Whither England?

First topic message reminder :

This topic is for comments on where England go from here for the rest of the six Nations (and even beyond). I appreciate there are existing topics on an autopsy of the Dublin match, what should have to Lancaster, and also a player's rating for the match, but this is more looking at what happens next from an England team perspective. Please comment if you wish

yappysnap wrote:Changes for Scotland:
Brown in Goode out
Care in Wiggs out
Wood in Croft out

I'd also potentially rotate 10 and 12 so start with Cipriani and 36 then bring on Ford and Burrell

Brown in Goode out

Obviously Brown is a superior fb to Goode, however injury aside and accepting the ever changing back lines he has had to adapt to, I just havn't been convinced by Brown's form, he certainly has not regained his 12/13 season spark.
Yes he's an excellent positional and defensively brave fb, however he has failed to provide the attacking threat required. He dosn't have the xfactor pace or the vision to appreciate or provide the scoring pass and more often than not dies with the ball.
Foden's injury removed the opportunity for a less risky competition (that would have highlighted Brown's weaknesses) for the shirt and so other 'real' alternatives should have been considered. Goode was and never will be an international class fb and so never will be a 'real' alternative.

As per my selection above, I am certain Watson is the player to take the shirt. Ofcourse he is green and will make mistakes, however he is a class above any other option including Foden and should be the England fb for the next 5 years.

yappysnap wrote:Noooooo


Stop adding more players!

Let's just stick with what we know and back them. What the frak is Burgess going to do other then make a mistake and get hung out to dry by the media and us fans? Likewise Slade, why suddenly dump him in the team?

Agreed, especially regards Burgess who's appears to have sadly wasted his time trying to adapt to a position he patently is unsuited to. Realistically he is a 6/8 and should have gone there from the start.

yappysnap wrote:Noooooo


Stop adding more players!

Let's just stick with what we know and back them. What the frak is Burgess going to do other then make a mistake and get hung out to dry by the media and us fans? Likewise Slade, why suddenly dump him in the team?

Well whats the other option? Play 36 and go without center cover on the bench? Goode at 12?

Go with Eastmond and have the courage to play with width and pace ball in hand rugby

Too much angst I feel. England often gets one spanking a season – it’s all doom & gloom – then next time we spank the spanker. The same will happen this time. And at least this time we had something of an excuse with all the injuries (ie not a 1st choice selection, lack of test caps, new combinations for England…). All this depth bull is a red herring – we have depth but not the important strength in depth – as has been proved. Our currently depleted side is as good as any NH side, but definitely no better. Like most sides we need our 1st choice. Personally I’d ease the recovering players back in where possible, put some pace in the back 3, and coach around the kick & chase and breakdown (I know, I know, the latter 2 will require new coaches, so that aint going to happen anytime soon).

Much as it will pain some, for the RWC SL is waiting for a fit Barritt & Manu in the centre (why? because they are currently the best we have).

In a strange way I’m with Stewie on this one – I’m sure he knows we’re not good enough to win the next RWC and is looking to establish a newer generation for the future. Trouble is he has to hope that he remains part of it.

Sorry I meant to include him on the list of possibles.

Its still yet another player in the mix, albeit a previously capped one.

All that said Ive just seen the Lancaster interview where he drops Barritts name as now fit along with Parling Wood Lawes and Brown.

kingelderfield wrote:Go with Eastmond and have the courage to play with width and pace ball in hand rugby

I understand people's frustration with chopping and changing, but this is who I've wanted at 12. I'd drop Burrell to the bench to cover 12/13 and drop 36 altogether.

Twelvetrees has been better than Burrell in his cameos though. Whenever he's in there we just seem to play better than when he isn't even if he isn't seen to produce 9 out of 10 games.

I could live with 36, however messed around/up he is by form and selection - I would like to see Eastmond given a go for 2 reasons;

it gives us the opportunity to see if the Bath backline; Ford, Eastmond & Joseph can do it together at international level (combinations etc.) and,

with respect its against Scotland at Twickenham which is a better opportunity than Ireland in Dublin

http://www.espnscrum.com/six-nations-2015/rugby/story/258389.html#LBFA2CUvUbjuqcK7.99

Stupot Lancaster wrote:"There are definitely decisions to be made and I'm open-minded about making some changes," head coach Lancaster said. "We have players of the calibre of Courtney Lawes, Geoff Parling, Tom Wood and Brad Barritt back in the equation and Mike Brown is fit.
"Selection will be based on a variety of things, one of which is their individual performances this weekend to demonstrate they are back up to the form and quality of performances we know they can deliver.
"There are big players in there who have delivered for us in big games in the past. When talking about momentum and motivation and all that sort of stuff, sometimes you can freshen the side up a little bit, particularly when you know you have trusted players available.

Looks like Bertie Barritt not Eastmond or 36 to me.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Lawes back into the starting 15 along with Twelvetrees and Wood on the bench.

And another big NO to Burgess. He might very well be the future, but he isnt the here and now, not by a long shot.

E.g. healthy options 36/Eastmond/Slade all ahead (apparently Barritt healthy? in which case him also)

Oh - and one thought about 36 and the passing issue. Is it better to throw long passes and have the odd miss than never throw a long pass at all?

We scream out for adventure then hate the guy who gets there, or gets in the right place, or tries something, and fails.

It's never a good idea to pick a team to play the game you've just lost. If I was doing that for last weekend, I wouldn't be arguing for Nowell or Watson as better attacking threats than Alex Goode, I'd be thinking that Delon Armitage, Mathew Tait or even Nick Abendanon would have added useful experience to our back three.

There are a lot of critical comments that Lancaster doesn't know his best starting XV. I think sometimes we forget that Woodward never really had a settled starting XV either.

Who was Woodward's best back row? Why, Dallaglio, Back and Hill, surely. And yet Lewis Moody started all the 2002 Autumn Internationals, with Back, and then Dallaglio, benched.

Remember how Serge Betsen got to Wilkinson in 2002, and England blew another Grand Slam opportunity? For the match the following year - regarded as a key fixture - Woodward dropped Dallaglio, and played Hill at 8 with Moody and Back at 6 and 7.

At least we all know how he helped take pressure off Wilkinson in that 2003 6N match by selecting Catt over Tindall. Actually, no. That's what Woodward did for the World Cup fixture. For the 6N, he selected Charlie Hodgson in the centre. Catt had been a key man in 2001 but had fallen out of favour. Only injuries to Hodgson and Alex King meant he sneaked into the World Cup squad.

But of course, Woodward's back three of Robinson, Cohen and Lewsey was a well-oiled machine. Except when it featured, variously, Matt Perry, Dan Luger, Iain Balshaw, Austin Healey and James Simpson-Daniel instead.

Our tight five was solid, though. Especially that Graham Rowntree, who was part of the six man scrum which held out the All Blacks in 2003 - and wasn't selected for the World Cup Squad a few months later. Second row legend Simon Shaw also missed out initially, although he was called up late and didn't play a minute of the tournament.

How about World Cup winner Matt Dawson? Surely the obvious scrum half complement to the relentless Wilkinson, and a combination England needed to have settled well before the World Cup started. Well, it was Kyran Bracken who started all the 2002 Six Nations games, and the famous 2003 tour victories over New Zealand and Australia.

We really don't need to set ourselves the artificial limit of deciding on our absolute best XV no matter what the conditions, or the opposition. Our problem is not using too many players, its that too few of our current options show any consistency.

I don't think consistency is a problem because players aren't getting consecutive games, its more likely a coaching issue.

Happy days.

Rugby Fan.

Do you think Mathew Tait will ever get another chance in the England squad?

lostinwales wrote:Wasnt Tuilagi tried at 12 for the Lions with BOD? I think it was a pretty well thought of combo, although of course Tuilagi got broke. Kicking may be an issue.

I think we have looked better with 36 at 12 in his cameos because he does throw decent long passes, and Burrell does not. Burrell had very little time when he got done but yes you'd like to think a better player could of shifted the ball faster. I don't know. But he hasn't looked great so far.

Slade wont be picked this 6N unless there are massive injury problems. Lancaster only picks from players who have been training with the squad, and I don't think Slade has done enough to be considered there.

Ben Youngs- well everyone thought he was great in the first game. Care at his best is a shoe in but he isnt and he even sat out the last club game with a calf injury. Youngs is a fine player, occasionally an inspired one. One player wont make the difference anyway. And why is it always the Leicester players which are so questioned? (Youngs - see above. Tom Youngs too small, Croft show pony, Tuilagi just crash ball etc - You do wonder if there are other prejudices present)

I think I'd like to see 36 in for Burrell, May and Nowell on the wings and Watson to the bench, if we are just looking at the current bunch

I'm not sure Tuilagi would work there for England, but I thought that was the most dynamic centre partnership on the Lions tour.  The Western Force weren't the greatest opposition, but it resulted in the highest score on tour and two tries for BOD, at least one of which was from a Tuilagi break and offload.  It certainly looked pretty good for a first and only pairing.

If it were to be tested and work for England he would have to be used and supported in the right way though, without trying to change him too much.  BOD said before the match, "I'm going to follow him around because the guy tends to make holes wherever he goes. He will create opportunities for others with the lines he runs and the way he carries the ball. He is a very destructive ball-carrier who has an array of skills that he probably doesn't get the credit for that he deserves. It is definitely an exciting feeling partnering him and I am looking forward to playing with him for the first time."  Could Joseph partner his natural game in as successful a manner?

lostinwales wrote:Oh - and one thought about 36 and the passing issue. Is it better to throw long passes and have the odd miss than never throw a long pass at all?

We scream out for adventure then hate the guy who gets there, or gets in the right place, or tries something, and fails.

The odd one yes fine...but Twelvetrees is dangerous for his own team at times.

On the topic of the Bath midfield...how have they coped against big powerful sides?
If they've coped fine give them a shot...

Ill say again personally if he's fit...Barritt should start at 12.

9 Care
10 Ford
11 May
12 Barritt
13 Joseph
14 Watson (If brown is not fit Watson to FB Nowell on wing)
15 Brown (if not fit Watson)

majesticimperialman wrote:Rugby Fan.

Do you think Mathew Tait will ever get another chance in the England squad?

I think theres more chance of Nick Easter ....ah

I think England will struggle to find a consistent starting XV, at least for a few years but perhaps a squad of thirty odd players with the same level of experience may be a more viable objective.  In any case come the recent Irish match, the team had been together for a reasonable time with few changes (only Brown & May), and yet the performance was much worse than the first match.  My concerns are much structural, why do seemingly good rugby players perform so poorly?  Is it something to do with the coaching or the set-up or is it the players themselves?  I think Lancaster does many of the right, so it is not necessarily at jibe at him.

Burgess is nowhere near, I can't believe he's been mentioned, do d people see the Saxons game?!?!

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Burgess is nowhere near, I can't believe he's been mentioned, do d people see the Saxons game?!?!

I agree with you, this RWC imo is too soon for Burgess. Not enough time in the game.

Tait is the longest of long shots. Brown and Foden would both have to be out of contention, and Lancaster be suddenly concerned abut the lack of experience in his team. At the same time, Tigers are out of Europe, so it would need a good showing in the Premiership to give him any kind of stage to put his hand up. Abendanon and Armitage are both in Europe, playing for teams who could go all the way.

Meanwhile, as was discussed on another thread about our full back options, Pennell is still in the mix and I doubt Lancaster will dispense with Goode.

Meanwhile, Austin Healey has some interesting points to make about the Ireland game.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/11452462/England-failure-to-trust-Danny-Cipriani-is-baffling.html

I was also surprised that Goode was tasked with running the ball back. The one break he did make surprised his own players, which suggested they didn't expect him to make much ground.

Healey worries about how England change their game when things aren't working for. I'm sure Lancaster holds the view that his bench did inject a new dynamic, which just wasn't enough, but I want opposition sides to worry about new threats we might pose, and I don't think they do. Most of our best endeavours in the last quarter can be explained by Sexton going off, and Ireland finishing another match at a low ebb.

Goode is a cracking AP player but he's been found out a long time ago. He should be nowhere near the England set up.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Goode is a cracking AP player but he's been found out a long time ago. He should be nowhere near the England set up.

Have to agree…is Foden anywhere near a return to form/fitness? I think as a back up to Brown he is the most exciting counter attacker at 15 I have seen in the shirt recently.

Gwlad wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Goode is a cracking AP player but he's been found out a long time ago. He should be nowhere near the England set up.

Have to agree…is Foden anywhere near a return to form/fitness? I think as a back up to Brown he is the most exciting counter attacker at 15 I have seen in the shirt recently.

Foden out until 2016

There is no consistency with you guys is there?

None of the England guys covered themselves in glory against Ireland - yet you hear the same old rubbish about Goode not being international class. I am sorry but that term is overused hyperbole.

The most idiotic thing is that you want to bring in a player not even playing in the premiership - Pennell. A bloke who has done nothing at the top level - either in Europe or internationally. He might well prove to be the next hyped up England player but he's unproven.

From his wiki page

Goode was part of the squad selected for the 2012 Autumn internationals, because of injuries to Ben Foden he started all 4 of the games at full back. He played well enough to earn himself QBE Man of the Match in England's 54–12 win over Fiji.[10] He was impressive in all of the games including England's spectacular win over New Zealand.

Goode's good form continued in 2013 Six Nations Championship, playing all five games including the Grand Slam decider at Cardiff's Millennium Stadium. Unfortunately a shoulder injury and subsequent reconstructive surgery sidelined him for England's summer tour to Argentina[11]


Goode has done much more at international level than many give him credit it for. The time that Goode has struggled has been the whole team too - not just him.His positives get pushed to the side. He's not as good as Brown but that doesn't make him rubbish.

May has done very little at international level yet he is praised as a deity because of one good run vs NZ - he is international class simply because he's road runner?

Danny Cipriani for that matter has done very little at international bar 1 good start vs Ireland.

I don't think either play look international class if we are going to use that idiotic term.

Sgt Pooly who do you pick at full back then as replacement to Brown?

Pennell? Abendanon is playing in France so not an option. Tait?

Foden is injured.

Nowell and Watson? Two rookies who also struggled vs Ireland like the rest of the team?

I would prefer that we had a better option available than Goode, but with Brown injured we do not.

If Lancaster deemed them available i woudl have had Delon and Tait ahead of him. Both are just as good, if not better, under the high ball, both have more pace and Delon has a siege gun boot. But one is in France, and the other is invisible to Lancaster and on his way to France.

I do not think Watson or Nowell are any where near ready yet. I really like Watson and feel that after RWC15 he should be the man inked in to take us all the way to RWC19 and 23. However he has been a complete defensive liability atm. Mush of that is down to experience and he will improve, so keep him in the team but on the wing. That the coache took Pennell to Dublin indicates they do not trust Watson or nowell either.

Londontiger that's the whole point. There is no one else available. Also Goode isn't as bad as made out.

Personally I think Lancaster doesn't utilise players' strengths enough.

Goode isn't the same player as Brown, can't expect him to use him in the same way. T

he irony is that whilst England fans continually pan Goode, a team like Italy would absolutely love to have Goode - he's a better place kicker than Ford, let alone any Italian, he's also playmaker - something they are sorely missing.

If Haskell is meant to be a ball carrier then use him!

No point picking Cipriani if you are going to give him no gametime.

Would Pennell have actually been a better choice than Goode if the main aim was to run the ball back? Don't think it would have made a difference given the general standard we showed for 60 min.

Very true no 7 & 1/2.



I would pick this team vs Scotland

1.Marler
2.Youngs
3.Cole
4.Lawes
5.Kruis
6.Wood
7.Robshaw
8.Billy

9.Youngs
10.Ford
11.Nowell
12.Barritt
13.Joseph
14.Watson
15.Brown

16.Vunipola
17.Hartley
18.Brookes
19.Attwood
20.Easter
21.Wigglesworth
22.Cipriani
23.Twelvetrees

Dropping Attwood and Hartley to the bench for that poor performance, drop Burrell and Haskell from the 23. Burrell in particular hasn't been great.

Beshocked - the main guys we have had at FB over the last few years have been Foden and Brown. Both are guys who offer a real threat running the ball back. Both give the team momentum. Same for D. Armitage. I don't doubt the skills Goode does have, but he, at international level, absolutely does not offer the same threat that those other guys do, a threat that we have got used to using. Goode doesn't fit.

I'll say the same thing I say every time we debate Goode. He has some good skills and is a smart player and, he might have made a very decent international fly half, but at full back he does things which make me cringe.

I'm still going to stick with Twelvetrees has earned his way back into the starting lineup and I'd rather stick with Haskell and give him a run of games now. Ease Wood back to the bench.

If Lawes is back the lineout will be improved no matter the hooker.

lostinwales I feel that he is another player that needs to be utilised properly by Lancaster and co. I don't think England use players properly.

Currently the obsession in England is with pace. That's why the likes of May and Joseph are so popular. May has been dining off his try vs NZ for months. Joseph will I expect dine on his tries vs Wales and Italy for some time.

England's backline was well shackled. Joseph might have ran amok against Wales and Italy but in attack he wasn't really a threat at all. Same with Burrell.

Personally I don't think pace is everything. It's just about everyone doing their jobs well.

My worry with Haskell is that his poor discipline issues reared their ugly head again vs Ireland. Looked so promising against Wales but he's not had the same impact against Italy or Ireland IMO.

I guess the difficulty is how long do you give a player till you replace him?

Would have been nice to see Burrell get out a quick pass on that overlap though.

I agree that pace isn't everything, but you can always do with at least one player who is seriously quick.

I know what you are saying about May but I think the Ireland game helped to show up what he was doing for us. We genuinely missed him, and I am worried that he has now been cast out for good.

The backs can't be judged if the forwards aren't doing their jobs.

It all stems from the pack, if they don't get parity and provide good ball for the backs then we can really see which back is good or not. Against Ireland our pack were second best so our backs always struggled, but even then it says a lot about this backline that they still looked more threatening then their opponents.

Yappysnap very true but backs do have to take some responsibility. It's a team effort.

Communication of the backs should have been much better.1-15 the decision making was poor.

Though saying that all that turnover ball and numerous penalties - only one try for Ireland.

Turnover ball is obviously a great time to attack because the opposition is out of position yet Ireland couldn't/didn't turn any of it into meaningful counter attacks.

One positive I guess is England did only concede 1 try.


lostinwales we don't know about May - perhaps he would have inspired England to a famous victory or equally he might have been worse than Nowell. We just don't know.

I have criticised Nowell but I thought he tried his best in a very tough environment and his kick did lead to the 3 points for England in the first half.

We say it time and time again about Goodr because it's obvious he's just not good enough.

The rest of the team playing badly doesnt paper over the fact Goode offers very little and is a liability defensivley.

sgt pooly

Not good enough for what exactly? To singlehandledy beat Ireland? I can't argue with that.

You say Goode offers little - if you use Goode like England use Brown then yes he's not going to be as effective. If your kick chase is lacklustre as a team it's not a surprise you'll struggle.

You utilise a player's strengths. Was Goode even used at first receiver?

Could have even got Goode to place kick instead of Ford to take the pressure off Ford.


Haskell is meant to be a ball carrier but England didn't use him much to carry the ball vs Ireland.

beshocked wrote:
Could have even got Goode to place kick instead of Ford to take the pressure off Ford.

not sure ford needed any pressure lifted. He missed one attempt that was outside his usual range and he pulled wide putting in too much effor. Should never have been asked to take that. Teams do all this analysis yet do not know how far their kickers can be relied upon.


Goode was not the defensive liability last week, Watson was.

A teams game plan shouldn't be altered to accommodate one player.

Goode isn't good enough as in he's a weakness defensivley, poor under the high ball and is too slow. That's 3 key skills for an Int FB imo

Londontiger obviously the 10 has a lot on his mind - at least if he didn't need to worry about the kicking duties he could focus on other parts of his game.

I just felt that Ford was outmuscled and outplayed by Sexton. Sexton is a bigger, stronger player than Ford. You could argue Ford didn't get help from his fellow players but the team is a team - they feed off each other. Ford should have controlled the kick off better - kicking to Zebo again and again uncontested isn't what you want to see.

If his fellow players aren't chasing the kicks someone needs to get them to - whether it's the coaches,captain, half backs, back three etc.

Ford is a young man - he'll learn from this but it's quite clear he didn't give England the control and cool head they needed. I know it doesn't help when your pack is struggling but even some successful kicks to touch to relieve pressure helps boost morale.

Sgt pooly I don't think his defence and ability under the high ball are as bad as you make out. Pace - yes that's an area he needs work agreed.

I don't you generally work on pace too much Beshocked, there's only so much you can get. Goode is never going to be a fast player and I thinks it's a vital asset to have in the back 3.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I don't you generally work on pace too much Beshocked, there's only so much you can get. Goode is never going to be a fast player and I thinks it's a vital asset to have in the back 3.

To be fair Brown never had a reputation for speed, but it is something he has worked on. He still isnt seriously rapid but he gets a lot more than he used to. Most crucially he worked hard on contact skills, what he does when someone tries to tackle him, and he had become very difficult to put down as a result.

Deliberately stayed away from the forum until my thoughts settled.

Personally, I think that most of England's woes came back to the breakdown. England have struggled with Joubert's interpretation before and with hindsight it was always going to be a vulnerable area given how ruthless Ireland are in that area. It's been an area where England can be put under pressure for some time, and they didn't step it up enough. For me, that's the major thing that needs to be fixed before the RWC.

England were also unlucky with a couple of decisions. One example: from the reverse angle, Twelvetrees wasn't impeding the Irish tacklers (Easter drove two of them back) and Joubert would have been within his rights to say it wasn't material (he was also perfectly justified in calling the accidental offside).

But they were beaten fair and square and never looked in control of the game.

In terms of the back 3, Brown would have made a difference, mainly because his form in the air had been close to his best in the last couple of games. He would have made it much harder for Ireland chasers. One thing that surprised me was that England didn't detail Nowell to drop back to field the long kicks - he's a much better counter-attacking runner than Goode and much more in Brown's hard-to-stop model, which again would have bought time and space.

It was a bad day at the office against a team that prepared well and executed very well. I don't think it's the end of the world and I don't think England are as bad as pundits suddenly seem to think they are (or as good as they thought they were after the Wales match)

Poorfour wrote:Deliberately stayed away from the forum until my thoughts settled.

Personally, I think that most of England's woes came back to the breakdown. England have struggled with Joubert's interpretation before and with hindsight it was always going to be a vulnerable area given how ruthless Ireland are in that area. It's been an area where England can be put under pressure for some time, and they didn't step it up enough. For me, that's the major thing that needs to be fixed before the RWC.

England were also unlucky with a couple of decisions. One example: from the reverse angle, Twelvetrees wasn't impeding the Irish tacklers (Easter drove two of them back) and Joubert would have been within his rights to say it wasn't material (he was also perfectly justified in calling the accidental offside).

But they were beaten fair and square and never looked in control of the game.

In terms of the back 3, Brown would have made a difference, mainly because his form in the air had been close to his best in the last couple of games. He would have made it much harder for Ireland chasers. One thing that surprised me was that England didn't detail Nowell to drop back to field the long kicks - he's a much better counter-attacking runner than Goode and much more in Brown's hard-to-stop model, which again would have bought time and space.

It was a bad day at the office against a team that prepared well and executed very well. I don't think it's the end of the world and I don't think England are as bad as pundits suddenly seem to think they are (or as good as they thought they were after the Wales match)

Well thought out analysis there.

A few other keys points were the two early decisions by Robshaw that he got wrong (in my opinion). Getting Ford to kick for goal at almost the half way line when he should have gone for touch, and then going for touch close in when we should have taken points. Add to that ball sing up the subsequent line outs, and then later in the game Ford trying to run the ball from deep and that leading to a pen, and those are the decisions the game turned on.

I'm still not sure what Robshaw was thinking tbh.

I remember an incident at a ruck right before England's 1st penalty. We did get the penalty eventually but right before there was an Irish player playing the ball in the ruck with his hands whilst supported on his elbows on the players underneath him, directly in front of Joubert. That was not what he gave the penalty for.

Its irrelevant to the overall scheme (Ireland worked very hard at the breakdown and in the air etc), but was somewhat perplexing

That was repeated quite frequently to be honest, and for the most part the ref let it go.

England weren't effective as they usually are at the breakdown because Ireland didnt play to their strengths.

By box kicking a lot the breakdown points tended to be far apart the the England pack had to cover more ground often going backwards. The back three in particular are all big lumps and struggled to make up the extra ground. Robshaw in particular seemed to arrive late to a few key rucks. The Irish back row and front row are much more dynamic and cover the ground easier IMO.