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?

Geordiefalcon I am just looking at where I think England can improve.

I just feel they would add more physicality,carrying power and wouldn't lose much in the workrate.

Hartley of course will need to play much better than he has.

If not then I would start Youngs and Parling with Launchbury on the bench.

Haskell was meant to be a ball carrier but bar the game vs Wales he didn't.

Having Morgan in would mean Billy wouldn't be the primary ball carrier.

Imagine if the opposition had to combat both Billy and Morgan in the same team.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Ive mentioned that before Beschocked. Biilly has an excellent workrate (Jaques Burger said he was one the hardest workers in the Sarries team) and he would give you ridiculous carrying with Ben Morgan.

We may lose out in the lineout - though not hugely as Haskell doesn't offer a huge amount at the moment, but it does rely on Launchbury being fit...and that's a big ???

Also will Ben Morgan be fit?

Probably not. The injury was quoted as being "at least 6 months out" - so assuming he is back in training mid-July, that would not leave long to get match fitness back and he would only have a couple of warm-up games to play himself back into form. After an injury like that it might also be in his long term interests to ease him back into playing through the AP rather than have his first competitive games be hugely physical RWC Pool matches.

I think Easter will be the second 8 in the squad. Which then raises the question: does Vunipola / Robshaw / Easter have some merit? Easter's good in the air, and while he's not as destructive a ball carrier as Billy his handoffs and ability to offload. Easter on the half-break flooding the channel with an offload to Billy could cause serious trouble. Plus his ability to work with Robshaw and (if picked) Care is a bonus.

It does rely a little on Launchbury and Cole being fully fit to strengthen the breakdown - but it would work either as a starting combo or off the bench to change the pace of the game in the later stages.

Match fitness is a bit of a red herring as none of the players will be match fit after their summer break.

LondonTiger wrote:Match fitness is a bit of a red herring as none of the players will be match fit after their summer break.

There's a big difference between "not having played since May" and "not having played since January" though, especially given how hard Morgan has had to work to get fit over the last couple of years.

beshocked wrote:How about this 23 if it's in form?

1.Marler
2.Hartley
3.Cole
4.Launchbury
5.Lawes
6.Vunipola
7.Robshaw
8.Morgan

9.Youngs
10.Ford
11.Nowell
12.Barritt
13.Joseph
14.Watson
15.Brown

16.Vunipola
17.Youngs
18.Wilson
19.Parling
20.Wood
21.Care
22.Farrell
23.Tuilagi

It's been mentioned by others - I wouldn't mind seeing Billy tried at 6 - it gives us two ball carriers in the backrow.

The other thing about having both Morgan and Vunipola in the pack is that they are different types of carrier. Vunipola is brilliant at making a few metres in really heavy traffic, tying in a couple of defenders. By contrast, Morgan's best work is generally when he has a mismatch or half a yard of space, and then he'll make 10-20 metres. None of our other forwards can do what either Morgan or Vunipola do (or at least not as effectively).

I've said in the past that I'm interested in testing Vunipola & Morgan together in the backrow, and even more since their improved match durability and workrate, but I'm not sure it's a starting lineup against most of the best sides. I'd rather kick off with the more structured approach that a player like Wood brings (the lineout ability, mobility to the breakdown & defensive line speed that the Ireland game called for) and double down on the carrying in the last half hour.

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

beshocked wrote:How about this 23 if it's in form?

1.Marler
2.Hartley
3.Cole
4.Launchbury
5.Lawes
6.Vunipola
7.Robshaw
8.Morgan

9.Youngs
10.Ford
11.Nowell
12.Barritt
13.Joseph
14.Watson
15.Brown

16.Vunipola
17.Youngs
18.Wilson
19.Parling
20.Wood
21.Care
22.Farrell
23.Tuilagi

It's been mentioned by others - I wouldn't mind seeing Billy tried at 6 - it gives us two ball carriers in the backrow.

The other thing about having both Morgan and Vunipola in the pack is that they are different types of carrier. Vunipola is brilliant at making a few metres in really heavy traffic, tying in a couple of defenders. By contrast, Morgan's best work is generally when he has a mismatch or half a yard of space, and then he'll make 10-20 metres. None of our other forwards can do what either Morgan or Vunipola do (or at least not as effectively).

You have not gone far enough with this big back row theory. I remember being at Twickers when we beat the All Blacks with an enormous back row of Rodber at 6, Deano at 8 and Ben Clarke at 7. They stuck it up their jumpers and mauled their way to victory. So now we should have Billy at 6, Ben at 8 and Nick Easter at 7. That should work well

Big back theory Eng NZ 1993 ? I think. Same theory which kept out ace jackal Neil Back as too small, for years. Horses and courses comes to mind, so a flexible template seems called for.

Will Ben Morgan be fit for the RWC?

Hope so,may be touch and go on getting back to fitness.

gregortree wrote:Hope so,may be touch and go on getting back to fitness.

Back to the old Ben then.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

gregortree wrote:Hope so,may be touch and go on getting back to fitness.

Back to the old Ben then.

That is a concern, seems the kind of guy who bangs weight on easily when not active (like me, no exercise and I pile weight on at about 2 to 3 pounds a week even watching what I eat and drink).

ha ha...c'mon Ben you can do it !

I won't copy it again but I agree with Beshocked team a few posts back. If the Vunipola Morgan thing doesn't come off then I wouldn't mind seeing someone else given a go at 6 other than Wood or Haskell, neither seem to be what we are looking for for to get the best backrow balance. Wood has better defense/ line speed and discipline and Haskell has better carrying (when he shows it). Don't think Wood is a good bench ooption though, starter or nothing for me where as Haskell I think is a decent bench option due to his versatility and having a style better suited to when a game opens up.

Guess Clark is next in line, feel he may compliment Robshaw more as he is good over the ball and maybe better than the other 2 at clearing bodies out (from a rugby perspective, don't want to get into the whole Hawkins arm issue again), an area where I think England struggle. As we know Robshaw is great at tackling/ workrate etc, just feel that maybe they would make a better combo than Robshaw & Wood or Haskell. Then again hopefully Launchbury will be back and he will help with clearing and challenging for the ball and overall pack balance.

Armitage ?

gregortree wrote:Armitage ?

Better Full Back surely?

gregortree wrote:Armitage ?

Not for me no. Besides the fact that I don't think we should bend the rules for him I don't think a backrow of him and Robshaw and another is big enough. At Toulon he plays with two big backrows and a generally huge pack but he wouldn't get that with Englands current pack selection. Also I think Robshaw does better with a bigger partner at flanker - I've watched Quins play him at 6 and Wallace at 7 this season (I know they don't wear those numbers but when I've seen them Wallace has generally done the openside stuff) and they look under powered because they don't have a particularly strong front five to compensate. Could see the same happening for England.

If an exception is made for Steffan Armitage () then maybe have him on the bench if he proves himself but I wouldn't want to see him and Robshaw starting together against the top sides.

I think a back row of:

6 - Billy
7 - Armitage
8 - Morgan

would be an interesting experiment.

You would need a fully fit, Launch and Lawes!

LondonTiger wrote:

gregortree wrote:Armitage ?

Better Full Back surely?

Talking of Full backs. Any one know if Ben Foden will be back for the RWC?

Foden is definitely out

Fluxy wrote:You would need a fully fit, Launch and Lawes!

Agreed. You'd also need Tom Youngs' carrying game less too, so more likely to go with set piece Hartley.

Anyone read this?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-3013551/If-Courtney-Lawes-tackle-Jules-Plisson-legal-explains-parents-discouraging-children-play-rugby.html

What an utter bell end

I personally don't like Lawes. I think he's a good player but I think he goes so close to the edge that it's only a matter of time before he gets it's wrong.

For example imagine a scenario - England playing NZ in the RWC. Lawes tackles Barrett hard but gets the timing or positioning wrong - Barrett is planted into the ground and has to be stretchered off. Ref is left with no other decision than red carding Lawes. That's something I could realistically see happening.

I do think that he does look to injure 10s and players in general but he just about stays on the right side of the law. I do think he's a bully who picks on players much smaller than him like the 10s.

Opinions will differ of course depending on what your bias is. I say it as an Englishman - I do think he's a bit of a thug but he's managed to keep out of getting banned because his timing of the tackling is on the money.

I guess the positive of Lawes is that he does have edginess but he could potentially be a liability if he gets it wrong. Personally don't like him but can understand why people do.

The tone of the Daily Mail article is .... well what you would expect from that waste of space.

However the sentiment that the sort of challenges Lawes puts in may discourage parents from letting children play the game is sadly spot on. My youngest nephew plays blinside flanker for his county, not the biggest but obviously not small either. his mother refuses to watch him play for fear of seeing him hurt. When she saw that challenge she was on the phone to my brother demanding my nephew stop playing. Obvious over-reaction, but one that is happening up and down the country.

The real issue though is the size disparity in age group rugby.



As to Lawes - I think it was Moore who said that wen you put in challenges like that you have to accept that some refs will penalise you, and that was fair enough. He is habitually on the line with those flying challenges (similar to Jacques Burger). He chooses to flirt with the line and so far has been judged OK (though try telling Cockers that)

Yet against Ireland one of the things you've pointed out is Sexton was too comfortable. He may have been less so with Lawes there. I think he's really pushed on the last year to 18 months. Starting to fulfil the potential he had.

Londontiger I agree Jacques Burger does similar challenges though doesn't focus on the 10 as much as Lawes. I do at times wish that he toned it down because these kind of challenges can very dangerous indeed.

no 7 & 1/2 Sexton was comfortable because England as a team were well below par. Lawes might have made a difference but we don't know. Personally I feel Barritt would have made as much of an impact but we disagree on the topic.

Why Barritt though beshoecked you didn't answer?

Is it any worse that he hit Plisson with the tackle than if he had hit Bastareud or Maestri, or any of the other giants in the French pack?

It was a perfectly timed hit, it looks worse because he's got half a foot and about 4 stone on Plisson, if he had hit Maestri the same way would that moron at the Mail have written his stupid article?

BamBam wrote:Is it any worse that he hit Plisson with the tackle than if he had hit Bastareud or Maestri, or any of the other giants in the French pack?

It was a perfectly timed hit, it looks worse because he's got half a foot and about 4 stone on Plisson, if he had hit Maestri the same way would that moron at the Mail have written his stupid article?

Bambam You're right if he had hit a player his own size like Bastareaud or Maestri then no this bloke at the Mail wouldn't have written the article. He didn't though.

Lawes generally focuses on the players smaller than him because it's his nature. He's more likely trying to injury fly halves than anyone else. Some people admire Lawes' desire to injure others. I guess it's personal opinion whether you agree with it or not. I think Lawes is a good player but I question his moral compass.

Bit harsh on guessing his motives, without truly knowing them.
But in spirit of benefit of doubt, part of his job description, utilizing his field speed as distinct from his jumping duties, is to rattle the HBs / midfield physically and psychologically, like an oversized 7. He is fast for a big'un and needs to get there on time, so the kinetic energy upon arrival is pretty fearsome. His timing is mostly the right side of the law.

It's surely more to do with putting a pivot off his game rather than injuring him. The 10 is the general, put a doubt in his mind and it can be game changing, I love it!

beshocked wrote:

BamBam wrote:Is it any worse that he hit Plisson with the tackle than if he had hit Bastareud or Maestri, or any of the other giants in the French pack?

It was a perfectly timed hit, it looks worse because he's got half a foot and about 4 stone on Plisson, if he had hit Maestri the same way would that moron at the Mail have written his stupid article?

Bambam  You're right if he had hit a player his own size like Bastareaud or Maestri then no this bloke at the Mail wouldn't have written the article. He didn't though.

Lawes generally focuses on the players smaller than him because it's his nature. He's more likely trying to injury fly halves than anyone else. Some people admire Lawes' desire to injure others. I guess it's personal opinion whether you agree with it or not. I think Lawes is a good player but I question his moral compass.

That is a hell of a statement. In his nature? Desire to injure?

doctor_grey wrote:

beshocked wrote:

BamBam wrote:Is it any worse that he hit Plisson with the tackle than if he had hit Bastareud or Maestri, or any of the other giants in the French pack?

It was a perfectly timed hit, it looks worse because he's got half a foot and about 4 stone on Plisson, if he had hit Maestri the same way would that moron at the Mail have written his stupid article?

Bambam  You're right if he had hit a player his own size like Bastareaud or Maestri then no this bloke at the Mail wouldn't have written the article. He didn't though.

Lawes generally focuses on the players smaller than him because it's his nature. He's more likely trying to injury fly halves than anyone else. Some people admire Lawes' desire to injure others. I guess it's personal opinion whether you agree with it or not. I think Lawes is a good player but I question his moral compass.

That is a hell of a statement.  In his nature?  Desire to injure?

Lawes has a reputation for targetting fly halves. There's plenty of video footage to show this. Do you think Lawes tries to hit the fly halves as hard as he can for no reason?

We can agree to disagree but I believe that when Lawes does these tackles to these fly halves he is trying to injure them or at least bully and intimidate them. You might see nothing wrong with that - fair enough that's your opinion.

Why wouldn't he hit them as hard as he can though? Don't all players do that?

no 7 & 1/2 I am not sure that every player focuses on injurying the opposition - generally they have a lot more to focus on.

Will you and I ever agree on anything? Sometimes I feel that you say the opposite of me just to start an argument.

Hitting someone as hard as you can, potentially dislodging the ball, almost certainly stopping them from gaining any momentum over the gainline sounds pretty fundamental to the game of rugby to me

Perhaps Bambam but it's the attitude. I get the feeling with Lawes more than most other players that he is looking to injure someone, particularly the fly half. That's my opinion anyhow.

You might well condone and applaud this behaviour but I don't. I do think he deliberately targets specific players in the hope he can injure them. I wouldn't say that about the vast majority of other players.

Personally I don't like that gamesmanship but you are well within your rights to have an opposing opinion which you do.

beshocked wrote:

BamBam wrote:Is it any worse that he hit Plisson with the tackle than if he had hit Bastareud or Maestri, or any of the other giants in the French pack?

It was a perfectly timed hit, it looks worse because he's got half a foot and about 4 stone on Plisson, if he had hit Maestri the same way would that moron at the Mail have written his stupid article?

Bambam  You're right if he had hit a player his own size like Bastareaud or Maestri then no this bloke at the Mail wouldn't have written the article. He didn't though.

Lawes generally focuses on the players smaller than him because it's his nature. He's more likely trying to injury fly halves than anyone else. Some people admire Lawes' desire to injure others. I guess it's personal opinion whether you agree with it or not. I think Lawes is a good player but I question his moral compass.

Question his moral compass? That's a bit strong! Lawes is a physical player who looks to hit players hard, perhaps to intimidate them, perhaps to limit their effectiveness. Perhaps that makes him a bully. However, given that he stays completely within the laws, I'd hardly suggest he's the worst offender in rugby, nor go so far to say he lacks a moral compass.

The suggestion that he deliberately hunts out small players is nonsense too. The fact is that he doesn't often get to line up forwards in the same way, and also hitting smaller players is always more noticeable since they are more likely to get mullered.

Sorry beshocked but I don't agree with you regarding injuring them but he is certainly trying to knock them off their game or intimidate them. It's easy to see why with modern 10's being at their most effective when standing flat. It knocks the ten off their game and forces them to stand deeper and so change their tactics and comfort zone. Ford's worst game in the 6N by a mile was when Ireland legally got to him early on. It's within the rules and I for hope it doesn't change otherwise it would become tag rugby.

The thing with Lawes is that he has very (very) fast acceleration for a second row and I would also guess he is probably the quickest in international rugby at the moment (not saying that equates to the best by any means) and so he is equipped to do it. Being a Saints and England fan I know too well what will happen if he times it wrong but I'm pretty sure both JM and SL are more than happy for him to continue.

beshocked wrote:no 7 & 1/2 I am not sure that every player focuses on injurying the opposition - generally they have a lot more to focus on.

Will you and I ever agree on anything? Sometimes I feel that you say the opposite of me just to start an argument.

We agree on plenty but differ on a lot! I said hit hard not try to injure. Every player given the option to line someone up will take it.

Not expecting you to agree. Just giving my perspective and opinion.

That's the thing about Lawes he does stay within the laws just about - he plays on the edge of it.

If Lawes didn't get the timing of the tackling of Plisson just right he would have been either sin binned or worse the potential of a red card.

Didn't say he's the worst offender in the world of rugby - I just don't like his attitude.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

beshocked wrote:no 7 & 1/2 I am not sure that every player focuses on injurying the opposition - generally they have a lot more to focus on.

Will you and I ever agree on anything? Sometimes I feel that you say the opposite of me just to start an argument.

We agree on plenty but differ on a lot! I said hit hard not try to injure. Every player given the option to line someone up will take it.

Well that should certainly be the case, although a few on the Scotland team would no doubt chicken out!

Pretty sure the Sarries wolf pack, Jacques Burger in particular, wouldn't stand on ceremony if an opportunity presented itself to nail the opposition playmaker!!

I usually find common ground with Beshocked, but we're miles away on this. One of my favourite Scotland players was Jason White, purely based on his thunderous tackling. He levelled plenty with tackles just like that, and was rightly lauded for it.

FES actually sometimes I want Jacques Burger to tone it down as he does do some stupidly potentially dangerous tackles.

I remember a pretty ugly challenge on Stringer last year for example.

Perhaps in my opinion  it's just because Lawes seems to always be in the news for smashing someone smaller than him whereas the likes of Burger seems to be  known for smashing everyone regardless of size.

Part of his job though to go looking for the 9 and 10. If other 2nd rows were as quick off the mark they d do it more. He hardly shies away from tackles in general. We saw Barritt line up Cooper for a big hit in the ais. Everyone does it if given the chance.

funnyExiledScot wrote:I usually find common ground with Beshocked, but we're miles away on this.

Me too but I guess it would be a little boring if we all agreed 100% of the time .

Beshocked - it's just the way Lawes plays. He's crossed the timing line before and been rightly criticised for doing so, but he plays right on the edge and it's one of the things that makes him a special player for England.

Burger's full on physicality is also why he's been such an important player for Sarries. Ask him to "tone it down" and you'll be left with a shadow of the player he is.

Play within the laws of the game, but within those laws it's all fair game as far as I'm concern.

just look at how hartley has played after he has toned it down a bit.

beshocked wrote:Perhaps Bambam but it's the attitude. I get the feeling with Lawes more than most other players that he is looking to injure someone, particularly the fly half. That's my opinion anyhow.

You might well condone and applaud this behaviour but I don't. I do think he deliberately targets specific players in the hope he can injure them. I wouldn't say that about the vast majority of other players.

Personally I don't like that gamesmanship but you are well within your rights to have an opposing opinion which you do.

Crock of shoite.

Everyone who plays this game plays hard and inside the rules (except Calum Clark) Statements like yours are so way out of line that i find it hard to believe you would write it.

Where is your proof?

beshocked wrote:no 7 & 1/2 I am not sure that every player focuses on injurying the opposition - generally they have a lot more to focus on.

Will you and I ever agree on anything? Sometimes I feel that you say the opposite of me just to start an argument.

Only some times