England 2021/22

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

A power runner who can pass and offload is what is mostly in the premiership from my memory (but happy to be corrected).

it's all about combos though, with Farrell at 12 you need some power at 13 but if we have a decent and proper 12 then we can have a merchant or Slade at 13.

 

[Scotty]

I do think with Smith at 10 having that running threat we coould have Lawrence at 12 for pace and power on his shoulder then slade at 13 for as the second distributor(with more time) to 2 attacking wingers with safe hands of steward at the back or Malins, tbh at FB i think we are quite well stocked with Daly as 3rd choice. I just dont like Lawrence being moved at 12 and playing out of position, kelly looks like a strong runner too but that was vs Canada so im not sure how much to read into that. We can speculate all we want but tbh i have no idea who will end up at 12.

 

[Zootalaws]

but not a fan of players out of position it happens to often.

The game has moved on.

Apart from set-pieces, the most successful teams are the ones where specialists are also pretty good generalists.

Forwards need good ball handling skills, to be able to run and to be able to work off the boot if needed.

Backs need to be able to tackle and play distributor, if necessary.

Watch a recent ABs, Wallabies or Springboks game, a Super Rugby Aotearoa game, an NPC game to see this in practice.

if you are wedded to 'traditional roles', you will lose out to a more flexible and dynamic team.

 

[Scotty]

The game has moved on.

Apart from set-pieces, the most successful teams are the ones where specialists are also pretty good generalists.

Forwards need good ball handling skills, to be able to run and to be able to work off the boot if needed.

Backs need to be able to tackle and play distributor, if necessary.

Watch a recent ABs, Wallabies or Springboks game, a Super Rugby Aotearoa game, an NPC game to see this in practice.

if you are wedded to 'traditional roles', you will lose out to a more flexible and dynamic team.

Yes but a foward with handle skills is different and backs tackling and distributing are all core skills that players should develop to be able to cover multiple positions but starting a player at 12 that plays all his club rugby at 13 is different.

I agree Lawrence should be adequate or even good cover there(and wing for that matter) and could develop into a great 12 but shouldnt be his primary position of he doesnt play there for his club.

 

[Zootalaws]

Yes but a foward with handle skills is different and backs tackling and distributing are all core skills that players should develop to be able to cover multiple positions but starting a player at 12 that plays all his club rugby at 13 is different.

I agree Lawrence should be adequate or even good cover there(and wing for that matter) and could develop into a great 12 but shouldnt be his primary position of he doesnt play there for his club.

I'm confused: you say they should be able to cover all positions, but then that it's a problem starting him out of position.

Why is he being started at 12, unless forced to play there by injury or lack of specialist talent? (Which I don't believe - England has never struggled to find centres)

Clearly the coaches think he's better in the role of second-five than centre. Or that their centre is a better centre than he is, but they want him around there, anyway.

There's nothing wrong with bringing a more-astute centre down the line if he has the skills. A big lad with a brain and hands is a wonderful thing (yes, Ryan Crotty, this means you).

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

I'm confused: you say they should be able to cover all positions, but then that it's a problem starting him out of position.

Why is he being started at 12, unless forced to play there by injury or lack of specialist talent? (Which I don't believe - England has never struggled to find centres)

Clearly the coaches think he's better in the role of second-five than centre. Or that their centre is a better centre than he is, but they want him around there, anyway.

There's nothing wrong with bringing a more-astute centre down the line if he has the skills. A big lad with a brain and hands is a wonderful thing (yes, Ryan Crotty, this means you).

Umm England has always struggled to find centres. You might be thinking of the wrong country mate or have very poor knowledge of English rugby.

We've not had a pair of decent centres since 2003.

 

[Which Tyler]

Umm England has always struggled to find centres. You might be thinking of the wrong country mate or have very poor knowledge of English rugby.

We've not had a pair of decent centres since 2003.

Or, s/he's a kiwi, where the centre wears 13, and England have a long history of producing good uns.
Our problem is the 12 shirt, which is "2nd 5/8" in NZ, not "centre"

FTR, IMO the power runner centre is just as much a 12 as a 13, and moving from 13 to 12 is nowhere near as much of an issue as the other way around, if only for the defensive picture. It's not ideal to play one at club level and the other at international, but it's far from being a deal breaker, especially when we're not exactly flush with choices, and the only actual 12s available who do what we want from a 12 have already been discarded.

 

[Geordie]

Jon Kpoku's gone to Coventry.

Ah i hadnt heard that...but Joel is the one who is slightly ahead and more likely to play in the prem.

Moving to the champs is not always a bad move...especially for young forwards...a season against some gnarled old seasoned forwards will toughen you up no end.

 

[higgik]

Yes but a foward with handle skills is different and backs tackling and distributing are all core skills that players should develop to be able to cover multiple positions but starting a player at 12 that plays all his club rugby at 13 is different.

I agree Lawrence should be adequate or even good cover there(and wing for that matter) and could develop into a great 12 but shouldnt be his primary position of he doesnt play there for his club.

I always thought that when NZ played with Carter, Nonu and Conrad Smith, they were at their most dangerous.
People back then even moaned that Nonu couldn't kick or pass, but that never seemed a problem. He was used to go forward, with the option of the out the back ball to a gliding Smith, who always seemed to find the right move, either to pass or just motor outside the defence.
Recently Sonny Bill played a similar role to Nonu.
With the distributor close together, the power has to come from the forwards being in position or from an outside back cutting a line.
Currently, England are relying on the former and it is taking too long to set it all up.
Lawrence has the right skills set to succeed in this role.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

I mean Nonu also had the size about him same as Manu.
I don't know if Lawrence does.

 

[Reiser99]

For me the simple fact is that England's attack has not been good enough. Defence is also a worry as it has dropped off from it's previous highs, but attack is more worrying. Since the world cup England have looked toothless. Now the key is breaking open the defence and you can do this in a number of ways. (I might be missing some, but these are the obvious ways for me.)

1. Set plays from a set piece - Issues with lineouts and scrums have meant that England have no had a reliable set piece from which to attack from.
2. Kicking - This has worked for England and keeps the pressure on the opposition, but is not a reliable tactic. You need players to kick extremely well and chasers to compete effectively. Also you give up possession and that allows the opponents to dictate the pace of the game. I also find it a very negative tactic. This seemed to be EJ's tactics and it worked for one 6Ns, then teams compensated. Might be more legitimate with new rules though.
3. Manipulate the defence - move your attack around until there is space to exploit by tying in defenders. England seem to try this, but then never really exploit the territory they create. For me the issue is 9, 10, 12 and 13. Often they don't all seem to be on the same page, or if Faz is at 12, the whole thing slows down. This is of course is Youngs gets the ball away quickly in the first place.
4. Have a decoy runner to suck in defenders. Manu was excellent at this, he would create space. Binny used to, but now it seems like defences are not as worried about him. Even then England struggle to make the most of the opportunities or it's too obvious to read.
5. Have a power runner to break the gainline and open space. Manu and Billy again were England's men to do this. However as above there is no one really filling that role now.
6. Off-loading, disrupt the opponents defensive line by having off-loading to a player. England have never really been good at this imo. Yes they can do it, but again it never seems to be effective.
7. Individual bits of brilliance (We seem to have relied on this, example May against France last year).

For me while England are competent in the set piece, we haven't been strong enough to use it as a consistent platform, so while we can attack off it, it is not are consistent tactic to be relied on to score.
I think almost everyone is fed up of kicking. England have not been kicking effectively for a while and majority of the time it feels like hoping something will happen because they are out of options. The area where we really seem to struggle is creating attacking options in open play using 3,4, 5 and 6. Our distribution is too slow, especially with Youngs and Faz to take advantage of moving the defence around. We haven't got any truly threatening runners right now to suck in defenders or make that line break. As for off-loading as i said we've never been massively effective at it and often we don't off-load when we should and off-load when we shouldn't.

The key for me here are the same positions everyone has been talking about for a while 8, 9, 10, 12 & 13. We have poor players at 8, 9 and 10. 12 & 13 are a mess with no consistency. When Lawrence did get a chance the ball wasn't passed to him. I still think it is Jones' tactics. He's got England playing negative, percentage rugby with almost zero ambition. How many times have there been opportunities or overlaps and Farrell has kicked it high to compete. I think he's been told to do that because while the overlap might work, it might also lead to a turn over. It's insane because these players should be good enough to exploit those gaps and surely the percentage of success is higher than a 50/50 kick. Yet time and time again we've seen England take the safe route. He seems to pick people primarily based on their defensive stats, because for him defence comes first. However there is no point having a strong defence if you can't score.

Basically as long as this is the brand of rugby Jones wants to play then it's almost irrelevant who gets picked. Case and point, Lawrence. He was picked to do a role and was never given the ball. It is irrelevant how good he is if he is never actually allowed to play.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Or, s/he's a kiwi, where the centre wears 13, and England have a long history of producing good uns.
Our problem is the 12 shirt, which is "2nd 5/8" in NZ, not "centre"

FTR, IMO the power runner centre is just as much a 12 as a 13, and moving from 13 to 12 is nowhere near as much of an issue as the other way around, if only for the defensive picture. It's not ideal to play one at club level and the other at international, but it's far from being a deal breaker, especially when we're not exactly flush with choices, and the only actual 12s available who do what we want from a 12 have already been discarded.

Hold your horses dude, how many great 13s have we produced either in the last 10 years, really. Manu was a world class player on his day but who else? We've not had a steady steam of 12s or 13s since 2003.

JJ was ok but not a world beater, Tait, Burrell, Daly (I like him at 13 but Not many do), Tindall (when he was passed his best), Farrell or Barritt played there, Banahan, Hape. Really can't think of any apart from Manu. Poor choice really, you can hardly say we've had a good crop come through.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

JJ was superb on his day,
As was Tait when he burst onto the scene/before the RFU made him bulk up too much

Definitely been some dross in there, too, though

 

[Geordie]

What do people "predimnantly" want from their 12?

Pure physicality and crash ball ability?
An extra Flanker / defender
An additional playmaker
A General Alrounder....

 

[Geordie]

i thought JJ was class when he hit form...and was one of the reasons our attack functioned.

Hopefully Marchant can replace that....

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

JJ was superb on his day,
As was Tait when he burst onto the scene/before the RFU made him bulk up too much

Definitely been some dross in there, too, though

I was responding to the statement that England have never struggled to find centres and to be honest I think we always have. Even if JJ and tait were good (top class) they were still the only real choice at that point in time.

I'd say, England have never really struggled to find locks to be a fair statement, but not centres.

 

[Geordie]

Well we have a good 12 currently playing No.8 for Exeter....

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

For me the simple fact is that England's attack has not been good enough. Defence is also a worry as it has dropped off from it's previous highs, but attack is more worrying. Since the world cup England have looked toothless. Now the key is breaking open the defence and you can do this in a number of ways. (I might be missing some, but these are the obvious ways for me.)

1. Set plays from a set piece - Issues with lineouts and scrums have meant that England have no had a reliable set piece from which to attack from.
2. Kicking - This has worked for England and keeps the pressure on the opposition, but is not a reliable tactic. You need players to kick extremely well and chasers to compete effectively. Also you give up possession and that allows the opponents to dictate the pace of the game. I also find it a very negative tactic. This seemed to be EJ's tactics and it worked for one 6Ns, then teams compensated. Might be more legitimate with new rules though.
3. Manipulate the defence - move your attack around until there is space to exploit by tying in defenders. England seem to try this, but then never really exploit the territory they create. For me the issue is 9, 10, 12 and 13. Often they don't all seem to be on the same page, or if Faz is at 12, the whole thing slows down. This is of course is Youngs gets the ball away quickly in the first place.
4. Have a decoy runner to suck in defenders. Manu was excellent at this, he would create space. Binny used to, but now it seems like defences are not as worried about him. Even then England struggle to make the most of the opportunities or it's too obvious to read.
5. Have a power runner to break the gainline and open space. Manu and Billy again were England's men to do this. However as above there is no one really filling that role now.
6. Off-loading, disrupt the opponents defensive line by having off-loading to a player. England have never really been good at this imo. Yes they can do it, but again it never seems to be effective.
7. Individual bits of brilliance (We seem to have relied on this, example May against France last year).

For me while England are competent in the set piece, we haven't been strong enough to use it as a consistent platform, so while we can attack off it, it is not are consistent tactic to be relied on to score.
I think almost everyone is fed up of kicking. England have not been kicking effectively for a while and majority of the time it feels like hoping something will happen because they are out of options. The area where we really seem to struggle is creating attacking options in open play using 3,4, 5 and 6. Our distribution is too slow, especially with Youngs and Faz to take advantage of moving the defence around. We haven't got any truly threatening runners right now to suck in defenders or make that line break. As for off-loading as i said we've never been massively effective at it and often we don't off-load when we should and off-load when we shouldn't.

The key for me here are the same positions everyone has been talking about for a while 8, 9, 10, 12 & 13. We have poor players at 8, 9 and 10. 12 & 13 are a mess with no consistency. When Lawrence did get a chance the ball wasn't passed to him. I still think it is Jones' tactics. He's got England playing negative, percentage rugby with almost zero ambition. How many times have there been opportunities or overlaps and Farrell has kicked it high to compete. I think he's been told to do that because while the overlap might work, it might also lead to a turn over. It's insane because these players should be good enough to exploit those gaps and surely the percentage of success is higher than a 50/50 kick. Yet time and time again we've seen England take the safe route. He seems to pick people primarily based on their defensive stats, because for him defence comes first. However there is no point having a strong defence if you can't score.

Basically as long as this is the brand of rugby Jones wants to play then it's almost irrelevant who gets picked. Case and point, Lawrence. He was picked to do a role and was never given the ball. It is irrelevant how good he is if he is never actually allowed to play.

I wouldn't mind England playing uninspiring percentage rugby if they were actually doing that but they aren't. Percentage rugby requires the whole team to be functioning a single machine carrying out the gameplan with great accuracy. It nearly always revolves around minimising mistakes, solid defence and watertight discipline. Jones has never shown any interest in sorting out our discipline so we are trying to play a percentage game but are just going through the early motions without actually buying into the whole philosophy. Our discipline is in the toilet which means more often than not any gains we make through kicking are lost through ill discipline. South Africa also kick a lot now but there is a clear plan behind what happens from those kicks. Our kicks seem to serve no purpose except hoofing it up field and then seeing what happens. Our tactics when chasing are inconsistent and more often than not we give our opponents more time on the ball when kicking than we give ourselves, so we often don't even win the kicking battles.

It's infuriating. We've got the "kick a lot" bit sorted but that seems to be as far as our tactics go at the moment. I've still not been able to identify any real plan behind it.

 

[Which Tyler]

Hold your horses dude, how many great 13s have we produced either in the last 10 years, really. Manu was a world class player on his day but who else? We've not had a steady steam of 12s or 13s since 2003.

JJ was ok but not a world beater, Tait, Burrell, Daly (I like him at 13 but Not many do), Tindall (when he was passed his best), Farrell or Barritt played there, Banahan, Hape. Really can't think of any apart from Manu. Poor choice really, you can hardly say we've had a good crop come through.

Well, if limited to the last 10 years (hardly my definition of "a long history", but whatever), then Tuilagi, Joseph (who absolutely was a world beater for a time) and Slade really isn't a bad selection - even if Slade is still more on paper than on grass.

Going back further, then Tait, Tindall and Noon really weren't the problem when played at 13 (nor was Greenwood, though he was a 12 playing 13 when played alongside Catt), further back still and you're straight into the Guscott years.
Listing a bunch of 12s doesn't help your point that 13 is the problem position.
From your list of 13s, out of Burrell, Farrell, Barritt, Banahan and Hape - how many England games total were at 13? Tindall and Noon, whilst fine at 13, and theoretically fine at 12, had to spend far too much time playing alongside each other and hampering the entire backline by doing so.


ETA: Please remember, the conversation has gone:
Zootalaws: England has never struggled to find centres
DSLD: England has always struggled to find centres
WT: I think he means 13s specifically, England have a long history of producing good uns
DSLD: how many great 13s have we produced either in the last 10 years

That's quite some moving of goal posts there. from "Never struggle to find" through "long history of producing good uns" to "greats in the last 10 years". Remember, injuries aside Guscott > Tindall > Tuilagi is an unbroken run of 1st choice 13s going back to 1989

 

[BPM]

What do people "predimnantly" want from their 12?

Pure physicality and crash ball ability?
An extra Flanker / defender
An additional playmaker
A General Alrounder....

Personally, I'd like an English version of Esterhuizen. I imagine most would put him in the 'pure physicality/crash ball' category, but his playmaking skills are underrated so I'd be more inclined to look at him as an 'all rounder' with the added bonus of being huge.

I don't think you need to be massive to be an effective crash ball centre though. Laumape is not huge (actually very similar height and weight to Lawrence), but carries like a beast.