England Post-WC discussion

[Peat]

... but I think Lancaster often pays too much importance to the wrong stats, for example in the case of Robshaw, where he should be looking at turnovers made rather than just being impressed by number of tackles made and rucks attended.

Robshaw had the second most turnovers this 6N.

The evidence of the stats and my own eyes. People asked me to justify my comments on Hughes, and I presented stats to justify them, now it´s your turn...

No, you made a bunch of one liners without ever really talking about why you rated the players so, with one link to some stats and a couple of derisory comments. I don't think you've justified your stance and I don't think you're engaging with people, which is why people aren't engaging back. People here like to more of why you think something. Not trying to be nasty or personally attack you - but you're going to get better replies if you present more to begin with.

And I think Morgan's international performances are a better clue to his ability than statistics from half a season of domestic rugby, so I don't really care about those stats. They're interesting in terms of showing how good Hughes has been, although it's been pretty obvious to anyone watching, but in terms of why Hughes would be world class when Morgan and Vunipola aren't... it doesn't mean too much.

 

[TheSaffycen]

Well I'm not going to use stats for my opinion I'm going to use the matches I've seen.
Morgan is the best kick returner, he is very useful linking up with the full back and with carrying into traffic. Foden try v France for example.
Vunipola is the best tackler, and very close too Hughes as a carrier probably better tight not as good wide. I think Morgan is actually the best loose.
Hughes is the best over the ball not much between him and Morgan out loose. Hughes better in the tight. Also lineout option.
Morgan is by far the best at the base of the scrum.

So overall I wouldn't have Hughes as he shouldn't qualify for us, but he does and he definitely has to be looked at. But how Morgan isn't considered World Class/intl' class I'm not sure.

 

[Peat]

Morgan's pretty useful in the lineout himself tbf.

I wonder if you could play the three of them as 6 Vunipola 7 Hughes 8 Morgan. I'd pay money to see that tried.

 

[TheSaffycen]

Well now Vunipola has increased his endurance I would give it a go but for the problem of speed. In our current set up we have the huge issue that Robshaw/Wood/Vunipola is slow. Gives the 10 far too much time. It's why we need to start Lawes otherwise no one is fast enough to help cause chaos.

 

[Peat]

Theo Brophy-Clews is starting for LI in their friendly against Munster; not bad for a lad whose last game was England U18s. Also of interest is that Matt Symons, the lad who made his bones in NZ, is already captaining the side. Gods knows we're not short of locks, but we are short of leaders.

 

[goodNumber10]

Theo Brophy-Clews is starting for LI in their friendly against Munster; not bad for a lad whose last game was England U18s. Also of interest is that Matt Symons, the lad who made his bones in NZ, is already captaining the side. Gods knows we're not short of locks, but we are short of leaders.

he was always talked about as a captain of LI, as he captained Chiefs (or at least co-captained) under the same coach. IIRC.

 

[msf]

TRF Peat, the comment about Morgan being Gloucester´s fourth best no.8 on last season´s form wasn´t meant to be derisory, it was a sincere evaluation of the many Gloucester games I saw last season.

As for engaging with people, the only person I have a problem engaging with is good no. 10.

I obviously didn´t offer a good enough argument to convince you, I doubt I will now but for what it´s worth: I think Hughes is a better player than Morgan because, as I perceive it, he is a more frequent ball carrier, is a threat in the wide channels, is a lineout option, and is better over the ball. He may be inferior to Morgan in some other areas, but the above areas are the most important ones in my eyes.

 

[Peat]

TRF Peat, the comment about Morgan being Gloucester´s fourth best no.8 on last season´s form wasn´t meant to be derisory, it was a sincere evaluation of the many Gloucester games I saw last season.

As for engaging with people, the only person I have a problem engaging with is good no. 10.

I obviously didn´t offer a good enough argument to convince you, I doubt I will now but for what it´s worth: I think Hughes is a better player than Morgan because, as I perceive it, he is a more frequent ball carrier, is a threat in the wide channels, is a lineout option, and is better over the ball. He may be inferior to Morgan in some other areas, but the above areas are the most important ones in my eyes.

You're not going to convince me Morgan isn't quality, no, but you might convince me that Hughes could offer more going forwards. For my money they're pretty similar, but Hughes' quality over the ball might be the point of difference in his favour. Morgan is a threat in the wide channels and a lineout option though in my mind; if he's not showing that for Glaws, its because they need him to do other things.

I'd agree with you that Hughes will be a great option to have, but disagree if you think we're not well set with Vunipola and Morgan. Its the comparison I was really getting at; its obvious Hughes is quality, but is he going to be better than what Morgan's shown for England? I think Morgan's been great for England, but there's nothing that can't be improved on.

If they do have the pace, I really would love to see them tried as one unit. Hughes has the offloading and floor game to play 7, Vunipola is great around the fringes and is working real hard, Morgan's a player I'd never want to drop. A little unbalanced perhaps, but it would be fun to see.

 

[j'nuh]

TRF Peat, the comment about Morgan being Gloucester´s fourth best no.8 on last season´s form wasn´t meant to be derisory, it was a sincere evaluation of the many Gloucester games I saw last season.

I ask again: behind who?

I ask because Gloucester only have two 8s.

 

[Raggs]

Billy Vs workrate was immense in the 6N, 2nd highest tackler of the tournament (only Robshaw above, with 3 more), always carrying into heavy traffic.

I think 6. BV 8. Hughes looks like a serious option in the future, Hughes offers the lineout option we want, whilst providing a good amount of breakdown work (his turnover per minute played rate was right up there with the 7s and Dave Ward). BV is the best tight carrier we have, and in my mind, one of the best in the world, Hughes is good at that, but excels at going into the wider channels and picking great lines.

I believe Hughes is in competition with Morgan more than BV, I don't know if he's a write in, but I am sure he'll get called upto the EPS as soon as England are able to cap him, if only to lock him in, but also to take a closer look. Until the laws change, I don't see a problem with this, he wasn't targeted by the RFU in any way.

There's also Beaument to consider, offering something similar to Hughes in the 8 position, wide channels, good lines, good pace, good lineout. No idea about his groundwork.

 

[ZeroTwo]

Billy Vs workrate was immense in the 6N, 2nd highest tackler of the tournament (only Robshaw above, with 3 more), always carrying into heavy traffic.

I agree with a lot of what you say but sometimes this can hinder both Billy and England. He can be stopped behind the gain line with two flankers over him because he just runs right into it. I have no doubt this'll improve with time but he's not quite got his decision making down in my book.

 

[Raggs]

It's what England want from him. No one is going to be successful all the time carrying that close to a breakdown, but BV has got to be one of the most successful. It's a safe play, but if you get front foot ball from it, it's a very very useful one.

 

[ZeroTwo]

England will often play props close to the ruck. They are usually much flatter than Billy catches and therefore less of a risk. Billy would do much better (solely in my opinion) catching it on the run more consistently and being smarter about his offloading game. No one wants to see him repeatedly jackled by Hooper/Pocock/Warburton/Tipuric (asides the obvious people).

 

[msf]

Agree with all the above, save for Morgan being a wide threat - I meant wide wide, like Hughes, Beaumont or Read.

Bringing it back to England post-WC generally (since I was the one that took the thread away from that!), there are some interesting stat graphics in this McGeechan article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...bled-on-Sam-Burgess-he-deserves-to-start.html

The most promising stat for me is that this England squad has approximately as many caps as the 1999 WC squad, which augurs well for the 2019 WC. It looks less promising with regards to this WC - if we won it we would be the winners with the lowest no of caps since South Africa in 1995, when I´m pretty sure they played a lot fewer games.

- - - Updated - - -

I don´t really get McGeechan´s preference for Burgess over any other inside centre, and Farrell over Ford, but he has been the coach of two more successful Lions tours than me. I think the game may have moved on a bit since he stopped coaching at the highest level though.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Interesting stat:

For the Fiji game I would go

1) Vunipola, 2) George, 3) Cole
4) Lawes, 5) Launchbury
6) Haskell, 7) Robshaw, 8) Vunipola
9) Youngs, 10) Farrell
12) Burgess, 13) Joseph
11) Nowell, 14) Watson, 15) Brown

16) Youngs, 17) Marler, 18) Brookes
19) Parling, 20) Morgan
21) Wigglesworth, 22) Ford, 23) May.

 

[Raggs]

I think Ford has a hard enough time playing with no additional playmakers, I'd not like to see Farrell in those circumstances.

1st team from now on out regardless however. Huge changes for the uruguay match only.

 

[j'nuh]

Gloucester have confirmed 12. Meakes 13. Twelvetrees for the first warm-up game. I'm cautiously optimistic about Twelvetrees moving to 13. Clearly Twelvetrees has a lot to offer as a player, and clearly Twelvetrees has been struggling as a primary playmaker for England and Gloucester, and making some basic errors as a result. Moving him to 13 takes a bit of that pressure away, but it also means he's in a better position to lead the defence. Looking forward to seeing how he gets on, although the competition is a bit stiffer at 13 than 12 from an England POV...

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Could work for club but I don't think he is quick enough for a international 13.

Shouldn't of left Leicester TBH.

 

[Peat]

Seem to recall a lot of his Championship time was at 13. That said, I don't think its going to reduce enough pressure to get over his general erratic nature.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Seem to recall a lot of his Championship time was at 13. That said, I don't think its going to reduce enough pressure to get over his general erratic nature.

He had also played on the wing for Leicester the odd time but he has to me gained muscle and lost the speed he had IMO.