putting the Summer into perspective.

First topic message reminder :

I know we have only had one round and i would like to revisit this again at the end of the 4Nations.

NZ beat france well and have carried that on with their win over Aus away from home.  This i think reafirms that NZ are the top team.

SA beat Italy, Scotland & Samoa well as to be expected and carried it on with Argentina confirming they are No 2 in the world pushing for No 1.

I think it shows that Samoa, Italy, Scotland and Argentina are probably 8-11.

But where does it leave the others.

France did poor against NZ away liks most teams do.
England's squad missing regular starters destoryed a second string Argie team away from home.
Ireland just like England sent over a weaker squad beat USA & Canada (who had been together for a period of time playing in the PNC.)
Wales sent an even weaker squad to Japan (who had a period of time together in the PNC) and though they lost it means nothing due to the players.

And then there is Aus who lost to a make shift side 2-1 after losing alot to injury.

So are we now facing into a time of the top two teams (who i think also have the most players overseas) quiet abit ahead of everyone else with a chasing pack of 9 teams who actually don't have much between them and all depends on their day.  Who can win the odd game or come close but really are behind the top 2.

Also is Aus now suffering from a poor player base as i don't think they have many players overseas.

It will be interesting to see how the scrum help/hinders teams.

If props have to prop and hookers have to hook then ireland wont be disadvantaged by the dark arts. As good as wales are to many points come from scrum pens. This is why they dont beat SH teams cause they don't give many scrum pens away.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Excuses? No.

Im merely saying that Wales have a more settled side than England and are a year or two ahead in development...however they as of yet have been unable to register a victory against the teams consistently at the top of the rankings..ie the SH teams.

This should be a concern for Gatland as a team most Wales fans consider inferior to them have put victories over them including a thumping of the AB's...

Geordie, the team under Lancaster have only beaten a norovirus-stricken NZ, they haven't regularly put away SH teams like you suggest. Nor have they won a 6 Nations so they have a lot of developing to do. One thing I do like about Lancaster is his selection policy, he always picks on form. One thing I dislike is the fact he blames the ref when England get thumped .

England's development is interesting though. As a Welshman who will be living in England I'll be supporting them through the Autumn Series (just not the 6 Nations).  

a norovirus-stricken NZ

No bother  

He always picks on form? You mean like Callum Clark? He has his favourites like everyone else and he maintains some form of stability in selection as chopping and changing is good for no-one.

Some form of stability yes...but could you name 5 certain starters in the England side?

I cant...and thats the bit that concerns me. I like competition for places its essential...but i still think you need a solid core of players that are nailed on starters..

HammerofThunor wrote:He always picks on form? You mean like Callum Clark? He has his favourites like everyone else and he maintains some form of stability in selection as chopping and changing is good for no-one.

I can't comment on him. Though he surely has to be better than Courtney Lawes. One of his bad choices was Ashton and Brown on the wing. Can't argue with Brown being included as he was on song for a long time, but not on the wing. He favoured Goode who was also showing form, better form than Foden. Some coaches may have went for Foden in spite of his form. The rest seem to be logical choices, same goes for the squad who toured Argentina.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Some form of stability yes...but could you name 5 certain starters in the England side?

I cant...and thats the bit that concerns me. I like competition for places its essential...but i still think you need a solid core of players that are nailed on starters..

At the moment I'd say Corbs, Youngs, Cole, Parling, Morgan (at 8), Tuilagi. As long as those guys are good then you should be able to put out a stable team. 9 being between Youngs and Care (nothing new there), 10 between Farrell and Burns (Flood as injury cover), 12 between Twelvetrees and Barritt.

Id just about agree with those 5 Saint...but after that...it becomes a bit of a lottery.

The best sides have a good 8-10 nailed starters. That builds a familiarity, a knoweledge of each others games...but still allows you the flexibility to make changes if required to other areas of the team if required.

Look at wales, and they probably have about 11-12 players that if fit are certain to start. They know each others games...they know the tactics, etc...it also makes it much easier for bringing new players in the team.

We're missing that for the moment...maybe Lancs has done this deliberately to build depth and will over the next season or two focus on building the settled team...who knows...

The Saint wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Excuses? No.

Im merely saying that Wales have a more settled side than England and are a year or two ahead in development...however they as of yet have been unable to register a victory against the teams consistently at the top of the rankings..ie the SH teams.

This should be a concern for Gatland as a team most Wales fans consider inferior to them have put victories over them including a thumping of the AB's...

Geordie, the team under Lancaster have only beaten a norovirus-stricken NZ, they haven't regularly put away SH teams like you suggest. Nor have they won a 6 Nations so they have a lot of developing to do. One thing I do like about Lancaster is his selection policy, he always picks on form. One thing I dislike is the fact he blames the ref when England get thumped .

England's development is interesting though. As a Welshman who will be living in England I'll be supporting them through the Autumn Series (just not the 6 Nations).  

The Saint a win is a win. A loss is a loss. Wales hammered England in the 6 nations - Wales need to move on from seeing England as the most important game in their calendar if they are to progress. Wales have had difficulty keeping focus when playing SH sides. After the Lions they should now have the mental strength to beat a SH side.

England beat NZ, Wales lost to Japan irrespective of the circumstances - the record books will only show a win for England and Japan.

Both Wales and England have aspects they need to work on.

Wales are perhaps further down the line but the issue of fly half is a big one. Also depth wise when shorn of certain players they can be exposed.

England still need to find a settled team -need to pick players in position. Also need to find a balance between style and substance, attack and defence.

 I dont think Wales see England as 'their biggest game' any more, I would suggest Australia is the one we'd get most up for at the moment after our recent record.

We got up for the last one because it was a save face type of thing, England coming to our rugby home and going for the GS, we were never going to take that lightly

Fingers crossed you're right and this Lions series victory has added another layer onto that experience cake the welsh boys are baking.

England has too much depth and potential to not come good again in the next year or 2, they've only lost 2 games (both to Wales) in the last 2 6nations and managed some impressive wins and performances. Consistency and improvement in genuine test-level depth is the next challenge for both, England will be looking to regain their status as top NH dogs and Wales wil be looking south to progress that record. Interesting times!