England Selection Policy

First topic message reminder :

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.

Returning to clubs:
Chris Ashton (Saracens), Freddie Burns (Gloucester Rugby),Kyle Eastmond (Bath Rugby),George Ford (Bath Rugby),Matt Kvesic (Gloucester Rugby), Tom Johnson (Exeter Chiefs), Matt Mullan (London Wasps), Ed Slater (Leicester Tigers), Anthony Watson (Bath Rugby), Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers).

Should SL have kept at least ONE backup at FH ?

kingelderfield wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:I think there is one main point about that match.  England were defending a 5 point lead with 5 minutes to go.  At that particular moment, nothing that went before mattered.  England giving up a lot of early points or coming back to take the lead was no longer important.  Whether Youngs had another bad lineout throw at a crucial time or whether Care should have passed instead of going for the try (which was only a couple of inches short).  Or whether Care should have kicked that drop goal.  Or a million other things.  Not important.  Only the 5 point lead.  And a top level team has got to be able to defend a 5 point lead with the clock ticking down.  Yes, the backline was confused.  But the key ingredient that was lacking was leadership.  Kill the ball, get everyone organised, don't lose shape, don't kick away possession, whatever it takes.  We can talk about individual failures, but to me, that was the biggest.  

Excellent point well made, most salient of all is 'leadership'. We need more players to be given the opportunity to take the captains armband. I think I’m right to say we had 5 players in the starting 15 in 2003 who had had international leadership experience; Johnson, Dallaglio, Vickery, Back & Dawson. Of course they were a far more experienced outfit however that aside, I think only Robshaw and Wood have had the opportunity to date. My personal choice would be Wood who I perceive has the necessary little bit of nastiness required to succeed over the perceived nice and the good Robshaw.

Glad you agree, and I see other people do as well. And I think you make a good point that the 2003 crew had good solid leader types through the squad, but also had top notch professionals in the team who almost always seemed to have their head in the game. I don't think it has to be the captain to read everyone the riot act and pull them together. For instance, I find it hard to believe that mere protocol could keep Dylan Hartley quiet. The problem is who else? Wood, of course. Beyond that, it becomes difficult to see. Almost as if Lancaster is building a squad of Boy Scouts who are too quiet and don't challenge or take charge.

I think we have a clear deficit in the leadership ranks.

doctor_grey wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:I think there is one main point about that match.  England were defending a 5 point lead with 5 minutes to go.  At that particular moment, nothing that went before mattered.  England giving up a lot of early points or coming back to take the lead was no longer important.  Whether Youngs had another bad lineout throw at a crucial time or whether Care should have passed instead of going for the try (which was only a couple of inches short).  Or whether Care should have kicked that drop goal.  Or a million other things.  Not important.  Only the 5 point lead.  And a top level team has got to be able to defend a 5 point lead with the clock ticking down.  Yes, the backline was confused.  But the key ingredient that was lacking was leadership.  Kill the ball, get everyone organised, don't lose shape, don't kick away possession, whatever it takes.  We can talk about individual failures, but to me, that was the biggest.  

Excellent point well made, most salient of all is 'leadership'. We need more players to be given the opportunity to take the captains armband. I think I’m right to say we had 5 players in the starting 15 in 2003 who had had international leadership experience; Johnson, Dallaglio, Vickery, Back & Dawson. Of course they were a far more experienced outfit however that aside, I think only Robshaw and Wood have had the opportunity to date. My personal choice would be Wood who I perceive has the necessary little bit of nastiness required to succeed over the perceived nice and the good Robshaw.

Glad you agree, and I see other people do as well.  And I think you make a good point that the 2003 crew had good solid leader types through the squad, but also had top notch professionals in the team who almost always seemed to have their head in the game.  I don't think it has to be the captain to read everyone the riot act and pull them together.  For instance, I find it hard to believe that mere protocol could keep Dylan Hartley quiet.  The problem is who else?  Wood, of course.  Beyond that, it becomes difficult to see.  Almost as if Lancaster is building a squad of Boy Scouts who are too quiet and don't challenge or take charge.  

I think we have a clear deficit in the leadership ranks.  

Dickson was very vocal when he came on- you could hear him over the ref's microphone instructing and ordering his pack. I think before he goes off, Hartley is also seen as one of the leaders, as well as Parling when he's playing. When Hartley is subbed and Parling is an omission, certainly the leaders on the field dwindle.

My God, even Beshocked admits that Goode is just not up to standard. He proved it to the world on Saturday and he still gets picked.

I have general supported Lancaster, but this one I cannot see. At least under MJ Borthwick gave quality lineout ball and was a good leader, if not by example. I fail to see what Goode brings to the party at all, slow, weak, predictable. Can catch the ball I suppose as long as he is not challenged.

Barritt to start, 36 on bench as midfield cover and Watson, or even Ashton as back three cover, May or Nowell can play 15)

PSW I don't know. Whatever it is England did not learn from the NZ game.

Another point is key players for whatever reason are not finishing the match like Hartley, Farrell,Lawes.

As others have mentioned it's a little worrying that certain players can't manage a full 80. Perhaps it's to do with how the bench is utilised these days - instead of being used for injury cover it's used as a replacement for a tired player. This means that players give their all for 60 minutes and are spent when they come off.

gregortree wrote:Returning to clubs:
Chris Ashton (Saracens), Freddie Burns (Gloucester Rugby),Kyle Eastmond (Bath Rugby),George Ford (Bath Rugby),Matt Kvesic (Gloucester Rugby), Tom Johnson (Exeter Chiefs), Matt Mullan (London Wasps), Ed Slater (Leicester Tigers), Anthony Watson (Bath Rugby), Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers).

Should SL have kept at least ONE backup at FH ?

Wasn't Barritt a fly half in South Africa?

doctor_grey wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:I think there is one main point about that match.  England were defending a 5 point lead with 5 minutes to go.  At that particular moment, nothing that went before mattered.  England giving up a lot of early points or coming back to take the lead was no longer important.  Whether Youngs had another bad lineout throw at a crucial time or whether Care should have passed instead of going for the try (which was only a couple of inches short).  Or whether Care should have kicked that drop goal.  Or a million other things.  Not important.  Only the 5 point lead.  And a top level team has got to be able to defend a 5 point lead with the clock ticking down.  Yes, the backline was confused.  But the key ingredient that was lacking was leadership.  Kill the ball, get everyone organised, don't lose shape, don't kick away possession, whatever it takes.  We can talk about individual failures, but to me, that was the biggest.  

Excellent point well made, most salient of all is 'leadership'. We need more players to be given the opportunity to take the captains armband. I think I’m right to say we had 5 players in the starting 15 in 2003 who had had international leadership experience; Johnson, Dallaglio, Vickery, Back & Dawson. Of course they were a far more experienced outfit however that aside, I think only Robshaw and Wood have had the opportunity to date. My personal choice would be Wood who I perceive has the necessary little bit of nastiness required to succeed over the perceived nice and the good Robshaw.

Glad you agree, and I see other people do as well.  And I think you make a good point that the 2003 crew had good solid leader types through the squad, but also had top notch professionals in the team who almost always seemed to have their head in the game.  I don't think it has to be the captain to read everyone the riot act and pull them together.  For instance, I find it hard to believe that mere protocol could keep Dylan Hartley quiet.  The problem is who else?  Wood, of course.  Beyond that, it becomes difficult to see.  Almost as if Lancaster is building a squad of Boy Scouts who are too quiet and don't challenge or take charge.  

I think we have a clear deficit in the leadership ranks.  

Agreed. And now with Young’s dismissed from the squad (and Flood's departure) that entire axis of experience is removed.

Surely Young’s and Care have to be the best two scrum half's in the land? Young’s undoubtedly has had a drop in form however it is my hunch that it is as much 'post lion’s blues' as 'present English-Lancaster despair'. I certainly believe Young’s could captain England. Care's performance on Saturday was a joy to watch however of the two I believe Young’s possesses the greater all round game and talent (taking nothing away from Danny Care whatsoever).

beshocked wrote:PSW I don't know. Whatever it is England did not learn from the NZ game.

Another point is key players for whatever reason are not finishing the match like Hartley, Farrell,Lawes.

As others have mentioned it's a little worrying that certain players can't manage a full 80. Perhaps it's to do with how the bench is utilised these days - instead of being used for injury cover it's used as a replacement for a tired player. This means that players give their all for 60 minutes and are spent when they come off.

They need to get fitter or they must learn when and where to conserve some energy.

Young's form for Leicester isn't exactly inspiring at the moment either though. Unlike Cole though we have a couple of realistic alternatives to him. Some players just need a break.

I would wager its pretty damn hard to conserve energy in a Test match.

Missing a tackle then having to explain to your teammates its because you were conserving energy is unlikely to go down too well

No 7&1/2 wrote:Young's form for Leicester isn't exactly inspiring at the moment either though. Unlike Cole though we have a couple of realistic alternatives to him. Some players just need a break.

I really hope you're right, because if we're to lose Young’s to Bombers selection policy for an extended period, or even worse, for good.....well what can one do.

Honestly, as these boards have been my witness, Stuart 'bomber' Lancaster is the weak link. Step by desperate step his lack of selectorial, tactical, managerial rugby nous is being found out. Can you ever imagine one of the SH international teams giving their top job to untested novice?

I genuinely await his selection with trepidation, many might disagree with me but to drop Twelvetrees will be a dire mistake and a bench of Dickson, Goode and Twelvetrees will give very little to the performance. It might not be the defining factor against Scotland; however it will be another desperate example of an out of depth leadership regime.

Young’s,
Ford,
Watson.

BamBam wrote:I would wager its pretty damn hard to conserve energy in a Test match.

Missing a tackle then having to explain to your teammates its because you were conserving energy is unlikely to go down too well

Perhaps explains Goode's attempt to tackle Huget before the 2nd French try though...

The problem isnt Englands backs its how they are coached. The backs coach is an ex rugby league player and therefore they play rugby like a very 1d league team. There is enough talent there but it doesnt look like the direction or coaching is right.

Every now and them a great player comes along that can lift a fairly poorly drilled back line. I was impressed by Burrell, interested to see how he goes.

BamBam wrote:I would wager its pretty damn hard to conserve energy in a Test match.

Missing a tackle then having to explain to your teammates its because you were conserving energy is unlikely to go down too well

Its long been a problem for LAwes though. His playing style is that of an eletrocuted chicken. His strength is his work rate and the way he charges full on in whatever hes doing, but he ends up crackered by 60 minutes.

To change his fitness type youd rob him of some of his athleticism and explosiveness.

The first half hour or so it was Lawes who pretty much singlehandedly kept England in the game. If hed not had that energy and not gone full out I doubt England wouldve been in a position to worry about the last 5.

kingelderfield wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Young's form for Leicester isn't exactly inspiring at the moment either though. Unlike Cole though we have a couple of realistic alternatives to him. Some players just need a break.

I really hope you're right, because if we're to lose Young’s to Bombers selection policy for an extended period, or even worse, for good.....well what can one do.

Honestly, as these boards have been my witness, Stuart 'bomber' Lancaster is the weak link. Step by desperate step his lack of selectorial, tactical, managerial rugby nous is being found out. Can you ever imagine one of the SH international teams giving their top job to untested novice?

I genuinely await his selection with trepidation, many might disagree with me but to drop Twelvetrees will be a dire mistake and a bench of Dickson, Goode and Twelvetrees will give very little to the performance. It might not be the defining factor against Scotland; however it will be another desperate example of an out of depth leadership regime.

Young’s,
Ford,
Watson.

Still annoyed he keeps proving you wrong I see! Seeing as the choice basically cam down to him or Mallett I'm still pleased we have Lancaster.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Its long been a problem for LAwes though. His playing style is that of an eletrocuted chicken. His strength is his work rate and the way he charges full on in whatever hes doing, but he ends up crackered by 60 minutes.

Of the 17 games he has started this season he has averaged 72 minutes, with 10 games being a full 80 and 1 going off injured at 42mins. How long he lasts tends to be a reflection of how much work the rest of the team are doing and how much they have to defend. The replacement lock should be more than capable of playing the last 8-15 minutes if he has worked himself into the ground.

Lawes is finally proving what a key component he can be in England's engine room. If he's going off after 65 or 70 mins that's of little concern when we have a player like Attwood on the bench.

Spalling bench selection again and as I said on the match thread having no George Ford involved is a basic mistake. Likewise Goode needs to be consigned to the Saxons if Lancs wants to make a FH of him.

I actually agree to an extent with king. I'm not a huge fan of Lancaster or his set-up as coaches or selectors. I think our rucking intensity has improved for example, but as GE has pointed out elsewhere, we're having to use twice as many players to get people out the way.

I thought our carrying was very good, again some improvements there, but no variety of angle, no difference in terms of where we hit the line. And obviously the backs are still largely shambolic. And our set piece is wobbling a bit too.

Basically there's a lot of room for improvement, I'm not convinced he is the man to fix things, but we may have a better idea at the end of the 6Ns.

Hood, there may be a lot of room for improvement, and I agree to a there things to fix...but when you consider that point and yet we're still outplaying most of these teams and are disappointed to have lost to the kiwis and away to France, then that surely says we're not as bad as we maybe think...

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Still annoyed he keeps proving you wrong I see! Seeing as the choice basically cam down to him or Mallett I'm still pleased we have Lancaster.

At least Mallets Italy could beat France

No 7&1/2 wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Young's form for Leicester isn't exactly inspiring at the moment either though. Unlike Cole though we have a couple of realistic alternatives to him. Some players just need a break.

I really hope you're right, because if we're to lose Young’s to Bombers selection policy for an extended period, or even worse, for good.....well what can one do.

Honestly, as these boards have been my witness, Stuart 'bomber' Lancaster is the weak link. Step by desperate step his lack of selectorial, tactical, managerial rugby nous is being found out. Can you ever imagine one of the SH international teams giving their top job to untested novice?

I genuinely await his selection with trepidation, many might disagree with me but to drop Twelvetrees will be a dire mistake and a bench of Dickson, Goode and Twelvetrees will give very little to the performance. It might not be the defining factor against Scotland; however it will be another desperate example of an out of depth leadership regime.

Young’s,
Ford,
Watson.

Still annoyed he keeps proving you wrong I see! Seeing as the choice basically cam down to him or Mallett I'm still pleased we have Lancaster.

Who keeps proving me wrong, Twelvetrees or Lancaster? Lancaster certainly has not proved me wrong so I assume you're referring to 12T's - who I acknowledge is yet to set the world alight especially when he kept falling on his backside at the weekend; however I am still a believer even when he's playing outside OF.

If you are referring to Lancaster, well NO the fact that the RFU chose not to continue the search or seriously twist the arm of one of the senior premier coaches was I believe a deliberately short sighted political hatchet job = rfu man/poodle

When it comes to the serious position of the biggest job in English rugby, the fact is Lancaster will win nothing period.

Frankston wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Its long been a problem for LAwes though. His playing style is that of an eletrocuted chicken. His strength is his work rate and the way he charges full on in whatever hes doing, but he ends up crackered by 60 minutes.

Of the 17 games he has started this season he has averaged 72 minutes, with 10 games being a full 80 and 1 going off injured at 42mins. How long he lasts tends to be a reflection of how much work the rest of the team are doing and how much they have to defend. The replacement lock should be more than capable of playing the last 8-15 minutes if he has worked himself into the ground.

To me, the question about Lawes is whether he is being substituted because he is drained and can no longer perform or whether this is a pre-programmed substitution.  He does indeed go a full 80 in many matches.  So he can do it.  Because he was very influential in the match, the question is whether he should have been substituted at that time because he was still bringing other intangibles to the match.  Yes, he was tired, but I would have left him out there.  

GeordieFalcon wrote:Hood, there may be a lot of room for improvement, and I agree to a there things to fix...but when you consider that point and yet we're still outplaying most of these teams and are disappointed to have lost to the kiwis and away to France, then that surely says we're not as bad as we maybe think...

Geordie, I don't think anyone (rational) is saying we are so bad.  I think we are benchmarking ourselves against the best teams in the world.  And in that case, it is not enough to outplay everyone.  We have to convert that into wins. Certainly that is my point of view. And I think the margins are so small at the top level that aspects such as on-field leadership and substitution policy become increasingly important.   

I truly cannot believe some of the BS that has been seen on this and related threads in the last 2 or 3 days. One of my favourites was the 'SL wont drop 36 because he is one of his favourites' that someone wrote. Considering the amount of calls for dropping Barritt in favour of 36 a couple of years ago Lancaster must be doing something right.

Saturday was, ultimately, disappointing but.. We gave away two very lucky/soft tries at the start of the game (Huget did well to be in the right place at the right time and to score but there was a lot of luck there). This was against France in France, they had a 13 point lead and we walked away feeling that it was one that had got away.

Look on the bright side. Billy Vunipola was just awesome. Care was brilliant for once. Nowell isnt the finished article by any means but he does look like Brown mkII. Burrell had a solid start and showed a good deal more than Tomkins did in the autumn. And yes I did wince when I saw 36 mess up a couple of passes but as a pair they kept Fofana and Basteraud out of the game. He does deserve more time because he does have potential and he wasnt that bad.

It's not all great though.

I do agree with many others that the bench was poor. When Dickson came on for care I did think to myself that we were going to loose. Youngs would be there but does seem to be horribly off form. I cant help wondering if he would have been worse. He certainly could have covered wing better than what we did get. There is no 'pace' on that bench. With May, Care and Nowell off the pitch we had the slowest back line on record. You cant help thinking that, say, had Croft been there we would have had more chance of stopping that last try.

It seems it is a year too early for Watson, but surely we could do more with Daly or Eastmond on the bench than Goode and Barritt, although Eastmond would seem best on a hard pitch (and yes I did notice Scotland A targeting him when they were attacking)

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Still annoyed he keeps proving you wrong I see! Seeing as the choice basically cam down to him or Mallett I'm still pleased we have Lancaster.

At least Mallets Italy could beat France

Because Lancaster hasn't beaten France?

kingelderfield wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Young's form for Leicester isn't exactly inspiring at the moment either though. Unlike Cole though we have a couple of realistic alternatives to him. Some players just need a break.

I really hope you're right, because if we're to lose Young’s to Bombers selection policy for an extended period, or even worse, for good.....well what can one do.

Honestly, as these boards have been my witness, Stuart 'bomber' Lancaster is the weak link. Step by desperate step his lack of selectorial, tactical, managerial rugby nous is being found out. Can you ever imagine one of the SH international teams giving their top job to untested novice?

I genuinely await his selection with trepidation, many might disagree with me but to drop Twelvetrees will be a dire mistake and a bench of Dickson, Goode and Twelvetrees will give very little to the performance. It might not be the defining factor against Scotland; however it will be another desperate example of an out of depth leadership regime.

Young’s,
Ford,
Watson.

Still annoyed he keeps proving you wrong I see! Seeing as the choice basically cam down to him or Mallett I'm still pleased we have Lancaster.

Who keeps proving me wrong, Twelvetrees or Lancaster? Lancaster certainly has not proved me wrong so I assume you're referring to 12T's - who I acknowledge is yet to set the world alight especially when he kept falling on his backside at the weekend; however I am still a believer even when he's playing outside OF.

If you are referring to Lancaster, well NO the fact that the RFU chose not to continue the search or seriously twist the arm of one of the senior premier coaches was I believe a deliberately short sighted political hatchet job = rfu man/poodle

When it comes to the serious position of the biggest job in English rugby, the fact is Lancaster will win nothing period.

At the moment both are. I like Twelvetrees but he's not the best England centre for a decade as you said and Lancaster is getting on with his job and developing a very good team imo. Seeing as there weren't any applications from others you wanted you simply can't say we would have picked one of them!

Quite frankly changing the manager now is the fastest route back to the late noughties that I can possibly think of.

lostinwales there were calls to drop Barritt for Twelvetrees because Twelvetrees was meant to be the playmaking messiah at 12. So far we have seen very little of that playmaking unless you think butchering overlaps and poor passes is part of that role.

Unsurprisingly so far Twelvetrees has not lived up to the hype. He is probably the most overrated player in England - doesn't even need to perform well for his club yet people want him repeatedly picked for England despite continuing to disappoint at international level.

It's strange because when other players show poor form they are heavily criticised and the calls to drop them are deafening but not in Twelvetree's case.

He's been given lee way as we know Lancaster wants a ball playing 12. Past Twelvetrees who fills this role? Eastmond? Allen who's injured? he's also been given a bit of time as you have to look at his partners in that time. Barritt playing at 13 against Scotland (from memory) who wouldn't be your traditional choice at 13, Tomkins who didn't play well in the AIs.

Give him a couple more games with Burrell and if he doesn't perform I think you'll hear more calls to move Burrell to 12 and bring in someone like Daly at 13.

no 7 &1/2 good post I can understand that train of thought even though I don't necessarily agree.

I know the Daly hype bandwagon is in full flow now but he's not even playing 13 for his club.

Daly has looked good playing 13 though. He's been moved there for Saxons with Miller at full back so you never know. Even if we were to bring Barritt back in I think we'd need a bit more zap at 13. Balance was wrong with Barritt and Tuilagi and I'd think the same for Barritt and Burrell. Eastmond/Barritt combo may be nice.

Perhaps. Daly should be telling his coaches that he needs to picked at 13 or he'll move to a side like Quins or Saints who will pick him at 13. I think he would be a great signing for both of them.

I agree the balance in the centres is important.

Having watched the Saxons game on youtube I don't think I'd want to start Eastmond unless the pitch was in really good shape and he could make the most of his stepping ability. I think he does have a lot of potential as a 'super sub' who could do a job in most back line roles.

36 is difficult. He is there because he has a wider skill set than the alternatives, but he isnt showing them often enough at test level. If he can then he is exactly what we need, which is why they are persevering with him. I think it is good that the management are thinking hard about when to drop players rather than just doing it as a reflex action because, well, there are so many other potential alternatives. Having said that he wasn't that bad and I dont think playing Barritt instead would have had any effect of the result at all.

Look, SL's default is a strong defensive IC (Barritt), but having a playmaker who could also defend was a dream come true, hence 12T. However 12T hasn't shown too much of either at test level. So as soon as possible SL will move to a Barritt or Burrell plus Manu combination (ie. heavy on the more defensive and bosh angle). This is fine provided he can get a back 3 that take over the pace and guile aspects of the game (as well as having some reasonable defence). The latter is only possible if our wingers are made of sterner stuff and stop getting injured and start accumulating caps. I guess having a more playmaking FH would help but we have only 1 FH now Toby's gone.

  

No 7&1/2 wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Young's form for Leicester isn't exactly inspiring at the moment either though. Unlike Cole though we have a couple of realistic alternatives to him. Some players just need a break.

I really hope you're right, because if we're to lose Young’s to Bombers selection policy for an extended period, or even worse, for good.....well what can one do.

Honestly, as these boards have been my witness, Stuart 'bomber' Lancaster is the weak link. Step by desperate step his lack of selectorial, tactical, managerial rugby nous is being found out. Can you ever imagine one of the SH international teams giving their top job to untested novice?

I genuinely await his selection with trepidation, many might disagree with me but to drop Twelvetrees will be a dire mistake and a bench of Dickson, Goode and Twelvetrees will give very little to the performance. It might not be the defining factor against Scotland; however it will be another desperate example of an out of depth leadership regime.

Young’s,
Ford,
Watson.

Still annoyed he keeps proving you wrong I see! Seeing as the choice basically cam down to him or Mallett I'm still pleased we have Lancaster.

Who keeps proving me wrong, Twelvetrees or Lancaster? Lancaster certainly has not proved me wrong so I assume you're referring to 12T's - who I acknowledge is yet to set the world alight especially when he kept falling on his backside at the weekend; however I am still a believer even when he's playing outside OF.

If you are referring to Lancaster, well NO the fact that the RFU chose not to continue the search or seriously twist the arm of one of the senior premier coaches was I believe a deliberately short sighted political hatchet job = rfu man/poodle

When it comes to the serious position of the biggest job in English rugby, the fact is Lancaster will win nothing period.

At the moment both are. I like Twelvetrees but he's not the best England centre for a decade as you said and Lancaster is getting on with his job and developing a very good team imo. Seeing as there weren't any applications from others you wanted you simply can't say we would have picked one of them!

Honestly I do believe Twelvetrees is the best England centre in a decade, certainly the best IC since Greenwood. Keep the faith and I am certain he will deliver, unless of course he gets replaced by Sam Burguess

Regards Lancaster, don't you feel short changed when you compare us with say Australia, New Zealand, Wales, Ireland and even Scotland with their limited resources will soon have a coach of genuine merit. They're all lead by proven winners. Lancaster is an international novice with very very limited experience what so ever.

Genuine respect to you but we'll have to disagree. I would very happily be proven wrong but the fact is Lancaster is a loser, a nearly man who naively thinks he is worthy of his position.

Considering you wanted Dean Richards and Toby Booth initially and Mallett hasn't walked into a top international job I don't feel short changed at all.

Barney mcgrew it "playmaking" fly half as you call it.... Flood had an opportunity to prove that last 6 nations vs Italy.

Farrell is improving now he's being instructed to kick the ball less and play flatter.

Balance is the key.


kingelderfield I don't know if you are joking or not.

When has Twelvetrees ever properly clicked in a centre partnership? Even when partnering Tuilagi at Leicester he wasn't reliable, Allen overtook Twelvetrees, partly why he left.

It's funny because you and I have grievances with Lancaster for different reasons.

Neither of us can argue though that under Lancaster, a competitive young pack has been formed - a one that many of us believe can take on the best in the world.

Players in the backline are starting to cement their place like Brown and Farrell giving us some continuity.

It's the mess on the wings and centres where the real problems lie. Centres are so crucial to a fully working backline - getting that balance is something England have struggled with since Greenwood.

You could argue that's where the desire for Twelvetrees to live up to the hype comes from. People want him to be the next Greenwood - the messiah in the backline who will make everything click. So far he has not delivered - lostinwales I can understand why you want to keep him. It's a hope that eventually he'll come good.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Considering you wanted Dean Richards and Toby Booth initially and Mallett hasn't walked into a top international job I don't feel short changed at all.

I have no doubt Richards was a worthy candidate before he bloodied his copybook and as for Booth, well I think Bath are making good progress especially in the forwards which is his domain.

We will have to wait and see, however I for one don't want to watch another 5+ years of the Bomber. 21 months and counting..........

I agree OF is improving that aspect of his game. I'd just like a viable alternative (for when he gets cramp).

As for Stewie, I'm afraid, despite the sterling work he's done with the pack, he's probably left it too late to develop a RWC-winning back line for this time. If we fail to get out of our pool, he's gone. If we get to the final the RFU will probably keep him. Anything in between and I think we need to look for someone who can do more with our players, for the next one.

SL has announced an unchanged starting 15 for Edinburgh. Gives both young wingers a 2nd chance to settle in and show what they can do. Front row a get a further chance of scrummaging properly, following a week of Rowntree reaming. 12T ? time to show or go ?

My dream team would probably be Jake White, Tony Diprose, Paul Gustard and Alex King.

1 experienced coach and three talented English coaches.

kingelderfield wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Considering you wanted Dean Richards and Toby Booth initially and Mallett hasn't walked into a top international job I don't feel short changed at all.

I have no doubt Richards was a worthy candidate before he bloodied his copybook and as for Booth, well I think Bath are making good progress especially in the forwards which is his domain.

We will have to wait and see, however I for one don't want to watch another 5+ years of the Bomber. 21 months and counting..........

Your initial problem with Lancaster was that he didn't have international experience but you wanted them 2 at the time Lancaster took over on interim (after bloodgate). You switch your attack on Lancaster depending on the time of day. You're not judging him fairly but on your preconceptions.

Look I know we're not a million miles from having a very very good side who are trying to play with ambition. The problem is I feel we will always be let down by Lancaster’s inexperience and lack of rugby intelligence. Each step appears to be a learning process when it shouldn't be and even then we don't appear to learn or take too long too. SCW I think called it the 1%'s (one percenters ) and there is just too much going wrong around the periphery to convince me that Lancaster has the 4 dimensional thinking required to win us a RWC. for example; Surely this is realistically the last opportunity to bring players into a real competitive environment? So why are not either of Webber, Ford or Eastmond on the bench? There are issues about Leadership in the group as well as the strait forward captaincy and yet no alternatives have yet been tried in a real competitive game (Argentina was of limited use). There are real issues regards Farrell’s selection and even if you agree with it then surely we need to try alternatives, if not for experience alone - giving Ford or whoever a run around against the Crusaders is pathetic.

I'm sorry but Lancaster has had no greater issues than the 'usual' English strengths and weaknesses to deal with and he does not provide world class solutions. Seriously we must compare ourselves to the very best and Lancaster versus Hansen makes NO comparison. 21 months and counting....

oops wrong thread

Funny thing about Dean Richards is that he has no coaching experience at international level. Plus he hasn't won a trophy since 2002.

Toby Booth is not even one of the best AP coaches/DOR let alone ready for international rugby. Hasn't been a very successful coach either.

Those two are quite poor candidates in my opinion.

beshocked wrote:..
You could argue that's where the desire for Twelvetrees to live up to the hype comes from. People want him to be the next Greenwood - the messiah in the backline who will make everything click. So far he has not delivered - lostinwales I can understand why you want to keep him. It's a hope that eventually he'll come good.

I dont think we need to wait forever to see if 36 comes good, I just think he might be worth waiting a little longer for

As for developing the world class back line as a whole a lot of the problem has been in waiting for the current generation to develop. There just isnt a big queue of players who were potential world beaters who were ready 3 years ago. There are now

kingelderfield wrote:Look I know we're not a million miles from having a very very good side who are trying to play with ambition. The problem is I feel we will always be let down by Lancaster’s inexperience and lack of rugby intelligence. Each step appears to be a learning process when it shouldn't be and even then we don't appear to learn or take too long too. SCW I think called it the 1%'s (one percenters ) and there is just too much going wrong around the periphery to convince me that Lancaster has the 4 dimensional thinking required to win us a RWC. for example; Surely this is realistically the last opportunity to bring players into a real competitive environment? So why are not either of Webber, Ford or Eastmond on the bench? There are issues about Leadership in the group as well as the strait forward captaincy and yet no alternatives have yet been tried in a real competitive game (Argentina was of limited use). There are real issues regards Farrell’s selection and even if you agree with it then surely we need to try alternatives, if not for experience alone - giving Ford or whoever a run around against the Crusaders is pathetic.

I'm sorry but Lancaster has had no greater issues than the 'usual' English strengths and weaknesses to deal with and he does not provide world class solutions. Seriously we must compare ourselves to the very best and Lancaster versus Hansen makes NO comparison. 21 months and counting....

He has the advantage of going to NZ this year. A great place to test players. Surely you should be all for him playing his strongest possible side in the 6Ns as you said it's about winning tournaments?

lostinwales we'll see.


no 7 &1/2 Debatable whether Lancaster is indeed playing his strongest possible side.

I'd agree beshocked but kings point is that he should be trying new players. I don't have any problems with his one off points but put them together and you have we needed someone with international experience like Dean Richards, we need to win tournaments while blooding new players etc. It just comes across as having a go for the sake of it and contradicting previous points.

beshocked wrote:lostinwales we'll see.


no 7 &1/2 Debatable whether Lancaster is indeed playing his strongest possible side.

I believe hes trying to. Whether that equates to what we agree is the strongest side is another thing.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd agree beshocked but kings point is that he should be trying new players.

No I didn't say that so don't start making it up. Everyone appreciates these players should be available from the bench.

I don't have any problems with his one off points but put them together and you have we needed someone with international experience like Dean Richards, we need to win tournaments while blooding new players etc.

You're interpretation is deliberately misleading, I suggest you stick to the points as they were made.

It just comes across as having a go for the sake of it and contradicting previous points.

I think you should show some respect for others opinions. Who do you think you are to accuse me of 'having ago for the sake of it'.