2014 QBE Internationals [EOYT] England

[goodNumber10]

agreed, he needs to be in the extended squad at the very least.

That would be a strange move away from what Lancaster has been looking to achieve. By having Farrell, Burrell, Tuilagi you have pretty much no creativity in the team, and no ball for the wingers. We would have an abundance of power and pace but would it really work against the likes of the Boks and All Blacks ? O'Driscoll said that he always feared playing England when they had to playmakers over the big guys.

i'm not sure he really is worried about a ball playing 12, he's deffo said he'd like one, but i think they'll settle for two complete centres over one exceptional attacker - and i think we've seen that with Barritt & 36.

i think they will be more confident they can upskill LB and MT to the level they want in attack, and lets face facts it's what we saw against the AB's tail end of third test.

I also don't think LB is as bad a passer as people make out - he's not Eastmond, but he's not a Mike Tindall.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

The main thing is Lancaster specifically asked to pick the squad later so he could do it based on form. I think it's pretty fair to say that the Bath backs are very close to the top if not at the top of their game and even of the premiership. Considering Tuilagi and Farrell have both been injured and 12trees hasn't been anything special so far, it would be make absolutely no sense to then have them all whizzed back into the starting XV. Even if they aren't going to lose their place, we should not rush them back from injury.

 

[Geordie]

Twelvetrees is so frustrating...6'3, a very good passer, farily fast runner, a thunderous boot...he looks made for the 12 spot, yet he just doesnt look like he can put it all together. We've yet to see a performance where spectators walking away saying ...."WOW, that was some performance"

In fact i would say at club level Eastmond has put in better performances than Twelvetrees to date.

Burrell...a big lump of a guy, not as defensivuely solid as Barritt (who is) but moreso than Eastmond. What i liked about Burrell was the angles he ran in the 6n. It was Ashton esque at times and led to his tries.

Also having him in there means we can afford to have Cipriani or Ford or Burns in there who are more creative over Farrells defensive ability...

 

[Peat]

Wales game?

I don't want to get into another long argument over Twelvetrees, but he has those games. The issue is the consistency - which also applies to a lot of his technical and mental skills.

Right now, there's only four English players - there probably should be more but stuff - who I'd feel happy about them striking up a defensive partnership with Tuilagi in terms of stopping him from doing stupid things and making their tackles. Barritt, Twelvetrees, Allen and Joseph. Andy Farrell has his work cut out imo.

 

[TheSaffycen]

agreed, he needs to be in the extended squad at the very least.



i'm not sure he really is worried about a ball playing 12, he's deffo said he'd like one, but i think they'll settle for two complete centres over one exceptional attacker - and i think we've seen that with Barritt & 36.

i think they will be more confident they can upskill LB and MT to the level they want in attack, and lets face facts it's what we saw against the AB's tail end of third test.

I also don't think LB is as bad a passer as people make out - he's not Eastmond, but he's not a Mike Tindall.

Burrell isn't an awful passer at all, and when close to the line I think his passing is quite excellent actually. I remember in both the Glos and Bath games that he gave the pass at the right time and thinking that's something that we always lack in the England team. But lets say Ford gets tied down in a ruck and the ball needs to go wide i'm not sure if I would want Burrell there honestly, but then twelvetree's hasn't always done the 2nd playmaker job that well at times so Eastmond would be the way to go.

 

[Geordie]

But then you hear the "Eastmonds to small....he'll get nailed defensively" arguement.

Personally i'd give him ago.

 

[ratsapprentice]

 

[TheSaffycen]

But then you hear the "Eastmonds to small....he'll get nailed defensively" arguement.

Personally i'd give him ago.

It's all about weighing up the positives against the negatives. Against New Zealand I bet that they would be more nervous playing against a fast, great passing quick stepping 12 than against Burrell who will run straight at Nonu all day. We probably wont win but if we play an expansive quick flowing game and we have them on the rocks then I would rather that then Burrell and Tuilagi just carrying into traffic and us getting 18 points from the boot.

 

[Peat]

I am currently more worried about Eastmond's defensive positioning, option taking and organisation than I am about his tackling. Not to say I don't have a few concerns about his ability to stop incredibly powerful men on the gainline frequently, but, in his international tests to date he's done decently enough about this. He has had no international nightmares as a tackler. But he has as a defender.

Unfortunately the same is true of Tuilagi. Tuilagi has looked a bit lost without Allen at Leicester this season.

They are a fantastic attacking combo. If Andy Farrell can sort out the defensive issues, we'd be cooking with gas. But I'll believe it when I see it. And if he can't, it's one or the other.

 

[goodNumber10]

It's all about weighing up the positives against the negatives. Against New Zealand I bet that they would be more nervous playing against a fast, great passing quick stepping 12 than against Burrell who will run straight at Nonu all day. We probably wont win but if we play an expansive quick flowing game and we have them on the rocks then I would rather that then Burrell and Tuilagi just carrying into traffic and us getting 18 points from the boot.

I think open and wide is generally the wrong way to go against New Zealand, i think you need to control the game and put yourself in the right positions. Dominate their forwards and make them attack from deep and to play that game you HAVE to be defensivley solid.

You have to guarantee yourself that you will be able to score 20-25 points if you don't you're not going to be anywhere near in the game and i don't think anyone is capable of scoring 4 trys - or at least can count on it, so 18 points from the boot is the minimum requirement imho.

On the Ford getting caught in a ruck i don't have a problem with that, we lose our 9 we either regroup till he's back in the game or someone steps in, those ship it calls need to come from wide anyway.

 

[TheSaffycen]

Who would you have in the backline ? It's quite hard to really say yes that's the guy to put my hat on at 12. Who is Bath's defensive organiser ? Either way out of Barritt, Burrell, Twelvetrees, Eastmond and Hill who has the all round game.

I think open and wide is generally the wrong way to go against New Zealand, i think you need to control the game and put yourself in the right positions. Dominate their forwards and make them attack from deep and to play that game you HAVE to be defensivley solid.

You have to guarantee yourself that you will be able to score 20-25 points if you don't you're not going to be anywhere near in the game and i don't think anyone is capable of scoring 4 trys - or at least can count on it, so 18 points from the boot is the minimum requirement imho.

On the Ford getting caught in a ruck i don't have a problem with that, we lose our 9 we either regroup till he's back in the game or someone steps in, those ship it calls need to come from wide anyway.

But when does playing safe rugby ever get us the results against them (without the virus) ? The closest we have come to beating them was with Burns and Eastmond and playing great rugby, at the end of the day if we select Barritt and Burrell we might be solid enough. If we want to stay safe then
9.Care 10.Farrell 11.Nowell 12.Barritt 13.Burrell 14.Rokoduguni 15.Brown

 

[Peat]

I don't know who I would have in the backline. The options are so flawed and/or unproven that I've stopped trying to have an intelligent opinion. I simply don't have enough knowledge. I don't envy Lancaster trying to sort that out.

If you were to force me to have an opinion, it would be "Whichever young 12 Farrell thinks can lead the defence and a fit Tuilagi" - with my money on Farrell saying "an in form Twelvetrees". But what if Tuilagi's not ready? I'd prefer Joseph on form to Burrell, but that possibly means changing the 12. What if I'm sat there uhm'ing and aah'ing and Catt comes in and says he reckons he can fit Barritt into an attacking system? There are so many important questions that we don't have answers to and I'm not sure the coaches do either.

It's reached the point where I'm so sceptical about our backline options that I'm starting to be quite sceptical about people having definite opinions on them.

Believe Joseph is Bath's defensive organiser, but might be wrong. Tbh, with a creative 10, I'd be half-tempted to try Tuilagi-Joseph again... but then I'd also consider Eastmond-Barritt... clearly I'm going mad.

I think - I guess - that the 12 Farrell and Catt will be most able to agree on, if Twelvetrees doesn't start producing, will be Henry Slade. And he's not even playing there! But he does have the attributes and crucially, is clearly a very clever rugby player. I think Farrell might trust him to pick up running and being part of an international defence system faster than his contenders. But do Farrell and Catt have equal input? Maybe Hill and Slade? Maaann... I don't know.

I just don't know.

 

[TheSaffycen]

You got it so, so wrong. From all the evidence we have it's clearly Sam Burgess at 12. Obviously.

 

[Geordie]

The backline really is a headache. Thats for sure.

Personally i think theres three potential ways to go...assuming everyone is 100% fit and on top form.

10 Farrel
12 Eastmond
13 Tuilagi

10 Cipriani / Ford / Burns
12 Barritt
13 Tuilagi / Burrell

10 Cipriani / Ford / Burns
12 Burrell
13 Tuilagi

Its just about balance...
Eastmonds defensive issues are covered by having Farrell and Manu around him.

Cipriani / Ford / Burns defensive issues are covered by having Barritt in there.

But then we have the benefits of Eastmonds skills or in the other combo a creative 10.

 

[Peat]

You got it so, so wrong. From all the evidence we have it's clearly Sam Burgess at 12. Obviously.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I don't see where this stuff about Eastmond being noticeably poor in defence comes from. Yes he's smaller but I haven't seen anyone steamroller over him or the 12 channel being particularly weak. The worst one was against the ABs and that wasn't entirely his fault as the whole team was misfiring. They got wide around Tuilagi far more regularly than past Eastmond. Ultimately winning teams don't pick on being solid defensively first and then look at what else they can give. A team full of players with solid defense will be hard to beat but the point is they WILL be beaten, repeatedly. For our playmaking positions our first question should be how good are they for the primary role of their position. The primary roles of 10 and 12 are not to defend but to get the attack moving. Likewise with wingers their primary role is not to defend. We should be selecting based on attacking ability first and then see if the defence is so poor that we need someone else or if it is good enough that they won't cause problems. That's the order we should look for. With forwards yes you can look at defensive ability first.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

To be fair, people have said his tackling isn't an issue it's his defence i.e. reading of the game/positioning.
I've not noticed it be noticeably bad, with the exception of that ABs game where the whole thing was a mess, though.


My first choice backline would be:
Care
Cipriani
May*
Eastmond
Joseph
Rokoduguni
Brown

Dickson
Farrell
Nowell

*I don't trust Yarde this season, and Nowell plays right wing, doesn't he? Nowell would be my first choice winger other than Roko, but May has started the season very well and I don't buy into how "useless" he is/was for England.

The only issue with that is lack of real gainline busters (well, bar Roko) to use if the fancy footwork/setplays aren't working. Though I'd back a Cipriani/Eastmond combo to unlock any defence.


I don't think this is what Lancaster will go for, however, I think it'll be:
Care, Farrell,
Yarde, 36, Tuilagi, Ashton
Brown

Youngs, Ford, Eastmond/Nowell/May

 

[goodNumber10]

I don't see where this stuff about Eastmond being noticeably poor in defence comes from. Yes he's smaller but I haven't seen anyone steamroller over him or the 12 channel being particularly weak. The worst one was against the ABs and that wasn't entirely his fault as the whole team was misfiring. They got wide around Tuilagi far more regularly than past Eastmond. Ultimately winning teams don't pick on being solid defensively first and then look at what else they can give. A team full of players with solid defense will be hard to beat but the point is they WILL be beaten, repeatedly. For our playmaking positions our first question should be how good are they for the primary role of their position. The primary roles of 10 and 12 are not to defend but to get the attack moving. Likewise with wingers their primary role is not to defend. We should be selecting based on attacking ability first and then see if the defence is so poor that we need someone else or if it is good enough that they won't cause problems. That's the order we should look for. With forwards yes you can look at defensive ability first.

The primary role of 10 & 12 in attack is to get the attack going, but equally in defence the primary role of the 12 is normally lead the defence up and call the drift - 10 is too close, 13 too far away.

Additionally winning teams absolutely DO base their win on defence, no point scoring 50 points if you ship 55. England 2003 everyone talks about Greenwood as an attacking Genlius but he was the defensive captain and someone who was originally dropped for being defensively weak. Larder took him and turned him into an excellent defender and that's where Englands whole iron defence shape came from.

This has been the case for every single World Cup winning side bar the 87 all blacks, the best defence wins games, it's not even really an arguing point.

New Zealand run a solid drift defence, their decision making in defence is excellent and that's why they win games because they can defend their lead.

Who would you have in the backline ? It's quite hard to really say yes that's the guy to put my hat on at 12. Who is Bath's defensive organiser ? Either way out of Barritt, Burrell, Twelvetrees, Eastmond and Hill who has the all round game.

Burrell.

I really really like Eastmond, and i want him to get a chance, but i think there is something about Burrell that will make him a good option at 12. He can pass, he can break tackles and he smashes like asteam train - he reminds me of Greenwood.

But when does playing safe rugby ever get us the results against them (without the virus) ? The closest we have come to beating them was with Burns and Eastmond and playing great rugby, at the end of the day if we select Barritt and Burrell we might be solid enough. If we want to stay safe then
9.Care 10.Farrell 11.Nowell 12.Barritt 13.Burrell 14.Rokoduguni 15.Brown

I think there is a difference between playing safe and being pragmatic, New Zealand kick the ball and create pressure it's one of the major factors in their game plan.

 

[TheSaffycen]

Yes they do have a solid kicking game, usually kicking more than the other team, but when they have the ball they have key decision makers in every position. Eastmond is our best decision maker we have in attack, and Barritt our best in defence, could we move Eastmond to 13 and Barritt at 12 ? In attack Eastmond can play the 12 role and in defence we have Barritt. Then the 10 can be anyone, probably Ford, and we have the solidarity that is needed. Would you have Slade at 12 so that we have another kicking option ? I personally think that we need players like Eastmond if we are to have very little ball as we need to score tries with only 2 or 3 chances, can we rely on any of the others to take the right option under pressure ?

 

[ratsapprentice]

Does Burrell really smash "like a steam train", though?

I think his size/power is really overplayed tbh, he's certainly not small, but in the context of "big centres" he's not that big or powerful.