2014 QBE Internationals [EOYT] England

[yaboyjj]

So I would assume Launchbury/Lawes will resume as Englands first choice lock pairing (unless someone has insider info that suggests otherwise)- yet despite them both being fantastic players, I've never rated either as particularly good ball carriers in the loose (someone may have cause to disagree with me here!).
Surely this means that the backrow now has a greater onus on it to provide realy good go forward in the carrying department?
In other words could we get away with a bigger backrow in the shape of - Robshaw/Vunipola/Ewers or Kvesic/Vunipola/Haskell, since the rest of the pack is so 'athletic'?
....Also can someone enlighten me on what exactly Tom wood brings to the current England pack- Everyone goes on about his work rate and him being the guy that does all the unseen dirty work at the breakdown, isn't this basically what Robshaw does?

 

[Peat]

Am I allowed be smug at my prophetic-esque acument for saying Eastmond-Barritt nearly two weeks ago?

So I would assume Launchbury/Lawes will resume as Englands first choice lock pairing (unless someone has insider info that suggests otherwise)- yet despite them both being fantastic players, I've never rated either as particularly good ball carriers in the loose (someone may have cause to disagree with me here!).
Surely this means that the backrow now has a greater onus on it to provide realy good go forward in the carrying department?
In other words could we get away with a bigger backrow in the shape of - Robshaw/Vunipola/Ewers or Kvesic/Vunipola/Haskell, since the rest of the pack is so 'athletic'?
....Also can someone enlighten me on what exactly Tom wood brings to the current England pack- Everyone goes on about his work rate and him being the guy that does all the unseen dirty work at the breakdown, isn't this basically what Robshaw does?

Welcome to the forum.

Depends how you define the loose. Most of the time they're having to truck it up into opposition forwards and I'd agree neither are great at that. I quite like them as midfield carriers, but it rarely happens for Launchbury and not so much for Lawes either.

But yes, that does put an onus on the back-row forwards and yes, you're among company in thinking that such an athletic locking combo should allow for a more unit-esque back row. We're probably not gonna get it though.

And I'd personally agree that Wood is Robshaw's twin, only slightly worse.

 

[ratsapprentice]

^ Yissur! Wood isn't as good a footballer as Robshaw, but probably has the edge in the viciousness department... there's a little more venom to his defense and clearouts.
Very similar players.

I think we're going to see Eastmond-Barritt - looks like they're greasing the tracks as we speak: http://www.englandrugby.com/news/fa...rce=Social&utm_medium=media&utm_campaign=2014

 

[yaboyjj]

^Thanks! I've been lurking around these boards for a couple of months and finally decided to make an account.

I realy rate Robshaw tbh, I think he's a pretty good link player between backs and forwards. The Wood failure at no.8 still plays on my mind (and so I may be being a little unfair) but looking to the future I think Ewers and Kvesic bring so much more to the table- especially in terms of carrying.

also RE centres/FH, I would like the look of Ford-Barrett-Slade or perhaps Farrel/Eastmond/Barrett (although I have preference for the former)
I think it would be a travesty if Farrell starts the first test though.

 

[Wendigo7]

Sky suggesting the 10, 12 13 is.....

10. Farrell
12. Eastmond
13. Barritt

That is possibly the worst looking backline I could think of with the options. Even with Farrell I would never have gone that way.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

So I would assume Launchbury/Lawes will resume as Englands first choice lock pairing (unless someone has insider info that suggests otherwise)- yet despite them both being fantastic players, I've never rated either as particularly good ball carriers in the loose (someone may have cause to disagree with me here!).
Surely this means that the backrow now has a greater onus on it to provide realy good go forward in the carrying department?
In other words could we get away with a bigger backrow in the shape of - Robshaw/Vunipola/Ewers or Kvesic/Vunipola/Haskell, since the rest of the pack is so 'athletic'?
....Also can someone enlighten me on what exactly Tom wood brings to the current England pack- Everyone goes on about his work rate and him being the guy that does all the unseen dirty work at the breakdown, isn't this basically what Robshaw does?

I assume you don't watch the saints much. Wood is a fantastic 6, tackles better than robshaw, better at clearing out in the ruck. Doesn't do the link work but then he isn't supposed to (at club lev anyway).

I think a lot of people don't see him make those amazing carries and assumes he doesn't add anything. Yes players like ewers are very good carries but what you loose is a lot round the park.

Wood is a players player. All the ex players rate him, that should tell you something.

 

[Peat]

I quite like the look of it.

Fazlet is better with a distributing 12. Eastmond's the best distributing 12 we currently have.

Eastmond has defensive issues. Barritt's the best defensive organiser we have.

Barritt keeps the defence organised and does the physical work and clean up to prevent Eastmond from getting swamped. Eastmond is the main creative spark and will force defences to react to him. Farrell does what Farrell does.

What don't you like about it?

 

[yaboyjj]

I quite like the look of it.

Fazlet is better with a distributing 12. Eastmond's the best distributing 12 we currently have.

Eastmond has defensive issues. Barritt's the best defensive organiser we have.

Barritt keeps the defence organised and does the physical work and clean up to prevent Eastmond from getting swamped. Eastmond is the main creative spark and will force defences to react to him. Farrell does what Farrell does.

What don't you like about it?

I think there is certainly a lot of logic in that selection.
Just out of interest, has Barrett played an international game with anyone other than Farrell inside him?

^also about Wood, he is a good player but the point was more about where he fitted into the current backrow, and whether a better ball carrier would be of more value.

 

[TheSaffycen]

He played 13 with Twelvtrees at 12, Farrell at 10. He played 13 with Farrell at 12, Hodgson at 10. He played with Cipriani at 10 v the Crusaders and had a good game.

 

[Wendigo7]

I quite like the look of it.

Fazlet is better with a distributing 12. Eastmond's the best distributing 12 we currently have.

Eastmond has defensive issues. Barritt's the best defensive organiser we have.

Barritt keeps the defence organised and does the physical work and clean up to prevent Eastmond from getting swamped. Eastmond is the main creative spark and will force defences to react to him. Farrell does what Farrell does.

What don't you like about it?

I don't mind it persay, it's just it heaps all the attacking intent on Eastmond. Get to Eastmond and you will stop England at source.

Farrell can't pass a banjo off his right and he won't draw the defence enough to keep them off of Eastmond. Eastmond likes playing at 12 in the midfield when the 10 has drawn a few defenders and then he can manipulate the space in front of him.

Very effective at it too.

 

[TheSaffycen]

I don't mind it persay, it's just it heaps all the attacking intent on Eastmond. Get to Eastmond and you will stop England at source.

Farrell can't pass a banjo off his right and he won't draw the defence enough to keep them off of Eastmond. Eastmond likes playing at 12 in the midfield when the 10 has drawn a few defenders and then he can manipulate the space in front of him.

Very effective at it too.

But the flipside of that is when the other team attacks we leak 30 points in one half.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Eastmond doesn't have defensive issues!!!!!!!

The defensive organisation between burns eastmond and tuilagi had problems. It was not all eastmonds fault!

Watch him the premiership and then tell me he has defensive problems!

 

[j'nuh]

If we go for Eastmond-Barritt, pick May too and let him roam into that 13 channel round the back off set piece moves. (See first Glos try vs. Brive in the "Challenge Cup" tab: http://www.epcrugby.com/matchdaytv)

Just think of that set piece move again, but good it could be with Eastmond executing the final pass and Rokoduguni as an option outside of May.

That is the good side of having an uninspiring centre at 13 - you don't really have to use them in attack that much, if you give your wingers the freedom to roam into that channel. England never allow it unfortunately. I guess they're too worried that a turnover would mean a winger out of position. I think it's a risk worth taking when you see how destructive May can be with that kind of ball.

 

[TheSaffycen]

Eastmond doesn't have defensive issues!!!!!!!

The defensive organisation between burns eastmond and tuilagi had problems. It was not all eastmonds fault!

Watch him the premiership and then tell me he has defensive problems!

He doesn't have issues. Never said he did. But when we played with a creative 10 that's what happened, we conceded 30 points.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

If we go for Eastmond-Barritt, pick May too and let him roam into that 13 channel round the back off set piece moves. (See first Glos try vs. Brive in the "Challenge Cup" tab: http://www.epcrugby.com/matchdaytv)

.

In theory it would work but when has May ever played for England like he has Glous?

 

[Tony Manx]

In theory it would work but when has May ever played for England like he has Glous?

Hear hear!!

 

[j'nuh]

In theory it would work but when has May ever played for England like he has Glous?

As I said above, England never allow it. May is given so much more freedom at Gloucester and he's a much better player for it.

The England set-up like wingers who glue themselves to their wings. (As I said above, I think it's because they want wingers to be in position in case of a turnover and they need to rush back.) There's barely any freedom. It takes the spark out of every single attack-minded winger that's played for England under Lancaster. (Hence why, three years into Lancaster's tenure, when most of the squad is settled, we still can't pick one winger ahead of the rest. Lancaster picks attack-minded players, shackles them, and wonders why they don't live up to their club form.)

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

How about a backline of:

9) Wigglesworth
10) Myler
11) Who cares (maybe May or Nowell)
12) Farrell
13) Barritt
14) Brown
15) Goode

That team is hnnngggg

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

In theory it would work but when has May ever played for England like he has Glous?

To be fair to May, when has he ever got the ball in a good position? He's always been facing a defence that is organised and outnumbering him, on the end of a ball that has been shovelled out wide because they have run out ideas elsewhere. He doesn't have the power to push through so the only option is to go around and try to create something from nothing, that's why we see so much lateral running from him. At glos he gets the ball in better circumstances.

 

[j'nuh]

How about a backline of:

9) Wigglesworth
10) Myler
11) Who cares (maybe May or Nowell)
12) Farrell
13) Barritt
14) Brown
15) Goode

That team is hnnngggg

I'm gonna one-up you and say that this real Ashton-era 2008 backline was worse:

9. Wigglesworth
10. Wilko
11. Vainikolo
12. Flood
13. Noon
14. Sackey
15. Balshaw

Doesn't matter, still beat France.