England: Part 3: The Sinking Ship

First topic message reminder :

Well we have issues.
Is it personnel or Coaches....

Can it be fixed?

SA could be a horror show.

With the young talent coming through we should be strong for the RWC. Add in Chessum, Kpoku, Fasogban, Opoku-Fordjour, Sela, Pollock, Pepper etc and our pack should go well.

We rely too much on Mitchell and need another quality 9. And the main stumbling block remains at 12. We have loads of 13s but no 12s. Do we now revert to Dingwall? Give Van Rensburg a go when he qualifies seems the most likely solution? We have talent in the back 3, a great 10, a decent pack albeit we need some more turnover ball, but the midfield remains the issue.

Thing is when will the young talent get a chance? RWC is not that far away, a top of my head guess England have around 25(?) or so matches until RWC 2027 Eddie Jones for all his faults said a player needs around 40 caps to be fully sorted and probably not far off mark. So time in that respect is running out, which makes fact the 23 still had Cole, Slade, Ford etc in hard to accept.

12 as ever is position that needs addressing and I don't see Dingwall as the solution. I'm totally against using Van Rensburg if he should opt for England. If we can't develop a 12 of our own England should give up rugby. Similarly front row, Stuart to give him credit has been really good this autumn but England desperately need a few more. Sinckler playing well in France and at his best definitely worth considering again if he returns.
Backrow is good, 8 maybe is position to sort. Earl has done a good job there but isn't really an 8.
Wings which at one time was an issue is now looking far better. IFW and Sleightholme are best so far, then add in Freeman although I'd like to see him develop more at 13.
Fullback is another position to address. Furbank seemed to offer what England needed a running attacking FB. Steward good player he is got badly exposed against SA.
Maybe if Arundell returns he plays there rather than wing and he is a 15 really anyway.

So, at least there are options. Then there's the coaching...

Since Greenwood retired, which is 20 years ago, the only long term successful 12 we've had has been Owen Farrell, who's primarily a 10 but could handle the physical side of the position in defence. Barritt and Flutie did the job well enough for a short time, but otherwise it's been a litany of failing to deliver (Billy 36) or trying to shoe horn a physical 13 into the role.
Perhaps we should pick Dingwall and accept that he's at best a 7/10 player in that position, which is still better than the alternatives (Slade has many of the attributes to be a decent 12, but doesn't actually play the position well). IF we have magic at 10 (which Marcus is starting to bring to this level) and the outside backs (getting there other than 13), we could potentially carry a 'good enough' player.

Surely we have a better option for 8 than playing an out of position 7 (even if Earl has done a really good job there) and backed up by Dombrandt who has never shown true international quality (very good club player, just not able to make the step up in physicality)

I'm not so worried about the experience thing - look back to 2003, and the team that won the World Cup - yes, there was a nucleus of 50+ cap players, but the likes of Thompson, Tindall, Lewsey and Robinson had only come into the side in the previous 18 months or so, and were doing a great job of keeping it fresh.

New players can make an immediate impact and look born to role - Feyi-Waboso a good example but my point is why are we persisting with players patently not good enough and not bringing in the young players now.
As for 13, if we have a 12 then Lawrence is obvious move to his usual position. Back up is Freeman. At 12 Manu been best I think but that boat long gone.
At 8 there is CCS although he'll stay at 6 until Chessum back and firing. A heavy duty ball carrier at 8 though be good.

I would like to see that against Japan Borthwick plays Dingwall and Oscar Beard in the centres, though completely doubt it will happen.  And before I get excoriated, here is my logic.  

They seemed a good pairing against Aus A, and that was with only one short week of training.  Not at all saying this is the combo for the next few years or even the next few games, but this is a golden opportunity to:
1. See a completely different combination and skill set from Lawrence and Slade
2. Potentially inject some life in the mid-field
3. Borthwick to take a slight bit of pressure off himself by showing he can take a flyer on something completely different, especially as the current pairing is not firing on all cylinders or terribly impactful and everyone sees it

4. And this is the ultimate 'never happen'  - have some fun with this game!

Even better how about a back row of CCS at 6, Henry Pollock at 7, and Tom Willis at 8?

Now a lot may not agree with me on this but Manu was best and had the most impact at 13.
As an Ireland fan I was happy to see him start at 12, but when in his pomp at 13 he was at times unstoppable.
I'm not saying he wasn't good at 12, as he was, but I felt he was easier to manage (back row closer to help the ten and 12) and his defence at 12 was never the best.
This doesn't currently help with England's situation but against Japan I think the best option would be to try a big hard running fullback at 12, but that's just me

Oh and for the love of Christmas will borthwick please give ted hill a go at 6

carpet baboon wrote:Now a lot may not agree with me on this but Manu was best and had the most impact at 13.
As an Ireland fan I was happy to see him start at 12, but when in his pomp at 13 he was at times unstoppable.
I'm not saying he wasn't good at 12, as he was, but I felt he was easier to manage (back row closer to help the ten and 12) and his defence at 12 was never the best.
This doesn't currently help with England's situation but against Japan I think the best option would be to try a big hard running fullback at 12, but that's just me

Manu shifting to 12 a fair bit coincided with his huge run of injuries and the game changing a lot. He was slower and 13 became a far more technical position defensively. Following Nonu and then Roberts converting successfully to 12, we started seeing more and more physical presences in the position. Whilst 13 became the place for technically brilliant players with passing and kicking games.

The standout 12s at the RWC summed that up. de Allende. Aki. Jordie. Danty. Tuisova. Monsters in contact. Whilst the 13s were Kriel, Reiko, Am, Fickou, Nayacalevu, Marchant. Nayacaelvu aside, those are all smaller, positionally brilliant players with good distribution skills. Nayacalevu is more powerful but still far better positionally than Manu and quicker to change direction, he was a winger after all. It's been a huge shift from the second five-eighth era of centres where the 12 was a second playmaker and the 13 the explosive runner. The way the game trended moved away from that. Big unit at 12. Agile defender with distribution skills at 13. Tomas Appleton for Portugal was maybe the closest thing to that older fashioned 12 who really shone at the tournament?

Whilst I agree that Manu's most explosive games were at 13 early on, I think it's a huge oversimplification of how the game changed and how Manu changed after injury to say he should've stayed at 13. By keeping him at 13, you'd be taking a now slower Manu and putting him in a position that has shifted to being smaller and more agile to keep up with modern defensive demands. There's a reason that Sale, England and now Bayonne have largely used him at 12 for the last 5 seasons. The game changed a lot.

Traditionally, a key point in England's RWC cycle has been the summer tour to South America when the Lions is on. I suspect a lot of these players will get a chance to make their mark on that trip.

There's time ahead of that for some of the emerging 12s to make a mark - Will Butt, Will Rigg, Lennox Anyanwu, possibly Ollie Hartley depending on his return from injury.

At OC, Beard is maturing rapidly. A couple of seasons ago he was making the kind of choices that a youth player used to dominating his opposition makes, but he's seriously pushing Northmore for the starting slot at Quins and brings a nice combination of heft and pace. There's a lot of competition at OC, though, and I'd still prefer to see Marchant there, though, if the RFU can lure him back.

Was listening to Andy Goode and Big Jim Hamilton, Goode doesn't think Borthwick has enough expecrience to be head coach and has a big issue with Borthwicks mate who is the defensive coach having coached in the D2 and his team was 14th in a 16 team league.

Old Man wrote:Was listening to Andy Goode and Big Jim Hamilton, Goode doesn't think Borthwick has enough expecrience to be head coach and has a big issue with Borthwicks mate who is the defensive coach having coached in the D2 and his team was 14th in a 16 team league.

I defend Joe El-Abd as I repeatedly wanted him to be looked at by Leicester (I'm a Tigers fan) when Dan McKellar was appointed. I had no clue he was mates with Borthwick, best man, etc at that point. I just saw an English coach with experience outside England. So many England coaches have the same CVs. Played in England. Coached in England. There are so many jobs in the Prem that lots don't branch away from it.

El-Abd knows the English system and it's problems, but has extensive experience outside it too. He won the Top 14 as defence coach at Castres. He got an Oyonnax side with no budget (the town has a population of 22k...) promoted to the best league in rugby. Yes, they got relegated, but, they won 7 games last season. Montpellier backed by a billionaire won 9. It's really not a bad effort when you consider that the disparity in budget from them to other Top 14 clubs is feasibly bigger than the disparity between Falcons and the rest of the Prem.

It's a varied CV as English coaches go. Also, success as a defence coach at club level, followed by promise as head coach at club level really isn't an unusual CV for an international assistant. Jerry Flannery got hired to coach the best defence in rugby with significantly less experience than El-Abd for instance.

It's a lazy narrative, being very selective with the facts for a few outlets to cast El-Abd as just Borthwick's mate, ignoring his achievements prior. Taking a small sample size, solely from this season, where Oyonnax are in a rebuild following relegation is a perfect example of that. He's extremely highly rated in France and what he helped a club with Oyonnax's resources do over a long period is viewed as largely remarkable.

I don't think his CV is out of line with an assistant coaching role at international level at all. Easterby had been coaching for 2 years before being named Ireland defence coach.

Goode's become such a lazy pundit over the recent years. Which sums up why he's increasingly becoming a podcaster with rubbish hot takes to keep in the news cycle, whilst Jim Hamilton has improved out of sight as a pundit and is getting bigger gigs outside of his own pod.

Marchant has just bought a flat in Paris and got engaged..so he might not be rushing back.

Will Joseph to Gloucester as well is an interesting one.

I do like the look Of Beard...he's a big lad as well actually.

Well whether it's all down to El-Abd or not the England defence this autumn has been tragic. Seeing as he is defence coach then it's reasonable to question how good he is.

What time frame has El Abd had to do anything with this squad...?Judge him more on the 6n....

It's massively premature to judge El Abd at this stage. He was appointed less than a month ago, to pick up someone else's defensive system (which in any case is known for taking over a year to become fully functional) and with the someone else in question sort of involved and sort of not.

And then had to get a team using it against 2 of the 4 top teams in the world and an Australian side with a coach who is known for working out the weaknesses in other teams' systems.

It is, by any measure, a tough gig.

The issue that first needs to be addressed is whatever it was behind the scenes that led Walters and Jones to quit. The RFU needs to get a full coaching team in place well ahead of the 6N - which may be tough when the first question anyone will ask is "Why did the other guys leave?"

I thought the defence largely put New Zealand under a lot of pressure. Doing so when they've now seen that defence three times in about 4 months is especially promising for me with the blitz as a system. The first Tele'a try is a bit of brilliance from Sititi but also Furbank biting into a double tackle and not preventing the offload. The Jordan try is brilliant attack from Beaudy and Jordan. A classic example of attacking where the space will be rather than where it is. Very Dupont and Ntamack esque. It was a beauty. The second Tele'a try is the disappointing one with Ford going high. That sort of finishing is what Tele'a does though. I think that game's a drop goal or pen going over from folk praising the opportunities the blitz creates through pressure, rather than talk of moving on from the blitz. Very much a case of analysis being based on the result rather than what actually led to the result for me. Which is the first thing you learn never to do in analysis.

Against SA. There was a try from a double charge down. Not defence coaching there. The first Kolbe try they were a metre from the line, it's a very good cross field kick to the best finisher in the game currently. I can't put that on a defence coach myself. I expect SA to finish there more often than not. Good sides are going to score against you! The second Kolbe try was a missed double tackle from Earl and Slade where they barely slowed de Allende down. That's got to be put on the players not a coach. Which leaves the Williams try where CCS bites up, others don't go with him. That could be blamed on the system, fair enough.

So, a try in each of the Boks and NZ games that I'd rate as disappointing in terms of the blitz as a system. I really hope they stick with it.

The Oz game was the bizarre and infuriating one because they were so good for 20 minutes, then decided it would be bright to move away from the game plan that gave them that ascendency. Extremely frustrating. They opened the game up into the exact sort of coast to coast mess that suited their opposition. From 15-3 up. I've watched it back twice now. Once in stages on trains. Once in one go late at night, skipping through stoppages, in an insomniac haze. It still blows my mind how big a shift in game plan there is having started well. The defence in that game was poor. So was a ton of other things though.

As ever the usual pile on here. As I said it's not necessarily all down to El-Abd but considering England defence in 6N and summer was looking really good and last few games it's been really really bad you have to ask what's changed. I said pre AIs that I wouldn't think there would be much change to defence system, i.e. blitz but something has gone badly wrong.

I also completely disagree about Goode and Hamiliton. Goode actually is decent on analysis these days whereas Hamilton comes over like Monye, grabs a few phrases he's heard from smeone else and does them to death.

Again, just an opinion. I'm sure others may differ.

It's not a pile on for posters to offer contrasting opinions that they back up with examples and explanations, mm. That's just discussion.

I think part of the reason that you might sometimes feel ganged up on at times is that you tend not to engage that much with the examples and explanations. Others offer details about why they disagree with points. Then you just go, "Nah, I still think the same thing", without any engagement in the counter arguments put forward. As laid out above, I think several of the tries against NZ and SA are cases of non defence errors or playing very good sides. I don't think the defence in those two games was "tragic" when you look at the circumstances around the tries conceded.

It reminds me of a discussion about Randall over the summer. You said he had to start. I laid out that I struggle to see him being an international 9 as his kicking game is poor. I simply think he lacks length on his kicks. I can't think of any 9 to have succeeded in international rugby recently with the same issue. It makes exiting your 22 incredibly difficult if your 9 lacks length of his kicks. It also makes the opposition game plan against you very easy. I went through examples of teams that tried SHs with that issue, adjusting game plans around it, how it hampered them elsewhere. Italy with Callum Braley being a great example. George Horne struggling to nail a berth with Scotland another decent one. Your response was, "Kicking, nah. Randall needs to start". It's not really possible to carry any discussion on from there. It turns into the Monty Python argument clinic sketch. Which is likely why your posts can sometimes garner dislikes or simply get skated past.

Goode just bores me these days. His discussion around selection especially got so cyclical with zero introspection if wrong. It's why I gave up on the pod. "It's insanity Dombrandt isn't being picked. Eddie has no idea what he's doing. Not a clue. Best 8 in the Prem". Dombrandt looks like utter s***e repeatedly. Then no real acknowledgment of being wrong. Just move onto the next Dombrandt from the Prem. Probably Tom Willis now. Finger in the air, where's the wind blowing, chuck something that way. Interspersed with comments about pubes, the size of former teammates c**ks and impressions of northerners.

Pretty sure I've never stated Randall had to start, I've always wanted him in 23 though. Happy to be corrected though.

As it happens I've just watched that pod with Goode and Hamilton and both say El-Abd not up to it. They also both say Chieka is man for head coach. Both were scathing about defence at weekend.

As for chat about pubes etc, yeah childish and unnecessary. Not something I want to listen but even likes of Flats and Shanks who I really like to listen to go on about that sort of rubbish. Must be a podcast requirement.

The best podcast right now for analysis of England is For the Love of Rugby, with Ben Youngs and Dan Cole (posted recent episodes on the previous page in this thread).

Youngs is far more analytical then I expected, and Cole has a dry wit. When Cole is away in camp, Youngs goes through the matches with Anthony Watson. That's two recent England players, with experience of working under Borthwick.

Another new one is the post-match review podcast under the Good, the Bad and The Rugby brand. Called "Quick Tap", it's half an hour long, and features Charlie Morgan of the Telegraph, and Alex Goode of Saracens. Goode also brings a slightly different analytical perspective. This is the recent episode.



It's quite possible all these individuals will fall into a groove, and sound less fresh over time. At the moment, they are good value.

Another interesting pod can be Maul Over Rugby, with Max Lahiff and Ryan Wilson. It's covers the URC, Premiership and Test rugby. While it does frequently fall into laddishness, its biggest asset is the range of occasional guests, with many who haven't shown up on other podcasts. This week, they had Emmanuel Meafou.

I've not seen much of Youngs one but seeing as Cole is a current England player(why though is question) then an objective analysis slightly unlikely I'd have thought.

One of best I've heard for analysis is Paul Grayson on the BBC rugby union podcast, he's excellent but only usually on post match if he's been doing pundit duties on the matches. He's not often on the daily/weekly pods unfortunately although I quite like those as well.
I especially like the Nations pod they do every Wednesday with Chris Jones, Gareth Rees-Owen(GRO) and Tom English. It's often highly amusing as the depressed tones of GRO and Tom English bemoan the state of Wales etc. Well worth a listen.

mountain man wrote:..seeing as Cole is a current England player, then an objective analysis slightly unlikely I'd have thought.

That's why the match reviews are done by Ben Youngs and Anthony Watson.

Reports that Junior Kpoku has signed an extension with Racing through to 2027. His current deal ran to the end of next season, which would've seen him be JIFF for life. So, it's not like he's hanging on for that JIFF status, to keep options for club deals open down the line. He'd qualify for France just before the next RWC. It'd be a massive loss if he didn't end up playing for England. The fall off from Itoje, Martin and Chessum is massive. From what I've seen of Kpoku in the Top 14, I'd already be picking him ahead of the likes of Isiekwe, Coles and Ewels as 4th choice.

I've always defended the ruling of only picking players from the Prem. When I think the league is weak enough to prevent players fully developing, I find it harder to defend though. Bottom line, I think Kpoku is probably a better player now for being in France and exposed to the Top 14 than he would be in England and the inconsistent standards of the current Prem.

I argued with the Welsh selection rules that Tommy Reffell was a different story to players who developed in Wales, then left. He came through at Tigers, happened to want to represent Wales. He isn't a player that the regions built up and lost when he made his name. I feel somewhat similar with Kpoku compared to Marchant for instance. Kpoku bounced from Sarries to Chiefs. Never played senior rugby in England. Signed for Racing and has thrived. I do feel it's a different situation. With the Welsh rules, if you sign a contract before being capped, you are eligible until the end of that contract.

When the play in England rule was instated, I felt it was done from a position of strength. The Prem was stronger, teams were competitive in Europe, it had great overseas stars, relegation and promotion meant that most games mattered, the wages were competitive. It felt reasonable to keep the stars in the league to keep it stronger and get better control of the players. It isn't the same league now. I'm honestly not sure what the answer is. I'm increasingly uncertain that the hard and fast rule we've got is that answer though. It's meant to protect the standard of the league, but, a lot of games are frankly a bit s**t.

I do completely see my former argument though, that if players can leave, the Prem might get even weaker. It's a tough solution to solve. As the starting point is no longer great, the next step probably wont be either. Solutions to s**t situations are usually s**t as you're effectively polishing a turd. I'm conflicted on it and keep flipping back and forth.

I'm increasingly wondering if some caveats are now needed. Could uncapped players be allowed to see out contracts signed before being capped whilst maintaining eligibility? That could allow someone such as Kpoku to still be available and allow the likes of Lennox Anyanwu to move to a league where I think he's likely to improve more as a player. Equally, could you consider one contract sabbaticals for players such as Marchant? Allow them 2 or 3 years in a different culture, higher wages and learning in a new environment, whilst maintaining eligibility. If they wish to stay beyond that, then you say fair enough and adieu.

It's a very different landscape now with the Prem relatively poor (both in finances and quality), whilst the French leagues grow ever stronger.

I have always thought the home players only ru8les pretty stupid and do not really work when tried. As you say players develop more in different situations

TJ wrote:
I have always thought the home players only ru8les pretty stupid and do not really work when tried.  As you say players develop more in different situations

The home players rules are part of the wider agreement between the RFU and PRL. The RFU wants access to players outside of international windows. They can agree that with the Prem clubs; they can’t agree that with French (or any other) clubs. The PRL want a lever to keep their best players. It suits both sides to have the rule.

And to date, the only international that England have lost to the rule when he was being regularly selected is Marchant. People speculate about Willis, Arundell, Armitage and so on, but none of them are proven internationally. I also think it’s easier for players to look good in France, because of the quality of the squads around them. Mercer wasn’t able to replicate his French club form well enough in England to get selected.

As far as I am aware the only English player with enough clout to sign a contract in France that let him join England whenever he wanted was the one player for whom the exception clause was invoked: Jonny Wilkinson.

Poorfour wrote:As far as I am aware the only English player with enough clout to sign a contract in France that let him join England whenever he wanted was the one player for whom the exception clause was invoked: Jonny Wilkinson.

Wilkinson's selection wasn't the exception clause as we understand it now. The current rules were only in place after the 2011 World Cup, when he had retired from international rugby.

The RFU wrote to players in 2010, saying England would only select from Premiership Clubs after the 2011 tournament (see BBC report below). At that time, Jonny Wilkinson, Tom Palmer and James Haskell were all England squad members, and playing in France.

Martin Johnson was on board with the idea of protecting the domestic league but he expected to keep his job past the World Cup, and wanted some wriggle room. That's when Rob Andrew clarified in public that there could be "exceptional circumstances", where an overseas player might warrant a call-up. Behind the scenes, Johnson wanted to decide for himself what exceptional circumstances were. He'd seen how moving to Toulon had rejuvenated Wilkinson, and could envisage something similar happening with another player. The RFU agreed, because they had faith he wouldn't abuse his discretion.

Stuart Lancaster had none of Martin Johnson's standing when he took over the job, so the RFU effectively kept the exception clause but removed Lancaster's discretion over its definition. "Exceptional circumstances" came to mean "unimaginable injury crisis", and has never been invoked. Lancaster had no problem with that, as he favoured using younger players anyway, and it was mainly veterans who were overseas.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/english/9250944.stm

The biggest loss to English rugby wasn't Steffon Armitage but rather his brother, Delon. Delon was one of the few players to perform reasonably well at the 2011 World Cup. He was a lightning rod for controversy but a fine player. Like Elliot Daly years later, he covered full back, wing and centre, and could take long range goalkicks.

I’d agree with you on Delon over Steffon.

I have no issue with current law on player selection. If England cannot pick a good enough team from those in Prem then they may as well give up rugby. Likewise with idea of capping Van Rensburg as and when he becomes eligible. No.

Most of those who went to France did it for more money. Simple as that. Cannot blame a pro sportsman for that but they all knew situation when they went. Several who went have retired anyway from Int rubgy.

If law was changed I doubt be a mass exodus as wouldn't be enough places available possibly although Japan would snap a few up and likes of Marcus Smith be a big attraction for French clubs so if law was overturned English clubs would lose some of their best players which in turn would dilute Prem of quality and potentially fans.

Anyway, realistically how many are England missing, 1 or 2 who might make squad?

mountain man wrote:

Anyway, realistically how many are England missing, 1 or 2 who might make squad?

Marchant and maybe Jack Willis though we have plenty of opensides. Dave Ribbans as fourth choice lock would have been useful with the Chessum injury.

Lawes is retired and playing in ProD2 so probably not one to be called up. Arundell maybe if he's fixed his work rate and work under the high ball but we're stacked for wings. Farrell, please not that again. Sinckler was bang out of form for ages, time to move on.

Sinckler was way off it last few years but he's regaining form and attittude so if he gets back to best then he is one worth considering.

Kpoku and Ribbans would both be ahead of Coles, Isiekwe, etc for me. By a distance in Kpoku's case when combining his current level of performance in the Top 14 and his ceiling. It's so rare for locks to be performing at that standard as teenagers. It means that we're effectively picking our 6th choice EQP lock if one of Itoje, Martin or Chessum get injured. Not ideal.

Marchant would be my first choice 13.

Willis would be in my training squad ahead of Ben Curry, Pearson, etc.

Arundell would be there ahead of Roebuck and Murley for me. He's got areas of his game to improve but the upside is potentially huge.

I do get the concern with the Premiership getting weaker if players can go abroad. It's not like the rule has kept the Prem strong though. There's so much absolute dross in it these days. High scoring but poor quality games where defence looks optional. Reminiscent of early noughties Super Rugby games between the weaker teams that were slow to professionalise. The Prem isn't a strong comp anymore and hasn't been for a few years now. When you look at outgoing vs incoming players from last season, it's not getting better either.