[2014 Mid-Year Tests] England

[Basco]

Why did England play Tuilagi on the wing? Was it to counter Savea or was it because they thought Tuilagi might be a permanent solution for the wing?

 

[ratsapprentice]

Niether - they've wanted to see him there for a while... to see if he is capable of covering the position.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>60 - The number of turnovers conceded by England in the three-match Test series against New Zealand. Unaffordable.</p>&mdash; OptaJonny (@OptaJonny) <a href="https://twitter.com/OptaJonny/statuses/481072986892402690">June 23, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[j'nuh]

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:

It was this kind of thinking that held us back last WC cycle. Lesser players being kept ahead of better players simply for the sake of consistency. Fittingly, it was the one player that forced themselves into the squad in the run-up to the WC - Tuilagi - that performed best for us.

Keep a backbone to the team, e.g. you can pencil in now at least half of the matchday squad, but I don't think it is ever the time to stop experimenting, even if it's just one or two players here and there.

The All Blacks experimented well into the WC last time:

vs. Tonga 11. Toeava 14. Kahui 15. Dagg
vs. Japan 11. Kahui 14. Jane 15. Toeava
vs. France (pool) 11. Kahui 14. Jane 15. Dagg
vs. Canada 11. Guildford 14. Dagg 15. Muliana
vs. Argentina (1/4) 11. SBW 14. Jane 15. Muliana
vs. Australia (1/2) 11. Kahui 14. Jane 15. Dagg
vs. France (final) 11. Kahui 14. Jane 15. Dagg

5 different back threes in 7 games, settling on the "final back three" in the semi. Maybe its not ideal to leave it so late, but it also shows that the obsession with building partnerships can be, to a degree, overstated. I'd be more than happy to see players come into the team within the next year.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

It was this kind of thinking that held us back last WC cycle. Lesser players being kept ahead of better players simply for the sake of consistency. Fittingly, it was the one player that forced themselves into the squad in the run-up to the WC - Tuilagi - that performed best for us.

Keep a backbone to the team, e.g. you can pencil in now at least half of the matchday squad, but I don't think it is ever the time to stop experimenting, even if it's just one or two players here and there.

The All Blacks experimented well into the WC last time:

vs. Tonga 11. Toeava 14. Kahui 15. Dagg
vs. Japan 11. Kahui 14. Jane 15. Toeava
vs. France (pool) 11. Kahui 14. Jane 15. Dagg
vs. Canada 11. Guildford 14. Dagg 15. Muliana
vs. Argentina (1/4) 11. SBW 14. Jane 15. Muliana
vs. Australia (1/2) 11. Kahui 14. Jane 15. Dagg
vs. France (final) 11. Kahui 14. Jane 15. Dagg

5 different back threes in 7 games, settling on the "final back three" in the semi. Maybe its not ideal to leave it so late, but it also shows that the obsession with building partnerships can be, to a degree, overstated. I'd be more than happy to see players come into the team within the next year.

England are not the ABs and changing the back 3 is one thing, England don't even know who their first choice centre partnership is, one year out from the WC. You can look at the only England team to win the WC, which was built on a consistency of selection in the year before the WC. Woodward pretty much knew his starting 15 one year out from 2003 and played them to get the belief that they could be beat the best; Lancaster doesn't seem to, which is worrying.

These November internationals are a trial run of what England may face in one year's time should they qualify from Pool A. They need the 23 as close to possible to the starting World Cup XV to play and beat NZ, SA, Somoa and Australia back to back, so that they can make Twickenham a fortress and build the belief that when those players face those same players in a year's time they have that psychological belief that they can beat their opposite number, when it matters. This NZ tour has been a set back in that respect, so it's vital to get that psychological edge back.

I'm all for 1 or 2 bolters, like Anthony Watson, making that 14 shirt his own, but I'm one for bedding those combinations now and not going for knee jerk reactions of changing vital combinations every game, especially at centre. If Lancaster envisages 36 to be his 12 in 15 months time, then he should stick with him and try and ride through his consistency issues. If not, then go with Burrell and stick with him.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

I see the pack as settled but the backs are still wide open. The starting backs so far are:

9 - care
10 - Farrell
11 - yarde
12
13 - tuilagi
14
15 - brown

That's who I see as nailed on. This leaves two open places which could be anyone really.
I agree that the time for experimenting is done though. If we have 1 injury then we suddenly have 3 shirts not nailed on!

No idea what Lancaster is thinking with those shirts though.

12 - Burrell, 12trees, eastmond or a bolter? Devoto? Sam Hill? Allan?

14 - so many choices, Ashton, May, wade, Watson,foden, daily, nowell

We will have to wait and see. 12 is the shirt I'm most worried about.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

I think this panic around the 12 position is uncalled for: Twelvetrees has been growing into the shirt through the course of the six nations, whilst Eastmond had a very strong 1st test. One poor performance from each later, and we're panicking.

Selection made it hard for anybody to build a claim over the series. This plus some systemic defensive issues which the coaches should / will take some blame for.
But we still have some very good options, we just need to make them work.

 

[McTallshort]

I think this panic around the 12 position is uncalled for: Twelvetrees has been growing into the shirt through the course of the six nations, whilst Eastmond had a very strong 1st test. One poor performance from each later, and we're panicking.

Selection made it hard for anybody to build a claim over the series. This plus some systemic defensive issues which the coaches should / will take some blame for.
But we still have some very good options, we just need to make them work.

I would agree with that 36 didnt have a good tour but had a great 6N suprised no one has mentioned Barrett who I feel is very underated

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Agree Tallshort - he becomes an especially good option when you add a creative 10 into the equation - the England backline against the Crusaders functioned really well with that axis, I thought.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

I don't think it's a panic of 12teees and eastmonds performance, it's more the fact we need a settled combo sooner rather than later.

On the barritt subject, I think people are forgetting, he has has no pace, no passing game, no crash ball game and no vision.

He is a defensive rock but has constantly shown nothing at international level. Anyone could have played well off of cipriani in the crusaders game.....even mike tindall!

 

[McTallshort]

I don't think it's a panic of 12teees and eastmonds performance, it's more the fact we need a settled combo sooner rather than later.

On the barritt subject, I think people are forgetting, he has has no pace, no passing game, no crash ball game and no vision.

He is a defensive rock but has constantly shown nothing at international level. Anyone could have played well off of cipriani in the crusaders game.....even mike tindall!

You kind of wonder how he ever made a career as a pro rugby player

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

You kind of wonder how he ever made a career as a pro rugby player

I think he is fine as a premiership 12 in a well oiled machine. It's international level at which he is off pace.

He just doesn't have the top end pace or hands or anything really. Great defensive organiser though but you need more than that at the top level even with a cipriani type player.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

I don't think it's a panic of 12teees and eastmonds performance, it's more the fact we need a settled combo sooner rather than later.

On the barritt subject, I think people are forgetting, he has has no pace, no passing game, no crash ball game and no vision.

He is a defensive rock but has constantly shown nothing at international level. Anyone could have played well off of cipriani in the crusaders game.....even mike tindall!

Think you shot yourself in the foot with this comment because surely being a defensive rock combined with being able to play off cipriani - even in anybody could have - is all we need for a successfull recipe. If we can have a fluid backline incorporating a defensive master, surely thats all we need?

In any case, Twelvetrees and others might show more attacking prowess IN THEORY, but in reality they've been no more able to take chances and score tries than Barritt has been.

 

[Peat]

Twelvetrees isn't in that team to score tries, he's there to create them, and lift the burden of being creatively dodgy off of Farrell. Who's going to start, this we all know. I'd suggest a look in the memory banks would remind everyone that Twelvetrees has definitely one hundred per cent shown more attacking prowess than Barritt in an England shirt. Cos he can step. And pass. And run better lines.

If Lancaster did play Burns or Cips again, then maybe Barritt would be an option... but that's not happening any time soon.

 

[Patchey]

Twelvetrees isn't in that team to score tries, he's there to create them, and lift the burden of being creatively dodgy off of Farrell. Who's going to start, this we all know. I'd suggest a look in the memory banks would remind everyone that Twelvetrees has definitely one hundred per cent shown more attacking prowess than Barritt in an England shirt. Cos he can step. And pass. And run better lines.

If Lancaster did play Burns or Cips again, then maybe Barritt would be an option... but that's not happening any time soon.

Exactly. 10-12 is, more than any other two positions on the pitch, a pairing where players are almost always picked to compliment each other. We won the World Cup with a fly-half who was hardly exciting but who had Will Greenwood outside him. Will Greenwood being the most creative centre ever to play for England.

So the same, in theory, applied to Farrell being paired with Twelvetrees. Eastmond is the other creative centre option. I agree with Peat that Barritt could work in tandem with Burns or Cips. But that is unlikely to happen.

 

[TheSaffycen]

I'd suggest a look in the memory banks would remind everyone that Twelvetrees has definitely one hundred per cent shown more attacking prowess than Barritt in an England shirt. Cos he can step. And pass. And run better lines.

I'd suggest looking at what 36 has actually done for England. He played well against the 2nd string Argentina and Scotland, everyone else he seems very average against. I believe that Eastmond will be the 12 for the world cup but Barritt will still be there. He is great at keeping Tuilagi in the defensive line and he will help protect any fly half we pick. If Barritt played in the 3rd test no way in hell would've we been ripped apart like that. A horses for courses situation should happen.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

I'd suggest looking at what 36 has actually done for England. He played well against the 2nd string Argentina and Scotland, everyone else he seems very average against. I believe that Eastmond will be the 12 for the world cup but Barritt will still be there. He is great at keeping Tuilagi in the defensive line and he will help protect any fly half we pick. If Barritt played in the 3rd test no way in hell would've we been ripped apart like that. A horses for courses situation should happen.

Really? Lancaster has always banged on about a player's defence and his was exploited ruthlessly on Saturday. Although it is unfair to totally blame him for that 1st half disarray v NZ, to sub him at halftime was very telling. I'm not sure we will see him at 12 for England again.

 

[TheSaffycen]

Sorry I meant I would have him as 12. I think Lancaster has decided on 36/ Barritt maybe Burrell at 12.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Agree with Blindside. Lancaster seemed reluctant to use Eastmond before the tour, and I don't think this tour will have improved his stock in Lancaster's eyes.
There's a chance he might get game time vs Samoa, but he'd then have to rreeaallyy impress in that game to be in with a chance.
I'd be amazed if he was our 12 for the RWC. It's almost certain, imo, to be 36, with the possibility of Burrell or Barritt.

 

[goodNumber10]

Agree with Blindside. Lancaster seemed reluctant to use Eastmond before the tour, and I don't think this tour will have improved his stock in Lancaster's eyes.
There's a chance he might get game time vs Samoa, but he'd then have to rreeaallyy impress in that game to be in with a chance.
I'd be amazed if he was our 12 for the RWC. It's almost certain, imo, to be 36, with the possibility of Burrell or Barritt.

I don't think Eastmond will go to the world cup.

I think it will be 36 & Barritt. Then 13's will be Tuilagi & Burrell and they will cover 12, with Farrell if needs be (that will be emergency cover only though).

They might take a 13/winger but basically injury permitting Eastmond has had his chance. He'll be in the Saxons squad come August.

 

[Aristodemus]

Bit of a finger in the air job saying who will and won't be in the WC squad. Form and fitness can change things a huge amount in 18 months.