[2015 Six Nations] England

[Raggs]

A few things.

Lancaster tried to pick what he thought was the best team and stick with them, with injury and scheduling it's been tricky. He also tried introducing Burns and 36. Burns had one of the worst form crashes ever, and 36 was stuck with for a very long time, but then between injury and form crashes the swapping started. Keeping Barritt in over Joseph during the AIs was daft, as was playing Farrell in any capacity.

You say he should be a 9 and stick with them, unless an inarguably better player comes along. Well he basically has. It's not his fault that their form fluctuates so much, and none of them are so complete players that when out of form they are worth having in the squad. Youngs out of form could do nothing! We'd have had to have played 8 man rugby to get anywhere. Same is true of Care and Dickson.

As for subs, players get tired. Especially if playing exceptionally well. Danny Care against France in the previous 6 nations was failing to arrive to rucks and looked exhausted, many suggested Youngs looked the same this year.

Got to run, but you can continue the arguement for some of the others (what alternative to OTY for instance).

 

[Peat]

I'm not really sure how to put this.

Basically, I'd love to agree completely and totally with Ritchie.

But this idea that actually we're better than this and we totally should be doing better? I don't think it's true. In fact, I think we might have overperformed these part four years.

I mean, 2012, no one expected us to get 2nd, right? And I didn't expect us to win 4 games this tournament either, not with so many injuries and Wales away first up. Should we have won in 2013/2014? I'm not sure tbh. I certainly didn't expect a GS either year. Overperforming seems as true as underperforming.

People talk about our resources. I think the money and player depth is a total red herring. Let's look at what really matters, eh?

World Class players with huge experience - None.
International class players with huge experience - Do Hartley and Haskell count as international class?
Players with experience of winning big European matches - Very few
Proven and experienced combinations of quality players - Very few. Our guys don't work together at club level, by and large, and they haven't spent enough time together at international level, by and large. Watching Youngs and Ford (two guys who shared a fair amount of formative experience together at Leicester) hit it off so strongly and quickly was not, imo, coincidental.

We don't have, personally, any of the following -

Destructive scrummaging props at international level (bar Crockisiero), a top international class hooker, a top international class blindside, a top international class carrying flanker, a top international class breakdown expert, any consistent scrum-halves, an experienced attacking fly-half, a top goalkicker, a suitable distributing centre bar maybe Eastmond, any consistent all-round 12s and any established international quality wings.

In short, Lancaster is working with a pretty patchy looking hand. If you look at some of the experience available to Ireland and Wales, the extent to which their teams are settled and ours are not, then it's not a really a surprise we're not winning too many championships of them.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Lancaster is good enough either. I don't think he has the experience needed in coaching (and neither do most of his team), I don't think he's picked wisely with his coaching team, I don't think he's got a coherent vision of what the team should look like or the ability to adapt pragmatically - and I also dislike him for a bit for coming across as a PR shrill.

But I don't think anyone short of a truly transformational world class coach is really going to do much with this rabble and even then it'd be a bit of a journey.

Might a better coach have dug out one 6N win from the last three years, given how close we've been getting? Maybe yeah. But I think only one.

Truth be told, I think English rugby might be on the road to nowhere. Our top talent is spread too thinly throughout our clubs. Our domestic competition isn't placing enough emphasis on the breakdown and is a big step down in intensity. Our top clubs don't get far enough in European competitions to give our players enough semi-international experience. Only one of those things might change sometime soon.

Our biggest hope is the strength of our age grade teams recently - but one only has to look at the Premiership today to see how well we're developing our young prospects into top players. How is that going to change when our clubs and competitions don't provide a stern enough challenge, when we only have one international team for them to play in, when our number of prospects leads to so much chopping and changing early on? Likely answer - it's not, and we have another generation of wasted talent ahead of us.

And leading this endless charge into affluent mediocrity is the guy who hands out five year contract renewals to a bunch of coaches, unproven at winning, then spends the next year *****ing when the coaches do the same thing as the year before.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

I'm not really sure how to put this.

Basically, I'd love to agree completely and totally with Ritchie.

But this idea that actually we're better than this and we totally should be doing better? I don't think it's true. In fact, I think we might have overperformed these part four years.

I mean, 2012, no one expected us to get 2nd, right? And I didn't expect us to win 4 games this tournament either, not with so many injuries and Wales away first up. Should we have won in 2013/2014? I'm not sure tbh. I certainly didn't expect a GS either year. Overperforming seems as true as underperforming.

People talk about our resources. I think the money and player depth is a total red herring. Let's look at what really matters, eh?

World Class players with huge experience - None.
International class players with huge experience - Do Hartley and Haskell count as international class?
Players with experience of winning big European matches - Very few
Proven and experienced combinations of quality players - Very few. Our guys don't work together at club level, by and large, and they haven't spent enough time together at international level, by and large. Watching Youngs and Ford (two guys who shared a fair amount of formative experience together at Leicester) hit it off so strongly and quickly was not, imo, coincidental.

We don't have, personally, any of the following -

Destructive scrummaging props at international level (bar Crockisiero), a top international class hooker, a top international class blindside, a top international class carrying flanker, a top international class breakdown expert, any consistent scrum-halves, an experienced attacking fly-half, a top goalkicker, a suitable distributing centre bar maybe Eastmond, any consistent all-round 12s and any established international quality wings.

In short, Lancaster is working with a pretty patchy looking hand. If you look at some of the experience available to Ireland and Wales, the extent to which their teams are settled and ours are not, then it's not a really a surprise we're not winning too many championships of them.
.

In my eyes, 2012 was the only really obvious case of overperforming. But generally, given the positions we get ourselves into, slam winning games etc, we repeatedly underperform. To get smashed once a year is to underperform. To prove that you can win tough awayfixtues such as in Cardiff 4 years ago, dublin 2 years ago and Cardiff again this year, followed in each case by at least one comprehensive defeat, is to underperform. Repeatedly beating a team as good as Australia but not ever looking like beating South Africa, is again to underperform.

In terms of one off good performances, we've done as well as any other six nations side with the exception of Wales' shafting of us in 2013. The difference is that other teams manage consistency following such good performances.

I agree that moneyand resources is a red herring.

Your assessment of the 'hand' Lancaster has: Do you mean generally or just what he had in this tournament?

Destructive scrummaging props at international level (bar Crockisiero) : Do Wales or Ireland?? We're pretty lucky in this department though Marler is hardly destructive. Neither is Jenkins and Healy only has his moments. Doesn't consistently terrorize tightheads. In having Corbisiero at all we are rather lucky. Cole was excellent this tournament and Wilson has recently set the standards.

A top international class hooker : Ok this is a problem. A poor lineout and Hartley offers nothing elsewhere. But it's not like there are no options here. Tom Youngs is a quality footballer and just HAS to sort out his pressure throwing. Same with Rory best though, who is clearly international class.

a top international class blindside, : I thought you were a big fan of Croft? But yes, fair at the moment. As with many things English rugby-related, the problem is players who look the deal at premiership level and don't show it at international level. Haskell has been decent but his skills appear too thinly spread over too many facets...butter scraped over too much bread, as our man Bilbo would say. There are options though for Lancaster and that's where he has to show strength of perception. We've talked about Ewers already so I won't go there. O'Mahony is setting the standards at the moment, but I've never thought Lydiate is an particularly well-rounded player - he does what he does, and he does it very well, well enough to stay in the side. What works is the general sense of balance, although I'd sugegst Wales are lacking in the carrying department in their back-row.

a top international class carrying flanker, : Ireland are lucky to have O'Brien. Wales have Warburton who in the carrying department isn't any better than Haskell. We should be able to make do here

a top international class breakdown expert, : Fair. We gain elsewhere in Robshaw though.

any consistent scrum-halves, : Ok, yeap. Though this is the most consistent I've seen Youngs play at this level since, well, ever! Youngs, in my very humble opinion, has been better than Webb this six nations. And if Lanccaster decides consistency matters the most, there's Wigglesworth doing a pretty good job right now.

an experienced attacking fly-half, : Sure, Ford isn't particularly experienced but is that something which really held us back? Oh and Cipriani is very experienced by this point, even if most of it is domestic level. Not convinced this is a problem.

a top goalkicker, : If the benchmark of top goalkicker is Lee Halfpenny then ok. Otherwise, Farrell is pretty good...

a suitable distributing centre bar maybe Eastmond, : What do you mean 'bar maybe Eastmond'? That's exactly what he is - a distribution centre, and not only that, he's a creative and silky-skilled distributing centre. If Lancaster chooses to ignore him, that's Lancasters own fault.

any consistent all-round 12s : Again, not convinced Eastmond did much wrong at any point, though I appreciate he's not the biggest.

and any established international quality wings. : ... that's Lancasters fault for chopping and changing - how many wingers has he tried? How long did he persist with Ashton for? I think Nowell is our best right now. Watsons defence this six nations has me worried. Falls of tackles.


The point I'm making by these comparisons is that whilst we don't tick every one of the boxes, neither do our competitiors who have achieved much more than us, and that includes consistency of performances. The reality in the northern hemeisphere is that most of us choose a general style of play and allow the strength of your strengths to brush over your weaknesses.
Is Jamie Roberts a top distributing centre? No, but he does other things very very well and Wales make that strategy work for them. Ireland don't have a single breakdown expert of the manner I think you're referring to, they have a team of vultures who support each other. O'Mahony and O'Brien are probably equally good at getting hands on ball, despite the fact that one is a 6 and t'other a 7. Wales could say they lack midfield flair, but has that really mattered in their success? Nope, because they believe in their strengths. Ireland don't have a destructive wrecking ball of a 13 like Tuilagi but they've achieved what they wanted to, largely.

In short i think you're giving Lancaster too much leeway given the resources I think he has.

 

[MrTea_32]

They will definetly pick Steffon and Burgess and you can't say England will be worse off for it especially with Armitage.

I think if Burgess improves abit more he will be in the squad, I think he would have done better in the 6 nations than burrell did.
I'm against England picking players not in England but I think Armitage will get picked because SL will stand by the overseas selection and Armitage will end up at the premiership club, a home world cup is to big for a player to miss.
He would be the answer to all our needs in the back row, ball carrier, specialist and move robshaw over to 6, job done

 

[cornishpirate]

OK but interesting you use the word 'hit'. I have been involved in rugby since 1959 and in training was taught that the tackle is used to regain possession of the ball. There has always been physicality in the tackle to force the player to release the ball early and inaccurately. But not with the purpose of injuring the player which a late tackle is very likely to do. The word 'hit' brought in by sports writers who have rarely been on the receiving end distorts the purpose of the tackle which to be legal has to have the potential of regaining possession. It may be worth reflecting that English preoccupation with physicality and hits rather than imaginative rugby requiring skill and guile has left them with a second rate unsettled team. For how much longer can the biggest rugby playing nation claim to be still learning from its errors and mistakes?

 

[Peat]

In short i think you're giving Lancaster too much leeway given the resources I think he has.

I feel you missed the most important part - The guys with the experience of international rugby, winning, and playing together. The rest is gravy to the meat really - it hinders us,but as noted, you can get round it. But a team with no guys with 50+ caps, a team full of guys who've played together 20 times at most? Far more difficult.

As you note, we have a bad tendency to inconsistency - winning some tough matches, losing others, particularly when the pressure comes on. I personally would say that's the sort of attributes found in many inexperience players. Why be surprised we find it in an inexperienced team? And, if we have an inexperienced team, why say they're underperforming when they act inexperienced?

I think you're overestimating the resources he has.

 

[Mike Rolls]

What I do find frustrating in the 6N is that when you look at the games won in Lancaster's four years, the breakdown is:-
Wales won 16, 2 ***les
Ireland won 11, 2 ***les
England won 16, no ***les (for completion, France have won 8, Italy have won 4, Scotland have won 3)
So, despite winning at least as many games as anyone else, England are empty handed, yet Wales and Ireland have two ***les each. Somehow England have developed an ability to lose the games that would have secured ***les - Wales in 2013, France last year, Ireland this year
Mike

 

[goodNumber10]

What I do find frustrating in the 6N is that when you look at the games won in Lancaster's four years, the breakdown is:-
Wales won 16, 2 ***les
Ireland won 11, 2 ***les
England won 16, no ***les (for completion, France have won 8, Italy have won 4, Scotland have won 3)
So, despite winning at least as many games as anyone else, England are empty handed, yet Wales and Ireland have two ***les each. Somehow England have developed an ability to lose the games that would have secured ***les - Wales in 2013, France last year, Ireland this year
Mike

Fair points, but let's unpack that a bit more though...

Wales: 1 Grand Slam, 1 ***le, 2 X 3rd places

Ireland 2 ***les, 1 X 3rd 1 x 5th place (finsihing below Italy and Scotland).

England 4 X 2nd places.

Additionally during all except the 1st year of Lancaster's reign the ***le has gone down to the last game of the championship with England still in the mix whereas neither Wales or Ireland were in with a shout unless they won it outright (i.e. they either won it or came 3rd).

England have not taken the step to winning the ***le outright but they've been far more consistent over that period than Wales or Ireland and have on three occasions been in with the shout of winning (once wining a grandslam).

ultimately only one team can win it and England have on Three occasions been in with a shout of winning it outright.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

I feel you missed the most important part - The guys with the experience of international rugby, winning, and playing together. The rest is gravy to the meat really - it hinders us,but as noted, you can get round it. But a team with no guys with 50+ caps, a team full of guys who've played together 20 times at most? Far more difficult.

As you note, we have a bad tendency to inconsistency - winning some tough matches, losing others, particularly when the pressure comes on. I personally would say that's the sort of attributes found in many inexperience players. Why be surprised we find it in an inexperienced team? And, if we have an inexperienced team, why say they're underperforming when they act inexperienced?

I think you're overestimating the resources he has.

Fair enough if it's about experience. But inexperience can easily be turned into experience, the key to it is estimating your talent properly in then beginning and not getting surprised when inadequate players fail to deliver. Ashtons last 10 caps could have gone to someone else. Burns' New zealand adventure could have helped Slade immensely.

 

[Raggs]

Burns went very well in NZ, especially considering his club form. I don't think it's a fair call that Slade should have been ahead, especially since Slades plaudits are now mostly coming from 13. Though Slade did get a chance against the Baabaas.

Tomkins was a daft pick, Ashton for so long was as well (though it seemed more that he showed good form at the start of a season, did awfully, then Wade and Yarde were broken).

 

[goodNumber10]

Burns went very well in NZ, especially considering his club form. I don't think it's a fair call that Slade should have been ahead, especially since Slades plaudits are now mostly coming from 13. Though Slade did get a chance against the Baabaas.

Tomkins was a daft pick, Ashton for so long was as well (though it seemed more that he showed good form at the start of a season, did awfully, then Wade and Yarde were broken).

don't think Tomkins was daft at all - JJ was injured/out of form having just moved to Bath, and Tuilagi was injured and unavailable as was Barritt. It was basically a shoot out between him and Burrell, and Tomkins was the known factor and was the form 13 at that point in the premiership.

I also don't think he was half as bad as people make out, he suffered from the exact same problems most our other 13's have suffered from in the AI's we play a horribly lateral game that has no forward momentum and for some reason we seem to fix this ahead of the 6 Nations. Additionally he played those AI's with an injured back that kept him out the rest of the season and since he's gone back to league he's been mustard.

On Slade vs Burns, Burns was the 3rd choice and stepped up, Slade should have gone over Cipriani who has clearly no place in the England Squad under Lancaster.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Burns went very well in NZ, especially considering his club form. I don't think it's a fair call that Slade should have been ahead, especially since Slades plaudits are now mostly coming from 13. Though Slade did get a chance against the Baabaas.

Tomkins was a daft pick, Ashton for so long was as well (though it seemed more that he showed good form at the start of a season, did awfully, then Wade and Yarde were broken).

You're right that Burns went well but that doesn't mean it was right to pick him.
I'd forgotten about Tomkins.
I'm not going to lie, that's an unforgiveable example. Decide to pick someone even though most of us can see he's not going to set the world on fire at this level - then concede that he's not good enough after all and never consider him for selection again. What a waste of everybodys time.

@GN10 : Agree that he wasn't completely terrible but at no point did he suggest he could do a particularly good job there. Even with Joseph out of form I would have had the ltter in a heartbeat, or Daly. Lowe?

 

[goodNumber10]

You're right that Burns went well but that doesn't mean it was right to pick him.
I'd forgotten about Tomkins.
I'm not going to lie, that's an unforgiveable example. Decide to pick someone even though most of us can see he's not going to set the world on fire at this level - then concede that he's not good enough after all and never consider him for selection again. What a waste of everybodys time.

@GN10 : Agree that he wasn't completely terrible but at no point did he suggest he could do a particularly good job there. Even with Joseph out of form I would have had the ltter in a heartbeat, or Daly. Lowe?

As i said Joseph was injured iirc as i think was Lowe? Daley was a 15 at the time and not even a regular in in the Wasps side playing second fiddle to Southwell and Masi.

Additionally Tomkins was never dropped, he was injured. He had an operation on his back and didn't return to playing until the last week fo the 6nations, played a couple fo games for Sarries then got injured again and left Sarries before the summer tour Burrell only made the 6nations squad because Tomkins was injured.

 

[Raggs]

Tomkins was awful. And it wasn't just attack, he was awful in defence. He was supposed to be a big guy who offloads, but I don't know if he offloaded even once. I remember the AB game seeing him stood up, arms free, with a tackler around his chest, support nearby, and thinking "You're supposed to offload now!!!".

 

[goodNumber10]

Tomkins was awful. And it wasn't just attack, he was awful in defence. He was supposed to be a big guy who offloads, but I don't know if he offloaded even once. I remember the AB game seeing him stood up, arms free, with a tackler around his chest, support nearby, and thinking "You're supposed to offload now!!!".

link it up, i recall him making a run after Farrell had made a break and getting hauled down - otherwise he was given man and ball pretty much every game. He got sat down once by I think Savea or Nonu?

But I don't' recall anyone lighting up his channel in any of those games, and it's pretty difficult to play 13 if your team has no forward momentum.

I've gone back over those internationals a few times, when we had that discussion last time as well, i think people just disliked the guy because he was a league convert playing for Sarries and didn't come in and instantly light up the game.

 

[Raggs]

If I recall they'd just dropped Joseph for Eastmond, due to the Argie tour, they then proceeded to not play Eastmond, preferring to play the guy called up after him.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

As i said Joseph was injured iirc as i think was Lowe? Daley was a 15 at the time and not even a regular in in the Wasps side playing second fiddle to Southwell and Masi.

Additionally Tomkins was never dropped, he was injured. He had an operation on his back and didn't return to playing until the last week fo the 6nations, played a couple fo games for Sarries then got injured again and left Sarries before the summer tour Burrell only made the 6nations squad because Tomkins was injured.

Ok.... Barritt?

They're willing to play Barritt there now (and he went quite well) so why not then?
Do you see my general point? Regardless of the injury situation I think they basically believed in him, I don't think they were literally out of options by any means, I think they thought he might have the ability. Because they've shown that, where the options don't suit them, they are happy to play other guys out of position such as Farrell at 12 or 13, Barritt at 12 or 13. Its not Lancasters style to pick a guy for a tournament because of a paucity of other options - they'll usually find an excuse to shoehorn someone else in first if they don't like the other player.

 

[goodNumber10]

Ok.... Barritt?

They're willing to play Barritt there now (and he went quite well) so why not then?
Do you see my general point? Regardless of the injury situation I think they basically believed in him, I don't think they were literally out of options by any means, I think they thought he might have the ability. Because they've shown that, where the options don't suit them, they are happy to play other guys out of position such as Farrell at 12 or 13, Barritt at 12 or 13. Its not Lancasters style to pick a guy for a tournament because of a paucity of other options - they'll usually find an excuse to shoehorn someone else in first if they don't like the other player.

he was injured - 36 played 12 because Barritt was injured ankle iirc.

Farrell was 10, Flood was 12 (I think) he'd been playing 10 for the last two years and had just come back from asuccesful lions tour as a 10 why would they move him?

 

[Raggs]

Just working from stats (not always reliable). In defence Aus he was 5/3 (36 = 9/2), Arg 3/1 (36 = 6/0), NZ 1/2 (36 = 6/1).

0 offloads.

 

[goodNumber10]

If I recall they'd just dropped Joseph for Eastmond, due to the Argie tour, they then proceeded to not play Eastmond, preferring to play the guy called up after him.

Nope. Eastmond 12 in for Barritt with 36 stepping into the match day.

Jopseph 13 (and injured). He'd just moved to Bath from London Irish, had been poor and i recall he was injured (hamstring i think)

- - - Updated - - -

Just working from stats (not always reliable). In defence Aus he was 5/3 (36 = 9/2), Arg 3/1 (36 = 6/0), NZ 1/2 (36 = 6/1).

0 offloads.

What effect did those missed tackles have on the games?