From an England Perspective - What Have We learned Today

Well, first and foremost why the ABs are No.1 and likely to stay there.

What we must aspire to, to join them at the top.

We have strength in depth at loosehead, Marler played well and he is our 3rd choice.

T. Youngs needs to stay at Tigers for a bit until his throwing is consistent enough to play at this level, perhaps they could stretch him a couple of inches s well. Webber must get his chance.

Lawes and Launchberry are the best pairing at lock we have, Lawes was world class today. Parling is not an impact sub, Attwood or an equivalent is needed

Billy Vunipolo and Morgan are both very good 8s

Dickson is the way forward if we want a fast paced game, bringing forwards and backs into the game at pace.

Farrell can attack as well as kick, but needs to stop these lateral runs that go nowhere, much better 2nd half, tried to take it straighter

36 may have the 12 shirt again next year, if he plays like today and not last week.

Tomkins is not close to this level, yet at least. there are a least three better backs out there now, not including Manu. A failed experiment that needs to be stopped.

Ashton, played better, but still few runs following the ball carrier,  runs back against the flow when ball moving laterally.

Brown is top class

Foden can cover wing, but is a full back

We need more cover at 9, Youngs is not doing it anymore, he ha been found out I think.

Flood cannot hack it at this level.



We are getting there if we can keep up the intensity, but too many mistake and poor choice replacements.

Can't agree with some of that, your looking at it to simply. Case in point, Youngs was giving slow service because our forwards weren't giving him clean ball. He had to dig nearly every time. Now is that Youngs fault or the forwards?

Your not going to see Ashton scoring until we sort the backs out, our wings can't do much if they haven't any ball. One thing to note though is NZ targetted Ashtons channel first half.

On a side note, how many not straights did Youngs throw?

The game turned when Tom Youngs came on. Up to that point the momentum was with England with the line-out a strength. Once he came on the line-out was a disaster and the confidence ebbed away.

Hartley was superb and Webber now needs to be given a chance.

Some positives and negatives for England over the series! Biggest for me was Joel Tomkins, he looked completely out of his depth and if Lancaster is a truly international coach he will see this and drop him from the squad. If Manu is unfit for the six nations then Barritt, Burrell, Twelvetrees and Trinder will serve England well!
Even as a Tigers fan I'll admit that Tom Youngs needs to go away and work on his throwing! He single handedly lost all the momentum for England but he will know this and on form is a good impact player to bring on! Parling however is not and Lancaster should look to Attwood who has a lot to offer coming on for the last 20.
Looking to the six nations England can put together a formidable squad for training then it is down for the players individually to put their hands up for selection and Lancaster to show he is a international class coach and look to address their weaknesses! If anything he has the most to prove!
The squad I'd pick for next year would be:
1) Corbisero, Vunipola, Marler
2) Youngs, Hartley, Webber
3) Cole, Wilson
4) Launchbury, Attwood
5) Lawes, Parling
6) Wood, Haskell, Croft
7) Robshaw, Kvesic
8) Morgan, Vunipola
9) Youngs, Dickinson, Care
10) Farrell, Burns, Flood
11) Yarde
12) + 13) Burrell, Twelvetrees, Barritt, Tuilagi (If unfit Trinder)
14) Wade, Ashton
15) Brown, Foden
Utility) Eastmond

A solid squad which deserve a class coach to give them the step up to the next level, hopefully Lancaster can provide!

Ashton has been given enough chances now. He has done very little in either attack or defence in the last 3 matches that makes me want to keep him right now. It's no surprise that the ABs targeted his channel. He CANNOT tackle at an international level one on one. He was only there because of injury anyway so I am hoping we don't see him starting in the 6N.

Youngs' lineout throwing has become a liability. I wonder what Webber has to do to get into the EPS. Tomkins is a bit wishy-washy at this level but is there to do a job and has learned a lot from the last 3 games. And I agree with Foden being a fullback, not a winger.

On the plus side, we took on the best team in the world with an under-strength team and gave them a bloody nose. We probably learned more in defeat than if we'd won.

Changes for the 6N? Not many; if everyone is fit, we need a decent 13 with good hands, at least 3 other wingers who are not injured (Wade, Yarde & May) and dropping Youngs for a bit to get his throwing sorted. Everyone else in my eyes had a really good game.

I would like to give a special mention to the WHOLE starting pack and Ben Morgan plus Mike Brown, Ben Foden & Billy Twelvetrees. All were shining examples of what English players should offer when they pull the shirt on.

Exiledinborders wrote:The game turned when Tom Youngs came on. Up to that point the momentum was with England with the line-out a strength. Once he came on the line-out was a disaster and the confidence ebbed away.

Hartley was superb and Webber now needs to be given a chance.

So you place that all on T. Youngs? Nothing to with our forwards no longer clearing rucks or standing just out from the ruck making it easy to defend against.

I agree in that Youngs should be dropped but I dont agree that it was all his fault.

the 6nations is going to be huge for us- no excuses at all, even with weaknesses we need to target the win

yes wales are back on form, but we have the home fixture..

What we know is that mentally, where a lot of rugby games are won and lost, England are very strong.

A lot of teams would have folded and surrendered meekly at going 3-17 down. Not England. They fought so hard, and got so far, but in the end they fell.

More positives than negatives today I feel. England have got the forward area of their game working - the scrum, the line-out (till Youngs came on), and the maul. There's the platform, now they need to establish a solid back-line in 2014 with an abundance of creativity - they can't keep expecting to batter their way over the line.

Can't wait for the Six Nations!

Agree with most of that well past it.

Tomkins was disappointing. Another option needs to be tried.

I feel Farrell has answered is critics to an extent - ruthless in defence, worked really hard, kicked all points on offer, did try to mix things up, he did play flatter. I thought he did very well personally.

Ashton perhaps needs to go back to club level, Wade should be given a run out in the 6 nations.

T.Youngs line out throwing is laughably poor. Hartley looked good.

Lawes played well and has the potential to get better.

Ben Youngs and Toby Flood need to go back to their club and find some form. They made little to no impact IMO.

We missed Manu.

Tom Youngs needs more game time at Tiger's than for England. When Hartley went off England lost momentum, we lost the go forward that we had. I don't think Foden should play on the Wing. Although he did all right to day, he is really a full back.

Thought the centres played ok, to say they have not had much game time together. Still i would like too see some one like Eastmond, Burrell get a chance in the 6ns. Hope fully we will see Wade and Yarde in the 6ns also.

Forward dominance
Our forwards had an edge, at times a clear edge v. the ABs forwards for the first 60 minutes, the yellow card irregardless.  That is how we got back into the match.  With that edge, Dickson played his natural game, get the ball out quickly bringing everyone into attack.  

Lawes played the game we knew or hoped for, but still needs to run lower into contact.  Will be virtually unstoppable if he does.  Launchbury had a good game but seems half a step slow.  I really don't think he was ever taught to run properly.  Probably the best combo for now, however.

The back row was fine.  I love Robshaw's eye.  Both 8s were good.

Hartley was a right pain in the arse, exaxctly as needed.  Was very good.  Marler needs to run with more commitment and power, but was better than expected, for me.  Cole was Cole, fine across the board.   The team lost a lot of momentum when Hartley was subbed off.  Why was Hartley subbed off?  Because of the magic 60 minute Pavlovian response to 60 minutes (but I will get to that). He may have been able to play through the knock, We need to know whether a real injury or not.

Backs
Backs were generally useful, but not earth shattering.  Everyone played decent defense, but commitments to the ruck caused some chasing to the outside.   There was zero dynamism by the backs.  Farrell was able to connect with Twelvetrees or Dickson skipped Farrell and went direct to Twelvetrees, who was OK.  Dickson did a nice job running the attack.  Foden was fine on the wing, but is clearly out of position.  Ashton was more involved because of better service.  Brown was the best of the 10-15.  Tomkins was good defensively, but pedestrian in attack.  Twelvetrees made game attempts to get across the gain line.  

Farrell is becoming a huge question mark for me because even with quick service, there was not much doing in attack with the backs.  

Pavlovian 60 minute substitutes
Let me start by saying wtf?.  
Morgan was good.  The rest slowed the attack and the contact and forward edge was lost.  
Tom Youngs was poor again with the lineouts, which needs immediate improvement.  Those first two or three lineouts of his changed the game.  
Ben Youngs had poor quality ball to work with and, I think, made him look worse than he is.   On form, he is a game changer.  
Flood was poor service too, so a bit hard to tell.  Hard to come into a match which is starting to disintegrate.  Same for Goode.  
To me, why change what is clearly working?  I don't care about winning in two years.  The game was there to be won.  Lancaster's decisions were poor............

Lets get realistic here guys for gods sake.

These young guys played the so called best AB team ever and matched them indeed were taking the game to them for 60 mins.

Most aren't used to playing at this level of intensity at all let alone for 80 mins against the AB's.

The subs all came on when the fantastic England forwards were really beginning to tire...and weren't giving the same service to Dickson etc.

Youngs throwing is an issue ...but no way did that cost us the game, though Hartley has really stepped us his game for England this autumn and he should be No.1 best games ive seen him play for England.
Tomkins was not explosive like Tuilagi "the God" is but he did ok. Don't forget his first 3 games for England have been against Australia, Argentina and NZ...pretty tough going. He more than coped physically...and made a few carries...but he didn't get a lot of service to get his game offloading etc working.

Marler for me has proved as I said before the game that he is ahead of Vunipola and Lawes/ Launchbury were sublime. Lawes was everywhere and is adapting to that lineout forward we need...but with huge physicality which is fantastic.
Launchbury I have said before reminds me of a Richard Hill style...nothing flashy he just does everything very well and consistant.

I think praise should also go to Robshaw and Wood who never stopped and gave Billy V the freedom to make his carriers...though he got stuck in aswell.

Mike Brown Englands man of the Series by a country mile...even his rucking is class...as he should in a particular one today...

I think 36 did well but Tomkins was rubbish. Think its too early to say he isn't international quality.

Makes me laugh but people were calling for 36 to be dropped last week.

doctor_grey wrote:Forward dominance
Our forwards had an edge, at times a clear edge v. the ABs forwards for the first 60 minutes, the yellow card irregardless.  That is how we got back into the match.  With that edge, Dickson played his natural game, get the ball out quickly bringing everyone into attack.  

Lawes played the game we knew or hoped for, but still needs to run lower into contact.  Will be virtually unstoppable if he does.  Launchbury had a good game but seems half a step slow.  I really don't think he was ever taught to run properly.  Probably the best combo for now, however.

The back row was fine.  I love Robshaw's eye.  Both 8s were good.

Hartley was a right pain in the arse, exaxctly as needed.  Was very good.  Marler needs to run with more commitment and power, but was better than expected, for me.  Cole was Cole, fine across the board.   The team lost a lot of momentum when Hartley was subbed off.  Why was Hartley subbed off?  Because of the magic 60 minute Pavlovian response to 60 minutes (but I will get to that).

Backs
Backs were generally useful, but not earth shattering.  Everyone played decent defense, but commitments to the ruck caused some chasing to the outside.   There was zero dynamism by the backs.  Farrell was able to connect with Twelvetrees or Dickson skipped Farrell and went direct to Twelvetrees, who was OK.  Dickson did a nice job running the attack.  Foden was fine on the wing, but is clearly out of position.  Ashton was more involved because of better service.  Brown was the best of the 10-15.  Tomkins was good defensively, but pedestrian in attack.  Twelvetrees made game attempts to get across the gain line.  

Farrell is becoming a huge question mark for me because even with quick service, there was not much doing in attack with the backs.  

Pavlovian 60 minute substitutes
Let me start by saying wtf?.  
Morgan was good.  The rest slowed the attack and the contact and forward edge was lost.  
Tom Youngs was poor again with the lineouts, which needs immediate improvement.  Those first two or three lineouts of his changed the game.  
Ben Youngs had poor quality ball to work with and, I think, made him look worse than he is.   On form, he is a game changer.  
Flood was poor service too, so a bit hard to tell.  Hard to come into a match which is starting to disintegrate.  Same for Goode.  
To me, why change what is clearly working?  I don't care about winning in two years.  The game was there to be won.  Lancaster's decisions were poor............

That's the problem, we're in the run up to a world cup and you need to think about winning in two years time. Not thinking like that is the reason for England poor performances since 2003

I seem to remember them saying Hartley went off for concussion assessment & didnt reappear

Doctor grey I find it absolutely ridiculous that you are still criticising Farrell. What the hell does he have to do to please you? Make numerous breaks, score a hatrick and more?

Perhaps his style is not your cup of tea but he's very effective at what he does.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Lets get realistic here guys for gods sake.

These young guys played the so called best AB team ever and matched them indeed were taking the game to them for 60 mins.

Most aren't used to playing at this level of intensity at all let alone for 80 mins against the AB's.

The subs all came on when the fantastic England forwards were really beginning to tire...and weren't giving the same service to Dickson etc.

Youngs throwing is an issue ...but no way did that cost us the game, though Hartley has really stepped us his game for England this autumn and he should be No.1 best games ive seen him play for England.
Tomkins was not explosive like Tuilagi "the God" is but he did ok. Don't forget his first 3 games for England have been against Australia, Argentina and NZ...pretty tough going. He more than coped physically...and made a few carries...but he didn't get a lot of service to get his game offloading etc working.

Marler for me has proved as I said before the game that he is ahead of Vunipola and Lawes/ Launchbury were sublime. Lawes was everywhere and is adapting to that lineout forward we need...but with huge physicality which is fantastic.
Launchbury I have said before reminds me of a Richard Hill style...nothing flashy he just does everything very well and consistant.

I think praise should also go to Robshaw and Wood who never stopped and gave Billy V the freedom to make his carriers...though he got stuck in aswell.

Mike Brown England's man of the Series by a country mile...even his rucking is class...as he should in a particular one today...

I think you are a little forgiving, though I agree with a lot of what you wrote. I believe Youngs poor lineouts absolutely changed the tenor/momentum of the match. Did England have other chances to score? Of course. But these were real game changers in a match hanging by a thread with zero room for errors. Tomkins is not showing anything, for me, except for pretty good defense. Argentina was clobbered by Wales today and this is not the usual caliber Australia. In hindsight, teams he should do OK against. Need another centre option. Not yet convinced by Burrell, but his style would have been dead nuts what was needed today.

Good news is the team is improving. They realised they had to take the ABs on up front the the contact area was brutal. And England had the edge for the first 60 minutes. Questions still exist. Sorry to say, but Farrell has not improved this year.

I just hope England become a bogey team for new Zealand just like France.

beshocked wrote:Doctor grey I find it absolutely ridiculous that you are still criticising Farrell. What the hell does he have to do to please you? Make numerous breaks, score a hatrick and more?

Perhaps his style is not your cup of tea but he's very effective at what he does.

And can you please tell me exactly what you see him as doing well? I admit his kicking the other match was an anomaly. His defense is usually good. C'est tout. Anything else related to attacking ball came from elsewhere. I was happy with him last year because he is a young player who plays with nerve and guts. But we need more. Not sure the answer, but he need to improve or take a rest.

Twelvetree had a much better game today....Did that help Farrell taking a bit of pressure off his creativity demands.

Id persevere with Twelvetrees for the 6n regardless of Barritt being fit or not.

nathan wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:Forward dominance
Our forwards had an edge, at times a clear edge v. the ABs forwards for the first 60 minutes, the yellow card irregardless.  That is how we got back into the match.  With that edge, Dickson played his natural game, get the ball out quickly bringing everyone into attack.  

Lawes played the game we knew or hoped for, but still needs to run lower into contact.  Will be virtually unstoppable if he does.  Launchbury had a good game but seems half a step slow.  I really don't think he was ever taught to run properly.  Probably the best combo for now, however.

The back row was fine.  I love Robshaw's eye.  Both 8s were good.

Hartley was a right pain in the arse, exaxctly as needed.  Was very good.  Marler needs to run with more commitment and power, but was better than expected, for me.  Cole was Cole, fine across the board.   The team lost a lot of momentum when Hartley was subbed off.  Why was Hartley subbed off?  Because of the magic 60 minute Pavlovian response to 60 minutes (but I will get to that).

Backs
Backs were generally useful, but not earth shattering.  Everyone played decent defense, but commitments to the ruck caused some chasing to the outside.   There was zero dynamism by the backs.  Farrell was able to connect with Twelvetrees or Dickson skipped Farrell and went direct to Twelvetrees, who was OK.  Dickson did a nice job running the attack.  Foden was fine on the wing, but is clearly out of position.  Ashton was more involved because of better service.  Brown was the best of the 10-15.  Tomkins was good defensively, but pedestrian in attack.  Twelvetrees made game attempts to get across the gain line.  

Farrell is becoming a huge question mark for me because even with quick service, there was not much doing in attack with the backs.  

Pavlovian 60 minute substitutes
Let me start by saying wtf?.  
Morgan was good.  The rest slowed the attack and the contact and forward edge was lost.  
Tom Youngs was poor again with the lineouts, which needs immediate improvement.  Those first two or three lineouts of his changed the game.  
Ben Youngs had poor quality ball to work with and, I think, made him look worse than he is.   On form, he is a game changer.  
Flood was poor service too, so a bit hard to tell.  Hard to come into a match which is starting to disintegrate.  Same for Goode.  
To me, why change what is clearly working?  I don't care about winning in two years.  The game was there to be won.  Lancaster's decisions were poor............

That's the problem, we're in the run up to a world cup and you need to think about winning in two years time. Not thinking like that is the reason for England poor performances since 2003

I partially disagree. Yes we need to try different people, combinations and strategies to define our best team. But I also believe we learn more from figuring out how to win than playing plug and play two years out. The biggest match of the year. That win, coming from 3-17, would have been bigger than what we get from a 15 minute cameo by Ben Youngs (who I do like quite a bit, by the way). These are the ABs. Grind their nuts into the turf. Missed opportunity (the ABs are a tough bunch of basterauds, ain't they).

Doctor grey what he did well was throw himself around making a real nuisance. His defence was excellent. His goal kicking was immaculate. His kicking from hand was good. He was flatter with ball in hand and actually tried to be more enterprising. He even attacked from his own 22. He didn't make too many errors. No chargedowns or penalties given away.

I feel you have really unrealistic expectations. The supposedly attacking Flood offered nothing extra. I feel you underestimate Farrell. Course he is not the finished article but you must appreciate what he does do instead of focus on what he doesn't.

Against a very strong AB side Farrell did not look out of depth.

I thought Farrell played well today...and I have been particularly critical of him in the past.

I wonder how much pressure was lifted from him having a more creative player outside him in Twelvetrees who himself had a better game than the last few.

Certainly worth persevering with for the moment as I don't think Ford or Burns are showing the form to take it off him.

The 13 spot needs looked at. Do you play a lighter skilled runner like trinder, or Joseoh if he finds form...or do we bludgeon it with Tuilagi. Don't forget he may not be fit for the 6n...

beshocked wrote:Doctor grey what he did well was throw himself around making a real nuisance. His defence was excellent. His goal kicking was immaculate. His kicking from hand was good. He was flatter with ball in hand and actually tried to be more enterprising. He even attacked from his own 22. He didn't make too many errors. No chargedowns or penalties given away.

I feel you have really unrealistic expectations. The supposedly attacking Flood offered nothing extra. I feel you underestimate Farrell. Course he is not the finished article but you must appreciate what he does do instead of focus on what he doesn't.

Against a very strong AB side Farrell did not look out of depth.

I don't have unrealistic expectations. I expect reasonable all around play from the out half.

I said his D was good. He made his kicks. We need more. He had one or two decent runs, the rest were aimless and into traffic. He does not get the backs moving, and had the best service of the AIs. Was the same last year with different centres (one of who he plays with at his club). But last year we all gave a little leeway because he is young. And fair enough. This year, no progress. We want him to do more. We need him top do more. Don't know if he can do more.

I do think you are giving far much too much credit.

Cracking game, well done England. Credit especially to our pack who I thought outplayed the All Blacks and didn't take a single backwards step. Backs were poor bar Brown and 36. It is obvious that changes need to be made.

What I do find worrying is that suddenly Barritt's name is being held in high regard, as if we've forgotten how painfully average he was in an England shirt. Posters and journalists are mentioning his name as if he is one of our missing stars, which I don't think could be further from the truth. Dependable, yes, but an assured starter? I don't think so. 36 offers a lot more.

The replacements let the side down.

T youngs couldn't hit a barn door and is too small.
Tomkins can't/won't pass
Wingers both far too small
Parling didn't show up
Flood is useless

Good stuff was
Farrell is hard and did a big shift
Starting pack were good
Brown brilliant
Dickson is the best of the 9s

Burrell, Attwood and Yarde must be given a go. Burns for Flood. We also need Manu and Barritt. But we also need a big winger from somewhere.

doctor_grey wrote:

nathan wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:Forward dominance
Our forwards had an edge, at times a clear edge v. the ABs forwards for the first 60 minutes, the yellow card irregardless.  That is how we got back into the match.  With that edge, Dickson played his natural game, get the ball out quickly bringing everyone into attack.  

Lawes played the game we knew or hoped for, but still needs to run lower into contact.  Will be virtually unstoppable if he does.  Launchbury had a good game but seems half a step slow.  I really don't think he was ever taught to run properly.  Probably the best combo for now, however.

The back row was fine.  I love Robshaw's eye.  Both 8s were good.

Hartley was a right pain in the arse, exaxctly as needed.  Was very good.  Marler needs to run with more commitment and power, but was better than expected, for me.  Cole was Cole, fine across the board.   The team lost a lot of momentum when Hartley was subbed off.  Why was Hartley subbed off?  Because of the magic 60 minute Pavlovian response to 60 minutes (but I will get to that).

Backs
Backs were generally useful, but not earth shattering.  Everyone played decent defense, but commitments to the ruck caused some chasing to the outside.   There was zero dynamism by the backs.  Farrell was able to connect with Twelvetrees or Dickson skipped Farrell and went direct to Twelvetrees, who was OK.  Dickson did a nice job running the attack.  Foden was fine on the wing, but is clearly out of position.  Ashton was more involved because of better service.  Brown was the best of the 10-15.  Tomkins was good defensively, but pedestrian in attack.  Twelvetrees made game attempts to get across the gain line.  

Farrell is becoming a huge question mark for me because even with quick service, there was not much doing in attack with the backs.  

Pavlovian 60 minute substitutes
Let me start by saying wtf?.  
Morgan was good.  The rest slowed the attack and the contact and forward edge was lost.  
Tom Youngs was poor again with the lineouts, which needs immediate improvement.  Those first two or three lineouts of his changed the game.  
Ben Youngs had poor quality ball to work with and, I think, made him look worse than he is.   On form, he is a game changer.  
Flood was poor service too, so a bit hard to tell.  Hard to come into a match which is starting to disintegrate.  Same for Goode.  
To me, why change what is clearly working?  I don't care about winning in two years.  The game was there to be won.  Lancaster's decisions were poor............

That's the problem, we're in the run up to a world cup and you need to think about winning in two years time. Not thinking like that is the reason for England poor performances since 2003

I partially disagree.  Yes we need to try different people, combinations and strategies to define our best team.  But I also believe we learn more from figuring out how to win than playing plug and play two years out.  The biggest match of the year.  That win, coming from 3-17, would have been bigger than what we get from a 15 minute cameo by Ben Youngs (who I do like quite a bit, by the way).  These are the ABs.  Grind their nuts into the turf.  Missed opportunity (the ABs are a tough bunch of basterauds, ain't they).

But we're not aiming for one off wins, we want to build and win consistently and that means building a squad so when we get injuries the wheels dont fall off. Just look at the issues with our centres, we need to get experience of multiple players in every position. Some positions we're already there

GeordieFalcon wrote:I thought Farrell played well today...and I have been particularly critical of him in the past.

I wonder how much pressure was lifted from him having a more creative player outside him in Twelvetrees who himself had a better game than the last few.

Certainly worth persevering with for the moment as I don't think Ford or Burns are showing the form to take it off him.

The 13 spot needs looked at. Do you play a lighter skilled runner like trinder, or Joseoh if he finds form...or do we bludgeon it with Tuilagi. Don't forget he may not be fit for the 6n...

Methinks we consider Tuilagi lost for this season. Twelvetrees needs more time in the England jersey, and earned it, I thought. Tuilagi is a big part of the England attack, and is therefore outside centre is a big problem. Strategically, I like pairing a harder runner with a creative one in the centres. Do we have one? As I said before I like Burrell, but he is playing at 12, and I would rather see a full season from him before elevating to the England squad.

nathan wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

nathan wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:Forward dominance
Our forwards had an edge, at times a clear edge v. the ABs forwards for the first 60 minutes, the yellow card irregardless.  That is how we got back into the match.  With that edge, Dickson played his natural game, get the ball out quickly bringing everyone into attack.  

Lawes played the game we knew or hoped for, but still needs to run lower into contact.  Will be virtually unstoppable if he does.  Launchbury had a good game but seems half a step slow.  I really don't think he was ever taught to run properly.  Probably the best combo for now, however.

The back row was fine.  I love Robshaw's eye.  Both 8s were good.

Hartley was a right pain in the arse, exaxctly as needed.  Was very good.  Marler needs to run with more commitment and power, but was better than expected, for me.  Cole was Cole, fine across the board.   The team lost a lot of momentum when Hartley was subbed off.  Why was Hartley subbed off?  Because of the magic 60 minute Pavlovian response to 60 minutes (but I will get to that).

Backs
Backs were generally useful, but not earth shattering.  Everyone played decent defense, but commitments to the ruck caused some chasing to the outside.   There was zero dynamism by the backs.  Farrell was able to connect with Twelvetrees or Dickson skipped Farrell and went direct to Twelvetrees, who was OK.  Dickson did a nice job running the attack.  Foden was fine on the wing, but is clearly out of position.  Ashton was more involved because of better service.  Brown was the best of the 10-15.  Tomkins was good defensively, but pedestrian in attack.  Twelvetrees made game attempts to get across the gain line.  

Farrell is becoming a huge question mark for me because even with quick service, there was not much doing in attack with the backs.  

Pavlovian 60 minute substitutes
Let me start by saying wtf?.  
Morgan was good.  The rest slowed the attack and the contact and forward edge was lost.  
Tom Youngs was poor again with the lineouts, which needs immediate improvement.  Those first two or three lineouts of his changed the game.  
Ben Youngs had poor quality ball to work with and, I think, made him look worse than he is.   On form, he is a game changer.  
Flood was poor service too, so a bit hard to tell.  Hard to come into a match which is starting to disintegrate.  Same for Goode.  
To me, why change what is clearly working?  I don't care about winning in two years.  The game was there to be won.  Lancaster's decisions were poor............

That's the problem, we're in the run up to a world cup and you need to think about winning in two years time. Not thinking like that is the reason for England poor performances since 2003

I partially disagree.  Yes we need to try different people, combinations and strategies to define our best team.  But I also believe we learn more from figuring out how to win than playing plug and play two years out.  The biggest match of the year.  That win, coming from 3-17, would have been bigger than what we get from a 15 minute cameo by Ben Youngs (who I do like quite a bit, by the way).  These are the ABs.  Grind their nuts into the turf.  Missed opportunity (the ABs are a tough bunch of basterauds, ain't they).

But we're not aiming for one off wins, we want to build and win consistently and that means building a squad so when we get injuries the wheels dont fall off. Just look at the issues with our centres, we need to get experience of multiple players in every position. Some positions we're already there

Good thing we don't coach together. We would spend way too much time in the pub talking strategy and never get to work. I never like the idea of backing off a winnable match against a critical opponent. If we are far enough ahead or far enough behind or against a middling opponent then sub till the cows come home. Not the ABs. Never the ABs. Chances to beat them are rare. Take 'em every time.

Doctor grey no. I criticise Farrell too but this is not a performance I would.

Who do you think would have done better?

I feel like you give him no credit whatsoever. You assume that every fly half kicks and defends as well as Farrell. They don't. You can't know how another 10 would deal with the situation.

I would love to have a fly half that fits your unrealistic expectations but we don't as of yet.

I feel like you pin everything onto Farrell. It's not just him in the back line! I don't feel like the England back line is balanced.

Is Farrell an OAP now at the ripe old age of 22?

Bluestonevedder I disagree. Barritt was reliable.

Of course you never take your foot of the gas, but you have to believe its not just the 15 on the pitch that can win the game. If you don't  think that then you haven't picked the right subs. I think In building up to a world cup and where we were before as a nation we should give the players the experience

This was a great game for England in it's stage of development. It showed that we are several players short of a really good team. Mostly in the backs. SL must look to change some personnel for the 6Ns. Some of them have had a good go but aren't quite good enough.

englandglory4ever wrote:This was a great game for England in it's stage of development. It showed that we are several players short of a really good team. Mostly in the backs. SL must look to change some personnel for the 6Ns. Some of them have had a good go but aren't quite good enough.

What do you class as a "good go"?

Here's the deal.  If your XV are winning the battles, ahead on the scoresheet.  Keep 'em there.  This is international Rugby at the absolute highest level.  Mate, this was the biggest match of the year after the disaster against Wales (and maybe bigger) and we want to see how someone gets on for a few minutes?  
Not for me.
We will have to agree to disagree on this one.  I want wins, especially against the best.

doctor_grey wrote:Here's the deal.  If your XV are winning the battles, ahead on the scoresheet.  Keep 'em there.  This in international Rugby at the absolute highest level.  Mate, this was the biggest match of the year after the disaster against Wales (and maybe bigger) and we want to see how someone gets on for a few minutes?  
Not for me.
We will have to agree to disagree on this one.  I want wins, especially against the best.

Ok mate.

We all want wins, but we also want development of other players. What I don't want is we come to world cup time and get say 3 injuries in the back which would severely disrupt (if that's possible).
I do understand what your saying, some of the subs were needed today either through injury or the player getting tired.

I think Farrell played well. He made a few bad decisions, but who wouldn't against the ABs? On the whole I was happy with his performance. He gave everything.

Beshocked, I agree Barritt was/is reliable, but I don't just want reliability from the 12. Admittedly his defence is outstanding, but I just think people are assuming his fitness would have made a huge difference, when really I don't think it would have. To me, 36 has shown a lot more promise in the 12 shirt.

Todays 1-8 have to be the main starters. I thought Dickson played well today, Farrell too. Altho some basic errors kicking out of hand.
Backs:

Dickson/Care. Youngs
Farrell. Burns.Flood
Yarde. Foden
36,Barritt
Manu, Burrell, Eastmomd
Wade/Ashton
Brown. Foden

beshocked wrote:Agree with most of that well past it.

Tomkins was disappointing. Another option needs to be tried.

I feel Farrell has answered is critics to an extent - ruthless in defence, worked really hard, kicked all points on offer, did try to mix things up, he did play flatter. I thought he did very well personally.

Ashton perhaps needs to go back to club level, Wade should be given a run out in the 6 nations.

T.Youngs line out throwing is laughably poor. Hartley looked good.

Lawes played well and has the potential to get better.

Ben Youngs and Toby Flood need to go back to their club and find some form. They made little to no impact IMO.

We missed Manu.

So...told you so. The fact Lancaster thought otherwise is a major concern for me.

beshocked wrote:Doctor grey no. I criticise Farrell too but this is not a performance I would.  

Who do you think would have done better?

I feel like you give him no credit whatsoever. You assume that every fly half kicks and defends as well as Farrell. They don't. You can't know how another 10 would deal with the situation.

I would love to have a fly half that fits your unrealistic expectations but we don't as of yet.

I feel like you pin everything onto Farrell. It's not just him in the back line! I don't feel like the England back line is balanced.

Is Farrell an OAP now at the ripe old age of 22?

Bluestonevedder I disagree. Barritt was reliable.

Dude, you are still not getting me.  Or you simply rate Farrell higher than I do and can't see my points.  
His kicking is excellent.
His defense is terrific for a 10 - I don't expect him to be a flanker out there, nor to be another Jonny.  
No one is or probably will be on defense at 10.
But I see little else which is better than average.  Runs?  no.  Passes?  no.  Decision making?  no.  

Of course, the backs are a work in progress (gross understatement).  But he has to try to get to them going, at least a little.  Still seemed little movement from the backs.  The forwards were getting good service and getting across the gain line.  Backs can too.

Let me be clear. He must improve.  Yes he is young.  He has real talent and potential. But He has shown zero improvement from last year.  We need more from him.  Young players plateau at times, then some continue to improve.  He clearly needs to work on other parts of his game.  Because unless we get lucky, a out half who only kicks and tackles is not going to get us a RWC trophy in two years.  But might get us to a close loss in the final, just like today.

Hood83 wrote:

beshocked wrote:Agree with most of that well past it.

Tomkins was disappointing. Another option needs to be tried.

I feel Farrell has answered is critics to an extent - ruthless in defence, worked really hard, kicked all points on offer, did try to mix things up, he did play flatter. I thought he did very well personally.

Ashton perhaps needs to go back to club level, Wade should be given a run out in the 6 nations.

T.Youngs line out throwing is laughably poor. Hartley looked good.

Lawes played well and has the potential to get better.

Ben Youngs and Toby Flood need to go back to their club and find some form. They made little to no impact IMO.

We missed Manu.

So...told you so. The fact Lancaster thought otherwise is a major concern for me.

Why?

How can you say Tomkins won't turn out to be brilliant in 3 or so games? Why do fans expect every single player that comes on the scene to be amazing to start with.

Dr. Grey, we are already playing a RL convert with very little RU experience at 13, someone who plays a very similar game to Manu and therefore could enable England to continue to play with a similar style who is a RU centre through and through would be no more of a gamble. Especially as he is tearing apart the AP defences at the moment.

Jus caught Ben Cohen on Strictly, pity he didn't have those dancing feet a few years ago, his power with a touch of the Shane Williams would have been very interesting to watch.

I agree with Dr Grey. I thought Farrells limitations looked obvious out there.

In the macro sense of it all, I think we can be comfortable we have a group of forwards who can complete and potentially have an edge in virtually all facets, from contact, to set-pieces, to running, to defense, to off loads, and most importantly decision making.  We don't exactly know the best or preferred in all spots, but we now have the core group, and some on the fringe.  And others who need to improve aspects of their game to get to this core group.  

Backs are not settled.  Although I am a clear Foden fan, its obvious Brown has the fullback starting position.  I have had enough discussing Farrell: he must improve, but options, at least now are very limited.  In real terms, who is the backup?  And the backup to the backup?
Centres?
Wings?
All to play for.  Twelvetrees showed well today, but we need to see it again and again.  To me, the rest is an open book.  Someone mentioned using Foden as a backup to the back three, that might be a good idea.  But we need to see our wing options quickly.  And the backup for Tuilagi at 13.  

To put a positive spin on the match, England played the ABs almost dead even with a good pack and...........what?
Imagine the possibilities.

I think that's a great assessment Dr...

nathan wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

beshocked wrote:Agree with most of that well past it.

Tomkins was disappointing. Another option needs to be tried.

I feel Farrell has answered is critics to an extent - ruthless in defence, worked really hard, kicked all points on offer, did try to mix things up, he did play flatter. I thought he did very well personally.

Ashton perhaps needs to go back to club level, Wade should be given a run out in the 6 nations.

T.Youngs line out throwing is laughably poor. Hartley looked good.

Lawes played well and has the potential to get better.

Ben Youngs and Toby Flood need to go back to their club and find some form. They made little to no impact IMO.

We missed Manu.

So...told you so. The fact Lancaster thought otherwise is a major concern for me.

Why?

How can you say Tomkins won't turn out to be brilliant in 3 or so games? Why do fans expect every single player that comes on the scene to be amazing to start with.

I wouldn't, I'd say it after watching him for many games at Sarries. Where I'm sorry, but I saw absolutely nothing to warrant his inclusion. All sorts of claims were made about him, people seemed to suggest he was off-loading like SBW. He wasn't, his offloading game is average, as is running, kicking and passing. He is absolutely mediocre. He was picked because he's fairly big and because a bandwagon developed. A terrible piece of selection from Lancaster.

Does anyone have a link to a full match replay by any chance?

Not yet Hood, but give it a few hours and they will spring up all over YouTube. There are some great YouTube channels for full match replays.

doctor_grey wrote:Pavlovian 60 minute substitutes
Let me start by saying wtf?...

Tom Youngs, Parling and Flood came on because Hartley, Launchbury and Farrell were injured.

Ben Morgan replaced Vunipola in a pre-planned move but that worked out OK. Youngs for Dickson wasn't a great switch but it wasn't a factor in our loss, even though it coincided with NZ regaining the upper hand.

Lancaster actually held off subbing his props on the sixty minute mark. Both eventually went off in the 77th minute when the game was over. The only other sub was Goode, who came on for Tomkins at the same time the props were switched. I didn't actually see whether he slotted in at centre.

I can't believe how quick some people turn on there players.
Tom hasn't been having a good run of late no but is still a great hooker, don't forget it wasn't too long ago Rory Best was having a shocker and tom Youngs proved why he deserved to start those two test against for the Lions.
On his day Young can be one of the bets Hooker out there. Give him a bit of slack at least.