England's RWC Preparations

First topic message reminder :

Original thread about to explode

https://www.606v2.com/t59064-englands-50-man-training-squad-for-rwc

beshocked wrote:Sgt Pooly a lucky win vs SA is still a win - more than England have done vs SA in the last few years!

Still ran out 34-9 winners vs Argentina.

If they are kicking at 50% and still winning surely that's a positive for Australia?

If England had those two results under our belt we would be very pleased.

geordiefalcon it's a tough group agreed. Injuries could well have an impact too - I would say Wales are most vulnerable and still feel that if one team will not make the 1/4s it's Wales.

Agree. I don't fancy their chances of winning either game and certainly won't win both.

Pollard had a real stinker and they only just lost.

Sorry to keep banging on about this but Aus thrive on hard, running pitches.....the WC is in England in October. Looking half decent playing in Aus has zero relevance to playing in England in Autumn.

They were really poor against a scratch Arg team, they do not look impressive.

rodders wrote:

beshocked wrote:Sgt Pooly a lucky win vs SA is still a win - more than England have done vs SA in the last few years!

Still ran out 34-9 winners vs Argentina.

If they are kicking at 50% and still winning surely that's a positive for Australia?

If England had those two results under our belt we would be very pleased.

geordiefalcon it's a tough group agreed. Injuries could well have an impact too - I would say Wales are most vulnerable and still feel that if one team will not make the 1/4s it's Wales.

Agree. I don't fancy their chances of winning either game and certainly won't win both.

I think anyone discounting Wales may have a shocker, over the last few seasons they have consistently finished tournaments strongest of all home nations, they are susceptible to ropy first games, they rarely win first game of Autumn series or 6N, but they rarely lose the last games too, ask SA and England how strong Wales can be when a few games are under their belts!

Iid probably agree Wales are the most at risk at losing, but by such a small margin I wouldn't put money on it.

I don't think anyone is accounting for the huge pressure England will be under also, being the first ever host to not qualify through their group has to be playing on peoples minds, as it's a real possibility. Pressure and stress can do funny things to teams.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Pollard had a real stinker and they only just lost.

Sorry to keep banging on about this but Aus thrive on hard, running pitches.....the WC is in England in October. Looking half decent playing in Aus has zero relevance to playing in England in Autumn.

They were really poor against a scratch Arg team, they do not look impressive.

We'll find out in about 11 days, I don't think SA look that great right now either, very inconsistent set peice v Aus, and run out of steam against a trial NZ outfit.

They should have won both though.

Sgt Pooly depends if you care more about results or performances.

Both England and France didn't exactly look impressive in 2007 and 2011 RWC yet they both made the respective finals and could have won the finals - very small margins.

Australia might not be putting in top class performances but they've done enough to win.

Oh also England have been trying to play an "attacking" style which plays right into the hands of Australia. Australia would have loved the England-France game.

Agree Rodders.

Wales have got so close to beating Australia on so many occasions in the last few years but it doesn't matter - Australia have won again and again - psychologically Wales have struggled - it was only in the Lions with some Irish and English to help (sorry Scots but your players were overlooked) the Welsh players get over the line.

England have also beaten Wales in the last two encounters with quite different XVs - something like 7 different players.


Fanster biggest problem for Wales is that Pool A is arguably the most attritional pool as well as the toughest. Keeping players fit will be important and Wales are most vulnerable to injuries because their strength in depth is not as impressive as England in particular.

No 7&1/2 wrote:They should have won both though.

I disagree, NZ were always running the SA back row around from the first minute, 6 pack changes for SA meant they just didn't have the legs.

Theres a saying, make subs on your terms, not theirs. SA were forced into subs, and by the 70th minute were at the mercy of NZ.

Well England have Wales early on so you'd have to fancy England. Given Australia's recent record against Wales and their RC form I'd make them strong favourites, especially with Wales TH issues.

You can't write Wales off .... but yea I'm writing them off.....

Beshocked

That is why I have Wales as ever so slightly 3rd place in the group, but as I said, it may not be that attritional by the time England play Wales, well for Wales anyway...

England have to face Fiji first up, Wales Uruguay. There are distinct advantages for each team.

Wales rust means points difference may be lesser.

Englands first game will be a lot more attritional than Wales.

You have to imagine the nerves will effect England more having a potential banana skin first up, whereas Wales will be confident of a walk over.

By the time Fiji play Wales they have already faced and probably lost to England and Australia, this could then be an easier game for Wales due to changes and ttrition Fiji have faced.

October the 10th will be a decider, no matter what really happens Wales v Australia will provide a 1/4 finalist, whereas England have to play Uruguay knowing what they have to do to qualify, or not dependng on scenarios.

And its playing England at home. Yes Wales have won there in 2008 and 2012, but their record there is hardly stellar.

lostinwales wrote:And its playing England at home. Yes Wales have won there in 2008 and 2012, but their record there is hardly stellar.

Neither is Englands V SH teams.

The pressure is squarely on England, Wales could go out of the group and Gatland still has a contract to the next RWC, England go out of the group and they are a bit of a laughing stock, first ever host to not qualify.

I'd say English players are under the most pressure of anyone, even NZ right now.

Well given the group theres pressue on all. Its not a normal group.

England's record there vs Australia is none too shabby at all, and that's all that counts right now.

NZ well we did at least win one and they are always strong

SA does seem to be a problem though

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well given the group theres pressue on all. Its not a normal group.

Thats why theres pressure on England more than Wales and Australia...

This is the first time there hasn't been 2 clear favourites in every RWC group, however everyone, including the bookies are tipping England to get out of the group if not win it.

For me that can't be overlooked when you consider match ups, most coaches do what they can to reduce stressors, theres no hiding place at Twickenham, and it very much is all or nothing for England, qualification through the group is expected, elimination may cost Lancaster his job.

Agree with Sgt as weather could play a big part how Aus go. A glorious Indian summer favours Aus, a wet misserable NH autumn favour Eng/Wal.

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well given the group theres pressue on all. Its not a normal group.

Thats why theres pressure on England more than Wales and Australia...

This is the first time there hasn't been 2 clear favourites in every RWC group, however everyone, including the bookies are tipping England to get out of the group if not win it.

For me that can't be overlooked when you consider match ups, most coaches do what they can to reduce stressors, theres no hiding place at Twickenham, and it very much is all or nothing for England, qualification through the group is expected, elimination may cost Lancaster his job.

May cost any of the coaches jobs if performances are bad enough. Johnson was safe last time and then wasnt. Any of them could go out. You nervous as a Wales fan or feel more comforted that you re playing in England against Aus and England?

Weather will be good during the group games - October is generally a dry month.

Cheika is s forward specialist and understands how to play (and win in) NH conditions -their pack, and scrum, more than held their own 2 weeks running against the boks and pumas so people are stereotyping them a bit by thinking they are weak up front.

broadlandboy surely England are trying towards a "prettier" style of rugby?

Fanster there's a lot of pressure on Australia because they've never failed to qualify for the quarter finals.

England might have more pressure than Wales and Australia but there's still a huge amount on the other two.

Twickenham is not a hiding place agreed but it should be a haven for England - a familiar place where England players can get used to the atmosphere, conditions and get into a rythm. Kickers should be able to practice on the turf knowing the dimensions and being able to adapt accordingly. Sounds silly but different venues hold different challenges.

There's a reason why home teams generally perform better compared to away sides.

None of Wales,Australia or England wants to be eliminated before the quarter finals.

Do you honestly think Welsh fans will be satisfied if they are eliminated? No of course not.

All three countries have the burdens of their countries expectations on their shoulders.

rodders wrote:Weather will be good during the group games - October is generally a dry month.

Cheika is s forward specialist and understands how to play (and win in) NH conditions  -their pack, and scrum, more than held their own 2 weeks running against the boks and pumasso people are stereotyping them a bit by thinking they are weak up front.

No it didn't?!?!?!

Did anybody watch these games? The Aus scrum was battered in both matches!

lostinwales wrote:England's record there vs Australia is none too shabby at all, and that's all that counts right now.

NZ well we did at least win one and they are always strong

SA does seem to be a problem though

Our record against Australia anywhere in the world in the last five years isn't too shabby, played 6 and won 4 of them. Of those, the last four games have been in Twickenham and it is 3-1 to England. I'll take that if we are worrying about recent history.

beshoked England might be trying for a " prettier" style of rugby but they still have the forwards to play "ugly". The NH season ensures that.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

rodders wrote:Weather will be good during the group games - October is generally a dry month.

Cheika is s forward specialist and understands how to play (and win in) NH conditions  -their pack, and scrum, more than held their own 2 weeks running against the boks and pumasso people are stereotyping them a bit by thinking they are weak up front.

No it didn't?!?!?!

Did anybody watch these games? The Aus scrum was battered in both matches!

Battered is harsh, SA and Argentina were more than capable of destroying the Aus scrum at any given point, but Aus have this wonderfull way of defencively scrummaging and getting penalties.

SA and Arg clearly have the better scrums, however Aus held them pretty decently.

I agree that the Australian pack isn't looking as vulnerable as we might have hoped, and their match against South Africa showed they still have a knack of keeping games close enough to go on and win.

They aren't the finished article by any means but I can't see them looking especially outgunned. England knocked them out of the cup in 1995 and 2007 when they were perhaps overconfident. I don't see that being the case this year.

Australia's recent goalkicking record has been poor, and they'll want to improve there. That's another concern I have for England, incidentally.

I know George Ford is not the risk in that area he once looked, but he doesn't have a tremendous range, and can have more off days than a top international kicker like Halfpenny.

Perhaps I'm a bit too pessimistic but I always try and think of what might go wrong. That's why I highlighted the fact we haven't seen England operate in the heat of battle without Robshaw.

Our starting line-up will likely only include one kicker - our flyhalf. If he has an off day, then the only way we can change, is by bringing on another kicker from the bench. If the starting fly half - let's say it's Ford - is having a good game outside of his kicking, then it seems a waste to take him off.

Does that mean Farrell would come on as centre? Perhaps Twelvetrees or Goode would be asked to slot in instead.

It's a contingency I'd like to have seen us plan for more actively. Imagine, for instance, Robshaw gets crocked early against Wales or Australia. Our kicking then gets ropey, and we end up in a situation where a new captain - untested at Test level - is left trying to work out whether to pull the plug on him in a key fixture.

One of the reasons players in the 2003 team believe they won, is because they planned for almost every eventuality. The final drop goal routine was one they had practised, so players didn't have to think too much about what they each needed to do.

The Australia scrum were under pressure early on in the first half where they game away a couple of penalties. Slipper really struggled to contain Herrera.

Greg Holmes however I thought dealt with Ayerza really well and actually managed to get the upper hand on him a couple of times which is no mean feat.

All in all Argentina were clearly on top but Australia found a way to gain parity and get the ball out when it mattered - as they so often do. Once Herrera and Ayerza were off later on Aus then gained an advantage at the scrum which they utilised with a couple of big scrums late on leading to two penalties which gave them field position for Kuridrani's try.

beshocked wrote:lostinwales Jimpy is a WUM who wants that reaction. Also to be honest I don't know how biased you actually think I am.

Don't you think it would be better if we were laughing with you, not at you?

beshocked wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Lancaster has a free consultancy right here...

We're top level armchair pundits

We certainly can offer a different perspective. And we are totally unbiased of course, especially when it comes to Saracens players...

lostinwales how many Saracens players have I said should be starting for England currently?

Maybe 3? Barritt,Billy and Mako - hardly earth shattering selections though I do acknowledge that Marler would be fine at 1. too.

I wouldn't start the likes of Wigglesworth,Farrell,Kruis,Goode as of now for example.

The only real difference is arguing about fringe players. I think Saracens fringe players compare favourably.

Jimpy from your over the top comment - you would think I would pick a England XV with just Saracens players, not true at all.

Why can't you just drop the spitefulness? I know it's not in your nature as you like to try and point score even when you disagree with something.

E.g. you dislike Clark because he hurt a Tigers player (of course if it was another team's player I doubt you would care) but for the sake of arguing will spitefully agree with a Northampton fan who is supporting his fellow club mate Clark (that's not bias of course).

I am accused of bias though if you look in the mirror you would see that you are very biased Tigers fan indeed - crowing about coming 3rd in the league etc.

Rubbish. Firstly, I damn well would care. Regardless of who he occasioned GBH to. Secondly, I did not agree with the Saints fan. I did however, see a well reasoned argument that in my mind, had nullified anything you had had to say on the subject. Despite your claims, I still don't think you've answered his post effectively. In fact, you accuse me of spite, its not - although I do admit to taking a certain amount of schadenfreude when one well reasoned post can pull the rug from under your point of view. And herein lies the rub, I may have been spiteful in your opinion, but take a look at yourself, you're petulant and repetitive to the point of obsession, is it any wonder others on here may see an opportunity to chuckle, just a little bit, at your expense?

Of course I'm a biased Tigers fan, I support Tigers, but I've never pushed forward the theory that a certain player should be considered for an England position, when he ought not to be really. For the record, I was pleased that Tigers finished 3rd in the league this year, after the season they'd had, it was quite an achievement (they STILL finished ahead of Saracens in the regular season, an incontrovertible fact). Many, myself included, had thought 3rd, or even a play-off, beyond reach at Christmas time. So yes, I'm 'crowing' - but not in the way your warped opinion seems to think. Saracens won - well done. But, if I were you, I wouldn't be 'crowing' about that either, until of course, Saracens can reach the level that Tigers have over the professional (or any for that matter) era.

Rugby Fan wrote:I agree that the Australian pack isn't looking as vulnerable as we might have hoped, and their match against South Africa showed they still have a knack of keeping games close enough to go on and win.

They aren't the finished article by any means but I can't see them looking especially outgunned. England knocked them out of the cup in 1995 and 2007 when they were perhaps overconfident. I don't see that being the case this year.

Australia's recent goalkicking record has been poor, and they'll want to improve there. That's another concern I have for England, incidentally.

I know George Ford is not the risk in that area he once looked, but he doesn't have a tremendous range, and can have more off days than a top international kicker like Halfpenny.

Perhaps I'm a bit too pessimistic but I always try and think of what might go wrong. That's why I highlighted the fact we haven't seen England operate in the heat of battle without Robshaw.

Our starting line-up will likely only include one kicker - our flyhalf. If he has an off day, then the only way we can change, is by bringing on another kicker from the bench. If the starting fly half - let's say it's Ford - is having a good game outside of his kicking, then it seems a waste to take him off.

Does that mean Farrell would come on as centre? Perhaps Twelvetrees or Goode would be asked to slot in instead.

It's a contingency I'd like to have seen us plan for more actively. Imagine, for instance, Robshaw gets crocked early against Wales or Australia. Our kicking then gets ropey, and we end up in a situation where a new captain - untested at Test level - is left trying to work out whether to pull the plug on him in a key fixture.

One of the reasons players in the 2003 team believe they won, is because they planned for almost every eventuality. The final drop goal routine was one they had practised, so players didn't have to think too much about what they each needed to do.

You cannot go into 50/50 matches such as vs. Wales, Ireland, Australia with an inferior kicker to the opposition as you are bound to lose.
Ford is not a natural placekicker, he lacks world class accuracy and range, he works at it but is no Sexton, Farrell, Halfpenny, Wilkinson. he needs to be in the gym doing squats until October to improve his strength.

Its the most crucial issue in Englands game. Take the Ireland game in the 6N. First half England went toe to toe with Ireland, but Sexton kicked his points and crucially he took on shots which Ford decided to go into the corner. It put Ireland ahead and after that England were chasing the game... with a top rate kicker he keeps you in the hunt even if you are struggling, without one you have to be very dominant to win (the Carlos Spencer theory).

If he has the kicking tee, England will not win the RWC. They are not good enough (perhaps only NZ in 2011 won without a top rate kicker both accuracy and range) to win without.

What was Fords accuracy like in the 6Ns and Prem this year. Once you've seen that I don't think this is an issue anymore. He hasn't the distance of some ie from half way, but that's a bonus rather than a necessity.

No 7&1/2 wrote:What was Fords accuracy like in the 6Ns and Prem this year. Once you've seen that I don't think this is an issue anymore. He hasn't the distance of some ie from half way, but that's a bonus rather than a necessity.

Kicking is only part to do with accuracy. If its the only measure than Laidlaw is the best kicker in the world no? A top rate kicker will kick from anywhere in the oppositions half. That's what halfpenny, Sexton, Farrell does.

Unless its right bang in the centre, Ford will never even attempt a shot from outside his 10metre line.

Stats don't tell you about the kicks a player turns down.

Rugby Fan in those circumstances I expect Wood would be captain.

I hope that Farrell Jr is not utilised at centre. He's not a big ball carrier and as we all know he's not the most creative. I would say Farrell Jr's strengths would be nullified completely if he was used at centre.

He's a big 10 but would be a small centre. He brings physicality and an abrasiveness to the 10 role, he's also a steady goal kicker.

If England do plan to play a more physical forward orientated game then I would think about utilising Farrell as he would enhance that but if England want to continue with the more attacking approach then Ford should play.


Jimpy of course you wouldn't think I answered effectively - you take joy in arguing with me not necessarily because you disagree with what I am saying but because you want to try and wind me up.

I will concede that yes I can be a bit petulant and repetitive but that's because I don't believe that sometimes the point I am making has not been understood. I don't claim to be right all the time. Perhaps it is too soon for a player like Itoje but you know what - personally I wanted to see a bit of boldness from Lancaster in his case. I don't think England are going to be winning a world cup unless they take some risks in the warm ups which could pay dividends. Sometimes unknown quantities are harder for the opposition to counter. No better opportunity to try out new players than warm ups in my opinion.

Yes but you keep crow about Tigers finishing above Saracens in the AP, even though Tigers,Saracens and Exeter all finished on 68 points, even though when it came the playoff semis, Tigers were well beaten.

The current system in the AP is that the playoff winner is the champion. Is it fair on the team who finish top of the league? Debatable but everyone knows that will be the case at the beginning of the season.

I actually have a lot of respect for what Tigers have done in the professional era but I don't think they are the strongest side in the AP any more - coming 3rd in the AP doesn't change that they were well beaten in the playoff semis.

Sometimes league positions don't tell you everything - Exeter came 5th in the AP table but they did the double over Saints and Saracens - I personally think they are one of the most dangerous sides in the league and in my opinion more so than Tigers. Could all change next season with a reshuffling of personal and coaching at Tigers though.

I would argue that Tigers have more scope to improvement than the other top sides, certainly in the attacking department.

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:What was Fords accuracy like in the 6Ns and Prem this year. Once you've seen that I don't think this is an issue anymore. He hasn't the distance of some ie from half way, but that's a bonus rather than a necessity.

Kicking is only part to do with accuracy. If its the only measure than Laidlaw is the best kicker in the world no? A top rate kicker will kick from anywhere in the oppositions half. That's what halfpenny, Sexton, Farrell does.

Unless its right bang in the centre, Ford will never even attempt a shot from outside his 10metre line.

Stats don't tell you about the kicks a player turns down.

Initially he was ropey but no longer. I hope the rest of SA is rating England players like you!

No 7&1/2 wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:What was Fords accuracy like in the 6Ns and Prem this year. Once you've seen that I don't think this is an issue anymore. He hasn't the distance of some ie from half way, but that's a bonus rather than a necessity.

Kicking is only part to do with accuracy. If its the only measure than Laidlaw is the best kicker in the world no? A top rate kicker will kick from anywhere in the oppositions half. That's what halfpenny, Sexton, Farrell does.

Unless its right bang in the centre, Ford will never even attempt a shot from outside his 10metre line.

Stats don't tell you about the kicks a player turns down.

Initially he was ropey but no longer. I hope the rest of SA is rating England players like you!

It was his place kicking and lack of range that lost the Ireland game. Its not his fault England lost the game but if you don't have someone like Farrell that can keep your team in a tight game then you will end up chasing, and that is when games are won and lost.

I think he's a top class player outside of this one issue. He's a little small but that didn't stop Halfpenny or Wilkinson. He simply needs to get stronger (albeit a lot) and concentrate on his accuracy.

Ireland was a ton of reasons. Had FArrell played I have no doubt we would have also lost.

beshocked wrote:Rugby Fan in those circumstances I expect Wood would be captain.

I hope that Farrell Jr is not utilised at centre. He's not a big ball carrier and as we all know he's not the most creative. I would say Farrell Jr's strengths would be nullified completely if he was used at centre.

He's a big 10 but would be a small centre. He brings physicality and an abrasiveness to the 10 role, he's also a steady goal kicker.

If England do plan to play a more physical forward orientated game then I would think about utilising Farrell as he would enhance that but if England want to continue with the more attacking approach then Ford should play.


Jimpy of course you wouldn't think I answered effectively - you take joy in arguing with me not necessarily because you disagree with what I am saying but because you want to try and wind me up.

I will concede that yes I can be a bit petulant and repetitive but that's because I don't believe that sometimes the point I am making has not been understood. I don't claim to be right all the time. Perhaps it is too soon for a player like Itoje but you know what - personally I wanted to see a bit of boldness from Lancaster in his case. I don't think England are going to be winning a world cup unless they take some risks in the warm ups which could pay dividends.  Sometimes unknown quantities are harder for the opposition to counter. No better opportunity to try out new players than warm ups in my opinion.

Yes but you keep crow about Tigers finishing above Saracens in the AP, even though Tigers,Saracens and Exeter all finished on 68 points, even though when it came the playoff semis, Tigers were well beaten.

The current system in the AP is that the playoff winner is the champion. Is it fair on the team who finish top of the league? Debatable but everyone knows that will be the case at the beginning of the season.

I actually have a lot of respect for what Tigers have done in the professional era but I don't think they are the strongest side in the AP any more - coming 3rd in the AP doesn't change that they were well beaten in the playoff semis.

Sometimes league positions don't tell you everything - Exeter came 5th in the AP table but they did the double over Saints and Saracens - I personally think they are one of the most dangerous sides in the league and in my opinion more so than Tigers. Could all change next season with a reshuffling of personal and coaching at Tigers though.

I would argue that Tigers have more scope to improvement than the other top sides, certainly in the attacking department.

Talk about repetitive....

Anyway, we'll see won't we.

beshocked wrote:Rugby Fan in those circumstances I expect Wood would be captain.

I think everyone assumes he will be openside and captain if Robshaw is crocked. My earlier complaint was that we've never tried him in that role to see how he copes.

I know it's common to think of Robshaw, Wood and Haskell as equally at home on both sides of the scrum but that tends to work best when their partner does the same, and we end up with more of a left/right combination.

However, Lancaster doesn't usually play a flanker on the bench. When both are available, Ben Morgan and Billy Vunipola are in the match day squad. If Robshaw goes down in a match, our back three would most likely be Wood at seven, Billy at six and Morgan at eight. We've never seen that trio work together and I'm not sure we've ever seen Wood or Billy spend any time at all in those positions at Test level. It's bizarre that Wood has played eight more than seven if he really is our contingency plan.

Lancaster could bring on our replacement lock and switch Lawes, or even Launchbury, to six but that would just make for another back row combination we've never seen.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ireland was a ton of reasons. Had FArrell played I have no doubt we would have also lost.

its tricky because England set themselves up to play around Ford so probably yes but I think England has a better chance winning a RWC with Farrell on the pitch taking kicks then Ford. Doesn't mean Ford doesn't play 10.

no 7 & 1/2 Farrell has his weaknesses and flaws - he's not as good as an attacker as Ford but he's a 10 who I think can physically square up to Sexton.

This is Sexton tackling Ford.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR2bU_Abx3Y

fa0019 I don't think it was Ford's place kicking just, it was his kicking in general.

For example his restarts were far too predictable and lacked accuracy, you could argue that the kick chase in general from England was poor (not just Ford I should add).

Ireland convincingly won the aerial battle, territory battle and won the breakdown battle too.

Not down to one player because England lost so many battles.

Don't misinterpet what I am saying. I think that Ford is a real talent but in that game Sexton dictated proceedings.

It's not a one man game but Sexton did pick up the MOM award.

Perhaps England wouldn't have won with Farrell but it might have made a difference. Equally you could argue that Brown,Launchbury,Lawes or Wood might have made a difference too - who knows?

No offence but my nan could physically square up to Sexton, he's not hidden on the wing in the defencive system ala Cooper for no reason!!

Ford vs Ireland. All those kicks to the places where May would have been had he been playing.....

Fanster wrote:No offence but my nan could physically square up to Sexton, he's not hidden on the wing in the defencive system ala Cooper for no reason!!

Sexton has bulked up but he's still a comparative weasel.

Ford is the Weasel's wedding tackle (comparatively)...

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ireland was a ton of reasons. Had FArrell played I have no doubt we would have also lost.

its tricky because England set themselves up to play around Ford so probably yes but I think England has a better chance winning a RWC with Farrell on the pitch taking kicks then Ford. Doesn't mean Ford doesn't play 10.

Farrell is out of form though isn't he. Maybe his place kicking hasn't suffered too much. Ford offers a much better tactical kicking game than Farrell.

I suppose either way you have to go with Farrell, although I think he's a potential liability at the moment. Farrell will at least kick you points even if he can't put the team where they want to be on the pitch.

Sexton was brilliant full stop. Farrell wouldn't have done anything against it. Big miss was obviously Lawes putting them under pressure and no Launchbury either.

lostinwales perhaps either Ford should adjust his kicking or the chasers should have been a kick up the backside.

Also I don't think May would have been able to reach those kicks repeatedly kicked to Zebo who had an enjoyable time catching the restarts with no issues.

no 7 & 1/2 you don't know though. It's similar to speculation whether Lawes,Launchbury,Wood etc would have made enough difference.

Sexton was brilliant because England didn't put him under enough pressure. Wales showed that Sexton is mortal.

Yup and Lawes could have put him under more pressure. And Launchbury and Lawes and Wood would have helped the breakdown. Of course it's ifs and buts. When Sexton went off we got a foothold.

Fanster wrote:No offence but my nan could physically square up to Sexton, he's not hidden on the wing in the defencive system ala Cooper for no reason!!

He's not hidden there full stop - he might look like an upside down golf club but he's probably the best defender in the Irish side - The French used Basteraud to do a number on him and look how far that got them.

Remember he'd been out with concussion for months before the 6N and was motm against both France and England.

He's hit and miss though and when he has an off day (like against Wales) or goes off Ireland definitely aren't the same side.

Interesting to hear people raising issues about Lancaster. Not his actual coaching, but how he has used the large number of players available to him.

My opinion Lancaster has built a squad capable of doing very well in tournaments but not a 23 capable of winning them.

The depth has come at the expense of individual experience and collective cohesion and this will be exposed at some point in a tight game under pressure....hopefully anyhow....

Fanster wrote:No offence but my nan could physically square up to Sexton, he's not hidden on the wing in the defencive system ala Cooper for no reason!!

Lol what?

rodders wrote:

Fanster wrote:No offence but my nan could physically square up to Sexton, he's not hidden on the wing in the defencive system ala Cooper for no reason!!

He's not hidden there full stop - he might look like an upside down golf club but he's probably the best defender in the Irish side - The French used Basteraud to do a number on him and look how far that got them.

Remember he'd been out with concussion for months before the 6N and was motm against both France and England.

He's hit and miss though and when he has an off day (like against Wales) or goes off Ireland definitely aren't the same side.

Sexton always looks good with a platform, when the Irish have shown forward dominance, when the Irish pack is on the back foot however Sexton always looks average (Like against Wales).

As good a player Sexton is he rarely has to defend the 10 channell, and when he does SOB is constantly on hand to cover the tackle! He is very much on par with Ronan O Garas ability without ball in hand!

Rodders....building a squad is obviously a good thing and this has largely come about due to various players not nailing down a position and injuries. But England don't have a settled team and this will result in their eventual failure. Whether that is in the group stage (unlikely to lose both the Wales and Aussie match at home although it is of course entirely feasible) or in the 1/4's if they come 2nd in the group or the semis if they win their group remains to be seen, but I don't see the quality within this current crop of players to win the whole thing. Watching the NZ V SA test on Sat was like watching a different game. Much quicker and more attacking and that was with weakened teams. England don't have that skill set amongst their players albeit Ford and Joseph have improved that area significantly.

The key for England is how they play their matches. Try to mimick NZ and we will lose as they, and Aus , just do it better as they play that way all their lives. But play a combination of traditional England with good set piece and structure allied with an attacking and off-loading game at the right times and England could do ok. It is about getting the balance right. Fiji are a decent side but apparently have fitness concerns and therefore England have 2 options; 1. helter skelter 7s style which will suit Fiji in the 1st half before they run out of puff and England's superior fitness wins the day or 2) traditional forward and structured approach which will stifle Fiji and eke out penalties and yellow/red cards. Hopefully Eng will be smart and just play the opposition on each day, but so often they seem unable to read a game and adjust accordingly.

Overall I think this RWC is a building block towards a proper challenge in 2019. Against NZ and SA they will come unstuck. Against anyone else they have at least a 50/50 chance.