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.

The Saint when have I ever said Sarries are the best side in the world? Just because I happened to think they are better than Glasgow?

optimist the population argument can work for and against you.

England have a far higher pool of players to pick from which makes it harder to decide which ones to pick in the first XV.

Getting into the Welsh team is a far easier task because there's less competition. Smaller pool - only 4 teams to pick from. Case in point a Welsh side without their Lions boys lost to Japan. England's 3rd string would probably comfortably beat Japan.

Look at the full back position for example - England has Foden,Brown,Goode and even Tait.

Halfpenny is head and shoulders the no 1 choice for Wales.

Wales have the much more settled team but in terms of depth England still hold the strength.

 

beshocked wrote:The Saint when have I ever said Sarries are the best side in the world? Just because I happened to think they are better than Glasgow?

optimist the population argument can work for and against you.

England have a far higher pool of players to pick from which makes it harder to decide which ones to pick in the first XV.

Getting into the Welsh team is a far easier task because there's less competition. Smaller pool - only 4 teams to pick from. Case in point a Welsh side without their Lions boys lost to Japan. England's 3rd string would probably comfortably beat Japan.

Look at the full back position for example - England has Foden,Brown,Goode and even Tait.

Halfpenny is head and shoulders the no 1 choice for Wales.

Wales have the much more settled team but in terms of depth England still hold the strength.

Well done Beshocked, you managed to big up Saracens without mentioning beating the Ospreys. As long as Sarries beat the Ospreys eh? No wonder you're always kicked out of Europe.

Also, you have an EPS and a Saxons squad, so how does that make it difficult to manage your players? England thirds probably would beat Japan, Wales thirds struggled, as it wasn't a team just missing the 'Lions players', there were a lot more unavailable. Not only that, but some of the best performing players were not picked due McBryde being in charge. Do some research boyo, I'm tired of doing it for you. As for Wales being an easier team to get in, well only Corbs and Morgan would stand a chance of getting in to the Wales team .

Nice example, but from what I've seen Ben Foden is the greatest option. Don't think much of Goode, nor Brown at this level. When Foden is on form he is probably the best full back in the NH. Our lack of full backs comes from the selectors only selecting from 3 teams, Blair in the Blues 15 jersey for many years, Byrne leaving Wales and Stoddart retiring due to a broken leg. We have a few more coming through at the moment. I wouldn't argue that England hold the depth. But why wouldn't you when you have around 30 professional teams? Beggars belief if you didn't.

The Saint I really don't understand you. Primary focus is beating Connacht x 2,Toulouse x 2 and Zebre x 2. Ospreys aren't in the same pool as Saracens this season. I would rather beat the likes of Clermont,Leinster and Toulon than Ospreys.

Wales were missing 15 Lions - I don't count ickle Shane.

A lot more players unavailable like who?

Plus Wales had the best best fly half in the NH on the Japan tour - surely that should count for something?

I would take Robshaw ahead of Warburton. Youngs ahead of Phillips. Farrell ahead of Biggar. Tuilagi ahead of Davies Parling ahead of Evans. Wood ahead of Lydiate.

My XV would be

1.Corbisiero
2.Youngs
3.Jones
4.Parling
5.Jones
6.Wood
7.Robshaw
8.Morgan
9.Youngs
10.Farrell
11.North
12.Roberts
13.Tuilagi
14.Cuthbert
15.Halfpenny

9 English, 6 Welsh - possibly Hibbard instead of Youngs

so the fun continues...just while we're on the english welsh thing, i think it will be interesting to see how gats fits back in to the national coaching game? you have to question whether wales would have won at least some of those welsh/australian games and therefore actually how diverting the lions gig will have been to the national cause/development?
He's undoubtedly a great coach and obviously the WC will be his last hurrah in the cycle, however has he been sucked into the lions thing to much, will his welsh ambition have been spent on the fields of sydney? Nobody has won a lions tour and WC and I for one can't see that changing.
All in all the next 3 encounters will be as the yanks put it 'awesome', however regardless of who wins that pool game what i'm interested to know is could we meet again in the final?

Beshocked, due to injuries, call-ups and management blunders we were without the following players in Japan: Jenkins, Hibbard, Jones, AWJ, Evans, Lydiate, Warburton, Faletau, Tipuric, Phillips, Roberts, Davies, North, Cuthbert, Halfpenny (Lions duty).
The following were either injured, unavailable and for no reason what so ever overlooked. Italic style font denotes injured players: Ryan Jones, Aaron Shingler, Lewis Evans (back row), Paul James (prop), Matthew Rees, Ken Owens (hooker), Lewis Evans, Gareth Davies (scrum half) Owen Williams, James Hook (outside half), Ashley Beck, Scott Williams (centre), Dan Evans, Adam Hughes, Eli Walker (back three).
All of those players (who didn't pick up an injury) should have been taken because they were on form. But the selectors opted for guff like Jon Spratt, Andries Pretourious, Rob McCusker, Tavis Knoyle, Dafydd Howells among others. That was a lot of experience out and a lot of inexperience in. Bearing in mind none would have had international experience at A team level either. Who's the best fly-half in the NH? He certainly didn't tour with Wales.

Beshocked, 9 English?  

Why is anyone even arguing the point with the troll?

Anyone seen the interview with Corbs on the Telegraph site?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/10218941/Alex-Corbisiero-confidence-sky-high-after-Lions-success.html

Really want him to stay fit through the season, get some time in with a consistent front row in the build up to the World Cup.

Mako off the bench once Corbs has softened up the opposing fatty could be very good indeed

The Saint wrote:Beshocked, due to injuries, call-ups and management blunders we were without the following players in Japan: Jenkins, Hibbard, Jones, AWJ, Evans, Lydiate, Warburton, Faletau, Tipuric, Phillips, Roberts, Davies, North, Cuthbert, Halfpenny (Lions duty).
The following were either injured, unavailable and for no reason what so ever overlooked. Italic style font denotes injured players: Ryan Jones, Aaron Shingler, Lewis Evans (back row), Paul James (prop), Matthew Rees, Ken Owens (hooker), Lewis Evans, Gareth Davies (scrum half) Owen Williams, James Hook (outside half), Ashley Beck, Scott Williams (centre), Dan Evans, Adam Hughes, Eli Walker (back three).
All of those players (who didn't pick up an injury) should have been taken because they were on form. But the selectors opted for guff like Jon Spratt, Andries Pretourious, Rob McCusker, Tavis Knoyle, Dafydd Howells among others. That was a lot of experience out and a lot of inexperience in. Bearing in mind none would have had international experience at A team level either. Who's the best fly-half in the NH? He certainly didn't tour with Wales.

Beshocked, 9 English?  

How is that funny? England are higher up in the world rankings. They have beaten the ABs. Something the Welsh haven't managed for over 50 years.

Don't lose to sides like Argentina,Samoa and Japan.

The Welsh could only beat the Aussies with the help of the English and Irish contingent.

Anyhoooo....back on topic. I just hope he picks players on form, in their proper positions. Job done.

Oh dear me. Beshocked if England are as good as that delusional little head of yours believes then just go out and beat this lowly Wales team. Tip, scoring tries helps. There we're back on topic.

The Saint wrote:Oh dear me. Beshocked if England are as good as that delusional little head of yours believes then just go out and beat this lowly Wales team. Tip, scoring tries helps. There we're back on topic.

You make it sound Wales scored 100's of tries during the six nations, they only scored 9, 4 more than England.

nathan wrote:

The Saint wrote:Oh dear me. Beshocked if England are as good as that delusional little head of yours believes then just go out and beat this lowly Wales team. Tip, scoring tries helps. There we're back on topic.

You make it sound Wales scored 100's of tries during the six nations, they only scored 9, 4 more than England.

The distribution of tries matters. Wales beat the defence of each of the other 5 countries in open play, by scoring 1 or 2 tries in every game including 2 in the defeat by Ireland. They also scored from kicks. England scored tries against Scotland (4) and France (1), but against Ireland, Italy and Wales they could not score from open play, all their points coming from kicks.

The Saint wrote:Oh dear me. Beshocked if England are as good as that delusional little head of yours believes then just go out and beat this lowly Wales team. Tip, scoring tries helps. There we're back on topic.

England are not that good at the moment. Only 4th best in the World. Must do better.

Wales are doing really well at the moment. 6th best in the World. Excellent work. Well done Wales - definitely exceeding expectations.
With a good Autumn you might be able to hold off Samoa in 7th.

4th best? Where would you get such an idea? You can't score tries for a start, nor win anything. You were lucky the ref gifted you games against France and Italy so I wouldn't be holding yourself in such esteem.

The Saint wrote:4th best? Where would you get such an idea? You can't score tries for a start, nor win anything. You were lucky the ref gifted you games against France and Italy so I wouldn't be holding yourself in such esteem.

Probably the official rankings, i.e. the only objective measure at any given point in time

England aren't the fourth best in world rugby . It's like every time you lose to Wales you tell us "Wales aren't that good". Standing fourth in the RWC group seeding's because Argentina put out a semi-pro team against England doesn't make you fourth best in the world.

 It really pains you that England are above Wales in the world rankings doesn't it Gareth?

"Standing fourth in the RWC group seeding's because Argentina put out a semi-pro team against England doesn't make you fourth best in the world."

Actually you're incorrect, it does.

The rankings are the only official way of positioning teams. Wales had a great 6N but were dross before and may be dross after, the rankings reward consistency rather than the odd good couple of games.

Ozzy3213 wrote: It really pains you that England are above Wales in the world rankings doesn't it Gareth?

I thought his name was Morgan?

Well this thread went downhill quickly. I guess it was only a matter of time though.

Ozzy3213 wrote: It really pains you that England are above Wales in the world rankings doesn't it Gareth?

This does not pain The Saint, if you're referring to me? I'm trying to educate the simple minded folk on here, to no avail might I add.

Bit of a childish comment from you to be honest.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:"Standing fourth in the RWC group seeding's because Argentina put out a semi-pro team against England doesn't make you fourth best in the world."

Actually you're incorrect, it does.

No it doesn't. If you had managed to beat SA and Aus then you would have a case. Instead you go and lose to Wales who are crap according to all of you.

Oh the irony!

Again, it does. It's in black & white, if you fail to see this it's your issue.

Nobody has states Wales are crap.

The Saint wrote:England aren't the fourth best in world rugby . It's like every time you lose to Wales you tell us "Wales aren't that good". Standing fourth in the RWC group seeding's because Argentina put out a semi-pro team against England doesn't make you fourth best in the world.

England are fourth based on results. Perhaps if Wales had beaten Samoa, Argentina and Japan twice they'd be fourth.

Besides, aren't France 4th in the RWC seedings. Wales are in England's group because they're 9th seeds.

But well done in climbing from 9th to 6th. Who would have expected that?

Alex_Germany wrote:

The Saint wrote:England aren't the fourth best in world rugby . It's like every time you lose to Wales you tell us "Wales aren't that good". Standing fourth in the RWC group seeding's because Argentina put out a semi-pro team against England doesn't make you fourth best in the world.

England are fourth based on results. Perhaps if Wales had beaten Samoa, Argentina and Japan twice they'd be fourth.

Besides, aren't France 4th in the RWC seedings. Wales are in England's group because they're 9th seeds.

But well done in climbing from 9th to 6th. Who would have expected that?

Yes in the RWC seedings, which doesn't automatically make them fourth best in the world. You'd have to actually be able to beat Wales and score tries past them for that. When you achieve this the average neutral may take your claim 'fourth best' a bit more seriously.

The Saint wrote:

Alex_Germany wrote:

The Saint wrote:England aren't the fourth best in world rugby . It's like every time you lose to Wales you tell us "Wales aren't that good". Standing fourth in the RWC group seeding's because Argentina put out a semi-pro team against England doesn't make you fourth best in the world.

England are fourth based on results. Perhaps if Wales had beaten Samoa, Argentina and Japan twice they'd be fourth.

Besides, aren't France 4th in the RWC seedings. Wales are in England's group because they're 9th seeds.

But well done in climbing from 9th to 6th. Who would have expected that?

Yes in the RWC seedings, which doesn't automatically make them fourth best in the world. You'd have to actually be able to beat Wales and score tries past them for that. When you achieve this the average neutral may take your claim 'fourth best' a bit more seriously.

England are 5th in the RWC seedings? 4th is the current ranking. The rankings are the only objective measure in just about all sports - and (apologies for repeating, but obviously not everyone gets this) the rankings put England at 4th, up one place since the RWC seedings were done.

By your logic New Zealand can't be No 1 in the World as they lost to England.

I don't think England is happy with 4th.

Truce?

*EDIT, NZ lost just one game that season (to England). I'd still have them at No.1 for that, and the fact they recently won the RWC and RC. My logic is wins.

That kind of "Truce" is like scoring after the whistle.

Rankings don't lie.

Well we've got the AI's + 6N's + next summer's tours (eng play nz & wales play south africa, both three times). We'll then have a greater understanding of each teams prospective chances in the WC.

Most of all it will be really interesting to compare Lancaster and Gatland's successes/failures - I for one have always rated Gatland (though there were obviously other factors involved, it is no surprise how Wasps slipped away following his departure).

Just imagine if he were englands coach....

If Lancaster has learnt any thing from the Lions tour, i hope it is ( not to be afraid) too make tough decisions. (Gatland dropping BOD) for the last test.

Well, that escalated quickly.

Jolly good read, and a few laughs along the way too.

Well done Alex_Germany for putting the petty one to bed

Have a gold star Alex and bluestonevedder, you earned it .

Just wondering how many points the Saint gets for each thread he derails

I think a critical thing that we're all maybe missing is the lineout.

Its still a big part of the game...and im not confident that our second rows are fully world class in this department yet..(and i include Parling in that)

Croft however IS world class in this area...so this needs to be considered. Wood is a very good lineout technician but not at Crofts level.

GeordieFalcon wrote:I think a critical thing that we're all maybe missing is the lineout.

Its still a big part of the game...and im not confident that our second rows are fully world class in this department yet..(and i include Parling in that)

Croft however IS world class in this area...so this needs to be considered. Wood is a very good lineout technician but not at Crofts level.

I agree Geordie. For all Parling's attributes and there are many, he doesn't seem to have performed at a good enough level to make him indispensable. During the 6N he had some world class jumpers including himself, Croft, Wood and Launchbury. Robshaw is not poor in the line-out either. Yet we had some average to poor stats in that department.

Attwood ran it well against a disorganised Argentina team and it'll be interesting to see how he goes with what will be a heavy Bath pack. The only world class line-out operator we have is Steve Borthwick....

I think some of the poor lineout in the 6Ns has to be down to Youngs who was very erratic. Seems to be getting better but one of the reasons I was disappointed to see Webber in the Saxons was that his set piece appears very solid.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think some of the poor lineout in the 6Ns has to be down to Youngs who was very erratic. Seems to be getting better but one of the reasons I was disappointed to see Webber in the Saxons was that his set piece appears very solid.

I suppose that has to be taken in to account. His throwing wasn't bad I didn't think in that tournament. I'm not saying Parling is a poor caller I just don't know whether he's so good that he's a linchpin.

Also, Webber's throwing has been atrocious at times. The last game he played for Wasps v Tigers was appalling.

I would probably start with Parling and Launchbury in the AIs, I think Parling is the most proven line-out caller in the England team and would give him a chance to get it right after what he did with the Lions, but I'd have Attwood on the bench to give him 20/25 minutes a game so he can build his confidence at this level. Then Attwood could possibly come into contention for a starting spot in the Six Nations, unless his form was extraordinary before then.

As said before it the second row is Parking and Launchberry then we have to use Wood at 6 to add more physicality. If its Attwood and Launchberry then we can have Croft instead.

I do sometimes think that Crofts lineout is over hyped at times, like Lydiattes tackling or Farrells kicking.

Who will Lancaster pick as first choice hooker? Will he go on form?

I think a lot of pressure will be on Hartley now to perform because Webber will be pushing him all the way. Tom Youngs will only get better but is his role primarily as an impact sub?

Youngs, Mako, Wilson, Attwood and Billy V all coming off the bench would be a scary amount of impact!

yappysnap wrote:Youngs, Mako, Wilson, Attwood and Billy V all coming off the bench would be a scary amount of impact!

I would love to see that! Possibly Manu as well if SL decides to start with 36 and Barritt in the centres!

Yea just imagine that pack coming on and then Care, Burns and Manu coming into the backline. Scary stuff!