So when will Lancaster resign.....I guess after the wc once the rfu have paid up

First topic message reminder :

I'll fatten this out later, but I think this is now worthy of serious speculation given the wc is less than a month away and the impending realisation that we will not progress from the group stage.

Who keeps calling Ford and Nowell deities beshocked?

You keep claiming this and its nonsense.

You constantly use hyperbole about Ford being "blown away" or "bullied"
The simple fact is on Saturday and v Ireland he was behind a well beaten pack. He had no front foot ball and there were no other distributors in the back line. This meant extreme pressure from the French or Irish and any attacks had to go through him so the defence knew where to target.

Farrell has had the same thing happen to him. It's not about being manshamed or any other silly comments. Some day you just come up short as Farrell has. As has every player even the world's best like McCaw.

You make out that when Farrell hasn't gone well its because he was injured or not on form (a convenient way to blame selectors not the player). You tend to do the same with other Saracen players.

If you look at the first game against France this summer the key players who made the victory were Slade and Goode. The first try was down to Slade's vision and great hands (not forgetting great service from Wriggy). The second was the delicious wrap around when Slade's pass was so perfect in timing and line that May slid through to puncture the line and give Watson a walk in.

The third was down to great vision and kick from Goode. Farrell was fine and I love him as a player but you have him down as better than he is. He is very solid defensively and better in attack than he's given credit for but he is not always the best player for England.

BTW Itoje is not an international 6. He is too slow for it. He's fine at AP level and okay at Europe but Internationally he'll lack the pace.Cf when people thought Lawes could go 6 because Saints played him there.

No one day s talking about players being deities except eg4e and his odd Burgess obsession. I think you like to claim they are so that you can point to any mistake and saybhow your favourite Saracens player would have been better.

BTW 2 for the last time Nowell did not cost England a grand slam to claim he did ridiculous and reductive reasoning just as it would be if I tried to claim it was Goode's fault in missing two tackles in that game.

Please please please stop with the manshaming or bullying about players. It's simply ridiculous. If you think for an instance Farrell could have won us the game v Ireland you delusional. Carter couldn't have won us that game and in nearly 40 years of watching rugby he's the best 10 I've ever seen.

Maybe McCaw could but he really is a deity.

Sorry for the rant just needed it get it out.

PS in many ways I like you beshocked I just think you go a little overboard at times. You certainly keep the board interesting and id live to buy a pint sometime.

If anyone is in MK for the wc let me know.

Cheers

I've said nothing other than he was ok, not brilliant, not poor. All the evidence you've provided is that he made a mistake. Big deal it happens. Not as big a mistake as Launchbury and the lifters missing the ball in the first place. The overall point was that Lancaster made a mistake in picking him, not so sure you can provide any evidence that Ashton would have done any better given his previous England experiences.

I honestly enjoy differing opinions and I'll argue a point til the cows come home but please don't say I hold a view point I've never actually said.

greenpleasantland not posters literally calling them deities but from the posts it gives the impression that Ford has never had a bad game.

A 10 can take the pressure off the pack too - it works both ways. Forwards and backs should work together.

No frontfoot ball but that doesn't mean that restarts need to be predictable and kick chase is going to be poor.

You can build pressure as a team. You can have others feeding off the performance of someone else. E.g. player X plays well which helps player Y etc.

The reality is that a 10 is not going to have an armchair ride in every game. Got to take the rough with the smooth. You have to influence the game in the way you can.

Farrell should have never started in the AP,HC final or against Munster in Munster.

Is it Farrell's fault that he was picked instead of the man of the match of the previous week?

You make claims like Itoje not being an international 6 - he's only 20 and has not yet been given an opportunity. Shouldn't write him off yet.

Have to look at what went wrong for England - why they didn't win a GS.

As for Farrell winning the game in Ireland - no he probably wouldn't have but you never know. I wouldn't have expected his restarts to be as poor as Ford's and he might have galvanised the forwards into a better response.

no 7 & 1/2 unfortunately I don't have a time machine to be honest if I did I doubt I would use it to see whether Ashton would make a difference!

Beshocked, name who you think should be starting for England against Fiji

You have free reign of every English qualified player, capped/uncapped/in France

Itoje will be capped but as a lock. I am certainly writing him off as I think he has a big future for England.

The restarts against Ireland were fine. Kick long to the corner and pen them in. Put pressure on them and force them to kick out. The problem is the chase wasn't great and we couldn't stop the Irish forwards making easy yards to give a good platform.

His kicks were por that day no argument but he wasn't helped by having Irish forwards knowing that it was only him kicking.

Why didn't England win a grand slam. Missed tackles and mistakes. Eg Goode missing 2 key tackles. Launchbury missing the kickoff. If you always try to boil a game down to one player then you're scapegoating and that's the province of journos looking for a simple narrative. Why didnt we score more points not miss tackles not kick better. The game is a lot more complex than one mistake.

How would Farrell have galvanised forwards into greater efforts? That's so nebulous. Farrell's tactical kicking is good but he's not ROG who was one of the best kickers in the NH.

Bambam are you talking about who should start now in the position we now find ourselves in?

Well going by what we know so far.

Has to be the same XV that played France bar Wood and Watson as starters.

It's hypothetical of course but Farrell could have pinned back Ireland with better kicking. Could have put some big tackles knocking the Irish back. Could have been better communication between backs and forwards.

I am saying that I personally think that starting Nowell was a mistake. That was Lancaster. As you say there are many reasons why England lost.

Game is generally more complex than one mistake but there are turning points.

green

What you highlight is true but the real reason England lost their most recent match vs. Ireland was mostly down to the place kicking of Ford.

England had a similar number of penalties in kickable areas as Ireland but the difference was that Ireland took there, notably those on the margins and England's were slightly out of Ford's range/on the cusp. He missed a few but also, he didn't even attempt some, choosing to kick to the corner, kicks which Farrell for instance and Sexton would have taken.

When you go 4+ points down you start chasing the game, that's what England did. When you chase the game, gaps open and it let Ireland in to score their try which put them well on top.

The importance of having a kicker who can keep you in tight games can never be under estimated. Take Neil Jenkins in 1997. Terrible fullback, probably a dozen better at the time but his kicking kept the Lions in the game, it ramped up the pressure on the opposition and made them freeze whenever the Lions got into the boks half.

When Ford plays you know until you reach the 10m line you can relax and make those 50/50 steals which could give you possession but could also give away a penalty. With Farrell you have someone who will punish you from anywhere in the oppositions half.

That's just not true fa no matter how many times you say it.

No 7&1/2 wrote:That's just not true fa no matter how many times you say it.

What the chasing the game or Ford not being able to match up to Sexton kicks wise?


First half

In that game Ireland went 6-0 up. Then Ford hit a DG making it 6-3. He then missed a penalty and then decided against a kick in Ireland's half going for the corner which Ireland subsequently cleared. Ireland then his a further penalty and misses another.

So half finished 9-3. If all the kicks went over it would have been 12-9.

Second half.

England concede immediately. Sexton hits another penalty. 12-3 (9 point deficit).

In a game like Ireland England you simply cannot make those sorts of errors in test rugby and go that far behind. Its not a case necessarily in hitting 3/6 or 5/6... when in tight games with little difference between sides, the performance of the kickers vs. each other is vital.

9 points down in Ireland after 50 mins and the match is effectively over, the leading team simply squeezes the opposition out of the match. Yes its only a try away but recently its not been a high try scoring affair. England have averaged only 0.75 tries per game vs. Ireland in this world cup cycle in the 6N.

In essence, if England play Ford (and he takes the tee) vs. Ireland in the RWC they will lose unless they have genuine forwards dominance. If they have parity and it becomes a shoot out vs. Sexton, England will lose, end of.

It is a sad indictment of both the modern game and fans expectations that winning a match will be attributed to who has the better 50m goal kicker.

Parity in forwards doesnt mean a pen fest best kicker wins. Ford used to be weak in his place kicking but no longer and is pretty equal with Farrell now. Its ok to back down and admit that fa.

I'm amazed the English are so pessimistic, on the Gwlad forum (welsh one), the polls are running at about 68% expecting Wales to be knocked out at the group stage.
Home advantage and you normally beat Australia and Wales at home.

Wales only decent tight head prop will be lucky to make it, while Jarvis and Priestland havent been dropped from the squad yet, I would be very happy if I was England.

The Irish TImes agrees with beshocked on Ford

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/gerry-thornley-england-asking-for-trouble-if-they-are-putting-hopes-on-ford-s-shoulders-1.2327296

FecklessRogue wrote:The Irish TImes agrees with beshocked on Ford

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/gerry-thornley-england-asking-for-trouble-if-they-are-putting-hopes-on-ford-s-shoulders-1.2327296

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?

But more seriously, I think the pertinent point is that in pressure games Ford benefits from a second playmaker outside him. That's one reason why I hope England do take at least one of Slade and Cipriani, and why I don't have the vehement objection that some of my fellow countrymen have to the (untried since their U20 days) possibility Ford at 10 and Farrell at 12.

While neither Slade nor Farrell is going to steamroller Jamie Roberts or Matthieu Basteraud, neither of them is a pushover physically, and either would bring a range of options that would give opponents pause from focusing too much on Ford. Slade in particular is a skilled distributor - but hasn't been tested under severe pressure as Farrell has.

The downside of Farrell at 10, on the other hand, is that he lacks Ford's creativity - but Care's 15 minutes on Saturday suggested that he is finding some form at the right time and I like the balance of Care/Farrell and Youngs/Ford as combinations. England showed in 2014 that they can play well with Care as the pivot, and in 2015 that they can play well with Ford as the pivot.

Lets me guess- Thornleys analysis of Ford goes something like...

"Even the most critical observers must admit the young Englishman assuredly has a certain Je Ne Sais Quoi, but history tells us World Cups are won by teams with well-travelled outhalfs, who can provide a steady hand on the tiller."

Shifty wrote:I'm amazed the English are so pessimistic, on the Gwlad forum (welsh one), the polls are running at about 68% expecting Wales to be knocked out at the group stage.  
Home advantage and you normally beat Australia and Wales at home.

Wales only decent tight head prop will be lucky to make it, while Jarvis and Priestland havent been dropped from the squad yet, I would be very happy if I was England.    

I'm not pessimistic  I wasn't overly impressed with England's win against France (at home) but neither was I over-depressed by the defeat.

I think all home nations are a little nervous at the moment as no-one has really performed to a good standard yet. I'm not sure how much the warm-up games mean in reality other than shaking off a bit of rustiness, improving match fitness and deciding on a few 50-50 selections.

I am looking forward to the England/Ireland game though and wish it was this weekend (I'm sure there are a few England players keen to get back on the horse too)!


PS Thornley is a 24-carat wassock who needs a good wash and a shave 

Notch wrote:Lets me guess- Thornleys analysis of Ford goes something like...

"Even the most critical observers must admit the young Englishman assuredly has a certain Je Ne Sais Quoi, but history tells us World Cups are won by teams with well-travelled outhalfs, who can provide a steady hand on the tiller."

Ha ha, yes pretty much spot on!

Poorfour wrote:

FecklessRogue wrote:The Irish TImes agrees with beshocked on Ford

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/gerry-thornley-england-asking-for-trouble-if-they-are-putting-hopes-on-ford-s-shoulders-1.2327296

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?

But more seriously, I think the pertinent point is that in pressure games Ford benefits from a second playmaker outside him. That's one reason why I hope England do take at least one of Slade and Cipriani, and why I don't have the vehement objection that some of my fellow countrymen have to the (untried since their U20 days) possibility Ford at 10 and Farrell at 12.

While neither Slade nor Farrell is going to steamroller Jamie Roberts or Matthieu Basteraud, neither of them is a pushover physically, and either would bring a range of options that would give opponents pause from focusing too much on Ford. Slade in particular is a skilled distributor - but hasn't been tested under severe pressure as Farrell has.

The downside of Farrell at 10, on the other hand, is that he lacks Ford's creativity - but Care's 15 minutes on Saturday suggested that he is finding some form at the right time and I like the balance of Care/Farrell and Youngs/Ford as combinations. England showed in 2014 that they can play well with Care as the pivot, and in 2015 that they can play well with Ford as the pivot.

Ford passed very poorly, he missed his kicks at goal and out of hand. Restarts went into touch. He had a terrible game when under pressure.

Gerry Thornley's article is pretty accurate

Well just been having a read around and I found this:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/rugby/fiji-and-wallabies-will-survive-rugby-world-cup-pool-of-death-not-wales-and-england-george-smith/story-fnibc972-1227498051230

George Smith has Aus and Fiji going through and England and Wales going home (so to speak!) I agree with his sentiment about writing off Fiji at your peril.

The article says it would be better if Ford was older or more aptly had more experience; hard to disagree as its the case fort he majority of the side and why its likely they will improve beyond the wc. After saying experience is key he also goes on to say it isnt as proved by nz 25th choice fly half after all their injuries last wc. Brilliant.

And Sexton is very good and is likely central to Irelands chances.
Its all a bit of a given.

LondonTiger wrote:PS to the OP.

You buggered off from these boards while England were winning matches, only to return when they lose a game. Interesting.

Very well thank you, you?

Tbh I took my posterior elsewhere as I was 'obviously' hacked off with the entire rfu corporate cow dung that has invaded my romantic past time.

The club game still provides some escape for me.

LondonTiger wrote:It is a sad indictment of both the modern game and fans expectations that winning a match will be attributed to who has the better 50m goal kicker.

Hear hear.

It's long been buzzing round my head that both penatly and drop kicks should be reduced to 2 points with the introduction of a 5 minute penalty for technical offences (Yellow card 10 minutes would remain for acts of foul play).

The game should encourage try scoring and furthermore the time alloted for penalty kicks should be reduced from 1 minute to 30 seconds to make the attempt harder and so discourage the option infavour of a attacking lineout.

kingelderfield

As for picking Diamond - he's a mediocre coach nothing more. Numerous coaches who are better than him.

As for Baxter I think he should be left alone for now - he's doing well but want to see if he can complete the journey from Championship to Champions first with Exeter.

Mallinder - perhaps but I would want him joined by a strong group like Sanderson/Gustard and King.

I mention Sanderson/Gustard because they are a strong double act.

Good to hear from you Beshocked; whoever takes over, and I firmly believe there will be coaching changes post wc, lets just hope that the english club coaches find some sort of rapprochement with the rfu and so decide to put their respective hats in the ring.

I too want the best available whoever that might be, but ofcourse I really want the best english respresentative(s) whoever they may be?

stub wrote:Well just been having a read around and I found this:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/rugby/fiji-and-wallabies-will-survive-rugby-world-cup-pool-of-death-not-wales-and-england-george-smith/story-fnibc972-1227498051230

George Smith has Aus and Fiji going through and England and Wales going home (so to speak!) I agree with his sentiment about writing off Fiji at your peril.

I'd love to see George Smith back that bet up with a lot of real money. Fiji don't have a front five and unless England are going to play very reckless 7's style rugby then England will squash them up front. I honestly think it's more likely Fiji's world cup results will be more like 2011 (Wales beat Fiji 66-0) than 2007.

Shifty wrote:

stub wrote:Well just been having a read around and I found this:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/rugby/fiji-and-wallabies-will-survive-rugby-world-cup-pool-of-death-not-wales-and-england-george-smith/story-fnibc972-1227498051230

George Smith has Aus and Fiji going through and England and Wales going home (so to speak!) I agree with his sentiment about writing off Fiji at your peril.

I'd love to see George Smith back that bet up with a lot of real money.  Fiji don't have a front five and unless England are going to play very reckless 7's style rugby then England will squash them up front.  I honestly think it's more likely Fiji's world cup results will be more like 2011 (Wales beat Fiji 66-0) than 2007.  

Yep, I can't see that happening any time soon Shifty - I think he's playing to the Aus audience to be honest. That said I think Fiji could be dangerous particularly if England's forwards have the day off.

The telegraph are saying the centres will be Barritt, Joseph, Burgess or Burrell which means Burgess and Slade with Baade and Brown as the selected fullbacks. So neither Burrell, Cipriani or 36 make the 31.....

I just want to get this strait. Correct me if I'm wrong but to my knowledge apart from Burgess and Slade who played together for the very first time the other saturday, none and I mean any of the others have EVER played in combination together before.....maybe Joseph and Barritt?

If this selection is accuate then I am utterly speechless

Shifty wrote:

stub wrote:Well just been having a read around and I found this:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/rugby/fiji-and-wallabies-will-survive-rugby-world-cup-pool-of-death-not-wales-and-england-george-smith/story-fnibc972-1227498051230

George Smith has Aus and Fiji going through and England and Wales going home (so to speak!) I agree with his sentiment about writing off Fiji at your peril.

I'd love to see George Smith back that bet up with a lot of real money.  Fiji don't have a front five and unless England are going to play very reckless 7's style rugby then England will squash them up front.  I honestly think it's more likely Fiji's world cup results will be more like 2011 (Wales beat Fiji 66-0) than 2007.  

Fiji's front five looked better than the England first choice one that got demolished in Paris last week mate.

maestegmafia wrote:

Shifty wrote:

stub wrote:Well just been having a read around and I found this:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/rugby/fiji-and-wallabies-will-survive-rugby-world-cup-pool-of-death-not-wales-and-england-george-smith/story-fnibc972-1227498051230

George Smith has Aus and Fiji going through and England and Wales going home (so to speak!) I agree with his sentiment about writing off Fiji at your peril.

I'd love to see George Smith back that bet up with a lot of real money.  Fiji don't have a front five and unless England are going to play very reckless 7's style rugby then England will squash them up front.  I honestly think it's more likely Fiji's world cup results will be more like 2011 (Wales beat Fiji 66-0) than 2007.  

Fiji's front five looked better than the England first choice one that got demolished in Paris last week mate.

Mate, the team representing the geriatric ward at Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital put out a better performance than England on Saturday.

If Lancaster has to eat humble pie and bring Hartley back i think might be the beginning of the end of his credibility.

He said this in May, now we are speculating about when he is coming back:

“We would would probably have been in breach of World Cup regulations, and it would also have been a huge risk to pick a player who had played no competitive rugby for five months,” Lancaster said. “And then there is Dylan’s decision-making under pressure. He didn’t make a good one last weekend. There was no need to do what he did. In a World Cup the pressure will be white-hot all the time.”

Gwlad.

My understanding i it is not Lancaster that is on a bout bringing him back. But Rowntree.

I personaly think it would be a bad idea.

majesticimperialman wrote:Gwlad.

My understanding i it is not Lancaster that is on a bout bringing him back. But Rowntree.

I personaly think it would be a bad idea.

i think that's the funniest thing I've read all week.

doctor_grey wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Shifty wrote:

stub wrote:Well just been having a read around and I found this:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/rugby/fiji-and-wallabies-will-survive-rugby-world-cup-pool-of-death-not-wales-and-england-george-smith/story-fnibc972-1227498051230

George Smith has Aus and Fiji going through and England and Wales going home (so to speak!) I agree with his sentiment about writing off Fiji at your peril.

I'd love to see George Smith back that bet up with a lot of real money.  Fiji don't have a front five and unless England are going to play very reckless 7's style rugby then England will squash them up front.  I honestly think it's more likely Fiji's world cup results will be more like 2011 (Wales beat Fiji 66-0) than 2007.  

Fiji's front five looked better than the England first choice one that got demolished in Paris last week mate.

Mate, the team representing the geriatric ward at Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital put out a better performance than England on Saturday.  

Doc you're right, but the RNO tighthead is some blwdi player..!

Gwlad wrote:If Lancaster has to eat humble pie and bring Hartley back i think might be the beginning of the end of his credibility.

The beginning of the end?? As much as I'd like to be wrong, I've had serious questions over his credibility since he was appointed!

Cyril wrote:


PS Thornley is a 24-carat wassock who needs a good wash and a shave

You Anti-Middle Earth Troglodyte Bastereaude!

Gwlad wrote:If Lancaster has to eat humble pie and bring Hartley back i think might be the beginning of the end of his credibility.

He said this in May, now we are speculating about when he is coming back:

“We would would probably have been in breach of World Cup regulations, and it would also have been a huge risk to pick a player who had played no competitive rugby for five months,” Lancaster said. “And then there is Dylan’s decision-making under pressure. He didn’t make a good one last weekend. There was no need to do what he did. In a World Cup the pressure will be white-hot all the time.”

Hartley was excluded because his ban meant he would be unavailable for the first game and England (unlike, as it turned out, Australia) were not prepared to risk going into the tournament proper with only 2 hookers.

All that has been said since then is that Rowntree is keeping in touch with Hartley. There's no "eating humble pie" about it. Should a hooker get injured in or after the first pool game, England will need to call up another one. At that point, Hartley would be available and it would be daft not to call him up.

Great to see Maesteg and Gwlad taking such a keen interest in England's progress, haven't you got a game this weekend lads?

Kingelderfield never heard of Baade - is he a Gloucester player?


It's funny because you and I agree on certain things.

I am not the biggest fan of Lancaster though perhaps I am a tad too harsh.

Also I dislike the RFU because of their greed.

Though we differ on coaches and players.


Poorfour I don't disagree with a playmaker approach if that's the way England seem so insistent on going. Balance is everything.

I think you could go with three different balanced backlines.

9.Care 10.Farrell 11.Nowell 12. Slade 13.Joseph 14. Watson. 15.Brown

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

9.Wigglesworth 10.Ford 11.May 12.Burgess 13.Slade 14.Watson 15. Brown

The three backlines give you a 2nd playmaker if that's the route England want to go.

3rd has the best box kicker in England who will help Ford with his kicking, May can do his road runner impression chasing those kicks, Burgess would link up with Slade again.

I am assuming Burgess is retained and if he is may as well as use him as an extra flanker in the backs, Barritt is similar but is better at organising a defence plus is the more experienced rugby union player.


The issue with the Ireland game is that the Irish game plan was predictable yet there seemed to be no way that England could counter it. Ireland are a very well organised side but they were made to look unbeatable. Wales brought Ireland back to earth the week after, showing that Irish players are indeed mortals.

It should also be added that arguably two of England's greatest weaknesses, frailty at the lineout and poor at the breakdown were exposed.

England need to be able to adapt. If things aren't working you try something different.


Feckless Rogue I agree with that article. Don't get me wrong I think Ford is a very talented individual but he's not there yet.

Not all doom and gloom though - he recovered well from a sloppy first 40 minutes against Wales, he orchestrated the try fest against France when both sides just decided %^* it, defence doesn't matter, helped England to wins over Scotland and Italy.

Lancaster has put himself in this position - it's a sad state of affairs when our best hooker is a walking card (admittedly mostly at club level) who had an indifferent 6 nations but is still far ahead of the others because he's more reliable than T.Youngs and Webber in the set piece. Far more experienced than George and LCD who are both unproven.

As for openside - Lancaster only just tried Clark in these warm ups despite him being in his squad for a long time. Likely to be jettisoned. I've not rated him particularly anyway.

No other openside has been given a fair go - the decision to leave out Ksevic seems to be questionable. The reliance on Robshaw has put Lancaster in a difficult position.

Will be in the same position he was when he first announced his 50 squad - reliance on Wood,Haskell and Robshaw - no progress was made for the likes of Ksevic,Itoje and Ewers because Lancaster didn't try them. Consequently they will stay unproven.

Hartley's headbutt has had benefits though because it meant George was picked in the 50 and gave him a chance in the warm ups. George could make the 31.

There wouldn't be calls for Hartley and S.Armitage if the hooker and openside flanker positions had a healthy stock or had been managed better by Lancaster.

The biggest criticisms of Lancaster revolve around the lineout and breakdown - not exactly small areas.

England aren't going to play a conventional open and blindside combo whether we like it or not. Since day 1 this squad has had - and been criticised for - having two 6.5s rather than a 6 and a 7.

In that context, Lancaster's used a fair few flankers. Robshaw's pretty much the only one who's been consistently fit (unlike Wood and Croft) and consistently performed at a high level (unlike Haskell, Dowson, Clark, apparently Kvesic and recently Wood). [Caveat: lots of people don't see it that way. But if you look at what he does in a game the stats for his "bad" or "anonymous" performances are basically indistinguishable from those in his "good" performances].

Kvesic was tried on the Argentina tour. You remember, the one where Robshaw was rested and all the pundits predicted that he'd be permanently supplanted by Wood as captain and Kvesic at 7? I thought Kvesic was OK and did enough to deserve being around the squad, but it clearly wasn't enough in the coaches' eyes to make him a permanent fixture.

Re: the breakdown, it's something the press constantly harp on about, but it has only been an issue in certain games, and not always the games you expect. Australia's potent breakdown weapons have been curiously subdued when they've played England recently.

My big worry is that it seems to be related to particular referees. It's not just an England thing. I remember watching the first breakdown penalty of the Wales-Ireland game. Ireland did exactly what they did against England. Barnes penalised it, and I thought "Ireland are in for a long and painful afternoon." And they were - but exactly the same tactics had been winning them penalties against England.

Check on the Irish threads - they really do not like Barnes's take on the breakdown. England don't like Peyper's (but at least Walsh has retired). Wales don't like Poite's (and they don't like his reading of the scrum, either). Australia aren't too keen on French refs either.

I'm not sure what the answer is. Perhaps only the ABs are comfortable adapting to different refs (or perhaps the refs adapt to them...). I just hope it doesn't decide the outcome of a game.

quote="LondonTiger"]It is a sad indictment of both the modern game and fans expectations that winning a match will be attributed to who has the better 50m goal kicker.[/quote]


Modern game? You should go back to the days when a try just earnt you the right to get a free kick at goal.

Its this obsession with falling over the end of the pitch thats modern nonsense. Rugby is supposed to be a football game, a game of kicking.

Fair point Gooseberry - however back in those days a 25m kick was a monster kick, especially when it was raining and the ball was waterlogged.

There you go, kingelderfield. Eddie Jones is available after the world cup.

That do ya?

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/aug/25/coach-eddie-jones-confirms-japan-departure-after-rugby-world-cup

beshocked wrote:

As for openside - Lancaster only just tried Clark in these warm ups despite him being in his squad for a long time. Likely to be jettisoned. I've not rated him particularly anyway.

No other openside has been given a fair go - the decision to leave out Ksevic seems to be questionable. The reliance on Robshaw has put Lancaster in a difficult position.

Will be in the same position he was when he first announced his 50 squad - reliance on Wood,Haskell and Robshaw - no progress was made for the likes of Ksevic,Itoje and Ewers because Lancaster didn't try them. Consequently they will stay unproven.

Hartley's headbutt has had benefits though because it meant George was picked in the 50 and gave him a chance in the warm ups. George could make the 31.

There wouldn't be calls for Hartley and S.Armitage if the hooker and openside flanker positions had a healthy stock or had been managed better by Lancaster.

The biggest criticisms of Lancaster revolve around the lineout and breakdown - not exactly small areas.

Lineout and breakdown are surely primarily Rowntree's responsibility? The forwards were awful for almost all the game in France, and for 30 minutes of the game at Twickenham, but Rowntree seems immune from criticism.

Re the flankers: English rugby is producing loads of players, but has a problem producing classical 7s. I thought Gus Jones at Wasps looked an interesting prospect, but how much rugby he'll get there now I don't know. Other than that Fraser's career has been wrecked by injury, Wallace has been pushed away from 7 by Robshaw, Kvesic hasn't done enough, and then where do you go? At the moment I'm pinning my hopes on Clifford specialising there, but he'll have the same problem Wallace had getting regular game time. Otherwise it is Clark who would come in if Robshaw isn't available. Tom Rees was a massive loss to English rugby.

Interesting how SCW was effectively suggesting the back-row is too big as a unit. That's different from the usual call here for more brawn.

England's backline has come on massively in the last few months. I think SL has sorted players pretty effectively, and we have two fine fullbacks and 3 excellent wingers in the squad. We also have a nailed on outside centre, and decent options at 9 and 10. I'd like to see Cipriani feature in the squad, but I can understand why SL can't fit him in. Once 12 is resolved then the backline could be settled right through to 2019. The shape is better too, and Catt and Farrell deserve credit for that. I don't think England have had a backline this good since 2003, and the difference this time is that the backs have years ahead of them with plenty more talent coming through to keep them on their toes.

If the pack can secure ball then England can really hurt teams (as we saw in the thrashing of France in the 6 Nations).

kingelderfield wrote:The telegraph are saying the centres will be Barritt, Joseph, Burgess or Burrell which means Burgess and Slade with Baade and Brown as the selected fullbacks. So neither Burrell, Cipriani or 36 make the 31.....

I just want to get this strait. Correct me if I'm wrong but to my knowledge apart from Burgess and Slade who played together for the very first time the other saturday, none and I mean any of the others have EVER played in combination together before.....maybe Joseph and Barritt?

If this selection is accuate then I am utterly speechless

England have had no chance to play a settled partnership since Twelvetrees and Burrell in 2014. We do have a first choice 13 now, but he's only been around long enough to really play with Burrell. Barritt has been injured a lot and Burgess and Slade have emerged late. Given Twelvetrees just hasn't played well enough to stay in the squad I'm not really sure what SL could have done to have an experienced partnership other than picked Burrell (who I personally don't find that convincing at IC at international level), which he might still do? The Burrell/Burgess choice is obviously a tight one, and I'm not sure there is an obviously wrong call here. Therefore I don't understand why you are speechless. If Slade does as I expect and establishes himself as first choice this WC (rather than in the 2016 Six Nations) then Burrell/Burgess will have been largely an irrelevance anyway.

Btw SL is criticised for conservative selections, but bringing Slade into his WC squad isn't conservative.

I want Slade in the squad.  Which one is Henry?

I dont know why anyone is surprised, the english centre crisis has been going on for years with only two well documented partnerships. Why does anyone think Stewie thinks familiarity between the two key attacking backs is important? I honestly think he likes the chaos! Seems to me if he picks slide on the back of a superb single game then why not pick another guy who stood up in a dire performance. It doesnt bode well for england and with the pack seemingly toothless it could be a long day at the office and a short tourney.

DaveM wrote:England's backline has come on massively in the last few months. I think SL has sorted players pretty effectively, and we have two fine fullbacks and 3 excellent wingers in the squad. We also have a nailed on outside centre, and decent options at 9 and 10. I'd like to see Cipriani feature in the squad, but I can understand why SL can't fit him in. Once 12 is resolved then the backline could be settled right through to 2019. The shape is better too, and Catt and Farrell deserve credit for that. I don't think England have had a backline this good since 2003, and the difference this time is that the backs have years ahead of them with plenty more talent coming through to keep them on their toes.

If the pack can secure ball then England can really hurt teams (as we saw in the thrashing of France in the 6 Nations).

Totally agree

Gwlad wrote:...Why does anyone think Stewie thinks familiarity between the two key attacking backs is important?..

No-one who levels this charge against Lancaster ever seems to come up with any ideas about how a stable centre partnership could have been better established. It should be quite simple: just name two or three players who ought to have been given a run together, who should now be going to the Cup.

I think its odds on now that we won't progress to the 1/4 finals

I do have some sympathy with SL over the number 12 position.  Injuries have had an impact and no one has really shone there, even Barritt who has been side-lined through injuries.

However I thought after the loss to Ireland there was a chance to give Slade a go, even through he was playing 13 for Exeter.  Pity Eastmond could not have been accommodated.

To some extent the problem has been no one has been good enough.