England Squad for NZ Tour and 6N

First topic message reminder :

And I've posed it in that order for a reason. England have already said that their objective is to win the 6N (with France away first up, that's a pretty big ask...) but thy also have a 3 game tour to NZ coming up in which the first game will be played without the AP finalists.

So the challenge is - how do you put together the 6N squad so that whoever makes the final, you have enough players who've played together by the end of the 6N that England can field a half-decent side with players from the top two sides missing? I suppose the good news is that for once the EPS is a nice mix of players from various teams, but a Saints-Sarries final would be a serious hindrance.

The EPS on 1 Aug looked like this. Who would be your squad? And how would you prepare them?

England senior EPS:

Forwards: David Attwood (Bath Rugby), Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers), Alex Corbisiero (Northampton Saints), Tom Croft (Leicester Tigers), Dylan Hartley (Northampton Saints), Matt Kvesic (Gloucester Rugby), Joe Launchbury (London Wasps), Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints), Joe Marler (Harlequins), Ben Morgan (Gloucester Rugby), Geoff Parling (Leicester Tigers), Chris Robshaw (Harlequins), Billy Vunipola (Saracens), Mako Vunipola (Saracens), David Wilson (Bath Rugby), Tom Wood (Northampton Saints), Tom Youngs (Leicester Tigers)

Backs: Chris Ashton (Saracens), Brad Barritt (Saracens), Mike Brown (Harlequins), Freddie Burns (Gloucester Rugby), Danny Care (Harlequins), Lee Dickson (Northampton Saints), Owen Farrell (Saracens), Toby Flood (Leicester Tigers), Ben Foden (Northampton Saints), Alex Goode (Saracens), Kyle Eastmond (Bath Rugby), Manusamoa Tuilagi (Leicester Tigers), Billy Twelvetrees (Gloucester Rugby), Christian Wade (London Wasps), Marland Yarde (London Irish), Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers)

England Saxons:

Forwards: Calum Clark (Northampton Saints), Jordan Crane (Leicester Tigers), Paul Doran Jones (Harlequins), Will Fraser (Saracens), James Haskell (London Wasps), Tom Johnson (Exeter Chiefs), Graham Kitchener (Leicester Tigers), George Kruis (Saracens), Kearnan Myall (London Wasps), David Paice (London Irish), George Robson (Harlequins), Ed Slater (Leicester Tigers), Henry Thomas (Sale Sharks), Thomas Waldrom (Leicester Tigers), Luke Wallace (Harlequins), Rob Webber (Bath Rugby), Nick Wood (Gloucester Rugby)

Backs: Anthony Allen (Leicester Tigers), Luther Burrell (Northampton Saints), Elliot Daly (London Wasps), George Ford (Bath Rugby), Jonathan Joseph (Bath Rugby), Jonny May (Gloucester Rugby), Ugo Monye (Harlequins), Stephen Myler (Northampton Saints), Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs), Charlie Sharples (Gloucester Rugby), Joe Simpson (London Wasps), David Strettle (Saracens), Mathew Tait (Leicester Tigers), Joel Tomkins (Saracens), Richard Wigglesworth (Saracens)

I dont think having a "proper 7" is essential. In Wood and Robshaw we have two extremely good and consistant rounded flankers. Each excellent at the breakdown, work rates, tackling, handling, lineout options etc. This leaves Morgan or Vunipola to concentrate on getting that ball and running it - though Billy is actually regarded as a total work horse by many at Sarries aswell so that bodes well.

Against the AB's our pack was absolutely brilliant. The backs lack of ability to use the ball played a large factor and when the Lawes, Hartley lineout was split up the game was over.

The Ab's pack were beaten yet as a team they still looked far more dangerous.

We need to be far more dangerous when we have the ball.

I'm clearly not going to agree with you on this. I apologise if I've gotten heated and we can agree to disagree (I personally don't think that the team of 2003 played 10 man rugby but that is an opinion I have seen spewed frequently on this board). If people do want to put a more traditional 7 on the pitch, then Wallace might be ready- he has a good partnership with Robshaw but is often found on the wing and could do with a bit more experience IMO. Kvesic is not playing well enough and Armitage won't be brought back in and won't leave Toulon. Fraser would be the best bet, if not for his injuries (just hope he doesn't end up being another Tom Rees). Until then, Wood and Robhsaw have worked well together and both have done do facing plenty of excellent 7s. McCaw was a great breakdown operator but now this aspect of his game has taken a back foot, and he acts more as a tackler and carrying linkman, but his greatest virtue at any point was that he was excellent at every facet of backrow play

That was to kingelderfield

then Wallace might be ready- he has a good partnership with Robshaw but is often found on the wing and could do with a bit more experience IMO

CJ i think you make a really valid point here. The thing i like about Wood and Robhsaw is they are both in the thick of things...unlike say Croft who plays his Tigers role for England..ie standing out covering the midfield.

A player like Read stands out a bit...but he is intelligent enough to know when he can and when to get stuck in. Im not sure our players are intelligent enough to play that game. Thus keep players in the team who get stuck in.

I also think its a mistake to believe that Flood is our best FH. He was our best FH.

I dont know if he can get back to his older standards but he has plenty to prove, and it looks like he has made a choice on where his future lies. His last outings for England were all disappointing

Agree with you chequeredjersey. Wood and Robshaw have done well for club and country. Don't understand the criticism.

Wood/Robshaw/Vunipola or Morgan is a nicely balanced back row.

Tampering with that has been when England have got into problems.

My thoughts are -
Robshaw = underrated by most
Gloucester backs - mostly overrated.
Sarries backs - underrated by most.
Watson and Nowell - not ready yet.
Ford and Cipriani - should be 2nd and 3rd 10 choice in the 6 nations.
T.Youngs - if he can sort out his shaky lineout when playing for England he'll push Hartley for that 2 spot.
Croft - good player but tough to slot into England back row at the moment.

ChequeredJersey wrote:I'm clearly not going to agree with you on this. I apologise if I've gotten heated and we can agree to disagree (I personally don't think that the team of 2003 played 10 man rugby but that is an opinion I have seen spewed frequently on this board). If people do want to put a more traditional 7 on the pitch, then Wallace might be ready- he has a good partnership with Robshaw but is often found on the wing and could do with a bit more experience IMO. Kvesic is not playing well enough and Armitage won't be brought back in and won't leave Toulon. Fraser would be the best bet, if not for his injuries (just hope he doesn't end up being another Tom Rees). Until then, Wood and Robhsaw have worked well together and  both have done do facing plenty of excellent 7s. McCaw was a great breakdown operator but now this aspect of his game has taken a back foot, and he acts more as a tackler and carrying linkman, but his greatest virtue at any point was that he was excellent at every facet of backrow play

Absolutely no need to apologise as no offense taken ( I hope likewise?) I actually think we agree more than it initially appears - however I don't expect any game plan changes from SL any time soon and so don't see wether its termed a 'balanced back' row or 'genuine specialist' will make a difference.

7 - It's not going to happen under SL but having observed the Neil Back international experience (we played 3 monster N8's in 1995 and got our backsides whipped by NZ) we have to understand the role and benefits of a genuine 7. Obviously Kvesic has had a rubbish season so far but I have been really impressed with Wallace and would get him a cap against Italy. Others are really hens teeth, maybe Seymoor or ofcourse Armitage who MUST go to NZ - again SL is a fool so this won't happen. The thing is you need to understand why you play a genuine 7 and with Farrell as a blind mans pick at 10 there really is nfp. Robshaw is obviously a 6.5 which is not criticism of him just a fact..

For the EPS do we think Wallace will come in? Can SL make form changes in Jan, I have an inkling he can only make injury changes, which is a shame.

He can make form changes, but a limited number. Also we have enough injuries to make plenty of injury changes!

One thing is that for Quins Robshaw has played (less recently) lots of first receiver but he doesn't for England. This plus Danny Care helps make Nev harder to target. Why do we think England don't try to either encourage Youngs/Care to run when they are 9 or use Chris like this to take pressure of Farrell and add more options in attack?

Ah thanks CJ!! I'm championing Wallace, Ford and Watson (sod it, caution to the wind).

Watson at wing? Or FB? Personally I'd love to see Tait or Daly or May get involved. Is Kruis decided as a 6 or lock yet? How has he been playing because last season he impressed me in both positions

Has Watson played much on the wing? There's not a chance I would drop Brown given his performances in the autumn

ChequeredJersey wrote:One thing is that for Quins Robshaw has played (less recently) lots of first receiver but he doesn't for England. This plus Danny Care helps make Nev harder to target. Why do we think England don't try to either encourage Youngs/Care to run when they are 9 or use Chris like this to take pressure of Farrell and add more options in attack?

Again in my opinion this comes down to the management tactics. Im beginning to believe more and more the players are retricted in their roles...risk taking etc. Too many players arent showing the game that they play for their clubs...for it to be coincidence.

ChequeredJersey wrote:Watson at wing? Or FB? Personally I'd love to see Tait or Daly or May get involved. Is Kruis decided as a 6 or lock yet? How has he been playing because last season he impressed me in both positions

I had forgotten about Kruis, I hope he settles at 6 as I think we have plenty of young locks with a lot to offer, but we lack that heavy duty blindside, possibly Garvey and Haskell are the only guys in that mold of being massive tacklers and strong carriers, as opposed to the all round skills of Wood and the pace and lineout work of Croft

lostinwales wrote:I also think its a mistake to believe that Flood is our best FH. He was our best FH.

I dont know if he can get back to his older standards but he has plenty to prove, and it looks like he has made a choice on where his future lies. His last outings for England were all disappointing

To be fare I have discounted the recent bench performances.

Yes he has had his flaky england moments but so has Farrell, however of the two my opinion is that he has more to offer, especially in terms of creative attack. Farrell is the better defender but we actually have forwards for that. A flyhalfs main function is game management and thus to play in such a way as to maximise your teams scoring opportunities. Sadly in these core requirements Farrell has far greater limitations.

Wallace has been in his best form yet recently, with Fa'asavalu out long term.

5 changes plus injuries rings a bell. Generally they'll name a squad in January with all the injured players still included, so that they don't waste their allowed changes on players who can be replaced later anyway. This usually leads to widespread anger and confusion from fans at the fact that we only have one prop in the squad, or no wingers, because they don't realise that more will just be added later.

'Championing' meaning I hope they got into the squad, not necessarily the team. Allow me to explain, I expect May as the next winger in line to be in the team I really rate him, Tait is unfortunately just back from injury so unlikely to force his way in. Daly I also rate but should he be a fullback or outside centre? My pick of Watson is that he covers the back three (might pick him on the wing) and is one for the future, I utterly expect Brown to start but that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep an eye on the youngs ones too.

On Wallace, I have enjoyed Quins sticking the number 6 on his back when he's clearly playing 7 alongside Robshaw. It just looks like a middle finger to people who say that Robshaw isn't really a 7. Basically - 'even when he genuinely isn't playing 7, we're going to keep saying that he is just to make a point.'

Kingelderfield sorry but Farrell Jr is much better than you give him credit for.

Beshocked, any insight on Kruis? Is he playing more at lock or 6, and how is his form?

thomh wrote:On Wallace, I have enjoyed Quins sticking the number 6 on his back when he's clearly playing 7 alongside Robshaw. It just looks like a middle finger to people who say that Robshaw isn't really a 7. Basically - 'even when he genuinely isn't playing 7, we're going to keep saying that he is just to make a point.'

COS always backs his players and has a great sense of humour

beshocked wrote:Kingelderfield sorry but Farrell Jr is much better than you give him credit for.

Its not for me to persuade you, however you must apprciate his limitations in attack especially when you observe the marked comparrison with young charlie week in week out.

Bam bam he's playing lock. I think he is in good form in my opinion.

Also kingelderfield you say flood offers more in attack yet he hasn't showed this in over a year. Goal scoring is important - of the 10 contenders Farrell is the best.

Perhaps watch Farrell Jr once in a while.

Limitations in attack? You mean like scoring a try in the AIs. You mean like running the back line of the top try scorers in the AP.

Funnily enough Burns has shown himself to be more limited.

No I don't think so. You may not have observed this but rugby is actually a team game and when we compare individual players we need to do so in a way that takes into account the 'team' in which they play.

So, just so as you understand, be very careful not to mistake the way and individual player actually plays with the team performance, a common mistake so don't feel you've let yourself down.

Interestingly the Burns player you mention is rumoured to be changing teams soon, so the question is is it the player or the team?

Kingelderfield I know it's a team game. I support a club who actually perform well as a team.

The thing is I feel you fall into the trap of blaming someone else for player x playing poorly. There is always an excuse for Gloucester players playing poorly....

They are supposedly world class yet.....

Burns woeful place kicking can only be blamed upon himself for example.

beshocked wrote:Agree with you chequeredjersey. Wood and Robshaw have done well for club and country. Don't understand the criticism.

Wood/Robshaw/Vunipola or Morgan is a nicely balanced back row.

Tampering with that has been when England have got into problems.

My thoughts are -
Robshaw = underrated by most
Gloucester backs - mostly overrated.
Sarries backs - underrated by most.
Watson and Nowell - not ready yet.
Ford and Cipriani - should be 2nd and 3rd 10 choice in the 6 nations.
T.Youngs - if he can sort out his shaky lineout when playing for England he'll push Hartley for that 2 spot.
Croft - good player but tough to slot into England back row at the moment.

I have to agree with most of that Beshocked, strangely enough. Balance in the back row and across the entire team should be the watchword.

As far as your view on the Gloucester backs go i'd have to disagree. As ever you're relying on some statistics and for that I would direct you to Disraeli's famous 'quote'.

There are a number of very high quality Gloucester players the predominance of which are indeed in the back-line. Burns has had a poor season by his own standards and currently doesn't deserve his EPS spot. Failing that i'd quite happily see any of 36, Trinder, Sharples, May and JSD in an England jersey. Not that it would make much difference under Gen. Farrel's regime.

On the pack, I would like to see Carl Fearns brought on a bit more. He'd be an excellent option as a highly physical 6.

beshocked wrote:Kingelderfield I know it's a team game. I support a club who actually perform well as a team.

The thing is I feel you fall into the trap of blaming someone else for player x playing poorly. There is always an excuse for Gloucester players playing poorly....

They are supposedly world class yet.....

Burns woeful place kicking can only be blamed upon himself for example.

Actually I blame Stuart Lancaster, if he hadn't kept on selecting Farrells boy then Flood would have extended his Leicester contract and the England FLy Half Freddie the Burns would not have been so metaphorically put of his stride before taking that kick!

On a serious note - which team do you support? - No no seriously, I have to say you do make me laugh with your lord Hawhaw'eske devotion to the 'truth' and on a genuine level I wish you a happy new year!

Might be an interesting game - or not - come saturday.......

Yes chjw131 stats you mean like tries scored? Kicking percentages?

Only 36 and perhaps May deserve to be there.

I have watched Gloucester play a few times this season I haven't been that impressed. Against Worcester the worst side in the league especially they were dire.


You would think supposedly one of the best back lines would tear Worcester apart. Especially at home.

How can you call the Gloucester backs top quality when most of them are playing woeful?

Kingelderfield yes it's Lancasters fault.

I am actually worried about Gloucester. They've been poor this season but you managed to beat Saints plus away matches are generally not easy.

I knew you'd agree with me. Actually the truth is Wasps are my team but I keep that quiet.

Re saturday I understand your caution and yes there is always the chance Gloucester pitch up for once, but to be honest I can't see it - to many of their side have been taking the money for to long. Their front 5 is very poor and Cowan is a busted flush as far as I can see.

I would really love to be a fly on the wall at some of these coaching sessions.

Kingelderfield from what I have heard and seen the front five an forwards have improved throughout the season. Unfortunately the backs and forwards don't seem to have performed at the same time.

Our record vs Gloucester is not good. I am generally wary. If Gloucester can up their game to beat Saints they are capable to do so again.

I just get frustrated because I see people talking up the likes of Nowell and Watson. Yet I feel they have achieved relatively little to warrant an EPS call up. It smacks of desperation and just sheer dislike of the current EPS backs despite them not actually being that bad.

Farrell Jr is one of the best 10s in the NH yet he's repeatedly panned.

If the players that people want were really standing out I would not question wanting them yet they are not.

Nowell and Watson have no tries in the AP - lets get them in the England side!!!!

Tries aren't the be all and end all for a winger, if they were Steve Hanley would have had about 100 England caps.

I don't think it's desperation though. I think people look at the games these lads have played (for the England U20's as well as the Premiership) and think that they have something special about them. At a time when a number of first choice players are injured, its more tempting to look to fresh blood.

The healthy wingers in the EPS/ Saxons are; Chris Ashton, Jonny May, Charlie Sharples and David Strettle. On the surfacethat looks an okay selection going forward, but there are a number of things to be considered. The pressure on Ashton's position in the squad has been growing, Strettle and Sharples haven't convinced in an England shirt and May hasn't really had a chance yet. In that situation, why not try something a little outside of the box that the opposition might be unfamiliar with?

For what it's worth I'd have Jonny May and Chris Ashton as the wingers in the 6N, but I'm really worried we'll see Brown on the wing again.

To be honest I think although Ashton got a lot of flack in the AI's he's done all he can for club to set that right. It's now a case of seeing how that translates to the Int set up.

IF he still isn't on form after a game or two though I'd like the coaches to be a lot more confident in subbing him out and getting someone else in there.

Of those choices Cumbrian pointed out though none fill me with confidence. Strettle has similar issues to Ashton in translating club form to Int stage. Sharples had a couple of chances and was meh while May seems very talented but not as robust as some of the other options. And he's a Glos back and they've looked flaky to say the least, is the mindset there?

Cumbrian wrote:
Tries aren't the be all and end all for a winger,  if they were Steve Hanley would have had about 100 England caps.

They are the sole reason Ashton was selected in the first place though.

yappysnap wrote:To be honest I think although Ashton got a lot of flack in the AI's he's done all he can for club to set that right. It's now a case of seeing how that translates to the Int set up.

IF he still isn't on form after a game or two though I'd like the coaches to be a lot more confident in subbing him out and getting someone else in there.

Of those choices Cumbrian pointed out though none fill me with confidence. Strettle has similar issues to Ashton in translating club form to Int stage.

Its not just the AIs though, its been over two years hes looked off the pace for England. 3 tries in his last 20 test starts is just not good at all, especially when you cant tackle or kick. It is very much his club form thats kept him in an England shirt, coupled with the timely intervention of injuries to others.

Strettle is different, hes picked for things other than his attacking prowess.

Cumbrian I am sorry but I completely disagree. I feel tries are hugely important for a winger. Wingers are finishers.

I also don't believe the rubbish spouted about certain wingers being disadvantaged for their club yet don't believe this could be the case at international level. If Watson and Nowell are such good wingers they would score. Exeter and Bath aren't even weak sides.

You say they have something special - what is it?

I am not against seeing Jonny may because he is scoring tries.



PSW the back three as an unit has not performed well in general under Lancaster. I feel the centre issue and back three issue have held back England's attacking play.

England in my opinion do not utilise the back three well enough. Plus the centre conundrum has been ever present.

Thats true to an extent BS but you cant blame people for questioning Ashton after two years of dropping passes and generally making very little contribution. I mean compare his scoring record to that of "man of the series" Mike Brown whos scoring record under Lancaster is ...oh no tries at all. But what about Foden ..I mean hes scored once every 6 games ..hmm. Of course theres the lad Goode who has bags of skill and pace and ...no tries in 13 caps. OK its unfair to deliberately highlight those guys as we know they are full backs with other duties, when you look at the other wingers you can see the scoring prowess of Strettle with ..oh 1 in 7 games. Its time to give guys like Wade a try who after all has a stunning test scoring record under Lancaster of ...oh ...no tries at all.


It is a good point that Englands scoring record from the back 3 is an utter disgrace under Lancaster, especially as they have been on top in many games. Even when the game opens up they still seem unable to utilise them.
How much is this a case of the combinations being wrong and how much is it down to them being misused and can we just blame the centers when Ashton was able score more frequently with the likes of Banahan and Hape outside him?

Ashtons place would be discussed less if he was scoring more though. Its his primary role in the side, he is the strike winger. If we look at the back 3 and what to change this horrifying trend he is the player that has to come under scrutiny first of those guys.
That doesnt mean alongside it you dont have to question the way they are being told to play and the wider backline. Because theres clearly a problem somewhere that goes beyond individuals.
You coudl of course look at the positives, we are getting tries from elsewhere in the side especially the forwards. But it would be nice to not be entirely one dimensional in attack.

PSW,

I think Banahan got a lot of unfair criticism, i actually think hes a good player and his try record for England was very good. His game has developed alot since then aswell.

Anyway on the main point. Ashton scores regularly for Sarries as does Strettle when hes fit. Many of his tries did come from Flood at Fh being a bit more creative...id be curious to see the stats of how many of Ahstons tries this season have been with Farrell and how many with Hodgson at 10.

I think its harsh to blame Wade for not having any tries under Lancaster...he hasnt played any tests? Bar the Argentina 3rds.

But im not conivinced having Savea, Guildford, Caucau, Lomu or Dai Duckham would have a great try scoring record under this current regime and backline

beshocked wrote:Cumbrian I am sorry but I completely disagree. I feel tries are hugely important for a winger. Wingers are finishers.

I also don't believe the rubbish spouted about certain wingers being disadvantaged for their club yet don't believe this could be the case at international level. If Watson and Nowell are such good wingers they would score. Exeter and Bath aren't even weak sides.

You say they have something special - what is it?

I am not against seeing Jonny may because he is scoring tries.



PSW the back three as an unit has not performed well in general under Lancaster. I feel the centre issue and back three issue have held back England's attacking play.

England in my opinion do not utilise the back three well enough. Plus the centre conundrum has been ever present.

I was playing devils advocate to a certain extent, if Yard and Wade were fit I would have them in.  However, if tries are so important (at the expense of everything else) for wingers we're in trouble because none of the ones in the squad have exactly been prolific at international level recently. Personally I'd rather the wingers were more rounded players than simply finishers.

You just have to watch Watson and Nowell to know they have something about them.  They offer different things, but both can beat men and frighten the opposition.  Nowell is also very strong in the tackle, often making hard yards when many wingers would simply be driven back.   However, I am not just looking at the present squad, I am looking to the future.  I firmly believe these guys will be England internationals and with all the injuries I don't think it could hurt to have a look at one of them during the Six Nations.  In my opinion you've got to speculate to accumulate.

I might add that it isn't just me that thinks this.  Anthony Watson was called up to train with England squad during the autumn internationals and Nowell is currently being talked up on the RFU website by Mike Brown and has won praise from a number of opposition players like Bryan Habana in recent weeks.

GeordieFalcon wrote:PSW,

I think Banahan got a lot of unfair criticism, i actually think hes a good player and his try record for England was very good. His game has developed alot since then aswell.

Anyway on the main point. Ashton scores regularly for Sarries as does Strettle when hes fit. Many of his tries did come from Flood at Fh being a bit more creative...id be curious to see the stats of how many of Ahstons tries this season have been with Farrell and how many with Hodgson at 10.

I think its harsh to blame Wade for not having any tries under Lancaster...he hasnt played any tests? Bar the Argentina 3rds.

But im not conivinced having Savea, Guildford, Caucau, Lomu or Dai Duckham would have a great try scoring record under this current regime and backline

Yeah I was making the point that no-one has scored under Lancaster in the back 3. Not only when he picks fullbacks but also strike wingers who are prolific for their clubs and who in Ashtons case was previously prolific for his country.

The difference with Ashton is that hes a pure strike winger and doesnt offer anything else to his game. He has looked off form at times, possibly as a result of frustration and so few opportunities but it doesnt change that hes not doing anything of use currently.
If this is the way England are going to play why not pick Farrell on the wing. He can tackle and kick, or pass straight to Mike Brown so he can run 30 yards unsupported into traffic and get turned over.

As for Banahan yeah he was able to score off the wing for England despite being a bit of a "one ton truck pony". As a center though you can hardly call him a great creative force though? Yet Englands back three were still scoring tries when he was playing there. Guys like Foden, Monye, Ashton used to be genuine attacking threats even with uncreative midlfields. So we cant just blame Tomkins/Barrit/Tuillagi/Twelvetrees/The other guy for not giving enough good ball to the back 3. Again at club level Saracens super donkeys manage to get plenty of opportunities for Ashton and Strettle to convert even with Owen Farrell being Owen Farrell and his fathers influence.

Stuart Lancaster is the difference. I blame him for everything. Get Gary Neville in to do a stirring motivational speech on how to score things.

It does seem a waste of time picking a guy like Ashton if theres zero chance he will get to do what Ashton does, and the rare opportunities he does get he gets over flustered in desperation to grab them. I dont hate him for this, I just accept it as reality. Unless England change a fairly successful formula hes a bit of a passenger.

I'm sorry guys but basically it’s all about your strategy, your game plan and the players you select to execute it. I'm adamant that we have reached a brick wall with the SL game plan that does look heaverly influenced by Farrell snr;
- 9 & 10 kick the leather of the ball
- 10 plays deep and kicks
- 10 plays deep draws the opposition onto the centre who is then tackled behind the game line.
- Nobody beyond the centre receives the ball from 10 as this is far too risky
- OC and wingers kick chase all day on the premise that we only play in the oppositions territory. And that is about it.....
Only RSA play anything vaguely similar as an option but not all the time. NZ and OZ realise the way to score tries is not to kick the ball away at every opportunity.

Its not pretty and there is no reason to think SL will be changing his spots any time soon.

Seperately with regards to selecting Jonny May, I have to raise the Balshaw flag alert. There is no doubt that May has the talent and real potential to significantly grow as a rugby international, however he can look like the proverbial deer in the headlights at times and really needs the help and guidence of a quality coach - which obviously worries me when we're talking about England and even suprisingly of Gloucester.

Hhmmm I really think we need to wait until the 6Ns is over before we can all start panicking about how a complete novice of an international coach and his novice coaching set up may not have been the best decision to lead a... Yep that's right, novice England side to the RWC.

Yappy, most people have defended Lancs, and appreciated the team needed almost a complete overhaul.

We've saluted the improvments...the defence, the breakdown etc....hes sorted out the squad moral...people enjoy coming into the squad which seemed to be the opposite under MJ.

I think we're just a little concerned that there really doesnt seem to be any real plan for attack ...and after two years in charge there really should be glimpses of an attacking plan...or selection of the correct personnel for the plan....

I think we'll be ok for attack. Catty could throw a few surprises come the 6Ns.

yappysnap wrote:Hhmmm I really think we need to wait until the 6Ns is over before we can all start panicking about how a complete novice of an international coach and his novice coaching set up may not have been the best decision to lead a... Yep that's right, novice England side to the RWC.

Exactly how many years into his tenure does he get to still be a novice? Bearing in mind he was withthe Saxons prior to that. Bearing in mind Gatland won his first grandslam in his first 5 games as an international coach.

And if we are giving coaches a free pass for being inexperienced then why the hell are we picking inexperienced people to lead England in response to the failures of an inexperienced manager?

And even if we are giving him a free pass the issue still exists : England have an appalling record of scoring tries from backs, especially the back 3, under Lancaster. If they can change that without upsetting the successful elements of the side then you suddenly have a very good team  that can threaten the SANZARS. But for now it remains a glaring weakness whether its Chris Ashton or a tin of custard on the wing.
With Tuilagi gone England look even more toothless.

Driver wrote:Bearing in mind Gatland won his first grandslam in his first 5 games as an international coach




Pretty sure he was the Ireland coach for a bit before Wales?

OK that doesnt count for the purposes of the point Im making   

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

yappysnap wrote:Hhmmm I really think we need to wait until the 6Ns is over before we can all start panicking about how a complete novice of an international coach and his novice coaching set up may not have been the best decision to lead a... Yep that's right, novice England side to the RWC.

Exactly how many years into his tenure does he get to still be a novice? Bearing in mind he was withthe Saxons prior to that. Bearing in mind Gatland won his first grandslam in his first 5 games as an international coach.

And if we are giving coaches a free pass for being inexperienced then why the hell are we picking inexperienced people to lead England in response to the failures of an inexperienced manager?

And even if we are giving him a free pass the issue still exists : England have an appalling record of scoring tries from backs, especially the back 3, under Lancaster. If they can change that without upsetting the successful elements of the side then you suddenly have a very good team  that can threaten the SANZARS. But for now it remains a glaring weakness whether its Chris Ashton or a tin of custard on the wing.
With Tuilagi gone England look even more toothless.

The reason England don't score with the back three is that the other 12 are attending the most recent ruck. The tries are scored close in, if at all. That can't be changed without disrupting the entire playing philosophy.

If I were Lancaster I'd pick the three best defensive fullbacks I had and play them 11,14,15. Oh wait.