[2015 Six Nations] England

[j'nuh]

i think people are being a bit harsh on Lancaster, he hasn't done much wrong in his time in charge - like most England Coaches he's got a poisoned chalice in regards to players being injured and building his first choice, but he hasn't exactly made loads of wild selection choices, i'm struggling to think of a decision he and his coaching team have made that can't be obviously rationalised if we're truly honest about it.

Yeah some are against the run of players being fit/in form but there isn't an international coach on the planet who doesn't do just that - AB's and Nonu anyone?

What bothers me ultimately is the lack of a balance between attack and defence. I don't think any of the current coaches need to go, I just think that we need to appoint a talented attack coach. Partly so that our attack is more effective and players play a little more heads-up rugby, and partly to challenge the defence-first mentality that you get the impression exists within the current England coaching set-up when it comes to team selection.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Did he struggle last year then?

I didn't say he did, but we didn't beat Wales by doing what you are saying we have no choice but to do.
Mike Brown and Jack Nowell were doing the vast majority of the trucking - not the centres.

Well he played outside Farrell last year, who everyone here seems to think couldn't pass wind properly, and he plays club rugby outside Stephen Myler who people posisbly think even less of than Farrell..... yet.

Yes he does - outside a pack that creates enough momentum that he doesn't have to truck it up - he can focus on finding space.

Anyone care to guess who will win the 6 shirt - Hask or Clark?

 

[goodNumber10]

I didn't say he did, but we didn't beat Wales by doing what you are saying we have no choice but to do.
Mike Brown and Jack Nowell were doing the vast majority of the trucking - not the centres.

I don't recall that at all...

And i haven't said we have no choice, but you have to be able to go which ever way the game needs,a nd Eastmond and JJ i the 12/13 doesn't let you play gain line.

Yes he does - outside a pack that creates enough momentum that he doesn't have to truck it up - he can focus on finding space.

I'm not sure you really get my point... i've been saying since the AI's our pack needs to get us momentum, and if we don't have that then we need a centre to set the targets so we can get momentum, and it's not true that Burrell doesn't set targets for them.

 

[TommiG88]

So many injuries.

 

[TommiG88]

You obviously haven't been watching Burrell closely of late. He had one tremendous game against Leicester and ever since has played average at best. He falls off way too many tackles and yesterday was an embarrassment.

Myler is a hell of a lot better than Farrell with ball in hand, he's improved considerably in defence I just don't feel he could step up to international.

I feel we may get embarrassed in Cardiff. Our set piece maybe the only thing that keeps the score sensible.

 

[goodNumber10]

You obviously haven't been watching Burrell closely of late. He had one tremendous game against Leicester and ever since has played average at best. He falls off way too many tackles and yesterday was an embarrassment.

Myler is a hell of a lot better than Farrell with ball in hand, he's improved considerably in defence I just don't feel he could step up to international.

I feel we may get embarrassed in Cardiff. Our set piece maybe the only thing that keeps the score sensible.

Lol!

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Why is Steenson being mentioned as a potential England choice?

 

[TheSaffycen]

Why is Steenson being mentioned as a potential England choice?

Lots of heavy drinking combined with having a name similar to Slade

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Ahaha, thank God! :lol:

 

[goodNumber10]

Why have we got two England 6n threads?

 

[Patchey]

Anyone who wants cheering up should have a read of the Adam Jones thread right now. Seems like Gats has been a right *** and come Friday week me way have a serious mismatch in our favour in the front row.

No, but people's memories have...

In fairness, he does have some plus point at international level; his positioning and return kicking are very good. His biggest weakness was as a ball carrier, which was being exacerbated by being part of the most pedestrian back three England have seen in some time. Someone needed to be axed to allow for the inclusion of someone with actual talent in that field, and moving Brown to 15 for Goode was the most obvious move. Now, Brown is probably the least dangerous carrier in the back three on current form, and a lot of people are predicting the need for a territorial game. Who knows? Maybe it would work. Maybe they'd even allow him to try the whole second distributor thing he was meant to be doing.

Personally, I wouldn't, but at the same time, I do feel it would be kinda a shame if England never took a second swing at a player with the brain and technical skills of Goode. But then, I'm not sure a guy with such poor athleticism (by tier 1 international full-back standards) should get a second swing. I think what I'm saying is he needs to go back to fly-half...

I sort of agree with this. Well the last part at least.

I always had an irrational dislike for Goode when he was keeping Brown out of the 15 jersey. He and Ashton seemed to embody everything I hated about the England selection process. Since he'd been dropped I've seen him in a new light and while I still think Ashton is gash, Goode, well... I would still start Brown over him but you're right, he does have a number of talents that we shuld try to use if possible. I've been thinking for a while that, goven how many backs we have that need/deserve some game time, we could really do with a guy in the 22 shirt who can play 10 and 15. Just as Beauden Barrett lets NZ have, for example, Fekitoa in the 23 jersey rather than a specialist fullback could Goode, if he's given some time at ten again, allow us to have Joseph or Burrell in the match day squad?

If Farrell is truely crocked then I think Cips could well make the bench.
Though I also wouldn't put it past Lancaster to put Farrell on the bench when not fully fit.

Does mean we probably don't have to see Farrell at 12, which'll be nice.

Or play Farrell against the World Champions when not fully fit...

Since no one else has said it...

... what money on Burgess straight in?

I don't see this as too wild a possibility...

If we can forget for a moment all the hype around Burgess, imagine he was just a random Bath centre. I guy who has both looked pretty handy recently as a physical, gain line breaking centre with a decent pass and a lot of potential and who has broken into the Saxons squad. Given the combination of injuries, poor form and selection indecision that has characterised our centres in recent times, it isn't too much of a stretch to imagine such a player being bumped into the EPS on the back of the good game against the wolfhounds if the current centres play/train poorly or, more likely, take a knock.

Now add the fact that this is Slammin' Sam we're talking about, and his reputation is probably going to see him viewed with a slightly rosy tint compared to guys like Devoto, Hill or Lowe and I can't see how he won't make the squad at some point during the championship and possibly, with an injury or two, the Wales game.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Its hardly a new paradigm but what I really want from this next game is for England to play with freedom.
That's for a number of reasons.

The worst thing in rugby is losing a game against a big rival and reflecting afterwards that you never really tired to play; you kept it tight, you wanted to be brutally pragmatic down route one. That gives you an unbearable sense of 'What if?'. This will always be the case if we pick combinations such as Barritt and Burrell and then lose - though I think those two could be alright together.
I just feel that if we played the flair combinations and lost narrowly we'd have fewer regrets about the whole thing and would simultaneously have moved the roundedness of our rugby forward,

 

[goodNumber10]

Its hardly a new paradigm but what I really want from this next game is for England to play with freedom.
That's for a number of reasons.

The worst thing in rugby is losing a game against a big rival and reflecting afterwards that you never really tired to play; you kept it tight, you wanted to be brutally pragmatic down route one. That gives you an unbearable sense of 'What if?'. This will always be the case if we pick combinations such as Barritt and Burrell and then lose - though I think those two could be alright together.
I just feel that if we played the flair combinations and lost narrowly we'd have fewer regrets about the whole thing and would simultaneously have moved the roundedness of our rugby forward,

I can dig that...

 

[Maverick1987]

I want Barritt to start at 12 and JJ at 13 defensively sound and could be effective going forwards with the help of Ford . I can see it happening too tbh

 

[ratsapprentice]

I've been thinking for a while that, goven how many backs we have that need/deserve some game time, we could really do with a guy in the 22 shirt who can play 10 and 15. Just as Beauden Barrett lets NZ have, for example, Fekitoa in the 23 jersey rather than a specialist fullback could Goode, if he's given some time at ten again, allow us to have Joseph or Burrell in the match day squad?

The fundamental difference between guys like Fekitoa/Barrett and Alex Goode is that the former are both supreme athletes - Barrett is rapid and Fekitoa is practically the embodiment of Tongan athleticism.
Goode is a smart rugby player with good technical skills, but well below par on the international stage physically.


Whenever I see Goode play at 10 I just feel an overwhelming "What if...?".

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I reckon Goode will play a whole lot more 10 when Charlie retires.
Easier to find a top draw 15 (and bring through Ransom) than convince a top draw 10 to come in to play 2nd(/rotational) fiddle to Farrell.

 

[TommiG88]

Lol!

You don't agree, what a shocker.

 

[Peat]

Haskell's the guy that people used to debate back on the 606 board on BBC whether he had any rugby intelligence to go with his brawn. That is, it's easy to point to Haskell as a player that Lancaster should have picked now that Haskell's doing well, but at the time I thought it was fairly unanimous that he wasn't worth all the caps he received under MJ and wasn't worthy of a starting spot going forward. He had the experience, but not the skill, and deserved to be overlooked. Different argument now maybe, or maybe not, because he has had pockets of form for his club sides in the past, and not once have I been overly impressed with him for England.

On the other hand, Robshaw had all the skill and none of the experience. You can find people calling for Robshaw to start for England all the way back to the middle of Johnson's reign. This is what I mean by MJ's failings - why did Haskell have all the caps he had, and Robshaw, easily the best flanker available at the time, had none?


Foden: Foden on the wing was ridiculous, but I'm not sure what you would suggest he should have done with Foden otherwise? Foden dipped massively after 2010 and Brown not only earned his place, but has been one of England's star players over the Lancaster era.
Ashton: Another player that tanked after 2010 and hasn't looked the same since. This isn't him looking bad for just England; he hasn't looked international-level for Saints in the year before his move to Sarries, Sarries and England under two different coaches. Maybe Lancaster doesn't play to his strengths, but you don't restructure your game plan around an average player.
Flood: Fair enough, one player that was hard done by.


Easter was terrible in 2011. Honestly one of the worst starting players under MJ. There was also the controversy over his remarks made after going out to France in the WC. His renaissance in form 2012 onwards is good for him (in fact, didn't O'Shea say that it's the best he has ever been?) but if you go back to when Lancaster took over, I can't see a case for Easter at all, especially when Morgan was emerging as a fantastic player (and should have started the first 2012 Six Nations match). In fact, I'm still not sure whether he'll step up to international level. He never did before. It's worth a shot for his form I guess.


Cueto is not fast enough for international wing play, Tait is not dependable to keep injury-free and not good enough to be worth the risk. Monye? Meh...

Lancaster made some mistakes on wingers, but it's not because of experience. It's that he waits so long to change strategies that don't work. Has anyone been impressed with Goode in all the time he's been with Lancaster? Why did it take Lancaster so long to realise that fullback-on-the-wing never worked and that Ashton was terrible? Why bring in May so late, when his ability has been so blatant for so long?

Not being funny here, but I'm wondering whether you actually think all of that, or whether you got caught up some sort of rush and was posting any old thing to disagree because you're not happy with the pro-experience arguments? I ask because some of your statements were so outlandish and contrary to my memory, I had to dig back to double check things.

Take Foden, f'instance. You say he dipped big after 2010. But back in 2012, you mentioned him for Team of the week vs Scotland, so he can't have been doing that bad. He'd have been in your 15 in February, May, and November of that year. Doesn't read like you think he'd dipped since 2010 there.

Speaking of changing minds, the same exercise with Haskell; apparently in March 2012, he was a talented specialist 6. In June, you had him ahead of Robshaw. Yet apparently you've never rated him for England?

So there we go. An unimpeachable on the spot witness who agrees with me that both players were definitely in contention. What odds I could find you talking about some of the other guys as England options back in 2012/2013?

I would also add for the factual record that Foden was shifted to the wing to accommodate Alex Goode after Mike Brown got injured; and that the injury-prone Matthew Tait has played 3 more club games than Jonny May since the 2012-13 season.

I'm in no way saying Lancaster made mistakes or should have played a bunch of old guys (Easter was an example of the sort of guy around, not someone who should have been picked). The point is simply that there were experienced options and Lancaster didn't use them. That's it, and I fail to see how that's contentious.

 

[ratsapprentice]

I'm in no way saying Lancaster made mistakes or should have played a bunch of old guys (Easter was an example of the sort of guy around, not someone who should have been picked). The point is simply that there were experienced options and Lancaster didn't use them. That's it, and I fail to see how that's contentious.

I don't think that means he doesn't value experience though... I think he just wanted to give experience to guys he believed would be the players he would be working with in 2015 any beyond.

 

[goodNumber10]

Not being funny here, but I'm wondering whether you actually think all of that, or whether you got caught up some sort of rush and was posting any old thing to disagree because you're not happy with the pro-experience arguments? I ask because some of your statements were so outlandish and contrary to my memory, I had to dig back to double check things.

Take Foden, f'instance. You say he dipped big after 2010. But back in 2012, you mentioned him for Team of the week vs Scotland, so he can't have been doing that bad. He'd have been in your 15 in February, May, and November of that year. Doesn't read like you think he'd dipped since 2010 there.

Speaking of changing minds, the same exercise with Haskell; apparently in March 2012, he was a talented specialist 6. In June, you had him ahead of Robshaw. Yet apparently you've never rated him for England?

So there we go. An unimpeachable on the spot witness who agrees with me that both players were definitely in contention. What odds I could find you talking about some of the other guys as England options back in 2012/2013?

I would also add for the factual record that Foden was shifted to the wing to accommodate Alex Goode after Mike Brown got injured; and that the injury-prone Matthew Tait has played 3 more club games than Jonny May since the 2012-13 season.

I'm in no way saying Lancaster made mistakes or should have played a bunch of old guys (Easter was an example of the sort of guy around, not someone who should have been picked). The point is simply that there were experienced options and Lancaster didn't use them. That's it, and I fail to see how that's contentious.

blimey! you're going to hold someone to something they said 4 years ago?