State of the team: England

by nathan Sat 21 Mar 2015, 7:20 pm

First topic message reminder :

What are your thoughts on where we are as a team at the end of the 6 nations.

I believe we are a lot better at creating chances which is certainly an improvement on last year, i think this is due to the half back partnership between B. Youngs and Ford. B. Youngs seems to have found his form again. For me Ford is miles ahead of Farrell at the moment, he improves our attacking play so much more than him. His work with his club mate Joseph is working well too. Talking of Joseph, he's had a really good six nations and probably one of our best players.

Still not sure why Care isnt in the match day squad, not sure what Wigglesworth brings other than being a different type of player to B. Youngs. What has been bit of an issue this year (i can't believe im about to say this about an england team) is our scrum. It hasn't been as powerful as years gone by, is that a result of our forwards being told to up their work rate around the park and being tied at scrum time?

This year we have been creating chances but not finishing them off, we also seem to have a fair few handling errors that needs stamping out. How are we going to do this? Can we? Is it just the players need some more game time with each other?

What are anyone elses thoughts on where we're at?

by Taylorman Sat 21 Mar 2015, 9:23 pm

England are in the awkward position of thinking things are ok. Largely this same side has put itself into positions where they can win and have fallen short. The same side has given itself a sniff of the 6N title for the last three years and for one reason or another, dropped the baton near the finish line.

That has to have a psychological effect going into this years a World Cup. Since their standout win versus the ABs they haven't play to that standard by a long way.
In the toughest pool they will need to find ways to win in five successive matches to carry this tournament. They simply don't look like a side that is prepared to do that. In Lancaster they have a coach that had a promising start, said and did the right things, but hasn't managed to get them over the line in any tournament or series.

Don't know what the answer is, and this match provided some positives, but positives don't win tournaments. They just seem to be going around and around each year.

by Knowsit17 Sat 21 Mar 2015, 9:27 pm

Steve_rugby wrote:England have never finished below 3rd in the 6N, whereas Wales are all over the place, even getting the Wooden Spoon in 2003. Wales overall position in the 6N is 4th, whilst Englands is 1st.

England managed a close 2nd in this years 6N with a massive number of first choice players injured for much of the 6N.

Oh dear...

1) England HAVE finished below 3rd in the 6N; they came 4th in 2005 and 2006.
2) How are Wales all over the place? They won four from five, exactly the same as England.
3) What relevance do results from 12 years ago have? Wales' Wooden Spoon is about as significant now as England's World Cup the same year i.e. not significant at all. The only relic left who played in that era is Gethin Jenkins Laugh

by Gwlad Sat 21 Mar 2015, 9:28 pm

Steve_rugby wrote:England have never finished below 3rd in the 6N, whereas Wales are all over the place, even getting the Wooden Spoon in 2003. Wales overall position in the 6N is 4th, whilst Englands is 1st.

England managed a close 2nd in this years 6N with a massive number of first choice players injured for much of the 6N.

See there you go again. picard

England's record is shocking in the last 12 years since they last won a Slam and an RWC, but if you want to find solace in coming 2nd be my guest. Wales have dominated the 6 Nations since 2005. We all know it, the stats speak for themselves, except that section of deluded Engish fans who think coming 2nd numerous times is better than coming first once.

Overall position, that's a good one! France have 5 wins, England and Wales 4 each and Ireland 3. But England have won it once in 12 years with no Slam since 2003 when they won their solitary Slam. Wales have won it 4 times in that period with 2 Slams.

The objective is not to come 2nd.

by Steffan Sat 21 Mar 2015, 9:32 pm

Nice to see a thread set up to discuss England has now become a Wales bashing fest

by Gwlad Sat 21 Mar 2015, 9:35 pm

Knowsit17 wrote:
Steve_rugby wrote:England have never finished below 3rd in the 6N, whereas Wales are all over the place, even getting the Wooden Spoon in 2003. Wales overall position in the 6N is 4th, whilst Englands is 1st.

England managed a close 2nd in this years 6N with a massive number of first choice players injured for much of the 6N.

Oh dear...

1) England HAVE finished below 3rd in the 6N; they came 4th in 2005 and 2006.
2) How are Wales all over the place? They won four from five, exactly the same as England.
3) What relevance do results from 12 years ago have? Wales' Wooden Spoon is about as significant now as England's World Cup the same year i.e. not significant at all. The only relic left who played in that era is Gethin Jenkins

Melon will be Grumpy about this.

by Steve_rugby Sat 21 Mar 2015, 9:44 pm

Like I said, England top the 6N table, Wales are 4th. England have also scored the most tries and have the best points difference in the 6N and the only 6N team to have never lost to Italy. England are more consistent year on year than any other side.

by **LondonTiger** Sat 21 Mar 2015, 9:48 pm

Steffan wrote:Nice to see a thread set up to discuss England has now become a Wales bashing fest

To be fair, it would have stayed an England discussion thread if the Country bumpkin had not decided to WUM. I would start a new one, except he would only do it again.

by **LondonTiger** Sat 21 Mar 2015, 9:48 pm

Steve_rugby wrote:Like I said, England top the 6N table, Wales are 4th. England have also scored the most tries and have the best points difference in the 6N and the only 6N team to have never lost to Italy. England are more consistent year on year than any other side.

Meaningless and irrelevant.

by Exiledinborders Sat 21 Mar 2015, 10:09 pm

Not too many changes required.

Principal area of concern is twelve. Burrell is just not a top class rugby player. Yes he is a big lump but that is all you can say for him. How a player can get tominternational level and not have learnt tonrun with the ball in two hands is beyond me.

Slade would have been the obvious answer but Bomber has left it too late. If woukd therefore reluctantly go with 36.

by Steve_rugby Sat 21 Mar 2015, 10:16 pm

Gwlad wrote:

And you came 2nd last year too.

And you came 3rd last year too. Bubbly

by **LondonTiger** Sat 21 Mar 2015, 10:17 pm

Exiledinborders wrote:Slade would have been the obvious answer but Bomber has left it too late. If woukd therefore reluctantly go with 36.

Manu was uncapped until the 2011 warm up matches and forced his way into the team with strong performances against Wales and Ireland. Whiel Slade may be the answer if we wish to play a 2nd 5/8th style 12, he has not actually played there for Exeter - starting the season at 13 and only recently supplanting Steenson at 10.

by yappysnap Sat 21 Mar 2015, 10:19 pm

The idiots are out tonight

by **LondonTiger** Sat 21 Mar 2015, 10:22 pm

yappysnap wrote:The idiots are out tonight

Of all nationalities.

by lostinwales Sat 21 Mar 2015, 10:44 pm

I think it has to be Manu at 12 to start with when he comes back. What else do you do with two undroppable players?

by **LondonTiger** Sat 21 Mar 2015, 10:57 pm

lostinwales wrote:I think it has to be Manu at 12 to start with when he comes back. What else do you do with two undroppable players?

It is a shame we did not see more of him in the Lions at 12. That one game vefore he got injured looked promising. He first played for Leicester at 12, and has done well enough in sporadic appearances there since. If you want a Bosher, well if fit we have none better. Hius defence is unlikely to be any worse than Burrell. However if england want a Galaxy Bar at 12 (silky smooth) then Slade may well fit the bill - but with no experience of the position.

For a while I thought we were trying to fit square pegs into round holes. Now I realise that Farrell/Catt keep changing the shape of the hole.

by Gwlad Sat 21 Mar 2015, 11:15 pm

Steve_rugby wrote:Like I said, England top the 6N table, Wales are 4th. England have also scored the most tries and have the best points difference in the 6N and the only 6N team to have never lost to Italy. England are more consistent year on year than any other side.

Consistently 2nd, well done.

by lostinwales Sat 21 Mar 2015, 11:22 pm

Hell, a fantastic day with each of the top three (4) doing their level best to try and upstage what came before, in some of the most emotional and entertaining games you can imagine, and after all that all some miserable cave dweller can do is come and try to score cheap points. What a sad life they must lead.

Wales did good, England did better, and overall, without doubt, Ireland did best of all, but were run damn close by the other 2.

by Gwlad Sat 21 Mar 2015, 11:29 pm

After being held by Wales and losing I think ireland have regained all that they lost that day; to come back and hammer Scotland and do what was needed when everyone was backing England to win (not me) IMO they stand a very, very good chance at an RWC Final.

by Rory_Gallagher Sun 22 Mar 2015, 1:26 am

Gwlad wrote:
Steve_rugby wrote:Like I said, England top the 6N table, Wales are 4th. England have also scored the most tries and have the best points difference in the 6N and the only 6N team to have never lost to Italy. England are more consistent year on year than any other side.

Consistently 2nd, well done.

Surely you would prefer that over your grand slam wins? Whistle

by doctor_grey Sun 22 Mar 2015, 2:07 am

Taylorman wrote:England are in the awkward position of thinking things are ok. Largely this same side has put itself into positions where they can win and have fallen short. The same side has given itself a sniff of the 6N title for the last three years and for one reason or another, dropped the baton near the finish line.

That has to have a psychological effect going into this years a World Cup. Since their standout win versus the ABs they haven't play to that standard by a long way.
In the toughest pool they will need to find ways to win in five successive matches to carry this tournament. They simply don't look like a side that is prepared to do that. In Lancaster they have a coach that had a promising start, said and did the right things, but hasn't managed to get them over the line in any tournament or series.

Don't know what the answer is, and this match provided some positives, but positives don't win tournaments. They just seem to be going around and around each year.

Agree 100%.
And the fact England management might really and truly believe they are OK is a big worry. There is always a reason, an explanation, a sound bite, spin. After years of this, it all sounds the same, year after year. On paper, I agree England should be better. But, England remain - consistently - a second place team. And since England are a second place team, they need something different to plus them up. Continuing with the status quo is a recipe for mediocrity. And I have a sinking feeling that is what we have and will continue to have.

by Gwlad Sun 22 Mar 2015, 2:24 am

Rory_Gallagher wrote:
Gwlad wrote:
Steve_rugby wrote:Like I said, England top the 6N table, Wales are 4th. England have also scored the most tries and have the best points difference in the 6N and the only 6N team to have never lost to Italy. England are more consistent year on year than any other side.

Consistently 2nd, well done.

Surely you would prefer that over your grand slam wins?

Damn right, 2nd is best, England have proved that. Ironic it was a Welshman who cost us a deserved 2nd place this year, Vunipola's 'try' clearing being dropped

by Portnoy's Complaint Sun 22 Mar 2015, 2:58 am

Doc wrote:Agree 100%.
And the fact England management might really and truly believe they are OK is a big worry. There is always a reason, an explanation, a sound bite, spin. After years of this, it all sounds the same, year after year. On paper, I agree England should be better. But, England remain - consistently - a second place team. And since England are a second place team, they need something different to plus them up. Continuing with the status quo is a recipe for mediocrity. And I have a sinking feeling that is what we have and will continue to have.

Yep.

That's sport.

And England's New Generation look to be consigned to another disappointment

by Taylorman Sun 22 Mar 2015, 6:16 am

I thought the new generation looked good when out here. Did they drop the under 20 6N match? Annoyingly they've stopped showing the 6N live out here. First time ever. They're actually on now so we have to get those ad annoying feeds to watch it live.

by yappysnap Sun 22 Mar 2015, 6:39 am

I've questioned for a long time just what Catt and Farrell bring to the England coaching set up.

Well this 6N's has shown it, not enough.

We list because of our handling and defence, both of which were poor throughout the tournament.

Post RWC I'd look at changing these two up.

by Yoda Sun 22 Mar 2015, 8:40 am

Thanks for your input on this thread showing you are thinking of us, has someone got a secret crush on England? Its ok our little secret shhh

by Nachos Jones_1 Sun 22 Mar 2015, 9:11 am

I don't think that England need to change too much myself, Corb's will be back as will Morgan (will Morgan make the RWC?).

England may not have won this 6N but they certainly were the most attack orientated team in the tournament. Ford is a total breath of fresh air and when Young's fires, its a hell of a combination to have. My fear for England is Farrell Snr, when his boy gets well then he will oust Ford immediately and England will go back to their pragmatic approach. That will cost England I feel.

The only real issue England appear to have is at 12. Putting Manu there would be a mistake as he is purely a bosh runner and that would negate Ford and Young's work. I think the best option in the midfield is Eastmond and Joseph myself.

by majesticimperialman Sun 22 Mar 2015, 9:34 am

I would of liked to see Eastmond and Joseph play together seeing that they are club mates. I do agree that bringing Farrell back into the team would be a step back wards,
and why Farrell be able to come straight back into the team. England had a time when players who was picked to play for England was untouchable, could not be replaced.

England should not go down that route again. Players should have to earn the right to play for England (on merit form ) and not because (DAD) is in the coaching set up.

Ford has brought the attacking flair back into the England team. Ford and Young's play well together and unless either lose form or fitness they should continue in my opinion.

I still think that their is room for Johnny May in the team/squad.

by **LondonTiger** Sun 22 Mar 2015, 9:44 am

One thing we have learnt is that Ford has a kicking range of about 45m. As with other matches when asked to take them from near half-way (even straight in front) he lsoes accuracy by banging too hard. The skipper needs to learn that.

by formerly known as Sam Sun 22 Mar 2015, 9:58 am

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:
The only real issue England appear to have is at 12. Putting Manu there would be a mistake as he is purely a bosh runner and that would negate Ford and Young's work. I think the best option in the midfield is Eastmond and Joseph myself.

Manu is a better 13 than 12 certainly. A fit and in form Man is also head and shoulders above every other England centre though it's been a while since he was fit and in form.

As a 12 he'd certainly be a better option than Burrell who is all bosh and no brains at the minute. His error count this 6N is worryingly high. His inability to organise the midfield defence is also a concern.

Eastmond at 12 is excellent for the attacking aspects of the game but in the context of the current midfield not selectable. Eastmond has looked shaky in defence at international level and alongside the brave but extremely diminutive Ford and Joseph who has a tendency to shoot out the line and miss his man leaving gaps. That isn't a winning combination. Bath get away with it by having a monster pack. England don't and give up yardage too easily already.

by robbo277 Sun 22 Mar 2015, 10:21 am

I think we need to try Tuilagi and Joseph over the warm ups and in the opener against Fiji. If the defence is too leaky, then we bring Barritt back into the starting line up.

I'd have Ford, Farrell and Slade as my 10s, so wouldn't take any other centres to the World Cup. Just work on those 3 over the warm ups.

by Heaf Sun 22 Mar 2015, 10:27 am

Gwlad wrote:
Rory_Gallagher wrote:
Gwlad wrote:
Steve_rugby wrote:Like I said, England top the 6N table, Wales are 4th. England have also scored the most tries and have the best points difference in the 6N and the only 6N team to have never lost to Italy. England are more consistent year on year than any other side.

Consistently 2nd, well done.

Surely you would prefer that over your grand slam wins?

Damn right, 2nd is best, England have proved that. Ironic it was a Welshman who cost us a deserved 2nd place this year, Vunipola's 'try' clearing being dropped

OK I know I shouldn't bite as you're clearly on a wind up, but on this point - even if it was dropped unless it went forwards it doesn't matter - and it didn't go forwards ... I could pick out half a dozen other incidents throughout the tournament that if they'd gone the other way would have given England the championship - the reality is these things swing on small margins and either one of England, Ireland or Wales could have won it.

by HongKongCherry Sun 22 Mar 2015, 10:36 am

yappysnap wrote:I've questioned for a long time just what Catt and Farrell bring to the England coaching set up.

Well this 6N's has shown it, not enough.

We list because of our handling and defence, both of which were poor throughout the tournament.

Post RWC I'd look at changing these two up.

Sadly I agree. Taking aside the spectacle of yesterday this team has not improved in 18 months. I've always felt this World Cup would come too soon but by 2017 we'd be one of the world's top sides. I no longer have faith this coaching set up can deliver this. I don't feel they truly know what game they want to play and don't have the ability to react when our initial game plan doesn't work. Bomber's selection and use of substitutes is consistently poor.

I have full confidence that we'll get out of our group and may well get to the semis but this will be because of home advantage. I don't see this set up making the changes pre or post rwc to truly push on.

by robbo277 Sun 22 Mar 2015, 10:43 am

We could win the World Cup. In the last 6 months we've beat Australia and Wales. Do that (at home) and I think we get Scotland or Samoa in the quarters (I'd put us strong favourites for either of those) and (probably) Ireland in the semis (which I'd make us marginal favourites for with home advantage). You'd then imagine a final of South Africa or New Zealand, and although we would possibly be underdogs it wouldn't be unfeasible.

But a cup win wouldn't reflect that England are not at the level of the 2003 side. We're not winning Championships, we're not beating the top 2 at home or away and 4th in the World is probably accurate for us. We could win the cup, but I'm not sure that would make us the best team in the World.

The coaches have had 4 years and they haven't evolved the team. It's improved, but it's been a haphazard improvemention that appears to be more down to luck than judgement. I think Lancaster has a contact to 2019, so I doubt he'll be under review after the World Cup, but he needs to improve.

by DaveM Sun 22 Mar 2015, 10:50 am

England didn't blow it against France, they blew it by losing to Ireland. The performance yesterday was amazing - in years to come people won't believe we scored 55 points against France.

We are obviously improving, but this WC is probably about a year too early for us. Still, we've got a pack who are a match for anyone, and a backline that can actually cut through people so this is undoubtedly the best England side since 2002/3.

12 is the only remaining position to sort out. Burrell doesn't have the skillset to play there at international level (he's better suited to 13, but we have at least two better options there). Personally I think Slade could move us to a new level, but I don't think it will happen pre-WC. So, I predict it will be either Farrell or Tuilagi who plays there in the WC. I really do think we need a second kicking option at 12, as Ford struggled kicking the ball from hand. So, given that and the fact the coaches really rate Farrell I think the WC backline will be:

Youngs, Ford, Nowell, Farrell, Joseph, Watson, Brown.

Farrell isn't my dream 12 by any means, but I think he'll do as good a job as any of the other immediate contenders (except Slade).

by Cowshot Sun 22 Mar 2015, 10:57 am

Don't forget that Woodward went out in the semi's in his first World Cup. It takes some time to develop a WC winning squad it seems. More than four years. We've had political disruptions in that time, and this year many injuries, some in key positions and long term/serious. I don't think we're ready yet by a year at least.

We MIGHT win it even so. Definitely not impossible. But I wouldn't put the mortgage on it if I were you.

by **LondonTiger** Sun 22 Mar 2015, 11:09 am

Cowshot wrote:Don't forget that Woodward went out in the semi's in his first World Cup. It takes some time to develop a WC winning squad it seems. More than four years. We've had political disruptions in that time, and this year many injuries, some in key positions and long term/serious. I don't think we're ready yet by a year at least.

We MIGHT win it even so. Definitely not impossible. But I wouldn't put the mortgage on it if I were you.

1/4 Final. Late October 1999. Having seen all England's matches in the pool stages, my (then) wife bought me tickets to the play-off game v Fiji and booked a trip to Paris for the 1/4 final. High up in the Stade de France behind the posts we hade a prime view for Jannie de Beer's day of days.

by robbo277 Sun 22 Mar 2015, 11:19 am

Woodward took over in 1997 though and had two years before a World Cup. He won the Six Nations in his third and fourth attempts, and was beating the Southern Hemisphere sides too by then.

I dont want to get too bogged down in Woodward and 2003, but Lancaster inherited the Six Nations Champions and has presided over 4 consecutive second place finishes. He has alo got one win and one draw from 11 matches against New Zealand and South Africa (5 at home, 6 away).

Our team looks better now than it did in 2011 but you can't help but feel he stumbled upon Ford and Joseph by accident and will be in a quandary when Farrell and Manu are back fit.

by Cowshot Sun 22 Mar 2015, 11:28 am

Thanks for correction LT

robbo: agree that comparisons only go so far. The key point I'm making is that it takes more than four years to develop a WC winning squad and we have to remember the low point we were at when he took over.

In addition, I think Lancaster selects from the EPS primarily - as he pretty much has to, to keep the Clubs happy. We have a good Club/Country relationship and I think Lancaster is aware of the importance of the relationship. Watson, JJ etc weren't in the EPS last year and got at most looked at once. Come the new EPS selection, they are in the EPS and they are in the Squad...

by englandglory4ever Sun 22 Mar 2015, 11:52 am

It was a swashbuckling performance by England yesterday. Clearly the bottleneck causing the England back line to stutter on occasion is Burrell and Twelvetrees playing at 12. Both make frequent handling errors and gum up the works. We need a new quality 12 but who? The rest is doing pretty well.

by **Rugby Fan** Sun 22 Mar 2015, 11:59 am

robbo277 wrote:...you can't help but feel he stumbled upon Ford and Joseph by accident...

He didn't stumble across Ford. The player was always on his radar. He couldn't really have picked him much earlier, because he didn't get much of a run of top quality games at Leicester in his last season there, and wasn't especially impressive when he did turn out for the Saxons. Rather than take him to Argentina, Lancaster asked him to bulk up, and get a decent pre-season.

At Bath, he delivered on his earlier promise, made his Test debut against Wales last year, and was in line for the NZ tour but got injured. This year, then, was the first time Lancaster really had a chance to play him, and he has done so.

Joseph was also under consideration, starting matches on South Africa but injury meant he wasn't available for the next 6N. Injury and form pushed him down the pecking order but they have now pushed him back up. I do agree it's unlikely that Joseph would have got his chance if Tuilagi, Burrell and Barritt had been fit.

by DaveM Sun 22 Mar 2015, 12:26 pm

Taylorman wrote:I thought the new generation looked good when out here. Did they drop the under 20 6N match? Annoyingly they've stopped showing the 6N live out here. First time ever. They're actually on now so we have to get those ad annoying feeds to watch it live.

England won the u20's 6 Nations, beating France. They improved steadily through the tournament, and should have a reasonable chance at the JWC.

by Hood83 Sun 22 Mar 2015, 12:50 pm

Taylorman wrote:England are in the awkward position of thinking things are ok. Largely this same side has put itself into positions where they can win and have fallen short. The same side has given itself a sniff of the 6N title for the last three years and for one reason or another, dropped the baton near the finish line.

That has to have a psychological effect going into this years a World Cup. Since their standout win versus the ABs they haven't play to that standard by a long way.
In the toughest pool they will need to find ways to win in five successive matches to carry this tournament. They simply don't look like a side that is prepared to do that. In Lancaster they have a coach that had a promising start, said and did the right things, but hasn't managed to get them over the line in any tournament or series.

Don't know what the answer is, and this match provided some positives, but positives don't win tournaments. They just seem to be going around and around each year.

Pretty much agree with this Taylorman. People are going to slate me for this, but at what point does the Lancaster era get compared to the Johnson era unfavourably. I know we played awful, dull rugby, but we did actually win a 6Ns with him after all.

There are a lot of problems with our team, squad and coaching team in my mind. I don't think the coaches have any idea how they want us to play, other than having an aggressive defence. There was lots of talk of an 'all-court' All Blacks style game but it seems that means harem-scarem seat of the pants stuff. I'll say this - I genuinely think this England team is great fun to watch, but it's because it has almost no degree of control.

Almost every aspect looks like it has improved at times only to fall back into bad old habits. Sometimes that's the opposition but a lot of the time it looks like a team without clear direction from the coaches. Our rucking was decent against Wales, then against Italy and Ireland terrible. Our kicking from hand against Ireland and kick-chase was woeful, as was our rucking, then improved for Scotland. Our support play against Scotland was dismal, and then better against France, where we forgot how to defend. Always 1 step forward, 1 back.

I do not think Catt and Farrell are competent coaches, at all. I'm not convinced Rowntree is all he is cracked up to be either. There are definitely better forwards coaches out there.

In terms of the team picked. I still think Care is a better SH than Youngs at the basics. Youngs' sniping was great, but helped by awful French defence around the rucks. His pass, for me, is still not good enough. Burrell is not the answer at 12, I completely disagree with those worried about Eastmond at 12, his defence is fine, and the rest of his game is very good. We're not going to stop people on the gain-line in midfield but we just need to build a defensive strategy around that. Manu at 12 would be a disaster, he cannot pass, or he won't pass, you'll lose all the value of JJ, who is a far better all round 13, put Manu on the bench for impact sub. I think Watson will be an excellent wing/FB, but I personally would rather an absolute speedster on one side, probably May. Or at least have that in the squad somewhere. I also think Wade is too unique a talent to keep out of the squad forever.

I wouldn't drop Haskell for Wood, I don't think Wood is half as good defensively. Haskell is an idiot, but so is Hartley and he's been allowed back in. I think he gets one more chance on the brainfarts. It is a slight concern for me though that as much as Robshaw and Haskell i think are decent players, against other back-rows we still occasionally seem to be getting to the breakdown half a second slower than them. I'm not sure there is a way around it.

That's about it, I'd love us to have a couple more bruising carriers in the tight-five, but we don't. I'd love Ford and Slade to be a foot taller and 3 stonne heavier, and for Manu to be able and willing to pass or kick, but it's not ever going to happen. We are where we are, and as much as I'd love a different set of coaches, I'm afraid we're stuck with a good group of individuals but a team unlikely to become great.

by kingelderfield Sun 22 Mar 2015, 1:26 pm

Rugby Fan wrote:
robbo277 wrote:...you can't help but feel he stumbled upon Ford and Joseph by accident...
He didn't stumble across Ford. The player was always on his radar. He couldn't really have picked him much earlier, because he didn't get much of a run of top quality games at Leicester in his last season there, and wasn't especially impressive when he did turn out for the Saxons. Rather than take him to Argentina, Lancaster asked him to bulk up, and get a decent pre-season.

At Bath, he delivered on his earlier promise, made his Test debut against Wales last year, and was in line for the NZ tour but got injured. This year, then, was the first time Lancaster really had a chance to play him, and he has done so.

Joseph was also under consideration, starting matches on South Africa but injury meant he wasn't available for the next 6N. Injury and form pushed him down the pecking order but they have now pushed him back up. I do agree it's unlikely that Joseph would have got his chance if Tuilagi, Burrell and Barritt had been fit.

I think you're rewriting history. Lancaster would still be selecting Farrell and Tuilagi if they were fit.

Regardless of everything else, the coaches inexperience and lack of knowledge, strategy and slection, regardless of it all - Ford is the shining light that we can and should build a side and game around.

We do have the players to genuinely create competition for slection, both fowards and backs, and we will have more if they're able to return from injury; Tuilagi, Corbisiero, Wilson, Morgan.

What we don't have are the coaches who are able to juggle the puzzle. For example the backrow has never really worked however when we were playing a very limited defense orientated game plan its ill-defined effectiveness was adequate, however now if we are to attempt to play Ford ball in hand 15 man rugby then we are going to need a backrow that provides a greater link and so a real 7 will need to work in concert with a 6 and 8, Kvesic, Vunipola and Robshaw for example.

Equally, the issue of leadership has been fudged. Again we have had muddled thinking from the coaches which has been reflected in their continued and unchallenged selection of Robshaw, who has shown his fallibility at times (which is perfectly understandable) but has never been challenged by actually losing the arm band which could well have given him and others the message and the required fear and edge. What happens now if Robshaw is injured in the world cup, who is our tried and tested alternative? Others in the squad should have stood up but have been able to hide behind the coaches weaknesses.

Ultimately it will be down to the players (if they are selected) to work it out on the pitch as it is obvious that there will not be any kind of Irish Schmidt master plan capable of providing the strategic edge - there has't been any discernible game plan in Lancasters tenure so far so I very much doubt there will be anything in the future.

Lancaster is not a great selector and yet has even worse instinct around the replacements. Both have and will again in the future cost us dear and are probably the coaches major weaknesses.

Sadly I have no faith in Lancaster to succeed.

by WELL-PAST-IT Sun 22 Mar 2015, 1:29 pm

Knowsit17 wrote:
Steve_rugby wrote:England have never finished below 3rd in the 6N, whereas Wales are all over the place, even getting the Wooden Spoon in 2003. Wales overall position in the 6N is 4th, whilst Englands is 1st.

England managed a close 2nd in this years 6N with a massive number of first choice players injured for much of the 6N.

Oh dear...

1) England HAVE finished below 3rd in the 6N; they came 4th in 2005 and 2006.
2) How are Wales all over the place? They won four from five, exactly the same as England.
3) What relevance do results from 12 years ago have? Wales' Wooden Spoon is about as significant now as England's World Cup the same year i.e. not significant at all. The only relic left who played in that era is Gethin Jenkins

See your countryman's post below.

Why do we feed these trolls (not you Knowsit). If they were largely ignored they would just melt away with boredom.

by Barney McGrew did it Sun 22 Mar 2015, 1:46 pm

HongKongCherry wrote:
yappysnap wrote:I've questioned for a long time just what Catt and Farrell bring to the England coaching set up.

Well this 6N's has shown it, not enough.

We list because of our handling and defence, both of which were poor throughout the tournament.

Post RWC I'd look at changing these two up.

Sadly I agree. Taking aside the spectacle of yesterday this team has not improved in 18 months. I've always felt this World Cup would come too soon but by 2017 we'd be one of the world's top sides. I no longer have faith this coaching set up can deliver this. I don't feel they truly know what game they want to play and don't have the ability to react when our initial game plan doesn't work. Bomber's selection and use of substitutes is consistently poor.

I have full confidence that we'll get out of our group and may well get to the semis but this will be because of home advantage. I don't see this set up making the changes pre or post rwc to truly push on.

This.

What exactly is Stewie’s game-plan? If it’s a kicking game, then they’re often aimless, we don’t have the kickers with enough skill to execute, and only May chases them anyway. If it’s an off-loading game, we just don’t have the handling skills or support runners. It’s clearly not a stick-it-up-your-jumper game as our pack is too lightweight. Nor is it defensive, as yesterday showed too painfully. I think SL wants an AB’s 15-man game but we don’t have the players, or the tactics. After 4 years I’m really not sure what SL wants from the players we have.

What we do need is Corbs, Launchbury, Morgan, Barritt and Manu back. A winger with scary pace. And a top class coaching team.

by thomh Sun 22 Mar 2015, 1:47 pm

kingelderfield wrote:
Rugby Fan wrote:
robbo277 wrote:...you can't help but feel he stumbled upon Ford and Joseph by accident...
He didn't stumble across Ford. The player was always on his radar. He couldn't really have picked him much earlier, because he didn't get much of a run of top quality games at Leicester in his last season there, and wasn't especially impressive when he did turn out for the Saxons. Rather than take him to Argentina, Lancaster asked him to bulk up, and get a decent pre-season.

At Bath, he delivered on his earlier promise, made his Test debut against Wales last year, and was in line for the NZ tour but got injured. This year, then, was the first time Lancaster really had a chance to play him, and he has done so.

Joseph was also under consideration, starting matches on South Africa but injury meant he wasn't available for the next 6N. Injury and form pushed him down the pecking order but they have now pushed him back up. I do agree it's unlikely that Joseph would have got his chance if Tuilagi, Burrell and Barritt had been fit.

I think you're rewriting history. Lancaster would still be selecting Farrell and Tuilagi if they were fit.

Lancaster shifted and then dropped Farrell to accommodate Ford in the Autumn and we promptly beat Australia. Ford was starting at 10 this Six Nations regardless of Farrell's fitness.

by **Rugby Fan** Sun 22 Mar 2015, 2:03 pm

kingelderfield wrote:I think you're rewriting history. Lancaster would still be selecting Farrell and Tuilagi if they were fit.

Hardly. I just said above that Lancaster would likely have preferred Tuilagi. As for Ford, he moved Farrell to centre in order to start him against Samoa, and then dropped Farrell to the bench for Australia.

by kingelderfield Sun 22 Mar 2015, 2:03 pm

thomh wrote:
kingelderfield wrote:
Rugby Fan wrote:
robbo277 wrote:...you can't help but feel he stumbled upon Ford and Joseph by accident...
He didn't stumble across Ford. The player was always on his radar. He couldn't really have picked him much earlier, because he didn't get much of a run of top quality games at Leicester in his last season there, and wasn't especially impressive when he did turn out for the Saxons. Rather than take him to Argentina, Lancaster asked him to bulk up, and get a decent pre-season.

At Bath, he delivered on his earlier promise, made his Test debut against Wales last year, and was in line for the NZ tour but got injured. This year, then, was the first time Lancaster really had a chance to play him, and he has done so.

Joseph was also under consideration, starting matches on South Africa but injury meant he wasn't available for the next 6N. Injury and form pushed him down the pecking order but they have now pushed him back up. I do agree it's unlikely that Joseph would have got his chance if Tuilagi, Burrell and Barritt had been fit.

I think you're rewriting history. Lancaster would still be selecting Farrell and Tuilagi if they were fit.

Lancaster shifted and then dropped Farrell to accommodate Ford in the Autumn and we promptly beat Australia. Ford was starting at 10 this Six Nations regardless of Farrell's fitness.

I'm not so confident, though based on your logic I presume we won't be seeing Farrell amazingly re-emerge as our 10 (or anywhere else for that matter as he is NOT A CENTRE) during the world cup.

I just don't see how he can be selected in the squad given his lack of form and game time, when others better than him are performing well.

by The Saint Sun 22 Mar 2015, 2:06 pm

Gwlad wrote:
Knowsit17 wrote:
Steve_rugby wrote:England have never finished below 3rd in the 6N, whereas Wales are all over the place, even getting the Wooden Spoon in 2003. Wales overall position in the 6N is 4th, whilst Englands is 1st.

England managed a close 2nd in this years 6N with a massive number of first choice players injured for much of the 6N.

Oh dear...

1) England HAVE finished below 3rd in the 6N; they came 4th in 2005 and 2006.
2) How are Wales all over the place? They won four from five, exactly the same as England.
3) What relevance do results from 12 years ago have? Wales' Wooden Spoon is about as significant now as England's World Cup the same year i.e. not significant at all. The only relic left who played in that era is Gethin Jenkins

Melon will be Grumpy about this.

Steve is a prize plum let's be honest. Keep up the good work Gwlad, the guy nibbles too easily.

by robbo277 Sun 22 Mar 2015, 2:14 pm

I think Lancaster would have gone with Farrell had he been fit, with Ford on the bench. We can't be sure but I think for Wales in Cardiff Lancaster would have started Farrell. He started him in the Autumn when Ford was the form guy and only dropped him when it didn't work.

Same with Joseph, not sure how he didn't get a game in the Autumn.

by Sponsored content