England Selection Policy

by BathFan89 Sun 02 Feb 2014, 6:46 pm

I know Stuart Lancaster has had injuries to contend with, I know that selection of players is political (if they are playing outside of the Premiership) I understand but disagree with picking and EPS, so that players get comfortable (taking positions for granted.)

On top of this I understand SL is trying to pick some younger players, but does he ever pick the right team? SL endorses nepotism (with his selection of Farrell) and like a long line of English management, his selections are based more on what the players can do to stop the opposition, rather than what the players can do to the opposition. This goes back the likes of Jamie Noon. When England are picking awful South African players like Brad Barritt (over a creative ENGLISH alternative) then you may as well surrender to South Africa every time and not bother producing players.

The backs are a huge problem. I'd focus on this group moving forward:

Care / Ben Youngs
Ford / Burns / Slade
May / Yarde / Wade / Watson
Tuilagi /Eastmond / Burrell / Joseph / Daly
Brown / Foden

My first choice forwards would be: Corbisero, Dave Ward, Henry Thomas, Launchbury, Lawes, Wood, S Armitage, Ben Morgan.

by yappysnap Sun 02 Feb 2014, 7:20 pm

My first choice forwards would be: Corbisero, Dave Ward, Henry Thomas, Launchbury, Lawes, Wood, S Armitage, Ben Morgan.

That would be insane.

Corbs is quality but a constant sick note, Ward is another T Youngs, Thomas is utterly unproven and many aren't sure if he should even be fourth choice, Armitage is a good club man but again unproven and would be replacing Englands most consistent forward and captain, Morgan is an out standing sub why wreck that?

by **Rugby Fan** Sun 02 Feb 2014, 7:30 pm

Beyond the unnecessary nepotism barb, what has this got to do with selection policy? Surely all you are saying is you'd choose different people. Why dress it up as a policy disagreement?

You can hardly get upset with Lancaster for going with youth when you then argue in favour of Ford/Burns/Slade at 10 with May/Yarde/Wade/Watson on the wing.

France is pretty much a non-issue if you are only looking at Steffon Armitage while ignoring his brother and Toby Flood.

by doctor_grey Sun 02 Feb 2014, 7:51 pm

I would like to hear Lancaster clearly and simply describe his selection strategy. We have been discussing and debating his selections, but I have not heard his overall plan. Speificially how he wants to play and what kind of players and skill sets does he actually want? Still not sure, except he wants them young. Any younger and I will volunteer my lads to play for England. At least they can track a play and take an off-load at speed............

by SecretFly Sun 02 Feb 2014, 8:22 pm

doctor_grey wrote:I would like to hear Lancaster clearly and simply describe his selection strategy. We have been discussing and debating his selections, but I have not heard his overall plan. Speificially how he wants to play and what kind of players and skill sets does he actually want? Still not sure, except he wants them young. Any younger and I will volunteer my lads to play for England. At least they can track a play and take an off-load at speed............

Is his outlook not to have a good squad to call on and from during the WC? It's all very well sustaining familiar players to allow them to bed down as a 'team' but that can all unravel if too many of the 'team' are injured or go off form in the run in to the WC. I think Lancaster is thinking WC more than he's rigidly planning gameplans yet.

by doctor_grey Sun 02 Feb 2014, 8:55 pm

SecretFly wrote:
doctor_grey wrote:I would like to hear Lancaster clearly and simply describe his selection strategy. We have been discussing and debating his selections, but I have not heard his overall plan. Speificially how he wants to play and what kind of players and skill sets does he actually want? Still not sure, except he wants them young. Any younger and I will volunteer my lads to play for England. At least they can track a play and take an off-load at speed............

Is his outlook not to have a good squad to call on and from during the WC? It's all very well sustaining familiar players to allow them to bed down as a 'team' but that can all unravel if too many of the 'team' are injured or go off form in the run in to the WC. I think Lancaster is thinking WC more than he's rigidly planning gameplans yet.

If that is his plan, then he should enunciate that is his plan. Using the 6 Nations as an extended training paddock won't go down easy with a lot of people. Even then, he must have a concept of how he want to play games. no? There must be something.

by SecretFly Sun 02 Feb 2014, 9:10 pm

Doc...he nearly won the game...and most people at the game and watching on TV were thinking the same (until the fateful break out by the French!)

To me the English look the sharpest of the bunch over the weekend and actually looked like they've been doing actual training and drills (and more importantly, carrying through on them as regards keeping pace in the game and stretching the French to tire them) They certainly tired the French who looked out of it in fitness terms by half an hour.

Unfortunately the French have their ways and managed to turn nothing much into a winning formula but from what I saw of England they're still very much in the hunt. That's not bad for Lancaster who I repeat must be thinking very hard about the home WC that's coming. People (English fans) will be even less in favour of him if he doesn't prepare his squad for an all out attempt on the home WC. They don't think about it now - but he and his coaches have to.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Sun 02 Feb 2014, 9:12 pm

If he's thinking World Cup he's needs to be thinking 2 in each position,
Not 25 wing fullbacks and one fly half.
Picking 3 inside centres and no outside centres in your match day side does not smack of developing a balanced squad.
Not does capping players who will still be inexperience when the World Cup comes around to give them experience just incase tey are enter than the players you spent the last two years giving experience to in the name of building a squad.

It all smacks of desperation

A lot if this with the 3/4 is down to injuries sure, but there are players he's previously tinkered with rotting in the Saxons or cast off altogether.

The Lancaster apologists told me before this game he was picking a side (specifically the likes of nowell) to win this game. They didnt, he failed.
All that came from it was learning Goode had a bad day, an some more injuries.

Pick some players, back them, coach theme
It s not that har to build a squad. Lancaster seems to be stuck at phase 1.

by GloriousEmpire Sun 02 Feb 2014, 9:13 pm

He said already that he had 20 games and 20 months to prepare, so now seemed like the ideal time to blood younger players for possible inclusion.

How is that not clear? I tried to start a thread on the use of the six nations as a try-out test bed for World Cup possibles a while back. It was called "win at all costs?" But I was widely slated as mocking the tournament rather than my intention to chat about lancaster's selection policy.

https://www.606v2.com/t51042-six-nations-win-at-all-costs?highlight=Win+at+all+costs

by SecretFly Sun 02 Feb 2014, 9:25 pm

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:If he's thinking World Cup he's needs to be thinking 2 in each position,
Not 25 wing fullbacks and one fly half.
Picking 3 inside centres and no outside centres in your match day side does not smack of developing a balanced squad.
Not does capping players who will still be inexperience when the World Cup comes around to give them experience just incase tey are enter than the players you spent the last two years giving experience to in the name of building a squad.

It all smacks of desperation

A lot if this with the 3/4 is down to injuries sure, but there are players he's previously tinkered with rotting in the Saxons or cast off altogether.

The Lancaster apologists told me before this game he was picking a side (specifically the likes of nowell) to win this game. They didnt, he failed.
All that came from it was learning Goode had a bad day, an some more injuries.

Pick some players, back them, coach theme
It s not that har to build a squad. Lancaster seems to be stuck at phase 1.

So yet another coach doesn't fit the bill? Who next? Sack Lancaster at the end of this 6N so that yet another coach comes into an England side that doesn't seem to have the patience to grow.

Look at the graph for England through the 6N history and indeed overall at International level. I think it reads generally as a gradually rising one out of the slump that decended after the last WC win. But that doesn't seem like it's going to be enough for some fans who are once again itching for a change of coach to right all the wrongs.
I just think you guys get too impatient too early and because there are so many of you, the option for yet more change always wins out over the more sensible "give it bloody time!" approach. But that's only me looking in...it's your team and England fans will decide what they want if public opinion really cries out for change.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Sun 02 Feb 2014, 9:35 pm

GloriousEmpire wrote:He said already that he had 20 games and 20 months to prepare, so now seemed like the ideal time to blood younger players for possible inclusion.

How is that not clear? I tried to start a thread on the use of the six nations as a try-out test bed for World Cup possibles a while back. It was called "win at all costs?" But I was widely slated as mocking the tournament rather than my intention to chat about lancaster's selection policy.

https://www.606v2.com/t51042-six-nations-win-at-all-costs?highlight=Win+at+all+costs

That's fine but why blood so many so often?
Players aren't getting time to gain the experience the will make a difference and its happening in positions where England are already stacked.
It's imperative another fly half gets time playing with the side, instead we get a full back ( there's two in the match day side already) and a 12 ( ditto) as the bench backs.... This whilst England await foden to return.

Ford, apparently number two, doesnt get capped for England or the Saxons.

Anyway you've changed your tune on that, you use to bang on about how England needed toenmaulste the all blacks and win all the time an how the focus on world cups was and excuse and/or distraction.

Selection on form means wasting time developing players who are then discarded at their first dip for the next big thing.
If we've learnt anything from the hype of English players over the last decade it's that the big thing rarely stays so for long.

How about focussing on building a team an a squad who have played and trained together.

The way things are going well go into the World Cup with a guy who's only been playing the sport for a year let alone with the England team ( Sam burgess rumours). All this blooding youngsters for nought when you can buy a side from league ....

by GloriousEmpire Sun 02 Feb 2014, 9:37 pm

I didn't say I agree with it, I just said his policy is clear.

Agree with you entirely on England's 10 though - surely this must be seen as some kind of deluded nepotism now given the rotation in all other back berths.

by stub Sun 02 Feb 2014, 9:40 pm

SecretFly wrote:
Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:If he's thinking World Cup he's needs to be thinking 2 in each position,
Not 25 wing fullbacks and one fly half.
Picking 3 inside centres and no outside centres in your match day side does not smack of developing a balanced squad.
Not does capping players who will still be inexperience when the World Cup comes around to give them experience just incase tey are enter than the players you spent the last two years giving experience to in the name of building a squad.

It all smacks of desperation

A lot if this with the 3/4 is down to injuries sure, but there are players he's previously tinkered with rotting in the Saxons or cast off altogether.

The Lancaster apologists told me before this game he was picking a side (specifically the likes of nowell) to win this game. They didnt, he failed.
All that came from it was learning Goode had a bad day, an some more injuries.

Pick some players, back them, coach theme
It s not that har to build a squad. Lancaster seems to be stuck at phase 1.

So yet another coach doesn't fit the bill? Who next? Sack Lancaster at the end of this 6N so that yet another coach comes into an England side that doesn't seem to have the patience to grow.

Look at the graph for England through the 6N history and indeed overall at International level. I think it reads generally as a gradually rising one out of the slump that decended after the last WC win. But that doesn't seem like it's going to be enough for some fans who are once again itching for a change of coach to right all the wrongs.
I just think you guys get too impatient too early and because there are so many of you, the option for yet more change always wins out over the more sensible "give it bloody time!" approach. But that's only me looking in...it's your team and England fans will decide what they want if public opinion really cries out for change.

Gotta say that I agree with you Fly. We need to be a bit more patient - we are on a upward trend but still have a way to go.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Sun 02 Feb 2014, 9:42 pm

SecretFly wrote:
Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:If he's thinking World Cup he's needs to be thinking 2 in each position,
Not 25 wing fullbacks and one fly half.
Picking 3 inside centres and no outside centres in your match day side does not smack of developing a balanced squad.
Not does capping players who will still be inexperience when the World Cup comes around to give them experience just incase tey are enter than the players you spent the last two years giving experience to in the name of building a squad.

It all smacks of desperation

A lot if this with the 3/4 is down to injuries sure, but there are players he's previously tinkered with rotting in the Saxons or cast off altogether.

The Lancaster apologists told me before this game he was picking a side (specifically the likes of nowell) to win this game. They didnt, he failed.
All that came from it was learning Goode had a bad day, an some more injuries.

Pick some players, back them, coach theme
It s not that har to build a squad. Lancaster seems to be stuck at phase 1.

So yet another coach doesn't fit the bill? Who next? Sack Lancaster at the end of this 6N so that yet another coach comes into an England side that doesn't seem to have the patience to grow.

Look at the graph for England through the 6N history and indeed overall at International level. I think it reads generally as a gradually rising one out of the slump that decended after the last WC win. But that doesn't seem like it's going to be enough for some fans who are once again itching for a change of coach to right all the wrongs.
I just think you guys get too impatient too early and because there are so many of you, the option for yet more change always wins out over the more sensible "give it bloody time!" approach. But that's only me looking in...it's your team and England fans will decide what they want if public opinion really cries out for change.

I seem to remember your lot getting precious with quite a few coaches when they kept finishing second in the table. Even winning the thing only gave temporary respite.

Anyway no I'm not advocating sacking the coach, I'm advocating not going one the job purely because his agenda matched public opinion at the time.

But late now mind. So I guess ill have to advocate bitching about him till they start winning again then pretending he's a genius Wink

As for the expectations .. Well he's set those expectations. They are a team tht expects to be competing for to World Cup and in the top 3. But can't win the big games. It's a bit like Wales without the 6 nations trophies.

It not unreasonable to expect one coach out if the last 4 to have managed to make a good side is it? Especially as this ones been involved with most if the current chumps since their school days.

by SecretFly Sun 02 Feb 2014, 9:49 pm

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:If he's thinking World Cup he's needs to be thinking 2 in each position,
Not 25 wing fullbacks and one fly half.
Picking 3 inside centres and no outside centres in your match day side does not smack of developing a balanced squad.
Not does capping players who will still be inexperience when the World Cup comes around to give them experience just incase tey are enter than the players you spent the last two years giving experience to in the name of building a squad.

It all smacks of desperation

A lot if this with the 3/4 is down to injuries sure, but there are players he's previously tinkered with rotting in the Saxons or cast off altogether.

The Lancaster apologists told me before this game he was picking a side (specifically the likes of nowell) to win this game. They didnt, he failed.
All that came from it was learning Goode had a bad day, an some more injuries.

Pick some players, back them, coach theme
It s not that har to build a squad. Lancaster seems to be stuck at phase 1.

So yet another coach doesn't fit the bill? Who next? Sack Lancaster at the end of this 6N so that yet another coach comes into an England side that doesn't seem to have the patience to grow.

Look at the graph for England through the 6N history and indeed overall at International level. I think it reads generally as a gradually rising one out of the slump that decended after the last WC win. But that doesn't seem like it's going to be enough for some fans who are once again itching for a change of coach to right all the wrongs.
I just think you guys get too impatient too early and because there are so many of you, the option for yet more change always wins out over the more sensible "give it bloody time!" approach. But that's only me looking in...it's your team and England fans will decide what they want if public opinion really cries out for change.

I seem to remember your lot getting precious with quite a few coaches when they kept finishing second in the table. Even winning the thing only gave temporary respite.

Anyway no I'm not advocating sacking the coach, I'm advocating not going one the job purely because his agenda matched public opinion at the time.

But late now mind. So I guess ill have to advocate bitching about him till they start winning again then pretending he's a genius

As for the expectations .. Well he's set those expectations. They are a team tht expects to be competing for to World Cup and in the top 3. But can't win the big games. It's a bit like Wales without the 6 nations trophies.

It not unreasonable to expect one coach out if the last 4 to have managed to make a good side is it? Especially as this ones been involved with most if the current chumps since their school days.

Don't quote me but I think we've had less change of coaches than England since 2003! So if we get disgruntled, it's because we've generally given them time to prove themselves and then to fail. I don't think you guys are as patient to be honest about it. Or maybe I'll just repeat: because there are so many of you, and so much of your divergent opinions come out in your media, it's easier for 'public opinion' to undermine a coach in England. There are always so many options availabe both in players and in coaching hopefuls that the 'grass is always greener' philosophy wins out easier even than in 'moaning' Ireland Wink

by formerly known as Sam Sun 02 Feb 2014, 10:01 pm

The selection was generally pretty good. The passion and game plan demonstrated by the players was not good enough. Again the attacking game plan was lacking and still the rush defence left large gaps and insufficient cover out wide. The tactics were tosh. How Farrell Snr and Catt retain their jobs is beyond me.

The bench selection needs improvement. Twelvetrees played poorly and yet we had not one creative player on the bench as a viable alternative. Any normal coach would have put Ford on there who could have gone to ten put us in the right areas of the field with Farrell at 12 or we could have utilised Flood at 12 if he hadn't been completely ignored and forces to France by the England management. Dickson came on and reduced the pace of the game. Goode? We started the game with three players capable of playing in the back three and we really needed a 15 only option?

Same team but move Slater in place of Attwood, that way if Wood is below par again then we can always bring him on but he can equally provide extra bulk and mobility and one thing our locks lacked was bulk on Saturday. Backs on the bench: Youngs, Ford, Watson. Bit young but players who can change the game.

by doctor_grey Sun 02 Feb 2014, 10:03 pm

SecretFly wrote:Doc...he nearly won the game...and most people at the game and watching on TV were thinking the same (until the fateful break out by the French!)

To me the English look the sharpest of the bunch over the weekend and actually looked like they've been doing actual training and drills (and more importantly, carrying through on them as regards keeping pace in the game and stretching the French to tire them) They certainly tired the French who looked out of it in fitness terms by half an hour.

Unfortunately the French have their ways and managed to turn nothing much into a winning formula but from what I saw of England they're still very much in the hunt. That's not bad for Lancaster who I repeat must be thinking very hard about the home WC that's coming. People (English fans) will be even less in favour of him if he doesn't prepare his squad for an all out attempt on the home WC. They don't think about it now - but he and his coaches have to.

The point of this thread is wondering about Lancaster's selection policy or strategy, as well as his game planning. I am simply echoing that I would like to hear it explained. I get he is thinking RWC uber alles, but he should still say how and why he is selecting people, and define his game plan a bit.

Look, I am very happy England came back againsat France, and did it without panicking. This really shows a lot of good things going forwards.

by No 7&1/2 Sun 02 Feb 2014, 10:13 pm

PSW, but Lancaster did pick a team which could have won. I would imagine if you replayed that game another 9 times England would win far more than they lost. You also criticise too many debuts but wanted Ford to start! Who would you have had at 13?

by flankertye Sun 02 Feb 2014, 11:11 pm

Can imagine Ford will get at least half a game, if not start for England against Italy.

by flankertye Sun 02 Feb 2014, 11:31 pm

If Wood is below par again? The guy is mr consistent. Absolute monster of a player.

by GloriousEmpire Sun 02 Feb 2014, 11:56 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:PSW, but Lancaster did pick a team which could have won. I would imagine if you replayed that game another 9 times England would win far more than they lost. You also criticise too many debuts but wanted Ford to start! Who would you have had at 13?

I've watched a replay 5 times and France have won all of them...

by doctor_grey Mon 03 Feb 2014, 12:31 am

flankertye wrote:If Wood is below par again? The guy is mr consistent. Absolute monster of a player.

Who said Wood was not so good? Not Planet Rubgy

from Planet Rugby wrote:Joe Launchbury, Courtney Lawes, Tom Wood and Billy Vunipola all shone, producing a phenomenal workrate.
<<http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16024_9147077,00.html>>

He had 12 carries and 11 tackles.

by No 7&1/2 Mon 03 Feb 2014, 8:08 am

GloriousEmpire wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:PSW, but Lancaster did pick a team which could have won. I would imagine if you replayed that game another 9 times England would win far more than they lost. You also criticise too many debuts but wanted Ford to start! Who would you have had at 13?

I've watched a replay 5 times and France have won all of them...

by No 7&1/2 Mon 03 Feb 2014, 8:26 am

Burns has been called back into the squad. Ford may not have impressed in training which would explain his absence from the bench.

by beshocked Mon 03 Feb 2014, 8:55 am

Pot calling the kettle black springs to mind. Bathfan89 your own club is a perfect example of nepotism - Ford Jr and Sr.

McHeathcote was the first choice 10 for Bath last season but with the signing of Ford Jr, Ford Sr made sure that McHeathcote was demoted so his son could be the indisputed first choice 10 at Bath.

As to awful South Africans -would you get rid of Francois Louw?

Sorry who is the creative English alternative to having Brad Barritt? The poorly performing and overrated Billy Twelvetrees? The unproven and overrated Kyle Eastmond?

Burrell is a good player who could fill that 12 shirt but I wouldn't call him creative!

Your Bath bias shines through. Oh and that pack is laughably poor - no Billy V, no Cole, no Robshaw, no Hartley.

by formerly known as Sam Mon 03 Feb 2014, 10:06 pm

Didn't Heathcote find himself behind the poor Donald last season? The fact his demotion has remained and seems to occur further with Devoto coming through is a more clear indication that Heathcote is just not favoured by the coaches. To be fair to Ford he's been the pick of the 10s in the AP so far, not the pick of the points kickers but improving in that respect. He'd have been a great bench option if we're struggling to unlock the Scots defence.

" He had 12 carries and 11 tackles."

12 carries for how many metres? I thought he was poor to average and would like to see us bring in something different at 6. Fearns or Garvey to add beef or if he was fit I'd have Croft in there in a heart beat. For me Robshaw and Wood are a little too similar in how they operate. Not big carriers but skillful, like to make lots of tackles but not big tackles, like to loiter just off the rucks ready to target the ball. I'd definitely include one but not both. Either a flanker that is happy to mix his positioning both wide and narrow to disrupt ala Parisse vs Wales or just someone to inflict some serious physical damage alongside Billy V who isn't the biggest hitter in defence. Our locks aren't the biggest carriers either so a little more physicality in that area wouldn't hurt.

"no Billy V, no Cole, no Robshaw, no Hartley."

Agreed Beshocked. Those four are musts currently. Hartley and Billy V are the form options, Cole is our most reliable operator and is simply head and shoulders above our other tightheads. Robshaw has been consistently excellent for so long people just expect it. Try to play nice though. ;-)

by **Rugby Fan** Tue 04 Feb 2014, 8:23 am

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/10615572/Six-Nations-2014-England-did-not-lose-to-France-because-of-my-replacements-says-Stuart-Lancaster.html

Stuart Lancaster, the England head coach, mounted a vigorous defence on Monday of his replacement strategy in the RBS Six Nations match against France and said he would follow the same principles against Scotland at Murrayfield on Saturday.

England clawed their way back from a 16-3 deficit to lead by five points midway through the second half at Stade de France on Saturday.

Five substitutions were then made in an eight-minute spell with the replacement of live-wire scrum-half Danny Care by Northampton’s Lee Dickson in the 62nd minute triggering the hottest debate after England conceded a late try to lose 26-24

Lancaster disclosed that the ball-in-play time in the game was 46 minutes, the highest he has encountered and eight minutes longer than the brisk tempo of the end-to-end classic against New Zealand at Twickenham in November, when England lost 22-30.

The average at the 2011 Rugby World Cup was 35 min 25 sec.

It was no wonder that several players, notably Owen Farrell, fell prey to cramp, or that Lancaster felt compelled to factor in the fatigue issue when making his substitutions.

He said that it was “not an exact science”, and revealed that he based all his decisions on intuition rather than GPS or other data.

“The replacements were not the reason we lost the game,” Lancaster said.

“The biggest reason was the start, when he gave away two tries and went down 16-3, and that is one hell of a mountain to climb.

"We used all our energy to get back and ran out of juice.

"I have seen substitutes work lots and lots of times. I have seen them make a big impact on matches.

"I was certainly pleased with the impact all the substitutions made.

"A lot of ours were enforced, through injury for example to Jonny May.

"I thought Ben Morgan’s impact was very strong.

"It is not an exact science and if it was, it would be easy.

"I will make the substitutions next weekend the way I have always done – based on my coach’s intuition, the way I see the game unfolding.”

Care had played only 46 minutes of rugby over the past month for Harlequins after picking up two minor knocks.

Given that Dickson started all three Tests in the autumn, and has a more accomplished tactical kicking game, it is easy to understand the desire to get him on the field at some point.

Care, though, had been in his pomp.

What Lancaster has to rule on is just when a player has reached his peak of physical output. That is the fine line he has to call.

Billy Vunipola was replaced by Morgan at No8 in the 66th minute.

Even though he had been in rampaging form, his contributions were beginning to wane and Morgan made several impressive contributions.

The front-row replacements, Mako Vunipola for Joe Marler, and Tom Youngs for Dylan Hartley, had been made earlier in the piece.

A vital botched attacking line-out in the 64th minute had echoes of last November’s match against the All Blacks, when England’s line-out crumbled after Hartley gave way to Youngs.

Yet France had changed all three of their front row by the 50th minute. Those reinforcements demanded a riposte in such a head-to-head contest.

Lancaster rejects the notion that he has a fixed plan in mind as to when he will send players on, or conversely, that he instructs certain players to give it their all for an hour in the knowledge that they will then be substituted.

“You can’t conserve energy in a Test match,” he said.

“You want players to go flat out for the whole game. You have got to trust your bench.

"You can’t have a predetermined plan. It was quite unfortunate that we lost a player [Jonny May] so early in the game.

"France took a risk in having six forwards and only two backs. If they had lost two backs what would they have done?

"You want to give yourself as many options as possible in the knowledge that you can’t cover all bases.

"There are a lot of ifs and buts and maybes about any match. ”

Lancaster was adamant that dwelling on the replacement issue was to miss the point.

“There is no internal debate in camp about it,” he added.

The head coach cited the need to take the kick-off cleanly – England’s mistake led to France’s first try – to have a crisper strategy coming out of their own 22 and to contest kicks better.

He did not refer to England’s scrum but four kicks were given away at that phase.

by Geordie Tue 04 Feb 2014, 8:45 am

Keep the same side. Give them a chance to get a victory.

Im concerned that two games on the trot we've gave up massive leads within the first ten mins...that needs to be changed.

And whilst Lancs above makes sense, i still think Care, Hartley etc could have lasted longer and the result would have been different.

Id probably put Ford on the bench...could be interesting v Scotland.

Also, Tom Youngs simply must get his England throwing sorted. Him and Morgan made huge impressions in the loose when they came on ....but Youngs has key chores he needs to sort, and two games in a row his lineouts have had a big impact on the game. Before any one starts im not saying it cost the game - there were lots of things...but i am saying it had an impact and in the previous NZ game.

I personally thought Morgan was excellent when he came on. We're lucky we have to 8's like him and BIlly. Imagine if Morgan can sort his form and fitness out with Glos.

Heres a call...what do you do at TH. Keep Cole in there, or give him a rest and give Henry Thomas...Keiron Brookes or Scott Wilson a shot?

by Barney McGrew did it Tue 04 Feb 2014, 9:02 am

Rugby Fan wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/10615572/Six-Nations-2014-England-did-not-lose-to-France-because-of-my-replacements-says-Stuart-Lancaster.html

Stewie is both correct and mistaken (or disingenuous):

England certainly did lose because of the 1st 2 tries.

But the following did play a major part:
May off and Goode on (not a good match, and particularly so early).
TY’s effect on the scrummaging FR and LO.
Cramp & fitness of OF & Nowell (& no direct replacement for either).
Burrell to wing (to complete a comedy back 3).
Dickson a poor replacement for Care (better to keep an 80% Care than the 100% Dickson, in this game anyway).

I’d like to hear more of these from SL.

As for not taking the KO cleanly – it might be smarter to have a covering player to pick up any mistakes (and preferably not the boy Nowell on his 1st seconds of his 1st game away to France, don’t you think Stewie).

And maybe players should be trained to last the full 46 minutes.

And did the French tampered with the ball to make it bounce with gallic flair? I’m sure an English ball would have been much more predictable.

by beshocked Tue 04 Feb 2014, 9:03 am

Losing faith in Lancaster. He should have held his hands up and said that he got it wrong instead of making excuses for his poor decisions.

Geordiefalcon you say keep the same team....that means Cole must stay...

by No 7&1/2 Tue 04 Feb 2014, 9:12 am

He would say that as he doesn't want to place too much pressure on the replacements in the next game. He's not going to say yeah we were well placed but Tom missed a crucial lineout for the 2nd game in a row, let's all see how he does next time (or how much better Webber could do) is he. Think he's trying to instill that you win as a team and you lose as a team.

You get bad decisions by the ref sometimes, you get a bad bounce, you get a bad call from your players; you need to overcome these things and not focus on them to the detriment of your performance.

by killer938 Tue 04 Feb 2014, 9:15 am

It's difficult because Cole is by far out best option but he needs a break at some point. I think he has to play this 6 nations though.

Youngs seems to have a lot more trouble throwing when he doesnt have a Leicester line out operator there. I put this down to the inexperience at the position because he has been pretty much immaculate in the Heineken Cup. Obviously this is an issue he needs to work on if he wants to stay in the squad but I think they will give him time because of what he offers in other departments.

by beshocked Tue 04 Feb 2014, 9:27 am

Well no 7 & 1/2 he could be refreshingly honest and admit that he made errors. Doesn't need to specifically mention Tom Youngs. I am annoyed with Lancaster - England lost - blown opportunity at a grandslam for another year and Lancaster is not accepting responsibility.

I don't blame Youngs, I blame Lancaster. England lost a match they should not have lost.

People criticised Borthwick justifiably for his lacklustre match talk after an Italy game that we won albeit scraping a victory. Lancaster should get similar criticism for his lacklustre excuses.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 04 Feb 2014, 9:29 am

What specifically could Lancaster have done with his selections do you feel and what should he do to rectify it this coming weekend?

by beshocked Tue 04 Feb 2014, 9:31 am

I have already told you but I will repeat again.

Should have started Barritt vs France. Should start Barritt vs Scotland. I still question Nowell's selection - think Ashton would have done better with his support running though Nowell did some good tackles and is a better defender.

Webber should replace T.Youngs. Goode and Twelvetrees need dropping with Ford and Watson on the bench.

by fa0019 Tue 04 Feb 2014, 9:31 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:He would say that as he doesn't want to place too much pressure on the replacements in the next game. He's not going to say yeah we were well placed but Tom missed a crucial lineout for the 2nd game in a row, let's all see how he does next time (or how much better Webber could do) is he. Think he's trying to instill that you win as a team and you lose as a team.

You get bad decisions by the ref sometimes, you get a bad bounce, you get a bad call from your players; you need to overcome these things and not focus on them to the detriment of your performance.

How many chances will Youngs get

Wales 2013 - dire
Aus 2013 - dire, England only pulled away when Hartley came on.
NZ 2013 - dire, came on and single handed lost the game.
Fra 2014- lost crucial lineout and scrum in 15 min cameo.

All the other games he has featured in he's been accomdated by weaker opposition. Anyone decent he struggles. He can't even hook, I mean its ridiculous.

In the end he's not a backrow player and his job isn't to just be aggressive in the loose. He's the key set piece player and you need your very best set piece player just to keep the game running.

Premiership player of the year or not, he's not test standard. Charlie Hodgson is probably the greatest 10 in premiership history. Club rugby is not test rugby.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 04 Feb 2014, 9:34 am

I think Webber should have been given the chance fa0019 but I still think it would have been unwise to publically give Youngs criticism for the lineouts. It damages Youngs' confidence and places more pressure on Webber as well as suddenly everyone is looking at him and thinking hit this lineout or you're out! International rugby is pressure filled enough without feeling that 1 mistake and your time is over.

by **Biltong** Tue 04 Feb 2014, 9:40 am

BathFan89 wrote: When England are picking awful South African players like Brad Barritt (over a creative ENGLISH alternative) then you may as well surrender to South Africa every time and not bother producing players.

As a south African I would also prefer if England does not select South Africans.

by beshocked Tue 04 Feb 2014, 9:43 am

no 7 &1/2 it's rarely been one mistake and you're out except for Sharples.

T.Youngs is a professional rugby player who has been on a Lions tour and plays for the most prestigious club in England. He should be used to pressure. If he can't handle pressure he needs dropping.

Don't know why some players get a free pass.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 04 Feb 2014, 9:49 am

Just saying i don't think it helps any player to be openly criticised for a mistake like that. Say it in private or tell him to work on an area but don't hang him out to dry. Who would you have liked to see?

The way of the world Biltong, you can see from Barritts family history they've moved around and I can't think of anyone who doesn't play to the rules. Good player too.

by Barney McGrew did it Tue 04 Feb 2014, 9:50 am

Hmm, tbh I don't really care about his feelings, this is test rugby, not a work event. If TY is told to improve his throwing, and goes away and practices continually on this weak point, he will get his confidence back just from knowing he's improved. If not, then test rugby is just not for him.

by Geordie Tue 04 Feb 2014, 9:51 am

Yeah Beshocked, i did say that and that team should play again. Just concerned that we have options in most positions, whereas TH looks worryingly bare should Cole get injured.

With no Davy Wilson, we'd be looking at Henry Thomas, Kerion Brookes and Scot Wilson. Of the 3 id go with Brookes at the moment, though Scot Wilson will surpass him i believe.

I do think lancaster messed this one up...but hopefully we can put it right for the rest of the tournament.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 04 Feb 2014, 9:53 am

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Hmm, tbh I don't really care about his feelings, this is test rugby, not a work event. If TY is told to improve his throwing, and goes away and practices continually on this weak point, he will get his confidence back just from knowing he's improved. If not, then test rugby is just not for him.

All I'm saying is that you grow as a group knowing you've all got each others backs and you're not going to be publically hung out to dry. Why would a coach want to place more pressure on a player who he knows is struggling. Help him out and coach him.

by beshocked Tue 04 Feb 2014, 9:57 am

no 7&1/2 I said who what changes I would make already. Not saying Lancaster should hang T.Youngs out to dry. Lancaster should take the blame himself, not make excuses.

Geordiefalcon I do agree England need new options but none of Cole's replacements feel me with confidence.

England need to focus on a win this week, not looking to blood yet another player. Cole must play as much as he can - then rest when he gets back to Leicester. Whistle

by Geordie Tue 04 Feb 2014, 9:59 am

Im not convinced that TY single handedly lost this game though(though i accept it did have an impact) . England played a great high energy game and maybe they did tire abit as they did with NZ, but i still dont get all the raft of subs.....they cost the game if you ask me.
Morgan was a great sub to come on...but why take of Care, Hartley etc when they didnt look like they were tiring.

They were of course an unlucky few bounces of the ball aswell...but hey thats rugby it happens.

Im impressed that they are looking to match the type of intensity that the Kiwis etc play at especially with such a young team and this can only help them in the future.

I saw a lot of positives in this game and want to see us really open it up against the Scots. Simply play with a physicality and intensity that Scotland just cant live with...

by BigTrevsbigmac Tue 04 Feb 2014, 10:06 am

I'd keep the same starters but have Ford & Watson on the bench for Goode & Barritt.

If 12Ts gets injured Farrell can drop into IC. I don't see Barritt as a bencher & going forward we need more there. I know 12Ts isn't performing at the moment but he has the potential to, Barritt doesn't IMO.
Watson can cover the back 3 & has great potential.

by fa0019 Tue 04 Feb 2014, 10:07 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think Webber should have been given the chance fa0019 but I still think it would have been unwise to publically give Youngs criticism for the lineouts. It damages Youngs' confidence and places more pressure on Webber as well as suddenly everyone is looking at him and thinking hit this lineout or you're out! International rugby is pressure filled enough without feeling that 1 mistake and your time is over.

What Youngs needs to do is play for the saxons, a lot. He needs to learn playing with different faces every game and for it not to be an issue. So many people say, oh well if he doesn't play with Leicester players he struggles... thats too bad. He's not even first choice but he is crucial as Lancaster likes him to play most games. Leicester players don't look like they will break into 4-8 anytime soon so he's stuffed.

In essence he's a colt learning his craft. He can have ok days in set piece or terrible days.... consistency is not something you can flirt with at test level.

Its not 1 mistake... its multiple mistakes every game.

England don't gain huge amounts by his loose work.. but they sure hell lose a lot by his performances in the tight.

Had he been a flanker then perhaps he would get away with it... but his primary job is set piece.

by Geordie Tue 04 Feb 2014, 10:08 am

I totally agree Beshocked, we simply must win this game on Saturday, and we already have so many young inexperienced lads in the side.

I know im totally biased but i actually wouldnt have any problems with either of our young TH's (Wilson or Brookes) coming off the bench...especially Brookes whos a monster.

Aside from that if everyones fit give them a go.

Nowell looked good and more than just defensive. Farrell looked very good.

ONly major point i guess is Twelevetrees. Id give him another chance to see if he can do it...but if he doesnt show much then he needs to be replaced back to Glos.

Personally i think Daly needs to come into the equation at 13 at some point. Either with Barritt or Burrell at 12.

by gregortree Tue 04 Feb 2014, 10:20 am

SecretFly wrote:Doc...he nearly won the game...and most people at the game and watching on TV were thinking the same (until the fateful break out by the French!)

To me the English look the sharpest of the bunch over the weekend and actually looked like they've been doing actual training and drills (and more importantly, carrying through on them as regards keeping pace in the game and stretching the French to tire them) They certainly tired the French who looked out of it in fitness terms by half an hour.

Unfortunately the French have their ways and managed to turn nothing much into a winning formula but from what I saw of England they're still very much in the hunt. That's not bad for Lancaster who I repeat must be thinking very hard about the home WC that's coming. People (English fans) will be even less in favour of him if he doesn't prepare his squad for an all out attempt on the home WC. They don't think about it now - but he and his coaches have to.

Secret... sory a bit late getting to this.. but thank you this good summary just about mirrors my own thoughts on the match.
Yes, plenty of disappointed English fans on 606 but hey... calling for the manager's head already ??? Stupid.
My son summed it up: He would rather see that overall performance from England..albeit we lost.. than say a luke warm performance (I did not mention Wales) which managed to scrape a win. I feel fairly good about England's set up and prospects give or take some injury and substitution issues we have seen. But I feel that somebody will be on the receiving end of a right tonking from England this 6n if we keep this going.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue 04 Feb 2014, 10:24 am

Cole ..hes struggling with the new laws and was targeted by the French front row. Not the only prop to be finding their old technical strengths undermined. Lancaster did try out Wilson in the autumn but clearly felt what was lost in the loose didnt make up for slight improvements at the scrum.
Lancaster is obsessed with mobility in his forwards, and for good reason. Englands defensive game is based around them getting to the breakdown in numbers before the ball can be recycled, if they are too slow then it spells big trouble ..as evidenced in the Wales, New Zealand and France games late on when the packs were tired.
Which is partly why we see Ashton getting dropped for his tackling, hes getting exposed more than a wing perhaps should or does at Northampton. People rave about Nowell dragging down Picamoles but it points to problems elsewhere if youre wide men are hauling down the number 8. Not to take away from his tackling but we saw the horror side of this system from Goode...and in both cases selections have been made not based on the try scoring ability of wingers first. As with the front row...the best hookers/throwers scrummagers have not been selected, but the more mobile options.
Why? Because the gameplan demands it.

Why did England make a raft of changes when they were on the up? Because players were spent and France had just bought on a bunch of fresh forwards. Nowell and Lawes certainly were absolutely dead, as was Farrell shortly after (but noone to replace him so england ere reduced to 14.5 men). Had England not added some fresh legs up front then the try no doubt wouldve come anyway or even more easily.
You have to be able to trust your bench and use your squad, especially in games like that were england had to go all out chasing a game theyd banjaxed in the first 20 minutes.

by Sponsored content