EOYT: England v New Zealand, 01/12/2012

[donmcdazzle]

Average compared to carter maybe but not average compared to every other 10 in world rugby. I think the problem Most Kiwis have is that for the All Blacks anyway we are so used to watching carter he has become the benchmark. When he may very well be the most complete player to play in any backline position in the history of the game. basically anyone compared to him is pretty "average".

I know it's my favorite thing to compare everything to Cruden these days but consider this - Cruden had a very good game last weekend. But did he do anything in that game that Tom Taylor is not more than capable of doing? I honestly don't believe so, he really just did the basics well, kicked all the goals and defended ok, Taylor is more than capable of that, he may lack a bit of the x-factor cruden can have on attack at times and he doesn't have the level of experience and vision Cruden has but every other aspect of his game is just as good and some areas I would say are stronger. He'd also be a great addition on the bench as well considering he can play 10, 12 or 15.

IMO tom taylor is anything but average, he has I think the most consistent goal kicking I have seen over his first class carrier he's super reliable and at ITM cup and Super level he has been a match winner at times. I guess I shouldn't like him because I'm meant to be bias towards Waikato players?

Really I just hate Andy Elis

So he lacks in creation on attack and vision, probably the two most important things at test level for a 1st 5.

Taylor is adequate as a player. At his best he'll give you solid defense, great goalkicking and good kicking round the park. He will never set a game alight though or create a whole lot. Good provincial player, can't help but think he lacks a bit of creation at test level. The comparison with Berrick Barnes is apt, maybe Taylor is a more consistent goalkicker.

Maybe not all Waikato players but you are incredibly biased towards Donald and Leonard. Never has their been a bigger fan of two journeymen!

 

[Darwin]

So he lacks in creation on attack and vision, probably the two most important things at test level for a 1st 5.

Taylor is adequate as a player. At his best he'll give you solid defense, great goalkicking and good kicking round the park. He will never set a game alight though or create a whole lot. Good provincial player, can't help but think he lacks a bit of creation at test level. The comparison with Berrick Barnes is apt, maybe Taylor is a more consistent goalkicker.

Maybe not all Waikato players but you are incredibly biased towards Donald and Leonard. Never has their been a bigger fan of two journeymen!

But Stephen Donald lacked these attributes too, and he was a good test first-five. Oh wait.......

Anyways.... Random question to English posters: what type of player is Freddie Burns? I can't remember seeing much of him before.

 

[Larksea]

it's all relative, all players have strengths and weaknesses compared to other players unless we are talking Dan Carter who basically has no real weak areas, Donalds vision was not as good as crudens but still good enough to create tries at all levels of the game, Crudens Defense or kicking range is not as good as Donalds but it's still good enough.

As I already pointed out taylors vision and awearness of the game is not as good as crudens - an aspect of the game cruden generally excels at. I dont think he "lacks" give taylor some slack he's only 23 and had what? a year and a half of first class rugby? But I bet he still has the ability to create tries at test level, he would still be a better defender than Cruden and have better range kicking goals and I think he's a very good support player to.

Vision isn't the be all and end all of 10, look at last weekend for example, Cruden didn't really show what he can do on attack. He was basically man of the match because of his goal kicking and tactical kicking.

 

[Helmy]

it's all relative, all players have strengths and weaknesses compared to other players unless we are talking Dan Carter who basically has no real weak areas, Donalds vision was not as good as crudens but still good enough to create tries at all levels of the game, Crudens Defense or kicking range is not as good as Donalds but it's still good enough.

As I already pointed out taylors vision and awearness of the game is not as good as crudens - an aspect of the game cruden generally excels at. I dont think he "lacks" give taylor some slack he's only 23 and had what? a year and a half of first class rugby? But I bet he still has the ability to create tries at test level, he would still be a better defender than Cruden and have better range kicking goals and I think he's a very good support player to.

Vision isn't the be all and end all of 10, look at last weekend for example, Cruden didn't really show what he can do on attack. He was basically man of the match because of his goal kicking and tactical kicking.

I would agree with this, but if Cruden consistently did this, don't you think the NZ public would eventually say he wasn't good enough to play for the ABs? There needs to be a spark somewhere and from what (very little) I've see of Tom Taylor, he's a gap filler. Does a good job, but is an accurate boot really what we want to be picking our first five eights off?

 

[Shaggy]

Tom Taylor is a very consistent goal kicker who can cover the 10, 12, and 15 sports in the backline, which make him an ideal choice for the bench and play a brief cameo should he be required to do so, assuming that those injured players don't recover in time ... he played very well for Canterbury in the itm cup, and also along side Dan Carter for the Crusaders. What else can the selectors go on, if the player hasn't played for the ABs before? ... he deserves his chance IMO

 

[nickdnz]

But Stephen Donald lacked these attributes too, and he was a good test first-five. Oh wait.......

Anyways.... Random question to English posters: what type of player is Freddie Burns? I can't remember seeing much of him before.

I've seen him play a bit for Gloucester. He runs a lot more than just about any 1st 5/8th in the premiership and looks to have a bit of creative flare.

Still not sold on Taylor. He couldn't get the Crusaders backline working at all - and that's with a dominant forward pack. Yes he's a fairly safe player - but I think vision is the difference between a good 1st 5/8th and an average one. Being first reciever, knowing where space is is pretty damn important. Not having a good running game also means that the opposition doesn't have to do as much work defensively.

In my opinion - Taylor is very similar to Mike Harris. Good goal kicker and fairly solid in other areas. At least I've seen Barnes break the line with some nice footwork. To be honest - I'd have prefered someone like Jimmy Gopperth getting capped - that's saying something.

 

[Zed]

I think if Carter plays it will be a 20+ point game to the ABs, if he doesn't it will be a lot closer. Hopefully England play with a bit more adventure than last week. I turned off at half time, it was so dire.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Well can england score trys?......No

Do we look like we might score a try?.......Only by accident

Did we threaten Australia or South Africa with the backs?.......No

Questions i don't know the anwser to....

Is the problem the players or the game plan?

Why do England not do basic schoolboy rugby moves well?

Will Lawes have a awful game as he did the last couple of times he was injured and then played straight away for england?

 

[Gena_ZA]

I see both Cruden and Taylor and impact players, as the current incumbents are a league apart as well as all the valid reasons already mentioned. Taylor deserves a chance at 10,12 to prove he has the apt for international rugby or not.
Not at 15, NZ have more than enough depth there

 

[SomeOke]

I see both Cruden and Taylor and impact players, as the current incumbents are a league apart as well as all the valid reasons already mentioned. Taylor deserves a chance at 10,12 to prove he has the apt for international rugby or not.
Not at 15, NZ have more than enough depth there

Does he really? What's wrong with Barret? I can only assume he's injured otherwise I can't imagine him coming up.
Yes he's a decent player, is he All Black level - just no, maybe for England or SA (and this isn't me sucking up I just mean in terms of game plan) but NZ need a dynamic play-maker. Dan Carter is the best fly-half in the world, but to be fair Cruden is probably the second best (Beale/Sexton might be up there) so I don't feel NZ need worry about Fly-Halves Barret's also a good prospect, who granted needs a lot of work but shows a hell of a lot of potential.

In any case England are going to need to produce something special for this game, I don't doubt their defence and they may keep NZ to a relatively low score, but ultimately if you can't score points you can't win. A kicking game like the one implemented against SA is just not going to work. SA fullback/wings are all good in the air but it's the potential for counter-attack from the likes of Dagg and Jane that make this tactic really dangerous against the AB's.

 

[Zed]

Well can england score trys?......No

Do we look like we might score a try?.......Only by accident

Did we threaten Australia or South Africa with the backs?.......No

Questions i don't know the anwser to....

Is the problem the players or the game plan?

Why do England not do basic schoolboy rugby moves well?

Will Lawes have a awful game as he did the last couple of times he was injured and then played straight away for england?

They definitely have the players. Tuilagi would walk into most sides. They've got 2 decent half backs, a pretty good back 3. There is an issue at 10. Can't really put my finger on it. Flood isn't bad he seems to play fairly flat, which is good, not a bad defender, kicks well etc but he just never really seems to get his backline going. Against SA he was throwing these passes that weren't doing very much, they weren't putting players into gaps, there weren't long accurate passes to the fullback hitting the line at pace and really with a player of Tuilagis calibre England should be doing much better in attack than what they are doing. They also seemed to have reverted to (as has SA and to a lesser extent the Wallabies) a horrible, turgid kicking game. A game plan I have never really understood. And by that I mean, you have the ball you are in the opponents half you shouldn't really be kicking, unless there's 2 minutes to go and you're in the lead or their back 3 are retarded. And if you do kick and they catch it time and again and return it with interest then stop! Don't keep on persisting with a style of play that obviously ain't working. It's a really negative style of play that essentially relies on the opposition dropping the ball. Try that against the ABS and their back 3 will crucify England.

 

[Big Ewis]

I think if Carter plays it will be a 20+ point game to the ABs, if he doesn't it will be a lot closer. Hopefully England play with a bit more adventure than last week. I turned off at half time, it was so dire.

Same here...couldn't go on with that match...(again, no offense to either team).

Well can england score trys?......No

Do we look like we might score a try?.......Only by accident

Did we threaten Australia or South Africa with the backs?.......No

Questions i don't know the anwser to....

Is the problem the players or the game plan?

Why do England not do basic schoolboy rugby moves well?

Will Lawes have a awful game as he did the last couple of times he was injured and then played straight away for england?

Let me tell you something. I think England looked threatening on attack against Australia all the way til that "try" by Tuilagi. I think their offense is overlooked a lot because they've played against great sides recently - even though some will make the argument that they couldn't quite capitalize against Fiji and spread the space wide (despite dropping 50).
Obviously no Tom Croft hurts them - and though they don't have the best backs in the world, they can srs threaten their opponents and put some big pressure on them, forwards are very powerful and incisive on the rucks and allow for quick ball movement; while it's true the backs don't follow the plays as convened.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Same here...couldn't go on with that match...(again, no offense to either team).





Let me tell you something. I think England looked threatening on attack against Australia all the way til that "try" by Tuilagi. I think their offense is overlooked a lot because they've played against great sides recently - even though some will make the argument that they couldn't quite capitalize against Fiji and spread the space wide (despite dropping 50).
Obviously no Tom Croft hurts them - and though they don't have the best backs in the world, they can srs threaten their opponents and put some big pressure on them, forwards are very powerful and incisive on the rucks and allow for quick ball movement; while it's true the backs don't follow the plays as convened.

If you take tuilagi out of the equation though we have nothing to worry sides at all and for some bizaree reason Tuilagi is never properly supported so he doesn't have a great amount of offloading abilities.

I don'tn think we miss Croft at all, i think Wood is a far better player and plays like a proper flanker rather than always hanging out in the backs. Infact with his speed Croft should be starting on the Wing!

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Hore has been banned for 5 weeks.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Really?!

I mean he's not terrible, but he's about as average a 1st 5/8th to ever be included in the AB's in my opinion. Good goal kicker but utterly poor with ball in hand and running a game. Safe is about it. He's like a poor man's David Hill...

Sounds like exactly the kind of player England would love to snap up

Interesting when I look at the England Forwards there I'm pretty delighted - with Hartley instead of Paice, and Marler or Nick Wood instead of Wilson, that squad of forwards is close to perfect.
Then when I look at the backs....it's not the same story at all. 6 or so of those guys I would be swapping for someone else.

I too think that although New Zeland will win, it'll be closer than people are saying. Whereas we always struggle with the favourites tag, we have license to experiment and play freely on Saturday, as nobody expects us to come close to the All-Blacks. I reckon this was part of the reason why Lancaster felt he could bring back Lawes despite him not having played much - I think Lancaster knows that there's no reason he can't just put in the best English players and let them have a crack.

Couple of things I'd say: We have to try Tuilagi at 12 and Joseph at 13. Yes, Tuilagi is yet to develop the proper 12 skillset, but neither is Barritt at 12 and Tuilagi at 13 a midfield that has worked for us. I feel really strongly that we need some real pace somewherein the midfield in order to be able to stretch oppenents rather than just allowing them to operate a 'drift' defense.
I could understand why Lancaster went for Brown on the wing against South Africa (high-ball, kicking game and all that jazz...) , but why against New Zealand, I have no clue. I think he'll regret such a choice, personally. It's a big mistake to be dropping Sharples. I'd have him above Ashton and Brown at the moment.
I'm looking forward to seeing Parling go. He's been my 'find' of 2012. People have been talking as if its a given that when Lawes comes back, Parling will be out - but in my opinion, our other locks will have to work bloody hard to oust Parling. I've been impressed with his carrying including his lines, and of course he's good to have for the lineout.
Robshaw: I am disbelieving that people are all of a sudden talking his overall quality down, seemingly just on the basis of those two decisions. For me he's still one of the first names on the teamsheet, and I feel again that Croft will have to work very hard to get a look into our current match 23.
I'd like Youngs to be dropped not because I feel he's unworthy(although he is), but because I feel we need another scrum-half who has a contrastingly different game. This would be either Dickaon or Simpson. I'd go for the former, as he can really inject pace into the phases.

Nickdnz: Burns is a very talented attacking fly-half with the attacking/distributive game p̶o̶t̶e̶n̶t̶i̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ better than Cipriani's, but with the added benefit of better game management, balance between safe/risk plays, and also the very helpful fact that he can tackle. My worry is that as he'll be benching it, if he coems on for the last 20 with England losing heavily, tries a risk play and gets charged down or something, the England set-up will probably drop him and never come back to him . Seriously though, while this is no doubt exaggerating the point, what can you really expect of a young attacking fly-half if he doesn't have the right back-line selections to prop him up.

 

[j'nuh]

Anyways.... Random question to English posters: what type of player is Freddie Burns? I can't remember seeing much of him before.

It says a lot about him that his idol is Carlos Spencer.

Last year, he was a bit of a maverick (still should have had England caps). Fantastic in attack, but made one or two errors in his kicking game and defensively.

This year, he's more well-rounded: he's improved his goal kicking, defending and tactical kicking to bring them more in-line with his ability in attack, but he offers a lot more than Flood and Farrell when in the opponent's 22. He knows when to do miss-passes. His chips and grubbers work way more often than they don't. His distribution is good etc. His reading of the game is his best facet, and while he'll improve in the other technical areas, Farrell and Flood are going to find it hard to possess that confidence he has in attack.

If you take tuilagi out of the equation though we have nothing to worry sides at all and for some bizaree reason Tuilagi is never properly supported so he doesn't have a great amount of offloading abilities.

I like Tuilagi, but there's something going wrong at 10, 12, 13 at the minute, as shown by the fact that we cannot get the ball fluidly through the backline. I would try to bring Burns and 12T/Allen in to see if that solves the problem. Tuilagi might not have an opportunity to pass since the space is closed down by slow passing. But if, with Burns and 12T in the team, the ball still doesn't get to the wing, I'd start looking at Joseph.

Moving Tuilagi to 12 could be a mistake imo. Battering rams are having a hard time at 12 atm. What makes Tuilagi work at 13 is that he can create more line breaks because the gaps are wider in the 13 channel. Would prefer a distributor with a decent kicking game at 12.

Said it before, but I'd like a long-term option to be Tuilagi on the wing. He can still come in-field (like North does) to crash, he can also run over people on the wing, and he can hog the ball all he likes there. It also means we can have Joseph on the field as well. And they can swap positions in defense if needs be.

 

[mstar]

Lawes at his best is miles better then Parling at his best. Thats why as soon as he is 100% fit he will be our prefered choice. I am quote sure Lancaster has him as our No.1 Lock and he will play on Saturday at sometime as sub.

Its been talked about if Lawes stays fits and plays in 6N he is more likely to be in the Lions with manu then any other English player. I hate saying it but Lawes is a world class player potential, how many other english players can we say that of??

 

[j'nuh]

Cole and JSD could push a world XV imo. Steffon Armitage is world-class potential. (Might not push a world team because it's ridiculous how many great opensides there are knocking about at the minute.)

The rest have work to do to be considered...

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Lawes at his best is miles better then Parling at his best. Thats why as soon as he is 100% fit he will be our prefered choice. I am quote sure Lancaster has him as our No.1 Lock and he will play on Saturday at sometime as sub.

Its been talked about if Lawes stays fits and plays in 6N he is more likely to be in the Lions with manu then any other English player. I hate saying it but Lawes is a world class player potential, how many other english players can we say that of??

I think Lawes is a fantastic player but he is not a lineout caller and neither is Lauchberry, so you'd either have to teach one to call the lineout or let Wood or Robshaw call it. I see Lauchberry and Lawes as similar players and would love both of them to play but think we need a parling type player in there at the moment but maybe not forever.

Also agree that the 10 12 13 is not working, i don't rate Youngs's passing ability at all but i think flood doesn't draw any defenders and Barritt won't make a break so defenders only have to watch Tuilagi at 13 and anmy forwards slotted into the line.

I'd love to see 10. Burnes 12. 12trees 13. Tuilagi I think it could work a treat!

 

[mstar]

Etzerbeth, wasn't a lineout caller/organiser either look at him now... i seriously don't think Parling should be in the team for lineouts only. Lawes/Launchbury are better in the loose so its upto them to "learn" and get better.