England's selection dilemmas...blessing or curse?

Past England teams which have performed well at RWCs and 6Ns have tended to have very stable combinations in key areas of the field. I would argue that these historical teams have had players who were head and shoulders above their rivals for the jersey, and so the teams largely picked themselves. [big generalisation but stay with me...]

Fast forward to now, and i would describe England as having greater strength in depth than any other country (big league, lots of players, academies working well, RFU getting along well with PRL), with the possible exception of SA, but we dont have many nailed-on starters for any given match. It is a quality problem to the extent that even if faced with injuries we will still have a strong side, but it is also a big problem because we are still going to be agonising and arguing (depending on club and Intl form in the next 12 months) about selection for almost every position on the pitch. And as a result, we may never develop the level of understanding and fluency amongst players that having 900+ caps in an AB starting XV gives.

My view. If you have a genuinely world class option available you pick them. And you adapt your style of play to allow that player's impact to be maximised. Steffon Armitage needs to be included. I dont care where. He gave the much vaunted Billy V a schooling in the Heineken Cup Final. Won european player of the year. And a shoe-in for top14 player of the year. i reckon he is worth 9 points per match to England with what he does that is different, particularly ito turnovers.

As for the players in every other position, to be honest, none are standout world class, even though they are all very good. So i dont really care who gets picked as long as SL gives them all a good 10 matches to play together in white running up to RWC 2015.

quins,

It would take a big shift in policy for SL to pick Steffon Armitage while he's out in France, that said I think you have great strength developing but Lancaster needs to decide what his first choice XV is soon and give them a good run together.

Fair point Quins, this was seen as a problem for the ABs in 2007 when there was rest and rotation to build depth and it was doing all our heads in. We didn't know our best team and neither did the coaches we reckon. Players just wanted to play rugby and some were getting frustrated when they didn't get a run of games after playing well. Many thought the coaches were giving caps away too cheaply. Think the review after the 2007 RWC failure highlighted rest and rotation as something to knock on the head. All that depth meant nothing in the end except player dissatisfaction. So what we had depth, the team put out to play France on the day choked maybe because they didn't have continuity.

In terms of the World cup this is the best result for England. The one offs over two years gave them a feeling that they were closing in on the All Blacks. This Series left them with no doubt that they've things to do. So whatever they do be tween now and next year there will certainly be more urgency to it.

We lost to England end of 2012 and had the whole Summer to 'ponder' of it. And havnt lost since.

There's no better way to learn than from a loss in this game. England will be better for it- nothing will ever get taken for granted again.

ebop wrote:Fair point Quins, this was seen as a problem for the ABs in 2007 when there was rest and rotation to build depth and it was doing all our heads in. We didn't know our best team and neither did the coaches we reckon. Players just wanted to play rugby and some were getting frustrated when they didn't get a run of games after playing well. Many thought the coaches were giving caps away too cheaply. Think the review after the 2007 RWC failure highlighted rest and rotation as something to knock on the head. All that depth meant nothing in the end except player dissatisfaction. So what we had depth, the team put out to play France on the day choked maybe because they didn't have continuity.

I don't think it's a big a problem as has been made out. Henry's AB's had a great record going into the 2007 world cup. Rotation was identified as an issue (which is not surprising given it was a departure from how we'd always done things). However, you can't objectively blame our loss to France on to much rotation. If anything not enough rotation was an issue that they addressed successfully going into 2011. I think the issue was more with perception and getting buy in. It's a move to a more professional approach that most professional sports use outside of rugby. In NZ at the time we were very limited in our outlook, probably largely do with the public and rugby players limited experience of professional sports. Some players and fans were resistant because they felt the AB's jersey had to earned and you put your best 15 out each week. Henry rotated and so does Shag. They just hide it better. It's now called picking the best XV for the match, and sabbaticals. You'll see plenty of rest and rotation in November.

Fair enough, I disagree with you though. All our players were in the best shape of their lives because they were well rested and we could field two competitive teams. But the team wasn't settled as they'd hardly played consecutive tests with the same combinations. And it showed with the lack of confidence to be able to formulate a plan during the game when things were going awry. During the quarter final, on came the subs (depth), they did buggar all. Any squad member who had had 10 minute spells over the year could have done just as good a job as those subs that had had all that game time (to build depth).

And I also disagree with you about Hansen and rotation. He doesn't rotate anywhere near as much as the 3 wise men did. Most of the rotation these days is injury enforced or sabbaticals (rare). Hardly any experimenting with players out of position just to see what happens. Sometimes we are forced to do it, but there's far less experimenting for kicks.

No the rotations hidden in the sabbaticals and the subs bench I think is what BC is saying. We brought in 23 new caps since the world cup and we didn't lose 23 so there must have been something to it. The 3 did it more directly- team A and B.

But look at it in 2005- 2 separate teams won the grand slam- 2 matches each, pretty good margins. We weren't moaning at rotation after that.

I didn't think you could blame rotation directly for 2007- I think it was made a scapegoat for it- something to pin something on. The team just didn't win on the day.

But look at what we have now. Barrett has 19 tests at 100%. Hes more than proved his ability to play at 10 but he has one possibly two ahead of him yet at this moment he would probably walk into any test side in the world on ability.

How do we keep him on board- subbing is all. But soon hes going to be sick of waiting one whole week to play 20 minutes, week after week after week.

Yeah, the team didn't win on the day for sure. Anyways, you guys are way more knowledgeable about rugby than me so maybe I got sucked in by the witch hunt. But Team A + Team B may not make an awesome Team C. Subs rotation is fine. Full game rotation, not ideal. Rightyo, won't mention ABs in this England thread anymore, they're probably a bit sick of us 

I agree with your point about selection, sqaud players etc. I don't agree that Armitage should be included though, I don't see the hype. If he wanted to play for England he would return to the AP.

Taylorman wrote:In terms of the World cup this is the best result for England. The one offs over two years gave them a feeling that they were closing in on the All Blacks. This Series left them with no doubt that they've things to do. So whatever they do be tween now and next year there will certainly be more urgency to it.

We lost to England end of 2012 and had the whole Summer to 'ponder' of it. And havnt lost since.

There's no better way to learn than from a loss in this game. England will be better for it- nothing will ever get taken for granted again.

To be fair we are getting better and performed well over the majority of the 3 games barring a horrendous display in the 1st half on Saturday. I don't buy it was due to NZ deciding to turn it on then but for some pretty poor 1:1 tackling and positioning.

You might want to ask though what was at the core of England's tackling and positioning? There seemed to be no line urgency but much of that you can attribute to England's set piece frailties and their inability to disrupt the breakdown. It's much easier to come up at the line when you're not back-pedalling in defence. England were able to do that in the first test but NZ were not crisp or accurate enough in attack to exploit that.

I'd say overall England's depth is a blessing. Injuries are part of the game and they are assured that when a player comes on, there will be no drop-off in ability. That's extremely comforting.

There are a few players like Brown, Farrell, Care, Launchbury and possibly Twelvetrees that fall into the camp of being key players but must be managed better in the future.

Then there are players who fall into the camp of not knowing who the best combinations are. Here's where the curse element comes in and none more so than the centre pairing. There are plenty of names in the hat but no one's the wiser as to who the best pairing is. I even liked Scratch's bold suggestion of Cipriani, Farrell and Tuilagi but that would require further experimentation and SL is talking now of delaying his selections until October and back-paying the clubs for the players he selects. This to me is a clear admission that he still doesn't know who his best combinations are and needs time to look at the players in question and make up his mind without unnecessary haste.

Along with the centres, you can probably add a few other positions to this last group. Yarde has done enough on attack provided he goes away and works on his defence. Ashton did enough on attack in the premiership to warrant his inclusion again but found himself horribly exposed there on defence. So will Wade ever make it into the test squad or is it worth investing in May, Foden or the defensively sound Nowell. Plenty of names there but no certainties so definitely a curse.

Less of a problem is the back row but nonetheless the combinations are not clear-cut. Robshaw the leader and a great work rate but who is the pilferer at the breakdown. The invisible man or the great toiler in Wood or the more stand out ball-carrier and defender Haskell. Morgan made a good claim to start ahead of Vunipola but neither is an 80-minute man so it makes it impossible to call for another back-row sub.

Equally the tight five saw Parling do sterling lineout work and that went with Lawes who didn't seem to have his usual physical aggression. There are claims for putting Webber ahead and benching Hartley and the same could be said for Marler. Cole will probably come back but there looks to be a much stronger bench due to having a look at other players on this tour.

So on the whole a blessing but still a few doubts that prevent SL from knowing what his best combinations are and as he is no longer a caretaker coach, the grace period for finding those combinations has run out and from November he needs to start making as regular combinations as possible. That's a tough ask in certain positions.

Poor technique and concentration for a few of them but judging by the sub at half time I think it's clear to see Lancaster may have felt midfield was the start of the issues. Think we need to see Twelvetrees and Tuilagi together myself.

Well he should look further than that and recognise it was the lack of intensity and set-piece accuracy in the forwards that was the problem. A game too far perhaps because there was a big drop off from the first test but isolating the midfield is all too convenient. It went beyond that.

I think it stemmed from that personally. There'll be no excuses offered by Lancaster, indeed there weren't. He simply identified where it was going wrong and fixed it. You could argue he could have made a change sooner but I like the fact he gave Eastmond time to set it right. It's annoying that it's one of those things for the team to learn from but it's true none the less. I'm sure the team will be kicking themselves and indeed angry at coming away without a win.

In a way I think it's better long-term for England to come away with a significant defeat rather than another close loss. Firstly, you go on holiday with that festering wound to your pride. Short-term that may not be how the English camp want to go into their break nor what they deserve after the year they've had. But there's no better motivation when you do return to training and rugby than having that loss at the back of your mind.

Look at Wales, for example. Two significant losses and then a one-point loss. Sure it's good for their confidence to know they can compete with a top side but how much does that close loss paper over the problems exposed in the first and second tests? What state of mind will those players be in when they return to rugby?

I don't subscribe to the theory that you learn more from your losses than from your wins. But I do subscribe to the theory that losses can sting a side into positive action and that moral victories can blind a side to their weaknesses and prevent them from working on them.

Agree completely. Doesn't stop me wishing it was the other way around!

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Look at Wales, for example. Two significant losses and then a one-point loss. Sure it's good for their confidence to know they can compete with a top side but how much does that close loss paper over the problems exposed in the first and second tests? What state of mind will those players be in when they return to rugby?

Wales only had two tests, kia.

England's selection dilemmas...blessing or curse?

 
Its irrelevant how much strength in depth we have if none are world class.
 
We have many very good international players...but few that are truly world class.
 
The impetus now HAS to be to move those guys like Brown and Lawes or whoever comes in..etc from very good international players to world class players.
 
And that is simply by hard graft. If they are training hard now...then they need to up that and train extra hard.
 
Hopefully many of this squad has now seen first hand the level they need to be at if they have any thoughts of being the No.1 side in the world. No hiding...just get your head down and graft your a$$ off in training. Bigger, faster, stronger fitter...improve the skills, the handling, the decision making, the tackling etc.

Yeah, train hard and play as often together (as fatigue allows) as possible. Bring on the next tier as subs when needed. Your early 2000s team was well settled. Can tell I'm a coach huh.

Cheers, Cyril.   

That makes it even more tempting to forget about the first test and concentrate on the second test, which they felt they should've won.

Only saw the 2nd test. Was a great match to watch though from a neutral point of view. The Wales players will be scratching their heads over what they have to do to beat a SH rival, but so long as it's an honest self-examination, that's not such a bad thing. Could be time to call an end to some Welsh veterans but better now than finding out in a RWC. That pool group is going to be an absolute cracker to watch.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:You might want to ask though what was at the core of England's tackling and positioning? There seemed to be no line urgency but much of that you can attribute to England's set piece frailties and their inability to disrupt the breakdown. It's much easier to come up at the line when you're not back-pedalling in defence. England were able to do that in the first test but NZ were not crisp or accurate enough in attack to exploit that.

I'd say overall England's depth is a blessing. Injuries are part of the game and they are assured that when a player comes on, there will be no drop-off in ability. That's extremely comforting.

There are a few players like Brown, Farrell, Care, Launchbury and possibly Twelvetrees that fall into the camp of being key players but must be managed better in the future.

Then there are players who fall into the camp of not knowing who the best combinations are. Here's where the curse element comes in and none more so than the centre pairing. There are plenty of names in the hat but no one's the wiser as to who the best pairing is. I even liked Scratch's bold suggestion of Cipriani, Farrell and Tuilagi but that would require further experimentation and SL is talking now of delaying his selections until October and back-paying the clubs for the players he selects. This to me is a clear admission that he still doesn't know who his best combinations are and needs time to look at the players in question and make up his mind without unnecessary haste.

Along with the centres, you can probably add a few other positions to this last group. Yarde has done enough on attack provided he goes away and works on his defence. Ashton did enough on attack in the premiership to warrant his inclusion again but found himself horribly exposed there on defence. So will Wade ever make it into the test squad or is it worth investing in May, Foden or the defensively sound Nowell. Plenty of names there but no certainties so definitely a curse.

Less of a problem is the back row but nonetheless the combinations are not clear-cut. Robshaw the leader and a great work rate but who is the pilferer at the breakdown. The invisible man or the great toiler in Wood or the more stand out ball-carrier and defender Haskell. Morgan made a good claim to start ahead of Vunipola but neither is an 80-minute man so it makes it impossible to call for another back-row sub.

Equally the tight five saw Parling do sterling lineout work and that went with Lawes who didn't seem to have his usual physical aggression. There are claims for putting Webber ahead and benching Hartley and the same could be said for Marler. Cole will probably come back but there looks to be a much stronger bench due to having a look at other players on this tour.

So on the whole a blessing but still a few doubts that prevent SL from knowing what his best combinations are and as he is no longer a caretaker coach, the grace period for finding those combinations has run out and from November he needs to start making as regular combinations as possible. That's a tough ask in certain positions.

really good post Kia   agree with pretty much everything you wrote   

Cheers quins. Want to make a stab out of who the best squad is in your mind? I'd be interested to see your solutions to the problematic areas.

i find it really hard actually. while i have opinions on who is best in each individual position, i struggle to have conviction on the future potential of as yet untried combinations. And obviously many of the individuals have strengths and weaknesses that can be compensated for depending who they play with, and indeed against.

the squad is easier to pick, but the starting XV very hard at this point. I have never seen them train, only play for clubs and country. So thats why i tend to assume the coaches have more insight that we do.

Disclaimers aside, definite starters for the AIs for me would be:
Marler
Webber (standout performer on the tour for me)
?
Lawes
Launchbury
? - Haskell
Robshaw
Billy/Morgan

Care, by a whisker, because of his pace and his ability to drop goals from anywhere . But Youngs finished the tour well and is going to put pressure on Care
Cipriani. V controversial i know. But Farrell needs to refocus.
Burrell (plays 12 for Saints)
Tuilagi
Yarde/Ashton (Wade much-heralded but hasnt played much so lets see how he recovers from injury. I dont blame Yarde or Ashton too much for the AB tries on Saturday, there are no wingers on the planet that would have stopped them all)
Brown. Really needs to get some rest as he did not look sharp when compared to ben smith. but i still think he is a nailed on starter for us at the moment.

and obviously, and unpopularly, i think Steffon Armitage needs to be brought into the team, even though current policy of SL is not to pick foreign based players. Armitage can play 6, 7 or 8 and is a match winner in my opinion. but i understand the arguments against making an exception to the policy.

i know Wood and Robshaw do a lot of unseen work, but i think our backrow is just a bit too lightweight, and the extra carrying dimnension of haskell, and his ability to knock people backwards in the tackle, make me inclined to give him the nod.

A squad of 23 Kia

1 Corbs
2 Hartley
3 Cole
4 Lawes
5 Launchbury
6 Wood
7 Robshaw
8 Morgan / Billy

9 Care
10 Farrell

11 Yarde
12 ??
13 Tuilagi
14 ??
15 Brown

16 Marler 17 Youngs 18 D.Wilson?? 19 Slater 20 Haskell 21 Youngs 22 ?? 23 ??

I know Wood and Robshaw do a lot of unseen work, but i think our backrow is just a bit too lightweight, and the extra carrying dimnension of haskell, and his ability to knock people backwards in the tackle, make me inclined to give him the nod.

I think a few people may be thinking that now...especially with the obvious benefits the AB's have of playing Kaino and Messam etc...big dynamic powerful guys.

For what it's worth:

1. marler 2. Webber 3. Cole
4. Parling 5. Launchbury
6. Haskell 7. Robshaw 8. Morgan
9. care 10. Farrell
12. Burrell 13. Tuilagi
11. May 15. Brown 14. Yarde

Bench: Vunipola, Hartley, Wilson
lawes, Vunipola, Youngs, Cipriani, real problem here for me! foden

There's some real head clangers there for sure!

Nowell is another option covering wing and fullback but there is no real cover for the problematic centre pairing so I don't see it happening.

My choice at present would be:

Marler
Hartley
Wilson
Lawes
Launchbury
Wood
Robshaw
Vunipola
Yarde
Care
Farrell
Twelvetrees
Tuilagi
Watson
Brown

Subs: Vunipola Webber Brookes or Sinckler (depending who continues form) Parling Morgan Dickson Ford Wade (or swap with Watson)

I don't like the way Lancaster operates in showing too much faith in players who played well the week before.

Yes thats great in making players believe if they put in a good performance they will be rewarded etc but he has to have a no.1 in his mind per position and if available in the top games you need to play them. Playing Webber for Hartley in 2nd test was crazy IMO. Had a top tour Webber but you need to play your best players. The same with Morgan, Parling etc.

I agree that England lack another decent ball carrying backrow forward outside of Morgan/Vunipola but its a delicate balance. Haskell is not a jumper in the lineout and without Wood or Croft they lack a genuine alternative option.

I think our big problem is that in far too many positions we don't have people who you would say are definitely first choice and will be right up until the World Cup. Jones and Barnes (whatever you think about them as pundits) picked their teams for the start of the 2015 world cup and I think they only had about 6 players they agreed on.

Take the team from kia, above and play it against the following

Marler-----------Corbisiero
Webber----------Hartley
Cole-------------Wilson
Parling-----------Lawes
Launchbury------Attwood
Haskell-----------Wood
Robshaw---------Ksevic
Morgan----------Vunipola
Care-------------Youngs
Farrell------------Ford
Burrell------------Barritt
Tuilagi-----------Twelvetrees
May--------------Ashton
Yarde------------Nowell
Brown------------Goode

Still haven't included, M Vunipola, T Youngs, T Croft (all Lions), Armitage, Cipriani, Slater, Garvey, Foden, Eastmond, Dickson, Watson, Wade . . .

Can anyone say, with any real confidence, who would win a game between those teams? I couldn't and I think that is our main problem. It is difficult for Lancaster to pick a "strongest" XV because very few of the players are clearly number 1 in their position, either due to form or fitness. It may get to the point where he has to say, I am picking this team and I am going to stick with it right through to the World Cup, even if others temporarily look a better option at some point in the meantime. We also need some of the players to nail their positions beyond doubt.

Good team and good post jelly. Illustrates beautifully the depth of England and the lack of standout players and experience that form the nucleus of your side and help you make the right decisions and adjustments on match day.

jelly wrote:I think our big problem is that in far too many positions we don't have people who you would say are definitely first choice and will be right up until the World Cup. Jones and Barnes (whatever you think about them as pundits) picked their teams for the start of the 2015 world cup and I think they only had about 6 players they agreed on.

While I agree with you that we don't have enough players nailed on at the moment I saw the teams from Jones and Barnes and they were including players like Burgess (in the centres) and Benjamin among others who are quite a way off featuring as it stands. I think they (like SCW) would pick left-field (read: controversial!) picks just to get a reaction regardless of how settled the team/squad was.

I know a lot has already been said about Amitage, and I agree Lancaster should not really pick players playing abroad because that would just open the floodgates for lots of good English players to play in France.  This would not be good, not only for the England team but also for the premiership.

But what about if the RFU "bought" him back similar to deals for Rugby league players.  I am not saying I particularly like such deals because it seems unfair to the other clubs which are not being subsidised.

As i said above....it matters not how many players we have if they are all at the same level but none at the required World Class level.

We are in that position and need to push some players up to the next level.

Im also joining the club in thinking we do need a bull of a man at 4 or 6.

BUt for all my criticism of this side through this tour...i DO think they have so much potential...they just need to tighten up on many of the areas ive listed.

An improvement in one on one tackling would solve many of the problems we saw in NZ.

cb wrote:I know a lot has already been said about Amitage, and I agree Lancaster should not really pick players playing abroad because that would just open the floodgates for lots of good English players to play in France.  This would not be good, not only for the England team but also for the premiership.

But what about if the RFU "bought" him back similar to deals for Rugby league players.  I am not saying I particularly like such deals because it seems unfair to the other clubs which are not being subsidised.

He had the chance to move back and challenge for a place. He doesn't want to.

Id like to think we can surely produce one top class flamin openside in the Winterbottom and Back style.
 
Kvesic needs a MASSIVE season this year...alongside Morgan at Glos. He's been given plenty of squad call ups...we need to see some genuine ability now.
 
Likewise id love to see Will Fraser actually stay fit!!

I also think its a shame we didnt get to see Garvey (injured) get a run out at 6 at some point on the tour. He's a man mountain.

i had forgotten about Watson. if he continues to show progress early next season for club, he could definitely break into the side at wing, although barring injury, probably not at FB.

England now have options in every position. Now hopefully 3 or 4 players will progress to world class over the next 12 months.

I was reading a telegraph article this morning that said come Autumn, England/Sl need t be settled on their centre pairing, so that they at least play the AIs and 6 nations together, otherwise the fluidity between them won't be there.

I'd go 36 and Tuilagi in the centres. 36's criticism has been just, but his good work has been overlooked. Everyone made a hoo-hah over Eastmond after the first test because of one decent break, but 36 made a similar break in the 2nd and no priase was given. His passing (NOTE, not offloading) is a great asset.

Burell has looked completely out of his depth this tour, both attacking-wise and defensively. His defence was on a par with 36 for me, but again he's avoided criticism!

It just seems that a lot of reports I've read have been a little myopic. Twelvetrees was at least making opportunities to offload and getting his hands free. Our other centres weren't. He's the best of a bad bunch at the moment, and has the attributes which make him worth persevering with.

Twelvetrees does have the skills but hes very inconsistant. He was looking to offload too much in positions when he shouldnt have been.

Now that may be rustyness, etc ill give him a break there (i was very critical)

But my big big worry with Twelvetrees is that I just dont rate his tackling. Players just waltz past him (all the England backs are guilty at the moment). He MUST improve that area of his game.

Id maybe consider bringing Barritt back with Burns at 10 and Tuilagi.

GF he's so inconsistent, I totally agree. But at least he was getting into positions where offloading was an option, and he had the vision to try things. His decision making was poor and you're totally right in that a lot of the times he should have kept the ball.

I honestly don't think his tackling is as bad as it is being made out. Certainly no worse than Burrell or Eastmond's. Everyone's first-up tackling on Saturday was woeful, absolutely woeful for international players. Yarde's was the poorest (though I suspect Ashton would have been the worst if we actually had a tackle to draw analysis from).

Barritt is an option, but I think the England game has moved on from the limits of Barritt's game. He's a superb defender but we need a little more now.

I had always thought "waved the opposition through" was a figure of speech until I saw Ashton do it on Saturday. He's a confidence player whose confidence at international level appears to be shot.

Absolutely blown, Poorfour. He doesn't appear to have any.

The defence was so narrow is was catastrophic. I don't know why SL and the coaches would advocate that against any team, let alone the All blacks. If you play a narrow defence, you have to make sure you make the first up tackles, which we didn't, and were torn apart by it!

I found it awful to watch. It was like Wales 2013 all over again.

bluestonevedder wrote:Absolutely blown, Poorfour. He doesn't appear to have any.

The defence was so narrow is was catastrophic. I don't know why SL and the coaches would advocate that against any team, let alone the All blacks. If you play a narrow defence, you have to make sure you make the first up tackles, which we didn't, and were torn apart by it!

I found it awful to watch. It was like Wales 2013 all over again.

No, in Wales we had the excuse that Steve Walsh helped. Here, it was all England's own (un)doing.

The defence has been narrow for a long time, as several pundits and posters on this site have pointed out. It works when England can slow down the breakdown and get their line up so fast that they can prevent the opposition passing fast down a flat line, but the vulnerability was always there for the team that could exploit it. In my view, Read coming back gave the ABs the extra edge at the breakdown to nullify England's impact and it took until half time for England to step up the intensity enough to counter it.

And Burrell came on and improved the defense in the midfield.

They were also bollocked at half time. The defensive line was all over the place in the first half, even at set pieces.

We clearly need a defensive leader, and if it's Burrell then he's needed. No idea who it was on Saturday, maybe we didn't have one.

Take the first try on Saturday. The English defensive line moves up quickly, Aaron Smith then somehow gets away from Ashton, leaving a big overlap. If Ashton makes that tackle, like he should 99 times out of 100, then Smith should be going back, with little support and there is the opportunity of a turnover. Instead, he is able to wriggle away and they then have an easy overlap.

The start of the game was littered with bad English mistakes and NZ took advantage (kick off, missed penalty, Brown kicking straight out and Ashton's missed tackle).

Well we should be able to see Twelvetrees and Tuilagi for the first time together for England in the AIs and I think they should compliment each other perfectly.

jelly wrote:Take the first try on Saturday. The English defensive line moves up quickly, Aaron Smith then somehow gets away from Ashton, leaving a big overlap. If Ashton makes that tackle, like he should 99 times out of 100, then Smith should be going back, with little support and there is the opportunity of a turnover. Instead, he is able to wriggle away and they then have an easy overlap.

The start of the game was littered with bad English mistakes and NZ took advantage (kick off, missed penalty, Brown kicking straight out and Ashton's missed tackle).

One of the worrying things was that England didn't learn from that first try. The second and third (I think) came from having a narrow defence and not making the first-up tackle. England simply continued as they had done without realising that the same tactic or imprecise execution gave away a try earlier in the game.

We always see teams like the All Blacks adjust their gameplan to suit the opposition- it's part of why they are so good at soaking up the pressure and counter attacking so effectively. England just don't seem capable of that at the moment. There's route 1, and that's it. Great teams like NZ have alternative game plans, that they can switch between when and where the game calls for it.

Blues.Ashton can't learn to tackle during a game. He simply can't tackle full stop. Never should be in the side.