England Post World Cup

First topic message reminder :

Who comes in...and who goes

How about this team for the next game after the WC

1 Marler
2 Tommy Taylor (Sale)
3 Cole
4 Launchbury
5 Lawes (Itoje on the bench)
6 Ewers
7 Kvesic (Clifford on the bench)
8 Morgan

9 Youngs
10 Slade
11 May
12 Tom Stepheson / Sam Hill
13 Joseph
14 Watson
15 Brown

Cheers LT

Mark Cueto and Kyran Bracken are sticking the boot in now.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/rugby-union/34440388

The coaches I would bring in.

Wayne Smith - Head Coach
Paul Gustard
Rob Baxter
Alex King

I've seen Ewers a few times at Saxon level now and he's looked unfit and unable to make much impact. I just don't rate Kvesic at all, does he make much impact at the breakdown? When I've seen him at AP level it's been little to none.

I posted on a similar thread agreeing a lot of what is said here:

I'd like to see the RFU spend a lot of money to get a world class experienced international coach, buy them out if they have to. Tell them you want them to take the team forward with a group of mostly English coaches with a succession plan later for those coaches to step up. They get to pick the coaches with the RFU that they think represent the future of England's coaching.

For example (and this is just as a demonstration it's not my choices!)

DOR: Eddie Jones
Coaches: Rob Baxter, Alex King, Steve Borthwick

little badger I would be happy with that too.

Borthwick has obviously worked with Eddie Jones and now has international experience!

Thats right guys, nick the Japanese coaches so they do not beat you in the pool of death for the next world cup.

Lorddowlais they were already planning of leaving after the RWC anyway.

Plus one of them is English so you think he might be tempted to be part of the England set up.

beshocked wrote:Lorddowlais they were already planning of leaving after the RWC anyway.

Plus one of them is English so you think he might be tempted to be part of the England set up.

I was joking, come on, lets have some humour on here.

No one is laughing.

little_Badger - Any DoR or Head coach will want to pick their own staff I suspect.

TightHEAD wrote:No one is laughing.

I am.

LordDowlais wrote:Mark Cueto and Kyran Bracken are sticking the boot in now.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/rugby-union/34440388

Cueto has an axe to grind over Lancasters comments about 4 years ago though, he fails to mention that the group from 4 years ago wasn't exactly as tough as this time around

propdavid_london wrote:little_Badger - Any DoR or Head coach will want to pick their own staff I suspect.

They can, I have said that go out looking for a DoR who agrees with this idea from the outset, to bring through English coaches for the future. Look it's not fool proof but I'm sure we can find someone with all the money we have!!

My mate has just phoned me. He said he was walking down the high street in Bristol and he found a carrier bag with a brand new England jersey inside it.

I said to him how mad the English were, do they realise they have to pay 5p for those bags now.




Only joking guys.

You're wasted on here LD, I'd get on to the Apollo to see if they've got a slot free

Dean Ryan on Scrum V was talking about those above Lancaster being culpable.

You've got to love the Welsh 'satire' and the stating of the obvious.

It's not obvious Cyril, you wouldn't have got 5p for that bag yesterday

LordDowlais wrote:My mate has just phoned me. He said he was walking down the high street in Bristol and he found a carrier bag with a brand new England jersey inside it.

I said to him how mad the English were, do they realise they have to pay 5p for those bags now.




Only joking guys.

Heard the same joke this morning on the radio. Made me laugh then when i heard it.

majesticimperialman wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:My mate has just phoned me. He said he was walking down the high street in Bristol and he found a carrier bag with a brand new England jersey inside it.

I said to him how mad the English were, do they realise they have to pay 5p for those bags now.




Only joking guys.

Heard the same joke this morning on the radio. Made me laugh then when i heard it.

It certainly is a strange time. I was walking the dog this morning and saw something flapping in the breeze. I had a closer look and it was an England v Uruguay ticket nailed on a tree. I thought excellent, I'm having that.

After all, you can never have too many nails.

I've been having a think about it and I think that we need to stop pretending we are NZ or Aus or anyone else. We are England. Pick 8 Orcs in the pack. Beat the opposition up. In the backs we want the girly boys, i.e. we want fast and skilful.

Here are the things I think we should look for first and foremost. Anything else is lovely but means nothing if they don't have these basic points.

1-5 should be the biggest nastiest set-piece dominating pieces of work that we have. They spend the game hitting rucks and mauls hard and pushing hard in the scrum and winning line-out ball. If they get the ball in open play they run in a straight line HARD. 2 can throw in the lineout consistently.

6 - Runs hard but has a bit of guile too. Tackles and tackles and tackles. Burgess could be ideal if he can learn to jump in the lineout too.

7 - Where's the egg? chase the egg, get the egg, find the egg. That man has the egg, chase the man, get the egg. This is the seven in defence. In attack he needs to be able to link well. Not bothered about being the strongest runner.

8 - Vunipola and morgan do well here actually. Run hard, tackle hard.

The point with the above is that each player has a role. At the moment we try to get everyone to do everything and end up with the classic jacks of all trades.

9 - Be a dick. Chirpy, annoying, in charge of the lumps in front of you. Sniping runs are lovely but they are a secondary concern. We are English, 10 is our play maker not 9.

10 - Play maker. In charge. The all round player.

11 - FAST

12 - Play maker as well, but is solid in defence (defence isn't everything here though)

13 - Strike runner. COuld be a barrell (like Tuilagi) or a stepper (like JJ)

14 - FAST

15 - SOLID at the back. Ball goes in the air he will catch it. Tackles even the most elusive player. Siege gun of a boot.

ONE of the players should be a 80% plus kicker. Any of them will do. One back other than ten should also be a very good kicker from hand.

Bench - Game changers! Put people on the bench with the x-factor. Not so worried about them fitting the above requirements so well. A good example is Cipriani. Doesn't fit my description of 10 or 15 but he'd be ace on the bench. Bench should also be versatile.

LordDowlais wrote:My mate has just phoned me. He said he was walking down the high street in Bristol and he found a carrier bag with a brand new England jersey inside it.

I said to him how mad the English were, do they realise they have to pay 5p for those bags now.




Only joking guys.

Don't worry LD, you will receive all due reciprocal sympathy from English fans when Australia give Wales a jolly good pasting shortly.

I had to pay 6p in Asda!

You could just, you know, take your own bags with you. It's what people in the rest of the UK (and other European countries) have been doing for years...

Seen a post somewhere on this thread that refers to dave ewers being out of shape and that he doesnt influence the game enough....

I have to disagree as I think these stats from the Prem last Season back up that Ewers was the most effective 6 in last years competition.

AP 2014/15 Carries Metres Def Beaten Tackles Tackle %
Haskell 111 166 15 169 92
Wood 120 176 0 101 87
Clark 119 206 7 219 90
Ewers 200 400 35 226 93

Our powder puff back row of Woodshaw got blown away in this tournament, not everyone needs to have a six pack to be an effective rugby player!!! Thomas Waldrom is another example of this!!! We badly need ball carriers and people who can operate in heavy traffic.....

screamingaddabs wrote: 1-5 should be the biggest nastiest set-piece dominating pieces of work that we have. They spend the game hitting rucks and mauls hard and pushing hard in the scrum and winning line-out ball. If they get the ball in open play they run in a straight line HARD. 2 can throw in the lineout consistently.
.

should also add.... 1-5 get out of the bloody way when trying to shift the play through the backs......

Tiger/Chief wrote:

screamingaddabs wrote: 1-5 should be the biggest nastiest set-piece dominating pieces of work that we have.  They spend the game hitting rucks and mauls hard and pushing hard in the scrum and winning line-out ball.  If they get the ball in open play they run in a straight line HARD.  2 can throw in the lineout consistently.
.

should also add.... 1-5 get out of the bloody way when trying to shift the play through the backs......

Damn right.

It's fine if the 1-5 handle the ball well and play with pace and precision. Unfortunately the skills from the English forwards hasn't been good enough.

NZ forwards play with dynamism and skill, would be nice if the English could do the same.

beshocked wrote:It's fine if the 1-5 handle the ball well and play with pace and precision. Unfortunately the skills from the English forwards hasn't been good enough.

NZ forwards play with dynamism and skill, would be nice if the English could do the same.

I think you are missing my point. We have been selecting front five players to be active around the park and to handle well (even if they have not been very good at it). We have been asking them to play this way too. That is just copying new zealand. Let's not pretend we are New Zealand. The beauty of rugby is that it can be played in a number of ways. Let's play the English way. I want my front five to be absolute orcs. If they can handle too then lovely but we shouldn't even be asking them to. Just hit rucks and mauls and scrummage harder and better than anyone else. If you do get the ball, shove it up your jumper and put your head down, but generally you won't be getting the ball much!

Let's NOT replicate NZ. We will only ever be almost as good as them doing that as they will move on before we catch up. Let's forge our own path. We don't particularly need many different players to do this. Cole for instance could be (and has been in the past) a fantastic scrummager, but it seems like he is being asked to (and has been conditioned to) do a lot more. T Youngs is a bench player under my plan and we get a big srummaging hooker (like Hartley) in as first choice. Not sure on Loosehead at the moment, but if Corbs comes back to form he is a possibility. At 4 and 5, Lawes is on the bench (impact player) and whoever we start should be big and nasty.

South Africa don't copy NZ, neither do Aus. We shouldn't either.

Tiger/Chief wrote:Seen a post somewhere on this thread that refers to dave ewers being out of shape and that he doesnt influence the game enough....

I have to disagree

I agree with you mate. I cant understand why he wasn't taken....its a no brainer for me.

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Mark Cueto and Kyran Bracken are sticking the boot in now.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/rugby-union/34440388

Cueto has an axe to grind over Lancasters comments about 4 years ago though, he fails to mention that the group from 4 years ago wasn't exactly as tough as this time around

The point is though that Lancaster set hinself up for the job by apeing the media hysteria and directly blaming guys like Cueto for the "debacle" and hyping up his own generation of wonder kids as the solution.

Everything he claimed and everything he promised to deliver has failed to materialise. He junked players careers early (including Easter), took part in the trashing of peopels reputations, and traded off the perception that players who had busted a gut and who still coudl have a had a role to play under a different atmosphere were to blame for England narrowly missing out on a semi final.
Hes made his own bed, its hardly any shock that theres people form that era lining up to point out hes failed to deliver on promises. Martin Johnson must be laughing, his adverts will still be on at the world cup long after Lancasters gone from it.

Even Andy Farrell has been busily pointing out that Lancaster picks the team and that you cant blame him for Burgess (who was great by the way).

I have to disagree as I think these stats from the Prem last Season back up that Ewers was the most effective 6 in last years competition.

AP 2014/15 Carries Metres Def Beaten Tackles Tackle %
Haskell 111 166 15 169 92
Wood 120 176 0 101 87
Clark 119 206 7 219 90
Ewers 200 400 35 226 93

Impressive stats but they have to be put into context.

How many games did Ewers play compared to the others?

Also, Ewers is used a primary carrier and often tackles close to rucks. He's going to makes more tackles and have more carries than the others.

Wood & Haskell especially, have more fitness/speed so tend to cover tackle etc.

Ewers just lacks fitness and pace imo. He could be very good if he improves these areas.

Tiger/Chief wrote:Seen a post somewhere on this thread that refers to dave ewers being out of shape and that he doesnt influence the game enough....

I have to disagree as I think these stats from the Prem last Season back up that Ewers was the most effective 6 in last years competition.

AP 2014/15 Carries Metres Def Beaten Tackles Tackle %
Haskell 111        166        15          169          92
Wood         120         176         0          101            87
Clark         119         206         7          219          90
Ewers         200         400        35          226          93

Our powder puff back row of Woodshaw got blown away in this tournament, not everyone needs to have a six pack to be an effective rugby player!!! Thomas Waldrom is another example of this!!! We badly need ball carriers and people who can operate in heavy traffic.....

http://www.rugbyworld.com/countries/england-countries/dave-ewers-on-his-england-ommission-europe-and-the-chiefs-spirit-47588

Its from the rugby world website. Interesting read actually.

hey also had a what he would add to England

http://www.rugbyworld.com/countries/england-countries/analysis-what-dave-ewers-would-bring-to-england-45400

And whilst were on it...

Good one on Armitage and Kvesic.

http://www.rugbyworld.com/tournaments/challenge-cup/analysis-what-do-armitage-and-kvesic-offer-at-the-breakdown-44915

GF, I think you could do snippets like that on most players and they'd look impressive. These are also in the AP which isn't top tier. He's played Saxons and not replicated this form.

Lancaster took a look at Ewers and he didn't cut the mustard. I do like him but he's just not consistent through a game (fitness imo)

I appreciate these just pick the best snippets.

However I don't agree Lancaster looked at him enough. I think his whole WC squad selection proves he didn't.....

I honestly think on the whole he picked the best squad available to him (bar Hartley, Tuilagi, Burrell and Armitage).

Wood and Haskell are better players than Ewers and Kvesic, I don't really understand why anyone would anything else.

I would have agreed with you previously...but now im genuinely beginning to wonder.

Maybe Wood with another, or Robshaw with another but not together.

Also Haskell should not have gone to the WC. He will remain someone who had so much potential but never the consistency to do it.

I wouldn't have him in another Squad.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing GF lol.

Haskell was favourite to start pre WC, I find it quite funny how his stock has fallen.

I'd still take all 3 flankers over Ewers and Kvesic who aren't near their peers currently imo.

Haskell isn't and has never been consistent. Brilliant one game woeful the next.

At international level at least. had a great club season.

He's class at club level 7.5 I have never questioned that.

I have questioned his consistency at the next level many times though. On his day he is truly class player...and I have seen him have some wrecking ball type games for England. On that form he would be first name on the team sheet. England need a player like that.

Problem is we don't see that often and when he's not on that form hes quiet.

Sgt Pooly we've had this conversation before..... how on earth can a player prove themselves if not given opportunities?

It's easy for you to say they wouldn't be better but you just don't know.

I said that the likes of Itoje,Ksevic and Ewers should have been given a chance. Even before the shambles of the RWC.

Haskell and Wood have hardly had good world cups.

Lancaster has badly mismanaged England. He's also completely destroyed the confidence of Burgess, putting him on a pedestal then completely leaving him out of the 23 against Uruguay.

How do you try all these players and build a cohesive squad?

You can't just keep trying player after player, you need to build a team/squad.

Ewers and Kvesic shouldn't have been in the WC squad

beshocked wrote:Sgt Pooly we've had this conversation before..... how on earth can a player prove themselves if not given opportunities?

It's easy for you to say they wouldn't be better but you just don't know.

I  said that the likes of Itoje,Ksevic and Ewers should have been given a chance. Even before the shambles of the RWC.

Haskell and Wood have hardly had good world cups.

Lancaster has badly mismanaged England. He's also completely destroyed the confidence of Burgess, putting him on a pedestal then completely leaving him out of the 23 against Uruguay.

That is a hell of an assumption

GeordieFalcon wrote:He's class at club level 7.5 I have never questioned that.

I have questioned his consistency at the next level many times though. On his day he is truly class player...and I have seen him have some wrecking ball type games for England. On that form he would be first name on the team sheet. England need a player like that.

Problem is we don't see that often and when he's not on that form hes quiet.

I'm a big fan of Haskell but quiet on his off days has often been a compliment. He's remaineda penalty magnet when on his bad days. As has Cole throughout this world cup sadly.

gregortree wrote:Don't worry LD, you will receive all due reciprocal sympathy from English fans when Australia give Wales a jolly good pasting shortly.

And I will deservedly take it after the banter I have thrown at you lot this week.

But until then......

It doesn’t surprise me that at least some of the players that underperformed were coming back from injury. Barritt, Launchbury, even Cole and Lawes haven’t looked up to test speed. Just what you don’t need in a RWC pool of horror. And losing Corbs (battling fitness?) & Hartley (battling dementia). That’s a recently preferred FR of Corb/Hartley/Cole to Marler/TY/Cole; disruption to the preferred SR of Lawes & Launchbury. Not to mention the longterm loss of that once great player Manu. And add on top of that the dog’s dinner of midfield. Plus the poor use of the bench. And a muddle of a coaching team promoting RL tactics. We were doomed I tell ye, doomed.

But there’s always a silver lining and if we can just get a proven test coach, who knows.