[2015 Six Nations] England

[Tony Manx]

Think you guys promoting everyone as the centre partnership are forgetting Lancaster's justifiable love affair with Barritt!!

 

[McTallshort]

Think you guys promoting everyone as the centre partnership are forgetting Lancaster's justifiable love affair with Barritt!!

Nothing wrong with that, the lads a defensive rock. Who was pivitol to England best performance in the Autumn?

 

[welshglory]

I think the size issue is way overplayed tbh, case in point, Wales went to Dublin last six nations and got completely taken apart, but if we look at the Irish backs that played that day: 15-Rob Kearney, 14-Andrew Trimble, 13-Brian O'Driscoll, 12-Gordon D'Arcy, 11-Dave Kearney, 10-Jonathan Sexton
they must have been giving up at least a stone each to the 'big welsh backs' that day. And yet it counted for nothing since they were outmuscled up front, and Ireland had a good 9/10 axis that was adept at tactical kicking out of hand. Running round the opposition is just as effective as running through them and tackling technique > size, (both Manu and Burrell are very average in defense, one shoots out of the line and the other far too often misses tackles or gets done on the outside hence both needing a babysitter inside them).
^ I understand that putting them in the deep end all at once in Cardiff may not be clever, but never have I seen such an emphasis on defense from any other International team... frankly we were very lucky to beat Aus in the Autumn (be worried if they sort out their front 5). I expect the NZ line will be Cruden, SBW, Fekitao after the world cup (none exactly renowned for defensive ability), why try to second guess or nulify the opposition with mediocre lumps of meat a la Burrell/Barrett when you can meet fire with fire and try to outscore your oppo with Eastmond/Slade/Joseph/Tuilagi etc.

kinda gone off point and some of this may be over the top, but this negative attitude really frustrates me.

You also have to consider the experience that that those irish backs have of playing with each other, 5 Leinster players! They're not necessarily the best players individually but as a unit they know each other's game inside out and they look slick. It's called cohesion!!!

That seems to be the problem with England. You have so many options yet hardly any of them play with each other and youre always chopping and changing in the name of "form. It always looks a bit misguided and sloppy. For example Why the hell hasn't Lancaster picked Burrell after his showings in the 6 nations, it is utterly bizarre. Stop with the principle carp and philosophy and start looking at reality. You need a team that is well drilled, cohesive and can work as a team and finish off chances, that's what international rugby is all about.

I'm probably going.to get a bit of heat but i believe you guys fanny about a bit too much. Here's a question for you, Who are your best centres? Stick with them and see how they go (obviously injury will dictate this. This could be a real downfall if it's not sorted out soon. Its been a major problem since 2003

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

You also have to consider the experience that that those irish backs have of playing with each other, 5 Leinster players! They're not necessarily the best players individually but as a unit they know each other's game inside out and they look slick. It's called cohesion!!!

That seems to be the problem with England. You have so many options yet hardly any of them play with each other and youre always chopping and changing in the name of "form. It always looks a bit misguided and sloppy. For example Why the hell hasn't Lancaster picked Burrell after his showings in the 6 nations, it is utterly bizarre. Stop with the principle carp and philosophy and start looking at reality. You need a team that is well drilled, cohesive and can work as a team and finish off chances, that's what international rugby is all about.

I'm probably going.to get a bit of heat but i believe you guys fanny about a bit too much. Here's a question for you, Who are your best centres? Stick with them and see how they go (obviously injury will dictate this. This could be a real downfall if it's not sorted out soon. Its been a major problem since 2003

We have needed to chop and change due to injury and plummetting form. 12trees and Farrell were supposed to be the dead certs for 10 and 12 yet both have performed poorly and/or been injured. Tuilagi hasn't seen the 13 position except a smallish appearance at the last 6N due to constant injuries, Corbs and Cole have been out due to injuries, 9 has had yo-yoing form, wingers have been out of form or injured. If they have good form they get injured, if they don't get injured, their form drops rapidly. That's why England are having problems, we have few players who are able to consistantly perform and not get injured.

 

[Patchey]

Just catching up, why not East at 8? He is absolutely motoring an has been for a long time now. Obviously Ewers has youth on his side and is a bit more physical, although Easter really is quite large himself. However Minty has, IMO, has a better all round game and the kind of guile England are sometime lacking up front an which Ewers can't provide simply because he isn't as experienced.

Interestingly, after the Leicester game, O'Shea said that Lancaster had told him in the past that the main stumbling block for Easter's selection was doubts as to whether he'd physically last the whole World Cup cycle. So far good money suggests (touch wood) he'll be fit and firing come September. Obviously there is the question as to whether his lack of international rugby over the last three years is one of the main reasons he is still so fit, but there is only one way to answer that! I'd certainly like to see him train with the EPS if nothing else.

As an aside, presumably Gareth Evans will now start for Glos with Morgan broken? Late bolter for the final rounds of the 6N when we pick up a few injuries? I know Lancaster will probably pick Waldrom or Tom Johnson in that case but we can dream right?

I agree. Though I think the biggest loss is Launchbury, who hits 20-30 rucks a game without fail. Attwood, for all his other strengths, doesn't and Lawes never has. Launchbury's absence was probably why Wood and Robshaw looked that bit worse this autumn: they were missing the third blindside. I'd love to see Attwood and Launchbury played together at least once this year.

Attwood and Launchbury would/will be a killer combo, they compliment each other perfectly and as you say, Launchbury's presence really lifts the pack. I hope we see this in the RWC warm ups.

That's nearly always the case. The risky, adventurous young players are always picked for 'A' games, but coaches bottle it for full internationals. For example, against the BaaBaas England played (subs):

9. Simpson (Robson)
10. Slade
11. Sharples (Miller)
12. Hill (Devoto)
13. Joseph
14. Rockoduguni
15. Daly

Which is a damn sight more exciting that what played against Australia. Probably fall to bits in the Millenium Stadium though.

That was, indeed, a rather exciting game and some great rugby was played. But we lost, to the BaaBaas...

I mean all of those guys, except maybe Miller, I would like to see involved with England either now or soon. But you're right in that a team like that would get eaten alive in the Millenium Stadium. There is a collective lack of experience in depth in our back division that is worrying. Arguably half of those listed above should have had some decent game time, three or four caps at least, along with a fair number of hours spent in camp/on tour instead of us messing around with Ashton or Brown on the wing or trying to use Alex Goode as a 'second 10' etc.

 

[yaboyjj]

We have needed to chop and change due to injury and plummetting form. 12trees and Farrell were supposed to be the dead certs for 10 and 12 yet both have performed poorly and/or been injured. Tuilagi hasn't seen the 13 position except a smallish appearance at the last 6N due to constant injuries, Corbs and Cole have been out due to injuries, 9 has had yo-yoing form, wingers have been out of form or injured. If they have good form they get injured, if they don't get injured, their form drops rapidly. That's why England are having problems, we have few players who are able to consistantly perform and not get injured.

This x2, it's easy to say pick your best players when in Wales there has been a trio of players who virtually pick themselves, just because there is such a massive drop off behind them (at least until this year), very rarely have 2 of these three been injured at the same time either (Roberts, Davies, Williams). Contrast this with England where Tuilagi and Barritt have been almost on permanent sick notes and 36/Burrell are just so inconsistent.

- - - Updated - - -

Just catching up, why not East at 8? He is absolutely motoring an has been for a long time now. Obviously Ewers has youth on his side and is a bit more physical, although Easter really is quite large himself. However Minty has, IMO, has a better all round game and the kind of guile England are sometime lacking up front an which Ewers can't provide simply because he isn't as experienced.
He's playing well yes but it's a big step up from club to international rugby, can he up the pace or make ground against bigger more organised defences? I'm not sure he ever set the world alight in his first stint playing for England, so question marks over whether he would make any impact at all now... I get the impression though that his 'face doesn't fit' in the current set up, I don't think his comments in the world up squad last time did him any favours :/

Interestingly, after the Leicester game, O'Shea said that Lancaster had told him in the past that the main stumbling block for Easter's selection was doubts as to whether he'd physically last the whole World Cup cycle. So far good money suggests (touch wood) he'll be fit and firing come September. Obviously there is the question as to whether his lack of international rugby over the last three years is one of the main reasons he is still so fit, but there is only one way to answer that! I'd certainly like to see him train with the EPS if nothing else.

As an aside, presumably Gareth Evans will now start for Glos with Morgan broken? Late bolter for the final rounds of the 6N when we pick up a few injuries? I know Lancaster will probably pick Waldrom or Tom Johnson in that case but we can dream right?
I hope to see more of him that's for sure!


Attwood and Launchbury would/will be a killer combo, they compliment each other perfectly and as you say, Launchbury's presence really lifts the pack. I hope we see this in the RWC warm ups.

Yeah that combo does sound good, they seem to make a big deal about Lawes/Parling calling the line-out though.. not sure if that's a big deal or not?

That was, indeed, a rather exciting game and some great rugby was played. But we lost, to the BaaBaas...
To be fair, that England team were on a pretty even footing with the Baabaas that day having had such little time together (and they were up against Ranger, Gear, Stanley and co.)

I mean all of those guys, except maybe Miller, I would like to see involved with England either now or soon. But you're right in that a team like that would get eaten alive in the Millenium Stadium. There is a collective lack of experience in depth in our back division that is worrying. Arguably half of those listed above should have had some decent game time, three or four caps at least, along with a fair number of hours spent in camp/on tour instead of us messing around with Ashton or Brown on the wing or trying to use Alex Goode as a 'second 10' etc.

 

[Peat]

Nothing wrong with that, the lads a defensive rock. Who was pivitol to England best performance in the Autumn?

The front row? ^_^

You also have to consider the experience that that those irish backs have of playing with each other, 5 Leinster players! They're not necessarily the best players individually but as a unit they know each other's game inside out and they look slick. It's called cohesion!!!

That seems to be the problem with England. You have so many options yet hardly any of them play with each other and youre always chopping and changing in the name of "form. It always looks a bit misguided and sloppy. For example Why the hell hasn't Lancaster picked Burrell after his showings in the 6 nations, it is utterly bizarre. Stop with the principle carp and philosophy and start looking at reality. You need a team that is well drilled, cohesive and can work as a team and finish off chances, that's what international rugby is all about.

I'm probably going.to get a bit of heat but i believe you guys fanny about a bit too much. Here's a question for you, Who are your best centres? Stick with them and see how they go (obviously injury will dictate this. This could be a real downfall if it's not sorted out soon. Its been a major problem since 2003

Burrell has played 75pc of all minutes he's been available for post-6N. Pretty sure I'm correct there.

You are completely right about cohesion being huge - it's why I get peeved at people here getting all caught up by domestic form - but yaboyjj and ragerancher are also completely right that England simply haven't been given the option. And, because we haven't been given the option, I don't think anyone can answer your question with any degree of confidence. None of England's centre options, with the exception of Tuilagi, have demonstrated a long enough streak of form at international level (unless you like Barritt I guess...) to state with confidence that they've got it.

You're right that the lack of cohesion is probably going to bite England on the ass. It is just very difficult to be sure we have the right solution.

Just catching up, why not East at 8? He is absolutely motoring an has been for a long time now. Obviously Ewers has youth on his side and is a bit more physical, although Easter really is quite large himself. However Minty has, IMO, has a better all round game and the kind of guile England are sometime lacking up front an which Ewers can't provide simply because he isn't as experienced.

Interestingly, after the Leicester game, O'Shea said that Lancaster had told him in the past that the main stumbling block for Easter's selection was doubts as to whether he'd physically last the whole World Cup cycle. So far good money suggests (touch wood) he'll be fit and firing come September. Obviously there is the question as to whether his lack of international rugby over the last three years is one of the main reasons he is still so fit, but there is only one way to answer that! I'd certainly like to see him train with the EPS if nothing else.

If Lancaster told me the sun rose in the east I'd double-check. Enough of his statements on preferred playstyle, Steflon's eligibility and the importance of discipline have been so unbacked by action that I take them with a pinch of salt now. Given all the mess about Easter when Lancaster first arrived, the emphasis on squad togetherness, and the refusal to bring Easter back into the fold when we really needed an 8, I'll only believe that it's all about his fitness and not about his personality when I see him in the squad.

If that genuinely isn't an issue - or if that issue has expired - then yes, we should look at him. Experience and proven quality matter and Easter has both of those. He has never been a consistent standout for England but he could patch a hole if needed if his fitness is up to scratch.

 

[Patchey]

If Lancaster told me the sun rose in the east I'd double-check. Enough of his statements on preferred playstyle, Steflon's eligibility and the importance of discipline have been so unbacked by action that I take them with a pinch of salt now. Given all the mess about Easter when Lancaster first arrived, the emphasis on squad togetherness, and the refusal to bring Easter back into the fold when we really needed an 8, I'll only believe that it's all about his fitness and not about his personality when I see him in the squad.

If that genuinely isn't an issue - or if that issue has expired - then yes, we should look at him. Experience and proven quality matter and Easter has both of those. He has never been a consistent standout for England but he could patch a hole if needed if his fitness is up to scratch.

I agree he'd be a risk. Questions over whether we would transfer his club form to the test stage and whether his fitness holds up to the demands of international rugby are fairly big, unanswered ones. I would say again there really is only one way to find out though.

As for the 'personality' issue, I've never been fully convinced that Easter was as bad as the press said post-2011. He's a bit abrasive by all accounts, but I've never heard anything from around the club to suggest he is anything other than a hard working, sensible bloke. Of course I do have some Quins bias here! But I'd suggest that if Lancaster thinks hard work and fitness can rehabilitate Calumn Clark then keeping Easter out largely on the back of a throwaway comment is a bit petty... But then you'll rightly point out that if Lancaster told you the sun rose in the east you'd double check!

 

[welshglory]

Easter wouldn't fit the current English style, he's way too bloody slow for international rugby these days and doesn't have the dynamic power either. He's bloody strong in the tight and in terms of all out strength to be fair.

The pecking order imo in terms of ability and experience.
Morgan/Vunipola/>>>>>Waldrom/Ewers/Easter/Crane/Guest?/Narraway...
The rest.

 

[welshglory]

So the other possibility is trying Wood or Haskell at 8 and playing a big physical 6. I always thought Croft could be a possibility for 8. Lancaster doesn't seem to think about balance that much though. Just the style and pattern of play.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Easter wouldn't fit the current English style, he's way too bloody slow for international rugby these days and doesn't have the dynamic power either. He's bloody strong in the tight and in terms of all out strength to be fair.

The pecking order imo in terms of ability and experience.
Morgan/Vunipola/>>>>>Waldrom/Ewers/Easter/Crane/Guest?/Narraway...
The rest.

Crane is the worst of those.

 

[Peat]

I agree he'd be a risk. Questions over whether we would transfer his club form to the test stage and whether his fitness holds up to the demands of international rugby are fairly big, unanswered ones. I would say again there really is only one way to find out though.

As for the 'personality' issue, I've never been fully convinced that Easter was as bad as the press said post-2011. He's a bit abrasive by all accounts, but I've never heard anything from around the club to suggest he is anything other than a hard working, sensible bloke. Of course I do have some Quins bias here! But I'd suggest that if Lancaster thinks hard work and fitness can rehabilitate Calumn Clark then keeping Easter out largely on the back of a throwaway comment is a bit petty... But then you'll rightly point out that if Lancaster told you the sun rose in the east you'd double check!

I am by now 75pc convinced that Lancaster has a certain personality type he wants for the squad; if they fit it he ignores the flaws, if they don't, he ignores the pluses. We'll never know the full story of what happened out in NZ - although I can well believe some of the younger players came home ****** off at him - but the biggest personality risk will always be that between player and coach. If he is out because of personality, it will be a lot more than a throwaway comment though; the dossier leaks were evidently far from all that happened.

 

[goodNumber10]

I am by now 75pc convinced that Lancaster has a certain personality type he wants for the squad; if they fit it he ignores the flaws, if they don't, he ignores the pluses. We'll never know the full story of what happened out in NZ - although I can well believe some of the younger players came home ****** off at him - but the biggest personality risk will always be that between player and coach. If he is out because of personality, it will be a lot more than a throwaway comment though; the dossier leaks were evidently far from all that happened.

he just comes across as a complete Jack the lad, and i reckon that's what gets up some people noses.

 

[Crapspray]

I am by now 75pc convinced that Lancaster has a certain personality type he wants for the squad; if they fit it he ignores the flaws, if they don't, he ignores the pluses.

This, really. Lancaster has favourites: Easter isn't one. He was one of Johnson's; probably because, as GN10 says, he's a Jack-the-Lad type of forward that was closer to Johnson's playing days.

In fact, the favouritism is certainly there. It's just Lancaster's was in the Saxons where they weren't seen as often. Johnson's took center stage. Look at the Saxons in 2011, all the usual suspects are there - Clark, Botha, Barritt, Johnson, and Goode. As much as he's brought in some forgotten men like Robshaw, he's added a fair few "from his time at Leeds" who are the equivalent of Moody and Cueto.

…i believe you guys fanny about a bit too much. Here's a question for you, Who are your best centres?

Fair comment. Part of the fannying about is because Lancaster thought he could bodge his way to the world cup with a 10 – 12 – 13 offering nothing in attack. He found in Cardiff that it wouldn't (I suppose we should thank Wales for that). So he wasted about 15 caps on a back line which was never international-class.

If he'd picked the likes of Burrell, Twelvetrees, Joseph, and Ford back in mid-late 2012 - and stuck with them - we'd probably have a formidable back line. The fannying about is scurryfunging (look it up) to try and make something out of the mess he's made for himself.

Contrast with the forwards, where Marler, M. Vunipola, Youngs, Launchbury, Parling, Morgan, Wood, Webber, and Robshaw were all brought in within six months and capped for two years solid – injuries permitting. (I know Wood was capped in 2011, but he was never really first-choice.)

I'd give 10% of England's win ratio over the last three years for 10 more caps each for Ford, Eastmond, Burrell, Joseph, Wade, and Twelvetrees.

---

EDIT: And while doing all that, he managed to **** off a 50-cap fly-half who could/would have been an invaluable mentor to the likes of Slade, Burns, Ford, and Farrell.

 

[Every Time Ref]

he just comes across as a complete Jack the lad, and i reckon that's what gets up some people noses.

I once saw the Quins team in a bar in Clapham after a match, in fancy dress. Easter was blacked up, and pi55ed on my friend's bag.

The need for cohesion, and the need to achieve it in a very short space of time, is an argument in favour of Eastmond (who was treated pretty poorly by Lancaster in the autumn) now that Ford seems to be the nailed-on ten. If I really wanted to be naughty I'd say it's an argument for JJ as well ...

 

[Patchey]

I once saw the Quins team in a bar in Clapham after a match, in fancy dress. Easter was blacked up, and pi55ed on my friend's bag.

I take back everything I said.

 

[Every Time Ref]

Of course, he might be a consummate professional and a great teammate, just a bit of a lairy dick in public!

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I once saw the Quins team in a bar in Clapham after a match, in fancy dress. Easter was blacked up, and pi55ed on my friend's bag.

The need for cohesion, and the need to achieve it in a very short space of time, is an argument in favour of Eastmond (who was treated pretty poorly by Lancaster in the autumn) now that Ford seems to be the nailed-on ten. If I really wanted to be naughty I'd say it's an argument for JJ as well ...

With Watson at fullback and Roko and Banahan on the wings eh?

I agree about Eastmond though, he has been singled out for 1 NZ game ignoring the fact that the entire team was misfiring that game. Perfect example of being made a scapegoat.

 

[Every Time Ref]

That Henson fella looks handy as well, I reckon he's worth a look at in the 6N

Agree that Eastmond's defensive frailties are nowhere what they're made out to be, he's played twice for England and many times for Bath since that game and defended perfectly adequately. He concedes ground in the tackle, it's true, I wouldn't argue he's anything more than a decent international defender but he's not a liability. An entire back line defended like idiots that game, it's the defensive coach who should have been taking the flak.

Criticism of JJ is even more ridiculous. When people cite JJ's defence as an argument against his England selection I honestly question whether we're watching different players. He is easily our best defender (and I assume our defensive leader?), positioning is immaculate and his technique and timing enables him to regularly stop far bigger runners dead on the tackle line. He's certainly a better defender than Burrell, by some distance.

(To be clear, I'm not actually arguing for the entire Bath midfield to start for England, I do think we need some power in there somewhere)

 

[goodNumber10]

That Henson fella looks handy as well, I reckon he's worth a look at in the 6N

Agree that Eastmond's defensive frailties are nowhere what they're made out to be, he's played twice for England and many times for Bath since that game and defended perfectly adequately. He concedes ground in the tackle, it's true, I wouldn't argue he's anything more than a decent international defender but he's not a liability. An entire back line defended like idiots that game, it's the defensive coach who should have been taking the flak.

Criticism of JJ is even more ridiculous. When people cite JJ's defence as an argument against his England selection I honestly question whether we're watching different players. He is easily our best defender (and I assume our defensive leader?), positioning is immaculate and his technique and timing enables him to regularly stop far bigger runners dead on the tackle line. He's certainly a better defender than Burrell, by some distance.

(To be clear, I'm not actually arguing for the entire Bath midfield to start for England, I do think we need some power in there somewhere)

the England coaching team singled Defence out for JJ to improve.

I'm not sure it's worth comparing Burrell against JJ as they play different positions at club level, where LB is a pretty solid defender at 12 and has been pretty solid for England at 13 (I don't recall him getting minced at any point but feel free to correct me).

On Eastmond, i think you have to look at where the system in NZ was failing. In short it's all very well saying it's only one game and he wasn't alone and so on but the point is NZ singled him out for specific treatment and that had a huge detrimental effect on the entire defence - that is a huge point to take into consideration.