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

I totally agree 7.5.

Everyone agrees he has built a consistent settled lineup..everyone wanted that and it's crucial to bring in new guys in that environment.

We all agree again that particularly in the backs he hasn't been helped by injuries and indeed loss of form to those he might have blooded like Burns for example. And Joseph after the SA tour who lost all form.

But he could have had another look at Cipriani,  or Ford earlier. With Barritt in there as a secure defensive leader if he was concerned in that regard.

It is a difficult one to judge really and I don't want him replaced.

Let's see how we go with the remaining games...and pray no more injuries and all those injured return (farrell and maybe twelvetrees hit form again) and stay there till after the WC.

Lets face it, his biggest triumph has been bringing some respectability back to the team after a car crash of a world cup. I do believe the team is a bit better too, but its time for results now. He has been allowed to ride on the failings in previous years due to the improved image of the side and a few (mostly one off) results. Saying we are taking lessons and building etc. Which is by and large fair enough, but we can't really accept this now. England haven't progressed in the past year or so, haven't won anything, and don't have a record noticeably better than previous regimes.

What gets me is the endless buzzwords, powerpoints, motivational speakers we hear about. All sounds wishy-washy to me. Media-friendly bullsh. Its fine if you are getting the results on the pitch, but we are stagnating. The backs are still a mess, and we are really struggling for settled, functioning pairings. Not to mention the ever growing sense of nepotism regarding Farrell.

Giving him a huge contract before the world cup, after throwing away the 6N and 3-0 series defeat is madness to me. Absolute madness. How much will it cost to buy him out if England flop at the world cup? Money that would be better served funding other areas of the game. Lancaster badly needs 3 straight wins now. People are starting to turn on his regime and be less forgiving of his short comings. Unconvincing performances are only going to ratchet up the pressure.

I still think Lancaster's biggest failing was and will continue to be his support team. Catt and Farrell just aren't good enough to balance against SL's lack of experience. Catt especially came in off the back of diddly squat at Irish and yes he was a good a player, but then so were about 30 other guys in that England squad through that time. It's noticeable that it's Catt's area in particular that's falling behind, it really feels like we're having to wait for the coach to learn his trade before he can even do his job.

Lancaster really needed someone who's been there and done it, even if it's in a limited role. But the three newbies together just seem to be muddling through as they go along.

This is from yesterday's Telegraph.

By Steve James 9:11AM GMT 12 Nov 2014

England’s defeat by New Zealand last Saturday was their most disappointing performance since the Cardiff calamity in 2013 when they lost 30-3. There I’ve said it.

Yes, it was against the world champions and it was hardly a hiding, but the standards and expectations are high now and rightly so.
Under Stuart Lancaster everything is in place. There can be no excuses, not even some injuries given the huge playing base. England need to step up to the next level and last Saturday at home, inside the fortress that is supposed to stay impregnable throughout next year’s Rugby World Cup, they failed again horribly.

What’s more, there was worrying news from Cardiff, where the cliché will say that Wales yet again bottled it against Australia, but the truth might be that Wales are getting their act together again.

The form of some of their big players, namely Jamie Roberts, Sam Warburton, Dan Lydiate, Alun-Wyn Jones and Richard Hibbard, was certainly menacing.

I thought it was their best performance for some considerable time. There was even evidence of variety in their attacking play. There was not the predictability of Warren Gatland’s usual game plan, with some good off-loading from the forwards and a collective ambition to play the game at a rattling pace.

We know that Australia, despite all their off-field problems, will always be competitive, especially at a Rugby World Cup. So are we already at that horrible moment, where we suddenly think ‘England might not even make out of their pool next year’?

Over-dramatic maybe, but all I know is that I thought it for the first time while watching a re-run of the Wales game on Sunday night. I’m pretty sure that the Wales camp will have been a lot happier place on Monday morning than England’s.

To put England’s position in perspective, a question: if you were naming a British and Irish Lions team now after last weekend’s performances, how many England players would be in it?
I would say none. Chris Robshaw was quite outstanding against New Zealand, but he would not be in above Warburton. Dave Attwood was excellent too, but you would not select him ahead of Alun-Wyn Jones, Paul O’Connell or maybe even Richie Gray.
Jonny May scored a wonder try but that would hardly secure selection. The rest? Forget it.

Even if you consider all the injured players and go back using previous form, you still might not find room for too many England players in a Lions team, given Ireland’s improvements under Joe Schmidt and an apparent Welsh revival.

Alex Corbisiero for sure. Others? Courtney Lawes, Joe Launchbury, Dan Cole, Dylan Hartley and maybe Manu Tuilagi would undoubtedly challenge, but you could see why they might not be selected. Mike Brown might have done so last season, but not any more, sadly.
Yes, England clearly have engendered a wonderful collective desire and culture under Lancaster, but my point is that as individuals England’s players need to stand up more, need to bring more influence to bear upon matches.

It is why I have been critical elsewhere of Tom Wood. Yes, it is a well-worn cliché that the blindside flanker does a lot of unseen graft, but that does not mean that he cannot have an influence upon the match that people can easily see. Jerome Kaino manages it. So too Peter O’Mahony. Even Lydiate too.

Whilst Robshaw cops flak about his position Wood often seems to slip under the radar. Don’t get me wrong, Wood is a fine rugby player; hard-working, robust and physical. But what does he do that sets him apart, to demonstrate Lancaster’s oft-quoted “point of difference”.
It is an interesting question that Wood and many other England players need to answer quickly. England have not become a poor side overnight. Of course, they have not.

I thought they made huge strides during last season’s Six Nations, and was prepared to give them plenty of slack last summer because of the stupid scheduling and its knock-on effects coupled by end-of-season fatigue.
But last Saturday felt like a huge step backwards, a desperate disappointment.

It just raised too many questions. When will England be able to take the opportunities that are so obviously necessary to beat the top teams? Do they really know how they want to play? They seemed confused once the heavens opened in the second half.
Is Danny Care’s kicking ever going to be consistent enough? Are they any nearer to finding a centre partnership?

One thing I will say, though, is that many have criticised Owen Farrell, and while it was not his finest game, it was certainly not his worst either. He is a player around whom England must build. The romantics who want their dainty, dodging fly-halves are stuck in a different age.
These questions can all be answered swiftly in a reassuring victory over South Africa. But if we are looking ahead to the RWC, I have a hunch that Wales may now beat either South Africa or New Zealand this autumn.

So England simply cannot afford to lose to both South Africa and Australia. The pressure is building.

It is why I have been critical elsewhere of Tom Wood. Yes, it is a well-worn cliché that the blindside flanker does a lot of unseen graft, but that does not mean that he cannot have an influence upon the match that people can easily see. Jerome Kaino manages it. So too Peter O’Mahony. Even Lydiate too.

Whilst Robshaw cops flak about his position Wood often seems to slip under the radar. Don’t get me wrong, Wood is a fine rugby player; hard-working, robust and physical. But what does he do that sets him apart, to demonstrate Lancaster’s oft-quoted “point of difference”.
It is an interesting question that Wood and many other England players need to answer quickly. England have not become a poor side overnight. Of course, they have not.

Great to see someone else finally have the courage to say what i've been saying for ages!

In the press and England camp Wood seems to have a free pass to just go through the motions, we should expect a hell of a lot more from our 6.

Mate that happens in all nations.

Agree with Yappy. Catt doesn't excite me as a backs guru at all. A shame Wayne Smith couldn't be persueded when SL originally asked him for the role.

It just raised too many questions. When will England be able to take the opportunities that are so obviously necessary to beat the top teams?

This is a massive question and one that's blighted every game England have played win or lose. How can they turn possesion in to 5 points? England had the ball in the oppo's 22 for almost 20 minutes in the first half of the game Sat, and that whole time I never felt like we would score, I mostly expected the inevitable knock on or turn over, and I think the opposition feel that too now so aren't even giving away many pens or worrying too much.

Do they really know how they want to play?
Is Danny Care’s kicking ever going to be consistent enough?

Care's kicking was poor in the second half but in defense to him he should be picked primarily for his pass and running, trying to bend him to play a style that doesn't suit like the coaches obv did in the second half is just a waste, better to have Wigglesworth if we must box kick. On that point though I think we over use the box kick too, it's the worst type of tactical kick to relieve pressure but we seem to use it as first choice.

One thing I will say, though, is that many have criticised Owen Farrell, and while it was not his finest game, it was certainly not his worst either. He is a player around whom England must build. The romantics who want their dainty, dodging fly-halves are stuck in a different age.

Disagree entirely here. This is the age of the complete player. So all players must be robust, must tackle and must ruck, but just as importantly all players must threaten the line, offload and have the vision and time on the ball to cause opposition problems. Farrell gets the first half of that right, the second half i'm still not sure about. A fly half who can not step, can not take the defensive line on and break it and can not cause the opposition defender to pause for a moment just isn't good enough at the top level. It's worth noting that the AB's seem happy to forgo the burly defensive kicking type in favor of a "dainty, dodging flyhalf" and they don't seem to do too badly do they?

The focus just moves from player to player frankly so I don't think anyone gets a free ride all the time. Wood, Robshaw are getting it now. We've had Twelvetrees, Tuilagi getting it cos he can't or won't pass. Brown despite 2 series man of the matches is getting because NZ countered him with brilliant kicking. The longer you go without a man of the match the more people clamour for the next guy in line.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The focus just moves from player to player frankly so I don't think anyone gets a free ride all the time. Wood, Robshaw are getting it now. We've had Twelvetrees, Tuilagi getting it cos he can't or won't pass. Brown despite 2 series man of the matches is getting because NZ countered him with brilliant kicking. The longer you go without a man of the match the more people clamour for the next guy in line.

True but it doesn't matter what we think, it's more the coaches I was thinking about, he certianly doesn't ever play like he's had a boot in the arse.

So i take it this comes after the new Zealand game . The record breaking world champions , four nation champions side that England lost to by a mere few points . Lancaster have turn England around from the boozey dwarf throwing , girlfriend cheating harbour swimming mess it was in 3 years ago

Not many managers do their kicking in public though yappy. I would be disappointed if we don't put a good showing in on Saturday. I honestly think we'll win and it'll be a good performance.

Well i hope so 7.5

The biggest thing i want to see is clinical finishing.
If we get a sniff of the line...i want to see points being scored.

I can cope with a lack of flashy 10, or a marauding monster at 6 etc...IF we can learn to take our chances.

Ultimately its probably that which is brining up the questions about the players...

Yappysnap I agree.

Farrell Sr and Catt simply aren't good enough coaches in my opinion.

Would much rather see Paul Gustard and Alex King in their places.

As for Farrell Jr - he shouldn't be starting anymore. He's out of form,he's not the Ice man, on the contrary he's hot headed and is vain.

To be honest if both Farrells were out of the England set up I don't think they would be missed.

Who would you start at 10 vs SA beshocked.

jimmyinthewell68 wrote:So i take it this comes after the new Zealand game . The record breaking world champions , four nation champions side that England lost to by a mere few points . Lancaster have turn England around from the  boozey dwarf throwing  , girlfriend cheating  harbour swimming mess it was in 3 years ago

So Lancaster has made the team more respectable? He hasn't actually coached skills, tactics or gameplan then in your view? And that's good as far as an Int coach goes?

Getting away from the media hype MJ's team were far better then is now made out, likewise SL really isn't as good as made out.

As to the losing by a mere few points, the score is close because A) we had a whole first half with the ball but couldn't actually get anything, B) when the AB's had the possesion in the second half it was raining and they only needed a few scores to lead due to A, C) there would have been a very big depressing gap between scores if Owens hadn't pretty much gifted us a penalty try.

beshocked wrote:Yappysnap I agree.

Farrell Sr and Catt simply aren't good enough coaches in my opinion.

Would much rather see Paul Gustard and Alex King in their places.

As for Farrell Jr - he shouldn't be starting anymore. He's out of form,he's not the Ice man, on the contrary he's hot headed and is vain.

To be honest if both Farrells were out of the England set up I don't think they would be missed.

I think you're right there, Farrell Jnr could be very good, but just like any other player he needs to be managed right and part of that is being dropped when off form and given things to work on, just as much as it is about being picked.

No7, right from the off I'd have had Cipriani in the training squad and played him against NZ, he has experience and a more mature game then Ford, Ford would have come off the bench. Then we wouldn't have this catch 22 situation that we have now of either playing an off form 10 against SA or a 10 that the coaches pretty much have made public that they don't trust and who has a handful of 10 min cameo appearences, SL has made his bed and it isn't looking comfy.

I think a player like Ford or Cipriani would make better use of Manu aswell. Ie putting him through gaps etc.

Well they clearly don't trust Cipriani yappy so I think the bed would be the same! Do you think you're being slightly harsh on the setup after playing NZ 4 times (3 away)? They're by far the best in the world with a stack of experience.

I think ultimately England have grafters but now need game changers.

We have a team that can hold teams out but you cant hold teams like the AB's or Oz forever.
When they eventually score...who do we have to make things happen.

Examples in the back row.
Metres carried
Kaino - 34m
Robshaw and Wood combined - 4

Pretty much says it all.

yappysnap exactly. Farrell Jr needs to be shown that he is droppable - also would help keep his ego in check -if a player does not perform they should not be starting for England. I get the impression that Farrell Jr believes he himself is a deity who can do no wrong, Lancaster needs to show that this is not the case.

no 7 & 1/2 I would pick Ford as I would have against NZ, my decision would have been to start Ford in all the AIs to give him a proper run out and give Farrell a much needed rest as he's been out of form for some time. Playing someone not match fit is nonsensical.

England need a 2nd fly half option other than Farrell, Lancaster's refusal to play another 10 has left him in the position already mentioned by others - either playing an out of form 10 or a very inexperienced one.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well they clearly don't trust Cipriani yappy so I think the bed would be the same! Do you think you're being slightly harsh on the setup after playing NZ 4 times (3 away)? They're by far the best in the world with a stack of experience.

Not harsh if we remain at the same point not actually turning a "close scoreboard defeat" into a victory.

Yes they are the best side...but the while idea is to over take them. Be the best. We havent made any grounds in 5 games....thats the dissapointing thing.

And a big win against the Boks wont simply change my mind.

Honestly I expected 4 defeats, and i'm not really bothered too much either way about NZ, as you say they're the best in the world by a long way.

What i'm more worried about is the same old problems, the lack of try scoring threat compared to the amount of time in the opposition 22. The muddled selections of players who seem undroppable even when a rest would be the best thing for them and still a real question mark over everyone from 10-14.

These next three games will be the real test, all three should be winnable, but i'll take losses if these questions are answered in some way. If we play clueless rugby for the next three games though then it'll be a problem.

I'm not bothered about beating the AB's, we could lose every game to them and still be the best around, still win the GS and RWC. I'm more bothered about our gameplan and ourteam selection going forward. I want to watch an England side that can excite and impress me, not worry me and make me wonder what if!

Burns is the guy who's been given the chance to stand in but isn't in form. I'd have started Ford as well but some have given him a hard time in starting people without experience in big games!

Fair enough Geordie, I'd just say we're not as good as NZ. We're going to lose the majority and win the odd one. It takes better players and more experience to beat them regulalrly.

I agree we don't take a lot of chances though.

no 7 & 1/2 there is a difference though between playing players not in form and those in form. Plus the match fitness issue.

At 10 Farrell is not in form. In other positions there were players in better form than inexperienced player X but inexperienced player X was picked despite not barely playing any rugby or playing particularly well.

If player X has played well in the AP for a sustained amount of games then they have put their hands up - a problem Lancaster has had was playing someone before they were ready - consequently they made two errors which allowed the opposition to score two tries which contributed to a loss of the GS in the first game of the 6 nations.

Player X was not the only reason England lost but his lack of matches in general was exposed early on.

Ultimately Lancaster had the final say and got it wrong on the day.

Ford is different - he has at least been off the bench and been around the squad for some time now. He's in better form than Farrell though that's not saying much.


Is anyone surprised that Farrell was lacklustre against NZ? No - obviously not.

An one off test vs NZ is also different to potentially winning a GS.

I agree with Bracken -Lancaster needs to look at his errors and learn from him. Sadly so far he's not really.

I suppose then for some people the actual AI's start now then.

Think it's a pretty similar situation and still not sure he got it wrong. For all we know Ashton would have made plenty more mistakes and when Nowell went off we were winning. You have to allow players a chance and not judge them too quickly or you end up going back to the same old players.

I think that SL has done a great job personally. England look to have more strength in depth than they have had for years and look a very solid side. Lost by 3 points to the raining WC and RC champions whilst missing some key players is not a bad result.

If I was an England fan, my only real concern would be Andy Farrell, he seems to be too strong a personality and influence in the England set up. Would the out of form (and petulant) Farrell jr be starting for England right now if Andy Farrell wasn't in the setup?

Oh Beshocked...you just had to get your little Nowell dig in didnt you.....

I provoked him in fairness.

yappysnap wrote:Honestly I expected 4 defeats, and i'm not really bothered too much either way about NZ, as you say they're the best in the world by a long way.

What i'm more worried about is the same old problems, the lack of try scoring threat compared to the amount of time in the opposition 22. The muddled selections of players who seem undroppable even when a rest would be the best thing for them and still a real question mark over everyone from 10-14.

These next three games will be the real test, all three should be winnable, but i'll take losses if these questions are answered in some way. If we play clueless rugby for the next three games though then it'll be a problem.

A lot of people have voiced their concerns about where this England team is going. I think yappy summarised it best for me, though not sure if I expected 4 defeats (though not overly surprised, certainly disappointed). The pack does appear to be a group of forwards capable of winning the RWC. However 10-14 does not. Even Brown at fullback is off form and is really not contributing and threatening as he did earlier this year.

Overall this England team - at this moment in time - seems poised for some glorious gritty loss in the RWC unless we get these things sorted.

Overall this England team - at this moment in time - seems poised for some glorious gritty loss in the RWC unless we get these things sorted..

Spot on...my worry is that we dont even get out of the group.

The rugby world would stop and laugh!

Secret Fly
I agree with you on media hype. I think we all agree. And no, the real fans (Irish, Welsh, English) who know rugby, also know England are not world beaters. Nothing wrong with that ambition, but we are a little way off at the moment.
And the ample resources thing ? Too right and English fans think no differently from you on that and for our part, it is frustrating for the fans. And a bit of a puzzle too. That topic often comes around again on these boards but i have never seen a convincing explanation as to why England seem to punch below the collective weight of their resources. Confused by the choices is about as close as I can get. Then some might say a better management would deal wth that... and around we go again.

.

no 7 & 1/2 that's speculation though. Two costly errors is not speculation.

You say allow players a chance (against Scotland away sure, against France in France in your 1st 6 nations match? I wouldn't). I thought it was a gamble and it did not pay off.

Lancaster makes the decisions and he got it wrong vs France. A winnable game was lost because of Lancaster primarily IMO.

Lancaster now seems to have abandoned the Nowell project - why is quite a U turn - poses the question why pick him in the first place?

Nacho Jones no he probably wouldn't.

Geordiefalcon I thought it was a poor decision in that particular match. One of a few that Lancaster made that day.

It's speculation to say that that decision cost us. We could easily have ended up worse, when he went off we were winning. Nowell would have gone to NZ if not for injury and will be back I'm sure.

Geordiefalcon I thought it was a poor decision in that particular match. One of a few that Lancaster made that day.

Yet he is the only one you focus on though? You forget senior players around him in those particular incidents, you forget other parts of the game not revolving around Nowell, you forget the good things he did in the game, and in other games in the 6n.

Nowell is very much part of the larger squad. It is up to the coaches and manager to work out who best looks the part in training.

It's not speculation - you have a pair of eyes - you can watch the footage and see the errors. I agree you can put your head in the sand but it doesn't change things.

If team X scores two tries against you - you don't think it matters?

Take out 10 points off France's score would have given England the win 24-16.

When he went off we were winning is irrelevant because we lost and the damage was done on his watch with those two tries.

It wasn't as if England fought back because Nowell scored a brace of tries......or even set them up.

You could also argue England expended a lot of energy having to fight back from that deficit which meant they ran out of steam at the end - players having cramp and being injured early on didn't help either.

You can say that circumstances were unfortunate but I still believe that this match was winnable.

Knocking on being your 1st experience of international rugby is unfortunate but also unsurprising when you take into account the inexperience of the player and the lack of gametime in general.

Take off 10 points and we win is slightly simplistic though isn't it? Nothing about Ashtons form in preceding England games would suggest that he wouldn't have made mistakes. You're speculating that if someone other than Nowell played we would have won aren't you?

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Geordiefalcon I thought it was a poor decision in that particular match. One of a few that Lancaster made that day.

Yet he is the only one you focus on though? You forget senior players around him in those particular incidents, you forget other parts of the game not revolving around Nowell, you forget the good things he did in the game, and in other games in the 6n.

I focus on it because it was a poor decision by Lancaster - youngster being thrown into the deep end and floundering early on, some posters are surprised by this! Some posters even claim the youngster didn't flounder early on despite evidence to the contrary.

The good things? I don't remember him cutting through the French defence like a knife through hot butter, scoring and setting up tries etc.

When I look at key parts of the match - the poor start by England does come pretty high on the list. England fought back but by the end of the match didn't have a sufficient lead to defend - the England players were knackered and out of position because of the effort exerted.

It was a match that England should have won and I hold Lancaster fully responsible.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Take off 10 points and we win is slightly simplistic though isn't it? Nothing about Ashtons form in preceding England games would suggest that he wouldn't have made mistakes. You're speculating that if someone other than Nowell played we would have won aren't you?

I personally believe so yes. Of course we wouldn't know for sure but I think the communication between Goode and Ashton would have been far better than Nowell and Goode.

Ashton was in good club form though so there was hope he would bring his HC form to the 6 nations.

Would we have been 10-0 down so quickly? Not in my opinion no.

I personally feel that picking Nowell was an error but you obviously disagree. Fair enough I guess.

You see the All Blacks putting on a sustained period of attacking pressure, and it's like the whole team relaxes into "right, this is what we're all about, lets go through the motions"....try.

When other teams put pressure on them, you see them get into "Jeez we have the ALL BLACKS under pressure, we MUST score"...panic panic....knock-on, whatever.

That difference isn't Lancaster's fault, it's the way players come through the English system without the confidence in their basic handling skills to be able to play naturally and not panic.

Lancaster has done a great job thus far picking us up from where we were at the end of the last WC. His success will be measured on how we perform at this WC.

I personally believe so yes. Of course we wouldn't know for sure but I think the communication between Goode and Ashton would have been far better than Nowell and Goode.

Yet you fail to criticise Goode for his part in the incident. And indeed as the senior member between those to...he should have taken control of the situation. He failed to do so.

Anyway its irrelevant as i see him moving to FB anyway and i think he could excel there.

Geordiefalcon I have criticised Goode in other posts but I am talking about Nowell, not Goode.

Goode is another selection issue you can debate about too but it's a different situation.

Just comes down to a difference of opinion on who should have been picked. You wouldn't have had Nowell for inexperience reason and his mistake contributed to a score. Others wouldn't have had launchbury as he's not as burly/strong as other locks and his mistake contributed. Others wouldn't have had Goode on the bench as he can only cover full back really he made a mistake. Etc

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.

I have a hunch that Wales may now beat either South Africa or New Zealand this autumn.

Are you on (Drugs ) or something? when was the last time Wales beat NZ? Never mind SA.

No, i do think/ believe that Wales will give both teams a good game........But actualy beating them? You are having a laugh right.

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

Can't argue with that in my mind. Anything less would mean no real change in actual results. 1 win per season against a SANZAR side is not just the same as the last couple of years, but also typical of Johnson's, Ashton's and Robinson's time in charge - and none of those 3 had the depth of talent available now, and the latter 2 also lacked the EPS agreement and all the extra training time that comes with it.

Slightly off beam, but here is the attacking midfield I would like to see at least once, injuries etc allowing, to see how they fare:

10 Cips
12 Kyle Eastmond
13 Tuilagi

supported by rugged defence from the back row as needed