input at the breakdown we suffered badly. That doesn't reflect particuarly well on the other backrow players either.

Arguably true - but the context is that Johnson and Morgan had poor games and Robshaw was trying his damnedest to cover for them. Plus, Rolland's refereeing of the breakdown was incredibly unsympathetic. The penalty he awarded on the stroke of half time was a case in point. Watch the replay: Robshaw arrived at the breakdown first, got in a strong position (back horizontal, wide stance) and got his hands on the ball. Two boks arrive and flop on top of him and instead of a penalty to England for SA holding on or diving over it's a penalty for hands in the ruck. Likewise the pen on 5m when the SA scrum half picked up the ball from the ruck only to put it back again when he realised he was going to get tackled.

When you're playing within the law and the referee still pings you, what can you do?

I actually took much more that was positive from that performance than I did from the first test. England's defensive alignment was off - but that's relatively fixable. However, the way they fought their way back into the game was very positive. The backline created something, albeit only sporadically, and the scrum was on top by the end of the game (by the way, I think you have to give Marler some credit for putting in the hard work early on to give Corbs a platform. I suspect if you had swapped them around the pattern of play would have been much the same).

Add to that that there were serious doubts about both of the initial tries (the first one simply wasn't and du Plessis did not look to have control of the ball for the second and might actually have knocked on), and that SA should have been a man down for 10 mins at least post Youngs' try, and there is hope for the future. This team will come out of the tour having learned a lot.

I think Parling has generally done very well with the lineout- as Chequered and Sam point out he's not exactly had the best jumper to be aiming for and his calling has been very good.

For me, it's a question of giving Parling a bit of time to settle. He did very well in the 6N at line-out time and his contribution in the loose was ok. He has been overpowered a bit on this tour, but the same may be said of every member of the pack. With time I think he could develop his loose field work to international standard. He generally contributes well in the loose in a Tigers shirt.

It's really just about who pairs him at no.4. Lawes is really a SR I feel, and we don't need any more bloody flankers so that's where i'd be playing him. My only problem with Lawes is his carrying technique can be poor, much too upright and little leg drive. If he could work on that, he has the attributes and power to be a good 4, but with twice the athleticism of most others.

Clearly Garvey is an option going forward, and Attwood has disappointed most on here. Frankly I can't think of any other heavyweights waiting to come through. With a bit more power at 4 though, I think you'd have a better view of Parling.

Robshaw has shown himself up very well, and for me whilst I was never his biggest fan has come out of the tour with a lot of credit. It's really about establishing the balance in that backrow. Morgan hasn't been going too well but it's a bit premature to start writing the chap off yet! He needs a good pre-season and then hopefully start imposing himself a bit more in the AI's.

With a backrow for the AI's of 6. Wood 7. Robshaw 8. Morgan 19. Haskell I think that has a nice balance about it. With Croft to come in for Wood at some point perhaps.

Hooker is where we're really struggling at the moment. Hartley has thrown very well, but outside of that his contributions in the loose have been poor and he has been owned in these past two tests. It's about time Lancaster started looking for a decent alternative rather than wasting time with Mears et al.

Chjw131 wrote:I think Parling has generally done very well with the lineout- as Chequered and Sam point out he's not exactly had the best jumper to be aiming for and his calling has been very good.

For me, it's a question of giving Parling a bit of time to settle. He did very well in the 6N at line-out time and his contribution in the loose was ok. He has been overpowered a bit on this tour, but the same may be said of every member of the pack. With time I think he could develop his loose field work to international standard. He generally contributes well in the loose in a Tigers shirt.

It's really just about who pairs him at no.4. Lawes is really a SR I feel, and we don't need any more bloody flankers so that's where i'd be playing him. My only problem with Lawes is his carrying technique can be poor, much too upright and little leg drive. If he could work on that, he has the attributes and power to be a good 4, but with twice the athleticism of most others.

Clearly Garvey is an option going forward, and Attwood has disappointed most on here. Frankly I can't think of any other heavyweights waiting to come through. With a bit more power at 4 though, I think you'd have a better view of Parling.

Robshaw has shown himself up very well, and for me whilst I was never his biggest fan has come out of the tour with a lot of credit. It's really about establishing the balance in that backrow. Morgan hasn't been going too well but it's a bit premature to start writing the chap off yet! He needs a good pre-season and then hopefully start imposing himself a bit more in the AI's.

With a backrow for the AI's of 6. Wood 7. Robshaw 8. Morgan 19. Haskell I think that has a nice balance about it. With Croft to come in for Wood at some point perhaps.

Hooker is where we're really struggling at the moment. Hartley has thrown very well, but outside of that his contributions in the loose have been poor and he has been owned in these past two tests. It's about time Lancaster started looking for a decent alternative rather than wasting time with Mears et al.

In the SR, maybe Launchbury? I hope we play him there not at 6 (well, actually I think he should begin his England career on the bench to cover 4,5,6 which would allow a slightly more specialist back row sub like Morgan or Armitage - just examples not the players I was thinking of!), and he is a reasonably big lad who can still grow unlike Parling (well below the maximum age for muscle development for a man), good form in a struggling pack, allround talent as an SR from the Wasps matches I've seen, which isn't all of them to be sure.

Good backrow, hopefully we can blood Ksevic etc too though if we can get a settled backrow. I actually like the Croft, Robshaw, Morgan backrow, but Wood is equally good. We need 5-6 backrowers to pick for the situation, so let's get the candidates playing together.

Mears can urine off.

Poorfour, I think as a whole the team is moving along. Not as quick as we would like but there are certain good things coming in most aspects. Rolland was his usual incompetent self at the weekend but English players have had him in enough games to be expecting that by now. A quiet word and lot's of 'yes sir' and he can change the way he refs rather quickly.

The back five of the scrum need some serious work but as Chjw points out the options we need are either injured or currently out of favour so there's no immeadiate help coming.

Re. Marler, yes he did do good things and Corbs doesn't deserve all the credit (for the scrums a certain Mr Cole deserves a great deal) but at the same time I don't think for a second Marler will be happy with himself. His scrummaging was alright but in the loose that wasn't the Joe Marler we know and love/hate (depending on who he's playing for). He along with Joseph may be better gathering a little more experience and confidence coming off the bench in the final test and being let loose against tiring Boks rather than having the full fresh brutal force of the Boks from the outset.

Barritt coming in to settle the defence along with Flood's continual gain line threat should see us improve again in the final test. Whether it will be enough I don't know. The Boks are minus Frans Steyn as well as possibly Lambie and Kruger so there be some weaker players coming in to target.

Marler as a sub- ideal. He needs to stay involved in the fold because that's how talented young players lacking in experience get better- dropping him would be moronically stupid. How can you get better at playing at a level if you're not allowed to play at it? It's why I never understood why Allen was dropped, it implies that people genuinely don't understand how improvement occurs