SL at the crossroad of success or failure

SL led his squad in to the AIs with high hopes. As they progressed there was cause for optimism as both Aus and los pumas were downed. The big one loomed against NZ and England fell. Their slow start, ineffective bench and flaky mental strength in the closing stages illuminated the fact that they are a long way from the top. A competitive pack in front of a below par backline. And that was against a NZ side with one or two obvious frailties.

SL clearly has a lot to think about. He has taken a line that talks of development, blooding new players and peaking in 2015.  etc. The only realistic conclusion can be is that we aren't capable of the improvement necessary to overcome the best and never will be until we bring on better players through the squad. The collywobbles must have kicked in big time. He has stubbornly refused to play experienced players eg, nick Easter, for a win today. Preferring to talk of more wins tomorrow.  He will look a sad lonely figure if his young squad does not deliver.

What is clear is that our backline is way off the pace but what is much more concerning is that there are no obvious replacements. We are 2 years out and still do not have a world class backline. It's clear that the current crop just aren't good enough and never will be. Where are the Greenwoods, Tindalls  and Cohens in England? The English system of identification and development of players needs a thorough overhaul. It relies far too heavily on a relative small number of posh schools to the detriment of the majority. Herein lies the real problem. SL hasn't really got any better players to choose. Unacceptable for a country with such huge resources compared to the rest.


I

Really? Couldn't disagree more.

Sorry - I disagree as well. NIck Easter is too slow to play agaisnt top teams.

Lancaster has taken a team in disarray and built a team to challenge the best in the world and has rightly climbed up the rankings. they are the only NH side able to really challenge the all blacks. the reall issue for me is 10. But then England have never really liked playing a flair player at ten prefering the safe option.

Sorry guys but that backline could still be playing Nz now are not have scored a try. SL has real and deep routed problems. All the weight that the England RFU could bring to bear was a failure. Yes nearly but nearly is not good enough. With Manu and Barritt out we were soundly beaten. A rugby nation such as ours should not capitulate so easily. The more I think about it the more embarrassing and serious it becomes.

Im in two minds E4E. After a slow start v Oz and Argentina...the pack looked very good v AB's. In all facets of the game.

Backs - The big issue. Rememeber mind this backline had barely played together as well as them all being fairly inexperience.

Twelvetrees first real competitive games...and he improved game on game.
Wade and Yarde would both have started had it not been for injuries. That would have given the lineup a very different look.

The big Farrell v Burns arguement. Well i can see arguements for and against both. Farrell isnt as skilled as Burns, Burns not as solid as Farrell. Id like to see Burns in the squad over Flood though.

Yes Lancs isnt perfect, id like to see him sort out the Saxons squad out as i think its pretty poor at the moment. Too many people like Paice, Robson, Waldrom etc that offer absolutely nothing (and no not even experience)

I think this 6n will be a big one for him. England fans will be looking for some very good performances with backs being effective aswell...

With Manu and Barritt out we were soundly beaten.

E4E, your saying our backs are lacking creativity then list Barritt?? 

Btw. This current side with it's poor crop of England backs couldn't beat NZ, SA or Wales imo. I feel a bit sorry for SL he hasn't really got a chance with the current English set up.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

With Manu and Barritt out we were soundly beaten.

E4E, your saying our backs are lacking creativity then list Barritt?? 

I mentioned them because they stood tall against NZ last year and both scored as I remember.

Tuilagi, Daly, Twelvetrees, Eastmond, Burrell, Trinder, Wade, Burns, May, Yarde, Foden, Brown

I think we have plenty of quality available and i suspect we will start to see them incorporated. Twelvetrees has been introduced, and i fully expect to see Wade and Yarde on the wings at some point during the 6N. That just leaves 13..where id like to see them look at Daly if we go for skill or Burrell if we are replacing Tuilagis game style.

Everyone agrees re the backs but your overall assessment of England and SL is too harsh - unreasonable some may say.

I do hope that SL learns from all of this, however,, and that we get Yarde, Wade and Manu back when fit. That will help. Farrell is the difficult one as currently we don't have a better option. Burns needs to improve his form and Flood is a bench option only IMHO. Plus 36 is the best bet at 12 which does not reflect well for us, but he does need time and he has yet to play with Manu (is that correct?) which will make a difference. Then we might see some attacking back play.

englandglory4ever wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

With Manu and Barritt out we were soundly beaten.

E4E, your saying our backs are lacking creativity then list Barritt?? 

I mentioned them because they stood tall against NZ last year and both scored as I remember.

In all fairness, who didnt stand tall this game? Defensively all the backs were spot on. The problem was offensively we didnnt capitalise on our forward dominance. And Barritt would have made NO difference to that either.

Twelvetrees must stay at 12 over barritt now if we are to move forward...or Eastmond.

It has to be recognised that that this resurgent group of young English players is much better than those available to successive coaches since 2001/2. Whether that is because it is because of luck (which I believe) of another golden generation or by design by the fecundity of the academies, is open to debate.

SL has been progressing the work begun by MJ by introducing young talent through to the first team but its success is dependent on availability of players (form and fitness), tactics and selection.

SL is beginning to show signs of being too conservative in his selection (e.g. Ashton), but he's been unlucky with first pick availability (e.g. Manu) and form (again Ashton). but tactically I remain stubbornly of the view that Andy Farrell is not fit to run the back division. And he should be first to face the chop.

If I may interject.

Firstly, for a team to progress enough to beat the All Blacks who in my view are simply on another level at the moment (even though fatigue is starting to show after a long season) takes time.

Secondly, England is trying to play like New Zealand in their attack out wide. That in my humble view is not going to come overnight, or for that matter before the RWC.

The fact is that the players playing for England in the backline do not have those skills, it is clear to see that they are trying to create space for the support runner, they are trying to offload in the tackle, but it is failing.

the reason is simple, NZ children play rugby in that manner, their provincial teams play in that manner, their Super rugby teams play in that manner.

Their ball in hand approach is universal right through. Therefor it does not matter whether a Piatua gets his first call up, or you play Ben Smith at centre, they all understand the running lines, the supporting lines and the space.

If England wants to compete with New Zealand, or any other team for that matter, they need to work within the boundaries of their skills.

If you aren't used to forcing the pass under pressure, or not used to offloading the 50/50 ball in the tackle, then you must accept the fact that you are increasing the risk of being turned over. That against New Zealand is dangerous. they are by far the most dangerous team on the counter attack, their players have a natural instinct to know where the space is, where the space will be and where to run.

I am not saying you can't be trained, but natural abilities cultivated from a young age will always trump a learned skill, unless the time is taken to perfect it. and I honestly don't believe it is possible to out do the all Blacks in two years at what they do.

The fact is England wants to be more expansive, they want to be able to shift the point of attack as to avoid being predictable. You can shift the point of attack without trying to emulate what Nz does.

Look at SA as an example, compared to previous years we have managed to adapt our game to the point where without being fancy at all, but using pace and power on the ball, quick ruck clearances and hard running backs mixed with direct running forwards to create space.

We have added the offload, but it is mostly done within the boundaries of their abilities, we use Frans Louw or Duane Vermeulen to run the outside line to pull the defenders and the simple offload works.

Willem Alberts takes the direct ball forward and we hit the ruck in numbers to gain quick ball.

the secret to our ball in hand approach is simple. Run onto the ball at pace, be it a forward or a back, then hit the ruck hard with numbers and get quick ball, shift the point of attack, and read where the space is.

We don't have dummy runners (we are most likely to run into them), we don't use forward pods in front of the backline when the ball goes wide (we get confused by that).

We have more than doubled our try count this year, our backs are scoring 3 tries to every one being scored by forwards and this all without emulating anyone else.

England must increase their pace at the breakdown, they must hit the ball with running players to punch the holes in the middle, and when they go wide, wait for the space.

I think Lancaster is doing a good job, but maybe trying to emulate skills his players simply don't have.

Farrell isnt running the back division Portnoy...its Catt...well its supposed to be Catt.

I think the new talent coming through needs to applauded. The RFU financially reward clubs for the number of academy / Englishmen coming through, and obviously most clubs are trying to take advantage of that. It can only benefit England in the long run.

Twelvetrees showed som e of the attributes needed to open up a good defence IMO

Th way i see it over the last decade it has been shown that ahuge pack and a ten man game is no longer enough ( won the 2003 WC but not enough now) - England have to develop a 15 man game. A bunch of fast skillfull runners is not enough either - NZ have had to develop a good pack. NZ got there first - no real weakness in their game now. England are aiming the right way and are getting there. Wales seem not to want to accept this thus will not challenger the best untill they get those backs running into space. Scotland are trying to create a high paced 15 man game but lack the depth to do so.

When you have players the size of alberts and Bismarck du plessis it's a little easier to punch holes and play the direct route. Ball handling skills and running lines become superfluous.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Farrell isnt running the back division Portnoy...its Catt...well its supposed to be Catt.

I think the new talent coming through needs to applauded. The RFU financially reward clubs for the number of academy / Englishmen coming through, and obviously most clubs are trying to take advantage of that. It can only benefit England in the long run.

Actually Farrell's job title is the backs coach, and Catt is the attacking skills coach - so as far as I'm aware Farrell is supposed to be running the backs.

Catt was appointed as backs coach for the summer tour to South Africa which may be why there is some confusion, but was demoted (or at best shifted sideways) when Farrell came back into the fold.

BUt SA still are very much second best to NZ

I think NZ learn the lessons more quickly. In 2003 England won by having the best pack. Backs fairly superfluous. NZ learnt that lesson and built a pack to match englands. Now england cannot beat them just in a ten man game. england need some backs to match NZ and they are coming thru. i think we will see england really challenge for the top slot in the next couple of years. Just need the courage to play some of the skillfull backs and to use the ones they have.

I agree Twelvetrees looks the part and should continue. But we are 2 wingers and a centre short for the starting side with absolutely zero strength in depth in those positions. That's 20% which is a big number.

Yes, we are, the point is we have improved. Before this year we used to play ten man rugby, this is the first year where our backs are actively and positively used to attack.

Aye Biltong - thats the point. the best coaches realise nowadays you need a 15 man game. the old England / SA style will not get you to the top. Nor will gatlandball.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Farrell isnt running the back division Portnoy...its Catt...well its supposed to be Catt.

I think the new talent coming through needs to applauded. The RFU financially reward clubs for the number of academy / Englishmen coming through, and obviously most clubs are trying to take advantage of that. It can only benefit England in the long run.

I almost put Catt as well AF in my cross-wires, GF. My understanding was that Farrell coaches the strategies and patterns of the back division as Rowntree seems to develop the pack on arguably a less inherently squad of latent talent.

If AF is not responsible for backs play, what does he do other than pick up a wage packet?

TJ,

Harsh to say England won with "just" a good pack. Yes the pack were good but I think Dawson, Greenwood, Wilkinson, Robinson, Cohen etc were all part of a team that scored a huge number of tries through that whole period.

I thought Farrell was defence coach and Catt was attack coach. Either way theres a problem. Is it RL v RU principles causing a clash?

Geordie falcon - but not agaisnt the top sides and these guys were not used in the WC win. Its like gatlandball will win you 6N but not against the top teams. Its IMO even worse with wales because they do have the backs to play a all round game.

I dont think many teams do play open rugby in the WC...certainly not in the final.

indeed - but the lesson is you need a 15 man game to beat the best nowadays as the top teams can not be beaten by a limited gameplan. You need a threat in the backs even if it only remains a threat. I don't think the england backs of 2003 were that good anyway. Hampered by Wilko and the lack of pace

Well we'll just agree to disagree on the 2003 outfit  

But on an increased threat from the backline of this outfit...absolutely. And this is what most England fans are concerned about.

As mentioned above if Twelvetrees can get a good run and show his game then its a start, add in Wade and Yarde who apparentlly would have started but for injury then players of skill start to come in. We then have players like Eastmond, Elliott Daly etc who must be looked at.

The BIG debate for all England fans though is Owen Farrell.

Firstly I think people have to stop look back at 2003 as a template bar the fact they were a world class unit. Every team is different and key aspects of their game will be different too.

Secondly, individuals matter significantly.

Take South Africa for instance. Great team but take Fourie Du Preez & Bismarck Du Plessis out and they lose literally half their strength. Its not just that they are class players its that the gap between them and the next guy is huge.

Outside of NZ no one has great strength in depth in all positions to replace like for like if players go down injured, suspended etc.

It doesn't mean no one bar NZ can win the RWC, but rather for a team to be successful they can't have too many injuries and even fewer key injuries.

England with a fully fit Tuilagi is a very dangerous backline to deal with. He will crash through the gainline and that creates holes for wingers to exploit in the next recycle.

The problem is with players such as him, teams get lazy... they are used to their play being based around him. Chaps like Tomkins are simply 2nd rate compared and when different types of players such as Joseph come in the plays won't necessarily work for him.

Twelvetrees looks quite impressive come the end notably vs. Nonu and NZ. If he and Manu can form a good relationship then I think it could be a real partnership ala Guscott & Carling and Catt & Greenwood.

Ben Youngs also is very important. He's the no.1 without doubt. a class player with a good kicking game and a real eye for the break. Needs to be more spritely though.

2 years is too close to build a new flyhalf... for me I think England have to stick with Farrell. Who are the contenders.. Flood is probably not the answer. Cipriani...no way (he can't run a backline as we saw at the Rebels). Slade and Ford are too young, its too late for the next RWC... you can't expect them to boss an ENG team straight off.. the rest aren't even worthy of mentioning.

Farrell isn't terrible with the ball... but they need coaching direction. Farrell did ok with the Lions but with England he looks a little ill at ease. 13 is a massive position in both attack and defence in rugby... and England had their weakest player in there. Of course they were going to struggle.

In 2003 did England have great attacking plays..... no. Half the time their line breaks etc were done on individual brilliance from players such as Robinson and Dawson (a real smart gaps operator). They took significant gains and put England into a position where smart runners such as Greenwood and power runners such as Lewsey and Cohen could exploit.
Outside of that much of their moves were Tindall/Dillaglio on the crash. It wasn't complicated.

Ashton is a player who lives of gain line rugby.... but with no one smashing the line he's useless. He is still a quality player mind and tracks like no one else but without such players he becomes a liability.

I agree with you about the backs now. farell I wouldn't play except as finisher sub. He simply does not have the vision to set the backs going, Flood would be my option - dunno who else is in the club game but to me Farell is Wilkolite. all his disadvantages without his advantages. fine for a limited gameplan, not so good if youwnt to use the backs

GeordieFalcon wrote:TJ,

Harsh to say England won with "just" a good pack. Yes the pack were good but I think Dawson, Greenwood, Wilkinson, Robinson, Cohen etc were all part of a team that scored a huge number of tries through that whole period.

I thought Farrell was defence coach and Catt was attack coach. Either way theres a problem. Is it RL v RU principles causing a clash?

That is what I thought, can't in general fault the defence. Catt does not seem to be able to coach the backs into a cohesive unit.

I am going to get shot down again here, but everyone is talking about the 10 shirt in terms of Farrell, Burns and Flood. Myler did well in Argentina, makes Saints back line tick very well, is strong in defence and a reliable kicker. Also is a pairing with Dickson if England want to play a similar fast pace game to saints which they have been trying to do in patches this year.

I can never decide on Farrell, i like his aggression and his defence etc...but i really like what Freddie Burns has to offer. If he had even a reasonable pack to work with at Glos i think we'd be seeing what he can do...he just seems a little out of sorts at the moment.

FA, the problem for me with Ben Youngs is his consistency - maybe this is due to being played with injuries or not fully fit. He's up and down like a jack in the box. Sometimes he class...other times he's schoolboy ish. I just want a good consistant SH who can have a pop at the gaps, or zip out a decent quick pass. Not asking for much he doesnt have to be Du Preez.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

I thought Farrell was defence coach and Catt was attack coach. Either way theres a problem. Is it RL v RU principles causing a clash?

It would seem the logical division, to everyone on the outside but that's not the titles they have on their RFU pages which are backs and attacking skills respectively. I don't think any of us really know what the exact division of responsibilities is, but to me the titles seem to suggest that Farrell has the greater say in how the backs are selected and their tactics.

It's an old complaint of mine that we frequently have backs and forwards coaches, when I think it should be more to do with attack, defence and set piece coaching. Maybe it's just out of date titles, but you need to use forwards and backs together when you attack and both together in defence - so why seperate them for coaching?? Granted the forwards need to spend time on the set piece, and I guess the backs use that time to buy man bags and do their hair - but I would have expected that most of the rest of the training would be done together.

I realy believe Farrels limitations are holding England back. surely there is someone there who has the speed between the ears and the eye for a gap and a pass that the best 10s have? I don't care if the 10 makes the odd mistake so long as they can also make the killer moves.

That man is Freddie Burns TJ. The one whole played on the tour to Argentina this summer.

Yes TJ you are absolutely right. England's faults are down to just 1 player.

Change Farrell Jr and England will magically be a more attacking side.

It's so simple!

Please stop talking about eye for a gap.   

Every single time you post a facepalm is necessary.

TJ wrote:I realy believe Farrels limitations are holding England back.  surely there is someone there who has the speed between the ears

Matt Stevens used to have speed between the ears. Hang on, that's not quite right...

Aw Beshocked we are discussing the whole team...we are allowed to debate about Farrell. FH is possibly the most critical position on the team, and whilst Farrell has many positive aspects to his game, he also has several glaring weaknesses.

But so does his rivals for that spot. The question is are his rivals positives better than Farrels? I think its irrelevant anyway as i think Lancaster already has him not pencilled bu penned in for that spot.

It means we need to move the focus of creativity away from that spot to the SH and 12 spots....

EDIT: One thing ive never asked...Does Farrell stand flatter for Sarries than he does for England?

We've the players available in the backs that have potential to be lethal. Will they be A. Picked B. Have the licence to play a bit or stick to a conservative gameplan?

Geordiefalcon you are right of course but it's all if and buts.

Freddie Burns might well be the messiah, the shining light that this England side needs. The saviour to ignite this stuttering England attack but we don't know if he's got what it takes. I still need to be convinced that changing just the fly half will fix England's problems in attack.

First it has to be concluded whether Farrell Jr is the main reason why England's attack is failing.

Perhaps it's just bias but I feel that Farrell Jr is used as a scapegoat for England's failings in attack.

The whole backline as well as the forwards have a responsibility in attack that is being ignored. How many line breaks did England make vs NZ?

It should be added that the "exciting" halfback combo of B.Youngs and Flood offered little from the bench in attack. It's not as if England were suddenly a far dynamic side.

Is it the personnel to blame or the coaches? Surely that should be the first question to ask.

Defence is one aspect that seems to be ignored. If England hadn't conceded 3 tries they would have won. Certainly in the 2nd try there were too many important tackles missed.

Of course that gets swept under the carpet.

Burns isnt the messiah mate...he too has several big issues to his game aswell. Two very different players. Flood, Ford also are in there have strengths and weaknesses.

Most people accept its the whole backline that isnt functioning, we are just trying to work out if its the system...or if its the individual players.

Im not a fan of flood but its harsh to criticise him as when he came on our forwards were beinning to tire and the AB's were on the front foot. I would like to have seen the difference had he been there whilst England were on the front foot? Who knows.

As i asked...does Farrell stand flatter for Saracens? If he does then it would appear that he is being asked to stand deeper for England. The question would then be why?

If not and he is simply standing deeper...then his dad needs to kick his a$$ and tell him to push up.

Breadvan wrote:We've the players available in the backs that have potential to be lethal. Will they be A. Picked B. Have the licence to play a bit or stick to a conservative gameplan?  

Thats the way I see it for sure. maybe C - will Farrell be able to supply the ball to the backs well enough?

Breadvan wrote:We've the players available in the backs that have potential to be lethal. Will they be A. Picked B. Have the licence to play a bit or stick to a conservative gameplan?  

That potential should be tried, it needs opportunity and if it rewards opportunity it needs experience. Tompkins was lambasted by fans and press a like from the first game this autumn. Other players who have potential should have been tried instead.

Beshocked, if he came up to the gain line more often, like most of us know he can, we would be a lot happier. Standing so deep just gives the defence more time to get into the face of our backs and tends to generate lateral movement rather than straight.

England appear to be trying to play the game at pace, with forwards coming through for pop passes at pace, big backs especially the likes of Manu, thrive on that sort of ball. It can't be delivered 10m behind the gain line.

He can do it, but for some reason he doesn't. That is why CH is Sarries no. 1 and Farrell tends to play 12 when he is fit and why he gets so much stick on these boards.

I do think there is a coaching issue with England's attacking play.

The reality is, our backs moves/tactics involve using Tuilagi to get over the gain line and then either him offloading or securing quick ball once we are behind the defensive line.
Tomkins is a big bloke and was clearly brought in to try and do a similar role (as an aside, while I don't watch all the Sarries games, has he ever looked uber-threatening?), but that failed.

In the same way, if say Trinder was playing and asked to do the same role, I believe he would have failed too.

If we assume that the 10/12 axis for the 6N is Farrell/Twelvetrees then Catt needs to pull his finger out about how best to use them. In theory having a 12 who can bosh it up but also kick and distribute should mean defenders will be sucked in so we can exploit space out wide but that hasn't happened.

On the 10 debate, I think Burns will certainly get caps for England, but... The reality is that he has not looked that great this season and the failings of the Gloucester backline (who some people seem to want to pick en masse for England) can't be solely blamed on their weak front 5.
To be honest the best 2 FH's in the country for the last few seasons have been Hodgson and Goode, not that either of them will get called up.

Recently, if you take into account just the more recent times then England have a decent record against all-comers, since the start of the 2013 Six Nations they've won 8 from 10. With guys like Tuilagi, Burns, Daly, Yarde and Wade to come into the backline then things don't look bad at all.

maestegmafia Tompkins is 18 year old academy player. Tomkins is the player you are referring to.

I bring this to your attention now as you do not get mixed up as Tompkins could be a centre option in the future with a potential start vs Exeter this weekend.

Well-past it you have to ask yourself - do you think it's Farrell Jr's lack of ability or do you think it's the way he's being told to do things? I believe it's definitely the latter.

I like CH but in my opinion he never brought his excellent club form to international level. Plus he's a target for attackers because he's not that big a bloke.

Farrell with his 6,2 and 15 stone frame is a tougher proposition. Plus he has shown himself to be relatively comfortable at international level.

Bathman in London agree with most of that. Tomkins was meant to utilise the back three more and offload but unfortunately he failed quite emphatically at that.

Though similarly I could say 36 hasn't shown us his famed big boot or playmaking skills.

SL took a team more interested in throwing dwarfs than accurate passes and in two years has produced a team able to compete with the best. Seems to me that he's done a pretty good job.

It takes time to build the skills needed, particularly in the back line and time to establish a game plan that will win, particularly when the best (NZ and SA) are improving and developing themselves (why don't they stand still for a while and lest the rest of us catch up a bit)!

It is yet to be determined whether SL will make the best use of his resources to go to the next level. It's all about selection and regardless of what back line he settles on, I'm not convinced he has the right long term 9 and 10 axis to really ask questions of the top teams. Just an opinion of course...

When have England not struggled for fluency since 2003? Sure we've had bursts of brilliance like beating the Aussies with Flood running the show, Cipriani destroying Ireland, Farrell pulling the strings vs Scotland and NZ but the team never seems to be able maintain any sort of fluency in attack.

We forget that England have had good times in attack but have mostly look laboured even when convincingly winning.

England should continue to get stronger as the talent pool grows and players get more experienced.

We forget that most of these England guys are still young - the likes of Manu,Farrell,the Vunipola bros, Cole, Lawes and Launchbury.

Plus surely they'll be a time when the bright young talents from Exeter will breakthrough.

beshocked wrote:When have England not struggled for fluency since 2003? Sure we've had bursts of brilliance like beating the Aussies with Flood running the show, Cipriani destroying Ireland, Farrell pulling the strings vs Scotland and NZ but the team never seems to be able maintain any sort of fluency in attack.

We forget that England have had good times in attack but have mostly look laboured even when convincingly winning.

England should continue to get stronger as the talent pool grows and players get more experienced.

We forget that most of these England guys are still young - the likes of Manu,Farrell,the Vunipola bros, Cole, Lawes and Launchbury.

Plus surely they'll be a time when the bright young talents from Exeter will breakthrough.

Is the English Premiership to blame? Too many foreign players taking the limelight while English players dwindle...?