England Post-WC discussion

[Amiga500]

Oh look, Amiga's turned up to have another pop at the English!

Yawn!

Just the greedy clubs...


But since you asked so nicely
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrWiG7dvZIg

 

[Crazy Horse]

Just the greedy clubs...


But since you asked so nicely
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrWiG7dvZIg

That was quite possibly the funniest clip I have ever seen! I just about spat out my coffee all over my keyboard this morning!

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Just the greedy clubs...


But since you asked so nicely
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrWiG7dvZIg

You can tell he's playing a celt because he's got more teeth than braincells

 

[McTallshort]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/34727588




So... instead of looking toward the models that work, the creeps that are ruining the national game in England (and probably France too) are looking yet more control.

Only ones ruining the national game are the RFU for picking a crap coaching team that bombed us out the WC. Yeah really want to trust the game to them.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

You can tell he's playing a celt because he's got more teeth than braincells

Plus with that particular lineout Wales actually started driving before the lifted player had landed so the entire thing was illegal but you know, forget that little detail and just make out the English were stupid.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Just to go back to Abendanon crying to the press again, just seen on twitter that France-based England player would only be available for 5 of the 8 tests England have this season, due to club commitments.
Why would you pick players who are only available for half the games? Especially when the EPS has strict rules about numbers and player replacements etc.

 

[McTallshort]

Just to go back to Abendanon crying to the press again, just seen on twitter that France-based England player would only be available for 5 of the 8 tests England have this season, due to club commitments.
Why would you pick players who are only available for half the games? Especially when the EPS has strict rules about numbers and player replacements etc.

Depends how desperate we are for full backs.....

 

[Peat]

So Peat whats your answer to why we were so poor.

The lineout, or in general?

The lineout was poor leading up to the World Cup and it looked like the reason why was they didn't drill it enough. There were insufficient lineout movement to mask our targets and the hooker and units didn't look connected. That went for all of them by the way. The World Cup lineout was still dodgy, but at least the ball now consistently came back on the England side somehow. I don't think they needed to throw both jumper locks at it though - or at least, they shouldn't have.

In general, we had an inadequate head coach exercising an inadequate level of control over an inadequate and overpowerful backs coach. Between them they went temporarily (?) insane and picked an inadequate schedule of preparation for the team, both physically and tactically, which they then followed by picking an inadequate collective of players to begin with, although in fairness it's always difficult as our international playing pool is inadequate, largely due to coming through a youth production system and league that's inadequate for the country's needs.

Or to put it another way, we had crap picking from more crap then forcing it through a funnel to make it even more concentrated crap.

Happily the 6N is easier than the World Cup so a decent international coach (like a sane Lancaster) will have us contending again; a good coach might even see us win it. A really lucky confluence of very talented coach and players might see us win a few in a row... but don't bet on that.

Club rugby is easier than international. He wouldn't be the first who can hide flaws at domestic but be exposed at international (see: Charlie Hodgson's defence). Do we have European stats? The oft-quoted 92% is only Premiership. He still threw overwhelmingly to the front for England though, and England dumping Launchbury for Parling suggests they wanted lineout improvement* - I can't think of anywhere else Parling is better than Launchbury. So his selection was likely the cause for distorting the pack elsewhere.

I'd say the backrow is lightweight because Wood and Robshaw have dropped about a stone and a half between them in the last two years in order to gain speed - and look worse players for it. The only reason we don't look light per-se is because of Binny or Ben.

It's relevant because picking a 16st blindside just for his jumping ability significantly weakens the pack elsewhere. SA and NZ seem to cope with having bigger flankers jumping (or not), why do we need Wood? There's no other reason (other than a coach's pet) to pick him; he's a very poor man's Croft at the moment. Only lighter, shorter, less powerful, now with lower work-rate, and slower around the pitch. And I don't particularly like Croft.

Not to mention lineout option at 6 is one of the frequent excuses for the exclusion of players like Ewers, so it's obviously a selection criteria.

Why do you think the coaches were actually right about needing both Lawes and Parling when they've clearly been wrong about so much?

Go and look at his past games for England. Most of them were with Launchbury. He seriously doesn't need two jumper locks. If he seriously did this time, that is a failure of coaching right there.

As for Tom Wood - Wood is there because Lancaster loves Wood. Itoje or Tom Wood? Tom Wood, quoth the Lancaster. Calum Clark or Tom Wood? Tom Wood, quoth the Lancaster. He's light because Lancaster wanted light and he's Tom Wood because Lancaster thinks Tom Wood is great. Don't blame Tom Youngs for Tom Wood, that would be absurd.

Now yes, Youngs does want a back row jumper... much like virtually every other hooker in the game. The only one I can think of to routinely do without one is Wales, who notoriously have a dodgy lineout. But it didn't have to be Wood.

All Tom Youngs wants is a strong lineout caller, a strong back row jumper, and a decent amount of time spent on lineout drill, and you'll get most of your ball back (albeit predominantly from the front). That's well proven before this World Cup. If he all of a sudden needs more jumpers, then either he's gone backwards or not enough time is being spent on the lineout, and both point to poor coaching.

Lineout issues or favouritism? If it was lineout issues it was probably because England were still throwing futher than 10yds at that point. In the mean time, our maul and scrum have evaporated. Attwood and Kruis were part of a fairly successful lineout the previous Autumn. Not amazing, but not a liability. Did our lineout improve against Scotland when Lawes was brought in? I remember it still being rickety. Same against France (where Youngs came on and lost a five yard lineout in the last ten minutes).

Lineout issues. Lineout issues in the Six Nations, lineout issues in the warm-ups. It happened and it happened with every hooker we tried.

And no, Lawes didn't improve our lineout against Scotland; it didn't get fixed until France, when we also brought in Parling. Don't know if that's coincidence or not.

The point is the coaching has been bad for a while, not that Lawes and Parling fixes all ills, not that Attwood or Kruis can't jump for poo. Well, that and the coaches do seem to think Lawes and Parling fix all ills maybe.

Deeper issues? Probably, I certainly won't defend the coaches, but when Youngs has butchered good lineouts time and again from the bench for England I think you're really sticking your head in the sand by not giving him a large proportion of the blame. See: Scotland 2014, France 2014 (both times literally 100% lineouts went to **** when he came on), and New Zealand 2013 (when he lost three lineouts in a row, all down to poor throwing, in our 22, eventually leading to the losing/winning score). Furthermore, other hookers, like Webber in 2013 and 14, George this year, were able to slot into comparatively ad-hoc lineouts and do well.

George came on and lost his first one at the front. Not that I'm particularly blaming him - it was a woefully stupid call - but he wasn't part of a good lineout. That's because it wasn't being coached well.

Webber came into a well coached lineout unit. This year, he too did crap.

Look, I don't think Tom Youngs is great and being betrayed. His best is "Get by" - but he does get by, by and large. Yes, he's had his stinkers (find me a hooker that hasn't) and yes I think everyone would rather see a better thrower there. Dramatically damaging our set-piece? Don't agree with that. He hasn't done so in the past (weaker, yes, but not dramatically) and this World Cup has been such a balls-up that I think any hooker would have struggled... as they all did in the lead-up. Seriously - why is anyone basing *anything* about what they want to see in the squad on this World Cup? It's like running a three legged race to select 100m sprinters.

I am all for Jamie George, Tommy Taylor and LCD (providing he can get by) if they can perform at international level. If that doesn't work out though... I won't rule out Tom Youngs. Because things can function with him there.

And given how most things have worked out for England, I'll bet on a mix of abject losses of form and injury leading to Dylan Hartley and Tom Youngs getting back into the squad in 2018 and us going through this all over again...

That's before we mentioning scrummaging and hooking. The Lions also seemed to doubt the former and the latter he has repeatedly stated he can't/won't do, despite being a good build for it.

Well, in fairness, if we want to go with what the Lions think, he's a Lions test player and we don't have many of those, so clearly he should be one of the first names on the team sheet... ^_^

His scrummaging hasn't been an issue for England before and he's not the only one who can't hook - which is less of an issue when your scrum hasn't just been utterly gimped. We've done well enough in this area with Youngs before.

 

[FrenchFan]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/34727588




So... instead of looking toward the models that work, the creeps that are ruining the national game in England (and probably France too) are looking yet more control.

Never heard of Simon Halliday before but I completely agree with him. Everthing he says applies to the French union just as well.

Our national team must be taken AWAY from FFR. Have an independent and professional Elite group that reconnects with the clubs and works with them, instead of pushing them away with endless politicking.

That would start to look like a proper reform.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Depends how desperate we are for full backs.....

Not at all desperate.

 

[McTallshort]

To be honest does the success of NA and SA in France show how good they are or how crap the average French league player is?

 

[Patchey]

Just to go back to Abendanon crying to the press again, just seen on twitter that France-based England player would only be available for 5 of the 8 tests England have this season, due to club commitments.
Why would you pick players who are only available for half the games? Especially when the EPS has strict rules about numbers and player replacements etc.

I have some sympathy for Bendy, because he was overlooked for so long at Bath and only went to France after a number of years of now being picked (and seeing one of Englands prefered back three options come through behind him). I think what he said was stupid and ignored the reason why the no overseas player rule exists though.

I do sort of wonder if someone from England/the RFU has a quiet word with him last season though. I remember the speculation about him being picked all came from one post game interview when he, randomly, brought up the 'exception circumstances' rule and suggested that it allowed anyone to be picked for a World Cup. I have no evidence to support my suspicion, but it would make sense as to why he seemed convinced he had a chance and is now seemingly very ****** off.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

I have some sympathy for Bendy, because he was overlooked for so long at Bath and only went to France after a number of years of now being picked (and seeing one of Englands prefered back three options come through behind him). I think what he said was stupid and ignored the reason why the no overseas player rule exists though.

I do sort of wonder if someone from England/the RFU has a quiet word with him last season though. I remember the speculation about him being picked all came from one post game interview when he, randomly, brought up the 'exception circumstances' rule and suggested that it allowed anyone to be picked for a World Cup. I have no evidence to support my suspicion, but it would make sense as to why he seemed convinced he had a chance and is now seemingly very ****** off.

Wouldn't surprise me with this England management,

 

[ratsapprentice]

To be honest does the success of NA and SA in France show how good they are or how crap the average French league player is?

It's shows how much better an individual looks in a stronger team.

 

[Peat]

I have some sympathy for Bendy, because he was overlooked for so long at Bath and only went to France after a number of years of now being picked (and seeing one of Englands prefered back three options come through behind him). I think what he said was stupid and ignored the reason why the no overseas player rule exists though.

I do sort of wonder if someone from England/the RFU has a quiet word with him last season though. I remember the speculation about him being picked all came from one post game interview when he, randomly, brought up the 'exception circumstances' rule and suggested that it allowed anyone to be picked for a World Cup. I have no evidence to support my suspicion, but it would make sense as to why he seemed convinced he had a chance and is now seemingly very ****** off.

This. No firm evidence, but I do wonder.


I also think that having the England team run fairly independently of the RFU is a good thing. They should be like the Skunkworks unit at Lockheed Martin.

Running it independently of the PRL is also a fairly good thing mind, and you do have to wonder about the intentions of people bringing it up.

 

[McTallshort]

This. No firm evidence, but I do wonder.


I also think that having the England team run fairly independently of the RFU is a good thing. They should be like the Skunkworks unit at Lockheed Martin.

Running it independently of the PRL is also a fairly good thing mind, and you do have to wonder about the intentions of people bringing it up.

Are they the clowns who designed the F-22 and the F-35?

 

[Peat]

Are they the clowns who designed the F-22 and the F-35?

That's what happens when you compromise independence with continual demands and mind-changing from above!

 

[j'nuh]

Robshaw starting at 6 for Quins tomorrow.
When's the last time he did that? Usually he'll be 7 and Wallace will be shifted to 6.

It's interesting, because you sense that it shows that Lancaster may be losing his case to be England coach if he can't use his influence to keep Robshaw at 7 at Quins any more. Perhaps Robshaw even wanted to move back to 6 to make himself an option there in the eyes of the next coach.

Or perhaps Lancaster actually wants to change things. Before the WC, the last time his world was rocked, was in the 30-3 loss to Wales, and he did go away and started looking at Kvesic/Fraser/Wallace. He concluded not to pick them, but I wouldn't be surprised if he wanted to try them now. It would be hard to ignore tbh.

Either way, looking good for anyone who wants a jackal in the 7 shirt for England.

 

[Geordie]

Theres lots of info coming out now that Lancaster and his entire crew have been axed and a SH coach of "considerable experience" is on his way.

From the same source that said last week Burgess was gone back to NRL.

- - - Updated - - -

It's interesting, because you sense that it shows that Lancaster may be losing his case to be England coach if he can't use his influence to keep Robshaw at 7 at Quins any more. Perhaps Robshaw even wanted to move back to 6 to make himself an option there in the eyes of the next coach.

Or perhaps Lancaster actually wants to change things. Before the WC, the last time his world was rocked, was in the 30-3 loss to Wales, and he did go away and started looking at Kvesic/Fraser/Wallace. He concluded not to pick them, but I wouldn't be surprised if he wanted to try them now. It would be hard to ignore tbh.

Either way, looking good for anyone who wants a jackal in the 7 shirt for England.

I actually wouldn't have a problem with Robshaw at 6. Hes a (limited) but very good consistent (experienced) player at what he does. Especially until Ewers or whoever really goes out and makes that spot theirs. With a jackal on the other side and a good carrier at 8 , that's balance. Then pick a front five that offers nice balance of power and carrying and skills

And work on the god damn breakdown!

 

[McTallshort]

Theres lots of info coming out now that Lancaster and his entire crew have been axed and a SH coach of "considerable experience" is on his way.

From the same source that said last week Burgess was gone back to NRL.

- - - Updated - - -



I actually wouldn't have a problem with Robshaw at 6. Hes a (limited) but very good consistent (experienced) player at what he does. Especially until Ewers or whoever really goes out and makes that spot theirs. With a jackal on the other side and a good carrier at 8 , that's balance. Then pick a front five that offers nice balance of power and carrying and skills

And work on the god damn breakdown!

Really? All good news then