England - Work to be done

First topic message reminder :

Thought I would start a topic away from the usual my dad is bigger than your dad "banter" which goes on, and discuss what people think England need to improve on moving forward. Conscious that the 6Ns is still not finished but what would people like to see England focus on improving prior to travelling down under in the summer? Not one for criticising a winning side but its much better to tweak a winning side than it is to overhaul a losing one.

If people could look for 3 areas, if you think its that many, and also back up you statement with reasons for.

For me the biggest areas are:

Discipline

England have conceded 12 + penalties in every game so far and it is costing England valuable territory and possession at times when they are looking dangerous. Whilst they are getting away with this now, against the tier 1 nations it will become a problem and may even be amplified more.

Now the question is, is it a technical issue, one which can be coached out, such as going in off the feet or in from the side at the breakdown? Is it a mind set issue as a result of the change of thought from Saints to Sinners which Jones has adopted? Or is it a personality issue with the same individuals getting penalised?

I think its a little of all three if I'm honest, and in a way they are all linked. England have and still struggle at the breakdown with our technique and there is no denying that having someone of the technical ability of a Kvesic would improve the issue, and negate the need for every man and his dog to attempt turnovers when they don't have the technique for it, however we would potentially lose elsewhere, i.e. physicality. Also there is has been a fair few penalties given away for over zealous behaviour in the tackle area, Haskell is a case in point here. I like the attitude shift but there is a difference between hitting some hard legally and just taking them out. Finally, it does seem as though it is the same individuals giving away these penalties and getting receiving cards as a result. Against arguably the better two teams in the tournament we've had to play 30 minutes with a player less and that is unacceptable. Will the likes of Haskell and Cole (6 penalties conceded against Wales) ever learn? You could argue after the caps they have no, but then you have to replace them with someone of equal or better ability. Thoughts?

The Second Half

Against both Ireland and Wales, England dominated both territory and possession in the first half, however due to the above discipline issues failed to capitalise to good affect and should have been a lot further ahead come the break in both games. Come the second half however, Ireland and Wales' purple patch, England failed to get the ascendancy they had in the first half and because of the lack of a points buffer let the pressure build. Mistakes crept in and the opposition caught up. This is a big concern for me. Was there an element of complacency? Did the players switch off? Games are won in the final quarter and of those 40 mins in the last 2 games England have played 30 mins of it with 14 players.

They need to develop a ruthless composure to just keep the board ticking over and keep the opposition deep in their half, building pressure on them rather than just throwing the ball around from anywhere. Keeping to the same script and same mind set is key throughout. Take Fords charge down as an example. In the first half Youngs would've had no hesitation but to box kick it down the 15 m channel, but instead he throws a poor pass to a rather flat Ford, surely if he was shaping to kick he would've been deeper? Is this a conscious change it tactics from the management or the players being over confident?

Lack of penetration in the backline

A key one for me as it affects the whole attacking shape. Yes England managed to subdue the Welsh midfield in the first half with clever use of the forwards in tying up the likes of Roberts and Davies, but this didn't come off in the second half. The backs attacks are very lateral and can be read all too easily, leaving very little room or the outside backs to work. I like the idea of having the 2 play makers and think it generates a lot of width in the attacking line when it works, but the do need to have the physical foil in there for it to work. Now whether that means having Tuilagi in there to hold the midfield or having a more powerful winger such as Roko to bring into the line I'm not sure. People have pointed to playing both Tuilagi and Joseph together, I'm not sure this would give the speed of ball to the wings we require and I think that Ford and Farrell work better with the additional play maker in there next to them.

Also I'm a big fan of a fullback who hits the line at pace, at an angle, something the Cullens and Muliana's were good at. As goo as Brown is, he does limit our attacking options in this regard for me. Personally I would like to see Nowell developed here as he has the pace and power to come into the line very well for a full back and does run clever lines. It would also give him the license to come into the game more than he does now. Finally, this would allow us to bring another winger in with more pace as I don't think Nowells top speed is quite there for a winger. I would look at having Watson and May/Yarde/Roko on the wings for Australia with Nowell at Fulback, for at least one of the games anyway.

Summary

Not trying to WUM, merely trying to spark a thoughtful debate. Everyone will have there own opinions so if you disagree with mine that's fine, please just back up the debate rather than saying you're wrong.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:I've seen C Dickie play twice for England now - the 1st he couldn't do the basics of hooker (throw), the 2nd he couldn't do the basics of a test rugby player (tackle). If he's the future of England rugby we're in trouble.

Probably a slightly premature judgement!

LCD is a massive talent. A defensive mix up with another sub doesn't change that.

It will be very interesting to see if Slade is regarded as a 10 or a 12 by EJ. I agree with Doctor Grey that Ford has had a poor 6 Nations and will surely be replaced by either Farrell or Slade unless his form improves dramatically. Farrell has done surprisingly well at 12, and we have a few other interesting options there so this will hopefully not be a problem position for much longer. I'd love to see Daly given a start ahead of JJ at 13.

The options at 6 and 8 are very strong, we just need to identify a potentially world class 7 and we are in business.

Itoje is the best propsect to have ever come through the English Academy system in my view, and I'm not surprised in the slightest he's taken to test rugby the way he has. If he avoids injury then the sky is the limit.

So, all looking good for England. And with Scotland on the up, and plenty of good Irish and Welsh players around, a very strong Lions side should emerge in due course.

10-12-13 certainly has some options, it's just a case of picking the best combination and them hopefully being able to avoid injury enough to get some game time together.
Options at 10: Ford, Farrell, Cipriani, maybe Slade
Options at 12: Farrell, Tuillagi, Slade, Hill, Devoto
Options at 13: Joseph, Tuillagi, Daly, Slade, Nowell

Interesting combinations of the skilful, the powerful and the elusive.

We're doing pretty well at lock as well. Would anyone have said 12-18 months ago that England's starting locks would be Kruis and Itoje, and that on form they would both make a Lions tour this summer? Launchbury is still a class operator, with the likes of Lawes and Slater behind that, we've definitely got strength in depth.

lostinwales wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:Didn't know you could get a red card for being emotional or petulant. Oh well, learn a new rule every day

I think it is clear at this stage that England have to worst discipline of all teams in the 6 nations this year. Brown and Farrell seem to me to have the hottest tempers now that Hartley has reformed and become a beacon of calm. Why wouldn't they be odds on to get the next red?

They both seem to spend a lot of each game motoring around with steam coming out of their ears anyway.

And how often exactly do they get yellow cards let alone red?

Haskell gets yellow cards on a regular basis, few others do. Brown doesn't. Farrell probably should do more than he does but its still not a regular phenomenon.

Brown in particular has a lot of edge and plays up to the limit but he doesn't cross it. And the funny thing about Farrell is that he's a very good marksman - something that requires a degree of calm- for a 'hothead'

Like I sad. Bollix.

Both Ford and Farrell have missed overlaps that exist for a split second and have decided to keep hold of the ball and run in to contact. Youngs, against Wales kept trying to dummy and score himself whilst there were backs lined up and ready. Our 9,10, 12 axis is not seeing the scoring opportunities at vital times and are responsible for England missing out on 4 or 5 tries across the tournament. Fair play these chances exist only momentarily before the cover gets in place but they need to start trusting other players outside them.

Agreed, our 9, 10, 12 has to improve.

Lots of 'if' here, however, if Tuilagi can work at 12 then I believe the dynamic will play better for an option taking creative 10 such as Ford.

Ford needs to play his ball in hand game and give up on the midfield cross field kicking that's been no more than a lottery at best.

He also needs to 'boss' his 9 telling him to give him the ball!

Sadly I think everyone has forgotten the major lesson of the world cup (no not that I was right about bomber all along) but that to win at international level you have to score tries

kingelderfield wrote:Agreed, our 9, 10, 12 has to improve.

Lots of 'if' here, however, if Tuilagi can work at 12 then I believe the dynamic will play better for an option taking creative 10 such as Ford.

Ford needs to play his ball in hand game and give up on the midfield cross field kicking that's been no more than a lottery at best.

He also needs to 'boss' his 9 telling him to give him the ball!

Sadly I think everyone has forgotten the major lesson of the world cup (no not that I was right about bomber all along) but that to win at international level you have to score tries

But England did score tries, quite a few.

But England did score tries, quite a few. [/quote]

No they didn't. Compare and contrast the 4 semifinal teams with england, especially Oz and NZ.

Takes a while for a new coach to get his ideas across, give Jones a bit of time to develop his team, style of play ideal picks and the tries will come.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Takes a while for a new coach to get his ideas across, give Jones a bit of time to develop his team, style of play ideal picks and the tries will come.

Agreed. As I mentioned earlier its the untapped potential of english rugby that at once makes it so frustrating and yet so wonderfully exciting. More power to his elbow I say.

He's got some great players coming through now it's true. That core of the WC winning team and the following couple of years if handled well could be very good for us.

No 7&1/2 wrote:He's got some great players coming through now it's true. That core of the WC winning team and the following couple of years if handled well could be very good for us.

I think it really irks some people that the core of this England team is Stuart Lancaster's legacy. It irks some even more that not only has Hartley behaved pretty well, he's captained even better.

Jones hasn't had to change a lot, but then he didn't have to.

kingelderfield wrote:But England did score tries, quite a few.

No they didn't. Compare and contrast the 4 semifinal teams with england, especially Oz and NZ.[/quote]

We score quite a few tries against the 6Ns opposition, but we also miss a lot of chances. I reckon we score only about 1 in 3 of the good chances we create. I reckon NZ score more like 2 in 3. Partly it is down to having a couple of quality finishers (we don't have a Savea-quality winger) and partly it is due to how often they make the right decision and execute accurately. Heck, we even nearly butchered the try Watson scored against Wales by him over-running Brown - was close to a forward pass and even then Watson had to stop...

There's serious encouragement in that we made 4 try scoring chances against Wales in the first 30 minutes or so, but we only finished 1 (the Brown and Youngs misses were part of the same phase of play).

I do think that finding a replacement for Youngs at scrum half should be more of a priority. I think Care fills that sub position well, bringing pace and energy to a game in the last 15 mins. But Youngs has been consistently mediocre for quite some time and we need new blood. Ben Spencer, who has put in some remarkable performances at Saracens the last few years, and Dan Robson at Wasps seem to be the best all-round 9s and I would love to see them both on tour down under.

What is the size of the touring party to Oz.

It could be an interesting one. But I wouldn't expect many of the current squad to be left behind. The likes of Robshaw etc will all tour, unless EJ deems they need a rest.

I suspect he'll be wanting to take a strong squad down to try to get a win...whilst continuing his policy of slowly introducing the kids at the right time.

Players like Tommy Taylor could all travel depending on the squad size of course.

GeordieFalcon wrote:What is the size of the touring party to Oz.

It could be an interesting one. But I wouldn't expect many of the current squad to be left behind. The likes of Robshaw etc will all tour, unless EJ deems they need a rest.

I suspect he'll be wanting to take a strong squad down to try to get a win...whilst continuing his policy of slowly introducing the kids at the right time.

Players like Tommy Taylor could all travel depending on the squad size of course.

Geordie,
I know this likely ain't happening, but my preference is that a number of the RWC players, especially the older ones or the ones carrying any form or injury, are left behind for some well earned rest and recovery. I would like to see the young ones (plus Phil Vickery if he hasn't retired by then) get a real run. That would really position England for the long haul.

doctor_grey wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:What is the size of the touring party to Oz.

It could be an interesting one. But I wouldn't expect many of the current squad to be left behind. The likes of Robshaw etc will all tour, unless EJ deems they need a rest.

I suspect he'll be wanting to take a strong squad down to try to get a win...whilst continuing his policy of slowly introducing the kids at the right time.

Players like Tommy Taylor could all travel depending on the squad size of course.

Geordie,
I know this likely ain't happening, but my preference is that a number of the RWC players, especially the older ones or the ones carrying any form or injury, are left behind for some well earned rest and recovery.  I would like to see the young ones (plus Phil Vickery if he hasn't retired by then) get a real run.  That would really position England for the long haul.  

Trouble is, that runs the danger of being another Tour of Hell, which while it did England a lot of good in the long run was tough to endure at the time - and would stuff our RWC seeding. Again (bear in mind that Wales are likely going to lose some points from their trip to NZ, which might be enough to push them into the 3rd tier again).

Plus, there aren't many old players left in the squad: Hartley, Haskell, Robshaw and Brown are the oldest. I could see a case for giving maybe two of those a rest, but Hartley has to travel unless he has another captain in mind, and to change Robshaw and Haskell at once would be a tad risky.

Poorfour wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:What is the size of the touring party to Oz.

It could be an interesting one. But I wouldn't expect many of the current squad to be left behind. The likes of Robshaw etc will all tour, unless EJ deems they need a rest.

I suspect he'll be wanting to take a strong squad down to try to get a win...whilst continuing his policy of slowly introducing the kids at the right time.

Players like Tommy Taylor could all travel depending on the squad size of course.

Geordie,
I know this likely ain't happening, but my preference is that a number of the RWC players, especially the older ones or the ones carrying any form or injury, are left behind for some well earned rest and recovery.  I would like to see the young ones (plus Phil Vickery if he hasn't retired by then) get a real run.  That would really position England for the long haul.  

Trouble is, that runs the danger of being another Tour of Hell, which while it did England a lot of good in the long run was tough to endure at the time - and would stuff our RWC seeding. Again (bear in mind that Wales are likely going to lose some points from their trip to NZ, which might be enough to push them into the 3rd tier again).

Plus, there aren't many old players left in the squad: Hartley, Haskell, Robshaw and Brown are the oldest. I could see a case for giving maybe two of those a rest, but Hartley has to travel unless he has another captain in mind, and to change Robshaw and Haskell at once would be a tad risky.

Brown could be rested, we know he works at 15, can try someone else on the Tour

I dont think Henry Slade has ever started an Exeter game at 12! We play him as a second distributor at 13 or pick him at 10 and have a hard runner ( Hill or Whitten ) at 12.

Is it a fact that Hughes doesnt qualify until the 27th of June? I thought that I'd read that he would be available for the summer tour.

WRB ranking points are important if we want to avoid another group of death. Winning in Aus would help our point situation enormously. I'd favour taking the strongest possible squad. It will be difficult to win even then.

Tiger/Chief wrote:I dont think Henry Slade has ever started an Exeter game at 12! We play him as a second distributor at 13 or pick him at 10 and have a hard runner ( Hill or Whitten ) at 12.

I know - but then Farrell doesn't usually play 12, and has done OK. Premiership clubs generally have a hard running 12 and a more subtle 13, but a second playmaker is a bit more common internationally. It probably comes down to having less time on the ball at international level - the ball won't make it to the 13 so often, so it helps to have a better distributor at 12 and someone who can take the pressure off 10. I think Slade has similar (if less borderline psychotic) physicality to Farrell and is both a much more natural centre and a good enough footballer to play very well at centre. He's got that quality of vision and has the time to act on it.

The interesting selections will come when injuries hit or if Jones wants to rest guys for the summer tour. Prior to either of those it seems the squad will be pretty settled.

1.Marler, Mako, Mullan
2.Hartley, George, LCD
3.Cole, Brookes, Hill
4.Itoje, Launchbury
5.Kruis, Lawes/Slater
6.Robshaw, Ewers/Kvesic
7.Haskell, Clifford
8.Vunipola, Hughes?

9.Youngs, Care, Robson/Simpson/Chudley?
10.Ford, Farrell

11.Nowell, Yarde
12.Slade, Tuilagi
13.Joseph, Daly
14.Watson, Ashton/Rokoduguni/Wade
15.Brown, Goode

The guys in bold you have to say seem nailed on to travel if fit.

Taylor, Henry Thomas, Sam Hill and Devoto will also be thereabouts if injuries strike given they've been around the squad this 6 Nations. Cipriani's recent defence can't have inspired Jones but he is probably still next in-line at fly half.

That basically leaves the question of the third scrum half which a tour will require. Robson and Simpson at Wasps are probably front runners but a few are performing well.

More importantly who will travel in the back row. Billy, Robshaw, Haskell and Clifford are guaranteed but for injury. After that Jones will need at least two more which will likely come from Ewers, Kvesic and Hughes?

Reserve wingers could also be interesting with lots in good form, Wade fit and Ashton to return from a ban. Sadly I think May is out for the season.

The tour selection of back rows will probably be the biggest indicator of where Eddie is going with the pack and the playing style in general. On one end you've got Hughes, which would suggest a power game, and at the other he's already namechecked Underhill as the future.

In the middle, you've got Kvesic - who clearly has been given some "work ons" - and the likes of Ewers, Fraser, Wray and maybe even Wallace (who's stepped up his game in a flaky Quins side through the 6N). And we shouldn't forget about Morgan.

My guess - given how Eddie has handled Itoje and Clifford - is that he will try to get Underhill to travel. Where better to test your anointed option at 7 than against some of the best in the world? Underhill, of course, might want to keep his options open.

After that, and again a guess, I suspect he will favour work rate over power, which would probably make Ewers the strongest candidate if he finishes the season fit and in form.

Ewers favoured for work rate Poorfour?

Surely Kvesic is well out in front on that regard. His tackle stats are fantastic to go with with his ruck work. This season he has also been much slicker to the first rucks in attack too, something that working with Fisher has likely brought on and that Eddie won't have missed.

I haven't been as impressed by Ewers so far this season if I'm honest. I feel that he's started going missing in games for large periods again after doing so less towards the end of last year. I'd rather that Hughes were viewed as our bigger carrying option at blind side (and covering 8) with Kvesic travelling as the extra flanker that would provide.

Underhill to travel and take part in the touring matches could be an interesting shout. Jones name checking him this early certainly makes it a possibility.

The interesting thing is that whilst Kvesic is an out and out 7...he HAS played 8 and 6 before, so can cover in emergencies.

Kvesic is curious though....both Lancaster and his team and Eddie (with advice from George Smith no less) don't seem to see much in him. For Smith to suggest Haskell at 7 rather than Kvesic, would say to me that Eddie Jones AND Stuart Lancasters type of 7 requirements is different to what many of us fans picture there.

To be fair Haskell is currently Smiths team mate and captain.

I view Ayerza as the best LH in the world and one of the best scrummaging technician ever. However, when he states that Harry Thacker could play hooker at international level without the scrum suffering it does need to be taken with a pinch of salt!!

Under Bomber Kvesic suffered from not being there at the start of his tenure and the coaches being unable to adapt to new players coming in. Tom Wood was performing far below the standard needed from an international flanker but was never going to be dropped. Similarly we saw Calum Clark shoehorned into repeated squads regardless of his form or what position he actually played - although his form prior to the RWC warm-ups was excellent and selection there was deserved.

Jones has openly stated that he wants Kvesic to carry more before he will consider him for the England side. When he played 8 for Worcs his carrying and link work was one of his best facets which has since faded as he concentrated more and more on defensive work and the breakdown. If he can add that link play back to his game and keep the current stuff then he will be a hell of a player so I think it's good coaching by Jones to demand that.

king_carlos wrote:

I view Ayerza as the best LH in the world and one of the best scrummaging technician ever. However, when he states that Harry Thacker could play hooker at international level without the scrum suffering it does need to be taken with a pinch of salt!!

Did he say that when Youngs was England hooker?

king_carlos wrote:The interesting selections will come when injuries hit or if Jones wants to rest guys for the summer tour. Prior to either of those it seems the squad will be pretty settled.

1.Marler, Mako, Mullan
2.Hartley, George, LCD
3.Cole, Brookes, Hill
4.Itoje, Launchbury
5.Kruis, Lawes/Slater
6.Robshaw, Ewers/Kvesic
7.Haskell, Clifford
8.Vunipola, Hughes?

9.Youngs, Care, Robson/Simpson/Chudley?
10.Ford, Farrell

11.Nowell, Yarde
12.Slade, Tuilagi
13.Joseph, Daly
14.Watson, Ashton/Rokoduguni/Wade
15.Brown, Goode

The guys in bold you have to say seem nailed on to travel if fit.

Taylor, Henry Thomas, Sam Hill and Devoto will also be thereabouts if injuries strike given they've been around the squad this 6 Nations. Cipriani's recent defence can't have inspired Jones but he is probably still next in-line at fly half.

That basically leaves the question of the third scrum half which a tour will require. Robson and Simpson at Wasps are probably front runners but a few are performing well.

More importantly who will travel in the back row. Billy, Robshaw, Haskell and Clifford are guaranteed but for injury. After that Jones will need at least two more which will likely come from Ewers, Kvesic and Hughes?

Reserve wingers could also be interesting with lots in good form, Wade fit and Ashton to return from a ban. Sadly I think May is out for the season.

I am not sure they need Cipriani with Slade in the party. I would take Robson as third nine.

I don't think Hughes is available for England until after the summer tour.

Gooseberry wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

I view Ayerza as the best LH in the world and one of the best scrummaging technician ever. However, when he states that Harry Thacker could play hooker at international level without the scrum suffering it does need to be taken with a pinch of salt!!

Did he say that when Youngs was England hooker?

I can't remember an exact time but he has always been advocate of Youngs, yes. When Tom was omitted from the squad for the 6 Nations he expressed is shock at the decision saying that he thought it was ridiculous to leave him out.

Exiledinborders wrote:

king_carlos wrote:The interesting selections will come when injuries hit or if Jones wants to rest guys for the summer tour. Prior to either of those it seems the squad will be pretty settled.

1.Marler, Mako, Mullan
2.Hartley, George, LCD
3.Cole, Brookes, Hill
4.Itoje, Launchbury
5.Kruis, Lawes/Slater
6.Robshaw, Ewers/Kvesic
7.Haskell, Clifford
8.Vunipola, Hughes?

9.Youngs, Care, Robson/Simpson/Chudley?
10.Ford, Farrell

11.Nowell, Yarde
12.Slade, Tuilagi
13.Joseph, Daly
14.Watson, Ashton/Rokoduguni/Wade
15.Brown, Goode

The guys in bold you have to say seem nailed on to travel if fit.

Taylor, Henry Thomas, Sam Hill and Devoto will also be thereabouts if injuries strike given they've been around the squad this 6 Nations. Cipriani's recent defence can't have inspired Jones but he is probably still next in-line at fly half.

That basically leaves the question of the third scrum half which a tour will require. Robson and Simpson at Wasps are probably front runners but a few are performing well.

More importantly who will travel in the back row. Billy, Robshaw, Haskell and Clifford are guaranteed but for injury. After that Jones will need at least two more which will likely come from Ewers, Kvesic and Hughes?

Reserve wingers could also be interesting with lots in good form, Wade fit and Ashton to return from a ban. Sadly I think May is out for the season.

I am not sure they need Cipriani with Slade in the party. I would take Robson as third nine.

I don't think Hughes is available for England until after the summer tour.

If all of Slade, Farrell and Ford are fit I don't imagine Cips will tour. If one is crocked or needs cover due to a niggle or burn out then he will probably still be next in-line. Freddie Burns is getting back to his best and controlling games better than ever currently though.

Hughes qualifies in June... I'm not sure whether at the beginning or end of June though. The tests are on the 11th, 18th and 25th so it would need to be at the beginning of the month.

Tiger/Chief wrote:I dont think Henry Slade has ever started an Exeter game at 12! We play him as a second distributor at 13 or pick him at 10 and have a hard runner ( Hill or Whitten ) at 12.

When Slade was asked about whether he wanted to play 12 he said it didn't matter much difference to him as he spent much of his time stood at 12 anyway for the Chiefs. It seems very unlikely he'll play 13 for England (I've a vague recollection EJ said something similar), so it's either 12 where we have Farrell and Tuilagi, or 10 where we have a struggling Ford.

I reckon that by the AIs Slade will be our starting FH.

Does the number on their back really mean much these days.

The more skilled players like Slade - Namely Gituea etc seem to just move around the backline through the game as per instructions from the coaching team or as they see the game opening up.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Does the number on their back really mean much these days.

The more skilled players like Slade - Namely Gituea etc seem to just move around the backline through the game as per instructions from the coaching team or as they see the game opening up.  

Quite - for the right player. Mike Catt played for England in every shirt from 10 upwards, and IIRC Austin Healey played in every shirt from 9-15 bar 12. Of all England's prospects, Slade is the one who most looks capable of playing multiple positions.

The issue is when we push more limited players into roles they're not suited for to get them onto the pitch or because someone else is playing in their preferred shirt.

It'll be interesting to see if Mallinder comes into the equation at some point - not that I'm recommending it, but a backline of Care - Ford - May - Mallinder - Slade - Joseph - Goode would creative players in every position.