England Post-WC discussion

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

I watched Sam Hill in a Saxons game last year. So do you really know him? Or did he forget he played in those games?

One game is hardly experienced TBF.

 

[RedruthRFC]

Agreed re: power Geordiefalcon, I was just meaning that with the exception of Atwood's absence, it hasn't been de-powered since the Six Nations.

Not sure if I agree about the back of the lineout - the English lineout takes ball at the tail when Wood is playing. Do you think we worry about six ball would go away if Youngs magically became a world class lineout thrower overnight meaning we could pick say Ewers, Robshaw and Vunipola?

 

[Geordie]

Did Attwood really bring the power game that we all hoped he would though. Hence why he was dropped.

Look at the Aussie Lineout

A back row of
6 Fardy
7 Hooper
8 Pocock

Is not a lineout gem.

I personally think Lawes, Launchbury, Ewers and Robshaw would give you 4 good lineout options...and Ewers gives you a far more power option than Wood elsewhere round the park. It also means there not a sole focus on the Number 8 being the only main carrier.

 

[Peat]

I'm somewhat confused by all this talk of Ewers as a lineout option. He's not done it for Exeter, unless I'm very much mistaken, and that's despite regularly playing in a back row with Thomas the Tank Engine, who's another bad jumper. He's the wrong shape to learn. Have I missed something? Like, if I'm wrong, I'd like to know, but last I looked at the stats... I definitely wasn't.

As well as the well documented lack of a traditional seven, England have a problem with a lack of available lineout options in the back row - something which in particular with Youngs hooking appears essential to the team. What do people attribute this to? Are those who aren't recognised jumpers simply not athletic enough to do the job or is it an area that could be improved upon with work? I'm inclined to believe the latter - surely the average back rower is more athletic and skilful than the average second rower, albeit a bit shorter. This being the case, should the England management be working more closely with the clubs to see areas of concern like this addressed? The club vs country thing is always going to be tricky, but ultimately the RFU are holding the trump cards as long as the players in question are keen to be part of the England setup.

England produce a lot of good back row lineout jumpers. Croft, when fit, is probably the best in the world. In the squad at the moment we've got Wood, who's very good, Easter's also a class option, Robshaw and Morgan are both useful options. Outside the squad - Clark, Itoje, Gibson, Beaumont - that's just a small selection. We do back row jumpers well.

I think there's a bit of confusion about what the back row jumper brings. They're not just for the tail option. You'll routinely see them at the front of the line out as they have the best spring and are the lightest. Guys like Croft and Wood are frequently the go to option and getting rid of that option frequently gets rid of your first or second best option, not your "Would be nice" third option. Having three options is the minimal optimum because that's the minimum needed to put real doubt into opposition jumpers, both on your ball and theirs. You need that doubt to give your hooker the best chance - as Dylan Hartley found out during the 6N with the Haskell/Robshaw/Vunipola back row. Sure, you can get away with it, but sometimes you won't. It is a risk.

Think there should probably be more turnover than that mate.

Not sure Marlers up to it
Hartley will be out the moment we can find someone who can throw
Lawes is not what we need. He can go missing and there's not enough elements to his game. Can't carry.
Youngs should go the moment we find a scrum half with half a brain
Wing si goign to get competetive. Not sure May will be seen as well rounded enough two years down the line, but could be wrong...

I've been musing about how much turnover I want to see.

On the one hand, I don't think they're good enough, so clearly we need a lot, right? On the other, I don't want to do another total restart, because that team won't be good enough in four years time either. It would be madness to chuck away all the experience we're getting from this.

Besides, we definitely want the coaches gone, right? If we believe they're failing the players with their preparation, maybe the players don't need replacing.

Also, post-Attwood, I've been a lot more cautious in saying the coaches are getting it wrong selection-wise. I suspect a lot of the guys outside the squad are simply worse players and there seems to be a fair bit of "Oh yeah sure, they'd cope" about the weaknesses of players we want that seems a bit wishful.

So if Marler's not up to it - we might be screwed, for all I want to start Vunipola. Besides, he's still only 25. He should improve. He's one of our few opportunities to get a guy with 60+ caps in the prime of his career at the next World Cup. I suspect he'll be in the 23 going forwards for quite a while and if he isn't, then either something's gone very wrong or very right elsewhere. Alex Waller is almost definitely not going to be a better loosehead than Joe Marler. I doubt Mullan is, and hope dwindles for Corbs. See where Auterac is after his second season I guess, see where Ellis Genge is in a couple... but it all points to Marler being an important cog.

Jonny May seems pretty well rounded to me now if you can overlook the lack of physicality - and if he keeps up being this dangerous, I'm not sure anyone would care if he wasn't.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

And can the Tigers also please move harry Thacker to 7. Now he would be one livewire 7!

Did you see Thackers try v Falcons 'twas a beauty.

 

[TheSaffycen]

How about we go the whole Hogg and name duel opensides ?
Backrow of
6.Fraser 7.Kvesic 8.Vunipola
20.Lund

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Saffy don't butt kiss Olyy and say Lund please.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Unorthodox having the better player on the bench, but it could work.

 

[brokenoses]

I watched Sam Hill in a Saxons game last year. So do you really know him? Or did he forget he played in those games?

Nice one mate. Well done.

My point being, he could do with experience in the Saxons if not the first team, just to get him up to speed. That along with regular run outs at Exeter (which he will have) and he could be just what England are looking for at 12.

 

[Crapspray]

Sorry Peat, real life got in the way a bit so I missed your reply (I wasn't dodging it, honest). I'll try to keep it quick.

Re: Hartley, how much of the Six Nations was just poor form? Discipline aside, he's probably been one of the most consistent forward's in Lancaster's time. Add to that 50 caps worth of experience and I'd still say it's a loss. I think it's unfair to not credit him, in part, for the 94% across 2014.

My only evidence they'd have brought bigger locks in was when Launchbury was dropped for Parling all the chat from the England camp was mentioning the lineout. Hardly concrete, I know, but I certainly can't think of any other reason to drop Launchbury, who's played well apart from that France game. At least no worse than Parling.

---

Re: Pack Mobility. Perhaps I was holding the bar a little high for mobility, but I can't help but look at the pack's current state and think the attempt to improve it around the park (or at least these specific players around the park) has been detrimental. I don't mean throw it all away and start again with chubbies, but a focus on walking first would be wisest in my view. Particularly if the World Cup carries on in current trajectory...

Perhaps bad coaching has set the wrong balance - I can't say I'd be surprised. That said, it can't just be a lack of practise? I just feel England haven't quite got the skill in the pack, and not for a couple years yet, so should plan/play accordingly. Especially if there isn't a large turnover of players post-RWC.

 

[TheSaffycen]

Saffy don't butt kiss Olyy and say Lund please.

The more I ask kiss the mods the more lenient they'll be when I explode against Australia when we lose

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

As long as you have tissues to clean up after yourself no one will mind.

 

[Peat]

Just so we're clear, I like to run a "No Mercy" approach.

Sorry Peat, real life got in the way a bit so I missed your reply (I wasn't dodging it, honest). I'll try to keep it quick.

Re: Hartley, how much of the Six Nations was just poor form? Discipline aside, he's probably been one of the most consistent forward's in Lancaster's time. Add to that 50 caps worth of experience and I'd still say it's a loss. I think it's unfair to not credit him, in part, for the 94% across 2014.

My only evidence they'd have brought bigger locks in was when Launchbury was dropped for Parling all the chat from the England camp was mentioning the lineout. Hardly concrete, I know, but I certainly can't think of any other reason to drop Launchbury, who's played well apart from that France game. At least no worse than Parling.

Fair point on the comments and you're right, it could have been form - but I think... actually I can't remember what I initially said about Hartley and cba to look it up. I presume it was about Hartley struggling with the line out 6N? In which case, yeah, could have been form, but I find it super suspicious that it coincided with the worst set of lineout jumpers he'd have seen for some time.

Re: Pack Mobility. Perhaps I was holding the bar a little high for mobility, but I can't help but look at the pack's current state and think the attempt to improve it around the park (or at least these specific players around the park) has been detrimental. I don't mean throw it all away and start again with chubbies, but a focus on walking first would be wisest in my view. Particularly if the World Cup carries on in current trajectory...

Perhaps bad coaching has set the wrong balance - I can't say I'd be surprised. That said, it can't just be a lack of practise? I just feel England haven't quite got the skill in the pack, and not for a couple years yet, so should plan/play accordingly. Especially if there isn't a large turnover of players post-RWC.

When you say current state, do you mean this tournament? Or the last couple of years in general?

Because, yeah, this tournament's going pretty sketchy - but I think it's been something of an aberration. Previously, we had a generally good set-piece, both scrum and line out, and that was mostly done with a tight five of Marler-Hartley/Youngs-Cole/Wilson-Launchbury-Lawes/Parling - which is fairly mobile. Sure, we could amp up the set-piece from that, but probably not by that much. If Jamie George turns into the players we hope he is, he'll amp up both set-piece and mobility.

Note - when I'm talking about playing wide, mobility, I'm not necessarily talking mad offloading everywhere. Simply keeping up with play and smashing bejabbers out of the rucks. Obviously, the more hard-carrying ball-playing mad muddafuddas we can find, the better, but pace, fitness and hitting rucks is the basics I'm looking for. Needless to say, the ruck hitting needs to be worked on.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Nice one mate. Well done.

My point being, he could do with experience in the Saxons if not the first team, just to get him up to speed. That along with regular run outs at Exeter (which he will have) and he could be just what England are looking for at 12.

I didn't mean for that to sound as rude as it did when I re read it.

Sorry mate, fully understand what you mean about getting more experience.

 

[brokenoses]

I didn't mean for that to sound as rude as it did when I re read it.

Sorry mate, fully understand what you mean about getting more experience.

Haha no worries mate.

I think somebody mentioned this earlier but I'd like to see the Saxons utilised a bit more and really used as a bridge between AP and the first team with regular matches, maybe against some of the up and coming European national or even domestic sides. I think it could make a real difference with selection giving coaches a clearer indication of how players perform in that kind of setup. Trial and error during 6N, AI and WC like we have at the moment, shouldn't happen in a team with top 3 ambitions.

 

[Geordie]

Did you see Thackers try v Falcons 'twas a beauty.

Oh he took it well...but by god the tackling was appalling.

Do you agree he should move to 7 though? Or are you happy with him at 2?

- - - Updated - - -

RE - Lineout, I thought Ewers and Launchbury fell in the same category...not used much at all...but actually quite good. I may be wrong of course.

Its difficult getting the right balance in the pack. But I just feel we have sacrificed too much power for the "mobility" and ability to play at a certain intensity for 80 mins. Which judging by the Wales game we are unable to do anyway.

When you have Parling, Lawes, Robshaw and Wood, you have a lot of graft and workrate...but no game changers. Marler and Cole are increasingly becoming that in my opinion as well.

I want to see a few more MIke browns...ie the aggression. I want to see some real crushing power. I want to see players who can change things with some magic or a brute tackle or carry.....

We don't currently have a pack that has players that can do that...but I personally think we DO have the players outside the squad who can come in.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

I want to see a few more MIke browns...ie the aggression.

Agree totally, but I think the current regime coaches it out too far in favour of discipline. I really thought Lawes had that attitude in spades and could go on to be an England great. Now he looks a gaunt shadow of the player he was, let alone might have become and not now a guaranteed first choice in an average side. Feels like a waste.

Hartley had it and look what happened to him when he was told to behave. Every team needs a couple of lunatics who stay just on the right side of becoming a liability. Would have loved to see Lancaster "managing" Roy Keane!

 

[Peat]

The current pack isn't a mobile one, or at least not the most mobile one. It doesn't have Launchbury and Robshaw and Wood are by no means mobile. I'm not sure what you call the current pack really.

 

[Geordie]

The current pack isn't a mobile one, or at least not the most mobile one. It doesn't have Launchbury and Robshaw and Wood are by no means mobile. I'm not sure what you call the current pack really.

Your probably right Peat.

I think he's picked players who can go all game and hit a million rucks and make a millions tackles. But ironically when Australia played Fiji I think, Pocock (who is supposedly an old school openside specialist) hit way more rucks than any of the England pack.
So if the England management are sacrificing specialism for all rounders then that one showed its wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Agree totally, but I think the current regime coaches it out too far in favour of discipline. I really thought Lawes had that attitude in spades and could go on to be an England great. Now he looks a gaunt shadow of the player he was, let alone might have become and not now a guaranteed first choice in an average side. Feels like a waste.

Hartley had it and look what happened to him when he was told to behave. Every team needs a couple of lunatics who stay just on the right side of becoming a liability. Would have loved to see Lancaster "managing" Roy Keane!

I agree, I think Lancaster is trying to create this "respect" culture and its turning them into a bunch of nice guys.

People like Martin Johnson and Dalaglio etc were respectful but could be brutally nasty on the pitch when needed. I don't think any of our players can do that.

The AB's are respectful but they are not "nice"

By all means try to cut down on indiscipline...and cut down the stupid penalties...but that's different to taking away players aggression.

 

[Maverick1987]

If we are knocked out tomorrow who do you guys want to

A. See in charge of the team
B. Who is captain
C. Who starts in the first 6N game