[2015 Six Nations] England

[chippieolamus]

Morgan Parrington can play prop for us then, yeah?

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Eastmond - defence.
Clarke - actually no, i'd not take Clarke personally as he's scum so sub in Croft.
Yarde vs Roko - i think Yarde on form is a better player then Roko and has better potential.

I don't really agree with the Eastmond defence arguments. His defence may be marginally worse but what he offers in attack more than makes up for that as far as I'm concerned. Also Yarde vs Roko, I'd say an on form Roko could outdo an on form Yarde. I know I generally support Bath players but I do feel that at the moment Bath has some of the best talent in the back line in England.

 

[TheSaffycen]

I think a problem with our players is that we seem to need quite a few games to get upto pace. Look at Twelvetrees he needs quite a few games to hit his stride, Roko seems to have seen a dip in form or confidence and everything looks forced with ball in hand. In the world cup we don't really have a few games to hit up to stride. That's why someone like Barritt is so useful as he always performs to his level (which wasn't bad during the AIs) from game one, hopefully Eastmond can be in a similar mould.

 

[Big Ewis]

Morgan Parrington can play prop for us then, yeah?

aaahhhh, you-eh sapeak ah my langwagee I see ahh, chippopotamus rex !


...don't you do it..don't make a mess of my username in turn..I dare you.. I4LL KILL YOUUUU !!é&é!!!!!!

 

[chippieolamus]

Big E... E... E... No, I can't do it.

 

[Big Ewis]

Big E... E... E... No, I can't do it.

ah...blissful mercy, what a beautiful sight ! I was cringing during those successive 'E's the whole way, but eventually nothing came out...:closedeyes:

 

[j'nuh]

Sharples, Roko, Yarde.. worrying trend of wingers that tanked immediately after initially being picked for England.

Even May played some of his worst rugby in and around his first few tests. At least he was given a chance beyond then.

 

[goodNumber10]

On Yarde i think some of it may be linked to his move and settling into a new club etc... Roko was injured on his first outing so it's hard to criticise him really.

 

[j'nuh]

Not really relevant for this 6N, but Glos' new signing, Tom Marshall, is looking to represent England in the future:

http://www.gloucestercitizen.co.uk/...er-Rugby-new/story-25728091-detail/story.html

I like how up front he is. He wanted to play for NZ, the competition was too good, now he's looking to play for England.
tbh, I'm not sure I care that much. If he's good, I'd be happy to take him.
Sees himself as a distributing centre.

 

[Every Time Ref]

Issue one is the standard of his positioning in the third test in NZ. It's looked ok this autumn, but it's unsure to what extent that's down to Barritt telling him where to stand which leads me to to Issue two, which is that he doesn't seem the sort of guy who'll lead a defence and make sure it keeps it's shape, which is a major issue for England as neither is Tuilagi.

Issue one is only from one match, you said it yourself - he's had two games since then where the issue hasn't been there. I think that's harsh on him, anyone can have a bad game and any player should get credit for improving in a weak area. Is it down to Barritt's help to some degree? Most likely, but I think that goes for anyone who plays alongside Barritt, we know he is a very good defensive leader and that's what he brings the team. Also, why credit his good games to his midfield partner and not his bad one? If Barritt is responsible for his good positioning then Tuilagi was responsible for his poor positioning.

I know it's inevitable people will defend their "own" players, but I honestly think we've seen Eastmond have one very bad defensive game for England, showing weaknesses which haven't been there in his other caps and which aren't there when he plays for Bath, and there seems to be an assumption that that one-off game is the norm, that however well he has defended since then he's bound to revert to type soon. I'm not claiming he's a great defender, by any stretch, but he is not the liability he is sometimes made out to be, and it's obvious that he worked hard on a part of his game which was a problem and made improvements. Yes, it was with the help of one of the best midfield defenders in world rugby, good for him, that's what good players do. How they work together should be taken into account when discussing the midfield question, but crediting Barritt with his good work while blaming him alone for his poor work is unfair.

 

[Irishkid]

I'm surprised Burgess hasn't been mentioned yet. Also definitely pick cips just because he can break a game up off the bench. Quins are ruining Yarde is needs to play with a big centre inside him so he has space and Quins don't have that. He had it at Irish and at school. I'd also pick Cook because he can link up with Ford and is just better than Wigglesworth.

 

[Peat]

Problem is that Tuilagi is such a given that any centre who can't be relied on to stand in the right places when next to him just shouldn't be in the England squad, unless he's just flat out better than Tuilagi. Which Eastmond isn't. Harsh,but the most practical way of doing things.

So far Eastmond's caps are two nothing caps against Argentina, one game against a slightly asleep NZ team, one disaster, and a series with the best defensive babysitter in test rugby. That to me is not proof positive - I want him to show that he has it in himself to make the right decisions against the best. It would be different if Barritt wasn't borderline useless in attack, but he is.

I should point out that he's far from the only player I have issues with the defence of - I've taken to judging pretty harshly these days. With so many options, I think England have to be that ruthless - although they also have to be sensible enough to realise that truly special talents get special treatment. Is Eastmond that special talent? I'm not sure.

 

[goodNumber10]

Issue one is only from one match, you said it yourself - he's had two games since then where the issue hasn't been there. I think that's harsh on him, anyone can have a bad game and any player should get credit for improving in a weak area. Is it down to Barritt's help to some degree? Most likely, but I think that goes for anyone who plays alongside Barritt, we know he is a very good defensive leader and that's what he brings the team. Also, why credit his good games to his midfield partner and not his bad one? If Barritt is responsible for his good positioning then Tuilagi was responsible for his poor positioning.

He wasn't very defensively astute in the NZ game this November nor against SA, walking out and behind the defensive line rather than just pushing out one etc... he's a passive tackler as well, goes low and carried or high and walked (same issue i feel Cip's has).

I do agree about Tuilagi being an issue defense wise, he's not a centre who can organise a defence, and neither can Kyle (IMHO)

I know it's inevitable people will defend their "own" players, but I honestly think we've seen Eastmond have one very bad defensive game for England, showing weaknesses which haven't been there in his other caps and which aren't there when he plays for Bath, and there seems to be an assumption that that one-off game is the norm, that however well he has defended since then he's bound to revert to type soon. I'm not claiming he's a great defender, by any stretch, but he is not the liability he is sometimes made out to be, and it's obvious that he worked hard on a part of his game which was a problem and made improvements. Yes, it was with the help of one of the best midfield defenders in world rugby, good for him, that's what good players do. How they work together should be taken into account when discussing the midfield question, but crediting Barritt with his good work while blaming him alone for his poor work is unfair.

Playing for Bath is a very different prospect to playing for England against the top 3 in the world, the step up is huge and very exposin.g

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Problem is that Tuilagi is such a given that any centre who can't be relied on to stand in the right places when next to him just shouldn't be in the England squad, unless he's just flat out better than Tuilagi. Which Eastmond isn't. Harsh,but the most practical way of doing things.

So far Eastmond's caps are two nothing caps against Argentina, one game against a slightly asleep NZ team, one disaster, and a series with the best defensive babysitter in test rugby. That to me is not proof positive - I want him to show that he has it in himself to make the right decisions against the best. It would be different if Barritt wasn't borderline useless in attack, but he is.

I should point out that he's far from the only player I have issues with the defence of - I've taken to judging pretty harshly these days. With so many options, I think England have to be that ruthless - although they also have to be sensible enough to realise that truly special talents get special treatment. Is Eastmond that special talent? I'm not sure.

Perhaps its just me but I felt Barritt, like Burrell before him, looked more of an attacking threat at 13 than 12. Don't get me wrong, he's still a blunt instrument going forward but in the right systems he could be effective

 

[goodNumber10]

Perhaps its just me but I felt Barritt, like Burrell before him, looked more of an attacking threat at 13 than 12. Don't get me wrong, he's still a blunt instrument going forward but in the right systems he could be effective

it's only taken you 3 months to agree with me

 

[Every Time Ref]

Problem is that Tuilagi is such a given that any centre who can't be relied on to stand in the right places when next to him just shouldn't be in the England squad, unless he's just flat out better than Tuilagi. Which Eastmond isn't. Harsh,but the most practical way of doing things.

I get that, but we're still judging him on one game. One game he and Tuilagi didn't gel together, I'm willing to trust both of them to make sure that doesn't happen again rather than assume Eastmond can't work with Tuilagi. I do agree though, for the record, that if that is the case Eastmond has to go. I'm not THAT Bath ...

But again - I think the failure of Eastmond is exaggerated. "Babysitter" aside - do you actually think there was anything poor about his positioning in the autumn? As far as I could see, while not setting the world alight defensively (and he probably never will), he did all the basics right for two whole games against the best two sides in the world. I can't think of any defensive mistakes he made, can you?

And if he defends well, that is to his credit. Calling Barritt a "babysitter" is an unrealistic assessment of the on-field relationship, a good defender can't simply make a poor defender good by "telling him where to stand", it doesn't work like that. Coincidentally, I played in the centres this weekend with a very inexperienced partner who didn't know where to stand in defence so experienced this first hand, at a much lower level of course but the principles remain. It's all very well me knowing where he should stand, when he should come up, when he should back off, drift etc. etc. etc. but I simply can't run his defensive lines for him. And the same goes for Barritt, while he can no doubt help he can't actually control his partner's movements and decisions for 80 minutes. I'd say his role is more similar to a teacher than a babysitter, yes a good teacher can get the best out of a student but the best teacher in the world can't turn a moron into Einstein, and can't help a student who isn't helping themself.

So far Eastmond's caps are two nothing caps against Argentina, one game against a slightly asleep NZ team, one disaster, and a series with the best defensive babysitter in test rugby. That to me is not proof positive

No, it isn't, not by a long shot. But one poor game out of six isn't any serious indication that he is a major problem defensively either. I don't see why five games with no issues should be considered less significant than one bad game.

Is Eastmond that special talent? I'm not sure.

Me neither. He's got something though, and I don't want to see him miss out on getting a proper decent shot at proving he is special over what I see as pretty innocuous defensive issues.

On the subject of judging others harshly, he's got to be better that Twelvetrees...

 

[goodNumber10]

I get that, but we're still judging him on one game. One game he and Tuilagi didn't gel together, I'm willing to trust both of them to make sure that doesn't happen again rather than assume Eastmond can't work with Tuilagi. I do agree though, for the record, that if that is the case Eastmond has to go. I'm not THAT Bath ...

But again - I think the failure of Eastmond is exaggerated. "Babysitter" aside - do you actually think there was anything poor about his positioning in the autumn? As far as I could see, while not setting the world alight defensively (and he probably never will), he did all the basics right for two whole games against the best two sides in the world. I can't think of any defensive mistakes he made, can you?

And if he defends well, that is to his credit. Calling Barritt a "babysitter" is an unrealistic assessment of the on-field relationship, a good defender can't simply make a poor defender good by "telling him where to stand", it doesn't work like that. Coincidentally, I played in the centres this weekend with a very inexperienced partner who didn't know where to stand in defence so experienced this first hand, at a much lower level of course but the principles remain. It's all very well me knowing where he should stand, when he should come up, when he should back off, drift etc. etc. etc. but I simply can't run his defensive lines for him. And the same goes for Barritt, while he can no doubt help he can't actually control his partner's movements and decisions for 80 minutes. I'd say his role is more similar to a teacher than a babysitter, yes a good teacher can get the best out of a student but the best teacher in the world can't turn a moron into Einstein, and can't help a student who isn't helping themself.

I wouldn't call Barritt a babysitter to be honest i think he's a better defensive leader than any of the other centers and that's important in a world cup.

I do think he made some mistakes in the AI's yes, I'll need to go back through the two games to pinpoint them but I do recall a few things where i thought "hhhhmmm".

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

England have a big problem in creating a link between forwards and backs, we do not have a problem generally with defence. Eastmond can help us solve one problem and there is little evidence to suggest he will make our defence worse. In the NZ game where his defence was poor, it was the same for the whole team (the tries were nearly all scored by getting around the wingers) yet Eastmond is the one that gets all the flak. The forwards did nothing to prevent quick ball the whole game, Tuilagi went running off too wide too early leaving Eastmond always with a 2 on 1 and the ABs just got around our defence rather than through it.

It is uniquely English in dumping players who show some real attacking prowess and a rugby brain in favour of dull and uninspiring players who can do a good impression of a brick wall in defence. Can't think of any other nation in the world that so readily dumps possible excellence for certain average players.

 

[Every Time Ref]

He wasn't very defensively astute in the NZ game this November nor against SA, walking out and behind the defensive line rather than just pushing out one etc... he's a passive tackler as well, goes low and carried or high and walked (same issue i feel Cip's has).

I don't understand what you mean by "walking out and behind the defensive line, do you have an example? Anyway, that aside, yes I agree he's imperfect but you can work around this if his work is generally solid and his positioning reliable, and I still believe that in the last two internationals he's played, against the top two in the world, it has been. To be fair, I also remember a couple of occasions when he was slow to get back into position on second phase against NZ, yes little imperfections, but they didn't lead to anything. And I also remember, a phase or two before Cruden's try, the diminutive, is-he-good-enough-defensively inside centre making the crucial tackle on a big hard-running backrower to clean up after the the two forwards who had just been run through as if they weren't there (Hartley and Wood if memory serves).

Playing for Bath is a very different prospect to playing for England against the top 3 in the world, the step up is huge and very exposin.g

Yeah it is. His last two games were against the top 2 in the world, and I didn't see him getting "exposed" as such.

EDIT: didn't see this first time

I wouldn't call Barritt a babysitter to be honest i think he's a better defensive leader than any of the other centers and that's important in a world cup

I do agree with that, Barritt has done his reputation in my eyes a world of good this autumn and, yes, Mt. GoodNumber10 I acknowledge that you called it before the series, so good call! Spotters badge for you

 

[goodNumber10]

I don't understand what you mean by "walking out and behind the defensive line, do you have an example? Anyway, that aside, yes I agree he's imperfect but you can work around this if his work is generally solid and his positioning reliable, and I still believe that in the last two internationals he's played, against the top two in the world, it has been. To be fair, I also remember a couple of occasions when he was slow to get back into position on second phase against NZ, yes little imperfections, but they didn't lead to anything. And I also remember, a phase or two before Cruden's try, the diminutive, is-he-good-enough-defensively inside centre making the crucial tackle on a big hard-running backrower to clean up after the the two forwards who had just been run through as if they weren't there (Hartley and Wood if memory serves).

Again though covering tackles are different to front line tackles which need to be his bread and butter - he can do both, he's a very good tackler technically but he is often out of position and he is a passive tackler - i feel he concedes too much ground.

On the walking out comment i just mean that rather than get in the defensive line he just walks along behind and goes to a wide position - he's out of the game whilst eh dos that, and he's not doing it in a way where he can cover tackle if a line is broken.

And yep fair call on it being against the top 2 in the world, but in September/October we'll be in a competition with the top four and other teams like Argentina and Fiji who are very much tournament teams - it will be even harder.

EDIT:

Launchbury out for 3-4 months

http://www.espn.co.uk/england/rugby/story/251233.html