England Post-WC discussion

[Irish boy]

Saw Matt Symons was mentioned earlier just saying now the guy is class

 

[TheSaffycen]

Thomas and Vunipola will be 27 and 28, Auterac and Brookes 26 and 29. We don´t need the younger ones to come through.

The more I think about it it, the more I like the idea of putting Itoje and Clifford in the 6 nations squad right away, and in team as soon as possible. We shouldn´t worry about whether they are best options now, we should recognise that they have leadership potential and great ability, so that when the next World Cup comes around, at least one of them is established in the team and is ready to lead England at the 2023 World Cup, or if needs be (the problem with all the mature leaders is that they might not be the best in their position in 2019) at the 2019 one.

With Mako on 25 caps and Brookes on 14 by the time 2019 comes around they should be around 50 caps if they play consistently. The others like Auterac and Thomas could easily have like 30-45 caps as well.

 

[Crapspray]

Have we actually missed Hartley? Anyone citing the make-up of our pack should consider Hartley's lineout problems in the 6N and consider whether it would be any different. Would he definitely be making a difference in the scrum? Would he have got sent off against Fiji?

Personally I would like to see Hartley dumped for good. Olyy, what's Tommy Taylor's throwing like?

The pack would be different. Hartley was throwing to Attwood, Kruis, and Haskell for three games. Since we've brought in Youngs, we've gone into full lineout-mode with Parling, Lawes, and Wood - dropping our best lock in the process. I'd also love to have a look at where England are now throwing to, because I'm not sure Youngs ever threw it past the middle jumper against Wales or Fiji. Which both ruins the point of having an attacking back line and is compounded by having a much weaker maul.

Since we're in lineout mode our scrum has been very poor, and only Marler's rampant cheating made it any good versus Wales. Not surprising when the back five are about three to four stone lighter than they were at the start of the Six Nations.

It doesn't have to be Hartley per se, and I would want him gone as soon as a Youngster steps up, but since currently the only alternative is George I would've held on to him for this World Cup and probably most of 2016.

---

I'm also not sure it's accurate to describe our tight five as mobile. They're light and fit, with a good work rate, but they miss several attributes. They're handling is poor, they're not particularly quick, individual carrying is very weak, and -worst of all- they're awful at clearing rucks. I'd say we only had a couple of tight five players (Launchbury and Lawes basically) who could be described as genuinely mobile, and even then they have flaws.

Even if we had more, there just isn't the depth in English rugby (yet) to sustain that style. Three injuries in the Six Nations (Launchbury, Lawes, and Wood) and we were forced back to a very slow, strong pack playing an ill-suited gameplan. I think we'd be far better off starting with a strong, slow base and look to add the likes of L+L as bonuses, rather than as a basis. Once the U20s forwards grow up we then look the transition the national side over a few seasons. For the mean time, start slow and speed up in 2018-19. (At which point the backline should hopefully be experienced and cohesive enough to play that faster game.)

My two cents, anyway. I know most of that is subjective conjecture, but I hope I got the point across.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

I don't think anyone has ever described our tight five as mobile?

And I disagree when you say we don't have the depth to support a mobile forward game plan we don't there are just not test experienced IMO.

 

[Wendigo7]

I like the way people keep saying you need caps and experience to win big games.

No, you need to win big games. End of story, that's how you learn. Sorry, we aren't winning any of them currently so we're not learning anything really.

 

[Geordie]

Tigsman

I agree , I think at times Lancaster has not always looked at players when he should have who could really have made the team a different proposition.

For example, Ed Slater at your tigers. Prior to his injury he was a captain, and provided a lock option who has genuine physicality and a real carrying option...but still is "mobile" enough to get round the pitch. The England pack is crying out for that...yet Lancaster only decided to really look at him after his return from injury...

This is not good enough from Lancaster. And there have been others. Ewers for me is a back rower who offers the same...a big physical option...yet not even looked at to see if he could handle it. Kvesic on fire last season and another captain....not even a look in. Why not rest Robshaw for the odd game and try out Kveisc or Fraser if ever fit etc.

In the past aswell. I was a big fan of Matt Garvey. A monster of a guy at 6 or lock. He was in outstanding form when Lancaster took over and was tackler of the year for a few season on the trot. He may have been behind Robshaw and Wood individually at the time but he's a perfect foil for those type of players in the squad. He's your plan B. If the mobile game isn't working lets get big Matt on etc and change it up. But again he neer even looked at him bar 1 half of a Saxons game.

This is one of my biggest criticisms of Lancaster.

- - - Updated - - -

I think Itoje will be a lock not a 6. Hopefully a Lawes with a bit more oomph in the grunt areas of rucks and mauls.

 

[Peat]

The pack would be different. Hartley was throwing to Attwood, Kruis, and Haskell for three games.

a) He was doing it poorly. Our lineout at the start of the 6N was not good enough.
b) They changed the pack to include Lawes and Parling at lock by the end of the 6N - what makes you think they'd have changed back to the big guys if Hartley had still been available?

Since we've brought in Youngs, we've gone into full lineout-mode with Parling, Lawes, and Wood - dropping our best lock in the process. I'd also love to have a look at where England are now throwing to, because I'm not sure Youngs ever threw it past the middle jumper against Wales or Fiji. Which both ruins the point of having an attacking back line and is compounded by having a much weaker maul.

Since we're in lineout mode our scrum has been very poor, and only Marler's rampant cheating made it any good versus Wales. Not surprising when the back five are about three to four stone lighter than they were at the start of the Six Nations.

Can you remember how our scrum performed at the end of the 6N with Parling and Lawes in the second row? It's a lot better than you might think.

Launchbury really wasn't very good in the warm-ups and hasn't weakened our line-out when he has come on as a sub.

No, we're not throwing to the back very much, but then it wasn't very advisable in the 6N either. And I'd agree our maul has gone downhill, but then past results show the coaching staff don't care.

The only issue I haven't touched on is Wood vs Haskell. Maybe they'd have done that one different, but they do like Wood.

And this is why I don't think having Hartley would have greatly changed the make-up of the pack. Our lineout was bad with him. All of the changes are changes Lancaster likes to make anyway. Attwood didn't even make the squad.
---

I'm also not sure it's accurate to describe our tight five as mobile. They're light and fit, with a good work rate, but they miss several attributes. They're handling is poor, they're not particularly quick, individual carrying is very weak, and -worst of all- they're awful at clearing rucks. I'd say we only had a couple of tight five players (Launchbury and Lawes basically) who could be described as genuinely mobile, and even then they have flaws.

Even if we had more, there just isn't the depth in English rugby (yet) to sustain that style. Three injuries in the Six Nations (Launchbury, Lawes, and Wood) and we were forced back to a very slow, strong pack playing an ill-suited gameplan. I think we'd be far better off starting with a strong, slow base and look to add the likes of L+L as bonuses, rather than as a basis. Once the U20s forwards grow up we then look the transition the national side over a few seasons. For the mean time, start slow and speed up in 2018-19. (At which point the backline should hopefully be experienced and cohesive enough to play that faster game.)

My two cents, anyway. I know most of that is subjective conjecture, but I hope I got the point across.

I can't agree with this and I think you're expecting a bit too much to be called mobile in the tight five. I don't think you have to be both a rucking and carrying monster to count. Very few players are both.

LHP - Marler has very good hands and is not slow. Vunipola has very good hands and carries very strongly (wouldn't swear to his pace). Corbs is quick, Mullan is quick.

Hooker - Youngs fits all of your criteria and so does LCD. Shame about the throwing. George really gets around the park and so does Taylor from what I've seen of him. Even Hartley gets around, although not all that effectively.

THP - Well, ok. In fairness, this is for the fattest of the fat. Cole... nope. Wilson... surprising turn of pace, but has shown some poor hands at times. Broookes is quite quick for a big lad mind and Henry Thomas was always disturbingly mobile for a THP, don't know if he's kept that.

Lock - L&L go without saying. Parling, for me, just fits into the lower end of the boundary although he's not very noticeable. Attwood blatantly isn't. Kruis though, Kruis has a bit of gas. And looking outside the squad, Itoje immediately jumps to mind. Kitchener has pace. Slater isn't slow although I'm not sure he's especially quick. If Josh Beaumont ends up at lock, he is quick.

We have the fastest tight five in the Six Nations if we want to pick them and their handling skills are pretty decent before we even consider the recent crop of U20s - and I think if you doubt the current guys you should doubt the up and comers because a lot of the guys I've named looked a bit rock star at U20. Ruck technique leaves something to be desired, but they're English rugby players, of course it does. Carrying? Really good carriers in the forwards are bloody rare, unfortunately. A pack with three is doing well - a front row of Vunipola George Brookes would be rude.

I'd just like to add three things to that:

a) I've named most of the forwards in contention anyway. If our best set-piece tight five doesn't come from those guys, we're probably screwed. There's a few guys who'd be jettisoned in a mobile tight five who'd improve our tight five, but a pack reliant on Attwood is just as vulnerable to injury as one reliant on Launchbury - and more so, given the lack of cover. If Marler-George-Brookes-Launchbury-Kitchener doesn't do it for you at set piece, not a lot will.

b) If people want to go set-piece orientated, then what are you doing about defence? The more static pack was part of a team that conceded a lot of tries in the Six Nations. The more vulnerable your big guys are to getting picked off, then the more tries they'll leak, and the narrower you have to defend, conceding more tries out wide as well.

c) If people want to go set-piece orientated, who's supporting our back three? Are we expecting the back row to do it single-handed? Or are we simply going to go for ten man rugby?



Final note - I don't care if we don't have a Plan B. Wales don't. Ireland don't. You can go a long, long way on executing Plan A well enough - and I think Plan B is a luxury in terms of coming up with a Plan A equal to taking on those teams and winning the 6N.

 

[TheSaffycen]

You can have a set piece orientated tight five but also support breaks and run with the ball. I've said it before but look at SA, they still play good running rugby IMO.
If we picked a pack of -
1.Vunipola 2.George 3.Cole/Brookes
4.Launchbury 5.Attwood
6.Ewers 7.Kvesic 8.Morgan
16.Youngs 17.Marler 18.Cole/Brookes 19.Slater 20.Vunipola
Would that not be strong around the park and in the set piece ? And that misses out Itoje/Clifford and Thomas

 

[Peat]

It is the dream. You can if you have the right players. South Africa naturally produce 6'9" locks with genuine explosive power and other such luxuries. We don't.

That pack would have a slightly iffy lineout (if only Morgan was a slightly better jumper), a few too many plodders in the starting tight five to support a wide game, and still retains the dodgy Youngs-Marler combo on the bench. To me, it falls between two stools.

 

[TheSaffycen]

The bench was hard as I cant think of any looseheads coming through ?
Also the wide game wouldn't work with George/Kvesic/Launchbury/Ewers or Itoje ?

 

[Wendigo7]

Auterac

 

[TheSaffycen]

Indeed I forgot about that guy even though I mentioned him earlier

 

[Peat]

I think the answer is to have one of Marler and Youngs start, the other bench, and never let them stand next to each other ever again.

And I don't think the four guys you've mentioned will properly enable it, no. It would have its moments - our wide game has its moments now after all - but it would not be as strong as it could be; the team is only as strong as its weakest player. All it takes is for a few of them to be caught in a ruck and you're out of support.

Mindyou, I think we'd have to drop one or Brown or Joseph to really make it work, and I don't see that being popular either.

 

[j'nuh]

It is the dream. You can if you have the right players. South Africa naturally produce 6'9" locks with genuine explosive power and other such luxuries. We don't.

That pack would have a slightly iffy lineout (if only Morgan was a slightly better jumper), a few too many plodders in the starting tight five to support a wide game, and still retains the dodgy Youngs-Marler combo on the bench. To me, it falls between two stools.

Attwood - very good, Launchbury - good, Morgan - good enough for third choice (I'd have him as the "safety option" at the front, you never get steals at the front, although you never get quick ball either).

I think Attwood's lineout skills are incredibly understated, maybe because he's seen as being a lump. The guy is surprisingly mobile in the lineout. With George throwing, I'd bet on that unit going well.

Also, everyone talks about the hooker and jumper's roles in the lineout, but what about lifters? I couldn't begin to say who is and isn't good at it because I haven't the foggiest, but I do wonder whether your "sturdier" players might get you up half a second faster than your lanky ones, in which case there's a lot to be said for that starting pack in regards to the lineout. And the lineout is a skill that can be taught anyway. Morgan/Ewers aren't lineout options because they don't currently need to be rather than they can't.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Itojie @ 6 would work with that pack IMO.

 

[Peat]

I regard any lineout without two very good jumpers and three very good to good as iffy.

 

[Geordie]

You can have a set piece orientated tight five but also support breaks and run with the ball. I've said it before but look at SA, they still play good running rugby IMO.
If we picked a pack of -
1.Vunipola 2.George 3.Cole/Brookes
4.Launchbury 5.Attwood
6.Ewers 7.Kvesic 8.Morgan
16.Youngs 17.Marler 18.Cole/Brookes 19.Slater 20.Vunipola
Would that not be strong around the park and in the set piece ? And that misses out Itoje/Clifford and Thomas

The scary thing is...these are just two of the players that Lancaster has barely even bothered to look at.
Likewise Calum Clark has been in the squad for what seems like an eternity yet only got his first senior run out in the World Cup warm up.

I just don't understand that logic.

Watching players in training is important but it still only shows so much....

 

[TheSaffycen]

Itojie @ 6 would work with that pack IMO.

Only issue is then you need Ewers hard carrying, only Mako would be good at tight carrying otherwise. Ioje is a decent carrier but last year v Clermont we didn't make enough yards with only Maro and Billy carrying. Ewers is as physical as any 8 we or anyone else has, though the lineout is then at a disadvantage. Maybe Nathan Hughes at 8 ?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Maybe Nathan Hughes at 8 ?

Nope.

 

[Peat]

Nope.

Time to start accepting the inevitable. Also, you're slipping, that was totes an opportunity to big up a Sale player.