2014 QBE Internationals [EOYT] England

[Maverick1987]

I still think we should look at a backline of:

9. Cook
10. Ford
11. Yarde
12. Eastmond
13 .Tuilagi
14. Wade
15. Watson

in reality it wouldn't happen but I come from the old school of get the best attacking threats on the field and drum in defence into them. Ford will never lose his gifts and is the best 10 by a mile. Seeing Eastmond and wade attacking and having some attacking structure would be nice.

wonder what Farrell trains them to do.

Play this back line and we concede 4 tries a game minimum . No defensive organiser 1 big tackler that's it . Although we all like to see flash running rugby every World Cup in my memory has been won by the team that has the best defence . We can't go all gung ho because we lost to the ABs in the ******* rain by 3 points ....

I thought the centres went really well today . I'm unsure if the best thing to do is to bring Ford in for next week I thought Farrells kicking was dyer today especially under pressure ! Wonder how much Lancaster is regretting not having Cips now ?

I honestly believe had Cipriani been on the field today we would have won

 

[Tmartin995]

Dave Ewers at 6 anyone? Counter rucks very well, additional carrier, can match the South African's physicality and has an exceptionally high work rate.

Probably just my Exeter bias but I think he deserves a shot. Very disappointed with Wood's performance today. Too many silly penalties and didn't add anything that Robshaw wasnt doing already.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

We are lacking real power which is why England struggle to counter ruck or secure our own without it being slowed down. Wood just isn't powerful enough at 6 and Robshaw doesn't do any fetching at 7. End result, poor breakdowns. It's pointless going for atheleticism if you get such slow ball that it counts for absolutely nothing. If we are going to play slow ball then dump the atheletes and get the powerhouses in.

 

[goodNumber10]

cipriani's worst ever rugby has been playing at sale

ftfy!

 

[Peat]

We can't go all gung ho because we lost to the ABs in the ******* rain by 3 points ....

By that rationale we probably shouldn't be discussing changes at all

Most pleasing aspects of that match, in retrospect, was Eastmond's physicality, the wings, and the knowledge that our depth at lock runs deeper than an ocean trench. Attwood in particular was huge and I feel fully justified all the screaming I've done here and elsewhere about his exclusion. Anyone else remember the last time our maul looked that good?

Everyone else has summed up the problems. I'm pleased Attwood got a run but we missed Launchbury at the breakdown. The half-back and full-back positions are big bold glowing question marks. Wood, to be fair, probably has enough credit in the bank to survive a bad performance - unless you're one of the guys who's been wanting him gone to restore some real balance to the back row for a while. Such as myself.

I think the worst thing was the complete unwillingness to back ourselves ball in hand. During the sin bin period, we mauled and kicked. Five minutes to go and needing two scores, we opt for a set of scrums that they play silly buggers on. For twenty minutes we did, but after that drop goal attempt (should be nailed from that position and amount of pressure) it just stopped happening. Maybe because we never really found any attacking positions, but sometimes you've got to try it from not so great positions.

I don't know what we try next match. Tbh, if Brown doesn't improve, I'd play even Goode ahead of him - Goode has his flaws, many of them, but at least he doesn't stuff up his fielding very often. Brown seems to be getting shakier and shakier on his basics and tbh looks like he needs a bit of a rest. I think we have to hope that Care will improve with a better platform. Ford's time is surely coming, although I'm not sure it's next match. Part of me thinks an injury to Steenson could be very beneficial to England's long term future.

Sorry. What I mean is I'm not sure Lancaster thinks it's next match. When your preferred 10 is desperately short of match practice is usually a good time for the back up. I suppose there's something to be said about Farrell for the Saffas, where it looks like you can stifle them with big defence, but in hindsight maybe we should have had Ford to begin with.

Gods knows. Roll on post World Cup so we can start again.

 

[ratsapprentice]

I don't think Wood played particularly badly - the game simply exposed the gaping hole in our team's collective ability to put pressure on opposition ball at the breakdown.
And possibly to a lesser extent our ball carrying ability in the forwards - aside from Vunipola and Attwood our forwards and replacements made all of 14 metres...

 

[Maverick1987]

By that rationale we probably shouldn't be discussing changes at all

Most pleasing aspects of that match, in retrospect, was Eastmond's physicality, the wings, and the knowledge that our depth at lock runs deeper than an ocean trench. Attwood in particular was huge and I feel fully justified all the screaming I've done here and elsewhere about his exclusion. Anyone else remember the last time our maul looked that good?

Everyone else has summed up the problems. I'm pleased Attwood got a run but we missed Launchbury at the breakdown. The half-back and full-back positions are big bold glowing question marks. Wood, to be fair, probably has enough credit in the bank to survive a bad performance - unless you're one of the guys who's been wanting him gone to restore some real balance to the back row for a while. Such as myself.

I think the worst thing was the complete unwillingness to back ourselves ball in hand. During the sin bin period, we mauled and kicked. Five minutes to go and needing two scores, we opt for a set of scrums that they play silly buggers on. For twenty minutes we did, but after that drop goal attempt (should be nailed from that position and amount of pressure) it just stopped happening. Maybe because we never really found any attacking positions, but sometimes you've got to try it from not so great positions.

I don't know what we try next match. Tbh, if Brown doesn't improve, I'd play even Goode ahead of him - Goode has his flaws, many of them, but at least he doesn't stuff up his fielding very often. Brown seems to be getting shakier and shakier on his basics and tbh looks like he needs a bit of a rest. I think we have to hope that Care will improve with a better platform. Ford's time is surely coming, although I'm not sure it's next match. Part of me thinks an injury to Steenson could be very beneficial to England's long term future.

Sorry. What I mean is I'm not sure Lancaster thinks it's next match. When your preferred 10 is desperately short of match practice is usually a good time for the back up. I suppose there's something to be said about Farrell for the Saffas, where it looks like you can stifle them with big defence, but in hindsight maybe we should have had Ford to begin with.

Gods knows. Roll on post World Cup so we can start again.

Sadly I though exactly the same as the last bit Lancaster just hasn't improved us enough pre RWC

 

[TRF_Olyy]

ftfy!

It was Wasps who were obsessed with playing him at fullback.
I remember a particularly terrible performance from him when you came up to Edgeley Park (and actually played rather than crying off because it was raining, and ordering pizzas instead).

 

[Peat]

I don't think Wood played particularly badly - the game simply exposed the gaping hole in our team's collective ability to put pressure on opposition ball at the breakdown.
And possibly to a lesser extent our ball carrying ability in the forwards - aside from Vunipola and Attwood our forwards and replacements made all of 14 metres...

If he hadn't conceded those two penalties I'd agree, but he did, so I can't. The second one in particular narked me. He was never going to get away with it. It was slow ball on the halfway line - there is no need for that sort of thing - instead they had an attacking lineout around our 22.

We conceded 14 penalties that game. That's the most we've conceded going all the way back to the last AIs, and possibly further cos I can't be arsed looking back further. We've only conceded double figures 3 times in that time.

 

[goodNumber10]

I don't think Wood played particularly badly - the game simply exposed the gaping hole in our team's collective ability to put pressure on opposition ball at the breakdown.
And possibly to a lesser extent our ball carrying ability in the forwards - aside from Vunipola and Attwood our forwards and replacements made all of 14 metres...

that's because, for whatever reason, our punch groups primary was always standing still when the ball got to him from care - there was zero movement form them until the ball was cuaght and as a result we spent a ton of the game recycling backwards.

 

[Patchey]

Right, now a day and a bit have passed I finally feel ready to pass some rational comment on that game...

Overall I though we lost a eminently winnable game. It's rare to see NZ miss so many kicks or to have them on the back foot for the first quarter, if not more, of the game. The talk of 'frustration' and 'building' on a positive performance coming from the camp yesterday evening was rubbish. If that is really what the squad are thinking then we're doomed. After having beaten the All Blacks in 2012 and managed to come 'frustratingly close' to beating them a number of times since, we should be furious at having lost. Admittedly that might not be the best media angle!

The match thread had a lot of low level trolling (which I stupidly rose to) about Nige. I agree with some of the more level headed criticism of him, he did not have a great game and he did seem influence by the home crowd, not that that is really unusual or unsurprising. Cole's yellow was justified, talk of Hartley having to be punished for it is crap. We were probably lucky not to lose a man for the try line offside. One thing that really irked me was, as even Stuart bloody Barnes noticed, Nige is clearly much hotter at the breakdown than he used to be. Thats fine, he's enforcing the laws, but its clear that England hadn't picked up on it. Repeated breakdown and offside penalties were given away at a rate that I'd expect to see down my local rugby club on a Saturday afternoon, not at Twickenham.

This leads me to our composure, which was non-existant at time. Having come out with our tails up, we seemed to lose our heads towards half time and forget how to play structure rugby! Arguably that penalty that was kicked to the corner for Brown's near try should have been sent at goal, but I'll let that go. However, I thought Farrell was a mess. He didn't marshal the game at all, as typified by the unstructured, easy to defend play that lead up to his shanked drop. I was not surprised that he missed, despite being in front of the posts and under little pressure from the All Blacks (IIRC), it was clearly a snap decision made in a bit of a panic. It wasn't just Fazlet though, as a team we didn't seem to have any patience. Instead of building some momentum through well structured phases we were happy to kick poorly to an incredibly dangerous back three and not even chase with gusto! The build up to Faumunia's try shows exactly the kind of rugby a team should be producing in a high pressure, poor conditions game. We failed to produce anything remotely as sensible for most of the 80.

I feel it's quite hard to judge our attack, seeing as after the openning quarter our backs didn't see much ball going forwards. Brad at 13 didn't actively stifle anything out wide so its probably worth giving him another game there next week. Roko and May both had very good games all round, when was the last time both England wingers performed well in the same match? Amazing what a difference it makes giving May the ball in space and when he can get some speed up as opposed to stationary and flat as we were doing in the 6N! Care's kicking was bad, but at least he can pass! I don't know about brinign Robson in, I'd date Dickson of Wigglesworth over Youngs as a bench 9!

The forwards, Wood excluded, all played pretty well I thought. Attwood was our MOTM easily, and Kruis did a lot of grunt work, despite looking a little lost at times. Cracking set piece work from all, and the front row did well at the scrum. Robshaw, as ever, did a huge amount and I think he actually outplayed McCaw for long periods. Billy was less useful. I'm begining to think that while he makes big yards against lower tier oppo, he's too much of a one trick pony to really go through top quality teams. I though Morgan was much better. As for Wood, I don't know what more I can add, he had a poor game and gave away studip penalties. I would just add the observation that, as noted, he did do a lot of his normal hard graft stuff and probably looked worse because launchbury wasn't in the pack. ironic that we have a 6 who behaves like a lock and a lock who clearly does the work of a 6! As rightly pointed out, we gave NZ far too mch easy and quick ball through not competing at the rucks. Its not even a case of not having a 'fetcher', we just didn't challenge at all at times!

A final observation would be that we do seem to be defending much narrower than we used to. A number of times, including for McCaw's try, we were caught short out wide. May did a great job in defense on a number of these, but it seems to be we're rushing up tight (a bit like a rugby league defense?) and a back line than stands deeps can get space out wide. Worrying.

For next week I'd hope for this:

1 Marler
2 Hartley
3 Wilson
4 Attwood
5 Kruis (in for injued Lawes)
6 Robshaw / Haskell
7 Haskell / Robshaw
8 Morgan
9 Care
10 Ford
11 May
12 Eastmond
13 Barritt (meh)
14 Roko
15 Brown
16 Mullan
17 Brookes
18 Webber
19 Kitchiner
20 Kvesic / Billy
21 Wigglesworth / Dickson
22 Farrell
23 Watson / Nowell

 

[ratsapprentice]

Perhaps I'm being a tad premature, but I do get the feeling that the media/pundits are on the verge of losing patience with Eoin.

I'm not basing that entirely on this, but listening to Carling (and Brian himself) on Brian Moore's podcast, I agreed with a lot of what he was saying - not much different to what we all on here have said/been saying.
One of the first guys I've heard question both Farrell and Barritt's positions. He flat out said that he thinks Brad "struggles in attack at international level".
He also laments our apparent reluctance to play young players, specifically referring to Ford. And our playing to not lose.

 

[j'nuh]

Perhaps I'm being a tad premature, but I do get the feeling that the media/pundits are on the verge of losing patience with Eoin.

I'm not basing that entirely on this, but listening to Carling (and Brian himself) on Brian Moore's podcast, I agreed with a lot of what he was saying - not much different to what we all on here have said/been saying.
One of the first guys I've heard question both Farrell and Barritt's positions. He flat out said that he thinks Brad "struggles in attack at international level".
He also laments our apparent reluctance to play young players, specifically referring to Ford. And our playing to not lose.

Funny thing is that as pundits are questioning Farrell, I'm starting to accept his role in the team more. It was clearly wrong to rush him back having had barely any game time this season though. A year of Burns nipping at his place has made him a much more attack-positive player. Although I would like to see him add some attacking kicks to his arsenal.

I'm no longer automatically against Farrell, although with the caveat that we look to be more creative in our back play. I've said this before, and May proved this to be right on the weekend - we absolutely have to use May in that 13 channel. He's decent attacking on the wing, but people can push him out into touch there. 13 is where he can best utilise his pace in attacking play. Eastmond linking with May/Roko is how we open defences.

 

[Wendigo7]

Just listened to that podcast.

He does seem concerned about this Farrell issue. Not just from an England perspective issue but from the boys issues too. It could lead to nepotism which isn't what they need.

But to me it's damaging for the young lad. Whatever we say about the lad he does potentially have a long future with England, just not at this point in time. You keep picking him and eventually it's starts to damage the lad and his future prospects. In which case I would vilify Lancaster for it.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I think going forward vs SA we need to be very clear about what our plan is, the players seemed to all be playing to different game plans against NZ. Personally I think we should bring in the big guns in the forwards, get Ford in at 10 and play primarily a possession game. Truck it up with powerful forwards a few times then use the abilities of Ford and Eastmond to put players into spaces (as Eastmond certainly showed he could do). Eastmond also showed he had no major problems in defence with Barritt outside him and if we are keeping possession, defence isn't such an issue. Some more powerful forwards should allow us to secure our own ball at the breakdown faster which will be when Eastmond and Ford at 10 could really shine (along with Care if he starts a passing game).

If we are going to play territory then for the love of god learn what the territory game involves, it does not involve aimless, unconstested kicks to the back 3 EVER.

 

[goodNumber10]

agree with all of that @ragerancher

 

[Patchey]

Yeah, we didn't seen to have a game plan for the weather changing, whereas NZ did.

My worry is that if we don't sort our kicking and kick chase out, the SA 9-10 combo is going to keep us in out 22 all game.

 

[goodNumber10]

our kick chase was truly dismal, i'm just doing some video on it.

 

[TheSaffycen]

I know he has his weaknesses but if we want a kicking game then Wigglesworth is probably the scrum half to go for. Saracens base alot of their chasing game around is left foot box kicking and having to fast wingers chase him down. May and Rokoduguni can both chase balls down with ease so having someone who can accurately kick would be a major weapon. Personally though I would prefer to have Care and try a running game against the Boks, but we need something at the breakdown so Kvesic shouldcome in. South Africa are vulnerable to a fetcher so Fraser or Kvesic almost have to play.

 

[Peat]

I feel the most sensible thing to do is to wait and see how the window unfolds. Three wins (no flukes) and the world is rosy and that is definitely achievable.

But the problem is a lot of people - myself included - have these long term doubts about what England are doing and they saw those doubts fulfilled again vs New Zealand. So the urge to say all of them is there.


Anyway, I don't see us beating South Africa through either a possession game or a territorial game alone. We need to be able to execute both.