State of the team: England

First topic message reminder :

What are your thoughts on where we are as a team at the end of the 6 nations.

I believe we are a lot better at creating chances which is certainly an improvement on last year, i think this is due to the half back partnership between B. Youngs and Ford. B. Youngs seems to have found his form again. For me Ford is miles ahead of Farrell at the moment, he improves our attacking play so much more than him. His work with his club mate Joseph is working well too. Talking of Joseph, he's had a really good six nations and probably one of our best players.

Still not sure why Care isnt in the match day squad, not sure what Wigglesworth brings other than being a different type of player to B. Youngs. What has been bit of an issue this year (i can't believe im about to say this about an england team) is our scrum. It hasn't been as powerful as years gone by, is that a result of our forwards being told to up their work rate around the park and being tied at scrum time?

This year we have been creating chances but not finishing them off, we also seem to have a fair few handling errors that needs stamping out. How are we going to do this? Can we? Is it just the players need some more game time with each other?

What are anyone elses thoughts on where we're at?

Bit of RWC fun perspective for we England fans:


"Not to mention 18 tries in the championship, a figure exceeded by no other country in Six Nations history. When Sir Clive Woodward’s England secured their famous grand slam in 2003 they racked up precisely the same number. Yet here sat Lancaster, having to field awkward questions about yet another English near-miss."

Of course England are boring, uncreative and can't score tries like the other teams. Just more tries that's all.

gregortree wrote:Bit of RWC fun perspective for we England fans:


"Not to mention 18 tries in the championship, a figure exceeded by no other country in Six Nations history. When Sir Clive Woodward’s England secured their famous grand slam in 2003 they racked up precisely the same number. Yet here sat Lancaster, having to field awkward questions about yet another English near-miss."

Of course England are boring, uncreative and can't score tries like the other teams. Just more tries that's all.

I just suppose that for the supporters of the other teams it is boring when we score tries against them

yes, must get tedious watching England run them in

bluestonevedder wrote:Haskell looks like Tarzan, plays like Jane. Not good enough.

That's because he's got a brain like Cheetah

On the last page someone mentioned claiming the high ball but now I can't find the comment, seemed to be related to Nowell.

I agree England were generally not great under the high ball but to say Nowell is to short is too simplistic. 1/2p is not tall and he's great at it! It's more about jumping style/commitment and England need to learn how to execute it better.

Burrell under performed and we are stuck with the eternal issue of the 12 shirt. Personally if someone can ask him to pass more and not fly out of the line in defence I might go with Manu. But since that's not going to happen before the World Cup maybe Barritt.

However it was sooo telling on Saturday that England scored yet another try from that move where 36 stands at ten and Ford comes in on the second wave. SL clearly likes a second playmaker at 12.

little_badger wrote:On the last page someone mentioned claiming the high ball but now I can't find the comment, seemed to be related to Nowell.

I agree England were generally not great under the high ball but to say Nowell is to short is too simplistic. 1/2p is not tall and he's great at it! It's more about jumping style/commitment and England need to learn how to execute it better.

Burrell under performed and we are stuck with the eternal issue of the 12 shirt. Personally if someone can ask him to pass more and not fly out of the line in defence I might go with Manu. But since that's not going to happen before the World Cup maybe Barritt.

However it was sooo telling on Saturday that England scored yet another try from that move where 36 stands at ten and Ford comes in on the second wave. SL clearly likes a second playmaker at 12.

Great point. I hadn't noticed that

Lancaster will include and maybe play either of Barritt and Farrell. Neither are either the present or future for the national team.

I thought it was another classic Lancaster coaching failure that given Burrell's obvious lack of form that he was persisted with and 36 was not given the starting opportunity to develop his obvious telepathy with Ford - they combined to create some nice positions that try's were then scored from.

Unkind though many may think I am, I think it a fair assessemnt to say that apart from Billy Vunipola, non of the Saracen's players selected by Farrell have proven their international worth.

Mako and Kruis in this tournament have been good. Wrigglesworth has done fine.

kingelderfield wrote:Lancaster will include and maybe play either of Barritt and Farrell. Neither are either the present or future for the national team.

I thought it was another classic Lancaster coaching failure that given Burrell's obvious lack of form that he was persisted with and 36 was not given the starting opportunity to develop his obvious telepathy with Ford - they combined to create some nice positions that try's were then scored from.

Unkind though many may think I am, I think it a fair assessemnt to say that apart from Billy Vunipola, non of the Saracen's players selected by Farrell have proven their international worth.

Wsan't Burrell in form in the run up to the six nations?

Also i'm sure 36 and Ford have a pretty good understanding of each others game whilst at Leicester

No 7&1/2 wrote:Mako and Kruis in this tournament have been good. Wrigglesworth has done fine.

Mako has held his own but in no way has conclusively nailed his squad selection. Wrigglesworth is an out and out poor selection and Kruis was a similarly biased pick given the form of others in the premiership.

Lancaster abeit Farrell are poor selectors with a curious bias for Saracen squad members.

nathan wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:Lancaster will include and maybe play either of Barritt and Farrell. Neither are either the present or future for the national team.

I thought it was another classic Lancaster coaching failure that given Burrell's obvious lack of form that he was persisted with and 36 was not given the starting opportunity to develop his obvious telepathy with Ford - they combined to create some nice positions that try's were then scored from.

Unkind though many may think I am, I think it a fair assessemnt to say that apart from Billy Vunipola, non of the Saracen's players selected by Farrell have proven their international worth.

Wsan't Burrell in form in the run up to the six nations? No....recalling his performance versus Racing Metro and specifically Roberts, was not of a form player (don't misunderstand me, Burrell is a decent player but is lacking form and so the opportunity to pair Ford and 36 was there to be taken)

Also i'm sure 36 and Ford have a pretty good understanding of each others game whilst at Leicester

Absolutely

You generally like the attacking option which is why Ithought you d like Mako. I assume you d have had Joe Simpson given Cares a bit up and down who for the others?

No 7&1/2 wrote:You generally like the attacking option which is why Ithought you d like Mako. I assume you d have had Joe Simpson given Cares a bit up and down who for the others?

Matt Mullen has had a very good season and I believe has been considered. Kitchener definitely deserved an opportunity and Bath's Garvey though he struggled with injury has come back strongly and would partner well with Lawes.

Kruis's selection was just bias from a coaching panel who are too close to the 'somthing special' brigade. Honestly what evidebnce was there for his promotion to the starting XV?

Garvey is still more of a 6 for me not a great 2nd row. You really think hes better? Kruis performed better than Attwood for me. I like Kitchener: they re only there due to injury.
I like Mullan but Mako could become top class. The more exposure the better for me.

[quote="Barney McGrew did it"]

bluestonevedder wrote:Haskell looks like Tarzan, plays like Jane. Not good enough.

That's because he's got a brain like Cheetah[/quot

After that trip of his. It does make you wonder if he has a BRAIN?

After the Irish defeat, Barritt was slated  to replace Burrell who has not really performed that well all tournament (but has not been horrendous either), but certainly never looked confident (is that a coaching problem?).  

Then Barritt was injured and Burrell stayed in against Scotland.  Surely with the Grand slam gone, Scotland having lost to Italy, and playing at home, it was an opportunity to experiment a bit?  Slade could have been tried on the bench or Eastmond brought back or tried on the bench.  Ditto again against France even though they are stronger than Scotland.

IC is still a conundrum but there were at least two competitive games where changes could have been made with not a lot of risk.

As it stands if both Manu and Barritt are fit they may well be picked (probably rightly) along with Joseph.  Which means that it is unlikely that both Burrell and Twelvetrees would also be in the final squad.  If Burrell is picked then you have three "boshers". if Twelvetrees is picked - why not at least have given him a start in the last two games?  If Burrell is not picked, your first choice centre for the last five competitive games before the World Cup is not included.

Not sure I understand the strategy?  If Burrell was Not the anointed one, then it surely made sense to change for the Scottish game.  Love to have seen Slade given a chance, even if just from the bench.  If he had messed up, then he could have been parked till after the World Cup.

majesticimperialman wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:Haskell looks like Tarzan, plays like Jane. Not good enough.

That's because he's got a brain like Cheetah[/quot

After that trip of his. It does make you wonder if he has a BRAIN?

Speak for yourself.

little_badger wrote:However it was sooo telling on Saturday that England scored yet another try from that move where 36 stands at ten and Ford comes in on the second wave. SL clearly likes a second playmaker at 12.

That second playmaker doesn't have to be at 12 for that move to work however. If you compare Nowells 2nd try against France to his try against Italy last year they are almost identical moves.

Last year against Italy Farrell takes the ball as 1st receiver, Burrell runs a dummy crash-ball line, the ball goes behind the back to Brown who delays the pass to Nowell.

Italy - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Puc5_4kAcbk

This year against France Twelvetress takes the ball as 1st receiver, Joseph runs the dummy line, the ball goes behind the back to Ford who delays the pass to Nowell.

France - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyAeHYVSSMo

Whilst I agree wholeheartedly that Twelvetrees has been poor too often for England his role in this move is a good example of how we remember or ignore performances of certain players as fans. The pass is poor, at his feet and too far infront of him. However he picks it up well, keeps balance, fixes his man and times the pass to Ford. If that had gone to ground I do wonder how many would have mentioned the poor pass rather than just put it down to another Billy fumble.

What's also strange about that second try is that, while Twelvetrees, Ford and Nowell execute their roles perfectly, Joseph's decoy line is absolutely hopeless.

Maybe the answer with Twelvetrees is simply that he's an effective sub when the game opens up like this and he can go through the playbook, but can struggle when he's got to play a more tactically sound game for the first 50 minutes.

thomh wrote:What's also strange about that second try is that, while Twelvetrees, Ford and Nowell execute their roles perfectly, Joseph's decoy line is absolutely hopeless.

Maybe the answer with Twelvetrees is simply that he's an effective sub when the game opens up like this and he can go through the playbook, but can struggle when he's got to play a more tactically sound game for the first 50 minutes.

Very true, although I can't say I picked up on it before you pointed it out!

I'm honestly not sure what the answer is with Twelvetrees. He's shown in patches that he could have everything to be a great 12 but just hasn't found consistency. I don't know if it's that he's not sure what role to play so tries to do too much. Possibly differences in role/position for Gloucester and England have led to his struggles in form, hence why he often looks unsettled and inconsistent. At 26 years old and 20 caps it's understanding that people are starting to loose all patience with him though.

Bottom line is that until someone else throws their hand-up we will probably continue to see him around the squads.

As it stands I'd say Burrell, Twelvetrees, Barrit, Tuilagi and Slade could all have decent claims argued for the 12 shirt. Sadly when it comes to IC I think that's more due to the lack of a standout option rather than strength in depth.

To me England look very very good. George Ford looks like a genius in the making. I could easily see him orchestrating quite a few 6 Nations wins the future. Now the have the tight five, the firepower in the backs that was missing for so long, and the halfbacks to unleash them.

If only Armitage was playing in England they might be even better because the backrow is one area I'd say Ireland and Wales are slightly better. In any case it's all coming together nicely. Tighten up the defence a bit and I could see a very good World Cup on the horizon.

feckless, agree pretty much.

especially wrt backrow. wales and ireland have old-school turnover specialists in warbs and SOB. and England dont.

this is why the referee's interpretation becomes so so important. warbs was not allowed to lie on the tackled played against england and this neutralised him. ireland's backrow had more latitude against england and we never really got into the game.

if we dont have a turnover specialist, then depending how much of a stickler the ref is, we are either seriously advantaged or seriously disadvantaged at the breakdown imo.

kingelderfield wrote:
Lancaster abeit Farrell are poor selectors with a curious bias for Saracen squad members.

Complete and utter tripe. There is no bias towards selecting Sarries players. The players selected have performed well in the AP and ECC and are in a team doing well in both.

We might not have that backrow breakdown specialist, but Cole and Launchbury are good at turning over ball on the deck. Plus, one thing that I feel England do better than anyone is kicking the ball at ruck time to disrupt. Farrell, Wood, Robshaw all do this, and when it works is very effective. Keeps the game open and the England players are on their feet ready to swarm on the ball.

Tell you one thing, not many fly halves are going to be that keen on facing up to England if Lawes is playing. Didn't he used to hunt scrum halves instead?

lostinwales wrote:Tell you one thing, not many fly halves are going to be that keen on facing up to England  if Lawes is playing. Didn't he used to hunt scrum halves instead?

Due to his speed Bomber upgraded him to fly half hunter.

lostinwales wrote:Tell you one thing, not many fly halves are going to be that keen on facing up to England  if Lawes is playing. Didn't he used to hunt scrum halves instead?

I can only assume you did not see his treatment of Toby Flood in the 2013 AP Final.

Do you think, somewhere amongst all those tatoos, there are a whole bunch of circles marked '9' or '10', each with a cross through them?

Been having a think, and this is how I would pick the squad going into the World Cup, based on 32 players being picked (is that right?)

Front row

I've been happy enough with the starting front row, but I do think we've lost some of the impact scrummaging that we had not so long ago. Marler is now our first choice loosehead for me, as I don't think Corbs is likely to be able to play consecutive games like the RWC requires. Mako and Mullan make decent 3rd and 4th choices. Hartley and Lawes together generally means our lineout works, but I agree with those who think he has lost a bit of that aggressiveness around the park. If he keeps the set piece rock solid, then still ok, but would love to see him bring back the carrying and rucking power he can add. Youngs, Webber and George are the next three in line for me. Cole and Wilson are the two outstanding tightheads, and I've got no problem with either starting. Brookes and Thomas next in line.

WC squad - Marler, Corbs, Mako, Hartley, Webber, Youngs, Cole, Wilson, Brookes

Standby - Mullan, George, Thomas

Second row

Lawes and Launchbury are still our starting pair when fit, if anything the absence of Launchbury has shown us what we've been missing. Parling, Attwood, Kruis are the three who've been around the squad in the 6N, but I like the look of Ed Slater if he can get some gametime towards the end of the season and get into the training squad.

WC Squad - Lawes, Launchbury, Parling, Slater

Standby - Attwood, Kruis

Back row

Robshaw, Wood, Vunipola, and if fit Morgan are locks. Personally I'd go with Armitage and Haskell , giving you two in each position (Wood/Haskell, Robshaw/Armitage, Morgan/Vunipola) but I don't know if there will be enough spots for that. Can't see any other bolters making a charge from here, Easter and Slater could be competing for one spot if they're taking one player to cover both second and back rows

WC Squad - Robshaw (c), Wood, Haskell, Armitage, Vunipola, Morgan

Standby - Easter, Kvesic

Halfbacks

Ford is our starting 10, no doubt about it. Farrell is going to be in, rightly so IMO, then I'm not sure if they take a third 10 or a 10/12. I would go with Slade personally, but can see Twelvetrees being the guy in that position. Cips if they go with three out and out 10s. Youngs is currently the starter at 9, but I still am a fan of Care, and he should definitely be in the squad. Wiggles is the third 9 currently and hard to see that changing

WC Squad - Youngs, Care, Wigglesworth, Ford, Farrell, Slade

Standby - Dickson, Cipriani

Centres

Ah, the centres. What to bloody do here. JJ is the starting 13 now for me, and Manu has to show enough to take that shirt off him, or my preference would be to stick him in at 12 in the warm up games and just have him play like Burrell did, but with his own style (i.e. blast through whenever possible and run a decoy line if Ford chooses). Barritt is my 3rd centre in case that doesn't work, and we need him to solidify things, with Manu being the mother of all impact subs in the 23 shirt. Burrell and Twelvetrees stay at home for me. Daly has a chance by being a 13/15

WC Squad - Barritt, Tuilagi, Joseph

Standby - Burrell, Twelvetrees, Daly

Back 3

Brown is the undoubted starter at full back, I bet Goode goes but this is my pick so he's banished to Australia for the duration of the tournament in my world. Nowell has locked up the 11 shirt, I think Watson goes and there's room for one of Wade, Yarde and May. My money is on May being the guy, although I would think long and hard about Wade

WC Squad - Brown, Nowell, Watson, May

Standby - Goode, Wade, Yarde

That's a 19/13 forwards and backs split, but can easily see one of the props being left out of the squad and an extra specialist being included in the backs (Goode or Cips most likely)

I would then go with a starting 23 in the warm up games of:

Marler, Hartley, Cole
Lawes, Launchbury
Robshaw, Morgan, Armitage
Care, Ford
Nowell, Tuilagi, Joseph, Watson
Brown

Bench - Corbs, Webber, Wilson, Parling, Vunipola, Youngs, Farrell, May

That gives us the right blend of breakdown nous and carrying power up front, while the set piece would be solid. Care and Youngs is very close for me, but we've seen Youngs and Ford combo for 6 games, one game with Care won't hurt, and can also test out Tuilagi and Joseph in the centres. Off the bench, we've got our two best scrummaging props, Webber and Vunipola add carrying power and Parling brings leadership. In the backs, our two most experienced halfbacks, and some outright pace in May.

Covers injury too, if we get an injury in the centres we've got Farrell as a 10/12 option, both centres play 13, May covers wing, Nowell is FB cover

There ... now feel free to tear it apart

May at FB might be fun

Naughty LIW.
But he was v good - speedy - at the kick chase down the wing e.g. v Wales.
If England see value in a deep kick chase game against a particular opposition, then May is yer Man.
I accept though that his reading and positioning for defence needs a bit more work.

BamBam, it looks unlikely that Morgan will be fully fit before the tournament, in which case Easter is likely to be part of the squad.

Not sure about Armitage either - but I guess he will train with the squad over the summer and then we'll see.

Other than that it feels about right, and it's a pretty good squad with no real weak points as long as they can work out what to do at 12

Surely Ewers needs to be looked at then if Morgan is out.

Covers both 6 and 8 and is a big physical guy.

EDIT
And if Armitage is in the squad I will be very annoyed.

What about Eastmond? I think that England could use a play making 12 in the squad myself. Manu is no play maker, neither is Barritt (although better than I think he is) and we all know Farrell's attacking limitations from 10 so cant imagine he would attack from 12.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Surely Ewers needs to be looked at then if Morgan is out.

Covers both 6 and 8 and is a big physical guy.

EDIT
And if Armitage is in the squad I will be very annoyed.

I think if Ewers was going to be looked at it would have happened in the 6N. As things stand the backup 8s in the squad seem very likely to be Easter (also covers 4 and 6) and Haskell (mainly a 6 but also covers 7 and 8).

I thought they'd more-or-less confirmed that Armitage was going to be invited to the training camp along with the wider squad? It's a sensible move because it gives them a chance to look at them and will (however briefly) shut the press up about it. I wouldn't expect them to keep him in the final RWC squad if he falls short in fitness, attitude or fit with the squad, but if he makes it through then I'm fine with that.

Depends when his retrial is scheduled for.

If Morgan is out as Poorfour says then yep Easter will most likely be in, I like Ewers but think this WC has come a bit too soon for him, but he could go on to be the big blindside/8 that we're looking at

I have been unsure about whether Armitage should play given he's in France, but I reckon we've got to pick the best players, and maybe we need that option of a true jackler .. Warburton and SOB showed over the tournament how that can be so very effective. I'm a massive fan of Robshaw, but he could do exactly what he does from 6 and be no less effective, so its no knock on him at all.. I reckon its worth a shot in the warm up games, if it doesn't work then we know Wood and Robshaw is a proven combo, and Haskell is there too

Someone mentioned trying Vunipola at 6, not against that idea either

I completely forgot about Eastmond, I just don't know whether i'd be comfortable with a midfield that small at international level, and I know Ford and Joseph were absolutely fine, but think a bit of a crash ball option is needed in the backs. Bath tend to use Banahan and Rokoduguni off their wings for some power so the balance works for them, we don't really have that option

BamBam wrote:

I completely forgot about Eastmond, I just don't know whether i'd be comfortable with a midfield that small at international level, and I know Ford and Joseph were absolutely fine, but think a bit of a crash ball option is needed in the backs. Bath tend to use Banahan and Rokoduguni off their wings for some power so the balance works for them, we don't really have that option

Eastmond is not for starting the matches against very physical teams but he is a very useful player to bring off the bench in them. He is also the type of player you would want playing against the less physical teams (giving the incumbent 12 a rest between heavy matches) as he would open them up and give England loads of chances to hone their attacking plays. Just my thoughts as an Irishman but I would certainly have him there.

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:

BamBam wrote:

I completely forgot about Eastmond, I just don't know whether i'd be comfortable with a midfield that small at international level, and I know Ford and Joseph were absolutely fine, but think a bit of a crash ball option is needed in the backs. Bath tend to use Banahan and Rokoduguni off their wings for some power so the balance works for them, we don't really have that option

Eastmond is not for starting the matches against very physical teams but he is a very useful player to bring off the bench in them. He is also the type of player you would want playing against the less physical teams (giving the incumbent 12 a rest between heavy matches) as he would open them up and give England loads of chances to hone their attacking plays. Just my thoughts as an Irishman but I would certainly have him there.

I'd agree with you on the way he should be used, definitely think you're on the right lines.

Looking at the group though, we've got Fiji first up which we need to use to bed in our starting line up, and they're pretty physical! I wouldn't then start him against Wales (Roberts!) or Australia, which leaves the Uruguay game. Given the low squad numbers I would be surprised if he gets in, but he should definitely be one of the next cabs off the rank

Its all swings and roundabouts. No Morgan means Easter is picked, which means we have an adequate reserve lock option also. The emergence of Joseph means we have a genuine emergency option on the wing rather than have Manu try it again.

BamBam wrote:

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:

BamBam wrote:

I completely forgot about Eastmond, I just don't know whether i'd be comfortable with a midfield that small at international level, and I know Ford and Joseph were absolutely fine, but think a bit of a crash ball option is needed in the backs. Bath tend to use Banahan and Rokoduguni off their wings for some power so the balance works for them, we don't really have that option

Eastmond is not for starting the matches against very physical teams but he is a very useful player to bring off the bench in them. He is also the type of player you would want playing against the less physical teams (giving the incumbent 12 a rest between heavy matches) as he would open them up and give England loads of chances to hone their attacking plays. Just my thoughts as an Irishman but I would certainly have him there.

I'd agree with you on the way he should be used, definitely think you're on the right lines.

Looking at the group though, we've got Fiji first up which we need to use to bed in our starting line up, and they're pretty physical! I wouldn't then start him against Wales (Roberts!) or Australia, which leaves the Uruguay game. Given the low squad numbers I would be surprised if he gets in, but he should definitely be one of the next cabs off the rank

The problem with Ford, Eastmond and Joseph is that while none of them shirk their duties, equally none of them is going to stop a crash ball centre on or behind the gainline. One reason Robshaw's tackle stats were even higher than usual this 6N was that he was partially covering for Ford (while, incidentally, making the second most turnovers in the tournament). I don't think he could cover for two, which is why Farrell or Barritt seems likely (with either Manu / Joseph as starter / bench or 13/14)

Poorfour wrote:

BamBam wrote:

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:

BamBam wrote:

I completely forgot about Eastmond, I just don't know whether i'd be comfortable with a midfield that small at international level, and I know Ford and Joseph were absolutely fine, but think a bit of a crash ball option is needed in the backs. Bath tend to use Banahan and Rokoduguni off their wings for some power so the balance works for them, we don't really have that option

Eastmond is not for starting the matches against very physical teams but he is a very useful player to bring off the bench in them. He is also the type of player you would want playing against the less physical teams (giving the incumbent 12 a rest between heavy matches) as he would open them up and give England loads of chances to hone their attacking plays. Just my thoughts as an Irishman but I would certainly have him there.

I'd agree with you on the way he should be used, definitely think you're on the right lines.

Looking at the group though, we've got Fiji first up which we need to use to bed in our starting line up, and they're pretty physical! I wouldn't then start him against Wales (Roberts!) or Australia, which leaves the Uruguay game. Given the low squad numbers I would be surprised if he gets in, but he should definitely be one of the next cabs off the rank

The problem with Ford, Eastmond and Joseph is that while none of them shirk their duties, equally none of them is going to stop a crash ball centre on or behind the gainline. One reason Robshaw's tackle stats were even higher than usual this 6N was that he was partially covering for Ford (while, incidentally, making the second most turnovers in the tournament). I don't think he could cover for two, which is why Farrell or Barritt seems likely (with either Manu / Joseph as starter / bench or 13/14)

Did you not see the Wales game where Roberts continually ran down Fords channel. He dealt with that just fine.

Eastmond should have been a scrum half...simple as that.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:Haskell looks like Tarzan, plays like Jane. Not good enough.

That's because he's got a brain like Cheetah

What you got against Cheetahs barney?

little_badger wrote:On the last page someone mentioned claiming the high ball but now I can't find the comment, seemed to be related to Nowell.

I agree England were generally not great under the high ball but to say Nowell is to short is too simplistic. 1/2p is not tall and he's great at it! It's more about jumping style/commitment and England need to learn how to execute it better.

Burrell under performed and we are stuck with the eternal issue of the 12 shirt. Personally if someone can ask him to pass more and not fly out of the line in defence I might go with Manu. But since that's not going to happen before the World Cup maybe Barritt.

However it was sooo telling on Saturday that England scored yet another try from that move where 36 stands at ten and Ford comes in on the second wave. SL clearly likes a second playmaker at 12.

LB, it was my post. I was speaking about defence when the opposition are kicking to us targeting the winger. 1/2P is playing 15, where he is generally coming onto the ball, Nowell is playing wing where he is retreating backwards of standing still waiting for it, against both Huget and Bowe, he lost out big time, not because he did anything wrong, but because they got up higher than him, being 6-7" taller and a lot heavier.

The comment I made about our kicking, was that May made it look effective as he has the pace to get there and compete and therefore licking too long is not seen. Whenever May challenged for the ball he was on his own witout support. Good job he simply disrupted the catcher as otherwise he would have benn turned over.

kingelderfield wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Mako and Kruis in this tournament have been good. Wrigglesworth has done fine.

Mako has held his own but in no way has conclusively nailed his squad selection. Wrigglesworth is an out and out poor selection and Kruis was a similarly biased pick given the form of others in the premiership.

Lancaster abeit Farrell are poor selectors with a curious bias for Saracen squad members.

Saracens are a good side with good players. 3rd in the table, quarter finals of the ECC - hardly disastrous.

Wigglesworth has been in good form this season - you obviously didn't see him play vs Clermont and Munster.

He also made a line break vs Ireland but had no support.

Kruis isn't exactly 1st choice is he? Currently 4th choice but he didn't exactly have a bad 6 nations.

Goode got dropped by Lancaster after the Ireland game - wasn't first choice either.

The biggest error by Lancaster recently was picking a hopelessly out of form Farrell Jr in the AIs. That was wrong agreed but Lancaster has stuck with poor form players like Burrell,Hartley and Haskell in this year's 6 nations.

No Saracens player is deemed first choice by Lancaster. No not even Billy.

Kruis was jettisoned the moment Parling came back into contention, arguably harshly given how he played against Wales in particular.

In hindsight maybe Nowell could have played 15 instead of Goode against Ireland but it was at least an understandable selection at the time and wasn't repeated.

Wigglesworth has done OK and his selection probably tells you more about the selectors' current concerns with Danny Care than anything else. Probably too late to give Simpson his chance before RWC so no problems with this selection.

Isn't that it for this tournament?

thomb,

I would have thought that Dickson was further up the pecking order than Simpson.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:thomb,

I would have thought that Dickson was further up the pecking order than Simpson.

I'd hope so, Simpson has possibly the worst scrum half basics in the AP, I'd have him nowhere near the England squad.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:
I'd hope so, Simpson has possibly the worst scrum half basics in the AP, I'd have him nowhere near the England squad.

His basics have improved out of sight. Helped of course by Wasps pack no longer being the AP whipping boys. As an impact sub I reckon he would bring far more to the table than the likes of Dickson and Wiggy.