Review/Discussion of the state of the England team

First topic message reminder :

Just a quick review/discussion on the status of the England team.  Not necessarily a complete analysis but I sure others will fill in the missing gaps and provide their own views.

England were very disappointing and stalled during the Autumn Internationals. Without a dominance scrum they could very easy have lost to Australia.

FORWARDS:

Generally went well, but England should not complacent as next up is Wales away at the MS, where they were bullied last time.

If Corbisiero and Cole can regain form and fitness, England will be strong at prop.  Brookes quietly improving with some younger guys waiting in the wings.

Hooker seems to be a weak area though, Webber did not look wonderful over the week-end.  Hartley a bit undisciplined.

Quite a good groups of locks, but I would still prefer an Attwood or Slater type.  Occasionally Lawes and Launchbury look a little light-weight.  Also though competition is very tight, I would like to have seen how Kitchener would fare.

Backrow is a point of discussion and debate.  The number eights look good with Vunipola coming back to form and future options in Ewers and others (Hughes?).  I think Robshaw almost always plays well but I would not mind seeing Garvey at blindside, to do the tight stuff and allow the other back five forwards to excel in the loose.


BACKS:

Not totally bleak but how to get them playing?

Fullback seems set with Brown and I wonder if Watson should be seen as his successor.

Scrum-half is fairly well served by Youngs and Care if he can recover his form.  Also Simpson can look a good player?

Fly-half is well stocked with Ford, Farrell, Myler and Cips.  Indeed at the week-end I thought Myler had a great game.

At wing there are lots of options in May, Watson, Rokoduguni, Nowell, Wade, Yarde and Benjamin has come on a bit as well. I would love to see Wade get a go sometime.

Centre has been a problem which is annoying has there seems to be talent available.  Tuilagi, Burrell, Eastmond, Joseph, Barritt, Slade, Twelvestrees, etc. all seem good players

So if everyone was fit and on Form, I would go with: -

Corbisiero
Hartley
Cole
Attwood
Launchbury
Garvey
Robshaw
Morgan

Youngs
Ford
Watson
Burrell
Tuilagi
May
Brown

Would definitely have Lawes on the bench in case the line went belly-up. Have not yet found room for Wade but would have Eastmond on the bench.  However in most positions there is a lot of competition, so sometimes the choice could go either way.
Perhaps England’s real weakness is having several good players (with the sum being better than the parts), but with very few world class options.

Saxons

Forwards

Kieran Brookes (Newcastle Falcons)
Tom Croft (Leicester Tigers)
Christian Day (Northampton Saints)
Luke Cowan-Dickie (Exeter Chiefs)
Dave Ewers (Exeter Chiefs)
Matt Garvey (Bath Rugby)
Ross Harrison (Sale Sharks)
Maro Itoje (Saracens)
Matt Kvesic (Gloucester Rugby)
Matt Mullan (Wasps)
Henry Thomas (Bath Rugby)
Thomas Waldrom (Exeter Chiefs)
Alex Waller (Northampton Saints)
Rob Webber (Bath Rugby)

Backs

Chris Ashton (Saracens)
Sam Burgess (Bath Rugby)
Elliot Daly (Wasps)
Ollie Devoto (Bath Rugby)
Lee Dickson (Northampton Saints, captain)
Chris Pennell (Worcester Warriors)
Joe Simpson (Wasps)
Henry Slade (Exeter Chiefs)
Marland Yarde (Harlequins)
Christian Wade (Wasps)

Decent looking Saxons group, that.

No real surprises in the main squad, but very pleased for Nick Easter. It'll be interesting to see who makes the cut in the run up to the game.

Garvey in the Saxons squad.

Rumours on here that he had upset the coaches by doing or saying something during a Saxons game and wouldn't be considered again, so that's good to see.

HammerofThunor wrote:

George Carlin wrote:The whole Twelvetrees thing is very interesting if you're a neutral (like me).

He has been perfectly competent for England, but I never recall having seen him playing 'very well' for his country. Whether that means he is not capable of doing so is another question entirely but surely Lancaster has his measure by now? I just watch Premiership games and struggle to believe that he's the best that you have.

I wouldn't say he's been "perfectly competent" for England. At times he's been shocking (v high risk offloads, terrible passing, missed tackles (although it counts as 'made' in England if you bump into them apparantly so that's ok).  Overall, he's been reasonably competent with odd occation of losing the plot.

(I realise your standards for centres might be different to mine, what with being Scottish and all ).

, but obviously also

Twelvetrees should be sent back to Gloucester to work on his game....his decision making and things like one on ones...etc.

Twelvetrees has all the attributes to be a world class centre, great boot, good passer, strong going forward and in defence but he just has to work on his decision making. From what I've seen he often tries to do too much, for example when he went for the line himself recently against Saracens instead of passing out wide and when he tried that ridiculous offload against New Zealand in the Second Eng-Nz Test in the Summer.

Then there's Eastmond who's can be pretty terrific with ball in hand, and as we saw against Toulouse, is a pretty deft handler of the ball as well, I just feel that when he's been given the England shirt he's struggled to make a mark on games. I'd still have him on the bench though.

So I really feel that Lancaster has to go for Burell and Joseph, the former having a fantastic Six Nations last year, and the latter having been absolutely terrific for Bath.

Also why on earth isn't Matthew Tait in the Saxons team

maybe because he has just signed a contract to join Bayonne?

Thats for next season, so hes still eligible to play for England

Lancaster does not rate Tait. He was in sumptuous form at the end of the last two seasons - but others always got a look in instead in the huge squads.

In that time Brown, Goode, Foden, Pennell, Daly & Miller have all appeared at FB. Tait's time has gone and good luck to him in France.

I always wanted Tait around because he can cover wing and centre as well, although he hasn't played there much for Leicester.

While he was down Lancaster's pecking order, I don't think it's because Bomber doesn't rate him. This time last year, he was in the line-up for the Saxons game against the Wolfhounds but pulled out with a back problem. Tait turned into Sinbad as far as injuries plaguing his England chances.

There was an outside chance he would feature again but his move to France will not have helped. Flood was left out of last year's Six Nations because he was moving to Toulouse.

If we do suffer some kind of full back crisis - and it would have to be severe given that Nowell and Watson can also play there - Tait might be an emergency call-up but such exceptional circumstances would put France-based Abendanon and even Delon Armitage in the frame too.

I suspect that it was Lancaster's decision to omit him from his World Cup plans that meant he moved to Bayonne, surely it cant be a coincidence that the announcement of his omission from the England squads and his move to Bayonne occurred on the same day. I just find it tragic that so naturally gifted a footballer should end his England career in such a manner, this guy was meant to be future of English rugby and hes still only 28.

Also the fullbacks mentioned above, don't have anything like the experience that Tait has.

"Also why on earth isn't Matthew Tait in the Saxons team"

Because hes a lightweight at test level. Totally ineffective.

englandglory4ever wrote:"Also why on earth isn't Matthew Tait in the Saxons team"

Because hes a lightweight at test level. Totally ineffective.

That wonderfully insightful analysis is based on what?

rugbygod2 wrote:Twelvetrees has all the attributes to be a world class centre, great boot, good passer, strong going forward and in defence but he just has to work on his decision making. From what I've seen he often tries to do too much, for example when he went for the line himself recently against Saracens instead of passing out wide and when he tried that ridiculous offload against New Zealand in the Second Eng-Nz Test in the Summer.

Then there's Eastmond who's can be pretty terrific with ball in hand, and as we saw against Toulouse, is a pretty deft handler of the ball as well, I just feel that when he's been given the England shirt he's struggled to make a mark on games. I'd still have him on the bench though.

So I really feel that Lancaster has to go for Burrell and Joseph, the former having a fantastic Six Nations last year, and the latter having been absolutely terrific for Bath.

All the attributes to be a world class centre? That's the normal hyperbole that surrounds Twelvetrees. He's just never been as good as his fans would have you believe. Whenever I've turned on the TV and watched him play for Gloucester he's never given the impression that he's a world class prospect. Same feeling when I watch him for England, he's not been as bad as sometimes I have believed but I would rather see other 12s.

The reality is that Twelvetrees is not as good an attacking player as Eastmond, not as strong as a ball carrier as Burrell and not a defensive lynchpin like Barritt so where does he fit?

People say but Twelvetrees can kick - the only time we've seen a proper usage of this was the one grubber in the 6 nations.

Doesn't mean I think Twelvetrees is bad - he's okay but I just feel that he offers less than Burrell,Eastmond and Barritt.

beshocked wrote:...
The reality is that Twelvetrees is not as good an attacking player as Eastmond, not as strong as a ball carrier as Burrell and not a defensive lynchpin like Barritt so where does he fit?...

Dont disagree with anything you said, but I dont like the way these comparisons are used. Its like complaining about Robshaw that he isnt as fast or as good in lineouts as Tom Croft, can't carry like Billy or bend the laws of physics like McCaw. Top trumps comes to mind - the guy who scores 10 in every category doesnt exist

36 is an average player, sure he could step in at short notice and do a good job but once again he is average, there is no getting away from that issue.

Is average good enough when you pick a international team or should you aim higher?

I guess lostinwales that's true but interesting you talk about Robshaw because he does get criticism for not being a proper 7 like a Steffon Armitage,Ksevic or Fraser.

As of now I would pick Robshaw at 7 but I still see him as a 6.5, not a proper 7.

Is the balance in the backrow as good as it could be? Is a Wood,Robshaw,Billy/Morgan the best we can do?

By the way I should add I think Robshaw is good but he and Wood do lack a bit of grunt and ball carrying. For me personally I think they are similar players - both grafters.

When your only heavy duty carrier is your no 8 it can lead to problems.

My point about Burrell,Barritt and Eastmond is I feel that they fill a role which I don't think Twelvetrees does.

quinsforever wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:The loss of Lawes even with a returning Parling is 1 reason why I think we ll still see Wood at 6 to aid the lineout. That said I must be 1 of the few who doesnt see what extra Haskell will bring over him.

watch the full quins v wasps game. someone posted the youtube link to the entire match on another thread.

25 tackles, countless turnovers. his physical presence is far greater than wood's. in carrying and in tackle and in turnover. irrespective of how well everyone says that wood does the unseen stuff. i just dont see it

Come on Quins, that's getting on towards an oxymoron, unseen stuff - don't see it...................... : This not a comedy board you know.

Haskell has had a number of chances, not been bad, but has rarely excelled, you cannot take one game where he stood out and say that, that is how he will play for England, history proves otherwise.

well-past-it you could say the same of Cipriani for England (one very good game), does it mean who shouldn't get another opportunity at some point?

If you put Parling in the 2nd row instead of Lawes you lose a bit of bite (surely some bite needs to be found elsewhere?)

A pack is all about balance - making sure the scrummaging ability, lineout,power,graft is all there.

Personally I feel Kruis would adds a more all round game than Parling but I guess you can call that bias. I also think that Parling's lineout ability is a bit overplayed (I've always felt the England lineout has been superior with the Saints axis of Hartley,Wood and Lawes).

Also if you have Wood and Hartley starting there is less need for Parling.

Im not confident in Parling or Kruis at lock.

I also am going back to my old complaints that the pack is lacking some good old beef.

The Saxons squad looks better balanced.

GF - I am starting to think that neither Retallick nor Whitelock would be deemed beefy enough by you to play for england

They wouldn't...

Ok maybe beef is the wrong word....how about power and explosiveness.....

Would that be better?

lostinwales wrote:

beshocked wrote:...
The reality is that Twelvetrees is not as good an attacking player as Eastmond, not as strong as a ball carrier as Burrell and not a defensive lynchpin like Barritt so where does he fit?...

Dont disagree with anything you said, but I dont like the way these comparisons are used. Its like complaining about Robshaw that he isnt as fast or as good in lineouts as Tom Croft, can't carry like Billy or bend the laws of physics like McCaw. Top trumps comes to mind - the guy who scores 10 in every category doesnt exist

Quite. I think RG2's original point was that on paper (and when on form for his club) Twelvetrees has all the attributes to a high level. He's a better defender than Eastmond, a better distributor and kicker than Burrell and a better attacker than Barritt. To push the Top Trumps analogy, he doesn't score 10 in every category, but he does score 7 or 8 across the board, and the guys who have 9s or 10s in some areas have 6s in others. Also it helps that he looks more like Will Greenwood than the others. ;-)

However, he's shown a worrying tendency not to deploy the right skill at the right time. Get the head right and he could be the answer. Until then, I think Burrell is probably the best bet at 12, unless he's required to pretend to be Manu at 13.

Thanks Poorfour - for writing so clearly what I was thinking

The problem is those are the skills that aren't teachable ...you either have the knack of timing and decision making or you don't.

You can train tp pass better or kick better.

Twelvetrees issues will hold him back....I know it was only one example but that 1 on 1 he butchered for Glos the other week just summed him up.

I wouldn't have him anywhere near the squad.

Poorfour you missed one important factor - mental strength and inspiring others.

Barritt's reliable figure in the England and Saracens backline just calms everyone down.

Burrell in the 6 nations - ran straight, good lines and actually got people believing.

Twelvetrees couldn't hold a spot down at Leicester because Leicester preferred the more reliable and dependable Allen.

At Gloucester he's not been particularly impressive when I've seen him. He certainly doesn't have the same impact that players like Barritt and Burrell for their clubs.

Eastmond has also been part of the resurgence of Bath who have thrown off the mental shackles that they had last season.

LondonTiger wrote:GF - I am starting to think that neither Retallick nor Whitelock would be deemed beefy enough by you to play for england

In the second row maybe, but given that they have better handling skills than a number of our centres, maybe a space could be found...!

Lets put it another way. There is always going to be a compromise. Eastmond, Burrell and Barritt all have their good points, but..

Play Eastmond and you know where the big runners from the other team are going to go almost every play.

Play Burrell. Well we don't yet know how he will work at 12 and we do know he isnt a kicker

Play slow running Barritt and rightly or wrongly the opposition wont see him as a threat with the ball and wont expect him to pass much.

Play 36 and you dont have any of these problems, but then you don't get a big plus side either

If you know where the big runners are going every play...is that not easy to deal with?  Twelvetrees' defence for England seems to mainly consider of bumping into players to slow them down and then someone else makes the tackle (and that's not sarcasm, it's actually how the England defencive system is supposed to work). Eastmond can do that just as well (and I'll expect him to hold on to them better too.

No-one expects your 12 to pass or be a threat? Well that sound excellent, and is one of the reasons why we beat New Zealand a few years ago (because Barritt can actually play).

With Twelvetrees we think he can kick, but its often straight to the opposition with space to run.  We think he can pass but it's often to no-one or the ground. We think he can tackle but he often drops off them.

Personally I'd rather someone who has strengths that can be relied on (and weaknesses that can be dealt with) over someone who's strengths are unreliable and can leave in the Poopie.

[Disclaimer: all claims in this post of dredged from the depths of the poster's mind. The poster reserves the right to distance themselves from these claims]

If not Twelvetrees then it's Eastmond or Farrell. Eastmond has already had a much bigger low being hauled off at half time in the summer and was disappointing when not running the ball back in the AI and Farrell is a bit of a compromise. Any other 12 with a more attacking 13 like Joseph would mean quite a change in how England have been trying to play. I think we'll probably see Eastmond against Wales with youngs at 9 to help with the kicking.

I am not expecting 36 to be the answer, just interested in looking at reasons why he has been considered as such.

Looking on the bright side the 3 alternatives will all present specific problems to the opposition, and I would be happy with any of them.

I do want to see the Welsh defense trying to work out how to catch Eastmond (Although as stated I don't want to see how we manage defending a 5m scrum when the ball goes out).

There's a reason we're all having this debate and that's because no one upon no one can come up with an answer to it. The role does not lie with one player, as we know it's about combinations.

I have always criticized Barritt for being a quasi-flanker. I stand by that but he does offer, as Beshocked points out, a huge amount of mental fortitude and as such an intangible benefit to the rest of the backline. He would work well with Manu/Burgess but it limits our style of play. Putting GF in at 10 and not utilising his wonderful passing and running talents would be a mistake. Ditto Cipriani.

I like 36, he has the skill sets. He blended as well as any partnership with Burrell during the last 6N when we scored more tries than in any recent tournament. He is not however, dependable like Barritt. He picks a poor option sometimes. But that could be helped with having GF at 10 and someone with some rugby intelligence at 13. If he makes a mistake it's usually because he's under too much pressure, he likes space and that needs to be created both by and for him.

lostinwales I don't really see your criticisms of Barritt,Burrell and Eastmond as particularly strong ones.


hammerofthunor well said.

no 7&1/2 I am pretty sure the only people who want Farrell to start in the centres are Farrell Sr and Lancaster.

chjw131 why can't Barritt be utilised with Ford?

Most agree that a Farrell-Barritt-someone else combo is too one dimensional but if you have Ford with Barritt surely it can work?

36 barely contributed to the tries in the 6 nations. Less than Burrell,Farrell,Care and Brown certainly.

In regards to Burrell and Barritt too often they have been shunted out to 13. It's not their fault that Lancaster hasn't allowed them to play in their favoured 12 shirt.

At 12 either Barritt,Burrell or Eastmond I would be fine with.
At 13 Joseph

Barritt is also one of the only England players ive seen recently who actually runs a crash ball at full speed. it makes such a difference.

I'd love to see:
10 Ford
12 Burrell
13 Joseph

However I actually wouldn't be disappointed to see:
10 Ford
12 Barritt
13 Burrell
with the two centres swapping on plays.

Just giving the obvious options as the 2nd receiver 12 role Lancaster wants to play beshocked. Burrell and Barritt don't really fit into this mold; as you say with a more attacking 13 bang in form like JJ it would be more balanced but would mean a slight change in strategy.

To be honest Geordiefalcon I would be disappointed with the latter option.

Lancaster has an opportunity to try something different and Wales might not be ready for something different.

Ford,Eastmond,Burrell is okay but I much prefer your first option or Ford,Eastmond,Joseph.

I agree that crash ball at full speed is something we don't see enough of. I think especially at lineout time and scrums there are opportunities to try different things to catch the opposition off guard. Doesn't work all the time of course but if you can keep the opposition guessing.....

Certain skills like the crash ball at speed as you say and running good lines are skills we need to see more of.

Burrell was a hit in the 6 nations because he was there in support and reaped the rewards.

It's a skill that Ashton used to perform and he has shown on occasions he's still got it - like vs Munster.

I thought we all knew that the midfield will be Ford 10, Farrell 12, Barritt 13.

Then following the first defeat we will see Farrell revert to 10 and 36 come in at 12.

T'is written in the stars

Beshocked...in an aspect of our carrying that is annoying me across the team.

When we have the ball we look ponderous and unexplosive.

I would prefer us running at space and gaps....but crash ball into contact is still an important part of the game to tie in defenders.

Barritt tries to get through the tacklers and beyond them....the rest of the team seem happy just to reach contact and go down.

Londontiger I sincerely hope you are wrong. If so that's a sackable offence in my opinion.

The squads picked by Lancaster do suggest that he's not stupid enough to do that in my opinion.

Geordiefalcon I agree with that and I feel that's a problem with the English forwards too.

The only realistic big ball carrier in the England side is the no 8 IMO (likely to be Billy in this case), when you have that predictability it makes it easier to counter.

Billy can and has been neutralised when it's just him being repeatedly used to crash up with the ball.

beshocked wrote:Londontiger I sincerely hope you are wrong. If so that's a sackable offence in my opinion.

The squads picked by Lancaster do suggest that he's not stupid enough to do that in my opinion.

Geordiefalcon I agree with that and I feel that's a problem with the English forwards too.

The only realistic big ball carrier in the England side is the no 8 IMO (likely to be Billy in this case), when you have that predictability it makes it easier to counter.

Billy can and has been neutralised when it's just him being repeatedly used to crash up with the ball.  

Saracens used Billy really well against Munster. Just him as a decoy much more often, meaning they couldn't afford to pull too many defenders on him so he could actually doing something with the ball.

Farrell should be kept as far away from selection as possible until he shows some signs of being the same player that was picked for the Lions.

In practice I can see him being on the bench seeing as he covers center also, but would prefer one of the other 2. It is Ford's time now.

lostinwales wrote:Farrell should be kept as far away from selection as possible until he shows some signs of being the same player that was picked for the Lions.

In practice I can see him being on the bench seeing as he covers center also, but would prefer one of the other 2. It is Ford's time now.

I agree, but if the unthinkable does happen and Ford has a stinker in Wales (which he is more than capable of doing), will SL stick with him for the remainder of the 6 nations?

lostinwales disagree. Farrell should still be on the bench.

Both Cipriani and Myler are unproven at international level (one hasn't played for years at international level and when he did had just one good game, the other has no international experience.

TightHEAD wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Farrell should be kept as far away from selection as possible until he shows some signs of being the same player that was picked for the Lions.

In practice I can see him being on the bench seeing as he covers center also, but would prefer one of the other 2. It is Ford's time now.

I agree, but if the unthinkable does happen and Ford has a stinker in Wales (which he is more than capable of doing), will SL stick with him for the remainder of the 6 nations?

Depends on who he sees being the 10 at the RWC. There are plenty of signs that that is Ford with Farrell as back up. (Ford would have got more caps had he not been injured at the wrong times). 3rd choice looks like a straight shoot out between Myler and Cips - with Burns and Slade as outside bets

I still think if Ford has a bad game at the MS he'll be dropped in favour of Farrell for the next game.

Generally Lancaster has shown that he will maintain faith and give people that immediate second chance if possible so I think he would give Ford the same chance.

Who do you think will be the front row, are Cole and Corbisiero fully fit? Fit enough to be picked ahead of Wilson and Marler? At hooker will it be Hartley or Tom Youngs?

Interesting to see just two hookers in your squad when I thought there was room to look at options? Webber was a surprise ommission. Really good player. Looks like these are the two they want for the RWC. Hartley must have been forgiven again for his persistent behaviour issues.

I'll be surprised if we deviate from the Marler, Hartley, Wilson Autumn front row to begin with. There's no case for bringing Corbisiero in based on anything in the last 18 months, Cole has been out for a few weeks with a knock, and Hartley's disciplinary record at international level isn't nearly so bad as for Saints.

thomh wrote:I'll be surprised if we deviate from the Marler, Hartley, Wilson Autumn front row to begin with. There's no case for bringing Corbisiero in based on anything in the last 18 months, Cole has been out for a few weeks with a knock, and Hartley's disciplinary record at international level isn't nearly so bad as for Saints.

That would be my expectation, too. Until Corbs and Cole are regularly playing 60 minutes plus, far better to bring them on in the later stages of the game and reintroduce them gradually. Plus, tactically, Marler Wilson and Hartley have not been outclassed by anyone in the past year, while bringing on a fresh Corbisiero and Cole against 2nd string props creates a mismatch that could be handy in the later stages of a tight game.

The only worry is Youngs's throwing. I am fine with him if he starts, but if we start with Hartley, Webber seems to me a much better bench option.