England Selection Policy

by BathFan89 Sun 02 Feb 2014, 6:46 pm

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.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 04 Feb 2014, 10:27 am

beshocked wrote: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.

Yeah but i just don't see the logic in what you were saying about Lancaster's selection errors in this match. You've said yourself that the midfield defence wasn't an issue so would Barritt have improved it, not really. Would Ashton have improved on nowell? Possibly but then equally you could say judging on Ashtons defence he would have failed to stop Picamoles as Nowell did. Can't really judge May as anyone can get injured playing rugby at any point. Selection errors on bench?

by SecretFly Tue 04 Feb 2014, 10:28 am

gregortree wrote:But I feel that somebody will be on the receiving end of a right tonking from England this 6n if we keep this going.

Save it for Wales please Wink

- you do after all owe them one.

by BamBam Tue 04 Feb 2014, 10:33 am

Fair points PSW, I agree with much of what you say.

Personally, I think that Cole is still a stronger scrummager than Wilson even under the new rules, and in the loose Wilson is more of a carrier whereas Cole is better at the breakdown. Would be happy with Wilson coming off the bench when he is fully fit.

I'm one of those raving about Nowell tackling Picamoles, and yes you wouldn't want that to be a matchup, but I'm pretty sure it came about as a result of a few phases after a lineout, where players can pop up almost anywhere.

Number 8s do pop up out wide, Read scores plenty of tries out there, Heaslip nearly scored off a Sexton break against Scotland before the Scots back 3 guys dragged him down, and Billy V played the pass to Brown for his try.

I think wingers can't just be walked over by any forward any more. In this case I reckon Nowell also did well going forward, and wasn't just in the team for his tackling. Goode I agree with you on.

by Geordie Tue 04 Feb 2014, 10:33 am

If we dont concede 20 points in the first 5 mins of a game then yes some team could have a long, tough afternoon against us.

Be interesting to watch.

by dummy_half Tue 04 Feb 2014, 10:34 am

There were 2 issues on Saturday that ultimately cost us:

1 - Lack of pace amongst the replacement backs. Losing May so early was clearly not in the script, and I think cost us in the longer run. Second French try stated with Huget getting outside Goode, who didn't have the pace to get into a decent tackling position (and didn't even put him down as he was passing), and the third had Nyanga breaking down that side.

2 - 'By the numbers' tactical subtitutions of Hartley and Care after about 65 minutes. Momentum was with us, and while Morgan maintained the level that Billy V had started (who was for me clearly our MotM), Dickson and Youngs (for different reasons) slowed us down.

To be fair, assuming everyone is fit, I'd go with the same starting XV and forward replacements (give or take the TH back-up - the problem is that Lancaster clearly doesn't trust any of them to replace Cole to give him a breather).

I think the backs replacements have to be looked at - Watson for Goode, to provide back 3 cover (May to cover 13 if Burrell injured, although presumably that would need him to run into a Sherman tank), Burns or Ford for Barritt (Farrell to move to 12 if Billy 36 is injured, and Ben Youngs instead of Dickson. More pace and more skill, if somewhat less power and defensive solidity, than was there on Saturday.

by geoff998rugby Tue 04 Feb 2014, 10:34 am

Simple England selection policy - play the best back three players in their best positions

The France game ended with the best 15 on the wing
With a 12, in his first game, playing on the wing
And a 15 who I would not put in the top 3 English 15's

Utter madness

Selection suggestion number 2 - don't sub players for the sake of it
Taking Care off was stupid

I think a very good case can be made for poor bench selection and silly substitions costing England the game

by Geordie Tue 04 Feb 2014, 10:37 am

Geoff, i think thats sums it up very well.

by dummy_half Tue 04 Feb 2014, 10:40 am

Oh, and for Nowell, I thought he showed promise. Got off to a bad start with not controlling the opening kick-off (although the blame should be shared with Launchbury and the lifters for him not getting to it), and had a couple of errors in trying to force an off-load and tackling an opponent in the air, but also had some positives both ball in hand and in making his tackles.

Looked to be up to the task physically, but just needs to become a little bit smarter - the only way to get that is to get more game time at this level.

by gregortree Tue 04 Feb 2014, 10:49 am

SecretFly wrote:
gregortree wrote:But I feel that somebody will be on the receiving end of a right tonking from England this 6n if we keep this going.

Save it for Wales please - you do after all owe them one.

Secret we do owe them one (or two) but I have a deep respect for their rugby and do never lately, take them for granted. And I do not wish to flame up their 606 fans.
I suppose Scotland and Italy are the traditional 6n fall guys. But Edinburgh can be a banana skin for the English if the Scots team and their Scots weather are in the right mood.
Italy are nobody's mugs these days as they showed at the Millenium.
Sorry Secret, but as to Ireland I can only hope we do not get a backlash in 2014 from this one 2 yrs ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXmC_fku15Y

by SecretFly Tue 04 Feb 2014, 10:57 am

gregortree wrote:
Sorry Secret, but as to Ireland I can only hope we do not get a backlash in 2014 from this one 2 yrs ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXmC_fku15Y

Yeah...not sure we'll ever have the srummaging manpower to backlash specifically for that dark-cloud scummaging day. But we might try different avenues for any payback. Wink

Anyway right now, all that concerns me is Wales next week.... now there's a project and a half to overcome them.

by Scrumpy Tue 04 Feb 2014, 11:00 am

There is no need to panic just yet,

We really weren't that bad and we showed a lot of character to come back from that start, if SL can keep his head and not sub so many within a few minutes of each other and gift the game to the opposition then we should win on Saturday.

by nathan Tue 04 Feb 2014, 6:43 pm

fa0019 wrote:
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.

you mean like new zealand? I could say Goode missed a crucial tackle, Care didn't pass and instead went himself and so we didn't get the crucial try.

by nathan Tue 04 Feb 2014, 6:46 pm

GeordieFalcon wrote:If we dont concede 20 points in the first 5 mins of a game then yes some team could have a long, tough afternoon against us.

Be interesting to watch.

it think this is a point a lot of people seem to be forgetting when saying the subs lost us the game. They don't look at Goodes missed tackle or care going for a try for himself instead of passing out wide where we had numbers.

We win or lose a match based on many errors or bits skill.

by formerly known as Sam Tue 04 Feb 2014, 7:14 pm

" NZ 2013 - dire, came on and single handed lost the game. Fra 2014- lost crucial lineout and scrum in 15 min cameo."

He should have never been on the bench during the AIs as he wasn't training with the squad he was with his heavily pregnant wife. Against NZ we gave them a big head start, caught up then fell apart. Ditto vs France. Seeing as the scrum was struggling before he and the less technical Vunipola entered the fray I'd say you're clutching at straws a touch there. Especially when it was largely down to the second half subs that we had any forward momentum in the final quarter of the game. I'd have certainly given Hartley a bit longer but the idea that one missed lineout cost us the game is a tiresome Barnes esque concept.

Also worth noting that Youngs has a better lineout record this season for Tigers than Hartley does for Saints (91% to 89% per the last stats opta shoved on their Twitter feed). He is a more than capable hooker that shone last 6N and for the Lions. It's bound to be easier for Hartley working with Lawes like it was easier for Youngs to work with Parling.

by nathan Tue 04 Feb 2014, 7:25 pm

beshocked wrote: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...

Losing faith?

Headscratch

You'd make a great chairman of a football club.

by doctor_grey Wed 05 Feb 2014, 1:06 am

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.

by beshocked Wed 05 Feb 2014, 8:50 am

formerly known as Sam wrote:" NZ 2013 - dire, came on and single handed lost the game. Fra 2014- lost crucial lineout and scrum in 15 min cameo."

He should have never been on the bench during the AIs as he wasn't training with the squad he was with his heavily pregnant wife. Against NZ we gave them a big head start, caught up then fell apart. Ditto vs France. Seeing as the scrum was struggling before he and the less technical Vunipola entered the fray I'd say you're clutching at straws a touch there. Especially when it was largely down to the second half subs that we had any forward momentum in the final quarter of the game. I'd have certainly given Hartley a bit longer but the idea that one missed lineout cost us the game is a tiresome Barnes esque concept.

Also worth noting that Youngs has a better lineout record this season for Tigers than Hartley does for Saints (91% to 89% per the last stats opta shoved on their Twitter feed). He is a more than capable hooker that shone last 6N and for the Lions. It's bound to be easier for Hartley working with Lawes like it was easier for Youngs to work with Parling.

Always making excuses. I would say it was the two Tigers frontrowers at fault for the frontrow issues. Cole struggled against Domingo. It's not the first time he's struggled vs the French man.

Youngs is a small and lightweight hooker. I felt sorry for Marler and Mako. Mako can scrummage well as shown vs Toulouse in the HC but needs his TH to do his job. Marler did all he could do.

Club lineout stats mean very little when it comes to international lineouts. The reality is that T.Youngs has bottled crucial lineouts at international level.

Tom Youngs destroyed the momentum that England had and any opportunity to get the points which would mean we were more than a converted try ahead.

Even with Parling in the team the English lineout was never that impressive.

Hartley and Lawes have brought a consistency in the lineout that hasn't been seen since lineout specialist Borthwick was in the team.

T.Youngs wasn't the sole reason why England lost but twice now he has contributed to England losing.

by Bathman_in_London Wed 05 Feb 2014, 8:59 am

Rather frustratingly the same 23 has been retained, so selection is unlikely to change for the weekend.
I really hope that the coaches have a real think about the bench/starting line up mix this time, Goode and Barrit are not good bench players in my opinion.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 05 Feb 2014, 9:01 am

Wouldn't say they improve the starting team too much either though.

by beshocked Wed 05 Feb 2014, 9:06 am

Well swapping Barritt in for Twelvetrees would improve the team.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 05 Feb 2014, 9:09 am

Well don't think Barritt has shown anything amazing going forward but neither has Twelvetrees. Defence is much of a muchness, Twelvetrees was fine defensively against France.

by geoff998rugby Wed 05 Feb 2014, 9:18 am

Why not play Burrell at 12 - he played well at 13 and even got asked to play on the wing !

Hey you would even have a three quarter playing in his natural position.
There's a novelty

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed 05 Feb 2014, 9:21 am

beshocked wrote:Well swapping Barritt in for Twelvetrees would ~~improve the team~~.

increase the number of Saracens in the team.
Im pretty sure Lancaster guaranteed Twelvetrees the 12 shirt, its the only way hed give up Glaws for England. Rolling Eyes

by No 7&1/2 Wed 05 Feb 2014, 9:26 am

geoff998rugby wrote:Why not play Burrell at 12 - he played well at 13 and even got asked to play on the wing !

Hey you would even have a three quarter playing in his natural position.
There's a novelty

Still don't have a '13' in the squad though. Thought the team's performance was good on Saturday so I think it's only fair for them to get another go. Only place I would have changed personally would be the bench.

by beshocked Wed 05 Feb 2014, 9:32 am

no 7 & 1/2 Barritt is the better defender and organiser - that's pretty much common knowledge.

PSW yes it would do that.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 05 Feb 2014, 9:36 am

Didn't think we suffered defensively though. I'm still intrigued who you would ahve started for the France game and who you would start if you had a blank canvass for this one beshocked.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed 05 Feb 2014, 9:38 am

England prefer to have the distributor inside and a bit more pace out wide.
The back 3 could do with some help tackling though.

BS would start Burrell an barritt.

If tuilagi was fit who though? Twelvetrees and tuilagi?

by Barney McGrew did it Wed 05 Feb 2014, 9:42 am

I thought England were trying for the least threatening backline in the current 6N. But what I'm really waiting for is a back 3 with greater comedy value than Goode, Burrell, Brown. Maybe one way of getting TY onto the field without his throwing embarrassing us. Also I'm waiting for the right odds on May surviving the 1st half.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 05 Feb 2014, 9:43 am

I know his centres and I know he'd start Ashton but given the fact that defensively we were solid and there's no guarantee Ashton would have turned up offensively and quite likely he wouldn't have made 14 tackles I'm trying to get at why beshocked (and where) thinks Lancaster made his selection errors.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed 05 Feb 2014, 9:45 am

Barney McGrew did it wrote:I thought England were trying for the least threatening backline in the current 6N. But what I'm really waiting for is a back 3 with greater comedy value than Goode, Burrell, Brown. Maybe one way of getting TY onto the field without his throwing embarrassing us. Also I'm waiting for the right odds on May surviving the 1st half.

Remember that time we blew a lead against Wales because Wilko ended up at OC after someone tried to remove Tindalls spleen?

Sometimes injuries happen.

by beshocked Wed 05 Feb 2014, 9:55 am

no & 7/2 I have already told you.
I would have started Barritt ahead of Twelvetrees. Ashton instead of Nowell. Watson and Ford on the bench.

I think Ashton would have latched onto one of the breaks that England made (they made 9) to score a try. Especially Farrell's break.

Nowell had a torrid first 30 minutes but recovered in the latter half of the match.

Against Scotland Barritt ahead of Twelvetrees. Lancaster has made his choice with Nowell so must persist now. I would pick Webber,Ford and Watson on the bench.

You either start Barritt or you leave him out of the 23. Goode isn't good cover either.

PSW if Tuilagi was fit I would have Burrell and Tuilagi.

Not defensively solid if you concede 3 tries.....

by Barney McGrew did it Wed 05 Feb 2014, 10:02 am

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
Barney McGrew did it wrote:I thought England were trying for the least threatening backline in the current 6N. But what I'm really waiting for is a back 3 with greater comedy value than Goode, Burrell, Brown. Maybe one way of getting TY onto the field without his throwing embarrassing us. Also I'm waiting for the right odds on May surviving the 1st half.

Remember that time we blew a lead against Wales because Wilko ended up at OC after someone tried to remove Tindalls spleen?

~~Sometimes~~ injuries happen to English wingers (ed).

Ahh happy days. Wasn't that the game where we ended up with 3 props in the backrow - Stewie would have been proud.

by beshocked Wed 05 Feb 2014, 10:07 am

Barney McGrew did it wrote:
Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
Barney McGrew did it wrote:I thought England were trying for the least threatening backline in the current 6N. But what I'm really waiting for is a back 3 with greater comedy value than Goode, Burrell, Brown. Maybe one way of getting TY onto the field without his throwing embarrassing us. Also I'm waiting for the right odds on May surviving the 1st half.

Remember that time we blew a lead against Wales because Wilko ended up at OC after someone tried to remove Tindalls spleen?

~~Sometimes~~ injuries happen to English wingers (ed).

Ahh happy days. Wasn't that the game where we ended up with 3 props in the backrow - Stewie would have been proud.

Funny you talk about that game. Isn't that the one where Strettle was injured in the 10 or 11th minute after making a promising run too?

Perhaps leadership is a problem too. England lack a charismatic character when Hartley and Lawes are off the pitch in the forwards.

Strangely enough Farrell Jr is a character himself and his cramp meant England lost one of their backline leaders.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed 05 Feb 2014, 10:24 am

Barney McGrew did it wrote:
Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
Barney McGrew did it wrote:I thought England were trying for the least threatening backline in the current 6N. But what I'm really waiting for is a back 3 with greater comedy value than Goode, Burrell, Brown. Maybe one way of getting TY onto the field without his throwing embarrassing us. Also I'm waiting for the right odds on May surviving the 1st half.

Remember that time we blew a lead against Wales because Wilko ended up at OC after someone tried to remove Tindalls spleen?

~~Sometimes~~ injuries happen to English wingers (ed).

Ahh happy days. Wasn't that the game where we ended up with 3 props in the backrow - Stewie would have been proud.

2008 ...Just been looking back ...Cipriani Flood Wilko 10 12 13... Balshaw at fullback ...
Mustve been the same game Vanikolo tried jumping clothes line Williams only to have him duck under it.

Happy days!

The other thing that stands out is the consistency in welsh selection .. still 9 players in that matchday squad who are in or around the current squad and the majority of those not are players whove retired rather than being dropped. Its only Henson who sank without a trace.
The England side has Wigglesworth (4th choice SH) in the current squad of the 5 of reasonable age. Guys like Sackey, Vanikolo, Sheridan, Stevens, Balshaw, Narraway all got dumped before their retirement age.

by kingelderfield Wed 05 Feb 2014, 10:57 am

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.

by doctor_grey Wed 05 Feb 2014, 10:58 am

Barney McGrew did it wrote:........Also I'm waiting for the right odds on May surviving the 1st half.

If May really had a fractured nose (a fairly generic term for a number of things, by the way) then he would not be available foir this weekend. Besides the possibility of another injury with the obvious possibility of more severe damage to follow, he could go out early again destabilising the back line. Hopefully May doesn't put his head anywhere it doesn't belong. Frankly, if indeed he suffered a fracture, which might actually be doubtful, I would rest May. Bring Ashton into the starting lineup and have Watson on the bench (now, he is a lad who could inject some real electricity off the bench, no?).

by gregortree Wed 05 Feb 2014, 11:06 am

Then I hope Farrell does not get a 'broken nose' in Edinburgh.
Burns has been released back to his club, Ford not in the squad.
Which leaves us with these backups for FH for Saturday:

Goode
12T

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Wed 05 Feb 2014, 11:13 am

beshocked wrote:no & 7/2 I have already told you.
I would have started Barritt ahead of Twelvetrees. Ashton instead of Nowell. Watson and Ford on the bench.

I think Ashton would have latched onto one of the breaks that England made (they made 9) to score a try. Especially Farrell's break.

Nowell had a torrid first 30 minutes but recovered in the latter half of the match.

Against Scotland Barritt ahead of Twelvetrees. Lancaster has made his choice with Nowell so must persist now. I would pick Webber,Ford and Watson on the bench.

You either start Barritt or you leave him out of the 23. Goode isn't good cover either.

PSW if Tuilagi was fit I would have Burrell and Tuilagi.

Not defensively solid if you concede 3 tries.....

Hilarious, beshocked - your sense of time is growing with your nose

by kingelderfield Wed 05 Feb 2014, 11:27 am

Let’s hope Twelvetrees remembers his studs this week, otherwise we could be watching the return of Barritt the solid defensive hero we've all been searching for.

On a serious note, Care, Farrell, Twelvetrees & Burrell worked ok as a first out unit and should be given another opportunity. The issues are of course on the wing, due to our lack of experience, and most of all the BENCH! Where we are hideously hand tide by Lancaster’s appalling selections.

by Geordie Wed 05 Feb 2014, 11:46 am

Id like to see this side given another go...with a blasting telling them NOT to concede 20 points in the first 5 mins.

They looked pretty good once they gathered their composure after the two french tries.

Lancs must use his subs better also..

by BamBam Wed 05 Feb 2014, 11:50 am

No disrespect to Scotland, but I will be relatively disappointed if we concede 20 points over 80 mins

by No 7&1/2 Wed 05 Feb 2014, 12:29 pm

beshocked wrote:no & 7/2 I have already told you.
I would have started Barritt ahead of Twelvetrees. Ashton instead of Nowell. Watson and Ford on the bench.

I think Ashton would have latched onto one of the breaks that England made (they made 9) to score a try. Especially Farrell's break.

Nowell had a torrid first 30 minutes but recovered in the latter half of the match.

Against Scotland Barritt ahead of Twelvetrees. Lancaster has made his choice with Nowell so must persist now. I would pick Webber,Ford and Watson on the bench.

You either start Barritt or you leave him out of the 23. Goode isn't good cover either.

PSW if Tuilagi was fit I would have Burrell and Tuilagi.

Not defensively solid if you concede 3 tries.....

Cheers. I'm not sure Barritt and Ashton would have stopped the bounce of the ball or that Ashton would have stopped Picamoles in his tracks though. Hindsight is 20:20 though. If Lancaster went with your bench for Scotland and Care got injured after 7 min who would you have cover?

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed 05 Feb 2014, 12:39 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:
beshocked wrote:no & 7/2 I have already told you.
I would have started Barritt ahead of Twelvetrees. Ashton instead of Nowell. Watson and Ford on the bench.

I think Ashton would have latched onto one of the breaks that England made (they made 9) to score a try. Especially Farrell's break.

Nowell had a torrid first 30 minutes but recovered in the latter half of the match.

Against Scotland Barritt ahead of Twelvetrees. Lancaster has made his choice with Nowell so must persist now. I would pick Webber,Ford and Watson on the bench.

You either start Barritt or you leave him out of the 23. Goode isn't good cover either.

PSW if Tuilagi was fit I would have Burrell and Tuilagi.

Not defensively solid if you concede 3 tries.....

Cheers. I'm not sure Barritt and Ashton would have stopped the bounce of the ball or that Ashton would have stopped Picamoles in his tracks though. Hindsight is 20:20 though. If Lancaster went with your bench for Scotland and Care got injured after 7 min who would you have cover?

Im assuming hed have 8 people on the bench, one of the a SH not just the 4 mentioned!
3 backs spots becomes Dickson, Ford, Watson .... hed start barrit and drop 36 and goode altogether. Webber for Youngs on the bench.

by beshocked Wed 05 Feb 2014, 12:41 pm

Dickson would have to come on.

Yes you're perhaps right there. Perhaps Ashton and Barritt wouldn't have made a difference but I feel they would have made a positive impact if they started.

Alasbut100ofus okay I will be more specific - in my opinion Nowell had a torrid first 30 minutes but improved as the match went on? Better? Overall he ended the match with a mixed performance 5/10

by **Rugby Fan** Wed 05 Feb 2014, 12:44 pm

beshocked wrote:Perhaps leadership is a problem too. England lack a charismatic character when Hartley and Lawes are off the pitch in the forwards.

Strangely enough Farrell Jr is a character himself and his cramp meant England lost one of their backline leaders.

That's what I said is this unloved thread:

https://www.606v2.com/t51554-how-do-big-leads-become-liabilities#2506954

Why don't I continue my bad forum etiquette by quoting myself?

I don't think we can lay the blame solely at the changes in personnel. The last quarter is always going to see replacements on, and there's a much higher chance players will be out of position too. I didn't see much evidence that we had any set drills - how to stay in opposition territory; how to keep possession; how to squeeze out three points; what to do when your flyhalf is crocked. These drills are one way of providing a unity of purpose when exhaustion has made the brain work a bit slower, and new faces haven't got into the rhythm of the game.

Ideally, of course, our leadership group would be rallying people but we don't have much depth there, especially when Lancaster takes Hartley off. Wood and Robshaw can't have much breath for talking after seventy minutes of their work rate. Robshaw is improving as a captain, and leads by example, but we've seen before that he can be a bit foggy in the final moments. Farrell is something of a field marshal but he was one of the players down at the end, so couldn't bark out any orders.

You can't have too thick a playbook. Rugby isn't American Football and play can be robotic enough as it is without wanting every moment to be scripted. However, all teams need to have a rough idea of what they do when the match situation calls for a certain type of response. When England got that final drop goal in 2003, every player knew what their role was straight from the kick off.

I'd like to know if we lost the penalty at the end of the first half because we backed ourselves to score another try (after all, Care's gamble had just come off) or because no-one had a proper handle on the match situation. Care might well have gone for his later drop goal instead of playing for a try because he remembered how that three point chance had evaporated earlier.

by Bathman_in_London Wed 05 Feb 2014, 12:46 pm

To be honest that cover for the backs would make more sense for me. Although arguably Foden would be a good bet (if fit) as a bench option, covers FB and wing and could bring on an experienced head at the business end of the game.

On another note, it was interesting I thought that Goode took the last kick against France rather than 12trees. If 12trees isn't distributing particularly well and isn't offering a backup kicking option I'd have to say starting Barritt would make more sense.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed 05 Feb 2014, 12:47 pm

beshocked wrote:Dickson would have to come on.

Yes you're perhaps right there. Perhaps Ashton and Barritt wouldn't have made a difference but I feel they would have made a positive impact if they started.

Alasbut100ofus okay I will be more specific - in my opinion Nowell had a torrid first 30 minutes but improved as the match went on? Better? Overall he ended the match with a mixed performance 5/10

And by most peoples standards the match was pretty much gone by that point.

If England hadnt started like rabbits in headlights and played like the chuckle brothers they wouldnt ever had had to chase the game and wouldnt have been spent by 70 minutes. If it had been a team full of confidence that trusted each other I honestly think they wouldve beaten France comfortably.

Would Barrit/Ashton have added that feeling of comfort/leadership/confidence/calm headedness? Not sure.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 05 Feb 2014, 12:50 pm

Fair enough beshocked I thought you were dropping 36 to the bench!

by beshocked Wed 05 Feb 2014, 1:50 pm

Rugby fan very good points. It's rude of me to not see that.

No 7&1/2 no I would see him drop out entirely. As you know by now I am not a fan of Twelvetrees! Though if he has a stormer on Saturday I will hold my hands up and say I got it wrong.

I was wrong about Care - he played well.

PSW the French game very much went like the NZ game, just different opposition.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed 05 Feb 2014, 2:03 pm

beshocked wrote:

PSW the French game very much went like the NZ game, just different opposition.

So I guess your argument would be the problem didnt lie with adding even more inexperience to the squad but a problem that runs through it ... that may be inexperience from the whole team (even the veterans are in their mid twenties and 40 caps range) or it may be utterly unrelated to experience and age.
Maybe they just create too much pressure for themselves by over hyping big games.

Its amazing that they seem to crumble against opposition that they can more than match for periods of the game. NZ you can forgive, especially seeing Ireland really fluff it. But Wales and France ...they both shouldve been put away. We'd most likley be looking at a side with a very bad run of results if they hadnt ducked SA this autumn.

by Sponsored content