England Post-WC discussion

[Which Tyler]

I don't think you can give someone credit for eventually bringing in the right people. One of England's main problems in 2015 was a lack of experience and part of this was how slow Lancaster was to react to bringing players in.

It ran right from the start. He was playing Dowson at 8 before giving Morgan a chance. He had Botha and Deacon in before Launchbury. Hodgson before Ford. Ashton before Roko and Watson. Foden/Brown-on-the-wing before May. And it continued right until the end, with Kvesic, Ewers and Slade left out or brought in too late to make a difference.

Wow.
Dowson before Morgan when Morgan had just turned down a Saons appearance because he wanted to be Welsh?
Botha and Deacon before Launchbury - who was still playing U20s?
Hodgson before Ford - who had just been bumped up to the U20s and still available for the U18s?
Ashton before Roko - who was still in the army, playing 7s?
Ashton before Watson - who was still in the U18s?
Foden/Brown before May I'll give you; though it's not like he was ignoring the 21 year old May by putting him in the Saxons.
Kvesic and Ewers I'll also give you; though I still don't see how bringing in a player at the end of their breakthrough season is "too late". Yes, yes, I know he's the messiah and can do no wrong - in any position on the field, and as captain no less; but he was still in the JRWC 2013.


What's next, are we going to criticise Eddie for not selecting the current U18s captain to play in the 6N?

Personally, I would never pick someone for England until they've had a chance to get through 2nd season syndrome - or show well enough to not suffer it. I think I'd want a minimum of 2000 minutes of 1st class rugby before I'd even consider someone for the senior squad. I don't see how a coach can be criticised for not selecting someone 2 years before their 1st class debut.


Burt had a lot of problems as a selector; mostly in the form of sticking with players too long in poor form/ability (AKA favouritism). His main problem was that in 2012 he selected players he thought would see him through the RWC, he got some wrong, but was so obsessed with getting experience into those players, he played them anyway. He then compounded the error by changing his mind in the last 12 months, and sometimes changing it back again.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Wow.
Dowson before Morgan when Morgan had just turned down a Saons appearance because he wanted to be Welsh?
Botha and Deacon before Launchbury - who was still playing U20s?
Hodgson before Ford - who had just been bumped up to the U20s and still available for the U18s?
Ashton before Roko - who was still in the army, playing 7s?
Ashton before Watson - who was still in the U18s?
Foden/Brown before May I'll give you; though it's not like he was ignoring the 21 year old May by putting him in the Saxons.
Kvesic and Ewers I'll also give you; though I still don't see how bringing in a player at the end of their breakthrough season is "too late". Yes, yes, I know he's the messiah and can do no wrong - in any position on the field, and as captain no less; but he was still in the JRWC 2013.


What's next, are we going to criticise Eddie for not selecting the current U18s captain to play in the 6N?

Personally, I would never pick someone for England until they've had a chance to get through 2nd season syndrome - or show well enough to not suffer it. I think I'd want a minimum of 2000 minutes of 1st class rugby before I'd even consider someone for the senior squad. I don't see how a coach can be criticised for not selecting someone 2 years before their 1st class debut.


Burt had a lot of problems as a selector; mostly in the form of sticking with players too long in poor form/ability (AKA favouritism). His main problem was that in 2012 he selected players he thought would see him through the RWC, he got some wrong, but was so obsessed with getting experience into those players, he played them anyway. He then compounded the error by changing his mind in the last 12 months, and sometimes changing it back again.

I'd disagree, I'd want someone in the squad after their breakthrough season, while they are in form and on fire. Having 2 seasons before you look at a player is too long really and would always put doubt in the players mind.

 

[yaboyjj]

Itoje would be first name on the teamsheet for me atm (and I don't think this is too much of an exaggeration) he's eclipsed every player he's come up against so far including Launchbury. Comparisons in size with Parling and Lawes are pretty stupid, since they are pretty marginal to start with in height, and he is significantly more powerful than both- not sure who watched the Wasps game, but he terrorized the Wasps lineout in the first half (must have stolen 3-4 throws).
However, unless one of them has learnt to call the lineout to a decent standard, Itoje and Launch may not be able to both start in the second row (which would be a damned shame), because a back 5 of Launch, Itoje, Clifford, Kvesic, Hughes/Vunipola -could imo be close to world beaters in the not to distant future.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Crane would be first name on the teamsheet for me atm (and I don't think this is too much of an exaggeration) he's eclipsed every player he's come up against so far including Launchbury. .

Bold statement not sure many will agree with you.

But I do.

 

[Peat]

Wow.
Dowson before Morgan when Morgan had just turned down a Saons appearance because he wanted to be Welsh?
Botha and Deacon before Launchbury - who was still playing U20s?
Hodgson before Ford - who had just been bumped up to the U20s and still available for the U18s?
Ashton before Roko - who was still in the army, playing 7s?
Ashton before Watson - who was still in the U18s?
Foden/Brown before May I'll give you; though it's not like he was ignoring the 21 year old May by putting him in the Saxons.
Kvesic and Ewers I'll also give you; though I still don't see how bringing in a player at the end of their breakthrough season is "too late". Yes, yes, I know he's the messiah and can do no wrong - in any position on the field, and as captain no less; but he was still in the JRWC 2013.

Points of pedantic order - a lot of what you describe was true in 2011 but not 2012; and Kvesic's last JWC was 2012.

Morgan was grossly unfit in 2012 and on the bench for the main team anyway. In fact, Morgan has been involved in every England game he's been fit for since Lancaster took over (I think).

Ford was incredibly young - and was still going to be called up for South Africa that summer until it was decided his long-term future called for a summer of conditioning. The 18 year old George Ford instead of Charlie Hodgson would have been stone cold lunacy indeed though.

Deacon never played in front of Launchbury. Launchbury was still mainly playing blindside at the time anyway. Launchbury wasn't in the 6N, missed South Africa with injury, then took a place in the AIs and was involved in every game he was available for thereafter.

Jonny May didn't really make the case that he should have been brought into international rugby earlier when his chance came. You can't tell me you want players brought in only when they're ready, J'nuh, then tell me not playing May earlier was a mistake, because those things are mutually exclusive.


Not, to go back to J'nuh's original post here, that anyone was giving him any credit. If you were responding to me J'nuh, all I did was point out that the charges of not selecting players young aren't true. Because they're not. That's not me saying he's a good selector. He wasn't. The following is true:

Burt had a lot of problems as a selector; mostly in the form of sticking with players too long in poor form/ability (AKA favouritism). His main problem was that in 2012 he selected players he thought would see him through the RWC, he got some wrong, but was so obsessed with getting experience into those players, he played them anyway. He then compounded the error by changing his mind in the last 12 months, and sometimes changing it back again.

But that, again, has nothing to do with selecting kids. He selected a lot of kids when he thought they were the right player.

His issue was selecting the right player, not the young player.

 

[j'nuh]

I'm remembering wrong on some of the points it seems, being a little sloppy, but the wider point holds true. Lancaster wasted a lot of caps on players who weren't worth the caps given to them.

Morgan, fit or unfit, was the best option at the beginning of 2012.

Okay, Launchbury wasn't in contention at the point. I'm just more frustrated that we ever played Botha and Deacon.

Whilst Ford wasn't in contention against Hodgson to begin with, the general point was that he was slow to get rid of Hodgson and slow to introduce Ford.

Fair enough, take your pick of wingers that should have been ahead of Ashton instead of Roko.

He also gave Barritt 26 caps...

Not, to go back to J'nuh's original post here, that anyone was giving him any credit. If you were responding to me J'nuh, all I did was point out that the charges of not selecting players young aren't true. Because they're not. That's not me saying he's a good selector. He wasn't. The following is true:

Yeah, sorry, I wasn't disagreeing with you, just saying that I don't think he was particularly special in regards to bringing youth through. Every coach does it, Lancaster just wasn't great at it since he was slow, inconsistent, and completely missed some of England's most impressive youths.

 

[Peat]

I'm remembering wrong on some of the points it seems, being a little sloppy, but the wider point holds true. Lancaster wasted a lot of caps on players who weren't worth the caps given to them.

Morgan, fit or unfit, was the best option at the beginning of 2012.

Okay, Launchbury wasn't in contention at the point. I'm just more frustrated that we ever played Botha and Deacon.

Whilst Ford wasn't in contention against Hodgson to begin with, the general point was that he was slow to get rid of Hodgson and slow to introduce Ford.

Fair enough, take your pick of wingers that should have been ahead of Ashton instead of Roko.

He also gave Barritt 26 caps...

Morgan - Debatable. Either way, three games on the bench before taking the starting shirt isn't a huge point of contention.

Deacon - Never played for England under Lancaster.

Hodgson - Told his services wouldn't be required post-South Africa tour and retired. How much quicker do you want?

Ford - Was too young in 11-12. Form collapsed in 12-13. Resurged with his move to Bath in 13-14 and got his England debut at the age of 20. Slow? Uhm.

Ashton - Escaped execution twice due to injuries to Wade and Yarde. Eventually ousted by May and Nowell (then 20). Got his place back temporarily from May because May didn't adapt fast enough. Forget what transpired in AIs 2014 and can't be bothered to look it up but the general point is that, crap as he was, there wasn't exactly a big queue of players waiting to take his spot for most of his tenure.

Barritt - Has exactly what to do with the charge Lancaster introduced the right players too slowly? Please stick to the point here.

And please take off your blinkers and remember things how they actually were.

 

[j'nuh]

Morgan - Debatable. Either way, three games on the bench before taking the starting shirt isn't a huge point of contention.

It's a small point in the wider issue of Lancaster's selection issues.

Deacon - Never played for England under Lancaster.

Sorry, was thinking of Johnson. Meant Palmer.

Hodgson - Told his services wouldn't be required post-South Africa tour and retired. How much quicker do you want?

Should never have been picked. Although Burns didn't work out, he should have been given a chance when he was in his best form. Who knows, things may have turned out differently for Freddie if he was allowed to play on the international stage when he was in form and high on confidence?

Ford - Was too young in 11-12. Form collapsed in 12-13. Resurged with his move to Bath in 13-14 and got his England debut at the age of 20. Slow? Uhm.

Debut =/= becoming first choice. Ford was kept out of the spotlight for much longer than he should have been.

Ashton - Escaped execution twice due to injuries to Wade and Yarde. Eventually ousted by May and Nowell (then 20). Got his place back temporarily from May because May didn't adapt fast enough. Forget what transpired in AIs 2014 and can't be bothered to look it up but the general point is that, crap as he was, there wasn't exactly a big queue of players waiting to take his spot for most of his tenure.

Lancaster had plenty of time to drop Ashton way before he even tried to. There was Sharples, Yarde, Wade, even Strettle or Ugo would have been better.

Barritt - Has exactly what to do with the charge Lancaster introduced the right players too slowly? Please stick to the point here.

Depends on which point during the last 4 years you are talking about. He was late to give Twelvetrees a chance, and only gave Slade a chance once we were already knocked out of the World Cup. (I was calling for Slade during the Six Nations for example.)

And please take off your blinkers and remember things how they actually were.

Harsh..

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Speaking of Lancaster Japan apparently interested in him.

 

[Peat]

It's a small point in the wider issue of Lancaster's selection issues.


Sorry, was thinking of Johnson. Meant Palmer.


Should never have been picked. Although Burns didn't work out, he should have been given a chance when he was in his best form. Who knows, things may have turned out differently for Freddie if he was allowed to play on the international stage when he was in form and high on confidence?


Debut =/= becoming first choice. Ford was kept out of the spotlight for much longer than he should have been.


Lancaster had plenty of time to drop Ashton way before he even tried to. There was Sharples, Yarde, Wade, even Strettle or Ugo would have been better.


Depends on which point during the last 4 years you are talking about. He was late to give Twelvetrees a chance, and only gave Slade a chance once we were already knocked out of the World Cup. (I was calling for Slade during the Six Nations for example.)

Palmer - Played in 2012 when there was pretty much no one else and did ok, as he'd been doing for Johnson. Weird one to have a problem with.

Hodgson/Burns - Burns was a 21 year old in his first full season at fly-half. Not generally considered the ideal time to introduce people to international rugby.

Ford - Given a 6N on the bench to introduce him (hardly a crime), missed out on the NZ tour due to injury, then got starts in the AI - maybe a game or two late? Hardly much longer than he should have been.

Ashton - Strettle played alongside Ashton. He wasn't better. Yarde was given a debut at 21 and lost form. And so on.

Twelvetrees - Only became a first-choice club player in 12/13 - got his international debut that season. How much quicker do you want? Hardly repaid the faith either.

Slade - Was in the middle of his breakout season and wasn't even playing in Barritt's position during the 6N.

Harsh..

Eminently fair. You're posting a lot of things you haven't bothered to check and keep taking the conversation to new areas where you can criticise Lancaster when it's pointed out your recollection is faulty.

This started as talking about how fast or not England bring young players through. It's migrating to a general criticism of Lancaster for no reason or relevance to the topic. I see no reason for that other than people's visceral disdain for Lancaster, regardless of the facts, and their wish to sustain this leading them to look at other facets when it's pointed out his record where relevant to the topic is actually nothing to throw stones about. People can do what they want but I've no particular taste for having the same argument for the 1000th time with moving goalposts. I'm out.

 

[j'nuh]

Palmer - Played in 2012 when there was pretty much no one else and did ok, as he'd been doing for Johnson. Weird one to have a problem with.

Lawes, Parling, Attwood... Lancaster made a point of bringing in the new and building up again in 2012, so it is a little inconsistent to bring in Palmer. Parling could have started, and he did halfway through. And Botha was clearly a waste of a pick.

Hodgson/Burns - Burns was a 21 year old in his first full season at fly-half. Not generally considered the ideal time to introduce people to international rugby.

Being 21 didn't matter for Farrell, it didn't matter for Ford, so why Burns?

Ford - Given a 6N on the bench to introduce him (hardly a crime), missed out on the NZ tour due to injury, then got starts in the AI - maybe a game or two late? Hardly much longer than he should have been.

Again, a smaller point in the larger context of the slowness Lancaster reacted in.

Ashton - Strettle played alongside Ashton. He wasn't better. Yarde was given a debut at 21 and lost form. And so on.

Strettle definitely was better than Ashton. As was most. Ashton wasn't scoring tries and he wasn't good enough defensively and hasn't had a place in the England squad since 2010, yet Lancaster gave him two years. Of all players, Ashton was the one Lancaster wasted the most time on dropping.

Twelvetrees - Only became a first-choice club player in 12/13 - got his international debut that season. How much quicker do you want? Hardly repaid the faith either.

He was given a chance by Gatland faster than he was by Lancaster on the Lions tour.

Slade - Was in the middle of his breakout season and wasn't even playing in Barritt's position during the 6N.

How many people thought he should have been though? I mentioned it multiple times, that Slade needed to be given time in the 6N to give him a chance of being an option in the WC squad as he seemed to be our best option. Lancaster showed zero planning here as proven by the last minute selection of Burgess.

Eminently fair. You're posting a lot of things you haven't bothered to check and keep taking the conversation to new areas where you can criticise Lancaster when it's pointed out your recollection is faulty.

I was wrong with one or two things I have said. That doesn't change the wider picture that I'm talking about. It's not exactly welcoming to accuse people of being blinkered because they have a different opinion to you, you could have just left it at telling me what I was wrong on. I would say that I am less anti-Lancaster than most; I was one of few that still believed Lancaster could have stayed with the right coaching assistants.

This started as talking about how fast or not England bring young players through. It's migrating to a general criticism of Lancaster for no reason or relevance to the topic. I see no reason for that other than people's visceral disdain for Lancaster, regardless of the facts, and their wish to sustain this leading them to look at other facets when it's pointed out his record where relevant to the topic is actually nothing to throw stones about. People can do what they want but I've no particular taste for having the same argument for the 1000th time with moving goalposts. I'm out.

I haven't moved on from this point.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I just had a quick mooch about looking to when it's up, but it seems like Nathan Hughes is out of contract this season (renewed in early 2014, and usual contract length/extension is 2 years, so up at the end of this year).
He's obviously motivated by money, is he going to turn down (presumable) offers from France to stick at Wasps?
I could imagine Toulon making a bid, Lobbe and (especially) Smith won't be far off retirement.

 

[Crapspray]

Given Wasps now apparently have loadsamoney, and the numbers that were being chucked around Tuilagi's contract, they've probably got decent ability to see off the frogs.

And if he does leave it solves the moral dilemma for us. Though I wouldn't really care either way, if I'm honest. We've hired the wrong coach if he can't make a good international 8 out of one of Binny, Ben, and Beaumont. Not to mention Chisholm in a few years time. And Waldrom, if we're all set on dubious eligibility.

 

[Peat]

I just had a quick mooch about looking to when it's up, but it seems like Nathan Hughes is out of contract this season (renewed in early 2014, and usual contract length/extension is 2 years, so up at the end of this year).
He's obviously motivated by money, is he going to turn down (presumable) offers from France to stick at Wasps?
I could imagine Toulon making a bid, Lobbe and (especially) Smith won't be far off retirement.

Extended his contract in 2015 apparently.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Aha, so he did.

Shame.

 

[Peat]

Palmer wasn't brought in. He was an existing part of the England squad. And, unless you want to point at the young player who should have been playing ahead of him, irrelevant. Lawes was injured for the start of the 2012 6N btw.

Burns - the bit about halfway through his first season as a regular fly-half it the key there. Although, given how crap Farrell was at that age, and how inconsistent Ford's been, his age probably does matter a little and should have counted against Fick & Fickle.

Strettle better than Ashton - really not my memory. In any case, irrelevant to a conversation on bringing through young players. Just as is how long it took Lancaster to drop Ashton, really.

Twelvetrees - uhm... what? Twelvetrees was capped prior to the Lions tour, in which his grand opportunity was playing a provincial game or two to spare the big boys. Already had 5 caps by then.

Slade - How many people thought Slade should have been playing 12? Well, not Rob Baxter, who's pretty much never played him there. And given that Barritt's position in the Six Nations was not playing for England, he can hardly be said to have been blocking him then in any case. But playing a player out of position in the very first season people are calling for him to get caps is generally questionable. Whether Lancaster would have been right to is opinion, but that there were really good reasons not to is fact.

Let's view the progression of young players from another angle:

Australia are missing a Hooker, Tighthead, both half-backs and a back three player from a full internationally capped 15 born in 1991 or late (i.e. was an U20 player or younger at the start of the last WC cycle). Those 10 players they do have have a 142 caps combined and five of them have less than 10 caps. One of those 10 players is currently ineligible. Hooper accounts for over a third of those caps single-handed.

Argentina (who've basically pushed a new generation for a new game plan) are short a fly-half. 194 caps combined.

Ireland are missing a loosehead, hooker, lock and flanker, and have a grand total of 94 caps. Only four players (Henderson, Murphy, Jackson and Henshaw) have more than 10 caps.

South Africa - short a loosehead, hooker, scrum-half and back-three player... and 192 caps. Ok, fair play, that's a lot of accelerated development there...

Wales are short a hooker, lock and flanker with 141 caps, over a third of which belong to George North.

And England? 204 for our XV, which is missing a lock, a flanker and a scrum-half.


Not saying it was perfect. Not saying mistakes weren't made, although there were none on a huge completely incomprehensible scale. Not speaking for the whole of selection.

But the advancement of young players and willingness to gamble on them? Think some might want a rethink there.

 

[Maverick1987]

I don't really know what's happened with this thread but I'll throw my 10p in . Selecting young players wasn't Lancaster's downfall . Not being able to select the right players irrespective of age was his issue . We went to NZ last summer and decided to slim all our players down which destroyed our scrum and in the end it all peaked into panicking for the wales game and resorting to picking Burgess and Barritt together .... He turned our team into a nice team full of bottlers . We lost every important game when he was in charge

 

[MrTea_32]

I just had a quick mooch about looking to when it's up, but it seems like Nathan Hughes is out of contract this season (renewed in early 2014, and usual contract length/extension is 2 years, so up at the end of this year).
He's obviously motivated by money, is he going to turn down (presumable) offers from France to stick at Wasps?
I could imagine Toulon making a bid, Lobbe and (especially) Smith won't be far off retirement.

Wasps should be able to make a competitive offer.
Also plenty of money to be made from England caps

 

[Maverick1987]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ru...quins-flanker-ready-mantle-Chris-Robshaw.html

Not Kvesic ?!? rats is gonna go berserk .....

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Clifford won't be England's 7 because he's not an openside, and Eddie Jones wants an openside.