• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

2014 QBE Internationals [EOYT] England

Possibly, but...

I think you're right about a lot of that, but I also think you've got a "grass is greener" thing going on. :p

If the benchmark is New Zealand, we fall hopelessly short. It's not possible for Lancaster to create a team that will win more times than lose against them within this WC cycle. As an objective, that needs to be stricken now.

But if we don't relentlessly compare ourselves against the All Blacks, second best team in the world is a very reasonable objective for this team. It's not because we're that great, but that we do have the calibre of player to make it to that position, and all the other teams have their own problems going on too. The gap in quality between 2 and 6 really isn't that big at all.

I put the target of consistently top 3 in the world in that post, and I stand by that as a target that England haven't made and don't look like making. I'm not measuring us solely by the All Blacks, but it seems consistently likely that we'll be behind the Springboks, and we'll be behind a strong Ireland or Wales, and we'd be behind a drama-free Australia, and one of the last three happens often enough that I don't see it happening unless we kick on and improve. The other teams get free of their problems too often.

What frustrates me is that we've seen England be competitive with a strong pack and a backline that doesn't seem to have a tactical clue. What kind of results would England be getting if we saw an improvement in how those backs were coached?
...
As an aside, I disagree that England don't have star players. I would argue we have a few in the pack.

I disagree about the quality of our pack. I think it's scrummaging ability is inconsistent, its lineout dependent on a guy with very little else to offer, its mauling very average except with Attwood, it's ability to secure consistent quick ruck ball highly questionable, its physicality a little below top level at least, ball carrying is an issue and handling could be better. It must be an unholy nightmare to play against ball in hand because it has a very athletic tight five, massive work rate, strong tacklers and a pretty good disruptive breakdown - although that's not been so strong this window and neither has been the discipline.

Strong? Maybe I'm being too harsh, after all things are comparative and others do have their problems. But so do we, and they're pretty big problems, and they are causing the backline issues.

Who would you say are stars btw?

In terms of the backline, I think that part of the problem is that a lack of coaching ability means that we'll never know whether we have any stars in the backline. How do you know you have one, if they are not given a chance to grow into the role? For example, throw May in the All Blacks squad for two years, and I think he'd grow his ability and stature to the point where he would be seen as a star. He has the raw talent for it. But that's the difference between us and New Zealand: New Zealand convert players with raw talent into test match monsters, whereas we squander them. I believe this is down to coaching (partly at international level, partly at club level).

God's own truth that we squander talent.

However - either the players have had the chance to grow into the role and haven't taken it, or need to grow and are de facto (imo) not stars. Sure, coaching plays a big part in all this, but you can't blame Lancaster* and friends for the development of players at their junior clubs, age grade, clubs, under previous international coaches etc.etc. They can only work with what they've got, and developing players with the time they've got with them is tough. Sure, they've got a role, they're offering the platform on which to shine or not to shine (as with our wings)...

To sum it up - I agree with what you're saying, but that's far from solely Lancaster's fault and far from something he alone can fix.

*I can't remember the exact details of Lancaster's previous employment at the RFU and therefore whether this is entirely accurate.
 
Anyone remember me suggesting that Foden had taken his eye off the ball, so to speak...?

http://www.espn.co.uk/england/rugby/story/250149.html

Just don't know whether rugby is much more than a profession to him.
Not criticising him btw, just indicative of someone who isn't really focused solely on improving as a rugby player IMO.
I don't think that's fair. He doesn't have to spend every minute of every day connected with rugby to have it as more than a profession.

Besides, half the Welsh national team appeared in an episode of Stella, including Gatland!

I put the target of consistently top 3 in the world in that post, and I stand by that as a target that England haven't made and don't look like making. I'm not measuring us solely by the All Blacks, but it seems consistently likely that we'll be behind the Springboks, and we'll be behind a strong Ireland or Wales, and we'd be behind a drama-free Australia, and one of the last three happens often enough that I don't see it happening unless we kick on and improve. The other teams get free of their problems too often.

I can't disagree that as we currently stand, we'd be behind a strong Ireland/Wales/Australia. But I also think that their current teams would be behind a strong England too. Basically, I don't think you can modify other teams by saying how good they would be without their problems, and not do the same to England. If all teams play to their potential? I have absolutely no idea who would come out on top, but I know England would be in the mix.

I disagree about the quality of our pack. I think it's scrummaging ability is inconsistent, its lineout dependent on a guy with very little else to offer, its mauling very average except with Attwood, it's ability to secure consistent quick ruck ball highly questionable, its physicality a little below top level at least, ball carrying is an issue and handling could be better. It must be an unholy nightmare to play against ball in hand because it has a very athletic tight five, massive work rate, strong tacklers and a pretty good disruptive breakdown - although that's not been so strong this window and neither has been the discipline.
re: scrummaging and mauling. Weren't you part of the selection of posters on here that thought these would go up a notch with Attwood starting? I thought we saw proof of it this Autumn. Although I wouldn't put it past Lancaster, I'd have thought that we'd hope to press home that advantage in future, and stick with Attwood for that reason.

re: lineout, which player are you thinking our lineout is dependent on? In any case, I'd argue the lineout is currently a strength...

Rucking and carrying, fair enough. I think part of the problem is the slow delivery and lack of game management from the 9, with the ball coming out too slow against a set defence. I also think that we are missing Tuilagi a lot in the aspect of carrying.

Strong? Maybe I'm being too harsh, after all things are comparative and others do have their problems. But so do we, and they're pretty big problems, and they are causing the backline issues.
I think there's a bit of both tbh, with the backline having a bad influence on the pack too. A lack of carriers in the backline makes things difficult in the pack. A lack of a 9 who can sort the pack out and deliver quick ball is an issue too. We should be able to fluidly rotate phases between pack and backline, and that just isn't happening. Some blame to the pack, but an understated amount from the backline too.

Who would you say are stars btw?
IMO, stars: Marler, Launchbury, Robshaw, Brown (not this Autumn, though started looking more the part towards the end)
Not far off: Wilson, Attwood, Morgan, Lawes
Great players, could be stars within the year: Ford, May, Tuilagi

Corbs was a star a year-and-a-half ago, but we'll see where he is when he gets back.
Cole wasn't looking great before he got injured, but I thought that was fatigue. High hopes for Cole having had a long rest. So potentially there.

However - either the players have had the chance to grow into the role and haven't taken it, or need to grow and are de facto (imo) not stars. Sure, coaching plays a big part in all this, but you can't blame Lancaster* and friends for the development of players at their junior clubs, age grade, clubs, under previous international coaches etc.etc. They can only work with what they've got, and developing players with the time they've got with them is tough. Sure, they've got a role, they're offering the platform on which to shine or not to shine (as with our wings)...
I think more my point is that players like May have developed very nicely for their clubs, have the ability and are in a position to become a star, but it's the lack of England using them in a way that allows them to become a star that is the problem. When a nation recognises they have a great player, they give that player ample opportunities to use their talents. It's why Shane got his hands on so much ball for Wales. We're not doing the same, and I think it's suffocating our players' potential.

I agree that this isn't the case for every player in the England squad. But appears to be the case nearly across the board 11-14.
 
Last edited:
I don't think that's fair. He doesn't have to spend every minute of every day connected with rugby to have it as more than a profession.

Besides, half the Welsh national team appeared in an episode of Stella, including Gatland!

I would agree that this doesn't mean he's taken his eye off of rugby - I'd rather judge his rugby, and that's looked strong so far this season - but it'll do him no favours with Lancaster imo.

I can't disagree that as we currently stand, we'd be behind a strong Ireland/Wales/Australia. But I also think that their current teams would be behind a strong England too. Basically, I don't think you can modify other teams by saying how good they would be without their problems, and not do the same to England. If all teams play to their potential? I have absolutely no idea who would come out on top, but I know England would be in the mix.

While this is speculative, I would back all three of those to beat England, assuming that both teams are playing at the peak of performance that the team has shown themselves capable of, with the possible exception of Wales whose peak was before their front row got a bad case of old age. Or to put it another way, those teams have shown they can transcend their problems, and England haven't.

re: scrummaging and mauling. Weren't you part of the selection of posters on here that thought these would go up a notch with Attwood starting? I thought we saw proof of it this Autumn. Although I wouldn't put it past Lancaster, I'd have thought that we'd hope to press home that advantage in future, and stick with Attwood for that reason.

re: lineout, which player are you thinking our lineout is dependent on? In any case, I'd argue the lineout is currently a strength...

I thought it would go up a notch with Attwood, it did, I'm not expecting him to be in the starting team come Six Nations much as I'd love to see otherwise. Until we select Attwood (or similarly destructive players) regularly, or improve our technique so we don't need him, I will continue to see it as an area of concern, as it was until Attwood got selected.

For my money, our lineout is dependent on Hartley - or arguably Parling I suppose. The lineout is a strength with one of those players there, but it goes a little wobbly without them. Which is worrying, as Hartley is (imo) a big tall glass of 'meh' in just about every other facet of his play, and I don't think we can pick Parling without sacrificing elsewhere (much as I rate him). Our choices are a) average player at 2 b) No Attwood c) No Launchbury d) Touch and go lineout.

Rucking and carrying, fair enough. I think part of the problem is the slow delivery and lack of game management from the 9, with the ball coming out too slow against a set defence. I also think that we are missing Tuilagi a lot in the aspect of carrying.

It doesn't help, but even when we get quick ball, how long does it take England to get slowed down to crap ball again due to not bending the gain line/generating more quick ball? It regularly happens within 2-3 phases and that isn't all down to the 9. Who in that pack really stands out for their carrying, their power in contact? Imo, it usually comes down to just whoever's at 8 in the presumed first choice pack (oh, and Corbs).

IMO, stars: Marler, Launchbury, Robshaw, Brown (not this Autumn, though started looking more the part towards the end)
Not far off: Wilson, Attwood, Morgan, Lawes
Great players, could be stars within the year: Ford, May, Tuilagi

Corbs was a star a year-and-a-half ago, but we'll see where he is when he gets back.
Cole wasn't looking great before he got injured, but I thought that was fatigue. High hopes for Cole having had a long rest. So potentially there.

Oi! No talking about dirty backs!

Ok... Robshaw, fine player, not sure I'd call him a star, Launchbury is fantastic until he gets tired, I really don't get the fuss about Marler, Brown has had two great windows and two dodgy windows and his lack of distribution is arguably a big sore point given our current midfield options.

Wilson, would be welcome in most teams, but is nowhere near the impact needed to be considered a star imo, Attwood and Lawes I accept as bordering on that status but eh bordering (plus we can't play them all at once, sadly enough), Morgan is just a matter of consistency - Tuilagi is a star, but he isn't a forward, and I am grousing about the pack.

If I was to put together a World XV, the only Englishmen in contention would be a fit Corbs - who, nevermind his scrummaging, simply brings more in the loose than Marler because he's a more powerful man - and Launchbury. Robshaw? Needs to hit his breakdown peak more often imo. Morgan? Great impact, but when you consider the all round impact that guys like Read and Parisse have, he's a way off of that. Those are players I consider stars. Our guys? Very good international players to a man, but stars? Not by my standards.

I think more my point is that players like May have developed very nicely for their clubs, have the ability and are in a position to become a star, but it's the lack of England using them in a way that allows them to become a star that is the problem. When a nation recognises they have a great player, they give that player ample opportunities to use their talents. It's why Shane got his hands on so much ball for Wales. We're not doing the same, and I think it's suffocating our players' potential.

I agree that this isn't the case for every player in the England squad. But appears to be the case nearly across the board 11-14.

If our pack was as good as some of us seem to think it is, then imo May would be getting those opportunities more often. It's pretty difficult to allow a wing to shine with a poor supply of good ball.
 
Are people really saying we wouldn't beat Wales or Australia?

Because we beat both this year while not playing great.

Our main problem has to be coaching because most premiership clubs I watch all do the things england doesn't. It can't be the players.
 
Anyone who doubt cole. Ie rats !!! I think it's safe to say he will be England number 3 come World Cup. Awesome display against Toulon.
 
do you know if there is anywhere to watch a catchup of the european games?
 
Sorry no mate. Worth catching it thou. What a game !!! That was my first post ever lol
 
When they were both in the form they were in before Dan got injured, yes... because Dan wasn't playing as well as Wilson.

An in form Dan Cole is better than an in form Davey Wilson.
 
When they were both in the form they were in before Dan got injured, yes... because Dan wasn't playing as well as Wilson.

An in form Dan Cole is better than an in form Davey Wilson.

Just so you know I am framing that and will keep it somewhere for future refereance....:D
 
It also should be said that Cole fits in better to the "mobile pack" system that has proved so important to England. It's great to see him back.
 
Suprisingly Cole is also one of Englands better jackals. Having him and Launchbury back in the squad could do a lot to solve our breakdown problems. Keep Attwood for the set piece and we suddenly seem to have a rounded set of forwards...
 
While an in form Cole beats an in form Wilson, Leicester will thrash Cole to death and leave him short of form after a year again.

do you know if there is anywhere to watch a catchup of the european games?

Don't google Across the Tasman.
 
Top