England Selection Policy

First topic message reminder :

I know Stuart Lancaster has had injuries to contend with, I know that selection of players is political (if they are playing outside of the Premiership) I understand but disagree with picking and EPS, so that players get comfortable (taking positions for granted.)

On top of this I understand SL is trying to pick some younger players, but does he ever pick the right team? SL endorses nepotism (with his selection of Farrell) and like a long line of English management, his selections are based more on what the players can do to stop the opposition, rather than what the players can do to the opposition. This goes back the likes of Jamie Noon. When England are picking awful South African players like Brad Barritt (over a creative ENGLISH alternative) then you may as well surrender to South Africa every time and not bother producing players.

The backs are a huge problem. I'd focus on this group moving forward:

Care / Ben Youngs
Ford / Burns / Slade
May / Yarde / Wade / Watson
Tuilagi /Eastmond / Burrell / Joseph / Daly
Brown / Foden

My first choice forwards would be: Corbisero, Dave Ward, Henry Thomas, Launchbury, Lawes, Wood, S Armitage, Ben Morgan.

Because it does come across like that when you criticise Lancaster but contradict yourself.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Because it does come across like that when you criticise Lancaster but contradict yourself.

What contradiction? Explicitly where have contradicted myself?

Don't start slinging mud around less you can back it up.

You didn't want Lancaster as he had no international coaching experience. You wanted Dean Richards, Mallinder more lately Baxter. Obviously all of these are brimming with international coaching experience. You decided early on you didn't like Lancaster and so no matter what you criticise him. Unless he achieves an unrealistic 100% win record it seems you won't be happy.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You didn't want Lancaster as he had no international coaching experience. You wanted Dean Richards, Mallinder more lately Baxter. Obviously all of these are brimming with international coaching experience. You decided early on you didn't like Lancaster and so no matter what you criticise him. Unless he achieves an unrealistic 100% win record it seems you won't be happy.

I don't believe I ever simply suggested I didn't want Lancaster because he had no International coaching experience - So once again DON'T make it up.

I didn't want Lancaster from the start because by and large he has no real coaching experience what so ever - and we'd just been down that road with the previous RFU appointed failure.

I suggest you apologise for your comment I we can move on.

 Taxi !

I suggest you apologise for your comment I we can move on.

Really?
    

Don't worry i'm in all week

kingelderfield wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You didn't want Lancaster as he had no international coaching experience. You wanted Dean Richards, Mallinder more lately Baxter. Obviously all of these are brimming with international coaching experience. You decided early on you didn't like Lancaster and so no matter what you criticise him. Unless he achieves an unrealistic 100% win record it seems you won't be happy.

I don't believe I ever simply suggested I didn't want Lancaster because he had no International coaching experience - So once again DON'T make it up.

I didn't want Lancaster from the start because by and large he has no real coaching experience what so ever - and we'd just been down that road with the previous RFU appointed failure.

I suggest you apologise for your comment I we can move on.

I apologise. I misunderstood your comment:

'Lancaster may understand the coaching methodology required and is undoubtly resetting the culture and structures, but the fact is that he is inexperienced at this level and may not actually be head coach material, but most of all England cannot waste time waiting to see if another coach can pass their elementary international coaching badge.'

Thought it was about international coaching.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You didn't want Lancaster as he had no international coaching experience. You wanted Dean Richards, Mallinder more lately Baxter. Obviously all of these are brimming with international coaching experience. You decided early on you didn't like Lancaster and so no matter what you criticise him. Unless he achieves an unrealistic 100% win record it seems you won't be happy.

I don't believe I ever simply suggested I didn't want Lancaster because he had no International coaching experience - So once again DON'T make it up.

I didn't want Lancaster from the start because by and large he has no real coaching experience what so ever - and we'd just been down that road with the previous RFU appointed failure.

I suggest you apologise for your comment I we can move on.

I apologise. I misunderstood your comment:

'Lancaster may understand the coaching methodology required and is undoubtly resetting the culture and structures, but the fact is that he is inexperienced at this level and may not actually be head coach material, but most of all England cannot waste time waiting to see if another coach can pass their elementary international coaching badge.'

Thought it was about international coaching.

Apology accepted. Move on.

Boring...

Fight fight fight!!!!

  

Is there a sarcasm smiley?

Its rather killed it has in'it....Opps sorry....  

Anyhoooo

Would you really rather Dean Richards there...have you seen the dogs dinner of rugby we are playing at the moment??

I think we need more new players in the England team...Brookes for Cole would have been a good move...maybe bring Dom Barrow in aswell. Launchburys getting on a bit.

Please no more calls for Dean 'the old ways are the best ways' Richards. If this team were to have selected anyone other than Lancaster the only viable choice was Mallet.

If we remember there were actually no other candidates and no one else wanted to even apply! Mallinder was being touted but hardly filled me with confidence.

I actually Mallet would've done a good job with Lancaster on his staff. What Lancs has revolutionised is the intangibles of playing for your country. He's actually quite inspired in that sphere and makes some extremely good points on it.

What he lacks is the coaching experience to combine that vision with a similar paradigm shift in play. He needed a Wayne Smith/Brian Ashton type of head coach. Not General Farrell's defensive blitzkreig.

The Guardian has just come up with some very interesting stats. England are at their strongest in the second and third quarters, weak in the first and weakest in the 4th. Sounds about right to me.

1st Qt 2nd Qt 3rd Qt 4th Qt

Points scored 50 50 59 29

Points Conceded 59 29 25 43

they also show when he makes his replacement, he just about empties his bench between 55 and 65 minutes.

Is it coincidence that we start shipping points and are less dangerous after he makes his replacements?

What it shows to me, is that he is change happy, making changes for changes sake, Wales make far fewer changes and much later. The quality of the bench is either not good (perfect point Goode) or it is badly formed and messes with the formation and patterns the side is playing.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:The Guardian has just come up with some very interesting stats. England are at their strongest in the second and third quarters, weak in the first and weakest in the 4th. Sounds about right to me.

                           1st Qt     2nd Qt    3rd Qt   4th Qt

Points scored           50           50           59        29

Points Conceded      59           29          25         43

they also show when he makes his replacement, he just about empties his bench between 55 and 65 minutes.

Is it coincidence that we start shipping points and are less dangerous after he makes his replacements?

What it shows to me, is that he is change happy, making changes for changes sake, Wales make far fewer changes and much later. The quality of the bench is either not good (perfect point Goode) or it is badly formed and messes with the formation and patterns the side is playing.

Over how many games is that? Some interesting points for sure.

I don't think it's a question of when the changes are made. It's a game which is wider than the starting XV now and using the bench is a necessity not a luxury. It is also an extremely useful tactical weapon.

The problem has been how the bench has been constituted. Take the last two games as cases in point. A very strong, arguably the strongest pack and forward bench we've seen in eons for England. A LH Lion on the bench, a Lion hooker on the bench, a monster lock and a high class No. 8. All of the replacements, including Henry Thomas are renowned for their carrying.

Having backs on the bench who are renowned for kicking and defence does not mesh well with that forward pack being brought on later in a game. It just fails to utilise an obvious strength.

I dont think it takes the Guardian and their mathematicians to work those facts out though...

Who do people want on the bench??? France had just a 9 and a centre, at least we had a 9, a centre and a fullback (who can fill in at 10 (as could 12trees)).  Has Ford become the blue eyed boy like 12trees was before the autumn internationals, who will get slagged off the minute he actually plays and isn't a 'god'.  Will he become just Ford jnr son of Mike Ford like Farrell has become Farrell jnr son of Andy Farrell.

It shouldn't amaze me but players are always 10 times better when they don't play than when they do.  After what I thought was a flawed but overall good performance against France, it seems like every player should be dropped.  Bit of a joke really.

nlpnlp wrote:Who do people want on the bench??? France had just a 9 and a centre, at least we had a 9, a centre and a fullback (who can fill in at 10 (as could 12trees)).  Has Ford become the blue eyed boy like 12trees was before the autumn internationals, who will get slagged off the minute he actually plays and isn't a 'god'.  Will he become just Ford jnr son of Mike Ford like Farrell has become Farrell jnr son of Andy Farrell.

It shouldn't amaze me but players are always 10 times better when they don't play than when they do.  After what I thought was a flawed but overall good performance against France, it seems like every player should be dropped.  Bit of a joke really.

nlpnlp, that's the point, we change for change sake, not because it is necessary. If France had suffered an early injury such as we did, they may (not intended as a pun) have regretted the 6/2 balance of their bench.

Goode could only fill in as a 15 in a schoolgirl match, even Sarries gave up on that idea,

The point for me is that England have no cover at all for Farrell at the minute. If his injury had been a bit more Han cramp they'd be stuck with burns who can barely get in his club side or uncapped myler and ford.
They have to get these guys game time at some point, at least the experience of being in a competitive test match squad.

On one hand he's developing a squad by only picking utility wing fullbacks and inside centres ... On the other he has no convincing reserves at 10 or flanker.

It strikes as a lack of joined up thinking.

quote="Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler"]The point for me is that England have no cover at all for Farrell at the minute. If his injury had been a bit more Han cramp they'd be stuck with burns who can barely get in his club side or uncapped myler and ford.
They have to get these guys game time at some point, at least the experience of being in a competitive test match squad.

On one hand he's developing a squad by only picking utility wing fullbacks and inside centres ... On the other he has no convincing reserves at 10 or flanker.

It strikes as a lack of joined up thinking.[/quote]

The backs bench might not be thought out but atleast he's consistent