England pack's ability ball in hand

Englands pack were pretty good this AI. Set pieces were very impressive, defence good etc and we even seemed to get the maul working again.

But there's one area that still concerns me and that's their ability with the ball. I just don't feel we are as affective in the pack when we have the ball either through hard yards or looking for gaps at pace.

What's your thoughts?

Is there anyone in the current team that runs on to the ball at pace? is it a tactic by the coaches?

I know it was "only" Samoa, but the passing for Mays' try in the left corner was good hands by a few forwards.

Re. nathan's comment: Barritt ran at pace to set up the move for Morgan's first try against the Aussies.

Both are areas that need work though.

Aside from Morgan, there hasn't been much impressive play.
Does this come from the tactics or is it the type of players selected.

Yes Cyril your right that was a good passage of play...but it's very few and far between.

Why don't we see more of it. Players running hard at contact or into space.

Only Barritt hits the contact actually at full pelt....why don't we see some of our pack doing that.

Ah, just realised Geordie said 'forwards' on the OP. Barritt is a bit of a hybrid though

Ben Morgan is exceptional as a link man with his handling skills being an ex Scarlet and all

Deluded, I don't think that's a coincidence. I think he did learn those skills with them...and he's the only good carrier in the pack.

Who are our best carriers though? The ones in and around the team are injured but personally I think they weaken us. M Vunipola and Youngs. You've got the up and comers, Sinckler, Slater, Ewers. All of them weaken the pack imo.

But 7.5 , the forwards ability ball in hand is a critical part of the game, and lets be honest...we're just not very good at it.

Until that improves I really don't think we will move on from getting close to the SH with the odd victory to being right up there beating them regularly.

Edit, You are correct though I wouldn't have Tom Youngs or Vunipola etc in there.

I actually think we're got a good mobile pack but if we're talking hard yards I don't think we'll improve until those players come of age or others emerge. If we're talknig of forwwards with good hands there's a few good uns we have.

Im talking either.

We lack direct grunt that makes big yards...our Alberts or Vemuelen.
And whilst I agree Lawes, Lauchbury etc do have very good hands...we rarely see it being used to put players in to space...to see our forwards making big yards.

Teams that do, use it to release pressure when they're under the cosh. The kiwis are the master of it, and whilst I don't expect us to be that good, I do want to see big improvements in this area.

The pack has been great and I don't ike to be too critical, but to make that next step up I just think this area in particular needs to be addressed

I think we would have seen very different pack efforts if Morgan had started over Billy.

All our attack through the forwards goes through 8 and in those two games for whatever reason Billy just didn't get into the swing of things. Morgan May have added a lot more momentum for the rest if the players, he def brought out the best in his back row colleagues anyway.

Otherwise as Nathan said, running in to the ball at pace and aiming at the defenders shoulder seems to have died a death, really need all the players to practice this.

For direct grunt, I think our best bets are Webber and Marler. Both looked destructive in the summer and have shown for their clubs what they can do, it's just bringing that to the senior side now.

Also don't forget Mako V, no matter what you think of his scrimmaging he is an utter beast in the loose!

Missing out his other faults, I always thought T. Youngs was good at carrying

nathan wrote:Missing out his other faults, I always thought T. Youngs was good at carrying

But the orthodox thinking is that the scrum goes to pieces when he plays and he cant throw in.

I really like him. His ruck work and ability to accelerate when he does get the ball are great. Personally I think too much is made of the scrum issue, but wouldnt mind if, between him and the jumpers, they got the calls and throwing sorted if he comes on as a replacement.

I think that's the thing. Any strong ball carrier weakens us elsewhere.

nathan wrote:Is there anyone in the current team that runs on to the ball at pace? is it a tactic by the coaches?

We do ship a lot of ball to static players. Often the only people running on to (and then beyond) the ball are the dummy runners.

That's certainly how it appears. So whats the solution?

Better coaching? Better players? Give up and accept it, leading to general apathy and despair?

GeordieFalcon wrote:That's certainly how it appears. So whats the solution?

When Quins are firing you often see Robshaw at first receiver, standing still, but immediately shipping the ball short to a man on the run. When he tries this for England he is usually tackled before he can offload.

We are looking to play a higher tempo game in attack - this therefore means thatthe first receiver from the breakdown is unlikely to be at speed unless there is a great understanding between the receivers and the half back/stand in half. So we need to look to offload more - but our support running is shocking, and the ball carriers are conservative and look for contact more than they woudl at club level. Take Robshaw and Marler - at Quins they feature in a high offloading game, in white we see them doing the stand up, one arm fend with ball tucked under other arm.

We need to work on the support runners first, if they are there and offering themselves then we have options. Otherwise we need to be a bit steadier. Take the first try against Australia - players on the ball (Youings and someone else) took a fraction longer to hold the defences and then pop the ball to Barritt and Wood coming at speed to make ground and then finally to Morgan.

LondonTiger wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:That's certainly how it appears. So whats the solution?

When Quins are firing you often see Robshaw at first receiver, standing still, but immediately shipping the ball short to a man on the run. When he tries this for England he is usually tackled before he can offload.

We are looking to play a higher tempo game in attack - this therefore means thatthe first receiver from the breakdown is unlikely to be at speed unless there is a great understanding between the receivers and the half back/stand in half. So we need to look to offload more - but our support running is shocking, and the ball carriers are conservative and look for contact more than they woudl at club level. Take Robshaw and Marler - at Quins they feature in a high offloading game, in white we see them doing the stand up, one arm fend with ball tucked under other arm.

We need to work on the support runners first, if they are there and offering themselves then we have options. Otherwise we need to be a bit steadier. Take the first try against Australia - players on the ball (Youings and someone else) took a fraction longer to hold the defences and then pop the ball to Barritt and Wood coming at speed to make ground and then finally to Morgan.

I was watching that last night. What I thought was key was that Wood and Morgan got out wide to the middle of the pitch creating that lovely size mismatch with Morgan running over the line carrying 2 or 3 Australian backs in the process

lostinwales wrote:

nathan wrote:Missing out his other faults, I always thought T. Youngs was good at carrying

But the orthodox thinking is that the scrum goes to pieces when he plays and he cant throw in.

I really like him. His ruck work and ability to accelerate when he does get the ball are great. Personally I think too much is made of the scrum issue, but wouldnt mind if, between him and the jumpers, they got the calls and throwing sorted if he comes on as a replacement.

Personally I don't think there is a scrum issue at all, he plays for the Tigers - there is no place to hide, if your not up to scratch you won't be in the team.

It's his throwing that needs work on, well his throwing into anyone other than Parling.

LondonTiger wrote:

nathan wrote:Is there anyone in the current team that runs on to the ball at pace? is it a tactic by the coaches?

We do ship a lot of ball to static players. Often the only people running on to (and then beyond) the ball are the dummy runners.

I reckon a lot of this comes from misinterpreting what effective rugby is. 

It's no secret that Lancaster sees the All Blacks are rugby's pinnacle (as he should), and he's pretty obviously trying to emulate parts of their game. A major part is the offloading game, and trying to keep the ball alive for as long as possible. New Zealand are masters of precision offloading, and in Lancaster's haste to get England playing the same way, I think he's lost the way in terms of when it should be employed, and when it shouldn't. NZ offload when they've got a gap or overlap somewhere else on the field. So often the England boys looked like they were hurrying their offloads as if the ball were a hot potato, but with little precision or planning for what was ahead. They offloaded because they felt they should, not because the situation called for it.

nathan wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

nathan wrote:Missing out his other faults, I always thought T. Youngs was good at carrying

But the orthodox thinking is that the scrum goes to pieces when he plays and he cant throw in.

I really like him. His ruck work and ability to accelerate when he does get the ball are great. Personally I think too much is made of the scrum issue, but wouldnt mind if, between him and the jumpers, they got the calls and throwing sorted if he comes on as a replacement.

Personally I don't think there is a scrum issue at all, he plays for the Tigers - there is no place to hide, if your not up to scratch you won't be in the team.

It's his throwing that needs work on, well his throwing into anyone other than Parling.

Part of the problem with Youngs throwing is that Leicester and Saints have very different approaches to the lineout. At tigers we seem to want the catcher to take the ball at full stretch. Saints tend to have a lot more back and forwards movement, but catch the ball lower.

The fact is that whilst i've raised it...the vast majority on here agree and can see it when England play.

Why then is there an apparent lack of vision from the coaches to see this. I can only assume they cant see it as there appears to be no progression in this area under the current regime.

GeordieFalcon wrote:The fact is that whilst i've raised it...the vast majority on here agree and can see it when England play.

Why then is there an apparent lack of vision from the coaches to see this. I can only assume they cant see it as there appears to be no progression in this area under the current regime.

Its not just this regime though. It is the sort of thing that has been coming up for years

Very true...so why is it not dealt with.

We have intelligent players, some of whom have good pace, or good hands etc....is it that difficult to work on?

Indeed for their clubs many DO use these skills well....

It's a step up to international level thought so you're going to have less time and fewer opportunites to demonstrate those skills. I still don't think it's a major weakness holding us back and as has been pointed out the rest is going pretty well.

I would argue it is though 7.5

We seem to have this policy of defend defend defend then look to counter attack. That's fine...but if you think you can defend for 80 mins against most top sides and not concede then your in cloud cuckoo land.

We need to go on the attack more...to pressure the opposition more and not tire ourself out by constantly tackling.

The reason Barritt and Robshaw have been putting so many tackles in is because they have too as we're not attacking.

Didn't see the stats vs NZ and SA bar possession in our favour. What were tackles like? Agains Aus we just wanted to put them in their half.

I remember being told in a completely unrelated 'sport' that defense is hard and that the best defense is a strong attack. The same guy taught that it is more important to have one or two really strong attacking techniques than having lots of variety that you cant do as well.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Very true...so why is it not dealt with.

We have intelligent players, some of whom have good pace, or good hands etc....is it that difficult to work on?

Indeed for their clubs many DO use these skills well....

I would argue that the English players have more time at club level to do these things and are playing with people they train with week in, week out. The step up to international level, where the opposition are tougher and time is shorter requires these skills to be at a higher level.

Well then if we cant lift our games to the next level...to match the SH teams...then we shouldn't be remotely thinking we can win the WC. (I don't anyway by the way)

GeordieFalcon wrote:Deluded, I don't think that's a coincidence. I think he did learn those skills with them...and he's the only good carrier in the pack.

He sure did thats why all the Wales fans were crushed when he choose his country of birth over his adoptive country.

I think some people underestimate the impact of familiarity. Knowing when someone is going to break and offload. Knowing when someone will be there to take the offload, or if they're going to clear out. It's something we're still struggling with generally. It takes a long time, especially when they play all over the place. Having the vast majority of your players from a handful of teams is a massive advantage. Of course having more teams to have players in is it's own advantage.

I would agree with that Hammer..however with regards to the pack I would have thought they would be fairly familiar with each other now. The selection tends to be very consistant.

Its the backs that never play in consecutive games....

GeordieFalcon wrote:I would agree with that Hammer..however with regards to the pack I would have thought they would be fairly familiar with each other now. The selection tends to be very consistant.

Its the backs that never play in consecutive games....

True but they still need to rely on the scrum half and fly calling the right moves, or joining in (as if you're relying on your fowards to do all the supporting you'll be in trouble). Then you have the other side of it that they've been told not to do it by the coaches. Instead they're filling other roles (not entirely sure what they are).

Would it be easier for a coach like Rowntree to teach Mako and Tom Youngs to scrum/throw then it would for the coaches to teach Marler and Hartley to carry like the aforementioned?

Mako and Youngs both went on the Lions tour in 2013 despite only having a handful of caps each and have barely got a game since, certainly missing the last two series. If they had been fit for the last year and stuck around the squad, would they be closer to the complete articles?

Both offer a carrying game that the incumbents don't, but both are definitely weaker in the set piece. Be intersting to see if they get fully fit if they can get it together.

robbo277 wrote:Would it be easier for a coach like Rowntree to teach Mako and Tom Youngs to scrum/throw then it would for the coaches to teach Marler and Hartley to carry like the aforementioned?

Mako and Youngs both went on the Lions tour in 2013 despite only having a handful of caps each and have barely got a game since, certainly missing the last two series. If they had been fit for the last year and stuck around the squad, would they be closer to the complete articles?

Both offer a carrying game that the incumbents don't, but both are definitely weaker in the set piece. Be intersting to see if they get fully fit if they can get it together.

In the case of Tom youngs, he can throw. Just not when playing for england. So he might just need time with england

I don't think it was coincidence that he didn't have too many problems with Parling in the side. I for one would be happy to have Kitchener involved more.

Youngs can throw when he starts, but when he's a sub he's not experienced enough as a hooker to come in consistently so long after his warm-up. So, for the moment he should either start, or not play. Fortunately, if all fit or on form Hartley/Webber, Youngs/Hartley, Youngs/Webber and Webber/Hartley gives us enough options.

HammerofThunor wrote:I don't think it was coincidence that he didn't have too many problems with Parling in the side. I for one would be happy to have Kitchener involved more.

He didn't have a meltdown in any single game like he has done since, but our lineout in 2012/13 was not nearly as good as made out. With Hartley/Lawes it has been nearly faultless.

I think the back 5 of the pack has too many workaholics, not enough destructive power.

I said the same on the Tom Wood thread, I think Wood/Robshaw cover the same style of play, but Robshaw does it better. Wood is pretty good at everything, outstanding at not alot, I'd go for a backrow of the following with Wood on the bench.

6. Haskell
7. Robshaw
8. Morgan

or

6.Robshaw
7.Armitage
8. Morgan

If you stick with Lawes/Launchberry in the second row you need to add someone with more dynamism in the backrow imo.

Poorfour wrote:Youngs can throw when he starts, but when he's a sub he's not experienced enough as a hooker to  come in consistently so long after his warm-up. So, for the moment he should either start, or not play.  Fortunately, if all fit or on form Hartley/Webber, Youngs/Hartley, Youngs/Webber and Webber/Hartley gives us enough options.

Youngs can't throw at Int level, he's just not good enough.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Englands pack were pretty good this AI. Set pieces were very impressive, defence good etc and we even seemed to get the maul working again.  

But there's one area that still concerns me and that's their ability with the ball. I just don't feel we are as affective in the pack when we have the ball either through hard yards or looking for gaps at pace.

What's your thoughts?  

For me I believe this is the one true advantage the AB's have over every other side. The ability the play rugby with the bal inhand at pace. Retallick didn't win his award for being the best lock in terms of what you read in the Lock 101 manual- i.e.- the ablity to secure lineout bal and push in the scrum. There are beter lineout jumpers, tougher locks in the scrum than Retallick.

He got it for his skills around the park because no one got around more, faster, more often than Retallick.

His partner Sam Whitelock- better in the lineout than Retalick isn't far behind him on those counts.

Coles when he started at hooker was largely dimssed by the International scene and now he's proving himself around the field. He was the last pair of hands before Crotty scored the try vs Ireland last year, in matches I've seen him sprint 30 meters down the wing before offloading the try enabling pass. I've seen him chip through for pick up for both himself and others.

Even our props are handy with the ball in hand, though thats one position you really can't mess with in terms of the primary role.

But for me thats's the true essence of 15 man rugby. Its not about just getting the ball past the 10. It's about all 15, playing rugby- and by that I mean passing, running, tackling, offloading..at pace, hopefully for 80 minutes. And for a side to have largely 15 doing it, theres always going to be gains on the field in terms of space and time over a side hat has 10 or 11 doing it. Its definitely why we have an advantage over the Boks and probably England, where their tight 5 focus primarily on set piece.

A lot of our credit for wins go to our backs being able to make the differerence but I believe the real secret lies in the mobility, fitness and skills of our tight 5.

Taylorman wrote:
Coles when he started at hooker was largely dimssed by the International scene and now he's proving himself around the field. He was the last pair of hands before Crotty scored the try vs Ireland last year, in matches I've seen him sprint 30 meters down the wing before offloading the try enabling pass. I've seen him chip through for pick up for both himself and others.

In the Twickenham test he also outpaced Barritt chasing a ball back. Maybe a moment that said more about our problems in the outside backs than any statistics I've seen this Autumn!

On England's hookers I think it's fair to say that Hartley, Webber and Youngs have all shown issues with their darts at some point in their careers. However I thinks it's also fair to say that all three have also shown that they can perform in that department as well whether it be for club, country or the Lions. All in all I don't feel hooker is a position of most concern for us at present.

In regards our packs carrying my biggest concern is still support play and a lack of pace in the pack. Hence why I'm still an advocate for Croft. I'm not saying I'm certain that a pacy back rower would solve our support play and finishing, IMO our biggest problem at the moment. However I think it's definitely worth looking at as currently we have noone in our pack with the ability to link with the outside backs in a way that the best like Read and Hooper do.

Taylorman hits the nail on the head. The whole 15 man rugby concept is the key, but not in the sense that every player has to be good at everything, but rather the ABs have specialists excelling at their specialist role but on top of that there is a minimum ball skill and handling level which every player has. This is often misinterpreted as meaning that the backs have to all be good backs and good at fence and breakdown skills, but for me the ABs really focus on the forwards. That Retallick and Whitelock can do a great job at first receiver tells you everything. Put Attwood, AWJ, Toner or Gray in that scenario and the outcome is very different. All good at the day job, but that little bit extra is missing,and when you multiply that across the team you have the difference between the best and the rest.

The 2003 England side was the closest the NH has come to getting the skill levels right in the pack. For all the specialist excellence, players like Johnson and Hill could also handle the ball with ease, perhaps Kay and Thompson being the weaker links in that regard but still, the current England pack has some way to go. Lawes is good however, as are Launchbury and Robshaw (who is roof that this is an area you can work on and improve as an individual).

The 2003 England side was the closest the NH has come to getting the skill levels right in the pack. For all the specialist excellence, players like Johnson and Hill could also handle the ball with ease, perhaps Kay and Thompson being the weaker links in that regard but still, the current England pack has some way to go. Lawes is good however, as are Launchbury and Robshaw (who is roof that this is an area you can work on and improve as an individual).

But what he lacked in handling he made up for as a primary big hard fast carrier.

Yea that's something Hartley and Marler have both been real let downs with. I had high hopes for some really agressive carrying from both of them over the last season but neither have contributed there. I think it might be gameplan though, they're needed for defense, ruck work and running dummies more then carrying 1 out.

Edit: and we never take the ball at a run which would make a huuuge difference