"Everybody Shut The F*%^ Up!' Brian Moore Adds Some Calm

by yappysnap Mon 17 Nov 2014, 9:59 pm

Before the remainder of the England Internationals...

Perspective is needed in light of England defeats, not plain criticism of head coach Stuart Lancaster

Perspective is needed in wake of recent defeats, but England cannot overlook sub-standard performances

“If you can hold your head while all around you are losing theirs, you obviously haven’t got a clue what’s going on.” This is how some writers interpreted the words of Stuart Lancaster, the England coach, after his side’s 28-31 defeat against South Africa on Saturday when he said: “I believe in the coaches, I believe in the players and I believe in what we’re doing.”
However, what is needed is a sensible view of what has happened in the five successive defeats endured by England; one without any agenda.
It is noticeable that the strongest advocates of Sir Clive Woodward and then Nick Mallet for the England helm have been the quickest to condemn. It is easy for pundits and writers to say daft things; they are not held to account.
How else could some make open calls for Lancaster to panic after the defeat against South Africa at Twickenham last Saturday?
I have never seen any management guru recommend panic as a useful management tool, added to which, what will his squad think if at the first sign of serious pressure Lancaster completely changes direction?

So, let us have a little perspective and realism. England have lost five matches in succession; four against New Zealand and one against South Africa.
In the past six games against the All Blacks the Springboks have lost five and won one; Australia have lost five and drawn one; England have lost five and won one. The other four major northern hemisphere teams have lost all six. Were there calls in those six countries to panic? No, because it is a dull suggestion.

Having rebalanced the hysteria over the recent England losses it is right to say that the last two were close on the scoreboard but not in terms of the respective teams’ performances. England have been well short of both the Blacks and the Boks and apart from their set-piece they have made no progress from the tour to New Zealand last summer. The centre conundrum, which by the way has existed since 2003, remains, as does an unsettled back three.
Additionally, England’s back row was nowhere near as effective as it should have been when playing behind a front five that has been at least equal to, if not on top of, their counterparts. Nobody in the back row has been on top form, for all their undoubted efforts and courage.
Both half-backs have been below previous form and again behind a pack that has not been on the back foot for the majority of the two games. The lack of direction and creativity has been badly affected by lack of form in the two pivotal units in the team and though Lancaster will want to maintain some continuity he cannot overlook sub standard performance.

The match against Samoa gives the England head coach the chance to play Ben Youngs and George Ford and to start Ben Morgan and James Haskell, without seriously prejudicing their chances of winning the game.
Nobody needs to feel sorry for Lancaster, the England head coach is well paid to take the responsibility, but you have to at least acknowledge that he has not been able to play his intended centre partnership for the autumn series of Manu Tuilagi and Luther Burrell.
Of the latter there seems no point in not having him in the match-day squad for Samoa given he is fit to play for his club this coming Friday. Indeed, a partnership of Burrell and Brad Barritt is the closest incarnation of the intended partnership presently available.
If that looks strong on bulk and short of speed, you have to name the two alternatives who will be more effective and the fact is that nobody can name another pair who are guaranteed to be so.

Previous advocates of ignoring results in favour experimentation and the selection of youth are now, perversely, insisting that winning is the only thing that now matters. If that is so they have to accept, if they are honest, that winning is less likely while playing various combinations of uncapped/newly capped players on the off chance that they will come good.
The reality is that England’s momentum has stalled and it badly needs restoring but the alternatives open to Lancaster are not plentiful without his whole squad being available.

In deciding what to do about it he is not helped by warnings that ‘he has had a wake-up call’ or advice like ‘he needs to circle the waggons’. He will not be helped by wholesale revision of his team when the substitutes are not demonstrably better than those they replace.
The changes outlined above are probably as far as Lancaster can go and if the players are of the quality he believes the message sent out by making them should provoke the required response. If it does not, Lancaster needs a major rethink but not one led by panic.

by **LondonTiger** Mon 17 Nov 2014, 10:07 pm

It is about time I trot out all the people to have started in the centre since will Greenwood retired again:

MJ Tindall 33
JD Noon 25
EM Tuilagi 22
BM Barritt 17
MJM Tait 15
RJ Flutey 14
SE Hape 13
WWF Twelvetrees 12
MJ Catt 9
TGAL Flood 9
DJ Hipkiss 7
LD Burrell 6
AD Farrell 6
KO Eastmond 5
JBA Joseph 4
OJ Barkley 3
JA Tomkins 3
AO Allen 2
MA Banahan 2
OA Farrell 2
SJJ Geraghty 2
TA May 2
SRD Abbott 1
AO Erinle 1
JD Simpson-Daniel 1

by SecretFly Mon 17 Nov 2014, 10:16 pm

Almost as many as the number of coaches! Wink

Okay, okay...only joking!

That is a lot of centres. BUT, it is the demands of succumbing to critical pressure that have created the list. Critics want the current coach to keep succumbing to that pressure.

by yappysnap Mon 17 Nov 2014, 10:19 pm

25 different players, bonkers.

I assume teams like Ireland, SA and NZ have maybe had 5 or 6, likewise Wales. Scotland have probably gone through a lot more as have Oz.

by Barney McGrew did it Mon 17 Nov 2014, 10:59 pm

Perfectly sums up England's problems in the backs - too much depth, too little strength. Personally I do not want to see any more new caps before the RWC. Pick 2 current players for each position (altho not at the same time Cool

) and stick with them.

by The Saint Mon 17 Nov 2014, 11:08 pm

yappysnap wrote:25 different players, bonkers.

I assume teams like Ireland, SA and NZ have maybe had 5 or 6, likewise Wales. Scotland have probably gone through a lot more as have Oz.

When did Greenwood retire? We've had a fair few, I think a few more than 5 or 6! I believe most of the centre's on England's list there were the form premiership players at the time, hence they got picked, and a few times injury to players had a part in the selection. There's a lot of good, club standard players in England and many of them are not long-term international players.

by hawalsh Mon 17 Nov 2014, 11:47 pm

I just did a search for NZ's starting centres in the last 10 years on ESPN's statsguru and it showed 20 players, with more who came on as subs

MA Nonu
CG Smith
AJD Mauger
S Williams
CL McAlister
I Toeava
JF Umaga
BR Smith
RS Crotty
JM Muliaina
M Fekitoa
RD Kahui
TE Ellison
SR Donald
BJW Stanley
S Tuitupou
CDE Laulala
F Saili
DW Carter
RMN Ranger

Same query for SA produced 20 players, for Australia 22 & France 23

by DaveM Tue 18 Nov 2014, 12:04 am

yappysnap wrote:25 different players, bonkers.

I assume teams like Ireland, SA and NZ have maybe had 5 or 6, likewise Wales. Scotland have probably gone through a lot more as have Oz.

England have only used a few more players/combinations than most other sides over the same period.

Change isn't the problem, it's lack of quality.

by maestegmafia Tue 18 Nov 2014, 12:11 am

Greenwood retired back in 2005?

I imagine Wales would have used more players since then, we had so many injuries at centre over the last few years. We were calling up fifth or sixth choices at one point.

by nth Tue 18 Nov 2014, 12:20 am

Posters not willing to paint as negative a picture as possible for England should shut the f*%^ up or get out! Even-handedness, reality and calm will not be tolerated!

by Big Tue 18 Nov 2014, 12:31 am

Because I'm clearly a complete idiot, I actually checked the New Zealand stats... The list (going from start of 2005 after Greenwood's last cap, and this is just the starters, I haven't included appearances from the bench) is as follows:

Conrad Smith 77
Ma'a Nonu 77
Aaron Mauger 21
Luke McAlister 14
Sonny Bill Williams 12
Tana Umaga 11
Isaia Toeava 11
Mils Muliaina 8
Ben Smith 7
Richard Kahui 6
Malakai Fekitoa 6
Benson Stanley 3
Ryan Crotty 3
Sam Tuitupou 2
Tamati Elison 2
Francis Saili 2
Dan Carter 1
Casey Laulala 1
Stephen Donald 1
Cory Jane 1

So not many fewer players than England.

As I now have a spreadsheet with who has played flagged by game I would make the following bland and mostly pointless observations.

1. In 2006 and 2007 NZ managed only two games back to back with the same centre partnership. Really. And were still much better going forward than England are now. So clearly a consistent centre partnership, while beneficial, is not the be all and end all.

2. They've tried loads of centres since then but, for the most part, Smith and Nonu have utterly dominated (granted no real surprise there in principle). Smith and Nonu must be made of tough stuff, because they don't seem to have had any long term absences in what is now nearly an 8 year period. Whether NZ look after their players better, or they've just been a bit lucky with the centres - who knows?

3. At the start of the 2011 world cup Smith and Nonu had 43 caps each. We clearly can't match that for 2015, but actually if the current crop makes the grade there's no reason we can't have a lot more come 2019 - which I always felt was a more realistic target anyway.

4. Our players are unlikely to get as many caps in general because NZ play so many matches. 14 per season seems standard for them now, compared to our 10 to 12. They probably get an extra 10 matches per world cup cycle, and without wanting to state the obvious an extra 150 odd caps of experience isn't going to be doing them any harm.

by FecklessRogue Tue 18 Nov 2014, 12:36 am

Some sense from Moore. Yes their momentum has stalled. But every teams momentum would be stalled by playing New Zealand 4 times followed by South Africa.

Farrell simply has to be dropped. I'm not sure of the quality of the potential replacements, but someone else should be given a run of games between now and the RWC. There is no creativity in midfield. If only there was; the back three are pretty good. If I was English I'd be praying for a fit and in form Tuilagi to come back into the center. Not the most creative but he'd worry any defence.

by FecklessRogue Tue 18 Nov 2014, 12:37 am

Big wrote:Smith and Nonu must be made of tough stuff, because they don't seem to have had any long term absences in what is now nearly an 8 year period. Whether NZ look after their players better, or they've just been a bit lucky with the centres - who knows?

Maybe the PRL should try and make New Zealand overplay their players more. That lack of injuries is deeply unfair.

Sorry.

by king_carlos Tue 18 Nov 2014, 12:55 am

Quite rightly said from Brian!

My main quarrel is still with playing players out of position. For all his qualities, and I actually think he's played well in the last two games, Barritt isn't an outside centre. He just hasn't got the pace required to offer a threat on the outside and in those channels will be exploited defensively as well.

1.Marler
2.Webber
3.Wilson
4.Attwood
5.Lawes
6.Haskell
7.Robshaw
8.Morgan

9.Youngs or Care - Care has been poor but has credit in the bank
10.Ford - Farrell has been poorer than Care, plus Ford is playing better than Youngs

11.May
12.Eastmond - Give him a chance with an attacking threat at 13
13.Burrell
14.Watson or Rokoduguni - Would happily see either start, other on the bench
15.Brown

Would like to see that against Samoa. Dropping Barritt is harsh but I'd like to see Eastmond given another chance with Burrell or Tuilagi.

by hugo124 Tue 18 Nov 2014, 1:33 am

I'm not quite sure why England are so surprised they've lost to New Zealand and South Africa. It seems almost delusional to think that the whole of England go into dissoray as soon as they lose to teams better than them.
All the hype surrounding this England team seems to be highly unmerited considering the complete lack of world class players they possess.
If you look at Ireland you have Sexton, Healy, O'Brien, Kearney, O'Connell, Bowe, Heaslip, Murray.
Even if you look at Wales you have North and Jones....... (take your pick on which one)
England have a group of players who are good and play as a team with good continuity, but against the top teams, you need top players!

by BigTrevsbigmac Tue 18 Nov 2014, 3:56 am

Perspective is important & it wasn't long ago when England were beating Wales & Ireland this year that Mike Brown was in imperious form which if continued would have put him in contention for World Player of the Year.
He was certainly head & shoulders above anyone else in the 6Ns.

by **George Carlin** Tue 18 Nov 2014, 6:03 am

yappysnap wrote:25 different players, bonkers.

I assume teams like Ireland, SA and NZ have maybe had 5 or 6, likewise Wales. Scotland have probably gone through a lot more as have Oz.

Well, in Scotland's case, we have the cast iron excuse of our midfield 'talent' over that period being absolutely rubbish - demonstrably the worst I have ever seen in more than 3 decades of watching Scotland. Only now in Matt Scott, Alex Dunbar and Mark Bennett do we have three test class centres competing for 2 places.

More common sense from Moore and as eloquently written as ever. The problem does of course seem to be that apart from Tualagi, there are simply no standout candidates for a midfield role. The various people on offer are slightly different from each other, with different styles and different weaknesses. If I was Lancaster, I would just stick with this group until the 6 Nations, when hopefully fewer than 20 first choice England players will be injured.

by aucklandlaurie Tue 18 Nov 2014, 7:07 am

Big wrote:Because I'm clearly a complete idiot, I actually checked the New Zealand stats... The list (going from start of 2005 after Greenwood's last cap, and this is just the starters, I haven't included appearances from the bench) is as follows:

Conrad Smith 77
Ma'a Nonu 77
Aaron Mauger 21
Luke McAlister 14
Sonny Bill Williams 12
Tana Umaga 11
Isaia Toeava 11
Mils Muliaina 8
Ben Smith 7
Richard Kahui 6
Malakai Fekitoa 6
Benson Stanley 3
Ryan Crotty 3
Sam Tuitupou 2
Tamati Elison 2
Francis Saili 2
Dan Carter 1
Casey Laulala 1
Stephen Donald 1
Cory Jane 1

So not many fewer players than England.

As I now have a spreadsheet with who has played flagged by game I would make the following bland and mostly pointless observations.

1. In 2006 and 2007 NZ managed only two games back to back with the same centre partnership. Really. And were still much better going forward than England are now. So clearly a consistent centre partnership, while beneficial, is not the be all and end all.

2. They've tried loads of centres since then but, for the most part, Smith and Nonu have utterly dominated (granted no real surprise there in principle). Smith and Nonu must be made of tough stuff, because they don't seem to have had any long term absences in what is now nearly an 8 year period. Whether NZ look after their players better, or they've just been a bit lucky with the centres - who knows?

3. At the start of the 2011 world cup Smith and Nonu had 43 caps each. We clearly can't match that for 2015, but actually if the current crop makes the grade there's no reason we can't have a lot more come 2019 - which I always felt was a more realistic target anyway.

4. Our players are unlikely to get as many caps in general because NZ play so many matches. 14 per season seems standard for them now, compared to our 10 to 12. They probably get an extra 10 matches per world cup cycle, and without wanting to state the obvious an extra 150 odd caps of experience isn't going to be doing them any harm.

A quick run down of those figures implies that New Zealand has played 266 tests since 2005, I wouldnt have thought it was that many. I cant remember Dan Carter starting a test at centre only at first five eighth and second five eighth.

by Big Tue 18 Nov 2014, 7:22 am

aucklandlaurie wrote:
A quick run down of those figures implies that New Zealand has played 266 tests since 2005, I wouldnt have thought it was that many. I cant remember Dan Carter starting a test at centre only at first five eighth and second five eighth.

I think you are you forgetting you are on a predominantly UK board! 2nd 5/8 = inside centre, and centre = outside centre in UK parlance. Hence I have 266 starters for the actual 133 tests.

by yappysnap Tue 18 Nov 2014, 7:40 am

Big wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
A quick run down of those figures implies that New Zealand has played 266 tests since 2005, I wouldnt have thought it was that many. I cant remember Dan Carter starting a test at centre only at first five eighth and second five eighth.

I think you are you forgetting you are on a predominantly UK board! 2nd 5/8 = inside centre, and centre = outside centre in UK parlance. Hence I have 266 starters for the actual 133 tests.

I can only assume with the crazy difference in numbers of caps that a lot of those players were shuffled into centre at times to either cover mid-game injury or for a new 10/wing to come on. I mean how can Smith and Nonu both get 70+caps and you still have 18 other centre's?

by offload Tue 18 Nov 2014, 8:04 am

In the two years leading up to England winning the WC, they were clearly the best team in the world. Beating SA, NZ and Aus on consecutive weekends in 2002 was exceptional.

Today England are nowhere near the same team and yet they have lost narrowly to both NZ and SA with several key players missing. I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Wanting to beat the best in the world is great but "expecting" to and then beating yourself up when you don't. What's that about? With a team lacking many real stars and a conservative coach at the helm - I'd say England are doing as well as they should expect. The test will come in the 6N's when if (big if) they can beat France, Ireland and Wales they'll go to the WC confident of getting to the knockout stages when anything can happen.

by **LondonTiger** Tue 18 Nov 2014, 9:00 am

The issue with the centres for england is not so much the number (and the list doubles when you add replacements) but the fact that so many have 10+ caps but no-one has more than Tindall who appeared in less than 1/3rd of matches.

The continual tinkering without ever settling on a combination is now also being repeated on the wing. In part this is down to selectorial dithering, but also it is due to (as someone said) the broad depth of so-so players. This (again as someone else said) leads to media and fans clamouring for the latest form playerto be installed and hailing them as potential greats.

We need some balance. We are not as good as we hoped pre - autumn internationals. nor are we as bad.

by lostinwales Tue 18 Nov 2014, 9:07 am

LondonTiger wrote:The issue with the centres for england is not so much the number (and the list doubles when you add replacements) but the fact that so many have 10+ caps but no-one has more than Tindall who appeared in less than 1/3rd of matches.

The continual tinkering without ever settling on a combination is now also being repeated on the wing. In part this is down to selectorial dithering, but also it is due to (as someone said) the broad depth of so-so players. This (again as someone else said) leads to media and fans clamouring for the latest form playerto be installed and hailing them as potential greats.

We need some balance. We are not as good as we hoped pre - autumn internationals. nor are we as bad.

Its also down to the age of the talent coming through. We did seem to miss a whole generation at some point.

We do have talent coming through but determining at what stage players are ready to move up to international level when they have barely started their club careers is an inexact science.

And then there is the injury curse. One of the big reasons why Farrell has done so well as that for most* of his international career he has been (a) very robust and not got injured. (b) shown small signs of continuous improvement

*Those days seem to have gone Crying or Very sad

by nganboy Tue 18 Nov 2014, 9:26 am

I've been watching rugby for about 35 years. In all that time bar a couple of years early this century England have had a good rugby team that would threaten to beat us but usually wouldn't. So to me the current situation is about normal. For those who have come to rugby a little more recently eg this century, they may expect England to beat NZ a bit more often.

Now I'm not saying England should be happy with the situation merely that that is what should be expected unless something has fundamentally changed in either country's rugby structures. Which it appears hasn't happened so far.

I think an example for what I mean might be Ireland. From what I can glean from this website, Ireland has made some structural changes to how rugby is run. This appears to have gradually lead to an overall improvement in its game.

So what I'm suggesting is that unless England does something deep and meaningful or NZ does something deeply stupid that we can expect England to beat NZ about one out of five games games in England and one out of seven in NZ.

by Big Tue 18 Nov 2014, 9:35 am

nganboy wrote:
Now I'm not saying England should be happy with the situation merely that that is what should be expected unless something has fundamentally changed in either country's rugby structures. Which it appears hasn't happened so far.

The problem is that changes have occurred, the academy system has been developed to bring through young talent - and going by the premiership it is working. Where before we had 1 or 2 teams challenging at any given time now we have half a dozen, and no shortage of talented young players available to pick/develop. That is a luxury not available to any of his predecessors.

In addition the EPS agreement means that Lancaster has more training time with, and control outside training windows of the players - a level of player access that none of his predecessors (bar Johnson) had. So, as an England fan I'd expect to see some improvement - especially as Lancaster's squad should be getting that bit older and more experienced. Instead results and more importantly performances have gone nowhere. In fact I'd argue that performances in this year's summer and autumn tests are worse than last year. That is what rankles rather than the result.

by SecretFly Tue 18 Nov 2014, 9:41 am

nganboy wrote:

I think an example for what I mean might be Ireland. From what I can glean from this website, Ireland has made some structural changes to how rugby is run. This appears to have gradually lead to an overall improvement in its game.

Well spotted. Yes, we have made a fundamental change to our structures.

We've let rough commoners in, damn them!!!

I prefer the time when rugby in Ireland was strictly marble-mouthed toffs from ye big Dublin/Ulster private schools. Them were the days of splendour. Now turnip producing farmer boys from the West get their dirty hands on our rugby balls and actually try to impose the idea that playing rugby is preferable to cucumbered sandwich high tea after the rugby gets played. The uneducated idiots.

by Mr Fishpaste Tue 18 Nov 2014, 9:44 am

Before anyone calls for Lancaster's head, surely they also have to look at what he has to work with! Has he got bucket loads of talented players just waiting for a place in the squad? It's not as if he is deliberately leaving out great players is he? Woodward was a good coach, but he also had Wilkinson, Johnson, Robinson - truly world class players who probably would have walked into any World XV at the time. Now was that as a result of Woodward's coaching, or was it just his good fortune? Are there any such players currently in circulation in England?

by SecretFly Tue 18 Nov 2014, 9:51 am

.....................................................................................

I'm going to be very bold here.....................................

English fans ain't gonna like me...................................

New Zealand fans ain't gonna like me.........................

............................................................a New Zealand coach might change Everything

....................................................................................

that would make everyone unhappy...........................

England fans would be unhappy that they had to resort to a New Zealand coach to win, win and win.

New Zealand fans would be after me for humourously suggesting it one fine day back in Autumn of 2014.

I'll get my coat now...................... Run

by whocares Tue 18 Nov 2014, 9:58 am

George Carlin wrote:
yappysnap wrote:25 different players, bonkers.

I assume teams like Ireland, SA and NZ have maybe had 5 or 6, likewise Wales. Scotland have probably gone through a lot more as have Oz.
Well, in Scotland's case, we have the cast iron excuse of our midfield 'talent' over that period being absolutely rubbish - demonstrably the worst I have ever seen in more than 3 decades of watching Scotland. Only now in Matt Scott, Alex Dunbar and Mark Bennett do we have three test class centres competing for 2 places.

More common sense from Moore and as eloquently written as ever. The problem does of course seem to be that apart from Tualagi, there are simply no standout candidates for a midfield role. The various people on offer are slightly different from each other, with different styles and different weaknesses. If I was Lancaster, I would just stick with this group until the 6 Nations, when hopefully fewer than 20 first choice England players will be injured.

France had relatively unknown and/or average centres gettings 1-2 caps in the last 10 years (Barrau, Grandclaude, Bousses, Mazars, th. lacroix, estebanez, david) as well. I reckon the likes of Nick de Luca or joe ansbro aint worst than this lot. even david marty had 37 caps in that time frame! a bit like scotland only now we have quality in depth and can afford not to select someone like mermoz.

by LordDowlais Tue 18 Nov 2014, 9:58 am

From what I have noticed, since England beat the All Blacks last year, is that the English media, and most of the English fans, not all, but most, have delusions of grandeur, never before have I seen a group of players being so bigged up, I have listened to people on here and face to face thinking they are going into the AI and they are going to win all the games, what you need to realise is, that you are playing the top three sides in the world, what makes you so confident in beating them ? The next thing is the world cup, I have listened to people saying that England are going to top their group and then get to the final, FFS, lets see how the Six Nations goes first, when I look at the England team, man for man I would not swap any of them for any of their Welsh counterparts, except for Corbisiero, what I would take though, without a shadow of a doubt over what we have, is your coaches, I think Lancaster and his staff are working wonders with what they have at their disposal, and I would have them over Gatland straight away.

by Geordie Tue 18 Nov 2014, 9:59 am

So effectively he's pointed out what everyone else has said...

Farrell must be dropped
The back row balance is not working.

by Breadvan Tue 18 Nov 2014, 10:01 am

I like you SF...

Eng DO need a NZ coach, Wayne Smiths the name. SL better get out there awooing again. This time with more $$ or some chloruform.

by Toohey Tue 18 Nov 2014, 10:13 am

Just nicked this off of someone’s comment on the Telegraph website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sport/rugby_union/six_nations/618477.stm

Not saying Lancaster will go the same was as Woodward at all but there situation is remarkably similar at this point in their tenure! Oh how fickle the media can be...

by SecretFly Tue 18 Nov 2014, 10:24 am

It's just going way overboard, when all the fun of threads like this are put to one side.

OTT reactions from the media............ and the sad thing for Lancaster is that those reactions will now grow and grow and grow all the way to the WC. Media need stories, and English sport always provides the ammo.

The media will pick through any negativity/weakness they find, even if England start winning again - as they undoubtedly will into the new year. It'll never be enough because Contentment is something the English/British media knows doesn't sell a lot of papers.

In the build up to the Olympics what did we have? "It shouldn't be allowed!!!" "It's too expensive", "It's going to be a disaster that haunts us for decades", "It's too much light hearted happiness coming to a country that needs a serious look at serious social issues" etc etc
That was the media story and yet normal people secretly knew they were going to have a bloomin' blasted ball when it started Wink

But the pressure on Lancaster will only grow. Nothing will be enough now. There'll have to be big dramas leading into the WC. Players feeling angry at being left out, ex-coaches saying the system is all wrong, the usual Joy-killers saying the WC itself is too much pretend happiness in a country that needs a serious look at ser.........................

Shut the hell up you! - you had your say last time! Wink

by dummy_half Tue 18 Nov 2014, 10:34 am

LD

I don't think most England fans had delusions that we would beat the ABs this match, but main hoped that we might. Unfortunately, a combination of some players being injured (Corbs, Cole, Launchbury and Tuillagi would be defininte starters every time for me) and some not exhibiting the form they showed last season (back row, halfbacks and Brown) has made performances poorer than we expected.

Moore is right to say that while the scores in both AIs has been close, these have slightly flattered England and we haven't really looked like winning either match. It's nt a crisis but it is clearly a disappointment.

The Samoa match is now something of a conundrum for Lancaster - it is a game we should win with a good performance, and he has to balance the requirements for giving squad players an opportunity and rebuilding the confidence of a few of the regulars before the Aus game (clearly now an absolute MUST WIN!!!!!).

My temptation would be:
Same Props with Webebr at hooker
Lawes and Attwood
Haskell - Morgan - Robshaw back row

Care (just...)
Ford
May
Eastmond
Burrell
Watson
Brown

Wouldn't though be surprised to see Ben Youngs and Foden given a chance.

by lostinwales Tue 18 Nov 2014, 10:40 am

dummy_half wrote:LD

I don't think most England fans had delusions that we would beat the ABs this match, but main hoped that we might. Unfortunately, a combination of some players being injured (Corbs, Cole, Launchbury and Tuillagi would be defininte starters every time for me) and some not exhibiting the form they showed last season (back row, halfbacks and Brown) has made performances poorer than we expected.

Moore is right to say that while the scores in both AIs has been close, these have slightly flattered England and we haven't really looked like winning either match. It's nt a crisis but it is clearly a disappointment.

The Samoa match is now something of a conundrum for Lancaster - it is a game we should win with a good performance, and he has to balance the requirements for giving squad players an opportunity and rebuilding the confidence of a few of the regulars before the Aus game (clearly now an absolute MUST WIN!!!!!).

My temptation would be:
Same Props with Webebr at hooker
Lawes and Attwood
Haskell - Morgan - Robshaw back row

Care (just...)
Ford
May
Eastmond
Burrell
Watson
Brown

Wouldn't though be surprised to see Ben Youngs and Foden given a chance.

Foden isnt in the squad this week. Eastmond is touch and go with the concussion protocol, 36 may have a damaged ankle. Its why people are starting to talk about a 10-12 of Ford and Farrell Shocked

by fa0019 Tue 18 Nov 2014, 10:48 am

England hired an inexperienced coach. He has no top flight experience and had close relationships with many of the players being the U20s coach. Is it any wonder he struggles to make the necessary changes/calls?

He is learning on the job.

Its similar to SCW in 1999. The only difference is, you cannot be sure it will work, you can have faith and you have to be patient but there are no guarantees.

Maybe Lancaster sees Farrell as his JW circa 1999. I would personally beg to differ, back in the day JW was a rather spritely chap with excellent distribution scoring what 5 tries in his first few seasons.

You can teach a player to become a competent goal kicker... see rob Andrew pre 94 and post 94 for details. See bergamasco junior.

You can bulk players up, you can improve their tackling technique, their rucking technique.

But you can't teach natural ability, you can't teach time on your hands and spatial awareness. You simply can't. Players either have it, or they don't. When Farrell is 34 and the elder statesmen people will be talking the same things about him as they do now. Great with a big pack and a 2nd receiver...on his own, a liability with no attacking vision.

I find it interesting that players say, oh but he is defensively strong and Ford is not a big guy... well he is bigger than Eastmond, clearly bigger both height and weight wise and I'd say size is more important at 12 than 10. Surely if Ford is out due to his size than Eastmond should never be considered.

Dan Carter 5'10
JW 5'10
Pat Lambie 5'10
George Ford 5'9

Is that 1 inch really that big a difference?

by LordDowlais Tue 18 Nov 2014, 10:49 am

dummy_half wrote:LD

I don't think most England fans had delusions that we would beat the ABs this match, but main hoped that we might. Unfortunately, a combination of some players being injured (Corbs, Cole, Launchbury and Tuillagi would be defininte starters every time for me) and some not exhibiting the form they showed last season (back row, halfbacks and Brown) has made performances poorer than we expected.

Moore is right to say that while the scores in both AIs has been close, these have slightly flattered England and we haven't really looked like winning either match. It's nt a crisis but it is clearly a disappointment.

The Samoa match is now something of a conundrum for Lancaster - it is a game we should win with a good performance, and he has to balance the requirements for giving squad players an opportunity and rebuilding the confidence of a few of the regulars before the Aus game (clearly now an absolute MUST WIN!!!!!).

My temptation would be:
Same Props with Webebr at hooker
Lawes and Attwood
Haskell - Morgan - Robshaw back row

Care (just...)
Ford
May
Eastmond
Burrell
Watson
Brown

Wouldn't though be surprised to see Ben Youngs and Foden given a chance.

And in a nutshell you have just confirmed my trail of thought, that team you named there, is no better man for man than Wales or Ireland, infact I would say that man for man they are weaker, but Lancaster has worked well with what he has had at his disposal, I am not expecting Wales to win on Saturday, a good performance and giving the best team in the world an almighty scare would be enough for me, but the noises comming from England when they played the All Blacks was another win, Lancaster is the best coach you have had in two decades, I am not counting Sir Clive in that because he was lucky to be in charge when England had the best forwards the world is likely to ever see, if Stuart Lancaster is given the boot then it will be an almight "OWN TRY" for England.

by LordDowlais Tue 18 Nov 2014, 10:52 am

Is that 1 inch really that big a difference?. wrote:

Ask your missus. laughing

by fa0019 Tue 18 Nov 2014, 11:00 am

LordDowlais wrote:

Ask your missus.

She'd probably say.... plural my dear, plural.

by fa0019 Tue 18 Nov 2014, 11:04 am

Do people actually think no one could do better than Lancaster??? I find that very surprising.

Not saying he doesn't have potential but he is no Nick Mallett, no Jake White, no Wayne Smith... at least not yet and he won't be for a number of years.

Had any of those guys been involved I don't doubt for a second that England would be vying with NZ right now to be the top team in the world.

by SecretFly Tue 18 Nov 2014, 11:15 am

Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not the Two Eternity Twins!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mallet and White.

I'm certain those two lads will be mentioned in passing as possibles when Mexico are looking for a replacement coach to take over from their twice WC winning guy in 2078.

by Welly Tue 18 Nov 2014, 11:18 am

Lancaster has been at the job for 3 years if he can't handle the pressure now how will he cope for the RWC.

IMO the Aus game is the most important game now a good result and the pressure will come back down for the 6N,'s a poor result and How will he handle the 6N's.

Moore may say calm down, but Lancaster has had a easy ride before this and should have taken more advantage of it imo. e.g. Give so actual 6's, 7's, 10's and wingers a go.

by lostinwales Tue 18 Nov 2014, 11:19 am

This is going round in circles. Pick a different coach and short term results may have improved, but not necessarily by much. But we are likely to be left with very similar problems over personel.

Because of Lancaster's links with the U20's he is absolutely the best placed guy to bring through new players, and he has. A couple of years down the line we should be in a great position, with a lot of young pros with a decent amount of experience, plus the best of the winning teams of the last 2 U20 WC's coming through.

I wrote something like this a while ago

by lostinwales Tue 18 Nov 2014, 11:23 am

Welly wrote:Lancaster has been at the job for 3 years if he can't handle the pressure now how will he cope for the RWC.

IMO the Aus game is the most important game now a good result and the pressure will come back down for the 6N,'s a poor result and How will he handle the 6N's.

Moore may say calm down, but Lancaster has had a easy ride before this and should have taken more advantage of it imo. e.g. Give so actual 6's, 7's, 10's and wingers a go.

An easy ride leading to a lynch mob because of 3 losses on a tour of New Zealand, of all places.

by Geordie Tue 18 Nov 2014, 11:24 am

Moore may say calm down, but Lancaster has had a easy ride before this and should have taken more advantage of it imo. e.g. Give so actual 6's, 7's, 10's and wingers a go..

Im not woried about the wingers Welly...May and Watson or Roko or whoever are good.

I do however genuinely believe that simply fixing 6, 7 (8 as Billy V looks shot Morgan on) and 10 will make a considerable difference.

by **LondonTiger** Tue 18 Nov 2014, 11:27 am

fa0019 wrote:Do people actually think no one could do better than Lancaster??? I find that very surprising.

Not saying he doesn't have potential but he is no Nick Mallett, no Jake White, no Wayne Smith... at least not yet and he won't be for a number of years.

Had any of those guys been involved I don't doubt for a second that England would be vying with NZ right now to be the top team in the world.

All three have been offered jobs. I want Mallett no where near the England team, White - maybe but not really. Both want the top job - personally I prefer that to lie with someone who is a lot more cognisant of English rugby.

Would love Wayne Smith to take the attack coach job he was offered - but if he does not wish to come that is up to him.

by Welly Tue 18 Nov 2014, 11:27 am

lostinwales wrote:
Welly wrote:Lancaster has been at the job for 3 years if he can't handle the pressure now how will he cope for the RWC.

IMO the Aus game is the most important game now a good result and the pressure will come back down for the 6N,'s a poor result and How will he handle the 6N's.

Moore may say calm down, but Lancaster has had a easy ride before this and should have taken more advantage of it imo. e.g. Give so actual 6's, 7's, 10's and wingers a go.

An easy ride leading to a lynch mob because of 3 losses on a tour of New Zealand, of all places.

It's the manor of the defeats.

All the scoreboards have been flattering because of the late trys.

The first test @ NZ people weren't at all upset about the loss because England looked to play.

GF May has certainly turned a corner and hopefully Roko will carry his club form over to international it is just getting him the ball now.

by Barney McGrew did it Tue 18 Nov 2014, 11:40 am

So to clarify:

1. England aren't as bad as some say just because we lose to the top 2 sides.
2. England aren't as good as a few say in that we can't justify being favourites for the RWC'15, but at least we're better than Wales.
3. We must not pick any new names to the team prior to RWC'15 - the selections must come from the current pool with tweaks for injury (or very occasionally form) and oppo only.
4. Stewie can no longer be called Mr Conservative as he's tried out more changes in personnel than Eastenders.
5. Matfield should have been penalized long before Hartley's foot was assaulted by the lock's thigh - but a YC was justified for rank stupidity.
6. We're definitely better than Wales.

Sorted.

by Welly Tue 18 Nov 2014, 11:45 am

Interestingly if we lose to Australia next weekend.

We will go into the pool with only positive win/loss ratios against Fiji.

Australia will be Won 1 lost 2 (2 of which would be at Twickenham), wales would be won 1 lost 2 (winning 1 and losing 1 at Twickenham).

by Sponsored content