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

by emack2 Wed 07 Oct 2015, 1:29 am

First topic message reminder :

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.

by emack2 Thu 08 Oct 2015, 12:16 am

I agree with you Dr.Grey it was that is why I started this thread every team is measured
now rightly or wrongly by SCW`s side.

by Heaf Thu 08 Oct 2015, 1:14 am

LordDowlais wrote:
TightHEAD wrote:Thanks for pointing out the fact that England are out, I missed that one! and of course they did they are the host nation, look back at all the other RWCs and you'll see a pattern of host nations having an easier ride.

Why are you trying to turn this into a bun fight ? The title of this thread is "The Blame Game My Thoughts on the RWC,Englands Future and everything".

I am just responding.

I am not disputing history, and hosts in the past having easy rides. I am discussing the fact that England are out and who I think is to blame for it. There is no shame in losing to Australia or Wales. But, as England had the comfiest schedule in the group, then only people who are to blame is the coaches.

100% agree the blame lies with the coaches .... whether England had the comfiest schedule I'm not sure - there are a number of counter arguments you could make but that won't change where the blame firmly lies IMO.

by blackcanelion Thu 08 Oct 2015, 3:21 am

I'm wondering if too much is being made of individuals. For me they lost 2 games which indicates they probably weren't quite where they wanted to be.

I suspect if there are issues they're probably as much structural as anything else. Things like, is the English club rugby system efficient and effective in producing players players and coaches that can compete at the international level.

I think this is probably key. I think Lancaster has made huge strides here. I was talking to my builder who played club rugby for Leicester back in the day. In his day he thought they lacked basic skills (and he was talking about some legends). I wonder if the English club competition contains too many games and is too long to actually develop players to their potential effectively. I'd argue the same is true for France and that both France and England under perform as a result.

by blackcanelion Thu 08 Oct 2015, 3:51 am

Should add I'm not saying England doesn't produce coaches or players, just that it could be argued it should produce a lot more, and be more successful. If that's the starting point, which may be reasonable given the player base, and $$ in the game, then the question becomes why aren't they achieving more on a regular basis.

I'm a bit hesitant in blaming the coaches given 2 loses, both to teams they traditionally struggle with. Especially given the huge pressure put on the home nation in this world cup.

by doctor_grey Thu 08 Oct 2015, 5:34 am

blackcanelion wrote:I'm wondering if too much is being made of individuals. For me they lost 2 games which indicates they probably weren't quite where they wanted to be.

I suspect if there are issues they're probably as much structural as anything else. Things like, is the English club rugby system efficient and effective in producing players players and coaches that can compete at the international level.

I think this is probably key. I think Lancaster has made huge strides here. I was talking to my builder who played club rugby for Leicester back in the day. In his day he thought they lacked basic skills (and he was talking about some legends). I wonder if the English club competition contains too many games and is too long to actually develop players to their potential effectively. I'd argue the same is true for France and that both France and England under perform as a result.

I agree there are some issues in the English club system regarding player development, but I don't think it is a major issue and I think young English talent is coming through. And they have the skills. I would like to see more coming through, but with 12 teams at the top level, I think the club system is doing OK. England clearly do have players to win the RWC, but so do the ABs, Wallabies, Boks, Ireland, Wales, France, and the Argies. And none of them appear to playing this poorly. So it is something else.

There has been a lot of criticism of possible overtraining, game plan, player selection, substitution policy, dissatisfacton within the ranks, and so on. Ultimately, we saw England stutter through the pre-RWC matches and the exact same form appears to have continued in the RWC. So there was a problem, or were multiple problems, which were evident beforehand. We have seen this England team play much better previously. Even as recently as tis year's 6 Nations, England would not have let Wales back in the game.

I don't know the answer, but can only go by what I see, read, and hear. And I see a team which appeared unready to play at this level in a RWC environment. I don't see that with any other top team. The Boks may be an exception, but they appear to have righted their ship quickly. The good solid English oak making up the England team has sprung a leak, and we need to find the fix.

by maestegmafia Thu 08 Oct 2015, 6:53 am

Heaf wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:
TightHEAD wrote:Thanks for pointing out the fact that England are out, I missed that one! and of course they did they are the host nation, look back at all the other RWCs and you'll see a pattern of host nations having an easier ride.

Why are you trying to turn this into a bun fight ? The title of this thread is "The Blame Game My Thoughts on the RWC,Englands Future and everything".

I am just responding.

I am not disputing history, and hosts in the past having easy rides. I am discussing the fact that England are out and who I think is to blame for it. There is no shame in losing to Australia or Wales. But, as England had the comfiest schedule in the group, then only people who are to blame is the coaches.

100% agree the blame lies with the coaches .... whether England had the comfiest schedule I'm not sure - there are a number of counter arguments you could make but that won't change where the blame firmly lies IMO.

England face Uruguay this week after Uruguay have only had three days off.

by TJ Thu 08 Oct 2015, 8:04 am

I think there are two separate issues ( plus the discipline in the england squad but lancaster has mainly sorted that)
1) structural - the english league does not produce players ready for internationals - what works in the league does not work so well in internationals and unlike the rest of the world in England club comes before country for the people with power
2) Poor selection and choice of game plan. Lancaster chose the team and gameplan to try to negate Wales and Aus rather than playing the team most likely to score tries. Too defensive

by sensisball Thu 08 Oct 2015, 9:29 am

TJ
I have to disagree about your assessment that club comes before country in England, unlike anywhere else in the world.
In France the clubs hold almost total sway over their players, allowing player release for only the minimum times laid down by the IRB. This is one of the reasons for France's poor results over recent years.
The EPS also allows Lancaster extended training periods, with his chosen squad, so his team should be better prepared than most others nations.

I think the main issues for the defeats revolve around tactics and selection. Lancaster, like many head coaches, seems to think that the bench must be emptied at around 60 minutes, regardless of how players are playing. Some of the substitutions against Wales were injury replacements, but some weren't.
He has also found it hard to find a midfield he is happy with since Tuilagi's injuries and ban. IMO the selection of Farrell over Ford and Burgess over several good options, including the impressive Slade, contributed hugely to the losses.
Trying to play an attritional game, when your pack is no longer up to dominating opponents for significant sections of a match, is always likely to come unstuck. Particularly when you back row isn't very sharp at contact.

As a Scotsman I would be delighted if the RFU decide to keep Lancaster because he doesn't appear to have the guts to evolve England's game.

When it really mattered he chose to discard Ford for the "pragmatic" choice of the non-running 10 (Farrell), combined with the defensive Barritt. This resulted in all the the good build up work of England's backs being undone.

I think its pretty clear that Lancaster and Farrell (for trying to shoe horn an inexperienced league player into the midfield) should both resign or be dismissed. I await, with interest, the outcome of "the impartial, independent " review.

by milkyboy Thu 08 Oct 2015, 9:53 am

Of course there is a counter theory. I'm not saying I subscribe to it, but, slade had 1 cap, albeit a promising one. Maybe they thought his inexperience was more of an issue than burgess'... Who despite his union inexperience had big match experience and perceived leadership qualities. Maybe burgess regularly outshone him in training.

Maybe they were concerned by ford's warm up game/Fiji performances, where the side did look better when Farrell came on. Maybe people other than his dad don't think Farrell is as poor as some make out. Our back line looked pretty good for 30 mins when we had some ball against Australia... The half break and underarm pass he did early on was quality but no-one mentions it. Had ford done that it would be being served up as proof of his genius.

We're not part of the set-up. We're a bunch of smart arses who think we always know better. Ie fans. We want bulldozing forwards, super fast wingers and box of tricks fly halves. We blame our defeats on their lack of selection... And our defeats when our favourites are playing on something else. It's how it is, how it's always been.

Like I said, an alternate view. I'd have gone with ford and slade myself looking from the outside. As I wasn't on the training camp, I'm not going to assume that makes me right though.

by beshocked Thu 08 Oct 2015, 9:58 am

TJ talking about "discipline" doesn't sound like Lancaster has sorted that out - with Cipriani having a bust up with Catt.

1)

2) The defensive plan against Wales was working up till the last quarter of the game. It's when the defence fell apart which contributed to the downfall. Putting Farrell into the centres with Barritt at 13 was a poor decision.

Against Australia it wasn't the midfield that Foley went through, it was the likes of so called "world class" Launchbury and Robshaw.

Of course it was too defensive but in the Australian game, England got torn to shreds at the breakdown and there was not much control.

When Australia kicked the ball or made decisions it was done with precision, in comparison England were like headless chickens.

Sensiball - I agree Lancaster and co have to go. Though I would want to go one step further - I want Ian Ritchie to go too.

by fa0019 Thu 08 Oct 2015, 9:59 am

Burgess wasn't going to be over awed by the occasion, that was the theory... and to be fair against Wales he didn't. Not certain with Slade as he hasn't played in the big arena, the big match.... you can't tell until you put people into these situations. Burgess has many times over and tended to out perform others (albeit in a different sport).

Therefore what was the point of taking Slade if they were unsure... its not like he was 3rd choice 13. He was 2nd choice and 1st choice got injured 1st match. When the inevitable happened the coaches bulked with horror that they left Burrell behind and played a limited medium paced tackler in the position which ultimately cost them.

by fa0019 Thu 08 Oct 2015, 10:09 am

beshocked wrote:TJ talking about "discipline" doesn't sound like Lancaster has sorted that out - with Cipriani having a bust up with Catt.

1)

2) The defensive plan against Wales was working up till the last quarter of the game. It's when the defence fell apart which contributed to the downfall. Putting Farrell into the centres with Barritt at 13 was a poor decision.

Against Australia it wasn't the midfield that Foley went through, it was the likes of so called "world class" Launchbury and Robshaw.

Of course it was too defensive but in the Australian game, England got torn to shreds at the breakdown and there was not much control.

When Australia kicked the ball or made decisions it was done with precision, in comparison England were like headless chickens.

Sensiball - I agree Lancaster and co have to go. Though I would want to go one step further - I want Ian Ritchie to go too.

Does anyone know the logic of making players continue training after they find out they've been cut? I read Kvesic say the same thing. What a surprise one of the disappointed players lost it with one of the coaches... its not like his entire dreams had just been crushed now is it????

Also why does Richie have to go? Because he appointed him? It was a 5 person panel affair with Richie, Andrew, O'Shea and McGeechan and Hill.
He extended his contract probably to free him of any doubt that he was to be judged on the world cup... i.e. get that part out of his mind and have him completely relaxed for the job on hand. Had he let his contract run out he would be equally criticised?

Was it is idea to safeguard English teams from losing their indigenous talent? It is bad and good at the same time. Controls have to be set in place but perhaps the AUS ruling (something Cheika devised to get one single player) is the sensible option.. in that case Armitage with his 5 caps would hardly have qualified now would it.

France is a good league but it isn't as professional as some would like. Fitness training is not prioritised. SH players tend to get to training camp out of shape because whilst they're used to be treated like drones int he SH, they are left to themselves over their diet and conditioning in France. Armitage isn't exactly lean now is he. Frans Steyn was ruined by his tenure at RM.

by Guest Thu 08 Oct 2015, 10:10 am

Serious question. Who are the world class (top 1-2) players in the England team?

by beshocked Thu 08 Oct 2015, 10:16 am

fa0019 the problem is that Burrell had a poor 6 nations at 12. It's not as if Burrell was tearing up opposition.

Lancaster's way of thinking was very muddled.

E.g. Nowell was one of Lancaster's players that he gambled on starting vs France away which backfired in 2014 6 nations and he had a meh campaign in the subsequent games. In 2015 6 nations Nowell came in for a poorly performing May and played well. He also had a better club season - scoring more tries.

Nowell wasn't used much in the warm ups, didn't feature against Fiji,Wales or Australia.

I would have picked Nowell to start instead of May and yet Lancaster hasn't played him at all.

Seems very strange for Lancaster to back a player to the hilt then throw him to the dogs.... sounds familiar when you compare him to Burgess...

Lancaster has also seems to want to force Farrell Jr into his line up regardless of how well he is playing which I think is wrong.

Goode and Slade were picked in the 31 but neither featured against Wales,Australia or Fiji.....

Only T.Youngs has been trusted at hooker.

by No 7&1/2 Thu 08 Oct 2015, 10:18 am

You could put up an argument for Cole (not on current form though), Hartley not there and Brown ebop. Think launchbury is very very good myself but there are a lot of quality locks around.

by beshocked Thu 08 Oct 2015, 10:34 am

fa0019 wrote:
beshocked wrote:TJ talking about "discipline" doesn't sound like Lancaster has sorted that out - with Cipriani having a bust up with Catt.

1)

2) The defensive plan against Wales was working up till the last quarter of the game. It's when the defence fell apart which contributed to the downfall. Putting Farrell into the centres with Barritt at 13 was a poor decision.

Against Australia it wasn't the midfield that Foley went through, it was the likes of so called "world class" Launchbury and Robshaw.

Of course it was too defensive but in the Australian game, England got torn to shreds at the breakdown and there was not much control.

When Australia kicked the ball or made decisions it was done with precision, in comparison England were like headless chickens.

Sensiball - I agree Lancaster and co have to go. Though I would want to go one step further - I want Ian Ritchie to go too.

Does anyone know the logic of making players continue training after they find out they've been cut? I read Kvesic say the same thing. What a surprise one of the disappointed players lost it with one of the coaches... its not like his entire dreams had just been crushed now is it????

Also why does Richie have to go? Because he appointed him? It was a 5 person panel affair with Richie, Andrew, O'Shea and McGeechan and Hill.
He extended his contract probably to free him of any doubt that he was to be judged on the world cup... i.e. get that part out of his mind and have him completely relaxed for the job on hand. Had he let his contract run out he would be equally criticised?

Was it is idea to safeguard English teams from losing their indigenous talent? It is bad and good at the same time. Controls have to be set in place but perhaps the AUS ruling (something Cheika devised to get one single player) is the sensible option.. in that case Armitage with his 5 caps would hardly have qualified now would it.

France is a good league but it isn't as professional as some would like. Fitness training is not prioritised. SH players tend to get to training camp out of shape because whilst they're used to be treated like drones int he SH, they are left to themselves over their diet and conditioning in France. Armitage isn't exactly lean now is he. Frans Steyn was ruined by his tenure at RM.

Agree There is no logic to continue training after they are cut.

Richie has to go because the RFU's foolish decisions have backfired. Their desire to hoover as much money from England fans but not delivering an winning England team. I know the RFU have hoovered up money from rugby fans around the world too but the likes of Ireland,France,South Africa and Wales will be able to watch their team in the quarter finals at least.

Ritchie might have been part of a panel but the key decision lies with him. He picked Lancaster and gave him and his cohorts a contract extension which I have said many times was a very poor decision.

Lancaster probably felt too relaxed, comfortable that if he failed he would at least have the RFU's £££ to act as a nice fat consolation price for failure.

You can reap the rewards if your decisions are good but if they are poor then you deserve to be ripped to shreds.

ebop not sure there are any world class players in England but I think our best player this year has been:

Billy Vunipola - he was statistically our best forward in the 6 nations this year. Also I would say he was one of the MVP vs both Fiji and Wales. His injury was a massive blow. He gave England momentum and a massive lift when he was on the field.

by TJ Thu 08 Oct 2015, 10:40 am

sensisball wrote:TJ
I have to disagree about your assessment that club comes before country in England, unlike anywhere else in the world.
In France the clubs hold almost total sway over their players, allowing player release for only the minimum times laid down by the IRB. This is one of the reasons for France's poor results over recent years.

Good point. I forgot France

Its not just about release tho - its things like not playing players in the clubs where the national coach would like themetc. If Burgess had been Scots then the national coach could have asked the club to play him at centre and most likely the club would oblige. That sort of thing

by fa0019 Thu 08 Oct 2015, 10:44 am

ebop wrote:Serious question. Who are the world class (top 1-2) players in the England team?

I'd say Launchbury for me is right up there. I'd take him over Etzebeth for example.

If you asked the same of the boks though who would you say...

Bissie, Vermeulen

any others?

by beshocked Thu 08 Oct 2015, 10:54 am

fa0019 why do you think Launchbury is world class?

If you could explain to me why he's so highly rated that would be much appreciated.

Doesn't seem to be a lineout maestro, doesn't smash people back in the tackle or consistently make his tackles, doesn't do big carries, isn't an enforcer, doesn't seem to make lots of turnovers (though perhaps stats would prove me wrong). Doesn't seem to be an outspoken leader.

I hear he has a huge workrate but what does that actually mean in practical terms?

by Hoonercat Thu 08 Oct 2015, 10:58 am

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
To maximise viewing figures and make it more accessible to fans who would be working during the week and travelling to the games.
2. England had 7 day turn arounds between every game
So did NZ when they hosted in 2011. Again it comes back to making the most of the TV rights and securing the highest audience.
3. England had Fiji first up before the islanders got into their stride, a potential banana skin game.
I'd have rather played slow-starting Wales first up than the hard-hitting Fijians.
4. All England's games were at 8pm every Saturday
Did their opponents start earlier then? You seem to think a late start is beneficial, the players think otherwise.
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.
They have to play them at some point, and while it may have benefitted England if it had gone to points difference that doesn't mean there's some conspiracy to give England an advantage.

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.

by LordDowlais Thu 08 Oct 2015, 11:03 am

Hoonercat. Your answer to no. 2.

What has that got to do with THIS WC ? I am fed up of people bringing New Zealand into this argument. Did they go out in the poll stages as well ?

The facts are, England had the easiest schedule out of all the teams in pool A, yet they still buggered it up, no matter how you sway it.

by fa0019 Thu 08 Oct 2015, 11:04 am

beshocked wrote:fa0019 why do you think Launchbury is world class?

If you could explain to me why he's so highly rated that would be much appreciated.

Doesn't seem to be a lineout maestro, doesn't smash people back in the tackle or consistently make his tackles, doesn't do big carries, isn't an enforcer, doesn't seem to make lots of turnovers (though perhaps stats would prove me wrong). Doesn't seem to be an outspoken leader.

I hear he has a huge workrate but what does that actually mean in practical terms?

I really rate him myself. I think he's the best 4 in the NH. I can't remember him ever having a bad game. He has pace to cover the outside, tackles big, carries well, has a good engine and crucially he raises his game at the big arena.

I'd take him over Etzebeth easy. Etzebeth is very powerful albeit too top heavy and he can be upended. His head gets in the way of him being truly world class. Always gets into some sort of scrap similar to Cudmore. Retallick is obviously the stand out 4 with a great work ethic. De Jager is really raising eyebrows and Jones of Wales is always there but Launchbury for me is who England should build their pack around. He deserves a platform with the 3 mentioned.

by **LondonTiger** Thu 08 Oct 2015, 11:04 am

by LordDowlais Thu 08 Oct 2015, 11:08 am

fa0019 wrote: I think he's the best 4 in the NH

What ?

I think you are over selling him a bit here. He is decent, but the best in Europe, NO WAY.

by fa0019 Thu 08 Oct 2015, 11:13 am

LordDowlais wrote:
fa0019 wrote: I think he's the best 4 in the NH

What ?

I think you are over selling him a bit here. He is decent, but the best in Europe, NO WAY.

Who else?

Jones, Gray, Lawes, Pape

Ok well he's better than lawes, Pape and Gray. Gray and Lawes are all flash.

Then its a question of him and Jones. The welsh love him but outside of that he's never really turned heads. Good player yes, great player?

Just an opinion. Said I'd take him over etzebeth... although De Jager is on such a hot streak I think he's probably form lock in the world at the moment.

Also said he's the only one I think is worthy of a world class tag. Not like I'm overselling England here.

by LordDowlais Thu 08 Oct 2015, 11:17 am

fa0019 wrote:Not like I'm overselling England here.

Yes you are.

What has he achieved ?

When he captains his country, represent the Lions and actually wins anything on the international stage, only then would he be considered the best in the NH.

by No 7&1/2 Thu 08 Oct 2015, 11:21 am

Launchbury is not really a captain. Lions fair enough but it comes down to a coaches perspective. Winning in a team game doesn't have any bearing on him as a player.

by LordDowlais Thu 08 Oct 2015, 11:25 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:Launchbury is not really a captain. Lions fair enough but it comes down to a coaches perspective. Winning in a team game doesn't have any bearing on him as a player.

He is not the best in the NH. The Grey brothers are better than him for a start. then there is AWJ. Then there are the French guys. Yes he is up there with all these players, but better ? No chance. The fact that you are saying that he is not a captain instantly tells me he is not the best.

by fa0019 Thu 08 Oct 2015, 11:26 am

LordDowlais wrote:
fa0019 wrote:Not like I'm overselling England here.

Yes you are.

What has he achieved ?

When he captains his country, represent the Lions and actually wins anything on the international stage, only then would he be considered the best in the NH.

ok LD....wyn jones is the best guy ever.

Look take captaincy outside of the equation. Take past experience out there... hell if thats the case Gethin is the best prop in rugby.

At the moment, I think he's an immense talent. One of the few in the england pack. He's unproven so yeah its not a solid call but say he was a bok... he'd be in the side right now IMO.

by No 7&1/2 Thu 08 Oct 2015, 11:29 am

LordDowlais wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Launchbury is not really a captain. Lions fair enough but it comes down to a coaches perspective. Winning in a team game doesn't have any bearing on him as a player.

He is not the best in the NH. The Grey brothers are better than him for a start. then there is AWJ. Then there are the French guys. Yes he is up there with all these players, but better ? No chance. The fact that you are saying that he is not a captain instantly tells me he is not the best.

Fair enough, for me you don't have to be a captain to be the best. I think he's currently up there in world rugby, as I said if as the origianl question states we're talking top 2 I think he's just below that.

by LordDowlais Thu 08 Oct 2015, 11:35 am

fa0019 wrote:ok LD....wyn jones is the best guy ever.

Did I say this ?

fa0019 wrote:Look take captaincy outside of the equation. Take past experience out there... hell if thats the case Gethin is the best prop in rugby.

You cannot take anything out of the equation, how else can you judge a players full abilities and attributes otherwise ? Lets take everything out of the equation then, and say I am the best no. 4 because I speak the best.

fa0019 wrote:At the moment, I think he's an immense talent. One of the few in the england pack. He's unproven so yeah its not a solid call but say he was a bok... he'd be in the side right now IMO.

I honestly do not think that the South Africans would even consider any of our back rowers for their squad, their players are all better.

by Hoonercat Thu 08 Oct 2015, 11:44 am

LordDowlais wrote:Hoonercat. Your answer to no. 2.

What has that got to do with THIS WC ? I am fed up of people bringing New Zealand into this argument. Did they go out in the poll stages as well ?

The facts are, England had the easiest schedule out of all the teams in pool A, yet they still buggered it up, no matter how you sway it.

I agree with you last statement, but it wasn't 'engineered to give the hosts the up most advantage to qualify', as you originally posted - it was engineered to make the most of viewing figures, as was 2011 when NZ hosted and also had all weekend matches. You also fail to mention that Wales had a 9 day rest period between playing Fiji and Aus, must have been 'engineered' to give Wales a longer rest period to recover from injuries Rolling Eyes

The host nation will usually have an advantage with weekend games to maximise coverage, England haven't been treated any differently to the previous host. I think most English fans would have been far happier with Wales first up than Fiji. As for 8pm kick offs being an advantage, purleease...

by fa0019 Thu 08 Oct 2015, 11:45 am

actually I think Warburton would get in LD over Louw. Biggar is also on serious form and there is always North.

The guy should be a barrister when he retires. Not sure what he studied but his chat with the refs are superb. He knows more about scrum laws than any prop... "ref can i ask you to interpret your justification on the scrum collapse given ruling 43 point 6". You'd have to be if your team had Gethin in it mind. Miles ahead of England's "Sorry wef" best attempt by their captain (they should give Robshaw a club, a girlfriend called Jane and a leopard skin to wear).

Warburton is a good top 5 player in his position outright but as a captain he's close to being the top of the pile for me.

by No 7&1/2 Thu 08 Oct 2015, 11:50 am

Yes make fun of a speech impediment and suggest that means he's stupid. Well done you.

by Hoonercat Thu 08 Oct 2015, 11:54 am

LordDowlais wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Launchbury is not really a captain. Lions fair enough but it comes down to a coaches perspective. Winning in a team game doesn't have any bearing on him as a player.

He is not the best in the NH. The Grey brothers are better than him for a start. then there is AWJ. Then there are the French guys. Yes he is up there with all these players, but better ? No chance. The fact that you are saying that he is not a captain instantly tells me he is not the best.

Are the others all captains then? Erm

I would rate AWJ above Launchury, he's an excellent player when on form and full of heart, but not being a captain doesn't come into it.

by RubyGuby Thu 08 Oct 2015, 11:55 am

Launchbury IMO has the potential to be better than AWJ and in many ways is already better in certain areas.

by LordDowlais Thu 08 Oct 2015, 11:59 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yes make fun of a speech impediment and suggest that means he's stupid. Well done you.

It did not mean it like that, and you know it.

All I am saying is, when judging a players abilities you must take everything into account. You cannot cherry pick their best attributes and discard the things they are not good at. The fact that a player is a captain is down to his abilities, and it must be considered, the fact that a player has represented a higher level than their own country as well, must be considered.

Cuthbert is one of the fastest players in Wales, does that make him the best winger in Wales ? Frigg me, he is not the best winger in Cardiff, never mind the whole of Wales.

by Hoonercat Thu 08 Oct 2015, 12:00 pm

RubyGuby wrote:Launchbury IMO has the potential to be better than AWJ and in many ways is already better in certain areas.

Has the potential yes, and while I don't rate him quite as highly as AWJ yet there's very little to choose between them and I expect Launchbury to improve further in the near future. But it's very subjective, we all look for different things when rating a player and for me AWJ's commitment gives him the nod.

by beshocked Thu 08 Oct 2015, 12:02 pm

fa0019 wrote:
beshocked wrote:fa0019 why do you think Launchbury is world class?

If you could explain to me why he's so highly rated that would be much appreciated.

Doesn't seem to be a lineout maestro, doesn't smash people back in the tackle or consistently make his tackles, doesn't do big carries, isn't an enforcer, doesn't seem to make lots of turnovers (though perhaps stats would prove me wrong). Doesn't seem to be an outspoken leader.

I hear he has a huge workrate but what does that actually mean in practical terms?

I really rate him myself. I think he's the best 4 in the NH. I can't remember him ever having a bad game. He has pace to cover the outside, tackles big, carries well, has a good engine and crucially he raises his game at the big arena.

I'd take him over Etzebeth easy. Etzebeth is very powerful albeit too top heavy and he can be upended. His head gets in the way of him being truly world class. Always gets into some sort of scrap similar to Cudmore. Retallick is obviously the stand out 4 with a great work ethic. De Jager is really raising eyebrows and Jones of Wales is always there but Launchbury for me is who England should build their pack around. He deserves a platform with the 3 mentioned.

Saying you've never seen him have a bad game isn't the same as saying what he contributes.

Don't get me wrong, I think Launchbury is competent but what do you believe sets him apart? What makes him "world class"?

As for having the pace to cover the outside, sorry but I know a key example of him failing to do that vs France in 2014. Of course one incident doesn't make him a bad player but it was a big mistake. I don't think Launchbury is that quick.

Missed a tackle on Foley for the Aussies first try. Does he ever beat the likes of Robshaw and Billy in the tackle stakes?

As for carrying well I guess I'll have to look at the stats but I don't think I've ever seen him high up the list.

I think Launchbury is a good player but is labelled "world class" because he doesn't let England down but I still don't know what he notably contributes.

He's not as powerful as a Eztebeth or a De Jager. Hasn't got the leadership ability of AWJ and O Connell or the lineout abilities of the likes of Matfield and Borthwick. Even Parling was kept in the England side because of Launchbury's lack of lineout nous.

Not an enforcer, not a lineout leader and not a leader so what is he? A breakdown master? Could have done with that vs Australia and Wales....

What's his unique selling point?

by No 7&1/2 Thu 08 Oct 2015, 12:03 pm

He's still making fun of a speech impediment. Nothing to do with whether you think his communication is good or effective enough.

If we're judging as a player then I think you do discard capatincy though. The Lions thing fair enoguh as I've said though that was a couple of years ago now Jones has fallen I think Launchburys better and I would still have taken him back then.

I don't think anyone is saying Cuthbert is world class.

by No 7&1/2 Thu 08 Oct 2015, 12:05 pm

You're probably right beshocked in the fact that Launchbury isn't the best in the world in any one area. He's just generally very good in every department.

by fa0019 Thu 08 Oct 2015, 12:08 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Yes make fun of a speech impediment and suggest that means he's stupid. Well done you.

It did not mean it like that, and you know it.

All I am saying is, when judging a players abilities you must take everything into account. You cannot cherry pick their best attributes and discard the things they are not good at. The fact that a player is a captain is down to his abilities, and it must be considered, the fact that a player has represented a higher level than their own country as well, must be considered.

Cuthbert is one of the fastest players in Wales, does that make him the best winger in Wales ? Frigg me, he is not the best winger in Cardiff, never mind the whole of Wales.

LD... don't worry it was my "sorry wef" comment. Yeah he has a minor speech impediment.... but really it was a comment to say how literally below average he is as a captain communicating with the ref, and I'm afraid it matters, big time. Little joke sure 7.5, but seriously get a life.

by TJ Thu 08 Oct 2015, 12:17 pm

fa0019 wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:
fa0019 wrote: I think he's the best 4 in the NH

What ?

I think you are over selling him a bit here. He is decent, but the best in Europe, NO WAY.

Who else?

Jones, Gray, Lawes, Pape

Ok well he's better than lawes, Pape and Gray. Gray and Lawes are all flash.

.

Which Gray? Jonny Gray is quite possibly the best around right now in the NH and would be an asset to any team bar perhaps SA. In 18months he has become a giant of the game and outplayed his brother. Regularly tops the tackle counts and missed 1 tackle in a full season. If you think he is all flash then you simply have not seen him play. And he is younger than Launchbury

by beshocked Thu 08 Oct 2015, 12:19 pm

Is he though no 7 & 1/2?

I wouldn't call him a big ball carrier, he's not the quickest lock in the world, he's not a lineout expert hence why both Parling and Wood are accomodated, he's not a lock famed for his power in the engine room. He's not a bruising tackler.

Personally I think he's competent - generally makes his tackles, works hard and gets involved but I don't see how he's any different to a player like Robshaw to be honest or Wood except Wood is good at the lineout.

These are good competent players but not "world class" because I don't think they excel in any area.

I think that's perhaps Englands problem - they have too many players like Robshaw which is bad for balance. Nice competent blokes but lack that explosiveness or leadership to really cause some real problems for the opposition.

I want to an English pack smashing players,tying in defenders and really scaring the opposition.

Bring back the fear factor.

by fa0019 Thu 08 Oct 2015, 12:23 pm

TJ wrote:
fa0019 wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:
fa0019 wrote: I think he's the best 4 in the NH

What ?

I think you are over selling him a bit here. He is decent, but the best in Europe, NO WAY.

Who else?

Jones, Gray, Lawes, Pape

Ok well he's better than lawes, Pape and Gray. Gray and Lawes are all flash.

.

Which Gray? Jonny Gray is quite possibly the best around right now in the NH and would be an asset to any team bar perhaps SA. In 18months he has become a giant of the game and outplayed his brother. Regularly tops the tackle counts and missed 1 tackle in a full season. If you think he is all flash then you simply have not seen him play. And he is younger than Launchbury

Jonny is certainly better than Richie who tends to get lost in matches. He's a good player from when I've seen him in test rugby. I don't see much else outside of his defensive work but yeah his lineout work is good also.

Its all opinion based anyhow.

One person says x is good and then everyone comes in saying no way... my player is better, no my player is better. Its an opinion in the end.

Lots of good 4s out there. I rate launchbury not out of anything bar his tendancy to raise his game in the big matches and his lack of putting in poor performances. I can't recall ever seeing him play badly. I can do that however with many other players in the same position. Cosistency is very high.

by fa0019 Thu 08 Oct 2015, 12:32 pm

beshocked wrote:Is he though no 7 & 1/2?

I wouldn't call him a big ball carrier, he's not the quickest lock in the world, he's not a lineout expert hence why both Parling and Wood are accomodated, he's not a lock famed for his power in the engine room. He's not a bruising tackler.

Personally I think he's competent - generally makes his tackles, works hard and gets involved but I don't see how he's any different to a player like Robshaw to be honest or Wood except Wood is good at the lineout.

These are good competent players but not "world class" because I don't think they excel in any area.

I think that's perhaps Englands problem - they have too many players like Robshaw which is bad for balance. Nice competent blokes but lack that explosiveness or leadership to really cause some real problems for the opposition.

I want to an English pack smashing players,tying in defenders and really scaring the opposition.

Bring back the fear factor.

Robshaw is the type of player to prevent losing a game... but not one who will help you win it. Offers little in attack. If you want to play him you need the rest in the backrow who can a) carry, b) lineout, c) can steal d) has decent pace. Sometimes picking a lumberjack in the right call. Lydiate for example.

He tackles his heart out but if your backrow doesn't have a good balance then it won't work. Robshaw as a 7 doesn't offer these. As a 6 most would say he's too heavy, too short.

by Heaf Thu 08 Oct 2015, 12:34 pm

maestegmafia wrote:
Heaf wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:
TightHEAD wrote:Thanks for pointing out the fact that England are out, I missed that one! and of course they did they are the host nation, look back at all the other RWCs and you'll see a pattern of host nations having an easier ride.

Why are you trying to turn this into a bun fight ? The title of this thread is "The Blame Game My Thoughts on the RWC,Englands Future and everything".

I am just responding.

I am not disputing history, and hosts in the past having easy rides. I am discussing the fact that England are out and who I think is to blame for it. There is no shame in losing to Australia or Wales. But, as England had the comfiest schedule in the group, then only people who are to blame is the coaches.

100% agree the blame lies with the coaches .... whether England had the comfiest schedule I'm not sure - there are a number of counter arguments you could make but that won't change where the blame firmly lies IMO.

England face Uruguay this week after Uruguay have only had three days off.

And Australia faced Fiji after they'd only had 4 days off (arguably a more important match) ... and Australia and Wales had nice easy starts as a warm up - as I said you can make arguments in all sorts of ways - but we agree the England failure lies at the feet of the coaches ...

by Heaf Thu 08 Oct 2015, 12:41 pm

Heaf wrote:
maestegmafia wrote:
Heaf wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:
TightHEAD wrote:Thanks for pointing out the fact that England are out, I missed that one! and of course they did they are the host nation, look back at all the other RWCs and you'll see a pattern of host nations having an easier ride.

Why are you trying to turn this into a bun fight ? The title of this thread is "The Blame Game My Thoughts on the RWC,Englands Future and everything".

I am just responding.

I am not disputing history, and hosts in the past having easy rides. I am discussing the fact that England are out and who I think is to blame for it. There is no shame in losing to Australia or Wales. But, as England had the comfiest schedule in the group, then only people who are to blame is the coaches.

100% agree the blame lies with the coaches .... whether England had the comfiest schedule I'm not sure - there are a number of counter arguments you could make but that won't change where the blame firmly lies IMO.

England face Uruguay this week after Uruguay have only had three days off.

And Australia faced Fiji after they'd only had 4 days off (arguably a more important match) ... and Australia and Wales had nice easy starts as a warm up - as I said you can make arguments in all sorts of ways - but we agree the England failure lies at the feet of the coaches ...

PS many will disagree I'm sure, but I honestly think if we'd played Wales first we would probably have won with the team that started against Fiji ...

by TJ Thu 08 Oct 2015, 12:42 pm

fa0019 wrote:..............................

Jonny is certainly better than Richie who tends to get lost in matches. He's a good player from when I've seen him in test rugby. I don't see much else outside of his defensive work but yeah his lineout work is good also.

Its all opinion based anyhow.

One person says x is good and then everyone comes in saying no way... my player is better, no my player is better. Its an opinion in the end.

Lots of good 4s out there. I rate launchbury not out of anything bar his tendancy to raise his game in the big matches and his lack of putting in poor performances. I can't recall ever seeing him play badly. I can do that however with many other players in the same position. Cosistency is very high.

I agree he is a very good player ( launchbury) but it was the hyperbolic "best" I took issue with. I agree its all opinions.

by fa0019 Thu 08 Oct 2015, 12:42 pm

Heaf wrote:
Heaf wrote:
maestegmafia wrote:
Heaf wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:
TightHEAD wrote:Thanks for pointing out the fact that England are out, I missed that one! and of course they did they are the host nation, look back at all the other RWCs and you'll see a pattern of host nations having an easier ride.

Why are you trying to turn this into a bun fight ? The title of this thread is "The Blame Game My Thoughts on the RWC,Englands Future and everything".

I am just responding.

I am not disputing history, and hosts in the past having easy rides. I am discussing the fact that England are out and who I think is to blame for it. There is no shame in losing to Australia or Wales. But, as England had the comfiest schedule in the group, then only people who are to blame is the coaches.

100% agree the blame lies with the coaches .... whether England had the comfiest schedule I'm not sure - there are a number of counter arguments you could make but that won't change where the blame firmly lies IMO.

England face Uruguay this week after Uruguay have only had three days off.

And Australia faced Fiji after they'd only had 4 days off (arguably a more important match) ... and Australia and Wales had nice easy starts as a warm up - as I said you can make arguments in all sorts of ways - but we agree the England failure lies at the feet of the coaches ...

PS many will disagree I'm sure, but I honestly think if we'd played Wales first we would probably have won with the team that started against Fiji ...

What about the players they had available for 1st game? Got a lot of injuries themselves vs. uruguay no?

by Sponsored content