Options

The number of options an England side has player wise is often used to best the team with like a stick. We should do better with 5 times the number etc. Obviously it gets a little harder to pick out the truly best players if you have 3 of roughly the same quality but it's a fair point nonetheless. Got me thinking about what Lancaster had available in 2012 compared to jones in 2016 even compared to now.

While we're always had the options selection has been iffy for some but you'd have to say some of players coming through now are pretty special. There's been some players lost through poor management through the years and will be again but there's going to be some set of players left disappointed when the next coach selects his 1st team. Instead of a flood left out (injured before being discarded it could be a farell). I know we all push the next player but the current bunch are going to have to.continue to improve to stick around. Good times ahead.

Those 2 squads here: Corbisiero hartley Cole
Botha palmer
Croft Robshaw
Dowson
Youngs Hodgson
Strettle Farrell barritt ashton foden
Subs. Webber Stevens paring morgan ducks on turner-hall brown

Marler hartley Cole
Launchbury Kruis
Robshaw Haskell
Vunipola
Care ford
Watson Farrell Joseph Nowell brown
Subs. Vunipola hill george Lawes Clifford Goode devoto

Jones has got the best out of certain players. Lancaster did not.

Surely it's a case in point that a lot of those players in the 2012 could been perhaps utilised better?

Aside from the 2nd row and Dowson, I don't think the players were that bad.

Not exactly as if Brad Barritt is having a bad time for his club side.

Lancaster did well in his first season - 2012 but even when Lancaster got most of the players in your latter list, he did not capitalise.

Lancaster had access to certain players but failed to utilise them and with the players he had some of them he squandered.


Jones also has superior coaches - both Gustard and Borthwick are better.

The fall from grace of Ben Foden has been pretty dramatic and I think Lancaster should take some of the blame.

You also look at someone like Croft. Of course I don't feel like Lancaster handled Ashton well (this is something Martin Johnson did well) or Brad Barritt in the 2015 RWC.


It depends if you think player X is a bad player or being poorly utilised.

Clearly the 2nd rowers like Botha and Palmer aren't the same quality as the likes of Launchbury,Kruis,Itoje,Lawes etc

Even with Lawes - I feel Jones has got better performances from him.

You could certainly that some players are improved and some have purple patches definitely. It was more to point out where we have come from and where we could go. Barritt is a very good club player. If I could have been bothered I'd have worked out the caps for those teams as well but I can't be! Think it was about 8 debuts and a 2nd cap though.

Where did Lancaster go right for you beshocked? Would be good to hear the other side of things as he obviously overall did pretty well.

Lancaster's best season was his first - 2012.

2nd in your first year in the 6 nations and a win vs NZ is good, unfortunately England mostly stayed stagnant despite the ever improving depth and experience.

That's the problem - 2012 was good in the circumstances. 3 years on - 2015, more was expected.

Lancaster himself had access to almost all those players, Jones has and yet Jones has done much better.

Lancaster did keep England 2nd in the 6 nations but when you have the potential squad to win a GS.... more is expected.

You talk about options but England and Lancaster had the resources to win a GS before Jones came along.

Jones proved the potential of the squad by winning the GS in his first season.


Lancaster of course has had some influence in developing players who now make up Jones' squad but he had the potential to take that squad to glory himself.


You can also not discount the work done at grassroots, by the clubs, by the U20s etc, there's lots of people involved in helping these players fulfill their potential.


If you are coach you'd rather have 4 top quality lock options than only 2. It means if injuries do happen and often they do, there are players who can come in.

Yeah I'm aware of the outcomes. Just wondered if you had some views on the positive things Lancaster did. Developing players; so what did he do and where did he fall down in developing them further? Throw players in too early I assume?

Sometimes it's hard to know how much of the development was down to club or country.


Lancaster cost himself and England a GS, notably in France, 2014.

When you bring in players, there's an element of risk and you have to minimise it, not amplify it.

Don't get me wrong - Nowell's experience in these games, have given him vital experience but at a significant cost.

Lancaster has to take the blame for this.

Look at someone like Haskell, aside from that game vs Wales in 2015, he had a poor 6 nations.

Burrell looked uncomfortable in the 12 shirt. He was better when running good support lines and making strong carries at 13. Something to Lancaster's credit he got Burrell doing though obviously Burrell has deteriorated in form.

With Ashton, he didn't encourage him to come off his wing and when you had won't pass Mike Brown next you it's tough to run a supporting line when your FB is reluctant to pass.


May looks like a rejuvenated winger at Leicester showing that a different coaching set up can improve you.

Why? When Nowell went off england were winning. All other england wings still went looking for ball why not ashton. Why does may look different now? What exactly is he doing. Yu mean he's in a better team getting more chances. So back to what did you feel Lancaster did well. Development has now been scrubbed out apparently. Anything?
I did attempt to make this a look at development of England but has now.turned into your anti Lancaster pro saracens thing again.

The damage was done in the first 20 minutes when England were 16-3 down.


Never before have England come back to win from more than 12 points down in an international, and seldom have they come so close.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/25971746

Leicester are utilising May better. I can't answer why Ashton didn't go looking for the ball but likely because he was instructed not to.

I said what I think Lancaster did well - beating NZ and his first year 2012 were good.

Aside from trying to take all the glory for development, not that much.

When Nowell went off england were winning.

How are hey utilising him better? You mean he's playing for a better team and getting more chances. He did well vs nz by getting a win....how? You are simply naming outcomes and saying see. What did any of them actually do differently? And to be fair yu haven't been able to answer any of this for 4 years so I doubt you can do so on a thread about the increasing number of options england have and will have and not the anti Lancaster pro saracens thread you believe you have read!

So what? He was at least partially responsible for England conceding 2 tries.

Nowell ballsing up contributed to the defeat. It's why England were 16-3 down.

Saying but when he went off England were winning, doesn't change that his mistakes contributed to the defeat.

You can play in a poorly performing team and play well - look at Lawes.


The main flaw in your argument is that Lancaster had basically the same players, Jones did. Just squandered his opportunities.

It's a failure on Lancaster's side that Jones was able to win a GS in his 1st season when Lancaster's squad - crashed out of the RWC.

England should have better players in 2016 compared to 2012 because of all the work done at grassroots, success of U20s sides, development of players at clubs.

Lancaster himself was benefiting from the work done by others.


In 2012 Lancaster did relatively well because he had less resources but 2013 onwards he got more and more players to work with - by 2015 he had a very player base to the one Jones has won the GS with.


Do you seriously think Lancaster would have done as well as Jones because there is absolutely no suggestion he would.

It's not about Lancaster or jones. It's about the extra options available. You can't explain why you think jones is better and don't want to talk about extra options so it's all good.

Generally agree with you beschocked, however just cant agree on May.

He's a cracking winger, always has been. Its just he's playing in a better side, which In turn allows him to show his ability.

No 7 & 1/2

Jones basically has the same players as Lancaster did though.

Which players does Jones have access to that Lancaster didn't?

Aside from T'eo there aren't many.

I can explain why Jones is better.

Geordiefalcon you must have missed an awful lot of poor/indifferent performances from May, most notabiy in the 6 nations.

That's my point though - Leicester are utilising May better. Just as some coaches are able to utilise players better.

Playing in a worse/better side doesn't always matter - look at Lawes as I said.

You can stand out in a weaker side.

That's brilliant beshocked take that really good set of explanations you have and put it on a thread about jones vs Lancaster as it has little to do with this.

beshocked wrote:...Not exactly as if Brad Barritt is having a bad time for his club side...

Barritt did all right under Lancaster too. Lancaster moved away from him, as he wanted someone more creative at 12 to complement Tuilagi. There was a brief fling with the idea of Manu on the wing, but it was only tried once. Consequently, Twelvetrees was selected. He seemed to have the skills but, didn't fully deliver. It's widely known that Lancaster wanted to look at Ford, Farrell and Tuilagi but never got the chance. Barritt started playing outside centre alongside Eastmond and Twelvetrees, and he had a fine game outside the latter, when we beat Australia 26-17 in 2014. In the end, Lancaster relied heavily on Barritt's leadership of the defensive line. I don't think he was properly fit at the last World Cup

beshocked wrote:No 7 & 1/2

Jones basically has the same players as Lancaster did though.

Which players does Jones have access to that Lancaster didn't?

Aside from T'eo there aren't many.

I can explain why Jones is better.

Geordiefalcon you must have missed an awful lot of poor/indifferent performances from May, most notabiy in the 6 nations.

That's my point though - Leicester are utilising May better. Just as some coaches are able to utilise players better.

Playing in a worse/better side doesn't always matter - look at Lawes as I said.

You can stand out in a weaker side.

Nope, must have missed them. He's never done that badly, bar his scrummaging technique

England has according to Wikipedia just under 2 million registered players,this of
course covers everyone playing.
The strength of any side is to build strength in depth that is the case for all
sides of course.
EJ is now at the the point of looking and building to 2019,discarding those who
no longer fit into his plans.
One of the things that have caused trouble in the past has been a Coaches loyalty
to some players.Who to be frank shouldn't have been selected because of form
.injuries etc.
Overseas based players not being selected is the right way to go,decline relatively
of some SH sides.Is down to players not being released to train with the International
sides enough.
Attrition rates are such adequate cover is essential,NZ for example it`s now a case
of last man standing this year.
BUT like other sides when they have a full pool to pick from some big names will
miss out.I`m sure EJ is working on these lines too

emack2 wrote:England has according to Wikipedia just under 2 million registered players,this of
course covers everyone playing.

That's an irrelevant figure that the world keeps harping on about. Im 40 year old who plays for my teams vets but im a registered player . None of us are likely to try out for England! A huge majority of that figure are fun players. Social players who enjoy a run out and a few pints after.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

emack2 wrote:England has according to Wikipedia just under 2 million registered players,this of
course covers everyone playing.

That's an irrelevant figure that the world keeps harping on about. Im 40 year old who plays for my teams vets but im a registered player . None of us are likely to try out for England! A huge majority of that figure are fun players. Social players who enjoy a run out and a few pints after.

But Eddie has the chance to pick you.

Its always so black and white with BS.

For instance I don't think Ben Foden's fall from grace has anything to do with Lancaster whatsoever. He was unlucky to get a run of bad injuries and that plus general wear and tear mean't he did not get back to the standards he showed when he was England's best player.

Itoje has shown amazing potential all the way through his career but it is a safe bet to say he was a better player when he actually started playing for England than he was when he first made the general training squad.

Player abilities go up and down. They tend to look better playing in a better team, what a surprise. Form and injury management is huge, and coaching has a part to play but it is only a part, not (normally) everything.

Last example. Brown. He became an international player because he went and found the right coaches to develop his running skills. That ultimately was down to him deciding he could develop further and finding out how. I would bet that had little to do with his club management, or Lancaster.

Scottrf wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

emack2 wrote:England has according to Wikipedia just under 2 million registered players,this of
course covers everyone playing.

That's an irrelevant figure that the world keeps harping on about. Im 40 year old who plays for my teams vets but im a registered player . None of us are likely to try out for England! A huge majority of that figure are fun players. Social players who enjoy a run out and a few pints after.

But Eddie has the chance to pick you.

Well to be fair, he does need a crash ball centre with hands like a magician for all of the 10 mins my fitness would last....

The big thing that's changed is the player pipeline. Lancaster (and Conor O'Shea before him) deserve a lot of the credit for that. The Robshaw / Hartley / Brown generation succeeded despite the academy system being very ropey, and the generation behind them was a bit mixed, but the Academy system is now turning out players who have the skills to take on the All Blacks...

...though the All Blacks this year have stepped it up considerably and Aumua looks like the most exciting young player in quite some time.

The point is in a RWC everyplayer wants to play,which is fine BUT often that
player maybe carrying an injury.
IF a players had a knock or strain Coach says to player are you fit?player
says YES but isn`t fully fit.
He`s being selfish if it results in his team losing it`s up to the Coaches to
decide.
Dan Carter was injured in the France game and against SA he was carrying
an injury.Limiting his movement BUT with heavy strapping he did enough
to win the match.
With his previous history there was no way he wouldn't play on in Sf and
final.

There's a good article on the bbc where Cole talks about no player being 100 per cent come the weekend. Suppose it's if you mean fit enough to play.

lostinwales

Not at all. Even with Itoje who I of course rate highly, I believe still gives too many penalties away and sometimes his tackling technique isn't quite right.

Well Lancaster didn't give Itoje an opportunity so we don't know. Lancaster's loss was Jones' gain.

We've seen Itoje do well in the face of adversity and his doubters time and again though.

True, coaching is not everything.

Being world class in training was important to Lancaster though and it let him down.

Brown did improve through coaching though. Think he needs a new specialist - passing coach....

Just as another player - let's say a mentally tormented one might benefit from a specialist coach.


Poorfour so you don't think the clubs had anything to do with that?

All the glory should go to Lancaster and O Shea?

Martin Johnson ignored Itoje as well. Give him some stick.

Good to see you're still to ignorant too understand a comment on training from years ago. Have a nice weekend!

How could Martin Johnson ignore Itoje when he wasn't available for selection?

That makes no sense.

Not my fault guv.... it's the options....

But you had access to the same players as your successor....

Not my fault guv.... it's the options.

He was available mate. People don't improve once they're alive they're at the best point they're going to be surely? Or or does this mean that since Itoje s saracens debut....He's improved? Arrrggghhhhh. Stuck between blaming Lancaster for not.picking a guy in a WC on debut who.wasn't quite ready to acknowledging that saracens improved him.since debut and he's not good as everyone to a person said!

The clubs deserve some credit, but the academy system was set up and part funded by the RFU, and the quality of players being produced improved markedly across all the academies after RFU intervention in the training regimes. I have that from friends whose sons were in the academy system.

The U20 and England intake are coming from a good spread of academies. Sarries are providing a higher number to England at the moment, but before that it was Quins, and plenty of other academies are contributing

No 7&1/2 wrote:He was available mate. People don't improve once they're alive they're at the best point they're going to be surely? Or or does this mean that since Itoje s saracens debut....He's improved? Arrrggghhhhh. Stuck between blaming Lancaster for not.picking a guy in a WC on debut who.wasn't quite ready to acknowledging that saracens improved him.since debut and he's not good as everyone to a person said!

That makes no sense. At the time when Johnson managed England in the 2011 RWC he was 16. He made his club debut when he was 19.

My eight year old grandson plays Rugby. Is he eligible for England?

It makes perfect sense ad that was the point though exaggerated for effect. The player Itoje was on debut isn't the same as he is now. The same as the player Robshaw was in that first game for Lancaster isn't the same as the one who was in jones' side. Pretending that because Itoje is world class, in my definition of that, now does not equal that he was 2 years ago. Lancaster was not ignoring the same level of player. I was just taking the mick stretching it say if we can in ore that improvement we can in ore it all and say Johnson ignored him too.

beshocked's specific beef with Lancaster over Itoje is that he feels Lancaster should have picked Itoje for the RWC.

Given that the RWC was basically immediately after the season that Itoje broke into the Saracens first XV, and that Itoje was included in the initial training squad but didn't make the final cut, most of us feel that it wasn't at all unreasonable that Lancaster decided not to gamble on an uncapped player in his RWC squad, at least not in a position of relative strength for England.

Even Eddie only played Itoje because of an injury to Launchbury. To be fair, Itoje has looked totally at home as an international lock since his first cap, though a long way from convincing at 6.

Poorfour wrote:...it wasn't at all unreasonable that Lancaster decided not to gamble on an uncapped player in his RWC squad, at least not in a position of relative strength for England...

Also, Lancaster had only recently added Kruis to the mix. The Saracens lock got his first start in the 2015 Six Nations, so had only 8 caps. Consciously, or subconsciously, selecting both Itoje and Kruis probably seemed like too much of a gamble on inexperience. He only had three players in his final squad with more than 50 caps. The decision not to take Hartley also helped tip the balance in favour of Parling, who was thought to be a safer target for Tom Youngs. With Kruis supplanting Attwood, It would have meant dropping Launchbury or Lawes for Itoje.

Conversely, Slade and Burgess got in with only a cap apiece because Lancaster never really felt he'd nailed down his centres. Tuilagi was out injured, and in disgrace. Twelvetrees had seen a drop in form, even though his last England start was a fair partnership with Barritt in the 2014 win over Australia. Eastmond had come back into form but Lancaster never seemed to trust him. Burrell seemed certain to be picked, although he wasn't in sparkling form, and we know what Lanacster decided to do therer.