England - the build-up and winning the World Cup at a canter

First topic message reminder :

Smith in the back field worked nicely against Ireland. We could interchange him and Steward on defensive duty but keep both in the backfield to receive kicks. Ford dropping in it one or the other has chased a kick up field.

I'd like to see if given a go as the attack does need an injection of something and the AB tactic isn't a bad one. Ruck speed and security needs a big upgrade though as that is the main element killing our attack.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Heaf wrote:France great - shame about the annoying crowd objecting to any decision that doesn't go their way no matter how obviously correct ...

Bit of a strange comment, this is what home crowds do!

To some degree yes, but they took it to another level ...

Poorfour wrote:

yappysnap wrote:

Poorfour wrote:
I think i've mentioned it before but there was a really good thread on the number of games a center combo needs together to gel. It's something like 10 games. We haven't even come close to that, this last game was another new partnership who'd never played together and unsurprisingly the defense there sucked.

Hopefully for the RWC we play Farrel/Tuilagi + Marchant which probably isn't our best combo, but is the most experienced and has the most time together. After the rwc whoever is coach needs to really settle on a centre combo quickly and give them game time.

Good point - and outside of the front row and back three (both of whom have their own issues), none of England's combinations have played much together.

In the centres, based on what we've seen in the warm ups Marchant should start, both because he's been the most consistent performer and because he's smart and adaptable enough to work with whomever he's paired with. I'd prefer to see Lawrence at 12 - it's good to see Tuilagi fit but the trade off is that he seems to have lost some of his freakish power and Lawrence seemed to offer similar strength in the carry with greater versatility. The only exception to that would be if Marchant went to the wing in place of... well, any of the current wings. I just don't get why Malins in particular is picked so consistently; his kick chase is good (though he tends to knock the ball back more often than he catches it) but his defence has had lapses (the system notwithstanding) and he doesn't finish tries. (2 in 15 games vs 2 in 7 for Arundell, 35 in 72 for May and 12 in 12 for Cokanasiga - which is better than I had expected)

Some interesting stats there.

I don't really know why there's been the obsession with Malins or Tuilagi for that matter. Both just don't seem to cut it for different reasons.

Tuilagi has arguably been more damaging for the team as successive coaches have given up trying to work on center partnerships in favour of always shoehorning him back into the starting line up as soon as he's semi-fit. Perhaps after the world cup things will settle down, but I fear we'll see another season or more of him coming and going from 12 and 13 as Borthwick tries to work out how to use him

I can get the continued selection of Manu to an extent. He isn't what he once was but he's still our best centre and back for getting over the gain line against a good defence. He made a difference to the sides physicality against Ireland in the Six Nations.

I really want to see Lawrence become a strong international centre but I can't shake the feeling he's underpowered to be a crash ball runner and lacks the skills to be more rounded. He is powerful and shows it at the Prem's questionable level but the physicality at international level is a different thing entirely. Physical centres used to get over the gain line there are the likes of Danty, de Allende, Estherhuizen and Kerevi. Compared to them I'm really not sure Lawrence is that powerful. He isn't completely without a passing or kicking game but neither are close to a strength at international level either. He's definitely earned further chances with his club form and signs of promise in an uneven Six Nations. I'd probably start him with Marchant and have Manu on the bench for R1. I do have a nagging concern he might struggle to make yards against the stronger defences though. The type of centre that a good defence can just man mark rather than having to double up on him or line-up one of your flankers against him off a lineout.

Malins doesn't look like a winger. I think he's a really good fullback though. I wish we'd seen Malins or Arundell at 15 over the warmups.

Inside centre has really been England’s problem position. It’s probably the one position where we have never had anyone who’s a credible replacement for their 2003 equivalent. Will Greenwood was unique in combining a surprising amount of heft (though Tindall took some of the pressure off that) with exceptional ball playing ability. I wish Banahan had played there more, as I think it could have become his best position given time.

In the current AP, Kelly is probably the closest to being ready but needs an uninjured run. I have hopes for Anyanwu and Hyde at Quins - the former is more used to playing 13, but has done a fair bit at 12 in his 1st XV games so far (and his stats are interestingly similar to Esterhuizen’s). Hyde is a year or two further away but looks to have both the size and the skills to be an interesting prospect. One problem, though, is that it’s such an attritional position that it destroys a lot of promising talents quite early in their careers.

Farrell's best at 12 was fantastic. It's just forgotten because he also plays 10. In the 2016, 2017 and 2020 Six Nations titles Faz was at 12 for every game but the 2020 round 5 game against Italy. Most of the 2019 RWC run was also with Farrell at 12 including the brilliant performance against NZ in the semis. The whitewash in Australia in 2016. Basically all of that record equalling unbeaten run. 2 Lions tests starting at 12 as well. 3 tours in total but he played the two tests at inside centre in 2017.

If we'd produced a 12 who achieved what Farrell did there and played as Farrell did there without also being a fly-half then I really doubt we'd talk about not having a single inside centre since Greenwood. I certainly think they'd be a player mentioned in the discussion ahead of Banahan!

Farrell was ineffective this year at 12. He might have played well there in past but not now, he's 10 or nothing.

Manu as been said so many times is past it by a long way. Issue is who else. Lawrence is best option in squad currently.

As a few of us said, seeing as other options were out injured the Fiji match was ideal chance to try Malins at 15. Only Borthwick knows why he didn't. Steward I think had his worst game for Eng that day.

Basically same arguments going around in circles. England don't have a 12 who is good enough. Wings selected aren't good for Int rugby it seems.
Nobody else is being given a chance at 15 to see how that works. OK Smith came on there later on but does anyone really think he's answer there.

Saracens' cheating of the salary cap initially benefited England in that they built a side with a lot of homegrown (and bought in) EQP talent that was able to compete with the best in Europe.

But post 2019 the bill came due and it has really cost England - and I suspect will continue to do so. Several of the Saracens players have dropped off severely since their time in ND1 (and Eddie stuck with them rather than use it as an opportunity to develop other players), and the knock on impact of driving wages up was a major contributor to Wasps, Worcester and London Irish going under.

It may take a full RWC cycle or more to recover from that - which is a dilemma for the RFU but also an opportunity. In their shoes, I would double down on the women's game, where there is a very good chance of England being able to win a home RWC in 2 years' time, but also a way that the sport can generate revenue in a way that doesn't involve stuffing more games into a men's schedule.

Poorfour wrote:I would double down on the women's game

I love the womens game and more than happy for extra resources put their way.
However I suspect we are in minority, you only have to look at some of the toxic comments on other forums about women in sport.

mountain man wrote:

Poorfour wrote:I would double down on the women's game

I love the womens game and more than happy for extra resources put their way.
However I suspect we are in minority, you only have to look at some of the toxic comments on other forums about women in sport.

We may be in the minority among hardcore fans, and there's an even smaller minority of noisy misogynists out there.

But there's a lot in recent experience to suggest that there's an untapped market that the RFU can reach without too much effort. The Red Roses v France game back in April drew a crowd of 58,498 - over 1,600 more than England v Fiji. Both had quite a strong family element in the crowd (driven by the lower prices) but with a much more even male/female balance for the Roses. The success and attention that the Matildas and the Lionesses got in the recent soccer world cup speaks to a similar shift.

The men's game can only really grow by filling stadia - and the top 6 teams are all averaging 85%+ attendance for home games, so even there there's not much more scope for growth. For the finances of the game, the women's game can add more games and a new demographic. For the RFU, if they can get to the point of having one sellout women's game at HQ, even with cheap ticket prices, then it's probably an extra £1m of profit from that game alone (based on what Quins have said about the early years of the Big Game) - not earth shattering, but when their annual profit is around £15m pa it makes a bit of a difference.

Spot on regarding the women's games. I went to my first England ladies 6Ns match in something like 2005, as a friend's sister was playing. The difference between then (a handful of folks staying to watch after the men's game) and when I went to Welford Road last season is incredible. While it goes without saying revenue generated from the women's game should not be subsidising the already better paid men, it is fair to say that it is the best area for growth and if it becomes self-sustaining it can at the very least be contributing to the shared overheads of running Twickenham, the RFU, etc to the benefit of all.

Regarding Saracens - I kind of agree. But I'm not sure if Saracens cheating has caused a problem or highlighted it. The reality is, for a few years we had an elite club where the environment was super competitive and player development was top notch. Without being funny, imposing a salary cap (at least one that's not competitive at the highest club levels) and refusing to accept that some clubs might just be able to outspend and as a result have better squads than others is a recipe for mediocrity. If a team is willing to put the money into developing a properly world class elite environment - why then punish them for that? Given the relative size of Sarries' backhanders and overspend at other clubs, the impact of covid, dodgy owners and a bond scheme that seemed doomed from the off - Sarries are pretty low on my list of reasons why some clubs went bust.

The women's game is doing really well and there's plenty of room to increase profits from there.

Saracens and Leicesters cheating well not sure you can blame them for other clubs overspending. That's on their own boards and covid.

Big wrote:But I'm not sure if Saracens cheating has caused a problem or highlighted it.  The reality is, for a few years we had an elite club where the environment was super competitive and player development was top notch.  Without being funny, imposing a salary cap (at least one that's not competitive at the highest club levels) and refusing to accept that some clubs might just be able to outspend and as a result have better squads than others is a recipe for mediocrity.  If a team is willing to put the money into developing a properly world class elite environment - why then punish them for that?  Given the relative size of Sarries' backhanders and overspend at other clubs, the impact of covid, dodgy owners and a bond scheme that seemed doomed from the off - Sarries are pretty low on my list of reasons why some clubs went bust.

The whole purpose of a salary cap in a professional sport that hasn't yet reached maturity in revenue terms is to limit overspend and ensure a relatively level competitive playing field.

If teams aren't limited in what they can spend on players, then teams whose owners have deeper pockets can buy success buy paying more for the best players - or force other clubs to spend more to keep up. That tends to start a wage spiral that becomes a game of beggar-my-neighbour and also makes the league as a whole less competitive, which tends to make it harder to grow the supporter base. Ultimately, some of the owners run out of patience or money and fold.

Team owners recognise that - while winning trophies is nice - it's much better to have a competitive league where spending growth can't spiral out of control. That's why most pro sports leagues have some level of wage control. US sports go even further and have the draft system on top of the salary cap so that weaker teams get the opportunity to strengthen their squads. Even soccer - where there's oodles of money compared to most sports - has the financial fair play rules to stop teams overspending.

The trouble is it's a Prisoner's Dilemma situation - if everyone plays nice, everyone wins, but if you can find a way to cheat you benefit disproportionately.

The added complication for English rugby is that they're caught between the French system (where teams have lower overheads because of municipal stadia, so can affort a higher salary cap) and the Irish one (where internationals are strongly incentivised to stay in the country and union ownership of the provinces allows them to focus on long term player development rather than flogging them week in week out). The temptation to raise wages to compete with them is high... but it's backfired badly.

The system was fragile anyway, because the sport isn't mature enough to be self-supporting. Nigel Wray's actions made it more vulnerable, and COVID was probably the final nail in the coffin for those teams whose owners couldn't sustain them indefinitely. It's a fair bet that at least one team would have gone under as a result of COVID, but I think Saracens made it worse than it would otherwise have been.

(And while we're at it, it sickens me that the likes of Stephen Jones still witter on about how they were treated vindictively by their peers. They broke the rules they helped to draft, repeatedly and over an extended period of time and received the punishment stipulated under those rules. Nothing more, nothing less. The Wasps, Worcester and London Irish players and staff paid a far heavier toll).

For what it's worth - I have no issue with a financial fair play type scheme, to try and prevent the silly finances that have seen 3 clubs disintegrate. I don't see any value in a cap that is purely to level spending. It's arbitrary and does little for sustainability - it will inevitably too much for some and/or too little for others.

Yes it ensures a competitive league - and for a 'competitive' league it's best for talent to be spread out, but for a competitive England it's better if the best players are concentrated at the best club(s), competing for their spot, training in an overall higher standard squad, etc.

If you are NFL international matches are meaningless and a competitive league is exactly what you want. If you are PRL things like the 6Ns, WC and big name internationals are probably a better driver for growing interest in the game that can then spill over into checking out the local club, than someone's specific local club happening to have a slightly higher chance of winning the league. At least that's how it looks to me.

Big wrote:For what it's worth - I have no issue with a financial fair play type scheme, to try and prevent the silly finances that have seen 3 clubs disintegrate. I don't see any value in a cap that is purely to level spending.  It's arbitrary and does little for sustainability - it will inevitably too much for some and/or too little for others.

Yes it ensures a competitive league - and for a 'competitive' league it's best for talent to be spread out, but for a competitive England it's better if the best players are concentrated at the best club(s), competing for their spot, training in an overall higher standard squad, etc.  

If you are NFL international matches are meaningless and a competitive league is exactly what you want.  If you are PRL things like the 6Ns, WC and big name internationals are probably a better driver for growing interest in the game that can then spill over into checking out the local club, than someone's specific local club happening to have a slightly higher chance of winning the league.  At least that's how it looks to me.

Yes the crux of the current questioning of the English structure is competing with leagues that have less debt (France) and then those Unions who have made no attempt to create their own leagues as their top tier but rely on European structures in the NH and French and English TV economics to create competitive competitions or NZ/OZ relying on SA tv money within SANZAR. I see there is more chat for Wales to go down to three professional sides - a long term suicidal notion.

If the RFU had opted to continue with a championship structure and a couple of elite RFU sides to compete in 'Europe' you would then have a very different environment that would benefit the England test team. Wales and Ireland don't even bother to develop, never mind employ an indigenous coaching structure to reflect the national rugby scene but bring in mercenaries in order to create top down success/funding rather than a bottom up reflection of their national game. Scotland have an indigenous coach but who has created a team with an array of players who are not remotely Scottish but for which the World Rugby authority allow for a myriad of political motives and behind closed doors agreements.

On that basis the cards are stacked against England, but that's ok because at the end of the day the sport is about long term access for players and fans alike and the enjoyment that creates. Any RWC success is a bonus.
London Irish and Wasps have always been on shaky financial grounds because owning their own stadium in the London area where their historical fan base is located is all but impossible. Saracens have been incredibly lucky to have their own stadium when you consider 5 miles down the road, Spurs spent nearly a billion pounds on a stadium.

Inevitably, there are a number of comparisons with the 2007 campaign, which started with a heavy 36-0 defeat to South Africa. The idea being that a dysfunctional squad can pull itself together and grind out some wins.

I've seen Andrew Sheridan, Dallaglio, Paul Sackey, Joe Worsely and Simon Shaw all comment on that tournament. One thing which stands out, is that the pack was always competitive. Sheridan even jokes about how, back in the changing room after that 36-0 drubbing, he felt like saying the scrum had gone well.

One of the reasons that team could strip things back, is that they had a solid foundation. Shaw thinks they might even have had the edge against the Boks in the final, though he concedes they deserved to win.

Also, Sheridan doesn't remember it as the squad going rogue The gameplan definitely became player-driven but the coaches were onside. Sackey recalls the squad gathering after that first loss, coming up with a strategy, and then Brian Ashton letting them run with it. Dallaglio corrected Haskell on that front too, when he described 2007 as a player's revolt.

Rugby Fan wrote:Also, Sheridan doesn't remember it as the squad going rogue The gameplan definitely became player-driven but the coaches were onside. Sackey recalls the squad gathering after that first loss, coming up with a strategy, and then Brian Ashton letting them run with it. Dallaglio corrected Haskell on that front too, when he described 2007 as a player's revolt.

It's funny how that story ended up being remembered as some sort of revolt as opposed to the players and coaches deciding on a shift of strategy together. It was interesting hearing Sheridan talk about that with Hamilton and Goode. The longer interviews those two do tend to be better than the actual podcast IMO. Sheridan is such a humble and laid back character but he immediately corrected them on that too.

Much of the story being so favourable to players and critical of Ashton seemed to come from Dallaglio and Catt's autobiographies soon after the tournament that were serialised in papers. Given that, it's especially interesting that Dallaglio corrected it as well.

Reading the comments on 2007 above it resonates a bit that they had some good foundations, a decent hard nosed pack, even if they were thrashed by SA in that opening match. Are the present team in a similar position? Do they even have some solid foundations to fall back on even if they play badly and then employ the wrong tactics? Do they have enough to turn it around? Eggchasers has listed his top 10 tightheads, which is a key position and no England player features. Eddie has just commented on England just not having good enough players and that the RFU need to accountable for that one.

Not many if any of the England team would make a Lions XV today. I hear a lot of comments that we have the talent and that we are just under performing. I am afraid but I don't buy this. I think the talent is at an all-time low. Genge and Itoje at their best are up there, but not currently. I don't see any other player being a top talent. We have not been able to produce a 12 since woolly mammoths roamed freely. Our back 3 are like boys playing men.

A run to the semis has been quoted as being the worst thing that could happen to England as the RFU will think it is all ok. An early knock out could be a blessing in disguise.

Am I overly pessimistic (this excludes 7.5 and his rose tinted glasses)?

From someone who is generally positive and Im genuinely concerned England wont get out the group.

I think it's more likely than not that England will go out in the group stage ...

Heaf wrote:I think it's more likely than not that England will go out in the group stage ...

That would mean losing vs both Samoa and Argentina. It is far from impossible but expect we'll win both but only just, then go out at the next stage

lostinwales wrote:

Heaf wrote:I think it's more likely than not that England will go out in the group stage ...

That would mean losing vs both Samoa and Argentina. It is far from impossible but expect we'll win both but only just, then go out at the next stage

Or Japan?

Japan aren't looking like what they were in 2015 and 2019, which is a shame.

A bit of a changing of the guard for them. They still have some very good players. Himeno, Matsushima and Nakamura are all excellent players. Himeno arguably world class. Whilst Dylan Riley is one to watch at 13. He's looked very good whenever I've seen him play.

There are other players from their stronger years who are still around but showing signs of their age though. Whilst second row may be an issue with Luke Thompson not being replaced.

Don't think there's much valid comparison to 2007. The 2007 side was built on a strong pack and a very reliable goalkicker, plus the resolute defence, which conceded only one try in the final three games and fewer tries than SA in the whole tournament (and even in the 0-36, England only conceded three tries). I don't see the current iteration having any of those three qualities.

Interesting to hear about a possible players revolt in 2007. An unfancied England football team that went to the World Cup in 1990 supposedly had a players revolt and, like the 2007 rugby team, they went very close to pulling off a shock and winning the competition.

Agree that a run to the semis this year would be the worst possible outcome, at least in the long term. If England get knocked out in the group stage it may prompt a review....which actually probably wouldn't lead to anything. It'd be like those reviews the cricket team do after they get thrashed in Australia.

England are about 9/1 to get eliminated in the group stage, if you want to insulate yourself against humiliation.

Mixed feelings from me. England are capable of much better than has been shown in the warm ups. Despite not really having the talent level to compete with the best teams, there's enough there to be in the 'best of the rest' camp if dumb tactics are dropped and the team play to their potential. That ought to be enough to win the group. If current stodge continues, then yes, I expect Argentina to win and that would put huge mental pressure on the team for the Samoa game. Always look on the bright side though, if we get knocked out in the group stages we might actually see some meaningful reform, get to a semi playing okay rugby and probably all problems swept under the carpet for now.

Duty281 wrote:
England are about 9/1 to get eliminated in the group stage, if you want to insulate yourself against humiliation.

Not a gambling person - does that mean I'd get £10 for each £9 bet or £1 bet? If the later that's actually worth a punt!

I pretty much agree with what hugehandoff wrote.
England just don't have quality of players at the moment.
Those who would normally be, likes of Itoje, Curry, Sinckler, and a few others are way below their best.

This is compounded by other teams currently playing really well both as individuals and as a team. Scotland v good example of this means life isn't great for Eng presently.

If England top players were all in top form then I'd be positive. Unfortunately that isn't case.

Saying all this I would be surprised if England don't get out of group. It's not impossible for them to win every group match but looks unlikely.

Something is definitely awry with team though, I do wonder if they are just not confident in coaches and tactics.

Big wrote:

Duty281 wrote:
England are about 9/1 to get eliminated in the group stage, if you want to insulate yourself against humiliation.

Not a gambling person - does that mean I'd get £10 for each £9 bet or £1 bet?  If the later that's actually worth a punt!

Yeah, the latter. Put £1 on and if England fail to get out of the group you get £10 back.

I cannot see England beating Argentina and I just don't know enough about Samoa to comment. They pushed Ireland close and beat Japan (red card to Leitch) and Tonga and lost to Fiji.....it will be close for England, but they could still win this and probably should. Japan appear weaker and England should do that one ok. I am going for a poor 2nd in the group followed by a 1/4 loss to Fiji or Australia.

hugehandoff wrote:I cannot see England beating Argentina and I just don't know enough about Samoa to comment. They pushed Ireland close and beat Japan (red card to Leitch) and Tonga and lost to Fiji.....it will be close for England, but they could still win this and probably should. Japan appear weaker and England should do that one ok. I am going for a poor 2nd in the group followed by a 1/4 loss to Fiji or Georgia.

Being pessimistic (or maybe realistic) I reckon England will lose to Argentina, pick up another red card, and then manage a tight loss to Samoa (would this also be the first time Samoa have beaten England?) ...

Duty281 wrote:Interesting to hear about a possible players revolt in 2007. An unfancied England football team that went to the World Cup in 1990 supposedly had a players revolt and, like the 2007 rugby team, they went very close to pulling off a shock and winning the competition.

The "player revolt" element has been overplayed - in part by some of the players, in part because of the review that sacked Brian Ashton after a run to an RWC final, and in part exaggeration by the media (and fans) over the years.

The players who were at the centre of it are very clear it wasn't a revolt: Interview with 2007 squad

Instead, there was a recognition by everyone that the game plan needed to change. Ashton and the coaches agreed to let the players go out for beers and decide what they wanted to do, and bought into the plan they came back with. It's very consistent with Ashton's MO that he would want the players to take responsibility for their tactics, though perhaps waiting for a crisis to trigger it was the last nail in his coffin. But even then, the stats showed that England were winning the forward battle but not capitalising on either territory or possession.

hugehandoff wrote:Reading the comments on 2007 above it resonates a bit that they had some good foundations, a decent hard nosed pack, even if they were thrashed by SA in that opening match. Are the present team in a similar position? Do they even have some solid foundations to fall back on even if they play badly and then employ the wrong tactics? Do they have enough to turn it around? Eggchasers has listed his top 10 tightheads, which is a key position and no England player features. Eddie has just commented on England just not having good enough players and that the RFU need to accountable for that one.

Not many if any of the England team would make a Lions XV today. I hear a lot of comments that we have the talent and that we are just under performing. I am afraid but I don't buy this. I think the talent is at an all-time low. Genge and Itoje at their best are up there, but not currently. I don't see any other player being a top talent. We have not been able to produce a 12 since woolly mammoths roamed freely. Our back 3 are like boys playing men.

A run to the semis has been quoted as being the worst thing that could happen to England as the RFU will think it is all ok. An early knock out could be a blessing in disguise.

Am I overly pessimistic (this excludes 7.5 and his rose tinted glasses)?

Boo to you too!

I think comparisons to the 2007 England World Cup squad are nothing more than wishful thinking.  There were I think 11 World Cup winners in the 2007 squad and some real leaders there.  This current England squad seem to lack any leadership.  Ellis Genge has proved to be a real disappointment, Courtney Lawes a leader by example who can no longer lead by example, Owen Farrell a devisive character, etc.  One of Borthwick's many tasks after this World Cup is to find and appoint a captain for the next 4 years who can lead the team, as Gatland did with Warburton.

nlpnlp wrote:I think comparisons to the 2007 England World Cup squad are nothing more than wishful thinking.  There were I think 11 World Cup winners in the 2007 squad and some real leaders there.  This current England squad seem to lack any leadership.  Ellis Genge has proved to be a real disappointment, Courtney Lawes a leader by example who can no longer lead by example, Owen Farrell a devisive character, etc.  One of Borthwick's many tasks after this World Cup is to find and appoint a captain for the next 4 years who can lead the team, as Gatland did with Warburton.

Exactly the man difference between where we are and where we were.  
Regarding picking a captain, it can't be Farrell.  As you said, divisive.  I also think he has lost a lot and don't think he has a position on merit.  Also, can't be any of the olde guard.  Need newer blood.  If that is Genge, so be it. But must be someone young and with a future.

doctor_grey wrote:

nlpnlp wrote:I think comparisons to the 2007 England World Cup squad are nothing more than wishful thinking.  There were I think 11 World Cup winners in the 2007 squad and some real leaders there.  This current England squad seem to lack any leadership.  Ellis Genge has proved to be a real disappointment, Courtney Lawes a leader by example who can no longer lead by example, Owen Farrell a devisive character, etc.  One of Borthwick's many tasks after this World Cup is to find and appoint a captain for the next 4 years who can lead the team, as Gatland did with Warburton.

Exactly the man difference between where we are and where we were.  
Regarding picking a captain, it can't be Farrell.  As you said, divisive.  I also think he has lost a lot and don't think he has a position on merit.  Also, can't be any of the olde guard.  Need newer blood.  If that is Genge, so be it.  But must be someone young and with a future.  

Mercer. I don't know what he's like as a leader these days. I know he's done very well in the T14, but that is about it.

A U20 level his leadership made a difference, and that is a rare thing.

nlpnlp wrote:I think comparisons to the 2007 England World Cup squad are nothing more than wishful thinking.  There were I think 11 World Cup winners in the 2007 squad and some real leaders there.  This current England squad seem to lack any leadership.  Ellis Genge has proved to be a real disappointment, Courtney Lawes a leader by example who can no longer lead by example, Owen Farrell a devisive character, etc.  One of Borthwick's many tasks after this World Cup is to find and appoint a captain for the next 4 years who can lead the team, as Gatland did with Warburton.

Agree re 2007, rampant mismanagement aside there was a core of quality and experience there.

I don't think Genge has been a disappointment, particularly as part of the leadership group. He speaks well to referees (always a bit of a surprise) and he's had the role of social captain for a while. Marcus Smith and others have mentioned how he's helped them settle into the squad when they've come in for the first time. Whether he's England captain material or just a useful vice captain I'm not sure.

Lawes is playing his last few games for sure. That being said he was easily our best backrow Vs Fiji. Admittedly not a high bar being set there.

One of the Curry's might step in to the captain role but it seems like Tom is the better player but Ben the more natural leader. You've got JVP who captained England at under 20 level and has captained Tigers on a few occasions but is surely to young. Itoje always speaks well but no coach at club or international level has seemed to want to give him the role, must be a reason. If Farrell was going to be finally ditched then Ford could do the job, whether he'd make the next world cup I don't know he's only 30.

Problem is it's hard to guess when we're unsure how the team is going to look come the 6N. A major revamp is likely.

I really can't see how Farrell is divisive. There's an argument to be made by anyone wishing to make it regarding form, though he's clearly our first choice 10, but I think he's very popular among players.

Farrell divisive with fans of other teams as we know only too well from clowns on BBC HYSs.
Pretty sure all Eng team happy with him.
Only issue Eng fans might have is whether on their opinion he is best 10 or for that matter should play 12.
As for his demeanor, doesn't matter a jot to me. The fact he winds up others is fine by me.
Not sure Johno was nicest guy on pitch but he did ok I recall .

Farrell is spoken of incredibly highly by his peers. Several greats to have been on Lions tours with him have picked him out as a player who's attitude in training impressed them. Shaun Edwards even picked him out as the player he wishes he'd coached more when asked to name one. Coach after coach has rated him in the same way.

I couldn't care less how he comes in interviews. Fans coming to convoluted character assessments based on a players demeanour during an international rugby match always makes me laugh. My thought every time is, "let's have a 20 stone block of muscle run at you as fast as they can then judge your personality on the basis of facial expressions you pull in super slow motion".

I'm of the unpopular opinion that captaincy is increasingly a red herring in rugby though. Captains influence refs far less now. Which I believe is a good thing. Officials working as a team has led to that. It's no longer the ref with two captains talking to him. It's a team of officials talking to each other. That's often lambasted but I think it's improved the game. Captains in days gone by being able to influence refs was a commendable skill but rarely led to more correct decisions. Just more favourable decisions for one side. Warburton's impressive effort in influencing Poite to make a diabolical decision in that 3rd Lions test in 2017 is a perfect example. Good work from Warburton but a dismal showing for the sport. It's a bit of a hangover from the amateur game that is thankfully disappearing IMO.

The more important thing now is having leaders across the pitch. England should have that. Farrell, Ford, Lawes, Curry, Genge, George, Itoje, Daly, etc. There are plenty of players with lots of experience who have been prominent and successful parts of leadership groups.

The team as a whole are underperforming so much and making massive individual errors. I struggle to put that down to leadership and as said ad nauseum I feel it's indicative of the deeper issues in the pro game.

I don't deny Farrell has a hugely impressive history playing for England.The two big problems with continuing to play him are
1) Where does he play?
2) Does picking him force us into a style of play which is no longer competitive at the highest level?

My honest feeling is that England are not going to move on as a team with him still there. He's not bigger than the team.

The players are still strong enough to implement Borthwick's style as we saw in the last couple of games; don't worry.

lostinwales wrote:I don't deny Farrell has a hugely impressive history playing for England.The two big problems with continuing to play him  are
1) Where does he play?
2) Does picking him force us into a style of play which is no longer competitive at the highest level?

My honest feeling is that England are not going to move on as a team with him still there. He's not bigger than the team.

I think England needs a total rebuild to move on and that means Farrell replaced along with quite a few others
Trouble is at present who is best 10?
Smith has never excelled for Eng, Ford has but recent games he's not been at best.
As for where Farrell plays, can only be 10 for me.
Maybe Ford 10 and Farrell 12 can recreate the old magic but I wonder.
Several current players are way below best but I also think tactics are terrible so not sure they are getting chance to show better

England should have hired Lancaster he would have done a good job

Would Lancaster return though? Unlikely.
I wanted O'Gara but anyway.

Not sure anyone saw England being this bad though. Lots of hindsight being displayed.

Unless it's all some cunning grand plan and England suddenly become peak era NZ at RWC but somehow I doubt it.

Guess we'll soon find out.

mountain man wrote:Would Lancaster return though? Unlikely.
I wanted O'Gara but anyway.

Not sure anyone saw England being this bad though. Lots of hindsight being displayed.

Unless it's all some cunning grand plan and England suddenly become peak era NZ at RWC but somehow I doubt it.

Guess we'll soon find out.

What do you mean? This is all going the way some of us predicted. Yes we're struggling at the moment and may go out in the group stages because are players are unfit. But then we are in a great position come the 6 nations. There won't be any pressure as there is now and Borthwick will have his first choice coaches. If come 2028 and were still not winning championships that's down to the rfu.

If the players form and the tactics shown were miles below what we've seen in Europe and the prem then fair enough to be a little concerned but you can see the value added and how the team are far more than the sum of their parts. We're 1 pass away from blowing teams away.

On Friday evening there was nothing on tv so I watched a replay of the England-NZ semi-final from 2019.  The differences in performance from then to now were stark and two main things stood out for me.  

First the speed of play was significantly faster than what we have seen from England so far this year.  Speed to the breakdown, moving to set up the next phases, rush up on defense, and so on.

Second was accuracy.  More passes appeared to go to hand, and hit people in stride.  Running lines with intent and power.

Contrast to today.  
Youngs from 2019 was a player one could win with.  The today version is not.  
Billy V., though still gassed in the last 15-20, made a profound impact.  
Farrell, though still not overly agile, actually moved well.
Tuilagi was the Manu of old, not an old version of Manu.
Scrums were consistently strong.
Ford actually ran an attack, not whatever he is doing now.
And so on.  Worth a watch.

I am heading down to Marseille on Friday with mixed emotions. A defeat that might lead to long term change and improvements....or a thumping victory and performance out of the blue and the chariot is suddenly full speed ahead.....swing low or slink quietly out of the tournament and maybe sort out the mess that is RFU leadership? So difficult.....

for now though I can only take the short term view and I cannot wish ill will on England and so I will be cheering them on in the hope that pride finally kicks in and they can deliver. And if they don't then I will take the longer term view and maybe enjoy a bottle of Argentinian merlot. A win win sort of equation.

The forecast is sunny and will be approx 22C at kick off...perfect for England's running rugby style.

mountain man wrote:

lostinwales wrote:I don't deny Farrell has a hugely impressive history playing for England.The two big problems with continuing to play him  are
1) Where does he play?
2) Does picking him force us into a style of play which is no longer competitive at the highest level?

My honest feeling is that England are not going to move on as a team with him still there. He's not bigger than the team.

I think England needs a total rebuild to move on and that means Farrell replaced along with quite a few others
Trouble is at present who is best 10?
Smith has never excelled for Eng, Ford has but recent games he's not been at best.
As for where Farrell plays, can only be 10 for me.
Maybe Ford 10 and Farrell 12 can recreate the old magic but I wonder.
Several current players are way below best but I also think tactics are terrible so not sure they are getting chance to show better

Ford and Farrell are both over 30. Planning for the next RWC, it would be a very risky move to rebuild around them when there’s at best a 50/50 chance they will still be playing at international level in 4 years’ time.

Smith has had the misfortune to play pretty much all of his games for England when they have been at a low ebb. I’m pretty sure that England’s scoring rate has been better when he’s been on the pitch than when he’s been off it, though - not least because there have been several games in which he’s scored all the points (tries and kicks) while he’s been on.

If they’re going to get any value out of him, though, then England need to commit to playing in a style that makes the most of his talents. His point of differentiation is being able to make late calls between multiple options to exploit the space. If those options are two pods of superannuated forwards and a pair of wingers who can’t finish, no fly half in the world is going to look good.

If England can’t commit to that, they’d be better off picking another young fly half who plays a more conventional game and building around them. Fin Smith would seem to be the next cab on the rank. But it would be a horrible waste of talent.

Poorfour wrote:

mountain man wrote:

lostinwales wrote:I don't deny Farrell has a hugely impressive history playing for England.The two big problems with continuing to play him  are
1) Where does he play?
2) Does picking him force us into a style of play which is no longer competitive at the highest level?

My honest feeling is that England are not going to move on as a team with him still there. He's not bigger than the team.

I think England needs a total rebuild to move on and that means Farrell replaced along with quite a few others
Trouble is at present who is best 10?
Smith has never excelled for Eng, Ford has but recent games he's not been at best.
As for where Farrell plays, can only be 10 for me.
Maybe Ford 10 and Farrell 12 can recreate the old magic but I wonder.
Several current players are way below best but I also think tactics are terrible so not sure they are getting chance to show better

Ford and Farrell are both over 30. Planning for the next RWC, it would be a very risky move to rebuild around them when there’s at best a 50/50 chance they will still be playing at international level in 4 years’ time.

Smith has had the misfortune to play pretty much all of his games for England when they have been at a low ebb. I’m pretty sure that England’s scoring rate has been better when he’s been on the pitch than when he’s been off it, though - not least because there have been several games in which he’s scored all the points (tries and kicks) while he’s been on.

If they’re going to get any value out of him, though, then England need to commit to playing in a style that makes the most of his talents. His point of differentiation is being able to make late calls between multiple options to exploit the space. If those options are two pods of superannuated forwards and a pair of wingers who can’t finish, no fly half in the world is going to look good.

If England can’t commit to that, they’d be better off picking another young fly half who plays a more conventional game and building around them. Fin Smith would seem to be the next cab on the rank. But it would be a horrible waste of talent.

1. Ford turned 30 in March so barely over 30. Outside chance of making it to the next world cup and could conceivably make a good contribution for the next two years if we want an experienced option whilst we rebuild the midfield and blood new halfbacks (helped by the fact he's got plenty of experience having played with three of the most talented young 9s JVP, Quirke and Warr).

2. Do we have a side capable of playing like Quins to build around Marcus Smith? Can the other flyhalfs adapt to that game if Smith is unavailable? Judging by the handling skills on show recently the answer is no and judging by Quins failure to show consistent top level results over the last few years is it really the tactics we want to adopt, particularly as defences are considerably better at international level?

3. Fin Smith needs to be in the squad moving forward. The two Smiths really do look like the future and in an ideal world will slowly push Ford put of the starting job with him being a mentor along the way. If Marcus cannot adapt to playing in different styles he might find himself more in the 22 shirt as an impact option of playing out of position at 15.

It would be madness to follow Harlequins approach to tactics when you see how well Leicesters works at international level. Just need Farrell back ASAP as Ford really struggles without someone to hold his hand. Though tbf to Ford it is a complex system.