England Post-WC discussion

[Peat]

I'm surprised by how many people seem to be thinking about Itoje as a second row. At the moment, he doesn't offer the grunt or hard edge that most people are calling out for in the English team. On top of that, at least at the end of last season, Sarries appeared to be thinking of him as a blind side (a position in which he would tick most boxes for England).

Heard he'll mostly be considered at lock from now on. Hope I was misled as he could be a hugely effective blindside and that's what we need. We have locks coming out of our ears. I'll agree Lawes is not the full article as we'd hoped he'd be, but any country that can consider dropping him entirely is hugely fortunate; he is definitely international quality. I do worry that he and Launchbury are a little too alike and would prefer a more set-piece orientated lock to partner one of them (usually Launchbury). As far as I can see, that man should be Attwood or Kitchener; I'd prefer Kitchener due to him being a better athlete. Kruis could develop nicely in this role too though before we even consider prospects like Stooke, Ewels, Barrow... seriously, Itoje, play blindside. I rate Slater a lot but wouldn't pair him with Launchbury, unless Launchbury also becomes a lineout general.

I'd like to actually see a bit of Symons before christening him the messiah too.


Finally... mentioned in one of the other threads I'd sorta been looking at what Lancaster had/developed... I normally don't tout on here, but since Tigs said he was interested and this is now our main thread, here it is http://muchadoaboutrucking.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/post-mortem-5-disposable-heroes.html

 

[RedruthRFC]

I think Itoje is a dilemma where he plays. We should see how he goes this season.

I think locks should be considered out of:

4 Launchbury
5 (Symons, Attwood, Kitchener, Slater) - Who ever shows the best form.

Itoje can be monitored...but jeez the expectations on the young lads shoulders are.....MASSIVE!!!!!

Agreed. Maybe I'm guilty of looking at other teams rather than thinking for myself, but there appears to be a trend towards bigger (mostly still athletic) second rows from most nations, England's options look rather short and lightweight for the most part, so hopefully Symonds' good form continues. This is a good part of the reason that I think that a 6-5 (ambitious) 18 stone Itoje's future may very well not be in the second row.

Edit: Thanks Peat, good post. Again, maybe it's old fashioned thinking, but at very least, you need a balanced second row pairing (or if you're really lucky, two freaky athletes who both offer the best of both worlds).

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

A very interesting blog post Peat. I think too little emphasis is placed on Lancaster-Robshaw relationship. Robshaw became captain but what did he do to deserve it? On top of that, he has kept the captaincy and as a result, he has cemented his position so securely that nobody could compete. England's biggest weakness is one that revolves around the position occupied by Robshaw, namely the breakdown. Lancaster obviously made a decision early on to have a captain who would be constant through the whole cycle but his stubborn refusal to change as our breakdown got worse and worse is unacceptable in a couach. We get into the world cup and our breakdown work is so shambolic is is embarrassing. Another coach would have seen the massive problem the breakdown was causing, moved Robshaw to 6 and ensured he got a breakdown specialist in at 7 and made steps to generally improve the breakdown work. I think this more than any other failing is the one I personally feel is the worst. He willingly ignored the seriousness of a problem he was creating and now it has seen us out of the world cup. Most of the penalties we conceded came from poor breakdown work, most of our inability to attack was because recycling the ball was slow because of poor breakdown work, teams attacked our defence because again, poor breakdown work never slowed down their recycling. To have an international side get to such a pathetic position and for the head coach to do absolutely nothing to fix is is inexcusable.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

.


Finally... mentioned in one of the other threads I'd sorta been looking at what Lancaster had/developed... I normally don't tout on here, but since Tigs said he was interested and this is now our main thread, here it is http://muchadoaboutrucking.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/post-mortem-5-disposable-heroes.html

Interesting read, and is a different take on things from the usual here and now stuff.

 

[Every Time Ref]

I'm not convinced by Lawes, not sure how much he contributes apart from tackling. Kind of an English second-row Lydiate

 

[Peat]

I'm not convinced by Lawes, not sure how much he contributes apart from tackling. Kind of an English second-row Lydiate

He's a good defensive jumper. I don't think he's the lineout caller he should be, but he gets up quick makes decent reads. Having a lock with sort of athleticism and comfort in the wide channels is a huge advantage in defence - him and Launch together were the keystone of our best defence imo. When he gets his body positions right, he can really carry strongly in wider channels and smash up rucks. Decent defensive mauler as well. Plus, he really does murder people in the tackle, and that is valuable.

I do like doubling down on him and Launch, but it leaves a few gaps and I think that's the main issue. If he dedicated himself more to studying the lineout I think part of that would disappear although maybe not all (although Launch looks more of a powerhouse himself now).

RR - interesting take. Have to say, I've started seeing it the other way around; poor coaching and a team that didn't really bother with the breakdown has hamstrung Robshaw and prevented him from being the player he should be there (breakdown was the post before last one on the blog). I am certainly adamant you can never blame one man for the breakdown, there's 15 men on the field and 180 rucks a game (or so) after all. I do think you're right that Lancaster has got too loyal to Robshaw though, particularly when he started trying to make the game more expansive.

Certainly, our breakdown is a shambles and it is hurting us badly.

 

[ratsapprentice]

People need to pour some water on the Symons fire... he looked good for the Chiefs, not exceptional.

Conceded quite a few penalties, and while physical, didn't seem like a baby-eater.

 

[Irish boy]

Yes keep doing that it means Bath can't nick him. From what I've heard he's been very good in preseason we've already made him club captain

 

[Every Time Ref]

He's a good defensive jumper. I don't think he's the lineout caller he should be, but he gets up quick makes decent reads. Having a lock with sort of athleticism and comfort in the wide channels is a huge advantage in defence - him and Launch together were the keystone of our best defence imo. When he gets his body positions right, he can really carry strongly in wider channels and smash up rucks. Decent defensive mauler as well. Plus, he really does murder people in the tackle, and that is valuable.

I do like doubling down on him and Launch, but it leaves a few gaps and I think that's the main issue. If he dedicated himself more to studying the lineout I think part of that would disappear although maybe not all (although Launch looks more of a powerhouse himself now).

RR - interesting take. Have to say, I've started seeing it the other way around; poor coaching and a team that didn't really bother with the breakdown has hamstrung Robshaw and prevented him from being the player he should be there (breakdown was the post before last one on the blog). I am certainly adamant you can never blame one man for the breakdown, there's 15 men on the field and 180 rucks a game (or so) after all. I do think you're right that Lancaster has got too loyal to Robshaw though, particularly when he started trying to make the game more expansive.

Certainly, our breakdown is a shambles and it is hurting us badly.

I'm not a lineout expert, but yes he is good. Not brilliant though, he doesn't dominate it like a Matfield or O'Connell, or even look on the way to it

As for the rest, I think your choice of wording says a lot - he "can" carry well, ruck well, but regularly produce it in games? When do you finish a game which England didn't spend the majority of defending and think, Christ, Lawes was smashing it today.

He is in principle a physical player, he certainly has some explosive power as his tackling indicates, but he doesn't really seem to make the most of it in many areas of the game. I guess that's a large part of why he underwhelms me.

 

[ratsapprentice]

He is in principle a physical player, he certainly has some explosive power as his tackling indicates, but he doesn't really seem to make the most of it in many areas of the game. I guess that's a large part of why he underwhelms me.

I know this is semantics, but bear with me - "explosive" power would suggest he can bring that power to bear very quickly and in small spaces - for example: standing in a lift/phonebox.

He doesn't, IMO - people like Mike Tyson and Kyle Eastmond have "explosive" power.

Lawes really needs to wind up to produce his power, when he has the space and time to do it he is extremely powerful, but he doesn't get that very often.
He's a Javelin thrower - not a weightlifter.

Which is why he doesn't have the same impact he does in the tight as he can have in open space.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

He's a good defensive jumper. I don't think he's the lineout caller he should be, but he gets up quick makes decent reads. Having a lock with sort of athleticism and comfort in the wide channels is a huge advantage in defence - him and Launch together were the keystone of our best defence imo. When he gets his body positions right, he can really carry strongly in wider channels and smash up rucks. Decent defensive mauler as well. Plus, he really does murder people in the tackle, and that is valuable.

I do like doubling down on him and Launch, but it leaves a few gaps and I think that's the main issue. If he dedicated himself more to studying the lineout I think part of that would disappear although maybe not all (although Launch looks more of a powerhouse himself now).

RR - interesting take. Have to say, I've started seeing it the other way around; poor coaching and a team that didn't really bother with the breakdown has hamstrung Robshaw and prevented him from being the player he should be there (breakdown was the post before last one on the blog). I am certainly adamant you can never blame one man for the breakdown, there's 15 men on the field and 180 rucks a game (or so) after all. I do think you're right that Lancaster has got too loyal to Robshaw though, particularly when he started trying to make the game more expansive.

Certainly, our breakdown is a shambles and it is hurting us badly.

I wasn't blaming Robshaw for the breakdown but the fact is, he is not a proper 7 and doesn't have the skills to do much at the breakdown at all. I say that's Lancasters fault for building a team that, on a team level can't function in a breakdown but exacerbating the problem by then selecting someone who isn't a 7 at 7. The only way you can get away without a breakdown specialist is if the team as a whole are competent enough to challenge it. Lancaster chose the worst of both worlds and his stubborness to not change his mind about anything regarding Robshaw meant the problem was never fixed.

 

[yaboyjj]

I really hope Itoje keeps playing at blindside- not least because Kruis/Hargreaves seem to be first choice at Sarries (Hargreaves as captain and I want Kruis to continue to develop)- surely he is the obvious successor to Brown and Burger in the backrow, alongside Vunipola and Fraser.
Anyone know who calls the lineouts at Tigers when Slater and Kitchener lineup (I assume its Kitchener).

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

A very interesting blog post Peat. I think too little emphasis is placed on Lancaster-Robshaw relationship. Robshaw became captain but what did he do to deserve it? On top of that, he has kept the captaincy and as a result, he has cemented his position so securely that nobody could compete. England's biggest weakness is one that revolves around the position occupied by Robshaw, namely the breakdown. Lancaster obviously made a decision early on to have a captain who would be constant through the whole cycle but his stubborn refusal to change as our breakdown got worse and worse is unacceptable in a couach. We get into the world cup and our breakdown work is so shambolic is is embarrassing. Another coach would have seen the massive problem the breakdown was causing, moved Robshaw to 6 and ensured he got a breakdown specialist in at 7 and made steps to generally improve the breakdown work. I think this more than any other failing is the one I personally feel is the worst. He willingly ignored the seriousness of a problem he was creating and now it has seen us out of the world cup. Most of the penalties we conceded came from poor breakdown work, most of our inability to attack was because recycling the ball was slow because of poor breakdown work, teams attacked our defence because again, poor breakdown work never slowed down their recycling. To have an international side get to such a pathetic position and for the head coach to do absolutely nothing to fix is is inexcusable.

+1.

And you could have added hookers with shaky throwing who can't hook and centres who can't pass or carry. And the knock on effects of selecting to try and mask these problems. How can you have confidence in a coach who has persisted in picking players who can't do the fundamentals of their position? These aren't cases of missing the icing on the cake, but players unable to do the basics. Not good enough.

As for Itoje, the guy has potential but is utterly unproven. But no doubt he'll get fast tracked to the team at some point soon. Maybe initially as a lock, but there is no doubt in my mind that he's a back rower, certainly a 6 but I also wouldn't mind seeing what he could do at 8.

Lawes needs a rethink and, contrary to the usual view around here, should get back into the gym and stay there for a while. He could still be what we all hoped, but has a way to go. Just feels like he needs a good feed and to be let off the leash. I suspect our play nicely "culture" would even have neutered a lunatic (my highest compliment) like O'Brien. How we need some like him who are oblivious to pain.

 

[j'nuh]

I want to pick the best players available and get back to winning. If Armitage is available for whatever reason, he's probably one of the best. Know people have questions, but there are questions over ever flanker we might pick bar Tom Croft, and people would be flipping tables if he'd been ignored while in that form in England.

Also, saying that Kvesic is better than Armitage is possibly one of the stronger examples of bias I've seen on this forum but, if you're right, then it would be lovely to have some experience cover for him just in case...

I have serious doubts about Armitage. I doubt his fitness, his attitude, his commitment and even his general ability outside of a dominating team.

 

[Every Time Ref]

I know this is semantics, but bear with me - "explosive" power would suggest he can bring that power to bear very quickly and in small spaces - for example: standing in a lift/phonebox.

He doesn't, IMO - people like Mike Tyson and Kyle Eastmond have "explosive" power.

Lawes really needs to wind up to produce his power, when he has the space and time to do it he is extremely powerful, but he doesn't get that very often.
He's a Javelin thrower - not a weightlifter.

Which is why he doesn't have the same impact he does in the tight as he can have in open space.

What I meant by explosive power was one quick movement where the force is transferred in a short space of time, as opposed to maintaining strength for a longer period - a big tackle rather than a scrum, a punch rather than an arm wrestle. Does that make sense?

The idea of him needing a run up is interesting and something I hadn't thought about, I'll think about that when I'm watching him play

 

[TommiG88]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...of-coaching-England-says-former-chairman.html

A quite interesting article, mainly about Woodward in truth.

 

[McTallshort]

As much as I agree with the content of it you cannot help but feel the knives are coming out from bitter ex rfu employees.

 

[ratsapprentice]

The idea of him needing a run up is interesting and something I hadn't thought about, I'll think about that when I'm watching him play

It's not so much a "run up" (although it helps) - he needs to move through a large range of motion first, though...

Basically what I'm commending is his remarkable tackling technique - that's what generates his power, it's not raw athleticism.

His body position in his highlight videos is always him fully extended, from toes to shoulders, as opposed to someone like Burgess - who's basically standing up straight most of the time when he smashes people.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

The subject of second row for England is an interesting one, although we have many good players it's about getting the combination right that's important. So players have to be looked at, at either 4 or 5.

4 Lauchberry, kruis, slater, attwood
5 Kitchener, parling

Not sure where symonns sits as I haven't seen him and lawes doesn't fit either to be honest. I love him as a saints fan but not for England.

He either needs to bulk up massively or really work in his line out. But also I'd add that like all the England forwards he needs to work on his basics.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

I know this is semantics, but bear with me - "explosive" power would suggest he can bring that power to bear very quickly and in small spaces - for example: standing in a lift/phonebox.

He doesn't, IMO - people like Mike Tyson and Kyle Eastmond have "explosive" power.

Lawes really needs to wind up to produce his power, when he has the space and time to do it he is extremely powerful, but he doesn't get that very often.
He's a Javelin thrower - not a weightlifter.

Which is why he doesn't have the same impact he does in the tight as he can have in open space.

Don't disagree with any of that. The very best locks have rounded games, but their primary work is in the tight and the close exchanges. In these areas Lawes is lacking. Restoring solidity to the front 5 should be the priority for the 6N. Without that solid base the whole team is compromised.