England Player Elimination

by Triangulation Mon 18 Jun 2012, 1:54 pm

First topic message reminder :

Right-io then since Goal 1 of the tour (winning the series) is gone let us now turn our attention to one of the other goals - finding out who has the raw materials to play for England and just as relevantly : who doesn't.

For me the England careers of the following players should be terminated forthwith without notice and on a permanent basis. They should be flown home immediately and replaced.....

Mears (too small and not good enough)
Parling (ineffectual outside the lineout. The new borthwick)
Botha (not good enough. misses tackles - no carrying and not smart enough)
Johnson ("A star" for effort and guts but we have 10 better options when fit and prospects)
Strettle (simply not good enough to get away with being 80 something kilos dripping wet)
Waldrom (too old now)
Anthony Allen ( if he was good enough he would've played T2)
Ugo Monye (too old now. his ship has sailed)

And to be singled out as no more than possibles for the AIs and put on temporary banishment until they develop their game a hell of a lot more….

Farrell (decision making, speed work with Margot Wells, weights, intensive kicking (from hand) and passing practice)
Morgan (stop eating all the pies and get on the tread mill)
Wade ( defence)
Tom Youngs (lineout throwing)
Barrit (passing and speed work with Margot Wells)

The rest need to be told just how disappointing they have been and given a clear individual plan to follow in the lead up to the AIs.

Lawes, Croft and Wood need the same plans. All 3 of them need to spend a lot of time in the gymnasium and told they might be welcome back in for the AIs.

Garvey, Steffon Armitage, Johnny May and Billy Twelvetrees need to be looked at as inclusions. 36 and Manu could be the combo we need.

Before anyone starts bleating to me about this all being a bit unfair and harsh, save your words. If you are not good enough then that is it.

We are England rugby. We are not here to provide careers to substandards. We are here to win and there is zero room for sentiment.

We will not win Test Matches on the basis of "deserving to win" them. We will win Test Matches that we are good enough to TAKE by force. The same applies to selection.

Unless you are so good that you cannot not be selected then you are gone.

by Equo Troiano Thu 21 Jun 2012, 1:00 pm

Crusade. Saracens.

I see what you did there. How long does it take for a star to be born?

by **Biltong** Thu 21 Jun 2012, 1:10 pm

Millennia

by Equo Troiano Thu 21 Jun 2012, 1:22 pm

biltongbek wrote:Millennia

Oh, well i'm only 43, so that can't be right then can it..

by **Biltong** Thu 21 Jun 2012, 1:24 pm

Equo Troiano wrote:
biltongbek wrote:Millennia

Oh, well i'm only 43, so that can't be right then can it..

I think when you were still a twinkle in the old man's eye you were planning your crusade on Saracens. Wink

by Equo Troiano Thu 21 Jun 2012, 1:56 pm

No old chap, it only started when they contrived to spawn a thinly veiled South African franchise in the AP and ruin the game with negative play...

by **Biltong** Thu 21 Jun 2012, 1:57 pm

Equo Troiano wrote:No old chap, it only started when they contrived to spawn a thinly veiled South African franchise in the AP and ruin the game with negative play...

I highly doubt that, I think that was just the last straw. It began like I said, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back when. Wink

by Adam Thu 21 Jun 2012, 4:08 pm

"Yes. I am angry."

Eh?! What right have you to be angry?! I know from your previous posts that you’re prone to mood-swings, but I find it staggeringly arrogant that you throw your toys out of the pram on the back of recent performances. There is no shame in losing to the boks in their own back yard. It happens to everyone,...a lot. Aussies and Kiwis included. So why don’t you drop this “we’re England! We just should be winning, and if we’re not I’m going to be irate” guff and open your eyes to the context of where England are at the moment.

The most baffling thing about your narrative for me is that Lancaster has – to my mind – shown himself to be a great selector in his short tenure: he’s demonstrated massive faith in youth and form, never shying away from dropping the experienced incumbent where a conservative selector could easily and justifiably have done so. In contrast to Lancaster’s considered and concerted approach to blooding new talent, your approach is, in your own words: “Sod it, we play the next young promising cab off the rank.” If you think that solves the problem of being physically overpowered by the Springboks then quite frankly I think you’re mental. I’ll keep my faith in Lancaster’s approach, thanks, and hope that our 21-25 year old front row (who acquitted themselves non-too-shabbily over the last couple of weeks against arguably the best front row unit in the world) will be given the development opportunities they need to one day be stuffing it up the Du Plessis’ of this world. And not dropped unceremoniously for the next ‘young promising cab’ as soon as they put in an iffy performance.

It’s attitudes like yours that have contributed to English rugby treading water for the past decade: no sooner has your tantrum born witness to the failure of one regime of players and coaches, than you’re on here again calling for heads to roll and shouting “this isn’t nearly as good as 2003!! Unacceptable!!!” What? You thought that because this almost brand new England side – mainly through grit, with a bit of luck thrown in – exceeded expectations in the 6N’s, that they would go and stuff the Springboks on the veld? Something that has eluded some of the best sides in history? I think you need to temper your expectations a touch, get some perspective, and maybe ease-off on the criticism.

by Equo Troiano Thu 21 Jun 2012, 4:33 pm

Blimey. 'Ark at 'er..

by ultra Thu 21 Jun 2012, 5:06 pm

Adam.......brilliant!! Its the 'we want it now or chuck it away' attitude of the average English rugby* (insert here football, cricket etc etc), that translates through the media, to unrealistic expectations!!

by Poorfour Thu 21 Jun 2012, 5:45 pm

I was thinking this afternoon that this England squad is about a year and a half behind the current Wales squad in its development and experience, and in that context, I am very encouraged.

They've shown some tactical naivety and the backline has only sparked intermittently. They've been unprepared for the Boks' intensity at critical points. They've been unlucky with some critical injuries and poor reffing.

But they've also stood up and held their ground, they've fought their way back into the games, and they have, in patches, played some good rugby. They've played better at the end of games than at the start.

Now compare that to how much more experienced England sides have fared against the Boks in the last few years. Arguably the only performance that offered as many positives was the 2007 RWC Final, but that was more down to a number of players giving their all in their last RWC match and just about managing to contain their opposition.

by **Biltong** Thu 21 Jun 2012, 7:49 pm

Adam I am sorry but I don't agree with everything you said there, there is nothing wrong with high expectation, high expectations defines a county's attitude.

Yes to say someone should be angry might be fair, but again if we lose I am seriously ticked off, no matter the opponent, I hate losing, sure since Greyghost reported me to the SPCA I no longer have a dog to kick (joke, no animals were harmed during the recording of this message), but believe me there are a few thunder clouds around.

by Geordie Thu 21 Jun 2012, 8:00 pm

Poorfour wrote:I was thinking this afternoon that this England squad is about a year and a half behind the current Wales squad in its development and experience, and in that context, I am very encouraged.

They've shown some tactical naivety and the backline has only sparked intermittently. They've been unprepared for the Boks' intensity at critical points. They've been unlucky with some critical injuries and poor reffing.

But they've also stood up and held their ground, they've fought their way back into the games, and they have, in patches, played some good rugby. They've played better at the end of games than at the start.

Now compare that to how much more experienced England sides have fared against the Boks in the last few years. Arguably the only performance that offered as many positives was the 2007 RWC Final, but that was more down to a number of players giving their all in their last RWC match and just about managing to contain their opposition.

I think your probably right...but im really beginning to wonder why so many England coaches seem to have trouble with selections...especially when most England fans are very united on whats needed....hopefully SL will make the required changes for the AI...

by Knackeredknees Thu 21 Jun 2012, 8:10 pm

GeordieFalcon wrote:
Poorfour wrote:I was thinking this afternoon that this England squad is about a year and a half behind the current Wales squad in its development and experience, and in that context, I am very encouraged.

They've shown some tactical naivety and the backline has only sparked intermittently. They've been unprepared for the Boks' intensity at critical points. They've been unlucky with some critical injuries and poor reffing.

But they've also stood up and held their ground, they've fought their way back into the games, and they have, in patches, played some good rugby. They've played better at the end of games than at the start.

Now compare that to how much more experienced England sides have fared against the Boks in the last few years. Arguably the only performance that offered as many positives was the 2007 RWC Final, but that was more down to a number of players giving their all in their last RWC match and just about managing to contain their opposition.

I think your probably right...but im really beginning to wonder why so many England coaches seem to have trouble with selections...especially when most England fans are very united on whats needed....hopefully SL will make the required changes for the AI...

Really, find two posters who will give you the same starting 15!!

Everyone has a different name in at least 6 positions

by ultra Thu 21 Jun 2012, 8:29 pm

biltongbek wrote:Adam I am sorry but I don't agree with everything you said there, there is nothing wrong with high expectation, high expectations defines a county's attitude.

Yes to say someone should be angry might be fair, but again if we lose I am seriously ticked off, no matter the opponent, I hate losing, sure since Greyghost reported me to the SPCA I no longer have a dog to kick (joke, no animals were harmed during the recording of this message), but believe me there are a few thunder clouds around.

Passion, anticipation and expectation are one thing. Rounding on coach after coach after coach is something else entirely. Of course I'm not overly hyped by our centers or our second rows. I also would love to see the like of Wade and May be given a free reign BUT I'm not the coach of england. I'm just an ex-player. I would like to think that the men appointed to coach our country know a thing or two and might even have a 'gulp' long term plan!

It never ceases to amaze me how, on boards like these, certain players are derided and treated like pantomime villains then suddenly, when they've matured and found their feet, they're the best thing to happen for an age....(see a certain Mr Croft if you have a short memory).

A tough 6n and a very tough tour to one of the rugby hotbeds of the world is not a viable gauge of our incumbent coach. Have some faith, he sees more of the players than we do and no-doubt has an idea of how he wants them to play. I for one think toby flood is massively overrated but I trust Mr Lancaster knows a fair bit more about fly halves than me.

After next years 6n's and autumn Internationals.....then we can judge. For now take a little something from the way things are headed. Building up players and coaches just to knock 'em down again when things are tough is a particularly british trait. Luckily so is strength of character.

by **Biltong** Thu 21 Jun 2012, 8:35 pm

Ultra I understand what you are saying, however the way I see it we come to these forums to vent our disappointments, our concerns and in a sense play "couch coach" it is a natural progression for the passion we have for our sport, I also concede that sometimes we are so blinded by our dislike for a specific individual or our biased opinion of an individual that we can take it to far.

But hey, that us.

by Geordie Thu 21 Jun 2012, 8:39 pm

Knackeredknees wrote:
GeordieFalcon wrote:
Poorfour wrote:I was thinking this afternoon that this England squad is about a year and a half behind the current Wales squad in its development and experience, and in that context, I am very encouraged.

They've shown some tactical naivety and the backline has only sparked intermittently. They've been unprepared for the Boks' intensity at critical points. They've been unlucky with some critical injuries and poor reffing.

But they've also stood up and held their ground, they've fought their way back into the games, and they have, in patches, played some good rugby. They've played better at the end of games than at the start.

Now compare that to how much more experienced England sides have fared against the Boks in the last few years. Arguably the only performance that offered as many positives was the 2007 RWC Final, but that was more down to a number of players giving their all in their last RWC match and just about managing to contain their opposition.

I think your probably right...but im really beginning to wonder why so many England coaches seem to have trouble with selections...especially when most England fans are very united on whats needed....hopefully SL will make the required changes for the AI...

Really, find two posters who will give you the same starting 15!!

Everyone has a different name in at least 6 positions

But of the 6 or so different names...they are almost always the same style of player. ie Powerhouse need in the second row....better creativity than Farrell, Dowson / Mears etc dropped....so in that respect we all see what is needed.

by beshocked Thu 21 Jun 2012, 8:39 pm

Playing 2 13s and two 15s in the same backline is certainly unorthodox. Will it work though? Can't say Lancaster doesn't roll the dice.

Adam England have wasted a golden opportunity to get the monkey off the back vs South Africa. Shame only a dead rubber is left. New coach and some new caps for SA should have been exploited.

Results are what we want to see.

England have lost to SA 9 times in a row now - not good enough.

You can say it's ok we are rebuilding etc etc. I dont see anymore progress towards a settled 15 - certainly when 2 players are out of position.

by **Biltong** Thu 21 Jun 2012, 8:44 pm

It isn't a dead rubber beshocked, I want a 3-0 series win, I am dead certain you don't. What's dead about that?

by ChequeredJersey Thu 21 Jun 2012, 8:45 pm

Unless we find that they are equally/more effective in their new positions. Not a sure thing, but it worked for Roberts, Jane, JOC etc

by Hood83 Thu 21 Jun 2012, 9:08 pm

Adam wrote:"Yes. I am angry."

Eh?! What right have you to be angry?! I know from your previous posts that you’re prone to mood-swings, but I find it staggeringly arrogant that you throw your toys out of the pram on the back of recent performances. There is no shame in losing to the boks in their own back yard. It happens to everyone,...a lot. Aussies and Kiwis included. So why don’t you drop this “we’re England! We just should be winning, and if we’re not I’m going to be irate” guff and open your eyes to the context of where England are at the moment.

The most baffling thing about your narrative for me is that Lancaster has – to my mind – shown himself to be a great selector in his short tenure: he’s demonstrated massive faith in youth and form, never shying away from dropping the experienced incumbent where a conservative selector could easily and justifiably have done so. In contrast to Lancaster’s considered and concerted approach to blooding new talent, your approach is, in your own words: “Sod it, we play the next young promising cab off the rank.” If you think that solves the problem of being physically overpowered by the Springboks then quite frankly I think you’re mental. I’ll keep my faith in Lancaster’s approach, thanks, and hope that our 21-25 year old front row (who acquitted themselves non-too-shabbily over the last couple of weeks against arguably the best front row unit in the world) will be given the development opportunities they need to one day be stuffing it up the Du Plessis’ of this world. And not dropped unceremoniously for the next ‘young promising cab’ as soon as they put in an iffy performance.

It’s attitudes like yours that have contributed to English rugby treading water for the past decade: no sooner has your tantrum born witness to the failure of one regime of players and coaches, than you’re on here again calling for heads to roll and shouting “this isn’t nearly as good as 2003!! Unacceptable!!!” What? You thought that because this almost brand new England side – mainly through grit, with a bit of luck thrown in – exceeded expectations in the 6N’s, that they would go and stuff the Springboks on the veld? Something that has eluded some of the best sides in history? I think you need to temper your expectations a touch, get some perspective, and maybe ease-off on the criticism.

I don't disagree with the central point here - that we need to be realistic and look at the context that we find ourselves within. Blooding new players every time we lose to a top team is not the way to build a team and some players will take time to find their feet at this level.

But equally, to describe Lancaster as a great selector seems wishful thinking. During the 6Ns he got some big calls right i think, but he's also shown no real clear indication of what team he's looking to build other than 'professional. That's fine, but it should be patently obvious to anyone that Dowson is not a man for the future or present, that Farrell is not yet (and IMO is unlikely to ever be) a better player than Flood, that Garvey needs to be tried at this level. I realise being a great selector isn't simply based on following public opinion, but equally missing things so blindingly obvious to the vast majority of supporters is disconcerting.

And that brings me on to the players. When you have players in their late 20s being comprehensively outplayed, and they were in my opinion, I think you're entitled to ask whether these players will ever compete at the level required. Equally, while players mature at different rates, when a young player is bettered by someone of his own age, it's legitimate to at least ask the question 'is this guy good enough, or do we have someone else coming through who may be better'. To dump everyone, yes, that's knee-jerk, but there are a decent number of players who on the basis of these tests, are not up to standards and never will be. For the young guys, fine, there's time, but they need to know that this is the level they need to get to and quickly if they want to beat the best regularly.

And the point on England treading water, there's just as good an argument that the reason for England doing this for the last decade or so is selection conservatism not our constant blooding of new players rather than sticking with experience.

by beshocked Thu 21 Jun 2012, 9:09 pm

The series has been won by SA. Opportunity gone.

Ok maybe dead rubber is harsh but certainly less to play for. I expect you'll get your 3-0. Happy to be proved wrong though.

Chequered for the few successes there are numerous failures.

I do very much question the decision to play Tuilagi and Foden out of position.

by Hood83 Thu 21 Jun 2012, 9:09 pm

GeordieFalcon wrote:
Poorfour wrote:I was thinking this afternoon that this England squad is about a year and a half behind the current Wales squad in its development and experience, and in that context, I am very encouraged.

They've shown some tactical naivety and the backline has only sparked intermittently. They've been unprepared for the Boks' intensity at critical points. They've been unlucky with some critical injuries and poor reffing.

But they've also stood up and held their ground, they've fought their way back into the games, and they have, in patches, played some good rugby. They've played better at the end of games than at the start.

Now compare that to how much more experienced England sides have fared against the Boks in the last few years. Arguably the only performance that offered as many positives was the 2007 RWC Final, but that was more down to a number of players giving their all in their last RWC match and just about managing to contain their opposition.

I think your probably right...but im really beginning to wonder why so many England coaches seem to have trouble with selections...especially when most England fans are very united on whats needed....hopefully SL will make the required changes for the AI...

+1

by Hood83 Thu 21 Jun 2012, 9:11 pm

GeordieFalcon wrote:
Knackeredknees wrote:
GeordieFalcon wrote:
Poorfour wrote:I was thinking this afternoon that this England squad is about a year and a half behind the current Wales squad in its development and experience, and in that context, I am very encouraged.

They've shown some tactical naivety and the backline has only sparked intermittently. They've been unprepared for the Boks' intensity at critical points. They've been unlucky with some critical injuries and poor reffing.

But they've also stood up and held their ground, they've fought their way back into the games, and they have, in patches, played some good rugby. They've played better at the end of games than at the start.

Now compare that to how much more experienced England sides have fared against the Boks in the last few years. Arguably the only performance that offered as many positives was the 2007 RWC Final, but that was more down to a number of players giving their all in their last RWC match and just about managing to contain their opposition.

Again...+1...or is that +2?

I think your probably right...but im really beginning to wonder why so many England coaches seem to have trouble with selections...especially when most England fans are very united on whats needed....hopefully SL will make the required changes for the AI...

Really, find two posters who will give you the same starting 15!!

Everyone has a different name in at least 6 positions

But of the 6 or so different names...they are almost always the same style of player. ie Powerhouse need in the second row....better creativity than Farrell, Dowson / Mears etc dropped....so in that respect we all see what is needed.

by Hood83 Thu 21 Jun 2012, 9:11 pm

Meant to say i agree with Geordie!

by ChequeredJersey Thu 21 Jun 2012, 9:15 pm

Yeah there are and I don't think Manu will make a 12, but if we do find that they work well in their new positions we will have learnt something

by beshocked Thu 21 Jun 2012, 10:02 pm

Also matters won't be helped by the awfully looking English backrow.

Johnson has shown he is a hard working journeyman but there are better younger options on there way who IMO should be there instead.It's ok though because he plays for everyone's 2nd favourite AP side so his limitations are never questioned.

Haskell is not a 7. Has the brain the size of a pea and is prone to giving away penalties by the bucket load. Back in the England side despite doing FA since his brainless exploits in the RWC.

Waldron is a NZ reject who though is alright is neither the future or English. You could say like another certain player. Waldrom managed to find an English granny in the archives though so he's as English as they come.

Unfortunately the only option at 8 as quality English 8s are as rare as a dodo. Plays for the self proclaimed greatest club in the galaxy so his limitations are also glossed over.

Sigh if only we had the holy trinity of Hill,Back,Dallaglio still...

by ChequeredJersey Thu 21 Jun 2012, 10:04 pm

Don't worry we should have Wood, Croft and Robshaw back soon enough, then it looks better

by Geordie Thu 21 Jun 2012, 10:17 pm

Johnson has shown he is a hard working journeyman but there are better younger options on there way who IMO should be there instead.It's ok though because he plays for everyone's 2nd favourite AP side so his limitations are never questioned

Johnson has rightly been given a chance due the fact he has been a high performing 6 in the AP..and the injuries to other 6's. I do have to agree howerver that maybe he has been found wanting a little...but its hard to really judge whilst the rest of your forwards are going backwards at a rate of knots...

Haskell is not a 7. Has the brain the size of a pea and is prone to giving away penalties by the bucket load. Back in the England side despite doing FA since his brainless exploits in the RWC.

Yeah not sure he's what we need either...Robshaw is my 7 now...and Haskell probably wont budge Croft or Wood.

Waldron is a NZ reject who though is alright is neither the future or English. You could say like another certain player. Waldrom managed to find an English granny in the archives though so he's as English as they come.

Yeah ive said from the start i dont want him anywhere near the squad...its just a damn shame that Morgan simply isnt fit...and Crane was injured...this tour could have been made for him.....

Unfortunately the only option at 8 as quality English 8s are as rare as a dodo. Plays for the self proclaimed greatest club in the galaxy so his limitations are also glossed over.

Crane is better than Waldrom...and as i said...this tour could have been the making of him. Likewise...we need to see Morgan and Fearns...busting a gut...to get fit and explosive this season....

Sigh if only we had the holy trinity of Hill,Back,Dallaglio still...

Such quality is very rare....

by beshocked Thu 21 Jun 2012, 10:26 pm

Chequered I would rather have Fearns and fat Armitage instead of Johnson and Haskell starting with what we've got.

Waldrom stays because there's little choice. Morgan needs to get some fitness conditioning.

Hooker,lock and 8 look frighteningly bare.

People say Garvey is the messiah but seriously what did he do after Christmas? Did he fly into the sky never to be heard of again.

It's worrying when the likes of Palmer and Mears continue to linger in the England side.Same when Easter held on for so long at no 8.

Our no 8 options are a NZ reject who is not getting any younger and who is a stop gap. The other is an unfit player who can barely last 50 mins let alone 80.

We also have a headless chicken who claims he can play 8 but not seen any sign of it so far.

by Manu's Boxing Coach Thu 21 Jun 2012, 10:36 pm

ChequeredJersey wrote:Yeah there are and I don't think Manu will make a 12, but if we do find that they work well in their new positions we will have learnt something

Joseph and Tuilagi are our most talented centres. So at least trying to make them work as a combination makes sense especially with the void of Inside Centres we have at the moment. Also if we play to at least a similar attacking blue print to the midweek team, Joseph will be used as the main distributor in the centres like Allen and with his potential to make a searing break as well as put people into space could be really dangerous with tuilagi making the hard yards and tying in the back row. Manu will still need to work on distribution to make this combo really work in the future but I think it is definitely worth the gamble.

by Equo Troiano Fri 22 Jun 2012, 11:07 am

I have no real problems with Tommy at No8 for England. Regardless of what anybody thinks regarding his 'heritage', he's qualified legitimately to play for England, and as a stop gap, is making other 'stop gap players of questionable English heritage' look like donkeys. Presumably nobody has a real problem with Morgan at No8, despite the fact that he was equally elligable to play for Wales? I would agree however, that Waldrom should not be featuring too heavily in a future England side, as I think England have better potential (and note, I said 'potential') at No8 which 'could' be developed.

by Triangulation Fri 22 Jun 2012, 11:11 am

Adam wrote:"Yes. I am angry."

Eh?! What right have you to be angry?! I know from your previous posts that you’re prone to mood-swings, but I find it staggeringly arrogant that you throw your toys out of the pram on the back of recent performances. There is no shame in losing to the boks in their own back yard. It happens to everyone,...a lot. Aussies and Kiwis included. So why don’t you drop this “we’re England! We just should be winning, and if we’re not I’m going to be irate” guff and open your eyes to the context of where England are at the moment.

The most baffling thing about your narrative for me is that Lancaster has – to my mind – shown himself to be a great selector in his short tenure: he’s demonstrated massive faith in youth and form, never shying away from dropping the experienced incumbent where a conservative selector could easily and justifiably have done so. In contrast to Lancaster’s considered and concerted approach to blooding new talent, your approach is, in your own words: “Sod it, we play the next young promising cab off the rank.” If you think that solves the problem of being physically overpowered by the Springboks then quite frankly I think you’re mental. I’ll keep my faith in Lancaster’s approach, thanks, and hope that our 21-25 year old front row (who acquitted themselves non-too-shabbily over the last couple of weeks against arguably the best front row unit in the world) will be given the development opportunities they need to one day be stuffing it up the Du Plessis’ of this world. And not dropped unceremoniously for the next ‘young promising cab’ as soon as they put in an iffy performance.

It’s attitudes like yours that have contributed to English rugby treading water for the past decade: no sooner has your tantrum born witness to the failure of one regime of players and coaches, than you’re on here again calling for heads to roll and shouting “this isn’t nearly as good as 2003!! Unacceptable!!!” What? You thought that because this almost brand new England side – mainly through grit, with a bit of luck thrown in – exceeded expectations in the 6N’s, that they would go and stuff the Springboks on the veld? Something that has eluded some of the best sides in history? I think you need to temper your expectations a touch, get some perspective, and maybe ease-off on the criticism.

"I do not believe in what you say but I shall defend to the death your right to say it" - Voltaire

Am I not allowed to express my anger?

I think the rather personal tone of your rant is a little out of order and over the top Adam.

I agree to an extent with some of what you say. While Lancaster is a better selector than Ashton, Robinson and Martin Johnson that is not saying much frankly.

Lancaster is doing ok but in my opinion has retained a few guys he shouldn’t have for too long. I think the most obvious example is Mears in over Tom Youngs. Arguably in some instances such as Dowson the cupboard is bare and he has had little choice.

My anger is not so much directed at our current coach but rather at the admittedly improving but still unsatisfactory situation we currently find ourselves in.

I am not a fan of constant chopping and changing and sacking coaches as soon as a single game is lost. My posts here would support that. So Ultra you are are wide of the mark.

Ask yourself this ultra and Adam - has the England international rugby scence over the last 8 years been characterised more by :

a) the development of our national side through the injection of young players some times too early; OR

b) the retention of players for too long who are past their best, to the detriment of developing a side by introducing good young players

?

From a quick glance at the comments following yours I am not robinson crusoe.

by Triangulation Fri 22 Jun 2012, 11:23 am

Hood83 wrote:
Adam wrote:"Yes. I am angry."

Eh?! What right have you to be angry?! I know from your previous posts that you’re prone to mood-swings, but I find it staggeringly arrogant that you throw your toys out of the pram on the back of recent performances. There is no shame in losing to the boks in their own back yard. It happens to everyone,...a lot. Aussies and Kiwis included. So why don’t you drop this “we’re England! We just should be winning, and if we’re not I’m going to be irate” guff and open your eyes to the context of where England are at the moment.

The most baffling thing about your narrative for me is that Lancaster has – to my mind – shown himself to be a great selector in his short tenure: he’s demonstrated massive faith in youth and form, never shying away from dropping the experienced incumbent where a conservative selector could easily and justifiably have done so. In contrast to Lancaster’s considered and concerted approach to blooding new talent, your approach is, in your own words: “Sod it, we play the next young promising cab off the rank.” If you think that solves the problem of being physically overpowered by the Springboks then quite frankly I think you’re mental. I’ll keep my faith in Lancaster’s approach, thanks, and hope that our 21-25 year old front row (who acquitted themselves non-too-shabbily over the last couple of weeks against arguably the best front row unit in the world) will be given the development opportunities they need to one day be stuffing it up the Du Plessis’ of this world. And not dropped unceremoniously for the next ‘young promising cab’ as soon as they put in an iffy performance.

It’s attitudes like yours that have contributed to English rugby treading water for the past decade: no sooner has your tantrum born witness to the failure of one regime of players and coaches, than you’re on here again calling for heads to roll and shouting “this isn’t nearly as good as 2003!! Unacceptable!!!” What? You thought that because this almost brand new England side – mainly through grit, with a bit of luck thrown in – exceeded expectations in the 6N’s, that they would go and stuff the Springboks on the veld? Something that has eluded some of the best sides in history? I think you need to temper your expectations a touch, get some perspective, and maybe ease-off on the criticism.

I don't disagree with the central point here - that we need to be realistic and look at the context that we find ourselves within. Blooding new players every time we lose to a top team is not the way to build a team and some players will take time to find their feet at this level.

But equally, to describe Lancaster as a great selector seems wishful thinking. During the 6Ns he got some big calls right i think, but he's also shown no real clear indication of what team he's looking to build other than 'professional. That's fine, but it should be patently obvious to anyone that Dowson is not a man for the future or present, that Farrell is not yet (and IMO is unlikely to ever be) a better player than Flood, that Garvey needs to be tried at this level. I realise being a great selector isn't simply based on following public opinion, but equally missing things so blindingly obvious to the vast majority of supporters is disconcerting.

And that brings me on to the players. When you have players in their late 20s being comprehensively outplayed, and they were in my opinion, I think you're entitled to ask whether these players will ever compete at the level required. Equally, while players mature at different rates, when a young player is bettered by someone of his own age, it's legitimate to at least ask the question 'is this guy good enough, or do we have someone else coming through who may be better'. To dump everyone, yes, that's knee-jerk, but there are a decent number of players who on the basis of these tests, are not up to standards and never will be. For the young guys, fine, there's time, but they need to know that this is the level they need to get to and quickly if they want to beat the best regularly.

And the point on England treading water, there's just as good an argument that the reason for England doing this for the last decade or so is selection conservatism not our constant blooding of new players rather than sticking with experience.

+1

Adam grossly misrepresented what i was saying and/or perhaps i was not clear enough.

FOR E.G - I am more than happy with our front row and want them to stay long term regardless of form fluctuations.

It is the 29 yr old journeymen players that i have a problem with.

by Equo Troiano Fri 22 Jun 2012, 11:42 am

Triangulation wrote:
Hood83 wrote:
Adam wrote:"Yes. I am angry."

Eh?! What right have you to be angry?! I know from your previous posts that you’re prone to mood-swings, but I find it staggeringly arrogant that you throw your toys out of the pram on the back of recent performances. There is no shame in losing to the boks in their own back yard. It happens to everyone,...a lot. Aussies and Kiwis included. So why don’t you drop this “we’re England! We just should be winning, and if we’re not I’m going to be irate” guff and open your eyes to the context of where England are at the moment.

The most baffling thing about your narrative for me is that Lancaster has – to my mind – shown himself to be a great selector in his short tenure: he’s demonstrated massive faith in youth and form, never shying away from dropping the experienced incumbent where a conservative selector could easily and justifiably have done so. In contrast to Lancaster’s considered and concerted approach to blooding new talent, your approach is, in your own words: “Sod it, we play the next young promising cab off the rank.” If you think that solves the problem of being physically overpowered by the Springboks then quite frankly I think you’re mental. I’ll keep my faith in Lancaster’s approach, thanks, and hope that our 21-25 year old front row (who acquitted themselves non-too-shabbily over the last couple of weeks against arguably the best front row unit in the world) will be given the development opportunities they need to one day be stuffing it up the Du Plessis’ of this world. And not dropped unceremoniously for the next ‘young promising cab’ as soon as they put in an iffy performance.

It’s attitudes like yours that have contributed to English rugby treading water for the past decade: no sooner has your tantrum born witness to the failure of one regime of players and coaches, than you’re on here again calling for heads to roll and shouting “this isn’t nearly as good as 2003!! Unacceptable!!!” What? You thought that because this almost brand new England side – mainly through grit, with a bit of luck thrown in – exceeded expectations in the 6N’s, that they would go and stuff the Springboks on the veld? Something that has eluded some of the best sides in history? I think you need to temper your expectations a touch, get some perspective, and maybe ease-off on the criticism.

I don't disagree with the central point here - that we need to be realistic and look at the context that we find ourselves within. Blooding new players every time we lose to a top team is not the way to build a team and some players will take time to find their feet at this level.

But equally, to describe Lancaster as a great selector seems wishful thinking. During the 6Ns he got some big calls right i think, but he's also shown no real clear indication of what team he's looking to build other than 'professional. That's fine, but it should be patently obvious to anyone that Dowson is not a man for the future or present, that Farrell is not yet (and IMO is unlikely to ever be) a better player than Flood, that Garvey needs to be tried at this level. I realise being a great selector isn't simply based on following public opinion, but equally missing things so blindingly obvious to the vast majority of supporters is disconcerting.

And that brings me on to the players. When you have players in their late 20s being comprehensively outplayed, and they were in my opinion, I think you're entitled to ask whether these players will ever compete at the level required. Equally, while players mature at different rates, when a young player is bettered by someone of his own age, it's legitimate to at least ask the question 'is this guy good enough, or do we have someone else coming through who may be better'. To dump everyone, yes, that's knee-jerk, but there are a decent number of players who on the basis of these tests, are not up to standards and never will be. For the young guys, fine, there's time, but they need to know that this is the level they need to get to and quickly if they want to beat the best regularly.

And the point on England treading water, there's just as good an argument that the reason for England doing this for the last decade or so is selection conservatism not our constant blooding of new players rather than sticking with experience.

+1

Adam grossly misrepresented what i was saying and/or perhaps i was not clear enough.

FOR E.G - I am more than happy with our front row and want them to stay long term regardless of form fluctuations.

It is the 29 yr old journeymen players that i have a problem with.

+2

That was some rant...

by Poorfour Fri 22 Jun 2012, 12:13 pm

beshocked wrote:Our no 8 options are a NZ reject who is not getting any younger and who is a stop gap. The other is an unfit player who can barely last 50 mins let alone 80.

We also have a headless chicken who claims he can play 8 but not seen any sign of it so far.

No 8 should start to look better next season as Guest gets more game time at Quins (the forgotten man of English back rows, but given a run in the AP could be very handy as he covers 6 and 8 and is nearly as quick as Croft), Crane returns from injury and Chris York gets a shot at establishing himself at Falcons. All of these guys have been unlucky with game time and or injury but have been learning from some of the best. Morgan and Crane are probably the best long term prospects, but it's a question of who can reach 80 minute fitness.

by formerly known as Sam Fri 22 Jun 2012, 12:24 pm

No 8 should start to look better next season as Guest gets more game time at Quins (the overrated man of English back rows,

Fixed it for you Poorfour.

by Poorfour Fri 22 Jun 2012, 1:04 pm

formerly known as Sam wrote:
No 8 should start to look better next season as Guest gets more game time at Quins (the overrated man of English back rows,

Fixed it for you Poorfour.

If you're trying to hack me off Sam, you're succeeding. Over-rated by whom, exactly? He's hardly been mentioned on these boards; mainly for the good reason that he's missed a lot of the last two seasons with a succession of rather freak injuries so there's not been that much to comment on. But in the periods when he has been match fit, he's looked like a possible option in a position where England have problems.

And over-rated compared to whom, too? Morgan has potential but is clearly not fit enough to play the SH teams. Waldrom has played well but even Tigers fans rate him behind Crane - who I have said would probably be the first choice if he were fit, but he's been out for a long time. It's kind of hard to be over-rated against that kind of competition.

If you've got a real point to make, why not actually make it? If you're just sniping, them get lost.

by formerly known as Sam Fri 22 Jun 2012, 1:31 pm

Tom Guest has been mentioned as being on the verge of an England callup or the future number 8 for England for years. Now he is within a fortnight of his 28th birthday (thanks Wiki) and has no caps to his name and is the bench option at his club. He should now be at the peak of his powers, I accept injury ruled him out of the first half of this season but he played 16 games for Quins last season and was fit for the final 4 months. In which time he failed to get past the aging incumbant at 8 (again) and failed even to score a try which is most unlike him.

His season was average, so average in fact that when England were short of backrow options following injuries to Crane, Croft, Wood, Kvesic and I'm sure I'm missing one. He didn't even make the squad. As far as I can see he will not be part of the England squad anytime soon as he is now at least 4th (behind Morgan, Waldrom and Dowson) in the pecking order if not lower as previously Lancaster favoured both Crane and Narraway above him at Saxons level.

A great club man for Quins but unless something dramatically changes that will be it. Crane will return next season, Waldrom will be around (probably like Guest adding impetus from the bench), Gibson and Grey are coming through and both capable of playing 8 at LI, Morgan will be in better shape and playing regularly at Glaws, York will be getting regular game time at Falcons, Fearns may well be playing 8 at Bath, Kvesic may be moved to 8 again to accomodate Abbott at 7 and most importantly Easter will still be at 8 for Quins. That's a lot of options for him to be better than.

by Beaker Fri 22 Jun 2012, 2:02 pm

beshocked wrote:
People say Garvey is the messiah but seriously what did he do after Christmas? Did he fly into the sky never to be heard of again.

Due to LI's BR problems, the powers that be played Garvey at 6 for much of 2012. This is not his best position as he really is a lock. However he clearly is considered talented enough to do a reasonable job there. Most LI fans know that he is not only a good carrier in the tight and open spaces further out, he also is great defensively and puts in one hell of shift at the breakdown. Oh and his handling is also good. Why was Botha chosen over him? You tell me.

by Equo Troiano Fri 22 Jun 2012, 2:07 pm

Beaker wrote:
beshocked wrote:
People say Garvey is the messiah but seriously what did he do after Christmas? Did he fly into the sky never to be heard of again.
Due to LI's BR problems, the powers that be played Garvey at 6 for much of 2012. This is not his best position as he really is a lock. However he clearly is considered talented enough to do a reasonable job there. Most LI fans know that he is not only a good carrier in the tight and open spaces further out, he also is great defensively and puts in one hell of shift at the breakdown. Oh and his handling is also good. Why was Botha chosen over him? You tell me.

+1

by Adam Fri 22 Jun 2012, 2:35 pm

Tri, I didn’t mean to be personal – I am mainly just genuinely, and totally bemused by a lot of what is being said on here. I truly believe that selection is one thing above all that Lancaster has generally got right and feel that his willingness to pick on form and to be bold with his changes has been a real breath of fresh air from the previous regime(s).

The frustration was founded whilst Johnson was being conservative and overly loyal. But I feel as if Lancaster is giving what you, and many others, wanted, and yet you're not satisfied......could you ever be satisfied unless you, yourself, picked the team (no doubt containing a few selections that others would baulk at)?

Some examples (I won’t mention the 6N’s as we can all just agree he made good selection calls there, right? ):

1. Brown brought in at fullback and Foden moved to wing for the first test – Foden the incumbent and one of England’s best backs, yet made way for the in-form Brown...bold call. Johnson wouldn’t have made it

2. JJ starting in second test, Farrell dropped – a test newbie thrown in to support an attacking gameplan. Many coaches, Johnson certainly included, would have made a more conservative decision

3. Care leapfrogging Dickson to start T3 – an obvious call you may say. But again, would Johnson have made this call? Or would he have shown customary devotion to the pecking order and gone with Dickson as next in line?

4. Waldrom starting T3 - leapfrogged Dowson and Morgan based purely on showing good form. And it’s not as if Morgan or Dowson have played badly on this tour.....Johnson would certainly have kept things the same

And some of those terrible decisions where, apparently, a monkey could have made better choices than Lancaster:

1. Tom Johnson: Granted, not a ‘keeper’ for England. But let’s not forget the injuries in that position. And also, why not Tom Johnson??! Lancaster rewards form. Johnson has been a form player in the premiership – had a much bigger domestic impact than Fearns, who is the other realistic choice in the squad. He may disappear from the England scene forever following this series, but it’s far from a crazy selection

2. Phil Dowson: This one particularly riles me, having read endless posts not so long back about how Nick Easter was the worst rugby player in the world and Phil Dowson was the constantly overlooked saviour of English rugby (which, naturally, was all pure balls). But let’s look at this one objectively – Dowson, a favourite of Lancaster and a player he knows well from Saxon days, gets called-up to a harmony of approval amongst fans. As soon as it becomes clear that Morgan has more impact at international level Dowson is dropped, despite being a player who you might expect Lancaster to show blind loyalty to. His presence on the bench in South Africa is due to him being the most versatile of a depleted pool of backrow resources, and sensible in that context

3. Mouritz Botha: Again, not a ‘keeper’ for England as far as I’m concerned, but you can’t just dismiss the ‘who else is there?’ question. Seriously.....who else is there? We painfully lack an enforcer. Garvey could and perhaps should have toured, but let’s not pretend there’s an awful lot in it: Garvey, like Botha, is very effective in the premiership, but is untested at this level and consequently fans need to be careful not to overrate him (as they did with Dowson when he couldn’t get an England call-up). In light of the fact that Lancaster doesn’t have a ready-packaged Martin Johnson waiting in the wings, Botha is not a crazy selection.....and anyway, Lancaster witnessed the average performances you did and has subsequently dropped him from the starting test side....what more do you want?!

Honestly, I’m just bemused by it. I genuinely didn’t expect and can’t understand a lot of the negativity I’m reading. No selector will ever please all fans, but I honestly don’t think Lancaster’s really put a foot wrong in selection, and I would have thought the marked improvement on the previous regime in this department would have won him a little more respect.

Apologies, all, for the length of this post, and sorry if my last one was a tad rant-y (apparently my writing tends to come across that way! Smile

)

by formerly known as Sam Fri 22 Jun 2012, 3:49 pm

Adam you rant about Johnno retaining his old favourites but under Johnno the England team was revitalised. Exciting players like Youngs, Cole, Foden, Ashton and Manu were introduced. Johnno only failed at the RWC before that he was doing good things with England.

The RWC came a year early and the behaviour of some players stabbed him in the back. Lancaster is following on from Johnno's work the only major shift has been the change of philosophy in the backs where attacking minded Brian Smith was replaced by Mr Defensive Farrell Snr.

by Triangulation Fri 22 Jun 2012, 3:59 pm

We are indeed a demanding bunch. We should expect England to be highly competetive with the former Tri Nations countries shouldn’t we? Playing base, resources and all that? Arent we serial rank underperformers? We're passionate about our team and no doubt were emboldened by the fact that were not having this conversation with Mr Lancaster himself but with each other! No doubt too that the last 3 regimes have built up a mountain of pain and frustration for England supporters. With each successive regime dragging its heels they have increased the imperative on the next to bring renewal and change and team development. And now it has all come down to Mr Lancaster's desk with only 3 years until a home RWC. It is vital that we make the final. Absolutely vital. Yes the pressure is on and yes Lancaster is doing well but were going to keep demanding that he does better. It is not meant to be anger at him per se and no one is calling for his head on a pike at all.

Also i didnt acclaim Dowson's selection. At all. There is a bit of lumping together going on.

Anyway no hard feelings.

by Manu's Boxing Coach Fri 22 Jun 2012, 5:16 pm

formerly known as Sam wrote:Adam you rant about Johnno retaining his old favourites but under Johnno the England team was revitalised. Exciting players like Youngs, Cole, Foden, Ashton and Manu were introduced. Johnno only failed at the RWC before that he was doing good things with England.

The RWC came a year early and the behaviour of some players stabbed him in the back. Lancaster is following on from Johnno's work the only major shift has been the change of philosophy in the backs where attacking minded Brian Smith was replaced by Mr Defensive Farrell Snr.

Sam that is a load of rubbish! Brian Smith may have played attacking rugby at Irish but all that was quashed by Wells and Ford. He brought in Youngs, Foden, Ashton all 6 months too late and continued to retain the centre options of Tindall and Hape at centre without actually trying an attacking option there. Youngs had a good effect for about 3 games untill he was eventually wore down by the Johnson regime. Unfortunately the man had no actual plan, I remember a centre partnership of Erinle and Hipkiss now that is totally ridiculous! Your opinions of that regime are seriously deluded. We played well for a small time as MJ finnally sucumbed to the obvious and played players like Youngs etc. But gradually took away all the creative impetus to make us a stagnant team! He in a World Cup QF decided to play a FH at 12 who he hasnt put in that position for his whole tenure! Desperate? Void of Ideas? I think so.

by Poorfour Fri 22 Jun 2012, 6:38 pm

formerly known as Sam wrote:Tom Guest has been mentioned as being on the verge of an England callup or the future number 8 for England for years. Now he is within a fortnight of his 28th birthday (thanks Wiki) and has no caps to his name and is the bench option at his club. He should now be at the peak of his powers, I accept injury ruled him out of the first half of this season but he played 16 games for Quins last season and was fit for the final 4 months. In which time he failed to get past the aging incumbant at 8 (again) and failed even to score a try which is most unlike him.

Thanks for replying, Sam. You're right that Guest has the problem of getting past Easter. There are two factors there. Firstly, how many current EQP No 8s would get past Easter at club level? He may be out of favour with Lancaster but that was despite his form rather than because of it. Secondly, the form that Guest was in before his ankle injury in the 2010-11 season suggested that had he been fit he might have overtaken Easter. In the time that he was out, for two half-seasons punctuated by a promising 40 minutes at the LDH, the competition got tougher as Quins' gamble on Maurie Fa'asavalu paid off dramatically. It's always going to be tough to force your way past the press pack's openside of the RWC, a former RWC finalist and the current England captain, especially when they all stay fit. But COS has kept Guest on in preference to Chris York, and Easter is reaching the point where he will need to manage his gametime. Before Guest's injury, Quins had started using Easter off the bench to close games down, and I expect that to happen again next year.

Is it too late for him to play internationally? Perhaps. He will need to stay fit and in form even to have a shot at the Saxons, and Lancaster seems to have a marked preference for youth except where Dowson is concerned. Has he failed to deliver on his promise? So far, yes, but through injury rather than lack of form or progress. So, untried and unlucky, but overrated seems harsh. By that yardstick, were James Forrester and Dan Ward-Smith overrated too?

by Cumbrian Fri 22 Jun 2012, 7:42 pm

I don't believe it is too late for Tom Guest to get a cap, but he strikes me as a luxury that England can ill afford at the moment. We lack carriers in the really heavy traffic in the second row and often in the back-row. Assuming that Croft will be first choice blindside when he comes back from injury, a back row of :

6. Croft
7. Robshaw
8. Guest

would be knocked all over the park by most front-line packs. If Guest is in there, I feel we would need someone like Haskell at blindside.

by yappysnap Fri 22 Jun 2012, 8:14 pm

We need a big fit and powerful player with a lot of weight but who is smart and covers all the core skills of an 8.

Right now we have Morgan or Waldrom who aren't fit enough but have the weight/power and skills.

Then we have Dowson who hasn't got the weight or power but has fitness and skills.

Finally we have Hask who has the weight+power and fitness but not the skills.

Frankly the way it's panning out it's between teaching Morgan to eat less pies or teaching Hask to use his noggin. Looks like we'll have more luck with Hask at the moment.

by ChequeredJersey Fri 22 Jun 2012, 8:38 pm

Crane fulfills those criteria too, Yappy

by Sgt_Pooly Fri 22 Jun 2012, 9:21 pm

I'm with Beshocked on Garvey, haven's seen anything to suggest he's Int quality. I acyually quite like Botha and think he's the best we have currently.

Can't believe people mention Fearns as a possible England starter too. As soon as the quality of opposition goes up Fearns goes missing.

by DaveM Sat 23 Jun 2012, 1:56 am

Poorfour wrote:
No 8 should start to look better next season as Guest gets more game time at Quins (the forgotten man of English back rows, but given a run in the AP could be very handy as he covers 6 and 8 and is nearly as quick as Croft)

I think it is incredibly unlikely Guest will play for England now. After all these years he still isn't first choice for Quins and I think he lacks the physical presence we want in a number 8. I think the next Quins player to play 8 for England is likely to be Clifford (or, the ex-Quin York who has an outside chance).

by Sponsored content