England's Lessons Identified

First topic message reminder :

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.

Your right about Barritts limitations but I just have my concerns about putting out an inexperienced backline of say:
10 Ford
12 Eastmond
13 Joseph.

Barritts passing isn't actually as bad as everyone makes out.

The problem is....no matter what side runs out against Samoa and even if Ford or whoever has a sublime game....deep down we all know the side that will run out against Australia and who will start at 10.

And that's the worrying aspect of all this.

36 has been hit and miss and unfortunately for him his "hit" aspects are less visible and more to do with facilitating others which looks less attractive.


He's also in appalling domestic form. Even against us, where his kicking out of hand was decent and with huge length, he was poor in all other regards, trying too much, choking his goal kicks

Well I think the pack competed well. Compare how they did with what happened in, say, 2010, where we were physically dominated. I suspect the pack against Australia will be the same as started yesterday, except I think Vunipola won't feature in the matchday squad again this Autumn.

The problem remains in the midfield and half-backs. Youngs and Ford will start the next two tests in my opinion. I can't see us going into the WC with a 10/12 of Ford and Eastmond though, as I think the lack of size will be targeted. In the centres we need a combination which includes a proper kicking game, some creativity, and some bulk. So, I think we've four possible combinations for next week:

- Youngs, Ford, Twelvetrees, Burrell
- Youngs, Ford, Twelvetrees, Joseph
- Youngs, Ford, Burrell, Slade
- Youngs, Ford, Barritt, Slade,

It's tempting to leave the pack largely alone, and just change 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14. However, with Vunipola struggling so much there's a place in the matchday squad to compete for, and I'd like to see the following backrow given a run:

6: Clark,
7: Haskell,
8: Ewers.

Then we should probably rotate the front row as well, so perhaps:

Mullan
Webber
Brookes
Attwood
Lawes
Clark
Haskell
Ewers
Youngs
Ford
May
Burrell
Slade
Rokoduguni
Brown

I doubt there will be that many changes, but I like this side.

Madigan showing what a running creative 10 can do today.

We have them in Ford and Cipriani and Burns onces he gets sorted.

Farrell needs to be dropped for the next two games simple as that.

I'm pretty sure he will be.

I'm sorry but everyone now calling for Twelvetrees needs to take a reality check.

He is a guaranteed mistake machine, his error count is just too high for Int rugby at the moment. Yes he has the physicality and skill set but mentaly he just isn't focussed enough right now. I think that can change, but rushing him back into this underperforming England team in a position where there'll be a Poopie load of pressure on him to win the game single handedly isn't the way to go about getting the best of him.

Really people on here baffle me. They spend all summer slating 36 and then call for the new messiah Eastmond, reading the comments now it seems he didn't score some amazing mythical individual try against the TWO BEST TEAMS in the world so he should be scrapped and the new, I mean old, messiah Twelvetees should be back in post hast, Frak his crap game for Glos just two days ago he'll win it for us now!

You guys are baffling.

The real changes need to come for me at 2, 6, 9 and 10.

Just 4 positions and after that it's all about the coaching, tactics and mentality on the day.

Webber for Hartley - Dylan is technicaly a good hooker but unfortunately he just isn't busy enough around the park, his form this season is well below his own personal best. Webber is the opposite, at the moment he's on form and while maybe a little rougher at line out he adds a lot more to the pack.

Hask/Ewers for Wood - This has been done to death so i'll be brief, we need another strong carrier in the backrow.

Youngs for Care - Youngs looked good in his appearences and Care's just the right kind of player to come on late in the game. I think he'll respond really positively to being benched.

Ford for Farrell - Not sure what to expect of Ford as I think no matter the player at 10 he'll be told to play like Farrel, could be a pointless change.

B. Youngs isn't back to his best but his kicking has always been better than cares and in this weather we need 9's kicking to be good.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Madigan showing what a running creative 10 can do today.

We have them in Ford and Cipriani and Burns onces he gets sorted.

Farrell needs to be dropped for the next two games simple as that.

I think he will be, but what was more upsetting on Sat was that after 50 mins of looking well off the pace he made a pretty poor kick that hurt him in the process. Stu still let him stay on long enough to make two more cack kicks and give a hospital pass that resulted in a pen against us before growing a pair and hauling him off.

yappysnap wrote:I'm sorry but everyone now calling for Twelvetrees needs to take a reality check.

He is a guaranteed mistake machine, his error count is just too high for Int rugby at the moment. Yes he has the physicality and skill set but mentaly he just isn't focussed enough right now. I think that can change, but rushing him back into this underperforming England team in a position where there'll be a Poopie load of pressure on him to win the game single handedly isn't the way to go about getting the best of him.

Really people on here baffle me. They spend all summer slating 36 and then call for the new messiah Eastmond, reading the comments now it seems he didn't score some amazing mythical individual try against the TWO BEST TEAMS in the world so he should be scrapped and the new, I mean old, messiah Twelvetees should be back in post hast, Frak his crap game for Glos just two days ago he'll win it for us now!

You guys are baffling.

I wouldn't bring him back in yet, as I don't think he's done enough to earn it, but he wasn't that bad on Friday (in the first half he was pretty good, playing out of position). His goal-kicking fell to pieces in the second half, which affected his confidence, but he remains the 12 with the best all-round skill set available to England and so hopefully he'll find some consistency by the 6 Nations.

Eastmond hasn't been bad, but whilst Bath may get away with a Ford, Eastmond, Joseph combination I don't think England will. I think Ford, Burrell, Slade has a balance to it and could make use of the ball when we are having period of possession.

yappysnap wrote:The real changes need to come for me at 2, 6, 9 and 10.

Just 4 positions and after that it's all about the coaching, tactics and mentality on the day.

Would you really not change 8? Vunipola has been poor and was withdrawn extremely early yesterday. I don't think we'll see him play for England again until the 6 Nations at the earliest

Actually you're completely right. Don't know how i'd forgotton that.

Although that means we could potentially see Wood on the bench to cover 8 if Morgan can't complete the full 80 and Hask was to start. But then Hask may not be at full fitness either so if him and Morgan both started it might be an issue as one would have to play the whole game.

Twelvetrees had 12 starts for England this and last year, with a run of games that included all of the last AIs and 6N (has any other centre had that many games in a row to make their case?).  He did OK, but little more.

For both club and country he's increasingly looking like a player that promises so much but fails to really deliver on it.  He's inconsistent over series of matches and also tends to drift in and out of games.  He doesn't take the ball to the line enough and makes early decisions when he doesn't have to, failing to read changes that are occuring in front of him, meaning he misses opportunities and is as likely to throw a wonderful wide pass as an intercept, and when things don't go well he often finds it difficult to recover himself with additional errors coming thick and fast.

I have doubts over Eastmond being our first choice answer at 12 next year (he could be an option as last quarter bench impact depending on squad composition), but on current season's form and performance in number of opportunities given, he's as if not more deserving to be persisted with than bringing Twelvetrees back in whilst Burrell and Tuilagi are still out of the picture.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Madigan showing what a running creative 10 can do today.

We have them in Ford and Cipriani and Burns onces he gets sorted.

Farrell needs to be dropped for the next two games simple as that.

Yes but comparing someone performing vs Georgia vs someone performing vs SA isnt going to tell you much

DaveM wrote:

yappysnap wrote:I'm sorry but everyone now calling for Twelvetrees needs to take a reality check.

He is a guaranteed mistake machine, his error count is just too high for Int rugby at the moment. Yes he has the physicality and skill set but mentaly he just isn't focussed enough right now. I think that can change, but rushing him back into this underperforming England team in a position where there'll be a Poopie load of pressure on him to win the game single handedly isn't the way to go about getting the best of him.

Really people on here baffle me. They spend all summer slating 36 and then call for the new messiah Eastmond, reading the comments now it seems he didn't score some amazing mythical individual try against the TWO BEST TEAMS in the world so he should be scrapped and the new, I mean old, messiah Twelvetees should be back in post hast, Frak his crap game for Glos just two days ago he'll win it for us now!

You guys are baffling.

I wouldn't bring him back in yet, as I don't think he's done enough to earn it, but he wasn't that bad on Friday (in the first half he was pretty good, playing out of position). His goal-kicking fell to pieces in the second half, which affected his confidence, but he remains the 12 with the best all-round skill set available to England and so hopefully he'll find some consistency by the 6 Nations.

Eastmond hasn't been bad, but whilst Bath may get away with a Ford, Eastmond, Joseph combination I don't think England will. I think Ford, Burrell, Slade has a balance to it and could make use of the ball when we are having period of possession.

36 just makes too many mistakes though, he's sloppy when he needs to be sharp and while Eastmond hasn't torn it up, one knock on aside he's been pretty stable for England.

Ford, Burrell, Slade is much of a muchness, it's like just picking some names out of a hat and running with them. Ford, Eastmond, Joseph do at least have the bonus of playing together for the rest of the year, so won't have to start from scratch like every other option, could that be a bonus?

SL won't learn anything else about Wood, Robshaw and Morgan, and I'm sure they will start against Australia. Therefore I think there's a strong case for looking at Clark, Haskell and Ewers all at the same time, and making clear there is one place in the matchday XXIII available for the next week.

I would actually love to see a Clark, Hask (c) and Ewers backrow. But that will never happen, SL panics at the idea of 1 change, 3 in one unit would give him palputations.

On paper Twelvetrees has it all, but his International performances saw him deservedly dropped and his club form hasn't demanded a recall.

My personal belief is that going into the World Cup we'll have a Burgess/Tuilagi partnership, or if Burgess settles in the back row then we'll have a Burrell/Tuilagi partnership.

On the basis of this, we'll need a good kicking and distribution game from 9, 10 and 15, to compensate for what the centres lack. With this formation, I'd also be looking to play "two 15s", so having someone like Nowell, Watson or Foden on the wing, especially as the wingers aren't going to be receiving much ball.

I wouldn't be treating the Samoa game as a "throwaway" and making lots of changes for the sake of it, I'd be treating the Samoa game as an audition. With that in mind, my backline would be:

9. Youngs - Care is off form, simple as.
10. Ford - Farrell is off form, simple as.
11. May - has a bit of credit from his try against the All Blacks, need to see more over the Autumn if he is to keep his place for the Six Nations though.
12. Barritt - defensive leader and can help inexperienced players around him.
13. Joseph - form 13 in the Premiership and, although he doesn't offer the same threat as Tuilagi, he's an attacking threat none-the-less.
14. Watson - give him a chance in the "second full-back" role, also a pacy finisher to get on the end of breaks by team-mates.
15. Goode - Brown is off form. Goode also offers a better kicking game and options as a second playmaker.

Can any one tell me why Watson's now getting caps when we've already trialled Foden, Nowell, Strettle, Sharples, Yarde, Ashton and Goode and decided none of them fit? What does he bring that they don't? Or is it that they were all injured?

Nothing against Watson I just find it odd that we're handing out even more winger caps.

No wonder we struggle for continuity when in the backline off the top of my head we've played:
Care, Dickson, Wigglesworth, Youngs, Farrell, Ford, Flood, Burns, Hodgson, Barrett, Tuilagi, Turner-Hall, Hopper, Lowe, Joseph, Tomkins, Trinder, Burrell, Eastmond, Twelvetrees, May, Strettle, Ashton, Sharples, Foden, Brown, Yarde, Goode, Nowell and Rokodugoni

That's 30 players. In 3 years, that's a big old turn over. Obviously a lot of those are enforced changes but if we carry on at this rate we are never, ever going to find a settled team. Especially when you think there are already people calling for Cips, Slade, Burgess and Wade at various times.

Do you guys want to experiment or or have a settled team? You cat have both...

I think the real issue with the backs is the players simply are not there. No one who has been brought in - like twelvetrees has shone and claimed the shirt.
Time for Ford to get a start.

Been having this conversation this afternoon! Nowell got a chance because Yarde and Ashton were injured. Watson was in the squad but overlooked!

Suddenly all the wingers are fit and Watson has leapfrogged them all even though Nowell played every single minute of the 6 nations and Yarde scored try's in NZ. Lancaster has also decided to bring in Rokoduguni!

I'm lost and have no idea how the pecking order looks! C WADE doesn't even get in the squad!!!!

I don't think Lancaster knows either!

Think It may be
1. May
2. Rokoduguni
3. Watson
4. Yarde
5.Nowell
6. Wade
7. Ashton
8.Strettle

I think there are two things. Firstly we need to try some different combinations this week (probably carrying on to the next week), mainly in the backs. Secondly we should rotate some of the forwards for Samoa, as I don't think we want to be starting most of them four weeks in a row.

That to me says we should make lots of changes this week.

What exactly is it people want/expect from their 12?

For me he has to provide a 2nd playmaker function, i.e. create width on the attacking game and control play if the 10 gets sucked in, offer a 2nd kicking function, offer a viable running threat and have sufficient strength to make the hard yards should the 10 have no other alternative, be solid in defence, and get the occasional try if and when its on offer.

What exactly out of that has Twelvetrees not offered at international rugby?

He had a run of the AIs and 6Ns last year consequently England's backline produces some of its most expansive rugby in recent years.  Granted its not all from him, but he was a large contributor to that.  His form in the 6Ns in particular was pretty bloody impressive if you watch the matches again.  He doesn't do all the flash stuff like an Eastmond but he did do a lot of good things to create for other people, that's what you want of a 12.  He's the glue which holds the backline together.

When did things start to go wrong for Twelvetrees exactly?  When did he stop performing?  He was rushed back from injury and thrown into the 2nd test against NZ without any game time and little training.  Despite this his showing in the first half was very good.  Second half was a different story granted, including the very much highlighted intercept pass, but what do you expect from someone who hadn't played rugby for nigh on 2 months?

Has his form been great this year?  No.  But then again neither has Morgans, neither has Cares, neither has Tuilagi, B. Youngs, Farrell, Brown......

If you have time on your hands, like I have at the moment (the joys of living away from home for 6 months at a time!), then re watch the games from last season again.  Watch Twelvetrees in particular and you will see all the good things he does, all the things he creates.  Does he make mistakes, of course he does, show me a player who doesn't, but his mistakes are nowhere near as much as people make out.

Alternatively, let's just bring in the Wasps backline. Daly has looked creative at 13, and (most premature big-up ever) Lozowski really does look at have something about him (reminds me of a young, pre-injury Cipriani).

Yea limited changes are the way to go I feel, let squad players put their credentials down for the starting spot against Oz.

I expect Lancaster to announce something like:

Marler
Webber
Wilson
Lawes
Attwood
Haskell
Robshaw
Morgan
Youngs
Ford
May
Eastmond
Barritt
Roko (Fitness)
Brown

But to be honest I'd be happy with all the bench forwards starting, alongside the squad backrowers.

Brookes
Webber
Mullan
Kruise
Attwood
Clarke
Haskell (c)
Morgan

But then is that too many, decisions decisions...

jamesandimac wrote:What exactly is it people want/expect from their 12?

For me he has to provide a 2nd playmaker function, i.e. create width on the attacking game and control play if the 10 gets sucked in, offer a 2nd kicking function, offer a viable running threat and have sufficient strength to make the hard yards should the 10 have no other alternative, be solid in defence, and get the occasional try if and when its on offer.

I actually quite like the way NZ and SA use their 12, not as a second playmaker option but as an attacking player either as a carrier or someone who can step and offload.

Seems to me if you have two kickers at 10 and 12 all you're doing is doubling the chance to kick possesion away. Note Oz are the only SH team to play a second 10 currently and they are the worst of the three, kick too much ball away and don't score many tries.

This whole second play maker idea is just recycling Clive Woodwards tactics, but then he actually used Greewood and Tindall most of the time, Catt wasn't usually first choice...

Oh and while we're on this Stuart Lancaster actually started out with the NZ/SA option at 12. He played Barrett then JTH there.

But due to Farrell's limitations he realised he needed to bring in another play maker to help him out, things have never really clicked since. In hindsight it may have been a lot easier to just change the 10 then try to change the whole backline to suit one player.

yappysnap wrote:

Seems to me if you have two kickers at 10 and 12 all you're doing is doubling the chance to kick possesion away. Note Oz are the only SH team to play a second 10 currently and they are the worst of the three, kick too much ball away and don't score many tries.

This whole second play maker idea is just recycling Clive Woodwards tactics, but then he actually used Greewood and Tindall most of the time, Catt wasn't usually first choice...

But one of the biggest problems England have had in the last two games is not kicking often or well enough. You can't always just carry yourself out of trouble every time you are pinned in your own half.

I think we either need Twelvetrees at 12 or to take a chance on the Slade (who is going to have a long England career) at 13.

DaveM wrote:

yappysnap wrote:

Seems to me if you have two kickers at 10 and 12 all you're doing is doubling the chance to kick possesion away. Note Oz are the only SH team to play a second 10 currently and they are the worst of the three, kick too much ball away and don't score many tries.

This whole second play maker idea is just recycling Clive Woodwards tactics, but then he actually used Greewood and Tindall most of the time, Catt wasn't usually first choice...

But one of the biggest problems England have had in the last two games is not kicking often or well enough. You can't always just carry yourself out of trouble every time you are pinned in your own half.

I think we either need Twelvetrees at 12 or to take a chance on the Slade (who is going to have a long England career) at 13.

You see I would have said we also kick too much at the wrong times, in particular in the oppositions half. Having another kicker to me just say's we'll do that twice as much, unless there's a massive overhaul of mindset and tactics too but I can't get my hopes up for that.

Well it ll be good to see Ford get a chance in this next couple. After the world cup it ll be him Farrell and Slade slugging it out at 10.

If people want an extra ball carrier in the backrow who actually makes serious yards we'd be better off concentrating on the longterm development of Ewers at blindside as Exeter are now playing him more with Waldrom in the side.  Haskell is more of a openside these days, for his size he's not a very effective carrier any more, it's been an underdeveloped part of his game for some time.  In the last 2 years Haskell has had 4 starts and 5 bench appearances for England, total number of runs = 39, total metres made = 42.

Something to consider about a carrying blindside is that if you expect them to do all the usual flanker duties plus a ton of carrying, be prepared to sub them off for the last quarter (as Kaino usually is), it's very difficult to keep that up for the full 80 in a fast paced international against the top sides.  For England that would require one of our 8s being able to last the whole match or accepting the drop in performance or not subbing a lock and having a lock/blindside on the bench.

yappysnap wrote:Oh and while we're on this Stuart Lancaster actually started out with the NZ/SA option at 12. He played Barrett then JTH there.

But due to Farrell's limitations he realised he needed to bring in another play maker to help him out, things have never really clicked since. In hindsight it may have been a lot easier to just change the 10 then try to change the whole backline to suit one player.

He did that because he'd just taken over, the weather was terrible, there weren't many options at 12, and he wanted to start out by getting the basics right. Since then England have been trying to expand their game.

In my opinion the problem with Farrell isn't Farrell per se, it's that (like Vunipola) he's badly out of form. Both will play in good England sides again.

If Burgess is going to play at 6 for Bath you can see how he could add something to the England backrow in time (his League form suggests he has the potential to be one of the best carriers in the world, if he can get used to having to present the ball at the end of the carry).

This also means Devoto will continue to get game time at 12 for Bath, which is good as I think he has a similar skillset to Twelvetrees.

yappysnap wrote:

You see I would have said we also kick too much at the wrong times, in particular in the oppositions half. Having another kicker to me just say's we'll do that twice as much, unless there's a massive overhaul of mindset and tactics too but I can't get my hopes up for that.

Tbh I didn't see England kicking the ball away in the opposition half as a major problem in the last two games. There were bigger issues for me.

yappysnap wrote:

DaveM wrote:

yappysnap wrote:

Seems to me if you have two kickers at 10 and 12 all you're doing is doubling the chance to kick possesion away. Note Oz are the only SH team to play a second 10 currently and they are the worst of the three, kick too much ball away and don't score many tries.

This whole second play maker idea is just recycling Clive Woodwards tactics, but then he actually used Greewood and Tindall most of the time, Catt wasn't usually first choice...

But one of the biggest problems England have had in the last two games is not kicking often or well enough. You can't always just carry yourself out of trouble every time you are pinned in your own half.

I think we either need Twelvetrees at 12 or to take a chance on the Slade (who is going to have a long England career) at 13.

You see I would have said we also kick too much at the wrong times, in particular in the oppositions half. Having another kicker to me just say's we'll do that twice as much, unless there's a massive overhaul of mindset and tactics too but I can't get my hopes up for that.

It appears you've only highlighted my point about the 12 being a second kicking option and ignoring the bit about being a second play maker. England need another decision maker in the backline rather than another person to take the ball into contact, that much has been evident in the last 2 matches when all we did was play one or two out rugby. Also isn't placing all the decision making onto Fords shoulders creating a pressure bubble on a new player? Surely its better to surround him with decision makers to ease him in, especially in an area as key as 10.

And anyway, NZs 12 of there most successful period, Nonu, offered a hell of a running game, but also acquired a very good kicking and distribution game over the past few years and he was augmented with a very intelligent decision maker in Smith which made for a very balanced midfield. You look at SA, De Villers isn't just a crash ball merchant either and is also a decision maker and has a good kicking game.

You do need balance and you need a strike option, either through sheer power or through pace, the out and out running threat and a decision maker/player maker. Whether you play the strike option at 13 or 12 is up to the team, but when you consider our main strike option is Manu Tuilagi as a 13, then you by default have that play maker at 12.

DaveM wrote:I think there are two things. Firstly we need to try some different combinations this week (probably carrying on to the next week), mainly in the backs. Secondly we should rotate some of the forwards for Samoa, as I don't think we want to be starting most of them four weeks in a row.

That to me says we should make lots of changes this week.

Agreed. And on the same lines, it would take quite a lot for a forward to play his way into the starting line-up for Australia, but considerably less for a back to do the same.

jamesandimac wrote:What exactly is it people want/expect from their 12?

For me he has to provide a 2nd playmaker function, i.e. create width on the attacking game and control play if the 10 gets sucked in, offer a 2nd kicking function, offer a viable running threat and have sufficient strength to make the hard yards should the 10 have no other alternative, be solid in defence, and get the occasional try if and when its on offer.

What exactly out of that has Twelvetrees not offered at international rugby?

He had a run of the AIs and 6Ns last year consequently England's backline produces some of its most expansive rugby in recent years.  Granted its not all from him, but he was a large contributor to that.  His form in the 6Ns in particular was pretty bloody impressive if you watch the matches again.  He doesn't do all the flash stuff like an Eastmond but he did do a lot of good things to create for other people, that's what you want of a 12.  He's the glue which holds the backline together.

When did things start to go wrong for Twelvetrees exactly?  When did he stop performing?  He was rushed back from injury and thrown into the 2nd test against NZ without any game time and little training.  Despite this his showing in the first half was very good.  Second half was a different story granted, including the very much highlighted intercept pass, but what do you expect from someone who hadn't played rugby for nigh on 2 months?

Has his form been great this year?  No.  But then again neither has Morgans, neither has Cares, neither has Tuilagi, B. Youngs, Farrell, Brown......

If you have time on your hands, like I have at the moment (the joys of living away from home for 6 months at a time!), then re watch the games from last season again.  Watch Twelvetrees in particular and you will see all the good things he does, all the things he creates.  Does he make mistakes, of course he does, show me a player who doesn't, but his mistakes are nowhere near as much as people make out.

I think you need a second playmaker/distributor/kicker, but it doesn't have to be at 12. Neither SBW or JDV fulfils this role for their respective teams. We got our draw against South Africa and our win against the All Blacks with Goode at fullback taking on the second playmaker role and Manu/Joseph in the centres against South Africa and Barritt/Manu against the All Blacks.

The trouble with Goode at 15 is we had Mike Brown in fantastic form and ended up sticking him on the wing, where he was less than fantastic. After Wales in 2013 only one could make the starting line-up and Brown's form saw him keep his spot. Now Brown's form has dipped, I'd be looking to bring in Alex Goode against Samoa and if he does well in this role I would keep him in against Australia.

Or you know we could pick a player maker in the centres, or, and here's a truly controversial one, maybe even at 10?!

Actually, drop all the Quins players, we could do with them

yappysnap wrote:

DaveM wrote:

yappysnap wrote:

Seems to me if you have two kickers at 10 and 12 all you're doing is doubling the chance to kick possesion away. Note Oz are the only SH team to play a second 10 currently and they are the worst of the three, kick too much ball away and don't score many tries.

This whole second play maker idea is just recycling Clive Woodwards tactics, but then he actually used Greewood and Tindall most of the time, Catt wasn't usually first choice...

But one of the biggest problems England have had in the last two games is not kicking often or well enough. You can't always just carry yourself out of trouble every time you are pinned in your own half.

I think we either need Twelvetrees at 12 or to take a chance on the Slade (who is going to have a long England career) at 13.

You see I would have said we also kick too much at the wrong times, in particular in the oppositions half. Having another kicker to me just say's we'll do that twice as much, unless there's a massive overhaul of mindset and tactics too but I can't get my hopes up for that.

Another excellent point

ChequeredJersey wrote:Or you know we could pick a player maker in the centres, or, and here's a truly controversial one, maybe even at 10?!

I'd have Ford in at 10 as well. I think Brown on form is good enough to take on the role of a second kicker and come into the line as a distributor, I just think at the moment he's not quite on top form and possibly trying to do a bit too much himself. I thought he was the stand-out back for England in 13/14, but for this game I'd have a look at something different, then make a decision before the crunch Australia game.

Plus, I think our options at centre for a player in this role are very limited, with Twelvetrees not in form and Slade still quite raw.

lostinwales wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Madigan showing what a running creative 10 can do today.

We have them in Ford and Cipriani and Burns onces he gets sorted.

Farrell needs to be dropped for the next two games simple as that.

Yes but comparing someone performing vs Georgia vs someone performing vs SA isnt going to tell you much

Very true but I'd put my mortgage on it that Farrell still couldn't offer creative moments against them either.

You can't judge Eastmond, Watson, Roko, when they have had Farrell and Care inside them having their two worst games and not distributing the ball in any usefull way and kicking aimlessly. Bring in Youngs and Ford.

jamesandimac wrote:What exactly is it people want/expect from their 12?

For me he has to provide a 2nd playmaker function, i.e. create width on the attacking game and control play if the 10 gets sucked in, offer a 2nd kicking function, offer a viable running threat and have sufficient strength to make the hard yards should the 10 have no other alternative, be solid in defence, and get the occasional try if and when its on offer.

What exactly out of that has Twelvetrees not offered at international rugby?

He had a run of the AIs and 6Ns last year consequently England's backline produces some of its most expansive rugby in recent years.  Granted its not all from him, but he was a large contributor to that.  His form in the 6Ns in particular was pretty bloody impressive if you watch the matches again.  He doesn't do all the flash stuff like an Eastmond but he did do a lot of good things to create for other people, that's what you want of a 12.  He's the glue which holds the backline together.

When did things start to go wrong for Twelvetrees exactly?  When did he stop performing?  He was rushed back from injury and thrown into the 2nd test against NZ without any game time and little training.  Despite this his showing in the first half was very good.  Second half was a different story granted, including the very much highlighted intercept pass, but what do you expect from someone who hadn't played rugby for nigh on 2 months?

Has his form been great this year?  No.  But then again neither has Morgans, neither has Cares, neither has Tuilagi, B. Youngs, Farrell, Brown......

If you have time on your hands, like I have at the moment (the joys of living away from home for 6 months at a time!), then re watch the games from last season again.  Watch Twelvetrees in particular and you will see all the good things he does, all the things he creates.  Does he make mistakes, of course he does, show me a player who doesn't, but his mistakes are nowhere near as much as people make out.

Those are things that we hoped Twelvetrees would offer, however the reality has been that in his international career so far he's had a couple of good games but mostly average or less.  It was Care, Burrell & Brown's performances that made those 6N backlines relatively successful, Twelvetrees not doing enough to cement his position was discussed throughout the tournament.  He has all the theoretical abilities but has issues successfully implementing them all and at the right time.  His best game is probably still his debut against Scotland where he was actually principally used carrying the ball.  Since concentrating so much on 2nd playmaker duties he has underwhelmed, he doesn't make the best decisions under pressure (usually more poor options and missed opportunities than big mistakes) and he doesn't take the ball to the line anywhere near enough, defences know what is coming and have more time to close it down.  Physical players like Tuilagi and Burrell outside him can still make that work against a lot of sides, but not against the best.

The ideal is to have a 12 with good playmaking abilities, but if your FH is worth their salt they run the show completely and need next to no assistance in the traditional FH activities and decision making, they're better served by an IC who is more of a running threat and holds the defence (creating more space outside), picks nice lines, makes good ground when regularly utilised, some footwork, decent enough passing & offloads, and who makes their FH's defensive duties as easy as possible.  More than that is a bonus, but if you're relying on it to make the backline work then your first playmaker isn't doing their job properly and issues will persist.

Another negative about this second playmaker idea, which is suddenly doing the rounds. Is that England when they did use it ended up with no I've actually threatening the opposition line, so the ball goes 9, 10, 12 and then hospital pass to which ever poor sod has to carry in yo the now ready and waiting defenders.

The more we argue this the more I want either Burrell/Manu or Eastmond/Manu in the long run.

Oh and France and Ireland are two other teams who don't play the second play maker idea, it's an out of date concept. If you're 9 and 10 can't do the job then it's their problem.

yappysnap wrote:Another negative about this second playmaker idea, which is suddenly doing the rounds. Is that England when they did use it ended up with no I've actually threatening the opposition line, so the ball goes 9, 10, 12 and then hospital pass to which ever poor sod has to carry in yo the now ready and waiting defenders.

The more we argue this the more I want either Burrell/Manu or Eastmond/Manu in the long run.

Oh and France and Ireland are two other teams who don't play the second play maker idea, it's an out of date concept. If you're 9 and 10 can't do the job then it's their problem.

What England really need is a playmaking fullback . That way you retain your solid centers and a goal kicking flyhalf . The fullback can come in the line at 1st receiver when theres quick ball and next to him will be one of the wingers . Better attacking platform . The Boks do it with Le Roux regularly coming up as standoff when its on and it usually yields good results . Dagg does a similar thing for the All blacks and he regularly combines with the wingers for tries . Ditto Kurtley Beale and James O'Connor when they had their goes at the 15 Jersey for the Wallabies . The big question then would be , is there a playmaking fullback available to England . Mike Brown is a strike runner and a traditional fullback but doesnt offer that same playmaking threat . The easier solution would be to Play Ford at Fullback , he's young enough to be able to make the switch (young in that he hasnt been playing international rugby long enough for it to take time adjusting to a new position ) Or even Foden if he concentrated on creating not so much finishing tries

Goode is the best play-maker FH available to England at present. If he'd been given more club games at 10 when he was younger he might have been the England FH by now.

Look, England play the best back line we have – there are no players (or combos) in the background just waiting to set the team on fire; we’ll have to wait for the next generation for that…hopefully. The truth is that we have a lot of depth but limited strength in our threequarters and most of this lot are much of a muchness. The current selection issues are just over injury and opposition (and only occasionally form). SL has got to stop tinkering and trying out new players/combinations, and simplify his tactics - against the bigger sides like Wales & SA we should play a more defensive combination (Farrell, Barritt, 12T, Burrell, Manu, 3 FBs), and where attacking flair is more possible (say Aus or Fra) add players like Eastmond & Ford and proper wingers like May. It’s not rocket science.

It’s a back-line that can compete well with the NH, but just can’t match the best. We’ve gotta get used to it. At least we’ll beat Aus   .

Barney you think Farrell should play?

For me that's loco. He can't read a rugby game. He's like a robot play set scenarios made on a training pitch regardless of who is in front of him. He's not a natural 10... and these things you can't teach.

Everyone has off days with the boot. His up and under which went backwards (and his lovely pretend injury within seconds of it), his kick which went out on the full, his nuts run into 3 boks in his 22 when he should have cleared it... instead giving a hospital pass to debutant Watson. Wasn't a great day at the office right, you have them right.....

However its his reading of the game which is dire. In one play he had one man inside of him no one on the outside. The man was Marler I think or Mullan.
He had 4 boks in front of him.

The SH passed him the ball and he ran 2 metres and flipped an inside ball to the prop who was creamed and due to being isolated gave away a penalty. THAT WAS NOT THE PROP'S FAULT.

If Farrell couldn't see what would have come from that move then he shouldn't be running the show simple as. Its school boy its beyond schoolboy... if I was coaching an U14 team and a 10 did that I would put him on extra suicides it was that bad. There was no one to support him. The best bet would have been either to kick or to drive himself and have the prop on his shoulder to secure possession.

The other thing which I thought was lacking was a lack of coherent strategy. There was no game plan for the backs. The forwards were doing great work in the tight yet the backs were literally running out of ideas... "do you want the ball, hmm, not sure, do you". They were all receiving the ball standing... its one of the primary rules of rugby not to do.

Care, ok it was his 50th cap so he would have been emotional but to give away 10 points personally in the first 15 mins was very poor. It's his old self coming back after last season's shedding of the image.

Sadly, probably yes. Form should obviously be considered, but there are a number of players whose current form is below par – Farrell, Care, Vunipola, Wood, even possibly Brown (not to mention 12T & Ashton) – we can’t drop them all.

Just a few games ago Farrell was a shoo-in, now he shouldn’t ever darken the England doorstep again. Part of his problem is he’s trying to be the complete FH that he isn’t – SL should tell him just to play to his defensive strengths. And I’m not sure he’s fully fit anyway.

It’s all part of the England problem in the backs – keep changing until we hit on the magical combination. Well here’s the thing, that combo doesn’t exist. So a good as any strategy is a defensive look or a more attacking one – depending on the oppo. Currently I think SL’s thinking is just too muddled.