Next steps for england.

First topic message reminder :

Theres a couple of articles on the BBC which to me indicate exactly where england need to step up in the 6 nations. One by Matt Dawson :

'To win a World Cup, you have to be able to adapt under the biggest pressure and on the biggest occasion.

That is what the All Blacks or South Africa would do. That is what England did in 2003.

It is not always going to go your way. Even if you are overwhelming favourites, you will play some games that you know you should win that you will end up losing.

That is why I am even more pleased with England's Autumn Nations Cup sudden-death win in extra time against an inexperienced France side.

England were matched physically up front and if you look at the previous occasions when that has happened they have usually lost the game. This time they dug themselves out of it.

Eddie Jones' side are naturally going to be favourites in most matches for the next two or three years but they are going to play against teams that are not as good on them on paper but can match them if they play out of their skins.

That is what France did. They were missing so many stars who were unable to play because of an agreement with the Top 14 league but there were plenty of good French players with the potential to light it up.

No matter the circumstances, you have got to know how to win games and this was a classic example from England.

England have a chance at the Grand Slam when the Six Nations starts in two months, but they will only win it if they take their opportunities.

They have a good cycle of fixtures, with just two away matches, against Ireland and Wales.

France's performance in Sunday's final showed that the Six Nations is going to come down to them and England.

Les Bleus are the only team in the northern hemisphere that can physically compete with England over 80 minutes.

France's second team were playing at Twickenham, but a full-strength side will travel to south-west London in March for the penultimate round of the Six Nations.

To win that match, England will have to be more accurate than they were on Sunday.

They are only going to get three opportunities against a side like France. They have to score at least two of those chances if they want to win the game.

England scored one try against France, when Luke Cowan-Dickie went over in a maul
In the final, France did not get many chances. You might even argue they had one chance, and they scored one try through Brice Dulin.

That is the standard required. England, on the other hand, should have scored at the end of the first half when they were camped on France's line.

There were two chances when Elliot Daly passed to Anthony Watson on the right wing. The first, Daly passed a bit too early, and the second went to Watson's feet. They should have scored at least one of those.

'England need to recognise prime time to attack'
I want to know what England are doing in training in terms of attack. Time after time there are opportunities that England are not going for.

I do not look at the England side and see a huge threat in the backline even though individually you look at the players and think how good they are. It is all so lateral.

Against France, they went through all their usual kick and chase protocols and there were overlaps they did not want to attack.

On a couple of occasions it could be argued that it paid off because they got three points from the ensuing penalty but other times those decisions could have got them in trouble.

You get into the habit of not being able to complete those processes. If you are in the groove and used to doing it you get ruthless and you finish people off. The attack just does not seem joined up to me.

Rather than keep kicking the ball away, they need to recognise when it is prime time to attack, and England have the skills to be able to do it.

'We've not seen what Farrell has to offer this autumn'
England captain Owen Farrell has so much to offer but we have not seen it this autumn and I do not know why.

He missed four kicks against France, including one that could have ended the game early in sudden death.

All kickers, even at the standard of Owen Farrell, have off days. Most kickers would have either passed the baton on to George Ford or would not have got the ones under pressure.

The fact that he still had the mental capability to kick the penalty that won the game under the most pressure shows the animal that he is.

My concerns around Owen are just that we talk about him being a points machine but he has so much more.

For England he has been a ferocious tackler, distributor, creative player but maybe his role has slightly changed now.' And money and care:

Monye: "If this team are to win the World Cup they have to evolve their game in attack. Do you have the game to chase the game?

"England aren't going to be on top in every game they play from now to 2023. If they are to be the number one team in the world, they need to show more in their attack.

"If their attack could match their defence, this team won't be beaten. At the moment they leave the doors open for teams to get at them. It's not about being the best in the northern hemisphere, it is about beating New Zealand, beating South Africa."

Care: "When you are winning games every week and building momentum, it's because of the nuts and bolts of their game - their set-piece, brutal defence and kicking game - you probably take things like finishing four on threes for granted a little bit.

"They probably train a similar way, exactly how they play - kick chasing, waiting for errors, and they probably haven't spent an awful lot of time developing their attacking game. They are suffering almost from their own success, beating teams without having to do an awful lot."

I mean its blatantly obvious given how good our defence and set piece is (even under pressure by Woki and France) that the attack stick out like a sore thumb. We kicked alot, but kicked poorly. Normally over long and not contesting for the ball a great deal of the time (in the air). 2 things from the articles were that chances were created that should have been finished (France) and how different would we see it had Daly not butchered them. Personally I think we were a little too conservative and slow which led to alot of inaccuracies. We just didnt seem to hit the switch as we've done so well under Jones previously. It was only in the last game where Robson seemed to up the tempo and we started to look a bit more lively.

To me there is a serious question for all the back line bar Jonny May on left wing (watson to me is a question of right wing or full back). That question is there as I'd like a better balance in midfield and a new 9 and 15 but also because I dont see the point in having 2 perceived ball players in midfield playing the current tactics. May as well find our new noon and tindall.

The balance to that is that we've won the lot this year so my complaints are merely about consolidating our place in the pecking order through improvement not standing still. I think the 6 nations is a great chance to pick up a grand slam with the way the fixtures fall this year.

I don't think either will match Luke Cowan-Dickie's mullet from a few years ago. Mind you, there have been a few dreadful haircuts in the England team recently - Ellis Genge's mini mullet was/is bad and Henry Slade's weird shaved sides and v-shaped "thing" at the back (is there a term for that?) was just awful.

Still, it wasn't much better a few years ago. I remember David Strettle's extra-long flicky fringe that he seemed to always have to push out of his face to see anything. And didn't Joe Worsley once do a pineapple cut? (Very quickly removed - wonder if it was for a bet?).

I guess I'm just jealous - I lost my hair 20 years ago...

Mr Bounce wrote:Henry Slade's weird shaved sides and v-shaped "thing" at the back (is there a term for that?) was just awful.

I think the term for that was ' just awful'.

Back to the rugby I am expecting to see a Curry, Billy, Lawes back row. Lawes was getting a good few plaudits playing at 6 before he got injured. I am no fan of the Curry Underhill combination - I think it is an easy cop out for EJ not to have to pick his best 7 and rest the second best. A 6 for me is deifferent to a 7. Australia used the Pooper combo because they had 2 world class players an not much else, so picking them whether or not they were a good combination made sense. I don't think England ae in that position as I think we have some potentially good test class 6's. What you want you 6 to do is carry hard and hit hard - they don't need to have the skills of a 7 or 8, they are there to hit hard.

Lawes would not be my choice at 6 - I would like to see a Hill or even a Sam Simmonds there. Bit EJ likes to be 'different'.

I have to say I have lost the faith in EJ. You could see the minute England lost to South Africa in the 1999 World Cup that Woodward had a plan and was working to win the next world cup. I don;t see that with EJ. I just see someone trying to be different, trying to prove a point however pointless it is. I have absolutely no confidence that we will win the next world cup and I just see a lot of potentially good international careers going down the pan thanks to EJ not giving them a chance.

Riiiiiiight.

Mitchell had signed an extension until the end of the world cup.

nlpnlp wrote:Back to the rugby I am expecting to see a Curry, Billy, Lawes back row.  Lawes was getting a good few plaudits playing at 6 before he got injured.  I am no fan of the Curry Underhill combination - I think it is an easy cop out for EJ not to have to pick his best 7 and rest the second best.  A 6 for me is deifferent to a 7.  Australia used the Pooper combo because they had 2 world class players an not much else, so picking them whether or not they were a good combination made sense.  I don't think England ae in that position as I think we have some potentially good test class 6's.  What you want you 6 to do is carry hard and hit hard - they don't need to have the skills of a 7 or 8, they are there to hit hard.

Lawes would not be my choice at 6 - I would like to see a Hill or even a Sam Simmonds there.  Bit EJ likes to be 'different'.

I have to say I have lost the faith in EJ.  You could see the minute England lost to South Africa in the 1999 World Cup that Woodward had a plan and was working to win the next world cup.  I don;t see that with EJ.  I just see someone trying to be different, trying to prove a point however pointless it is.  I have absolutely no confidence that we will win the next world cup and I just see a lot of potentially good international careers going down the pan thanks to EJ not giving them a chance.

Out of interest who the hell hits harder than Sam Underhill?

I actually think the forward pack becomes predictable if you're relying on your 6 & 8 to do the bulk of the carrying instead Jones focuses on having multiple carriers in the pack. Having a genuine six in the side at the moment doesn't make sense with regards to the breakdown, you need a threat coming from 6 & 7 or you'll lose that battle.

Soul Requiem wrote:....

Out of interest who the hell hits harder than Sam Underhill?

I actually think the forward pack becomes predictable if you're relying on your 6 & 8 to do the bulk of the carrying instead Jones focuses on having multiple carriers in the pack. Having a genuine six in the side at the moment doesn't make sense with regards to the breakdown, you need a threat coming from 6 & 7 or you'll lose that battle.

Lawes does, although pound for pound Underhill must be one of the hardest tacklers around. He is a truly terrific player, but I do wonder how long he'll last.

lostinwales wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:....

Out of interest who the hell hits harder than Sam Underhill?

I actually think the forward pack becomes predictable if you're relying on your 6 & 8 to do the bulk of the carrying instead Jones focuses on having multiple carriers in the pack. Having a genuine six in the side at the moment doesn't make sense with regards to the breakdown, you need a threat coming from 6 & 7 or you'll lose that battle.

Lawes does, although pound for pound Underhill must be one of the hardest tacklers around. He is a truly terrific player, but I do wonder how long he'll last.

I was going to say the same things.  I don't think Lawes lands as many of the earthquake tackles as he used to.  But that is down to self preservation as his hits are technically better than when he was younger.  Underhill is terrific, and I agree, if he can stay healthy will have a terrific career.

There is that thing with Lawes when you used to see him flying horizontally at some poor scrum half or 10, which is quite something when you realise he's what? 6'7''?

I am sure somewhere amongst the extensive tattoos there are a series of 9's and 10's with lines through them like kills on a fighter aircraft.

Lawes may not put as many of those bone crunchers in these days, but take a look at his tackle stats, he is consistently in the top three for tackles made, add that to the yards he makes these days, the lineout and his coverage across the field, there are very few who can get near him overall. Better him in one sphere certainly but you have to look at his entire game. I suspect only Early can get near him for speed over more than 15m, once moving he is very rapid.

doctor_grey wrote:

The comments on that video are a hoot, so many complaining it was late based on the slow mo when timing was good in real time. Farrell sure can take it in fairness.

Just seen a set of stats from BT on Farrell vs Wilkinson.

Farrell
Matches 88
Points 969
Tries 10
Conversions 161
Penalties 196
Drop goals 3
Win 70%

Wilkinson
Matches 91
Points 1179
Tries 6 (including that awful scotland decision!)
Conversions 162
Penalties 239
Drop goals 36
Win 72%

I always think on a load of pens being won when considering Wilkinson but bloody hell the drop kick stats are different.

Though as Martin Johnson replied when asked why England kicked so many penalties "It's not us that's giving the kickable penalties away."

Dan Carter
Caps 112
Points 1598
Tries 29
Conversions 293
Penalties 281
Drop goals 8
Win 89%

Interesting that Carter's penalties sits at an average of 2.5 a game with Wilko at 2.6 per game. Which is much closer than I'd have imagined. The conversions and tries scored for Carter are of course incomparable and illustrate why he was the best all round fly-half I've ever seen.

king_carlos wrote:Dan Carter
Caps 112
Points 1598
Tries 29
Conversions 293
Penalties 281
Drop goals 8
Win 89%

Interesting that Carter's penalties sits at an average of 2.5 a game with Wilko at 2.6 per game. Which is much closer than I'd have imagined. The conversions and tries scored for Carter are of course incomparable and illustrate why he was the best all round fly-half I've ever seen.

I was looking on one of those websites where amongst much other stuff they had a whole bunch of interviews with old players where they were asked who their toughest 5 opponents were. Of the ones I looked at they all seemed to mention Wilkinson.

I am not arguing that he was as good as DC, as he wasn't the same kind of player, and certainly didn't have the complete skill set that DC had, but he did have a real aura around him that brought the best out of his team. Farrell should surpass Wilkinson's points total in time, but I don't think he's anything like as good.

lostinwales wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Dan Carter
Caps 112
Points 1598
Tries 29
Conversions 293
Penalties 281
Drop goals 8
Win 89%

Interesting that Carter's penalties sits at an average of 2.5 a game with Wilko at 2.6 per game. Which is much closer than I'd have imagined. The conversions and tries scored for Carter are of course incomparable and illustrate why he was the best all round fly-half I've ever seen.

I was looking on one of those websites where amongst much other stuff they had a whole bunch of interviews with old players where they were asked who their toughest 5 opponents were. Of the ones I looked at they all seemed to mention Wilkinson.

I am not arguing that he was as good as DC, as he wasn't the same kind of player, and certainly didn't have the complete skill set that DC had, but he did have a real aura around him that brought the best out of his team. Farrell should surpass Wilkinson's points total in time, but I don't think he's anything like as good.

To me, those best of all time discussions comes down to what you see and prefer. I would take JW over other good players for a few reasons. He was a good creative attacking player, though not nearly the same runner as DC. JW was terrific defensively and had to be planned for as opposed to other 10s who were usually hidden or protected. And he, as you said, had the aura of a winner. How on earth that 2007 England team made it to the RWC final is still beyond me. But, this is still much of a muchness. Depends on what we like and see.

I respect and appreciate Farrell's commitment and approach to the defensive side of the ball. And he is a very good kicker. But not nearly the attacking threat of DC or JW, both of whom I see as miles ahead.

king_carlos wrote:Interesting that Carter's penalties sits at an average of 2.5 a game with Wilko at 2.6 per game. Which is much closer than I'd have imagined. The conversions and tries scored for Carter are of course incomparable and illustrate why he was the best all round fly-half I've ever seen.

Different teams, and different times, though. Wilkinson was only really part of a team comparable to Carter's ABs from 2001-03. And while it's true he didn't have Carter's running, he made a lot of tries for other players through his distribution (there's a reason Will Greenwood holds the England record for tries scored by a centre) and Wilkinson had a far bigger impact defensively.

The real shame is that we never had a period when they were both near their peak when we could have seen them play against each other. (2005 Lions definitely doesn't count).