Decisive Performances

After the Ireland game Clive Woodward made the following comment: "This is the most significant win for this current England team. It is a special team, a special coaching team and that was a defining moment. I think England will really go on now and become something special. There are still some players to come back, the competition is fantastic and I think this sets England up for a long time."

I can see where Woodward is coming from. Under Lancaster, England are building real consistency in their performances and Ireland came to Twickenham in ominous form. Being behind on the scoreboard doesn't seem to faze this group of players and there seems genuine trust in the game plan they have and faith in their ability to carry it out, no matter what the opposition throws against them.

However, where I am doubtful is Woodward's ability to read into that particular performance what will occur in the future. There is no doubt England will gain a lot of confidence from that result against Ireland and rightly so. But let's take NZ vs SA last year in Ellis Park. In a way they were very similar circumstances except NZ were away and SA were the ones believing they could beat the ABs at home and the match would be a revenge for the Eden Park fiasco. That was a defining performance in that it showed NZ at the top of their game but look at what happened after that performance. They won convincingly enough against Australia but leaked many tries. Their attacking mojo largely vanished on the northern tour and they looked ordinary against Japan and finished with an ordinary display against Ireland (taking nothing away from the spirited performances of Japan and Ireland). Could you trace the character they showed to come out on top in all their games by that performance in SA? Certainly there is a case for saying that they found a way to win in the face of adversity in all of those matches and having experienced that real and very much present threat of losing those matches may have helped them overcome those odds.

It's interesting that Woodward takes a home victory as a defining performance. What about an away win? I think the belief England derived from their impressive away runs in the SH were more instrumental in their victory in 2003, for example, than their home victories. What was more decisive to Wales' 6N victory last year: their second half comeback against Ireland or their away win in France? Both can be seen as vital performances that gave confidence back to the players so how do you pinpoint a specific performance?

Which raises the question can losses be defining performances? England's defeat of NZ in 2012, it could be argued, set up the professional era's first perfect season. A RWC loss has similarly seen NZ climb again to the top of the rankings. Does England's loss to NZ in 2013 have parallels with their defeat to France in 2014? Both games saw England fall quickly behind early on and both games saw England display a lot of character to fight their way back into the game, only to be undone by some opposition brilliance having clawed their way into the lead. Did Ireland set up this year thinking about the loss to Australia or NZ?

Is it possible to pinpoint a performance and say this is where things all changed for a team?

only when looking back at history.

In a couple of year's time Woodward will either be hailed as a prophet or, more likely, his comments will have been forgotten.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:After the Ireland game Clive Woodward made the following comment: "This is the most significant win for this current England team. It is a special team, a special coaching team and that was a defining moment. I think England will really go on now and become something special. There are still some players to come back, the competition is fantastic and I think this sets England up for a long time."

Is it just me, or do they say this every year?

kiakahaaotearoa wrote: Did Ireland set up this year thinking about the loss to Australia or NZ?

Is it possible to pinpoint a performance and say this is where things all changed for a team?

Probably the loss to NZ. The Oz game with respect seemed to be a game Ireland used to practice for the NZ game. It was a very new team, new management finding their feet with a completely new gameplan and approach. Cant read too much into such a loss.

I think the most defining game for Irish rugby in the last 15 years was the heavy loss to England in the six nations in 2003. Ireland were on the verge of becoming a very very good side and playing England for the grand slam. We got hammered but it seems the team and management learned so much on that day. The following year Ireland beat England the reigning world champions in Twickenham and went onto at their peak become the 3rd ranked team in the world.

I think Woodward is seeing parallels to the team he coached, in particular the last minute win against Australia at Twickenham (2000??). That win followed a lot of nearly, but not quite, performances (i.e., losses!), and convinced that team that they could play and win against the best (well, the world champions at any rate). Certainly the away victories of 2003 were important as well, but that early win laid the foundation for a period of success against SH opposition.
History will judge whether the current comments from Woodward are hyperbole or not, but this England team is looking consistently good. Against the ABs and France they were good but lost. Against Ireland they held out and won. Now for the next instalment...

yes but in 2004 everyone beat England didnt they? A shell of the World cup side.

Clive, as per usual...goes off on one and tries to re-live the old Noughties feelings using this new England team

England have a WC at home in 2015.  Lancaster has his sytems up and running, and players feeding into them without too many blips in the system - which means it is the system that is honed and emphasised - and players are expected to serve it rather than the National squad serving their individual talents.

Fine - I think that's how it should be.

But Lancaster is two years down the line of his preparation towards the WC.  His team were at home, they WERE favourites to win it!  And I honestly felt they were expecting the gap of that winning score to be much greater both in the lead up week and during the first minutes of the game itself.

Ireland were 2nd from the bottom last season. They have a coach who is new and who is only learning his way as much as some of his younger players are learning theirs.

England take the game with a three point lead - and it's THE defining moment of England's advancement?  The beginning of their real path to Specialness?

Well, maybe it will turn out as such - but that's a pretty big compliment to an Ireland side trying to find its feet again, trying to find a rhythm under a new coaching set-up, trying to regain some confidence in themselves after the Bad Bad few seasons they've endured.  Were we really worth such a compliment so early in the tenure of Joe Schmidt?

I think both Lancaster and Woodward are overplaying the significance of the victory...but if they aren't then Ireland, with Schmidt only having overseen 6 sames so far, is on a journey to perhaps something more 'special' than the English!

Taylorman wrote:yes but in 2004 everyone beat England didnt they? A shell of the World cup side.

Well, key players did retire, that doesn't look a huge worry for our current team...

Taylorman wrote:yes but in 2004 everyone beat England didnt they? A shell of the World cup side.

No they only lost two games in the six nations. They lost by three points to a very good French side in Paris. No shame in that.

Fly is Woodward overplaying or are you underplaying?   

I think Scotland and Italy were low points that could be seen as bringing an end to Kidney's tenure. More so than England. Strangely so far for Ireland there are parallels with last year, albeit a much more convincing display against England.

Like you say, it's too early in Schmidt's career to look at defining performances.

Just as it's impossible to say how a team's performance curve will evolve in the future with any degree of precision, so too is it impossible to trace back a team's evolution to a singular performance. Take Hansen's post RWC 2011 team. Is it based on the RWC winning experience or at least is the environment born out of the confidence of winning the World Cup crucial to bringing through the young players? Or is this just the ideal mix of experienced and young players and Hansen is lucky to have the right mix? Maybe there's a bit of truth in each of those arguments but also a good deal of guess work.

I don't think a loss to one team has influence on how you perform against another.

Each team you face has its own complexities and history.

If you are dominant over a period over one team means little when you face another.

I look at each individual team to see what makes us either dominate them, or struggle against them

I agree Biltong. This concept is the entire reason we play rock-paper-scissors as kids


A>B, B>C :. A>C is a commonly held fallacy

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Fly is Woodward overplaying or are you underplaying?   

I'm not overplaying us at all, kia.  

We have much more to do than that game against England who are already getting into 'special' territory  

We have much more to do.

But the inference of the Woodward comments (and Lancaster himself reproduced them himself) IS that the effort of the win against Ireland was a defining effort.  Either that's the logical inference or its................... verbal overkill on the England performance itself.  The latter it probably is.  But if'n it ain't then the inference about Ireland holds.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Strangely so far for Ireland there are parallels with last year, albeit a much more convincing display against England.

What parallels would those be BTW?

Thrashing Wales? Beating Scotland? Losing in a close fought game against England?

The journey has been similar, the manner of it rather different though

ChequeredJersey wrote:Thrashing Wales? Beating Scotland? Losing in a close fought game against England?

The journey has been similar, the manner of it rather different though

We lost to Scotland last year unfortunatly. Our performance was much better v England this year and in the end we didnt thrash Wales last year.

ChequeredJersey wrote:Thrashing Wales? Beating Scotland? Losing in a close fought game against England?

The journey has been similar, the manner of it rather different though

We didn't thrash Wales last year (we beat them in a first half and then gave up)
Scotland beat us last year??!! (we thrashed them this year)
England beat us last year (this year they are 'special' and they beat us by less)

We're top of the board with most points and sharing top tries...least tries against us

It's a whole different year so far, Chequered!!!! (sorry about that Kia) You're not looking closely enough...your mind is fixated England;)

Careful now CJ...you are starting to question the Irish team on its amazing journey under Holy Joe....so far we have beaten...Samoa, Wales and Scotland and um lost to Aus, NZ and Eng...quite amazing.

Oops, my bad

We've played you now. No point in worrying any more, just have to win the games ahead of England

ME-109 wrote:Careful now CJ...you are starting to question the Irish team on its amazing journey under Holy Joe....so far we have beaten...Samoa, Wales and Scotland and um lost to Aus, NZ and Eng...quite amazing.

Bring back the potato.

ME-109 wrote:Careful now CJ...you are starting to question the Irish team on its amazing journey under Holy Joe....so far we have beaten...Samoa, Wales and Scotland and um lost to Aus, NZ and Eng...quite amazing.

Quite so. Glad you've finally signed up for the TEAM JOE fanclub, ME. You're most welcome and here's the cheap badge.

SecretFly wrote:

ME-109 wrote:Careful now CJ...you are starting to question the Irish team on its amazing journey under Holy Joe....so far we have beaten...Samoa, Wales and Scotland and um lost to Aus, NZ and Eng...quite amazing.

Quite so.  Glad you've finally signed up for the TEAM JOE fanclub, ME.  You're most welcome and here's the cheap badge.

I am more in the "Skibbereen Eagle* mode...

SecretFly wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Strangely so far for Ireland there are parallels with last year, albeit a much more convincing display against England.

What parallels would those be BTW?

A convincing win against Wales and a loss to England. Let's see how you do in the Italy France games and the manner of the performance. You've already done much better in the Scotland game but a bad performance in the last two and the promise of what Ireland showed in their first two games will have been for nothing.

It may be harsh to judge a coach in his first year but sadly that's how it goes. I don't think SL would be still coach if he had the same run of results as Johnson (the Martin variety though certainly the Scott kind would equally apply). You can bank credits like winning championships or claiming big scalps but they can only buy you so much forgiveness. Keep stringing losses together and you're out. Way too early for Schmidt, SL or even Gatland (though he could be heading in that direction if he doesn't get the right wins or enough wins) to be talked about in those terms but if say PSA doesn't get a win in Australia and loses to Ireland, then the knives will come out.

Granted it was not a convincing win against Wales last year in the end but unfortunately if you go down that road it means it was not a convincing display against New Zealand.

I suspect the truth is between those two for both those games. This year was more convincing than Wales vs England because it was in all facets. Last year's Wales win was impressive but it stemmed from the scrum much like England's win against Ireland.

I was going to leave it.  But no.  I'm compelled to make you understand my point, kia - which I still don't think you're getting.

My point was that you kinda give 25 lines or so of thought to the idea of England becoming 'special' - arguing it out calmly and methodically with us and Woodward.  And you appear comfortable in the territory.  It's not embarrasing for you or onlooking England fans to consider the idea.  Afterall, it's not so outlandish to see England as maybe once again emerging for a few years of world dominance (or close to it).  

So it's easy to do a thought piece based on presumptions of inherant ability, based on past successes.

But what is the thought piece based on?  It's based on a close game against Ireland at home, where England were favourites, with Lancaster (who has been in charge now for about two years) cheering with absolute delight, and a large slice of relief, that his team pulled off the close fought win.

And the Nation that dragged that idea of 'special' from the lips of Past World Cup winner Woodward gets this from you: "an ordinary display[from the All Blacks in the Autumn] against Ireland (taking nothing away from the spirited performances of Japan and Ireland)".

England, by tradition more than based on anything you saw in that game against Ireland, are a considered main NH threat to the All Blacks in your opinion.  You'd agree?  That's why you devote analysis to them.  But what of the side that caused England to regard themselves as ready to challenge for the top?  Woodward is certainly refering to the top when he says 'special'.  The top - where New Zealand sit.  The team that has Lancaster and Woodward thinking such thoughts is marked down in passing by you as a 'spirited' side that played an 'ordinary' All Blacks.

I'd suggest Lancaster knew he hit a team, finally in this year's 6N, that he could use as a calculator for some totting up on how much progress he'd made in developing a side to get to the top, where the All Blacks sit.  He didn't say it about Scotland.... he felt it about Ireland.  "A proper Test match, two quality sides going at it" as he descibed it.  Meaning meat, meaning WC standard.

I say that's over-cooking the significance of the game against Ireland on his part... as Ireland aren't nearly firing on all cyclinders so early in Schmidt's tenure.  But also, I say your traditions, and what you instinctively regard as prime competition in the NH (England - France), colours your analysis of the game.  

England might just be on the way to being 'special' (you don't laugh it away) but the side England used as a marker to proclaim so...well, it's just another of those 'spirited' NH sides of no consequence that might lose to Italy or France or both.  They could, you're right - but Woodward and Lancaster still believe Ireland tested them in all the right places, with all the right intensity. Their expressions showed it.  And if Ireland can do that so early into Schmidt's reign then surely potential for growth is arguably greater for Schmidt's team than England itself.

So did Ireland not show up ( a la France v Wales) or were England THAT good ?

I wonder if the French side that 'showed up' against England will be the same team that play Ireland.

England came from behind to beat the team that just whooped the champs.

They have taken a lot, everything almost, from that victory.

But it flatters to deceive.

All this hype about how decisive the game was is great for Wales who truly did have a decisive performance against France.

IMO until they beat the champions all they have really achieved is to stay in the competition. France did them a favor by releasing the Slam pressure valve in week 1.

The only thing they have really achieved so far is some consistency of selection and strength in depth from 9 (excluding 10) to 15, which in and of itself may turn out to be decisive.

Lets see how their sole replacement lion does against a whole pride next weekend.

Typical tripe from Woodward. Most significant win? Really?  Personally I think the most significant was beating the ABs ( the best side in the world). It shows that we can beat the best.

Ireland are a good side but they are ranked below England and are now 3-0 in the recent head to head.

We should hardly be shouting from the rooftops that we beat Ireland - only just too.

Beating Wales would be more significant for England in my opinion - would allow Lancaster and co to get a much needed psychological monkey off their back before the RWC next year.

Obviously winning away in NZ would also be a much more significant scalp.

England have floated around 4th spot in the world with Lancaster in charge but they need to start showing that they consistently match the SH sides.

Fly on another thread - England vs Ireland - I dismissed Woodward's comments as hyperbolic. That wasn't clear in this thread I fully recognize. I was trying to see where he was coming from and whether such statements can be made by anybody with regards to looking to the future.

NZ have probably four opportunities to see how special this England team are or could be before the RWC.

I think the big reason why we feel there is a lot more to come from England is that the players are young and, most crucially, obviously improving all the time. There is a chance that a number of them will go on to great things, and there are some good players on the sidelines through injury or coming through the academies. Holding the JWC isnt a guarantee of future success but its better to have it than not.

Ireland its hard to say, as they have a hard core of older players who are at or near the end of their journey. Where they are in 1 or 2 years time depends on how well the next generation can produce the goods, which is different from potential.

England should get better. Ireland may get better.

Great performances only become decisive if the end journey results in silverware (in rugby terms). If England lose to Wales next week it will quickly become a forgotton victory.

You can't tell until the ultimate goal is achieved.

You could have said Englands destruction of AUS in 2010 was the beginning of something special, a decisive victory... but in the end they crashed out the RWC 1 year later with a whimper.

England won't win the RWC by beating teams like Ireland at home by a mere 3 points (no disrespect to Ireland intended). World champions elect at home would be putting 10+ points on that side and dominating all aspects of the game.

If England can grab a single victory in NZ this summer, that would be a real indicator to genuine improvement and growth as a team.

They need to win a 6 Nations before that fa0019

I just don't think measuring progress is that simple.

When you take any team and measure them up to their opponents, each of these opponents tell a different story.

At our best the Springboks were all conquering, granted it is more than fifty years ago.

But they dominated most teams, until we dominate most teams and have ahead to head better than NZ has against us, we are mediocre in my eyes.

The future belongs in the future, wondering where your team will be in four years or somewhere in the future is rather impossible to suggest.

We look at current young talent and then make ourselves beleive they are going to be great in two or three years time, but what if our opponent is also going to improve by then, then we basically sit in the same boat we are right now.

So worrying about the future is a futile excercise in my opinion, it is the now that is important.

SecretFly

The tightness of the game, the thudding tackles that was going right up untill the last whistle. A lesser England team would of lost that game. I am not saying that this England team is a world beater my any means.

But what i am saying is that win against Ireland showed a lot of spirit and determination "not too lose".

I do believe that this s England team showed that they was not affraid of the team Ireland put out. Ireland had far more international caped players in their team than England did.
So in that case Ireland should of won but they did not.

Lest just see how the rest of the 6ns goes before saying that this team is special.

They were wearing capes? Probably slowed them down.

I was just wondering. What was the penalty against Ireland for at the end of the game?

I have been looking on various sites and there is nothing?

England have put in ( together with Ireland) 3 consistent performances. All good games for England in different ways.

England against Ireland showed a level of maturity (no pens under pressure) together with creating good attacking opportunities. All this with the youngest & least experienced squad, by a distance, in the 6Ns.

I agree that we should be measured by the 3 sides above us before we have real decisive/defining performances.

Beating Wales would be an achievement but they have been inconsistent for a while now & raise their game against us & when told off by Gats.

maestegmafia wrote:I was just wondering. What was the penalty against Ireland for at the end of the game?

I have been looking on various sites and there is nothing?

Maes,

There was a maul taken in by the Irish & Burrell turned it over at the end.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:England have put in ( together with Ireland) 3 consistent performances. All good games for England in different ways.

England against Ireland showed a level of maturity (no pens under pressure) together with creating good attacking opportunities. All this with the youngest & least experienced squad, by a distance, in the 6Ns.

I agree that we should be measured by the 3 sides above us before we have real decisive/defining performances.

Beating Wales would be an achievement but they have been inconsistent for a while now & raise their game against us & when told off by Gats.

Double Champions, very inconsistent. Nice try, but don't confuse the IRB and 6 Nations. And i would love to have seen the telling off Stewie gave them post France.

Scratch wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:England have put in ( together with Ireland) 3 consistent performances. All good games for England in different ways.

England against Ireland showed a level of maturity (no pens under pressure) together with creating good attacking opportunities. All this with the youngest & least experienced squad, by a distance, in the 6Ns.

I agree that we should be measured by the 3 sides above us before we have real decisive/defining performances.

Beating Wales would be an achievement but they have been inconsistent for a while now & raise their game against us & when told off by Gats.

Double Champions, very inconsistent. Nice try, but don't confuse the IRB and 6 Nations.  And i would love to have seen the telling off Stewie gave them post France.

There is a difference between results & performances. Even the most ardent of Welsh fans wouldn't say Wales have been consistent in performances over the last 3 years.
When you say IRB you should be thinking SH which is the point I was making. This is the main reason why Wales haven't progressed in the rankings & why I say England should aspire to beat SH teams regularly to produce the REAL decisive performances.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:

Scratch wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:England have put in ( together with Ireland) 3 consistent performances. All good games for England in different ways.

England against Ireland showed a level of maturity (no pens under pressure) together with creating good attacking opportunities. All this with the youngest & least experienced squad, by a distance, in the 6Ns.

I agree that we should be measured by the 3 sides above us before we have real decisive/defining performances.

Beating Wales would be an achievement but they have been inconsistent for a while now & raise their game against us & when told off by Gats.

Double Champions, very inconsistent. Nice try, but don't confuse the IRB and 6 Nations.  And i would love to have seen the telling off Stewie gave them post France.

There is a difference between results & performances. Even the most ardent of Welsh fans wouldn't say Wales have been consistent in performances over the last 3 years.
When you say IRB you should be thinking SH which is the point I was making. This is the main reason why Wales haven't progressed in the rankings & why I say England should aspire to beat SH teams regularly to produce the REAL decisive performances.

Not for wales 6 nations
last 3 6 nations
played 13 won 11 2 championships, 1 slam, 1 triple crown, so far.
SH form clearly has no bearing and if england were anywhere near where you think they are, they would be doing better in the 6 nations, 1 win in 11 years doesn't even warrant comparison much as your precious 4th in the rankings makes you think it does

Scratch wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:

Scratch wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:England have put in ( together with Ireland) 3 consistent performances. All good games for England in different ways.

England against Ireland showed a level of maturity (no pens under pressure) together with creating good attacking opportunities. All this with the youngest & least experienced squad, by a distance, in the 6Ns.

I agree that we should be measured by the 3 sides above us before we have real decisive/defining performances.

Beating Wales would be an achievement but they have been inconsistent for a while now & raise their game against us & when told off by Gats.

Double Champions, very inconsistent. Nice try, but don't confuse the IRB and 6 Nations.  And i would love to have seen the telling off Stewie gave them post France.

There is a difference between results & performances. Even the most ardent of Welsh fans wouldn't say Wales have been consistent in performances over the last 3 years.
When you say IRB you should be thinking SH which is the point I was making. This is the main reason why Wales haven't progressed in the rankings & why I say England should aspire to beat SH teams regularly to produce the REAL decisive performances.

Not for wales 6 nations
last 3 6 nations
played 13 won 11 2 championships, 1 slam, 1 triple crown, so far.
SH form clearly has no bearing and if england were anywhere near where you think they are, they would be doing better in the 6 nations, 1 win in 11 years doesn't even warrant comparison much as your precious 4th in the rankings makes you think it does

Your not getting this are you Scratch?
Performances & results - there is a difference between the 2.

e.g. NZ vs Ireland 2013 : win but a scratchy performance.

Taylorman wrote:yes but in 2004 everyone beat England didnt they? A shell of the World cup side.

Wales lost to them   

Woodward opens his jowells and allows the wind to blow his vocal chords around.

Ireland were always going to lose that game (as I predicted) simply because they are not quite as good as they have allowed themselves to believe. A lot is being hung on their close loss to NZ. However if you look at that game, Ireland were great for 30 minutes and then in reality capitulated. The second half was literally all NZ.

England are a decent side and good for fourth IRB rank.

I don't think a close home win over a lower ranked team is cause to pin the flag to the poll and start up the tub thumping brigade.

England's game plan is one dimensional. Flood the breakdown at all costs and cut off the opposition ball. Strangle the game.

When that doesn't work, as against NZ or France, they don't have a plan B. Their ability to create anything in the backs is limited and worth the exception of Lawes the forwards do not link with the backs at all. It's genuine trundle up the middle stuff and I don't see that as a sustainable game plan.

Lancaster will have to add other elements, and when he does, that will be the defining performance of a special team.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Woodward opens his jowells and allows the wind to blow his vocal chords around.

Ireland were always going to lose that game (as I predicted) simply because they are not quite as good as they have allowed themselves to believe.  A lot is being hung on their close loss to NZ. However if you look at that game, Ireland were great for 30 minutes and then in reality capitulated. The second half was literally all NZ.

England are a decent side and good for fourth IRB rank.

I don't think a close home win over a lower ranked team is cause to pin the flag to the poll and start up the tub thumping brigade.

England's game plan is one dimensional. Flood the breakdown at all costs and cut off the opposition ball. Strangle the game.

When that doesn't work, as against NZ or France, they don't have a plan B. Their ability to create anything in the backs is limited and worth the exception of Lawes the forwards do not link with the backs at all.  It's genuine trundle up the middle stuff and I don't see that as a sustainable game plan.

Lancaster will have to add other elements, and when he does, that will be the defining performance of a special team.

Whilst I surprisingly agree with most of what you say... I think kudos should be given to England on the way they got the victory. They were AUS style smashed upfront, had far less possession and territory but made more breaks and ran more metres. Even when starved of the ball they were able to win and look good for the win... once they get their first choice props back I think they will beat teams like Ireland far more convincingly.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Woodward opens his jowells and allows the wind to blow his vocal chords around.

Ireland were always going to lose that game (as I predicted) simply because they are not quite as good as they have allowed themselves to believe.  A lot is being hung on their close loss to NZ. However if you look at that game, Ireland were great for 30 minutes and then in reality capitulated. The second half was literally all NZ.

England are a decent side and good for fourth IRB rank.

I don't think a close home win over a lower ranked team is cause to pin the flag to the poll and start up the tub thumping brigade.

England's game plan is one dimensional. Flood the breakdown at all costs and cut off the opposition ball. Strangle the game.

When that doesn't work, as against NZ or France, they don't have a plan B. Their ability to create anything in the backs is limited and worth the exception of Lawes the forwards do not link with the backs at all.  It's genuine trundle up the middle stuff and I don't see that as a sustainable game plan.

Lancaster will have to add other elements, and when he does, that will be the defining performance of a special team.

An opinion if I may: I think what we are seeing plan B. Plan A  is on a bit of a slow brew. Waiting for Manu, Cole to get fit, Ford / Eastmond / Watson  to get some game time, Farrell to continue (I think) his promising development at FH, backed up by debutante Ford. Farrell/ Ford/ Manu / Burrell /Eastmond mayeb 12T, to open up the midfield and get ball to May/Yarde/ Wade / Watson / Nowell * (* delete/ add other  wings according to taste). England's best team is very close, just have not seen it yet for a complexity of reasons.
The NZ tour will be a very tough finishing school for thr touring squad. Will get taught a lesson or two. But we need that.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:

Scratch wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:

Scratch wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:England have put in ( together with Ireland) 3 consistent performances. All good games for England in different ways.

England against Ireland showed a level of maturity (no pens under pressure) together with creating good attacking opportunities. All this with the youngest & least experienced squad, by a distance, in the 6Ns.

I agree that we should be measured by the 3 sides above us before we have real decisive/defining performances.

Beating Wales would be an achievement but they have been inconsistent for a while now & raise their game against us & when told off by Gats.

Double Champions, very inconsistent. Nice try, but don't confuse the IRB and 6 Nations.  And i would love to have seen the telling off Stewie gave them post France.

There is a difference between results & performances. Even the most ardent of Welsh fans wouldn't say Wales have been consistent in performances over the last 3 years.
When you say IRB you should be thinking SH which is the point I was making. This is the main reason why Wales haven't progressed in the rankings & why I say England should aspire to beat SH teams regularly to produce the REAL decisive performances.

Not for wales 6 nations
last 3 6 nations
played 13 won 11 2 championships, 1 slam, 1 triple crown, so far.
SH form clearly has no bearing and if england were anywhere near where you think they are, they would be doing better in the 6 nations, 1 win in 11 years doesn't even warrant comparison much as your precious 4th in the rankings makes you think it does

Your not getting this are you Scratch?
Performances & results - there is a difference between the 2.

There is also a difference between Your and You're which clearly you aren't getting.   

Performance is irrelevant when you consistently win the competition.

It depends whether you one aim for the global season is to win a competition that involves less than half the game played that year. If that is your sole aim then results in the 6 nations is all that matters.

I see very little improvement in England if I'm honest. Still missing one-on-one tackles that should be made. Still doing little in attack. Getting better, sure. Bringing through more players due to injury, sure. It's difficult when there are some many changes in the backs so well see after a bit of consistency,