State of the team: England

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?

They must see the same Dr as Croft and Corbs, those two never seem to stay fit very long either!

Surely if Robshaw ever did break then Wood would move to 7 and Hask would play 6. Mid game we'd probably end up with Vunipola, Wood, Easter depending upon who was benched.

Yeah we have a few young lads who seem dogged by injury at the moment.

Manu & Corbs are two prominent ones, but Fraser definitely has issues as well. Which is a shame.

yappysnap wrote:They must see the same Dr as Croft and Corbs, those two never seem to stay fit very long either!

Surely if Robshaw ever did break then Wood would move to 7 and Hask would play 6. Mid game we'd probably end up with Vunipola, Wood, Easter depending upon who was benched.

Does it matter which number they have on their back? Wood at 6 , Haskell at 7.

Would Kvesic / Fraser be ok that role? Or would you say they were more specialised?

Kvesic may be next in line, but if Clifford stays fit he could overtake him before long. He shows every sign of having Robshaw and Easter's sense of the game while being faster and a better carrier than either.

Well that's good to hear.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

yappysnap wrote:They must see the same Dr as Croft and Corbs, those two never seem to stay fit very long either!

Surely if Robshaw ever did break then Wood would move to 7 and Hask would play 6. Mid game we'd probably end up with Vunipola, Wood, Easter depending upon who was benched.

Does it matter which number they have on their back? Wood at 6 , Haskell at 7.

Would Kvesic / Fraser be ok that role? Or would you say they were more specialised?

Haskell plays 7 for Wasps to great effect and many of his best games for England have come wearing 7. I agree there isn't a huge distinction with how England currently select their flankers however.

To my mind, Haskell plays best when he has a clear role to play: hit every ruck, tackle anything that moves. That style of 7 play suits him, though you lose some of Wood or Robshaw's flexibility.

I would say it'd be tricky for any flankers to fill the Wood/Robshaw combo, unless they do that at club level. Only guy I can think of would be Callum Clark

If we ever did play an Armitage/Kvesic/Fraser type at 7 then straight away it doubles the workload of the 6 and 8, which could be bad. But then the speed and other skills those guys bring could help.

Tough decisions.

Interesting analysis by Quinten Poulsen on Comeallwithin. He looked at the number of turnovers - for and against, of Robshaw and Armitage in the Champions Cup so far:

CR (5 games) - 6 turnovers won; 4 turnovers conceded; 2 penalties conceded.
SA (6 games) - 16 turnovers won; 6 turnovers conceded; 10 penalties conceded.

So, while the pundits are right to point out that Armitage wins more turnovers, net-net, they both lose as much ball as they win.

Some very interesting points made on the England side post the 6 Ns, which I will now add my 2 pence worth as I am sitting in Vancouver airport waiting to fly home from a great skiing trip in Whistler (that was unnecessary and I apologise).

Some real progress made as posters have pointed out in GF creating opportunities and JJ finishing them off. Problems as 12 and also both wingers. Add in where to fit Manu and we are sadly in a position we should not be with all the time and money available to Lancaster and his team. Let's be honest and admit that some of the selections have been fortuitous and would not have happened without injuries. GF and JJ are the main plus points and both had to benefit from such injuries. But I do accept that SL has been unlucky in that so many players have not performed (36, Burrell, May).

But at least we did create try scoring opportunities, which we could not do previously. On the plus side our forwards will always be a match for most sides and we have blooded a number of players and should be able to cope with any injuries in the RWC. Hopefully Lawes, Launchbury, Cole, Corbs, Marler, Wilson, Attwood, Vunipolas x 2, Morgan, Robshaw, Wood, Haskell, Croft should go well. Of course we would like more turnover ball, but lets ensure we are first class in the set piece, add power off the bench and are strong on the gain line.

I would love to have S.Armitage on the bench to cover the back row and hopefully gain an important turnover or two in the last 20 minutes. Slade must be considered at 12, but of course I am sure they will try and integrate Manu there to keep JJ at 13.

Lots of comments on scoring tries to win the RWC, but I do believe that it is defence that wins RWCs. The knockout matches mean that less risks are taken and therefore it is defensive mistakes dictating the outcome of matches. Plenty for England to work on then! I might even try Slade at 12, Manu at 13 and JJ at 11/14. We should not be scratching around trying to come up with our best combo, but it is what it is and we will need to try a couple of options and then stick with one.

Post the RWC I think any consideration of replacing players in the hope of future rewards from younger players is rubbish. We are due a GS and at least some 6N titles so pick the strongest team and tell them to win it. Then England can send a large party of players with the Lions. Only pick a younger player if he is at least equal to the older one. It is far better to have a winning side and to slowly introduce new players, one by one, into that culture.

In regards that last point, that's what I think most of us are saying in giving players like Kvesic etc a go. Not wide spread changes but integration of players into the side over a prolonged period giving them the best chance to succeed while providing England with options should players pick up long term injuries etc. Picking the same team constantly has obvious merits and it's something Lancaster has had to deal with coming in and having to build lots of new partnerships, the medium and long term view needs to be looked at as well.

Tom Youngs has said selecting players from overseas could disrupt team morale. I'm not sure if we should be choosing Armitage, Abendanon etc but I'm not in favour of players laying down rules about who they want to play with, however well-intentioned.

Conor O'Shea has also said selecting from overseas is a bad idea, saying there can always be exceptional circumstances.

I admire the RFU and Lancaster for their position. Players like Armitage and Abendanon know exactly what is required to be considered - play in England. Allowing exceptions undermines all those players that put playing for their country ahead of a higher salary. There's nothing wrong with choosing to play in France, but you can't have your cake and eat it.

hugehandoff England created plenty of try scoring opportunities throughout the tournament but they scored 0 tries vs Ireland. Despite the England attack being hyped up, against the strongest defence it was very poor indeed.

Doesn't matter if you scored numerous tries vs a weak team if against a top tier side you can't even score 1.

When you can't score tries the only way to win is by kicks in general - something that Ford still needs work on as shown by his loss to Ireland and Leinster.

The wins in the ERCC for Leinster and Saracens show how important the boot is - despite being outscored in the tries and being worse off in attack they won.

Discpline was arguably a deciding factor too.

England's discipline vs Ireland was appalling.

Are England really any better than 2013 or 2014? In my opinion they are not.

Need to keep looking at players because England can improve.

Haskell turned up in one game.
Hartley had a poor 6 nations.
Burrell had a 6 nations to forget.
Most players had games to forget vs Ireland.

The attack has improved since 2013, I really don't know how anyone can say it hasn't. Personally I think the overall team has as well but others such as Ireland have raised their game.

You think we need an additional dedicated kicker in the team?

Also how would you personally balance the best players for the team against form of players?

beshocked wrote:

Discpline was arguably a deciding factor too.

England's discipline vs Ireland was appalling.

The penalty count was certainly appalling - but I am not sure it was entirely down to ill-discipline. England have had difficulty getting on Joubert's wavelength in most of the games he's reffed for them recently.

The one really significant piece of indiscipline was Twelvetrees' accidental offside, which led to an otherwise good try being disallowed (and with no real advantage gained - Joubert was totally justified in disallowing the try, but the replay showed that Ireland weren't materially impeded and still had two tacklers on Easter as he went over the line).

To my mind there were three big issues against Ireland -
1) England came up against a style of play at the breakdown that the ref was happy to support (though Barnes was deeply unhappy with exactly the same style of play two weeks later - a problem for Ireland and for the game as a whole), and didn't have an answer for it. They go for a fairly light-touch at the breakdown but need to be able to up the intensity and fight fire with fire

2) They didn't have a decent option for counter-attacking from kicks. Brown's ability to run a kick back through 2 or 3 tacklers made a big difference last year. Without him, the counter-attacks looked a bit lost. The real surprise was that they didn't get Nowell to field the kicks and run them back since he can do the same thing.

3) They came expecting setpiece dominance, and it took 60 minutes to find an alternative option when it didn't arrive.

All of which comes down to the same question: "What's Plan B?"

England aren't the only team with that problem. Wales have it. Ireland have it to some extent. The All Blacks might have it, but we never find out because their approach is to keep doing Plan A in absolute confidence that the opposition will eventually crack.

It's also not a new problem for England. Woodward had exactly that problem from 97-2002. It was only in 2003 that they worked out that Plan B was to bring on Mike Catt and sacrifice some power for having his nous and two players who could play 10 on the pitch.

I do think post WC things do need re-assessed.

But not wholesale changes. This is still a young side. They are learning.

The word is Balance. And I still maintain it is something that Lancaster hasn't always achieved both in the starting 15 and particularly with his use of the bench.
He hasn't always been lucky with injuries, we have to give him that. Losing the likes of Launchbury, Corbs, Cole, Manu, Slater, Farrell (form and fitness) etc etc for large periods of time is disruptive.
Players like Hartley are amongst the best in the world...and he has been constently good in recent years, so its difficult when he has such a quiet 6n that he had this year. But Lancaster should have made the call and started with Youngs who looked explosive everytime he came on. If Hartley is on the wane then Lancaster needs to look at other options, many have mentioned Jamie George.

In some cases it may have been lucky...Ford has had to play and has grown in to the position nicely, likewise JJ.

I still think they need to look closely at the set up of the pack. I still think we have gone for athletic workhorses at the expense of a few heavyweights, but just my opinon.

Personally I prefer a stable consistent selection policy for the team....but that doesn't mean you cant try players out. Players like Garvey, Ewers, Kvesic etc should have had some time on the green in the AI's or the 6n.

This is something the AB's do very well.

beshocked wrote:hugehandoff England created plenty of try scoring opportunities throughout the tournament but they scored 0 tries vs Ireland. Despite the England attack being hyped up, against the strongest defence it was very poor indeed.

Doesn't matter if you scored numerous tries vs a weak team if against a top tier side you can't even score 1.

When you can't score tries the only way to win is by kicks in general - something that Ford still needs work on as shown by his loss to Ireland and Leinster.

The wins in the ERCC for Leinster and Saracens show how important the boot is - despite being outscored in the tries and being worse off in attack they won.

Discpline was arguably a deciding factor too.

England's discipline vs Ireland was appalling.

Are England really any better than 2013 or 2014? In my opinion they are not.

Need to keep looking at players because England can improve.

Haskell turned up in one game.
Hartley had a poor 6 nations.
Burrell had a 6 nations to forget.
Most players had games to forget vs Ireland.

JeeeeeZUS, you are still banging on about that Ireland game. When are you going to get over it?

Poorfour wrote:Interesting analysis by Quinten Poulsen on Comeallwithin. He looked at the number of turnovers - for and against, of Robshaw and Armitage in the Champions Cup so far:

CR (5 games) - 6 turnovers won; 4 turnovers conceded; 2 penalties conceded.
SA (6 games) - 16 turnovers won; 6 turnovers conceded; 10 penalties conceded.

So, while the pundits are right to point out that Armitage wins more turnovers, net-net, they both lose as much ball as they win.

Armitage really must look at why he is giving away so many penalties. Bearing in mind he needs the other to backrowers to do the hard stuff for him, unlike Robshaw, 10 penalties at the breakdown is a penalty machine England cannot afford.

Without reading the article, how are those penalties conceded? Does seem a high number

We may get a glimpse of the future this weekend with both Itoje and Burgess packing down at 6 for their clubs.

GeordieFalcon wrote:We may get a glimpse of the future this weekend with both Itoje and Burgess packing down at 6 for their clubs.

How many penalties is Burgess going to give away do you think, Richards will be telling the Falcons guys to target him at the breakdown, offer a little bit of the ball off the ball on the ground, see if he is tempted.

One hell of a big back row though, Houston and Lowe are not small.

no 7 & 1/2 no tries vs Ireland does not show that the attack has improved sufficiently enough.

People have different opinions on who is best. Some players in form are a great asset to the team but seriously what's the point of sticking with off form players?


Jimpy when England stop losing in the most decisive 6 nations games I will stop mentioning those matches.

I keep mentioning it because there is an incredible foolish notion that England have improved. If they had improved sufficiently they would be stronger than Ireland and would be confident of victory over SA (a team England haven't beaten in years).

2nd,2nd,2nd,2nd - that's Lancaster's record in the 6 nations. Not bad but England have not improved enough to win the elusive GS.

To go to the next level - Ford needs to improve his game control - particularly his kicking. He's got attacking talent but that will count for nothing if England are beaten by the boot.

Wales pretty much beat Ireland with the boot of Halfpenny - could do the same to England......

Ford made Sexton look like a deity

Sexton has been to proven to be mortal enough times.

England must rise above rock paper and scissors.

You can t base it on 1 game beshocked. Seriously from an attcaking viewpoint England are light years ahead of Lancasters 1st 6N.

On the basis of improving overall would you accept that its possible we have but so have Ireland from their previous coach? You ve also surely got to consider injuries in that.

Chasing form players can be detrimental, experience and understanding of team mates is important surely?

1 game is all it takes to take you out of the running of a trophy.........

I agree the attack is better than Lancaster's first 6 nations but hasn't improved sufficiently from 2013-2015 to win a GS.

Injuries? Can't use that excuse. England have more resources and teams than any other side in the world bar France. We've got one of the best U20s sides in the world yet can't rise above Ireland - a team with far less resources and only 4 teams.

You have to ask yourself - do you think England should be better than Ireland. I personally think we should.

Ireland aren't the ABs!

Joseph was a form player - oh look he had a good 6 nations what a surprise.
Nowell was in good form and was scoring tries - oh look he scored tries this season in the 6 nations.....
Ford - had a good 6 nations..... see a pattern?

Burrell was in poor form - oh right look he had a poor 6 nations.

Farrell was in poor form in the AIs - it was no surprise he had a poor AIs. The only people surprised were Lancaster and Farrell Sr!

These players have enough time to get acquainted with each other in the numerous training squads. They are professional rugby players after all.

On the basis of club form, Ma'a Nonu wouldn't have started a game for the ABs for the last 3 seasons

Never stopped him tearing it up for them ..

I see your point beshocked but only to a certain degree. Joseph was tearing it up in the autumn too, which is why he was able to continue in that vein through the 6N

You need some luck along the way. Of course you need to look at injuries we took to the field against Ireland missing key players. The players coming in are good but they re not 1st choice for a reason. Personally I dont think just because we re England we should win, Ireland have a very good team and were at home.

So you would have dropped the majority of the team following Ireland?

Bambam agreed there are some players poor for club but not country.

Morgan fits into that category with England and Gloucester but he's an exception not the norm.

My point is that it's not a normal situation.

no 7 & 1/2 I am sorry but you can't rely on luck to win matches. Sure sometimes luck or the ref intepretations can have an effect on the game but you cannot change them.

You can only change your own team and adapt. Only look at where you can improve.

No not drop the majority of the team but I would have taken out the likes of Attwood,Haskell,Hartley and Burrell. Dropped them to send out a message that that if you play poorly your place cannot be taken for granted.

England should look to win every game they play. England had before the Ireland match won 3 on the bounce vs Ireland.

It's not even as if England were narrowly beaten - it was a comfortable win for Ireland with England failing to score a try.

Ireland aren't the best team in the world! It's not like beating NZ in NZ!

Shouldn't put Ireland on a pedestal - yes Ireland are a good side but not unbeatable.

I know I am a but the only way England can improve is if they focus on what went so wrong against Ireland and build from there.

I don't feel that England were unlucky vs Ireland - they were well beaten. You could argue the loss vs France last year was unlucky but again you can't focus on luck.

Luck is a fickle mistress. One day it can help you, the next it can kick you where it hurts most.

Not saying that Ireland are beatable or that you have to rely on luck. I'm saying that Ireland in Ireland would win more times than they lose. They have a class team under Schmidt. Most teams will have had a slice of luck on the way to a trophy, even the best.

I also don't think England were unlucky against Ireland, maybe on another day the pass from Twelvetrees is allowed and we win the 6Ns but we were well beaten. we play them at home and I think we win the teams are close.

Focus too much on 1 game and you lose where strides have been made across all games.

As I said before 1 loss in a game can make all the difference between a trophy or not - whether it's club or international rugby.

To win the GS you need to string 5 wins together, to win the RWC you need to string a run of wins together - of course you can get away with a loss in the pool stages but it might make it tougher to progress.

You look at where you went wrong and make adjustments.

I don't see the strides because progress has not been made in the most important part - the win count.

England are not better than Ireland when I think they should be.

Progress is when you do better - 4 wins out of 5 is not an improvement. 5 out of 5 would be.

I am not expecting England to win the GS every year but they haven't since 2003.

I've never really focused on it like that and never will so fundamental difference in how we judge.

IIRC, I don't think anyone's actually won the RWC having lost a game in the pool stages. England in 2007 came close, but from the moment Cueto's knee went into touch they looked second best in the final to the team that had nilled them in the pool stages. Course, it didn't help that they ended up with Peter Richards playing 7.

England enter RWC15 with a better team, playing better rugby than 4 years ago and 8 years ago.

For anyone unable to see that:

Click Here

The question then....

Do you take Itoje?
And does everyone agree ultimately he'll be a lock...or do you think he'll be a 6.

LondonTiger wrote:England enter RWC15 with a better team, playing better rugby than 4 years ago and 8 years ago.

For anyone unable to see that:

Click Here

But with nothing to show for it except 2011 6 Nations, no silverware before that since 2003 (sorry triple crown 2014)

And let's not forget that win at the MS on 6th February

Steve_rugby wrote:And let's not forget that win at the MS on 6th February

yes, congratulations, it all went south from there, again.

Gwlad wrote:

Steve_rugby wrote:And let's not forget that win at the MS on 6th February

yes, congratulations, it all went south from there, again.

Here we go again.

We lost an away game in Ireland, we won't be playing any away games in the WC. Our home form is strong and we're playing good rugby and scoring tries, especially at HQ.

Lack of silverware means little in the scheme of things as this is a purely home competition.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

Steve_rugby wrote:And let's not forget that win at the MS on 6th February

yes, congratulations, it all went south from there, again.

Here we go again.

We lost an away game in Ireland, we won't be playing any away games in the WC. Our home form is strong and we're playing good rugby and scoring tries, especially at HQ.

Lack of silverware means little in the scheme of things as this is a purely home competition.

Ok, we'll review the lack of silverware post RWC see if it means nowt still.

Gwlad wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

Steve_rugby wrote:And let's not forget that win at the MS on 6th February

yes, congratulations, it all went south from there, again.

Here we go again.

We lost an away game in Ireland, we won't be playing any away games in the WC. Our home form is strong and we're playing good rugby and scoring tries, especially at HQ.

Lack of silverware means little in the scheme of things as this is a purely home competition.

Ok, we'll review the lack of silverware post RWC see if it means nowt still.

It's totally irrelevant though Gwlad, surely you can see this? This is a unique competition as England are at home for all their games. We have an impressive home record against all sides bar SA & NZ, they're the main concern. If we can avoid them or at least stay away till the semi final/final we have a strong chance.

Not winning a 6N for 4 years doesn't really mean that much as there's away games involved.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

Steve_rugby wrote:And let's not forget that win at the MS on 6th February

yes, congratulations, it all went south from there, again.

Here we go again.

We lost an away game in Ireland, we won't be playing any away games in the WC. Our home form is strong and we're playing good rugby and scoring tries, especially at HQ.

Lack of silverware means little in the scheme of things as this is a purely home competition.

Ok, we'll review the lack of silverware post RWC see if it means nowt still.

It's totally irrelevant though Gwlad, surely you can see this? This is a unique competition as England are at home for all their games. We have an impressive home record against all sides bar SA & NZ, they're the main concern. If we can avoid them or at least stay away till the semi final/final we have a strong chance.

Not winning a 6N for 4 years doesn't really mean that much as there's away games involved.

Fully accept Fortress Twickenham etc but England have not done well in competition, they seem unable to kick on and progress. As for not being worried about the best set of backs in the world when they need to be in Aus and a team that have won in Twickenham in the last few years in Wales that seems a huge call. Of course the 6 Nations pleas into comparison to RWC but i have seen no results from the potential that England have. Its a huge ask to expect it to all come good now but you seem confident so we'll see.

Do you know who would start for England at 8, 9, 10 and 12?

I don't expect us to win but we have a better chance than if the WC was in another country.

Morgan/Billy are equally adapt at 8 and offer us different styles for different games.

Youngs/Ford are the obvious half backs, 12 is still open to a few candidates, all with a decent amount of Int experience.

Injuries & form come into it also.

We know we can beat Wales & Aus, I'm pretty confident that we will.

The real issue is beating SA & NZ and no amount of 6N wins will help us with that feat. You only have to look at Wales to prove that point.

GeordieFalcon wrote:The question then....

Do you take Itoje?
And does everyone agree ultimately he'll be a lock...or do you think he'll be a 6.

He'd have to go some, a fair way, to be in the squad proper. He's currently no where near and I'd see Lawes, Launchbury, Attwood, Parling, Kruis Slater and Kitchener be picked before him. He has the potential to be the best of the lot or close to it and that says a lot given the first 2 names there. As to his position it depends where he or saracens pick, he could be great in either, he'll probably end as a lock though?

He's not ready imo

Gwlad is right - no GS since 2003 simply isn't good enough.

The very poor performance vs Ireland showed that England have a lot of work to do.

England are more than capable of beating Australia and Wales but England should not be complacent.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:The question then....

Do you take Itoje?
And does everyone agree ultimately he'll be a lock...or do you think he'll be a 6.

He'd have to go some, a fair way, to be in the squad proper. He's currently no where near and I'd see Lawes, Launchbury, Attwood, Parling, Kruis Slater and Kitchener be picked before him. He has the potential to be the best of the lot or close to it and that says a lot given the first 2 names there. As to his position it depends where he or saracens pick, he could be great in either, he'll probably end as a lock though?

Definitely a prospect, but I agree he's not ready. 

In the Saxons game, he got dominated(physically) by Iain Henderson and I hope he took away a few lessons!

bluestonevedder wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:The question then....

Do you take Itoje?
And does everyone agree ultimately he'll be a lock...or do you think he'll be a 6.

He'd have to go some, a fair way, to be in the squad proper. He's currently no where near and I'd see Lawes, Launchbury, Attwood, Parling, Kruis Slater and Kitchener be picked before him. He has the potential to be the best of the lot or close to it and that says a lot given the first 2 names there. As to his position it depends where he or saracens pick, he could be great in either, he'll probably end as a lock though?

Definitely a prospect, but I agree he's not ready. 

In the Saxons game, he got dominated(physically) by Iain Henderson and I hope he took away a few lessons!

Well he got absolutely hammered in one tackle but overall was one of the better England performers

To be fair Henderson has about a stone in weight on Itoje and is three years older (makes a difference at that age). I believe Itoje will be a lineout forward later on and may be liable to take the odd smacking by heavier forwards. That depends upon how much he bulks up over the next few year though.

Don't forget Itoje is young he's improving all the time.

I am sure he's a better player now than he was in that Saxons game. Gaining experience all the time.

More experience can make a huge difference - look at Nowell - one of the worst English performers last season in the 6 nations but now a year on he's a much improved player. When he played he was one of the best to be fair to him.

A player who struggled to score tries but now doesn't have the same issues.

Look at others like Ford and Watson too - a year on, much improved.

Now I know not every player will improve but Itoje is only 20.

I'd still disagree Nowell was one of the worst performers but it was obvious he was going to get better. Itoje will be capped but can't see it happening before the world cup given the strength at 2nd row.