England Post-WC discussion

[Wendigo7]

First of all, pick the style of player with the player pool. Creative, attacking players, from Bath and Exeter as an example.

Pick the players to build the team around, Ford, Itoje, Joseph, Watson

Pick the captains: Itoje, Parling, Clifford. Parling to help in the short term, even though you might just go with the kids.

Pick players to best fit the team and go from there. Don't pick players to counter every team like we have because no fluidity will come.

 

[Hulkster]

Itoje with Launchbury in second row, Ewers at 6?

 

[TheSaffycen]

Interesting as I think Attwood is vital, his Maul attack and defence is class,and we need that. Things that we need to improve are
Rucking completely- attack and defence. Our whole ruck concept is a genuine joke
Mauling is ineffective in most games
Tight carrying
Thinking now is rowntree the right guy, but what does Kitchener address ? As I said I like the guy but he has to make a point of difference apart from he's quick IMO.
Our forward pack needs an identity, is it going to be a powerful SA style pack or NZ passing ? Would Kitchener suit either system ?

 

[Peat]

I don't mind Lancaster if he sets out a game plan and sticks with it.

Do you think he's actually capable of that? He's had four years and has flip-flopped all over the place on what the plan is, do you think he's going to stick to one now? Because I think that's a pretty big call.

Says a lot about the good will he has that people are saying things like this, or that they wouldn't mind him just as long as he got rid of Farrell, when there's no sign at all of making the fix.

 

[Wendigo7]

Interesting as I think Attwood is vital, his Maul attack and defence is class,and we need that. Things that we need to improve are
Rucking completely- attack and defence. Our whole ruck concept is a genuine joke
Mauling is ineffective in most games
Tight carrying
Thinking now is rowntree the right guy, but what does Kitchener address ? As I said I like the guy but he has to make a point of difference apart from he's quick IMO.
Our forward pack needs an identity, is it going to be a powerful SA style pack or NZ passing ? Would Kitchener suit either system ?

Our forwards play this stupid pod system which I hate, adds no impetus and it's just retaining ball for the sake of it and we get caught out again and again.

He might be a decent technical coach but he isn't getting the best out of the players. Admittedly some are plodders but still.

 

[TheSaffycen]

He just reminds me of my grandad with all his nervous sort of stuttering every interview
Also I'm not sure he can decide but maybe he has too many coaches in his ear, I think we would also have an issue picking the same team when two guys are completely opposed. He needs to get new guys in who are all on the same page. I would love Baxter/King and Sanderson but I bet they would have similar issues with philosophy.

 

[msf]

What we really need is a coach who is a better selector than anyone on this forum, something we are lacking at the moment. Really, who would have come up with a less threatening midfield than Farrell, Barritt and Burgess? I don´t know if it´s even possible! Here, let me try: Farrell, Barritt...and Burgess. Doh!

 

[TheSaffycen]

10.Goode 12.Barritt 13.Farrell

 

[msf]

I like Wendigo´s approach: pick the kind of game we want to play first, then pick players that fit that game. England´s player pool is just too large otherwise. It´s not even possible to try all the candidates for each position unless you do this. I would also employ ex-England U20 coaches like Hunter and Walshe who have already done this at junior level, further reducing our need to experiment.

- - - Updated - - -

Haha, does it hurt that they are all Saracens?

 

[Peat]

He just reminds me of my grandad with all his nervous sort of stuttering every interview
Also I'm not sure he can decide but maybe he has too many coaches in his ear, I think we would also have an issue picking the same team when two guys are completely opposed. He needs to get new guys in who are all on the same page. I would love Baxter/King and Sanderson but I bet they would have similar issues with philosophy.

Aye, and we shouldn't be England's head coach, neither should a great many, and maybe that includes Lancaster too.

I don't think you're ever going to get the same desired line-ups from your various coaches and it's up to a head coach to take that in his stride and make it work. If he can't, if his coaches are that much at loggerheads, then someone has to go and it's up to the head coach to do that. Lancaster has shown no sign of doing that in his four years and therefore I don't see why we should think he'll start doing so in the future.

As for Attwood - I don't think he really contributes enough around the field, he's powerful when near the action but doesn't keep up well enough. I can see a case for him starting and being a key player if we go for set-piece dominance above all other things, but elsewise, I don't think he should be part of the set up. Me, myself, I'd like to emphasise a mobile team that runs around, so that's him done, more or less.

Kitchener, Kitchener interests me. Quick big (officially) lineout captain - not sure we've got many (any) like that, and truth be told I'm not sure who's meant to be our lineout leader post-Parling, because Lawes doesn't look the man.

 

[McTallshort]

10.Goode 12.Barritt 13.Farrell

Is that you Faz? If it is stop picking your son!

 

[Wendigo7]

Is that you Faz? If it is stop picking your son!

To be fair, he's an attacking game away from being a world class fly half. He has enough to improve to become that, but his deficiencies are too apparent for this side at the moment to not cover it up.

 

[chippieolamus]

To be fair, he's an attacking game away from being a world class fly half. He has enough to improve to become that, but his deficiencies are too apparent for this side at the moment to not cover it up.

You say that like its a minor thing. In the same way that Ford is a defensive game away from being world class. A 10 who has a poor attacking game is a BIG problem, its no minor thing.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Why do we not have any big horrible locks anymore?
Emphasis seems to be in speed/mobility/workrate. Usually you'd pair a guy like that with your "enforcer" but we don't seem bothered about that, and our scrum and maul are suffering for it (imo).
The difference in our tight play when Attwood was/wasn't on the pitch, in the past, was noticeable.
Is it because our flankers aren't doing their job so we want three more players, in the 23, that have played an amount of blindside?

 

[Wendigo7]

I have pondered since about a possible 23 for the 6 Nations (sucks we have to think about that this early):

1. Vunipola
2. George
3. Brookes
4. Attwood
5. Itoje (c)
6. Vunipola
7. Kvesic
8. Clifford
9. Youngs
10. Ford
11. May
12. Twelvetrees
13. Tuilagi/Joseph/Slade
14. Nowell/Watson
15. Brown/Watson

Subs:
16. Marler
17. Youngs
18. Cole
19. Launchbury
20. Morgan
21. Robson
22. Ford/Slade
23. Any of the back 3 above who miss out

Just let them play. Don't think too hard, just keep the basics short and simple and let things play out. Heck, Wade going forward has to be an option as does Yarde. I tried to place emphasis on form, doing the basics and keeping the natural 7 in the forwards. Whilst adding some ballast to mauling and scrums. In the backs, some pace to use the ball provided whilst trying to make sure players are playing where they play for their clubs. So no Slade at 12. Tuilagi still considered for now.

 

[ncurd]

36?

 

[Wendigo7]

Slade doesn't play 12 and never has. He's a 10 or 13, not a 12. Not a fan of Sam Hill currently and after that it's very thin on options for those who actually play 12.

Devoto and eastmond are both just maybes. 36 with time in a pack going forward will have less pressure as second receiver which he hasn't really had for club or country. Gets through a ton of work also and leads by example.

 

[Peat]

Why do we not have any big horrible locks anymore?
Emphasis seems to be in speed/mobility/workrate. Usually you'd pair a guy like that with your "enforcer" but we don't seem bothered about that, and our scrum and maul are suffering for it (imo).
The difference in our tight play when Attwood was/wasn't on the pitch, in the past, was noticeable.
Is it because our flankers aren't doing their job so we want three more players, in the 23, that have played an amount of blindside?

Does anybody have a big horrible lock that doesn't also have speed/mobility/work rate these days? It's a big pitch to cover and a very fast game these days, players who can't keep up are dying off at the top level all over.

edit: Wendigo - why not a fan of Hill?

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Does anybody have a big horrible lock that doesn't also have speed/mobility/work rate these days? It's a big pitch to cover and a very fast game these days, players who can't keep up are dying off at the top level all over.

Up to a point. But I'd still argue that the prime jobs of a lock are line out, scrum, tackling, hitting rucks and being able to carry at close quarters with three tacklers hanging off them. Basics first. Soft hands and being comfortable in the wide channels is wonderful, but not if your scrum is going backwards at a rate of knots.

And this sums up the problem we have up front at the moment. Because of the inadequacies of the set piece and imbalance of the back row we're picking players to mitigate the deficiencies of others, not because they're the absolute best at their prime duties.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

I'll prob get ripped to shreds for suggesting it but what about Robbie deans?

His early years with aus were pretty good, and as previous coaches have found out the wallabies players are not the easiest lot to handle.

Our creative 10's Cips and Ford offer more all round ability then Cooper IMO so can't see him not picking them.

It's just I can't see Baxter leaving yet before either getting Chiefs to the final and maybe even winning it.

Deans
King
Borthwick
Rowntree (maybe some one else but can't think of any ATM).