England,Stuart Lancaster,RWC and all that

by emack2 Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:29 pm

First topic message reminder :

England has more players,money,resources than any other in the world.
IF money mean`t every thing they should be IRB No.1 always.I have
followed the recent tour avidly reading every thing here,papers,planet
Rugby etc.
Been amazed by comments good,ignorant,arrogant,and plain stupid.
Stuart Lancaster as head of the England Coaching/Management/Selection
team.
Has thru his knowledge Coaching Academy,and A team management
experience built a Squad plus a Wider training Squad of depth.
He has moved away from the RWC winning formula of 10 man Rugby
to a more balanced game.
In the last 2 years forget the rubbish about points difference/try count
that has been JOINT 6Ns wiinners,beaten Aus,NZ and drawn with SA.
THAT is a very fine record and better at this stage then SCW`s.
He has ruled out players not in the Uk so he has access to them
all the time.
Like all who follow SCW`s team he is in it`s shadow BUT unlike
SCW.He hasn't[yet?] jumped ship when things go wrong leaving 10
years of losses behind.
The tour of NZ was complicated by Club commitments and injuries
Nz of course had similar problems.
The success or failure of a Touring side doesn't mean it s a bad one
or not.e.g. 1965/70 Boks and 1966/71 Lions.C.Meads rated the former
over the latter better in each case but the results reversed.
Nz at the basic level are probably the worlds best at basics pass,kick,
tackle,let the ball do the work.They play simple rugby the basics at
a pace to suit them.
England beat them on average once every 10 years it doesn't follow
that every time the will win or lose.
What is your bench mark a tournament once every 4 years or your
overall progress at Age Group,A level,7`s,Women,Club etc.?
IF you accept that NZ are THE bench mark then yes the rest are
catching up.
A few years ago NZ ruled age Group,Womens,7`s,and Mens
except at RWC.Now other teams are winning some of these
BUT it doesn't follow NZ at any level are inferior.
It is simplistic to say NZ will go into freefall as there Senior
players drop out.There will always be replacements not
instant successes but they will get there.
Nz are and always have been a team not individuals winning
or losing now doe`snt mean they will lose next time.
The result of the current series or AI`s /RC means nothing
next week,month,or next year.
Other sides count there wins v NZ,NZ count there losses and
use them as motivation for next time.
Englands aim should be not a RWC next year but gaining
and retaining excellence EVERY Game.
WHEN all the selections fall into place England will again be
as they were.Under Rowell,Cooke,and Woodward.
BUT more important when a player drops out for whatever
reason there`s a replacement.

by HammerofThunor Wed Jun 18, 2014 9:38 pm

Had he been that successful with the Saxons? Mallinder was the one that got them to their peak (beating NZ Maoris). I remember some abject performances while Lancaster was involved (although I don't think he selected the players, did he?).

by aitchw Wed Jun 18, 2014 10:08 pm

From ESPN profile:

He steered the Saxons to Churchill Cup glory in 2008, 2010 and 2011 and oversaw an impressive period for England Under-20s as they appeared in three out of the four Junior World Championship finals between 2008 and 11 and secured a Six Nations Grand Slam in 2011.

Hammer, wouldn't be at all surprised if there were some poor performances but overall not unsuccessful I would have thought.

by Poorfour Wed Jun 18, 2014 10:17 pm

Giving credit where it's due, Woodward was one of the first coaches in any sport to really adopt the "marginal gains" idea (do 100 things 1% better), he was great at getting his way with the RFU and he assembled an exceptional team. He didn't focus on building a pipeline of talent for the future. I am not sure it was his remit, though, and the RFU definitely didn't have any structures in place to systematically bring players through. Essentially, Woodward founded a squad from the generation of players who (Wilkinson apart) had grown up in the amateur era and made a better transition to professionalism than most.

England's performance in the years that followed was a symptom of several factors - club v country politics (which essentially led to Woodward quitting - he could not get enough time with the players. It would be 2008 before the EPS agreement sorted that out); the need to build an academy system from the ground up; inept selection of coaches (we had Andy Robinson - an excellent coach but a poor selector and manager, and Brian Ashton - an excellent coach but temperamentally unsuited to providing the structure that a national team manager has to do); and plain old bad luck - I still maintain that England could have won the 2007 RWC Final had Wilkinson had more continuity to his international career and Hill not been forced to retire after two knee reconstructions.

Johnson came in as manager on the back of the EPS agreement and the first generation of academy-trained players. I think he did a lot right but ultimately was undone by withdrawing to a more conservative style of play after the drubbing in Dublin, by going for proven players over form and (ultimately) fitness, and by trusting his 2003 team mates to set the right tone for the squad in NZ, which they singularly failed to do.

When Johnson resigned, Lancaster was given the job for the 2012 6N to give the RFU time to look for a permanent appointment. It would have been very easy to be conservative - tinker with the squad, take a holding pattern hope for the best.

It is to Lancaster's enormous credit that he approached the job looking at what England would need for the long term. He cleared out all the players over 30 and anyone associated with the previous culture, and took a very inexperienced squad to within a breakaway try and some very dubious refereeing of the top of the 6N table. He did enough in that period that several of the candidates the RFU approached made themselves unavailable or withdrew from the process.

Lancaster had no international track record and only a limited one with Leeds and the Saxons. He has obviously been learning on the job in some respects - e.g. with some selections and his use of replacements. He has also been criticised for limited attacking play in his first couple of seasons - although in my view this is a consequence of putting structures in place in sequence, starting with defence and building up to a strong attacking platform. However, in his favour he clearly has a definite style that he is aiming for, he is achieving a balance between preparation for 2015 and 2019, and he has achieved a level of consistency that England have been lacking.

by HammerofThunor Wed Jun 18, 2014 10:29 pm

aitchw wrote:From ESPN profile:

He steered the Saxons to Churchill Cup glory in 2008, 2010 and 2011 and oversaw an impressive period for England Under-20s as they appeared in three out of the four Junior World Championship finals between 2008 and 11 and secured a Six Nations Grand Slam in 2011.

Hammer, wouldn't be at all surprised if there were some poor performances but overall not unsuccessful I would have thought.

Aye, I think I was just a curse for the Saxons. Any time I watched a game they were utter Poopie. It's clearly clouded my judgement. I thought he had an involvement with the U20 as well, which have done well.

by Guest Wed Jun 18, 2014 10:31 pm

Some good informative posts you guys, good reading some of this history Smile

ps. Thanks Poorfour for explaining your thoughts on the developing England as well a few posts ago. Made some fair points. For us, there is no such thing as a 3 year wait as the public perception is that the ABs have to there or thereabouts at all times. One day we may not be. That will be a tough pill to swallow but could happen. We are spoilt at the moment so we shouldn't take it for granted.

by SecretFly Wed Jun 18, 2014 10:31 pm

Poorfour wrote:Giving credit where it's due, Woodward was one of the first coaches in any sport to really adopt the "marginal gains" idea (do 100 things 1% better).

True. And he went on to modify it whereby he developed the idea of using 100 men to do the job of one ..... Whistle

by No 7&1/2 Wed Jun 18, 2014 10:33 pm

ebop wrote:Some good informative posts you guys, good reading some of this history

ps. Thanks Poorfour for explaining your thoughts on the developing England as well a few posts ago. Made some fair points. For us, there is no such thing as a 3 year wait as the public perception is that the ABs have to there or thereabouts at all times. One day we may not be. That will be a tough pill to swallow but could happen. We are spoilt at the moment so we shouldn't take it for granted.

I think Lancaster has put down the template to mirror this with England now. We shouldn't be waiting for a group of players to come to the end but integrate those that are ready at the right time as NZ do.

by kiakahaaotearoa Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:04 pm

Good to see this thread has eliminated its nasty streak and become constructive.

Just a question as I don't know the answer. When did SL stop being a caretaker coach and until when is he contracted? What are your thoughts on life beyond SL in terms of manager, which looks a long way off yet? Would you want to see a foreign coach or continue with the home-grown talent?

by lostinwales Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:14 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:
ebop wrote:Some good informative posts you guys, good reading some of this history

ps. Thanks Poorfour for explaining your thoughts on the developing England as well a few posts ago. Made some fair points. For us, there is no such thing as a 3 year wait as the public perception is that the ABs have to there or thereabouts at all times. One day we may not be. That will be a tough pill to swallow but could happen. We are spoilt at the moment so we shouldn't take it for granted.

I think Lancaster has put down the template to mirror this with England now. We shouldn't be waiting for a group of players to come to the end but integrate those that are ready at the right time as NZ do.

From where we were the only effective way forward was a clear out and some patience for a couple of seasons. The great thing was that Lancaster's England became so tough to beat so quickly, even if we have had to wait a while for the pretty stuff.

The fact that it was Lancaster also helped to keep expectations down. No pressure on a big name foreign coach to produce instant results.

And now the future is indeed bright. With the performance of the U20's and an apparent path to bring the bulk of those young players successfully through to the professional level there is a queue of talent the like of which I don't think we have ever had.

by Poorfour Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:17 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:
ebop wrote:Some good informative posts you guys, good reading some of this history

ps. Thanks Poorfour for explaining your thoughts on the developing England as well a few posts ago. Made some fair points. For us, there is no such thing as a 3 year wait as the public perception is that the ABs have to there or thereabouts at all times. One day we may not be. That will be a tough pill to swallow but could happen. We are spoilt at the moment so we shouldn't take it for granted.

I think Lancaster has put down the template to mirror this with England now. We shouldn't be waiting for a group of players to come to the end but integrate those that are ready at the right time as NZ do.

Well said, No 7&1/2. The issue for England post-Woodward was that we didn't have that consistent player pipeline NZ have. The much-maligned Rob Andrew, the RFU's community coaches and Lancaster have between them pretty much fixed that:
- Andrew put in place the EPS agreement that prioritised the academies, encouraged clubs to develop EQPs and gave the national coach extended access to his players
- The community coaches work stupendously hard to bring through young talent from outside the traditional catchment areas. If memory serves, both Marler and Sinckler were discovered playing for Battersea Ironsides (rather than a public school) and pointed towards Quins (who were reportedly a bit surprised to find a pool of talent on their doorstep that they'd never thought of before)
- Lancaster has put in place the process and structures to bring players through from age grade into the main squad and is building the kind of squad structure that they ABs have where the player pool can be repeatedly refreshed with young talent.

It's nothing new. The ABs have done this forever, but the RFU being what it is, England traded on the remnants of 2003 for 8 years after the fact and a good 4 years after they were past their sell-by dates. The rebuilding job was started too late to be complete for 2015 (shame) but it will be by 2019.

by HammerofThunor Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:21 pm

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Good to see this thread has eliminated its nasty streak and become constructive.

Just a question as I don't know the answer. When did SL stop being a caretaker coach and until when is he contracted? What are your thoughts on life beyond SL in terms of manager, which looks a long way off yet? Would you want to see a foreign coach or continue with the home-grown talent?

He was appointed between the 2012 6N and the summer tour. I believe he is contracted to after the 2015 World Cup. I don't really care who comes after or if he keeps it. Just they're right for the job.

by Cowshot Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:33 pm

Agree with the descriptions above of what has happened in English Rugby post 2003. Just going to add that although I gulped a bit when I heard the new head of the ERFU was from Lawn Tennis, Ritchie and the ERFU seem to have done a very good job resolving the recent European shenanigans. The ERFU are no longer the bunch of well meaning old duffers they used to be.

by kiakahaaotearoa Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:34 pm

Cheers hammer.

by aitchw Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:38 pm

Kia, for me SL has already earned the right to keep the job beyond 2015 and to 2019 if possible. It's good to have home grown coaches if they are upto the job but it would be blinkered to discount foreign coaches should the need arise.

The current improvements in structures, performance and implementation suggest that we should continue as we are and I think that inevitably includes SL.

That assumes no major falling off in what we are beginning to accept is the norm for this administration.

by quinsforever Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:57 pm

aitchw, i agree. with Ritchie running the RFU in a very very professional manner now that muppet Thomas has gone, SL need only focus on team preparation and selection. And the combo of Ritchie and SL and an RFU that is currently getting along very nicely with PRL, fills me with optimism for the future.

SL may not be the most astute coach, or best tactician, but he's doing a bloody good job of creating belief, providing opportunities for young players, and he has an awesome pyramid of talent feeding into the England setup so i think we are set for many years to come.

by HammerofThunor Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:57 pm

aitchw wrote:Kia, for me SL has already earned the right to keep the job beyond 2015 and to 2019 if possible. It's good to have home grown coaches if they are upto the job but it would be blinkered to discount foreign coaches should the need arise.

The current improvements in structures, performance and implementation suggest that we should continue as we are and I think that inevitably includes SL.

That assumes no major falling off in what we are beginning to accept is the norm for this administration.

Definitely. As long as there is progress up to the world cup (and I don't mean they must be winning trophies, etc, I mean general progress in the team) than he should be kept for continuity if nothing else.

by emontagu Thu Jun 19, 2014 12:07 am

Looks like 15 man rugby with a very good kicker to me...

by MissBlennerhassett Thu Jun 19, 2014 12:26 am

Great times! We all know Jonny is a legend, but how good were Greenwood, Cohen, Robinson??? Not to mention Daws, Healy, Tinds etc and obviously the pack was imperious - true 15 man rugby.
A far cry from the 5 man rugby propagated by the ABs of Fitzy and Sheldon fame!

by quinsforever Thu Jun 19, 2014 12:28 am

thank you emontagu. made my day.

had forgotten how devastatingly fast and strong cohen was back then.

most of those tries were scored against SH and top NH sides...10-man rugby my left nut...

by Mad for Chelsea Thu Jun 19, 2014 12:44 am

Cohen probably peaked though before the World Cup, he seemed to have lost a liitle of that devastating pace. Shame as that video reminds you of just how devastating he was at his best. Great pace, fantastic lines, good strength, and a very good step.

by Geordie Thu Jun 19, 2014 12:48 am

He also bulked up way to much if you asked me.

by Poorfour Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:37 am

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Cohen probably peaked though before the World Cup, he seemed to have lost a liitle of that devastating pace. Shame as that video reminds you of just how devastating he was at his best. Great pace, fantastic lines, good strength, and a very good step.

But even then he had a 1 in 2 try-scoring record and would make at least one tryscoring tackle a game. A player worth 10 points per game.

by **Rugby Fan** Thu Jun 19, 2014 10:02 am

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:...The problem with England, as you point out, is that there are very few opportunities like this series to have consecutive games against England....

Will Greenwood said he found out the other day that, for all Sean Fitzpatrick's 91 caps, he faced England only three times in his career. The pace didn't really pick up much until after our World Cup win. Including the tour to New Zealand in 2004, we've now played the All Blacks 14 times, and have two more matches left this calendar year.

To put it another way, when the final whistle blows at Twickenham later this year, 40% of the matches ever played between these two teams will have taken place after the 2003 World Cup. The other 60% (24 games) were played over a nearly 100 year span from 1905 to 2003.

by Scratch Thu Jun 19, 2014 10:32 am

hey Taylorman, open your one eye and watch the video above, you might learn something but probably not, no doubt your response will be that the opposition was poor.

You were right! England were a 10 man unit….the 10 being Jonny!!

And those pesky forwards keep turning up in midfield to link with the back 3, shockingly poor rugby.

laughing

Taylorman, wrong again.

by blackcanelion Thu Jun 19, 2014 10:56 am

Rugby Fan wrote:I've found this an interesting exchange. I don't think everyone who has labelled that England team as a 10-man rugby side has intended it as an insult. It's nonetheless revealing that all the definitions offered up of that style either don't fit Woodward's England, or else fit a lot of other teams who never get get called out for 10 man rugby anything like as much. Taylorman touched on this when he noted that some do seem to make the claim merely as a means of dismissing that England side.

Blackcanelion makes a similar point:

blackcanelion wrote:...I'm guessing it'll be one of those things we disagree on. Kiwis will view the English team of 1999-2003 with mixed feelings. A very good side, but not necessarily a complete side that is up there with the great opponents our past (e.g. 37 Boks, '72 Lions, '86 Wallabies etc)...

I think some New Zealanders seem to subscribe to this version of history:

- New Zealand usually has the measure of England. We do. 20% winning record is similar to Switzerlands record against England at football. We expect to win.
- New Zealand don't lose to England at World Cups, winning in 1991, 1995 & 1999. Can't argue with that.
- New Zealand probably would have beaten England if they'd played them more, after all, the 2002 loss at Twickenham was only a second-string side but they could have won the game. I agree to a certain extent. It's very rare a side anywhere near full strength loses to England. The 2002 team only had 2 run-on players from it's last tri nations match and 7 debutants and went close (not to say England didn't deserve to win.
- New Zealand should have won in 2003 but for a kicking off-day. England gave away penalties which, usually, would have lost them the game. I'd agree. So do a number of England players who on the field that day. That's rugby. The English forwards and defence were very good. I'd have backed the AB's to win tests 2 and 3 in a 3 match series, especially given it was a new coach and many of the team didn't play under him the previous December or were new
- When the World Cup holders came to New Zealand a few months after the tournament, they lost both games easily. True. 36-3 and 36-12. Different teams, new Ab's coach and post world cup. Probably just as important a different emphasis on the breakdown by referees meant England couldn't play the way they did in 2000-2003.
- England only won the World Cup because they didn't face New Zealand. The All Blacks blew it against Australia. No. England deserved to win the world cup and we were beaten by Australia on the day. It's a knockout tournament.

Now, I think that's just a fairy tale die-hard fans tell themselves to avoid dealing with the fact England were the dominant side in world rugby at that time. No. England deserved their world ranking of no 1 when they came out after the 2003 world cup. I think most Kiwis would agree

It's impossible to know, but I'm reasonably certain that if the All Blacks had faced England at Twickenham in 2000 and 2001, they'd have certainly lost one match and probably both. You're right. It's impossible to know.

Their best chance of winning would have been 2000, but that's the year England won in South Africa when New Zealand couldn't; we also beat the Australian team who had defeated New Zealand home and away. Not conclusive evidence, but it certainly makes it harder to argue in favour of New Zealand coming away victorious. Nice argument. Not sure I agree entirely. I think England improved every year from 2000-2003, so I agree there. England played the Boks in SA for a win and a loss, and beat a significantly understrength, 13 man Australia 5 minutes into injury time on the basis of a 50/50 TMO decision. I haven't mentioned the Twickenham win over SA as this was the start of the 3 year disintegration of the Springboks following the ousting of Nick Mallet. NZ had a marginally harder itinerary with home and away games against Australia and South Africa and a two match tour of France. Each series being drawn 1 all. I'd have backed our chances depending who we put out

In 2001, the All Blacks were still losing to Australia and struggling against France. England beat both sides comfortably. Again, by no means conclusive, but it doesn't lend much backing to a New Zealand win either. I agree this would have been difficult for us. To put it in perspective. We thrashed France (we dropped a game in 2000), accounted for the boks (who IMO were starting to decline), but struggled against Australia. England had a good year with a solitary loss to Ireland. No major tour that year due to the Lions. I'd include the Lions in any assessment of England. The fact they lost to Australia means I'd I'd still have them behind Australia at this time. By the time the Wallabies toured in November both John Eales and Rod McQueen had retired. Pick n Go's relative assessment has England ranked no 1 from late 2002 through to early 2004. I's say that's about right, although I'd happily push it forward to the end of 2001.

As far as back play goes, I agree with everyone else singing Jason Robinson's praises, but would point out that he didn't play for England in 2000 and only featured briefly in 2001. Our most prolific back three consisted of Healey, Balshaw and Cohen. Those players don't get much credit in New Zealand only because the All Blacks didn't face them together. As we've discovered, for some New Zealand supporters if it didn't take place in an All Black game, then it never happened. I'd say it's more about the record against good sides. They struggled to score more tries against the likes of NZ, Australia and South Africa. They failed to score, or only scored 1 try, in two thirds of their games against NZ, France, Australia and South Africa in the golden era. That's despite facing some pretty poor SH sides, especially in late 2002 and early 2003.

I don't think England would have beaten New Zealand easily if we'd faced them in the World Cup final. We were profligate, and made heavy work of teams we had been used to beating regularly in that tournament. We did, however dominate France, the one team who had caused us real problems and I think we would have approached a match with New Zealand in a similar fashion. New Zealand also had problems with France, and the loss to Australia in the Cup showed that pressure could get to them. England would have won, because there was no better team in the world at applying and dealing with pressure than England in 2003. True. Although I think it's a lot to read into 1 game against Australia. You could say Australia peaked against NZ and would have beaten England otherwise. Lots of conjecture. England won, it's a knockout competition. They also ended up with a deserved no 1 ranking. Good on them.

Of course, we can't know. We all choose to fill the gaps in the historical record with whatever speculation suits our world view. One thing we can all agree on is that if the two sides had met more often, we surely wouldn't be having this exchange now. I'm sure we'd find a way somehow...... Enjoyed your post.

-

by Gunner Thu Jun 19, 2014 12:12 pm

This is all getting a bit silly guys and a little petty from my perspective.
Its making both sets of fans, ABs and Eng, look a bit ridiculous.
As for my opinion if you win the RWC you win it.
After you have played 7-8 and have won the final you deserve it. Period.
Why it sends posters scurrying to ESPNrugby-stats to find some obscure statistic
that backs up their argument is beyond me.
Should be an interesting final test.
Question to England supporters.
1. Do you think Lancaster has picked the best 23 available for Sat?
2. Which players who didnt tour NZ would you include for the AI? Who would they replace? Im more curious about RWC 2015 than those RWCs from years gone by.

by **Rugby Fan** Thu Jun 19, 2014 12:29 pm

Gunner wrote:This is all getting a bit silly guys and a little petty from my perspective.

Sorry if that's how it comes across. I've enjoyed reading what people have had to say. I don't see it as a "mine's bigger than yours" tat-for-tat, but rather more like Rashomon, where the same events produce wildly different narratives depending on your perspective.

Gunner wrote:Question to England supporters.
1. Do you think Lancaster has picked the best 23 available for Sat?
2. Which players who didnt tour NZ would you include for the AI? Who would they replace? Im more curious about RWC 2015 than those RWCs from years gone by.

This will probably be picked up more in the other threads, but to give you a quick answer

1. Not sure Parling and Lawes complement each other but I can see why Lancaster is trying it.

2. We've left Ford, Corbisiero, Cole, Youngs and Wade at home. They'll likely feature in the future but they'll all have to be playing well to be included. Wade is one many would like to see, and he'd probably be in place of Ashton.

by Gunner Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:02 pm

Rugby Fan wrote:
Gunner wrote:This is all getting a bit silly guys and a little petty from my perspective.

Sorry if that's how it comes across. I've enjoyed reading what people have had to say. I don't see it as a "mine's bigger than yours" tat-for-tat, but rather more like Rashomon, where the same events produce wildly different narratives depending on your perspective.

Gunner wrote:Question to England supporters.
1. Do you think Lancaster has picked the best 23 available for Sat?
2. Which players who didnt tour NZ would you include for the AI? Who would they replace? Im more curious about RWC 2015 than those RWCs from years gone by.

This will probably be picked up more in the other threads, but to give you a quick answer

1. Not sure Parling and Lawes complement each other but I can see why Lancaster is trying it.

2. We've left Ford, Corbisiero, Cole, Youngs and Wade at home. They'll likely feature in the future but they'll all have to be playing well to be included. Wade is one many would like to see, and he'd probably be in place of Ashton.

Thanks Rugby Fan.

I only wrote my original post because I thought things were getting a bit churlish.

Interesting to see Eastmond play again. Before the first test he was being written off by most Eng fans as a bit lightweight and
a turnstile on defence. Does this mean that the 6Ns pairing of 12trees and Burrell is now behind in the midfield pecking order?
Will be an interesting match-up at 13 with Tuilagi and Fekitoa.

by blackcanelion Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:41 pm

Gunner wrote:This is all getting a bit silly guys and a little petty from my perspective.
Its making both sets of fans, ABs and Eng, look a bit ridiculous.
As for my opinion if you win the RWC you win it.
After you have played 7-8 and have won the final you deserve it. Period.
Why it sends posters scurrying to ESPNrugby-stats to find some obscure statistic
that backs up their argument is beyond me.
Should be an interesting final test.
Question to England supporters.
1. Do you think Lancaster has picked the best 23 available for Sat?
2. Which players who didnt tour NZ would you include for the AI? Who would they replace? Im more curious about RWC 2015 than those RWCs from years gone by.

It's kind what the forums about. SWC's side is always going to generate this discussion periodically. The discussion is there because it's about quality. it's not easily defined by a 8-7 scoreline or a WC win. Enjoyed RF's post, but can see how you might find it tedious. Will move onto other things.

by **Rugby Fan** Thu Jun 19, 2014 3:03 pm

Gunner wrote:...Interesting to see Eastmond play again. Before the first test he was being written off by most Eng fans as a bit lightweight and a turnstile on defence. Does this mean that the 6Ns pairing of 12trees and Burrell is now behind in the midfield pecking order?

I think many of us like Eastmond but were worried that he was alongside Burns, who also isn't known for his granite-like demeanour. As it is, they weren't exposed.

I suspect Lancaster still favours Twelvetrees because of his size and kicking game but he will be concerned about the Gloucester man's consistency.

Many of the ideas put forward on this forum before the tour have proved to be correct: Farrell was injured and probably should not have travelled. Vunipola and Launchbury would likely be worn out. Twelvetrees was in poor form. On the other hand, we've been surprised that Attwood has been lacklustre while Parling has been in surprisingly good nick. The latter in particular was being written off. It's also been disappointing to see Care and Brown off their best. Burns has held up far better than expected but it's form he was showing before, so not entirely out of the blue.

by yappysnap Thu Jun 19, 2014 6:09 pm

Rugby Fan wrote:
Gunner wrote:...Interesting to see Eastmond play again. Before the first test he was being written off by most Eng fans as a bit lightweight and a turnstile on defence. Does this mean that the 6Ns pairing of 12trees and Burrell is now behind in the midfield pecking order?
I think many of us like Eastmond but were worried that he was alongside Burns, who also isn't known for his granite-like demeanour. As it is, they weren't exposed.

I suspect Lancaster still favours Twelvetrees because of his size and kicking game but he will be concerned about the Gloucester man's consistency.

Many of the ideas put forward on this forum before the tour have proved to be correct: Farrell was injured and probably should not have travelled. Vunipola and Launchbury would likely be worn out. Twelvetrees was in poor form. On the other hand, we've been surprised that Attwood has been lacklustre while Parling has been in surprisingly good nick. The latter in particular was being written off. It's also been disappointing to see Care and Brown off their best. Burns has held up far better than expected but it's form he was showing before, so not entirely out of the blue.

I think SL gambled on Farrel, Care and Twelvetrees being match fit and unfortunately it didn't work out. At least he's realised his mistake and made changes now.

by dummy_half Thu Jun 19, 2014 6:17 pm

Gunner

Biggest surprise is Parling and Lawes starting together, given how well Lawes and Launchbury worked as a pair in the 6Ns. Otherwise it's the best available pack and arguably currentl our first choice line-up (both props having done enough to arguably be ahead of Corbs and Cole).

Back line still definitely looks like a work in progress - Brown, Manu and perhaps Yarde are the only ones who can be confident of a lace in the team when everyone is fit. Youngs and Burns are getting close to cementing their positions as second choice, and Eastmond has to be looking to build on a promising first major start - the 12 shirt is definitely up for grabs and he brings something different to the party from the other options. Ashton has an opportunity to re-establish himself as the starter after a very good start to his Test career and then a real drop in form - plenty of other options for SL to look at on that wing if he doesn't shine.

Given form and fitness, it probably is as good a 23 as we could go with.

As for the AIs, obviously it would be good to get Corbs and Cole back in and around the squad

by Portnoy's Complaint Thu Jun 19, 2014 6:50 pm

I have two points:

1 That is a really strong team on form, fitness and mental strength.
2 I hope not to see Twelvetrees in an important England game again. He just doesn't have the big game mentality.

by WELL-PAST-IT Thu Jun 19, 2014 6:59 pm

dummy_half wrote:Gunner

Biggest surprise is Parling and Lawes starting together, given how well Lawes and Launchbury worked as a pair in the 6Ns. Otherwise it's the best available pack and arguably currentl our first choice line-up (both props having done enough to arguably be ahead of Corbs and Cole).Back line still definitely looks like a work in progress - Brown, Manu and perhaps Yarde are the only ones who can be confident of a lace in the team when everyone is fit. Youngs and Burns are getting close to cementing their positions as second choice, and Eastmond has to be looking to build on a promising first major start - the 12 shirt is definitely up for grabs and he brings something different to the party from the other options. Ashton has an opportunity to re-establish himself as the starter after a very good start to his Test career and then a real drop in form - plenty of other options for SL to look at on that wing if he doesn't shine.

Given form and fitness, it probably is as good a 23 as we could go with.

As for the AIs, obviously it would be good to get Corbs and Cole back in and around the squad

Not sure I can agree with that Gunner, Corbs when fit is still a stronger scummager and offer as much if not more in the loose. He is also better at the breakdown. Cole is probably aboput equal in the tight to Wilson but better at the breakdown. England have missed the breakdown work of their two 1st choice props, with them playing and Hartley, 7 of the pack are good at the breakdown rather than 4 or 5 from the current team

by No 7&1/2 Thu Jun 19, 2014 7:03 pm

Still think Twelvetrees is a really good option at 12 and we've still not seen him partnered with Tuilagi.

by Geordie Thu Jun 19, 2014 7:05 pm

Is Lawes and Parling going to have enough power for the engine room?

by Geordie Thu Jun 19, 2014 7:08 pm

England have missed the breakdown work of their two 1st choice props

Well Past IT,

I wrote this very point on another thread yesterday. I think our props have been excellent..Marler and Wilson...however i do think Corbs and Cole are exceptional at the breakdown...in fact Cole was almost like an extra 7.
We have missed those parts of their game as i dont think Marler( Yet though he may as hes getting better and better) or Wilson are at their level.

by HammerofThunor Thu Jun 19, 2014 7:18 pm

I said somewhere on here that it should all be about balance in the pack. Both Cole and Hartley work the breakdown almosts as much as a traditional backrow. Without them these skills are reduced and need finding from elsewhere, be it a change in tactics or personel. And it shouldn't be about trying to find the best 15 (so Cole is injured so Wilson comes in and that's it), it's about the best balance over all. Which is of course a lot easier if everyone fits the traditional role. Your traditional 5 is missing? Replace him with the next best traditional 5. When you move away from these roles it becomes more a challenge (but more interesting IMO)

by jelly Thu Jun 19, 2014 7:57 pm

Credit to Parling for earning his place for what looks closest to our first choice XV (taking into account availability), though not everyone was writing him off!

Would have liked to see Slater off the bench as he provides a bit more power than Launchbury, but can't argue with it too much. Think Webber is a bit unlucky but, again, it isn't a massive difference.

One thing worth noting is that Eastmond and Tuilagi between them only had to attempt 9 tackles (they missed one each) whereas Twelvetrees and Burrel had to attempt 24 (missed 7 in total). It is likely that Eastmond's defence is likely to be tested a lot more than it was in the first test, especially with 2 bludgeoning centres to deal with.

Looking forward to it, be good to see how Billy goes against Reed.

by Geordie Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:04 pm

I think Twelvetrees defence is an issue. He misses way too many.

So it will be interesting to see how Eastmonds holds up against the potential onslught.

The thing about him is he is as wide as he is tall...a real muscly lad so he might be fine....and i suspect we'll see Manu standing at 12 on many defensive plays aswell.

by Portnoy's Complaint Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:07 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Still think Twelvetrees is a really good option at 12 and we've still not seen him partnered with Tuilagi.

Unfortunately I have always thought that 36 is fine against average opposition; he even excels sometimes.

But I think that he has a tendency to wilt in really pressurised conditions. He did that when at the Tigers and hasn't seemingly improved even with age and experience at Bath.

If he's to be tested further, then I suggest it'd be better against Italy or Scotland (say). But not the All Blacks.

by Geordie Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:17 pm

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Still think Twelvetrees is a really good option at 12 and we've still not seen him partnered with Tuilagi.
Unfortunately I have always thought that 36 is fine against average opposition; he even excels sometimes.

But I think that he has a tendency to wilt in really pressurised conditions. He did that when at the Tigers and hasn't seemingly improved even with age and experience at ~~Bath~~ Gloucester.

If he's to be tested further, then I suggest it'd be better against Italy or Scotland (say). But not the All Blacks.

by Portnoy's Complaint Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:20 pm

GeordieFalcon wrote:
Portnoy's Complaint wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Still think Twelvetrees is a really good option at 12 and we've still not seen him partnered with Tuilagi.
Unfortunately I have always thought that 36 is fine against average opposition; he even excels sometimes.

But I think that he has a tendency to wilt in really pressurised conditions. He did that when at the Tigers and hasn't seemingly improved even with age and experience at ~~Bath~~ Gloucester.

If he's to be tested further, then I suggest it'd be better against Italy or Scotland (say). But not the All Blacks.

Yeah you're right, GF. Bath nicked Ford. Apologies.

by No 7&1/2 Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:31 pm

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Still think Twelvetrees is a really good option at 12 and we've still not seen him partnered with Tuilagi.
Unfortunately I have always thought that 36 is fine against average opposition; he even excels sometimes.

But I think that he has a tendency to wilt in really pressurised conditions. He did that when at the Tigers and hasn't seemingly improved even with age and experience at Bath.

If he's to be tested further, then I suggest it'd be better against Italy or Scotland (say). But not the All Blacks.

Fair enough. Thought he was good in the 1st half setting up Brown and generally some quite nice passing before a mediocre at best 2nd. Hope we give Eastmond some time to aclimatise to the position even if he struggles before moving on to calls for Burrell and Tuilagi.

by Geordie Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:35 pm

Im a big Eastmond fan...however should it be a concern that Bath seemingly may have other ideas for their 12 spot...namely Devoto or possibly even Burgess?

Its essential that Easmond plays a full season every game at time this coming season.

by MissBlennerhassett Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:37 pm

Launchbury should probably be the first name on the team sheet, Parling should be on the bench. Apart from that a good pick, except I would have liked to have seen 36 on the bench if fully fit. Burns should be 1st choice FH and suspect the 'injury" is a face saver negotiated by Daddy.

by Geordie Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:39 pm

Launchbury should probably be the first name on the team sheet

Even though he looks absolutely shattered and not on top form?

by Mad for Chelsea Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:48 pm

it's the best team we could put out with the available options, considering injuries (Care, Farrell) and tired legs (Launchbury). Lancaster tried the experiment of Tuilagi on the wing, it didn't work, but it's better to know that now than find out during the WC, and this is at this moment in time our best 23. Can't wait!!

by Poorfour Thu Jun 19, 2014 10:29 pm

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:
dummy_half wrote:Gunner

Biggest surprise is Parling and Lawes starting together, given how well Lawes and Launchbury worked as a pair in the 6Ns. Otherwise it's the best available pack and arguably currentl our first choice line-up (both props having done enough to arguably be ahead of Corbs and Cole).Back line still definitely looks like a work in progress - Brown, Manu and perhaps Yarde are the only ones who can be confident of a lace in the team when everyone is fit. Youngs and Burns are getting close to cementing their positions as second choice, and Eastmond has to be looking to build on a promising first major start - the 12 shirt is definitely up for grabs and he brings something different to the party from the other options. Ashton has an opportunity to re-establish himself as the starter after a very good start to his Test career and then a real drop in form - plenty of other options for SL to look at on that wing if he doesn't shine.

Given form and fitness, it probably is as good a 23 as we could go with.

As for the AIs, obviously it would be good to get Corbs and Cole back in and around the squad

Not sure I can agree with that Gunner, Corbs when fit is still a stronger scummager and offer as much if not more in the loose. He is also better at the breakdown. Cole is probably aboput equal in the tight to Wilson but better at the breakdown. England have missed the breakdown work of their two 1st choice props, with them playing and Hartley, 7 of the pack are good at the breakdown rather than 4 or 5 from the current team

We have yet to see either Corbs or Cole scrummaging fully fit against international opposition under the new engagement laws. Until they have come past that test, it's a bit premature to assume that they are still our best options. The changes have altered what it takes to be a successful scrummager and it's clear that some formerly good players (e.g. Adam Jones) have been unable to adapt.

by WELL-PAST-IT Thu Jun 19, 2014 10:39 pm

Pourfour, I have watched Corbs in the last few games he played for Saints, he isn't struggling, ask Munipola or Stevens who came up against him the semi and AP final.

Cole I grant you did seem to struggle a bit. Hopefully the layoff will have given him a chance to refresh his technique and rebuild the muscles necessary to properly scrummage when he comes back

by Sponsored content