Will Lancaster learn anything from the Lions win?

First topic message reminder :

Or will he blindly keep calm and carry on? Some tips from me are:-

#1. Power blended with pace wins rugby matches. Soften them up with the bludgeon and then apply the finish with pace.

This means:-
1. Tom Youngs is too under-powered to start a test match. Much better off the bench.
2. Corbs is the real deal at loose-head.
3. Cole is a little under-powered at scrum time but may get better. Hopefully.
4. Croft was found out by Gatland. He is lightweight and goes absent from the coal-face too often. Let him go like Gatland did.
5. Stop playing people out of position FFS. Put wingers on the wing, #8s at #8 and full-backs at full-back for goodness sake.
6. Let Chris Ashton go even though you think he's a nice boy. He has had his chance to show he can tackle and failed.
7. You must power-up the back-line. Will Greenwood stood well above both Roberts and Davies when he interviewed them. You must find some big boys and develop them. You only have 2 years left.

Oh and lastly, under-estimate the power of the Welsh team at your peril. They were magnificent in Aus.

It's all about what England need as a team to push them on a little bit further. I think most would agree Tuilagi has to start so who do you play with him for the best balance? Barritt has done ok but would the better passing of 36 or Eastmond balance out losing the better defence of BB? The pack did well in most games but do we need a stronger scrum even if it means dropping player of the season Youngs? Do we need some real pace in the back 3 (or perhaps a winger playing on the wing!)?

It can be harsh on players who have performed well and seem like picking on a certain team but sport at this level is all about fine margins and how, as a team, we can get the best from them. It doesn't necessarily mean picking or favourite, or even best, players.

Oh come on Geordiefalcon

What has Garvey done recently to warrant a call up? Very little. Who would you have him replace?

Goode can't be questioned now because he's injured. Ashton has been criticised plenty of times. Ditto Strettle. Of course quite a bit of the criticism is warranted but it's disproportional.

Chequeredjersey who criticised Robshaw on his playing? I thought the only criticism was for one call in the SA game blown out of proportion? Brown isn't blamed. It's Lancaster's fault according to most. Marler hasn't had that much criticism compared to others.

But beshocked...Ashton deserved the criticism...he shouldnt have been in the side he was that out of form and confidence...but id say that was Lancs fault not to recognise that and do something about it.

You know its not just about the top teams. The smaller teams have good players aswell...or do you only advocate players from the top 4 clubs should be selected for England???!!!

Ask LI fans how good Garvey has been and they'll tell you. They'd have happily given up Corbs Joseph etc if they had just kept hold of Garvey....thats says something to me! Im sure he'll prove it with bath also.

Barritt gets extremely high praise for his defence, and to be fair he misses very few tackles, but does anyone remember him actually putting in any big hits in an England shirt, stopping an attack dead in its tracks? Off the top of my head I don't recall an occasion. Yes he is a very good defender, but is he really that much better in defence than any if the other options? Certainly not Twelvetrees who is very good himself. Combine this with his utter hopelessness in attack and I really can't fathom how any impartial observer could possibly select him.

To be fair, 'shocked, the (ongoing) criticism of Robshaw directly parallels the criticism of Barritt. Neither cops much as complaint for what they have done on the pitch as for the sort of player they are and the fact that there are other players out there that people would like to see in their positions.

Barritt is a staunch defender but not the man to lead an attacking backline. Robshaw is a workhorse 6.5 who's not as good at [insert skill of choice here] as [insert name of player who is better at that skill here]. Apparently.

The truth is more complicated. Barritt was part of an attacking backline with Tuilagi against NZ and 36 against Scotland. Robshaw was part of a back row that tamed NZ and took Scotland apart. But both of them were part of combinations that failed to spark later in the season. People on these boards will continue to use the part of the evidence that supports their case.

The key point for me is that at this stage there is a critical mass of players who are now known quantities for Lancaster and he can begin to form combinations with half an eye on the World Cup. Some good players will be casualties along the way, whether we like it or not.

beshocked wrote:Londontiger I criticised Manu but I am a lone voice. Most of the criticism was levelled at Ashton and Farrell.

chjw131

Okay I will give credit to Burns - well done. You showed you can defend in two matches vs a 3rd string Argentina.

Sounds like a pretty poor excuse for not scoring tries. You could level the same thing at Wasps - struggling to find consistency... struggling up front etc. Okay they haven't got a new coach but that hasn't stopped sides in the past.

Gloucester do have attacking talent but sure but I think it's a bit overstated. I expect more from players who have praise heaped on them so much.

I'd take the Saints,Quins,Sarries,Leicester,Bath and Wasps backlines over Gloucester to be honest. Perhaps the underrated Exeter one too and even London Irish give Gloucester's backs a run for their money.

Come on Beshocked not even you are that blinkered surely. By that logic then we'd have any of the back-lines of London Irish, Leicester Tigers, Harlequins, Gloucester, Northampton Saints, Exeter Chiefs and London Wasps for the 2011/12 season.

All over and above Saracens who scored a paltry 35 tries, leaving them ranked 8th in the AP that year.

For the 2012/13 season we'd have all of the same teams bar Gloucester who Saracens scored a total of ONE more try than for that season. They did manage to improve on the previous season's ranking but only by one place to 7th in the AP.

At this rate we'd be changing England back-lines like we change bed linen. Can you see quite how farcical your usual arguments are now relying solely on what one might term the 'black and white'.

I think plenty of players have had been subject to criticism in an England shirt in the last 12 months, I don't think it's purely Saracens.

Disclaimer - these aren't necessarily my views, but are representative of typical debates on here!

Wilson (Bath) - general consensus that he is very lucky to be in the squad and makes little impact when coming off the bench

Marler (Quins) - scrummaging not good enough, too hot headed

Hartley (Saints) - stands up in the scrum, concedes too many penalties

Youngs (Tigers) - poor lineout throwing, shuts off middle and back jumper, preventing quick ball off the top

Young B (Tigers) - too ponderous, takes steps towards the ten, poor box kicking

Flood (Tigers) - doesn't commit defenders

Farrell (Sarries) - too defensive, kicks ball away

Barritt (Sarries) - doesn't create enough

Tuilagi (Tigers) - butchers overlaps, doesn't pass enough

Ashton (Sarries) - awful defence, general over hype

Brown (Quins) - too slow and positionally poor

Robshaw (Quins) - poor decision making, not good enough at 6 or 7

Croft (Tigers) - doesn't do enough hard yards

I only make that 3 Sarries players, 5 from Tigers, 3 from Quins and a few others. I'd say it is all pretty even!

ps. I'd happily criticise more Bath players for their performances in an England shirt........but they're aren't enough of them! (YET) 

The number of people who have said that Robshaw isn't a real 7 and England need one and Kvesic should start based on Argentina isn't much less than those who said Barritt should be dropped as far as I can see.

The number of people who have said that Robshaw isn't a real 7 and England need one and Kvesic should start based on Argentina isn't much less than those who said Barritt should be dropped as far as I can see.

Oh and I forgot

Sharples (Glos) - poor defence and positioning

It probably seems like more Sarries players are getting criticised because there are more of them in the England set-up then ever before.

robbo277 wrote:It probably seems like more Sarries players are getting criticised because there are more of them in the England set-up then ever before.

 Quite. And in areas that we are currently weakest, ie - attacking creativity in the backs.

Thats correct...

Its actually possible that Sarries "could" have the following in the England lineup at one point during a game...

1 Mako
4 Kruis
7 Fraser
8 Billy V
10 Farrell
12 Barritt
13 Tomkins
14 Ashton
15 Goode

Could add Strettle to that list as well.

There are a lot of positives in that list. Both Vunipolas, Kruis, Fraser, Farrell and Tomkins I'm keen to see more of. I'm less enthused over Barritt, Goode and Ashton (with current England form) and I think there are better options offensively and going forward to the world cup.

I don't feel Saracens players are being singled out for criticism.

Rightly or wrongly, England supporters tend to expect our pack will at least get its fair share of the ball. When we aren't winning, the focus is almost exclusively on how our back line uses the ball.

Every England flyhalf who has won a decent number of caps over the last few decades - Cusworth, Andrew, Grayson, Wilkinson - has caught flack for kicking too much and not getting the backs moving. More creative players like Horton, Barnes & Hodgson get criticized for flakiness and/or lack of defence.

The centre combination has never been a settled affair either. After the days of players like Salmon and Simms, we seemed to go for on Guscott and Carling but Halliday and De Glanville were there more than we remember.

Even Woodward never really found a definitive pairing, and centre was his position as a player. Greenwood had his place secure but Catt partnered him when we wanted pressure off Wilkinson while Tindall took on a more muscular role.

Worth remembering that Woodward also played Barrie Jon Mather in the centre. In fact, every England coach since has ended up selecting a rugby league convert in the centre at least once.

It's nothing to do with Saracens that Farrell and Barritt are in the firing line. They just happen to be in the two positions we routinely focus on when thing aren't quite clicking for England.

Having both Catt and Tindall for different situations was ideal though. I know there's this idea that we must always play our best 15 but its pretty inescapable that different plans will work better in different situations and different plans will change what your "best 15" is

Geordiefalcon I don't think LI would give up a fit Corbisiero but his stock is lower due to injury and being missing because of England. What has Joseph done this season either?

chjw131 err that wasn't my point. I think those teams have better backlines overall. Nothing to do with the 2012-13 season try scoring. I think most of the Gloucesters' backs abilities are overstated.

I just prefer 9-15 of quite a few other teams. When you think that Wasps have the likes of Masi,Simpson,Daly,Southwell, Quins have Care,Evans,Brown,Lowe etc, Sarries have Ashton,Tomkins,Barritt,Hodgson etc, Saints have North,Elliott,Foden,Pisi etc, Tigers - Tuilagi,Allen,Flood, Youngs, Tait etc.

Defence is also important. If you are going to bring up 2011-12 - Gloucester had the 2nd worst defence. 6th in 2012-13.


Poorfour very true. Personally I think the balance of the backrow really harmed things. The absence of Morgan was felt in the 6 nations. Lancaster made silly errors when picking players out of position.

Bathite you are probably right but....

Mako Vunipola - can't scrummage

Alex Goode - too slow, what does he do? Worse than Tait,Foden and Brown

Wigglesworth - too ponderous/not good enough

Strettle - not good enough





Rugby fan very true actually. The backs particularly the 10 and 12 do seem to cop a lot more flack than I think they should.

Rugby Fan wrote:I don't feel Saracens players are being singled out for criticism.

Rightly or wrongly, England supporters tend to expect our pack will at least get its fair share of the ball. When we aren't winning, the focus is almost exclusively on how our back line uses the ball.

Every England flyhalf who has won a decent number of caps over the last few decades - Cusworth, Andrew, Grayson, Wilkinson - has caught flack for kicking too much and not getting the backs moving. More creative players like Horton, Barnes & Hodgson get criticized for flakiness and/or lack of defence.

The centre combination has never been a settled affair either. After the days of players like Salmon and Simms, we seemed to go for on Guscott and Carling but Halliday and De Glanville were there more than we remember.

Even Woodward never really found a definitive pairing, and centre was his position as a player. Greenwood had his place secure but Catt partnered him when we wanted pressure off Wilkinson while Tindall took on a more muscular role.

Worth remembering that Woodward also played Barrie Jon Mather in the centre. In fact, every England coach since has ended up selecting a rugby league convert in the centre at least once.

It's nothing to do with Saracens that Farrell and Barritt are in the firing line. They just happen to be in the two positions we routinely focus on when thing aren't quite clicking for England.

I think that is really the crux of the matter to be honest.

Farrell's caps for England so far have been at a time when he's not really been overly attacking with the ball (Scotland game aside when he was very good). Despite the fact that he looks to have really benefited from his time with the Lions and evolved a more rounded game, we haven't seen this is an England shirt consistently yet. I think it is natural to look at the inside centre when the fly half is struggling, to provide a spark and alleviate pressure. Quite simply Barritt isn't that guy, but what he does do, he does very well.

We will see come the AIs just how much Farrell's improved, and how a rejuvinated combination of Farrell-Barritt might go. Otherwise, it is likely Twelvetrees will get a look in. There's no problem with competition, it's the natural progression, and will keep players on their toes. Like others have said, having a choice between 2 guys for one position will provide excellent diversity.

In reality the the positions do come under much more scrutiny because of the nature of them. Flood, Wilkinson et al have all come in for heavy flak before now.

There is an article on the Telegraph website which is an interview with Lancs. He expressly refers to NZ and for the first time that I can remember has said that attack will be his focus going forward, making express reference to the fluidity of their counter-attack and composure from set-piece.

It seems to be we might be in for a bit of a sea-change and whilst Burns might not come straight in at FH I certainly think we'll see 36 at IC come the AIs.

Beshocked, if you think a backline of 9. J Cowan 10. F Burns 11. C Sharples 12. B Twelvetrees 13. H Trinder 14. J May 15. O Morgan is overrated and 8/9th choice in the AP then fair play to you for holding a contrary opinion.

Thursday for the EPS if it hasn't already been said.

CHjw

Its refreshing to hear that lancs is thinking about the offensive game. And despite everything i said if Farrell and Barritt are picked and Barritt in particular can surprise us all and show a creative side to his game then many of us would eat our words and say fair play.

However unlike Farrell who i believe could very much surprise us....Im not sure Barritt is capable, and i forsee Twelvetrees...or indeed Eastmond at 12 sooner rather than later.

chjw131 I am not actually sure where AP fans rate the Gloucester backline in relation to others.

I personally think they get more praise than they deserve. The Gloucester backs have been built up as attacking gods. When will they deliver?

BS aside, all that the many posts above really express is by extension Lancasters failure as an international selector. BB is just the most obvious example.

I do not have any faith that he really has a clue or for that matter the ability to learn from his experience. The sooner he is gone the better.

BS Corbisiero signed for Saints

Another way of expressing the situation is that while Farrell/Barritt can be a good combo, Burns/36 might be a better one. At some point we need to work this (or whatever alternative combo) out in the international arena rather than going with club form.

I dont know who is better out of Farrell and Burns. Neither of their strengths and weaknesses are anything like as extreme as some opinions suggest. I do think 36 will be better than Barritt, but I think he could take a while to hit his peak

Beshocked,

I dont think its the entire backline...and i dont think anyone thinks they're gods. Its Burns, May and 36.

And noone is saying they are guarenteed starters. 36 is different to Barritt, still a solid defence but has more creativity about him...has that ability to run good lines and be in the right place to support moves. Very Greenwood esque...hence the comparisons...

But he will have Eastmond at him aswell...and yes despite being against a "3rd string Argie side" as you put it...he showed a tremedous passing and playmaking ability..aswell as an ability to run the ball himself.

So it will be an interesting competition...

GeordieFalcon wrote:CHjw

Its refreshing to hear that lancs is thinking about the offensive game. And despite everything i said if Farrell and Barritt are picked and Barritt in particular can surprise us all and show a creative side to his game then many of us would eat our words and say fair play.

However unlike Farrell who i believe could very much surprise us....Im not sure Barritt is capable, and i forsee Twelvetrees...or indeed Eastmond at 12 sooner rather than later.

Indeed GF, Eastmond makes a superb bench option as well covering a large proportion of the backline.

kingelderfield wrote:BS aside, all that the many posts above really express is by extension Lancasters failure as an international selector. BB is just the most obvious example.

I do not have any faith that he really has a clue or for that matter the ability to learn from his experience. The sooner he is gone the better.

Can't agree on that point. I don't think you can realistically come in and change the whole team straight away; you need a few players who are going to be there for a while with a bit of experience to help the younger players along. Having said that we've already seen the amount of players who have been given a chance by Lancaster. I would have preferred to see certain players in the side already but I can see the building of a squad continuing. If Lancaster can get the balance of the midfield a bit better and start to include some exciting talents such as Wade, Yarde, May, Eastmond etc and a couple of good lumps in the forwards I'm going to remain optimistic.

kingelderfield wrote:BS aside, all that the many posts above really express is by extension Lancasters failure as an international selector. BB is just the most obvious example.

I do not have any faith that he really has a clue or for that matter the ability to learn from his experience. The sooner he is gone the better.

I think there's a case for that including some odd selections, but I don't think overall I would concur. The priority has to be when taking over an international team, stable basics and sound defence. Players like Barritt offer that and leadership from the likes of Dowson (even though I was apoplectic as to his inclusion originally). I don't agree with all of his playing choices nor coaching choices but that's were we are.

The crunch time for Lancs is this next 12/18 months. If we can progress as a side from a playing perspective and added in some of those unique players then he will be doing well. If we're still staring down the barrell of Farrell/Barritt/Goode etc.. then i'll be advocating his removal.

7 1/2,

I agree...Lancs has obviously had a plan...
1) Build a team that is solid, dependable and do the basics well...ie breakdown where we were notoriously bad!
Ie Players like Bad Barritt...defensive leader, Robshaw - Workhorse, never say die attitude, Botha..dependable i guess.

2) He's in general given players time (and games) to see if they are ready not just discarding them after one or two games.

3) Recently he's brought in new faces..ie Ben Morgan..Mako Vunipola..players in positions that can make things happen.

So the plan is evolving...but i think everone can see now that the midfield needs something new. He's had a chance to look at a few options, players in various positions, different tactics ie Brown on the wing etc and different midfielders...and Twelvetrees and Eastmond look pick of the bunch...but someone else like Casson could very well come in and make it their own.

But its not just individual players...i needs the gameplan to move on and progress...players need to be alert and play heads up rugby...ie the likes of Ashton would excell having Morgan making his runs, tuilagi etc.

I think personally this is going to be the most interesting season of all the recent years with regards to Englands development...

kingelderfield my name is beshocked. Please call me that or I will start calling you something derogatory too.

Failure as a selector? 4th in the world rankings - only losing to the top 3 and Wales is not bad in my opinion. I get the impression you have unrealistic expectations on how England should be doing. England aren't going to be world beaters just yet. I think Lancaster is developing the squad pool nicely.

I sincerely doubt you could do better. Bear in mind he's been in charge of a very inexperienced England side and has tried out a lot of players. He has brought in the players people want to see tried out. Are there many players that have been unfairly overlooked recently? I don't think so.

He's developed the core of the squad. He initially picked the likes of Botha and Johnson but they have been replaced. He has not stuck with them stubbornly.

Yes I know Corbisiero signed for Saints. What's your point?

Lostinwales all we know so far is that Farrell and Barritt have more experience internationally and at club level. They also happen to be on the winning side far more often than not.

chjw131 would you honestly feel confident Eastmond covering most of the backline? I certainly wouldn't. I think he needs to get comfortable in a specific position first personally. You don't seem to have learnt from the out of position curse.

Honestly if we lose to either australia or argentina this autumn then the man should do the decent thing and go. That would give his replacement half a WC chance. Truth be told we should be winning all 3 of the AI's, but any less than 2 and he should be gone.

kingelderfield why are you so harsh with Lancaster? It would be detrimental to England's efforts if they sack Lancaster now.

Who do you think is being unfairly overlooked by Lancaster? Sharples perhaps?

beshocked wrote:kingelderfield my name is beshocked. Please call me that or  I will start calling you something derogatory too.

Failure as a selector? 4th in the world rankings - only losing to the top 3 and Wales is not bad in my opinion.  I get the impression you have unrealistic expectations on how England should be doing. England aren't going to be world beaters just yet. I think Lancaster is developing the squad pool nicely.

I sincerely doubt you could do better. Bear in mind he's been in charge of a very inexperienced England side and has tried out a lot of players. He has brought in the players people want to see tried out. Are there many players that have been unfairly overlooked recently? I don't think so.

He's developed the core of the squad. He initially picked the likes of Botha and Johnson but they have been replaced. He has not stuck with them stubbornly.

Yes I know Corbisiero signed for Saints. What's your point?

Lostinwales all we know so far is that Farrell and Barritt have more experience internationally and at club level. They also happen to be on the winning side far more often than not.

chjw131 would you honestly feel confident Eastmond covering most of the backline? I certainly wouldn't. I think he needs to get comfortable in a specific position first personally. You don't seem to have learnt from the out of position curse.

Beshocked I don't need to be given reminders in the 'out of position curse' thank you all the same. Whilst I don't agree with some of your views I respect your knowledge on the subject and i'd be grateful if you'd do me the same courtesy.

As far as Eastmond goes I think he fits in well for Bath and England at 12. He has an excellent distribution game and challenges players and the line extremely well. He can also kick well, although we haven't seen that much of it. Were he a it younger I would suggest him for FH but at 12 I think he has huge potential.

The reason I see him being a good utility option is this: 1. He's had a successful career in league playing at HB. 2. He has a natural awareness and ability for the game. 3. He can beat players one on one. 4. He good under the high ball despite his size limitations. 5. He has played wing and FB so far in the AP and at Saxon level and despite being very new to the game did not look out of place. 6. We have to have a utility option at 23. and frankly I can't think of anyone else who can cover both centre positions/wing and FB. 7. I'd like him to be able to get involved with the England game and stake a claim for a permanent place.

Finally, I do not think he will suffer from not settling as he has been thus far identified by England as a centre. Bath already seem to have him settled there and he can work on adding to his game in that role. He simply has the ability to play elsewhere.

You are a tease. Honestly its because Lancaster is a puppet who has been gifted one if not the most crucial of positions in English rugby.

I've said it before....would any of you want him as your team director of rugby?

There are atleast half a dozen coaches in the premiership who are streets ahead of Lancaster and yet he has the reigns to the English national side...utter madness

The fact that Eastmond can cover the whole backline off the bench should be seen as a positive not a negative. Granted, of he weren't good enough in a single position to merit starting, don't start him but cover off the bench is a whole different ball game to starting a game and as long as Bath let him settle in a position I don't see the issue

kingelderfield wrote:You are a tease. Honestly its because Lancaster is a puppet who has been gifted one if not the most crucial of positions in English rugby.

I've said it before....would any of you want him as your team director of rugby?

There are atleast half a dozen coaches in the premiership who are streets ahead of Lancaster and yet he has the reigns to the English national side...utter madness

What are the conditions under which he is taking over for my club? Has Connor already left? Are many managers taken as they were when England put him in charge? I'd rather have O'Shea and a couple of others but I wouldn't be upset to have him at Quins

O'Shea over Lancaster all day long, thank you kindly

Chjw131 you could well be right about Eastmond. I just don't think it's good for a player at international to be shunted around. Certainly not in their 1st few caps.

Again he's another who needs to prove what he can do.

kingelderfield I wouldn't mind Lancaster as DOR at Sarries if Mark Mccall moved somewhere else.

I would prefer him to the likes of Gold,Diamond,Davies,Young,Booth,Smith and Ryan

Elephant walks into trap....seriously would you take Lancaster, wow I am honestly gobsmacked. Apart from a bit at Leeds he's not really any experience of the premiership.

He was in the right place at the right time to get the caretaker job and did well with it. He's continued to turn around an uninspired and demoralised England. As an England fan I'm very happy for him to continue in that role.

He should only ever have been the caretaker. It was a desperate reflection on the rfu that they were unable to appoint a coach of a serious calibre.

Its a very old a boring tale now so lets not reiterate chapter and verse, however the fact is to my mind he should never have been appointed and unless his progress is remarkable then he should be relieved. That's 2 from 3 in the AI's and a appreciable development in game plan.

Well it's unlikely to be NZ again but Aus and Argentina seem beatable at Twickenham so probably should be our aim. What do you see as a development in game plan? Who would you have appointed, Mallett?

Randon question. Any Quins fans out there know anything about Rob Buchanan? Is he any good? Likely to play for England?

GunsGerms wrote:Randon question. Any Quins fans out there know anything about Rob Buchanan? Is he any good? Likely to play for England?

He is good, still 2nd choice but we reckon he will at least split duties with Gray. He's better in the loose and contact and Gray is a better set piece expert, but both are good hookers. He went on Tour to Argentina so could play, but Youngs and Webber and Hartley are ahead of him so it's possible rather than probable. He will play for Saxons at least. Why do you ask?

He's played for Saxons so I think he's now tied to England btw

He's got caps for Saxons and looks more physical then Gray but a little weaker throwing. Looks a very good prospect for Quins but will struggle behind a few others for Eng.

but a little weaker throwing

Yappy...how many of our Hookers do we constantly say that about.

Lindsay, Buchanan, even Tom Youngs , though he seems to be working on it.
I'd like to see Lindsay really sort that area of his game out...

Heres the big question....Will Jamie George get a game for Saracens this season?