England's Attack

First topic message reminder :

Morgan
Youngs/Care
Flood
Tuilagi
Joseph
Ashton Foden

Goode


Hands up who can see where England are trying to go in attack?

I can. It is nowhere near ready yet but I can see what they're tying to do.

What I like about this is as soon as its named it is a nasty proposition for an opposition defensively.

It is a multiple threat set up with each player keeping at least his opposite number and more likely an extra defender more than interested and honest.

Morgan can go and cause havoc on a run off the back with his powerfull running. He can offload to Youngs/Care. He keeps opposition back row honest.
Youngs/Care have gas to take half gaps and snipe instinctively. This also ties in the opposition back row and gives Flood more space.
Flood stands flat and will go himself on at least a half break if it is on. He has an excellent understanding with Ashton who hunts these half breaks down ruthlessly in support.
Tuilagi demands the attention of 2 defenders and has good feet and an outside break in his arsenal. This gives room to Joseph. NB we need to get MT passing more to make use of this but even if Tuilagi goes to ground and the recycle comes quickly to Joseph he is in space. If he breaks the line Ashton and Joseph need to be on his shoulders talking to him.
This is where Goode can come into it. He is an excellent reader of the game and if Flood is out of the play can slide into first receiver and put Joseph into space.
Joseph has excellent feet and can gas most opponents on the outside. Consequently and somehow the opposition have to stay tight to him while covering Tuilagi and the other inside threats described above. Joseph also has excellent hands so will release a winger if given half a chance.
Finally stick a winger with pace outside Joseph and the opposition have in my opinion a fecking defensive nightmare on their hands.

Erm...i dont at all expect fitzy at 12. Im saying he is competition for barrit. Persoanlly i.think twelvetrees could be the man.

There are other Falcons who.i think have a better chance of honours...but me and beshocked happened to be discussing number 12.

Ps I thought this was a forum where we had a laugh and debate things.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Erm...i dont at all expect fitzy at 12. Im saying he is competition for barrit. Persoanlly i.think twelvetrees could be the man.

There are other Falcons who.i think have a better chance of honours...but me and beshocked happened to be discussing number 12.

Ps I thought this was a forum where we had a laugh and debate things.

Yes ok fair enough. Just gets a bit boring when people just continually push the same agendas over and over and over again.

36 looks like a very exciting possible solution. Barrit and Fitz might be fighting over the reserve 12 spot if such a spot even exists. Certainly does not exist on a well constructed bench. The margins. The margins.

We have had 16 + inside centres since Greenwood and i am fecking grumpy about the situation so i am sorry if i have taken that out here.

beshocked wrote:Admittedly most fans of their own club believe they have a decent pack.

Also it's all relative. Decent pack compared to whom?

Back on topic poor JTH he's been left out in the cold.

Not by Stephen Jones! He wants him in the England side. p.s he also wats Sheridan and Shaw in there too.

Do I think everyone hates Saracens? No but I do think certain posters do. Btw I am not necessarily saying you Triangulation though one recent anti Saracens post stands out.

You said in a previous post Saracens screwed over England in regards to Andy Farrell - yet now it's been announced that he has joined the England management with no complaints from Saracens management.

Do you expect me to agree with a blatant lie/slur on my club?

As Geordiefalcon says we are discussing a position in the England backline.

It's relevant because the stats shown by stlowe show that Barritt passes a lot more than Fitzpatrick.


In regards to Saint Billy Twelvetrees of Gloucestershire, formerly of Leicestershire, I believe he needs to show more consistency. He could be the answer at 12 but he needs to shine for Gloucester IMO.

At Leicester he was generally made 2nd fiddle to Anthony Allen.

Should Allen be tried? Quite possibly.


Joseph and Tuilagi are 13s so don't come into the 12 conundrum.

Triangulation wrote:

beshocked wrote:Admittedly most fans of their own club believe they have a decent pack.

Also it's all relative. Decent pack compared to whom?

Back on topic poor JTH he's been left out in the cold.

Not by Stephen Jones! He wants him in the England side. p.s he also wats Sheridan and Shaw in there too.

That's crazy about Sheridan and Shaw if true. Stephen Jones knows very little about rugby though.

JTH can put himself back in the shop window with Harlequin's HC pool of death.

beshocked wrote:Do I think everyone hates Saracens? No but I do think certain posters do. Btw I am not necessarily saying you Triangulation though one recent anti Saracens post stands out.

You said in a previous post Saracens screwed over England in regards to Andy Farrell - yet now it's been announced that he has joined the England management with no complaints from Saracens management.

Do you expect me to agree with a blatant lie/slur on my club?

As Geordiefalcon says we are discussing a position in the England backline.

It's relevant because the stats shown by stlowe show that Barritt passes a lot more than Fitzpatrick.


In regards to Saint Billy Twelvetrees of Gloucestershire, formerly of Leicestershire, I believe he needs to show more consistency. He could be the answer at 12 but he needs to shine for Gloucester IMO.

At Leicester he was generally made 2nd fiddle to Anthony Allen.

Should Allen be tried? Quite possibly.


Joseph and Tuilagi are 13s so don't come into the 12 conundrum.

Ok then i am sorry for being grumpy. As to the saracens england thing look maybe we will never know the full story. I hereby in the name of peace and all that is good in the world retract what i said.

It just seemed from the outside that England wanted Farrell senior. Agreed? And Farell senior wanted England. Agreed? But saracens publicly said they would try to keep him. and they did. for a while. So i did jump to a conclusion but i couldnt imagine any other. Anyway enought said. I apologise and retract what i said. It was not a deliberate lie just a conclusion that i had formed. I will wait and see if the truth ever emerges.

I am livid with England being treated as second class by all and sundry - perhaps the rfu and squaeky andrew have a lot to answer for but mallet, smith, and old uncle reiley have all rejected the chance to coach England and it makes me

Back to the centres

frankly i dont think either barrit or fitzy are waht we need. we need a 36 or something like him.

Well fitzys better than barritt

Triangulation no worries.

The thing about Saracens,Farrell,RFU is more complicated than you probably know - it goes back 7 years so there's certainly a hell of a conflict of interests.

This link is a good way to explain things - http://www.rugbynetwork.net/main/s104/st178052.htm

In regards to the RFU and Andrew, they have to make England an aspirational team to coach. IMO they need to cut out the man sausage ups and engage more with the fans (my club need to do the same).

Cut out the prawn sandwich brigade and the bloated fat cats. Make the RFU a well respected and popular representative of English rugby.

In regards to the inside centres if there is more emphasis on attack then probably Twelvetrees should be looked though there's doubts over his consistency.

Beshocked...i completely agree with you about twelvetrees consistency. Hopefully a full run of games at 12 will sort that.

I think, and i'm sure i'll be corrected here, that 36 was in a very similar position to Owen Farrell when at Leicester. By that i mean both players have a preferred position but are played out of position a lot because they are not first choice in that preferred position. I think 36 has taken the right decision (not necessarily for the right reasons) and should improve his consistency as first choice IC at glaws. Would OF benefit from a move to another club where he can concentrate on his preferred position? And what exactly is his best position? FH or IC?

beshocked wrote:

In regards to the RFU and Andrew, they have to make England an aspirational team to coach. IMO they need to cut out the man sausage ups and engage more with the fans (my club need to do the same).

Cut out the prawn sandwich brigade and the bloated fat cats. Make the RFU a well respected and popular representative of English rugby.

Chances of Rob Andrew sacking himself?

Leave off our Rob Andrew...as he has said himself and i do paraphrase but only a little....

"No one really in the rugby press or the general public understands my role. The national side are only a fraction of my responsibilites. I am also responsible for all of the children's teams and the women's teams. They are all going superbly well. I will never resign."

Clearly in Mr Andrew's statements along these lines he sees the men's national team as a portion of what he is responsible for but not a more important portion.

There are also, i am sure vast other areas of responsibility such as the excellent relationship between the RFU and the premiership and championship clubs that also fall at Mr Andrew's desk.

We can only wish him all the best of british in all of his endeavours.

Triangulation wrote:Leave off our Rob Andrew...as he has said himself and i do paraphrase but only a little....

"No one really in the rugby press or the general public understands my role. The national side are only a fraction of my responsibilites. I am also responsible for all of the children's teams and the women's teams. They are all going superbly well. I will never resign."

Clearly in Mr Andrew's statements along these lines he sees the men's national team as a portion of what he is responsible for but not a more important portion.

There are also, i am sure vast other areas of responsibility such as the excellent relationship between the RFU and the premiership and championship clubs that also fall at Mr Andrew's desk.

We can only wish him all the best of british in all of his endeavours.

I presume you are being sarcastic Triangulation?

I really love and respect Rob Andrew for many reasons, off the top of my head:

1. He has always been a staunch supporter or the RFU and the national set up from his days at Newcastle to date;
2. He takes responsibility for getting things done. He took the reigns of the England tour to Mordor before MJ was ready. He really stepped up to the plate then;
3. He is accountable for things when they go wrong and never looks to pass the buck. He did this post RWC2011;
4. He takes quick decisive action: see the sacking of Brian Ashton following post RWC07 6Nations and his swift appointment of MJ;
5. He is supportive of the national head coach, again think RWC2011 and Dwarfgate;
6. He is clear about what his role at the RFU is and is all about transparency. He knows that it is really important that everyone can see how and why decisions are made at the RFU;
7. He is clear about priorities putting the national men's side on an equal footing with the women and children's teams;
8. He is fantastic at building and maintaining relationships with the media, general public and the clubs.

beshocked wrote:Triangulation no worries.

The thing about Saracens,Farrell,RFU is more complicated than you probably know - it goes back 7 years so there's certainly a hell of a conflict of interests.

This link is a good way to explain things - http://www.rugbynetwork.net/main/s104/st178052.htm

In regards to the RFU and Andrew, they have to make England an aspirational team to coach. IMO they need to cut out the man sausage ups and engage more with the fans (my club need to do the same).

Cut out the prawn sandwich brigade and the bloated fat cats. Make the RFU a well respected and popular representative of English rugby.

In regards to the inside centres if there is more emphasis on attack then probably Twelvetrees should be looked though there's doubts over his consistency.

No, not quite. The so called 'prawn sandwich brigade and bloated fat cats' are effectively bankrolling the sport. There is a need for those that invest in the game, press flesh and fill executive viewing boxes. What needs to happen is that the contribution made by these people is more transparent (you never know, you might actually have no idea what goes on and be proved wrong) and that they are held accountable for their actions. Cutting out these people will stifle the game, putting them on show will help to make the RFU respected, or not as the case may be.

The expenses claims from the 57 RFU commitee members totalled around £2m for the last reported financial year iirc.

This is unacceptable when the RFU is not meeting commitments it had made to Championship clubs. So while we need the money put in by the corporate Hospitaility people etc (often unfairly called the Prawn Sandwich brigade) we certainly need to sort out the bloated plutocrats within the RFU.

LondonTiger wrote:The expenses claims from the 57 RFU commitee members totalled around £2m for the last reported financial year iirc.

This is unacceptable when the RFU is not meeting commitments it had made to Championship clubs. So while we need the money put in by the corporate Hospitaility people etc (often unfairly called the Prawn Sandwich brigade) we certainly need to sort out the bloated plutocrats within the RFU.

A hackneyed pegorative often trotted out by the unknowing for the benefit of the easily led.

Ahem, I agree, that 57M appears to be excessive, however, I also recognise the absolute need for strategic management at that level. How they do their managing may well need to improve (which is what I meant when i said that they should be made more accountable) but it should also be recognised that its highly unlikely that anyone posting on this forum (myself included) understands the mechanics of how such business is done.

It is short sighted and reactionary to suggest its disbandment.

the prawn sandwich brigade arent a problem to me if they are paying the RFU a lot for them. The problem is theres 57 people buying prawn sandwiches and charging them to the RFU.
Make them eat beans!

A utopian, but ultimately futile vision of what things should be like.

Doesn't mean I don't agree with you though.

So anyway back on topic....

Do people think a footballing 15 who can come into the line on phase play is a usefull option in the team OR do you think that it is better to have a footballing 12 to cover that role if and when the 10 is buried at the bottom of a ruck?

Alternatively do you favour having both?

Larkham was a 15 before he played 10. I wonder whether when he was a 15 he used to come into the line a bit at first receiver?

Anyone know the answer to that?

I'm not sure if you can say with any certainty that that is Lancaster's plan, considering that back-line was thrown together due to injuries. I'm not sure if Lancaster is 100% sure what he's doing, but almost perversely he seems to be doing okay. We can only judge him on results I guess, which are 4 wins, 3 losses and a draw, despite 6 of those matches being away from home. Needs a few wins in the Autumn though, possibly 3 after the disappointment of not taking a test win from this tour.

I was listening to the cricket on TMS earlier today, and when Bopara edged to slip Vaughan said that Aussie Captain Clarke had "set a field for his (the bowler's) best ball", and this got me thinking. What Vaughan was saying is that the captain backed the bowler to produce, and he did to maximum result (a wicket). So should Lancaster set a field for his best ball? Now I'm thinking about players like Kitchener, Haskell, Twelvetrees and Wade and/or May. Yes, you could say that Kitchener doesn't have much experience running a line-out, Haskell doesn't have great control at the base, Twelvetrees is an inconsistent player and Wade and May are largely unproven and possibly suspect in defence. But if you pick them and back them and they do come off then you could tear teams apart. You've got an athletic line-out lock with enough bulk about him to make an impact around the park, you've a midfield distributer who can also kick (from hand or at goal) and is big enough to handle himself in attack and defence and you've got some electric wingers who can finish things off.

I'm not talking about throwing in young players for the sake of throwing in young players, I'm talking about putting in some talented players with the ability to change games. More so than Botha, Parling, an unfit Morgan, Waldrom, Barritt and Strettle anyway.

Robbo...
Lancatser has had good results in pretty much everything except generating attacking threat from set play. Despite having some very good attacking players at his disposal.

As for your cricket example, that was a captain directing a player and asking him to execute a skill. The problem england currenly have is that they just dont seem to have that direction when it comes to attack....or perhaps that the direction is wrong headed.
Lancaster backed Tuillagi to run into the nearest defender and push him back, which hes done with passion but no real gain in attacking threat as hes ended up isolted under a pile of defenders.

can someone please explain for the benefit of us all....

what is the reason for the aversion that england sides seem to have to set moves from set peice play or in phase play?

I know they are not the "be all and end all" but they can be very effective and i am sure that if we managed to execute one the opposition would probably die of shock right there on the field.

Is there any particular reason for this heresy?

Do people think a footballing 15 who can come into the line on phase play is a usefull option in the team OR do you think that it is better to have a footballing 12 to cover that role if and when the 10 is buried at the bottom of a ruck?

Preferably both Tri. The Kiwi sides do it a lot in Super Rugby, they split the attack 4-2 at every scrum and sometimes in phase play. Utilising the full back as an additional playmaker, the Hurricanes are particularly good at this with Andre Taylor coming up from 15. You don't always want your 15 on the blindside but it is a handy thing to be able to do.

Geordan Murphy has forged a career on being able to come into the line and create things be it blindside or out wide. For large parts of his career he's played in a team with a footballing 12 who offers a creative influence (Howard, Gibson, Mauger). England could go for something very similar with Twelvetrees at 12 and Goode at 15. Having said that I wouldn't give up on Barritt as I think if he was combined with Flood we'd see the best of him and he can certainly operate as a playmaker when required.

what is the reason for the aversion that england sides seem to have to set moves from set peice play or in phase play?

Tri, Flood called a very neat one in the 2nd test vs SA for Foden's failed chip kick over Frans Steyn. Manu ran a nice dummy line and sucked in three defenders as a nice delayed pass from Flood went to Joseph who spread it out wide to Foden. Sadly we don't seem to do much of that since the Johnno era when the likes of Cueto and Tindall got pinged for crossing everytime they messed it up.

beshocked wrote:Do I think everyone hates Saracens? No but I do think certain posters do. Btw I am not necessarily saying you Triangulation though one recent anti Saracens post stands out.

You said in a previous post Saracens screwed over England in regards to Andy Farrell - yet now it's been announced that he has joined the England management with no complaints from Saracens management.

Do you expect me to agree with a blatant lie/slur on my club?

As Geordiefalcon says we are discussing a position in the England backline.

It's relevant because the stats shown by stlowe show that Barritt passes a lot more than Fitzpatrick.


In regards to Saint Billy Twelvetrees of Gloucestershire, formerly of Leicestershire, I believe he needs to show more consistency. He could be the answer at 12 but he needs to shine for Gloucester IMO.

At Leicester he was generally made 2nd fiddle to Anthony Allen.

Should Allen be tried? Quite possibly.


Joseph and Tuilagi are 13s so don't come into the 12 conundrum.

Surely Twelvetrees doesn't need to show any consistency or be the first choice for his club at all? Seeing as players suck as Tom Youngs (second/third choice inconsistent hooker) Owen Farrell (second choice flyhalf/13 inconsistent at fly half) Karl Dickson (second choice scrum half) Graham Kitchener (third/fourth choice inconsistent lock) Johnathan Joseph (inconsistent second choice wing/13) have all been picked for the recent tour.

Twelvetrees like Garvey and Attwood seem slightly overlooked by the current coaching team and we can't really blame it on a lack of matches or experience.

Twelvetrees like Garvey and Attwood seem slightly overlooked by the current coaching team and we can't really blame it on a lack of matches or experience.

Billy was selected and played in the Saxons games. The fact he lost out to the player ahead of him at his club (as Kitchener lost out to Parling in selection) is unsuprising and neither is the fact that Lancaster kept the two ICs he had utilised during the 6N.

Attwood was unlucky but Lancaster was looking at more lineout style locks this time round. I still hold that something must have happened at half time in the Saxons vs Wolfhounds game as Garvey was subbed out of the blue and not included the following week or on this tour. He was playing out of his skin in that game prior to half time as well.

Simple, give it to Manu and hopes he runs through everyone, or give the cheeky pass to Aston to run in for a try and a butterfly celebration, or Croft burns everyone and scores because the opposition saw the number on his back. Or if all else fails, bomb after bomb from Farrell. It's not he worst attack plan, they finished 2nd in the 6nations after all.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Twelvetrees like Garvey and Attwood seem slightly overlooked by the current coaching team and we can't really blame it on a lack of matches or experience.

Billy was selected and played in the Saxons games. The fact he lost out to the player ahead of him at his club (as Kitchener lost out to Parling in selection) is unsuprising and neither is the fact that Lancaster kept the two ICs he had utilised during the 6N.

Attwood was unlucky but Lancaster was looking at more lineout style locks this time round. I still hold that something must have happened at half time in the Saxons vs Wolfhounds game as Garvey was subbed out of the blue and not included the following week or on this tour. He was playing out of his skin in that game prior to half time as well.

I'm with you on that one Sam, one would think he punched Callard in the face or something!

Chjw131 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Twelvetrees like Garvey and Attwood seem slightly overlooked by the current coaching team and we can't really blame it on a lack of matches or experience.

Billy was selected and played in the Saxons games. The fact he lost out to the player ahead of him at his club (as Kitchener lost out to Parling in selection) is unsuprising and neither is the fact that Lancaster kept the two ICs he had utilised during the 6N.

Attwood was unlucky but Lancaster was looking at more lineout style locks this time round. I still hold that something must have happened at half time in the Saxons vs Wolfhounds game as Garvey was subbed out of the blue and not included the following week or on this tour. He was playing out of his skin in that game prior to half time as well.

I'm with you on that one Sam, one would think he punched Callard in the face or something!

Look this keeps getting brought up.

Was he really playing so well that it is a complete mystery?!?

IF so why are non of the rugby press getting on with digging out this obvious story and getting to the bottom of it.

Normally modern sports men take to twitter in such instances and whinge about the injustice of it all see gavin henson and Kp.

Can someone please get to the bottom of this mystery and come back to us with the goddamned truth.

England rugby simply cannot afford to hamstring itself so if someone is doing that through ego or over zealous disciplinary or whatever they need to be sacked.

care was banned forever. the aussies dont do that to their own players i have noticed.