England vs Barbarians 26/05

[Peat]

It is a fair example. I presume we're talking set defensive line here, rather Eastmond flying up for the hit? But for me, until I see what happens when Picamoles/SOB/Roberts/Nonu has 5 gos at running down his channel, I will remain skeptical, despite the knowledge I'm possibly being irrational here.

 

[psychic duck]

Ok, well Lancaster has said he's starting at 12 next week, so we'll get to judge his defense properly then! I'll accept it's not the best example.

Kvesic played really well today, and Lancaster has pretty clearly stated that he is looking Matt, Fraser or Wallace to take the 7 shirt. So I think Robshaw/Wood/Croft are going to have to battle it out.
Fraser was ruled out through injury.

Still steep from the cheeky boot Kvesic put in to turnover the ball for the Wade try.

You won't be defending too much against that opposition.

 

[Peat]

Having caught some highlights... its given me the horn a wee bit how Kvesic turned those balls over, proper old school opportunistic awkward squad with the feet. Beautiful. Brings a tear to the eye.

 

[Big Ewis]

That must have been one of the hardest things you've ever had to say.

yarrr !! Was waiting for that one, shot myself in the leg there...

no but seriously, dunno what to make of it, if it's good judgment or completely blowing things out of proportion but, England had some srs attack there, I can't make a statement like they're better than the real squad but...well what would you say about it ? That second unit can srsly exploit holes and go wide, some good passing, some excellent offloads, and an attacking mentality, no slow ball ruck n ruck n ruck....

 

[nickdnz]

England's back three showed they should be regular starters, especially Wade.

 

[ratsapprentice]

I can't make a statement like they're better than the real squad but...well what would you say about it ?

Quite a lot of those players are significantly better than the "real" squad, you're quite right to say so.

 

[Big Ewis]

I guess, w/o wanting to offend anyone, England's coaching staff and rugby authorities would rather they stick to their game plan then...backs are fine, but it's all about the forwards and the FH. I'm not sure what conclusions to draw from this, I personally didn't know most of these players but in my eyes it seems like they should at least get chances to play big capped matches...those try-scoring black guys there.

I dunno...a bit strange isn't it ?? It's like Lancaster and England Rugby in general enjoy having mediocre backs (minus the Samoan !)...take pride in it or smt !
"We're a 10-man squad, and we approve of it !"

You have to admit, that didn't look particularly typical of English int'l rugby there.

 

[Peat]

yarrr !! Was waiting for that one, shot myself in the leg there...

no but seriously, dunno what to make of it, if it's good judgment or completely blowing things out of proportion but, England had some srs attack there, I can't make a statement like they're better than the real squad but...well what would you say about it ? That second unit can srsly exploit holes and go wide, some good passing, some excellent offloads, and an attacking mentality, no slow ball ruck n ruck n ruck....

Well, to compare them on Premiership form as attacking players only...

Wigglesworth vs Youngs - Well, can't fault Youngs for attacking intent
Burns vs Farrell - No comparison. Burns
Wade vs Brown - Yeah....
Twelvetrees vs Barritt - Better skillset, better athlete, maybe not as smart
Joseph vs Tuilagi - Well I'd take Tuilagi for now in fairness; Joseph is no slouch in form
Yarde vs Ashton - Close with both in form, although really I'd prefer Yarde's pace and power
Goode vs Brown - I believe Goode is capable of better but right now no comparison

So, basically, yes. A LOT better.

Defence? 10-12, no, but that's not an insult. Wade and Brown both have weaknesses in the left wing. Yarde and Brown are better mind.

I think its fair to say that most of us have been screaming like petulant children for a backline sort of like this, as it has blatantly been one of the better ideas for our backline all bloody season. And, ok, it was a Baa-baas game, and ok, the pack was on top form too - and England's current first choice has looked good with that before - but I think this has shown we might have been right.

The pack is an important thing. Launchbury on form is hugely important for us. Corbisiero is hugely important for us. Morgan is hugely important for us. Kvesic might be headed for the senior team very rapidly if he continues like this. I'm sure Farrell would have loved what they provided. But, right now, I'm thinking the signs are saying that we should change one of the 10-12 combo, and the entire back three. I expect Ashton to survive cockroach style, but he doesn't deserve it. Also, if Lancaster really wants to do this two full-back thing, then I feel we have three in form full-backs with a bit of wing experience and the genuine pace needed to play there in Foden, Tait and Daly and I'd be mildly peeved if he continued with Brown to say the least.

Have to say, that wasn't too bad a Baa-baas side on paper. And ok, they didn't gel, but I think a large amount of that was the pack didn't let them. The only position where I'd be unhappy with that pack starting against New Zealand would be Tom Johnson, who's not quite good enough for true test level rugby. You'd prefer Cole to Wilson, I think Kvesic has one more year of apprenticeship before being a test starter, and I do like Parling a lot, but otherwise that was close to first choice imo. And yes, I would consider Webber over Youngs. The Barbarians basically went up at a 75pc strength England pack and it proved far too much for them.

 

[Crapspray]

Re: Ashton

Even in form, is his tracking actually all that? Or unique to him? For Wade's try Twelvetrees had three blokes on his shoulder when he broke away, and five players were involved in the score. With a slow back three, and ponderous centres, Ashton is really the only player who can catch up. For example, Tuilagi's break against the Springboks in the autumn; only Ashton could keep up, and Brown was miles away on the left wing. Barritt, Farrell, and Goode were nowhere to be seen.

I think he will cling on in the Autumn, but will struggle to make it into the match day 23 ever again. At least if the new kids keep it up.

May, Wade, and Foden against the CONSUR XV please.

 

[Big Ewis]

^ interesting...
like, I thought to myself for long "England can do better than Ashton and fkn Goode...", and Twelvetrees looked fine when I saw him on the field.
Why won't England play a bit of running Rugby ?! They def. can, those guys are athletic and have some true attacking instinct.

My guess right now is they seriously want a 10-man squad. They must like wtvr their "real side" backs give them, wtvr it is, and must really want to focus absolutely everything on the forwards. Their game has been like that (it is traditionally of course) these past November and 6N.
For an outsider like me who's just speculating right now, it would appear the mindset is smt like they don't believe in try scoring, athletic/attacking backs. It's just simply not a part of the philosophy...

I mean besides black guys or guys of other origins, you (not you in particular) mean to tell me England can't produce a guy who can run fast, be a little creative when carrying, etc...?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Daly, May, Miller, Elliot, JSD etc.etc.etc.

Sent from my GT-I9305 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Peat]

In defence of Lancaster -

Yes, they have placed solidity and being hard to beat over scoring tries so far. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Defence is a key area; there is no good building a side that attacks well but leaks tries. It is the area most coaches would address first.

They have tried to get the unit they selected attacking. It has had a few successes, and might have had more if if Corbs and Morgan had stayed fit, and if Robshaw and Launchbury hadn't got tired; everyone attacks better off of front foot ball.

It hasn't worked though, and I think this tour represents them trialling the alternatives. And, in fairness, its been very hard to trial a lot of these guys until now. A lot of these guys are young players who are just having their break-out season. Burns, Twelvetrees, Wade, Yarde, Daly, May etc.etc - this has been their season. Tait's only really come back into contention. Miller's fell out of it since last season's form imo. And there's been injuries. Burns got injured at a bad time. Flood keeps getting injured. Foden lost his place through injury. There's still been options despite all of this, don't get me wrong, but it hasn't always been straight-forwards - particularly if you don't want to give up the defensive solidity.

So, I do think he wants more from the backs. But Lancaster and co want it on their terms, and they're trying not to change too many things at once. If the likes of Burns, Wade and Twelvetrees come through this tour with shining plaudits, I think we might see some big changes. I hope so anyway. There is a very scary backline waiting in English rugby, if we can unlock it... and if we can keep the forwards fit and going forwards. Ben Morgan did himself proud. Billy Vunipola, not so much...

 

[Big Ewis]

well if England can blend their big forward play along with some strong attacking from the backs, with Farrell at the boot and an apparently competent coach, things look very bright for England.
But based on the past 6N, though they've won 4 of 5, it wasn't convincing at all...so I'll just lurk and wait to see what they've got really, but I'm not sold yet on England.
And 2015 is still a long way to go...

 

[Aristodemus]

Not many England fans I speak to want Farrell as the long term FH, I know I don't. Burns is the guy to back, and it will improve our running game. I think we were good in the 6N until Morgan was injured but selection was shocking in the backline.

 

[j'nuh]

For an outsider like me who's just speculating right now, it would appear the mindset is smt like they don't believe in try scoring, athletic/attacking backs. It's just simply not a part of the philosophy...

The Aviva Premiership I believe has more tries per game than either of the Pro12 or Top14. There's nothing wrong with the club philosophy in England; there are a lot of creative players about. It's just that when it gets to the English national team, all the creativity is weeded out because defence comes first.

I mean besides black guys or guys of other origins, you (not you in particular) mean to tell me England can't produce a guy who can run fast, be a little creative when carrying, etc...?

Bit confused - does it matter if they're black? :huh:

 

[Big Ewis]

Not many England fans I speak to want Farrell as the long term FH, I know I don't. Burns is the guy to back, and it will improve our running game. I think we were good in the 6N until Morgan was injured but selection was shocking in the backline.

That Burns fellow looked good that match for sure...but Farrell's kicking is just spot-on, dunno if Burns can match that. And Farrell's dedication on defense and consistency; are those things Burns can match or make up for ?

 

[j'nuh]

That Burns fellow looked good that match for sure...but Farrell's kicking is just spot-on, dunno if Burns can match that. And Farrell's dedication on defense and consistency; are those things Burns can match or make up for ?

Burns isn't too far off Farrell in terms of kicking. When fit, Burns might be a couple of percentage points lower. But he makes up for it in terms of how fast he can get a team up the pitch, and how many penalties teams will be happy to give away to stop his attacking game.

As for in-field kicking, watch at 1:48 in particular (or just watch the whole video, it's a good one):



The only area Farrell really has over Burns is defence. But if we invest properly in Burns now, that defensive edge will come with age when he bulks out a little more. And FWIW, I think that if you pick a fly-half for defence, then you're doing it wrong.

 

[Aristodemus]

Burns and Flood have (or had last I checked) better kicking % than Farrell in the Prem, and game management is #1 when looking at your fly-half imo. If they can tackle then it is just a bonus but Freddie is no Ronan O'Doormat.

 

[Crapspray]

Why is it an either/or? Burns to start in good conditions. Farrell when it's ******* it down. One gets injured? Bring in Flood. Job done.

 

[psychic duck]

I don't know why teams don't do more horses for courses selections for sunny matches and rain effected mudbath matches.