2014 QBE Internationals [EOYT] England

[Ragey Erasmus]

Burgess the 10 replacement shock move by Ford there, eyeing him as a 10.

Maybe dropping your kids to the bench will be a trend among English coaches now.

Burgess at 9! What can go wrong?

 

[Peat]

I'd be more concerned with getting a scrum-half who could kick, personally. And pass.

My instinct says Wigglesworth; he kicks well and has a nice, quick, no nonsense straight-from-the-base pass. He may not snipe like Care/Youngs but I'm a big believer in picking your players on their first job, and worrying about the rest later. So however good a prop is in the loose, he must be an international-class scrummager to be considered for selection; and however good at sniping a SH is, he must be able to pass at international standard, period.



Salivating. Where did you hear this?

Huh. I always thought of Wiggleworth's delivery as notably slow.

 

[Every Time Ref]

I reckon he can play 6, 7 & 8 for England, that way we can give the rest of the back row time off and play the World Cup with thirteen on the field ... and win.

Huh. I always thought of Wiggleworth's delivery as notably slow.

The pass itself is not particularly quick (although I wouldn't call it noticeably slow myself), but he tends to get the ball out the ruck and away to the first receiver in one movement - so the delivery is quick, if not the pass itself. I think with both Youngs and Care favouring the "aimless-trot-then-pass" approach, and both being hideously off form, maybe the more no-nonsense approach of getting it away quickly to the ten might work better.

 

[j'nuh]

Penalties given away this Autumn:

Farrell, May, Watson, Wilson, Haskell - 1
Brown, Robshaw, Marler, Brookes, Eastmond - 2
Morgan - 3
Lawes - 4
Attwood, Hartley - 5
Wood - 8

Wood has to be dropped. This is a stupid number of penalties to be giving away in just 3 + 1 appearances. Some have been particularly dim.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Apparently one of Lancaster or Cauliflowers, during the week, was harping on about how Wood takes 40% of lineout ball - that's not a justification for him being in the starting team. Just throw to someone else! He's not running the lineout, so just put a different jumper in his position.


I really think we need to switch him out - I don't think he's as bad as some make out, but he's just not working in this side. As has been said on here a lot: One of him or Robshaw, but not both. Seeing the 20yr old McMahon smashing everyone today made me realise what we're really missing from our backrow.
Ewers would be my ideal (or Fearns), but if they allow Haskell to play like he does for Wasps then he could fill the void too.
I just feel like we're missing some....ferocity? from the pack. Someone who will hurt people, in the tackle and when carrying.
Or you go the complete opposite way and bring in a proper groundhog openside to ruin everyone's lives at the ruck.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Kvesic or Ewers for mine. Or Burgess.

 

[goodNumber10]

Apparently one of Lancaster or Cauliflowers, during the week, was harping on about how Wood takes 40% of lineout ball - that's not a justification for him being in the starting team. Just throw to someone else! He's not running the lineout, so just put a different jumper in his position.


I really think we need to switch him out - I don't think he's as bad as some make out, but he's just not working in this side. As has been said on here a lot: One of him or Robshaw, but not both. Seeing the 20yr old McMahon smashing everyone today made me realise what we're really missing from our backrow.
Ewers would be my ideal (or Fearns), but if they allow Haskell to play like he does for Wasps then he could fill the void too.
I just feel like we're missing some....ferocity? from the pack. Someone who will hurt people, in the tackle and when carrying.
Or you go the complete opposite way and bring in a proper groundhog openside to ruin everyone's lives at the ruck.

Agree with all of that.

No one brings the, pain.

 

[j'nuh]

Still prefer Wood to Haskell. I honestly have no idea what Haskell actually does. He's not that strong in the carry, he doesn't make a high number of tackles, not a lineout option, he's alright in the breakdown but hardly worth picking him over it. I mean, he's improved a lot since the MJ years, when he was an utter liability. Penalty machine didn't even cover it. But I still don't see what he brings other than a decent all-round game, which is not really any different to what Wood brings. And I think Wood has a better all-round game, when in form.

Bearing in mind we have a high work-rate front 5, I don't think a hard hitting 6 would be my option (tbh, I'm happy with Lawes to cover this). I'd go down one of these routes:
1. A fetcher (Kvesic, Wallace, Fraser, Seymour)
2. A ball carrier (Ewers or potentially even play Vunipola and Morgan at the same time)
3. Croft
4. Launchbury (Lawes and Attwood in second row)

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Kvesic or Ewers for mine. Or Burgess.

To be honest I did have Burgess in mind, but I think this World Cup is too soon for him as a 6.

I just think we're missing some blind (controlled) aggression.

Every side has a nutter but us. Though maybe we could just put an image of Brad Barritt's face from the end of today's game up on the screens at Twickers, that'd scare most people off.





Also, as an aside, I've got to say: Fair play to Brad Barritt this series.
I was a huge fan of his a few years back, but started to go off him a bit recently, but he had a very good series. He wasn't changing the world with his performances at 13, but he did everything that was asked of him, passed well (something he copped a lot of criticism for before), tackled his heart out (missed that one on Savea, but Savea was brought down immediately afterwards so no dramas) and literally put everything into his performances. Can't ask for any more than that.
I'm not saying he'd be my first choice 13 (I'd go for JJ, and probably Manu if he ever gets fit/on form) but as a centre in a RWC squad....you could do a lot worse.

 

[j'nuh]

He made 18 tackles and missed none today. At 13. That's more than any player on the pitch, and in the hardest channel to defend. A channel he doesn't normally defend in. Monstrous effort in defence.

Don't think there's a better defensive centre in rugby currently. If he had a fairly competent attacking game to go with it, he would be impossible to ignore for England.

That being said, because he does have those limitations outside of his defensive duties, I'm still not sure about him. Still, on today's (and this Autumn's) performance, I'd be happier to settle the other centre position before thinking about chucking out Brad.

 

[goodNumber10]

I said all along that Barritt would be ok at 13 for us, and if the ball is quick he can attack - but we really need to sort out generating quick ball. Would i select BB over other centers? probably not right now, but if he can get some game time at 13 for Sarries and develop that outside line he could be a very good 13.

Problem is why would Sarries move him to 13 if they have Bosch and Wyles.

I wonder if we sill see Farrell playing 12 for Sarries. They seem ok with doing moves for England.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

It's a possibility, but Sarries are big on rotation, and Charlie's played a lot of rugby this season (and is getting on a bit) so they'll be looking to give him some time on the bench.
Farrell's played some 12, and 13, for Saracens in recent years, but that's mainly been when there's been injuries.

 

[Peat]

He made 18 tackles and missed none today. At 13. That's more than any player on the pitch, and in the hardest channel to defend. A channel he doesn't normally defend in. Monstrous effort in defence.

Don't think there's a better defensive centre in rugby currently. If he had a fairly competent attacking game to go with it, he would be impossible to ignore for England.

That being said, because he does have those limitations outside of his defensive duties, I'm still not sure about him. Still, on today's (and this Autumn's) performance, I'd be happier to settle the other centre position before thinking about chucking out Brad.

Feh. Solve both. There's no point bringing through a partnership in which you need to replace one guy plus a bigger attacking threat would help any new 12.

Besides, fit Tuilagi will probably walk straight back in.

I'm happy with what Barritt did, which is exactly what I'd expected, but it wasn't something I'd ever actually want outside of rare circumstances. But hey. There's so much that needs to be changed, that maybe when we've figured out what we're changing and what we're using next window, Barritt will make sense again. But it's hard to say, because we gave 3 12s a go and learned very little about any of them as a result, which is ****-poor.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Lancaster really missed a trick by not having Eastmond back in for, at least, the Aus game (if he had concerns over concussion/wanted to test Farrell for the Samoa).

Eastmonds been the form 12 in the Prem all season, and played as well in the NZ game as any 12 has for us in.....well, as long as I can remember.
If Lancaster had question marks over his defence alongside Ford then he only had to look at Bath, who play Eastmond next to........Ford. Barritt is a better defender than Joseph, as well, so even if he questioned their defence at Bath then he'd still be improving it with BB.
It's not like Twelvetrees has been setting the world ablaze at Gloucester - he's been decent without being exceptional.7

We're going into the Six Nations before a World Cup with no idea who our first choice 12 is, and only the hope that Tuilagi can be our first choice 13 (who knows if he'll be fit, who know if he'll be on his best form, who know's if he'll make a good partnership with whoever we pick at 12).
I'm hoping that Ford continues at 10, going into the 6N. God knows what's going to happen at 9 - as above, we've tested all the of the viable options and none have been particularly good. Care was excellent in the 6N but not that great in NZ and in the AIs, Youngs has been for poor for ages but had a decent game today.....but his passing was still off. Wigglesworth does the basics well but nothing to worry a defence or really standout at 9. Dickson in the same mould, but with a slightly worse kicking game.

9, 10, 12 is an important axis in rugby, especially if you want to bring you back three into the game (and we have the potential to have a world class back three, if we get them the ball) - we shouldn't be dicking around with them less than a year from the WC.

I'm hoping Lancaster hasn't looked at Johnson bringing Tuilagi into the England setup a few weeks before the 2011 RWC and thought "Ah well, it'll sort itself out eventually".

 

[j'nuh]

Feh. Solve both. There's no point bringing through a partnership in which you need to replace one guy plus a bigger attacking threat would help any new 12.

Besides, fit Tuilagi will probably walk straight back in.

I'm happy with what Barritt did, which is exactly what I'd expected, but it wasn't something I'd ever actually want outside of rare circumstances. But hey. There's so much that needs to be changed, that maybe when we've figured out what we're changing and what we're using next window, Barritt will make sense again. But it's hard to say, because we gave 3 12s a go and learned very little about any of them as a result, which is ****-poor.

I'm still of the opinion that it's our coaches, not our players, that are our limit in attack. I think that we'll just continue to shift around our backs, thinking that our problem is our selection (and in part it is, and we are seeing small improvements by picking the right players), when it's mostly because of our coaching. When the coaching improves, I think we'll have clearer answers in selection.

It's like, for example with May, I wonder what people would be saying about him if he hadn't scored that wonder try against New Zealand. He's shown really well in defence this Autumn, and his chasing game has proven well, and he has gotten a few tries, but we didn't see that much of him in attack, mainly for a lack of ball. I feel his try against NZ changed people's perception of him, even though he isn't any better as an attacker, and certainly hasn't shown a lot of it? The thing is though, we know it's there now, and we know that we have it on the field for whenever the coaches feel like engaging it. All in all, I thought he showed really well, but that England didn't use him nearly enough, beyond chasing kicks.

 

[Ospreylian]

I'm still of the opinion that it's our coaches, not our players, that are our limit in attack. I think that we'll just continue to shift around our backs, thinking that our problem is our selection (and in part it is, and we are seeing small improvements by picking the right players), when it's mostly because of our coaching. When the coaching improves, I think we'll have clearer answers in selection.

It's like, for example with May, I wonder what people would be saying about him if he hadn't scored that wonder try against New Zealand. He's shown really well in defence this Autumn, and his chasing game has proven well, and he has gotten a few tries, but we didn't see that much of him in attack, mainly for a lack of ball. I feel his try against NZ changed people's perception of him, even though he isn't any better as an attacker, and certainly hasn't shown a lot of it? The thing is though, we know it's there now, and we know that we have it on the field for whenever the coaches feel like engaging it. All in all, I thought he showed really well, but that England didn't use him nearly enough, beyond chasing kicks.

I haven't been able to watch much of England lately (mainly because the Wales matches annoyingly clashed with Englands') but this sounds so familiar to Wales' situation right now. I'm a big fan of May, from what I've seen of him I think he has the potential to be a star at the world cup and beyond. But it's a similar case to North and Halfpenny at Wales - both very gifted players naturally, but for whatever reason very rarely show themselves in attack at international level (Halfpenny is less of a concern because he has so many other aspects to his game that he is great at that it doesn't matter as much, but North needs to improve).

I think it's just a northern hemisphere thing. We have a habit of allowing backs (especially wingers) to never quite reach their full potential because we all play too conservatively and rarely take attacking risks. I just think it may be a case of coaches being fairly negative about how they coach attacking play, almost as if they coach risk-taking out of backs, and subsequently affecting those players' creativity.

 

[Tony Manx]

I haven't been able to watch much of England lately (mainly because the Wales matches annoyingly clashed with Englands') but this sounds so familiar to Wales' situation right now. I'm a big fan of May, from what I've seen of him I think he has the potential to be a star at the world cup and beyond. But it's a similar case to North and Halfpenny at Wales - both very gifted players naturally, but for whatever reason very rarely show themselves in attack at international level (Halfpenny is less of a concern because he has so many other aspects to his game that he is great at that it doesn't matter as much, but North needs to improve).

I think it's just a northern hemisphere thing. We have a habit of allowing backs (especially wingers) to never quite reach their full potential because we all play too conservatively and rarely take attacking risks. I just think it may be a case of coaches being fairly negative about how they coach attacking play, almost as if they coach risk-taking out of backs, and subsequently affecting those players' creativity.

Would be good if you had even one centre who allowed the ball to get out to the back three other than via a cross field kick!! You cannot judge North or Halfpenny on attack when they are starved of possession......

 

[TommiG88]

I don't get it, I read the BBC HYOS sections and can't believe what I read at times. The people contradict themselves week in week out. I've read quite a few posts wanting to see Burrell and tuilagi together in the centres. These will be the same people that slag off wales for their one dimensional play. I would like to see the ball reach our wingers and with those 2 in the middle it will not happen in my opinion. Tuilagi I feel plays too much crash ball at times and feel he could look to offload or pass more often as he does open up space.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

I don't get it, I read the BBC HYOS sections and can't believe what I read at times. The people contradict themselves week in week out. I've read quite a few posts wanting to see Burrell and tuilagi together in the centres. These will be the same people that slag off wales for their one dimensional play. I would like to see the ball reach our wingers and with those 2 in the middle it will not happen in my opinion. Tuilagi I feel plays too much crash ball at times and feel he could look to offload or pass more often as he does open up space.

Burrell is not a crash ball centre. He brings the back 3 into the game with some beautiful passes.

Ian mcgeehan thinks we should have 12 tuilagi and 13 barritt btw. Very bizarre

 

[TommiG88]

Burrell is not a crash ball centre. He brings the back 3 into the game with some beautiful passes.

Ian mcgeehan thinks we should have 12 tuilagi and 13 barritt btw. Very bizarre

That's even worse!

Burrell at 12 means he's passing to tuilagi as we never seem to get our wingers or full back coming in. He rarely runs straight either but that's an issue most NH players have. Australia were running straight yesterday and opened us up so many times.