THE NUCLEAR BOMBER OPTION

by kingelderfield Mon 13 Oct 2014, 11:02 pm

I was recently challenged on another tread along the lines that I would prefer for England to lose games as if it were a means to removing Lancaster. I countered that I want England to win each and every game and thus the world cup.

However the reason for writing this thread is 'What if England loses all 3 of their SANZAR games this autumn' and lose each poorly showing little direction, passion and are generally clueless? I'm not talking about close losses or games in which we play 100% and learn learn learn but lose by 15 points, where performance wins out over result. No I'm talking about bloody disasters.

So if this were to come to pass where would YOU stand, what would YOUR opinion be with regards to Lancaster’s future? Would you see it as another blip along the long road to success in 2019 or would you consider that we cannot continue as we are and to do so would be a mistake, and therefore would you be prepared to remove Lancaster now, this December?

Now you might think less than a year before our own World Cup to remove your DoR (and the existing coaches) would be madness and anyway who is there that would replace him?

Well my answer would be to go to the Premiership clubs requesting that they provide the coaches on an ongoing part time basis up to the end of the 2015 WC.

I would happily support the following pool of coaches led by Jim Malinder;

Baxter
Diamond
Gustard
King
Ford
O'Shea

Obviously this is a hypothetical question, however given we are less than 4 weeks from facing the All Blacks and there is now no excuses left for Lancaster, what would your decision be, WOULD YOU DROP THE BOMBER?

by emack2 Tue 14 Oct 2014, 12:08 am

How about this then?the very real possibility NZ lose the 3Rd Bledisloe,to England and Wales
in the AI`s [Wayne Barnes is the Ref.Then lose to Australia and SA in 2015 RC both away games and you can bet SA will be on the veldt again.

Lancaster is bomb proof until the RWC where the position is to be reviewed he has done
a reasonable job to date.BUT the number of injuries to the forwards reaching epidemic
proportions.

by lostinwales Tue 14 Oct 2014, 1:00 am

Tedious. No position should be completely safe and we have every right to change how we feel about Lancaster over the next few months, but I cant see anyone else doing a better job in the time available before the RWC, or in leaving a better legacy when he's done.

The team and their style of play have evolved a great deal since he started. Lets just see what the next few months bring before drawing knives

by kingelderfield Tue 14 Oct 2014, 7:10 am

No no lets not wait like passive observers. Be bold and take a view on what maybe the outcome -and don't forget to vote!

by No 7&1/2 Tue 14 Oct 2014, 7:55 am

I can't really see us losing by big margins, being passionless and clueless across 3 games which is the problem. I think I would generally want him to stay though due to the great job he's done so far. I've seen a lot of times in all sports that rash short term thinking rarely brings sustained success. The RFU have backed him with a new contract they should see that through.

emack, good to see you throw some reasons in there e.g. Barnes and the high veldt!

by **Biltong** Tue 14 Oct 2014, 8:36 am

England has a tough home series without a doubt, playing NZ first up can go either way, there is always a surprise element in the first match of any series.

Then playing SA next which is a bogie England has to overcome, I would think this is a massive game for both teams, Australia might benefit from facing England after the All Blacks and Boks have softened England up a bit, but then England would have been getting used to playing two top teams and Australia does not bring the intensity that NZ and SA brings.

It is a tough call to suggest who will win which games. I think all three games will be close and there is the inevitability that at least one of these matches will end controversially.

I do however believe it is important for England to start well in the first match, if they get blown out of the water, November can end really bad for them.

by fa0019 Tue 14 Oct 2014, 9:41 am

I wonder where England would be under Nick Mallett had he been appointed? Whilst I respect what Lancaster has done I do think he's a bit naïve, a bit too respectful of the opposition and never lets England truly unleash on the opposition.

Mallett would have been far different. Nevertheless that ship has sailed.

by Geordie Tue 14 Oct 2014, 9:49 am

I think Lancaster has done a good job...and England are massively competitive.

He does have the odd little wobble with selections now and again...and i also do have my concerns about the actual balance of the team.

But then again some of this is enforced.....for example how can you play an openside...when you have no "traditional" 7's playing to the required level. Thus they play a more left and right flank combo.

I also question how much they have worked on the back play...in my personal opinon not enough.

I say judge him on the next few events...AI's....6n....WC. If it doesnt happen then say thank you very much and move him and Farrell on.

Bring in Head Coach - Baxter / Malinder etc etc, Defence Coach - Gustard etc

by kingelderfield Wed 22 Oct 2014, 10:12 pm

So here it is;

Forwards: Joe Marler (Harlequins), Matt Mullan (Wasps), Kieran Brookes (Newcastle Falcons), David Wilson (Bath), Dylan Hartley (Northampton Saints), Rob Webber (Bath), Dave Attwood (Bath), ~~George Kruis~~ (Saracens), Joe Launchbury (Wasps), Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints), Calum Clark (Northampton Saints), James Haskell (Wasps), Ben Morgan (Gloucester), Chris Robshaw (Harlequins, captain), Billy Vunipola (Saracens), Tom Wood (Northampton Saints).

Backs: Danny Care (Harlequins), Lee Dickson (Northampton Saints), Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers), ~~Owen Farrell~~ (Saracens), George Ford (Bath), ~~Stephen Myler~~ (Northampton Saints), ~~Brad Barritt~~ (Saracens), Luther Burrell (Northampton Saints), Kyle Eastmond (Bath), Jonathan Joseph (Bath), Billy Twelvetrees (Gloucester), Mike Brown (Harlequins), ~~Alex Goode~~ (Saracens), ~~Jonny May~~ (Gloucester), Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs), ~~Semesa Rokoduguni~~ (Bath), Marland Yarde (Harlequins).

Players unavailable in November because of injury: Alex Corbisiero (shoulder), Dan Cole (neck), Tom Croft (knee), Tom Johnson (neck), Geoff Parling (concussion), Chris Pennell (groin), Ed Slater (knee), Mako Vunipola (knee), Tom Youngs (shoulder).

Some truely awful non/selections amongst that lot, and I can't see us getting within 15 points of any of the sanzar teams, especially not on their recent performances.

It will be very interesting to read everyone's comments on here if we do lose each of those games.

by quinsforever Wed 22 Oct 2014, 10:18 pm

would be surprising and disappointing if we lost all 3 matches against SANZAR teams.

at the risk of derailing the thread, the only reason i would support binning Lancaster after 3 losses in the AIs would be if the new coach decides drastic measures are required and is open to Steffon Armitage being selected.

Smile

by HammerofThunor Wed 22 Oct 2014, 10:19 pm

Do you ever get the impression you're the only sane one in the asylum beating your drum but no-one is listening?

by kingelderfield Wed 22 Oct 2014, 10:23 pm

quinsforever wrote:would be surprising and disappointing if we lost all 3 matches against SANZAR teams.

at the risk of derailing the thread, the only reason i would support binning Lancaster after 3 losses in the AIs would be if the new coach decides drastic measures are required and is open to Steffon Armitage being selected.

players of the year are 2 a penny........oh no there not are they......

I'm sure stewie and the rfu have done everything in their power to get SA onside........then again who needs game time as some sort of daft requirement for international selection?

by kingelderfield Wed 22 Oct 2014, 10:26 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:Do you ever get the impression you're the only sane one in the asylum beating your drum but no-one is listening?

try harder

by TJ Wed 22 Oct 2014, 10:54 pm

England should beat Aus - very doubtful about the others. However keeping lancaster is essential to your chances in the world cup. he has created a real team ethos, he has introduced new players so you have two options in every position at least with no great drop in class or experience. He may be a bit tactially cautious but is that not the england way? Keep Lancaster - you have a good chance of winning the WC, ditch him now? say goodbye to that chance

by kingelderfield Thu 23 Oct 2014, 7:31 am

TJ wrote:England should beat Aus - very doubtful about the others. However keeping lancaster is essential to your chances in the world cup. he has created a real team ethos, he has introduced new players so you have two options in every position at least with no great drop in class or experience. He may be a bit tactially cautious but is that not the england way? Keep Lancaster - you have a good chance of winning the WC, ditch him now? say goodbye to that chance

Lancaster has does nothing but the basics; structures, ethos etc. are the basic's. He is inept as a coach both in selection and strategy/game plan. The actual coaching, the bread and butter of the job is ordinary. Arch conservatism is a recipe for disaster. I cannot see that he is offering anything to this generations development and the fact is if you're not progressing then you're going backwards.

by WELL-PAST-IT Thu 23 Oct 2014, 8:46 am

King, Malinder is very much the same sort of coach as SL, look at the Saints back row, Clarke 6 Wood 7 and a choice of Manoa or whoever is fit at 8, all three are versatile backrowers who cam slot into a number of positions including in Clarke and Manoa's case lock.

Club managers have the advantage of a settled squad which is trained in the same tactics, SL doesn't injuries and there have been many result in new players coming in and having to learn the England routines, calls etc. Also at AP level you can get away with playing gifted allrounders such as Wilson across the back line, at international level they gat found out, i.e. Manu on the wing

by Geordie Thu 23 Oct 2014, 8:55 am

kingelderfield wrote:So here it is;

Forwards: Joe Marler (Harlequins), Matt Mullan (Wasps), Kieran Brookes (Newcastle Falcons), David Wilson (Bath), Dylan Hartley (Northampton Saints), Rob Webber (Bath), Dave Attwood (Bath), ~~George Kruis~~ (Saracens), Joe Launchbury (Wasps), Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints), Calum Clark (Northampton Saints), James Haskell (Wasps), Ben Morgan (Gloucester), Chris Robshaw (Harlequins, captain), Billy Vunipola (Saracens), Tom Wood (Northampton Saints).

Backs: Danny Care (Harlequins), Lee Dickson (Northampton Saints), Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers), ~~Owen Farrell~~ (Saracens), George Ford (Bath), ~~Stephen Myler~~ (Northampton Saints), ~~Brad Barritt~~ (Saracens), Luther Burrell (Northampton Saints), Kyle Eastmond (Bath), Jonathan Joseph (Bath), Billy Twelvetrees (Gloucester), Mike Brown (Harlequins), ~~Alex Goode~~ (Saracens), ~~Jonny May~~ (Gloucester), Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs), ~~Semesa Rokoduguni~~ (Bath), Marland Yarde (Harlequins).

Players unavailable in November because of injury: Alex Corbisiero (shoulder), Dan Cole (neck), Tom Croft (knee), Tom Johnson (neck), Geoff Parling (concussion), Chris Pennell (groin), Ed Slater (knee), Mako Vunipola (knee), Tom Youngs (shoulder).

Some truely awful non/selections amongst that lot, and I can't see us getting within 15 points of any of the sanzar teams, especially not on their recent performances.

It will be very interesting to read everyone's comments on here if we do lose each of those games.

Who are the awful and non selections?

by TJ Thu 23 Oct 2014, 6:28 pm

kingelderfield wrote:
TJ wrote:England should beat Aus - very doubtful about the others. However keeping lancaster is essential to your chances in the world cup. he has created a real team ethos, he has introduced new players so you have two options in every position at least with no great drop in class or experience. He may be a bit tactially cautious but is that not the england way? Keep Lancaster - you have a good chance of winning the WC, ditch him now? say goodbye to that chance

Lancaster has does nothing but the basics; structures, ethos etc. are the basic's. He is inept as a coach both in selection and strategy/game plan. The actual coaching, the bread and butter of the job is ordinary. Arch conservatism is a recipe for disaster. I cannot see that he is offering anything to this generations development and the fact is if you're not progressing then you're going backwards.

It may only be the basics but how many coaches can't even do this? Look at how conservative Gatland is and how he neuters their attack. Look how ruddy awful recent Scotland coaches have been. Since Lancaster came on board England have improved beyond recognition - he has made a group of ill disciplined individuals into a team

Do you really think this side of the WC you will get anyone better?

by Poorfour Thu 23 Oct 2014, 8:30 pm

kingelderfield wrote:
quinsforever wrote:would be surprising and disappointing if we lost all 3 matches against SANZAR teams.

at the risk of derailing the thread, the only reason i would support binning Lancaster after 3 losses in the AIs would be if the new coach decides drastic measures are required and is open to Steffon Armitage being selected.

players of the year are 2 a penny........oh no there not are they......

I'm sure stewie and the rfu have done everything in their power to get SA onside........then again who needs game time as some sort of daft requirement for international selection?

Ritchie made it very clear that the non-selection of Armitage is not Lancaster's choice: the RFU have made a rule and so far have only been prepared to breach it for Wilkinson who a) went abroad before the rule was introduced, b) had clauses in his contract to allow him to meet England's availability requirements c) was a very established international and d) had consistently shown that he could slot into an England setup after time away and deliver.

Armitage, on the other hand, a) went to France in full knowledge of the rule, b) doesn't have these clauses, c) has 5 caps, 3 of them against Italy and a pre-RC Argentina side during a Lions tour, d) has not clearly demonstrated either the desire or an ability to fit into an England style of play.

Given that we've seen (with Burgess) that the RFU can't throw money at the problem to facilitate players returning to England (because it would damage the entire relationship with the PRL), what else would you like them to have done? Guarantee him a string of games without seeing how he fits with the rest of the squad?

Armitage made his choice some time ago, has had several chances to change his mind and has consistently shown little or know inclination to do so. The RFU (not Lancaster) have been very consistent in their reasons for not picking him, and they are completely justifiable in any context bar the very short term. Stop blaming Lancaster for something over which he has - at best - limited control.

Let's go through the "truely [sic] awful selections" shall we?
Farrell - not fully fit and in form, but not long-term injured and when fit the preferred fly half. Unless you think he should be dropped altogether (in which case I think you are wrong), it would be stupid not to have him in the camp

Myler - presumably you'd prefer Cipriani or Burns? Myler is certainly a different style of player and unproven at full international level. However, he is the closest direct replacement for Farrell, and has more consistent game management than Cipriani or Burns. Is he the guy to come on with 20 to go and turn a losing game around? Perhaps not. But if we assume that Ford is likely to start, he is certainly the guy most likely to be able to close out a tight game.

Barritt - Tuilagi is injured again. Eastmond was exposed defensively by the All Blacks. Josepth is unproven at International level. Barritt has been shown to be able to play well with Twelvetrees and is a consistent performer internationally. I'd be surprised if he starts, but in a threequarters short of experience he is a known quantity. Maybe not the most inspiring pick, but a) inspirational and flaky seem to go hand-in-hand for England centres at the moment and b) definitely not "truely [sic] awful"

Goode - Not my favourite player, and I don't like the Goode 15 / Brown 11 combination, but with Foden in variable form and the wing combination certain to be short on experience Goode is, again, a consistent performer and - with the possibility of Ford being the primary kicker - a decent backup kicking option.

May - OK, maybe not awful, but you can have that one, unless he's learned how to run in a straight line

Rokoduguni - Seriously? OK, he's untried, but of the available options he's probably the one I would feel most comfortable pitting against Savea. Most of the objections I've heard about him from other posters relate to his not being English. He's in the country because he was in the British armed forces. That ought to be enough reason.

Kruis - Perhaps a bit of a surprise but in style Kruis is probably the most direct replacement in style for Lawes. With Launchbury, Lawes and Attwood all available he's unlikely to get a look in but it's hard to call it an awful choice.

There's a pattern here, isn't there? Lancaster picks players with rounded skill sets. He's even said that's what he does. The aim is to have a team that does the basics very well, and that then earns the space to do more spectacular things. What he doesn't seem to want is players who have a gap in their skills that needs others to cover for them. When he's been able to field a consistent team for a string of games - as we saw in the 2012 AIs and the 2014 6N, they have tended to improve and get better in attack as they've settled into playing with each other.

His big problem has been injuries that have forced him to rethink the backline several times over. It's notable that the pack has had fewer fitness issues and is now consistently good, except when Tom Youngs is the substitute lineout thrower.

by kingelderfield Sat 25 Oct 2014, 10:43 am

Poorfour wrote:
kingelderfield wrote:
quinsforever wrote:would be surprising and disappointing if we lost all 3 matches against SANZAR teams.

at the risk of derailing the thread, the only reason i would support binning Lancaster after 3 losses in the AIs would be if the new coach decides drastic measures are required and is open to Steffon Armitage being selected.

players of the year are 2 a penny........oh no there not are they......

I'm sure stewie and the rfu have done everything in their power to get SA onside........then again who needs game time as some sort of daft requirement for international selection?

Ritchie made it very clear that the non-selection of Armitage is not Lancaster's choice: the RFU have made a rule and so far have only been prepared to breach it for Wilkinson who a) went abroad before the rule was introduced, b) had clauses in his contract to allow him to meet England's availability requirements c) was a very established international and d) had consistently shown that he could slot into an England setup after time away and deliver.

Armitage, on the other hand, a) went to France in full knowledge of the rule, b) doesn't have these clauses, c) has 5 caps, 3 of them against Italy and a pre-RC Argentina side during a Lions tour, d) has not clearly demonstrated either the desire or an ability to fit into an England style of play.

Given that we've seen (with Burgess) that the RFU can't throw money at the problem to facilitate players returning to England (because it would damage the entire relationship with the PRL), what else would you like them to have done? Guarantee him a string of games without seeing how he fits with the rest of the squad?

Armitage made his choice some time ago, has had several chances to change his mind and has consistently shown little or know inclination to do so. The RFU (not Lancaster) have been very consistent in their reasons for not picking him, and they are completely justifiable in any context bar the very short term. Stop blaming Lancaster for something over which he has - at best - limited control.

Has Lancaster of the rfu ever considered trying to arrange a season loan into the premiership? I doubt it and you may argue against them doing so and additionally I do agree with the general overseas policy, but how many european players of the year does it take to spite your face? I doubt very much that Lancaster see's Armitage as his sort of player, and eally on that front you've got to think he's dodged a bullet.

Let's go through the "truely [sic] awful selections" shall we?
Farrell - not fully fit and in form, but not long-term injured and when fit the preferred fly half. Unless you think he should be dropped altogether (in which case I think you are wrong), it would be stupid not to have him in the camp

Do you really think Farrell is some kind of 'special' talent, really? He should have to prove his form as much as the next man to gain selection. Lets face it the form english 10 has been CH with Ford and Cipriani close behind. Farrell does not deserve automatic selection but be in no doubt he will be starting against the AB's and for absolutely NO good reason.

Myler - presumably you'd prefer Cipriani or Burns? Myler is certainly a different style of player and unproven at full international level. However, he is the closest direct replacement for Farrell, and has more consistent game management than Cipriani or Burns. Is he the guy to come on with 20 to go and turn a losing game around? Perhaps not. But if we assume that Ford is likely to start, he is certainly the guy most likely to be able to close out a tight game.

Myler would be an emergency pick only. He is not international class, he is a good club man full stop. Your arguing for his selection applies a huge question mark upon your judgement.

Barritt - Tuilagi is injured again. Eastmond was exposed defensively by the All Blacks. Josepth is unproven at International level. Barritt has been shown to be able to play well with Twelvetrees and is a consistent performer internationally. I'd be surprised if he starts, but in a threequarters short of experience he is a known quantity. Maybe not the most inspiring pick, but a) inspirational and flaky seem to go hand-in-hand for England centres at the moment and b) definitely not "truely [sic] awful"

Limited player, should be NO where near english selection. We have one of 36 Burrell or Eastmond without the need to revisit Barrett's flanker in disguise stoic one paced attackless centre play.

Goode - Not my favourite player, and I don't like the Goode 15 / Brown 11 combination, but with Foden in variable form and the wing combination certain to be short on experience Goode is, again, a consistent performer and - with the possibility of Ford being the primary kicker - a decent backup kicking option.

Club player NOTHING MORE. Foden, Brown or the young Bath fb are beyond Goode's level.

May - OK, maybe not awful, but you can have that one, unless he's learned how to run in a straight line

May has all the athletic talent but without the confidence or rugby awareness. Without strident coaching he will be wasted at international level.

Rokoduguni - Seriously? OK, he's untried, but of the available options he's probably the one I would feel most comfortable pitting against Savea. Most of the objections I've heard about him from other posters relate to his not being English. He's in the country because he was in the British armed forces. That ought to be enough reason.

Poor selection. Ofcouse Wade should be selected. He is in geat form but that will pass. To any appciable eye it is obvious that he is near the top of his performance envelope and will not make an impact on the international stage. Where is the potential?

Kruis - Perhaps a bit of a surprise but in style Kruis is probably the most direct replacement in style for Lawes. With Launchbury, Lawes and Attwood all available he's unlikely to get a look in but it's hard to call it an awful choice.

Appalling selection. Kitchener is obviously the next best lock.

There's a pattern here, isn't there? Lancaster picks players with rounded skill sets. He's even said that's what he does. The aim is to have a team that does the basics very well, and that then earns the space to do more spectacular things. What he doesn't seem to want is players who have a gap in their skills that needs others to cover for them. When he's been able to field a consistent team for a string of games - as we saw in the 2012 AIs and the 2014 6N, they have tended to improve and get better in attack as they've settled into playing with each other.

His big problem has been injuries that have forced him to rethink the backline several times over. It's notable that the pack has had fewer fitness issues and is now consistently good, except when Tom Youngs is the substitute lineout thrower.

Nonsense, our front row is on the verge of total collapse. If either Wilson or Marler go down then we're sunk.

Poorfour, you appear to think you know what you're talking about? Well be my guest and lets have your prediction for the 4 ai's and we'll see if Lancaster is really worth your irrational support.

by No 7&1/2 Sat 25 Oct 2014, 1:03 pm

Im sure you were calling for chances for May and Rokoduguni whats changed?

by kingelderfield Sat 25 Oct 2014, 2:46 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Im sure you were calling for chances for May and Rokoduguni whats changed?

No I've only ever issued health warnings regards May and don't think I've ever suggested Rokoduguni.

by No 7&1/2 Sat 25 Oct 2014, 3:07 pm

Well you were saying May was one of the few internationally credible wingers before the 6Ns must have mistaken you for someone else for Roko. Why dont you want them 2 anyway?

by quinsforever Sat 25 Oct 2014, 3:15 pm

Steffon Amitage just put in another gigantic shift against Ulster

by kingelderfield Sat 25 Oct 2014, 3:38 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well you were saying May was one of the few internationally credible wingers before the 6Ns must have mistaken you for someone else for Roko. Why dont you want them 2 anyway?

May is a fruitcake, exuberant talent, but sadly wild and undisciplined in his execution, who is prone to panic in the contact area. He is in dire need of a hard nosed coach who will pull him up and focus his ability. Its the classic case of the talented player becoming a one trick pony. Such a waste.

As for Roko, very good INFORM AP player. Has the typical skills and abilities of a fijian wing, pace strenght hands, sadly skills that still remain unusual in the AP, and so he appears better by contrast than is actually the case. Think of the various other overseas journeymen in the AP who all seem to be a cut above, however it is simply their different skills that give the false positive result. Wade Watson Yarde, even Sharples are better players.

Why Wade has been over looked is quite frankly criminal. As much as Roka is playing close to his limit, Wade will just fly on the international field. Lancaster et al are a disgrace.

by No 7&1/2 Sat 25 Oct 2014, 3:46 pm

So Mays gone from 1 of your picks to a fruitcake! Bit harsh. Id like to see Wade obvious questions to his defence but great going forward. Ithink he ll succeed if given the chance. Think its a bit early for Watson though and Sharples is just a good prem player for me.

by kingelderfield Sat 25 Oct 2014, 4:06 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:So Mays gone from 1 of your picks to a fruitcake! Bit harsh. Id like to see Wade obvious questions to his defence but great going forward. Ithink he ll succeed if given the chance. Think its a bit early for Watson though and Sharples is just a good prem player for me.

No thats not the case. I've always, as I said, given health warnings with regards his undoubted talent.

by No 7&1/2 Sat 25 Oct 2014, 4:49 pm

Well you may have said that as well but 30th Nov last year you were saying Wade Ashton Ojo and May were the fit and credible wingers.

Discounting the actual squad whats the 23 you d like to see?

by Poorfour Sat 25 Oct 2014, 5:30 pm

kingelderfield, your dislike of Lancaster is reaching a point where you come across as disagreeing with eveything the man does on principle. It makes it almost impossible to have a meaningful debate with you. I'll have a go at responding to your points but I doubt I will get a reasoned response.

Firstly, your response to most of the points I made above has been to assert that players are either "limited" or "not international quality" or "obviously the form / right choice". You've made almost no effort to justify your points; it's just your opinion. And for the most part it will have been based on watching a few games on television. You don't have direct access to these players, you don't have video analysis or training data or the ability to talk to their club coaches. It's just your opinion and shouting it repatedly doesn't make it any more valid.

My point about Farrell (which goes for anyone in the established squad) is that it is completely sensible for Lancaster to want any likely member of his RWC squad to spend as much time in the England camp as possible in the next 12 months. Farrell may not be fully fit or in top form right now, but of the available options he's the only one who has consistently performed at international level.

Is Myler only a club player? How the heck would we know? He's got one cap. The relationship between club and international rugby is not direct. But what is clear is that he's less likely to make awful mistakes than Burns or Cipriani, and less likely to miss a ton of kicks than Ford. Is he likely to be able to turn a game around in the last 20? No. But this England team has tended to lose games by narrow margins - they've only had two losses that haven't been - so I would say looking for a closer rather than a gamechanger is a reasonable strategy.

So it's OK to pick Wade - unproven internationally and with serious question marks over his defence - when he's not in form. And Rokoduguni is obviously near the top of his performance envelope (whatever that means)? How can you know that? He's had one and a half seasons for Bath and is playing very well. Wade has had twice as many top level club games and stlll has the same flaws he had when he started.

And so on. It's inconsistent, unsupported, clearly biased and frankly tedious.

by kingelderfield Sun 26 Oct 2014, 6:59 am

Yes its my opinion, they'e all our opinions, our judgements on what we see, and ok so I nor you have sight of other coaching data, however that does not stop us using our experience to consider what is presented to us.

Ultimatily sport(rugby) is not a science, it obviously has too many varibles and the unfathomable human element, but what it is is a results business. And so while we may disagree in our opinions I note you were unable to predict any outcomes in the coming internationals. Surely this would validate your judement? come come don't be shy.

by kingelderfield Sun 26 Oct 2014, 7:51 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well you may have said that as well but 30th Nov last year you were saying Wade Ashton Ojo and May were the fit and credible wingers.

Discounting the actual squad whats the 23 you d like to see?

And before this ancient 'cornish' laptop crashes again;

Injuries ae a real issue.

Marler
Webber
Wilson
Lawes
Launchbury
Kvesic
Vunipola
Robshaw(c)
Care
Cipriani
Wade
Twelvetrees
Joseph
Yarde
Foden

Props x 2.......opps
Hartley
Attwood
Morgan
Youngs
Slade
Watson

More injuries; Eastmond, Burrell

Not selected; Brown or Streatle, Ashton

by No 7&1/2 Sun 26 Oct 2014, 8:04 am

No props? Slade? Really? Not the best set of backs defensively so you d have a few probs there. Pretty much Lancasters 1st choice pack though bar you ve weakened the lineout scrum and lost a bit of leadership. No Brown is surprising.

by kingelderfield Sun 26 Oct 2014, 8:10 am

You are the minute man!

by No 7&1/2 Sun 26 Oct 2014, 8:26 am

So why no props then. Why throw in Slade so early? Why no Wood or Englands man of the 2013 AIs and player of 14 6Ns?

by Poorfour Sun 26 Oct 2014, 6:14 pm

Wade demonstrating why he's not ready for international rugby with his positioning and communication for Matthews' try. All the speed in the world is no use if you leave holes that a lock can jog through.

by TJ Sun 26 Oct 2014, 6:29 pm

One I really don't understand s why does Strettle not have 50 caps+ He is far to good a player to have only a handful

by HammerofThunor Sun 26 Oct 2014, 6:45 pm

He's been injured in and off since the Ireland game in 2007. But strangely, for England, his finishing hasn't been great. Maybe the difference at international level?

by quinsforever Sun 26 Oct 2014, 6:47 pm

unfortunately there are lots of really talented players who have never made it on the internatiional stage for one reason or another. coach favourites, one-off mare games, etc, etc. Strettle and Sharples are both on fine fine form this season but wont get any more england representation apparently.

by No 7&1/2 Sun 26 Oct 2014, 6:54 pm

Not too sure you can pin it on Wade for that try though theres already been a couple of questions on his positioning.

by kingelderfield Mon 27 Oct 2014, 8:43 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not too sure you can pin it on Wade for that try though theres already been a couple of questions on his positioning.

The sooner Wade is exposed to the international game the better. Only by being exposed will he be able to ajust to its requirements.

However, the fact is following this latest selection balls up it appears the old lancaster bomber has dropped young Wade from a disgraceful height and that is now that till 2016.

by Poorfour Mon 27 Oct 2014, 9:27 pm

kingelderfield wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Not too sure you can pin it on Wade for that try though theres already been a couple of questions on his positioning.

The sooner Wade is exposed to the international game the better. Only by being exposed will he be able to ajust to its requirements.

However, the fact is following this latest selection balls up it appears the old lancaster bomber has dropped young Wade from a disgraceful height and that is now that till 2016.

Wade's repeatedly shown he can't even adapt to the defensive requirements of the Premiership. Exposing him to the international game is like exposing a kid who's repeatedly failed the emergency stop to Formula 1.

Until he can defend properly, he's just a good club player. Nothing more.

by No 7&1/2 Mon 27 Oct 2014, 9:43 pm

Or you throw someone in before you think theyre ready and watch them sink. Id have Wade but plenty of people acknowledge some issues in him. You d throw him in with a backline not known for its defensive qualities and Slade an Watson covering 10 and 15. Cips or Foden gets injured early do you think thats a good time to give debuts? And what about props?

by quinsforever Mon 27 Oct 2014, 11:21 pm

this weekend i heard nathan hines say that steffon armitage was unmoveable atop the breakdown.

he should know since hines was at clermont for 3 years, toulons arch rivals in top14 and HC.

how dumb does stuart lancaster have to be not to at least include him in the EPS.

heard greenwood railing along the same lines this weekend too.

these players are not idiots. if england dont win the rwc lancaster should be fired immediately for at least not figuring out a way to make armitage available. nothing should be off the table in the quest to win. we have 70%+ english qualified player representation in the AP. steffon armitage must be allowed to play.

will NZ turn down SBW because he played a different code last year? will AUS exclude any of their "stars" for their various transgressions?

we have a good backrow. but not an amazing one. they disappeared against NZ this summer. good lungs, great commitment, but not in the top 5 best turnover winners in world rugby. and that is going to be a problem next september.

by Poorfour Tue 28 Oct 2014, 12:34 am

Lancaster was not given the option to include Armitage. Ian Ritchie, CEO of the RFU and Lancaster's boss, made a public statement that it is the RFU that refuses to consider overseas players.

Since Ritchie would also be the person who would have to fire Lancaster, it would be a bit, erm, rich for hi to do so because Lancaster didn't break a policy that Ritchie had publicly said the RFU wasn't going to break.

by quinsforever Tue 28 Oct 2014, 12:57 am

Poorfour wrote:Lancaster was not given the option to include Armitage. Ian Ritchie, CEO of the RFU and Lancaster's boss, made a public statement that it is the RFU that refuses to consider overseas players.

Since Ritchie would also be the person who would have to fire Lancaster, it would be a bit, erm, rich for hi to do so because Lancaster didn't break a policy that Ritchie had publicly said the RFU wasn't going to break.

sorry poorfour, i really like most of your posts. but thats rubbish. it was entirely SL's policy as it pre-dated Ian Ritchie. and it is always always the coach's policy. no Union CEO from outside of rugby can sensibly claim to set player selection pollicy. Ritchie runs the RFU and i am very glad he does so. But not selecting Armitage is NOTHING to do with Ritchie.

Lancaster lacks the balls to take a risk with player selection.

thats fair enough if your aim is to never lose by much, given our vast player resources (ie you can always find a "safe pair of hands" for every position).

but if we want to win RWC. we need players in several positions who are the best in the world.

otherwise, we will get turned over by beale and folau, or jd and north, or any number of the combinations on the NZ team. we can't "safe pair of hands" our way through pool and knock out stages to a RWC win.

by Poorfour Tue 28 Oct 2014, 6:34 am

quinsforever, the policy is an RFU policy that predates Ritchie and Lancaster. It was introduced with the EPS agreement in 2008. Ritchie has publicly stated that the RFU intends not to make an exception: Telegraph

by kingelderfield Tue 28 Oct 2014, 7:35 am

Poorfour wrote:quinsforever, the policy is an RFU policy that predates Ritchie and Lancaster. It was introduced with the EPS agreement in 2008. Ritchie has publicly stated that the RFU intends not to make an exception: Telegraph

Oh that's ok then.

I don't know how far you go back Poorfour, but I can recall from Dudley Wood onwards the number of monumental rfu balls up's that have disfigured the game in england. So just stop this ridiculous rfu love in will you, for every good thing they've achieved there are far more black marks.

Now Ritchie appears a good man, agreed. He dosn't appear to be a fool and when he see's the cash flow tail off due to the appalling results delivered by the national team he will soon come to realise that old bomber nolonger is the man. The question IS not IF but WHEN will the axe fall.

Unlucky with injuries, yes, but no real potent game plan, poor selection stratergy....you make your own luck.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 28 Oct 2014, 7:56 am

Is it just me with the random times showing on posts?

Armitage is playing abroad hence outside of normal qualification. It is exactly what NZ would do.

No answer on those questions king?

by Geordie Tue 28 Oct 2014, 8:39 am

Nonsense, our front row is on the verge of total collapse. If either Wilson or Marler go down then we're sunk.

I can assure you that in Brookes we have a quality player should Wilson go down.
Even the much maligned Henry Thomas has done fine when he's come on for England. He's been a round the squad a good while now and is learning well at Bath.

As to the LH side, Mullan will not let anyone down and Waller is a cracker.

I have faith in the front row options. They might not be destructive like a Cole / Corbs partnership but they will do fine.

Also dont forget the whole pack is not geared up to be a devastatingly destructive scrum - (the second rows are not the best scrummaging locks we have for example). It built to win on its own ball and make it awkward on theirs...after that its all about being mobile etc hitting rucks etc.

by WELL-PAST-IT Tue 28 Oct 2014, 9:10 am

kingelderfield wrote:
Poorfour wrote:quinsforever, the policy is an RFU policy that predates Ritchie and Lancaster. It was introduced with the EPS agreement in 2008. Ritchie has publicly stated that the RFU intends not to make an exception: Telegraph

Oh that's ok then.

I don't know how far you go back Poorfour, but I can recall from Dudley Wood onwards the number of monumental rfu balls up's that have disfigured the game in england. So just stop this ridiculous rfu love in will you, for every good thing they've achieved there are far more black marks.

Now Ritchie appears a good man, agreed. He dosn't appear to be a fool and when he see's the cash flow tail off due to the appalling results delivered by the national team he will soon come to realise that old bomber nolonger is the man. The question IS not IF but WHEN will the axe fall.

Unlucky with injuries, yes, but no real potent game plan, poor selection stratergy....you make your own luck.

King we all know that you hate SL with a vengeance, did he spurn you at birth or something, but you are like by 5 year old grandson in your exaggerations.

SL's record is not appalling, especially when you look at t he state of English rugby when he took over, it is on average probably the best in the 6N. What is it, 2 6N lost on points difference and a second place. His record against SH sides is the best in the NH with a number of wins over Aus , a win against the AB and some close run games; only SA are yet to fall under his reign. Better than any of his predecessors for a number of years, probably have to go back to SCW to better it and he had a once in a lifetime set of players to manage.

The RFU get the majority of their money from gate receipts, as virtually every England game is oversubscribed by a factor of 10, I doubt if we will see a fall in revenue there. All games are contracted to be televised for the foreseeable future, therefore the sponsorship will continue to roll in.

You are becoming worse than the old wummers that periodically get kicked off the board, always the same subject, always the same extreme views that very few people agree with, always the same subject. Perhaps you should join UKIP, some of your comments make about as much sense as theirs.

by Sponsored content