The Blame Game My Thoughts on the RWC,Englands Future and everything

Firstly my Bonafides I`m an Anglo-Scot and proud of my Countries teams,BUT my Primary team is the All Blacks since 1953-4.
I`m Alan/aka Emack/aka Emack2 and have profound knowledge of Rugby,especially SH in General ,NZ in particular. I don`t
follow Club/Provincial/or even NH tests except at a peripheral level.
I have been sickened by the media witch hunt,tweets by players,both in or not in the Squad and the cries for Coaches Blood
when everyone should get behind the team.
As an All Black fan who road the halcyon days 1950-69 when they lost one series in 20years,the dark days of the 70`s,slow
recovery in the 80`s patchy 90`s.1998,2009 .I can emphasize "Chokers","4 more years""Home Town Bullies" etc.
In 2004 they lost a squad,,in 2008 a whole squad they rebuilt and moved on NZ have the best team and the worst media in
Rugby.John Hart,Grizz Wyllie,Robbie Deans all great coaches dumped in knee jerk reactions.Graham Henry only being re-elected
because Deans was tainted by 2003.
In 2009 in an injury riddled year lost 3 times to SA and a trophy to France "The Gang of three were under fire the reaction
Thrashing the French at the end of the year,a 6-0 2010 campaign a loss to OZ in Hong Kong,and 2 in 2011,a solid RWC win
v Oz,2012 =6-0 again.England loss 2012,followed an unbeaten 2013.Each loss an inspiration to settle the score.
Under Lancaster England had a good record v NH sides the last 3 -6Ns being decided by points difference so there was
little between most NH sides.
Injuries to some extent and off field activies effected selections BUT the style that had proved successful in most games
2012-15.Suddenly became a defensive no loss rather than try to win attitude which probably cost the Wales game.
This RWC has shown that teams with nothing to lose can be a handful especially if the offside law isn`t applied the
standard is such 150 points thrashing don`t happen.
The unfair 4/5 day turnaround has increased injuries ,reduced recovery times,has cost points/matches.
The laws exist in black and white BUT every Ref I`ve seen so far has applied them differently.
England v Australia injuries to both sides may have affected the result to some extent and Hooper not
seeing Yellow at half time.Was huge 7 man Scrum,key man from breakdown when England were
firing.
Media expectations that purely on Home advantage England would win the Group,then reach the
final was naïve at best.That SH well organised sides wouldn't be able to play a running game in
the NH,.The pressure to pick a league Prop/6 still learning his trade in the centre instead of
dedicated 12 beggars belief[what ever his undoubted skills.
As to the Aus match,congratulations to them by the way,personally when given penalties would have
kicked for goal to slow things down.Been in the Refs ear about Scrum going early and deliberate
bodies at the base of every breakdown.Would have pulled Marler after the first Scrum Penalty
if the Ref thinks your at it he`ll do it every time[Steve Walsh]
The future get a settled game plan,select players who can execute it,one game at a time a more
mobile back row.More care to be seen to be legal at the set piece,better discipline.
I`d be inclined to Keep Lancaster but look at the other coaches and aim to win 6Ns and
thrash Aus next time they meet.

Another post by the glory supporter.


I wonder who he will get behind if NZ lose in the quarter-finals?

at the end of the day the Poms lost to Australia and Wales. that's ok

That doesn't justify the hate/blame that they're getting.

Good man emack!

Good post emack...!

Interesting post but I disagree with England "having" to win the 6 Nations. In many respects I think that would be wrong. England IMO and in particular its talented young backs need 2 years to develop without any unrealistic pressure put on them. They need to learn to express themselves in the 6 Nations where winning at all costs must be replaced with one eye on the future to develop the team. England seemed to play with a fear of losing, this needs to be removed in order to develop those players. This would also help to negate the constant chopping and changing of players if they have 1 indifferent game.

I think it's a huge over-reaction. Losing to Wales and Australia is nothing to be ashamed of. Isn't the first time and it won't be the last, so why all the drama? More important to learn from it and never make the same mistakes again, rather than making wholesale changes in management.

Well wide of the mark in how you've read the media in both England getting the final and pressurising Burgess being picked. Profound knowledge is pushing it a bit as well given you've even set out your limitations or watching jack all NH rugby.

First time a host has ever gone out in the pool stages. First time England have never made the quarter fnals.

It's not an overreaction. Lancaster and co have let England down badly.

Wales and Australia are good sides but they aren't unbeatable as England have shown in games before the RWC.

Rubyguby England haven't won a GS since 2003, it's too long. Wales,France and Ireland have all won it since. It's not as if winning a GS is unrealistic for a team like England.

Gavcandance easy for you to say. Your team isn't out of the RWC on home turf.

The biggest problem is that Lancaster hasn't learnt. It's even clear to see in the selection for the Uruguay game and so many other games.

Lancaster and co need to be sacked and then Ian Ritchie needs to fall on his sword too.


If a team and management don't deliver then big changes need to be made.

Why should England accept failure?

England have the biggest player pool in the world, one of the strongest U20 sides in the world, the richest rugby union in the world, strong support.

England should do better than going out in the pool stages of their own RWC.

England have tried the inexperienced approach with Martin Johnson and Stuart Lancaster.

Neither has been that effective. Now it's time to throw money at getting an experienced international coach like Wayne Smith or Eddie Jones on board with good English coaches like Gustard,King, Baxter or even Borthwick as deputies.

Beshocked - What I'm saying is that winning at all costs can sometimes stunt the development of players as they become afraid to play their natural game. I agree with your suggestion on the appalling management and decision making. They have to go but young players coming into a hostile must win pressurised environment are unlikely to flourish. Use the 6 Nations to express and develop the undoubted talent behind and give them a license to play like Australia did, sometimes its just too structured and over-coached.

I don't think their was over expectations on them. No one said defo winners but they did say they'd probably get to the final and I still think it was a half decent bet.

Why.

They didn't generally fold often (Wales 2013 was the only real time it happened). They had a solid record in Lancaster's 6N campaigns (runners up 4 times, 2 by the smallest of points difference margins). They had a half decent record vs. AUS (last 2 matches) and were at home. Their butchers bill was manageable too. Rather than them being over-egged, they seriously under achieved.

It was a legacy built on sand. Built on individual players rather than overall squad strength. Many of us on here saw Hartley's ban and Lancasters ridiculous call over him as a game changer. Tuilagi too was unfortunate. Those 2 would have made a big diff to the side. Had they been fit and played I don't doubt England would be in the QFs (either as group winners or runners up).

However, you can't simply base your fortunes on individual players. Nobody wins world cups with their absolute fantasy XV. Injuries happen.

Lancaster blinked, it showed his true worth that only KO rugby does. His selections, lack of versatility, lack of forward planning for Burgess, Slade etc and ridiculous stat based substitutions showed he's not fit for tier 1 elite test rugby. That's why the rugby world cup is so special. Some people on here don't like it but there is something about KO rugby which table tournaments cannot offer. You can't think losing a single game isn't the end of the tournament. The added pressure makes or breaks teams.

Quite simply, the mental strength of this England side and coaching team are weak. The core is weak. Its not everyone, ENG have guys like Launchbury who I think will go on to become the next generation Jonno (does he ever let his side down???). You can add Watson and Joseph to the list too. How Launchbury isn't the first player in his team is a laughing matter. Lawes can be good but he's no where near Joe's level.

But there are chaps who past coaches wouldn't have touched with a barge pole... not necessarily lacking talent, but lacking professionalism and this England team is full of them. They drain sides mentally.

It is just two games lost, to good sides who we had no right to expect to beat, but whom we would expect to have every chance of beating. Unfortunately its at home, in the world cup, so their significance is greater. They were disappointing for different reasons, one we put ourselves in the position to win and didn't. One we were well outplayed, although contributed to our own downfall.

Its top level sport, the margins are small and little twists of fate, referees decisions, moments of madness and genius settle the score as much as who is the dominant side. This England team, found themselves on the wrong side of the referees, had moments of madness and mistakes, and the moments of genius came from the opposition.

On another two days, those results could have been different (yes I do believe that firing on all cylinders and with the bounce of the ball, this england side could beat that australia side) however, that would have been papering over the cracks.

Two years ago I thought a young progressive looking england side would win this world cup... it looked like a talented group with a couple of years to mature and progress. A year or so ago, I still thought we might win the world cup, a weakened squad had shown promise in new zealand before capitualting in the last game. In general though i was a little disappointed with lack of progress.

By the time the tournament started, I thought it was fairly wide open and that we had an outside chance with home advantage. Somewhere along the line, irrespective of injuries etc, we lost our way. A while back, we felt we just needed a decent back 3 and we'll be a real threat... now we think we have a decent back 3, and everything else has turned to poopie.

Do we need more time? Cheika tuened the ozzies round almost instantly... maybe they had more quick fixes than us. Maybe our promising young players were early developers and haven't made the strides individually that we'd hoped... or maybe they simply haven't been schooled into a cohesive international unit from selection and tactics. Given, what can be seen from club form etc, it may be a bit of both.

Going forward, does lancaster inspire enough to warrant the extra time woodward was given... or did he show his best hand in bringing in the new blood... and doesn't have the hand to harness it as others might. I guess ultimately that's the call... does continuity mean progress or just more of the same.

I do feel that this england team lacks leaders... partly that comes from experience but partly its down to the personalities... too many of them seem too nice. Perhaps the problem with a culture of discipline and respect is it isolates the bad boys with the dog in them. for example, Youngs wasn't the lineout disaster we feared, but hartley would have brought some attitude to the fight. We need a sprinkling of winning mentality personality types across the park. As other have said, i guess this contributed to the rushing of burgess into the centres... hopefully we'll see him return in the back row.

milkyboy

More to do with the way England lost. The dumping of their standard centre pairing for the last 2 years 36 and Burrell over 0 caps pre summer Burgess and Slade. The continued suicidal reliance on Tom Youngs, the balance of their backrow, a lack of versatility in their side to evolve to different situations and terrible sheer terrible not needed substitutions.

If I had to compare Lancaster to to a coaching campaign the only one I could reach for is Rudi Straeuli tenure in 2002-2003 with the boks. Its that bad.

Jesus, just seen how long my rambling post was. Apologies to those who endured it.

Some of the decisions have seemed strange... And I certainly wasn't supporting Lancaster... As I said it seemed a promising start but we lost our way. When you look at them in isolation you can make an argument... Everyone thought 36 was too inconsistent and that Burrell was living off a couple of decent games.. But when you take the gambles they have to come off... And lancaster's haven't.

I certainly agree on the pre-ordained subs

beshocked wrote:First time a host has ever gone out in the pool stages. First time England have never made the quarter fnals.

It's not an overreaction. Lancaster and co have let England down badly.

Wales and Australia are good sides but they aren't unbeatable as England have shown in games before the RWC.

Rubyguby England haven't won a GS since 2003, it's too long. Wales,France and Ireland have all won it since. It's not as if winning a GS is unrealistic for a team like England.

Gavcandance easy for you to say. Your team isn't out of the RWC on home turf.

The biggest problem is that Lancaster hasn't learnt. It's even clear to see in the selection for the Uruguay game and so many other games.

Lancaster and co need to be sacked and then Ian Ritchie needs to fall on his sword too.


If a team and management don't deliver then big changes need to be made.

Why should England accept failure?

England have the biggest player pool in the world, one of the strongest U20 sides in the world, the richest rugby union in the world, strong support.

England should do better than going out in the pool stages of their own RWC.

England have tried the inexperienced approach with Martin Johnson and Stuart Lancaster.

Neither has been that effective. Now it's time to throw money at getting an experienced international coach like Wayne Smith or Eddie Jones on board with good English coaches like Gustard,King, Baxter or even Borthwick as deputies.

Don't normally get involved in other Teams or Nations topics, but felt I had something to contribute, agree with practically everything in this post and just to add.
2003 Winners
2007 Runners up
2011 Quarter Finalists
2015 Group stages
2019 ???????????
Plenty on here have said there should be NO jerk reaction, my take WHY NOT.
We (Wales) had a jerk reaction in 2007 and look at where we have been since, with the money the RFU have at their disposal they could get nearly anybody in the World, it certainly wouldn't be an ex PE teacher with limited coaching experience.

Ah Cyril you little troll still at it nice try always expected
a Australia v SA Final.My support won`t change when/if they go out I`ll praise the winning
side and accept the jibes and move on.
7 1/2 my knowledge of Rugby is encyclopediac I follow the press diligently ALL of it
Tuilagi and Billy Twelvetrees were once flavour of the of the month,England had a lot of
injuries.
I predicted Australia would win the RC,expected them to win there Group,England haven't
become rubbish over night.
I watched the build up matches and saw the scrum problems first hand and commented.
Every one had a different team choice but I happen to think the Scrum is to start
the game NOT milk penalties.Japan showed the way Refs and scrums do it by the
numbers.
Ashton was sacked through media pressure and Johnson a man without any qualifications
installed.When he finally seemed to be getting somewhere with Barclay and Flood then
reverted to the don't lose RWC mode.
Lancaster was appointed on the strength of youth and Academy/A side experience and
has created a large pool of good players.
He has done a solid job and if he is dumped his successor will have something to
build on.
He has`nt suddenly resigned and left with no players to come in like a certain esteemed
gentleman.I`m sure his gut reaction was to go there and then and tell the RFU to stuff it
Burgess has been a bone of contention for months pro and con ,much like the debate
on Courtney Lawes as a 6 or a Lock.
Maybe he would be better at 6 has he any Lineout skills?Armitage its one thing playing
in a world class Barbarians side than a test side.
England`s problem maybe is to many players and resources,to many of similar abilities
I`m reminded of NZ 2006/7 not knowing there best team.
It took SCW longer to build a side with no limits to his budget,coincided with some
of the weakest period in SH history.HE had a net loss against both NZ and OZ in
his tenure and left England in dire straights.
Get any Coach you like England WON`T dominate the SH sides long term there
culture won`t allow it.
Start now get behind England and Scotland on to 2019,RFU may have been
premature announcing SL`s contract before RWC.
Cyril try winding some one else up my support lasted 60 years and won`t
change.When NZ go out hopefully NZ will let Hansen finish his job rebuilding
NZ

I'm finding the tone of some of the media coverage hard to stomach. In particular, the Telegraph keeps talking about disquiet in the camp over Burgess, when they know the only report suggesting that has already been comprehensively discredited.

Apparently, the RFU needs to act quickly and decisively, but also take time to let the dust settle. Glad there's no mixed message.

Richie is lambasted for offering Lancaster a long contract, while other reports suggest it was a good bit of business because it's only on a rolling one-year basis. How hard can it be for journalists to confirm this detail one way or another?

The same media groups arguing that Lancaster kept players on too tight a leash are the same ones who were incredulous four years ago when Martin Johnson chose to treat his squad like responsible adults.

I've read critics suggesting players ought to have had more freedom to write columns and use social media but they would have been the first to blow up at the slightest hint of an indiscretion.

I think there is an awful lot of unfair criticism being levelled at this group of coaches and players. Given that they have underperformed by any measure, there should be enough legitimate criticisms out there.

I don't agree with every poster on 606, but I've seen a lot more relevant points raised on here about the England set-up than by many of the journalists who are getting paid for their analysis.

Really emack? Do us a favour and post the links of the media saying we would win the group and reach the final would you please? Johnson was getting somewhere with Barclay? Really?

Where was the flood of calls off peope for Burgess at 12? Who's calling for Lawes as a 6 pre wc?

England may well dominate again culture doesn't come into you just continue to try and justify glory hunting again. There, their and they're.

You're knowledge isn't that great tbf.

emack2 wrote:my knowledge of Rugby is encyclopediac I follow the press diligently ALL of it

It clearly isn't and you clearly don't (you've even said before that you don't follow much NH rugby).

If you had less of an arrogant, know-it-all attitude you might get a better reaction.

True Cyril.

I see the way forward more simply than some.

England haven’t become a poor side overnight. I’m sure that if SL stayed and selection was similar we’d end up 2nd in the next 6N, losing one of our away games – business as usual then.

But therein lies the problem. SL isn’t a bad coach, he just isn’t a particularly good one. Plus by any standard he’s failed in a home RWC. We now have the opportunity to kick (coaching) mediocrity into touch and look for a top, proven coach. We can’t necessarily get in better players (on the whole) but we can get in a better coach & team – by throwing money at someone proven, until they just can’t refuse. Even in the self-perceived lofty world of RU everyone has their price, and the RFU has loadsa money.

Start by changing the things we can, and stop accepting just average. The fact that we crashed out of our RWC actually makes this more likely to happen - we don’t need months of navel-gazing. So happy days (ahead) then.

I have long believed that England's 'largest pool of talent' is very much a poisoned chalice! Of course, every country in the world would love to have so many players available to them, but you only become a top international team if you have a team consisting of high levels of ability, composure, organisation and experience. If you compare England to the successful teams of recent times ( NZ, Wales, Ireland and Aus), it is only on the skill front they can compete. The composure and organisation side of things can partly be instilled by coaches but only applied in the heat of the battle by the players who imo need experience to do so. The aforementioned teams all have a spine of their team with 50,60,70 caps or more, Players who have been there and done it, enjoyed the highs and learnt from the lows! Players who are international class by ability but world class because they were allowed to develop that way at the coal face! Players who have learnt through experience the composure required to handle the big pressure. Because of England's famed depth of talent, they seem to always be looking for the future world class player, while casting aside the current international standard one who may become that! They have subsequently become a side of international standard players with few, if any, world class ones. To be at your own World Cup relying so heavily on the likes of Ford and Joseph, with just a handful of caps between them and a guy like Slade (with even less) in reserve, is nothing short of criminal. These three in particular, I believe, are fantastic young players who could well go on to be world class but they're not yet, through no fault of their own. Also re. Englands failure at this World Cup, I believe their use of Robshaw at 7 is a large part of the reason. Not that he's not a great rugby player, because he is, he's just not a great 7 by the standards of today's top teams. The way the game is played now, the breakdown is king, and you must have a top class fetcher in your team in order to compete. This isn't one of Robshaw's great strengths and while I believe Wood is a good 6, if Robshaw is your captain, you should have tattooed a 6 on his back 2years ago and picked your best fetcher at 7 then. For the future, integrate today's talented youngsters into the team now, accept the odd bad performance in the next couple of years, then in 4 years time youll have all the necessary components in place to strongly challenge at the next World Cup! Just my opinion of course and partly hope you don't because if you get it right, all us other NH teams could be in trouble, and maybe those down south as well!

hjumpshoe wrote:I have long believed that England's 'largest pool of talent' is very much a poisoned chalice! Of course, every country in the world would love to have so many players available to them, but you only become a top international team if you have a team consisting of high levels of ability, composure, organisation and experience. If you compare England to the successful teams of recent times ( NZ, Wales, Ireland and Aus), it is only on the skill front they can compete. The composure and organisation side of things can partly be instilled by coaches but only applied in the heat of the battle by the players who imo need experience to do so. The aforementioned teams all have a spine of their team with 50,60,70 caps or more, Players who have been there and done it, enjoyed the highs and learnt from the lows! Players who are international class by ability but world class because they were allowed to develop that way at the coal face! Players who have learnt through experience the composure required to handle the big pressure. Because of England's famed depth of talent, they seem to always be looking for the future world class player, while casting aside the current international standard one who may become that!

Luther Burrell immediately springs to mind. Very strange.

does make a mockery of SL original assertion that England players couldn't win the world cup without experience. Hence why he began to shed oldies from initial selection and cap chaps heavily like twelvetrees and Burrell.. only to dispose of them from Burgess and Slade with 1 cap a piece come crunch time.

It would be churlish to suggest that SL and co didn't make mistakes. Some of the selection has been strange and most would think that it contributed more negatively than possitively.

However, some perspetive has been lost. England are a good team but a long way from a great one. Some allowed the home advantage to somehow exagerate the expectation, which became a probable rather than possible place in the final. The expectation of some England fans and some of the media, borders on a misguided spereriority complex. I'm certain that had we experienced four
"normal" pools England would be in the quarter finals. The post mortum and hysteria would be delayed a game or two.

A grounded analysis of England would have to conclude that this is a plucky group of decent players, short on experience without the confidence of having won anything. In the end they lost to two good teams, one with a fair number of experienced Lions who have several grand slams behind them (yes with significant injuries) and one that is greatly improved and current SH champions.

One way or another SL will go and England shoud go out and get one of the worlds best international coaches. They didn't do that before 2011 and they didn't do it afterwards. Unless a team is blessed with a crop of world class players, an average coach learning on the job is very unlikely to succeed in the time frame England expects.

offload wrote:It would be churlish to suggest that SL and co didn't make mistakes.  Some of the selection has been strange and most would think that it contributed more negatively than possitively.

However, some perspetive has been lost.  England are a good team but a long way from a great one.  Some allowed the home advantage to somehow exagerate the expectation, which became a probable rather than possible place in the final.  The expectation of some England fans and some of the media, borders on a misguided spereriority complex. I'm certain that had we experienced four
"normal" pools England would be in the quarter finals.  The post mortum and hysteria would be delayed a game or two.

A grounded analysis of England would have to conclude that this is a plucky group of decent players, short on experience without the confidence of having won anything.  In the end they lost to two good teams, one with a fair number of experienced Lions who have several grand slams behind them (yes with significant injuries) and one that is greatly improved and current SH champions.

One way or another SL will go and England shoud go out and get one of the worlds best international coaches.  They didn't do that before 2011 and they didn't do it afterwards.  Unless a team is blessed with a crop of world class players, an average coach learning on the job is very unlikely to succeed in the time frame England expects.

True offload.. but that would be a decent critique of one that say lost to Ireland/France/Argentina in a SF or the boks in a QF. Not really the same when they went out in the pools. It was a difficult group but they should have got out of it given their talent pool and home advantage. The diff is down to player performance, coaching and strategy.

Offload - that post has no right to be on 606 - It's far too balanced, insightful and objective and I have asked the Mods to remove it. On a more serious note its probably the best I've read in the past 2 weeks.

At least I bothered to post supporting not just knocking,and opened the forum to be debated,
my opinion is as valid as yours like it or not.So amaze me with your superior wisdom.

Listen Guys, I posted on another thread, that even though we were all in the supposedly "group of death" this group could not have been engineered more to suit England. They had no mid-week games, they had seven day turn arounds after every game, they had Fiji up first before they got any momentum, and then if the group was to come down to points difference or tries scored, they had a semi-pro side up last who were only given a three day turn around after playing Fiji.

This group could not have been organised to favour England any further. The coaches had this group all laid out in the most advantageous way imaginable. They have to carry the can for this monumental balls up.

Yes there is no shame in losing to Wales and Australia, but they had more advantages over those two sides than any other teams in the group.

LordDowlais wrote:Listen Guys, I posted on another thread, that even though we were all in the supposedly "group of death" this group could not have been engineered more to suit England. They had no mid-week games, they had seven day turn arounds after every game, they had Fiji up first before they got any momentum, and then if the group was to come down to points difference or tries scored, they had a semi-pro side up last who were only given a three day turn around after playing Fiji.

This group could not have been organised to favour England any further. The coaches had this group all laid out in the most advantageous way imaginable. They have to carry the can for this monumental balls up.

Yes there is no shame in losing to Wales and Australia, but they had more advantages over those two sides than any other teams in the group.

True LD. It was all set up for them. They can't blame anyone but themselves for this.  Even their injury count was decent too.

fa0019 wrote:It was a difficult group but they should have got out of it given their talent pool and home advantage.

Why?

Why should home advantage count more than inexperience? The talent pool counts for nothing unless the professional structures are producing world class players, peeking for the world cup.

When three countries like Australia, Wales and England play each other it's usually going to be fine margins and games that are "to cose to call". After all it's sport, not science.

It's OK to suggest that England should have had a reasonable expectation, but now it didn't happen, the analysis should have some balance and the mistakes considered with perspective.

emack2 wrote:At least I bothered to post supporting not just knocking,and opened the forum to be debated,
my opinion is as valid as yours like it or not.So amaze me with your superior wisdom.

I don't pretend to have a profound knowledge. You got those links they're with you?

fa0019 wrote:Even their injury count was decent too.

You cannot really take injuries into account when looking at things like this. We all have them, and we all have to absorb them. The brass balls of it all is though, was that this group, after it was drawn, was then engineered to give the hosts the up most advantage to qualify from it, and they still ballsed it up.

How was it engineered to give us an advantage?

Surely we would have played Uruguay first or 2nd to build some momentum and confidence if that was the case and wales vs Aus would have been the 1st game.

Surely it was engineered to suit Wales. An away side but playing in their MS.

It's an engineered tournament to protect the established nations. Don't think that can really be argued against but you would have to either reduce the teams or extend the tournament otherwise. As the amount of rugby being played is already on the agenda neither are ideal.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-3238715/England-face-New-Zealand-Rugby-World-Cup-2015-final-Sportsmail-s-panel-experts-make-predictions-ahead-rugby-s-greatest-showcase.html

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/reading-berkshire-news/kyran-bracken-backing-england-reach-10086002

http://talksport.com/rugby-union/exclusive-england-can-reach-world-cup-finalbut-only-if-they-top-their-group-claims

http://www.planetrugby.com/news/rugby-world-cup-profile-england/

http://www.sportsmole.co.uk/rugby-union/england/rugby-world-cup/news/greenwood-england-can-win-world-cup_244789.html#$$nvum87&&nLTkqmzpEeWipxKp/GPoWQ$$

Those enough to get you started 7.5????

To pretend England weren't heavily favoured to qualify from the group is laughable. They were 2nd in the bookies favourite too. Very few said they wouldn't qualify... most of those were from Wales.

LordDowlais wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Even their injury count was decent too.

You cannot really take injuries into account when looking at things like this. We all have them, and we all have to absorb them. The brass balls of it all is though, was that this group, after it was drawn, was then engineered to give the hosts the up most advantage to qualify from it, and they still ballsed it up.

my point exactly  LD. Everyone gets them. Wales had the worst, England at best 3 players... 1 of which Lancaster made a morale point not to pick him so really its 2.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's an engineered tournament to protect the established nations. Don't think that can really be argued against but you would have to either reduce the teams or extend the tournament otherwise. As the amount of rugby being played is already on the agenda neither are ideal.

France and England had the most days off. New Zealand and South Africa actually had worse than average rest days.

If I was picking the schedule and engineered it to suit England I'd have made Wales play Aus first in Newcastle, then Fiji in Birmingham and a 3 day turn around to face England at Twickers.

The English expected to qualify - why the hell wouldn't they, they'd beaten the 2 other top sides the last 2 times they'd played them.

Anyone trying to tell me the English expected to win it (or even to make the final) is either an eejit, or simply doesn't understand how pundits and the press make their money. Can just see the DT headlines these people would prefer: STOP-PRESS - "England could do ok, but might not though" - that would really get the punters buying. D'oh.

TightHEAD wrote:How was it engineered to give us an advantage?

Surely we would have played Uruguay first or 2nd to build some momentum and confidence if that was the case and wales vs Aus would have been the 1st game.

1. England did  not play any mid-week games
2. England had 7 day turn arounds between every game
3. England had Fiji first up before the islanders got into their stride, a potential banana skin game.
4. All England's games were at 8pm every Saturday
5. If the group came down to points difference like everybody thought it would, then England would be playing a semi-pro side last after the semi-pro side played three days prior.

Those are all factors that were arranged AFTER the draw was made. No one else were given such graces. This group was arranged to give the hosts the most advantage to qualify after the cards were dealt. Even you should be able to see this.

Read them fa, and I don't see many expectations from them. Lots of ifs and buts and maybes. Bracken is perhaps the most blind. Vast majority said it was a blooming hard group. But thanks for sticking up for old Alan.

And for NZ and SA did they have to play any hard side with low rest? To claim they weren't protected isn't right.

I don't think England, Wales or Australia can complain about the scheduling or locations. Some of the so called "lesser" teams have really been up against it.

LD, surely the worst time to face Fiji was when they has the most rest then? Wales up 1st the best as they're always slow starters apparently.

RubyGuby wrote:Beshocked - What I'm saying is that winning at all costs can sometimes stunt the development of players as they become afraid to play their natural game. I agree with your suggestion on the appalling management and decision making. They have to go but young players coming into a hostile must win pressurised environment are unlikely to flourish. Use the 6 Nations to express and develop the undoubted talent behind and give them a license to play like Australia did, sometimes its just too structured and over-coached.

I agree but that's why the rugby world cup warm ups and the Fiji game were ideal opportunities to try out new players if you're going to do it.

I still feel that Lancaster squandered the opportunity to try out the likes of Ksevic,Itoje and George in the warm ups to help out their development.

Even in the dead rubber against Uruguay he's not starting George.

Why on earth wasn't Nowell on the bench against Wales and Australia?

Only Lancaster thinks Farrell should be in the centre. I can tell you as a Saracens fan how frustated I have been when Farrell has been there at club level let alone international level....

Farrell Jr is one of these players that is sadly Mr Undroppable, not matter how poorly he plays or how petulant he gets.


I think lack of experience as an excuse is rubbish. Most of the squad are experienced enough to be able to make the right decisions and play well.

Woodward - final
Bracken  - final
Castrogiovanni - semi final minimum
Planet rugby - semi finals at least
Dillaglio - final if they qualify first.
Jones - An Aussie, bound to back AUS. Said they can get to final sure.

Most said if qualified first they would get to final. Most said if runners up it would be difficult... thats simply logic. Most backed them to qualify first.

Yet out of all of that... none said, pool stages.

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's an engineered tournament to protect the established nations. Don't think that can really be argued against but you would have to either reduce the teams or extend the tournament otherwise. As the amount of rugby being played is already on the agenda neither are ideal.

France and England had the most days off. New Zealand and South Africa actually had worse than average rest days.

They also brought in the French officials they've always had a lot of 'luck' with when they were playing the biggest games of the pool. England couldn't possibly have had more of an advantage in this tournament.

LordDowlais wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:How was it engineered to give us an advantage?

Surely we would have played Uruguay first or 2nd to build some momentum and confidence if that was the case and wales vs Aus would have been the 1st game.

1. England did  not play any mid-week games
2. England had 7 day turn arounds between every game
3. England had Fiji first up before the islanders got into their stride, a potential banana skin game.
4. All England's games were at 8pm every Saturday
5. If the group came down to points difference like everybody thought it would, then England would be playing a semi-pro side last after the semi-pro side played three days prior.

Those are all factors that were arranged AFTER the draw was made. No one else were given such graces. This group was arranged to give the hosts the most advantage to qualify after the cards were dealt. Even you should be able to see this.

This. You quite clearly explained how in your first post so I don't know why Tighthead even asked the question.

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's an engineered tournament to protect the established nations. Don't think that can really be argued against but you would have to either reduce the teams or extend the tournament otherwise. As the amount of rugby being played is already on the agenda neither are ideal.

France and England had the most days off. New Zealand and South Africa actually had worse than average rest days.

They also brought in the French officials they've always had a lot of 'luck' with when they were playing the biggest games of the pool. England couldn't possibly have had more of an advantage in this tournament.

What's wrong with French refs? What exactly do you mean by 'luck'.