England Player Ratings

My ratings for the Argentina game.

1. Joe Marler - 6/10 - A good solid performance from the third choice prop, coped well in the scrum and was fairly busy in the loose carrying the ball hard in the tight exchanges. Didn't really make any stand out contributions though in the way Corbs can do.
2. Dylan Hartley - 8/10 - A MoM display from Hartley, ran well, tackled like a machine (8 completed) beat two defenders while making plenty of yards ball in hand and actually took the ball at pace. I think apart from one blip his lineout work was perfect as well. Just needs to work on his break down skills to be up there with the best.
3. Roger Wilson - 6/10 - Another solid display from the other prop. Was put under a fair bit of pressure by scrummaging machine Ayerza early on and gave away a pen there but otherwise was incredibly busy in defense (10 tackles completed). Didn't offer enough ball in hand (but look at the size of him) and lacks Coles breakdown work.
4. Joe Launchberry - 8/10 - The other contender for MoM Launchberry seemed to be taking what ever Robshaw was on as he was everywhere. Linked well with the backs (5 passes), carried well (7 runs), put in his tackles (12!) and worked well in the mauls. A brilliant display from the youngster.
5. Courtney Lawes - 6/10 - A quieter game from Lawes this week but still pretty effective. Not sure if he is the best for carrying the ball in traffic but that seemed to be his role as foil to Launchberry, he took the majority of lineouts well and called a good variety of moves. Has to be given a bit of praise for Englands good mauling and for two big tackles that forced turnovers. Still needs to improve on his carrying though which is weak.
6. Tom Wood - 5/10 - A busy shift from Wood which didn't seem to achieve much at times, the backrow as a unit started impressively but dropped off. Wood got through plenty of tackles (13) but didn't turn over enough (1 turn over) and gave away the most penalties of any player (3) a poor game by his standards as he just struggled to make an impact.
7. Chris Robshaw - 6.5/10 - Much like his backrow colleague Robshaw looked busy for the majority of the game but didn't really have much of an effect other then in defense where his 20(!!) tackles make him the top tackler in the team. He did make a fair few runs but didn't achieve a single turn over all game. Also struggled to get his team back in the game in the second half.
8. Billy Vunipola -6.5/10 - His carrying wasn't quite as destructive as last week but still he made the most yards of any forward (45) and nearly all of them put his team on the front foot. Worked well at the back of the scrum but didn't offer much in defense and struggled to really make a big impact on the game.
9. Lee Dickson - 5/10 - Made a stunningly poor 3m's carrying the ball, he also only made 2 tackles all game. On the plus side his passing was pretty good this week and he was quick to the rucks. Still is not a complete package and has to take some of the blame for the lack of focus in the second half.
10. Owen Farrell - 5/10 - A pretty subdued game from the young fly half. His kicking from hand was poor and he didn't really threaten too much ball in hand. But he did tackle well and help turn ball over. Still not the comlete package and has to take a lot of the blame for the England backs total lack of cohesion and precision in attack.
11. Ben Foden -5/10- Fairly anonymous all game but then he got a lot less ball then the other back three players. He worked well with Brown at least and provides more assurity in the backs with his all round game.
12. Billy Twelvetrees -6.5/10- A mixed game from Billy, took his try really wel running a fine line, passed and ran to better effect as well and tackled his opposite number all day. Still too many dodgy passes though and he needs to look for space to run into more often.
13. Joel Tomkins -4/10- Tomkins can be forgiven a little as it was only his second game for England, but he's just anonymous at the moment. He managed 3 tackles all game and missed 1, conceded a pen and passed 3 times. Hopefully he'll grow into the England setup but right now he's a passenger. Remember Manu's contributions in his first games for Eng? Two tries in two matches.
14. Chris Ashton -6/10- Not as bad a game as many would like to make out for Ashton. He did royally ruin the first try attempt and if the TMO had been used he may not have got the second either. But he was busy for once on attack and looked to make positive contributions to the team. Made 6 tackles and missed 2 so his defense is still wonky but it was definitely a step in the right direction. He also managed 83m's ball in hand, second only to Brown.
15. Mike Brown -7/10- Another assured performance from the full back. He linked well with his back three compatriotes and took all the high balls well except for one. Made his tackles and the most clean breaks of any player (1!).

So what do you think? All in all a pretty solid performance by England, lots to work on but they'll be pleased at getting 40 minutes of quality rugby in.

Big concerns at the moment are the lack of turn overs and impact by the forwards, in particular the backrow are industrious but didn't do anything to change the tempo of the game. No key turn overs, no scintillating breaks or busts either. Look at guys like Easter for Quins or Manoa for Saints, they raise the whole team with big runs off the scrum or a massive hit.

Also the total lack of clean breaks. Before Morgan's break we had managed 1 all game. That is truly terrible and the half backs have to take most of the blame here for not creating opportunites. Too often our backs got the ball passed out to them with the Puma's defense drifting comfortably without any worries, they then just shifted it wider still until they got to the edge of the pitch.

Pretty fair. I think you're being a little harsh on Wood and Dickson.

I thought Wood got through a heck of a lot of work. I wouldn't like to say it was 'unseen' but it was a fair bit of the unglamorous stuff. He's a key player.

I thought Dickson looked good first half. He's not going to make the breaks like Youngs or Care. He was subbed on 52 minutes so he can't take too much blame for the 2nd half malaise.

Very impressed by Hartley and glad that Twelvetrees improved from last week. Launchberry has the potential to become a real star for England. He's got the skills to be a complete player.

Agree that we were too lateral for large periods. Nice hands and passing but not really testing the defence too often.

It's another one of those games where the result looks impressive on paper but is somewhat unsatisfying. Two halves like the first one and we'll have a good game next week. Two like the 2nd and it's crouching behind the sofa time.

The problem was that after a pretty decent first 40, they just switched off, thinking the job was done. They lost half a yard of pace and almost looked like they couldn't be bothered.

I am so annoyed that both Yarde and Wade had picked up niggles that kept them out. I think both would have been hungry and both would've injected a much needed spark into the side. I also think that either would have scored when Ashton messed up that try effort.

The forwards were fantastic in the first half but they did seem to hold back a bit for half an hour after that. When are the team going to realise that it's an 80 minute game, not 40? They either seem to play well for one half or the other. Now, try putting those two halves together please chaps!

Yappy, you will hve to forgive me because I am still contaminated with the booze from last night.  But I did see the match differently.  I probably can't explain as well as you because it is a bit hard to think at the moment.

Marler 6
Hartley 8
Wilson 6
They dominated players they rightfully should dominate.  Why give points for dominating guys not as good?  Hartley was indeed all over and very good.

Launchbury 7
Lawes 7
Both pretty good.  Ball seemed to go Launchbury's way more than Lawes.  

Wood 6
Robshaw 6
Vunipola 6
Nice games.  Did their jobs.  They have done better.  Not much to separate them.

Dickson 7 - got the ball out quick.  Not his fault the runners were standing the -f- still when the ball came out.  He should have kicked them square in the bum.  They should be moving.  Our could-be-ex-coach is at fault for that.  Not Dickson.

Farrell 4 - Did not much.  One or two nice flicks or steps.  Otherwise put himself up for boring player of the year.

Foden 6 - A fullback on the wing.  Played as well as one could expect.  Nice steps.
Ashton 5 - time for semi-retirement

Twelvetrees 6 - better than last match.  But the opposition was not as good
Tomkins 1 - Was he there?  I saw him during God Save The Queen.

Brown 6 - Nice first half.

Only sub which seemed to give a rats colon he was on the pitch was Morgan who had that nice try.  

I am not happy with the entire performance.  I used to be a supporter of Lancaster.  But the game plan has not progressed one inch since his first match in charge.  The players have not progressed one inch.  And my confidence has not progressed one inch.  I have very serious doubts about this guy.

fair scores but perhaps a bit hard of Robshaw and Wood and I think a little too kind to Vunipola. If only Ben Morgan could play like he did for 60 minutes..........!! Vunipola at the minute seems a little one dimensional but he's only 20......

Mr Bounce wrote:The problem was that after a pretty decent first 40, they just switched off, thinking the job was done. They lost half a yard of pace and almost looked like they couldn't be bothered.

I am so annoyed that both Yarde and Wade had picked up niggles that kept them out. I think both would have been hungry and both would've injected a much needed spark into the side. I also think that either would have scored when Ashton messed up that try effort.

The forwards were fantastic in the first half but they did seem to hold back a bit for half an hour after that. When are the team going to realise that it's an 80 minute game, not 40? They either seem to play well for one half or the other. Now, try putting those two halves together please chaps!

Couldn't agree more Mr B. What is the reason for this? Are England lazy - do we just do the bare minimum? Are they too nice - not wishing to humiliate well beaten opposition? Or, dare I say it, are certain posters right and do England not show certain teams the respect they deserve in certain phases of the game? The psychology always seems slightly off to me.  

doctor_grey,

You make Triangulation seem like Mr Positive these days

stub wrote:

Mr Bounce wrote:The problem was that after a pretty decent first 40, they just switched off, thinking the job was done. They lost half a yard of pace and almost looked like they couldn't be bothered.

I am so annoyed that both Yarde and Wade had picked up niggles that kept them out. I think both would have been hungry and both would've injected a much needed spark into the side. I also think that either would have scored when Ashton messed up that try effort.

The forwards were fantastic in the first half but they did seem to hold back a bit for half an hour after that. When are the team going to realise that it's an 80 minute game, not 40? They either seem to play well for one half or the other. Now, try putting those two halves together please chaps!

Couldn't agree more Mr B. What is the reason for this? Are England lazy - do we just do the bare minimum? Are they too nice - not wishing to humiliate well beaten opposition? Or, dare I say it, are certain posters right and do England not show certain teams the respect they deserve in certain phases of the game? The psychology always seems slightly off to me.  

Could also be that argentina came out full of fire and determination?  That they were on the verge of being humiliated? Beaten at the scrum and destroyed at the breakdown and decided to do something about it?  Credit where its due at times I think.

Yappysnap, those turn over stats are turn overs conceded.

Cyril wrote:doctor_grey,

You make Triangulation seem like Mr Positive these days

Mate,
I got home 6 hours ago (remember I am in New Jersey) after watching two teams play like they care and want to be there. England played for about 30 minutes with a bit o fire, then went to sleep.

I truly have doubts about Lancaster. As I said, I was a supporter when he took over, but I have not seen any improvement since then. Rosdhaw should not be captain. He is a good player but has the leadership skills of gum stuck to the bottom of your shoe. This team need on-field leadership desperately because it does not come from the coaches.

This backline could be torn to shreds by my U19s (hyperbole). We need life, creativity, energy, and a leader. Doom on us.

OK, I do sound cranky. Sorry about that.

Don't worry, doc.

I do agree with some of your sentiments but I think you're being a bit harsh. Things aren't moving quite as quickly as we might have liked, but I'm not losing faith in Lancaster quite yet. As I've said on a couple of other threads we've just got two good results on paper but somewhat unsatisfying in the way they've being achieved.

I do agree with Robshaw being a bit passive and a lack of creativity, but this is a pretty green sets of back (esp the centres).

That's six tries against two RC sides and only one conceded. Something must be going right even if it's not always pretty.

It's not all doom (ask me again after the NZ game ).

Think you're a bit harsh on Dickson and Wood. Dickson had a good first half, got the ball away quickly which is something many on here have been crying out for for a long time, and instead he gets criticised for not making enough yards?? Not really a SH's role to carry the ball IMO.

Generally surprised at the level of negativity surrounding England's performance. Their first half was very good, they attacked at pace, looked to run the ball whenever possible and scored three nice tries. Could have easily had another one or two as well. Second half they admittedly went off the boil for a bit: part of that might have been relaxing because the job was mostly done, part of it might have been looking to preserve some energy for next week, who knows? Still, overall it's a very decent scoreline against a good side, surely?

As for the ratings, I do agree with yappy that Ashton has come in for some unneccesary criticism. People bang on about him butchering a try but really he makes a decent step, the Argentine full-back reacts very well to just about make the tap-tackle, and the winger does superbly to hold him up as Ashton tries to use his momentum to get over the line. More good defense than anything IMO.

I would go:
Marler - 6: solid shift, got involved in the loose. Corbs is a class above and will come back in next week surely.
Hartley - 8: excellent performance, was everywhere, attacked the line at pace, line-out work good.
Wilson - 6: much like Marler really. Not sure he did enough to make the shirt his.
Launchberry - 8: a fine talent. Carried well, tackled hard, capped off with a try.
Lawes - 7: didn't shine as much as his second-row partner but still put in a good shift.
Wood - 6.5: a lot of graft, maybe not a huge amount of visible end product, but is a vital component of England's backrow.
Robshaw - 7: a remarkable amount of tackles, and some useful carrying too to get over the gainline. No longer underrated.
Vunipola - 6: shone less than last week, though still some very useful carrying.
Dickson - 7: see comments above.
Farrell - 6: tried to get the backline moving in the first half, good spot for the Ashton try. Frustratingly retreated in the second half though and (perhaps not unrelated) his kicking suffered a little too.
Foden - 5: didn't get invovled, though out of position.
Twelvetrees - 7: OK it wasn't all perfect, there were a few loose passes, but a big improvement on last week, and took his try very well. As a strong carrier, should hit the defense more.
Tomkins - 4.5: I actually saw him make a couple of decent carries in the first half, but overall hasn't got into the two games he's played. Manu won't be worried for his shirt yet.
Ashton - 6: tried hard (maybe too hard?), got invovled a bit, and as mentioned above, doesn't deserve all the criticism he got.
Brown - 7: another good outing for the full-back.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:
As for the ratings, I do agree with yappy that Ashton has come in for some unneccesary criticism. People bang on about him butchering a try but really he makes a decent step, the Argentine full-back reacts very well to just about make the tap-tackle, and the winger does superbly to hold him up as Ashton tries to use his momentum to get over the line. More good defense than anything IMO.

Completely agree with that. Sure, let's criticise a player for doing something wrong but there almost seems to be a collective wish (among some England fans) for Ashton to fail and to see mistakes where there aren't any. He did the right thing in that instance and good defence kept him out. It wasn't an error on his part.

Cyril wrote: Don't worry, doc.

I do agree with some of your sentiments but I think you're being a bit harsh. Things aren't moving quite as quickly as we might have liked, but I'm not losing faith in Lancaster quite yet. As I've said on a couple of other threads we've just got two good results on paper but somewhat unsatisfying in the way they've being achieved.

I do agree with Robshaw being a bit passive and a lack of creativity, but this is a pretty green backline.

That's six tries against two RC sides and only one conceded. Something must be going right even if it's not always pretty.

It's not all doom (ask me again after the NZ game ).

My problem is not that I don't think things aren't moving as quickly as we might like, but that things don't appear to be moving on at all. For me Lancaster took over a very good side. Despite an appauling world cup, where Johnson had inexplicably reverted to past it players (presumably because he had played with them and trusted them to do a job despite the evidence to the contrary in terms of form and allegedly in the case of some attitude). Preceeding that England had a pretty decent 18 months, and having ditched those players that really shouldn't have been at the world cup we should have been building on the performances seen between the 2010 and 2011 6 nations. In terms of performance level I think we've seen far more at the level of the 2011 world cup and only a couple of games at the levels hit under the latter stages of Johnsons reign since Lancaster took over.

ultra wrote:

stub wrote:

Mr Bounce wrote:The problem was that after a pretty decent first 40, they just switched off, thinking the job was done. They lost half a yard of pace and almost looked like they couldn't be bothered.

I am so annoyed that both Yarde and Wade had picked up niggles that kept them out. I think both would have been hungry and both would've injected a much needed spark into the side. I also think that either would have scored when Ashton messed up that try effort.

The forwards were fantastic in the first half but they did seem to hold back a bit for half an hour after that. When are the team going to realise that it's an 80 minute game, not 40? They either seem to play well for one half or the other. Now, try putting those two halves together please chaps!

Couldn't agree more Mr B. What is the reason for this? Are England lazy - do we just do the bare minimum? Are they too nice - not wishing to humiliate well beaten opposition? Or, dare I say it, are certain posters right and do England not show certain teams the respect they deserve in certain phases of the game? The psychology always seems slightly off to me.  

Could also be that argentina came out full of fire and determination?  That they were on the verge of being humiliated? Beaten at the scrum and destroyed at the breakdown and decided to do something about it?  Credit where its due at times I think.

Fair enough ultra - credit should go to Argentina for bringing it to England. Just frustrating that England take so long to process that and counter. Even if they soaked that up for 20 minutes then adapted...

Regarding Cyril, Doc's and other's posts - I'm not giving up on Lancaster yet - it's not spectacular but England are slowly building up a head of steam IMO. Regarding Ashton - I have tried to resist criticising him because he is an easy target at times but I truly think we need to find another option for him for a bit. To me he looks like he feels the pressure at the moment and this is hampering what he could achieve. Psychology again?

Big wrote:  In terms of performance level I think we've seen far more at the level of the 2011 world cup and only a couple of games at the levels hit under the latter stages of Johnsons reign since Lancaster took over.

What levels were those? The 2011 Six Nations wasn't that brilliant. A good win in Cardiff, dominant win against Italy, and then a the last three games (vs France, Scotland and Ireland) were almost a carbon copy of the final three this season. The Australia win was just comparable to the New Zealand one last season as well.

I don't think we're a huge amount better now than the 2010-2011 season, but we do seem to be doing it with players on the way up rather than the way down, and the pack these days is a whole lot more athletic and robust.

The problem with Dickson is his passing still isn't perfect so if that's all he gives then it's not good enough. And at this level a scrum half can not just have one tool in his box. Just like Care had to work on his passing and kicking to balance out the running Dickson has to work on the weaker sides of his play. Him and Farrel offer nothing ball in hand, which means no defenders are pulled in by them which then makes our backlines chances of creating something about zero no matter how nippy the pass from 9 is.

I have faith in Lancaster and his vision for the team. I actually think that at the moment we're an on form Ben Youngs, a fit Manu and a Wade/Yarde away from the best possible team that we could field. With those three positions secured we'll be a whole lot more threatening.

The biggest worry is Farrell and Catt. Farrell seems to have too much influence on the team and Catt not enough at the moment. Hopefully this'll change over time but if I could have one thing it'd be for these two to be replaced.

yappysnap wrote:My ratings for the Argentina game.

4. Joe Launchberry - 8/10 - The other contender for MoM Launchberry seemed to be taking what ever Robshaw was on as he was everywhere. Linked well with the backs (5 passes), carried well (7 runs), put in his tackles (12!) and worked well in the mauls. A brilliant display from the youngster.
5. Courtney Lawes - 6/10 - A quieter game from Lawes this week but still pretty effective. Not sure if he is the best for carrying the ball in traffic but that seemed to be his role as foil to Launchberry, he took the majority of lineouts well and called a good variety of moves. Has to be given a bit of praise for Englands good mauling and for two big tackles that forced turnovers. Still needs to improve on his carrying though which is weak.

Launchbury had 7 runs for a total of 2 metres and he "carried well", Lawes had 4 runs for a total of 9 metres but his "carrying was weak"...not sure what logic is applied there but obviously it wouldn't have anything to do with being selective with the stats you mention.

yappysnap wrote:6. Tom Wood - 5/10 - A busy shift from Wood which didn't seem to achieve much at times, the backrow as a unit started impressively but dropped off. Wood got through plenty of tackles (13) but didn't turn over enough (1 turn over) and gave away the most penalties of any player (3) a poor game by his standards as he just struggled to make an impact.

That turnover stat isn't turnovers won, its turnovers conceded.

yappysnap wrote:9. Lee Dickson - 5/10 - Made a stunningly poor 3m's carrying the ball, he also only made 2 tackles all game. On the plus side his passing was pretty good this week and he was quick to the rucks. Still is not a complete package and has to take some of the blame for the lack of focus in the second half.

Played 11 minutes in the second half and the whole 40 minute performance is his fault... When you pick Dickson you know what you get, selecting him with Farrell doesn't work very well but then again he did make more metres, more clean breaks and have better tackle success than Care.

yappysnap wrote:15. Mike Brown -7/10- Another assured performance from the full back. He linked well with his back three compatriotes and took all the high balls well except for one. Made his tackles and the most clean breaks of any player (1!).

He made 2 tackles in 75 minutes and that's fine...but Dickson makes 2 tackles in 51 minutes and its not good enough? He was also tied with Morgan and Ashton for most Clean Breaks.

Yappy is a deluded Quins supporter. Best if you ignore him.

In the pack Wood and Robshaw made the most tackles

Wood made 13 and missed 2
Robshaw made 20 and missed 3

Wood and Robshaw also made the most runs and passes.

Morgan impressed, in the time he was on he made 12 tackles and didn't miss any, he akso made some runs and scored that beautiful bashing try.

Launchbury and Wilson was decent on defence, didn't miss many tackles but made no meter in their few runs.

Hartley was strong with ball in hand and made some good front foot ball, but his work rate in defence was not as busy.

Brown played well, but ai thought he was more incisive against Australia, he ran quite a bit from deep, but Argentina tackled him well.

He did make a couple of good offloads and beat a few defenders, but never really got behind the advantage line like last weekend.

I thought Farrell was decent and in defence he nissed to tackles. But again during the second half Englands' forwards fell askeep and the backline suffered because of it.

I am not convinced by corbiseiro, for me he is only effective in the scrums when he scrums illegally.

Twelvetrees and Tomkins are good players, but not yet convinced that they are good enough to become great players.

Foden was quiet for me, and although Ahston had some good runs, I just think he doesn't have the goods at international level.

But again, the quality of play the backline delivers wholly depends on front foot ball from the forwards, and at times as in the Oz game they throw the ball willy nilly around in hope to catch the in your face defence off guard and created many mistakes.

thomh wrote:

Big wrote:  In terms of performance level I think we've seen far more at the level of the 2011 world cup and only a couple of games at the levels hit under the latter stages of Johnsons reign since Lancaster took over.

What levels were those? The 2011 Six Nations wasn't that brilliant. A good win in Cardiff, dominant win against Italy, and then a the last three games (vs France, Scotland and Ireland) were almost a carbon copy of the final three this season. The Australia win was just comparable to the New Zealand one last season as well.

I don't think we're a huge amount better now than the 2010-2011 season, but we do seem to be doing it with players on the way up rather than the way down, and the pack these days is a whole lot more athletic and robust.

 

Personally I think the 2011 6 nations was a lot better than the last run out.  I thought the first 3 games were good, as compared to just the first game being good this year (though given weather conditions they probably can't be blamed for the Ireland game).  Significantly England did enough in the earlier games to win the tournament despite the loss at the end to Ireland.  More generally while there were problems with consisitency there appeared to be a more rounded game plan with (in my opinion) more scope for improvement as players developed.  Still, I think that's all subjective stuff and may just need to agree to disagree.
 
You say that we seem to be doing it with players on the way up now, rather than those on the way down - but actually I think there were a number of young players in the 2011 6 nations (Ashton was 23 and actually playing reasonably well, as were Cole and Hartley, Wood was 24, Corbisiero 22, Youngs 21) and others like Flood, Foden, Haskell, etc were arguably still a couple of years away from what should be their peak.  It was the youngsters making a mark and getting the team running, while the senior players typically seemed to be filling the gaps and not playing particularly well (anyone want Deacon, Tindall and Hape back??  Good enough at club level but not now or then international standard).  Which is why I felt that dropping some of these players and bringing in some of the young talent coming through as well as getting more out of the retained players as they got more experience we should have moved onwards and upwards - not stayed fairly static.  Man for man I think we have a better squad now and in theory we should be better, but in terms of performance I see some areas a bit better, others worse, and on balance no real improvement - and for me that has to point to the coaches not getting the balance and tactics right.

Of course we are all a bit deluded.  Yappy is a right good bloke and knows his stuff.  

Now, with a gallon of coffee coursing through my veins, I am thinking more clearly.  

First off, the problems with our scrum halves is not their fault, per se.  Our runners are not always moving.  No scrum half can be successful when everyone moves in glacial fashion.  This is a coaching and captain's fault.  Full stop.  Watch Saints in full gallop (remember I am a deluded Saints supporter).  Everyone is moving, Dickson gets the ball out fast, the they get over the gain line consistently.  Youngs or Care would do (almost) equally well in that environment.    This is everything as this is our attack.  

On field leadership - Robshaw ain't it.  I want him in the starting XV, no question.  Very good player.  But he can't lead nuns to church.  I am a huge fan of Tom Wood, but his personality is not so different than Robshaw.  Cole? no.  marler?  Eff-no.  Lawes?  Maybe, but needs to cement his spot in the XV first.      

As much as I am afraid at the comments to come back my way, Hartley is the only player we have who has the personality to lead (yes, I am a deluded Saints supporter, but I ain't stupid).  I know the risk.  He probably cost us the Premiership championship last season.  But this group of choir boys ain't going anywhere.  McCaw is no choir boy.  Stirling Mortlock and George Gregan were not choir boys.  Jean DeVilliers is no choir boy, and sure as heck is not surrounded by choir boys (Bismarck or Gurthro come to mind?).   O'Driscoll, despite his little girly voice, played as tough and firey as any who laced up some boots.   Warburton is too ugly to mention.  Alan Wyn Jones (I am a big fan and wanted him leading the Lions-vindicated I am) is a tough mother.    

Looking down the list of everyone in the England EPS and I see no personality, no fire, no leadership, no......nothing.  I want you lads, whom I respect, to tell me, where is the fire, where is the obvious show of blood and guts.  Not this mamby pamby "he leads buy his play".  We are not in mamby pamby land.

Summed up nicely here, the guyon the couch is England Rugby: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avk1LTnIrXI

Pack all get a 6 bar Hartley who deserves a 7.

Dickson 3
Farrell 4
Twelvetrees 5
Tomkins 3
Ashton 3
Foden 4
Brown 7

It was a truly awful backs display, thank god our pack can maul.

Hartley as Captain! What a removed comment.

You need to watch you tone mate, diplomacy will get you much further (biltong)

I agree with most of your comments, bilt, but this one is a bit odd. Corbs has excellent technique and suits the new scrum engagement.

Biltong wrote:I am not convinced by corbiseiro, for me he is only effective in the scrums when he scrums illegally.

Dr Grey, I wouldn't mind seeing Hartley given the captaincy, but at the same time what's to stop him stepping up and leading right now? There's not much difference these days in being captain or not except the coin toss and chatting with the ref.

Frankston, they both carry in different areas of the field and do different things while carrying the ball, Launchberry put players in to space and ran at shoulders so made the advantage line. Lawes stays too upright and struggles to make it over the advantage line. Remember too that this is reletive to each player, what's a good carry for one may not be for the other.

As to Brown I may well have been a little biased but I think he played well.

Hubert, chill out mate you just seem to want a fight at the moment. You're not Mike Brown are you?

Cyril wrote:I agree with most of your comments, bilt, but this one is a bit odd. Corbs has excellent technique and suits the new scrum engagement.

Biltong wrote:I am not convinced by corbiseiro, for me he is only effective in the scrums when he scrums illegally.

I think he was talking about the times when Corbs was pretty much at 90 degrees to the rest of the scrum but the Argie prop got pinged. I honestly have no idea what's allowed or not so can't comment.

Cyril wrote:I agree with most of your comments, bilt, but this one is a bit odd. Corbs has excellent technique and suits the new scrum engagement.

Biltong wrote:I am not convinced by corbiseiro, for me he is only effective in the scrums when he scrums illegally.

Cyril, he scrums in blatantly, you cannot miss it.

Biltong wrote:

Cyril wrote:I agree with most of your comments, bilt, but this one is a bit odd. Corbs has excellent technique and suits the new scrum engagement.

Biltong wrote:I am not convinced by corbiseiro, for me he is only effective in the scrums when he scrums illegally.

Cyril, he scrums in blatantly, you cannot miss it.

Not quite as much as The Beast does.

All the best props push it as far as they can go. Illegal is when you get caught

Cyril wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Cyril wrote:I agree with most of your comments, bilt, but this one is a bit odd. Corbs has excellent technique and suits the new scrum engagement.

Biltong wrote:I am not convinced by corbiseiro, for me he is only effective in the scrums when he scrums illegally.

Cyril, he scrums in blatantly, you cannot miss it.

Not quite as much as The Beast does.

All the best props push it as far as they can go. Illegal is when you get caught

we're not discussing Beast here. The point is people rate Corbisiero, was I a referee he would be penalised all the time and his reputation as a strong scrummager is based on serious flaws in his technique. Eventually referees will pick up on it as it is not worked on.

I am looking at him as a  prop, having been one myself.

Biltong wrote:

Cyril wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Cyril wrote:I agree with most of your comments, bilt, but this one is a bit odd. Corbs has excellent technique and suits the new scrum engagement.

Biltong wrote:I am not convinced by corbiseiro, for me he is only effective in the scrums when he scrums illegally.

Cyril, he scrums in blatantly, you cannot miss it.

Not quite as much as The Beast does.

All the best props push it as far as they can go. Illegal is when you get caught

we're not discussing Beast here. The point is people rate Corbisiero, was I a referee he would be penalised all the time and his reputation as a strong scrummager is based on serious flaws in his technique. Eventually referees will pick up on it as it is not worked on.

I am looking at him as a  prop, having been one myself.

Lucky you're not a ref then isn't it?

I compared Corbs to The Beast because he has a reputation for getting away with plenty at scrumtime. If he's managed it all this time I think Corbs will be just fine.

Biltong wrote:

Cyril wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Cyril wrote:I agree with most of your comments, bilt, but this one is a bit odd. Corbs has excellent technique and suits the new scrum engagement.

Biltong wrote:I am not convinced by corbiseiro, for me he is only effective in the scrums when he scrums illegally.

Cyril, he scrums in blatantly, you cannot miss it.

Not quite as much as The Beast does.

All the best props push it as far as they can go. Illegal is when you get caught

we're not discussing Beast here. The point is people rate Corbisiero, was I a referee he would be penalised all the time and his reputation as a strong scrummager is based on serious flaws in his technique. Eventually referees will pick up on it as it is not worked on.

I am looking at him as a  prop, having been one myself.

But he's getting away with it and being effective. Why would he change it currently if he's not getting penalties against him? You've surely got to rate players on the basis of what they get away with!

Corbs is a fantastic scrummager, him and Cole are a great pairing.

Who's Roger Wilson?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Cyril wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Cyril wrote:I agree with most of your comments, bilt, but this one is a bit odd. Corbs has excellent technique and suits the new scrum engagement.

Biltong wrote:I am not convinced by corbiseiro, for me he is only effective in the scrums when he scrums illegally.

Cyril, he scrums in blatantly, you cannot miss it.

Not quite as much as The Beast does.

All the best props push it as far as they can go. Illegal is when you get caught

we're not discussing Beast here. The point is people rate Corbisiero, was I a referee he would be penalised all the time and his reputation as a strong scrummager is based on serious flaws in his technique. Eventually referees will pick up on it as it is not worked on.

I am looking at him as a  prop, having been one myself.

But he's getting away with it and being effective. Why would he change it currently if he's not getting penalties against him? You've surely got to rate players on the basis of what they get away with!

I disagree, think about it this way, Ewen McKenzie is one of those coaches that has complained about scrums to the IRB twice already this year. What do you think the directive of the IRB is going to be in regards to illegal scrumming by Corbs?

Beast often gets blown for going in, he doesn't get away with it since 2009 against the Lions. There is a perception that he still scrums illegally all the time, yet it isn't the truth.

If Corbisiero gets called during the RWC (which you can bet your bottom dollar with Australia being in the same group as England) it is too late then.

biltong, there's absolutely no evidence of what you're saying happening yet. If it does, Corbs will, of course, amend his technique.

All the best props get away with illegal moves. Adam Jones admits as much and he's the best in the business on the TH side.

It's all about keeping ahead of the game, like any aspect of rugby where interpretation is necessary.

Why would Corbisiero start to get pinged? He doesn't get pinged now and dominates most TH's.

He's the best LH in world imo.

It's a big if Bilt. You try and get away with as much as you can; if you're blown for it you change what you're doing. As yet he's winning penalties and probably more importantly people are saying he's an excellent scrummager. Let's face it most refs don't know their arse from their elbow so if they see the opposition scrum going backwards and see a prop who's known to be good doing the shoving they are more likely to give the pen to the 'dominant' scrum (please see Wales vs England where there were at least a couple which England won to no avail!).

Fine, believe what you want, head in the sand isn't going to save you when the time comes. Coaches communicate with the refereeing panel and IRB, at some point he will be closely monitored, the same as Beast after the Lions tour of 2009

I wouldn't go that far Pooly. Let's see him put together more then 2 games and we'll check back on him then.

Biltong wrote:Fine, believe what you want, head in the sand isn't going to save you when the time comes. Coaches communicate with the refereeing panel and IRB, at some point he will be closely monitored, the same as Beast after the Lions tour of 2009

With all due respect, that's a post I would expect from GloriousEmpire  

I rate cian Healy as a better loosehead than Corbisiero.  

Aus have complained about the scrum for over 10 years yet nothing has changed.

Yappy...who's better?

Cyril wrote:

Biltong wrote:Fine, believe what you want, head in the sand isn't going to save you when the time comes. Coaches communicate with the refereeing panel and IRB, at some point he will be closely monitored, the same as Beast after the Lions tour of 2009

With all due respect, that's a post I would expect from GloriousEmpire  

What's wrong with that?

Since the moaning about Beast in that tour he doesn't often get away with any scrumming in. How do you think that came about?

Biltong wrote:I rate cian Healy as a better loosehead than Corbisiero.  

Yet he often struggles in the scrum.

I like a prop to scrummage first and foremost, Corbisiero is the best scrummaging LH about.

Healy is fantastic in the loose though.

Pooly, as above I'd rate Healy pretty highly and the Franks brothers for NZ are quality as well. I don't think any are world class though, all have their own weaknesses.

Healy is fantastic but he's not a big scrummager, a prop has to be able to scrummage to a dominant level to WC imo.

Owen Franks is a TH and Ben is nothing past a steady Int for me.

Hubert Davenport wrote:Hartley as Captain! What a removed comment.

You need to watch you tone mate, diplomacy will get you much further (biltong)

HUbert,
I said I know the risks.  But nothing changes the fact we simply don't have a leader with fire in the belly, and with the spit and blood and grunt on every play.  I don't want choir boys.  I want players, real, hard players.  

And I also don't agree with this mamby pamby stuff about everyone is a leader.  That is 21st century psychobable.  In business we call these people unemployed. In the army we call this the kind of thing which gets everyone dead.  

Who really meets the my criteria for leadership?  Father Robshaw?    no.  But I love him as a player.

Hubie, give me one player who can grab the team by the scruff of the neck and DO something. GIVE ME A NAME!

(and by the way, backs need not apply)

What about Brown? Someone described him as a forward in disguise...

At least from where he stands he can see what's going on!

I wonder what happened to the zero tolerance to scrummaging laws infringements that were supposed to come in hand-in-hand with the new engagement rules.

Referees are weaker than putty these days it seems.