[2014 Mid-Year Tests] England

[Patchey]

I've been wondering that as well Patchey. Our wingers made hay against the Argies as well. The moment a serious match comes around though, they might as well have a pipe and slippers on.

I think it's to do with the coaching and attitude to games. Farrell Sr wasn't involved in either the Argentina tour or BaaBaas game and it looked like the back were being instructed to try things out wide more. It seems to be he lies to narrow the attack in. However one can't discount that these were also games of less importance, even if the Argentina tour was a fully capped tour, with guys less indoctrinated into the England attacking systems playing. I guess they were more willing to give things a go.

For me the contrast between the two is provided nicely by Burrell's try against Wales and Sharples try against the BaaBaas. Both we're score in the same corner of the pitch after a grubber through. But for one the recipient was a centre who'd been told by his inside man there was a kick coming, then other was score by a winger running a more instinctive line out wide.

 

[ratsapprentice]

On the Earle/XV's players to 7s thing:

<iframe style="width: 1px; height: 0px; border: medium none; position: absolute; visibility: hidden;" class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered" allowtransparency="true" scrolling="no" id="twitter-widget-0" frameborder="0"></iframe>

@irbjuniors Nathan Earle make excellent 7s player - tried to get him inv in training last year. Nick Tompkins & Maro Itoje be great too.
â€" Ben Ryan Fiji 7's (@benjaminryan) June 20, 2014​

<script async="" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script><iframe style="display: none;" allowtransparency="true" scrolling="no" id="rufous-sandbox" frameborder="0"></iframe>

 

[Peat]

So... now that things have settled a bit...

It was an ok tour. I don't think things have kicked on hugely, but we've firmed up some skills, introduced some depth. Worryingly, some issues remain unsolved. I feel that they'll take away a mix of encouragement and anger, which is useful, but all the emotion in the world won't help you if basic things are going wrong.

I feel the biggest negative was the organisation of the backline on tour. To get a scratch backline to play so well in Game One was a major achievement. They tossed that achievement down the toilet in Game 2 in favour of moving our most influential back away from the action and putting a rusty Twelvetrees at the centre of the action. That backfired. So they ended up rushing the Game One team back, minus Jonny May, and that backfired as well. Would the defensive line have been better if they'd been given all three tests together? Ashton ended up doing virtually nothing positive. Was giving Ashton, Tuilagi and May all getting one game on the wing each the best use of time? I feel the end result was none of them got a proper chance to develop or make a case. Ditto, Eastmond and Twelvetrees were poorly done by. It is very palpable that Lancaster is still trying to work out what his best backline is, and the experimentation probably cost us any chance of getting a win out of the tour.

Other negatives
- Maul - We can't rely on it as a way of scoring points and that's deeply annoying.
- Support Lines - What support lines?
- Multi-phase play - We looked clueless about what to do if we didn't score off of first phase or disorganised ball.
- Tactical kicking - Once again, not much to write home about

On the positives columns, our breakdown work was very good.

Our front five depth looks better for the tour, Webber's forced his way into contention, Brookes, Thomas and Mullan all did well, Parling's back, Slater's in the reckoning.

Yarde's shown he can pose a danger vs the world's best. Tuilagi has shown that he will discomfort them given the ball in a decent position.

Cips had a good tour and, tbh, I can now see him going to the World Cup. He's got as much talent as the alternatives and a lot more experience. It's fantastic to have him back as an option.


The end result is that Lancaster and co now have a year to find a centre partnership that works. That now looks like our biggest problem and it's arguable that the talent isn't there. Finding one that works will allow us to be World Cup contenders. I am now beginning to think of Devoto as a possible bolter.

 

[goodNumber10]

So... now that things have settled a bit...

It was an ok tour. I don't think things have kicked on hugely, but we've firmed up some skills, introduced some depth. Worryingly, some issues remain unsolved. I feel that they'll take away a mix of encouragement and anger, which is useful, but all the emotion in the world won't help you if basic things are going wrong.

I feel the biggest negative was the organisation of the backline on tour. To get a scratch backline to play so well in Game One was a major achievement. They tossed that achievement down the toilet in Game 2 in favour of moving our most influential back away from the action and putting a rusty Twelvetrees at the centre of the action. That backfired. So they ended up rushing the Game One team back, minus Jonny May, and that backfired as well. Would the defensive line have been better if they'd been given all three tests together? Ashton ended up doing virtually nothing positive. Was giving Ashton, Tuilagi and May all getting one game on the wing each the best use of time? I feel the end result was none of them got a proper chance to develop or make a case. Ditto, Eastmond and Twelvetrees were poorly done by. It is very palpable that Lancaster is still trying to work out what his best backline is, and the experimentation probably cost us any chance of getting a win out of the tour.

Other negatives
- Maul - We can't rely on it as a way of scoring points and that's deeply annoying.
- Support Lines - What support lines?
- Multi-phase play - We looked clueless about what to do if we didn't score off of first phase or disorganised ball.
- Tactical kicking - Once again, not much to write home about

On the positives columns, our breakdown work was very good.

Our front five depth looks better for the tour, Webber's forced his way into contention, Brookes, Thomas and Mullan all did well, Parling's back, Slater's in the reckoning.

Yarde's shown he can pose a danger vs the world's best. Tuilagi has shown that he will discomfort them given the ball in a decent position.

Cips had a good tour and, tbh, I can now see him going to the World Cup. He's got as much talent as the alternatives and a lot more experience. It's fantastic to have him back as an option.


The end result is that Lancaster and co now have a year to find a centre partnership that works. That now looks like our biggest problem and it's arguable that the talent isn't there. Finding one that works will allow us to be World Cup contenders. I am now beginning to think of Devoto as a possible bolter.

I agree with all of that except the phase play point - i think we do have a decent phase play structure i think our scrumhalves had a poor tour and didn't run the game the way we wanted - we looked better when the shape of the game was run from 10.

agree about Cipriani, i think he played well, i don't think he's jumped Farrell or Ford they will still be our WC 10's but I think he may have done enough to jump Burns - i was pleased with Burns though.

 

[Patchey]

So... now that things have settled a bit...

It was an ok tour. I don't think things have kicked on hugely, but we've firmed up some skills, introduced some depth. Worryingly, some issues remain unsolved. I feel that they'll take away a mix of encouragement and anger, which is useful, but all the emotion in the world won't help you if basic things are going wrong.

I feel the biggest negative was the organisation of the backline on tour. To get a scratch backline to play so well in Game One was a major achievement. They tossed that achievement down the toilet in Game 2 in favour of moving our most influential back away from the action and putting a rusty Twelvetrees at the centre of the action. That backfired. So they ended up rushing the Game One team back, minus Jonny May, and that backfired as well. Would the defensive line have been better if they'd been given all three tests together? Ashton ended up doing virtually nothing positive. Was giving Ashton, Tuilagi and May all getting one game on the wing each the best use of time? I feel the end result was none of them got a proper chance to develop or make a case. Ditto, Eastmond and Twelvetrees were poorly done by. It is very palpable that Lancaster is still trying to work out what his best backline is, and the experimentation probably cost us any chance of getting a win out of the tour.

Other negatives
- Maul - We can't rely on it as a way of scoring points and that's deeply annoying.
- Support Lines - What support lines?
- Multi-phase play - We looked clueless about what to do if we didn't score off of first phase or disorganised ball.
- Tactical kicking - Once again, not much to write home about

On the positives columns, our breakdown work was very good.

Our front five depth looks better for the tour, Webber's forced his way into contention, Brookes, Thomas and Mullan all did well, Parling's back, Slater's in the reckoning.

Yarde's shown he can pose a danger vs the world's best. Tuilagi has shown that he will discomfort them given the ball in a decent position.

Cips had a good tour and, tbh, I can now see him going to the World Cup. He's got as much talent as the alternatives and a lot more experience. It's fantastic to have him back as an option.


The end result is that Lancaster and co now have a year to find a centre partnership that works. That now looks like our biggest problem and it's arguable that the talent isn't there. Finding one that works will allow us to be World Cup contenders. I am now beginning to think of Devoto as a possible bolter.

Good analysis as ever Peat. We certainly need a top draw centre combo (IMO we probably need two) if we want to be serious about 2015. We don't have that yet and time is running out sharpish. I like the idea of Devoto as a bolter but he would need to have a real peach of a season at Bath, and there are question marks over where he's going to play I guess as Eastmond, Henson and maybe Burgess are all options at 12. Not impossible though.

I'll be interested to see where Webber is in the pecking order once Youngs is back. IMO he should always have been above Youngs once his throwing went haywire again but who knows where he will be now. Ditto for our props, especially Wilson v Cole.

Our pack is looking in great nick, I have quibbles regarding Johnsons continued presence, Henry Thomas, Brookes over Sinckler and maybe the fact that Wood seems undroppable but they're all fairly minor. Rowntree has done some great work over the last few years and we're at the stage where our pack is starting to become a real fear factor. I think South Africa are probably the only team int he world with 1-8 strength better than ours (when everyone is fit). I'd like to see Kvesic and Haskell given more game time in the Autumn, and maybe see Attwood start. But it is all fine tuning really. My only real issue is Dave Ward not getting any meaningful time in a shirt.

Obviously the same can't be said for the backs and I think Farrel Snr and Catt have to take the main blame for this. I've long suspected that Lancaster is less inclined to stamp his authority on the backs selection (maybe as an ex-back row he feels better equipped to judge the forwards) and is happy to get Farrell run the show out wide instead. What is clear to me is that our attack is highly dependent on individuals playing really well rather than being a collective effort and that our back line defense has actually regressed this year. I hope that doesn't see Barritt return(much as I like him, he will not help us score tries). For me the selection of backs, both in the starting XV and on the bench, is very confusing and there doesn't seem to be a clear goal in terms of desired style of play.

Regarding Cips, if he plays a bit more at 15 this season maybe he could go in Goodes place. I can see either of Farrel, Ford or Burns being dropped and we wont take four specialist fly-halves to the World Cup.

 

[goodNumber10]

Good analysis as ever Peat. We certainly need a top draw centre combo (IMO we probably need two) if we want to be serious about 2015. We don't have that yet and time is running out sharpish. I like the idea of Devoto as a bolter but he would need to have a real peach of a season at Bath, and there are question marks over where he's going to play I guess as Eastmond, Henson and maybe Burgess are all options at 12. Not impossible though.

I'll be interested to see where Webber is in the pecking order once Youngs is back. IMO he should always have been above Youngs once his throwing went haywire again but who knows where he will be now. Ditto for our props, especially Wilson v Cole.

Our pack is looking in great nick, I have quibbles regarding Johnsons continued presence, Henry Thomas, Brookes over Sinckler and maybe the fact that Wood seems undroppable but they're all fairly minor. Rowntree has done some great work over the last few years and we're at the stage where our pack is starting to become a real fear factor. I think South Africa are probably the only team int he world with 1-8 strength better than ours (when everyone is fit). I'd like to see Kvesic and Haskell given more game time in the Autumn, and maybe see Attwood start. But it is all fine tuning really. My only real issue is Dave Ward not getting any meaningful time in a shirt.

Obviously the same can't be said for the backs and I think Farrel Snr and Catt have to take the main blame for this. I've long suspected that Lancaster is less inclined to stamp his authority on the backs selection (maybe as an ex-back row he feels better equipped to judge the forwards) and is happy to get Farrell run the show out wide instead. What is clear to me is that our attack is highly dependent on individuals playing really well rather than being a collective effort and that our back line defense has actually regressed this year. I hope that doesn't see Barritt return(much as I like him, he will not help us score tries). For me the selection of backs, both in the starting XV and on the bench, is very confusing and there doesn't seem to be a clear goal in terms of desired style of play.

Regarding Cips, if he plays a bit more at 15 this season maybe he could go in Goodes place. I can see either of Farrel, Ford or Burns being dropped and we wont take four specialist fly-halves to the World Cup.

I think Cipriani might have done enough to jump Burns, we shall see.

on the backs i think there are a couple of issues - one is the lateral running and the other is the seeming need to overcomplicate everything - just need simple execution, draw and pass. We're not australia so when we generate quick ball all we need to do is stay deep and pass into space, we don't need to run masked passes and all that - once in a while yeah, but we looked best when we were doing simple next man out passing then someone hit the space.

Core handling skills under pressure and decision making really need to be worked on a lot.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

It's a shame that Devoto and Eastmond are both at Bath. Devoto, for me, looks the real deal and if he gets game time and maintains last seasons form he could well be our answer at 12....but then at the same time him playing at 12 limits time for Eastmond, who equally could be our 12 going forwards.

I'd be surprised if Cipriani has leap frogged Burns - Burns was obviously above Danny in the pecking order and I get the impression it takes a lot to move up the ladder in Lancaster's eyes. I think going into the 6N we'll have Farrell, Ford and Burns, with Cipriani and Slade in the Saxons.


Brookes was one of the bigger (ho ho ho) positives of the tour - looks a far better option at tighthead than Henry, was very very surprised at how well he did. Between him and Sinkler, and Cole coming back soon, Mullan playing well and Corbs coming back, and Webber really laying down a marker, our front row depth is looking very healthy - and all of them under 30 as well.



There's less than no chance of Cipriani playing any 15 at Sale - our two backup 10s (Ford Sr and Macleod) both have a lot more experience at 15, and we've just signed McLean aswell.

 

[ratsapprentice]

It will be very interesting what happens at Bath this season in regards to England.

Thomas/Wilson
Ford
Eastmond/Devoto/?Burgess?
Watson on the wing or at FB?

Genuinely no idea what's going to happen - you would think that Kyle/Devoto would simply rotate, but I don't get the impression Ford is very big on rotation.
Anyone that says they know where/how Burgess, Kyle and Devoto are going to play are talking out there arse.

 

[Peat]

If I were England coach, I would be strongly considering whether Burns and indeed Ford should be ahead of Cipriani. Cipriani looked better than Burns, and of course obviously better than the man who was never there at all. He has more experience than either, is less likely to make the mistakes that come from coping with the pressure as well as the intensity and pace of the game itself.

Now, granted, Burns had the harder task, and Ford no chance to shine at all, but... form pending, Cips would be my man for the next bite of the cherry. For me, his greater experience is a big edge. If we are serious about winning this World Cup, then the more experience the better. I've no issue with Burns or Ford getting chances, but it wouldn't be my choice. But then its not my choice, and it doesn't smell like something Lancaster would do.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Anyone that says they know where/how Burgess, Kyle and Devoto are going to play are talking out there arse.

well since it is for bath I would guess, they would play fancy rugby producing show some nice touches and score some nice tries early on, but then at the end of the season will fade away in disappointment.

 

[ratsapprentice]

I wouldn't be surprised to see Ford's England career put on the shelf until 2016 now.
He needed experience and Lancaster decided that he was going to get it on this tour - not in the 6N.
Most of us thought that was an error at the time, at it's not exactly been weakened with hindsight.

He doesn't have enough time to get the requisite experience, I don't think.

 

[goodNumber10]

I wouldn't be surprised to see Ford's England career put on the shelf until 2016 now.
He needed experience and Lancaster decided that he was going to get it on this tour - not in the 6N.
Most of us thought that was an error at the time, at it's not exactly been weakened with hindsight.

He doesn't have enough time to get the requisite experience, I don't think.

I was thinking the exact same thing yesterday

 

[Tmartin995]

I reckon that Cipriani should be the man to be on the bench for England come WC time. He's the kind of guy that you could bring on with 20 mins to go when 10 points down and chase the game to get back into it. Not sure that Burns or Ford could do that job as well as Cips. The bench should be used to change the game with impact subs, not maintain the status quo.
Lancaster seems to think that way in the forwards ala Attwood, Morgan, Webber, Mako etc who come on and up the intensity, he just doesn't seem to pick that way in the backline...

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Basically Last week our backline was poor at making one on one tackles, this week are backline we had poor positional play.

I feel that if this NZ team played last weekend that the score difference would have been greater.

either way it is worrying that our backline D has been found wanting in different areas two weeks in a row.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

After this series I still don't really know what the best backline is.

10 - is genuinely up for grabs, Farrell has proven to be very 1 dimensional and others such as cipriani and burns have shown that running game that Lancaster might need come the World Cup.

12 - 12trees has still not nailed down this spot. He was coming back from injury but hasn't shown that consistency for me really. Eastmond is still an enigma, was it his defensive problems or the teams? Who knows?

Burrell just doesn't have enough strings to his bow yet for me for a top 12

I don't know if England will look at other options this close to the World Cup.

13 - tuilagi is the man but he has isn't actually that great defensively or anything other than just smashing it up the middle. Burrell didn't work at 13 and knowing that Lancaster rates tuilagi highly I guess we will stick with him but I just think he isn't really that great most of the time, ovation ally moments of brilliance don't make up for the test of his performances.

Wings - well we have learned nothing, yarde got a good run but no idea who will partner him. I hope Ashton won't after another shocking performance. Maybe we will see nowell overtake May when he is back or maybe Watson coming through.

15 - brown looked tired and slow. He should keep the shirt and have a good pre season, foden will push him and Goode will continue to be **** but still stay in the squad.

So in total, still no idea about our centre pairing or wings!

 

[Bada-Bing!]

These Autumn internationals I would like SL to start the 15 or as close to it as possible that he wants to start in the World Cup. It's time to stop the major experimentation and go with the combos he thinks will work in less than a years time. The 23, I would like to see start on 8 November v the ABs, injury permitting:

1. Corbisiero
2. Hartley
3. Wilson (I don't think Cole will be match fit in time)
4. Launchbury
5. Lawes
6. Wood
7. Robshaw (captain)
8. Billy Vunipola

9. Care
10. Farrell
11. Yarde
12. Twelvetrees
13. Tuilagi
14. Wade
15. Brown

16. Webber
17. Marler
18. Brookes
19. Parling
20. Morgan
21. Youngs
22. Burns
23. Foden

 

[Peat]

You pick Manu for what he can do, not what he can't. Given any sort of decent ball he will make line breaks and, if people are following him, he'll make try scoring chances. It's almost certain, even against the best teams and that is incredibly valuable. No he won't make a second kicking option, or stand people up with his footwork, or put wingers into tons of space with flat long passes, not as a rule, but we don't need him to. It'd be nice, but his power carrying, if used wisely, is more than sufficient. It'd be really great if he developed that side of his game more but even if he doesn't he's a great player.

I still don't get the comments about defensive frailty. Not to say he's amazing, but I don't recall anyone picking it out as a weakness prior to one half of suicidal rugby. Being immensely strong often allows him to overcome minor positioning faults. Eh. Whatever.

It would be nice to have options, but having recently seen the difference between him in the centre and him not in the centre, I'd want something pretty special to displace him.

 

[goodNumber10]

You pick Manu for what he can do, not what he can't. Given any sort of decent ball he will make line breaks and, if people are following him, he'll make try scoring chances. It's almost certain, even against the best teams and that is incredibly valuable. No he won't make a second kicking option, or stand people up with his footwork, or put wingers into tons of space with flat long passes, not as a rule, but we don't need him to. It'd be nice, but his power carrying, if used wisely, is more than sufficient. It'd be really great if he developed that side of his game more but even if he doesn't he's a great player.

I still don't get the comments about defensive frailty. Not to say he's amazing, but I don't recall anyone picking it out as a weakness prior to one half of suicidal rugby. Being immensely strong often allows him to overcome minor positioning faults. Eh. Whatever.

It would be nice to have options, but having recently seen the difference between him in the centre and him not in the centre, I'd want something pretty special to displace him.

His defence is no worse than anyone else in that position - Burrell is not an amazing defender either - they are both competent but not good. If that makes sense.

If you've got a strong defender, or a good midfield marshaller then he's fine - he didn't have that in test one and three so on saturday he looked a little at sea. I don't think he's to blame, in the same way i don't thin Ashton is. I just think the AB's new Eastmond would not track the wrapping runner and Manu didn't have the nous to step in and smasht he guy on the wrap the second time they did it.

Like you said though, he causes more problems for them than he does for us....he's probably nailed down the starting 13 shirt on this tour.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Right. So.

I think Stuart Lancaster made some of his worst selection calls this tour and this forums verdict doesn't appear very critical of him.

Not enough has been made of Freddie Burns' selection. I will admit he played fairly well in the first test. But we've only talked about what he did do, rather than what he didn't do. It was apparent from the first moment that Danny Cipriani came on in the first test that he would do the basics as well as Freddie, and also break the line and trouble defences in a way Burns hasn't for some time.

Nothing adds up here and everything leads me to believe that Lancaster and the others only have firm belief in Farrell. If Lancaster believes in Burns as much as his first test selection implies he does, then why go to lengths to keep him off the field for the second test.

Cipriani showed enough in the Crusaders game to merit selection for the final test. He followed this up in the third test off the time bench by creating space for others. Stretching the defence and switching back inside to Tuilagi who almost burst through was an example of something no other 10 has adequately done for this.

Regarding Burns: you can't play yourself back into immediate good form by one decent game against the rusty all Black's side. In the third test he was, to my mind, poor again. He made key mistakes which killed momentum and handed field position, such as the very first kick off and some I'll judged field kicking. Add to this that he wasn't particularly creative and whilst defensively the issues were more systemic than individual, he still floundered on a fee tackles.

Part of a coaches job as selector is to judge when a player is in form and to make the most of it through selection. However, Lancaster wasted the good form of Ford, of Wade, and now of Cipriani because that was the ideal chance to see what the latter could do in current good form. A few people have said they think Cipriani may have done enough to overtake Burns. If that proves correct it will serve as another piece of evidence that Lancaster got it wrong in new Zealand.

Next: the continued selection of Ashton. The latter showed some belief and real commitment in the final test but he wasn't the right choice. Ashton has had more chances than guys like May and Sharples and done more to deserve dropping. That he made an appearance on the bench is proof of an irrational perseverance with Ashton since he's not the right kind of player for the no. 23 shirt. Ashton was put in some tough situations but he also fell off some routine tackles as usual. His selection for me Indicates a half hearted / confused approach to experimentation. Why try things like shoving tuilagi on the wing, whilst reverting to Ashton instead of rewarding the form showed by Anthony Watson?

Haskell and Eastmond: Haskell had been the form England back rower. He was part of our best effort at winning a game in the first test and made an ungodly number of tackles from memory. To my mind, Tom Wood isn't a player of the sort of calibre that he demands Instant reselection. Haskell should have played the second test. Dropping him outright was a mistake and sent the wrong message.

Same with Eastmond. Play him second test unless you believe twelvetrees is such a step up that he demands selection (he's not, and doesnt). The third test Is the time for big changes - that's when you bring back your other guys if your in the hunt for a series consolation.

Re Ben Youngs: I don't really care if he can split defences open, if he still can't sling the ball out with alacrity like Aaron Smith does then I don't want to know.

 

[goodNumber10]

Right. So.

I think Stuart Lancaster made some of his worst selection calls this tour and this forums verdict doesn't appear very critical of him.

agreed.

Not enough has been made of Freddie Burns' selection. I will admit he played fairly well in the first test. But we've only talked about what he did do, rather than what he didn't do. It was apparent from the first moment that Danny Cipriani came on in the first test that he would do the basics as well as Freddie, and also break the line and trouble defences in a way Burns hasn't for some time.
Nothing adds up here and everything leads me to believe that Lancaster and the others only have firm belief in Farrell. If Lancaster believes in Burns as much as his first test selection implies he does, then why go to lengths to keep him off the field for the second test.

Cipriani showed enough in the Crusaders game to merit selection for the final test. He followed this up in the third test off the time bench by creating space for others. Stretching the defence and switching back inside to Tuilagi who almost burst through was an example of something no other 10 has adequately done for this.

Regarding Burns: you can't play yourself back into immediate good form by one decent game against the rusty all Black's side. In the third test he was, to my mind, poor again. He made key mistakes which killed momentum and handed field position, such as the very first kick off and some I'll judged field kicking. Add to this that he wasn't particularly creative and whilst defensively the issues were more systemic than individual, he still floundered on a fee tackles.

Part of a coaches job as selector is to judge when a player is in form and to make the most of it through selection. However, Lancaster wasted the good form of Ford, of Wade, and now of Cipriani because that was the ideal chance to see what the latter could do in current good form. A few people have said they think Cipriani may have done enough to overtake Burns. If that proves correct it will serve as another piece of evidence that Lancaster got it wrong in new Zealand.

I said it on Saturday and i'll say it again, it's almost impossible for a 10 to play off the platform Burns was getting on Saturday - Youngs did him no favours at all, he should have been boxing it, and the outside backs should have been chasing it - neither of which happened. To blame one man for what is clearly a collective failing to execute a game plan is a bit unfair.

This is why Cruden suddenly looked on fire, he was finally coming onto the ball, it is also why Cruden was persisted with instead of Barritt (who struggled when the England pack got some parity)

Buns ran the phase play well, he picked the right runners and took the right decisions with the boot - some poor execution yes, but nothing was going right for England, so I think it's pretty unreasonable to blame Burns for the third test. He was a lot of peoples MOTM in the first test, and yes Cipriani did look good, against a fading defence that had just run 60-70 minutes, and behind a pack that was getting great go forward ball but how do you think he would have done in that first 40 minutes on Saturday with static ball and no options?

Yeah, Burns made a mistake off the kick off but we recovered from that. In defence he took Nonu down, or made the hit every time as far as i can tell, and in the Transition defence stages he was making hits as the AB's forwards came around the corner. So i don't think it's fair to say eh was falling off the tackles as though it's somehow his fault New Zealand scored three trys off 1st phase strike moves.

Haskell and Eastmond: Haskell had been the form England back rower. He was part of our best effort at winning a game in the first test and made an ungodly number of tackles from memory. To my mind, Tom Wood isn't a player of the sort of calibre that he demands Instant reselection. Haskell should have played the second test. Dropping him outright was a mistake and sent the wrong message.

Same with Eastmond. Play him second test unless you believe twelvetrees is such a step up that he demands selection (he's not, and doesnt). The third test Is the time for big changes - that's when you bring back your other guys if your in the hunt for a series consolation.

Re Ben Youngs: I don't really care if he can split defences open, if he still can't sling the ball out with alacrity like Aaron Smith does then I don't want to know.

Agree with you about Haskell and Eastmond, think they should have played the second test.