[England] Post-6N/Pre-RWC Player Watch

[michaelbolton]

That there's been a wild changing of players on the wing as Lancaster tries to find someone to fit ever-changing and illusory ideals? Which is my point.

Players have been tried and dropped in short notice, where others, in other positions, haven't. That's what's unfair. Dropping May is fine, provided it's equally applied to a) other wingers and b) other backs.


Yes, blatant. Farrell is a poor attacking fly-half at international level. Ford is a poor defender. Lancaster has picked what's available and played around their weaknesses. If only he did that with his wingers, rather than searching for the perfect defender.


I think England have the potential (player base, funding, youth, and domestic league) to be one of the best sides in the World. I think the U20s, U18s, and womens' teams' successes show this. In four years we've gone from being ranked fourth in the world to… fourth. Meanwhile, Ireland are now ranked third, with back-to-back Six Nations ***les.

Not good enough. I'm sick of being told consistent mediocrity is acceptable. And being promised jam tomorrow.


I presume you haven't seen Rocko play for Bath much then? Or heard Lancaster mention his solidity when he picked him to play against New Zealand?

He's also picked out of form many, many times. Ever heard of "credit in the bank"? It's Lancaster for "I know he's crap, but I like him, and know him from my time at Leeds.".


Nothing to do with being beasted at the breakdown? Another area of failing, unaddressed for four years now. Largely caused by loyalty to players who are unlikely to be part of the best side in the world.

Those three players have all played fullback, yet were awful at returning kicks? Well, with one a fullback out of position, the other the worst back in the 50-man training squad, and the third just back from injury, colour me shocked.

I still have no idea exactly what he wants his back three to do. Other than defend. Which is an appalling compromise with the number of players at his disposal.


So he's been assigned a position regardless of how he turns out? So we're in agreement, Lancaster has shoehorned him in. Sod Burgess, I need a big inside-centre, and he's big.


We can for certain players. Hence, it's unfair. Either all players have "credit in the bank" or you're ruthless to every one of them.


How long have they had each? Four or five caps, and then they're dropped. Farrell probably played with five or six centre combinations before he went.

How many permutations of back three will Lancaster get through before he plays two wingers and good fullback for more than four games in a row? Or realise a certain player, with an ironic-sounding name, is a wasted pick.


I don't have to look hard. They're blindingly obvious at times, and have been for years. As I've said, we have the potential to become one of the world's best sides. At this point, I have very little confidence the current coaches can deliver that.

He's also been dealt probably the best hand of any coach outside New Zealand. It's only because he's discarded his aces to be certain of getting a pair of twos. (Poker joke, geddit?)

---

TL;DR: Lancaster's a poor coach.

Got to say I am beginning to come to the same conclusion...Considering the golden generation of talent we seem to have available at the minute we really have been underperforming, and just as one last example the players cut compared to those left in the squad is shocking. Watson can cover full back so why have Goode over Roko? Burgess over 36 or Eastmond (I think I may be the only 36 fan in the world)? Arm breaker over Kvesic??

This has been happening the entire way through the last 2 years or so we have gone backwards almost, he started well but hasn't improved at all. Only improving when Ford and Joseph were forced in and made a big impact almost single handedly making our backs do something useful

I think Lancs would be a good DoR - he's go the culture, the media savvy, seems a good motivator etc. but we do seem to be lacking a bit in the coaching. We've got some very good coaches (Wiggy has to be one of the best around as a scrum coach) but sometimes they're in the wrong role (Farrell Sr. should be a defence coach and nothing more).

As has been said many times before, I think England have the personnel (both coaching and playing) to be consistently one of the best teams in the world (rather than inconsistently atm), we just don't seem to be selecting it for whatever reason.

This, he needs help of a decent coach and leave Andy Farrell to just defend and not do any thinking or decision making

 

[goodNumber10]

Late reply, but:



I disagree. Players like Yarde and Ford were available. Were they green and imperfect? Absolutely. But so were Launchbury, Marler, Youngs, Vunipola, Morgan, Robshaw, etc. He's reaping the chaff he sowed in the backs. Meanwhile aforementioned players have developed into some of the best forwards in the Northern Hemisphere. (Sticking my neck out there.)



Actually, Flood was. But Lancaster preferred Farrell, so Flood left. No doubt annoyed that a worse player was starting ahead of him, regardless of how badly said player performed. Imagine if he did that at 12, 14, and 15 as well...



Again, why are some dropped quickly and others not? Inconsistency either through incompetence or favouritism. It's the inconsistency I'm moaning about.

Going all the way back to May, is it shocking to find players lacking confidence in that sort of environment? Go and watch the player diaries from the 2011 RWC and look at Tom Wood in the background. He's miffed because Lee "Made of Crockery" Moody was starting ahead of him, regardless of form. And he was dropped first chance for him, and knew if he made a mistake he'd be gone instantly.



He based his entire backline for two years around the hope that Farrell would develop a good attacking game and Tuilagi would always be available; spent 24 months hoping Ashton would recover form (in a side which was an anathema to his natural game). Why can't he bend the rules so much for anyone else?

Again, we overlooked (well, accepted) Marler's poor scrummaging on the basis he would improve over the next two, three years. After a couple of stuffings, he now probably our first choice loosehead and capable of matching just about every tighthead in world rugby. Same with Launchbury, and his lack of strength in the tight early on.

He's a poor coach because in four years, with all the resources at his disposal, he's yet to win anything major. His win rate is higher than Johnson's by, what, 6%? Yet Johnson is regarded as a failure and Lancaster not? Different takeover, but the side Johnson got was hardly the 2011 All Blacks.

You expected a higher win rate to Johnson in less than 4 years?

There is hardly enough games to do that, especially when rebuilding from almost scratch. Johnson's win rate would probably be higher if he could of been bothered to stick around but he hung up his spurs in shame - let's be clear his tenure was a failure due to lack of direction and behaviour by players that made us a laughing stock not because of his win rate.

 

[j'nuh]

You expected a higher win rate to Johnson in less than 4 years?

There is hardly enough games to do that, especially when rebuilding from almost scratch. Johnson's win rate would probably be higher if he could of been bothered to stick around but he hung up his spurs in shame - let's be clear his tenure was a failure due to lack of direction and behaviour by players that made us a laughing stock not because of his win rate.

wat

I thought it was a fairly universal belief that MJ was an absolutely atrocious selector. We played crap players like Borthwick, Botha, Hape, Tindall, Easter (before he became decent in this WC cycle), Cueto (decent player way past his best), Wilkinson (see Cueto), Palmer (see Cueto), Moody (see Cueto), Worsley (see Cueto), Stevens, Deacon, Flutey; players that would struggle to get into any of the other top teams. (Even though we had some great players available to us.)

I feel that the terrible selection policy of MJ is still haunting us. He gave most of his cap to international no-hopers who weren't that great and are now long gone. e.g. Robshaw could have had 60-70 caps by now had he been brought through when he was supposed to have.

 

[Wendigo7]

Think a few are overestimating our ability at the time/now to an extent.

 

[goodNumber10]

Were talking about results, as Crapspray (I love that name BTW) is saying Lancaster's results are no better than MJ's yet he's a failure and Lancaster isn't... If people can't see the difference between England now and then what hope for the future?

 

[Wendigo7]

Were talking about results, as Crapspray (I love that name BTW) is saying Lancaster's results are no better than MJ's yet he's a failure and Lancaster isn't... If people can't see the difference between England now and then what hope for the future?

Oh I know, we were a shambles of a side during the period. Some will say we were getting somewhere but I personally could never see it.

Lanny has brought the side on leaps and bounds and I am at times bemused by the constant moaning. We are a top side, the only thing really left is silverware.

 

[j'nuh]

To be fair on Lancaster, he's played NZ and SA an unusual number of times (11 of his 39 games), which might make his win record a little incomparable to MJ. England are also no longer embarrassed by NZ/SA, as they often used to be. I do think Lancaster is significantly better than MJ, but being better than MJ isn't setting the bar very high IMO.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

I don't get people comparing Lancaster to Johnson.

It's like saying well i might weigh 300 lbs but at least I don't weigh 400lbs.

People aren't saying Johnson should be in charge. Well I'm not. But IMO with the resources available Lancaster has failed in 4 years to create any tried and tested depth to a certain in a number of positions.

7, 12, 13, and maybe 10 although Ford recent run has changed that.

Maybe even 15.

Yes Johnson made some **** poor choices but he also didn't have any prior experience to coaching and should never have been given the job but he also inherited a **** poor England. Lancaster has improved the image and to a certain extent the style (at times England can still play **** poor turgid rugby at times) but with the player resources available it wasn't the hardest task in the world.

IMO Lanacaster has taken England as far as he can go ATM with the coaching staff he has at least IMO Catt and Farrell have not proved to be the right backs coaches yet.

And IF England fail to get out the group and depending on Quarter final I don't see how it should be anything but him going IMO.

 

[TobesHodges]

So I guess Lancaster has to Win the World Cup or he has Failed as a Coach? Tough Crowd..

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

So I guess Lancaster has to Win the World Cup or he has Failed as a Coach? Tough Crowd..

Lol did you even read my post?

I said IMO minimum it is the quarter final and then depending how we actually played then.

IMO if he fails to get out of group stage we should be looking elsewhere.

 

[ncurd]

I think Lancaster has to make the semi's to keep his job.

Second in the group and QF bow will be a failure. Top the group and we really shouldn't be loosing that QF.

 

[arry nordy key]

I don't get people comparing Lancaster to Johnson.

People aren't saying Johnson should be in charge. Well I'm not. But IMO with the resources available Lancaster has failed in 4 years to create any tried and tested depth to a certain in a number of positions.

7, 12, 13, and maybe 10 although Ford recent run has changed that.

Maybe even 15.

England are the only team to rival NZ in depth in quality, so I assume you mean there are quality players who are in the reserves that haven't had enough experience?

Is it not worth considering though, that it is players on the pitch that win games, not the reserves sat in the stands? When SL took over it was obvious that many of the old heads in the squad had to go. As a result the players now considered our 'experienced leaders' mostly have well under 50 caps - generally in the 20s and 30s, compared to our rivals who have numerous players with 60/70/80/90+ games worth of experience to call on.
More rotation in the name of greater depth would have widened this gap further?

A lot of people on here seem to have a bee in their bonnet over one player or another who is or isn't in the squad when in almost every case they wouldn't be in a starting XV anyway! (Hoping that this Sam Burgess thing doesn't leave me with egg on my face!)

7... We have Robshaw and Haskell
12... Farrell, Twelvetrees, Eastmond, Barritt, Burrell have all had a go and know what it is like in big games
13... JJ, Barritt, Burrell, Tuilagi - all tried and tested
15... Brown, Goode, Foden - Whats the big deal?

 

[j'nuh]

So I guess Lancaster has to Win the World Cup or he has Failed as a Coach? Tough Crowd..

Not winning the World Cup isn't so much an issue if it were in isolation. But still, Lancaster will be the least accomplished England coach in a while if he doesn't at least reach the final:
Martin Johnson: 2011 Six Nations win
Brian Ashton: 2007 World Cup final
Clive Woodward: 2003 World Cup
Jack Rowell: two Five Nations wins
Geoff Cooke: two Five Nations wins

There's also Andy Robinson, who similarly didn't achieve anything whilst an England head coach, but Lancaster has had a lot more time in the role already.

Not saying that Lancaster is absolutely atrocious, just that anything less than a very good World Cup run will mean make this a pretty bad run from him.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

England are the only team to rival NZ in depth in quality, so I assume you mean there are quality players who are in the reserves that haven't had enough experience?

Is it not worth considering though, that it is players on the pitch that win games, not the reserves sat in the stands? When SL took over it was obvious that many of the old heads in the squad had to go. As a result the players now considered our 'experienced leaders' mostly have well under 50 caps - generally in the 20s and 30s, compared to our rivals who have numerous players with 60/70/80/90+ games worth of experience to call on.
More rotation in the name of greater depth would have widened this gap further?

A lot of people on here seem to have a bee in their bonnet over one player or another who is or isn't in the squad when in almost every case they wouldn't be in a starting XV anyway! (Hoping that this Sam Burgess thing doesn't leave me with egg on my face!)

7... We have Robshaw and Haskell
12... Farrell, Twelvetrees, Eastmond, Barritt, Burrell have all had a go and know what it is like in big games
13... JJ, Barritt, Burrell, Tuilagi - all tried and tested
15... Brown, Goode, Foden - Whats the big deal?

England have a sh*t load of depth but IMO hasn't been used enough.

7 Robshaw, Haskell - Haskell has played 7 once for England with Lancaster.
12 Farrell, Twelvetrees, Burrell have all failed to show any promise in big games at 12. Eastmond was given 4 meaningful games showed promise IMO then dropped.
13 Barritt again given some game time at 13 but again didn't show massive promise there, Burrell maybe but will he make the cut. Manu is in the squad.
15 fair enough but I did say maybe how many times has Foden played 15 under Lancaster? (Edit last time he started at full back was 3 years ago).

The fact is we have depth of maybes etc but none that you could be comfortable in big games to do the job.

12 we don't even have a starter yet.

If JJ goes down we have no one suitable to cover with relative international experience who could do a excellent job.

Wings Nowell is nailed down but we don't know who the other is.

If Brown goes down it is similar we have Goode who is meh (IMO) and a fullback who hasn't played international rugby in nearly 2 years and has been injured for the new year.

If Robshaw goes down we have only 1 player in England who has played @ 7 during the last 4 years. (I'm not counting Argentina B/C game).

No most teams have 1 area where a player goes down they will struggle to replace them but England seem to have multiple areas.

What annoys me isn't the fact he isn't he hasn't played many other players in certain positions so much but rather the fact he has used the excuse of transition the last 4 years yet has still failed to find multiple starting combinations that are up to the job and is more likely to play a player he knows out of position then give another player a shot. Case in point playing the likes of Brown, Manu and Goode on the wings when clearly they are never in a million years a international wing. (Don't think they have played there at AP level in fact). Instead of looking at a player like Yarde etc earlier, or Sam Burgess now by the looks of it. He would rather try Burgess @12 than Easmond despite Eastmond playing 12 for Bath.

 

[TobesHodges]

I get he needs to do better in a lot of people's opinions.. But he did inherit an aged out England squad and it really is only the last year or so that the players are peaking enough experience for the international level.. Is that fair?

 

[goodNumber10]

England have a sh*t load of depth but IMO hasn't been used enough.

7 Robshaw, Haskell - Haskell has played 7 once for England with Lancaster.
12 Farrell, Twelvetrees, Burrell have all failed to show any promise in big games at 12. Eastmond was given 4 meaningful games showed promise IMO then dropped.
13 Barritt again given some game time at 13 but again didn't show massive promise there, Burrell maybe but will he make the cut. Manu is in the squad.
15 fair enough but I did say maybe how many times has Foden played 15 under Lancaster? (Edit last time he started at full back was 3 years ago).

The fact is we have depth of maybes etc but none that you could be comfortable in big games to do the job.

12 we don't even have a starter yet.

If JJ goes down we have no one suitable to cover with relative international experience who could do a excellent job.

Wings Nowell is nailed down but we don't know who the other is.

If Brown goes down it is similar we have Goode who is meh (IMO) and a fullback who hasn't played international rugby in nearly 2 years and has been injured for the new year.

If Robshaw goes down we have only 1 player in England who has played @ 7 during the last 4 years. (I'm not counting Argentina B/C game).

No most teams have 1 area where a player goes down they will struggle to replace them but England seem to have multiple areas.

What annoys me isn't the fact he isn't he hasn't played many other players in certain positions so much but rather the fact he has used the excuse of transition the last 4 years yet has still failed to find multiple starting combinations that are up to the job and is more likely to play a player he knows out of position then give another player a shot. Case in point playing the likes of Brown, Manu and Goode on the wings when clearly they are never in a million years a international wing. (Don't think they have played there at AP level in fact). Instead of looking at a player like Yarde etc earlier, or Sam Burgess now by the looks of it. He would rather try Burgess @12 than Easmond despite Eastmond playing 12 for Bath.

Oh ffs are people still crying about burgess being in the squad and possibly playing 12?

This is his one chance to try burgess at 12 ahead of the world cup, Eastmond has had plenty of time and could easily be called back into the squad - he's also got a dog mess attitude (or so I've been told) and clearly struggles with the Elite Environment. What will he learn by playing him against a France/France A side he doesn't already know ( that his defence sucks but he's a great passer).

We don't need passers we need hole punchers that hopefully can offload and pass.

Burgess is a risk worth taking for one game.

On depth, we are seeing the result of over a decade of RFU mismanagement, wasting what could have been one of the great English spring legacies, I'm not sure how he's supposed to turn that around in 4 years... But he's has a pretty good stab.

 

[MrTea_32]

Oh ffs are people still crying about burgess being in the squad and possibly playing 12?

This is his one chance to try burgess at 12 ahead of the world cup, Eastmond has had plenty of time and could easily be called back into the squad - he's also got a dog mess attitude (or so I've been told) and clearly struggles with the Elite Environment. What will he learn by playing him against a France/France A side he doesn't already know ( that his defence sucks but he's a great passer).

We don't need passers we need hole punchers that hopefully can offload and pass.

Burgess is a risk worth taking for one game.

On depth, we are seeing the result of over a decade of RFU mismanagement, wasting what could have been one of the great English spring legacies, I'm not sure how he's supposed to turn that around in 4 years... But he's has a pretty good stab.

I agree Burgess is definitely a risk worth taking against France and as long as he doesn't have a stinker and he shows potential he should maybe be given a 2nd game against France at home. He's the player we need at 12 now Manu had his troubles.
If Burgess doesn't work out at least we tried it and we will just have to settle for someone else, probably play it safe with barritt.
Will be interesting if Burgess does perform and becomes our answer at 12 to see all the haters back tracking

 

[Crapspray]

Were talking about results, as Crapspray (I love that name BTW) is saying Lancaster's results are no better than MJ's yet he's a failure and Lancaster isn't... If people can't see the difference between England now and then what hope for the future?

Don't thank me, thank Bill Bryson.

There is a difference, but perhaps smaller than some would care to admit. And with the players who've come through in the last four years, and being a qualified coach, I would have hoped Lancaster would have put a bigger gap between himself and Johnson.

 

[goodNumber10]

Coaches are only as good as their resources and England disgracefully squandered theirs for over a decade... Yet he's completely turned around not just a team but English rugby in 4 years.... I fail to see how he is anything other than a great coach.

Additionally look at Woodward, or Henry's first WC cycle - Henry inspired the 2 greatest team performances in living memory, lions 01 & NZ 05... Yet he has massive ups and down's and even in his world cup winning year flitted players around like anything....

I'm sorry but Lancaster has England in a better place than its been for the last 10 years, let's at least give the chance before calling for his head... Especially when we've no one obvious to take good place.

Right I'm off back to the pool, later's

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

I agree Burgess is definitely a risk worth taking against France and as long as he doesn't have a stinker and he shows potential he should maybe be given a 2nd game against France at home. He's the player we need at 12 now Manu had his troubles.
If Burgess doesn't work out at least we tried it and we will just have to settle for someone else, probably play it safe with barritt.
Will be interesting if Burgess does perform and becomes our answer at 12 to see all the haters back tracking

If burgess does become a star performer at 12 I wonder if bath will still try and convert him to 6?