Did Stewart Lancaster put out the wrong team yesterday?

I just thinking about the game yesterday. And thought was Englands loss because of the wrong team selection?

Or did England lose because of wrong decisions taken on the field? Taken a tap and go when they should of taken kicks at goal? Should the decision to tap and go come from the captain, rather than a player make a snap decision on his own?

It is nice for a coach to have consistancy in the team, but does playing the same team every week become a little predicatable?

How many changes should their be this week? And if changes are going to be made, will the players that are changed make England a better team than the one/s that have started both games so far?

England are a young team granted. But if they want to climb the IRB World Rankins shouldn't they bring in one or two, more experienced players. ( Nick Easter Mark Cuato ) to name just two of them.
Or Are England a better team with out these old heads in the team?

DISCUSS.

No team selection was not wrong in that respect. Easter and Cueto should no longer be any where near the team.

Waldrom, despite being Englands leading tackler and one of the only players to do even vaguely well should not have played in my opinion. But not to be replaced by Easter.


In hindsight retaining Sharples over Monye was probably a mistake - but one pretty much everyone would have made.

Excuses?

Morgannwg wrote:Excuses?

We were not good enough. Does that count as an excuse?

Robshaw should play 8, and Waldrom should never play international rugby again.

I'd stick Mauritz Botha in at 6. That Marler guy is a Muppet and management should make him shave his stupid haircut until he learns to scrummage properly.

England are short of a genuine 7, an international 10, and a center. Other than that they are a good team, although both genuine full back options are raw and Ashton needs a kick in the ass.

The painfully evident nepotism going on in Farrel's continual inclusion at 10 needs to be stamped out by management beyond the selection group.

I suspect English clubs should be banned from playing off-shore resources in these positions until the national team selection issue is sorted out.

Australia were better then us at everything?

Has a link been found between haircuts and scrummaging ability then?

Most props either don't have hair or have no control over it. Maybe the extra few minutes they get during the day because of that they spend on scrummaging...

No, England were better at spurning opportunities and throwing the game away.

Stupid haircuts are a sign of arrogance and individualism. There's no room for that in a team, especially not in a tight five. Having a cut like that indicates he believes he's a super-star. It's acceptable if he is a super-star, but he was trounced in his core responsibility and offered nothing around the field.

anotherworldofpain wrote:No, England were better at spurning opportunities and throwing the game away.

Touche, score one for the Red Rose.

Is Morgan injured?

LondonTiger wrote:

Morgannwg wrote:Excuses?

We were not good enough. Does that count as an excuse?

Not you, the poster of the article.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Is Morgan injured?

No, he scored a hat-trick for Glaws yesterday in what was a truly majestic performance.

EnglishReign wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Is Morgan injured?

No, he scored a hat-trick for Glaws yesterday in what was a truly majestic performance.

The last thing we want is an 8 who can score tries, flaming show boater.

Why has he been dropped?

England were clearly the better side at goal kicking, but didn't want to take advantage of this unfair dominance.

Morgannwg wrote:Excuses?

I was not making excuses for why England lost yesterday. England lost because they was not good enough.

I was just asking the question that by playing the same team/players every week is a good thing or a bad thing.

Should the team put put by any nation be messured by the strenght of the opposition. Rather than relying on consistant perfrormance from the same team week in week out?

This is.the team that most fans said they wanted to start with one or two debates on positions.....they lost to a more streetwise team....and more intelligent...

If Marler has anything about him he will take.this on the chin learn from it and become the better player....

Likewise Robshaw has seen the effects of his decisions...he will be more experienceed through that.

It wasn't the wrong team...they're just not quite at the stage maybe some of.us.thought they were at. But they will get better....and just need selection tweaks. Launchbury must start....and.

in the esp Farrell needs to go...Burns, twelvetrees should come in etc...but radical overhauls are.not required.

GeordieFalcon wrote:This is.the team that most fans said they wanted to start with one or two debates on positions.....they lost to a more streetwise team....and more intelligent...

If Marler has anything about him he will take.this on the chin learn from it and become the better player....

Likewise Robshaw has seen the effects of his decisions...he will be more experienceed through that.

It wasn't the wrong team...they're just not quite at the stage maybe some of.us.thought they were at. But they will get better....and just need selection tweaks. Launchbury must start....and.

in the esp Farrell needs to go...Burns, twelvetrees should come in etc...but radical overhauls are.not required.

I think it was the wrong team, personally, and it was not the team I would have started. Waldrom did ok, but I've seen nothing to suggest he carries better than Morgan. Johnson is evidently too lightweight and has dropped off tackles in each game he's played. Marler's carrying in the tight has looked poor, it was reasonable to start him over Mako. But i see no reason why he should keep his place. Mako scrummaged no worse than him when he came on. Palmer has looked like he's running on fumes and has looked a worse prospect that Launchbury for Wasps.

Farrell on the bench, Barritt. None of them are selection howlers, but I don't think they're right.

LondonTiger wrote:No team selection was not wrong in that respect. Easter and Cueto should no longer be any where near the team.

Waldrom, despite being Englands leading tackler and one of the only players to do even vaguely well should not have played in my opinion. But not to be replaced by Easter.


In hindsight retaining Sharples over Monye was probably a mistake - but one pretty much everyone would have made.

"Waldrom, despite being Englands leading tackler and one of the only players to do even vaguely well should not have played in my opinion."

That's a brave statement. Do you have issues with his eligibility or something else then? Would you have preferred a better qualified but less abled back row forward then?

Love these 'It's about <replace with team name> a.k.a. you just weren't looking (again)'

posts.

Perhaps it was something to do with the 15 that Oz DID put out?

I don't get excited when I look at the teamsheet because I don't yet have a good sense of what each England player offers at Test level.

So far, the best England performances under Lancaster have been about the team pulling together rather than individuals standing out.

In Martin Johnson's best days, Lawes, Youngs and Ashton came on the scene and looked top class while the likes of Flutey and Easter seemed to fill a useful niche. A few experienced campaigners like Sheridan and Thompson werea good complement to exciting talent like Rees and Wood.

We all know where Martin Johnson's team ended, so I'm not yearning for a return. Nevertheless, when his selections failed, it was easier to understand who had played badly.

It's not so easy with Lancaster. For instance, there's a broad consensus that Joe Marler was a flop. Well, in the same ficture in 2008, Andrew Sheridan was expected to take the Wallaby front row to the cleaners and conspicuously failed. No-one called for him to be immediately dropped.

Marler is no Sheridan, and did have a very bad game, but the blame heaped on him is disproportionate. It reflects the fact we don't really have a sense of how most of these England players rank against the best in the world, and what we should expect from them individually.

Surely dropping Marler will knock his confidence...much more than this game will have.

He will be itching to get out there against the Boks and prove that he is good enough...

On a side note...maybe now we are seeing the value of Hartley...

I thought the selection was reasonable. I think there will be changes for next week, but actually I don't think England were that bad. Australia turned up, at least for most of the game, England didn't seem to want to play in the first half and made some poor decisions in the second half but that is a game England could have won and will hopefully have learnt from.

In terms of who didn't play well:

Marler: Horrible game, but all young props have to have games like that. I think starting Vunipola against SA is probably more risky than seeing if Marler can bounce back. If Corbs were fully match fit I'd bring him straight back in though.
Youngs: Terrible missed tackle in the build up to the try. Otherwise generally ok given his incredible inexperience at hooker (is it about 5 career starts to date?) but possibly to blame for some of the issues at the breakdown. Worth perserving with.
Palmer: Doesn't look in great form. I suspect he'll either be benched or drop out of the 23 next week.
Johnson: Also not great, and will probably drop at least as far as the bench.
Care: Surely has to take some blame for the fact basic chips over the top had England in trouble time after time. Because there will be other changes probably won't be sropped next week, but his advantage over Youngs has almost evapourated.
Sharples: Very disappointing. I'd be tempted to drop him.
Barritt: The sort of performance alongside Tuilagi I'd feared. I'd give him one more chance though.
Tuilagi: Very lucky to just make the try line when he should have passed to Sharples. This England centre partnership doesn't convince me, but it probably isn't his starting place at risk.


As I said though, I'm not sure any of the above were selection errors, they just didn't come off.

Taylorman wrote:Love these 'It's about <replace with team name> a.k.a. you just weren't looking (again)'

posts.

Perhaps it was something to do with the 15 that Oz DID put out?

I can't see why, after seeing your team's players out played, that you shouldn't ask the question 'Do we have anyone who might have given them a better game?'. The inference is you think there is some sort of lack of respect for how Oz played.

Given plenty of us have questioned the selections of SL prior to the match, it seems a legitimate question. When you lose, and want to work out how to beat your opponents what would you ask yourself? How can we play better?

The logical conclusion is through better coaching and better raw materials. The latter of which is being discussed, the former of which is being discussed elsewhere. The alternative is to say, well done Australia (which most have), geez, your players and coaches are much better than ours (which they were)...ah well, see you the next time you give us a beating.

If people are desperate to paint fans as sore losers for indulging in the age-old pastime of Fantasy Rugby picks, I think it's a sad thing.

Rugby Fan wrote:I don't get excited when I look at the teamsheet because I don't yet have a good sense of what each England player offers at Test level.

So far, the best England performances under Lancaster have been about the team pulling together rather than individuals standing out.

In Martin Johnson's best days, Lawes, Youngs and Ashton came on the scene and looked top class while the likes of Flutey and Easter seemed to fill a useful niche. A few experienced campaigners like Sheridan and Thompson werea good complement to exciting talent like Rees and Wood.

We all know where Martin Johnson's team ended, so I'm not yearning for a return. Nevertheless, when his selections failed, it was easier to understand who had played badly.

It's not so easy with Lancaster. For instance, there's a broad consensus that Joe Marler was a flop. Well, in the same ficture in 2008, Andrew Sheridan was expected to take the Wallaby front row to the cleaners and conspicuously failed. No-one called for him to be immediately dropped.

Marler is no Sheridan, and did have a very bad game, but the blame heaped on him is disproportionate. It reflects the fact we don't really have a sense of how most of these England players rank against the best in the world, and what we should expect from them individually.

Think this is a fair point. England show zero consistency. In fact, ditto Ireland. The result is it's hard to place them against the SH teams. Yes we're behind them, but how far?

Rugby Fan wrote:

Marler is no Sheridan, and did have a very bad game, but the blame heaped on him is disproportionate.

Indeed. Props, more than any other position, get judged on how they square up against their opposite number but the reality is, a front row, certainly at scrum time, should be assessed as a unit. The 6N showed us that Corbisiero, Hartley and Cole, in general, operated well as a unit throughout that campaign against a very fine selection of opposite front rows and came away with their reputations enhanced. They clearly feel very comfortable with each other and their body shapes and techniques are obviously well aligned. That isn't always the case and yesterday showed that.

Marler and Youngs are very inexperienced and came up against a decent Aussie front row. Alexander got into Marler by hitting straight and binding quick. Marler has that unusual long binding technique and just couldn't get his bind correctly. The fact that Alexander didn't do the usual TH trick of boring in on the hooker meant that his hips were not as easy for Marler to get his bind on simply as the angle was longer. Yes, a more experienced prop would have made adjustments, but Marler isn't that guy. Yet. He wasn't helped by Youngs who, although a fine prospect is equally inexperienced and got hopelessly isolated by Polota-Nau on more than one occasion.

Although Cole wasn't as destructive as he can be, England should be mightily thankful he was out there, or that scrum would have started doing a decent impression of Ireland's earlier in the year. Robinson is no mug at scrum time, particularly when he has no opposition hooker to worry about and gets a free shot at his opposition TH. Cole had his hands full doing his primary role of locking out the scrum. He may not have 'got into' Robinson, but he certainly stopped what could have been a horrific retreat. I am not sure if Thomas Domingo played the other day against the Aussies (?), but give someone like that a free shot at his opposite TH, and I don't care if you're Adam Jones, Carl Hayman or Dan Cole, you are going to go backwards.

England missed Hartley as well. He has a reputation for popping up, but part of that is because he takes far more of the weight of England's scrum than Youngs and why wouldn't he, seeing as he is a lifelong number 2 and knows his way around international scrummaging. Rowntree is not stupid and knows how to set front rows up. He can get away with much more having Hartley there as he knows Dylan can take more weight and defend his position against the opposite hooker/LH allowing Cole to do what he does best, getting into his opposite LH. Hartley is much bigger than Youngs, and Corbisiero is slightly bigger than Marler and has a 'traditional' bind. All these things come into play when assessing how we should judge Marler's performance.

I would bring Corbisiero back in if he is fit enough, but I don't think Marler should be crucified for his performance when there is so much more to consider.

IMO if Wood, Launchburry, Morgan and a decent LH who could scrummage had been selected to start England would have won.

Also, Sharples can't defend, Barritt can't create and Tuilagi can't pass - so that doesn't help.

Having said that I wish Wales had shown 10% of the passion, speed and urgency that England tried to play with.

Rugby Fan wrote:I don't get excited when I look at the teamsheet because I don't yet have a good sense of what each England player offers at Test level.

So far, the best England performances under Lancaster have been about the team pulling together rather than individuals standing out.

In Martin Johnson's best days, Lawes, Youngs and Ashton came on the scene and looked top class while the likes of Flutey and Easter seemed to fill a useful niche. A few experienced campaigners like Sheridan and Thompson werea good complement to exciting talent like Rees and Wood.

We all know where Martin Johnson's team ended, so I'm not yearning for a return. Nevertheless, when his selections failed, it was easier to understand who had played badly.

It's not so easy with Lancaster. For instance, there's a broad consensus that Joe Marler was a flop. Well, in the same ficture in 2008, Andrew Sheridan was expected to take the Wallaby front row to the cleaners and conspicuously failed. No-one called for him to be immediately dropped.

Marler is no Sheridan, and did have a very bad game, but the blame heaped on him is disproportionate. It reflects the fact we don't really have a sense of how most of these England players rank against the best in the world, and what we should expect from them individually.

Great post

Australia team: over 700 caps
England : over 300 caps

The inexperience showed in the front row.
And in the skipper's decision making - which would have been ok at Quins, but this was a top 3 international side. Kick the effing points !

If Marler came out second best in the scrumn against the Wallabies, how will he do against the Boks?

doctor_grey wrote:If Marler came out second best in the scrumn against the Wallabies, how will he do against the Boks?

I think you would see a pretty similar performance at scrum time. It would be tight, with the Saffers nicking it on points. I think Rowntree will be smart enough to help Marler and Youngs make some minor adjustments to body shape and binds, Cole would break his own back trying to contend with whomever SA pick at LH whilst trying to protect Youngs at the same time and both teams would win a few, lose a few.

SA are not the monsters they once were at scrum time and I can't believe Marler would not be smart enough/coached enough this week to make adjustments and show up better on Saturday.

Having said that, Corbs will probably come in and should be meaty enough to make a difference.

doctor_grey wrote:If Marler came out second best in the scrumn against the Wallabies, how will he do against the Boks?

Watch some of the SI's, that'll give you an idea.

I hope (but am not fully convinced) it was a selection issue because the loss to Oz was a biggy. We had a huge opportunity to beat one of the top 3 sides and show that SL’s England were progressing towards the next world cup – with all the injuries to the Aus side, the spanking they took by the French, and having to travel halfway across the globe to England’s HQ. Instead we’re likely to go into the next 6N with a team arguably no better than the 2012 one (we did finish 2nd), and quite a lot worse than Jonno’s sides in the 2010 & 11 ones.

Robshaw was outplayed by a stand-in Aus #7, and outthought by a smarter captain. Our front-row was beaten by an Aus scrum we like to ridicule. And our centres were neutralized all day. SL has a lot of work to do.

Yes but Barney to say he was a stand in Aus 7...he played better than Pocock himself. Aus have blatantly got ANOTHER top class 7 on their production line....

Robshaw has generally captained very well since he took over...and he had a bad day at the office...not just captaincy wise but his actual performance also.
I belive even Flood overruled him after he had already said go for the posts...and Flood went for touch. He'll learn from that.....at this level you need to be absolutely ruthless when you make your decisions...do you think Flood would have overruled Johno...or Will carling etc...nope. He also will learn you need to keep those points ticking over. But he would have been a captain marvel had they scored tries....

Marler and Youngs (Not Cole) had a hard day at the office..and i guess Youngs is one to be scrutinised...massively inexperienced at any level in this position.
Marler however is a (young) talent that must not be scrapped for one bad day at the office. His scrummaging was not his strongest area (shameful for a prop in my eyes) however it has improved substantially....and he is still coming up against good props in the aussies front row...lets not disprespect them.

He was taught a lesson and now knows having played the bulk and power of the boks to the intelligence of the Aussies...what is required if he wants to succeed at this level.
Give him a chance to redeem himself so to speak against the boks.

They ALL need to put a good shift in against the Boks....

Hmm the game was a reality check. Aside from Hooper this Aus side is fairly average. England are averager. If Wales hadn't gone into a reality check of their own I'd have put money on them beating this Aus. This was a perfect opportunity to whitewash them in the NH (and gain some bragging rights). The only positive for England is that they've blooded a number of half-decent young players. But whether they'll be up to speed by RWC2015 I've yet to be convinced. For some time we've been lacking at SR, BR (mostly by injury or selection) & centre - and we still are.

Hopefully a few of this crop of youngsters will move on to the next level - World Class...certainly i think launchbury has that ability.

I'd love to see a second row of Lawes and Launchury...with Wood at 6 to call the lineout...think that has a nice physical look to it...but all 3 are strong in the lineout.

It's not as though anyone needs excuses for losing by the odd score to Australia (except maybe the ABs). It's relatively early days under Lancaster, he's still finding his best 15, and that was a pretty inexperienced side. I don't think England should beat themselves up about it.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Marler is no Sheridan, and did have a very bad game, but the blame heaped on him is disproportionate.

Indeed. Props, more than any other position, get judged on how they square up against their opposite number but the reality is, a front row, certainly at scrum time, should be assessed as a unit. The 6N showed us that Corbisiero, Hartley and Cole, in general, operated well as a unit throughout that campaign against a very fine selection of opposite front rows and came away with their reputations enhanced. They clearly feel very comfortable with each other and their body shapes and techniques are obviously well aligned. That isn't always the case and yesterday showed that.

Marler and Youngs are very inexperienced and came up against a decent Aussie front row. Alexander got into Marler by hitting straight and binding quick. Marler has that unusual long binding technique and just couldn't get his bind correctly. The fact that Alexander didn't do the usual TH trick of boring in on the hooker meant that his hips were not as easy for Marler to get his bind on simply as the angle was longer. Yes, a more experienced prop would have made adjustments, but Marler isn't that guy. Yet. He wasn't helped by Youngs who, although a fine prospect is equally inexperienced and got hopelessly isolated by Polota-Nau on more than one occasion.

Although Cole wasn't as destructive as he can be, England should be mightily thankful he was out there, or that scrum would have started doing a decent impression of Ireland's earlier in the year. Robinson is no mug at scrum time, particularly when he has no opposition hooker to worry about and gets a free shot at his opposition TH. Cole had his hands full doing his primary role of locking out the scrum. He may not have 'got into' Robinson, but he certainly stopped what could have been a horrific retreat. I am not sure if Thomas Domingo played the other day against the Aussies (?), but give someone like that a free shot at his opposite TH, and I don't care if you're Adam Jones, Carl Hayman or Dan Cole, you are going to go backwards.

England missed Hartley as well. He has a reputation for popping up, but part of that is because he takes far more of the weight of England's scrum than Youngs and why wouldn't he, seeing as he is a lifelong number 2 and knows his way around international scrummaging. Rowntree is not stupid and knows how to set front rows up. He can get away with much more having Hartley there as he knows Dylan can take more weight and defend his position against the opposite hooker/LH allowing Cole to do what he does best, getting into his opposite LH. Hartley is much bigger than Youngs, and Corbisiero is slightly bigger than Marler and has a 'traditional' bind. All these things come into play when assessing how we should judge Marler's performance.

I would bring Corbisiero back in if he is fit enough, but I don't think Marler should be crucified for his performance when there is so much more to consider.

great post, very informative!

Wonder if the rule was changed to force all props to bing long and stop them raising their bent elbows to stop the opposite bind would work??

I want to see scrums contested via pushing and the strike, not as it has been in the last 10 years or so...see who can gain a penalty

damage_13 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Marler is no Sheridan, and did have a very bad game, but the blame heaped on him is disproportionate.

Indeed. Props, more than any other position, get judged on how they square up against their opposite number but the reality is, a front row, certainly at scrum time, should be assessed as a unit. The 6N showed us that Corbisiero, Hartley and Cole, in general, operated well as a unit throughout that campaign against a very fine selection of opposite front rows and came away with their reputations enhanced. They clearly feel very comfortable with each other and their body shapes and techniques are obviously well aligned. That isn't always the case and yesterday showed that.

Marler and Youngs are very inexperienced and came up against a decent Aussie front row. Alexander got into Marler by hitting straight and binding quick. Marler has that unusual long binding technique and just couldn't get his bind correctly. The fact that Alexander didn't do the usual TH trick of boring in on the hooker meant that his hips were not as easy for Marler to get his bind on simply as the angle was longer. Yes, a more experienced prop would have made adjustments, but Marler isn't that guy. Yet. He wasn't helped by Youngs who, although a fine prospect is equally inexperienced and got hopelessly isolated by Polota-Nau on more than one occasion.

Although Cole wasn't as destructive as he can be, England should be mightily thankful he was out there, or that scrum would have started doing a decent impression of Ireland's earlier in the year. Robinson is no mug at scrum time, particularly when he has no opposition hooker to worry about and gets a free shot at his opposition TH. Cole had his hands full doing his primary role of locking out the scrum. He may not have 'got into' Robinson, but he certainly stopped what could have been a horrific retreat. I am not sure if Thomas Domingo played the other day against the Aussies (?), but give someone like that a free shot at his opposite TH, and I don't care if you're Adam Jones, Carl Hayman or Dan Cole, you are going to go backwards.

England missed Hartley as well. He has a reputation for popping up, but part of that is because he takes far more of the weight of England's scrum than Youngs and why wouldn't he, seeing as he is a lifelong number 2 and knows his way around international scrummaging. Rowntree is not stupid and knows how to set front rows up. He can get away with much more having Hartley there as he knows Dylan can take more weight and defend his position against the opposite hooker/LH allowing Cole to do what he does best, getting into his opposite LH. Hartley is much bigger than Youngs, and Corbisiero is slightly bigger than Marler and has a 'traditional' bind. All these things come into play when assessing how we should judge Marler's performance.

I would bring Corbisiero back in if he is fit enough, but I don't think Marler should be crucified for his performance when there is so much more to consider.

great post, very informative! :ale:

Wonder if the rule was changed to force all props to bing long and stop them raising their bent elbows to stop the opposite bind would work??

I want to see scrums contested via pushing and the strike, not as it has been in the last 10 years or so...see who can gain a penalty

Thanks mate.

The scrum has evolved now to the point where stopping your opposition getting their bind is considered an art form. I am not sure I would go as far as saying props should be forced to bind 'long', but there certainly should be some extra material for props to bind on. It has been highlighted before and I am not saying anything new, but how many scrums collapse when props miss their bind. The force of the hit these days gives props seconds to get a good grip, if even that. If they don't, the scrum is going to collapse naturally, or they are going to feel the pressure and take it down themselves in the hope of getting a re-set. It is a pretty simple concept and would begin the long process of eliminating the never ending cycle of re-set scrums.

I don't like to hark back to glorious past days, as we invariably look back with rose-tinted spectacles, but props used to be there to scrummage, make a guard at the ruck and stamp on people. Nowadays they are auxiliary flankers who are expected to scrum, hit rucks, make tackles and actually run more than 5 yards without stopping for a ciggie. So we have diluted the technique of propping but increased the impact every time they pack down. There is less synergy between propping technique and the actual dynamics of the the scrum. It has to change.

All said and done, the original point remains valid, that Marler's performance needs to be viewed in the context of the other two guys in the front row. We should be crediting Ben Alexander for his intelligent scrummaging technique rather than ripping apart a 4 game novice with a 2 game novice next to him.

Great posts Tino .... fancy coming to Ireland and sorting out our scrummaging?.....

I agree with his logic on not selecting the French players who wont be released for the New Zealand game. Long term theres a bigger issue hich is beyond Lancasters control with that.

I disagree with his stuborness over Easter.

rodders wrote:Great posts Tino .... fancy coming to Ireland and sorting out our scrummaging?.....

Whats the pay like mate? If its any good, I am all yours.

I am only a humble ex-hooker though so don't expect too much! I did play LH a few times but could barely straighten my back for 2 days afterwards. Hooking is much easier. Hang between two fat guys, hook the ball back (in the days when we still did that) and then get straight into the 10/12 channel and disrupt the backs fancy strike moves!

My take on it was that Marler was injured early on (calf / ankle) and should have been hauled off then. He certainly received quite a bit of treatment at the time and the front row is the last place you want to be running off knock.

Doesn't excuse his ball handling skills though (special mentions for Robshaw and Tuilagi in this category as well). Embarrassing that England internationals can't pass.

seanmichaels wrote:

Doesn't excuse his ball handling skills though (special mentions for Robshaw and Tuilagi in this category as well). Embarrassing that England internationals can't pass.

Even more special mention for Danny Care. His passing is shocking for an international number 9. I went to the Fiji game and the groans from the crowd were palpable every time Flood picked one up from either around his ankles or plucked one from in front of his face.

I get what Care bring in terms of breaks around the fringe and setting a pacey tempo, but his passing is just dreadful.

I'd love to see the stats on Tuilagi passing the ball to either winger

But normaly hes not. Theres not much a coach can be blamed for on a playe r having a bad day ...unless they do it too often and get lumped in the flakey catagory. In general Cares passing game is adequate, one bad day at the office doesnt change that. its still better to have a 9 with the attacking instinct and ability to make space for other than Dickson flapping round like a fish and putting in accurate passes for the centers to get nailed and driven back.
Care was in the side on merit in terms of how hes been playing recently, how his played lon term term , and on how England play bese with ball in hand.
It really is hard to make a cas ethat his selection was bad, even if he didnt actually play that well in the end

I wouldn't say his passing is ever that great but that is just my take on it. It was very, very poor against Fiji and only marginally better on Saturday.

Yes, he is better suited to international rugby than Dickson but he still needs to work on his basic pass from the breakdown. It is not good enough. But, I agree he should be in the team as he offers more than the other number 9's at present.

No that team was fine for that game. We were in touch by 6 points with 20 mins to go. We blinked first and lost our composure. Had we taken 3 points and got within 3 with 20 left who knows what might have happened.

I will say that we looked like we had under estimated the Aus team with 20 to go. Defensively they were very good.

seanmichaels wrote:I'd love to see the stats on Tuilagi passing the ball to either winger

https://i.servimg.com/u/f48/17/48/59/42/tuilag12.jpg


This bloke has worked it out!

bench him!! (Manu...not the Prof)