[2015 Six Nations] England

[Wendigo7]

You petty, petty barstard!

 

[Irishkid]

1 Corbs
2 Hartley
3 Cole
4 Atwood
5 Lawes
6 Ewers/Garvey
7 Robshaw/Armitage
8 Morgan
9 Youngs
10 Ford
11 May
12 Eastmond
13 Tuilagi
14 Nowell
15 Watson

16 Youngs
17 Marler
18 Mullan
19 Parling
20 Vunipola
21 care
22 Cipriani
23 Brown/ROKO / Joseph/Yarde

 

[Maverick1987]

1 Corbs
2 Hartley
3 Cole
4 Atwood
5 Lawes
6 Ewers/Garvey
7 Robshaw/Armitage
8 Morgan
9 Youngs
10 Ford
11 May
12 Eastmond
13 Tuilagi
14 Nowell
15 Watson

16 Youngs
17 Marler
18 Mullan
19 Parling
20 Vunipola
21 care
22 Cipriani
23 Brown/ROKO / Joseph/Yarde

I like it ALOT not sure about Garvey though ... Would prefer to have Itoje in the larger squad and go for Ewers/Robshaw as 6 cover and Kvesic/Robshaw as 7 cover . Big Bill and Big Ben the 8s

Also you have Mullan and Marler on the bench ? Or do you mean Wilson ?

Id still start Care and have Youngs on the bench and Cook in the larger squad now is the time to put some youngsters in the EPS if you ask me ...

EDIT: not sure if anyone else has picked up on this seems interesting as before "Exceptional Circumstances" has always been injury .... Seems they have added form to that list now http://www1.skysports.com/rugby-uni...till-open-for-toulon-flanker-steffon-armitage

 

[Patchey]

EDIT: not sure if anyone else has picked up on this seems interesting as before "Exceptional Circumstances" has always been injury .... Seems they have added form to that list now http://www1.skysports.com/rugby-uni...till-open-for-toulon-flanker-steffon-armitage

No no no no no no no no no etc.

Why do we feel the need to bend over backwards for an internationally unproved flanker who refuses to fulfil the requirements to play for England and has actively tried to ignore his previous test caps and play for France? Why?

(Seriously, mentioning Armitage is like a red rag to a bull for me isn't it?)

 

[j'nuh]

I can only conclude that J'nuh has had a traumatically boring Christmas. I am sorry to hear this.

Geez, don't cry for me Argentina. Christmas wasn't made for someone single and in their mid-20s.

I must also point out, completely pedantically, that the only thing England need to do is make the best of her resources - it is the only thing that can be done. The presence of a fetcher at 7 will never be a need, because sometimes we won't have one, particularly with our ridiculous national style of play, but we must still find ourselves able to win games.

But when haven't we had one available to us? It has been mainly a self-inflicted choice not to pick a fetcher. I'm still confused why Wood stopped focusing on the breakdown as part of his game style. I used to think it was his best facet back when he played 7 under MJ.

And we can and we have done so with some huge breakdown performances. Our best performances against New Zealand and South Africa have both been accompanied with hugely brutal and intense counter-rucking efforts that have reduced opposition clean ball to a scant amount. A fetcher is not the only way to do things. At our collective best there are so many people capable of interrupting a ruck for that crucial second than an openside almost superfluous - or so, at least, I think Lancaster believes.

But this is something that probably should be expected to run through international packs anyway. These are supposed to be the best players available to a country, so it's not unreasonable to think a lot of players will be above average in the contact zone. I feel that we lose more games at the breakdown than we win, but this may be a subjective feeling. I can't help but feel it wouldn't go amiss to add a fetcher, even if you are right, though.

Because look at the way we set up, look at the way we defend. J'nuh correctly (imo) notes that we rarely seen Cole or Launchbury actually lurking for turnovers but he is incorrect (imo) when he says that's personnel, not coaching. The coaching team want a set defensive line at all times, they don't want people waiting that half-step back before the tackle has been even made. Look at how often we've been exposed for not having a sweeper for the chip over, it's another weakness of that system. Or look at Robshaw. I personally rate Robshaw's technical presence when he's at the breakdown. He will reach a good position and is difficult to move. He's not the best around, but at the very least he will slow that ball down. His problem is that frequently he can't get to that breakdown the crucial half-second before the clear-out that a fetcher needs. Why? Look at where he's stood in the defensive line. So, to be effective, either the tackle itself needs to take so long he has time to reposition himself, or the clear-out needs to arrive so ponderously that he has lots of time (paging South Africa...)

And I am convinced that if you put Kvesic or Fraser or Steflon or even David Pocock's English clone into that defensive line you will see similar results. Yes, a man who is quicker to get over the ball and stronger once there would cause more damage but ultimately the situation would frustrate them a lot. If you can't get there before they do, game over, unless you're supremely cunning and let them fly over before even engaging and then nick the ball.

I think you underestimate how fast Kvesic can be in at the breakdown, even when not coming in from an ideal position. If you go to the Aviva Premiership website and check out the Glos-Bath full game, check these moments:
23:45 - Jumps over the ruck to get back onside and contests the breakdown a very, very split second later, getting into a position that a whole group of Bath players can't move him from. Just shows his speed and strength at the breakdown.
30:17 - A more ideal position to be starting from. But the Bath support weren't slow to this breakdown, it's just remarkable how fast Kvesic can get to the floor.

Worth noting that both of the above moments came during a kicking game. England love to play a kicking game...
37:48 - Works his way up with another defender, makes an absolute nuisance of the breakdown. He's not waiting behind the defensive line here.
38:06 - Doesn't make a massive impact on the ruck here, but just wanted to show how fast he is to his feet.

Thing is, England like to play a territory game. Kick the ball up field, win it back, repeat. When so much of your game is based around not having the ball, Kvesic is such an ideal pick.

So I think Robshaw is basically about as good an openside in defence as Lancaster's system will allow. Upgrading him is kinda pointless. What you need is more players who will offer that same ability to take opportunity of the half-chances that come their way. England are really missing Youngs/Webber, Cole, Launchbury and an effective Wood at the moment. I also think Lawes was briefly making a bigger impression on rucks as well. Now, you could lose Wood for someone like Kvesic and move Robshaw to 6 to get that. I would listen to that one with interest. But I feel like you'd need a really big and hard carrying tight five for that to really work. And we... sorta have that? If we have all the right players out that day playing to their best. But the lineout might be a little ropey.

Now, where I really think we need a fetcher is in securing our own damn ball. We're so frequently bad at getting quick ball and in particular, I think we're short of players who will stick with a break and ensure we get good ball from there. Where Robshaw looks silly as an openside is when you see a break secured by someone blonde and then realise it's Launchbury. Someone like Kvesic would be pretty cool there - but then, so would Tom Croft. And, for the more mundane everyday problems of slow ball, what you really want is someone ridiculously strong with good explosive power, either getting beyond the gainline or smashing away counter-ruckers, an English Kaino or Ferris... like, say, Ewers...

... or Sam Burgess. Or Itoje, maybe?

Well, yeah, I think you've hit the nail on the head here. The pack does currently have limitations that stretch beyond fetching. Wood isn't effective at the minute, and he's the one that would be replaced. So of the plenty of flanker options you could pick, which player do you pick to solve which problem? A carrier? A fetcher? A hard-hitting 6?

The carrying issue is not new at all. It's been around from the start of Lancaster's rule. For example, in England vs Wales 2012, Morgan and Tuilagi beat 8 defenders, and the entire rest of the team (starters plus replacements) beat 4. Against France, Morgan made more meters than the rest of the pack combined, despite playing only 60 minutes! He did the same against Ireland too, although he was on the field for 75 minutes.

I suspect what's going on is that England want Morgan and Tuilagi to be the players that crash the ball up and make meters, and for the rest to support and make the carries to keep the tempo going. You don't want every player trying to break, or else you stretch your own capability to support. You want one or two players to hit past the gainline, and then you want to send it wide to make the real meters through the backline. England perceive carrying to be a specialist task for the 8 to do, and we are a significantly better team when our 8s achieve this. If we need additional carriers, I would prefer to find ways to get guys like Attwood and Launchbury carrying hard, because they are more than capable of it, than picking another player on the basis of solving this.

That said, if not a fetcher, I would be reasonably happy with Ewers or Croft. At least they would provide specialist skills. I just don't like our approach of having a pack full of 6.5s when we have so many weaknesses that we could be targeting through the use of specialists. Clark, Haskell and Wood are not worth having alongside Robshaw, and it has to be Launchbury or Lawes, to partner Attwood.

 

[ratsapprentice]

If you understand the real reasoning behind the English based player rules then the "exceptional circumstances" are actually quite transparent.

 

[Geordie]

Any thoughts on Calum Clark. I know he's not popular but he was very good in defence and at the breakdown for Saints yesterday v Quins.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Any thoughts on Calum Clark.

Yeah:
He should never, ever, be allowed to wear an England shirt.

 

[Peat]

Any thoughts on Calum Clark. I know he's not popular but he was very good in defence and at the breakdown for Saints yesterday v Quins.

Should be shot.

That's a joke, by the way, not a very nice one, a nasty one, which masks a lot of very negative feelings about Calum Clark.

 

[goodNumber10]

But when haven't we had one available to us? It has been mainly a self-inflicted choice not to pick a fetcher. I'm still confused why Wood stopped focusing on the breakdown as part of his game style. I used to think it was his best facet back when he played 7 under MJ.

I think that is a result of him playing 6 for country and 7 for club - he's pretty decent at the Breakdown for Saints, he's just really aimless for England. Like i said in my other post he's been really good for Saints since the AI's - and he outplayed Salvi

But this is something that probably should be expected to run through international packs anyway. These are supposed to be the best players available to a country, so it's not unreasonable to think a lot of players will be above average in the contact zone. I feel that we lose more games at the breakdown than we win, but this may be a subjective feeling. I can't help but feel it wouldn't go amiss to add a fetcher, even if you are right, though.

Fetchers are only good if you play a pattern that suits them, which England don't really do they kick (s you say) but Fetchers suit that side to side flow pattern, England when in phase play possession play in waves like New Zealand (or at least are trying to) - even they've changed how they use McCaw he plays much more like aball carrying 6 than a ground hog 7.

I suspect what's going on is that England want Morgan and Tuilagi to be the players that crash the ball up and make meters, and for the rest to support and make the carries to keep the tempo going. You don't want every player trying to break, or else you stretch your own capability to support. You want one or two players to hit past the gainline, and then you want to send it wide to make the real meters through the backline. England perceive carrying to be a specialist task for the 8 to do, and we are a significantly better team when our 8s achieve this. If we need additional carriers, I would prefer to find ways to get guys like Attwood and Launchbury carrying hard, because they are more than capable of it, than picking another player on the basis of solving this.

It's not unusual to have primary ball carriers, but you ahve to have secondaries that can do the job as well. and you've got to have more than two in an entire team.

 

[StBristol]

Should be shot.

That's a joke, by the way, not a very nice one, a nasty one, which masks a lot of very negative feelings about Calum Clark.

Is that a Malcolm Tucker joke? LOL

 

[yaboyjj]

I'll bite:

1. Corbisiero
2. Webber
3. Cole
4. Attwood
5. Lawes
6. Robshaw
7. Kvesic
8. Morgan
9. Cook
10. Ford
11. May
12. Eastmond
13. Tuilagi
14. Roko/Yarde (whoever is on form)
15. Brown

16. George
17. Brookes
18. Auterac
19. Kruis
20. Ewers
21. Care
22. Slade
23. Watson

slightly experimental, T Youngs may come in if he works his way back to good form (Hartley is dispatched once and for all). Also tempted to put Watson at FB as he offers a big running threat in attack (Brown just ahead because of kicking game + stability).
Brookes, George, Auterac, Kruis and Ewers for the ultimate impact bench... powwwwweeeeeerrrrrrr! (watch the space for Itoje at 19. come world cup!)
Slade and Watson for versatility as they can cover 10-15. Wade could be a bolter in the 23 too.
Really tempted to have a Ford- Tuilagi- Slade midfield, but Bath familiarity and Eastmonds form wins the day atm.
Alternative backline would be: Cook, Ford, May, Tuilagi, Slade, Wade, Watson.

 

[Wendigo7]

I'd pick Clark as the form 6 right now for England tbh.

One of the form players in the league and the most influential player in that Saints backrow.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I know the name is considered a bit of a joke here but Matt Banahan has been doing a lot right at Bath. He has been powerful and good under the high ball. Anyone think he deserves another shot?

 

[goodNumber10]

I know the name is considered a bit of a joke here but Matt Banahan has been doing a lot right at Bath. He has been powerful and good under the high ball. Anyone think he deserves another shot?

he's playing very very well at the moment...amazing in the air on the kick return.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I know the name is considered a bit of a joke here but Matt Banahan has been doing a lot right at Bath. He has been powerful and good under the high ball. Anyone think he deserves another shot?

Nah.
I agree he's playing well, and he does more often than not - but then he was playing very well before his last caps and he was terrible then.

When you look at the wingers we have in/around the EPS, I wouldn't pick him over any of them.

 

[j'nuh]

I know the name is considered a bit of a joke here but Matt Banahan has been doing a lot right at Bath. He has been powerful and good under the high ball. Anyone think he deserves another shot?

I have somewhat of a distrust towards players who only show up when their team start to put some good performances together. Is he genuinely good, or a flat-track bully? (I have the same reservations towards Joseph.) Evidence in the past has shown that he doesn't deliver at international level even when playing well for club anyway.

I might have been inclined to have given him another shot if we weren't in a relatively healthy position for wingers. Maybe swap Yarde out for him. Whatever the case, he's not going to be near the England 23.

 

[Peat]

I have somewhat of a distrust towards players who only show up when their team start to put some good performances together. Is he genuinely good, or a flat-track bully? (I have the same reservations towards Joseph.)...

Joseph got into the England team when at London Irish despite them never finishing higher than 6th when he was at the club; they had a 37.5pc win record in the games he played, but he still got 13 tries, not far off a 1 in 3 strike rate - and that includes games started on the bench.

 

[j'nuh]

Joseph got into the England team when at London Irish despite them never finishing higher than 6th when he was at the club; they had a 37.5pc win record in the games he played, but he still got 13 tries, not far off a 1 in 3 strike rate - and that includes games started on the bench.

True, and I feel that Bath may be doing well in part because of Joseph's performances, rather than the other way around. I've read Bath fans saying he's currently one of their better players in this upturn. It's more a concern than an actual belief. Still, I find it hard not to have reservations about him given the amount of time and how far he went off the radar. Is this good form here to stay?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I have somewhat of a distrust towards players who only show up when their team start to put some good performances together. Is he genuinely good, or a flat-track bully? (I have the same reservations towards Joseph.) Evidence in the past has shown that he doesn't deliver at international level even when playing well for club anyway.

Why are we talking about Charlie Sha....oh.