When will England not be 'in transition'?

I missed the first half of the game, so this is only based on the last 40...but did England look like a team building for the future, or in transition, or any other term that implies that while they're not there yet, they're getting better and will soon be challenging?

Is there any evidence that under SL England have moved forward? We had the stuff about respect and leadership and integrity. Great. But we're still losing aren't we.

Everytime I think we've moved forward in an area - set piece, breakdown, creativity in the centres, defence, tactical kicking game, even selection...we seem to move backwards almost straight away.

So, your thoughts, are England 'in transition' and if so, when will we actually be half decent?

With injuries returning hopefully for the six nations and England looking like they have a powerful bench that can make the difference England need to accept that there can be no more excuses for not winning come next year.
Be interesting how the backrow and back three will line up though with Croft and Foden being back in the mix!

To be a top side as we keep saying we will be you have to deal with injuries.

Look at SA missing Burger,Brussow,Juan Smith,Spies from the back row yet they can still field Louw,Alberts and Vermuelen. To be a top side we can't make excuses for a poor performance.

For the last two weeks we and the opposition have been fairly poor. A simple sign of a better side is one that wins when they play poorly and that's what SA and Aus did.

I actually think against a team like SA we need Haskell starting. We need all our power players starting. But who knows, when we lose to Oz i think we need S armitage.

Essentially whoever we pick isn't right. I don't think we're any closer to fixing our backrow or backline. Morgan looks ok, the rest? Up for grabs i think.

king_carlos wrote:To be a top side as we keep saying we will be you have to deal with injuries.

Look at SA missing Burger,Brussow,Juan Smith,Spies from the back row yet they can still field Louw,Alberts and Vermuelen. To be a top side we can't make excuses for a poor performance.

For the last two weeks we and the opposition have been fairly poor. A simple sign of a better side is one that wins when they play poorly and that's what SA and Aus did.

I don't know if we are playing poorly for us though. I'm not convinced that with the players picked and the coaches we have, it is going to get better. That's my question on transition. Are we any closer to being a team that can play poorly and win?

king_carlos wrote:To be a top side as we keep saying we will be you have to deal with injuries.

Look at SA missing Burger,Brussow,Juan Smith,Spies from the back row yet they can still field Louw,Alberts and Vermuelen. To be a top side we can't make excuses for a poor performance.

For the last two weeks we and the opposition have been fairly poor. A simple sign of a better side is one that wins when they play poorly and that's what SA and Aus did.

England were missing Hartley, Lawes and Foden, and probably deserved to win today. The result is a pisser, but I don't see what all the doom and gloom is about.

thomh wrote:

king_carlos wrote:To be a top side as we keep saying we will be you have to deal with injuries.

Look at SA missing Burger,Brussow,Juan Smith,Spies from the back row yet they can still field Louw,Alberts and Vermuelen. To be a top side we can't make excuses for a poor performance.

For the last two weeks we and the opposition have been fairly poor. A simple sign of a better side is one that wins when they play poorly and that's what SA and Aus did.

England were missing Hartley, Lawes and Foden, and probably deserved to win today. The result is a pisser, but I don't see what all the doom and gloom is about.

Break it down into components and I can't see what area of our game has improved under SL. At all. You can't make a case for anything as far as I can see? And now we've even gone backwards on decision making.

I'd say that our physicality in the pack has improved a lot. How much of that is just selection I don't know, but when we played a South African side who had just lost to Scotland in 2010 we were completely smashed up front.

In 2010 we played a fired up SA team, and got smashed. This year we played an exhausted SA team, and still lost.

Haven't caught the full game yet but I thought Morgan was OK, and Haskell when he came on, and Launchbury, bar one poor carry, looked excellent.

Bit misleading with that 10 SA side, we got them on their good day and they were a heck of a lot better than this rabble. Its like comparing todays Argentina with the one that played Wales...they were different beasts.


Whats frustrating with today is that SA did everything they could to hand the game to England and were truely the worst I have seen them play against us since they were admitted back into test rugby.

England had the players, the posession, and the penalties to win that ...especially when you add in some of the suicide attempts SA made (kicking out on the full, missing touch from a penalty, chucking an interception)

There would good moments from England players then wasted by a lack of organisation and players being out of position. We have the ability but they have learnt nothing. SCWs criticisms last week seem quite fair, they are rudderless and disorganised.

Its seeing that potential go to waste that makes me angry.

On our day we can beat anyone!

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Bit misleading with that 10 SA side, we got them on their good day and they were a heck of a lot better than this rabble. Its like comparing todays Argentina with the one that played Wales...they were different beasts.

Perhaps, but it was the best example I could think of straight away.

I'm hoping never. I just hope the 'transition' direction is always positive.

thomh wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Bit misleading with that 10 SA side, we got them on their good day and they were a heck of a lot better than this rabble. Its like comparing todays Argentina with the one that played Wales...they were different beasts.

Perhaps, but it was the best example I could think of straight away.

How about 09 when we got utterly humped by an SA side that had lost to club sides?

TBF this summer does draw comparison with both 08 and 10. You I didnt expect us to win this, its just the manner of the loss thats wound me up. the lack of experience in both the players and the leadership off the field is glaringly evident in decision making and play. Several guys looked very uncomfortable out there ( not least Robshaw).
Its one thing to lose the game of rugby to a better side, its another to lose it psychologically when arguably you had the better players.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

thomh wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Bit misleading with that 10 SA side, we got them on their good day and they were a heck of a lot better than this rabble. Its like comparing todays Argentina with the one that played Wales...they were different beasts.

Perhaps, but it was the best example I could think of straight away.

How about 09 when we got utterly humped by an SA side that had lost to club sides?

TBF this summer does draw comparison with both 08 and 10. You I didnt expect us to win this, its just the manner of the loss thats wound me up. the lack of experience in both the players and the leadership off the field is glaringly evident in decision making and play. Several guys looked very uncomfortable out there ( not least Robshaw).
Its one thing to lose the game of rugby to a better side, its another to lose it psychologically when arguably you had the better players.

We didn't play South Africa in 09?

The OP is right, how long does it take England to rebuild, there comes a time where one shouldnt go back to the "rebuilding" or this chest nut of "still learning". England have been "rebuilding" and "still learning" for almost 10 years now.

The reality is SA have been poor the whole year, only three times did we really get our backline going and scored more than two tries.

England, Argentina and Australia at home. Even then I wouldn't really say it were great moves.

Most of this season we played with 40% or less possession and territory, on this tour we had even less posession against Scotland and a similar percentage against Ireland as to England.

Our average possession was less than 40% this tour, and territory not much better.

We have attempted 420 tackles and missed 34 in the Autumn tour, compared to hlaf that for our opposition.

The facts are simple, we are yet to play 80 minutes under Heyneke Meyer, yet we managed to remain unbeaten.

So yes, there is much improvement on the horison for SA.

We have Beast, Bismarck, Coenie Oosthuizen, Andries Bekker, Schalk Burger, Pierre Spies, Heinrich Brussow, Johan Goosen, Frans Steyn, Bryan Habana all to return next year.

You'll see a different Springbok team then.

Biltong wrote:The reality is SA have been poor the whole year, only three times did we really get our backline going and scored more than two tries.

England, Argentina and Australia at home. Even then I wouldn't really say it were great moves.

Most of this season we played with 40% or less possession and territory, on this tour we had even less posession against Scotland and a similar percentage against Ireland as to England.

Our average possession was less than 40% this tour, and territory not much better.

We have attempted 420 tackles and missed 34 in the Autumn tour, compared to hlaf that for our opposition.

The facts are simple, we are yet to play 80 minutes under Heyneke Meyer, yet we managed to remain unbeaten.

So yes, there is much improvement on the horison for SA.

We have Beast, Bismarck, Coenie Oosthuizen, Andries Bekker, Schalk Burger, Pierre Spies, Heinrich Brussow, Johan Goosen, Frans Steyn, Bryan Habana all to return next year.

You'll see a different Springbok team then.

That's my take, but I also thought your guys looked jaded. A lot of posters have said 'We matched the Boks physicality' well, we needed to beat it. I think our ball carriers still came second best.

And yes, will a full compliment, SA would have been a lot more powerful. Which English players other than Hartley would be starters? Very very disappointing result, but well done to your guys. As far as I'm concerned, we're not rebuilding, we're going nowhere.

Hood83 wrote:

Biltong wrote:The reality is SA have been poor the whole year, only three times did we really get our backline going and scored more than two tries.

England, Argentina and Australia at home. Even then I wouldn't really say it were great moves.

Most of this season we played with 40% or less possession and territory, on this tour we had even less posession against Scotland and a similar percentage against Ireland as to England.

Our average possession was less than 40% this tour, and territory not much better.

We have attempted 420 tackles and missed 34 in the Autumn tour, compared to hlaf that for our opposition.

The facts are simple, we are yet to play 80 minutes under Heyneke Meyer, yet we managed to remain unbeaten.

So yes, there is much improvement on the horison for SA.

We have Beast, Bismarck, Coenie Oosthuizen, Andries Bekker, Schalk Burger, Pierre Spies, Heinrich Brussow, Johan Goosen, Frans Steyn, Bryan Habana all to return next year.

You'll see a different Springbok team then.

That's my take, but I also thought your guys looked jaded. A lot of posters have said 'We matched the Boks physicality' well, we needed to beat it. I think our ball carriers still came second best.

And yes, will a full compliment, SA would have been a lot more powerful. Which English players other than Hartley would be starters? Very very disappointing result, but well done to your guys. As far as I'm concerned, we're not rebuilding, we're going nowhere.

Well one thing england rugby must not do is get rid of Lancaster, that has been their biggest hurdle in the past number of years.

Each coach identifies the talent he wants to play with, every time you change coach you start from scratch, Lancaster must be given time to develop his team ethos, game plan and squad.

Otherwise England will be building all over again.

Biltong wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

Biltong wrote:The reality is SA have been poor the whole year, only three times did we really get our backline going and scored more than two tries.

England, Argentina and Australia at home. Even then I wouldn't really say it were great moves.

Most of this season we played with 40% or less possession and territory, on this tour we had even less posession against Scotland and a similar percentage against Ireland as to England.

Our average possession was less than 40% this tour, and territory not much better.

We have attempted 420 tackles and missed 34 in the Autumn tour, compared to hlaf that for our opposition.

The facts are simple, we are yet to play 80 minutes under Heyneke Meyer, yet we managed to remain unbeaten.

So yes, there is much improvement on the horison for SA.

We have Beast, Bismarck, Coenie Oosthuizen, Andries Bekker, Schalk Burger, Pierre Spies, Heinrich Brussow, Johan Goosen, Frans Steyn, Bryan Habana all to return next year.

You'll see a different Springbok team then.

That's my take, but I also thought your guys looked jaded. A lot of posters have said 'We matched the Boks physicality' well, we needed to beat it. I think our ball carriers still came second best.

And yes, will a full compliment, SA would have been a lot more powerful. Which English players other than Hartley would be starters? Very very disappointing result, but well done to your guys. As far as I'm concerned, we're not rebuilding, we're going nowhere.

Well one thing england rugby must not do is get rid of Lancaster, that has been their biggest hurdle in the past number of years.

Each coach identifies the talent he wants to play with, every time you change coach you start from scratch, Lancaster must be given time to develop his team ethos, game plan and squad.

Otherwise England will be building all over again.

Maybe you're right, chopping and changing may not help. On the other hand, I see no evidence of Lancaster taking us forward. He nailed the ethos bit, but game plan and squad? Who knows. I guess we'll see.

England will stop being "in transition" when they next beat one of the big three, then the headlines will be about how "England have arrived" and are now "nearly the finished article". Then at the next loss a lot of excuses will be made about the length of the season, injuries, the SH changing the laws, poor referees, and these excuses will continue to be made until the next coach is sacked then we'll start with transition again.

It's a repeating trend. And after 30 years of watching it, I think I have it nailed.

But aren't we all just the same?

I don't think there is much wrong with the game plan, I think the executin isn't there.

England in my opinion goes wide too early, they don't recognise when they must go wide. When you go wide without drawing any defenders into the midflied, you won't have an overlap to exploit.

Tuilagi is used incorrectly, he needs spce to wind up his momentum, he didn't get it as he recived the ball too close to the gainline and had little momentum.

Overall I don't think England are that far off to be hinest.

I disagree with you BB on Lancaster..... if I was given money, time and training I would love to be a pro rugby player but it ain't going to happen.

The same applies to Lancaster.

What he lacks is not something that you can build... what he lacks is a real rugby brain to build a team and beat any team he faces.

When Woodward started coaching ENG he was similarily inexperienced. 1 season coaching London Irish and then was assistant coach at Bath for another season.

But whilst he results were similar at the beginning you could see what he was trying to build, you could see an energy with ENG that was raw and unpolished..... you just don't see it with this ENG team.

After 3 summer games with the boks he still didn't have an idea on how to face the boks.
He changed 6 players..... making his team unfamiliar with each other in crucial areas like Lineout... ENG lineout was messy why? Well Tom Johnson is 4 inches shorter than Wood.... thats 6-8 inches of reach difference.. Put in an inexperienced hooker on a 6 day turnaround and he will struggle.

He was a forward right? Do you think Burger or McCaw will in the future be able to draw up backline plans and ideas? Doubt it. They have Farrell senior in as backs coach.... he was a league convert who was a hog carrier and as a player was route one only. Woodward was good because he was an eccentric loose cannon as a player, had a million ideas most of them rubbish but ever so often one of them was genius.... we could all see that from day one.

Playing the boks you have to be smart.... those guys can tackle all day. They don't get fooled easily so you have to mix it up but rule 1 - have your best ball carriers, carrying, have the rest clearing up. Isolate their tackling gangs in the centre of the field. Its simple stuff. But they never tried it.

Ashton is a perfect player to upset the boks, he sits on the shoulders for the offload but never gets it because rather than Manu smashing through the line we saw Youngs and Parling take it up who were easily wrapped up disabling any chance of passing out of the tackle.

To make a world class team you need time yes to build a side... but crucially you also need a world class coach but this season I haven't seen one moment of genius, one clever game plan etc to even hint that Lancaster can be hailed as so in the future.

fa0019 wrote:I disagree with you BB on Lancaster..... if I was given money, time and training I would love to be a pro rugby player but it ain't going to happen.

The same applies to Lancaster.

What he lacks is not something that you can build... what he lacks is a real rugby brain to build a team and beat any team he faces.

When Woodward started coaching ENG he was similarily inexperienced. 1 season coaching London Irish and then was assistant coach at Bath for another season.

But whilst he results were similar at the beginning you could see what he was trying to build, you could see an energy with ENG that was raw and unpolished..... you just don't see it with this ENG team.

After 3 summer games with the boks he still didn't have an idea on how to face the boks.
He changed 6 players..... making his team unfamiliar with each other in crucial areas like Lineout... ENG lineout was messy why? Well Tom Johnson is 4 inches shorter than Wood.... thats 6-8 inches of reach difference.. Put in an inexperienced hooker on a 6 day turnaround and he will struggle.

He was a forward right? Do you think Burger or McCaw will in the future be able to draw up backline plans and ideas? Doubt it. They have Farrell senior in as backs coach.... he was a league convert who was a hog carrier and as a player was route one only. Woodward was good because he was an eccentric loose cannon as a player, had a million ideas most of them rubbish but ever so often one of them was genius.... we could all see that from day one.

Playing the boks you have to be smart.... those guys can tackle all day. They don't get fooled easily so you have to mix it up but rule 1 - have your best ball carriers, carrying, have the rest clearing up. Isolate their tackling gangs in the centre of the field. Its simple stuff. But they never tried it.

Ashton is a perfect player to upset the boks, he sits on the shoulders for the offload but never gets it because rather than Manu smashing through the line we saw Youngs and Parling take it up who were easily wrapped up disabling any chance of passing out of the tackle.

To make a world class team you need time yes to build a side... but crucially you also need a world class coach but this season I haven't seen one moment of genius, one clever game plan etc to even hint that Lancaster can be hailed as so in the future.

Bravo, couldn't agree more.

England will be either 're-building' or 'in transition' until they win another World Cup...