England's Lessons Identified

A thread to identify/discuss lessons/failings which England should be learning for continual self improvement in order to give them the best chance possible of succeeding.

Keep it simple, no long rants, and try to offer justifications for your points as well as solutions to the problem. And finally, although we could probably list dozens off issues, try and stick to 3.

I'll start:

1. Back row imbalance. For me the Robashaw and Wood partnership on the flanks has not proven successful in the last number of games against the ABs. I've been very impressed with Robshaw however I think we're missing a larger, more physical 6 to compliment the rumbling 8 and the dog at 7. For me the backrow looked most coomplete in test 1 in the summer and i would like to see the re-introduction of Haskell at 6. Wood should be in direct competition for the 7 shirt with Robshaw in my mind.

2. Lack of game management. Farrell look every bit the player who hasn't had much gametime this season. There were long periods in attacking phases wereby Farrell disappeared and didn't know what to do. As a result England reverted to one out rugby which didnt really offer anything. Until Farrell gets his match practice in and regains his mojo then England need to play another 10 in his stead and Ford would be my preference.

3. Midfield dynamic. Very disappointing showing again from the midfield. Neither offered a running threat and, one pass a piece aside, neither offered the attacking platform for the back three. Midfield remains the biggest question for England and it doesnt help that injuries are hindering the selection process. Twelvetrees offered so much last season and has been discarded due to being bought back too early in the summer (producing a similar performance to Farrell now), he should be afforded another showing in the midfield. 13 is the connundrum, however why not try something new and inventive and play a 13 at 13? Joseph is the form 13 in the country and makes very few mistakes. Hes also rediscovered his eye for the line and has threatening running game.

10, 12, 13 looks as hopeless in attack as we look impregnable in defense.

Given the above, our 10 needs to kick from hand as well as sexton or we are never going to get out of our own half

No more dumb pre-set bench selections and substitutions. Why was ford our only 10, 12, 13 cover? Farrell going to 12? Wtf is that about? 12 is as specialist a position as 10.

Agree that wood just seems invisible at times. Too many times no-one was able to shift McCaw off the ruck. Give Haskell a go.

If we aren't prepared to use the wingers then it makes defending our 10, 12, 13 even easier. So we need a more distributive 10 (or Farrell to play a more distributive role) with better kicking from hand than he showed on Saturday.

I have long said that with Farrell, he needs a firing 9 to help him and control the game. Farrell is just not dynamic enough to be the attacking 10 that compliments Englands back line quality. Having watch the game (didn't see it live) I noticed several occasions where England had good ball in attacking positions but with Farrell they looked clueless as to what to do. Cips is prone to the odd brain fart but certainly gets a backline moving and with Ford, well I think England have a very good 10 in him and he should be given a decent run in the team.

The back row needs looked at. I think the trial of having two similar alrounders isn't working.

Look at the Abs back row. Kaino does the explosive noticeable stuff. Huge tackles huge carries etc.
MCcaw well he does what he does...

Our back row doesn't have the same influence on a game. Keep Robhsaw for the moment. He played well.

GeordieFalcon wrote:The back row needs looked at. I think the trial of having two similar alrounders isn't working.

Look at the Abs back row. Kaino does the explosive noticeable stuff. Huge tackles huge carries etc.
MCcaw well he does what he does...

Our back row doesn't have the same influence on a game.  Keep Robhsaw for the moment.  He played well.

We have to remember that neither 8 is effective in the lineout, whoever plays at 6 needs to be a good jumper. Neither 8 is workhorse enough to get about the field and hit every ruck. Both are there primarily for their ball carrying, BV also for tackling.

Woods hit every ruck, tackled all game, he was only 4 short of Robshaw playing on the blind side, a 7 will always have more tackles than a 6 due to the structure of the set piece.

I think he also stole a couple of NZ lineouts.. Haskell might hit some rucks more effectively, but doesn't hit as many. Woods is there to do a job which he does very well, without his graft, BV or Morgan would not have the freedom to play their game.

NZ are similar, McCaw does the breakdown stopper/ turnover thing. Reed does the hard graft and Kaino does the big carries. Admittedly they can often do other things as well, but they have their primary duties.

Wood was a bit quiet on Saturday, but I think our main problem was with playmaking - both in attack & defence. Farrell was quiet, but for me our 2 other usual playmakers (or at least players who can start moves anyway) in Care & Brown, were unimpressive. Care’s tactical kicking was frankly barely Premiership level, and Brown looked subdued (even a bit nervous). Eastmond was well marshalled in midfield. And altho’ May’s try was outstanding – it’s the only time he has been in any game.

I hope OF watched the Ireland game because that’s how it’s done.

quinsforever wrote:...Why was Ford our only 10, 12, 13 cover?...

What's your alternative? All our back-up tens are basically specialists. yes, Cipriani has played full back, and Burns is doing that currently but neither is really a safe Test option in that position, and they aren't in the squad anyway.

There are eight places on the bench. They usually include hooker, 2 props, a lock (preferably specialist), a scrum half and a fly half. That's six places. We add Ben Morgan, or another back row, so there's one spot left.

If the back-up flyhalf isn't covering the centre, or allowing someone else to shift there, then you are asking for the last spot on the bench to be someone who can cover wing, centre and possibly full back. That would be the injury-prone Mathew Tait, and the unavailable Delon Armitage. Even if you just want wing and centre cover, then we don't have a large number of options - basically Jonathan Joseph, unless you fancy his Bath team mate Banahan.

This is one knock-on effect of Toby Flood's departure and I'm sure it's an additional reason Lancaster wanted to see how Tuilagi went starting on the wing. Think back to that first Test on tour against New Zealand. We lined up with Youngs, Burns, Eastmond, Tuilagi, Yarde, May and Brown with Cipriani, Dickson and Pennell on the bench. Who was covering centre there, do you reckon? Even when Lancaster got his full complement back, he was probably thinking how nice it would be to deal with that problem by starting with three centres.

The other option is too ditch specialist fly half cover and rely on someone who can dabble a bit there - Twelvetrees or Alex Goode. That sounds highly dangerous. I know Care is also down as fly half cover for Quins but you wouldn't want him as your front line place kicker.

In the future, we might have more options with Slade but it's a big risk to promote him ahead of Ford, Myler, Cipriani and Burns this close to the World Cup.

Robshaw and Wood definitely lacks balance for me, I'd go as far as to say that Morgan has edged Vunipola for me as well!

I think that Flankers need to be carrying monsters at international level! Wood especially doesn't break tackles, when everyone is fit lthe second row of Launchberry abd Lawes play like flankers anyway.

I'd give Haskell a go versus South Africa and give everyone a chance to see Dave Ewers carry into traffic against Samoa!

Time for a shake up I think!

Also completely agree over the Centres! Brad Barrit proved that he can defend against NZ but we were crying out for a centre with s kicking game to take pressure off of Farell

Brown's big problem in the second half was that NZ got their kick chase spot on - each ball had at least two chasers going up for it which made a clean catch very difficult in the conditions. England usually only managed to get one player in position and didn't have anyone coming in behind to clean up - several times the ball was tapped back but there was no-one there to pick it up.

The scrum and lineout went well but the breakdown wasn't being hit hard enough (though Nige's interpretation seemed to suit NZ's style much better than it suited England's. We probably missed having both Launchbury and Lawes in that respect, and while Wilson has gone well in the scrum it would be good to see Cole back to full fitness.

I thought the back play in the first half was actually pretty good - there was good movement, decent passing and a good variety of tactical kicks. What they lacked was the experience to change the style in the wet, and a second linebreaker to keep the defence on the back foot.

If I can nick a line from Joss Whedon, this team is cookie dough. It's good, but it'll be a lot better when it's fully baked, which given the rate of injuries isn't likely to happen before the RWC. I still think they have enough to win next week, and probably also enough to make the final next year given the draw, but the ABs are looking very well placed to be the first team to retain the trophy.

The balance of the forwards is always going to be impacted by injuries but over I thought our forwards competed very well until the end. It was the kicking that severely let us down in the 2nd half.

Wood has been one of our most impressive performers in recent years and should absolutely not be jettisoned due to one poor performance. He was MoM versus the ABs in 2012, so he has shown he can perform against them. I do feel we lacked the carrying of Launchbury on Saturday. Attwood performed very well and did make that one great break, but Kruis was quiet on the carrying front. This didn't then help the backrow as the burden was largely on them.

As much as I am a fan of 36 and completely agree that he was brought back in far too quickly over the summer, his club form has been poor this season and he should not be a starter. I didn't feel Eastmond posed much of an attacking threat on Saturday, but he fully deserves to retain his place and been given the AIs to stake his claim. Personally, I feel 36 will come back into the fold by the WC as we need that type of player to support and act as a foil to Farrell, who barring injury will be the FH for the next year.

Wood has been one of our most consistent players in recent years. Not overly sure he's been close to one of our best though. If we are to continue with the two open sides idea I'd like to see Fraser given a go alongside Robshaw. Against SA, I think that the Brand might need to be called upon. We seem to lack physicality in the back row. Might be worth looking to utilise the well built Kitchener as he packs a bit more grunt into his game than Kruis who didn't do anything particularly wrong.

Farrell was hit and miss all game and seemed to run out of ideas ball in hand rather quickly. The introduction of Ford was far too late in the game and giving him a Farrell / Barritt midfield was plain unhelpful. We need a better carrying option in that back line.

Not easy for Ford agreed! Farrell and Barrit were never gonna burst through! Tough for Lancaster with the two best centres with ball in hand ( Tuilagi and Burrell ) injured!

Pretty obvious that Joseph is seen as no more than a squad player, in the squad until Slade and Hill come of age perhaps? I say that because Jospeh has been absolutely stand out in the Aviva but still doesn't even get a mention in most people's posts!

I guess the big hope is that Sam Burgess takes to RU the same way Sonny Bill did, Burgess, Burrell or Eastmond and Tuilagi would give england licence to pick the better footballer Ford at 10

Haskell was having a very good season up till his injury, but I think the idea some people have that he's going to come in at 6 and rampage about the field or be our equivalent of Kaino is somewhat misplaced and symtomatic of one of this forum's ills of constructing ideas of players based on what you believe they should do rather than actually deliver on.

What had been winning him his plaudits this season was his defence and breakdown work, ball in hand he's been nothing special, 55 metres made from 35 runs in his 5 AP games (1.6m/run), with a third of those metres coming from one run in the game against Quins, most of those matches he made more runs than metre gains.  Wood in comparison has played 3 AP matches and made 42 metres from 20 runs (2.1m/run), in his 2 European games he made 27 metres from 13 runs (2.1m/run).

I'd be quite happy for Haskell to come into the side, but people should be realistic about what he's likely to achieve.  In defence there probably isn't much in it between Haskell & Wood, Haskell is a bit more physical in the tackle, but Wood gets around the park a bit more to make them (17 at the weekend, 2nd only to Hartley).  At the breakdown Haskell concentrates more on turnovers, where Wood tends more to getting to higher numbers and just clearing out or sticking his boot in.  Neither are doing much in the carrying stakes at the moment.  Where Haskell definitely loses out to Wood is at the lineout, Wood was our second most important player there at the weekend with 3 takes and a steal, is that an aspect of our game we can afford to lose against a team of the Bok's lineout quality?

On the backrow argument, Wood has been good, there is no denying that, although I don't think the Wood Robshaw combo works so you must ditch one and for me that's Wood all day. Robshaw is a much more rounded player and is the leader of this generation of England players.

I also wouldn't worry about the lineout. Haskell and Robshaw are both good jumpers, and Haskell has taken on a lot of responsibility at Wasps this year as a go to man for critical lineouts. Add in that Attwood ran a very good lineout on Sat, and has done in the past, I would have no problems with seeing Attwood, Haskell, Robshaw and Morgan lining up together for the remainder of the AIs.

Lets just hope Lawes comes through fit.

I think we just need some more physicality and Haskell will help with that. He hasn't carried much this season but remember who makes up that back row. Hughes and Johnson are monsters balm in hand. That's not what Wasps need Haskell to do at the minute they need him supporting, smashing rucks and bringing a big physical work rate in defence.

Not worried about the line out, Kitchener has been stealing line out ball all over the place this season. Kruis and Attwood are pretty handy in that regard as well.

Wouldn't mind seeing Twelvetrees at 13 alongside Eastmond. Twelvetrees is quick and strong he'll be no one's mug at 13 and actually played well for Tigers there a couple of times.

For me I saw no obvious weakness or deficiencies but it all looked a bit "by the numbers" Tinkering with some positions might help a little bit but by and large Lancaster has I believe assembled a squad not a team so there are two guys who can slot in to each position. What is lacking is that bit of unpredictability. Will Farrell provide this? Care has done in the past. Would another 10 do this? I don't know but for me this England team look very good - I expect them to rise further up the rankings and to be challenging NZ for the top spot and to get to the final of the WC having won the 6N as a warm up. The best in the NH by a long way and matching Aus and SA.

Will Lancaster find some room for someone unpredictable? Is that a part of his philosophy? Is there even anyone out there who can do it?

I am talking about a BOD or a Townsend type player. Cipriani? Trouble is with that type of unpredictable player ( except perhaps BOD ) you have to accept their mistakes as well. I certainly would not panic as an england fan or coach. Its still a work in progress building to the WC and I bet ( if being honest) anyone bar an NZ fan would want their team to be where england are - and no you cannot steal any of our great scottish backs to provide that pizazz!

formerly known as Sam wrote:If we are to continue with the two open sides idea I'd like to see Fraser given a go alongside Robshaw.

Cannot happen during AIs though as the concussion Fraser suffered against Munster means that, according to the Sunday Times anyway, he is still in the non-contact stage of the return to play protocol.

Got to feel for Fraser he hasn't had any luck with injuries. The concussion protocol isn't going to allow for a swift comeback either you've just got to sit it out and suck it up.

Robshaw and Haskell can do a job jumping at AP level, but internationals against the likes of Matfield, Etzebeth & Vermeulen are a different kettle of fish.  The O'Connell led Irish lineout lost 4 of their own throws to the Boks at the weekend.  If you go up against the Boks with anything less than three really top level options there's a good chance you're going to come off badly.  Kitchener (particularly) and Kruis are good jumpers, but international newbies and the Boks will be using all their wiles to target them and throw their confidence, you need two additional experienced quality options for any hope of comfort.  If it were Australia or Samoa this week it wouldn't concern me.

Fraser was the form player of the two last season, but Kvesic is ahead so far this one for me. I also think that currently England are more in need of Kvesic's better carrying and link play. Robshaw does the bulk of England's link play and we would desperately need someone to fill that void if he was ever injured.

Either of the two would be a welcome change to the EPS' other peripherals.

I don't think it's a case of ditching Wood. He's been consistent and our back row has functioned well mostly - but he's had a quiet 2014 in England colours so it might be the time to give the slightly more heavyweight Haskell a go, particularly against SA.

Just watched the Saracens v WF game and Fraser deffo comes on as a late sub

I really don't see Haskell fulfilling the sort of role that people are describing on here, if we want that sort of player it'll be a matter of waiting another season or two for Ewers or seeing if Fearns can go a month without getting injured.

Haskell is a very welcome member of the squad and certain parts of his game like the breakdown have seen notable improvements over recent years, but an aspect he's really neglected since he first broke onto the scene is his carrying, which is a real missed opportunity because that's exactly what we need. I can't help but feel that some of that carrying dynamic edge has been curbed by his psychologocal and business investment interest in body aesthetics rather than simply functionality.

Tiger/Chief wrote:Just watched the Saracens v WF game and Fraser deffo comes on as a late sub

Ah - shows what the journos at the Sunday Times know. I shall go take my punishment.

We're paying the price of neither Vunipola or Morgan having 80mins of top level international rugby in them compared to what they can cope with and perform like at club.  Not to the same degree, but from how they've used him and subbed him I think the England camp are also wary that Haskell drops off in the last quarter if they start him in fast paced games against the best sides, which complicates his selection with those 8s.  They clearly don't consider him as a strong 8 option because when they've had that opportunity they've gone for Wood or Johnson instead.  These issues may also explain why the England coaches seem keen to select players like Kruis and Clark whom they think can cover lock and flank, they're more confident in their locks lasting the full 80 and want the option of prioritising the backrow.  That preference could be the accelerated making of Itoje in a couple of years if he delivers on his early promise.

niwatts wrote:Robshaw and Haskell can do a job jumping at AP level, but internationals against the likes of Matfield, Etzebeth & Vermeulen are a different kettle of fish.  The O'Connell led Irish lineout lost 4 of their own throws to the Boks at the weekend.  If you go up against the Boks with anything less than three really top level options there's a good chance you're going to come off badly.  Kitchener (particularly) and Kruis are good jumpers, but international newbies and the Boks will be using all their wiles to target them and throw their confidence, you need two additional experienced quality options for any hope of comfort.  If it were Australia or Samoa this week it wouldn't concern me.

Robshaw jumps for England, averages 2 takes per game I think

niwatts wrote:Robshaw and Haskell can do a job jumping at AP level, but internationals against the likes of Matfield, Etzebeth & Vermeulen are a different kettle of fish.  The O'Connell led Irish lineout lost 4 of their own throws to the Boks at the weekend.  If you go up against the Boks with anything less than three really top level options there's a good chance you're going to come off badly.  Kitchener (particularly) and Kruis are good jumpers, but international newbies and the Boks will be using all their wiles to target them and throw their confidence, you need two additional experienced quality options for any hope of comfort.  If it were Australia or Samoa this week it wouldn't concern me.

100% agree

this is where england under bomber make me nervous.

we dont adapt tactically to our opposition, either pre-match or on gameday with our subs.

he seems to pick the side based on some ideal he has in his mind. horse for courses. twas ever thus.

we need to win the contest at the breakdown
not lose our own lineouts
or scrums

and find a way to break the SA defensive line.

if farrell sr (no point referring to him as jr any more as its clearly sr that gets him picked) kicks poorly from hand, and care too, then we are going to get annihaliated. because it doesnt matter what attacking options we have, we never use them.

markb wrote:Fraser was the form player of the two last season, but Kvesic is ahead so far this one for me.  I also think that currently England are more in need of Kvesic's better carrying and link play.  Robshaw does the bulk of England's link play and we would desperately need someone to fill that void if he was ever injured.

Either of the two would be a welcome change to the EPS' other peripherals.

Fraser was really unlucky with his injury at the beginning of the summer, he'd had a great season and I very much wanted to see what he could do in an England shirt.  Kvesic by comparison had had an unremarkable first year at Gloucester and was lucky to make the summer tour cut.  When he got his opportunity alongside Haskell in the Crusaders match however he was definitely the pick of the backrow and probably the whole side, he also firmly outclassed his opposite number Todd, who is certainly no slouch.  Not only did Kvesic get through a huge amount of work and make a lot of turnovers, but his support play and linking were all very good.  I haven't seen many of Gloucester's matches this season, so I'm not sure how he's going, but those aspects of his attacking game mark him out as someone to persist with if we want more fluid and joined up phases of attack.

ChequeredJersey wrote:

niwatts wrote:Robshaw and Haskell can do a job jumping at AP level, but internationals against the likes of Matfield, Etzebeth & Vermeulen are a different kettle of fish.  The O'Connell led Irish lineout lost 4 of their own throws to the Boks at the weekend.  If you go up against the Boks with anything less than three really top level options there's a good chance you're going to come off badly.  Kitchener (particularly) and Kruis are good jumpers, but international newbies and the Boks will be using all their wiles to target them and throw their confidence, you need two additional experienced quality options for any hope of comfort.  If it were Australia or Samoa this week it wouldn't concern me.

Robshaw jumps for England, averages 2 takes per game I think

I'm very much aware that Robshaw does get used jumping for England, but it's low numbers and not every game, he's more of a variation than a go-to. Wood and the locks perform a very different and more primary role.  SA are probably the best lineout side in the world, you need your best jumpers going up against them, guys with those extra inches and the ability to get themselves into the air that fraction quicker, jumpers who can put their opposition under real pressure and regularly make steals or disruptions.  If you've only got 2 players who really meet that criteria and 1 of them is on debut or their 2nd cap you're not giving yourself a fighting chance and SA will go for the throat.  When England gets dominated at the lineout our game really tends to fall apart.  That'll be even more the case with the downpour that is forecast for saturday and the sort of game we'll have to play.

niwatts wrote:Haskell was having a very good season up till his injury, but I think the idea some people have that he's going to come in at 6 and rampage about the field or be our equivalent of Kaino is somewhat misplaced and symtomatic of one of this forum's ills of constructing ideas of players based on what you believe they should do rather than actually deliver on.

What had been winning him his plaudits this season was his defence and breakdown work, ball in hand he's been nothing special, 55 metres made from 35 runs in his 5 AP games (1.6m/run), with a third of those metres coming from one run in the game against Quins, most of those matches he made more runs than metre gains.  Wood in comparison has played 3 AP matches and made 42 metres from 20 runs (2.1m/run), in his 2 European games he made 27 metres from 13 runs (2.1m/run).

I'd be quite happy for Haskell to come into the side, but people should be realistic about what he's likely to achieve.  In defence there probably isn't much in it between Haskell & Wood, Haskell is a bit more physical in the tackle, but Wood gets around the park a bit more to make them (17 at the weekend, 2nd only to Hartley).  At the breakdown Haskell concentrates more on turnovers, where Wood tends more to getting to higher numbers and just clearing out or sticking his boot in.  Neither are doing much in the carrying stakes at the moment.  Where Haskell definitely loses out to Wood is at the lineout, Wood was our second most important player there at the weekend with 3 takes and a steal, is that an aspect of our game we can afford to lose against a team of the Bok's lineout quality?

Err, isn't that aspect what people are crying out for? And Haskell's bloody hard to shift when he's over the ball.

One thing England lacked in that 2nd half was experienced heads to play our way out of our 22. Haskell has 50+ caps, and during the last third of last season, and the first third of this one, he's been exceptional for Wasps. In other words...he's in form, and is certainly experienced enough.

It's all moot, because Lancaster has now said he doesn't envisage making many changes for Saturday: reading between the lines any changes will be injury enforced.

Lancaster's loyalty to his players is admirable, but the team need a rocket up their collective arse after that 2nd half performance. For me that means letting certain players know that their performance wasn't good enough.

It depends on how likely a turnover is. Players who make turnovers have to get to breakdowns at very specific times, the best at it don't go into every breakdown but hang back and pounce in the small window. For sides that don't present that many of those opportunities you're usually better off getting your players upping their workrate by hitting more rucks and just making it as difficult and slow as possible.

Getting out of your own 22 against a side like the ABs in heavy rain is primarily an issue for the kicking game of the halfbacks not a blindside flanker. Having Haskell (29yo, 51 caps, 35 starts) there over Wood (28yo, 31 caps, 27 starts) would not have made much difference to what Care and Farrell were producing.

Like I said earlier, I'd welcome Haskell starting for England against the right opposition. He hasn't played rugby for a month having been hospitalised for a virus infection. What is meant to be a rain soaked afternoon heavily featuring kicking and lineouts against probably the best lineout side in the world doesn't seem like the best opportunity to test where he is. Far better to start him for the Samoa game so that he's definitely back to match fitness and get the best out of him also starting against Australia.

For the second week running England lose to one of the top 3 and again fall short in a number of areas.  Last week I highlighted the 3 key areas I wanted addressing by the England management before taking on the Boks; backrow imbalance, game management and the midfield dynamic, and after looking at yet another poor showing the areas still need addressing.

Backrow Imbalance.

England a forming a pack which is magnificent, they can go into any game knowing they are going to take teams on upfront and dominate the tight game.  The lineout and scrum should be applauded.  However they are lacking the prerequisite balance in the back, specifically the backrow to proceed.  By not having additional carriers in the pack we are severely hampering our ability to put teams on the back foot and dominate the loose.

I still believe that by introducing a physical abrasive 6 into the side it will alleviate that burden.  For me Wood is a 7, not an out an out 7 like a Hooper, but an England style of 7, much in the same way Robshaw is, but more athletic in the lineout.  Now Wood offers a lot in the lineout don't get me wrong, but we cannot seriously be going down the route of selecting a player because of our dependencies on him in a niche area of the game when he isn't performing in the more basic elements required for his position, a la Croft?  Yesterday England used Lawes and Wood as the primary jumpers, and had success there, leaving Attwood and Robshaw for a couple a piece.  Last week Attwood, Kruis and Wood all shared the load in a varied, 100% successful lineout.  We have other players capable, why not utilise them more and have Attwood and Lawes do their jobs as second rowers and be the primary jumpers with support from the backrow who have proven they can jump well?

Introducing Haskell into the backrow, with Morgan I might add, offers and incredible amount of physicality and workrate in the loose and will reintroduce the backrow who were so successful against the much vaunted NZ backrow in the summer.

For Aus:  1. Marler, 2. Hartley, 3. Wilson, 4. Attwood, 5. Lawes, 6. Haskell, 7. Robshaw (Capt), 8. Morgan, 16. Webber, 17. Mullen, 18. Brookes, 19. Kruis, 20. Vunipola

Game Management and Midfield Dynamic.

What is concerning about this England team at present is the difference in progression between the 2 functional areas of the team, forwards and backs.  The forwards are in course, 1 year out from the RWC and are progressing to the required World Class standard.  The backs however are at least a year behind in their progression with question marks remaining over the majority of players.

Staring on game management, England utilise a system whereby they have 3 key decision makers in the team; 9, 10, 12; with 10 and 12 trying to offer a 2 sided attack and be the playmakers out wide with the 9 bossing the tight exchange with the pack.  The problem is that the 9 can get England on the front foot with his pack, however after that there is nothing with England having to revert to 1 out rugby for a second week running.  We need a 10 and 12 who are comfortable playing flat and can bring people into the game and I'm afraid that for the past 2 weeks Eastmond and Farrell were no where near good enough.

England need to introduce Ford into the fray now a year out from the RWC to give him time to earn his crust before the showcase.  We cannot be in a position next year whereby Farrell has all the experience and there are still question marks about the backup.  Care hasn't been as good this year as last but should still be afforded some grace as I believe he's trying to do too much on his own.  That said B. Youngs does deserve a start against Samoa and then England should pick based on that performance.

The midfield dynamic.  The never ending question for this, and many an England team.  Defence is solid but that's about it.  In attack there are not enough options and there is not enough width on the ball.  The midfield is too narrow at present and the wings are seeing very little of the ball.  Ball handling is too slow and laboured and there is currently no running option from England from either 10, 12 or 13.  Where is the pace or power game?

Barritt for me is a very dependable player, a very good defender, but he is not international quality and his continued selection is hampering the progression of this England backline.  

Eastmond is a conundrum because he has a great skill set but I do question whether he can impose it at the highest level where time and space are at a premium.  2 runs aside, 1st test NZ and a half break yesterday, I haven't seen any attacking control from him whereby he's unleashed his outside backs.  You could point to the players around him, Farrell and Barritt, aren't the most attacking orientated and that's true to an extent but then he was surrounded by better attacking players in the summer and was found wanting. He might deserve another shot, however that will be against lesser teams, not the best of SA and NZ.  And that worries me.  Because against Samoa and Australia the game will break up and there will be space and he will have opportunities to shine, but that still wont answer the question as to whether he can cut it against the best defences.  And the only chance we are going to get to prove that will be in the acid test of the 6Ns and the RWC next year.

England will only be taking 3 midfielders to the RWC next year and you cannot afford question marks around an individual as to whether he can cut it against the best.  Taking the year as a whole you would have to argue that Burrell and Tuilagi are 2 of the three.  Tuilagi the out and out strike 13 we are missing, Burrell can play either 12 or 13 with the same physicality.  What we are missing is a 12.  For me Twelvetrees has proven himself in tough environments against good opposition and, although off form at the start of the season, should be given the chance to prove himself in a good environment with good players around him.

Sadly though with Tuilagi and Burrell injured we'll not get the opportunity to test this until the 6Ns at least.  Twelvetrees does need to start with a 13 outside him and the only 13 left available is Joseph so England need to play him.  I don't think it would be wise rushing Burrell back into the side unless he is 100% fit and firing.

For Aus:  9. Care/Youngs, 10. Ford, 11. May, 12. Twelvetrees, 13. Joseph, 14. Watson, 15. Brown, 21. Care/Youngs, 22. Farrell, 23. Nowell

Your selection currently has Ford starting and on the bench.

Eastmond did put Brown in for a try in the first game, if Brown could catch. I think he's worth a bit more of a run. There is precedent for small jinking players being as effective at international level as at club level, if not even more so (Habana, Robinson, Williams all have far better try scoring records at the higher level) - that said, those three are all effective because they have the pace to turn a break into a try, which Eastmond doesn't.

Ford needs an extended run, and whilst I would stick with Care for now he needs to get back to form sharpish.

I would change care for youngs as care seems out of form at the moment. Farrell is a difficult one, is there anyone who will replace him?

All the players need a rocket up their arses for the next game.

I think we miss cole around the field too.

Sorry, my mistake.  Farrell on the bench.

I can honestly see what people say about Eastmond, but my concern is he's now had 4 opportunities to produce against the best teams and he hasn''t really delivered.

He may deserve another chance in the long term, but a year out from the RWC I think that the time/experience is better served elsewhere.

Youngs/Care, Ford, Twelvetrees and Tuilagi has pretty much everything you want going forward and have all played together in the past, less Care and Ford.

I think Eastmond played pretty well actually . Considering how deep Farrell sets the attacking line he has done good things. He and Ford work well in tandem for Barf. I'd persevere with them and Barritt for now. Twelvetrees is hardly setting the world on fire for Glaws at present. We need to develop some experience at ten and twelve internationally so a Youngs/Ford/Eastmond combo is the way to go.

It's crazy when I read that twelvetrees isn't injured. Eastmond never let them down, never missed a tackle but again england lost so much from not having a 2nd receiver and I would say he reads the game better than Farrell too.

Lancaster for me rewards players too much for loyalty. His player management is very very poor. Not in terms of he players but having the guts to say

"Luther that was a great shift but in the end, I rate manu better so now he is fit.... You're back to the bench"

He rewards eastmond, Farrell , care, wood, vunipola with starts, squad places out of loyalty... Sounds nice but if they're not good enough he has to be man enough to drop them. He simply can't and often waits 2-3 games before saying well yeah after all that experimenting Manu is a centre. Not like even a 14 yr old kid didn't know that.

This was the problem with hiring a guy with no real high level coaching experience... He is learning on the job but he ain't a fast learner.

The problem with eastmond also is that he is meant to be some attacking Robinson esque legend and he is not in the team because of defensive power, kicking prowess or secondary receiver options is he. He is an attacking choice... Yet whilst ok he's not setting the world on fire and I can't ever see a time when I could say... Farrell will never need kicking support and also when eastmond dances through a clutch of kiwis more than once every few games? There is no real future. No future when you say he's nailed on in front of burgess, 36, Burrell, Barritt etc for the 12 jersey.

For me we rely to heavily on the front row carrying and Robshaw and Wood barely offer any carrying game at all! In fact when was the last time one of them got over the ball to effect a turnover? Both tackle all day but lookibg to defend our way to victory against the SH will not work! Their attacks are TOO GOOD for that!

I would keep Robshaw.... Just, I'd pick the Rumbling Dave Ewers at 6 and have Ben Morgan starting at 8 until Vunipola proves he can run more than 20 metres without getting tackled! Still think Vunipola needs to shift at least 1 stone!

Cole Youngs Corbesiero Launchbery being fit will make a huge difference as they are all better over the ball and in the loose than the people currently on the pitch! Maybe I'm being harsh on Attwood and Lawes! I think we miss Parlings experience put on the field and don't get me started on Farrell's inability to take the ball to the line and worry defences!

Eastmond has really struggled with the England game plan and Barrit is purely a human brick wall at 13! Ford needs to start and play flat and Watson shouldn't be on the wing! His forms been very average for Bath this season

Do people really thin we'll see Corbs back in an England shirt on a consistant long term basis?? I certainly don't.

Marler has done fine, in fact the front row has. If we want more carrying then id look to start Brookes at 3 over Wilson for the Samoa game. The guy is a beast.

Back row is crucial. Haskell, Morgan , Robshaw for the Samoa game. Robshaw needs to target the turnovers.

Why do English players slow down before going into contact? |Even when I was playing lowly rugby...I sped up wth the intention of hitting the tackler or ideally the gap at full pelt...trying to smash through the break line. Its basic stuff yet our pros seem unable to do that.

We need some bruisers in there. Players like Haskell, have the work rate Lancaster wants but offer so much more.
Wood is a good player but at 6'4 and 16.5st he's probably giving away a stone to his opposite numbers.
Imagine what Matt Garvey would offer...6'6 20st. High work rate, enormous tackler, and offers great carrying in the tight.

Well, looking at the match in the light of a new day...........
Forwards:  Very good set piece play undermined by some poor individual efforts elsewhere.
Wood and Robshaw led the team with 12 and 13 tackles respectively.  No problem with their defense.  However, both were simply too slow to the breakdown and simply not effective enough.  One has to take this upcoming weekend off.  For me. Wood sits and Robshaw is on probation and very thin ice - he gets his break only because he is captain.  Neither ran well with the ball except for Wood's break.  On that play his support went the wrong way.  Bring in Haskell.  He can cover 6 and 8.  More options.
Vunipola at 8 appeared tired, but that was 5 minutes after the opening kickoff.  Fat Morgan to start with Vunipola on the bench.  Do both boys spend their off-time contesting who can eat the most cheeseburgers at McDonalds?
Attwood.  Another forward late to the breakdown and never properly in support.  

Backs:  Clueless and aimless, further undermined by unintelligent play.
I will keep it short because otherwise I will want a change 9 - 15.
Halfbacks.  Ciao, ciao.  We have talked them to death and we all agree.  Youngs and wee little Georgie to start.  
Eastmond looked every inch a league player when going into contact.  Unfortunately for him we play Rugby Union.  Butchered an early try opportunity and was somewhat invisible the rest of the way.  
Barritt was surprisingly good and consistent.  We know England are in trouble when Barritt was the best back on the pitch.
Wings.  Do we have them?  Oh yes, I remember.  That Watson kid, the one Farrell tried to have killed by the Boks?  If the ball ain't coming out to the wings, then the wings have to go inside looking for the ball, especially with a ponderous and unintelligent game plan.  
Brown should not be playing.  He is not right and needs nap time.   Foden is playing fine right now and should be there.  Brown when right is the number one 15.  

Coaches:  &%$#^***%!!!!

I think that we are missing Cole, Corbisiero and Launchbury from the squad as a whole and they offer a hell of a lot. As for T. Youngs I'm not so sure. He is very good in the loose but his set piece work is no where near international standard. Whenever he played with Parling, the lineout set piece was very front jumper orientated and he could rarely hit the rear jumpers. Look how varied England's Lineout work has been over the summer and now. I think Hartley and Webber are deservedly ahead in that front.

Looking forward to the world cup England will probably pick 17 forwards; 3 Hookers, 4 Props, 4 Second Rowers, 4 Flankers and 2 8's.

Injury aside, I think it needs to be the following:

1. Corbisiero, Marler
2. Hartley, Webber, ?
3. Cole, Wilson
4. Launchbury, Attwood
5. Lawes, ?
6. Haskell, ?
7. Robshaw, Wood
8. Morgan, Vunipola

Obviously 3 big question marks in there.

3rd choice Hooker, I know he will select Youngs, and if he can sort out his set piece work then he fully justifies selection. But I don't know if he will and I think Lancaster should look ahead to 2019 on this one and select Jamie George of Saracens. He's a big lad and offers a good amount and just having exposure to the squad will give him much need experience to improve moving forward to 19.

Second row, well for me Attwood has done more than enough to justify his place in the matchday squad and for me its 2 of Lawes, Launchbury and Attwood to start with the 3rd on the bench. To that end does Lancaster pick Parling for his experience or again look to a form youngster to provide experience for the future? He'll pick Parling but I'm not a fan and would rather see someone like Slater in there, although Kruis has done very well considering its his first 2 games.

Last one is blindside. I know I keep saying it but Wood isn't a 6 and its either Robshaw or Wood for the 7 shirt (for me Robshaw wins hands down). To that end we need another 6 in there and people have mooted Ewers' name around. Personally I haven't seen much of him so cannot comment, but from the reviews he fits the bill as a big abrasive 6. But then again so does the much maligned Clark who offers much the same as Haskell less the explosive carrying. I know people have also discussed Vunipola at 6 but I think this is a no goer as he lacks the workrate/breakdown work required. But for me the big certainty is that I do not want to see Croft in there. Big is beautiful please.

I think one of our most problematic positions is 10. Farrell Snr & Lancaster won't drop Farrell Jnr even when he's off form or not at full fitness. Such a slap in the face for Burns and Cipriani in the 2nd test who did nothing wrong and the same for Ford yesterday. When Farrell's on form and kicking well he's a great player to have but when he's off, he's a liability and acts like a grumpy petulant teenager. The one memory I have of yesterday's match over any other was when Farrell stated he wanted "5 more minutes" on the pitch. He clearly wasn't going to get any better. It was like watching a 12 year old asking his Dad if he could come home at 9.30pm instead of 9.

There is blinkered vision as far as Owen Farrell is concerned.

Fat Morgan to start with Vunipola on the bench.  Do both boys spend their off-time contesting who can eat the most cheeseburgers at McDonalds?

Dr Grey
Personally I thought Morgan was very impressive yesterday. He carried very well...both in to contact and what he's best at into space...shows intelligence.
Also his tackling was top class. He made 2 absolutely key tackles that I can remember which were try saving. He needs to be given a chance to show he can perform like that consistently with Billy V off the bench.

Last one is blindside. I know I keep saying it but Wood isn't a 6 and its either Robshaw or Wood for the 7 shirt (for me Robshaw wins hands down). To that end we need another 6 in there and people have mooted Ewers' name around. Personally I haven't seen much of him so cannot comment, but from the reviews he fits the bill as a big abrasive 6. But then again so does the much maligned Clark who offers much the same as Haskell less the explosive carrying. I know people have also discussed Vunipola at 6 but I think this is a no goer as he lacks the workrate/breakdown work required. But for me the big certainty is that I do not want to see Croft in there. Big is beautiful please.

This is a huge area for me. Ive mentioned Kaino in comparison to Wood several times and keep getting told...but Wood does the unseen grafting stuff.. Wooptie do...so does Kaino. You don't get the AB 6 shirt without having a top class work ethic. What Kaino does though is aswell as the work rate, ruck hitting etc is that he does the explosive visual things aswell.
He makes big carries in traffic. This takes pressure of your team when your under the cosh. Wood cant do that. Kaino also offers the big hits when required. Again big offensive tackles when your under the cosh knocking people back. Gives the chance of turnovers.

How many players in the full pack do we have that can do these things. Not many.

Barritt was surprisingly good and consistent. We know England are in trouble when Barritt was the best back on the pitch.

Dr Grey, whilst I accept Barritt is probably not the best IC in international rugby. He is massively consistent. You know what you get. And he was possibly the only player in the whole team that took the ball in to contact at full pace making the defenders really have to work.
I wouldn't be averse to having him at 12 if we were to give young Ford a shot at 10 and maybe someone like Joseph at 13. Obviously not forgetting Manu. He gives you a leader and a physical fulcrum to gives them a platform to work on. Once the young guys get experience then you can look to other more creative 12's.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Fat Morgan to start with Vunipola on the bench.  Do both boys spend their off-time contesting who can eat the most cheeseburgers at McDonalds?

Dr Grey
Personally I thought Morgan was very impressive yesterday. He carried very well...both in to contact and what he's best at into space...shows intelligence.
Also his tackling was top class. He made 2 absolutely key tackles that I can remember which were try saving. He needs to be given a chance to show he can perform like that consistently with Billy V off the bench.

I agree with you Morgan was very good. Probably one of the best England players on the pitch. But doesn't his recent history seem to show good play followed by matches where he seems out of sorts and giving the appearance of being out of shape? ? If he can wean himself off the cheeseburger diet I think he could be a real game-changer at 8. And I would like to see that.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Barritt was surprisingly good and consistent.  We know England are in trouble when Barritt was the best back on the pitch.

Dr Grey, whilst I accept Barritt is probably not the best IC in international rugby. He is massively consistent. You know what you get. And he was possibly the only player in the whole team that took the ball in to contact at full pace making the defenders really have to work.
I wouldn't be averse to having him at 12 if we were to give young Ford a shot at 10 and maybe someone like Joseph at 13. Obviously not forgetting Manu. He gives you a leader and a physical fulcrum to gives them a platform to work on. Once the young guys get experience then you can look to other more creative 12's.

Didn't see this before. And I agree again. Barritt is very consistent. And with a high work rate. I like him in the centres. But we need more dynamic players around him for the team to excel. That is why I say that England do not want him as the best back. He does what he does and does it very well. We need other players to step it up.

If be willing to bet that Luke Cowan-Dickie if he is relatively injury free between now and the World Cup will force his way into the squad as third choice hooker

doctor_grey wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Barritt was surprisingly good and consistent.  We know England are in trouble when Barritt was the best back on the pitch.

Dr Grey, whilst I accept Barritt is probably not the best IC in international rugby. He is massively consistent. You know what you get. And he was possibly the only player in the whole team that took the ball in to contact at full pace making the defenders really have to work.
I wouldn't be averse to having him at 12 if we were to give young Ford a shot at 10 and maybe someone like Joseph at 13. Obviously not forgetting Manu. He gives you a leader and a physical fulcrum to gives them a platform to work on. Once the young guys get experience then you can look to other more creative 12's.

Didn't see this before.  And I agree again.  Barritt is very consistent.  And with a high work rate.  I like him in the centres.  But we need more dynamic players around him for the team to excel.  That is why I say that England do not want him as the best back.  He does what he does and does it very well.  We need other players to step it up.  

Yes I wouldt want him as the key back. But you need guys in there who just get on with it, be a leader at the coalface so to speak especially if we blood two yougsters at 10 and 13. The irony is that Lancaster used Barritt in that role for Farrell....when he should have been blooding Ford/Burns, or bringing Cipriani back in.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Barritt was surprisingly good and consistent.  We know England are in trouble when Barritt was the best back on the pitch.

Dr Grey, whilst I accept Barritt is probably not the best IC in international rugby. He is massively consistent. You know what you get. And he was possibly the only player in the whole team that took the ball in to contact at full pace making the defenders really have to work.
I wouldn't be averse to having him at 12 if we were to give young Ford a shot at 10 and maybe someone like Joseph at 13. Obviously not forgetting Manu. He gives you a leader and a physical fulcrum to gives them a platform to work on. Once the young guys get experience then you can look to other more creative 12's.

Didn't see this before.  And I agree again.  Barritt is very consistent.  And with a high work rate.  I like him in the centres.  But we need more dynamic players around him for the team to excel.  That is why I say that England do not want him as the best back.  He does what he does and does it very well.  We need other players to step it up.  

Yes I wouldt want him as the key back. But you need guys in there who just get on with it, be a leader at the coalface so to speak especially if we blood two yougsters at 10 and 13. The irony is that Lancaster used Barritt in that role for Farrell....when he should have been blooding Ford/Burns, or bringing Cipriani back in.

There is always the risk that utilising Barritt at 12 will stifle the outside backs again, as per every performance when he's played in the centres. Yes he does provide leadership in the defensive capacity and a straight crash ball in the attack but that's it. Is it not better to give Ford the best possible chance by playing a 12 outside him who can not only crash it up but assist in creating things? Also in defence offers the much needed buffer?

This forum tends to always promote second chances for individuals who consistently fail to perform, yet Twelvetrees has been pretty good for England since his introduction 2 years ago less 1 half against the ABs in the summer and he gets discarded straight away. I honestly don't understand it. Yes he's playing for a poor Gloucester side and outside a poor 10, yet if Manu were fit would he not be selected despite being in a poor Leicester side outside a poor performing 10? Likewise Morgan is playing in a poor Gloucester side and hasn't had the best of seasons yet he's now everyone's first choice 8.

Give Twelvetrees the Jersey against Samoa, see how he gets on with Joseph outside him and Ford inside and go from there. He is probably the best all round 12 in the squad and fits the bill of what we need.