England,Stuart Lancaster,RWC and all that

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.

The main thing for Corbisiero is surely whether he can make it to the end of the world cup uninjured. I would however consider Marler number 1 and it's up to Corbs to take it back.

Marler is the man in possesion so that is only right, but I think he will do so quickly, IF HE STAYS FIT!

Absolutely...Marler has been excellent! And he is improving all the time.

LH is not a worry for England fans.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote: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.

That's not quite international opposition, though. Mulipola, while doing an excellent job, was playing on the wrong side and Stevens was never particularly renowned for the strength of his scrummaging.

I'm not saying Corbs won't come back strongly, just that there are still a fairly long list of "ifs" he has to dispel before he can have a shot at the England shirt. I'd like to see him have a strong start to the season and then fight it out with Marler and Mako in camp.

I'd like to see him have a strong start to the season and then fight it out with Marler and Mako in camp.

He'll have Waller to compete with at his own club first...

Is it just me, or as an England fan has this tour provided more questions than we hoped it would answer? Whilst we've by no means played terribly I also feel we have much the same questions/problems from recent years, namely:

- Do we have enough ball carriers in our pack?

It has still felt like we are lacking a big carrier in the pack to help get over the gainline or a quick back row to help support/finish line-breaks.

- Who is our best fly half?

Such a shame Ford got injured when he did. Farrell never looked fit for the 2nd (shouldn't have played) so is hard to judge him on that. Burns showed what we knew from his club performances - capable of excellent and terrible performances from week to week. Hopefully the structure at Tigers will help him progress.

- What's our best balance of attack and defence in the midfield?

All four tried have shown the spectrum of good through poor during the series. One thing I thing we've learnt is we look most threatening with Manu at 13. However we still look not much closer to finding our best 12.

- Do we have wingers with the potency in attack to threaten the best but the solidity in defence to not leak line breaks out wide?

Yarde has looked good going forward but has really struggled with kicking and defensive duties in 2nd and 3rd tests. May still hasn't settled into international rugby as we'd have liked, though he's done better than some suggest in my opinion. Ashton also disappointed a bit on his return. He showed some glimpses in attack but not much improvement in defence as hoped. Desperately want Christian Wade to get fit for the AI's next season!

- Will we develop the ability to finish chances?

The most important question IMO. At the moment the answer infuriatingly remains no.

One question Lancaster needs to answer very quickly is who will be the English midfield, it seems all this swapping and changing have unsettled the combination greatly, they were woeful on defence today

Not sure why Lancaster is blaming the scheduling of the club season as England's best performance was in the first test.

did he say something in an interview?

everyone in rugby is greedy. players, clubs, unions, irb. so the resource that gets stretched thin is players.

this article from hape about his retirement due to concussion gives great insights into the pressures that players feel, and how they are not honest with themselves, their clubs or national coaches about their actual fitness and injuries.

i have been saying for 6 months that england should have treated the NZ tour as a developmental/experimental one and rested key players for the entire summer ahead of 2015 and RWC.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11264856

Biltong wrote:One question Lancaster needs to answer very quickly is who will be the English midfield, it seems all this swapping and changing have unsettled the combination greatly, they were woeful on defence today

Most of the changes have been down to injury rather than experimentation.

king_carlos wrote:...
- Do we have wingers with the potency in attack to threaten the best but the solidity in defence to not leak line breaks out wide?

Yarde has looked good going forward but has really struggled with kicking and defensive duties in 2nd and 3rd tests. May still hasn't settled into international rugby as we'd have liked, though he's done better than some suggest in my opinion. Ashton also disappointed a bit on his return. He showed some glimpses in attack but not much improvement in defence as hoped. Desperately want Christian Wade to get fit for the AI's next season!

- Will we develop the ability to finish chances?

The most important question IMO. At the moment the answer infuriatingly remains no.

Wingers - a feature of the 6N was Nowell's defense, which is very good. We do potentially lose a little in attack however. I dont think having Wade in will help with the defense side of things either, but he is something special and I hope we give him a go.

The finishing chances thing will improve. It will have to, but I think its the thing that takes the longest to achieve out of all team skills. Would help if Ashton was capable of bringing his club form to internationals. I dont know if we are not using him right but its not working.

My own concerns aren't so much about the players but on field tactics.

-Why do we struggle so much clearing restarts?
A feature of the whole tour has been a shocking inability to deal with restarts, each game we've knocked on, miss timed or just not gone for restarts. We handed possession back to NZ repeatedly and put ourselves under a lot of pressure.

-Where is our leadership coming from?
We seem to have very little in the way of vocal players on the field. Burns and Brown both kick the ball dead, but no one takes a grip of the English team and helps get them settled and focussed, instead heads go down and panic seems to spread throughout.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Biltong wrote:One question Lancaster needs to answer very quickly is who will be the English midfield, it seems all this swapping and changing have unsettled the combination greatly, they were woeful on defence today

Most of the changes have been down to injury rather than experimentation.

We could and should have fielded (as I said at the time) Cipriani Burrell and Tuilagi in T2, that we didn't and we played the selection/positions prescribed by Bomber command tells you everything you need to know about our current coaching panel.

I agree, we should have. But that was because he was trying to play his first choice team, which is what people are saying we should have.

quinsforever wrote:did he say something in an interview?

everyone in rugby is greedy. players, clubs, unions, irb. so the resource that gets stretched thin is players.

this article from hape about his retirement due to concussion gives great insights into the pressures that players feel, and how they are not honest with themselves, their clubs or national coaches about their actual fitness and injuries.

i have been saying for 6 months that england should have treated the NZ tour as a developmental/experimental one and rested key players for the entire summer ahead of 2015 and RWC.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11264856

This is a really good point. When looked at in isolation these 3 match tours look the business, however in reality given the Lions and World cup considerations on top of our own congested club season and you're stretching the envelope to breaking point.

I think with a more sympathetic and aware selection approach then the players fatigue and injuries can be successfully managed, but I think we've witnessed more players being over played and in some instances, Marler, Launchbury and Brown actually being played into the ground without thought or reason - quite frankly stupid management.

Ultimately if you are going to have a quid pro quo with the South then you have to take those realistically available to you or otherwise you're reneging on the deal. Of course this whole speculation has been complicated by the scheduling balls up which makes things a little harder to define.

All said and done, there are a number of players who must have a proper preseason and MUST NOT PLAY RUGBY AGAIN BEFORE OCTOBER;

Marler
Wilson
Launchbury
Lawes
Robshaw
B Vunipola
Wood
Care
Youngs
Farrell
Burrell
Twelvetrees
Brown

Given the power surrender to the clubs in England that is never going to happen - you reap what you sow

kingelderfield wrote:

quinsforever wrote:did he say something in an interview?

everyone in rugby is greedy. players, clubs, unions, irb. so the resource that gets stretched thin is players.

this article from hape about his retirement due to concussion gives great insights into the pressures that players feel, and how they are not honest with themselves, their clubs or national coaches about their actual fitness and injuries.

i have been saying for 6 months that england should have treated the NZ tour as a developmental/experimental one and rested key players for the entire summer ahead of 2015 and RWC.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11264856

This is a really good point.  When looked at in isolation these 3 match tours look the business, however in reality given the Lions and World cup considerations on top of our own congested club season and you're stretching the envelope to breaking point.

I think with a more sympathetic and aware selection approach then the players fatigue and injuries can be successfully managed, but I think we've witnessed more players being over played and in some instances, Marler, Launchbury and Brown actually being played into the ground without thought or reason - quite frankly stupid management.  

Ultimately if you are going to have a quid pro quo with the South then you have to take those realistically available to you or otherwise you're reneging on the deal. Of course this whole speculation has been complicated by the scheduling balls up which makes things a little harder to define.

All said and done, there are a number of players who must have a proper preseason and MUST NOT PLAY RUGBY AGAIN BEFORE OCTOBER;

Marler
Wilson
Launchbury
Lawes
Robshaw
B Vunipola
Wood
Care
Youngs
Farrell
Burrell
Twelvetrees
Brown

Couldn't agree more.
No chance resting them 'til october will happen. But I believe you are 100% right.

geoff999rugby wrote:Given the power surrender to the clubs in England that is never going to happen - you reap what you sow

The important point here is that I'd have to modify your sentence to get to what I've always seen as the real truth in people's attitudes in 606.

So your sentence would go like this for me:

"Given the power surrender to the clubs in England that is never going to happen [nor will most regular 606ers want it to happen when the actual club seasons start again] - you reap what you sow.

I've always been of the opinion that many if not most posters here are as seasonal as daffodils and suncream.  During International windows, they all want what is best for their International sides in terms of player management and yearly rest periods etc etc....but when the Club seasons kick in again, it's all back to Club being the only thing that matters and how Unions should never interfere with the private decisions of private clubs about the welfare or otherwise of their player employees.
So 606ers, and I'm sure the wider rugby viewing populations, usually want the best of both worlds - priority given to Professional Clubs in a modern Professional rugby world, and equal priority given to the National squad in a world where big kudos points come from being a top ranked Nation. Such a world of equal priorities being given equal priority doesn't happen

Not the NZ 606ers Fly. We are calling for the death penalty for the Chiefs forward who gave Read concussion. We want a NZ franchise to win the S15 rugby and we all want Canterbury to win the provincial battle because they're such a great team and there's so much to admire about them but really the focus is on the international side and everything builds towards that in the rugby calendar.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Not the NZ 606ers Fly. We are calling for the death penalty for the Chiefs forward who gave Read concussion.

You got your priorities the right ways round, kia. Stern retribution is the only way to stamp out club greed.

king_carlos wrote:

- Will we develop the ability to finish chances?

The most important question IMO. At the moment the answer infuriatingly remains no.

That for me is the by far the biggest question. So many chances have been squandered, and not just in this series, by a lack of support for players. We have made more than enough breaks to score far more heavily than we have, but either support hasn't been there (unacceptable in my mind) or occasionally the last pass has gone awry (I'm more relaxed about that, as it will hopefully come good if the players get a bit more time together and/or put the effort into improving their skills).

The complete lack of consistency with selections really can't have helped on the latter. Look at the way NZ improved with each test as the players got used to playing together. Given the end of league clash it's understandable that there was a lot of change between the 1st and 2nd test, but no excuse for it between the 2nd and 3rd.

For all there were other failings, England were much better at taking their chances before Lancaster took over.

Poorfour wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote: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.

That's not quite international opposition, though. Mulipola, while doing an excellent job, was playing on the wrong side and Stevens was never particularly renowned for the strength of his scrummaging.

I'm not saying Corbs won't come back strongly, just that there are still a fairly long list of "ifs" he has to dispel before he can have a shot at the England shirt. I'd like to see him have a strong start to the season and then fight it out with Marler and Mako in camp.

I'm not even sure it's true anyway. Stevens completely outscrummaged Corbisiero in the final. Say that as a neutral.

The more I think about this the more it appears obvious that come the end of the current club country agreement (June 2016) the RFU will need to open their wallets big time, because they will need to pay off the clubs for the first 23 players, to be named annually, to play NO MORE than a maximum of 15 club games per year (30 minutes plus is a game).

This will not mean that others cannot be selected and some sort of injury replacement accommodation will need to be agreed, however this level of elite player management will for the first time in the modern professional era allow us to compete with the Southern national sides in terms of performance maximisation.

Oh and ofcourse we'll have a new coach by then. Connor O'Shea anyone......or maybe big Jim Malinder?

And whilist we're at it....do you think its crossed the minds of anyone in Bomber command to get on the blower and negotiate a 12 month Aviva club loan deal for one Toulon based player?

No thought not.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Not the NZ 606ers Fly. We are calling for the death penalty for the Chiefs forward who gave Read concussion. We want a NZ franchise to win the S15 rugby and we all want Canterbury to win the provincial battle because they're such a great team and there's so much to admire about them but really the focus is on the international side and everything builds towards that in the rugby calendar.

Not necessarily.

While canterbury have been mucking about playing teams like England during their mid winter break, Auckland went off and applied themselves, and won the inaugural Rugby World Club 10s tournament.


http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/10188834/Blues-win-World-Club-10s-title-in-Singapore

Auckland only play 10 man rugby. Nuff said...

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Auckland only play 10 man rugby. Nuff said...

'  Struck through the heart, and you're to-o blame, you give....  '

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Auckland only play 10 man rugby. Nuff said...

We do play 15s as well , its just that we seem to usually have 5 players that are asleep.

thomh wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote: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.

That's not quite international opposition, though. Mulipola, while doing an excellent job, was playing on the wrong side and Stevens was never particularly renowned for the strength of his scrummaging.

I'm not saying Corbs won't come back strongly, just that there are still a fairly long list of "ifs" he has to dispel before he can have a shot at the England shirt. I'd like to see him have a strong start to the season and then fight it out with Marler and Mako in camp.

I'm not even sure it's true anyway. Stevens completely outscrummaged Corbisiero in the final. Say that as a neutral.

I agree. Corbs was not pushing straight, and was lucky not to get repeatedly pinged. I put it down to lack of match fitness.