Lancaster: We Need Seven

In an article on the RFU website Lancaster outlines the pre-requisites of an England side to top the world rankings again:

“We need seven world class players in our team and I define world class players as being in the top three in their position in the world.

“That’s the reality, we can coach, we can put systems and structures in place but we need world class players.

“A good measure will be the Lions – it’s the benchmark of four northern hemisphere sides and if you’re not playing well enough to tour with the Lions then you can’t be in the top three in the world. It will be a good barometer [of our progress] as I saw various selections for the Lions pre-South Africa and we didn’t have very many in there.

“Teams are made up of the overall sum of their parts but equally we want some stardust in there too.”

I like the fact that he's identified the Lions as a motivator and not brushed over it in some attempt to assume that the England players just want to do well as a team. He's encouraging individual success as well as team success and I think that's added something to his previous publicly stated philosophy and approach.

The question being of course who are those candidates for the 'seven world class players'. Clearly he's not saying we have them now, but who's there or thereabouts and who's got the potential to be there?

Lions possibles: Ben Youngs, Dan Cole, Manu Tuilagi, Ben Foden, Tom Croft, Toby Flood, Chris Ashton - these are the guys I think are in with a good shout of touring and in some instances starting.

Lions Outsiders: Ben Morgan, Alex Corbisiero, Dylan Hartley, Chris Robshaw, Tom Wood, Charlie Sharples, Danny Care - This group have a bit more work to do on the Test front, and in some cases need a good run in the AI's and 6N to really stake a claim.

My only issue with some of these players is that whilst they may be Lions tourists they don't necessarily all fit the bill of the 'Sepcial 7' that Lancaster is referring to. Toby Flood for example might become a Lion, but I don't think anyone would put him in the top 3 in the world. The same might be said for Ben Foden, now not even considered to be England's No.1 FB, would he make a wing spot or FB on the world stage?

The point being there aren't many in that position right now, bar perhaps Ben Youngs, Dan Cole and Tom Croft. Who else will or can step up?

I would fire him on the basis of the 7 man concept. It was bad enough when ENG played 10 man rugby without going down to 7.

But serious. How are you going to be #1 with 7 players who are in the top 3 and presumably 17 who aren't?

Unless it's a misquote. ENG desperately need a 7 who is in atleast the top 3. The ENG breakdown skills are woeful.

I assumed it would be "Seven more coaches to tell me what to do"

Its not 7 its 10+. When I coached an exceptional team I had 10 players that were probably better than any others in their position in that league. The others were all good players but could be sub'd for others. The team was pretty invincible for two years. Then the slow drift of players leaving for one reason or another brought us back down to earth. 7 exceptional players ain't enough believe me.

Surely you want to aim for all of your players to be the best in their positions? And if on the way you only get 7 then start trying harder.

I don't think any of the top teams would be happy with only just under half a starting team of talented players.

yappysnap wrote:Surely you want to aim for all of your players to be the best in their positions? And if on the way you only get 7 then start trying harder.

I don't think any of the top teams would be happy with only just under half a starting team of talented players.

Nope. To win consistently SL is right you only need a certain number in the team. That's winning against all opposition. I just think its 10 not 7.

But if you aim for getting everyone to that standard then along the way you'll hit 7 and then 10 and if you do make 12 or 14 or maybe even 23 then surely that's a plus.

yappy

I think the point is you cant go straight from 0 world class players to 23 overnight. SL is setting a realistic goal for the next 12 months, highlighting the he wants 7 lions tourists as a minimum, of which I think England may scrape at present.

Hes being S.M.A.R.T

Only New Zealand can claim to have 7+ 'World Class' players in their line-ups these days.

Or Wales. Who often have about 20 in their match day squads. Apparently.

bluesman, you don't need to be World Class to go on a Lions tour. Ask Andy Powell.

Ben Youngs?

Honestly i would put Danny Care a head of Ben Youngs right now.

Yappy.

Although i agree with you every coach would like his players to be World class in every position.

But Lancaster is talking about the Lions. And it is about getting the best player in every position from ALL 4 countrys that make up the British and Irish Lions.

Sugar

Name me a better way of judging a players ability within the next 12 months? Is it not in the AI's and 6N? How is the Lions selected? Is it not in the 2 above international windows?

Therefore the best way to judge World class within the next 12 months is lions selection.

This '7' nonsense is a motivational tool for about 15 Englishman or so, it is about telling the media and fans to lower expectation because England just don't have the playing roster at present.

SL did great pre 6N at lowering expectations, and is doing so again.

bluesman,

Not what I said. If we're using the 'top three in the position in the world' way of judging World Class then there will be a lot of non-World Class Lions. It stands to reason that this will be the case as NZ, SA and Aus will be taking up the vast majority of these positions.

Best in NH (or home nations) is another thing. By these standards there are very, very few World Class players in the Lions countries. That's not to say they're not good players though.

I don't read too much into into it anyway. Lancaster is doing what most coaches do and saying little of substance to the media which is probably a sensible thing to do given British media.

Sugar

I get what your saying, but if your trying to quantify ability (and everyone is) the the only real way of doing so is lions selection.

Just for arguments sake I think the lions would have a good number of 'world class' players by SL's understanding...

A. Jones?
Rees?
Ford?
Jenkins?
Gray?
POC?
Ferris!
Warburton?
Blair?
Sexton?
Roberts
North?
Bowe?
Kearney?
1/2p?
Foden?
Ashton?

I'd argue some of them may be top in the world (Ferris, Jones, Kearney) and the others are very near if not all in the top 3.

I agree that you judge ability of home nations players by choosing a Lions squad (by and large and taking into account a balanced group selection).

Those players you mention though (with a couple of exceptions) are not in the top 3 in their position in the world.

I agree with Lancaster that you need to aim to get a good number of your side their but presently I don't think we can do it even across the four home nations.

The last time a NH side did it was England in 2002-3. Then we're probably going back to Wales in the 70s but I'm too young to remember that!

I disagree Sug, I think a lot of those players are there or there abouts.

I also think however the quality across the whole teams (bench included) is weaker up north than south.

I also think that abilities down south are far more rounded than up here.

Jones for example, great scrummager, one of the best on the planet, but can he play the ball as well as other TH's, can he offer a good carrying threat, or is he as mobile as others?

Ps Andy Powell seems to be running rampant in the jeff, not a special talent but does a good job and is a threat.

Thing is, bluesman I think we sometimes get caught up in our 6Ns/HC bubble and see some cracking players and matches with some great performances. Then we go across to the SH and go 'Oh'.

Maybe I'm just a bit pessimistic but we see it happen to often.

I don't like to hear talk of 'World Class' especially until it's properly proven.

Lions-wise I think there are still certain assumptions that we're going to batter the Aussies. We won't.

I've never been SL's biggest fan, but I think this is a very fair and realistic thing for him to have said. I think some of you are being bit harsh saying he's aiming too low. At the moment we have a few in the top 5 in their position, maybe a couple in the conversation for top 3, but no one who can lay a strong claim to being the best in his position. If we could have around half the starting line up who are absolute world class players, we have the basis of an extremely strong team. (Provided the rest aren't complete cack, which given the depth of potential talent would be unlikely.)

There are a lot of players approaching their prime years who have a great chance of establishing themselves at the top of the tree in their positions and it's a strong situation to be in.

As a general aside to this, I think international rugby will be very open over the next few years. A lot of sides are bringing through exciting young talent and fans of all of the top 7 or 8 sides can be encouraged by the sides they are starting to put together. It's a good place to be as a rugby supporter and it'll be interesting as to how it pans out. NZ are the only side I would be confident to say will definitely be in the top 2 or 3 sides come 2015, and the only team from 6N+4N I would confidently say have no chance of being there are Italy.

jeffwinger wrote:I've never been SL's biggest fan, but I think this is a very fair and realistic thing for him to have said. I think some of you are being bit harsh saying he's aiming too low. At the moment we have a few in the top 5 in their position, maybe a couple in the conversation for top 3, but no one who can lay a strong claim to being the best in his position. If we could have around half the starting line up who are absolute world class players, we have the basis of an extremely strong team. (Provided the rest aren't complete cack, which given the depth of potential talent would be unlikely.)

There are a lot of players approaching their prime years who have a great chance of establishing themselves at the top of the tree in their positions and it's a strong situation to be in.

As a general aside to this, I think international rugby will be very open over the next few years. A lot of sides are bringing through exciting young talent and fans of all of the top 7 or 8 sides can be encouraged by the sides they are starting to put together. It's a good place to be as a rugby supporter and it'll be interesting as to how it pans out. NZ are the only side I would be confident to say will definitely be in the top 2 or 3 sides come 2015, and the only team from 6N+4N I would confidently say have no chance of being there are Italy.

Pretty much nailed it.

England have pulled on the collective of the team since the RWC, but we still don't have many world class players. So I take that as a challenge from Lancaster. 2003 is long gone and it's time for our guys to work hard and ensure that they are that 1% better than their opponent, as preached by Woodward.

England are in an interesting place at the moment. They were quite badly overappreciated in how well they played at the last 6N and coming second was much better than I thought that they could do with the young team.

But to talk about any of their players being in the world's top 3 in their positions is a difficult sell at present. Not that they couldn't get there in the future.

Ben Youngs - in the company of Genia, Parra et al - he looks the most comfortable and could well be in the world's top 3 if he gets back to his form of 3-4 years ago and tones down the petulance. Inescapable fact that Care is playing better at the moment.

Dan Cole - I really like Cole and he improved exponentially in the past 2 years but I could not see him in a world XV before Mas, Franks, Jones or J. Du Plessis.

Manu Tuilagi - if we're assuming that he's a 13, then we're comparing him to Rougerie, O'Driscoll, Smith, O'Connor and Fourie. It's actually very difficult to judge because as a (relatively, in terms of skillset) blunt tool, he can be undeniably effective.

Ben Foden - Beale, Dagg, O'Connor, Kearney and Poitrenaud. On a good day, he's not far off from any of those players.

Croft, Flood and Ashton are all acquired tastes - all of whom could make the Lions although all are probably not the most fashionable choice for the first XV shirt.

It's a good article and raises some interesting points. I think what SLis trying to say is we need world class performers throughout the team to be able to step up in the big games against the top nations.

We probably don't have 7 players in the top 3 of their position but we have a few capable of really stepping up and putting in world class performances.

Ben Youngs - on his day unplayable around the fringes. That game against SA has only been bettered by Will Genia this season. Needs more consistency but I'd have him only behind Genia if choosing a world side.

Dan Cole - A borderline call but a class act. Only Owen Franks offers similar work rate in the loose partnered with fantastic set piece work. I'd throw Castro in the mix also but not Adam Jones who's not the force in the set piece of previous years and offers next to nothing in the loose.

Manu Tuilagi - I don't think his all round abilities put him in the top 3 yet but nobody can touch him with pure physicallity. Needs to kick on but as a raw talent is not far away.

Foden, Corbisiero, Flood, Ashton are nearly men but not at the level of the other 3 for me.

George, couple of points:

"Dan Cole - I really like Cole and he improved exponentially in the past 2 years but I could not see him in a world XV before Mas, Franks, Jones or J. Du Plessis."

JdP? I'd have him as one of the weakest national TH's in rugby personally. Similar with Mas who has been living off past reputation over this last year.

"Manu Tuilagi - if we're assuming that he's a 13, then we're comparing him to Rougerie, O'Driscoll, Smith, O'Connor and Fourie. It's actually very difficult to judge because as a (relatively, in terms of skillset) blunt tool, he can be undeniably effective."

Pretty much agree with that although O'Connor doesn't play 13 or FB really these days.

I like the fact Lancaster recognises we need half a team of World Class players...

Dan Cole for me is defo world class...

Ben Foden...well he is a close call...very good international...World Class? hhmmm...

But we are developing players now and i think soon we will have a few geuinely World Class players...

sugarNspikes wrote:Only New Zealand can claim to have 7+ 'World Class' players in their line-ups these days.

Or Wales. Who often have about 20 in their match day squads. Apparently.

bluesman, you don't need to be World Class to go on a Lions tour. Ask Andy Powell.

I have been on holidays and this is the first thread I have decided to read after coming back, and only you could turn a thread about England into a Wales V England bun fight. FFS, lets just talk about what the author of this thread has started for once.

LordDowlais wrote:

sugarNspikes wrote:Only New Zealand can claim to have 7+ 'World Class' players in their line-ups these days.

Or Wales. Who often have about 20 in their match day squads. Apparently.

bluesman, you don't need to be World Class to go on a Lions tour. Ask Andy Powell.

I have been on holidays and this is the first thread I have decided to read after coming back, and only you could turn a thread about England into a Wales V England bun fight. FFS, lets just talk about what the author of this thread has started for once.

Read on the rest of the converstation, chief bluesman and I were actually having a decent discussion. To be honest, I was just biting at a bit of a barb from him originally. It's all cool.

For my tuppence, England's world class players are:-

Ben Foden

Sorry I cannot think of any more, so I will now list who I think are very good with the potential to become world class:-

Farrel
Dan Cole
Robshaw
Ben Mogan

Now I will make a list of players who could be good but are far to over hyped by the media and are not as good as some of you would like to think:-

Tuilagi
Ben Youngs
Courtney Lawes
Barritt
Ashton

The rest are all decent players but there are better players in every position playing in all three southern hemisphere sides but that could go for all of the northern hemisphere sides, but at the same time I think that both Wales and France have better options than England at the moment.

Good to see you haven't just come on to be inflammatory and act like a twonk then, Dowlais

Why am I acting like a twonk ?

LordDowlais wrote:Why am I acting like a twonk ?

Mate, if you don't know!

Seriously though, do you really have to post stuff like 'Now I will make a list of players who could be good but are far to over hyped by the media and are not as good as some of you would like to think'?

Dowlais....

Morgan? Robshaw?

And Farrell!!!!!!!

As Sugar and Spikes says you are chump!

We'll
See how the AIs go. No way we can gauge things right now.

O.k so I say a few things which you do not agree with so you resort to name calling, that's really classy.

Also, I am just saying it as it is, England have at most, at the moment, one world class player, but you can still have a good side if they all play to each others strengths, Tuilagi for me is a good player, but you lot all seem to think that he is the next Will Greenwood. Look, I think there are a lot of better centres in the world than him, it's just that you lot all wax lyrical about him as being the best around. The guy is still young and given time he could well mature into a truly superb player, but at the moment he is miles away.

No you have come on to wind it up....and you succeeded.,...well done...you got a responce

You're completely wrong. None of us think that about Manu and many questioned his starting place.

LordDowlais wrote:O.k so I say a few things which you do not agree with so you resort to name calling, that's really classy.

Well you are Welsh

NZ team - world class or not? Just cause you got me thinking

1 - Woodcock - world class but starting to decline
2 - Hore/Mealamu - not sure
3 - Franks - world class just
4 - Whitelock - world class
5 - Romano/Retalick - no
6 - Thompson - no
7 - McCaw - world class but starting to decline
8 - Read - world class
9 - Smith - not yet
10 - Carter - world class but starting to decline
11 - Savea/Gear - no
12 - Nonu/Williams - world class
13 - Smith - world class
14 - Jane - world class
15 - Dagg - world class

So for me that is 10 world class players at best cause I'm probably a bit biased.

Woodcock, DC and McCaw may be starting to decline but they'd still be starters in a World 15.

I'm even harsher than Nganboy in that IMO World Class means in or arguably in a World 15. Therefore if Carter is better than Cooper without any real doubt in your mind, Cooper is not World Class

1-Woodcock/Healy (on form)
2- Du Plessis
3-Franks/Cole/Jones
4- Gray/Bekker
5- Whitelock
6- very open
7- McCaw/Pocock
8- Read/ Parisse
9- Genia
10- Carter/potentially Cruden
11- JOC/Jane/AAC
12- Nonu/SBW
13- Smith
14- Ioane/Pietersen
15- Beale

So England currently IMO have maybe 1 as 6 can't count as the players are so diverse

NZ have 12 World Class players for me in 10 positions

I often think the perception of what a world class player consitutues is greatly enhanced by the team he plays for.

You look at the All BLacks backline and barring Half Back you could make a case for every other player to be amongst the best in their positions.

However the question begs whether these players will be that effective in other teams.

Take a look at Habana and Pietersen, in my mind two very good wings, sure the last season Pietersen has shown he is in top form, but what would Pietersen and Habana be like if they played for the All BLacks?

It is common knowledge that wings in SA are mainly defensive tools and rarely get the opportunity on space.

So the style of play a team uses has a lot to do with "looking" world class.

So international class is perhaps more apt.

Yes I agree with Biltong, it's all about the overall combinator, which is why I think sometimes the Lions struggling. They don't get the coach who recognise that it's not about pick "the best" player in every position, is about get the partnerships and matching skillsets. SCW completely miss this observation in 2005 when he went so far to pick "the best" players and even put them in the wrong positions just to get them onto the field.

anotherworldofpain wrote:Yes I agree with Biltong, it's all about the overall combinator, which is why I think sometimes the Lions struggling. They don't get the coach who recognise that it's not about pick "the best" player in every position, is about get the partnerships and matching skillsets. SCW completely miss this observation in 2005 when he went so far to pick "the best" players and even put them in the wrong positions just to get them onto the field.

I know this is 'possibly' a wum but not everybody remembers that there were 6 welsh & 3 Irish players in the starting line up for the Lions in the second test. But by that time most non - English & many English (tbh) noses had been put out of joint by SCW.

GeordieFalcon wrote:No you have come on to wind it up....and you succeeded.,...well done...you got a responce...your a joke...

Grow up.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:O.k so I say a few things which you do not agree with so you resort to name calling, that's really classy.

Well you are Welsh

Well there is always that, hey pete.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:Yes I agree with Biltong, it's all about the overall combinator, which is why I think sometimes the Lions struggling. They don't get the coach who recognise that it's not about pick "the best" player in every position, is about get the partnerships and matching skillsets. SCW completely miss this observation in 2005 when he went so far to pick "the best" players and even put them in the wrong positions just to get them onto the field.

I know this is 'possibly' a wum but not everybody remembers that there were 6 welsh & 3 Irish players in the starting line up for the Lions in the second test. But by that time most non - English & many English (tbh) noses had been put out of joint by SCW.

To be fair BigTrev, I do not blame any of the players for that tour, Welsh, English, Scottish, Irish, they were all short changed by the coaches/managers. Who the in the hell takes Alister Campell on a rugby tour ? All the players were short changed on that tour and it added fuel to the argument that England's 2003 world cup win was down to the brilliance of Martin Johnson, Lawrence Dallaglio and co. They were the best front eight in the world and I still do not think there have been any better since, and as this post has stated, you need seven world class players, well back then you had at least eight, which was your pack, then you sprinkle in Will Greenwood, Jason Robinson, Johnny Wilkinson and Mike Catt and there you have it.

Ben Youngs?

Honestly i would put Danny Care a head of Ben Youngs right now.

Not in a month of Sundays. Care had a better season on the whole last year as Youngs struggled for fitness. Ben used the rest period between the end of the normal season and playoffs to get in some conditioning and he looked lean come the final where he was easily the best Tigers player on the pitch and dragged Tigers into a position to nearly win the game. A player on the losing side was never going to get man of the match but there's a decent arguement that Youngs should have. The second test against SA was the best display from an English 9 in about a decade. Again he dragged England into a position to challenge for the win.

Care is a damn good scrum half but he hasn't got that ability to create something from nothing and drag his team either back into a game or ease them away to victory.

However, I disagree with Lancaster. 7 world class players for a team is just silly. Building you team around those guys is massively risky, what if they get injured? SCW showed and NZ demonstrated it again in the last RWC, great teams have great squads. It is just as important to have quality in depth as it is to have quality on the field. The competition drives players on and when the inevitible injuries happen you can deal with it. Build a group of 30 to 40 players who have a cap or two and who are all competing for the starting team.

Care is quality but isn't in Youngs league for me.

I actually didn't think Care was that great last season, just steady.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Ben Youngs?

Honestly i would put Danny Care a head of Ben Youngs right now.

Not in a month of Sundays. Care had a better season on the whole last year as Youngs struggled for fitness. Ben used the rest period between the end of the normal season and playoffs to get in some conditioning and he looked lean come the final where he was easily the best Tigers player on the pitch and dragged Tigers into a position to nearly win the game. A player on the losing side was never going to get man of the match but there's a decent arguement that Youngs should have. The second test against SA was the best display from an English 9 in about a decade. Again he dragged England into a position to challenge for the win.

Care is a damn good scrum half but he hasn't got that ability to create something from nothing and drag his team either back into a game or ease them away to victory.

However, I disagree with Lancaster. 7 world class players for a team is just silly. Building you team around those guys is massively risky, what if they get injured? SCW showed and NZ demonstrated it again in the last RWC, great teams have great squads. It is just as important to have quality in depth as it is to have quality on the field. The competition drives players on and when the inevitible injuries happen you can deal with it. Build a group of 30 to 40 players who have a cap or two and who are all competing for the starting team.

Sam I agree with you on the squad depth requirement. It is vital to have a depth of players who are all competing for starting places, creating an environment where people are pushed to perform and up the standard.

What I think some people are missing here is that actually this is quite a mature assessment my Lancaster. No one is saying that you can field a team of 7 World Class players and 8 mediocre ones. But it is a requirement of a top class side that you do have a number of truly world class players.

The likelihood that a team can field a match day 23 that would be able to be immediately transposed onto a World 23 is frankly absurd. There will almost never be a time when everyone in a Test squad is world class, by nature of the rare talent that requires them to scale these heights. Are we honestly going to claim that every World Cup winning side was stuffed with 22 'World Class' players?

Some people have done a brief assessment of their own teams and the best team in the world at present, and a team that has held that accolade consistently for very long periods of time has arguably 9 or 10 truly world class players in it. That stems from a country which has Rugby as its national sport, and the best youth and academy system in the world.

What Lancaster is saying here is that if not a full XV of world class players then how many would it take, not to win games on their own but inspire other players to achieve more and so create a team better than the sum of its parts. It seems to me very sensible. There are many great teams who have performed at high standards without fifteen world class players in it.

The only caveat I would add, is that for me those seven players have to constitutive the most important positions on the pitch for it to work.

I wonder if any of you guys watched Ben Youngs in the 6 nations and rugby world cup.

On his day he's good but when he's not he can't do anything right.

Sgt Pooly you mention B.Youngs having a good game. He has about 1 good game every 4 appearances. Awful in the world cup bar against Argentina. Awful in the 6 nations bar against Ireland. Yes the SA tour was better but he needs to do that consistently.

If Youngs is supposedly the 2nd best scrum half in the world then that doesn't say much about the other 9s!

I rate Care over Youngs but then I would, wouldn't I?

I wonder if any of you guys watched Ben Youngs in the 6 nations and rugby world cup

Yep, in the RWC he was suffering from the knee surgery he had mere weeks before the tournament started. After his return to Tigers he was deemed unfit to start for over a month. Even after that he was clearly short on conditioning. In the 6N he suffered massively from England's policy of kick first and pass second. Yet when the England team introduced Manu and we started playing some attacking rugby he started to look better, particularly against Ireland where he came on raised the tempo and scored a cheeky try from a scrummage penalty.

He isn't as consistent as he needs to be but he is only 22 and improving year on year, slowly but surely. Care should now be in his prime but can't influence the game nearly as much as Youngs. Care is more reliably consistent though.

Beshocked.....Youngs was poor in the 6N but playing with Farrell at FH is enough to make Genia look bad.