2014 QBE Internationals [EOYT] England

[Bada-Bing!]

Well, at the end of 2014 England have beaten the two main rivals in Pool A at Twickenham. Good psychological advantage gained.

 

[Ospreylian]

Well, at the end of 2014 England have beaten the two main rivals in Pool A at Twickenham. Good psychological advantage gained.

That may be the case...

But have you just beaten the second-best team in the world?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

That may be the case...

But have you just beaten the second-best team in the world?

The only loser in the Wales/SA game was the sport of Rugby

 

[Bada-Bing!]

That may be the case...

But have you just beaten the second-best team in the world?

Ooooh, don't get too big headed. A good win for Wales, no matter how ugly, which was payback for that 2nd test loss this summer, but Wales won't be playing any of their big games (I.e.v England, Australia and a Quarter, semi or God forbid a final) at the Millenium stadium during the RWC. And Wales did not score any tries v the 2nd best team in the world.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I really think between now and the world cup our priority should be coaching the team in getting the ball out to the wings as part of a good attack, not mindlessly shovelling it along because you've got no other ideas. I get the feeling that Brown and May don't work well together as they don't seem to communicate at all. They frequently try going for the same ball when not under pressure. Potentially they could work wonders with Browns ability to dodge around and Mays pure speed but they need to be working from the same page.

 

[goodNumber10]

I really think between now and the world cup our priority should be coaching the team in getting the ball out to the wings as part of a good attack, not mindlessly shovelling it along because you've got no other ideas. I get the feeling that Brown and May don't work well together as they don't seem to communicate at all. They frequently try going for the same ball when not under pressure. Potentially they could work wonders with Browns ability to dodge around and Mays pure speed but they need to be working from the same page.

I think a bigger priority is getting go forward ball.

Agree about Brown and May, they look like they really dislike each other - dirty looks, getting in each others way etc... it's a very strange dynamic.

 

[Wendigo7]

Well, at the end of 2014 England have beaten the two main rivals in Pool A at Twickenham. Good psychological advantage gained.

With a constant barrage of injuries.

Currently if fit fully the side is probably:

1. Corbisiero
2. Hartley
3. Cole
4. Launchbury
5. Lawes
6. Wood
7. Robshaw
8. Morgan
9. Youngs
10. Ford
11. May
12. Twelvetrees
13. Tuilagi
14. Watson
15. Brown

Subs:
16. Marler (****ing harsh)
17. Youngs
18. Wilson
19. Attwood
20. Haskell
21. Care
22. Farrell
23. Eastmond

A pretty good side by all accounts. Needs to stay fit for once though

 

[Every Time Ref]

Twelvetrees can't POSSIBLY be Lancaster's preferred IC after Saturday can he? I know he's on the "favourites" list, but that display was shockingly poor. I suspect he wants Burgess-Tuilagi (totally unrealistic in my view) or, back in the real world, Barritt-Tuilagi.

I also think it's Wilson's 3 shirt at the moment, although that's not to say Cole can't win it back.

 

[Maverick1987]

I've got to say I'm starting leaning towards a Barritt Tuilagi centre partnership . Although if Sam can be as good defensively as Barritt he's actually shown more in attack in 20 minutes than Barritt has show in 10 years

 

[Every Time Ref]

If that's how we want to play it, and it seems it is, that's not the worst combo in he world, although I do still feel aggrieved at the Eastmond situation. Unfortunately it does leave the player who puts people in gaps (Ford) and the player who smashed through gaps like a wrecking ball (Tuilagi) separated by a slight piece of attacking dead wood. Maybe they'll mix up where Tuilagi lines up so he can get the benefit of Ford's short passes.

 

[Maverick1987]

If that's how we want to play it, and it seems it is, that's not the worst combo in he world, although I do still feel aggrieved at the Eastmond situation. Unfortunately it does leave the player who puts people in gaps (Ford) and the player who smashed through gaps like a wrecking ball (Tuilagi) separated by a slight piece of attacking dead wood. Maybe they'll mix up where Tuilagi lines up so he can get the benefit of Ford's short passes.

Was thinking exactly this . Would it be a bad thing to play Tuilagi at 12 and Barritt at 13

 

[Every Time Ref]

Maybe not? I feel he's more fearsome in the wider Chanel as there's more space and it's technically harder to defend but maybe Fords short passing game will make up for that. And it would leave our best defender in the difficult channel.

On the other hand, it relies on two players learning a new position - each others' positions

 

[j'nuh]

Twelvetrees can't POSSIBLY be Lancaster's preferred IC after Saturday can he? I know he's on the "favourites" list, but that display was shockingly poor. I suspect he wants Burgess-Tuilagi (totally unrealistic in my view) or, back in the real world, Barritt-Tuilagi.

I also think it's Wilson's 3 shirt at the moment, although that's not to say Cole can't win it back.

I don't know what's happened to Twelvetrees. He looked like a complete 12 in his first season for Gloucester. His partnership with Burrell in his first few appearances for England was a good start. But ever since, he's looked a shadow of that player in all aspects. I still can't tell if it's a form issue or if it's a permanent dip.

Partnerships I'd like to see now (in order of preference):
Eastmond-Tuilagi
Tuilagi-Slade
Tuilagi-Joseph

Not going to talk about Burgess until he puts in a good performance from the XV against tough opposition for Bath.

 

[Every Time Ref]

I agree, I think it's pointless, and unfair on him, to consider him as a contender at this stage. I think Lancaster does though

 

[Maverick1987]

I agree, I think it's pointless, and unfair on him, to consider him as a contender at this stage. I think Lancaster does though

The thing is its a very realistic target for Sam . I fully expect him to be picked amongst the squad come the 6N . He and everyone else knows how good he is, I see Lancaster has already earmarked him for a game for the Saxons

 

[Every Time Ref]

I don't think it's unrealistic, necessarily, to be in the running by the start of the 6 Nations, but at this stage we still don't know he isn't going to be a Tomkins. Why talk about something so theoretical? I feel if he's relying on Sam Burgess to solve his centre issue he's making himself a hostage to fortune.

 

[ratsapprentice]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04sv01q

Lancaster namedrops LCD, Slade and Burgess as players who could force themselves in.

 

[Wendigo7]

http://talksport.com/rugby-union/full-contact-sunday-november-30-141130126998#

Moore grills Lancaster over the backline, selections questioned, what are england trying to achieve, burgess, armitage (interesting), continuity and does he generally see what we see. The Owen Farrell selection also and the SA/NZ debacle.

Very, very good to listen to.

 

[Peat]

I'm still of the opinion that it's our coaches, not our players, that are our limit in attack. I think that we'll just continue to shift around our backs, thinking that our problem is our selection (and in part it is, and we are seeing small improvements by picking the right players), when it's mostly because of our coaching. When the coaching improves, I think we'll have clearer answers in selection.

It's like, for example with May, I wonder what people would be saying about him if he hadn't scored that wonder try against New Zealand. He's shown really well in defence this Autumn, and his chasing game has proven well, and he has gotten a few tries, but we didn't see that much of him in attack, mainly for a lack of ball. I feel his try against NZ changed people's perception of him, even though he isn't any better as an attacker, and certainly hasn't shown a lot of it? The thing is though, we know it's there now, and we know that we have it on the field for whenever the coaches feel like engaging it. All in all, I thought he showed really well, but that England didn't use him nearly enough, beyond chasing kicks.

It's both.

I sometimes wonder if we're being too harsh on Lancaster because, come on, let's be real, what's so great about this current crop of players? Who among them is World Class? Who among them is a really experienced test player at the peak of their powers? Who really ticks the box as an athlete, as a decision maker and as a technical player?

When it comes to the backline we have big glaring question marks at 9-10-12. That's the brain of the team right there, the heartbeat of the backline. The moment we lose Manu as well the question mark goes up over 13 as well plus we lose our biggest attacking edge. But everywhere we look - players with streaky form, players with incomplete skillsets or questionable fitness, or simply lacking experience and cohesion with each other.

Now, I don't want to exonerate Lancaster & co completely. When it comes to fitting a gameplan to players, when it comes to picking the best possible team for a way of playing, consistency of selection, they've shown a lot of frailty. Take the 12 situation - he's flip-flopped like mad over that. But I think it would take a great coach to have turned this lot into a consistent top 3 in the world team.

Anyway, I've sorta lost the track of things here. The reality is no coach on earth can turn Barritt into an international quality outside-centre when it comes to attack. Maybe a team of scientists could, but there's nothing coaches can do about the fact he is short of power and pace. Maybe you could give him such a surfeit of space, time and support runners that he'd look fantastic but I don't think we have backs that good to provide it. Which is reason enough to turn him out at the earliest opportunity*. Solve both centres. Just because we can't solve the coaches as well doesn't mean we shouldn't solve the centres.

Not to be too hard on anyone. They're clearly good at what they do, by and large. But they're going up against people who are great at it. England need to upskill as many positions as possible - coaches as well would be great but hey...

 

[j'nuh]

It's both.

I sometimes wonder if we're being too harsh on Lancaster because, come on, let's be real, what's so great about this current crop of players? Who among them is World Class? Who among them is a really experienced test player at the peak of their powers? Who really ticks the box as an athlete, as a decision maker and as a technical player?

When it comes to the backline we have big glaring question marks at 9-10-12. That's the brain of the team right there, the heartbeat of the backline. The moment we lose Manu as well the question mark goes up over 13 as well plus we lose our biggest attacking edge. But everywhere we look - players with streaky form, players with incomplete skillsets or questionable fitness, or simply lacking experience and cohesion with each other.

Now, I don't want to exonerate Lancaster & co completely. When it comes to fitting a gameplan to players, when it comes to picking the best possible team for a way of playing, consistency of selection, they've shown a lot of frailty. Take the 12 situation - he's flip-flopped like mad over that. But I think it would take a great coach to have turned this lot into a consistent top 3 in the world team.

Anyway, I've sorta lost the track of things here. The reality is no coach on earth can turn Barritt into an international quality outside-centre when it comes to attack. Maybe a team of scientists could, but there's nothing coaches can do about the fact he is short of power and pace. Maybe you could give him such a surfeit of space, time and support runners that he'd look fantastic but I don't think we have backs that good to provide it. Which is reason enough to turn him out at the earliest opportunity*. Solve both centres. Just because we can't solve the coaches as well doesn't mean we shouldn't solve the centres.

Not to be too hard on anyone. They're clearly good at what they do, by and large. But they're going up against people who are great at it. England need to upskill as many positions as possible - coaches as well would be great but hey...

I think you're right about a lot of that, but I also think you've got a "grass is greener" thing going on.

If the benchmark is New Zealand, we fall hopelessly short. It's not possible for Lancaster to create a team that will win more times than lose against them within this WC cycle. As an objective, that needs to be stricken now.

But if we don't relentlessly compare ourselves against the All Blacks, second best team in the world is a very reasonable objective for this team. It's not because we're that great, but that we do have the calibre of player to make it to that position, and all the other teams have their own problems going on too. The gap in quality between 2 and 6 really isn't that big at all.

What frustrates me is that we've seen England be competitive with a strong pack and a backline that doesn't seem to have a tactical clue. What kind of results would England be getting if we saw an improvement in how those backs were coached?

A good example of this is, look at Exeter in the Premiership. They have some great players, but they regularly beat teams which have many more internationals. I think this is because they have the best coaching team in the Premiership, where they are able to get more out of Waldrom than, for example, Gloucester gets out of Morgan. That's my problem with the England coaching of their backs: whilst we lack the calibre of player to make it up to New Zealand's level, it's the fact that we are unable to get the best out of our players that means that we aren't the second best team in the world.

As an aside, I disagree that England don't have star players. I would argue we have a few in the pack. In terms of the backline, I think that part of the problem is that a lack of coaching ability means that we'll never know whether we have any stars in the backline. How do you know you have one, if they are not given a chance to grow into the role? For example, throw May in the All Blacks squad for two years, and I think he'd grow his ability and stature to the point where he would be seen as a star. He has the raw talent for it. But that's the difference between us and New Zealand: New Zealand convert players with raw talent into test match monsters, whereas we squander them. I believe this is down to coaching (partly at international level, partly at club level).