Stuart Lancaster & the England Job

First topic message reminder :

 
I think that this aspect of the fallout from last night's titanic match deserves a thread of its own.

As a neutral, I am probably the person to start it as I have no truck with England's current head coach either way.

Some numbers first. The figures for Lancaster are only correct to the end of the 6N this year, so that's worth bearing in mind:

Geoff Cooke
Tenure: 16 January 1988 – 19 March 1994
Tests: 50
Won: 36
Drawn: 1
Lost: 13
Win Percentage: 72

Jack Rowell
Tenure: 4 June 1994 – 12 July 1997
Tests: 29
Won: 21
Drawn: 0
Lost: 8
Win Percentage: 72

Sir Clive Woodward
Tenure: 15 November 1997 – 2 September 2004
Tests: 83
Won: 59
Drawn: 2
Lost: 22
Win Percentage: 71

Andy Robinson
Tenure: 15 October 2004 – 29 November 2006
Tests: 22
Won: 9
Drawn: 0
Lost: 13
Win Percentage: 41

Brian Ashton
Tenure: 20 December 2006 – 1 June 2008
Tests: 22
Won: 12
Drawn: 0
Lost: 10
Win Percentage: 55

Rob Andrew
Tenure: 1 June 2008 – 30 June 2008
Tests: 2
Won: 0
Drawn: 0
Lost: 2
Win Percentage: 0

Martin Johnson
Tenure: 1 July 2008 – 16 November 2011
Tests: 38
Won: 21
Drawn: 1
Lost: 16
Win Percentage: 55

Stuart Lancaster
Tenure: 8 December 2011 – present
Tests: 42
Won: 26
Drawn: 1
Lost: 15
Win Percentage: 62

SL was in charge of his first game in March 2012.

Many regard England's failure to beat Wales as attributable directly to the head coach's tactical decisions in selection and to the apparent lack of a clear and consistent game plan which England is playing to.

My questions for the group:

1. What results are needed in this Rugby World Cup for Lancaster to keep his job? Would he still have to go if England exit in the quarters?

2. With reference to his peers above, what win ratio is expected from an England coach and is this reasonable?

3. What are the key areas in which Lancaster can be validly criticised?

4. The RFU is the most profitable union in the sport. Apart from perhaps the NZ head coach's job, there is a fair argument that being England's head coach is the most prestigious coaching appointment in rugby union football. But is it in fact something of a poisoned chalice given the overwhelming expectation to constantly be successful?

ebop wrote:I thought it strange what Cipriani said before the English game regarding wallabies players. Did he make such a claim out of spite? To give the wallabies some ammo as Cheika loves that kind of stuff. What do people think of Cipriani? If I was English, I'd be furious. He comes across as a spoilt little pompous school girl.

"Most of the key papers carried coverage of a supposed bust-up between the unwanted Danny Cipriaini and backs coach Mike Catt.

"England presented a united front throughout the build up to the World Cup, but a flashpoint between Danny Cipriani and attacking skills coach Mike Catt occurred the day before the final 31-man squad was announced," a PA report alleged.

"Shortly after being informed he was to be cut, a disappointed Cipriani was told to resume training and when his effort level was perceived to be below that required, he received a dressing down from Catt.

"A row erupted and Cipriani received support from the players, who deemed Catt's response to be too personal."

http://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/72729395/Stuart-Lancasters-dirty-laundry-aired-in-public-with-allegations-of-infighting-in-England-camp

This is the part you may want to focus on.

Him and Catt have previous as players, both of them guilty of being childish in the past. Sounds like Catt is still carrying that grudge.

Still not sure why we have a guy who, save for a few unsuccessful years, played league all his life and has no union coaching credentials to his name?

Why the forwards coach hasn't been dispensed with after we seemingly get turned over with alarming regularity during most games and are lucky if we snaffle any of our own?

Rob Baxter would be my choice.

Brad Barritt should be banned from ever wearing the England jersey again. Other international 4/5s would be more at home playing 12 when the ball is in hand, and you can't pick someone just because he tackles OK. Bring in Kvesic at 7, bin Wiggles, start with Ford, play a creative 12 (Tuilagi I would bracket as that as he's a far superior footballer to Barritt with ball in hand) & 13 to compliment what is a half decent back 3. So simple eh?!

doctor_grey wrote:
The Australia match was clearly something else.  They seemed a whole level ahead, a step faster, a bit stronger, and on and on.

I think that is a bit misleading. The Wallabies had the upper hand going into that game, with England needing to win to stay in - the pressure on England was on  different level.

The Wales game was a 50:50 and they came up short, this is where the damage was done. Really with home advantage and the injuries Wales had they have to look at that as a game that got away.

I said from the start that the Wallabies on paper were the best side in the group but if England had of went in with the win against Wales under their belt that game would have been close I think.

The brutal truth is that England buckled under the pressure and spotlight of being hosts, and combined with being in the toughest pool it was too much for an inexperienced group of players.

Unfortunately some people are being made scapegoats - Lancaster, Farrell, Burgess etc. They need to keep a sense of perspective and analyse the performances objectively.

England's performances actually weren't that far off the level they've shown in the last few years. They under performed but it wasn't a total meltdown - in another pool they would have got away with a slip up and still be in the competition.

I think the lesson to be learned here is never deviate from core rugby. Never compromise ball retention.

So many examples of this going wrong

Aus 2005 - 2012
Lions 2009
England 2015

You have to pick a pack capable of retaining scrums and lineouts and a backrow which is balanced and capable of continually securing possession.

The boks take this philosophy every time. They have 2 rules. Never pick a pack which loses their own ball in set piece (they haven't lost a scrum and only 1 lineout in 3 matches from this RWC) and pick the best kicker at 10 regardless.
Its great and all having props out on the wing or pinching the odd steal but if he's being marched and your hooker can't throw then in the end all your worthiness goes to pot.

rodders wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:
The Australia match was clearly something else.  They seemed a whole level ahead, a step faster, a bit stronger, and on and on.

I think that is a bit misleading. The Wallabies had the upper hand going into that game, with England needing to win to stay in - the pressure on England was on  different level.

The Wales game was a 50:50 and they came up short, this is where the damage was done. Really with home advantage and the injuries Wales had they have to look at that as a game that got away.

I said from the start that the Wallabies on paper were the best side in the group but if England had of went in with the win against Wales under their belt that game would have been close I think.

The brutal truth is that England buckled under the pressure and spotlight of being hosts, and combined with being in the toughest pool it was too much for an inexperienced group of players.

Unfortunately some people are being made scapegoats - Lancaster, Farrell, Burgess etc.  They need to keep a sense of perspective and analyse the performances objectively.

England's performances actually weren't that far off the level they've shown in the last few years. They under performed but it wasn't a total meltdown - in another pool they would have got away with a slip up and still be in the competition.

The diff was Hartley. He's the most important player in England. Not because he's so good but because he retains possession and at the moment, no one else can or comes close.

Hartley out meant England's scrum was poor. It meant that they couldn't attack at the lineout and Lancaster had to go with a more conservative Lock combination so that they could simply secure basic lineouts.

Had England had a functioning scrum and lineout the diff between England and Australia would never have deviated more than 10 points either way.

Why is there only one person in England who can throw a ball overarm?

rodders wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:
The Australia match was clearly something else.  They seemed a whole level ahead, a step faster, a bit stronger, and on and on.

I think that is a bit misleading. The Wallabies had the upper hand going into that game, with England needing to win to stay in - the pressure on England was on  different level.

The Wales game was a 50:50 and they came up short, this is where the damage was done. Really with home advantage and the injuries Wales had they have to look at that as a game that got away.

I said from the start that the Wallabies on paper were the best side in the group but if England had of went in with the win against Wales under their belt that game would have been close I think.

The brutal truth is that England buckled under the pressure and spotlight of being hosts, and combined with being in the toughest pool it was too much for an inexperienced group of players.

Unfortunately some people are being made scapegoats - Lancaster, Farrell, Burgess etc.  They need to keep a sense of perspective and analyse the performances objectively.

England's performances actually weren't that far off the level they've shown in the last few years. They under performed but it wasn't a total meltdown - in another pool they would have got away with a slip up and still be in the competition.

That is absolutely it for me. It was the team on the pitch and the coaching team. After all, the way they ripped into the Welsh in the first half was quite something, but then they didnt score enough points when things were going well, went into their shell and the Welsh kept their nerve and then some.

Lets be honest here, I know we were all in the group of death, but it could not have been engineered any more to suit England and give the hosts the up most advantage to get through this group.

England were not given any mid week games, they had seven day turn arounds for all their fixtures, and if the group were to come down to points difference, England were going to play a semi pro side who were given just a three day turn around before they played them.

They had Fiji up first before they got into their flow, out of all the sides in the group it was England who were in the driving seat, giving how the group was organised.

What ever has gone wrong for England, it must be down to the coaching team, they were in the hardest group yes, but it was organised in such a fashion as to give England the biggest advantage. The coaches frigged it up, they must carry the can for this.

Scottrf wrote:Why is there only one person in England who can throw a ball overarm?

Not sure. And Stuart Broad is busy doing other things at the moment too.

George Carlin wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Why is there only one person in England who can throw a ball overarm?

Not sure. And Stuart Broad is busy doing other things at the moment too.

Ha!

rodders wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:
The Australia match was clearly something else.  They seemed a whole level ahead, a step faster, a bit stronger, and on and on.

I think that is a bit misleading. The Wallabies had the upper hand going into that game, with England needing to win to stay in - the pressure on England was on  different level.

The Wales game was a 50:50 and they came up short, this is where the damage was done. Really with home advantage and the injuries Wales had they have to look at that as a game that got away.

I said from the start that the Wallabies on paper were the best side in the group but if England had of went in with the win against Wales under their belt that game would have been close I think.

The brutal truth is that England buckled under the pressure and spotlight of being hosts, and combined with being in the toughest pool it was too much for an inexperienced group of players.

Unfortunately some people are being made scapegoats - Lancaster, Farrell, Burgess etc.  They need to keep a sense of perspective and analyse the performances objectively.

England's performances actually weren't that far off the level they've shown in the last few years. They under performed but it wasn't a total meltdown - in another pool they would have got away with a slip up and still be in the competition.

rodders that's rubbish.

Lancaster and co haven't learnt from their losses and mistakes.

I am sorry but anyone who thinks that it was intelligent to have a Ford-Joseph-Farrell-Burgess-Watson-Brown backline is a %^&*ing idiot.

That's 3 players out of position.

Lancaster's career has been blighted by poor selections like throwing Nowell in against France away, having Goode on the bench in the same game, picking Wood at 8, picking Brown on the wing, picking Barritt at 13, shunting Farrell to 12 - poor selection is not a new Lancaster problem.

It's a tough pool yes but it's unforgiveable for a team of England's resources and advantages to go out of the pool stages in their own RWC.

These players' inexperience is overplayed.

The likes of Cole,Parling,Mako and Farrell have been Lions tourists.

Most of the team have played enough at Twickenham, whether it's in AP playoffs or internationals.

These "inexperienced" players didn't buckle in Lancaster's 1st season in charge of England - getting to 2nd in the 6 nations is a good 1st season but England have not improved under Lancaster.

I agree that Burgess shouldn't be criticised too much, Lancaster threw him into the deep end as he did with Nowell against France in 2014. Like throwing a lamb to wolves and being surprised that they might not perform to optimum levels.

The ridiculous thing is after blooding Nowell against 2014, he hasn't been given a chance in the RWC. Compounding his error in backing the player in the first place. I disagreed with selecting Nowell in the first place in 2014 but he played well in the 2015 6 nations, but Lancaster discarded him bizarrely.

That would be Sam the Lamb then - Bit of a comedown that one

I didn't understand the bench. All players could only play one position, with Burgess the only cover for wing, fullback or centre. Having to play one of our form players in Joseph out of position, with a Ford Farrell Barritt/Burgess combo isn't what I think anyone would choose against Australia other than Lancaster/Farrell.

Scottrf wrote:I didn't understand the bench. All players could only play one position, with Burgess the only cover for wing, fullback or centre.

You and me both. I said it before the game (possibly even on this board!).

Even if our game plan was to bosh our way through then we needed more variety on the bench!

scottrf Lancaster's poor selection on the bench is not a new problem.

If Lancaster showed that he could learn from his previous mistakes then there might be a case to keep him on but he hasn't.

Everyone knew before the RWC that Australia and Wales might cause England problems at the breakdown (is it a coincidence that when Tipuric came on it helped Wales?) yet England had no answers and no alternative.

It's why I wanted England to look at the likes of Itoje and Ksevic in the warm ups to at least give England some other options.

Playing a lock at 6.

The bench selection by Lancaster has been quite baffling. I can't remember a journalist asking him to justify the bench selections though but I'm sure the RFU will in their appraisal. I think some teams are afraid to use a smaller 7 but its all about getting the balance right. Josh Navidi and Kvesic are very similar players but you need some strength and power to compensate for them. The Aviva Premiership way of playing remains at Odds with international rugby and many are saying that this is one of the reasons England are not developing classic open sides. Its a mystery with such a large volume of players.

Is that meant to be a criticism of Itoje?

He hasn't picked a specialist position to settle on yet - he flits between lock and blindside.

It's not a criticism of Itoje, he's been picked out of position by saracens as he's intergrated into the team. It happens a lot. Even people like me and you advocating picking Slade out of position at 12.

It doesn't help that the scrum simply broke down. Our two props looked very poor.

Where was the power coming through from the power locks...Lawes and Parling...oh hang on????

Launchbury MOTM against Australia hasn't started a game before that.....


What have they been doing in USA training. Was it only fitness training. That would explain a lot. Players look a shadow of themselves and like they have played no rugby!

beshocked wrote:Is that meant to be a criticism of Itoje?

He hasn't picked a specialist position to settle on yet - he flits between lock and blindside.

I don't think it is Beshocked. How many locks come in as 6's. Launchbury, Lawes, Kruis, Parling etc etc they all do it.

I also believe Itoje will be a lock.

RubyGuby wrote:The bench selection by Lancaster has been quite baffling. I can't remember a journalist asking him to justify the bench selections though but I'm sure the RFU will in their appraisal. I think some teams are afraid to use a smaller 7 but its all about getting the balance right. Josh Navidi and Kvesic are very similar players but you need some strength and power to compensate for them. The Aviva Premiership way of playing remains at Odds with international rugby and many are saying that this is one of the reasons England are not developing classic open sides. Its a mystery with such a large volume of players.

I've heard this before and the whole thing about 7s being 'small' baffles me. What does that mean really?

Michael Hooper is 6ft and just under 16 stones, Heinrich Brüssow is less than 6' and just over 16 stones (so is Scotland's John Hardie who is likely to be our first choice openside for years to come), McCaw is 6'2" and 17 stones.

Kvesic is at least as large as those guys.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

beshocked wrote:Is that meant to be a criticism of Itoje?

He hasn't picked a specialist position to settle on yet - he flits between lock and blindside.

I don't think it is Beshocked. How many locks come in as 6's. Launchbury, Lawes, Kruis, Parling etc etc they all do it.

I also believe Itoje will be a lock.

Has Parling ever played as a 6? Ditto Launchbury.

Now I know it's not saying much but looking at their wiki pages - Kruis,Itoje and Lawes are labelled as locks,flankers.

Parling and Launchbury just locks.

Kruis has occasionally played at 6 for Saracens but it's been a rarity and wouldn't want it for England unless he showed enough form there.

catchweight wrote:

nathan wrote:

catchweight wrote:Also, how can a coaching team not have instilled pre-determined responses to to end game scenarios like the Wales game? How can a coach blame the decision making for not going for a kick yet not take accountability for never having a plan in place for this scenario? The players after said a draw was only an extra point, seemingly oblivious that it would have kept them in pole position by denying Wales extra points. And another player was not even aware that four tries earned a bonus point. Its sounds pretty clueless.

should a player really need to be told about the bonus points, there bloody adults not children!

Also haven't we been here before where fans were moaning that the players were being over coached? that they were robotic and needed more freedom.

Over coaching doesnt really have anything to do with preparing for crucial match scenario and understanding the dynamics of the how the group system works. Ridiculous that a coach can come out and blame bad decision making in that scenario when all they had to do was ensure players were suitably informed on what to do. For a world cup in that sort of group I would expect the coaching team to have covered these kind of situations from all bases. It smacks of lack of preparation.

Woodward highlighted this 3 years ago when Robshaw made similar bad decisions.

RubyGuby wrote:The bench selection by Lancaster has been quite baffling. I can't remember a journalist asking him to justify the bench selections though but I'm sure the RFU will in their appraisal. I think some teams are afraid to use a smaller 7 but its all about getting the balance right. Josh Navidi and Kvesic are very similar players but you need some strength and power to compensate for them. The Aviva Premiership way of playing remains at Odds with international rugby and many are saying that this is one of the reasons England are not developing classic open sides. Its a mystery with such a large volume of players.

Not entirely in agreement with this, there are some really good opensides in the Aviva. Kvesic as you mentioned above and I was one of the few guys happy to see Blair Cowan back playing for Scotland at the weekend in the absence of Hardie. I also really rate Jamie Gibson. I think he is a superb player and I am a little bemused as to how he hasn't ever had more caps for England.

I personally don't see too much wrong with an England backrow of :

6. Robshaw / Wood
7. Kvesic / Gibson
8. Vinapola / Morgan

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I personally don't see too much wrong with an England backrow of :

6. Robshaw / Wood
7. Kvesic / Gibson
8. Vinapola / Morgan

I can see something wrong with it.

Gooseberry wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I personally don't see too much wrong with an England backrow of :

6. Robshaw / Wood
7. Kvesic / Gibson
8. Vinapola / Morgan

I can see something wrong with it.

Ok apart from my rubbish spelling what's the problem? I personally think your selection of a team is far more worthy of debate than my keyboarding skills....

On the back row debate I think we badly need ball carrying options from both players. Will Steffon Armitage still be the player he is in 4 years time, only time will tell and he surely should be given the chance to prove himself.

my first squad

6. Itoje, Ewers, Robshaw
7. Kvesic, Armitage
8, Morgan, Vunipola , (Hughes)

Tiger/Chief wrote:On the back row debate I think we badly need ball carrying options from both players. Will Steffon Armitage still be the player he is in 4 years time, only time will tell and he surely should be given the chance to prove himself.

my first squad

6. Itoje, Ewers, Robshaw
7. Kvesic, Armitage
8, Morgan, Vunipola , (Hughes)

Disagree 100% re Armitage. The ban on players being selected if they choose to play outside of England should be kept.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote: I also really rate Jamie Gibson. I think he is a superb player and I am a little bemused as to how he hasn't ever had more caps for England.

More than zero?

Jamie Gibson is a very good club level player, and I was sad he chose to leave Leicester. However he is most assuredly not a 7 and really he is a Diet Tom Croft. A lineout jumper but not as good as Croft. quick but slower than Croft. Decent cover tackler - but not.... you get my drift.

LondonTiger wrote:

Tiger/Chief wrote:On the back row debate I think we badly need ball carrying options from both players. Will Steffon Armitage still be the player he is in 4 years time, only time will tell and he surely should be given the chance to prove himself.

my first squad

6. Itoje, Ewers, Robshaw
7. Kvesic, Armitage
8, Morgan, Vunipola , (Hughes)

Disagree 100% re Armitage. The ban on players being selected if they choose to play outside of England should be kept.

And to be fair we are talking about a guy with a failed drug test and who I believe is still the subject of a police investigation for an assault far more serious than the one that got Tuillagi booted.

beshocked wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

beshocked wrote:Is that meant to be a criticism of Itoje?

He hasn't picked a specialist position to settle on yet - he flits between lock and blindside.

I don't think it is Beshocked. How many locks come in as 6's. Launchbury, Lawes, Kruis, Parling etc etc they all do it.

I also believe Itoje will be a lock.

Has Parling ever played as a 6? Ditto Launchbury.

Now I know it's not saying much but looking at their wiki pages - Kruis,Itoje and Lawes are labelled as locks,flankers.

Parling and Launchbury just locks.

Kruis has occasionally played at 6 for Saracens but it's been a rarity and wouldn't want it for England unless he showed enough form there.

Beshocked...you forget im a falcons fan. When Parling came through the ranks he played......6!!!!!

I think you'll find Launchbury was very much the same and lawes!

Im not saying they play there for England. Im saying Itoje to me is ......a LOCK!!!!!

Its how teams bring their young locks through when they are still very mobile to play the back row.

My initial point was only don't kick Lancaster for something everyone does. Players aren't born to a position but develop skills which could be used elsewhere.

The France debate isn't just around protecting the Premiership, it's also about availability for training camps.

The worst players can be are utility players these days. You don't want to be a guy who can play a multiple positions to a good standard... you want players who can play 1 position to an excellent standard.

Players who want to be 5's and 6's... they may lack a bit of bulk for 5 but be too much so for 6. Neither is adequate. Build players into specialists.

England has good strength in depth... therefore they don't need players who need to cover multiple positions. They can always adequately cover talent for talent especially in the forwards bar hooker.

If Itoje or whoever wants to be a 6 then tell him to lose 10kgs and become super mobile. If he wants to be a 5 then tell him to gain 10kgs and add serious grunt to the front five.

fa0019 wrote:The worst players can be are utility players these days. You don't want to be a guy who can play a multiple positions to a good standard... you want players who can play 1 position to an excellent standard.

*Australias backs division looks confused by this statement*

I think you maybe want a couple of utility players on the bench though. Wilson has been invaluable for Saints because he covers a few positions. You don't want to be looking at your starting 15 and thinking that it's they that can be shifted around in the case of injuries. That's what England did and it disrupts the team. A winger injured and your fly half and both centres are moved? Crazy.

Scottrf wrote:The France debate isn't just around protecting the Premiership, it's also about availability for training camps.

I actually think its a good rule. Harsh but good

Half the reason England are struggling to continue their junior form to test level is the failure of the club setup... how English teams a) struggle in Europe and b) how teams are filled with good foreigners who deny them earlier than expected chances to play top level rugby. In Ireland for instance they have no such issues.

However the AUS rule is sensible. Say a player has 50 caps and gets contractual allowances for training caps then sure. Otherwise no. Means players can earn their bread in later years but still get national honours.

They should start putting in foreign player (inc. Wales, Ireland, Scotland) caps into sides. Max 5 per XV for example.

Well I would look for a bit of clarity here from guys who watch the Aviva regularly.

Why does it seem to be the case that the league doesn't breed truly game breaking opensides who turn the ball over as a job?

In the pro12 you have plenty of good/great opensides who make plenty of turnovers and also provide great link play into the backs. In the pro 12 we can choose from :

John Barclay
SOB
Justin Tipuric
Sam Warburton
Tommy O' Donnell
Hamish Watson
Robbie Diack
Roddy Grant

I could name more of these players but won't. It seems the Aviva doesn't produce as many "fetcher" opensides to fill England's needs. Now if the Aviva is league designed to feed the national team with talent it doesn't seem to meet that criteria and the head honchos might need to bite the bullet and pick foreign based players or make an amendment to the rules to allow them to do so, if Armitage is the answer to the question.

Have you actually looked at how much game time they get at their clubs? Because it's often commented on at U20 level that the English players are more experienced at top domestic level then their counter-parts.

Is that time (again) where I need to look back at the number of club caps our U20 players have compared with their Welsh/Scottish/Irish equivalent?

Gooseberry wrote:

fa0019 wrote:The worst players can be are utility players these days. You don't want to be a guy who can play a multiple positions to a good standard... you want players who can play 1 position to an excellent standard.

*Australias backs division looks confused by this statement*

Folau; Ashley-Cooper, Kuridrani, Giteau, Horne; Foley, Genia

Folau - Plays 15 in every game
Ashley-Cooper - winger/centre
Kuridrani - standard OC
Matt Giteau - never been a real 10. Best position has always been as a 12 ( a real second five eigth)
Horne - winger/centre
Foley - true 10
Genia - true 9

so the only utility backs are the wingers who have played both wing and 13 throughout their careers. Not exactly filled with utility players. Talented who can do jobs but in every position they are filled with players in their best positions.

HammerofThunor wrote:Have you actually looked at how much game time they get at their clubs? Because it's often commented on at U20 level that the English players are more experienced at top domestic level then their counter-parts.

Is that time (again) where I need to look back at the number of club caps our U20 players have compared with their Welsh/Scottish/Irish equivalent?

How much HC exposure are they getting?

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Well I would look for a bit of clarity here from guys who watch the Aviva regularly.

Why does it seem to be the case that the league doesn't breed truly game breaking opensides who turn the ball over as a job?

In the pro12 you have plenty of good/great opensides who make plenty of turnovers and also provide great link play into the backs. In the pro 12 we can choose from :

John Barclay
SOB
Justin Tipuric
Sam Warburton
Tommy O' Donnell
Hamish Watson
Robbie Diack
Roddy Grant

I could name more of these players but won't. It seems the Aviva doesn't produce as many "fetcher" opensides to fill England's needs. Now if the Aviva is league designed to feed the national team with talent it doesn't seem to meet that criteria and the head honchos might need to bite the bullet and pick foreign based players or make an amendment to the rules to allow them to do so, if Armitage is the answer to the question.

They do...it just seems they're not viewed as essential and developed properly.  

Will Fraser - Injury prone or would be a cracker.
Andy Hazell - Gloucester fan favourite and now retired.
Seymour
Matt Kvesic - Should have been at this world cup. (Currently working under Pococks breakdown coach with Glos)
Wallace
Andy Saull - Not good enough playing in Championship.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Well I would look for a bit of clarity here from guys who watch the Aviva regularly.

Why does it seem to be the case that the league doesn't breed truly game breaking opensides who turn the ball over as a job?

In the pro12 you have plenty of good/great opensides who make plenty of turnovers and also provide great link play into the backs. In the pro 12 we can choose from :

John Barclay
SOB
Justin Tipuric
Sam Warburton
Tommy O' Donnell
Hamish Watson
Robbie Diack
Roddy Grant

I could name more of these players but won't. It seems the Aviva doesn't produce as many "fetcher" opensides to fill England's needs. Now if the Aviva is league designed to feed the national team with talent it doesn't seem to meet that criteria and the head honchos might need to bite the bullet and pick foreign based players or make an amendment to the rules to allow them to do so, if Armitage is the answer to the question.

They do...it just seems they're not viewed as essential and developed properly.  

Will Fraser - Injury prone or would be a cracker.
Andy Hazell - Gloucester fan favourite and now retired.
Seymour
Matt Kvesic - Should have been at this world cup. (Currently working under Pococks breakdown coach with Glos)
Wallace
Andy Saull - Not good enough playing in Championship.

There must be a reason for that though Geordie? Is it really any surprise when you think of some of the best players in any team tend to be openside flankers? McCaw, Sean O'Brien, Dusatoir, Pockock/Hooper, JMF Lobbe and now Hardie for Scotland who has been arguably our best player in the tournament.

Who in the prem don't really have a 'proper 7' though. May not be English but majority have don't they?

In many ways I will be sorry to see Lancaster go because I am sure he is a very decent man. But even for detractors, aren't we losing a lot of experience?

As for the other coaches, I tend to think Catt improved things with the backs this year.  Did Catt have the final say with selecting Farrell rather than Ford?

The pack seemed based on a template of having a very mobile front five which does not seemed to have worked (did not dominate Wales when it mattered and were shoved back by Australia).  If there was Rowtree's perference then I think his role should be considered?

One of the biggest issues with overall coaching is that the longer the squad were together the worse they got (England's best 6N's match was against Wales).  In the warm-up training there was mention that it was only fitness and not skills - was this really a good idea?

Even with the above, I will still be sorry to see Lancaster leave.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

John Barclay
SOB
Justin Tipuric
Sam Warburton
Tommy O' Donnell
Hamish Watson
Robbie Diack
Roddy Grant

I could name more of these players but won't. It seems the Aviva doesn't produce as many "fetcher" opensides to fill England's needs. Now if the Aviva is league designed to feed the national team with talent it doesn't seem to meet that criteria and the head honchos might need to bite the bullet and pick foreign based players or make an amendment to the rules to allow them to do so, if Armitage is the answer to the question.

Only half those you name are actually any good, while two of the four decent ones are certainly not fetchers. I would go as far to argue that only Australia select genuine fetchers amongst the top sides. The rest select all-rounders like McCaw, Louw, SOB, Warburton.

The no foreign based player rule is a good one and should be maintained.

LondonTiger wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

John Barclay
SOB
Justin Tipuric
Sam Warburton
Tommy O' Donnell
Hamish Watson
Robbie Diack
Roddy Grant

I could name more of these players but won't. It seems the Aviva doesn't produce as many "fetcher" opensides to fill England's needs. Now if the Aviva is league designed to feed the national team with talent it doesn't seem to meet that criteria and the head honchos might need to bite the bullet and pick foreign based players or make an amendment to the rules to allow them to do so, if Armitage is the answer to the question.

Only half those you name are actually any good, while two of the four decent ones are certainly not fetchers. I would go as far to argue that only Australia select genuine fetchers amongst the top sides. The rest select all-rounders like McCaw, Louw, SOB, Warburton.

The no foreign based player rule is a good one and should be maintained.

That's a pretty subjective comment. Their ability can only be measured by who they play against. However based on what you are saying everything is rosy and England don't need a "fetcher". In that case why is there such a clamor in the media and on these boards for someone like Armitage?

The french play their flankers as a left and right flank and both play the same way.

However to say McCaw is an all rounder I would say isn't exactly true. Kaino tends to be the chopper, McCaw when he isn't refereeing the breakdown has his hands on the ball and Reid Carries. The same pattern is repeated with just about all the other "top" sides in the world.

Ireland : O'Mahony as chopper, SOB as Fetcher and Heaslip as carrier.

Wales : Lydiate as chopper, Warbs as fetcher and Faletau as carrier.

Scotland : Strauss as chopper, Hardie or Cowan as Fetcher and Denton as carrier

Argentina : Matera as chopper, Lobbe as fetcher and Senatore as a carrier.

South Africa : Brussow as a Fetcher, Louw as an all rounder I suppose and Duane Crown Prince of Asguard as a carrier

Australia do seem to play with 2 fetchers and that doesn't do them any harm.


It does seem to me from that non exhaustive list that England lack a very good breakdown/turnover specialist. You can win without one, but when the Ozzies were turing over England ball at will I'm pretty sure Lancaster would be realising the magnitude of his error in not including a proper scavenger.

That's not to say all those players I mentioned put blinkers on to all other duties, but in terms of backrow balance I disagree that the names you listed are all rounders.

There's always a clamour for anyone not involved. There's always someone better not playing.

You mention Brussow when SA hardly ever play him...