[2015 Six Nations] England

[Irishkid]

Read in the Guardian today that Steffon Armitage might be added to WC squad. Hope he can behave himself. Whilst he is made out to the saviour to all our woes by some in the media, which is ridiculous, having a specialist in the back row is exactly what we need. Our pack underperformed in 6Ns , Launchbury back and Armitage selected would be nice additions. Corbi if fit is a great player as well, but can't count on him due to injury so its a bonus if we get anything out of him.

Haskell adds power which we are a bit short of at times, but brainless in a lot of ways. Prefer Wood, but then I am biased.

They will definetly pick Steffon and Burgess and you can't say England will be worse off for it especially with Armitage.

 

[ncurd]

Aviva Premiership website has every game recorded and for free to watch in full.

This I did not know, what are the games not on BT like for coverage?

 

[ratsapprentice]

They are eminently watchable, although pretty low res - particularly if you plan on watching it full screen.

 

[Wendigo7]

This I did not know, what are the games not on BT like for coverage?

They are all very good.

The only difference is the scoreboard is not clocked at all, all game so you need to keep touch yourself.

 

[RedruthRFC]

Aviva Premiership website has every game recorded and for free to watch in full.

Thanks, I had heard this before but never got around to trying it, I'll pick an Exeter game and give it a go.

 

[91jmay]

Not sure Burgess is a definite pick, not set the world on fire at Bath has he? I am sure he will be around the squad but would be poor if he was getting looks ahead of Eastmond.

Anyone know how Sam Hill has gone for Exeter this year? Liked look of him last season.

 

[goodNumber10]

Not sure Burgess is a definite pick, not set the world on fire at Bath has he? I am sure he will be around the squad but would be poor if he was getting looks ahead of Eastmond.

Anyone know how Sam Hill has gone for Exeter this year? Liked look of him last season.

Hill has gone good, exciting player but probably a season off being international class - needs a big European campaign next year, and to be knocking on the door of the saxons. He's got all the right ingredients though.

I think we'll get a better idea of Burgess and his standing in the scheme of things now JJ is back, if Eastmond plays 12 i think that will scupper his inclusion, if he holds Eastmond out then i think he'll make the England squad for the Warm up games and then, who knows?

 

[91jmay]

That's good to hear, yes he is young and from what I saw could do with adding a bit of size to his frame.

That's a good point, will be interesting to see.

 

[yaboyjj]

That's good to hear, yes he is young and from what I saw could do with adding a bit of size to his frame.

That's a good point, will be interesting to see.

Hill? he's a pretty big guy already for his height- looks like a Tuilagi-lite. It's hard to guage how good he is, but certainly plays a part in a pretty effective backline for Exeter and is a decent distributor (helps that he's played with Slade for a while).

 

[ratsapprentice]

Hill is extremely powerfully built, I feel pretty confident in saying hes strong as ****.

 

[91jmay]

Yeah I just Googled him and mixed his face up with Slade. I've seen them both play though I watched Bar Bars game last year. Hill is pretty massive for his height! Apologies.

 

[Isengard]

Hi, first post on here so be gentle!

What do people think of the Ian Ritchie of the RFU's comments with regard to England's recent performances?

Personally I think he is correct insofar as England have underperformed. I was considering what he said and I think he's right, to have been runners-up four years in a row and not converted one of those to a ***le is poor. For me England are pretty much neck and neck with Ireland and Wales in terms of quality and a fairer split would be one each in the last three years.

Clearly he is making a veiled threat to Lancaster, who in my opinion, has done all he can and seems incapable of achieving the consistency necessary for success. He has done a lot of good but is not a really top drawer coach. Look at JS at Ireland, two years two wins. I know he has the advantage of a settled team but the whole "we're developing" thing can't wash now. He's had four years and achieved nothing beyond a necessary swapover of older failed players. He has chopped and changed constantly with the team which has inhibited consistency and has to stop if he is to continue. I would have removed him after last year, the loss in France was utterly unforgivable. England seem t o have one of them per year. This year's was the 'display' against Scotland who were begging to be smacked by 30+ points. That was where the chickens came home to roost, a settled team would have slaughtered them, since everyone would have known where the next man was and the passes that were butchered would have gone to hand.

However, all that aside I actually think the RFU is the prime cause of England's failure since the 2003 WC (and one deeply unconvincing and flukey 6N win is utterly pathetic). They have consistently refused to grasp the nettle and use their financial muscle to do what needs to be done and bring in the coach and other staff who will turn England's incredible resources and massive selection of players into a winning outfit. I think he's a hypocrite who's the root of the problem. Although I don't rate Lancaster I think he is honest and does his best, the RFU have ultimate responsibility.

 

[ncurd]

Welcome you'll find plenty who agree with you about Lancasters ability as coach. I think he's done a fair job but can be a little attached to under performing players and not other but that's a failing of most coaches.

Also think your being a little unfair about the France match last season which had way more to do with two freakish ball bounces.

As for the comments...they're bloody annoying I don't think it helps anyone for the authorities to question their coach 6 months before a major world event. They hounded SC out and we ended up with Robinson, Ashton was slightly more complex I'm not sure how much of the dressing room he had on side but in turn we entered Johnson era. Two turgid coaches after some fairly good ones. Us as fans will continue to question Lancaster and rightly so but the RFU need to back him.

Personally I'd whilst I like the man I think he needs to get us to the final in October or be shown the door. I know that's a hard goal considering the group were in but it's a home world cup and we keep finishing second. I'd like a fresh pair of eyes if he doesn't exceed reasonable expectations(a semi final spot) come RWC.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Yeah, I can see where Ritchie's coming from.
We've come 2nd a LOT in the past however many years. Wales, Ireland, France - they've all won (and won Grand slams) more than us. I don't think it's particularly arrogant to say that, with the resources we have, we should be wanting to win the tournament/get a grandslam, at some point.

The part where I disagree with him is that we weren't exactly prepared coming into this tournament - 11 injuries, was it?
The win against Wales, who traditionally are weak at the start of an international period, especially on a Friday, made a lot of people think we were going to cruise the rest of the tournament, when in reality we didn't look great vs Italy and were soundly beaten by Ireland.

If Ritchie's talking about the last 8 years, or whatever: then yes. We've underperformed.
This tournament? Probably not.

 

[91jmay]

I don't think we've been best team any of last four years though, has to be said. Going forward I think the pieces are there to compete for slams/World Cups. This World cup might come two years to early which is frustrating but it is what it is.

 

[Isengard]

Apologies this may seem a bit of a rant but I just got typing, feel free to ignore!

I think the point about the injuries is a fair one. He was not helped by them. However, I would argue that injuries have actually forced him into better selections in the past. For example, I don't like to speak ill of anyone but I was thrilled from an England supporter's perspective in terms of how I want the team to play to see Barritt injured. His selection is entirely negative and backwards looking. Last season injuries at centre to his preferred partnership made him pick more exciting, attack-minded players and it was a great improvement.

The long and short of it for me is that England have won one 6N and no Grand Slams since 2003. If you'd told me that after the final of the WC that year I'd have thought you were trying to wind me up. I know there was a rash of retirements and coaching change, which explains a year or two of failing to compete. However, to have not grasped the nettle and taken the necessary steps since then is pathetic. The RFU is 99% to blame. I've been saying ever since the WC win that they have failed dismally to do what has to be done, which was to use the RFU's resources (easily the richest union in the world) to cherry-pick the best coaches in the world and get them to England. It was laudable for a while to try and continue with English coaches but it has failed and the results conclusively prove it. France also have the same policy with similar results. Wales and Ireland are willing to accept the need to pick from the whole pool and have achieved success.

For me Lancaster has to go. He has a number or flaws which overshadow his undoubted successes. First and key he has no idea what his best team is. He has had four years. He needed to identify and stick with his best players, even through dips in form. Throwing out the 9 every year and then bringing them back etc is just plain stupid. Pick the best and only change them when you have to (injury, unarguably better player, age). You won't see Gatland or JS constantly tinkering with their team. Ireland lost O'Gara and then turned to Sexton. You'll not see JS decide to change to Madigan for the WC then back to Sexton for the 6N and Madigan again in the Autumn Internationals. There are several scrum halves in Ireland but they have decided Murray is the man so he plays, and so on. Gatland has decided Mike Philips has had his day so he goes to sub and he won't get back into an extended run. I know Lancaster has a lot more players to pick from but all successful teams have a core selection that does not change every 5 minutes. There is little to choose between the various scrum halves so pick one and stick by them.

Also he has a bizarre and frankly nonsense policy of making substitutions at certain times of the match regardless of the state of the play. He will whip off the scrum half even if he is playing a blinder and break up the flow. Several times this has resulted in major shifts and even losses of games. He persists in selecting some players beyond all sense. Call me old-fashioned but a hooker who can't throw in is not worth selection. Tom Youngs is great around the park, dynamic and mobile but his line out is dross. I was screaming at him not to bring him on Saturday and he immediately lost his first two line outs both close to the French line. Likewise Mako Vunipola, a prop who can't scrummage. Again no matter what the impact he can have in the loose he's a complete liability at scrum time. Lancaster seems to prefer brawn over brain and defence over attack. His natural game seems to be to stymie the opposition and then play territory to grind out results. hence Farrell made sense as a 10 since his inability to do anything except kick to international standard was not a problem, he was there to turn territory into points. I don't think Farrell senior is much of a back's coach either. Rowntree has the forwards well-drilled, except Youngs's line out but the backs make so many errors and lack conviction and faith in themselves.

In short for me Lancaster is a decent, honest and likeable man but not a top quality international coach. Until the RFU decide to have a proper, rigorous selection with the aim of choosing the coach who has the best record with players such as those available to England then we will continue to fail (like Warrenball suits the Welsh players available). I won't hold my breath, 12 years on from the WC win and still no Grand Slam. The record shows Johnson as the best coach we've had since and that is nothing short of a joke!

- - - Updated - - -

I agree we have not been the best team in those four years but certainly in 2013 the ***le was won, all that had to be done was to escape from Cardiff without a massive spanking. Failure to achieve that was a major flaw for me.

I feel England have a generation of players in the likes of Brown, Launchbury, Armitage, Lawes, Coles, etc, etc which are as good an assemblage of players as any other in the 6N and we are in danger of wasting that generation by poor coaching. I feel that the players available should have won a ***le in the last 4 years. Why they haven't is arguable. It might be bad luck but to be pipped two years in a row on points and then once by a crazily dire performance is unacceptable. Last year the French result was thrown into sharp relief when we won all the other games. That team was the best in the tournament but an inability to finish off a misfiring French team despite total domination of the game was unforgiveable. This year I'll happily accept Ireland were the best and last year they made themselves the best by bloody-mindedness and organisation when England threw it away right at the start. If we'd built on last year we would have won this year comfortably for me. The pieces are all there and properly used they would slot together into a winning team. Not a team that would sweep away all else, Ireland and Wales are too good, but one that would win one in four. Not much to ask for a union with so much money and resources.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I don't think we've been best team any of last four years though, has to be said.

Completely agree, but again: that's a short falling.
Wales, Ireland and France have been the best sides in Europe at one point or another since 2003, yet we haven't.
Why?

 

[91jmay]

I'll be honest, a 6 nations win without a slam is not a huge deal to me. Obviously much preferable to coming second, but unless they move to 4 try bonus points I can't ever say it matters hugely to me. Hardly felt like a big deal in 2011 did it? When it becomes who can thronk the Scots/Italians the most it devalues it somewhat (not talking down the Irish achievement they were deserved winners).

I assume you mean after the World Cup? I think its fair to assess SL performance after that, Semi Finals a minimum for me because of home advantage. Depending on manner of play and team selection I think he would get at least another 12 months with a SF slot.

 

[Isengard]

I'll be honest, a 6 nations win without a slam is not a huge deal to me. Obviously much preferable to coming second, but unless they move to 4 try bonus points I can't ever say it matters hugely to me. Hardly felt like a big deal in 2011 did it? When it becomes who can thronk the Scots/Italians the most it devalues it somewhat (not talking down the Irish achievement they were deserved winners).

I assume you mean after the World Cup? I think its fair to assess SL performance after that, Semi Finals a minimum for me because of home advantage. Depending on manner of play and team selection I think he would get at least another 12 months with a SF slot.

I agree to some extent, although the last England win was because everyone else was rubbish and we won by default. I think it felt unimpressive was because it was, we were playing poor rugby under a coach who had no idea. I think if we'd but the extra couple of tries on Scotland and won it would have felt pretty good, and I'll bet if England had managed to iron out the silly errors and/or got the try at the end vs France it would have been thrilling. I agree though a GS is far better. So it comes back to the fact that England have not got one in over a decade. Other nation's supporters can call it arrogant but with England's resources that is a shockingly poor record. If I said New Zealand will not win the Rugby Championship now until 2023 and not have won all their games in the competition in any one year by 2027 you'd laugh in my face. I would have laughed in yours if you'd told me the situation England would be in now in 2003!

 

[Tony Manx]

Apologies this may seem a bit of a rant but I just got typing, feel free to ignore!

I think the point about the injuries is a fair one. He was not helped by them. However, I would argue that injuries have actually forced him into better selections in the past. For example, I don't like to speak ill of anyone but I was thrilled from an England supporter's perspective in terms of how I want the team to play to see Barritt injured. His selection is entirely negative and backwards looking. Last season injuries at centre to his preferred partnership made him pick more exciting, attack-minded players and it was a great improvement.

The long and short of it for me is that England have won one 6N and no Grand Slams since 2003. If you'd told me that after the final of the WC that year I'd have thought you were trying to wind me up. I know there was a rash of retirements and coaching change, which explains a year or two of failing to compete. However, to have not grasped the nettle and taken the necessary steps since then is pathetic. The RFU is 99% to blame. I've been saying ever since the WC win that they have failed dismally to do what has to be done, which was to use the RFU's resources (easily the richest union in the world) to cherry-pick the best coaches in the world and get them to England. It was laudable for a while to try and continue with English coaches but it has failed and the results conclusively prove it. France also have the same policy with similar results. Wales and Ireland are willing to accept the need to pick from the whole pool and have achieved success.

For me Lancaster has to go. He has a number or flaws which overshadow his undoubted successes. First and key he has no idea what his best team is. He has had four years. He needed to identify and stick with his best players, even through dips in form. Throwing out the 9 every year and then bringing them back etc is just plain stupid. Pick the best and only change them when you have to (injury, unarguably better player, age). You won't see Gatland or JS constantly tinkering with their team. Ireland lost O'Gara and then turned to Sexton. You'll not see JS decide to change to Madigan for the WC then back to Sexton for the 6N and Madigan again in the Autumn Internationals. There are several scrum halves in Ireland but they have decided Murray is the man so he plays, and so on. Gatland has decided Mike Philips has had his day so he goes to sub and he won't get back into an extended run. I know Lancaster has a lot more players to pick from but all successful teams have a core selection that does not change every 5 minutes. There is little to choose between the various scrum halves so pick one and stick by them.

Also he has a bizarre and frankly nonsense policy of making substitutions at certain times of the match regardless of the state of the play. He will whip off the scrum half even if he is playing a blinder and break up the flow. Several times this has resulted in major shifts and even losses of games. He persists in selecting some players beyond all sense. Call me old-fashioned but a hooker who can't throw in is not worth selection. Tom Youngs is great around the park, dynamic and mobile but his line out is dross. I was screaming at him not to bring him on Saturday and he immediately lost his first two line outs both close to the French line. Likewise Mako Vunipola, a prop who can't scrummage. Again no matter what the impact he can have in the loose he's a complete liability at scrum time. Lancaster seems to prefer brawn over brain and defence over attack. His natural game seems to be to stymie the opposition and then play territory to grind out results. hence Farrell made sense as a 10 since his inability to do anything except kick to international standard was not a problem, he was there to turn territory into points. I don't think Farrell senior is much of a back's coach either. Rowntree has the forwards well-drilled, except Youngs's line out but the backs make so many errors and lack conviction and faith in themselves.

In short for me Lancaster is a decent, honest and likeable man but not a top quality international coach. Until the RFU decide to have a proper, rigorous selection with the aim of choosing the coach who has the best record with players such as those available to England then we will continue to fail (like Warrenball suits the Welsh players available). I won't hold my breath, 12 years on from the WC win and still no Grand Slam. The record shows Johnson as the best coach we've had since and that is nothing short of a joke!

- - - Updated - - -

I agree we have not been the best team in those four years but certainly in 2013 the ***le was won, all that had to be done was to escape from Cardiff without a massive spanking. Failure to achieve that was a major flaw for me.

I feel England have a generation of players in the likes of Brown, Launchbury, Armitage, Lawes, Coles, etc, etc which are as good an assemblage of players as any other in the 6N and we are in danger of wasting that generation by poor coaching. I feel that the players available should have won a ***le in the last 4 years. Why they haven't is arguable. It might be bad luck but to be pipped two years in a row on points and then once by a crazily dire performance is unacceptable. Last year the French result was thrown into sharp relief when we won all the other games. That team was the best in the tournament but an inability to finish off a misfiring French team despite total domination of the game was unforgiveable. This year I'll happily accept Ireland were the best and last year they made themselves the best by bloody-mindedness and organisation when England threw it away right at the start. If we'd built on last year we would have won this year comfortably for me. The pieces are all there and properly used they would slot together into a winning team. Not a team that would sweep away all else, Ireland and Wales are too good, but one that would win one in four. Not much to ask for a union with so much money and resources.

Good post!