The Autopsy thread: Which England team members are for the chopping block?

[bazz]

atleast yees ur still the best morris dancers in the world

 

[Isengard]

I can't fault much, if any, of what you say here.

I have a couple of comments though about the way England has been trying to play

1. I think what the RFU and to a certain extent SL and his backroom staff have failed to do here is to understand what it takes to play this type of game. You have to commit to it fully; not just in how you play on the field, but in training, and attitude and selection policies too. You also need players that have great ball skills all across the park as well being good at their core jobs. Can any England fans imagine Jamie George or Luke Cowan or Dylan Hartley scoring the kinds of tries or having the ball skills that Dane Coles does? Are there any locks or loose forwards in this England team with the ball handling skills of Whitelock, or Retallick or Keiran Read or Michael Hooper. Playing the way the All Blacks and the Wallabies play is risky, and we come unstuck doing it sometimes, but its no good hedging your bets and trying to play this way in a half-arsed fashion; you either commit to it, or stick to what you know. IMO, Australia out-skilled England on the weekend... they simply do not have the skills to play the game they were trying to play at this level. Perhaps they should have gone to Plan B and played the territory game. They might not have won, but IMO they may have had a better chance.

2. In New Zealand and Australia, we have "buy-in" from the 10 Super Rugby franchises, partly because they are run by our respective unions, but mostly because the running game is the natural way that we want to play the game. IMO, that is a major part of the problem over there, you don't get that level of co-operation because club rugby is considered by many to be more important. You have privately owned clubs who want to be independent of the RFU, and will do their own thing. Effectively, they don't care how the national team does, just so long as they get their share of the TV money and bums on seats every weekend.

3. It may well be that any serious attempt to get England consistently playing the type of rugby we play, AND being successful at it, is doomed to failure because you simply don't have the domestic structure in place or the grounding in that type of rugby from the bottom of the game up. It is going to be very difficult to change the style at the top level when the players don't play that way at other times. The attitude to wanting to play that style begins from the first day that kids pick up an odd-shaped ball, and in progresses up through minis and Ripper Rugby into the college schoolboy game and on upwards Anyone watching Landrover 1stXV Rugby for the past few seasons in New Zealand will be amazed at the sheer skills of these schoolboy players.

That is just my ten cents worth anyway...

I think it is quite easy to dismiss English club and youth rugby as being all bish-bosh and scrums. I see a lot of games in my alternate life in this sport, an awful lot and nowadays players don't want the set pieces, they want to run it. Kicking is discouraged at youth levels and getting the ball out of the hands and moving is the aim of most coaches I see. A lot of youth teams are looking to try and win turnovers at the breakdown as well. I think the mentality is right. Possibly the pitches and weather don't help and tend to lead to more knock-ons and a slower surface for running which causes more scrummaging? I don't think English professional teams play like the All Blacks but there is not much up the jumper, hoofing the ball stuff compared to a few years ago. Just my thoughts.

 

[Isengard]

Entertaining thread this. The reason Lancaster hasn't worked, put simply, is that England lost on Saturday. If England had won, you guys would be crowing and everything in the garden would be rosy. The welsh fans are exactly the same. After a couple of bad results last autumn, there were idiots in West Wales suggesting that Gatland should get the sack just because he wasn't selecting Liam Williams at fullback.

England should keep faith. I think they need a re-jig, some fresh impetus in the backroom staff. Farrell and Rowntree have never impressed me (baulchy, knee-jerk reactionaries) but Catt is a decent coach. Lancaster has the core of the squad in place for 2019. This was no worse than England performed in '99. Give him another shot.

whatithinksite.wordpress.com/thats-all-folks

This is my take on the game.

With all due respect I completely disagree. I for one have argued that Lancaster is not the man for years. I never wanted him in the first place. As someone else on here rightly said he was a complacent pick. He was English and had the right 'feel' for the RFU stuffed shirts, not the pedigree and experience that was actually required. He is a decent and hard-working man who has given his all but while he has the ideas he simply cannot execute them because he is not confident to do so, not experienced and settled enough to back himself and have a good idea that it will work. When the squad was announced I told anyone who would listen that England would be knocked out in the group stages. It was almost inevitable with the combinations he took, especially in the centres. With Slade obviously good but hardly tried and unlikely to feature he was 100% reliant on JJ to provide something, anything in midfield. The nightmare combination of Barrit and Burgess was the result, one which largely forced him to go for Farrell because Ford's distribution would be wasted on two bullocking but totally uninventive centres. This in turn meant the wingers were unlikely to get free. Farrell was also needed to cover for inevitable Burgess positional errors. Then to cap it all he had nobody at all who could come on and change anything much. Ford did it against Australia but it was too late and Barrit hampered anything which went through the hands. Cipriani was (while flawed in many ways) the only genuinely maverick and eccentric player available who could do something different and maybe change a losing situation but he was left out.

See my earlier rants for what I think needs to be done. But somehow getting through the group would have papered over the cracks. In 2007 it did and in 2011 we got through the group but everyone knew the coaching regime was a busted flush. Lancaster has tried and failed and achieved nothing. I have never and will never support his position as international coach of England.

 

[Peat]

Complacent is an interesting word. When I first saw it in this thread, I dismissed it a little but now, thinking about it, it fits.

The RFU doesn't feel like an organisation hell bent on world domination for the England team. Their ambitions seem limited to a full Twickenham and plenty of sponsors. To a certain extent, that's understandable. It's hard to judge an administrator on what happens on the pitch - but money, attendances, that sort of thing they can be judged on. Like the Civil Service of Yes Minister though, you end up with the risk of administrators placing their administration as being more important that it is, and I think that's happened a little. On the pitch? Well, it's England, surely we have the strength to do well enough at Twickenham almost regardless, right? There is the complacency. The belief that we don't need the best coach to do ok. In fact - best not to have the best coach. They'll take risks, maybe blow things. They'll probably argue a lot about what they want. Best to pick a competent team that know how things work.

That's probably more a subconscious thing than anything, but there is a whiff of this sort of thing. A whiff that homegrown coaches learning on the job can do it, because we're English and great, and they'll have the RFU to help them. I think you have to go all the way back to Jack Rowell to find the RFU appointing a man with a genuinely formidable reputation from coaching club rugby. The other nations have been forced to evolve but England, rich with money and with the odd glory to point at, England's not really moved on.

Complacency? It does seem there has been a bit of that.

I have to say, while I didn't back Lancaster, I could understand his appointment to a point. I could just about understand him getting such a long contract to begin with. The extension though? Sweet jesus. There's a few people who need to make a good case to keep their jobs.

 

[mdl1983]

Well two problems with that:

Lancaster's slump occured during the most important series of games in his career. If he timed his development then, he couldn't have picked a worse moment. Unless he thought pool exit now and a Six Nations win in 2018 were an acceptable trade.

Lancaster only picked young players en masse in 2012/13. Bar a couple of players, mainly in the wings, which he didn't change in 2012/13, we didn't see any major alterations until the Six Nations this year - which were forced through injury. He then collapsed back to his safety-first approach after developing a more attacking style slowly over the previous three years.

My point is 'we' (English media, for example) expect to win at least 90% of the time, as a result the pressure is constantly on to do that. I believe they've cracked under that pressure, hence the constant personnel changes. Rather than trying to nurture players in certain positions they've felt they've had to roll the dice and it hasn't come off.

 

[ratsapprentice]

The point about complacency is an interesting one.

 

[Willodell100]

Complacent is an interesting word. When I first saw it in this thread, I dismissed it a little but now, thinking about it, it fits.

The RFU doesn't feel like an organisation hell bent on world domination for the England team. Their ambitions seem limited to a full Twickenham and plenty of sponsors. To a certain extent, that's understandable. It's hard to judge an administrator on what happens on the pitch - but money, attendances, that sort of thing they can be judged on. Like the Civil Service of Yes Minister though, you end up with the risk of administrators placing their administration as being more important that it is, and I think that's happened a little. On the pitch? Well, it's England, surely we have the strength to do well enough at Twickenham almost regardless, right? There is the complacency. The belief that we don't need the best coach to do ok. In fact - best not to have the best coach. They'll take risks, maybe blow things. They'll probably argue a lot about what they want. Best to pick a competent team that know how things work.

That's probably more a subconscious thing than anything, but there is a whiff of this sort of thing. A whiff that homegrown coaches learning on the job can do it, because we're English and great, and they'll have the RFU to help them. I think you have to go all the way back to Jack Rowell to find the RFU appointing a man with a genuinely formidable reputation from coaching club rugby. The other nations have been forced to evolve but England, rich with money and with the odd glory to point at, England's not really moved on.

Complacency? It does seem there has been a bit of that.

I have to say, while I didn't back Lancaster, I could understand his appointment to a point. I could just about understand him getting such a long contract to begin with. The extension though? Sweet jesus. There's a few people who need to make a good case to keep their jobs.

I'm not sure about complacency but you bring up an interesting point about RFU priorities.

I, like you, have an issue with the RFU awarding SL a contract extension till 2020 (last year I think!). Rugby, like any other sport, is a results business and it is extremely odd that the RFU offered him this before a major tournament. This screams of mismanagement.

Now i think it is widely regarded as a success as to how Rob Andrew managed to rebuild the relationships with the premiership clubs but the process in finding & hiring someone for the Head Coach role has clearly been flawed for a decade.

 

[Peat]

In balance (and I'd forgotten this) - the only four coaches interested last time out were Nick Mallet, Stuart Lancaster, Sir John Kirwan and Eddie O'Sullivan. And Mallet withdrew (or did he). Maybe that's a reflection of the appeal of working with the RFU, maybe not. Either way... they weren't overwhelmed with quality being involved.

And they did suggest to Lancaster he might want to get someone like Wayne Smith involved, and Lancaster initially demurred, although he did later go and ask Smith who said no for family reasons. Smith's involvement, reportedly, would have been more of a head coach role with Lancaster being more of a director of rugby. Which is maybe how Lancaster and Farrell ended up being in the end.

So, more ambition that I'd remembered. Not sure that changes my perception of them as a little too comfortable. As for Rob Andrew - he didn't acquire the nickname Teflon Don because of weird fashion choices...

 

[Willodell100]

In balance (and I'd forgotten this) - the only four coaches interested last time out were Nick Mallet, Stuart Lancaster, Sir John Kirwan and Eddie O'Sullivan. And Mallet withdrew (or did he). Maybe that's a reflection of the appeal of working with the RFU, maybe not. Either way... they weren't overwhelmed with quality being involved.

And they did suggest to Lancaster he might want to get someone like Wayne Smith involved, and Lancaster initially demurred, although he did later go and ask Smith who said no for family reasons. Smith's involvement, reportedly, would have been more of a head coach role with Lancaster being more of a director of rugby. Which is maybe how Lancaster and Farrell ended up being in the end.

So, more ambition that I'd remembered. Not sure that changes my perception of them as a little too comfortable. As for Rob Andrew - he didn't acquire the nickname Teflon Don because of weird fashion choices...

Ha! I'd forgotten that nickname. Even more apt as he will have overseen 4 different national coaches (if SL is fired). And I bet not one of them would have too many nice things to say about good old Teflon Ron!

Just found this article from back in 2011 following the last not quite so disastrous campaign (on the pitch!):

http://bit.ly/TeflonRon

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

I don't think SL's selection was complacent. It is absolutely in the RFU's commercial and wider interests to have a successful England team.

What I do think it was, was a knee jerk over response to directly address the perceived failings of the previous regime. The players are a bunch of naughty boys, so what they need is a school master. Reminds me of Labour's choice of Corbyn...decent man etc but picked more because of what he isn't (associated with the failed Millliband and New Labour projects) than what he actually brings. Sorry for bringing politics into it, but at least I didn't mention Diane Abbott.

We need someone who is used to managing international standard players, whether in an international team or otherwise. And above all we need someone with an instinctive feel for the game, someone who relies on the judgement of their eyes and their trusty lieutenants over heart rates, GPS data and pre-ordained substitutions. Someone who's more worried about finishing overlaps, creating space and bossing the breakdown than how far the tight head has run.

Oh, and a lack of fascination with rugby league wouldn't go amiss either.

 

[msf]

My list:

Youngs X 2, at least until one learns to throw and the other learns to pass.

Barritt, for obvious reasons.

Burgess, until he learns to how to play backrow.

Care, until he gets a kicking game.

Farrell, until he learns how to attack the line like Slade or Ford (obviously some of these are never going to happen).

Brown, too old for the next World Cup.

Parling, ditto.

Webber, there are better hookers out there.

Marler, doesn´t have a ´point of difference.´

Kruis, ditto.

Robshaw, ditto.

Haskell, too old for the next world cup/to improve much.

Morgan, until he gets fitter.

Easter, too old for this world cup.

- - - Updated - - -

How about White and Jones, with Woodward as director of rugby? That way we can ensure that however wins the arguments actually knows something about rugby.

 

[valley commando]

Gatlands Law.

Lewis Moody, Nick Abendenon, Will Carling just a few agreeing with me the biggest crime is not picking Armitage and the stupid no overseas player rule, loads have disagreed with me some calling me a troll, my original comments several weeks ago something along the lines of thanking Lancaster for not picking S Armitage and Cipriani and thanking him for picking Burgess got me lots of nasty comments, my remarks now being echoed by those well known trolls Moody and Carling etc.

 

[Cornish Pirate]

Not sure the no overseas rule has had any bearing on this WC for England. We have to try and keep our best players in this country for the benefit of the English game, is that to difficult to grasp. Steffon A is the only player good enough to get in the England team but you have to take into account he is playing in the best team in Europe.

 

[valley commando]

Not sure the no overseas rule has had any bearing on this WC for England. We have to try and keep our best players in this country for the benefit of the English game, is that to difficult to grasp. Steffon A is the only player good enough to get in the England team but you have to take into account he is playing in the best team in Europe.

By letting players play outside of England it would improve players understanding of the game, is that difficult to grasp ?

 

[TW27BA]

By letting players play outside of England it would improve players understanding of the game, is that difficult to grasp ?

What is also not difficult to grasp is many of the players who ply their trade in France go for one reason. Money. For some of those. its their last club, a pension top up, but not in Steffon A's case.
Should the players who decide to put club and country first be left out for the mercenaries? The English RFU have made the rule and that's how it is.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

In balance (and I'd forgotten this) - the only four coaches interested last time out were Nick Mallet, Stuart Lancaster, Sir John Kirwan and Eddie O'Sullivan. And Mallet withdrew (or did he). Maybe that's a reflection of the appeal of working with the RFU, maybe not. Either way... they weren't overwhelmed with quality being involved.

And they did suggest to Lancaster he might want to get someone like Wayne Smith involved, and Lancaster initially demurred, although he did later go and ask Smith who said no for family reasons. Smith's involvement, reportedly, would have been more of a head coach role with Lancaster being more of a director of rugby. Which is maybe how Lancaster and Farrell ended up being in the end.

So, more ambition that I'd remembered. Not sure that changes my perception of them as a little too comfortable. As for Rob Andrew - he didn't acquire the nickname Teflon Don because of weird fashion choices...

I suspect some would have their own 'conditions' attached. I.E, I will only work within this hierarchy if Rob Andrew is replaced.

 

[Hulkster]

Brown is not too old for the next World Cup.

We really should just worry about trying to win the 6N for the next 2 or 3 years and worry about the WC closer to the time.

We will be in a far better position if the team are used to winning big games.

As it happens though, in most cases the young players are also the best so there isn't much of a trade off.

 

[valley commando]

What is also not difficult to grasp is many of the players who ply their trade in France go for one reason. Money. For some of those. its their last club, a pension top up, but not in Steffon A's case.
Should the players who decide to put club and country first be left out for the mercenaries? The English RFU have made the rule and that's how it is.

Well the RFU is wrong to make that rule, what about restraint of trade, if you were offered a job somewhere in Europe for double your current salary would you not be tempted ?

 

[msf]

Ok, Brown, until he learns to pick lines from full back.

 

[RedruthRFC]

Lewis Moody, Nick Abendenon, Will Carling just a few agreeing with me the biggest crime is not picking Armitage and the stupid no overseas player rule, loads have disagreed with me some calling me a troll, my original comments several weeks ago something along the lines of thanking Lancaster for not picking S Armitage and Cipriani and thanking him for picking Burgess got me lots of nasty comments, my remarks now being echoed by those well known trolls Moody and Carling etc.

Your logical inference is flawed IMO. England chose not to take overseas based players and had a poor World Cup. There is nothing to conclusively prove that had they chosen to take overseas players, the performance would have been better. I suspect that people will say that the number of turnovers that England gave up against Australia is "proof" that the decision was the wrong one, but I don't entirely agree with this - the responsibility for clearing out the breakdown and avoiding giving up turnovers is more collective, the fault lay with many players for failing to spot the potential for one of their colleagues to be isolated and to get there in time to stop it ending in tears. I deafened half of my local shouting "help him" at the TV two seconds before an inevitable turnover more than once. Would Armitage have created turnovers for England? Debatable IMO, the English pack were coming second best in most, if not all facets of the game which would have made turnovers much harder to get and meant that Armitage wouldn't have been able to get away with playing the loose, roaming role he is accustomed to when being given a free ride by his dominant forward colleagues.

It's in journalists' nature to try to appear wise after the event and pick at controversial decisions to generate quick, unimaginative, disinteresting column inches, but picking on individual decisions that may or may not have had an impact on how things panned out glosses over the systematic failures which is what is much more interesting (and constructive) to address IMO.