England Series Review

First topic message reminder :

England Series Review
http://www.v2journal.com/englands-june-tour-review.html
After a strong Six Nations showing Stuart Lancaster’s new look England side headed to South Africa with a lot of optimism looking to end the long draught and get a win against the Boks.

Three Tests and two invitational matches later and they were sent packing with plenty to ponder having failed to win a single test match, they had at least managed to stave off the series white wash with a 14 all draw in the final test but this was really too little too late after the performances in the other games.
The first two tests were highlights of South African physical dominance and controlled aggression, led by players like Bismark Du Plessis, Willem Alberts, F Steyn and Bryan Habana the men in green smashed the English defensive line in to tatters almost at leisure. England had very little in reply for long periods of these two matches, with the game plan simply kicking the ball away at every opportunity and allowing the green machine to build up a head of steam on the counter through a very poor kick chase.

Only in the final quarter of both of these tests did we see what this England side could produce as they were forced to play the ball through the hands at pace and as players like Ben Youngs and Toby Flood got more involved in the tempo of the game. When they did this England looked threatening and managed get some respectability back on the score boards but both times left themselves too much to do and still the defence was an issue.

In the third test things were mixed up a bit and with the added extra tempo of scrumhalf Danny Care along with more direct physicality of no8 Thomas Waldrom and flanker James Haskell the English forwards were for the first time able to match up to the Springboks (minus Alberts it has to be mentioned) and halt their attacks on the gainline. Although in the end a clever Care try from a tap and go was not enough to stop the game ending a disappointing draw as Owen Farrell’s horribly rushed 40m extra time drop goal skimmed across the grass.

England coaching team analysis

Stuart Lancaster has a lot to change now for the AI’s and it has to start in the coaching team. After that he’ll also be pleased that at least a few new names enhanced their reputations and a few older players helped play their way out of selection for him.

Stuart Lancaster- 6/10
Just like in the 6N’s he made all the right noises in interviews but some odd selection decisions, especially with the bench and at fly half let him down a lot. He was also our defence coach for the tour and leaking 72 points in the three tests and a whopping 57 points in the two mid-week games does not look good. There was almost no organisation in the defensive line when England were on the back foot and their scramble defence was lazy and disorganised compared to the 6N’s.

Graham Rowntree- 5/10
One of the biggest failings of the tour was England’s line out which across all three tests lost key ball on its own throw and never looked like challenging the SA ball. England’s forwards also looked poorly coached to be able to deal with the SA forwards as a collective, this was better for the third test at least so hopefully he’s learnt from the first two. The England scrum was a high point though with it generally faring well and even managing to get the squeeze on later in games.

Mike Catt- 4/10
After the 6N’s England acknowledged that they needed to work on an attacking game plan and Catt was brought in for the tour to provide exactly this. He knew the score and sadly failed to achieve the goals set out. He wasn’t helped by injuries and a 10 who’s only tactic is to kick the ball away, but who selected Farrell and gave him the orders to kick? I would be surprised if Catt is kept on after the tour, surprised and let down.
Summing up Stuart Lancaster is not an international attack or defence coach, he is a very good head coach and manager though. We need Andy Farrell back in to run the defence and we need a better attack and backs coach, I’d like to see a SH coach brought in to balance out the conservative British trio and Aaron Mauger’s name has been mentioned a few times in this respect.

Players that enhanced their reputations
Dan Cole- In all three tests Cole’s side of the scrum looked like a rock and he tamed the Beast across the whole series. We also got to see him get a lot more involved in the defence and his work at ruck time was top draw.

Ben Youngs- Looked dangerous and quick when given any kind of good ball to use, he almost managed to dig England out of a hole in the second test and when partnered with club mate Flood they got the backline fizzing.

Danny Care- Was bizarrely still being punished for the first two tests and came into the third with a point to prove. Which he did commendably by scoring a key try and playing at a faster tempo then we’d usually play at that threatened the SA defence.

Alex Goode- Earned his first ever cap for England starting at 15 and with 20 minutes gone ended up covering at 10 when Farrell had to go off for blood. He looked sharp with ball in hand, solid in defence and seemed comfortable at international level. Foden could struggle to get the 15 shirt back now.

Tom Youngs- He’ll be annoyed that the average Mears was favoured on the bench over him for the test teams. Especially after his impressive physical displays in the two mid-week games. Youngs looks like he could be a real wrecking ball in the years to come and Hartley will be looking over his shoulder by the autumn.

Johnny May- Rushed in as injury cover May got one chance to play against the Northern Barbarians and didn’t disappoint, scoring two lovely tries and looking a constant intelligent threat with the ball in hand. He almost scored the try of the series if it wasn’t for some immense scramble defence from the Barbarians.

Players who didn’t make the grade
Lee Mears- To be honest it’s more an indication of SL’s odd bench policy that Mears was even there in the first place, but the average club hooker really couldn’t make a dent when he came on. I shudder at the thought if an injury had meant we’d had to play him earlier than the 77th min.

Geoff Parling- Parling was meant to be the lineout genius for the test team but sadly that never occurred, we only managed 75% on our throw and never looked to interfere with the SA throws. Add to that he's massively underpowered and near anonymous in the loose.

Mouritz Botha- Parlings lock partner ended playing for the mid weekers and getting benched behind Palmer for the final test. He seems to be lacking a lot of physicality and never managed to compete against the SA forwards in the loose.

Owen Farrell- He’s a prospect for the future definitely but this tour came a couple of seasons too early for the youngster, at the moment his skill set is nowhere near complete enough for international rugby and while you can’t question his defence and kicking from the tee that is not enough against the best teams. Needs to go back to his club and work on his decision making and passing.

David Strettle- Totally anonymous. We won’t be seeing him again for England.

Phil Dowson- As Strettle.

Now the dust has settled

Overall there are things for England to be proud of in this series, we were never hammered by SA which could have happened to a team which let its head drop after early scores. We did fight back and score in every game and we were the only team to not get white washed by the big three. Add to that a number of youngsters put their hands up for future caps and a few questionable players showed that their time wearing the red rose has come to an end.

On the other hand we do still lack an attacking game and the ability to unlock defences, we still make silly mistakes under pressure and give away too many penalties while we seem uncomfortable keeping the ball in hand. We need a defence coach and a more experience backs coach also and to stick with Flood and Youngs and get them bringing their Tigers form to England. But these are all things which we can change and that can be worked on in the autumn.

The future for England looks bright if they carry on developing like they are but this autumn we need results to go along with all the fine talk. A win against one of the big three is a must and please let’s score some team tries.

GeordieFalcon wrote:At the moment i would say the following is set.

1
2 Hartley
3 Cole
4
5
6
7 Robshaw
8

9
10
11
12
13 Tuilagi (or at 12)
14 Ashton
15 Foden (or at wing)

And even Hartleys position is under evaluation...now to me THATS a major problem....

You don't want many positions nailed down though, it's 3.5 years to the WC I want competition for places. If Youngs pulls way ahead of Care I'm not sure I'd see that as positive; let them fight it out. Similarly I like having three credible options at FB, 3 decent options at LH (including Mullan), plenty of back row options etc as you never know when injuries are going to strike.

I don't understand why Hartley is being criticised. His yellow was a team yellow for instance (incidentally, Marler taking the line out was a pretty unusual sight), and I thought he was generally ok.

I put up the following side earlier for the next 6 Nations:

Goode, Ashton, JJ, Tuilagi, Foden, Flood, Youngs, Corbs, Hartley, Cole, Lawes, Launchbury, Croft, Robshaw, Morgan

The fact that lots of these players will be under pressure for their places is a good thing.

Dave,

Youd want to think that 8 tests into his reign Lancatser at least had an idea what his first choice side was and that a number of the players in it were demanding to continue to be picked.

Hartley isnt being ciritisized for the yellow, but for not really offering much in any department for sometime now. Hes lost his old spark that used to make him stand out and look dangerous.

I think he does, I think SL's first choice side is:

Corbs
Hartley
Cole
?
?
Croft
Robshaw
?
Youngs
Flood
Foden
Tuilagi
JJ
Ashton
?

He doesn't know what his best second row is because Lawes and Launchbury, two players he rates highly, were not available for the tour. If there was a fourth test I'd no doubt he'd start Parling and Palmer.

He doesn't know who is his FB is because Brown, Foden and Goode played well when given the chance, but Brown got injured and Strettle was so poor that SL thought it was better to move Foden. I reckon the fullback issue will have settled down by the end of the AIs.

8 will probably be Morgan, if he can get properly fit. He missed a lot of rugby at the end of last season and when you have his physique that sort of lay-off can be difficult to recover from quickly.

Not many players are secure, but that's because England have a lot of youngish players of similar ability and SL has only been in charge for 8 games. I think it's very harsh to accuse SL of not knowing his best side, I think he's got the balance right between trying not to chop and change too much but not being afraid to chuck youngsters in (or to drop youngsters he'd chucked in if their form dips, as he did with Farrell).

Just to add, SL's side didn't defend very convincingly and still hasn't found an attacking plan they are able to execute but as a selector I think he's miles ahead of most recent England coaches.

We're never going to agree with everything the coach does but I think he's trying out the right players (watch as Launchbury, May and probably Goode become established squad memebers over the next 12 months), seems to know how he wants to play (not just bringing Barritt straight back in was a real show of intent in my opinion) and gets the balance right between giving players a chance but not refusing to drop players who've done him well in the past (like Morgan and Farrell).

I agree with Dave- how is having competition for places a negative? If players know their places aren't certainties, they won't get complacent which I feel has been an issue recently. Of course you also need to let players and partnerships settle and getting that balance right is why Lancaster's job isn't as easy as all of us, myself certainly included, sometimes act as though it is

Robshaw was poor in his last game (playing with a broken thumb though) though no worse than 5/7ths of the remaining pack and he has been very good in every other match, exceptional in T1 especially at the breakdown where he is underrated. He was statistically the 2nd best defensive back row player in the 6N, has a tackle rate of 12 per game at 95% even after the poor showing last match, his captaincy has clearly been important to boosting England and he is in fantastic form in the AP as a 7 and Captain. Unless 2 of his rivals (as he can play 6 or 7) can play considerably better (man with the shirt) than him at the start of next season which I doubt, he will definitely still be captaining England. Especially as Wood-Croft looks on paper to be an unideal combo, Armitage is not eligible and his partnership with Croft looked very effective by the end of the 6N.

I'm a bit late getting to this but there's a couple of things in the OP I strongly disagree with:

Geoff Parling- Parling was meant to be the lineout genius for the test team but sadly that never occurred, we only managed 75% on our throw and never looked to interfere with the SA throws. Add to that he's massively underpowered and near anonymous in the loose

Who was he supposed to throw to? He was the only lineout jumper of any real note in the forwards and it was all a bit to easy for Kruger to jump in opposition to Parling and Spies to steal the ball off of either Robshaw or Johnson at the tail. The guy had no options. If Croft or Wood had been available we'd have seen the excellent lineout we had in the 6N but SA just had so many more credible jumpers than we did it was to easy for Kruger.

Owen Farrell- He’s a prospect for the future definitely but this tour came a couple of seasons too early for the youngster, at the moment his skill set is nowhere near complete enough for international rugby and while you can’t question his defence and kicking from the tee that is not enough against the best teams. Needs to go back to his club and work on his decision making and passing.

He actually improved considerably on his 6N performances. He was standing flatter and distributing the ball instead of punting it everytime he touched it. People are only being negative about him now because we lost. That wasn't entirely his fault, he played the game we needed to play to the best of his ability. It was plainly obvious he lacked the talent to do so and that Flood was the better option but Farrell wasn't the selector. I'm actually encouraged by his willingness to move forward his overall game. He's not good enough for international rugby, you are certainly correct there, but in my eyes he has become a more credible long term option where as previously I viewed him as a stop gap until Flood was fit and Burns and Ford were mature enough to step up.

ChequeredJersey wrote:Robshaw was poor in his last game (playing with a broken thumb though) though no worse than 5/7ths of the remaining pack and he has been very good in every other match, exceptional in T1 especially at the breakdown where he is underrated. He was statistically the 2nd best defensive back row player in the 6N, has a tackle rate of 12 per game at 95% even after the poor showing last match, his captaincy has clearly been important to boosting England and he is in fantastic form in the AP as a 7 and Captain. Unless 2 of his rivals (as he can play 6 or 7) can play considerably better (man with the shirt) than him at the start of next season which I doubt, he will definitely still be captaining England. Especially as Wood-Croft looks on paper to be an unideal combo, Armitage is not eligible and his partnership with Croft looked very effective by the end of the 6N.

Yet I read reports from a number of different reporters indicating that Wood is still Lancaster's preferred choice as skipper and 7. Where this would leave Robshaw I am not sure - he certainly has the makings of a genuine test quality No 7 - but I still cannot see him as a test No 6.

Does anyone else think Foden is just not a winger?

This man belongs at fullback, great under high ball, not a bad kicker and runs great lines from deep. At wing he never gets the ball in any space, and lacks the physicality of wingers like Ashton to make the hard yards. Goode has done a good job at Fullback, think we should alternate between him and Foden going forward.

I think that youngster Jonny May deserves a crack at Fodens wing spot in the AIs.

Let's see if Wood ever gets back fit and to form first. How he can be anybody's first choice anything after being out for so long with injuries is beyond me

Considering Wood is injured, Clark is banned and Wilson has left, this means that the Saints backrow could well be completely different for the start of next season.

I would predict: 6. Craig 7. Dowson (althought I'd rather Nutley) and 8. Van Velze.

Hopefully we will see Craig in and around the England squad in the future as I think he is a very talented player.

formerly known as Sam wrote:I'm a bit late getting to this but there's a couple of things in the OP I strongly disagree with:

Geoff Parling- Parling was meant to be the lineout genius for the test team but sadly that never occurred, we only managed 75% on our throw and never looked to interfere with the SA throws. Add to that he's massively underpowered and near anonymous in the loose

Who was he supposed to throw to? He was the only lineout jumper of any real note in the forwards and it was all a bit to easy for Kruger to jump in opposition to Parling and Spies to steal the ball off of either Robshaw or Johnson at the tail. The guy had no options. If Croft or Wood had been available we'd have seen the excellent lineout we had in the 6N but SA just had so many more credible jumpers than we did it was to easy for Kruger.

Owen Farrell- He’s a prospect for the future definitely but this tour came a couple of seasons too early for the youngster, at the moment his skill set is nowhere near complete enough for international rugby and while you can’t question his defence and kicking from the tee that is not enough against the best teams. Needs to go back to his club and work on his decision making and passing.

He actually improved considerably on his 6N performances. He was standing flatter and distributing the ball instead of punting it everytime he touched it. People are only being negative about him now because we lost. That wasn't entirely his fault, he played the game we needed to play to the best of his ability. It was plainly obvious he lacked the talent to do so and that Flood was the better option but Farrell wasn't the selector. I'm actually encouraged by his willingness to move forward his overall game. He's not good enough for international rugby, you are certainly correct there, but in my eyes he has become a more credible long term option where as previously I viewed him as a stop gap until Flood was fit and Burns and Ford were mature enough to step up.

Sam to the first point both Botha and Robshaw jump well for their clubs and with Palmer along side him he had another very good lineout player. And it wasn't just his own throw but the fact he never managed to interfere with the SA lineout, which included two locks who both had 0 caps to their names.

His work around the park was non existent as well.

To the second point you've pretty much agreed with what I said there, he's a work in progress but should not be a definite. He has a lot to learn still and if other youngsters are playing well they should be allowed their chance.

Also he did still kick a huge amount of ball away. One of the reasons why we kept haveing 20+ mins of concerted Sa pressure was due to him (and others) kicking the ball every time they got it, and kicking it badly so that SA could get their momentum going.

Zander wrote:Considering Wood is injured, Clark is banned and Wilson has left, this means that the Saints backrow could well be completely different for the start of next season.

I would predict: 6. Craig 7. Dowson (althought I'd rather Nutley) and 8. Van Velze.

Hopefully we will see Craig in and around the England squad in the future as I think he is a very talented player.

Was Nutley preferred over Dowson last season? I seem to remember Dowson on the bench alot...

Should be interesting times at Saints what with the new locks and hooker as well

I am feeling quite positive after the tour. In the final test we rectified our problem of physicality and defence to compete at the highest test intensity. I think Tom Palmers performance was excellent and should start the AI's. Obviously this is only a short term option but with the likes of Lawes returning and maybe even Deacon as another short term option the situation isnt looking as bad as first thought. The performance of Youngs in the second test is really promising and him in that vain of form and set up an attacking platform for the backline to get moving with Flood playing flat and using options like Ashton etc.

However the centres is still a problem JJ and Manu should be given one more game against Fiji in the AI's as they are our most talented centres we have and have huge potential. But if we get this right, I think things are looking up for England.

I think Haskells power must be considered.. Even if its at eight...he was powerful v SA.

Also im not saying having challengers for positions is negative....its a positive...but look at the kiwis...and the aussies...ans normally the boks. They know who is first choice and who is right on their heals for that shirt.

We are a young team...but are still a bit away from having that settled team and knowing first choice players...

GeordieFalcon wrote:I think Haskells power must be considered.. Even if its at eight...he was powerful v SA.

Also im not saying having challengers for positions is negative....its a positive...but look at the kiwis...and the aussies...ans normally the boks. They know who is first choice and who is right on their heals for that shirt.

We are a young team...but are still a bit away from having that settled team and knowing first choice players...

I think that's helped by the SH teams only having to pick from 4/5 SR clubs for their players. They just don't have as many options to work with so a lot of coaching is based upon making the players good enough to fit the roles required rather then chopping and changing.

England with 12 clubs will never be able to get that continuety unless we were to only pick from say HC teams or something.

Biltong, and any other South africans on here.
Congratulations on the series. You have area's to improve, and have had to deal with some key injuries and retirements. However many of your new caps really shone.

Personally, Cole has really come on. He's now a rock at the scrum, and my god he was good in the loose. Haskell has come back driven and motivated, he's a pretty experienced head now as well. Must be on 45 caps or so?

Thanks flankertye,

As I said before, England did well and should have won the last test, was it not for unforced errors and last ditch defence from us

yappysnap wrote:

Zander wrote:Considering Wood is injured, Clark is banned and Wilson has left, this means that the Saints backrow could well be completely different for the start of next season.

I would predict: 6. Craig 7. Dowson (althought I'd rather Nutley) and 8. Van Velze.

Hopefully we will see Craig in and around the England squad in the future as I think he is a very talented player.

Was Nutley preferred over Dowson last season? I seem to remember Dowson on the bench alot...

Should be interesting times at Saints what with the new locks and hooker as well

I'm guessing Mallinder will go with Dowson to begin with as Van Velze is inexperienced however, the more I think about it, Nutley could be played at 7 with Dowson moving to 8 and Van Velze on the bench for the esrly part of the season which I would be happy with.

You may be right yappy...but hopefully after the ais and on the 6n we will start to have that. Set core of team...and fringe players biting at their heals.

Cole is world class now...top 3 TH .....

GeordieFalcon wrote:You may be right yappy...but hopefully after the ais and on the 6n we will start to have that. Set core of team...and fringe players biting at their heals.

Cole is world class now...top 3 TH .....

Which is why it would be even more worrying if he got injured.

Exactly, the idea of Stevens, PDJ or Harden suddenly becoming our first choice is slightly terrifying.

Would it be better to work on Corbs at TH? Going by his 6N's performance he'd be a fantastic alternative to Cole.

Id rather look at the kids coming through yappy.
Keep Marler v corbs.for.lh and let Henry Thomas.etc begin to give coke Sone compeititon.

GeordieFalcon wrote:I think Haskells power must be considered.. Even if its at eight...he was powerful v SA.

Also im not saying having challengers for positions is negative....its a positive...but look at the kiwis...and the aussies...ans normally the boks. They know who is first choice and who is right on their heals for that shirt.

We are a young team...but are still a bit away from having that settled team and knowing first choice players...

The Aussies dont know who there first choice Fly Half is at the moment, they have regularly changed their centres about and continuously move AAC across the backline. Also have not settled on a no8 in years.


NZ like to have different wingers every few tests with Gear and Smith coming in for Savea and Guildford against Ireland. Also in the run up to the RWC it was still up in the air who the 12 would be. I think what sets NZ apart is the seamless transition of bringing players in and you barely noticing and the fierce competition that comes with it. Not knowing who their 1st XV is as I am not completely sure they do.

yappysnap wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:I'm a bit late getting to this but there's a couple of things in the OP I strongly disagree with:

Geoff Parling- Parling was meant to be the lineout genius for the test team but sadly that never occurred, we only managed 75% on our throw and never looked to interfere with the SA throws. Add to that he's massively underpowered and near anonymous in the loose

Who was he supposed to throw to? He was the only lineout jumper of any real note in the forwards and it was all a bit to easy for Kruger to jump in opposition to Parling and Spies to steal the ball off of either Robshaw or Johnson at the tail. The guy had no options. If Croft or Wood had been available we'd have seen the excellent lineout we had in the 6N but SA just had so many more credible jumpers than we did it was to easy for Kruger.

Owen Farrell- He’s a prospect for the future definitely but this tour came a couple of seasons too early for the youngster, at the moment his skill set is nowhere near complete enough for international rugby and while you can’t question his defence and kicking from the tee that is not enough against the best teams. Needs to go back to his club and work on his decision making and passing.

He actually improved considerably on his 6N performances. He was standing flatter and distributing the ball instead of punting it everytime he touched it. People are only being negative about him now because we lost. That wasn't entirely his fault, he played the game we needed to play to the best of his ability. It was plainly obvious he lacked the talent to do so and that Flood was the better option but Farrell wasn't the selector. I'm actually encouraged by his willingness to move forward his overall game. He's not good enough for international rugby, you are certainly correct there, but in my eyes he has become a more credible long term option where as previously I viewed him as a stop gap until Flood was fit and Burns and Ford were mature enough to step up.

Sam to the first point both Botha and Robshaw jump well for their clubs and with Palmer along side him he had another very good lineout player. And it wasn't just his own throw but the fact he never managed to interfere with the SA lineout, which included two locks who both had 0 caps to their names.

His work around the park was non existent as well.

To the second point you've pretty much agreed with what I said there, he's a work in progress but should not be a definite. He has a lot to learn still and if other youngsters are playing well they should be allowed their chance.

Also he did still kick a huge amount of ball away. One of the reasons why we kept haveing 20+ mins of concerted Sa pressure was due to him (and others) kicking the ball every time they got it, and kicking it badly so that SA could get their momentum going.

Johnson was another decent jumper for us, he took the most in the first test and 8 in total on the tour.

Sam to the first point both Botha and Robshaw jump well for their clubs

Botha only jumps at the front for Sarries and England. Due to his size that is all they can get him up and down quickly enough for. Robshaw was picked off at the tail a couple of times by Spies so became redundent. Johnson was of some use in the middle but the athletic combo of Kruger and Etzbeth were just all over us and Kruger is an excellent lineout operator, we know this as the AP taught him before sending him back to refine his knowledge under Matfield. In the end the Boks lineout blew us out the water in terms of options and ability. The only bonus was our rolling maul from the lineout was better than theirs.

I thought Parling did alright in the loose but probably needed to carry more. Difficult to carry more when your head is stuck in every ruck though. He was a bit average. Sadly we took 3 lineout operators on tour and Parling was still the best on show.

To the second point you've pretty much agreed with what I said there, he's a work in progress but should not be a definite. He has a lot to learn still and if other youngsters are playing well they should be allowed their chance.

Well you listed him as not making the grade. An improving youngster showing signs of future ability previously doubted in him should be a positive not a negative. I agree re the other youngsters thing as keeping someone in the squad purely for development is not a good idea long term (short term, e.g. a tour, is a good idea).

Manu's Boxing Coach wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:I think Haskells power must be considered.. Even if its at eight...he was powerful v SA.

Also im not saying having challengers for positions is negative....its a positive...but look at the kiwis...and the aussies...ans normally the boks. They know who is first choice and who is right on their heals for that shirt.

We are a young team...but are still a bit away from having that settled team and knowing first choice players...

The Aussies dont know who there first choice Fly Half is at the moment, they have regularly changed their centres about and continuously move AAC across the backline. Also have not settled on a no8 in years.


NZ like to have different wingers every few tests with Gear and Smith coming in for Savea and Guildford against Ireland. Also in the run up to the RWC it was still up in the air who the 12 would be. I think what sets NZ apart is the seamless transition of bringing players in and you barely noticing and the fierce competition that comes with it. Not knowing who their 1st XV is as I am not completely sure they do.

Many of those changes are injury or rotation induced rather than "christ i havent got a clue what plan B is now plan A didnt work"...obvioiusly less likely to happen when you have a very good side. England and France are quite unique amongst the "top" nations for not having a solid core of their side that has remain ed much the same for a sustained period. England really dont have a 50 cap cavalry now, let alone 90 cap hall of famers still in the side. the few players of medium experience they do have have for the most part been told they have to prove themselves all over again, except ashton who can remain as impotent as strettle till lancaster decides to play 3 fullbacks.


the big difference with the ABs and debates like Nonu vs SBW was that it was a case of players demanding a place, rather than being aware of the defeiencies in the side and scratching around for changes.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

the big difference with the ABs and debates like Nonu vs SBW was that it was a case of players demanding a place, rather than being aware of the defeiencies in the side and scratching around for changes.

But NZ are the best side in the world, with a head coach who was involved in the previous set up.

England are a team still forming up, with a new coach, heavily reliant on players who come through the age-group system in the last 5 years. England were always going to be a work in progress at this stage, but as I said above SL's thinking in a lot of positions is becoming clear and now he's waiting for players to develop to a point where they are settled as first choice (but not too settled).

Really? His first choice SH ending up as his third choice in the space of 3 games suggests otherwise to me, but there you go.
Same of course for number 8.

Wing is a bit of a mess, the only one who can nail down a spot is the star fullback.

The second row and flanks are merely an injury lottery. Not Lancaster fault but i cant see how anyone can say he has a settled idea who the first choice team should be and the ideal combination that works when he hasnt ever had a chance to pick it.
The Captaincy of Robshaw went to a player who was arguably his 3rd choice 7 pre 6 nations, and he has consistently stated its only a temporary position. He will have to earn it back, and his place from Haskell.

The centers hes been through 5 players, only one has looked any good, and hes now playing him out of position.

I think his thinking looks muddled and reactionary rather than visionary. He doesnt even know who his coaches are yet.

Peter...

Thats exactly what ive been saying...and your right its not SL's fault with injuries etc...but we havent really managed to get a settled core...

HOWEVER...im surprisingly optimistic that over the duration of the next year...things will change quite alot and we will have a settled core or real quality...and i suspect quite a young side also....with plenty of competition.

Lancaster should be pleased with his development side. His side progressed which is more than can be said for Ireland and Wales. They didn't cough up easy wins, didn't fold under pressure and got a draw against one of the world's best and most physical sides in on tour. Okay it's not a lot but by comparison it's an achievement. they also learned a lot about certain players, Strettle, morgan and Mears for example and have the likes of Wood and Croft coming back. Care needs to become the playmaker he can be with his combination of quick service and ability to attack the fringes. Farrell will come good. The one problem England have is how to release their back 3 and i think this is because of a continuing struggle to find a centre combo that breaches the gainline. I like seeing Manu on the charge at 12 as it reminds me of Roberts; it is a good tactic and one England must build on.
I honeslty thought Lancaster might get the boot after this tour but now i think he has shown his methods. while different, are working.

Mowgli...agree on some of what you say.
But with regard to half backs whilst i doubt that Farrell will be rejected altogether this tour has exposed what many people refused to see from the 6 nations that Farrell Dickson is not an attacking option, Youngs/Care and Flood give a much greater chance of those backs getting into the game...and have shown england can score tries through them alone. I expect to see much more adventurous 9/10 combinations than Dickson/Hodgson/Farell in future.
Tuillagi is wasted at 12. To me its Banahan without the months spent trying to teach him to offload. Manu does hit well and makes ground, but it doesnt achieve a whole lot. Hes much better running at defenders shoulders.
Im Lancaster sceptic, but I agree hes getting away with winging it so far. Getting a draw in SA is an improvement on many previous summer tours with a depleted squad.

I wonder about Flood, he has never made it his own and the transition seemed to be Jonny/Flood with Jonny favoured and now Farrell/Flood with everyone thinking Farrell is the new Jonny which he evidently isn't. I hear you re Tuilagi but when you have his capcity to suck 2/3 defenders its hard to avoid using him that way. What you need is a big old brute at 12 with hands so they can interchange.
Lancaster just bought himself a lot of time and to be fair he did a lot right. Had he blown this tour by failing to progress i think he would have been gone after the Autumn but I think SA at Twickers is a much less potent force. they are way off NZ but actually Oz could struggle enough up front against a traditional english pack to make a win possible there too.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Really? His first choice SH ending up as his third choice in the space of 3 games suggests otherwise to me, but there you go.
Same of course for number 8.

Wing is a bit of a mess, the only one who can nail down a spot is the star fullback.

The second row and flanks are merely an injury lottery. Not Lancaster fault but i cant see how anyone can say he has a settled idea who the first choice team should be and the ideal combination that works when he hasnt ever had a chance to pick it.
The Captaincy of Robshaw went to a player who was arguably his 3rd choice 7 pre 6 nations, and he has consistently stated its only a temporary position. He will have to earn it back, and his place from Haskell.

The centers hes been through 5 players, only one has looked any good, and hes now playing him out of position.

I think his thinking looks muddled and reactionary rather than visionary. He doesnt even know who his coaches are yet.

This is pretty disingenous stuff Peter. Dickson was never Lancaster's first choice. He started some games but that was because Care was suspended and Youngs was playing really badly. I don't think there's anything to suggest SL saw Dickson as anything other than a player who came on for a terribly out of form Youngs and did well enough to earn a start. With No.8 SL is started with Dowson and then has just played the man in form. What's wrong with that? Would you be happier if he'd stuck with a clearly unfit Morgan?

Wing is a mess because England don't have a left-wing who has earnt a starting place, so SL has improvised (well in my view) by shifting Foden there. Hopefully next season May or Sharples, or even Monye or Benjamin will show form to at least put pressure on Foden (although presumably you'll criticise any change in the starting line-up that isn't injury driven). SL has apparently dropped Strettle, and I give him credit for that ratther than simply persisting.

So you are criticising SL for not having a settled idea of his locks and backrows whilst at the same time saying he can't possibly have had that?

When the last time SL said Robshaw's Captaincy was a temporary thing? I don't remember him saying that for a while, certainly not on the tour. Of course it should be a ultimately be a temporary thing, as a Captain should have to earn his place but Robshaw has done that and can probably absorb a couple more poor games before being dropped. Or you could be right and Haskell will play ahead of him - we'll come back to this after the Australia test.

Tuialgi has looked ok. SL has apparently identified that Tuilagi and JJ are the most promising combo we have, and I think he's right.

As a coach you have to react to events, so I'm not really sure what your criticism there is. As you say, you just don't like SL. Almost every side in English rugby history would have lost that tour 3-nil.

What you need is a big old brute at 12 with hands so they can interchange

mowgli you've just described Brad Barritt without the 'old' bit. That is the pairing that looked the most dangerous to me, especially now that Catt has brought the 12 running hard lines off the shoulder of the playmakers, both Manu and Barritt did that well and it got us good yardage in the third test second half. What we need to do is then get the pack with the 12 sharpish so that the backs can use that front foot ball to quickly go again. What happened was that the backs ended up in the ruck protecting the 12 and the forwards then had the next phase which wasted the quick ball opportunity.

But NZ are the best side in the world, with a head coach who was involved in the previous set up.

England are a team still forming up, with a new coach

Dave, Lancaster was working under Johnno and looking after the Saxons so was involved in the last regime. As was the forwards coach Rowntree. It's hardly a coaching revolution at the RFU.

SL has apparently identified that Tuilagi and JJ are the most promising combo we have, and I think he's right.

I think he should and will go back to Barritt/Tuilagi as at the minute JJ isn't making enough impact as a starting option where as his pace and footwork off the bench is likely to cause a lot more problems. I felt his selection in the third test was him living off that break he made as a sub in the first and he didn't do anything to change my mind on that, Barritt was a more positive carrier for England in the third test which is a worry for JJ.

Sorry what exactly did Manu at 12 and JJ on the pitch do to convince anyone they are a functional partnership?
two of Tuilagios least effective games in an England shirt and a 13 who managed the grand total of 0/4 yards gained (depending whos stats you use) across 2 games. They didnt even tackle that well which was the Farrell/Barritt get out of jail card.

You could colour me amazed if they line up like that for the next test. JJ only made the squad and then the side through the injury lottery, so if that does suddenly become the new Greenwood Tindall then its more through luck than judgement weve arrived there.

With hindsight, we may look back at this tour as a bit of a turning point. The results were disappointing, especially since England had opportunities to win both the first and third tests (and might have been closer in the second had the refereeing been more accurate), but I think the squad will have come away with a much better idea of what it takes to win in the SH.

England have had a very poor run of form against the Boks and I can't remember the last time they looked capable of winning a test against them. In this series, a far less experienced group of players were at least competitive with them.

Issues remain, particularly selection at lock, 8 and centre where there aren't obvious answers, and flanker, scrum half and full back where there are too many strong candidates. Some of the preparation for the intensity of the games looked a bit naive and there still isn't a fully-functioning attack.

But didn't SCW's upward curve begin with a draw against South Africa?

Its a bit harsh to judge JJ on the basis on two games in which he hardly touched the ball. He made his tackles and was never shown up defensively, but England selected him for his attacking talents and then adopted a game plan which apparently involved Care and Flood/Farrell kicking away as much possession as possible, and played him outside a 12 who never, ever passes the ball.

Tuilagi could be a lethal attacking threat for England if used sensibly. At the moment I feel that he's trying to do too much himself. Every time the ball that comes his way he takes it on himself and winds up getting isolated. He needs to be coached to vary his game and bring the likes of Ashton and Foden into the game.

The last time was when Josh Lewsey made that incredible trysaver on JDV

I thought the 6 nations was the turning point?

Look I dont suggest that JJ isnt a good player but the combination clearly isnt working, and yes part of that is the inability of england to get the ball to him. But that doesnt means england should stick by him through sympathy, it means they need to look at rejigging the set up again.

The second test Tuilagi passed almost half his possession, and JJ did nothing with it. So they asked him to go crash ball, and that didnt work either.
At some point someone has to say" you know what Tuillagi works better at 13", or "you now what we can live without him".

Its a bit harsh to judge JJ on the basis on two games in which he hardly touched the ball. He made his tackles and was never shown up defensively, but England selected him for his attacking talents and then adopted a game plan which apparently involved Care and Flood/Farrell kicking away as much possession as possible, and played him outside a 12 who never, ever passes the ball.

It's harsh but on what else are you to judge him? They were the biggest games of his fledgling career and the only memorable moments of his starts were the tackle on Bismark that nearly stopped a try and a pass to Foden for his failed chip over Frans Steyn. Other than that there was... well the break which was made from the wing and him as a sub attacking tired defenders.

JJ is clearly a talented player, he just isn't quite ready for starting at international level. Using him as a bench option to add impact later in games would be better in my view, he can do it and it will ease him into the pace and physicality of the test arena. Not every player will either step right up or fail, some need to be eased in and I think he's one of those.

10.Flood
12.Barritt
13.Manu

is where we need to start the AIs (allowing for form and fitness).

For such a young player at the start of his career being dropped from the starting lineup to the bench shouldn't be looked at as the end of the world, a lot of young players have to earn their stripes from the bench and in the long run it'll be better for him.

Manu should def be 13 and if anything was to change in the midfield i'd like to see 36 come in at 12.

One for the future would be a 36 & Lowe partnership. Both are very solid units and with both players actually able to vary their games, and no worries about defence or handling skills we could see it work well.

Absolutely Flood and Youngs get dropped every other game, even golden boy Farrell has had to join the "I cant make my mind up" merry-go-round.
JJ isnt solely to blame for being ineffective, that doesnt mean he has a god given right to be selected for the rest of eternity.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Absolutely Flood and Youngs get dropped every other game, even golden boy Farrell has had to join the "I cant make my mind up" merry-go-round.
JJ isnt solely to blame for being ineffective, that doesnt mean he has a god given right to be selected for the rest of eternity.

I'm not saying that JJ should be selected automatically. Its just as an LI fan, I'd like him to get a serious chance to shine, and I didn't feel he got that in South Africa - green-tinted shades and all that I agree with you that Tuilagi/JJ isn't a viable partnership. In many ways JJ would have been better off in the dirt-trackers games alongside Allen or JTH. At least he wouldn't have spent the entire game chasing kicks.

I also don't think that Manu is as essential to England as some are arguing. I didn't think that he ever really threatened the bok defence, despite the meters that he gained in the 3rd test.

Marler is another who would probably learn a lot more coming off the bench in the AI's then starting. We'd hopefully get to see more of his loose game if he came on at 55-60.

A bench of

Youngs
Marler
Harden
Lawes
Haskell
Care
Farrel
Joseph

Has a lot more impact in it then the current bench.

mawhis wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Absolutely Flood and Youngs get dropped every other game, even golden boy Farrell has had to join the "I cant make my mind up" merry-go-round.
JJ isnt solely to blame for being ineffective, that doesnt mean he has a god given right to be selected for the rest of eternity.

I'm not saying that JJ should be selected automatically. Its just as an LI fan, I'd like him to get a serious chance to shine, and I didn't feel he got that in South Africa - green-tinted shades and all that I agree with you that Tuilagi/JJ isn't a viable partnership. In many ways JJ would have been better off in the dirt-trackers games alongside Allen or JTH. At least he wouldn't have spent the entire game chasing kicks.

I also don't think that Manu is as essential to England as some are arguing. I didn't think that he ever really threatened the bok defence, despite the meters that he gained in the 3rd test.

The only player that is essential to England is Cole. After that everyone has a viable alternative and all are up for benching/droppage.

No Mawhis Im quite with you, if they cant find anyway of using Tuilagis strengths then try someone else. W=hat astounds me is that James "thick and pig poo" Haskell can spend a few days in the squad and point out what LanCattster seem unable to fathom...he isnt best used as a battering ram at 12. He may enjoy running into people but unless hes doing it sparingly or to specifically rough up an opponent hes far better when hes running between defenders rather than straight into the nearest one. If thats not what they want then hell recall Banahan at least he seemed interested in learning how to offload.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:If thats not what they want then hell recall Banahan at least he seemed interested in learning how to offload.

It's what I've been saying all along! Banahan and Tuilagi in the centres. Done.

Good sincere review there yappy

Onwards and upwards eh..! Good things to come.

formerly known as Sam wrote:
10.Flood
12.Barritt
13.Manu

is where we need to start the AIs (allowing for form and fitness).

That midfield will never get England to the top of the world game - two centres who just cannot release the outside backs.