[2015 Six Nations] England

[j'nuh]

But you do have to play towards the players you have available. We simply don't have players in our backline that can provide those strike runners. I mean, Tuilagi and maybe Burrell could do it. Anyone else who has the power to do it, just doesn't have the overall ability (yet) of an international to be a possible option (e.g. Burgess, Devoto).

The pack might not have provided front foot ball so far, but that doesn't mean they can't, it just might need an adjustment of tactics. (Another reason to hire an attack coach IMO.) For my money, Wilson and Attwood can carry well, along with the 8, not a big fan of Youngs, but to his credit he has a decent carrying game too, and if that's not enough you need to look at playing Ewers rather than two remarkably similar players in Wood/Robshaw/Haskell. Hell, when you have guys like Marler and Launchbury and Lawes included, you could argue that you don't need any of Wood/Robshaw/Haskell. Kvesic has a better carrying game than the lot of them and brings in fetching to the mix too. I wouldn't shift the onus to the backline just because the pack isn't doing their job.

One overlooked player in this is the 9. One of our biggest problems is how slow we play. You can't get your forwards making strong carries when your 9 slows the game down to a snail pace.

 

[Willodell100]

What Front Foot ball is that then?

Not trying to be facetious here, but for all our Front 5 dominance we generate almost zero quality front football.

Our forwards don't beat the gain line, nor do our backs break the Tackle line, so where exactly does our front football come from that sucks in defenders and allows us to exploit space.

Unless we are going to run strike moves off every first phase play - which is unlikely - we have to have a game that can get that Welsh defence into transition,

I know you're not and I understand you've point of view in terms of Care/ Youngs taking a step and passing to a stationary forward invariably setup in a pod system from second, third and fourth phase ball.

But this isn't always the case as we still have some good strike runners in Vunipola, Marler & Hartley/Youngs who get over the gain line and tackle line.

I'm talking more about first phase off the set piece where we will almost certainly have a real advantage against Wales and to a lesser extend all teams. Our scrum and our rolling maul that has been particularly effective for the past 18mnths will give us that front foot ball we can attack from and do some real damage against a Wales side retreating.

 

[Willodell100]

Well I absolutely would go with a gainline player in the back line.

In a perfect world my preference would be the team i named earlier in the thread: Corbs, Youngs, Cole, Lawes, Launch, Vunipola, Woods, Morgan, Youngs, Ford, May, Burrell, Tuilagi, Roko, Nowell

Out of what's left at the moment i'd look to play a back line of youngs, ford, may, 36, burrell, nowell, Brown.

Tactically i'd kick pretty much everything in our own half, move Halfpenny around and make him get in the air (he's good but not good enough) and then from our 10 on wards i'd be looking to use a midfield contact point from off the top ball to beat the gain line, then as we don't have the close passing game of your NZ etc... i'd be looking to use pick and goes and runners off youngs and ford to keep the welsh in transition.

The point isn't to just run head first into contact, but you use a power runner to hit gaps and suck defenders in and ultimately give your pack a target - Burrell is fantastic as this and once the welsh defence is going backwards and their line speed is shut down i'd look to utilise the wider game hinging off Ford and 36.

I think England got it almost spot on last year, you know who else get it almost perfect?

Saracens & Northampton.

And Bath this year.

This is another route. All these sides have been so effective because they are based on an exceptional strong packs. Let's be honest the forwards win matches and the backs only dictate by how much.

 

[Patchey]

Blimey, out available backs look to have changed fast!

Twelvetrees and Burrell would be a good enough starting point I guess. I suspect Eastmond's fitness will play a part of that choice as well.

If Barritt is out long term and Eastmond is out for a game or two, I agree we'll probably see Burgess (for BB) called up after the Saxons game and maybe Slade to come in and train while Eastmond is out. I think Hill, Devoto, Daly, Lowe etc are, rightly or wrongly, too far down the pecking order to make an appearance. Slade has been features in a training squad this year and has versitility.

I still wouldn't be sure on Cips. Until the match day squad is announced I'm going to assume Lancaster might still pick Myler over him just so as not to be too dissapointed if it does happen...

 

[j'nuh]

Burgess in the England squad would be the biggest slap in the face for a lot of the other centres out there, especially Slade. He shouldn't even be in the Saxons yet imo.

 

[goodNumber10]

I'd agree with that @j'nuh - but i reckon the conversation will be had.

But you do have to play towards the players you have available. We simply don't have players in our backline that can provide those strike runners. I mean, Tuilagi and maybe Burrell could do it. Anyone else who has the power to do it, just doesn't have the overall ability (yet) of an international to be a possible option (e.g. Burgess, Devoto).

The pack might not have provided front foot ball so far, but that doesn't mean they can't, it just might need an adjustment of tactics. (Another reason to hire an attack coach IMO.) For my money, Wilson and Attwood can carry well, along with the 8, not a big fan of Youngs, but to his credit he has a decent carrying game too, and if that's not enough you need to look at playing Ewers rather than two remarkably similar players in Wood/Robshaw/Haskell. Hell, when you have guys like Marler and Launchbury and Lawes included, you could argue that you don't need any of Wood/Robshaw/Haskell. Kvesic has a better carrying game than the lot of them and brings in fetching to the mix too. I wouldn't shift the onus to the backline just because the pack isn't doing their job.

One overlooked player in this is the 9. One of our biggest problems is how slow we play. You can't get your forwards making strong carries when your 9 slows the game down to a snail pace.

yeah, all fair points.

 

[Peat]

I'm surprised that only Patchey has mentioned Sam Hill yet. He's looked good and powerful to me this year; I reckon he's worth a try, although obviously Lancaster doesn't.

Regardless, I am of the opinion that unless we have a ridiculously dominant pack (and we won't and I don't think anyone will), if we don't have backs who can bosh, we're probably better off without the ball.

Burgess in the England squad would be the biggest slap in the face for a lot of the other centres out there, especially Slade. He shouldn't even be in the Saxons yet imo.

Why should that matter? It's about winning games, not being fair.

 

[j'nuh]

Why should that matter? It's about winning games, not being fair.

If it were about winning games, then he wouldn't be in the Saxons squad. Like you say, Hill has been perhaps overlooked. I would have had him in ahead of Burgess.

Even though I don't agree with it, I can understand why they'd pick him in the Saxons. But the main squad? He is simply currently not good enough, and I'd question the coaches objectivity if they were to select him ahead of someone like Slade. Slade is better, more experienced, has plenty of potential and is in hot form this year. I just can't fathom why they would pick Burgess ahead of him.

As far as I'm concerned, the horse bolted months ago when it came to Burgess and the next WC. He could be a useful player after the WC. (Although I'm suspicious he may end up code-hopping like SBW.) But whilst the focus is on the WC, he shouldn't be in the full squad, even on development grounds.

 

[Willodell100]

I'm surprised that only Patchey has mentioned Sam Hill yet. He's looked good and powerful to me this year; I reckon he's worth a try, although obviously Lancaster doesn't.

Regardless, I am of the opinion that unless we have a ridiculously dominant pack (and we won't and I don't think anyone will), if we don't have backs who can bosh, we're probably better off without the ball.



Why should that matter? It's about winning games, not being fair.

I think Sam Hill has huge potential and has played consistently well for Exeter this year. Has great pace and step for a strong young lad and seems to have that knack of always beating the first defender.

Because of all the noise (and rightly so) surrounding Nowell and Slade I think he has been missed from a media point of view which is a shame.

Like others I would definitely have him ahead of Burgess and Devoto as neither have been playing regularly for Bath whereas he has held the 12 shirt at Exeter all season barring injury.

 

[goodNumber10]

no argument about Hill, i think he's one fo the few players everyone see's eye to eye on...

On burgess vs Slade - one's a 12, ones a 13.... they aren't really in competition imho.

 

[Rich Taff]

no argument about Hill, i think he's one fo the few players everyone see's eye to eye on...

On burgess vs Slade - one's a 12, ones a 13.... they aren't really in competition imho.

Tell that to mathematicians and 12.5!

 

[j'nuh]

All the more reason for Slade to be the one called up to the main squad. Right now, we have four 12s and one 13 in the full squad, with Barritt and Burrell sometimes shifting out of their usual position to 13. Slade can help rebalance this inequality no matter who gets injured, whereas Burgess reinforces it.

 

[yaboyjj]

Yeah, I do think Hill is unlucky- for all the plaudits going to the Bath midfield or Burrell, they are both playing behind big packs and surrounded by all star names. Arguably the Hill/Slade partnership is one of the most impressive out there- scrap Eastmond/Joseph, Exeter 12/13/14 into the England team pls! that's pace, power, good kicking ability, good defense and good distribution.

 

[Rich Taff]

Yeah, I do think Hill is unlucky- for all the plaudits going to the Bath midfield or Burrell, they are both playing behind big packs and surrounded by all star names. Arguably the Hill/Slade partnership is one of the most impressive out there- scrap Eastmond/Joseph, Exeter 12/13/14 into the England team pls! that's pace, power, good kicking ability, good defense and good distribution.

From what little I've seen of the English league (highlights on ITV4 etc), I've been very impressed with Exeter. Is that young number 8 in the squad? I remember him from the games vs Cardiff last year, he was a bit of a beast.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

From what little I've seen of the English league (highlights on ITV4 etc), I've been very impressed with Exeter. Is that young number 8 in the squad? I remember him from the games vs Cardiff last year, he was a bit of a beast.

Dave Ewers? He's in the Saxons.

 

[Rich Taff]

Sounds like it could be the guy. He reminded me of a young Scott Quinnell (with dark hair)

 

[ratsapprentice]

He's a much better 6 than 8.

I would be very happy to see him start at 6 for the senior side.

 

[Rich Taff]

England seem to be suffering with the 'Tony Clement' problem in the back row. They have players who are really good in all positions, but have 'slightly better' in every role, and therefore not giving a specialist a chance to become excellent (personally I think Robshaw would make a fantastic 6).
(for those thinking 'eh?' Tony Clement was a brilliant 'utility back', but never cemented his place in any one position for Wales).

 

[yaboyjj]

England seem to be suffering with the 'Tony Clement' problem in the back row. They have players who are really good in all positions, but have 'slightly better' in every role, and therefore not giving a specialist a chance to become excellent (personally I think Robshaw would make a fantastic 6).
(for those thinking 'eh?' Tony Clement was a brilliant 'utility back', but never cemented his place in any one position for Wales).

I think a lot of it is stopgap really, Robshaw is a 6 playing 7, Wood and Haskell are a bit meh really (Hask on form is good, but will never be a world beater) and Wood hasn't played consistently well for a long while.
I expect that long term (ie. building towards the world cup in 2019) we will see some new faces in the England back row, something along the lines of:
6. Itoje/Clifford/Ewers
7. Kvesic
8. Vunipola/Hughes
Is not too far fetched- there is certainly a lot of young potential, that even now should be given a chance (Kvesic/Ewers).
A pack of: Brookes, LCD, Auterac, Lawes, Launchbury, Itoje, Kvesic, Vunipola sounds pretty good to me (most under 23)!

 

[Peat]

If it were about winning games, then he wouldn't be in the Saxons squad. Like you say, Hill has been perhaps overlooked. I would have had him in ahead of Burgess.

Even though I don't agree with it, I can understand why they'd pick him in the Saxons. But the main squad? He is simply currently not good enough, and I'd question the coaches objectivity if they were to select him ahead of someone like Slade. Slade is better, more experienced, has plenty of potential and is in hot form this year. I just can't fathom why they would pick Burgess ahead of him.

As far as I'm concerned, the horse bolted months ago when it came to Burgess and the next WC. He could be a useful player after the WC. (Although I'm suspicious he may end up code-hopping like SBW.) But whilst the focus is on the WC, he shouldn't be in the full squad, even on development grounds.

Oh, with you now. Fair enough, although I feel you're being a wee bit pessimistic.

Mindyou, I would like to see Slade brought in for a closer look. Likelihood is whoever they bring in is only there to train and be observed, but Slade is potentially magic, and at the very least a tidy utility player who'd be a good addition for a WC squad in that regard if trusted.