Enough is enough! Bracken tired of England coach Lancaster's excuses

First topic message reminder :

Interesting read and listening, some may not agree with it but there is plenty of truth in there and nice to see someone in the media asking these questions.

 http://talksport.com/rugby-union/exclusive-enough-enough-bracken-tired-england-coach-lancasters-excuses-141111123888

Yeh I would take a team if fit:
 
 1) Corbs, 2) Hartley, 3) Cole
 4) Launchbury, 5) Attwood
 6) Robshaw, 7) Haskell, 8) Morgan
 9) Care, 10) Cips
 12) Eastmond, 13) Manu
 11) May, 14) Roko, 15) Watson

 To see how it went.

 Although I expect the Samoan game to look like:
 1) Mullan, 2) Webber, 3) Brookes
 4) Kruis, 5) Kitchener
 6) Ewers, 7) Haskell, 8) Morgan
 9) Dickson, 10) Ford
 12) Twelvetrees, 13) Joseph
 11) Nowell, 14) Yarde, 15) Watson/Goode

 Bench: 16) Paice, 17) Waller, 18) Thomas, 19) Clark, 20) Waldrom, 21) Wiggleworth, 22) Slade, 23) Goode/Watson

beshocked wrote:Difference of opinion...I guess...you could use that excuse for any poor decision!!!

England lost....that's the reality. If they didn't then I wouldn't have a case. If certain players didn't make errors then I would have no reason to criticise them. You talk about difference of opinion, only so much that weak argument works....

Nowell made two mistakes which contributed to scores not one. Yes you are right... Launchbury and Goode made mistakes also. It's Lancaster's job to make the correct decisions - quite clearly against France he messed up. One big problem is that after the game Lancaster did not hold up his hands and take responsibility.

I keep banging on about the French match because it's a big black mark against Lancaster. England lost a game they should have won.

England must win their next 3 games and perform well for Lancaster to answer his critics. Sadly I don't think England will.

Still dont think a knock on is that bad a mistake.

I feel like I'm wasting my breath but Nowell knocking on was only because Launchbury completely missed the ball when collecting the restart, giving Nowell a split second to react.

BamBam wrote:I feel like I'm wasting my breath but Nowell knocking on was only because Launchbury completely missed the ball when collecting the restart, giving Nowell a split second to react.

I'm a Wasps fan and Launchbury's dropping (or missing) of kick offs was shocking. He was far more culpable than Nowell.

Launch is good around the park and at the breakdown - he started off playing 6 - but catching the ball while in the air is a skill he needs to improve.

Wasps don't even use him much at the line out. Myall is the main jumper (Cannon if he plays) with Haskell at the back.

no 7 & 1/2 depends on the circumstance of the knock on surely? E.g. if the knock on leads to a try for the opposition - it's important. Also equally if someone knocks on with the try line at their mercy it's important too.



Bambam I don't care who catches the ball as long as someone does - irrelevant whether it's Launchbury, Nowell whoever. Seems like a common trend with Nowell to ship the blame onto anyone but him.

It's important to take the restarts cleanly - England did not and unfortunately for Nowell it was him who knocked it on.

You are right - Launchbury should have done better but so should have Nowell.

Launchbury did have a poor game.

Whether it's Nowell or Launchbury is neither here nor there in my view. The material point is that across the team scoring opportunities are being fluffed up, and the skill levels aren't where they should be. Whether it's players not passing when there's an overlap, throwing a duff pass or dropping a catch. Actually I'd add a lack of support to that as well - I get the impression that happens more to England than it does to other teams as well. I'll admit this is my general impression, rather than the result of detailed analysis, but is seems that too often the team are doing all the hard work getting field position and creating an opportunity only to mess it up when the try is there for the taking.

Its all water under the bridge, and there are lots of moments/things which contributed. Substituting Care and the Goode 'special' tackling technique were others.

After an awful start we did very nearly turn it around - (well we did until that try at the end) and that did show a lot of character.

beshocked wrote:no 7 & 1/2 depends on the circumstance of the knock on surely? E.g. if the knock on leads to a try for the opposition - it's important. Also equally if someone knocks on with the try line at their mercy it's important too.



Bambam I don't care who catches the ball as long as someone does - irrelevant whether it's Launchbury, Nowell whoever. Seems like a common trend with Nowell to ship the blame onto anyone but him.

It's important to take the restarts cleanly - England did not and unfortunately for Nowell it was him who knocked it on.

You are right - Launchbury should have done better but so should have Nowell.

Launchbury did have a poor game.

There's better and worse places to knock on in relation to a match but when judging the performance of a player it's much of a muchness. If we'd won a penalty at the resulting scrum how does that affect nowell's performance up to then? For me it doesn't.

lostinwales you talk about it being water under the bridge - fair enough if you feel that way. I hold it as a black mark against Lancaster - a loss that should have been a win.

no 7 & 1/2 the knock on matters more obviously because it had an impact on the scoreboard.


A missed tackle on it's own might not be so bad but if it leads to a try it's highlighted more so. Same with a knock on or missed lineout,fumbled ball etc. It's obvious.

Wales missed a lineout vs England in the 6 nations and subsequently with the field position England scored a try.

Any costly error matters.

E.g. you might have player X getting a YC but it obviously makes a massive difference whether points are conceded or not in that time to how important the YC was in the context of the match.

If Nowell's knock on came to nothing then I would agree but unfortunately France went on to score subsequently.

It's quite simple really - player N knocks on, Frances score a try from their subsequent attack, perhaps player L should have taken the ball instead of Player N but it was player N who knocked it on.

2nd try - Player N comes in to help player G, Player N and G both fail to catch the ball. Perhaps Player G should have called for the ball but a miscommunication between the two players allowed France to score. Player N is not absolved from blame though as he was there and could have cleaned it up. If it was player B he probably would have caught it.


If Nowell was not all involved in the scoring of the two tries by France then I wouldn't have a case.

So you judge a player on direct consequence rather than what they do; I don't. Thats where we differ.

I judge a player on both but obviously something that has a bigger impact on the match is something I believe is important.

You don't believe players should be criticised for costly errors?

I think mistakes around judgement when a decision needs making are worse than say something like a handling error. I would say that Nowells mistake wouldn't be better or worse had the resulting scrum been won by England. It's the same mistake.

All players even the great Johnny W or Dan Carter etc make mistakes....even costly ones. I guess im more inclined to be less judgemental on a young lad coming in for his first game as opposed to more senior players.

The key part is that the yougsters learn from their mistakes. Nowell in this case i think did, and did well for the rest of the tournament.

Is there any player in the current England squad who has not made a mistake that has contributed to a try against us, or to us not scoring a try? Do we therefore drop every player? Do we drop Owen farrell for missing a 'kickable' penalty or conversion? The only person who never makes a mistake is one who doesn't play the game. This continual criticism of Nowell because of the dropped kick off against France is both tiresome and pathetic. There is some mitigation that Launchbury missed the ball, so he had to adjust to catch a ball he wasn't expecting at the last minute, and as far as I am aware he hasn't dropped too many other kicks. If he kept making the same error then fine - hang him out to dry - but this isn't the case. And please don't play the "I care more about England losing than you obviously do" card. We all care, it is just that some of us think you get more from a young inexperienced player by supporting him than continually kicking him.

I think a lot of the current issues are down to 4 losses on the trot.

All of which are against the best team in the world. Some fans need to have a reality check and get some perspective. This is still a young inexperienced team making its way in the game.

nlpnlp wrote:All of which are against the best team in the world.  

I'd add an exclamation mark for effect ...  !

Now we're making progress.  New Zealand ain't a bad team - home or away. It isn't even a good team. It isn't even a very good team. England are a very good team. New Zealand are at a level that sides simply must appreciate. Yes, there to be beaten - but no ordinary side to beat.

SecretFly wrote:

nlpnlp wrote:All of which are against the best team in the world.  

I'd add an exclamation mark for effect ...  !

Now we're making progress.  New Zealand ain't a bad team - home or away.  It isn't even a good team.  It isn't even a very good team.  England are a very good team.  New Zealand are at a level that sides simply must appreciate.  Yes, there to be beaten - but no ordinary side to beat.

NZ - Wales is going to be very interesting for that reason

nlpnlp wrote:Is there any player in the current England squad who has not made a mistake that has contributed to a try against us, or to us not scoring a try?  Do we therefore drop every player?  Do we drop Owen farrell for missing a 'kickable' penalty or conversion?  The only person who never makes a mistake is one who doesn't play the game.  This continual criticism of Nowell because of the dropped kick off against France is both tiresome and pathetic.  There is some mitigation that Launchbury missed the ball, so he had to adjust to catch a ball he wasn't expecting at the last minute, and as far as I am aware he hasn't dropped too many other kicks.  If he kept making the same error then fine - hang him out to dry - but this isn't the case.  And please don't play the "I care more about England losing than you obviously do" card.  We all care, it is just that some of us think you get more from a young inexperienced player by supporting him than continually kicking him.

Dan Cole has never made a mistake.

The only mistake Phil Vickery made was to retire

Barney McGrew did it wrote:The only mistake Phil Vickery made was to retire

Phil did upset Andre Watson back in November 2003.

lostinwales wrote:I think a lot of the current issues are down to 4 losses on the trot.

Perspective?  

England lose 8 out of every 10 games they ever play against the All Blacks, and 3 of those games were in NZ, where that ratio is even worse.

England lose to New Zealand because they are consistently a better team than us (and every other rugby nation), have a better culture than us that allows players to develop their skills at a young agae and go on to be an outstanding team. I can't think of anyother sport that New Zealand are better than England and that isn't being zenophobic. At football, athletics, rowing, cycling, etc we beat them because of our relative population sizes, available funds, etc. Yet at rugby beause of their history and passion for the sport they are always the team to beat.

nlpnlp wrote:England lose to New Zealand because they are consistently a better team than us (and every other rugby nation), have a better culture than us that allows players to develop their skills at a young agae and go on to be an outstanding team.  I can't think of anyother sport that New Zealand are better than England and that isn't being zenophobic.  At football, athletics, rowing, cycling, etc we beat them because of our relative population sizes, available funds, etc.  Yet at rugby beause of their history and passion for the sport they are always the team to beat.

Actually we're pretty good at rugby league and netball too.

nlpnlp wrote:England lose to New Zealand because they are consistently a better team than us (and every other rugby nation), have a better culture than us that allows players to develop their skills at a young agae and go on to be an outstanding team.  I can't think of anyother sport that New Zealand are better than England and that isn't being zenophobic.  At football, athletics, rowing, cycling, etc we beat them because of our relative population sizes, available funds, etc.  Yet at rugby beause of their history and passion for the sport they are always the team to beat.

You do realise that less than an hour ago New Zealand won the 4nations tournament (Rugby League) by defeating the kangaroos, England didnt even make the final.

The NH teams have not played any games prior to these AI games where as the big 3 have just finished their 4 way home and away games. Aus also had a warm up game against the Baa baas. There is no substitute for match practice to prepare for big games which may explain not being up to the pace of the game.

nganboy wrote:

nlpnlp wrote:England lose to New Zealand because they are consistently a better team than us (and every other rugby nation), have a better culture than us that allows players to develop their skills at a young agae and go on to be an outstanding team.  I can't think of anyother sport that New Zealand are better than England and that isn't being zenophobic.  At football, athletics, rowing, cycling, etc we beat them because of our relative population sizes, available funds, etc.  Yet at rugby beause of their history and passion for the sport they are always the team to beat.

Actually we're pretty good at rugby league and netball too.

And sailing...!

glamorganalun wrote:The NH teams have not played any games prior to these AI games where as the big 3 have just finished their 4 way home and away games. Aus also had a warm up game against the Baa baas. There is no substitute for match practice to prepare for big games which may explain not being up to the pace of the game.

How do you explain Summer Tours then.

andyi wrote:

lostinwales wrote:I think a lot of the current issues are down to 4 losses on the trot.

Perspective?  

England lose 8 out of every 10 games they ever play against the All Blacks, and 3 of those games were in NZ, where that ratio is even worse.

You could say that about any team though!

Bullsbok wrote:

glamorganalun wrote:The NH teams have not played any games prior to these AI games where as the big 3 have just finished their 4 way home and away games. Aus also had a warm up game against the Baa baas. There is no substitute for match practice to prepare for big games which may explain not being up to the pace of the game.

How do you explain Summer Tours then.

Both teams coming in cold really. Wouldn't it be grand to have a global season!

Bullsbok wrote:

glamorganalun wrote:The NH teams have not played any games prior to these AI games where as the big 3 have just finished their 4 way home and away games. Aus also had a warm up game against the Baa baas. There is no substitute for match practice to prepare for big games which may explain not being up to the pace of the game.

How do you explain Summer Tours then.

The northern sides finish the Six Nations in the middle of March. They don't play another match together for nearly three months. I don't doubt the top three southern sides are generally better, but the two hemispheres don't tour under comparable conditions.

Mr Fishpaste wrote:

andyi wrote:

lostinwales wrote:I think a lot of the current issues are down to 4 losses on the trot.

Perspective?  

England lose 8 out of every 10 games they ever play against the All Blacks, and 3 of those games were in NZ, where that ratio is even worse.

You could say that about any team though!

Certainly recently you could, last 10 games v NZ:
SA W2 D0 L8
FR W2 D0 L8
ENG W1 D0 L9
AUS W0 D2 L8

Historically its different (but not that much in some cases) with a lose to NZ % ratio of:
SA 57%
AUS 68%
FR 76%
ENG 80%

And i'd add that the other 3 have beaten NZ in World cups. where England never have.

I always find it amusing that the absolute best side in Rugby Union (and perhaps even the Best team side in any sport ever) always needs so many repeating and repeating facts and figures charts to prove to the world that they are what everyone knows they are.

Yes, England is on a loss rate of 8 out of every 10 - and the rest of them are on something similar.

Where's the shock?  We know it instinctively.  

But I'll do my own stat to 'prove' the truth :

133 months have passed since IRB rankings began back in 2003.  At the end of each of those months, the All Blacks have topped the table  111 times!  Now call that what you like, but it's proof positive that they win more games than they lose... against everybody

Indeed, they've been so dominant that it might be best to remove them from converations on stats at all and just begin with the 2nd ranked side and down from there.  Instantly you'd have a more respectable chart history for all sides